Ask a Jew, Mark II

There are not, to my knowledge, laws that dictate how the gravesites should be arranged within a cemetary.

While we have specific laws for death rites and funerary practices, our actual practice in terms of burial, marking grave sites, siting for cemetaries or the equivalent, and arrangement of graves within cemetaries have largely been a matter of local custom, and have varied widely over the centuries according to the norms and influences of the cultures in which the Jewish culture has resided.

In the Talmud, there are a couple of narratives that describe people crossing cemetaries and doing so by walking over the large flat stone slabs that customarily covered graves in ancient Babylonia. But theirs was also an urban culture according to their time and place, so the same concerns of space that you correctly noted were a factor today were also a factor back then.

 

Thanks, bro. An easy fast to all who are fasting!

 

Hope everyone's fast went well. I hit a wall around 3 PM but pushed through!

 

Yeah, it's always tough. It was chilly here, though, and that helped!

 

That sucks, man. It's happened to me in the past. I kind of staved it off because by the time Yom Kippur was over, I was so exhausted from all the rabbi-ing, I went home and smoked a bowl. Slept like a baby.

 

Why do many jews and jewish texts refer to non-jews as cattle fit only to serve jews? Also why do you call these people goyim?

 

Goy actually means nation in Hebrew, including Israel.
In Yiddish Goyim came to mean people from other nations.


I don't know where you're getting the cattle bullshit but it's not anywhere in the texts.

 

^^^150% this.

You do get the occasional polemic in Talmud and Midrash, but they are vastly, vastly outnumbered by texts that demand and encourage peaceful toleration of all good people, and the worth and value of every human being.

The notion that all Jews are rabidly xenophobic and secretly (or not so secretly) hostile to non-Jews is a classic canard of anti-Semitism, dating back to the Christian persecutions of the Middle Ages. It has no basis in fact. I mean, I'm sure there probably are a few assholes amongst the Jews who really are totally xenophobic and hostile to non-Jews, but you get such assholes amongst every people and culture on earth, and with us they are-- thank God-- a tiny fringe minority at best.

 

Yebamoth 98a

Sanhedrin 57a

Abodah Zarah 36b

Baba Kattan 114a-114b

Baba Kamma 113a

Moed Kattan 17a

Yitzhak Ginsburg, New York Times, June 6 1989

Yaacov Perrin NY Daily, Feb 28 1994

Yes the above quotes from your holy book and spiritual leaders certainly demonstrate this.

 

You're taking a bunch of stuff out of context and a couple of people who are serious assholes to prove your point which pretty much puts into a category I'm not really interested in debating with.
You haven't proved anything except that if you dig deep enough any group of people have things to be ashamed of.
There are a lot of problems with the politics of Israel and I'd be happy to have an intelligent conversation about that but what you're digging for is something else.

 

Claiming you don't want to debate because well, there really is nothing to debate. Those are taken out of your jewish holy book the talmud, and I could dig up far far far worse verses if I wanted to, but those are enough really. It's a sick book and jews are proven to have a gene that makes them prone to psychological illnesses. Mutilating babies penises and sucking out the blood is kosher after all.

Claiming the heads of your religion are "assholes" is really fucking funny, why follow the garbage at all in that case, if those are the types it produces?

Finally, the ole' "but that's out of context!!!" argument is pretty naive and makes me shake my head. Enjoy the ignorance with your own supremacist religion I guess.

PS, there is no case for an intelligent discussion about israeli politics by the way, considering the country was stolen from Palestine because a religious book said it belonged to the jews. No logic at all is anywhere to be found so don't act like there is.

 

Pick a religion that doesn't have some pretty horrible stuff in it's texts.
All the old books are pretty sick if you want them to take that way which you clearly do.

Mutilating baby penises and sucking the blood out?
I've been to plenty of bris's and I promise folk it doesn't fucking happen.
This is the kind of crap that people used in the dark ages to scare children.
(Yes, I read about the one guy who did it in Jersey. He was a freak.)

I'm no where near as educated as Levite but I did go through a serious process when I converted.
It took me three years and working with rabbis from three different aspects of Judaism.
I have continued to study the history just for the love of it.

You clearly have an ax to grind and there is nothing that I'm going to say that will change your perspective.
All I can say is that TFP requires people to treat each other with respect and not insult one another.

 

First of all, I recognize this assemblage of "quotes" as being at least partially drawn from a list of allegedly insidious "true facts" about the Talmud on Jeff Rense's website (also used at some radical Islamist hate sites, and at neo-Nazi sites), which is one of the most racist, bigoted websites online, full of insane conspiracy theories, and virtually empty of any meaningful truths.

However, in the spirit of educating those who may read this thread, I will make some brief responses.

I am looking at Yevamot 98a, and there is nothing on the page at all resembling such a statement. There just isn't.

A classic canard used by anti-Semites. The principle raised above in the text is actually being raised as a deliberately ridiculous hypothetical, in order for the Rabbis to teach that the law is precisely the opposite of that. One law, one punishment, no matter whether victim or perpetrator are Jewish or non-Jews.

That's not what that says at all. It says that girls are ritually impure at birth. It has nothing to do with a moral judgment, it's purely a matter of spiritual energy: women are ritually impure when they menstruate (just as men are ritually impure after they ejaculate), and female babies are often born with a slight bloody discharge from their vaginas (not a true menstruation, of course, but still considered to be ritually impurifying). This is said about all girls, not just non-Jewish girls. You may not care for the theology of ritual purity and impurity (I'm not even sure I care for it), but it is consistent-- and it has nothing to do with judging non-Jews. In fact, it rarely has anything to do with non-Jews, who are not bound by our laws at all, let alone our laws of ritual purity and impurity.

First of all, that's not what the passage says, or even means. What it actually says is:

אמר ליה: לאו כהן הוא מר, מאי טעמא קאי מר בבית הקברות? אמר ליה: לא מתני מר טהרות? דתניא, רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר: קבריהן של נכרים אין מטמאין, שנאמר ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם - אתם קרויין אדם, ואין נכרים קרויין אדם.
He said to him: is it not so that you are a kohen, sir? So what are you doing in a cemetary? He replied: Have you not studied ritual purity laws, sir? There is a baraita that teaches: Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai said, you must not defile the graves of non-Jews, as it teaches, "You are my flock, the sheep of my own keeping-- you are Adam." You are classified as "Adam," but non-Jews we do not classify as "Adam."

Even on its face, this does not mean that Rabbah bar Avuh thought that non-Jews were not human. It means that in his view, when using the verse in question from Ezekiel as exegetical support in the laws of ritual purity pertaining to kohanim (priests), we do not class the cemetaries of non-Jews under the laws of ritual purity in the same category as the cemetaries of Jews.

Second of all, the story is a parable-- it never literally happened. The other party in the conversation with Rabbah bar Avuh is said to be the prophet Elijah, so we know that the story is not literal.

And third, it is a parable about using questionable legal conclusions. The purpose of the entire section is to highlight how easy it is even for a great sage to misjudge the exegetical meaning of text. The implication that non-Jews are less human than Jews is precisely the kind of wrong meaning that the story is warning us about.

Taken radically out of context. What this is talking about is, if a Jew is living in a land where the government is actively anti-Semitic, and actively oppresses, harms, and kills Jews, and the Jewish citizen in question is taken by agents of this government and questioned, he has permission under Jewish law to lie to the government for the sake of the safety of himself, his family, and his fellow Jews.

The Rabbis need to establish this because the norm, when not in such situations, is that it is prohibited to offer false testimony to the government, and it is deeply discouraged, and often prohibited, to lie to anyone else (Jew or Gentile) for the purpose of engendering fraud or similar kinds of misleading and deception.

This one is actually relatively accurately translated, but is, again, taken out of context. This is not a law, but a homily of the Rabbis (i.e., perhaps not meant to be taken literally, or at worst, is a suggestion, not a requirement) in regard to sexual temptation. The "evil" that they are talking about (actually better translated as "moral failing") is sexual intercourse with prostitutes (which was legal in ancient times everywhere-- today, a Jew in most countries cannot go to a prostitute, because we are expected to follow the laws of the country in which we live, so long as those laws do not directly violate the Torah, and most countries in which Jews live today prohibit prostitution). So the Rabbis here (not all the Rabbis, just a few) advise that if one cannot take one's temptation in this regard any further, it is better to go someplace no one knows one (so that one's reputation cannot suffer), and visit a prostitute there, rather than perhaps be driven by unfulfilled lust to engage in some more severe sexual transgression (adultery, incest, etc.)

I don't know who either of these people are (if, indeed, these quotes are factual). They are certainly no major spiritual leaders. They sound like random fanatical dicks. No one I know would say these things, or even think them.

Unless you are fairly skilled in Hebrew and Aramaic, and have devoted a considerable amount of time to studying one of the most difficult, abstruse, and lengthy sets of text in the Western World, you do not have any basis upon which to make such a judgment.

Pure anti-Semitic fiction. If the Okhrana had known about genetics, statements like that would have made it into The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Circumcision is not mutilation, it is a perfectly viable option, embraced by millions worldwide in many religious community (Jewish and non-Jewish), and endorsed by the American Pediatrics Society as beneficial, as well as endorsed as helpful by many other physicians and health care institutions. Even among those physicians and institutes that do not so endorse it, the majority agree it poses no risk of harm-- they simply don't see it providing substantial benefit.

Second of all, even if you don't care for circumcision, it is simply a falsehood that we usually suck blood out.

Circumcision must be accompanied by blood, as was the case with many ancient rituals. Usually, that's not a problem. A little is usually shed when the cut is made. On rare occasions, no blood is effused. In olden times, it was permitted to stimulate effusion of a few drops of blood by hand or with the mouth (attitudes toward medical procedures were very different a few centuries ago). It was rare even in olden times.

When it was discovered in the 19th century that such contacts could pass disease, the majority of all rabbis prohibited sucking out blood. Once a medical clamp for circumcision was invented, which not only stabilizes the procedure, virtually eliminating complications or botched cuts, it was seen that the clamp also ensures that the minimum few drops of blood is always effused, eliminating even the rare need for active stimulation of blood flow. All but a handful of the most virulently fanatical ultra-Orthodox rabbis completely prohibited sucking out blood at that time.

Even in the ultra-Orthodox world, where sucking out blood is on rare occasions still seen, they are supposed to do so by use of an instrument kind of like a sterile glass straw, so that no contact is made between mouth and penis, thus eliminating passage of disease and clarifying the potential social discomfort. The few ultra-Orthodox mohalim who have violated this rule and transmitted disease were not only criminally negligent under American law, they were liable and in transgression of Jewish law also.

The Talmud is made up of many opinions. Those which are concerning legal matters, we are bound to follow or interpret. Those which are not concerning legal matters we may take or reject as we please. And we are not bound to agree with every single rabbi. That is why our tradition embraces multiple interpretations and viewpoints.

Judaism has no "heads of religion," we are not hierarchical. Rabbis are scholars, teachers, and jurists, not priests and popes or caliphs or whatever. We can disagree with their interpretations if we want to. And if one of them is an asshole, we get to say so. That's about them: it's not about a value judgment of all Judaism.

You need to rethink where you get your facts, and you need to ask yourself why you are embracing bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas about Jews and Judaism.

You are, apparently, anti-Zionist. Which I think is a load of crap, but I also think it's a free country, and people are entitled to crappy political views-- hell, it's getting hard to find other kinds in America. But deciding that you do not support the existence of the State of Israel, while questionable, IMO, does not have to mean you need to be a full-blown anti-Semite.

If you would like to rethink these ideas, and get some real knowledge of Jews and Judaism, and some quality recommendations for where to pursue more real knowledge of Jews and Judaism, I am happy to discuss and answer whatever questions I can.

If, however, you would like to keep on being an anti-Semite, I would like to kindly ask you to first remove yourself from this thread, which is for legitimate questions and discussion only; and then to remove yourself from this forum, which is one of the few places I have found online that has been blessedly free of anti-Semitism, and blessedly full of good people having good conversation and discussion. TFP does not need this kind of pollution.

 

Knowing what we know today about the biological structures of the penis circumcision is an unjustifiable and reprehensible mutilation of a child's genitals.

Furthermore while circumcision may be endorsed by the APS their endorsement is based wholely on proven bad science:

Deaths from Circumcision
Circumcision deaths in USA | Circinfo.org
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumc is ion-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents
http://www.voanews.com/content/thirty-more-south-african-boys-die-af te r-botched-circumcision-ritual/1697451.html
http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-ea ch -year-in-us/
Swedish doctors urge for a ban
Royal Dutch Medical Association considers it a violation of human rights
College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia
" the current medical consensus is that routine infant male circumcision is not a recommended procedure; it is non‐therapeutic and has no medical prophylactic basis; current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks. "
Australian Federation of Aids organizations says it has "no role" in the HIV epidemic or prevention whatsoever
German Association of Child and Youth Doctors debunk all of these claims as well as pointing out they almost always come from biased studies.
President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists calls it "Irreversible mutilating surgery."
British Medical Association: "it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks. .... very similar arguments are also used to try and justify very harmful cultural procedures, such as female genital mutilation or ritual scarification. Furthermore, the harm of denying a person the opportunity to choose not to be circumcised must also be taken into account, together with the damage that can be done to the individual's relationship with his parents and the medical profession if he feels harmed by the procedure. .... parental preference alone is not sufficient justification for performing a surgical procedure on a child. .... The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. "
Australian College of Pediatrics: "The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit."
Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics considers circumcision without medical value and inconsistent with medical ethics.


And that's not even getting into the medical literature showing profound sexual side effects:

Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure
Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity
Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties
Circumcision linked to alexithymia
The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission
Circumcision/HIV claims are based on insufficient evidence
There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV
Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure
Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis
Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits
Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae
Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue
Circumcision has negligible benefit
Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma
Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life
Circumcision linked to psychological trauma
Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behavior


This simply isn't a conversation any more than global climate change, the facts are indisputable at this point. Jewish law places the sanctity of human life above all else. Brit Shalom offers a halakhically valid alternative to a medically and morally unsound practice.

 

I am not going to argue medical science with you, because that's not what this thread is for. Suffice it to say that there are a large number of physicians and health institutions who disagree with you, and it is simply unjustifiable to smear them all as "bad science" or in contrary to "indisputable facts." You are not in favor of circumcision, I get it. Fine, you should be free not to circumcise your sons, which is why our our country should be a secular democracy, and not a theocracy.

But what I can and will dispute is your characterization of "Brit Shalom." This so-called ritual has absolutely no basis or support in halachah. Not in any meaningful, effective, sense of the word, that is remotely connected to halachah in tradition. None. There is not a single Orthodox or Conservative rabbi who will endorse or officiate at a Brit Shalom, and I am not personally acquainted with a single Reform rabbi would do so either, though I have heard such exist.

It is, in fact, absolutely contrary to halachah to refuse to circumcise one's son, which is the very first duty of the parents of a newly born Jewish boy. There has never been even a hint of a suggestion in the tradition that this might be optional or avoidable in any way, nor that it might in any way morally questionable. On the contrary, every traditional work on practical halachah and observance-- and most modern ones also-- emphasize the positive nature of brit milah (circumcision), its importance in tradition, and its nature as one of the most fundamental of the mitzvot (commandments).

The idea that brit milah is morally problematic and that it might be permissible to avoid it is entirely a product of the farthest leftmost fringe of Jewish syncretists and secular humanists. It simply has no currency or validity in anything remotely approaching traditional observance.

 

I just googled to see how that could be possible when it's in fact proscribed by halakha for certain situations and it looks like we're talking past each other due to the usual one-name-ten-meanings thing you get on the internet these days.

When I was introduced to the concept brit shalom was given as the name for an alternative ceremony involving drawing a small amount of blood, such as already done for children born without a foreskin naturally or with converts who had a secular circumcision.

And other cultures feel the same way about practices we consider barbaric and immoral. With what we know today about circumcision there is no way to morally or medically justify male genital mutilation in Judaism any more than we could justify a clitoridectomy.

Also:

Yknow what's absolutely contrary to halakha? This quote. You get to figure out why and have a chance to "explain" how that's not what you "meant".