Ask The Rabbi!!

TanithT · 05-21-2009, 11:20 AM

Under what circumstances would a Jew be permitted to perform their own ritual slaughter of a meat animal? Can you just be your own shochet and do it at home for your family's use?

Also, on the Jews killing Jesus thing.....I thought everyone who'd cracked a book or two knew that was a gross misstatement of the actual political climate of Rome at the time. There just wasn't any other way it could have turned out given the circumstances.

Basically you have a strongly expansionist Empire with the policy of managing subjugated peoples with considerable delicacy and tolerance for their diverse religious beliefs, but zero tolerance for inciting religious (and potentially armed) revolt against Rome. Governing all these far-flung conquered peoples is expensive, and they can't afford to piss off the indigenous people's fundamental beliefs and conservative elders too much, or their budget gets blown putting down too many revolts. Nope, they even build new and shinier temples to the gods of the folks they have conquered and propose to govern, because that's a strategy that works. They really work hard on keeping the conservative elements and the general populace happy. At the same time they have to firmly and swiftly put down any incitements to revolt at an early stage before they get expensive or impossible to manage. That's a delicate tightrope to walk.

Into this mix comes a long haired bearded guy claiming the title of king of the Jews, preaching in the streets, upsetting the conservative folks in the temples and generally formenting discontent and uprising. The Empire's representative (in this case Pontius Pilate) did according to standard policy for dealing with folks who rocked this particular boat. They'd done this before with other cult leaders sowing discontent in the Empire, and they did it again. Because it was this particular cult that survived to dominate the region, we hear rather more about Jesus than about the last dozen guys they nailed to a cross for doing the same thing. But from the perspective of the Roman Empire, at that time, there was no difference. He got whacked for being a rabble-rouser, basically, and that was just what they did to rabble-rousers back then.

So. Jews, not guilty. Roman Empire, guilty, but what they were guilty of was enforcing their own laws and edicts. Whether the laws and edicts of their time were "moral" according to modern standards is highly debatable, but they were the laws of the day. I don't have a moral judgment here, only a historical footnote on the context of that era's political climate.

05-21-2009, 11:20 AM	#11
TanithT Herfer Grrrrl Join Date: May 2009 First Name: Tanith Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 692 Trading: (26)	Re: Ask The Rabbi!! Under what circumstances would a Jew be permitted to perform their own ritual slaughter of a meat animal? Can you just be your own shochet and do it at home for your family's use? Also, on the Jews killing Jesus thing.....I thought everyone who'd cracked a book or two knew that was a gross misstatement of the actual political climate of Rome at the time. There just wasn't any other way it could have turned out given the circumstances. Basically you have a strongly expansionist Empire with the policy of managing subjugated peoples with considerable delicacy and tolerance for their diverse religious beliefs, but zero tolerance for inciting religious (and potentially armed) revolt against Rome. Governing all these far-flung conquered peoples is expensive, and they can't afford to piss off the indigenous people's fundamental beliefs and conservative elders too much, or their budget gets blown putting down too many revolts. Nope, they even build new and shinier temples to the gods of the folks they have conquered and propose to govern, because that's a strategy that works. They really work hard on keeping the conservative elements and the general populace happy. At the same time they have to firmly and swiftly put down any incitements to revolt at an early stage before they get expensive or impossible to manage. That's a delicate tightrope to walk. Into this mix comes a long haired bearded guy claiming the title of king of the Jews, preaching in the streets, upsetting the conservative folks in the temples and generally formenting discontent and uprising. The Empire's representative (in this case Pontius Pilate) did according to standard policy for dealing with folks who rocked this particular boat. They'd done this before with other cult leaders sowing discontent in the Empire, and they did it again. Because it was this particular cult that survived to dominate the region, we hear rather more about Jesus than about the last dozen guys they nailed to a cross for doing the same thing. But from the perspective of the Roman Empire, at that time, there was no difference. He got whacked for being a rabble-rouser, basically, and that was just what they did to rabble-rousers back then. So. Jews, not guilty. Roman Empire, guilty, but what they were guilty of was enforcing their own laws and edicts. Whether the laws and edicts of their time were "moral" according to modern standards is highly debatable, but they were the laws of the day. I don't have a moral judgment here, only a historical footnote on the context of that era's political climate.