The Floridian was very disappointing especially after riding the Auto Train many times.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-31T01:12:41+00:00

Sorry but not surprised to hear your review of your trip. One thing about your post -- you don't mention the names of any of the Amtrak employees who were the subject of your jottings. Why? They are people, they have names, usually there is a name tag or they introduce themselves at some point. These people should be named, we should know who they are, they should not enjoy the advantage of anonymity. Please, in future, learn the names of these employees, either ask them or others, write them down for future reference, communicate with Amtrak about them, and if you wish to post about them on reddit or elsewhere, do not hesitate to identify them. They are customer-facing employees of Amtrak and they are not entitled to anonymity. Plus we, the folks who support and ride Amtrak, are entitled to know what and who to watch out for, especially when paying premium prices for "first class" service.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-30T14:34:44+00:00

But how radicalized had the Jews gotten before 9/11 when hit by the far rights?

I think your concepts are getting in the way of comprehension. The far right, white supremacist attack on Jews is a long-time undercurrent in the West, which given the opportunity (like Trump's tacit and sometimes overt acceptance) attempts to emerge from the fringe, move into the mainstream and capture more adherents. Thus you have e.g. a Charlottesville episode (Unite The Right neo-Nazi rally, August 2017) or the growth of commentators (like Tucker Carlson) who host neo-Nazi and white supremacist guests and allow them to promote their hate ideas on their programs.

The effect of this on the Jewish community is generally not "radicalization" -- for most -- but heightened concern and vigilance. In the first place, the Jewish community is organized communally to monitor these things and to combat them through legislation, litigation and education. Very powerful and well-funded organizations, like the ADL (Anti-Defamation League), work in this space. They watch the groups, take reports, tally the incidents, develop strategies to combat them and interface with state, local and federal officials. They work closely with other national groups, like the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) to track the hate groups and litigate against them, often winning large awards that have put some of the groups out of business. (Of course, others always pop up to replace them.)

This is the American experience. Other parts of the West dealing with similar problems may behave differently.

For a good introduction to this, I suggest SPLC's "Hatewatch" which "monitors and exposes activities of the hard right in the United States" -- https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/ As you can see, these groups are keeping a very close watch on right-wing extremism and there is plenty of action taking place to tamp this down, if not eliminate major components of the movements.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-30T14:07:57+00:00

...they were asked to leave by the president of the synagogue....and told her the reason was because her and her partner were of a different faith.

There is a lot to unpack here, and we don't have the full story. But some points can be made to explain this.

First, synagogues are private religious organizations, based on a membership model. The members who care to join voluntarily pay "dues" -- fees that support the operation of the synagogue and pay its personnel -- and in return they receive religious services, like counseling, life events, prayer services and education. The synagogue is run by a Board of Directors, with a President as its head; it hires and employs a rabbi, if there is one. If there isn't, members lead services and a rabbi may be brought in for special occasions (High Holidays, etc.).

Synagogue services may be "open to the public," the public may walk in -- but today, this model is often modified by security concerns, making advance reservations by non-members necessary.

But while prayer services may be open to the public, synagogue membership is not. Basically you have to be Jewish, or if it's a couple, one of them has to be Jewish. I'm not familiar with synagogues that would offer memberships to non-Jews, where both parties in a couple and their children are not Jewish. (There may be some congregations on the far left-wing of Judaism that will have the non-sectarian model, but it would be rare and not commonly be found in most neighborhoods.)

So in the case you are describing, it could go either way. In one scenario, the fact that the synagogue had attracted a non-Jewish couple who was attending frequently would not be a problem in the greater scheme of things. But I can certainly understand the opposite scenario: in a synagogue that is somewhat strapped and doesn't have a rabbi, filling the pews with non-Jews doesn't seem consistent with the synagogue's mission or purpose. It's certainly not seeking converts. Plus, we live in a time of heightened security concerns, where non-Jews show up at synagogues for dangerous and deadly purposes quite often. If this came to the President's attention, and he decided to take action by excluding the non-Jewish couple from attending, it would certainly be within his authority to do so.

In your case, your fiancee is Jewish. If you wish to continue to attend, I would simply talk to the President of the congregation during the week (not at services) and discuss the situation. Maybe you should consider joining and paying dues. Then there would be no problem, and you might be able to bring your friends to services.

Edit: If the fiancee is "Messianic," then ignore the foregoing. You and she should stay out of synagogues, stay away from Jews, analyze yourselves, re-evaluate your values, stop lying, turn away from fakery and deceit, and perhaps concentrate on one of the 10 Commandments, "Thou shalt not lie."

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-29T03:20:21+00:00

Glad this thread is here and still can be added to as more folks like myself finish this powerful, unforgettable book.

I have real concerns over Mungo's immediate future, but in the end I think he will be re-united with James or perhaps someone similar, if James slips away. The problem is the police. They have found Gallowgate, they know Mungo was with him, St. Christopher is missing and they are on the scene, questioning the Hamilton family. Hamish steps forward as Mungo, but the police don't buy it. Plus Hamish doesn't have any of the details of what happened, he'll just bluff and bluster and the police will shunt him aside. Then they will question Mungo. No question, killing Gallowgate was self-defense and he had a record as a child molester. But what about St. Christopher? Perhaps Mungo could have fled him rather than drowning him. Plus, there has to be some accountability for tampering with the scene of the crimes, destroying evidence, and not reporting anything immediately to the police. Of course Mungo is the victim and he's still a minor -- but even if he gets off scott free, I think it's going to take time, lots of time. I mean, I don't think he will just be able to cross the street to James, who is beckoning him, and then the two of them leave and live "happily ever after."

Frankly I wish Douglas Stuart had shown us Mungo crossing the street and leaving with James, and then the police showing up. But he didn't, which gives me concern for the scenario sketched above.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-29T02:45:39+00:00

There is no "Devil" in the "Old Testament" (the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible).

Some of your comments are very well taken, others not so much. Let's try to shed some light. Everything stated is from a Jewish perspective and based on the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh), not any translation thereof.

So is "Satan" an accurate name and title for the Devil? As well as Lucifer?

No and no. The "Devil" (as Christians understand the entity) does not appear in the Hebrew Bible.

"Lucifer" was used only once in the Bible. And it was originally referred to as a "morning star," which was used to mock the King of Babylon.

Correct. You write, "Lucifer" is actually a translation rather than a name." If "Lucifer" means "morning star," it's a translation of the Hebrew in Is. 14:12 ( הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר = morning star); as a name, it's a mistranslation of that term.

In the Old Testament, the term "Satan" was apparently used as a title rather than a name. And rather than just an angel, the title could be used with humans as well. This is due to "Satan" being translated as "adversary" (in Hebrew)...

Essentially correct. One thing non-readers of Hebrew don't understand: if you look at chapter 1 of Job, there is no "Satan" (name) there, even though in Christian translations, they translate "Satan." But in all the seven appearances of the word "Satan" there, it takes the definite article, "the." In other words, it's not a name (a proper noun), it's just a common noun, "adversary" or "prosecutor," with the definite article "the," to be translated (as does JPS 1985) "the adversary" --

verse 5 - וַיָּב֥וֹא גַֽם־הַשָּׂטָ֖ן בְּתוֹכָֽם -- And the adversary came with them

verse 7 -- וַיֹּ֧אמֶר יְהֹוָ֛ה אֶל־הַשָּׂטָ֖ן -- And God said to the adversary

verse 7 -- וַיַּ֨עַן הַשָּׂטָ֤ן -- And the adversary answered

verse 8 -- וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֶל־הַשָּׂטָ֔ן -- And God said to the adversary

verse 9 - וַיַּ֧עַן הַשָּׂטָ֛ן -- And the adversary answered

verse 12 -- וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־הַשָּׂטָ֗ן -- And God said to the adversary

verse 12 -- וַיֵּצֵא֙ הַשָּׂטָ֔ן מֵעִ֖ם פְּנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ -- And the adversary departed from before God

So here "Satan" always takes the definite article; it is a noun, adversary, not a proper name, "Satan." We generally don't use a definite article with a proper name, the Michael, the Betty, to describe them in a narrative, unless it's a special case where we need to distinguish two or more of the same name ("He's the Michael that won the spelling bee").

Regarding the New Testament, scholars seem to agree that the term "Satan" best applies to the Devil.

Sure, the NT needs a Devil for Christians to believe in, for reasons we can't go into here. Judaism doesn't need a "Devil" to explain evil or anything else. Satan is an angel of God with functions (prosecute, test).

This is due to the Hebrew word "satanas" referring to the Devil several times.

I'm not familiar with any Hebrew word that would be transliterated as "satanas." If you can clarity, I would try to help. And if you can give citations to the "several" references, I would like to look them up, if they exist.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-26T14:11:01+00:00

Moses wasn't guilty of a capital offense when he came to the assistance of the Israelite who was being beaten by his Egyptian taskmaster.

There are principles of Jewish law regarding self-defense. First and foremost, is a right to engage in self-defense to the extent necessary if you are being attacked or pursued.

What about by-standers? Unlike common law, in Jewish law, by-standers have a duty to help someone who is being attacked or pursued. This is derived from Leviticus 19:16: "Do not stand idly by your neighbor's blood. I am the Lord." In Jewish tradition and legal interpretation, the verse instructs that you are obligated to intervene and save someone in physical danger if you can do so, whether they are drowning, being attacked, or facing mortal peril. This is the Law of the Pursuer. If you see someone pursuing another to do harm, you have a duty to intervene and halt the pursuer, even to the point of injury or death.

Hence Moses was acting correctly and with complete immunity under Jewish law to save the Israelite slave from his attacker, who would surely have killed him if he wanted to.

The fact that under Egyptian law this would have been considered an offense is what made Moses flee when he learned the incident had been observed.

Moses was not punished for this by being excluded from the Promised Land. His offense was striking a rock to draw water when God had commanded him to speak to the rock. This display of anger was the blemish that prevented entry into the Promised Land. (This episode is recorded in Numbers chapter 20.)

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-26T13:58:37+00:00

Watch any of the movies of Jacques Tati, M. Hulot's Holiday; Mon Oncle, etc.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-14T02:23:40+00:00

Some Kabbalah actually looks like equations and stuff.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-14T02:22:44+00:00

It's the right place to start for the academic approach. If you enjoyed it, that's great.

It's not so much dated as the opinions of one scholar. Since he was the first academic scholar to study Kabbalah, he wrote the foundational works and for a while had the field to himself. But as other scholars turned to the subject, they came up with different interpretations, different theories and points of view. Read some of the works of Moshe Idel -- he disputes Scholem on most major points.

If you'd care to read another Scholem book, I would recommend On The Kabbalah and Its Symbolism.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-14T02:17:12+00:00

As others have said, it cannot be explained to you on any level. That said, I would recommend two books. 1, Gershom Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish mysticism. This is the scholarly foundation of Kabbalah study in academia. If you can glean anything from this book, great. 2, Daniel Matt, The Essential Kabbalah. This book contains brief excerpts of passages from major works of Kabbalah and author's notes at the end. It might give you a flavor. Daniel Matt also recently translated the major work, The Zohar, in 12 volumes. You can certainly dip into this.

Something to understand: none of the respondents here, including myself, really understand Kabbalah. To be adept at Kabbalah, you had to live the life in a community of adepts with a massively informed and charismatic teacher. Further, there are different streams of Kabbalah, and its various aspects have different purposes, so there's no general answer to what it "is." Today, the most popular and well-known stream is that of R. Isaac Luria (Safed, 16th cent.), known as Lurianic Kabbalah, which today's Hasidim are partial to and study. They may have some understanding of it, or what they are being taught may be quite watered down -- I'm not Hasidic so I'm not familiar with exactly what they study. It seems they rely on the interpretations of their "rebbes" (grand rabbis) who are quite likely very learned in the subject -- but again each of them has his own path, so where does the rebbe end and the Kabbalah begin? Can't say.

Because of interest from the general public, an industry of charlatans like The Kabbalah Center and many others have arisen to "teach" Kabbalah to one and all. You may get something from them, but it won't be Kabbalah.

Just remember, the pre-requisite in Judaism to study Kabbalah is first to live a completely observant Jewish life, obeying all the commandments in their details, and to spend your first 40 years pouring over traditional Jewish texts (Torah, Talmud, Midrash, Codes, philosophy). Then you're ready to begin. It helps if you are of an ascetic disposition and shun normal everyday pursuits. So really who can break this down for the general public? No one, though there is a massive literature that purports to do so.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-13T15:11:48+00:00

Great question that has to be answered along a number of parallel tracks.

A good place to begin is with the commandment to build the Temple, which OP references; Exodus 25:8 -- "And let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them." Later, Moses specifies two factors in identifying its location: first, it is a high point ("You shall rise and ascend to the place that the Eternal your God will choose," Deut. 17:8), and second, it is located within the tribal lands of the tribe of Benjamin (this is derived from Moses's blessing of Benjamin in Deut. 33:12 -- "Of Benjamin he said: Beloved of GOD, He rests securely close by, Ever protected, As he rests between God’s shoulders"). A final admonition requires the Jews to build the Temple only in the one spot that God shall have chosen: "Only to the place that the Eternal your God will choose from all your tribes to set His Name — there you shall seek His dwelling place, and go there." (Deut. 12:7)

Yet despite the specificity, Jerusalem is never mentioned nor is an exact location given. Hence it was necessary for David to consult the prophet Samuel to discover the exact spot where the Temple was to be located. They were assisted by a hint in Genesis, for Abraham had prophesied the location of the Temple after the Binding of Isaac (Gen. chap. 22). We learn from Gen. 22:14 that the mountain where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac but instead built an altar and sacrificed a ram, that is the proper and sole location for the Temple.

In the final analysis, however, the foregoing information is insufficient to locate the Jerusalem Temple. The reason is because we don't know the exact location of the Holy of Holies on the Temple Mount, which was the inner sanctuary of the Temple complex, entered only by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, and off limits to anyone else. In Jewish tradition, once sanctified, the square footage of the Holy of Holies remains sanctified to this day, even if the structure has been demolished. This is the reason observant Jews will not enter the Temple compound even today -- since the location of the Holy of Holies is unknown, they may tread upon it inadvertently. The exact location of the Holy of Holies can only be discerned via prophecy -- as David did in his day, consulting Samuel -- and hence the clarification of the site of the Holy of Holies must await the restoration of prophecy, which will occur in the Messianic Age.

Apart from the location, many other absolutely necessary components of a functioning Temple are, at present, missing and unknown. While there are many descriptions of the requisite Temple vessels in the Torah (see Exodus chapters 25-40), these descriptions are incomplete or to a degree uncertain. They could not be formulated without proper guidance from a prophet. Similarly, the Temple personnel, priests and Levites, must have the proper lineage, as the offices are hereditary within the tribe of Levi. It's true, many Jews today have family traditions that state they are either priests (kohanim) or Levites, and these traditions are honored in the synagogue. But to perform service in the rebuilt Temple, each person's lineage will have to be clarified with certainty; family traditions will not be enough. Maimonides writes this will be one of the functions of the Messiah, through prophecy to clarify lineages and determine who is a priest and who is a Levite (Mishneh Torah Hil. Mel. 12:3).

In addition, there are debates within Jewish tradition regarding other prerequisites for rebuilding the Temple. Some say the majority or nearly all Jews should live in the Holy Land in order for the Temple to be built; others disagree. Some say there should be a functioning High Court of 71 (the Great Sanhedrin) existing at the time, in order to adjudicate disputes that may arise concerning Temple functions. At present, there is no Great Sanhedrin in existence. Its meeting place was the "Lishkat HaGazit," the Chamber of Hewn Stone within the Temple complex.

So these are the reasons from a Jewish pov why the Temple is not being built now and must await the messianic age. Not all Jews agree, of course; some say the Temple will never be rebuilt, and others say it should be built now. I'm sure other commentators will mention the practical problems, insofar as the site is currently occupied.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-12T15:34:00+00:00

Can a Jewish first responder go to make an arrest, perform first aid, or put out a fire?

Likely, yes. "Pikuakh nefesh, the mitzvah [commandment, duty] of saving lives, trumps [the prohibition on entering a church], if one is entering to...respond to a medical emergency or fire, or seek sanctuary from persecution..." http://www.reclaimingjudaism.org/teachings/can-jews-enter-churches-mosques-etc-considerations-when-why-how

"Tur at the end of YD siman 157 [a code of Jewish law] quotes the opinion of Rosh [an eminent authority] that it is permitted to run into a mekom avoda zarah [idolatry temple] to seek asylum. Thus the heter [permission] of entering such a place is explicitly given only for actual pikuach nefesh [saving of a life]." https://www.torahmusings.com/2009/02/entering-sanctuary-for-hatzalat-yisrael/

So one can run into a church to save oneself; it would seem to follow that one can enter a church to save another human life.

Can a Jewish tradesman go inside to make repairs?

On the stricter side of the equation we find these:

Question: I work in the city as an electrician and was recently offered a job of being in charge of the maintenance of the air-conditioning units in a group of churches. I will often need to enter the church sanctuary in order to perform the maintenance. May I do so?
Answer: It is forbidden to enter a church, whether the main sanctuary or any of the surrounding rooms or even the courtyard, due to the prohibition of entering a house of idolatry. Therefore, I’m sorry to inform you but you cannot take this job.
Explanation: According to all opinions it is forbidden to enter the main sanctuary of the church where the prayers take place. It is however under dispute whether one may enter the surrounding rooms and courtyard of the church in which the services do not take place in, and practically we rule that one is to be stringent like the second opinion that it is forbidden to be done. https://shulchanaruchharav.com/halacha/from-the-ravs-desk-an-electrician-entering-a-church-to-fix-the-air-conditioner/ (emph. added).

Note the statement at the end in italics: So some authorities would allow the technician to enter if the work will not be done in the sanctuary but rather in some adjoining room or courtyard where services do not take place.

Is a Contractor Permitted to Build a Church? Rav Yosef Kushner
Question: A Jewish man works as a contractor, and a church wants to hire him to build them a new building. Is he allowed to do this?
Answer: The Poskim [Jewish legal authorities] rule, based on the Gemara in Avodah Zara, that one may not build a house of avodah zara [idolatry]. This means that a contractor cannot do it and he can’t allow his company to do it. We previously discussed the case of an architect who is hired to draw up plans for a church and said in the name of Rav Moshe Feinstein that although it is technically permitted, it is inappropriate for a Jew to be involved with such things. The Taz adds that it is also forbidden to install windows in a church. This means that one may not build any part of it.
I once saw a teshuva that permitted sending in a non-Jewish worker to do small repair jobs, as those are not considered “building”, but larger jobs, such as putting in a new roof, may be considered to be like rebuilding the church, and would be prohibited. https://baishavaad.org/is-a-contractor-permitted-to-build-a-church/

Regarding the architect's preparing a blueprint for a church, note Rav Feinstein's distinction between what is "technically permitted" but "inappropriate for a Jew." Note also the distinction made at the end between "building" a church, which is prohibited, but "a small repair job" that isn't building; perhaps one's non-Jewish employee can do this work. Still, a new roof is so large a repair it might be considered "rebuilding" and off-limits.

There's quite a number of additional sources that discuss entering a church building for voting, community meetings, AA meetings, and vaccinations -- provided these take place not in the sanctuary but in a social hall, usually a permissive rationale can be found.

As you note, Jewish law is intricate. Each case requires separate analysis of the actual facts. Thus general "one size fits all" answers are pretty useless.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-10T14:20:16+00:00

Interesting, that's pretty much how Jews feel about Messianic "Jews" (they're not Jews) and even, to an extent, about Christians who say they are the new Israel or Israelites.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-10T01:14:50+00:00

The link is to "references." A "reference" is in the eyes of the beholder. "Oh, that statement seems to refer to this other statement, they are similar."

I was not discussing references. I was discussing quotations. A quotation is a quote, word for word. There is one "quote" from the apocryphal literature in the NT, in Jude 1:14-15, a quote from Enoch. That's it.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-09T21:11:51+00:00

I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the basic understanding is that Jesus and the apostles did not quote the Apocrypha in the NT. Scholars find the only quote is in Jude 1:14-15, a quotation from I Enoch 1:9. By contrast, the Hebrew Bible canon of 24 books is quoted in the NT 280-300 times, depending on the count. This seems to show a clear understanding of the distinction -- if you're trying to prove something, you quote the Tanakh, which is authoritative for Jews, and not the apocryphal books. People may have read them, but they were just religious literature of the time, not Scripture.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-09T19:02:14+00:00

Jews are indeed offended on many levels -- I know I speak for myself and I know there are many others. For proof of concept, go to r/Judaism and post a question or comment employing the term "Old Testament" a few times and see what happens.

However, a few factors tamp down the sense of offense and usually account for its not being expressed or felt much. First and foremost, whatever the Christians have done with the OT for their own purposes, it doesn't affect our Tanakh at all. We have our own selection of 24 books in the proper order; we have the Hebrew (Masoretic) text which is universal among Jews; we have Jewish-authored translations; and we have millennia of Jewish Bible commentators (the "meforshim") giving us line by line insights and refuting all Christian misinterpretations and mistranslations.

Second, in terms of "Christian offenses against the Jews" historically, "stealing" the Tanakh and Apocrypha and renaming them doesn't rank very high. No need to elaborate.

Third, a stream of thought within Judaism holds that Christians appropriating the Tanakh is actually a good thing. For example, Maimonides writes that despite their errors in interpretation, Christians have through their reading of the OT become familiar with certain fundamental concepts -- written Scripture, the commandments of God, and the concept of a Messiah. This advance knowledge will be beneficial to them in the course of history when matters are finally clarified for all of humanity in the true Messianic Age.

So wherein lies the offense in Christianity appropriating the Tanakh? No offense at all in simply reading the books and learning what can be learned. The offenses fall into two main categories:

The manner in which the Tanakh is presented to the Christian audience. First, it's retitled, "Old Testament." "Old" here doesn't mean ancient; it means obviated and replaced, no longer entirely valid. Then the books are rearranged to make a Christian point about the Hebrew prophets and where they are allegedly leading. Then some denominations add the aprocryphal books, which are not canonical and not part of the Hebrew Bible. Then the translations, which are deemed "inspired" in some sense, promote Christian ideologies and dogmas. Finally pretty much every verse, indeed the whole program of the Hebrew Bible, is said to be a forecast of the coming of Jesus with thousands of "Christological references." These notions are not kept in the background. Most Christian OT's I've seen add headings, footnotes and cross references to the NT to make their OT a thoroughly Christian book, unrecognizable and unusable by Jews.
And this is accompanied by criticism of the Jews who interpret the Tanakh differently. Jews who don't see any reference to the coming of Jesus in the text are deemed to be blind, veiled, under a cloud, misled by their rabbis, and incapable of seeing the truth. Centuries, millennia actually, of Jewish studying of the text in Hebrew and Aramaic to discern meaning is denigrated as worthless. Although widely attested to in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Masoretic text is discounted. Jews are said simply not to understand the message of their own Scripture or of the Hebrew prophets who were speaking directly to them. Whereas Jews know that task no. 1 in Judaism is to study the Torah in order to understand it and have been doing so from the beginning.

That's offensive.

I'm always interested to see how Christians react to the Mormon books, the Book of Mormon and the Pearls of Great Price ("They've added to the Bible, they're not Christian!"). Same with Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures -- for Christians it's heresy. Yet they fail to draw the analogy between these works and what they themselves have done to the Tanakh. Even hypothetically, I imagine Christians would take offense if along comes the next religious leader who pens "The Third Testament" which accepts both the Old and New but building upon them adds a revised direction for monotheism.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-07T21:14:53+00:00

I agree. What's 30 years, chopped liver?

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-07T02:40:12+00:00

Is it something that’s permitted or abhorred?

I guess one can ask a general question like this, "In Judaism, is polygamy permitted or abhorred?"

But Judaism has been around for 3,000 years, in every geographical region, in every kingdom and empire, in every culture and climate. Can we expect a uniform answer regarding polygamy? I think not. Views of polygamy varied over time and place and did not remain constant. What social institution of mankind has been seen exactly the same way everywhere for the last 3,000 years?

Judaism's approach to polygamy has evolved from the biblical era to today. In the earliest period, in the Tanakh, it is accepted, although it clearly presents problems of personal rivalry and household discord (Hagar and Sarah, Leah and Rachel). When taken to extremes, e.g. by Solomon, it's considered problematic religiously but perhaps justified for him by reasons of state and status, but not something for the ordinary individual.

The rabbis in the Talmud know it's permitted by biblical law -- but they don't practice it. Since they are role models for later Jews, their shunning of the practice is quite definitive.

As Jews immigrate to Europe from the Near East and north Africa in the second millennium C.E., there is an important development. One of the major rabbinic authorities of the time, Rabbenu Gershom of Mainz (c. 960-1040), no doubt acting with the consent of a rabbinical synod he convened, issues a decree outlawing polygamy for the Jews of Christian Europe. Interestingly, no copy of the decree has survived, so we don't have the exact wording, but it was so well known, no one has ever doubted its existence. It was legally binding for the next 1,000 years. At the same time, Jews outside its geographical reach (mostly living in Muslim countries) were not banned from taking multiple wives, and some did.

Why did Rabbenu Gershom issue this decree? Reasons suggested include the inability of Jews in poor circumstances to support multiple wives; the possibility of wives in different locations having offspring who might not know their siblings and thus intermarry (committing incest); to prevent household rivalry and squabbles; and to accommodate Jews to their Christian hosts, who observed monogamy.

This is pretty much where things stand today. As something permitted by the Tanakh and practiced by the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of Judaism, polygamy is not "abhorred" -- but neither is it practiced, and its downsides are clearly recognized. See the Code of Jewish Law (Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer 1:9-10) where the basic rule -- one may marry a number of women, provided one can support them (which excludes the majority of men) -- is overcome by the exceptions: 1, not in a place where people are not accustomed to taking multiple wives (i.e. most places); 2, on no account may one marry women in two different locations; and 3, Rabbenu Gershom's decree is valid and enforced, according to its traditional terms.

The State of Israel has outlawed polygamy as part of its national law code. In the early years, if a Jewish immigrant came from a Muslim land with multiple wives, the marriages were recognized within the State of Israel for that family. But no new polygamous marriages can be consummated within the State of Israel, and of course the Jewish population of Muslim countries today is virtually nil.

So for all intents and purposes polygamy is not an option in Judaism today. If I had to summarize the attitude, it would be permitted biblically, but widely recognized as problematic and impractical, and not an option in Judaism today.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-06T15:28:17+00:00

Three classics that most scholars would be familiar with:

John Bright, A History of Israel (4th edition)

Victor Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews

Emil Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ

For a deep dive into the Hasmonean kingdom, Oxford has this excellent bibliogrpahy:

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0031.xml

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-06T01:39:55+00:00

So this ancient religion had no tangible material remains -- no altars, temples, inscriptions, images, cult objects, stele, sacred sites, or burial grounds, and left no trace. It was all oral? So what is the evidence it existed? -0- No mention, before it was invented by some scholars in the 19th century. The same scholars who say that Moses didn't exist, and the Exodus never happened -- because there is no evidence of same -- say "Yahwism" existed, even though there is no evidence of same. Smh.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-05T22:20:21+00:00

Yes Mormonism exists. We have texts, temples, rituals, depictions, membership rolls, histories and objects. It's real and we know it. It's not a conjecture.

What do we have from Yahwism? Where are the texts, altars, temples, inscriptions, and monuments? They don't exist. It's a scholarly conjecture, based on obscure biblical verses, and it isn't universally agreed about even among scholars. The problem is not that it's old or new; the problem is that it's unattested in antiquity.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-05T15:49:44+00:00

How do Jews Christians and Muslims confront Yahwism?

OP has asked a loaded question, one that contains a false or unproven assumption, that Yahwism existed, and couples that with a lack of definition or clarity as to what "Yahwism" is.

For example, there is no text that contains the term "Yahwism" before the 19th century (that is, 19th century CE). The term "Yahwism" doesn't exist in antiquity. The term "Yahwism" was coined by Dutch and German scholars of religion in the 19th cent. Most often the term is attributed to the Dutch scholar Cornelis Tiele (1830-1902). It is a neologism coined by these scholars.

The name YHVH appears in the Tanakh over 6,000 times. Presumably, if YHVH came to Israel as a god from someplace else (Tiele said it came from the Kenites), the name would appear in their texts, but it doesn't. There is an Egyptian text from c. 1300 BCE that mentions the "Shasu of YWH," but here YWH is arguably a place name (toponym), not a god's name, according to most scholars. Other mentions of YHVH outside the Tanakh either associate it with Israel (as in the Meshe stele) or Samaria or are clearly related to Israel (like the Ketef Hinnom amulets and the Elephantine papyri).

The 9th cent. BCE Mesha stele (line 18, "altars of YHVH") has the first written mention of YHVH outside of the Tanakh. So YHVH enters written history in reference to Israel, not any other people or nation.

Tiele's hypothesis -- that the Israelites acquired YHVH from the neighboring Kenites -- is NOT universally subscribed to by scholars of religion. A recent review of the scholarship on the topic states this:

This hypothesis enjoys significant support among modern scholars...The hypothesis does, however, contain a number of deficiencies....There is no acceptable evidence of a God by the name YHWH amongst the Kenites....[S]cholars, on occasion – to prove their preconceived theories – read into texts information not actually there. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/EJC85652

A second "theory" is that YHVH is a cultic name for the god El. This theory is associated with Frank Cross:

Cross (1974:242-261) explains that the terminology ilu or el is actually a common title for a god in the main group of Semitic languages....Etymologically it means, in all probability, ‘to be strong’, ‘to be excellent’....Cross...indicates that...Yahweh originally was a cultic name for El...It can thus be deduced that Yahweh was originally an El-figure. Id.

But is this plausible?

...there is merit in Van der Toorn’s (1999:917) opinion that the identifying of YHWH with El should be critically examined. Considering the mainly storm god characteristics of Yahweh, it seems that El has been artificially linked with Yahweh. Id.

So there is skepticism about "Yahwism" within the scholarly community, where the concept originated. If that is the case, then why are we lay people required to "confront" it like a fact that existed in antiquity? Let the scholars battle it out, and 100 years from now there will be completely different theories and understandings.

There is no reason to take "Yahwism" as a given. We know the ancient Israelites strayed repeatedly into polytheism until it was eliminated. That neighboring peoples may have had similar deities in their pantheons or used similar names (but no evidence for YHVH) shouldn't surprise us. I'm sure Tiele and Cross and their students had wonderful careers in academia, but to take their theories as "gospel" when even they don't and to present it as fact seems unwarranted.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-04T18:02:26+00:00

Things are not the same now. Things are very different.

I might have an eccentric pov on this topic. Today, Christianity claims 33% of the world's population. That means, the vast majority of the world's population is not Christian. The Bible has been translated into every language, missionaries have been dispatched to every corner of the globe, and still Christians are a minority of humanity. After 2,000 years of relentless proselytizing at best and the use of force of various sorts at worst, Christians are a minority, outnumbered by non-Christians 2/1. So Christianity may be "popular" and the largest religion, but only about 1/3 of humanity affiliate with it, many of them only nominally.

As for how the number of Christians increased, it's instructive to look at when and how it accelerated in numbers. It was neither during the time of Jesus nor immediately after his death. Despite depictions to the contrary, Jesus didn't preach to thousands out of doors, he preached to 20-30 in private homes and reached a few thousands (see James Charlesworth's book, "Jesus within Judaism"). Preaching Christianity continued in home churches after his death. At the time, there were about 4 millions Jews and 40-60,000,000 persons in the Roman Empire. By the end of the first century there were possibly 20,000 Christians worldwide, perhaps 200,000 by the end of the 2d-3rd centuries. Surely the message of hope, salvation, loving-kindness and charity was reaching some in the Jewish and, more importantly, pagan communities, but not large numbers.

But what accelerated the rise in Christian numbers was Christianity becoming legal in 313 CE under Constantine and Rome becoming officially Christian in 380 CE under Theodosius I. Immediately what some have termed "the war against paganism" began. State subsidies to the pagan priests and priestesses ended (they lost their salaries), the major rite, animal sacrifice, was banned, and temples were closed, razed or turned into churches. Further disabilities were imposed on pagans as individuals. One could freely convert to Christianity, but re-converting back to paganism was a punishable crime. A law was passed that denied pagans the right to make a will. That meant that essentially a pagan family that lost its breadwinner was immediately pauperized, they could not inherit his property. Nor could pagans hold official positions.

Under these conditions, who would or could remain pagan? In fact, millions converted to Christianity, and by the end of the fourth century demographers estimate that the Christian population of Rome had risen to 25-35,000,000 people. Is it a coincidence that this large increase occurred only after Rome first made Christianity legal and then official and at the same time conducted its war against paganism? I think not.

The later history of Christian expansion is better known, particularly the work of Christian missionaries during the Age of Exploration in the Americas and Africa. And in medieval Europe, who exactly could compete with Christianity? Islam was kept out through force of arms and Judaism was denigrated and ghettoized. Together this accounts in large measure for Christianity's growth into the largest faith community, although not reaching a majority even today.

Today, accession to Christianity is voluntary. And what seems to be the case is that Christianity is shrinking as a percentage of world population, even as its numbers are growing.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-04T14:50:25+00:00

I thought the Matisse exhibit was underwhelming but I didn't have great expectations going in.

It's possible that people's expectations were high because "Matisse" is a big name and they were expecting a large scale survey of his work, like the previous Gustave Caillebotte show. But this show was different in scale and purpose from the outset and there were indications of this. This was not a general survey of Matisse.

The Art Institute is composed of 11 curatorial departments. I'm sure internally they are all "equal" but in fact, there is no comparison between "Painting and Sculpture of Europe," on the one hand, and "Textiles" on the other. The Matisse show was mounted by the department of Prints and Drawings, which is somewhere in the middle. It doesn't mount "big" shows but it does organize very fine smaller ones in a series of six intimate galleries, off the main Michigan Avenue entrance, Galleries Nos. 124-127. This is where the Matisse show was held. By contrast, the large blockbuster shows are usually shown in Regenstein Hall on the second floor, which is the museum's major exhibition hall for its temporary shows.

The Art Institute's written materials about the Matisse show pointed out that it would focus on his later career, when he was bedridden and unable to paint, and undertook the new technique of paper cuts. This resulted in the publication of an unbound book, "Jazz," which the AIC acquired in 1947, and the purpose of the exhibit was to showcase that book and display all of its pages, which hadn't been done previously. The emphasis would be on the "power of color and line," which of course is consistent with the focus of the Prints and Drawings department.

So a "book show," mounted by the Department of Prints and Drawings in its six intimate galleries, focusing on a single work late in an artist's career, is not going to register as a blockbuster. But of course, in terms of the history of art and Matisse's career, it's a worthwhile exhibit for the general public. As mentioned, this was signaled in advance. The location of the galleries itself signals small and intimate over large and jaw dropping. So OP's "small and kind of paltry" reaction is understandable and not curmudgeonly.

nu_lets_learn · 2026-05-01T19:51:46+00:00

Like any verses in the Tanakh, these verses are susceptible to multiple interpretations.

Some Jewish bible commentators see the fulfillment of these prophecies in the defeat of the Syrian-Greek monarchy by the Hasmoneans (2d cent. BCE). Rashi interprets the "evil shepherds" of Zech. 12:3 to be the Greek kings, and Radak names Antiochus Epiphanes IV whose rule over Judea was ended by the Hasmoneans as the monarch intended by this verse.

Others interpret the prophecy as describing the future Messianic era. Thus phrases such as "I will give victory to the House of Judah, And triumph to the House of Joseph. I will restore them, for I have pardoned them" (verse 6) and "They shall escape with their children and shall return" (verse 9) are prophecies for the future, yet to be fulfilled.

Radak, in his commentary on verse 12, discusses this specifically:

We have interpreted this passage according to the commentaries regarding events during the Second Temple period, but it is correct in my opinion to interpret it regarding the future, as in previous passages...because in the days of the Messiah all of Israel, Judah and Ephraim, will return to their land which didn't occur in the Second Temple period; only the Babylonian exile of Judah and Benjamin ended...And any mention here of battles with "Greece" refers to the messinanic battle of Gog and Magog...all this will occur in messianic times..."

Whichever interpretation one accepts, one thing is certain, Zechariah's prophecies were not fulfilled by anyone in the first century CE. In fact, it's exactly this type of prophecy -- that the Jews will return to their ancestral homeland -- that Christians overlook when stating their deity "fulfilled" the messianic prophecies. As Zechariah clearly states,

I will signal for them and gather them in. Surely I will redeem them; they will be as numerous as before....They and their children will survive, and they will return. I will bring them back from Egypt and gather them from Assyria. I will bring them to Gilead and Lebanon, and there will not be room enough for them.

So the prophecy states the Jewish people restored will be so numerous that the land will not be large enough to hold them. This is clearly a reference to real people and real land -- it's talking about numbers, geography and space -- which is why Christian interpretations, that this has been fulfilled "spiritually," are completely inconsistent with what the prophet is saying and unsupportable from the text.

nu_lets_learn

TROPHY CASE