posted
No, I'm not going to go into the rant about shellfish. I believe it was on this forum someone pointed out that the Law no longer applies in its entirety, and that we need only obey the parts having to do with sexual morality; and that is a reaonable argument given the premises.
However, a more sophisticated version of the same thing recently came to my attention. Never mind the shellfish, how about sleeping with menstruating women? This is forbidden to the same degree, it has the same punishment, and it is obviously a question of purity in sexual relations. How come it's not important, then?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka: Do you obey all of the laws? I read it a long time ago and I seem to remember some hard to follow ones. Like pretty much everything thing a menstruating women sits on and is unclean and needs to be cleansed in a perticular fashion. Maybe I am just remembering totally wrong.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lev. 25:44 allows for the ownership of slaves. Lev. 21:7 allows you to sell your daughter into slavery Lev. 15:19-24 does not allow you contact with a woman in menstration Lev. 35:2 allows you to kill those who work on the sabbath
etc etc etc
I'll never understand how those in favor of banning gay marriage and people who don't like homosexuality use the Bible as their source material when it's full of crap like that right along with it.
[Edit to add: There are tons more just like that, I could go on and on and on]
Many of the laws of tum'ah and taharah (these are UNTRANSLATABLE and are sometimes mistranslated as "uncleanliness" and "cleanliness") are sort of irrelevant at the moment.
It has been over 2000 years since we have had the ability to purify anyone (with the ashes of the parah adumah (red heifer)), so we must assume that EVERYONE currently living is in a state of tum'ah. Therefore, any of the (for lack of a better term) "contagion" issues are moot. Since I have focused on learning the laws that apply to me (and have never learned much Gemara), I am not familiar with the details.
Also . . . beware those sources (a few websites in particular come to mind, but I am certainly not going to give them referrals ) which claim to tell the "real" story of Jewish laws. Many are biased in the extreme, using information that is only partially correct, and thus inaccurate.
Teshi, I'm sure some people think so. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Excuse me? It is a law saying you cannot have sex in a specified situation because of uncleanliness. In what way, exactly, is this not a question of sexual purity? I mean, sex, check. Uncleanliness, check. Punishment, check. What more do you want, a signed note from Jesus saying this part still applies?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry if I offended you, rivka. I didn't intend to.
I meant to convey the fact that some/many/a lot/all (take your pick) of the directions, such as sacrifices of animals, are no longer practical in modern society, and therefore are in many ways outdated.
I still think it's pretty racy .
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
opps. I wasn't trying to get personal. Sorry if I stepped over any line Rivka.
Edit: I guess I assumed that Rivka would tell me that she did not feel comfortable disscusing it if she didn't. She has never struck me as a woman afriad to speak her mind. Again sorry.
posted
Teshi, you didn't offend me -- that was what the was meant to indicate.
I don't consider sacrifices, and many of the other laws that are currently not practicable, outdated. Just something that cannot be done currently. But I realize that others have a differnt view. And I'm fine with that. Clearer?
Allegra, you didn't. If I feel a question is too personal, I'll say so -- or take it to email.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I gathered you weren't about to bite my head off, but my ignorance on the issues in Leveticus and who follows them and who does not and to what degree is now somewhat dispelled and I wanted to express the fact that now I know much better.
quote: I believe it was on this forum someone pointed out that the Law no longer applies in its entirety, and that we need only obey the parts having to do with sexual morality; and that is a reaonable argument given the premises.
This isn't the theology I was taught. I was taught that the laws in the Old Testament were part of the Old Covenant. But Christians now live under the New Covenant. Which means that we're bound by the laws that are reiterated in the New Testament. Thus, homosexuality is a sin because it is said to be a sin at least 3 places in the New Testament (I don't have a Bible with a concordance here, or I would give you the verses)
This is, as far as I know, fairly standard conservative Christian theology FOR (and this makes a huge difference) conservative Christians who know theology. There are plenty who don't. In my experience if someone is arguing against homosexuality solely from Leviticus they don't really know that much theology, they just know what they've heard on Christian talk shows and radio programs.
I don't know how Mormon theology works here, so this is all moot if it was a Mormon you were talking to.
Also, if you think I'm attributing beliefs to you that are incorrect please tell me and I'll change it to exclude you from the statement.
quote:Matthew 5:17.....Jesus: "I have come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it."
It's true that we are no longer fully bound by the old covenant (no one's been doing a lot of selling their daughters recently in most of Christian America) but that doesn't mean that you can just scrap the whole Old Testament. The argument that there's a lot of things in Lev. that are no longer practiced, and thus we should examine everything in their to discern what is and isn't applicable is a very valid argument. However, the argument that as a result we shouldn't listen to anything there isn't going to work with any Christian, there's a reason that book is part of scripture, and it's not just because it used to be.
quote:This isn't the theology I was taught. I was I don't know how Mormon theology works here, so this is all moot if it was a Mormon you were talking to.
This is why I don't really get involved with discussions over what the Old Testament has to say about homosexuality because for Mormons, latter day prophets (who are just as much the mouth-piece of Christ as any of the Old Testament prophets) have made it clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuality is a sin.
posted
Just wanted to point out that the fact that no one is going around selling their daughters doesn't actually contradict the "law" - there's no <i>commandment</i> to sell a daughter, there's only an allowance. And the reasons and explanations are complicated; suffice it to say that the daughter ended up MUCH better off than she would have otherwise. (Daughters were allowed to be sold if the father was completely destitute and couldn't support her; the law dictates that she be given the same standard food/bedding etc. as the family members; as soon as she reached puberty she had to be set free; and if the girl in question was in favor, it was considered commendable for either the man who bought her or one of his sons to marry her. In this way, she ended up as a woman in a very comfortable position as opposed to being completely destitute and barely surviving. And specifically girls as opposed to boys -- I don't know if this has anything to do with the law itself, but it makes good sense, because in those days, boys from destitute families could be apprenticed, and therefore have hope of bettering their lives, and would receive food and board, but girls generally were not apprenticed, and were completely dependent upon their fathers to support them.)
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how legislating Christian law is any different than the laws of say, Iran or Saudi Arabia where all law is based on the Koran. We don't seem to be fans of that in America.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I like to point out Leviticus to the red neck bible thumpers I meet from time to time...those who believe that EVERY word in the Bible is the word of God, pure and all that, but apparently don't know much about the Bible they are talking about. Especially rude religious women (considering the Bible says that women are my slaves and all that). Not that I don't respect religion, I do. I just don't respect ignorant hypocrits who don't even know their own religion.
As for the women being scorned while having their periods... I think that comes from the idea that it could have been a child and "why where they not doing their civic duty to the clan by having more kids?" kind of thing.
Sorry I'm not more eloquent... I'm very tired and have a cold. *sniff*
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the women being scorned while having their periods... I think that comes from the idea that it could have been a child and "why where they not doing their civic duty to the clan by having more kids?" kind of thing.
First, I'm not sure "scorned" is the right word for it.
Second, I think the "uncleanness" thing (I don't know another translation) has little to do with hygiene or with punishment for not having children. It has to do with the fact that during your period, you can't help being very strongly reminded of your animal, physical being. You're having a discharge that you can't control and you feel lousy, all bloated and crampy. (Yes, I know that some women feel just peachy during their periods, but they are not the majority. TMI: I used to have cramps that radiated out into my upper legs, and bleeding in black ropelike clots. The only reason I don't now is that I am on OCs.) If you had hoped to be pregnant, you feel even lousier. It's hard to maintain a positive state of spirituality when you feel lousy. You focus on the physical part of yourself and forget the spiritual part.
But then after it's over, you go and perform a "cleansing" ritual. You get to feel spiritually clean as well as physically clean. The ritual helps you to remember who you really are and that you are much more than your reproductive system.
Am I anywhere near the mark?
[ February 04, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read of the beliefs of the time and the general attitude towards woman's place in society during Leviticus, I don't think that's it. The impression I got was that "unclean" was somewhere along the medical scale with "having cooties."
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Always lovely to have one's ancestors dismissed as cretins. Chris, not everyone believes that such interpretations of "beliefs of the time and the general attitude towards woman's place in society during Leviticus" are nearly the way you paint them. And since biases are strong on all sides of the issue . . .
Yozhik, I'd say that was a part of it. I'll try to find a good essay (there are many) on the topic after Shabbos. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone bothered to also consider that many of the laws in Leviticus either no longer or do not usually apply to most people? Laying out those laws on a flat table and wondering why they aren't all applied evently is simply ridiculous. That isn't how Jewish law has ever worked. Everything from your occupation to gender to where you live comes into play, and that isn't even getting into detail with the religious undertones. Think of Jewish laws more like IF/THEN statements in a more three-dimensional way of thinking. Looking at it any other way is a sure path to confusion and likely the source of most misunderstanding.
Rivka touched on that early on, but I thought it needed to be stressed a little more. You don't have to believe in it to understand the writing, but you have to understand how to read the writing to understand it.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should preface this by saying that I have *no* idea about the content of Leviticus, let alone the theory behind the laws contained therein.
(And yet I still am posting )
I would ask a question though - and it's to do with menstruation.
Is there an equivalent male phase/feeling/action (deliberately encompassing a very wide range) that is similarly veiwed as being a reminder of an animal, physical being? (If that is part of the reason). And if not - why not?
**
I feel like adding "in 25 words of less, if you please...". I know I am asking a lot. But I am quite interested.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said that specific one, and it depends on what denomination of Judaism you ask on a question such as that. Since you are not Jewish and sleep with who(m?)ever you wish at whatever time you wish, how is this an issue that affects you in any way whatsoever? Or do you feel that all Jewish law hinges on who may sleep with whom and at what time of the month? Why the fascination with one or two out of hundreds, may I ask?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, it depends on who you ask. There are some who do not engage in sexual activity during menstruation. Believe it or not there still exist people who actually follow the law that still applies and it does not hinder their ability to function in modern society.
I understand what you're getting at, though: you wonder why it is a popular Christian tactic to pick and choose which of these Jewish laws should be applied and which should be ignored (because "Jesus brought a new covenant" being the most popular reason). For that, I can give you no answer. It will be different from each person.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Kwea. I realized that quote was destined to end up in the OOC thread right after I posted it . . . I knew I could count on you to catch it.
quote: Laying out those laws on a flat table and wondering why they aren't all applied evenly is simply ridiculous. That isn't how Jewish law has ever worked. Everything from your occupation to gender to where you live comes into play, and that isn't even getting into detail with the religious undertones. Think of Jewish laws more like IF/THEN statements in a more three-dimensional way of thinking. Looking at it any other way is a sure path to confusion and likely the source of most misunderstanding.
Justa is exactly right. Thank you.
[side comment] I'm rather curious what it was that Bob said before the Dana-inspired edit. If he wanted to let me know via email, that would be cool. If he thinks it's better not, that's fine too.
imogen, the "reminder of an animal, physical being" really is not (in my understanding) the main issue. It is the loss of potential life, which really does not have a true parallel in men. However, there are laws regarding that which is somewhat parallel (as Yozhik mentioned). I'm not especially familiar with them -- as I said, I have focused primarily on learning those laws which apply to me.
*goes back to looking for that essay*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ok, it's my own fault for still not having transferred my list of bookmarks from the old computer, but I know I had found a couple really good essays on this topic a while back.
quote: Death occurs when the tie between spirituality and physicality severs. The soul returns to its Source, and the body remains, much like an empty shell. Without the soul to animate it, the body has lost that which gave it spiritual value. And this loss results in the state called "tuma." Thus, the simplest definition of the word "tuma" is the spiritual status that comes as a result of contact with death.
The dead body of a human being is the strongest form of "tuma" because it represents the greatest loss of spiritual potential. Similarly, the unfertilized egg that is shed during menstruation is also a form of tuma because it could have housed a soul if it had been fertilized. Never again will the minuscule egg have the opportunity to become a human being and carry the amazingly complex human soul.
The state of tuma, the state resulting from contact with death, is not a negative thing. If a person buries a dead person, he too becomes tamei (adjective form). He is not contaminated; in fact, burying a dead body is such an important mitzvah that it takes precedence over almost all others. Thus, being tamei is most certainly not a state of spiritual inferiority. It means only that the person involved cannot participate in certain rituals.
posted
What I love is that men are obligated by Jewish law to sleep with their wives a certain number of times each month (depending on how far their job takes them from home and such).
That's my kind of law. *wiggles eyebrows*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Men also have an obligation to please their wives. Women do not have a corresponding obligation -- other than the obligation of loving-kindness that one has for everyone.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Um, if you're Jewish (as am I), why would you need Jesus -- or Buddha or Mohamed -- or actually, even Moses to sign anything saying the Law still applies? That ought to be the default position, neh?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I believe it was on this forum someone pointed out that the Law no longer applies in its entirety, and that we need only obey the parts having to do with sexual morality; and that is a reaonable argument given the premises.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) which claim to tell the "real" story of Jewish laws. Many are biased in the extreme, using information that is only partially correct, and thus inaccurate.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
My job here is done.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
