quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: From what folks have said about the "laws" it makes more sense to me to say that Abraham could not have been Jewish according to current laws, than to say that he was Jewish.
Given that he was not Jewish, or that the laws did not apply to him, however, it sort of raises the question in my mind about the immutability of the laws. If there was a time before the current laws applied, it seems to beg the question of why there could never be a future time when the laws would not apply, or might be altered. Communication directly with man by G_d hasn't been ruled out, and it just seems like there'd be precedent for G-d making a new set of rules from time to time.
As for the piece of Scripture in which G-d says no changes will ever be made to the Torah law...well, there'd be a number of ways to handle that: 1) G-d could reinterpret Torah law emphasizing some things and all but doing away with others. 2) G-d could simply be inconsistent and leave us with yet another puzzle (I don't think this would be unprecedented, but you may disagree) 3) G-d could simply assert that the new law is written because humans proved incapable of following the old law. 4) G-d could explain that the old law has expired, or that mankind is now mature enough to take advantage of a new understanding. 5) G-d could explain that the prohibition against changing scripture applied to man and especially to the prophets because G-d wanted to be sure that when it WAS time for the law to change, G-d wanted to be sure we knew the change was from G-d.
I'm not saying that all of these are equally likely. I do think at least some of them have happened already, though.
Some would obviously disagree.
The question for Judaism is whether or not there's room in the religion for people who hold any view other than the one that says "the law has never and will never change."
I suspect that there will always be people who claim the answer is obviously NO. But just like in Christianity where it some people argue over who gets to call themselves Christian, the rules for what makes a Jew a Jew are probably subject to personal interpretation as much as they are subject to tradition, Scripture and commentary.
It doesn't really matter much that some groups are more numerous and some groups are louder, or more strident.
All that matters is what G-d thinks. And it appears to me that we know less about what G-d thinks than we suspect.
G-d is all knowing. Why would he create laws that He knew would need changing? Also the laws as I read them are just as suitable today as they were then. While the punishments for breaking the laws have mellowed a bit.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I only just now popped into this thread, and I'm actually amazed and baffled to see people offended by the fact that other people aren't offended by something.
Lisa, seriously, your whole rant boiled down to "People, this whole holiday is about killing you! Why don't you get the point and die already?"
--------
quote: We're not interested in civil dominion over anyone but ourselves.
And since by "ourselves" you mean "anyone born to a woman born of a Jewish woman," you mean quite a lot of people -- including Catholic cardinals. The number of people who would choose to live under your interpretation of Jewish law is considerably smaller than the number of people you'd be putting to death for violating it.
This attitude, Lisa, is unrepentantly evil.
So if the Catholic Cardinal one day decided to denouce Catholicism and go back to his Jewish roots no one would say he was going to Hell?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Catholics would no longer kill him for it, and I doubt there are many Catholics on the planet who long for the days when they would have.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference, Stephen, is that Catholicism allows for apostasy. The Cardinal would probably be condemned to Hell in the minds of Catholics and maybe even in reality when God does whatever judging he's assumed to have in store. From what starLisa has written, it appears to us non-Jews that it is possible that if Orthodox Jewish Law were able to have its way those born Jewish by their standards would have to live by Jewish law including in capital cases even if they themselves believed that the only thing Jewish about them was their parentage. In other words, people because of their birth would be forced to abide by a religious code that they didn't believe or indeed actively chose to dis-believe. This is what Tom is calling unrepentantly evil. IMHO.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Catholics would no longer kill him for it, and I doubt there are many Catholics on the planet who long for the days when they would have.
As Jews would no longer kill him, and I don't think Lisa ever mentioned wanted to go back to those days. Even if she did, she explained how difficult it was to put someone to the death.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think Lisa ever mentioned wanted to go back to those days.
See, I picked up a very strong sense of regret that Israel isn't already back in those days. And the fact that it'd be difficult to execute someone for not observing the Sabbath is, in my opinion, kind of like saying "we'll shoot deserters, but not if we miss."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: The difference, Stephen, is that Catholicism allows for apostasy. The Cardinal would probably be condemned to Hell in the minds of Catholics and maybe even in reality when God does whatever judging he's assumed to have in store. From what starLisa has written, it appears to us non-Jews that it is possible that if Orthodox Jewish Law were able to have its way those born Jewish by their standards would have to live by Jewish law including in capital cases even if they themselves believed that the only thing Jewish about them was their parentage. In other words, people because of their birth would be forced to abide by a religious code that they didn't believe or indeed actively chose to dis-believe. This is what Tom is calling unrepentantly evil. IMHO.
Well I like to assume my religion has come a long way, and the most that would happened is that he would be shunned by the local community. (Assuming of course the entire world were run by Jews, which will never happen).
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Even if she did, she explained how difficult it was to put someone to the death.
The problem is that the "difficulty" she is describing is that they'd only put to death the people who valued personal liberty so much that they'd be willing to die rather than to submit. So since most people will submit to a totalitarian regime rather than die, capital punishment would be relatively rare. It's no consolation to people who value personal liberty that they are given the choice to throw it away before the death sentence is handed down.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Even if she did, she explained how difficult it was to put someone to the death.
The problem is that the "difficulty" she is describing is that they'd only put to death the people who valued personal liberty so much that they'd be willing to die rather than to submit. So since most people will submit to a totalitarian regime rather than die, capital punishment would be relatively rare. It's no consolation to people who value personal liberty that they are given the choice to throw it away before the death sentence is handed down.
What you are discussing would probably be the case in any totalitarian regime solely based on any one religion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS NOSTRA AETATE PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
(All of this is worth reading, but here is part of the section on Jews.)
quote: 4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)
quote: What you are discussing would probably be the case in any totalitarian regime solely based on any one religion.
Which is why I thank the forces of social evolution every day that Christianity and Judaism are so fractured that by the time their power infringes on my rights it's largely in its most watered down form. Long live the unorthodox. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS NOSTRA AETATE PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
(All of this is worth reading, but here is part of the section on Jews.)
quote: 4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)
I knew about that, but I'm curious how they respond to Catholics converting to Judaism.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What you are discussing would probably be the case in any totalitarian regime solely based on any one religion.
Which is why I thank the forces of social evolution every day that Christianity and Judaism are so fractured that by the time their power infringes on my rights it's largely in its most watered down form. Long live the unorthodox.
Now that I agree with you on. But raises a good question. Can one have a successful religious state without being totalitarian as Israel has been attempting to do?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I knew about that, but I'm curious how they respond to Catholics converting to Judaism.
I assume it would be considered apostacy, which results in automatic excommunication. So yes, it is likely that were the Cardinal to renounce Catholicisim, many Catholics would say he is going (or likely to go) to hell (assuming there was no absolution at a later time, of course).
And if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew, I would expect a Jewish person to post that no, he's not, because he's following God's commands.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I knew about that, but I'm curious how they respond to Catholics converting to Judaism.
I assume it would be considered apostacy, which results in automatic excommunication. So yes, it is likely that were the Cardinal to renounce Catholicisim, many Catholics would say he is going (or likely to go) to hell (assuming there was no absolution at a later time, of course).
And if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew, I would expect a Jewish person to post that no, he's not, because he's following God's commands.
And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:G-d is all knowing. Why would he create laws that He knew would need changing?
Because people change. At least that's the excuse given the other times that the law changed, isn't it?
quote: Also the laws as I read them are just as suitable today as they were then.
Since you put "as I read them" it seems pretty obvious that you'd agree with my point about this all becoming a matter of personal choice and belief rather than universally applicable to any given subset of the human population (other than the subset that agrees to the laws, of course).
quote:While the punishments for breaking the laws have mellowed a bit.
I've always viewed the punishments as PART of the religious laws. They sort of help to define which things are minor and which are major. At least, it's one way of getting that information. So, if the punishments have changed, the LAW has indeed changed. At least, it's an example of my method #1 (that I borrowed from StarLisa) about G-d simply changing the law by reemphasizing parts of it and deemphasizing other parts of it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
It's a fairly important tenet of all Christianity that I'm aware of that only God can condemn someone to Hell. Is that not a precept of the Jewish faith as well?
It seems that speculating on the likely fate of others is a favorite passtime of most humans of any religious affiliation. Christianity includes Scripture that bars us from that as well. Some people don't agree with that, or don't work very hard to avoid it. Some of us try REALLY hard not to judge others, even in a speculative fashion.
I can't say it's easy, but I personally view it as one of the most important points in my belief about God and salvation. That it's entirely in God's hands and I have NOTHING whatsoever to say about anyone's salvation (or lack thereof) other than my own.
If I have children, I have a responsibility to them to pass on as true a picture of God's message as I possibly can, and in that way I have an awesome responsiblity for enabling their salvation through instruction they may not obtain as well from other sources. But ultimately, their fate is a matter for themselves and God as well. I can't controlit for better or worse.
In the case of dependent child, I do think that a parent may have the responsibility to speculate about it (their likelihood of salvation), but only in so far as it motivates the parent to provide good instruction and good examples.
A non-religious equivalent would be that the parent has a responsibility to ensure that the child is given the tools and knowledge to grow into a "good person" and thus must, at times, speculate on the likelihood of that happening given the child's current knowledge and attitude...
Other than that, though I can see absolutely no valid reason to speculate about another person's relationship with God or their eventual fate.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: So is female-female sexual contact OK in Jewish law? (I'm asking in general and not prying into your personal activities, which of course are none of my business.)
So I assume. As far as female-female sexual contact is concerned, it's an area of unclarity. There's a statement in the Talmud that refers to "Women who mesollel with one another". Various commentators explain that word in different ways.
There's no question but that mesolleling is forbidden. Though since it's not included in the arayot, the extensions I mentioned earlier don't apply.
One well known rebbetzin has told people that it means having sex in the missionary position. I believe the term for that is tribadism. Others have suggested that it refers to using something for penetration. I don't think there are any sources which treat it as "sexual intimacy between women", but because translations have to be clear, the term is often (mis)translated as "lesbianism" in English-language books.
A very important rabbi who was interviewed for the documentary Trembling Before G-d said outright that there's no reason two women can't set up a household together. His comments didn't make it into the documentary (which was the primary reason I had my name taken out of the credits).
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
It'll certainly be back. I know it may seem strange to refer to a period of a couple of millenia as "temporary", but it really is.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: And thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, especially the one about an active court that required such a lengthy (but very interesting and informative) response.
I'm glad I could help. I'd actually been planning on explaining that all in the Judaism 101 thread I started some months ago, but I never got around to it.
I threw out my back yesterday morning, and it's giving me some extra time on the computer.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. But then, I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Canon Law, and a great deal of indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish law.
I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish Law. Both of us were speaking in terms of what we believe to be the truth. Those truths are incompatible in this respect.
Your statements about the Cardinal are actual accusations levied at an actual person who is not here to defend himself, and presented not in the context of an explanation of Jewish Law but as a statement about him. I provided a contrary opinion, and will continue to do so.
<shrug> Whatever. Knock yourself out. I adamantly refused to do something so lame as to preface every single remark I make with "according to Jewish law" on a thread entitled "Hanukkah rant" which has been almost exclusively devoted to talking about just that. I prefer to rely on the intelligence of the reader.
And what I wrote was not an accusation. Saying that Winona Ryder is actually a blonde is not an accusation; it's just a thing about her. That's no less true here. His apostasy isn't entirely his fault. He didn't choose to have a lunatic try and kill all the Jews, and he didn't choose to get raised by Catholics. If I point out that a feral child doesn't have good table manners, it's not an accusation.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That comes back down to the "does a person who chooses not to be a Jew get out of Jewishhood in the eyes of other Jews and/or the law" questions, I guess.
And the answer remains "no". Do you think I'd refrain from eating some of my favorite foods and not use the computer on Shabbat (and so on) if I didn't have to?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You list some categories of laws that one must die rather than violate. I interpret that to mean, specifically, die rather than be forced to violate, because if one were willingly violating a law, then dying doesn't really come into the question, right? (In other words, as in your "gun to the head" example.)
Right.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Among those categories is a category of sexual immorality which includes male-male anal sex. So, if I am interpreting this correctly, a man or boy who is forced to engage in male-male anal sex, and who "chooses" to do this rather than die, has committed a rather serious sin. Is that a correct interpretation?
Yes. But that doesn't mean you have to kill yourself rather than submit to a rape, and it doesn't mean that if you don't, you've committed that sin.
I'd have a real problem judging someone who'd been put into that situation.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Now, my specific point was that when you are forced to do something, it is not always with a gun being held to your head. One can be raped, for instance, and not have the choice of death as an out. So . . . then what?
If you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice. That's no different than the banana peel example I used before.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: In Catholicism, if you commit a serious sin, you have a manner of achieving reconciliation.
Would a person in the case you mention be required to "achieve reconciliation" in Catholicism? In Judaism, such a person would be considered entirely blameless. A victim.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Is there such an option in Judaism? If so, then what does it mean to say that it would be preferable to die before committing a certain sin?
Well, the Torah treats a rape victim differently given the location. If it happens in a village, it's assumed that she could have cried out. If it's out in the middle of nowhere, it's assumed that she did cry out and just no one heard.
Nowadays, villages aren't like they used to be, and the option of crying out isn't necessarily there. Nor is it certain that you'll be heard.
But there's definitely a difference between "you can't prevent it, so just lay back and enjoy it", and fighting and losing. Someone who goes to jail and is so afraid that he agrees to be a "pet" in exchange for protection... I'm not sure that's justifiable. But again, God forbid I should ever find myself in a parallel situation, and I'm not about to judge someone who is.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
They could, but it wouldn't exactly be relevant, since that's not the situation being discussed. I'm sure that situation comes up often enough that it's relevant sometime.
quote:Whatever. Knock yourself out. I adamantly refused to do something so lame as to preface every single remark I make with "according to Jewish law" on a thread entitled "Hanukkah rant" which has been almost exclusively devoted to talking about just that. I prefer to rely on the intelligence of the reader.
I didn't say you needed to do that. I simply stated how I will respond when you make accusations against specific people.
quote:And what I wrote was not an accusation. Saying that Winona Ryder is actually a blonde is not an accusation; it's just a thing about her. That's no less true here. His apostasy isn't entirely his fault. He didn't choose to have a lunatic try and kill all the Jews, and he didn't choose to get raised by Catholics. If I point out that a feral child doesn't have good table manners, it's not an accusation.
I understand that's what you believe. I guess I'll just say that he's not the analog of the feral child, that being Catholic is a good thing, even for people whom Jewish law considers to be Jewish, and that your certainty doesn't make what you're saying true.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That comes back down to the "does a person who chooses not to be a Jew get out of Jewishhood in the eyes of other Jews and/or the law" questions, I guess.
And the answer remains "no". Do you think I'd refrain from eating some of my favorite foods and not use the computer on Shabbat (and so on) if I didn't have to?
See, that's the crux of my question which keeps getting side-stepped. You don't have to. You choose to follow the laws you feel apply to you as a Jewish person. If you choose not to, in this day and age that's between you and God. A Jewish court has no authority over you that you do not grant it.
My question is, would Jews by birth be held accountable and punished by a Jewish court even if they chose to not be Jewish in any other way than birth (which they can't change). Clearly, a Jew can say "I believe the Jews are mistaken, I wish to be a Catholic". If there were a Sanhedrin court would they punish him for Idolatry (for example) and hold him accountable in the same way they would a practicing, believing Jew?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: From what folks have said about the "laws" it makes more sense to me to say that Abraham could not have been Jewish according to current laws, than to say that he was Jewish.
Well, I did say that it's probably more correct to say that he wasn't. But only in the same way that a boy isn't a man.
And just out of curiosity, the quotes you have around the word laws... what's that about?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Given that he was not Jewish, or that the laws did not apply to him, however, it sort of raises the question in my mind about the immutability of the laws. If there was a time before the current laws applied, it seems to beg the question of why there could never be a future time when the laws would not apply, or might be altered.
In theory, it'd be possible. If God hadn't said Himself that it wasn't. "Eternal statute" means "eternal statute". It doesn't mean "until I say otherwise."
I mean, certainly there are laws that don't apply in certain situations. There's no Temple, so there are no Temple sacrifices. But the law is still there. The Temple goes up, and the sacrifices become just as obligatory as they ever were.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Communication directly with man by G_d hasn't been ruled out, and it just seems like there'd be precedent for G-d making a new set of rules from time to time.
Do you mean that it seems to you that there should be some such precedent? Because I don't get how you can say that it seems there would be. What's your basis for that?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: As for the piece of Scripture in which G-d says no changes will ever be made to the Torah law...well, there'd be a number of ways to handle that: 1) G-d could reinterpret Torah law emphasizing some things and all but doing away with others. 2) G-d could simply be inconsistent and leave us with yet another puzzle (I don't think this would be unprecedented, but you may disagree) 3) G-d could simply assert that the new law is written because humans proved incapable of following the old law. 4) G-d could explain that the old law has expired, or that mankind is now mature enough to take advantage of a new understanding. 5) G-d could explain that the prohibition against changing scripture applied to man and especially to the prophets because G-d wanted to be sure that when it WAS time for the law to change, G-d wanted to be sure we knew the change was from G-d.
Doesn't work. God doesn't have any place in such decisions any more. And He specifically said that if it appears He's trying to do so, it means that He's testing us. Check out the stuff in Deuternomy. He didn't leave any loopholes.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I'm not saying that all of these are equally likely. I do think at least some of them have happened already, though.
Some would obviously disagree.
<grin> Gee, you think? The problem is, you're throwing those things out there and then proceeding from the assumption that they're valid, and going on to say that at least some of them have happened. But your initial premise is flawed. None of those are valid. God very clearly said that the Torah is not in heaven, but in our hands.
Do you know the story of Rabbi Eliezer the Great and the oven of Akhnai? Rabbi Eliezer was one of the greatest Sages living in his day, and a member of the Sanhedrin. A case came before the Sanhedrin relating to this oven. See, a vessel can become "ritual impure" (that's a bad translation, but the word tamei doesn't really translate well, so I'm going to use it anyway).
Generally, ovens were made of pottery. The Torah says that you can't repurify things made out of pottery due to their porousness, but that you have to break them. When broken, the pieces lose their impure status.
This oven of Akhnai was made of pieces. Some say that it could be taken apart and put back together again, and others say that it was an impure oven that had been broken and then cemented back together again. And the question was, since it was made of broken pieces, could it get impure again?
Rabbi Eliezer held that it could not. That it was a bunch of broken pieces, and not a solid oven. The majority of the Sages on the Sanhedrin held that it was an oven, and could become impure.
Rabbi Eliezer was sure that he was right. And he refused to acquiesce to the other Sages. When all of his arguments remained unaccepted, he started calling for miraculous signs, one after another. Each one was rejected by the Sages. In the end, he even shouted out, "If I am right, let heaven prove it!" and a voice came out of the sky saying, "Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the law agrees with him!"
Rabbi Joshua, one of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, stood up and quoted Deuteronomy: "The Torah is not in heaven". Rabbi Jeremiah explained that this means that now that we've been given the Torah, the decision making process is in our hands, and not God's.
Another rabbi, Rabbi Nathan, related that he saw Elijah the prophet (who never died) in the marketplace and asked him what God's reaction was to this. Elijah told him, "God laughed and said: My children have defeated me; my children have defeated me."
It's a bit like a parent's pride in their children finally realizing that they can figure things out on their own.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The question for Judaism is whether or not there's room in the religion for people who hold any view other than the one that says "the law has never and will never change."
Well, a lot depends on what you mean by "change". The Torah never has and never will change. But clearly, the specific rules we're required to follow at any given time, do. The Temple sacrifices is a case in point. The world changes, and the practical law relates to that. But in a specific way.
To use a mathematical/programming metaphor, the practical law is a function of a constant (the Torah and its properties and methods) and a variable (the current situation), as operated on by the methods prescribed in the Torah itself. And yes, I realize that's somewhat recursive. It's intended to be.
So if by law, you mean the practical law, as in "what do I do right now?", then you're right. It changes. But if you mean the Torah and its properties and methods, then no, they don't change. Ever.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I suspect that there will always be people who claim the answer is obviously NO. But just like in Christianity where it some people argue over who gets to call themselves Christian, the rules for what makes a Jew a Jew are probably subject to personal interpretation as much as they are subject to tradition, Scripture and commentary.
True enough. But freedom of choice doesn't mean the freedom to determine what is right and what is wrong. It's only the freedom to do what is right and what is wrong.
There are Jews who choose to eat pork. That doesn't mean that their choice makes that okay. It just means that they made the wrong choice. As they're able, but not entitled, to do.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It doesn't really matter much that some groups are more numerous and some groups are louder, or more strident.
That's right. A minority of Jews in the US, for example, keep the laws of the Torah. There are those who think that our being a minority means something. And it does, but not what they think.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: All that matters is what G-d thinks. And it appears to me that we know less about what G-d thinks than we suspect.
All we know about what God thinks is what He told us He thinks. Which may just be a bit more than you suspect.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I do. But we certainly would never have a "wedding".
ok, you won't have a wedding, but you're living with another woman as if you were married... isn't it like the intermarriage couples that are married by civil law, but no by Jupah? does that go with the Torá? your relationships are not my bussiness, but i'd like to know your opinion about that, thanks...
A Jew and a non-Jew living together isn't forbidden, as such. I had a non-Jewish roommate in college, for example.
Here's the thing. If we weren't Orthodox, you might have a point. But there are rules for what kind of assumptions it's permitted to make about other Jews; particularly other Orthodox Jews.
Let's say that we have an Orthodox Jew living in a country where pre-marital sex is considered not only completely normal and acceptable, but where getting married without a "test drive" is considered irresponsible, and a bit nutty. Like the US, for example.
Is it fair to assume that just because an Orthodox Jew lives in the US, he or she engages in pre-marital sex? Or is even okay with the practice? The answer is "no". Simply by being an Orthodox Jew, one asserts that what Jewish law says comes before what one wants.
Unfortunately, most people in the Orthodox Jewish community don't understand that this applies just as much to Orthodox Jews who are gay. Neither of us would ever do something that was forbidden. But neither of us is attracted to men, and we are in love and completely committed to raising our daughter as a good Torah Jew.
Find me an intermarried couple who are vocally committed to keeping Torah laws, and you might have a point. Personally, I don't think such a thing does or can exist.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
I think that when Messiah comes and the Holy Temple is rebuilt that stuff will apply again. Until then, we muddle through.
I agree. There's just one catch. The Rambam (Moses Maimonides) says that the way we'll know that a certain person is the Messiah is by his doing certain things. Among them, getting the Temple rebuilt. So it's not really possible, at least according to the Rambam, to wait until we know someone is the Messiah before building the Temple.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: oh? I didn't know that About StarLisa, now I'm suddenly more intersted in the conversation for some reason...
<sigh> Oh, lovely... Blayne, with all due respect, that's a really lousy reason to get interested in this conversation. It isn't about me. Even if I was completely wrong to be a lesbian and have a partner and a child, it wouldn't change a single thing about what I've said. It would just mean that I'm doing something wrong. Happily, that's not the case.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Seriously, is it ok in Jewish Law for a woman to sleep with another woman?
Is this a practical question? Are you actually a Jewish woman asking whether you're allowed to sleep with another woman?
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I know male-male sex is "wrong" by jewish law but it doesn't seem to mention woman on woman sex, why is that?
The first, and best, reason is that it doesn't... because it doesn't. We don't know the reason for all of God's laws. We don't know why bacon is forbidden and cow tongue is permitted. I know a lot of people who'd like it to have been the other way around.
But beyond that, the essential act of sex from a Torah perspective, is penetration. By a penis. No penetration, no sexual act.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can think of socialogical explanations,
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: To me, everything generally evolves from a socioligcal point of view,
Hmm... I get it. But we don't speak the same language here, Blayne. You're assuming that the law was invented by people for reasons of their own. And you're entitled to that belief, but if I believed that, I wouldn't waste my time with it. I like baby back ribs. I like shrimp cocktail. I don't like being told what to do.
I remember my Dad calling me in Israel when I hadn't been Orthodox for all that long. He said, "I don't get it. You probably have the worst authority problem of anyone I've ever met in my life. Of all the things you could possibly be doing, being an Orthodox Jew is just the strangest." I really don't like being dictated to. And believe me, if I wasn't convinced that this was actually real, I wouldn't give it two seconds of my time.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: we have Abraham ofering milk and meat to the three "men" that visited him. and law can be changed, actually it's been changed before, in the times of the mishna.
But he served the milk first, and then the meat. So it did not violate the rules of Kashrus.
Whatever. Now explain how Amram married his aunt. The fact is, midrashim are midrashim. We don't take them literally.
My partner was once working in an Orthodox day school, and another teacher mentioned the story about Abraham getting thrown into the furnace by Nimrod. My partner pointed out that that story isn't actually in the Torah. That it's a midrash. And this woman was shocked. She insisted that it was so in the Torah. That's because she was raised without the distinction being made. When she looked it up and found out it really wasn't there, she was totally blown away.
Og didn't necessarily survive the Flood by hanging onto the side of the Ark. The Midrash Says is not a history book.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judaism is different than most other religions in that is is more a birthright than a faith. Whether you are Jewish has nothing to do with your beliefs and faith, and everything to do with your heredity (except in the unusual circumstance of conversion).
I don't "choose" to be Jewish, I am Jewish. And being Jewish means that I have a whole bunch of commandments that apply to me and my people. I don't choose whether or not they apply to me -- they do. I do, however, choose to try to follow as many of the commandments as I am able. I figure that if the Big Guy gives an order, I'd better do what he says.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Oh, how I wish that the Orthodykes website (www.orthodykes.com) wasn't out of commission! It has a wealth of well-researched information on everything you ever wanted to know (and more) about Orthodox Jewish law and lesbians.
Kudos, by the way, to the author of the site. If you could see it, I'm sure you'd be impressed.
Oh. Right. My bad. When that server crashed the websites went down as well. Hold on a sec...
There we go. Back up. But as completely out of date as it was before the crash.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I only just now popped into this thread, and I'm actually amazed and baffled to see people offended by the fact that other people aren't offended by something.
Lisa, seriously, your whole rant boiled down to "People, this whole holiday is about killing you! Why don't you get the point and die already?"
Wow. That's an interesting take. Actually, it's more like, "People, this whole holdiay is about killing you! Don't you see anything wrong about that? Why don't you take a lesson from Hanukkah and change, so that you can still celebrate Hanukkah without being completely hypocritical and blissfully unaware of it?"
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: --------
quote: We're not interested in civil dominion over anyone but ourselves.
And since by "ourselves" you mean "anyone born to a woman born of a Jewish woman,"
Was that a typo? Just "born to a Jewish woman" is fine. And let's not forget people who have converted according to Jewish law.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: you mean quite a lot of people -- including Catholic cardinals. The number of people who would choose to live under your interpretation of Jewish law is considerably smaller than the number of people you'd be putting to death for violating it.
I wouldn't be putting anyone to death. I'm not qualified to sit on a beit din or to be a witness before one.
And like I said, the whole concept of a death penalty in Jewish law is something with almost insuperable barriers in its way. The main purpose, in practice, of something being a capital crime in Judaism, is as a gauge of how major a violation is. For instance, lighting a fire on Shabbat is a capital crime. Eating a pork chop is not. It's clear from this that lighting a fire on Shabbat is a much worse violation than eating a pork chop.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This attitude, Lisa, is unrepentantly evil.
quote:I knew about that, but I'm curious how they respond to Catholics converting to Judaism.
I assume it would be considered apostacy, which results in automatic excommunication. So yes, it is likely that were the Cardinal to renounce Catholicisim, many Catholics would say he is going (or likely to go) to hell (assuming there was no absolution at a later time, of course).
And if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew, I would expect a Jewish person to post that no, he's not, because he's following God's commands.
I wouldn't post anything like that. If the person was Jewish to begin with, I'd be happy that he'd abandoned his apostasy and returned to God. But since I think that Hell is a really eerie and distasteful fantasy, I wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another. I mean, if you tell me I'm going to Neverland or the Kingdom of Make-believe when I die, should I care?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew, I would expect a Jewish person to post that no, he's not, because he's following God's commands.
And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
Only if the person believed that there was a Hell to be condemned to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:G-d is all knowing. Why would he create laws that He knew would need changing?
Because people change. At least that's the excuse given the other times that the law changed, isn't it?
Um... what "other time" would that be? The law has never changed. Sinai is the point at which it was given and Jews, as such, were created. We came into existence at the same time as the Torah. It's never changed.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I've always viewed the punishments as PART of the religious laws. They sort of help to define which things are minor and which are major. At least, it's one way of getting that information.
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: So, if the punishments have changed, the LAW has indeed changed.
No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: At least, it's an example of my method #1 (that I borrowed from StarLisa)
You misunderstood. When the prophets railed against people who were blowing good behavior off in favor of sacrifices, they never, ever, suggested that the sacrifices were any less obligatory. They were merely pointing out that the ability to bring a sacrifice didn't exempt them from good behavior.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
It's a fairly important tenet of all Christianity that I'm aware of that only God can condemn someone to Hell. Is that not a precept of the Jewish faith as well?
Nope. Like I said, we don't have Hell. We don't believe there is such a thing. And we're more than a little frightened by the kinds of people who do.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It seems that speculating on the likely fate of others is a favorite passtime of most humans of any religious affiliation.
You shouldn't tar us with the flaws of Christianity. We're not actually that concerned about such things.
"Antigonus of Socho received the Torah from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: Be not like servants who minister unto their master for the sake of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve their master not upon the condition of receiving a reward; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you." (Pirkei Avot 1:3)
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Christianity includes Scripture that bars us from that as well. Some people don't agree with that, or don't work very hard to avoid it. Some of us try REALLY hard not to judge others, even in a speculative fashion.
We also don't have "Judge not, that ye not be judged". Personally, I prefer Ayn Rand's version: "Judge, and prepare to be judged."
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Other than that, though I can see absolutely no valid reason to speculate about another person's relationship with God or their eventual fate.
Same here. If I say that someone is an idolator, it's no different than my saying that John Dillinger was a bank robber. It's simply a characteristic based on actions. It doesn't necessarily say anything about the inner person.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That comes back down to the "does a person who chooses not to be a Jew get out of Jewishhood in the eyes of other Jews and/or the law" questions, I guess.
And the answer remains "no". Do you think I'd refrain from eating some of my favorite foods and not use the computer on Shabbat (and so on) if I didn't have to?
See, that's the crux of my question which keeps getting side-stepped. You don't have to. You choose to follow the laws you feel apply to you as a Jewish person.
Of course I choose to. I choose to do what's right, and I happen to know what that is. If I were to choose otherwise, I'd be doing what's wrong, and that would make me feel bad about myself. I pride myself on living by my principles.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If you choose not to, in this day and age that's between you and God. A Jewish court has no authority over you that you do not grant it.
Sure it does. Look, Saddam Hussein got up in court and denied the authority of the court that was trying him. Good for him. I hope it made him feel good. Did it mean that they don't have authority over him? No, it just means that he chooses not to recognize it.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: My question is, would Jews by birth be held accountable and punished by a Jewish court even if they chose to not be Jewish in any other way than birth (which they can't change).
Yes.
Look, let me give you an example that has nothing to do with punishments. Maybe it'll help clear things up a bit.
We aren't allowed to cook things on Shabbat. So what's the deal with eating something that someone else cooked on Shabbat?
Well, there are three cases. In one, the person cooking it wasn't Jewish, and cooked it because he wanted to cook it. That, I can eat immediately after that Shabbat. In other words, I can't eat it on the Shabbat on which it was cooked, but after that Shabbat ends, I can eat it.
The second case is where the cook wasn't Jewish, but was cooking it at the behest of a Jew. In that case, I can eat it after Shabbat, but I have to wait after Shabbat the amount of time that it would have taken had it started being cooked after Shabbat. So I might as well have waited.
And the third case is where the cook was Jewish. Whether he considers himself Jewish or not. In that case, I can't eat it. Ever. It's like a pork chop for me. Nor, I'd add, would I be allowed to give it to someone who is Jewish, whether the recipient knows it or not, or accepts it or not.
If my brother, who isn't observant, comes into my bedroom on Shabbat and turns on a light for me to read by, I can't read in there. If I want to read, I have to go elsewhere.
I remember once, we were in a hotel room on Shabbat, and he was watching TV. He decided to go somewhere, and he turned to me and said, "Do you want me to turn the TV off?" And boy howdy, did I want that TV off. But I had no choice but to say, "No, leave it on."
A Jew is a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. There's no exit door.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Clearly, a Jew can say "I believe the Jews are mistaken, I wish to be a Catholic". If there were a Sanhedrin court would they punish him for Idolatry (for example) and hold him accountable in the same way they would a practicing, believing Jew?
Of course. The Torah isn't binding on those Jews who accept it as binding. It's binding on all Jews. Period.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
It is somewhat to someone who was raised with no knowledge of it, and then decided to do a lot of research. I guess by having learned it all, and fealing unable to abide by it, I have condemned myself. I can't leave my fiance, and what you said before is right, its nearly impossible to have a Jewish household in an interfaith relationship. Even my reform Rabbi said that he is marrying us civilly, but by Jewish standards it is just a living arrangement.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
No big deal to you, I supposed, because it doesn't inconvenience you at all if others are forced to follow beliefs they don't hold. It's probably a big deal to a theoretical athiest Jew who finds himself in an orthodox Jewish controlled jurisdiction. I guess he could just move (Lord knows I would).
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wouldn't post anything like that. If the person was Jewish to begin with, I'd be happy that he'd abandoned his apostasy and returned to God. But since I think that Hell is a really eerie and distasteful fantasy, I wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another. I mean, if you tell me I'm going to Neverland or the Kingdom of Make-believe when I die, should I care?
*laugh* For someone who says she wouldn't comment on hell, you seem to be doing an awfully lot of it in this thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
It is somewhat to someone who was raised with no knowledge of it, and then decided to do a lot of research. I guess by having learned it all, and fealing unable to abide by it, I have condemned myself. I can't leave my fiance, and what you said before is right, its nearly impossible to have a Jewish household in an interfaith relationship. Even my reform Rabbi said that he is marrying us civilly, but by Jewish standards it is just a living arrangement.
Things can change, Stephan. Who knows, maybe something will get your wife interested in Judaism, and she'll decide she wants to convert. If not, do the best you can. No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. I admire the fact that you aren't letting your situation force you to engage in rationalizations. That's very unusual.
And you're right. I was wrong (and obnoxious) to toss it off as "no big deal". It took me almost four years from the time that I first realized that I had to be observant until I'd really stopped all of the things I knew were inappropriate. And I'm not in your situation. I can say objectively that you should be observant, but I'm not about to judge you personally. Do what you can.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
No big deal to you, I supposed, because it doesn't inconvenience you at all if others are forced to follow beliefs they don't hold. It's probably a big deal to a theoretical athiest Jew who finds himself in an orthodox Jewish controlled jurisdiction. I guess he could just move (Lord knows I would).
<shrug> I think that the income tax is immoral. I pay it anyway. Part of growing up is realizing that you don't make all the rules.
And before anyone says it, I'm quite aware that it's a flawed analogy, because you can get involved in government and change things in a way that you can't in Torah law. But practically speaking, good luck trying to get rid of the income tax. In practice, it's pretty much the same.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wouldn't post anything like that. If the person was Jewish to begin with, I'd be happy that he'd abandoned his apostasy and returned to God. But since I think that Hell is a really eerie and distasteful fantasy, I wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another. I mean, if you tell me I'm going to Neverland or the Kingdom of Make-believe when I die, should I care?
*laugh* For someone who says she wouldn't comment on hell, you seem to be doing an awfully lot of it in this thread.
Really? I hadn't noticed that. In fact, until you raised it, I don't recall having gone anywhere near that topic. Perhaps you think I did because you assume that Hell has to enter into a discussion like this one. It doesn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
