John Kerry's Appearence In The Torah

[Binyamin Yisrael]

This week we read about John Ba'al Kerry in Parashat Metzora.

Keri (קרי) is a Hebrew term which literally means "happenstance", "frivolity" or "contrariness" and has come to mean "seminal emission". The term is generally used in Jewish law to refer specifically to the regulations and rituals concerning the emission of semen, whether by nocturnal emission, or by sexual activity. By extension, a man is said to be a ba'al keri (בעל קרי)("one who has had a seminal emission") after he has ejaculated without yet completing the associated ritual cleansing requirements.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Quote the verse(s).

[Israel Chai]

lol. Torah calls kerry a semen stain.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

Quote the verse(s).

I don't think the text itself says the word Ba'al Keri but ArtScroll uses the word Ba'al Keri in the commentary. The Halachic name for a person described in what I posted is Ba'al Keri.

[muman613]

I am looking at the Torah text in this section and it does not appear to include the word "Keri'...

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?aid=15579&p=complete

16. A man from whom there is a discharge of semen, shall immerse all his flesh in water, and he shall remain unclean until evening.       טז. וְאִישׁ כִּי תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת זָרַע וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:
17. And any garment or any leather [object] which has semen on it, shall be immersed in water, and shall remain unclean until evening.       יז. וְכָל בֶּגֶד וְכָל עוֹר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה עָלָיו שִׁכְבַת זָרַע וְכֻבַּס בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד הָעָרֶב:

[muman613]

But you are most certainly correct that a Ba'al Keri is one who has seminal emmissions.. According to RaMbaM

http://www.torah.org/learning/rambam/kriatshema/ks4.8.html

Rabbi Yitzchok Etshalom
Kriat Shema 4:8

8. All those who are *tamei* (ritually impure) are obligated to read K'riat Sh'ma and to say the B'rakhot beforehand and afterwards [even] while they are in their state of *tum'ah*. Even though they could ascend out of their state of tum'ah that same day - such as those who touch a *sheretz* (rodent) or a *niddah* or a *zavah* (types of ritual impurity dealing with genital emissions) or her bed etc.

Ezra and his court (circa 450 BCE) ordained that only a *ba'al keri* (one who has had a seminal emission) should not read words of Torah - and they distinguished him from all other people who are *tamei* [in this regard] - until he performs ritual ablution. This decree, however, never "caught on" throughout Israel [the Jewish people] and a majority of the community was not able to maintain it, therefore it became nullified.

The Jewish people are accustomed to reading Torah and reading K'riat Sh'ma even though they are *ba'alei keri'in* because the words of Torah are not susceptible to *tum'ah*; rather they remain forever pure, as it says: "Behold, My words are like fire, oracle of Hashem..." (Yirmiyah [Jeremiah] 23:29) - just as fire is not susceptible to tum'ah, similarly the words of Torah are not susceptible to tum'ah.

[muman613]

http://www.torah.org/learning/rambam/tefillah/mt.tf.head.html

THE SECOND SOURCE: BERAKHOT 21A

The Mishnah (Berakhot 3:4-5) establish the rule that a *ba'al keri* (one who has had a seminal emission) may not say T'fillah - but does think about/meditate on the words of K'riat Sh'ma while the rest of the community is reciting them. The Gemara (Berakhot 20b-21a) indicates that even if *hirhur lav k'dibur dami* - meditating on something is not reckoned as saying it's, there is still a value in the ba'al keri meditating on the words of K'riat Sh'ma. By doing this, he is joining the community in the matter in which they are engaged (and not separating himself from them). The Gemara then asks: If this is the case, why does the ba'al keri not say T'fillah (evidently even silently i.e. without moving his lips) along with the community? The Gemara (ultimately) responds: Kr'iat Sh'ma is d'Orayta, whereas T'fillah is d'Rabanan (see the various readings of the text in Rashi and Tosafot there). Here we cannot save Rambam's approach as we did before - a baÕal keri is (typically) a case of first thing in the morning - and this T'fillah should, according to Rambam's thinking, be considered d'Orayta. How can we defend Rambam's approach here?

As mentioned, the sugya there is not concerned chiefly with which obligations still apply to the ba'al keri, as much as which words, currently being recited by the community, should also be said by the ba'al keri who is with them. (See the bottom of 20b - see also Otzar haG'eonim, Berakhot p. 50, where a related ruling is cited. The case concerns someone who enters a Beit K'nesset after having completed T'fillah and finds that the community is reciting Ashrei - and the ruling is that he should say it along with them; the basis for this ruling is the Gemara at the bottom of 20b). The words of K'riat Sh'ma are, indeed, directly from the Torah - which is certainly not the case regarding the words of T'fillah.

This response could be challenged on internal grounds, as follows: The Gemara notes that, according to the Mishnah (3:4), a ba'al keri does say Birkat haMazon - and the Gemara explains that the reason is that Birkat haMazon, unlike T'fillah, is d'Orayta. However, it seems that the words of Birkat haMazon are not d'Orayta; so how do we distinguish between Birkat haMazon and T'fillah?

The distinction still may hold, once we clarify the nature of the obligation of Birkat haMazon vs. that of T'fillah. Whereas, even according to Rambam, the Torah only obligates us to praise God, request and thank Him - but there are no specific themes which must be stated. In other words, all of the themes mentioned in T'fillah are created by the Rabbis. T'fillah, in theme and content is fully d'Rabanan.