I am re-reading Tractate Berakoth of the Talmud in search of a
particular quote which I know is in there but whose reference and exact words I did not note and have forgotten.
The first part is all about reciting the Sh'ma. Perhaps GB could help me out, because to my understanding the Sh'ma is a single verse in
Deuteronomy, but Berakoth seems to imply something longer and more complicated.
Anyway, you will be glad to know that you are allowed to sleep on your
back, but you may not recite Sh'ma while lying on your back.
I am sure you will be relieved to learn that if you are carrying a bier
and body when the time comes to recite the Sh'ma, the two in front are
not allowed to recite it but the two behind are not exempt.
The morning Sh'ma should not be recited until there is enough light to distinguish between a hank of white wool and a hank of blue wool, though that opinion is disputed and another authority insists that you must be
able to tell the difference between blue and green wool. Your salvation depends on getting this right, apparently.
If you are delayed reciting the evening Sh'ma you have until midnight to fulfil your obligation, but in this case "midnight" actually means
morning - before you can tell blue wool from green wool, I presume.
And just by the way, if your wife has died you should not wash the
following day. When a certain rabbi did wash the morning after his wife died, his students pulled him up over it, but he explained that he had a very delicate skin. So that was all right then.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The first part is all about reciting the Sh'ma. Perhaps GB could help
me out, because to my understanding the Sh'ma is a single verse in
Deuteronomy, but Berakoth seems to imply something longer and more
complicated.
Indeed.
One does, indeed, have to recite the morning prayers during the morning.
I'm surprised that you are objecting to that. How to decide whether it's
yet morning seems a sensible subject for discussion.
There's a tradition in Judaism of not delaying a Mitzvah. So, if a
religious Jew wants to get on with his morning prayers ASAP, it really matters to him when he can start. He could just leave it an hour, so as
to be 100% sure it's morning, but then he wouldn't be doing it ASAP.
You think it's all nonsense, and one should do whatever one pleases, but that's a different religion. Likewise, the reference to salvation is
simply wrong.
Yes, health concerns are given priority. I know that Christians scourged themselves, but that's not our way.
You often pass judgement based on superficial knowledge. It makes youYou are welcome to explain why God would be offended if you said the
appear shallower than I think you actually are.
On 29/07/2026 14:06, GB wrote:
The first part is all about reciting the Sh'ma. Perhaps GB could help
me out, because to my understanding the Sh'ma is a single verse in
Deuteronomy, but Berakoth seems to imply something longer and more
complicated.
Indeed.
I was hoping for a longer and more detailed answer!
One does, indeed, have to recite the morning prayers during the
morning. I'm surprised that you are objecting to that. How to decide
whether it's yet morning seems a sensible subject for discussion.
Well, I believe that one can address God at any time, so the concept of having to wait before doing so does indeed seem ridiculous.
There's a tradition in Judaism of not delaying a Mitzvah. So, if a
religious Jew wants to get on with his morning prayers ASAP, it really
matters to him when he can start. He could just leave it an hour, so
as to be 100% sure it's morning, but then he wouldn't be doing it ASAP.
Why not just get on with it? Or is God going to object because this chap said his prayers five minutes early?
You think it's all nonsense, and one should do whatever one pleases,
but that's a different religion. Likewise, the reference to salvation
is simply wrong.
I agree that it is a different religion, but in mine God is my Father
and I can speak to Him at any time of the day or night. In yours there
are pedantic rules about when you can speak to God and what you must say when doing so. God is not your Father, He is some sort of time-bound robot.
Yes, health concerns are given priority. I know that Christians
scourged themselves, but that's not our way.
You are right to point out the stupidity of those who scourged
themselves thinking that they were pleasing God, but worrying about
whether the bit of food in front of you is bigger than an egg (large,
medium or small not specified) or an olive (depending on which rabbi you follow) because if it's bigger you have to say a particular grace but if it's smaller you mustn't, seems as much a denial of God's love.
My father would buy a bar of chocolate and share it out among us
children (chocolate was a rare treat in India). I didn't scrutinise the
bit I received and decide that it wasn't big enough to merit saying
"Thank you".
Back go the alleged health concerns; the rabbi didn't rule that anyone
with a delicate skin could ignore the prohibition on washing after a bereavement, nor did the command say so in advance. It seems to have
been very much a case of making up the rules as he went along.
You often pass judgement based on superficial knowledge. It makes youYou are welcome to explain why God would be offended if you said the
appear shallower than I think you actually are.
wrong blessing over an egg sandwich.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I'm so sorry. Maybe this link will help:
Jews can pray at any time, too. I particularly recall falling head first down a snow filled gully in the alps. Snow and rock filled gully I
should say. It took a surprisingly long time to reach the bottom, with nothing else to do except pray. Seemed to work!
If you pray during the night, rather than in the day, then you haven't fulfilled the obligation to pray during the day. The sky won't fall in.
Jews discern 613 commandments within the OT.
Nearly all mitzvoth are cancelled by a risk to health. That general rule doesn't need to be stated explicitly on every page of the Talmud.
You are worrying overmuch about the conduct of a rabbi who died a really really long time ago. He may have made a mistake (understandable in the circumstances). Or he may have been genuine. The point you are missing
is that he was regarded as an exceptionally holy man, and his followers appear to have accepted his explanation. So, the explanation itself was
a genuine one that would apply if there was a genuine skin condition.
All you can do is cast doubt on his motives, which seems exceptionally pointless after such a long time.
I'll do that once you have explained why God needs to be prayed to at all.
You are worrying overmuch about the conduct of a rabbi who died a really really long time ago. He may have made a mistake (understandable in the circumstances). Or he may have been genuine.
wrong blessing over an egg sandwich.You are welcome to explain why God would be offended if you said the
I'll do that once you have explained why God needs to be prayed to at
all.
God doesn't need to be prayed to, but we need to pray to Him. Prayer, in Christian thought, is communication - us to God, God to us. We do not
tell God anything He does not already know, we do not ask for anything
He has not already decided to grant (or not grant if He sees in His
wisdom that it would be bad for us). But prayer is an opportunity for
God to speak to us at a time when we are listening.
I don't think God is offended if the wrong blessing is said over food. (Happens all the time in our house, so I certainly hope he's not
offended.) Nevertheless, one should try to get it right.
On 30/07/2026 22:29, GB wrote:
I don't think God is offended if the wrong blessing is said over food.
(Happens all the time in our house, so I certainly hope he's not
offended.) Nevertheless, one should try to get it right.
The thing is that God has not mandated any particular form of words (or
any words at all) in association with food. Some rabbi has come up with
a rule and you all blindly follow him.
My wife and I always gave thanks to God before meals (and now my girl- friend and I do the same), but there was no fixed form of words nor did
we worry about the size of the portions. Either of those things would,
in my opinion, detract from the spontaneity and therefore genuineness of
the thanks - a bit like when your parents told you to say sorry to your sibling when you did not feel at all sorry!
Now if you choose to use a particular form of words and they are
meaningful to you, by all means do so - just don't feel guilty if you discover that your egg sandwich turns out to be cheese and you have, in fact, said the wrong blessing! There is no right or wrong, it's just a cultural custom.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
For example, when drinking wine or grape juice, we thank God for the
fruit of the vine. It would be pretty daft to use the same words over a potato. You might agree with that.
Does it matter? No. Should we thank God for things at all? Or just give
him a shopping list, but never say thank you?
Yes, it must become a bit mechanistic for people who adhere closely to
the rituals and thank God dozens of times a day.
On the other hand, an orthodox Jew stops what he's doing and thanks God
when he sees a rainbow. There's something quite special about doing that.
I very much doubt that any orthodox Jews would disagree with you.
On 31/07/2026 16:33, GB wrote:
For example, when drinking wine or grape juice, we thank God for the
fruit of the vine. It would be pretty daft to use the same words over
a potato. You might agree with that.
Or one could just offer general thanks for food, which would cover
grapes and potatoes.
Does it matter? No. Should we thank God for things at all? Or just
give him a shopping list, but never say thank you?
Certainly we should thank God, but equally the thanks should come from
the heart and be spontaneous. I think your wife might start to look a
bit squiggle-eyed if you told her that you loved her in the same words
and at the same time (by the watch) every day.
Yes, it must become a bit mechanistic for people who adhere closely to
the rituals and thank God dozens of times a day.
On the other hand, an orthodox Jew stops what he's doing and thanks
God when he sees a rainbow. There's something quite special about
doing that.
I agree (provided the rainbow has the right number of colours). We
should remember God's promise to Noah - that is the purpose of the rainbow!
I very much doubt that any orthodox Jews would disagree with you.
The impression one gets from Berakoth is otherwise. There is a scene in
a Jewish film (whose name temporarily escapes me - Qodesh?) where two Talmudic students are arguing about the right way to make a cup of tea
on the Sabbath. Apparently it makes all the difference whether you put
the tea in the cup first and add hot water, or put the hot water in the
cup and add the tea. Vital to get it right, otherwise you are a Sabbath- breaker.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
My wife complained (unfairly) that I never told her I loved her. So, I
set a reminder on my Palm Pilot. This is going back a bit, as I haven't
used a Palm Pilot for years. DW used to say that at least my Palm Pilot loved her.
I don't understand the point about the right number of colours?
There's a prohibition against cooking on the sabbath. Because of this,
no orthodox Jew would make tea with tea leaves (or a tea bag) on
Shabbat, so I have no idea what you are referring to. The order of the
water makes no difference.
I'm pretty sure that it's okay to make a pot of tea before the sabbath.
Then pour some of that into a cup and add hot water on the sabbath.
You'd have to be pretty keen on not very nice tea to want to do that, though.
On 01/08/2026 12:30, GB wrote:
My wife complained (unfairly) that I never told her I loved her. So, I
set a reminder on my Palm Pilot. This is going back a bit, as I
haven't used a Palm Pilot for years. DW used to say that at least my
Palm Pilot loved her.
I still hope that you made the statements personal. A robotic "Beep beep beep I love you" would certainly not have passed muster in my home!
I don't understand the point about the right number of colours?
Sorry. The true rainbow has seven colours (or an infinite number, if you prefer). The rainbow adopted by homosexuals only has six.
There's a prohibition against cooking on the sabbath. Because of this,
no orthodox Jew would make tea with tea leaves (or a tea bag) on
Shabbat, so I have no idea what you are referring to. The order of the
water makes no difference.
I do so agree that the order of the ingedients makes no difference, and
as a non-drinker of either tea or coffee, I would be quite happy to see
the making of those beverages included in the prohibition on cooking.
I'm pretty sure that it's okay to make a pot of tea before the
sabbath. Then pour some of that into a cup and add hot water on the
sabbath. You'd have to be pretty keen on not very nice tea to want to
do that, though.
Tea, in my opinion, is not very nice no matter how it is made.
Mind you, I remember a report of a carful of SDA clergymen spending the whole of a fairly lengthy trip arguing over whether it was better to
cook potatoes on Friday and warm them up on the Sabbath, or prepare them
on Friday but do the actual cooking on the Sabbath. The idea of potato
salad did not, apparently, occur to any of them.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Earl Grey, not too strong, without milk or lemon. I had some yesterday, sitting in the sun, and chatting to my brother about our various
operations! An organ recital, as my late father in law called it.
On 31/07/2026 16:33, GB wrote:
Yes, it must become a bit mechanistic for people who adhere closely to
the rituals and thank God dozens of times a day.
On the other hand, an orthodox Jew stops what he's doing and thanks
God when he sees a rainbow. There's something quite special about
doing that.
I agree (provided the rainbow has the right number of colours). We
should remember God's promise to Noah - that is the purpose of the rainbow!
Ah, the rainbow myth.-a You do know that a rainbow is created when water
and sunshine mix.
The first time I discovered this was when I wasGood gracious! Why a fright? Delighted surprise, I would have thought.
washing my car one day and a rainbow appeared in the stream of water.
Gave me a right fright it did.
On 09/08/2026 01:11, John wrote:
Ah, the rainbow myth.-a You do know that a rainbow is created when
water and sunshine mix.
Yes. Some atheist thought he had me by asking whether there were
rainbows in waterfalls before the Flood. (It is a moot point whether
there were waterfall before the-a Flood, but I let that pass.) He seemed taken aback when I cheerfully agreed that there were. God's promise was
"I do set my bow in the clouds". In other words, in a world without rain there was no rainbow in the sky, only in waterfalls (or sea spray or
when washing cars).
The first time I discovered this was when I was washing my car one dayGood gracious! Why a fright? Delighted surprise, I would have thought.
and a rainbow appeared in the stream of water.
Gave me a right fright it did.
How do you know there was no rain before the flood? Did seas not exist before the flood?
Not really, as I discovered rainbows are not put in the sky to show
God's love for mankind, simply a chemical reaction to water and sunshine mixing.
On 09/08/2026 11:12, John wrote:
How do you know there was no rain before the flood? Did seas not exist
before the flood?
The Bible states that there was no rain before sin. I am not alone in assuming that that continued until the time of the Flood - one reason
why the antediluvians did not accept Noah's warning.
If the New Earth is created according to the original blueprints, there
is no sea in the New Ert, so I presume there was no sea before the Flood.
Not really, as I discovered rainbows are not put in the sky to show
God's love for mankind, simply a chemical reaction to water and
sunshine mixing.
I don't think the diffraction of light is a chemical reaction. Perhaps
you meant "a physical process"?
1. God controls physical processes and if He did not want there to be a rainbow, there wouldn't be one!
2. If - as I contend - there were no rainbows before the Flood, there is
no reason why God cannot take a purely physical process and use it as a symbol of His love.
Didn't sin enter the world through one man, Adam? Where do you get there
was no rain before sin.-a The closest I can get to is 1 Kings 8:35 but that's talking about rain being shut off because of sin.
Then you obviously don't know your bible well!
Or Moses simply trying to write down the thousands of years folkloreThat much is obvious.
passed down though the genrations. I should add I don't take Genesis as
a literal account verbatim.
Not really, as I discovered rainbows are not put in the sky to show
God's love for mankind, simply a chemical reaction to water and
sunshine mixing.
I don't think the diffraction of light is a chemical reaction. Perhaps
you meant "a physical process"?
1. God controls physical processes and if He did not want there to be a rainbow, there wouldn't be one!
2. If - as I contend - there were no rainbows before the Flood, there is
no reason why God cannot take a purely physical process and use it as a symbol of His love.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Would you also say that God can make 4 equal 5?
I don't think that even God could say that all of physics would be unchanged, but we just won't have any rainbows for the time being. There would have to be really major changes in electromagnetic radiation to
avoid diffraction. You are talking about a universe that is so vastly different to the one we know that it is impossible to imagine.
I also don't see how, with the sun heating the earth and the seas, rain could be avoided. It's not a small adjustment. It's a completely
different universe.
Possibly, your reading of Genesis is wrong? It doesn't explicitly say
that there were no rainbows before the covenant with all living
creatures. It says that *henceforth* [okay, I've added that word to
explain my point] the rainbow will be a reminder of the covenant, not
that rainbows didn't exist before that.
Why would God need a reminder, anyway?
On 09/08/2026 19:29, John wrote:
Didn't sin enter the world through one man, Adam? Where do you get
there was no rain before sin.-a The closest I can get to is 1 Kings
8:35 but that's talking about rain being shut off because of sin.
Genesis 2:5, 6
Then you obviously don't know your bible well!
You'll notice that the word "seas" is plural. I imagine the earth being something like southern Finland, with lots of lakes, perhaps even lakes
like the big lakes in America. Of course, that is just speculation and I personally would regret that lack of seas. I enjoy the sea, though I can understand that the people in Norfolk might have a different take on the matter!
Or Moses simply trying to write down the thousands of years folklore
passed down though the genrations. I should add I don't take Genesis
as a literal account verbatim.
That much is obvious.
I looked at that as well, but you will notice this refers to the period before Adam was formed, so basically at theat precise moment in time.-a A modern parrellel might be, it hasn't rained today, but we're expecting
some this afternoon.
Verse 10 describes a river, which then splits into 4 rivers. I#m sure
you know where rivers eventually end up.
Strangely enough, when looking at something in the bible yesterday, I
found a reference to someone who comes from Norfolk. 2 Samuel 21:20
Lol. Serious question, why do you take it literally, I don't think itWhat leads you to that conclusion? Is there some feature of the text
was intended to be?
On 11/08/2026 10:23, John wrote:
I looked at that as well, but you will notice this refers to the
period before Adam was formed, so basically at theat precise moment in
time.-a A modern parrellel might be, it hasn't rained today, but we're
expecting some this afternoon.
Certainly, all sorts of caveats and interpretations are possible. The interpretation I have put forward is not unique to me.
Verse 10 describes a river, which then splits into 4 rivers. I#m sure
you know where rivers eventually end up.
A lake? (And the splitting describes a delta - think of the Nile delta, where the river does indeed split into four.)
Strangely enough, when looking at something in the bible yesterday, I
found a reference to someone who comes from Norfolk. 2 Samuel 21:20
As there is no mention of Norfolk in the text, are you attempting to dennigrate the inhabitants of that county?
Lol. Serious question, why do you take it literally, I don't think it
was intended to be?
What leads you to that conclusion? Is there some feature of the text
which tells you that creation is not literal, nor the Flood, but
everything about Abraham is?
Roughy translated, I was taught this way as an adventist, and I'm unable
to shift my position. The incredible stretch is that God created the
world without rivers but added them and the seas as an afterthought.
Folklore suggests the pwople of Norfolk have six fingers, due to
inbreeding. it was a humorous observation.
Genesis 1 and 2, two different creation stories.
Cain and Abel were the
first two offspring of Adam and Eve
yet when Cain slayed Abel he was
scared people would come after him, which people would those be?-a Cain
went into the City (presumably full of people) and took a wife, how did
they get there (I know Christians try to get round that by saying A&E
had other children but Seth was Eve's third child which you don't accept.
Then there's the story of Sodom and Gomarrah, with God wanting to
destroy Sodom because of the sins of it's people.
Lot was so righteous he offered his daughters to be raped and his
daughters so righteous they had sex with their dad whilst he was in a drunken stupor, which then produced two offspring who built tribes which were evil. (Quite how Lot was able to get it up while fast asleep and in
a drunken stupor is a miracle in itself)
A more artional conclusion would probably be that this was a volcanic eruption and the story is folklore.I am happy to accept that something tectonic was the physical cause of
Roughy translated, I was taught this way as an adventist, and I'm unableI suggested that you type "did it rain in the garden of eden" into
to shift my position.
On 12/08/2026 11:30, John wrote:
Roughy translated, I was taught this way as an adventist, and I'm
unable to shift my position. The incredible stretch is that God
created the world without rivers but added them and the seas as an
afterthought.
1. Try looking in chatgpt with the search phrase "Did it rain in the
Garden of Eden?"
2. On the contrary, Genesis describes four rivers (major rivers?) which flowed out of Eden. Not all rivers end up in an ocean; take for example those feeding the Caspain or Aral Seas, or even the River Jordan. Death Valley in America has lots of intermittent streams.
Genesis 1 and 2, two different creation stories.
No they are not. The second fleshes out the details of the first.
Cain and Abel were the first two offspring of Adam and Eve
Notice what you wrote, please: "the first two", not "the only two".
yet when Cain slayed Abel he was
The word is "slew".
scared people would come after him, which people would those be?-a Cain
went into the City (presumably full of people) and took a wife, how
did they get there (I know Christians try to get round that by saying
A&E had other children but Seth was Eve's third child which you don't
accept.
Where does it say that Seth was Eve's third child?
Then there's the story of Sodom and Gomarrah, with God wanting to
destroy Sodom because of the sins of it's people.
Your spelling goes down as your faux outrage goes up.
Lot was so righteous he offered his daughters to be raped and his
daughters so righteous they had sex with their dad whilst he was in a
drunken stupor, which then produced two offspring who built tribes
which were evil. (Quite how Lot was able to get it up while fast
asleep and in a drunken stupor is a miracle in itself)
What Lot did was, obviously, very wrong from our point of view. From his point of view, where a guest is sacrosanct, it was reasonable. If Lot
had been a warrior and called his sons to almost certain death in
defence of a guest, would you still be outraged?
As for Lot's capabilities while drunk, I cannot comment. I don't drink
and don't mix with those who do.
A more artional conclusion would probably be that this was a volcanic
eruption and the story is folklore.
I am happy to accept that something tectonic was the physical cause of
the destruction of Sodom. Why folklore should be considered unreliable I
am not sure.
On 12/08/2026 11:30, John wrote:
Roughy translated, I was taught this way as an adventist, and I'mI suggested that you type "did it rain in the garden of eden" into
unable to shift my position.
chatgpt. Typing the same string into Google or Bing is even more
supportive of my suggestion regarding rain. For example: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/what-was-life-like-in-the- garden-of-eden-before-sin/
A little research before shooting your mouth off might save you embarrassment.
I've ever used it, but whether or not it rained in the GofE isn't the
point, you're suggesting there was no sea(s) for 1500 years, without any evidence.
Yes, Seth is the third son of Adam and Eve named in the Bible, born
after Cain killed Abel. However, he may not strictly be their third
child in total birth order because the biblical record notes that Adam
and Eve also had other unnamed sons and daughters during the 130 years before Seth was born.
They did have other children, that's true, but it just says in their lifetime, not in the 100 or so years previous to Seth, and I read
Genesis 5:4 as post Seth.
So up until the flood, all rivers flowed into lakes?
I'll discuss that in a new thread, but suffice to say the details are different.
Thank you, every day's a school day.
Your spelling goes down as your faux outrage goes up.
I'm not outraged as such, especially as I don't believe the event
happened as described, but given the bible is supposed to be based on morality, I'm saddened that Lot offered his daughters to be savagely
raped by a maurading gang of thugs.-a I take it you don't consider rape
that much of a deal, you always seem quite dismissive of it.
As for your question, if a horde of men were banging on my door
demanding to rape my guests, I certainly wouldn't put my son out there either, but maybe that's just me.
Oooh, go you lol. Obviously you don't follow the example of Jesus, who
was more than happy to mix with the inebriated. Bing brewers droop for
more information on whether Lot was able to have sex with his daughters.
Folklore is fable, as (imo) is Genesis. It tells us how the early inhabitants of this world viewed it's origins, but it doesn't mean itJust down the road outside Buckley there are a couple of burial mounds.
has to be taken literally.-a Other civiliations also have their early ancestral stories.
I don't know whether it rained in Eden or not, I'm happy to accept it
didn't at that time. The question is, how long were they there for, a
couple of days, a week, a month?-a It is possible to go that long without rain you know.
But you've taken that further and suggested it didn't rain for 1500
years.-a Unless God bent his own rules that would defy the law of physics.
As for shooting my mouth off, it seems you are able to give it out butIt is not SDA teaching - or rather, not exclusively SDA teaching - and
not take it.-a There was no personal attack on you, just an observation
that you're reading SDA teaching into something that isn't in the bible.
On 13/08/2026 13:36, John wrote:
I don't know whether it rained in Eden or not, I'm happy to accept it
didn't at that time. The question is, how long were they there for, a
couple of days, a week, a month?-a It is possible to go that long
without rain you know.
I doubt that drought conditions prevailed in the Garden of Eden.
But you've taken that further and suggested it didn't rain for 1500
years.-a Unless God bent his own rules that would defy the law of physics.
So you didn't look up "cloud forests"?
As for shooting my mouth off, it seems you are able to give it out but
not take it.-a There was no personal attack on you, just an observation
that you're reading SDA teaching into something that isn't in the bible.
It is not SDA teaching - or rather, not exclusively SDA teaching - and
it certainly is not a fundamental of SDA belief, just a by-the-way interpretation of Genesis.
I have Dola on my phone, so I may look at that.
You didn't make comment regarding Cain being afraid of those who would
try to kll him, are you suggesting these were his brothers and sisters?
or the fact that his wife came rom the land of Nod, so wasn't in the
region where Cain slew Abel.
So would Ched Evans, who was later cleared by the Court of Appeal.I can understand the American system, where decades may pass between
Cloud forests occur in sub tropical climates. I'm not altogether sure it aplied to the middle east.
It is a SDA teaching, although I accept it isn't exclusve to them.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:47:59 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,965 |