Vegetarianism and the various Jewish denominations
scooby
(Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform).
I've always been skeptical (but particularly more so since the
controversy surrounding the kosher slaughter house Agriprocessors in
Iowa) of the claim that kosher slaughter, "shechita", is the most
humane slaughter available.
Which Jewish denomination (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist,
Reform), would be most open to taking a critical look at "shechita"
(ie most open perhaps to pre-stunning of the animal), and which
denomination would be most compatible with vegetariansm?
(I know it's not likely to be orthodox. From my readings - could the
answer be Reconstructionist?).
cindys
"scooby" <brianm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:12b07c63.0412...@posting.google.com...
> I'm Jewish, and looking into the different Jewish denominations
> (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform).
>
> I've always been skeptical (but particularly more so since the
> controversy surrounding the kosher slaughter house Agriprocessors in
> Iowa) of the claim that kosher slaughter, "shechita", is the most
> humane slaughter available.
No one is disputing that shechita is the most humane slaughter. The issue at
Agriprocessors was not about shechita itself but rather about the rotating
Weinberg pen and that the specific cow in the PETA film was not shechted
properly. Nobody (including PETA) was making the case that treif slaughter
is generally more humane than shechita.
>
> Which Jewish denomination (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist,
> Reform), would be most open to taking a critical look at "shechita"
> (ie most open perhaps to pre-stunning of the animal),
Whichever denomination most espouses the consumption of treif (non-kosher
meat). The meat of pre-stunned animals is total treif. So, if you can find
the denomination that preaches that eating treif meat is preferable to
eating kosher meat, you will have your answer. Again, the issue is not about
shechita. The issue is about the Weinberg rotating pen and that the specific
cow in the PETA film was not shechted properly. No legitimate Jewish group
is going to take a *critical* look at shechita, as shechita is the only
means of slaughter permitted by Jewish law (not to mention the most humane
method available). Jewish law permits only shechted meat.
>and which
> denomination would be most compatible with vegetarianism?
Any of them. Jewish law does not prohibit a person from being a vegetarian,
provided the person is not choosing vegetarianism for *ethical* reasons.
Since the torah clearly permits the consumption of meat, and the torah is
our absolute standard for morality, a person who avoids meat for *ethical*
reasons is essentially making a statement that the torah is immoral.
>
> (I know it's not likely to be orthodox. From my readings - could the
> answer be Reconstructionist?).
So IOW, vegetarianism is your religion? (I.e., your basis for choosing a
*denomination* will be based on the extent to which said denomination is
compatible with vegetarianism? Isn't that a little backwards?)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Eliyahu Rooff
> denomination would be most compatible with vegetariansm?
>
of them will accept it.
Eliyahu
Shlomo Chaim
> (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform).
There's a good book called Think Jewish by Zalman I. Posner. You can buy it
from amazon.com.
Chabad is far from the only shul out there, but as long as you're looking
around, you might as well stop past a chabad shul just to say hi. Check out
chabad.org. You can type in your zip code and get a list of the local chabad
shuls.
In addition to this group, which is a great place to ask questions you can
also ask questions at askmoses.com. They provide an online chat kind of
thing.
You know what they say, though: two Jews, three opinions. Ultimately the
choice is yours. I think its great that you are becoming more interested and
maybe just a little more observant. I hope that these resources are of help
to you.
Shlomo
Don Levey
> "scooby" <brianm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:12b07c63.0412...@posting.google.com...
> > I'm Jewish, and looking into the different Jewish denominations
> > (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform).
> >
> > I've always been skeptical (but particularly more so since the
> > controversy surrounding the kosher slaughter house Agriprocessors in
> > Iowa) of the claim that kosher slaughter, "shechita", is the most
> > humane slaughter available.
>
> No one is disputing that shechita is the most humane slaughter. The issue at
> Agriprocessors was not about shechita itself but rather about the rotating
> Weinberg pen and that the specific cow in the PETA film was not shechted
> properly. Nobody (including PETA) was making the case that treif slaughter
> is generally more humane than shechita.
>
Actually, I think *he* is suggesting that it might not be humane.
At least, that's how I'm reading his post.
> >
> > Which Jewish denomination (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist,
> > Reform), would be most open to taking a critical look at "shechita"
> > (ie most open perhaps to pre-stunning of the animal),
>
> Whichever denomination most espouses the consumption of treif (non-kosher
> meat). The meat of pre-stunned animals is total treif. So, if you can find
> the denomination that preaches that eating treif meat is preferable to
> eating kosher meat, you will have your answer. Again, the issue is not about
> shechita. The issue is about the Weinberg rotating pen and that the specific
> cow in the PETA film was not shechted properly. No legitimate Jewish group
> is going to take a *critical* look at shechita, as shechita is the only
> means of slaughter permitted by Jewish law (not to mention the most humane
> method available). Jewish law permits only shechted meat.
>
While I know that some groups do not (collectively) feel that kashrut
is important, I don't know of any group which says that eating treif
is explicitly preferable to kosher meat. I could be wrong, but I think
that if you go looking on that basis you'll be looking for a long time.
> >and which
> > denomination would be most compatible with vegetarianism?
>
> Any of them. Jewish law does not prohibit a person from being a vegetarian,
> provided the person is not choosing vegetarianism for *ethical* reasons.
> Since the torah clearly permits the consumption of meat, and the torah is
> our absolute standard for morality, a person who avoids meat for *ethical*
> reasons is essentially making a statement that the torah is immoral.
>
Compatible? As Cindy says, any group is compatible, depending upon
your reasons. For health/allergy reasons? No problem. Due to cost?
Should be no problem, though you may have people from the community
coming by with cooked meals once and a while, for special occasions,
as well as getting invitations to dinner so that you might be able
to celebrate "properly". But to elaborate on what Cindy said, if you
choose to be vegetarian based upon ethical or moral grounds, then what
you're doing is choosing a moral compass from a source other than
the Torah. There, you'll wind up in some trouble from the more
observant groups. You'd be ignoring Jewish law and custom in favour
of a set of rules and customs alien to Jewish practice. While in
theory additional practices may not necessarily be incompatible with
Jewish law (depending upon what they are, of course), when you
reject the *Jewish* practices to follow them, you'll find yourself
beyond the pale of Orthodox Judaism (and, I suspect, much of
Conservatism also).
> >
> > (I know it's not likely to be orthodox. From my readings - could the
> > answer be Reconstructionist?).
>
> So IOW, vegetarianism is your religion? (I.e., your basis for choosing a
> *denomination* will be based on the extent to which said denomination is
> compatible with vegetarianism? Isn't that a little backwards?)
>
My personal suggestion would be to study, and choose the level of
observance that "speaks" to you. You might then find that your personal
practices change as you learn more (or, maybe, the reasons for those
practices).
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters.
cindys
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3k6rhn...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> > "scooby" <brianm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:12b07c63.0412...@posting.google.com...
> > > I'm Jewish, and looking into the different Jewish denominations
> > > (Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform).
> > >
> > > I've always been skeptical (but particularly more so since the
> > > controversy surrounding the kosher slaughter house Agriprocessors in
> > > Iowa) of the claim that kosher slaughter, "shechita", is the most
> > > humane slaughter available.
> >
> > No one is disputing that shechita is the most humane slaughter. The
issue at
> > Agriprocessors was not about shechita itself but rather about the
rotating
> > Weinberg pen and that the specific cow in the PETA film was not shechted
> > properly. Nobody (including PETA) was making the case that treif
slaughter
> > is generally more humane than shechita.
> >
> Actually, I think *he* is suggesting that it might not be humane.
> At least, that's how I'm reading his post.
Oh, I agree that he is suggesting that shechita itself is inhumane. That's
because he (along with many other people) misunderstood why everyone was so
upset about Postville. The issue was NOT shechita. Everyone (including PETA,
I believe) would agree that shechita is the most humane method for
slaughter. The problem in Postville involved the Weinberg holding pen and
the fact that there was a muddled shechita portrayed on the film where the
cut was incomplete and the cow's trachea was removed before it was
unconscious. However, none of this is connected to the relative
"humanenesss" of shechita versus treif slaughter (which is considerably less
"humane").
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
robDotCalm
provided the person is not choosing vegetarianism for *ethical* reasons.
Since the torah clearly permits the consumption of meat, and the torah is
our absolute standard for morality, a person who avoids meat for *ethical*
reasons is essentially making a statement that the torah is immoral.
So, I'm being un-Jewish and saying the Torah is immoral, if I object to
slavery on ethical grounds. Really.
cheers, rob.calm
Shlomo Argamon
robDotCalm wrote:
> «Jewish law does not prohibit a person from being a vegetarian,
> provided the person is not choosing vegetarianism for *ethical*
reasons.
> Since the torah clearly permits the consumption of meat, and the
torah is
> our absolute standard for morality, a person who avoids meat for
*ethical*
> reasons is essentially making a statement that the torah is immoral.
Not necessarily, as there are places where the Torah makes
"concessions" to human nature, basically legislating the minimum
ethical standard (standard example: tefat to'ar). There is plenty of
room for "lifnim mishurat hadin" (going beyond the strict requirements
of the law) when a case can be made that the Halakhic ethic points in a
particular direction.
> So, I'm being un-Jewish and saying the Torah is immoral, if I object
to
> slavery on ethical grounds. Really.
First, define "slavery".
:-)BB!!
-Shlomo-
robDotCalm
Shlomo:
slavery: One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
(I'm not sure why you wanted the definition. )
I appreciate your answer. Am I correct in paraphrasing that one can accept
vegetarianism on ethical grounds under the principle of "lifnim mishurat
hadin" and thus be consistent with the Torah?
cheers, rob.calm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Shlomo Argamon" <arg...@argamon.com> wrote in message
news:1103307429.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
oddjob
"robDotCalm" <kel...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cpvbmg$hjo$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>
> Shlomo:
>
> slavery: One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
> (I'm not sure why you wanted the definition. )
>
> I appreciate your answer. Am I correct in paraphrasing that one can
accept
> vegetarianism on ethical grounds under the principle of "lifnim mishurat
> hadin" and thus be consistent with the Torah?
>
> cheers, rob.calm
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> "Shlomo Argamon" <arg...@argamon.com> wrote in message
> news:1103307429.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> robDotCalm wrote:
> > «Jewish law does not prohibit a person from being a vegetarian,
> > provided the person is not choosing vegetarianism for *ethical*
> reasons.
> > Since the torah clearly permits the consumption of meat, and the
> torah is
> > our absolute standard for morality, a person who avoids meat for
> *ethical*
> > reasons is essentially making a statement that the torah is immoral.
I know that Amos and Isaiah spoke out against the sacrificial system,
when sacrifices were offered by people whose conduct was immoral. I tend to
think that animal sacrifices were part of an ancient religious mode that is
obsolete today. However, it may be true that if people personally brought
animal sacrifices to a Temple, and only ate meat on those occasions, there
would be a lot less animal slaughter and hence cruelty than there is today.
I think I read some reform commentary that said in the future only one
animal might be sacrificed a year at a final Temple. Another commentator
said that the permission of Noah to eat meat was something new. I interpret
it as the flood waters had just receded, and perhaps the earth was too soggy
to grow crops, but Noah had a big ark stocked with animals. Perhaps it was
just a concession, and eating meat is something to be gotten rid of some
day. In C7 "Clues from a Shifting Paradigm," in Glen Quasar's Into the
Bermuda Triangle, he makes, on first impression, a fascinating case for a
truly world-wide flood about 7000 years ago. There are arguments against
being purely vegetarian. Some people say that the human body is evolved so
that one needs some meat, at least from time to time, whether it is immoral
or not. Another is that if domestic animals were not slaughtered, they would
grow old and get sick and still have to be taken care of. The answer to me
would be to breed down the numbers, or possibly to breed them back totheir
genetic ancestors, and let them go wild. Another interesting argument is
that
going vegetarian would increase the amount of land needed to be planted,
which would be destructive to the habitats of all sorts of wild
creatures.But so is the expansion of human settlements. On the other hand,
there is the possibility of growing high-protein algae in tanks, or even of
living on the power of sunlight, as at least one person is supposed to do -
it seems like more trouble than it is worth, though - he has to stand
barefoot and faces the sun a couple of times a day. Maybe they coudl find a
way to broadcast the sun on TV - that would be more comforable, and we'd
never have to go outside. I don't think Elijah needed to eat very much, but
the ravens did bring him bread and meat - hope it wasn't raven sandwiches.
So, if there's a new showoff Temple going to be built - but who has
Temples nowadays? - I would prefer it be without any sacrifices - but it
should probably have something to distinguish it from a synagogue. Maybe a
moat filled with alligators to deter the overly-pious.
Beach Runner
when you consider the periods it was written. Is Kosher the most human
killing? It was for many years. Now there's debate, and techniques
have changed. Peta recently exposed some of the worst example.
They didn't choose to show the most humane example. (I have my own
problems with Peta). Not every animal is killed in the most human way
possible. There are those who feel that being vegetarian is in perfect
harmony with Jewish through. One site is http://www.jewishveg.com/
There is a wonderful Jewish vegetarian group, veggi...@yahoo.com
There's certainly a place for Jewish vegetarian thought.
cindys
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:j%0xd.159555$Oc.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> The Torah has many places that treat animals with kindness. Especially
> when you consider the periods it was written. Is Kosher the most human
> killing? It was for many years. Now there's debate, and techniques
> have changed.
No, the technique of shechita has not changed. The issue was not about
shechita itself but rather about the rotating Weinberg pen and a botched job
portrayed on the film. And the issue was only about shechita at Postville,
not about shechita at the other 29 kosher slaughterhouses.
>Peta recently exposed some of the worst example.
> They didn't choose to show the most humane example. (I have my own
> problems with Peta). Not every animal is killed in the most human way
> possible. There are those who feel that being vegetarian is in perfect
> harmony with Jewish through. One site is http://www.jewishveg.com/
This site comes within a hair's breadth of asserting that the torah
"mandates" vegetarianism, and the author, who lacks for Jewish educational
background, is rendering his own interpretations of torah to make the case
for his personal agenda. He attempts to prove his case by citing famous
rabbis who paskened that there was no halachic prohibition against being a
vegetarian, but this is a far cry from the author's view that the torah
practically mandates it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Nick
I am sorry Rob but it is clear from other threads that we are not allowed to
have a personal conscience other than that dictated by Halachah.
Anyone who has such differing beliefs must be wrong and the person holding
such beliefs is considered to be wrong-headed.
What about Voltaire's dictum that I disagree with your beliefs but I would
die for your right to say them (rough quotation).
Nick
Robert
"Nick" <tulse0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote :
> I am sorry Rob but it is clear from other threads that we are not allowed
> to
> have a personal conscience other than that dictated by Halachah.
>
> Anyone who has such differing beliefs must be wrong and the person holding
> such beliefs is considered to be wrong-headed.
The (very) bad news is that you are correct: Many Orthodox Jews (especially
on this forum) do have this belief. This is the way that Judaism is taught
in many Orthodox settings, especially from Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") rabbis.
However, the good news is that this is not the traditional Jewish position.
Contrary to what they claim, many of the Orthodox Jewish participants on
this forum are quite ignorant of the fact that there were two very different
points of view within traditional Judaism, causing a debate which still
exists to this day. Even within Orthodox Judaism many Orthodox rabbis have a
view which differs from what you have read here, despite the fact that none
of our Orthodox participants will admit it,
In simple form, the debate in traditional Jewish theology and law has always
been this: Is something "good" just because God asks us to do it? Or does
God ask us to do what is "good"? If the former is true, then we are
obligated to blindly follow any law that we believe is from God, even if the
result is immoral. We just say "Well, it seems immoral, but it must really
be moral since it is from God." However, the other traditional position is
that God Himself is constrained, as it were, by morality: God may not give
us an immoral order, and if we think that a rule leads to an immoral result,
then we must reinterpret the rule.
Contrary to what you have heard here, the former is not Orthodox, and the
latter is not Reform. In truth, both poisitions are part of a well-meaning
debate that has always existed within rabbinic Judaism. Perhaps this
excerpt from an essay by an esteemed Orthodox rabbi and philosopher will
help:
"Morality, Halakha and the Jewish Tradition"
Rabbi Shubert Spero
Ktav, Yeshiva University Press, 1983, Library of Jewish Law and Ethics
Lecturer in Jewish Philosophy at cleveland College of Jewish Studies
Rabbi of Young Israel of Cleveland, Ohio
=== bein quote ===
In order to properly examine the relationship between Halakhah and morality
in Judaism, it is necessary that we back up a bit. For the Jew, the
effective source of the basic rules he is to follow in his behaviour is the
word of God as found in the Torah. These include moral imperatives, ritual
commands, and civil laws. The exegetical process called midrash was utilized
by the rabbis to "unpack" all of the implications of the written text, to
introduce oral traditions, to resolve disagreemts, and to arrive at
definitive rulings. The corpus of final and accepted rulings in all
questions of Jewish law came to be known as Halakhah. The word comes from
the root meaning "to walk" or "to go" and denotes a "way" or "norm" and
"procedure." (1)
As we indicated earlier, those moral rules in the Pentateuch which are
particular and specific were explicated, elaborated, and developed by the
halakhic process in the same manner as were the ritual laws.(2) Indeed, not
only was the logic the same, but often the very same concept would have
application in both a problem of morality and a matter regarding Temple
procedure. (3) All of this, of course, is as expected. Moral rules are
mitzvot, and therefore are authoritative in terms of their source and
obligatory from the point of view of the agent. Moral rules in both their
positive and negative forms are meant to be observed in real life and ought
to be presented in the form of clear guidelines for behavior. This is what
Halakhah is designed to do. Hence, it is to be expected that the Jewish
moral code will be treated by ad wil find its final form, in Halakhah....
Is there a morality independent of Halakhah?
Further consideration of our material, however, leads to the conclusion that
while much of the moral content of Judaism is incorporated in the Halakhah
and there finds its fullest realization, certain special areas of
experience, for reasons we shall attempt to discover, seem to lie outside
the sphere of the Halakhah. The clearest evidence of this is to be found in
the concept of lifnim mi-shurat ha-din, usually rendered "beyond the line of
the law" or "beyond the measure of the law" or "beyond the strict law."
Thus, we find the teachings of Rabbi Yochanan: "Jerusalem was destroyed
because they based their judgment solely upon Torah law and did not act
lifnim mi-shurat ha-din." (6) On other occasions, the Talmud, in conscious
contrast to the din (law), speaks of a higher standard of behavior which it
calls "the standard of saintliness" or the rabbis may sometimes note, "the
spirit of the sages is pleased with him." (7)
....It has become rather popular over the last few decades to describe the
essence of traditional Judaism as halakhic Judaism, with emphasis upon the
unique role and overriding primacy of the Halakhah. It is to Halakhah, say
these publicists, that we are to look if we wish to find the philosophy of
Judaism, the aesthetics ofJudaism, and certainly the morality of Judaism.
(9) This is an exaggeration and, in a sense, a distortion. Yet there are
those who become so convinced of the all-pervasive role of Halakhah in
Judaism that they would strive very hard to make sure that everything a Jew
is supposed to do and believe, be it law, morality, custom, philosophy, or
even dimly perceived ideals, somehow belongs under the heading of Halakhah.
And I suppose you an stretch the term Halakhah until it covers anything you
want it to cover. (10) But to do this is to reduce the issue of the
relationship between Halakhah and morality to a semantic question. And this
is to obfuscate, when we should be trying to elucidate.
=== end quote ===
Shalom,
Robert
cindys
"Robert" <mrkai...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ggixd.1123362$Gx4.8...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Nick" <tulse0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote :
> > I am sorry Rob but it is clear from other threads that we are not
allowed
> > to
> > have a personal conscience other than that dictated by Halachah.
> >
> > Anyone who has such differing beliefs must be wrong and the person
holding
> > such beliefs is considered to be wrong-headed.
>
>
> The (very) bad news is that you are correct: Many Orthodox Jews
(especially
> on this forum) do have this belief. This is the way that Judaism is taught
> in many Orthodox settings, especially from Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox")
rabbis.
What I find so interesting about this statement is that Christian
missionaries make the same claim: That average Jews are totally gullible and
ignorant and that *the rabbis* are privy to all sorts of secret information,
which they are deliberately withholding from the other Jews.
>
> However, the good news is that this is not the traditional Jewish
position.
> Contrary to what they claim, many of the Orthodox Jewish participants on
> this forum are quite ignorant of the fact that there were two very
different
> points of view within traditional Judaism, causing a debate which still
> exists to this day.
Not only have a number of the O posters on this forum learned in yeshiva and
not only does at least one of them (and maybe more) have semicha (Orthodox
rabbinical ordination), they learn from primary source material. I find it
fascinating that a poster who has never learned in yeshiva and whose primary
sources for Judaic information are English translations of tertiary source
material and the Jewish Encyclopedia continues to pretend to be more
knowledgable about Judaism than the O Jews.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Shlomo Chaim
I guess there are three topics here.
1) Being a Jew and becoming more spiritual.
2) How #1 ties in with not eating animals.
3) "Modern" animal treatment and slaughter.
Lets not mix 'em up.
Shlomo
robDotCalm
fascinating that a poster who has never learned in yeshiva and whose primary
sources for Judaic information are English translations of tertiary source
material and the Jewish Encyclopedia continues to pretend to be more
knowledgable about Judaism than the O Jews.
Robert had some interesting material to which he referred. The above quote
seems not informative. Comments on the material he quoted might have been
helpful.
Cheers, rob.calm
GARYW BW
>choose to be vegetarian based upon ethical or moral grounds, then what
>you're doing is choosing a moral compass from a source other than
>the Torah. There, you'll wind up in some trouble from the more
>observant groups. You'd be ignoring Jewish law and custom in favour
>of a set of rules and customs alien to Jewish practice. While in
>theory additional practices may not necessarily be incompatible with
>Jewish law (depending upon what they are, of course), when you
>reject the *Jewish* practices to follow them, you'll find yourself
>beyond the pale of Orthodox Judaism (and, I suspect, much of
>Conservatism also).
Interesting. If I may follow-up on this:
What if I simply held the belief that it is "wrong to kill animals for food." A
lot of people I know feel this way.
cindys
"GARYW BW" <gar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041220151828...@mb-m25.aol.com...
From a torah perspective, it is problematic, because you are saying it is
"wrong" to do something which the torah permits. For Jews, God/the torah is
the ultimate determiner of right or wrong, so by making such a statement,
you would be saying your own sensibilities supercede those which came from
God. It's a form of replacement theology.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Eliyahu Rooff
While you could always wait for them to die of old age before eating
them, that wouldn't be kosher either. :-) Seriously, the biggest
problem with that approach is that it still places you at odds with
the Torah, which specifically tells us that it's okay to eat animals
possessing particular characteristics (split hooves and cud), and
tells us how to kill them prior to eating. In fact, about the only
things lacking in Torah are recipes...
Eliyahu
GARYW BW
>problem with that approach is that it still places you at odds with
>the Torah, which specifically tells us that it's okay to eat animals
>possessing particular characteristics (split hooves and cud
Well, I see what you're saying. Not being a vegetarian, that doesn't bother me
too much. But then again, let's say that as a member of a particular
profession, I have a whole body of beliefs pertaining to that--areas in which
it is common to say, "it is right to do X" and it is "wrong to do Y."
For example... let's say I am a veterinarian, and I say, I feel it is essential
that all "cats not used for breeding should be neutered to prevent
overpopulation, and it is wrong to allow cats to breed without restraint."
Would that be contrary to Jewish belief? Or perhaps I am a lawyer and I say "it
is wrong for a money judgment to be rewarded without X and Y taking place?"
This is interesting--things I have never thought of, frankly.Thanks.
Lord Baeron
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>From a torah perspective, it is problematic, because you are saying it is
>"wrong" to do something which the torah permits. For Jews, God/the torah is
>the ultimate determiner of right or wrong, so by making such a statement,
>you would be saying your own sensibilities supercede those which came from
>God. It's a form of replacement theology.
To be fair:
1. It is only for *some* Jews that the Torah is the ultimate
determiner of what is right and wrong.
2. Even for those Jews, there is always an element of human
interpretation involved, as to precisely what God meant, and how we
are to apply it.
3. To argue that what was once permitted may nowadays be immoral is
not to claim that one's own sensibilities supersede God's word.
Rather, it is a claim that reasoning, which is God-given, may cause us
to interpret some things as being once permissible but not so in the
present, in a way that conforms to what we believe to be God's eternal
law.
--
Lord Baeron
Lord Baeron
<lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>While you could always wait for them to die of old age before eating
>them, that wouldn't be kosher either. :-) Seriously, the biggest
>problem with that approach is that it still places you at odds with
>the Torah, which specifically tells us that it's okay to eat animals
>possessing particular characteristics (split hooves and cud), and
>tells us how to kill them prior to eating. In fact, about the only
>things lacking in Torah are recipes...
>
>Eliyahu
>
Of course, many Jews would argue that what the Torah specifically says
is that these things were OK at the time.
--
Lord Baeron
cindys
Hey, Gary! I'm really curious to know why you didn't share with us that you
and Dave Umansky are the same person?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
GARYW BW
>and Dave Umansky are the same person?
>Best regards,
If this is a joke...you'll have to tell me the punch line.
Henry Goodman
"Lord Baeron" <LordB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a6ees01iigtcaivbv...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:39:43 +0000 (UTC), "cindys"
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >From a torah perspective, it is problematic, because you are saying
it is
> >"wrong" to do something which the torah permits. For Jews, God/the
torah is
> >the ultimate determiner of right or wrong, so by making such a
statement,
> >you would be saying your own sensibilities supercede those which
came from
> >God. It's a form of replacement theology.
>
> not to claim that one's own sensibilities supersede God's word.
> Rather, it is a claim that reasoning, which is God-given, may cause
us
> to interpret some things as being once permissible but not so in the
> present, in a way that conforms to what we believe to be God's
eternal
> law.
>
>
> --
> Lord Baeron
Nice to find somebody who can spell "supersede" :-)
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
cindys
It's not a joke. A poster on another group, someone who never posted to that
particular group before yesterday, told me that I seemed like a "pretty
bright person" and gave me weblink to a certain yahoo group and suggested
that I might like to read that particular yahoo group for a while. When I
clicked over there, I found that "Daveumansky" was a sometime poster to that
group and guess what his email address was? gar...@yahoo.com How do you
explain that?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
GARYW BW
approved) of the identity of other posters in not appropriate. hw ]
>> If this is a joke...you'll have to tell me the punch line.
>-------
>It's not a joke. A poster on another group, someone who never posted to that
>particular group before yesterday, told me that I seemed like a "pretty
>bright person" and gave me weblink to a certain yahoo group and suggested
>that I might like to read that particular yahoo group for a while. When I
>clicked over there, I found that "Daveumansky" was a sometime poster to that
>group and guess what his email address was? gar...@yahoo.com How do you
>explain that?
a yahoo address and have never heard of a "daveumansky" or even heard of the
existence of same until you mentioned it. So I think someone is pulling your
leg. I don't see the humor, frankly.
GARYW BW
>same time?
I don't like this any more than you do. Less.
GARYW BW
>[ Moderator's Comment: Dicussions by posters (including those who are auto
> approved) of the identity of other posters in not appropriate. hw ]
So then if the person who broached the issue would get back to me privately I
would appreciate it. thanx
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> I find it fascinating that a poster who has never learned in yeshiva
> and whose primary sources for Judaic information are English
> translations of tertiary source material and the Jewish Encyclopedia
> continues to pretend to be more knowledgable about Judaism than the
> O Jews.
Cindy, your question is the answer!
I am reminded of a story about the Chazon Ish. When he had just
finished learning the aleph-beis he came home proudly and told his
father that he is a "baki" (expert) in the entire Talmud. When his
father expressed surprise, he said; "You can ask me _any_ letter you
want in the Talmud and I will know it's name".
When you are not aware of the depth and breadth of a subject, you can
easily convince yourself that your cursory knowlege is all there is!
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Lord Baeron
I did Latin A level (-:
--
Lord Baeron
Yacovachi
>From: Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
>Date: 12/20/2004 5:23 PM Eastern Standard Time
[Re: eating meat]
>Of course, many Jews would argue that what the Torah specifically says
>is that these things were OK at the time.
>--
>Lord Baeron
Where in the Tora would you base this restriction to "the time" upon?
Jacko
Craig Winchell/GAN EDEN Wines
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:cq7n8e$6s3$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
BS"D
Dictionary says that both sede and cede are correct variants. I grew up
with supercede, many now spell it supersede.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
Henry Goodman
message news:ghRxd.5962$RH4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Another Anglo-American difference.
Oxford dictionary says "in early use often -cede."
Not correct though this side of the pond, although a common error.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
I think the problem may be in the use of the word "wrong".
If you mean it as a _personal_ opinion it's one thing. If you mean
it as a "universal" truth. it's something else.
> This is interesting--things I have never thought of, frankly.Thanks.
Me neither.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
> [Re: eating meat]
>
>>Of course, many Jews would argue that what the Torah specifically
>>says is that these things were OK at the time.
>
On the contrary, it's not a "restriction", it's _permission_ to eat
meat. So Lord Baeron is saying that one _might_ argue the permission
was only for then. To be fair, there _was_ a time in human history
when eating meat was prohibited i.e. before the Flood.
Lord Baeron
It's not a restriction, as such. It's an interpretation, as is all
reading of the Torah, and all implementation of what it says.
In brief, to say that something is OK is not necessarily an
endorsement of it for all time.
--
Lord Baeron
Don Levey
> "Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:j%0xd.159555$Oc.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > The Torah has many places that treat animals with kindness. Especially
> > when you consider the periods it was written. Is Kosher the most human
> > killing? It was for many years. Now there's debate, and techniques
> > have changed.
>
> No, the technique of shechita has not changed. The issue was not about
> shechita itself but rather about the rotating Weinberg pen and a botched job
> portrayed on the film. And the issue was only about shechita at Postville,
> not about shechita at the other 29 kosher slaughterhouses.
>
I think the original poster was suggesting that *other* methods
of slaughter have changed. That is, we can be very sure that
long ago shechita was by far the most humane method of slaughter.
Now that other methods have changed, the difference might not be
as great.
>
> >Peta recently exposed some of the worst example.
> > They didn't choose to show the most humane example. (I have my own
> > problems with Peta). Not every animal is killed in the most human way
> > possible. There are those who feel that being vegetarian is in perfect
> > harmony with Jewish through. One site is http://www.jewishveg.com/
>
> This site comes within a hair's breadth of asserting that the torah
> "mandates" vegetarianism, and the author, who lacks for Jewish educational
> background, is rendering his own interpretations of torah to make the case
> for his personal agenda. He attempts to prove his case by citing famous
> rabbis who paskened that there was no halachic prohibition against being a
> vegetarian, but this is a far cry from the author's view that the torah
> practically mandates it.
>
Exactly - there is a significant difference between saying that a law
permits an activity, and saying that this law mandates it. As I believe
has been discussed here previously, while Jewish law does permit a person
to avoid (or limit to rare occasions) meat consumption, there is nothing
which mandates, or even suggests, it. Furthermore, an attempt to justify
vegetarianism on ethical/moral grounds would be outside the traditional
practices of Judaism. Did I get that right?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters.
cindys
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2004Dec2...@mm.huji.ac.il...
As a BT, I know this is true. I have posted before about how when I was just
becoming religious, I thought I had a kosher house. I remember my surprise
at finding out that I accepted hechsherim that other people didn't, and that
the oven needed to be kashered between cooking meat and dairy etc. Despite
my current O worldview, all the time I was C, I never saw much difference
between C and O (except for the public role of women in the synagogue). I
remember explaining to an O Jewish woman that that there was very little
distinction between C and O, and when she insisted that there were great
differences, I told her (in a nice way), that she simply didn't know what
she was talking about, and the problem was that she had preconceived notions
about C. My big motivation for coming to O (other than wanting to pass on my
grandmother's Judaism to my children), was that I specifically wanted
in-depth, academically-challenging learning opportunities for myself. And
despite the fact that in C, I could have learned whatever I wanted, no
questions asked, C just wasn't offering what I wanted to learn. So, now you
can see why I feel so frustrated when someone suspects me of having a
feminist agenda. If I wanted to be a feminist, I would have stayed with C.
At any rate, your point is very well taken. If nothing else, I have become
acutely aware of what I don't know, and this continues to be my greatest
frustration. I stand in awe of so many of the posters to this newsgroup.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Yacovachi
>>Where in the Tora would you base this restriction to "the time" upon?
>>
>>Jacko
>
>It's not a restriction, as such. It's an interpretation, as is all
>reading of the Torah, and all implementation of what it says.
Well, that sounds like double talk. I see it as a complete restriction. You
restrict the permissibility of eating meat to a particular time yet the Tora
itself claims to be eternal.
An "interpretation" should bear some semblance to the reasonable meaning of the
text.
If the Tora -- and it does -- speaks to eating meat profusely, and even
requires it some thrice per year if not more to Israelites and more to priests,
how do you "interpret" that away without some source?
"All reading of the Tora" is not subversive. Most reading tries to elucidate
what the text actually says.
Jacko
GARYW BW
Don Levey
> My big motivation for coming to O (other than wanting to pass on my
> grandmother's Judaism to my children), was that I specifically wanted
> in-depth, academically-challenging learning opportunities for myself. And
> despite the fact that in C, I could have learned whatever I wanted, no
> questions asked, C just wasn't offering what I wanted to learn.
So out of curiosity, was maintaining full O practice required in order
to learn from O sources?
Yisroel Markov
said:
>>. :-) Seriously, the biggest
>>problem with that approach is that it still places you at odds with
>>the Torah, which specifically tells us that it's okay to eat animals
>>possessing particular characteristics (split hooves and cud
>
>Well, I see what you're saying. Not being a vegetarian, that doesn't bother me
>too much. But then again, let's say that as a member of a particular
>profession, I have a whole body of beliefs pertaining to that--areas in which
>it is common to say, "it is right to do X" and it is "wrong to do Y."
>For example... let's say I am a veterinarian, and I say, I feel it is essential
>that all "cats not used for breeding should be neutered to prevent
>overpopulation, and it is wrong to allow cats to breed without restraint."
>Would that be contrary to Jewish belief?
AFAIK, no. Spaying animals is permitted (castrating is not). I suspect
that if cats were a serious problem, castration might be permitted,
too.
>Or perhaps I am a lawyer and I say "it
>is wrong for a money judgment to be rewarded without X and Y taking place?"
AFAIK the law is that people are allowed to create whatever procedures
they want with their money, as long as no one is actually wronged in
the process, or an explicit money-related prohibition is violated.
>This is interesting--things I have never thought of, frankly.Thanks.
The key is what the basis for "wrong" judgment is.
I think you need to find an example of a "wrong" judgment regarding
something explicitly mandated in the Tora. (And even then there's a
possibility for ambiguity.)
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Yisroel Markov
Not necessarily "immoral," just no longer acceptable. This is the
argument often used to explain the ban on polygamy. I also hear it to
explain bans on other formerly permitted things; e.g., someone argued
that even though there was a female choir in Shlomo's Temple, nowadays
this is totally unacceptable due to decline in public morals.
Lord Baeron
(Yacovachi) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and the various Jewish denominations
>>From: Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
>>Date: 12/21/2004 8:39 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
>>>Where in the Tora would you base this restriction to "the time" upon?
>>>
>>>Jacko
>>
>>It's not a restriction, as such. It's an interpretation, as is all
>>reading of the Torah, and all implementation of what it says.
>
>Well, that sounds like double talk. I see it as a complete restriction. You
>restrict the permissibility of eating meat to a particular time yet the Tora
>itself claims to be eternal.
It's not any kind of restriction - more a claim that we should be
careful over what we claim to be binding, eternal commands or
permissions. And yet there are plenty of instances of behaviour that
was acceptable then but not now. We've seen this in other recent
threads - slavery, polygamy, etc.
>An "interpretation" should bear some semblance to the reasonable meaning of the
>text.
Or argue that circumstances are now different from what they then
were?
>If the Tora -- and it does -- speaks to eating meat profusely, and even
>requires it some thrice per year if not more to Israelites and more to priests,
>how do you "interpret" that away without some source?
Why would a source help? People reach these interpretations by using
reason and argument. Most of us (I don't mean here in SCJM) don't base
our lives on the literal meaning of texts (if indeed such a thing were
possible).
>"All reading of the Tora" is not subversive.
Subversive? I don't know where that came from!
>Most reading tries to elucidate
>what the text actually says.
No - what the text actually means, and specifically what it means to
us here and now.
Every time we read anything we interpret it to a greater or lesser
degree. Words are metaphors. Every time we read a text we are at risk
of misunderstanding its meaning. We are fallible - and to think that
we have certain knowledge of the meaning and scope of 100% of
scripture's commands is misleading. We can't always be sure whether a
piece of text is aimed at everyone, for all time, or not.
If you are an Orthodox Jew, your understanding will be heavily
influenced (or completely determined, even) by the interpretation of
scholars of old. Hey! - what do you think the discussion is about in
all those old books?
My own position is this (in respect of scriptures generally, not of
vegetarianism - I like meat): God has given us powers of reason, an
intellect with which to look deeper into the meaning of the creation
and of the words of the Torah, and many other clues about the way we
should treat both other people and the rest of creation; we would be
failing in our moral duty if qwe didn't use these gifts wisely. Our
knowledge of the universe develops - we cannot morally ignore it.
--
Lord Baeron
Lord Baeron
Markov) wrote:
>Not necessarily "immoral," just no longer acceptable.
Yes - that's better.
> This is the
>argument often used to explain the ban on polygamy. I also hear it to
>explain bans on other formerly permitted things; e.g., someone argued
>that even though there was a female choir in Shlomo's Temple, nowadays
>this is totally unacceptable due to decline in public morals.
That's the kind of thing I mean - yes.
--
Lord Baeron
GARYW BW
>> Well, I see what you're saying. Not being a vegetarian, that doesn't
>> bother me too much. But then again, let's say that as a member of a
>> particular profession, I have a whole body of beliefs pertaining to
>> that--areas in which it is common to say, "it is right to do X" and
>> it is "wrong to do Y." For example... let's say I am a veterinarian,
>> and I say, I feel it is essential that all "cats not used for breeding
>> should be neutered to prevent overpopulation, and it is wrong to allow
>> cats to breed without restraint." Would that be contrary to Jewish
>> belief? Or perhaps I am a lawyer and I say "it is wrong for a money
>> judgment to be rewarded without X and Y taking place?"
>
>I think the problem may be in the use of the word "wrong".
>
>If you mean it as a _personal_ opinion it's one thing. If you mean
>it as a "universal" truth. it's something else.
Well, a professional code of ethics is definitely not a universal truth, but it
is not a personal opinion either.
The reason I wonder about this is that I once had a conversation with a
prominent rabbi in which I talked about the people having the "right to know."
He wasn't terribly sympathetic with that. We covered some of what has been
discussed here, but the details I forget--it was ten years ago. I forget how we
resolved it, or if it was resolved.
Z
<gar...@aol.com> writes
>> if you
>>choose to be vegetarian based upon ethical or moral grounds, then what
>>you're doing is choosing a moral compass from a source other than
>>the Torah. There, you'll wind up in some trouble from the more
>>observant groups. You'd be ignoring Jewish law and custom in favour
>>of a set of rules and customs alien to Jewish practice.
And maybe forcing other Jews to not be able to follow their customs -
Jewish customs - to accommodate the vegetarians for example a communal
Shabbos meal that would be a meat meal for normal people.
>>While in
>>theory additional practices may not necessarily be incompatible with
>>Jewish law (depending upon what they are, of course), when you
>>reject the *Jewish* practices to follow them, you'll find yourself
>>beyond the pale of Orthodox Judaism (and, I suspect, much of
>>Conservatism also).
>
>Interesting. If I may follow-up on this:
>What if I simply held the belief that it is "wrong to kill animals for food." A
>lot of people I know feel this way.
It's not a Jewish practice, there is no Torah prohibition on killing
animals for food. I've nothing against vegetarianism but it's not to be
passed off as a 'Jewish value'. I was a vegetarian and even a vegan for
a while.
Same with socialism, it shouldn't be passed off as Judasim as I have
heard recently.
--
Z
Remove all Zeds in e-mail address to reply.
Yacovachi
>It's not any kind of restriction - more a claim that we should be
>careful over what we claim to be binding, eternal commands or
>permissions.
It is a restirction of the permission to a specific time, otherwise how could
anyone make a Tora based vegetarianism argument?
>And yet there are plenty of instances of behaviour that
>was acceptable then but not now. We've seen this in other recent
>threads - slavery, polygamy, etc.
>
Both are still permitted under Jewish Law.
Some communities may not do them, but no prohibition. You cannot merge custom,
local precedent and national law all together.
>>An "interpretation" should bear some semblance to the reasonable meaning of
>the
>>text.
>
>Or argue that circumstances are now different from what they then
>were?
No, that is an argument to change the law.
>Why would a source help?
Beacuse you asserted that some people would argue the Tora was allowing meat
only for a certain time. So make the argument.
What are we talking about if not what the Tora meant in decsribing all those
sacrifices and priestly gifts.
>People reach these interpretations by using
>reason and argument.
So make the argument. Feel free to use reason. But it must be a reasonable
reading of the text.
>Most of us (I don't mean here in SCJM) don't base
>our lives on the literal meaning of texts (if indeed such a thing were
>possible).
Who said anything about literal. Now make the argument already.
>>"All reading of the Tora" is not subversive.
>
>Subversive? I don't know where that came from!
Jacques Derrida, alav ashalom.
>>Most reading tries to elucidate
>>what the text actually says.
>
>
>No - what the text actually means, and specifically what it means to
>us here and now.
>
Okay, make the argument how it means here and now that the allowance of meat
was for a defined time period.
>We can't always be sure whether a
>piece of text is aimed at everyone, for all time, or not.
>
That's it? That since we never know for sure perhaps the Tora really meant to
restrict the permissibility of meat eating?
Sounds like a weak argument.
>God has given us powers of reason, an
>intellect with which to look deeper into the meaning of the creation
>and of the words of the Torah, and many other clues about the way we
>should treat both other people and the rest of creation; we would be
>failing in our moral duty if qwe didn't use these gifts wisely.
Well said. So do you have such a fine analysis to demonstrate this elusive
argument?
>Our
>knowledge of the universe develops - we cannot morally ignore it.
What that has to do with the meaning of the Tora escapes me. But it is a lofty
ideal.
Jacko
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Not necessarily "immoral," just no longer acceptable. This is the
> argument often used to explain the ban on polygamy. I also hear it to
> explain bans on other formerly permitted things; e.g., someone argued
> that even though there was a female choir in Shlomo's Temple, nowadays
> this is totally unacceptable due to decline in public morals.
Umm I never heard of such a choir. Do you have a source?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>
>>> Well, I see what you're saying. Not being a vegetarian, that doesn't
>>> bother me too much. But then again, let's say that as a member of a
>>> particular profession, I have a whole body of beliefs pertaining to
>>> that--areas in which it is common to say, "it is right to do X" and
>>> it is "wrong to do Y." For example... let's say I am a veterinarian,
>>> and I say, I feel it is essential that all "cats not used for breeding
>>> should be neutered to prevent overpopulation, and it is wrong to allow
>>> cats to breed without restraint." Would that be contrary to Jewish
>>> belief? Or perhaps I am a lawyer and I say "it is wrong for a money
>>> judgment to be rewarded without X and Y taking place?"
>>
>>I think the problem may be in the use of the word "wrong".
>>
>>If you mean it as a _personal_ opinion it's one thing. If you mean
>>it as a "universal" truth. it's something else.
>
> Well, a professional code of ethics is definitely not a universal
> truth, but it is not a personal opinion either.
>
> The reason I wonder about this is that I once had a conversation
> with a prominent rabbi in which I talked about the people having
> the "right to know." He wasn't terribly sympathetic with that.
I can easily understand that. <drily>
> We covered some of what has been discussed here, but the details I
> forget--it was ten years ago. I forget how we resolved it, or if it
> was resolved.
Now you're defing it as a possible "right". Before you talked about
"right" vs. "wrong" (if I understood you correctly). Not the same
thing.
Lord Baeron
(Yacovachi) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and the various Jewish denominations
>>From: Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
>>Date: 12/21/2004 4:52 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
>>It's not any kind of restriction - more a claim that we should be
>>careful over what we claim to be binding, eternal commands or
>>permissions.
>
>It is a restirction of the permission to a specific time, otherwise how could
>anyone make a Tora based vegetarianism argument?
>>And yet there are plenty of instances of behaviour that
>>was acceptable then but not now. We've seen this in other recent
>>threads - slavery, polygamy, etc.
>>
>
>Both are still permitted under Jewish Law.
So slavery is morally acceptable?
>
>Some communities may not do them, but no prohibition. You cannot merge custom,
>local precedent and national law all together.
>
>>>An "interpretation" should bear some semblance to the reasonable meaning of
>>the
>>>text.
>>
>>Or argue that circumstances are now different from what they then
>>were?
>
>No, that is an argument to change the law.
Not if the law was made for particular circumstances. It's just an
argument that it *isn't* an eternal law.
>
>>Why would a source help?
>
>Beacuse you asserted that some people would argue the Tora was allowing meat
>only for a certain time. So make the argument.
Well, I'm not a vegetarian, Jacko, so I'll leave it to anyone who
feels that it's unacceptable to eat meat.
>
>What are we talking about if not what the Tora meant in decsribing all those
>sacrifices and priestly gifts.
>
>
>>People reach these interpretations by using
>>reason and argument.
>So make the argument. Feel free to use reason. But it must be a reasonable
>reading of the text.
My point is that the text doesn't bind - so said veggies would not
offer a text-based argument. More likely one based on what we now
(allegedly) know about animals (that they suffer as we do).
>>Most of us (I don't mean here in SCJM) don't base
>>our lives on the literal meaning of texts (if indeed such a thing were
>>possible).
>
>Who said anything about literal. Now make the argument already.
I guess it would start along the lines, " 'Eat meat' isn't the same as
'you may always eat meat, even though circumstances change, and
alternatives are available which prevent needless suffering' " - but
it's not *my* argument. My point is that it's a position we can
consider - we shouldn't rule anything in/out on the basis of text
alone, when we have other resources such as intellect, reason and
better knowledge of facts.
>
>>>"All reading of the Tora" is not subversive.
>>
>>Subversive? I don't know where that came from!
>
>Jacques Derrida, alav ashalom.
Derridaft, as my philosophy lecturer use to refer to him!
>
>
>>>Most reading tries to elucidate
>>>what the text actually says.
>>
>>
>>No - what the text actually means, and specifically what it means to
>>us here and now.
>>
>
>Okay, make the argument how it means here and now that the allowance of meat
>was for a defined time period.
>
No - it's not my position. All I'm saying is that it's not a position
we should dismiss out of hand, based on our interpretation of the
text. The argument isn't, anyway, that this is what the text means,
it's that the text itself was applicable in those circumstances, but
needn't be now. You certainly won't extract this argument from those
very texts.
>
>>We can't always be sure whether a
>>piece of text is aimed at everyone, for all time, or not.
>>
>
>That's it? That since we never know for sure perhaps the Tora really meant to
>restrict the permissibility of meat eating?
>
>Sounds like a weak argument.
>
>>God has given us powers of reason, an
>>intellect with which to look deeper into the meaning of the creation
>>and of the words of the Torah, and many other clues about the way we
>>should treat both other people and the rest of creation; we would be
>>failing in our moral duty if qwe didn't use these gifts wisely.
>
>Well said. So do you have such a fine analysis to demonstrate this elusive
>argument?
If you're looking for a Torah-based argument against meat-eating, I
doubt whether even the most fanatical vegetarian will be able to
supply it. But there are many modern philosophical defences of
vegetarianism that, though they don't refer specifically to Judaism,
still apply to all thinking believers in a good God.
For example, Stephen Clark's 'The Moral Status of Animals'.
>>Our
>>knowledge of the universe develops - we cannot morally ignore it.
>
>What that has to do with the meaning of the Tora escapes me. But it is a lofty
>ideal.
It is relevant to our interpretation, if you believe that we need to
reassess our interpretation as our knowledge of creation progresses.
--
Lord Baeron
GARYW BW
Yes, not as I just phrased it. But our discussion (me and the rabbi's) was
along the lines of right vs. wrong as it applies to journalistic ethics and
beliefs.
Yacovachi
>We've seen this in other recent
>>>threads - slavery, polygamy, etc.
>>>
>>
>>Both are still permitted under Jewish Law.
>
>So slavery is morally acceptable?
I do not know. Depends on the slavery and the morality. Anyway irrelevant.
The Tora is a system. Whether some people at some time say X is moral or
immoral has nothing to do with what is or is not permitted.
>>>Or argue that circumstances are now different from what they then
>>>were?
>>
>>No, that is an argument to change the law.
>
>Not if the law was made for particular circumstances. It's just an
>argument that it *isn't* an eternal law.
But here we are again! Then you have to persuasively show that the "law was
made for particular circumstances."
I have yet to see that argument.
>Well, I'm not a vegetarian, Jacko, so I'll leave it to anyone who
>feels that it's unacceptable to eat meat.
So when you said they may argue the Tora restricted meat eating to a particular
time that was just out of the air speculation?
>More likely one based on what we now
>(allegedly) know about animals (that they suffer as we do).
>
Has nothing to do with the Tora.
>My point is that it's a position we can
>consider - we shouldn't rule anything in/out on the basis of text
>alone, when we have other resources such as intellect, reason and
>better knowledge of facts.
Real double talk.
"A position we can consider" needs to be made first. I asked for the position,
you have no reasonable argument whatsoever.
>>Jacques Derrida, alav ashalom.
>
>Derridaft, as my philosophy lecturer use to refer to him!
"Whoever taints with his own defect he taints." What *my* lecturers called
"projection of the shadow."
>The argument isn't, anyway, that this is what the text means,
>it's that the text itself was applicable in those circumstances, but
>needn't be now.
This argument has to be made based on some reasonable evidence, not simply
assumed because moderns like this sort of super liberalism.
>But there are many modern philosophical defences of
>vegetarianism that, though they don't refer specifically to Judaism,
>still apply to all thinking believers in a good God.
The "good God" has nothing to do with Tora. I frankly am unintersted in
learning Tora form PETA.
Jack
GARYW BW
Come to think of it, to follow up on my last post, I have a sneaking suspicion
as to what might be happening, as I have a "stalker" and have been a subject of
a letter-writing campaign by this person for the past three years. This has
nothing to do with Judaism or anything else having to do with this newsgroup.
But unless that person is posing as me and saying it is me, none of this makes
any sense. Rest assured that I am NOT an "Umansky" or any thing else apart from
my distinguished self.
Lord Baeron
(Yacovachi) wrote:
<snip>
>The "good God" has nothing to do with Tora. I frankly am unintersted in
>learning Tora form PETA.
Your constant references to what the Torah says show that you are
missing my point.
You won't find anything there that tells you how to interpret its
meaning - that's a question of applying our intelligence and our
current knowledge, in the light of present circumstances.
As to slavery, it is either immoral or it isn't. Your view seems to
entail that it is morally acceptable, then, now, and for all time.
I beg to differ - but I have no intention of trying to base my opinion
on the ancient texts.
--
Lord Baeron
cindys
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 12:06:29 +0000 (UTC), yaco...@aol.com
> (Yacovachi) wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
> >The "good God" has nothing to do with Tora. I frankly am unintersted in
> >learning Tora form PETA.
>
>
> Your constant references to what the Torah says show that you are
> missing my point.
> You won't find anything there that tells you how to interpret its
> meaning -
Actually, there are 13 *hermeneutic principles* of Torah interpretation.
>that's a question of applying our intelligence and our
> current knowledge, in the light of present circumstances.
And here we come to the chasm that is unbridgable between O and R. For O,
the oral tradition is valid and binding, and torah is not open to individual
interpretations and personal opinions. You would disagree with that. I don't
see how there can be a meeting of the minds on this point.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Lord Baeron
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Actually, there are 13 *hermeneutic principles* of Torah interpretation.
I'm sure there are many ways of interpreting it, but you find them
outside it, if you see what I mean. The Book didn't come with any
explanation - the explanation came later. You rely on traditional
interpretation, I rely on modern interpretation. We are both doing the
same thing.
>
>>that's a question of applying our intelligence and our
>> current knowledge, in the light of present circumstances.
>
>And here we come to the chasm that is unbridgable between O and R. For O,
>the oral tradition is valid and binding, and torah is not open to individual
>interpretations and personal opinions. You would disagree with that. I don't
>see how there can be a meeting of the minds on this point.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
That's right - there can't be any agreement here, and to argue would
be pointless, other than to point out that the oral tradition is
irself something that has changed over time, and is ultimately
someone's personal interpretation.
But we both knew that already (-:
(I managed to avoid a similar discussion with the Jehovah's Witnesses
this morning. They woke me up, but my unwashed, unshaven,
dressing-gown clad scowling appearance was enough to see them off!)
--
Lord Baeron
Robert
>>Many Orthodox Jews (especially
>> on this forum) do have this belief. This is the way that Judaism is
>> taught
>> in many Orthodox settings, especially from Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox")
> rabbis.
> What I find so interesting about this statement is that Christian
> missionaries make the same claim: That average Jews are totally gullible
> and
> ignorant and that *the rabbis* are privy to all sorts of secret
> information,
> which they are deliberately withholding from the other Jews.
Huh? What are you rambling about? Your claims have *nothing* at all do with
what I or Rabbi Shubert Spero were writing about.
Please stop insinuating that your fellow religions Jews - including an
Orthodox rabbi - are like Christian missionaries. Your angry way of
attacking people that you disagree with just drives people away from this
forum.
> Not only have a number of the O posters on this forum learned in yeshiva
> and
> not only does at least one of them (and maybe more) have semicha (Orthodox
> rabbinical ordination), they learn from primary source material. I find
> it
> fascinating that a poster who has never learned in yeshiva and whose
> primary
> sources for Judaic information are English translations of tertiary source
> material and the Jewish Encyclopedia continues to pretend to be more
> knowledgable about Judaism than the O Jews.
This is unethical. Cindy S. attacks the words of an Orthodox rabbi and
philosopher, which have the haskamah of Rabbi Norman Lamm, yet attributes
the ideas to me and impugns them.
In disgust.
Robert
Harry Weiss
> In disgust.
> Robert
Wouldn't it be simple to use the method in the old joke about saying a joke by just
repeting the number of the joke. It save the necessity of repeating the same thing
over and over.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Micha Berger
> Wouldn't it be simple to use the method in the old joke about saying a
> joke by just repeting the number of the joke. It save the necessity of
> repeating the same thing over and over.
As my kids could tell you, the one about the old age home where they all
knew the same jokes so they just told the numbers is #122.
-mi
Micha Berger
: As to slavery, it is either immoral or it isn't....
I disageree. The morality of a choice depends on the merits of each
of your options. It is possible that while slavery itself is always
immmoral, choosing or allowing slavery may be the moral choice -- because
your alternative is worse.
Today we can feed the nation using automation instead of slave labor.
For many periods and venues of the past, not enough wealth could be
generated to keep everyone alive without slavey.
-mi
--
Micha Berger "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
mi...@aishdas.org I do, then I understand." - Confucius
http://www.aishdas.org "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites
cindys
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cqf1u0$isi$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Robert <mrkai...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote :
>
> > >>Many Orthodox Jews (especially
> > >> on this forum) do have this belief. This is the way that Judaism is
> > >> taught
> > >> in many Orthodox settings, especially from Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox")
> > > rabbis.
>
>
> > > What I find so interesting about this statement is that Christian
> > > missionaries make the same claim: That average Jews are totally
gullible
> > > and
> > > ignorant and that *the rabbis* are privy to all sorts of secret
> > > information,
> > > which they are deliberately withholding from the other Jews.
>
>
> > Huh? What are you rambling about? Your claims have *nothing* at all do
with
> > what I or Rabbi Shubert Spero were writing about.
>
> > Please stop insinuating that your fellow religions Jews - including an
> > Orthodox rabbi - are like Christian missionaries.
Excuse me. It seems to me this was the implication of your words, not mine.
>>Your angry way of
> > attacking people that you disagree with just drives people away from
this
> > forum.
Have you looked in the mirror?
>
>
> > > Not only have a number of the O posters on this forum learned in
yeshiva
> > > and
> > > not only does at least one of them (and maybe more) have semicha
(Orthodox
> > > rabbinical ordination), they learn from primary source material. I
find
> > > it
> > > fascinating that a poster who has never learned in yeshiva and whose
> > > primary
> > > sources for Judaic information are English translations of tertiary
source
> > > material and the Jewish Encyclopedia continues to pretend to be more
> > > knowledgable about Judaism than the O Jews.
>
>
> > This is unethical. Cindy S. attacks the words of an Orthodox rabbi
So now you're an orthodox rabbi?
>>and
> > philosopher, which have the haskamah of Rabbi Norman Lamm, yet
attributes
> > the ideas to me and impugns them.
>
> > In disgust.
>
> > Robert
>
> Wouldn't it be simple to use the method in the old joke about saying a
joke by just
> repeting the number of the joke. It save the necessity of repeating the
same thing
> over and over.
;-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Lord Baeron
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>I disageree.
Well, you don't, actually, because your following scenario one that I
can wholeheartedly agree with.
>The morality of a choice depends on the merits of each
>of your options.
Agreed.
>It is possible that while slavery itself is always
>immmoral, choosing or allowing slavery may be the moral choice -- because
>your alternative is worse.
Agreed.
I agree that we sometimes have to choose the lesser of two evils, in
which case that choice is clearly the moral choice, but the two evils
remain two evils.
--
Lord Baeron
robDotCalm
generated to keep everyone alive without slavey.»
Is there any evidence to support such a proposition? The wealth generated by
the slaves was taken from them by their masters. What's that got to do with
keeping people alive? I would hope this is not used as a defense of slavery
being allowed in the Torah.
cheers, rob.calm
Micha Berger
:> For many periods and venues of the past, not enough wealth could be
:> generated to keep everyone alive without [slavery]»
: Is there any evidence to support such a proposition? The wealth generated by
: the slaves was taken from them by their masters. What's that got to do with
: keeping people alive? I would hope this is not used as a defense of slavery
: being allowed in the Torah.
A society only resorts to slavery when demand for labor so outstrips
demand that the price of labor exceeds the cost of keeping other human
beings. People literally could not farm enough food to meet society's
needs without cheap labor -- otherwise the institution isn't cost
effective.
The Torah does not so much permit slavery as much as regulate
it. Recognizing that there are economies in which slavery is a necessary
evil, the Torah doesn't ban the impossible. Rather, it requires their
humane treatment, their inclusion as members of society, and all-in-all
a better lifestyle than minimal wage workers can get for themselves in
the US today.
All of the above is about non-Jewish slaves. The Torah's requirements
for Jewish slaves are far more stringent:
1- When there isn't enough to go around, the slave comes first. E.g. if
they're down to one pillow, the slave gets the pillow.
2- It wasn't a sale, it was rental until the next Sabbatical year.
3- It was a means of reforming the thief. The victim is repaid from the
procedes of the rental. And the thief, instead of learning crime from
a society of criminals in jail, spends the time in a trade working for
his owner.
-mi
--
Micha Berger One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Garry
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 23:40:10 +0000 (UTC), robDotCalm <kel...@comcast.net> wrote:
>:> For many periods and venues of the past, not enough wealth could be
>:> generated to keep everyone alive without [slavery]»
>
>: Is there any evidence to support such a proposition? The wealth generated by
>: the slaves was taken from them by their masters. What's that got to do with
>: keeping people alive? I would hope this is not used as a defense of slavery
>: being allowed in the Torah.
>
>A society only resorts to slavery when demand for labor so outstrips
>demand that the price of labor exceeds the cost of keeping other human
>beings. People literally could not farm enough food to meet society's
>needs without cheap labor -- otherwise the institution isn't cost
>effective.
>
I don't see your basis for saying this. Many slave-based societies
(egypt, greece, rome) used slave labor to perform enormous public work
projects that had nothing to do with survival. I wouldn;t think this
would be the case if slavery were simply a response to a lack of
capacity to meet social needs.
This was also the argument of the American South before the American
civil war. It proved to be untrue.
>The Torah does not so much permit slavery as much as regulate
>it. Recognizing that there are economies in which slavery is a necessary
>evil, the Torah doesn't ban the impossible.
The Torah bans, among other things, the sale of real property, the
collection of debts after the sabbatical year, the collection of
interest, the eating of many animals, and a variety of other farming
and economic practices. Many argue that some or all of these are
necessary evils.
My impression is that you're concluding that slavery, unlike other
things, is a necessary evil solely because the Torah does not prohibit
it.
>Rather, it requires their
>humane treatment, their inclusion as members of society, and all-in-all
>a better lifestyle than minimal wage workers can get for themselves in
>the US today.
>
>All of the above is about non-Jewish slaves. The Torah's requirements
>for Jewish slaves are far more stringent:
It's hard to argue that the "slavery" of Jewish slaves was slavery at
all. I don't think the rules regarding Jewish "slaves" is where the
moral problem lies.
_______________________________________
A haggadah that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version of the Haggadah, handsomely printed.
The entire purchase price goes to charity. http://www.matzoh.net/hagg/main.html
Feel free to contact me thru matzoh.net. Garry
Micha Berger
: I don't see your basis for saying this. Many slave-based societies
: (egypt, greece, rome) used slave labor to perform enormous public work
: projects that had nothing to do with survival. I wouldn;t think this
: would be the case if slavery were simply a response to a lack of
: capacity to meet social needs.
: This was also the argument of the American South before the American
: civil war. It proved to be untrue.
None of which are forms of slavery that the Torah would permit.
So I'm missing the relevence.
Halakhah requires a significant financial burden on the slave owner.
It's simple supply and demand to figure out when people would put up
with that burden.
That's not true of the torture system the Confederacy called slavery.
-mi
--
Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"
Garry
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:56:38 (UTC), Garry <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>: I don't see your basis for saying this. Many slave-based societies
>: (egypt, greece, rome) used slave labor to perform enormous public work
>: projects that had nothing to do with survival. I wouldn;t think this
>: would be the case if slavery were simply a response to a lack of
>: capacity to meet social needs.
>
>: This was also the argument of the American South before the American
>: civil war. It proved to be untrue.
>
>None of which are forms of slavery that the Torah would permit.
>
I'm sorry, I don't understand. In what way were these forms of
slavery (with non-Jewish slaves) not permissible halachically?
>So I'm missing the relevence.
>
>Halakhah requires a significant financial burden on the slave owner.
What's the specific financial burden required of the owner of
non-Jewish slaves? How is this different from slave owners in other
societies?
>It's simple supply and demand to figure out when people would put up
>with that burden.
>
>That's not true of the torture system the Confederacy called slavery.
>
>-mi
_______________________________________
Yacovachi
>Your constant references to what the Torah says show that you are
>missing my point.
I got the point. You said that some would argue the Tora restricts meat
eating. Ergo, the discussion is about the Tora.
It is hardly novel that some people argue meat eating is bad. I am
uninterested in those theories. I am interested in whenter Judaism (= Tora)
takes a position.
>As to slavery, it is either immoral or it isn't.
Wrong. Morality is a culturally dependent phenomenon, not at all objective.
Jack
robDotCalm
of it:
"only resorts to slavery when demand for labor so outstrips demand that. ."
What is this last "demand" referring to?
rob.calm
Yacovachi
>other than to point out that the oral tradition is
>irself something that has changed over time, and is ultimately
>someone's personal interpretation.
>
No it is not. Not at all. It is one thing to push a theory, quite another to
mischaracterize our theory based on abject ignorance.
Jack
Lord Baeron
(Yacovachi) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and the various Jewish denominations
>>From: Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
>>Date: 12/23/2004 9:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
>>Your constant references to what the Torah says show that you are
>>missing my point.
>
>I got the point. You said that some would argue the Tora restricts meat
>eating. Ergo, the discussion is about the Tora.
>
No - you missed it again!
I think I'll let this drop - no point in continuing when no advances
are being made either in your understanding or mine.
--
Lord Baeron
Lord Baeron
How can it possibly be anything other than personal interpretation?
--
Lord Baeron
Garry
(Yacovachi) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and the various Jewish denominations
>>From: Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
>>Date: 12/23/2004 9:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
>>Your constant references to what the Torah says show that you are
>>missing my point.
>
>I got the point. You said that some would argue the Tora restricts meat
>eating. Ergo, the discussion is about the Tora.
>
>It is hardly novel that some people argue meat eating is bad. I am
>uninterested in those theories. I am interested in whenter Judaism (= Tora)
>takes a position.
>
Well, here's the argument as I have heard it. This is someone else's
summary -- I haven't read Reb Kook's original writings-- so I can't
vouch for the accuracy of the accredation.
The only additional point I have heard made is that references in
n'viem to the time of moshiach do not talk about animal sacrifices,
but about the return of the flour offering. Again, I don't know this
of my own knowledge.
The Vegetarian Teachings of Rav Kook
Richard Schwartz, Ph.D.
The strongest support for vegetarianism as a positive ideal
anywhere in Torah literature is in the writings of Rabbi Abraham Isaac
Hakohen Kook (1865-1935). Rav Kook was the first Chief Rabbi of
pre-state Israel and a highly respected and beloved Jewish spiritual
leader in the early 20th century. He was a mystical thinker, a
forceful writer, and a great Torah scholar.
Rav Kook was a very prolific writer who helped inspire many
people to move toward spiritual paths. He urged religious people to
become involved in social questions and efforts to improve the world.
His powerful words on vegetarianism are found primarily in A Vision of
Vegetarianism and Peace (edited by Rabbi David Cohen, "The Nazir").
Rav Kook believed that the permission to eat meat was only a
temporary concession; he felt that a God who is merciful to his
creatures would not institute an everlasting law permitting the
killing of animals for food. [1] He stated:
It is inconceivable that the Creator who had planned a
world of harmony and a perfect way for man to live should, many
thousands of years later, find that this plan was wrong. [2]
According to Rav Kook, because people had sunk to an extremely
low level of spirituality (in the time of Noah), it was necessary that
they be given an elevated image of themselves as compared to animals,
and that they concentrate their efforts into first improving
relationships between people. He felt that were people denied
permission to eat meat, they might eat the flesh of human beings due
to their inability to control their lust for flesh. He regarded the
permission to slaughter animals for food as a "transitional tax" or
temporary dispensation until a "brighter era" is reached when people
would return to vegetarian diets. [3] Perhaps to reinforce the idea
that the ideal vegetarian time had not yet arrived, Rav Kook ate a
symbolic small amount of chicken on the Sabbath day.
Rabbi Kook believed that the permission to eat meat "after all
the desire of your soul" was a concealed reproach and a qualified
command. [4] He stated that a day will come when people will detest
the eating of the flesh of animals because of a moral loathing, and
then it shall be said that "because your soul does not long to eat
meat, you will not eat meat." [5] Along with permission to eat meat,
Judaism provides many laws and restrictions (the laws of kashrut).
Rabbi Kook believed that the reprimand implied by these regulations is
an elaborate apparatus designed to keep alive a sense of reverence for
life, with the aim of eventually leading people away from their
meat-eating habit. [6]
According to Rav Kook, all the laws and restrictions serve to
raise the consciousness of Jews, to get them to think about what they
are eating, and to decide if the fare meets religious requirements.
The eating of meat is thus not taken for granted, and this mandated
consideration of what is on the plate can be a first step toward
rejecting meat consumption.
This idea is echoed by Torah commentator Solomon Efraim
Lunchitz, author of K'lee Yakar:
What was the necessity for the entire procedure of ritual
slaughter? For the sake of self-discipline. It is far more appropriate
for man not to eat meat; only if he has a strong desire for meat does
the Torah permit it, and even this only after the trouble and
inconvenience necessary to satisfy his desire. Perhaps because of the
bother and annoyance of the whole procedure, he will be restrained
from such a strong and uncontrollable desire for meat. [7]
Rav Kook saw people's craving for meat as a manifestation of
negative passions rather than an inherent need. He and Joseph Albo
believed that in the days of the Messiah people will again be
vegetarians. [8] Rav Kook stated that in the Messianic Epoch, "the
effect of knowledge will spread even to animals...and sacrifices in
the Temple will consist of vegetation, and it will be pleasing to God
as in days of old..." [9] They based this on the prophecy of Isaiah:
And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb,
And the leopard shall lie down with the kid;
And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them
And the cow and the bear shall feed;
Their young ones shall lie down together,
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox....
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain.
(Isa. 11:6-9)
Rabbi Kook believed that the high moral level involved in the
vegetarianism of the generations before Noah, is a virtue of such
great value that it cannot be lost forever. [10] In the future ideal
state, just as at the initial period, people and animals will not eat
flesh. [11] No one shall hurt or destroy another living creature.
People's lives will no longer be supported at the expense of the lives
of animals.
In his booklet which summarizes many of Rav Kook's teachings,
Joe Green, a recent Jewish vegetarian writer, concluded that, in
adopting the diet that will be used during the time of the Messiah,
Jewish religious ethical vegetarians are pioneers of the Messianic
era; they are leading lives that make the coming of the Messiah more
likely. [12]
Today most Jews eat meat, but the high ideal of God, the
initial vegetarian dietary law, still stands supreme in the Bible for
Jews and the whole world to see, an ultimate goal toward which all
people should strive.
Notes:
1. Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Deuteronomy, Jerusalem: World
Zionist Organization (3rd edition), 1980, pp. 135-142. Also see Rav
Kook`s "Afikim BaNegev in HaPeles (Berlin), 1903-1904, and "Tallelei
Orot" in Tahkemoni (Berne), 1910.
2. Quoted by Philip Pick, "The Source of Our Inspiration"
(Jewish Vegetarian Society Paper, London), p. 2.
3. Nehama Leibowitz, Studies in Bereshit (Genesis) (Jerusalem:
World Zionist Organization (3rd edition), 1976), p. 77.
4. See the discussion in Joe Green, "Chalutzim of the
Messiah-The Religious Vegetarian Concept as Expounded by Rabbi Kook",
p., 2.
5. Ibid, pp. 2,3.
6. "fragments of Light" in Abraham Issac Kook. edited and
translated by Ben Zion Bokser (New York: Paulist Press, 1978), pp.
316-321.
7. Quoted by Abraham Chill, The Commandments and Their
Rationale, (New York, 1974), p. 400.
8. "Vegetarianism From a Jewish Perspective", Rabbi Alfred
Cohen. Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. 1, No. 2,
(Fall, 1981), p. 45; Arlene Groner, "The Greening of Kashrut - Can
Vegetarianism Become the Ultimate Dietary Law?", The National Jewish
Monthly, 1976, p. 13.
9. Olat Rayah, Vol. 1, p. 292. Cited by Cohen, "Vegetarianism
. . . ", p. 45.
10. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, A Vision of Vegetarianism and
Peace.
11. Rabbi J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (London:
Soncino Press, 1958), p. 5.
12. Green, "Chalutzim of the Messiah", p. 1.
Micha Berger
: I'm sorry, I don't understand. In what way were these forms of
: slavery (with non-Jewish slaves) not permissible halachically?
The treatment blacks received in the south, or slaves suffered under the
Roman Empire, is prohibited. Cruelty to slaves, risking their lives or
even health in ways you would not risk you own, are all prohibited.
In terms of theory of ownership, halakhah allows buying all of a person's
output into perpetuity, but not the person himself.
:>So I'm missing the relevence.
:>Halakhah requires a significant financial burden on the slave owner.
: What's the specific financial burden required of the owner of
: non-Jewish slaves? How is this different from slave owners in other
: societies?
The cost of upkeep of a slave would roughly match the cost of upkeep of
any other member of the household. We're not talking about keeping people
in a barn with the animals, but treating your servants to a standard
of living AT LEAST comparable to your own. With the sole exception of
workload -- you can dump on them all of your manual labor, and stick to
a desk job.
I'm sure the typical minimum wage worker doesn't live in quarters
comparable to his boss's, eat the same quality meals, wear clothing as
comfortable, etc...
:-)BBii!
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Micha Berger
: I'd like to comment on what you've just written but I don't understand part
: of it:
: "only resorts to slavery when demand for labor so outstrips demand that. ."
: What is this last "demand" referring to?
You're right. That doesn't make sense. I think I meant to say "so
outstrips supply". Demand exceeding supply forces the price up. Therefore
if people are willing to pay high prices, they clearly had a LOT more
work that REALLY needed to get done than hand to do it -- if they would
not resort to halachic slavery.
Biblical Israel, and later the restored Judea, could not have survived
without slave labor. That's why people took on the cost of slaves.
Perhaps part of that economic reality was that they lived in a world
where the competition used slaved. I don't know. But it was the reality;
either that, or the cost wouldn't have been borne.
:-)BBii!
-mi
--
Micha Berger I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabindranath Tagore
Eliyahu Rooff
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:332rr1F...@individual.net...
| On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:06:58 +0000 (UTC), robDotCalm
<kel...@comcast.net> wrote:
| : I'd like to comment on what you've just written but I don't
understand part
| : of it:
| : "only resorts to slavery when demand for labor so outstrips
demand that. ."
| : What is this last "demand" referring to?
|
| You're right. That doesn't make sense. I think I meant to say "so
| outstrips supply". Demand exceeding supply forces the price up.
Therefore
| if people are willing to pay high prices, they clearly had a LOT
more
| work that REALLY needed to get done than hand to do it -- if they
would
| not resort to halachic slavery.
|
| Biblical Israel, and later the restored Judea, could not have
survived
| without slave labor. That's why people took on the cost of slaves.
| Perhaps part of that economic reality was that they lived in a
world
| where the competition used slaved. I don't know. But it was the
reality;
| either that, or the cost wouldn't have been borne.
|
slaves entailed costs far in excess of those needed for an ordinary
employee (i.e., maintaining the slave(s) with a standard of living
equal to the rest of one's family), where's the economic advantage
in having slaves? If times are hard, people will want the least
costly source of labor; not the most expensive.
Eliyahu
Micha Berger
: But if, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread, having Jewish
: employee (i.e., maintaining the slave(s) with a standard of living
: equal to the rest of one's family), where's the economic advantage
: in having slaves? If times are hard, people will want the least
: costly source of labor; not the most expensive.
But what do you do when there aren't enough freemen to go
around?
I've been arguing that a Canaanite slave owned by a Jew was guaranteed a
higher standard of living than most American blue color workers (adjusting
for the difference in standard of licing of the wealthy in each society).
:-)BBii!
-mi
Eliyahu Rooff
to have lice than the wealthy? :-)
Eliyahu
Micha Berger
: I'm not sure... wouldn't the Canaanite slaves have been more likely
You overestimate preindustrial hygene. More plausible would be to ask
if they're aren't likely to have more lice...
:-)BBii!
-mi
--
Micha Berger A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Lord Baeron
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>I've been arguing that a Canaanite slave owned by a Jew was guaranteed a
>higher standard of living than most American blue color workers (adjusting
>for the difference in standard of licing of the wealthy in each society).
Yes - but you haven't given any reason why said slave should be
enslaved. If his conditions were so good, then the free market would
have ensured a steady labour supply - much as Palestinians cross the
'border' today to work for Jews.
--
Lord Baeron
Garry
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:45:22 (UTC), Garry <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>: I'm sorry, I don't understand. In what way were these forms of
>: slavery (with non-Jewish slaves) not permissible halachically?
>
>The treatment blacks received in the south, or slaves suffered under the
>Roman Empire, is prohibited. Cruelty to slaves, risking their lives or
>even health in ways you would not risk you own, are all prohibited.
>
Well, there were different owners with different standards in that
regard. Still not relevant to the original point -- that the use of
slaves for massive non-productive public works projects, a la rome,
greece, and egypt, argues against there being a dire economic need
before a society adopts slavery.
Do you have any authotity regrading the prohibition of risking the
health of non-Jewish slaves? I've not come across that before.
>In terms of theory of ownership, halakhah allows buying all of a person's
>output into perpetuity, but not the person himself.
>
>:>So I'm missing the relevence.
>
>:>Halakhah requires a significant financial burden on the slave owner.
>
>: What's the specific financial burden required of the owner of
>: non-Jewish slaves? How is this different from slave owners in other
>: societies?
>
>The cost of upkeep of a slave would roughly match the cost of upkeep of
>any other member of the household. We're not talking about keeping people
>in a barn with the animals, but treating your servants to a standard
>of living AT LEAST comparable to your own.
What you're describing is the halacha as set out in Kiddushin 20a, for
example, which is applicable to JEWISH slaves. Do you have a talmudic
or other source holding that these standards apply to non-Jewish
slaves? I had thought that they did not.
>With the sole exception of
>workload -- you can dump on them all of your manual labor, and stick to
>a desk job.
>
>I'm sure the typical minimum wage worker doesn't live in quarters
>comparable to his boss's, eat the same quality meals, wear clothing as
>comfortable, etc...
And you're saying that this was the duty of an owner toward non-Jewish
slaves? If so, I agree with the significance of what your saying, but
I'd welcome a citation to authority.
>
>:-)BBii!
robDotCalm
without slave labor. That's why people took on the cost of slaves.
Perhaps part of that economic reality was that they lived in a world
where the competition used slaved. I don't know. But it was the reality;
I've never studied economics and every time I've tried to read a book on
economics, I've fallen asleep. OK, from this position of self-admitted
ignorance, let me state my objections to what I've quoted above. You
presume everyone acts solely out of economic self-interest and nothing else.
I don't agree. Many other things determine a person's actions: love of
family, desire for leisure, desire for reputation, etc. That's just common
sense. How could you prove that "Judea" could not have survived without
slaves. All slavery did was re-distribute a given amount of wealth in a
different way than if there had been no slaves. It didn't create any wealth
per se. All slavery does is to allow the slave holders to enjoy more of the
wealth and a higher social position than the slaves. It doesn't have
anything to do with survival.
Cheers,
RobKelman.calm
24 December 2004 09:18 MST (-6 UMT)
Lord Baeron
<snip interesting stuff>
>Feel free to contact me thru matzoh.net. Garry
I'd only add that the arguments you mention would be just as valid (or
invalid) if they were made by a 21st century PETA member!
Yours is rather a nice eample of applying reason and modern knowledge
to old texts.
--
Lord Baeron
Yacovachi
[re: Oral Law being "someone's personal interpretation"]
>How can it possibly be anything other than personal interpretation?
>--
>Lord Baeron
You have to study the subject in detail to find out.
It is a basic point, regarding which I would not advise starting with
uninformed assumptions.
Jack
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> (I managed to avoid a similar discussion with the Jehovah's Witnesses
> this morning. They woke me up, but my unwashed, unshaven,
> dressing-gown clad scowling appearance was enough to see them off!)
To connect to another thread, why not post your picture (washed or
unwashed, as you prefer) on the SCJM community website?
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
Yacovachi
>>I got the point. You said that some would argue the Tora restricts meat
>>eating. Ergo, the discussion is about the Tora.
>>
>
>No - you missed it again!
>
Yes! Or you argue disingenuously. Again!
>I think I'll let this drop - no point in continuing when no advances
>are being made either in your understanding or mine.
Standard cop out.
You introduce the Tora as a source for the idea, I have to literally cross
examine you to get any substantiation of your point at all, and then when
pressed against the wall instead of honestly stating you have no real argument
there, you try this type of verbal subterfuge.
I am not impressed.
Jack
cindys
"Garry" <s...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:uemns05t4juj8m0fs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 05:52:26 +0000 (UTC), yaco...@aol.com
> (Yacovachi) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and the various Jewish denominations
> >>From: Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
> >>Date: 12/23/2004 9:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >
> >>Your constant references to what the Torah says show that you are
> >>missing my point.
> >
> >I got the point. You said that some would argue the Tora restricts meat
> >eating. Ergo, the discussion is about the Tora.
> >
> >It is hardly novel that some people argue meat eating is bad. I am
> >uninterested in those theories. I am interested in whenter Judaism (=
Tora)
> >takes a position.
> >
>
> Well, here's the argument as I have heard it. This is someone else's
> summary -- I haven't read Reb Kook's original writings-- so I can't
> vouch for the accuracy of the accredation.
Richard Schwartz, PhD has a very superficial Judaic educational background.
I have written about him on a number of occasions in the past. He is a
secular Jew whose personal agenda is to promote vegetarianism to Jews, and
his strategy is to pretend to be some kind of a torah authority and suggest
that perhaps the torah actually *mandates* vegetarianism. Of course the
torah does nothing of the sort, but he's hoping that gullible Jews will fall
for his vegetarian line of baloney (you should excuse the expression :-) Rav
Kook may have thought being a vegetarian was a good idea, but the bottom
line is that he ate meat (along with 99% of the other Orthodox rabbis in the
world). If the torah really mandated vegetarianism, certainly these other
rabbis would have heard about it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Lord Baeron
(Yacovachi) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and the various Jewish denominations
>>From: Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
>>Date: 12/24/2004 7:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
>
>[re: Oral Law being "someone's personal interpretation"]
>
>>How can it possibly be anything other than personal interpretation?
>>--
>>Lord Baeron
>
>You have to study the subject in detail to find out.
I'll take that as a 'don't know' then.
--
Lord Baeron
Yacovachi
>>You have to study the subject in detail to find out.
>
>I'll take that as a 'don't know' then.
Do what you will. I most definitely do know. I also do not cotton to
discussing the subject cavalierly with people who do not ask but assume.
If you really want to know, investigate instead of trying to goad people. Or
don't, either way is fine.
Jack
Lord Baeron
(Yacovachi) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Vegetarianism and the various Jewish denominations
>>From: Lord Baeron LordB...@aol.com
>>Date: 12/26/2004 10:59 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
>>>You have to study the subject in detail to find out.
>>
>>I'll take that as a 'don't know' then.
>
>Do what you will. I most definitely do know. I also do not cotton to
>discussing the subject cavalierly with people who do not ask but assume.
I did ask, but you declined to answer.
>
>If you really want to know, investigate instead of trying to goad people. Or
>don't, either way is fine.
>
>
>Jack
Jack, I'm not trying to goad anyone. I'm asking for a straight answer,
which you won't give me.
My point is that *all* reading of texts requires personal
interpretation, but you refuse to engage with this, and offer no
reason.
Further, my point is *independent* of the content of those texts. It's
a philosophical point, if you like, and does not require any prior
knowledge of the texts.
I don't understand your resistance to this - all of us interpret the
texts, some in one way, some in others. Orthodox Judaism is not exempt
from this necessity, so why get so touchy about it?
Perhaps an example would help (though it's maybe not the best - just
something off the cuff):
"Thou shalt not kill"
There are many ways of reading this. The question how it is to be
interpreted cannot be answered by staring at the words - it needs
reflection.
Let's take it literally. Does it mean thou shalt not kill anything,
ever? Who is it addressed to - everyong in all circumstances and
through all ages?
Or does it only refer to killing people? If so, does it include
killing in self-defence? Or killing during war time?
Or does it mean 'thou shalt not murder'? If so, what is murder? Is it
the same for all societies? Who is to determine what constitutes
murder? The government? The majority?
Etc, etc.
Now, there is *no* position on the meaning of the command 'thou shalt
not kill' which does not require personal interpretation. That
includes your own position, whether you realise it or not. If you have
any position whatever in respect of this command, it will be based on
a personal interpretation - either your own or someone else's.
If you care to engage in the argument, go ahead. If you don't care to,
then don't. But please stop pretending that you simply know more about
it but aren't willing to share your knowledge. And please stop
assuming that your opponents are in a position of 'abject ignorance'
I am very likely as well educated in philosophy (which is what my
point is based on) as any other poster here. Textual knowledge is
*not*, repeat *not*. what my argument is about.
--
Lord Baeron
Micha Berger
: Well, there were different owners with different standards in that
: regard. Still not relevant to the original point -- that the use of
: slaves for massive non-productive public works projects, a la rome,
: greece, and egypt, argues against there being a dire economic need
: before a society adopts slavery.
: Do you have any authotity regrading the prohibition of risking the
: health of non-Jewish slaves? I've not come across that before.
The law is that a non-Jewish slave must be given a standard of living
commesurate with a member of the household, and a Jewish one -- above
that of the master.
None of which applies to state-owned slaves used for public works --
halakhah has no place for those altogether.
-mi
--
Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Shlomo Argamon
> >
> >>>You have to study the subject in detail to find out.
> >>
> >>I'll take that as a 'don't know' then.
> >
> >Do what you will. I most definitely do know. I also do not cotton
to
> >discussing the subject cavalierly with people who do not ask but
assume.
>
> I did ask, but you declined to answer.
>
> >If you really want to know, investigate instead of trying to goad
people. Or
> >don't, either way is fine.
>
answer,
> which you won't give me.
>
> My point is that *all* reading of texts requires personal
> interpretation, but you refuse to engage with this, and offer no
> reason.
Speaking as someone with some small professional expertise in the
analysis of texts, I suspect that the issue here is your use of the
word "personal". It is clearly true that all readings of a text are
interpretations, however the commonly-assumed modern Western notion of
a radical individualism is just an assumption (and one that does not
stand up to a sophisticated examination). Interpretations are social
constructs at least as much as they are personal ones (I would say far
more so), and I believe that (part of) Jack's point is that the complex
of interpretations referred to as the "Oral Law" (more properly in this
context the "mesorah", IMO) is just such a socio-cultural construct, a
sort of Jewish ur-weltanschaungg which informs all textual readings for
someone in the culture. Not a "personal interpretation" at all.
It is my personal belief that a large part of the purpose (or at least
effect) of mitsvah performance and Torah learning is to move the
individual closer to that primordial way-of-being, to approximate to
the extent possible the mindset of our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, of Moshe Rabbeinu on Mt. Sinai, of the Jews entering the Land of
Israel.
-Shlomo-
Beach Runner
Lord Baeron wrote:
I must agree. The oral traditions are discussions, and generally
subject to various viewpoints. I see Judaism as a living, wonderful,
beautiful religion. There are many contradictions. I also view Judaism
as a framework for moral thought.
The framework of what was thought 4,000 years ago, 500 years ago and
today have changed so dramatically that discussion and thought are of
value.
Beach Runner
cindys wrote:
I find Richard Schwartz to be a brilliant and well thinking individual.
The fact that he doesn't agree with your exact philosophy is not a
reason to insult him, but to say simply you hold another view.
cindys
"Beach Runner" <b...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PiMzd.151638$8G4....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> I find Richard Schwartz to be a brilliant and well thinking individual.
> The fact that he doesn't agree with your exact philosophy is not a
> reason to insult him, but to say simply you hold another view.
There is nothing insulting about stating the truth. Richard Schwartz may
very well be brilliant and well thinking in his field, but he doesn't have
any business pretending to be an authority on the torah. It's not an issue
of his disagreeing with my *exact philosophy* but rather an issue of his
trying to pass himself off as something he's not. If he wants to state that
it is *his opinion* that people should be vegetarians for reasons X, Y, Z,
fine, I don't have a problem with that, but he doesn't have any business
claiming that *the torah* promotes vegetarianism, much less mandates it,
when the reality is just the opposite. The torah mandates animal sacrifices
and even mandates eating meat under certain circumstances.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Garry
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 22:15:49 (UTC), Garry <s...@spam.com> wrote:
>: Well, there were different owners with different standards in that
>: regard. Still not relevant to the original point -- that the use of
>: slaves for massive non-productive public works projects, a la rome,
>: greece, and egypt, argues against there being a dire economic need
>: before a society adopts slavery.
>: Do you have any authotity regrading the prohibition of risking the
>: health of non-Jewish slaves? I've not come across that before.
>
>The law is that a non-Jewish slave must be given a standard of living
>commesurate with a member of the household, and a Jewish one -- above
>that of the master.
>
That's a conclusive point, from my point of view. If slaves are
really to be given the same standard of living as the household,
what's being discussed is a very different institution than what we
think of as slavery. There are still moral issues, but they are
different.
As I mentioned, I was not aware that such rules were applicable to
non-Jewish slaves, and I'm grateful to learn that they were. Is there
a talmudic or other source you can refer me to?
>None of which applies to state-owned slaves used for public works --
>halakhah has no place for those altogether.
>
>-mi
_______________________________________