Talmud Bavli Hullin 78a-b - translation by Tzvee

Bavli Hullin Chapter Five Folios 78A-83B

                                                                     5:1

                A.            [The prohibition against slaughtering on the same day] “it and its young” (Lev. 22:28) applies (1) in the Land and outside the Land, (2) in the time of the Temple and not in the time of the Temple, (3) in the case of unconsecrated beasts and in the case of consecrated beasts.

                B.            How so?

I              C.            He who slaughters it and its offspring, (1) which are unconsecrated, (2) outside [the Temple courtyard] — both of them are valid. And [for slaughtering] the second he incurs forty stripes.

II             D.           [He who slaughters] (1) Holy Things (2) outside — [for] the first is he liable to extirpation, and both of them are invalid, and [for] both of them he incurs forty stripes.

III           E.            [He who slaughters] (1) unconsecrated beasts (2) inside [the Temple courtyard] — both of them are invalid, and [for] the second he incurs forty stripes.

IV           F.             [He who slaughters] (1) Holy Things (2) inside — the first is valid, and he is exempt [from any punishment], and [for] the second he incurs forty stripes, and it is invalid.

Talmud Bavli Hullin 77a-b - translation by Tzvee

And furthermore [we have a principle that] the Torah had mercy on the money of an Israelite [b. 49b].

I.              Said R. Pappa to Rabbah [=Raba], “[We must take into account the view of] R. Simeon b. Laqish [who disputes the view of R. Yohanan in b. Pes. 84a and holds that the sinews are not deemed to be flesh]. And [we are dealing here with] a prohibition [of an animal that is terefah] that is based on the authority of the Torah. And you say, `What should we suspect?'”

J.              He [Raba] was silent. And why was he silent? Lo, did Raba not say that the law follows in accord with the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish in these three [specified cases, not including ours, per b. Yeb. 36a]?

K.            This one is different because R. Yohanan retracted his view regarding the matter in deference to the view of R. Simeon b. Laqish. For he said to him, “Stop annoying me. I teach this as a personal view.”

NYTimes: Complaining Clergy @ the 9/11 Ceremony = Chutzpah

The Times reports that clergy are complaining that they are not being included in the 9/11 ceremonies.

We think it's just wrong for rabbis, ministers and priests to seek publicity and self-aggrandizement on the backs of the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Now those clergy might argue with us that they indeed are merely humble servants of God and of those victims and their families. They might proffer that they are just stepping up to serve the needs of the occasion. After all, they might assert, clergy must be there at the 9/11 memorials to show the participants how to pray. And religious leaders must be there at the 9/11 commemorations to make sure that everyone grieves in the proper manner.

We don't think that line of argument holds any credence. The public NYC 9/11 ritual makes no call for clergy intervention, leadership or participation. Here is how the NYC 9/11 events have been held in the past according to the Times report:

Talmud Bavli Hullin 76a-b - translation by Tzvee

4:6 [76a]

                A.            A beast, the [hind] legs of which are cut off below the knee, is valid.

                B.            [If they are cut off] above the knee, it is invalid.

                C.            And so [if] the juncture of the thigh sinews was removed [it is invalid].

                D.           [If] the bone broke [but was not cut off], if most of the meat remains, slaughtering it renders it [the broken leg] clean.

                E.            And if not, slaughtering it does not render it clean [and the broken leg cannot be eaten, but the rest of the beast is valid].

I.1

A.            Said R. Judah, said Rab, said R. Hiyya, “Below, [means] below the knee. Above, [means] above the knee. About which [part of the leg beneath the] joint did they speak? The [part of the leg beneath the] joint that is sold with the head [as waste].” [See Cashdan, p. 419, for a discussion of the anatomical reference.]

Talmud Bavli Hullin 75a-b - translation by Tzvee

[75a] [We can avoid this objection by stipulating that the case here is one of] an act of slaughter that is dry [i.e., no blood spurts on the animal] and not in accord with the view of R. Simeon [M. 2:5 E].

G.            Who is the Tannaite authority behind the rule [in E]: If it [the live birth from a slaughtered mother] passed through a river, it became susceptible to uncleanness [by virtue of the water]. If it went to a cemetery, it became unclean [by virtue of passing over graves]? Said R. Yohanan, “It is R. Yosé the Galilean.”

H.           As it was taught on Tannaite authority: R. Simeon b. Eleazar says in the name of R. Yosé the Galilean, “It is susceptible to uncleanness as food and imparts uncleanness as food and requires preparation [to be susceptible to uncleanness].” Rabbi (the Talmud's version: sages) says, “It does not impart uncleanness as food, because it is alive, and that which is alive does not impart the uncleanness as food” [T. 4:6 B-C].

Did Rick Perry Violate one of the Ten Commandments in the Presidential Candidates Debate?

What do we do when a front runner candidate for presidential nomination speaks outright lies?

Rick Perry repeated last night in public on national TV what he said in his 2010 book, namely that the Social Security program of the US is a "ponzi scheme."

That is an absolute falsehood. Social security is an essential legal and long established retirement program that millions of Americans have relied upon for several generations.

A "ponzi scheme" is an illegal criminal activity that takes people's money under utterly false pretenses.

Had Perry sworn that Social Security program is a "Ponzi scheme" he would have violated one of the Ten Commandments.

A vain oath is a statement which denies self-evident facts. When the statement invokes the name of God as a sworn oath, it is a violation of the third commandment -- Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 -- You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Mishnah Shabuot 3:8 says: "What is the definition of a vain oath? If one has taken an oath to differ from what is well known to people. If he said (1) concerning a pillar of stone that it is made of gold, (2) concerning a man that he is a woman, (3) concerning a woman that she is a man..."

Obviously if a person took an oath that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" -- that would be a vain oath and a violation of the third commandment.

CBS news reported that influential republicans Karl Rove and Dick Cheney criticized Perry for his statement:

Perry called the popular federal program a Ponzi scheme in his 2010 book "Fed Up!" and his views have come under scrutiny since he entered the presidential race last month. Most recently, Republican strategist Karl Rove said Perry's take on Social Security will prove "toxic" in the 2012 election. Former Vice President Dick Cheney also said recently it was inaccurate to call the program a Ponzi scheme.

In fact, Perry was not under oath during the debate. So technically and Talmudically, no, he did not violate the biblical prohibition against a vain oath.

But yes, technically and Talmudically he did speak a big brazen utter lie.

Talmud Bavli Hullin 74a-b - translation by Tzvee

R. Joseph sat before R. Huna and he say and stated, “Said R. Judah, said Rab, `If one ate such, he is subject to the punishment of flogging.' Said to him one of the rabbis, `Pay no attention to him. This is what R. Yitzhak bar Samuel bar Marta said in the name of Rab: If one ate such, he is not subject to the punishment of flogging.'”

D.            Said to him R. Huna, “On which authority shall we rely?” R. Joseph [angrily] turned away. He [Joseph] said to him, “What is the question? I stated matters regarding an animal that dies that [the dangling flesh] is considered to be detached. They stated matters regarding the act of slaughter, [that dangling flesh] is not considered to be detached.” [See above IV.2 A.]

Is Prayer at a Football Game Kosher?

It’s fall and it’s football season. Once again we are confronted with the problem of what to do about religious football fans who want to pray at the stadium right before the game begins. I believe that prayer at a football game does not elevate the sport. It causes cultural and spiritual confusion. And it cheapens the religion.

So no, prayer at a football game is not kosher. Here is why.

Some well-meaning people think that religion is much like a team sport. They come out in public events to root for their team and to sing a loud cheer – and their prayers. They believe that makes them true fans, and good religious people. They have faith that rooting loudly in prayer at a real sporting event unites them with other true fans, gives them more of a common bond, a greater sense of community, religious and sporting.

Talmud Bavli Hullin 73a-b - translation by Tzvee

In accord with whose view is this? In accord with the view of R. Meir. As it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: All handles of utensils that are [too] long and that one is going to cut off — one immerses them up to the place of their proper measure [the Talmud here gives these attributions: — the words of R. Meir. And sages say... ]. R. Judah says, “[They are not clean] until one will immerse the whole object” [M. Miq. 10:5 A-C].

F.             You could even maintain [that the rule of our Mishnah accords with] the view of the rabbis [i.e., Judah] that regarding the connections in [a bulk of solid] foods, we treat it as if it was a conglomeration of separate portions that touch one another.

NYTimes: Blogger Richard Silverstein received classified US intelligence files on Israel

Blogger Richard Silverstein of the Tikkun Olam blog made the NY Times page one today, for his role in a USA-on-Israel espionage case in 2009.

Leak Offers Look at Efforts by U.S. to Spy on Israel
By SCOTT SHANE
New details have emerged in the case of an F.B.I. translator who was sentenced last year to 20 months in prison for leaking classified information to a blogger.