Ask a Jew Part Too; Commentary

As you are commenting on Jewish Law, I will throw in my 2 cents....
"Levirate marriage," called yibum, never extended to the extent of the example in Matthew. If anyone actually understood what they were talking about, they would have been quoting from the Tractate Yevamos. which explains all of the theoretical permutations that could or could not occur regarding marriage.
The preferred method of fulfilling this commandment was called chalitzah, which is where the brother, or other relative, rejects the widow and gives up his right to marry her.
The case above would have never happened.

No. That might be preferred, but it had nothing to do with Yibum, nor was it Jewish Law.

Again. This is incorrect. That did not happen.

In theory, that would be correct. But, in practicality, that also would never happen. Chalitzah was always the preferred alternative.

 

Moishe , excuse me , but i find it hard to understand you when you come up with words like Yebum + charlizah etc but can you tell me are the obligations of a brother or other relatives in taking care/providing for the widow + any children ?

=

What is your opinion re polygamy ? Although its against the contemporary norm of Jewish law, and prohibited by the state, there are some Jews who consider it permitted in Torah .


Extract from :http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/New-Jewish-group-wants-to-restore-polygamy


Jewish Group want to restore polygamy .
"Rabbi Yehezkel Sopher, saw no legal problem in his initiative.

“This is not about secular people who abide by the rules of the state, rather religious people. Whoever wants to take another wife – the Torah does not object to it,” Sopher told The Jerusalem Post. “We work according to the Shulhan Aruch, there are rules here.”


======

Here in England case of the Rampant Rabbi received quite a bit of attention :

"He's was nicknamed the Rampant Rabbi after it was revealed he was living in Sussex with seven wives - and today Philip Sharp appeared on This Morning to explain his unusual living arrangements.

The 53-year-old, who now has six wives (one recently left the fold), and 18 children, told presenters Eamonn Holmes and Ruth Langsford why he doesn't consider his way of living 'weird'.


Agreeing to Ruth's assertion that he once said, 'God told me to have more than one wife',


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2268323/God-told-wife-Rampant-Rabbi-reveals-


Perhaps you can understand why I'm so suspicious of people who seem so certain in knowing what God commands and says . (wink)

 

Yibum is the obligation to marry one's brother's widow.
Chalitzah is the method of refusing this obligation and not marrying one's brother's widow.
These are both Commandments found in the Torah.

It is also a specific Torah Commandment to provide for orphans and widows.
One of the first obligations of Charity is to provide for orphans and widows.
There are several instances in Tanach (the "old testament") where G-d punishes the Jewish people for NOT giving Charity specifically to widows and orphans.

Polygamy is permitted in the Torah.

Rabbeinu Gershom ben Yehuda banned polygamy in the area of the community in which he was the Rabbi a little over 1,000 years ago.
The principle reason for this ban was to save Jewish lives. Christianity banned polygamy and Jews in the Christian world were liable to be killed if they had more than one wife.
This ban was eventually accepted by all European (Ashkenazi) Jews.
Sephardic Jews, living under the Muslim Empires where polygamy was allowed, never accepted this ban. However, circumstances between the two groups eventually led most Sephardic Jews to not have more than one wife however, the ban was not Jewish Law for the Sephardim.

 

God has never spoken direct to me - so I cant swear what He commands , Anecdotally it seems that you've might have been listening to a god -imposter (wink)

See this :
In Luke chapter one, verses 36 and 41, we are told that Elisabeth conceived a "son" and that the "babe" leaped in her womb. God does not say that a "fetus" leaped in her womb! He says THE BABE leaped. This is the exact same word that God uses to describe Christ in the manger AFTER He is born (Luke 2:12, 16). In God eyes, an unborn babe and a newborn babe are the same. They are both living human beings!
----
In Matthew 7:12, the Lord Jesus Christ said, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets
===


There's a helluva lot more here :

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/abortion.html
==

N.B. - I'm - a neutral sitting on the fence.- NOT a bible believer (wink)

 

Conception is not the beginning of the life of a human. In order for a human to "have a life", the human first must exist and also this human must be alive.

When a person dies, their life does not exist anymore. They are no longer "alive"

How can a human that does not exist be "alive" ?

The process of creation of a human is not a human nor is it the life of a human. A human has to exist and be alive to have a life.

The process of creation represents the "potential" that a human might be created and become alive.

There is a difference between God killing all the people and God commanding the Israelites to kill all the people.

We know the global flood did not happen in any case.

What difference does it make whether or not abortion is incidental. Are you now claiming that God was not aware of collatoral damage ?

If God was aware of the collatoral damage then obviously God does not attach much value to the Fetus. If God did attach value to the Fetus then the collatoral damage could easily be avoided.

If a fetus is "intentionally killed" then it is equivalent to abortion. Either it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus or it is not.

 

The deception is your self deception.

It is beyond absurd (madness even) to think that a command to kill all women who have been with a man was not intended to include pregnant women.
It is beyond absurd to think that entire towns consisting of thousands of women did not have any pregnant women.

The definition of abortion is the intentional killing of a fetus. When you kill a pregnant woman, unless you are mad or a complete idiot, you are intentionally killing the fetus as you know the fetus will die.

I do not think that God is an idiot. Do you ?

 

Luke is a human being writing to a gentile audience in the beginning of the 2cnd century. God is not saying anything in this passage. That a fetus kicks in the womb is not suprising. We have no clue from this passage what God's view on abortion in the early stages is from this passage.

In the Matt passage Jesus is talking about relations between living humans. The single cell at conception is not a living human.

 

I presume you've not bothered to follow the link I've posted and actually read/ think about the many other biblical quotes.

I wonder why -

nevermind , here it is again :


http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/abortion.html


...

 

Your first two quotes were easily refuted. If you have a better quote from the Bible that you think is "then hammer" then post it.

In fact I did read the silly stuff in the link. The "I knew you in the womb" passage is merely stating that God had plans for certain people. There simply is nothing other than wishful thinking in any of the quotes.

If you can't manage to post a quote that has merit, why on earth would you expect me to post and refute every frivolous allegation from your link ? This is mindless tripe. Either post something that you think has merit or admit that the Bible really does not have any legitimate condemnation of abortion.

Considering God actually commands abortion in the Mosaic Laws "Numbers 5" and commands the killing of pregnant women (women who had lain with men) it can hardly be claimed that God has any special regard for fetuses.

If the fetus was of value to God (as was likely the case for some of the prophets for which he had special plans) then why would he kill them when they are completely innocent of sin ?

 

i

Giftdone , I wouldnt pretend being an expert on this $hit but going back on this thread - you claimed that yr god commanded abortions , if so can you back up yr claim - produce whatever you can - as evidence ?

 

Giftdone - I've check what you said Numbers 5 and find this :

"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5&version=NIV

First of all may I once again remind you - I'm no theologian nore do I believe the bible to be the word of any sort of god.

But having read what you pathetically trying to pass off a evidence , I repost it here and perhaps you can explain it to me - in plain English.

"
Numbers 5

New International Version (NIV)


The Purity of the Camp

5 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Command the Israelites to send away from the camp anyone who has a defiling skin disease[a] or a discharge of any kind, or who is ceremonially unclean because of a dead body. 3 Send away male and female alike; send them outside the camp so they will not defile their camp, where I dwell among them.” 4 The Israelites did so; they sent them outside the camp. They did just as the Lord had instructed Moses.

Restitution for Wrongs

5 The Lord said to Moses, 6 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Any man or woman who wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the Lord is guilty 7 and must confess the sin they have committed. They must make full restitution for the wrong they have done, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the person they have wronged. 8 But if that person has no close relative to whom restitution can be made for the wrong, the restitution belongs to the Lord and must be given to the priest, along with the ram with which atonement is made for the wrongdoer. 9 All the sacred contributions the Israelites bring to a priest will belong to him. 10 Sacred things belong to their owners, but what they give to the priest will belong to the priest.’”

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the Lord said to Moses,
12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him
13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act)
14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—
15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[c] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord.
17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water.
18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse.
19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.
20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”—
21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell.
22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water.
24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her.
25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar.
26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water
. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband,
30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her.
31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

----


Where does it say that your god commands abortions ? or am I using the wrong version of the bibble ? (wink)

 

For the most part we do know much how well the traditions such as the Yavamot were adhered to back in the days of Israelites. Obviously if a woman's husband dies someone would have to take care of here and the brother/ family is the obvious choice.

Many of these laws came out of necessity and others from superstition.

What we do know, both from the Bible and the archaeology, is that the Israelites spent most of their time worshiping many Gods and did not have much time or regard for YHWH. In fact the God of Abraham was El.

It was not until after the Babylonian Captivity that the Jews adopted monotheism and this was due to the influence of the Persians (Zoroastrian Monotheism)

 

Just go back a few pages in the thread as that was the context of the discussion.

 

sorry , I'm not in a mood for searching troughout this thread - its not important to me - but if you feel you 've got some sort of point to prove , thenby all means , tell me the page and Post numbers.

 

Giftdone you might also wish to considerb this :

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/atonism-article



But I think that as the "Hebrews " had contact with Egypt long before the contact with Zorastrianism, its IMO more likely that they had some sort of belief in monotheism before the fled Egypt with enough stolen gold to caste into a Golden Calf . How else
would runaway slaves have possessed so much gold. ? (wink)

....

 

1. Yes it is
2. An unborn child exists and is alive.

They are also not in a woman's womb either,as far as I know. Point ?

In that case,the process of creation is called having sex,(lol) and once that life is created, it stays alive until it is dead.

In either case, nether refer to consciously and intentionally terminating a human pregnancy. In one case it simply means wiping out All of mankind and the other case it means, genocide.

For example,I wouldn't say that the flood story is about God intentionally terminating a human pregnancy and I wouldn't say that God commanding the Israelites to kill all the people was about intentionally terminating a human pregnancy. Do you see how silly that is ?

Is there a point to this comment or are you saying that we do know that God did command genocide ? You are a little pick and choosy ...

I see you wasted no time watching wolverines silly little video.. The difference is that abortion IS NOT "collateral damage." LOL !!!

...and no, I don't think it could easily be avoided in a wartime situation in which a 'possibly' pregnant woman were to be killed, get real.

I can't argue with that.

 

When you kill a "mother with child" you are killing a mother and Child, let's just call it double murder. Scott Peterson got charged with double murder for doing this very thing. Case closed

 

OK ... 1. "yes it is" is not an argument that supports your premise nor is it a refutation to anything I have said.

2."An unborn child exists and is alive" Is just restating your premise and is not an argument that supports your premise nor is it a refutation to anything I have said.

Do you have any support at all for your premise or are you just going to continue restating it and pretending that doing so is not a logical fallacy.

If can not support your premise nor refute valid arguments against your premise then perhaps you should reconsider your premise.

 

Good .. glad you figured out that when you kill a pregnant woman that the fetus dies as well.

The next step is to figure out why God would kill an innocent Fetus when his law is that children are not to be killed for the crimes of their parents.

Answer: The fetus is not a child.

The next step in the process is to ask yourself why God would kill a fetus.

 

..................

 

Cuz, from a legal point, the mother chose to carry the child. Giving it a different status. Right or wrong, that is the difference. And that is the law.

 

The passage in Numbers is part of Mosaic law which is considered to be given by God.

If a man suspects his wife has committed adultery she undergoes a ritual where she drinks a potion that, if the woman has been unfaithful causes an abortion. (womb miscarries in the above passage)

Drinking a potion that causes the womb to miscarry is an induced abortion.

 

I have given you arguments and you completely ignored them.

Here is the structure of an argument

1) Premise or Proposition
2) rational that supports coming to that conclusion

My premise is that you have presented no valid argument that supports your conclusion. My rational is given in the previous post.

Where is your argument ?

 

I do not doubt that there was a short period of monotheism when Moses brought the people out of Egypt. Akhenaten introduced the concept in Egypt but after a short time the Egyptians revolted.

The cult of Akhenated had to escape and Moses was likely a leader of this cult.

It did not take long for the people following Moses to go back to their old traditions of worshiping El and Asherah ( represented by the Bull)

When Moses went up the mountain for a short time the people immediately made a Golden Calf.

What is perhaps even more startling is the it was Moses's brother Aaron that orchestrated the whole event.

Obviously Aaron was not as convinced of the power of YHWH as Moses.