Etydhv

Has there been evidence of any other gods?

Identity of a supposed anonymous referee revealed through "Description" of the report

Why Faces eat each other?

Why do the Avengers care about returning these items in Endgame?

Can you turn a recording upside-down?

Is there any evidence to support the claim that the United States was "suckered into WW1" by Zionists, made by Benjamin Freedman in his 1961 speech

Rusty Chain and back cassette – Replace or Repair?

How is Arya still alive?

Why does the electron wavefunction not collapse within atoms at room temperature in gas, liquids or solids due to decoherence?

Libertine font numbers have a different height than text

Do Rabbis admit emotional involvement in their rulings?

Has everyone forgotten about wildfire?

Bulk API Error: UNABLE_TO_LOCK_ROW:unable to obtain exclusive access to this record or 124 records

How does weapons training transfer to empty hand?

How likely are Coriolis-effect-based quirks to develop in starship crew members?

What's an appropriate age to involve kids in life changing decisions?

Two (probably) equal real numbers which are not proved to be equal?

Is there an idiom that means "revealing a secret unintentionally"?

When do you stop "pushing" a book?

I might have messed up in the 'Future Work' section of my thesis

Renting a house to a graduate student in my department

How to get MAX value using SOQL when there are more than 50,000 rows

Was there a contingency plan in place if Little Boy failed to detonate?

Is there an application which does HTTP PUT?

What does the Shabbos Shel Mi mean?

What does ודוק or ודו"ק mean?Source of Anecdote About DivorceWhat does “Aman deAmar” mean?What does the word Dochak mean?Is the Gemara (Shabbos 116b) quoting the New Testament?What does איברא mean?Why Did Talmud Bavli decide to differ from Talmud Yerushalmi by starting on page 2?Choshech, Anan v'Araphel? What does this mean?Did Ralbag's predecessors help him, or make things more difficult for him?What does it mean to “know Shas”?

3

In Maseches Shabbos, in between the perakim of Bameh Ishah and Bameh Beheimah, the Shabbos Shel Mi writes the following:

דרשינן סמוכים פ' במה בהמה ובמה אשה כל הקרב הקרב כי לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב

It sounds misogynistic to me, but I'm sure I'm interpreting it wrong. Does anyone have an explanation for it?

talmud-gemara commentaries acharonim

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

YehudaYehuda

494

add a comment | 

3

In Maseches Shabbos, in between the perakim of Bameh Ishah and Bameh Beheimah, the Shabbos Shel Mi writes the following:

דרשינן סמוכים פ' במה בהמה ובמה אשה כל הקרב הקרב כי לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב

It sounds misogynistic to me, but I'm sure I'm interpreting it wrong. Does anyone have an explanation for it?

talmud-gemara commentaries acharonim

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

YehudaYehuda

494

add a comment | 

In Maseches Shabbos, in between the perakim of Bameh Ishah and Bameh Beheimah, the Shabbos Shel Mi writes the following:

דרשינן סמוכים פ' במה בהמה ובמה אשה כל הקרב הקרב כי לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב

It sounds misogynistic to me, but I'm sure I'm interpreting it wrong. Does anyone have an explanation for it?

talmud-gemara commentaries acharonim

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

YehudaYehuda

494

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

YehudaYehuda

494

share|improve this question

asked 6 hours ago

YehudaYehuda

494

asked 6 hours ago

YehudaYehuda

494

asked 6 hours ago

YehudaYehuda

494

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

1

The phrase "כל הקרב הקרב כי לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב" is found in a couple places in Shas (Chullin 65a, Bava Kamma 92b) and can literally be translated as:

not for naught that the zarzir went to dwell with the crow, but because it is of the same species

ie- birds of a feather flock together.

Now

It's very easy to see how this can be construed as sexist, misogynistic, and demeaning- "we're going to learn Shabbos laws about animals followed by women since 'birds of a feather flock together?!'"

This seems outrageous!

HOWEVER

I think it has a more innocent meaning. Namely, it's comparing animals and women because we're learning Shabbos laws that pertain to one's household. Animals, women, kids, one's elder paents possessions- all these are part of one's household. So the verse can understood as: "since we discussed one area of the household, lets discuss another area of the household."

BOTTOM LINE:

While it may be misconstrued (and may not make for the greatest line in today's climate) I think this line was said lightheartedly and not intending to offend.

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Yehuda

494

answered 5 hours ago

alichtalicht

3,5911636

add a comment | 

2

The reference is the Gemara in Chulin (65a) which discusses that two seemingly different birds are of the same species (min), and they therefore are found near each other. The same thing applies here. In both chapters the laws are enumerated to prevent override biblical law. The woman, because of her very nature may be more susceptible to carrying in public domain, a biblical offense. The same applies to the animal. Its very nature may also cause certain biblical law to be easily broken, like the aforementioned as well as the requirement for the animal to rest on the sabbath.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

TwocleverTwoclever

211

New contributor

Twoclever is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Welcome to Mi Yodeya! Please take a moment to look at our tour for some useful information about the site. Thank you for bringing this answer here, and I hope to see you around!
  
  – DonielF
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

The phrase "כל הקרב הקרב כי לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב" is found in a couple places in Shas (Chullin 65a, Bava Kamma 92b) and can literally be translated as:

not for naught that the zarzir went to dwell with the crow, but because it is of the same species

ie- birds of a feather flock together.

Now

It's very easy to see how this can be construed as sexist, misogynistic, and demeaning- "we're going to learn Shabbos laws about animals followed by women since 'birds of a feather flock together?!'"

This seems outrageous!

HOWEVER

I think it has a more innocent meaning. Namely, it's comparing animals and women because we're learning Shabbos laws that pertain to one's household. Animals, women, kids, one's elder paents possessions- all these are part of one's household. So the verse can understood as: "since we discussed one area of the household, lets discuss another area of the household."

BOTTOM LINE:

While it may be misconstrued (and may not make for the greatest line in today's climate) I think this line was said lightheartedly and not intending to offend.

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Yehuda

494

answered 5 hours ago

alichtalicht

3,5911636

add a comment | 

1

The phrase "כל הקרב הקרב כי לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב" is found in a couple places in Shas (Chullin 65a, Bava Kamma 92b) and can literally be translated as:

not for naught that the zarzir went to dwell with the crow, but because it is of the same species

ie- birds of a feather flock together.

Now

It's very easy to see how this can be construed as sexist, misogynistic, and demeaning- "we're going to learn Shabbos laws about animals followed by women since 'birds of a feather flock together?!'"

This seems outrageous!

HOWEVER

I think it has a more innocent meaning. Namely, it's comparing animals and women because we're learning Shabbos laws that pertain to one's household. Animals, women, kids, one's elder paents possessions- all these are part of one's household. So the verse can understood as: "since we discussed one area of the household, lets discuss another area of the household."

BOTTOM LINE:

While it may be misconstrued (and may not make for the greatest line in today's climate) I think this line was said lightheartedly and not intending to offend.

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Yehuda

494

answered 5 hours ago

alichtalicht

3,5911636

add a comment | 

The phrase "כל הקרב הקרב כי לא לחנם הלך זרזיר אצל עורב" is found in a couple places in Shas (Chullin 65a, Bava Kamma 92b) and can literally be translated as:

not for naught that the zarzir went to dwell with the crow, but because it is of the same species

ie- birds of a feather flock together.

Now

It's very easy to see how this can be construed as sexist, misogynistic, and demeaning- "we're going to learn Shabbos laws about animals followed by women since 'birds of a feather flock together?!'"

This seems outrageous!

HOWEVER

I think it has a more innocent meaning. Namely, it's comparing animals and women because we're learning Shabbos laws that pertain to one's household. Animals, women, kids, one's elder paents possessions- all these are part of one's household. So the verse can understood as: "since we discussed one area of the household, lets discuss another area of the household."

BOTTOM LINE:

While it may be misconstrued (and may not make for the greatest line in today's climate) I think this line was said lightheartedly and not intending to offend.

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Yehuda

494

answered 5 hours ago

alichtalicht

3,5911636

share|improve this answer

edited 5 hours ago

Yehuda

494

answered 5 hours ago

alichtalicht

3,5911636

edited 5 hours ago

Yehuda

494

edited 5 hours ago

Yehuda

494

answered 5 hours ago

alichtalicht

3,5911636

answered 5 hours ago

alichtalicht

3,5911636

2

The reference is the Gemara in Chulin (65a) which discusses that two seemingly different birds are of the same species (min), and they therefore are found near each other. The same thing applies here. In both chapters the laws are enumerated to prevent override biblical law. The woman, because of her very nature may be more susceptible to carrying in public domain, a biblical offense. The same applies to the animal. Its very nature may also cause certain biblical law to be easily broken, like the aforementioned as well as the requirement for the animal to rest on the sabbath.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

TwocleverTwoclever

211

New contributor

Twoclever is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Welcome to Mi Yodeya! Please take a moment to look at our tour for some useful information about the site. Thank you for bringing this answer here, and I hope to see you around!
  
  – DonielF
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

The reference is the Gemara in Chulin (65a) which discusses that two seemingly different birds are of the same species (min), and they therefore are found near each other. The same thing applies here. In both chapters the laws are enumerated to prevent override biblical law. The woman, because of her very nature may be more susceptible to carrying in public domain, a biblical offense. The same applies to the animal. Its very nature may also cause certain biblical law to be easily broken, like the aforementioned as well as the requirement for the animal to rest on the sabbath.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

TwocleverTwoclever

211

New contributor

Twoclever is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Welcome to Mi Yodeya! Please take a moment to look at our tour for some useful information about the site. Thank you for bringing this answer here, and I hope to see you around!
  
  – DonielF
  4 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

The reference is the Gemara in Chulin (65a) which discusses that two seemingly different birds are of the same species (min), and they therefore are found near each other. The same thing applies here. In both chapters the laws are enumerated to prevent override biblical law. The woman, because of her very nature may be more susceptible to carrying in public domain, a biblical offense. The same applies to the animal. Its very nature may also cause certain biblical law to be easily broken, like the aforementioned as well as the requirement for the animal to rest on the sabbath.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

TwocleverTwoclever

211

New contributor

Twoclever is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

share|improve this answer

answered 5 hours ago

TwocleverTwoclever

211

New contributor

Twoclever is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 5 hours ago

TwocleverTwoclever

211

New contributor

Twoclever is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

answered 5 hours ago

TwocleverTwoclever

211