Judaism and Homosexuality (review)
Motti
Judaism & Homosexuality, Rabbi Barry Freundel
The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society
Number XI, Spring 1986, pg. 70.
This article gives what has now become one standard
Orthodox view towards homosexuality: the sex acts are
banned, but one should deny the concept of a fixed
"gay identity" because that will drive away Jews who do
have same sex attraction. This approach to attaches no more
stigma this this particular "toevah" (lit: abomination)
than to other labelled toevahs (eating non-kosher food,
idoltry, unethical bussiness dealings, etc). A homosexual,
even a practicing one, ought not to be ostracized any more
than a person involved in these other activities, that the
Torah informs us are clearly "abominations"
For my part, I suppose it is either spiritual insensitivity
that would cause many of us to not see all these abominations
as equally objectionable; or perhaps outside cultural influence
or just plain rampant emotionalism. Unfortunately, if there
have been any historical changes in attitudes towards homosexuals
in Jewish culture (or halacha) that issue is not explored in this article.
One strenghth of this article is a nice review of the contempory
trends in halacha and some interesting footnotes, among them:
Schwartz, M.F. and Masters, W.H., "The Masters and Johnson Treatment
Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men", American Journal of
Psychiatry, 141:2, February, 1984, pp. 173-181.
footnote from article: This study show a remarkable success rate.
After 1 year 79.1% and after 5 years it was 71.6%.
The subtheme here, I suppose, is that there will be some people
who experience same sex attraction, but that should not be the basis
for giving that person a status on that basis (ie an "identity")
and that having free will the person is not bound to follow that
attraction.
The article certainly was interesting and informative, as are many
of the articles in this journal. My only complaint (as always) is
that they pepper the articles with hebrew (and aramaic) and do not
provide literal *and* figurative translations in a consistent manner.
(editors take note!)
mordechai steve seidman _ __ ____ __ ,__
sr...@crux3.cit.cornell.edu | | | | | |
__| | | | _|
SUZANNE FORTIN
Hi
This is my first post, and my ignorance of Judaism is rather profound, so
please be patient.
I am wondering why eating non-kosher foods is considered an abomination.
The others I could see why. Does anything happen spiritually when one
sins in this regard (eg. in Catholicism, when one commits a mortal sin,
one's soul turns away from God's grace).
I hope I can get an answer to this question
Suzanne
Bryan
In <Pine.SOL.3.91.96060...@agora.ulaval.ca>, SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>....
>I am wondering why eating non-kosher foods is considered an abomination.
>The others I could see why. Does anything happen spiritually when one
>sins in this regard (eg. in Catholicism, when one commits a mortal sin,
>one's soul turns away from God's grace).
It's not an abomination. The eating kosher is a command that appears in the
written Torah as a divine command as a sign (seal) of the eternal covenant
between G-d and the Jewish people. The Oral Torah has much to say in
the elaboration of this command. To disobey this command is to disobey G-d.
The consequences are not theological, they are communal and physical --
by separating oneself from the people of Israel in this and other regards,
one makes it difficult for one's children to return to the people Israel.
This has the profound cumulative effect of wiping out your family's name
from the people Israel in the final analysis. Communally, such a person
places themself in an awkward social position as observant Jews cannot
feel comfortable eating together in the house of a person who doesn't keep
kosher, even if that person provides kosher food. Note that these things
only pertain to those who observe and obey this command. There are
Jews that don't even consider the command appropriate for this age.
Regarding sin, one could make the analogy from Orthodox Judaism to
Catholicism by saying that when one commits this sin, such a person
indeed is outside of G-d's intended purpose for this person and will
not be privy to G-d's provisions which are a direct result of following
this command. I can't address that ephemeral notion of "Grace" as
that is wrapped up in Christology. I can talk about the actual Hebrew
word from which that concept was derived and corrupted and give you
its meaning within Judaism if that becomes necessary.
I hope this extremely brief overview helps.
-Bryan
SUZANNE FORTIN
Bryan
Thank you for your response.
But then why are certain animals held in abomination (Leviticus 11)? I
have looked at other things considered "abomination", e.g. child
sacrifice, dishonest weights, etc. They make sense. But what is wrong
with animals?
Suzanne
Motti
SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>But then why are certain animals held in abomination (Leviticus 11)? I
>have looked at other things considered "abomination", e.g. child
>sacrifice, dishonest weights, etc. They make sense. But what is wrong
>with animals?
THere are many Chookeem (lit: decrees, fig: laws with no rational
basis) in the Tenakh (bible). Not all these involve "abominations"
but just to name a few: no weaving of wool and flax, no planting
a feild with two kinds of seed, not eating the first fruits, using the
ashes of the red heifer, etc. etc. These laws come from a higher
source so cannot be completely contained by human intellect. To some
extent g-d gave these sorts of laws to jewish people as a means
of purifications, and to sensitize one to subtle spiritual qualities
but even this is hardly and answer.
Now you mention other laws that do make sense, in other words they are
needed just so that a society can be formed in an orderly fashion
(no stealing, no murder, etc.) but if your motivation of following
these is purely expendiency then one should conclude your true
religion is really just a sentimental form of pragmatism. Obviously
we believe that *all* these laws, the rational as well as the
non-rational ones have a much more mysterious and hidden origin.
SUZANNE FORTIN
On 7 Jun 1996, Motti wrote:
> source so cannot be completely contained by human intellect. To some
> extent g-d gave these sorts of laws to jewish people as a means
> of purifications, and to sensitize one to subtle spiritual qualities
^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's another thing I've always wondered. What are Jews purifying
exactly? If they touch a dead carcass of some animal, they become
impure. What does it mean to be impure? Is it the soul which is impure? I
read somewhere that it means being ritually unfit. In what way?
Suzanne
Glenn Farber
In article <4p82o7$r...@tuba.cit.cornell.edu>,
Motti <sr...@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> wrote:
>THere are many Chookeem (lit: decrees, fig: laws with no rational
>basis) in the Tenakh (bible). Not all these involve "abominations"
...
>Now you mention other laws that do make sense, in other words they are
>needed just so that a society can be formed in an orderly fashion
>(no stealing, no murder, etc.) but if your motivation of following
>these is purely expendiency then one should conclude your true
>religion is really just a sentimental form of pragmatism. Obviously
>we believe that *all* these laws, the rational as well as the
>non-rational ones have a much more mysterious and hidden origin.
I agree that they have some origin -- and some meaning and purpose. (To
hold that chukim have no purpose is to ascribe arbitrariness to halakha).
That's why I object to the formulation of chukim as "laws with no rational
basis." Instead, I suggest "laws whose rational basis is less obvious."
Solomon Taibi
A classic case of thread drift, no connection with homosexuality
at all.
>But then why are certain animals held in abomination (Leviticus 11)? I
>have looked at other things considered "abomination", e.g. child
>sacrifice, dishonest weights, etc. They make sense. But what is wrong
>with animals?
Certain animals are *unclean*. This has religious ceremonial
significance, but is not unrelated to the common everyday
definition of the word.
For example, pigs carry trichinosis, a debilitating, incurable,
ultimately fatal disease which was once quite common in
Europe.
Of course, this sort of thing is not sufficient in and of itself,
to explain the prohibition. For those who believe, the prohibition
still holds for well-cooked grain-fed pork.
--
S. Taibi
Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks
into spears: Let the weak say 'I am strong'. (Joel 3:10)
Bryan
>exactly? If they touch a dead carcass of some animal, they become
>impure. What does it mean to be impure? Is it the soul which is impure? I
>read somewhere that it means being ritually unfit. In what way?
What you read is pretty much it. "Purity" is an intangible quality pertaining
to religious observance. It can only be identified by religious precepts
and an action or inaction would be mandated depending upon whether it is
"pure" or "impure." It is kind of a spiritual categorization which is not
inherent in the object itself, but is imputed to the object through religious
observance, and in turn, has real physical consequences by virue of its
imputed status.
-Bryan
SUZANNE FORTIN
On Fri, 7 Jun 1996, Solomon Taibi wrote:
> A classic case of thread drift, no connection with homosexuality
> at all.
>
> >But then why are certain animals held in abomination (Leviticus 11)? I
> >have looked at other things considered "abomination", e.g. child
> >sacrifice, dishonest weights, etc. They make sense. But what is wrong
> >with animals?
>
> Certain animals are *unclean*. This has religious ceremonial
> significance, but is not unrelated to the common everyday
> definition of the word.
But what about touching an animal makes one ritually unfit? From a
Gentile's eyes (oooh, first time I refer myself as that) there seems to
be no difference. Okay, so you touch a pig then go perform a sacrifice.
What's the big deal? Sure you're unfit, but what consists of the
debilitation? If a surgeon touches a dirty rag, he is unfit to operate
because of germs. Is there some sort of taint associated with
uncleanliness, or is simply a case of accepting the fact that God sez so
and that you don't understand.
Sorry if I sound like a dense Gentile.
Suzanne
Solomon Taibi
SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> wrote:
In the final analysis there is no (what is called) rational reason.
G-d said so, and that's that! However (as I pointed out) these rules
have some sort of rational basis.
As a Gentile, you are under no obligation to follow such Jewish laws
that have no purely ethical basis.
Joe Slater
SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>That's another thing I've always wondered. What are Jews purifying
>exactly? If they touch a dead carcass of some animal, they become
>impure. What does it mean to be impure? Is it the soul which is impure? I
>read somewhere that it means being ritually unfit. In what way?
A person who is Tomeh ("impure") cannot participate in rituals at the
Temple (the big one which was in Jerusalem), but that's about all. It
doesn't really apply nowadays because the next Temple is not yet
constructed.
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | `You SHOULD have said "It's extremely
T: +61-3-95258728 F: +61-3-95620756 | kind of you to tell me all this" -
If all else fails try Dialix: | however, we'll suppose it said.'
j...@melb.dialix.oz.au | (The Red Queen)
Andrew Mathis
gfa...@umbc.edu (Glenn Farber) wrote:
>...
Midrash explains many of the laws that seem to have no basis.
Example: One may not wear a garment of wool and linen. Why not? One
midrash says because Abel offered a sacrifice of animal product, and
Cain one of vegetable product. And we all know what happened....
-------------------------------------
"If they give you ruled paper,
Write the other way."
--Juan Ramon Jimenez
Irene Stern Friedman
gfa...@umbc.edu (Glenn Farber) wrote:
*In article <4p82o7$r...@tuba.cit.cornell.edu>,
*Motti <sr...@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> wrote:
*>THere are many Chookeem (lit: decrees, fig: laws with no rational
*>basis) in the Tenakh (bible). Not all these involve "abominations"
*
*>Now you mention other laws that do make sense, in other words they are
*>needed just so that a society can be formed in an orderly fashion
*>(no stealing, no murder, etc.) but if your motivation of following
*>these is purely expendiency then one should conclude your true
*>religion is really just a sentimental form of pragmatism. Obviously
*>we believe that *all* these laws, the rational as well as the
*>non-rational ones have a much more mysterious and hidden origin.
*
*I agree that they have some origin -- and some meaning and purpose. (To
*hold that chukim have no purpose is to ascribe arbitrariness to halakha).
*That's why I object to the formulation of chukim as "laws with no rational
*basis." Instead, I suggest "laws whose rational basis is less obvious."
Rationality is for science. We follow G-d's laws because we are commanded
to. If we only followed laws that we understood we would be according G-d
the respect we show teachers. We follow those that seem incomprehensible
and strange as act of faith and obedience. We do not need to understand;
that is where faith comes in. HaShem understands and that is enough.
Irene Stern Friedman
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on 6 Jun 1996 20:26:01 GMT
bsh...@raleigh.ibm.com (Bryan) posted:
>In <Pine.SOL.3.91.96060...@agora.ulaval.ca>, SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>>....
>>I am wondering why eating non-kosher foods is considered an abomination.
>>The others I could see why. Does anything happen spiritually when one
>>sins in this regard (eg. in Catholicism, when one commits a mortal sin,
>>one's soul turns away from God's grace).
>It's not an abomination. The eating kosher is a command that appears in the
>written Torah as a divine command as a sign (seal) of the eternal covenant
>between G-d and the Jewish people.
Suzanne doesn't give her citations but I presume they are Vayikra
11:10-23, 41-42. (Leviticus) Here non-kosher seafood, non-kosher
fowl, non-kosher creeping things are all listed as abomination. Other
non-kosher land animals are described as tomeh, unclean more or less.
Suzanne, these laws on WHICH animals are kosher are hokim, those for
which no explanation is given and no explanation is apparent. Even if
one could come up with a reason, one cannot assume that is the only
reason.
I am not much into philosophy, that is, what happens spiritually. It
is not good to sin. The difference, if any, between sins involving
abominations and other sins I must lleave to others.
I don't recall that eating kosher is a sign of the covenant. Did I
miss that.
Shalom
mei...@erols.com also not a posek
"Purify our hearts to serve You in truth.
Taher libanu l'ovdecho b'emes. "
I miss many posts so please e-mail comments also
if you want to be sure that I see it.
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on Fri, 7 Jun 1996 00:20:12 -0400 SUZANNE FORTIN
<aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> posted:
>On 7 Jun 1996, Motti wrote:
>> source so cannot be completely contained by human intellect. To some
>> extent g-d gave these sorts of laws to jewish people as a means
>> of purifications, and to sensitize one to subtle spiritual qualities
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>That's another thing I've always wondered. What are Jews purifying
>exactly? If they touch a dead carcass of some animal, they become
>impure. What does it mean to be impure? Is it the soul which is impure? I
>read somewhere that it means being ritually unfit. In what way?
Unfit because they are not permitted to perform the related ritual.
It is sort of a tautology. Impure has all kinds of connotations in
English that are not there in Hebrew. I am not sure of the rules,
because there is no Temple and we can't offer sacrifices anyhow, but
being in contact or proximity to a dead person, (or carcasses too?)
renders one tomeh. The only to undo this is a procedure involving the
ashes of a red heiffer, I believe. They found a red heiffer recently,
but sometimes they change color later on, and it doesn't matter
because no one intends to gather her ashes. Most Jews spend most of
their life in this state of tomeh. Cohanim do not attend funerals
except for close family members to avoid becoming tomeh but even they
have many opportunities. Many serious cohanim do not become doctors
to avoid contact with the dead, even though, if the Temple were
restored they could be purified (somehow the inaccurate connotations
of this word seem less to me) because they are required to avoiid
contact with the deade
Women who have had contact with death (of a potential child) in terms
of menstrual bleeding are unfit for sexual relations. Fortuneately,
no red heiffer is required, only immersion in a mikvah, as do converts
during their conversion and some men on occasion, like before Shabbos
if this is their custom.
>Suzanne
Adam J. Schorr
In article <4p9tcf$j...@umbc8.umbc.edu>, gfa...@umbc.edu (Glenn Farber) wrote:
>In article <4p82o7$r...@tuba.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Motti <sr...@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Now you mention other laws that do make sense, in other words they are
>
The laws do not need to have a mysterious and hidden origin. Our motivation
for following all of the laws is pure expediency because living in accordance
with G-d's laws is the best way we can live. If our motivation is the
satisfaction of our emotions then our religion may be sentimental pragmatism
or just idolatry. All of G-d's laws make sense and we cannot separate the
notion of rationality from G-d's wisdom or from his system.
It is certainly sensible to argue that chukim are rational. A better
definition for chukim may be "laws that human intelligence would not have
derived." Some scholars argue that there is some "arbitrariness" (I put the
word in quotes b/c I'm not certain how that word would be defined with respect
to G-d) in the details (like why four strands of tzitzit instead of 3 or why
sacrifice a sheep instead of a goat) but this does not detract from the
rationality of the chok.
Adam J. Schorr
>Midrash explains many of the laws that seem to have no basis.
>
>Example: One may not wear a garment of wool and linen. Why not? One
>midrash says because Abel offered a sacrifice of animal product, and
>Cain one of vegetable product. And we all know what happened....
This cannot be the basis. This makes no sense. The midrash is not meant to be
ignored but it is not meant to be taken literally.
Adam J. Schorr
>Rationality is for science. We follow G-d's laws because we are commanded
>to. If we only followed laws that we understood we would be according G-d
>the respect we show teachers. We follow those that seem incomprehensible
>and strange as act of faith and obedience. We do not need to understand;
>that is where faith comes in. HaShem understands and that is enough.
>Irene Stern Friedman
NO MA'AM! What kind of G-d would he be if he made no sense? Rationality is a
reflection of G-d's wisdom, an ability he gave us and intended us to use in
the evaluation of our lives. This does not mean that we can ever completely
comprehend G-d's system and it certainly does not mean that we are ever free
to ignore part of the legal system simply because we do not understand it. If
we argue that G-d's system can be irrational then we allow G-d to be stupid or
cruel. Check out the Guide to the Perplexed.
Motti
ta...@inil.com (Solomon Taibi) writes:
>Certain animals are *unclean*. This has religious ceremonial
>significance, but is not unrelated to the common everyday
>definition of the word.
>For example, pigs carry trichinosis, a debilitating, incurable,
>ultimately fatal disease which was once quite common in
>Europe.
Thanks for mentioning trinchinosis, I would like to address the
myth that trichinosis is related to the kashrut ban on pork.
One wonders why it didn't merely say "thou shalt cook pork until
the pink is gone"
First, let me add, that according to Marvin Harris, the material
anthropologist who wrote Abonibable Pig and Sacred Cow that trichinosis
is a minor disease, often misdiagnosed as "recurring flu"... to
this day about 4% of North Americans have it, undetected, and probably
about 95% of African population. According to Joe Reggenstein,
Kashrut expert at Cornell, the incubation is 7 to 8 days so it is
very unlikely that the ancient hebrews could have even made the connection
of eating pork with this rather mild disease. However, Harris does
point out that they were aware of anthrax (and that is actually
a serious disease) which infects cows, and goats and yet the Hebrews
were undeterred in eating those animals. Clearly disease has not
been the concern in these sorts of prohibitions.
We are left with alternate explanations, Harris offers some subtle
anthropological theories that are quite good; non of which are
incompatible with the religious explanation that it is a decree
from the prophecy of moses, to be followed independent of any
theories one happens to dream up.
Motti
SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>On 7 Jun 1996, Motti wrote:
>> source so cannot be completely contained by human intellect. To some
>> extent g-d gave these sorts of laws to jewish people as a means
>> of purifications, and to sensitize one to subtle spiritual qualities
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>That's another thing I've always wondered. What are Jews purifying
>exactly? If they touch a dead carcass of some animal, they become
>impure. What does it mean to be impure? Is it the soul which is impure? I
>read somewhere that it means being ritually unfit. In what way?
Thanks for starting a different thread on this: of course i didn't
mean ritutal purification in what i mentioned above; but since you
are interested I will adress this issue.
Impurity (tomeh) is totally unrelated to any sort of physical impurity.
We are talking about a state of being unfit to enter the temple in
jerusalem (may it be speedily rebuilt, and in our time!). This state
of ritual impurity is defined by the torah, and the torah (and oral
law) informs us of whats sorts of things carry this ritual-impurity,
and what to do about it. Obviously, only someone with prophecy
would be able to know these things.
SO can we get a hint of the concept behind ritual impurity. It is
related to changes in the state of the soul. Whenever the soul
leaves the body, like during sleep it partially leaves, or in death
it totally leaves; there is a "vacuum" left behind where "impure"
forces come in to fill that vacuum. Make sense?
Another way to look at it, is that when the soul changes state, like
is going to a higher level during this transition the soul is
vulnerable to "impurity". Perhaps this makes sense too?
SUZANNE FORTIN
On 9 Jun 1996, Motti wrote:
> SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>
> >On 7 Jun 1996, Motti wrote:
>
>
> Impurity (tomeh) is totally unrelated to any sort of physical impurity.
> We are talking about a state of being unfit to enter the temple in
> jerusalem (may it be speedily rebuilt, and in our time!). This state
> of ritual impurity is defined by the torah, and the torah (and oral
> law) informs us of whats sorts of things carry this ritual-impurity,
> and what to do about it. Obviously, only someone with prophecy
> would be able to know these things.
>
> SO can we get a hint of the concept behind ritual impurity. It is
> related to changes in the state of the soul. Whenever the soul
> leaves the body, like during sleep it partially leaves, or in death
> it totally leaves; there is a "vacuum" left behind where "impure"
> forces come in to fill that vacuum. Make sense?
And what happens when the soul totally comes back? It takes on these
impurities? It is then less holy, less close to G-d?
Also, another question. What is the relationship between the unwritten
law and Scripture in Judaism? I know the Pharisees of Jesus' time had an
oral law; does this still apply today? And how does it develop? Who
decides what's law and what's not?
I find this discussion very interesting.
Thanks
Suzanne
Glenn Farber
In article <lexf-08069...@lspt-66ppp196.epix.net>,
Irene Stern Friedman <le...@epix.net> wrote:
>*I agree that they have some origin -- and some meaning and purpose. (To
>*hold that chukim have no purpose is to ascribe arbitrariness to halakha).
>*That's why I object to the formulation of chukim as "laws with no rational
>*basis." Instead, I suggest "laws whose rational basis is less obvious."
>
>Rationality is for science. We follow G-d's laws because we are commanded
>to. If we only followed laws that we understood we would be according G-d
>the respect we show teachers. We follow those that seem incomprehensible
>and strange as act of faith and obedience. We do not need to understand;
>that is where faith comes in. HaShem understands and that is enough.
That may be enough for you. I respectfully suggest that it is not
good enough for some of us.
Moshe Shulman
I have a friend who is going to Or Sameach in Jerusalem. (He leaves New
York on Wednesday. I wanted to know if there were any peopl ehere who
are associated with OS who can help us stay in cantact. Thanks. Please
email to me answers.
--
/\ /\
____/_ \____ ____/_ \____
\ ___\ \ / Moshe Shulman \ ___\ \ /
\/ / \/ / \/ / \/ /
/ /\__/_/\ mshu...@ix.netcom.com / /\__/_/\
/__\ \_____\ /__\ \_____\
\ / \ /
\/ \/
Joshua W. Burton
SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> wrote:
> Also, another question. What is the relationship between the
> unwritten law and Scripture in Judaism? I know the Pharisees of
> Jesus' time had an oral law; does this still apply today? And
> how does it develop? Who decides what's law and what's not?
The Oral Law, which can be thought of as a body of jurisprudence
and procedure that accompanies the statutes of the Written Law, is
believed to have been passed down from the time of Moses, restored
after the first exile by Ezra and Nehemiah, and finally written
down by the academies at Yavne and in the Galilee in the two
generations following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70
CE. It consists of specific interpretations and elaborations of
the Written Law (example: the Written Law forbids lighting fires
and `all manner of work' on the sabbath; the Oral Law enumerates
39 forms of activity that constitute `work'), and some commentary
on the principles by which the Written Law can be expounded (example:
from the proximity of two laws in the text, we can learn that one
provides a `hidden' explanation of how the other is to be applied).
There are Jews called Karaites, recognized by the state of Israel
as 100% Jewish but heretical, who reject the Oral Law, as did the
Sadducees of the New Testament era. One objection to their `purism'
is that they have been forced by practical necessity to develop
interpretations and methods of textual analysis of their own---you
simply cannot have law without jurisprudence. This being the case,
most Jews accept the authority of the Oral Law that has come down
to us as (at the very least) the closest we can come to Torah from
Mount Sinai. If all the lawyers in the US suddenly died, and all
we had were the written statute books, we would have to study Perry
Mason and LA Law videotapes pretty closely for practical procedure,
whether we believed they were 100% accurate or not!
The rabbis wrote down the Oral Law because of fears that the
disruption of all Temple-oriented Jewish life in the first century
CE would lead to a breakdown in the institutions through which it
had been transmitted for more than a thousand years preceding.
The written compilation, in six books, is known as the Mishnah.
For the next four or five centuries, the rabbis of Babylon and
those of the Galilee discussed and expounded upon the Oral and
Written Law, discussing endless practical situations, general folk
wisdom, wild theoretical extrapolations of the legal principles
embodied in the Law (Rabbi X made a man; do we count him as a
congregation member? There was a castle in the air; does entering
it constitute a motion from one domain to another? A fetus jumped
from one womb to another; who is the mother?), and much more that
defies easy categorization. As the `wild' examples I listed make
clear, some of the most unlikely material in these compilations
has gained new relevance in light of modern technology and medicine!
The Babylonian texts are more complete, but the Palestinian ones
have better coverage of the details of Temple ritual, which must
be studied closely for its possible future relevance. The
commentaries, which were frozen in close to their present form by
600 CE, are called the Gemara, and comprise about thirty volumes
in the Babylonian version. The Mishnah and Gemara together
(jurisprudence plus case law, if you like) are collectively termed
`the Talmud'.
Since the closing of the Talmud, there has been considerable further
development of the Law in the areas of practical application, but
always in a tone that reveres the stated views of the Talmudic
rabbis as being on a higher plane than those of our modern scholars,
who are free to interpret but not to contradict. A sharp distinction
is always drawn between Torah Law (meaning law that derives directly
from prohibitions in the Written or Oral Torah) and Rabbinic Law
(meaning law that the Talmudic rabbis adopted as a `fence' to
protect us from unwarily transgressing Torah Law), and different
standards are used to judge cases of doubt in matters of Torah Law
than of Rabbinic. You will frequently see a false distinction made
by uninformed posters between `Torah' (meaning Written) Law and
Oral Law---in normative Judaism, the two stand together in
distinction to Rabbinic Law. Example: the Written Law says `an
eye for an eye'. The Oral Law says (and historical documents from
the Second Temple era confirm) that this was _never_ intended
literally, but rather means `measured and just (monetary) compensation
for damages inflicted'. The Rabbinic Law upholds this principle, but
might still command a man to forego the monetary damages in certain
cases so as not to even come close to transgressing some other
Torah prohibition, such as exacting interest on a debt, or causing
baseless hatred. The first two are Torah, the last is not. But
all are binding on Jews worldwide. (A still lower level of `law',
called minhag, or `custom', is post-Talmudic and usually has force
only within particular communities.)
A word should be said about the Kabbala, a `hidden' or `mystic'
addendum to the Oral Law, which some hold to also date from Mount
Sinai. Here the range of normative and permissible opinion is much
wider. At one extreme there are people who believe that Kabbala
is the essential underlying meaning of the Torah, and that all of
the miracles achieved by false idol worship in Biblical times was
a result of the misapplication of Kabbalistic magic by heretics.
At the other extreme there are perfectly religious Jews who maintain
(not too loudly!) that Kabbala is pious mystical speculation,
created in Spain in the thirteenth century and falsely back-dated to
Shimon bar Yohai in 2nd-century Galilee, who is alleged by believers
to have first written it down and then hidden it. It's very deep
and difficult stuff, and everyone seems to agree that it is not
good for you (whether because it's dangerous in untrained hands or
because it is utterly allegorical) until you have devoted half your
life to intensive study of the Written and (unhidden) Oral Law and
the Talmudic commentaries.
The best short book I know for summarizing the Jewish view of all
of these texts is The_Essential_Talmud, by Adin Steinsaltz, who
may be the greatest Talmudist our century has produced. It's a
couple of hundred easy pages, and is widely available in paperback.
Check it out!
`I didn't do it; nobody |===================================================
saw me; you can't prove | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 jbu...@nwu.edu
anything!'--Bart Simpson |===================================================
SUZANNE FORTIN
Joshua
I must say, this is fascinating. I have another question. You say that
the Talmudic rabbis adopted certain precepts. Who were these Talmudic rabbis?
Thanks!
Suzanne
Joshua W. Burton
SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> wrote:
> I must say, this is fascinating. I have another question. You
> say that the Talmudic rabbis adopted certain precepts. Who were
> these Talmudic rabbis?
Having already indulged in one long posting, I will try not to bore
you with another. Essentially, they were the intellectual heirs
of the academies that represented the main streams of Jewish thought
during the time while the Temple was still standing. Our current
rabbis stand in this same line of teacher-to-student succession,
though we hold that their merit has been much attenuated by time.
During the Second Temple period, the great schools tended to come
in opposing pairs, of whom Hillel the Elder and Shammai were the
most famous. (Hillel is about a generation older than Jesus, and
the similarities between his ethical teachings and those of the
New Testament make the latter seem much less original to Jews than
they do to the world at large.) Two hundred years later, the
leading light was a rabbi named Akiva who supported Bar Kokhba in
his revolt against the Emperor Hadrian...and so on down the line.
We break the rabbinic succession roughly into Tannaim (rabbis of
the late Temple and Mishnaic periods), Amoraim (rabbis of the
time when the Talmud was being compiled), Rishonim (medieval
redactors of the finished Talmud), and Acharonim (leading scholars
of the Renaissance and up to today). In general, a rule of
reverence for elder generations---who are closer to Sinai, and
are always presumed to know slightly more than ever got written
down and passed along---prevails, but one Acharon can contradict
another if he marshals his sources and does it carefully. To
contradict a Rishon would take far more than any one scholar in
these latter days, and to contradict Akiva or Hillel is probably
beyond the authority that _any_ combination of modern rabbis
could take upon themselves.
Hope this helps. Do check out the Steinsaltz book; he says
everything I have said much better than I could hope to, and
clarifies a number of fine points that I have misleadingly glossed
over for the sake of simplicity.
Cum catapultae proscriptae |=================================================
erunt, tum soli proscripti | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 jbu...@nwu.edu
catapultas habebunt. |=================================================
Motti
SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>> >On 7 Jun 1996, Motti wrote:
>>
>> SO can we get a hint of the concept behind ritual impurity. It is
>> related to changes in the state of the soul. Whenever the soul
>> leaves the body, like during sleep it partially leaves, or in death
>> it totally leaves; there is a "vacuum" left behind where "impure"
>> forces come in to fill that vacuum. Make sense?
>And what happens when the soul totally comes back? It takes on these
>impurities? It is then less holy, less close to G-d?
THe person is now classified as being tomeh, and therefore unfit to
enter the Beit HaMikdash (may it be rebuilt soon!). This is all
metaphysical, so it is hard for me to know what you mean by
"less holy" or "less close"...I really am also unsure of further
details.
>Also, another question. What is the relationship between the unwritten
>law and Scripture in Judaism? I know the Pharisees of Jesus' time had an
>oral law; does this still apply today? And how does it develop? Who
>decides what's law and what's not?
Any book by Aryeh Kaplan is good, for these questions see
"Handbook of Jewish Thought" The Oral Law is still of paramount
important.
I wish to address the use of the word "interpretation" The Oral Law,
and it records in the mishnah, gemara, etc. contains many interpretations
on the law, along with principles of how to apply these laws. these
interpretations fall into an intricate web of a continuous and ongoing
oral tradition. this use of the word is similar to a jurisprudence
definition, but the key is the context: an oral (living) tradition.
THis use of the word is radically different from the way fundamentalism
uses the word "interpretation" In the philosophy of fundamentalism
(ie. the religious movement based on textual literalism) one deliberately
shuts out the oral tradition and seeks to see *only* what the text of
the bible says. the favorite slogan for this movment is "let scripture
interpret scripture". To me this results in just so many word games and
personal fantasies. Often traditions and laws in this movment will pop
out of thin air based on poetical interpretation of biblical text.
It is important to keep these two views clearly in mind; because most
people are only familiar with the fundamentalist approach, and therefore
assume that the Tananites simply pulled these customs out of thin air
based on the most narrow of hints in the bible. In fact, they *already*
knew these laws, and were just pointing out *corroboration* or hints
in the biblical text.
I like to call this assumption that the Tananites (mishnaic error codifiers
from 1 and 2nd century, say) were themselves fundamentalists to be
the "rabbinical conspiracy theory". Of course i am being inflammatory;
but this is the actual attitude people often take. Others will simply
say the tananite "reconstructed judaism"...but I think that amounts to
saying the same thing: that rabbis found these dusty texts, had no real
clue what they meant, so invented a bunch of laws to go along them. This
approach represents a real misunderstanding of the history.
Eli D. Clark
>>exactly? If they touch a dead carcass of some animal, they become
>>impure. What does it mean to be impure? Is it the soul which is impure? I
>>read somewhere that it means being ritually unfit. In what way?
>
>Temple (the big one which was in Jerusalem), but that's about all. It
>doesn't really apply nowadays because the next Temple is not yet
>constructed.
>
Dear Joe:
If I may I would like to expand slightly on your message. The
distinction between "Tamei" (impure) and "Tahor" (pure) is not precisely
out of date. Many practical rules of Jewish law that are practiced today
are rooted in that distinction (such as the practice of washing hands
before eating bread).
In Jewish law, there are various levels of impurity. Impurity
(depending on the circumstances) may be communicated through direct
physical contact, as well as through the act of carrying something impure
or standing beneath the same roof as impurity. Because a person with
"impure" status is forbidden from entering holy sites, as Joe writes,
such a person could not enter the Temple grounds. Even today, religious
Jews avoid setting foot on the Temple Mount, because it retains its
sacred status although the Temple is not standing.
Of course, without the Temple, there is no duty to enter the Temple
Mount. Hence, as Joe writes, the day-to-day importance of these rules
has receded.
On the other hand, Jews who are Kohanim ("priests") continue today to
avoid being contanimated with the impurity assoicated with human corpses.
Hence, they generally avoid cemeteries and hospitals. Similarly, many
contemporary rabbinic authorities have discussed the propriety of a kohen
studying medicine. In short, the rules though less important than they
once were, are by no means irrelevant today.
Regards,
Eli
Bryan
In <4pdb5c$f...@news7.erols.com>, mei...@erols.com writes:
>....
>Suzanne doesn't give her citations but I presume they are Vayikra
>11:10-23, 41-42. (Leviticus) Here non-kosher seafood, non-kosher
>fowl, non-kosher creeping things are all listed as abomination. Other
>non-kosher land animals are described as tomeh, unclean more or less.
Yes, as you have illustrated, it is the animals that are so considered,
not the eating of them.
>....
>I don't recall that eating kosher is a sign of the covenant. Did I
>miss that.
The texts you have recalled bear that out. The "eating kashrus"
may be considered an extension of that IMHO, but the text refers
only to the allowed and forbidden animals, not kashrus. It is my
understanding that kashrus and this text are inseparably intertwined.
-Bryan
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W. Burton) writes:
> SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> wrote:
>
>> Also, another question. What is the relationship between the
>> unwritten law and Scripture in Judaism? I know the Pharisees of
>> Jesus' time had an oral law; does this still apply today? And
>> how does it develop? Who decides what's law and what's not?
>
this very important topic. Kol haKavod. Maybe you should put it into
the FAQ?
I have a minor quibble, which I'll put in where I think it is
required, but I _won't_ repeat the whole thing. (OK Josh?)
> The Oral Law, which can be thought of as a body of jurisprudence
> and procedure that accompanies the statutes of the Written Law,
[snip]
> It consists of specific interpretations and elaborations of
> the Written Law (example: the Written Law forbids lighting fires
> and `all manner of work' on the sabbath; the Oral Law enumerates
> 39 forms of activity that constitute `work'),
[snip]
> A sharp distinction is always drawn between Torah Law (meaning law
> that derives directly from prohibitions in the Written or Oral
> Torah) and Rabbinic Law (meaning law that the Talmudic rabbis
> adopted as a `fence' to protect us from unwarily transgressing
> Torah Law), and different standards are used to judge cases of
> doubt in matters of Torah Law than of Rabbinic. You will
> frequently see a false distinction made by uninformed posters
> between `Torah' (meaning Written) Law and Oral Law---in normative
> Judaism, the two stand together in distinction to Rabbinic Law.
Sometimes it is not done by uninformed posters but rather by people
with an axe to grind against the validity of Oral Law being
considered "Torah". <sigh>
[snip]
> (A still lower level of `law', called minhag, or `custom', is post-
> Talmudic and usually has force only within particular communities.)
[snip]
> The best short book I know for summarizing the Jewish view of all
> of these texts is The_Essential_Talmud, by Adin Steinsaltz, who
> may be the greatest Talmudist our century has produced. It's a
> couple of hundred easy pages, and is widely available in paperback.
> Check it out!
>
> `I didn't do it; nobody |===================================================
> saw me; you can't prove | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 jbu...@nwu.edu
> anything!'--Bart Simpson |===================================================
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Joe Slater
"Eli D. Clark" <ecl...@gkmg.com> writes:
>j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>>A person who is Tomeh ("impure") cannot participate in rituals at the
>>Temple (the big one which was in Jerusalem), but that's about all. It
>>doesn't really apply nowadays because the next Temple is not yet
>>constructed.
>If I may I would like to expand slightly on your message.
[...]
>(such as the practice of washing hands before eating bread).
It's rooted in the practice, but is Tumah relevent to the handwashing today?
When the custom was instituted it was possible for hands to have a low
degree of Tumah, which could be removed by washing them. Today it's only
done because the ruling was ordained in perpetuity.
>Jews who are Kohanim ("priests") continue today to
>avoid being contanimated with the impurity assoicated with human corpses.
They act as though they were avoiding this impurity, but in fact they are
deemed to possess it. I suppose this is one area where the laws of Tumah
and Taharah (purity and impurity) must still be studied for their own
sake, and not just because study is beneficial in itself.
Joshua W. Burton
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Joshua, many thanks for a beautiful, clear, thorough exposition
> on this very important topic. Kol haKavod. Maybe you should put
> it into the FAQ? I have a minor quibble, which I'll put in where
> I think it is required, but I _won't_ repeat the whole thing.
> (OK Josh?)
Many thanks for your kind words. If you know who keeps up the
FAQ, I'd be glad to send along a copy, just to see if there is
any interest. It's not terribly original stuff, but there may
be people who would find the summary helpful.
> Sometimes it is not done by uninformed posters but rather by
> people with an axe to grind against the validity of Oral Law
> being considered "Torah". <sigh>
Certainly we all know in real life that there are such people,
and when provoked we can even point fingers. But in the abstract,
I would prefer to be "dan l'khaf zahut" and assume that it is
ignorance of, not contempt for, the Jewish perspective that
motivates these Karaitic remarks.
--
Tradition, thou art for suckling children, +--------------------+
Thou art the enlivening milk for babes; | Joshua W. Burton |
But no meat for men is in thee. | (847)677-3902 |
Then--- | jbu...@nwu.edu |
But, alas, we all are babes. -- Stephen Crane +--------------------+
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
sr...@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Motti) writes:
> SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>
>> But then why are certain animals held in abomination (Leviticus 11)?
>> I have looked at other things considered "abomination", e.g. child
>> sacrifice, dishonest weights, etc. They make sense. But what is
>> wrong with animals?
>
>
> Now you mention other laws that do make sense, in other words they
> are needed just so that a society can be formed in an orderly
> fashion (no stealing, no murder, etc.) but if your motivation of
> following these is purely expendiency then one should conclude your
> true religion is really just a sentimental form of pragmatism.
> as the non-rational ones have a much more mysterious and hidden origin.
Motti, I agree with you wholeheartedly but wouldn't call it "obvious".
Reb Nachman (in Rabbi Nachman's Wisdom # 116) says as follows.
"It is not fitting to call a Jew, "ethical". "Ethical" implies a
morality determined by common sense and fairness. The Jews are a
"Holy people" (Isa. 62:12). We may have moral commandments that are
logical and fair, but these are not mere ethics.
Our Creator gave us a Torah. We keep the commandments because they
were decreed by G-d and not for any logical or moral reasons. A Jew
may be called G-dly, but never merely "ethical"."
He continues in this vein, discussing what is called "derech eretz",
manners. It is an interesting exposition.
> mordechai steve seidman
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
I posted this before but realized that the title of the thread
was so different that someone may not see it if they look at the
title. If you've sen this before, just skip it. (and excuse me please).
Moshe Schorr
Warren Burstein
We do need to be careful about saying that something is "written in
the Torah" when it's not in the Written Torah, the two could be
confused. We also need to be careful about saying that the Written
Torah says something when it is not the plain meaning of the verse to
which we refer but an interpretation from the Midrash, even when that
interpretation is the source of the halacha. Instead, we should say
what the Written Torah says and then explain how the Midrash
interprets it.
While this won't satisfy people who don't believe in the Oral Torah
(or anyone but a Karaite, the people who don't believe in the Oral
Torah here don't take the Written Torah as the final arbiter of what
is right either), it can avoid placing a stumbling block before the
blind.
--
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
>> Joshua, many thanks for a beautiful, clear, thorough exposition
>> on this very important topic. Kol haKavod. Maybe you should put
>> it into the FAQ? I have a minor quibble, which I'll put in where
>> I think it is required, but I _won't_ repeat the whole thing.
>> (OK Josh?)
>
> Many thanks for your kind words. If you know who keeps up the
> FAQ, I'd be glad to send along a copy, just to see if there is
> any interest. It's not terribly original stuff, but there may
> be people who would find the summary helpful.
I think kind words are much more effective than flames and bashes.
Maybe we could make a rule that every post on S.C.J. must have at
least _one_ kind word to be eligible. (sort of like the Boy Scouts).
The FAQ is kept by Daniel Faigin. He posts it (in pieces) very often.
Look for his address on the next post of the FAQ.
>> Sometimes it is not done by uninformed posters but rather by
>> people with an axe to grind against the validity of Oral Law
>> being considered "Torah". <sigh>
>
> Certainly we all know in real life that there are such people,
> and when provoked we can even point fingers. But in the abstract,
> I would prefer to be "dan l'khaf zahut" and assume that it is
> ignorance of, not contempt for, the Jewish perspective that
> motivates these Karaitic remarks.
Joshua, you say it so pretty. A good friend of mine, Daniel Skaist,
put it this way: "Never ascribe to evil, that which you could just
as well ascribe to stupidity."
> --
> Tradition, thou art for suckling children, +--------------------+
> Thou art the enlivening milk for babes; | Joshua W. Burton |
> But no meat for men is in thee. | (847)677-3902 |
> Then--- | jbu...@nwu.edu |
> But, alas, we all are babes. -- Stephen Crane +--------------------+
>
P.S. Where do you get all those quotes for your .sig? Also, isn't it
a pain in the neck to keep changing the .sig file?
Warren Burstein
In <1996Jun13...@vms.huji.ac.il> mos...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>Sorry Warren, I don't agree with this. You're getting so PC that I
>can't say the Torah forbids weaving on Shabbos without giving a 2
>page quote from the Talmud. No way. The written Torah is not a
>"closed book". It is also very difficult to translate. There are so
>many shadings and nuances in a word. _All_ of them are "written in
>the Torah". Usualy we need the Oral Torah to point it out. To
>seperate the two (The "Written" from the "Oral") does a disservice
>to both or worse and makes the Written incomprehensible.
I have not made any assumptions about your motives and I thank you not
to make any about mine. There are people who view "PC" to be an
insult, and while I'm not one of them, I advise you not to get in the
habit of flinging around terms that could offend people, as this could
lead to insulting someone you didn't mean to.
I don't want to stop people from saying "The Torah forbids weaving on
Shabbat". That's different from "It is written in the Torah that
weaving is forbidden on Shabbat" which isn't true.
>What "stumbling block" are you referring to. Someone will say "I
>looked in the entire Tanakh and didn't find mention of weaving on
>Shabbos. That means you made it up. That means....". Sorry. Such a
>person is carrying his "stumbling block" around with him.
The stumbling block is the flaming which might tempt you or I to
flame back.
--
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
war...@itex.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein) writes:
> We do need to be careful about saying that something is "written in
> the Torah" when it's not in the Written Torah, the two could be
> confused. We also need to be careful about saying that the Written
> Torah says something when it is not the plain meaning of the verse to
> which we refer but an interpretation from the Midrash, even when that
> interpretation is the source of the halacha. Instead, we should say
> what the Written Torah says and then explain how the Midrash
> interprets it.
Sorry Warren, I don't agree with this. You're getting so PC that I
can't say the Torah forbids weaving on Shabbos without giving a 2
page quote from the Talmud. No way. The written Torah is not a
"closed book". It is also very difficult to translate. There are so
many shadings and nuances in a word. _All_ of them are "written in
the Torah". Usualy we need the Oral Torah to point it out. To
seperate the two (The "Written" from the "Oral") does a disservice
to both or worse and makes the Written incomprehensible.
> While this won't satisfy people who don't believe in the Oral Torah
I'm not trying to "satisfy" anyone. When I quote "Torah", that word
means the combination of the Written and the Oral.
> (or anyone but a Karaite, the people who don't believe in the Oral
> Torah here don't take the Written Torah as the final arbiter of what
> is right either), it can avoid placing a stumbling block before the
> blind.
> --
What "stumbling block" are you referring to. Someone will say "I
looked in the entire Tanakh and didn't find mention of weaving on
Shabbos. That means you made it up. That means....". Sorry. Such a
person is carrying his "stumbling block" around with him.
Moshe Schorr
Joshua W. Burton
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Joshua, you say it so pretty. A good friend of mine, Daniel Skaist,
> put it this way: "Never ascribe to evil, that which you could just
> as well ascribe to stupidity."
Robert Heinlein said that, in almost those words, in an early and
otherwise forgettable story entitled Logic_of_Empire, circa 1941.
The Unix fortunes database AND the hacker jargon file both have it
listed as "Hanlon's Razor", a garble of the author's name that I
think it may be too late to eradicate. But point it out if you
see anyone else use the "Hanlon" attribution---he who quotes his
sources correctly brings deliverance to the world (R' Meir, correctly
quoting R' Yehoshua ben Levi).
> P.S. Where do you get all those quotes for your .sig? Also, isn't
> it a pain in the neck to keep changing the .sig file?
This is a _computer_; why would I change the .sig file by hand?
About six years ago, I realized that .sig files, like answering
machine messages, get boring pretty fast, and the cleverer they
are the faster they get old. So I wrote a little script to pull
a random one out of a directory, put my vitals into it (so that
I don't have to change hundreds of files when I move; I just
change one line in the script), and append it to a letter. Since
then I've been collecting anything that takes my fancy; I now
have...let me see...591 signature files on tap. When I get to
a thousand, I'll throw them out and start over.
``Bloody instructions which, being +----------------------------------+
taught, return to plague th'inventor.'' | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 |
-- Macbeth, on programming | jbu...@nwu.edu |
[I., vii., lines 9-10] +----------------------------------+
Warren Burstein
m = In <1996Jun13...@vms.huji.ac.il> mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
j = jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W. Burton)
j: Certainly we all know in real life that there are such people,
j: and when provoked we can even point fingers. But in the abstract,
j: I would prefer to be "dan l'khaf zahut" and assume that it is
j: ignorance of, not contempt for, the Jewish perspective that
j: motivates these Karaitic remarks.
m: Joshua, you say it so pretty. A good friend of mine, Daniel Skaist,
m: put it this way: "Never ascribe to evil, that which you could just
m: as well ascribe to stupidity."
I hope I won't offend anyone by saying that I prefer the quote from
the Mishneh. One should consider the possibility of ignorance before
stupidity.
--
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
>> Rationality is for science. We follow G-d's laws because we are
>> commanded to. If we only followed laws that we understood we would
>> be according G-d the respect we show teachers. We follow those that
>> seem incomprehensible and strange as act of faith and obedience.
>> We do not need to understand; that is where faith comes in.
>> HaShem understands and that is enough.
Irene, you expressed it very well. Rash"i in Chumash makes the point
that by observing "chukim" we are demenstrating our acceptance of G-d
as absolute ruler.
>
> That may be enough for you. I respectfully suggest that it is not
> good enough for some of us.
Glenn, To whom are you being "respectfull" when you say that showing
"faith and obedience", "is not good enough for some of us"?
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
w = war...@itex.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein) writes:
m = mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
j = jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W. Burton)
> j: Certainly we all know in real life that there are such people,
> j: and when provoked we can even point fingers. But in the abstract,
> j: I would prefer to be "dan l'khaf zahut" and assume that it is
> j: ignorance of, not contempt for, the Jewish perspective that
> j: motivates these Karaitic remarks.
>
> m: Joshua, you say it so pretty. A good friend of mine, Daniel Skaist,
> m: put it this way: "Never ascribe to evil, that which you could just
> m: as well ascribe to stupidity."
>
> w: from the Mishneh. One should consider the possibility of
> w: ignorance before stupidity.
Warren, could you please provide the location of that Mishneh. I'm
sure you won't offend anyone by quoting a Mishneh. Actually, Daniel's
statement is a _little bit_ nasty, but I'm sure he did it on purpose!
Warren Burstein
In <1996Jun16...@vms.huji.ac.il> mos...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>Warren, could you please provide the location of that Mishneh.
Avot 1:6.
--
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
war...@itex.jct.ac.il (Warren Burstein) writes:
> mos...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>
>>Warren, could you please provide the location of that Mishneh.
>
> Avot 1:6.
> --
This started when Joshua D. Burton said that he prefers to be "dan
lekaf z'chus" and say that those who de-legitimize the authority
of the Oral Law, do it out of ignorance and not malice. I said,
quoting my friend, "never ascribe to evil that which could just as
well be ascribed to stupidity". You said you prefer the words of the
Mishneh, "Never ascribe to evil what could be ascribed to ignorance".
I asked you for the location of that Mishneh and you give Avot 1:6.
There it says to be "dan lekaf z'chus". As I said, full circle!
(I realize that I may not be quoting _exactly_, but I think I have
maintained the _flavor_ of everyone's posting).
Bryan
In <Pine.SOL.3.91.960606...@agora.ulaval.ca>, SUZANNE FORTIN <aaa...@agora.ulaval.ca> writes:
>But then why are certain animals held in abomination (Leviticus 11)? I
>have looked at other things considered "abomination", e.g. child
>sacrifice, dishonest weights, etc. They make sense. But what is wrong
>with animals?
Please check out the text a little closer. Animals are not an abomination,
rather, they are an abomination to the people Israel if they shoud consume
them. In all these things, it is the behavior of the people that is the
abomination, not the objects themselves -- for the objects are neutral and
not the subject of the text. It is the behavior of the people that is the
subject of the text and the reference to abomination is a clear proscription
against forbidden activities, not the people or the animals.
I hope this helps,
-Bryan
Joshua W. Burton
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Warren, we've come full circle. This started when Joshua D.
> Burton said that.... ^^
<bobbit>
> (I realize that I may not be quoting _exactly_, but I think I
> have maintained the _flavor_ of everyone's posting).
My name has more flavor with a W. in the middle instead of a D.,
actually. Stands for Wingate, as in ha-Yedid, whom my grandfather
knew briefly in Mandatory Palestine. Americans draw a blank, but
it always gets a rise out of the security people at Ben-Gurion
when they look at my passport. `Veenget? VEENget?? Az ma?
Ha-horim shelkha hayu tzionim, o Britim, o meshugaim, o ma?'
No offense taken (or meant, I'm sure). Just wanted to set the
record straight.
A one-L lama, he's a priest; +------------------------------------+
A two-L llama, he's a beast. | Joshua W. Burton (847)677-3902 |
And a three-L lllama.... | jbu...@nwu.edu |
...is one heck of a big Boston fire. +------------------------------------+
Warren Burstein
In <1996Jun17...@vms.huji.ac.il> mos...@vms.huji.ac.il writes:
>You said you prefer the words of the Mishneh, "Never ascribe to evil
>what could be ascribed to ignorance".
I did not say that, and if I said anything that could be interpreted
that way, I am glad that it is now clear that such an interpretation
is wrong.
--
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
Glad to have been of service.
Glenn Farber
>
>>> Rationality is for science. We follow G-d's laws because we are
>>> commanded to. If we only followed laws that we understood we would
>>> be according G-d the respect we show teachers. We follow those that
>>> seem incomprehensible and strange as act of faith and obedience.
>>> We do not need to understand; that is where faith comes in.
>>> HaShem understands and that is enough.
>
>Irene, you expressed it very well. Rash"i in Chumash makes the point
>that by observing "chukim" we are demenstrating our acceptance of G-d
>as absolute ruler.
>>
>> That may be enough for you. I respectfully suggest that it is not
>> good enough for some of us.
>
>Glenn, To whom are you being "respectfull" when you say that showing
>"faith and obedience", "is not good enough for some of us"?
Why, to Irene, of course. Andy anyone else who validates irrationality in
their thinking.
Adam J. Schorr
>>> Rationality is for science. We follow G-d's laws because we are
>>> commanded to. If we only followed laws that we understood we would
>>> be according G-d the respect we show teachers. We follow those that
>>> seem incomprehensible and strange as act of faith and obedience.
>>> We do not need to understand; that is where faith comes in.
>>> HaShem understands and that is enough.
>Irene, you expressed it very well. Rash"i in Chumash makes the point
>that by observing "chukim" we are demenstrating our acceptance of G-d
>as absolute ruler.
Of course you are but this says nothing about the rationality of chukim.
According to you and those of your ilk, the highest level of man is to act
like a complete idiot to demonstrate acceptance of G-d. This is what faith is
Moshe and this is why Judaism as opposed to its bastard offspring has no place
for faith. The highest level in Judaism is to understand the wisdom of G-d's
system and to accept it as the only way to perfect ourselves.
>> That may be enough for you. I respectfully suggest that it is not
>> good enough for some of us.
>Glenn, To whom are you being "respectfull" when you say that showing
>"faith and obedience", "is not good enough for some of us"?
He is being respectful to Judaism.
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
aj...@ccp.uchicago.edu (Adam J. Schorr) writes:
>mos...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> Irene Friedman wrote:
>>>> Rationality is for science. We follow G-d's laws because we are
>>>> commanded to. If we only followed laws that we understood we
>>>> would be according G-d the respect we show teachers. We follow
>>>> those that seem incomprehensible and strange as act of faith and
>>>> obedience. We do not need to understand; that is where faith
>>>> comes in. HaShem understands and that is enough.
>
>> Irene, you expressed it very well. Rash"i in Chumash makes the
>> point that by observing "chukim" we are demenstrating our
>> acceptance of G-d as absolute ruler.
>
> Of course you are but this says nothing about the rationality of
> chukim.
But it does. It says that the rationality of chukim is beyond human
understanding but we obey them nonetheless.
> According to you and those of your ilk, the highest level of man
> is to act like a complete idiot to demonstrate acceptance of G-d.
Adam, where in my post did I say that obeying chukim is "the highest
level of man"? I just described, based on Rash"i, what we demonstrate
by observing chukim. _You_ created a straw man by putting words in my
mouth and then attacking it. BTW when you use the words "those of
your ilk" I suspect you are being less than respecful. Since I based
myself on Rash"i (I don't mind the company) I would have expected
better from you. Also, if you fail to understand something completly,
does that mean you're "a complete idiot" if you obey it anyway?
> This is what faith is Moshe and this is why Judaism as opposed to
> its bastard offspring has no place for faith.
I suspect, that in yuor rush do differentiate between Judaism and its
"bastard offspring" you lost a bit of your Judaism along the way. Are
not the "Ani Ma'amin's" expression of faith? These form the basic
belief of Judaism.
> The highest level in
> Judaism is to understand the wisdom of G-d's system and to accept
> it as the only way to perfect ourselves.
Fine, and those of us not yet on the highest level? Shlomo HaMelech
declared that _he_ was not able to reach the ultimite understanding
of chukim. Do you think anyone else did?
...
Heather/Chana Luntz
<jbu...@nwu.edu> writes
>mos...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>My name has more flavor with a W. in the middle instead of a D.,
>actually. Stands for Wingate, as in ha-Yedid, whom my grandfather
>knew briefly in Mandatory Palestine. Americans draw a blank, but
>it always gets a rise out of the security people at Ben-Gurion
>when they look at my passport. `Veenget? VEENget?? Az ma?
>Ha-horim shelkha hayu tzionim, o Britim, o meshugaim, o ma?'
And the answer ...? (ie which were they, to come into contact with him)?
Regards
Chana
Joshua W. Burton
> "Joshua W. Burton" <jbu...@nwu.edu> writes
> >
> >D., actually. Stands for Wingate, as in ha-Yedid, whom my
> >grandfather knew briefly in Mandatory Palestine. Americans draw
> >a blank, but it always gets a rise out of the security people
> >at Ben-Gurion when they look at my passport. `Veenget? VEENget??
> >Az ma? Ha-horim shelkha hayu tzionim, o Britim, o meshugaim,
> >o ma?'
>
> And the answer ...? (ie which were they, to come into contact
> with him)?
Not British, certainly---between Zionist and crazy, it was a bit
of a toss-up in those days. Actually (I'm not making this up)
my grandfather (z"l) was over there working for the OSS, the prewar
predecessor of the CIA. I would tell you what he was doing, only
nobody in the family would ever tell me, and now it's too late.
During the war he was posted to Crete, and I have some letters
from that period---nothing worth censoring.
You are in a maze of |===================================================
twisty little sig files, | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 jbu...@nwu.edu
all alike.... |===================================================