Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 5,989
» Latest member: CarterBra
» Forum threads: 1,225
» Forum posts: 7,965

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 445 online users.
» 1 Member(s) | 442 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, ctjacobs

Latest Threads
Haaretz misses spelling e...
Forum: Hebrew Language Forum
Last Post: ctjacobs
44 minutes ago
» Replies: 0
» Views: 2
Brewers rated 3rd-easiest...
Forum: Israel
Last Post: CarterBra
Today, 01:08 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 8
Mets Early morning Inform...
Forum: Judaism General
Last Post: CarterBra
Today, 01:07 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 11
The Astros Basically Rank...
Forum: Introductions
Last Post: CarterBra
Today, 01:06 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
Exactly how significantly...
Forum: World Religion
Last Post: CarterBra
Today, 01:05 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 12
Your urgent help needed ?
Forum: Israel
Last Post: BlueBird2
03-17-2026, 07:33 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 120
Exodus 21
Forum: Judaism General
Last Post: gib65
03-14-2026, 07:08 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 96
Isaiah 53 speaks about th...
Forum: Counter-Missionary Forum
Last Post: Eliyahu
03-05-2026, 06:14 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 227
Isaiah 9
Forum: Counter-Missionary Forum
Last Post: Eliyahu
03-04-2026, 12:13 PM
» Replies: 26
» Views: 22,268
Hebrew in NY and NJ publi...
Forum: Hebrew Language Forum
Last Post: RabbiO
03-03-2026, 11:33 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 160

 
  Haaretz misses spelling errors
Posted by: ctjacobs - 44 minutes ago - Forum: Hebrew Language Forum - No Replies

https://x.com/GAZAWOOD1/status/2036750022524510415?s=20

Print this item

  Brewers rated 3rd-easiest entrance workplace in just baseball
Posted by: CarterBra - Today, 01:08 AM - Forum: Israel - No Replies

The Brewers incorporate been voted the thirdbest entrance workplace in just baseball, a credit score in direction of the staff members acquiring that 's presented the Brewers continuous results above the further than number of Athletic performed a study of 40 of the topdecision manufacturers in opposition to throughout the activity.  The Los Angeles Dodgers and Tampa Bay Rays have been the merely groups in the direction of conclusion forward of Milwaukee Brandon Woodruff Jersey.  The Brewers didn 't obtain innumerable firstplace votes, as a result apparently it was a consensus that the Brewers slide simply just outside the house that tier with a franchise together with the Brewers include been acknowledged even within community circles in the direction of be a wellrun staff.  They 've thrived via becoming the greatest out of unheralded pitchers and an inflow of homegrown skill.  Milwaukee contains never ever gained a identify, nevertheless the franchise is wellrespected throughout the current market for its power in the direction of offer the staff members a combating probability for significantly of the further than 10 years.  The Brewers comprise designed the playoffs in just 6 of the past 7 seasons, as they 've continuously been the most straightforward employees in just the office.  A single all round supervisor known as the Brewers the gold classic of a minor industry.  In direction of feeling the finish poll good results versus The Athletic, simply click in this article https://www.brewerssportsapparel.com/col...ano-jersey.


Brewers Store

Print this item

  Mets Early morning Information: Frozen
Posted by: CarterBra - Today, 01:07 AM - Forum: Judaism General - No Replies

Satisfy the MetsDavid Stearns is struggling with the dilemma of dwelling up in the direction of Steve Cohen Dodgers East desire as a result of balancing the hopes of a Environment Collection with the restore of just one of baseball perfect farm the vicinity of the Countrywide League EastThe Washington Write-up reportedly upon their path in direction of shuttering their complete sporting activities section is a reminder that the Nationals and all baseball groups have to have and are entitled to hometown newspaper insurance 2025 period was a extensive mess for the Atlanta Braves,  still it value inquiring,  is there a very low backside toward strike?In the vicinity of Significant League BaseballDespite hesitation and protests in opposition to the Giants Juan Soto Jersey,  Logan Webb adopted Junghoo Lee add and will be suiting up for the United Says within the Worldwide Baseball for 2026 and developing significantly impatient,  Andrew McCutchen is view disrespected and requires a alternative with the Pirates quicker than later on for what could be his ultimate instantly as soon as world possibility Marion De La Rosa offer with the Yankees formally fell aside,  the Mariners swooped inside of and agreed in direction of a $3.8M package for this period future 12 months with the Dominican Alberto,  a particular person favourite 2019 juiced ball oddity https://www.metsfanapparel.com/collectio...rza-jersey,  introduced his retirement at 33 as soon as 8 biggest league an acelike 2025 reduce quick thanks in direction of destruction,  Nathan Eovaldi is totally remedied and is prepared in direction of input camp with the Rangers devoid of at AmazinAvenueThomas Henderson seemed at the Metsplacement participant additions and their collective deficiency of Day inside Mets HistoryOn this day inside of 2005,  the Mets traded for Doug Mientkiewicz.

Print this item

  The Astros Basically Ranking Some Operates and Gain Large within just Baltimore,  7-2
Posted by: CarterBra - Today, 01:06 AM - Forum: Introductions - No Replies

Tonight,  the Astros grasped for operates which includes a drowning guy gasps for his very last breath of air. The 7 operates they scored in just the initial 3 innings equalled their sum output within just the final 6 video games put together. The Astros are nevertheless alive with a conquering centre https://www.astrosfanwear.com/collection...man-jersey,  at the time Astros scored as countless operates in just the 1st inning as they experienced inside the prior 37. It was all owing towards a tworun,  Christian Walker residence operate,  scoring Carlos Correa,  who singled versus Orioles novice Brandon Astros doubled that work creation within just the minute inning upon a tworun RBI one through Correa,  scoring Mauricio Dubon and Jacob Orioles received one particular again inside their instant upon a Dylan Beavers solo shot toward immediately sector in opposition to Astros rookie Jason the Astros,  hence extensive deprived of the gratification of crossing residence plate,  were being not delighted with a mere 4 operates. The 3rd inning started off with a Walker double and an RBI Jesus Sanchez one. Then Yainer Diaz unloaded his 18th homer,  strengthening the Astros contribute towards 71 and equalling the sum staff operate output for the final 6 game after the secondinning homer,  Alexander was cruising for the Astros until eventually the 6th inning,  each time 3 oneout singles delivered him in the direction of the showers. Steven Okert permitted 1 inherited work in direction of ranking,  upon a groundout,  however struck out secondinning O hero Beavers toward extinguish the was a different excellent general performance for Alexander,  who accomplished the night time following 5.1 innings,  permitting 2 operates Yordan Alvarez Jersey,  scattering 8 hits with 3 Ks. Simply because June 17,  Alexander includes a 2.72 Technology. For the duration of a comparable period time period,  Framber Valdez sits at 3.67 and Hunter Brown at an even 3. the other hand,  the Orioles pitcher,  who only closing 7 days took a excellent activity in opposition to the Stros into the 8th inning,  acquired clobbered at present,  enabling 7 operates inside 5.1 innings following leaving with an obvious ankle Sanchez accounted for 5 of the Astros12 hits,  and the Astros are 2 forward of the Mariners for initially position within the AL West,  pending their sport with the Sports activities starting off tomorrow 9:10 Astros include 3 further more within Baltimore,  which include yet another tomorrow with Lance McCullers back again upon the Rating In this article.


https://www.astrosfanwear.com

Print this item

  Exactly how significantly will the Reds rotate their lineup within 2026?
Posted by: CarterBra - Today, 01:05 AM - Forum: World Religion - No Replies

Welcome in direction of SB Region Reacts,  a study of lovers throughout the MLB. In the course of the 12 months we inquire issues of the greatest pluggedin Reds enthusiasts and supporters throughout the nation. Signal up below in direction of take part inside of the weekly emailed 2025 variation of the Cincinnati Reds was anchored via each TJ Friedl and Elly De La Cruz,  2 day-to-day stalwarts that revealed amount of money plate appearances of 685 and 699,  respectively. People marks rated 21st and tied for 12th in between all MLB gamers,  a testomony equally in direction of their conditioning and very good sufficient output that they performed only over day by day towards pitchers upon possibly facets of the people were being the merely 2 Reds in direction of ultimate the 600 PA threshold,  despite the fact that,  a mark that 68 amount of money avid gamers throughout the league preserved toward greatest. That was because of in direction of a quantity of variables platooning the likes of lefties Gavin Lux https://www.redssportsstore.com/collecti...ter-jersey,  Will Benson,  and Jake Fraley,  injury in the direction of Fraley,  Austin Hays,  and Noelvi Marte,  and enter trades of Keryan Hayes and Miguel Andujar taking in into othersactively playing year.A 600 PA time is indicative of constructive physical fitness and each day participating in season as significantly as it is an offense that retains turning the lineup around,  and the anticipate within just 2026 is that the Reds offense is considerably https://www.redssportsstore.com/collecti...ott-jersey,  a great deal much better than it was through a primarily useless begs the questionhow plenty of 600+ PA seasons will the Reds choose out of their roster within 2026?You should choose our surveyWill they be ready in the direction of maintain Sal Stewart within the lineup normally ample for him towards consider there?May possibly Spencer Steer identify tactics toward receive there as a result of remaining multipurpose in direction of deal with the two outfield corners and destinations all around the infield?May possibly they generate of course Eugenio Surez results in being there considering that his bat is the singular purpose they introduced him on to the roster?If Matt McLain hits such as he did back again within 2023 and sticks inside the 2 vacation spot inside the get all yr,  will that thrust his period general previously mentioned the threshold?Allow for us notice what your self imagine,  because it one thing of a explain to of how Great on your own believe this offense will be or a inform upon how a great deal on your own feel theyl rotate the lineup ample toward retain gentlemen against taking that numerous prospects!

Print this item

  Your urgent help needed ?
Posted by: liorpedaya - 03-15-2026, 09:11 AM - Forum: Israel - Replies (1)

Looking for Help – Trying to Find an Ocular Oncologist Who Might Review My Case

Hello everyone,

I hope it is okay for me to post here. I am reaching out because I am desperately trying to find an ocular oncologist who might be willing to briefly review my case and tell me whether it may involve a delayed diagnosis of uveal melanoma.

In 2018, I visited an ophthalmologist because I was experiencing flashes of light (photopsia). The visit was very short – only a few minutes – and according to my recollection and the medical documentation, my pupils were never dilated and the retina was not examined. The doctor focused on the front part of the eye and recommended a preventive laser iridotomy.

Three years later, in 2021, during what was supposed to be just a routine eye exam with another doctor, my pupils were dilated as part of the examination. The doctor immediately discovered a medium-to-large ocular melanoma in my eye. I was urgently referred to a hospital and underwent brachytherapy within two days.

Sadly, despite treatment, in September 2024 the cancer progressed and my eye had to be surgically removed. Today I live with an ocular prosthesis.

Right now, I am simply trying to find an experienced ocular oncologist who might be willing to review a short summary of my case and let me know whether it may warrant a formal expert opinion.

Without a supporting opinion from a specialist in ocular oncology, I cannot even pursue legal review of the case in my country.

If anyone here knows an ocular oncologist, a specialist in uveal melanoma, or someone connected to major centers such as Wills Eye Hospital, Mount Sinai, Columbia, Bascom Palmer, or other ocular oncology programs, I would be incredibly grateful for any guidance, introductions, or suggestions.

This situation has been extremely difficult, and any help or direction from this community would truly mean the world to me.

Thank you so much for reading and for any help you may be able to offer ❤️?????
Lior pedaya
Israel.
My email is :
pedaya@gmail.com

Print this item

  Exodus 21
Posted by: gib65 - 03-14-2026, 07:08 AM - Forum: Judaism General - No Replies

In Exodus 20, we are given the 10 Commandments. It is followed by a series of ordinances that spill over into the next few chapters. Exodus 21, for example, which we get into here, covers the treatment of slaves and assault and battery. As always, my sources are:

* primary: chabad.org

* secondary: biblegateway.com (NIV version)

* And if all else fails: chatgpt.com

Exodus 21:2 Wrote:Should you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work [for] six years, and in the seventh [year], he shall go out to freedom without charge.

I have to say, this is very unexpected. In my last thread about Exodus 20, it was emphasized that the reason even "the stranger in your city" was not to work on the Sabbath was to enforce a way of life for the Isrealites that worked against slavery and coerced labor. But here, we see God condoning slavery, at least for six years. Perhaps it ought to be read in context. That is to say, if slaves were owned for life before this ordinance, limiting such ownership to six years might have been seen as merciful. Maybe it was seen as a way to limit to evils of slavery such that those who owned slaves wouldn't be too eager to reject this ordinance and rebel against God's commands (reminds me of The Slave Trade Clause in the US constitution--that the slave trade in the US was to end by 1808--seen by some as morally abhorent given that they could have ended it immediately, but in fact was intended to give the slave owning states enough time to adjust to living within a union where the slave trade would be illegal, thereby making them more willing to accept the constitution, join the union, and defeat the British... but I digress). The point is, everything in context. But I wonder what Jewish scholars and other thinkers on the subject think of this source of potential cognitive dissonance.

On another note, it doesn't escape me that the 6 years of slavery followed by freedom in the 7th year maps perfectly onto the 6 days of creation followed by the day of rest, and the 6 days of work followed by the Sabbath, a day of rest and spiritual reflection. And I assume that the slave's freedom in the 7th year lasts for the rest of his life--as opposed to his having freedom only in the 7th year and then back to slavery for the next 6 years, like the repeating work week after each Sabbath.

I also assume the 6 years applies to Isrealites who already owned slaves at the time this ordinance was announced; as in--you have 6 years to make the most of your slave(s)--as opposed to, if you've owned your slave(s) for 6 years or more, you must set them free as of now.

And is there anything to the wording of "Hebrew" slave? For example, if someone owned an Ethiopian slave, would this ordinance not count for them?

Now, if you thought this verse sounded inhumane, check out verses 3 to 6:

Exodus 21:3-6 Wrote:3 If he comes [in] alone, he shall go out alone; if he is a married man, his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. 5 But if the slave says, "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free," 6 his master shall bring him to the judges, and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost, and his master shall bore his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.

Damn! Talk about a sticky predicament! One might at first think this is a no brainer--just keep your mouth shut and go free--but at the cost of betraying your wife and children? Well, if the consequence is that nobody goes free and has to serve their master forever, maybe it is a no brainer after all. But let's look at this in more detail. First of all, from verse 3, it's pretty clear that the husband and wife come and go together. But it doesn't mention anything about children. If the slave comes with a wife and children, do the children also go out with their parents after 6 years? I would think so, but it's not explicitely stated. Now if the master gives him a wife and they bear children, as verse 4 says, they don't go free together. This could mean something as simple as: the wife and children must stay for their 6 years and then go free. So, for example, if the master gives the slave a wife in the 3rd year, and then they bear a child in the 4th year, then he goes free in the 6th year, she goes free in the 9th year, and the child goes free in the 10th year. The alternative interpretation is that the wife and children remain slaves forever. The latter interpretation seems to be supported by the consequence of the father/husband refusing to leave in his 6th year--he is to remain a slave forever--implying, one could suppose, that if he's choosing to stay with his wife and children, he must stay forever since they stay forever.

Speaking of the choice to remain, I wouldn't immediately interpret the consequence of remaining a slave forever a punishment if it wasn't for that awl thingy being bored into his ear. OUCH!!! I can see no other purpose for that except to punish him for choosing to stay. Why would it have been so imperative for the slave to leave after 6 years? The only answer I can think of is that, like my interpretation above, the 6 year limit was a way of deminishing slavery, so much so that, even if by the slave's own will, refusal to accept freedom was punishable by such a barbaric treatment. Maybe the fact that he has a wife and kid(s) was seen as a potential insentive to stay, and so had to be deterred. But then again, the master has an insentive too--slaves are useful! (It makes one wonder, what was the punishment for the slave owner if he refused to let his slave free in the 6th year?).

Verse 5 gives an example of what a slave might say: "I love my master, my wife, and my children. I will not go free,"--and I interpret this to be just an example of what the slave's reasons for staying might be--but what if it's a condition for the punishment for breaking this ordinance? I mean, what if the slave's reason is "I kinda like it here; I always get fed, I always have a place to sleep, my master treats me well"? <-- Note that this doesn't require a wife or children. Does the same punishment apply? And if we get really specific, does it depend on the slave's love for his master? I mean, the quote could have been: "I love my wife and my children". But verse 5 includes love for the master as well. Does the condition for the punishment get that specific? And one might wonder, what slave would ever love their master? But again, one must put themselves in the context of the times. Perhaps love for the master was an expectation of the slave, maybe a sign that he was a "good" slave. After all, to feed, clothe, and shelter a person who would otherwise be out on the street with no way to feed himself or find secure shelter might have been seen, at the time, as an act of benevolence. But anyway you cut it, a slave being punished with an awl in his ear and then eternal slavery thereafter seems especially cruel if it follows an expression of love on the slave's part for his master.

And why bring the slave to the door or doorpost before drilling his ear with the awl? Most likely, to make a public display of it. It means, from what I surmise, to take the slave outside for the general public to witness the punishment, a common practice before modern times so as to maximize the deterring effect of the punishment.

And finally, I assume the gender roles here are intentional. That is, only males can be purchased as slaves, and females given to the slave as a wife for the purpose of producing children (who also become slaves). But if that's the case, where is the wife taken from? Perhaps the slave trade at the time included both men and women, but the laws surrounding ownership of slaves distinguished between men and women. Men could be bought as slaves straight up, whereas women could be bought as slaves only as concubines to male slaves already owned. In other words, there shouldn't have been any female "standalone" slaves. And again, I assume this is still in the context of "Hebrew" slaves.

Perhaps verses 7 to 11 will shed some light on these.

Exodus 21:7-11 Wrote:7 Now if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go free as the slaves go free. 8 If she is displeasing to her master, who did not designate her [for himself], then he shall enable her to be redeemed; he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person, when he betrays her. 9 And if he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the law of the daughters [of Israel]. 10 If he takes another [wife] for himself, he shall not diminish her sustenance, her clothing, or her marital relations. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go free without charge, without [payment of] money.

Well, lo and behold, it does explain how the law works for female slaves. Now, it calls her a "maidservant" which in modern parlance means she gets paid for her work, which certainly bears no relation to marriage or child bearing. But a quick google search tells me that in the biblical context, this is typically the intent. It says exactly:

Google Gemini Wrote:Based on an analysis of Exodus 21:7–11, a daughter "sold" by her father as a amah (maidservant/handmaid) was not a chattel slave in the modern sense, but rather a form of indentured servant or concubine (a wife of lower status). She was not "paid" a salary, but the transaction was a form of protection against extreme poverty, aiming for her to become a wife or daughter-in-law in the household.

A lot of context there--enough to say the roles of male slaves and female maidservants was definitely different--but without getting too tangled in exact definitions, let's pick apart verses 7 to 11.

According to verse 7, these ordinances only apply if the maidservant is a daughter of a man who sold her to a master. Or was this the only way a female could become a maidservant anyway?

Now it's verse 8 that really throws me for a loop. What does "did not designate her for himself" mean? Meaning that the master didn't take her as wife/concubine? Verse 9 seems to imply this as a possibility (he can designate her to his son), but I'm wondering if the insertion of "for himself" in the translation over at chabad.org is misplaced, and the verse really means to say: if the master didn't designate her to anyone at all--as in, she is just a servant--cleaning, cooking, taking care of his children--but not being wedded to nor having children with anyone. After all, I have to imagine that some slave owners were already married to ordinary Isrealite citizens, and therefore it would be inappropriate to take a maidservant as a wife or concubine--in which case, she'd just do work as an ordinary slave--but then again, the google definition above suggests that maidservants can be "a wife of lower status"--so already having a wife doesn't seem to be a show stopper. Was marriage in Israel at the time considered exclusive? Will have to consult biblegateway.com and ChatGPT later.

In any case, the real loop here (that I'm thrown through) is "then he shall enable her to be redeemed"--redeemed how?--this seems to stand in stark contrast to the slave who refuses to go free in the 6th year--severe punishment vs chance to be redeemed--and this: "he shall not rule over her to sell her to another person"--this is what it means to be redeemed? Is this another way of saying he shall set her free? As in, if she displeases you, you can just let her go. And particularly: you can't just get rid of her by selling her to another person. Maybe this is where the term "enable" plays a role. It doesn't say that he shall redeem her; it says that he shall enable her to be redeemed--meaning, perhaps, he shall give her the choice of whether to go free or remain a maidservant (again, quite the contrast with the male slave who rejects his freedom). If she goes free, this makes sense out of not ruling over her to sell to another person. And if she stays, well, then he continues to rule over her until he sells her to someone else. All this would make perfect sense, wrapped up in a nice little bow, if it wasn't for the last part of this verse: "when he betrays her". Betrays her how? If anything, I would think her displeasing him would count as a betrayal against him. The only thing I can think of is that "betrayal" might mean sleeping with another women. So effectively, this passage is saying if she displeases him, and she is not redeemed (whatever that means), he may choose someone else to marry and/or be concubine, but at the cost of ruling over her (i.e. he marries/sleeps with another women, he relinquishes ownership of her). But again, this doesn't quite work because this whole verse is couched in the assumption that the master "did not designate her" (for himself or anyone). Maybe the rule is: even if you don't intend to marry or sleep with your maidservant, you may not marry or sleep with another (unless she displeases you, of course). Sooo confused.

Anyway, verse 9 talks about what happens if the master designates his maidservant to his son. So his son marries/sleeps with the maidservant (makes one wonder if a male slave can be designated to a daughter, but I don't think that's the way things were done in these times). All it says on this score is that she shall be dealt with (if she displeases his son, or perhaps himself, I'm assuming) according to the laws of the daughters. What are the laws of the daughters? I thought these were the laws the Isrealites are to follow. Are these laws of the daughters laid out elsewhere in the Torah? Perhaps in Genesis? In any case, it doesn't leave much to think about (which might be a good thing).

And verses 10 and 11? These are more or less straight forward--if the master takes another wife/concubine for himself, it doesn't nullify his responsibilities as master to his maidservant--he must still take care of her basic needs--which totally blows my interpretation of "betrayal" out of the water (unless it's like modern day alimony Smile ). Then again, there's a bit of ambiguity over "he". These verses follow immediately after the verse about designating the maidservant to his son--so by "he", are verses 10 and 11 referring to the master or his son? In either case, if the master doesn't provide these 3 things (sustenance, clothing, and marital status), then she goes free. My only question here is: by these 3 things, is it any one of these three things, or all 3 things. So if he fails to provide clothing for his maidservant, but continues to feed her and keeps her marital status (whatever that means), is she free, or does he have to fail on all 3 fronts?

Well, that seems to be it for the ordinance on slaves and maidservants. The next handful of verses appears to be about assault and battery.

Exodus 21:12-14 Wrote:12 One who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. 13 But one who did not stalk [him], but God brought [it] about into his hand, I will make a place for you to which he shall flee. 14 But if a man plots deliberately against his friend to slay him with cunning, [even] from My altar you shall take him to die.

Verses 12 and 14 are clear. It's the one in the middle (13) which is obscure. The word "stalk" is ambiguous. If it bears any relation to how we use that term today, it sounds something like to persue. In other words, if one does not intentionally persue (go after, hunt down) the man one strikes (because God brought it about that they simply cross paths such that (I guess) some altercation takes place), then God will see to it that the man flees to a place where he doesn't bother one anymore (and this would be for the sake of the man who strikes, thus "for you"). But if the man strikes, there's no less possibility in this case that he would kill the other man... unless this is what God is saying--that He will ensure the struck man will flee instead of die (and thus no punishment is exacted?).

Verse 14 seems to reiterate the stalking scenario, describing it as "plotting" instead of "stalking", which gives richer context to the meaning of these words. It adds that even deliberation is punishable by death, clearly making no distinction between intent and deed. It adds further that he is to be taken even from God's altar (because he's praying or sacrificing, I assume), emphasizing the seriousness of such deliberations. Also note a few differences between verses 12 and 14. Verse 12 describes a man who dies from being struck, implying the death doesn't have to be intentional, whereas verse 14 explicitely mentions plotting "deliberately against his friend to slay him..." meaning there is definitely the intent to kill. And unlike verse 12, verse 14 refers to the man's "friend", perhaps serving as the reason why such a crime is severe enough to warrant being taken even from God's altar.

BibleGateway.com renders this passage as follows:

biblegateway.com Wrote:12 Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

According to this, the unintentional nature of killing a man by striking him only applies to verse 13. It doesn't shed any light on the meaning of "stalk", but seems to have in its place "intentionally". So "one who did not stalk [him]" apparently means "if he did not do it intentionally". Also apparently, "God brought [it] about into his hand" means "God let it happen". And finally, "I will make a place for you to which he shall flee" means "they are to flee to a place I will designate." (I was thrown off by the inconsistent pronouns "you" and "he".) Note that this translation makes no mention of "friend", so I guess whether the victim is a friend, a foe, or a stranger is inconsequential, meaning the severity of the crime (enough to arrest him even at God's altar) comes purely from the scheming and planning.

Makes one wonder how God will inform the man who strikes of the place He designates? A sign? Will He literally come down and speak to the man? Must he consult a member of the clergy? Must he figure it out himself? Or is this part of the justice system? More like an exile than a fleeing from the law, the exact place being determined by the judge?

Exodus 21:18-19 Wrote:18 And if men quarrel, and one strikes the other with a stone or with a fist, and he does not die but is confined to [his] bed, 19 if he gets up and walks about outside on his support, the assailant shall be cleared; he shall give only [payment] for his [enforced] idleness, and he shall provide for his cure.

This passage leaves out what the punishment is if the man doesn't get up (or gets up but doesn't walk outside). If a fatal blow is met with death, I would think a non-fatal blow would be met with something less severe than death. If the victim gets up and walks outside without supports, I assume it's fair to say he has recovered, and that's the end of the whole affair. In that case, the assailant receives the full punishment for the time the victim took to recover. But what about cases where the victim is disabled in a way that doesn't require supports, like a broken hand or a blind eye? I suppose the idea is that if he's bed ridden, the damage must be to his legs and therefore he requires supports in order to get up and walk. But that doesn't mean a broken hand or a blind eye makes him any less debilitated and stuck to his home. The debilitation seems to pivot specifically on being confined to bed and thereby not being able to work or go about town doing his business. In that case, it sounds like the punishment is not just for the "enforced idleness" and the cure, but for wages lost due to inability to work.

Exodus 21:20-21 Wrote:And should a man strike his manservant or his maidservant with a rod, and [that one] die under his hand, he shall surely be avenged. 21 But if he survives for a day or for two days, he shall not be avenged, because he is his property.


Well, this seems like strange reasoning. I'm not sure why the time it takes for the manservant or maidservant to die makes a difference. Either way, the master killed him/her. And either way, they are his property. Perhaps it made more sense in the context of the times. And the meaning of "avenged" seems deliberately vague. Obviously, death is not the only option (if an option at all). But what constitutes avengence is not clear. I suppose a judge decides. The meaning of "rod" is also unclear, but I assume it means some kind of long hand-held stick of sorts meant to whip or beat his servants when the master deemed it approperiate. Not something meant to kill as the killing seems to be the crime here (makes one wonder what the punishment is for deliberately killing one's servants). I would think such "rods" were common place at the time, and a master was expected to own one and use it (if necessary) for just this purpose. Otherwise, why would this ordinance be limited just to rods? Why not stones or other hard objects, or even fists? The assumption must be that the practice of disciplining your slave was to be done with special rods for this very purpose, and it was meant to be carried out calmly as a standard proceedure, as opposed to an outburst of rage which could result in the master grabbing any nearby object like a pot and assulting his slave with it.

Exodus 21:22-25 Wrote:22 And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. 23 But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25 a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

Does the hitting of the pregnant woman have to be purposeful? I don't think so as restitution implies damages or losses regardless of intent.

Verse 23 makes sense in the context fatalities (the woman's), but then verse 24 and 25 go on about eyes, teeth, hands, feet, burns, wounds, and bruises. Is this to be read in the context of no fatalities? As in, if the assailant struck the woman in the eye and she lost sight, the loss of his own eye would be added to the restitution over and above that for the miscarriage. Or is it to be read as just an elaboration on the justification for this form of justice. As in, if the woman dies, the assailant shall have his own life taken, just as you would take an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.. Or is this to be read as a generalization of any kind of altercation in which one person assults another, and it was slipped in here because it was on topic. As in, if the woman dies, the assailant shall have his own life taken, and by the way, the rule in general is that, for any altercation between two people, if one takes the other's eye, he shall have his eye taken, and if one takes the other's tooth, he shall have his tooth taken, etc..

Exodus 21:26-27 Wrote:26 And if a man strikes the eye of his manservant or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall set him free in return for his eye, 27 and if he knocks out the tooth of his manservant or the tooth of his maidservant, he shall set him free in return for his tooth.

No ambiguity here. An eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom. But is it limited to an eye and a tooth, or does the list of tits-for-tats in verses 25 and 26 apply even here (but implicitely). Of course, it's not an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but an eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom, but the point is, does it implicitely go through the whole list from eye to bruise? I actually don't think so, as verse 25 lists injuries one can recover from, and if a master is allowed to strike his servants with a rod, one can't not expect some form of wounding or bruising, or maybe even burning. But it seems like the losing of a hand or a foot (verse 24) ranks right up there with eyes and teeth, so I see no reason these wouldn't be implied after mentioning an eye for freedom and a tooth for freedom.

Exodus 21:28 Wrote:And if a bull gores a man or a woman and [that one] dies, the bull shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, and the owner of the bull is clear.

Poor bull, one might think, he doesn't know any better, he's just an animal acting on instrincts. But we do the same in today's world. We often put dogs down if they repeatedly attack and injure or kill people. We even hunt down wild animals, like bears or sharks, if they attack or kill human beings. The point is not to punish them for bad deeds, but to do away with them before they cause even more damage or death. They say that once an animal gets a taste for attacking, injuring, or killing (a taste for blood), it becomes less reserved about doing it again. So they must be put down. It's unfortunate, but a necessary part of protecting ourselves.

The part I don't quite get is the prohibition against eating the bull's flesh. Is the fact that the bull is a killer somehow seeped into his flesh, like a poison that, if eaten, transfers to you? I know later in Isrealite history (correct me if I'm wrong), they had a practice of transferring sin from a person to a goat and then sent that goat off into the wilderness (thus the term "scapegoat"). Could this be an early precursor of this idea? That the bull, in killing a person, has sort of "sinned" and therefore eating its flesh would transfer the sin over to you? If so, this casts some doubt on my above interpretation. I said the purpose of the bull's death is not a punishment, but a way of protecting people from the harm it does. But if the prohibition of eating its flesh is grounded on the idea that its sins will be transferred to you, then it sounds like this verse is saying the bull really is guilty of murder, that it has sinned, and actually deserves to die. What did the Isrealites actually believe about animal violence and animal sin?

Exodus 21:29-30 Wrote:29 But if it is a [habitually] goring bull since yesterday and the day before yesterday, and its owner had been warned, but he did not guard it, and it puts to death a man or a woman, the bull shall be stoned, and also its owner shall be put to death, 30 insofar as ransom shall be levied upon him, he shall give the redemption of his soul according to all that is levied upon him.

Verse 29 is clear. It's verse 30 that confuses me. What ransom is it talking about? And is the "redemption of his soul" being considered payment for the ransom? So in addition to being put to death, if someone demands ransom for damages, that ransom can be paid for by the man's soul (or the redemption thereof) in proportion to whatever's levied against him. I guess that really puts it in God's hands, doesn't it? <-- If this interpretation is right, it means they must have believed in an afterlife in which God could exact punishment for unredeemed souls, and in this case, in proportion to the levies put on him. So it doesn't sound like everlasting damnation in Hell, but a limited punishment for a short while until the ransom is paid.

Once again, BibleGateway.com makes way more sense of this:

BibleGateway.com Wrote:30 However, if payment is demanded, the owner may redeem his life by the payment of whatever is demanded.

This doesn't even need explanation. It's crystal clear on its surface. But is it accurate? Better clarity for a modern audience may sometimes be at the cost of translational accuracy.

Exodus 21:31 Wrote:Or if it gores a young boy or a young girl, according to this ordinance shall be done to him.

What shall be done to him? Is it saying the default punishment (death) shall be done to him if the bull gores a child, that none are to demand a levy in the case of the death of children?

According to BibleGateway.com, it seems like just the opposite:

BibleGateway.com Wrote:31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter.

Since verse 29 speaks of goring a man or a woman, this verse seems to be simply clarifying that this ordinance applies to children as well.

Exodus 21:33 Wrote:And if a person opens a pit, or if a person digs a pit and does not cover it, and a bull or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit shall pay; he shall return money to its owner, and the dead body shall be his.

Did this happen often? Were donkeys and bulls regularly falling into pits? If not, this seems like such an arbitrary ordinance. For example, why limit it to donkeys and bulls? Why not goats? Why not sheep? Were all other animals just more careful? More resilient? Were bulls and donkeys just that much more valuable? Anyway, the punishment seems fair. In fact, it doesn't seem like a punishment at all. He's simply buying a meal he can feed his wife and kids for days.

Other than that, all other verses are pretty straight forward. I will bring in ChatGPT to add some insight into some of the questions I posed above, but that will be for a later post. And then it will be on to Exodus 22.

Print this item

  Isaiah 53 speaks about the people of Israel
Posted by: Eliyahu - 03-04-2026, 12:28 PM - Forum: Counter-Missionary Forum - Replies (2)

Bs"d

Isaiah 53 speaks about the people of Israel.  The evidence for that is abundant and very strong. 

For the finer details look here:  Isaiah 53

Print this item

  Hebrew in NY and NJ public schools
Posted by: grandpatzer92 - 03-03-2026, 09:54 AM - Forum: Hebrew Language Forum - Replies (1)

What is the administrative reason for NY and NJ public schools not teaching Hebrew at the same extent of commonality as the other languages they teach, when both states have such large Jewish populations? I think the same question could be asked about Yiddish, as well.

Print this item

  Happy Purim!
Posted by: searchinmyroots - 03-03-2026, 03:02 AM - Forum: Judaism General - No Replies

Chag Sameach.

May our enemies lay down their arms and peace be upon us.

Print this item