Terefah - Revision history

פטר חמור at 14:22, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T14:22:52Z

פטר חמור at 13:56, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:56:03Z

פטר חמור at 13:54, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:54:21Z

פטר חמור at 13:51, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:51:31Z

פטר חמור at 13:50, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:50:57Z

פטר חמור at 13:50, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:50:00Z

פטר חמור at 13:49, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:49:13Z

פטר חמור at 13:48, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:48:42Z

פטר חמור at 13:47, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:47:05Z

פטר חמור at 13:38, 9 February 2025

2025-02-09T13:38:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:22, 9 February 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or donating the respective foods as commanded.		Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or donating the respective foods as commanded.

−	In Galatians 2:12, Paul of Tarsus (who is supported by Jacob Emden) was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for siding with the Shammuti (circumcision first) interpretation.	+	In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul of Tarsus (who is supported by Jacob Emden) was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for siding with the Shammuti (circumcision first) interpretation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:56, 9 February 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or donating the respective foods as commanded.		Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or donating the respective foods as commanded.

−	In Galatians 2:12, Paul of Tarsus (who is supported by Jacob Emden) was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for ~~doubting it~~.	+	In Galatians 2:12, Paul of Tarsus (who is supported by Jacob Emden) was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for siding with the Shammuti (circumcision first) interpretation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 9 February 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or donating the respective foods as commanded.		Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or donating the respective foods as commanded.

−	Paul of Tarsus who is supported by Jacob Emden was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for doubting it.	+	In Galatians 2:12, Paul of Tarsus (who is supported by Jacob Emden) was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for doubting it.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 With regards to eating of an animal which has been mauled, despite the injuction of casting it to Caleb in Exodus 22:31 the Torah mentions the possibility of eating it and the need to wash thereafter Leviticus 17:15. The implication is that one must cast it to Caleb but may then eat it with Caleb as long as one follows the rules of ritual purification thereafter. Therefore Caleb can not simply mean some kind of dog but must be a reference to a type of person, probably symbolized by none other than [[Caleb]] himself. Caleb symbolizes the repentant Edomites who may not stand in the congregation of the L-rd until the 3rd generation. One may not simply eat it to make oneself Tumah as it is illegal per Leviticus 28:2.
-Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or domating the respective foods as commanded.
+Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or donating the respective foods as commanded.
 Paul of Tarsus who is supported by Jacob Emden was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for doubting it.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Terefah from the root word meaning "torn" refers to a living thing which has been mauled. A Noahide is not allowed to euthenize a human who has been mauled but must strive to save their life.
-With regards to eating of an animal which has been mauled, despite the injuction of casting it to Caleb in Exodus 22:31 the Torah mentions the possibility of eating it and the need to wash thereafter Leviticus 17:15. The implication is that one must cast it to Caleb but may then eat it with Caleb as long as one follows the rules of ritual purification thereafter. Therefore Caleb can not simply mean some kind of dog but must be a reference to a type of person, probably symbolized by none other than [[Caleb]] himself. Caleb symbolizes the repentant Edomite. One may not simply eat it to make oneself Tumah as it is illegal per Leviticus 28:2.
+With regards to eating of an animal which has been mauled, despite the injuction of casting it to Caleb in Exodus 22:31 the Torah mentions the possibility of eating it and the need to wash thereafter Leviticus 17:15. The implication is that one must cast it to Caleb but may then eat it with Caleb as long as one follows the rules of ritual purification thereafter. Therefore Caleb can not simply mean some kind of dog but must be a reference to a type of person, probably symbolized by none other than [[Caleb]] himself. Caleb symbolizes the repentant Edomites who may not stand in the congregation of the L-rd until the 3rd generation. One may not simply eat it to make oneself Tumah as it is illegal per Leviticus 28:2.
 Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or domating the respective foods as commanded.
 Paul of Tarsus who is supported by Jacob Emden was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for doubting it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 9 February 2025
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or domating the respective foods as commanded.		Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or domating the respective foods as commanded.

−	Paul of Tarsus who is supported by Jacob Emden was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah.	+	Paul of Tarsus who is supported by Jacob Emden was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah and criticized Simon Peter for doubting it.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 9 February 2025
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or domating the respective foods as commanded.		Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or domating the respective foods as commanded.
		+
		+	Paul of Tarsus who is supported by Jacob Emden was adamant that this is the correct Halakhah.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:47, 9 February 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:

	With regards to eating of an animal which has been mauled, despite the injuction of casting it to Caleb in Exodus 22:31 the Torah mentions the possibility of eating it and the need to wash thereafter Leviticus 17:15. The implication is that one must cast it to Caleb but may then eat it with Caleb as long as one follows the rules of ritual purification thereafter. Therefore Caleb can not simply mean some kind of dog but must be a reference to a type of person, probably symbolized by none other than [[Caleb]] himself. One may not simply eat it to make oneself Tumah as it is illegal per Leviticus 28:2.		With regards to eating of an animal which has been mauled, despite the injuction of casting it to Caleb in Exodus 22:31 the Torah mentions the possibility of eating it and the need to wash thereafter Leviticus 17:15. The implication is that one must cast it to Caleb but may then eat it with Caleb as long as one follows the rules of ritual purification thereafter. Therefore Caleb can not simply mean some kind of dog but must be a reference to a type of person, probably symbolized by none other than [[Caleb]] himself. One may not simply eat it to make oneself Tumah as it is illegal per Leviticus 28:2.
		+
		+	Terefah which must be cast to Caleb does not make one cut off by eating it so the rule may be understood that likewise neither does eating Nevilah which must be donated to Believing Noahides or if they don't want it then sold to a Nachri. But what does cutt off an Israelite is not casting or domating the respective foods as commanded.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 9 February 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Terefah from the root word meaning "torn" refers to a living thing which has been mauled. A Noahide is not allowed to euthenize a human who has been mauled but must strive to save their life.		Terefah from the root word meaning "torn" refers to a living thing which has been mauled. A Noahide is not allowed to euthenize a human who has been mauled but must strive to save their life.

−	With regards to eating of an animal which has been mauled, despite the injuction to casting it to Caleb in Exodus 22:31 the Torah mentions the possibility of eating it and the need to wash thereafter Leviticus 17:15. The implication is that one must cast it to Caleb but may then eat it with Caleb as long as one follows the rules of ritual purification thereafter. Therefore Caleb can not simply mean some kind of dog but must be a reference to a type of person, probably none other than Caleb. One may not simply eat it to make oneself Tumah as it is illegal per Leviticus 28:2.	+	With regards to eating of an animal which has been mauled, despite the injuction of casting it to Caleb in Exodus 22:31 the Torah mentions the possibility of eating it and the need to wash thereafter Leviticus 17:15. The implication is that one must cast it to Caleb but may then eat it with Caleb as long as one follows the rules of ritual purification thereafter. Therefore Caleb can not simply mean some kind of dog but must be a reference to a type of person, probably symbolized by none other than [[Caleb]] himself. One may not simply eat it to make oneself Tumah as it is illegal per Leviticus 28:2.