tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post7332497879591271292..comments2023-08-03T04:54:54.068-04:00Comments on Abacaxi Mamão: "אסתר קרקע עולם היתה" and how the Tosafists and selected acharonim understood women's sexualityAbacaxi Mamaohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06604184268628243496noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-67361942970624255682017-05-16T12:14:05.983-04:002017-05-16T12:14:05.983-04:00I suppose? But we normally don't say that peop...I suppose? But we normally don't say that people are who betrothed can sleep together. It sounds like apologetics to me. As are most of these "solutions."Abacaxi Mamaohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06604184268628243496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-77994847903806461122017-05-12T06:16:36.613-04:002017-05-12T06:16:36.613-04:00I heard that she was betrothed to him - a lower le...I heard that she was betrothed to him - a lower level relationship, but still one to be respected.JHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05783346331907014540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-54274101996276927982007-03-29T14:34:00.000-04:002007-03-29T14:34:00.000-04:00I discussed this in my essay rchaimqoton.blogspot....I discussed this in my essay <A HREF="rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2006/02/sin-or-die.html " REL="nofollow">rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2006/02/sin-or-die.html </A>. I plan to re-visit the topic again sometime soon.Reuven Chaim Kleinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836805247888732019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-10751503051389589552007-03-05T20:27:00.000-05:002007-03-05T20:27:00.000-05:00yay, you actually did a minimal amount of legwork ...yay, you actually did a minimal amount of legwork (more than i, as the lack of sourcing below indicates)!<BR/><BR/>the tosfos in question is ridiculously long, so i just skimmed it, but i honestly don't see the position imputed to them in it yet. inf act, they seem to imply the opposite in a few places. i suspect there is a more subtle point between them and R. Akiva Eiger, which I now have to figure out...<BR/><BR/>other random points:<BR/><BR/>as for the "hana'ah" of a ne'eneset, the Gemara does have a category of 'tehilatah be-ones sofah be-ratson" - a sexual encounter that begins as rape and ends as consensual. this is obviously a comceptual problem for lots of us. the best i can say is that one can think of situations where there are many bad consequences to illicit sex (eg, permanent unmarriagability, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, etc), such that someone would refuse consent even to a man she was in principle attracted to, etc, for "political reasons." once he initiates with physical force, her legal responsibility is erased, but what the gemara calls "yetser albesha" (desire overcomes her) is not a completely unreasonable possibility.<BR/><BR/>a technical point:<BR/><BR/>שלפי דעה אחת בירושלמי<BR/>means "according to one opinionn in the Jerusalem Talmud"<BR/><BR/>, שלפי דעה אחת בירושלמי, גם "למי שמשליכים אותו על תינוק ונתמעך", למרות שהוא מבחינת "קרקע עולם" באופן מוחלט, הוא חייב <BR/>one would have to find this yerushalmi, but it seems "hayyav" likely means "obligated to die rather than be thrown" rather than "liable for murder," at least from what i saw in tosafot of this case. the point is that according to one opinoin, even complete passivity (being used as dead weight) does not negate the obligation of "yehareg ve-al ya'avor," in which case, no matter how passive esther was, she should have been killed rather than participate.<BR/><BR/>in the hatam sofer paragraph:<BR/> אלא אם נתעלם <BR/>probably means "unless we disregard," ie , the HS actually says to ignore these aggadot according to the opinion in the yerushalmi, not the editor of the site saying perhaps HS disregards them... (very technical point)<BR/><BR/>just my first impressions, you may motivate me yet to look furhter into this all...<BR/><BR/>happy post-purim!miriamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11896163171832646138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11850330.post-62442653243629942902007-03-05T12:02:00.000-05:002007-03-05T12:02:00.000-05:00Forgive me - I totally don't get this.Why exactly ...Forgive me - I totally don't get this.<BR/><BR/>Why exactly are we insisting that Esther and Mordechai were married, given that it has no significant basis in <I>pshat</I>, and causes so many other problems with interpretation? (and distorts <I>halakhah</I> quite a bit)Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491386537225283381noreply@blogger.com