Interfaith Ki Teitzei - Page 2

pohaikawahine · 09-14-2005, 05:16 AM

the ox and the donkey .... one level of meaning appears to be related to mixed marriages of believers and non-believers (whatever that really means) .... referred to as "unequally-yoked marriage" .... the two animals are different in structure and strength and if yoked together it makes the furrows crooked rather than straight .... this is likened to what happens in "unequally-yoked marriages" (although I don't necessarily agree with this, this seems to be one interpretation) .... there are also references to the ox and the donkey in 1001 Arabian Nights, and of course there is the ox and the donkey always represented in the manger in christianity ....

I'm still not comfortable with the depth of this translation .... it may have something to do with whether a believer or a non-believer can ultimately make it to the promised land of the mind .... also the ox is considered clean and the donkey is considered unclean .... I'll leave this one here, but it is one of those symbols that I will keep working on .... don't want to monopolize the discussion with my rantings ........ he hawai'i au, poh

bananabrain · 09-14-2005, 05:25 PM

there is a very strong idea that the mixing of categories is to be forbidden. shaatnez is one of these categories, as is the species-yoking. for example, an ox is kosher and a donkey is not. likewise, there are considered to be different domains - tumah and taharah (as in niddah and the various Temple rituals and statuses), meat and milk - and here we see, effectively, eggs and poultry. there's more but this isn't an exhaustive list. there are also some people who make arguments to say *why* these things are not to be mixed, but i think they mostly fall into the "because I Said so" set of commandments.

you know, dauer, if we keep this up for a couple of years we've actually written a complete interfaith commentary on the Torah. wicked. should we call it the "shaatnez"? hehehe.

b'shalom

bananabrain

dauer · 09-14-2005, 08:59 PM

BB,

And even the word kedusha has to do with separation, right? Like the separation of the kohanim from the commonfolk. And the separations inside the beit hamikdash.

Quote:

you know, dauer, if we keep this up for a couple of years we've actually written a complete interfaith commentary on the Torah. wicked. should we call it the "shaatnez"? hehehe.

I actually had a similar idea. At the very least the dialogue will be archived. I'm glad you're poking your head in once in a while. I was a little concerned you decided this idea was going to go too far in one direction or another or that there would be too many beginner's questions and wanted nothing to do with it.

Well, I'm ready to move on... I apologize that this isn't the best translation. It's not my favorite either. I actually request that you use whichever one you are most comfortable with and please feel free to paste from it.

From Chapt 25

5. If brothers reside together, and one of them dies having no son, the dead man's wife shall not marry an outsider. [Rather,] her husband's brother shall be intimate with her, making her a wife for himself, thus performing the obligation of a husband's brother with her. 6. And it will be, that the eldest brother [who performs the levirate marriage, if] she [can] bear will succeed in the name of his deceased brother, so that his [the deceased brother's] name shall not be obliterated from Israel. 7. But if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, the brother's wife shall go up to the gate, to the elders, and say, "My husband's brother has refused to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel he does not wish to perform the obligation of a husband's brother with me." 8. Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and he shall stand up and say, "I do not wish to take her." 9. Then his brother's wife shall approach him before the eyes of the elders and remove his shoe from his foot. And she shall spit before his face and answer [him] and say, "Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother's household!" 10. And that family shall be called in Israel, "The family of the one whose shoe was removed."

This will be the last entry I present. Tomorrow night I'll open up for whatever issues anyone has with the text. So if you find text between now and then to present, you will have your chance.

Dauer

bananabrain · 09-15-2005, 02:06 PM

that's right - kedusha is about separation. in fact, it is arguable that the act of distinguishing and applying judgement that is perhaps the human process at the heart of halacha.

b'shalom

bananabrain

pohaikawahine · 09-15-2005, 03:05 PM

hmmmmm opposites .... the concept of balancing the opposite forces is powerful in many cultures and traditions .... war and peace cannot exist together or the man that abuses life and those around him is just as seperated from life as the one that leaves and becomes a hermit (this is suppose to be a reference to an excess on any path) .... it is possible that the lesson is one of balance .... is there such a thing as the perfect balance .... probably not, but I heard that this is part of the symbolism in the star of david .... and I can see the merging of two vortexes that forms the six sided star ....

there is an ancient god on a small island in the south pacific, his name is 'ochaieu' and I was interested in this particular concept because as you can see all the vowels sounds are the in the name itself .... well turns out that 'ochaieu" is the representation of opposites .... he/she (both male and female at different times) is also manifested as a sting-ray (black with white spots) and a bird (white with a black spot) .... here you have black and white, and also ocean and sky and both forms in the shape of a cross .... (there are many other manifestations) but when a person goes by and see the sting-ray (this particular one) if he is sitting, he will stand .... if he has a hat on, he will take it off .... small things, but a constant reminder of opposition ....

on these same islands is a tradition that if a woman's husband should die, she will be married to the brother of her husband .... I have one friend that is in constant dread that something might happen to her husband and swears that she will break with this tradition and not be forced to marry the brother of her husband .... although the concept is that the men would always be there to care for the family, including the family of his brother .... it is sort like the previous section that you let the mother bird go .... but times have changed and most of the women are self-sufficient with jobs, so some of the old concepts are not as applicable to life today .... in the south pacific and in hawaii, although wives use to go with the brother of a husband (taken in to keep the entire family safe and cared for) there was not expection of an actualy sexual relationship (although it might take place, the woman always has the option of not living as man and wife even under the roof of this household) ....

now on the other hand, I know of an american who married a woman from one of these islands .... she died a few years ago of cancer and the family arranged for him to be married to a younger sister and he stayed on the island ....

so maybe that is really what this section is all about .... laws that protect the family and maybe even related to family land issues so that the land remains in the family ..... he hawai'i au, poh

Faithfulservant · 09-15-2005, 05:16 PM

From Chapt 25

5. If brothers reside together, and one of them dies having no son, the dead man's wife shall not marry an outsider. [Rather,] her husband's brother shall be intimate with her, making her a wife for himself, thus performing the obligation of a husband's brother with her. 6. And it will be, that the eldest brother [who performs the levirate marriage, if] she [can] bear will succeed in the name of his deceased brother, so that his [the deceased brother's] name shall not be obliterated from Israel. 7. But if the man does not wish to take his brother's wife, the brother's wife shall go up to the gate, to the elders, and say, "My husband's brother has refused to perpetuate his brother's name in Israel he does not wish to perform the obligation of a husband's brother with me." 8. Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him, and he shall stand up and say, "I do not wish to take her." 9. Then his brother's wife shall approach him before the eyes of the elders and remove his shoe from his foot. And she shall spit before his face and answer [him] and say, "Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother's household!" 10. And that family shall be called in Israel, "The family of the one whose shoe was removed."

Im thinking about this from a womans point of view and how I think the culture may have been when it was written.. When a man took a woman to wife he was committed to caring for her for her whole life.. If that man died and was unable to care for her then the responsibility falls on the mans brother.. The same would go for the dead brothers property.. It falls to the brother so that the wealth stays in the family.. Women I think were considered wealth. If we look at Rebekah and Isaac and all that he did to claim her.. you can see how precious women are. She helped create the entirety of Gods chosen people... Thats a pretty massive thing in my eyes.

Is it ok to reference other scripture as long as it is in the Torah?

dauer · 09-15-2005, 08:45 PM

faithfulservant, I explain in the rules, which I suggest everyone read if you haven't, that you can reference any scripture if it relates in some way to the text, including non-Abrahamic scriptures. The only copying that is not acceptable is if you were to copy somebody else's explanation of the text. But using your own words to explain what a commentator said is perfectly okay. In order to balance all of that, I set an outright ban on any proselytizing or putting down of other groups. I also said if any background's voice begins to dominate, there may be moderator intervention. It's all in the rules.

So, to everyone, why do they use a shoe? Who removes a shoe? I mean really. I don't have an answer. I'm just looking for answers.

dauer · 09-16-2005, 04:15 AM

If there is anything you saw in the text you wanted to bring to the group, now would be a wonderful time for such a thing to happen.

Dauer

pohaikawahine · 09-16-2005, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dauer

So, to everyone, why do they use a shoe? Who removes a shoe? I mean really. I don't have an answer. I'm just looking for answers.

this will sound really strange but it brings back a memory .... once i was in las vegas, nevada (gambling mecca) on business and i took a taxi back to the airport .... i had enough money to pay for the taxi (because i lost most of it at the slot machines .... during the time i wasn't involved in my business) and i asked him what did they do if they took someone all the way to the airport and then found out they didn't have enough money to pay .... he said that he takes one shoe and holds it until the person sends the money to pay the debt or that person will simply have to toss away his/her other shoe if they don't want to pay .... and shoes these days are expensive .....i did by the way pay my taxi bill ...

does the taking of a shoe leave a man vulnerable in some way, or it might be connected with the concept of humbleness as the 'washing of one's feet' ??? i don't have an answer either, just some observations to share....aloha nui, poh