does the Tanakh explicitly talk about drugs?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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).

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

doesn't the alcohol kill neurons? that's what I've heard.

Doesn't taking a shower kill skin cells?



.... Oops.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

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.

[Zenith]

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).

[Zenith]

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?

[Zenith]

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".

[muman613]

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.

[muman613]

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/

[Zenith]

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".

[Zenith]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[Zenith]

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.

[Zenith]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[muman613]

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.

[Zenith]

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.

[Zenith]

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.

[Raulmarrio2000]

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.