Judaism and Supplemental Material

[David Davidovich]

referring to "what is the substance or material that is supposed to run down or off her leg if she is actually guilty"

The Chizkuni, a 13th century commentator looked at the language of "your thigh will sag and your belly distend" and understood it to mean


“you are no longer capable of engaging in carnal relations as the waters will damage the organs designed for this. Your womb will be ruined.”

Oh, wow... Okay, thanks.

 

[David Davidovich]

The challenge you have is that you seemed to have missed the process that has to take place for this particular series of actions to have taken place. They are very specific and are not for the sake of "adultry" as you know it in English. I.e. this process is ONLY in the circumstance that a husband has warned his wife to not be alone with a a particular man. I.e. he wasn't there to see that she was. Further, he must only be doing this because he is concerned for her safety (on all levels). Further, he needs witnesses who say her being alone with said person. Also, she would have had to be warned. Further, the woman would have to agree to take part in such a process. Lastly, you have to have a situation where all involved parties want to go through all of that rather than just get divorced. Most Jews haven't desired to go through all of that rather than just get divorced.

Well, okay, but that raised the question of: Then who would desire to go through all that whether they be Torath Mosheh Jew or not?

There is a lot to be learned from a situation where someone is willing to go through all of these extremes - husband or wife. What kind of Torath Mosheh Israeli wants to be alone with some man who is not her husband? What kind of Torath Mosheh Israeli based husband would want to put his wife through such a public process? The only way for this process to even be performed is when it is 100% proven that Hashem is supporting the Torah based nation. What kind of person, who knows that Hashem is 100% real and 100% supporting the Torah based nation would choose to willingly go to such extremes? What kind of Torath Mosheh Israeli marries a woman that he has to suspect is meeting with someone many privately? What kind of Torath Mosheh Israeli woman marries a man who she has to convince that she did no such thing? What kind of society have Torath Mosheh Israelis of a particular generation built where this type of process is needed?


These are all lessons and questions for a Torath Mosheh society and we are gratefull to Hashem for giving us a Torah that addresses who are as humans, even when we are not at our best. Individually and collectively.

Okay.

 

[David Davidovich]

Another question that I have for Torath Mosheh Jews and about related Torah commentary is a two topic question involving Exodus 21:20-25

וְכִֽי־יַכֶּה֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּ֜וֹ א֤וֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ֙ בַּשֵּׁ֔בֶט וּמֵ֖ת תַּ֣חַת יָד֑וֹ נָקֹ֖ם יִנָּקֵֽם׃ When a slave-owning party strikes a slave, male or female, with a rod, who dies there and then,*there and then Lit. “under his hand.” this must be avenged.

אַ֥ךְ אִם־י֛וֹם א֥וֹ יוֹמַ֖יִם יַעֲמֹ֑ד לֹ֣א יֻקַּ֔ם כִּ֥י כַסְפּ֖וֹ הֽוּא׃ {ס} But if the victim survives a day or two, this is not to be avenged, since the one is the other’s property.

וְכִֽי־יִנָּצ֣וּ אֲנָשִׁ֗ים וְנָ֨גְפ֜וּ אִשָּׁ֤ה הָרָה֙ וְיָצְא֣וּ יְלָדֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א יִהְיֶ֖ה אָס֑וֹן עָנ֣וֹשׁ יֵעָנֵ֗שׁ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׁ֤ית עָלָיו֙ בַּ֣עַל הָֽאִשָּׁ֔ה וְנָתַ֖ן בִּפְלִלִֽים׃ When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible*the one responsible Heb. “he.” shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning.*

וְאִם־אָס֖וֹן יִהְיֶ֑ה וְנָתַתָּ֥ה נֶ֖פֶשׁ תַּ֥חַת נָֽפֶשׁ׃ But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life,

עַ֚יִן תַּ֣חַת עַ֔יִן שֵׁ֖ן תַּ֣חַת שֵׁ֑ן יָ֚ד תַּ֣חַת יָ֔ד רֶ֖גֶל תַּ֥חַת רָֽגֶל׃ eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

כְּוִיָּה֙ תַּ֣חַת כְּוִיָּ֔ה פֶּ֖צַע תַּ֣חַת פָּ֑צַע חַבּוּרָ֕ה תַּ֖חַת חַבּוּרָֽה׃ {ס} burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

click here: Exodus 21:20 with Connections (sefaria.org)

Critics of the Hebrew text have said that verses 20-21 only punished a slave owner if the assaulted slave dies, however, if the assaulted slave doesn't die, then nothing happens to the slave owner regardless of any injury that the slave incurs short of death. Therefore, a lot of people don't understand how this is far.

Also, verses 22-25 explain how if during a struggle between someone and a pregnant woman and the pregnant woman miscarries, but no other damages occur, then the responsible person will be fined according to what her husband exacts. However, if there are other damages that occur, then the penalty of the responsible person will be 'like for like' such as life for life (seemingly, the life of the woman and not the life of the miscarried fetus) or eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. Therefore, some critics have said that these verses value the injury of the pregnant woman more so than the life of the miscarried fetus. So, could Torah Mosheh Jews comment on these examples?

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Well, okay, but that raised the question of: Then who would desire to go through all that whether they be Torath Mosheh Jew or not?

Most would not. Yet, this is an option in the circumstance that both members of the couple need something more. When Hashem gave the Torah to Israeli nation, it came with lots of options that relate to some of the basic traits of humanity. Though most rational people would simply get divorced and move on - we all know that some people and some relationships are not rational. Those people and those relationships also need options.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

or eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.

On this topic I have a video. On the others I will have to respond after the Shabbat.

 

[rosends]

So, what is a representative divine identity or the nations' heavenly equivalents? And I may not start a separate thread on this depending on your answer.

The idea is that each nation has a "guardian angel" which represents them in heaven.
Midrash Tanchuma, Vayetzei 2:1

 

[rosends]

, some critics have said that these verses value the injury of the pregnant woman more so than the life of the miscarried fetus. So, could Torah Mosheh Jews comment on these examples?

Yes, that is true. The law is that when discussing the life of the mother, it outweighs the life of a fetus.
The mishna in Ohalot, 7:6 reads
"If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child]. But if the greater part (that is, the forehead) has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for that of another."

 

[David Davidovich]

The idea is that each nation has a "guardian angel" which represents them in heaven.
Midrash Tanchuma, Vayetzei 2:1

So, the logical question would be: Why are the guardian angels of Persia and Greece fighting against and opposing the archangels Michael and Gabriel?

 

[David Davidovich]

Yes, that is true. The law is that when discussing the life of the mother, it outweighs the life of a fetus.
The mishna in Ohalot, 7:6 reads
"If a woman is having trouble giving birth, they cut up the child in her womb and brings it forth limb by limb, because her life comes before the life of [the child]. But if the greater part (that is, the forehead) has come out, one may not touch it, for one may not set aside one person's life for that of another."

Well, this is a bit off topic, but I guess you know that idea and interpretation of scripture is a lightning rod in today's American politics.

 

[rosends]

So, the logical question would be: Why are the guardian angels of Persia and Greece fighting against and opposing the archangels Michael and Gabriel?

They are the ones who had time to dominate.

 

[David Davidovich]

They are the ones who had time to dominate.

So, does that mean that all of God's angels are not on the same side?

 

[rosends]

So, does that mean that all of God's angels are not on the same side?

they all are subject to God's will but as they represent people, they often represent the fates of different groups.

 

[David Davidovich]

they all are subject to God's will but as they represent people, they often represent the fates of different groups.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I may be able to help you with this.

As I have mentioned before, one of the problems is with terminology. The English term "angel" and what it means as well as the imagery it conveyes is not Jewish in origin. When Jews use the term in English we often mean something different then what non-Jews mean with it.

For example:

1. The original term in Hebrew is (מלאך) "mal'ach" singular or (מלאכים) "mal'achim" plural.
2. According to Torath Mosheh sources (מלאכים) "malachim" by definition have no free will. I.e. they don't have the ability to choose and they are not human in any way.
3. According to some Torath Mosheh sources (מלאכים) "malachim" by definition are elements of reality that Hashem put in place in order to the natural universe to work.
   • Kind of like say that there are (מלאכים) "malachim" the forces how physical and non-physical world can work. I.e. kind of like physics, chemistry, thermodynmics.
   • According to this view these are what Hashem put in place in order for the universe to work BUT it is not like physics has a will of its own or even thinks.
4. According to some Torath Mosheh source (מלאכים) "malachim", again with no free will, are the elements of the universe where understandings of how the universe works reside.
   
   • I.e. a prophet when in the mode of prophecy when interacting with a (מלאך) "mal'ach" is not interacting with a being or an entity, but instead an element of reality that makes it clear what he/she is supposed to get out of the experience.
   • In the prophet's vision it appears in a way that the prophet would understand it. I.e. like someone having a conversation with someone when reality they are experiencing what Hashem wants them to get out of the encounter with something above human consciousness.
   • Kind of like a prophet seeing events of the future, but in their vision of it, they are being guided by someone when in reality they are being guided by the reality of what will happen and not by someoen.

It gets a bit metaphysical, and that is in Hebrew. The main key is that a (מלאך) "mal'ach" is not a physical being, it is not human or human like, and it does not have free will. It is simply an element of how the will of Hashem exists in reality.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

So, does that mean that all of God's angels are not on the same side?

Take the western image of an angel (personality, wings, human features, etc.) out of the picture and consider it like this.

1. The ability to succeed using what exists in the natural world such as intelligence, wisdom, research, physical strength, etc. can all be considered types of (מלאכים) "malachim" with no free will attached them.
2. The ability to fail using what exits in the natural world such as misdirection, anger, procastination, laziness, etc. can all be considered types of (מלאכים) "malachim".
3. The ability to for the natural world to bring about things that humans/plants/animals enjoy in life can be considered types of (מלאכים) "malachim".
4. The ability for the natural world to have disasters can be considered types of (מלאכים) "malachim".

Thus, two nations that don't keep the 7 mitzvoth may be considered to be in conflict in ways that are beyond the physical world with each side vying for the above four examples. What choices these nations make direct what type of (מלאכים) "malachim" are invovlved in their reality or as rosends put it their "fate." Another way to look at is that (מלאכים) "malachim" are a way to understand the consquences of personal, regional, and national actions that humanity takes when interacting with each and the natural world.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Another question that I have for Torath Mosheh Jews and about related Torah commentary is a two topic question involving Exodus 21:20-25

Critics of the Hebrew text have said that verses 20-21 only punished a slave owner if the assaulted slave dies, however, if the assaulted slave doesn't die, then nothing happens to the slave owner regardless of any injury that the slave incurs short of death. Therefore, a lot of people don't understand how this is far.

Again, an Oral Torah issue. What the Hebrew text of Shemoth (Ex.) 21:20-21 is talking about is the maximum punishment possible for an Israeli who has a servant who he strikes until the servant dies. The maximum possible judicial punishment is the death penalty due to the fact that this would be murder.

According to the Oral Torath, the reason that the written Torah does not mention a punishment, in this section, for as situation where the servant lives is for two reasons.

1. Shemoth (Ex.) 21:20-21 is dealing with the maximum punishment for the murder of the servant.
2. Due to Torah law, halakha, an Israeli who has a servant is required to provide all of the needs for his servant which would include medical attention.
   • Certain injuries require that the servant be set free.
   • Others are already covered in the fact that the Israeli in question is already obligated by Halakah to cover the needs of the servant. This includes the fact that servants have to be fed before the Israeli in question and that the well being of the servant has to be set as a high priority from the start.

Also, verses 22-25 explain how if during a struggle between someone and a pregnant woman and the pregnant woman miscarries, but no other damages occur, then the responsible person will be fined according to what her husband exacts. However, if there are other damages that occur, then the penalty of the responsible person will be 'like for like' such as life for life (seemingly, the life of the woman and not the life of the miscarried fetus) or eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. Therefore, some critics have said that these verses value the injury of the pregnant woman more so than the life of the miscarried fetus. So, could Torah Mosheh Jews comment on these examples?

Again, you have to go back to the video I posted concerning the eye for an eye issue. I.e. the Oral Torah explains that the statement means "financial" payment due to damage.

In halakha there is a delegation that dictate how a Torah based court determines the type of damages have to be paid based on who is put in danger and what is the outcome of that damage.

What I would suggest is that anyone who is telling you they have a problem with something in the written Torah that you request the following:

1. A break down of what is actually written in Hebrew.
2. A break down of what either the Mishnah Torah or Shulchan Aruch state on the matter.

If they can't do these two things then they are pulling your leg and have no idea what they are even talking about.

 

[David Davidovich]

Again, an Oral Torah issue. What the Hebrew text of Shemoth (Ex.) 21:20-21 is talking about is the maximum punishment possible for an Israeli who has a servant who he strikes until the servant dies. The maximum possible judicial punishment is the death penalty due to the fact that this would be murder.

According to the Oral Torath, the reason that the written Torah does not mention a punishment, in this section, for as situation where the servant lives is for two reasons.

1. Shemoth (Ex.) 21:20-21 is dealing with the maximum punishment for the murder of the servant.
2. Due to Torah law, halakha, an Israeli who has a servant is required to provide all of the needs for his servant which would include medical attention.
   • Certain injuries require that the servant be set free.
   • Others are already covered in the fact that the Israeli in question is already obligated by Halakah to cover the needs of the servant. This includes the fact that servants have to be fed before the Israeli in question and that the well being of the servant has to be set as a high priority from the start.

Okay, thanks.

Again, you have to go back to the video I posted concerning the eye for an eye issue. I.e. the Oral Torah explains that the statement means "financial" payment due to damage.

Yes, I did look at some of the video and heard you explain that. However, you know me... About halfway through I was struggling with listening to the Hebrew and had to stop and decided I would have to finish it later. lol

In halakha there is a delegation that dictate how a Torah based court determines the type of damages have to be paid based on who is put in danger and what is the outcome of that damage.

What I would suggest is that anyone who is telling you they have a problem with something in the written Torah that you request the following:

1. A break down of what is actually written in Hebrew.
2. A break down of what either the Mishnah Torah or Shulchan Aruch state on the matter.

If they can't do these two things then they are pulling your leg and have no idea what they are even talking about.

Okay, thanks.

 

[David Davidovich]

On this topic I have a video. On the others I will have to respond after the Shabbat.

I finally finished this video, and I would have to say that your explanations were excellent. Also, I have never heard any Christians group give this type of explanation for the eye for an eye, etc., verses. They've always gave the impression that the ancient Jews went around cutting off people's hands, etc., for similar offenses.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

I finally finished this video, and I would have to say that your explanations were excellent. Also, I have never heard any Christians group give this type of explanation for the eye for an eye, etc., verses. They've always gave the impression that the ancient Jews went around cutting off people's hands, etc., for similar offenses.

I think the reason that you get that reaction from Christians is because the original Jewish Christians were so focused on the idea that their "end game" scenario was going to happen within their generation that they did not focus much on Torah, at a certain point. The ones that did were labeled as heretics by the developing non-Jewish churches and thus, when those groups dissappeard, this kind of information was never passed on to the Christianity that formed from the non-Jewish churches.

 

[David Davidovich]

I think the reason that you get that reaction from Christians is because the original Jewish Christians were so focused on the idea that their "end game" scenario was going to happen within their generation that they did not focus much on Torah, at a certain point. The ones that did were labeled as heretics by the developing non-Jewish churches and thus, when those groups dissappeard, this kind of information was never passed on to the Christianity that formed from the non-Jewish churches.

But more so than that, the first century Christians who were Jewish and who wrote certain Chistian Bible books (or at least I thought that they wrote those book) conveyed the Torah law as being so burdensome and so cumbersome that people were saying the Torah law is done with and had its purpose and praise God that he put an end to it and replaced it with something superior. Even some of Jesus' words seem to say that like at Matthew 5:38-39:

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Or at least it's thought of as being superior. Although, I will admit that I'm not really sure what Jesus was actually saying.

However, more confusing is that when looking up Christian Bible verses where Jesus referred to the Torah law, but replaced or recommended it with something different, I came across an article that said:

"‘The days are coming,' declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord'" (Jeremiah 31:31-32).

See how Jesus said it in Hebrews 8:6-13 and Matthew 9:16-17.

In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished."

click here: Christ's relationship to Old Testament Law, part one | Article | whig.com

Therefore, the verses from the Tanakh at Jeremiah 31:31-32 seem to really throw a monkey wrench in the machine.

So, does any Torah Mosheh Jew or Orthodox Jew have an interpretation of Jeremiah 31:31-32?