Conversations with sylvius: Rashi, 666 in Genesis 1:31, etc.

[sylvius]

You might even say that if NT does mean it different it misinterprets the story of creation.

Genesis 2:23,
זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי

"zot hapa'am etsem meiatsamai uvasar mib'sari"

"This one this time bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"

Rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

This one this time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

(Note that chabad.org presents a wrong translation. "zot" refers to the woman. "hapaam"= this time, at last. )

Somewhere I read "ezer" in "ezer kenegdo" ( a helpmate opposite him) is a play with "zera"= sperm, written with the same letters.
Only Eve could take up Adam's sperm so that they could become one flesh (in Cain and Abel).

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Rashi has:

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

one flesh: The fetus is formed by them both, and there [in the child] their flesh becomes one. — [from Sanh. 58a]

I don't think NT means it different.

It strikes a blow for all bastards.

Rashi's comment makes some sense. I saw the same thing as one possible "aspect" of that verse, but it is not what the NT says about that passage. On the contrary, the NT says the man and woman are "one flesh" in the sense of they themselves being "one flesh" -

Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

The NT is clear - the "one flesh" refers to the unity of the man and woman as such, not merely in the sense of the child as a product of the two.

I think this shows why Jewish commentators should not be taken as "authoritative" when it comes to interpreting the Bible. They were just men who had their own fallible opinions like everyone else.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You might even say that if NT does mean it different it misinterprets the story of creation.

Genesis 2:23,
זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי

"zot hapa'am etsem meiatsamai uvasar mib'sari"

"This one this time bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"

Rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

This one this time: This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve. — [from Yev. 63a]

(Note that chabad.org presents a wrong translation. "zot" refers to the woman. "hapaam"= this time, at last. )

Somewhere I read "ezer" in "ezer kenegdo" ( a helpmate opposite him) is a play with "zera"= sperm, written with the same letters.
Only Eve could take up Adam's sperm so that they could become one flesh (in Cain and Abel).

Well, the NT most certainly does interpret it differently as shown in my previous post. Is there any reason we should think that the Rabbis got it right and the NT got it wrong? I don't see any logic supporting the rabbinical assertions. Why should they have more authority than the writers of the NT? Paul was educated under Gamaliel you know. So he was every bit as much a "Rabbi" as Rashi, and he lived a lot earlier so he was closer to the source. And for Christians there can be no question, since Rashi was an unbeliever, and Paul was an inspired writer of the Word of God.

I'm glad you brought up the interpretation of that comment from Yevamoth 63a. It has been the source of a lot of negative statements about the Talmud. It is often interpreted as saying that "This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve." While this interpretation is possible, I don't think it is necessarily correct. Here's the actual text which I found on the Chabad site:

זאת הפעם: מלמד שבא אדם על כל בהמה וחיה ולא נתקררה דעתו בהם עד שבא על חוה

The question hinges on the term shabah which literally means "of whom he came to" (from the root ba, to come, prefixed with the letter shin signifying the relative pronoun "who, which"). So the literal translation would be "This teaches us that of all the beasts and animals Adam came to, none satisfied his knowledge until he came to Eve." Here's an interesting YouTube video that interprets it this way. But there is another possibility. I read somewhere that the word "shabah" is used elsewhere in the Talmud as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. And the reference to Adam "satisfying" (literally "cooling") his knowledge has sexual overtones in both the "cooling" and the reference to "knowing" since that is a common Biblical euphemism for sex. So the evidence is pretty ambiguous. I need to research this more. Do you know of any rabbinical comments that interpret it explicitly as referring to sexual intercourse with animals?

[sylvius]

Rashi's comment makes some sense. I saw the same thing as one possible "aspect" of that verse, but it is not what the NT says about that passage. On the contrary, the NT says the man and woman are "one flesh" in the sense of they themselves being "one flesh" -

Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

The NT is clear - the "one flesh" refers to the unity of the man and woman as such, not merely in the sense of the child as a product of the two.

I think this shows why Jewish commentators should not be taken as "authoritative" when it comes to interpreting the Bible. They were just men who had their own fallible opinions like everyone else.

But why take Ephesians as authoritative? It even was not written by Paul. Ephesians 5:31 does read Genesis 1:24 out of context.

Matthew 19 continues with the statement:

whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Statement, not moral judgement.

Like also Matthew 5:32,

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And right before that, v.27-28:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Also statement.


Matthew 19 continues with the disciples' remark:

“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Marry , Greek "gameo", has sexual connotation, "gamos"= cohabitation.

Like also in Matthew 22:30,

ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ' ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἰσιν.
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

As resurrected ones they don't have sex.

Matthew 19 continues with:

But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Moreover,
Matthew 19:29 tells same kind of thing:

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold[c] and will inherit eternal life.

Luke 18:29-30 even inserts "wife"" :

And he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

[sylvius]

The question hinges on the term shabah which literally means "of whom he came to" (from the root ba, to come, prefixed with the letter shin signifying the relative pronoun "who, which"). So the literal translation would be "This teaches us that of all the beasts and animals Adam came to, none satisfied his knowledge until he came to Eve." Here's an interesting YouTube video that interprets it this way. But there is another possibility. I read somewhere that the word "shabah" is used elsewhere in the Talmud as a euphemism for sexual intercourse. And the reference to Adam "satisfying" (literally "cooling") his knowledge has sexual overtones in both the "cooling" and the reference to "knowing" since that is a common Biblical euphemism for sex. So the evidence is pretty ambiguous. I need to research this more.

Genesis 16:5,

וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָגָר וַתַּהַר וַתֵּרֶא כִּי הָרָתָה וַתֵּקַל גְּבִרְתָּהּ בְּעֵינֶיהָ
And he came to Hagar, and she conceived, and she saw that she was pregnant, and her mistress became unimportant in her eyes.

Genesis 29:33,

וַיְהִי בָעֶרֶב וַיִּקַּח אֶת לֵאָה בִתּוֹ וַיָּבֵא אֹתָהּ אֵלָיו וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ
And it came to pass in the evening that Laban took his daughter Leah, and he brought her to him, and he came to her.

Ruth 4:13,

וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ; וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן
And Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he came to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

Do you know of any rabbinical comments that interpret it explicitly as referring to sexual intercourse with animals?

Yes Rashi's after Yevamoth 63a.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But why take Ephesians as authoritative? It even was not written by Paul. Ephesians 5:31 does read Genesis 1:24 out of context.

If you don't take the New Testament as authoritative, why do you quote it all the time as if it were authoritative?

Matthew 19 continues with the statement:

whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.

Statement, not moral judgement.

A moral judgment is a statement.

Like also Matthew 5:32,

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And right before that, v.27-28:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Also statement.

Matthew 19 continues with the disciples' remark:

“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

Marry , Greek "gameo", has sexual connotation, "gamos"= cohabitation.

Like also in Matthew 22:30,

ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἀναστάσει οὔτε γαμοῦσιν οὔτε γαμίζονται, ἀλλ' ὡς ἄγγελοι ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ εἰσιν.
For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

As resurrected ones they don't have sex.

Matthew 19 continues with:

But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”

Moreover,
Matthew 19:29 tells same kind of thing:

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold[c] and will inherit eternal life.

Luke 18:29-30 even inserts "wife"" :

And he said to them, “Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Why did you quote those verses? What was you point?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Genesis 16:5,

וַיָּבֹא אֶל הָגָר וַתַּהַר וַתֵּרֶא כִּי הָרָתָה וַתֵּקַל גְּבִרְתָּהּ בְּעֵינֶיהָ
And he came to Hagar, and she conceived, and she saw that she was pregnant, and her mistress became unimportant in her eyes.

Genesis 29:33,

וַיְהִי בָעֶרֶב וַיִּקַּח אֶת לֵאָה בִתּוֹ וַיָּבֵא אֹתָהּ אֵלָיו וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ
And it came to pass in the evening that Laban took his daughter Leah, and he brought her to him, and he came to her.

Ruth 4:13,

וַיִּקַּח בֹּעַז אֶת-רוּת וַתְּהִי-לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ; וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לָהּ הֵרָיוֹן, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן
And Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he came to her, and the LORD gave her conception, and she bore a son.

Good examples. So you believe that the Talmud really does teach that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals?

Yes Rashi's after Yevamoth 63a.

Where? Please be specific. Thanks.

[sylvius]

If you don't take the New Testament as authoritative, why do you quote it all the time as if it were authoritative?

Why then do you consider Ephesians more authoritative than Rashi?

A moral judgment is a statement.

It means the whole world is adulterous.
which is not a statement of a moralist.

Why did you quote those verses? What was you point?

The disciples said:
“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

and then came the (obscure) saying about the eunuchs.

Matthew 19:27

Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you.

intimates that the disciples had seperated from their wives.

[sylvius]

Good examples. So you believe that the Talmud really does teach that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals?

The Talmud doesn't present unambiguous teaching.

And more: Adam having sex with animals is more like a metaphor.

He must have also have had sex with the snake, the most shrewd of all the beasts of the field, or at least have tried to find in him a helpmate.

Where? Please be specific. Thanks.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_...showrashi/true

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Why then do you consider Ephesians more authoritative than Rashi?

I don't consider either authoritative. But Christians would have good reason to think that Ephesians is more authoritative than Rashi.

It appears that you treat some verses in the NT as authoritative if they agree with your opinions, and others as not authoritative if they disagree with your opinions. That seems to be inconsistent to me. Why do you quote the NT at all? What do you believe about it? I've been wondering about this for a very long time, but I can't seem to get a straight answer from you. Are you Christian? Do you believe in Jesus? Was he the Messiah? What do you think it all means?

It means the whole world is adulterous.
which is not a statement of a moralist.

OK - it sounds like you are saying that the teaching is not about a person who actually gets a divorce, but rather it is about everyone because everyone has an adulterous heart? I can see how you might infer that from Matthew 5:28 ("whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her") but I don't see how you can get it from Matthew 19.

The disciples said:
“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

and then came the (obscure) saying about the eunuchs.

Matthew 19:27

Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you.

intimates that the disciples had seperated from their wives.

As far as I can tell, you have said that these teachings are figurative because you applied the literal teaching about divorce as symbolic of everyone. Now is seem you are taking them literally. This confuses me.