New York: East Ramapo hasidim take over

[JJ]

Up in Ramapo, the immigrant community and the growing population of Hasidim
had eyed each other with increasing wariness. Then the Orthodox took over
the public schools and proceeded to gut them.

http://nymag.com/news/features/east-ramapo-hasidim-2013-4/

Jay

[Shelly]

Absolutely disgusting. Is it any wonder there is anti-Semitism? They
are doing everything they can to foster it ten-fold. I think it is time
for the federal or state government to step in and do something about
the destruction of the public school system there by those hasidim --
who don't even attend those schools.

They give the rest of us a very bad name because to the non-Jew there is
no real distinction between hasid and the rest of us Jews.

--
Shelly

[DoD]

That is not true.

[JJ]

"DoD" <danski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:865ee4af-1bed-4677...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

*************************************************

No, David, it is not true insofar as people like you, who know what haredim
are, are concerned. I would venture that you are probably more knowledgeable
about Jews and Judaism than many millions of Americans. But to many, in Iowa
or Wyoming or Arizona or Georgia or southern New Jersey simply reading the
story in New York Magazine would indeed mean that "the Jews" (without any
distinction as to "which Jews") did this.

Shelly is not paranoid. A lot of anti-Semitic comments came out after the
Madoff affair was brought to light. Just as Catholic priests often have to
take the heat because some (probably a quite small minority) are pedophiles.
And just like the reaction of some, just now, when those two idiot brothers
blew up the Boston marathon and the entire American-Chechen community is
afraid of what the broad brushstrokes may do to their community.

Jay

[DoD]

On Apr 23, 12:52 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "DoD" <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The article does make the distinction.

I first learned about different Jews when I was around 8 years old and
opened up
my TIME LIFE book, "The Israelis." I had two full pages of Israelis,
highlighting
and describing different Israelis including secular, and Orhodox,
PalArab, bedouin
and various others. That was way before I had any real sense of M.E.
politics. It is
hard to imagine few out there know what I consider to be 2nd grade
knowledge.

> Shelly is not paranoid. A lot of anti-Semitic comments came out after the
> Madoff affair was brought to light.

That was going to happen by the usual scrounges, but any fair minded
person
wouldn't do that.

Just as Catholic priests often have to
> take the heat because some (probably a quite small minority) are pedophiles.

True, by proportion it is extremely low, but it got unusually high
coverage 1. because of the
Churches coverup, (which definately was the churches fault, and they
had no excuse) 2. the
media was/is partial and bigoted towards the religion in general,
unless it of course is Islam.

> And just like the reaction of some, just now, when those two idiot brothers
> blew up the Boston marathon and the entire American-Chechen community is
> afraid of what the broad brushstrokes may do to their community.

Americans are too disconnected to do anything there, I would think.

[Shmaryahu b. Chanoch]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:28:23 PM UTC-4, JJ wrote:
> Up in Ramapo, the immigrant community and the growing population of Hasidim had eyed each other with increasing wariness. Then the Orthodox took over the public schools and proceeded to gut them. http://nymag.com/news/features/east-ramapo-hasidim-2013-4/ Jay

If the cHasidim had the money, just buy up everything. The problem is that they do not have the money.

Wonder why those who were doing the repo did not offer to rent the property back to those living there?

As for the school board, isn't this done all the time by more liberal groups? Small group takes over because the majority does not care.

And if this becomes the face of Judaism, just realize that secular Jews are becoming assimilated at a rapid rate. The christians do not even have to convert them. They just innermarry and then the christians can convert their kids. Just as lost to Judaism either way.

In 20 years the Orthodox will be the dominate population of Jews. Already Reform and Conservative movements are dying (much like mainstream protestants). So does it matter?

[Shelly]

When I wrote that reply, I thought about David and that he wouldn't
think that way -- but I forgot to include a "not you David".

[Shelly]

David, you are the exception -- unfortunately. Most are ignorant of
Jews and, in fact, most never met a Jew (or realized that someone they
met was a Jew). It is the Hassidim that stick out, much like the Amish
stand out, because of their manner of dress. Also, TV doesn't help
because they portray us in "black hats". Once you get away from the big
cities.....

--
Shelly

[JJ]

"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:791d5e0e-2f6a-447b...@googlegroups.com...

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:28:23 PM UTC-4, JJ wrote:
> Up in Ramapo, the immigrant community and the growing population of
> Hasidim had eyed each other with increasing wariness. Then the Orthodox
> took over the public schools and proceeded to gut them.
> http://nymag.com/news/features/east-ramapo-hasidim-2013-4/ Jay

If the cHasidim had the money, just buy up everything. The problem is that
they do not have the money.

Wonder why those who were doing the repo did not offer to rent the property
back to those living there?

As for the school board, isn't this done all the time by more liberal
groups? Small group takes over because the majority does not care.

*****************************************

Actually, I read more and more about conservatives taking over school boards
(especially in red states) and then mandating that the schools teach
creationism rather than evolution, or censor books (such as Catcher in the
Rye, not to mention Little Red Riding Hood).

As for what you write below, C may be disappearing, but R is growing. We
had an Israeli doctor here (he has since left the group) who about 15 years
ago predicted that in 5 years Reform would be gone. Fifteen years later, R
is here and growing.

Jay

*******************************************

[Shmaryahu b. Chanoch]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:06:54 PM UTC-4, JJ wrote:
> "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:791d5e0e-2f6a-447b...@googlegroups.com... On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 12:28:23 PM UTC-4, JJ wrote: > Up in Ramapo, the immigrant community and the growing population of > Hasidim had eyed each other with increasing wariness. Then the Orthodox > took over the public schools and proceeded to gut them. > http://nymag.com/news/features/east-ramapo-hasidim-2013-4/ Jay If the cHasidim had the money, just buy up everything. The problem is that they do not have the money. Wonder why those who were doing the repo did not offer to rent the property back to those living there? As for the school board, isn't this done all the time by more liberal groups? Small group takes over because the majority does not care. ***************************************** Actually, I read more and more about conservatives taking over school boards (especially in red states) and then mandating that the schools teach creationism rather than evolution, or censor books (such as Catcher in the Rye, not to mention Little Red Riding Hood). As for what you write below, C may be disappearing, but R is growing. We had an Israeli doctor here (he has since left the group) who about 15 years ago predicted that in 5 years Reform would be gone. Fifteen years later, R is here and growing. Jay ******************************************* nd if this becomes the face of Judaism, just realize that secular Jews are becoming assimilated at a rapid rate. The christians do not even have to convert them. They just innermarry and then the christians can convert their kids. Just as lost to Judaism either way. In 20 years the Orthodox will be the dominate population of Jews. Already Reform and Conservative movements are dying (much like mainstream protestants). So does it matter?

not what we are hearing. It is more likely that the secular jews are increasing, but Reform congregations are dying.

But then most of the Industrial Age institutions are dying.

[Ken]

Here's a couple of quotes from the article:

1. “ ‘Parents,’ they’d always say, ‘Let’s go vote for the district, we’re voting against the Jews ’cause they want to cut this and this and this,’ ” Petit-Bois says. “Little by little I understood it.”

2. “At a young age, you hear ‘Jewish’ and you automatically think, Oh, they’re trying to kill my school district,” says Tendrina Alexandre, a student leader at Spring Valley High School who graduated last year. “That’s not necessarily the case. I had plenty of Jewish friends that I grew up with. But then when you look at the school board, it’s like, What else are you supposed to think? Because it’s all Hasidic Jews. And it’s them against us.”

If that's what the people in the school district are saying, "... we're voting against the Jews," just imagine what people a thousand miles away are saying.

The U.S. is a huge country, and it's not all L.A. or N.Y. That big part in the middle, fly-over country, has very few Jews. Many people there don't even know what Jew means. Trust me, I live in a place like that.

The article contains many disturbing parts. But one of the worst is that the idea that it was done to Jews for years and years, now we have the power, we can do it to them.

Ken

[cindys]

On Apr 23, 9:41 pm, "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <Omega....@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:06:54 PM UTC-4, JJ wrote:

snip

>>Actually, I read more and more about conservatives taking over school boards (especially in red states) and then mandating that the schools teach creationism rather than evolution, or censor books (such as Catcher in the Rye, not to mention Little Red Riding Hood). As for what you write below, C may be disappearing, but R is growing. We had an Israeli doctor here (he has since left the group) who about 15 years ago predicted that in 5 years Reform would be gone. Fifteen years later, R is here and growing.
Jay

snip

>
>
> not what we are hearing.

-----
Not sure who is the "we" here, but I suspect it must be you and the
other you, and the source of this information must also be you because
everybody else knows that Reform is growing.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

-----
Not for anything, but I was wondering if you were actually trying to
make a point with your weblinking this article or was it just the
latest installment of the series "I want to make sure that everybody
knows what those horrible charedim are up to now."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[DoD]

On Apr 23, 11:26 pm, Ken <threeriversguy_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 10:18:02 AM UTC-7, DoD wrote:
> > On Apr 23, 11:54 am, Shelly <sheldo...@thevillages.net> wrote:
>
> > > They give the rest of us a very bad name because to the non-Jew there is
>
> > > no real distinction between hasid and the rest of us Jews.
>
> > That is not true.
>
> Here's a couple of quotes from the article:
>
> 1.  “ ‘Parents,’ they’d always say, ‘Let’s go vote for the district, we’re voting against the Jews ’cause they want to cut this and this and this,’ ” Petit-Bois says. “Little by little I understood it.”
>
> 2.  “At a young age, you hear ‘Jewish’ and you automatically think, Oh, they’re trying to kill my school district,” says Tendrina Alexandre, a student leader at Spring Valley High School who graduated last year. “That’s not necessarily the case. I had plenty of Jewish friends that I grew up with. But then when you look at the school board, it’s like, What else are you supposed to think? Because it’s all Hasidic Jews. And it’s them against us.”
>
> If that's what the people in the school district are saying, "... we're voting against the Jews," just imagine what people a thousand miles away are saying.
>
> The U.S. is a huge country, and it's not all L.A. or N.Y.  That big part in the middle, fly-over country, has very few Jews.  Many people there don't even know what Jew means.  Trust me, I live in a place like that.

Fly-over country is just as obnoxious as not knowing what a Jew is or
could be. That shows a certain prejudice. Like we are a bunch of
know nothings and the coasts has it all together. I find it
distasteful.

[Shelly]

I'm glad he posted it.

--
Shelly

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per JJ:

>when those two idiot brothers
>blew up the Boston marathon and the entire American-Chechen community is
>afraid of what the broad brushstrokes may do to their community.

In support of JJ's comment, when my brother was in the army he actually
heard somebody say "Hey Levin, are you a Jewish?". Apparently the
speaker had never even seen a Jew before.

In the same vein, I found it unsettling that the Czech ambassador to the
USA felt it necessary to issue a statement to the effect that there is
no connection between the Czech Republic and Chechyna.
http://tinyurl.com/d2jglgo

--
Pete Cresswell

[David Makowsky]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:54:31 PM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

> On Apr 23, 12:28 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Up in Ramapo, the immigrant community and the growing population of Hasidim
> > had eyed each other with increasing wariness. Then the Orthodox took over
> > the public schools and proceeded to gut them.

> > http://nymag.com/news/features/east-ramapo-hasidim-2013-4/

> Not for anything, but I was wondering if you were actually trying to
> make a point with your weblinking this article or was it just the
> latest installment of the series "I want to make sure that everybody
> knows what those horrible charedim are up to now."
> Best regards,

Charedim are not the only ones that do this. When I lived in Arizona in the 1980s one of the school districts in Arizona had a similar problem. The district had a high percentage of retirees, most of whom lived in a retirement community (It may have been Sun City, but I really do not remember). There it was not a case of people taking over the school board, since under Arizona law at the time any property tax increases had to be approved by the voters in the district (And it may have required a 2/3rds majority, not just 50% + 1). Due to the number of seniors in the district school tax increases had not been improved for years.

The compromised they reached was to take the retirement community out of the taxing district for the schools. Of course that meant the residents of that community paid no property taxes that went to the schools (they had to pay the rest) while everyone else had theirs raised to outrageous levels.

[Harry Weiss]

David Makowsky <dlmak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 11:54:31 PM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

That is a problem when the taxes are being paid other than by the users.
Chassidim were paying a high property tax because the prior school board
had no compunctions about raising taxes since their consituents paid very
little.

The Chassidim did what they should have and took over to stop that, but
they went way to far.

That is the problem with having property tax as the basis for schools.


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

[Fattush]

On Apr 23, 12:28 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:

After reading the article, I can understand why the non Orthodox
parents are upset. But why blame all Hasidim?

[Fattush]

On Apr 26, 6:36 pm, Harry Weiss <hjwe...@panix.com> wrote:



> > Charedim are not the only ones that do this.  When I lived in Arizona in the 1980s one of the school districts in Arizona had a similar problem.  The district had a high percentage of retirees, most of whom lived in a retirement community (It may have been Sun City, but I really do not remember).  There it was not a case of people taking over the school board, since under Arizona law at the time any property tax increases had to be approved by the voters in the district (And it may have required a 2/3rds majority, not just 50% + 1).  Due to the number of seniors in the district school tax increases had not been improved for years.
> > The compromised they reached was to take the retirement community out of the taxing district for the schools.  Of course that meant the residents of that community paid no property taxes that went to the schools (they had to pay the rest) while everyone else had theirs raised to outrageous levels.
>
> That is a problem when the taxes are being paid other than by the users.
> Chassidim were paying a high property tax because the prior school board
> had no compunctions about raising taxes since their consituents paid very
> little.
>
> The Chassidim did what they should have and took over to stop that, but
> they went way to far.
>
> That is the problem with having property tax as the basis for schools.
>
> --
> Harry J. Weiss

> hjwe...@panix.com

Well said, Harry.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

Let's say we've got a city where most guys wear white hats, but some wear
black hats. A black hat mugs you. Then you see a black hat robbing a bank.

How long do you think it would take you to conclude that it's the bad guys
in the black hats?

[cindys]

------
So, the problem is that Jay is so ignorant that he thinks all
chassidim are alike and equally culpable? Right.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Fattush:

>After reading the article, I can understand why the non Orthodox
>parents are upset. But why blame all Hasidim?

A long time ago, I read about a behavioral psych experiment in which
communal-living monkeys had one of their group dyed a different color.

The upshot was that the other monkeys started harassing it.

If that experiment is repeatable, it would seem to suggest that there is
something hard-wired into human behavior about being prejudiced against
those who look different.

That might relate to the gray flannel suit phenomon....

Certainly it would bear on populations such as Chassidim, Amish,
Mennonites, Fundamentalist Mormons, and Sikhs who take such pains to
look different from the people around them.

My personal theory is that part of Group Cohesion 101 is setting your
group apart from those around it by whatever means available - dressing
and dietary rules being a couple of the most common.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Shelly]

More closely to home, there are theories that this is the reason for
circumcision and for kashreth -- as well as all that stuff about wine.

--
Shelly

[W. Baker]

"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.invalid> wrote:
: Per Fattush:

I think that is part of the problem, but hte other is that the Charedim
set themselves up as being more pioue, observant, better Jews, etc and
often have contempt, not only for non-Jews but for other Jews. Idividuals
may well be wonderful , chesed minded folk, but the group sense of being
so much "better Jews" that others can get lots of peole upset.

Wendy

[Herman Rubin]

It might be for circumcision, and Torah even explicitly states
it for not trimming the corners of the beard. I personally
believe it for not seething a kid in its mother's milk.

I do not think it the case for shekhting, and doubt it for
the selection of clean animals; this seems to have been prevalent.
All that stuff about wine is essentially rabbinic, motivated by
avoidance of pagan corruption. They did believe that spiritual
corruption could affect future consumption.


--
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

[Yisroel Markov]

How, if supposedly this is an Egyptian thing?

>and for kashreth -- as well as all that stuff about wine.

The latter is fact rather than a theory.
--
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

[Yisroel Markov]

IMHO it's actually a good article, written without animosity to anyone
and presenting multiple viewpoints. "Them and Them" is a good title;
it evinces the author's conflicted attitude, together with the
following quote:

"Just a generation ago, secular Jews like my mother tended to regard
the Hasidim as peculiar but unimportant, a discarded evolutionary
branch. To be Jewish now, though, is to exist in some relation to the
ultra-Orthodox. The Hasidic family filed into their seats, occupying
one full row of the plane and spilling politely into two others. Here,
in my family, was Judaism�s German-socialist strain, so relaxed about
integration and intermarriage that it had reduced itself to a
generation, my daughter�s, containing exactly 0.25 Jews. There, a row
away, was the ultra-Orthodox strain, 36 times as successful. I felt a
twinge of tribal guilt, that simply through reproduction I had
abandoned an important fight."

In general this is a good example of democracy's limits and problems.
How do you fix this constitutionally? Perhaps the "state assemblyman
proposing the district be split geographically into two � one for the
Yeshiva community and one for the public schools" was right, but
apparently the non-Hasidim didn't like this solution. Because it would
cut off the taxes paid by Hasidim, perhaps?

To me, the key statement is this: "Of all the imbalances between the
Hasidim and their neighbors, few are more fundamental than this. One
group is fighting for the land on which they expect their children to
become grandparents within walking distance from the shul. The other
is negotiating the terms of their children�s exit."

In these circumstances, who would you bet on to prevail in the long
term? My money is on the Hasidim.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 5:58:15 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:54:31 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
>

> In these circumstances, who would you bet on to prevail in the long
> term? My money is on the Hasidim.
>

They need to abandon Biblical literalism (but not necessarily fanatical
extreme observance, the two aren't the same thing) if they are to have a
long-term future.

[cindys]

----
Why do they need to abandon biblical literalism (assuming they take
the bible literally, which I'm not sure they do)? They will have a
long-term future no matter what they believe about the bible. And if
they don't have a long-term future, it won't be on account of biblical
literalism. Whatever the Chassidim may or may not believe about the
bible is totally unrelated to their future, and I'm not sure where
you're coming up with this.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

You can't build something on a lie. It can last for many years, even
centuries. But if it is known to be false, ultimately it will fail.

[Evertjan.]

malcolm.mclean5 wrote on 03 mei 2013 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:

> You can't build something on a lie. It can last for many years, even
> centuries. But if it is known to be false, ultimately it will fail.

Do you have evidence for that?

You cannot have, as for such absolute statements only one case is necessary
to disprove it, and even an incidental absense of such case in your, or
even collective human, memory is no prove for your statement to be true.

And, if you implied that, also if you have built something on the truth,
how can you possibly prove that that will not fail, perhaps after
centuries?

Perhaps all things you built on a premisse will fail, perhaps after
centuries or eons. Then again perhaps some will not.

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Friday, May 3, 2013 6:03:31 PM UTC+1, Evertjan. wrote:
> malcolm.mclean5 wrote on 03 mei 2013 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>
> > You can't build something on a lie. It can last for many years, even
> > centuries. But if it is known to be false, ultimately it will fail.
>
> Do you have evidence for that?
>

Caligula declared himself to be a god. However he made the mistake of insulting
his bodyguard, who assassinated him. So everyone knew he wasn't really a god.
(In Caesar's case, the situation was a bit different. Romans did genuinely
think that maybe the deceased general had been a god. He was a different
person to Caligula.)
But for 250 years Roman emperors continued to claim divinity. Tiberias even
had his homosexual lover deified and a cult was set up with statues and
rituals in his honour. However the Roman system was gradually eaten away from
within, and eventually no-one believed that any of the Emperors had been
divine.

But a prediction doesn't usually involve a claim to special or privileged
knowledge about the future. Whilst I don't believe that haredi Judaism will
last in the long term, I cannot prove that as though it were an empirical
statement. I can just give my reasons for thinking so.

[cindys]

------
Except Judaism isn't "built on a lie." It's built on a legal system.
We have gone over this ad nauseum in the past, and even though it has
been explained to you repeatedly and every which way, you can't seem
to think outside your own personal perspective and prejudices. It
doesn't matter if the bible is true or not true.

Judaism is a legal system and not a "faith" that is going to crumble
if some non-Jewish scholars claim that the foundations of that "faith"
aren't historically accurate. And no, in contrast to what you have
declared in the past, chassidim do not have any obligation at all to
consider or to take into account the biblical criticism of secular
scholars, and the reason that they don't is because Judaism is a legal
system and not a "religion" in the same way that Christianity is a
religion. The reason you cling so desperately to the Jesus myth is
because without it, your entire belief system crumbles. But in the
end, what has always ensured the continuity of the Jewish people is
adherence to the halacha, the Jewish legal system, not whether or not
Adam and Eve ate the apple in the Garden of Eden or God really turned
the Nile river into blood.

Again, as I say every time, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how
a so-called scientist is unable to think outside his own personal
assumptions and prejudices and doesn't understand that the whole world
does not operate in accordance with his own personal worldview.

I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

Torah isn't a lie. The lie is that what secular scholars say about the
Torah is made up, flimsy, can be dismissed. (Of course not everything
that every person describing himself as a scholar says is true or even
well-founded, but the system as a whole gives us a reasonable picture of
what happened).

Whilst a legal ruling can be binding or not binding depending on the
identity of the person making it, that's not the case with assertions
about matters of fact. It's not a very strong argument to say that an
argument is wrong, because of the identity of the person making it.

Israel has a future. Most Israelis are not biblical literalists. Judaism
isn't dying, its undergoing one of its periodic episodes of reinvention.
Which Jew reminded you more of King David, Rabbi Schneerson in New York
or Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem? Which sort of Judaism do you think is the
main story, and which is the side-plot?

[cindys]

On May 5, 9:09 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 5, 2013 12:20:47 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:23 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:05:50 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>
> > I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
> > that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
> > newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
> > a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
> > views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
> > about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>
> Torah isn't a lie. The lie is that what secular scholars say about the
> Torah is made up, flimsy, can be dismissed.

In the Chassidic world, what the secular scholars say CAN be
dismissed, and it doesn't matter if what they are saying is true or
false. The basis for the chassidic lifestyle is halacha and chassidus
NOT the historical accuracy of the five books of Moses.

Modern Judaism has been around for 2000+ years. The secular bible
scholars have been around for what maybe 100 years? But according to
you, the 2000 year old religion is ultimately going to fall apart if
traditional Jews continue to dismiss what the secular scholars have to
say about the historical accuracy of the five books of Moses?
Ridiculous.

> (Of course not everything
> that every person describing himself as a scholar says is true or even
> well-founded, but the system as a whole gives us a reasonable picture of
> what happened).
>
> Whilst a legal ruling can be binding or not binding depending on the
> identity of the person making it, that's not the case with assertions
> about matters of fact. It's not a very strong argument to say that an
> argument is wrong, because of the identity of the person making it.

WRT traditional Judaism, I don't think it much matters if these
historical facts are right or wrong, no matter who is saying them,
because again, the ongoing existence of Judaism does not depend upon
the historical accuracy of the bible.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[JJ]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7f9236a4-f3c9-4a24...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

On May 5, 9:09 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 5, 2013 12:20:47 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:23 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:05:50 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>
> > I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
> > that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
> > newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
> > a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
> > views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
> > about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>
> Torah isn't a lie. The lie is that what secular scholars say about the
> Torah is made up, flimsy, can be dismissed.

In the Chassidic world, what the secular scholars say CAN be
dismissed, and it doesn't matter if what they are saying is true or
false. The basis for the chassidic lifestyle is halacha and chassidus
NOT the historical accuracy of the five books of Moses.

Modern Judaism has been around for 2000+ years. The secular bible
scholars have been around for what maybe 100 years?

**************************************************

I don't agree with Malcolm, but just for the record, secular bible scholars
have been around a bit longer than 100 years. The first mention of what we
today call DH (documentary hypothesis) appears in Spinoza, (1632-1677). If
you follow the atheism boards (as I do) there are ample discussions and
writings showing the historical inaccuracy of the bible in the past 400-450
years.


Jay

[cindys]

On May 5, 9:09 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

> On Sunday, May 5, 2013 12:20:47 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> > On May 3, 9:23 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:05:50 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>
> > I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
> > that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
> > newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
> > a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
> > views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
> > about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>
> Torah isn't a lie. The lie is that what secular scholars say about the
> Torah is made up, flimsy, can be dismissed. (Of course not everything
> that every person describing himself as a scholar says is true or even
> well-founded, but the system as a whole gives us a reasonable picture of
> what happened).
>
> Whilst a legal ruling can be binding or not binding depending on the
> identity of the person making it, that's not the case with assertions
> about matters of fact. It's not a very strong argument to say that an
> argument is wrong, because of the identity of the person making it.
>
> Israel has a future. Most Israelis are not biblical literalists.

And who said Israel (which operates as a Western democracy) doesn't
have a future?

>Judaism
> isn't dying, its undergoing one of its periodic episodes of reinvention.

And this "reinvention" is going in multiple directions.

> Which Jew reminded you more of King David, Rabbi Schneerson in New York
> or Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem? Which sort of Judaism do you think is the
> main story, and which is the side-plot?

King David was a combination of both and then some. He was a warrior,
a poet, and a halachic scholar. There is a section of the talmud (in
Berachos, IIRC) which describes that King David is exhausted from non-
stop paskening (making legal rulings) regarding whether or not the
stains on women's undergarments represent blood.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On May 5, 2:02 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

----
Okay, I stand corrected regarding the length of time the DH has been
around. But I think you still agree with me that Chassidim are not
going to fade into oblivion just because they dismiss the writings/
opinions of secular scholars regarding the historical accuracy of the
torah.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Shmaryahu b. Chanoch]

Well it is the push to live a perfect life, a pure life. Even if they did not think that they were more "frum", the view from those on the outside would be that they are acting superior. Often our own faults cause us to dislike those who are more successful, more pious, or anyway else that we deem superior to ourselves. Thus we naturally want to destroy those who are successful.

[mm]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 16:49:42 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On May 5, 9:09�am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 5, 2013 12:20:47 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>> > On May 3, 9:23�am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>
>> > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:05:50 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>>
>> > I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
>> > that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
>> > newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
>> > a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
>> > views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
>> > about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>>
>> Torah isn't a lie. The lie is that what secular scholars say about the
>> Torah is made up, flimsy, can be dismissed.
>
>In the Chassidic world, what the secular scholars say CAN be
>dismissed, and it doesn't matter if what they are saying is true or
>false.

Many of my friends and I are not Chassidic and we ignore them too.
None of my friends take them seriously except I have no idea what
some gentile friends think because I think it better if we don't
discuss each other's religion too much.

The way to get noticed in most fields is to say something new and
remarkable. In the sciences, one can cure a disease or improve the
transistor, good stuf. But in history, there's not much data to work
with that someone earlier hasn't gone over. Still, the way to get
noticed is to say something new and remarkable, so people who crave
attention come up with new silly ideas. I'm sure not ever
contemporary secular writer on .Judaism is silly, but Malcolm is
talking about someone who is.

> The basis for the chassidic lifestyle is halacha and chassidus
>NOT the historical accuracy of the five books of Moses.
>
>Modern Judaism has been around for 2000+ years. The secular bible
>scholars have been around for what maybe 100 years? But according to
>you, the 2000 year old religion is ultimately going to fall apart if
>traditional Jews continue to dismiss what the secular scholars have to
>say about the historical accuracy of the five books of Moses?
>Ridiculous.

Yes. It's ridiculous.

Meir

>
>> (Of course not everything
>> that every person describing himself as a scholar says is true or even
>> well-founded, but the system as a whole gives us a reasonable picture of
>> what happened).
>>
>> Whilst a legal ruling can be binding or not binding depending on the
>> identity of the person making it, that's not the case with assertions
>> about matters of fact. It's not a very strong argument to say that an
>> argument is wrong, because of the identity of the person making it.
>
>WRT traditional Judaism, I don't think it much matters if these
>historical facts are right or wrong, no matter who is saying them,
>because again, the ongoing existence of Judaism does not depend upon
>the historical accuracy of the bible.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
>
>
>
>>
>> Israel has a future. Most Israelis are not biblical literalists. Judaism
>> isn't dying, its undergoing one of its periodic episodes of reinvention.
>> Which Jew reminded you more of King David, Rabbi Schneerson in New York
>> or Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem? Which sort of Judaism do you think is the
>> main story, and which is the side-plot?

--

Meir

[Shmaryahu b. Chanoch]

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 7:20:47 AM UTC-4, cindys wrote:
> O

Welcome to what passes as leftwing academic thought. It is pushes a secular, anti religious position. It mistrusts anything that is normal. In that the traditional family is a roadblock to progress as is traditional religion. Islam is promoted only in that it attacks both Judaism and Christianity (or can be used as a weapon against them).

Just remember that most who vote for democrats have no real voice in making the party policy. That comes from activists. DailyKos.com has far more influence than anyone who calls themselves "liberal".

[JJ]

"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b27cc4d9-ffaf-4e6c...@googlegroups.com...

**************************************************

You obviously don't read much of what Cindy posts if you think she is "anti
religious". She is "pro religious" in the best sense (live and let live)
and is certainly pro-Jewish and pro-Orthodox.

Jay

[Yisroel Markov]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 11:20:47 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:

[snip]

>Again, as I say every time, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how
>a so-called scientist is unable to think outside his own personal
>assumptions and prejudices and doesn't understand that the whole world
>does not operate in accordance with his own personal worldview.
>
>I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
>that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
>newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
>a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
>views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
>about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.

Cindy, he said nothing of the sort. Your anger is misplaced, IMHO.

Malcolm is of the opinion that *haredi* Judaism has no future, at
least partially because of its biblical literalism. We can disagree (I
do), but it's at least a defensible position.

[mm]

Your posts are worth reading when you stay away from politics.

>Just remember that most who vote for democrats have no real voice in making the party policy.

You remember that most who vote for Republicans have no real voice in
making party policy. That's always the case for every political
party, but it's reaching higher and higher for Republicans since
they've the minority Tea Party faction has gained so much influence.

A majority of Republicans in districts with Republican Congressmen
want universal background checks on gun sales, but they didn't get
them because thyy have no real voice in party policy. Same on other
issues.


>That comes from activists.

And how do you t hink it it works with the Repubicans?

> DailyKos.com has far more influence than anyone who calls themselves "liberal".

--

Meir

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Monday, May 6, 2013 12:28:47 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> On May 5, 9:09 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>
> And who said Israel (which operates as a Western democracy) doesn't
> have a future?
>

Well you obviously think so, or else you would live there.

American Jews live in wealth and ease and luxury, whilst on the other side
of the world their brothers fight to survive. Now on every rational analysis,
it's the Americans who have the bright future, the Israelis who will surely
find their luck runs out sooner or later.
But I don't believe that.

>
>
> > Judaism
> > isn't dying, its undergoing one of its periodic episodes of reinvention.
>
> And this "reinvention" is going in multiple directions.
>

Yes, and extremely observant, exclusive sects are one attempt to deal
with the modern world. But in my view, that doesn't have any more future
than American lax observance. What will survive is Israel.

>
>
> > Which Jew reminded you more of King David, Rabbi Schneerson in New York
> > or Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem? Which sort of Judaism do you think is the
> > main story, and which is the side-plot?
>
> King David was a combination of both and then some. He was a warrior,
> a poet, and a halachic scholar. There is a section of the talmud (in
> Berachos, IIRC) which describes that King David is exhausted from non-
> stop paskening (making legal rulings) regarding whether or not the
> stains on women's undergarments represent blood.
>

David was a warrior and poet, but not a halachic scholar. That's just a
later tradition made up by halachic scholars who wanted David's glory
to rub off on themselves. David danced naked in front of the ark, for
which he was criticised by the halachic experts of the day.
David would have recognised Sharon as man facing very similar problems to
himself, approaching them with more or less the same attitude and goals.
Obviously the technology at Sharon's disposal was different and the precise
political situation a bit different, but the human element was the same,
and David could happily have given him advice, as one captain of Israel to
another.
Now what David would have made of Rabbi Schneerson I don't know.

[JJ]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

news:faf6e0b9-1c9c-4bf2...@a8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

*****************************************


I do agree with you. The hassidim are totally unimpressed (and most are
probably unaware of) these opinions. I don't see them fading into oblivion
any time soon.

Jay

[cindys]

On May 6, 4:36 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 11:20:47 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> <cste...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Again, as I say every time, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how
> >a so-called scientist is unable to think outside his own personal
> >assumptions and prejudices and doesn't understand that the whole world
> >does not operate in accordance with his own personal worldview.
>
> >I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
> >that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
> >newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
> >a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
> >views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
> >about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>
> Cindy, he said nothing of the sort. Your anger is misplaced, IMHO.
>
> Malcolm is of the opinion that *haredi* Judaism has no future, at
> least partially because of its biblical literalism.

----
Yes, I got that quite a few posts back. Malcolm believes that charedi
or chassidic or ultra-rightwing Judaism is going to fail because these
groups dismiss the work of secular scholars regarding the historic
accuracy of the torah. And all of my responses until the last few have
been about trying to explain (for the umpteenth time) that Judaism is
first and foremost a legal system, and whether the torah is
historically accurate or not is largely irrelevant and will not impact
on the continuity of charedi Judaism.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 20:32:38 +0000 (UTC), "JJ" <dmr...@gmail.com>
said:

>"Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <Omeg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b27cc4d9-ffaf-4e6c...@googlegroups.com...
>On Sunday, May 5, 2013 7:20:47 AM UTC-4, cindys wrote:

[snip]

>> Again, as I say every time, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how
>> a so-called scientist is unable to think outside his own personal
>> assumptions and prejudices and doesn't understand that the whole world
>> does not operate in accordance with his own personal worldview.
>>
>> I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
>> that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
>> newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
>> a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
>> views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
>> about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> ---Cindy S.
>
>Welcome to what passes as leftwing academic thought. It is pushes a
>secular, anti religious position. It mistrusts anything that is normal. In
>that the traditional family is a roadblock to progress as is traditional
>religion. Islam is promoted only in that it attacks both Judaism and
>Christianity (or can be used as a weapon against them).
>
>Just remember that most who vote for democrats have no real voice in making
>the party policy. That comes from activists. DailyKos.com has far more
>influence than anyone who calls themselves "liberal".
>
>
>**************************************************
>
>You obviously don't read much of what Cindy posts if you think she is "anti
>religious". She is "pro religious" in the best sense (live and let live)
>and is certainly pro-Jewish and pro-Orthodox.

Um, Jay, ISTM that Shmaryahu was referring to Malcolm's post, not
Cindy's.

[cindys]

On May 6, 7:06 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 6, 2013 12:28:47 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> > On May 5, 9:09 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > And who said Israel (which operates as a Western democracy) doesn't
> > have a future?
>
> Well you obviously think so, or else you would live there.

Oh, I see. So, now, according to you, I would be living in Israel and
the only reason that I'm not is that I don't think Israel has a
future. I am so glad you can read my mind. But apparently, your mind-
reading ability isn't limited to my mind. Below, you demonstrate that
you can read King David's mind and the minds of the various halachic
scholars of antiquity as well.

>
> American Jews live in wealth and ease and luxury, whilst on the other side
> of the world their brothers fight to survive. Now on every rational analysis,
> it's the Americans who have the bright future, the Israelis who will surely
> find their luck runs out sooner or later.

So, IOW, it's not possible that more than one country to have a bright
future.

> But I don't believe that.
>
> > > Judaism
> > > isn't dying, its undergoing one of its periodic episodes of reinvention.
>
> > And this "reinvention" is going in multiple directions.
>
> Yes, and extremely observant, exclusive sects are one attempt to deal
> with the modern world. But in my view, that doesn't have any more future
> than American lax observance. What will survive is Israel.

Do you think the Jews of Britain will survive? Do they strike the
right chord of not-too-observant yet not too lax?

>
> > > Which Jew reminded you more of King David, Rabbi Schneerson in New York
> > > or Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem? Which sort of Judaism do you think is the
> > > main story, and which is the side-plot?
>
> > King David was a combination of both and then some. He was a warrior,
> > a poet, and a halachic scholar.  There is a section of the talmud (in
> > Berachos, IIRC) which describes that King David is exhausted from non-
> > stop paskening (making legal rulings) regarding whether or not the
> > stains on women's undergarments represent blood.
>
> David was a warrior and poet, but not a halachic scholar. That's just a
> later tradition made up by halachic scholars who wanted David's glory
> to rub off on themselves.

Oh, I see. So, now you know what Rav Ashi and Ravina were thinking
when they redacted the talmud, and this too is an irrefutable fact
just because you say so.

>David danced naked in front of the ark, for
> which he was criticised by the halachic experts of the day.

And in contrast to David's paskening halacha, which was just a fantasy
story made up by one group of halachic scholars of antiquity, the
indisputable reality is that David never paskened halacha and was in
fact dancing naked in front of the ark. And the naked dancing is an
indisputable fact because a different group of halachic scholars of
antiquity said so.

> David would have recognised Sharon as man facing very similar problems to
> himself, approaching them with more or less the same attitude and goals.
> Obviously the technology at Sharon's disposal was different and the precise
> political situation a bit different, but the human element was the same,
> and David could happily have given him advice, as one captain of Israel to
> another.

It's wonderful that you can read King David's mind and that you are so
brilliant and have such insight that you can discern which scholars of
antiquity were telling the truth and which scholars were just making
up stories.

> Now what David would have made of Rabbi Schneerson I don't know.

Why don't you know? You seem to be an authority on everything else
David was thinking and doing.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

-----
Yes. And the reality is that if the charedim were to immerse
themselves in the work of the secular scholars and then arrive at the
conclusion that the torah was written over an extended timeframe by
four separate authors, that would mean that Moshe did not receive the
torah from God and then the fundamental belief of traditional Judaism
would be undermined. It seems to me that the charedi dismissal of the
secular scholars' work, if anything, is actually helping to preserve
charedi Judaism, not weaken it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[JJ]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message

news:73cae3e8-a888-493b...@k6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

************************************************

The rabbis actually forbid their followers to read certain books for that
reason. For example, Spinoza is forbidden, although MANY learned rabbis,
including the Lubavitcher when he was alive, read and STUDIED Spinoza.

My take on it is different. If for any reason a chassid were to read a book
on DH, and then ask his friend about it, I sort of think they would both say
that it's nonsense. After all, it contradicts what the Torah says, and
therefore cannot be possible. We see examples of this right on this board:
people who are intelligent and who will stick by their religious faith, no
matter how you show them that factually what they are saying did not or
could not happen. But when you believe, anything is possible.

I am not saying this in a derogatory way. It's just that this is not for me.
But it's the right "derech" for a lot of people, and it's probably very
comforting to know that someone is watching over you. As far as I am
concerned, live and let live, so long as no coercion is involved.

Jay

[Fred Goldstein]

Hilarious. I'm a pretty frequent blogger on Daily Kos and have good
mojo there, but I wish it had even a fraction of the influence you
imagine it has!

Of course the lunatic fringe thinks that Daily Kos and everything else
that doesn't agree with Glenn Beck's paranoid rants, is a secret plot by
George Soros, who's a secular Jew at that.

The different Jewish denominations (to use the word in an article cited
in a different thread tonight) disagree on a lot of details, and that
includes haredi's strong sex-role stereotyping.

[JJ]

"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
news:vb7go8dr3tbmrberq...@4ax.com...

On second reading, it's possible. If so, I stand corrected and I thank you
for the correction.

Jay

[cindys]

On May 6, 4:32 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <Omega....@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b27cc4d9-ffaf-4e6c...@googlegroups.com...

-----
I don't think he was referring to my post. That said, just to clarify
my position: I am pro-Jewish and pro-ensuring the continuity of the
Jewish people, culture, traditions, and knowledge. The reason I am
"pro-Orthodox" is because in my opinion, it is the Orthodox who
transmit torah to each subsequent generation. Without the Orthodox,
the ability to make a leyning on the talmud or read Rashi would
disappear within a generation or two. I thought it was so sad when, a
few years ago, one of my relatives who teaches Hebrew School in a C
synagogue in another city, phoned me to ask what was Eichah [The Book
of Lamentations]? and was that somehow connected to Tisha B'Av?
Without the Orthodox, traditional Jewish learning and knowledge would
soon be nothing but a hazy memory.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:09:01 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> On May 6, 7:06 pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
>
> Do you think the Jews of Britain will survive? Do they strike the
> right chord of not-too-observant yet not too lax?
>

Britain is a special case. It's a very conservative country, so it's extremely
hospitable to groups trying to preserve ancient traditions.

>
> > David danced naked in front of the ark, for
> > which he was criticised by the halachic experts of the day.
>
> And in contrast to David's paskening halacha, which was just a fantasy
> story made up by one group of halachic scholars of antiquity, the
> indisputable reality is that David never paskened halacha and was in
> fact dancing naked in front of the ark. And the naked dancing is an
> indisputable fact because a different group of halachic scholars of
> antiquity said so.
>

If you mean, is it absolutely, on its face, absurd to dispute the historicity
of the story that David danced naked before the ark, no, it could have been
a later story that somehow attached to David. But I think that's highly
unlikely, and that the incident almost certainly did occur.
However I can't see David conducting a 2nd century style halachic dispute.
The image is totally incongruous and absurd.

>
> > Now what David would have made of Rabbi Schneerson I don't know.
>
> Why don't you know? You seem to be an authority on everything else
> David was thinking and doing.
>

David was a general and a political leader, as Sharon was a general and a
political leader. So David would have instantly understood Sharon's situation,
and, leaving aside the question of military technology, told him whether
with the forces at his disposal he could or could not hold on to Gaza.
The two men would have rapidly established a rapport. We can be pretty
sure of that.

Some things we can be pretty certain about. But other things, we've just got
to say, we really don't know.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Monday, May 6, 2013 9:36:04 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013 11:20:47 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
> <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
> >Again, as I say every time, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how
> >a so-called scientist is unable to think outside his own personal
> >assumptions and prejudices and doesn't understand that the whole worl

> >does not operate in accordance with his own personal worldview.
>
> >I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
> >that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
> >newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
> >a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
> >views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
> >about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>
> Cindy, he said nothing of the sort. Your anger is misplaced, IMHO.
>
> Malcolm is of the opinion that *haredi* Judaism has no future, at
> least partially because of its biblical literalism. We can disagree (I
> do), but it's at least a defensible position.
>

Thank you.
There weren't any hassidic Jews at the Weizmann Institute, and only a tiny
handful of black hats. But more than half of my research group were observant,
virtually everyone was culturally Jewish, and we didn't have a militant
atheist figure.
However the haredim proposed to set up a yeshivah in Rehovot, to counter what
they considered to be the malign influence of the Institute. I can only
suppose that the plan was to teach creationism. To my mind, what they were
doing was nonsense, and doesn't have a future. How can I, whose work is
entirely predicated on the assumption that evolution has happened, possibly
support the haredim in this?

[cindys]

On May 7, 9:30 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
snip

> There weren't any hassidic Jews at the Weizmann Institute, and only a tiny
> handful of black hats. But more than half of my research group were observant,
> virtually everyone was culturally Jewish, and we didn't have a militant
> atheist figure.
> However the haredim proposed to set up a yeshivah in Rehovot, to counter what
> they considered to be the malign influence of the Institute. I can only
> suppose that the plan was to teach creationism.

You're totally wrong. But at least this time you didn't assert your
speculation as indisputable fact.

>To my mind, what they were
> doing was nonsense, and doesn't have a future.

Except you didn't know what they were doing or why they were doing it.
You just thought you knew.

For the umpteenth time, the survival of charedi Judaism isn't
predicated on what charedi Jews may or may not believe about the
historical accuracy of the 5 books of Moses, so you really need to get
that idea out of your head. Their survival is predicated on (but not
limited to) things like *adherence to halacha* and having lots of
children. They spend very little time teaching or discussing
creationism (or any other part of Tanakh) beyond the elementary school
level. It's largely irrelevant in their day to day lives.

>How can I, whose work is
> entirely predicated on the assumption that evolution has happened, possibly
> support the haredim in this?

But you see, charedi Judaism is not "entirely predicated on the
assumption that God created the world in six days." It's predicated on
the belief that God gave the torah to Moses on Sinai, and once the
torah was on earth, it was for men to interpret, so by following the
interpretations of men (halacha), you're doing God's will. And BTW,
traditional Jews believe that God gave Moses an oral law along with
the written law and that the oral law is every bit as binding as the
written law.

That said, I think all of this has been explained to you quite a few
times, so I can't understand why you keep insisting that traditional
Judaism is all about creationism, when we keep telling you that it's
not.

As for yeshivos: Yeshivos are not interested in teaching creationism
versus evolution. Yeshivos are interested in teaching GEMARA
(Talmud). Period. Learning gemara is basically an intellectual
exercise where people are teamed up as partners, called chavrusas, and
they spend hours every day arguing back and forth about the halachic/
intellectual positions of various rabbis of the post second Temple
period on a variety of topics. Each student strives to make the best
intellectual arguments.

Yeshivos barely teach chumash (the five books of Moses which includes
the Book of Genesis) at all, and chumash is considered to be something
more appropriate for girls to learn.

Yeshivos do teach some halacha but generally not even much of that.

What the charedim were most likely trying to counter in Rehovot was
secularism in general. Charedim consider colleges and universities to
be places of "evil" which promote not only secular ideas but also
immoral behavior as a result of coed interactions. And they regard the
"college experience" as a path out of traditional Judaism, and the
reality is that it often is, and not because of evolution versus
creationism, but because of beer and parties and girls (and a whole
spectrum of non-Jewish ideas).

When my sons were little, I closely monitored what TV shows they were
allowed to watch. Many people assumed that my concern was that they
may see a scantily dressed woman or something like that. Actually, I
wasn't at all worried about women in bikinis. I was much more
concerned about the 30-minute family sitcoms which depicted boys and
girls going to public high schools and going on dates and having
boyfriends and girlfriends because obviously the secular world views
high school dating as the norm. For our family, it wasn't, and I
didn't want my sons to internalize that casual dating in high school
was "the norm."

If you want to understand more about how the traditional Jewish world
operates, you will have to wrap your head around the idea that the
major focus of traditional Judaism (in the current world anyway) is
gemara/talmud and NOT Tanakh (5 books of Moses, Prophets, and
Writings). I understand that Christians focus on the bible, but
traditional Jews learning in yeshivos barely open it. And the other
area of learning that garners some (lesser) attention in yeshiva is
halacha (Shulchan Orach, Mishna Brura). For those who wish to pursue
semicha (rabbinical ordination), it's mandatory to master certain
areas of halacha.

In my son's yeshiva, and I understand that this is anecdotal and
things may work differently in different yeshivos, creationism was
never taught at all. In fact, the only time it was even mentioned was
when when the biology teacher taught evolution as part of the New York
State Regents curriculum, and the principal came in at the end of that
particular class and made a single sentence announcement that even
though evolution wasn't true, they had to learn about it for the State
exam.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On May 7, 10:57 am, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 9:30 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>  snip
>
> > There weren't any hassidic Jews at the Weizmann Institute, and only a tiny
> > handful of black hats. But more than half of my research group were observant,
> > virtually everyone was culturally Jewish, and we didn't have a militant
> > atheist figure.

-----
BTW, many charedim believe that there is a need to do kiruv (Jewish
outreach) to anybody who isn't charedi. So the fact that half your
research group was observant and everyone else was culturally Jewish
does not count for anything with the charedim. As far as charedim are
concerned, they (the charedim) are the only ones who are living a
torah life, and that's what they are trying to promote to other
Jews.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[David Makowsky]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:17:20 AM UTC-5, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:

[ Snip ]

> If you mean, is it absolutely, on its face, absurd to dispute the historicity
> of the story that David danced naked before the ark, no, it could have been
> a later story that somehow attached to David. But I think that's highly
> unlikely, and that the incident almost certainly did occur.

I don't remember that he was dancing naked, but I believe his wife Michal (Saul's daughter) was upset with him for the way he danced in front of the "common folk". King David rebuked her for that and as punishment she died while giving birth.

> However I can't see David conducting a 2nd century style halachic dispute.
> The image is totally incongruous and absurd.

I can't argue as to the "style", but are you claiming King David did not judge halachic issues?

[David Makowsky]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

[ Snip ]

> BTW, many charedim believe that there is a need to do kiruv (Jewish
> outreach) to anybody who isn't charedi.

Agreed.

> So the fact that half your
> research group was observant and everyone else was culturally Jewish
> does not count for anything with the charedim. As far as charedim are
> concerned, they (the charedim) are the only ones who are living a
> torah life, and that's what they are trying to promote to other
> Jews.

I don't know if that is totally true. Among Chabad, for example, they don't seem to have a problem with (at least I have never heard them discourage) people driving to a Chabad house on Shabbat to daven. In some areas where they do not have large congregations the Chabad houses are absolutely dependent on these people to make a minyan. They incentivize this behavior with a good meal after davening. I don't see how that can be considered living a tora life or even promoting it.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:06:21 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:

>On Monday, May 6, 2013 12:28:47 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:

[snip]

>> King David was a combination of both and then some. He was a warrior,
>> a poet, and a halachic scholar. There is a section of the talmud (in
>> Berachos, IIRC) which describes that King David is exhausted from non-
>> stop paskening (making legal rulings) regarding whether or not the
>> stains on women's undergarments represent blood.
>>
>David was a warrior and poet, but not a halachic scholar. That's just a
>later tradition made up by halachic scholars who wanted David's glory
>to rub off on themselves.

AFAIK it's midrash aggada. Not quite a "tradition."

>David danced naked in front of the ark,

Naked? That seems a stretch from what Shmuel II 6:14 says. Looks like
he leaped too much, and since underwear wasn't invented yet...

>for which he was criticised by the halachic experts of the day.

His wife Michal was a halakhic expert? Or do you have someone else in
mind?

[snip]

[cindys]

On May 7, 1:23 pm, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:
>
> [ Snip ]
>
> > BTW, many charedim believe that there is a need to do kiruv (Jewish
> > outreach) to anybody who isn't charedi.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > So the fact that half your
> > research group was observant and everyone else was culturally Jewish
> > does not count for anything with the charedim. As far as charedim are
> > concerned, they (the charedim) are the only ones who are living a
> > torah life, and that's what they are trying to promote to other
> > Jews.
>
> I don't know if that is totally true.  Among Chabad, for example, they don't seem to have a problem with (at least I have never heard them discourage) people driving to a Chabad house on Shabbat to daven.

While Chabad may be willing to tolerate or overlook that people are
driving to the Chabad house on shabbos, Chabad does not really
consider it okay that these people are doing this and would most
certainly not consider that these people are living a torah life.

Chabad does outreach in a very general, somewhat superficial way.
Their focus is to outreach to secular Jews to encourage them to
observe some very basic mitzvos. "Do you want to lay tefillin?" "Do
you want to shake the lulav?" You can go to their center for a service
and a l'chaim, but that's about as far as it goes. Have you ever been
to a Chabad Passover seder? I have. They read only part of the
Haggadah and then gave the (mostly secular) participants the option to
complete it on their own if they wished. The rabbi and his family,
OTOH, completed the entire seder in the traditional way at their own
table. I am not faulting the rabbi for this at all because if he had
attempted to conduct the seder in its entirety with 100 secular
participants (or however many there were), they would have been bored,
annoyed, and left early because they "had to go to work in the
morning." And then, they may not have wanted to return to the Chabad
seder again the following year because it was "too long and boring."

The Chabad approach is to back off and not pressure people to change
if doing so will mean that the people will be turned off. They do not
think that driving on shabbos is okay. They don't discourage it
because if they start harping on driving right away, people will be
turned off. Kiruv (outreach) is a gradual process, and they don't
want to turn people off before they've even gotten started. As a
result, secular Jews like Chabad, and they feel that Chabad is very
tolerant of them and their secular ways (unlike those rigid people
over at Congregation Blackhat.) But don't delude yourself for one
moment into thinking that the Chabad rabbi is genuinely okay with
people being mechallel shabbos (shabbos violators). The Chabad
approach is to tread lightly so as not to turn people off. And FTR,
if you want to find an Orthodox group that does take creationism
literally, look to Chabad.

> In some areas where they do not have large congregations the Chabad houses are absolutely dependent on these people to make a minyan.  They incentivize this behavior with a good meal after davening.  I don't see how that can be considered living a tora life or even promoting it.

The Chabad approach is to engage people with their tolerance and
friendliness and then gradually introduce the idea of increased
observance. That said, Chabad does have a practical need for people
to make a minyan, and I think the Chabad philosophy is if someone is
going to be driving on shabbos anyway, he may as well drive to shul.
So, yeah, they do have a mission, but they are also realists. And you
can't have a torah reading without a minyan, so even if some of the
people will never stop driving on shabbos, at least they are helping
to make a minyan and making it possible for other people to daven with
a minyan.

Unless Chabad operates differently in Israel than in the rest of the
world, Chabad would be opening an outreach center, not a yeshiva. I
would bet money that this yeshiva in Rehovot is being opened by Aish
HaTorah or a similar group.

Yes, there are Lubavitcher yeshivos, but these are generally only for
Lubavitcher Chassidim. Chabad does not do kiruv by encouraging secular
Jews to come learn in a Lubavitcher yeshiva. Other kiruv groups in
Israel, OTOH, will literally drive around looking for young men on the
street and ask them to come to yeshiva to learn.

On that note, one of my favorite stories is when a female friend of
mine (a college professor) was visiting Israel. She was stopped on the
street by someone who wanted her to come to a seminary and learn. She
asked if the learning would include gemara. The response was "no,
because women don't have a head for learning." So, she informed him
that she held a PhD in mathematics from MIT (I think it was MIT).
Having no response for that, he immediately changed the subject and
asked her if she was interested in a shidduch :-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:18:49 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:

>On May 6, 4:36�pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 May 2013 11:20:47 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>> <cste...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Again, as I say every time, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how
>> >a so-called scientist is unable to think outside his own personal
>> >assumptions and prejudices and doesn't understand that the whole world
>> >does not operate in accordance with his own personal worldview.
>>
>> >I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
>> >that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
>> >newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
>> >a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
>> >views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
>> >about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>>
>> Cindy, he said nothing of the sort. Your anger is misplaced, IMHO.
>>
>> Malcolm is of the opinion that *haredi* Judaism has no future, at
>> least partially because of its biblical literalism.
>----
>Yes, I got that quite a few posts back.

But above you atttributed "Judaism has no future" to him, so I got
confused.

>Malcolm believes that charedi
>or chassidic or ultra-rightwing Judaism is going to fail because these
>groups dismiss the work of secular scholars regarding the historic
>accuracy of the torah. And all of my responses until the last few have
>been about trying to explain (for the umpteenth time) that Judaism is
>first and foremost a legal system, and whether the torah is
>historically accurate or not is largely irrelevant and will not impact
>on the continuity of charedi Judaism.

Generally I agree, but ISTM that anything that throws biblical
literalism into doubt, or causes haredim to question the Tora's
historicity can at least damage the fervor with which they approach
observance.

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On May 7, 5:53 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Have you ever been
> to a Chabad Passover seder? I have.  They read only part of the
> Haggadah and then gave the (mostly secular) participants the option to
> complete it on their own if they wished.  The rabbi and his family,
> OTOH, completed the entire seder in the traditional way at their own
> table.

??? I am familiar with several Habad centers in the tri-state area.
Every one of them (those with which I am familiar, that is) conducts
the complete seder, with the entire Haggada, though they do it with
dispatch. Explanations and stories are reserved for during the meal,
as far as I know.

> Unless Chabad operates differently in Israel than in the rest of the
> world, Chabad would be opening an outreach center, not a yeshiva.  I
> would bet money that this yeshiva in Rehovot is being opened by Aish
> HaTorah or a similar group.
> Yes, there are Lubavitcher yeshivos, but these are generally only for
> Lubavitcher Chassidim. Chabad does not do kiruv by encouraging secular
> Jews to come learn in a Lubavitcher yeshiva. Other kiruv groups in
> Israel, OTOH, will literally drive around looking for young men on the
> street and ask them to come to yeshiva to learn.

Again, ???. Habad in America maintains several yeshivos specifically
for kiroov of secular Jews, where they can come and study full time
for a week, a month, a season, or a semester or two or more. They also
maintain similar schools for secular ywomen to come and learn.

>
> On that note, one of my favorite stories is when a female friend of
> mine (a college professor) was visiting Israel. She was stopped on the
> street by someone who wanted her to come to a seminary and learn.  She
> asked if the learning would include gemara. The response was "no,
> because women don't have a head for learning." So, she informed him
> that she held a PhD in mathematics from MIT (I think it was MIT).
> Having no response for that, he immediately changed the subject and
> asked her if she was interested in a shidduch :-)

On our last trip to Jerusalem's Old City, we passed by a store-front
belonging to some organisation or other (just above the old Roman
street excavations, on Habad Road, I think it was). In the window, was
a sign offering "Shidduchim for Women". Hannies could not stop
laughing, until she nearly choked. I had to buy her a drink from a
nearby vending stand.

GEK

[cindys]

On May 7, 6:28 pm, Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepipes...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 7, 5:53 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Have you ever been
> > to a Chabad Passover seder? I have.  They read only part of the
> > Haggadah and then gave the (mostly secular) participants the option to
> > complete it on their own if they wished.  The rabbi and his family,
> > OTOH, completed the entire seder in the traditional way at their own
> > table.
>
> ??? I am familiar with several Habad centers in the tri-state area.
> Every one of them (those with which I am familiar, that is) conducts
> the complete seder, with the entire Haggada, though they do it with
> dispatch. Explanations and stories are reserved for during the meal,
> as far as I know.

Maybe the problem was the "with dispatch" part. I don't recall any
part of the Haggadah being read aloud after the Shulchan Orech (meal),
although I could be mistaken. And since they always recite the Grace
After Meals, I can't imagine they would fail to do so at the seder.
It was quite a few years ago. I'm sure they did the halachically-
mandated parts of the seder, but all-in-all, it wasn't what I
expected, and (to me), it seemed really short and superficial, and we
never went again. I'm sure I would have had a much more fulfilling
experience if I had been sitting with the rabbi and his family.

>
> > Unless Chabad operates differently in Israel than in the rest of the
> > world, Chabad would be opening an outreach center, not a yeshiva.  I
> > would bet money that this yeshiva in Rehovot is being opened by Aish
> > HaTorah or a similar group.
> > Yes, there are Lubavitcher yeshivos, but these are generally only for
> > Lubavitcher Chassidim. Chabad does not do kiruv by encouraging secular
> > Jews to come learn in a Lubavitcher yeshiva. Other kiruv groups in
> > Israel, OTOH, will literally drive around looking for young men on the
> > street and ask them to come to yeshiva to learn.
>
> Again, ???. Habad in America maintains several yeshivos specifically
> for kiroov of secular Jews, where they can come and study full time
> for a week, a month, a season, or a semester or two or more. They also
> maintain similar schools for secular ywomen to come and learn.

Well, I knew they had some retreats and learning programs for secular
Jews, but it is news to me that they have yeshivos for kiruv. I stand
corrected. That said, I assume you agree with the bulk of the rest of
what I wrote, as you haven't commented on it or disputed it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

>
>
>

[cindys]

On May 7, 5:54 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:18:49 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> <cste...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 6, 4:36 pm, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 5 May 2013 11:20:47 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> >> <cste...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
> >> [snip]
>
> >> >Again, as I say every time, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how
> >> >a so-called scientist is unable to think outside his own personal
> >> >assumptions and prejudices and doesn't understand that the whole world
> >> >does not operate in accordance with his own personal worldview.
>
> >> >I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
> >> >that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
> >> >newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
> >> >a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
> >> >views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
> >> >about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>
> >> Cindy, he said nothing of the sort. Your anger is misplaced, IMHO.
>
> >> Malcolm is of the opinion that *haredi* Judaism has no future, at
> >> least partially because of its biblical literalism.
> >----
> >Yes, I got that quite a few posts back.
>
> But above you atttributed "Judaism has no future" to him, so I got
> confused.

If I did write that, it wasn't what I meant. The topic under
discussion was the future staying power of the charedi Jews, not
Judaism in general.

>
> >Malcolm believes that charedi
> >or chassidic or ultra-rightwing Judaism is going to fail because these
> >groups dismiss the work of secular scholars regarding the historic
> >accuracy of the torah. And all of my responses until the last few have
> >been about trying to explain (for the umpteenth time) that Judaism is
> >first and foremost a legal system, and whether the torah is
> >historically accurate or not is largely irrelevant and will not impact
> >on the continuity of charedi Judaism.
>
> Generally I agree, but ISTM that anything that throws biblical
> literalism into doubt, or causes haredim to question the Tora's
> historicity can at least damage the fervor with which they approach
> observance.

That may be so, but I think the really big problem would be if they
started to question TorahMiSinai, not the creation story. But my real
point was that Malcolm repeatedly infers/suggests/asserts that belief
in the creation story is what charedi Judaism is mostly all about and
that (by extension or implication), charedi Jews must spend a great
deal of time discussing and promoting creationism and invalidating
evolution. The truth is that the reality of the creation story is more
or less taken for granted and left at that because there are so many
other more important areas to focus on, and discussions of evolution
almost never even enter the conversation except to make jokes about
people "coming from monkeys."
---Cindy S.

[W. Baker]

cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

I know of a Charedi woman telling her Modern O M-I-L not to take the
children to the American Museum of Natural History to se the dinasaours
because it made problems. She knew the dinasaurs were planted by Hashem
to test our faith but knew her M-I-L didn't share this view.

Wendy

[mm]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 01:00:39 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>
>That may be so, but I think the really big problem would be if they
>started to question TorahMiSinai, not the creation story. But my real
>point was that Malcolm repeatedly infers/suggests/asserts that belief
>in the creation story is what charedi Judaism is mostly all about and
>that (by extension or implication), charedi Jews must spend a great
>deal of time discussing and promoting creationism and invalidating
>evolution. The truth is that the reality of the creation story is more
>or less taken for granted and left at that because there are so many
>other more important areas to focus on, and discussions of evolution
>almost never even enter the conversation except to make jokes about
>people "coming from monkeys."
>---Cindy S.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

People don't say that as much as they used to.
--

Meir

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On May 7, 6:40 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > ??? I am familiar with several Habad centers in the tri-state area.
> > Every one of them (those with which I am familiar, that is) conducts
> > the complete seder, with the entire Haggada, though they do it with
> > dispatch. Explanations and stories are reserved for during the meal,
> > as far as I know.
>
> Maybe the problem was the "with dispatch" part.  I don't recall any
> part of the Haggadah being read aloud after the Shulchan Orech (meal),
> although I could be mistaken. And since they always recite the Grace
> After Meals, I can't imagine they would fail to do so at the seder.
> It was quite a few years ago. I'm sure they did the halachically-
> mandated parts of the seder, but all-in-all, it wasn't what I
> expected, and (to me), it seemed really short and superficial, and we
> never went again. I'm sure I would have had a much more fulfilling
> experience if I had been sitting with the rabbi and his family.

And once again, ??? Perhaps things are different in your local Habad,
but in these parts the Habad rabbi and his family do sit with the
guests, and it is all conducted at one seder. I have not heard of a
Habad where there is a seder for the public, and then afterwards the
rabbi goes home and has a separate seder for himself and his family.
Apparently elsewhere things are differen. See also below.

>
> Well, I knew they had some retreats and learning programs for secular
> Jews, but it is news to me that they have yeshivos for kiruv. I stand
> corrected. That said, I assume you agree with the bulk of the rest of
> what I wrote, as you haven't commented on it or disputed it.

I can only comment on the Habad that I am familiar with. These days,
Habad comes is a variety of flavours, and there is no central control
over who is an "official" Habad rabbi and who is "unofficial", nor are
there centrally-controlled standards as to what level of observance
the rabbi is to require at his shule, or even what level of observance
the rabbi himself needs adhere to. Each region has its "Head
Shaliach", but this head has little control over the "tails" if he is
not funding them, and no control at all over any "unoffical" Habad
rabbi.

GEK

[Harry Weiss]

I don't know if there are any Charedi Yeshivot in Rechovot, but there are
defnitely Charadal Yeshivot under the auspices of Rechovot Chief Rabbi
Kook.


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

[mm]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 22:28:04 +0000 (UTC), Giorgies E Kepipesiom
<kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>On our last trip to Jerusalem's Old City, we passed by a store-front
>belonging to some organisation or other (just above the old Roman
>street excavations, on Habad Road, I think it was). In the window, was
>a sign offering "Shidduchim for Women". Hannies could not stop

I should have gotten one of those. It would have made such a lovely
present for a friend of mine.

>laughing, until she nearly choked. I had to buy her a drink from a
>nearby vending stand.
>
>GEK

--

Meir

[cindys]

On May 8, 3:21 am, Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepipes...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 7, 6:40 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ??? I am familiar with several Habad centers in the tri-state area.
> > > Every one of them (those with which I am familiar, that is) conducts
> > > the complete seder, with the entire Haggada, though they do it with
> > > dispatch. Explanations and stories are reserved for during the meal,
> > > as far as I know.
>
> > Maybe the problem was the "with dispatch" part.  I don't recall any
> > part of the Haggadah being read aloud after the Shulchan Orech (meal),
> > although I could be mistaken. And since they always recite the Grace
> > After Meals, I can't imagine they would fail to do so at the seder.
> > It was quite a few years ago. I'm sure they did the halachically-
> > mandated parts of the seder, but all-in-all, it wasn't what I
> > expected, and (to me), it seemed really short and superficial, and we
> > never went again. I'm sure I would have had a much more fulfilling
> > experience if I had been sitting with the rabbi and his family.
>
> And once again, ??? Perhaps things are different in your local Habad,
> but in these parts the Habad rabbi and his family do sit with the
> guests, and it is all conducted at one seder. I have not heard of a
> Habad where there is a seder for the public, and then afterwards the
> rabbi goes home and has a separate seder for himself and his family.
> Apparently elsewhere things are differen. See also below.

-----
Oy! I didn't say the rabbi *went home* and had the seder with this
family!. It was a public seder in a big room with a number of tables
that each seated a bunch of people. One of these tables was for the
rabbi's family. The rabbi conducted the seder (for everyone) until a
certain point. At that point, the public part was finished, and he sat
down with his family, and then, they did their own thing. I assume the
part of the seder that he did for the public must have included all of
the halachically-mandated parts, but it was a very bare bones seder.

Once he sat down with his family for the remainder, I think he
expounded on the haggadah, discussed commentary, told stories related
to the Haggadah etc. at his own table, and I wish I could have been
privy to some of that.

I got the impression that he didn't want to go beyond the halachically-
mandated parts publicly for fear of overwhelming the mostly secular
participants lest they might not return the following year. That's
all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Susan S]

In soc.culture.jewish.moderated I read this message from "Shmaryahu b.
Chanoch" <Omeg...@gmail.com>:

>On Sunday, May 5, 2013 7:20:47 AM UTC-4, cindys wrote:
>> O
>>
>> > You can't build something on a lie. It can last for many years, even
>>
>> > centuries. But if it is known to be false, ultimately it will fail.
>>
>> ------
>>
>> Except Judaism isn't "built on a lie." It's built on a legal system.
>>
>> We have gone over this ad nauseum in the past, and even though it has
>>
>> been explained to you repeatedly and every which way, you can't seem
>>
>> to think outside your own personal perspective and prejudices. It
>>
>> doesn't matter if the bible is true or not true.
>>
>>
>>
>> Judaism is a legal system and not a "faith" that is going to crumble
>>
>> if some non-Jewish scholars claim that the foundations of that "faith"
>>
>> aren't historically accurate. And no, in contrast to what you have
>>
>> declared in the past, chassidim do not have any obligation at all to
>>
>> consider or to take into account the biblical criticism of secular
>>
>> scholars, and the reason that they don't is because Judaism is a legal
>>
>> system and not a "religion" in the same way that Christianity is a
>>
>> religion. The reason you cling so desperately to the Jesus myth is
>>
>> because without it, your entire belief system crumbles. But in the
>>
>> end, what has always ensured the continuity of the Jewish people is
>>
>> adherence to the halacha, the Jewish legal system, not whether or not
>>
>> Adam and Eve ate the apple in the Garden of Eden or God really turned
>>
>> the Nile river into blood.
>>
>>
>>

>> Again, as I say every time, it is beyond my ability to comprehend how
>> a so-called scientist is unable to think outside his own personal
>> assumptions and prejudices and doesn't understand that the whole world
>> does not operate in accordance with his own personal worldview.
>>
>> I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
>> that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
>> newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
>> a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
>> views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
>> about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.
>>

>> Best regards,
>>
>> ---Cindy S.
>
>Welcome to what passes as leftwing academic thought. It is pushes a secular, anti religious position. It mistrusts anything that is normal. In that the traditional family is a roadblock to progress as is traditional religion. Islam is promoted only in that it attacks both Judaism and Christianity (or can be used as a weapon against them).
>
>Just remember that most who vote for democrats have no real voice in making the party policy. That comes from activists. DailyKos.com has far more influence than anyone who calls themselves "liberal".

You are confused. The DailyKos person around here is me and you may want
to direct your outrage my way, but I warn you: I don't care. And I call
myself progressive. I do not make anti-religious arguments in this
group, that would be silly.

Susan Silberstein

[Harry Weiss]

cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 3:21?am, Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepipes...@hotmail.com>

> Once he sat down with his family for the remainder, I think he
> expounded on the haggadah, discussed commentary, told stories related
> to the Haggadah etc. at his own table, and I wish I could have been
> privy to some of that.

> I got the impression that he didn't want to go beyond the halachically-
> mandated parts publicly for fear of overwhelming the mostly secular
> participants lest they might not return the following year. That's
> all.

Perhaps he went in Yiddish with more Chassidus and rebbe stuff, that
often turns most no Lubbies off.


> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.

[David Makowsky]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:53:28 PM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

> On May 7, 1:23 pm, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:

> > > BTW, many charedim believe that there is a need to do kiruv (Jewish
> > > outreach) to anybody who isn't charedi.

> > Agreed.

> > > So the fact that half your

> > > research group was observant and everyone else was culturally Jewish
> > > does not count for anything with the charedim. As far as charedim are
> > > concerned, they (the charedim) are the only ones who are living a
> > > torah life, and that's what they are trying to promote to other
> > > Jews.

> > I don't know if that is totally true.  Among Chabad, for example, they don't > > seem to have a problem with (at least I have never heard them discourage)
> > people driving to a Chabad house on Shabbat to daven.

> While Chabad may be willing to tolerate or overlook that people are
> driving to the Chabad house on shabbos, Chabad does not really
> consider it okay that these people are doing this and would most
> certainly not consider that these people are living a torah life.

I disagree that they do not consider it OK, although if pressed that may be how they respond. The behavior is incentivized so that they (The Chabad) family can daven with a Minyan. To me that is the equivalent of saying it is OK.

> Chabad does outreach in a very general, somewhat superficial way.
> Their focus is to outreach to secular Jews to encourage them to
> observe some very basic mitzvos. "Do you want to lay tefillin?" "Do
> you want to shake the lulav?" You can go to their center for a service
> and a l'chaim, but that's about as far as it goes. Have you ever been
> to a Chabad Passover seder? I have. They read only part of the
> Haggadah and then gave the (mostly secular) participants the option to
> complete it on their own if they wished. The rabbi and his family,
> OTOH, completed the entire seder in the traditional way at their own
> table. I am not faulting the rabbi for this at all because if he had
> attempted to conduct the seder in its entirety with 100 secular
> participants (or however many there were), they would have been bored,
> annoyed, and left early because they "had to go to work in the
> morning." And then, they may not have wanted to return to the Chabad
> seder again the following year because it was "too long and boring."

I was heavily involved with Chabad for years, while I was in College (1980's - dating myself) but I was never at a Seder. However I agree entirely with the sentiments you express as well as the examples involving T'filin and Lulav. For instance, the last year I was involved with them they did the High Holiday services almost entirely in English.

> The Chabad approach is to back off and not pressure people to change
> if doing so will mean that the people will be turned off. They do not
> think that driving on shabbos is okay. They don't discourage it
> because if they start harping on driving right away, people will be
> turned off. Kiruv (outreach) is a gradual process, and they don't
> want to turn people off before they've even gotten started. As a
> result, secular Jews like Chabad, and they feel that Chabad is very
> tolerant of them and their secular ways (unlike those rigid people
> over at Congregation Blackhat.) But don't delude yourself for one
> moment into thinking that the Chabad rabbi is genuinely okay with
> people being mechallel shabbos (shabbos violators). The Chabad
> approach is to tread lightly so as not to turn people off. And FTR,
> if you want to find an Orthodox group that does take creationism
> literally, look to Chabad.

I agree with all of that except I disagree about why they do not harp on not driving. In smaller communities where they have trouble drawing a minyan they want people to drive, or at least they want them to be there more than they don't want them to drive. They make sure before Shabbat or Yom Tov that they will have enough for a minyan knowing full well the people they reached out to in order to receive commitments to attend will drive. Sort of like "Don't ask Don't tell", except everyone knows who the drivers are. It reminds me a little of the Conservative "Responsa" on driving to schul on Shabbat.

> > In some areas where they do not have large congregations the Chabad houses
> > are absolutely dependent on these people to make a minyan.  They incentivize > > this behavior with a good meal after davening.  I don't see how that can be > > considered living a tora life or even promoting it.

> The Chabad approach is to engage people with their tolerance and
> friendliness and then gradually introduce the idea of increased
> observance. That said, Chabad does have a practical need for people
> to make a minyan, and I think the Chabad philosophy is if someone is
> going to be driving on shabbos anyway, he may as well drive to shul.
> So, yeah, they do have a mission, but they are also realists. And you
> can't have a torah reading without a minyan, so even if some of the
> people will never stop driving on shabbos, at least they are helping
> to make a minyan and making it possible for other people to daven with
> a minyan.

I think the above is totally wrong (Not that you are wrong, but it is wrong for them to have that attitude). How is that leaading a Tora life? Again it reminds me of the Conservative "Responsa" on driving to Schul on Shabbat.

> Unless Chabad operates differently in Israel than in the rest of the
> world, Chabad would be opening an outreach center, not a yeshiva. I
> would bet money that this yeshiva in Rehovot is being opened by Aish
> HaTorah or a similar group.

> Yes, there are Lubavitcher yeshivos, but these are generally only for
> Lubavitcher Chassidim. Chabad does not do kiruv by encouraging secular
> Jews to come learn in a Lubavitcher yeshiva. Other kiruv groups in
> Israel, OTOH, will literally drive around looking for young men on the
> street and ask them to come to yeshiva to learn.

Agreed.

> On that note, one of my favorite stories is when a female friend of
> mine (a college professor) was visiting Israel. She was stopped on the
> street by someone who wanted her to come to a seminary and learn. She
> asked if the learning would include gemara. The response was "no,
> because women don't have a head for learning." So, she informed him
> that she held a PhD in mathematics from MIT (I think it was MIT).
> Having no response for that, he immediately changed the subject and
> asked her if she was interested in a shidduch :-)

Thank you for that last part.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 5:02:19 PM UTC+1, David Makowsky wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 8:17:20 AM UTC-5, malcolm...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> I don't remember that he was dancing naked, but I believe his wife Michal
> (Saul's daughter) was upset with him for the way he danced in front of the
> "common folk". King David rebuked her for that and as punishment she died
> while giving birth.
>

The text is a bit unclear. it says David had a linen [Masoretic text, not LXX]
"ephod", or priestly garment that consists of a sort of square bib. Then his
wife accuses him of being naked. So maybe the ephod didn't cover his private
parts, or maybe it was a flimsy garment that he took off as he danced.

>
>
> > However I can't see David conducting a 2nd century style halachic dispute.
> > The image is totally incongruous and absurd.
>
>
> I can't argue as to the "style", but are you claiming King David did not
> judge halachic issues?
>

David was a ruler, and judged his own cases (there's a famous incident where
Samuel gets him to metaphorically judge himself to be put to death). At this
period the Israelites wouldn't have distinguished between religious and
secular law, and there was probably a case law system where one ruling
provided a precedent for the next. So in sense, yes, David did decide
halachic issues. But he wasn't a "halachic expert" in the sense that Cindy
was making out, or in the way that Rabbi Schneerson was.

He wouldn't have exhausted himself debating the minutae of purity laws into
the small hours. I just can't see that happening. That sort of thing belonged
to a later period.

[Giorgies E Kepipesiom]

On May 8, 9:41 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> The text is a bit unclear. it says David had a linen [Masoretic text, not LXX]
> "ephod", or priestly garment that consists of a sort of square bib. Then his
> wife accuses him of being naked. So maybe the ephod didn't cover his private
> parts, or maybe it was a flimsy garment that he took off as he danced.

Ephod is not a "sort of square bib". You are thinking of the choshen,
which - though square - is not exactly a "bib". The ephod is an apron
reaching from waiste to ankles, tied at the waiste with a sash that is
part of the ephod, and with attached shoulder straps that come up over
the shoulder (the square cloth dangles from those straps, and is also
fastened at its bottom to the body of the ephod by ribbons of
tekheles). There is no hint of any sort that he danced "naked", save
in your imagination; not in the text. The rest of your claims
(regarding Dovid as an halchic decisor) is equally based on your
imagination, with no support whatever in either the Biblical or
Talmudic texts.

GEK

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 2:27:28 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> On May 6, 7:08 pm, "JJ" <dmr1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>
> Yes. And the reality is that if the charedim were to immerse
> themselves in the work of the secular scholars and then arrive at the
> conclusion that the torah was written over an extended timeframe by
> four separate authors, that would mean that Moshe did not receive the
> torah from God and then the fundamental belief of traditional Judaism
> would be undermined. It seems to me that the charedi dismissal of the
> secular scholars' work, if anything, is actually helping to preserve
> charedi Judaism, not weaken it.
>
The Israelis built a sand wall along the Suez canal after 1967. The wall
was sand, so bombs and bullets would have minimum effect on it. And they
couldn't see the Egyptians behind it. Military problem solved.

On Yom Kippur, 1973, the Egyptians used high pressure hoses to wash the
sand away, and led their tanks through. That's what happens when you try
wall off issues instead of actually dealing with them.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 3:57:21 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> On May 7, 9:30 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> That said, I think all of this has been explained to you quite a few
> times, so I can't understand why you keep insisting that traditional
> Judaism is all about creationism, when we keep telling you that it's
> not.
>

I don't say that. I've frequently made the point that science doesn't
teach us not to wear furry hats, for example. If people want to ban furry
hats they have to argue on other grounds.
>
What I did say was that the biblical literalism, which includes but is
not confined to creationism, needs to go if the sects are to have a
long term future. If I emphasise creationism over the Documentary Hypothesis,
that's because evolution is my area of expertise whilst on DH I'm just
an interested layman.

>
> What the charedim were most likely trying to counter in Rehovot was
> secularism in general. Charedim consider colleges and universities to
> be places of "evil" which promote not only secular ideas but also
> immoral behavior as a result of coed interactions. And they regard the
> "college experience" as a path out of traditional Judaism, and the
> reality is that it often is, and not because of evolution versus
> creationism, but because of beer and parties and girls (and a whole
> spectrum of non-Jewish ideas).
>

Israel is a different culture to America or Western Europe. The Weizmann
has a totally different feel to a British university, and certainly to
an American one. It only admits graduate students, for one thing, most
of whom have done three or four years' army service (one poor chap was hit
for seven). So people are in their mid to late twenties, and quite a lot
are married with little children.

[Yisroel Markov]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 13:17:20 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:

>On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:09:01 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>> On May 6, 7:06�pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you think the Jews of Britain will survive? Do they strike the
>> right chord of not-too-observant yet not too lax?
>>
>Britain is a special case. It's a very conservative country, so it's extremely
>hospitable to groups trying to preserve ancient traditions.
>
>>
>> > David danced naked in front of the ark, for
>> > which he was criticised by the halachic experts of the day.
>>
>> And in contrast to David's paskening halacha, which was just a fantasy
>> story made up by one group of halachic scholars of antiquity, the
>> indisputable reality is that David never paskened halacha and was in
>> fact dancing naked in front of the ark. And the naked dancing is an
>> indisputable fact because a different group of halachic scholars of
>> antiquity said so.
>>
>If you mean, is it absolutely, on its face, absurd to dispute the historicity
>of the story that David danced naked before the ark, no, it could have been
>a later story that somehow attached to David. But I think that's highly
>unlikely, and that the incident almost certainly did occur.
>However I can't see David conducting a 2nd century style halachic dispute.
>The image is totally incongruous and absurd.

It's no wonder you can't see it, since that's not what the author of
the statement Cindy cited wanted to project. To have such an image in
one's mind is like imputing to O Jews a claim that the Mishna was
dictated to Moshe on Sinai.

[snip]

[Yisroel Markov]

I doubt it. But Cindy has already explained this very well.

>To my mind, what they were
>doing was nonsense, and doesn't have a future. How can I, whose work is
>entirely predicated on the assumption that evolution has happened, possibly
>support the haredim in this?

Was anyone expecting your support?

[Yisroel Markov]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 16:10:19 +0000 (UTC),
malcolm...@btinternet.com said:

>On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 3:57:21 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>> On May 7, 9:30�am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>
>> That said, I think all of this has been explained to you quite a few
>> times, so I can't understand why you keep insisting that traditional
>> Judaism is all about creationism, when we keep telling you that it's
>> not.
>>
>I don't say that. I've frequently made the point that science doesn't
>teach us not to wear furry hats, for example. If people want to ban furry
>hats they have to argue on other grounds.
>>
>What I did say was that the biblical literalism, which includes but is
>not confined to creationism, needs to go if the sects are to have a
>long term future.

I agree that getting rid of biblical literalism would be a positive
development (if only because classical Judaism is not BL), but I don't
quite understand your argument here. As Cindy has explained, for BL to
become a problem the "sects" have to admit competing information
first. They've done a pretty good job of blocking that so far, and not
just by limiting access to information (which is hard and getting
harder to do), but primarily by convincing their adherents that such
information doesn't matter.

So, to re-use your metaphor, what will be the hose that will blast
holes in this sand wall and thereby endanger the "sects" long-term
future?

>If I emphasise creationism over the Documentary Hypothesis,
>that's because evolution is my area of expertise whilst on DH I'm just
>an interested layman.

[snip]

[JJ]

<malcolm...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:f0fcc328-7810-4f9c...@googlegroups.com...

*******************************************

Very poor and incorrect metaphor. The Israelis did indeed build a wall of
sand, BUT (1) they had lookouts on top of the wall, and (2) many overflights
took place and Israel knew exactly what was going on on the other side.

The problem in 1973 was not that Israel did not know. It knew only too
well, and junior military intelligence officers argued that an attack was
imminent. The problem was that the higher echelons (head of MI Eliahu
Zeira, and the COS David Elazar) were enamored of a "concept" which said
that the Egyptians would never attack alone, but only with Syrian help, and
there were no signs that any Syrian troops were being readied. They
therefore would not accept that an attack was imminent. They were both
dismissed after the war.

The political machine (at the time, DM Moshe Dayan) was afraid to call up
reserve units because a similar false alarm had been given in May of 1973
and after hundreds of thousands of shekels were spent calling up the
reserves, and thousands of troops called up (in May) nothing happened. That
false alarm was actually a planned attack which Egypt canceled at the last
moment due to problems with Syrian forces.

Lastly, one weapon which was readied to fight off any attempted crossing of
the Suez Canal was fuel hoses, running from Israeli outposts into the canal
wall, which were to dump burning fuel into the water should any crossing be
attempted, simply failed to operate. It had not been maintained properly,
and when the valves were opened, nothing happened and the Egyptian troops
had a clear path across the water and onto the Israeli side, which was
poorly manned and poorly equipped.

The one person who had predicted this, and fought a battle royal with COS
Barlev (after which the Barlev Line was named) was Ariel Sharon, then
commander of the Southern Front. He argued for flexible tank and artillery
forces to be kept 10-12 miles from the Suez, rather than stationary
positions which could easily be targeted.

He could not convince Barlev (nor any other generals). When Barlev left and
David Elkazar became COS, Elazar simply fired Sharon (several months before
the war). Sharon was on a tour abroad when the war broke out. He returned
to Israel, asked to serve in any capacity and was made commander of a tank
battalion. Against orders, he crossed the Suez and encircled the Egyptian
Third Army, bringing the war to a close. Henry Kissinger had to argue with
Israel to allow supplies to get through to the Egyptians. The Kissinger
agreement letting the Egyptian Army leave and return home made it possible
for Sadat to claim that, with a successful crossing and a now rehabiliatetd
3rd Army, Egypt had won the war and redeemed itself of the shameful 1967
loss to Israel.

The October War is celebrated as an Egyptian victory today, and made it
possible, 5 years later, for Sadat to visit Israel. The rest is history.

Scores of books (and a massive inquiry) were published about the 1973 war. I
would venture that I have read most of them. The only book to contradict the
summary aboive is the one written by former MI chief Eliahu Zeira, who still
today claims that the Military Intelligence apparatus did not fail.

Jay

[mm]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 16:22:35 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 May 2013 13:17:20 +0000 (UTC),
>malcolm...@btinternet.com said:
>
>>On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:09:01 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>>> On May 6, 7:06�pm, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you think the Jews of Britain will survive? Do they strike the
>>> right chord of not-too-observant yet not too lax?
>>>
>>Britain is a special case. It's a very conservative country, so it's extremely
>>hospitable to groups trying to preserve ancient traditions.
>>
>>>
>>> > David danced naked in front of the ark, for
>>> > which he was criticised by the halachic experts of the day.
>>>
>>> And in contrast to David's paskening halacha, which was just a fantasy
>>> story made up by one group of halachic scholars of antiquity, the
>>> indisputable reality is that David never paskened halacha and was in
>>> fact dancing naked in front of the ark. And the naked dancing is an
>>> indisputable fact because a different group of halachic scholars of
>>> antiquity said so.

IIuc this whole paragraph is sarcasm, but once the part above and the
part below has been snipped, a reader can't tell it's sarcasm. And
there is enough traffic here that I certainly can't remember. It's
just that I think I know what you would say, Cindy. In short, you
leave yourself wide open to being quoted out of context when you write
a whole paragraph of uninterupted sarcasm.

This is the second time this week I've noticed this.

In the 60's, I read, _The Selling of the President, 1960_ I thought
the book was a waste of my time, except for one thing. It explained
how the campaign staff, or maybe it was reporters, learned to put
essential conditions in the middle of the sentence, to make it harder
for people to truncate the sentence and distort its meaning.

>>If you mean, is it absolutely, on its face, absurd to dispute the historicity
>>of the story that David danced naked before the ark, no, it could have been
>>a later story that somehow attached to David. But I think that's highly
>>unlikely, and that the incident almost certainly did occur.
>>However I can't see David conducting a 2nd century style halachic dispute.
>>The image is totally incongruous and absurd.
>
>It's no wonder you can't see it, since that's not what the author of
>the statement Cindy cited wanted to project. To have such an image in
>one's mind is like imputing to O Jews a claim that the Mishna was
>dictated to Moshe on Sinai.
>
>[snip]

--

Meir

[mm]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 16:25:30 +0000 (UTC), Yisroel Markov
<ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 7 May 2013 13:30:37 +0000 (UTC),
>malcolm...@btinternet.com said:
>
>>However the haredim proposed to set up a yeshivah in Rehovot, to counter what
>>they considered to be the malign influence of the Institute. I can only
>>suppose that the plan was to teach creationism.
>
>I doubt it. But Cindy has already explained this very well.
>
>>To my mind, what they were
>>doing was nonsense, and doesn't have a future. How can I, whose work is
>>entirely predicated on the assumption that evolution has happened, possibly
>>support the haredim in this?
>
>Was anyone expecting your support?

ROTFLOL.
--

Meir

[cindys]

On May 8, 9:38 am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 4:53:28 PM UTC-5, cindys wrote:
> > On May 7, 1:23 pm, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 10:19:10 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:
> > > > BTW, many charedim believe that there is a need to do kiruv (Jewish
> > > > outreach) to anybody who isn't charedi.
> > > Agreed.
> > > > So the fact that half your
> > > > research group was observant and everyone else was culturally Jewish
> > > > does not count for anything with the charedim. As far as charedim are
> > > > concerned, they (the charedim) are the only ones who are living a
> > > > torah life, and that's what they are trying to promote to other
> > > > Jews.
> > > I don't know if that is totally true.  Among Chabad, for example, they don't > > seem to have a problem with (at least I have never heard them discourage)
> > > people driving to a Chabad house on Shabbat to daven.
> > While Chabad may be willing to tolerate or overlook that people are
> > driving to the Chabad house on shabbos, Chabad does not really
> > consider it okay that these people are doing this and would most
> > certainly not consider that these people are living a torah life.
>
> I disagree that they do not consider it OK, although if pressed that may be how they respond.  The behavior is incentivized so that they (The Chabad) family can daven with a Minyan.  To me that is the equivalent of saying it is OK.

So, IOW, you are saying that they do not really think it's okay, but
they also need enough men for a minyan. So, they have created this
fiction (that "if you're going to drive on shabbos anyway, it's better
to drive to shul than to the mall") in order to rationalize the fact
that they're looking the other way.

My response to that is: As far as the incentive (the fancy kiddush) is
concerned, all the participants get to partake in the nice kiddush, no
matter how they arrived, so you would be hard-pressed to prove that
the nice kiddush is to appeal to the drivers specifically; you would
have to be able to demonstrate that the kiddush wouldn't be nearly as
nice if everybody walked.

Additionally, no two communities have exactly the same situation. In
my neighborhood, there are some people who drive to the Chabad shabbos
service, but the majority of people walk. Even without the drivers,
Chabad would not have any trouble getting a weekly minyan. And the
kiddush is still really nice. I think the nice kiddush is about
wanting to encourage everyone to come back week after week and is not
being used as an incentive for those who drive there (as least not in
my neighborhood). Remember that Chabad is not only about the shabbos
minyan. Chabad wants to be perceived as open and friendly and wants/
needs people to support all of their programming. It's not only about
shabbos.

WRT your statement above (that Chabad will maybe admit that there is
something wrong with driving on shabbos if pressed), I will share the
following anecdote:

There was a young man in my community (he may have been a college
student at the time), who was increasing his observance, on the path
to becoming a ba'al teshuvah (a secular person who becomes religious,
for anybody who doesn't know). He and some other people were invited
to the Chabad rabbi's home for Friday night shabbos dinner. He and
the other guests had driven to the rabbi's house.

At the end of the evening, as the guests prepared to drive home, the
rabbi took this young man aside and said to him, "Not you. You've
reached a point where you should stop driving on shabbos. You stay
over." And the guy stayed overnight at the rabbi's house and then
walked to shul with him the next day, and didn't drive home until
shabbos was over.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:25:30 PM UTC+1, Yisroel Markov wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 13:30:37 +0000 (UTC),
>

> >To my mind, what they were
> >doing was nonsense, and doesn't have a future. How can I, whose work is
> >entirely predicated on the assumption that evolution has happened, possibly
> >support the haredim in this?
>
> Was anyone expecting your support?
>

Well Israelis have asked for help to end the academic boycott, which I'm
more than happy to provide.
But other Israelis (the haredim) seem to be implying that in fact I'm not
helping by doing this. If the Weizmann is in fact spiritually corrupting
the Jews, then presumably it's a bad thing to work with it.

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

The Israeli economy is moving from an agricultural one based on selling
oranges to a technological one based on selling computer chips, pharmaceuticals,
and other such geegaws.
So far the haredim have been insulated from this, because they don't have
to participate in economic activity. Tolerance for that has reached a limit.
Working for, say, Teva, forces you to have a certain degree of scientific
literacy, also fluency in English. Whilst you can get away with not much
in the way of culture, the reality is that scientific knowledge also exposes
you to cultural activities.

Eventually they're going to have to admit that you need to sequence DNA and
align evolutionarily related sequences to make things work - whilst it's a
long road from what I do to a functioning treatment, it is a step. That
will bring in other admissions about Bible scholarship.

Another factor is that life goes in fashions. Currently religious extremism,
sexual segregation, and so on is all the rage. Because Islamic terrorists
are glamorous. Young people like to think that they are associated with
something radical and exciting. But it will wear off, and something else
will come in. The generation who are currently children, and who have
known nothing but the haredi lifestyle, will probably rebel against it
when they become young men and women. For their parents, becoming haredi
as a young man or woman was the rebellion.

[JJ]

"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:644aeee7-33bb-40e3...@g9g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

**************************************

From my limited past experience, Chabad has always had an incremental
approach to their kiruv: start by coming to services (even if you drive).
Once you like it and get used to it, we'll get you to know (and observe) a
little bit about kashrut (just stop eating treif). Then we'll get you to
stop driving on shabbat. Then it will be the separation of meat and milk.
Better you observe SOME mitzvot than none at all, they say, and increase
your observance slowly and painlessly. It's an incremental approach that
realizes that it will be very difficult to get a totally secular person to
become frum from one week to the next.

Jay

[David Makowsky]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:12:01 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:
> On May 8, 9:38 am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I disagree that they do not consider it OK, although if pressed that may be > > how they respond.  The behavior is incentivized so that they (The Chabad)
> > family can daven with a Minyan.  To me that is the equivalent of saying it
> > is OK.

> So, IOW, you are saying that they do not really think it's okay, but
> they also need enough men for a minyan. So, they have created this
> fiction (that "if you're going to drive on shabbos anyway, it's better
> to drive to shul than to the mall") in order to rationalize the fact
> that they're looking the other way.

NO, that is not what I meant "In Other Words". If they did not think it was OK they would not do it unless they believe themselves it is fine to do things they know are not OK. I also don't believe they abide by that fiction because if they would otherwise have a minyan, or if they did not care one way or the other, they would not do it.

> My response to that is: As far as the incentive (the fancy kiddush) is
> concerned, all the participants get to partake in the nice kiddush, no
> matter how they arrived, so you would be hard-pressed to prove that
> the nice kiddush is to appeal to the drivers specifically; you would
> have to be able to demonstrate that the kiddush wouldn't be nearly as
> nice if everybody walked.

I am not talking about a "fancy Kiddish". I have been involved with Chabad in smaller communities and they serve a complete lunch with lots of Cholent (Very high in beef content) and lots of other good stuff. The Chabad Houses in these places is the Rabbis residence.

> Additionally, no two communities have exactly the same situation. In
> my neighborhood, there are some people who drive to the Chabad shabbos
> service, but the majority of people walk. Even without the drivers,
> Chabad would not have any trouble getting a weekly minyan. And the
> kiddush is still really nice. I think the nice kiddush is about
> wanting to encourage everyone to come back week after week and is not
> being used as an incentive for those who drive there (as least not in
> my neighborhood). Remember that Chabad is not only about the shabbos
> minyan. Chabad wants to be perceived as open and friendly and wants/
> needs people to support all of their programming. It's not only about
> shabbos.

Other not having pesonal knowledge of your community, I agree with all of the above.

> WRT your statement above (that Chabad will maybe admit that there is
> something wrong with driving on shabbos if pressed), I will share the
> following anecdote:

> There was a young man in my community (he may have been a college
> student at the time), who was increasing his observance, on the path
> to becoming a ba'al teshuvah (a secular person who becomes religious,
> for anybody who doesn't know). He and some other people were invited
> to the Chabad rabbi's home for Friday night shabbos dinner. He and
> the other guests had driven to the rabbi's house.

> At the end of the evening, as the guests prepared to drive home, the
> rabbi took this young man aside and said to him, "Not you. You've
> reached a point where you should stop driving on shabbos. You stay
> over." And the guy stayed overnight at the rabbi's house and then
> walked to shul with him the next day, and didn't drive home until
> shabbos was over.

Thank you for sharing this.

By the way, I am extremely pro-Chabad. They do great work. If not for them 30 years ago I might not be religious today. However I do have major problems with them. As my Rabbi says (and he is also very pro Chabad) "You cannot Pasken by them".

[cindys]

On May 9, 12:11 pm, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 9, 2013 8:12:01 AM UTC-5, cindys wrote:
> > On May 8, 9:38 am, David Makowsky <dlmakow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I disagree that they do not consider it OK, although if pressed that may be > > how they respond.  The behavior is incentivized so that they (The Chabad)
> > > family can daven with a Minyan.  To me that is the equivalent of saying it
> > > is OK.
> > So, IOW, you are saying that they do not really think it's okay, but
> > they also need enough men for a minyan. So, they have created this
> > fiction (that "if you're going to drive on shabbos anyway, it's better
> > to drive to shul than to the mall") in order to rationalize the fact
> > that they're looking the other way.
>
> NO, that is not what I meant "In Other Words".  If they did not think it was OK they would not do it unless they believe themselves it is fine to do things they know are not OK.  I also don't believe they abide by that fiction because if they would otherwise have a minyan, or if they did not care one way or the other, they would not do it.

Then, I don't know what you mean, and I don't really understand what
you wrote above. I think we both agree that Chabad believes it is
forbidden for a Jew to drive on shabbos, because if they didn't
believe it, they would do it themselves. So, we both agree that Chabad
knows it's wrong for a Jew to drive on shabbos. And I think you're
saying that if they would have more than enough for a minyan from just
the walkers and didn't need the drivers for a minyan, they would tell
the drivers not to drive on shabbos? So, I think you are disagreeing
with the sentence "they have created a legal fiction," because in
order for them to have created a legal fiction, they themselves must
believe that the fiction is true? (i.e. that it's okay for Jews to
drive on shabbos if they help make a minyan).

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a legal fiction is "A rule
assuming as true something that is clearly false." Maybe when I say
"they have created a legal fiction," you and I are not talking about
the same legal fiction.

In my mind, the "legal fiction" they have created is "although it's
not okay for a Jew to drive on shabbos, if he's going to drive anyway,
it's better for him to drive to shul than to the golf course," but I
think in your mind the legal fiction we are talking about is "It's
okay for a Jew to drive on shabbos if he's going to make a minyan."

If you mean the latter, I would agree that Chabad would certainly tell
you that it is forbidden for a Jew to drive on shabbos." I think the
way they see it, since they are not actually saying to someone "Drive
to shul and help make the minyan," it's not as if they are encouraging
someone to violate shabbos, so if the person opts to drive, it's not
Chabad's fault, and Chabad can just shrug their shoulders and tell
themselves it was out of their control and they are not responsible
because if the person had asked, they certainly would have told the
person it's forbidden for him to drive on shabbos.

I'm sure you know there is a halachic principle that a person is not
permitted to violate one mitzvah in order to perform another one.

snip.

>
> By the way, I am extremely pro-Chabad.  They do great work.  If not for them 30 years ago I might not be religious today.  However I do have major problems with them.  As my Rabbi says (and he is also very pro Chabad) "You cannot Pasken by them".

I quite agree. It is not unusual for Chabad to pass off Lubavitcher
minhagim or chumros as stam halacha (plain halacha), and most of the
time, I don't think they even realize they're doing that.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On May 9, 5:48 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
snip

>
> In my mind, the "legal fiction" they have created is "although it's
> not okay for a Jew to drive on shabbos, if he's going to drive anyway,
> it's better for him to drive to shul than to the golf course," but I
> think in your mind the legal fiction we are talking about is "It's
> okay for a Jew to drive on shabbos if he's going to make a minyan."

snip
------
Addendum: And that's why you're saying Chabad hasn't created a "legal
fiction," because they don't really believe it's okay for someone to
drive on shabbos in order to make a minyan, (i.e., if this were a
legal fiction, Chabad would honestly have to believe that it's okay
for a Jew to drive for the sake of making a minyan).

I'm saying the "legal fiction" they have created is that "if someone
is going to drive anyway, it's better that he should drive to shul
than to the golf course." To my mind, this is the legal fiction (that
Chabad honestly does believe) or call it a rationalization if you
will. But halachically speaking, it's just as bad to drive to shul as
to drive to the golf course.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[Harry Weiss]

It is incremental and small percentage. The Chabad I go to, the majority
of people walk on Shabbat. On Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur the vast
majority drive and select Chabad because it is free. That may these
people's only connecton to Judaism and makes sure their children know they
are Jewish.

There are Chabads in the boonies where except for the Shaliach there is
often no one that keeps Shabbat.

[Harry Weiss]

cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

I don't think that is their basis anyhow. I think it is more like the
reason one can violate the Shabbat for a person who is sick. It is better
to violate one Shbbat so one can observe many more. If a person becomes
observant they will start keeping Shabbat. They will try to offer someone
a chance to stay.

Of course with many modern Shluchim, they don't think of the reasoning,
but the Rebbe said do it so they do it.

[mm]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 21:57:31 +0000 (UTC), cindys
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On May 9, 5:48�pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> snip

Brought forward because a definition seems important.

>>According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a legal fiction is "A rule
>>assuming as true something that is clearly false." Maybe when I say
>>"they have created a legal fiction," you and I are not talking about
>>the same legal fiction.
>>

But when they get to shul, they're able to fulfill a mitzvah they
can't fulfill at the golf course, praying the standard liturgy with a
minyan. If they went to the golfcourse they probably wouldn't pray at
all.

And they won't do aveiras like paying greens fees, signing in,
carrying the clubs, tipping the caddy, or buying lunch.

So by going to shul, there is at least one positive difference and the
absense of probably several negative differences.

Carried foward

>I'm sure you know there is a halachic principle that a person is not
>permitted to violate one mitzvah in order to perform another one.

But the situation is not the same. The principle above considers two
actions, the violation and the performance. It doesn't take into
account situations where the violation will occur anyhow.

And the Lubavitch are not saying it's permitted or that it's not a
violation. They're saying, amongst themselves and by their silence to
guests who drive, that its a better violation.

If you look at the whole picture, I don't think the Lubavitch position
is clearly false (as Brittanica requires), I don't think it is false
at all, I think the Lubavitch are right and it's not a fiction of any
kind that when one is going to drive anyhow, it's better to drive to
shul.

>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.

Also, related to the thread as a whole, I think no one has brought up
that, if someone said he didnt' feel comfortable driving anymore and
was thinking of not coming, the Lubavitch guy would immediatly invite
him to stay at his home or that of some other Jew, frum or not, who
lived nearby. And he'd be happy to do so.

If the 10th man said he couldn't stay 25 hours, (because his dog
needed feeding or his aged mother couldn't spend the night alone). the
rabbi would happily give up his minyan and start concentrating on
Monday and Thursday etc. or class for this man.. Maybe one rabbi
wasn't like this, or seemed not to be like this, but I'm sure he's a
rarity among the 1000's of Lubavitch shluchim.
--

Meir

[cindys]

On May 10, 3:32 am, mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2013 21:57:31 +0000 (UTC), cindys

snip

>
> >I'm saying the "legal fiction" they have created is that "if someone
> >is going to drive anyway, it's better that he should drive to shul
> >than to the golf course."  To my mind, this is the legal fiction (that
> >Chabad honestly does believe) or call it a rationalization if you
> >will. But halachically speaking, it's just as bad to drive to shul as
> >to drive to the golf course.
>
> But when they get to shul, they're able to fulfill a mitzvah they
> can't fulfill at the golf course, praying the standard liturgy with a
> minyan.  If they went to the golfcourse they probably wouldn't pray at
> all.
>
>
> And they won't do aveiras like paying greens fees, signing in,
> carrying the clubs, tipping the caddy, or buying lunch.
>
> So by going to shul, there is at least one positive difference and the
> absense of probably several negative differences.

That might be, but the Chabad rabbi's (or anybody's) speculation
regarding what someone would probably be doing or not doing if he
weren't at shul doesn't change the fact that driving to shul on
shabbos is still halachically forbidden.

We (the collective we) are constantly admonished that it is not
permitted to use our own cheshbon (reckoning/justifications/
interpretations) regarding mitzvos. R' Chaim Shmuelevitz zt"l from the
Mirrer Yeshiva cited the following example: God commanded King Saul to
kill all of the Amalekites, including the animals, but Saul, in his
humility, used his own reasoning that it would make sense to leave
some of the animals alive because killing them all would be wasteful,
and for Saul's disobedience, God took away his kingship.

>
> Carried foward
>
> >I'm sure you know there is a halachic principle that a person is not
> >permitted to violate one mitzvah in order to perform another one.
>
> But the situation is not the same.  The principle above considers two
> actions, the violation and the performance.

Correct.

>  It doesn't take into
> account situations where the violation will occur anyhow.

According to how I was taught the halachic process operates, it's not
supposed to. My understanding of how halacha works is that one Jew is
not supposed to encourage another Jew to violate halacha, in this
case, the driving to shul. If someone decides he's going to go to the
golf course and violate 20 other halachos, it's on him (the person who
commits the transgressions). The rabbi doesn't have the halachic
authority to decide which is the greater or worse mitzvah or aveira.
In fact, in Pirke Avos it says we should be as quick to do a lesser
mitzvah as a greater one because we don't know what are the respective
rewards for each. So, my point is that the rabbi really can't know
that it's better for the guy to be mechallel shabbos to come to shul
than to be mechallel shabbos to go to the golf course. That's the
rabbi using his own cheshbon.

>
> And the Lubavitch are not saying it's permitted or that it's not a
> violation. They're saying, amongst themselves and by their silence to
> guests who drive, that its a better violation.
>
> If you look at the whole picture, I don't think the Lubavitch position
> is clearly false (as Brittanica requires), I don't think it is false
> at all, I think the Lubavitch are right and it's not a fiction of any
> kind that when one is going to drive anyhow, it's better to drive to
> shul.

Again, from my understanding of how the halachic system operates, I
don't think the Lubavitch should be looking at the big picture or
assuming the authority to decide what's a "better violation."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.

[cindys]

On May 5, 12:49 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On May 5, 9:09 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 5, 2013 12:20:47 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> > > On May 3, 9:23 am, malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com wrote:

>
> > > > On Thursday, May 2, 2013 3:05:50 AM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
>
> > > I know I am coming off as nasty, but I can't help but feel offended
> > > that you, as a non-Jew, have the audacity to come to a Jewish
> > > newsgroup and declare that Judaism has no future because the torah is
> > > a lie and that Chassidim have some sort of an obligation to study the
> > > views of secular bible scholars. You don't understand the first thing
> > > about what Judaism is really about or how it operates.

Yisroel: In a subsequent post, you corrected me and said that Malcolm
did not mean that Judaism (generic) has no future, but that charedi
Judaism has no future because they (the charedim) say that the work of
the secular bible scholars is a lie.

I didn't remember exactly what I had previously written and I thought
I must not have meant that Malcolm said Judaism (generic) had no
future, so I amended my statement and agreed that Malcolm meant
charedi Judaism had no future.

I went back and re-read this series of posts, and as it turns out, I
*did* mean what I said the first time. It seems to me that to Malcolm,
the survival of the Jewish people is another way of saying the
survival of the State of Israel, i.e., that if every Jew in the world
were totally secular, as long as he State of Israel exists, one can
consider that the the Jewish people have survived. That would simply
not be true, as Judaism and the Jewish people are about much more than
just the existence of the State of Israel.

In my view, Malcolm did de facto say that the torah is a lie although
he denies that that is his belief. And my basis for saying that is
pure logic. The DH is totally incompatible with TorahMiSinai. One
must accept either one or the other. And once a person accepts
TorahNotSinai, the logical progression is that all the laws (even if
the laws were divinely "inspired") were written by people, not God,
and therefore, there is no real imperative to follow these laws. And
once halacha becomes optional, traditional Judaism along with our 2000-
year-old heritage will be totally gone in a generation or two, and
"Judaism" will be reduced to a series of customs and good feelings and
"What is Eicha? Does it have something to do with Tisha B'Av? And what
is Tisha B'Av anyway?" And I am talking about ALL torah observant
Judaism, not just charedi Judaism. It's torah-observant Judaism that
has ensured the continued existence of the Jewish people for the last
2000 years.

So, in direct contrast to what Malcolm said, the ONLY way to ensure
the future of Judaism (generic) is for traditional Jews to continue to
accept TorahMiSinai. Nothing would destroy traditional Judaism faster
than if all the O Jews (charedim and MO) replaced TorahMiSinai with
the DH.

But Malcolm doesn't *get* this because in his world, Judaism =
Survival of the State of Israel. His position was obvious because he
stated that *I* must not believe in the future of the Jewish people
because if I did, I would move to Israel. Certainly, the safety and
security and continued existence of the Jewish homeland is of utmost
importance, but that is not the beginning and end of Judaism. If there
were no State of Israel, there would still be Judaism and a Jewish
people. And the reason Judaism and the Jewish people would continue
to survive is precisely because of torah and tradition and observance
of halacha that is being transmitted from one generation to the next.
If the torah observant world were to accept the DH and stop believing
TorahMiSinai (as Malcolm would have them do), THAT would be the death
knell for Judaism (generic).
Best regards,
---Cindy S.




>
> > Torah isn't a lie. The lie is that what secular scholars say about the
> > Torah is made up, flimsy, can be dismissed.
>
> In the Chassidic world, what the secular scholars say CAN be
> dismissed, and it doesn't matter if what they are saying is true or
> false.  The basis for the chassidic lifestyle is halacha and chassidus
> NOT the historical accuracy of the five books of Moses.


>
> > Israel has a future. Most Israelis are not biblical literalists. Judaism
> > isn't dying, its undergoing one of its periodic episodes of reinvention.
> > Which Jew reminded you more of King David, Rabbi Schneerson in New York
> > or Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem? Which sort of Judaism do you think is the
> > main story, and which is the side-plot?

[malcolm...@btinternet.com]

On Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:39:08 PM UTC+1, cindys wrote:
> . Yisroel: In a subsequent post, you corrected me and said that Malcolm did
> not mean that Judaism (generic) has no future, but that charedi Judaism has
> no future because they (the charedim) say that the work of the secular bible > scholars is a lie. I didn't remember exactly what I had previously written
> and I thought I must not have meant that Malcolm said Judaism (generic) had
> no future, so I amended my statement and agreed that Malcolm meant charedi
> Judaism had no future. I went back and re-read this series of posts, and as
> it turns out, I *did* mean what I said the first time. It seems to me that to > Malcolm, the survival of the Jewish people is another way of saying the
> survival of the State of Israel, i.e., that if every Jew in the world were
> totally secular, as long as he State of Israel exists, one can consider that > the the Jewish people have survived. That would simply not be true, as
> Judaism and the Jewish people are about much more than just the existence of > the State of Israel.
>

My view is that Israel is "the story", and what Rabbi Schneerson was doing
in New York was just a side plot. The Jew who choses not be part of Israel
is opting out of the story, and eventually (it hasn't happened yet) his
plot line will be dropped.
Now if (God forbid) Israel is destroyed, then the story will enter a new
phase, and I might be proved wrong. Maybe American Jews will become the
mainstream, and pick up. But I don't believe that will happen.

>
> In my view, Malcolm did de facto say that the torah is a lie although he
> denies that that is his belief. And my basis for saying that is pure logic.
> The DH is totally incompatible with TorahMiSinai. One must accept either one > or the other. And once a person accepts TorahNotSinai, the logical
> progression is that all the laws (even if the laws were divinely "inspired") > were written by people, not God, and therefore, there is no real imperative
> to follow these laws. And once halacha becomes optional, traditional Judaism > along with our 2000- year-old heritage will be totally gone in a generation
> or two, and "Judaism" will be reduced to a series of customs and good
> feelings and "What is Eicha? Does it have something to do with Tisha B'Av?
>

It's not a "lie", but it's not an academic history and it's not a science book.
Nor is it a verbatim record dictated by a divine voice at one time to
one person. Non-Israeli Judaism can't survive the loss of the Torah, but
Israel can. God will decide what the next phase, the sovereign, post-exile
phase of Judaism will be mostly about.

> And what is Tisha B'Av anyway?" And I am talking about ALL torah observant
> Judaism, not just charedi Judaism. It's torah-observant Judaism that has
> ensured the continued existence of the Jewish people for the last 2000 years. > So, in direct contrast to what Malcolm said, the ONLY way to ensure the
> future of Judaism (generic) is for traditional Jews to continue to accept
> TorahMiSinai. Nothing would destroy traditional Judaism faster than if all
> the O Jews (charedim and MO) replaced TorahMiSinai with the DH. But Malcolm
> doesn't *get* this because in his world, Judaism = Survival of the State of
> Israel. His position was obvious because he stated that *I* must not believe > in the future of the Jewish people because if I did, I would move to Israel. > Certainly, the safety and security and continued existence of the Jewish
> homeland is of utmost importance, but that is not the beginning and end of
> Judaism. If there were no State of Israel, there would still be Judaism and a > Jewish people. And the reason Judaism and the Jewish people would continue to > survive is precisely because of torah and tradition and observance of halacha > that is being transmitted from one generation to the next. If the torah
> observant world were to accept the DH and stop believing TorahMiSinai (as
> Malcolm would have them do), THAT would be the death knell for Judaism
> (generic). Best regards, ---Cindy S.
>

But haredi Judaism is a threat to Israel. Israel can't survive if everyone
is a so-called "torah scholar", no-one a soldier or a scientist. I also
believe that it can't survive, for more subtle reasons, if everyone is
what people call "torah scholars" and no-one is a "bible scholar".

[Herman Rubin]

EVEN if you accept TorahMiSinai, this does not justify the
interpretations of it by the rabbis. I do not see the Torah
as prohibiting cheeseburgers, and I also do not see it as
prohibiting driving on Shabbath. I am not convinced that
it permits seven mile walks through snow on Shabbath to
attend services; Orthodox Jews have been known to do this.

The Karaites are Torah observant; the Samaritans are also
Torah observant. Their Toroth differ slightly from ours,
but their interpretations differ more.

But those who believe in TorahNotSinai are the true inheritors
of the figurative story of Adam and Eve; as Art Kamlet put it earlier,
"God put Adam and Eve to the test in Eden, and they PASSED!"
We are thinking beings, not to accept anything without evidence.
We have plenty of evidence that Torah was not given at Sinai to
the Jewish people or to Moses or anyone else. There are those
who say that God deliberately planted the evidence of the development
of Earth and the Universe to separate those who considered the
evidence and those who accepted Torah despite its weaknesses.
I for one cannot accept this. If we are to intelligently try
to do as God would like us to, we must to some extent
anthropomorphise God's will so we can follow it.

> So, in direct contrast to what Malcolm said, the ONLY way to ensure
> the future of Judaism (generic) is for traditional Jews to continue to
> accept TorahMiSinai. Nothing would destroy traditional Judaism faster
> than if all the O Jews (charedim and MO) replaced TorahMiSinai with
> the DH.

Is traditional Judaism worth preserving? Twice, traditional Judaism
was destroyed, and the religion survived changed. Even rabbinic
Judaism changed considerably , but the zealots will not accept this.

> But Malcolm doesn't *get* this because in his world, Judaism =
> Survival of the State of Israel. His position was obvious because he
> stated that *I* must not believe in the future of the Jewish people
> because if I did, I would move to Israel. Certainly, the safety and
> security and continued existence of the Jewish homeland is of utmost
> importance, but that is not the beginning and end of Judaism. If there
> were no State of Israel, there would still be Judaism and a Jewish
> people. And the reason Judaism and the Jewish people would continue
> to survive is precisely because of torah and tradition and observance
> of halacha that is being transmitted from one generation to the next.
> If the torah observant world were to accept the DH and stop believing
> TorahMiSinai (as Malcolm would have them do), THAT would be the death
> knell for Judaism (generic).
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.

I do not see the State of Israel surviving as being essential
for the survival of Judaism. In fact, by providing a source
of power for the ultra-Orthodox Rabbinate, it may be a source
of the downfall of Judaism. Jews can face the truth, and not
rely on a pack of lies. However, I still support maintaining
the State of Israel, for other strategic reasons.

>> > Torah isn't a lie. The lie is that what secular scholars say about the
>> > Torah is made up, flimsy, can be dismissed.

>> In the Chassidic world, what the secular scholars say CAN be
>> dismissed, and it doesn't matter if what they are saying is true or
>> false.  The basis for the chassidic lifestyle is halacha and chassidus
>> NOT the historical accuracy of the five books of Moses.

Yes, it is the man-made interpretations and inventions that
are accepted as Divine. It is the belief that we have the exact
word of God, or gods for the polytheistic religions, which is
the lie.

>> > Israel has a future. Most Israelis are not biblical literalists. Judaism
>> > isn't dying, its undergoing one of its periodic episodes of reinvention.
>> > Which Jew reminded you more of King David, Rabbi Schneerson in New York
>> > or Ariel Sharon in Jerusalem? Which sort of Judaism do you think is the
>> > main story, and which is the side-plot?

But is the reinvention taking place is Israel or in the
Diaspora? I think we need both.


--
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