Comments for Parsha Blog http://parshablog.com Thoughts on the Parsha... Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:04:25 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on 10 Amot Tall by Yaakov Ellis http://parshablog.com/2007/02/10-amot-tall/comment-page-1/#comment-218 Yaakov Ellis Mon, 26 Jan 2009 09:04:25 +0000 http://parshablog.com/2007/02/10-amot-tall/#comment-218 10 Amot = approximately 4.8 meters = 15.7 feet 10 Amot = approximately 4.8 meters = 15.7 feet

]]> Comment on Rivka’s Age II by Mechael http://parshablog.com/2005/11/rivkas-age-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-217 Mechael Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:22:42 +0000 http://parshablog.com.s6138.gridserver.com/?p=16#comment-217 See jewishlegends.com, Tanach Section, which bings down a Tosafos saying that Rivkah was much older than 3 years old when she married Yitzchak Avinu. See jewishlegends.com, Tanach Section, which bings down a Tosafos saying that Rivkah was much older than 3 years old when she married Yitzchak Avinu.

]]> Comment on 10 Amot Tall by Carmel http://parshablog.com/2007/02/10-amot-tall/comment-page-1/#comment-201 Carmel Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:29:18 +0000 http://parshablog.com/2007/02/10-amot-tall/#comment-201 So are you saying that 10 amot equals to 15 feet? So are you saying that 10 amot equals to 15 feet?

]]> Comment on The Conquests of Menashe by Ariel http://parshablog.com/2006/07/the-conquests-of-menashe/comment-page-1/#comment-199 Ariel Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:52:21 +0000 http://parshablog.com.s6138.gridserver.com/?p=35#comment-199 See http://allyourbeis.blogspot.com/2006/11/early-decision.html See also the middle of http://allyourbeis.blogspot.com/2007/07/thoughts-on-matotmasei.html See http://allyourbeis.blogspot.com/2006/11/early-decision.html
See also the middle of http://allyourbeis.blogspot.com/2007/07/thoughts-on-matotmasei.html

]]> Comment on Sitting out the Battle by Aliyah Blog » Sitting out the Battle http://parshablog.com/2006/07/sitting-out-the-battle/comment-page-1/#comment-100 Aliyah Blog » Sitting out the Battle Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:22:22 +0000 http://parshablog.com.s6138.gridserver.com/?p=38#comment-100 [...] (Cross-Posted on Parsha Blog) [...] [...] (Cross-Posted on Parsha Blog) [...]

]]> Comment on Rivka’s Age II by S. http://parshablog.com/2005/11/rivkas-age-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-17 S. Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:17:38 +0000 http://parshablog.com.s6138.gridserver.com/?p=16#comment-17 >Yes, this is exactly why I object to the widespread belief that Rivka was three. The truth - ie the point the Midrash was trying to make - is far more complicated, but how many Jews ever get around to investigating the issue? Instead they go thtrough life imagining that Rivka was three, according to authentic, traditional, beleife and that’s it. you know I agree with you. i don't think the historical rivka was three and I too am dismayed when intelligent adults not only think that but are unaware that this is but one opinion, and that there is another one. but you know what? we keep saying "there are deeper meanings" in fantastic midrashim. well, what is the deeper meaning in this one? is it only to preserve chronology? i think at a certain point people like us have to stop just espousing a rational stance vis a vid midrashim and actually start tackling these midrashim, and trying to uncover the "deeper meaning". If there is a midrash that she was three, then what, according to US is it trying to convey? >Yes, this is exactly why I object to the widespread belief that Rivka was three. The truth – ie the point the Midrash was trying to make – is far more complicated, but how many Jews ever get around to investigating the issue? Instead they go thtrough life imagining that Rivka was three, according to authentic, traditional, beleife and that’s it.

you know I agree with you. i don’t think the historical rivka was three and I too am dismayed when intelligent adults not only think that but are unaware that this is but one opinion, and that there is another one.

but you know what? we keep saying “there are deeper meanings” in fantastic midrashim. well, what is the deeper meaning in this one? is it only to preserve chronology?

i think at a certain point people like us have to stop just espousing a rational stance vis a vid midrashim and actually start tackling these midrashim, and trying to uncover the “deeper meaning”. If there is a midrash that she was three, then what, according to US is it trying to convey?

]]> Comment on The First FFB by Yaakov http://parshablog.com/2005/11/the-first-ffb/comment-page-1/#comment-24 Yaakov Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:04:20 +0000 http://parshablog.com.s6138.gridserver.com/?p=26#comment-24 That depends on what you are referring to... That depends on what you are referring to…

]]> Comment on The First FFB by adderabbi http://parshablog.com/2005/11/the-first-ffb/comment-page-1/#comment-23 adderabbi Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:01:07 +0000 http://parshablog.com.s6138.gridserver.com/?p=26#comment-23 this is a chazakah, no? this is a chazakah, no?

]]> Comment on Rivka’s Age II by Yaakov http://parshablog.com/2005/11/rivkas-age-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Yaakov Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:06:01 +0000 http://parshablog.com.s6138.gridserver.com/?p=16#comment-16 I think that point is that maybe she was three. Or maybe the midrash is to teach something else by saying that she was three. Simply saying "three?? ludicrous" is ignoring the fact that there is a thought-process, based on accepted hermeneutic principles of interpreting the text that legitimately concludes that she <strong>was</strong>three. I am not sure completely sure if this was the point that you were trying to make in your post (after reading what you wrote, I am getting something of a "three?? ludicrous" feeling). Feel free to let me know if I got things wrong. I think that point is that maybe she was three. Or maybe the midrash is to teach something else by saying that she was three. Simply saying “three?? ludicrous” is ignoring the fact that there is a thought-process, based on accepted hermeneutic principles of interpreting the text that legitimately concludes that she wasthree.

I am not sure completely sure if this was the point that you were trying to make in your post (after reading what you wrote, I am getting something of a “three?? ludicrous” feeling). Feel free to let me know if I got things wrong.

]]> Comment on Rivka’s Age II by dovbear http://parshablog.com/2005/11/rivkas-age-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-15 dovbear Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:15:49 +0000 http://parshablog.com.s6138.gridserver.com/?p=16#comment-15 Yes, this is exactly why I object to the widespread belief that Rivka was three. The truth - ie the point the Midrash was trying to make - is far more complicated, but how many Jews ever get around to investigating the issue? Instead they go thtrough life imagining that Rivka was three, according to authentic, traditional, beleife and that's it. Yes, this is exactly why I object to the widespread belief that Rivka was three. The truth – ie the point the Midrash was trying to make – is far more complicated, but how many Jews ever get around to investigating the issue? Instead they go thtrough life imagining that Rivka was three, according to authentic, traditional, beleife and that’s it.

]]>