Subj : Re: Extent of the Torah
To   : JOSHUA LEE
From : TODD HENSON
Date : Mon Oct 30 2000 06:32 pm

> SGID: 1:167/133.0 39fc261c
> -=> TODD HENSON wrote to JOSHUA LEE <=-
> 
>  >  >  FM> movies based on those stories.  The dialogue took certain words 
and
>  >  >  FM> analyzed them ad infinitum.  One of these words was "veer."  It 
was
>  >  >  FM> sort of like reading _Mad_ Magazine long before it was in 
existence.
>  >  >
>  >  > Mad actually has been around a pretty long time; yer dating yourself!
>  >  > Actually, I think Mad has been around before I was.
>  >
>  >  TH> Ah, Mad. I have many a fond memory...
>  >
>  > I wonder if Alferd E. Neuman is running for President this year...
> 
>  TH> With Sylvester P Smythe as his running mate? I'd vote for him. :-)
> 
> Um, who's Smythe? :-)


The mascot for Cracked magazine, similar to mad. Don't you play with me
like that!


>  >  > chayiv misa. (*Liable* for the death penalty; keeping in mind of
>  >  > course, that Jewish courts have such strict rules for the death
>  >  > penalties that it is effectively impossible to carry out according
>  >
>  >  TH> It couldn't be carried out until a new Sanhedrin is formed, right?
>  >  TH> Which IIRC requires a temple?
>  >
>  > Yes. Though even with a Sanhedrin, it is nearly impossible to carry
>  > out. A Sanhedrin that executes once in 7, another opinion; once in
>  > 70 years, is called a "bloody court" in the Talmud.
> 
>  TH> Which basically makes the death penalty non-existent. But, why even
>  TH> HAVE it on the books in the first place (back during the time
>  TH> when it was in effect), if it's never really to be carried out?
> 
> "There has never been and never will be a rebellious son. Why then,
> is it written? Study it, and recieve a reward! There has never been
> and never will be an idolatrous city. Why then, is it written? Study
> it, and recieve a reward!"


Ah, some thought food! Alrighty then. Hopefully I'm not too dense today. 

I guess one approach would be to look at it in elementary terms, citing the
fact that there ARE 
rebellious sons and idolatrous cities, and say that the reference doesn't
make much sense to 
me.

But, I assume that whoever wrote this originally did so for a reason,
within a particular religious 
or cultural context that I'm not real familiar with, and that it has
meaning. I also assume that the 
thing which is written is referring to rules against rebellious sons and
idolatrous cities, even 
though they are claimed to have not existed. I guess just operating on that
small lead, I'd say 
that what you're trying to tell me is that some rules are written in the
Tanakh which are not 
meant to really be carried out, but to illustrate some lesson - such as the
severity of sin.

Is that in the ballpark?
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr4
 * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-5016 (1:10/345)

.