Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Shaul Shapira's avatar

"And in some cases, it was downright offensive. Prof. Lawee draws attention to Rashi’s citation of a Midrash about Adam having relations with every animal before Eve was created. To many people today, it is “obvious” that this cannot be literal, because it would be so utterly distasteful. Accordingly, many explain that Rashi was not (here) speaking literally."

I have no idea which people you hang out with, but the Artscroll edition of Rashi quotes both peshatim.

"But Rashi became so popular that the opposition died out. And nowadays, people would simply insist that those who understood Rashi to be speaking literally must have been wrong. “Rashi wrote with ruach hakodesh” - which is understood to mean that he was basically infallible."

Again, you seem to be very attracted to mythical creatures. You don't need to think rashi was 'basically infallible' to insist that he wasn't being literal. You just need to believe 1) a literal reading implicates Adam as engaging in bestiality. 2) Bestiality is halachically unacceptable and/or morally reprehensible, and 2a) always has been. 3) Rashi (really, the midrash he's quoting) wasn't casually imputing halachically unacceptable/ morally reprehensible behavior to Adam Harishon, particularly before the cheit. *IF* you accept those 3 premises, the conclusion ineluctably follows. Now, that doesn't mean that everyone accepted those 3 premises. R Herzceg cites some meforshei Rashi (super-commentators b'academic la'az) who understand Rashi literally because they deny premise #2. But none of that chain of reasoning involves any of the sociological psychobabble about current charedi sensitivities.

Expand full comment
249 more comments...

No posts