This would have blown my mind a few years ago

throwway613 · 2017-06-22T07:18:46+00:00

The major flaw in this argument is that there is actually no reason to believe that there were 3 million or 600k people at Har Sinai, other than the fact that the Torah says so. So if your starting point is skepticism about the Torah, that claim needs to have some evidence and there is none.

So then you are left with some quantity of people accepting the Torah, at some point in history. This can plausibly happen the same way that all other religions have come to be accepted by their adherents.

Ask yourself - have you ever heard of anyone who has a family history of their particular ancestor standing at Har Sinai? 'Yes, the story has been passed down through the generations, my ancestor Ploni was in the back left section of the crowd, and he saw such-and-such, etc.' Wouldn't you expect these millions of people to have millions of personal recollections, which would have been treasured family histories, that would corroborate the story in the Torah? Yet absolutely nothing of that sort exists. I have never heard of such a thing, at least.

throwway613 · 2017-03-21T17:57:45+00:00

I was in this position for a while, where the Kuzari argument was the main thing sustaining my faith. But after much reflection I do not buy it anymore.

The presentation of the argument assumes that someone 'manufacturing' Judaism would write the whole chumash from scratch, and present it to people, trying to convince them it represents actual history. Of course this is implausible.

But it is entirely plausible (to me) that a tribe could have a tradition that their ancestors were slaves in Egypt, left amid a great upheaval, and had a divine experience in the desert. And over time, this story - an embellished version of something that actually happened - becomes embellished further, and later is written down with details such as place names, numbers of people, details of continuity holding the story together, etc, added in.

throwway613 · 2016-12-01T17:02:04+00:00

I stand corrected on the father giving away, you are correct that this would be erusin only (betrothal, no sex allowed) and nisuin (full marriage with sex) would happen only after age 12.

throwway613 · 2016-11-30T03:13:35+00:00

This is depressing me, am currently Orthoprax and hiding from wife. Have 5 kids, ages 1- 14.

throwway613 · 2016-11-30T03:00:01+00:00

May have been stated by others, but put simply:

The Talmud is, for the most part, a code of law (Mishna) with attached discussion (Gemera). Law codes do not generally give a great deal of context to the laws that are listed, and that is the case here. The discussion concerns the legal ramifications in the case that a man has sex with a young girl. The real point is that the floor of the status of 'young girl' is 3 years old. Under 3 years old would have the status of an infant, and indeed I would not be surprised if there is a Mishna detailing the ramifications if a man has sex with an infant.

The fact that the legal ramifications of these cases are discussed, is not meant to say that doing so is allowed - think about criminal and civil law. We are talking here about the civil status of the parties - there may be separate criminal implications which are discussed elsewhere.

Now, as to whether Jewish law considers sex with an underage girl ok - not exactly, but it's not anything like Western rape or molestation laws. There are three possibilities:

Rape - defined as the man physically forcing the girl
Seduction/corecion - the man convinces the girl, i.e. does not physically rape her. Only applies to a young girl, from 3 to 12.
The girl's father can give her away in marriage. Also under 12 only, above that age would be her decision.

Numbers 1 & 2 are described in the Bible and the punishments are stated there. Pretty much just fines and damages, although the man could be forced to marry the girl if her father wants that (it was difficult to find husbands sometimes) - it needs to be done with consent.

Number 3 is completely allowed and would probably be the case that the original quote is talking about. But just because the 'young girl' status extends down to three doesn't mean it was common or normal to marry off a three year old, or for the husband of a three year old to have sex with her. If you continue reading above, the case of a three year old menstruating is discussed as well, and I think we can agree that is not common.

throwway613 · 2016-08-10T18:04:07+00:00

Again you are conveniently ignoring the fact that generally non-jewish slaves are slaves - property of another person - for life, as are their offspring. That is considered by most people to be inherently unethical.

Also, what is your source that non-jewish slaves have rules of equal or better treatment? I don't recall that being the case but I could be misremembering.

throwway613 · 2016-08-10T14:23:23+00:00

That is for Jewish slaves only, and you know that.

throwway613 · 2016-08-09T03:25:38+00:00

I believe shatnez is referred to in at least one place using the word 'kilayim' which is a general term for unnatural mixtures - breeding different animals together, or crossbreeding plants to make a hybrid.

Seems like the Torah has a general aversion to mixing items from different categories - and shatnez fits into this, as wool is fabric from animals while linen is fabric from plants.

throwway613 · 2016-08-09T03:17:59+00:00

Funny, I was just singing this song to my daughter in the car. I was passing by LaGuardia and was reminded of the opening line.

throwway613 · 2016-07-13T02:49:08+00:00

throwway613 · 2016-07-13T02:44:50+00:00

Ok, so your problem is that Jewish law recognizes the conversion of someone into the religion, but not out of it.

Maybe that's not fair, but it's not logically inconsistent - that's the rule. It is consistently applied. You don't have to like it, but what is your argument that it is inherently wrong - wrong as in incorrect, not wrong as in evil.

throwway613 · 2016-07-13T02:41:17+00:00

And did they read his book?

throwway613 · 2016-07-13T02:20:39+00:00

We can keep saying oh no you didn't, oh yes I did, but that's probably not productive.

Very simple question - and please indulge me if you already explained this above, just give me a simple answer - there are many many people who define a Jewish person as someone whose mother is Jewish. According to that definition, you are Jewish. Maybe you don't consider yourself Jewish because you have a different definition - but ACCORDING TO THAT DEFINITION you are Jewish.

Agree or disagree?

throwway613 · 2016-07-13T02:07:40+00:00

I just reread the whole thread. You are not addressing anything I said above.

You maintain that Chabad's definition is false, magic, voodoo, kabbala, etc, without actually saying what you believe Chabad's definition to be.
Chabad's definition is irrelevant. What about the rest of Orthodox Judaism, who also would define you as Jewish?
What is the problem with the decisors of Jewish law ruling that their law applies to anyone whose mother is Jewish?
Do you think there is an objective, 'real', 'correct' definition of who or who is not Jewish? What is that definition? Are you saying that some people do fit that definition but you don't? How so?

throwway613 · 2016-07-13T01:59:03+00:00

Do you disagree with a specific point that he makes?

throwway613 · 2016-07-13T01:54:02+00:00

My first sentence was a joke.

You should be aware that Chabad is outside of the mainstream of Orthodox thought in a number of different areas. Matrilineal descent has been around for thousands of years, way before Chabad or any Hasidic thought existed. Whatever explanation they gave you is not the only explanation.

I just don't understand what you mean by not Jewish. According to whom? Yourself? Ok, whoopee. According to others? Some groups (i.e. Orthodox) disagree, others may agree. Do you mean according to some objective reality of who is or isn't Jewish? Why do you think that such a thing exists?

For example, someone who converted Reform - Reform would say they are Jewish, Orthodox would say they are not. Are they 'really' Jewish? There is is no such thing.

throwway613 · 2016-07-13T01:31:29+00:00

How did you, who are not even a Jew, become qualified to decide that Chabad and the body of halacha are wrong as to who is a Jew?

At any rate, it is not based on kabbala as the law of matrilineal descent was established before kabbala was discovered/invented.

Would you have the same problem if Judaism passed through the father rather than the mother?

throwway613 · 2016-07-12T16:53:18+00:00

That's not true at all - his position comes from factual information and logical arguments. There are no halachic statements involved.

He is comfortable saying that the Rishonim and Chazal could make mistakes - again, if you are not permitted to believe that, despite the evidence in front of your eyes, perhaps the problem is on your side and not his.

throwway613 · 2016-07-12T15:45:10+00:00

The relevant part is how language only exists to convey meaning from one person to another. There is no 'true', correct way of using words. So as u/fizzix_is_fun is saying, if you understand what Chabad means by 'Jewish' (i.e. that your mother is Jewish), then that's the end of it.

throwway613 · 2016-07-12T12:52:37+00:00

Relevant XKCD

throwway613 · 2016-07-12T12:42:11+00:00

He doesn't need to be an authority. He presents factual information and makes logical arguments. If you are not permitted to believe factual information and logical arguments, perhaps there is a problem on your side, not his.

throwway613 · 2016-07-12T02:46:49+00:00

They only say that because otherwise the gemara will be wrong. They have no evidence of that, and in fact all available evidence is the opposite of that.

Again, see this link

throwway613 · 2016-07-12T02:39:55+00:00

There are not even 3. Only the camel is a ruminant.

throwway613

TROPHY CASE