Ask a religious Jew

[caketastydelish]

Oldschooler
How did Jews feel about Germans in, say, 1950???
All they could think of, was Hitler and his atrocities.
Do you get my point?
HINT:

First, I was not aware that Jewish-Iranian relations were any worse in the 1970's than they are now, thus my point "do Jewish people consider Iranians to be enemies"

Second, I am not sure what you mean by the "nuke" emoticon, because to the best of my knowledge, Iran did not have nuclear weapons in the 1970's.

 

[timtofly]

Is it written somewhere in your holy book, or is it just unanimously decided that not writing god's name in full is a sign of respect for him? If it is not written down, one could also argue that not writing god's name in full is a sign of disrespect, after all...



What do you think about other religions claiming the same? After all, all of the Abrahamitic religions - correct me if I am wrong - claim that the first man, Adam, knew their god.

Do you see Christianity and Islam as a split-off of Judaism, or as other beliefs?

The written (full) name could not be destroyed. If the scribe made any other mistake in his copying of the text, the document could not be destroyed. The writing of G-d did allow the document to be destroyed if a mistake was made. Not only did this help prevent errors, but if a scroll was found "not finished" the mistake was in writing the name of G-d. The Jews were very serious in keeping error out of the Word, G-d had given to them.

That was the sense that I received when it was explained to me.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I only brought this up because of something my dad (who is Iranian) told me.

He told me when he was in college (this was in the 70's), in America, he dated a Jewish girl for some time and some Jewish guys gave him some trouble about it, and even told the girl "why are you with an enemy"

I'm just trying to see if "iranians are enemies" is a common Jewish belief (no offense), or if it is few and far between.

Based on what you're saying though, I'm guessing the answer is no. And that makes me happy. The few Jews I've actually talked to have been rather open minded people. It's just the emphasis is on few so I don't really know how the Jewish community at large feels about Iranians.

Yes, you are correct. Judaism has no "enemies" (unless you count biblical ones like the Philistines). It would make little sense to label an entire people an "enemy", especially considering there are Iranian Jews. It's a silly notion and I'm glad you don't subscribe to it.

 

[strijder20]

The written (full) name could not be destroyed. If the scribe made any other mistake in his copying of the text, the document could not be destroyed. The writing of G-d did allow the document to be destroyed if a mistake was made. Not only did this help prevent errors, but if a scroll was found "not finished" the mistake was in writing the name of G-d. The Jews were very serious in keeping error out of the Word, G-d had given to them.

That was the sense that I received when it was explained to me.

Thanks for the explanation, it makes perfect sense to me that they don't want to destroy something with the name of their god on it.

I find it strange that you use g-d even when you talk about a deity, though. I suppose it is because you believe that every religion prays to the same god but just has a different idea of him (which I believe is a brilliant and pacifistic idea, if only some extremists - both Jewish and from other religions - would remember it...)?

 

[civ2]

EM
ANSWER

Spoiler :

Jacob's marriage to Rachel and Leah, Laban's daughters, is related in this week’s Torah portion, and many commentators grapple with the question of how Jacob was permitted to marry two sisters -- in view of the fact that he kept the entire Torah before it was given, and the Torah explicitly forbids such a marriage. A summary of a profound and scholarly explanation of the question by the Rebbe follows.

Our forefathers took upon them-selves to keep the entire Torah -- even though they had not been commanded to do so -- as an extra added measure of devotion to G-d. If those Mitzvot or commandments of the Torah which they were not ordered to observe happened to conflict with precepts that they had been explicitly ordered by G-d to observe, then they obviously did not keep the Mitzva that they were not commanded. In fact, such action constituted for them true Torah-observance; the Torah itself required that they refrain from doing an extra, added act of devotion when this was in conflict with an explicit command.

Aside from the precepts that Noah and his descendants had been specifically commanded by the Al-mighty to observe, they also took upon themselves, as a communal responsibility, additional moral laws, which then became mandatory according to the Noahide laws and according to the Torah. If one of these universally-accepted laws conflicted with one of the "Sinai-Mitzvot" that the Patriarchs observed as their own particular custom, here too they were not allowed to fulfill that "Sinai-Mitzva." An example of such a universally-accepted law of society was to refrain from deceit, so that even Laban "the swindler" felt compelled to try and 'explain away' and excuse his deceit of Jacob.

Jacob had promised Rachel he would marry her. Failure to keep his promise would constitute grave deceit -- and would cause Rachel particularly great distress because she feared she might become the bride of Esau. Consequently, although he was already married to Leah, Jacob was in this case not allowed to observe the future law of not marrying two sisters, but was required to fulfill his promise and marry Rachel.

There is a simple forthright teaching that each one of us can derive from the above: If a person should desire to take upon himself extra niceties of observance, he should first make sure that this is not at the expense of others. If one knows of -- and is capable of helping -- a person ignorant of his Judaism and gravely in need of the basic essentials of Torah-education, then he has no right to think "I'd rather use the time to elevate my own studies and observance to a superlative level." The challenging question he must answer is this: Is he so much more worthy and important than the other that he can justify adding refinements to his own Torah-study and observance at the expense of another's basic spiritual needs?

Oldschooler
OK, let's drop it.
I just meant, that when Jews hear "Iran", they think of Ahmadinejad, who wants to NUKE Israel (thus my emoticon).

strijder
The "same" G-d applies only when it's ONE G-d, however named or described.
Otherwise, it's a different concept.

 

[caketastydelish]

EM
ANSWER


Oldschooler
OK, let's drop it.
I just meant, that when Jews hear "Iran", they think of Ahmadinejad, who wants to NUKE Israel (thus my emoticon).

strijder
The "same" G-d applies only when it's ONE G-d, however named or described.
Otherwise, it's a different concept.

Ahmadinejad is certainly not popular among Iranian-Americans, and as far as I know, not even among Iranians. When he won the election a few years ago, Iranians weren't terribly happy about it.

edit: did I say he won the election? I meant he "won" the election

 

[civ2]

Oldschooler
Well, I'm not Iranian, so how would I know that?
And from what I did hear about him, he's a representative of Iran's politics now, and he's a personal enemy with Israel.
Does it mean, Iranians are enemies too?
I say, no.
Does it make people to be very negative towards them anyways?
I say, yes.
Thus, those who actively dislike Iranians, do this purely due to Ahmadinejad and his attitude towards Israel.

 

[History_Buff]

Civ2, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you. No need to nail it down either, if you can give an answer in a five year range, that's good enough for me.

Also, this:

Circumcision purifies and refines. It forces us to make a sacrifice. Removing the foreskin diminishes the pleasure and enjoyment of intercourse.1 We sacrifice such pleasure and proclaim that, on our scale, Divine instruction is a greater priority than self-gratification.

Really isn't accurate:

In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [. . .] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."[46] A 2010 review reported that "despite conflicting results in some of the historical observational studies, most recent articles do not show evidence of adverse effects on sexual function."[57] A review which analysed the data from eight clinical trials concluded that the "evidence suggests that adult circumcision does not affect sexual satisfaction and function."[58]

 

[civ2]

Buff
I'm 28, so what?
Also, about circumcision, it's not MY article, you know.
Though, yours also mostly says "we don't have definite data".
Also, the key point isn't about how it affects sexual life, but rather the spiritual part.

PS. I have a similar joke to yours: "Rabbi Wiki".

 

[_random_]

Does anybody do the Nazirite thing today?

 

[civ2]

random
Hmmm...
Good question.
Technically, it's possible, but only "one way", cause it required to bring a sacrifice in the Temple to end it, which is now impossible.
So, unless someone is REALLY against wine and all, I doubt anyone would inflict such things upon oneself.

 

[classical_hero]

How do you determine if someone is ethnically a Jew? I assk this since my Grandmother would have been classified as a Jew according to Nazi Doctrine, since she was the granddaughter of a Jew. I was told this by my mother, so I know that, but thankfully my Grandmother was living in Australia at the time, so she was never in any danger of the Nazis.

 

[civ2]

classical
I very much dislike such concepts as "ethnical Jew".
Someone is either JEWISH or not, and this is EASILY determined by these 2 options:
1. Born to a Jewish mother.
Includes ANY number of generations, as long as all of them are girls.
Thus, if someone's mother's.....x10 mother was Jewish, he/she is Jewish.
Not necessarily he/she KNOWS it, but the actual fact is so.
(BTW, the missing ten Tribes will survive exactly this way - even though they now have no clue about their Jewishness, for the last 2500 years actually, but it's there, regardless. and when Moshiach comes, he'll be able to trace it back, however long backwards.)
2. Proper convert by an Orthodox Rabbi.
A proper convert is considered 100% Jewish, so option 1 also includes children of converted women.
The non-Orthodox conversions are a huge problem, for 2 reasons: uncertainty of whether the convert knows enough and will continue living a Jewish life (which they should) AND whether this is even acceptable by true Torah standards (which might mean, they did NOT become Jewish).
Also, insincere conversions of any type are also problematic.
But enough about it.
...
So, to sum up: either mother OR convert.

 

[_random_]

If somebody converted to Reform or Conservative Judaism and decided they wanted to go Orthodox, would they have to go through the rituals again?

 

[civ2]

random
More than probably.
Except, the only "rituals" involved are circumcision (for men ; more than probably would NOT need correction) and ritual immersion (easy to do anyways).
The serious stuff, though, would involve their LEARNING, there's a big chance, that they'd be required to go through another crash course on religious Jewish life.
Or, at the very least, to learn the Orthodox version of the laws (they are going to live as Orthodox Jews, you know ).
Anyways, NOT MUCH (physically, while a huge step spiritually).

 

[_random_]

How would that work for a circumcised gentile?

 

[civ2]

random
For those, who underwent any other type of circumcision: be it medical, which is physically different, OR even if physically correct, but by an unqualified agent, like a doctor, - there's a simple procedure, called "drawing the blood drop", which is exactly that: a small cut is being done and the proper blessing is being made, then it's considered as done fully; or in the case of physically incorrect, it's just completed to be as usual, of course with proper blessing, and then also is OK.
To make it short:
What wasn't cut, gets cut, and what wasn't said, gets said.
Easy.

 

[El_Machinae]

EM
ANSWER

Wow. So, he gets what he wants because "cannot have lied to Rachel", but this is the same dude whose heroics include deceiving an old, blind father?

Honestly, it seems like double-speak

 

[civ2]

EM
Deception? R U sure?

Spoiler :

The story of the stolen blessings is often understood as a contest between the two brothers for the legacy of Abraham and Isaac, with Isaac mistakenly taking Esau to be the worthy heir, and Rebecca, knowing the true nature of her elder son, devising the plan that would place Jacob at Isaac's bedside at the crucial moment.

However, a closer reading of the Torah's account indicates that Isaac was well aware of the difference between his two children. Jacob almost gave himself away when he said, in reply to his father's question about how he managed to find game so quickly, "The L-rd your G-d sent me good speed"; Isaac knew that Esau did not speak that way, and immediately suspected that the son before him was Jacob rather than Esau.

In fact, by the time we reach the end of the story, it is quite clear that Isaac never intended to bequeath the spiritual legacy of Abraham--the Divine promise to make his seed a great nation and to give them the Holy Land as their eternal heritage--to Esau.

When Esau discovers that Jacob has received the blessings, he begs Isaac, "Bless me, too, my father!" "But I have made him your master," says Isaac, "I have given him [the blessings of] grain and wine. What can I do for you now, my son?" "Have you only one blessing, my father?!" sobs Esau. "Bless me too, my father!" Finally, Isaac blesses Esau that "Of the fatness of the land shall be your dwelling, and of the dew of heaven above" (the fat of the land and the dew of heaven themselves having already been granted to Jacob), and promises him that should the descendants of Jacob sin and become unworthy of their blessings, they will forfeit their mastery over Esau's descendants in material affairs. This is the best he can do for his beloved elder son.

But in the very next chapter we read how Isaac summons Jacob to him, and... blesses him. "May G-d Almighty bless you," says Isaac, "make you fruitful, and multiply you, and you shall become a populous nation. And may He grant you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your descendants, that you may inherit the land of your dwelling, which G-d has given to Abraham"--blessings which had not been included in his earlier benedictions to either son.

So Isaac never intended to make Esau the father of the people of Israel, never thought to bequeath the Holy Land to him, never considered him heir to "the blessing of Abraham." There were two distinct blessings in Isaac all along (Esau seems to have sensed this when he cried, "Have you only one blessing, my father?!"), intended for his two sons: Jacob was to be given the spiritual legacy of Abraham, while Esau was to be granted the blessings of the material world.

Isaac desired that a partnership should be formed between his two sons: that the scholarly, unworldly Jacob should devote himself to spiritual pursuits, while Esau should apply his cunning and worldliness to the constructive development of the material world, in support of and in harmony with Jacob's holy endeavors.

Rebecca disagreed: both worlds must be given to Jacob. There cannot be "two departments," for the material world cannot be entrusted to materialists. Only one who is steeped in the Divine wisdom can know how to make proper use of G-d's world. Only one who possesses a spiritual outlook and value system will be able to master the physical reality rather than be mastered by it.

Blessings and recipients.

Spoiler :

I've often wondered why Rebecca and Jacob went through all that fuss and bother to surreptitiously engineer that Isaac's blessings go to Jacob and not his older brother Esau.

On Rebecca's advice, Jacob waited till Esau had left the house to go hunting. Rebecca then cooked up a meal of goat meat – to taste like the venison that Esau was sure to bring – and then sheared the goats' skins so Jacob could wrap them around his arms to simulate hairiness, and even asked Jacob to don his brother's clothes

Isaac was blind, so when Jacob finally managed to creep into the room he had to imitate his brother's tone of voice and disposition, and then he prevaricated, dissembled and stretched the truth so that his aging father would not catch on.

Even after successfully receiving the blessings, for decades to come, he lived in fear of Esau's revenge.

Why bother? Why didn't he and his mother just march openly into Isaac's room, bring proof of Esau's wickedness and convince Isaac that Jacob was the more worthy candidate in the first place?

You Don't Have to Be Holy to Be Blessed

When I visit people in the hospital as part of my pastoral duties, I often hear variations on a common theme: "Rabbi, I'm praying, but I don't really know if I deserve a miracle, after all, I'm not very religious…" Others are even less sanguine; they just assume that their lack of Jewish knowledge or observance to date precludes them from ever receiving G‑d's favor.

Perhaps it was to dispel this attitude that Rebecca forced Jacob to go through the whole charade. Sure, he could have walked identifiably into his father's study, dressed all in white, exuding nobility and religiosity, and claimed his rightful blessings. But the unmistakable message for the future would be that only the Jacobs among us deserve to be blessed.

But that's not good enough for a true Yiddishe mama (Jewish mother). Rebecca wanted to ensure merit for all Jews, for all generations. By deliberately going down-market and dressing Jacob in Esau's clothing, she demonstrated that every one of us, even those who currently look and act like Esau, are equally deserving of our Father's blessings.

 

[timtofly]

Wow. So, he gets what he wants because "cannot have lied to Rachel", but this is the same dude whose heroics include deceiving an old, blind father?

Honestly, it seems like double-speak

Honestly, if Joseph and Benjamin had never been born.... How do we know that Jacob had any influence over his decisions?

Seems to me the only thing Jacob did right was this:

Spoiler :

25 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.

26 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him.

27 And he said: 'Let me go, for the day breaketh.' And he said: 'I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.'

28 And he said unto him: 'What is thy name?' And he said: 'Jacob.'

29 And he said: 'Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel; for thou hast striven with G-d and with men, and hast prevailed.'

30 And Jacob asked him, and said: 'Tell me, I pray thee, thy name.' And he said: 'Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?' And he blessed him there.

31 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: 'for I have seen G-d face to face, and my life is preserved.'