Rabbincal and Talmudic interpretation of the Torah

[Thunder]

The Torah clearly says one should not eat a kid cooked in its mother's milk. This is a very clear statemant, no ambiguety. So why interpreate it to mean "thou shalt not eat any meat with dairy during a 6 hour period"??

This goes for many other interpretations of the Torah. I know that the Rabbis decided that there were not 10 plagues in Egypt, but 50. Why? Because the Torah says that God stretched out his hand and gave the Egyptians 10 plagues. But since a hand has 5 fingers, we must multiply the 10 plagues by 5, giving us 50.

Where did the Rabbis get off making such a judgemant? Why cant something as clear as "10 plagues" be simply that...10 plagues?

I am a Jew, but I am very confused as to why we decided to accept the hundreds of years and thousands of pages of Biblical interpetration made by the Rabbis, especially when many of the things they intereprate, are clear as a bell and seem to be unrequiring of anything but the clear and literal meaning of the biblical words.

[TriskettheKid]

Uh, I'm Jewish and I'm not sure where you got some of your ideas.

Where did you get the idea that we recognize 50 plagues? To my knowledge, we recognize 10.

I mean, can you please explain some of your views to a fellow Jew? They don't seem to make any sense.

[Whack01]

Apparently if you're not logged in the forums can't track your ignore list.

Food for thought.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by parky76

I am a Jew, but I am very confused as to why we decided to accept the hundreds of years and thousands of pages of Biblical interpetration made by the Rabbis,

Are you suggesting tht there is something in your genes, being Jewish, which means you should not be confused?
And that non-jews can go right ahead and be confused?

It is not at all confusing.
Long, long ago some people wrote down some stories and various other people accepted them as true. A little less long ago, some people following in the tradition of accepting those stories as true, decided they were not quite true enough and added their own made up bits, which other people accepted as true.

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by parky76

The Torah clearly says one should not eat a kid cooked in its mother's milk. This is a very clear statemant, no ambiguety. So why interpreate it to mean "thou shalt not eat any meat with dairy during a 6 hour period"??

This goes for many other interpretations of the Torah. I know that the Rabbis decided that there were not 10 plagues in Egypt, but 50. Why? Because the Torah says that God stretched out his hand and gave the Egyptians 10 plagues. But since a hand has 5 fingers, we must multiply the 10 plagues by 5, giving us 50.

Where did the Rabbis get off making such a judgemant? Why cant something as clear as "10 plagues" be simply that...10 plagues?

I am a Jew, but I am very confused as to why we decided to accept the hundreds of years and thousands of pages of Biblical interpetration made by the Rabbis, especially when many of the things they intereprate, are clear as a bell and seem to be unrequiring of anything but the clear and literal meaning of the biblical words.

Judaism is largely based on Rabbinical interpretation, and not biblical literalism - it's just the way things have been for a long, long time. Literal interpretation is really just not a big thing in Judaism.

That's pretty much your answer right there.

[Meadmaker]

A lot of the Orthodox interpretations of Torah are based on the idea that not only can you not break the law that is written in the Torah, but you can't do anything which might take a chance of breaking the law. So, it starts out with don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk, but since when you are eating meat, you aren't really sure which beast yielded up the meat and the milk, there's always the possibility that it might be the right kid and mother. And who's to say what happens if you just boil the meat and milk separately, but add them, that some form of reaction like cooking might be happening.

Personally, I think with chicken, you could be pretty darned safe, but it's always possible that you might mistake chicken for some other meat, and accidentally eat it with dairy. And then, suppose you used a dishwasher to wash a plate with chicken on it, but it wasn't really chicken, and it stuck to the dish rack, and then ended up in another load where a different plate was washed and it stuck to the plate, and you ended up serving meat on it that was from the mother of the not-really-a-chicken. What then, eh? Jehovah (not his real name) would be fit to be tied, that's what! So, no meat with any dairy, and for the ultra-Orthodox, not only two sets of dishes, but two sets of dishwasher racks. Can't take chances, you know.

In my opinion, there's a huge dose of "holier than thou" in the interpretations, but who am I to judge?


As for the fifty plagues thing, I think that's intended to be symbolic, meaning that each plague was so terrible as to be like five plagues.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by parky76

The Torah clearly says one should not eat a kid cooked in its mother's milk. This is a very clear statemant, no ambiguety. So why interpreate it to mean "thou shalt not eat any meat with dairy during a 6 hour period"??

The usual term (in English) is "a fence around the Torah." The idea is that keeping the commandments is so important that one should also avoid behavior that might lead one to break it through mischance or inattention.

The technical term is "gezeirah." As this site puts it, "a gezeirah is a law instituted by the rabbis to prevent people from accidentally violating a Torah mitzvah. We commonly speak of a gezeirah as a "fence" around the Torah. For example, the Torah commands us not to work on Shabbat, but a gezeirah commands us not to even handle an implement that you would use to perform prohibited work (such as a pencil, money, a hammer), because someone holding the implement might forget that it was Shabbat and perform prohibited work." Milk-with-meat comes into that category.

This shouldn't be that surprising to you; anyone with any managerial experience knows you have to keep some margin in reserve against disaster. Only a bad engineer puts a 1000 pound rope in a design where it's expected to hold 1000 pounds.

[Whack01]

wait??? So it does it occur to anybody that it may be cruel to boil a mothers child in her own milk? Maybe it's a prohibition against cruelty to animals in general rather than merely eating meat ?

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by Whack01

wait??? So it does it occur to anybody that it may be cruel to boil a mothers child in her own milk? Maybe it's a prohibition against cruelty to animals in general rather than merely eating meat ?

Many people DO believe that, yes.

I know that, way back in Hebrew school, we were taught that it had just as much bearing on humane treatment of animals as it did on dietary restrictions.

[Whack01]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

Many people DO believe that, yes.

I know that, way back in Hebrew school, we were taught that it had just as much bearing on humane treatment of animals as it did on dietary restrictions.

thanks for clarifying. Pardon my use of the smiley if you found it offensively sarcastic . I've only been to a synagogue once or twice so I'm not familiar with what theologies are common in modern Judaism.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Whack01

wait??? So it does it occur to anybody that it may be cruel to boil a mothers child in her own milk? Maybe it's a prohibition against cruelty to animals in general rather than merely eating meat ?

.
Considering the kid will be dead (killed kosherly) anyway, and the mother is a goat, with all the awareness and sensitivity that goes along with goatness, there's no "cruelty" at all.
One of Richard Dawkins' comments on freedom -from- religion goes...
*
"freed from having to buy two refrigerators, lest meat and milk should meet;"
.
It is this kind of silliness, and it is silliness, that makes me wonder if anyone who accepts such commandments (and the goat thing is the 10th commandment, V2.0) as given by BSD, and not the mental noises of some addled old man well into his dotage being as nasty as he can, because he can, which these rules so obviously are.
.
A couple more from Dawkins:
*
"freed from enforced laziness on Saturdays to the point of being unable to move a light switch or lift a telephone;
freed from having to wear uncomfortable and unflattering clothes lest a flash of forbidden skin be exposed;
freed from the obligation to mutilate children too young to defend themselves."
*
ref:"Free Inquiry"
Vol 28, #3

[X]

I think the not boiling a kid in it's mothers milk thing is because that is a practice in the worship of Ba'al, a god who was in vogue at the time.

The Abrahamic religion was trying to seperate itself from other belief systems, and forbidding their practices and emphasizing certain commands/duties provided a way to differentiate the monotheist (well, becoming monotheist) Abrahamic god from it's contemporaries.

[Thunder]

well, my understanding, based on logic, is yes..there was an ancient practise of boiling a kid in its mothers milk. this is kinda disgusting and a bit disturbing.

but to take this..and turn it into "no milk and meat" is in my opinion...retarded.

if there is a God....and he saw how all his laws and guidelines have been "interpreted" and metamorphed..i think he would shake his head and collapse.

as for the 50 plagues thing...this was told to me by my orthodox jewish uncle, who for me, represents orthodox jewish law...=)

but now the question is...if i disagree with the Rabbinical decision that not eating milk and meat is the proper expression of following God's rule..does that make me a sinner?

furthermore, isnt is jewish tradition that this decision, as part of the Oral Law, is supposed to be considered as holy as the one in the Torah itself..thereby equating Rabbinical debate and interpretation with Divine rule?

[Whack01]

Originally Posted by [X]

I think the not boiling a kid in it's mothers milk thing is because that is a practice in the worship of Ba'al, a god who was in vogue at the time.

I didn't know this and a quick Google search indicates that it's probably true. It doesn't necessarily preclude the verse being a prohibition against cruelty, but it is interesting nonetheless. Anyway thanks for the info

[David Swidler]

Originally Posted by parky76

well, my understanding, based on logic, is yes..there was an ancient practise of boiling a kid in its mothers milk. this is kinda disgusting and a bit disturbing.

but to take this..and turn it into "no milk and meat" is in my opinion...retarded.

You'd be happy as a Karaite, or perhaps a Sadducee. They tend(ed) to reject Rabbinic textual interpretation, as well.

Some of the concepts below might be familiar to you (in fact you use the term "oral law" in your post), but for the benefit of those not already schooled in the basics of Jewish thought, please bear with me through this introduction.

There are any number of ways to approach the issue of why Judaism doesn't "leave well enough alone" when it comes to the literal text. The one that seems most relevant here is an exploration of the two complementary sets of Torah, i.e. Written and Oral. The written Torah is the Biblical text. The oral Torah is the corpus of subsequently recorded legal and/or moral exegetical interpretations of that text, which includes the Talmud, Midrash and a smattering of other literature (plus a comparative handful of individual points of law with no anchor in the text itself, but with a firm tradition attributed to Moses himself). Originally transmitted only orally, it was only recorded in very concise form about 1800 years ago in the Mishnah. The Talmud is mostly a record of the discussions surrounding the interpretation of the Mishnah and some related material. Most subsequent literature down to this day focuses on understanding those discussions.

The Oral Torah didn't really take off until after the last of the prophets more than 2000 years ago. With the disappearance of prophecy the importance of interpreting - even reinterpreting - the already existing material became paramount. But reinterpretation was nothing new, as the prophets themselves engaged in some, adapting the law to changing circumstances.

Not coincidentally, the same era marked a change in the cultural milieu: the ascendant Hellenistic society had made the Hebrew text available to anyone conversant in Greek, no longer the exclusive province of Jews. Aware that a text divorced from its context could give rise to all sorts of misinterpretation,
the Jewish religious leaders (the term "Rabbi" hadn't really emerged yet) focused on cultivating the complementary exegetical system that ensured that the authentic understanding of the law would remain, at least among Jews.

The normative Orthodox position holds that the oral Torah was presented to Israel at the same time as the written, but understanding exactly what that means is subject to debate: does it mean the interpretations themselves, or merely the exegetical principles behind them? Either way, the point is that what you see is not necessarily what you get in the text.

Quote:

if there is a God....and he saw how all his laws and guidelines have been "interpreted" and metamorphed..i think he would shake his head and collapse.

Well, since you're into anthropomorphism, I might counter with the image of God reveling in it (see below for more in that vein). Even without direct access to God through prophecy, the system still flourishes. I don't have ready access to a comprehensive treatment of the kid-in-milk issue right now, but IIRC the interpretation of that commandment as referring not specifically to the mother-kid cooking, but to meat and dairy in general, stems from a number of quirks in the text indicating that not all is as it seems, not the least of which is the fact that the injunction appears three separate times. In Rabbinic exegesis, repetition is one of the big signs that a simple reading of the text just won't do.

In this case, the biblical law as understood through the oral law only proscribes cooking meat and dairy, or benefiting from the cooked mixture. The "fences" that one can see today in a traditional Jewish kitchen include rabbinic decrees, such as refraining from eating even uncooked mixtures of meat and dairy (though benefit of some other sort would be fine, such as pet food, cosmetics or sale no a non-Jew); generations' worth of custom, such as waiting a certain amount of time after eating meat before eating dairy (the time varies by community); and convenience, such as separate sets of dishes for meat and dairy - while not strictly necessary, this avoids potential snafus (and in our relatively prosperous society it doesn't present such a challenge).

Quote:

as for the 50 plagues thing...this was told to me by my orthodox jewish uncle, who for me, represents orthodox jewish law...=)

The minute one starts taking cryptic statements of ancient rabbis literally, one gets into a heap of trouble. I'm not about to get into an exploration of Talmudic symbolism, but suffice it to say that numbers are a VERY important part of it.

Quote:

but now the question is...if i disagree with the Rabbinical decision that not eating milk and meat is the proper expression of following God's rule..does that make me a sinner?

Only if you choose to define yourself that way. In any relationship, does the imperfection of one of the parties mean that the other one will regard him/her as reprehensible? Sure, if you wallow in it constantly.

Quote:

furthermore, isnt is jewish tradition that this decision, as part of the Oral Law, is supposed to be considered as holy as the one in the Torah itself..thereby equating Rabbinical debate and interpretation with Divine rule?

The terms Oral Law and Rabbinic Law are moving targets. They are not necessarily congruent. The Oral Law has the same authority as the written - it's what indicates how to understand the written law, and functions as an indispensable complement. Whereas Rabbinic Law can also mean subsequent enactments by the ancient authorities (and which are not treated with the same stringency across the board as Biblical Law). It can be confusing, not least because those Rabbis are also the conduit for the Oral Law.

There's an incident in the Talmud (Bava Metzia 59b) that illustrates the counterintuitive interplay between revealed Torah and interpreted Torah (remember the warning above about taking Talmudic anecdotes at face value):

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages debated a point of law regarding the ritual purity of a certain type of oven. Rabbi Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages declared it unclean. Rabbi Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. He then said, "If the law agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!" The carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place. (Others say, four hundred cubits.) Said the Sages: "No proof can be brought from a carob-tree."

Again he said to them: "If the law agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!" Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. Said the Sages: "No proof can be brought from a stream of water."

Said Rabbi Eliezer: "If the law agrees with me, let the walls of the study hall prove it!" Whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But Rabbi Joshua rebuked them, saying: "When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have you to interfere?" Hence they did not fall, in deference to Rabbi Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in deference to Rabbi Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined.

Finally, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: "If the law is as I say, may it be proven from heaven!" There then issued a heavenly voice which proclaimed: "What do you want of Rabbi Eliezer? The law is as he says!"

Rabbi Joshua stood on his feet and said: "It [the Torah] is not in heaven!"... We take no notice of heavenly voices, since You, G-d, have already, at Sinai, written in the Torah to follow the majority.

Rabbi Nathan subsequently met Elijah the Prophet and asked him: "What did G-d do at that moment?" [Elijah] replied: "He smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me, My children have triumphed over Me!"

Leaving the symbolism of the tree, river and walls aside (WAY beyond what I thought would be a relatively short post), the idea is that the Torah itself, in several verses cited for the purpose, granted the custodians of the Torah ultimate authority to interpret and implement it - even at the "risk" of departure from the original.

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by David Swidler

There's an incident in the Talmud (Bava Metzia 59b) that illustrates the counterintuitive interplay between revealed Torah and interpreted Torah (remember the warning above about taking Talmudic anecdotes at face value):

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages debated a point of law regarding the ritual purity of a certain type of oven. Rabbi Eliezer declared it clean, and the Sages declared it unclean. Rabbi Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. He then said, "If the law agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!" The carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place. (Others say, four hundred cubits.) Said the Sages: "No proof can be brought from a carob-tree."

Again he said to them: "If the law agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!" Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards. Said the Sages: "No proof can be brought from a stream of water."

Said Rabbi Eliezer: "If the law agrees with me, let the walls of the study hall prove it!" Whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But Rabbi Joshua rebuked them, saying: "When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have you to interfere?" Hence they did not fall, in deference to Rabbi Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in deference to Rabbi Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined.

Finally, Rabbi Eliezer said to them: "If the law is as I say, may it be proven from heaven!" There then issued a heavenly voice which proclaimed: "What do you want of Rabbi Eliezer? The law is as he says!"

Rabbi Joshua stood on his feet and said: "It [the Torah] is not in heaven!"... We take no notice of heavenly voices, since You, G-d, have already, at Sinai, written in the Torah to follow the majority.

Rabbi Nathan subsequently met Elijah the Prophet and asked him: "What did G-d do at that moment?" [Elijah] replied: "He smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me, My children have triumphed over Me!"

Leaving the symbolism of the tree, river and walls aside (WAY beyond what I thought would be a relatively short post), the idea is that the Torah itself, in several verses cited for the purpose, granted the custodians of the Torah ultimate authority to interpret and implement it - even at the "risk" of departure from the original.

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou! I have been using that very story to explain interpretation of the Torah (and in some ways Judaism in general) to people for a while now, but it was such a distant memory that I had forgotten details and where to find it.

Thanks for the reminder!

[Complexity]

Haven't you guys got better things to do?

This is akin to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of pin, when no one really cares and there aren't any angels, anyway.

Some would say you aren't doing any harm by having this discussion, but I disagree - by appearing to take the topic seriously, you're perpetuating a delusion and encouraging the propagation of woo.

Shame on you.

[David Swidler]

Originally Posted by Mobyseven

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou! I have been using that very story to explain interpretation of the Torah (and in some ways Judaism in general) to people for a while now, but it was such a distant memory that I had forgotten details and where to find it.

Thanks for the reminder!

You're welcome, but Google deserves most of the credit.

[David Swidler]

Originally Posted by Complexity

Haven't you guys got better things to do?

This is akin to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of pin, when no one really cares and there aren't any angels, anyway.

Some would say you aren't doing any harm by having this discussion, but I disagree - by appearing to take the topic seriously, you're perpetuating a delusion and encouraging the propagation of woo.

Shame on you.

I've never used the Ignore feature, but I can see why it might have its merits.

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by Complexity

Haven't you guys got better things to do?

This is akin to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of pin, when no one really cares and there aren't any angels, anyway.

Some would say you aren't doing any harm by having this discussion, but I disagree - by appearing to take the topic seriously, you're perpetuating a delusion and encouraging the propagation of woo.

Shame on you.

This has nothing to do with how many angels can dance on the head of the pin. This is a discussion about how the Tanakh is interpreted in Judaism - a real book, interpreted by real people. It has real world implications.

No one here has said, "Oh, the Torah really means 'x'," or, "Rabbinical interpretation is correct because of 'x'." This discussion in no way perpetualtes a delusion or encourages the propogation of woo - indeed, it is quite like discussing the finer points of cold reading, something I'm sure we can agree is not 'propogating woo'.

[Complexity]

By all means, ignore me. I think it is a very reasonable response for someone of your peculiar beliefs - I have quite a few people on Ignore, myself.

The words in the torah have no import or meaning except to a bunch of seriously deluded people, and they are simply wrong.

I'm aware that the book is real and is interpreted by real people - I wish that it were not, but I'm certain that this flavor of delusion will continue for several thousands of more years.

This theological debate is no more interesting or of greater import than any of the rest of them. I look forward to a day when all of this is discarded and forgotten. That day will occur, but long after I am dead.

[Meadmaker]

Thanks very much to those who have provided clarification and explanation on this topic. I'm about to give my opinion on a question, and if I make any errors in doing so, I would welcome your corrections.

Originally Posted by parky76

but now the question is...if i disagree with the Rabbinical decision that not eating milk and meat is the proper expression of following God's rule..does that make me a sinner?

That depends. Do you want to be Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or one of the smaller branches of Judaism?

If you are Orthodox, then the answer is yes. If you know what the law is, as passed down by tradition, and you are a Jew, and you break the law, you are a sinner. The Orthodox sects teach that the law is the law, and it must be followed, and the Oral Torah is just as strong as the written Torah.

Conservatives also teach that the law is the law, but it must be interpreted as it applies to modern times. As such, they are a bit more tolerant of personal interpretations. They tend not to make quite such a large "fence" around the Torah. If you interpret the law in one way, I think they would say that the sincere effort to follow the law is the most important element. However, on the specific subject of Kashrut (dietary law, the adjectival form is "kosher"), Conservatives are pretty much right in line with the milk/meat thing. That was so clear and so long established, almost certainly going back to Biblical times in Israel, that there isn't much disagreement. There's some disagreement about what sort of activities may or may not be done on the Sabbath, but milk and meat is a no-no. The additional requirements, such as having two refrigerators, are pretty much ignored by Conservatives. In practice, most of the Conservative Jews that I know bend those rules quite a bit anyway.

Reform Judaism, by contrast, teaches that the law embodies certain principles, and that the Torah contains rules that were appropriate expressions of those principles for goatherders 3000 years ago. Today, you must follow the principles, but not the letter. For example, you cannot be cruel, and you are required to maintain good health. Kashrut was a pretty good set of laws for healthy eating 3000 years ago. The forbidden foods were foods likely to carry disease when not properly handled, refrigerated, or cooked. Today, it is perfectly possible to prepare pork safely, so the Reform movement says it is up to you whether to keep the tradition of Kashrut, or follow the "law" that you must do what you can to maintain good health. Reform Judaism says that each person is responsible for choosing to follow or not follow the law as written, but that the principles behind the law are timeless.

[I Ratant]

Nicely put, mead.
But over all this, is why is there so much discontent between the interpreters?
It's common in all religions, and gets too deadly too often.
Why not let those that think other than you think that way?
How does that bother you?
(generic you, of course.)

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Nicely put, mead.
But over all this, is why is there so much discontent between the interpreters?
It's common in all religions, and gets too deadly too often.
Why not let those that think other than you think that way?
How does that bother you?
(generic you, of course.)

Uh, does that really matter in a discussion of Judaism?

It wasn't until the 18th century or so that our religion really "branched" based on other interpretations.

Even then, when was the last time you read about Orthodox Jews fighting Conservative Jews or Reform Jews because of how they interpret something?

While you're thinking about that, trying thinking about the last time Catholics got involved in fighting Protestants because of their beliefs, or vice versa.

I honestly cannot recall an incident where Orthodox Jews took up arms against Reform or Conservative Jews, or anything like that.

From my standpoint, the question should be "Why is it, that after a few hundred years of differing interpretations, has there been no deadly discontent between Jews of different 'branches'?"

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Complexity

Haven't you guys got better things to do?

This is akin to arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of pin, when no one really cares and there aren't any angels, anyway.

Some would say you aren't doing any harm by having this discussion, but I disagree - by appearing to take the topic seriously, you're perpetuating a delusion and encouraging the propagation of woo.

Shame on you.

um..this is meant to be a serious topic. i am not some messianic jew or christian trying to attack judaism in a masked way.

but i can now see from your following post that you have zero respect for the Torah in anyway. so i am confused as to why you would respond to this topic at all.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by parky76

um..this is meant to be a serious topic. i am not some messianic jew or christian trying to attack judaism in a masked way.

I didn't think you were.

I don't give a damn what your reasons are for starting this discussion - I wish you hadn't, I wish you'd stop, and I hope you'll never do so again.

This religious delusion that you appear to embrace is an affront to human dignity.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

...
From my standpoint, the question should be "Why is it, that after a few hundred years of differing interpretations, has there been no deadly discontent between Jews of different 'branches'?"

.
Because the secular governments of modern countries won't permit it!
THE major blunder in the criminal excursion we are currently engaged in in the Middle East points this out succinctly!
Saddam was an equal-opportunity oppressor.
With him gone, the loonies in the Shiia and Sunni sects have gone back to what they do best, kill each other.
Turkey is one of the few Islamic countries with a strong secular government, which restrains the inter-sect violence of Islam.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Complexity

I didn't think you were.

I don't give a damn what your reasons are for starting this discussion - I wish you hadn't, I wish you'd stop, and I hope you'll never do so again.

This religious delusion that you appear to embrace is an affront to human dignity.

.
My goodness!
This IS a major response. Some nerves have been hit, directly!

[sophia8]

Presumably, Complexity, you make a regular habit of stomping onto (say) Star Trek forums and telling everybody there to forget all these delusions and get a life?

[LibraryLady]

The whole 50, 200, etc plagues debate is in the “Haggadah,” the text of the Passover dinner service (Seder).

Quote:

In Egypt it says of them, "The magicians said to Pharaoh `This is the finger of G-d.' At the sea it says, "Israel saw the great hand that the L-rd laid against Egypt; and the people feared the L-rd, and they believed in the L-rd and in His servant Moses."
Now, how often were they smitten by `the finger'? Ten plagues!
Thus you must conclude that in Egypt they were smitten by ten plagues, at the sea they were smitten by fifty plagues!
Rabbi Eliezer said: How do we know that each individual plague which the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt consisted of four plagues?

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/cgi-b...ay=pesach11101

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by I Ratant

But over all this, is why is there so much discontent between the interpreters?

Human nature. Personally, I think there will be plenty of strife over issues of a non-religious nature as governments and peoples become less religious. Most religious struggles are less about doctrine and more about who's in charge and US vs. THEM struggles. Religion was a nice, convenient way to describe who is US and who is THEM, but I'm sure we'll find another way.

It's possible that when we do so, the battles won't be so extreme, because at least those who would battle against THEM will have to justify it with some reason other than, "God said so." I'm fairly pessimistic on that point, myself, but I've been wrong before. Hopefully I will be wrong this time, too.

[Bri]

Here's the entire passage from the Haggadah from www.chabad.org:

Quote:

Rabbi Yosi the Gallilean said: How do you know that the Egyptians were stricken by ten plagues in Egypt, and then were struck by fifty plagues at the sea?

In Egypt it says of them, "The magicians said to Pharaoh `This is the finger of G-d.' At the sea it says, "Israel saw the great hand that the L-rd laid against Egypt; and the people feared the L-rd, and they believed in the L-rd and in His servant Moses."

Now, how often were they smitten by `the finger'? Ten plagues!

Thus you must conclude that in Egypt they were smitten by ten plagues, at the sea they were smitten by fifty plagues!

Rabbi Eliezer said: How do we know that each individual plague which the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt consisted of four plagues?

For it is said: "He sent against them His fierce anger, fury, and indignation, and trouble, a discharge of messengers of evil": `Fury,' is one; `Indignation,' makes two; `Trouble,' makes three; `Discharge of messengers of evil,' makes four.

Thus you must now say that in Egypt they were struck by forty plagues, and at the sea they were stricken by two hundred plagues.

Rabbi Akiva said: How do we know that each individual plague which the Holy One, blessed be He, brought upon the Egyptians in Egypt consisted of five plagues?

For it is said: "He sent against them his fierce anger, fury, and indignation, and trouble, a discharge of messengers of evil": "His fierce anger," is one; "fury," makes two; "indignation," makes three; "trouble," makes four; "discharge of messengers of evil," makes five. Thus you must now say that in Egypt they were struck by fifty plagues, and at the sea they were stricken by two hundred and fifty plagues.

From the tone of the discussion, it seems fairly evident that it wasn't really meant to be taken literally.

-Bri

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Complexity

By all means, ignore me. I think it is a very reasonable response for someone of your peculiar beliefs - I have quite a few people on Ignore, myself.

The words in the torah have no import or meaning except to a bunch of seriously deluded people, and they are simply wrong.

I'm aware that the book is real and is interpreted by real people - I wish that it were not, but I'm certain that this flavor of delusion will continue for several thousands of more years.

This theological debate is no more interesting or of greater import than any of the rest of them. I look forward to a day when all of this is discarded and forgotten. That day will occur, but long after I am dead.

I am an atheist, no qualms, no quibbles on that. I am offensive to people of religious bent who are offensive to me, especially if they are so puposefully. This thread does not meet that requirement and can be said therefore not to be offensive. If you find arguments on philosophy/religion to be not to your liking, you are free to avoid them. You are also free to be offensive - the path you have chosen. I assume you feel this is necessary to promote rationality - you are both incorrect and offensive.

[69dodge]

Originally Posted by parky76

but now the question is...if i disagree with the Rabbinical decision that not eating milk and meat is the proper expression of following God's rule..does that make me a sinner?

In some people's opinion.

But don't worry about it.

(Of course, that's just my opinion.)

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by sophia8

Presumably, Complexity, you make a regular habit of stomping onto (say) Star Trek forums and telling everybody there to forget all these delusions and get a life?

Nope. I reserve this for dangerous, foolish, and stupid beliefs.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by fuelair

I am an atheist, no qualms, no quibbles on that. I am offensive to people of religious bent who are offensive to me, especially if they are so puposefully. This thread does not meet that requirement and can be said therefore not to be offensive. If you find arguments on philosophy/religion to be not to your liking, you are free to avoid them. You are also free to be offensive - the path you have chosen. I assume you feel this is necessary to promote rationality - you are both incorrect and offensive.

I think it is time that Judaism be treated like any other religion, and I intend to treat the religions as the disgusting woo that they are.

When I hear people babbling about imaginary things as if they were real and expecting to be respected for doing so, I will correct them. The offensiveness is a slap in the face to get their attention.

I'm through with playing nice with fools.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Complexity

I think it is time that Judaism be treated like any other religion, and I intend to treat the religions as the disgusting woo that they are.

When I hear people babbling about imaginary things as if they were real and expecting to be respected for doing so, I will correct them. The offensiveness is a slap in the face to get their attention.

I'm through with playing nice with fools.

So, may I assume you go to people you see on the street, in your place of business/work, etc. if they openly talk about religion or wear clothing that indicates their religion and let them know the error of their ways?

Just curious. and, on the strictly religious points, I certainly hope all atheists treat all religions equally.

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by fuelair

So, may I assume you go to people you see on the street, in your place of business/work, etc. if they openly talk about religion or wear clothing that indicates their religion and let them know the error of their ways?

If people choose to openly talk about religion in public situations, why should only those who agree with their odd beliefs join in?

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

If people choose to openly talk about religion in public situations, why should only those who agree with their odd beliefs join in?

It's not a question of agreement, it's a question of common courtesy.

[Complexity]

Originally Posted by fuelair

So, may I assume you go to people you see on the street, in your place of business/work, etc. if they openly talk about religion or wear clothing that indicates their religion and let them know the error of their ways?

Just curious. and, on the strictly religious points, I certainly hope all atheists treat all religions equally.

I've kept my opinions to myself in those settings. I've been wrong in doing this, and hope to become more open in all settings except at work. Most of the people that I work for and with are religious and catholic. I avoid any comments on politics or religion (or much else) at work, but I will ask that conversations on those subjects not be held in my presence.

The discussions held on this forum are not in any sense private, anyone may join in, and nearly anything may be said. I won't leave the ignorant postings of purveyors of woo unanswered.

My role model is the rhino in The Gods Must Be Crazy.