I dont think he is doing that. He is showing that for those that think the jewish holy books are guides of morality are not actually guides of morality. Rav himself has contended many things that he has not shown any evidence for. The only evidence he may have is his book and in many opinion many immoral acts are considered perfectly ok in those books. Rav tries to rationalize slavery and Zoro shows the problems with his reason or at least points out things Rav omits. (ruroni?)Zoro may be a little harsh and sarcastic but overall he is making his point.
How is he making any point ranma? I explain over and over the context yet he wants nothing of it. I explain to him is misunderstanding of the passages, his errors in interpretation, and his opinions which run on the opposite of how Jewish law runs when interpreting the Torah.
I will not continue to be polite to one who opens his post with such a saying: What is below. It is insulting, and reveals how little truth, the poster zoro wishes to know.
rav: I thought you were obligated by the quaint, simplistic, moral absolute: “Thou shalt not bear false witness…” (You know, when the Nazi SS troopers ask where the Jew is hiding, you’re supposed to tell them the truth!) Consequently, I’m rather surprised by some specifics in your response – or are you similar to so many clerics: just make up God’s words as you go along? Let me give you a few “for instances”.
I assume zoro that you take yourself seriously, so I will be very clear when speaking to you. We wouldn’t want you to misunderstand something, wouldn’t we.
The Torah is an incomplete record of G-d’s law. The Talmud fills in many gaps that you may not know of. A perfect example would be: Moses instructed the Jews to perform Kosher slaughter as "I have commanded you" (Deuteronomy 12:21). Can you find me in the Written Torah where he had commanded them?
Of course not. You must go to the Oral Torah, or the Talmud to figure that out.
I really think you have a huge amount of audacity to state some of the things you do. You first of all proved yourself to be a complete liar in many accounts. Than you continue to lie about the Torah as well! Have you studied the Talmud, and Midrashim? I doubt it.
So let’s get started:
That sure would be news to Abraham!
If I understand your question correctly, you are asking if we have changed the Torah from a covenant needing to use sacrifices to one that does not involve using animal sacrifices. The answer is that we no longer use animal sacrifices in our worship services because we no longer have a temple in Jerusalem to do it. It is still as obligatory today as it was in the days when we had our holy temple. The idea of sacrifices was that the animal is in place of you for your sins. The animal was usually used for its meat and parts, not just discarded. Today we pray three times a day to reflect the tradition of daily services in the temple. I hope that this gives you a basic understanding of the concept of sacrifices.
That sure would be news to a lot of Hebrew slaves! But (silly me), I didn’t realize that you had the authority to rewrite the Torah in such a manner, e.g., from the clear message given at Exodus 21, 20 [with some notes of mine in “square brackets”, such as these]:
If you could see me right now, you would see a tremendous sigh.
Exodus 21:2 says: “Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.”
Now look at that. Remember that a Heb. slave would always either sell himself or be sold by a father, most likely because the alternative would be to starve for the child.
What you referred to is the in Ex. 21:7. Scripture is referring [here] to a minor girl. I might think that even if she develops signs [of initial puberty, the father may sell her]. [But] you must agree that a kal vachomer [the inference of a major rule from a minor rule] applies here namely if she who is already sold goes free with signs [that is, when she has signs of initial puberty], as it is written: “she shall go out for nothing, without money” (Exod. 21:11), which we interpret as referring to the signs of initial puberty, does it not make sense that she who is not sold [and has initial signs of puberty] should not be sold [at all]? -[From Mechilta, Arachin 29a] [At the moment when a female has two pubic hairs, usually when she is twelve years old, she is no longer considered a minor. She is then called נַעִרָה. She is, however, still under her father’s jurisdiction until six months later, when her breasts have developed to a certain stage. Then she is called בּוֹגֶרֶת, a mature girl. In the case of a Hebrew maidservant,
the father may sell her only when she is a minor, not after she has become a נַעִרָה
What does “she shall not go free as the slaves go free.”??? [I.e.,]-like the emancipation of Canaanite slaves, who go free because of [the loss of] a tooth or an eye. [See below, verses 26, 27.] This one [a Hebrew maidservant], however, will not go free because of [the loss of] a tooth or an eye, but she will work for [her complete] six years or until the Jubilee year or until she develops signs [of initial puberty]. Whichever comes first will be the first [event] to effect her emancipation, and [her master] will reimburse her for the value of her eye or the value of her tooth. Or perhaps this is not so [i.e., the intention of the verse], but “she shall not go free as the [male] slaves go free” [meaning] after six years or in the Jubilee year? Therefore, the Torah states: “Should your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, be sold to you…” (Deut. 15:12). This compares the Hebrew woman to the Hebrew man in regard to all the ways he can be emancipated: just as a Hebrew man goes free following six years [of service] or in the Jubilee year,
so too does a Hebrew woman go free following six years [of service] or in the Jubilee year. What then is the meaning of “she shall not go free as the slaves go free” ? [This means] she shall not go free with [the loss of] the tips of her limbs, as do the Canaanite slaves. I might think [then] that [only a Hebrew maidservant does not go free due to the loss of the tips of her limbs, but] a Hebrew man does go free with [the loss of] the tips of his limbs. [Therefore, the Torah] compares the Hebrew man to the Hebrew woman: just as the Hebrew woman does not go free with [the loss of] the tips of her limbs, neither does the Hebrew man go free with [the loss of] the tips of his limbs. — [From Mechilta]
Regarding a father selling his daughter as a slave, some details might be worth considering. First of all, the “sale” was not really of servitude, but was a preliminary (and conditional) marriage contract. In other words, the girl would, when she grew older, likely be able to marry the “owner” in fact, this seems to have been the primary intention of the institution: to provide indigent families who lacked the socially crucial dowry funds to, nevertheless, find decent families for their daughters.
In any case, the length of the “servitude” was never longer than six years and would certainly end with her twelfth birthday (after which, if the marriage option was refused, she would become a fully free woman). In addition, the rights of the girl were sufficient to ensure that she would be most generously treated throughout.
In an imperfect world where some face poverty, this institution offered a pretty good avenue out for some, at least.
An interesting essay was this:
First of all, I would point out that contemporary Western society’s record on slavery is far from perfect: while we may not give it that name (to avoid legal conflicts and guilty feelings) it’s hard not to use these terms to describe the lives of illegal immigrants employed (and often suffering abuse) as domestics or migrant workers in the West, or those of many children in the Third World who manufacture our cheap consumer goods.
After all, these workers, for all intents and purposes, take these jobs against their will (out of desperation) and at benefits that are often, proportionately, as scandalously poor as were those paid the blacks in early 19th Century America (weren’t the black slaves at least fed and clothed?). It’s not that I’m advocating slavery in any context, I’m simply stating that the institution is alive and well in our society and actively supported by all of us.
So, assuming that it’s somehow an inseparable part of the human condition, channeling slavery towards something productive is the best one can expect.
For example, tradition teaches us that Hagar and Eliezer (the slaves of Abraham) were refined individuals with a thirst for spiritual greatness who would, nonetheless, have had no access to the mentoring and heights they both achieved without being slaves. Similarly with Tavi, a brilliant and beloved slave of the nasi, Rabbi Gamliel (who is quoted a number of times in the Talmud).
That’s not the whole story, but I hope that it suggests new directions for discussion.
Here was a comment on the essay:
Thank you for responding to my inquiry. The thrust of your answer postulates that slavery is an "inseparable part of the human condition", that the Torah sought to channel towards "something productive." [However,] it seems clear that idolatry, adultery, theft, etc.. are similarly an "inseparable part of the human condition," yet the Torah forbids such practices in no uncertain terms. would welcome and appreciate some elaboration which further explores this issue.
You are absolutely correct: adultery, theft etc., are appalling practices that are thoroughly condemned by the Torah despite the undisputable fact that they do appear throughout human history. So why didn’t the Torah similarly forbid slavery?
Perhaps, however, those examples aren’t so comparable. Maybe we could instead examine, say, the principle of private ownership (which, like slavery, the Torah does allow).
People of wealth value and defend their personal rights despite the fact that those rights can easily engender various social abuses. Wealth, for instance, has tended to remain within fairly limited and closed classes while people without means have often suffered untold indignities and want. The wealthy have the power to dominate and dictate to their workers – often in ways inimical to their best interests. Property is often used as an artificial social measuring-stick of virtue and worth; disenfranchising noble and deserving individuals (Marx wasn’t a complete fool: he did have some strong arguments, even if his practical application was malicious and, ironically, his anti-Semitism was blinding).
So private ownership almost ensures abuse. Nevertheless, it would seem that the general good is better served by the protection of private ownership than by its alternative: communism is only one practical historical example of the potential for public corruption.
In slavery, too, there is the potential for abuse, but I don’t believe that the system is intrinsically abusive (while, again, I’m certainly not advocating its use). Let’s analyze it: What, exactly, is slavery’s evil? There is, of course, the possibility that owners, in a position of tempting authority, might impose their will on their slaves through violence or some other kind of force. But that’s not a necessary outcome (at least not more so than the pain of poverty in a free market economy). Given a healthy and kind society, such cruelty could well become the rare exception.
More central to slavery, however, is the fact that a man or a woman is consigned from birth to a life of labor and poverty and that one human being’s freedom of personal choice is curtailed in favor of another’s. That is certainly a sad state, though one that, when compared to the intense sadness our own society seems to foster (at a given time, I recently read, one in ten Canadians is taking anti-depressants!), is worse only in degree rather than in kind: how many of us – even in our “free” world – have the practical ability to pick up everything on a whim and move to the tropical resort of our choice? None of us, then, is ever likely to experience true economic or social freedom (nor, perhaps, should we expect it).
However, which of slavery’s evils is actually as bad as the cruelty of adultery or the corruption of paganism? Isn’t slavery’s primary shame more similar to those found in free-market-oriented societies? And which of us would oppose the free-market?
I'm not condoning slavery, but merely comparing it to the alternatives. Remember,
No slaves were kidnaped like the USA did and other Secularists/Europeans. the Slaves would sell themselves and or a father would sell his daughter for her own financial benefit. They were different times. Try to think in the time of Ancient Israel.
Oh, that’s really sweet – especially the “education bit” – but then, again it would seem that you might be well advised to reconsider the bit about “bearing false witness.” I mean, I imagine that God HIMself would take you to task on that one, when he clearly states (at Exodus 21, 7):
Quote:
When a man sells his daughter into slavery [!], she shall not go free as a male slave may [i.e., even worse treatment for female than for male slaves]. If her master has not had intercourse with her [it was permitted?!] and she does not please him, he shall let her be ransomed [!]… If he assigns her to his son [!]…
Of course, I suppose that you could always respond to God “But, but… that’s what I meant: we’re talking here about sex education!” But you might want to watch out for what HE meant by “smiting” – I’ve heard that his thunderbolt packs a real wallop.
Wow, only if you could understand the Hebrew... I will rewrite what the passage means again. Of course since you have all the of the “answers” I doubt you would care, but you have no clue what the verse is actually referring to.
First: The obligation to treat your slave humanely applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish slave, as does the obligation to make sure they have all necessary comforts, even at the expense of their master's own comfort (e.g.,
if there are not enough pillows for all, the master must provide his slaves with pillows before himself). Same with food. The law says that you starve if there is enough food for 1 and you and your slave are hungry. Your obligated to give your food to the slave and go hungry.
Now did your western/secular “morally enlightened” society practice this when treating blacks?
Now to the passage:
What does “she shall not go free as the slaves go free.” mean??? [I.e.,]-like the emancipation of Canaanite slaves, who go free because of [the loss of] a tooth or an eye. [See below, verses 26, 27.] This one [a Hebrew maidservant], however, will not go free because of [the loss of] a tooth or an eye, but she will work for [her complete] six years or until the Jubilee year or until she develops signs [of initial puberty]. Whichever comes first will be the first [event] to effect her emancipation, and [her master] will reimburse her for the value of her eye or the value of her tooth. Or perhaps this is not so [i.e., the intention of the verse], but “she shall not go free as the [male] slaves go free” [meaning] after six years or in the Jubilee year? Therefore, the Torah states: “Should your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, be sold to you…” (Deut. 15:12). This compares the Hebrew woman to the Hebrew man in regard to all the ways he can be emancipated: just as a Hebrew man goes free following six years [of service] or in the Jubilee year, so too does a Hebrew woman go free following six years [of service] or in the Jubilee year. What then is the meaning of “she shall not go free as the slaves go free” ? [This means] she shall not go free with [the loss of] the tips of her limbs, as do the Canaanite slaves. I might think [then] that [only a Hebrew maidservant does not go free due to the loss of the tips of her limbs, but] a Hebrew man does go free with [the loss of] the tips of his limbs. [Therefore, the Torah] compares the Hebrew man to the Hebrew woman: just as the Hebrew woman does not go free with [the loss of] the tips of her limbs, neither does the Hebrew man go free with [the loss of] the tips of his limbs. — [From Mechilta]
Now of course, you will say, the “evil”, but compare to society in that time. It was “moral” in our view of society, and to tell you the truth, I will share with you a story.
My family had around 50 years ago a girl who ran away from an orphanage (17 years old). She was crying begging anyone to take here in. She was of Mexican Indian descent and the orphanage at that time would beat here etc.
My family took her in. Her name was “nelly” and she lived all of her life with us. She did chores to earn her keep, was fed, and was basically an older sibling to us. She was not Jewish, but she respected our laws, and followed them out of respect. She lived and died with my family. The point of the story is that she could have left at anytime. My family actually wanted her to become more independent, but she refused until she was completely ready. She choose to be with us. Why? Because there was nothing for her in the outside. She had no education, and she was hungry. Her parents died from disease. No why do I share this story with you?
Because she was no slave, and I would not even call her an “indentured servant”. She preferred to live with us. In that time if you did anything wrong
my dad got the belt out. Now of course, the inhumanity of such a practice, but a mere 50 years ago, it was normal to hit a child if they missed behaved with a belt. Now child rights activists are right to oppose the practice. Now does the Torah saying you can beat a slave that misbehaves mean everyone beat slaves? No! Does it say you “must” beat a slave? Of course not! The Talmud even says, that G-d sits back and allows you free will and will judge you based on how you treated your inferiors. It means that you can treat them, the same way many practiced discipline at this time. Remember this is a time
before punishments like nailing a man to wood were developed by the Romans. Think outside the box here.
The Torah outlines more of an indentured servant. They can leave after 7 years and no Hebrew children were ever kidnapped, like Americans and Europeans practiced a mere 200 years ago when enslaving blacks. When a father sold his own daughter, it meant usually he could not provide for her, or keep her. Think. At anytime, how hard it would be for a father to do such a thing. But I would if the alternative was for my daughter to starve.
What I’m wondering about is: do you really want to revise God’s words that much. I mean, sex without physical contact? I’m not sayin’ it’s not God’s way and I’m not necessarily saying it’s weird, but is it possible?! And don't forget the bit about going forth and multiplying!
Of course he can touch his wife. Remember I wrote:
“You should not touch your wife during that time.” Therefore, I am implying that you touch your wife in the first place. Again I reference you to Shomer Negiah. Did you click the link? I assume not.
That’s just an out-and-out lie! Anyone but anyone who has ever studied the Nesquire knows perfectly well that it occurs in the grophyical valid state of Yamatils Firgitsy, which always occurs much, much earlier than the Graplimtentorsat.
An outright lie? The laws cornering slaves from other nations only apply to the Land of Israel in a period when the Holy Temple is around. When no Holy Temple is around, then this is not applicable. Again you type under the assumption that the Talmud does not exist and fill in many things that the Torah alludes to.
Without the Talmud, Zohar and Midrashim… the written Torah cannot be understood and applied to life.
So I would advise you to expand your reading. Purely reading the Torah without the other Holy Seforim that fill in the lines will basically lead you to not having a bit of understanding of what the Torah is saying in many cases, and what Judaism is all about.
Pretty gutsy rav! I mean, how can you say that when the commandment clearly states
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
I mean, if he’s a “stranger”, how do you know he’s Jewish? And if your planned defense is to claim that Jewish cattle are also Jewish, then let me give you some friendly advice: wear rubber shoes – with really, really thick soles.
Simple, people in your house have to follow your rules. If you were invited to my house, I would expect you not to eat pork. That does not change the fact that the Sabbath is for Jews only.
Since you’re the Torah “expert” how about these verses (Exodus):
31:16 The Israelites shall thus keep the Sabbath, making it a day of rest for all generations, as an eternal covenant.
31:17 It is a sign between Me and the Israelites that during the six weekdays God made heaven and earth, but on Saturday, He ceased working and withdrew to the spiritual.
Read the part where it says what the sign is between. Then you hopefully your reading comprehension skills will kick in and finish the rest.
And you’re quite sure that God has approved this interpretation – or are you just making more up as you go along? Are you sure that the creator of the universe has informed the world that a person’s interactions with others is on par with one’s private activities? Wow! That’s some moral principle! So what’s your plan? Are you gonna rewrite Moses’ bit about “doing unto others”? What’s your draft version: “Do unto others as you **** well please”? Well, on second thought, maybe you otta wear one of those rubber suits.
Shrimp are water creatures which do not have fins and scales, which means they are not kosher for Jews.
“11:12 Every aquatic creature without fins and scales must be shunned by you.”
They are all laws, and in no way is homosexuality and laws on that anymore important than the dietary laws. I only mentioned that one effects one, while the other effects you and another.
What about the defect of not thinking for yourself? Duh.
Where is that in the Torah? Oh, it was a wise crack. Funny.
Now that one I can go along with: in exile from reality!
Is that a wise crack? Your funny zoro, I assume you have nothing to say, because about every reference to killing as a punishment in your “friends” letter was refuted in about 1 minute.
Now, that’s what I call really, really important information. I’m sure that you’ll gain extra points for that one. Maybe he’ll keep the voltage down to only a few billion volts.
So now that again you have been left to a mere wise crack, I shall say next.
Here, I’m afraid, God’s gonna turn the voltage up – way, way, up. As I wrote elsewhere (in my book a
Your book? You take everything about the text in a literalist fashion, do not understand the spiritual and mystical significance in many verses passing them off as the exact opposite of what they mean. I'm sorry, but more research is in order. Maybe it would be helpful for you to learn Hebrew, isntead of relying on mere translations.
Your atheistic understanding of “death” which to you means never again existing, while in the Torah’s concept it means removing from this world when someone goes to the next. Of course, you quote the Torah, but then deny all the concepts and principles the book is written on, so your entire arguments are illogical.
Well, re. “maturity level”: Nah, I’ve gone about as far as I expect I can; couple more years, now, and I’ll probably be dead (old age, doncha know).
You define your own reality zoro. Since your beliefs are that of you being eating by worms when you die, and the G-d of the Torah does not exist to you. He will not exist to you.
If your “friend” has any more questions, do ask. However, I doubt your looking for anything. Its sad. Right now your understanding of the earth and all of its wonders is that of a two year old. The best analogy I can give you is that a two year old would take a toy over a box of 1 billion dollars? Why? Because it does not understand the concepts of which is worth more… The toy has more value to the child. Yet in 20 years, the child will have wished he had taken the money.
Believe what you wish. In no way would I be so egotistical, as to impose my views on yourself.
(You know, when the Nazi SS troopers ask where the Jew is hiding, you’re supposed to tell them the truth!)
I am almost saddened by the opening, I almost wish I could expect better from you.
Rav:
