Jewish King of England???
maxine in ri
it in Snopes. Can anyone confirm or refute the following:
/begin quote/
It is interesting to note the following in the family tree of Kate
Middleton, wife of Prince William:
Kate's mother is Carol Middleton, daughter of Ronald Goldsmith and
Dorothy Harrison (both Jews)
The parents of Dorothy Harrison are Robert Harrison and Elizabeth
Temple (both Jews), the latter a descendant of the Myers family
(traditional English Jews in the 19th century).
Bottom line: Princess Kate is a Jew on her matriarchal side, and as a
consequence, the future king of England will be a Jew according to
Jewish Law and tradition.
/end quote/
I am not asking about observance or OCR. Just the lineage.
back to lurkdom
maxine in ri
DORIS LADAN
I DO NOT KNOW IF THE INFORMATION IS TRUE -- BUT THAT WOULD REALLY BE
SOMETHING :-)
-
BE SAFE AND WELL -- DVORA
cindys
I've been following all the details of the royal wedding etc from the
start. Up until your post, I never saw any suggestion that Carole
Middleton was Jewish. However, after doing a websearch and searching
several dozen websites, it seems that the overwhelming consensus is
that Carole's parents and grandparents were all Jewish. That said, the
family is firmly ensconced in the Church of England. All of the
Middleton children were baptised in the Church of England as infants.
I also read that shortly before the wedding, when Kate and William
were having their pre-wedding counseling sessions with the bishop (or
whomever), of her own volition, she decided she wanted to become
confirmed in the Church. At the Order of the Garter Service in which
Kate and William participated last week, Kate was openly sporting a
cross.
See photo: http://www.popsugar.com/Pictures-William-Kate-Middleton-Garter-Service-17856618?page=0,0,4#4
And before the wedding, when Kate and her mom went shopping at the
grocery in Bucklebury, the shop owner reported that they had
purchased, among other things, ham. So, there isn't much yiddishkeit
there.
In short, it may very well be that Carole Middleton and by extension
her children are halachic Jews, but it would seem as though there was
never anything Jewish about the Middleton home where Kate and her
siblings were raised, and Kate has clearly embraced Christianity and
the Church of England :-(
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
cindys
snip
> When Kate and William
> were having their pre-wedding counseling sessions with the bishop (or
> whomever), of her own volition, she decided she wanted to become
> confirmed in the Church.
----
Clarification to avoid ambiguity: The person who became confirmed in
the Church of England before the royal wedding was Kate Middleton, not
Carole Middleton.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
lee
Well as long as he/she isn't Catholic.....
or for Henry, Morris & Malcolm & any other Brits if they can remember
that far back to the Dave Allen Show
Well as long as he/she isn't a Catholic Jew
cindys
snip
>
> Well as long as he/she isn't Catholic.....
> or for Henry, Morris & Malcolm & any other Brits if they can remember
> that far back to the Dave Allen Show
> Well as long as he/she isn't a Catholic Jew
I could be mistaken on his point, but I'm fairly certain that anybody
William would have married would have been required to become an
Anglican (if she wasn't already) and join the Church of England. The
reigning British monarch is always the head of the Church of England
(when the queen dies, Charles will be the head of the Church, and
after that, William). C of E is the official religion of the royal
family, and you really can't have a situation where the future queen
consort, (i.e., the would-be mother to a future heir to the British
throne) is not a member of the Church of England.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Henry Goodman
news:2a96fa55-96e6-4ad6...@k27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
______________________________________
The version I remember is:
Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?
I'm a doctor.
Are you a Protestant doctor or a Catholic doctor?
I'm a Jewish doctor.
Are you a Protestant Jewish doctor or a Catholic Jewish doctor?
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Tilly
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ff7bd259-cce2-4780...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
________________________________________________________________________________________
Camilla is RC and she didn't convert. IIRC this is one reason Charles didn't
marry her and went on to marry
Andrew (?)Parker Bowles.
Herman Rubin
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ff7bd259-cce2-4780...@m10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 20, 8:11 am, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip
>> Well as long as he/she isn't Catholic.....
>> or for Henry, Morris & Malcolm & any other Brits if they can remember
>> that far back to the Dave Allen Show
>> Well as long as he/she isn't a Catholic Jew
> ----
> I could be mistaken on his point, but I'm fairly certain that anybody
> William would have married would have been required to become an
> Anglican (if she wasn't already) and join the Church of England. The
> reigning British monarch is always the head of the Church of England
> (when the queen dies, Charles will be the head of the Church, and
> after that, William). C of E is the official religion of the royal
> family, and you really can't have a situation where the future queen
> consort, (i.e., the would-be mother to a future heir to the British
> throne) is not a member of the Church of England.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
> Camilla is RC and she didn't convert. IIRC this is one reason Charles didn't
> marry her and went on to marry
> Andrew (?)Parker Bowles.
IIRC, it is in the British "Constitution" that the monarch cannot
be Catholic or be married to a Papist.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Tilly
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnivvcde...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...
Camilla is Catholic and she didn't convert.
mm
Maybe that's another reason Charles won't be king? It's pretty much
agreed by pundits, iirc, that he won't be.
OTOH, it's not too late for her to convert. (I came across, maybe in
a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, an objection by a
Catholic to the use of "convert" when talking about othser Xians
becoming Catholics. He said it only applied when one was changing
religion, not denomination.)
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
cindys
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
----
From: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Royalty-2983/Prince-Charles-1.htm
"There are no rules on who a member of the Royal Family can or cannot
marry, provided that they are not Roman Catholic. Previous Kings have
married divorcees, though this has been comparative rare and there are
no recent examples except Edward VIII. Strictly, in Roman Catholic
canon law, Camilla Duchess of Cornwall is not a divorcee (though she
is in secular law), because her marriage to Brigadier Andrew Parker-
Bowles was annulled by the Church - thus allowing him to remarry.
Contrary to urban myth, Camilla is Church of England, though her first
husband is Roman Catholic."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:10:53 +0000 (UTC), "Tilly"
>
>
>
> <femail1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
> >news:slrnivvcde...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...
>
> >>> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
She's Church of England. Her ex-husband was a Catholic.
>
> Maybe that's another reason Charles won't be king? It's pretty much
> agreed by pundits, iirc, that he won't be.
I spend a lot of time (a lot more time than I should) keeping up with
news on the British royal family (which is sort of like my hobby), and
from everything I've read, it's pretty much a fait accompli that
Prince Charles will become king (upon the queen's death). And in all
likelihood, he will name Camilla queen as well (which he had
previously agreed he wouldn't do because the British people disliked
Camilla and would have considered it an affront to the memory of
Princess Diana. But times change, and Camilla is much more favorably
regarded now than she was when she and Prince Charles first got
married).
There are a number of people who would like to see the crown pass over
Prince Charles and go to directly to Prince William, but it would seem
that Prince Charles is quite eager to have his turn at being king, and
he has every intention of doing so. For his part, Prince William has
stated that he has no desire at all to upstage his father, and he is
quite content to wait his turn.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
That's the trouble with talking heads and other pundits. I'm sure
during the marriage coverage someone British on tv said that he wasn't
going to be, as if no one disagreed with him. I'm glad I didnt' bet
on it.
W. Baker
: "Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
She also will never be Queen when Charles becomes king.
Wendy Baker
cindys
> Tilly <femail1...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>
> : Camilla is Catholic and she didn't convert.
> She also will never be Queen when Charles becomes king.
----
WADR, Wendy, I think she will be.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:56:49 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
> >I spend a lot of time (a lot more time than I should) keeping up with
> >news on the British royal family (which is sort of like my hobby), and
> >from everything I've read, it's pretty much a fait accompli that
> >Prince Charles will become king (upon the queen's death).
>
> That's the trouble with talking heads and other pundits. I'm sure
> during the marriage coverage someone British on tv said that he wasn't
> going to be, as if no one disagreed with him. I'm glad I didnt' bet
> on it.
During the time leading up to the wedding, this was a popular topic
for conversation (and speculation). I think this topic has finally
been laid to rest.
--Begin cite---
In November the Prince of Wales was asked in an interview on the U.S.
channel NBC if Camilla would be Queen if he became King.
His response: ‘That’s, that’s, we’ll see, won’t we? That could be.’
His words set alarm bells ringing at Buckingham Palace, where from the
moment the couple married in April 2005 senior courtiers have always
been at great pains to insist Camilla would merely be Charles’s
consort.
They are extremely sensitive to the public affection that still exists
for Princess Diana, and to Camilla’s role in the break-up of her
marriage to Charles.
But they are also bound by convention, and by virtue of being married
to a King, the Duchess will be entitled to call herself Queen if she
wishes.
Prince Charles, 62, has always told friends and senior aides it is his
wish for Camilla to be Queen, but this was the first time he had
expressed this desire in public.
At the time of the comments Clarence House said that ‘nothing had
changed’.
--end cite---
Also, when Camilla was visiting King’s Rise Children’s Centre, a
little girl named Rebecca asked Camilla if she were going to be the
queen someday. Camilla responded: "You never know..."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
lee
Jews settle in Britain again, under Cromwell I believe.
mm
BTW, I emailed you last week and a couple weeks before that. Am I
using an address you reed?
--
cindys
> okay.
>
> BTW, I emailed you last week and a couple weeks before that. Am I
> using an address you reed?
Yes. I received your e-mail and responded, and my response was
returned as undeliverable. That was the only e-mail I recall receiving
from you in a very long time.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:01:19 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
>
>
> <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 20, 3:09 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:56:49 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> >snip
>
> >> >I spend a lot of time (a lot more time than I should) keeping up with
> >> >news on the British royal family (which is sort of like my hobby), and
> >> >from everything I've read, it's pretty much a fait accompli that
> >> >Prince Charles will become king (upon the queen's death).
>
> >> That's the trouble with talking heads and other pundits. I'm sure
> >> during the marriage coverage someone British on tv said that he wasn't
> >> going to be, as if no one disagreed with him. I'm glad I didnt' bet
> >> on it.
> >----
> >During the time leading up to the wedding, this was a popular topic
> >for conversation (and speculation). I think this topic has finally
> >been laid to rest.
>
Tilly
On Jun 20, 5:04 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> okay.
>
> BTW, I emailed you last week and a couple weeks before that. Am I
> using an address you reed?
----
Yes. I received your e-mail and responded, and my response was
returned as undeliverable. That was the only e-mail I recall receiving
from you in a very long time.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:01:19 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
<clipped>
I wonder if Meir has received my emails, I sent him one earlier today.
W. Baker
: Incidentally you can thank the protestant's/Anglicans for letting the
: Jews settle in Britain again, under Cromwell I believe.
Cromwell Anglican! Try Puritan o for size. Those roundheads were not
anglican!
Wendy Baker
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Just got this one from my aunt, and there is currently nothing about
> it in Snopes. Can anyone confirm or refute the following:
> /begin quote/
> It is interesting to note the following in the family tree of Kate
> Middleton, wife of Prince William:
>
> Kate's mother is Carol Middleton, daughter of Ronald Goldsmith and
> Dorothy Harrison (both Jews)
>
> The parents of Dorothy Harrison are Robert Harrison and Elizabeth
> Temple (both Jews), the latter a descendant of the Myers family
> (traditional English Jews in the 19th century).
>
> Bottom line: Princess Kate is a Jew on her matriarchal side, and as a
> consequence, the future king of England will be a Jew according to
> Jewish Law and tradition.
> /end quote/
LOL!!!!!!!
> I am not asking about observance or OCR. Just the lineage.
>
> back to lurkdom
Why lurkdom?
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
My reaction to the first post was "LOL". I was laughing that the
Brits will get a "Jewish" King!!
My reaction to this post is "LOL". I am laughing at thinking the
Church of England is somehow something important. IIRC, it was
_created_ by some King who didn't like the old rules of his religion
(something to do with who he could marry?) so "hey, presto" here's a
new one! :-)
Of course Christianity and Islam are also new "creations" for those
who didn't like the "original" i.e. Judasim.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Tilly" <femail1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> I could be mistaken on his point, but I'm fairly certain that anybody
>>> William would have married would have been required to become an
>>> Anglican (if she wasn't already) and join the Church of England. The
>>> reigning British monarch is always the head of the Church of England
>>> (when the queen dies, Charles will be the head of the Church, and
>>> after that, William). C of E is the official religion of the royal
>>> family, and you really can't have a situation where the future queen
>>> consort, (i.e., the would-be mother to a future heir to the British
>>> throne) is not a member of the Church of England.
>> Camilla is RC and she didn't convert. IIRC this is one reason
>> Charles didn't marry her and went on to marry Andrew (?)Parker Bowles.
> ----
> From: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Royalty-2983/Prince-Charles-1.htm
>
> "There are no rules on who a member of the Royal Family can or cannot
> marry, provided that they are not Roman Catholic. Previous Kings have
> married divorcees, though this has been comparative rare and there are
> no recent examples except Edward VIII. Strictly, in Roman Catholic
> canon law, Camilla Duchess of Cornwall is not a divorcee (though she
> is in secular law), because her marriage to Brigadier Andrew Parker-
> Bowles was annulled by the Church - thus allowing him to remarry.
> Contrary to urban myth, Camilla is Church of England, though her first
> husband is Roman Catholic."
Please, my sides are hurting from the laughter!
cindys
> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
> > lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> Well as long as he/she isn't Catholic.....
> >> or for Henry, Morris & Malcolm & any other Brits if they can remember
> >> that far back to the Dave Allen Show
> >> Well as long as he/she isn't a Catholic Jew
> > ----
> > I could be mistaken on his point, but I'm fairly certain that anybody
> > William would have married would have been required to become an
> > Anglican (if she wasn't already) and join the Church of England. The
> > reigning British monarch is always the head of the Church of England
> > (when the queen dies, Charles will be the head of the Church, and
> > after that, William). C of E is the official religion of the royal
> > family, and you really can't have a situation where the future queen
> > consort, (i.e., the would-be mother to a future heir to the British
> > throne) is not a member of the Church of England.
>
> My reaction to the first post was "LOL". I was laughing that the
> Brits will get a "Jewish" King!!
>
> My reaction to this post is "LOL". I am laughing at thinking the
> Church of England is somehow something important.
It may not be important to you, but it is clearly important to them.
Don't we (Jews) think it's important for Jews to marry other Jews?
Would it be okay with you if the rabbi of your shul had a Christian
wife? I doubt it. So, what is so funny about the future queen of
England being expected to be a member of the national church (of which
her husband will someday be the leader)?
I know lots of people who think O Jews are crazy to imagine that God
actually cares if someone tears the toilet paper or flips a light
switch on Saturday. I even know people who think it's crazy that some
Jews use lightboxes to examine lettuce leaf by leaf for bugs and are
insisting that 150 years ago, their Eastern European grandmothers were
doing the same. YMMV.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
cindys
----
Yeah, I get it. King Henry VIII created the Church of England when the
pope wouldn't let him divorce Catherine of Aragon so that he could
marry Anne Boleyn. But Church of England is really a full-fledged
protestant religion. There are a lot of theological differences
between C of E and the Catholic Church, and over the centuries, a lot
of people lost their heads (literally) because they were Catholic
sympathizers or protestant sympathizers depending on where the sitting
monarch was holding at any given point in time.
If you are going to argue that Church of England is just an
unimportant invented religion, you would have to argue that the
Catholic Church is no less so (as you correctly point out). But then
again, there are lots of people who would argue that all religions are
invented, so again, YMMV.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
lee
Depends how you look at these events imo. The English civil war was as
much a struggle against creeping the Catholicism in the nominally
Protestant Church of England, as it was an external struggle between
puritans/protestants & catholics in Scotland & Ireland. As well as
being somewhat of a 3 way class struggle too.Nonetheless it was the
Protestants/puritans who allowed Jews to settle in Britain again & the
Protestant Anglican church that has allowed us to remain in what has
seemed a relative safe haven for us, considering more recent European
history.
Also it seems after the civil war we got tired of some of these more
extreme Puritans so we shipped them all off to the colonies in the new
world. Which imo is why you guy ended up with all the Christian
fruitcake, creationists including your last potus, & we ended up with
the Vicar of Dibley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vicar_of_Dibley,
which you might not get in the states.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
snip
Nu? That's something to be proud of?
> If you are going to argue that Church of England is just an
> unimportant invented religion, you would have to argue that the
> Catholic Church is no less so (as you correctly point out).
By George she's got it.
> But then again, there are lots of people who would argue that
> all religions are invented, so again, YMMV.
My mileage surely does vary. I have no PC need to "equate" all
religions.
Henry Goodman
news:2011Jun2...@mm.huji.ac.il...
Well Reform Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism (Conservative in
America) are invented religions.
Steve Goldfarb
>Well Reform Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism (Conservative in
>America) are invented religions.
So is Rabbinic Judaism - it just got invented a little earlier.
--s
--
W. Baker
: On Jun 21, 2:39?am, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
: > lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Incidentally you can thank the protestant's/Anglicans for letting the
: > : Jews settle in Britain again, under Cromwell I believe.
: >
: > anglican!
: >
: > Wendy Baker
: Depends how you look at these events imo. The English civil war was as
: much a struggle against creeping the Catholicism in the nominally
: Protestant Church of England, as it was an external struggle between
: puritans/protestants & catholics in Scotland & Ireland. As well as
: being somewhat of a 3 way class struggle too.
Of couse, but somehow to consider Cromell as Aanglican makes me think of
quite a few people turning in their graves(including Milton).
Nonetheless it was the
: Protestants/puritans who allowed Jews to settle in Britain again & the
: Protestant Anglican church that has allowed us to remain in what has
: seemed a relative safe haven for us, considering more recent European
: history.
Absolutely no objection on that point.
: Also it seems after the civil war we got tired of some of these more
: extreme Puritans so we shipped them all off to the colonies in the new
: world. Which imo is why you guy ended up with all the Christian
: fruitcake, creationists including your last potus, & we ended up with
: the Vicar of Dibley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vicar_of_Dibley,
: which you might not get in the states.
Not so fast here. We got the Puritans and the Separatist in the 1620's
and 1630's before the revlution, as they found themselves quite unwelcom
in England. You did send upp people liek Wesly later who inspired our
seond GreatAwakening (1740's with revival movements all over the country).
The first had been led by those New England Puritans like Jonathan Edwards
adn it was far more Calvinist than the second. S now you have a better
idea of where our "revivalist" camp meeting enthusiastic Protestant
tradition (the parent of what we have now with evangelistic Protestans)
came from:-)
Let's not fight about all this. There is, clearly, enough blame to go
around:-)
I will say that our Puritans seem to have stayed more rigidly Calvinist
than yours if Milton is an example.
Glad your's welcomed us Jews back when thtey did.
Wendy Baker
sheldonlg
Yup, "My religion, right or wrong -- but my religion". Ooops, that was
supposed to be "country".
BTW, it is not a matter of PC. It is a matter of identifying the
commonality.
(www.m-w.com)
religion:
(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
>>
>
> Well Reform Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism (Conservative
> in America) are invented religions.
>
Well, so is Orthodox/Traditional Judaism. It just depends upon _when_
it was invented. The only difference between 2,000 and 200 is an added
zero :-) .
Ditto for Buddhism, Shintoism, Confusionism, Inca Temple religion, or,
for that matter, ANY religion.
BTW, Henry, I sent you a link to the charter to which you replied "Thank
you". I suggest you read it again as you have come perilously close to
violating it with this post - a no, no for a moderator.
--
Shelly
sheldonlg
Damn! You beat me to it and I already responded. By the way, Reform
Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism ARE Rabbinic Judaism. I
think you meant "Orthodox Judaism".
--
Shelly
lee
Ok lets not fight about it, its kind of a big can of worms the English
Civil War, including Ireland Scotland, not to mention the Reformation
in general.
cindys
> On 6/21/2011 10:07 AM, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
>
>
> >> Well Reform Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism (Conservative in
> >> America) are invented religions.
>
> > So is Rabbinic Judaism - it just got invented a little earlier.
>
> Damn! You beat me to it and I already responded. By the way, Reform
> Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism ARE Rabbinic Judaism. I
> think you meant "Orthodox Judaism".
No, he meant rabbinic Judaism, which is the generic Judaism that
recognizes the validity of the oral law, as opposed to a Judaism that
is based on written law only. Rabbinic Judaism had existed for several
thousand years before there were any "streams." All of the streams,
including Orthodox, are recent offshoots. There was no such thing as
"Orthodox" Judaism until there was "Reform." In fact, ISTR, that it
was Reform Judaism that coined the expression "Orthodox" Judaism to
clarify what it was that they were trying to reform.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>> So is Rabbinic Judaism - it just got invented a little earlier.
>Damn! You beat me to it and I already responded. By the way, Reform
>Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism ARE Rabbinic Judaism. I
>think you meant "Orthodox Judaism".
I was referring specificaly to the replacement of Temple Judaism with
Rabbinic Judaism back when the 2nd Temple was destroyed, but similar
things have happened subsequently.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>No, he meant rabbinic Judaism, which is the generic Judaism that
>recognizes the validity of the oral law, as opposed to a Judaism that
>is based on written law only. Rabbinic Judaism had existed for several
>thousand years before there were any "streams." All of the streams,
>including Orthodox, are recent offshoots. There was no such thing as
>"Orthodox" Judaism until there was "Reform." In fact, ISTR, that it
>was Reform Judaism that coined the expression "Orthodox" Judaism to
>clarify what it was that they were trying to reform.
I actually meant "as distinct from Temple Judaism." Clearly the practices
of Jews during Temple times were significantly different than the
practices of Jews after the temple was destroyed - perhaps even more
distinct than the differences in behavior between O and C or R Jews.
--s
--
cindys
Henry Goodman
news:itqb1m$6ji$1...@dont-email.me...
variants of Traditional Judaism were invented recently. You must be very
sensitive if you regard that as offensive. In the case of Masorti it was
invented by Rabbi Jacobs about 50 years ago; I remember it well.
Herman Rubin
The first rabbis in each of the non-Orthodox strands had
Orthodox ordination. Therefore, Shelly is absolutely
correct in stating that they are rabbinic.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
sheldonlg
Referring to them as streams of Judaism is fine.
Referring to them as distinct religions is not.
--
Shelly
Henry Goodman
Ok then they were invented variants of Judaism. Sorry if any offence caused.
W. Baker
: On Jun 21, 3:21?pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
: > lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : On Jun 21, 2:39?am, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
: > : > lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : Incidentally you can thank the protestant's/Anglicans for letting the
: > : > : Jews settle in Britain again, under Cromwell I believe.
: > : >
: > : > Cromwell Anglican! ?Try Puritan o for size. ?Those roundheads were not
: > : > anglican!
: > : >
: > : > Wendy Baker
: >
: > : Depends how you look at these events imo. The English civil war was as
: > : much a struggle against creeping the Catholicism in the nominally
: > : puritans/protestants & catholics in Scotland & Ireland. As well as
: > : being somewhat of a 3 way class struggle too.
: >
: > Of couse, but somehow to consider Cromell as Aanglican makes me think of
: > quite a few people turning in their graves(including Milton).
: >
: > Nonetheless it was the
: > : Protestants/puritans who allowed Jews to settle in Britain again & the
: > : Protestant Anglican church that has allowed us to remain in what has
: > : seemed a relative safe haven for us, considering more recent European
: > : history.
: >
: >
: > : Also it seems after the civil war we got tired of some of these more
: > : extreme Puritans so we shipped them all off to the colonies in the new
: > : world. Which imo is why you guy ended up with all the Christian
: > : the Vicar of Dibley ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vicar_of_Dibley,
: > : which you might not get in the states.
: >
: > and 1630's before the revlution, as they found themselves ?quite unwelcom
: > in England. ?You did send upp people liek Wesly later who inspired our
: > seond GreatAwakening (1740's with revival movements all over the country). ?
: > The first had been led by those New England Puritans like Jonathan Edwards
: > adn it was far more Calvinist than the second. ?S now you have a better
: > idea of where our "revivalist" ?camp meeting enthusiastic Protestant
: > tradition (the parent of what we have now with evangelistic Protestans)
: > came from:-)
: >
: > around:-)
: >
: > I will say that our Puritans seem to have stayed more rigidly Calvinist
: > than yours if Milton is an example.
: >
: >
: > Wendy Baker ?
: Ok lets not fight about it, its kind of a big can of worms the English
: Civil War, including Ireland Scotland, not to mention the Reformation
: in general.
Isn't it though! In addition, from each group yu get a different reaction
as the whole thing affected each differently, as they were treated
differently. This is all taking me back well over 50 years when I was at
university with a history major.
Wendy Baker
maxine in ri
> maxine in ri <weed...@gmail.com> writes:
> > back to lurkdom
>
> Why lurkdom?
Busy, not at the computer often enough to keep up. Refuah Shlema to
your granddaughter.
maxine
lee
Well my sympathies, as you might imagine, are very much with the
Diggers, Levellers and their elements in the rank & file of the New
Model Army. Plus I also have a sneaking admiration for Cromwell, when
I'm not repulsed by the Bin Laden of the English civil war.
Tilly
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:beec60cf-fed3-482a...@j20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
I may be wrong but I thought Moshe found the annulment amusing.
mm
<femai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>I may be wrong but I thought Moshe found the annulment amusing.
It's sort of like if you can't get your college etc. accredited by the
established accreditation organization, you found another one just to
accredit you. That's been done in the US.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
cindys
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
It wasn't the annulment that Moshe found amusing. It was that King
Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the pope said "Oh, nay, nay," and King
Henry said, "Skroo you, I'll just start a new religion in England, put
myself in charge of it, divorce my wife like I want, and you can't
stop me." And that's exactly what happened. So, King Henry divorced
himself from Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn.
And to this day, the sitting British monarch is always the head of the
Church of England, and unlike the Catholic Church, the Church of
England permits divorce.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
mm
He could be conceivably somewhat correct or maybe even slightly
correct, but your two sentences sure wouldn't make him absolutely
correct.
If a person trained as an archer decided to hunt with a rifle. would
that turn a rifle into a bow and arrow?
If a person trained as an M.D. to use histories and physicals and
lab-tests, followed by changes in diet suited to the patient's
problem, exercise suited to the patient, scientifically-tested drugs,
radiation, and surgery... if an M.D. stopped doing all that and
recommended only meditation, would that make meditation into medical
treatment?
If a person with training in righteousness becomes a murderer, does
that make murder righteous?
cindys
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:06:05 +0000 (UTC), "Tilly"
>
>
> >I may be wrong but I thought Moshe found the annulment amusing.
>
> It's sort of like if you can't get your college etc. accredited by the
> established accreditation organization, you found another one just to
> accredit you. That's been done in the US.
Yes. I have always thought that King Henry VIII was a real hoot, and I
like his style (except for when he lopped off the heads of two of his
wives).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
There were already synagogues and people who could answer questions
about halacha before the Temple was destroyed.
And we still have Temple Judaism; we just don't have the Temple.
When the Temple stood, if a Jew travelled to India, does that mean he
didn't have Temple Judaism? If he was in Shechem, and there was no
need to go to the Temple, did that mean he didn't have Temple Judaism?
And evem if it was Shavuos but he was sick and couldn't go to the
Temple, did he not still have Temple Judaism?
From what you write over the months, I suspect that you don't have
Temple Judaism, so that's why you think it's gone, but we have it.
>
>--s
DORIS LADAN
COULD YOU EXPLAIN PLEASE THE DIFFERENCE IN SIMPLE TERMS -
-
THANKS - SHALOM FROM DVORA
sheldonlg
Until the destruction of the temple, the Jewish religion was centered
around the temple. There was animal sacrifice and the priests took care
of things there. After the destruction of the temple, Judaism morphed
into Rabbinic form so that it could survive without a temple.
--
Shelly
Tilly
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:091207tkuq12hdcf1...@4ax.com...
I find it amusing that a long marriage like Camilla's and Andrew
Parker-Bowles could be annulled so that Parker-Bowles could remarry..
Did they both recover their innocence as result? ;-)
Tilly
Yes I know, I studied English history at university .
> And to this day, the sitting British monarch is always the head of the
> degrees.
mm
Temple Judaism is Judaism that includes in it the Temple and the
activies at the Temple and the beliefs and rules regarding them.
It's really a redundant phrase. It means the same as Judaism.
Tilly
> <femai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>I may be wrong but I thought Moshe found the annulment amusing.
>
> It's sort of like if you can't get your college etc. accredited by the
> established accreditation organization, you found another one just to
> accredit you. That's been done in the US.
> --
An annulment is like a marriage never happened and is a joke when a couple
have been married for many years ,have grown children and divorce. It's a
weasely way the church gets around church law so it can allow a Catholic to
remarry in the RC faith.
cindys
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:17:52 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
>
> <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >>> So is Rabbinic Judaism - it just got invented a little earlier.
>
> >>Damn! You beat me to it and I already responded. By the way, Reform
> >>Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism ARE Rabbinic Judaism. I
> >>think you meant "Orthodox Judaism".
>
> >I was referring specificaly to the replacement of Temple Judaism with
> >Rabbinic Judaism back when the 2nd Temple was destroyed, but similar
> >things have happened subsequently.
>
> There were already synagogues and people who could answer questions
> about halacha before the Temple was destroyed.
>
> And we still have Temple Judaism; we just don't have the Temple.
>
Right. And currently, because we don't have the Temple, we are unable
to have animal sacrifices. If the Temple is rebuilt, the sacrifices
will presumably resume. But I don't think one can honestly say that
the rabbis at Yavneh didn't change the focus of Jewish practice. By
necessity, they had to because the Temple had been a huge part of
Jewish practice, and it was no longer available.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
Tilly
On Jun 21, 2:34 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:17:52 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
>
> <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In <itqb4d$6j...@dont-email.me> sheldonlg <sheldo...@thevillages.net>
> >writes:
>
> >>> So is Rabbinic Judaism - it just got invented a little earlier.
>
> >>Damn! You beat me to it and I already responded. By the way, Reform
> >>Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism ARE Rabbinic Judaism. I
> >>think you meant "Orthodox Judaism".
>
> >I was referring specificaly to the replacement of Temple Judaism with
> >Rabbinic Judaism back when the 2nd Temple was destroyed, but similar
> >things have happened subsequently.
>
> There were already synagogues and people who could answer questions
> about halacha before the Temple was destroyed.
>
> And we still have Temple Judaism; we just don't have the Temple.
>
---
Right. And currently, because we don't have the Temple, we are unable
to have animal sacrifices. If the Temple is rebuilt, the sacrifices
will presumably resume. But I don't think one can honestly say that
the rabbis at Yavneh didn't change the focus of Jewish practice. By
necessity, they had to because the Temple had been a huge part of
Jewish practice, and it was no longer available.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
I get nervous thinking about the possibility of resuming animal sacrifices
if the temple is rebuilt.
Does anyone else?
__________________________________________________________________________________________
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Jun 21, 2:34 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:17:52 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
>>
>> <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >In <itqb4d$6j...@dont-email.me> sheldonlg <sheldo...@thevillages.net> writes:
>>
>> >>> So is Rabbinic Judaism - it just got invented a little earlier.
>>
>> >>Damn! You beat me to it and I already responded. By the way, Reform
>> >>Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism ARE Rabbinic Judaism. I
>> >>think you meant "Orthodox Judaism".
>>
>> >I was referring specificaly to the replacement of Temple Judaism with
>> >Rabbinic Judaism back when the 2nd Temple was destroyed, but similar
>> >things have happened subsequently.
>>
>> There were already synagogues and people who could answer questions
>> about halacha before the Temple was destroyed.
>>
>> And we still have Temple Judaism; we just don't have the Temple.
>>
>---
>Right. And currently, because we don't have the Temple, we are unable
>to have animal sacrifices. If the Temple is rebuilt, the sacrifices
>will presumably resume. But I don't think one can honestly say that
>the rabbis at Yavneh didn't change the focus of Jewish practice. By
>necessity, they had to because the Temple had been a huge part of
>Jewish practice, and it was no longer available.
Right, these are incidental changes. When the price of gasoline
was/is very high, Americans take vacations near home, within 100
miles. When the price goes down again, or people are used to it, they
go back to taking vacations much farther away.
When the concert hall is closed for remodeling, people don't go there.
When it reopens, they start again.
When it's snowing they don't go to the beach. When it's nice out they
go sunbathing and swimming.
None of these changes in activity mean the people have changed, or
their interests have changed, just that they modify their activities
based on what is possible at the moment.
And when McCormick Place in Chicago had a fire and was closed and
concerts were cancelled, you didn't hear some nudnik saying Music
Chicago had been replaced by Movie Chicago.
Except maybe for the few who never liked music to begin with.
DORIS LADAN
MY A/C BROKE -- I AM ON DIAL UP -- MICHAEL NEEDS ACCESS TO THE PHONE --
BE WELL - ..... DVORA
DORIS LADAN
JEW - OR - A NON-JEW --
-
BE WELL - ... DVORA
mm
<NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:39:14 +0000 (UTC), dvo...@msn.com (DORIS
>LADAN) wrote:
>
>>I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT TEMPLE JUDAISM IS -
>>COULD YOU EXPLAIN PLEASE THE DIFFERENCE IN SIMPLE TERMS -
>>-
>>THANKS - SHALOM FROM DVORA
>
>Temple Judaism is Judaism that includes in it the Temple and the
>activies at the Temple and the beliefs and rules regarding them.
>
>It's really a redundant phrase. It means the same as Judaism.
------------------------------------------------------
D'vora,
I didn't mean to -- and I don't think I did -- say anything about who
is a Jew and who is not. And I agree with you. I don't think there is
anyone who isn't either a Jew or non-Jew.
I was talking only about Judaism.
Steve Goldfarb
>Right. And currently, because we don't have the Temple, we are unable
>to have animal sacrifices. If the Temple is rebuilt, the sacrifices
>will presumably resume. But I don't think one can honestly say that
>the rabbis at Yavneh didn't change the focus of Jewish practice. By
>necessity, they had to because the Temple had been a huge part of
>Jewish practice, and it was no longer available.
Thank you.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>I get nervous thinking about the possibility of resuming animal sacrifices
>if the temple is rebuilt.
>Does anyone else?
Why? Are you a Vegan?
--s
--
Tilly
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:itrmtm$7bc$4...@reader1.panix.com...
No, I can understand in the context of ancient times when it really wasn't
unusual, but not in context of
a 21st century westernised society. I would hope our great Rabbis wouldn't
resume
animal sacrifices when the temple is rebuilt. It really wouldn't do anything
for Judaism or its
image IMO.
Steve Goldfarb
>No, I can understand in the context of ancient times when it really wasn't
>unusual, but not in context of
>a 21st century westernised society. I would hope our great Rabbis wouldn't
>resume
>animal sacrifices when the temple is rebuilt. It really wouldn't do anything
>for Judaism or its
>image IMO.
Although I'm not remotely religious myself, I don't understand the
objection. I can see not wanting animals killed at all, but if you're OK
with that, then what difference does it make if there's a little added
ritual around it before everyone eats their BBQ?
Why's it a "better image" to have our animals killed in factories, in
massive quantities, and chopped and sawn into little plastic-wrapped trays
shipped to our brightly lit supermarkets for our convenience, as opposed
to considering the slaughter of an animal a special occasion? Why's one
inherently a "better image" than the other?
--s
--
Tilly
No I'm not a vegan.
IMO prayer, repentance and mitzvoth should nullify the need for burnt
offerings when the
temple is rebuilt. Rav Kook for example was opposed to the resumption of
resuming animal sacrifices.
Tilly
> In <itrnkk$gk9$1...@dont-email.me> "Tilly" <femai...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>No, I can understand in the context of ancient times when it really
>>wasn't
>>unusual, but not in context of
>>a 21st century westernised society. I would hope our great Rabbis wouldn't
>>resume
>>animal sacrifices when the temple is rebuilt. It really wouldn't do
>>anything
>>for Judaism or its
>>image IMO.
>
>
> Although I'm not remotely religious myself, I don't understand the
> objection. I can see not wanting animals killed at all, but if you're OK
> with that, then what difference does it make if there's a little added
> ritual around it before everyone eats their BBQ?
I am a vegetarian not a vegan, I eat fish, eggs and dairy.I also wear
leather.
>
> Why's it a "better image" to have our animals killed in factories, in
> massive quantities, and chopped and sawn into little plastic-wrapped trays
> shipped to our brightly lit supermarkets for our convenience, as opposed
> to considering the slaughter of an animal a special occasion? Why's one
> inherently a "better image" than the other?
So you think slitting an animal's ones throat on a sacrificial site to
repent ones sins is acceptable?
Animals that are slaughtered in slaughter houses are for food., burnt
offerings are only for God.
Tilly
There's also the logistics of it,. since the animal sacrifices are
instructed to be of the first born. People
don't keep their own animals these days.
Kaparot (swinging chickens over their heads ) at Yom Kippur has been
abandoned by many Orthodox Jews
in favour of giving money instead, because they feel uncomfortable with the
kaparot ritual.
Couldn't the same be done in lieu of other animal sacrifices?
Ricky
Very intersting post. I see your point of view
>>--s
mm
<femai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:itrnva$hjd$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In <itrnkk$gk9$1...@dont-email.me> "Tilly" <femai...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>No, I can understand in the context of ancient times when it really
>>>wasn't
>>>unusual, but not in context of
>>>a 21st century westernised society.
Maybe we're too westrnized.
> I would hope our great Rabbis wouldn't
>>>resume
>>>animal sacrifices when the temple is rebuilt. It really wouldn't do
>>>anything for Judaism or its image IMO.
We won't have any trouble with our image when the Moshiach comes. And
the Temple won't be rebuilt until then, may he comes speedily in our
days.
>>
>>
>> Although I'm not remotely religious myself, I don't understand the
>> objection. I can see not wanting animals killed at all, but if you're OK
>> with that, then what difference does it make if there's a little added
>> ritual around it before everyone eats their BBQ?
>
>I am a vegetarian not a vegan, I eat fish, eggs and dairy.I also wear
>leather.
>
>
>>
>> Why's it a "better image" to have our animals killed in factories, in
>> massive quantities, and chopped and sawn into little plastic-wrapped trays
>> shipped to our brightly lit supermarkets for our convenience, as opposed
>> to considering the slaughter of an animal a special occasion? Why's one
>> inherently a "better image" than the other?
I agree with Steve! Both paragraphs. Great!
>
>
>So you think slitting an animal's ones throat on a sacrificial site to
>repent ones sins is acceptable?
Yes. Why not?
>Animals that are slaughtered in slaughter houses are for food., burnt
>offerings are only for God.
So are you only objecting to the burnt offerings? Those were a small
fraction of the animals sacrificed. Less than 5%? 2%?
And it will be even less when the Temple is rebuilt because that will
be after the Moshiach arrives, when all mankind will know G-d and
there will be no more war, no more crime, and (I don't remember
details here) less sin, no sin? So since the burnt offererings were
mostly or I think entirely sin offerings, there will be fewer or no
burnt offerings.
Is that what the Rambam was referring to when he said there would be
fewer sacrifices than before??
As to iiuc the vast majority of animals sacrificed, they were indeed
used for food. On Pesach, Shavuos, and Sukkos, families brought
animals to be sacrificed, and they were, and they were cooked and
returned to the family who bought them, who ate the sacrfice they
brought (plus other food. Each sacrifice was split among so many
people that it wasn't enought to fill anyone up. If the family was
small, they got together with other people to offer one sacrifice.)
It's something like writng a book and putting a dedication inside the
cover, "To my parents" or "To G-d". When you're done, you have the
same book you would have written even if you hadn't dedicated it, and
you still have the same food you would have eaten if you hadn't
offered it as a sacrifice.
cindys
It's been a long time since I learned this, but here goes:
The burnt offerings were not only for God. In fact, most of them were
only partly for God. Only the olah offerings were burnt up completely.
The shelamim offerings were only partially burnt, the remainder of the
animal being consumed by the animal's owner and family and the kohen.
On the three festivals, when everybody made a pilgrimage to the
Temple, they would bring a chagigah offering. One of my rabbeim used
to liken the Temple festival scenario to a giant neighborhood barbecue
where everyone gets a Fred Flintstone sized rack of ribs. ISTR
learning that people would share animals with each other because there
was tons of meat, and they had only a limited amount of time (2 days)
in which to consume all the meat. After that, any remaining meat would
need to be disposed of. At Pesach time, so many people shared each
korban Pesach that people weren't allowed to consume more than the
minimal amount that was required to fulfill the mitzvah.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : On Jun 21, 3:21?pm, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
> : > lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : > : On Jun 21, 2:39?am, "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote:
> : > : > lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : > : Incidentally you can thank the protestant's/Anglicans for letting the
> : > : > : Jews settle in Britain again, under Cromwell I believe.
> : > : >
> : > : > Cromwell Anglican! ?Try Puritan o for size. ?Those roundheads were not
> : > : > anglican!
> : >
> : > : Depends how you look at these events imo. The English civil war was
> : > : as much a struggle against creeping the Catholicism in the nominally
> : > : Protestant Church of England, as it was an external ?struggle between
> : > : puritans/protestants & catholics in Scotland & Ireland. As well as
> : > : being somewhat of a 3 way class struggle too.
> : >
> : > Of couse, but somehow to consider Cromell as Aanglican makes me think
> : > of quite a few people turning in their graves(including Milton).
> : >
> : > : Nonetheless it was the Protestants/puritans who allowed Jews
> : > : to settle in Britain again & the Protestant Anglican church
> : > : that has allowed us to remain in what has seemed a relative
> : > : safe haven for us, considering more recent European history.
> : >
> : > Absolutely no objection on that point. ?
> : >
> : > : Also it seems after the civil war we got tired of some of these more
> : > : extreme Puritans so we shipped them all off to the colonies in the new
> : > : world. Which imo is why you guy ended up with all the Christian
> : > : fruitcake, creationists including your last ?potus, & we ended up with
> : > : the Vicar of Dibley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vicar_of_Dibley
> : > : which you might not get in the states.
> : >
> : > Not so fast here. ?We got the Puritans and the Separatist in the 1620's
> : > and 1630's before the revlution, as they found themselves ?quite unwelcom
> : > in England. ?You did send upp people liek Wesly later who inspired our
> : > seond GreatAwakening (1740's with revival movements all over the country). ?
> : > The first had been led by those New England Puritans like Jonathan Edwards
> : > adn it was far more Calvinist than the second. ?S now you have a better
> : > idea of where our "revivalist" ?camp meeting enthusiastic Protestant
> : > tradition (the parent of what we have now with evangelistic Protestans)
> : > came from:-)
> : >
> : > Let's not fight about all this. ?There is, clearly, enough blame to go
> : > around:-)
> : >
> : > I will say that our Puritans seem to have stayed more rigidly Calvinist
> : > than yours if Milton is an example.
> : >
> : > Glad your's welcomed us Jews back when thtey did. ?
> : >
> : > Wendy Baker ?
>
> : Ok lets not fight about it, its kind of a big can of worms the English
> : Civil War, including Ireland Scotland, not to mention the Reformation
> : in general.
>
> Isn't it though! In addition, from each group yu get a different reaction
> as the whole thing affected each differently, as they were treated
> differently. This is all taking me back well over 50 years when I was at
> university with a history major.
Isn't SCJM G-R-E-A-T!!
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> maxine in ri <weed...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > back to lurkdom
>>
>> Why lurkdom?
>
> Busy,
I hope it's "good" busy.
> not at the computer often enough to keep up.
Then at least pop in more often.
> Refuah Shlema to your granddaughter.
Thank you. You seem quite up-to-date if you noticed that. No one
else mentioned it.
mm
This is one arguement that shouldnt' get out of hand, since no Jew is
ready to start sacrificing anytime soon. Except maybe some of the
Jewish patients at Creedmoor, a mental hospital in NYS years ago.
http://www.ravkooktorah.org/VAYIKRA58.htm This url says "it is
necessary to read a related essay from Otzarot HaRe'iyah." but it
doesnt' say where to find it**. and I got distracted by something
else.
Also http://www.ravkooktorah.org/VAYIK62.htm
http://www.ravkooktorah.org/VAYIKRA59.htm
**There are a lot of hits under
rav kook sacrifices
rav kook sacrifices Otzarot and
rav kook sacrifices Otzrot
mm
>maxine in ri <wee...@gmail.com> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> maxine in ri <weed...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> > back to lurkdom
>>>
>>> Why lurkdom?
>>
>> Busy,
>
>I hope it's "good" busy.
>
>> not at the computer often enough to keep up.
>
>Then at least pop in more often.
>
>> Refuah Shlema to your granddaughter.
>
>Thank you. You seem quite up-to-date if you noticed that. No one
>else mentioned it.
I missed it. I thought she (or her cousin?) was getting married.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>> > lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
snip
>> Brits will get a "Jewish" King!!
>>
>> My reaction to this post is "LOL". I am laughing at thinking the
>> Church of England is somehow something important.
> ----
> It may not be important to you, but it is clearly important to them.
> Don't we (Jews) think it's important for Jews to marry other Jews?
> Would it be okay with you if the rabbi of your shul had a Christian
> wife? I doubt it. So, what is so funny about the future queen of
> England being expected to be a member of the national church (of which
> her husband will someday be the leader)?
>
> I know lots of people who think O Jews are crazy to imagine that God
> actually cares if someone tears the toilet paper or flips a light
> switch on Saturday. I even know people who think it's crazy that some
> Jews use lightboxes to examine lettuce leaf by leaf for bugs and are
> insisting that 150 years ago, their Eastern European grandmothers were
> doing the same. YMMV.
>> IIRC, it was
>> _created_ by some King who didn't like the old rules of his religion
>> (something to do with who he could marry?) so "hey, presto" here's a
>> new one! :-)
>>
>> Of course Christianity and Islam are also new "creations" for those
>> who didn't like the "original" i.e. Judasim.
>
> I may be wrong but I thought Moshe found the annulment amusing.
That indeed is a _very_ amusing feature. They have children then get
an annullment for "non-consumation". :-)
mm
>maxine in ri <wee...@gmail.com> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> maxine in ri <weed...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> > back to lurkdom
>>>
>>> Why lurkdom?
>>
>> Busy,
>
>I hope it's "good" busy.
>
>> not at the computer often enough to keep up.
>
>Then at least pop in more often.
>
>> Refuah Shlema to your granddaughter.
>
>Thank you. You seem quite up-to-date if you noticed that. No one
>else mentioned it.
I missed it. I thought she (or her cousin?) was getting married.
And refuah sh'leima to her.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Tilly" <femail1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
snip
>>>> IIRC, it was _created_ by some King who didn't like the old
>>>> rules of his religion (something to do with who he could marry?)
>>>> so "hey, presto" here's a new one! :-)
>>>
>>>> Of course Christianity and Islam are also new "creations" for
>>>> those who didn't like the "original" i.e. Judasim.
>>
>> I may be wrong but I thought Moshe found the annulment amusing.
> ----
> It wasn't the annulment that Moshe found amusing. It was that King
> Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the pope said "Oh, nay, nay," and King
> Henry said, "Skroo you, I'll just start a new religion in England, put
> myself in charge of it, divorce my wife like I want, and you can't
> stop me." And that's exactly what happened. So, King Henry divorced
> himself from Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn.
That's more-or-less it. Of course the fact that Catholics can't
divorce is also a source of ammusement considering it's _explicitly_
specified in the Bible. But they tied themselves into knots with the
whole idea of marriage, so they added that restriction. LOL!
> And to this day, the sitting British monarch is always the head
> of the Church of England, and unlike the Catholic Church, the
> Church of England permits divorce.
Whoopee!
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> sheldonlg <shel...@thevillages.net> writes:
>>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> So is Rabbinic Judaism - it just got invented a little earlier.
>>
>>>Damn! You beat me to it and I already responded. By the way, Reform
>>>Judaism, Liberal Judaism and Masorti Judaism ARE Rabbinic Judaism. I
>>>think you meant "Orthodox Judaism".
>>
>>I was referring specificaly to the replacement of Temple Judaism with
>>Rabbinic Judaism back when the 2nd Temple was destroyed, but similar
>>things have happened subsequently.
>
> There were already synagogues and people who could answer questions
> about halacha before the Temple was destroyed.
>
> And we still have Temple Judaism; we just don't have the Temple.
>
> When the Temple stood, if a Jew travelled to India, does that mean he
> didn't have Temple Judaism? If he was in Shechem, and there was no
> need to go to the Temple, did that mean he didn't have Temple Judaism?
> And evem if it was Shavuos but he was sick and couldn't go to the
> Temple, did he not still have Temple Judaism?
>
> From what you write over the months, I suspect that you don't have
> Temple Judaism, so that's why you think it's gone, but we have it.
Thank you Meir. You could Shabbos and Teffillin and Marriage to your
list. AAMOF, I don't know what Steve was talking about or why Cindy
agreed. The "Temple" part was performed by the kohanim in the Temple.
The rest of the Jews kept the Torah wherever they lived.
Tilly
I learnt all of this at Hebrew School and Bnei Akiva, but I must admit I
have forgotten quite
a lot. I presume the sacrifices will only be made in Jerusalem when the
temple is rebuilt
not elsewhere.
I know the meat used to go to the Kohanim and also to the families apart
from the born offerings and also that
it was the first born animals that were slaughtered.
These I days people don't keep their own animals so it would be rather
difficult to take your own first born sheep or cow to sacrifice. These days
I imagine many people would find ritual slaughter rather difficult to watch
,since they never see it ,whereas people at the time of the temple were used
to seeing it because families had their own animals..
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I was referring specificaly to the replacement of Temple Judaism with
>> >Rabbinic Judaism back when the 2nd Temple was destroyed, but similar
>> >things have happened subsequently.
>>
>> There were already synagogues and people who could answer questions
>> about halacha before the Temple was destroyed.
>>
>> And we still have Temple Judaism; we just don't have the Temple.
> ---
> Right. And currently, because we don't have the Temple, we are unable
> to have animal sacrifices. If the Temple is rebuilt, the sacrifices
> will presumably resume. But I don't think one can honestly say that
> the rabbis at Yavneh didn't change the focus of Jewish practice. By
> necessity, they had to because the Temple had been a huge part of
> Jewish practice, and it was no longer available.
It was obviously an very _important_ part of Jewish practice. But was
it "huge"? I wonder. Most people would only go there for the three
pilgramige holidays. Any sacrifices they needed would be brought
then. But the daily life, the Shabbos and the kashrut and the family
purity laws were not and are not dependent on the Temple.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>
>>>I get nervous thinking about the possibility of resuming animal sacrifices
>>>if the temple is rebuilt.
>>>Does anyone else?
>>
>> Why? Are you a Vegan?
>
> No I'm not a vegan.
> IMO prayer, repentance and mitzvoth should nullify the need for
> was opposed to the resumption of resuming animal sacrifices.
Do you have a site for what you said about Rav Kook?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
> There's also the logistics of it,. since the animal sacrifices are
> instructed to be of the first born.
Not accurate. There is a _specific_ sacrifice of the first born, but
all other sacrifices were _not_.
> People don't keep their own animals these days.
So?
> Kaparot (swinging chickens over their heads) at Yom Kippur has been
> abandoned by many Orthodox Jews in favour of giving money instead,
> because they feel uncomfortable with the kaparot ritual.
I'm not sure that's an accurate description.
> Couldn't the same be done in lieu of other animal sacrifices?
No. Kaparot is a custom, sacrifices is Torah Law.
My take on this and the resumption of other Torah Laws which are
tempotarily in abeyance, is that when the time comes, _everybody_
will realize their importance and accept them happily.
Tilly
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2011Jun2...@mm.huji.ac.il...
It's very amusing, are RC's suddenly virgins again after the annulment. ;-)
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
big snip
> So you think slitting an animal's ones throat on a sacrificial
> site to repent ones sins is acceptable?
That is a very one-dimensional view of the sacrifices. If a person
didn't fully _repent_ there was not much value in the sacrifice.
The sacrifice was _not_ instead of repentence.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>
>>> Refuah Shlema to your granddaughter.
>>
>>Thank you. You seem quite up-to-date if you noticed that. No one
>>else mentioned it.
>
> I missed it. I thought she (or her cousin?) was getting married.
>
> And refuah sh'leima to her.
Thank you. I enjoy posting news of happy occassions. But this is
also important. My oldest daughter's youngest child was born with
a problem with her heart. At first it was thought she would need an
operation right after birth, Thank G-d, it was not necessary. At 6
months she had an operation which was successful. But there were
complications of fluid on the lungs. They seem to have gotten that
under control and she is due to leave the hospital today. IAC, she
will need a third operation when she will be 5-6 y/o IY"H. Her
operation is called "Fontan".
It's a good thing she's coming home. Her brother is getting married
July 7th IY"H.
Tilly
>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> In <itrdg6$tm5$1...@dont-email.me> "Tilly" <femai...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>I get nervous thinking about the possibility of resuming animal
>>>>sacrifices
>>>>if the temple is rebuilt.
>>>>Does anyone else?
>>>
>>> Why? Are you a Vegan?
>>
>> No I'm not a vegan.
>> IMO prayer, repentance and mitzvoth should nullify the need for
>> burnt offerings when the temple is rebuilt. Rav Kook for example
>> was opposed to the resumption of resuming animal sacrifices.
>
> Do you have a site for what you said about Rav Kook?
>
I will have a look and see if I can find one.
mm
>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>maxine in ri <wee...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Refuah Shlema to your granddaughter.
>>>
>>>Thank you. You seem quite up-to-date if you noticed that. No one
>>>else mentioned it.
>>
>> I missed it. I thought she (or her cousin?) was getting married.
>>
>> And refuah sh'leima to her.
>
>Thank you. I enjoy posting news of happy occassions. But this is
>also important. My oldest daughter's youngest child was born with
>a problem with her heart. At first it was thought she would need an
>operation right after birth, Thank G-d, it was not necessary. At 6
>months she had an operation which was successful. But there were
>complications of fluid on the lungs. They seem to have gotten that
>under control and she is due to leave the hospital today.
That's wonderful. I guess Maxine's and my refuah shleima really
worked.
>IAC, she
>will need a third operation when she will be 5-6 y/o IY"H. Her
>operation is called "Fontan".
Uh-huh.
>
>It's a good thing she's coming home. Her brother is getting married
>July 7th IY"H.
Good.
Tilly
>> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> In <itrdg6$tm5$1...@dont-email.me> "Tilly" <femai...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>I get nervous thinking about the possibility of resuming animal
>>>>sacrifices
>>>>if the temple is rebuilt.
>>>>Does anyone else?
>>>
>>> Why? Are you a Vegan?
>>
>> No I'm not a vegan.
>> IMO prayer, repentance and mitzvoth should nullify the need for
>> burnt offerings when the temple is rebuilt. Rav Kook for example
>> was opposed to the resumption of resuming animal sacrifices.
>
> Do you have a site for what you said about Rav Kook?
There are quite a lot of sites on the subject but jewish virtual library has
this:
QUOTE:
Many Jewish scholars such as Rabbi Kook believe that animal sacrifices will
not be reinstated in messianic times, even with the reestablishment of the
Temple. They believe that at that time human conduct will have advanced to
such high standards that there will no longer be need for animal sacrifices
to atone for sins. Only nonanimal sacrifices (grains, for example) to
express gratitude to God would remain. There is a Midrash (rabbinic teaching
based on Jewish values and tradition) that states: "In the Messianic era,
all offerings will cease except the thanksgiving offering, which will
continue forever. This seems consistent with the belief of Rabbi Kook and
others, based on the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9), that people and animals
will be vegetarian in that time, and "none shall hurt nor destroy in all My
Holy mountain."
Sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, were not the primary concern of
God. As a matter of fact, they could be an abomination to Him if not carried
out together with deeds of loving kindness and justice. Consider these words
of the prophets, the spokesmen of God:
.............................................
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/vegsacrifices.html
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>>> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> On Jun 21, 2:00 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
snip
>>>> IIRC, it was
>>>> _created_ by some King who didn't like the old rules of his religion
>>>> (something to do with who he could marry?) so "hey, presto" here's a
>>>> new one! :-)
>>>>
>>>> Of course Christianity and Islam are also new "creations" for those
>>>> who didn't like the "original" i.e. Judasim.
>>>
>>> I may be wrong but I thought Moshe found the annulment amusing.
>>
>> That indeed is a _very_ amusing feature. They have children then get
>> an annullment for "non-consumation". :-)
>
> It's very amusing, are RC's suddenly virgins again after the annulment. ;-)
Hey, maybe they could use it as a cure for AIDS!!
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>>maxine in ri <wee...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Refuah Shlema to your granddaughter.
>>>>
>>>>Thank you. You seem quite up-to-date if you noticed that. No one
>>>>else mentioned it.
>>>
>>> I missed it. I thought she (or her cousin?) was getting married.
>>>
>>> And refuah sh'leima to her.
>>
>>Thank you. I enjoy posting news of happy occassions. But this is
>>also important. My oldest daughter's youngest child was born with
>>a problem with her heart. At first it was thought she would need an
>>operation right after birth, Thank G-d, it was not necessary. At 6
>>months she had an operation which was successful. But there were
>>complications of fluid on the lungs. They seem to have gotten that
>>under control and she is due to leave the hospital today.
>
> That's wonderful. I guess Maxine's and my refuah shleima really
> worked.
LOL! Thanks.
>> IAC, she will need a third operation when she will be 5-6 y/o
>> IY"H. Her operation is called "Fontan".
>
> Uh-huh.
You _heard_ of it??!! I hadn't.
>>It's a good thing she's coming home. Her brother is getting married
>>July 7th IY"H.
>
> Good.
Indeed.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>> "Tilly" <femai...@gmail.com> writes:
snip
>>> IMO prayer, repentance and mitzvoth should nullify the need for
>>> burnt offerings when the temple is rebuilt. Rav Kook for example
>>> was opposed to the resumption of resuming animal sacrifices.
>>
>> Do you have a site for what you said about Rav Kook?
>
> There are quite a lot of sites on the subject but jewish virtual
> library has this:
>
> QUOTE:
>
> Many Jewish scholars such as Rabbi Kook believe that animal
> sacrifices will not be reinstated in messianic times, even with the
> reestablishment of the Temple. They believe that at that time human
> conduct will have advanced to such high standards that there will
> no longer be need for animal sacrifices to atone for sins.
I would like to see that in the _original_. Rav Kook was a very
prolific writer.
> Only nonanimal sacrifices (grains, for example) to express
> gratitude to God would remain. There is a Midrash (rabbinic
> teaching based on Jewish values and tradition) that states: "In the
> Messianic era, all offerings will cease except the thanksgiving
> offering, which will continue forever.
I am aware of that Midrash. AIUI, it refers to _personal_ sacrifices,
not communal ones.
> This seems consistent with the belief of Rabbi Kook and others,
> based on the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9), that people and animals
> will be vegetarian in that time, and "none shall hurt nor destroy
> in all My Holy mountain."
Tell you what. I'm _eager_ for that time to come. We'll see what
we will see. May it be speedily in our time!
> Sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, were not the primary concern of
> God. As a matter of fact, they could be an abomination to Him if not carried
> out together with deeds of loving kindness and justice. Consider these words
> of the prophets, the spokesmen of God:
> .............................................
> http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/vegsacrifices.html
Hmm, that site is from a self-defined vegetarian so it's obvious he'd
pick-n-choose what he wants.
Tilly
>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>>> "Tilly" <femai...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> On Jun 21, 2:00 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>>>> IIRC, it was
>>>>> _created_ by some King who didn't like the old rules of his religion
>>>>> (something to do with who he could marry?) so "hey, presto" here's a
>>>>> new one! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course Christianity and Islam are also new "creations" for those
>>>>> who didn't like the "original" i.e. Judasim.
>>>>
>>>> I may be wrong but I thought Moshe found the annulment amusing.
>>>
>>> That indeed is a _very_ amusing feature. They have children then get
>>> an annullment for "non-consumation". :-)
>>
>> It's very amusing, are RC's suddenly virgins again after the annulment.
>> ;-)
>
> Hey, maybe they could use it as a cure for AIDS!!
>
> --
That's not a viable solution Moshe. Many people have contracted AIDS non
sexually -from
blood transfusions, needles etc....
mm
<NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 03:48:21 +0000 (UTC), "Tilly"
><femai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:itrmtm$7bc$4...@reader1.panix.com...
>>> In <itrdg6$tm5$1...@dont-email.me> "Tilly" <femai...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I get nervous thinking about the possibility of resuming animal sacrifices
>>>>if the temple is rebuilt.
>>>>Does anyone else?
>>>
>>> Why? Are you a Vegan?
>>>
>>
>>
>>No I'm not a vegan.
>>IMO prayer, repentance and mitzvoth should nullify the need for burnt
>>offerings when the
>>temple is rebuilt. Rav Kook for example was opposed to the resumption of
>>resuming animal sacrifices.
>
>This is one arguement that shouldnt' get out of hand, since no Jew is
>ready to start sacrificing anytime soon. Except maybe some of the
>Jewish patients at Creedmoor, a mental hospital in NYS years ago.
>
>http://www.ravkooktorah.org/VAYIKRA58.htm This url says "it is
>necessary to read a related essay from Otzarot HaRe'iyah." but it
>doesnt' say where to find it**. and I got distracted by something
>else.
I kept looking for Otzarot HaRe'iyah, and finally realized it was
right here where I started, at this url. I thought the editor's
paragraph was pointing me somewhere else but it wasn't. I tried to
find Olat Re'iyah or Olat Raiyah but didnt' get very far. It's a
commentary on the Siddur. Maybe someone has the book. Maybe it's not
in English?
Here is what the webpage author says is necessary to read, by Rav
Kook, preceded by the entire introductory paragraph.
Vayikra: Animal Sacrifices in the Third Temple?
[Rav Kook's views on the Temple service are sometimes misconstrued. A
superficial reading of a passage in Olat Re'iyah (vol. I, p. 292)
indicates that only grain offerings will be offered in the reinstated
Temple service. To properly understand Rav Kook's approach, it is
necessary to read a related essay from Otzarot HaRe'iyah.]
What will the rebuilt Temple be like? Will we really offer animal
sacrifices once again?
Protecting Animals
Some people object to the idea of sacrifices out of concern for the
welfare of animals. However, this objection contains a measure of
hypocrisy. Why should compassion for animals only be expressed with
regard to humanity's spiritual needs? If our opposition to animal
slaughter is based not on weakness of character, but on recognition of
the issue's fundamental morality, then our first step should be to
outlaw the killing of animals for food, clothing, and other material
benefits.
In the world's present state, the human race is weak, both physically
and morally. The hour to protect animal life has not yet arrived. We
still need to slaughter animals for our physical needs, and human
morality requires that we maintain clear boundaries to distinguish
between the relative value of human and animal life.
At this point in time, to advocate the protection of animals in our
service of God is disingenuous. Is it moral to permit cruelty towards
animals for our physical needs, yet forbid their use for our spiritual
service, in sincere recognition and gratitude for God's kindness? If
our dedication and love for God can be expressed - at its highest
level — with our willingness to surrender our own lives and die "al
kiddush Hashem," sanctifying God's name, then certainly we should be
willing to forgo the life of animals for this sublime goal.
The Return of Prophecy
Currently, however, we are not ready for an immediate restoration of
the sacrificial service. Only with the return of prophecy will it be
possible to restore the Temple order. In a letter penned in 1919, Rav
Kook explained:
"With regard to sacrifices, it is more correct to believe that all
aspects will be restored to their place. ... We should not be overly
troubled by the views of European culture. In the future, God's word
to His people will elevate all the foundations of culture to a level
above that attainable by human reason.
"It is inappropriate to think that sacrifices only reflect the
primitive idea of a worship of flesh. This service possesses a holy
inner nature that cannot be revealed in its beauty without the
illumination of God's light to His people [the return of prophecy] and
a renewal of holiness to Israel. And this will be recognized by all
peoples. But I agree with your honor that we should not approach the
practical aspects of sacrifices without the advent of revealed divine
inspiration in Israel." (Igrot HaRe'iyah vol. IV p. 24)
The Future World
In the writings of the Kabbalists, we find a remarkable description of
how the universe will look in the future, a world vastly changed from
our current reality. All aspects of the universe will be elevated.
Even the animals in that future era will be different; they will
advance to the level of people nowadays (Sha’ar Hamitzvot of the Ari
z"l). Obviously, no sacrifice could be offered from such humanlike
animals. At that time, there will no longer be strife and conflict
between the species. Human beings will no longer need to take the
lives of animals for their physical, moral, and spiritual needs.
It is about this distant time that the Midrash makes the startling
prediction, "All sacrifices will be annulled in the future" (Tanchuma
Emor 19, Vayikra Rabbah 9:7). The prophet Malachi similarly foretold
of a lofty world in which the Temple service will only consist of
grain offerings, in place of the animal sacrifices of old:
"Then the grain-offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to
God as in the days of old, and as in ancient years." (Malachi 3:4)
Hints to the Future
Even in the current reality, we may feel uncomfortable about killing
animals. This does not mean that the time for full animal rights has
already arrived. Rather, these feelings come from a hidden
anticipation of the future that is already ingrained in our souls,
like many other spiritual aspirations.
Hints of these future changes may be found in the text of the Torah
itself. Thus, it says that offerings are slaughtered on the northern
side of the altar. Why this side? The north traditionally represents
that which is incomplete and lacking, as it is written, "Out of the
north, the evil shall break forth" (Jeremiah 1:14). In other words,
the need to slaughter animals is a temporary concession to life in an
incomplete world.
Furthermore, the Torah stipulates that sacrifices must be slaughtered
lirtzonchem — 'willingly' (Lev. 19:5). The Temple service must
correspond to our needs and wants. As the Talmud in Erchin 21a
explains, one must be able to say, 'I want to bring this offering.'
When the slaughter of animals is no longer generally acceptable to
society, this condition will not be fulfilled.
Finally, the Torah describes a person offering an animal sacrifice as
adam (Lev. 1:2). This word indicates our current state of moral
decline, a result of the unresolved sin of Adam, the first man. An
individual offering a grain offering, on the other hand, is called
nefesh, or 'soul' (Lev. 2:1). The word nefesh implies a deeper, more
essential level of humanity, independent of any temporary failings.
(Gold from the Land of Israel pp. 173-176. Adapted from Otzarot
HaRe'iyah, vol. II, pp. 101-103; Olat Re'iyah vol. I, p. 292)
Copyright © 2006 by Chanan Morrison
mm
No, I hadn't heard of it.
>
>>>It's a good thing she's coming home. Her brother is getting married
>>>July 7th IY"H.
>>
>> Good.
>
>Indeed.
--
Meir
Tilly
Rav Kook wasn't a vegetarian though.
If you Google there is quite a lot on the subject Moshe.
Take your pick:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Rav+Kook%2Btemple+sacrifices&ie=UTF-8