Post by steve_613++ on Sept 12, 2004 16:02:47 GMT -8
Hello chumash614 and Shalom.
Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure which post you're replying to, so here's my response to yours.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed. And I know lots of other repulsive facts about pigs; but it's not a problem for me---I don't eat pork. My G-d tells me pigs are not food. So I thankfully obey His commandment not to eat them.
In principle, I'm not against the Rabbinical practice of putting fences around .
Well, burgers are made from cow, not sheep or goat. As far as I'm aware, the miztvah refers to "kid" not calf. It does not say don't boil the young of any food animal in its mother's milk. Not that I ever intend to do such a thing, you understand, but the mitzvah does not refer to cow/beef. Furthermore, the mitzvah is specific in the wording of this prohibition in that it spells out "boiling/seething" rather than any other way of preparing; it specifies "kid" and rather than saying simply "milk" we are prevented from using "its mother's" milk. Okay, I'll admit this could mean the milk from the same species, but it seems to actually stipulate it's own mother as opposed to, say, it's sibling.
I follow Yeshua, who disagreed more than once with the Rabbi equivalents of his day about their traditions. "Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
It may be easy, but whose "law" is it? Again, I think we can learn much from Rabbinical traditions, but they must come second place to , and they must not conflict with it. Not that this one (meat/dairy) does, it extends it, but massively!
Agreed.
Now don't get me wrong, I want to hear anyone's view. In fact, I once read that one of the reasons orthodox Jews accept the Oral as inspired is because it explains things that would otherwise be inexplicable were we to rely only on the written . One example mentioned this mitzvah and the author said that the Hebrew phraseology used is unusual but the Oral explains why. If anyone knows more about this please share it. At the moment I do not accept Oral as binding or as inspired, but this does not mean that I do not consider it to be of value.
Shalom,
Steve.
Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure which post you're replying to, so here's my response to yours.
I believe that some foods are clean while others are not.
If it was good for you, I think G-d would allow it to be eaten.
Did you know that pigs are inbreeding cannibals? That is disgusting and fatally unhealthy.
On the subject of dairy and meat: I do not mix at all. I not only find it repulsive, but I feel that it does provide a fence around .
How do we know that the cheese for your burger was not from the burger's mother?
I follow the Rabbis, but I also understand your points.
I figure it is an easy law to practice.
" Do you want cheese on your hamburger? - No" Simple.
Now don't get me wrong, I want to hear anyone's view. In fact, I once read that one of the reasons orthodox Jews accept the Oral as inspired is because it explains things that would otherwise be inexplicable were we to rely only on the written . One example mentioned this mitzvah and the author said that the Hebrew phraseology used is unusual but the Oral explains why. If anyone knows more about this please share it. At the moment I do not accept Oral as binding or as inspired, but this does not mean that I do not consider it to be of value.
Shalom,
Steve.