Talk:Self-sacrifice in Jewish law

Untitled
Dear Jon513:

I choose, to strongly disagree with your redirecting Self-sacrifice under Jewish law to Pikuach nefesh for the following reasons;

Firstly, contrary to your claim that the Pikuach nefesh article contains all info on the issue this is completely wrong, for 95% of the article isn’t at all dealt with, except for mentioning the three sins briefly, (and this to, with vary confusing language for the typical – non Jewish – reader).

Secondly, the article Pikuach nefesh is not at all well written. It’s confusing, non-orderly, and repeats some facts numerous times, Etc.

Therefore, except and until if you find a way to incorporate ALL info from Self-sacrifice under Jewish law into Pikuach nefesh (or vice versa, as far as I’m concerned) I’ve reverted your redirect to its former stand.

P.S. I’ll also try to work on merging the pages to satisfy your concern.

With great sincerity:

Bloger 19:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As it stands now the page is unintelligible to a reader not already familiar with the topic and it is worthwhile to completely rewrite it from scratch. It unnecessarily introduces confusing terms (mesirat nefesh, yehareg ve'al ya'avor, Chillul Hashem, Kiddush Hashem) some of which are not explained at all.  It confuses the term mesirat nefesh citing both a literal meaning (dieing for the faith) and a figurative one (trying really hard).  Also it misses many of the most important aspect of the law (The biblical references (Deut. 6:5), (Leviticus 22:32); a person is not punishable for sins committed under duress even if it was still forbidden).  I started rewriting it and found that the only way to present it was in context of Pikuach nefesh.  This is the exception to the general rule, if you don't explain the rule the exception makes no sense.  After a few tries I gave up tring to rewrite and decided a redirect would make more sense. Jon513 20:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Jon513:


 * I’ve redone it, what do you think?


 * Bloger 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * much better. Jon513 14:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Minconception
Pikuach nefesh neither translates into "self-sacrifice" nor does it connote this. Rather, pikuach nefesh as a concept is one that placed life above virtually all other religious considerations. In fact, pikuach nefesh is the opposite of self-sacrifice -- self-sacrifice is when the principle of pikuach nefesh fails to override the circumstance, and one must in fact place the other religious considerations above human life. Self-sacrifice is a rough translation of yeihareig v'al ya'avor.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Self-defense
So, you should refuse an order to kill, even if it means your own death, but what of killing someone whose intent is to kill you first? Or others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This the law in Tractate Sanhedrin 72a:


 * Gemara: Said Rabha: The reason why the Torah freed the detector if he killed the burglar is because it is certain that a man cannot control himself when he sees his property taken. And as the burglar must have had the intention to kill anyone, in such a case, who should oppose him, the Torah dictates that if one comes to kill you, hasten to kill him first.


 * As for your second question (about others) look here: Rodef


 * Bloger (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says that one is not required to give up one's life rather than violate rabbinic prohibitions of forbidden relations. I question this based on Sanhedrin 75a, where it says that a man should die rather than speak with a girl with whom he is infatuated. If no proof is offered to the contrary, I will change it. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, I think this article is a bit subjective.
A few things, like "This practice reflects the practical and malleable nature of Judaic law." is entirely dependent on opinion and I don't think it fits on an encyclopaedic page. The same goes for "For the obvious reason this status should be compared more with heroism than with martyrdom in the Christian sense." What obvious reason? You can't just assume someone is familiar with Christians and their sense of heroism, I keep rereading that paragraph and I still don't understand what the fuck it's talking about, but I understand it enough to notice that it sort of assumes that Christians' definition of heroism is a more correct one, or that for some reason the reader gives a fuck about Christians' definition of heroism. They probably don't, and in 100% of the cases they do, they already know what it is and don't need you to tell them that. It should also be noticed that while the article refers to this belief as a general thing that any Jew would do, I think it's safe to say that any non-orthodox Jew isn't stupid enough to actually engage in it. Survival instinct is too strong to actually kill yourself over trivial things like sex unless you genuinely believe that's what God wanted, which 90% of Jews don't. Do you know how many gay Jews there are? The same fucking amount as Christian gays or Muslim gays or Atheist gays. Do you really think they don't have gay sex because that would require them to kill themselves? Obviously fucking not.

Anyway, point is, I think it should be modified to represent the actual nature of the sacrifice (i.e. the fact that almost no one would actually do it,) and all the tiny little comments are unnecessary, too.


 * It is martyrdom by Christian definition...--174.45.184.184 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)i like willy wonka. willy wonka was a jew

Regarding "Preservation of life in Judaism"
" The Talmud derives from this verse that one must do everything in his or her power to save the life of another Jew, even if this involves violation of one or more of the mitzvot. If it is the life of a non-Jew or apostate Jew that is in danger, the law is not so clear, and is the matter of some debate, but it is certainly within the spirit of the law, if not the letter."

This is a typical obfuscation of the things matter, which has been done for some 700 years, and has to stop. See Israel Shahak page 23 http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Israel.Shahak/Jewish.History.Jewish%20Religion-The.Weight.of.Three.Thousand.Years.pdf

Halakhot are derived from consensus among the most important sages listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakha#Codes_of_Jewish_law

Unfortunately the humanist[|HaRAv Menachem Meiri] is not considered (yet) as one of the these important sages.

You can not insinuate that the Halakhot are based on universal humanism when they're not.

According to the Halakha, a pious Jew is recommended not to save a gentile from death, and there is a death penalty if it is done without permission on Shabbot.

http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/%2FTU7_Shapiro.pdf At 25:00 and 1h:16:00, the "logic" explained why Jews should not save non-Jews from death on Weekdays. On sabbath, it is a death-sentence to save a gentile from death, without formal ruling from rabbi https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cePM18Yvp8 For sure you should write that in modern contemporary Judaism there are lots of rabbis who sign up to the idea of universal humanism and denounce these lethal Halakhot, and really give emphasis to that,and also write that pious Jews are demanding this, ("even most pious Jews are demanding it" ,if you like) but you shouldn't deny and hide the legacy. http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/08/so-another-goy-.html Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See pages 112 and 118
 * Rabbi David Bar Chaim
 * Rabbi David Bar Chaim essay    http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=119
 * http://lookstein.org/lookjed/read.php?1,5081,5140#msg-5140
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22yeshiva-t.html?pagewanted=4&_r=3&ei=5087&em&en=4f9d372ba8aa7e8a&ex=1185336000
 * http://www.talkreason.org/articles/gentiles.cfm
 * http://www.talkreason.org/articles/sources.pdf
 * http://archive.is/Xhnn
 * Pious Jews demanding the removal and the revoke of the lethal supremacist Halakhot

Regarding "Types of sexual misconduct involved"
Here there is also an obfuscation regarding the things matters. According to the Halacha, pedophila is permitted. There is consensus among the most important sages. Here a reading from the Rambam

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyTd9nknBz8&

The text is the Rambams comment on Sanhedrin 54b. Sex with a man is forbidden, but sex with a boy is not forbidden if he is below 9 years of age because a boy that young is not a man.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_54.html

And in and Sanhderin 55b, Kethubot 11a and 11b, The message is that a girl, if 3 years old and a day, can be acquired for coition, it is no sin.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_11.html

It is immoral to cover these things up.

Did I err here by not assuming good faith?

Didn't you know this?

Amalek 0123456789 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)