JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: White Israelite on November 08, 2010, 09:55:44 AM
-
So I have a question for JTF'ers, can a self hating Jew, someone who has gone down the wrong path who has aided the enemies, turned to false Gods, or given away land ever do anything to become righteous again or are these people doomed? I ask this out of concern of people in the Jewish community who may not realize what they are doing and can hopefully reverse their destructive pattern before it's too late. Take for example Neuterai Karta?
-
So I have a question for JTF'ers, can a self hating Jew, someone who has gone down the wrong path who has aided the enemies, turned to false Gods, or given away land ever do anything to become righteous again or are these people doomed? I ask this out of concern of people in the Jewish community who may not realize what they are doing and can hopefully reverse their destructive pattern before it's too late. Take for example Neuterai Karta?
well if gentiles can do it so can jews.
Chaim said that jesse helms use to hate the iraelis and then turned very pro israel, so im sure a jew can do the same mate.
-
No!
-
There something called Teshuva that a self-hating Jew can do when he realizes he is wrong...so there is hope for some, but not necessarily for all.
-
There something called Teshuva that a self-hating Jew can do when he realizes he is wrong...so there is hope for some, but not necessarily for all.
Maybeeee..... you just naive
When you alone with our porn
Maybeeee...... its all a fraud
They burn our flags
To the ground
Self hating jew will never admit that he done something wrong. Ego man.
-
I think it depends on the circumstance.
So I have a question for JTF'ers, can a self hating Jew, someone who has gone down the wrong path who has aided the enemies,
It depends what kind of aid we are talking about. If you mean they literally knowingly helped arabs to murder Jews, then such a person probably will never change. If they were a "peace activist" or some other nonsense because they didn't know any better, certainly they can change.
turned to false Gods,
I would say definitely yes they can do teshuvah because a lot of Tanakh consists of the prophets telling Jews who chased after idol worship to change their ways and return to Hashem. I think they wouldn't be calling for that if it was impossible.
or given away land
This can only be the type of person who was in a major leadership position, and IMO to take on that responsibility, someone also has the duty to fully grasp what they are doing, and I think such a sin is unforgivable, but I don't know, it's up to God whether such a person can do real teshuvah. As far as we know, we can only consider such a person a traitor.
-
There something called Teshuva that a self-hating Jew can do when he realizes he is wrong...so there is hope for some, but not necessarily for all.
When you alone with our porn
What?
What are you saying?
They burn our flags
To the ground
Whose flags?
-
You don`t know what "our" is.
-
There something called Teshuva that a self-hating Jew can do when he realizes he is wrong...so there is hope for some, but not necessarily for all.
Maybeeee..... you just naive
When you alone with our porn
What is this again ? You have been offensive and nonsensical all day long. What's wrong with you ?
-
Hey, anything can happen. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm about to marry Natalie Portman! :::D
-
You don`t know what "our" is.
Perhaps I don't. So tell us what you mean. Or else nobody has any clue what you are saying.
-
What is this again ? You have been offensive and nonsensical all day long. What's wrong with you ?
I can`t sing? Whats a matter?It makes you angry when someone having a good time 8).
So tell us what you mean.
Israeli in this case. The poin is that some group of "religious jews burning flags in my country". From what i understand the word our or ours don`t have nothing to do with you. Thanks for the explanation.
-
I can`t sing? Whats a matter?It makes you angry when someone having a good 8).
Yes, it makes me angry when someone is having fun by being disrespectful to the others and calling them names on a serious forum.
This forum should be a showcase for our movement. It should make newcomers feel like staying and supporting Chaim Ben Pesach.
This forum is also a community where everyone should be treated with fairness and respect.
This forum is not your personal playground. And I'm saying this with regard to all you have posted today, not just what you posted in this thread.
-
So tell us what you mean.
Israeli in this case. The poin is that some group of "religious jews burning flags in my country". From what i understand the word our or ours don`t have nothing to do with you. Thanks for the explanation.
"When you alone with our porn" has now become "When you alone with Israeli porn"
I still don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean by that comment?
And for your information, I am Jewish, so Israel IS my country even if I'm not living there yet.
Are you Jewish?
-
Yes, it makes me angry when someone is having fun by being disrespectful to the others and calling them names on a serious forum.
You and your body are very "respectful" ;D. No doubt about that. The song was a joke but compare that to your "criticism" and see the difference. At least i am not telling people what to do.
-
Yes, it makes me angry when someone is having fun by being disrespectful to the others and calling them names on a serious forum.
You and your body are very "respectful" ;D. No doubt about that. The song was a joke but compare that to your "criticism" and see the difference. At least i am not telling people what to do.
You have a nerve. You insult people and then you pose as the victim.
Yes, when someone breaks the rules and does damage, they have to be told what to do. You can count on me to be a good watchdog.
-
Can the [censored] change his skin or the leopard its spots ?
-
Of course. This is the most basic idea of Judaism. Teshuva is always available. The Torah clearly says this in the section of the rebukes against the Children of Israel. There is never a time when a Jews teshuva is not accepted.
If you would like scriptural sources for this I can provide it..
-
To get back to the original question of whether or not a self-hating Jew can become righteous, I would have to say yes. An excellent example of this is David Horowitz, the son of communist Jews, who used to be involved with the Black Panthers and other hard left wing causes. He now publishes a website called Frontpagemagazine -- http://www.frontpagemag.com. He's very pro-Israel. He also does a good job of exposing the leftist Islamic Jew hatred on many American college campuses. Furthermore, he also runs a site called "Discover The Networks" which is a detailed guide to Left. You can look up any left wing individual or group here.
Now granted, Horowitz is not as right wing as Chaim is. But he has come a very long way.
-
Can the schvartza change his skin or the leopard its spots ?
Idk about the leopard but it's definitely possible that a schvartza can change his skin. Having said that, they end up looking much worse.
(http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/sport/img/13763_michael_jackson_black_white.jpg)
-
Parasha Bechukotai
Leviticus 26
23. And if, through these, you will still not be chastised [to return] to Me, and if you [continue to] treat Me happenstance,
24. Then I too, will treat you as happenstance. I will again add seven punishments for your sins:
25. I will bring upon you an army that avenges the avenging of a covenant, and you will gather into your cities. I will incite the plague in your midst, and you will be delivered into the enemy's hands,
26. when I break for you the staff of bread, and ten women will bake your bread in one oven, and they will bring back your bread by weight, and you will eat, yet not be satisfied.
27. And if, despite this, you still do not listen to Me, still treating Me as happenstance,
28. I will treat you with a fury of happenstance, adding again seven [chastisements] for your sins:
29. You will eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters you will eat.
30. I will demolish your edifices and cut down your sun idols; I will make your corpses [fall] upon the corpses of your idols, and My Spirit will reject you.
.
.
.
39. And because of their iniquity, those of you who survive will rot away in the lands of your enemies; moreover, they will rot away because the iniquities of their fathers are still within them.
40. They will then confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers their betrayal that they dealt Me, and that they also treated Me as happenstance.
41. Then I too, will treat them as happenstance and bring them [back while] in the land of their enemies. If then, their clogged heart becomes humbled, then, [their sufferings] will gain appeasement for their iniquity,
42. and I will remember My covenant [with] Jacob, and also My covenant [with] Isaac, and also My covenant [with] Abraham I will remember. And I will remember the Land,
43. [For] the Land will be bereft of them, appeasing its sabbaticals when it had been desolate of them, and they will gain appeasement for their iniquity. This was all in retribution for their having despised My ordinances and in retribution for their having rejected My statutes.
44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their God.
45. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God to them. I am the Lord.
-
"When you alone with our porn" has now become "When you alone with Israeli porn"
I still don't understand what you are saying. What do you mean by that comment?
And for your information, I am Jewish, so Israel IS my country even if I'm not living there yet.
Are you Jewish?
Damn it. I made a gramma error. wait!!!
-
Also refer to the Talmudic story of Acher... Who was a Rabbi who turned to the dark side... And yet even his Teshuva was listened to.
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/57606397.html
-
There are some Jews who are hopelessly lost and are traitors...they don't have a chance...but many who are misguided do have a chance.
What is this again ? You have been offensive and nonsensical all day long. What's wrong with you ?
I can`t sing? Whats a matter?It makes you angry when someone having a good time 8).
So tell us what you mean.
Israeli in this case. The poin is that some group of "religious jews burning flags in my country". From what i understand the word our or ours don`t have nothing to do with you. Thanks for the explanation.
-
To get back to the original question of whether or not a self-hating Jew can become righteous, I would have to say yes. An excellent example of this is David Horowitz, the son of communist Jews, who used to be involved with the Black Panthers and other hard left wing causes. He now publishes a website called Frontpagemagazine -- http://www.frontpagemag.com. He's very pro-Israel. He also does a good job of exposing the leftist Islamic Jew hatred on many American college campuses. Furthermore, he also runs a site called "Discover The Networks" which is a detailed guide to Left. You can look up any left wing individual or group here.
Now granted, Horowitz is not as right wing as Chaim is. But he has come a very long way.
Robert Novak can't neither can Jewish Bolsheviks who killed religious Jews in the Russian Revolution or mordechai vannunu or Jews who were Nationalist SOCIALISTS who killed Jews.
-
When you alone with your porn
Gramma error. Take me to prison please 8)
-
Hashem hears true Teshuva even from Jews on their deathbeds...
-
44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their G-d.
45. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a G-d to them. I am the Lord.
Muman, this is speaking about the Jewish nation collectively, not an individual with regards to a specific sin.
It's my understanding that in halakha there ARE some sins (of an individual) for which teshuva cannot be done (by that individual)... Am I wrong?
-
When you alone with your porn
If that was a grammar error, why would you repeat the same thing 5 times?
So now you are saying you didn't refer to something Israeli, but you are trying to say that Dr. Dan looks at porn? Still incoherent. Not to mention insulting and an evil thing to say. Can you explain how porn is relevant to anything in this discussion? Why did you bring that up? Do you have something against JTF members?
-
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/57606397.html
But the story does not end there. The Talmud tells us that Elisha ben Avuyah's greatest student, Rabbi Meir, does not abandon him. Ironically, Rabbi Meir's family has made their own journey: his father was born a non-Jew,12 a pagan, and he made his way to Judaism. Now his son's teacher takes a journey in the opposite direction. Remarkably, even after Acher abandons the path of Torah, Rabbi Meir clings to him. The Talmud records their conversations, which are peppered with debates on theological issues. Acher apparently tried to lead Rabbi Meir toward a belief in dualism by posing provocative, leading questions he thought would support his opinion:
After his apostasy, Acher asked R. Meir [a question], saying to him: What is the meaning of the verse: God has made even the one as well as the other? Kohelet 7, 14. He replied: It means that for everything that God created He created [also] its counterpart. He created mountains, and created hills; He created seas, and created rivers. Said [Acher] to him: R. Akiva, your master, did not explain it thus, but [as follows]: He created the righteous, and created the wicked; He created the Garden of Eden, and created Gehinnom. Everyone has two portions, one in the Garden of Eden and one in Gehinnom. The righteous man, being meritorious, takes his own portion and his fellow's portion in the Garden of Eden. The wicked man, being guilty, takes his own portion and his fellow's portion in Gehinnom. R. Mesharsheya said: What is the Biblical proof for this? In the case of the righteous, it is written: Therefore in their land they shall possess double. Yeshayahu 61, 7. In the case of the wicked it is written: And destroy them with double destruction. Yirmiyahu 17, 18. After his apostasy, Acher asked R. Meir: What is the meaning of the verse: Gold and glass cannot equal it; neither shall the exchange thereof be vessels of fine gold? Iyov28, 17. He answered: These are the words of the Torah, which are hard to acquire like vessels of fine gold, but are easily destroyed like vessels of glass. Said [Acher] to him: R. Akiva, your master, did not explain thus, but [as follows]: Just as vessels of gold and vessels of glass, though they be broken, have a remedy, even so a scholar, though he has sinned, has a remedy. [Thereupon, R. Meir] said to him: Then, you, too, repent! He replied: 'I have already heard from behind the Veil: Return you mischievous children - all except Acher.'
-
44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their G-d.
45. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a G-d to them. I am the Lord.
Muman, this is speaking about the Jewish nation collectively, not an individual with regards to a specific sin.
It's my understanding that in halakha there ARE some sins (of an individual) for which teshuva cannot be done (by that individual)... Am I wrong?
The three cardinal sins are very sticky as far as Teshuva..
-
Can the schvartza change his skin or the leopard its spots ?
Idk about the leopard but it's definitely possible that a schvartza can change his skin. Having said that, they end up looking much worse.
(http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/sport/img/13763_michael_jackson_black_white.jpg)
Good answer :::D. I vote Yes.
-
44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their G-d.
45. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a G-d to them. I am the Lord.
Muman, this is speaking about the Jewish nation collectively, not an individual with regards to a specific sin.
It's my understanding that in halakha there ARE some sins (of an individual) for which teshuva cannot be done (by that individual)... Am I wrong?
The three cardinal sins are very sticky as far as Teshuva..
What about mesira?
Public Chillul Hashem?
-
44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their G-d.
45. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a G-d to them. I am the Lord.
Muman, this is speaking about the Jewish nation collectively, not an individual with regards to a specific sin.
It's my understanding that in halakha there ARE some sins (of an individual) for which teshuva cannot be done (by that individual)... Am I wrong?
The three cardinal sins are very sticky as far as Teshuva..
What about mesira?
Public Chillul Hashem?
Those are some serious offenses also. I don't actually know how teshuva can work in those circumstances. Certainly public Chillul Hashem would be difficult to rectify..
http://www.beyondbt.com/2010/09/16/do-teshuva-out-of-love-this-yom-kippur/
Advantages of Doing Teshuva out of Love
In the Aryeh Kaplan Reader article titled Yom Kippur Thoughts – A Good Day for Repentance, Rabbi Kaplan points out the tremendous advantages of doing teshuva out of love versus out of fear:
1) Your sins become merits
2) You require no further atonement even though we can’t bring a Korban these days
3) You are immediately forgiven for all your sins, even those involving Koreis or Chillul Hashem
-
There are some Jews who are hopelessly lost and are traitors...they don't have a chance...but many who are misguided do have a chance.
Just because i made a grammar error, he call me a traitor.... Thanks mister judge. What else do you know about me? By the way. When your only argument ends with only bad grammar of other person its not making you any better. ;D.
-
44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their G-d.
45. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a G-d to them. I am the Lord.
In regards to Chillul Hashem, what about Jews who became atheists and then turn back to Judaism?
It's my understanding that in halakha there ARE some sins (of an individual) for which teshuva cannot be don
e (by that individual)... Am I wrong?
The three cardinal sins are very sticky as far as Teshuva..
What about mesira?
Public Chillul Hashem?
In regards to Chillul Hashem, what about Jews who became atheists and then turn back to Judaism?
-
There are some Jews who are hopelessly lost and are traitors...they don't have a chance...but many who are misguided do have a chance.
Just because i made a grammar error, he call me a traitor.... Thanks mister judge. What else do you know about me? By the way. When your only argument ends with only bad grammar of other person its not making you any better. ;D.
He did not call you a traitor! You misread his comment!
It seems your comprehension of english is causing problems here, but this reaction is certainly not called for and has nothing to do with what he actually said.
-
44. But despite all this, while they are in the land of their enemies, I will not despise them nor will I reject them to annihilate them, thereby breaking My covenant that is with them, for I am the Lord their G-d.
45. I will remember for them the covenant [made with] the ancestors, whom I took out from the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a G-d to them. I am the Lord.
In regards to Chillul Hashem, what about Jews who became atheists and then turn back to Judaism?
It's my understanding that in halakha there ARE some sins (of an individual) for which teshuva cannot be don
e (by that individual)... Am I wrong?
The three cardinal sins are very sticky as far as Teshuva..
What about mesira?
Public Chillul Hashem?
In regards to Chillul Hashem, what about Jews who became atheists and then turn back to Judaism?
Nothing wrong with turning back to Judaism and that is definitely teshuva.
When I say chillul Hashem I refer to a specific sin carried out in public. Here's an article that delves into this issue.
http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter4-5.html
-
Actually Muman, maybe I was wrong in separating chillul hashem from the 3 sins you referred to. This ask Moses site actually defines the public chillul Hashem in the legal sense as choosing to do any of those 3 sins.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/419,83/What-constitutes-a-Chillul-Hashem-desecration-of-G-ds-Name.html
“Chillul Hashem” (pronounced KHIH-lool hah-SHEM) means “Desecration of G-d’s Name.” Colloquially, it refers to personal acts/behaviors that give G-d, Judaism, Torah/Mitzvot or Jews a bad name and a bad reputation.
But in its legal sense, it refers to when a Jew is faced with the choice of a) committing one of the three cardinal sins (accepting another god or religion, murder or certain illicit sexual relations), or b) execution. If s/he chooses “a” instead of “b” that is a Chillul Hashsem.
Why is it a Chillul Hashem? Why should he die? Because belief in the Highest Power, respect of human life and sexual decency are the three core pillars of society, and a Jew giving in to these is essentially saying that the Truth is not really the truth after all. Thankfully, this form of Chillul Hashem doesn’t normally exist in Western society.
Very important: those three are the only Torah laws that a Jew must die for. If your life depended on it, you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three.
But I thought that there are more things that constitute such a sin? Even if you don't have to die, isn't it a chillul hashem to eat treif just because a gentile ruler is trying to desecrate Judaism by forcing you do it in public?
-
There are some Jews who are hopelessly lost and are traitors...they don't have a chance...but many who are misguided do have a chance.
Just because i made a grammar error, he call me a traitor.... Thanks mister judge. What else do you know about me? By the way. When your only argument ends with only bad grammar of other person its not making you any better. ;D.
My personal error with quote. Please ignore or enjoy, or both 8)
-
The Bible says that anybody can repent.
-
I use to support the 2 state solution and I use to support Marx
Now I think that the Arabs need to get out of my country and I think communism can never work, not now, not in 1000 years.
-
In regards to Chillul Hashem, what about Jews who became atheists and then turn back to Judaism?
[/quote]
Yes, an unbelieving non-Halakcha following Jew who comes to embrace Judaism is called a "Ba'al Teshuvah" [Master of the Return]. I think if you search for the Hebrew term you will find more answers to your curiosity. 4Torah.com is a search engine that often leads to better results than what Google offers actually [4Torah search results have been pre-screened by Orthodox Rabbis so the information it provides is Kosher. Muman told me about this site in the Torah forum and it has provided many, many good searches!].
-
Very "important": those three are the only Torah laws that a Jew must die for. If your life depended on it, you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three.
And who said that? You. Those "big three" are taken from the third (as far as i remember) book of Hebrew Bible. And if its from Bible who is the best friend you referring to? Seems to me that its not as much important as it look like. Or maybe..just maybe... its another "Language barrier" and another "reason" to put yourself above me. Is that correct "Owner" :laugh:?
-
Very "important": those three are the only Torah laws that a Jew must die for. If your life depended on it, you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three.
And who said that? You. Those "big three" are taken from the third (as far as i remember) book of Hebrew Bible. And if its from Bible who is the best friend you referring to? Seems to me that its not as much important as it look like. Or maybe..just maybe... its another "Language barrier" and another "reason" to put yourself above me. Is that correct "Owner" :laugh:?
In all cases a Jew is permitted to violate any commandment so long as it comes to saving his or her life. We are allowed to violate Shabbat if we have a medical emergency which threatens life {for instance to drive to the hospital}. Hashem, in the Torah, clearly says that the Mitzvot are intended for us to live by, not to die by them. So if we are in a life threatening situation and have no food to eat other than something which is non-Kosher we are allowed to eat it. If we are in a situation where life is in danger we are commanded to violate the other mitzvot.
BUT , when it comes to the three cardinal sins it is better for a Jew to die rather than transgress those three. As we said the three cardinal sins according to Jewish law are:
1) Idolatry {Worshiping a strange diety, making images, etc.}
2) Sexual Immorality {Adultery, Forbidden relationships, etc.}
3) Murder
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/581438/jewish/Is-a-Jew-required-to-die-rather-than-disobey-a-Torah-command.htm
http://www.torah.org/learning/beyond-pshat/5764/vayera.html
http://www.aish.com/jl/i/mn/48932892.html
God has commanded us in His Torah, "Keep My decrees and laws, since it is only by keeping them that a person can [truly] live" (Leviticus 18:5). Thus, if one's life is in danger, he may violate any law to save or heal himself.
The only exception to this rule are the three cardinal sins -- idolatry, murder and sexual crimes -- for which one must die rather than transgress. We are called upon to give our lives rather than transgress any law which is even associated with these three sins.
It is therefore forbidden to resort to any idolatrous faith healer or shrine, even when one is dangerously ill and a psychological cure may be effected. One may receive treatment from a non-Jewish physician, even if he is an idolater, but not from an atheistic or idolatrous psychiatrist.
It is only forbidden to save a life through idolatrous means when some religious motivation is suspected. Where no religious motivation is involved, it is permitted to make material use of objects associated with idolatry to save a life. Therefore, it is permitted to heal with drugs used in idolatrous rites, or seek asylum in a church when one is being pursued.
-
1) Idolatry {Worshiping a strange diety, making images, etc.}
Someone already violated the first law, thats for sure. (hint: "bbbbbbb....black wwwww...white aaaa....nnn and NNNNNN.....Ni@@@@s)
So muman613 your responds is correct, but my question was about:
you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three..
So if someone comes to me, threatening me with gun and forcing me to eat non-Kosher or violate Shabbat, i am not doing chillul hashem. Accepted and understood.
Next is steal.
Well if object A threating object B and forcing him to steal, thats means object A is a thief not object B. Now i am asking, where it was written mr Kahane-Was-Right BT? Where? Do someone else also have language barrier or something like that?
Now is this: "smack your friend because they are not societal pillars".
So its ok to smack your friend just because he is not a societal pillar? Who told you that the g-d laws are "societal pillars". Who told you that? The "ownage" master maybe.
-
1) Idolatry {Worshiping a strange diety, making images, etc.}
Someone already violated the first law, thats for sure. (hint: "bbbbbbb....black wwwww...white aaaa....nnn and NNNNNN.....Ni@@@@s)
So muman613 your responds is correct, but my question was about:
you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three..
So if someone comes to me, threatening me with gun and forcing me to eat non-Kosher or violate Shabbat, i am not doing chillul hashem. Accepted and understood.
Next is steal.
Well if object A threating object B and forcing him to steal, thats means object A is a thief not object B. Now i am asking, where it was written mr Kahane-Was-Right BT? Where? Do someone else also have language barrier or something like that?
Now is this: "smack your friend because they are not societal pillars".
So its ok to smack your friend just because is not societal pillar? Who told you that the g-d laws are "societal pillars". Who told you that? The "ownage" master maybe.
I do not quite understand your question. The rules regarding what sins are prohibited come from the Halacha itself. It is standard Jewish belief that observation of the mitzvot are 'Societal Pillars' upon which the world relies. If you want a Jewish source for this I will provide it for you.
http://www.aish.com/sp/pg/48884852.html
A chair needs three legs to stand. Our spiritual lives also have a 3-part balance.
Shimon HaTzaddik was from the remnants of the Great Assembly.
He used to say:
On three things the world stands.
On Torah,
On service [of G-d],
And on acts of human kindness.
THE WORLD IN BALANCE
Why should the world stand on three things rather than two or four or some other arbitrary number? We could easily list dozens of critical needs, obligations and aspects of life. Why does Shimon HaTzaddik stop at three, and why these three?
Our Mishnah is zeroing in on a fundamental truth about our place in the cosmos. We are not alone, and life is not ours alone. We live in a world where we are compelled to act, react and interact with others.
We have three primary relationships in life. We have to learn to live with ourself, with G-d, and with others.
Human beings interact with the world on three levels: thought, speech and action. Each of these three is the key to the three basic relationships: You act on yourself through thought or will. You interact with G-d through speech. And you relate to others through actions.
In our quest to perfect ourselves, we need to also lift others and lift our relationship with G-d. Success and balance in all three is required to truly grow in this world.
Throughout Torah literature, you will find this 3-part balance reflected. In the Rosh Hashana Machzor (prayer book), a central prayer declares:
"Teshuva (Return), Tefillah, (Prayer) and Tzedakah (Righteousness) avert the bad decree."
This prayer is focusing on the 3-part balance offered in our Mishnah, and presents concrete tools for working on the three primary relationships. Let's examine them one by one.
.
.
.
PILLARS OF OUR MISHNAH
In our Mishnah, Shimon HaTzaddik declares that the world stands on three things: Torah, service [of G-d], and acts of human kindness.
The first pillar of creation is knowing your identity and your mission. Torah is G-d’s instructions for living. It provides the understanding to help refine our nature and perfect ourselves. It is the means by which we learn what the world is about, and what our obligations are.
Avodah, the second pillar, is service of G-d.
What does it mean to serve G-d? And why would He want us to do so? An all-powerful, perfect being has no lack for us to fill, and by definition has no need of our obeisance. So why does He want us to “serve” Him?
Clearly, service of G-d is for our benefit, not His.
Three activities are commonly referred to as “serving G-d”: prayer, mitzvot and the Temple service. The Temple service was the ultimate act of harnessing the physical, and converting it to serve the spiritual — an open and concrete demonstration of the physical world’s subordination to our will.
Mitzvot are physical actions imbued with spiritual significance. Every mitzvah involves an opportunity to use our free will to transcend visceral drives. Mitzvot are the levers which allow actions in a physical universe to have impact on a spiritual soul. Mitzvot are the embodiment of the soul harnessing the power of physicality and the body.
Prayer, as discussed above, is the process of focusing one’s will directly on ultimate goals — e.g. self perfection, a relationship with others, and a relationship with G-d.
G-d created us to impart these ultimate pleasures. The extent to which we seek to elevate our world and allow the spiritual to transcend the physical, is the extent to which we can be said to “serve G-d.” The second pillar of creation is, therefore, to fulfill your mission.
Chesed, the third pillar, is a commitment to performing acts of human kindness. Life is not a zero sum game. The success of others is your boon not your bane.
G-d created us in order to give us good. The world was designed such that the greatest good is to give to others and to be other-centered. A person totally focussed on himself and oblivious to the needs of others has, almost by definition, failed in the first two pillars. The third pillar of creation is to know that you are not in it alone. You are your brother’s keeper.
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/379488/jewish/12-Worlds-3-Pillars.htm
-
Language barrier number three.
How is your describe of "societal pillars" have anything to do with "smacking your best friend"? As mentioned by me and ignored by you. In description we can see how it teach us to live and accept others, because every living forms is a g-d creation. Why do you need to smack them? Your best friend is also a g-d creation.
-
Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.
-
Very "important": those three are the only Torah laws that a Jew must die for. If your life depended on it, you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three.
And who said that? You. Those "big three" are taken from the third (as far as i remember) book of Hebrew Bible. And if its from Bible who is the best friend you referring to? Seems to me that its not as much important as it look like. Or maybe..just maybe... its another "Language barrier" and another "reason" to put yourself above me. Is that correct "Owner" :laugh:?
wtf? What is your problem?
TORAH MEANS BIBLE, yes. You can't ask what "Torah" means without carrying on like a lunatic? But I thought you said you were Israeli.... So you must know what the word Torah means. Are you lying to us, "freedom" defender?
-
1) Idolatry {Worshiping a strange diety, making images, etc.}
Someone already violated the first law, thats for sure. (hint: "bbbbbbb....black wwwww...white aaaa....nnn and NNNNNN.....Ni@@@@s)
So muman613 your responds is correct, but my question was about:
you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three..
So if someone comes to me, threatening me with gun and forcing me to eat non-Kosher or violate Shabbat, i am not doing chillul hashem. Accepted and understood.
Next is steal.
Well if object A threating object B and forcing him to steal, thats means object A is a thief not object B. Now i am asking, where it was written mr Kahane-Was-Right BT? Where? Do someone else also have language barrier or something like that?
Now is this: "smack your friend because they are not societal pillars".
So its ok to smack your friend just because he is not a societal pillar? Who told you that the g-d laws are "societal pillars". Who told you that? The "ownage" master maybe.
Kahane-Was-Right BT (me) is not muman613. Stop conflating every JTF person you speak with as the same person.
What are you trying to ask me here? Or are you asking Muman something? Or are you simply spewing gibberish?
-
Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.
Actually according to Jewish belief King David DID NOT commit adultery.
It is hard to understand but basically Bathsheba had given her husband a divorce, as all wives of military men had to do. As a result, when her previous husband died in battle, when David took her she was not married. I know that many people look at this incident as a sin but the sages clearly do not think that he has sinned.
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48936837.html
David and Bathsheba
The story of David's relationship with Bathsheba (II Samuel Chap. 11) is one of the most misread stories in the Bible, and we have to be careful in reading it as if it were some kind of soap opera. In summary, however, this is what happens.
Restless one night, David is pacing the roof of his palace from where he has a view of the homes and gardens in the city below(3). And there he spies a beautiful woman bathing. She is the wife of one of his generals, Uriah, the Hittite, who is away at war.
David sends for Bathsheba and spends the night with her. When she becomes pregnant, he commands that Uriah be placed on the front lines, where he dies in battle. David then marries Bathsheba.
At this point, the prophet Nathan is sent by G-d to reprove David. (See 2 Samuel 12.) He says that he has come to inform the king of a great injustice in the land. A rich man with many sheep, stole the one beloved sheep of a poor man, and had it slaughtered for a feast.
Furious at what he hears, King David, declares, "As G-d lives, the one who has done this deserves death."
Responds the prophet, "You are that man!"
David is humbled. "I have sinned before G-d," he says.
This is an enormously complex story and there is much more here than meets the eye. Technically, Bathsheba was not a married woman since David's troops always gave their wives conditional divorces, lest a soldier be missing in action leaving his wife unable to remarry.(4) However, the Bible states clearly that David acted improperly, and the Sages explain that while David did not commit adultery in the literal sense, he violated the spirit of the law(5).
As noted in earlier installments, the Bible takes a hyper-critical position of Jewish leaders. It never whitewashes anyone's past, and in that it stands alone among the records of ancient peoples which usually describe kings as descendants of gods without faults.
David's greatness shines in both his ability to take responsibility for his actions and the humility of his admission and the repentance that follows. This is part of the reason that the ultimate redeemer of the Jewish people and the world will descend from David's line ― he will be "Messiah son of David."
Shortly thereafter, Bathsheba gives birth, but the child becomes deathly ill as the prophet Nathan had predicted. David goes into a period of prayer and fasting, but the child dies nevertheless. David realizes that the death of the baby and later the revolt of his beloved son, Absalom (II Samuel 15-19), were divine punishment and also served as atonement for his actions. David "pays his dues," repents for many years and is ultimately forgiven by G-d.
Before long Bathsheba is pregnant again. And this time, she bears a healthy child ― who is named Solomon, and who will be the golden child, gifted with unusual wisdom.
I learned something new last Shabbat. We all know that Essau was a rudy baby, he had the Reddish hue to his skin. I did not know that King David was also born a Reddish baby. There is a comparison between Essau and King David in this respect. While Essau was a murderer who became a hunter, he was unable to control his violent side... While King David was also killing enemies, his violence was properly channeled.
-
Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.
Actually according to Jewish belief King David DID NOT commit adultery.
It is hard to understand but basically Bathsheba had given her husband a divorce, as all wives of military men had to do. As a result, when her previous husband died in battle, when David took her she was not married. I know that many people look at this incident as a sin but the sages clearly do not think that he has sinned.
Ah, not so fast, Muman.
The sages agree he did not commit adultery.
But they do not agree that he did not sin. Look at Kethuboth 9b.
-
Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.
Actually according to Jewish belief King David DID NOT commit adultery.
It is hard to understand but basically Bathsheba had given her husband a divorce, as all wives of military men had to do. As a result, when her previous husband died in battle, when David took her she was not married. I know that many people look at this incident as a sin but the sages clearly do not think that he has sinned.
Ah, not so fast, Muman.
The sages agree he did not commit adultery.
But they do not agree that he did not sin. Look at Kethuboth 9b.
You are correct. I was imprecise in my words. He did SIN but it was not adultery.
-
Didn't King David commit Adultery? Muman you had mentioned this as one of the three that cannot be forgiven.
Actually according to Jewish belief King David DID NOT commit adultery.
It is hard to understand but basically Bathsheba had given her husband a divorce, as all wives of military men had to do. As a result, when her previous husband died in battle, when David took her she was not married. I know that many people look at this incident as a sin but the sages clearly do not think that he has sinned.
Ah, not so fast, Muman.
The sages agree he did not commit adultery.
But they do not agree that he did not sin. Look at Kethuboth 9b.
You are correct. I was imprecise in my words. He did SIN but it was not adultery.
Yeah, I think it's a machloketh whether he sinned there, but I tend to go with the interpretation that he did, given the description of the verses in Nach. "David did evil in the eyes of Hashem."
-
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/182,1972311/Was-King-David-guilty-of-murder-and-adultery.html
Was King David guilty of murder and adultery?
[Ed. note: With any study there are two approaches: the easy way, and the academic way. The easy way is to take a quick glance, automatically factor in your personal life experiences and preconceived notions, and draw quick conclusions based on how you would relate to that situation. The academic way is to examine and reexamine the subject matter. To do that is it necessary to take yourself, and your own biases, out of the picture. You must view the subject matter through the life experiences of the subjects involved, and open your mind to new ideas.
This is all the more true when it comes to understanding concepts in the Torah, a Divine book intentionally written enigmatically and euphemistically. Following is a deeper academic look into this Biblical personality and story. Pause, clear your mind, and take it from the top.]
David
Known as the "Melech Hamoshiach" (anointed king), David not only lead his generation in G-d's ways, but he also merited to be divinely inspired and compose the Psalms, a book which we recite in our prayers (and many other occasions), until this very day! Amongst the Jewish greats of all times he is listed in the "Big 7", a group that in many contexts is known as the pillars of Judaism. For example, the traditional "Mi Sheberach" prayer on behalf of ill people begins with the following words: "May He who blessed our fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, bless the sick person..."
Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?! Is there a shortage of Jewish greats? The authors of this prayer were well aware of the Bible and all its stories, including the story of David and Bathsheba, yet they did not hesitate to include David in this prayer, where he shares such illustrious company!
Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed1 is King David. It is, therefore difficult to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations. Indeed, the righteous David had no worldly desires, as he testifies in the Psalms2 that "My heart [i.e. my passions and desires] has died within me."
Bathsheba
There is a dispute in the Talmud3 whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not. The law was that before a man went out to war he was required to divorce his wife. This was a necessary precaution taken to protect the wife. In case the husband would die in battle and no one could testify to the fact, the wife would not be an "agunah" (chained to her possibly deceased husband) and would be free to remarry. If, however, the husband did return from the battlefield safe and sound – the couple was free to remarry. Uriah, too, issued this divorce to his wife and thus, according to Jewish law, King David had relations with a divorced woman.
Please note, that before King David summoned Bathsheba he "sent and inquired about the woman."4 If David, the absolute monarch, desired this woman and was willing to go to any length to fulfill his "fantasy," why did he first send messengers to inquire regarding Bathsheba? He should have sent messengers to "summon" the woman. It is evident that before David summoned her he wished to determine her marital status. Only after ascertaining that she was, in fact, the (divorced) wife of Uriah, did he make his advance.
Furthermore, the verse testifies that David only had relations with Bathsheba after "she had been cleansed [i.e. immersed in the mikvah] from her [menstrual] impurity." Would an adulterer be concerned about such details?
Uriah
The Talmud tells us Uriah was guilty of treason—a capital offence. When Uriah addressed David, he referred to his general Joab as "my lord." Referring to any person as "my lord" while in the presence of a king is extremely audacious. The lack of respect which Uriah exhibited towards David is also alluded to in another verse:5 Uriah told David: "By your life (chayecha) and the life of your soul I will not do such a thing." Generally, the Hebrew word "chayecha," (your life), is written with two yuds after the chet. In this verse it is written with only one; one yud is missing—as if the life of the king has less value to him.While these may seem to be fairly trivial points, an understanding of the Torah’s view of monarchy further clarifies the issue: On the verse6 "you shall set ("som tasim") a king over you," the Talmud7 notes that the words used have the same root as the word aymah—fear. First and foremost, a king’s dominion must be predicated on fear and total reverence.
This concept is so vital that according to Jewish law, "one who signals to another person while in the presence of a king is punished with death"! We must treat a king of flesh and blood in the same manner as we would treat the King of kings, the Almighty Himself, for the earthly monarch is His representative. Furthermore, the very stability of the entire nation hinges on the absolute submission of the nation to its leader. Allowing even the slightest act of disrespect to slide can lead to bigger and worse forms of rebellion.
Since Uriah showed signs of treason by ignoring Judaism's laws of reverance for the King he was deserving of death. Thus David ordering Joab to send Uriah to the frontlines where he would meet his death did not contravene any Torah laws.
Truth Be Told
Let us now examine the "inside story" behind the story of King David and Bathsheba:
A glaring question which must be asked is: why wasn't David, the valiant warrior, at the frontlines of the war, leading his subjects in battle -- much as he had done by so many of the other battles of Israel? The answer to this question is that at the moment David was dealing with a more important problem; he did not have a fitting heir to succeed him--a son who would be worthy of being the antecedent of Moshiach. That is why David was on the roof of his palace, a place where one goes to have peace of mind to ponder a serious issue (see I Samuel 9:25).
At that time G-d -- via a prophetic vision -- shows Bathsheba to David. A king's palace is not next door to other homes, but is surrounded by gardens, orchards, parks and walls. She was immersing herself in the Mikvah (an area which is always completely enclosed, without any windows to the outside), and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. David was a man of action, and he had found the woman who was worthy of being the grandmother of Moshiach. He immediately dispatched messengers to ascertain that she was divorced from Uriah, and did not hesitate to consummate the union.
Afterwards, David realizes that, despite his pure intentions, this story would make for a wonderful front page story in the "Jerusalem Enquirer". After all, he had plenty of enemies who would relish the opportunity to destroy his reputation. He, therefore, summons Uriah from the battlefield, and tells him to go to his "wife." His intention was for Uriah to respond: "Your Majesty, Bathsheba is currently not my wife. I divorced her before leaving in the King's service!" For some reason, Uriah refuses to do so, and instead insults the king, incurring the death penalty. David, perhaps taking in to consideration Uriah's courageous service in his army, chooses to allow him to die an honorable death on the battlefield rather then be executed for treason.
The Mistake
Why then was King David chastised by Nathan and punished for this incident if technically he followed the strict letter of the law?
The story wasn't so smooth. While David did not commit adultery or murder, a number of other things went wrong.
King David prophetically knew that Bathsheba was destined to be his wife8. His Chet (shortcoming) was his lack of patience; his unwillingness to wait. It is true that technically Bathsheba wasn't a married a woman, but in appearance the whole thing looked like an extra-marital affair. David needed Bathsheba because he knew that the Moshiach was destined to descend from his union with her. Had he waited, he would have been able to have Bathsheba without having Uriah killed. His error was simply not weighing all the factors, not realizing that since she was destined to be his wife, he did not have to rush the process by taking matters into his own hands.
The "sin" (in Hebrew: Chet, lit. translated "shortcoming") of David was not exercising the proper judgment expected of a man of his stature. To quote the Talmud: "Whoever says that David sinned is simply mistaken!" For if Bathsheba had gone to another man it might have been cunning or obnoxious9, but it would not be a sin. It is only because of David's great status that the Prophet and G-d consider David's lack of judgement "sinful".
The Zohar maintains that David’s principle sin was: "him [Uriah] you have killed by the sword of the children of Ammon"10. David ought to have brought Uriah to the Sanhedrin where they would have executed him in accordance with Jewish law. Instead, by having him killed in the battle against Ammon, David caused a "chillul Hashem" – a desecration of G-d’s name. The children of Ammon were now able to take credit for killing a Jew, and give honor and praise to their deity for this "triumph."
Considering the potential of David it was upsetting to G-d that he summoned Bathsheba in this discreet roundabout way, and that he had Uriah killed by the hands of enemies. Thus G-d resented, the Prophet rebuked, and David repented.
Back To The Future
We will conclude with a statement of our sages: King David was too holy to have erred in the incident of Bathsheba. He only stumbled in order to teach us a lesson, to set a precedent of a Tzadik who does sincere repentance. As is known, David spent thirteen years repenting for his "sin." Many of the most beautiful psalms were composed by King David during this period. The Midrash testifies that for those thirteen years, King David’s pillow had to be changed seven times every night for they were drenched with his tears!
When we look back at G-d's anger and David's repentence through our paradigm, we quickly assume that it must have been a grave sin. But when we view the story through the lense of Torah's guide-for-the-future we soon learn that even circumstantial mishaps require ample repentance.
-
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/182,1972311/Was-King-David-guilty-of-murder-and-adultery.html
Was King David guilty of murder and adultery?
[Ed. note: With any study there are two approaches: the easy way, and the academic way. The easy way is to take a quick glance, automatically factor in your personal life experiences and preconceived notions, and draw quick conclusions based on how you would relate to that situation. The academic way is to examine and reexamine the subject matter. To do that is it necessary to take yourself, and your own biases, out of the picture. You must view the subject matter through the life experiences of the subjects involved, and open your mind to new ideas.
This is all the more true when it comes to understanding concepts in the Torah, a Divine book intentionally written enigmatically and euphemistically. Following is a deeper academic look into this Biblical personality and story. Pause, clear your mind, and take it from the top.]
David
Known as the "Melech Hamoshiach" (anointed king), David not only lead his generation in G-d's ways, but he also merited to be divinely inspired and compose the Psalms, a book which we recite in our prayers (and many other occasions), until this very day! Amongst the Jewish greats of all times he is listed in the "Big 7", a group that in many contexts is known as the pillars of Judaism. For example, the traditional "Mi Sheberach" prayer on behalf of ill people begins with the following words: "May He who blessed our fathers, Abraham Isaac and Jacob, Moses and Aaron, David and Solomon, bless the sick person..."
Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?! Is there a shortage of Jewish greats? The authors of this prayer were well aware of the Bible and all its stories, including the story of David and Bathsheba, yet they did not hesitate to include David in this prayer, where he shares such illustrious company!
Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed1 is King David. It is, therefore difficult to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations. Indeed, the righteous David had no worldly desires, as he testifies in the Psalms2 that "My heart [i.e. my passions and desires] has died within me."
Bathsheba
There is a dispute in the Talmud3 whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not. The law was that before a man went out to war he was required to divorce his wife. This was a necessary precaution taken to protect the wife. In case the husband would die in battle and no one could testify to the fact, the wife would not be an "agunah" (chained to her possibly deceased husband) and would be free to remarry. If, however, the husband did return from the battlefield safe and sound – the couple was free to remarry. Uriah, too, issued this divorce to his wife and thus, according to Jewish law, King David had relations with a divorced woman.
Please note, that before King David summoned Bathsheba he "sent and inquired about the woman."4 If David, the absolute monarch, desired this woman and was willing to go to any length to fulfill his "fantasy," why did he first send messengers to inquire regarding Bathsheba? He should have sent messengers to "summon" the woman. It is evident that before David summoned her he wished to determine her marital status. Only after ascertaining that she was, in fact, the (divorced) wife of Uriah, did he make his advance.
Furthermore, the verse testifies that David only had relations with Bathsheba after "she had been cleansed [i.e. immersed in the mikvah] from her [menstrual] impurity." Would an adulterer be concerned about such details?
Uriah
The Talmud tells us Uriah was guilty of treason—a capital offence. When Uriah addressed David, he referred to his general Joab as "my lord." Referring to any person as "my lord" while in the presence of a king is extremely audacious. The lack of respect which Uriah exhibited towards David is also alluded to in another verse:5 Uriah told David: "By your life (chayecha) and the life of your soul I will not do such a thing." Generally, the Hebrew word "chayecha," (your life), is written with two yuds after the chet. In this verse it is written with only one; one yud is missing—as if the life of the king has less value to him.While these may seem to be fairly trivial points, an understanding of the Torah’s view of monarchy further clarifies the issue: On the verse6 "you shall set ("som tasim") a king over you," the Talmud7 notes that the words used have the same root as the word aymah—fear. First and foremost, a king’s dominion must be predicated on fear and total reverence.
This concept is so vital that according to Jewish law, "one who signals to another person while in the presence of a king is punished with death"! We must treat a king of flesh and blood in the same manner as we would treat the King of kings, the Almighty Himself, for the earthly monarch is His representative. Furthermore, the very stability of the entire nation hinges on the absolute submission of the nation to its leader. Allowing even the slightest act of disrespect to slide can lead to bigger and worse forms of rebellion.
Since Uriah showed signs of treason by ignoring Judaism's laws of reverance for the King he was deserving of death. Thus David ordering Joab to send Uriah to the frontlines where he would meet his death did not contravene any Torah laws.
Truth Be Told
Let us now examine the "inside story" behind the story of King David and Bathsheba:
A glaring question which must be asked is: why wasn't David, the valiant warrior, at the frontlines of the war, leading his subjects in battle -- much as he had done by so many of the other battles of Israel? The answer to this question is that at the moment David was dealing with a more important problem; he did not have a fitting heir to succeed him--a son who would be worthy of being the antecedent of Moshiach. That is why David was on the roof of his palace, a place where one goes to have peace of mind to ponder a serious issue (see I Samuel 9:25).
At that time G-d -- via a prophetic vision -- shows Bathsheba to David. A king's palace is not next door to other homes, but is surrounded by gardens, orchards, parks and walls. She was immersing herself in the Mikvah (an area which is always completely enclosed, without any windows to the outside), and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. David was a man of action, and he had found the woman who was worthy of being the grandmother of Moshiach. He immediately dispatched messengers to ascertain that she was divorced from Uriah, and did not hesitate to consummate the union.
Afterwards, David realizes that, despite his pure intentions, this story would make for a wonderful front page story in the "Jerusalem Enquirer". After all, he had plenty of enemies who would relish the opportunity to destroy his reputation. He, therefore, summons Uriah from the battlefield, and tells him to go to his "wife." His intention was for Uriah to respond: "Your Majesty, Bathsheba is currently not my wife. I divorced her before leaving in the King's service!" For some reason, Uriah refuses to do so, and instead insults the king, incurring the death penalty. David, perhaps taking in to consideration Uriah's courageous service in his army, chooses to allow him to die an honorable death on the battlefield rather then be executed for treason.
The Mistake
Why then was King David chastised by Nathan and punished for this incident if technically he followed the strict letter of the law?
The story wasn't so smooth. While David did not commit adultery or murder, a number of other things went wrong.
King David prophetically knew that Bathsheba was destined to be his wife8. His Chet (shortcoming) was his lack of patience; his unwillingness to wait. It is true that technically Bathsheba wasn't a married a woman, but in appearance the whole thing looked like an extra-marital affair. David needed Bathsheba because he knew that the Moshiach was destined to descend from his union with her. Had he waited, he would have been able to have Bathsheba without having Uriah killed. His error was simply not weighing all the factors, not realizing that since she was destined to be his wife, he did not have to rush the process by taking matters into his own hands.
The "sin" (in Hebrew: Chet, lit. translated "shortcoming") of David was not exercising the proper judgment expected of a man of his stature. To quote the Talmud: "Whoever says that David sinned is simply mistaken!" For if Bathsheba had gone to another man it might have been cunning or obnoxious9, but it would not be a sin. It is only because of David's great status that the Prophet and G-d consider David's lack of judgement "sinful".
The Zohar maintains that David’s principle sin was: "him [Uriah] you have killed by the sword of the children of Ammon"10. David ought to have brought Uriah to the Sanhedrin where they would have executed him in accordance with Jewish law. Instead, by having him killed in the battle against Ammon, David caused a "chillul Hashem" – a desecration of G-d’s name. The children of Ammon were now able to take credit for killing a Jew, and give honor and praise to their deity for this "triumph."
Considering the potential of David it was upsetting to G-d that he summoned Bathsheba in this discreet roundabout way, and that he had Uriah killed by the hands of enemies. Thus G-d resented, the Prophet rebuked, and David repented.
Back To The Future
We will conclude with a statement of our sages: King David was too holy to have erred in the incident of Bathsheba. He only stumbled in order to teach us a lesson, to set a precedent of a Tzadik who does sincere repentance. As is known, David spent thirteen years repenting for his "sin." Many of the most beautiful psalms were composed by King David during this period. The Midrash testifies that for those thirteen years, King David’s pillow had to be changed seven times every night for they were drenched with his tears!
When we look back at G-d's anger and David's repentence through our paradigm, we quickly assume that it must have been a grave sin. But when we view the story through the lense of Torah's guide-for-the-future we soon learn that even circumstantial mishaps require ample repentance.
You know, it's things like this that really bother me. They practically distort the Torah. This is a dishonest presentation. They take one view, the one they like, and present it as if it is the only view! But that is not so.
The gemara (it's not 9b, I see now it's the last line on 9a), says more than one answer! The first answer is that David RAPED BatSheva. The second answer is an alternative whereby the reason it was not adultery was because she was not forbidden to him given she was divorced. According to the first alternative presented by the gemara, David certainly did sin with her. The question was how was it not adultery for Bat Sheva. If she was raped, she's certainly not guilty of adultery because it was forced upon her (but David is guilty of raping her). Or in the second scenario, the reason it wasn't adultery is because she was divorced.
-
<snip>
You know, it's things like this that really bother me. They practically distort the Torah. This is a dishonest presentation. They take one view, the one they like, and present it as if it is the only view! But that is not so.
The gemara (it's not 9b, I see now it's the last line on 9a), says more than one answer! The first answer is that David RAPED BatSheva. The second answer is an alternative whereby the reason it was not adultery was because she was not forbidden to him given she was divorced. According to the first alternative presented by the gemara, David certainly did sin with her. The question was how was it not adultery for Bat Sheva. If she was raped, she's certainly not guilty of adultery because it was forced upon her (but David is guilty of raping her). Or in the second scenario, the reason it wasn't adultery is because she was divorced.
Let us look at Talmud Kethubot 9 and see what you are referring to. I have read about this many times and I find nothing wrong with what the AskMoses site relayed. Although there may be other interpretations also..
http://halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_9.html
Folio 9a
He who says. I have found an 'open opening'1 is trusted to make her forbidden for him.2 Why?3 It is a double doubt:4 It is a doubt [whether she had the intercourse with the other man while] under him,5 or,6 [while] not under him.7 And if you say8 that [she had that intercourse while] under him, [there is] the [other] doubt [whether she had that intercourse] by violence or9 by [her free] will! — It was necessary10 [to state this rule] in the case of the wife of a priest.11 And if you wish, you may say [that it speaks of] the wife of an Israelite,12 and for instance when her father received the betrothal for her [when] she was less than three years and one day old.13 What does he14 let us hear by [this since] we have already learnt [it]:15 'If a man says16 to a woman, "I have betrothed thee [to myself]", and she says, "Thou hast not betrothed me [to thyself]," she is allowed [to marry] his relatives, but he is forbidden [to marry] her relatives.'17 — What you might have supposed is that there18 [he causes a prohibition to himself] because it is certain to him,19 but here it is not quite certain to him.20 [Therefore] he21 lets us hear [this rule].22 But did R. Eleazar say so? Did not R. Eleazar say: The wife does not become forbidden for her husband save in the case of23 warning24 and seclusion,25 and as [we find in] the occurrence that happened?26 But how can you [in any case] understand it?27 Was the occurrence that happened accompanied by warning and seclusion? And again, did they28 declare her29 forbidden?30 — This is no difficulty, [for] thus he31 means to say:32 The wife does not become forbidden for her husband save in the case of warning and seclusion, [and this we learn] from the occurrence that happened, because [there] there was no warning and seclusion and [therefore] she33 was not forbidden.34 But [the former question] is nevertheless difficult. In the [case of] warning and seclusion but not [in the case of] 'an open opening'!35 — But according to your argument36 [the question could be asked]: [in the case of] warning and seclusion, yes, [and in the case of] witnesses,37 no! Hence he38 means to say thus: The wife does not become forbidden for her husband through one witness39 but through two witnesses;40 but in the case of warning and seclusion:41 even through one witness,42 and 'an open opening' is like two witnesses.43 And if you will say: [In the case of] the occurrence that happened. why did they not declare her forbidden?44 [The answer is:] There it was compulsion.45 And if you wish you can say as R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said46 [that] R. Jonathan said:
44) For David, seeing that many people knew of the occurrence, and thus there were witnesses.
45) Bath-sheba could not resist the demand of the king. [And since she was thus not forbidden to Uriah, she was permitted also to David. (V. supra p. 44, n. 20)].
Kethuboth 9b
Everyone who goes out into the war of the House of David writes for his wife a deed of divorce,1 for it is written, And to thy brethren shalt thou bring greetings, and take their pledge.2 What [is the meaning of], 'and take their pledge'? R. Joseph learnt: Things which are pledged between him and her.3
Abaye said: We have also learned4 [this]:5 A MAIDEN IS MARRIED ON THE FOURTH DAY OF THE WEEK. [This implies] only on the fourth day, but not the fifth day.6 What is the reason? [Presumably] on account of the cooling of the temper.7 Now in which respect [could the cooling of the mind have a bad result]? If with regard to giving her the kethubah,8 let him give it to her.9 Consequently10 [we must say only] with regard to making her forbidden for him;11 and [it is a case where] he puts forward a claim.12 Is it not that he puts forward the claim of 'an open opening'?13 — No, [it is a case where] he puts forward the claim of blood.14
Rab Judah said [that] Samuel said: If any one says. 'I have found an open opening', he is trusted to cause her to lose her kethubah. Said R. Joseph: What does he15 let us hear? We have [already] learned [this]:16 He who eats17 at his father-in-law's [between the time of betrothal and the time of marriage] in Judaea,18 without witnesses, cannot [after the marriage] raise the claim of [the loss of] virginity, because he is alone with her.19 In Judaea he cannot raise this claim, but in Galilee20 he can raise it. Now in which respect? If to make her forbidden for him, why [should he] not [be able to raise this claim] in Judaea?21 Consequently22 [we must say it is] to cause her to lose her kethubah;23 and [it is in a case] when he raises a claim. Is it not that he raises the claim of 'an open opening'? — No, when he raises the claim of blood.24
1) [So that in case he falls in battle his wife should be free to marry without the necessity of halizah. The Get would in that case take effect retrospectively from the date of its writing (Rashi). Tosaf.: He writes a Get without any conditions to take effect immediately]
The interpretation of this Germara doesn't indicate that it was RAPE, but that it was compulsory... Could you provide a link which explains your interpretation?
-
Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.
I learned this gemara. It says "ones." That means rape. That's what 'compulsory' sex is. Rape.
-
Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.
I learned this gemara. It says "ones." That means rape. That's what 'compulsory' sex is. Rape.
I have been searching for this explanation and have not found it. Do you have a link?
Here is another discussion of this topic:
http://torahsearch.com/page.cfm/4055
TalmuDigest - Ketubot 9 - 15
-- Ketubot 9 - 15 ------------------------------------------------
by Rabbi Mendel Weinbach http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/3222
- Suspicion of infidelity and its effect on the marriage - The ketubah of a virgin and that of a widow - The bloodless consummation and its causes - Some etymological explanations and medical advice of Rabbi Chana of Baghdad and other Sages - Conversion of a minor - Which women are entitled to which sum of ketubah - The ketubah of a daughter of a kohen - Monetary dispute between man and wife, lender and borrower - Status of child of woman suspected of illicit relations - If a woman taken captive can marry a kohen after being freed - When the identity of a girl's attacker is not know is she eligible to marry a kohen - When the rule of deciding the status of someone or something based on majority probability applies - Determining the status of a child found in a city populated by Jews and non-Jews
A DIVORCE IN TIME _________________ - Ketubot 9b
A woman who commits adultery is forbidden to both her husband and her partner in sin.
The question then arises as to how King David could marry Batsheva when the simple reading of the text (Shmuel II, 11:2-3) indicates that he had relations with her while she was till the wife of Uriah.
Rabbi Shmuel Nachmeni solves the problem by revealing that everyone who went to battle for King David wrote a get (divorce document) to his wife before leaving home.
Rashi's explanation is that since David's soldiers were afraid that they might not survive the war and thus compel the widow to face yibum, they divorced their wives on the condition that if they did not return from the battlefront the divorce would take effect retroactively to the day the get was given. Since Uriah did not survive the war his marriage had already been dissolved when David took her.
Tosefot challenges this approach and offers the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam that the get was not a conditional one but an outright dissolution of the marriage. The problem with this approach is that the gemara (Bava Metzia 59a) refers to David's action as relations with a "dubious married woman". If Batsheva had been properly divorced why should her status be in doubt? The answer given is that such divorces were given in secret so that no one should exploit the opportunity to marry the woman before her ex-husband returned to remarry her. Since the public was not aware of the divorce of Batsheva there was a suspicion that he was guilty of adultery even though this was not the case.
WHAT THE SAGES SAY __________________
Why is a widow call an almanah?
"Because the man who marries her is only obligated to obligate himself to a manah in her ketubah (as opposed to double that amount for a virgin)."
- Rabbi Chana of Baghdad - Ketubot 10b
PS: Are you suggesting that our King David was a Rapist?
-
Now I'm going to mine it a little bit and show their mistakes/distortions.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/182,1972311/Was-King-David-guilty-of-murder-and-adultery.html
Was King David guilty of murder and adultery?
Is it conceivable that we would invoke the name of a murderer and adulterer in an attempt to elicit divine mercy?!
First of all, he's not a "murderer" and no one said he was. But he did kill many people. That is the exact reason why Hashem says he cannot build the Beth Hamikdash but his son Solomon must do it instead! Because David had too much blood on his hands. And it turns out David did not commit adultery with BathSheva, but if he did does that now make us need to rewrite Judaism and no longer ask for mercy in his name?
Just because a person was not perfect does not mean he was not great!
Is there a shortage of Jewish greats? The authors of this prayer were well aware of the Bible and all its stories, including the story of David and Bathsheba, yet they did not hesitate to include David in this prayer, where he shares such illustrious company!
And that's because they were wiser than our generation. They did not have unrealistic expectations that great men were supposed to be perfect or superhuman! Woe unto us that so many today view our historical heroes and leaders in such an unrealistic manner which borders on avoda zara.
Holiness and impurity do not go hand-in-hand! Maimonides tells us that one can only become a prophet if he has the ability to completely overcome his temptations. Among the prophets listed1 is King David. It is, therefore difficult to assume that he simply succumbed to his temptations. Indeed, the righteous David had no worldly desires, as he testifies in the Psalms2 that "My heart [i.e. my passions and desires] has died within me."
Even if he does have the ability and the Rambam is correct in the way he defines prophecy (there are of course other opinions about prophecy!), does that mean one having that ability NEVER fails? Maybe in thousands of other instances David overcame his temptations but didn't on this occasion?
Bathsheba
There is a dispute in the Talmud3 whether or not Bathsheba was technically a married woman at the time. The Talmud rules that she was not.
The Talmud rules no such thing. This is not a halachic matter in the first place. This is a matter of interpretation and a way to determine the reality behind a certain fact that we know (chazal assumes this is a given) - Bathsheva was not guilty of adultery. So why/how was she not? But the Talmud certainly doesn't conclude one way or the other, it presents two mutually exclusive opinions. These are alternatives.
My take is that when the Gemara says elsewhere that 'one who thinks David sinned with BathSheva is mistaken,' it's going in the man-daamar which says the second answer that she was divorced and therefore no sin! But the other view does exist and is valid! And the other view certainly doesn't view itself to be mistaken.
-
At that time G-d -- via a prophetic vision -- shows Bathsheba to David.
Where did they get that from? Prophetic vision?
But wasn't she really there?
and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty.
Uh, sure. But Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh says that when that term is used to describe Rahel, it really means that literally Yakov thought she was physically beautiful and romantically fell in love with her. So not everyone agrees to this. If you ask me, this reading they are giving is really forced. And it stems from a common error among our generation. There are many people who assume that there can be no spirituality or holiness in the physical. But that is where Jewish religion differs from that of the Christians!
The Mistake
Why then was King David chastised by Nathan and punished for this incident if technically he followed the strict letter of the law?
The story wasn't so smooth. While David did not commit adultery or murder, a number of other things went wrong.
Yet later on they insist he didn't sin. And their explanation makes no sense.
King David prophetically knew that Bathsheba was destined to be his wife8. His Chet (shortcoming) was his lack of patience; his unwillingness to wait. ....His error was simply not weighing all the factors, not realizing that since she was destined to be his wife, he did not have to rush the process by taking matters into his own hands.
Now contrast this with:
The "sin" ...of David was not exercising the proper judgment expected of a man of his stature. To quote the Talmud: "Whoever says that David sinned is simply mistaken!" For if Bathsheba had gone to another man it might have been cunning or obnoxious9, but it would not be a sin. It is only because of David's great status that the Prophet and G-d consider David's lack of judgement "sinful".
Does that make any sense to you? Sounds like a bill of goods to me...
We will conclude with a statement of our sages: King David was too holy to have erred in the incident of Bathsheba.
What's the source of that statement? They are attributing it to our sages, so shouldn't they cite it? Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that there is no such quote and they made it up? The rest of their presentation was not entirely honest IMO. Why can't a holy person err? Who invented that notion?
He only stumbled in order to teach us a lesson,
Oh, but now we're back again to the fact that he DID stumble. They are awfully inconsistent!
-
Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.
I learned this gemara. It says "ones." That means rape. That's what 'compulsory' sex is. Rape.
I have been searching for this explanation and have not found it. Do you have a link?
I really don't understand what you mean. That is what is in the gemara! Who will deny that it's in there?
I'll link you directly to the daf. It's the second to last line.
http://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=kesuvos&daf=9a&go=Go
PS: Are you suggesting that our King David was a Rapist?
No, I'm suggesting what the gemara suggests, which is that he raped BathSheva. Don't blame me, blame the amoraim and saboraim.
-
It answers the kashiya by saying:
Hatham ones haweh. (it was forced upon Bath Sheva - so she is not culpable).
Then it says "eebayith aima" Which means an alternative answer if you prefer to say....
And it cites Ribi Shmuel bar Nahmani who cites the get as another answer.
-
As I said, and the articles which I quoted stated, he did not commit adultery or murder, he did not technically sin... But the problem with King David is that it appears as if he did sin. This is why his repentance was accepted. I have found several sites which explain this, apparently not clearly enough. There are two issues, whether an actually transgression of the Halacha occurred, or whether the appearance of impropriety occurred.
It is clear, according to all, that it appears that he did transgress. But when the facts of the case are examined he did not sin. The fall of David was that he was impatient because he would have had Bathsheba no matter what, whether he sent for, or inquired about, Bathsheba or not.
I have never heard it implied that David actually commited rape against her. I think the idea that she was compelled to have relations with her does not necessarily mean that he forced himself on her, but that she recognized the position he was in and submitted to him. Since she was divorced it was not adultery, and if she was not against the relation, it was not rape.
-
Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.
I learned this gemara. It says "ones." That means rape. That's what 'compulsory' sex is. Rape.
I have been searching for this explanation and have not found it. Do you have a link?
I really don't understand what you mean. That is what is in the gemara! Who will deny that it's in there?
I'll link you directly to the daf. It's the second to last line.
http://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=kesuvos&daf=9a&go=Go
PS: Are you suggesting that our King David was a Rapist?
No, I'm suggesting what the gemara suggests, which is that he raped BathSheva. Don't blame me, blame the amoraim and saboraim.
What I am asking is does any Rabbi clearly state that she was raped? I have never heard this. I do not agree that being forced into a relationship is equal to being raped.
Do you see the footnote on line 45:
45) Bath-sheba could not resist the demand of the king. [And since she was thus not forbidden to Uriah, she was permitted also to David. (V. supra p. 44, n. 20)].
-
I have never heard it implied that David actually commited rape against her.
Whether you heard that before or not, It is what our Talmud says as one possibility of what happened! Clearly the editors of the Shas were not so bothered by that premise.
think the idea that she was compelled to have relations with her does not necessarily mean that he forced himself on her, but that she recognized the position he was in and submitted to him. Since she was divorced it was not adultery, and if she was not against the relation, it was not rape.
First of all, it's one or the other. They give two possible reasons why she was innocent. Either she was forced. Or it wasn't forced but she was divorced.
If she "recognized the position he was in and submitted to him" that is a form of rape. She was compelled (either by physical force or in your words by his stature and intimidating presence) to have sexual relations. (According to that view anyway). Compulsion is rape. I don't understand what distinction you are making.
-
Muman, gemara is learned in its original language, aramaic, not from a sloppy translation.
I learned this gemara. It says "ones." That means rape. That's what 'compulsory' sex is. Rape.
I have been searching for this explanation and have not found it. Do you have a link?
I really don't understand what you mean. That is what is in the gemara! Who will deny that it's in there?
I'll link you directly to the daf. It's the second to last line.
http://www.dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=kesuvos&daf=9a&go=Go
PS: Are you suggesting that our King David was a Rapist?
No, I'm suggesting what the gemara suggests, which is that he raped BathSheva. Don't blame me, blame the amoraim and saboraim.
What I am asking is does any Rabbi clearly state that she was raped? I have never heard this. I do not agree that being forced into a relationship is equal to being raped.
Do you see the footnote on line 45:
45) Bath-sheba could not resist the demand of the king. [And since she was thus not forbidden to Uriah, she was permitted also to David. (V. supra p. 44, n. 20)].
Not being able to resist the demand of the king is a nicely-worded way of saying she was forced to have relations with him. What don't you get about that?
-
The problem I have with your interpretation is the word 'rape'. Rape is not a thing which a King, especially a Jewish king, should do. Jews, and the Torah, give a great deal of respect to our women. Judaism was progressive compared to other religions concerning rights of women and protecting them from sexual predators. I do not believe that the sages were saying that King David raped Bathsheba. I do understand that she was compelled to have a relationship with him. But how do you know whether she entered this relationship willingly or against her will? Is it written that she did not want to have a relationship with the mighty King? If she had a get from Uriah then it was not prohibited for her to enter the relationship with King David.
-
The problem I have with your interpretation is the word 'rape'. Rape is not a thing which a King, especially a Jewish king, should do.
Of course it's not! I never said it was, Muman! It's a sin.
I do not believe that the sages were saying that King David raped Bathsheba.
You don't believe what the gemara says? It's right there in "plain aramaic."
I do understand that she was compelled to have a relationship with him.
THAT IS WHAT RAPE IS!
But how do you know whether she entered this relationship willingly or against her will?
You already know the answer to this question, because you used the word "compelled" - That means against her will. There is no other way to understand compulsion!
Is it written that she did not want to have a relationship with the mighty King?
If that was written directly , there would be no question, and the sages would only have to give one answer - that it was rape - and there would be no uncertainty. The fact is, there is uncertainty, so they give multiple ways of answering the question, one of which is rape, the other of which cites other verses to build up the premise that she was divorced already (it also doesn't say that explicitly).
If she had a get from Uriah then it was not prohibited for her to enter the relationship with King David.
That's the other answer the gemara gives. They are two alternatives, and they are mutually exclusive ways to answer why she was not guilty of adultery.
-
There is a reason that this story is concluded with the following verse in 2 Shmuel 11:27
וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה דָוִד, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה.
But it was evil, the thing which David did, in the eyes of Hashem.
I'm sure that the man daamar which says he forced Bath Sheva is partially based upon this verse! No one is saying it was ok, if he did that, Muman.
-
There is a reason that this story is concluded with the following verse in 2 Shmuel 11:27
וַיֵּרַע הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר-עָשָׂה דָוִד, בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה.
But it was evil, the thing which David did, in the eyes of Hashem.
I'm sure that the man daamar which says he forced Bath Sheva is partially based upon this verse! No one is saying it was ok, if he did that, Muman.
Yes, there is no doubt that he did evil in the eyes of Hashem, which is why he needed to do Teshuva.
http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/rabbi-mordechai-elon-and-challenge-teshuva
King David is one of them. His adulterous affair with Batsheva (Shmuel II, chapter 11) should have been enough to remove him from the annals of Jewish history and Jewish tradition. None of us should utter even a word of his Tehilim (Psalms) after what happened. How is it possible to praise God using words written by a man who fell so low? How can we consider him one of the greatest spiritual heroes ever, calling him a prophet and a tzaddik? To this day we sing David melech yisrael chai vekayam; how can our lips even pronounce his name after all that happened? Why was he not dethroned after this affair? How is it possible that Tenach seemingly glosses over King David's grave error? We read (Melachim I, 15:5) that "he did only what was right in the eyes of the Lord and did not turn aside once from what He commanded him all the days of his life, save for the matter of Uriah Ha-chiti" (Batsheva's husband who was sent by David to the frontlines so that he would be killed) (2).
The answer is this: David openly confessed and did teshuva as very few have ever done. Although he first tried to conceal his guilt, once Nathan the prophet told him in no uncertain terms what he had done, David woke up and radically changed his attitude: "I stand guilty before the Lord" (Shmuel II, 12:13). There was no hypocrisy, no further attempt to hide what had happened, no justifications, only open admission.
Surely David must have had many advisers counseling him to deny it all; to besmear the reputations of Batsheva, her husband Uriah, and the prophet Nathan; and to condemn others for tricking him into it.
Still, David did nothing of the sort. He understood the terrible mistake he had made and realized that only the most intensive form of teshuva could mend his relationship with God. Clearly he went through a crisis the likes of which few of us ever experienced. His ambition to become a real servant of God came crashing down on him. Everything fell apart. Out of this anguish David was compelled to write some of the most personal and revealing words of repentance (3). These have since become a source of great comfort and help to millions of broken people who, like himself, had to cope with the intense pain of failure. Slowly, he rebuilt himself and became an example to so many of us.
-
ok, and one opinion is that he needed to do teshuva because he forced her.
Another opinion holds he did not force her but had other reasons to do teshuvah (perhaps the whole episode was not exactly pristine - he did know what he was doing with Uriah)
-
On the topic of Teshuva and King David, this strikes me as apropos:
http://www.torah.org/learning/tehillim/ch3.html
Tehillim: Rhythm of the Heart
Chapter Three
One thing always comes up when working with those who choose to adopt a Torah lifestyle at a mature age. It isn’t always the first thing said or even the second, and it may not be put into words, but only implied. Yet somewhere along the way, it definitely creeps in: “Rabbi, I feel so low. I lived a life so far from Torah. How can I pretend to be frum after having done the things I’ve done and seen the things I’ve seen?”
Alarm bells start ringing in my head whenever I hear this. This problem doesn’t bother only those who come to Yiddishkeit late in life. Anyone turning away from a path that has not been spiritually fulfilling may find himself expressing such feelings.
You may wonder why such a cheshbon hanefesh sets off alarms in my mind? Listen again to the words, and then you will understand.
“I feel so low....” Notice what’s happening here. The fact that a spiritually empty lifestyle gives a person cause to reflect is something to be grateful for. But I detect depression slipping in here, and that’s a serious danger. The Karliner Rebbe (1740-1792) was wont to say, “Depression is not a sin — but the sins depression brings about are greater than any sin on its own.” When the fog of depression falls over one’s heart, all growth in Torah is in jeopardy.
What can be done to prevent depression? After all, the previous path really was no good.
There isn’t a general prescription for everyone. Each person needs to be approached as an individual. There is, however, one great source of comfort and understanding that can give everyone insight, and that is Tehillim. From its beginning, it tells how King David approached teshuva and how we can learn, in practical terms, the art of repentance from him. As we come to the third kapitel, imagine for a moment King David’s situation. There are tzaros, and there are tzaros. The author of Tehillim can tell us a thing or two about such matters. We see King David being pursued by his own son, who wants to dethrone him. Worse, the majority of the populace supports the coup. Most depressing of all, much of this is due to David’s own mistakes.
Things couldn’t seem any darker. Yet we find him lifting up his voice to Hashem with great poignancy. He starts his prayer with the words, A song by David. A song always expresses joy. With these first words of the psalm, we can begin to understand how he could not only survive such a shock but also grow from it.
The holy Alshich wonders about this opening. How, he asks, it is possible for this particular kapitel to begin like this, considering the circumstances? He answers, in part, that David felt gratitude to Hashem for the anguish. Fleeing from his own son was a tremendously humiliating and aggravating experience, as any parent can imagine. But David hoped that his anguish would be accepted by Hashem as part payment for his sin. A comment by Rabbeinu Yona touches on this same point. He tells us that David’s serene acceptance of the torment and agony at this time made him worthy of Divine protection. His acceptance was the first step in his teshuva, and it set up a feeling of positive spirituality in his heart. No man lives without blemish. When problems strike, the first reaction should be to look within one’s own heart. Yes, David takes immediate action and runs for his life, but not without realizing that he has fallen in his own spirituality through his sin.
Notice, though, that this realization or acceptance does not lead to depression. David’s acts are positive, and he does them all with a sense of hope.
Rav Shlomo Freifeld, zt”l, was an expert in giving encouragement to people in despair. One of his favorite lines was “Don’t be strong. Be great.” When life throws one of its curves at you, you can be strong, biting your tongue and bearing it stoically. That may get you through the hardship, but you haven’t gained anything other than a sore tongue. On the other hand, if you choose to accept what was sent your way and work through it, if you stretch every sinew of your soul to learn from the adversity, you can achieve greatness.
David cries out in pain, How numerous are my tormentors! The great rise up against me! His ache is palpable, and still he sings because his faith in Hashem gives him the courage to turn adversity into a learning experience. “Yes, this painful reality came about through my own folly,” he is saying, “but still I sing. I joyfully accept what is happening and in that state of joy pray for Hashem’s support.”
The Torah is replete with incidents of great people stumbling. As human beings, they are fallible, as are we all. Their stories carry a strong theme, one we should carry with us for life’s rough spots: They were able to climb beyond their mistakes without succumbing to feelings of depression and hopelessness.
The Rebbe Reb Tzaddok HaCohen of Lublin (1823-1900) in his Kedushas Shabbos speaks about the redeeming virtue of sin: “After the terrible sin [when Adam and Chava partook of the Tree of Knowledge] brought darkness on all future generations by causing Hashem’s decree of death on man, Adam nevertheless merited the light of Shabbos. This is the way of creation in the world — first darkness and then light — so that one may appreciate the superiority of light.”
This is a startling statement. The Rav Tzaddok is telling us that when sin begets a reaction such as teshuva, which leaves one in a more exalted state than he was originally, the past misdeeds are seen as the stimulus for man’s spiritual growth. As Rav Tzaddok continues, quoting the Gemara, “‘In the place where baalei teshuva stand, even completely righteous tzaddikim cannot stand’” (Berachos 34b). This Gemara now takes on more than just an encouraging note. It teaches us that, given the right circumstances, when a person decides to overcome past misdeeds, those mistakes become his redeeming virtues.
King David continues this kapitel by saying, I lie down and sleep, awake yet again, for Hashem sustains me. Having turned to Hashem with a positive inclination and repented his sin, David can even sleep securely. He has faith that Hashem will help him awake again — spiritually — as He has done in the past. For it is Hashem’s will that we return to Him, and it is through His support that we survive.
There is no greater strength than accepting one’s past misdeeds and turning away from them onto the path of righteousness. Despair, on the other hand, only leads to failure.
Obviously, this isn’t always apparent at the beginning of one’s trek through life, but that’s what being great is all about. As the kapitel tells us at its end, Deliverance belongs to Hashem. Your blessing be on Your people — selah! Our success is through Hashem’s blessing. We are His people and as long as we revel in that knowledge we can be strengthened even when we make mistakes.
-
So you are admitting the gemara says what it says? That's a good step.
-
So you are admitting the gemara says what it says? That's a good step.
There are two issues I was thinking about on my drive home tonight... You had an exception to the statement that the Beauty of Bathsheba was a spiritual beauty more than a physical beauty. I have learned this from other sources too, it is truly a Jewish idea and not a Christian one...
Here is some discussion of this:
http://ohr.edu/holidays/chanukah/greek_philosophy/1326
"If eyes were made for seeing,
then Beauty is its own excuse for being."
(Ralph Waldo Emerson, Poems, The Rhodora)
The renowned 19th century American poet and essayist herein expresses one of the main philosophic tenets of the Western World: "Beauty is its own excuse for being." Indeed, Western Civilization appears to be built on the adoration of Beauty. From fair Helen of Ancient Troy - dubbed by 16th century British bard, Christopher Marlowe, "the face that launched a thousand ships," - down through the meanderings of time until today's Miss Universe Beauty Pageant, beauty has played a central role on the stage of history.
Beauty, however, is not limited to the appearance of women. Its significance may be recognized as well in a Western World that has given primacy throughout the ages to music, literature, drama, painting, and the other "fine arts." Upon close examination, much of today's world seems to be focused on "aesthetics," the celebration of the various faces of Beauty.
What is the true purpose of Beauty? Does the Torah also give it primacy?
Shlomo Hamelech, the "wisest of men," warns us: "False is grace, and vain is beauty, the woman who fears the Lord shall be praised" (Proverbs 31:30). The Torah seems to take the opposite stance; not only is Beauty not a prominent factor, it is even dangerous in that it is "false." It would seem that its importance is to be denigrated.
Yet, the Gaon of Vilna takes us deeper when he brings Shlomo Hamelech's statement in juxtaposition to the Torah's description of the Matriarchs. Why, asks the Gaon, should the Torah make note of the beauty of the Matriarchs, calling Sarah, Rivka, and Rachel "beautiful in form, and beautiful in appearance," if this beauty is "vain" and "false?" He answers that there are different types of physical beauty. There is physical beauty that is only "skin deep," only physical with no spiritual concomitant. There also exists physical beauty which is at base spiritual, an emanation of an inner beauty, causing observers of this individual to remark: "What a perfect Creation, beautiful inside and out." This, concludes the Gaon, was the startling beauty of the Matriarchs, a beauty that emanated from the inside out.
How radically different than a woman who has only physical beauty, whom Shlomo Hamelech compares to a "gold ring in the nose of a sow." What is this metaphor meant to illustrate? Gold symbolizes honor and importance; it adorns thrones, scepters, and crowns. A nose ring which was a symbol of beauty, especially one made of gold, is most incongruous in the snout of the swine, a disgusting beast that uses its snout to dig in revolting places. So is the physical beauty of a woman who does not aspire to the pursuit of Truth a falsification, an enticing peel devoid of its nourishing fruit.
The nation of Israel descends from Shem, the youngest son of Noach; ancient Greece was descended from Yefet, Noach's oldest son. The Torah traces the roots of their national character to a single incident: Upon hearing from their brother Cham that their father lay intoxicated and exposed in his tent, they remedied the embarrassing situation by covering him. "And Shem and Yefet took a garment, and put it upon both of their shoulders, and went backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness" (Bereishet 9:23). Rashi tells us the consequences of this action for the descendants of the three sons: Cham who disgraced his father is cursed that his descendants will be led into slavery naked and barefoot; Yefet who assisted his brother in covering his father's disgrace merits honorable burial for his descendants, and Shem, who initiated the action, merits tzitzit for his descendants.
While we can understand the consequences of Cham's action, the distinction between that of Shem and Yefet is more subtle, for, did they not both together perform the same dignified deed?
In truth, the actions of Shem and Yefet were vastly different. Shem who initiated the meritorious deed was motivated by an internal stimulus, seeing beyond the physical disgrace to the degradation of the "image of G-d," the entire spiritual domain. His reward is tzitzit, a physical tool that enables him to see beyond the physical world to the spiritual world above. Yefet, who follows Shem's lead, concurring that human disgrace must be removed, is responding merely to the external stimulus. He is rewarded with the external trappings of human dignity - honorable burial.
"G-d has granted Beauty to Yefet, and he will dwell in the tents of Shem" (Bereishet 9:27). The Beauty granted Yefet, and his progeny, the nation of Greece, is external; the Beauty of the fine arts, the worship of the physically beautiful - Beauty which is "its own excuse for being." Yet, this Beauty is intended to dwell in the tents of Shem and those of the nation of Israel, to assist in the glorification of True Beauty - the inner beauty of the soul and spirituality. As history so clearly demonstrates, from the ancient political and cultural struggles between Classical Greece and Israel, down through the ages until that of the contemporary Jew surrounded by Western Civilization, True Beauty must either emanate from within or at least assist and glorify this inner Beauty - the Eternal Truth of Torah!
Also this:
http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5766/chayeisarah.html
The Role of Beauty
At the beginning of this week's Parasha, the verse says, "Sarah's lifetime was one hundred years, and twenty years and seven years; the years of Sarah's life" [Bereshis 23:1]. The Medrash quotes the pasuk "Hashem knows the days of the perfect, their inheritance will be forever" [Tehillim 37:18] and comments "Just as the righteous are 'temimim' [perfect / complete] so too are their years 'temimim'. Sarah was as beautiful as a 7-year-old at age 20, and at 100 her quantity of sins was equal to that of a 20 year old.
The Medrash is obviously addressing the strange way in which the pasuk states that Sarah lived to the age of 127. It is understandable why the Medrash wants to point out the righteousness of Sarah. The longer we live, the more susceptible and open we are to sin. So we can readily understand the praise implicit in the statement that when she was 100, she was like a person who was only 20 in terms of the number of sins she had committed in her lifetime. This is a significant measure of piety that is worth knowing about our first matriarch.
But what is the point of the Medrash telling us that at twenty, Sarah was as beautiful as a 7-year-old? The Torah is not discussing someone who is entering a beauty pageant here. What is the point of this drasha (exegesis)? We are discussing our matriarch Sarah. Why is it significant to know that she had the beauty of a 7 year old when she was twenty?
Rav Mottel Katz, z"l, in his work Be'er Mechokek explains the very important concept of Biblical beauty. The Torah goes out of its way to describe the various matriarchs as being beautiful in appearance. This is not the type of description which we would expect to hear today in describing a prominent Rebbetzin or even in proposing a shidduch (marriage match) to a serious Rabbinical student. Even when someone is interested in "looks", it is still uncommon for one to stress "she is a beautiful girl" when discussing a potential match. We are supposedly above that. However, the Torah does point out that the matriarchs were beautiful people.
Our Sages state that ten measures of beauty descended to the world. Jerusalem took 90% of that beauty and the rest of the world divided up the remaining 10% [Kidushin 49b]. Here again, the Gemara emphasizes that Jerusalem is the most beautiful city in the world. Why is it important that Jerusalem be a beautiful city? Would it be any less meaningful or holy for the Jewish people if Jerusalem were not the most beautiful city in the world?
The answer is that we as human beings are very influenced by our physical surroundings. Physical beauty can put a person in a frame of mind that is more receptive to the spirituality that exists. The Talmud says elsewhere, "three things broaden a person's mind – a beautiful house, beautiful possessions, and a beautiful wife" [Brachos 57b]. What is the meaning of this Gemara? The meaning of the Gemara is that when a person lives in nice conditions and is not bogged down by physical distractions, he has the ability to be more receptive to matters of holiness.
A person who is in a beautiful home with beautiful furniture, beautiful surroundings, and a beautiful wife, can have the freedom and peace of mind to devote himself to the higher tasks of life. The beautiful home, car, and wife are not ends in and of themselves. But they allow the person to rise above the impediments of physical distractions that sometimes get in the way of spiritual growth.
When a person enters Jerusalem and looks out upon the beautiful Judean Hills, his soul becomes more receptive to be influenced by the inherent sanctity of the place than what would be possible if Jerusalem had been an equally sanctified but less attractive city.
Chazal tell us in the above quoted Medrash that the beauty of Sarah was like that of a 7-year-old. The beauty of a 20-year-old woman can sometimes be used for the wrong purposes in life. The beauty of a 7-year-old, on the other hand, has a certain purity and innocence. This is exactly the point made by Chazal. The beauty of Sarah was not used like the beauty of a 20-year-old woman can sometimes be used. It was used like the beauty of a 7-year-old girl -– not for malevolent, not for prurient, and not for sensual purposes –- but purposes of inspiration and aspiration, as our Sages say "Sarah converted the women."
.
.
.
Also, is it not possible to be compelled to do something, while also doing it willingly?
PS: Regarding beauty, it is true that our Matriarchs were stunningly physically beautiful but the lesson the Torah is teaching is more than skin deep.
-
And we see once again the Gaon's greatness.
He says it's PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL beauty.
They, the askmoses people, have tried to excise the physical part.
Let me quote you directly: There is physical beauty that is only "skin deep," only physical with no spiritual concomitant. There also exists physical beauty which is at base spiritual, an emanation of an inner beauty, causing observers of this individual to remark: "What a perfect Creation, beautiful inside and out." This, concludes the Gaon, was the startling beauty of the Matriarchs, a beauty that emanated from the inside out.
Inside and out. That means outside, she really was beautiful! Rav Hirsh says that Rachel was especially beautiful (no one denies she was also spiritually great and a 'beautiful personality') but he is talking about physical beauty and Yaakov saw this and recognized it, and there is nothing wrong with saying so.
-
And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept. (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).
-
And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept. (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).
I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs. There is much written about the difference between Jewish beauty and Greek beauty, and we normally discuss this during this season of Chanukah..
http://www.aish.com/h/c/t/48959821.html
.
.
.
HOLLOW BEAUTY
Let us turn the clock forward to over a millennium later. Greece is the dominant force of the world. Its strength lies in yofi -- not the yofi of a Yosef HaTzaddik, to be sure, not even the yofi that finds direction and fulfillment in the tents of Shem in keeping with the blessings of Noah; only the hollow yofi achieved by the secular observer of the universe.
"The world only contains that which reveals itself" was the substance of their worldview. If one fully understands the phenomena of the universe, they maintained, one understands all; that which is out of sight and beyond one's range of observation simply does not exist.
Not so with the Jewish nation. Our belief is that the world that is revealed merely points the way to the world that is hidden from our view, beyond the reach of our senses. For the person who is discerning, the world reveals much more than is apparent at first glance. Thus, Greece restricts the world to yofi, and a shallow beauty at that, while Israel opens its eyes to the hod, the glory that lies deep within.
It is only fitting, then, that self-sacrifice be celebrated on these days of Chanukah, for self-sacrifice is the essence of hod -- the way in which a person achieves more than his apparent potential. As long as a person does mitzvot within the framework of his own existence, respecting his limitations, he can bring his fine traits to full fruition but not more than that. He performs great deeds, but they do not carry him beyond his potential.
When a person is willing to put his life on the line for the sake of Torah, however, he demonstrates that there is a world of Torah and Godliness that far exceeds his own narrow confines. He outgrasps his reach, as it were, and declares a praise that exceeds his apparent limitations.
The ultimate in hoda’ah -- confessing one's own limitations -- reveals the majesty of hod, linking one up with something greater than oneself.
Thus, on every holiday, when we celebrate God's Divine Providence, we recite Hallel. The days of Chanukah, however, are dedicated to lehodot u'lehallel -- so we first recite thanks then praise.
-
And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept. (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).
I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs.
Let me try to clarify this for you.
You took issue with what I wrote. If you "never said that" then you didn't really take issue with WHAT I WROTE, but you misunderstood what I wrote and took issue with something I never said.
-
And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept. (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).
I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs.
Let me try to clarify this for you.
You took issue with what I wrote. If you "never said that" then you didn't really take issue with WHAT I WROTE, but you misunderstood what I wrote and took issue with something I never said.
I never said that beauty cannot exist in the physical world and that beauty is only spiritual. That is not what the original article which I posted stated, and it is not what I stated. I simply said that there is Jewish reason to state that when the Torah talks about beauty it is not simply physical beauty. I don't know why you had to digress and refute this idea. There appear to be differences in what Christianity believes regarding this, but I am not aware of it.
I do not desire to argue about this. Let us agree about something...
Though the deeds of David HaMelech do seem unseemly he was able to do an honest Teshuva, which obviously Hashem accepted. David HaMelech is the patriarch of the Moshiach and thus he has the qualities which were needed for the King of Israel, and the future kings of Israel.
-
By the way, in one of my earlier postings I mentioned that I recently learned that there was a comparison made between King David and Esau HaRasha himself. Because last Shabbat was Parasha Toldot this discussion is timely...
http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48932852.html
TWO RED-HEADS
The source of Esau's problems seem to date back to his birth, his ruddy pigmentation sending an ominous, chilling message to all who saw him.
But the Sages tell us of another individual who was born with a similar exterior -- King David:
And Samuel said to Jesse, "Are these all your children?" And he said, "There remains still the youngest, and, behold, he keeps the sheep." And Samuel said to Jesse, "Send and fetch him; for we will not sit down till he comes here." And he sent, and brought him in. And he was red-haired, with beautiful eyes, and good looking. And the Lord said, "Arise, anoint him; for this is he." (1 Samuel 16:11-12)
Red-haired. Rabbi Abba ben Kahana said: "Altogether a shedder of blood. And when Samuel saw that David was red-headed ... he was smitten with fear, thinking he too might be a murderer. But the Holy One, blessed be He, reassured him that he had beautiful eyes [which meant] Esau slew by his own impulse, whereas he [David] would slay only on the sentence of the court. (Midrash Rabbah - Bereishit 63:8)
The beautiful eyes of David are a mirror of inherent kindness, and of David's ability to accept upon himself the law. The Midrash associates eyes with the Sanhedrin:
Thine eyes are as doves. Thine eyes refers to the Sanhedrin who are the eyes of the congregation, as it is written, "If it be hid from the eyes of the congregation." (Midrash Rabbah - Shir Hashirim I:64)
David believed in law and justice, and killed with the blessing of the Sanhedrin. His eyes shone with love for his people. When an intransigent bully (Goliath) threatens their safety, David will kill. For Esau, though, it seems like a sport, a test of his own mortality, a dangerous and futile dance with death.
David believed that there is a "Judge and judgement" both in this world and the next. Esau denied justice in either world, and spent his days pursuing death and causing death, tortured by his own mortality and despising those who found comfort in eternal life.
The first challenge of Esau's life -- the death of his beloved grandfather -- proved too great a test. Esau came away from that experience mean-spirited, a misanthrope dedicated to spreading his disease to all who crossed his path.
-
And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept. (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).
I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs.
Let me try to clarify this for you.
You took issue with what I wrote. If you "never said that" then you didn't really take issue with WHAT I WROTE, but you misunderstood what I wrote and took issue with something I never said.
I never said that beauty cannot exist in the physical world and that beauty is only spiritual. That is not what the original article which I posted stated, and it is not what I stated. I simply said that there is Jewish reason to state that when the Torah talks about beauty it is not simply physical beauty. I don't know why you had to digress and refute this idea. There appear to be differences in what Christianity believes regarding this, but I am not aware of it.
Muman, now you are playing in semantics to the point that this is incoherent.
I said this: "There are many people who assume that there can be no spirituality or holiness in the physical. But that is where Jewish religion differs from that of the Christians! "
I said that was the error that underlies the askmoses interpretation where they claim extremely beautiful refers ONLY to "spiritual beauty."
It was never attributed to YOU, and it was never a digression.
You said There are two issues I was thinking about on my drive home tonight... You had an exception to the statement that the Beauty of Bathsheba was a spiritual beauty more than a physical beauty. I have learned this from other sources too, it is truly a Jewish idea and not a Christian one...
Notice several things: 1. You took issue with what I wrote on your drive home. 2. You actually modified what I actually said when you tried to reproduce it here and you presented it in your own version. You then proceeded to attack the straw-man you set up, then I repeated the same thing I said before, and this time around you then said you didn't take issue with what I said. So did it bother you on your drive home or it didn't? You haven't been consistent, but that is because you misunderstood what I said and presented my argument inaccurately. So without knowing precisely what I said, it will be difficult to discern if you disagree or agree to it, muman. That seems to be where your confusion stems from.
Instead of rushing to disagree I would encourage you to read carefully first and make sure you have clear what exactly I'm arguing.
-
And no, Muman, the idea that there cannot be holiness in the physical material world is a Christian theological concept, NOT the Jewish concept. (This is referring to the "Church fathers" not necessarily what all Christian sects follow today).
I never said that. I simply said that there is a lesson concerning the beauty which the Torah talks about concerning the Matriarchs.
Let me try to clarify this for you.
You took issue with what I wrote. If you "never said that" then you didn't really take issue with WHAT I WROTE, but you misunderstood what I wrote and took issue with something I never said.
I never said that beauty cannot exist in the physical world and that beauty is only spiritual. That is not what the original article which I posted stated, and it is not what I stated. I simply said that there is Jewish reason to state that when the Torah talks about beauty it is not simply physical beauty. I don't know why you had to digress and refute this idea. There appear to be differences in what Christianity believes regarding this, but I am not aware of it.
Muman, now you are playing in semantics to the point that this is incoherent.
I said this: "There are many people who assume that there can be no spirituality or holiness in the physical. But that is where Jewish religion differs from that of the Christians! "
I said that was the error that underlies the askmoses interpretation where they claim extremely beautiful refers ONLY to "spiritual beauty."
It was never attributed to YOU, and it was never a digression.
You said There are two issues I was thinking about on my drive home tonight... You had an exception to the statement that the Beauty of Bathsheba was a spiritual beauty more than a physical beauty. I have learned this from other sources too, it is truly a Jewish idea and not a Christian one...
Notice several things: 1. You took issue with what I wrote on your drive home. 2. You actually modified what I actually said when you tried to reproduce it here and you presented it in your own version. You then proceeded to attack the straw-man you set up, I repeated the same thing I said before, and this time around you then said you didn't take issue with what I said. So did it bother you on your drive home or it didn't? You haven't been consistent, but that is because you misunderstood what I said and presented my argument inaccurately. So without knowing precisely what I said, it will be difficult to discern if you disagree or agree to it, muman.
What I thought you were saying is that there was no Jewish concept concerning the Matriarchs having an internal beauty which was reflected in their external beauty.
This is the original quote which you quoted and commented:
and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty.
Uh, sure. But Rav Samson Raphael Hirsh says that when that term is used to describe Rahel, it really means that literally Yakov thought she was physically beautiful and romantically fell in love with her. So not everyone agrees to this. If you ask me, this reading they are giving is really forced. And it stems from a common error among our generation. There are many people who assume that there can be no spirituality or holiness in the physical. But that is where Jewish religion differs from that of the Christians!
The original quote says "extremely beautiful" refers primarily to inner-beauty. You wanted to make a point that this explanation is somehow a Christian idea which has crept into Jewish thought. My problem with your dismissing this as non-Jewish is that I have heard this idea repeated many times, and as I pointed out there are many sites which explain this inner-beauty idea. It has nothing to do with denying that beauty can exist in the physical world. Obviously Judaism implores us to seek pleasures in this world because they were created for us to enjoy, within limitations and with the intention of elevating this world.
What was originally written was not incorrect. What you say is also correct but was not the issue which the original article I posted made concerning the beauty of Bathsheba. Obviously she must have been very beautiful...
-
Well, if you ask me I disagree because I found the way they said it was basically negating the notion of bat sheva being physically attractive to King David.
This was the quote from that site
"A king's palace is not next door to other homes, but is surrounded by gardens, orchards, parks and walls. She was immersing herself in the Mikvah (an area which is always completely enclosed, without any windows to the outside), and David perceived that she was "extremely beautiful." This term, used by the Torah to describe our holy matriarchs, primarily refers to spiritual inner-beauty. David was a man of action, and he had found the woman who was worthy of being the grandmother of Moshiach. He immediately dispatched messengers to ascertain that she was divorced from Uriah, and did not hesitate to consummate the union."
-
You can't ask what "Torah" means without carrying on like a lunatic?
Well i didn`t ask you about what Torah means, i asked you about your important note:
Very "important": those three are the only Torah laws that a Jew must die for. If your life depended on it, you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three.
Where it was written? If you know so much about Torah i believe you can also answer a simple question
TORAH MEANS BIBLE, yes.
You agree with me??? What about my language barrier, it disappeared all of a sudden? No it cannot be, probably misunderstanding.
But I thought you said you were Israeli.... So you must know what the word Torah means. Are you lying to us, "freedom" defender?
So any Israeli citizen who don`t know what Torah means is a lier and not Israeli? Is this also was taken from Torah? I just want to learn from person like you who always "above" me, because English is not my mother language and i making grammar errors.
-
You can't ask what "Torah" means without carrying on like a lunatic?
Well i didn`t ask you about what Torah means, i asked you about your important note:
Very "important": those three are the only Torah laws that a Jew must die for. If your life depended on it, you may eat non-Kosher, steal, violate the Shabbat or smack your best friend, because they’re not societal pillars like those Big Three.
I never said that!
TORAH MEANS BIBLE, yes.
You agree with me??? What about my language barrier, it disappeared all of a sudden? No it cannot be, probably misunderstanding.
But I thought you said you were Israeli.... So you must know what the word Torah means. Are you lying to us, "freedom" defender?
So any Israeli citizen who don`t know what Torah means is a lier and not Israeli? Is this also was taken from Torah? I just want to learn from person like you who always "above" me, because English is not my mother language and i making grammar errors.
First off, I really have a hard time understanding anything you're saying.
I have a simple question for you - Are you Jewish?