Yes she is. Though clearly exceptionally gifted I think the key to her development and success is the way she was brought up. She elaborates on that at some point during her part of the discussion.
Great discussion. Loved seeing professor Hayes in a more informal context able to speak freely. I also appreciate the respectful back and forth between the rabbi and professor.
I so intellectually love this woman of Chritine Hayes.what a Bridge of Thoughts to its Expressions in all its coherence accuracies fluency..Simply divine.i so humbly respect Woman because of my mother sisters and the women I have known and because of my Encounter with Chritine Hayes.i apologise for imposing this sentiment but I will not question it's sincerity.Thanks.
I spent 12 years in Israel as a haredi or haredi-adjacent Jew and I find Pfeffer’s attitude here typical of the sort of exclusionary smugness that I witnessed on a constant basis. I love Hayes’s analysis as it puts the Gemara in a relatable, human context. Sometimes I think Chazal were also skeptical about the divinity of the Torah but they couldn’t say it out loud, so they left lots of coded messages.
The key operative term is 'we know', opinions hiding behind layers of extrapolating and hypothesizing scholars who are 'experts' in their respective fields. In traditional Jewish learning there are no experts, the greatest scholar is a bright student, talmid chacham. This simple point frames every spoken word, raised eyebrow and theatrical gesture (in my opinion).
The story of the dessert and one canteen can be understood by exaggerating the parameters. Daniel Dennett calls this "turning the knobs". Variation 1: 100 people have enough water for exactly 99 people. Do they all drink and die, or do 99 of them live? Variation 2: 100 people have enough water for 1 person. Do they all drink and die, or does one person live? Variation 3: 10,000 people have enough water for 5,000 people. Do they all drink and die, or do 5,000 people survive? It seems clear that you always want the situation with survivors. The difficulty is choosing who survives. So this helps us understand that we shouldn't confuse the two questions (1. should some survice and 2. who?). Certainly, we shouldn't let the difficulty of answering question 2 make us reconsider the answer to question 1.
1. While your thought experiment is much appreciated, I think it is important to point out that none of the variations you provided are conceptually parallel to the original story, and as such, it would be inaccurate to describe the aforementioned as "exaggerating the parameters." The original story consists of individual X who is in possession of the precise quantity of life-sustaining material Y to ensure his own survival, whereas all of your variations (especially the first and the third) blur the distinctions of individual ownership that--almost by definition--are crucial points of consideration for the resolution of the original problem. 2. It only seems *clear* that the situation with survivors (or, alternatively, more survivors) is the ideal one if we presuppose a utilitarian ethic.
I think it’s the difficulty of choosing the *outcome* . 2 people, enough water for one: 1. If it were I and my child... it’s no contest. 2. If it were I and my buddy, we’d work something out.
In the The Principles of Jewish Law Orthodox rabbi Menachem Elon writes that: The Principles of Jewish Law - [such a view] "inherently violates the precept of Hilkheta Ke-Vatra'ei, that is, the law is according to the later scholars. This rule dates from the Geonic period. It laid down that until the time of Rabbis Abbaye and Rava (4th century) the Halakha was to be decided according to the views of the earlier scholars, but from that time onward, the halakhic opinions of post-talmudic scholars would prevail over the contrary opinions of a previous generation. See Piskei Ha'Rosh, Bava Metzia 3:10, 4:21, Shabbat 23:1
1:29. The guy that has you in that apparent dichotomous situation. It is not a dichotomous situation. He grabs me, I can guarantee there will be a grip fight. Put him to sleep in a shime-waza. No one has to die. Or. Since someone is going to die anyway, it might as well be the bad guy. Can I be added in the book?
About who blood is more red. It comes down to your conscience. Will you be able to live with yourself if you know that could of save a life, but you did not because you thought you deserve to live more then they did. For me I rather sacrifice myself then allowed someone to die. But with the sharing water and both die, I would share and both die because it is for both of our conscious.
There is no passivity in premeditated murder. No one has the right to request of you to murder someone else to save your own life. The stain of sin/murder begins and rests with the person who requested such an action from you. You are innocent. Better that they should murder you, than to get you to commit and share in their sin of murder. In the eyes of GOD, if you participate in the murder of another to save your own life, then you are guilty of murder along with the one who threatened you to commit such a heinous act on their behalf. Sin begins with the thought, so in this hypothetical discussion, both the instigator and the passive victim who then becomes the active participant (in order to save his own life) are guilty of murder. There is a reaon why the mafia and gang members ask a person to kill someone else (make their bones) in order to join the criminal organization. Satan requires the blood to be on your hands so that you are condemned before the eyes of GOD. Think about it....then you will understand. If you don't believe in Satan, or trust in GOD, then you in your human weakness may find yourself exercising very poor judgement. In criminal law, you will be charged with murder (if caught), so try telling the judge, "Hey, I had to kill this person; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to be a member of the 'family' (i.e. mafia, gang). So, in either scenario - kill this person and I will let you live or kill this person and we will let you become a member of our criminal organization - the legal outcome is the same: you will be found guilty of murder in the eyes of GOD and criminal law. I would hate to live in such a world where you think it is permissable to kill someone else if it is requested by someone else under threat to your own life. That would be a godless society where murder by sanction of threat (whether real or implied) would be an easy excuse to commit a crime. From a scriptural point of view, this term "whose blood is redder" is not a determination that you can make, for judgement concerning righteousness is determined by GOD alone. Proverbs 4: 13 Take hold of instruction; do not let go. Guard her, for she is your life. 14 Do not enter the path of the wicked And do not proceed in the way of evil men. 15 Avoid it, do not pass by it; Turn away from it and pass on. 16 For they cannot sleep unless they do evil; And they are robbed of sleep unless they make someone stumble. 17 For they eat the bread of wickedness And drink the wine of violence. 18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, That shines brighter and brighter until the full day. 19 The way of the wicked is like darkness; They do not know over what they stumble. 20 My son, give attention to my words; Incline your ear to my sayings. 21 Do not let them depart from your sight; Keep them in the midst of your heart. 22 For they are life to those who find them And health to all their body. 23 Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life. 24 Put away from you a deceitful mouth And put devious speech far from you. 25 Let your eyes look directly ahead And let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you. 26 Watch the path of your feet And all your ways will be established. 27 Do not turn to the right nor to the left; Turn your foot from evil. To summarize: Walk along the path of righteousness as the LORD instructed you. For in the WORD OF GOD there is life.....
The first 18 minutes is the most satisfying for me. I can relate with Christine Hayes's experience. I too was always pulled to the Rabinic literature but I don't have the intelligence, finances, network to explore it.
Why can't he be honest and admit that professor Twerski was bound by the traditional prohibitions of teaching Talmud to Gentiles. חכמה בגוים תאמין, תורה בגוים אל תאמין.
joylandpublic The Talmud is a collection of elaborations on the themes raised in the Hebrew Bible created by noted Rabbis of the second temple era. It is an immense body of literature in both Hebrew and Aramaic, and is divided into two sections: the Mishnah, andGemara, which comments on the Mishna. According to tradition, the Mishnah was taught to Moses on Sinai (along with the rest of the Torah). Moses then told it to Joshua, who passed it on down the line in an oral tradition. (See the first Mishnah in Tractate Avot, also called Pirkei Avot) For this reason, it is often referred to as the 'Oral Torah.' It was finally written down in the second century C.E. (Christian Era) because the Romans were killing the scholars who had memorized it. Another major reason was that with the dispersion of Jews into exile, the old methods of ensuring accurate transmission were no longer working due to there being too many isolated communities. By having it written down, it was meant to ensure a consistency of practice amongst Jews and to reduce "Machlokes b'Yisrael" ("Arguments and fracturing within the people of Bnei Yisrael")The Mishnah is written in Hebrew as it was given on Sinai and Hebrew is considered the "Leshon haQodesh" (the holy tongue). The Gemara is written in Aramaic (the prevailing language of the Jewish community in the early first millennium CE) as it needed to be read and disseminated amongst the general community, much as legal enactments and case law are used today.There are, technically speaking, two Talmuds -- the earlier Jerusalem or Yerushalmi Talmud (apparently incomplete due to Roman interference in Jewish religious structure in 425 CE) and the later Babylonian or Bavli Talmud (the one more studied due to the larger Jewish community in Babylonia). When there are conflicts between the two, the Talmud Bavli is considered authoritative. This is for two reasons:
Christina Hayes ftw, she's is the best.
Yes she is. Though clearly exceptionally gifted I think the key to her development and success is the way she was brought up. She elaborates on that at some point during her part of the discussion.
Great discussion. Loved seeing professor Hayes in a more informal context able to speak freely. I also appreciate the respectful back and forth between the rabbi and professor.
I so intellectually love this woman of Chritine Hayes.what a Bridge of Thoughts to its Expressions in all its coherence accuracies fluency..Simply divine.i so humbly respect Woman because of my mother sisters and the women I have known and because of my Encounter with Chritine Hayes.i apologise for imposing this sentiment but I will not question it's sincerity.Thanks.
how Authentic this Bee of woman Is. this lady Chritine Hayes. extremely inspiring
Amazing lectures and discussions
I would enjoy a podcast with Christine and Yehoshua studying Talmud together
I am slowly but surely falling in love with this woman, cuz her mind
me too
Christina Hayes.... wonderful. I can listen to her all day.
Christine Hayes is a "non-Jew". I've been curious on whether she has any religious leanings. This is the most definitive statement I've seen anywhere.
This video is not about Christine yet all the comments here focus on her.
She’s a force.
I spent 12 years in Israel as a haredi or haredi-adjacent Jew and I find Pfeffer’s attitude here typical of the sort of exclusionary smugness that I witnessed on a constant basis. I love Hayes’s analysis as it puts the Gemara in a relatable, human context. Sometimes I think Chazal were also skeptical about the divinity of the Torah but they couldn’t say it out loud, so they left lots of coded messages.
I love Christine Hayes
I too! :-)
The key operative term is 'we know', opinions hiding behind layers of extrapolating and hypothesizing scholars who are 'experts' in their respective fields.
In traditional Jewish learning there are no experts, the greatest scholar is a bright student, talmid chacham.
This simple point frames every spoken word, raised eyebrow and theatrical gesture (in my opinion).
I love Hayes, but I think she's unfair to Chaucer. He's not "just a dirty old man." She got a couple of laughs, though, so I guess it's OK
as much as i love seeing christine hayes dunk on this guy, the best part of this video is her revelation that she's an a capella singer
The story of the dessert and one canteen can be understood by exaggerating the parameters. Daniel Dennett calls this "turning the knobs".
Variation 1: 100 people have enough water for exactly 99 people. Do they all drink and die, or do 99 of them live?
Variation 2: 100 people have enough water for 1 person. Do they all drink and die, or does one person live?
Variation 3: 10,000 people have enough water for 5,000 people. Do they all drink and die, or do 5,000 people survive?
It seems clear that you always want the situation with survivors. The difficulty is choosing who survives. So this helps us understand that we shouldn't confuse the two questions (1. should some survice and 2. who?). Certainly, we shouldn't let the difficulty of answering question 2 make us reconsider the answer to question 1.
1. While your thought experiment is much appreciated, I think it is important to point out that none of the variations you provided are conceptually parallel to the original story, and as such, it would be inaccurate to describe the aforementioned as "exaggerating the parameters." The original story consists of individual X who is in possession of the precise quantity of life-sustaining material Y to ensure his own survival, whereas all of your variations (especially the first and the third) blur the distinctions of individual ownership that--almost by definition--are crucial points of consideration for the resolution of the original problem.
2. It only seems *clear* that the situation with survivors (or, alternatively, more survivors) is the ideal one if we presuppose a utilitarian ethic.
I think it’s the difficulty of choosing the *outcome* .
2 people, enough water for one:
1. If it were I and my child... it’s no contest.
2. If it were I and my buddy, we’d work something out.
angels do have free will just as humans, just that they know the universal principle of knowledge and always get it right
when they mentioned the good samaritan law, you can't help but laugh
In the The Principles of Jewish Law Orthodox rabbi Menachem Elon writes that:
The Principles of Jewish Law
- [such a view] "inherently violates the precept of Hilkheta Ke-Vatra'ei, that is, the law is according to the later scholars. This rule dates from the Geonic period. It laid down that until the time of Rabbis Abbaye and Rava (4th century) the Halakha was to be decided according to the views of the earlier scholars, but from that time onward, the halakhic opinions of post-talmudic scholars would prevail over the contrary opinions of a previous generation. See Piskei Ha'Rosh, Bava Metzia 3:10, 4:21, Shabbat 23:1
Thank you Rabbi Yehuda
Why did that lady ask such a Stupid question? What was the premise and motive of her question?
I need a wife like her. So unlikely to find another woman that is this smart.
So unpolitically correct...because probably true....
1:29. The guy that has you in that apparent dichotomous situation.
It is not a dichotomous situation. He grabs me, I can guarantee there will be a grip fight. Put him to sleep in a shime-waza. No one has to die.
Or.
Since someone is going to die anyway, it might as well be the bad guy.
Can I be added in the book?
About who blood is more red. It comes down to your conscience. Will you be able to live with yourself if you know that could of save a life, but you did not because you thought you deserve to live more then they did.
For me I rather sacrifice myself then allowed someone to die.
But with the sharing water and both die, I would share and both die because it is for both of our conscious.
Did Prof. Hayes pass over mentioning her mother?
Christine Hayes is in a class by herself
There is no passivity in premeditated murder. No one has the right to request of you to murder someone else to save your own life. The stain of sin/murder begins and rests with the person who requested such an action from you. You are innocent. Better that they should murder you, than to get you to commit and share in their sin of murder.
In the eyes of GOD, if you participate in the murder of another to save your own life, then you are guilty of murder along with the one who threatened you to commit such a heinous act on their behalf.
Sin begins with the thought, so in this hypothetical discussion, both the instigator and the passive victim who then becomes the active participant (in order to save his own life) are guilty of murder.
There is a reaon why the mafia and gang members ask a person to kill someone else (make their bones) in order to join the criminal organization. Satan requires the blood to be on your hands so that you are condemned before the eyes of GOD. Think about it....then you will understand.
If you don't believe in Satan, or trust in GOD, then you in your human weakness may find yourself exercising very poor judgement. In criminal law, you will be charged with murder (if caught), so try telling the judge, "Hey, I had to kill this person; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to be a member of the 'family' (i.e. mafia, gang).
So, in either scenario - kill this person and I will let you live or kill this person and we will let you become a member of our criminal organization - the legal outcome is the same: you will be found guilty of murder in the eyes of GOD and criminal law.
I would hate to live in such a world where you think it is permissable to kill someone else if it is requested by someone else under threat to your own life. That would be a godless society where murder by sanction of threat (whether real or implied) would be an easy excuse to commit a crime.
From a scriptural point of view, this term "whose blood is redder" is not a determination that you can make, for judgement concerning righteousness is determined by GOD alone.
Proverbs 4:
13 Take hold of instruction; do not let go.
Guard her, for she is your life.
14 Do not enter the path of the wicked
And do not proceed in the way of evil men.
15 Avoid it, do not pass by it;
Turn away from it and pass on.
16 For they cannot sleep unless they do evil;
And they are robbed of sleep unless they make someone stumble.
17 For they eat the bread of wickedness
And drink the wine of violence.
18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn,
That shines brighter and brighter until the full day.
19 The way of the wicked is like darkness;
They do not know over what they stumble.
20 My son, give attention to my words;
Incline your ear to my sayings.
21 Do not let them depart from your sight;
Keep them in the midst of your heart.
22 For they are life to those who find them
And health to all their body.
23 Watch over your heart with all diligence,
For from it flow the springs of life.
24 Put away from you a deceitful mouth
And put devious speech far from you.
25 Let your eyes look directly ahead
And let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you.
26 Watch the path of your feet
And all your ways will be established.
27 Do not turn to the right nor to the left;
Turn your foot from evil.
To summarize: Walk along the path of righteousness as the LORD instructed you. For in the WORD OF GOD there is life.....
Can start listening at 18:00 mins.
First 18 mins waste
Zhi Zhi I wish I had seen your comment before...
Wht
The first 18 minutes is the most satisfying for me. I can relate with Christine Hayes's experience. I too was always pulled to the Rabinic literature but I don't have the intelligence, finances, network to explore it.
Why can't he be honest and admit that professor Twerski was bound by the traditional prohibitions of teaching Talmud to Gentiles.
חכמה בגוים תאמין, תורה בגוים אל תאמין.
joylandpublic The Talmud is a collection of elaborations on the themes raised in the Hebrew Bible created by noted Rabbis of the second temple era. It is an immense body of literature in both Hebrew and Aramaic, and is divided into two sections: the Mishnah, andGemara, which comments on the Mishna. According to tradition, the Mishnah was taught to Moses on Sinai (along with the rest of the Torah). Moses then told it to Joshua, who passed it on down the line in an oral tradition. (See the first Mishnah in Tractate Avot, also called Pirkei Avot) For this reason, it is often referred to as the 'Oral Torah.' It was finally written down in the second century C.E. (Christian Era) because the Romans were killing the scholars who had memorized it. Another major reason was that with the dispersion of Jews into exile, the old methods of ensuring accurate transmission were no longer working due to there being too many isolated communities. By having it written down, it was meant to ensure a consistency of practice amongst Jews and to reduce "Machlokes b'Yisrael" ("Arguments and fracturing within the people of Bnei Yisrael")The Mishnah is written in Hebrew as it was given on Sinai and Hebrew is considered the "Leshon haQodesh" (the holy tongue). The Gemara is written in Aramaic (the prevailing language of the Jewish community in the early first millennium CE) as it needed to be read and disseminated amongst the general community, much as legal enactments and case law are used today.There are, technically speaking, two Talmuds -- the earlier Jerusalem or Yerushalmi Talmud (apparently incomplete due to Roman interference in Jewish religious structure in 425 CE) and the later Babylonian or Bavli Talmud (the one more studied due to the larger Jewish community in Babylonia). When there are conflicts between the two, the Talmud Bavli is considered authoritative. This is for two reasons:
Because that would apply equally to the other areas of Torah that Professor Twerski was teaching. So it could not have been his motivation.
She teaches the old testament without the Light of the New testament.
lol
And... who cares about the NT??
Good. Learning from the ground up removes the narrative lenses imposed by religious dogma.