JTF.ORG Forum
Torah and Jewish Idea => Torah and Jewish Idea => Topic started by: Zenith on February 16, 2011, 09:04:00 AM
-
I'm having a bit of trouble finding "drugs" in the Tanakh. It is obvious that the drugs should be regarded as bad, but is there somewhere written explicitly about them? I guess they were used in antiquity in Europe and middle-east.
So, do you have any knowledge about it?
-
Yes , it is obliged such as kiddush and drinking wine on shabbat. (alcohol is a drug) but remember a litttle is ok , too much is bad, as we saw in the story of Noah.
-
Yes , it is obliged such as kiddush and drinking wine on shabbat. (alcohol is a drug) but remember a litttle is ok , too much is bad, as we saw in the story of Noah.
I will add this:
While it is an obligation to drink a little wine for Shabbat Kiddush, and to drink till we feel it on Purim, the Torah does not promote inebriation. The Torah teaches that when the wine goes in, the secrets come out...
Here is a discussion of this topic:
http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5760/toldot60/specialfeatures.htm
SAYING BLESSINGS OVER A CUP OF WINE
In our parsha, Yitzchak requests "Serve me, and I will eat of my son’s meat, so that my soul may bless you”. Yaakov goes beyond his father’s request and serves wine as well (Bereshit 27:25). This suggests a special connection between wine and blessing — one already discernible in the account of Malchitzedek, who precededhis blessing of Avram by bringing bread and wine (Bereshit 14:18-19).
This connection is formalized in the halakha by the requirement for a “kos shel berakha”, a “cup of blessing”. Our holiest and most solemn moments are celebrated over a cup of wine, which is a requirement at kiddush (OC 271, 289) and havdala (OC 296); at brit mila (YD 265) and chuppa (EHE 62); and at the invitation or “zimun”to grace after meals (OC 182).
In Jewish as in Western culture, wine has a deep and powerful symbolism. Wine releases our inhibitions and reveals our hidden selves. This is expressed in the Hebrew proverb, “Where wine goes in, secrets come out” (niknas yayin, yetze sod - Eiruvin 65a), as in the ancient Latin proverb “In wine is truth” (in vino veritas).
In the non-Jewish world, this inner self has been considered a shameful one. Wine was the center of pagan orgies such as the Bacchanalia, where people sought to free themselves from the strictures of custom; and conversely, abstinence among non-Jews is often considered a sign of piety, as we see in the Moslem and Mormon custom to refrain from alcohol entirely so as not to risk freeing up precisely these dangerous human impulses.
We have a different opinion of our true nature. By paradoxically connecting our happiest and holiest moments to wine, we make a powerful testimony to our faith in the inherent goodness of man. We demonstrate that we are not afraid of exposing our innerness, but on the contrary, we are anxious to do so, and we are sure thatwhen our innermost selves come to the surface, they will be perfectly suited to moments of the greatest sanctity.
BREAKING DOWN THE BARRIERS
We can detect an additional, related theme in the halakha’s attitude towards wine. By opening up our inner selves, wine has the ability to break down barriers between human beings.
For instance, according to almost all Rishonim, the special blessing said on a change in wine, “hatov vehametiv”, is said only when drinking with others. (BY OC 175.) Like the same blessing on happy events, which is said only when the joy is shared (OC 222), the blessing on the joy of wine is really recited on the fellowship which wine creates.
Another example of the connection of wine with fellowship is our custom to say grace over a cup of wine only when there are three men (OC 182, based on Zohar Chadash 87:3). And in the same halakha where we learn that wine is a prerequisite for rejoicing of Yom Tov, we learn that sharing with others is a prerequisite forthis rejoicing. (Rambam Yom Tov 6:18, OC 529:2 in SA and Beur Halakha.)
ABUNDANCE, NOT ABANDON
At the same time, the halakha imposes very strict and elaborate rules of decorum on a kos shel berakha. (OC 183.) This demonstration of restraint ensures that we want the wine to release our most elevated impulses, and not our basest ones.
Rabbi Asher Meir is in the process of writing a monumental companion to Kitzur Shulchan Aruch which beautifully presents the meanings in our mitzvot and halacha. Rabbi Meir - who have givien a series on Business Halacha at the Center - will be giving a weekly shiur at the Israel Center on Tuesday mornings. See Back Page,page II for details.
-
I know that the Tanakh allows drinking of wine, but does not allow getting drunk.
However, consuming "drugs" like cocaine, puts you in a similar state as the drunkenness (I've never gotten high but this is how I've understood it to be): you cannot think normally anymore, you may do and say ridiculous things, be a ridiculous man, etc.
While the wine allows you to be more relaxed and yet not be drunk, I don't think the same can be said about cocaine.
-
On a more strict note:
The Kohen is not allowed to serve in the Avodah in the Temple if he is drunk. A drunk Kohen is liable for death.
We also learn from the story of Aarons two sons, Nadav and Avihu, who were incinerated while trying to perform an incense ceremony which Hashem did not command, while they were intoxicated... We learn that we should not be intoxicated when we daven to Hashem.
Also from the story of Chanah, who prayed to have Samuel, when she was davening with sharp kevannah/intention, she was moving her lips. The Kohen saw this and believed that she was drunk and told her to go home because it is not proper to daven while intoxicated... Of course she was not intoxicated, and she was very intent on having a child who would be dedicated to Hashems service, and ultimately building the Beit HaMikdash...
And the last principle which runs counter to using substances is that almost all substances cause damage to our bodies, and our minds, and we are commanded not to do damage to our own bodies. Although this principle is important many scholars even have a hard time dealing with it, and persist in smoking cigarettes despite knowing the health risks...
References:
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48923142.html
THE WINE OF ADAM AND EVE
How could they have allowed themselves to drink again at the dedication ceremony, and then offer the "strange fire"?
The Zohar explains that the wine which was drunk by Nadav and Avihu was the wine which Noah drank, and indeed it was the wine which Adam and Eve drank!
This teaching follows the opinion that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was actually a grapevine, and the sin of Adam and Eve was partaking of this forbidden wine.
The Leshem, one of the greatest modern day Kabalistic works (written by Rav Shlomo Elyashiv, the grandfather of the famous posek Rav Shalom Yosef Elyashiv), explains that Nadav and Avihu were great religious leaders, and they were trying to bring about forgiveness for the sin of Adam. This is the reason that they used "Adam's grapes." They wished to rectify his sin.
.
.
.
http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/382401/jewish/Chanas-Prayer.htm
Chana cried out to her Creator because she hadn’t been able to conceive. She cried, she wailed, silently, but until she would be heard. From the outside she appeared to be drunk for only her lips were moving but she made no sound.
When confronted by the High Priest she explained that she was far from drunk. "No my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before G-d."
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/736876/HaRav_Avigdor_Nebenzahl/Defeating_the_Yetzer_Hara
What accounts for this distinction? Because "man's inclination is evil from his youth" (Bereishit 8:21) - "from the time that he stirs to go out of his mother's insides, the urge to do evil is put in him" (Rashi). At this ripe age, the yetzer hara is already pushing man into acting in a way that places his life in danger. The yetzer hara has no such desire when it comes to the lamb, but the baby it does wish to kill. We see that the yetzer wishes to take us not only from the Next World but from this world as well.
How many people do we know who, fully aware of the associated dangers, continue to smoke? Who is not aware of the damage drugs can cause, yet people continue to use them? Why is this so? This is the yetzer hara's attempt to hasten man's departure from this world. If he does not succeed in removing us from this world, then he tries to at least make sure we do not enter the Next World. The yetzer hara is our biggest enemy, and we should take care not to mistake his identity for our own.
-
Genesis, of all the herbs you shall eat.
Though the stimulant and hunger-suppressant properties of coca had been known for many centuries, the isolation of the cocaine alkaloid was not achieved until 1855.thus cocaine heroin lsd etc is man made poison the effects are alot more potent then the coca plant.
Now with weed , it can lead to abuse, but it wont kill. however, the prohibition not to worship foreign gods may apply because all you want to do when really high is eat and self gratification. Its a medicine for those that need it.
-
weed is harmful. Has more toxins than cigarettes and you have no idea what it was cut with.
-
weed is harmful. Has more toxins than cigarettes and you have no idea what it was cut with.
I know that that is not true. Good weed is easy to tell if it is good. I can post pictures of good weed here but I don't think I will... It is not 'cut' with anything...
Now 'bad weed' like the stuff that they sell on the street in NY {back in the 80s when i knew about it}... That stuff could have been oregano for all we know..
-
I know that that is not true. Good weed is easy to tell if it is good. I can post pictures of good weed here but I don't think I will... It is not 'cut' with anything...
Now 'bad weed' like the stuff that they sell on the street in NY {back in the 80s when i knew about it}... That stuff could have been oregano for all we know..
http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html
Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;6 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.7 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.
Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.8 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.
-
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_marijuana_worse_than_cigarettes
In terms of health, marijuana helps people neurologically and mentally. On the other hand, smoking a single joint is the same as smoking 3-5 cigarettes in terms of lung damage. (Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jul/31/drugsandalcohol.drugs) The biggest drawback to smoking marijuana versus cigarettes is basically breathing related. Even though cannabis possesses far less carcinogens then cigarettes, the fact that most joints are unfiltered compared with the fact that many cannabis smokers do not immediately exhale upon taking a drag improves the chances of developing respiratory issues.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_is_marijuana_worse_than_cigarettes#ixzz1EXgeJd5b
-
And the last principle which runs counter to using substances is that almost all substances cause damage to our bodies, and our minds, and we are commanded not to do damage to our own bodies.
where exactly? anywhere in the Tanakh?
and moreover, that sounds a bit odd: almost every food we eat contains chemicals that damage our bodies. so the only way not to do damage your own body is to eat and drink only natural things. Which is impossible in modern age (i.e. you can't go far away and start hunting and fishing and getting all the natural way).
Now, cocaine is not good to be used because:
- it's very addictive. And this makes it very dangerous: you may one day die of to great dose or get to do anything (e.g. kill somebody to get more money) to get more drugs.
- it's shameful: Imagine a very important and smart rabbi lying on the street or somewhere talking absurdities, laughing with no reason, not able to communicate, etc. and then ask yourself this question: is this how a man (or, wise man) should be like? The answer is "No", because it's shameful.
- I guess this shows a problem in a man's life: he cannot be happy otherwise.
- When people have a problem, they run more quickly to something that makes them happy very quickly and makes them forget about everything, rather than doing everything possible to solve that problem. So I guess the drugs fight against "problem-solving".
Genesis, of all the herbs you shall eat.
1. eat, not smoke, nor inject in your veins. by the way, getting drugs by injections is much more dangerous.
2. I don't think G-d meant by this to start eating poisoned mushrooms, for instance.
-
where exactly? anywhere in the Tanakh?
and moreover, that sounds a bit odd: almost every food we eat contains chemicals that damage our bodies. so the only way not to do damage your own body is to eat and drink only natural things. Which is impossible in modern age (i.e. you can't go far away and start hunting and fishing and getting all the natural way).
Now, cocaine is not good to be used because:
- it's very addictive. And this makes it very dangerous: you may one day die of to great dose or get to do anything (e.g. kill somebody to get more money) to get more drugs.
- it's shameful: Imagine a very important and smart rabbi lying on the street or somewhere talking absurdities, laughing with no reason, not able to communicate, etc. and then ask yourself this question: is this how a man (or, wise man) should be like? The answer is "No", because it's shameful.
- I guess this shows a problem in a man's life: he cannot be happy otherwise.
- When people have a problem, they run more quickly to something that makes them happy very quickly and makes them forget about everything, rather than doing everything possible to solve that problem. So I guess the drugs fight against "problem-solving".
1. eat, not smoke, nor inject in your veins. by the way, getting drugs by injections is much more dangerous.
2. I don't think G-d meant by this to start eating poisoned mushrooms, for instance.
I believe that the concept of 'Choosing Life' over things which are damaging. Of course everything we eat and do does damage, but some things are extremely dangerous {such as smoking and doing cocaine and methamphetamines} and should be avoided.
Here is what the website of the Ohr Yeshiva says on the topic:
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2578
From: Several Readers
Several readers collectively raised many comments/objections regarding our recent article entitled “Merry Wanna?” I would like to present this canvas of opinion below, together with my responses.
Dear Readers,
Some commented that cigarette smoking is also addictive and should be prohibited for the reasons given regarding marijuana.
Response: While cigarette smoking is addictive, and some of the reasons may apply, such as it being unhealthy and might distress parents, these considerations are generally less severe than with marijuana. The other reasons such as leading one to felonies and reducing one’s ability to learn Torah and perform mitzvot don’t seem to apply at all.
Others countered that according to the reasons against marijuana, cigarette smoking should be prohibited because it endangers health. If so, they questioned, why do so many observant people smoke? A similar point was raised regarding the social drinking of alcohol or the lack of exercise and healthy diet that is, according to these readers, common among the Orthodox.
Response: Just because religious people may or may not do something doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right. As the saying goes, “Don’t judge Judaism according to the Jews”. We certainly expect people to practice what they preach, but the reality is that people often fall short of the mark. We all have room to improve. Therefore, according to what I wrote in the article, cigarette smoking, and even casual drinking of alcohol not in the context of a mitzvah, should be avoided. Similarly, in the past we have written about the importance of exercise and maintaining a healthy diet.
Some readers raised the point that marijuana should be forbidden on the grounds that it is illegal. On the other hand, some posited that since it is legal in some places, our attitudes towards it are cultural and subjective. Therefore, positing that it is prohibited according to the Torah appears arbitrary.
Response: The first point is true; in addition to the reasons stated in our article, a Jew may not transgress the law of the land. Therefore, the use of an illegal drug involves an additional Torah prohibition of transgressing the law of the land. On the other hand, a country whose legal system permits it doesn’t mean it’s permitted for a Jew. The Torah law has to be abided by, even if it seems impertinent in context, or even if it’s permitted by society at large. This applies to all the laws of the Torah.
One reader asked whether marijuana might be permitted as a pain-killer.
Response: The use of marijuana in medical treatment and pain relief is an exception beyond the scope of our article, and what we wrote does not necessarily apply to such a case. It would appear that this would have to be addressed on an individual basis, and there might be reason to permit it, as in the use of morphine, etc.
One reader objected to our use of the case of the rebellious son, considering it extreme and creating too harsh of a tone for the modern person, and particularly for today’s youth who are accustomed to using drugs and don’t see anything wrong with it. Similarly, he found our tone “dogmatic, insensitive, depressing and punitive”. While he may have agreed in general about the prohibition, he claimed that way the subject was presented was not conducive to kiruv.
Response: Admittedly, the reference to the rebellious son seems severe, and that law itself was perhaps never even realized. Still, the idea was just to set a precedence for the severity with which the Torah views addictions that might bring one to crimes such as theft and murder, which are all too often connected with drugs. Certainly, while actually working with youth involved with drugs, one must be original, creative, sensitive, positive and encouraging. However, the point of the article was not to treat addicted youth but to put forth a brief educational summary of the Torah’s attitude toward drug use in general, and marijuana in particular, to the general public, which is one not primarily of drug users. Those who are users and take issue with what we wrote are kindly requested to contact your local cushy kiruv rabbi.
One person, who identified himself as a rabbi, argued that our reasons for prohibiting are not conclusive, and that occasional use, without telling parents, obtained from a safe source, for the purpose of relaxing should be fine. And in fact, he claimed, many tzaddikim throughout history did so.
Response: 1] The overwhelming majority of occasional users eventually use more drugs more often. 2] Is it appropriate for leaders to encourage youth to do such things and hide them from mom and dad? 3] At some point in the chain, a safe source is in contact with the drug culture. Shall we encourage one Jewish child or person’s relaxation to the detriment of his friend? 4] The person offered no support for his outlandish claim that many tzaddikim have smoked marijuana throughout history.
One modern commentator suggested that one of the ingredients of the anointing oil listed in the Torah, “kaneh bosem” which literally means “fragrant reed”, was cannabis. As far as I know, this idea is purely conjecture based on the reference to fragrance, and the purported phonetic similarity between otherwise different languages, i.e. “kaneh bosem” = cannabis. While this may be possible, it is only one opinion, is inconclusive and is not, as far as I know, based on traditional sources. In any case, “kaneh bosem” was only one ingredient mixed into oil and anointed. It was not in the incense, nor is there any mention of it being smoked.
-
Chabad on the topic:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/224,2131916/What-is-the-Jewish-view-on-marijuana.html
Question:
I am a college student and I occasionally like to smoke marijuana. What does the Torah say about this? I like feeling connected with Judaism, and I am having a hard time deciding whether what I’m doing is right?
Answer:
The Torah doesn't speak about marijuana per se, but it does speak about some of the issues that are connected with marijuana.
1) Illegal substance: Judaism mandates that we must follow the law of the land (as long as the law of the land does not command us to break the laws of Judaism).
2) Health risk: Judaism gives utmost priority to our health. I am not a doctor and don't know all the facts about marijuana's health consequences. From what I have read it seems that other than specific cases where medical marijuana is prescribed, marijuana generally is unhealthy and can cause permanent damage to (certain functions of) the mind.*
3) Quick fix: whilst this factor is not a Halachic issue, it is nonetheless perhaps most noteworthy. Judaism demands perfection through personal labor. To feel good we need to be good. To take something that gives your mind the impression that all is good, is a cheap and unjust substitute to being good. Drugs allow you to be happy because they help you ignore your problems; they don’t solve your problems, or teach you how to deal with them.
The best high is one that is legal and long lasting. It is inexpensive, but quite pricy. You can’t get it from anyone, but you can have it anytime you want. You can’t take it; you have to make it: perfect your thoughts, feelings, and actions, through assiduous study, sincere self refinement, and selfless good deeds. You will feel better than any artificial high.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/224,2131916/What-is-the-Jewish-view-on-marijuana.html
-
muman613, I think I agree about all of what you've written/quoted about drugs.
A question still remains. I don't remember it, so if you can tell me, that will be nice: where can I find in the Tanakh the prohibition of causing damage unto yourself? You know, as far as I know the alcohol is damaging. I've heard it kills neurons. And some people say that it must be forbidden for the same reason as smoking: it's inflicting damage upon yourself, which is prohibited. But drinking alcohol (namely, wine) is allowed by the Tanakh! So please, I'm really interested: where exactly is this self-infliction prohibited?
-
muman613, I think I agree about all of what you've written/quoted about drugs.
A question still remains. I don't remember it, so if you can tell me, that will be nice: where can I find in the Tanakh the prohibition of causing damage unto yourself? You know, as far as I know the alcohol is damaging. I've heard it kills neurons. And some people say that it must be forbidden for the same reason as smoking: it's inflicting damage upon yourself, which is prohibited. But drinking alcohol (namely, wine) is allowed by the Tanakh! So please, I'm really interested: where exactly is this self-infliction prohibited?
My first reaction would be to answer that the commands to not make marks on the flesh, although the explanation is that the reason that is prohibited is because it is done by the pagans as a mourning ritual...
I will investigate further...
-
This supports what I was just saying:
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1474
From: Steve in Boston, MA
Dear Rabbi,
I have a tattoo and I heard recently that the rabbis said it’s wrong and that I couldn’t be buried in a Jewish cemetery. I started asking around and heard it’s just as bad to have the tattoo removed because it damages the body. I’m confused about all this, please help.
Dear Steve,
Not only did the rabbis say it’s wrong to get tattooed, it’s explicitly forbidden in the Torah: "You shall not print any marks in your flesh, I am G-d" (Leviticus 19:28). Our Sages explained that this is referring to the scratching of the skin and applying ink so the writing is permanent. Even though today's methods of tatooing are more sophisticated than in days of old, the process remains basically the same. According to the Rambam (Maimonides), the reason for the prohibition is because it resembles the practices of idol worshippers.
However, even though getting a "decorative" tattoo is considered a sin for a Jew, it doesn't disqualify one from being buried in a Jewish cemetery. This seems to be a widespread misconception, and many people have asked us this question. Unfortunately, there are many things that Jews do against the Torah either willingly or unintentionally, but that doesn’t prevent them from a Jewish burial. Tattooing is one of them.
Regarding having the tattoo removed, the Torah prohibition of tattooing only forbids scratching one’s skin to fill it with ink, not scratching in order to remove the ink. There is, however, a separate Torah prohibition against inflicting a wound upon oneself (Deuteronomy 25:3). Would the "wounding" and painful skin-grafting involved in removing a tattoo forbid it?
Someone once asked Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory, about a young woman who wanted to increase her marriage prospects by undergoing cosmetic surgery. He permitted it for the following reasons:
The Rambam writes: "A person is forbidden to inflict a wound, whether upon himself or upon others. And even…hitting someone in a hostile or insulting way…transgresses a Torah prohibition." From here we learn that the prohibition applies only when intended to damage a person, but not when it’s for his benefit. Similarly, the Talmud relates how one of the Sages lifted up his cloak when walking through thorns. "Skin heals, clothes don't," explained the Sage. Even though he was scratching his skin, it wasn't done in a hostile or degrading manner, but rather in order to protect his belongings. In addition, the mitzvah to "Love your neighbor as yourself" would allow someone to wound another, with his consent and for his benefit, as in a medical procedure.
Since the cosmetic surgery is for the woman's benefit and is done with her consent, it’s permitted. Likewise, a person may remove a tattoo, providing that the procedure is done by a recognized and qualified expert.
Rabbi Chanoch Teller relates the story of a young man from a non-religious upbringing who returned to traditional observance of Judaism. Remaining from his former lifestyle was a not-so-modest tattoo that he carefully kept hidden under his shirtsleeves. Before Yom Kippur, this young man went to the mikveh, the ritual bath, as is the custom. He embarrassingly tried to hide his tattoo, but slipped on the wet floor, revealing his mark of embarrassment to all. Utter silence, everyone staring at the sight, he couldn’t find the strength to get up. Then, an elderly Jew approached him: "Don't be embarrassed," said the old man, lowering his arm to help him up. "I also have a tattoo," as he pointed to the numbers tattooed by the Nazis on his forearm.
Sources:
* Maccot 21a
* Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 180:1
* Rambam, Idol Worship 12:11.Rashi in Maccot says the reason for the prohibition is a "gezerat hakatuv", simply because G-d said so.
* Iggrot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat 2:66
* Rambam, Hilchot Chovel U'Mazik 5:1
* Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg, shlita, was asked specifically about removing a tattoo and he permitted it.
* Rabbi Chanoch Teller, It’s A Small Word After All
-
Also this:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/587,2262376/What-is-the-Jewish-view-on-smoking-cigarettes.html#footnote3
What is the Jewish view on smoking cigarettes?
by Dr. Avraham Steinberg
Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics posted on www.medethics.org.il
The following is an excerpt from the section on Smoking in the Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics by Avraham Steinberg, M.D.:
Some rabbis rule that nowadays1 the dangers of smoking are known and, therefore, it is forbidden biblically to smoke.2 These Rabbis point to several biblical concerns such as "take heed to thyself and take care of thy life"3 and "take good care of your lives"4 and the prohibition of destroying one’s body.
Other Rabbis agree that smoking is a pernicious habit and should be strongly discouraged and prevented, if possible, especially among young people, but rule that there is no formal legal prohibition in Judaism.5
Almost all Rabbis agree that if a person is seriously bothered by being in a smoking environment, he may demand that smokers refrain from smoking in his presence or go elsewhere to smoke.6 The smokers must abide by that request even if they have to leave the house of Torah study.7 Smokers who harm others by their smoking must distance themselves from the public places. Similarly, in a private house one tenant can prevent another from smoking if the smoke penetrates the wall, doors and hallways into the non-smoker’s apartment. Smokers must be far enough removed from other people so that the non-smokers are not bothered or harmed by the passive smoking.8
Published with permission from www.medethics.org.il. Click here for complete article.
Footnotes
* 1. AM Ed. note: This is only in light of recent findings. Until the mid-late 20th century there was no Halachic opinion that prohibited it.
* 2. Responsa Be’er Moshe, Part 6 #160:9; Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, Part 15 #39 and Part 17 #21-22; Aseh Lecha Rav, Part 1 #42, Part 2 #1, Part 3 #18, Part 7 #67 and Part 9 #28. See also F. Rosner, Modern Medicine and Jewish Ethics, 1986, pp.363ff.
* 3. Deuteronomy 4:9
* 4. ibid 4:15
* 5. Chafetz Chayim, Zechor LeMiriam #23 and Lekutei Amarim #13 and Torat Habayit #4; Responsa Igrot Moshe, Yoreh Deah Part 2 #49 and Choshen Mishpat Part 2 #76; Responsa Minchat Shlomo Part 2 #58:6; Rabbi Y.S. Elyahsiv, Am Hatorah, 2nd edit, folio 3, 5742 (1982); Responsa Az Nidbaru, Part 9 #65; Responsa Mishanah Halachot, Part 9 #161; Responsa Beit Avi Part 4 #9:3; Yalkut Yosef Part 3 #216:12
* 6. AM Ed. note: This is not necessarily connected with the concept of "second hand smoke", but is a general Halachic concern when you do something that affects the air quality of those around you. See Talmud Bava Batra chapter 2.
* 7. Responsa Iggrot Moshe, Choshen Mishpat, Part 2 #18; Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, Part 15 #39 and Part 17 #22.
* 8. Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, Part 15 #39.
-
muman613,
Deut 4.9 and 4.15 don't talk about injures, but instead, if they are not picked out from their context, and their meaning is clear:
But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children's children
And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire.
- it's a "take heed not to make yourself idols" thing. It's not about health.
while Deuteronomy 25:3 speaks about punishing another, not self-infliction. and the tattoo is too different than smoking and drinking alcohol.
So perhaps it is not biblical the commandment not to harm yourself (e.g. by means of smoking, alcohol, etc.)
-
Zenith,
Here it goes again... I know that the Torah does give us the imperative that we must not harm ourselves. This is derived from multiple sources in Tanakh...
Here is another discussion which hopefully will support my point...
http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/salt-bereishit/02-10noach.htm
PARASHAT NOACH
By Rav David Silverberg
After Noach's emergence from the ark, God speaks to him and presents several laws, including a number of laws relevant to murder, beginning with the warning, "But I will make a reckoning for your lifeblood…" ("Ve-akh et dimkhem le-nafshoteikhem edrosh" – 9:5). This verse is generally understood as the origin of the prohibition of suicide; God here warns that He will "make a reckoning" for the souls of those who take their own lives.
The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Kama (91b) searches for a source for the prohibition of chovel be-atzmo, inflicting injury upon oneself, and initially points to this verse as the Biblical source. The Gemara then dismisses this proof, noting that one could easily distinguish between taking one's own life and injuring oneself, and therefore cites a different source for chovel be-atzmo.
Rav Shimon Moshe Diskin, in his work Mas'at Ha-melekh (on the Rambam's Hilkhot Rotzei'ach), raises the question of why the Gemara even considered pointing to the prohibition against suicide as the source for the prohibition of chovel be-atzmo. Murder and bodily harm comprise two separate prohibitions and separate halakhic categories. Why would the Gemara raise the possibility of merging suicide and self-inflicted injury into the same prohibition? This question becomes particularly troubling in light of a comment by the Meiri indicating that the Gemara in fact concludes upon this verse as the source for chovel be-atzmo. The other verse cited by the Gemara serves merely to clarify that we draw no distinction between taking one's own life and causing oneself injury, but the actual source of the prohibition of chovel be-atzmo is this verse in Parashat Noach. Why would the prohibition of suicide – which is, essentially, murder – also include the prohibition against self-inflicted injury?
On the basis of this discussion in the Gemara, Rav Diskin establishes that Halakha does not classify suicide under the general category of murder. The prohibition of retzicha (murder) is defined by Halakha as taking somebody else's life. When God issued this warning to Noach forbidding suicide, He did not broaden the parameters of retzicha to include taking one's own life; He rather introduced a new prohibition, that stands separate and apart from the prohibition of murder. The Gemara in Bava Kama thus addresses the parameters of this prohibition, questioning whether it refers specifically to suicide, or even to self-inflicted injury.
-
muman, you were such a hippie back then, huh? :dance: :dance: :dance:
-
muman, you were such a hippie back then, huh? :dance: :dance: :dance:
Well, I am not sure if I should be ashamed of it... Yes I was involved with following the Grateful Dead for a few years from 1983-1995 and during that time I did get involved in some of that meshugena...
My position now is that the substances are neither good or bad on their own, but how they are used. I do still believe that pot is a lesser drug and should not be criminalized like cocaine and amphetamine... I also am against generally legalizing pot, but it should be available for medical usage...
-
I looked up the Talmud source listed in that article on Noah and suicide...
http://halakhah.com/babakamma/babakamma_91.html
.
.
.
Baba Kamma 91b
and it nevertheless says: If one injures oneself, though it is forbidden to do so, he is exempt? — It was this which he1 said to him: 'There could be no question regarding Degradation, as a man may put himself to shame, but even in the case of injury where a man may not injure himself, if others injured him they would be liable.' But may a man not injure himself? Was it not taught: You might perhaps think that if a man takes an oath to do harm to himself and did not do so he should be exempt. It is therefore stated: 'To do evil or to do good,'2 [implying that] just as to do good is permitted, so also to do evil [to oneself] is permitted; I have accordingly to apply [the same law in] the case where a man had sworn to do harm to himself and did not do harm?3 — Samuel said: The oath referred to was to keep a fast.4 It would accordingly follow that regarding doing harm to others5 it would similarly mean to make them keep a fast. But how can one make others keep a fast? — By keeping them locked up in a room. But was it not taught: What is meant by doing harm to others? [If one says], I will smite a certain person and will split his skull?3 — It must therefore be said that Tannaim differed on this point, for there is one view maintaining that a man may not injure himself and there is another maintaining that a man may injure himself. But who is the Tanna maintaining that a man may not injure himself? It could hardly be said that he was the Tanna of the teaching, And surely your blood of your lives will I require,6 [upon which] R. Eleazar remarked [that] it meant I will require your blood if shed by the hands of yourselves,7 for murder is perhaps different. He might therefore be the Tanna of the following teaching: 'Garments may be rent for a dead person8 as this is not necessarily done to imitate the ways of the Amorites. But R. Eleazar said: I heard that he who rends [his garments] too much for a dead person transgresses the command,9 'Thou shalt not destroy',10 and it seems that this should be the more so in the case of injuring his own body. But garments might perhaps be different, as the loss is irretrievable, for R. Johanan used to call garments 'my honourers',11 and R. Hisda whenever he had to walk between thorns and thistles used to lift up his garments Saying that whereas for the body [if injured] nature will produce a healing, for garments [if torn] nature could bring up no cure.12 He must therefore be the Tanna of the following teaching: R. Eleazar Hakkapar Berabbi13 said: What is the point of the words: 'And make an atonement for him, for that he sinned regarding the soul.'14 Regarding what soul did this [Nazarite] sin unless by having deprived himself of wine? Now can we not base on this an argument a fortiori: If a Nazarite who deprived himself only of wine is already called a sinner, how much the more so one who deprives oneself of all matters?'15
HE WHO CUTS DOWN HIS OWN PLANTS … Rabbah b. Bar Hanah recited in the presence of Rab: [Where a plaintiff pleads] 'You killed my ox, you cut my plants, [pay compensation', and the defendant responds:] 'You told me to kill it, you told me to cut it down', he would be exempt. He [Rab] said to him. If so you almost make it impossible for anyone to live, for how can you trust him? — He therefore said to him: Has this teaching to be deleted? — He replied: No; your teaching could hold good in the case where the ox was marked for slaughter16 and so also the tree had to be cut down.17 If so what plea has he against him? — He says to him: I wanted to perform the precept myself in the way taught: 'He shall pour out … and cover it',18 implying that he who poured out19 has to cover it; but it once happened that a certain person performed the slaughter and another anticipated him and covered [the blood], and R. Gamaliel condemned the latter to pay ten gold coins.20
.
.
.
-
Well, I am not sure if I should be ashamed of it... Yes I was involved with following the Grateful Dead for a few years from 1983-1995 and during that time I did get involved in some of that meshugena...
My position now is that the substances are neither good or bad on their own, but how they are used. I do still believe that pot is a lesser drug and should not be criminalized like cocaine and amphetamine... I also am against generally legalizing pot, but it should be available for medical usage...
It's quite clear from some of your posts that you smoke the occasional joint, LOL! :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D
-
I know that the Tanakh allows drinking of wine, but does not allow getting drunk.
However, consuming "drugs" like cocaine, puts you in a similar state as the drunkenness (I've never gotten high but this is how I've understood it to be): you cannot think normally anymore, you may do and say ridiculous things, be a ridiculous man, etc.
While the wine allows you to be more relaxed and yet not be drunk, I don't think the same can be said about cocaine.
Agree. The tanakh' general disdain for drunkenness is not because it will damage your liver. It is because that feeling and mental state will cause sinful behavior. Aside fromthe fact that some drugs are illegal and therefore sinful to break the law by using them, they will also put someone in a state of lacking control which is conducive to sinful behavior so I don't see any reason to consider the drug use different than getting drunk in that sense.
-
where exactly? anywhere in the Tanakh?
Devarim 4: 9-10
It is a positive commandment to take care of ourselves. Its not a prohibitive statement against damaging oneself but I think its common sense that doing so is negative and doing so is also in violation of this warning.
Of course this is commanded to Jews, but I think gentiles would be wise to follow this as well. Again common sense plays a big role in making that decision.
If you think all foods damage people you are being too paranoid and/or you can also grow your own food. If you're talking about all food (even which is not processed) then you're definitely being too paranoid - there is no comparison with the affects of drugs or poison.
-
muman613,
Quote from: Deut4.9
But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children's children
Quote from: Deut 4.15
And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire.
Deut 4.9 and 4.15 don't talk about injures, but instead, if they are not picked out from their context, and their meaning is clear: - it's a "take heed not to make yourself idols" thing. It's not about health.
while Deuteronomy 25:3 speaks about punishing another, not self-infliction. and the tattoo is too different than smoking and drinking alcohol.
So perhaps it is not biblical the commandment not to harm yourself (e.g. by means of smoking, alcohol, etc.)
Look, if you insist on the notion that the Tanakh does not say to guard health and you wish to force that interpretation into the text, you are able to do that, as you can do with just about anything. But that doesn't make it a believable interpretation. And why you have that conviction, I don't know. But to me, your position is contrived and forced.
Many of the Jewish sages have interpreted this verse to be dealing with physical health, and it's a very sensible and reasonable interpretation given what I'm about to explain to you.
On the other hand, it appears to me that you are misinterpreting Devarim 4:9.
You can't even pinpoint what exactly the prohibition is. Look what you wrote: "it's a "take heed not to make yourself idols" thing. It's not about health."
First of all, it's not a prohibition because it commands to do something. (Ie, it's a positive commandment, not a negative commandment - Look at the language).
It's not a "'take heed" not to make idols thing' because that's not "a thing." Is it take heed of something? Or is it don't make idols? Refraining from making idols is an actual action. What do you mean take heed? We already have the prohibition against idol worship, and every time it is said, it is said very much UNLIKE this current expression in Devarim 4:9. It is said as behavioral prohibition, Do Not Make Idols. Saying "Guard yourself," (or guard your life/guard your soul) is not the same thing!
BTW, the translation is beware and guard your soul excessively, not "watch yourself." "Watch yourself" is an imprecise butchering of the Hebrew with English.
Rabbis understood that we know we're not supposed to sin, and we have prohibitions elsewhere dealing with specific behaviors including idol worship which are forbidden. We also have instructions on specific behaviors we're supposed to do. This phrase at the beginning of this set of verses is clearly something else, but it is commanding something. So what action is it commanding when G-d says Guard your Souls. And how does one guard his soul (which is contained by his body) ? So these rabbis sensibly interpreted that guarding your soul refers to maintaining your physical health and the physical health of your body which is the container of the soul. Btw, the translation of 'your soul' as 'your life' or 'your self' I think can all fit here because nafshecha refers also to those things in other contexts, so that adds to this interpretation. It's not a simple word even though it is commonly translated as "soul" it also includes the concept of life and self.
Hence in the shema we have bkol levavcha, ubkol nafshicha, uvkol meodecha. Bkol nafshicha was considered fulfilled when someone gave up his life al Kiddush Hashem and even when dying and having his life taken from him he is saying the shema's affirmation of God's oneness: Shema Yisrael Hashem Elokeynu Hashem Echad.
-
It's quite clear from some of your posts that you smoke the occasional joint, LOL! :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D
Really, Like which ones?
-
Genesis, of all the herbs you shall eat.
Though the stimulant and hunger-suppressant properties of coca had been known for many centuries, the isolation of the cocaine alkaloid was not achieved until 1855.thus cocaine heroin lsd etc is man made poison the effects are alot more potent then the coca plant.
Now with weed , it can lead to abuse, but it wont kill. however, the prohibition not to worship foreign gods may apply because all you want to do when really high is eat and self gratification. Its a medicine for those that need it.
1. It is written you can "eat"...never mention about smoking and inhaling.
2. Mushrooms and LSD are not herbs.
-
Btw I will add to zenith, I'm sure not every single person interprets that verse the same so even if you don't agree that its speaking about health, I still think it is common sense even if the Torag does not say it explicitly. We all agree that suicide is forbidden right? By the same logic to harm oneself is a wicked thing to do.
A person has to use common sense because not everything is written explicitly, we are expected to use our minds, not be robots. And to be overly literalist misses the whole point of living a life dedicated to the Torah.
-
If you think all foods damage people you are being too paranoid and/or you can also grow your own food. If you're talking about all food (even which is not processed) then you're definitely being too paranoid - there is no comparison with the affects of drugs or poison.
It's not me with that problem. I hear all around people saying "this food is unhealthy!", "this drink causes harm!", etc. and some people eat only meals according to their sanguine group (there are meals that are said to do harm for certain sanguine groups and that are said to be appropriate for other sanguine group). Also, I've heard many times that the juices (like Pepsi, Fanta, etc.) are doing harm and there are people whom even say that the Mineral Water is unhealthy. Now of course you cannot know for sure which is healthy and which is not, because there are many different opinions. Anyway, the idea is: if Pepsi is unhealthy, I do not believe it is a sin against God to drink Pepsi. And if it is not a sin against God to do harm to yourself by drinking Pepsi, that makes me believe that smoking cigarettes is also not a sin against God. Also about other forms of harming yourself. And I believe masochism is actually a psychical problem, rather than a sin forbidden to the 'normal' man (I believe a psychically normal man cannot feel pleasure and cannot enjoy injuring himself).
-
I think you can generally have an idea of what is healthy and what isn't. Soft drinks are not healthy because of huge amounts of processed sugar inside. So intake should be limited (I don't drink any). If someone claims something is unhealthy they have to be able to give a rational nutritional reason as to why that is so. Not simply make claims about random things. The degree to which one damages himself by having one drink of pepsi is rather small - and its also a functional form of nutrition, not just a poision like a drug- so I don't think the idea that any drink of pepsi is a sin against God is a correct attitude to take. But if you imbibe tons of it in an overall process of letting yourself become unhealthy and living an unhealthy lifestyle where you have no concerns for such things - then that would be sinful.
-
Devarim 4: 9-10
It is a positive commandment to take care of ourselves. Its not a prohibitive statement against damaging oneself but I think its common sense that doing so is negative and doing so is also in violation of this warning.
You know, something sounds odd about your interpretation of Deut. 4.9 (i.e. about health): it's as if G-d sends a man (i.e. a prophet) in a place, and when that man steps out of his house, G-d tells him "take care!". I hope such a situation does sound odd to everybody. And I think the reason for that is that it's man's natural instinct to seek his welfare.
About my interpretation of Deut 4.9, that you said:
You can't even pinpoint what exactly the prohibition is. Look what you wrote: "it's a "take heed not to make yourself idols" thing. It's not about health."
First of all, it's not a prohibition because it commands to do something. (Ie, it's a positive commandment, not a negative commandment - Look at the language).
It's not a "'take heed" not to make idols thing' because that's not "a thing." Is it take heed of something? Or is it don't make idols? Refraining from making idols is an actual action. What do you mean take heed? We already have the prohibition against idol worship, and every time it is said, it is said very much UNLIKE this current expression in Devarim 4:9.
Sorry, I was a bit in a hurry, and perhaps I didn't say it properly.
First, let's see the verses:
7. For what great nation is there that has G-d so near to it, as the Lord our G-d is at all times that we call upon Him?
8. And which great nation is it that has just statutes and ordinances, as this entire Torah, which I set before you this day?
9. But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children's children,
10. the day you stood before the Lord your G-d at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, "Assemble the people for Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.
11. And you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire up to the midst of the heavens, with darkness, a cloud, and opaque darkness.
12. The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.
13. And He told you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.
14. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, so that you should do them in the land to which you are crossing, to possess.
15. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire.
16. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of any form, the likeness of male or female,
.....
1. Look at the context and see that it has nothing to do with physical health. The context talks about a totally different subject.
2. It seems that the commandment to "watch yourself" is repeated in verse 15. In verse 9 we are told to watch ourselves because, but doesn't get to say about what you should watch yourself. Instead, the focus is put in what happened, which must be related to the commandment to "watch yourself". And this would make the interpreted "health" commandment sound odd, because it would mean that one should be commanded to keep himself healthy because G-d appeared on the mountain, because He spoke to the people from the fire, because He gave them the Ten Commandments, etc. - it just doesn't make sense this way.
3. Instead, the focus of the context is the keeping of the commandments that were given. So "watch yourself" is meaningful because one must be careful to keep the commandments and must be careful not to fall (e.g. by making idols). And the focus is also put on "watch yourself" not to make yourself idols, because, as the context suggests, G-d did not appear in a human form, so that people would not make any image of Him, and to strengthen His commandment to people not to make and not to worship any idol (perhaps I am not wrong if I understand idol as "a material representation of someone (e.g. G-d, angel, "saint", etc.), for worship").
-
Remember Zenith that there is much more to the Torah than the simple meaning. It is said that there are as many as 70 interpretations of each sentence in the Torah... There is the concept of PaRDeS... The simple meaning {Phat], the deeper interpretation Remes, Drash is integrating the Phat and Remes, and then there is the hidden, the Sod...
So in order to understand deeper levels you must study more...
http://www.closetotorah.com/tag/moshe-rabbeinu/
The greatness of Moshe’s actions is clearly pristine. The words of Chazal explain that Moshe was zocheh to burial by Hashem himself due to his actions. As was already mentioned there must be a greater significance beyond the fact that Moshe did something that no one else was willing to do…isn’t that what Moshe was all about? The Chazal quote a pasuk in Mishlei that expounds upon the grandeur of his actions, חכם לב יקח מצות. On that pasuk the Baal HaTurim comments that the gematriah of Mitzvos is 612 (if you spell out each letter as he explains), which is the same as the words תלמידי חכמים. It is without question that there is a connection with the word Mitzvos and the 613 Mitzvos in the Torah. It is also interesting to know that the gematriah העצמות is Torah. Additionaly the word atzmos contains the mitzvos. In fact perhaps it is that the עין or eye of the Torah is Mitzvos. That means that the 70 interpretations of Torah as well as its sense of sight is associated with it intrinsic value. The word atzmos means both bone and core or essence. That means that the Talmidei Chachamim and the Mitzvosand the eye of the Will of Hashem is the essence (העצמות).
-
Btw I will add to zenith, I'm sure not every single person interprets that verse the same so even if you don't agree that its speaking about health, I still think it is common sense even if the Torag does not say it explicitly. We all agree that suicide is forbidden right? By the same logic to harm oneself is a wicked thing to do.
A person has to use common sense because not everything is written explicitly, we are expected to use our minds, not be robots. And to be overly literalist misses the whole point of living a life dedicated to the Torah.
I know it is the common sense of man that it is bad to do harm to himself and to kill himself. Though I don't believe that in any circumstance, a man that suicides is to be condemned by G-d afterwards (by being destroyed, going to hell, whatever). There are people whose lives are too horrible, and I'm sure that we are not much stronger than them to resist more than they do. So "common sense" tells me that we should not regard a man as worth being destroyed (after death) or burnt in hell because we never felt what he felt and never lived what he lived.
About harming yourself... I really have doubts that G-d condemns a diabetes man for eating a cookie (i.e. he's had relish for cookies), though he is forbidden to. And if Pepsi would do some kind of harm, it's hard for me to believe that G-d would condemn a man for drinking Pepsi.
And if you support the idea of not doing anything that harms you, how can you prove the drinking of wine (i.e. alcohol) as ok? And if the chemical ingredients of foods are unhealthy, does that mean that you are supposed to eat only natural foods? consider also that many cannot afford eating only natural foods.
-
I know it is the common sense of man that it is bad to do harm to himself and to kill himself. Though I don't believe that in any circumstance, a man that suicides is to be condemned by G-d afterwards (by being destroyed, going to hell, whatever). There are people whose lives are too horrible, and I'm sure that we are not much stronger than them to resist more than they do. So "common sense" tells me that we should not regard a man as worth being destroyed (after death) or burnt in hell because we never felt what he felt and never lived what he lived.
About harming yourself... I really have doubts that G-d condemns a diabetes man for eating a cookie (i.e. he's had relish for cookies), though he is forbidden to. And if Pepsi would do some kind of harm, it's hard for me to believe that G-d would condemn a man for drinking Pepsi.
And if you support the idea of not doing anything that harms you, how can you prove the drinking of wine (i.e. alcohol) as ok? And if the chemical ingredients of foods are unhealthy, does that mean that you are supposed to eat only natural foods? consider also that many cannot afford eating only natural foods.
Zenith,
All the Jewish faith says is to do things in moderation. A few cakes and cookies will not kill you. A cup of wine on a Friday or Saturday night will not kill you. But smoking cigarettes pretty much is doing damage, and will kill you. Doing cocaine and methamphetamines will kill you. And if you believe, as Jews do, in the concept of reward and punishment {though it seems from your comments that you seriously doubt this}, then we are held accountable for every time we did something with the intention of damaging ourselves. The fact that we are not aware that certain things are killing us is not the point. The point is that if we do something which we know will have damaging consequences then we are commanded not to do it. That does not seem to hard understand to me.
I do believe that a person who kills himself is judged for violating the command to not kill. Why should he not be? We Jews believe that we are judged for the good and for the bad on 613 commandments, including observing Shabbat, eating Kosher, what we say about our fellow Jews, and how we treat the poor, amongst many of the commandments.
PS: Another important concept of the Torah is Pikuei Nefesh {Saving Life}... This concept means that when there is a contradiction between carrying out Jewish law and living, living takes precedence every time. So saving life is the most important Mitzvah of them all...
-
I know it is the common sense of man that it is bad to do harm to himself and to kill himself. Though I don't believe that in any circumstance, a man that suicides is to be condemned by G-d afterwards (by being destroyed, going to hell, whatever).
I agree, and this issue is debated among the great rabbis. There are sources which say you cannot judge such a person, and there are also other sources which examine mitigating circumstances that can exist in a case like that.
There are people whose lives are too horrible, and I'm sure that we are not much stronger than them to resist more than they do. So "common sense" tells me that we should not regard a man as worth being destroyed (after death) or burnt in hell because we never felt what he felt and never lived what he lived.
But none of this has anything to do with what I was saying.
I'm not talking about some depressed guy who is abused and beaten, etc. I'm talking about "you and me" a person in a normal (so to speak) situation who wants to know what he should do. It IS common sense not to damage yourself. And even if that verse we looked at is NOT about physical health, I really don't think G-d needed to command it! It's one of those things that doesn't even need to be said - any person should understand implicitly that he has to preserve his health.
(Similarly, there are other commandments like this that are commanded even though they are common sense (ethical commonsense) - for instance, Do not murder. Do not steal. Rambam writes that one can arrive at all of the Noahide laws by deep philosophical thought, even though they are also commanded explicitly, they are the inherent morals that a person - if he is properly refined, educated, and of worthy character - should be able to arrive at through logic and philosophical investigation). I think this one is similar.
About harming yourself... I really have doubts that G-d condemns a diabetes man for eating a cookie (i.e. he's had relish for cookies), though he is forbidden to. And if Pepsi would do some kind of harm, it's hard for me to believe that G-d would condemn a man for drinking Pepsi.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.
And if you support the idea of not doing anything that harms you, how can you prove the drinking of wine (i.e. alcohol) as ok?
I think you need to read my post again because you are twisting what I said.
Also it sounds as if you imagine the only way we can be COMMANDED (that means obligated) to do something is if a person is perfect and can achieve it every single time always without fail. I don't think any person can be expected to do that, I don't think G-d expects that kind of perfection from people, AND YET, nonetheless, G-d commands the Jewish people and also the Gentile people with obligations which they must enact/perform in all sorts of areas.
If something is difficult G-d would never obligate an IDEAL as a standard we should strive for? I find that line of reasoning specious. In fact, it was an old missionary claim that they used to bash Judaism with. They would say, no person can possibly fulfill all the mitzvoth without fail, therefore (they claimed) they are abrogated because G-d found out that no man can fulfill them. That whole line of reasoning is a joke to any moderately Jewish ear. Especially for those myriads of traditional Jews who DID keep all the laws, observed the shabbat, the customs, etc even while this so-called argument was being spewed. It is possible to keep all the commandments one is obligated in. That doesn't mean a person will be perfect and never fail. But as a whole it is possible and that is precisely why G-d commanded them because He knows man capable of fulfilling them.
And if the chemical ingredients of foods are unhealthy, does that mean that you are supposed to eat only natural foods? consider also that many cannot afford eating only natural foods.
I think you are reading into my words something I haven't said.
-
You know, something sounds odd about your interpretation of Deut. 4.9 (i.e. about health): it's as if G-d sends a man (i.e. a prophet) in a place, and when that man steps out of his house, G-d tells him "take care!". I hope such a situation does sound odd to everybody. And I think the reason for that is that it's man's natural instinct to seek his welfare.
What?
-
And since you quite clearly did not read this from a comment above, I will quote myself again:
"The degree to which one damages himself by having one drink of pepsi is rather small - and its also a functional form of nutrition, not just a poision like a drug- so I don't think the idea that any drink of pepsi is a sin against G-d is a correct attitude to take. But if you imbibe tons of it in an overall process of letting yourself become unhealthy and living an unhealthy lifestyle where you have no concerns for such things - then that would be sinful."
Maybe this will help clarify your seeming confusion about my comments.
-
Btw, one cup of wine is not unhealthy. The scientific journals say it's healthy to have one glass of red wine per night, in fact.
Where do you get the idea that one drink of wine is unhealthy? Unhealthy to what, exactly?
The liver is built to process a certain amount of alcohol in a certain period of time. It's when you imbibe more than this amount (or even having that small amount to frequently) that you are damaging yourself.
-
Zenith,
All the Jewish faith says is to do things in moderation.
Well, there should be something concrete to know if a particular thing is good or is evil. A religious man is usually trying not to do "bad" things, rather than saying to himself "oh, this is just a little one, so if I do it, it's no big deal." And if you ask a non-smoker, most surely he would agree that smoking is sin, while a smoker would say "smoking is ok, but getting drugs is very dangerous, so bad". Taking into consideration that moderation is very subjective, how do you deal with it?
And if you believe, as Jews do, in the concept of reward and punishment {though it seems from your comments that you seriously doubt this}, then we are held accountable for every time we did something with the intention of damaging ourselves.
I do believe in reward and punishment.
The fact that we are not aware that certain things are killing us is not the point. The point is that if we do something which we know will have damaging consequences then we are commanded not to do it. That does not seem to hard understand to me.
Then answer me this concrete question: If chemical ingredients of foods are unhealthy, do people sin against God if they eat them, knowing that they are unhealthy?
PS: Another important concept of the Torah is Pikuei Nefesh {Saving Life}... This concept means that when there is a contradiction between carrying out Jewish law and living, living takes precedence every time. So saving life is the most important Mitzvah of them all...
I suppose that idol worship is an exception to it.
-
Drugs are bad mmkay?
-
Zenith,
One more try on my part to explain to you the Jewish beliefs...
We do not believe anything is 100% good or 100% bad... Each of us contains the potential for good and the potential for bad. We call these two parts by various names depending on how we are trying to relate to them.
1) Nefesh Sichli vs Nefesh Behami
These two refer to the Human/Intelligent soul versus the Physical/Animal soul... Each of these two souls have different drives. The Intellect/Holy soul is what drives us to do good, to help others, and to have lofty goals. This is the soul which Torah says is made in the image of Hashem, and it is the life-breath which he breathed into our nostrils.
Nefesh behami, the animal soul is the part of us which is driven by lusts and desires, called Teiva/Arrogance. The animal soul is responsible for our hunger, pain, and lusts.
2) Yetzer Tov vs Yetzer HaRa
These two refer to the same concepts as the Nefesh haSichli & Nefesh HaBahami... The Yetzer tov is the 'Good inclination' which is driven by the Nefesh Sichli while the Yetzer HaRa {the 'Evil Inclination'} is driven by the Nefesh Behami. The Evil Inclination is in all of us and we all struggle with this internal force.
There is some connection between the Yetzer Hara and what the Jewish faith calls HaSoton. But I will not go into that here.
Remember that originally Hashem created a perfect world... But because of Adams desire for more, his Arrogance/Lust to be like Hashem, he brought death and confusion into the world. Things are no longer 'Black and White' and now we can only see things in 'Shades of grey'.
What is important in life is to do the right thing. It is not important to be rich, live a long life, etc.... The goal is to get close to Hashem and perform the commandments which he commanded in order to bring rectification to this world.
I think it is important to realize that the world we live in is imperfect for a reason. It allows our free-will to be exercised...
References :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgY9V3i1lG8
http://www.theshmuz.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=Prod&Product_Code=Shmuz_Number_13&Category_Code=Mussar
#13 Free Will – Part 1: Nefesh Habahami, Nefesh Hasichli Has there ever been a time when you reacted to something, and you couldn’t believe that it was you who was speaking that way? Have you ever said something and had a feeling of, “What came over me – it was as if I were possessed?
In this introduction to the inner workings of the human being, we come face to face with the understanding that I am created from very diverse elements. Within me are different forces pulling in opposite directions. Not only isn’t this accidental, it is actually a necessary component of FREE WILL. Free Will means that I could go either way. It is my choice, not something that I was programmed to do that made me choose this way. Yet without this there would be no temptation, and Man would do good - only good, not because he chose to, but because he was programmed for it, hence there would be no Free Will.
http://mobile.chabad.org/m/article_cdo/aid/54662
-
About harming yourself... I really have doubts that G-d condemns a diabetes man for eating a cookie (i.e. he's had relish for cookies), though he is forbidden to. And if Pepsi would do some kind of harm, it's hard for me to believe that G-d would condemn a man for drinking Pepsi.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.
I don't understand what is unclear to you. It was about the idea that harming yourself is a sin against G-d. So literally, this would mean that a diabetes man would sin against G-d if he ate a cookie, and if indeed Pepsi is unhealthy, anyone who drinks Pepsi knowing that it is unhealthy sins against G-d.
And if you support the idea of not doing anything that harms you, how can you prove the drinking of wine (i.e. alcohol) as ok?
I think you need to read my post again because you are twisting what I said.
Also it sounds as if you imagine the only way we can be COMMANDED (that means obligated) to do something is if a person is perfect and can achieve it every single time always without fail.
There is a big difference between doing something wrong because of negligence (unintentionally) and doing it deliberately. The fact that no person is perfect means that he will inevitably do wrong, even if he struggles hard to do only good and not to do anything bad. However, there are also people that say "no man is perfect" as a justification for something bad they are about to do. The first is negligence, the latter is deliberately doing something bad. And if offerings were needed for unintentional breaking of commandments, then what to say about deliberately doing something wrong? So this would mean that if it is indeed prohibited to harm yourself, then it is also strictly prohibited to eat unhealthy foods and drink unhealthy drinks, because you harm yourself by using them.
In fact, it was an old missionary claim that they used to bash Judaism with. They would say, no person can possibly fulfill all the mitzvoth without fail, therefore (they claimed) they are abrogated because G-d found out that no man can fulfill them. That whole line of reasoning is a joke to any moderately Jewish ear. Especially for those myriads of traditional Jews who DID keep all the laws, observed the shabbat, the customs, etc even while this so-called argument was being spewed. It is possible to keep all the commandments one is obligated in. That doesn't mean a person will be perfect and never fail.
Leaving out the fact that I don't believe that the laws are abrogated because nobody can fulfill them without fail, I don't understand what you blame that missionary of. I mean, even if the myriads of traditional Jews DID keep all the laws at certain times/moments, the fact that they failed other times proves wrong the saying that "It is possible to keep all the commandments one is obligated in", because "It is possible to keep all the commandments one is obligated in" means, without failing. That is, you cannot claim to keep all the commandments if you have once stolen something, or you have killed somebody one day - just because most of the time you did not steal and did not kill. In other words, you become a breaker of the law the first time you brake (or, fail to keep) a law. The same as the state laws: you are labeled by it "a criminal" if you break once one of its laws (e.g. the prohibition to kill), though you've always been and you will continue afterwards to be a "nice guy".
And if the chemical ingredients of foods are unhealthy, does that mean that you are supposed to eat only natural foods? consider also that many cannot afford eating only natural foods.
I think you are reading into my words something I haven't said.
I don't understand what exactly you mean... the topic was harming yourself, which is considered to be a sin. And, in my logic, this would mean that we must eat only natural foods.
P.S. sorry for going off-topic.
-
"The degree to which one damages himself by having one drink of pepsi is rather small - and its also a functional form of nutrition, not just a poision like a drug- so I don't think the idea that any drink of pepsi is a sin against G-d is a correct attitude to take. But if you imbibe tons of it in an overall process of letting yourself become unhealthy and living an unhealthy lifestyle where you have no concerns for such things - then that would be sinful."
Maybe this will help clarify your seeming confusion about my comments.
I understand what you mean, but the problem is that nothing is exact. Should a man just decide for himself what is ok and what is sin, and expect to be judged by G-d according to his own beliefs?
-
Btw, one cup of wine is not unhealthy. The scientific journals say it's healthy to have one glass of red wine per night, in fact.
Where do you get the idea that one drink of wine is unhealthy? Unhealthy to what, exactly?
The liver is built to process a certain amount of alcohol in a certain period of time. It's when you imbibe more than this amount (or even having that small amount to frequently) that you are damaging yourself.
doesn't the alcohol kill neurons? that's what I've heard.
-
Things are no longer 'Black and White' and now we can only see things in 'Shades of grey'.
You know, there are still things that must be regarded as "black and white". You know, in the Tanakh we see punishments for different sins, and offerings for sins (even unintentional sins). That makes me believe that the law issues must be "black or white". That is, if the Temple had not been destroyed, and if the Jews in Israel had been in peace, etc. should there be an offering for a breaking of the law not to harm yourself because a Jew ate an unhealthy food or not? Should there be an offering given because he's smoke or because he has sat among smokers while they were smoking, or not?
That is my point with "which exactly is it?". If it is still wrong to view the eating of unhealthy foods as either ok or sin, perhaps you now understand my view better and you can give additional explanations.
-
You know, there are still things that must be regarded as "black and white". You know, in the Tanakh we see punishments for different sins, and offerings for sins (even unintentional sins). That makes me believe that the law issues must be "black or white". That is, if the Temple had not been destroyed, and if the Jews in Israel had been in peace, etc. should there be an offering for a breaking of the law not to harm yourself because a Jew ate an unhealthy food or not? Should there be an offering given because he's smoke or because he has sat among smokers while they were smoking, or not?
That is my point with "which exactly is it?". If it is still wrong to view the eating of unhealthy foods as either ok or sin, perhaps you now understand my view better and you can give additional explanations.
Everything is judged and awarded merit or given punishment. The calculations are beyond the understanding of mankind. But we do know, through Torah, what is right and what is wrong.
A man should endeavor to do only good, but because there are challenges in life, he often goes astray. But there is the concept of Teshuva, which is known as repentence.... Every sin before G-d can only be forgiven by G-d, and every sin against man can only be forgiven by men. We go through this every year during the ten days of repentence between Rosh Hashanna and Yom Kippur {The day of atonement}.
I see no problem with the concept that a person does wrong, realizes that he is doing wrong, and modifies his behavior. We call this Mussar...
http://www.mussarinstitute.org/wisdom-way.htm
WHAT IS MUSSAR?
Mussar is a path of contemplative practices and exercises that have evolved over the past thousand years to help an individual soul to pinpoint and then to break through the barriers that surround and obstruct the flow of inner light in our lives. Mussar is a treasury of techniques and understandings that offers immensely valuable guidance for the journey of our lives.
The Orthodox Jewish community spawned Mussar to help people overcome the inner obstacles that hinder them from living up to the laws and commandments—the mitzvot—that form the code of life. That community tends to see Mussar as inseparable from its own beliefs and practices, but the human reality Mussar addresses is actually universal, and the gifts it offers can be used by all people.
GOALS OF MUSSAR PRACTICE
The goal of Mussar practice is to release the light of holiness that lives within the soul. The roots of all of our thoughts and actions can be traced to the depths of the soul, beyond the reach of the light of consciousness, and so the methods Mussar provides include meditations, guided contemplations, exercises and chants that are all intended to penetrate down to the darkness of the subconscious, to bring about change right at the root of our nature.
From its origins in the 10th century, Mussar was a practice of the solitary seeker, until in the 19th century it became the basis for a popular social/spiritual movement originating in Lithuania, inspired by the leadership of Rabbi Israel Salanter.
-
Well, there should be something concrete to know if a particular thing is good or is evil.
We do have something concrete, it's called the halacha. But you don't follow the halacha, so what do you want from us?
It's amazing how fast you switch your arguments in these discussions on the forum. First you complained to me, that I can't say that having pepsi is unhealthy and therefore damaging and wrong/sinful because no one can resist pepsi and how can God punish someone for having a pepsi, it's just one drink. Now all of a sudden you are saying that there has to be a concrete rule either way, either it's allowed or it's not. But if it's not allowed, then you're back to your previous argument. How can God forbid us to drink pepsi? You need to make up your mind if you really want to have a serious discussion or if you just want to promote something.
I suppose that idol worship is an exception to it.
It is of course, and Muman never said otherwise. Jews are required to give up their lives rather than worship an idol, engage in forbidden relations, or murder someone. Saving one's life takes precedence over all other mitzvot besides those 3.
-
Quote from: Zenith
About harming yourself... I really have doubts that G-d condemns a diabetes man for eating a cookie (i.e. he's had relish for cookies), though he is forbidden to. And if Pepsi would do some kind of harm, it's hard for me to believe that G-d would condemn a man for drinking Pepsi.
quote from KWRBT: I really have no idea what you are talking about.
Quote from Zenith: I don't understand what is unclear to you.
LOL, want to go around in circles much?
Of course everyone always thinks what they say is clear, but I'm informing you that I have no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to anything I said, so that leaves it up to you to make it clear or let it go. It sounds like maybe you are arguing with someone else, or someone else's argument. In that case, I really can't speak for someone else! I can only speak for my own thoughts and opinions.
I don't understand what is unclear to you. It was about the idea that harming yourself is a sin against G-d. So literally, this would mean that a diabetes man would sin against G-d if he ate a cookie,
You do know that people with diabetes still eat food right?
If having a cookie makes their condition worse and puts them in a serious danger, then yes they are doing something sinful. Any time someone puts his life in danger for no good reason it is indeed a sinful behavior! But I don't have diabetes and I don't know about the 'cookie' you are imagining so I don't know the exact situation. What's so hard to understand that harming yourself is bad? Yes, God wants us to be healthy, not just the health food store, the local gym, and the consumer protection agency. God also wants us to be healthy.
-
Zenith, here is what you said:
about harming yourself... I really have doubts that G-d condemns a diabetes man for eating a cookie (i.e. he's had relish for cookies), though he is forbidden to. And if Pepsi would do some kind of harm, it's hard for me to believe that G-d would condemn a man for drinking Pepsi.
With this explanation:
It was about the idea that harming yourself is a sin against G-d. So literally, this would mean that a diabetes man would sin against G-d if he ate a cookie, and if indeed Pepsi is unhealthy, anyone who drinks Pepsi knowing that it is unhealthy sins against G-d.
Do you notice that you changed language completely?
First you said the idea that "God condemns a man for drinking Pepsi" is something you can't believe. What exactly do you mean by God condemning a man?
Then in the second formulation, you said that someone knowingly doing something unhealthy is sinning. Yeah, that's pretty much correct. But having a little pepsi is NOT the same as having a poison or a drug. I made that clear in a previous comment. So it's not the same degree! And there is a big difference between once in a while having a soda vs. completely disregarding one's health and the fact that it's not healthy, and having it all the time as a result of that attitude. The latter is certainly sinful. The former, no I don't think so. Having a drink or an unhealthy food every once in a while does not kill you or even sabotage your health. Having them all the time does.
-
There is a big difference between doing something wrong because of negligence (unintentionally) and doing it deliberately. The fact that no person is perfect means that he will inevitably do wrong, even if he struggles hard to do only good and not to do anything bad.
Yeah.
But the difference in Jewish thought may not be the same as what you are thinking.
From what I understand, "Deliberate" sin as it is referred to in the Torah makes a distinction between sinning due to negligence, (which can include falling to temptation) vs. sinning deliberately in order to make an affront to God. If someone does a sin because the temptation is too great, that's not making an affront against God. If chas veshalom someone says, I know this is forbidden by God, but I'm doing this to stick it to God and disobey his commands, that is what refers to deliberate sin.
However, there are also people that say "no man is perfect" as a justification for something bad they are about to do.
Um, perhaps, but I don't say that, and that's not ok to do.
And if offerings were needed for unintentional breaking of commandments, then what to say about deliberately doing something wrong?
It's quite clear that doing a deliberate sin is worse than doing an negligent sin. You almost imply like I'm disputing that, but we have that distinction in Jewish law, so I don't know what you're getting at.
So this would mean that if it is indeed prohibited to harm yourself, then it is also strictly prohibited to eat unhealthy foods and drink unhealthy drinks, because you harm yourself by using them.
Um yeah, ok, but just like you understood there is a difference in degree in sin, so too there is a difference in degree in the concept of "unhealthy." You simply cannot equate taking a poison to having a donut. Sorry.
And while a person is supposed to eat healthy, that does not mean they can't have a snack every once in a while if the vast majority of their diet is healthier foods! So I think we disagree quite strongly on some of the definitions here.
But in general, yes, it is sinful to be unhealthy and part of being unhealthy is carelessly eating unhealthy foods.
Again, if a person disregards their health, they are sinning. If a person generally tries to maintain healthy habits, I do NOT think having a glass of pepsi once in a while is a sin especially when this person is careful that they are only having this infrequently because they know its not the healthiest drink.
-
Maybe this will help clarify your seeming confusion about my comments.
I understand what you mean, but the problem is that nothing is exact. Should a man just decide for himself what is ok and what is sin, and expect to be judged by G-d according to his own beliefs?
But the knowledge about health is not exact! The whole concept is not something exact. There are healthier foods, and there are unhealthier foods. There are very nutritious foods, and there are really damaging foods with no nutritional value. And there are all sorts of degrees in between. And there are foods that if you have them once or twice or every once in a while, they won't appreciably damage your health, but if you have them every day and in large quantities then they will seriously damage your health.
So what does all of this mean? It means that yes indeed, a person is required to use his brain and his common sense (and maybe even get a nutritionist if they really care about this and don't know enough about it), and a person has to try his best to be healthy (and it's based on KNOWLEDGE, not beliefs). If you are not trying, you are sinning. If you are trying and making efforts to be healthy, that does NOT mean that you must always have the most pristine perfect food at every sitting or else you commit a sin if you don't. I really don't think that can be disputed. (So thus, I do not accept some of your premise).
(There is also no set definition on what is the perfect food - if there even exists such a thing - or what is the best diet - God put us in a complicated world and he expects us to try our best and develop our knowledge of Him and of what is good and bad and how to live according to his words).
-
doesn't the alcohol kill neurons? that's what I've heard.
Doesn't taking a shower kill skin cells?
.... Oops.
-
Leaving out the fact that I don't believe that the laws are abrogated because nobody can fulfill them without fail, I don't understand what you blame that missionary of.
Oh, now you're defending missionaries?
::) ::) ::) ::)
I mean, even if the myriads of traditional Jews DID keep all the laws at certain times/moments, the fact that they failed other times proves wrong the saying that "It is possible to keep all the commandments one is obligated in", because "It is possible to keep all the commandments one is obligated in" means, without failing.
NO, It DOESN'T MEAN WITHOUT EVER FAILING. That is your mistake and that is one of the missionary's distortions.
The missionaries tried to tell the Jews that even though God said "Do this," they missionaries have determined it's impossible to 'do this' every time without fail (and it's also impossible to do all of them - that's a separate complaint), therefore what God said about "doing this" is no longer in affect, since they decided that we can't possibly do it and you Jews can't possibly have allegiance to his laws because the laws were made impossible to keep. You silly Jews just haven't realized for thousands of years that trying to keep them is not what God intended when he told you to keep them!
This whole warped notion is not even worth addressing. God gave commandments to MAN. God knows that man is not perfect and God does not expect that man will be perfect. God still obligates us to try. But the missionaries want to tell us that God didn't realize who He was giving commandments to, but now the missionaries figured out what a human is and they are telling God about what a human is, and they are canceling God's law.
this would mean that we must eat only natural foods.
What is a "natural food?"
And no, I do not agree.
-
Well, there should be something concrete to know if a particular thing is good or is evil.
We do have something concrete, it's called the halacha. But you don't follow the halacha, so what do you want from us?
then answer my insisted concrete question, according to your halacha:
If chemical ingredients of foods are unhealthy, do people sin against G-d if they eat them, knowing that they are unhealthy?
I've heard pretty often that the foods that contain chemical ingredients (well, almost all foods on the market) are unhealthy, and that one should rather eat natural foods only (without chemical ingredients like preservatives, colorants, etc.)
Also, your answer does not answer all questions (regarding concrete things). If you say "you should not drink too much pepsi", you can never tell when you've sinned and when you haven't. Or, how much exactly should you drink at most in a certain period of time? If you specify a quantity, most surely you will hear other one saying a different quantity, and so on. If you have twenty people that drink pepsi, the first 0.5 liters per month, the second more than the first, the third more than the second, etc., the last 1 liter per day, which are those who sin and which are those who don't?
It's amazing how fast you switch your arguments in these discussions on the forum. First you complained to me, that I can't say that having pepsi is unhealthy and therefore damaging and wrong/sinful because no one can resist pepsi and how can G-d punish someone for having a pepsi, it's just one drink. Now all of a sudden you are saying that there has to be a concrete rule either way, either it's allowed or it's not. But if it's not allowed, then you're back to your previous argument. How can G-d forbid us to drink pepsi? You need to make up your mind if you really want to have a serious discussion or if you just want to promote something.
The thing is in this way: from the verses in Deuteronomy you have given, I can see that only through a forced interpretation you can get to understand a "taking care of your physical health" commandment. But, as you strongly believe otherwise, I was trying to see your logic in these matters, because there are some logical things that are bugging me with this theory, which is present probably in all religions (I know it's present in christianity). Then, I did not complain to you that you "can't say that having pepsi is unhealthy and therefore damaging and wrong/sinful because no one can resist pepsi and how can G-d punish someone for having a pepsi, it's just one drink." That's because, whether you believe or it or not, it doesn't make it be so, so there's no point in complaining to you, because, if it is sin, it remains sin, but if it is not sin, it will not become one, no matter who believes what. So I'm not complaining it to you.
I suppose that idol worship is an exception to it.
It is of course, and Muman never said otherwise. Jews are required to give up their lives rather than worship an idol, engage in forbidden relations, or murder someone. Saving one's life takes precedence over all other mitzvot besides those 3.
Ok, thanks. Just wanned to make sure.
You do know that people with diabetes still eat food right?
If having a cookie makes their condition worse and puts them in a serious danger, then yes they are doing something sinful. Any time someone puts his life in danger for no good reason it is indeed a sinful behavior! But I don't have diabetes and I don't know about the 'cookie' you are imagining so I don't know the exact situation. What's so hard to understand that harming yourself is bad?
Yes, people with diabetes still eat food, but they are forbidden to eat and drink things with sugar, because it affects their health, as far as I remember. And cookies, or at least ordinary cookies do contain sugar.
Yes, G-d wants us to be healthy, not just the health food store, the local gym, and the consumer protection agency. G-d also wants us to be healthy.
Of course G-d wants us to be healthy, as He wants our welfare (psychically, socially, to have the things we need, like warmth, where to sleep, etc.). But, as far as I know, if you don't do gym, if you don't have friends, or you do but too few, if you do not have comfort, etc. you do not sin against G-d, even though He wants people like you, to have them (so you can say that G-d wants your welfare).
about harming yourself... I really have doubts that G-d condemns a diabetes man for eating a cookie (i.e. he's had relish for cookies), though he is forbidden to. And if Pepsi would do some kind of harm, it's hard for me to believe that G-d would condemn a man for drinking Pepsi.
First you said the idea that "G-d condemns a man for drinking Pepsi" is something you can't believe. What exactly do you mean by G-d condemning a man?
by "condemning a man" I mean that thing with the balance good deeds vs. bad deeds at judgement (I hope I remembered it right that you believe it so. Don't remember exactly from where I've read it). So, the thing I meant was that, if a man drinks pepsi knowing that it is unhealthy, it is hard for me to believe that the drinking of pepsi would be added on the balance of "evil deeds", so that a man may suffer the afterlife punishment, because he drank pepsi.
doesn't the alcohol kill neurons? that's what I've heard.
Doesn't taking a shower kill skin cells?
.... Oops.
As far as I know, the neurons that die do not grow back. And this is seen mostly on alcoholic people, because their memory and thinking capability is lower. On the other hand, I'm sure that skin cells do grow back (i.e. you do not remain with few skin cells because you took a lot of baths in your lifetime).
-
But the difference in Jewish thought may not be the same as what you are thinking.
From what I understand, "Deliberate" sin as it is referred to in the Torah makes a distinction between sinning due to negligence, (which can include falling to temptation) vs. sinning deliberately in order to make an affront to G-d. If someone does a sin because the temptation is too great, that's not making an affront against G-d. If chas veshalom someone says, I know this is forbidden by G-d, but I'm doing this to stick it to G-d and disobey his commands, that is what refers to deliberate sin.
Yes, that's what I meant, and it's pretty clear from what I've written after that idea. Willfully yielding to temptation is also a "deliberate" sin, but I'm sure we agree on that. Anyway, it's too odd for one to say that he would have normally not sinned by eating the unhealthy food, but he did eat, and thus sinned, because the "temptation" was too great. So I believe that if a man ate an unhealthy food consciously, he ate it by willfully yielded to that temptation.
And if offerings were needed for unintentional breaking of commandments, then what to say about deliberately doing something wrong?
It's quite clear that doing a deliberate sin is worse than doing an negligent sin. You almost imply like I'm disputing that, but we have that distinction in Jewish law, so I don't know what you're getting at.
That was a simple rhetorical question, to emphasize that it's evil to deliberately eat unhealthy foods (if indeed harming yourself is sin).
Don't worry, my purpose in this discussion is not to accuse you, nor to complain to you, etc. I just try to find logic about the "unhealthy" sin I hear everywhere.
Um yeah, ok, but just like you understood there is a difference in degree in sin, so too there is a difference in degree in the concept of "unhealthy." You simply cannot equate taking a poison to having a donut. Sorry.
But the fact that there is a difference in degree in sin, it doesn't mean that deliberately doing lesser sins is ok. Unlike how having a donut is for the health. Which means that it is important that the lesser sins not be done.
Also, regarding the degree of harming yourself you've specified... is smoking one cigarette a sin?
-
The missionaries tried to tell the Jews that even though G-d said "Do this," they missionaries have determined it's impossible to 'do this' every time without fail (and it's also impossible to do all of them - that's a separate complaint), therefore what G-d said about "doing this" is no longer in affect, since they decided that we can't possibly do it and you Jews can't possibly have allegiance to his laws because the laws were made impossible to keep. You silly Jews just haven't realized for thousands of years that trying to keep them is not what G-d intended when he told you to keep them!
This whole warped notion is not even worth addressing. G-d gave commandments to MAN. G-d knows that man is not perfect and G-d does not expect that man will be perfect. G-d still obligates us to try.
I agree with your view, in the greatest part. But "It is possible to keep all the commandments one is obligated in" still sounds to me to include without failure, given the fact that G-d actually obligates people to try (do their best) to keep the commandments, when telling them to keep them. Or how can a man really keep the law if he is constantly or periodically breaking it?
That's why offerings were required, even for the unintentional sins: because all could not have been kept without falling. That is, in ordered for a man to be guiltless according to the law, and to G-d, after braking a law, an animal's life must have been paid for the sin(s), because "it is the blood that atones for the soul".
-
I agree with your view, in the greatest part. But "It is possible to keep all the commandments one is obligated in" still sounds to me to include without failure, given the fact that G-d actually obligates people to try (do their best) to keep the commandments, when telling them to keep them. Or how can a man really keep the law if he is constantly or periodically breaking it?
That's why offerings were required, even for the unintentional sins: because all could not have been kept without falling. That is, in ordered for a man to be guiltless according to the law, and to G-d, after braking a law, an animal's life must have been paid for the sin(s), because "it is the blood that atones for the soul".
Today, without the Temple we do not need blood to atone for sin. Every year we have the Yom Kippur service during which we learn and pray in the manner of reliving the Yom Kippur offerings.
When we rebuild the Temple we we once again make the offerings for the unintentional sinners.
-
During the Yom Kippur liturgy we learn that our sins are atoned for through three things:
1) Tefillah - Prayer/Connection
2) Tzadakkah - Charity/Righteousness
3) Teshuva - Repentence/Return
http://www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template_cdo/aid/4453/jewish/Teshuvah-Tefilla-and-Tzedakah.htm
Teshuvah and Repentance
"Repentance" in Hebrew is not teshuvah but charatah. Not only are these two terms not synonymous. They are opposites.
Charatah implies remorse or a feeling of guilt about the past and an intention to behave in a completely new way in the future. The person decides to become "a new man." But teshuvah means "returning" to the old, to one's original nature.
Underlying the concept of teshuvah is the fact that the Jew is, in essence, good. Desires or temptations may deflect him temporarily from being himself, being true to his essence.
But the bad that he does is not part of, nor does it affect, his real nature. Teshuvah is a return to the self.
While repentance involves dismissing the past and starting anew, teshuvah means going back to one's roots in G-d and exposing them as one's true character.
For this reason, while the righteous have no need to repent, and the wicked may be unable to, both may do teshuvah.
The righteous, though they have never sinned, have constantly to strive to return to their innermost. And the wicked, however distant they are from G-d, can always return, for teshuvah does not involve creating anything new, only rediscovering the good that was always within them.
Tefillah and Prayer
"Prayer" in Hebrew is not tefillah but bakashah. And again these terms are opposites. Bakashah means to pray, request, beseech. But tefillah means, to attach oneself.
In bakashah the person asks G-d to provide him, from above, with what he lacks. Therefore when he is not in need of anything, or feels no desire for a gift from above, bakashah becomes redundant.
But in tefillah the person seeks to attach himself to G-d. It is a movement from below, from man, reaching towards G-d. And this is something appropriate to everyone and at every time.
The Jewish soul has a bond with G-d. But it also inhabits a body, whose preoccupation with the material world may attenuate that bond.
So it has constantly to be strengthened and renewed. This is the function of tefillah. And it is necessary for every Jew.
For while there may be those who do not lack anything and thus have nothing to request of G-d, there is no-one who does not need to attach himself to the source of all life.
Tzedakah and Charity
The Hebrew for "charity" is not tzedakah but chessed. And again these two words have opposite meanings.
Chessed, charity, implies that the recipient has no right to the gift and that the donor is under no obligation to give it. He gives it gratuitously, from the goodness of his heart. His act is a virtue rather than a duty.
On the other hand tzedakah means righteousness or justice. The implication is that the donor gives because it is his duty. For, firstly, everything in the world belongs ultimately to G-d. A man's possessions are not his by right. Rather, they are entrusted to him by G-d, and one of the conditions of that trust is that he should give to those who are in need.
Secondly, a man has a duty to act towards others as he asks G-d to act towards him. And as we ask G-d for His blessings though He owes us nothing and is under no obligation, so we are bound in justice to give to those who ask us, even though we are in no way in their debt. In this way we are rewarded: Measure for measure. Because we give freely, G-d gives freely to us.
This applies in particular to the tzedakah which is given to support the institutions of Torah learning. For everyone who is educated in these institutions is a future foundation of a house in Israel, and a future guide to the coming generation. This will be the product of his tzedakah - and his act is the measure of his reward.
Three Paths
These are the three paths which lead to a year "written and sealed" for good.
By returning to one's innermost self (teshuvah), by attaching oneself to G-d (tefillah) and by distributing one's possessions with righteousness (tzedakah), one turns the promise of Rosh Hashanah into the abundant fulfillment of Yom Kippur: A year of sweetness and plenty.1
http://www.pirkeavos.com/2007/chapter-1-mishna-2-the-three-pillars/
-
Today, without the Temple we do not need blood to atone for sin. Every year we have the Yom Kippur service during which we learn and pray in the manner of reliving the Yom Kippur offerings.
However, the manner of reliving the Yom Kippur offerings is not the same as the Yom Kippur offerings themselves. Anyway, it is written that it is the blood that atones for the soul, not that learning and praying.
And it is interesting that, it seems that there are different ways, or different meanings of the forgiveness of God:
Behold I place a plumbline in the midst of My people Israel; I will no longer pardon them
It seems that God forgave the Jews while they were intentionally sinning, until that point: By the fact that He did not punish them as He decided now.
But this 'forgiveness'/'pardon' is not "atonement for the sin".
-
ABOUT REPENTANCE
Teshuvah and Repentance
"Repentance" in Hebrew is not teshuvah but charatah. Not only are these two terms not synonymous. They are opposites.
Charatah implies remorse or a feeling of guilt about the past and an intention to behave in a completely new way in the future. The person decides to become "a new man." But teshuvah means "returning" to the old, to one's original nature.
Underlying the concept of teshuvah is the fact that the Jew is, in essence, good. Desires or temptations may deflect him temporarily from being himself, being true to his essence.
1. You either imply that all men are, in essence, good, or you imply racism (a good race and a bad race).
Also The Jewish soul has a bond with G-d. But it also inhabits a body, whose preoccupation with the material world may attenuate that bond.
I'd call you a nazi, but because the nazi were also enemies of the jewish people, I cannot.
2. If all men are, in essence, good, then it means that "charatah" was always meaningless, because all are, in essence, good. So that means that you actually believe in the "pure race". And saying such things also means you are conceited. But:
a. G-d hates conceited men. Amos 6.8.
b. G-d hates the man who gives credit to himself for what he is (a king, a powerful man, a jew, jewish, etc.) or what he has accomplished. Amos 6.13 (well, this means that he is conceited).
c. You seem to believe that because you 'are' good in essence, G-d is more willing to care for you and answer your prayers, but, besides of being conceited by this, you do in contradiction to what the prophet Daniel did: he said "because not for our righteousness do we cast our supplications before You, but for Your great mercies" (Daniel 9.18) and Daniel, along with other Jews, was a righteous man.
So this brings the question: don't you fear G-d to say that you are superior in nature?
3. Some things I don't see that sound right with people being, in essence, good:
Well, we know that Adam and Eve were in essence good, because G-d said that what He has done was good. And that meant that Adam and Eve could have not sinned against G-d, as long as they did not want to. Also the angels: I guess we all agree that they, unlike us, don't need atonement for their sins, because they do not commit them. But it seems that now we do unintentional evil, which the good angels don't. We are susceptible to evil things - evil things are more a temptation than the good things: to do good things you must struggle, while to do evil things is easy, and they even come themselves without us noticing! So, if we are in essence, good, than how can we be, in essence, also evil (sinners)? And the fact that we cannot stop doing evil/sin, no matter how much we struggle, proves that we are, in essence, sinners (not good).
Also, the fact that the Jews are in essence good, contradicts the Tanakh:
for I knew that you would deal treacherously, and you were called transgressor from the womb
The Jewish people and Jews of that time were, in essence, transgressors. How could the events turn in such a way that all Jews would become, in essence, good?
Charatah implies remorse or a feeling of guilt about the past and an intention to behave in a completely new way in the future. The person decides to become "a new man." But teshuvah means "returning" to the old, to one's original nature.
This difference sounds very odd. Though, in a sense, becoming a new being is the same as a strong decision to be in a completely new way in the future, than wicked as you are in present, you cannot call it oposite to But teshuvah means "returning" to the old, to one's original nature because your nature, not matter what you do, remains your nature: one cannot change/transform himself from John(original person) to Alexander (a different person), and one cannot transform from a man to an angel.
This missunderstanding is also visible, when you said:
And the wicked, however distant they are from G-d, can always return, for teshuvah does not involve creating anything new, only rediscovering the good that was always within them.
1. Every man has good in him. Though many don't struggle to focus on it and don't make it grow. Though many make the evil grow in them.
2. A man for whom no one cared, most surely will never be able to care for someone else, if no one cares for him first. That's because we learn to be good, and we need to see good to know what it is and how that is, to be able to perform it. So this is a kind of good from outside, not from within.
3. Due to the fact what you said is odd, I'll have to guess what the author actually believed by that, and comment that: Of course every wicked man that decides to change actually uses his own potential of doing good to do good. I can't see how it would possible be otherwise!
So becoming a new man cannot be put against "returning" to the old, to one's original nature, because, in the good sense, it is odd. But in the bad sense, our nature is, evil, selfish, etc.: You can see it even from the little children who's selfishness is evident (they believe that all is for them, you can hardly convince a little child to give something he has to another little child to play with, etc.). Anyway, satanists claim the same: a man must "return" to his original nature, only that they add that he must reject religion and other theories that tell him how to behave and puts restrictions on him.
Anyway, becoming a "new man" is a requirement for Jews & Jewish people in the Tanakh:
Cast away from yourselves all your transgressions whereby you have transgressed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit, and why should you die, O house of Israel!
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
These verses says clearly about becoming a new man, for Jews/Jewish people.
-
Are you a missionary? What is it you are trying to do here? I have explained several very intricate Jewish concepts and you still do not seem to understand.
A Jew has a special soul, it is the soul breathed into him by G-d. But because the world was degraded by the sin of the Tree of Knowledege, the ability of man to discern good and evil has been diminished. And because Hashem created free-will for the purpose of being able to reward the good done by mankind and punish the evil done by him, we are always faced with the choice of doing Hashems will, or violating it.
But Hashem, in his divine goodness, created a way for a Jew to return to the original state of the soul, that of wanting to do HIS will from the point of love, not fear.
But please explain to me what you are trying to learn here. If you have a specific question please just ask it.
-
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2006/moadim/rtwe_teshuva.html
Teshuva: In Your Mouth and In Your Heart
“ki hamitzvah hazos asher Anochi metzavcha hayom lo niflais he mimcha vlo rechoka hi…ki karov eilecha hadavar meod bificha vblevavecha laasoso – for the commandment that I command you today is not hidden from you and it is not distant…Rather the matter is very near to you – in your mouth and your hear – to perform it.” (Devarim 30:11,14 Artscroll Stone Edition translation)
According to the Ramban, the mitzvah depicted in these verses is the mitzvah of teshuva (repentance). The Torah emphasizes our capacity and ability to repent. It is “in your mouth and your heart” to repent.
Let us focus on the Torah’s choice of words – “in your mouth and your heart.” Clearly, the Torah is conveying that teshuva is very doable, but that has already been conveyed by the first half of the verse, “[it] is very near to you”. What is added by the phrase “in your mouth and your heart”?[1]
This terse, rich phrase anticipates the myriad excuses that we offer for our failures to do teshuva. Our first line of defense is that we do not need to do teshuva. We are not at fault. After all, we are only human. And to be human is to sin. Alternatively, we silence our consciences by reasoning that our sins are not our fault. Our sins are due to our upbringing, society, genetics, etc. In a word, we do not assume responsibility for our sins. The Torah utterly rejects such moral escapism. “Free will is bestowed on every human being…the human species had become unique in the world…there is none who can prevent him from doing that which is good or that which is evil” (Rambam Hilchos Teshuva 5:1). Being human is not a source of extenuation, but rather moral responsibility. “Thus Yirmiyahu [Jeremiah] said ‘out of the mouth of the Most High not evil and good’; that is to say, the Creator does not decree either that a man shall be good or that he shall be wicked” (ibid, halacha 2).
The primordial ploy of shifting the blame – “The woman whom you gave to be with me – she gave me of the tree, and I ate” “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Breishis 3:12,13 Artscroll translation) – was rejected by Hakadosh Baruch Hu in time immemorial. The modern equivalents – my upbringing is responsible, society is to blame, there is no overcoming genetic tendencies – will share the same fate.
Thus the Torah exhorts us that teshuva is “in your mouth…to perform.” The teshuva process begins “in your mouth”, by confessing and thereby accepting responsibility for our sins.
When our first line of defense for not doing teshuva fails, we seek other justifications for out inaction. One common excuse appeals to age. “I am too old; my habits are too deeply entrenched. After all, you can not teach an old dog new tricks.” What is the Torah’s response to this hackneyed excuse? “For You do not wish the death of one deserving death, but that he repent from his way and live. Until the day of his death You wait for him; if he repents You will accept him immediately.” [Mussaf, Yomim Noraim, Artscroll translation]
At times, we attribute our failures to repent to the magnitude of our sins. “I have sinned too egregiously; I am too mired in sin. How can you expect me to do teshuva?” The Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 2:1) paraphrases the Torah’s response, “Even if he transgressed throughout his life but repented on the day of his death and died as a penitent all his sins are forgiven.” Even a lifelong sinner can, and therefore must, repent.
And, finally, another favorite excuse id “if only someone would help me. If only my Rebbeim z”l were still alive…” The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 17a) debunks this excuse by depicting the teshuva of Rabbe Elazar ben Durdia. Rabbe Elazar had led a life of wanton promiscuity; he had consorted with every harlot in the world. Finally impelled to seek forgiveness he petitioned the mountains and hills to implore on his behalf. They declined, citing their need to pray on their own behalf. Next he addressed himself to heaven and earth, seeking their intervention on his behalf. Their response was identical to that of the mountains and hills. Then Rabbe Elazar appealed to the sun and moon with the same negative results. Finally, he said, “It [i.e. attaining forgiveness] in entirely dependent upon me. He rested his head between his knees and burst out crying until his soul departed. A heavenly voice emerged and proclaimed, ‘Rabbe Elazar ben Durdia is prepared and deserving of the world to come’”. The “if only” excuse is just that, a shallow, hollow excuse. Ain hadavar taloi ela banu; repentance depends entirely upon us.
The Torah rejects our second line of defense – “I am only human”, “I am too old”, “if only…” Teshuva “is in your heart to perform”. If only we inwardly resolve and strive, we can, with Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s help, repent, v’chain yehi ratzon.
-
Are you a missionary?
No. What, Jews don't believe in the 'inheritance' of sin?
I have explained several very intricate Jewish concepts and you still do not seem to understand.
And you blame me for that??
What is it you are trying to do here?
But please explain to me what you are trying to learn here. If you have a specific question please just ask it.
It seems to me that you expect me to be like you and to think the same thoughts you think in your head. Perhaps I must repeat myself and say that I am not a Jew and neither lived in Jewish traditions, in an environment of Judaism, etc. to already believe what you believe. If you don't have patience, no one forces you to answer to the forum. As about my critical eye, this is how I actually am, don't take it as an offense to you. I cannot be satisfied with an answer if it seems to me that it contradicts something, or if the answer is too vague (so that it doesn't explain all needed), etc.
And if my understanding of the subject is different that what you say, God did not command me to call myself "the stupid" and call you "the wise", so that I would step on my own logic for anything you say, and to accept what you say as "the absolute truth", without question. The fact that you cannot accept the idea of me being right and you being wrong, and your attitude caused by your utmost desire to be smart and right all the time while myself to be the stupid and wrong all the time, is not my problem. If you don't have strong arguments to prove your view or you can't explain properly, that is not my problem either.
-
Now, regarding our discussion:
A Jew has a special soul, it is the soul breathed into him by G-d. But because the world was degraded by the sin of the Tree of Knowledege, the ability of man to discern good and evil has been diminished.
OK, first, I don't understand your claim of superiority: In Genesis it is written that G-d breathed His breath into a man, not into a Jew. There is no place in the Bible to support your claim of soul racism. G-d breathed into man His breath, not into a Jew, and people have degraded by sin, and man (not Jews) have gotten diminished their discerning of good and evil. And, by the way, in Genesis I find that the Tree of Knowledge has actually given the man the ability to discern good and evil, not diminished it (Gen 3.22).
for the commandment that I command you today is not hidden from you and it is not distant…Rather the matter is very near to you – in your mouth and your hear – to perform it.” (Devarim 30:11,14 Artscroll Stone Edition translation).
According to the Ramban, the mitzvah depicted in these verses is the mitzvah of teshuva (repentance)
Wrong.
It seems that Ramban forcebly combined Deut 30.11-14 with the second half of the Deut 30.10 ("...when you return to the Lord, your G-d, with all your heart and with all your soul"). Otherwise I can't explain how he got the repentance there.
I'll explain: Follow the context of the verses. We'll start with Deut 29:
1. The topic of the covenant goes from Deut 29.1-14.
2. The falling of Israel by turning from G-d and not keeping the covenant any longer is the topic of Deut 29.15-28. A representative verse for this section is v. 24: "It is because they abandoned the covenant of the Lord, G-d of their fathers, [the covenant] which He made with them when He took them out of the land of Egypt."
3. The repentance of Israel and re-acceptance of its repentance by G-d is the topic of Deut 30.1-10. It is a repentance as that of the Jews that returned from captivity, that before served other gods and now repented and decided to keep the covenant.
4. Since NOW the GREAT commandment begins, beginning with its description, which is written in the verses 11-15. And the ONE commandment sounds as such:
I command you this day to love the Lord, your G-d, to walk in His ways, and to observe His commandments, His statutes, and His ordinances, so that you will live and increase, and the Lord, your G-d, will bless you in the land to which you are coming to take possession of it.
The one, great commandment given is plainly stated in verse 16.
5. A brief review of points 1-4 goes in verses 17-20.
-
It is difficult to explain these things because you are asking many questions at the same time.
I don't believe I ever said anything about superiority of Jews versus non-Jews. The simple fact is that the Jewish people, through the patriarch Abraham, acknowledged the one G-d of creation. His descendants, as promised to Abraham, would be enslaved by Egypt. The descent into Egyptian bondage was in order to forge the Children of Israel into a nation.
When the Children of Israel left Egypt they had fallen to what we call the 49th level of impurity ( http://www.torah.org/advanced/nesivosshalom/5768/shemos.html ) . Due to the immorality of living in Egypt the Children of Israel had almost become as corrupt as the Egyptians. Hashem needed to send Moses to prevent Abrahams descendants from being assimilated into the Egyptian culture. The Jews kept 3 important signs that they were Jewish, 1) They kept Jewish names 2) they spoke Hebrew 3) The wore their cultural clothing ( http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/557,391/What-kind-of-clothes-did-the-Jews-wear-in-Egypt.html )
Our sages explain that the Children of Israel had developed what we call the 'slave mentality'. They did not think that they were able to achieve the greatness that Hashem had hoped for. Several times the young nation complained in the desert and because of this we were punished. Remember the sin of the spies, the rebellion of Korach, etc...
When the Jewish people, at the foot of Mount Sinai, accepted the Torah and all said together 'We will do, and we will hear' {Naaseh V'Nishmah} we entered a marriage covenant with Hashem. See the Song of Songs for a beautiful analogy of the Jewish people marrying Hashem. We are his people, and we chose him as our G-d. This doesn't mean that we are superior but we are certainly beloved to Him.
See also:
http://www.koltorah.org/volume_15/34_Shavuot.htm
http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/shir.htm
According to RASHI, the Megilah is the “mashal” or allegory of a young and beautiful woman who becomes engaged to and then marries a king. But very soon after the marriage, she is unfaithful to him, causing him to send her away, into the status of “living widowhood,” meaning she is “as if” a widow, although her husband is still alive. But his love for her remains strong, and he watches over her at all times, from behind the scenes, to protect her. And when she resolves to return to him, and be faithful to him, he will take her back, with a love that is fully restored.
-
I am also concerned with your belief that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge was a good thing. It was the absolute opposite of good. The reason that Chava was tempted to eat from it was because of the tricks of the yetzer hara {the evil inclination}. Now it is difficult for a non-Jew who has not learned Torah to comprehend just what the Yetzer Hara is... I think I have already explained to you the Jewish concept of two souls, the Nefesh Behami {animal soul} and the Nefesh Sichli {Intelligent Soul}... In some respects the Yetzer Hara is compared to the animal soul while the Yetzer Tov {Good inclination} is ascribed to the Nefesh HaSichli.
The Yetzer Hara {Evil Inclination as represented by the snake} tempted Chava to eat because he knew that they wanted to know everything that Hashem knows. The trick involved the snake telling Chava that she could touch the Tree {which was permitted, only eating the fruit was prohibited}... Adam, in order to establish a 'fence' around this commandment, told Chava that she should not even touch it. Due to this mistake the snake was able to push her hand to touch the tree and yet she lived. So then she incorrectly concluded that she could eat it too.
Now what was the result of eating from it? It was the ability to know Good and Evil... Not to 'discern good and evil' as you say because even today we do not know what it truly good or evil. What happened when they ate from the tree was that Absolute Good and Absolute Evil melded and became a grey like combination of light and darkness. Before eating from the fruit Adam and Chava were perfect, they knew everything that they needed to know. But after eating their ability to know right and wrong was muddied.
See also:
http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5763/tzav.html
As the Torah tells us, the essence of the first mistake of the First Man was his eating from the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil while still in the Garden of Eden. However, as Kabbalah explains, it could only have been the result of something else far more fundamental, since Adam at that stage lacked any desire or pride to sin against the will of G-d. On the level on which he was created, and then later after he ascended to entering the Garden of Eden, it was impossible for him to have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
But eat he did, as we are well aware, and we are still paying for it until Moshiach comes. Therefore, there is a piece from this puzzle that is missing, and as you can guess, it has to do with Adam's eyes. Since that time, it has also been an extremely profound lesson for life.
It says:
[The third aspect of the eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil has to do with] the mind and knowledge, which are included in the term "eating," as we see in Yechezkel (3:1), Yeshayahu (55:1). We also see this from the words of the rabbis in Shir HaShirim Rabbah, Chapter 1, where they compare words of Torah to water, wine, oil, and honey. Thus, we see that the mind and knowledge is included in the concept of eating, and therefore, He also warned him [when G-d commanded Adam not to eat from the fruit] that he should not contemplate and look at anything to which evil is attached. This was in order that he should not come to look at the ability of the evil forces, to investigate and understand the extent of their strengths, lest he be drawn down after them. For, it is the nature of man to adhere to that which he contemplates, because the mind, the one trying to understand, and the object of understanding become one. Therefore, there is a great danger in looking at and contemplating to that which evil is attached . . . This was the main aspect of the sin of the Tree of Knowledge that G-d warned Adam HaRishon about, and which he transgressed and stumbled in. Thus, though his original sin was accidental, in the end he sinned purposely. (Sha'arei Leshem, page 341)
In this short paragraph, one of the most important fundamentals about life emerges, and that is the relationship between the eyes and the mind. In fact, so fundamental is the relationship that, even though Chava ate from the Tree first before she gave to Adam to eat, Adam is faulted for the sin. For, as the Leshem explains in great detail, it was Adam HaRishon's looking at the Tree first, that caused him and the world to quickly descend from their exceptionally high spiritual level, and make the simple mistake of eating.
As the Talmud says:
The yetzer hara only has power over someone regarding that which he has seen. (Sotah 8a)
Indeed, the Zohar (35b) teaches that, until Adam looked at the Tree, the snake was not even allowed into the Garden, let alone to be able to approach Chava to convince her to eat. Thus, it was Adam's looking at the Tree that began the slippery slide from G-d-given greatness to the depths of sin.
-
A little more on the sin of the tree of knowledge:
http://www.torah.org/features/spirfocus/whatUeat.html
SPIRITUALITY OF EATING
Since maintaining a healthy and sound body is among the ways of God -- for one cannot understand or have any knowledge of the Creator, if he is ill -- therefore, one must avoid that which harms the body and accustom himself to that which is healthful and helps the body become stronger. (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Knowledge 4:1)...
Why do we eat?
When asked why they eat, people usually respond, "I eat because I'm hungry," "I eat when something looks or smells good," or "I eat because it's meal time." For many, the routine of eating is an agony to minimize or avoid by skipping breakfast or using instant powders or fast foods. Others snack through the day without ever sitting down to a meal!
To achieve historical perspective, we must go back in time to the beginning, to the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Knowledge.
God took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it. God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat from every tree of the garden. But from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil do not eat, for on the day you eat from it, you will surely die." (Genesis 2:15-17)
If only the first man, Adam, had kept on occupying himself with Torah and with guarding the way to the Tree of Life, he would have continued to stroll through the Garden of Eden like one of the guardian angels. Shortly after God created Eve, in the afternoon of the first Friday of Creation, the first couple in the world committed the first sin by eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. If they had only waited a few hours for Shabbos, they could have eaten the fruit with God's blessings! (Shaar ha-Kavanos, Rosh Hashanah, Discourse A).
Likewise, we read in the Torah: "The woman saw that the tree was good for food and desirable to the eyes, and the tree was attractive as a means to gain intelligence. She took some of its fruit and ate, and also gave some to her husband, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6)
The trees were real trees, the fruits were real fruits, and the eating was actual eating; but the fruits were fine and the eating was delicate. As Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto explains, the eating from the Tree of Knowledge introduced desire for all material, bodily pleasures and for all sins.
In the beginning, good and evil had been separate, both in the fruit and in the entire world. But when the sin of the Tree of Knowledge corrupted the world, good became mixed with evil. Sparks of holiness fell into their husks, and the pure combined with the impure. Man was sentenced to work hard for his food and to die. The world became more coarse...
It is clear that the soul is not nourished by physical bread, as the body is. The food we eat is actually a combination of both a physical and a spiritual entity. The body is nourished by the physical aspects, or nutrients, contained in the foods we eat; the soul is nourished by the spiritual power -- or sparks of holiness -- which enlivens the physical substance of all matter, including food. Therefore, body and soul are united in the act of eating. (Ruach Chaim on Pirkei Avot 3:3; Code of Jewish Law OC 6:1, with Magen Avraham)
We have seen that all of Creation is composed of a mixture of good and evil. Likewise, in every food that a person eats there is a combination of good and evil. Food physically consists of good counterparts, i.e., nutrients, and bad aspects, i.e., waste or indigestible matter. Likewise, spiritually, food contains sparks of holiness, or good components, and husks, or kelipos, which are the gross, bad components that encompass the sparks.
-
oh my, now I see that you've replied. I didn't get any notification by email this time.
Sorry, but I'll read your posts and reply a bit later (in a few days). I don't have time right now.
-
Regarding the superiority:
I am aware of the fact that G-d chose ye to be His people.
But that's a totally different thing than saying that you have a different kind of soul than everybody else (e.g. to say that Jewish people also have a different kind of soul as it is said that man has a kind of soul and animals have a different kind of souls) or that you are 'by nature' superior (e.g. more able to understand G-d and serve Him). In the Tanakh it doesn't say that G-d chose ye for your 'special abilities' or something. On the contrary, it is the covenant that G-d made, the reason the Jewish people are still alive.
Regarding the eating of the fruit:
Now what was the result of eating from it? It was the ability to know Good and Evil... Not to 'discern good and evil' as you say because even today we do not know what it truly good or evil.
Well, I thought this is what "Now the Lord G-d said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil" means.
Doesn't "discern" means to have the ability of knowing good and evil?
My understanding of this issue is that Adam and Eve did not have the ability of knowing good and evil (i.e. what is good and what is evil), but they didn't need it. They were made by G-d "good" and given a single commandment to keep. By the fact that they ate from the fruit made them sin and gave them the ability of knowing what is good and what is evil (which sounds to me, to discern what is good and what is evil). This means that it is in our nature to acknowledge what is good and what is evil. But, because in time people have become more and more corrupted, the society (people around) is corrupting the young even from the early ages (they are taught to do and believe against what their own nature tells them) - and it's like a thief is: after the 4th or 5th theft, he doesn't feel guilt any longer for it.
By the way muman613, perhaps you understand this better: In the Tanakh it is written "for on the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die". Well, we know that neither Adam nor Eve died in the same 24 hours. What is your explanation on this? (I have an explanation, but I'm not sure that is correct)
perhaps I lengthen to much the discussion but...
If only the first man, Adam, had kept on occupying himself with Torah and with guarding the way to the Tree of Life, he would have continued to stroll through the Garden of Eden like one of the guardian angels. Shortly after G-d created Eve, in the afternoon of the first Friday of Creation, the first couple in the world committed the first sin by eating the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. If they had only waited a few hours for Shabbos, they could have eaten the fruit with G-d's blessings! (Shaar ha-Kavanos, Rosh Hashanah, Discourse A).
I didn't find anywhere to be written that G-d gave Adam a Torah (or the laws of the Torah in non-book form). I know that "Torah" means law, but in this context it seems that you mean "Torah" as a book of laws. What is "Shabbos"? (please try in few words). Then, nowhere in the Tanakh do I find that G-d intended Adam to ever eat from the tree of knowledge, or a reason He would desire that (i.e. if they were "good" as G-d created them good, they needn't rules to guide them in becoming "good").
P.S. Hopefully, I will remember about this discussion soon enough. For I don't know what reason, I didn't receive any email notification in the past times.
-
Too long to read but why asking if drugs are explicitly mentioned in the Tanakh? Every Jew knows that Hallacha is determined also by Talmud (Oral Law) and the Sages' interpretations of that Laws for each time.