I already learned the main reason, maybe in first grade: as a memorial to the “work of creation.” But no rationale explains the questions I asked here. What I see here is megalomania: look, I created heaven and earth and you have to remember it all the time. So this is one megalomaniacal demand being pushed aside in order to promote another megalomania — slaughtering sacrifices for Him?

The only thing your questions remind me of is that story we learned in kindergarten about the 400-zuz bet over Hillel’s behavior.

If anything, the only thing I can’t find any rational explanation for is how Michi is willing, again and again, to put up with this nonsense and this megalomaniacal attempt to butcher everyone’s minds here time after time.

That bet has nothing to do with this. He deleted me several times, and not rightly either. Nonsense? No, this is not nonsense. If it were nonsense, you wouldn’t react to it like that. You’re afraid of me, M. My questions are too hard for your brain, so much so that you call it “butchering.” Michi, unlike you, understands that if he doesn’t respond, it will bring down his whole method. After all, otherwise he loses. Even though, absurdly enough, he loses to me again and again.

Hello A’.
Take a look at Midrash Tanchuma, Tazria section, on the questions the wicked Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva. (It is also brought in tractate Bava Batra 10a.) There you’ll find an answer about circumcision and also about the Sabbath.

Also, if you study Talmud and midrashim, you’ll probably find answers to many questions.

Hello Tzachi. You can be sure I’ve studied everything you’re writing here. The question here knocks down Rabbi Akiva’s answer about circumcision. As for the Sabbath, the question still stands.

A — sometimes I wonder to myself whether you really believe the foolishness you write and genuinely don’t understand the problem, or whether you’re just pretending.
Sadly, as time goes on I realize you’re serious… and that’s what’s so sad..

Even though I long ago turned off Hell and burned down Heaven, at least His wicked people had rest on the Sabbath. But those miserable sacrifices — they have no rest even on the Sabbath because of that bloodthirsty one.

Forgive me, A’.
But from what you wrote it was hard to be sure what you know, since the support you brought for your knowledge was from first grade. (And it didn’t seem to me that they teach Midrash Tanchuma in first grade.)

And if you really do know Midrash Tanchuma and the rest of the Talmud and midrashim, then I fear you fit what is written in the Talmud: “If you read and did not review, and if you reviewed and did not study a third time, and if you studied a third time and it was not explained to you…” (Moed Katan 16b — surely you studied that too…)

In any case, in brief: let’s quote Midrash Tanchuma and let the public judge whether your questions are difficult or not. (At first glance it looks like you simply copied and pasted Turnus Rufus’s questions.)

1. There was an incident in which the wicked Turnus Rufus asked Rabbi Akiva…
Turnus Rufus said to him: If He desires circumcision, why does the child not emerge circumcised from his mother’s womb? Rabbi Akiva said to him: And why does his umbilical cord come out with him, hanging from his belly, and his mother cuts it? And as for what you say, why does he not emerge circumcised? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the commandments to Israel only in order to refine them through them. And therefore David said: “The word of the Lord is refined.”

Circumcision is not a blemish in human beings, but a correction of the vessel.

2. [Turnus Rufus said to Rabbi Akiva:] If, as you say, the Holy One, blessed be He, honors the Sabbath, then let Him not cause winds to blow on it, let Him not send down rain on it, let Him not make grass grow on it. He said to him: May the spirit of that man expire! I will give you a parable. Two people lived in one courtyard: if one made an eruv and the other did not, are they permitted to carry in the courtyard? But if only one person lived in the courtyard, then he is permitted throughout the whole courtyard. So too here: the Holy One, blessed be He, since there is no other domain alongside Him and the whole world is His, is permitted throughout His entire world.

That is more or less what I think Rabbi Michael meant in his answer too. The observance of the Sabbath above is different from our observance of the Sabbath, and so you have no basis to ask from the divine Sabbath about our Sabbath.
And as is known, the walls of Jericho fell on the Sabbath (according to the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Shabbat — surely you studied that too…), but by a miracle from Heaven.

3. Your question about sacrifices as well depends on the secret of the sacrifices.

4. And I’m not at all ashamed to tell you that even with what I know, I still have many difficulties. But from what I’ve learned, I know that the Torah is broader than the sea. And to attain all its secrets, great holiness is needed as well, and there are things whose level I still have not reached. For who can enter into the secret of the Sabbath, or the secret of circumcision, or the secret of the sacrifices?

Hope this helped somewhat…

The Lord happened to put before you “if you reviewed and did not study a third time” — under my instruction you wouldn’t have spoken nonsense. I am honored to adopt the saying.

Haha
Anekdoton, that was completely unintentional.

M, you can’t punctuate with “..” — there’s no such thing. And I already wrote to you that I’m A, period. As for the rest of what you wrote, there’s nothing to respond to. Basically what you wrote was: asdfghjklqwerty nonsense. What is there to respond to? That’s all you religious people have left, just ad hominem. From the start you addressed me with ad hominem. You’re boring, M. Surprise me once with something else, what do you say? I’m waiting for you, but be afraid of me.

Tzachi, people learn verses from the Hebrew Bible already in kindergarten, and there it says explicitly it is a memorial to the “work of creation.” I’m one of those people who only needs to read something once, because I understand logically that these are just words to understand, and there’s no hidden secret here that one has to dig for. Besides, it’s much easier and on a lower level than any other learning there is today, except for the language and spelling that you have to get used to. We’re advancing, not going backward in time. I didn’t copy and paste anything from Turnus Rufus; it’s not the same question. If He created in His image and completed the work, why did He command making a defect? You call it a “correction of the vessel” — why? As for the Sabbath, again, it’s not the same question. And Michi’s answer has nothing to do with what you wrote. The Jerusalem Talmud surely explained it so that someone like me wouldn’t come and ask about it. As for sacrifices, there is no more ridiculous and stupid superstition than that. That has already passed into a level of stupidity that cannot be described.

OK, I’m forced to join M.
What I will add for you as a final guiding sentence on your way is: “Faith begins where reason ends.” And the rest — go and learn!

You remind me of “Be silent! Thus it arose in My thought.” I won’t be silent; I don’t want to be an ignoramus, like you for example. As Plato said: “Ignorance is the root and branch of evil,” and that is exactly what it means in practice, when you support the slaughter of miserable sacrifices innocent of any trace of crime, because of empty words like: “the secret of the sacrifices.”

And why is slaughtering the innocent for human consumption OK?
And to shorten the process, I’ll continue your answer: that’s also not OK!
And then we would have to enter into a discussion of why killing an innocent cockroach is considered OK?

And as the verse says (book of Hosea — surely you studied it): “Those who sacrifice man kiss calves.”
The meaning is that if, in your view, ignorance is the root and branch of evil, then fake compassion toward animals also shows us cruelty toward human beings.

And as we saw clearly in the terrible Holocaust, in the Nazis’ attitude toward their dogs.

Then if necessary, discuss it all the way down to the ant. No, I do not sacrifice people and I do not sacrifice calves. I have no hatred for human beings. As for the Holocaust, it happened for other psychological reasons. By the way, Hitler heard voices. Meaning: schizophrenic. Tens of millions died because of a schizophrenic — where was God in Hitler’s schizophrenia? I’ll tell you: he was going in His name.

A. You can’t accept one verse in the Hebrew Bible (the Sabbath) literally, without secrets, and challenge it with questions, and then reject the other verse (“those who sacrifice man,” etc.) completely. If you take that literally too, then yes, my friend, this fake compassion is evidence of hatred for human beings. (I don’t know you; examine yourself.)

B. You know the psychological reasons for the Holocaust????? Wow. Are you a prophet? Or the son of a prophet?
In any case, I didn’t write the reason for the Holocaust. I only pointed to an example of the idea of “those who sacrifice man”…
It is told that one of the great rabbis of Israel (I don’t remember his name) was walking in Berlin and saw a German kissing his dog. He said: instead of this, they will murder people. It is simply evidence of what is taking place in a person’s soul.

C. In any case, you’re assuming something and then raising questions.
Who told you one must be compassionate?
Who told you how to be compassionate?
Who told you how much one must be compassionate?

You built for yourself an understanding and a value system that may be right for today and tomorrow may change. There is no truth in these fake values.

Unfortunately (and truly not as an evasion), I don’t have the time to explain to you the real meaning of the proper trait of compassion according to the Torah, and likewise every other trait. (Or value, whatever you want to call it.)
I think and am certain that if you study deeply — preferably with a study partner — read, review, study a third time, and also look at the commentaries, you will become convinced of the truth of these things.
All this back-and-forth sparring won’t help you.
Good luck!

Listen, buddy, with that response you’re really poking me in the eye. And now I’m also going to put an end to your throwaway remarks where you keep pushing me to study — I can teach you and the one who taught you together. I didn’t play around when I was in yeshiva and go wandering; I knew what yeshiva-home-home-synagogue was. And I’m also going to put an end to these “secrets” you keep backing here — there are no secrets. Show me one secret I haven’t already learned and see how I break it down into its components. I didn’t reject “those who sacrifice man”; I answered you that I sacrifice neither man nor calf — what do you want, that I should be forced to sacrifice? And as for the meaning of the verse, I answered you that I don’t hate people. So where did you get “evidence of hatred for man” from? I’ve read researchers on the psychological causes of the Holocaust, and it has nothing to do with vegetarianism. Vegetarianism could perhaps be a factor related to conscience, but it is not the psychological reason that brought about the Nazis’ attitude toward the Jews. And as for all the rest of what you wrote, one thing is certain: the Hebrew Bible is not the path to morality. But I have a compass better than any other, and it is attributed to Hillel the Elder, who said: What is hateful to you, do not do. Good luck.

Tzachi, I’ll just note that “those who sacrifice man kiss calves” means that the idol worshippers (the golden calf and Jeroboam’s calves) offered human sacrifices, which the Torah forbade, and the prophets protested against it, as in “and they built the high places of Topheth to burn their sons in fire, which I did not command.” The midrashic interpretation that someone who has compassion on animals loses the distinction between them and people and then kills people is a homiletical interpretation (perhaps a nice one) and nothing more (and I really, really do not see it in reality).

And with your permission, Tzachi, I’ll add that it sounds bizarre to me to form a realistic worldview on such broad topics based on a verse, even if it somehow had some connection to what the writer of the verse meant. That’s not the way and not the place. First you look around, and only then do you adjust the interpretation.

To the point of the question: why does God need to be consistent?!

So I’ll ask you a question, Rabbi A’, esteemed sir!
If someone tells you to kill so-and-so, and if not, he’ll kill you — will you kill that person or not?
Please try to explain to me, and break down into components, how the worldview of Plato or Aristotle and their friends would solve this dilemma?

You’re grabbing the secondary and leaving the main point. I don’t care whether you study or not. And I don’t care where you studied and how much. In practice, in the end, you’re just getting angry and not answering the questions I directed to you.

Who told you one must be compassionate? Who told you how to be compassionate? Who told you how much one must be compassionate?

Hope I poked you… (just kidding, with love for the Jewish people)

Hey there, dear Tet (you disappeared on us…)

Rabbi A’, our esteemed friend, brought in his words Plato’s statement about ignorance being the root of evil, etc. There’s no problem bringing against his words a light homiletic teaching, even if it is correct and absolutely true.
If you don’t see it — then lift up your eyes around you. Murdering people is not only physical. You know that words can kill too. But there’s no point in elaborating on the fake compassion of animal-rights activists…

OK. I thought you had made the common mistake of many otherwise serious people — that this verse actually says the claim (which I think is false, as I said) that among people in the world, more compassion for animals goes hand in hand with more cruelty toward people in word and deed. And I see the exact opposite, so much so that I wonder about the prophet who said, “Woe to those who call bitter sweet and sweet bitter” — why didn’t he take a more common example: “Woe to those who have compassion on animals and are cruel to people”? This requires further thought.
[What’s more, since in my eyes this statistical claim is absurd on its face, I get the impression that it is a tree of laziness for those who cling to it, and is merely a shield against the pangs of conscience of those who not only do nothing but even despise others who do, and it is nothing but a product of empty pretentiousness, etc. etc. And the discerning will understand. Though psychologizing can go in all directions.]

To A’ — greetings,

Are you vegetarian?

Regards, Karnei Bor

Psik, you’re right. He is both the Other Side and the Side of Holiness. He doesn’t need to be consistent.

Tzachi, where did I get angry? You didn’t even get a spark out of me. Why does someone need to tell me to be compassionate? It’s ingrained in me. Certainly my blood is dearer and more fitting to my creator, the bloodthirsty one. And as for the “fake compassion” of those activists — how do you know? Do you examine hearts and kidneys and we didn’t know? Why are you peeking sideways? Do what you need to do.

Tet, more power to you.

Informational Question, the question is misplaced. It’s not “Are you vegetarian?” It’s “How can one not be vegetarian?”

Wonderful, Rabbi A’, we’re beginning to make a little progress.
You’re not angry, and you’re also starting to address the substance of what’s being said by answering my questions a bit. But unfortunately you burden the discussion by not finishing.
Let’s say that, to make things easier, I’ll give up for now on the three questions about “compassion” — and ignore your amusing answer that it is simply ingrained in you.

Maybe you’ll answer my first question about a person who tells you to kill so-and-so, and if not, he’ll kill you. Will you kill that person or not?
Please try to explain to me, and break down into components (with emphasis on the “breaking down into components” you boasted about), how the worldview of Plato or Aristotle and their friends would solve this dilemma? And how would you personally answer this question out of the natural compassion ingrained in you?

Wishing you great success!!

Tell me, Tzachi, how do you read? From bottom to top and from the end to the beginning? I answered you on everything. Go back over my words and review them three times. Good luck.

Sorry, I didn’t understand that that was supposed to answer the question. It looked more like a confused accusation.

In any case, I’ll try to make it even easier for you and conduct some of the discussion with myself in your place.
You claim that “your blood is dearer and finer.” You didn’t break anything down into components. You didn’t answer the question of how you arrived at that from the worldview of the gentile philosophers. And you didn’t explain how you arrived at it from the natural compassion ingrained in you.

And I ask: is that the natural compassion in you? To say that your blood is dearer and finer? Maybe that’s not so nice to say?
Moreover, let’s change the question:
A person comes and tells you to kill an animal (innocent, of course), and if not, he’ll kill you.
Would you kill an innocent animal on the grounds that your blood is dearer and finer??? Where did your natural compassion go????

And you surely understand by yourself that answering that, heaven forbid, you would let yourself be killed and not the animal — that would require urgent hospitalization!!!

What I’m trying to explain to you (and I hope you finally understand) is that one cannot judge the trait of compassion by human reason.

And so too, for example, in a case where a person can save only a man or a woman — whom should he save first in the order of priorities?
Can you answer such a question out of your natural compassion??
And if your answer is yes, then do me a favor — I’m tired of talking to a wall.

No nation in the world can decide matters of life and death out of true compassion (and not fake compassion), except according to what is written in the Torah given by the Creator of the world.

I call it “fake compassion” because, as I already wrote to you, the world of values you built for yourself out of intellect or emotion consists of things that may be right today and tomorrow may change. Divine wisdom is required here!!

Most likely I haven’t convinced you. I don’t know what happened to you. Hope we’ll meet in the World to Come after 120 years.

In my opinion, when Rabbi Michi answered that one must know why God forbade work on the Sabbath, I think he meant that one has to learn the definitions that emerge from this. That is, once you know the definition of “work” regarding the prohibitions of the Sabbath, you will automatically understand why there are things that were permitted (and actually they weren’t permitted, but were never forbidden in the first place).
The same goes for the matter of the blemish you’re talking about. According to Judaism, the foreskin is a blemish and should be removed. The complete Jew is specifically one whose covenantal organ is exposed from its fleshy covering. From the standpoint of Judaism, this is like a sixth toe on the foot; science and modern society too would support removing it and would not see it as inflicting a blemish.
As for your claim about the sacrificial service on the Sabbath, that actually has nothing specifically to do with the Sabbath. From your words it sounds like what bothers you is the blood — that is, sacrifice as such. At least pay attention to what you’re asking..

What does the wicked son say? “What is this service to you?” To you — and not to him. And because he excluded himself from the community, he denied the fundamental principle.

Yes, pardon me, but these are questions that don’t exist… Like asking: why is there no circular triangle? Good question — the answer is with Rabbi A’. Good luck 😉

With God’s help, 5 Elul 5780

Circumcision is an act symbolizing the making of the covenant between God and His people Israel, and the personal belonging of the circumcised person to that covenant. In the case of an infant being circumcised, this is an act in which the pain, when done professionally, is minimal, and it also has medical benefit in preventing various diseases.

The sacrifice expresses a person’s recognition that his livestock and possessions, which he toiled over, came to him from God — just as the earliest offerers did: Cain, who brought from the fruit of the ground that he cultivated, and Abel, who brought “from the firstborn of his flock and from their fat,” which he raised.

Here too the Torah made clear that this “giving” is not enough, for God, to whom the whole world belongs, has no need for a “gift from flesh and blood.” It is man who needs this symbolic giving, so that he not become a “megalomaniac” who thinks, “My river is mine and I made myself,” but rather acknowledge gratitude to his Creator. And the essence of that gratitude should lead him to improve his deeds, as God demanded of Cain: “Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be uplifted.”

Abel’s innovation was revolutionary, for at that time the slaughter of animals for food had not yet been permitted, and he seemingly introduced the idea that it was permitted in order to express gratitude to God. But his God agreed with him and turned favorably to his offering. However, from the time meat was permitted to humanity after the flood, offering sacrifices became more understandable. If for the honor of an esteemed guest a person is willing to slaughter an animal, then for the honor of his Creator he suddenly becomes “more moral”?

In any case, the Torah made clear that this giving is only symbolic. The daily obligatory offering of the entire people is two sheep less than a year old, and no more; on the Sabbath, two more sheep. Only on festivals and new moons do they add two bulls and a ram, or a bull and a ram. Only during the seven days of Sukkot do they altogether offer seventy bulls, representing the seventy nations.

The individual is obligated only in one small lamb for the Passover sacrifice once a year, and some offering for the festival offering on the pilgrimage festivals. Again, this is a “symbolic giving,” clarifying that the Creator has no need of human gifts; rather, man needs sacrifices in order to express in symbolic form his gratitude to the One who gave him everything.

Regards, Shatz

Paragraph 5, line 3
… and on new moons they offer…

Rabbi Shatz, we love you, dear and beloved man 🙂
Good and blessed night (I’ve wanted to write that to you for a long time 😉

Dear Rabbi Shatz, and your words should be conceptualized with Leibowitz’s saying: that the commandment does not apply to the object, but only to the person… [and these matters are very deep]

God rejected Cain’s offering and discriminated between him and Abel, for no logical reason. After Cain murdered Abel, God wondered where he was. God isn’t good at hide-and-seek.

As for your questions: the walls fell on the seventh day of circling the city, but not on the Sabbath. And even if it was on the Sabbath, then according to your approach that was in the days of Joshua, long before the priestly source that commands the Sabbath. B. He created the first man in His image, and he indeed was born circumcised. And besides, how do you know that the Creator Himself is not circumcised? And if you say that if so He should have created human beings circumcised — perhaps they are in His image, and even in the upper worlds there are processes of foreskin and uncovering? (Have you heard of the circumcision of Zeir Anpin in the kabbalah of the Ari?) C. He forbade labor on the Sabbath, and did not forbid the sacrificial service, because that is not labor forbidden on the Sabbath. Are you challenging the Creator because of the rabbis’ interpretations?!

Zeir Anpin has nothing to do with the Torah. So is the Creator circumcised or not circumcised? And I challenge everything from everything.

If these are what count as difficulties in your eyes… your situation isn’t great 🙂

One difficulty joins another, and together they create a mighty light.

Zeir Anpin is an interpretation and illustration of the Torah… I answered. Either only the first man was created in the divine image and indeed was born circumcised like the Creator. Or all of us were created in the image of the Creator, insofar as He Himself undergoes processes parallel to what אצלנו comes to expression in foreskin and circumcision. That is, the process itself is part of the image of God. Otherwise you’ll always ask: which human is the image? The male or the female? Maybe both (as in Pauline Christianity)? And if so, at what age? Is a baby in the image? And is the bent hundred-year-old also in the image? Rather, the entire process itself is the image!

Who performs the Creator’s circumcision?

With God’s help, 5 in the month of “your heart and the heart of your offspring” 5780

To Gil (the flexible one?) — greetings,

What do you think of the brilliant idea that the “image” of God — who is not a body and has no bodily form — is a spiritual form: knowledge, understanding, truth, and goodness, through which a person can resemble his Creator to a certain extent?

Regards, Letter of Souls (= Noah, with seven spelling mistakes 🙂