The Law

[rosends]

Don't get me started on kosher. That's the biggest scam foisted on the American consumer ever. Who interpreted the Law to determine that all bottled water needs to be kosher? Where is kosher water in the scripture?

The American consumer? I guess there was no kosher food before 1776, or today, outside the US.

 

[Wharton]

This, of course, relies on your understanding of what "the Law" is.

Too embarrassed to answer?

 

[Wharton]

The American consumer? I guess there was no kosher food before 1776, or today, outside the US.

Can't answer that one either? How about kosher tin foil? Kosher plastic sandwich bags? The insanity goes on an on. But the average consumer has no idea that he's making a religious 'donation' every time he goes to the store. I have no problem with kosher. I do have a problem when there is NO ALTERNATIVE offered to the consumer not to buy kosher.

 

[john landes]

The debate over whether Christians had to be Jews first was a serious one in the early days of the Jesus movement. Paul, himself a Jew but not one of the original insiders, took on the mantle of "apostle to the gentiles" and argued that the law had been fulfilled in Jesus and that newcomers did not need to e.g., be circumcised. This was a highly contentious position to take -- and you can see in Acts 15 the partially papered over animosity between the two factions. Check out the descriptions of how this evolved in 'Seeing through Christianity'.

 

[rosends]

Too embarrassed to answer?

Nope. I just assume that you would discard the oral law as being authoritative. Am I wrong? Should I be citing talmud for you so you can look it up and say, "well, if it says that, then I guess it is perfectly acceptable"?

 

[metis]

As an example, explain how the Law was properly interpreted as God intended to allow an eruv?

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about, nor did it deal with my point in the post this was supposedly a response to. Again, all I'm picking up is a bait-and-switch tactic from you.

 

[rosends]

Can't answer that one either? How about kosher tin foil? Kosher plastic sandwich bags? The insanity goes on an on. But the average consumer has no idea that he's making a religious 'donation' every time he goes to the store. I have no problem with kosher. I do have a problem when there is NO ALTERNATIVE offered to the consumer not to buy kosher.

Can't answer what question? You made an assertion about the American consumer which was dumb because it presumes that kosher supervision starts and stops in the borders of the US (in time and geography). Do you really want to learn about the possible kashrut problems in non food items or water? Or would you deny the halachic process because it uses an understanding of the "Law" with which you personally disagree?

And the average consumer isn't making any sort of donation. He is buying a product. If he has a problem with the price, he can buy another product. Do you also object to the free market? If there is NO alternative (which is incredibly rare) then the consumer can decide that the price is unnecessarily high and start his own version of the product. There is no monopoly. You seem to think there is some sort of nefarious plot to take money from people. The truth is, in most places, it is hard to find kosher products and there is more often NO ALTERNATIVE for the kosher consumer other than "do without."

 

[metis]

Don't get me started on kosher. That's the biggest scam foisted on the American consumer ever. Who interpreted the Law to determine that all bottled water needs to be kosher? Where is kosher water in the scripture?

Again, more bait-and-switch. Could you please deal with the question or points that I posted versus taking off on a nonsensical tangent?

To answer your question, the "kosher" in kosher water is to make certain that no treif products were used in the process or were in a position to contaminate the water in the bottling process. Now, will you please deal with the questions that I asked in posts #82 and #93 that you have previously been asked to answer and still have not. If you don't know the answer, then why don't you just admit it instead of using bait-and-switch.

 

[metis]

Can't answer that one either? How about kosher tin foil? Kosher plastic sandwich bags? The insanity goes on an on. But the average consumer has no idea that he's making a religious 'donation' every time he goes to the store. I have no problem with kosher. I do have a problem when there is NO ALTERNATIVE offered to the consumer not to buy kosher.

In the kosher area, there is competition on most products, so it operates on the same basic principles of capitalism as do non-kosher products. Nobody is forcing you or demanding you keep kosher, and my guess is that your taking this highly disingenuous tactic because you are not even well educated in Christian theology since you can't even begin to answer some basic questions posed to you, such as posts #82 and #93.

 

[Wharton]

In the kosher area, there is competition on most products, so it operates on the same basic principles of capitalism as do non-kosher products. Nobody is forcing you or demanding you keep kosher, and my guess is that your taking this highly disingenuous tactic because you are not even well educated in Christian theology since you can't even begin to answer some basic questions posed to you, such as posts #82 and #93.

What don't you understand? I am FORCED. There is NO ALTERNATIVE to kosher bottled water. It's all kosher. I don't need to buy kosher but I have to.

It's not disingenuous. It's all related to someone interpreting the Law.

 

[Wharton]

Again, more bait-and-switch. Could you please deal with the question or points that I posted versus taking off on a nonsensical tangent?

To answer your question, the "kosher" in kosher water is to make certain that no treif products were used in the process or were in a position to contaminate the water in the bottling process. Now, will you please deal with the questions that I asked in posts #82 and #93 that you have previously been asked to answer and still have not. If you don't know the answer, then why don't you just admit it instead of using bait-and-switch.

Post 82 wasn't directed to me.

 

[Kolibri]

Wharton had said in post 84 " to properly interpret the Law so that people can obey it as God intended." I am still concerned by your understanding of it as "to bring to completion." I wonder for 2 reasons: 1 is that i don't offhand, know a situation where fulfill means that as it relates to law and 2. this still relies on translating a particular Hebrew word (which word) as "fulfill" which doesn't seem reasonable -- think about it -- you were looking for a word meaning "fulfill" and you brought up 4 verses which use a DIFFERENT word. Maybe this shows that the k-y-m root specifically does NOT mean "fulfill."

For me I was looking for a contrasting word(s) from k-y-m or a context driven definition for k-y-m if it was present. In English fulfill's meaning is rather well-defined. Either it is inappropriate to the meaning or the Hebrew text(s) in question or it is not. What I find difficult is the creating of a new meaning for the English word that is not even close to the thought-meaning of the text in question. It would make more sense to me to use a different English word(ing) instead.

I saw the 4 different words as you posted them. Thank-you. What I don't know is if they may be conjugation of the same word or similes of each other. I am presuming that the thought of the group of words in the 119th Psalm as found in the English quotes do not change the meaning in any appreciable way.

 

[Wharton]

The vast majority of the 613 Laws involve actions to be taken or avoided, so exactly how is it that someone's politically-correct interpretation of a Law or even the entire Law somehow "fulfills" the Law? Interpretation are a means to an end but not the end itself. As an example, having a politically-correct interpretation of "kosher" does not mean that one automatically observes the kosher Laws.

Here you go:
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath
Shabbath 116a&b
Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R. Gamaliel's sister. Now, a certain philosopher30 lived in his vicinity,and he bore a reputation that he did not accept bribes.1 They wished to expose him,2 so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, [and] said to him, 'I desire that a share be given me in my [deceased] father's estate.' 'Divide,' ordered he. Said he [R. Gamaliel] to him, 'It is decreed for us, Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.' [He replied], 'Since the day that you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been superseded3 and another book4 given, wherein it is written, 'A son and a daughter inherit equally.'5 The next day, he [R. Gamaliel] brought him a Lybian ***. Said he to them, 'Look6 at the end of the book, wherein it is written, I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor7 to add to the Law of Moses,8 and it is written therein, A daughter does not inherit where there is a son. Said she to him, 'Let thy light shine forth like a lamp.'9 Said R. Gamaliel to him, 'An *** came and knocked the lamp over!'10

Is not Rabbi Gamaliel fulfilling the Law by properly interpreting it for the philosopher?

 

[rosends]

What don't you understand? I am FORCED. There is NO ALTERNATIVE to kosher bottled water. It's all kosher. I don't need to buy kosher but I have to.

It's not disingenuous. It's all related to someone interpreting the Law.

So wait...because ALL bottled water is kosher and it is logically impossible to buy water that isn't kosher, you are angry at kosher laws. That makes no sense. You realize that water that comes out of your faucet is kosher also. OH NO.

 

[rosends]

For me I was looking for a contrasting word(s) from k-y-m or a context driven definition for k-y-m if it was present. In English fulfill's meaning is rather well-defined. Either it is inappropriate to the meaning or the Hebrew text(s) in question or it is not. What I find difficult is the creating of a new meaning for the English word that is not even close to the thought-meaning of the text in question. It would make more sense to me to use a different English word(ing) instead.

I saw the 4 different words as you posted them. Thank-you. What I don't know is if they may be conjugation of the same word or similes of each other. I am presuming that the thought of the group of words in the 119th Psalm as found in the English quotes do not change the meaning in any appreciable way.

The 4 words I posted were from the root M-L-A with the word "maleh" meaning "full" as in "my stomach is maleh".

 

[rosends]

Here you go:
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Shabbath
Shabbath 116a&b
Imma Shalom, R. Eliezer's wife, was R. Gamaliel's sister. Now, a certain philosopher30 lived in his vicinity,and he bore a reputation that he did not accept bribes.1 They wished to expose him,2 so she brought him a golden lamp, went before him, [and] said to him, 'I desire that a share be given me in my [deceased] father's estate.' 'Divide,' ordered he. Said he [R. Gamaliel] to him, 'It is decreed for us, Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit.' [He replied], 'Since the day that you were exiled from your land the Law of Moses has been superseded3 and another book4 given, wherein it is written, 'A son and a daughter inherit equally.'5 The next day, he [R. Gamaliel] brought him a Lybian ***. Said he to them, 'Look6 at the end of the book, wherein it is written, I came not to destroy the Law of Moses nor7 to add to the Law of Moses,8 and it is written therein, A daughter does not inherit where there is a son. Said she to him, 'Let thy light shine forth like a lamp.'9 Said R. Gamaliel to him, 'An *** came and knocked the lamp over!'10

Is not Rabbi Gamaliel fulfilling the Law by properly interpreting it for the philosopher?

that anecdote is actually describing the man and woman in question working to expose a charlatan by bribing him, one with a lamp, the other with an ***. When each reminded him of the bribe he adjudicated in that direction, thus proving that he was interpreting for his own benefit, not in relation to the law. You shouldn't cte talmud if you don't understand it.

 

[Wharton]

This, of course, relies on your understanding of what "the Law" is.

Transporting an object between a private domain and the public domain, or for a distance of 4 cubits within the public domain.

 

[Wharton]

that anecdote is actually describing the man and woman in question working to expose a charlatan by bribing him, one with a lamp, the other with an ***. When each reminded him of the bribe he adjudicated in that direction, thus proving that he was interpreting for his own benefit, not in relation to the law. You shouldn't cte talmud if you don't understand it.

Nice tap dance. Again. Who properly interpreted the law for the philosopher and thus fulfilled it?

 

[rosends]

Transporting an object between a private domain and the public domain, or for a distance of 4 cubits within the public domain.

so you are citing the talmudic law. therefore, you recognize the validity of it as a canon or rules and the explanations and application of those rules by those who codified it. So then you should have no problem with an eruv.

 

[rosends]

Nice tap dance. Again. Who properly interpreted the law for the philosopher and thus fulfilled it?

no one. The point was that he was wrong in what he was doing. It isn't a tap dance when one has actually learned and shows you you are wrong. It is a dance when you jump away from the topic when you are shown you are wrong.