Gay Wedding in Conservative Shul
Jay L
http://www.ohio.com/news/70121942.html
Based on many years of experience here, any compliment given to a
Judaic stream is seen by some here as a slap at other streams which
may not have the same norms. I'm sure some here will view this as an
attack on Orthodoxy. Go ahead. I really don't care. But that is NOT
what it is meant to be. One can be supportive of something that one
Judaic stream does without requiring other streams to follow suit. It
is clear to me that O does not, and will not anytime in the near
future, allow its rabbis or adherents to be part of gay marriages. I
think the ban is anachronistic, but the leaders of O Judaism do not.
That's as it should be. The state does not, and should not have, the
authority to compel any synagogue, rabbi, church or pastor to
officiate at a ceremony which his (or her) faith does not allow him or
her to perform.
I support gay marriages, and hope that every state allows them, soon,
but at the same time, support the laws which forbid compelling any
clergy from officiating at such ceremonies contrary to their faith.
Jay
Joe Bruno
I do not support them.They are, as Leviticus says, an "abomination".
lee
I dont know if the rabbis are as offensive & insensitive as some of
the christian fundamentalists charla.....erm priests, hopefully not.
but if they were I'd force them to officiate in pink tutu's
Micha Berger
> On Nov 16, 10:35ï¿œam, Jay L <levin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I support gay marriages, and hope that every state allows them, soon,
>> but at the same time, support the laws which forbid compelling any
>> clergy from officiating at such ceremonies contrary to their faith.
> I do not support them.They are, as Leviticus says, an "abomination".
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/judaism.htm
NOt the "marriages". Those are prohibited, but not what gets labeled
"to'eivah".
In either case, it's interesting that this matter is being discussed
simultaneous with Shelly's question about whether C is halachic. By C's
own standards, this move is not halachic. Rather, it's a concesssion to
their estimation that their masses won't do the halachic thing. The
movement's legal decisors are split on the topic of homosexual marriage.
Therefore, the LCR is empowered to make up his own mind.
The permissive ruling concludes:
We are not prepared at this juncture to rule upon the halakhic
status of gay and lesbian relationships. To do so would require
establishing an entirely new institution in Jewish law that treats
not only the ceremonies and legal instruments appropriate for
creating homosexual unions but also the norms for the dissolution of
such unions. This responsum does not provide kiddushin for same-sex
couples. Nonetheless, we consider stable, committed, Jewish
relationships to be as necessary and beneficial for homosexuals and
their families as they are for heterosexuals. Promiscuity is not
acceptable for either homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Such
relationships should be conducted in consonance with the values set
out in the RA pastoral letter on intimate relationships, "This Is
My Beloved, This Is My Friend": A Rabbinic Letter on Human
Intimacy. The celebration of such a union is appropriate.
Roth pretty much said that anything like this belies C's ability to call
itself halachic. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Conservative_Judaism#The_Roth_responsum
for numerous quotes.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"
sheldonlg
>>> I support gay marriages, and hope that every state allows them, soon,
>>> but at the same time, support the laws which forbid compelling any
>>> clergy from officiating at such ceremonies contrary to their faith.
>
>> I do not support them.They are, as Leviticus says, an "abomination".
>> http://www.religioustolerance.org/judaism.htm
>
> NOt the "marriages". Those are prohibited, but not what gets labeled
> "to'eivah".
>
> In either case, it's interesting that this matter is being discussed
> simultaneous with Shelly's question about whether C is halachic. By C's
Correction: I did not ask if C was halachic. I _stated_ that C claims
it is halachic. I don't enter that debate.
Yussel
> Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
> for numerous quotes.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"
Had it been my C synagogue, I would have left.
j
Joe Bruno
The more a Jew diverges from what the Torah says, the less of a Jew he
is.
We were chosen to spread the word of God. We cannot call ourselves
chosen if
we do not practice that word ourselves.
We must adhere to those ancient laws in spite of political correctness
and current fashion.
Judaism is not a fad or a popular movement.
mm
wrote:
Vayikra, Leviticus 18:22. "To'evah hi. It is an abomination." IT,
not "they". Please, please, please don't misquote Torah.
20:13. "To'evah asu sh'naihem. They have both done an abomination."
IT, not them. The act is called, in English, an abomination. Not the
people, not "They", which is what you wrote, and which you attributed
to Leviticus. That is, to G-d. Please, please, please don't
misquote Torah.
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/judaism.htm
Helpful url. Specifically
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jortho.htm which gives both
references (but not the text). Easy enough to look up the text
somewhere else. No need to remember one word and fill in the rest of
a sentence with a guess. No need to misquote Torah.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Why is that worse than mixed-marriages?
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
lee
Fattush
This ceremony does not belong in a synagogue. I'm not very observant
myself, but there are certain basic rules in Judaism, and a ceremony
such as this does not respect the Jewish religion.
Henry Goodman
news:2009Nov1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
Of course it is worse. Mishkav Zochor is Chayav Misah ( death by stoning)
which is not the case for mixed marriages.
It was an additional Chillul Hashem that this happened on Shabbat.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Jay L
Wrong. The ceremony does not belong in YOUR congregation. I remember
when older Reform congregants railed when we suggested yarmulkes and
tallitot in our Reform congregation. They wanted no part of it,
because they were not used to it. Likewise, if you object to gay
marriages, don't go to a synagogue which offers them. Different groups
have different wishes, and halacha is binding only on those who accept
it. If you feel that gay marriages do not respect the Jewish religion
(just as others might feel that mixed seating does not respect the
Jewish religion, or that a woman chanting the Torah is an abomination)
then you should attend a synagogue in which you are comfortable.
Jay
Abe Kohen
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:hdu1b9$6ca$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
As long as the "marriage" is not consummated via "bia" it is not mishkav
zachar. One could perhaps argue and differentiate between "bia kdarko"
which would be a toeva versus "bia shelo kdarko."
Best,
Abe
Fattush
I agree with what you are saying to a large extent, but not entirely.
Judaism is one of the world's oldest religions having been around for
thousands of years. Over those many years Judaism has changed. The
Judaism of today is not the same as the Judaism practiced at the time
of Moses.
Some gradual change is inevitable and probably healthy. However
radical change (such as homosexual unions) is not good. If there are
too many changes and if they come suddenly, then it is not Judaism.
Fattush
You are not wrong, but is there any significant Jewish writing or
ruling which permits homosexual unions? To me that is the question?
Different groups
> have different wishes, and halacha is binding only on those who accept
> it. If you feel that gay marriages do not respect the Jewish religion
> (just as others might feel that mixed seating does not respect the
> Jewish religion, or that a woman chanting the Torah is an abomination)
> then you should attend a synagogue in which you are comfortable.
>
> Jay-
Your point is well taken, but I'm just giving my opinion.
IMO there are certain rules that are just basic to Judaism. To me, if
you are going to allow a homosexual union in a shule, why not have a
party afterward that encourages people to eat pork and shellfish?
Heck, if they are going to break the rules, they can have statues of
Jesus and Buddah next to the ark. (sarcasm)
Can someone point to something in the Torah or other Jewish religous
writings that accepts homosexual unions?
The other question to me is this: When does a shule cease to be a
shule?
If a Jewish religious institution keeps ignoring rule after rule after
rule, after a while, it is no longer a Jewish religious institution.
It may be a building where many Jews go, but it should not call itself
a Jewish religious institution.
Henry Goodman
news:hdu4vh$94l$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
>
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:hdu1b9$6ca$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>> news:2009Nov1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Moshe Schorr
>>
>> Of course it is worse. Mishkav Zochor is Chayav Misah ( death by stoning)
>> which is not the case for mixed marriages.
>> It was an additional Chillul Hashem that this happened on Shabbat.
>
> As long as the "marriage" is not consummated via "bia" it is not mishkav
> zachar. One could perhaps argue and differentiate between "bia kdarko"
> which would be a toeva versus "bia shelo kdarko."
>
> Best,
> Abe
>
Of course it is not mishkav zachar until consummation takes place. This
ceremony appears to be a heter for the bia to follow, that is what normal
marriage ceremonies are. I think for mishkav zachar there is only bia shelo
kdarko.
lee
> Can someone point to something in the Torah or other Jewish religous
> writings that accepts homosexual unions?
>
rules about usury IMHO to allow it in all but name. Or decided that
the laws about stoning people to death dont apply these days. etc.
sheldonlg
Whatever all that means...
Amitai
> "Abe Kohen" <ako...@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:hdu4vh$94l$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:hdu1b9$6ca$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> >> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
> >>news:2009Nov1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
>
> >>> Why is that worse than mixed-marriages?
>
> >>> --
> >>> Moshe Schorr
>
> >> Of course it is worse. Mishkav Zochor is Chayav Misah ( death by stoning)
> >> which is not the case for mixed marriages.
> >> It was an additional Chillul Hashem that this happened on Shabbat.
>
> > As long as the "marriage" is not consummated via "bia" it is not mishkav
> > zachar. One could perhaps argue and differentiate between "bia kdarko"
> > which would be a toeva versus "bia shelo kdarko."
>
> > Best,
> > Abe
>
> Of course it is not mishkav zachar until consummation takes place. This
> ceremony appears to be a heter for the bia to follow, that is what normal
> marriage ceremonies are. I think for mishkav zachar there is only bia shelo
> kdarko.
>
"shelo KDARKO". If I understand him correctly, he is referring to the
act that is expressly regarded as "toevah" and suggests that there may
be methods of consummation that are not so designated.
Amitai
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Matt Silberstein
soc.culture.jewish.moderated , Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> in
<3be97873-1bc7-403d...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
A judge in RI recently denied a married (in another state) gay man the
right to claim the body of his spouse from the morgue. He was also
denied the right to print an obituary in the newspaper. I assume you
suppose such actions. I assume you also support the right of a
hospital to deny the right of a gay spouse to visit their sick
partner. They are an abomination, as you misquote the Torah, and so
should be denied any human comfort in their time of need.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Henry Goodman
news:yYadnW8nM75PKp_W...@giganews.com...
to know.
Ken Bloom
I assume he meant "They" to refer to gay marriages in plural, not to
refer to the participants in such an act.
--Ken
--
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
Henry Goodman
news:7f6e9e7b-de4a-4a0b...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Amitai
_____________________________________________________________________
If I understand him correctly you are distinguishing between Sefardi and
Ashkenasi pronunciation of the same word.
Micha Berger
I read it that way too.
Homosexual marriage is prohibited, it's the "like the doings of those
in the Land of Egypt" banned in Lev 18:3, see the Sifra ad loc. (The
sifra dates back to the school of R' Yishmael, and is thus a couple of
generations prior to the mishnah.)
But setting up a home together is not to'eivah. The expression of to'eivah
in this context only applies to the sexual act.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya
Micha Berger
> Can someone point to something in the Torah or other Jewish religous
> writings that accepts homosexual unions?
If I understand the C lenient ruling correctly (and given the difference in
worldviews, odds are high that I did not build a correct understanding from
2nd- and 3rd-hand sources), they are celebrating the commitment to monogamy
and building a home together, taking the notion that these two people would
seek gay relationships (along with prohibited activities) either way.
Here is how the Dorff, Nevins, and Reisner responsum concludes:
We are not prepared at this juncture to rule upon the halakhic
status of gay and lesbian relationships. To do so would require
establishing an entirely new institution in Jewish law that treats
not only the ceremonies and legal instruments appropriate for
creating homosexual unions but also the norms for the dissolution of
such unions. This responsum does not provide kiddushin for same-sex
couples. Nonetheless, we consider stable, committed, Jewish
relationships to be as necessary and beneficial for homosexuals and
their families as they are for heterosexuals. Promiscuity is not
acceptable for either homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Such
relationships should be conducted in consonance with the values set
out in the RA pastoral letter on intimate relationships, "This Is
My Beloved, This Is My Friend": A Rabbinic Letter on Human
Intimacy. The celebration of such a union is appropriate.
But along the way they are clear,
It is not possible to set aside the explicit biblical prohibition on
anal sex that is stated twice in Leviticus and frequently reaffirmed
by the Rabbis. As we have shown, the kvod habriot principle
supersedes rabbinic, not biblical law. Of course, there is a
theoretical way to overturn biblical law via the legislative
mechanism of takkanah (decree). We do not find this mechanism to be
appropriate in our case, because takkanah requires the consent of
the majority of the population, and this subject remains quite
controversial in the observant Jewish community.
The responsum is an interesting exploration of what divides C from my
own worldview. They play down the role of rabbinic law, saying there are
sufficient grounds and authority to overturn it. And they believe that
with sufficient will of the masses, they could overturn Torah law as
well.
In this responsum is the presumption that something being even
biblically prohibited doesn't imply it's *wrong* in a moral sense. And
thus, a takkanah to overturn it would be appropriate, if possible.
And of course, what they finally do is provide a synagogue ceremony to
solemnize something they themselves write is prohibited. There is no way
to maintain that sense of prohibition anymore, particularly since
western morality no longer considers homosexual activity to be wrong.
It's the same error made in the driving responsum, as well as their
letter on premarital sexual relationships mentioned at the end of the
responsum in question.
Traditionally, and O still does this, when giving someone a least of
evils answer, we do not publish and solemnize it so as to create a
confusion between what we are forced to settle for, and what are the
standards. It's the concept of "halakhah ve'ein morin kein -- it is the
law, but we do not preach it".
For example, contrast the C driving responsum with the Lub or Aish
haTorah rabbi who invites someone to services or a Shabbos meal with a
"don't ask don't tell" policy about how they get there.
Micha Berger
25 years and 6 days... I wonder how many times I have to repeat the same
thing before people who disagree at least write in a way to acknowledge
the objection?
Halakhah is a legal system. We didn't rewrite the rules, we follow the
strict letter of the rules and found a way to avoid them. You might feel
we're violating the spirit of the rules, but
1- That's not the rules. That's judging halachic Judaism on terms other
than its own.
2- When the general (host cultures') economy became interest based, the
injunction to lend money to those in need became much more difficult,
and wasn't happening frequently enough to help everyone who needed
a loan. Money not on hand is effectively losing whatever interest or
profit could have been made elsewhere. What was once free now had an
opportunity cost attached.
Not lending the poor because no one is willing to take the hit in
opportunity cost by lending money without interest is further from the
spirit of the rules.
To repeat the opening paragraph... I'm not frustrated that Lee objects.
I'm frustrated that the conversation always starts from square one. It's
as though no one is listening. So why I am talking? Just not to hurt
Moshe's feelings by quitting?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
PS: I wrote "square one". I recall being able to write "ground zero"
without sad memories being attached. I intentionally dropped the first
phrase that came to mind.
Steve Goldfarb
>To repeat the opening paragraph... I'm not frustrated that Lee objects.
>I'm frustrated that the conversation always starts from square one. It's
>as though no one is listening. So why I am talking? Just not to hurt
>Moshe's feelings by quitting?
But Lee probably wasn't here the last time this came up, so why do you
expect that he would know your position on this issue? And even if he did
know your position - why is it necessary that we all accept your position
as being the only valid one? Just because you've said it before? Because
you say it with authority?
You complain that "no one is listening" but is that really your complaint?
We can hear you, Micha, and yet continue to disagree. Or find your
explanation unsatisfactory for whatever reason. Or maybe we just forgot
what you said, in many cases.
--s
--
Don Levey
>
>
>
> To repeat the opening paragraph... I'm not frustrated that Lee
> objects. I'm frustrated that the conversation always starts from
> square one. It's as though no one is listening. So why I am talking?
> Just not to hurt Moshe's feelings by quitting?
>
something even at square one.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
lee
Micha sorry to annoy you but I do recall the last usury discussion
because I think I started it. However I withdrew once most of the
answers started to sound like legalese & obfuscation.
"Halakhah is a legal system. We didn't rewrite the rules, we follow
the
strict letter of the rules and found a way to avoid them. You might
feel
we're violating the spirit of the rules, but"
to me "avoid"ing the rules or "violating the spirit of the rules"
is breaking the rules
either you (aim) follow them in the letter & the spirit or you dont
hence my support for the segregated buses & the intel protestors
stance
it might not say it explicitly but thats not to say it doesnt mean it
lots of things are infered by precedents
it doesnt say your allowed m16's in the constitution, perhaps they
only meant flintlocks. that would make mass killing sprees more
difficult
My apologies for the hyperbole Moshe
sheldonlg
> For example, contrast the C driving responsum with the Lub or Aish
> haTorah rabbi who invites someone to services or a Shabbos meal with a
> "don't ask don't tell" policy about how they get there.
I find it more honest.
sheldonlg
Here is your answer, and it comes from someone called Micha:
"...we follow the strict letter of the rules and found a way to avoid
them".
That is one of the things that bothers people (me included). In fact,
it was the Shabbos Goy concept (find a way around the rule) that got me
started on my path away from Orthodoxy before I was even ten years old.
Micha Berger
> "Halakhah is a legal system. We didn't rewrite the rules, we follow the
> strict letter of the rules and found a way to avoid them. You might feel
> we're violating the spirit of the rules, but"
> to me "avoid"ing the rules or "violating the spirit of the rules"
> is breaking the rules
> either you (aim) follow them in the letter & the spirit or you dont
I showed how -- by our definitions of the rules and their spirit -- we
do. The point of contention ought to be with the accuracy of how we
define halakhah and Jewish values. But to judge how O doesn't do things
in R ways? How does that reflect understanding the previous
conversations?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Amitai
> "Amitai" <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
undestand him or not. I apologize if the following amplification is
superfluous:
Yes, but that is not all. You were using the Ashkenazi pronunciation,
in which your statement is - of course - correct. I rewrote your
statement in the Sephardi pronunciation. I assume (in the absence
Abe's confirmation or denial) that he was using the Sephardi
pronunciation and writing the same noun but modifying its gender in
the possessive case. As a result, in Abe's opinion as I understand
it, your statement may no longer apply.
Amitai
> --
> Henry Goodman
mm
Berger) wrote:
>Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:18:57 +0000, mm wrote:
>>> Vayikra, Leviticus 18:22. "To'evah hi. It is an abomination." IT, not
>>> "they". Please, please, please don't misquote Torah.
>>
>> I assume he meant "They" to refer to gay marriages in plural, not to
>> refer to the participants in such an act.
>
>I read it that way too.
On rereading, you're both right. I apologize, Joe. I'm very sorry.
BTW, Joe Bruno, NOT the one who posts here using a pseudonym, was
mentioned the radio news this morning. His trial starts today. He
was Senate Majority Leader of NYS. But the headline says "Joe Bruno
is no terrorist". That's good.
>Homosexual marriage is prohibited, it's the "like the doings of those
>in the Land of Egypt" banned in Lev 18:3, see the Sifra ad loc. (The
>sifra dates back to the school of R' Yishmael, and is thus a couple of
>generations prior to the mishnah.)
>
>But setting up a home together is not to'eivah. The expression of to'eivah
>in this context only applies to the sexual act.
>
>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
lee
lee
If you had demonstrated that clearly, which in my opinion you didnt, I
might agree with you. However all I remember was some lenghly
reference to the talmud & lots of financial terms that demonstrated
lending with interest isnt really lending with interest. To me that
isnt in the spirit of what I think G-d, Moses, meant. A bit like the
old yiddish rabbi who healed the blind & made them hear again etc. &
I'm not arguing from a reform position I'm arguing from a demonstrate
your right & i'll agree with you position, nihilism if you like. would
hate to think you would find any of this personally aggravating btw.
also btw sorry about any typo posts cut short I think the membrane of
my laptop is starting to play up
ps if i thought you might stay away from this newsgroup on account of
me I would stop posting
Micha Berger
> If you had demonstrated that clearly, which in my opinion you didnt, I
> might agree with you. However all I remember was some lenghly
> reference to the talmud & lots of financial terms that demonstrated
From my blog <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/10/qsa-66-3.shtml>
Qitzur Shulchan Arukh - 66:3
This se'if is another variant on the case where an investor gives
money for someone else to produce profit that they then split. So
far we saw that if the worker stands to lose if the deal takes a
net loss, he is holding that percentage of the capital for himself,
and therefore it qualifies as a loan. Then, his share of the profits
would qualify as interest on that loan, and prohibited. However,
if he is paid for his work, then he is working for pay, and the deal
is permitted.
Now R' Ganzfried's text. I am deleting the Hebrew, and here is my
translation from the blog:
They can also make a condition that the choice is recipient's -- that
if he wants to give to the investor a such-and-such in exchange for
his share of the profits, he can do this, and the rest of the profits
will remain his. This way is the right one, because presumably that
the recipient will not want to take an oath [given the negative view
halakhah has of unnecessary oaths even if true], and will give to the
investor what was agreed between them. This is [the mechanics of]
the "heser iska" that we normally use. And if the recipient knows
himself afterward that he did not profit or even that he took a loss,
he can give to the investor the principal with the [fraction of the]
profit that they agreed on together. There is prohibition in this
case, because he has an obligation to take an oath, he can release
himself by giving his money as per the oath.
Notice this is a different kind of business contract to avoid tripping
the prohibition on interest than the one that was used to finance my
home that I described previously.
> isnt in the spirit of what I think G-d, Moses, meant. A bit like the
> old yiddish rabbi who healed the blind & made them hear again etc. &
And here you revert to thinking that legal work is done by second guessing
the spirit of what G-d meant.
We know it's not what G-d wanted. G-d wanted people to lend money
without charging interest. Given that the current economic system now
causes an opportunity cost to money I make illiquid without investing
it, that simply isn't happening. So given the choices that were really
happening, I would guess that G-d would prefer we avoid the letter of
the prohibition than poor people not get their hands on as much capital.
What you're pointing to is something between Jewish values (which would
value making capital available to those who need it) and the letter of
the law (which is being avoided). It's a fuzzy notion of halakhah as
moral desiratum, something O simply doesn't embrace.
It is simply wrong to say we're changing something while claiming we
aren't when the thing that is allegedly being changed isn't part of the
O worldview altogether!
lee
But given that G-d created the world & the processes in it, He must
have known how the economic systems would develop, yet He still said
dont lend money with interest.
What I cant understand is why we dont just say ok in the modern times
we do lend at interest, just like we dont kill adulterers, or prohibit
same sex unions anymore.
Because it sounds to me like your saying its impractible to keep that
commandment now, which I can agree with as a line of argument
Oh & its not the lending money to the poor I think (IMHO) G-d didnt
want its the profiteering by speculation & the massive (please note
the massive as opposed to any) inequality which (IMHO again) he didnt
want
Micha Berger
> But given that G-d created the world & the processes in it, He must
> have known how the economic systems would develop, yet He still said
> dont lend money with interest.
And He said it in terms which prohibit actual interest, and not many
interest-like deals.
You assume you know what G-d meant. O starts with the assumption that what
we know best is what He said. Getting into His "Mind" as to why He said
it, even to the extent of assuming His terminology was less preceise,
is a very presumptuous goal. Instead, we assume G-d said exactly what
He meant, and therefore our job is to work the system AND THEN only
afterward, guess what values that implies.
That's why halakhah involves a more rigid legalistic system then what
you're describing.
But still, you're positing a thing that got changed that isn't within O.
There is no pretending that we're not changing something we really are
changing. The "something" you describe isn't a "thing" in O's universe.
There is no "interest-like" that doesn't fit the words of the law. This
is an imaginary land between the letter of the law and watching what's
best for others, and objecting about our changing things in it -- when
we don't even admit its existence.
Steve Goldfarb
> This se'if is another variant on the case where an investor gives
> money for someone else to produce profit that they then split. So
> far we saw that if the worker stands to lose if the deal takes a
> net loss, he is holding that percentage of the capital for himself,
> and therefore it qualifies as a loan. Then, his share of the profits
> would qualify as interest on that loan, and prohibited. However,
> if he is paid for his work, then he is working for pay, and the deal
> is permitted.
>Now R' Ganzfried's text. I am deleting the Hebrew, and here is my
>translation from the blog:
> They can also make a condition that the choice is recipient's -- that
> if he wants to give to the investor a such-and-such in exchange for
> his share of the profits, he can do this, and the rest of the profits
> will remain his. This way is the right one, because presumably that
> the recipient will not want to take an oath [given the negative view
> halakhah has of unnecessary oaths even if true], and will give to the
> investor what was agreed between them. This is [the mechanics of]
> the "heser iska" that we normally use. And if the recipient knows
> himself afterward that he did not profit or even that he took a loss,
> he can give to the investor the principal with the [fraction of the]
> profit that they agreed on together. There is prohibition in this
> case, because he has an obligation to take an oath, he can release
> himself by giving his money as per the oath.
OK, so here's the problem (and I realize you aren't going to respond, but
FWIW). Maybe Yisroel has an opinion. I've read the cases on your blog, and
feel that they're missing key details, but seems like they're saying this:
If I give you $100 with the understanding that in 1 year you'll give me
back my $100 plus $10, that's interest, and it's prohibited.
If I give you $100 with the understanding that in 1 year you'll give me
back my $100 plus a share of the profits, if any, or if we had a loss
you'll return $100 less my share of the loss, then that's prohibited
(counter-intuitively, but that's what it seems to say)
HOWEVER, if we combine these two, and I give you $100 with the
understanding that in one year you will give me back my $100 (my principal
is not at risk) PLUS either $10 or a share of the profits, if any, then
THAT'S OK - as long as the choice is at your sole discretion.
I must be saying that wrong, because that makes no sense to me, but that's
what it seems to say.
Even the notion of $10 or 10% - (say) - that's not right either, because
if 10% of my profits is actually $15 but I pay $10 then I'm stealing from
you, and if it's $8 then you're stealing from me. The only way I can see
that it isn't theft is if it's an agreed-upon amount, $10, in which case
it's regular old interest.
--s
--
Fattush
> Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:18:57 +0000, mm wrote:
> >> Vayikra, Leviticus 18:22. "To'evah hi. It is an abomination." IT, not
> >> "they". Please, please, please don't misquote Torah.
>
> > I assume he meant "They" to refer to gay marriages in plural, not to
> > refer to the participants in such an act.
>
> I read it that way too.
>
> Homosexual marriage is prohibited, it's the "like the doings of those
> in the Land of Egypt" banned in Lev 18:3, see the Sifra ad loc. (The
> sifra dates back to the school of R' Yishmael, and is thus a couple of
> generations prior to the mishnah.)
>
> But setting up a home together is not to'eivah. The expression of to'eivah
> in this context only applies to the sexual act.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
I don't understand Hebrew. Are you saying that if a gay couple lives
together that is OK, but they can't have sex?
Question: under religious law, is it OK for them to have a civil union
ceremony in a shule?
lee
Yet its not so clear & rigidly precise when milk & meat are ruled on.
I'd be quite happy not to eat goat cooked in its mothers milk, I dont
believe I;ve ever had goat & the cooking process sounds revolting. But
we have detailed rules on how long you must wait in what order you can
eat milk & then meat.
Sorry I cant agree with 'working the system' assuming that means the
same in the states as it does over here (to fiddle & or take advantage
of) to me you either aspire to follow the rules or like me, you just
dont.
sheldonlg
Standing on the sidelines and watching the expected replies. :-)
BTW, we have both "working the system" and "playing the system" and they
mean the same thing.
Abe Kohen
Henry, in Ashkenazis wouldn't there be a koometz in be-o (or be-oo)?
Micha and Moshe wouldn't touch this one with a ten foot pole, so to speak.
Best,
Abe
"Amitai" <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
news:f495135b-9b27-44aa...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
mm
<fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>This ceremony does not belong in a synagogue.
Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
catering hall.
FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I
don't know what people of other religions do.
> I'm not very observant
>myself, but there are certain basic rules in Judaism, and a ceremony
>such as this does not respect the Jewish religion.
Jay doesn't have the power to say what is right and wrong.
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Nov-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:09:57 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I do not support them.They are, as Leviticus says, an "abomination".
>
>
> Vayikra, Leviticus 18:22. "To'evah hi. It is an abomination." IT,
> not "they". Please, please, please don't misquote Torah.
>
> 20:13. "To'evah asu sh'naihem. They have both done an abomination."
> IT, not them. The act is called, in English, an abomination. Not the
> people, not "They", which is what you wrote, and which you attributed
> to Leviticus. That is, to G-d. Please, please, please don't
> misquote Torah.
>
Thank you for saying this in much greater,
*more precise* detail than I would have.
The details are *crucial*, here.
Susan
> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/judaism.htm
>
> Helpful url. Specifically
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jortho.htm which gives both
> references (but not the text). Easy enough to look up the text
> somewhere else. No need to remember one word and fill in the rest of
> a sentence with a guess. No need to misquote Torah.
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Nov-2009, Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> The more a Jew diverges from what the Torah says, the less of a Jew he
> is.
Nope.
Every Jew is always as much as Jew as
s/he ever was, no matter what s/he does.
"A Jew is a Jew, even tho' he sins".
This is what keeps (or should keep) any
O Jew from defaming C or R Jews.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 17-Nov-2009, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
> To repeat the opening paragraph... I'm not frustrated that Lee objects.
> I'm frustrated that the conversation always starts from square one. It's
> as though no one is listening. So why I am talking? Just not to hurt
> Moshe's feelings by quitting?
Just because some people don't listen doesn't mean all of us aren't.
Susan
mm
>
>On 16-Nov-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:09:57 +0000 (UTC), Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I do not support them.They are, as Leviticus says, an "abomination".
>>
>>
>> Vayikra, Leviticus 18:22. "To'evah hi. It is an abomination." IT,
>> not "they". Please, please, please don't misquote Torah.
>>
>> 20:13. "To'evah asu sh'naihem. They have both done an abomination."
>> IT, not them. The act is called, in English, an abomination. Not the
>> people, not "They", which is what you wrote, and which you attributed
>> to Leviticus. That is, to G-d. Please, please, please don't
>> misquote Torah.
>>
>Thank you for saying this in much greater,
>*more precise* detail than I would have.
>The details are *crucial*, here.
Yes, I got everything right but the starting point.
I misunderstood Joe -- the them he meant were the marriages and not
the people -- and he didnt' say anything wrong.
I apologize again, Joe.
meir b.
> On 16-Nov-2009, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> > The more a Jew diverges from what the Torah says, the less of a Jew he
> > is.
>
> Nope.
> Every Jew is always as much as Jew as
> s/he ever was, no matter what s/he does.
> "A Jew is a Jew, even tho' he sins".
> This is what keeps (or should keep) any
> O Jew from defaming C or R Jews.
There is nothing in that quote that serves as a restraint against
defaming non-Torah-observant Jews. (Note that I am not saying they
_should_ be defamed; it's just that the quote does not negate
defamation.) It should, however, prevent them from saying that C and
R are not Jews -- and it does.
What O does say is that Conservatism and Reform are not the
Jewish religion. This is often -- sometimes mistakenly, sometimes
with malice aforethought -- misquoted as saying that O claims that C
and R are not Jews. To the O, Conservatism and Reform are religions
practiced by Jews, but not the Jewish religion.
The only ones whose Jewishness is denied by O are (a) those whose
claim to being Jewish is by patrilineal descent, and (b) those who
underwent non-halachic conversion.
Meir B.
> Susan
mm
To answer the last question first, don't forget that Lee is pretty new
here and may not have been here for the previous iteration of this
thread.
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:03:45 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
Berger) wrote:
>lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Can someone point to something in the Torah or other Jewish religous
>>> writings that accepts homosexual unions?
>
>> & if they cant find one, we should write one. Just like we rewrote the
>> rules about usury
AIUI, although maybe in Britain the English words mean different
thigns, but in Am English we don't have a rule against usury, which I
think means exorbitant interest. We have a rule against any interest
at all being charged to another Jew. However we don't have a rule
against sharing in investing and profits, which is the kind of
arrangement that is used, as reflected in the contract that is signed.
AIUI, some Xian groups prohibit interest being charged to another
Xian, or maybe it's to the church. What goyim do doesn't relate to
what Jews should do, but I found some interesting stuff about this,
and put it at the bottom.**
**
http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/econom2.htm
I could probably find more pages with better search terms. This page
has mistakes when it comes to Judaism and Jews, and I don't know who
wrote it, but it points out that "For 1500 years, the church banned
charging interest." "By the 1800s, the restrictions on Christian
participation in commerce were being widely ignored. Yet even in the
twentieth century, Christian leaders have occasionally spoken out.
Pope Pius XI, in his 1931 encyclical Quadragessimo Ano, said, "The
free market, of its own nature, concentrates power in those who are
anti-social, in those who fight most violently and give least heed to
their conscience." Even the conservative and very anti-communist John
Paul II has had strong words about the abuses and dangers of unbridled
capitalism. (Why is it that conservative Roman Catholics who hang on
every word the Pope says when condemning homosexuality or prohibiting
women priests pay not the slightest attention when he condemns the
gulf between rich and poor under capitalism, or when he condemns
nuclear weapons and militarism or the death penalty. It would seem
that those who ignore the ban on birth control are not the only
"cafeteria Catholics." For that matter, why is it that Protestants who
take the Bible very literally when it comes to sexual practices
someone else engages in, are able to explain away the clear Biblical
prohibitions on economic activities they engage in??)"
mm
>Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>>> Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> > Jay L <levin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> I support gay marriages, and hope that every state allows them, soon,
>>> >> but at the same time, support the laws which forbid compelling any
>>> >> clergy from officiating at such ceremonies contrary to their faith.
>>
>>> > I do not support them.They are, as Leviticus says, an "abomination".
>>> >http://www.religioustolerance.org/judaism.htm
>>>
>>> NOt the "marriages". Those are prohibited, but not what gets labeled
>>> "to'eivah".
>>>
>>> In either case, it's interesting that this matter is being discussed
>>> simultaneous with Shelly's question about whether C is halachic. By C's
>>> own standards, this move is not halachic. Rather, it's a concesssion to
>>> their estimation that their masses won't do the halachic thing. The
>>> movement's legal decisors are split on the topic of homosexual marriage.
>>> Therefore, the LCR is empowered to make up his own mind.
>>>
>>> The permissive ruling concludes:
>>> We are not prepared at this juncture to rule upon the halakhic
>>> status of gay and lesbian relationships. To do so would require
>>> establishing an entirely new institution in Jewish law that treats
>>> not only the ceremonies and legal instruments appropriate for
>>> creating homosexual unions but also the norms for the dissolutionof
>>> such unions. This responsum does not provide kiddushin for same-sex
>>> couples. Nonetheless, we consider stable, committed, Jewish
>>> relationships to be as necessary and beneficial for homosexuals and
>>> their families as they are for heterosexuals. Promiscuity is not
>>> acceptable for either homosexual or heterosexual relationships. Such
>>> relationships should be conducted in consonance with the values set
>>> out in the RA pastoral letter on intimate relationships, "This Is
>>> My Beloved, This Is My Friend": A Rabbinic Letter on Human
>>> Intimacy. The celebration of such a union is appropriate.
>>>
>>> Roth pretty much said that anything like this belies C's ability to call
>>> itself halachic. See
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Conservative_Judaism#T...
>>> for numerous quotes.
>>
>> Had it been my C synagogue, I would have left.
>
>Why is that worse than mixed-marriages?
It's not mixed.
a joke
Micha Berger
> I don't understand Hebrew. Are you saying that if a gay couple lives
> together that is OK, but they can't have sex?
>
> Question: under religious law, is it OK for them to have a civil union
> ceremony in a shule?
I am saying that living together and formal unions are prohibited in a
distinct prohibition from homosexual sex. The word "to'eivah", the one
commonly translation "abomination" is only used in describing the
prohibition against sex.
I was just saying that homosexual civil unions are not an abomination,
despite the earlier poster's words. They are still prohibited, though.
And I'm not sure that "to'eivah" means abomination. Midrashically, the
word is treated as a contraction of "to'eh atah ba -- you are erring in
it". I would therefore suggest that "to'eivah" is more accurately
translated "self destructive".
Western Law doesn't ban self-destructive behavior in cases where
we consider the person competent and not needing suich protection.
Therefore, there is a tendency against legislating about what happens
between two consenting adults behind closed doors.
lee
> To answer the last question first, don't forget that Lee is pretty new
> here and may not have been here for the previous iteration of this
> thread.
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:03:45 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
>
> Berger) wrote:
> I could probably find more pages with better search terms. This page
> has mistakes when it comes to Judaism and Jews, and I don't know who
> wrote it, but it points out that "For 1500 years, the church banned
> charging interest." "By the 1800s, the restrictions on Christian
> participation in commerce were being widely ignored. Yet even in the
> twentieth century, Christian leaders have occasionally spoken out.
> Pope Pius XI, in his 1931 encyclical Quadragessimo Ano, said, "The
> free market, of its own nature, concentrates power in those who are
> anti-social, in those who fight most violently and give least heed to
> their conscience." Even the conservative and very anti-communist John
> Paul II has had strong words about the abuses and dangers of unbridled
> capitalism. (Why is it that conservative Roman Catholics who hang on
> every word the Pope says when condemning homosexuality or prohibiting
> women priests pay not the slightest attention when he condemns the
> gulf between rich and poor under capitalism, or when he condemns
> nuclear weapons and militarism or the death penalty. It would seem
> that those who ignore the ban on birth control are not the only
> "cafeteria Catholics." For that matter, why is it that Protestants who
> take the Bible very literally when it comes to sexual practices
> someone else engages in, are able to explain away the clear Biblical
> prohibitions on economic activities they engage in??)"
> --
>
> Meir
>
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Not to lend with interest Lev. 25:37
Not to borrow with interest Deut. 23:20
Not to intermediate in an interest loan, guarantee, witness, or write
the promissory note Ex. 22:24
Lend to and borrow from idolaters with interest Deut. 23:21
& I do know the first 3 apply to Jews & am, not sure if the 4th
applies to all gentiles or Idolaters only
so do orthodox jews have special mortgage clubs like the moslems?
& surely the Christians & the Moslems got those rules from the Torah
even if they do call it the Old Testament
My concern is why its ok to extrapolate the complex kashrut rules on
meat & milk from
(Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21) not to cook a kid
in its mother's milk.
Hence deepenening the spirit of whats intended
but then condemn doing the same with the borrowing & lending laws, on
grounds to me that look like inconvenience
the same critism applioed to Christians about ignoring poverty &
inequality, & its causes while concentrating on condoms
can surely be leveled at us
IMHO I'm sure G-d is more concerned with the extremes of Madhoff & a
child who is lucky to eat once per week. IMHO caused by unchecked
capitalism which is sort of by definition trading on money
than he is with me eating a cheeseburger even it is a bacon
cheeseburger
IMHO this is why jews were involved in the Socialist & Anarchist
movements of the last century, why we had zionist kibbutzes.
I dont expect to change anybodies opinion on this
& I hope bnot to hurt anybodies feelings on this
but I just dont get why A is different to B
lee
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>>> Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> writes:
snip
>>>> Had it been my C synagogue, I would have left.
>>>
>>> Why is that worse than mixed-marriages?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Moshe Schorr
>>
>> Of course it is worse. Mishkav Zochor is Chayav Misah ( death by
>> stoning) which is not the case for mixed marriages.
>> It was an additional Chillul Hashem that this happened on Shabbat.
>
> As long as the "marriage" is not consummated via "bia" it is not
> mishkav zachar. One could perhaps argue and differentiate between
> "bia kdarko" which would be a toeva versus "bia shelo kdarko."
It's all "bia shelo kdarko."
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Can someone point to something in the Torah or other Jewish religous
>>> writings that accepts homosexual unions?
>
>> & if they cant find one, we should write one. Just like we rewrote the
>> the laws about stoning people to death dont apply these days. etc.
>
> 25 years and 6 days... I wonder how many times I have to repeat the same
> thing before people who disagree at least write in a way to acknowledge
> the objection?
Good question. We are always supposed to qualify but Lee, and others
just merrily go on repeating the same ,istakes/canards. Lee at least
has an excuse that he's fairly new. But somehow, I doubt that he
will change.
> Halakhah is a legal system. We didn't rewrite the rules, we follow the
> strict letter of the rules and found a way to avoid them. You might feel
> we're violating the spirit of the rules, but
>
> 1- That's not the rules. That's judging halachic Judaism on terms other
> than its own.
>
> 2- When the general (host cultures') economy became interest based, the
> injunction to lend money to those in need became much more difficult,
> and wasn't happening frequently enough to help everyone who needed
> a loan. Money not on hand is effectively losing whatever interest or
> profit could have been made elsewhere. What was once free now had an
> opportunity cost attached.
>
> Not lending the poor because no one is willing to take the hit in
> opportunity cost by lending money without interest is further from the
> spirit of the rules.
>
> To repeat the opening paragraph... I'm not frustrated that Lee objects.
> I'm frustrated that the conversation always starts from square one. It's
> as though no one is listening. So why I am talking? Just not to hurt
> Moshe's feelings by quitting?
Hey, who says that's not enough of a reason? :-)
And I'm sure there are many who are both listening and learning.
> PS: I wrote "square one". I recall being able to write "ground zero"
> without sad memories being attached. I intentionally dropped the first
> phrase that came to mind.
Actually, I'm more familiar with "square one". But I can well
understand that "ground zero" is a sad one.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Amitai got it right away, as I was indeed using Sfardi pronunciation.
>
> Henry, in Ashkenazis wouldn't there be a koometz in be-o (or be-oo)?
>
> Micha and Moshe wouldn't touch this one with a ten foot pole, so to speak.
You're gonna make me sorry I did.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>> lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > "Halakhah is a legal system. We didn't rewrite the rules, we follow the
>> > strict letter of the rules and found a way to avoid them. You might feel
>> > we're violating the spirit of the rules, but"
>> > to me "avoid"ing the rules or "violating the spirit of the rules"
>> > is breaking the rules
>> > either you (aim) follow them in the letter & the spirit or you dont
>>
>> I showed how -- by our definitions of the rules and their spirit -- we
>> do. The point of contention ought to be with the accuracy of how we
>> define halakhah and Jewish values. But to judge how O doesn't do things
>> in R ways? How does that reflect understanding the previous
>> conversations?
>
> I might agree with you. However all I remember was some lenghly
> reference to the talmud & lots of financial terms that demonstrated
> lending with interest isnt really lending with interest. To me that
> isnt in the spirit of what I think G-d, Moses, meant. A bit like the
> old yiddish rabbi who healed the blind & made them hear again etc. &
> I'm not arguing from a reform position I'm arguing from a demonstrate
> your right & i'll agree with you position, nihilism if you like. would
> hate to think you would find any of this personally aggravating btw.
> also btw sorry about any typo posts cut short I think the membrane of
> my laptop is starting to play up
Lot's of back-and-forth here between Micha and Lee...
> ps if i thought you might stay away from this newsgroup on account
> of me I would stop posting
WOW, that has to be one of the most magnanamous statements I've
ever read. See Micha? They _are_ listening, Just not agreeing.
lee
What canards?
how is it a "a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or
rumor."
to ask how can you justify extensively extrapolating dairy kashrut
from (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21)
yet at the same time stick doggedly to the letter of the law on usury,
thereby IMHO working around the intent or spirit
which given all the other stuff designed to create a fairish inclusive
society for Israel seems fairly obvious IMHO.
that isnt false its a disagreement
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> For that matter, why is it that Protestants who take the Bible
> very literally when it comes to sexual practices someone else
> engages in, are able to explain away the clear Biblical
> prohibitions on economic activities they engage in??)"
That's why. It's the difference between "someone else" and
"they".
sheldonlg
> lee <scho...@gmail.com> writes:
> Lot's of back-and-forth here between Micha and Lee...
>
>> ps if i thought you might stay away from this newsgroup on account
>> of me I would stop posting
>
> WOW, that has to be one of the most magnanamous statements I've
> ever read. See Micha? They _are_ listening, Just not agreeing.
Message sent. Now will be received and understood?
lee
causing them distress. I like to think I'm trying to engage in an
honest debate here. My style is sarcasm & hyperbole, other peoples
style seems to be lengthy quotes & Shelly is often quite pithy. If i
thought differently I wouldnt post here. Hence why I dont bother
posting to any of the non moderated groups becuse they seem to be full
of anti semites anti zionists & its just a slanging match. Plus I come
here for the yiddisher company as much as anything.
lee
> mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> > For that matter, why is it that Protestants who take the Bible
> > very literally when it comes to sexual practices someone else
> > engages in, are able to explain away the clear Biblical
> > prohibitions on economic activities they engage in??)"
>
sheldonlg
--
> I'm not being magnanamous I dont like hurting peoples feelings, or
> causing them distress. I like to think I'm trying to engage in an
> honest debate here. My style is sarcasm & hyperbole, other peoples
> style seems to be lengthy quotes & Shelly is often quite pithy. If i
"pithy": having substance and point : tersely cogent.
I like that.
Don Levey
remaining true to your principles. A lesson for all of us, I'm sure.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
lee
> What O does say is that Conservatism and Reform are not the
> Jewish religion. This is often -- sometimes mistakenly, sometimes
> with malice aforethought -- misquoted as saying that O claims that C
> and R are not Jews.
Why not
To the O, Conservatism and Reform are religions
> practiced by Jews, but not the O Jewish religion.
Then everyone can be happy
Don Levey
>
> My concern is why its ok to extrapolate the complex kashrut rules on
> meat & milk from
> (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy 14:21) not to cook a kid
> in its mother's milk.
> Hence deepenening the spirit of whats intended
Here's the difficulty.
Those of us who believe that our documents and laws were derived (with
Divine help and inspiration, perhaps) by people and are initially
products of the society from which they came can look at these laws and
documents and, with some understanding of both human nature and the
makeup of society at that time, make a good guess at the purpose of such
a law.
Those of us who believe that the documents and laws are Divine in
nature, given to us by Gd along with a framework for deciding how to
apply those laws in situations not understood by the original
recipients, would believe it's not possible to determine with any
certainty the intent behind those laws because that would require
knowledge of the Mind of the Gd that gave them: "You cannot see My
Face, but I will make all My goodness pass before you."
Some might even argue that the intent doesn't matter, since that
structure, when followed, will yield a valid outcome (even multiple,
exclusive, outcomes which are valid if they followed the procedure).
Even Midrash, if I recall correctly, argues that the intent is secondary
to the implementation: "Lo Bashamayim Hi" - "It is not in the heavens".
Needless to say, of course, those who do such extrapolation tend to be
in the second, Divine Origin group. Therefore, while some might find it
enlightening to try to discover the original intent, the point of the
exercise is to follow the laws derived using, interpreted by, and
expounded upon by that legal process - the structure to which I referred
above.
> but then condemn doing the same with the borrowing & lending laws, on
> grounds to me that look like inconvenience
> the same critism applioed to Christians about ignoring poverty &
> inequality, & its causes while concentrating on condoms
> can surely be leveled at us
I can see how that might be seen as a contradiction of sorts. Consider
this, though: one deals with how we treat others, and the other how we
treat ourselves. There's a principle in computer programming that runs,
roughly, "be liberal in what you accept and strict with what you give."
The idea there is that you can't be sure that anything coming in from
the outside (be it a data file, or user input) will strictly adhere to
standards, so you must prepare for possible difficulties to ensure
smooth operation. Likewise, you can't be sure that anyone else will be
as "robust" in handling *their* input as you are, so make sure to
strictly adhere to standards when outputting data.
If such a principle holds here, then with interest or investments we are
tending toward leniency to ensure smooth operation of the system. There
is no incentive to invest if there is no return on that investment; you
can't eat that "warm fuzzy feeling" you get from helping someone.
Likewise, it encourages community when a business person is encouraged
to ask another for help. I would imagine, then, that the benefits to
the community are enough to encourage the rabbis to interpret the
original stricture narrowly and develop mechanisms within the framework
of the law to manage this.
With things such as kashrut, though, we're not dealing with the same
sort of inter-personal relationships. This is about how we relate to
ourselves. Following that same principle above, then, we would be
strict with our *own* practices - especially when the benefits are
perhaps more hidden. For that matter, Dr Josh has previously posted
here about certain healthcare discoveries that seem to verify certain
practices of kashrut, suggesting that not all of the benefits may be
completely hidden.
> IMHO I'm sure G-d is more concerned with the extremes of Madhoff & a
> child who is lucky to eat once per week. IMHO caused by unchecked
> capitalism which is sort of by definition trading on money
> than he is with me eating a cheeseburger even it is a bacon
> cheeseburger
> IMHO this is why jews were involved in the Socialist & Anarchist
> movements of the last century, why we had zionist kibbutzes.
> I dont expect to change anybodies opinion on this
> & I hope bnot to hurt anybodies feelings on this
> but I just dont get why A is different to B
I would add that any political system, unchecked, has just as much
potential to cause that starving child. As I understand it, we are
commanded to feed that child, by the way - and we could feed that child
a cheeseburger if their life depended upon it.
Don Levey
Yup. Just don't get pithed off at uth.
Don Levey
>> without sad memories being attached. I intentionally dropped the first
>> phrase that came to mind.
>
> Actually, I'm more familiar with "square one". But I can well
> understand that "ground zero" is a sad one.
>
that respects life, we *should* be sad at that term.
sheldonlg
> sheldonlg wrote:
>> lee wrote:
>> --
>>> I'm not being magnanamous I dont like hurting peoples feelings, or
>>> causing them distress. I like to think I'm trying to engage in an
>>> honest debate here. My style is sarcasm & hyperbole, other peoples
>>> style seems to be lengthy quotes & Shelly is often quite pithy. If i
>> "pithy": having substance and point : tersely cogent.
>>
>> I like that.
>
> Yup. Just don't get pithed off at uth.
>
Define "us". :-) I got so pithed off one, I just kerplunked him.
Micha Berger
Shulchan Arukh, chapters 65 and 66, respectively.
You can get my translation and take on them off my blog:
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/qsa-65
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/qsa-66
I'm now covering ch. 179, the obligation to lend money.
This is all part of a series on fiscal ethical law. I started it last
summer, the reasons for which should be obvious when you think of the
news of the time coming from my community (O Jews) and the politicians
of my home state.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507 It is two who look in the same direction.
Don Levey
Uh, me and someone else. But they're not here right now.
lee
>
> If such a principle holds here, then with interest or investments we are
> tending toward leniency to ensure smooth operation of the system. There
> is no incentive to invest if there is no return on that investment; you
> can't eat that "warm fuzzy feeling" you get from helping someone.
> Likewise, it encourages community when a business person is encouraged
> to ask another for help. I would imagine, then, that the benefits to
> the community are enough to encourage the rabbis to interpret the
> original stricture narrowly and develop mechanisms within the framework
> of the law to manage this.
>
hence i'm going to cease after this
I dont think you have building societies in the states actually we
dont really have many of them left here either. These are essentially
mutual lending societies, where the members pool & lend to each other
to buy houses & borrow etc.
These are commercial operations but they arent, werent banks Imho this
is what G-d had in mind when he commanded us to "Lend to the poor and
destitute Ex. 22:24" in other words Mutual Aid
& had the Stock exchanges & similiar purely financial speculative
enterprises, which are not so benign when He commanded against
interest.
IMHO lending at interest has led to gross inequalities
& as for political systems i'm sure there are plenty of commandments
that forbid the practises of what the Russians & Chinese called their
version of socialism
for equally valid reasons
Ie those against murder, for starters
I'm gonna stop now
Henry Goodman
news:oq46g5tq4dm6p8km7...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:18:41 +0000 (UTC), Fattush
> <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>This ceremony does not belong in a synagogue.
>
> Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
> catering hall.
>
> FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I
> don't know what people of other religions do.
>
>> I'm not very observant
>>myself, but there are certain basic rules in Judaism, and a ceremony
>>such as this does not respect the Jewish religion.
>
> Jay doesn't have the power to say what is right and wrong.
> --
Can anybody post the text of the ceremony held in this C shul? It seems to
me that the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony is wildly inappropriate. It
starts with the birchat arusim which is basically about the ceremony of
chupa vekiddushin being needed to permit sex and concludes with the sheva
berachot whose main theme is that the purpose of marriage is the birth of
children to continue the Jewish people.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Micha Berger
> Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
> catering hall.
>
> FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I
> don't know what people of other religions do.
In Lithuania, the usual halachic ruling was to *prohibit* getting married
in a synagogue. It's derekh emori -- following the practices of other
religions.
I remember my rebbe checking this point before accepting to run our
wedding ceremony. ("Officiate at" doesn't capture the halachic role
ofthe mesadeir qidushin.)
Don Levey
> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
>> catering hall.
>>
>> FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I
>> don't know what people of other religions do.
>
> In Lithuania, the usual halachic ruling was to *prohibit* getting married
> in a synagogue. It's derekh emori -- following the practices of other
> religions.
>
> I remember my rebbe checking this point before accepting to run our
> wedding ceremony. ("Officiate at" doesn't capture the halachic role
> ofthe mesadeir qidushin.)
>
These days (in the US, at least), many non-Jewish groups also have their
wedding at a separate location. All they do is get their clergyperson
to show up at the hall rather than at the church. Therefore, wouldn't
our weddings at similar locations be equally problematic?
For what it's worth, we married in a restaurant - the one where I
proposed. We set up the chuppah where our table had been.
Dvora
Re: Gay Wedding in Conservative Shul
Group: soc.culture.jewish.moderated Date: Tue, Nov 17, 2009, 4:03pm
(EST+5) From: mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
Can someone point to something in the Torah or other Jewish religous
writings that accepts homosexual unions?
& if they cant find one, we should write one. Just like we rewrote the
rules about usury IMHO to allow it in all but name. Or decided that the
laws about stoning people to death dont apply these days. etc.
25 years and 6 days... I wonder how many times I have to repeat the same
thing before people who disagree at least write in a way to acknowledge
the objection?
strict letter of the rules and found a way to avoid them. You might feel
we're violating the spirit of the rules, but
than its own.
2- When the general (host cultures') economy became interest based, the
injunction to lend money to those in need became much more difficult,
and wasn't happening frequently enough to help everyone who needed a
loan. Money not on hand is effectively losing whatever interest or
profit could have been made elsewhere. What was once free now had an
opportunity cost attached.
Not lending the poor because no one is willing to take the hit in
opportunity cost by lending money without interest is further from the
spirit of the rules.
To repeat the opening paragraph... I'm not frustrated that Lee objects.
I'm frustrated that the conversation always starts from square one. It's
as though no one is listening.
I AM LISTENING MICHA - JUST NOT GREAT AT ANSWERING WHILE READING JUST
YET --
--
So why I am talking? Just not to hurt Moshe's feelings by quitting?
-Micha
without sad memories being attached. I intentionally dropped the first
phrase that came to mind.
I AM SAD MICHA FOR YOU AND EVERYONE WHOSE LIVES WERE SO DAMAGED BY
GROUND ZERO --
--
Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our
generation is mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah
decreases anxiety: http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source
of salvation; I will Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be
afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya
Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
mm
>
>> PS: I wrote "square one". I recall being able to write "ground zero"
>> without sad memories being attached. I intentionally dropped the first
>> phrase that came to mind.
>
>Actually, I'm more familiar with "square one". But I can well
>understand that "ground zero" is a sad one.
Square one fits better the notion of learning something in steps.
I've never thought of first grade, for example, as ground zero, which
I think was where a bomb went off, long before 9/11.
ground zero –noun
1. the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below,
directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.
2. Informal. the very beginning or most elementary level: Some of
the students are starting from ground zero.
Origin: 1945–50
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
mm
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>Micha Berger wrote:
>> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
>>> catering hall.
>>>
>>> FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I
>>> don't know what people of other religions do.
>>
>> In Lithuania, the usual halachic ruling was to *prohibit* getting married
>> in a synagogue. It's derekh emori -- following the practices of other
>> religions.
>>
>> I remember my rebbe checking this point before accepting to run our
>> wedding ceremony. ("Officiate at" doesn't capture the halachic role
>> ofthe mesadeir qidushin.)
>>
>
>These days (in the US, at least), many non-Jewish groups also have their
>wedding at a separate location. All they do is get their clergyperson
>to show up at the hall rather than at the church. Therefore, wouldn't
>our weddings at similar locations be equally problematic?
Definitely. We shouldn't have our weddings anywhere anymore. For a
few years, Jewish weddings could have been held while sky-diving, but
that's been done to death already by gentiles, so that's out too.
>
>For what it's worth, we married in a restaurant - the one where I
>proposed. We set up the chuppah where our table had been.
That's nice.
mm
wrote:
>
>> What O does say is that Conservatism and Reform are not the
>> Jewish religion. This is often -- sometimes mistakenly, sometimes
>> with malice aforethought -- misquoted as saying that O claims that C
>> and R are not Jews.
>
>Why not
I'd like to answer that, but I'm not sure exactly the question. Why
not what?
Why not are they not Jews? Double not? Why are they Jews even though
the are C or R? Is that the question?
>To the O, Conservatism and Reform are religions
>> practiced by Jews, but not the O Jewish religion.
>
>Then everyone can be happy
--
Micha Berger
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:06:18 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> PS: I wrote "square one". I recall being able to write "ground zero"
>>> without sad memories being attached. I intentionally dropped the first
>>> phrase that came to mind.
>>Actually, I'm more familiar with "square one". But I can well
>>understand that "ground zero" is a sad one.
...
> I've never thought of first grade, for example, as ground zero, which
> I think was where a bomb went off, long before 9/11.
> ground zero ?noun
> 1. the point on the surface of the earth or water directly below,
> directly above, or at which an atomic or hydrogen bomb explodes.
Yeah, but I never lived through a nuclar bombing.
There is nothing like first-hand experience... Or as our sages put it,
"hearing does not resemble seeing".
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Dvora
Re: Gay Wedding in Conservative Shul
(EST+5) From: Don_...@the-leveys.us (Don Levey)
mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
catering hall.
FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I don't
know what people of other religions do.
In Lithuania, the usual halachic ruling was to *prohibit* getting
married in a synagogue. It's derekh emori -- following the practices of
other religions.
I remember my rebbe checking this point before accepting to run our
wedding ceremony. ("Officiate at" doesn't capture the halachic role
ofthe mesadeir qidushin.)
These days (in the US, at least), many non-Jewish groups also have their
wedding at a separate location. All they do is get their clergyperson to
show up at the hall rather than at the church. Therefore, wouldn't our
weddings at similar locations be equally problematic?
For what it's worth, we married in a restaurant - the one where I
proposed. We set up the chuppah where our table had been.
--
TOO --
-
MY CHILDREN WERE MARRIED IN OUR GARDEN WITH TENTS FOR EATING ETC --
Don Levey, Framingam MA If
knowledge is power, (email address in header works)
and power corrupts, then... NOTE: Don't send mail to to
sal...@the-leveys.us GnuPG public key:
http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
Be Safe and Well --- Dvora
Abe Kohen
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2009Nov1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> "Abe Kohen" <ako...@xenon.stanford.edu> writes:
>> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>>>> Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> snip
>
>>>>> Had it been my C synagogue, I would have left.
>>>>
>>>> Why is that worse than mixed-marriages?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Moshe Schorr
>>>
>>> Of course it is worse. Mishkav Zochor is Chayav Misah ( death by
>>> stoning) which is not the case for mixed marriages.
>>> It was an additional Chillul Hashem that this happened on Shabbat.
>>
>> As long as the "marriage" is not consummated via "bia" it is not
>> mishkav zachar. One could perhaps argue and differentiate between
>> "bia kdarko" which would be a toeva versus "bia shelo kdarko."
>
> It's all "bia shelo kdarko."
Can I assume you are making the same mistake as Henry? It is kdarko, not
kdarka.
Best,
Abe
Abe Kohen
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2009Nov1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> "Abe Kohen" <ako...@xenon.stanford.edu> writes:
>>
>> Henry, in Ashkenazis wouldn't there be a koometz in be-o (or be-oo)?
>>
>> Micha and Moshe wouldn't touch this one with a ten foot pole, so to
>> speak.
>
> You're gonna make me sorry I did.
Indeed. Once in my more innocent days I imagined only one particular act
could occur between men, not that I had any desire to imagine. Since then I
learned that there are myriad ways just like heterosexuals have many ways.
Some would qualify as mishkav zachar (bia kdarko); others would not (shelo
kdarko). As I have no desire to delineate, let's leave it at that.
Best,
Abe
Abe Kohen
>
> Can anybody post the text of the ceremony held in this C shul? It seems to
> me that the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony is wildly inappropriate.
> It starts with the birchat arusim which is basically about the ceremony of
> chupa vekiddushin being needed to permit sex and concludes with the sheva
> berachot whose main theme is that the purpose of marriage is the birth of
> children to continue the Jewish people.
Heterosexuals past their sexual years can get married in an O ceremony, so
sex is NOT required to consumate an O wedding. Haisha nikneit - in any one
of 3 ways - kesef, shtar OR bia. V'kona et atzma - in either get OR mitat
habaal (NOT AND!).
Don't know about C ceremonies, even though I have attended. In O ceremonies
I listen to every word as the ketubah is read. Always making sure that it's
200 zuzim and wondering how much that is in today's money. Sunday, as I was
listening, one of my cousins, said it was about $8K. Cheap!
Best,
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:he1e0o$lj9$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
>> catering hall.
>>
>> FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I
>> don't know what people of other religions do.
>
> In Lithuania, the usual halachic ruling was to *prohibit* getting married
> in a synagogue. It's derekh emori -- following the practices of other
> religions.
The hupa (or chuppa) cannot be in a shul? Just attended one in the Manhattan
Beach Jewish Center. It was a mixed wedding! Hungarian/Cuban with a Russian!
Jews of course.
Best,
Abe
sheldonlg
> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:he1dql$lim$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
>> Can anybody post the text of the ceremony held in this C shul? It seems to
>> me that the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony is wildly inappropriate.
>> It starts with the birchat arusim which is basically about the ceremony of
>> chupa vekiddushin being needed to permit sex and concludes with the sheva
>> berachot whose main theme is that the purpose of marriage is the birth of
>> children to continue the Jewish people.
>
> Heterosexuals past their sexual years can get married in an O ceremony, so
Since when are we talking about centenarians? :-)
mm
<ako...@xenon.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
>news:he1e0o$lj9$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
>> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
>>> catering hall.
>>>
>>> FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I
>>> don't know what people of other religions do.
>>
>> In Lithuania, the usual halachic ruling was to *prohibit* getting married
>> in a synagogue. It's derekh emori -- following the practices of other
>> religions.
>
>The hupa (or chuppa) cannot be in a shul? Just attended one in the Manhattan
>Beach Jewish Center.
Did it have a good catering hall?
>It was a mixed wedding! Hungarian/Cuban with a Russian!
Shocking.
>Jews of course.
>
>Best,
>Abe
>
--
fla...@verizon.net
On 18-Nov-2009, "meir b." <mei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 11:37�pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 16-Nov-2009, Joe Bruno <joebr...@usa.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The more a Jew diverges from what the Torah says, the less of a Jew he
> > > is.
> >
> > Nope.
> > Every Jew is always as much as Jew as
> > s/he ever was, no matter what s/he does.
> > "A Jew is a Jew, even tho' he sins".
> > This is what keeps (or should keep) any
> > O Jew from defaming C or R Jews.
>
> There is nothing in that quote that serves as a restraint against
> defaming non-Torah-observant Jews.
By saying that they *aren't Jewish*?
Susan
lee
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:45:28 +0000 (UTC), lee <schotn...@gmail.com>
That got a bit mangled by bad cutting & pasting & google I think
I was replying to the O statement that "C & R are religions practised
by jews but are not the jewish religion"
by saying why not "C & R are religions practised by jews but are not
the O jewish religion"
then we can all be happy or probably not
Henry Goodman
news:he2adl$cds$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
I have learnt the first mishna in kedushim (and the whole mesechta) too.
Nowadays kedushin is always with kesef. My point is different. The birchat
arusin says "vehitir lanu at hanesooat lanu al yeday chupa ve kidushin" (He
has permitted to us those married to us by means of canopy and betrothal).
What wording is substituted in the gay case?
Henry Goodman
Perhaps we should say a beracha every morning "shelo asani gay"
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> lee wrote:
>>
>> My concern is why its ok to extrapolate the complex kashrut rules
>> on meat & milk from (Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy
>> 14:21) not to cook a kid in its mother's milk.
>> Hence deepenening the spirit of whats intended
Don's response is too good to snip. I have a comment at the end.
> Here's the difficulty.
> Those of us who believe that our documents and laws were derived (with
> Divine help and inspiration, perhaps) by people and are initially
> products of the society from which they came can look at these laws and
> documents and, with some understanding of both human nature and the
> makeup of society at that time, make a good guess at the purpose of such
> a law.
>
> Those of us who believe that the documents and laws are Divine in
> nature, given to us by Gd along with a framework for deciding how to
> apply those laws in situations not understood by the original
> recipients, would believe it's not possible to determine with any
> certainty the intent behind those laws because that would require
> knowledge of the Mind of the Gd that gave them: "You cannot see My
> Face, but I will make all My goodness pass before you."
>
> Some might even argue that the intent doesn't matter, since that
> structure, when followed, will yield a valid outcome (even multiple,
> exclusive, outcomes which are valid if they followed the procedure).
> Even Midrash, if I recall correctly, argues that the intent is secondary
> to the implementation: "Lo Bashamayim Hi" - "It is not in the heavens".
>
> Needless to say, of course, those who do such extrapolation tend to be
> in the second, Divine Origin group. Therefore, while some might find it
> enlightening to try to discover the original intent, the point of the
> exercise is to follow the laws derived using, interpreted by, and
> expounded upon by that legal process - the structure to which I referred
> above.
>
>> but then condemn doing the same with the borrowing & lending laws, on
>> grounds to me that look like inconvenience
>> the same critism applioed to Christians about ignoring poverty &
>> inequality, & its causes while concentrating on condoms
>> can surely be leveled at us
>
> I can see how that might be seen as a contradiction of sorts. Consider
> this, though: one deals with how we treat others, and the other how we
> treat ourselves. There's a principle in computer programming that runs,
> roughly, "be liberal in what you accept and strict with what you give."
> The idea there is that you can't be sure that anything coming in from
> the outside (be it a data file, or user input) will strictly adhere to
> standards, so you must prepare for possible difficulties to ensure
> smooth operation. Likewise, you can't be sure that anyone else will be
> as "robust" in handling *their* input as you are, so make sure to
> strictly adhere to standards when outputting data.
>
> If such a principle holds here, then with interest or investments we are
> tending toward leniency to ensure smooth operation of the system. There
> is no incentive to invest if there is no return on that investment; you
> can't eat that "warm fuzzy feeling" you get from helping someone.
> Likewise, it encourages community when a business person is encouraged
> to ask another for help. I would imagine, then, that the benefits to
> the community are enough to encourage the rabbis to interpret the
> original stricture narrowly and develop mechanisms within the framework
> of the law to manage this.
>
> With things such as kashrut, though, we're not dealing with the same
> sort of inter-personal relationships. This is about how we relate to
> ourselves. Following that same principle above, then, we would be
> strict with our *own* practices - especially when the benefits are
> perhaps more hidden. For that matter, Dr Josh has previously posted
> here about certain healthcare discoveries that seem to verify certain
> practices of kashrut, suggesting that not all of the benefits may be
> completely hidden.
>
>> IMHO I'm sure G-d is more concerned with the extremes of Madhoff & a
>> child who is lucky to eat once per week. IMHO caused by unchecked
>> capitalism which is sort of by definition trading on money
>> than he is with me eating a cheeseburger even it is a bacon
>> cheeseburger
>> IMHO this is why jews were involved in the Socialist & Anarchist
>> movements of the last century, why we had zionist kibbutzes.
>> I dont expect to change anybodies opinion on this
>> & I hope bnot to hurt anybodies feelings on this
>> but I just dont get why A is different to B
>
> I would add that any political system, unchecked, has just as much
> potential to cause that starving child. As I understand it, we are
> commanded to feed that child, by the way - and we could feed that child
> a cheeseburger if their life depended upon it.
I heard that there was a conference of one hundrd eighty two (182)
countries in Rome about hunger in the world. The rich countries
didn't send any high-level ministers. But some Third World countries
had heads-of-state. For examle Libya had Kadaffi riding around in his
white Mercedes. Zimbabwe had it's President, Mugabe, leading a
delegation of _sixty_ people, who spent most of their time shopping
in Rome's fancy stores. As the radio announcer said, "It's doutbful
if any of the _billion_ starving people in the world will get any
nourishment from all these beurocrats eating caviar."
<SIGH>
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> The laws of interest and profit-making businesses are in the Qitzur
> Shulchan Arukh, chapters 65 and 66, respectively.
>
> You can get my translation and take on them off my blog:
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/qsa-65
> http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/qsa-66
>
> I'm now covering ch. 179, the obligation to lend money.
>
> This is all part of a series on fiscal ethical law. I started it last
> summer, the reasons for which should be obvious when you think of the
> news of the time coming from my community (O Jews) and the politicians
> of my home state.
What a sensible and positive reaction to that news! Kol HaKavod Micha!
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a
>> good catering hall.
>>
>> FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches.
>> I don't know what people of other religions do.
>
> In Lithuania, the usual halachic ruling was to *prohibit* getting
> married in a synagogue. It's derekh emori -- following the
> practices of other religions.
>
> I remember my rebbe checking this point before accepting to run
> our wedding ceremony. ("Officiate at" doesn't capture the halachic
> role of the mesadeir qidushin.)
Nice translation.
I remember the mesadeir qidushin at my oldest daughters wedding. He
kept saying that the most important people under the chuppa, who
"make" it "work" are the two witnesses, His job was to make sure
everything was done properly.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>> Most weddings aren't in synagogues anyhow. Unless they have a good
>>> catering hall.
>>>
>>> FWIW, it's most or all Xians who insist on weddings in churches. I
>>> don't know what people of other religions do.
>>
>> In Lithuania, the usual halachic ruling was to *prohibit* getting married
>> in a synagogue. It's derekh emori -- following the practices of other
>> religions.
>>
>> I remember my rebbe checking this point before accepting to run our
>> wedding ceremony. ("Officiate at" doesn't capture the halachic role
>> ofthe mesadeir qidushin.)
>
> These days (in the US, at least), many non-Jewish groups also have their
> wedding at a separate location. All they do is get their clergyperson
> to show up at the hall rather than at the church. Therefore, wouldn't
> our weddings at similar locations be equally problematic?
Don, clergypersons of other religions _eat_. So must our rabbis _fast_??!!
> For what it's worth, we married in a restaurant - the one where I
> proposed. We set up the chuppah where our table had been.
Sounds romantic. May you and your wife share a long fruitful life
together for many years.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>>> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
>>>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>>>>> Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>>> Had it been my C synagogue, I would have left.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is that worse than mixed-marriages?
>>>>
>>>> stoning) which is not the case for mixed marriages.
>>>> It was an additional Chillul Hashem that this happened on Shabbat.
>>>
>>> As long as the "marriage" is not consummated via "bia" it is not
>>> mishkav zachar. One could perhaps argue and differentiate between
>>> "bia kdarko" which would be a toeva versus "bia shelo kdarko."
>>
>> It's all "bia shelo kdarko."
>
> Can I assume you are making the same mistake as Henry? It is kdarko, not
> kdarka.
Abe, I just _copied_ what you wrote.
Amitai
This brings up a linguistic question.
The term "gay" for homosexual is presumably of American origin.
The translation of "gay" in Hebrew would be "`aliz". Since Israeli
fashions usually mimic American fashions (lagging behind by a couple
of years) the community would normally have been expected to call
itself "`alizim ve-`alizot". Instead they felicitously adopted the
phonetic version "gayim ve-gayot", which means "the proud ones (male
and female)".
According to Wikipedia, the Gay Pride movement began in 1969. May
question is whether the term might have been imported from Israel or
is it an unrelated home-grown American expression?
Amitai
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -