FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-16-2010, 08:52 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: home
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storytime
Why would you think the Jews knew the Torah better than the Christians? It sounds to me like the Jews simply made up interpretations to their laws to fit whatever circumstance. Of course avoiding the death penalty would have been a major concern.
The interesting thing is to see how the interpretations are derived and how they are based in the text via a small number of interpretive rules.
Anat is offline  
Old 09-16-2010, 09:48 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by storytime
Why would you think the Jews knew the Torah better than the Christians? It sounds to me like the Jews simply made up interpretations to their laws to fit whatever circumstance. Of course avoiding the death penalty would have been a major concern.
The interesting thing is to see how the interpretations are derived and how they are based in the text via a small number of interpretive rules.
What rules govern interpretation?
storytime is offline  
Old 09-17-2010, 04:31 AM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 79
Default

I have some comments to add to the later discussion here, but I don't have time to form my thoughts just yet. But in the meantime, going back to the OP, I have researched the Reform Jewish perspective on the death penalty and it more or less provides some kind of closure to the original question ("What is the reasoning that Jews use to not follow the laws that require captital punishment"):

Quote:
The Reform Movement, however, has followed rabbinic interpretations that effectively abolished the death penalty centuries ago. Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 stresses the importance of presenting completely accurate testimony in capital cases, for any mistakes or falsehoods could result in the shedding of innocent blood. If any perjury were to cause an execution, "the blood of the accused and his unborn offspring stain the perjurer forever."

...

Furthermore, the rabbis of the Talmud ruled that capital cases required a 23-judge court, while only three judges sat for non-capital cases (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1). Two or more eyewitnesses were required to testify to the defendant's guilt, bearing in mind that it was their hands that would, "be the first against him to put him to death" (Deuteronomy 17:6-7). In a capital case, a one-vote majority could acquit a defendant, but could not convict. Furthermore, if there was a mere one-vote majority or if any judge was undecided, additional judges were added in pairs until the majority ruled against conviction, or until one judge in favor of conviction was persuaded to err on the side of innocence (Mishnah Sanhedrin 5:5). In practice, these guidelines made applying the death penalty nearly impossible.
http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id...89&pge_id=2396
gupwalla is offline  
Old 09-17-2010, 12:06 PM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 3,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storytime View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anat View Post

The interesting thing is to see how the interpretations are derived and how they are based in the text via a small number of interpretive rules.
What rules govern interpretation?
The Baraita_of_Rabbi_Ishmael

Quote:
The thirteen rules were compiled by Rabbi Ishmael b. Elisha for the elucidation of the Torah and for making halakic deductions from it. They are, strictly speaking, mere amplifications of the seven Rules of Hillel, and are collected in the Baraita of R. Ishmael, forming the introduction to the Sifra and reading a follows:
Theoretically, an interpretation of scripture must have been made by a Sage. Sages have a common characteristic of being dead. The latest of these are the Acharonim Acharonim (Hebrew: אחרונים‎; sing. אחרון, Acharon; lit. "last ones") is a term used in Jewish law and history, to signify the leading rabbis and poskim (Jewish legal decisors) living from roughly the 16th century to the present.

Quote:
The Acharonim follow the Rishonim, the "first ones" - the rabbinic scholars between the 11th and the 16th century following the Geonim and preceding the Shulkhan Arukh. The publication of the Shulkhan Arukh thus marks the transition from the era of Rishonim to that of Acharonim.
Basically, one shouldn't make a claim that is not based on something a sage said.

For example, I have a theory that Joseph was gay. If no sage said this, this would be wrong by definition. However a couple of minor sages did note that Joseph's behavior was effeminate; so depending on how one looks at this my opinion could be kosher.

One of the rules is that if sages disagree on something (or there is a contradiction in the Torah) a third opinion (or third line in the Torah) should be found that reconciles this. For example, some commentators say that Rachel stole the Teraphim from Laban to keep him from idol worship, another group says that she wanted to use it's divining powers to know when Laban caught up to Jacob and family. I'm not aware of the reconciling opinion but hopefully you get the idea.
semiopen is offline  
Old 09-18-2010, 09:26 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by semiopen View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by storytime View Post

What rules govern interpretation?
The Baraita_of_Rabbi_Ishmael



Theoretically, an interpretation of scripture must have been made by a Sage. Sages have a common characteristic of being dead. The latest of these are the Acharonim Acharonim (Hebrew: אחרונים‎; sing. אחרון, Acharon; lit. "last ones") is a term used in Jewish law and history, to signify the leading rabbis and poskim (Jewish legal decisors) living from roughly the 16th century to the present.

Quote:
The Acharonim follow the Rishonim, the "first ones" - the rabbinic scholars between the 11th and the 16th century following the Geonim and preceding the Shulkhan Arukh. The publication of the Shulkhan Arukh thus marks the transition from the era of Rishonim to that of Acharonim.
Basically, one shouldn't make a claim that is not based on something a sage said.

For example, I have a theory that Joseph was gay. If no sage said this, this would be wrong by definition. However a couple of minor sages did note that Joseph's behavior was effeminate; so depending on how one looks at this my opinion could be kosher.

One of the rules is that if sages disagree on something (or there is a contradiction in the Torah) a third opinion (or third line in the Torah) should be found that reconciles this. For example, some commentators say that Rachel stole the Teraphim from Laban to keep him from idol worship, another group says that she wanted to use it's divining powers to know when Laban caught up to Jacob and family. I'm not aware of the reconciling opinion but hopefully you get the idea.
Reconciling the sages interpretations seems to be basically the Christian idea of letting scripture interpret scripture, is this close enough to the rules of interpretation?
storytime is offline  
Old 09-18-2010, 12:04 PM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 3,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storytime View Post
Reconciling the sages interpretations seems to be basically the Christian idea of letting scripture interpret scripture, is this close enough to the rules of interpretation?
This is possible, I'm not really any kind of expert in this.

For example, I forgot to mention that one can choose a sages interpretation and ignore any contradictions. For example one could believe the interpretation that Rachel stole the Teraphim to encourage Laban to stop worshipping idols and ignore the contradicting one.
semiopen is offline  
Old 09-19-2010, 10:18 AM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: home
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storytime
Reconciling the sages interpretations seems to be basically the Christian idea of letting scripture interpret scripture, is this close enough to the rules of interpretation?
One has to differentiate between interpretation of narrative, like the examples semiopen gave and derivation of law. Ultimately it isn't important what one believes about the details of the story, but when it comes to deriving laws that govern how all Jews must behave there are criteria of how to anchor one's reasoning in the text. For example when deciding which modern activity is permissible on Shabbat and which isn't you can't just decide 'this looks like work to me', it has to be something that can be derived from one of the 49 (I think) 'avot melakha' that the Talmudists listed and argued based directly on the text.
Anat is offline  
Old 09-21-2010, 09:47 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 3,551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by storytime
Reconciling the sages interpretations seems to be basically the Christian idea of letting scripture interpret scripture, is this close enough to the rules of interpretation?
One has to differentiate between interpretation of narrative, like the examples semiopen gave and derivation of law. Ultimately it isn't important what one believes about the details of the story, but when it comes to deriving laws that govern how all Jews must behave there are criteria of how to anchor one's reasoning in the text. For example when deciding which modern activity is permissible on Shabbat and which isn't you can't just decide 'this looks like work to me', it has to be something that can be derived from one of the 49 (I think) 'avot melakha' that the Talmudists listed and argued based directly on the text.
This Yom Kippur I stayed at a hotel where my Shul was having services.

My Rabbi thinks it is extra important not to drive on Yom Kipper compared to Shabbat - even though both were on the same day this year. When I was a kid, my teacher taught that Shabbat was more impotantant than all the holidays.

There are some interesting issues. Religious Jews will not turn on or off lights, etc. I don't follow these things so after the first evening service I had no problem watching TV turning lights on and off, etc. Then it hit me that the card key to get into the room was technically dubious because it opens a lock by electricity and even turns a light on.

I talked to a deluded friend about this the next day and he noted that he keeps his door open. I had another issue with my kindle, could it be turned on, if it was on is it legal to turn a page, etc. If I'm sitting in the lobby reading a kindle will all the religious people think I'm a heretic?

What's really a pain in the ass is that there is a gap of four hours between the morning and afternoon services. You can't drive, eat, drink, watch TV, etc and at the end of four hours like this there's two more hours of intense prayer.

I almost always go to Shul on Shabbat, the services are about 2-2.5 hours, I used to avoid paying bills on Shabbat, but even that is difficult (not to mention pointless).
semiopen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.