|
|
Steven Mock - Message # 1
Kol Nidre debate with Salvador Astucia - Full Text
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: s...@nizkor.org
Newsgroups:
alt.conspiracy.jfk,alt.revisionism,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.iraq,soc.culture.palestine
Subject: Re: Be Patient Hate Mongers
Date: 20 Aug 2005 10:29:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <1124558946.586474.227660@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1124071364.929967.38010@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124101489.869865.260760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124254476.356784.272620@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124301825.226101.232240@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124423662.473020.69640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<1124444529.358372.47290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124456666.853014.256880@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124458121.121863.121660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124517294.364335.321610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<1124538644.772656.327400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124548880.200253.37440@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124549607.586128.284370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
<1124553129.617897.174470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
<1124554586.897662.148520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<1124558520.542169.47620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.86.148.140
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1124558951 18944 127.0.0.1 (20 Aug 2005 17:29:11
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:29:11 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1124558520.542169.47620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=128.86.148.140;
posting-account=SlEiXQwAAAA_q_nn_YVHTcwoSagY7JB4
Salvador Astucia wrote:
> > > [Salvador:]
> > > [...] you were claiming that a Talmudic explanation for Yom Kipper
> > > also applies to Kol Nidre, even if there is a conflict between
> > > the two. That is exactly what you were saying. Now you're
> > > backpedaling.
> >
> > [Steven Mock:]
> > No, I don't see a conflict between the two. You haven't shown one.
> > <snip> Your claim is that your Talmud quote specifically refers
> > to the Kol Nidre. It does not.
>
> Oh, now we're getting somewhere. Are you saying that the following
> Talmudic verbiage (from Nedarim, 23a) is not referring to the
> Kol Nidre prayer?
>
> "He who desires his friend to eat with him, and after urging him,
> imposes a vow upon him, it is 'a vow of incitement' and hence
> invalid. And he who desires that none of his vows made during
> the year shall be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the
> year and declare, "Every vow which I may make in the future
> shall be null." HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID, PROVIDING THAT HE
> REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW." (Caps in original.)
>
> (Talmud, Nedarim, 23a)
>
> Please respond directly to the question. Is the quoted verbiage
> from Nedarim, 23a referring to the Kol Nidre prayer? Yes or No.
No, its is not.
The Kol Nidre prayer may have grown out of this verse, among others,
but there is no logical way that this passage could be referring to the
Kol Nidre prayer as such.
Hence your assumption that this passage is the key to understanding the
modern meaning of the prayer is specious.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Steven Mock
<http://groups.google.com/groups/img/dot_clear.gif>
|
|