Ti bi da ubijes zivu mladu majku i upropastis devojcicu od 11-12 godina ???
Fetus se mozda nikad nece roditi kao zivo bice dok su pomenute zive osobe,ziva bica,ZIVE DUSHE !!!
-
- Popularno:
- Da li svesteno lice treba da ima...
- Hrišćanstvo i patriotizam.
- “Šta je bila "Vitlejemska zvezda"?
- Rio Tinto se iselio iz kancelarije iz...
- Ukrajina ulazi u EU do 2027-e!
- Ići polako
- Da li će Vučić ukloniti Ćacilend?
- Da li je bolji život na selu?
- Prekipjelo, kako se London bori za...
- VI SE PRIPREMATE ZA RAT S RUSIJOM!"...
17 vekova od Nikejskog sabora
- Začetnik teme Paula
- Datum pokretanja
Fetus se mozda nikad nece roditi kao zivo bice dok su pomenute zive osobe,ziva bica,ZIVE DUSHE !!!
Gedeon
Elita
- Poruka
- 17.447
Kakva ubistva? O čemu ti pričaš?
Daj mi iskreno reci KADA si se tacno ukljucio u ovu raspravu,jesi li bar procitao par postova ili si onako samo navijacki nabacujes ono "napred nasi"pa sta bude nek bude ?
...nije valjda da ocekujes i da citam umesto tebe ?
Gedeon
Elita
- Poruka
- 17.447
Naravno da čitam šta pišeš. Tu citiraš neke judaističke komentare, pa jesi li ti bre hrišćanin ili pripadnik sinagoge?
Još dobro kaže fra Ivo Pavić da su samo pravoslavni i katolici hrišćani.
U vezi abortusa: naravno da treba da postoje izuzeci, recimo ako je život majke ugrožen, a ako ona želi da dete preživi a ona da da se žrtvuje - treba poštovati njezinu volju. Tako rade pravi hrišćani. Ili ako će se već dete umreti ovako ili onako treba ga već na neki način krstiti.
Opet pomesao loncici ?
Jesi li video ti sta sam uopste citirao i koje sam 4 tacke pomenuo nakon sto sam postavio pitanje u vzi dva konkretna primera - zena kojoj su doktori izricito nalozili prekid bremenosti zbog nekih zdravstvenih problema zbog kojih bi izgubila zivot ukoliko produzi bremenost i devojcicu od 11-12 godina koju je silovao neki manjijak koji se zazeleo poroda,ono da produzi lozu...
...dok si Alan Ford lepo kaze "naoruzaj se i bezi"...!
Hmmm,ovo je vec sasvim drugacija pozicija od tvojih kolege koji su forsirali ideju da se to nikako ne sme uraditi jer je navodno ubistvo !
...tako smo poceli ovu diskusiju gde joj realno mesto i nije bilo.
Neeeeeeeeemoj sad opet u livade,kakve veze ima krstenje sa malom decom kada je njihovo carstvo nebesko ?
Gedeon
Elita
- Poruka
- 17.447
Nema ulaska u Carstvo Nebesko bez krštenja. U vezi abortusa: izuzeci uvek moraju postojati, ali od izuzetaka se ne sme praviti pravilo. Moj stav je ovakav: kao vernik abortuse ne podržavam i smatram da su abortusi kao vrsta kontracepcije prevaziđeni. Danas su dostupne različite vrste kontracepcije i nisu skupe.Opet pomesao loncici ?
Jesi li video ti sta sam uopste citirao i koje sam 4 tacke pomenuo nakon sto sam postavio pitanje u vzi dva konkretna primera - zena kojoj su doktori izricito nalozili prekid bremenosti zbog nekih zdravstvenih problema zbog kojih bi izgubila zivot ukoliko produzi bremenost i devojcicu od 11-12 godina koju je silovao neki manjijak koji se zazeleo poroda,ono da produzi lozu...
...dok si Alan Ford lepo kaze "naoruzaj se i bezi"...!
Hmmm,ovo je vec sasvim drugacija pozicija od tvojih kolege koji su forsirali ideju da se to nikako ne sme uraditi jer je navodno ubistvo !
...tako smo poceli ovu diskusiju gde joj realno mesto i nije bilo.
Neeeeeeeeemoj sad opet u livade,kakve veze ima krstenje sa malom decom kada je njihovo carstvo nebesko ?
Ovo rascisti sa Isusom,On je rekao da je njihovo carstvo nebesko sto automatski znaci da njima ne trebaju "vize"za ulaz...
...naravno,ovo mozes lako demantovati ukoliko mi pokazes da je i deci potrebno krstenje tako sto ces pojasniti zasto je i u kom smislu NJIHOVO Cartsvo nebesko a ne i odraslima ukoliko svima treba krstenje da bi tamo usli.
Slazem se.
Slazem se.
Posto je jasno da u vezi ovog imas ispravne stavove red je da se nekako angazujes da b i poucio tvoju bracu uveri na forumu koji brane sasvim drugaciju poziciju,mozda ce tebe poslusati !
Gedeon
Elita
- Poruka
- 17.447
Ja da ih poučavam? Nisam kvalifikovan.
Ne vredi, advent autizam i tu nema pomoći.
Ti misliš da su se stari Jevreji i SZ i zakon i proroci i pravednici i patrijarsi i carevi tako hladno i bedno odnosili prema začeću i plodu i u utrobi majke, to je problem sa tebe i adventizam čitate slovo koje ubija duh i suštinu zakona, sam Isus je rekao da je i SZ osnovan na dve najveće zapovesti ljuba prema Bogu i čoveku, zato ti je ova tvoja gore poruka baš onako suvoparna i isprazna.
I, opet ne odgovaraš direktno i konkretno na moje poruke i odgovore nego verglaš jednu te istu priču.
Suština cele priče sa ženom trudnicom jeste da je bila nenamerno i slučajno udarena i to ceo zakon uvažava kao olakšavajuću okolnost jer postoji sud i suđenje i sudije koje na osnovu dokaza i svedoka i činjenica donose odluke, jedino ti to nećeš da uvažiš jer sve što je protiv advent priče nije istina, to sam već napiso, ako se činjenice ne slažu sa adventom, tim gore po činjenice.
Već sam ti naveo šta SZ misli o začeću i plodu u utrobi majke i šta piše o začeću Isusa i Jovana Krstitelja, i zato se od samog početka hrišćanstva poštovala trudnoća i krštavala su se bebe, jer :
[td]Psalam 51,5[/td][td]Gle, u bezakonju rodih se, i u grijehu zatrudnje mati moja mnom.[/td]
[/TR]
Nije bitno sta ja mislim vec sta pise u Pismi,toga se drzi i mani tvoje popsko-papske stogodarije.Ne vredi, advent autizam i tu nema pomoći.
Ti misliš da su se stari Jevreji i SZ i zakon i proroci i pravednici i patrijarsi i carevi tako hladno i bedno odnosili prema začeću i plodu i u utrobi majke, to je problem sa tebe i adventizam čitate slovo koje ubija duh i suštinu zakona, sam Isus je rekao da je i SZ osnovan na dve najveće zapovesti ljuba prema Bogu i čoveku, zato ti je ova tvoja gore poruka baš onako suvoparna i isprazna.
I, opet ne odgovaraš direktno i konkretno na moje poruke i odgovore nego verglaš jednu te istu priču.
Suština cele priče sa ženom trudnicom jeste da je bila nenamerno i slučajno udarena i to ceo zakon uvažava kao olakšavajuću okolnost jer postoji sud i suđenje i sudije koje na osnovu dokaza i svedoka i činjenica donose odluke, jedino ti to nećeš da uvažiš jer sve što je protiv advent priče nije istina, to sam već napiso, ako se činjenice ne slažu sa adventom, tim gore po činjenice.
Već sam ti naveo šta SZ misli o začeću i plodu u utrobi majke i šta piše o začeću Isusa i Jovana Krstitelja, i zato se od samog početka hrišćanstva poštovala trudnoća i krštavala su se bebe, jer :
[TR]
[td]Psalam 51,5[/td][td]Gle, u bezakonju rodih se, i u grijehu zatrudnje mati moja mnom.[/td]
[/TR]
Jel se mozes konacno fokusirati na one moje 4 tacke i bar ih pokusaj redosledno ospoeiti...naravno,ili potvrditi...samo nemoj bezati,gledaju te ovde ljudi,sramota je...
Odgovoreno je precizno i jasno, to što stalno ponavljaš jedno te isto 100 puta neće postati tačno.
Hajdemo ovako:
Citiraj svaku od onih mojih 4 tacki i onda redosledno citiraj te tvoje navodne odgovore pa da vide svi forumasi jesi li mi zaista odgovorio ili si davao kilometarske postove o lanskom snjegu.
Izvoli,red je da konacno identifikujemo jos jednog prevaranta i lazova (necu da prejudiciram,mozda ce se pokazati da sam to ja...ili mozda ti...videcemo) !
Šta sad treba sve iz početka da pišem, nego ako sam ti dao odgovore na tvoje tačke red bi bio da ti odgovoriš na te moje odgovore, ti moji odgovori su ovde :
#129 , #130 , #146 , #159
Dakle, konkretno da odgovaraš na moje poruke, to i to nije tačno zbog toga i toga
, ne možeš da prigovaraš na moje poruke uopšteno i da ponavljaš svoje teze.Da, dodam još nešto ukratko :
22. Ako se posvade ljudi i pritom ženu trudnu tako udare, da pometne, ali nikakve daljne štete ne bude, onda ima krivac platiti novčanu globu, koliko mu naloži muž ženin i presude suci.
23. Ako li nastane daljna šteta onda imaš dati život za život,
24. Oko za oko, zub za zub, ruku za ruku, nogu za nogu,
Ovo boldovano na početku priče je vrlo bitno, jer u istoj glavi u kojoj je priča o ženi trudnici stoje stihovi koji kvalifikuju namerno ubistvo sa kazna smrt i nenamerno ubistvo neka druga kazna koja nije smrt, i tu takođe imaju razna Jevrejska sudijska i sudska tumačenja u kome se navode nenamerna i namerna ubistva. Recimo, osnovna postavka stvari je ovo :
The Gemara seeks to clarify the rationale underlying the opinions of the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon, and asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states: “But if there will be a man who hates his neighbor, and he lies in wait for him and rises up against him, and strikes him mortally and he dies” (Deuteronomy 19:11). Based on the repeated use of pronouns in the phrase: “And lies in wait for him and rises up against him,” Rabbi Shimon derives: One is not liable to be executed until he intends to kill specifically him, the actual victim.
Ovo je po tumačenju Jevrejske reči koje označava svađu i tuču između nekih ljudi :
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5327.htm
Niph`al reciprocal struggle with each other: Imperfect masculine plural יִנָּצוּ Exodus 21:22 (E), Leviticus 24:10 (H), 2 Samuel 14:6;
Primary Theme: Human Strife
In the Pentateuch נָצָה almost always surfaces in spontaneous street-level conflict. Moses’ intervention between “two Hebrews who were fighting” (Exodus 2:13) previews his lifelong role as mediator. Later legislation applies the term to assaults that endanger a pregnant woman (Exodus 21:22) or force a wife to violate modesty to rescue her husband (Deuteronomy 25:11). Leviticus 24:10 links the outbreak of a brawl with the blasphemy that follows, showing how quarrelsome hearts can quickly turn irreverent mouths against God.
Žestoka i krvnička tuča između dva (više) muškaraca verovatno na ulici u kojoj je došlo do toga da nesrećna žena trudnica koja se tu zatekla primi jak udarac verovatno u stomak i došlo je do kontrakcija i pobačaja smrt bebe. Što znači da žena trudnica nije udarena sa namerom da se povredi ili ubije, nego je nanamerno udarena od strane jednog od učesnika tuče.
I, sobzirom da je već u istoj glavi napravljena razlika između namernog ubistva i smrtne kazne, i nenamernog ubistva i nije smrtna kazna, onda i ova ubistva pobačaj smrt bebe ili smrt žene trudnice podpadaju pod nenamerno ubistvo i nije smrtna kazna.
Tako je strogo gledano po zakonu i sudu i suđenju i kako onda Jevreji tumače ovu priču i slučaj žene trudnice, kako, kroz analizu sudskog postupka, jer se sud i sudije pominju i u ovoj priči sa ženom trudnicom.
Ovo je u stvari na neki način kod Jevreja i njihovih tumačenja i pitanje strogog sudskog postupka, to je ovo :
Introductions to the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, Introduction to Sanhedrin
While the Sanhedrin was the Jewish high court, tractate Sanhedrin is, at its essential core, a discussion of the Jewish state, and not only of the judicial system as its name might indicate. The tractate lays out a blueprint of the Jewish state as a whole and addresses many of the dilemmas created by the concept of a Jewish state. It explains all of the main institutions that exist within the state according to Torah law and their relationships with one another. Indeed, most of the halakhot in this tractate can be applied only in a sovereign Jewish state that operates in accordance with halakha....
.....
The ultimate source of all authority or any type of government is the will of God. Only by virtue of the divine command may people lay claim to leadership, and human rulers derive their authority from God. The prophet Isaiah expresses this point powerfully: “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king” (Isaiah 33:22). All three standard powers of government: Judicial, legislative, and executive, are enumerated in this verse, and all are concentrated in God Himself....
The judicial branch is completely entrusted to the supreme body of Jewish Sages in each generation, known as the Sanhedrin. Due to the stability and inviolability of the Torah's laws, the judiciary is of immense importance; it is entrusted with the power to interpret the Torah's eternal laws and to apply them to the changing circumstances of each generation and locale. This power is granted to a complex system of courts, at the head of which stands the Great Sanhedrin, a court numbering seventy-one members, which is viewed as the successor to the original court of Moses and the seventy elders who assisted him (17a; see Numbers 11:16-17, 24-25).....
I, onda i postoje razne interpretacije ovog sudskog postupka kod slučaja žene trudnice, ima ovde dosta o tome :
https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Exodus.21.22.1?lang=bi
https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.79a.1?lang=bi
Ali, verovatno je ključno ovo :
https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Kamma.49a?lang=bi
Malo je sve ovo suvoparno jer se tiče sudskog postupka i interpratacija iako se sud bavi živim i realnim ljudima i njihovim nesrećama i čak i ubistvima i smrću, ali ovo Bava Kamma šta kažu :
The principles of these halakhot are founded on the passages of the Torah appearing in the portion of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:18–37, 22:1–14). The Torah does not present these halakhot in a dry exposition of abstract legal principles but in the form of lively examples drawn from everyday life. In order to be able to apply these examples to other cases, it is necessary to first determine which facets of the cases provided by the Torah are essential elements that define the halakha and which facets are just incidental details of the provided example. This is done with the help of the authoritative traditions of the Oral Law and with the tools of legal exegesis.
I, šta je ovde ključ za razumevanje priče i slučaja žene trudnice :
GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna indicates that the reason the owner is exempt from paying compensation for the offspring when an ox unintentionally gores a pregnant woman is specifically that it was intending to gore another ox. By inference, if it was intending to gore the woman, the owner pays compensation for miscarried offspring. Shall we say that this should be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava, as Rav Adda bar Ahava says: With regard to oxen that intended to gore a woman and then did so, the owners are exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring?
The Gemara answers that Rav Adda bar Ahava could have said to you: The same is true, that even if the oxen intended to gore the woman, the owners are also exempt from paying compensation for miscarried offspring. As for that which is taught in the mishna: An ox that was intending to gore another ox, it is taught this way since it wants to teach the latter clause: A person that was intending to injure another person, as this case is written explicitly in the verse: “And if men struggle and hurt a pregnant woman and her offspring emerge” (Exodus 21:22). In the case in the verse, the assailant intended to injure another person but injured the woman instead. Therefore, the mishna also teaches the first clause in that style: An ox that was intending to gore another ox.
I, na kraju ovaj tumač Bava Kamma ništa ne tumači u vezi toga ako žena trudnica umre smrt i kazne život za život. Nije mi jasno zašto nije i to protumačio.
Direktno se kod Bava Kamma pominje slučaj žene trudnice i pobačaj smrt bebe i ovde se tumači da je u pitanju nameran udarac kao da je čovek napao ženu trudnicu namerno, iako se po literalno i lingvističko tumačenje odnosi da je nanemerno udarena žena trudnica, tako i mnogi najznačajniji Jevreji i tumače, nenameran udarac.
I, ovde u priči i slučaj žena trudnica ako je bio pobačaj i smrt bebe i ako je bio sudski postupak da se isplati za smrt bebe pobačaj, onda ispada da je bio nameran udarac.
U čemu su moguća rešenja ove priče o trudnoj ženi, pa isti taj Bava Kamma objašnjava i ovo :
The Gemara asks: And what halakha does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel expound on this extra word “pregnant”? The Gemara answers: He requires it for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that one who injures a woman is never liable to pay compensation for miscarried offspring unless he strikes her opposite the womb, i.e., on the abdomen. Rav Pappa said: Do not say that it must be literally opposite the womb. Rather, he is liable if she was struck anywhere that the wound’s impact could reach the offspring, i.e., any part of the torso, to exclude a wound to her hand or foot, for which he is not liable, since it could be argued that it was not the wound to the hand or foot that caused the miscarriage.
Navodi se, iako je namerno udarena žena trudnica, samo ako je udarena na način direktno u trbuh ili torzo i to se tek onda i vodi kao direktna namera da se izazove pobačaj i smrt bebe kod trudnice i onda se sudski plaća kazna, ako je namerni napad bio na neki drugi deo tela kako bi se povredila žena trudnica onda ne postoji sudska novčana kazna.
Ovde u priči o ženi trudnici vidimo da je za pobačaj novčana kazna, što implicira da je bio nameran napad na ženu trudnicu i to je dovelo da se povredi i bude pobačaj. Ali, po mnogim drugim priznatim Jevrejima tumačima ovo je bio nenameran udarac u ženu trudnicu koji je uzrokovao pobačaj i ako se za nenamerni udarac u ženu trudnicu ne plaća sudski nikakva novčana kazna, da li onda to implicira da je taj nenamerni udarac u ženu trudnicu bio baš u predelu stomaka i torzoa i zato je došlo do pobačaja i zato je i sudska novčana kazna, slično kao kada se namerno udari žena trudnica.
I, opet premnogo karaktera, nastavak poruke posle.....
Poslednja izmena:
Evo, ovde, neverovatno zapanjujuće za mene, i verovatno je i preterivanje, ali, kako Jevreji to gledaju sudski, ko je namerno i nenamerno nekog napao i ubio :
The Sages taught: If ten people struck an individual with ten sticks and as a result of the beating he died, whether they beat him simultaneously, or whether they beat him one after the other, they are exempt from liability for killing him, as two people are not liable for an action that they performed together. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If they struck him one after the other, the one who struck him last is liable, because he hastened his death....
The Gemara challenges: If the first individual struck him with a blow in which there is not sufficient force to kill, this halakha is obvious, as the first did not perform an act of killing at all, and it is only the second who killed him. Rather, emend the baraita to teach: The verse serves to include the case of one who strikes another and it is a blow in which there is sufficient force to kill, and then another individual comes and kills him; the verse teaches that the second individual is liable. And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who holds that one who completes the killing of an individual is liable to be executed as a murderer....
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, that is the reason that two assessments are written. It is written in one verse: “And if men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he did not die but is bedridden” (Exodus 21:18), indicating that after the initial blow the victim is assessed to determine whether or not he is expected to die. In the following verse it is written: “If he rises and walks outside upon his staff, then he that struck him is absolved” (Exodus 21:19), indicating that there is an additional assessment to determine whether or not he fully recovers. One verse is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and he recovered fully; and one verse is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased from what it was and he died thereafter. But according to the Rabbis, why do I need two assessme
It is taught in another baraita: If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition improved, they assess his condition to determine whether it would lead to life. If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to life, and his condition deteriorated, they do not then assess his condition to determine whether it would lead to death, but the assailant is exempted based on the initial determination. If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased from what it was, they assess the victim with a second assessment to determine the monetary restitution for damages, as the assailant is certainly liable to pay restitution for the injury that he caused. And if thereafter his medical condition worsened and he died, the assailant pays restitution to the heirs for injury and suffering that he caused.....
If one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was not powerful enough to kill him if it were to land on his loins, but instead the blow landed on his chest over the victim’s heart, and it was powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his chest over his heart, and the victim died as a result of the blow, the assailant is exempt from execution, as he did not intend to strike the victim a blow that would cause his death. If he intended to strike him on his chest over his heart.....
I, tako dalje ima mnogo sudskih tumačenja, baš dosta detaljisanja i procena u sitna crevca kako se kaže, tako da na osnovu ovoga gore kako se procenjuje u detalje, može da se interpretira ovaj slučaj sa ženom kao nenameran udarac u stomak žene trudnice koji je prouzrokovao pobačaj i zato se zahteva sudska kazna za krivca.
https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.22?lang=bi&with=Ibn Ezra&lang2=en
Ovde komentari i tumačenja :
When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible *the one responsible Heb. “he.” shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning. *on reckoning Others “as the judges determine.”
AND IF MEN STRIVE *Hebrew, yinnatzu. TOGETHER. The reference is to Hebrew men who strive together and hit each other. Scripture similarly reads, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? (Ex. 2:13) *Moses said this to two men of the Hebrews [who] were striving (nitzim) together (Ex. 12:13). Now nitzim and yinnatzu (the word used for strive in our verse) come from the same root. We thus see that the Hebrew word yinnatzu (strive) means to exchange blows (Filwarg).
AND HURT. Both are included. *Both men hurt the woman. Ve-nagefu (hurt) is in the plural. Its literal meaning is, and they hurt. Hence I.E.’s comment. Sometimes its meaning is one or the other. *At times Scripture employs the plural but its meaning is one of those spoken of. Thus the meaning of they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they (Lev. 20:14) is, either this one or that one. *Either the mother or her daughter. The verse speaks of a man who takes a woman and her daughter. For doing so, he and one of the women are executed; i.e., if he is married to a woman and sleeps with her daughter, then it is the daughter who is executed; if he is married to the daughter and sleeps with the mother, it is the mother who is executed. See I.E. on Lev. 20:14. If both *Men who hurt the woman. are Israelites one law applies to them. The woman spoken of in this verse is an Israelite woman.
In my opinion, since the damage done is one that is not discernible in the unborn children themselves — for who could know their fortune — therefore Scripture said, that although he cannot be made to pay a precise monetary compensation, he should nonetheless be fined as a sort of penalty in the form of a sum of money which others [i.e., the judges] shall impose upon him.....
I, recimo ovo tumačenje interpretacija :
“if men fight,” why was there a need for this verse? Seeing that from verse 14 where we were told only that deliberate killing of one’s enemy is punishable by death, we would not have known that when one kills one’s friend instead of one’s enemy in a fight, he would not be considered as a murderer, we are told now that when the objective of an altercation was to kill one’s adversary, it does not matter that one had killed the wrong target by mistake. There are some commentators who do not understand this verse as prescribing the death penalty for the killer, but that he is only liable for monetary compensation to be assessed by the court. (Rabbi Yitzchok in Mechilta Mishpatim chapter 8) He interprets our verse along the following lines: as long as we had only heard Leviticus 24,17: if someone deliberately smites a human being (so that he dies) the killer must be executed, even if that human being had been born after a pregnancy of only eight months, (which according to the Talmud is not considered a baby with a regular life expectancy). The Torah here describes the premature birth of such a baby as a result of the mother having been struck as having given birth to a נפש אדם a human being in the full sense of the word. The wording in our verse makes it clear that only if the mother had been struck in the region of her body to which her fetus is sensitive, does the attacker deserve the penalty prescribed, not when she was hit on the head or other parts of her body not related to her pregnancy. An alternate explanation: even if only one of her fetuses was killed. [The wording in the verse speaks about fetuses, plural. Ed.]
Šta ovo može da implicira, da je bio namerni napad na ženu trudnicu i pobačaj bebe, ali nije bio nameran udarac u predelu tela u kojem je fetus osetljiv, stomak i torzo, nije bila namera da se naudi fetusu i bebi i zato je ovde propisana novčana kazna i to je nešto slično kao nenamerni napad i udarac u stomak i pobačaj, ali da je namerni udarac bio u stomak i torzo kako bi se naudilo fetusu i bebi i posledica pobačaj i smrt bebe, onda bi bila sudski smrtna kazna. I, ovde se navodi da je beba rođena kao potpuna ličnost i biće, što i navodi da mora smrtna kazna jer je ako je bio nameran i udarac po stomaku da se ubije fetus beba koja je posmatrana kao potpuno biće i čovek onda se to svugde u zakonu i po tumačenju Jevreja vodi kao namerno ubistvo koje zaslužuje sudsku smrtnu kaznu.
Opet premnogo karaktera......
The Sages taught: If ten people struck an individual with ten sticks and as a result of the beating he died, whether they beat him simultaneously, or whether they beat him one after the other, they are exempt from liability for killing him, as two people are not liable for an action that they performed together. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If they struck him one after the other, the one who struck him last is liable, because he hastened his death....
The Gemara challenges: If the first individual struck him with a blow in which there is not sufficient force to kill, this halakha is obvious, as the first did not perform an act of killing at all, and it is only the second who killed him. Rather, emend the baraita to teach: The verse serves to include the case of one who strikes another and it is a blow in which there is sufficient force to kill, and then another individual comes and kills him; the verse teaches that the second individual is liable. And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who holds that one who completes the killing of an individual is liable to be executed as a murderer....
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rabbi Neḥemya, that is the reason that two assessments are written. It is written in one verse: “And if men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he did not die but is bedridden” (Exodus 21:18), indicating that after the initial blow the victim is assessed to determine whether or not he is expected to die. In the following verse it is written: “If he rises and walks outside upon his staff, then he that struck him is absolved” (Exodus 21:19), indicating that there is an additional assessment to determine whether or not he fully recovers. One verse is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and he recovered fully; and one verse is where they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased from what it was and he died thereafter. But according to the Rabbis, why do I need two assessme
It is taught in another baraita: If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition improved, they assess his condition to determine whether it would lead to life. If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to life, and his condition deteriorated, they do not then assess his condition to determine whether it would lead to death, but the assailant is exempted based on the initial determination. If they assessed his condition, saying that it would lead to death, and his condition eased from what it was, they assess the victim with a second assessment to determine the monetary restitution for damages, as the assailant is certainly liable to pay restitution for the injury that he caused. And if thereafter his medical condition worsened and he died, the assailant pays restitution to the heirs for injury and suffering that he caused.....
If one intended to strike another on his loins, and the blow was not powerful enough to kill him if it were to land on his loins, but instead the blow landed on his chest over the victim’s heart, and it was powerful enough to kill him when it landed on his chest over his heart, and the victim died as a result of the blow, the assailant is exempt from execution, as he did not intend to strike the victim a blow that would cause his death. If he intended to strike him on his chest over his heart.....
I, tako dalje ima mnogo sudskih tumačenja, baš dosta detaljisanja i procena u sitna crevca kako se kaže, tako da na osnovu ovoga gore kako se procenjuje u detalje, može da se interpretira ovaj slučaj sa ženom kao nenameran udarac u stomak žene trudnice koji je prouzrokovao pobačaj i zato se zahteva sudska kazna za krivca.
https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.22?lang=bi&with=Ibn Ezra&lang2=en
Ovde komentari i tumačenja :
When [two or more] parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible *the one responsible Heb. “he.” shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning. *on reckoning Others “as the judges determine.”
AND IF MEN STRIVE *Hebrew, yinnatzu. TOGETHER. The reference is to Hebrew men who strive together and hit each other. Scripture similarly reads, Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? (Ex. 2:13) *Moses said this to two men of the Hebrews [who] were striving (nitzim) together (Ex. 12:13). Now nitzim and yinnatzu (the word used for strive in our verse) come from the same root. We thus see that the Hebrew word yinnatzu (strive) means to exchange blows (Filwarg).
AND HURT. Both are included. *Both men hurt the woman. Ve-nagefu (hurt) is in the plural. Its literal meaning is, and they hurt. Hence I.E.’s comment. Sometimes its meaning is one or the other. *At times Scripture employs the plural but its meaning is one of those spoken of. Thus the meaning of they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they (Lev. 20:14) is, either this one or that one. *Either the mother or her daughter. The verse speaks of a man who takes a woman and her daughter. For doing so, he and one of the women are executed; i.e., if he is married to a woman and sleeps with her daughter, then it is the daughter who is executed; if he is married to the daughter and sleeps with the mother, it is the mother who is executed. See I.E. on Lev. 20:14. If both *Men who hurt the woman. are Israelites one law applies to them. The woman spoken of in this verse is an Israelite woman.
In my opinion, since the damage done is one that is not discernible in the unborn children themselves — for who could know their fortune — therefore Scripture said, that although he cannot be made to pay a precise monetary compensation, he should nonetheless be fined as a sort of penalty in the form of a sum of money which others [i.e., the judges] shall impose upon him.....
I, recimo ovo tumačenje interpretacija :
“if men fight,” why was there a need for this verse? Seeing that from verse 14 where we were told only that deliberate killing of one’s enemy is punishable by death, we would not have known that when one kills one’s friend instead of one’s enemy in a fight, he would not be considered as a murderer, we are told now that when the objective of an altercation was to kill one’s adversary, it does not matter that one had killed the wrong target by mistake. There are some commentators who do not understand this verse as prescribing the death penalty for the killer, but that he is only liable for monetary compensation to be assessed by the court. (Rabbi Yitzchok in Mechilta Mishpatim chapter 8) He interprets our verse along the following lines: as long as we had only heard Leviticus 24,17: if someone deliberately smites a human being (so that he dies) the killer must be executed, even if that human being had been born after a pregnancy of only eight months, (which according to the Talmud is not considered a baby with a regular life expectancy). The Torah here describes the premature birth of such a baby as a result of the mother having been struck as having given birth to a נפש אדם a human being in the full sense of the word. The wording in our verse makes it clear that only if the mother had been struck in the region of her body to which her fetus is sensitive, does the attacker deserve the penalty prescribed, not when she was hit on the head or other parts of her body not related to her pregnancy. An alternate explanation: even if only one of her fetuses was killed. [The wording in the verse speaks about fetuses, plural. Ed.]
Šta ovo može da implicira, da je bio namerni napad na ženu trudnicu i pobačaj bebe, ali nije bio nameran udarac u predelu tela u kojem je fetus osetljiv, stomak i torzo, nije bila namera da se naudi fetusu i bebi i zato je ovde propisana novčana kazna i to je nešto slično kao nenamerni napad i udarac u stomak i pobačaj, ali da je namerni udarac bio u stomak i torzo kako bi se naudilo fetusu i bebi i posledica pobačaj i smrt bebe, onda bi bila sudski smrtna kazna. I, ovde se navodi da je beba rođena kao potpuna ličnost i biće, što i navodi da mora smrtna kazna jer je ako je bio nameran i udarac po stomaku da se ubije fetus beba koja je posmatrana kao potpuno biće i čovek onda se to svugde u zakonu i po tumačenju Jevreja vodi kao namerno ubistvo koje zaslužuje sudsku smrtnu kaznu.
Opet premnogo karaktera......
Poslednja izmena:
I, na kraju kazna za smrt žene trudnice ako je bio slučaj nenamernog udarca :
THEN THOU SHALT GIVE SOUL FOR SOUL. Our Rabbis differ as to the explanation of the word נפש the first time it occurs here. There are some who say that it actually signifies “life” (i. e. life for life), others say that it means monetary compensation but not literally life, and they say that this must be so because he who intends to kill a certain person and inadvertently kills another instead, (as is the case here), is exempt from the death penalty, and has only to pay to his heirs his value estimating this as though he were sold as a slave in the market (Sanhedrin 79a).
BUT IF ANY HARM FOLLOW. To the woman. We find a difference of opinion. *Concerning the punishment of the one who is responsible for the woman’s death. See Mekhilta on this verse: “Then thou shalt give life for life. He cannot pay for life with money. It is with life that he must pay for life…Rabbi says: Then thou shalt give life for life. This means monetary compensation.” Also see San. 79a. Some say that the one who caused the women’s death is put to death because he intended to kill a fellow Israelite. They offer as proof the fact that Scripture states, he shall surely be fined (v. 22) with regard to the children, but it states with regard to the woman, then thou shalt give life for life. Now if the reference is to a fine, *That is, if then thou shalt give life for life refers to a fine. then in what way is the woman’s death worse than that of the children? On the other hand, if we say that one is to be punished with death for killing the children, why did Scripture alter its style *When dealing with the death of the woman. and read, life for life? The opposing opinion maintains that one who intends to kill one individual and kills another is not put to death, and the reason the Torah altered its language and stated life for life is that the fine for killing a person is much greater than that for killing an embryo. They offer as proof the fact that the Torah afterwards reads, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (v. 24). The latter is not to be taken literally. On the contrary, it refers to ransom. *The culprit pays ransom for his tooth or eye. Thus as eye for eye, tooth for tooth refers to money, so does life for life in this case. This portion *And if man strive together, etc., verses 22-25. was written because of the clause eye for eye, tooth for tooth. *The laws dealing with murder were dealt with in verse 14. Scripture afterwards codifies the law dealing with the eye and tooth of a bondman. *Scripture first wanted to lay down the law dealing with one who takes out the eye or tooth of a free person before it went on to deal with the law regarding one who takes out the eye or tooth of a slave.
Naravno ima i tumačenja da je ova kazna doslovna :
if an unexpected complication resulted, such as the premature stillborn death of the fetus, etc.” according to the scholar in the Talmud who holds that if a person intended to kill A and killed B instead by mistake, he is still considered guilty of murder, seeing that he had violated the commandment of “a life for a life,” as having to be understood literally, there is no problem here. According to the scholar who holds that these words here are not to be taken literally, but that what is meant is a financial penalty/compensation, to be paid by the perpetrator. The third opinion in the Talmud, Tanna de bey Chiskiyah, holds that the perpetrator does not even have to pay a financial penalty to the heirs of the victim. This opinion is expressed in the tractate Baba Kamma, folio 35, and is based on the following interpretation of our verse: The words: אם אסון יהיה, “if a mishap will occur,” are referring to the woman pregnant with child, not to her fetus; then the rule נפש תחת נפש, “a life for a life is applied,” seeing she, a living human being had been killed. The author adds that it appears to him that what went wrong here was that the killer had intended to kill the man he was fighting with, but had erroneously killed this woman. If we had not had this verse we might have thought that no death penalty would apply seeing that what he had intended to do had not been carried out; the Torah therefore repeats this expression “a life for a life,” to remind us that regardless of who had been killed by him he deserves death for having intended to kill a human being, something he had intended to do, and something which carries the death penalty.
I, Josif Flavije već sam naveo da piše da je svaki abortus ubistvo, ali i on recimo ovaj slučaj žene trudnice tumači po sudskom postupku :
»Štoviše, zakon propisuje da podignemo sve svoje potomke i zabranjuje ženama da uzrokuju pobačaj onoga što se zanijelo ili da to kasnije unište. A, ako se čini da je to žena učinila, ona je ubojica svojeg djeteta; uništila je živo stvorenje i oslabila ljudski rod. Stoga, ako itko počini takav blud ili ubojstvo, on ne možebiti čist.«15 ...."
15.fusnota - J. FLAVIJE, Protiv Apiona, II, 25
The law moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring: and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten; or to destroy it afterward. And if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child; by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind. If any one therefore proceeds to such fornication, or murder, he cannot be clean.
The Antiquities of the Jews 4:8
33. If men strive together, and there be no instrument of iron, let him that is smitten be avenged immediately, by inflicting the same punishment on him that smote him: but if when he is carried home he lie sick many days, and then die, let him that smote him not escape punishment; but if he that is smitten escape death, and yet be at great expense for his cure, the smiter shall pay for all that has been expended during the time of his sickness, and for all that he has paid the physician. He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, (28) let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given the woman's husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life.
I, opet, sudije i sud i suđenje mora da bude u bilo kom slučaju, već sam naveo ranije u poruci da čak i kada je u pitanju idolopoklonstvo i klanjanje lažnim bogovima gde je smrtna kazna pogubljenje kamenovanjem, i tu opet prvo mora sud i sudije i suđenje kako bi se tačno i istinito ispitalo da li je to istina to što se dogodilo i za šta se neko optužuje, tako i ovo kazna život za život kod smrti žene trudnice treba da bude sud i suđenje kako bi Jevrejske sudije ispitale ceo slučaj jer eto postoje razne mogućnosti, da je bio nenameran udarac u stomak žene trudnice i pobačaj, da je bio nameran udarac bez namere da se udari u stomak žene trudnice i izazove pobačaj, i naravno može da bude i nameran udarac u stomak žene trudnice da se izazove pobačaj.
I, na kraju koji je zaključak, iako je ovo onako suvoparno i strogo sudski tumačenja na kraju se ipak ne može sigurno zaključiti da je fetus beba u nekom podređenijem pravno sudskom postupku u odnosu na majku ženu trudnicu.
I, nema tu nekih velikih implikacija u odnosu na versku i duhovnu stanu kod Jevreja, jer sam naveo mnoge stihove iz SZ i NZ u kojima piše da nas je Bog sve jednako stvorio u materici naših majki.
[TR]
[td]Jov 31,15[/td][td]Koji je mene stvorio u utrobi, nije li stvorio i njega? nije li nas on isti sazdao u materici?[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td][/td]
[/TR]
Ti si koliko se sećam reko da imaš i Jevrejska tumačenja ove priče žena trudnica, ja sam evo naveo mnoga tumačenja, baš me interesuje koja ti tumačenja imaš.
Nema više..... zasad.....
THEN THOU SHALT GIVE SOUL FOR SOUL. Our Rabbis differ as to the explanation of the word נפש the first time it occurs here. There are some who say that it actually signifies “life” (i. e. life for life), others say that it means monetary compensation but not literally life, and they say that this must be so because he who intends to kill a certain person and inadvertently kills another instead, (as is the case here), is exempt from the death penalty, and has only to pay to his heirs his value estimating this as though he were sold as a slave in the market (Sanhedrin 79a).
BUT IF ANY HARM FOLLOW. To the woman. We find a difference of opinion. *Concerning the punishment of the one who is responsible for the woman’s death. See Mekhilta on this verse: “Then thou shalt give life for life. He cannot pay for life with money. It is with life that he must pay for life…Rabbi says: Then thou shalt give life for life. This means monetary compensation.” Also see San. 79a. Some say that the one who caused the women’s death is put to death because he intended to kill a fellow Israelite. They offer as proof the fact that Scripture states, he shall surely be fined (v. 22) with regard to the children, but it states with regard to the woman, then thou shalt give life for life. Now if the reference is to a fine, *That is, if then thou shalt give life for life refers to a fine. then in what way is the woman’s death worse than that of the children? On the other hand, if we say that one is to be punished with death for killing the children, why did Scripture alter its style *When dealing with the death of the woman. and read, life for life? The opposing opinion maintains that one who intends to kill one individual and kills another is not put to death, and the reason the Torah altered its language and stated life for life is that the fine for killing a person is much greater than that for killing an embryo. They offer as proof the fact that the Torah afterwards reads, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (v. 24). The latter is not to be taken literally. On the contrary, it refers to ransom. *The culprit pays ransom for his tooth or eye. Thus as eye for eye, tooth for tooth refers to money, so does life for life in this case. This portion *And if man strive together, etc., verses 22-25. was written because of the clause eye for eye, tooth for tooth. *The laws dealing with murder were dealt with in verse 14. Scripture afterwards codifies the law dealing with the eye and tooth of a bondman. *Scripture first wanted to lay down the law dealing with one who takes out the eye or tooth of a free person before it went on to deal with the law regarding one who takes out the eye or tooth of a slave.
Naravno ima i tumačenja da je ova kazna doslovna :
if an unexpected complication resulted, such as the premature stillborn death of the fetus, etc.” according to the scholar in the Talmud who holds that if a person intended to kill A and killed B instead by mistake, he is still considered guilty of murder, seeing that he had violated the commandment of “a life for a life,” as having to be understood literally, there is no problem here. According to the scholar who holds that these words here are not to be taken literally, but that what is meant is a financial penalty/compensation, to be paid by the perpetrator. The third opinion in the Talmud, Tanna de bey Chiskiyah, holds that the perpetrator does not even have to pay a financial penalty to the heirs of the victim. This opinion is expressed in the tractate Baba Kamma, folio 35, and is based on the following interpretation of our verse: The words: אם אסון יהיה, “if a mishap will occur,” are referring to the woman pregnant with child, not to her fetus; then the rule נפש תחת נפש, “a life for a life is applied,” seeing she, a living human being had been killed. The author adds that it appears to him that what went wrong here was that the killer had intended to kill the man he was fighting with, but had erroneously killed this woman. If we had not had this verse we might have thought that no death penalty would apply seeing that what he had intended to do had not been carried out; the Torah therefore repeats this expression “a life for a life,” to remind us that regardless of who had been killed by him he deserves death for having intended to kill a human being, something he had intended to do, and something which carries the death penalty.
I, Josif Flavije već sam naveo da piše da je svaki abortus ubistvo, ali i on recimo ovaj slučaj žene trudnice tumači po sudskom postupku :
»Štoviše, zakon propisuje da podignemo sve svoje potomke i zabranjuje ženama da uzrokuju pobačaj onoga što se zanijelo ili da to kasnije unište. A, ako se čini da je to žena učinila, ona je ubojica svojeg djeteta; uništila je živo stvorenje i oslabila ljudski rod. Stoga, ako itko počini takav blud ili ubojstvo, on ne možebiti čist.«15 ...."
15.fusnota - J. FLAVIJE, Protiv Apiona, II, 25
The law moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring: and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten; or to destroy it afterward. And if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child; by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind. If any one therefore proceeds to such fornication, or murder, he cannot be clean.
The Antiquities of the Jews 4:8
33. If men strive together, and there be no instrument of iron, let him that is smitten be avenged immediately, by inflicting the same punishment on him that smote him: but if when he is carried home he lie sick many days, and then die, let him that smote him not escape punishment; but if he that is smitten escape death, and yet be at great expense for his cure, the smiter shall pay for all that has been expended during the time of his sickness, and for all that he has paid the physician. He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, (28) let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given the woman's husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life.
I, opet, sudije i sud i suđenje mora da bude u bilo kom slučaju, već sam naveo ranije u poruci da čak i kada je u pitanju idolopoklonstvo i klanjanje lažnim bogovima gde je smrtna kazna pogubljenje kamenovanjem, i tu opet prvo mora sud i sudije i suđenje kako bi se tačno i istinito ispitalo da li je to istina to što se dogodilo i za šta se neko optužuje, tako i ovo kazna život za život kod smrti žene trudnice treba da bude sud i suđenje kako bi Jevrejske sudije ispitale ceo slučaj jer eto postoje razne mogućnosti, da je bio nenameran udarac u stomak žene trudnice i pobačaj, da je bio nameran udarac bez namere da se udari u stomak žene trudnice i izazove pobačaj, i naravno može da bude i nameran udarac u stomak žene trudnice da se izazove pobačaj.
I, na kraju koji je zaključak, iako je ovo onako suvoparno i strogo sudski tumačenja na kraju se ipak ne može sigurno zaključiti da je fetus beba u nekom podređenijem pravno sudskom postupku u odnosu na majku ženu trudnicu.
I, nema
tu nekih velikih implikacija u odnosu na versku i duhovnu stanu kod Jevreja, jer sam naveo mnoge stihove iz SZ i NZ u kojima piše da nas je Bog sve jednako stvorio u materici naših majki.[TR]
[td]Jov 31,15[/td][td]Koji je mene stvorio u utrobi, nije li stvorio i njega? nije li nas on isti sazdao u materici?[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td][/td]
[/TR]
Ti si koliko se sećam reko da imaš i Jevrejska tumačenja ove priče žena trudnica, ja sam evo naveo mnoga tumačenja, baš me interesuje koja ti tumačenja imaš.
Nema više..... zasad.....
Poslednja izmena:
I opet tri kilometarska posta umesto da citiras one moje 4 tacke i tvoja navodna odgovora kako bi pokazao da si mi vec navodno odgovorio...I, na kraju kazna za smrt žene trudnice ako je bio slučaj nenamernog udarca :
THEN THOU SHALT GIVE SOUL FOR SOUL. Our Rabbis differ as to the explanation of the word נפש the first time it occurs here. There are some who say that it actually signifies “life” (i. e. life for life), others say that it means monetary compensation but not literally life, and they say that this must be so because he who intends to kill a certain person and inadvertently kills another instead, (as is the case here), is exempt from the death penalty, and has only to pay to his heirs his value estimating this as though he were sold as a slave in the market (Sanhedrin 79a).
BUT IF ANY HARM FOLLOW. To the woman. We find a difference of opinion. *Concerning the punishment of the one who is responsible for the woman’s death. See Mekhilta on this verse: “Then thou shalt give life for life. He cannot pay for life with money. It is with life that he must pay for life…Rabbi says: Then thou shalt give life for life. This means monetary compensation.” Also see San. 79a. Some say that the one who caused the women’s death is put to death because he intended to kill a fellow Israelite. They offer as proof the fact that Scripture states, he shall surely be fined (v. 22) with regard to the children, but it states with regard to the woman, then thou shalt give life for life. Now if the reference is to a fine, *That is, if then thou shalt give life for life refers to a fine. then in what way is the woman’s death worse than that of the children? On the other hand, if we say that one is to be punished with death for killing the children, why did Scripture alter its style *When dealing with the death of the woman. and read, life for life? The opposing opinion maintains that one who intends to kill one individual and kills another is not put to death, and the reason the Torah altered its language and stated life for life is that the fine for killing a person is much greater than that for killing an embryo. They offer as proof the fact that the Torah afterwards reads, eye for eye, tooth for tooth (v. 24). The latter is not to be taken literally. On the contrary, it refers to ransom. *The culprit pays ransom for his tooth or eye. Thus as eye for eye, tooth for tooth refers to money, so does life for life in this case. This portion *And if man strive together, etc., verses 22-25. was written because of the clause eye for eye, tooth for tooth. *The laws dealing with murder were dealt with in verse 14. Scripture afterwards codifies the law dealing with the eye and tooth of a bondman. *Scripture first wanted to lay down the law dealing with one who takes out the eye or tooth of a free person before it went on to deal with the law regarding one who takes out the eye or tooth of a slave.
Naravno ima i tumačenja da je ova kazna doslovna :
if an unexpected complication resulted, such as the premature stillborn death of the fetus, etc.” according to the scholar in the Talmud who holds that if a person intended to kill A and killed B instead by mistake, he is still considered guilty of murder, seeing that he had violated the commandment of “a life for a life,” as having to be understood literally, there is no problem here. According to the scholar who holds that these words here are not to be taken literally, but that what is meant is a financial penalty/compensation, to be paid by the perpetrator. The third opinion in the Talmud, Tanna de bey Chiskiyah, holds that the perpetrator does not even have to pay a financial penalty to the heirs of the victim. This opinion is expressed in the tractate Baba Kamma, folio 35, and is based on the following interpretation of our verse: The words: אם אסון יהיה, “if a mishap will occur,” are referring to the woman pregnant with child, not to her fetus; then the rule נפש תחת נפש, “a life for a life is applied,” seeing she, a living human being had been killed. The author adds that it appears to him that what went wrong here was that the killer had intended to kill the man he was fighting with, but had erroneously killed this woman. If we had not had this verse we might have thought that no death penalty would apply seeing that what he had intended to do had not been carried out; the Torah therefore repeats this expression “a life for a life,” to remind us that regardless of who had been killed by him he deserves death for having intended to kill a human being, something he had intended to do, and something which carries the death penalty.
I, Josif Flavije već sam naveo da piše da je svaki abortus ubistvo, ali i on recimo ovaj slučaj žene trudnice tumači po sudskom postupku :
»Štoviše, zakon propisuje da podignemo sve svoje potomke i zabranjuje ženama da uzrokuju pobačaj onoga što se zanijelo ili da to kasnije unište. A, ako se čini da je to žena učinila, ona je ubojica svojeg djeteta; uništila je živo stvorenje i oslabila ljudski rod. Stoga, ako itko počini takav blud ili ubojstvo, on ne možebiti čist.«15 ...."
15.fusnota - J. FLAVIJE, Protiv Apiona, II, 25
The law moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring: and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten; or to destroy it afterward. And if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child; by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind. If any one therefore proceeds to such fornication, or murder, he cannot be clean.
The Antiquities of the Jews 4:8
33. If men strive together, and there be no instrument of iron, let him that is smitten be avenged immediately, by inflicting the same punishment on him that smote him: but if when he is carried home he lie sick many days, and then die, let him that smote him not escape punishment; but if he that is smitten escape death, and yet be at great expense for his cure, the smiter shall pay for all that has been expended during the time of his sickness, and for all that he has paid the physician. He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, (28) let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given the woman's husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life.
I, opet, sudije i sud i suđenje mora da bude u bilo kom slučaju, već sam naveo ranije u poruci da čak i kada je u pitanju idolopoklonstvo i klanjanje lažnim bogovima gde je smrtna kazna pogubljenje kamenovanjem, i tu opet prvo mora sud i sudije i suđenje kako bi se tačno i istinito ispitalo da li je to istina to što se dogodilo i za šta se neko optužuje, tako i ovo kazna život za život kod smrti žene trudnice treba da bude sud i suđenje kako bi Jevrejske sudije ispitale ceo slučaj jer eto postoje razne mogućnosti, da je bio nenameran udarac u stomak žene trudnice i pobačaj, da je bio nameran udarac bez namere da se udari u stomak žene trudnice i izazove pobačaj, i naravno može da bude i nameran udarac u stomak žene trudnice da se izazove pobačaj.
I, na kraju koji je zaključak, iako je ovo onako suvoparno i strogo sudski tumačenja na kraju se ipak ne može sigurno zaključiti da je fetus beba u nekom podređenijem pravno sudskom postupku u odnosu na majku ženu trudnicu.
I, nema
[TR]
[td]Jov 31,15[/td][td]Koji je mene stvorio u utrobi, nije li stvorio i njega? nije li nas on isti sazdao u materici?[/td]
[/TR]
[TR]
[td][/td]
[/TR]
Ti si koliko se sećam reko da imaš i Jevrejska tumačenja ove priče žena trudnica, ja sam evo naveo mnoga tumačenja, baš me interesuje koja ti tumačenja imaš.
Nema više..... zasad.....
Dakle,drago moji forumasi, imamo lazova i prevaranta,sam nam se prestavio,da nema zabuna...
P.s. prvo cekam konkretne odgovore na one moje 4 tacke pa onda idemo sa jevrejskim stavovima i analizu istih...to sam najavio i za razliku od tebe - toga cu se drzati i odrzati obecanje.
C,c,c,????????????????
Da upravo oni od kojih je uopste spasenje...i to nisu moje reci vec Hristove stoga o tome s Njim rascisti,ne sa mnom.
P.S....i nakon Hristovog vaskrsa apostoli su ukazivali na jevrejske likove kao sinonim za vernosti u Boga stoga je cudno da si ovo "prespavao'na vasim casovima iz veronauke...
.... ti fariseji koje sad toliko hvališ..... oni su verovali u besmrtnost duše i vaskrsenje..... za razliku od sadukeja..... pa vidi sad kako češ to da uklopiš sa tvojim adventom koji ne veruje u besmrtnost duše..... Pre nego što nastavimo dalje, ovo da te pitam.
Kaži mi za ovo šta tačno znači..... da li znači da ne prihvataš abortus osim u nekim specifičnim okolnostima...... i koje su to moguće vanredne okolnosti....
Jer, i ja ostavljam određenu mogućnost da može abortus u nekim baš vanrednim okolnostima.
Abortus definitivno nije zamena za kontracepciju vec je legitiman metod u funkciji spasavanja zivota i svakako , unostavanje necijeg zivota u bilo kom smislu (mislim svakako na ziva, rodjena dakle postojeca bica.
