samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/30/85)
>> The sin of male homosexuality is punishable by death by skila (stoning). > Samet tells us what the Torah view of homosexuality. The question is: > Is it Samet's view that homosexuals should be treated nowadays according > to the Torah? [Yosi Hoshen] 1) Samet's view is that everything should always be done according to the Torah. 2) According to the Torah, capital crimes can only be tried when the Bais Hamikdosh (Temple) is standing and the Beis Din Hagadol (Supreme Rabbinical Court) is residing there (in which case they can also be tried elsewhere.) Fourty years before the destruction of the second Bais Hamikdosh the Sanhedrin was exiled and capital trials ceased. (reference:Maimonides, Mishna Torah, Sefer Shoftim, Hilchos Sanhedrin, Perek 14, Halacha 11-13) 3) When the Temple is rebuilt and the Sanhedrin is reconstituted (after the coming of Moshiach) capital punishment will be reinstituted. > If his answer is yes then I would have to agree with Rich on the issue. [Yosi Hoshen] People have justifiably complained about redundant rhetoric over this issue. Out of respect for Yosi, I will answer briefly, while trying to refrain from saying anything that is not new. Yes, the Torah does prescribe capital punishment for things like sexual sins and shabbos violation. In fact, it contains an account in which a shabbos violater was executed in Moshe's time. This fact may surprise those Jews who imagine that the Torah is very much in tune with modern American values. Now, along comes someone and says "The Torah considers xyz to be a capital crime." This information may be quite disturbing to such people. They can react in different ways. Here are a few: 1) verify that the Torah is not what they thought it was, and adjust to that reality, no matter how uncomfortable it may be 2) ignore what is openly stated in the Torah, and cling to wishful preconceptions 3) attack the person who makes disturbing revelations about the Torah rather than deal with the uncomfortable dissonance between the Torah and modern values After stating the fact the Torah prescribes the death penalty for homosexuality, I've been dismissed as a crackpot (for misrepresenting the Torah) and compared to a Nazi for believing in it. The crackpot charge is escapist, since it can be easily verified that there is no misrepresentation. The Nazi charge shifts attention to me rather than to the Torah, which is the source of my view. I would reverse the charge as follows: According to your reasoning, you should compare Judaism with Nazism. Why do you avoid that conclusion? I think it's because you recognize that such a comparison is ludicrous. If so, what does that say about your reasoning? Yitzchok Samet
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/07/85)
> = YITZCHOK SAMET > 1) Samet's view is that everything should always be done > according to the Torah. > > Yes, the Torah does prescribe capital punishment for things like > sexual sins and shabbos violation. In fact, it contains an > account in which a shabbos violater was executed in Moshe's time. > This fact may surprise those Jews who imagine that the Torah is > very much in tune with modern American values. > > Now, along comes someone and says "The Torah considers xyz to be > a capital crime." This information may be quite disturbing to > such people. They can react in different ways. Here are a few: > > 1) verify that the Torah is not what they thought it was, and > adjust to that reality, no matter how uncomfortable it may be > > 2) ignore what is openly stated in the Torah, and cling to wishful > preconceptions > > 3) attack the person who makes disturbing revelations about the > Torah rather than deal with the uncomfortable dissonance between > the Torah and modern values > > After stating the fact the Torah prescribes the death penalty for > homosexuality, I've been dismissed as a crackpot (for > misrepresenting the Torah) Hardly. I've never seen that here. On the contrary, I'm relatively sure you are representing the Torah quite accurately. > and compared to a Nazi for believing in it. And, again, rightfully so. The point being: you have based your views on what is right on the content of Torah. But who on earth are you to say that other people are obliged to hold that same view? You feel bound to those laws for yourself, and that is fine. But to claim that OTHERS *must* adhere to them because you do is ludicrous. What is your basis for doing so? Until you can give me such a basis, your assertions are NO DIFFERENT from those who would take some arbitrarily chosen book and declare that the content of that book consists of laws that everyone must follow. One (very extreme) example of this is Nazism: it holds that the content of Hitler's writings, which declare as a valid and good end, the elimination of Jews from the face of the earth. Who is any of us to question that "obviously right" set of writings? If you proclaim that to be arbitrarily true for one book, why shouldn't people like the Nazis do the same with theirs? The point is that if you can justify doing it for one book without solid reason behind it, you can do it with another. If you don't want to create a set of rules in which a Nazism could be justified in imposing its will on others, you cannot hope to do the same sort of imposition yourself! > The Nazi charge shifts attention to me rather than to the Torah, > which is the source of my view. I would reverse the charge as > follows: > > According to your reasoning, you should compare Judaism with > Nazism. Why do you avoid that conclusion? I think it's because > you recognize that such a comparison is ludicrous. If so, what > does that say about your reasoning? Read the above for the answer to that. In short: What is being compared is the set of metarules that would allow for arbitrary proclamation that MY (or YOUR) set of rules is enforceable as law because we say so despite our lack of evidential support for them. -- Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr