hello vonnie
ellievsbear
pixel skylines
PR's Tumblrdome
Keni
No title available
No title available
DEAR READER
ojovivo
taylor price
Jules of Nature
JBB: An Artblog!
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
almost home
One Nice Bug Per Day
Cosmic Funnies
if i look back, i am lost
i don't do bad sauce passes
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
Cosimo Galluzzi
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Indonesia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from France
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from Bulgaria
seen from Greece
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Algeria
@rambanyomi
me online: yeah it’s a cute reading of the pasuk but Halakha doesn’t actually work that way. The exact relationship between Torah shebaal peh/shebiktav is complicated but fundamentally, Halakha stems from the rulings of the Sanhedrin musmakh and the authoritative Talmudic interpretations of those rulings
me irl: I’m learning the pasuk here, not chazal! Rashi should say some actual pshat for once! If I wanted m!drash I would read the midrash!
why arent corals kosher
I refuse to believe that Halakha recognizes coral as a fish and not at most a plant
let me get this straight, you want to try to eat it???
all I’m saying that if I did, Hashem wouldn’t stop me
i mean בדרך שאדם רוצה ללכת and all that, but someone should stop you
If it isn't edible, it doesn't need to be kosher. If you want to eat a rock, you don't have to worry about it being kosher. You still shouldn't eat rocks
its not an avera , but it is still a really dumb idea
you can even argue that being dumb and eating rocks is an aveira. But it's a different aveira
I need goyim to understand that this is literally what passages of Talmud look like.
I have questions about whether we’re eating live coral, like a parrotfish swimming around biting chunks off the reef. If we’re doing that, coral shouldn’t be kosher because the little coral animals lack fins and scales. If we’re eating the calcium carbonate deposits the corals have left behind after dying and decomposing, that’s an entirely different question.
Depending on the size and amount of coral you eat, eating coral wouldn’t be bad for you. Are you swallowing large enough chunks to cause intestinal blockages? or grinding it up and using it as an additive? People use coral as a source of calcium in vitamins.
But given that corals globally are in danger due to warming oceans, please don’t eat coral.
I do t think live coral needs fins and scales to be kosher for the same reason that seaweed doesn’t need fins and scales to be kosher
I would argue that halachically, corals should count as shellfish. In that they live in the water but have no bones, but possibly a calcium carbonate “shell” that the soft coral animal retreats into. Even fleshy soft corals such as Xenia and the various leather corals found in the red and Mediterranean seas would likely more closely resemble slugs or clams if not considered algae.
Not to mention many species of soft or large polyp stony corals (much more edible upon initial impression, compared to small polyp stony corals) are toxic. Dying of Palythoa toxicity is NOT kosher.
Also if one where to break a piece of coral off of the main body and eat it wouldn't that violate the Miztvah the forbids from eating a part of an animal while the animal still lives?
I would argue is does.
Breaking a piece of coral off to eat it would not violate the commandment to not eat a part of a still-living animal because the coral in a colony, not a single being. It would be like eating a handful of bees out of a hive, which, while treif and also inadvisable, would not be a violation the way that eating the claw of a Florida stone crab would.
As for why someone would eat the calcium carbonate deposits left behind by dead coral, I’d have to assume that we’d be talking about someone who is doing so for some sort of mystical or pseudoscientific reason, as I can think of few culinary or nutritional uses for calcium carbonate to begin with, and none at all that you couldn’t better source from other places. If the reasoning is anything to do with spirits and crystals and energy resonances, then it may be an avera on additional grounds, by virtue of maybe being some form of avodah zara.
Calcium carbonate is the same stuff as Tums, so theoretically eating dead coral could help with heartburn, but in most cases it would just be easier to find and acquire tums. That being said I would not oversimplify the diversity of the human experience to the point that I would assume an underwater heartburn emergency could never occur. It would be contrived af though.
Hmm. I suppose if people were consuming it medicinally, then it would be equivalent to the Bekhorot 7b ruling on the medicinal consumption of donkey urine (and therefore treif, but not completely ill-advised)
Oh, also good for osteoporosis, I suppose!
But yeah, it all goes back to "seems easier to just use regular ol' marble dust.
...related important question: are we sure that coral is considered alive, and an animal of any kind, like, halakhically speaking?
I mean:
Coral doesn't bleed (which is the important part about eating a still living animal)
They don't have lungs or gills
They generally don't move? (I guess corallimorphs can...kinda crawl? But otherwise no they don't move).
How is coral really different from like, fungi above water? Sure it can be a collective mass (mushrooms and their mycellium colonies!), but it's not capable of bleeding, and it doesn't have lungs or gills, and it doesn't really move. It just kinda...spreads.
I'm just saying we have to establish that coral is significantly different from like, a portobello mushroom. Fungi are kosher but aren't technically plants.
No because fungi are bottom feeders of the ground and yet mushrooms are kosher.
The issue is whether or not these are creatures according to Torah. From Leviticus 11:
These you may eat of all that live in water: anything in water, whether in the seas or in the streams, that has fins and scales—these you may eat.
But anything in the seas or in the streams that has no fins and scales, among all the swarming things of the water and among all the other living creatures that are in the water—they are an abomination for you
and an abomination for you they shall remain: you shall not eat of their flesh and you shall abominate their carcasses.
Everything in water that has no fins and scales shall be an abomination for you.
Now, I am going to reference Bible hub here mostly because they have a nice Strong's Hebrew concordance feature that sefaria doesn't have that is easy to copy and paste from.
But basically I would argue that the important words we have to distinguish here are:
the teeming
שֶׁ֣רֶץ (še·reṣ)
Noun - masculine singular construct
Strong's 8318: A swarm, active mass of minute animals
life
הַחַיָּ֖ה (ha·ḥay·yāh)
Article | Adjective - feminine singular
Strong's 2416: Alive, raw, fresh, strong, life
and creatures
נֶ֥פֶשׁ (ne·p̄eš)
Noun - feminine singular
Strong's 5315: A soul, living being, life, self, person, desire, passion, appetite, emotion
So. Is coral an active (teeming) mass of minute animals? Well. It is a living colony in the same way that mushrooms are colonies of living things. But other things that swarm or teem are like... krill. shrimp. Locusts. Flies. Ants.
Y'know, stuff that moves. Swarms. Coral doesn't teem or swarm. It's static.
Which leaves us with living and creatures.
I would argue again that "living" implies regular movement — for example, you can have living waters. (Same root word for mayyim chayyim).
But also the other terms which appear beside the root word for life/living over and over again are basically:
Creeping, moving (Strong's 7430 רָמַשׂ ramas)
Flesh (Strong's 1320 בָּשָׂר basar)
Flying or soaring (5774 עוּף)
Having a soul (or literal breath) (5315, נֶפֶשׁ)
And nefesh is of course, also the last one in that list!
So is coral alive in the way Torah usually means things are living beings? Well, coral doesn't creep or move. It also doesn't have blood (which, arguably, means it can't have a carcass. It sort of has bones! But no carcass). It...MIGHT have flesh? I'm sort of unclear about this.
It can't fly or soar.
Which leaves us with:
Do corals have flesh? and,
do corals have souls? And if not metaphorically souls, do they have breath?
Well, coral do respirate. But so do plants. And neither of them have lungs. Also according to @montereybayaquarium's website coral get oxygen from algae? (Don't worry Monterey bay aquarium no one is actually going to eat the coral, this is all hypothetical)
Coral reefs get their bright colors from the algae — called zooxanthellae — living in their tissues. The zooanthellae provide the coral polyps with oxygen and nutrients produced from photosynthesis. In return, the coral polyps provide zooanthellae with carbon dioxide (a byproduct of the polyps’ “breathing” oxygen) and shelter.
Coral polyps can have mouths, but they don't really breathe with lungs. So I'm not sure they have that kind of nefesh (breath of life). And corals are like, a bunch of skeletal base material with living polyps on the top. But are they fleshy? But all their color comes from the algae living in them.
For this I go back to the presence of blood being a big factor, because again, mushrooms have flesh but don't have blood, and so halakhically...that fungi is a plant.
Also apparently Octocorals don't have those exoskeletons? So at that point how would we know something is an octocoral versus like...a seaweed?
I think either seaweed isn't meant to be kosher, or actually corals are kosher because seaweed is. Oysters have gills and hearts. Scallops have a gajillion eyes. Really easy to see those aren't plants.
Basically if you look at a coral does it have a breath and soul, does it fly or creep, does it bleed, does it have flesh, does it move around in general? Could it possibly be a plant, halakhically speaking? (Not by scientific taxonomy!) Would bronze age folks look at it and go "yeah, that's a plant."? Also important: what IS a plant? Halakhically?
Many such questions. Anyways I don't think corals have souls.
So... The Gemara does seem to view coral as a tree, or at least it discusses coral as producing wood in Rosh Hashanah 23a. OP appears to be in the right that it's halachically a plant!
That’s actually a fantastic point. I didn’t consider if at first because it’s not a snackable species, but the precious corals (Corallium) are found fairly commonly in the Mediterranean. Although they are octocorals, they have a hard skeleton that grows in a distinctive tree-like pattern. Moreso, the small polyp size means that there is little distinctive segregation on the skeleton, unlike similarly structured stony corals. I’ve attached an image of Corallium rubrum (the species ancient Israelites would have come into contact with) with a common Red Sea acropora for comparison.
Although Acropora horrida (second image) is definitely tree-like in branching patterns, the smooth surface of the Corallium (top) is much more easily intuited as simply a red branch. Not to mention, the skeleton of octocorals is fairly soft! It’s made of intermeshed spicules of calcium carbonate, versus the more crystallized structure of the calcium carbonate of true hard corals. You can almost think of it as balsa wood structure versus hardwood which is really only relevant in that it’s great for carving jewelry! Precious corals also live in very deep water and would be unlikely to have been specifically observed in their living form (below)
All of this to say. The corals the ancient rabbis had familiarity with would absolutely more resemble wood than animals on pretty much every level.
there is something beautiful and enduring about moshe trying to convince hashem that he's unworthy of the task of leading jews to feeedom because of his disability, only for hashem immediately reply who do you think created you and all other disabled people? hashem does not cure him, instead he gives moses the tools he needs to carry out this divine task
it is a poignant reminder that all disabled people are simultaneously a) lovingly made by hashem as we are b) worthy exactly as we are of being raised up to do great deeds
I don’t blame Eve for eating the apple because if I was created in a paradise garden as a servant for the only other man who exists and some unknowable, unfathomable higher being says the only rule is to not eat that fruit, and I lived there for like 900 years give or take and nothing showed any signs of changing ever, and all I know is that if I eat that fruit something will change and my new friend the (not yet) snake was thinking something similar, and fruits taste so good and like at least something will change
Questions cause I'm really confused
Since when was she a servant?
She lived there for less than a day?
The snake told her nothing will happen and proved it by telling her that G-d said that if she touches the Tree she will die (lie) and then she touched the tree. The snake specifically told her NOTHING will change?
none this has been marinating in my head since I learned about it at Jewish day school in 8th grade and getting mixed up with all the christian interpretations and teachings and various retelling along the way
I'm very sorry I do not think I will forgive myself for forgetting the bigender adam thing and all that
as for the time, I was taught that adam and eve were well into their 900s when they died and that human lifespans gradually decreased after them until avraham and interpreted that as they spent a lot of time in the garden. There are no times specified at this point in the Torah so even if that is an unpopular opinion it is what makes sense to me
okay
Well, yes, the tora does say Adam lived 930 years, however these are the psukim (Genesis 5, 3-5):
. ג וַיְחִי אָדָם, שְׁלֹשִׁים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה, וַיּוֹלֶד בִּדְמוּתוֹ, כְּצַלְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, שֵׁת. ד וַיִּהְיוּ יְמֵי-אָדָם, אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת-שֵׁת, שְׁמֹנֶה מֵאֹת, שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת. ה וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל-יְמֵי אָדָם, אֲשֶׁר-חַי, תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה; וַיָּמֹת.
And Adam lived 130 years and he birthed* in his image, as his form; and he named him Shet/Seth. Adam's days after birthing Shet were 800 years and he birthed boys and girls**. And all Adam's days taht he lived were 930 years; and he died.
This clearly says that Adam was 130 years old when he had Shet, who was born after Cain and Hevel killed each other, and they were born after Adam and Chava were already banished from Gan Eden. So textually Adam and Chava can't have lived in Gan Eden for longer than ~110 years.
(Personally, I think that Gan Eden didn't have time the way we do so you can only count Adam and Chava's age after the banishing but that's neither here nor there, and also not supported by midrash, as far as I know.)
(The "bigender Adam" you mentioned is Gensis 5, 1-2: זֶה סֵפֶר, תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם: בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ. ב זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בְּרָאָם; וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת-שְׁמָם אָדָם, בְּיוֹם, הִבָּרְאָם
This is the book of the descendents of Adam. On the day that Elokim created a person/Adam, He created him in the image of Elokim. He created them male and female. He blessed them and called their name Adam on the day he created them.
What I starred "he birthed" is a very common form in the Tanakh in these sum-ups)
I hope you don't think we're attacking you. I think a lot of people have been there, where they've confused a lot of different interpertations in their head: it's definitely a major thing my Tanakh teacher in my high school complained about. I've been working on it by going back to the pshat (the plain text), especially using Rabbi Fohrman's way of looking. I'd higly recommend his podcast A Book Like No Other: https://www.alephbeta.org/podcasts/book-like-no-other/the-elephant-in-the-garden. However, more than that, I'd recommend you go back and read stuff and see the words. It really helps.
I don’t blame Eve for eating the apple because if I was created in a paradise garden as a servant for the only other man who exists and some unknowable, unfathomable higher being says the only rule is to not eat that fruit, and I lived there for like 900 years give or take and nothing showed any signs of changing ever, and all I know is that if I eat that fruit something will change and my new friend the (not yet) snake was thinking something similar, and fruits taste so good and like at least something will change
Questions cause I'm really confused
Since when was she a servant?
She lived there for less than a day?
The snake told her nothing will happen and proved it by telling her that G-d said that if she touches the Tree she will die (lie) and then she touched the tree. The snake specifically told her NOTHING will change?
Our task as readers is not to find an explanation which will make the text less troublesome, but once which understands that the textual anomaly is intentional...
-Moses: The Independent Partner/Zvi Grumet
Judaism allows for hate, it makes room for it, because it understands that it must, but it puts guardrails around it
kosher keepers: is it okay to mix dairy and poultry, or dairy and fish, because they're not from the same kind of animal? I see this debated a lot and it's interesting to me. yes, no, is it more complicated than that?
kosher keepers, is it okay to mix dairy and poultry, or dairy and fish, because they're not from the same kind of animal?
yes
no
nuance
Depends basically on your eida.
The gmara ruled that because of mar'it ayin poultry should be treated like meat (that is, because poultry is so similar to meat that is easy for others or even you to get mixed up it should be treated like meat when it comes it milchig and fleishig so there won't be any mistakes).
Ethiopians left the region before that was ruled so they do eat poultry and dairy together.
Sfardim do the same concept with fish, so they don't eat fish and dairy together BUT they don't keep time between eating fish and dairy, just wash their mouth out.
Ashkenazim eat fish and dairy together, but don't eat fish and meat together. I believe, but am not sure, that that it to avoid mixing up between fish and meat and then accidentally eat meat with dairy.
To summarize:
Ethiopians: poultry + milchig A-OK, fish + milchig A-OK
Sfardim: poultry + milchig NO, fish + milchig NO
Ashkenazim: poultry + milchig NO, fish + milchig A-OK, fish + meat NO
First, A Warning As we noted last year , the Talmud often discusses hypothetical cases. But not all unusual cases are hypothetical, even
This page mentions Sota 26, Yevamot 63 and Yevamot 59 but it's also relevant to Bava Metzia 71.
I made this meme bc of the real life reactions I got to the Job/Peter Parker post, but then @starlightomatic asked me if I could make it rebloggable, so have fun
Today's daf yomi had a word that's used in Modern Hebrew--mashkanta!
I studied Bava Metzia 39 a few days ago. It's about what is done with the property of captives, especially captives that it is unknown whether they are alive or dead.
I also used to skim over laws about captives. It just wasn't relevant anymore.
I can't skim over it anymore.
Jewishly anthropomorphizing and pitying the final candle on the chanukiah. It's not one of those that goes over and over, that lights up the songs every night, that sees every present and hears every giggle, kids taking turns on alternating nights, its base caked with islands of melted wax. It is left for the very very end and only goes once per year. And maybe by then, people are a bit worn out on dreidels and latkes and gelt and so the last candle never even meets some of its seasonal friends. It's okay, baby, you finally get your turn, we wouldn't forget you. Next year it will be different. Next year you'll meet them too.
It's the exact opposite of Tekiah Gedolah - which also only happens once but is unambiguously the star, the main attraction, all the oodles of Tekiahs seen as warm-ups by comparison for their gigantic grand finale elder brother, everybody's favorite and no one even pretends to hide it. I admire the Tekiahs for sticking to their role without one note of resentment or envy - which they totally absolutely feel, but their devotion to their job is greater.
The eighth candle is always my favorite, actually! Because it symbolizes completeness. Because it represents wholeness, because the menorah is finally fully lit. Because it represents geulah. And the mystical significance of the eighth day - the day beyond Shabbat - the day that creation is not just complete, not just resting, but whole. Restored. The world as it should be, that we can almost taste, but have not yet reached.
Just as the Tekiah Gedolah is the star of the show - that last, final cry to Hashem that we make as the Gates of Teshuva slip shut - the eighth candle also represents hope. Hope that the Gates will never truly close. Hope that geulah is near, and the time of Olam HaBa is close at hand.
Tonight we don't just celebrate the battles already won; tonight, as we watch that eighth flame light a complete menorah, we dare to hope.
Bava Kamma 27
Said Rav Nachman, "The guy who attacks With a shovel the fellow who's lax O'er his cistern share days, Is correct in his ways. He should give him a hundred more whacks!"
i have such a profound hate for stories that go ‘what if just some guy like literally just some guy was thrown into these horrible circumstances with huge stakes’ and then take it back and go ‘haha he is not just some guy, he’s the specialest little boy in the planet, last in a long line of specialest little boys, it was in his blood all along’
I however have a great love of the opposite.
Hero thinks he’s from a long line of champions and is the best, is chosen to be the greatest only to get curve balled in his nuts and it’s revealed that lol he’s a nobody from a long line of nobodies. There is no legendary hero. You’re a nobody and always was one.
Only to curve ball it right back at the villain. “Sucks that you’re gonna lose to a nobody then instead of a legendary hero. All that work to lose to some guy, that must suck huh?”
Seems there’s potential in a story about a guy who’s told from the beginning, perhaps even by God Himself, that he’s The Chosen One, and he doesn’t believe it because there’s nothing special about him, but he tightens his belt and gets the job done because no one else will take responsibility for it, and at the end God tells him, “That’s why I chose you. Not because you were more special than anyone else, but because you were the only one who would accept the job.”
פסיקתא רבתי כא
#i’m sorry sunder-the-gold you just described a jewish story
I’m aware. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Gideon, Ruth, Elijah…
[I'm mynameisgoliath, this is just my tora blog]
Very true! (Except for Ruth, sorry. The motif of her choosing is a big thing. Also her words of "your nation is my nation. your g-d is my g-d" and also her marrying Boaz who is not the guy that is first choice according to Jewish law.)
The Hebrew I posted on the reblog is the page on which a particular midrash (a story meant to teach, not necessarily meant to be taken as real) which basically goes like this:
G-d went to x nation and said, "Do you want to be my nation?"
"Sure," said x nation. "What does that entail?"
"It means [one of the 10 commandments]."
"No, we don't like that," said x nation. "No, thank you."
This repeats until G-d gets to the Jews.
"Do you want to be my nation?" asked G-d.
"We will do and we will hear," said the Jews.
"Great!" said G-d.
Not "shake a lemon angrily at G-d" week, but rather;
Gather a citron, an ancient fruit predating the cultivation of lemon. Notice how it has a wonderful aroma, and consider how its flesh is edible. This represents the Jew who is both learned in Judaism and who exhibits kindness and good deeds.
Now gather the closed frond at the center of a palm tree. Consider how sweet the dates of the palm taste, but how the frond exhibits no strong smell like the citron. This represents the Jew who is learned in Judaism, but who does not practice the compassion in the many texts they studied.
Now gather at least three branches from a myrtle bush. Take in the refreshing scent oozing from the branches' thick leaves, but see how it does not bear fruit. This represents the Jew who is not learned in Judaism, but whose good character and actions are exceptional.
Finally, gather two branches from the somber willow. While mighty and enveloping, the willow exhibits no strong aroma, nor does it produce fruit. This represents the Jew who is neither learned in Judaism nor kind in character and deeds.
Appreciate the various textures and shapes of these four species. Feel the weight of them in your hand. Value how different in so many aspects each of them are.
Take them all in your hands, and bind them together like an embrace. Point them in all the corners of the earth- South, North, East, heavenward, downward, and West. Think of all your Jewish brethren scattered around the world, and bring your precious bundle back to your heart with every direction you send it to. Contemplate the place of every Jew in your community, the Etrog, the Lulav, the Hadas, and the Arava, for they all belong.
This is the meaning of Sukkot: coming back to our roots and our bare essence. Erect a temporary dwelling in reminiscence of your wandering ancestors. Come together under the stars, as exposed and unguarded as when we first walked the earth. Welcome guests into your makeshift home, be they family, friends, or the spirits of founding ancestors passed. Surround yourself in your community- and bring it all back to your heart.
Kiddushin 6
If a guy says (completely ad lib) To a woman, "Hey,babe, you're my rib." As they talked wedding venues, he Gave a ring and then you see, They're betrothed, though his wording was glib.
