Sorry if this has been answered already, but can anyone suggest reading material to give me a better understanding of Judaism? I’ve recently started working my way through a (translated) copy of the Qur’an in the hope that I can better understand Islam and the Muslim viewpoint.
:edit: - forgot to mention that I have pretty much ZERO knowledge of Judaism, I have just developed a recent interest in religious beliefs.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think the evidence is pretty clear that the Celts/Gauls engaged in human sacrifice during the period in question. The religion was Druidism - the epicenter of the Druidic religion was Ireland. Winston Churchill in The History of the English Speaking Peoples proposes that human sacrifice was possibly introduced to the Gauls by the Carthaginians.
[/quote]
First, Druids were not a a religion. The Druids were essentially the educated class of people that did include priests, but only some druids were priests.
To my knowledge, there is very little evidence of human sacrifice among the Celts. Basically, very little is known about the Celtic religion for several reasons. First and foremost, the druidic priests were forbidden from keeping any sort of written record. Everything they did was entirely oral and from memory. Much of their education was memorization. Second, the Romans destroyed most everything that was recorded in an attempt to wipe out the druids who were seen as an educated class of people who could be politically dangerous.
But basically, no one really knows anything much about that religion. Hence, all the mystery and folklore.
A question arose in the “Beard Power” thread — why do observant Jewish men no shave their faces?
The origin of this is in the written Torah — Leviticus 19:27 — “You shall not shave off the hair on the sides of your head.”
Notably it uses the word “off” (as in, “gone”). It also deson’t say “cut,” it says shave.
And, putting the restriction in historical context, male slaves used for sexual purposes by men were clean-shaven, and certain nasty pagan sects shaved, in general.
Obviously, it was best not to be associated with eiter group.
As a result, prohibition is primarily against shaving the beard (in particular the sideburns) off with a razor, but permits using a scissors, even if it is almost like shaving. (Code of Jewish Law, Yoreh De?ah 181:9), but this is tempered by the fact that you don’t want to look like you are shaving, unless you have reason to look that way.
In practice, this means observant Jewish men grow beard and sideburns, in particular, and cut them (with scissors) only when necessary (e.g., when in the military and you need to wear a gas mask and the beard prevents a positive seal, for example, assuming there is not a handy full-cover mask).
The “cut beard with scissors” look is why you see so many modern Orthdox men who sadly still sport the 1980s Don Johnson/Miami Vice 3-day shave look.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The Muslim Brotherhood has officially “won” the Election in Egypt (at least as declared by the Military). What do you see as the implications for 1) Israel overall and 2) the Peace agreement between Israel and Egypt?
[/quote]
Well, it’s not good news. I’ve been busy today helping my partner in a brewrey I own (an arab Christian in Israel) get his family to Israel on work permits. Time to GTFO.
Sadely, best case scenario would be marshal law – the Eqyptian military is very good and reasonable people.
Baker is an odd duck and no friend of Israel, but I agree it sure would be nice if the USA did it. Israel could, but the USA has heavy bombers and could do it in a 10-14 day campaign. Israel would have to resort to missles, and perhaps even strategetic nukes.
For a little bit of backstory, Baker and his crew of “white shoe” Republicans are probably why Jewish people historically have been Democrats. They were the WASP crews keeping Jewish people out of Wall Street law firms, banks, and the country clubs (so we made our own).
One time James Baker was over heard saying – in the context of Israel being in a hard place — “fuck the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Aside from the fact, Baker was confusing Israeli Jewish people (the ex-patriots of which voted Reagan/Bush 90%+) with American Jewish people (who are, indeed, heavily liberal), it confirmed the motive behind a series of really troubling anti-Israel actions.[/quote]
I was coming to ask this very question. These people are idiots, if they don’t recognize Israel, there’s going to be some major issues. Israel is not going anywhere, so they’d better get the fuck over it.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
A question arose in the “Beard Power” thread — why do observant Jewish men no shave their faces?
The origin of this is in the written Torah — Leviticus 19:27 — “You shall not shave off the hair on the sides of your head.”
Notably it uses the word “off” (as in, “gone”). It also deson’t say “cut,” it says shave.
And, putting the restriction in historical context, male slaves used for sexual purposes by men were clean-shaven, and certain nasty pagan sects shaved, in general.
Obviously, it was best not to be associated with eiter group.
As a result, prohibition is primarily against shaving the beard (in particular the sideburns) off with a razor, but permits using a scissors, even if it is almost like shaving. (Code of Jewish Law, Yoreh De?ah 181:9), but this is tempered by the fact that you don’t want to look like you are shaving, unless you have reason to look that way.
In practice, this means observant Jewish men grow beard and sideburns, in particular, and cut them (with scissors) only when necessary (e.g., when in the military and you need to wear a gas mask and the beard prevents a positive seal, for example, assuming there is not a handy full-cover mask).
The “cut beard with scissors” look is why you see so many modern Orthdox men who sadly still sport the 1980s Don Johnson/Miami Vice 3-day shave look.
[/quote]
Would clippers be considered scissors? Like beard trimmers etc?
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
A question arose in the “Beard Power” thread — why do observant Jewish men no shave their faces?
The origin of this is in the written Torah — Leviticus 19:27 — “You shall not shave off the hair on the sides of your head.”
Notably it uses the word “off” (as in, “gone”). It also deson’t say “cut,” it says shave.
And, putting the restriction in historical context, male slaves used for sexual purposes by men were clean-shaven, and certain nasty pagan sects shaved, in general.
Obviously, it was best not to be associated with eiter group.
As a result, prohibition is primarily against shaving the beard (in particular the sideburns) off with a razor, but permits using a scissors, even if it is almost like shaving. (Code of Jewish Law, Yoreh De?ah 181:9), but this is tempered by the fact that you don’t want to look like you are shaving, unless you have reason to look that way.
In practice, this means observant Jewish men grow beard and sideburns, in particular, and cut them (with scissors) only when necessary (e.g., when in the military and you need to wear a gas mask and the beard prevents a positive seal, for example, assuming there is not a handy full-cover mask).
The “cut beard with scissors” look is why you see so many modern Orthdox men who sadly still sport the 1980s Don Johnson/Miami Vice 3-day shave look.
[/quote]
Would clippers be considered scissors? Like beard trimmers etc?
[/quote]
If you are going by the “scissors are OK” appraoch, then clippers are OK because they have two blades and mechanically work like scissors.
Again, Haredi (like my wife’s family) don’t make this distinction and grow a full beard, unless there is a safety issue involved.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
. . . putting the restriction in historical context, male slaves used for sexual purposes by men were clean-shaven . . . .
[/quote]
It takes me a while to grow a beard, but I noticed a notable change in how Afgans reacted when I had a beard and when I did not.
Our 2LT had a beard and they would talk to him man-to-man, while the Cpt did not, and they made fun of him to our bearded faces.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I think the evidence is pretty clear that the Celts/Gauls engaged in human sacrifice during the period in question. The religion was Druidism - the epicenter of the Druidic religion was Ireland. Winston Churchill in The History of the English Speaking Peoples proposes that human sacrifice was possibly introduced to the Gauls by the Carthaginians.
[/quote]
First, Druids were not a a religion. The Druids were essentially the educated class of people that did include priests, but only some druids were priests.
To my knowledge, there is very little evidence of human sacrifice among the Celts. Basically, very little is known about the Celtic religion for several reasons. First and foremost, the druidic priests were forbidden from keeping any sort of written record. Everything they did was entirely oral and from memory. Much of their education was memorization. Second, the Romans destroyed most everything that was recorded in an attempt to wipe out the druids who were seen as an educated class of people who could be politically dangerous.
But basically, no one really knows anything much about that religion. Hence, all the mystery and folklore.
[/quote]
Off topic. This is the Judaism thread. I’ll start a thread on the Gaulic/Celtic tribes when I get some time.
[quote]Grumpig Hunt wrote:
But can anyone suggest reading material to give me a better understanding of Judaism?
[/quote]
[quote]
I’ve recently started working my way through a (translated) copy of the Qur’an in the hope that I can better understand Islam and the Muslim viewpoint.[/quote]
Be careful what translation you use. The Saudi-financed English ones soften the actual scriptures (e.g., removing all the “kill the Jooos” “rape infidel women”) to the point that it’s a different book.
“Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?”
No. I will use a Christian translation (the NIV) to show the source of confusion:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
First, the “man” is commanded to marry the woman. The woman is not commanded to marry the man. Her choice. In short, she can take her money, and let him meet his fate, which would probably be death by stoning, then go about her business.
Second, the word is not “rape,” it’s “chazaq” which could mean rape, or it could mean “have sex with.”
You can actually see this in the Book of Samuel, specifically Amnon, a son of David, “chazaqs” his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the event, which belies it being “rape,” but rather consensual.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
“Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?”
No. I will use a Christian translation (the NIV) to show the source of confusion:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
First, the “man” is commanded to marry the woman. The woman is not commanded to marry the man. Her choice. In short, she can take her money, and let him meet his fate, which would probably be death by stoning, then go about her business.
Second, the word is not “rape,” it’s “chazaq” which could mean rape, or it could mean “have sex with.”
You can actually see this in the Book of Samuel, specifically Amnon, a son of David, “chazaqs” his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the event, which belies it being “rape,” but rather consensual.
[/quote]
No, you’re wrong. God commands rape victims to marry their rapists. Says so right there in the Bible, plain as day in my grandma’s King James’ Bible. lawl.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
“Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?”
No. I will use a Christian translation (the NIV) to show the source of confusion:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
First, the “man” is commanded to marry the woman. The woman is not commanded to marry the man. Her choice. In short, she can take her money, and let him meet his fate, which would probably be death by stoning, then go about her business.
Second, the word is not “rape,” it’s “chazaq” which could mean rape, or it could mean “have sex with.”
You can actually see this in the Book of Samuel, specifically Amnon, a son of David, “chazaqs” his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the event, which belies it being “rape,” but rather consensual.[/quote]I am no Hebrew scholar, but the use of taphas in that immediate context DOES indicate a bit of rather enthusiastic aggression on the part of the man here. Yes, the act itself is described by a word that usually simply indicates sex when used that way, but it is clearly modified by the use of taphas to further define the nature of the act. Also chazaq is actually used in verse 25 where forcible rape is more likely the case, not verse 28.
shakab is used in both cases to indicate sex, but chazaq is the modifier in verse 25 while taphas modifies the act in verse 28. chazaq would seem the more aggressive of the two which explains why the New American Standard (my personal favorite translation) translates verse 28 as “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered” but it renders verse 25 as “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.”
This is right after the rule is given where if she does not attempt to be saved from the attack then they both shall die. Or at least that is assumed from the fact of the attack having taken place in the city where the girls cries would have brought rescue. If in the field far from others the girl is free from sin worthy of death and lives and only the man is executed.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
“Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?”
No. I will use a Christian translation (the NIV) to show the source of confusion:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
First, the “man” is commanded to marry the woman. The woman is not commanded to marry the man. Her choice. In short, she can take her money, and let him meet his fate, which would probably be death by stoning, then go about her business.
Second, the word is not “rape,” it’s “chazaq” which could mean rape, or it could mean “have sex with.”
You can actually see this in the Book of Samuel, specifically Amnon, a son of David, “chazaqs” his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the event, which belies it being “rape,” but rather consensual.[/quote]I am no Hebrew scholar, but the use of taphas in that immediate context DOES indicate a bit of rather enthusiastic aggression on the part of the man here. Yes, the act itself is described by a word that usually simply indicates sex when used that way, but it is clearly modified by the use of taphas to further define the nature of the act. Also chazaq is actually used in verse 25 where forcible rape is more likely the case, not verse 28.
shakab is used in both cases to indicate sex, but chazaq is the modifier in verse 25 while taphas modifies the act in verse 28. chazaq would seem the more aggressive of the two which explains why the New American Standard (my personal favorite translation) translates verse 28 as “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered” but it renders verse 25 as “But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.”
This is right before the rule is given where if she does not attempt to be saved from the attack then they both shall die. Or at least that is assumed from the fact of the attack having taken place in the city where the girls cries would have brought rescue. If in the field far from others the girl is free from sin worthy of death and lives and only the man is executed.
[/quote]
Almost there…
It i important to understand that these are rules when rape is suspected but there is no eye witness to the act itself.
Yes. v25 is posed in distinction from v 28 by those particular verbs. hchaziq translates as overpowers, and tphas as seizes. V 26 serves as the distinguishing explanation; Rashi explains that in the first case, the couple is found, after the act, in the field by a witness, justice presumes that the girl is coerced, and that she cried out for help and none heard. Only the man is the presumed to be subject to guilt. However, in the case of v 29 (on which Rashi is silent), the particulars are kept vague, and even vagueness in Torah is purposeful; the setting is not specified, and the verb is “seized” and not “overpowered” and the degree of resistance of the girl is not established. Therefore, justice would decree that the man is not presumed subject to death, that the girl must be dowered (her dad is paid off) and she must be taken care of for her entire life (because she is not marriageable?).
So in 3 verses are raised the questions of the nature of rape, the punishment when witnesses are unavailable, the nature of the dubious case, and how the injured parties must be compensated and cared for, in a work devoted to justice and charity.
That is quite so Dr. Skeptix, but since it was very late last night and I was half asleep, I omitted the details of the other relevant verses in the immediate context. As brother Joab also brought up in the other thread it would appear there is a substantial connection to the principle in the 16th and 17th verses of the 22nd chapter of the book of the Exodus.
There are also New Testament Christian principles that bear heavily on the theological ramifications of this from our standpoint. I will however refrain from those as this is Jewbacca’s thread. I also intended no disrespect to him by anything I’ve said.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am no Hebrew scholar, but the use of taphas in that immediate context DOES indicate a bit of rather enthusiastic aggression on the part of the man here. Yes, the act itself is described by a word that usually simply indicates sex when used that way, but it is clearly modified by the use of taphas to further define the nature of the act. Also chazaq is actually used in verse 25 where forcible rape is more likely the case, not verse.[/quote]
Well, I do speak Hebrew and it is my first and native language. This reads naturally to indicate somewhere between (and including) “taking advantage of” to “rape.” Given the use to indicate “taking advantage of” in other circumstances, and assuming consistency, it probably means that. Where it lands, however, only HaShem knows for certain.
That said, the dispute misses the point.
The MAN has the legal obligation to marry. The female does not. It’s her choice, to be made in accordance with her circumstances and the circumstances of the event.
It’s ironic that people read this language, which wholly puts the power in the woman’s hands as anything but empowering of women.
“Dispute” may be too strong a word. My only intention was to clarify that you had mixed up what words occurred in what verses and that inordinate aggression of some kind was in fact implied. Your point certainly stands and is welcome. Sparky will weep that he has one less thing to complain about the bible over. He’ll have plenty more though.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am no Hebrew scholar, but the use of taphas in that immediate context DOES indicate a bit of rather enthusiastic aggression on the part of the man here. Yes, the act itself is described by a word that usually simply indicates sex when used that way, but it is clearly modified by the use of taphas to further define the nature of the act. Also chazaq is actually used in verse 25 where forcible rape is more likely the case, not verse.[/quote]
Well, I do speak Hebrew and it is my first and native language. This reads naturally to indicate somewhere between (and including) “taking advantage of” to “rape.” Given the use to indicate “taking advantage of” in other circumstances, and assuming consistency, it probably means that. Where it lands, however, only HaShem knows for certain.
That said, the dispute misses the point.
The MAN has the legal obligation to marry. The female does not. It’s her choice, to be made in accordance with her circumstances and the circumstances of the event.
It’s ironic that people read this language, which wholly puts the power in the woman’s hands as anything but empowering of women.[/quote]
Do you have an example of a woman refusing marriage after being chazaq-ed?
Also, I thought “chazaq” meant ‘strengthen’ or ‘courage’ or something along those lines. Can it also mean that, or am I completely misinformed on this one?
Did Abraham believe there was more than one god?
(Sorry if this was asked already, I didn’t read the whole thread)
JB:
Much like the Soldiers of WW-II are dying in large numbers now…so is the “Old Guard” of Israel. (“Old Guard” is sort of the term I use for the those whom fought in the Pre-Jewish State Underground; survived the Holocaust, but often lost many family and friends; saw the establishment of Israel; and often were Israel’s early leaders whom saw to the establishment of, and security of, Israel). To me, these people were crusty, battle-worn, tough badasses whom saw the establishment of a Dream.
Yitzhak Shamir died today. I consider him one of the “Old Guard”.
How are these “Old Warrior’s” viewed today; or like American Youth, are they just viewed as people in a History Book by young Israelis?
How is Shamir viewed in terms of former Israeli Prime Ministers?
Thanks!
Mufasa
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< Do you have an example of a woman refusing marriage after being chazaq-ed?
Also, I thought “chazaq” meant ‘strengthen’ or ‘courage’ or something along those lines. Can it also mean that, or am I completely misinformed on this one?[/quote]As with all etymology and language in general, words (and phrases) evolve in usage and usage determines meaning for the context under discussion at any given time. A very large percentage of so called problems with the bible, in both testaments, are resolved by simply interpreting them as they were originally intended to the original audience of whatever passage is being discussed. People copy and paste bible verses and passages into hack websites alleging to destroy their credibility and they display all the knowledge and scholarship of ancient literature attributable to a soapdish.
Also, what difference does it make if there are any actual examples of a law being implemented? Does that alter it somehow or make it less valid. That’s like the sign at the gym informing patrons that if they damage the equipment through misuse they are financially responsible and somebody asking when this has ever happened. Who cares? That’s the rule. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any examples.
I apologize for the interjection again Jewey (Chewey? =] ). It’s been a few days and I figured you were busy.