Dr. Yehiam Sorek refers us to several verses from which there is a suspicion that the practice of saying women's names existed in Judaism. Good thing we didn't save
It should be noted at the beginning of my list, and as it will be highlighted here and there later, that this sensitive issue, the word for women, and in particular in Judaism, has not become a common phenomenon, perhaps a little, if at all, and I have taken the trouble to stick quite a few question marks and reservations about the subject under discussion. However, it is impossible and difficult to ignore circumstantial evidence in the discussion about the aforementioned practice. It is not my intention, on the one hand, to plant information on this and interpretations on this matter, and on the other hand, as I do in quite a few cases, to bury the essence of things in a historiosophical stimulus labeled - food for thought.
However, and because of this, I will bring the lecture to the reader, and he will be the judge of my conclusions.
Well, my last trip to Africa (a fascinating safari in Tanzania) shook me, positively of course, and yet it was filled with a web of hypotheses, which I have been carrying in my academic lap for years, beginning with a puzzling text, and perhaps not apparently, in the literature of the Sages, which I will immediately reveal here later.
There in Africa, the whole affair of the discovery of the skeleton of the famous "Lucy" and its predecessors in the Palaeolithic era of approximately 200000-300000 BC refused to be detached, in the impressive visual documentation of arche-prehistory and with it the so-unsubstantiated description of the beginning of history not in Sumer but precisely in Central Africa .
Serious studies have proven that in central Africa and ancient Egypt the practice of using the word women was already known from the end of the second millennium BC. And if so, we will find it difficult to ignore the phenomenon of the word for girls in the social and cultural context among African tribes, including in Ethiopia to this very day, and it is certainly difficult for me to ignore the somewhat intrusive presence of the exciting and dramatic film called "Desert Flower", directed by Sherry Horman, which tells the shocking events of a Somali refugee who went through the hellish agonies of a woman's word and over time became a brave and conquering warrior for an international fight against the aforementioned phenomenon.
It should be noted that UNICEF reported that in 2016 it was estimated that about 200 million women in the world, especially in Africa and West Asia, went through the process of changing their name to girls. It should also be noted, Mania and Bia, that at least until the beginning of the 90s of the last century, the word for girls was known in Bedouin society (not far from our places).
Immediately, all kinds of verses, or fragments of verses, bound the beginning of Israel not in Mesopotamia, but rather in Central Africa, and I will find an initial condition that helps this in the Bible, and not by chance, such as the prophet Amos who claims: "You are not like the children of the Kushites, but you are the children of Israel to me. Behold, I brought up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from a button, and Aram from a wall" (Amos 7:XNUMX), which expresses fairly authentic knowledge about the origin of those peoples.
We will add to this the geographical references in the Book of Genesis in connection with the land of the land called "Cush", as well as Cush who gave birth to Nimrod, the mythological hunter, the Kushite wife of Moses (and precisely in this context it is worth remembering how important it was for the ancestors of the people to find a wife in their geographic-family origin), and the connection between a queen who came to Solomon and Tirhakah, the king of Cush, who came to the aid of Hezekiah in his rebellion against the king of Assyria, and others of this kind.
And we will also recall the theory regarding some of the tribes of Israel who emigrated/migrated to Ethiopia, and the texture of the close ties between the legendary Ethiopian emperor Haile Silas and modern Israel, when his nickname was nothing less than "Lion's Cub of Judah" (no, and I am not naive enough not to think of an economic infrastructure in and the State of Israel, except that it is difficult to detach from the innocence of the connection from the beginning of this paragraph).
So far regarding the relationship between the people of Israel and the African culture, including, so it seems, at least to my assumption, assumed so it should be noted, the ancient society was exposed to the phenomenon of the word for girls.
Herodotus, one of the greatest Greek historians in the fifth century BC, says that in his days the word "ban" was used among the populations in Egypt, Phoenicia and among the tribes of Kush (Historiaii, 5, 86). That is to say, we have come closer, perhaps quite a bit, to the direction of ancient Israelite society.
For this purpose we will quote from the words of the Greek geographer and historian Strabo, who specifically writes that, similar to the Egyptians and the Kushites, the Jews used to confront their sons and "cut" - "cut off" their daughters (Strabo, Geography, 2, chapter 5, XNUMX), when the expression "kirogi" "Something about "your fiancé", "disconnecting" etc., there is certainly something in it to indicate the terrible suffering the girls went through during the execution of this horrible act.
The Greek physician Galanus (200-129 AD) followed by the Greek doctor Aetius ben Amida (6-5th century AD) who quotes the ancient Greek Philomenes, testify to the phenomenon of the word girls for different reasons.
On the other hand, the Roman historian Spartanus refers to the year 132 AD, (scriptores historiae augustae, hadrianus, 14, 2), emphasizing that the Jews harm the reproductive organs, and in his words: "quod vetabbantur mutilare genitalia" The mitzvot of circumcision, or "sterilization" or "castration" in light of interpretations at the time. It is true that we are dealing here with the word for boys, but in the broader spectrum the word for girls may also be included here, since the above claim does not fundamentally concern the Jewish differentiation from other civilizations, but rather the causing of a genital physical disability that has reactions of the question of fertility. And perhaps even in the examination of a boy as an article of a word for girls?
However, we will still look for the "smoking gun" and it is found, similarly, in a text from the Tosefta that discusses the severe consequences of defects as a result of the act of the word, and put it before you: "A deed in four sisters in the birds, a first dress, a second a third, and they died, and a deed came (= matter This is problematic) before (the president) Rabbi Gamaliel (because of the importance of the matter) and said (=ruled) and said: On the fourth day you shall not be circumcised..." (Tosefta Shabbat 8, XNUMX). True, this case can be regarded as the product of a family genetic disease, perhaps the hemophilia (lack of blood clotting) from which the newborns died immediately after their birth. It is true that one can perhaps see the defect, although it is far from logic, that the knife of the word was contaminated, and perhaps-perhaps, because of the female verb - "dress" and also - "not circumcised, perhaps hiding some kind of hint for the word girls."
A helpful condition for this can be found later in the text in the appendix (ibid., 8), from Rabbi Natan's mouth, which specifically mentions the "word of sons", and in his words: "One woman who gave birth to males, both circumcised and circumcised...", that is, considering the omission of the previous text that mentions only male births, And right later (Halacha 9) appears the following text from the mouth of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: "... a place where the child is visible, whether male or female, from there he is condemned..."
And in the Babylonian Talmud they discuss the question of the word androgynous, that is, one who is born with a pair of genitals, both male and female, and as Rabbi Yehuda put it: "Androgynous may not be approximately a man but may be approximately a woman." The Talmud says: "The male and the female are, the male is certain, the female is uncertain" (Talmud Babli Shabbat XNUMX p. XNUMX), and immediately later in an ambiguous text, Rabbi Yehuda is confused about the word in the context of androgynous and even quotes as follows: XNUMX): 'The one facing you is a male'" in clear and decisive language. And lest from the language they learn perhaps also about lao, that is - about the word for girls.
We will add another certain layer to the above structure, we are really of our time. This is about the ultra-Orthodox population in our country and perhaps also abroad, when the "uniqueness" between the two spouses who come to the chupah and Kiddushin, or when they come to their common home, leads to having sexual intercourse and cutting off (and sorry for this expression) the hymen that covers the opening of the vagina in the female vagina, A rule nothing less and nothing more than "female circumcision". Isn't it far-fetched to conclude that this is a sort of ancient relic of a women's ritual (although "surgical" has nothing to do with it) that over the years has taken on the sacred meaning of "female circumcision", and that the "conductor" of this ceremony is the newlywed bridegroom.
In conclusion - first - this list of mine is not intended to draw clear and precise conclusions regarding the issue of the word for girls, and indeed I do not have any firm conclusions on the matter.
Second - in my humble opinion, in light of the sources I have brought here, Jewish on the one hand and external on the other, and alongside them the geo-historical connections, it can be said with great caution that the word for girls was some kind of phenomenon, partially widespread and perhaps even rarer than that, but it cannot be completely ignored.
Thirdly - beyond the above conclusions, it should be noted that it is good and proper in all respects that this tradition of the word for daughters was not preserved in our places and in our time in Judaism, if only for the terrible suffering that would have been caused by such a horrible phenomenon.
14 תגובות
סליחה על ההתבטאות אבל הורדת את הרמה לאפס. מה הקשקושים האלה והדיוקים חסרי כל שחר מהמקורות? ככה ד”ר מבצע מחקר? זה ממש מעלה גיחוך. שוב סליחה
Every time the word mitzvah is mentioned in the Torah, it is emphasized that the mitzvah is only for males
There is no connection between the Tosefta and the Gm' that you mentioned to the word of women, their B'i is simple and really unambiguous
It is not possible to bring evidence from a shallow and yellow TV script [there is no meaning in a baptism in Judaism]
There is not a single source in the entire Jewish library that has even a vague hint of the word women
First - thank you for your response; Second - I would avoid, to put it mildly, expressions that are somewhat offensive about me as a writer and researcher; Thirdly - as a credible researcher, I never asked to make claims that are recognized as truth that has no beginning or other. Unlike quite a few researchers, Harini practices in quite a few cases, and such as this one, to qualify my words and my claims, since neither you nor I were the period in question. And in any case, who is your name anyway? Fourth - I do stand by my opinion to interpret and interpret the evidence, mainly by relying on relevant external literature and in general on phenomena that occurred in different civilizations during the period in question, and by the way
Dear Dr. Shurk,
I have no way to judge the many sources you brought, with the exception of years: the Talmud in tractate Shabbat, page Klo-Kelz, and the Tosefta.
As a person who has studied Talmud for many years, and now teaches, there is, with your forgiveness, no way to read the text as you read it. The text is not "ambiguous", and if you understood it unambiguously, you probably wouldn't quote it.
And for those interested in understanding the Talmudic text in an unambiguous way:
Androgynous, who has both a male and a female organ: how does Judaism treat him, as male or female? There are many different consequences to be spoken.
Regarding circumcision, it is known that circumcision at the time, on the eighth day, in a certain situation, postpones the Sabbath and the circumcision will be performed on the Sabbath, even though bloodletting is forbidden. usually on Saturday. But in cases of doubt, such as a baby born between the suns and it is not clear if it is Friday or if Shabbat has already entered, they will not cover him on the following Shabbat, since there is doubt.
What happens when the doubt is not the date of birth, but the sex of the baby?
If it is said that androgynous is doubtful, then its word (in the male organ) does not reject the Sabbath. But to our surprise Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says that his word does reject the Sabbath!
The Gemara asks, in light of this, is it possible to determine that Rabbi Yehuda considers androgynous to be definitely male (which, by the way, also has a female organ)? This throws up a lot of places in Halacha that need to be remembered!
The Gemara answers, no. Rabbi Yehuda still sees it as doubtful, but the reason why he allowed it anyway to be molested on Shabbat is because the verse in Genesis XNUMX says "Foremol to you every male" the word "every" is unnecessary! She came to include something. And what she came to include is also a trace of doubt. In other words, there is a special law in the word, that not only a masculine word definitely rejects the Sabbath, but also a masculine word of doubt.
Relevance to the matter of the word women: zero.
Regarding the source from the Tosefta, a thousand reservations and "perhaps" and "just in case" and "maybe" will not help. There is a mistake here, no babies of Beit Raban are wrong, especially since Dr. is respected on a scientific website:
"The place where the child was born is visible, if male, if female, from there they mourn him..."
Not only is it not a "smoking gun", it's not even a toy gun...
The text does not refer to the word women at all.
The text answers a simple question:
In the Torah it is written "You must circumcise every male" but it is not said which organ to circumcise! Maybe in the nose? Maybe in the elbow?…
The Tosefta answers that the male word is in the same place that distinguishes it as a male. so simple:
In the same place where the baby is born, it is obvious whether it is male or female - (and anyone who has been to an ultrasound knows the moment when they ask her, do you want to know if it is a boy or a girl? How do you know?...)
That's where they say it. Him and not her, of course. And in particular, the Torah emphasized that every male should be born to you, so where did this invention come from, that it was full of women, I don't know.
Thanks for your patience and follow up.
Ariel.
Hello to the anonymous participant. If you had bothered to look at the conclusions of the Language Academy you would have surely left your comment. There is no difference between what is discussed and what is discussed except for a clarification and comment in the context and in the text itself. And what's more, let's not forget the matter of the missing spelling and the full spelling that many good (drowning) people make a mistake about...
With all due respect and effort, my friend who is called "I", one should not rule out at least two references of non-Jewish literature and among them a passage from the Tosefta, although it is open to interpretation, and above all that I make reservations and reservations behind each passage and express hesitation here and there. I didn't claim that this is a common custom, but on the other hand... and on the other hand it's a complete waste...
Collection of quotes
not clear
The effort is evident
But the result is poor
such a significant thing
was explicitly written
Just like the mitzvah for a male
Deliberately not written and no one heard
Probably doesn't exist
Although the reality of a group cannot be ruled out
A few who decided to face their house
But it is meaningless
and does not reflect anything
It is appropriate that those who comment and criticize learn the subject
As well as Hebrew syntax
"Anonymous user" _ writes:
"in the concept of a word that also means covenant and respect"
"respect"? Lehdm... "alliance"? Only with Jews...
And later:
"The custom of genital mutilation of the Bedouin women
In the south he succeeded
If the custom "succeeded" it means that it is common to this day...
is that so ?
It's a shame that the commenters don't use correct language
and on accuracy in facts,
What causes fluttering in brightness...
In fact, there is no difference in principle or even semantics between a corruption and a word from the point of view of the Romans, as it appears in the context of the reasons for the rebellion of Ben Kubba such as circumvallatio and more. In any Mecca, I had no intention of underestimating the meaning of circumcision, and even as it appeared in Amnon Levi's investigation regarding ultra-Orthodox women, the removal of the hymen is equated in the eyes of ultra-Orthodox as nothing more than a word. Food for thought...
First of all, thanks to all my respondents, because of all my respondents I was educated. Secondly. My use of the phrase "women's word" is drawn from international literature. This is a matter of semantics and not some stubborn principle. After all, the Romans referred to one of the reasons for the outbreak of the rebellion of Ben Khosva regarding the conversion of biological damage, the mutilation of the male genitalia. There was no intention to harm the subject of the word Judaism and the sacred, common halachic context. Thirdly, I am indeed a non-conformist, in terms of the "bad boy of historiosophy". I tend to put a lot of question marks behind common historical assertions and not for egocentric or other reasons, but simply to lay before and for the readers a basis for food for thought.
I wrote a detailed response that was not published. Yahyam Sorek is wrong and deliberately misleading. The exact term female genital mutilation and not a word was not in Judaism and is not recommended in Islam.
As usual, Dr. Yehiam Sorek juggles words and explains that here yes and maybe not and in the masculine, etc.
Women in the Bible spelled the sons like a bird that spelled her son "because a blood bridegroom... and I currently don't have the strength to look for the correct location and Yachiam Sorek also knows the place where he is remembered, but since it does not fit his invented theory, he does not refer to it.
Then the use of the suffix that many do not know and the story about the girls and maybe genetic, etc.
Half stories The use of the words maybe and the difficult ones
They do not constitute proof for raising the theory of the word of women either.
The correct term mutilation of women's genitals should be used and not the concept of a word that also means covenant and honor.
Yes, in Cush and in the Land of Sheba they corrupted the genitals of women and the custom still exists today. However, even in Islam, corruption is practiced in African countries and to a lesser extent in the Middle East, Turkey and Iran.
Dr. Sorek has some interesting theories on other topics that I have adopted in part on other topics, but here he is very wrong and deliberately misleading.
Initially, he gives examples of the destruction of women's genitals, the resistance to corruption worldwide, UNICEF, etc
And then comes to Judaism. Whistleblower is either unaware or willfully ignoring that many feminist women's groups argue that opinions should not interfere with custom.
It should be noted that the custom of genital mutilation of the Bedouin women in the south was successful following a campaign against the phenomenon of Bedouin women, as is also the case today in Africa and other places.
The question is when did the people in the Greater Canaan area start to differ from their brothers and decided in practice not to perform actions that their brothers used in the area, such as for example religious ceremonies with male mashabi or women's word as it was common (distinguish a thousand thousands of differences). It is clear that there was a long polytheistic transition period of at least a thousand years, in which they used to divide according to the custom of the heathen in the region. Hebrews did what everyone else did. When did these practices actually stop? eating pork monotheism. Kiddush Shabbat and stop work. At these points we can start talking about a Judaism that is more reminiscent of what we know. Before that it was Israelis and Canaanite Hebrew Jews with a weak connection to known Judaism
Condemned, and not condemned, unless talking about death.