Leviticus 11, or The Unexpectedly Unclean Hoopoe

[Tassadar500]

You are right. Imagine if I would say that about the Bible or Koran. And to let you know I am a French Jew

[Tassadar500]

Also in Judaism there isnt only the "Torah" or Bible but also different books. Like the "Gemora" and "Chumash" which may explain. You cant really believe that eating humans is ok. Just because you cant find it in the Chrisitian Bible.

[Arrian]

Bustamike,

DAMN! I knew I'd left something out there. Haven't seen it in a while.

Nuc Winter,

I doubt it will make you feel better, but I'm sure that Immortal Wombat is similarly disrespectful of the Bible, Koran, or any other nonesensical mystical rambling.

-Arrian

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
Also in Judaism there isnt only the "Torah" or Bible but also different books. Like the "Gemora" and "Chumash" which may explain. You cant really believe that eating humans is ok. Just because you cant find it in the Chrisitian Bible.

Nor can you assume that it's in those books, without checking.

Is it?

[The Templar]

As the great American philosopher Chris Rock once noted, back in the day you had to tell people God said don't eat pig because you coud get trichinosis. Now that we have refrigeration, know about germs, and know how to properly cook things alot of these prohibitions are obsolete.

[Jack the Bodiless]

...True, pork is dangerous because of the diseases common to humans and pigs.

And human flesh is even worse. Which is why the apparent lack of an "unclean" label is all the more surprising. And increasingly suspicious...

These guys DID perform human sacrifices occasionally. And they were in the habit of burning sacrifices. Without a specific ban: what's to stop a curious and hungry priest from trying a bite from the barbecue?

[Tassadar500]

No we never had human sacrafices. That is not true. It does say we cant in those books. My name is not Nuc Winter and I find you all to be quite racist. Just my two cents.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
It does say we cant in those books.

Source?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
My name is not Nuc Winter and I find you all to be quite racist.

[Plan Austral]

If I recall correctly according to jewish law, human corpses are impure, you even have to wash your hands after touching one, that is why it is kinda obvious you can not eat them.

[Immortal Wombat]

So it's ok if they aren't dead?

Originally posted by Arrian
I doubt it will make you feel better, but I'm sure that Immortal Wombat is similarly disrespectful of the Bible, Koran, or any other nonesensical mystical rambling.

To be fair, I am a Christian, so although I will happily poke fun at the Bible (and the OT in particular), God knows its all in good fun, and that I love him really

[Jack the Bodiless]

No we never had human sacrafices. That is not true.

Then the Torah is wrong? Numbers 31 describes the sacrifice of 32 captured virgins (among other things).

Why do you find this so surprising? This was a time in which the Jews practised blood sacrifice and genocidal warfare (the total slaughter of all captives, including women and children). Why should they NOT choose to slaughter some of those captives by using them as blood sacrifices, as so many other ancient peoples did? Why is this so much worse than slitting their throats without sacrificing them, then sacrificing goats by slitting THEIR throats?

It does say we cant in those books.

Maybe it does NOW, yes. I'm certainly not suggesting that modern Jews do this! You think I'm a neo-Nazi Jew-hater or something?

And how is discussing archaic religious practices "racist"?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Noted.

I am unclean according to Jewish Law.

"What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

Matthew 15:11, and that's all I'm going to say on the issue of Jewish dietary laws.

all human beings are unclean under jewish dietary law - ie it is forbidden to eat their flesh. Eating pork will not make you unclean - it will (if you are a jew) make you a sinner. The Matthew therefore cant be referring to kashrut - IIRC, its actually a reference to disputes about correct tithing, etc.

You have however cleared up the whole rationale - what does it matter what comes out of a mans mouth?? because in doing so he communicates whats in his heart. And when a Jew who knows the law keeps it, he communicates something. When a jew who knows the law violates it, he communicates something. The laws of the torah thus give us a constant opportunity to assert our beliefs about God and our relationship to him - and not only by words, but by an entire range of actions. Thats what kashrut is about - not germs.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Then the Torah is wrong? Numbers 31 describes the sacrifice of 32 captured virgins (among other things).

it says in the translation im using that the lords portion was 32 virgins. It does not say they were slain.
You may be inferring that they were slain, since they are listed with various beasts. However in Judaism that would not be considered a valid inference, if it contradicted later prohibitions in the bible (for i which i do not have a quote handy) OTOH you may not be speaking in terms of how Judaism treats the document, but treating it as a historical document. Which is even more problematic, since the entire exodus (and with it the war against the Midianites described) is problematic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet


Source?

"When Hashem(the lord) , your God, will cut down the nations where you come to drive them away from before you, and you drive them away and settle in their land, beware for yourself lest you be attracted after them after they have been destroyed before you, and lest you seek out their gods saying, 'How did these nations worship their gods and even I will do the same.' You shall not do so to Hashem your God, for everything that is an abomination of Hashem, that He hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in fire for their gods." Deut 12:29-31

[lord of the mark]

btw i think weve stumbled on one of the hot button topics of jewish christian theological polemic. Christianity has said that the death of jesus is a sacrifice that atones for human sin, in lieu of the animal sacrifices made at the temple. Judaism has denied this on a number of grounds - but one has been that human sacrifice is forbidden. Therefore you can expect to find sources that will bitterly contest this reading of the Torah.

[lord of the mark]

"Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. "


there are human beings with cloven feet who chew the cud?????

[Jack the Bodiless]

all human beings are unclean under jewish dietary law - ie it is forbidden to eat their flesh.

Where's the actual scripture that says this, and is it similar in age to the Pentateuch?

It's a reasonable addition, given the disease hazard (as with pork), but has it always been thus?

it says in the translation im using that the lords portion was 32 virgins. It does not say they were slain.
You may be inferring that they were slain, since they are listed with various beasts. However in Judaism that would not be considered a valid inference, if it contradicted later prohibitions in the bible (for i which i do not have a quote handy) OTOH you may not be speaking in terms of how Judaism treats the document, but treating it as a historical document. Which is even more problematic, since the entire exodus (and with it the war against the Midianites described) is problematic.

Yes, I'm treating it as a historical document, so prohibitions apparently introduced much later wouldn't count. But I haven't found any later prohibitions in the books which constitute the Christian Bible, except specific prohibitions on sacrificing your own children (not applicable to captive enemies), and general comments such as "love thy neighbor as thyself" etc.

You shall not do so to Hashem your God, for everything that is an abomination of Hashem, that He hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in fire for their gods." Deut 12:29-31

Again, this isn't directly applicable to the sacrifice of captives. It also appears to contradict Exodus 22:29, "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me". It's possible that some editing has occurred: sacrifice of the firstborn was a Caananite practise, and El/YHWH was a Caananite god.

"Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. "

there are human beings with cloven feet who chew the cud?????

They wouldn't have included humans "among the beasts", so that doesn't apply either way. Obviously it isn't intended to exclude everything that isn't a cloven-hoofed cud-chewer (chickens, fish, carrots etc). All it's saying is that you CAN eat all cloven-hoofed cud-chewers.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless


Yes, I'm treating it as a historical document, so prohibitions apparently introduced much later wouldn't count.

well then its not very good evidence that the Jews practised human sacrifice, since it was at best written down centuries after the event, and there are problems with the entire notion of a mass exodus from Egypt.

[lord of the mark]

"You shall not do so to Hashem your God, for everything that is an abomination of Hashem, that He hates, have they done to their gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burnt in fire for their gods." Deut 12:29-31 "

>>Again, this isn't directly applicable to the sacrifice of captives

But thats how its been read by post-biblical jews. and its not unreasonable - if its repulsive to sacrifice your children, that could be cause their yours, or it could be cause their human.

[lord of the mark]

'They wouldn't have included humans "among the beasts", so that doesn't apply either way. Obviously it isn't intended to exclude everything that isn't a cloven-hoofed cud-chewer (chickens, fish, carrots etc). All it's saying is that you CAN eat all cloven-hoofed cud-chewers.'


but fowl and fish have their own laws, which are outlined in the verses that follow. The clear implication is that humans are unfit to consume.

[lord of the mark]

"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me"

the traditional interpretation is that the first born sons were to be dedicated as priests. Afterwards God directed that only the sons of Aaron were to be priests. Jews still practice the custom of Pidyon haben - redemption of the first born, wherebye a father of a first born son gives a coin to a "cohen" in lieu of his son.

[lord of the mark]

"Yes, I'm treating it as a historical document, so prohibitions apparently introduced much later wouldn't count"

but of course traditional judaism says that many elements of the mishnah are of EQUAL antiquity to the Pentateuch - they constituted an oral law, which was passed down by word of mouth from Moses and Joshua through judges and prophets to the time of the early rabbis.

Now its easy to take issue with that on a scientific basis - but just as easy to take issue with the historicty of the bible, especially the exodus.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
No we never had human sacrafices. That is not true. It does say we cant in those books. My name is not Nuc Winter and I find you all to be quite racist. Just my two cents.

wah wah, go tell it to the wailing wall

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cruddy
As for the hoopoe - maybe it just makes the line rhyme a bit more? (I'm under the impression you are supposed to chant the bible in ancient Aramaic to make it sound like a rap song).

it is chanted, but in the original Hebrew, not Aramaic. only a few portions of the bible are in Aramaic - certain parts of Daniel IIRC. Many later Jewish works like the Talmud are in Aramaic.

And most of the bible is in prose. In fact, iirc, even the more rhythmic poetic portions like psalms dont particularly rhyme.

[Jack the Bodiless]

well then its not very good evidence that the Jews practised human sacrifice, since it was at best written down centuries after the event, and there are problems with the entire notion of a mass exodus from Egypt.

True, but it seems unlikely that a tribe with a religious ban on human sacrifice would create a myth featuring a religious leader who apparently performed human sacrifices.

And then there's the almost-sacrifice of Isaac, and the sacrifice of Jephtah's daughter, and several other incidents. Human sacrifice (to THEIR god) wasn't exactly an alien concept to them. Hence, it seems perverse to invent "happy endings" for those 32 virgins (even fictional ones).

>>Again, this isn't directly applicable to the sacrifice of captives

But thats how its been read by post-biblical jews. and its not unreasonable - if its repulsive to sacrifice your children, that could be cause their yours, or it could be cause their human.

However, the sacrifice of captives was common at the time (the Egyptians did it IIRC), and the Jews (according to the Bible) had a habit of killing all unwanted captives anyhow: man, woman or child. Compassion seems like an unlikely disincentive. It's not at all comparable to killing your own kids.

'They wouldn't have included humans "among the beasts", so that doesn't apply either way. Obviously it isn't intended to exclude everything that isn't a cloven-hoofed cud-chewer (chickens, fish, carrots etc). All it's saying is that you CAN eat all cloven-hoofed cud-chewers.'

but fowl and fish have their own laws, which are outlined in the verses that follow. The clear implication is that humans are unfit to consume.

What about carrots? Remember, according to these guys, a human is no closer to a "beast" than a carrot is.

Besides, if "these shall ye eat" is interpreted as "only eat THIS stuff", that rules out vegetables right away. And ice-cream, chocolate etc. How many Jews believe that this is against their religion?

the traditional interpretation is that the first born sons were to be dedicated as priests. Afterwards God directed that only the sons of Aaron were to be priests. Jews still practice the custom of Pidyon haben - redemption of the first born, wherebye a father of a first born son gives a coin to a "cohen" in lieu of his son.

Every male without an elder brother is a "firstborn son", so that's a ridiculous surplus of priests, even allowing for infant mortality: maybe half the male population?

But that custom seems to support my case: the father is giving up (sacrificing) the coin, in place of his firstborn son.

Though I admit that the case for the former sacrifice of firstborn sons is weaker than the case for human sacrifice of captives, this could show a progression of attitudes over time: from the typically Cannanite child-sacrifice, to captives only, to no human sacrifice at all.

The cannibalism angle is nothing more than an argument from silence, but I'm still curious that nobody has yet actually quoted anything (from the Torah or from anywhere else) that spells out the prohibition.

[ajbera]

It is possible that this is one of the "unspoken" laws that are (for all intents and purposes) hard-coded.

Higher animals, for the most part, do not: a) eat their own kind (unless starving or in the case of f*cked-up offspring), b) mate with their own brothers and sisters (unless forced to do so by a lack of area in which to expand), and c) defecate in their home/feeding grounds.

Are their any Biblical prohibitions against b & c? If not, it may be because they were accepted as a "given", i.e., that which not need be taught because it was automatically understood (on a primitive behavioral level).

Just my 2 cents...

[Jack the Bodiless]

A reasonable argument, but "higher animals" don't generally toss their own kind onto altars and slit their throats for religious reasons either.

...Whereas cannibalism, in cultures where it WAS carried out, was itself a religious ceremony (with various justifications: gaining the strength of your enemy, or the wisdom of your grandfather etc). Not particularly compatible with J/C theology as we now understand it, but that might have been very different then.

...And I've just remembered Samson and Delilah. Even in J/C theology, magical powers residing in body parts (hair, in this case) was a familiar concept.

[ajbera]

There are a lot of kooky things "higher animals" don't do. Strong beliefs (in the supernatural, in unfettered personal freedom, etc.) cause humans to do all sorts of goofy ****.

But, I see your point. How prevalent was cannibalism among the pre-monotheistic Middle Eastern Bronze Age people? How prevalent was/is it among any people more advanced than Stone Age technology?

[Ben Kenobi]

jack:

Thought this thread dead and buried.

I can't find it anywhere in the Bible.

It might be implied by "love thy neighbor as thyself", maybe. But what if I don't care whether my neigbor eats me (being dead and all) if he doesn't actually kill me?

OT prohibitions against child sacrifice to Molech.

Leviticus 18:21

" 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed [1] to Molech,"

Leviticus 20:2-5

"Say to the Israelites: 'Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives [ 20:2 Or [ sacrifices ] ; also in verses 3 and ] any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him.

If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death,

I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech."

I'm not sure why you reject the earlier explanations of blood of animals.

Arguing from the lesser to greater, if God assigns a higher place to men than to animals, if he bars eating the blood of animals, why would he allow eating the blood of men?

As for NT prohibitions, you are looking for Acts 15:20

"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."