חדש באתר: עוזר בינה מלאכותית המבוסס על כתביו ושיעוריו של הרב מיכאל אברהם

Q&A: Was my question about redheads marrying deleted on purpose?

Back to list  |  🌐 עברית  |  ℹ About
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.

Was my question about redheads marrying deleted on purpose?

Question

I asked this question earlier and it disappeared. Was it deleted on purpose?
This is a real question, which appeared in the booklet Beit Hillel by Rabbi Eliyahu Bar Shalom. I wanted to know the Rabbi’s opinion on the matter.
In the Talmud, Bekhorot (45a): “A very tall man should not marry a very tall woman, lest a pole-like child come from them; a dwarf should not marry a dwarf, lest a finger-sized child come from them; a fair-skinned man should not marry a fair-skinned woman, lest an albino-like child come from them; a dark-skinned man should not marry a dark-skinned woman, lest an extremely dark child come from them.”
According to this Talmudic passage, should a young man whose hair color tends toward red avoid marrying a young woman whose hair color tends toward red, lest they have offspring who are ruddy and full of freckles?

Answer

The question was deleted because it is stupid. The fact that it was written somewhere does not mean it isn’t.

Discussion on Answer

Moti (2022-12-05)

I don’t understand why it is more stupid than the halakhic statement, “a fair-skinned man should not marry a fair-skinned woman.”

If my question needs to be deleted, should those lines in the Talmud also be deleted?

Please answer me seriously.

Trying to answer instead… (2022-12-05)

Maybe being extremely tall or extremely short is a defect.
And it isn’t proper to produce children with defects.
But what defect is there in being a redhead?
So the child will be a redhead in all 248 limbs and 365 sinews…
So what?
It’s a matter of taste,
not a matter of prohibition…

Moti (2022-12-05)

“A fair-skinned man should not marry a fair-skinned woman”—is that a defect? And it’s also forbidden.

Waiting for the Rabbi’s answer.

Michi (2022-12-05)

This doesn’t require a whole day of study. It’s pretty easy to understand.
As for your question: indeed. But there is no need to delete it. You can also just skip it. As you wish.
Ah, and it’s much stupider than what appears in the Talmud, if only because it was written in the 21st century. Quite a bit of foul water has flowed through the pipes over the last two thousand years, and I would have expected at least a little progress.

Michi (2022-12-05)

And I haven’t even mentioned the question of the scientific-factual truth of these claims.

. (2022-12-06)

Does it follow, then, that the “stubborn and rebellious son” never existed because of the questioner’s interpretation of this Jewish law 🙂 ?

Leave a Reply

Back to top button