Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
does the Tanakh explicitly talk about drugs?
muman613:
--- Quote from: It's Just Mo on February 21, 2011, 10:14:34 AM ---muman, you were such a hippie back then, huh? :dance: :dance: :dance:
--- End quote ---
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...
muman613:
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
.
.
.
The One and Only Mo:
--- Quote from: muman613 on February 21, 2011, 10:25:47 AM ---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...
--- End quote ---
It's quite clear from some of your posts that you smoke the occasional joint, LOL! :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D :::D
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Zenith on February 20, 2011, 07:13:37 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Zenith on February 20, 2011, 06:33:40 PM ---where exactly? anywhere in the Tanakh?
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version