Ask Moshe

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
what is the Jewish stance on premarital sex?[/quote]

Maimonides writes that non-marital intercourse falls under the Biblical prohibition of “there shall not be any promiscuous men among the Jewish people; nor shall there be any promiscuous women among the Jewish people.” (Deut. 23:18).

Nachmanides disagrees with this derivation, maintaining that the prohibition is implicit in the Biblical injunction â??And the earth shall not be filled with immorality."(Lev. 19: 29).

The Raavad, according to most authorities, deduces it directly from the command to marry. Implicit in the command to marry, he says, is a prohibition of all nonmarital intercourse. This is technichally referred to as an “Issur assei.”

I suspect “why?” is the next question:

Judaism teaches that the mission of each individual is to draw the most supernal levels of spirituality down into physical reality. Acts which accomplish this fusion of the spiritual and the physical are called “unifications” bring new life-force into the world.

This can only be accomplished when the latent spiritual forces are manifest within a fitting worldly context. When spiritual resources are misallocated (via human free will), destructive spiritual forces are created, delaying the rectification of the world and causing a rift between us and the good that the Creator wishes to bestow upon us.

Sexual union can be the most powerful manifestation of the fusion of body and spirit — it is, after all, how souls recive their bodies.

When partners are united in their intentions, having made a lifelong commitment to grow together, experience the depths of each other’s personalities, and perhaps even bring children into the world, their physical union is more than a fleeting passion. In essence, they are uniting spiritual worlds, utilizing one of the most powerful tools that G-d has given humankind.

The cavalier use of the power of procreation is a gross maltreatment of this awesome medium. Only after acknowledging the potential of a life-long bond (marriage), can a couple have the clarity it takes to truly grow together in a physical relationship.

Premarital sex desensitizes both partners, making it more difficult to access the heights offered by a deeper, more profound relationship.

282

Is that “King” Bibi in your default?

283

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:<<< Sexual union can be the most powerful manifestation of the fusion of body and spirit — [/quote]True Christianity agrees with this (and the gist of this whole post in general) though for very different reasons.[quote]Jewbacca wrote:<<< it is, after all, how souls receive their bodies. >>>[/quote]Am I to conclude from this that you believe in the preexistence of the soul then? I won’t argue the point either way. I’m simply curious.

284

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Am I to conclude from this that you believe in the preexistence of the soul then? I won’t argue the point either way. I’m simply curious.

[/quote]

Yes, I believe the souls of all humanity are described as being created during the six days of creation When each person is born, a preexisting soul is placed within the body. (See Tan., Pekude, 3). This is consistent with the teaching that all Jewish souls (past and future) agreed to the Law, as a contract, at Mt. Sinai. (Otherwise, it would not be fair to impose the Law on a newborn simply because of the situation of his or her birth.)

Opinions, however, differ. In Tractate Sanhedrin, the question is asked, When does the soul enter the body of the newborn? The answer “at birth” is rejected in favor of an intermediate stage within the womb, usually interpreted as 40 days after conception.

285

JB:

I’ve always been somewhat “cloudly” on the “relationship” between Jordan and Israel.

In the Middle East, saying that they have appeared to be “friendly” to Isreal is probably a stretch…but maybe “less belligerent”?

Or have they just been the Proverbial “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” in their support of the destruction of Israel?

I would love your thoughts.

Thanks!

Mufasa

286

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
JB:

I’ve always been somewhat “cloudly” on the “relationship” between Jordan and Israel.
[/quote]

Understandable. There are many layers.

Probably going back to the real root of the problem is that the original British plan was for Jordan to be the arab state (aka “Palestine”) and what is now (more or less) Israel to be the Jewish State.

Long story short, the Hashemite King who ran Jordan screwed the lower-class local/Syrian arabs and they became people without a country, or at least without any rights in their own country.

Further, during the mandate period, it was largely what-is-now-Jordan that was behind the series of pogroms in 1929, 36, and eventually a proper invasion by the actual country of Jordan in 1948 that created “Jew-Free” zones in East Jerusalem and what-is-now-called the “West Bank.”

Jordan pushed what it considered undesirable citizens (lower class arabs) into these areas.

Previously, Jews, muslim arabs, Christians (of various ethnic origins), and Druze used to live in these areas for 1500+ years, just fine.

So, historically, they’ve been a problem.

I don’t know.

Jordan seems relatively peaceful, but its because of the firm hand of the Hashemites, who are, in my opinion the very people who screwed the local arabs in the first place.

Part of how they maintain control is building up Jewish people as the enemy.

The entire “Palestinian State” issue could have been resolved 75 years ago if Jordan didn’t treat the migrant arabs (now called Palestinians) like shit.

After 75 years of being treated like shit, however, the only people the arabs hate more than Jews are the Hashemites, and they’ve tried to kill the king a couple time.

287

Thanks for the insights, JB.

Mufasa

288

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Am I to conclude from this that you believe in the preexistence of the soul then? I won’t argue the point either way. I’m simply curious.

[/quote]

Yes, I believe the souls of all humanity are described as being created during the six days of creation When each person is born, a preexisting soul is placed within the body. (See Tan., Pekude, 3). This is consistent with the teaching that all Jewish souls (past and future) agreed to the Law, as a contract, at Mt. Sinai. (Otherwise, it would not be fair to impose the Law on a newborn simply because of the situation of his or her birth.)

Opinions, however, differ. In Tractate Sanhedrin, the question is asked, When does the soul enter the body of the newborn? The answer “at birth” is rejected in favor of an intermediate stage within the womb, usually interpreted as 40 days after conception.
[/quote]Thank you sir. This then of course positively begs for the question of Jewish views on abortion which I had not even thought of until I saw the 40 day thing you just said that some Jews hold as the time when the soul enters the body.

289

[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Other options are the tichel (the head scarf you’ve probably seen Natalie Portman wear).
[/quote]

She’s my perfect woman. I would convert for her.[/quote]

Damn, she’s hot, period.

290

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Am I to conclude from this that you believe in the preexistence of the soul then? I won’t argue the point either way. I’m simply curious.

[/quote]

Yes, I believe the souls of all humanity are described as being created during the six days of creation When each person is born, a preexisting soul is placed within the body. (See Tan., Pekude, 3). This is consistent with the teaching that all Jewish souls (past and future) agreed to the Law, as a contract, at Mt. Sinai. (Otherwise, it would not be fair to impose the Law on a newborn simply because of the situation of his or her birth.)

Opinions, however, differ. In Tractate Sanhedrin, the question is asked, When does the soul enter the body of the newborn? The answer “at birth” is rejected in favor of an intermediate stage within the womb, usually interpreted as 40 days after conception.
[/quote]Thank you sir. This then of course positively begs for the question of Jewish views on abortion which I had not even thought of until I saw the 40 day thing you just said that some Jews hold as the time when the soul enters the body.
[/quote]

Certainly this is exactly what I thought. Though it does carry with it the strong possibility of knocking this thread into abortion thread oblivion. I won’t say one thing or the other about it (or if I really want to I’ll start a new thread or kick it to Hijack Haven), but would you mind elucidating, JB?

291

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This then of course positively begs for the question of Jewish views on abortion.
[/quote]

There is a broad consensus among Rabbinical authorities that abortion is generally prohibited.

Abortion in Judaism is permitted only in the NARROW EXCEPTION there is a DIRECT threat to the life of the mother by carrying the baby to term or through the act of childbirth. This does not mean “mental health,” or indirect things, but DIRECT, present, danger, where, in all reasonable probability, both the mother and child will die.

In such a narrow circumstance, the baby is regarded as â??pursuingâ?? the mother, so the mother’s life takes precedence. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Rotzeach 1:9; Talmud Sanhedrin 72b.)

While not an expert, I don’t believe the “40 days” thing has any bearing regarding this issue.

+++++

There gets to be differing opinions on some things. For example, simple or severe birth defects are not grounds for abortion, but birth defects that are 100% fatal and have no life expectancy (e.g., anacephaly – no brain) might be, according to some Rabbis.

Also, if there are mutiple children and all the children and/or mother will almost certainly die unless some of the children are aborted, then some Rabbis would say OK.

292

You said the following in another thread;

“An alternative version is, before Creation, HaShem offerred the Law to all the peoples in the World (past, present, and future). All refused. Finally, he went to the Jewish people, and we said yes.”

I’m curious as to the roots of this idea. Would you please clarify?

293

[quote]TigerTime wrote:
You said the following in another thread;

“An alternative version is, before Creation, HaShem offerred the Law to all the peoples in the World (past, present, and future). All refused. Finally, he went to the Jewish people, and we said yes.”

I’m curious as to the roots of this idea. Would you please clarify?[/quote]

The concept is from the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b. about 2/3 in).

It states that G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the Earth, and Israel was the only nation who accepted it. The story goes on to say that Israel as offered the Torah last.

294

is this woman’s interpretation of Jewish law correct?

Michigan House Democrats fight for Women’s rights

295

[quote]therajraj wrote:
is this woman’s interpretation of Jewish law correct?

Michigan House Democrats fight for Women’s rights

I can’t tell from the context, but she appears to have twisted Jewish law in a major way. Jewish law does not require abortion “for the health” of the mother, but only if the mother’s life is almost certainly going to be lost.

I also don’t think the law in question is banning abortion as she is saying, merely requiring that the clinics have adequate safeguards to protect the mother and insurance to compensate in case of malpractice (which is sadly common in low-rent abortion clinics). The abortion industry hides behind politics on things like that to get away with things normal doctors could never do.

296

So, this may sound like a bit of an attack, but it is actually very reflective of myself.

How do you reconcile you current notions of morality with the historical accounts of the old testament, a god commanding the slaughter of women and children?

I assume that those texts are taken as literal historical records.

Do you think that in the situation the murder of children is right and just? If you lived then, would you have obeyed (though Israel ultimately didn’t complete the commands either)?

How do Jews theologically get from old testament historical Israel and a god that would make those sorts of demands to beliefs of today?

There seems to be a lot of moral relativism (not just in Judaism) in a system that teaches in absolute terms.

This actually comes about because I am reading a book in Buddhism, which I find really interesting. But, basically a teacher teaches whatever best aids the learner. This means that, in Buddhism, teachings can be entirely contradictory and correct. There is no absolute truth. I found myself disagreeing with that philosophy, but upon reflection, found it in my beliefs. I find myself struggling some with this issue and would be interested in getting your thoughts. How do you rationally reform absolute teachings?

297

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
So, this may sound like a bit of an attack, but it is actually very reflective of myself.

How do you reconcile you current notions of morality with the historical accounts of the old testament, a god commanding the slaughter of women and children?

I assume that those texts are taken as literal historical records.

Do you think that in the situation the murder of children is right and just? If you lived then, would you have obeyed (though Israel ultimately didn’t complete the commands either)?

How do Jews theologically get from old testament historical Israel and a god that would make those sorts of demands to beliefs of today?

There seems to be a lot of moral relativism (not just in Judaism) in a system that teaches in absolute terms.

This actually comes about because I am reading a book in Buddhism, which I find really interesting. But, basically a teacher teaches whatever best aids the learner. This means that, in Buddhism, teachings can be entirely contradictory and correct. There is no absolute truth. I found myself disagreeing with that philosophy, but upon reflection, found it in my beliefs. I find myself struggling some with this issue and would be interested in getting your thoughts. How do you rationally reform absolute teachings?
[/quote]

I think you would find these interesting DD and I hope they are relevant to the thread, if it so happens that Jewbacca takes a different approach to this I would also like to know.

Question for Jewbacca, how does the torah relate to the tanakh and the talmud relate to them both as a whole?

298

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How do you reconcile you current notions of morality with the historical accounts of the old testament, a god commanding the slaughter of women and children?

[/quote]

I am going to temporarily disregard the rest of your post (although valid questions) because the answers to those questions depend on “which time”?

There are differing reasons for some very harsh actions and the answer depends on which specific incident you are talking about.

Just for example, some of the answers were purely military tacits – Jericho (and much of Joshua’s campaign) was dealt with so harshly in no small part because Joshua’s light infantry force could not spare a rear guard, coupled with the need to deny logistical support to the enemy (among other military reasons).

Other times it was to rid the world of a great, systemic, evil, such as with Ammonites/Carthinagins.

They sacrificed small children to the false-god Moloch/Kronos (a horned demon familiar to Christians) ---- boiling them in their mother’s milk, or more commonly, sending their own children (or raising children as their own) and then droping them down into the belly of a horned idol filled with fire.

The Romans, interestingly, were so horrified by the Ammonites that they finished what we Jewish folk started and completely destroyed Carthage and its people. Paul G. Mosca, in his thesis described below, translates Cleitarchus’ paraphrase of a scholium to Plato’s Republic as:

There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos (Moloch), its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter,’ since they die laughing.

Diodorus Siculus (20.14) wrote:

There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.

Diodorus also relates that relatives were forbidden to weep and that when Agathocles defeated Carthage, the Carthaginian nobles believed they had displeased the gods by substituting low-born children for their own children. They attempted to make amends by sacrificing 200 children of the best families at once, and in their enthusiasm actually sacrificed 300 children.

++++++++++

So, in short, I see pretty good reasons to wipe that civilization from the Earth.

Reminds me of Ammonite descendants who strapped a bomb to their own retarded child and had him get on board a bus with my pregnant wife and myself and 23 other people.

299

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Question for Jewbacca, how does the torah relate to the tanakh and the talmud relate to them both as a whole?[/quote]

The word “Torah” can mean different things in different contexts.

In its most limited sense, “Torah” refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

But the word “torah” can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings.

“Tanakh” which is an acrostic of Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim.

TORAH (The Law):
â?¢Bereishith (In the beginning…) (Genesis)
â?¢Shemoth (The names…) (Exodus)
â?¢Vayiqra (And He called…) (Leviticus)
â?¢Bamidbar (In the wilderness…) (Numbers)
â?¢Devarim (The words…) (Deuteronomy)

NEVI’IM (The Prophets):
â?¢Yehoshua (Joshua)
â?¢Shoftim (Judges)
â?¢Shmuel (I &II Samuel)
â?¢Melakhim (I & II Kings)
â?¢Yeshayah (Isaiah)
â?¢Yirmyah (Jeremiah)
â?¢Yechezqel (Ezekiel)
â?¢The Twelve (treated as one book): â?¦Hoshea (Hosea)
â?¦Yoel (Joel)
â?¦Amos
â?¦Ovadyah (Obadiah)
â?¦Yonah (Jonah)
â?¦Mikhah (Micah)
â?¦Nachum
â?¦Chavaqquq (Habbakkuk)
â?¦Tzefanyah (Zephaniah)
â?¦Chaggai
â?¦Zekharyah (Zechariah)
â?¦Malakhi

KETHUVIM (The Writings):
â?¢Tehillim (Psalms)
â?¢Mishlei (Proverbs)
â?¢Iyov (Job)
â?¢Shir Ha-Shirim (Song of Songs)
â?¢Ruth
â?¢Eikhah (Lamentations)
â?¢Qoheleth (the author’s name) (Ecclesiastes)
â?¢Esther
â?¢Daniel
â?¢Ezra & Nechemyah (Nehemiah) (treated as one book)
â?¢Divrei Ha-Yamim (The words of the days) (Chronicles)

The “Talmud” is the “Oral Torah” plus the “Gemara”

G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara.

The Talmud is not easy to read. It reminds me of someone else’s class notes for a college lecture you never attended.

It is not always clear (to me) which is the Oral Law and which is Gemara (commentary).

There are often gaps in the reasoning where it is assumed that you already know what they are talking about, and concepts are often expressed in a sort of shorthand. Biblical verses that support a teaching are often referenced by only two or three words.

The Gemara preserves a variety of views on every issue, and does not always clearly identify which view is the accepted one.

+++++++

Hat tip to any anti-semites: I advise buying a Talmud, take the differing/dissenting/minority opinions from the Gemara out of context and use that as evidence of evil JOoooo plots. Lots of material there.

For a bit more about Moloch, go here:

http://www.monstropedia.org/index.php?title=Moloch

300

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

How do you reconcile you current notions of morality with the historical accounts of the old testament, a god commanding the slaughter of women and children?

[/quote]

I am going to temporarily disregard the rest of your post (although valid questions) because the answers to those questions depend on “which time”?

There are differing reasons for some very harsh actions and the answer depends on which specific incident you are talking about.

Just for example, some of the answers were purely military tacits – Jericho (and much of Joshua’s campaign) was dealt with so harshly in no small part because Joshua’s light infantry force could not spare a rear guard, coupled with the need to deny logistical support to the enemy (among other military reasons).

Other times it was to rid the world of a great, systemic, evil, such as with Ammonites/Carthinagins.

They sacrificed small children to the false-god Moloch/Kronos (a horned demon familiar to Christians) ---- boiling them in their mother’s milk, or more commonly, sending their own children (or raising children as their own) and then droping them down into the belly of a horned idol filled with fire.

The Romans, interestingly, were so horrified by the Ammonites that they finished what we Jewish folk started and completely destroyed Carthage and its people. Paul G. Mosca, in his thesis described below, translates Cleitarchus’ paraphrase of a scholium to Plato’s Republic as:

There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos (Moloch), its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter,’ since they die laughing.

Diodorus Siculus (20.14) wrote:

There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.

Diodorus also relates that relatives were forbidden to weep and that when Agathocles defeated Carthage, the Carthaginian nobles believed they had displeased the gods by substituting low-born children for their own children. They attempted to make amends by sacrificing 200 children of the best families at once, and in their enthusiasm actually sacrificed 300 children.

++++++++++

So, in short, I see pretty good reasons to wipe that civilization from the Earth.

Reminds me of Ammonite descendants who strapped a bomb to their own retarded child and had him get on board a bus with my pregnant wife and myself and 23 other people.

[/quote]

It seems a hypocritical to end the sacrificing of children by slitting the throats of those same children.

Would you have personally killed the retarded child before hand to prevent the attack on your wife? If there grew a society that evil today (or if you think some countries already qualify), would you go town to town slaughtering them all? Though I realize my total lack of perspective on what you’ve gone through, I couldn’t ever imagine myself doing something like that OR condoning it.

There are several parts of the old testament I could role into this. Punishment to 7 generations (or further in some cases). The book of Job in general. Animal sacrifice. But I didn’t intend this to be a point by point justification for things. I meant only to address the more general attitudes and practices. I don’t see the same Judaism today that I see when I read the histories and I mean that in a good way.

So, do you disagree with my notion that Judaism as it is today, is reformed from what it was then? You see it in the same light? If the temple is rebuilt, you’d bring your sin offering there?

Buddhists explain teachings as being like medicine. You give people different and some times opposite medicine based on their ailments.

I know, in truth, many Christians today take the same attitude with the Bible. Though for Christians, not being under the same covenant of the old testament, it is easier to distance yourself and hence maybe be more of a Christian problem. They profess to believe, but never take it to the logical ends.