JB:
I saw an intriguing interview this past weekend with a former leader of the Mossad. (Sorry…I can’t remember his name; should have written it down).
He stated that the Middle East problem is NOT an Israeli one…but a “Sunni/Shia” one.
(As you look around at the conflicts…I would have to agree).
I was wondering what you thought.
Mufasa
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
I have two questions:
Why circumcision for Jews?
I am dating a teacher who (I discovered last weekend) is Jewish. Pretty seriously dating, for me. As in she is nice, smart, beautiful, very athletic, tall, and loves my horses and can tolerate my mother. Met her parents last weekend; can’t say they cared for me, although I am a personable guy, Army Vet, college grad, reasonably wealthy (as in I could sit on my ass from here until I die, if I was that kind of guy), but also a business owner and gainfully employed. In fact, they were pretty rude, if not hostile. What should I know about dating Jewish girls?[/quote]
These are huge questions that I do not have the time to answer. They are also good, important, questions and I want to give them their due.[/quote]
For #2 you could substitute Mormon, Catholic, Hindi, Buddist ect. for Jewish.
That question is as old as time…I have run into the exact same scenario with LDS families. It’s to be expected [/quote]
Albiet not a religion, you missed “Japanese,” my friend.[/quote]
I am pretty sure that that at least qualifies as a cult.
(Just a “bump” for JB).
JB:
I saw an intriguing interview this past weekend with a former leader of the Mossad. (Sorry…I can’t remember his name; should have written it down).
He stated that the Middle East problem is NOT an Israeli one…but a “Sunni/Shia” one.
(As you look around at the conflicts…I would have to agree).
I was wondering what you thought.
Mufasa
Another bump. @JB - As a lawyer I’m sure you’re familiar with the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ - Ignorantia juris non excusat. How about in Jewish law?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
(Just a “bump” for JB).
JB:
I saw an intriguing interview this past weekend with a former leader of the Mossad. (Sorry…I can’t remember his name; should have written it down).
He stated that the Middle East problem is NOT an Israeli one…but a “Sunni/Shia” one.
(As you look around at the conflicts…I would have to agree).
I was wondering what you thought.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Good question but it doesn’t seem to relate to Judaism - moreso to ME politics. My 2 cents.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Another bump. @JB - As a lawyer I’m sure you’re familiar with the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ - Ignorantia juris non excusat. How about in Jewish law?[/quote]
@DocSkeptix - seems JB has gone AWOL. Can you spread some light on my question if you’ve got the time? I’ve really enjoyed reading your knowledgeable posts on the subject too.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Another bump. @JB - As a lawyer I’m sure you’re familiar with the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ - Ignorantia juris non excusat. How about in Jewish law?[/quote]
@DocSkeptix - seems JB has gone AWOL. Can you spread some light on my question if you’ve got the time? I’ve really enjoyed reading your knowledgeable posts on the subject too.[/quote]
First, JB will have forgotten more than I ever knew on the subject.
In my answer to Pat in another thread, I had to review my failing memory and read Babylonian Talmud Tractate Pesahim, wherein the early chapters touch on the subject of ignorance of law.
Well, not really. The first question involves the unknowable activities of a mouse, but the legal analogy is whether someone is liable if he know the law, but is unsure of the facts!
The example given (taken from Tractate Tohorot 6:5) is this: a man crosses a valley in which a field has been exposed to rain, and may have become impure for Passover (i.e., the wet grain becomes leavened, and “impure.”) If the man says that he has passed through the valley, but does not know if he touched the impure field, Rabbi Eliezer judged that the man is pure, but the Rabbis declared him impure.
This bit of arcana asks the question, if there be doubt of an action, is the person given the benefit of doubt (“innocent till proven guilty”). Or does the law presume the extreme case, that doubt precludes innocence until the doubt can absolutely be removed?
Notice: first, the man in question knows the law…it is the facts of which he is unsure… and second, there is no authoritative answer. Ordinarily, majority opinion holds in such disputes, but here, one suspects that Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is the greater, since he is named, and not disputed by further citation by “the Rabbis.”
I have dodged the question: is ignorance of law an excuse? Well, whether doubt is an excuse, or whether it must be expunged before guilt is ascribed, one might argue that ignorance of the law is a similar burden; it must be excused or expunged by those who would presume to judge others.
Thanks. If I understand correctly it would seem that a Jewish person is expected to know the law and only the specifics of its adherance come into question in relation to ignorance and guilt?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Thanks. If I understand correctly it would seem that a Jewish person is expected to know the law and only the specifics of its adherance come into question in relation to ignorance and guilt?[/quote]
That would be my guess, too, but I bet there is room for dispute.
There is a simple proof that knowledge of law is incumbent on the adult: Deut 6:6-7.
"6. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.
“7. And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
If the words (laws) are “upon your heart” the obligation is to know and to love them.
And it is a further obligation that the tradition of the law is transmitted, generation to generation.
But the english word “teach” does’t quite translate the original. See Rashi’s emphasis:
“And you will teach them: This is an expression of sharpness, meaning that these words should be sharply impressed in your mouth, so that if a person asks you something, you will not have to hesitate about it, but you will tell him immediately. (Sifrei ; Kidd. 30a)”
Clearly, the obligation is that every adult know the law, and sharply and unequivocally impress them to each generation. This is not the standard that allows for doubt, or for ignorance of law.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
There is a simple proof that knowledge of law is incumbent on the adult
[/quote]
Okay, thanks.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Another bump. @JB - As a lawyer I’m sure you’re familiar with the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ - Ignorantia juris non excusat. How about in Jewish law?[/quote]
@DocSkeptix - seems JB has gone AWOL. Can you spread some light on my question if you’ve got the time? I’ve really enjoyed reading your knowledgeable posts on the subject too.[/quote]
Sorry. Just busy.
There is a concept in Judaism of the “kidnapped child” to use the exact translation — that is, Jewish people raised without knowledge of the Law or even of Judaism.
G-d forgives such unknowing trangressions and gives “credit” for effort, as we will have eternity to get it right. Just move in the correct direction.
This concept is not theoretical. Many, many Jewish people are unaware they are Jewish, especially in Europe and in muslim countries — their ancestors having been forcibly converted, or adoptions having occurred (e.g, by gentile adoptive parents saving orphaned Jewish children).
Indeed, a fair amount of the Law is lost or in dispute, and certain things simply cannot occur during the Diaspora, so even knowledgeable, observant, Jews are not doing things 100% right.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Thanks. If I understand correctly it would seem that a Jewish person is expected to know the law and only the specifics of its adherance come into question in relation to ignorance and guilt?[/quote]
That would be my guess, too, but I bet there is room for dispute.
There is a simple proof that knowledge of law is incumbent on the adult: Deut 6:6-7.
"6. And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart.
“7. And you shall teach them to your sons and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.”
If the words (laws) are “upon your heart” the obligation is to know and to love them.
And it is a further obligation that the tradition of the law is transmitted, generation to generation.
But the english word “teach” does’t quite translate the original. See Rashi’s emphasis:
“And you will teach them: This is an expression of sharpness, meaning that these words should be sharply impressed in your mouth, so that if a person asks you something, you will not have to hesitate about it, but you will tell him immediately. (Sifrei ; Kidd. 30a)”
Clearly, the obligation is that every adult know the law, and sharply and unequivocally impress them to each generation. This is not the standard that allows for doubt, or for ignorance of law.[/quote]
I don’t disagree with this post, at all.
I took the original post to concern truely unknowing.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Another bump. @JB - As a lawyer I’m sure you’re familiar with the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ - Ignorantia juris non excusat. How about in Jewish law?[/quote]
@DocSkeptix - seems JB has gone AWOL. Can you spread some light on my question if you’ve got the time? I’ve really enjoyed reading your knowledgeable posts on the subject too.[/quote]
Sorry. Just busy.
There is a concept in Judaism of the “kidnapped child” to use the exact translation — that is, Jewish people raised without knowledge of the Law or even of Judaism.
G-d forgives such unknowing trangressions and gives “credit” for effort, as we will have eternity to get it right. Just move in the correct direction.
This concept is not theoretical. Many, many Jewish people are unaware they are Jewish, especially in Europe and in muslim countries — their ancestors having been forcibly converted, or adoptions having occurred (e.g, by gentile adoptive parents saving orphaned Jewish children).
Indeed, a fair amount of the Law is lost or in dispute, and certain things simply cannot occur during the Diaspora, so even knowledgeable, observant, Jews are not doing things 100% right.[/quote]
No apology necessary. And thank you too sir.
What’s better complimentary marriage or egalitarian marriage and what is yours?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What’s better complimentary marriage or egalitarian marriage and what is yours?[/quote]
I am curious about your position on this one also, Jewbacca
Thanks.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What’s better complimentary marriage or egalitarian marriage and what is yours?[/quote]
Well, I had to look up what those words mean. Still not sure I am translating them correctly.
There are distinct roles in a traditional Jewish marriage that the husband and wife fill, sometimes overlapping roles. Both equally important. But the roles are distinct.
Bit like the heart and brain. You need both, and both are equally important, but they are different.
There are some things where she is the boss and some things where I am the boss.
It’s very, very traditional. She wears a Tiechel or a Sheitel, just like I wear a kippah. We sit on seperate sides of the Shul. I don’t voluntarily shake hands (or touch) women who are not my family, and her in reverse.
A lot of people would belittle a traditional marriage, but keep in mind Mrs. Jewbacca is a well-respected surgeon and combat veteran herself. She’s very physically fit. MENSA member. Very pretty – men would come running if she was on the market.
The thing she is most proud of? Being a mom. She’d be sad if she had to leave medicine. She’d be heart broken if she could not change a diaper.
There are dramatic differences between men and women. We are not the same. Thank G-d.
So if the observant were to touch the non-familial, opposite sex, do they become unclean for a period? And perhaps unable to engage in public religious matters?
Also how is that reconciled with being a surgeon (which presumes touching another’s body) or also to the lesser degree that you are out in the Western business field and there has to be females that one would shake hands, in the course of business etiquette?
And I too agree with joy over ‘…male and female, he created them.’
How about Proverbs 31:10-31?
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
How about Proverbs 31:10-31?[/quote]When I met my wife 22 years ago I was working at Lenscrafters as an optical technician. I used to make artistic ornaments out of damaged eyeglass lenses. I cut one in the shape of a heart, tinted it deep red and inscribed it with “You’re my Proverbs 31 dreamgirl”. I filled the letters with whiteout and ran the polisher over it so that the white inscription was left in the red lens.
One of the interesting things about that passage is that it is reported to have been told to a king named Lemuel by his mother. Not the words of a man.