I haven't seen a better example of pilpul (Source in text post)

Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

355

•

I haven't seen a better example of pilpul (Source in text post) (www.come-and-hear.com)

http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt05.html

If you ever start reading the bible (no matter if you believe in it or not), these excerpts aren't a bad idea to keep in mind because it's always good to research what influenced humanity

Anyway, here is the relevant bit:

>But Moses taught that the worship of God was not to be maintained on such earnings. "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God." (Deuteronomy 23:18)

>The Talmud, citing Deuteronomy 23:19, makes this out of the ruling: "There is not adultery in connection with an animal, because it is written, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog,' etc., and it has been taught: 'The hire of a dog and the wages of a harlot' are permissible, as it is said, 'Even both of these are an abomination unto the Lord' —the two [specified in the text are abominations] but not four."

If you thought law was needlessly confusing, just take a look at this.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/dilling/chapt05.html If you ever start reading the bible (no matter if you believe in it or not), these excerpts aren't a bad idea to keep in mind because it's always good to research what influenced humanity Anyway, here is the relevant bit: >>But Moses taught that the worship of God was not to be maintained on such earnings. "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both of these are abomination unto the Lord thy God." (Deuteronomy 23:18) >>The Talmud, citing Deuteronomy 23:19, makes this out of the ruling: "There is not adultery in connection with an animal, because it is written, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog,' etc., and it has been taught: 'The hire of a dog and the wages of a harlot' are permissible, as it is said, 'Even both of these are an abomination unto the Lord' —**the two** [specified in the text are abominations] but not **four**." If you thought law was needlessly confusing, just take a look at this.