Lolcow Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen - Sue-happy couple. Flat earth conspiracists. Pretending to be Jewish. Believe Kiwi Farms is protected by the Masonic Order. 0-6 on lawsuits. Marshall is dead.

[Deadpool]

View attachment 1675172
Goodbye Marshall. We hardly knew you.
Love,
KF

Needs to be fatter.

 

[Orange Rhymer]

Needs to be fatter.

There was a limit. It's not a horror game.

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

Fucking hypocrite. Now you want to talk about "author's intent" when it suits you

And by all means, show me ONE place I have infered that the reason I am estranged from my biological sister because she tried to murder me in a lake when I was 6 years old.

Go ahead, I'm waiting...

There's a difference between usinb what you've said and making educated assumptions based on that and just changing the definition of a word or phrase entirely just because you wanna use it that way.

And I never said you were hated her because she tried to drown you, though if we want to act like that actually happened it's a good reason to hate her.

 

[Heckler1]

@TamarYaelBatYah Does it bother you that no man will ever love you? Seeing as how you are little more than a used up breeder, no worthwhile man will want anything to do with you. Is that why you are so mad?
Is it because you are a shrill harpy with the sex appeal of a half eaten cube steak? And that you are going to die alone after your children flee from home/get rescued by CPS.

 

[Toasty]

But don't you understand @Heckler1, her sons are going to work on her non-existent homestead. Her daughters are going to have a better life than she did, treated like princesses by a providing father figure...oh. oh wait, that's also not happening. Oops.

 

[CyrusKissFanClub]

Three of these female scholars you cited were born before 1950. They are my grandmother's generation, a different kind of feminist. Dr. Tali Artman Partock looks to be about a decade or two older than me, she's another kind of feminist too. I'm the next generation of women pushing the envelope, so to speak. You could call me the "fourth wave".

I don't think you understand academic feminism and its history. First-wave, second-wave, and third wave refer to phases of feminist thought and activity--they do not describe Jewish feminism. These scholars' ages are irrelevant, they can adhere to the theory and concerns of any phase of feminism they choose. Fourth-wave feminism is supposed to be the current phase and one of its main concerns is intersectionality. Since you have never used that term or invoked the concept it is unlikely you know what it means. In any event, the ideas and concerns of fourth-wave feminism are irrelevant to scriptural hermeneutics.

Just as it is said that Judith Plaskow was "the first Jewish feminist", there is a first along the lines many places. At one point Plaskow was the only one saying what she said. They another came. And another. And another. This is the way academic scholarship evolves. Jane says AB. Jill says ABC. Then 60 years later Joann comes along and says, no, its ACD.

This is relevant only when that first of a kind has merit and it represents novelty. You aren't the first person to attempt Torah interpretation and you haven't presented a new exegetical method or intertextuality. All you've done is assert that a divine command about honest weights and measures is also about sexual egalitarianism. You still haven't explained how this could be so, you've merely repeated your assertion.

The prohibition of false weights and measures appears six times in the Tanakh, semantically identical in each case. Without further loss of parchment space and the retention of the repetition five times, one of the reiterations could have been expressed literally; it could state explicitly in plain, literal language that women are morally, legally, socially, economically and spiritually equal to men. Yet this is not the case. Is the sixth repetition absolutely necessary?

Further, a divine dictate that women are to be morally, legally, socially, economically and spiritually equal to men--because it would have such a profound effect on the Ancient Israelite social, political and religious order--would be an eleventh commandment and it would be expressed in literal language just like the other commandments. In the Pre-Mosaic period the Hebrews and the other ethnic groups in the Ancient Near East that neighboured them were idolatrous and polytheistic. They were also patriarchal. A shift from patriarchy to sexual egalitarianism is no less significant and challenging than an abandonment of idolatry and polytheism. But somehow it doesn't merit even one literal statement.

Deuteronomy contains this plain language command:

A presumably infrequent event of relative insignificance. Yet a similar statement on sexual equality is nowhere to be found.

As a matter of practice in Academia, being the first one to challenge scholarly consensus does not invalidate a scholar. It gets other scholars thinking. Glad to see you thinking.

If I posted an essay on the web which made the claim that there are no such things as viruses I too would be challenging the "scholarly consensus" but that in and of itself means nothing. Anyone can make a statement that contradicts expert consensus. Marshall stated that there is no such thing as gravity--that too contradicts the scientific consensus. But since it is an absurd and unsubstantiated claim it doesn't merit any serious interest.

You haven't provided anything compelling which would justify rejecting the academic consensus that Torah is patriarchal. Stating that Torah is patriarchal isn't a controversial position, there are no academic debates about this presently.

And while I am glad to see that you are aware of Jewish Feminists and that you recognize them, you've left out Tal Ilan, author of "Women in Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls" (2010) who recognized the gender equality aspects of that Jewish sect. This writing is available here:

Tal Ilan did no such thing nor does she claim that Torah is sexually egalitarian. She writes the following in the chapter you linked:

Ilan is concurring with Wassen who--as but one example of the sexism in CD (otherwise known as D)--writes (in Women In The Damascus Document) this:

Also this:

Which is even more unequal in its treatment of women than the Levitical laws. Wassen unequivocally states that CD embodies a sexual double standard, and you are claiming the opposite is true.

I could continue further with more patriarchal and sexist law in CD. CD doesn't help you, it lends nothing to your claims about sexual equality in Torah. You appear to not have any understanding of the meaning and significance of the (feminist) work of Ilan and those upon which she references such as Wassman.

I will explain it to you. Prior to the discovery of the Qumran library it was believed that the Essenes were a Jewish sect of celibate men. This is what the historians Josephus, Philo and Pliny wrote. When the Qumran library was discovered it was linked to the Essenes. The relationship between the Qumran library and the Essenes is the subject of some debate. Ilan subscribes to the view that the Qumran texts do belong to the Essenes.

Ilan's interest is in determining if there were any women in Qumran. Ilan uses the Qumran texts to demonstrate that their were indeed women in Qumran. If there were women in she wants to describe their role. At the beginning of her book Wassman is kind enough to tell us to temper our expectations, that we will not find a description of a feminist utopia in Qumran library.

This writing is particularly important because it demonstrates the gender equality principle that that Jewish sect held. Ilan demonstrates this through an analysis of why Leviticus 18 omits a passage about Uncle's marrying their nieces. It says in Lev. 18 that nephews cannot marry their Aunts but oddly enough it is not directly written in that passage that Uncle's cannot marry their nieces. The Qumran/DSS community however, reasoned that because gender equality was written into The Torah, the same applied to Uncles and nieces. How did they reach that conclusion? A quote from Tal Ilan's writing:

"Here CD states that, 'while it is true that this prohibition is absent from the list of incestuous relationships recorded in Leviticus 18
the mirror opposite, marriage to an aunt, is', and ‘The rule of incest is written for males but refers equally to women’ (CD 5:9-11)

Filling in a gap by specifying the reciprocal restriction with regard to an incest taboo isn't a remarkable expression of sexual equality. All cultures have incest taboos, it is a human universal. Incest avoidance prevents inbreeding which in turn can cause congenital defects in the offspring. Uncles/nieces and Aunts/nephews have the same degree of relative consanguinity. It doesn't make any sense to prohibit one and allow the other.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17)

It isn't stated, "You shall not covet your neighbour's husband". Does that mean that women are free to do so? No, it's implied that it applies to woman also.

So here we have a Jewish feminist writing about gender equality principles in The Torah recognized by a Jewish sect.

No, unfortunately we don't.

In The Torah, there are often double meanings to passages. This is widely accepted by all sects of Judaism. Even Christians actually.

Yes but there are also many passages that have a single, plain language meaning

For example, it is commonly known that the phrase "you shall not muzzle and ox while treading the grain" literally means that you should allow an ox to chew the cud/don't put a muzzle on it. It also has a spiritual meaning. That you should not hold back the food/wages of a clan leader/the Ox of the family.

It is introduced in Deuteronomy 25:4 and occurs only there. Consulting the Talmud we can see that Jews understood it as a literal commandment.

We don't see that verse again until Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 where he is asking for money. It's not spiritual, it's financial. Paul is using Deuteronomy 25:4 as metaphor: he is the treading ox, doing work and the threshed wheat which he is free to eat because he is not muzzled is his remuneration. He is saying he wants to be paid for his ministering, proselytizing and evangelising.

Even the Orthodox Rabbis recognize this dual meaning of phrases with things like the word "nakedness". In Genesis it says "and they were naked and unashamed". Orthodox Rabbis have long interpreted the word "naked" to mean your inner spirit, the seat of one's heart and thoughts. If you aren't aware of that, here is a link for a sample: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3266667?seq=1

Here is also the Reform Jew take on it, which shows that "nakedness" has a dual meaning: https://reformjudaism.org/learning/torah-study/torah-commentary/nakedness-and-vulnerability

Figurative language and deliberate ambiguity are not confined to Jewish Scripture, they are found in fiction, poetry, song, advertisements and jokes. You aren't stating anything esoteric, it is banality.

So these two words here, שׁלמה and צדק are from the roots of words meaning "Shalom" and "Righteousness" (Tzedakah).

This is irrelevant.

Keep that in mind as we proceed here. Also, the word for weight is H68 אבן and for measure there is H374: אֵיפָה.

No, this is incorrect. In context they mean the following:

אבן = stone, stone weight used on one side of a scale

אֵיפָה. = epha, unit of dry volume or receptacle that holds 1 epha

The word אבן has figurative meanings in Isa. 8:14, Ezek. 11:19, Ezek. 36:26, to name just a few

So what? What is the significance of this? Any competent speaker of English understands expressions such as "thin skinned", "glass jaw", "hot tempered", "dirt poor", "ïnflated ego", "burning desire" etc. No one is disputing that figurative language exists. I explicitly made reference to the concept in my first post. Students learn about figurative language in high school.

Here are some verses that show that the word "measure" in Hebrew has a figurative meaning. Micah 6:10 is a weaker proof

No, that has only a literal meaning. The verse describes a household full of treasure that was obtained through deception using dishonest scales. The epha weight is not a true epha. The "scant measure" is a measure that is shorter, shallower or lighter than it should be.

How can that be in any way construed to be about "gender equality"? It is absurd to suggest so.

but any doubt that is left is settled by Zec. 5:10.

In this context epha refers to the receptacle that can contain and measure out one epha of dry produce (e.g. grain). This is usually a basket.

This is a description of a vision in which wickedness, injustice and sin is personified as a woman and this somehow represents "gender equality". The woman (she must be small) that represents iniquity has been trapped in a basket, an epha, which has been closed with a lead lid and is being flown out to Babylon, the land of the enemies of the Israelites. If anything, using a woman to symbolise iniquity is misogynistic.

More importantly, are the words of my Rabbi. This is what he taught, likening a "measure" to someone's behaviour (using "measure" in figurative language):

"For the way you judge others is how you will be judged — the measure with which you measure out will be used to measure to you" (Matthew 7:2)

"Measure" and "weight" have figurative meanings in Hebrew too.

Again, this fails to relate anything about "gender equality". The measure in this context is a normative standard of behaviour. In plain language, the verse says that it is not permissible to have one standard to judge your own behaviour and another to judge the behaviour of others. Metaphorically speaking, the moral yardstick that you apply to others' behaviour you should also apply to yourself. There are other interpretations of this verse that I am aware of but none of them bring us any closer to sex egalitarianism.

 

[Deadpool]

I don't think you understand academic feminism and its history. First-wave, second-wave, and third wave refer to phases of feminist thought and activity--they do not describe Jewish feminism. These scholars' ages are irrelevant, they can adhere to the theory and concerns of any phase of feminism they choose. Fourth-wave feminism is supposed to be the current phase and one of its main concerns is intersectionality. Since you have never used that term or invoked the concept it is unlikely you know what it means. In any event, the ideas and concerns of fourth-wave feminism are irrelevant to scriptural hermeneutics.



This is relevant only when that first of a kind has merit and it represents novelty. You aren't the first person to attempt Torah interpretation and you haven't presented a new exegetical method or intertextuality. All you've done is assert that a divine command about honest weights and measures is also about sexual egalitarianism. You still haven't explained how this could be so, you've merely repeated your assertion.

The prohibition of false weights and measures appears six times in the Tanakh, semantically identical in each case. Without further loss of parchment space and the retention of the repetition five times, one of the reiterations could have been expressed literally; it could state explicitly in plain, literal language that women are morally, legally, socially, economically and spiritually equal to men. Yet this is not the case. Is the sixth repetition absolutely necessary?

Further, a divine dictate that women are to be morally, legally, socially, economically and spiritually equal to men--because it would have such a profound effect on the Ancient Israelite social, political and religious order--would be an eleventh commandment and it would be expressed in literal language just like the other commandments. In the Pre-Mosaic period the Hebrews and the other ethnic groups in the Ancient Near East that neighboured them were idolatrous and polytheistic. They were also patriarchal. A shift from patriarchy to sexual egalitarianism is no less significant and challenging than an abandonment of idolatry and polytheism. But somehow it doesn't merit even one literal statement.

Deuteronomy contains this plain language command:

View attachment 1674337

A presumably infrequent event of relative insignificance. Yet a similar statement on sexual equality is nowhere to be found.



If I posted an essay on the web which made the claim that there are no such things as viruses I too would be challenging the "scholarly consensus" but that in and of itself means nothing. Anyone can make a statement that contradicts expert consensus. Marshall stated that there is no such thing as gravity--that too contradicts the scientific consensus. But since it is an absurd and unsubstantiated claim it doesn't merit any serious interest.

You haven't provided anything compelling which would justify rejecting the academic consensus that Torah is patriarchal. Stating that Torah is patriarchal isn't a controversial position, there are no academic debates about this presently.



Tal Ilan did no such thing nor does she claim that Torah is sexually egalitarian. She writes the following in the chapter you linked:

View attachment 1674437

Ilan is concurring with Wassen who--as but one example of the sexism in CD (otherwise known as D)--writes (in Women In The Damascus Document) this:

View attachment 1674451

Also this:

View attachment 1674552

Which is even more unequal in its treatment of women than the Levitical laws. Wassen unequivocally states that CD embodies a sexual double standard, and you are claiming the opposite is true.

View attachment 1674589

I could continue further with more patriarchal and sexist law in CD. CD doesn't help you, it lends nothing to your claims about sexual equality in Torah. You appear to not have any understanding of the meaning and significance of the (feminist) work of Ilan and those upon which she references such as Wassman.

I will explain it to you. Prior to the discovery of the Qumran library it was believed that the Essenes were a Jewish sect of celibate men. This is what the historians Josephus, Philo and Pliny wrote. When the Qumran library was discovered it was linked to the Essenes. The relationship between the Qumran library and the Essenes is the subject of some debate. Ilan subscribes to the view that the Qumran texts do belong to the Essenes.

Ilan's interest is in determining if there were any women in Qumran. Ilan uses the Qumran texts to demonstrate that their were indeed women in Qumran. If there were women in she wants to describe their role. At the beginning of her book Wassman is kind enough to tell us to temper our expectations, that we will not find a description of a feminist utopia in Qumran library.

View attachment 1674697


Filling in a gap by specifying the reciprocal restriction with regard to an incest taboo isn't a remarkable expression of sexual equality. All cultures have incest taboos, it is a human universal. Incest avoidance prevents inbreeding which in turn can cause congenital defects in the offspring. Uncles/nieces and Aunts/nephews have the same degree of relative consanguinity. It doesn't make any sense to prohibit one and allow the other.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17)

It isn't stated, "You shall not covet your neighbour's husband". Does that mean that women are free to do so? No, it's implied that it applies to woman also.



No, unfortunately we don't.



Yes but there are also many passages that have a single, plain language meaning



It is introduced in Deuteronomy 25:4 and occurs only there. Consulting the Talmud we can see that Jews understood it as a literal commandment.

We don't see that verse again until Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 where he is asking for money. It's not spiritual, it's financial. Paul is using Deuteronomy 25:4 as metaphor: he is the treading ox, doing work and the threshed wheat which he is free to eat because he is not muzzled is his remuneration. He is saying he wants to be paid for his ministering, proselytizing and evangelising.



Figurative language and deliberate ambiguity are not confined to Jewish Scripture, they are found in fiction, poetry, song, advertisements and jokes. You aren't stating anything esoteric, it is banality.



This is irrelevant.



No, this is incorrect. In context they mean the following:

אבן = stone, stone weight used on one side of a scale

אֵיפָה. = epha, unit of dry volume or receptacle that holds 1 epha



So what? What is the significance of this? Any competent speaker of English understands expressions such as "thin skinned", "glass jaw", "hot tempered", "dirt poor", "ïnflated ego", "burning desire" etc. No one is disputing that figurative language exists. I explicitly made reference to the concept in my first post. Students learn about figurative language in high school.



No, that has only a literal meaning. The verse describes a household full of treasure that was obtained through deception using dishonest scales. The epha weight is not a true epha. The "scant measure" is a measure that is shorter, shallower or lighter than it should be.

View attachment 1675198

How can that be in any way construed to be about "gender equality"? It is absurd to suggest so.



In this context epha refers to the receptacle that can contain and measure out one epha of dry produce (e.g. grain). This is usually a basket.

View attachment 1675318

This is a description of a vision in which wickedness, injustice and sin is personified as a woman and this somehow represents "gender equality". The woman (she must be small) that represents iniquity has been trapped in a basket, an epha, which has been closed with a lead lid and is being flown out to Babylon, the land of the enemies of the Israelites. If anything, using a woman to symbolise iniquity is misogynistic.



Again, this fails to relate anything about "gender equality". The measure in this context is a normative standard of behaviour. In plain language, the verse says that it is not permissible to have one standard to judge your own behaviour and another to judge the behaviour of others. Metaphorically speaking, the moral yardstick that you apply to others' behaviour you should also apply to yourself. There are other interpretations of this verse that I am aware of but none of them bring us any closer to sex egalitarianism.

Dude that was a great post and informational as fuck, but it's kinda wasted here. Melinda is just going to dismiss it, insult you and call you a goy. She's incredibly stupid and incredibly insecure about it. You posted something way above her ability to understand so she's just gonna lash out.

That said please continue these kind of posts because they are very interesting.

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

I don't think you understand academic feminism and its history. First-wave, second-wave, and third wave refer to phases of feminist thought and activity--they do not describe Jewish feminism. These scholars' ages are irrelevant, they can adhere to the theory and concerns of any phase of feminism they choose. Fourth-wave feminism is supposed to be the current phase and one of its main concerns is intersectionality. Since you have never used that term or invoked the concept it is unlikely you know what it means. In any event, the ideas and concerns of fourth-wave feminism are irrelevant to scriptural hermeneutics.



This is relevant only when that first of a kind has merit and it represents novelty. You aren't the first person to attempt Torah interpretation and you haven't presented a new exegetical method or intertextuality. All you've done is assert that a divine command about honest weights and measures is also about sexual egalitarianism. You still haven't explained how this could be so, you've merely repeated your assertion.

The prohibition of false weights and measures appears six times in the Tanakh, semantically identical in each case. Without further loss of parchment space and the retention of the repetition five times, one of the reiterations could have been expressed literally; it could state explicitly in plain, literal language that women are morally, legally, socially, economically and spiritually equal to men. Yet this is not the case. Is the sixth repetition absolutely necessary?

Further, a divine dictate that women are to be morally, legally, socially, economically and spiritually equal to men--because it would have such a profound effect on the Ancient Israelite social, political and religious order--would be an eleventh commandment and it would be expressed in literal language just like the other commandments. In the Pre-Mosaic period the Hebrews and the other ethnic groups in the Ancient Near East that neighboured them were idolatrous and polytheistic. They were also patriarchal. A shift from patriarchy to sexual egalitarianism is no less significant and challenging than an abandonment of idolatry and polytheism. But somehow it doesn't merit even one literal statement.

Deuteronomy contains this plain language command:

View attachment 1674337

A presumably infrequent event of relative insignificance. Yet a similar statement on sexual equality is nowhere to be found.



If I posted an essay on the web which made the claim that there are no such things as viruses I too would be challenging the "scholarly consensus" but that in and of itself means nothing. Anyone can make a statement that contradicts expert consensus. Marshall stated that there is no such thing as gravity--that too contradicts the scientific consensus. But since it is an absurd and unsubstantiated claim it doesn't merit any serious interest.

You haven't provided anything compelling which would justify rejecting the academic consensus that Torah is patriarchal. Stating that Torah is patriarchal isn't a controversial position, there are no academic debates about this presently.



Tal Ilan did no such thing nor does she claim that Torah is sexually egalitarian. She writes the following in the chapter you linked:

View attachment 1674437

Ilan is concurring with Wassen who--as but one example of the sexism in CD (otherwise known as D)--writes (in Women In The Damascus Document) this:

View attachment 1674451

Also this:

View attachment 1674552

Which is even more unequal in its treatment of women than the Levitical laws. Wassen unequivocally states that CD embodies a sexual double standard, and you are claiming the opposite is true.

View attachment 1674589

I could continue further with more patriarchal and sexist law in CD. CD doesn't help you, it lends nothing to your claims about sexual equality in Torah. You appear to not have any understanding of the meaning and significance of the (feminist) work of Ilan and those upon which she references such as Wassman.

I will explain it to you. Prior to the discovery of the Qumran library it was believed that the Essenes were a Jewish sect of celibate men. This is what the historians Josephus, Philo and Pliny wrote. When the Qumran library was discovered it was linked to the Essenes. The relationship between the Qumran library and the Essenes is the subject of some debate. Ilan subscribes to the view that the Qumran texts do belong to the Essenes.

Ilan's interest is in determining if there were any women in Qumran. Ilan uses the Qumran texts to demonstrate that their were indeed women in Qumran. If there were women in she wants to describe their role. At the beginning of her book Wassman is kind enough to tell us to temper our expectations, that we will not find a description of a feminist utopia in Qumran library.

View attachment 1674697


Filling in a gap by specifying the reciprocal restriction with regard to an incest taboo isn't a remarkable expression of sexual equality. All cultures have incest taboos, it is a human universal. Incest avoidance prevents inbreeding which in turn can cause congenital defects in the offspring. Uncles/nieces and Aunts/nephews have the same degree of relative consanguinity. It doesn't make any sense to prohibit one and allow the other.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17)

It isn't stated, "You shall not covet your neighbour's husband". Does that mean that women are free to do so? No, it's implied that it applies to woman also.



No, unfortunately we don't.



Yes but there are also many passages that have a single, plain language meaning



It is introduced in Deuteronomy 25:4 and occurs only there. Consulting the Talmud we can see that Jews understood it as a literal commandment.

We don't see that verse again until Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 where he is asking for money. It's not spiritual, it's financial. Paul is using Deuteronomy 25:4 as metaphor: he is the treading ox, doing work and the threshed wheat which he is free to eat because he is not muzzled is his remuneration. He is saying he wants to be paid for his ministering, proselytizing and evangelising.



Figurative language and deliberate ambiguity are not confined to Jewish Scripture, they are found in fiction, poetry, song, advertisements and jokes. You aren't stating anything esoteric, it is banality.



This is irrelevant.



No, this is incorrect. In context they mean the following:

אבן = stone, stone weight used on one side of a scale

אֵיפָה. = epha, unit of dry volume or receptacle that holds 1 epha



So what? What is the significance of this? Any competent speaker of English understands expressions such as "thin skinned", "glass jaw", "hot tempered", "dirt poor", "ïnflated ego", "burning desire" etc. No one is disputing that figurative language exists. I explicitly made reference to the concept in my first post. Students learn about figurative language in high school.



No, that has only a literal meaning. The verse describes a household full of treasure that was obtained through deception using dishonest scales. The epha weight is not a true epha. The "scant measure" is a measure that is shorter, shallower or lighter than it should be.

View attachment 1675198

How can that be in any way construed to be about "gender equality"? It is absurd to suggest so.



In this context epha refers to the receptacle that can contain and measure out one epha of dry produce (e.g. grain). This is usually a basket.

View attachment 1675318

This is a description of a vision in which wickedness, injustice and sin is personified as a woman and this somehow represents "gender equality". The woman (she must be small) that represents iniquity has been trapped in a basket, an epha, which has been closed with a lead lid and is being flown out to Babylon, the land of the enemies of the Israelites. If anything, using a woman to symbolise iniquity is misogynistic.



Again, this fails to relate anything about "gender equality". The measure in this context is a normative standard of behaviour. In plain language, the verse says that it is not permissible to have one standard to judge your own behaviour and another to judge the behaviour of others. Metaphorically speaking, the moral yardstick that you apply to others' behaviour you should also apply to yourself. There are other interpretations of this verse that I am aware of but none of them bring us any closer to sex egalitarianism.

By all means, keep at it as long as it entertains you. Having someone bother to actually humor her in a debate makes her responses look even more retarded than usual. Like Deadpool said, it’s wasted on Melinda, but keep going.

Correction. I say debate, but honestly it’s more like a smack down as Melinda gets squashed like a bug with someone able to cite articles other than the LA Times and her own writing.

 

[White Baby]

I don't think you understand academic feminism and its history. First-wave, second-wave, and third wave refer to phases of feminist thought and activity--they do not describe Jewish feminism. These scholars' ages are irrelevant, they can adhere to the theory and concerns of any phase of feminism they choose. Fourth-wave feminism is supposed to be the current phase and one of its main concerns is intersectionality. Since you have never used that term or invoked the concept it is unlikely you know what it means. In any event, the ideas and concerns of fourth-wave feminism are irrelevant to scriptural hermeneutics.



This is relevant only when that first of a kind has merit and it represents novelty. You aren't the first person to attempt Torah interpretation and you haven't presented a new exegetical method or intertextuality. All you've done is assert that a divine command about honest weights and measures is also about sexual egalitarianism. You still haven't explained how this could be so, you've merely repeated your assertion.

The prohibition of false weights and measures appears six times in the Tanakh, semantically identical in each case. Without further loss of parchment space and the retention of the repetition five times, one of the reiterations could have been expressed literally; it could state explicitly in plain, literal language that women are morally, legally, socially, economically and spiritually equal to men. Yet this is not the case. Is the sixth repetition absolutely necessary?

Further, a divine dictate that women are to be morally, legally, socially, economically and spiritually equal to men--because it would have such a profound effect on the Ancient Israelite social, political and religious order--would be an eleventh commandment and it would be expressed in literal language just like the other commandments. In the Pre-Mosaic period the Hebrews and the other ethnic groups in the Ancient Near East that neighboured them were idolatrous and polytheistic. They were also patriarchal. A shift from patriarchy to sexual egalitarianism is no less significant and challenging than an abandonment of idolatry and polytheism. But somehow it doesn't merit even one literal statement.

Deuteronomy contains this plain language command:

View attachment 1674337

A presumably infrequent event of relative insignificance. Yet a similar statement on sexual equality is nowhere to be found.



If I posted an essay on the web which made the claim that there are no such things as viruses I too would be challenging the "scholarly consensus" but that in and of itself means nothing. Anyone can make a statement that contradicts expert consensus. Marshall stated that there is no such thing as gravity--that too contradicts the scientific consensus. But since it is an absurd and unsubstantiated claim it doesn't merit any serious interest.

You haven't provided anything compelling which would justify rejecting the academic consensus that Torah is patriarchal. Stating that Torah is patriarchal isn't a controversial position, there are no academic debates about this presently.



Tal Ilan did no such thing nor does she claim that Torah is sexually egalitarian. She writes the following in the chapter you linked:

View attachment 1674437

Ilan is concurring with Wassen who--as but one example of the sexism in CD (otherwise known as D)--writes (in Women In The Damascus Document) this:

View attachment 1674451

Also this:

View attachment 1674552

Which is even more unequal in its treatment of women than the Levitical laws. Wassen unequivocally states that CD embodies a sexual double standard, and you are claiming the opposite is true.

View attachment 1674589

I could continue further with more patriarchal and sexist law in CD. CD doesn't help you, it lends nothing to your claims about sexual equality in Torah. You appear to not have any understanding of the meaning and significance of the (feminist) work of Ilan and those upon which she references such as Wassman.

I will explain it to you. Prior to the discovery of the Qumran library it was believed that the Essenes were a Jewish sect of celibate men. This is what the historians Josephus, Philo and Pliny wrote. When the Qumran library was discovered it was linked to the Essenes. The relationship between the Qumran library and the Essenes is the subject of some debate. Ilan subscribes to the view that the Qumran texts do belong to the Essenes.

Ilan's interest is in determining if there were any women in Qumran. Ilan uses the Qumran texts to demonstrate that their were indeed women in Qumran. If there were women in she wants to describe their role. At the beginning of her book Wassman is kind enough to tell us to temper our expectations, that we will not find a description of a feminist utopia in Qumran library.

View attachment 1674697


Filling in a gap by specifying the reciprocal restriction with regard to an incest taboo isn't a remarkable expression of sexual equality. All cultures have incest taboos, it is a human universal. Incest avoidance prevents inbreeding which in turn can cause congenital defects in the offspring. Uncles/nieces and Aunts/nephews have the same degree of relative consanguinity. It doesn't make any sense to prohibit one and allow the other.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” (Exodus 20:17)

It isn't stated, "You shall not covet your neighbour's husband". Does that mean that women are free to do so? No, it's implied that it applies to woman also.



No, unfortunately we don't.



Yes but there are also many passages that have a single, plain language meaning



It is introduced in Deuteronomy 25:4 and occurs only there. Consulting the Talmud we can see that Jews understood it as a literal commandment.

We don't see that verse again until Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and 1 Timothy 5:18 where he is asking for money. It's not spiritual, it's financial. Paul is using Deuteronomy 25:4 as metaphor: he is the treading ox, doing work and the threshed wheat which he is free to eat because he is not muzzled is his remuneration. He is saying he wants to be paid for his ministering, proselytizing and evangelising.



Figurative language and deliberate ambiguity are not confined to Jewish Scripture, they are found in fiction, poetry, song, advertisements and jokes. You aren't stating anything esoteric, it is banality.



This is irrelevant.



No, this is incorrect. In context they mean the following:

אבן = stone, stone weight used on one side of a scale

אֵיפָה. = epha, unit of dry volume or receptacle that holds 1 epha



So what? What is the significance of this? Any competent speaker of English understands expressions such as "thin skinned", "glass jaw", "hot tempered", "dirt poor", "ïnflated ego", "burning desire" etc. No one is disputing that figurative language exists. I explicitly made reference to the concept in my first post. Students learn about figurative language in high school.



No, that has only a literal meaning. The verse describes a household full of treasure that was obtained through deception using dishonest scales. The epha weight is not a true epha. The "scant measure" is a measure that is shorter, shallower or lighter than it should be.

View attachment 1675198

How can that be in any way construed to be about "gender equality"? It is absurd to suggest so.



In this context epha refers to the receptacle that can contain and measure out one epha of dry produce (e.g. grain). This is usually a basket.

View attachment 1675318

This is a description of a vision in which wickedness, injustice and sin is personified as a woman and this somehow represents "gender equality". The woman (she must be small) that represents iniquity has been trapped in a basket, an epha, which has been closed with a lead lid and is being flown out to Babylon, the land of the enemies of the Israelites. If anything, using a woman to symbolise iniquity is misogynistic.



Again, this fails to relate anything about "gender equality". The measure in this context is a normative standard of behaviour. In plain language, the verse says that it is not permissible to have one standard to judge your own behaviour and another to judge the behaviour of others. Metaphorically speaking, the moral yardstick that you apply to others' behaviour you should also apply to yourself. There are other interpretations of this verse that I am aware of but none of them bring us any closer to sex egalitarianism.

Even if this is way too long and intelligent for her to read I for one have gained a year of college education simply by skimming over this post.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

In any event, the ideas and concerns of fourth-wave feminism are irrelevant to scriptural hermeneutics.

Not exactly

A presumably infrequent event of relative insignificance. Yet a similar statement on sexual equality is nowhere to be found.

Yes actually it is. Deut 25:13-15. Equal weight and measures

You still haven't explained how this could be so, you've merely repeated your assertion.

I did plenty of explaining. You just are still fighting for Patriarchy.

But since it is an absurd and unsubstantiated claim it doesn't merit any serious interest.

Not if it can be supported with logic and reason

could continue further with more patriarchal and sexist law in CD. CD doesn't help you, it lends nothing to your claims about sexual equality in Torah. You appear to not have any understanding of the meaning and significance of the (feminist) work of Ilan and those upon which she references such as Wassman.

A survey of scholastic opinions doesn't proove anything, it merely states their opinion. I never said Tal Ilan was a full fledged gender equality feminist. She makes some progress as a woman in the section that I quoted.

All your screenshots are scholar's opinions. Not full analysis on The Torah. It simply a regurgitation of old scholarship.

At one time it was accepted that a male X or Y chromosome determined the gender of a baby. Of course, biased scholarships, funded by a Patriarchal concept world. Guess what?! Now scholars say the woman's egg chooses the gender of the baby too!!

CD sure does prove my point. The community applied a law equally to women. They even used the Hebrew equivalence of "equally".

Just because some male scholars interpret DSS through the lens of The Talmud or Patriarchal BIAS doesn't make them correct

I will explain it to you.

You don't need to explain anything to me. I can think for myself.

Not only that but you're like a smoking chimney. You put off a lot of smoke but you have no real substance, just a bunch of words

Wassen unequivocally states that CD embodies a sexual double standard, and you are claiming the opposite is true.

I don't care what Wassen says. Without incorporating male virginity laws in Deuteronomy and Jubilees, texts also found at Qumran, then they haven't done proper Exegesis.

This is how scholars get it wrong: you can't omit other texts and isolate one like Leviticus. As The Messiah said: "But it also says...".

Here are the books Wassen missed that show The Torah equally has male virginity standards:

https://www.academia.edu/39115341/Gender_Equality_in_The_Torah

Again, this fails to relate anything about "gender equality". The measure in this context is a normative standard of behaviour. In plain language, the verse says that it is not permissible to have one standard to judge your own behaviour and another to judge the behaviour of others. Metaphorically speaking, the moral yardstick that you apply to others' behaviour you should also apply to yourself. There are other interpretations of this verse that I am aware of but none of them bring us any closer to sex egalitarianism.

A lot of words and you've established nothing in opposition to what I said.

Here's some more for you to see you're wrong:

https://www.academia.edu/39115341/Gender_Equality_in_The_Torah

@TamarYaelBatYah Does it bother you that no man will ever love you? Seeing as how you are little more than a used up breeder, no worthwhile man will want anything to do with you. Is that why you are so mad?
Is it because you are a shrill harpy with the sex appeal of a half eaten cube steak? And that you are going to die alone after your children flee from home/get rescued by CPS.

The Patriarchal concept of Aristotle that women are just incubators of me seed has already been discussed on this thread.

Post in thread 'Melinda Leigh Scott & Marshall Castersen' https://kiwifarms.net/threads/melinda-leigh-scott-marshall-castersen.32118/post-7554672

 

[Deadpool]

Here are the books Wassen missed that show The Torah equally has male virginity standards:

https://www.academia.edu/39115341/Gender_Equality_in_The_Torah

Garbage article by a garbage author. No one cares about your shitty pay to post ramblings. Stop citing it like it's a legitimate work of scholarship, when it's actually the pooly written drivel of a retarded narcassist.

 

[TamarYaelBatYah]

And I noticed you overlooked her Conclusions/concluding remarks:

"A careful consideration of the above will have by now shown that reading for gender can be peformed much more fruitfully than has been previously done, or even considered possible, and that its late blossoming results from previously preconceived notions about the nature of women and gender. While we are now in a position to read all the documents from Qumran, and I have drawn attention in the above to many aspects which have hitherto been ignored, I have no doubt that I myself have fallen prey to similar preconceived notions. Much more about women and gender in Qumran will certainly come to light in the future, as scholars, more conscious of their own prejudices, will study these texts with open eyes."

Well said Tal Ilan!



She knows the next wave of feminists are coming

 

[White Baby]

And I noticed you overlooked her Conclusions/concluding remarks:


View attachment 1675911


"A careful consideration of the above will have by now shown that reading for gender can be peformed much more fruitfully than has been previously done, or even considered possible, and that its late blossoming results from previously preconceived notions about the nature of women and gender. While we are now in a position to read all the documents from Qumran, and I have drawn attention in the above to many aspects which have hitherto been ignored, I have no doubt that I myself have fallen prey to similar preconceived notions. Much more about women and gender in Qumran will certainly come to light in the future, as scholars, more conscious of their own prejudices, will study these texts with open eyes."

Well said Tal Ilan!



She knows the next wave of feminists are coming

How is that at all relevant to what they were talking about?

 

[Toasty]

Hey, @TamarYaelBatYah, are you aware that your thread title still lists you as a"couple" with Marshall, and that this thread is not in fact YOUR thread, but held in tandem with your former partner, and assumes that you espouse his views. Interesting word. Espouse.
I wonder if there is something you can do about the thread title, which includes your name, shows up in search engines, and let's anyone readings it believe that you are still a partner to Marshall. We all know that either you are legally married by the state of va, and are lying about being divorced, or, you lied about being legally married, and all you need to be divorced is to say so. So which is it?

 

[Burmese Rice Farmer]

And I noticed you overlooked her Conclusions/concluding remarks:


View attachment 1675911


"A careful consideration of the above will have by now shown that reading for gender can be peformed much more fruitfully than has been previously done, or even considered possible, and that its late blossoming results from previously preconceived notions about the nature of women and gender. While we are now in a position to read all the documents from Qumran, and I have drawn attention in the above to many aspects which have hitherto been ignored, I have no doubt that I myself have fallen prey to similar preconceived notions. Much more about women and gender in Qumran will certainly come to light in the future, as scholars, more conscious of their own prejudices, will study these texts with open eyes."

Well said Tal Ilan!



She knows the next wave of feminists are coming

Hey hijueputa, a conclusion doesn't validate or unvalidate the points of the actual essay itself, it basically serves as a fucking tl;dr
And I can only fear what the next wave of feminists are gonna be like when third wave was such a fucking shitstorm, if you're part of it the movement is instantly dead

 

[Chariot Of Mara]

Calling someone a chimney? Aaaaaaaaaaand there’s that good old ad hominem she can’t help breaking out. Fascinating defense mechanism. But not really. Yahoobydoobydoo forbid she ever be corrected.

Addition: Melinda really shines right here in her response, unable to help herself from attacking the person responding to her politely and respectfully. I’d honestly love to see her in a live debate. She’d be kicked out of the room the first instant she said “I don’t care about that source and you’re a meanie poop head trying to explain something!”

 

[Deadpool]

You put off a lot of smoke but you have no real substance, just a bunch of words

I love it when you make posts like this because the lack of self awareness is staggering. You just described every post and """"""""article"""""""" you've ever written and your book pamphlet. Nothing comes from the rancid anus you call a brain except verbal diarrhea.

 

[Toasty]

However, I also digress. There are evil Israelites who use the name of YHWH. But how to steer 100% clear of them is still something I am pondering. Is it possible that we just have to accept the fact that we can never 100% protect ourselves from the evil of others? Is it possible that we just have to accept that any time we intertwine our life intimately with another human being that we expose ourselves to the possibility of injury

This is super late, but I found it really telling about Melinda's emoji maturity. This concept that she is address I here is one most people figure out in highschool or college. Melinda has been through numerous committed relationships, many resulting in children, one consanguineous, although we don't yet know if that one involved commitment.
She's approaching middle age, and still asking "if I get involved, is it possible that I might get hurt?"
Umm yeah, that's kinda how it goes. Although at some point in adulthood it becomes a more calculated risk. Spending time with someone, seeing how they live their lives, treat others. For example I won't date a lousy tipper.
How can a mother of 6 be so emotionally retarded?

 

[A Cardboard Box]

This is super late, but I found it really telling about Melinda's emoji maturity. This concept that she is address I here is one most people figure out in highschool or college. Melinda has been through numerous committed relationships, many resulting in children, one consanguineous, although we don't yet know if that one involved commitment.
She's approaching middle age, and still asking "if I get involved, is it possible that I might get hurt?"
Umm yeah, that's kinda how it goes. Although at some point in adulthood it becomes a more calculated risk. Spending time with someone, seeing how they live their lives, treat others. For example I won't date a lousy tipper.
How can a mother of 6 be so emotionally retarded?

Most people grow and mature as they get older and experience what works and what doesn't, but unfortunately Mel is terrified on a kernel level of being wrong in any way, shape, or form, which naturally precludes a lot of character development.

She is developmentally trapped on that angsty, edgy, know it all teenage level.

 

[CyrusKissFanClub]

Stuff with bad grammar and random capitalisation.

I'm not going to respond to the components of your post because you merely repeated your assertions. You neither responded to what I posted nor did you advance your argument beyond your initial poorly supported claims.

Your claim is that Tora and CD contain or embody the notion of "gender equality". You have failed to demonstrate that this is the case. You repeatedly assert that commandments about ancient weights and measures support your position. You merely repeat this assertion as if the mere act of repetition will eventually persuade. There is neither scholarly support for your claim nor have you been able to support it on your own.

Even worse for you is that your contention is anachronistic and Eurocentric. You exhibit a complete ignorance of intellectual history. First-wave feminism grew out of classical liberalism which grew out of the European Age of Enlightenment in the 17th-18th centuries. There never was any such intellectual movement in the Near East and there still isn't today in numerous countries in that region. The Near East didn't produce the idea of sexual egalitarianism and it never could have. Lebanon and Israel are the only two democracies in the region and many of the countries of that region are ranked amongst the worst of the Global Gender Gap 2020 (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf). Israel is the only standout of the region and was built on and is maintained by the principles of liberal democracy not Torah.

Your attempt to find and/or insert a political ideology that originated in the 1960s in the USA, namely second-wave feminism, into an ancient Semitic culture is ridiculous. It shows that you understand neither 20th-century US political history nor ancient Near-East anthropology.

But your claim has a fatal flaw that renders it stillborn. The claim that Torah dictates a sexually egalitarian society has repercussions which have not occurred to you. Given that the early Israelites were patriarchal, this would have represented another instance of disobedience to Yahweh's commandments. It would have been the first act of disobedience. This would have resulted in their punishment and it would have produced another instructive and edifying story in the Tanakh for future generations. There is no such narrative in the Tanakh nor is there any historical record of ancient Israelite society transitioning from patriarchy to egalitarianism.

Lastly, your writing is not only devoid of intellect and learning you have no understanding of English grammar, you don't know the meaning of many words you use, you lack the vocabulary to clearly express your banal and demented thoughts and have zero intellectual integrity.

You repeatedly claim that you want to "debate". Before debate can occur dialogue must occur. Dialogue requires a common understanding of word meanings, spelling and grammar, and intellectual honesty. Your posting activity barely rises to the level of dialogue let alone debate. You do such things as redefine words, assert A when our eyes see it's not-A and exercise no interpretational charity.

Basic stuff:

goy = singular
goyim = plural

Not a proper noun so capitalise only if first word of a sentence

Apostrophe is not used to form plural; it denotes possession of the noun or abbreviation

"Narcissism" is not a proper noun so capitalise only if first word of a sentence