Naomi's outburst (was: Re: Reform Congregations)
jjb...@panix.com
>Orthodox or non-Orthodox has nothing to do with it. This is not an
>Orthodox thing; it's across the board. Any belief system, Orthodox,
>Conservative or Reform, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other faith,
>Communist, Fascist, pick-your-weird-belief, *ANY* belief system which
>takes as its premise that people are permitted and required to
>interfere in the lives of those who are not harming them or someone
>who has asked for thei protection, for the subject's own good, is
>evil.
So any legal system is evil, by that definition. Is my making a left
on red harming the NY City Government? No. But they will interfere
in my life for doing so. But government has to protect all its
citizens. Is it a question of "asking" for protection? Not explicitly.
Simply by living in society, one expects protection by that society.
Simply by being Jewish, one has a right to protection by Jewish
society: all Israel is responsible one for the other. Were that not
so, there would be no American Zionists; what responsibility would
Americans have towards Israel, Israeli Jews? What you call interference
is often an expression of responsibility, and especially a responsibility
that the average citizen may not be aware of.
It is a mitzvah in the torah: not to stand idly by while your (Jewish)
neighbor is sinning, but to help hir avoid such behavior. If that is
evil by your standards, I can't help you. No, literally, I *can't*
help you - it would be an evil act by your standards.
And indirectly, if Jew A is sinning, he is harming Jew B. How?
a) by putting off the collective redemption, which depends on
collective adherence to the Law; and
b) by creating an environment that is antithetical to living a
religious Jewish life;
c) by causing pain to Jew A who has to watch Jew B do the
wrong thing. Why is it painful? *BECAUSE* of mutual responsibility.
I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
not Judaism, that's Wicca.
--
Jonathan Baker | I see the Tik'u Bachodesh Shofar design on arks &
jjb...@panix.com | scrolls; does the verse end "kisui leyom chageinu"?
Web page update: Ki-Tavo, Nitzavim. http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
: as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
: not Judaism, that's Wicca.
Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an explanation
from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
med...@shore.net
> In article <8tio6m$kid$1...@condor.nj.org>, jjb...@panix.com wrote:
>
> : I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
> : as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
> : not Judaism, that's Wicca.
>
> Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an explanation
> from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
> wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
If I may summarize their argument so far:
"Because we say so!"
Jonathan J. Baker
>In article <8tio6m$kid$1...@condor.nj.org>, jjb...@panix.com wrote:
>: I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
>: as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
>: not Judaism, that's Wicca.
>Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an explanation
>from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
>wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
I for one have dropped this line of argument, if only because it has
become clear from the R posters that there is an element of community
consensus that limits the "do-as-thou-wilt" nature of R Judaism. Yes,
from a pure textualist perspective, R after the Centennial Statement
is do-what-thou-wilt". But they don't seem to be pure textualists.
If you will, they have a "kabboloh" that murder, f'rinstance, is right
out, as is idol-worship. Atheism, I'm not so sure about.
--
Jonathan Baker | I see the Tik'u Bachodesh Shofar design on arks &
jjb...@panix.com | scrolls; does the verse end "kisui leyom chageinu"?
Web page update: Vidui, Siyum on Moed. http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/
Herman Rubin
>>Orthodox or non-Orthodox has nothing to do with it. This is not an
>>Orthodox thing; it's across the board. Any belief system, Orthodox,
>>Conservative or Reform, Jewish, Christian, Muslim or any other faith,
>>Communist, Fascist, pick-your-weird-belief, *ANY* belief system which
>>takes as its premise that people are permitted and required to
>>interfere in the lives of those who are not harming them or someone
>>who has asked for thei protection, for the subject's own good, is
>>evil.
>So any legal system is evil, by that definition. Is my making a left
>on red harming the NY City Government?
Ms. Rivkis's statement says nothing about harming any
government; it is that governments are the danger.
However, in order to have traffic flow smoothly, the other
drivers need to know that, in certain cases, they can expect
to have the right of way. Making a left turn on red, except
under very restrictive situations, is endangering life and
property.
No. But they will interfere
>in my life for doing so. But government has to protect all its
>citizens. Is it a question of "asking" for protection? Not explicitly.
>Simply by living in society, one expects protection by that society.
There are different types of protection. Society should protect
people from those who would harm them. It should help people
counter the dangers of their ignorance by providing information,
and by making sure that others do not withhold information which
can help them make sound decisions. It should not protect people
from themselves, or impose its judgment on what is good for the
individual.
>Simply by being Jewish, one has a right to protection by Jewish
>society: all Israel is responsible one for the other. Were that not
>so, there would be no American Zionists; what responsibility would
>Americans have towards Israel, Israeli Jews? What you call interference
>is often an expression of responsibility, and especially a responsibility
>that the average citizen may not be aware of.
This is fatuous. We have the obligation to try to help
people from the ravages of those who wish to do them harm.
This is limited by our inability to do as much as we would
like, and we must choose where to exert our efforts.
>It is a mitzvah in the torah: not to stand idly by while your (Jewish)
>neighbor is sinning, but to help hir avoid such behavior.
In fact, I do not see the mitzvah applying only to Jewish
neighbors. Also, the Torah does not recognize the rights
of the individual, only the community. The rights of the
king to legislate are not very limited in the Torah.
If that is
>evil by your standards, I can't help you. No, literally, I *can't*
>help you - it would be an evil act by your standards.
>And indirectly, if Jew A is sinning, he is harming Jew B. How?
>a) by putting off the collective redemption, which depends on
>collective adherence to the Law; and
>b) by creating an environment that is antithetical to living a
>religious Jewish life;
>c) by causing pain to Jew A who has to watch Jew B do the
>wrong thing. Why is it painful? *BECAUSE* of mutual responsibility.
>I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
>as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
>not Judaism, that's Wicca.
Ms. Rivkis and I do not agree that your goals are in
accordance with those of God. Conservative and Reform Jews
believe that they ARE living "religious Jewish lives"; they
just do not agree with your interpretation of it.
What did Hillel say? "What is hateful unto thee, do not
unto thy neighbor". I doubt that he meant that your idea
of what is hateful should be imposed on your neighbor.
--
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, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Sheldon Glickler
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:8tiv67$egf$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
> In article <8tio6m$kid$1...@condor.nj.org>, jjb...@panix.com wrote:
>
> : I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
> : as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
> : not Judaism, that's Wicca.
>
> Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an explanation
> from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
> wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
>
I wondered how long for the start of yet another OCR.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:8tkbak$iml$1...@panix6.panix.com...
> In <8tiv67$egf$1...@news.huji.ac.il> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> writes:
> >In article <8tio6m$kid$1...@condor.nj.org>, jjb...@panix.com wrote:
>
> >: I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
> >: as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
> >: not Judaism, that's Wicca.
>
> >Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an explanation
> >from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
> >wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
>
> I for one have dropped this line of argument, if only because it has
> become clear from the R posters that there is an element of community
> consensus that limits the "do-as-thou-wilt" nature of R Judaism. Yes,
I have learned a lot from discussions here on SCJ[M]. It would appear that
I am not alone.
Shelly
meirm...@erols.com
hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) posted:
>
>Ms. Rivkis and I do not agree that your goals are in
>accordance with those of God. Conservative and Reform Jews
>believe that they ARE living "religious Jewish lives"; they
>just do not agree with your interpretation of it.
I'm sure she'd agree with that, lots of people would agree with that,
but she also goes far far further. For example, she thinks that even
giving advice is hateful. Maybe her word was evil. I suspect she
says this even though she's given advice herself.
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
: news:8tiv67$egf$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
:> Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an explanation
:> from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
:> wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
: I wondered how long for the start of yet another OCR.
Actually, if you would simply have answered the question the first
time it was asked, it wouldn't have turned into a big discussion the
first time, and it won't turn into one this time if the "n" key
on your keyboard is functioning properly.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"French bread makes very good skis"
Jackie Cappiello
"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>
> In <8tiv67$egf$1...@news.huji.ac.il> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> writes:
> >In article <8tio6m$kid$1...@condor.nj.org>, jjb...@panix.com wrote:
>
> >: I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
> >: as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
> >: not Judaism, that's Wicca.
>
> >Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an explanation
> >from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
> >wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
>
> I for one have dropped this line of argument, if only because it has
> become clear from the R posters that there is an element of community
> consensus that limits the "do-as-thou-wilt" nature of R Judaism. Yes,
> from a pure textualist perspective, R after the Centennial Statement
> is do-what-thou-wilt". But they don't seem to be pure textualists.
> If you will, they have a "kabboloh" that murder, f'rinstance, is right
> out, as is idol-worship. Atheism, I'm not so sure about.
Atheism is out as well. There was the case a few years ago where a
congregation sought approval of UAHC for inclusion, but were not
permitted because they did not affirm the existance of G-d. Now,
agnosticism may be viewed differently. That I'm not sure about..
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
I don't see why you find that offensive. I know a lot of Reform Jews
who do think that's a good restatement of the only real and basic
moral imperative. My father is ostensibly Conservative, and I can't
tell you the number of times growing up that he told me "You can do
anything you want, so long as you don't hurt anyone."
In fact, Orthodox Judaism basically abides by the same rule. The only
thing is that we perceive harm as well on the non-physical plane. In
other words, if you eat a pork chop and you're Jewish, you *have*
harmed me.
Reform, I think you'll agree, doesn't think the same.
So other than being offended at the idea that your movement has been
compared to Wicca in one way, can you at least say why you think it's
so offensive to suggest what Richard did? I mean, if someone doesn't
harm anyone else in any way, can they truly be said, in Reform terms,
to be doing something wrong?
Lisa
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
I don't think giving advice is evil. I think continuing to give advice
to someone who has explicitly stated that they do not want to hear it
is evil.
>mei...@QQQerols.com
>e-mail by removing QQQ
-Naomi
Sheldon Glickler
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:8tlnil$3op$2...@news.huji.ac.il...
> In article <972916157.164803@sj-nntpcache-5>, Sheldon Glickler
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> : <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
> : news:8tiv67$egf$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
>
> :> Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an
explanation
> :> from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
> :> wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
>
> : I wondered how long for the start of yet another OCR.
>
> Actually, if you would simply have answered the question the first
> time it was asked, it wouldn't have turned into a big discussion the
> first time, and it won't turn into one this time if the "n" key
> on your keyboard is functioning properly.
My position has been made clear before. Apparantly Jonathan got the
message. Read his response. I won't respond further (my version of the "n"
key).
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
"Jackie Cappiello" <jack...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39FE9A78...@home.com...
>
>
> "Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
> >
> > In <8tiv67$egf$1...@news.huji.ac.il> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> writes:
> > >In article <8tio6m$kid$1...@condor.nj.org>, jjb...@panix.com wrote:
> >
> > >: I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
> > >: as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
> > >: not Judaism, that's Wicca.
> >
> > >Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an
explanation
> > >from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
> > >wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
> >
> > I for one have dropped this line of argument, if only because it has
> > become clear from the R posters that there is an element of community
> > consensus that limits the "do-as-thou-wilt" nature of R Judaism. Yes,
> > from a pure textualist perspective, R after the Centennial Statement
> > is do-what-thou-wilt". But they don't seem to be pure textualists.
> > If you will, they have a "kabboloh" that murder, f'rinstance, is right
> > out, as is idol-worship. Atheism, I'm not so sure about.
>
> Atheism is out as well. There was the case a few years ago where a
> congregation sought approval of UAHC for inclusion, but were not
> permitted because they did not affirm the existance of G-d. Now,
> agnosticism may be viewed differently. That I'm not sure about..
> >
There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39fe4c7c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On 30 Oct 2000 21:30:29 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
> <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> ><sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
> >news:8tiv67$egf$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
> >> In article <8tio6m$kid$1...@condor.nj.org>, jjb...@panix.com wrote:
> >>
> >> : I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
> >> : as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
> >> : not Judaism, that's Wicca.
> >>
> >> Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an
explanation
> >> from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
> >> wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
> >
> >I wondered how long for the start of yet another OCR.
>
> I don't see why you find that offensive. I know a lot of Reform Jews
Please find the word "offensive" in what I wrote. My statement was one of
"I've been there so many times before that I can see where this can easily
lead". As to the rest, I won't answer you [again].
Shelly
Eric Simon
>*ANY* belief system which
>takes as its premise that people are permitted and required to
>interfere in the lives of those who are not harming them or someone
>who has asked for thei protection, for the subject's own good, is
>evil.
This seems somewhat extreme don't you think?
On other lists, you have defended circumcision -- isn't that
"interfering" with the lives of children who are not asking for it?
Let me give the clearest example of "kol yisroel zeh b'zeh" vis-a-vis
American jurisprudence:
Person A is drowning, and Person B, who happens to be an Olympic
swimmer, walks by. Jewish ethics requires that B must try to help.
And, if person C (who can't swim) were there, person C should try to
convince person B to save person A.
Is this a bad thing?
Under American law, of course, neither person B nor C are under any
obligation.
Suppose person A is drowning in hate, and person B can help him.
Shouldn't he try?
Suppose person A is about to make a _big_ mistake -- say, enter into a
business deal with a known crook, or send his daughter to a place
where sexual assaults have been taking place . . . whatever.
Kol yisroel zeh b'zeh requires that preventitive action be taken.
-- Eric
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
the subject line
]
On 31 Oct 2000 16:16:56 GMT, er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) wrote:
>nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>
>>*ANY* belief system which
>>takes as its premise that people are permitted and required to
>>interfere in the lives of those who are not harming them or someone
>>who has asked for thei protection, for the subject's own good, is
>>evil.
>
>This seems somewhat extreme don't you think?
No.
>On other lists, you have defended circumcision -- isn't that
>"interfering" with the lives of children who are not asking for it?
Children are legally incapable of making their own choices, therefore
their parents are designated as custodians of those choices until they
are. This has nothing to do with stepping on the choices of someone
who *is* capable of making their own.
>Let me give the clearest example of "kol yisroel zeh b'zeh" vis-a-vis
>American jurisprudence:
>
>Person A is drowning, and Person B, who happens to be an Olympic
>swimmer, walks by. Jewish ethics requires that B must try to help.
>And, if person C (who can't swim) were there, person C should try to
>convince person B to save person A.
>
>Is this a bad thing?
If person A has clearly expressed a wish to be permitted to drown,
it's a bad thing. Otherwise it is assumed that if they cannot call for
help, they are treated as if they had done so since that's what most
people would do and is hence, in the absence of evidence regarding
their desires, the way to bet. It's the same reasoning by which one
investigates murder: the dead can't speak, so one has to speak for
them. Those who can speak should be permitted to do it for themselves.
>Under American law, of course, neither person B nor C are under any
>obligation.
Correct mostly. (Verbal contracts are the exception, and for certain
parallel cases, although I don't think drowning is among them, Alaskan
law differs from the rest of the country in this regard.)
>Suppose person A is drowning in hate, and person B can help him.
>Shouldn't he try?
Not if person A says he does not wish them to.
>Suppose person A is about to make a _big_ mistake -- say, enter into a
>business deal with a known crook, or send his daughter to a place
>where sexual assaults have been taking place . . . whatever.
Not if person A says he does not wish them to.
>Kol yisroel zeh b'zeh requires that preventitive action be taken.
I understand this. That is why I reject it and the religion based on
it. If I didn't recognize what the principle required, I would not
turn my back on the principle. I do so in full knowledge of what I am
rejecting.
>-- Eric
-Naomi
William Friedman
On 31 Oct 2000 14:30:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
That's the theoretical difference, as I understand it. However, what
does it mean for a Being without corporeal form who has no power
whatsoever to exist? In all practicality, it's the same thing. (And,
yes, I have atheist friends who view agnostics as the ultimate
hypocrites.)
Will
Micha Berger
: Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
Agnosticism is that belief that one could never prove whether or not G-d
exists, and therefore one can never be sure.
An agnostic can attribute power to G-d. The power to create would not
be measurable any time after creation, so I would think that agnosticism
would admit that deism is possibly true, but not provably so.
It's also possible to be an agnostic who believes that G-d's power, if
it exists would have to be limited to what we call nature, or to quantum
"randomness" (which then isn't all that random), or is in some other way
unprovably detectable, but still subtley shaping reality.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Hadass Eviatar
>
> On 31 Oct 2000 14:30:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
> <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
>
> Please, please explain. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
> Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
Huh? I thought agnosticism was a belief that G-d is unknowable. That
doesn't mean He has no power, just that one can not be sure of it. An
agnostic might still end up choosing for Pascal's wager ...
Kol tuv, Hadass
--
Hadass Eviatar
Winnipeg, Canada
http://www.superhwy.net/~eviatar
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: On 31 Oct 2000 17:14:05 GMT, William Friedman <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: : Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
:
: Agnosticism is that belief that one could never prove whether or not G-d
: exists, and therefore one can never be sure.
Indeed. When Bertrand Russell was jailed during World War I for his
pacifist convictions, he put down on the form under "religion" that he
was an "agnostic," and the jailor commented, "well, there's lots of
religions, but I suppose we all worship the same God."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I love people. But I don't suffer fools gladly."
-- Deborah Lipstadt
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Friedman) wrote:
I have never heard that definition of agnosticism. I'm quite sure it
isn't the one most agnostics mean when they use the term for
themselves. Every agnostic I've ever heard of defines agnosticism as
the lack of a firm belief either that there is or that there is not a
deity or deities, sometimes but not always accompanied by a belief
that not only *don't* they know, but it is innately impossible to
know. I have never heard the concept that if there is one, he/she/they
have no power as any part of it.
>Will
-Naomi
Herman Rubin
William Friedman <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
I disagree. Agnosticism is the belief that we do not know
if God exists, nor can we conduct a clear test to find out.
He may have considerable power, but must use it in such a
way that we cannot be sure that the laws of nature have
even been slightly tampered with.
Sheldon Glickler
"William Friedman" <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:39fefd91....@news.mit.edu...
Atheism = "God does not exist"
Agnosticism = "I don't know is God exists"
I never heard **your** definition of agnosticism before.
Here it is from www.m-w.com
**************
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown
and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in
either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Main Entry: athe·ism
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is
no deity
**************
Note: "not committed to believing in either the existence or the
nonexistence of God" is quite different than "a disbelief in the existence
of deity".
Does that help you?
Shelly
P&M
Joe Slater
>to someone who has explicitly stated that they do not want to hear it
>is evil.
Yes, it makes my blood boil when I hear about Hitler advising the
Jews, or Hizbullah sneaking squads of suicide advisors across the
Lebanese border.
jds
--
And now kind friends, what I have wrote,
I hope you will pass o'er,
And not criticize, as some have done,
Hitherto herebefore. (Julia Moore, "The Author's Early Life")
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>>I don't think giving advice is evil. I think continuing to give advice
>>to someone who has explicitly stated that they do not want to hear it
>>is evil.
>
>Yes, it makes my blood boil when I hear about Hitler advising the
>Jews, or Hizbullah sneaking squads of suicide advisors across the
>Lebanese border.
Does evil only come in one form, then? Please specify its exact terms
and limitations.
>jds
-Naomi
Russell Steinthal
Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In fact, Orthodox Judaism basically abides by the same rule. The only
>thing is that we perceive harm as well on the non-physical plane. In
>other words, if you eat a pork chop and you're Jewish, you *have*
>harmed me.
Can you clarify the implications of this? This would seem to
eliminate the distinction between mitzvot bein adam l'chaveiro
(commandments between Man and Man) and mitzvot bein adam l'makom
(commandments between Man and God). There may not be any difference
in the binding character of those mitzvot, but the categories were
used traditionally for analytic purposes, if nothing else.
I would have understood the opposite: by mandating our behavior in
everyday life, halacha converts essentially interpersonal
relationships into issues of divine concern, but your conclusion
confuses me. Why (or how) does one Jew violating kashrut harm other
Jews, even on a metaphysical/spiritual level?
(The best thought which comes to mind is "kol yisrael areivim zeh
l'zeh" (?), that all Israel are responsible one another. But even
then, I have always understood that as imposing a responsibility on us
to do whatever we can to help other Jews fulfill their
responsibilities, prosper, etc. To explain your comment, one would
need to read it as subjecting us all to divine punishment for the sins
of each of us... While that might explain the destruction of the
Temple, exile, etc., on a more "micro" level it seems contrary to
individual responsibility/atonement, etc.)
-Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
Jackie Cappiello
when I originally posted my statements.
Micha Berger
: Can you clarify the implications of this? This would seem to
: eliminate the distinction between mitzvot bein adam l'chaveiro
: (commandments between Man and Man) and mitzvot bein adam l'makom
: (commandments between Man and God). There may not be any difference
: in the binding character of those mitzvot, but the categories were
: used traditionally for analytic purposes, if nothing else.
Can you give one example of where they were used for analysis?
AFAIK, the dichotomy is made only WRT two points about teshuvah: 1- being
able to identify where you need personal development (IOW, it comes up in
"mussar" contexts), and 2- the process of repenting is different if people
were victimized.
: I would have understood the opposite: by mandating our behavior in
: everyday life, halacha converts essentially interpersonal
: relationships into issues of divine concern...
That perspective is true. But so is the reverse. After all, all of Torah
-- even bein adam laMakom -- can be found in "love your neighbor as
yourself".
: Why (or how) does one Jew violating kashrut harm other
: Jews, even on a metaphysical/spiritual level?
You're looking at individuals. We, as a group, have a mission. One Jew
violating that mission harms the group as a whole. That alone means that
each of us, as parts of that whole, should be working to avoid having
others eat treif. If you insist on looking at the Jewish people as a
collection of individuals, and not also a coporate entity, not that this,
in turn frustrates those who are investing effort in fulfilling it.
docf...@my-deja.com
> Simply by living in society, one expects protection by that society.
> Simply by being Jewish, one has a right to protection by Jewish
> society: all Israel is responsible one for the other. Were that not
> so, there would be no American Zionists; what responsibility would
> Americans have towards Israel, Israeli Jews? What you call
interference
> is often an expression of responsibility, and especially a
responsibility
> that the average citizen may not be aware of.
>
> It is a mitzvah in the torah: not to stand idly by while your (Jewish)
> neighbor is sinning, but to help hir avoid such behavior.
I'd like to see the source material for this, and how the priciple was
derived, not because I don't believe you, I'm just interested in seeing
where this principel comes from, and whther one could interpret it
differently.
> And indirectly, if Jew A is sinning, he is harming Jew B. How?
>
> a) by putting off the collective redemption, which depends on
> collective adherence to the Law; and
>
So my eating a ham sanwich keeps mashiach from coming. eh? Of course,
if I were a Frankist, I could say that if we _all_ ate ham sandwiches,
maybe that would hasten the coming of mashiach. :) But personally, I
think I'd prefer the orgy part of Frankist practice.
> b) by creating an environment that is antithetical to living a
> religious Jewish life;
Depends how you defone "religious"
>
> c) by causing pain to Jew A who has to watch Jew B do the
> wrong thing. Why is it painful? *BECAUSE* of mutual responsibility.
>
So let me get this straight. Traditional Jews, using this doctrine of
mutual responsibility have set up a theology where the faithful are
defeated by the actions of sinners. Has it occurred to anyone that
everyone sins? Actually, I think it has, as I remember reading a line
in Tefillah Zakka, in which the author prays for forgiveness, becuase
everyone sins and escaping from sin is impossible. So why do
traditional Jews use this theology of mutual reposnsibility to set
themselves up for failure?
Doc
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Micha Berger
: That perspective is true. But so is the reverse. After all, all of Torah
: -- even bein adam laMakom -- can be found in "love your neighbor as
: yourself".
I was emailed by someone who missed the reference. In my reply, I went
off on a tangent that I'd like to share with the crowd.
I was referring to a story where Shammai is approached by a potential
convert who wanted to learn the entire Torah "while standing on one leg"
(ie in a few minutes). Shammai turned him away. The man then went to
Hillel, who answered, "'Love your neighbor as yourself'. That is the
whole. Now go and study the details."
It was G-d who wrote "love your neighbor as yourself, I am G-d".
Aside from the simple interpretation I gave here, the Maharal suggests
that Hillel meant the entire verse, and was referring to the three basic
relationships that man is supposed to develop:
love your neighbor -- between one person and another
as yourself -- between you and yourself
I am G-d -- between you and G-d
Much like the three pillars that Shim'on haTzadik (Simon the Righteous)
tells us the world stand on (Avos 1:2): Torah, service [of G-d], and
supporting acts of kindness.
Note that the Maharal suggests that there is a third category, not just
the two assumed in our discussion. I really ought to post this.
Lisa Beth
Friedman) wrote:
>
>On 31 Oct 2000 14:30:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
><sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
>
>Please, please explain. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
>Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
Says who? Agnosticism means not knowing if God exists or not. You're
talking about Deism or Theism or some other ism.
>That's the theoretical difference, as I understand it. However, what
>does it mean for a Being without corporeal form who has no power
>whatsoever to exist? In all practicality, it's the same thing. (And,
>yes, I have atheist friends who view agnostics as the ultimate
>hypocrites.)
I'd say the opposite. Agnosticism is defensible. Atheism is not.
Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. A patently
unprovable belief that can only have two sources:
1) A disbelief in an arbitrary concept of God that *can* be disproven,
but does not reflect God as others see Him. This is a strawman
argument and lacks any validity.
2) An emotional need to deny the existence of God. The idea that we
aren't the crown of creation is very threatening to some people. And
in some cases, there are people who just don't like religion cramping
their style, and the easiest way out is to deny that God exists.
That's atheism for you. The most non-intellectual of beliefs. Either
fallacious or dishonest.
Agnosticism, on the other hand, is fair. It shows that a person just
doesn't know at this point. Which is entirely legitimate. Of course,
there are people who call themselves agnostics who it's clear will
never accept any information one way or the other. They're agnostic
on principle, and don't just "not know". They "refuse to know".
That's as bad as atheism.
Lisa
--
I take responsibility:
I will be voting for Moshe Feiglin in the Likud primaries.
Ask me how you can, too.
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>In article <39fe4c7c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
>Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In fact, Orthodox Judaism basically abides by the same rule. The only
>>thing is that we perceive harm as well on the non-physical plane. In
>>other words, if you eat a pork chop and you're Jewish, you *have*
>>harmed me.
>
>Can you clarify the implications of this? This would seem to
>eliminate the distinction between mitzvot bein adam l'chaveiro
>(commandments between Man and Man) and mitzvot bein adam l'makom
>(commandments between Man and God). There may not be any difference
>in the binding character of those mitzvot, but the categories were
>used traditionally for analytic purposes, if nothing else.
As I understand it, everything is really Bein Adam L'Makom. In terems
of dinei Shamayim, at least. The differentiation between Bein Adam
L'Makom, Bein Adam L'Chavero and Bein Adam L'Atzmo is more of a dinei
adam thing.
>I would have understood the opposite: by mandating our behavior in
>everyday life, halacha converts essentially interpersonal
>relationships into issues of divine concern, but your conclusion
>confuses me. Why (or how) does one Jew violating kashrut harm other
>Jews, even on a metaphysical/spiritual level?
Have you read the first few chapters of Rambam's Hilchot Teshuva? He
talks about how the acts of individuals affect the whole world. But
on a more particularistic level, the concept of kol yisrael areivim ze
la'ze says that if Ploni eats a pork chop, we all get a collective
demerit.
Take the Holocaust. One possibility is that as Elisha ben Avuya said,
"ein din v'ein dayan" That there's no justice in the world. Judaism
rejects this concept.
Alternatively, you can say that the people who died in the Holocaust
died because they deserved it. That's even worse. There was a huge
flame war here because people misunderstood Rav Ovadiah Yosef to be
saying this. He didn't, and no frum Jew would.
So you're left with a simple reductio, but not ad absurdum. God
treats us, at least in some cases, as a corporate entity. And
punishes us, as a people. And that this sometimes results in innocent
individuals paying the price for the misbehavior of others. There
really is no other logical possibility, given the postulates of
Judaism.
>(The best thought which comes to mind is "kol yisrael areivim zeh
>l'zeh" (?), that all Israel are responsible one another. But even
>then, I have always understood that as imposing a responsibility on us
>to do whatever we can to help other Jews fulfill their
>responsibilities, prosper, etc.
Yes, but an areiv is a guarantor. It doesn't say kol yisrael achrayim
ze la'ze. I live in Israel, where you need guarantors to get loans,
particularly mortgages. I remember a joke once, about the fact that
if someone signs for you, you kind of have an obligation to sign for
them when the time comes. And as a result, the entire Anglo
community, at the very least, is totally tied up with one another
through these areivuyot. Someone suggested that this is what kol
yisrael areivim ze la'ze really means.
But if I don't pay my mortgage, the friends who signed for me will
have to pay. Because that's what it means to be a guarantor.
>To explain your comment, one would
>need to read it as subjecting us all to divine punishment for the sins
>of each of us... While that might explain the destruction of the
>Temple, exile, etc., on a more "micro" level it seems contrary to
>individual responsibility/atonement, etc.)
There are various different levels. We are individuals. And at the
same time, we are elements of the corporate entity called Klal
Yisrael. Maybe it's like the way light is waves and particles at the
same time. Seemingly, the two things contradict one another. But in
fact, both are true in different ways.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>Take the Holocaust. One possibility is that as Elisha ben Avuya said,
>"ein din v'ein dayan" That there's no justice in the world. Judaism
>rejects this concept.
>
>Alternatively, you can say that the people who died in the Holocaust
>died because they deserved it. That's even worse. There was a huge
>flame war here because people misunderstood Rav Ovadiah Yosef to be
>saying this. He didn't, and no frum Jew would.
>
>So you're left with a simple reductio, but not ad absurdum. God
>treats us, at least in some cases, as a corporate entity. And
>punishes us, as a people. And that this sometimes results in innocent
>individuals paying the price for the misbehavior of others. There
>really is no other logical possibility, given the postulates of
>Judaism.
That works so long as one takes as a matter of faith that collective
punishment is actually a form of justice. To my way of thinking,
anything that punishes innocent people for any reason is unjust,
therefore we're back to square one: there's no justice in the world.
>Lisa
-Naomi
Simcha Streltsov
: Person A is drowning, and Person B, who happens to be an Olympic
: swimmer, walks by. Jewish ethics requires that B must try to help.
: And, if person C (who can't swim) were there, person C should try to
: convince person B to save person A.
: Kol yisroel zeh b'zeh requires that preventitive action be taken.
this seems to be an example of a more basic difference between Western
& Jewish laws: in US, law puts the onus on person's rights - ie if you
think you are being wronged - sue the other person and get your money
back. In Judaism, the law is about your obligations towards Hashem and
His world in general - thus it tells you to do things that are beneficial
for others.
I dont see, though, how this concept extends universally to cases where
your neighbor will not be happy with your uninvited "help".
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
sim...@bu.edu all punctuation marks in this article
are equivalent to (-:
Hadass Eviatar
> I'd say the opposite. Agnosticism is defensible. Atheism is not.
> Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of God. A patently
> unprovable belief that can only have two sources:
>
> 1) A disbelief in an arbitrary concept of God that *can* be disproven,
> but does not reflect God as others see Him. This is a strawman
> argument and lacks any validity.
>
> 2) An emotional need to deny the existence of God. The idea that we
> aren't the crown of creation is very threatening to some people. And
> in some cases, there are people who just don't like religion cramping
> their style, and the easiest way out is to deny that God exists.
There's a third option. People who are so angry at G-d for some reason
based in their own lives that they are faced with a choice of G-d being
nonexistent, or evil. I know at least one person who has deliberately
chosen for the former belief, because she cannot countenance the latter.
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>> In <8tiv67$egf$1...@news.huji.ac.il> <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> writes:
>> >: I don't understand your criterion, or where it comes from, other than
>> >: as an extension of "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". But that's
>> >: not Judaism, that's Wicca.
>> >Don't be so sure. I don't think that we have ever gotten an explanation
>> >from any of the Reform Jews here of why "an it harm none, do what thou
>> >wilt" is not an accurate summary of Reform Judaism.
>> from a pure textualist perspective, R after the Centennial Statement
>> is do-what-thou-wilt". But they don't seem to be pure textualists.
>> If you will, they have a "kabboloh" that murder, f'rinstance, is right
>> out, as is idol-worship. Atheism, I'm not so sure about.
>Atheism is out as well. There was the case a few years ago where a
>congregation sought approval of UAHC for inclusion, but were not
>permitted because they did not affirm the existance of G-d.
No, that's organizationally. I'm talking about unwritten rules,
communal assumptions. If the group thinks that they're Reform
and atheist, and other Reform Jews (in some significant proportion)
accept them as such, that would say more than an organizational
rejection. The argument was about rules that were *not* stated in
the organizational documents.
--
Jonathan Baker | Marches-wan, marches-two,
jjb...@panix.com | March the months all through and through
Web page update: Vidui, Siyum on Moed. http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/
Jonathan J. Baker
>William Friedman wrote:
>> On 31 Oct 2000 14:30:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
>> >There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
>> Please, please explain. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
>> Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
>Huh? I thought agnosticism was a belief that G-d is unknowable. That
Does sound that way, don'it?
But no, that's just Divine transcendence.
>doesn't mean He has no power, just that one can not be sure of it. An
>agnostic might still end up choosing for Pascal's wager ...
It's that he doesn't know if God exists, rather than that he doesn't Know
God.
Jonathan J. Baker
>>There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
>Please, please explain. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
>Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
No, no, that's Epicureanism (Apikorsut). Agnosticism is not knowing
whether or not God exists.
And Epicureanism is right out.
"One shall be the number of the gods, the number of the gods shall be
one. Thou shalt not have zero gods, nor shalt thou have two gods.
The trinity is right out." (more Monty Python paraphrasis)
Amitai Halevi
; On 1 Nov 2000 13:20:04 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
; : That perspective is true. But so is the reverse. After all, all of Torah
; : -- even bein adam laMakom -- can be found in "love your neighbor as
; : yourself".
;
; I was emailed by someone who missed the reference. In my reply, I went
; off on a tangent that I'd like to share with the crowd.
;
; I was referring to a story where Shammai is approached by a potential
; convert who wanted to learn the entire Torah "while standing on one leg"
; (ie in a few minutes). Shammai turned him away. The man then went to
; Hillel, who answered, "'Love your neighbor as yourself'. That is the
; whole. Now go and study the details."
;
Not quite:
What Hillel said was: "That which is hateful to you do not
do to your neighbor. ...." There is a vast difference between
the negative and positive formulations of the Golden Rule.
Even though R Aqiva claimed that the precept to love one's
neighbor is "an important rule in the Torah" (_not_ the whole!),
it is a rule that only saints can be expected to obey. It
certainly cannot be legislated, whereas Hillel's less demanding
version can be used as the basis of a practical legal system.
[remainder deleted]
Amitai
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| E. Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> |
| Department of Chemistry, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology |
| http://www.technion.ac.il/technion/chemistry/staff/halevi |
| |
| "`Od yenuvun be-seva, deshenim ve-ra`ananim yihyu", Psalms 92,15 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
;
; -mi
;
; --
Jonathan J. Baker
>> Simply by living in society, one expects protection by that society.
>> Simply by being Jewish, one has a right to protection by Jewish
>> society: all Israel is responsible one for the other. Were that not
>> so, there would be no American Zionists; what responsibility would
>> Americans have towards Israel, Israeli Jews? What you call
>interference
>> is often an expression of responsibility, and especially a
>responsibility
>> that the average citizen may not be aware of.
>> It is a mitzvah in the torah: not to stand idly by while your (Jewish)
>> neighbor is sinning, but to help hir avoid such behavior.
>I'd like to see the source material for this, and how the priciple was
>derived, not because I don't believe you, I'm just interested in seeing
>where this principel comes from, and whther one could interpret it
>differently.
It's in Kedoshim: Vayikra 19:17: "Rebuke, you shall rebuke your
neighbor, and not bear on him sin." Rashi takes the latter to modify
the former, meaning "don't embarrass him in public [while rebuking
him]".
>> And indirectly, if Jew A is sinning, he is harming Jew B. How?
>> a) by putting off the collective redemption, which depends on
>> collective adherence to the Law; and
>So my eating a ham sanwich keeps mashiach from coming. eh? Of course,
>if I were a Frankist, I could say that if we _all_ ate ham sandwiches,
>maybe that would hasten the coming of mashiach. :) But personally, I
>think I'd prefer the orgy part of Frankist practice.
They're written out anyway. I don't even know if most of them were
Jews.
>> b) by creating an environment that is antithetical to living a
>> religious Jewish life;
>Depends how you defone "religious"
Of course.
>> c) by causing pain to Jew A who has to watch Jew B do the
>> wrong thing. Why is it painful? *BECAUSE* of mutual responsibility.
>So let me get this straight. Traditional Jews, using this doctrine of
>mutual responsibility have set up a theology where the faithful are
>defeated by the actions of sinners. Has it occurred to anyone that
>everyone sins? Actually, I think it has, as I remember reading a line
>in Tefillah Zakka, in which the author prays for forgiveness, becuase
>everyone sins and escaping from sin is impossible. So why do
>traditional Jews use this theology of mutual reposnsibility to set
>themselves up for failure?
I think I'll let the more theologically sophisticated people, such as
Micha, answer this one. It's beyond me.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: On 1 Nov 2000, Micha Berger wrote:
: ; I was referring to a story where Shammai is approached by a potential
: ; convert who wanted to learn the entire Torah "while standing on one leg"
: ; (ie in a few minutes). Shammai turned him away. The man then went to
: ; Hillel, who answered, "'Love your neighbor as yourself'. That is the
: ; whole. Now go and study the details."
: Not quite:
: What Hillel said was: "That which is hateful to you do not
: do to your neighbor. ...." There is a vast difference between
: the negative and positive formulations of the Golden Rule.
: Even though R Aqiva claimed that the precept to love one's
: neighbor is "an important rule in the Torah" (_not_ the whole!),
: it is a rule that only saints can be expected to obey. It
: certainly cannot be legislated, whereas Hillel's less demanding
: version can be used as the basis of a practical legal system.
I have heard another interpretation of the demand to learn the Torah
"standing on one leg" which I present without making any claims as to
the likelihood that it is an accurate representation of the idiom.
The person came to Shammai not to ask for the whole Torah while *he*
stood on one leg, but to ask what is the one leg on which the Torah
stands? (Of the two "legs" -- mitzvot between people and those between
a person and God, that is.) That's why Shammai sent him away, because the
two "legs" are equally important; Hillel instead found a single "leg"
that combines the two.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>permitted and required to interfere in the lives of those who are
>>not harming them or someone who has asked for thei protection, for
>>the subject's own good, is evil.
>
> This seems somewhat extreme don't you think?
That's why this thread is called "Naomi's outburst". Many think she
went overboard in her criticism.
> On other lists, you have defended circumcision -- isn't that
> "interfering" with the lives of children who are not asking for it?
POW! Very interesting argument. Unfortunately, I can hear Naomi
"recanting" and joining the anti-circs. I really hope it doesn't
come to that!
> Let me give the clearest example of "kol yisroel zeh b'zeh"
> vis-a-vis American jurisprudence:
>
> Person A is drowning, and Person B, who happens to be an Olympic
> swimmer, walks by. Jewish ethics requires that B must try to help.
> And, if person C (who can't swim) were there, person C should try to
> convince person B to save person A.
>
> Is this a bad thing?
>
> Under American law, of course, neither person B nor C are under any
> obligation.
You can go one step further. If peson A sees person B about to kill
person C, then person A must to everything in his power to _save_
person C up to and _including_, killing person B.
Any idea what American jurisprudence says about that.
Of course, to make it more understandable, substitute A for every
occurrence of C. (Hint: then it's called "self-defense")
> Suppose person A is drowning in hate, and person B can help him.
> Shouldn't he try?
Interesting analogy.
> Suppose person A is about to make a _big_ mistake -- say, enter into
> a business deal with a known crook, or send his daughter to a place
> where sexual assaults have been taking place . . . whatever.
>
> Kol yisroel zeh b'zeh requires that preventitive action be taken.
"action" or just to give advice? I think you went a bit overboard
there.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
meirm...@erols.com
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> posted:
>In article <8tn10v$cjp$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>: On 31 Oct 2000 17:14:05 GMT, William Friedman <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>: : Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
>:
>: Agnosticism is that belief that one could never prove whether or not G-d
>: exists, and therefore one can never be sure.
>
>Indeed. When Bertrand Russell was jailed during World War I for his
>pacifist convictions, he put down on the form under "religion" that he
>was an "agnostic," and the jailor commented, "well, there's lots of
>religions, but I suppose we all worship the same God."
Agnost is worshipped by people of all nations. :)
>Richard Schultz
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> William Friedman <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>>There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
>
>>Please, please explain. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
>>Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
>>That's the theoretical difference, as I understand it. However, what
>>does it mean for a Being without corporeal form who has no power
>>whatsoever to exist? In all practicality, it's the same thing. (And,
>>yes, I have atheist friends who view agnostics as the ultimate
>>hypocrites.)
>
> I disagree. Agnosticism is the belief that we do not know
> if God exists, nor can we conduct a clear test to find out.
Hmm, I'm getting confused here. Maybe it's how to define the word
"know" in this context. But if it's like I "know" that I'm typing on
a keyboard, then I'm afraid I (and _everybody_ in the world) are
agnostics. I think (hope?) there's more to it than that.
"Knowing" G-d in the religious sense is _not_ the same as "knowing"
that 2+2=4.
> He may have considerable power, but must use it in such a
> way that we cannot be sure that the laws of nature have
> even been slightly tampered with.
That is what He _usually_ does.
meirm...@erols.com
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il posted:
>hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> William Friedman <hotsh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
>>
>>>Please, please explain. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
>>>Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
>>>That's the theoretical difference, as I understand it. However, what
>>>does it mean for a Being without corporeal form who has no power
>>>whatsoever to exist? In all practicality, it's the same thing. (And,
>>>yes, I have atheist friends who view agnostics as the ultimate
>>>hypocrites.)
>>
>> I disagree. Agnosticism is the belief that we do not know
>> if God exists, nor can we conduct a clear test to find out.
>
>Hmm, I'm getting confused here. Maybe it's how to define the word
>"know" in this context. But if it's like I "know" that I'm typing on
>a keyboard, then I'm afraid I (and _everybody_ in the world) are
>agnostics. I think (hope?) there's more to it than that.
>
Maybe it is just emphasis. How often do you normally mention that you
don't *know* if there's a God or not. I bet self-identified
agnostics bring it up a lot (especially devoted agnostics :) ).
Among non-Jewish agnostics, I think it also means in practice they
don't have to go to church or pray etc. I don't know much about
totally secular Jewish agnostics.
Also, it seems a lot of some kinds of Xians say that God has spoken
directly, individually to them.
>"Knowing" G-d in the religious sense is _not_ the same as "knowing"
>that 2+2=4.
>
>> He may have considerable power, but must use it in such a
>> way that we cannot be sure that the laws of nature have
>> even been slightly tampered with.
>
>That is what He _usually_ does.
>
>Moshe Schorr
>It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
meirm...@erols.com
Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> posted:
>On 1 Nov 2000, Micha Berger wrote:
>
>; On 1 Nov 2000 13:20:04 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>; : That perspective is true. But so is the reverse. After all, all of Torah
>; : -- even bein adam laMakom -- can be found in "love your neighbor as
>; : yourself".
>;
>; I was emailed by someone who missed the reference. In my reply, I went
>; off on a tangent that I'd like to share with the crowd.
>;
>; I was referring to a story where Shammai is approached by a potential
>; convert who wanted to learn the entire Torah "while standing on one leg"
>; (ie in a few minutes). Shammai turned him away. The man then went to
>; Hillel, who answered, "'Love your neighbor as yourself'. That is the
>; whole. Now go and study the details."
>;
>Not quite:
>What Hillel said was: "That which is hateful to you do not
>do to your neighbor. ...." There is a vast difference between
>the negative and positive formulations of the Golden Rule.
For the record, Love your n'bor as yourself, is not the positive
formulation of the Golden Rule. That's "Do unto others as you...".
They have difference too of course, but that's OT.
>Even though R Aqiva claimed that the precept to love one's
>neighbor is "an important rule in the Torah" (_not_ the whole!),
>it is a rule that only saints can be expected to obey. It
>certainly cannot be legislated, whereas Hillel's less demanding
>version can be used as the basis of a practical legal system.
>
>[remainder deleted]
>
> Amitai
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
meirm...@erols.com
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) posted:
>Eric Simon (er...@radix.net) wrote:
>: Person A is drowning, and Person B, who happens to be an Olympic
>: swimmer, walks by. Jewish ethics requires that B must try to help.
>: And, if person C (who can't swim) were there, person C should try to
>: convince person B to save person A.
>...
>: Kol yisroel zeh b'zeh requires that preventitive action be taken.
>
>this seems to be an example of a more basic difference between Western
>& Jewish laws: in US, law puts the onus on person's rights - ie if you
>think you are being wronged - sue the other person and get your money
>back. In Judaism, the law is about your obligations towards Hashem and
>His world in general - thus it tells you to do things that are beneficial
>for others.
When we deal with men, who are inclined to oppress others, we need
rights. When we deal with God, who loves us, we should pay attention
to our duties.
>
>I dont see, though, how this concept extends universally to cases where
>your neighbor will not be happy with your uninvited "help".
It proabably doesn't. Naomi's all or nothing view of the world
distorts the argument. It's not nothing, like she thinks it is, but I
doubt it is all either.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
This reminds me of the best question on Chumash I ever heard!
Our teacher quoted Genesis 30:14 "And Reuven went in the time of the
wheat harvest". "How could Reuven walk?" he asked, "Reuven had no
feet". We all excitedly answered him "Who says Reuvan had no feet?"
"Aha!" he said, "that is my _assumption_!"
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
And we all know someone who did choose the latter. <sigh>
Hadass Eviatar
> Hmm, I'm getting confused here. Maybe it's how to define the word
> "know" in this context. But if it's like I "know" that I'm typing on
> a keyboard, then I'm afraid I (and _everybody_ in the world) are
> agnostics. I think (hope?) there's more to it than that.
Yes, but you worship Him even though you don't have any certain proof
that He exists. An agnostic is a perfectionist - without certain proof,
he won't worship 8-).
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: This reminds me of the best question on Chumash I ever heard!
: Our teacher quoted Genesis 30:14 "And Reuven went in the time of the
: wheat harvest". "How could Reuven walk?" he asked, "Reuven had no
: feet". We all excitedly answered him "Who says Reuvan had no feet?"
:
: "Aha!" he said, "that is my _assumption_!"
Which reminds me of *two* stories:
(1) This one is from _The Essential Talmud_ by Adin Steinsaltz:
"Why is the word 'rishon' written with the letter 'peh'?"
"But the word 'rishon' *isn't* written with the letter 'peh'!"
"Just *assume* that it's written with the letter 'peh'."
"Why would you do a thing like that?"
"That's what *I* asked *you*!"
(2) This was told to me be a friend in college:
"In parshat Nitzavim, we read [Deuteronomy 29:9], 'You are all gathered
here today. . . your heads, your tribes, your elders, your magistrates,
and your kings. . .' Now how could it say that, given that there wasn't
a king at the time?"
"But it doesn't *say* 'your kings'!"
"That's *one* answer. But I know a better one."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
Micha Berger
: No, no, that's Epicureanism (Apikorsut).
Epicureanism is a narrower term than apikursus. I think you're confusing the
etymology of the Aramaic word with its definition.
-mi
docf...@my-deja.com
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
> >I'd like to see the source material for this, and how the priciple
was
> >derived, not because I don't believe you, I'm just interested in
seeing
> >where this principel comes from, and whther one could interpret it
> >differently.
>
> It's in Kedoshim: Vayikra 19:17: "Rebuke, you shall rebuke your
> neighbor, and not bear on him sin." Rashi takes the latter to modify
> the former, meaning "don't embarrass him in public [while rebuking
> him]".
>
Of course, silly me to forget this one.
> >> And indirectly, if Jew A is sinning, he is harming Jew B. How?
>
> >> a) by putting off the collective redemption, which depends on
> >> collective adherence to the Law; and
>
> >So my eating a ham sanwich keeps mashiach from coming. eh? Of
course,
> >if I were a Frankist, I could say that if we _all_ ate ham
sandwiches,
> >maybe that would hasten the coming of mashiach. :) But personally,
I
> >think I'd prefer the orgy part of Frankist practice.
>
> They're written out anyway. I don't even know if most of them were
> Jews.
>
I think at the time, most of them were Jews. Of course, they
eventually drifted away. (Well, Frank converted to catholocism after
after supporting the blood libel in Poland, that I believe the Ba'al
Shem Tov played a hand in refuting.) But, according to an essay on the
subject by Gershom Scholem I read a few years ago, secret Frankists
abounded in the Jewish community in Poland back in Frank's time, and
maybe even a bit after.
Come on, let's not deny our dirty linen. Face the facts, our wonderful
pious ancestors back in the old country sometimes did stuff we can't be
proud of..
Joe Slater
>Even though R Aqiva claimed that the precept to love one's
>neighbor is "an important rule in the Torah" (_not_ the whole!),
Wouldn't a better translation of "klal gadol batorah" be "general rule
in the Torah"?
jds
--
And now kind friends, what I have wrote,
I hope you will pass o'er,
And not criticize, as some have done,
Hitherto herebefore. (Julia Moore, "The Author's Early Life")
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>>Even though R Aqiva claimed that the precept to love one's
>>neighbor is "an important rule in the Torah" (_not_ the whole!),
>
>Wouldn't a better translation of "klal gadol batorah" be "general rule
>in the Torah"?
I don't stand on the usual principle that it's rude to use someone's
name in the header, since in this instance I tend to think I walked
into it and it's only honest to accept it, but could people please
change it when the subject gets this far off? It's one thing to be
trumpeting nasty personal headers at me when the text of your article
is that I deserve it; it's quite another when you're talking about
something else altogether.
(Shades of the Python thread: "And now for something completely
different...")
Thanks.
>jds
-Naomi
Lisa Beth
>Lisa Beth (star...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>: Have you read the first few chapters of Rambam's Hilchot Teshuva? He
>: talks about how the acts of individuals affect the whole world. But
>: on a more particularistic level, the concept of kol yisrael areivim ze
>: la'ze says that if Ploni eats a pork chop, we all get a collective
>: demerit.
>
>It is not clear to me that we can use this argument to justify
>walking in to the Ploni's room and checking whether he has pork chops
>there.
Gee, it's not clear to you? Well, it's not clear to me either.
What's also not clear to me is why you saw fit to mention this as not
being clear to you, since I certainly never said, nor even implied,
anything of the sort. That seems to be more your style than mine,
Simcha, judging from your posts wrt homosexuality.
Lisa
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>>
>>>*ANY* belief system which takes as its premise that people are
>>>permitted and required to interfere in the lives of those who are
>>>not harming them or someone who has asked for thei protection, for
>>>the subject's own good, is evil.
>>
>> This seems somewhat extreme don't you think?
>
> That's why this thread is called "Naomi's outburst". Many think she
> went overboard in her criticism.
>
>> On other lists, you have defended circumcision -- isn't that
>> "interfering" with the lives of children who are not asking for it?
>
> POW! Very interesting argument. Unfortunately, I can hear Naomi
> "recanting" and joining the anti-circs. I really hope it doesn't
> come to that!
For the record, I saw Naom's response to that. My hope came true.
She defended circumcsion on the basis that parents are responsible
for their children and constantly make decsions on their behalf.
> You can go one step further. If peson A sees person B about to kill
> person C, then person A must to everything in his power to _save_
> person C up to and _including_, killing person B.
>
> Any idea what American jurisprudence says about that.
>
> Of course, to make it more understandable, substitute A for every
> occurrence of C. (Hint: then it's called "self-defense")
I would realy like to see commnets on this.
Russell Steinthal
Under American law, there is generally not any "duty to rescue"-
unless one has some sort of special relationship to the victim, one
will generally not incur criminal or civil liability for simply
ignoring the fact that someone is about to die (assuming, of course,
that one did not cause the situation).
So in the above example, A would not incur any liability under
American law should B kill C, unless A had some special responsibility
to protect C (for example, if A was a police officer who had
specifically been warned of the danger to C from B) or to remedy or
prevent the harm (for example, if A was B's psychiatrist and had prior
warning that B was going to kill C). Of course, if A contributed to
B's actions (say, by giving him the gun), A can be held liable. Much
of this depends on state law, however. Some states, for example, have
rejected the psychiatrist example, while others would extend liability
to cover cases where A non-wrongfully caused the situation (if, for
example, C jumps in front of A's car and is injured, A may have a duty
to call for medical assistance, even if A was not originally liable
for C's injury). The general rule, however, is still absolutely
contrary to the halachic one (as stated above).
I'm not sure what the self-defense argument is supposed to prove;
self-defense is a defense against prosecution, but is not in and of
itself a legal duty--- if A is threatened with deadly force by B, A
may be allowed to kill B, but A is not required by law to do so. Nor
will failure to defend himself (as far as I can see) be ruled
suicide. (I'd be surprised to hear that the halacha, at least as
regards the last point, reaches a contrary conclusion.)
If people are *really* interested, I'll pull out my Torts text and
provide citations for the above; I doubt, however, they will be of
much interest for the relevant comparison between halacha and the
common law.
-Russell
(law student, but *not* a lawyer)
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
meirm...@erols.com
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il posted:
>er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>>
>>>*ANY* belief system which takes as its premise that people are
>>>permitted and required to interfere in the lives of those who are
>>>not harming them or someone who has asked for thei protection, for
>>>the subject's own good, is evil.
>>
But you've been complaining on scjm about merely giving advice, and
even when no one including the person advised objected. Is that
sufficient in your view to reach the level of 'interfere', or are you
retreating?.
>> This seems somewhat extreme don't you think?
>
>That's why this thread is called "Naomi's outburst". Many think she
>went overboard in her criticism.
>
>> On other lists, you have defended circumcision -- isn't that
>> "interfering" with the lives of children who are not asking for it?
>
>POW! Very interesting argument. Unfortunately, I can hear Naomi
>"recanting" and joining the anti-circs. I really hope it doesn't
>come to that!
>
>> Let me give the clearest example of "kol yisroel zeh b'zeh"
>> vis-a-vis American jurisprudence:
>>
>> Person A is drowning, and Person B, who happens to be an Olympic
>> swimmer, walks by. Jewish ethics requires that B must try to help.
>> And, if person C (who can't swim) were there, person C should try to
>> convince person B to save person A.
>>
>> Is this a bad thing?
>>
>> Under American law, of course, neither person B nor C are under any
>> obligation.
>
>You can go one step further. If peson A sees person B about to kill
>person C, then person A must to everything in his power to _save_
>person C up to and _including_, killing person B.
>
>Any idea what American jurisprudence says about that.
In New York State, where self-defense is codified, it explicitly
includes defense of oneself or another. I'm sure the common law
includes others whereever the statutes don't.
And when one takes it upon himself to lend assistence, he has a civil
duty to do so diligently and not to discourage added help from someone
who might be more competent. It might be a little stronger than that,
even.
But like eric says, B and C aren't required to do anything in the US,
or anywhere else that I know of, except wherever a Jew is standing.
Hmmm. At least among strangers. There are times where a civil duty
to not be negligent in some manner could exist, if you knew someone
was violent. For example, teachers and school systems have been sued
successfully IIRC for not attempting to stop bad behaviour by one
student against another, if he committed much more harmful acts
eventually.
I think the law is changing, however slowly, towards the Jewish
viewpoint, in great part because of Jewish plaintiff's attorneys, and
perhaps Jewish judges, and this is another example I believe of
American Jewish Liberalism being the offspring of Jewish Orthodoxy.
That is, applying the values with which Jews are obliged to treat
either people in general, or each other, to American society as a
whole. I think all the social welfare programs that Jews vote for is
another big example of that.
>Of course, to make it more understandable, substitute A for every
>occurrence of C. (Hint: then it's called "self-defense")
>
>> Suppose person A is drowning in hate, and person B can help him.
>> Shouldn't he try?
>
>Interesting analogy.
>
>> Suppose person A is about to make a _big_ mistake -- say, enter into
>> a business deal with a known crook, or send his daughter to a place
>> where sexual assaults have been taking place . . . whatever.
>>
>> Kol yisroel zeh b'zeh requires that preventitive action be taken.
>
>"action" or just to give advice? I think you went a bit overboard
>there.
Perhaps he means when there is not enough time to give advice or get
proof, or when the daughter is on her way to a party which she made
sound innocent when she talked to her parents because she herself is
too young to be worried about drugs, liquor, college boys, etc.
Themes like this occur all the time on tv and must occur once in a
while in real life. On TV and in the movies, the person who
interferes is almost always right and glamorized.
>
>Moshe Schorr
>It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
meirm...@erols.com
meirm...@erols.com posted:
>
>I think the law is changing, however slowly, towards the Jewish
>viewpoint, in great part because of Jewish plaintiff's attorneys, and
>perhaps Jewish judges, and this is another example I believe of
>American Jewish Liberalism being the offspring of Jewish Orthodoxy.
>That is, applying the values with which Jews are obliged to treat
>either people in general, or each other, to American society as a
>whole. I think all the social welfare programs that Jews vote for is
>another big example of that.
I'm thinking especially about the legal arena. This is not to say
that other than Jews don't hold these same views, and used to apply
them more outside of the courtroom. For example, although I could
use more details and I don't know how this effected the Jewish world,
I hear people talking about the time when any adult was empowered to
discipline a misbehaving child if his parents weren't there, and there
are probably lots of other things. However for one reason or another,
this didn't make it into law yet.
mpfreed...@my-deja.com
on intermarriage are extremely disturbing. More than half of American
Jews disagree with the statement that "it would pain me if my child
married a gentile" and 50% agree that it is 'racist' to oppose Jewish-
gentile marriages ! 78% want rabbinic officiation at Jewish-gentile
marriages with only 15% opposed to this !
The 1990 National Jewish Survey found unexpectedly high levels of
intermarriage and the resulting reaction (and soul-searching) amongst
American communal institutions has been very great. Latterly there has
been some questioning of these 1990 findings, but this latest poll
certainly seems to support them and will no doubt be confirmed by the
2000 National Jewish Survey currently being undertaken.
In the light of these findings the prospect demographically for the
American Jewish community is grave - the only bright spot is the growth
of the strictly Orthodox (which is probably underepresented in the
poll). The implications are enormous - not forgetting, at this time
of the Presidential Election, the ever decreasing lack of political
clout and influence of American Jewry that will inevitably occur.
Unfortunately, these trends apply not only to America but to diaspora
Jewry as a whole. In inviting comments on these dispiriting facts I
must just mention one other:- more than half of all Jewish children in
the world under the age of five now live in Israel.
Murray Freedman
Lisa Beth
<joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>>Even though R Aqiva claimed that the precept to love one's
>>neighbor is "an important rule in the Torah" (_not_ the whole!),
>
>Wouldn't a better translation of "klal gadol batorah" be "general rule
>in the Torah"?
That'd be a good translation of klal baTorah. You missed the "gadol"
part.
Lisa
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 2 Nov 2000 08:54:37 GMT
>mos...@mm.huji.ac.il posted:
>
>>er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
>>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>>>
>>>>*ANY* belief system which takes as its premise that people are
>>>>permitted and required to interfere in the lives of those who are
>>>>not harming them or someone who has asked for thei protection, for
>>>>the subject's own good, is evil.
>>>
>But you've been complaining on scjm about merely giving advice, and
>even when no one including the person advised objected. Is that
>sufficient in your view to reach the level of 'interfere', or are you
>retreating?.
If nobody being advised minds, it isn't my business. I don't recall
having ever objected (as distinguished from disagreeing with the
advice, which is different) when it was just advice and nobody being
advised minded. I have objected when the person who asked the question
directly didn't mind but the advice was addressing the subject of what
all Reform congregations should do; some members of Reform
congregations *do* mind.
I treat advice as interference under the same conditions that I treat
email as harrassment. You get to say it once. If the person being
advised requests that you cease, it becomes unwarranted interference
when you thereafter say it again. If they don't, feel free. If there
is more than one person being advised and one of them requests that
you cease, it becomes interference to advise that *that* person do
something, but not necessarily to suggest that others who have not
objected do.
-Naomi
Harry Weiss
> The results of the very recent American Jewish Committee's 2000 Survey
> on intermarriage are extremely disturbing. More than half of American
> Jews disagree with the statement that "it would pain me if my child
> married a gentile" and 50% agree that it is 'racist' to oppose Jewish-
> gentile marriages ! 78% want rabbinic officiation at Jewish-gentile
> marriages with only 15% opposed to this !
Deletions
This is to be expected. Because of what has been happening for the past
generation how many of the American "Jews" surveyed are halachically
Jewish. How many of intermarried themselves or the progeny of
intermarriage??
-- Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Anne Young
William Friedman wrote:
> On 31 Oct 2000 14:30:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
> <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >There is a monumental difference between atheism and agnosticism.
>
> Please, please explain. Atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
> Agnosticism is a belief that, should God exist, He has no power.
> That's the theoretical difference, as I understand it. However, what
> does it mean for a Being without corporeal form who has no power
> whatsoever to exist? In all practicality, it's the same thing. (And,
> yes, I have atheist friends who view agnostics as the ultimate
> hypocrites.)
>
> Will
Will, that is not the definition of agnosticism. From American Heritage
dictionary: Agnostic" One who believes that there can be no proof of the
existence of G-d, but does not deny the possibility that G-d exists. The
term was coined by Thomas Huxley, from the roots "a"- without , and the
noun "Gnostic". Gnostic is related to the Greek word Gnosis, which was
used by early Christian writers to mean a "higher, esoteric knowledge of
spiritual things"
Anne
meirm...@erols.com
nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) posted:
>On 5 Nov 2000 08:15:58 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 2 Nov 2000 08:54:37 GMT
>>mos...@mm.huji.ac.il posted:
>>
>>>er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
>>>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>*ANY* belief system which takes as its premise that people are
>>>>>permitted and required to interfere in the lives of those who are
>>>>>not harming them or someone who has asked for thei protection, for
>>>>>the subject's own good, is evil.
I would rather email about such things than post. Please let me know.
>>But you've been complaining on scjm about merely giving advice, and
>>even when no one including the person advised objected. Is that
>>sufficient in your view to reach the level of 'interfere', or are you
>>retreating?.
>
>If nobody being advised minds, it isn't my business.
But if someone does mind, it IS your business?
Is any poster here so weak he can't respond for himself?
And if you really want to do good, don't you think you could be more
effective if your words were proportional to what had happened.
Actually milder than proportional is more likely to be effective.
And if your own behaviour, your posting, was something to admire.
There are several other things but I'll stop at these.
> I don't recall
>having ever objected (as distinguished from disagreeing with the
>advice, which is different) when it was just advice and nobody being
>advised minded.
Let me refresh your recollection. Jay never objected to Simcha
offering advice, but you jumped in to criticize Simcha strongly.
In your posts regarding Simcha you used words such as threats and
violence. I pointed out that Simcha had used no threats or violence.
I may have said that without a violence modem for each of them Simcha
couldn't do anything anyhow. You didn't answer. You really didn't
need my post. Just from reading your own, you could see it obviously
didn't apply to Simcha.
> I have objected when the person who asked the question
>directly didn't mind but the advice was addressing the subject of what
>all Reform congregations should do; some members of Reform
>congregations *do* mind.
>
>I treat advice as interference under the same conditions that I treat
>email as harrassment. You get to say it once.
What do you mean "you get to say it once". When I sent you one email,
only one, you yelled at me like a banshee and threatened to complain
to my isp. A little whitewashing of your past behaviour, yes? When
I complained that you had never said not to email you, only not to
send duplicates of posts, your answer was, "I said both". But you
never apologized for your rudeness to me, and your threats, the very
thing you say you don't like.
Now you could have done what others do when they have something
important they want to say, type a line at the bottom of EACH post
saying don't email me. Better yet you could have taken your email
address out of your posts. Did you give any thought to this? I think
you would rather not warn people, except in one post in a hundred, and
then feel put upon. It gives you an opportunity to vent your anger.
>You get to say it once. If the person being
>advised requests that you cease, it becomes unwarranted interference
>when you thereafter say it again.
You don't live up to that either. When Simcha and I commented on when
a Classical Reform congregation should or should not be changed to a
Modern Reform, iirc, you NEVER requested that Simcha and I stop. Nor
had anyone else. But you called us the "personification of evil".
Then in one of the most fanciful statements I have ever seen, you said
you didn't mean it personally. What do you think PERSONification
means?
Face it, you're very very angry, your anger drives what you say, how
you say it (and how you think), then you make excuses for yourself,
rewrite your own history, and rationalize what's left of your bad
behaviour.
I don't think you are necessarily angry about any of the topics
mentioned, or anything to do with Judaism, but it is anger that makes
you consistently use extreme language for minor things. If you can't
solve the root cause of the anger, maybe you could box at the gym or
take up some other sport.
> -Naomi
Sheldon Glickler
"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <nri...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3a053a4...@news.cris.com...
> On 5 Nov 2000 08:15:58 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
> >In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 2 Nov 2000 08:54:37 GMT
> >mos...@mm.huji.ac.il posted:
> >
> >>er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
> >>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>*ANY* belief system which takes as its premise that people are
> >>>>permitted and required to interfere in the lives of those who are
> >>>>not harming them or someone who has asked for thei protection, for
> >>>>the subject's own good, is evil.
> >>>
> >But you've been complaining on scjm about merely giving advice, and
> >even when no one including the person advised objected. Is that
> >sufficient in your view to reach the level of 'interfere', or are you
> >retreating?.
>
> If nobody being advised minds, it isn't my business. I don't recall
> having ever objected (as distinguished from disagreeing with the
> advice, which is different) when it was just advice and nobody being
> advised minded. I have objected when the person who asked the question
> directly didn't mind but the advice was addressing the subject of what
> all Reform congregations should do; some members of Reform
> congregations *do* mind.
I assume you refer here to someone like Simcha who says that Reform
congregations should remove the word "Temple" from their name or his
discussions of changing the practices of a congregation and what of its
property rights. In that case it is a simple matter. Simcha (I only use
him here as the example) can "advise" all he wants. It is not harassment as
he does does this in a public forum --- and it is his **right** to do so.
It simply falls on deaf ears as just so much stuff-and-nonsense. We can
**always** killfile him if it bothers us. So long as he is powerless and
has no likelihood of ever gaining that power, it is a voice in the dark to
be ignored when it comes to what we **should** do. Notice, also, the use of
the term "we". Last I recalled, you were not included in the "we" of
"Reform congregations", so I think I have more authority to speak on
**that** subject vis-a-vis "harassment".
> I treat advice as interference under the same conditions that I treat
> email as harrassment. You get to say it once. If the person being
> advised requests that you cease, it becomes unwarranted interference
> when you thereafter say it again. If they don't, feel free. If there
> is more than one person being advised and one of them requests that
> you cease, it becomes interference to advise that *that* person do
> something, but not necessarily to suggest that others who have not
> objected do.
Let me direct you to www.m-w-com for:
Main Entry: ig·nore
Pronunciation: ig-'nOr, -'nor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ig·nored; ig·nor·ing
Etymology: obsolete ignore to be ignorant of, from French ignorer, from
Latin ignorare, from ignarus ignorant, unknown, from in- + gnoscere, noscere
to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1801
1 : to refuse to take notice of
Kill files and email rules for incoming messages work wonders.
Shelly
>
> -Naomi
Craig Winchell
It should hardly be surprising that most of the Jewish world has come to
embrace intermarriage. Far from your contention that Jews will lose
political clout, this guarantees that "Jewish" political clout increases,
due to the larger number of demographic "Jews". It should also not be
surprising that such intermarriage is occurring in galus, given that Hash-m
specifically said that during our time in galus, the ranks of the Jewish
people would be decimated. How better to decimate our people than
intermarriage? We are fast becoming few in number, and if I had a
messianic nature, I'd say that we were heading towards imminent redemption.
Since I'm not of a messianic nature, I believe it will take a few more (I
can't know how many) generations until we are redeemed. However, given the
decreases in the ranks of "real" Jews, it is only a matter of time.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
mpfreed...@my-deja.com wrote in article
<8u3ukb$boi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 6 Nov 2000 02:50:44 GMT
>nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) posted:
>
>>On 5 Nov 2000 08:15:58 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 2 Nov 2000 08:54:37 GMT
>>>mos...@mm.huji.ac.il posted:
>>>
>>>>er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
>>>>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>*ANY* belief system which takes as its premise that people are
>>>>>>permitted and required to interfere in the lives of those who are
>>>>>>not harming them or someone who has asked for thei protection, for
>>>>>>the subject's own good, is evil.
>
>
>I would rather email about such things than post. Please let me know.
No. I've already said this once this thread, directly to you, in
response to the same request.
>>>But you've been complaining on scjm about merely giving advice, and
>>>even when no one including the person advised objected. Is that
>>>sufficient in your view to reach the level of 'interfere', or are you
>>>retreating?.
>>
>>If nobody being advised minds, it isn't my business.
>
>But if someone does mind, it IS your business?
If it's advice directed at me and I mind it is my business. if it's
directed at anyone who minds who wishes my help, it's my business.
>Is any poster here so weak he can't respond for himself?
That's up to him.
>And if you really want to do good, don't you think you could be more
>effective if your words were proportional to what had happened.
>Actually milder than proportional is more likely to be effective.
>And if your own behaviour, your posting, was something to admire.
>There are several other things but I'll stop at these.
All of which are glaringly applicable to the typical Orthodox "rebuke"
here, so thank you for making the point I've been trying to make for
months.
>> I don't recall
>>having ever objected (as distinguished from disagreeing with the
>>advice, which is different) when it was just advice and nobody being
>>advised minded.
>
>Let me refresh your recollection. Jay never objected to Simcha
>offering advice, but you jumped in to criticize Simcha strongly.
Simcha was not only syaing what Jay should do. He was saying what any
and all Reform congregations should do. I am a member of a Reform
congregation; it was therefore partly directed at me, telling me how I
am permitted to behave in the context of my own synagogue board.
>In your posts regarding Simcha you used words such as threats and
>violence. I pointed out that Simcha had used no threats or violence.
>I may have said that without a violence modem for each of them Simcha
>couldn't do anything anyhow. You didn't answer. You really didn't
>need my post. Just from reading your own, you could see it obviously
>didn't apply to Simcha.
Simcha's said on various occasions that he wants to imprison people
there is no legal right to imprison, because he doesn't like the
political party of which they are a member. That's a threat to anyone
who doesn't share his politics.
>> I have objected when the person who asked the question
>>directly didn't mind but the advice was addressing the subject of what
>>all Reform congregations should do; some members of Reform
>>congregations *do* mind.
>>
>>I treat advice as interference under the same conditions that I treat
>>email as harrassment. You get to say it once.
>
>What do you mean "you get to say it once". When I sent you one email,
>only one, you yelled at me like a banshee and threatened to complain
>to my isp. A little whitewashing of your past behaviour, yes?
No whitewashing. A straightforward change of policy because you and
others who pointed this out were right. I said that elsewhere in this
thread in so many words and apologized.
>When
>I complained that you had never said not to email you, only not to
>send duplicates of posts, your answer was, "I said both". But you
>never apologized for your rudeness to me, and your threats, the very
>thing you say you don't like.
You are incorrect that I did not apologize. Perhaps you haven't seen
it.
>Now you could have done what others do when they have something
>important they want to say, type a line at the bottom of EACH post
>saying don't email me. Better yet you could have taken your email
>address out of your posts. Did you give any thought to this? I think
>you would rather not warn people, except in one post in a hundred, and
>then feel put upon. It gives you an opportunity to vent your anger.
Wrong. There are several newsgroups which do not focus on nasty debate
from which I enjoy getting email. Because of this, I would rather not
put in a generic signature file saying that nobody should email me,
because it would take out the good as well as the bad. Same with
altering my address.
>>You get to say it once. If the person being
>>advised requests that you cease, it becomes unwarranted interference
>>when you thereafter say it again.
>
>You don't live up to that either. When Simcha and I commented on when
>a Classical Reform congregation should or should not be changed to a
>Modern Reform, iirc, you NEVER requested that Simcha and I stop. Nor
>had anyone else.
I asid, repeatedly, that it was an internal matter for the
congregation and not for anyone else to decide. What on earth do you
think that means other than "stop trying to decide on our behalf?"
>But you called us the "personification of evil".
>Then in one of the most fanciful statements I have ever seen, you said
>you didn't mean it personally. What do you think PERSONification
>means?
Then I misspoke. Epitome, perhaps, is a better word. The philosophy is
evil; the people are only insofar as they behave in accordance with
the philosophy.
>Face it, you're very very angry, your anger drives what you say, how
>you say it (and how you think), then you make excuses for yourself,
>rewrite your own history, and rationalize what's left of your bad
>behaviour.
Sure I'm angry. When injustice is being done, decent people get angry.
I make no excuses at this point -- excuses are an attempt to keep the
peace and you aren't worth keeping the peace with anymore.
>I don't think you are necessarily angry about any of the topics
>mentioned, or anything to do with Judaism, but it is anger that makes
>you consistently use extreme language for minor things. If you can't
>solve the root cause of the anger, maybe you could box at the gym or
>take up some other sport.
If I weren't angry at the brutal way my own people seem to treat each
other and everyone around them, I would go react to whatever I *was*
angry at. Since there are only two topics I consistently get ticked
off about -- what other people in the world are doing, unjustly, to
Jews and what Jews are doing, unjustly, to other people -- I'd say it
has more to do with Judaism than you're comfortable admitting.
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <nri...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:3a053a4...@news.cris.com...
>> On 5 Nov 2000 08:15:58 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> >In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 2 Nov 2000 08:54:37 GMT
>> >mos...@mm.huji.ac.il posted:
>> >
>> >>er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
>> >>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>*ANY* belief system which takes as its premise that people are
>> >>>>permitted and required to interfere in the lives of those who are
>> >>>>not harming them or someone who has asked for thei protection, for
>> >>>>the subject's own good, is evil.
>> >>>
>> >But you've been complaining on scjm about merely giving advice, and
>> >even when no one including the person advised objected. Is that
>> >sufficient in your view to reach the level of 'interfere', or are you
>> >retreating?.
>>
>> If nobody being advised minds, it isn't my business. I don't recall
>> having ever objected (as distinguished from disagreeing with the
>> advice, which is different) when it was just advice and nobody being
>> advised minded. I have objected when the person who asked the question
>> directly didn't mind but the advice was addressing the subject of what
>> all Reform congregations should do; some members of Reform
>> congregations *do* mind.
>
>I assume you refer here to someone like Simcha who says that Reform
>congregations should remove the word "Temple" from their name or his
>discussions of changing the practices of a congregation and what of its
>property rights. In that case it is a simple matter. Simcha (I only use
>him here as the example) can "advise" all he wants. It is not harassment as
>he does does this in a public forum --- and it is his **right** to do so.
Certainly, as it is his right to say anything else short of shouting
fire in a crowded theater. That does not mean I think it is morally
decent for him to do so, nor that I think any faith which requires him
to do so can be morally decent as a whole.
>It simply falls on deaf ears as just so much stuff-and-nonsense. We can
>**always** killfile him if it bothers us. So long as he is powerless and
>has no likelihood of ever gaining that power, it is a voice in the dark to
>be ignored when it comes to what we **should** do. Notice, also, the use of
>the term "we". Last I recalled, you were not included in the "we" of
>"Reform congregations", so I think I have more authority to speak on
>**that** subject vis-a-vis "harassment".
I am a member of a Reform Congregation. I don't consider myself
Reform, but this is the synagogue within walking distance as well as
being the one I love. I don't consider myself a relevant player in
questions of the Reform movement's policies or theology, but I do in
questions regarding the rights of Reform congregations because I want
my own congregation to be free to manage its own affais unmolested.
>Kill files and email rules for incoming messages work wonders.
Certainly. That's not the question. If I am capable of defending
myself against physical assault or rape, does that man it is morally
okay to try to rape me? The fact that I have means at my disposal to
counteract an objectionable behavior does not render tht behavoir any
less objectionable.
-Naomi
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: In that case it is a simple matter. Simcha (I only use
: him here as the example) can "advise" all he wants. It is not harassment as
: he does does this in a public forum --- and it is his **right** to do so.
: It simply falls on deaf ears as just so much stuff-and-nonsense. We can
: **always** killfile him if it bothers us.
A friend of mine once used what I think is a useful analogy. If you're
walking down the street and you see a crazy person preaching about the
end of the world or how Steven King conspired with Richard Nixon to
assassinate John Lennon, if you have any sense at all, you don't argue
with the person -- you just cross the street to avoid him. Similarly,
there is no rule on Usenet that you have to pay any attention to people
who are annoying you. In fact, by killfiling them, you make them
disappear entirely -- Usenet as the solipsist's paradise.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Maybe we need to stop thinking of this as a Mideast crisis and just think
of it as Mideast culture."
-- quoted in _The Onion_, 18 Oct 2000
Russell Steinthal
>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>>mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>> er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
>>>>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can go one step further. If peson A sees person B about to kill
>>>> person C, then person A must to everything in his power to _save_
>>>> person C up to and _including_, killing person B.
>>>>
>>>> Any idea what American jurisprudence says about that.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, to make it more understandable, substitute A for every
>>>> occurrence of C. (Hint: then it's called "self-defense")
>>>
>>>I would realy like to see commnets on this.
>>
>> Under American law, there is generally not any "duty to rescue"-
>> unless one has some sort of special relationship to the victim, one
>> will generally not incur criminal or civil liability for simply
>> ignoring the fact that someone is about to die (assuming, of course,
>> that one did not cause the situation).
>
>_kill_ B in order to save C (with no other factors involved) will A
>be liable for prosecution?
>
>The point of the self-defense argument was the following question;
>If A kills B to save A will he be liable to prosecution? From what
>you wrote about about A's _relationship_ to C, I can see that it
>would be different.
>
>AFAIK in halacha, not only would A be _not_ liable to prosecution in
>the firt case, he is _required_ to kill B to save C.
Ok, I think I see the question now. With regard to the first part of
the question, there is no practical difference in the standards: as
far as I know, all U.S. states would permit defense of another
person's life as a defense to murder, albeit with some caveats (for
example, there must not have been any other alternative: in some
states, the victim has an obligation to retreat if he or she can do so
with safety).
[the following is a brief summary of the relevant American law which
is probably still too long- feel free to skip it]
The Model Penal Code (on which a majority of state's penal laws are
fashioned, albeit with some changes in almost all cases), provides
that deadly force is justifiable when it is necessary to "protect
[oneself] against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual
intercourse compelled by force or threat." It is *not* justifiable,
however, if the actor provoked the initial use of force against him
(with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm), or if the
actor knows that he can avoid the need to use force, with complete
safety, by retreating or surrendering possession of an item to a
person asserting a claim of right thereto or complying with a demand
that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take. And as
an exception to that exception, one does not have a duty to retreat
from one's dwelling or place of work before using deadly force. MPC
3.04 (b).
MPC 3.05 provides, in essence, that a third party is justified in
using deadly force to protect a victim if he (the third party)
reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to protect the
victim and reasonably believes that the victim would otherwise be
justified in using comparable force under the preceding section. If
the victim would be required to retreat, surrender an object, etc.,
the third party must try to inform the victim of that possibility
before using force. The third party himself is *not* obligated to
retreat, even if he could achieve complete safety for himself, unless
he can also achieve complete safety for the victim by the same action.
[end summary, return to topicality :) ]
So my conclusions are as follows:
(1) The defense of self-defense (what the MPC calls the justifiable
use of force for self-protection) is basically the same as in halacha,
although the American statutes typically require some sort of showing
that there wasn't a better course of action, such as retreat. (Does
that have a halachic analogue?)
(2) My original conclusion, however, with respect to the duty of
rescue stands- most U.S. jurisdictions would not require a third party
to act to save a random victim of a violent crime, and would not
impose civil or criminal liability for failure to do so. In that, the
rule is clearly contrary to (more lenient than) halacha.
-Russell
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
>>>Even though R Aqiva claimed that the precept to love one's
>>>neighbor is "an important rule in the Torah" (_not_ the whole!),
>>
>>Wouldn't a better translation of "klal gadol batorah" be "general rule
>>in the Torah"?
>
> I don't stand on the usual principle that it's rude to use someone's
> name in the header, since in this instance I tend to think I walked
> into it and it's only honest to accept it, but could people please
> change it when the subject gets this far off? It's one thing to be
> trumpeting nasty personal headers at me when the text of your article
> is that I deserve it; it's quite another when you're talking about
> something else altogether.
Naomi, I must say, I give you a lot of credit for what you say in
this post.
Since I "followed", the title will be what you made it.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> [ Moderator's Comment: How about letting this drop now, rather than
> allowing it to develop into
> an exchange that would be best handled via email.
> ]
Except tha Naomi has _forbidden_ us to send her e-mail. <sigh>
> "Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <nri...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>
>> In Shelly's case, however, this wasn't the first time and it wasn't
>> the second time. It's possible he simply forgot in between, it's been
>> a while, but it's a slightly different case from someone who had never
>> been told personally and individually please not to take newsgroup
>> discussions to my mailbox.
>
> If it makes you any happier, I have no such recollection.
Shelly, welcome to the club! :-) or more accurately :-(
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) writes:
>> Joe Slater <joeDEL...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>>Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>>>Even though R Aqiva claimed that the precept to love one's
>>>>neighbor is "an important rule in the Torah" (_not_ the whole!),
>>>
>>>Wouldn't a better translation of "klal gadol batorah" be "general rule
>>>in the Torah"?
>>
>> I don't stand on the usual principle that it's rude to use someone's
>> name in the header, since in this instance I tend to think I walked
>> into it and it's only honest to accept it, but could people please
>> change it when the subject gets this far off? It's one thing to be
>> trumpeting nasty personal headers at me when the text of your article
>> is that I deserve it; it's quite another when you're talking about
>> something else altogether.
>
>Naomi, I must say, I give you a lot of credit for what you say in
>this post.
Thank you. I'm not quite sure why, but thank you.
>Since I "followed", the title will be what you made it.
<nod> This is on a subject which had to do with me; I have no problem
with that. I just think that the whole discussion about general rules
in the Torah, while fascinating, probably belong under their own
title.
>Moshe Schorr
>It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> writes:
>> [ Moderator's Comment: How about letting this drop now, rather than
>> allowing it to develop into
>> an exchange that would be best handled via email.
>> ]
>
>Except tha Naomi has _forbidden_ us to send her e-mail. <sigh>
Personally, I think the topic's been worked into the ground and am
dropping it, but feel free to continue without me for as long as the
moderators will let you, if yu like.
-Naomi
Anne Young
Hadass Eviatar wrote:
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > Hmm, I'm getting confused here. Maybe it's how to define the word
> > "know" in this context. But if it's like I "know" that I'm typing on
> > a keyboard, then I'm afraid I (and _everybody_ in the world) are
> > agnostics. I think (hope?) there's more to it than that.
>
> Yes, but you worship Him even though you don't have any certain proof
> that He exists. An agnostic is a perfectionist - without certain proof,
> he won't worship 8-).
>
> Kol tuv, Hadass
>
Not necessarily. There are many people who don't "know" if G-d exists, but
worship anyway. Was it Pascal who said [very paraphrased} "I can't know if
G-d exists , or not, so I might as well behave as if G-d does exist?"
Anne
Lisa Beth
>The results of the very recent American Jewish Committee's 2000 Survey
>on intermarriage are extremely disturbing. More than half of American
>Jews disagree with the statement that "it would pain me if my child
>married a gentile" and 50% agree that it is 'racist' to oppose Jewish-
>gentile marriages ! 78% want rabbinic officiation at Jewish-gentile
>marriages with only 15% opposed to this !
It's the whole "demand driven religion" thing. It's making a virtue
of a necessity. Most of these people can't explain why it should be
wrong to intermarry, so they're left supporting it. It's tragic, but
not shocking at all.
The good news, in a twisted sort of way, is that a large and growing
percentage of the respondants in this survey aren't actually Jewish.
So it's not *quite* as bad as it seems. Horrible, but not *quite* as
bad.
>Unfortunately, these trends apply not only to America but to diaspora
>Jewry as a whole. In inviting comments on these dispiriting facts I
>must just mention one other:- more than half of all Jewish children in
>the world under the age of five now live in Israel.
Way, way, *way* more than half. And the only thing about that which I
find dispiriting at all is the fact that education in Israel sux.
Lisa
--
I take responsibility:
I will be voting for Moshe Feiglin in the Likud primaries.
Ask me how you can, too.
Shoshana L. Boublil
Rivkis) wrote:
>On 1 Nov 2000 14:41:12 GMT, star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
>That works so long as one takes as a matter of faith that collective
>punishment is actually a form of justice. To my way of thinking,
>anything that punishes innocent people for any reason is unjust,
>therefore we're back to square one: there's no justice in the world.
>
>>Lisa
>
> -Naomi
While it may not be much comfort to many, Judaism assumes that Justice
is not limited to this world -- there is a World To Come (post death)
where true justice is given.
Another aspect of this is that justice is a subjective matter. What
may seem harsh and unusual punishment to one (the sufferer) may appear
to be no more than a "problem" in life to the observer.
In Judaism there is a punishment "Biyidei Shamayim" by the Hands of
Hashem. This is considered a very severe punishment. This is
especially so in cases where human evidence can't bring a killer to
justice (for example). If the person is indeed a murderer -- he/she
may appear to get away with it here on earth, but in fact they will be
served justice, either in this world or the next -- and we as fellow
humans may not even be aware of what happened.
So, to sum things up -- I don't attempt to be Hashem's accountant here
on earth, and I try to limit myself to wondering about my own actions.
Shoshana L. Boublil
Simcha Streltsov
: >It is not clear to me that we can use this argument to justify
: >there.
: Gee, it's not clear to you? Well, it's not clear to me either.
: What's also not clear to me is why you saw fit to mention this as not
: being clear to you, since I certainly never said, nor even implied,
: anything of the sort.
I tried to relay your point to the discussed topic. Were I want to
attack your position directly, I could have done so.
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
sim...@bu.edu all punctuation marks in this article
are equivalent to (-:
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>> er...@radix.net (Eric Simon) writes:
>>>> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>>
>>> You can go one step further. If peson A sees person B about to kill
>>> person C, then person A must to everything in his power to _save_
>>> person C up to and _including_, killing person B.
>>>
>>> Any idea what American jurisprudence says about that.
>>>
>>> Of course, to make it more understandable, substitute A for every
>>> occurrence of C. (Hint: then it's called "self-defense")
>>
>>I would realy like to see commnets on this.
>
> Under American law, there is generally not any "duty to rescue"-
> unless one has some sort of special relationship to the victim, one
> will generally not incur criminal or civil liability for simply
> ignoring the fact that someone is about to die (assuming, of course,
> that one did not cause the situation).
Thanks for responding. I'm asking a more serious question. If A does
_kill_ B in order to save C (with no other factors involved) will A
be liable for prosecution?
The point of the self-defense argument was the following question;
If A kills B to save A will he be liable to prosecution? From what
you wrote about about A's _relationship_ to C, I can see that it
would be different.
AFAIK in halacha, not only would A be _not_ liable to prosecution in
the firt case, he is _required_ to kill B to save C.
remainder snipped as it seems to address the case where A did _not_
kill B.
Lisa Beth
>"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> writes:
>> [ Moderator's Comment: How about letting this drop now, rather than
>> allowing it to develop into
>> an exchange that would be best handled via email.
>> ]
>
>Except tha Naomi has _forbidden_ us to send her e-mail. <sigh>
Which leaves people in the situation of actually not being able to
pursue the subject with her. Which is not the end of the world, you
know. Just a test of self-control.
>> "Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <nri...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> In Shelly's case, however, this wasn't the first time and it wasn't
>>> the second time. It's possible he simply forgot in between, it's been
>>> a while, but it's a slightly different case from someone who had never
>>> been told personally and individually please not to take newsgroup
>>> discussions to my mailbox.
>>
>> If it makes you any happier, I have no such recollection.
>
>Shelly, welcome to the club! :-) or more accurately :-(
I've seen her say it on innumerous occasions, and I don't read every
single post she writes.
Simcha Streltsov
: > directly didn't mind but the advice was addressing the subject of what
: > all Reform congregations should do; some members of Reform
: > congregations *do* mind.
: I assume you refer here to someone like Simcha who says that Reform
: congregations should remove the word "Temple" from their name or his
: discussions of changing the practices of a congregation and what of its
: property rights. In that case it is a simple matter. Simcha (I only use
: him here as the example) can "advise" all he wants. It is not harassment as
: he does does this in a public forum --- and it is his **right** to do so.
: It simply falls on deaf ears as just so much stuff-and-nonsense.
I agree with you here. Although, we are also free to ignore (and
moderators are free to strike out) the cries about violent
attacks on temples on the net!
btw, the reason I repeat this "nonsense" is
that I never got a satisfying answer to the question. And, imho,
the reason you seem them as "nonsense" is your refusal to look at
things without a pre-conceived notion of what the result should be:
ie, I know we our proud members of "temple X", and we did nothing
wrong, thus anyone who questions it, makes no sense ...
Simcha Streltsov
: Jews disagree with the statement that "it would pain me if my child
: married a gentile" and 50% agree that it is 'racist' to oppose Jewish-
: gentile marriages ! 78% want rabbinic officiation at Jewish-gentile
: marriages with only 15% opposed to this !
AFAIK, the decline is not homogeneous: while some groups assimilate
rapidly, others go in the other direction.
It also may be that the results of the survey double- or triple- count
the losses - if 1 guy intermarries, his children may be also counted in
the survey as Jews who favor intermarriage - and not surprisingly
each next generation in such a family is more and more willing to
intermarry! Or, as one respondent explained why he is not against
intermarriage - hey, my mother is not Jewish, my father's mother
is not Jewish, my father's father's mother is not Jewish - it
is our TRADITION!
Simcha Streltsov
: Simcha's said on various occasions that he wants to imprison people
: there is no legal right to imprison, because he doesn't like the
: political party of which they are a member. That's a threat to anyone
: who doesn't share his politics.
to clarify - I only advocated 2 things that may not always
coincide:
a) applying all possible legal and political actions against
people who are or who help murdererd
b) applying Jewish laws of rodef (pursuer) to the same people.
admit that (b) may sometimes lead to actions not legal in a
country of residence - and I welcome anyone who could clarify
what is Jewishly-legal in this context. I am not sure why anyone
should be against (a) or (b).
OTOH, if you are not an accessory to murder, you don't have to worry.
Hadass Eviatar
> Not necessarily. There are many people who don't "know" if G-d exists, but
> worship anyway. Was it Pascal who said [very paraphrased} "I can't know if
> G-d exists , or not, so I might as well behave as if G-d does exist?"
> Anne
Hi Anne! Nice to see you here 8-). I don't know *anybody* who actually
knows, of their own knowledge, that G-d exists, although many of us
catch glimpses that would strongly incline us that way. But I equally
don't know anybody who worships G-d but calls herself an agnostic,
Pascal's wager nonewithstanding ... maybe we need to define "worship".
Kol tuv, Hadass
--
Hadass Eviatar
Winnipeg, Canada
http://www.superhwy.net/~eviatar
Sheldon Glickler
> Simcha was not only syaing what Jay should do. He was saying what any
> and all Reform congregations should do. I am a member of a Reform
> congregation; it was therefore partly directed at me, telling me how I
> am permitted to behave in the context of my own synagogue board.
In another post I stated that you were not a member of a Reform congregation
in making a comment. I see now that I was in error. Please accept my
apology for that error and please disregard that portion of the other post
as inapplicable.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
"Simcha Streltsov" <sim...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:8u6ndj$1ki$2...@news3.bu.edu...
As I have said before, you are entitled to your (pre-conceived) views.
Shelly
Hadass Eviatar
>
> I don't stand on the usual principle that it's rude to use someone's
> name in the header, since in this instance I tend to think I walked
> into it and it's only honest to accept it,
Since I was the one who put your name in the header, I apologise. I
certainly had no idea it would propagate this far.
but could people please
> change it when the subject gets this far off? It's one thing to be
> trumpeting nasty personal headers at me when the text of your article
> is that I deserve it; it's quite another when you're talking about
> something else altogether.
My original text was actually one of concern. But I hereby change the
header, and hope others will. I apologise for my breach of Netiquette.
Hadass Eviatar
>
> Which reminds me of *two* stories:
>
> (1) This one is from _The Essential Talmud_ by Adin Steinsaltz:
>
> "Why is the word 'rishon' written with the letter 'peh'?"
> "But the word 'rishon' *isn't* written with the letter 'peh'!"
> "Just *assume* that it's written with the letter 'peh'."
> "Why would you do a thing like that?"
> "That's what *I* asked *you*!"
>
> (2) This was told to me be a friend in college:
>
> "In parshat Nitzavim, we read [Deuteronomy 29:9], 'You are all gathered
> here today. . . your heads, your tribes, your elders, your magistrates,
> and your kings. . .' Now how could it say that, given that there wasn't
> a king at the time?"
>
> "But it doesn't *say* 'your kings'!"
>
> "That's *one* answer. But I know a better one."
Positively Zen. I didn't know there were Jewish koans, but on second
thought, I shouldn't be surprised.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>btw, the reason I repeat this "nonsense" is
>that I never got a satisfying answer to the question.
The answer to the uestion is: "Until you become a member of a Reform
synagogue, the behavior of Reform synagogues is not your business to
care about or demand answers for. If you become a member of a Reform
synagogue, the behavior of *that* one synagogue does become your
business and you may demand an accounting from it, but the behavior of
others of which you are not members is still not your business."
I can't help it if this answer doesn't satisfy you, nor does it much
matter if you aren't satisfied. It isn't your business anyway.
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>Anne Young wrote:
>> Not necessarily. There are many people who don't "know" if G-d exists, but
>> worship anyway. Was it Pascal who said [very paraphrased} "I can't know if
>> G-d exists , or not, so I might as well behave as if G-d does exist?"
>> Anne
>
>Hi Anne! Nice to see you here 8-). I don't know *anybody* who actually
>knows, of their own knowledge, that G-d exists, although many of us
>catch glimpses that would strongly incline us that way. But I equally
>don't know anybody who worships G-d but calls herself an agnostic,
>Pascal's wager nonewithstanding ... maybe we need to define "worship".
Till about three weeks ago, me. I have several friends who do, though
you might not agree with their variety of worship.
>Kol tuv, Hadass
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Apology accepted. It's an easy mistake to make, since I've said that I
don't consider myself Reform. It's just that this particular synagogue
is "home" to me for the last twelve years; I don't much care what
denomination it is.
>Shelly
-Naomi
Hadass Eviatar
But what/whom are they worshipping? The Force?
med...@shore.net
Funny, for a person who is all for "non-interference", you seem to
constantly tell people what IS their business and what isn't.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Yes, when what they do is directed at me. If it is directed only at
others who consent, it is not *my* business, and I stay out. hat part
of "your right to wave your fist around stops where my face begins"
don't you understand?
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Nov 2000 17:12:18 GMT, Hadass Eviatar <evi...@superhwy.net>
>> wrote:
>> I don't know *anybody* who actually
>> >knows, of their own knowledge, that G-d exists, although many of us
>> >catch glimpses that would strongly incline us that way. But I equally
>> >don't know anybody who worships G-d but calls herself an agnostic,
>> >Pascal's wager nonewithstanding ... maybe we need to define "worship".
>>
>> Till about three weeks ago, me. I have several friends who do, though
>> you might not agree with their variety of worship.
>
>But what/whom are they worshipping? The Force?
They worship G-d as they conceive Him and hope He is, but are not
sure.
>Kol tuv, Hadass
-Naomi
Simcha Streltsov
: The answer to the uestion is: "Until you become a member of a Reform
: synagogue, the behavior of Reform synagogues is not your business to
: care about or demand answers for. If you become a member of a Reform
: synagogue, the behavior of *that* one synagogue does become your
: business and you may demand an accounting from it, but the behavior of
: others of which you are not members is still not your business."
: I can't help it if this answer doesn't satisfy you, nor does it much
: matter if you aren't satisfied. It isn't your business anyway.
your answer makes a lot of sense: and it's first part seems to supports
my humble conclusion that people who joined temples and disagree with
the idea behind the name should do something to change it.
as to your second part, I assume that you'd object me coming to
a temple board of directors and talking out of order, not to my
raising an issue in a discussion group.
med...@shore.net
Ok let's see - Simcha stated something about Reform temples in general -
NOT your particular one. You told him it's "none of his business".
You keep professing that "non-interference" thing on this NG - that is,
if you're not asked for advice specifically, you don't give it - right?
I didn't see Simcha asking you to define for him what his business is -
so why are you interfering in his musings?
As for "your right to wave your fist around stops where my face
begins" - according to your "none of your business" remarks, your
face is incredibly wide and almost all-encompassing...