Israel: Haredim want to secede

[JJ]

... and form their own autonomy... "with legislative and economic
independence"... their own electric company , roads, police...

Quote:

The article suggested that economic independence would benefit the hareidi
community, as it would allow for a system in which hareidi workers are not
limited by non-recognition of their academic background or by immodesty in
the workplace. In addition, it argued, the hareidi autonomy would not need
to spend large sums on sports, modern culture, prisons or treatment centers
for drug addiction.

End quote.


Full story (also carried widely by the Hebrew daily press):

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/166978#.UWWSbUrnZc8


Jay

[Shelly]

Yeah, right.

<TIC>

Hey you seculars, you spend all that money on the military to defend us,
since we won't have an army. Also, you had better maintain all those
roads that connect our communities, and defend them. Of course you have
to pay for all that since it is not in our area of living.

Now when it comes to hospitals with all those highly trained doctors,
you can't expect us, who have devoted our lives to Torah study, to
provide those, can you? Also, since we won't have the income that you
folks have, due to the absence of high tech industry, you can't expect
us to pay for it either now. Also, the businesses we will have won't be
able to compete with yours since we don't have those trained workers, so
me may have impose an internal tariff on any goods sold in our communities.

Now for the wall. Yes, you captured it, but it an haredi synagogue so
we'll set all the rules from here on in. We might even be able to raise
some money by charging admission to non-residents of haredi communities.

</TIC>

I can't decide whether to call this "bird-brained" or "the height of
chutzpa". Maybe its just "since you don't want to play by my rules, I
am taking my football and going home".

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message
news:kk47ju$933$1...@dont-email.me...

And the reaction of some Israelis was, "Good. Can you do your autonomy in
Uganda?"

Jay

[DoD]

On Apr 10, 12:37 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Shelly" <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote in message

See, I've never understood this attitude. I understand that Torah
study is important, but
you also have to have the basics of life first. If you don't have
those, then what good is it
to try and preserve anything, when everything else around you is
falling apart?

[Shelly]

On 4/10/2013 2:00 PM, DoD wrote:
>
> See, I've never understood this attitude. I understand that Torah
> study is important, but
> you also have to have the basics of life first. If you don't have
> those, then what good is it
> to try and preserve anything, when everything else around you is
> falling apart?

You, Jay, and I are not haredi.

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Shelly" <shel...@thevillages.net> wrote in message

news:kk49aa$ktq$1...@dont-email.me...

Absolutely right. There was a video of a haredi summer camp, last year,
which made it to the internet, although it was in Hebrew (with English
subtitles). A rabbi was talking to his flock, all haredi kids, and
haranguing them that the Torah is everything. There is no need to learn
math, because all of the math you need is in the Torah. There is no need for
foreign languages, or for any of the secular "arts" or "sciences" because
the Torah is everything, a world unto itself, and you will have all the
answers and all the solutions if only you study Torah (and study ONLY
Torah).

And they believe it. I'll study Torah, and Hashem (God) will take care of
everything else.

If the world is falling apart around them, that's the way God intended it.
All is in the hands of God.

Jay

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per JJ:

>
>Full story (also carried widely by the Hebrew daily press):
>
>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/166978#.UWWSbUrnZc8

My first reaction was that somebody was writing tongue-in-cheek. Then I
realized that the original source was the hareidi news outlet Hamodia.

Given true economic independence, it would seem to promise an
interesting experiment....
--
Pete Cresswell

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Wednesday, April 10, 2013 5:42:53 PM UTC+1, JJ wrote:
>
> ... and form their own autonomy... "with legislative and economic
> independence"... their own electric company , roads, police...
>

The Palestinians have effectively got the same.

It might be an idea. Barring the defence issue, it would force the
haredim to live in the real world.

[Herman Rubin]

There are a few other problems with this, but it MIGHT be a good idea.
However, there would have to be restrictions in place to prevent the
spread of Haredi communities by just moving in. Also, I do not see
that the Haredi would be allowed to keep control of the Wall, as it
is not in their community.

Of course, they would have to give up the rights of the other
Israelis to say in what happens in the rest of Israel and to
things such as the Israeli Rabbinate and the Israeli educational
system. As for non-recognition of their academic background, the
hiring of incompetent workers has its consequences. The US has
its problems with graduates of weak schools.




--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[David Makowsky]

Does the IDF have to protect them?

[Yisroel Markov]

Definitely. �If we managed to establish Bnei Brak, Elad and Modiin
Illit, Laniado [hospital] and Ezer Mitzion, we can also establish an
electric company, highways, and whatever else is needed,� the HaModia
authors wrote. So they're aware of infrastructure needs. I wonder if
any of them had run the numbers? We know that not all haredim don't
work, and that some run successful, and even large, businesses, but is
that enough of a base for true independence? If it is, then maybe the
supposed "parasitism" of the haredi sector is not what it's thought to
be.

Note that independence doesn't mean isolation. The haredi autonomy
would presumably still trade with the rest of Israel and allow
cross-employment; its inhabitants would still buy food and goods they
don't produce, be cash customers at advanced hospitals, etc.

And then there's defense, but my guess would be that the rest of the
Israelis would gladly trade that for elimination of subsidies to that
sector. It's not like this proposed enclave is on the border and would
require anything beyond what the IDF already does.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand

[JJ]

"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnkmbg1h...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...

Let me make a prediction, although I do not like to make predictions as a
rule. Once the haredim realize that with autonomy comes the end of Israeli
subsidies, and that Israel is not going to pay for their separate power
station, separate roads, separate police, separate education system, etc.,
this whole idea is going to go away and there will be someone in the haredi
community who will claim that this was just a big joke.

One thing I think they will realize very quickly is that if they go their
separate way, never again will they be part of any coalition government,
even when national elections have different results. That shuts off any
POTENTIAL money in the future, as well as a say in whether or not
territories are returned, whether pork restrictions are weakened, whether El
Al (finally) gets to fly on shabbat, and so forth. Their influence will
become zero, and influence (and lobbying) are powerful addictions (as with
the congress here). The chances of giving up their influence is just about
the same as the GOP doing so here.

Jay

[JJ]

"David Makowsky" <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26cfa0aa-54ca-4638...@googlegroups.com...

> Does the IDF have to protect them?
>

The autonomy will presumably be within the borders of Israel, so the IDF
will have to protect them as it does the entire country. Unless they want to
move elsewhere (Turkey? Africa? Sinai? ) in which case I believe they will
have about 500,000 volunteers willing to help them pack.

Jay

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 19:56:15 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
said:

[snip]

>Let me make a prediction, although I do not like to make predictions as a
>rule. Once the haredim realize that with autonomy comes the end of Israeli
>subsidies, and that Israel is not going to pay for their separate power
>station, separate roads, separate police, separate education system, etc.,
>this whole idea is going to go away and there will be someone in the haredi
>community who will claim that this was just a big joke.

[nod] That's why I'm curious whether anyone had run the numbers:
potential tax receipts and other income vs. the expected expenses of
the autonomy. If they had and still published what they did, then the
idea may not go away.

>One thing I think they will realize very quickly is that if they go their
>separate way, never again will they be part of any coalition government,
>even when national elections have different results. That shuts off any
>POTENTIAL money in the future, as well as a say in whether or not
>territories are returned, whether pork restrictions are weakened, whether El
>Al (finally) gets to fly on shabbat, and so forth. Their influence will
>become zero, and influence (and lobbying) are powerful addictions (as with
>the congress here). The chances of giving up their influence is just about
>the same as the GOP doing so here.

The quote goes: "Autonomy means administrative independence regarding
internal affairs, without the status of a sovereign state, with
legislative and economic independence and police, and without an army
or foreign policy." Note - "legislative." So it seems that at least
the Hamodia authors are ready for this tradeoff, unlike the Democrats
:-)

[Herman Rubin]

All of the famous rabbis of earlier times were self-supporting.
They realized that Torah study was not a full-time endeavor.

In fact, the Tur was composed so a student could use a condensed
version so he could spend more time on astronomy.

[JJ]

"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message

news:slrnkme87d...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...

The Rambam specifically says that people should not study Torah full time,
but should work for a living. I love the way the haredim pick and choose
what to observe and what not too. Remind anyone of what THEY say about
Reform ?

Jay

[Shelly]

Luv it.


--
Shelly

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On Apr 11, 4:55 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Rambam specifically says that people should not study Torah full time,
> but should work for a living. I love the way the haredim pick and choose
> what to observe and what not too.  Remind anyone of what THEY say about
> Reform ?

Yes, the Rambam does say that (Hil. Talmud Torah 3:9-11. But he is
hardly the model you want anyone to follow. See ibid 1:14, where he
specifies that you should spend only three hours a day working at your
job, and nine hours learning Torah. Is that what you would like to see
haredim do?

See, however, Hil. Sh'mitta v'Yovei 13:10-11, where he seems to say
something entirely different. What do you think about that? Or do you
- like what you accuse haredim of doing - pick and choose which
passages of Rambam you favour?

GEK

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 4:04:11 AM UTC+1, Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:55 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, the Rambam does say that (Hil. Talmud Torah 3:9-11. But he is
> hardly the model you want anyone to follow. See ibid 1:14, where he
> specifies that you should spend only three hours a day working at your
> job, and nine hours learning Torah. Is that what you would like to see
> haredim do?
>

It depends how efficiently you work. I'd say that as long as you are
producing as much as you consume, it doesn't matter if you work
3 hours a day, 9 hours Torah, and live on a low income or 11 hours
and 1 hour Torah, and live on a high one.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:55:26 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
said:

>"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>news:slrnkme87d...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...

[snip]

>> All of the famous rabbis of earlier times were self-supporting.
>> They realized that Torah study was not a full-time endeavor.
>>
>> In fact, the Tur was composed so a student could use a condensed
>> version so he could spend more time on astronomy.

Huh? The Tur is a condensed version of what? And why davka astronomy?

>The Rambam specifically says that people should not study Torah full time,
>but should work for a living. I love the way the haredim pick and choose
>what to observe and what not too.

Except that no haredim "hold by the Rambam." More's the pity.

>Remind anyone of what THEY say about Reform ?

[Yisroel Markov]

Amend that to "as much as you and your dependents consume," and I'll
agree that no one can be asked for more than that. But it's also true
that prosperity only happens when people produce more than what they
themselves consume, and thus have surplus available for trade. A
self-sufficient society is a poor society.

[Herman Rubin]

I doubt that any version of Judaism is logically consistent.
The same applies to legal systems.

As anyone familiar with formal logic knows, an inconsistent
system allows any result to follow. Thus, it is necessary
to "pick and choose". Of course, the Orthodox will deny
that this is the case.

This is another distinction between the laws of nature and
those enacted by man. Those of nature are self-consistent
and also self-enforcing, while those enacted by man merely
provide for socially-imposed penalties for violations.

> GEK

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:08:33 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>On 2013-04-12, Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 4:55�pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Rambam specifically says that people should not study Torah full time,
>>> but should work for a living. I love the way the haredim pick and choose
>>> what to observe and what not too. �Remind anyone of what THEY say about
>>> Reform ?
>
>> Yes, the Rambam does say that (Hil. Talmud Torah 3:9-11. But he is
>> hardly the model you want anyone to follow. See ibid 1:14, where he
>> specifies that you should spend only three hours a day working at your
>> job, and nine hours learning Torah. Is that what you would like to see
>> haredim do?
>
>> See, however, Hil. Sh'mitta v'Yovei 13:10-11, where he seems to say
>> something entirely different. What do you think about that? Or do you
>> - like what you accuse haredim of doing - pick and choose which
>> passages of Rambam you favour?
>
>I doubt that any version of Judaism is logically consistent.
>The same applies to legal systems.

That's an important point - a legal system doesn't have to be
logically consistent, especially if it operates under conflicting
imperatives, or it may follow its own brand of logic.

Incidentally, in this particular case there's no contradiction in
Rambam's words. They are addressing different audiences.

>As anyone familiar with formal logic knows, an inconsistent
>system allows any result to follow. Thus, it is necessary
>to "pick and choose". Of course, the Orthodox will deny
>that this is the case.

Not me. But your conclusion of "any result" is undercut by the fact
that legal logic is not formal.

>This is another distinction between the laws of nature and
>those enacted by man. Those of nature are self-consistent
>and also self-enforcing, while those enacted by man merely
>provide for socially-imposed penalties for violations.

[Herman Rubin]

On 2013-04-12, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:55:26 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
> said:

>>"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>>news:slrnkme87d...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...

> [snip]

>>> All of the famous rabbis of earlier times were self-supporting.
>>> They realized that Torah study was not a full-time endeavor.

>>> In fact, the Tur was composed so a student could use a condensed
>>> version so he could spend more time on astronomy.

> Huh? The Tur is a condensed version of what? And why davka astronomy?

Arba'a Turim, often call simply Tur, is a Halakhic code,
composed by Yaakov ben Asher. It was one of the three codes
which were used to formulate Shulkhan Arukh. It only
concerns Judaism in the Diaspora, and it gives dissenting
opinions.

In Zimmels' book on comparing Ashkenazim with Sephardim, he
mentions that Rav Asher composed Tur so that one of his students
could study Jewish Law more easily than reading the Talmudic
sources and Responsa, and have more time for astronomy.

>>The Rambam specifically says that people should not study Torah full time,
>>but should work for a living. I love the way the haredim pick and choose
>>what to observe and what not too.

> Except that no haredim "hold by the Rambam." More's the pity.

>>Remind anyone of what THEY say about Reform ?


--

[Yisroel Markov]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:38:37 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>On 2013-04-12, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:55:26 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
>> said:
>
>>>"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:slrnkme87d...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...
>
>> [snip]
>
>>>> All of the famous rabbis of earlier times were self-supporting.
>>>> They realized that Torah study was not a full-time endeavor.
>
>>>> In fact, the Tur was composed so a student could use a condensed
>>>> version so he could spend more time on astronomy.
>
>> Huh? The Tur is a condensed version of what? And why davka astronomy?
>
>Arba'a Turim, often call simply Tur, is a Halakhic code,
>composed by Yaakov ben Asher. It was one of the three codes
>which were used to formulate Shulkhan Arukh. It only
>concerns Judaism in the Diaspora, and it gives dissenting
>opinions.
>
>In Zimmels' book on comparing Ashkenazim with Sephardim, he
>mentions that Rav Asher composed Tur so that one of his students
>could study Jewish Law more easily than reading the Talmudic
>sources and Responsa, and have more time for astronomy.

Ah, OK. This makes more sense, thanks. So it was a specific student,
not "a" student. And the Tur is not a condensed version of anything,
but a stand-alone work.

But I suspect that R' Yaakov had bigger ambitions in composing it.

[David Makowsky]

On Friday, April 12, 2013 2:08:33 PM UTC-5, Herman Rubin wrote:

> On 2013-04-12, Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > On Apr 11, 4:55 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> The Rambam specifically says that people should not study Torah full time,
> >> but should work for a living. I love the way the haredim pick and choose
> >> what to observe and what not too.  Remind anyone of what THEY say about
> >> Reform ?

> > Yes, the Rambam does say that (Hil. Talmud Torah 3:9-11. But he is
> > hardly the model you want anyone to follow. See ibid 1:14, where he
> > specifies that you should spend only three hours a day working at your
> > job, and nine hours learning Torah. Is that what you would like to see
> > haredim do?

> > See, however, Hil. Sh'mitta v'Yovei 13:10-11, where he seems to say
> > something entirely different. What do you think about that? Or do you
> > - like what you accuse haredim of doing - pick and choose which
> > passages of Rambam you favour?

> I doubt that any version of Judaism is logically consistent.
> The same applies to legal systems.

> As anyone familiar with formal logic knows, an inconsistent
> system allows any result to follow. Thus, it is necessary
> to "pick and choose". Of course, the Orthodox will deny
> that this is the case.

So if someone asks a Rabbi if something is permissible and they do not like the answer they get are they permitted to keep asking other Rabbis until they get answer they want?

I had plenty other objections to what you just wrote, but this was the biggest.

[Herman Rubin]

It depends on the quality of the reasoning presented by the rabbi.
I consider rabbis to be teachers, and I have had plenty of teachers
who presented propaganda rather than clear reasoning. I am someone
who has considered statistics from the point of decision making
under uncertainty, and I maintain that most of what is being done
in the name of statistics in the various fields is WRONG. This
includes what is done by most faculty in other fields, and also
by many in statistics, who use traditional procedures, not based
on nonsense, but not considering all the consequences. This can
be compared to alchemy, which was not all wrong, but which needed
to be replaced by sound chemistry.

I am not quite sure what Reform Judaism stands for today, but the
founders wanted people to reason and act on the reasoning. Even
Reform rabbis are quite ignorant about the effect of the laws of
nature on much of their reasoning. The founders went slightly
to excess, but I fear too much tradition is creeping back in.

Many of the prophets argued that traditional observances per se
were not the important thing, but one needed to stick to the
basic principles. And with increased knowledge, the import of
the basic principles can quite easily change, as well as that
of the claimed word of God. Other than the Orthodox, few who
are knowledgeable believe that God gave the Torah to Moses at
Mount Sinai.

[David Makowsky]

On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:53:16 PM UTC-5, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2013-04-13, David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Friday, April 12, 2013 2:08:33 PM UTC-5, Herman Rubin wrote:

[ Snip ]

> >> As anyone familiar with formal logic knows, an inconsistent
> >> system allows any result to follow. Thus, it is necessary
> >> to "pick and choose". Of course, the Orthodox will deny
> >> that this is the case.

> > So if someone asks a Rabbi if something is permissible and they do not like > > the answer they get are they permitted to keep asking other Rabbis until
> > they get answer they want?

> It depends on the quality of the reasoning presented by the rabbi.
> I consider rabbis to be teachers, and I have had plenty of teachers
> who presented propaganda rather than clear reasoning.

I would assume that you should not ask a Rabbi in the first place if that Rabbi is known to present propaganda.

So assuming you know not to ask a Rabbi who presents propaganda, "if someone asks a Rabbi if something is permissible and they do not like the answer they get are they permitted to keep asking other Rabbis until

[Shelly]

Np.

--
Shelly

[Yisroel Markov]

I don't think that "rabbi shopping" is what Herman meant. At least,
I've been talking about the overall Jewish legal system.

[Herman Rubin]

On 2013-04-15, David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 14, 2013 3:53:16 PM UTC-5, Herman Rubin wrote:
>> On 2013-04-13, David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On Friday, April 12, 2013 2:08:33 PM UTC-5, Herman Rubin wrote:

> [ Snip ]

>> >> As anyone familiar with formal logic knows, an inconsistent
>> >> system allows any result to follow. Thus, it is necessary
>> >> to "pick and choose". Of course, the Orthodox will deny
>> >> that this is the case.

>>> So if someone asks a Rabbi if something is permissible and they do not like > > the answer they get are they permitted to keep asking other Rabbis until
>> > they get answer they want?

>> It depends on the quality of the reasoning presented by the rabbi.
>> I consider rabbis to be teachers, and I have had plenty of teachers
>> who presented propaganda rather than clear reasoning.

> I would assume that you should not ask a Rabbi in the first place if
that Rabbi is known to present propaganda.

All rabbis present "propaganda", or what I meant to say opinions
not thought out carefully, at times. An example is the rabbi who,
when asked if bananas are permitted for Passover, said, "You can
avoid them for a week." THIS was a bad answer, and the argument
was atrocious.

> So assuming you know not to ask a Rabbi who presents propaganda, "if
someone asks a Rabbi if something is permissible and they do not like
the answer they get are they permitted to keep asking other Rabbis until
> they get answer they want?"

The argument needs to be good enough. Just getting an answer supposes
that the person asking the question cannot reason. This already
disqualifies the rabbi.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:45:41 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

[snip]

>All rabbis present "propaganda", or what I meant to say opinions
>not thought out carefully, at times.

All rabbis are like that? There are none, in any stream of Judaism,
that think before they opine? Really?

>An example is the rabbi who,
>when asked if bananas are permitted for Passover, said, "You can
>avoid them for a week." THIS was a bad answer,

Perhaps the answer was tailored to the questioner.

>and the argument was atrocious.

What was the argument? I can't evaluate your judgment thereof if I
don't know.

>> So assuming you know not to ask a Rabbi who presents propaganda, "if
>someone asks a Rabbi if something is permissible and they do not like
>the answer they get are they permitted to keep asking other Rabbis until
>> they get answer they want?"
>
>The argument needs to be good enough. Just getting an answer supposes
>that the person asking the question cannot reason.

So if I ask you a question in your area of expertise and I just want
the answer - say, I don't care to invest the same time you have into
statistics - that a priori means I can't reason?

>This already disqualifies the rabbi.

No, if anything, it disqualifies the questioner.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Monday, April 15, 2013 6:45:41 PM UTC+1, Herman Rubin wrote:
> On 2013-04-15, David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The argument needs to be good enough. Just getting an answer
> supposes that the person asking the question cannot reason.
> This already disqualifies the rabbi.
>

But it's a case law system. So if a previous rabbi has ruled
one way, the presumption is that he should be followed, unless
it can be proven that he was wrong. It's not the situation that
the rabbi is expected to make every ruling from first
principles.

[Harry Weiss]

Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
> On 2013-04-12, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:55:26 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
> > said:

> >>"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
> >>news:slrnkme87d...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...

> > [snip]

> >>> All of the famous rabbis of earlier times were self-supporting.
> >>> They realized that Torah study was not a full-time endeavor.

> >>> In fact, the Tur was composed so a student could use a condensed
> >>> version so he could spend more time on astronomy.

> > Huh? The Tur is a condensed version of what? And why davka astronomy?

> Arba'a Turim, often call simply Tur, is a Halakhic code,
> composed by Yaakov ben Asher. It was one of the three codes
> which were used to formulate Shulkhan Arukh. It only
> concerns Judaism in the Diaspora, and it gives dissenting
> opinions.

Not only was it one of the 3 codes used. (while it was the one Ahskenazi
one among the 3) the author of the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Caro,
magnum opus was his commentary on the Tur, the Bet Yosef. Rabbi Caro
also used the Tur's format and numbering as the basis for his shulchan
arucdh.

> In Zimmels' book on comparing Ashkenazim with Sephardim, he
> mentions that Rav Asher composed Tur so that one of his students
> could study Jewish Law more easily than reading the Talmudic
> sources and Responsa, and have more time for astronomy.

What is his source?

> >>The Rambam specifically says that people should not study Torah full time,
> >>but should work for a living. I love the way the haredim pick and choose
> >>what to observe and what not too.

> > Except that no haredim "hold by the Rambam." More's the pity.

> >>Remind anyone of what THEY say about Reform ?


> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:16:10 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss
<hjw...@panix.com> said:

>Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> On 2013-04-12, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:55:26 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
>> > said:
>
>> >>"Herman Rubin" <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
>> >>news:slrnkme87d...@skew.stat.purdue.edu...
>
>> > [snip]
>
>> >>> All of the famous rabbis of earlier times were self-supporting.
>> >>> They realized that Torah study was not a full-time endeavor.
>
>> >>> In fact, the Tur was composed so a student could use a condensed
>> >>> version so he could spend more time on astronomy.
>
>> > Huh? The Tur is a condensed version of what? And why davka astronomy?
>
>> Arba'a Turim, often call simply Tur, is a Halakhic code,
>> composed by Yaakov ben Asher. It was one of the three codes
>> which were used to formulate Shulkhan Arukh. It only
>> concerns Judaism in the Diaspora, and it gives dissenting
>> opinions.
>
>Not only was it one of the 3 codes used. (while it was the one Ahskenazi
>one among the 3) the author of the Shulchan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Caro,
>magnum opus was his commentary on the Tur, the Bet Yosef. Rabbi Caro
>also used the Tur's format and numbering as the basis for his shulchan
>arucdh.

Nitpick: AFAIK the original Tur wasn't numbered in the same way - it
had chapter numbers but nothing further. R' Karo divided his chapters
into numbered halakhot, and this sub-numbering is retroactively
imposed on the current editions of the Tur.

>> In Zimmels' book on comparing Ashkenazim with Sephardim, he
>> mentions that Rav Asher composed Tur so that one of his students
>> could study Jewish Law more easily than reading the Talmudic
>> sources and Responsa, and have more time for astronomy.
>
>What is his source?

I'd like to know that, too.

[Herman Rubin]

On 2013-04-15, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:45:41 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
><hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

> [snip]

>>All rabbis present "propaganda", or what I meant to say opinions
>>not thought out carefully, at times.

> All rabbis are like that? There are none, in any stream of Judaism,
> that think before they opine? Really?

>>An example is the rabbi who,
>>when asked if bananas are permitted for Passover, said, "You can
>>avoid them for a week." THIS was a bad answer,

> Perhaps the answer was tailored to the questioner.

Huh? Anyone who knows the basic rules of Passover kashruth
knows that this is not the case.

>>and the argument was atrocious.

> What was the argument? I can't evaluate your judgment thereof if I
> don't know.

The argument that bananas could be avoided for a week was used to
prohibiting it for Passover for this person.

>>> So assuming you know not to ask a Rabbi who presents propaganda, "if
>>someone asks a Rabbi if something is permissible and they do not like
>>the answer they get are they permitted to keep asking other Rabbis until
>>> they get answer they want?"

>>The argument needs to be good enough. Just getting an answer supposes
>>that the person asking the question cannot reason.

> So if I ask you a question in your area of expertise and I just want
> the answer - say, I don't care to invest the same time you have into
> statistics - that a priori means I can't reason?

Most people asking such a question will not get a quick answer.
The first thing I will ask are the probability assumptions the
person is making, and I might even point out the problems with
them before attempting to devise a method to obtain the answer
to the real problem. If you cannot come up with the answers
to the question needed to properly investigate the problem, we
would need to have considerable discussion before starting to
do any real work on the problem.

>>This already disqualifies the rabbi.

> No, if anything, it disqualifies the questioner.

To some extent, it does.

[Herman Rubin]

On 2013-04-15, malcolm...@btinternet.com

Religion is not, and should not be, a legal system. The
legal system at the time of the Kingdom had the secular
laws from the state, the religious laws mainly from tradition
with priestly interpretation, and a judicial system which we
still are not clear about. Ezra and his associates ended the
prophetic balance to this, and established the Great Assembly,
about which we know little.

Upon the destruction of the Second Temple, a group of scholars
managed to establish an academy as a legal and judicial body,
and this has perpetuated itself. Until recently, they could
claim Divine authority (they still do), but this has succumbed
to what we have learned from many sources. Even the rabbis
were disturbed by claimed miracles (see Pirke Avoth, Chapter 5),
we should be more so. As I have said, our opinion of the laws
of the universe provide uncertainty, more than enough for God
to perform miracles which we cannot tell are such, and I believe
will only perform such, so we can learn His laws of nature.

So why is Judaism a legal system?

[Herman Rubin]

Medieval Responsa.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:03:06 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>
>On 2013-04-15, malcolm...@btinternet.com
><malcolm...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 6:45:41 PM UTC+1, Herman Rubin wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-15, David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The argument needs to be good enough. Just getting an answer
>>> supposes that the person asking the question cannot reason.
>>> This already disqualifies the rabbi.
>
>> But it's a case law system. So if a previous rabbi has ruled
>> one way, the presumption is that he should be followed, unless
>> it can be proven that he was wrong.

Or that the situation has changed substantially.

>> It's not the situation that
>> the rabbi is expected to make every ruling from first
>> principles.
>
>
>Religion is not, and should not be, a legal system. The
>legal system at the time of the Kingdom had the secular
>laws from the state,

More guessing?

>the religious laws mainly from tradition
>with priestly interpretation, and a judicial system which we
>still are not clear about. Ezra and his associates ended the
>prophetic balance to this, and established the Great Assembly,
>about which we know little.
>
>Upon the destruction of the Second Temple, a group of scholars
>managed to establish an academy as a legal and judicial body,

How was it different from the Great Assembly?

>and this has perpetuated itself.

With the consent of the governed.

>Until recently, they could
>claim Divine authority (they still do), but this has succumbed
>to what we have learned from many sources. Even the rabbis
>were disturbed by claimed miracles (see Pirke Avoth, Chapter 5),
>we should be more so. As I have said, our opinion of the laws
>of the universe provide uncertainty, more than enough for God
>to perform miracles which we cannot tell are such, and I believe
>will only perform such, so we can learn His laws of nature.
>
>So why is Judaism a legal system?

Because it is. That's an observable fact. Even in your version of
events, it is the approach that managed to survive everything.

If you want to change it to something else, you have every right, but
then do me a favor of calling it something else.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:23:01 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin

<hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:

>On 2013-04-15, Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:45:41 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin
>><hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> said:
>
>> [snip]
>
>>>All rabbis present "propaganda", or what I meant to say opinions
>>>not thought out carefully, at times.
>
>> All rabbis are like that? There are none, in any stream of Judaism,
>> that think before they opine? Really?
>
>>>An example is the rabbi who,
>>>when asked if bananas are permitted for Passover, said, "You can
>>>avoid them for a week." THIS was a bad answer,
>
>> Perhaps the answer was tailored to the questioner.
>
>Huh? Anyone who knows the basic rules of Passover kashruth
>knows that this is not the case.

That's my point. It seems that the questioner might be slightly
bananas.

>>>and the argument was atrocious.
>
>> What was the argument? I can't evaluate your judgment thereof if I
>> don't know.
>
>The argument that bananas could be avoided for a week was used to
>prohibiting it for Passover for this person.

That's clearly not an argument at all, but an avoidance. If that's
what the rabbi really said, it reinforces my opinion that he was
tailoring his response to a nut. Do you have actual details?

>>>> So assuming you know not to ask a Rabbi who presents propaganda, "if
>>>someone asks a Rabbi if something is permissible and they do not like
>>>the answer they get are they permitted to keep asking other Rabbis until
>>>> they get answer they want?"
>
>>>The argument needs to be good enough. Just getting an answer supposes
>>>that the person asking the question cannot reason.
>
>> So if I ask you a question in your area of expertise and I just want
>> the answer - say, I don't care to invest the same time you have into
>> statistics - that a priori means I can't reason?
>
>Most people asking such a question will not get a quick answer.
>The first thing I will ask are the probability assumptions the
>person is making, and I might even point out the problems with
>them before attempting to devise a method to obtain the answer
>to the real problem. If you cannot come up with the answers
>to the question needed to properly investigate the problem, we
>would need to have considerable discussion before starting to
>do any real work on the problem.

Right. But most "is it kosher?" questions aren't meant to be handled
on the PhD level.

>>>This already disqualifies the rabbi.
>
>> No, if anything, it disqualifies the questioner.
>
>To some extent, it does.
--

[Fred Goldstein]

Of course it's a legal system. Not a secular one, not one that has the
same authority (men with guns) as the law of the state, but a system of
law nonetheless.

When my wife was in law school, she took a course in Jewish Law. Well,
mainly because the teacher, a rabbi and lawyer, let me (not a lawyer or
law student) audit it. He was not teaching halacha the way a yeshiva
would; he was teaching about how the legal system itself worked. Thus
relevant to the study of law today, as a contrasting system. Quite
interesting and worth my time to commute in from my then-employer out in
the 'burbs.

[Harry Weiss]

Specifics?

> >> >>The Rambam specifically says that people should not study Torah full time,
> >> >>but should work for a living. I love the way the haredim pick and choose
> >> >>what to observe and what not too.

> >> > Except that no haredim "hold by the Rambam." More's the pity.

> >> >>Remind anyone of what THEY say about Reform ?


> >> --
> >> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> >> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> >> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> >> hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558



> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Monday, April 15, 2013 3:20:55 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:41:48 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
>
>

> I don't think that "rabbi shopping" is what Herman meant. At

> least,I've been talking about the overall Jewish legal system.
>
No, his view is that the rabbi can't argue from authority
(I'm not going to tell you whether bananas are kosher for Passover
or not but you can do without them for a week). He's got to explain
why there's an ambiguity and why stringency is necessary.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:39:30 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss
<hjw...@panix.com> said:

>Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> On 2013-04-16, Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:

[snip]

>> >> In Zimmels' book on comparing Ashkenazim with Sephardim, he
>> >> mentions that Rav Asher composed Tur so that one of his students
>> >> could study Jewish Law more easily than reading the Talmudic
>> >> sources and Responsa, and have more time for astronomy.
>
>> > What is his source?
>
>> Medieval Responsa.
>
>
>Specifics?

The Professor is apparently referring to "Ashkenazim and Sephardim",
published in 1958. It is available from the Boston Public Library.
I've placed a hold on it and intend to pick it up whenever the library
reopens - right now it's inside the crime scene and inaccessible.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:32:09 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:

>On Monday, April 15, 2013 3:20:55 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:41:48 +0000 (UTC), David Makowsky
>>
>>
>> I don't think that "rabbi shopping" is what Herman meant. At
>> least,I've been talking about the overall Jewish legal system.
>>
>No, his view is that the rabbi can't argue from authority

Correct, but the example he brought was 100% irrelevant.

>(I'm not going to tell you whether bananas are kosher for Passover
>or not but you can do without them for a week). He's got to explain
>why there's an ambiguity and why stringency is necessary.

But there's no ambiguity and no need for stringency! That's why the
example doesn't make any sense at all *as presented by Herman*, and
that's why I'm theorizing that it's about something else entirely. It
may be like one of these stories where a person asks about Passover
kashrut of starched linens and the rabbi, seeing that the question
makes no sense, gradually draws out an admission of murder out of the
questioner.

Incidentally, anyone remember Lisa's story about "matza le-lo hashash
bananot"?

[mm]

Judaism includes a legal system, but it's a lot more than that.

(No siginificance should be attached to my placing my comment here.
It applies just as much to what other posters have written.)

> Not a secular one, not one that has the
>same authority (men with guns) as the law of the state, but a system of
>law nonetheless.
>
>When my wife was in law school, she took a course in Jewish Law. Well,

Cool. Where was that?

>mainly because the teacher, a rabbi and lawyer, let me (not a lawyer or
>law student) audit it. He was not teaching halacha the way a yeshiva
>would; he was teaching about how the legal system itself worked. Thus
>relevant to the study of law today, as a contrasting system. Quite
>interesting and worth my time to commute in from my then-employer out in
>the 'burbs.

--

Meir

[Fred Goldstein]

On 4/17/2013 2:04 PM, mm wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:26:22 +0000 (UTC), Fred Goldstein
> <fg...@ionaryQRM.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Of course it's a legal system.
>
> Judaism includes a legal system, but it's a lot more than that.
>

Yes, "includes" would have been a better word than "it's".

> (No siginificance should be attached to my placing my comment here.
> It applies just as much to what other posters have written.)
>
>> Not a secular one, not one that has the
>> same authority (men with guns) as the law of the state, but a system of
>> law nonetheless.
>>
>> When my wife was in law school, she took a course in Jewish Law. Well,
>
> Cool. Where was that?

Boston University.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:42:24 -0400, Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> said:

>On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:39:30 +0000 (UTC), Harry Weiss
><hjw...@panix.com> said:
>
>>Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-16, Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> > Herman Rubin <hru...@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> >> In Zimmels' book on comparing Ashkenazim with Sephardim, he
>>> >> mentions that Rav Asher composed Tur so that one of his students
>>> >> could study Jewish Law more easily than reading the Talmudic
>>> >> sources and Responsa, and have more time for astronomy.
>>
>>> > What is his source?
>>
>>> Medieval Responsa.
>>
>>
>>Specifics?
>
>The Professor is apparently referring to "Ashkenazim and Sephardim",
>published in 1958. It is available from the Boston Public Library.
>I've placed a hold on it and intend to pick it up whenever the library
>reopens - right now it's inside the crime scene and inaccessible.

I have obtained the book, and I think I understand the confusion now.
I've had my memory play similar tricks on me.

On page 35 R' Zimmel writes: "... he [R' Asher, father of the Ba'al
ha-Turim] approached R' Isaac b. Joseph ibn Israel to compose a work
on astronomy for him; the latter complied with his request by writing
the book 'Yesod Olam.'"

And on page 37 we find: "...R. Jacob Landau (b. Germany, emigrated to
Italy, lived in Pavia and Naples), the author of the code 'Agur' which
he composed for one of his pupils, Ezra Avraham b. David Obadiah, who
owing to his study of physics and metaphysics was unable to devote
much time to the Talmud. This work is an abridgement of the first two
parts of the Turim..."

Given the relative brevity of the Agur, this makes sense.