Yehudi>Medaber>Chai>Tzomeach>Domem?

[ChaimMoskowitz]

How about homosexuality?

Forbidden.

[grodnoking]

ShlockDoc,

The following story may help shed some light on this matter:

As a small child, Reb Zalman Aharon (the Raza), the older brother of the Rebbe Sholom Dov Ber of Lubavitch (the Rashab) often complained that he was noticeably shorter than his younger brother. One day, the Raza sneaked up behind his brother and pushed him lightly into a small ditch. As the Rashab stood up in surprise, the Raza seized the moment and pointed out that now he was taller. Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch, the father of the two boys, observed the entire episode. The Rebbe asked for a chair, ordered the Raza to stand on it, and asked him, “Tell me, who is taller now?” The Raza answered excitedly that yet again he was taller. “Aha!” said Rabbi Shmuel. “There you are! To be bigger than your friend, there is no need to pull him down. Simply elevate yourself!”

Jews have never looked upon other nations as inferior. They merely have been elevated to be on a higher level than the rest. Judaism requires a higher spiritual level, just as a Navy Seal requires a higher level of training, or just as certain jobs require having an immaculate record. 

The problem here is that our "PC" society has ingrained within the minds of the masses that you can't be "different" and be friends at the same time.

There ARE differences between races, genders and religions, and yet, as your avatar suggests, we can STILL coexist. Trying to DENY or MASK that there are differences simply leads to more animosity and war. Men and women, Blacks and Whites, Jews and Gentiles have different qualities and are NOT the same. There is nothing wrong with accepting that.

In our approximately 3,000 years as Jews, when have we started a war with another nation JUST because we believe them to be inferior? Jews have never caused trouble to other nations despite believing that we are a chosen nation and that we have been elevated.

[yakrot]

You are confusing Christians with Catholics.

Same question remove the word Christian and replace it with Catholic, what is the answer.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Same question remove the word Christian and replace it with Catholic, what is the answer.

You need to understand the Catholics only have one voice. The rules come down from the Pope/Vatican. I can disagree with something but it is still the law of the Church is the easiest way to put it. Priests will be excommunicated if they don't follow the doctrine.

I hope we all follow the religion of our choice because we believe it to be the one true religion. My personal belief is while many religions are different we are still believing in the same G-d. Man changed religion over time not G-d.

[Baruch]

It's b'feirush a mishna +

Horiyos 3:7 and 13a; Shulchan Aruch 251, 8 and 9, and the Rama, 252, 8.

IIRC, it's not befeirush at all.

Anyone who is familiar with Lashon Chazal knows that להחיות (in this context, not להחיות מתים ), normally means to support financially.

IIRC, the Bais Yosef is מדחיק, that להחיות, means להציל הנפש, in order to answer a סתירה in the mishnayos.

If anyone has time to research, then please CMIIW. But this is the way I remember it.

[David Smith]

@Aaaron.

The Maharal writes extensively about that a woman has less mitzvos because their more perfect.

The Maharal lived in an era when women had zero rights, and were considered inferior.

He wasn't trying to explain away the Torah.

Regarding precedence between man and woman; there are four cases discussed: giving charity, saving their life, redeeming them from capture, and redeeming them from sexual slavery. The common theme to the answer to all these questions seems to be that it depends who needs it more, and who stands to lose the most.
Therefore, a woman would take precedence for charity, being as a man is more capable of providing for himself without your help than a woman is.
A woman would be redeemed from regular captivity first, being as she is more susceptible to sexual abuse than a man.
 A man would take precedence if they are both captured to be used as sex slaves, being as homosexual rape is considered worse than the standard method.
 A man would also take precedence take precedence if both their lives are endangered, assuming all things to be the same otherwise.
This isn't because men are better or superior, it's based on the basic purpose of life in Judaism. Life isn't an end unto itself, it is a means to an end. We're on this world to accomplish a mission, after which we return to the spiritual world where we came from. Death isn't a tragedy in of itself, the tragedy is the lost opportunity to continue accomplishing what we need to get done here. Therefore, whoever has to get more done (or who's history would deem them likely to get more done, this is why a more spiritual person would take precedence over a more base and worldly person) has more to lose by dying.
A man has more commandments than a woman does, he therefore has more that he needs to accomplish. A woman is closer to completing her mission, she therefore has leaves less undone should she return to her Creator now.
This doesn't mean a man is better than a woman, it just means that they have different ways G-d intended them to accomplish their purpose on this world. (This is my simplistic understanding of the matter.)

[Baruch]

Regarding precedence between man and woman; there are four cases discussed: giving charity, saving their life, redeeming them from capture, and redeeming them from sexual slavery. The common theme to the answer to all these questions seems to be that it depends who needs it more, and who stands to lose the most. Therefore, a woman would take precedence for charity, being as a man is more capable of providing for himself without your help than a woman is. A woman would be redeemed from regular captivity first, being as she is more susceptible to sexual abuse than a man. A man would take precedence if they are both captured to be used as sex slaves, being as homosexual rape is considered worse than the standard method. A man would also take precedence take precedence if both their lives are endangered, assuming all things to be the same otherwise. This isn't because men are better or superior, it's based on the basic purpose of life in Judaism. We're on this world to accomplish a mission, after which we return to the spiritual world where we came from. Death isn't a tragedy in of itself, the tragedy is the lost opportunity to continue accomplishing what we need to get done here. Therefore, whoever has to get more done (or who's history would deem them likely to get more done, this is why a more spiritual person would take precedence over a more base and worldly person) has more to lose by dying. A man has more commandments than a woman does, he therefore has more that he needs to accomplish. A woman is closer to completing her mission, she therefore has leaves less undone should she return to her Creator now. This doesn't mean a man is better than a woman, it just means that they have different ways G-d intended them to accomplish their purpose on this world. (This is my simplistic understanding of the matter.)

Please edit your comment, and make more paragraphs.

I'm trying to read your insight, and my eyes are hurting.
 

[David Smith]

Please edit your comment, and make more paragraphs.

I'm trying to read your insight, and my eyes are hurting.
 

Any better? Please add your thoughts, i really want to hear.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

A man would also take precedence take precedence if both their lives are endangered, assuming all things to be the same otherwise.

Isn't this the opposite of what you told me earlier?

Yup. Neither one has precedence over the other.

[luckyluck]

Regarding precedence between man and woman; there are four cases discussed: giving charity, saving their life, redeeming them from capture, and redeeming them from sexual slavery. The common theme to the answer to all these questions seems to be that it depends who needs it more, and who stands to lose the most.
Therefore, a woman would take precedence for charity, being as a man is more capable of providing for himself without your help than a woman is.
A woman would be redeemed from regular captivity first, being as she is more susceptible to sexual abuse than a man.
 A man would take precedence if they are both captured to be used as sex slaves, being as homosexual rape is considered worse than the standard method.
 A man would also take precedence take precedence if both their lives are endangered, assuming all things to be the same otherwise.
This isn't because men are better or superior, it's based on the basic purpose of life in Judaism. Life isn't an end unto itself, it is a means to an end. We're on this world to accomplish a mission, after which we return to the spiritual world where we came from. Death isn't a tragedy in of itself, the tragedy is the lost opportunity to continue accomplishing what we need to get done here. Therefore, whoever has to get more done (or who's history would deem them likely to get more done, this is why a more spiritual person would take precedence over a more base and worldly person) has more to lose by dying.
A man has more commandments than a woman does, he therefore has more that he needs to accomplish. A woman is closer to completing her mission, she therefore has leaves less undone should she return to her Creator now.
This doesn't mean a man is better than a woman, it just means that they have different ways G-d intended them to accomplish their purpose on this world. (This is my simplistic understanding of the matter.)

+1

[Baruch]

Any better? Please add your thoughts, i really want to hear.

Thanks. I have nothing to add. I couldn't have said it better.

[Ygold]

If I recall correctly, there's a thread already that discusses this male female difference in Judaism, though I can't seem to find it.

[ShlockDoc]

The depth and breath of Torah discourse over the last few thousand years is like statistics. If you have a preconceived notion, you will certainly find sources to quote that support your opinion. And your detractors will find sources that prove that you're wrong. 

[David Smith]

Isn't this the opposite of what you told me earlier?

Yes. I apologize. I was answering @aaron more than you. I meant to say that a man doesn't get precedence due his superiority. The equation used to decide whose life takes precedence is the same by both. I realize that this wasn't a fair answer, especially without explaining, being as it didn't really answer your question (and i didn't say what i meant). My sincere apologies.

[luckyluck]

How can you religion have so many different interpretations on basic issues?

IMHO the fact that there are so many diverging opinions shows how much there was no censorship of different understandings, and that all these questions were analyzed and discussed from many different points of view.
Practically we would still be required to follow the decision of the majority, unfortunately that won't be always clear as long as we won't have established a Sanhedrin.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Yes. I apologize. I was answering @aaron more than you. I meant to say that a man doesn't get precedence due his superiority. The equation used to decide whose life takes precedence is the same by both. I realize that this wasn't a fair answer, especially without explaining, being as it didn't really answer your question (and i didn't say what i meant). My sincere apologies.

So all things being equal the mans life takes precedence? This is because he has more of his mission to complete? If the women had more of her mission to complete then would her life would take precedence with everything else being equal?

You have nothing to apologize for. You explanation was enough.

[Dan]

Is there a point to this question?
Is there a husband out there (in a loving marriage) that wouldn't give his life up for his wife or kids?

[jj1000]

I like this thread because I didn't get involved.

Shmuly boteach explains (90% of people are already discrediting this) that Jews are the chosen people to spread awareness of hashem and be a living example of how to live.

That's what superior means that we are chosen to be examples.

(Thread was dying had to through some more wood in)

There are some really great opinions stated in this thread.

[luckyluck]

Is there a point to this question?
Is there a husband out there (in a loving marriage) that wouldn't give his life up for his wife or kids?

The way you are wording it could be problematic. Practically it's questionable wether you're allowed to kill yourself in order to save someone else's life.

[Dan]

The way you are wording it could be problematic. Practically it's questionable wether you're allowed to kill yourself in order to save someone else's life.

Who said anything about killing yourself