The Jewish Jehovah's Witness.

[rosends]

Various interpretations and interpreters read the various statements of law the way they want to read them. Your quotation implies that it's permitted to have sexual relations during the day so long as you darken the room. But these are nit-picking justifications that have nothing to do with the spirit of why it must be dark, or night, to have sexual relations. The Talmud, the Zohar, and various other midrashim, are correct so far as I'm concerned, in their reasoning for why it must be night, or dark, when the nocturnal serpent is allowed to venture out into his dark realm to practice jus prima noctis, seeking out victims, vulnerable ova, with which to deposit his poison, so he can raise Cain while there's no Light.


John

Nit picking justifications? It is black letter law from the same source you quoted. But I guess because it proves you wrong you don't like it. Did you also know that the text says that a sage can have sex in a lit room? You can keep trying to contextualize stuff in your mumbo jumbo, but the law is what the law is.

 

[psychoslice]

Religions are composed of beliefs and belief statements like the one you're making. By your own reasoning, no belief statement, even the one you're making, is more right or true than any other. . . So it's arrogant, and a sign of ego, for you to dogmatically make the statement you're making. This is to say your tongue is clearly forming a noose around your own neck as it attempts to lasso everyone else.



John

Good try, but I don't have any beliefs, so there is no need for me to be arrogant.

 

[John D. Brey]

Good try, but I don't have any beliefs, so there is no need for me to be arrogant.

. . . Not to be argumentative, though I guess I am, you did imply that you believe no one religion is true or right. That is a belief. Unless of course it's simply a divine truth . . . like what the true religions believe they possess.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Nit picking justifications? It is black letter law from the same source you quoted. But I guess because it proves you wrong you don't like it. Did you also know that the text says that a sage can have sex in a lit room? You can keep trying to contextualize stuff in your mumbo jumbo, but the law is what the law is.

I don't have a problem with contradictions in the interpretation of scripture. I'll support the interpretation I agree with . . . without needing to deny another legitimate interpretation exists.


John

 

[rosends]

I don't have a problem with contradictions in the interpretation of scripture. I'll support the interpretation I agree with . . . without needing to deny another legitimate interpretation exists.


John

But the section I quoted, on niddah 17, you dismiss as "these are nit-picking justifications" even though it is just as primary and authoritative, and codified as Jewish belief and law. Why are you ignoring one section simply because it goes against what you want to claim? Be intellectually honest about it and admit that you ignore what you don't like.

 

[psychoslice]

. . . Not to be argumentative, though I guess I am, you did imply that you believe no one religion is true or right. That is a belief. Unless of course it's simply a divine truth . . . like what the true religions believe they possess.


John

Well I do have to use some type of communication here on this forum, and that is all it is, beliefs, especially strong beliefs only imprisons us, there is no room for anything else when we fill our cup up beliefs.

 

[John D. Brey]

But the section I quoted, on niddah 17, you dismiss as "these are nit-picking justifications" even though it is just as primary and authoritative, and codified as Jewish belief and law. Why are you ignoring one section simply because it goes against what you want to claim? Be intellectually honest about it and admit that you ignore what you don't like.

I think there's a contradiction between statements that phallic-sex belongs to the night, and statements that suggest that it's ok during the day. There's reason and rhyme for both beliefs, both statements. Both are true within their own context. What I consider nit-picking and a process of watering down the deeper meaning is nonetheless legitimate within the context of what's being said, and what's going on. Jewish scripture is designed for all kinds of Jews. Some are drunk on pshat, some go deeper. Some even get as far as the sod where God rests his feet, his heel, his thigh, in the dead of night (so to say).


John

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . beliefs, especially strong beliefs only imprisons us, . . ..

You seem to believe that strongly?


John

 

[psychoslice]

You seem to believe that strongly?


John

Its not believing it, its knowing it, you are trying your hardest to bring me to your level, but it just wont work, baby.

 

[Deeje]

In a nutshell, I would initially interpret that particular written code to be saying that in the new covenant, the written code will be abolished, since the living code, put into the inward part of Israel (her womb), will by then have been born into the world, and breathed, or spoken, a new Torah, that fulfills and thus enfeebles the initial code, that was written by, and as, a harsh taskmaster for, both corralling, and punishing, born-sinners.

I have no idea what you just said .....can you put that in language that I can understand?

 

[Jedster]

Why does Jehovah need any witnesses?

And, since you claim to be a witness, please tell us what you experienced when you saw Jehovah?

 

[rosends]

I think there's a contradiction between statements that phallic-sex belongs to the night, and statements that suggest that it's ok during the day. There's reason and rhyme for both beliefs, both statements. Both are true within their own context. What I consider nit-picking and a process of watering down the deeper meaning is nonetheless legitimate within the context of what's being said, and what's going on. Jewish scripture is designed for all kinds of Jews. Some are drunk on pshat, some go deeper. Some even get as far as the sod where God rests his feet, his heel, his thigh, in the dead of night (so to say).


John

You think there is a contradiction between 2 explicit statements which are said in the talmud so you latch on to one and start wriggling when the second is brought up. You insist that "phallic sex belongs to the night" even though the text that you quote says the opposite. Statements don't SUGGEST that sex during the day is ok, they say it outright. Your position is clearly wrong.

The rest of what you write ("legitimate within the context of what's being said"? really) is just flat out silly. Moving into questions of pshat and sod (neither of which you understand if you are invoking them here) is subtrefuge because you have lost your initial claim.

Ramble on.

 

[John D. Brey]

You think there is a contradiction between 2 explicit statements which are said in the talmud so you latch on to one and start wriggling when the second is brought up. You insist that "phallic sex belongs to the night" even though the text that you quote says the opposite. Statements don't SUGGEST that sex during the day is ok, they say it outright. Your position is clearly wrong.

The rest of what you write ("legitimate within the context of what's being said"? really) is just flat out silly. Moving into questions of pshat and sod (neither of which you understand if you are invoking them here) is subtrefuge because you have lost your initial claim.

Ramble on.

R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.25 What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'.26 The night is thus set aside27 for conception but the day is not set aside for conception. Resh Lakish stated: [The proof is] from here: But he that despiseth His ways28 shall die.29 As to Resh Lakish, how does he expound R. Johanan's text?26 — He requires it for the same exposition as that made by R. Hanina b. Papa. For R. Hanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop?​

Explain how this means sex is ok in the day? Give me the text you think turns these statements around, such that they actually mean sex during the day is ok, or good?



John

 

[rosends]

R. Johanan stated: It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.25 What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'.26 The night is thus set aside27 for conception but the day is not set aside for conception. Resh Lakish stated: [The proof is] from here: But he that despiseth His ways28 shall die.29 As to Resh Lakish, how does he expound R. Johanan's text?26 — He requires it for the same exposition as that made by R. Hanina b. Papa. For R. Hanina b. Papa made the following exposition: The name of the angel who is in charge of conception is 'Night', and he takes up a drop and places it in the presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, saying, 'Sovereign of the universe, what shall be the fate of this drop?​

Explain how this means sex is ok in the day? Give me the text you think turns these statements around, such that they actually mean sex during the day is ok, or good?



John

You really should continue reading to 17a so you don't look so foolish.

"R. Huna said, Israel are holy and do not perform their marital duties in the day-time. Raba said, But in21 a dark house this is permitted; and a scholar 22 may darken a room with his cloak and perform his marital duty."

So IN A DARK HOUSE this is PERMITTED. Night and day are not the issue. And, of course, the text explains WHY a dark place is required and it has nothing to do with anything you say. But hey...you only see your quote and not Jewish law. That's fine. Cherry picking works for you.
-------------
from another site which explains the text

"(Rava): In a dark house, it is permitted during the day.

1. A Chacham is always permitted. He covers with his garment in order that it will be dark."
-------------
Next question?

 

[John D. Brey]

You really should continue reading to 17a so you don't look so foolish.

"R. Huna said, Israel are holy and do not perform their marital duties in the day-time. Raba said, But in21 a dark house this is permitted; and a scholar 22 may darken a room with his cloak and perform his marital duty."

So IN A DARK HOUSE this is PERMITTED. Night and day are not the issue. And, of course, the text explains WHY a dark place is required and it has nothing to do with anything you say. But hey...you only see your quote and not Jewish law. That's fine. Cherry picking works for you.
-------------
from another site which explains the text

"(Rava): In a dark house, it is permitted during the day.

1. A Chacham is always permitted. He covers with his garment in order that it will be dark."
-------------
Next question?

There's a fundamental difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that "Israel are holy and do not perform their marital duties in the day-time." . . But the letter of the law "permits" the a makeshift darkness for those who are content to obey the letter of the law, though they're not really understanding, or performing, within the spirit of the law.

In the early part of Niddah 16a, we read, "It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.25 What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'". . . The scriptural proof relies on the words "day," and "night," not "light" and "dark." ----- So although the spirit of truth appears to be concerned about letting what should remain veiled in darkness, come into the light, it associates the darkness with "night" and the light with "day."

. . מילה [circumcision] is invalid at night; the prescribed time for its performance is during the day, in the daylight of man's wakeful life. מילה [circumcision] is not an offering to the powers of nature, which rule at night over the dark side of life; מילה [circumcision] does not relate to the physical aspects of man, which are fettered in thick darkness. Rather, מילה [circumcision] consecrates man to א–לש–די, Who rules freely over the dark powers He Himself created; מילה [circumcision] summons man and his darkest urges to the luminous heights of freedom of will. מילה [circumcision] is not a completion of, or supplement to, physical birth, but the beginning of a higher "octave." It marks the second, higher "birthday," man's entry into the Divine level of free and moral action. Physical birth belongs to the night . . . but מילה [circumcision], birth as a Jew, belongs to the daytime.

Hirsch Chumash at Gen. 17:23.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Why does Jehovah need any witnesses?

And, since you claim to be a witness, please tell us what you experienced when you saw Jehovah?

No one knows who you're responding to since you don't back quote?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

In a nutshell, I would initially interpret that particular written code to be saying that in the new covenant, the written code will be abolished, since the living code, put into the inward part of Israel (her womb), will by then have been born into the world, and breathed, or spoken, a new Torah, that fulfills and thus enfeebles the initial code, that was written by, and as, a harsh taskmaster for, both corralling, and punishing, born-sinners.

I have no idea what you just said .....can you put that in language that I can understand?

The NT says the law (Torah) was nailed to the cross of Christ. The idea is that it was fulfilled, and thus died, when Jesus fulfilled his purpose in life and died (the dying being part and parcel of the fulfillment). When Jesus is resurrected, a whole new understanding of the Torah is resurrected with him, which, as Paul tries to point out, was a complete mystery prior to the resurrection. Until Jesus was resurrected, there were elements of the law, the Torah, that were shrouded in mystery. They were neither true no false. They were "decrees" which had no specific meaning (chukkim) but were designed to be practiced as mere Jewish rituals for all time and eternity.

But the nature of these decrees (chukkim) were peculiar since many of them were clearly signs pointing to something other than the mere ritual performance. Jesus' death and resurrection activated something that until his resurrection, was pure ritual without a specific meaning.

God had to both provide the potential for Christ's resurrection in the OT (Torah) and hide it there as well. He had to do this since Jesus' victory on the cross could not be foreknown without it contradicting mankind's freewill. If Jesus was true humanity, he had to have freewill. And if he has freewill, there's the real potential that he will use that freewill to go against the Father's plan. . . Therefore God made provisions in the OT for Jesus' victory on the cross by making "decrees," which, if Jesus failed, would continue to be practiced by Jews as everlasting rituals (without a specific meaning), forever, but, which, should Jesus actually succeed on the cross (in which case God was prepared to unite with his humanity wholly) would be discernible signs pointing to Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection.

It wasn't until Jesus was resurrected that the apostles eyes were opened allowing them to see past the orlah of the fleshly scroll, the lambskin prophylactic, protecting God's most seminal thoughts from impregnating the wrong people, and even the wrong creatures: the principalities and powers in the air (1 Cor. 2:8). . . . If anyone is really interested in the subject, the essay Pagan Monotheism deals with it in more depth than the above.



John

 

[rosends]

There's a fundamental difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that "Israel are holy and do not perform their marital duties in the day-time." . . But the letter of the law "permits" the a makeshift darkness for those who are content to obey the letter of the law, though they're not really understanding, or performing, within the spirit of the law.

Actually, if you read the codification of the law, it permits it. You can create all sorts of invented distinctions, but the actual codification of the law is clear and you are wrong.

In the early part of Niddah 16a, we read, "It is forbidden to perform one's marital duty in the day-time.25 What is the Scriptural proof? That it is said, Let the day perish wherein I was born, and the night wherein it was said: 'A man-child is brought forth'". . . The scriptural proof relies on the words "day," and "night," not "light" and "dark." ----- So although the spirit of truth appears to be concerned about letting what should remain veiled in darkness, come into the light, it associates the darkness with "night" and the light with "day."

Ah, so now you are starting to make your own interpretation about what you think the "associations" mean and you introduce such wonderfully empty phrases as "spirit of truth" which has no value in Jewish law. Repeatedly quoting a selection from Rabbi Hirsch changes nothing about your incorrect position.

 

[John D. Brey]

. Repeatedly quoting a selection from Rabbi Hirsch changes nothing about your incorrect position.

. . . Except to say that if someone of the stature of Rabbi Hirsch can be wrong, or have the spirit of his statement ignored, twisted, or denied, who am I to protest should the same thing be directed my way?

Rabbi Hirsch appears pretty explicit in saying that night is the place of the flesh, nature, the powers of darkness, where the first birth is consummated. He says daylight is when the second birth is consummated. . . . Such that it's a dangerous and foolhearty thing to mix the night and the day just to accommodate the sexual habits and schedules of certain Jews. . . The spirit of the law has been amended, and abridged, simply because the spirit of the law is a bridge too far for the new Jews brought into the commonwealth by the epispasmic abridgment of the spirit of the law, the epispasmic stretching of spirit of Judaism. The nailing down of the spirit of Judaism after its arms have been stretched out as far as they can be stretched.


John

 

[rosends]

. . . Except to say that if someone of the stature of Rabbi Hirsch can be wrong, or have the spirit of his statement ignored, twisted, or denied, who am I to protest should the same thing be directed my way?

Rabbi Hirsch appears pretty explicit in his saying that night is the place of the flesh, nature, the powers of darkness, where the first birth is consummated. He says daylight is when the second birth is consummated. . . . Such that it's a dangerous and foolhearty thing to mix the night and the day just to accommodate the sexual habits and schedules of certain Jews.



John

He says all sorts of things. Remember, there was another thread on which I quoted things he said which absolutely denied your position. You are finding bits and pieces you like. But also remember, he never says that sex is forbidden during the day, you know, the way you said it.