tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post1093709910279798396..comments2023-10-30T08:40:59.016-04:00Comments on Wolfish Musings: Shimshon, Terrorism and HistoryBrooklynWolfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-80925505491088052232007-04-22T06:53:00.000-04:002007-04-22T06:53:00.000-04:00Shimshon was a failed shofeit, worse than Yiftahh....Shimshon was a failed <I>shofeit</I>, worse than Yiftahh... that's why the book is ordered in that way, from the heroism of Eihud, Devora and Gid‘on in the beginning, through the flawed YIftahh and thuggish Shimshon to the tragedies of Mikha and his idol and Pilegesh baGiv‘a.<BR/><BR/>Shimshon was meant to be a hallowed <I>nazir</I> who would save his people. Instead he used his God-given power to fight a personal vendetta war against the Pelishtim, causing such trouble for the Israelite nation as a whole that his own people turned him in. He had a thing for Philistine women, and would go hang out in vineyards (wait? isn't he a <I>nazir</I>?!) to get at them.<BR/><BR/>He's not a role model.Steg (dos iz nit der šteg)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07694556690190505030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-10608772428912739002007-04-18T20:32:00.000-04:002007-04-18T20:32:00.000-04:00I think you are wrong as to both the Biblical and ...I think you are wrong as to both the Biblical and modern standards.<BR/><BR/>Biblical ones first. Hakadosh baruch Hu offered his explicit approval by granting Shimshon miraculous aid in pulling down the temple. therefore, Shimshon was acting with direct Divine approval, so his actions were morally correct, by definition. <BR/><BR/>As to the modern standard, the Temple did contain the military chieftans (S'ranim) of the Philistines, and these seem to have been the principal targets of Shimshon. They would be legitimate targets under modern rules of war. That would make the civilians "collateral damage". Shimshon might, by modern standards, be a war criminal, if it were judged that the harm inflicted on the civilians was out of proportion to the military benefit gained. However, given that the destruction of the temple seems to have resulted in the Jews getting a respite from Philistine attacks for a period of years, that would be a tough argument.<BR/><BR/>Now, if you wanted to suggest that Shimon and Levi were terrorists for their treatment of Sh'chem, you would have a better case, since they pulled off their slaughter by subtrifuge and natural means, rather than miracle. And Ya'akov Avinu condemned their act both at the time and after 30+ years of relection. Which would make it hard to claim Divine approval for their act.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-74759770898884918652007-04-18T14:13:00.000-04:002007-04-18T14:13:00.000-04:00I don't believe we've added a rabbinic commandment...I don't believe we've added a rabbinic commandment (or minhag) against terrorism. Rather we've expanded the definition of what falls under the prohibition of "don't murder". Now this is making things more stringent rather than more lenient, so there is a lot more support for it.Larry Lennhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-55221086281373621052007-04-17T23:17:00.000-04:002007-04-17T23:17:00.000-04:00That's a fair question.However, it could be answer...That's a fair question.<BR/><BR/>However, it could be answered by stating that homosexuality was forbidden at God's express command. Something that God expressly prescribed or proscribed cannot be changed by the whims of society.<BR/><BR/>Shimshon, however, was not commanded to do what he did -- he did it of his own volition. As such, what he did that may have been OK then could be viewed as evil now.<BR/><BR/>The WolfBrooklynWolfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994285019137108636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11425059.post-76650529981857508812007-04-17T22:29:00.000-04:002007-04-17T22:29:00.000-04:00If terrorism was ok then and forbidden/imoral toda...If terrorism was ok then and forbidden/imoral today, can the reverse apply to homosexuality? That is the thesis of Rabbi Bradley Artson, among others. Rabbi Artson asserts that the type of homosexuality known in the days of the tanach was based on an unequal power relationship (e.g., in Greece homosexual love was usually between a boy and an much older man), or was promiscuous, or was tied to pagan religious rituals. Rabbi Artson asserts that loving monogamous religiously sanctified homosexual relationships were not present in those times, and thus could not be banned.<BR/><BR/>How is this different than your argument?Larry Lennhoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06578073969473815180noreply@blogger.com