Religion

One of the things I was taught in Sunday School was that none of us is worthy of Heaven, but any of us can go to heaven if we accept God's grace. The rules that Judaism had built up at that time were superseded by the "Love one another as you would love yourself" rule. Unfortunately people are so perverse we don't even always love ourselves.

It is my firm belief that God created us to be company for Him. Before us he only had servants and the animals, and they aren't half as much fun as people.

...

Actually, both holy days and dietary laws seem VERY relevant today From where I sit, they were originally meant to keep people healthy physically (by eating wholesome food) and mentally (mandatory days of rest to keep people from being worked to death).

I remember envying the strictly religious Jewish families, because for them every Friday night was a mini-holiday and every Saturday was a time to spend with familiy or in meditation (or both). No excuses!

Mowgli, I concur whole heartedly with you. The reason religion has lasted so long is because it works for us. Most of the "major" religions have allowed local customs to be incorporated into the holy days, if they have a really big benefit they have spread beyond the confines of particular religions. Sometimes the local customs have bent the religion beyond recognition.

Recently it was reported that a business in the Twin cities (Minnesota's biggest metropolitan area) was expanding, it was a kosher grocery store and they were seeing plenty of business from people who weren't Jewish or Muslim but who had discovered they liked kosher better, apparently even Coke is better when it is kosher.

I had the privledge of working at a kosher egg plant, we got to shut the place down every Friday afternoon and that was such a blessing. I get my days off now but never the same days off each week so I might as well not exist if I don't tell people I'm not at work. This can be advantageous but I can't believe all of the things I miss.

edit: missed a punctuation mark.

The original quote would be better translated as "Do not do unto your friend what is hated unto you." Basically, don't treat others as you would not like others to treat you.

As for the examples you brought, I would act in the exactly the same manner. If someone envited me for dinner, and I know that that someone does not keep the Kashrut laws, then I would politely refuse. If pressed, I would explain my reason as reasonably as possible. Respecting your fellows does not mean that you must go against the laws you have set to yourself. The same with the handshake, really.

Explain, do so politely and reasonably, and if the other fellow still takes offense, then he is not willing to respect you, in my opinion. If my friend or relative is insulted by the way I feel I must live, then as unfortunate as that is, I won't go out of my way to change myself to fit his needs.

Can't read the minds of those Israelis that are not Jews, being a Jewish Israeli. As a Jewish Israeli, though, I can't say I rightly care if non-Jews live here or not. I'm not bothered by non-Jews living here. Me thinking I should be here doesn't mean that other folks shouldn't. Live and let live, is my way of life. Let other people live their life and let me live mine, be they Jews or not.

A common mistake, actually. Judaism does have a concept of Hell, though the stay is temporary, and the concept may be indeed equated to the Christian one of Purgatory than with anything else. There's Avadon, though. The word translates roughly as 'doom', though 'nothingness' is far more fitting. That's the end for those who have went, as they say, above and beyond the call of duty in being very nasty people indeed.

Their end is nothing. An endless existence of nothing.


There's been plenty of arguments regarding all of this, mind, and if I said that everyone has the same view on these things, then I would be lying through my teeth. The concept of Avadon, for example, is not that widely known. Nor is, for that matter, what is exactly Hell in Judaism. The suffering is certainly not a physical one, though. In fact, I believe that the closest and truest thing that anyone ever came to describing said Hell would be Pratchett, in what Mr. Tulip's soul had to go through after his death.

No, it isn't. As I said, said Chosen-ness is a burden. It means that for Jews it's more difficult, not easier. Jews need the Sabbath, more as a comfort than as anything else. The duty of Jews, according to Judaism, is to bring holiness to the world. Nothing more, nothing less. And, like priests, it means that one has more duties. It doesn't mean that one is better than others, merely that one has a much easier way to get lower.

Possibly, though as I said, Judaism is viewed as a burden. Why would I want to weigh someone with a burden if he does not need it? That's why if someone wishes to become Jewish, those he turns to have to make sure that he's really, [i:3dcb8c78b1]really[/i:3dcb8c78b1] sure. He then has a year of learning about Judasim, and during all this time he can still, as it were, bail out. For a Jew, the path to Heaven is not easier. It is much, much more difficult.

That was stupidity on the councelor's part, and ignorance. You find ignorance everywhere. Judaism never thought in that way, and that sort of thinking has it's roots in Christianity, not in Judaism. A psychological self-defence on the counselor's part, perhaps. You console yourself after being told by various folks that only Christians go to Heaven by telling yourself that they won't, while you will.

Exile mentality. How I hate it.

This reminds me of the time when Israel was under Roman rule. The Roman Senate had several interesting discussions regarding Judaism, apparently. We were lazy, you see. A whole day wasted! And even the animals had to rest! The Senate believed that these sick-minded views would spread, to the point that even slaves would demand such things. Those discussions were the beginning of the end, as far as what little remained of the Jewish state was concerned.

The irony is that those that came before the Romans were quite fondly remembered. All mentions of Alexander in Jewish texts speak highly of him. Very highly, even. Apparently, after he conquered Israel, he was approached by a group of people that demanded of him to destroy the Temple, and all that remained of the 'outmoded and outdated' Jewish faith.

Alexander then proceeded to give the High Priest the outmost respect, and then killed all those folks that demanded said destruction of him, before proceeding onwards in his conquest. If only his successors were anything like him...

A slight aside on the nature of the bible being outmoded...

I was watching 30 Days that Morgan Spurlock series where he gets people to confront their issues for 30 days... Anywhooo, the one the other night had this deeply religious mid-20s guy who thought homosexualty was a sin so he was sent to live with a gay man in the Castro, San Francisco to see the opposite point of view.

His main support for his opinion that homosexualtiy is evil and a sin comes from Leviticus, which states that for a man to lie with a man is an abomination, but it also describes under what circumstances a man can have sex with slaves, own slaves (apparently is they are brought from a neighbouring coutry its OK then) and sell slaves... oh and that poisoning the well is bad too.

How can you choose to scrap some of it but not all of it just because some doesn't fit anymore but people choose to think that other bits should still apply. Its the buffet style of religion choose the bits that suit your world view the best. I personally don't like oysters and won't eat them from the buffet it doesn't make me a Muslim even though shellfish is haram...

Sorry, I am having computer mouse problems and it is too difficult to quote:

Roman, about the handshake: So if a black person were to offer me a hand, and I were to say, "Sorry, I don't touch black people; my religion says you're dirty," and the black person were to get offended, it would be HIS fault for not understanding ME.

I don't see how religion can be used as an excuse to justify blatant sexism. And I can't accept a tradition that treats menstruation--a natural process that affects all women--as unclean (meaning that for a large portion of her life every women is unclean), when it weren't for menstruation, there wouldn't be any MEN.

Then there is the way that Orthodox synagogues and public events are segregated, so that women usually have to sit in the back. They way that a man isn't allowed to look a woman he is not related to in the eye. The way that a woman is supposed to keep her voice low, so that she will not use it to "tempt" men. The way that married women have to cover their heads so that her hair shouldn't tempt a man into committing adultery with her. The way that women have to cover their wrists and ankles, no matter what the weather, or what she happens to be doing or how she will be most comfortable--because the sole purpose of a woman's body is to arouse and please men (and make babies).


Tamyra-- the idea that kosher food is healthier has been used by some to justify kashrut via "scientific principles." People who eat kosher do so for religious or traditional reasons. The good thing about Kosher meat is that diseased animals aren't allowed to be used for food, but I would hope that most governments prevent that, anyway. (You're probably safer eating kosher food in a country that doesn't have strong food regulations.) Kosher meat is salted to removed traces of blood, so it has a higher salt concentration than non-kosher meat, which makes it less healthy for anyone concerned with his or her blood pressure.

There is also a controversy about the fact that kosher animals are not sedated before slaughter. This doesn't have to do with pain, as the animals are killed quickly in single stroke and the nerve from the brain to the spinal cord is cut, so they don't feel pain when they're killed. However, modern slaughterhouses create terrifying experiences on the way to slaughter--having cows hang upside down on conveyer belts, etc.--and it has been argued that it is inhumane to not allow them to be sedated when this is going on. For this reason, many animal rights supporters strongly oppose eating kosher meat. (My grandfather and great uncle were kosher butchers, by the way.)

Tamyra, I'm not sure what you mean about kosher and non-kosher Coca Cola, I'm pretty sure Coca Cola is kosher--are you using it as a generic term for all types of soda/pop/fizzy drinks? They are all unhealthy.

Spiky - the reason that people "pick and choose" parts of their religion is because as time goes on, people learn more and their ideas change, and religion evolves as society evolves. The same way that I can support the US Constitution and the American government without having to support slavery, even though that was a part of the Constitution.

Your analogy is at fault. You know it, I know it, and yet you use it anyway. Perhaps you don't think it's wrong. Perhaps it's due to your Americanity (is that even a word?).

Like it or not, men are different than women. Their bodies are not the same, they do not work the same, and in some cases, what the bodies do makes them unclean, as far as Judaism is concerned.

With women it's menstruation, 'Nida'.

With men, it's 'Kri Layla', and 'Tum'at Zev'. The first involves semen coming out when one's sleeping. The second involves urethral secretion. The first involves a dip in a Mikve. The second applies as long as there's urethral secretion.

These are differences in laws of purity based on the differences between the bodies. You can't apply a law which can only apply to a woman, to a man, and vice versa.


But I'm guessing you didn't know the laws I just mentioned, or just considered them less important. Did you know that menstruation, 'Nida', is also known as 'Tum'at Ziva'?

In fact, this law of purity is in fact the same law, with changes with regards to the way the male body is different from the female body.

edit: Code.

Jewish days start at night. Specifically, once you see three stars in the sky, you can pray the evening prayer. Once you can do that, the new day begins. As such, the holy day begins at night, and ends at the subsequent night. So it is, in fact, a law to have a holy day. As for meat, I'm not sure I'm getting you there.

Well, it's a bit different in Judaism. Allow me to list the seven days of the Jewish week:

First Day
Second Day
Third Day
Fourth Day
Fifth Day
Sixth Day
Sabbath.

And on the seventh day, He rested.

..wow, I don't think I've ever been quoted this much in my life! I feel like George W. Bush!...

Roman, thanks for the many clearing-ups regarding Judaism! Sorry for the prosaic comparison, but you're the closest to the "horse's mouth" that this board has on this topic. I'm glad you're here!

Marcia, likewise - I didn't know about the dangers of high salt content in kosher food And I was always under the impression that kosherly-slaughtered animals had an easier time of it than the non-kosher counterparts. If I remember correctly, the painless-slaughter also had a human-health reason behind it - supposedly, when an animal is frightened or hurt shortly before death, its meat becomes saturated with something (adrenaline? endorphines? sorry, I'm getting increasingly clueless) that makes for poor eating afterwards. Apparently, the kashrut laws didn't anticipate the whole hanging-upside-down-before-being-slaughtered process...

I also don't think you should mix the idea of "uncleanliness" during menstruation with the general notion of segregating and covering-up of women. I'm guessing - Roman, what do you think? - that, just like kashrut, the body-secretion-related laws were made out of sanitary concerns rather than with intention to humiliate menstruatng women. My guess is the whole "impurity" thing was created to descourage men from sleeping with their menstruating wives - which would have been messy, painful and potentially dangerous in a place with few ways to prevent/treat infections. Same reason why, for example, American Indians used to send women to the "menstrual huts", away from their husbands, where they could spend their menstrual cycle unmolested.

(As for the whole cover-your-ankles-and-elbows-lest-you-tempt-a-man-away-from-his-studies... Yeah, I have a huge problem with that . But -again, correct me if I'm wrong - that's not part of Torah's original text. That's just the good old patriarchal mentality reasserting itself - "It's not MY fault for wanting this woman - she TEMPTED me into it!". And it''s not specifically Jewish - you see this crap in every male-dominated culture )

Rinso, I'm guessing that the choosing of Saturday over a Friday or a Sunday is pretty arbitrary... Perhaps the Muslims and the Christians went with altnerate days (rather than Saturdays) to differentiate themselves from the Jews

Yeah but that assumes that Monday is the First Day, when on many calendars, Sunday is the first day of the week making Saturday the day he rested... But seemingas how days of the week aren't mentioned, they are just counting from when God started creating maybe God had a long weekend and had Monday off, started creating on Tuesday and thus did a long working week and worked on Saturday and Sudnay to get the next Monday off...

My point is that its arbitrary and a result of tradition rather than biblical fact...

On the food front. The food preparation standards of Kosher and Halal food makes perfect sense if you consider that they were designed to provide healthy disease free meat and vegetables food stuffs hundreds of years ago, when there was no refrigeration or knowledge of bacteria. In these circumstances it makes perfect sense. Now they are outmoded food preparation methods but form part of a religious way of life which keeps the practices alive...

And you can debate the humanity of hanging a cow upside down and slitting its throat and letting the blood drain, while its still alive (as is the halal method) as opposed to the non-halal method that just kills the beasts as quickly as possible, but with no prayers and without facing mecca. I'm not familiar with what they do to animals in Kosher preparation...

I'm not anti-halal or kosher, food practices are one of the distinctive features of any culture and religion is often indelibly linked to a culture as well. So taking out the religious-based food practices can affect the identity of people within a culture. So its not the 'wrong' way of doing things. Its just different.

Many languages have 'Saturday' as some version of the word 'Sabbath'. As for Sunday... eventually Christians wanted to distance themselves from the Jews. Plus before Constantine was Christian he was a follower of Mithras which held it's holy day on Sunday...

Heh - then for all we know, early Christians likewise celebrated their holy day on the Saturday, until they had to confirm to Constantine's standard

I cannot begin to describe how bothered I am by this.

I remember the priest who tought us theology back in school. I had asked him why can't women don the cloth, and he said that one religious garment was symbolising the souls a priest had to answer for when he died, and that it was too much of a burden and us women don't really want it. It was the first time I was conscious of my religion unravelling for me. My religion's origins would have been unravelled by this post, only I am way too old and disillusioned for anything to surprise me.


God is omnicognisant. So, he can see through each and every one of us, the deepest crevises of our souls. You really think that if you become "a nation of priests", this will automatically improve God's opinion for the rest of us?

And what about the accountability of us, non-Jews? From the moment we reach adulthood we are responsible for our mistakes. If I fell off a stool twenty five years ago and hurt myself, my parents would be liable to prosecution. If I fall off a chair now, I'm a clumsy oaf who ought to have been more careful. How is being responsible for our sins any different? Give the rest of the world some credit! When *we* screw up, it is *us* that screw up. You don't feature anywhere in this picture.

Roman, if you want to spend your life seeing spaghetti bolognese with parmesane on top as an abomination and blow torching pots and pans, do so, but do it for yourself. This "oh, I am an observant follower of the Talmud and I do not touch anything unclean so that the rest of the world can go on eating pork and have pony tails and bikini swimsuits" is demeaning to both the rest of the world and to God himself.

Plus, it makes you sound like a self-righteous passive-aggressive.

Let's take a look at the Gemara, shall we? Masechet Sucah, to be specific. It would appear that at first, the segregation was in a manner that the women sat below, and the men above.

Men being damnfools who think too much about sex, this didn't work out.

So, the women were placed above, and the men below. This worked.


So, let's consider the... synagouge, for example. You come there to pray. Not to socialize, nor to look at the pretty women. To pray. And do you know how difficult it is to truly pray? How many distractions there are? That a true prayer is when one focuses is mind only on the prayer, and on nothing else.

Now, let's say there's no segregation. Let's put in a few teenage youths, male and female, amoung the praying crowd.

Are you seriously going to tell me that this is not a problematic situation? That instead of thinking of what they came there to think, some are going to think of something completely different?


So, we segregate, so that that thoughts that really have no place there and then are less likely to occur. Men above and women below didn't work out. Women above and men below did.

Is it me, or does it look like the whole idea here was to fight some inherent male idiocy?

Never heard of it until now.

Oh dear. Well, allow me to begin that women do not need to cover their wrists, and I haven't the foggiest idea where you took that from. Perhaps the word you're looking for is 'elbow'? While there are several opinions on whether more should be covered, the majority of the adjudicators said from shoulder to elbow, and we follow the majority.

Now, according to the Talmud, a woman's lower legs are considered intimate. As you may have noticed, the average male does indeed make note of a woman's legs, along with other various bits.

So, again we're trying to prevent stupid males from thinking about sex all the time. As we can't poke out every the eyes of every man, and nor can we hypnotize him so as to avert his eyes from any bits that catch his eye, we ask women that said bits be covered.

Pity the foolish sex-crazed male.


As for the woman's body being solely for arousal and baby-making... Bleh. That's just a stupid comment, and naught else.

*bows* My thanks.

Not quite. In fact, you'll find as many physicians who agree with you as you will who disagree. In truth, that argument first came to pass by a Jewish group that dubbed itself the Scholar Movement. It sought to become a valid member of the society around them, and decided that the outmoded and outdated traditions were keeping them back. This is exactly the argument they used, that as our ancestors didn't know how to deal with food all too well, they needed special laws to make sure that what they ate was healthy, and as we know better now, we don't need them anymore.

Kashrut is a spiritual matter, really.

You think we're responsible for your mistakes? Bless me, no. That sort of thing's for the Christians that want it. You think we're responsible for your sins? That if you fuck up in any way that it's us that are accountable?

The way *we* live our lives does not affect His opinions on the way *you* live your lives. You obviously missed the bit when I said "SETTING AN EXAMPLE". That means trying your outmost to live a good life, having a shitload of laws to MAKE SURE that you live a good life, so maybe, *just* maybe, some of the folks living around you improve their lives too.

In any case, *I* don't live a good life for anyone's sake. Judaism has long failed in that particular aspect, which is why we are in exile by the way. So, these days, we just live our lives as best as we can, because we feel we should.

Women get the short end of the stick then, don't they? I mean, they are compensating for the male's inability to concentrate on what he is supposed to be doing.

I didn't say that it should be phased out just because it has been superceded because of modern cooking methods. Thats some internal Jewish argument... I was referring to the food technology side of things where it has be shown that the Kosher and Halal cooking preparation methods suited non-refrigerated and invisible monster times in germ understanding of food.

But they are still valid cooking methods that define a culture and a religion, making them equally as important as any other practice that a religion must follow.

I thought I should elaborate as your reply seemed very defencive...

I'm not even going to go near how religions treat women cos I'll only get angry and its too late at night for that kind of ancst.

I think the caveat here needs to be *Men like to think they are distracting to women*

We can multi task though so the amount of distraction is kept to a minimum and then only if its a really hot bloke, eg Brad Pitt. The rest of you fellas will just have to live with your inability to distract the opposite sex...

Although its true that the assumption is that men are incapable of not being distracted by women in these rules... eg in Islam the women must pray behind the men in the mosque as men will be tempted to sin by the sight of a woman during prayers... I've been to church and I've never been tempted to sin inside a church ever. Its like washing in my own toenails, theres something icky about it.

That may be true, but as I said, not everyone agrees with that conclusion. It may fit, and it may not. Kashrut certainly limits food that could be quite healthy, be it the animals themselves or specific sections.

It's a maybe.

Thanks. And knowing my lack of ability to put my thoughts to words properly, it probably was.

Almost, but not quite. The assumption is that an individual *might* be distracted, and that in a large group of men, at least one *will* be. Thus, he is thinking of something he shouldn't be thinking about during prayer, and the list of what you shouldn't think about during prayer includes most anything, including your laundry or the state of your bank account.

Prayer is not all that easy.

Marcia, apparently kosher Coke is made with sugar, not high fructose corn syrup, its the "Real Thing".

Roman_K, Lots of dietary laws do have good practical and still applicable reasons, including the reason of setting the Jews appart from the rest of the world. I have been lead to believe that many of them stem from a line in Deuteronomy, "Do not seethe a kid in its mothers milk". When you put it that way I can see why you would forego cheeseburgers.

Roman, as a soldier yourself wouldn't you agree that segregation doesn't limit thoughts of sex?

From that particular line only the laws regarding meat and dairy products stem.

It all depends on the circumstances, really. It's not that sex is a bad thing that shouldn't be thought of, it's just that there's a time and a place, and in the case of some times and places, it shouldn't.

Segregation doesn't fully work, but it limits.

To begin with, I am a physician and I tell you that kashrut (and halal) laws make perfect sense in the context of a desert nomadic tribe that has no refrigerators, dish-washing fluids, water heaters, dish washers, pasteurisation or even antibiotics. And in my every day practice the fact that I cannot convince people with high cholesterole to watch their diet whereas the very same people observe the Lent faithfully has been a constant sourse of aggravation.

About the head cover thing Marcia has mentioned. A friend had gone to Paris for an international convention in psychiatrics and she was surprised that so many Israeli colleagues were wearing wigs.

"Is breast cancer so rampant in Israel?" she asked another colleague.
"No, they cover their hair so that they do not tempt men" was the answer.

In Genesis, Chapter 16, Sar'ai gives her slave, Hagar, to Abram because she cannot have children.
A woman can be divorced by her husband without receiving her kethuboth (a kind of alimony) if she has a bad breath, a mole, her voice is too loud, her breasts are too spaced and has a scar from a dog bite.
If a man has sinned, his wife will be raped by his neighbour in broad daylight, according to 2 Samuel 12:11
Leviticus 27:1-7 gives exact numbers for how much men, women and children are worth depending on age. Females are always worth less than males.
Leviticus 12:1-5 says a woman is unclean for seven days after childbirth if the child is a boy, twice as long if the child is a girl
According to Numbers 30:12, a woman's vows and promises become void if her husband does not approve of them, therefore they cannot bear witness.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 says a woman cannot be raped in the city because she would have cried out and heard, therefore she should be put to death.
It is infinately better to be a slave in such a case, because according to Leviticus 19:20 a raped slave is not put to death.

More on how Judaism is most definately not God's gift to women on this link

Roman, you are a good fellow. This is why you, personally, would never restrict a woman just because you are a "sex-crazed male". That doesn't mean that others don't use religion, any religion, to oppress women.

And I have had enough of men being liable to stoop to folly, because they are weak to the temptations of the flesh! Women are made of flesh as well and fully capable of impure thoughts. In fact, I just had one! And there goes another one! And I am sure I'll have more during the day :roll:

As for the segregation of sexes during mass, is something Christians do as well and let me tell you, while it does sort of work when it comes to getting horny, it does not stop any other impure thoughts such as gossiping on who came in early and who came in late, who wore what, who made the biggest contribution, who looks more pious etc.

The madness of taking the "laws" laid down in some of these books - especially Exodus and Leviticus - as absolutely holy writ, is summed up in this well known spoof letter to George Dubya.

Yes, that she does. Once you find me where it says she went unwillingly, kindly point it out. Also, as slavery no longer exists, neither is this argument relevant.

'SIGH'

Avgi, Avgi, Avgi, when one quotes religious texts, one should quote the ORIGIN, not the DISCOURCES AND INTERPETATION. Because, if one does the latter before doing the former, one causes unnececary confusion or, quite frankly, misleads people.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_72.html

Note the second paragrph. Now, let's read the text, shall we? If my reading comprehension hasn't suffered, it would seem that if the betrothal was conditioned on the woman having no physical defects, which would mean that it was part of the marriage contract, then the man may divorce her without returning the kethubah.

The discourses you opened are interpetations on what said defects might be. We may also note that each of these are opinions of individuals. High-ranking individuals, but still individuals. The actual law took their opinions into consideration, but it mostly required a vast majority's agreement for them to be counted as such.

So, we have a marriage contract in which the physical defects were noted specifically. Who said such contracts were common? So, we have here a contract clause for a vain man who specifically wants to marry only a pretty and unblemished wife. Not, as Avgi inferred, for all contracts and all women.

Context, context, context!

Those still with us, kindly open Samuel 2 12:11. You will find the Lord speaking most harshly to King David for sending his friend to certain death, and taking his wife as his own which is why, in fact, he sent said friend to certain death.

If someone were to quote from an English Bible here, from verse 7 to 11, I would be grateful. It takes too long to translate it from the Hebrew.

Avgi? Figurative speech. Threats to make a man repent and understand how bad what he did was.

Not their worth, silly, but what their sacrifice should be worth. Judaism has this thing about women being slightly holier than men. A woman, in terms of obligations given, due to burdens such as for example, pregnancy and childbirth, has a running start on the men.

How very odd, isn't it? :roll:


Now, as much as I'd be happy to continue this at the moment, I have a lecture. Mayhap I shall continue later.

Samuel 2 12:7-11 (king james version)

source

There you go.

edit: quote error

My thanks. Also, I'll add the 12th, as I feel it's important in this case.

This last line shows, and quite clearly I feel, that the first line is intended as an 'eye for an eye' kind of punishment. I would also like to point out that nowhere does it mention rape. It merely says that unlike in Uriah's case, David's wives would leave him while he's still alive, would go to other men, and would show David's shame openly to all of Israel.

Frankly, a woman can divorce a man at any time. The question alimony, which is what a Kethuvah really means. Thus, if the woman's husband dies, or they devorce, the man has to pay alimony. This goes to secure the wife's finantial state in such cases, and to prevent from the man to treat marriage lightly.

The man's obligations, according to the Kethuvah, are to honour his wife, cherish her, supply her needs, be they in food, coin, clothes, or sex.

Only if the scar etc. was in existance before the marriage.



Now, back to Avgi.

I have two reasons. One, after childbirth a part of the mother's own being goes to the child, and what was once a dependant part of her is, while still dependant, now seperate. So, the days in question are there to allow the mother's life force to be restored, and it is said that the boy child's circumcision assists in that restoration.

Second, a woman's personality is more complicated, the man being created from the earth and the woman being created from the man. Thus, more life force is given to the daughter, and more time is needed for it to be restored.

There's more arguments and reasons, but it's listed in Masechet Nida, Page 31. Not sure if Avgi's link has that, but it does if it has the entire Babylonian Talmud.

Not promises, but vows. Vows are baaad. It was frowned upon to vow indiscriminantly, and indeed an unfulfilled vow is considered a terrible thing. This is why there's a custom to annul everyone's vows before Yom Kippur, as it's considered very bad entering a new year with unfulfilled vows.

So, I see nothing bad with giving the husband the ability to annul his wife's vows. All it really does is prevent hassle.

As for women being unable to bear witness, that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. It started with the interpetation of the written word in the matter of trials and requirements of witnesses, but in the Talmud and later treastises you will find mentions on when a woman *can* bear witness.

The conclusion one gathers is that persuit of the truth in matters of trial is more important than that law. Melchatchila- Beforehand, it is best if a woman does not bear trial, for various reasons the elders state, from her high social status (remember the women-holier-than-men bit?) to her light-headedness (a bit fishy, as opinions go, but it wasn't agreed to by anyone beyond the one who supplied it, and his opinion seems to be frowned upon in any case). Bediavad - I.E after the deed, there's no problem, because there are set priorities.

Nope. If an unmarried woman is found sleeping with a man, according to this text, and it was in a place where she could be heard if she called for help, then it is believed that it wasn't rape. As such, 'field' in this text could be considered as any place where the woman could not be heard, and as such her cries for help would do nothing to assist her.

Now, this depends on her ability to cry out for help, as well. So, if she was unable to cry for help or unable to be heard while crying for help, then the rapist is stoned and the woman is unharmed.

Also, if the woman decided to not cry out during the rape for fear of her life, that's also applicable, as Jewish law clearly states that life is more important than anything, and the things one cannot do if he's given a do-this-or-die set of choices are very few indeed. In fact, I believe that they only include murder, incest, and truthfully and fully renouncing Him.

Oh, I'm not saying that people don't use religion to supress women. It's done, and in many cases. I just go the... fundamentals, as it were, and show that said oppression was quite frankly not intended.

You will, I'm sure. We all do. Men moreso than women. This is based by some actual scientific research, I'm told, and if you wish to prove or disprove this claim, by all means.

Of course. As I said, segregation is only a limiting measure.

Heheheheh.

Is that why you say "Blessed be thou, Lord, for not making me a woman?"

Yes, as a matter of fact. That's a thank-you-for-giving-me-burdens-I-can-deal-with-and-not-the-agonizing-torture-of-childbirth sort of thing.

Or, Woman is Holy, Needs Less To Get Closer To He Above, Me Thanking He Above For Giving Me More Work To Do. Praise He Above.

I agree with what Sacharrissa has said.

About covering the wrists and ankles. Before moving to England, I lived for about 18 years in a Brooklyn neighborhood with a very large ultra-Orthodox Jewish population. Every summer, posters would be put up warning women to keep their wrists and ankles covered, as well as mentioning other modesty rules like keeping your head covered and not wearing makeup. (New York summers are very hot. I could see how the most observant Jew could be tempted to bare some skin.) To be fair, Orthodox Jewish men tend to be overdressed, e.g. more modest, than the rest of the male population.

In addition to health benefits, the laws of kashrut encourage treating animals kindly, and killing them with as little pain as possible. One very nice thing about Judaism is that it treats animal welfare as very important. Animals are not allowed to work on Sabbath, for example. And there is the restriction against "seething a calf in its mother's milk". The problem is not the dietary laws; it's modern farming methods.

As for treating women as "more holy". Someone who is "more holy" is "less human." I would rather be treated as an equal than put on a pedestal.

There is a theory that restrictions against menstruation come from the ancient belief that menstrual blood has magical powers, so that menstruating women could cast dangerous spells and had to be segregated from the rest of society. It makes sense that primitive people didn’t understand how babies were made. If you think about it, there’s a long time between when two people have sex and the woman appears to be pregnant, and quite often, when two people have sex, the woman doesn’t get pregnant, since she’s only fertile for a short time each month, so the connection between sex and pregnancy isn’t obvious. On the other hand, pregnant woman don’t menstruate, so primitive people could have believed that babies came from menstrual blood that was stored in the womb and magically turned into a living person.

Many religions have different holy days, however Orthodox Judaism is extreme in its restrictions, such as no electricity, no carrying anything, no spending money, etc. As for a day of complete rest being a nice idea; that’s fine in theory, but what if you work full time and only have the weekend to shop and do chores? What if you are a single parent and when you’re not working, you’re either taking care of your child or bringing the child to and from their carer? What if you have to work two jobs, or are combining working with attending university? When do you get a chance to go out and enjoy yourself? On Sunday (the non-Sabbath day) you will be cleaning, shopping, doing laundry, preparing the family meals for the week, etc. Remember, you can’t carry anything, spend money (including bus or train fare) or drive a car on the Sabbath.

Roman, I was mistaken. The restriction seems to be against listening to a woman sing, not speak. Here is some information.

edit: Regarding Jewish divorce: A woman can request a divorce from her husband, but she cannot get a divorce on her own. There is a social problem involving Orthodox women who get civil divorces from their husbands, often because the husbands are abusive, but the husbands won't grant them Jewish divorces. A woman in such a condition is called an Agunah. While she is legally divorced and living as a divorced woman, probably caring for and supporting children (Orthodox Jews usually don't practice birth control; and what are the chances that an abusive husband is going to pay child support?), she cannot have a religious marriage because as a Jew, she is still married and would be committing adultery. There is a very strong stigma against men who refuse to grant their wives divorces, though, and I've heard of cases where men who did this were completely ostracized, and banned from the synagogue they attended. (In the Orthodox neighborhood where I lived, I've seen notices telling peope to completely ostracize a particular man who refused to give his wife a divorce.)

This organisation is devoted to dealing with the agunah problem. Note: a "get" is a Jewish divorce.
(This in no way implies that Orthodox Jewish men tend to be abusive. The men who treat their wives this way are just the "bad apples" who exist in every society. Orthodox men are fighting for and defending the rights of these women.)

edit 2: The menstrual blood theory also explains the association between older women and witchcraft. Post-menopausal women don't menstruate; therefore, they've got loads of magic menstrual blood stored up inside them, so they can cast all sorts of spells.

edit 3: The restriction against carrying things on the Sabbath refers only to carrying things outside the home.

My religious views aren't really defined, I've been raised in an approximately Christian family, although neither of my parents go to church, I've only been to mass when I stayed at my grandparents when I was young. The Bible's the only religious text that I've ever read parts of too. But I wouldn't define myself as a christian, and definitely wouldn't align myself along protestant, catholic (which was Grandparent's church) etc lines.

Do I believe in God? I'm not sure if there is someone watching all the time per se, but there probably is some kind of supreme being or beings, even if they don't care what we're doing. I also think that there'll be some kind of afterlife, but as to what, I have no idea.

Reading through this thread, the only thing I strongly agree on is the "All days are holy..." bit which Rinso stole from Feet of Clay. I would extend it though,

All things are holy, or none are.

Or rather, all beings are holy, or none are.
I'm not sure I'd include inanimate objects myself.

Nope, still all things.

If there was a creator, he made everything: whether animal, vegetable or mineral. Therefore, everything is holy. If there wasn't, then nothing is.

Inanimate objects may not have minds, but that doesn't mean they can't be holy. It only means that they can't think holy.

Roman, things are even worse in context.

About the Abram and Sar’ai story(Genesis 16:1-16; 21:9-21), noone in there asked Hagar what she thought of the arrangements. And she was not the only slave to produce her master’s offspring; while competing with each other for Joseph’s affections, Leah and Rachel gave their slaves Zilpah and Bilhah to him (Genesis 29:31-30:24). They were not asked about the arrangements either, or even allowed to name their own children, and Bilhah certainly didn’t ask to be raped by Reuben, Leah’s firstborn (Genesis 35:22), as an act of revenge because his mother was not loved.

David fled Absalom’s army and left behind in the palace ten concubines. Absalom raped all of them on the roof of the palace so that everyone would see, just because he had beef with his dad(2 Samuel 15-19).

The prayer in its entirety is “Praised be God that he has not created me a gentile! Praised be God that he has not created me a woman! Praised be God that he has not created me an ignoramus! Praised that he has not created me a gentile: ‘For all gentiles are as nothing before him,’ Isaiah (40:17) . Praised that he has not created me a woman because the woman is not obliged to fulfill the commandments. Praised that he has not created me an ignoramus for the ignorant man does not avoid sin” (Tosephta. Ber. 7, 18.).

What, now Gentiles and ignorants are supposed to be closer to God, like the women? Then what’s so chosen about the Hebrews?

As to how much women are appreciated, the following passage is illuminating


[quote:And why must a woman use perfume, while a man does not need perfume?. .. And why has a woman a shrill voice but not a man?... And why does a man go out bareheaded while a woman goes out with her head covered? She is like one who has done wrong and is ashamed of people; therefore she goes out with her head covered. Why do they (the women) walk in front of the corpse (at a funeral)? Because they brought death into the world, they therefore walk in front of the corpse.... And why was the precept of menstruation given to her? Because she shed the blood of Adam (by causing death), therefore was the precept of menstruation given to her. And why was the precept of the ‘dough’ given to her? Because she corrupted Adam, who was the dough of the world, therefore was the precept of dough given to her. And why was the precept of the Sabbath lights given to her? Because she extinguished the soul of Adam, therefore was the precept of the Sabbath lights given to her.( Ibid. , 17, 8.)[/quote]


Let’s see what my life would be like a couple of thousand years ago, according to the Law.

Once born, my mother would be unclean for two weeks (as opposed to one week had I been a boy) and not allowed to go to the sanctuary for sixty six days, because her blood requires purification (1) . Being a girl, not only I do not bring peace unto the world (2), I am a heavy burden upon my father (3) . But he does not have to worry though. From the age of three and one day I can be betrothed (4) and he can even sell me to get money to study the Talmud (5).

Any learning I get is from my mother, and it deals with household matters only, since it is preferable to burn the Talmud than teach it to a woman (6). If I belong to a rural family, I can help with the chores without ill effects on my reputation (7). Any earnings I get go to my father for he is my master (8). No singing while I work though, no matter how much Snow White and Mary Poppins recommend it; my voice stirs up lust in men (9).

When my menstruation starts, I am unclean for seven days since the blood starts and seven days after that (10) . Anything I come into contact during this period of Niddah becomes contaminated and whoever touches me, my clothing, or sits on anything I have sat becomes unclean until the evening of that day. And my state of uncleanliness is not just physical, which would have made sense in a world without sanitary towels and water heaters; it is spiritual. If it was only physical, a few lines that say “during menstruation you stink” would have been sufficient (11).

If I get raped, while still unbetrothed, I can get away with my life if I get raped in the countryside, since calling for help and noone coming to my rescue can be expected (12). Apparently a woman cannot be knocked unconscious and raped in the city; she ought to have been able to cry out for help nevertheless. Since I am still a maiden, my father has to be compensated with 50 pieces of silver and I have to be made an honest woman. Therefore, I get married to my rapist and he can never divorce me (13).

Marriage. I am considered a minor until twelve, a maiden from twelve and a day to twelve and a half, and a woman after that. My father can get me wed without my consent before I become a full adult (14), and even if I voice an opinion to the contrary it would do me no good, as this would brand me as a headstrong and unloyal daughter. So, the marriage contract is signed before witnesses, and now I become my husband’s property. The alimony, kethubath, is determined, but it must not be so large that my husband cannot easily get rid of me (15).

Said husband has to make sure I have no physical defects such as a bad breath, a hairy mole, scars, lameness and such. Since I cannot be seen by any other male, barring my closest relatives, I have to be checked out in the baths by my future husband’s female relatives. Any defect I have and hide before I leave my father’s house is grounds for a divorce without kethubath, the alimony I get in case of divorce or widowhood. Needless to say, my husband can be uglier than Cthulu (16) .

I lose my virginity in a room next to the one where the guests celebrate the wedding. I must not scream out with pain during copulation though, because that too is grounds for a divorce without alimony, since a loud voice in a woman is a defect(17). My father must make sure he gathers up my wedding gown and bedsheets tainted with my virginal blood, because if my husband claims I was not a virgin and he sends me back while keeping the kethubath, my father has to produce said clothes to the village elders. If their ruling is that yes, I was a virgin, the groom has to pay my father 50 pieces of silver and he can never divorce me (18). Otherwise, I am put to death.

If I am lucky and I am not wed to either my rapist or to a man who tried to con me out of my kethubath, my only concern is producing offspring within ten years. If I do not, my husband can divorce me (19). I cannot remarry to a rabbi, since marriage to a barren woman would be harlotry (have sex just for pleasure? The very idea!)(20), but then again, who else would marry me for myself and not for my kethubah (21) ? Oh, and I have to keep tabs on my sister because if my husband falls off the bed or a roof and by landing on her he plugs her, he does not sin. My maiden sister though will never be able to marry anyone else by my husband (22).

If my husband does take extra wives, he is advised to take two more, since two can gangs up on him, but three have discord among them (23).

Horror of horrors! My husband accuses me of being unfaithful to him! If I do not admit to the crime, I go through trial by ordeal. My husband takes me to the priest. The priest brings me forward and sets me before the Lord. He takes clean water in an earthenware vessel, and takes dust from the floor of the Tabernacle and adds it to the water. He uncovers my head, tells me in a formal manner that if I am innocent I will be unharmed, but if I am guilty may the Lord make an example of me among my people in adjurations and in swearing of oaths by bringing upon you miscarriage and untimely birth; and this water that brings out the truth shall enter my body. The priest writes these curses on a scroll and washes them off into the water of contention; he makes me drink the water that brings out the truth, even by force. If I am guilty I will suffer a miscarriage or untimely birth, my belly swell and thigh waste away, and my name will become an example in adjuration among my kin. But if not then my innocence is established and I will bear my child. (24)

The effects of the water of truth may be postponed for three years if I studied the Torah. I can only hope my husband has been unfaithful, because only this would null the effects of the water (25). If I am found guilty, or admit to guilt, I burn. Literally(26) .

These two weeks per month when I am allowed to have sex with my husband (if we try anything during the Niddah we are excommunicated (27)) I have to be extra careful what position we take. Me under is the only one that ensures healthy offspring (28). Me on top, oral sex etc will result in ill children (29). And those poor creatures not only will bear eternal testimony to our kinky habits, if they are boys they will be unable to serve as priests (30).

I am a good wife if I have the praise of my sons and my husband sits among the elders with pride. I have to work hard in order to reverse the notion that women may be vessels of filth, given to lying and with heads full of jewelery and clothing, but this particular one is worth a damn (31).

My husband is obliged to sustain me, pay ransom for me and take care of my health. He can get out of the last two obligations though by just divorcing me and leaving me to deal with these matters using my kethubah (32).

I am now old. Any standing I have in my community is through my sons (33). I could bear an army of high priests though and I would still not count in a minyan. Nine men and a baby boy in a cradle can make up this prayer circle of ten. Nine sons and me are not a minyan (34). And now in my old age, my husband takes a young woman to test his potency (35) and divorces me. Let him have her. I am for my husband’s pleasure anyways, getting cut some slack isn’t so bad a prospect (36).

And now the footnotes

1) Lev. 12:2-5: “When a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the period of her impurity through menstruation.... The woman shall wait for thirty-three days because her blood requires purification; she shall touch nothing that is holy, and shall not enter the sanctuary till her days of purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean for fourteen days as for her menstruation and shall wait for sixty-six days...”

2) bNid. 31b.

3) Ben Sira 42:9-11 “A daughter is a deceptive treasure for her father, the worry she gives him drives away his sleep: in her youth, in case she never marries; married, in case she should be disliked; as a virgin, in case she should be defiled and found with child in her father’s house; having a husband, in case she goes astray; married, in case she should be barren. Your daughter is headstrong? Keep a sharp look-out that she does not make you the laughingstock of your enemies, the talk of the town, the object of common gossip, and put you to public shame.”

4) bSan 69a. “A girl aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her, she becomes his”

5) Cf. Ferdinand Weber, Jüdische Theologie (Leipzig, 1897), pp. 30 f.

6) pSotah 3. 4. Cf. also bYoma 66b.: Rabbi Eliezer said: “The wisdom of women is only in her distaff.... May the words of the Torah be burned rather than be given to women!”

7) Keth. 1, 10; B. M. 1, 6; bBer. 3b; bB. Q. 119a; Keth. 9, 4

8) Keth. 4. 4: “A father has authority over his daughter in respect of her betrothal (whether it was effected) by money, deed or intercourse; he is entitled to anything she finds and to her handiwork”

9) Ben Sira 9:2-9 : “Do not dally with a singing girl, in case you get caught by her wiles”

10) Lev. 15:23-34: “The Levitical laws concerning the impurity of women are much more restrictive. When a woman has a menstruous discharge of blood, she is unclean for seven days, or as long as it lasts, whichever is longer. In addition, whoever she touches becomes unclean for a day, as does any thing she touches. Further, whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes, bathe in water and remain unclean till evening. If he is on the bed or seat where she is sitting, by touching it he shall become unclean till evening. If a man goes so far as to have intercourse with her and any of her discharge gets on to him, then he shall be unclean for seven days, and every bed on which he lies down shall be unclean”

11) The Mishnah devoted ten chapters to the tractate Niddah, while the contemporary Tosefta. had another nine chapters; at least four chapters of additional commentary are still extant in the Palestinian Talmud, while the full text of ten chapters of commentary by the Babylonian Talmud is extant. It is interesting to note that Niddah is the only tractate out of the twelve in the more generic “order” of Tohoroth (concerning cleanness and uncleanness) that has a gemara (that is, has a commentary on the Mishnah teachings) in the Babylonian Talmud. The English Soncino edition of Niddah is over 500 pages long.

12) Deut. 22:23-27

13) Deut. 22:28-29

14) Sotah 3, 8

15) bGit. 58a

16) Lev. 21:18-20. See also bBek. 43b.

17) bKeth. 75a

18) Deut. 22:13-21

19) bYeb. 64a. Parallel passages in Tos. Yeb. 8, 4 (249) and GnR 45 (28b): “Our Rabbis taught: If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he shall divorce her and give her her kethubah”

20) Yeb. 6, 5: “Rabbi Judah says: Although he already had a wife or children he may not marry a sterile woman, for such is the harlot spoken of in the Law”

21) bYeb. 65a: “Our Rabbis taught: A woman who had been married to one husband and had no children and to a second husband and again had no children, may marry a third man only if he has children. If she married one who has had no children she must be divorced without receiving her kethubah.”

22) bYeb. 54a: “But when he slept? Surely Rab Judah ruled that one in sleep cannot acquire his sister-in-law! But when accidental insertion occurred? [The English Soncino edition comments at this point: “When in a state of erection the levirite fell from a raised bench upon his sister-in-law who happened to be below” (v. Rashi)] Surely Rabbah stated: One who fell from a roof and his fall resulted in accidental insertion, is liable to pay an indemnity for four things, and if the woman was his sister-in-law no kinyan [‘acquisition’] is thereby constituted! It is when, for instance, his intention was intercourse with his wife and his sister-in-law seized him and he cohabited with her.... Raba said: If a levir’s intention was to shoot against a wall and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, no kinyan is thereby constituted; if he intended, however, to shoot at a beast and he accidentally shot at his sister-in-law, kinyan is thereby constituted, since some sort of intercourse had been intended.”

23) bPes. 113a : Rab (early third century) said: “Do not take two wives; if however you have taken two, then take a third, for two could conspire together against you, but the third will certainly break it up.”

24) “Ordeal,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. XIII, col. 1448.

25) bSotah 47b: Rabbi Akiba (late 1st, early 2nd century C. E.) stated that the bitter waters would also be ineffective if the husband “was not free of guilt.”

26) Lev. 21:9

27) Lev. 20:18

28) bNed. 20a: “Rabbi Johanan ben Dahabai said: The Ministering Angels told me four things: People are born lame because they (their parents) overturned their table.”

29) bNed. 20a : Rabbi Johanan ben Dahabai said children are born “dumb, because they(their parents) kiss ‘that place’; deaf, because they converse during cohabitation; blind, because they look at ‘that place’.”

30) Lev. 21:18-20. See also bBek. 43b.

31) Way too many references. Reading Ben Sira ought to be enough

32) Keth. 4, 9 : “If she were taken captive, he must ransom her; and if he said, ‘Here is her bill of divorce and her kethubah, let her redeem herself, I he has no such power. If she came to harm, he must heal her. If he said ‘Here is her bill of divorce and her kethubah, let her cure herself,’ he is entitled to do so.”

33) Proverbs 31: 10-31: “Her sons stand up and proclaim her blessed”

34) bBer. 47a: Rabbi Joshua b. Levi also said: Nine and a slave can be counted toward a minyan (and the former perhaps for a zimmun), but a woman may not

35) bYeb. 65a: “If the husband states that he intends taking another wife to test his potency, Rabbi Ammi (a late 3rd century Amora) ruled: ‘He must in this case also divorce (his present wife) and pay her the amount of her kethubah; for I maintain that whosoever takes in addition to his present wife another one must divorce the former and pay her the amount of her kethubah.”

36) Ibid , p. 68 f: Rabbi Johanan said: The above is the view of Rabbi Johanan ben Dahabai; but our Sages said: The halachah is not as Rabbi Johanan ben Dahabai, but a man may do whatever he pleases with his wife (at intercourse).... A woman once came before Rabbi and said, ‘Rabbi! I set a table before my husband, but he overturned it.’ Rabbi replied: ‘My daughter! the Torah hath permitted thee to him-what then can I do for thee?’ A woman once came before Rab and complained, ‘Rabbi! I set a table before my husband, but he overturned it. The answer was the same: the woman belonged to the man and he could do with her what he would.

Sources: 1)Women in Judaism
2)www.lectio.unibe.ch/04_1/Scholz.Enslaved.pdf+talmud+%2B+man+%2B+roof+%2B+brother+%2B+wife+%2B+pregnant+%2B+not+a+sin&hl=el]Gender, Class, and Androcentric Compliance in the Rapes of Enslaved Women in the Hebrew Bible[/url]

A comic inspired by this debate

Most amusing

Ah! These discussions always bring such a smile to my face (-:

Just a comment that Orthodox Judaism is just one of many branches of Judaism.

It annoys me when Orthodox Judaism is equated with Judaism in general, just as it annoys Buzzfloyd when Christian fundamentalism is equated with Christianity.

Avgi - the results of your research made my hair stand on end - but I have to agree with Marcia: Orthodox Judaism shouldn't be held up as the defining example of the religion - heck, Orthodox anything should be taken with a grain of salt, since it's usually practiced by people who resist the modern times, and all the wonderful things that come with progress - like gender equality.

It seems like women were treated suckily (by our standards) nearly everywhere, with few exceptions, throughout most of the history (granted, I can only be saying that because history is written by winners, and the women-friendly cultures got mostly obliterated along the way). It didn't depend on religion. It didn't depend on geography. It just happened, and so the local laws -religious or otherwise - reflected the prevailing attitude that women are a burden at best and a source of all world's evil at worst.

Here's my theory for what happened: back in the day, men eventually came to understand that being around pretty women causes physical discomfort and/or fuzzy thinking. They try to control it, but - being, like Roman said, creatures of flesh and hormones, they CAN'T - and it makes them upset. So much so that they decide that
a) women have special powers,
b) women apparently use those powers for evil - or else why would they make life so difficult for men by merely being there and
c) women must be kept down as much as possible, before they realize their full potential and take over the country (city, empire, whatever).

At some point, women have decided to follow along - either out of self-preservation, or from incessant brain-washing, or because they figured that keeping the rest of the competition down will help the select few rise to the top. Maybe all of the above, at different times. Either way, the result was rampant patriarchat. Which SUCKS... but maybe rampant matriarchat would suck just as badly

Marcia, Mowgli, up till WWII things were just as bad in Greece when it came to women's rights. I know perfectly well that Orthodox Judaism isn't Judaism. These posts were made because Roman had said that 1) you either accept everything in a religion or nothing at all 2) he is an Orthodox Jew and 3) Orthodox Judaism is sensitive to woemn's rights.

My point was that Orthodox Judaism is as feministic as fundamental Christians and that he respects women because he is a nice guy, not because Ben Sira is the hebrew equivalent of "The Female Eunuch".

Reuben was weak. Him sleeping with Bilhah was not rape, as she concented to his advancements. Had he actually raped her, his father would have killed him. Be that it may, Jacob pretended that he didn't know of the transgression, though he did. Twenty years later, this act of defiance by Reuben, dishonouring his father by tempting Bilhah to sleep with him, cost him his iheritance as the firstborn.

Which chapter? In any case, I won't be defending Absalom. He was one fucked up individual with a major inferiority complex, which he took out on those around him, which included the entire nation. Unlike what you imply, what Absalom did was in no way counted accepted.

S'abit longer than that, Avgi. In any case, I won't be expanding on it beyond this article.

This also goes quite far in replying to your next quote. Also, what is the book of Ibid, please? My pardons, but I can't find a translation to Hebrew.

1) Answered already.

2) At least according to the opinion of one person. Have you fully read the page? I've already said that in many cases the interpetations are opinions, and not taken as actual law, haven't I? Read the entire page. Note who speaks for whom, who quotes whom, and that none of it, in all actuality, goes beyond opinion.

3) Can't find it, so I can't answer to it. My bad, I'm afraid. Also, my laziness.

4) Arranged marriages. Frankly, arranged marriages didn't have to do much with the person being male or female, and the parents just arrange it all. As for the brother marrying the child-bride, she would have had a choice had she been of age, as it were. Child-marriages were rare even in those days, but were more common in the first days of the kingdom of Israel. They were slowly discouraged, spoken against, and eventually the youngest age of marriage became 12 for women, and 13 for men, which are considered ages of maturity. The written law still allows for child-marriages, but tradition, the unwritten law, does not.

This is much like men marrying with multiple wives, a custom which was abolished sometime in the middle ages. While the written law still allows for them, tradition does not. Consider it a form of religious evolution.

5) Wha'?!

6) Could you please give me the page in Sotah? I don't have the books with me, and a trip to the synagogue and back might take some time. In any case, as far as I can see this was the opinion of one person. Seperate the law from the opinion, the wheat from the chaff.

Opinions are important, but only for the understanding of the law and what brought it about. The best way to look at the Talmud is a collection of a council's minutes. To bring an analogy, if a member of a city's council wishes to tear down some apartment buildings to build a golf course, it doesn't mean that everyone agrees with him, and that said golf course is actually built. His opinion on the matter will be noted, but it may just be politely ignored.

7) The implied dishonor, as you referred to it, is when the family is not a rural one. I.E, when the family doesn't even own any fields. As we're still talking about an unmarried woman, a part of the household in which she was born, this either implies some sort of punishment from her family, or complete disownment. So yes, some sort of dishonor is indeed implied.

Strangely, I seem to recall the story of Rabbi Akiva. He started out as plain old Akiva, you see, couldn't read nor write. Herded goats, I believe. So, once upon a time, he was about forty at the time, Akiva met the girl who would later become his wife. Love ensued. Now, while I can't for the life of me remember her name, I hope this will be forgiven, as beyond Rabbi Akiva, Old Hillel, and one or two others, I don't remember any names from the Talmudic times.

Now, the girl, best called a woman, really, was of a wealthy and respected family. Her father didn't approve of the daughter's chosen suitor, who was frankly an unwashed and stupid fellow who herded goats.

Daughter insisted, father got extremely angry, daughter ran off with Akiva, father disowned her. Akiva's new wife told him quite profusely that if he didn't go and study and made something out of his ignorant self, she would divorce him. She then literally kicked him out of the house and told him not to return until he had students of his own, not to mention studied.

The result was one of the greatest religious minds of the era.

9) Tradition again, and frankly it was never really kept. How it survived beyond that one man is beyond me.

10,11) I have already pointed out that a man in parallel physical situations is just as unclean. At least I thought I did. It was sadly ignored, it would seem.

12) I have already pointed out that this opinion can only be deduced if one is not familiar with the naucances of Jewish religious law. Here's the central aspect: Life is more important than anything. Now, reread my earlier reply regarding this very thing which was, again, rather sadly ignored.

13) Note that the text refers to willing sexual intercourse. I.E, a young unmarried couple is found frolicking somewhere. Said young man is forced to pay the father to restore the family's honour (as the sexual intercourse was before marrriage), and they must then marry. The lady made her choice in the matter, Avgi. If you do the deed, then off to marriage you go. If, on the other hand, it is proven that he in fact *forced* her, then die he dies.

If you wonder if I deduced all this on my very own, you will be surprised that I have not. All this is written in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, book of Nashim(Women), section of Virgin Women, Chapter 1. I believe Maimonides to be a far better teacher than I, so if you can locate a translated version of his works, please read them.

If not, just tell me what you need and I'll endeavor to translate it. That particular chapter would not take too much time off my hands, so simply let me know if you want to read it. I can't attest to the quality of my translation, mind . I *will* say that I will do my best.

14) Answered to that.

15) Quite the contrary. The kethubah was designed exactly so that a fickle husband won't consider a devorce to be so easy a matter. The basic sum of the kethubah could, in those days, support a family for almost two years. And rather well, at that. Also, are you sure you refer to Masechet Gittin, folio 58a? Read it, Avgi. It's much like one of our topics on the board when the discussion goes to a completely different issue. Heck, it discusses several stories regarding Rome, of all places. Rumours, a few stories. When I read it I almost laughed out loud, as it marked the Sanhedrin at that moment were a bunch of bored old men wanting to rest. (Tell us a story, Reb Judah! Tell us stories of those Romans in their city!)

16) Didn't we discuss this already? Conditional, Avgi. Conditional on the damnfool husband's specific requirements. Damnfool husband wants a pretty and unblemished wife, he puts it openly as a part of the marriage contract.

17) Refer to 16.

18 ) Refers to a man marrying a woman, then afterwards hating said woman, then saying (falsely) that she wasn't a virgin so that he could get rid of her and keep his money. This is conditioned by him marrying her and being told by her that she was a virgin, because this hardly applies if the woman was, for example, raped before her marriage. So, *if* the woman lied and slept around, then the man's claim is valid. Judaism never took sleeping around lightly.

If she didn't, and the man lied to get rid of her, then he's forced to pay a fine, and he is then forbidden to divorce the wife due to the grave insult he gave her. Wife can still demand, and recieve, a divorce. No one said she has to stay with the fuck-up, only that the fuck-up can't just brush her off as if she was a mote of dust on his robe.

19) Yes, barrenness is grounds for divorce. There's a beautiful story about a couple deciding, after many deliberations, that as the wife appeared to be barren that they should divorce. Tearfully, as they truly loved each other, the divorce given, and they decided to celebrate it, to commemorate a life that was full of joy, even though they didn't have children.

At the celebration, the woman got her to-be-former husband drunk, and he promised his wife that anything that she wanted to take of their household would be hers. She had her brothers carry him stupified to her parents' home. Waking up, the husband enquired what he was doing there. The wife reminded him of his promise, and said that out of the entire household she wanted nothing beyond him.

The couple remarried.


Yes, children are considered an important thing, more important perhaps than the beauty of two souls becoming one, as marriage is often described, but it's truly a matter for every seperate case, not a rule by all means.

20) Yes, it's not considered nice to marry only for the sake of sexual pleasure, which is what the rabbis were trying to discourage. It was also an attempt to discourage barren women to be turned into tools merely for sexual pleasure, as a male-dominated society could very well do.

21) I don't understand the relation between what you said and what the text you quoted says. The text says that if a women is truly proven to be barren, she should marry only to one who already has children. It also points out that she should not marry a husband who has no children? Why, you ask? Because children are quite possibly the greatest treasure we have. The woman would already know that she is barren, but the man seeks a wife not just out of love. Children are also sought, a continuation. What the elders wanted to prevent was the barren woman marrying purely for the sake of money, as she knew herself to be barren, and divorce of a barren woman requires that the man pay the kethubah, the alimony.

22) Intercourse is followed by marriage. That's all that was stated there. That, and a truly unlikely event that really only happens in some sort of dream-world. Still, it *may* happen, I guess, and if you'll read your own quote you will see that more likelier events are the sister coming to the husband on her own.

Be that it may, in the unlikely event that this happens, and in the unlikely event that they marry, the sister can always divorce.

23) That's Masechet Pesachim! It discusses sacrifices! Another discussion which turned away from the real topic. (Oh, by the way, on this completely unrelated topic, I think...) This was probably followed by a glare from the other wise men and a return to the topic at hand.

24) Hark. Spiritual punishment. As we're talking about clear water here, I believe that nothing could actually happen if Someone doesn't will it to be thus? A ceremony, when one looks on it, and not a physical punishment?

25) Rabbi Akiba? Not sure of that, as the speaker is not clearly stated, but that is not the matter at hand. Now, women studying the Torah? But that's blasphemy, isn't it?! Why, the Holy Books are better off burned than being in the hands of a woman!

My apologies for the sarcasm, but you must note that you have indeed contradicted yourself here. In any case, I have no idea regarding the duration of the effectiveness of that particular ritual, nor do I rightly care. The ritual is quite dead, you see, as is the Temple.

26) The text refers to a Priest's daughter that practices prostitution. If someone were to quote it, I'd be grateful again.

27) The original text refers to the actual menstruation period, as I'm sure you've noticed. That period was extended as a just-in-case matter, if I understand the texts regarding it correctly.

28, 29, 30) Yep. No one says sex shouldn't be enjoyed, but some practices are discouraged, yes. I still can't say I understand your argument. Sex just for the sake of pleasure is discouraged, true. I'm trying to understand why this is an evil anti-woman thing.

31) 'sigh'

32) 'sigh' again. Divorce is not a matter taken lightly. Ever. You imply that it is.

33) I hope you know what you've just quoted from, Avgi, because I now own you. :b

The quote was from a poem, written by King Solomon in his time, though the actual content may be attributed to Abraham's eulogy of Sarah. It is titled "Woman of Valor". I once found an exceptional translation of it from Hebrew that was good, but I can't seem to find it again.

This version explains the tradition of singing it to the family's women.

This text may enlighten further.

34) http://mail-jewish.org/Women_and_Minyan.doc

Your brain may leak from your ears, your will to read on will abate from page to page, but this thesis is quite possibly the very best I've seen on the topic, horribly dull as it is.

35) R. Ammi's opinion on the matter of additional wives was that if a man wants to take another wife, he must divorce his former one. Note the magic word.

36) Why, this ruling doesn't agree with the previous matters regarding sexual intercourse! Could it be that in both cases, opinions differed? Could it be that rulings change according to opinions, because some texts are, indeed, open to interpretations?

You've contradicted yourself again, by the way.




Now, regarding the various and many branches of Judaism, there are three, with the occasional very small sect like the Kara'im. So, Orthodox Judaism, who wish to keep the old ways, without changing the basics of the faith, Conservative Judaism, who removed any notion of relation to Israel and to a Messiah from the texts in order to better become a part of their new land, the USA, and Reformist Judaism, who look very much like Christianity these days.

You could divide it into three levels, really, as Orthodox Judaism doesn't accept the validity of Conservative and Reformist, and Conservative doesn't accept the validity of Reformist.

Both Conservative and Reformist Judaism are branches which evolved from the remnants of the Scholar Movement, and they changed the faith not to fit the era, but to fit the area. To become a better accepted part of the society they lived in, be it the US or the Christian society that was prevalent in the area.



As for menstrual blood being a tool of witchcraft, and all the rest of it… bleh. I have no idea how this relates to the matter at hand even remotely, as the ideas are about as Jewish as sacrificing one's firstborn to the furnaces of Moloch.


Also, Avgi, never had I said that Orthodox Judaism was feminist. It doesn't encourage, as you would probably like it to.

It just doesn't discourage. Simple, straightforward. Someone who would want to discourage, could interpret it to suit his needs, but that's all that is, an interpretation of an individual, and in no way does it reflect on the whole.

I am an Orthodox Jew, yes. That means that I don't approve of some paths, but that relates to myself, and myself alone. I don't judge others. I leave that sort of thing for someone far greater than I, and we're, in truth, an exiled people. We can't judge others, because the only person one can truly pass judgment on is on himself. A very simple truth, a very… Hassidic one, you could say. Perhaps a certain way of life is good, and perhaps others will follow that way of life if they believe it's good for them, but never force, *never* force. We've lost that right even when it comes to our own. Today, we can only really pass judgment on ourselves. So, I don't say that being Conservative or Reformist is a wrong way, because who am I to judge that?

It's the wrong way for *me*. That, as they say, is that.

There is also Reconstructionism and Humanistic Judaism.

I don't think you can make a distinction between changing for the era and changing for the area. Fitting in with modern society implies fitting in with the people in that society as well as with the culture and ideas in that society.

For example, allowing men and women to sit together during services doesn't just encourage more women to attend services, because in contemporary society women expect to be able to sit with men. It reflects the fact that in contemporary society men and women are considered equals. If they weren't considered equals in non-Jewish society, then they wouldn't be sitting together there either. So there would be no need to change the Jewish tradition to fit in with non-Jewish society.

Very small though, aren't they? Tiny even, I always thought.

Yes, because they are newest.

I was also considering adding Messianic Judaism (aka Jews for Jesus) to the list. Even though most other Jews adamantly claim they are not Jewish, they consider themselves Jews.

I will post a reply when I go through all the links Roman posted. The rest are free to comment on religion however they see fit, as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks!

Messianic Jews are a pretty good example of ethnic Jews. They follow the Law mostly out of tradition, and don't believe that other Christians need to. It's just that they're Jews and it's part of their heritage. It's actually kind of cool to kind of know people who are a link between the two religions. The one guy that I know loves to explain the Jewish traditions (mostly holidays we talk about) and the religious reasoning behind them. Other than celebrating Jewish holidays though, this guy is pretty much a born again Christian. And he probably defines himself more as a Christian than as a Jew.

I'm an atheist. I can't say I'm really dead sure there is no god (so I wouldn't mind to be called an agnostic if you prefer that) but so far I've seen no evidence suggesting or even slightly hinting there is a god or creator or world spanning conciousness.

I agree with Rincewind's post on the first page about organized religion. As far as it doesn't hurt anyone else, go ahead!

If I'd choose a religion to believe in it would either be old Norse mythology, because I like the idea of a big never ending party every night, or Buddhism, because it seems to be a very peaceful religion with very few compulsory genocide traits.

Norse Mythology seems kind of depressing to me- the idea that the world will end, AND that the 'good' guys are definitely gonna lose, etc.

When you look around the world today, does this seem like news to you?

Edit: why doesn't this quote work?

Edit again: oh now it does.

just read back to the beginning of this again, as I seemed to have missed some things, and I need to say something about keeping Sabbath and the 'arbitraryness' of the day chosen. For Judaism, it is based on a week starting on Sunday, and the seventh day God rested, so people should too- granted this is now basically a tradition issue, but it has roots directly in scripture.
As for Christianity, I don't know about other faiths, but i was taught that Catholics keep Sunday as the holy day because its the same day of the week as Easter. I seriously doubt this EVER had anything to do with the cult of Mithras; very little is known about that anyway since it died out so long ago, and I keep hearing pure speculation about it used to justify arguments. It bothers me, is all.

I heard it was because the "and on the seventh day god rested" thingie, but I can be wrong.