Force feeding geese for pate
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
From: bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
Subject: Re: March 15 is International Eat Animals for PETA Day
Message-ID: <2005Mar16.170158@hujicc>
Date: 16 Mar 2005 17:01:58 GMT
References: <ozLXd.11651$nV3....@fe09.lga> <1110436136....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <zURXd.87235$H05....@twister.nyroc.rr.com> <1110476024.1...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <s42Yd.6575$cN6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1110512839....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <_kPYd.7909$oO4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> <zJ_Yd.132118$nC5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com> <kc0Zd.9448$cN6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <6B2Zd.70574$vK5....@twister.nyroc <d190sg$g48$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>
Followup-To: <d190sg$g48$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>
Organization: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Lines: 113
In article <d190sg$g48$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>, "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:H7IZd.94021$H05....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>>
>> "Marc Andrews" <nom...@me.pls> wrote in message
>> news:d15ucj$n6s$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> >
>> > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:6B2Zd.70574$vK5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Shlomo said that poskim (halachic decisors) have pronounced that
> it is
>> > > halachically permissible, which means, among other things, that
> the
>> torah
>> > > does not forbid it, and that which is not forbidden is
> permitted.
>> > >
>> > > >He said the pate from force-fed geese tastes
>> > > > good--which may have been his bad joke.
>> > >
>> > > I'm sure it tastes wonderful. So does steak.
>> > >
>> > > >I doubt the Torah says anything about force
>> > > > feeding of geese, but there are statements in the Torah that
> show the
>> > > ancient Hebrews
>> > > > were very much concerned with animal welfare and that animals
> be not
>> > > treated cruely.
>> > >
>> > > The torah either permits or forbids period.
>> >
>> > So what? It may not be against halacha, but does that mean that no
> one can
>> > discuss it, or oppose the practice?
>> --------------
>> I never said no one should discuss it, nor did I suggest that I had
> a
>> problem with someone's being opposed to it on an individual basis.
> In fact,
>> I posted that I personally found the practice cruel and would not
> eat the
>> pate. That's not the problem. If the poster's position had been "It
>> troubles me. I don't want to eat it," I wouldn't have responded as I
> did.
>> But his position (essentially) was "*No one* should be allowed to
> eat it
>> because *I* say it's cruel, and PETA backs me up on this, and the
> poskim are
>> wrong, and it's anti-torah." This is my issue. I always take issue
> whenever
>> laypeople take the position that they are more Judaically
> knowledgable than
>> our poskim (halachic decisors) and assur (forbid) as being
> *anti-torah,*
>> what our poskim have mutared (permitted). I also take issue with the
> notion
>> that poskim are obligated to follow the recommendations of PETA.
>> Best regards,
>> ---Cindy S.
>
> My understanding (and I think it comes from one of Chano's posts) is
> that pat=E9 de fois gras is assur because the force-feeding causes
> perforations in the goose's stomach which makes it treif.
Read carefully:
Based on a biblical verse (Exodus 23:5), the Talmud (Shabbat 128b; Bava
Metzia 32b) prohibits cruelty to animals and this prohibition was
codified by the Rambam (Hilchot Rotzeach 13:1) and the Shulchan Aruch
(Choshen Mishpat 272:9). However, the Rema (Even HaEzer 5:14) indicates
that if there is any human need, the prohibition is
overturned (see also: Biur haGRA there s"k 40, and the Noda B'Yehuda
Mahadura Tinyana Yoreh Deah 10 as brought in the Pitchei Tshuva YD 28
s"k 10). See also: Shvut Yaakov III 71, Chelkat Yaakov I 30, Sridei
Eish III 7, Chiddushei Chatam Sofer on Messechet Shabbat 154b, Binyan
Tzion 108, Tzitz Eliezer XIV 68, and the Trumat haDeshen
Psakim uKtavim 105.
FORCE FEEDING GEESE
It just so happens that force feeding geese may induce a state
of *neveila* rendering the animal not kosher (See Shulchan Aruch Yoreh
Deah, Hilchot Treifot 33:3 re: "turbez ha'veshet" [perforation of the
pharynx] and YD 33:8 in the Rema. HOWEVER: the Rema in the next
paragraph 33:8 rules leniently re: geese that are force fed since "it
has been the custom in our city [Krakow] to be lenient in the case of
geese that are being fed by hand for the purpose of
fattening them because there is an ordinance in the city which
requires that geese be examined for perforations of the esophagus..".
The TAZ there explains why it is permitted to force feed the geese.
HOWEVER: he requires that only finely ground food is fed to the
geese to prevent any perforations.
Josh
>
> --=20
> Henry Goodman
> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
>
>
Eliyahu Rooff
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:d19j1d$h6b$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> Path: vms.huji.ac.il!backon
<a dozen extra lines of header stuff snipped>
And by "reading carefully", I see that he refers specifically to geese
being "fed by hand for the purpose of fattening them" and not to having
food crammed down their throats by tools and machines. Abuse of animals
is still abuse, whether it's done to make them tastier or just because
someone likes to abuse them. As I said elsewhere, our defense of
shechita as the most humane method of slaughter rings hollow if we make
the rest of the animal's life a living hell up until the point of death.
Eliyahu
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Note that only finely ground food is permitted to be fed to the geese
to fatten the liver. Halacha forbids cramming down food down their throats
by machines or tools because this would cause a TREIFA in the animal.
It has to be done gently.
Josh
>
> Eliyahu
>
cindys
<bac...@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:d1afmo$6b4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
So what is everybody so worked up about?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Tim Meushaw
> So what is everybody so worked up about?
It's SCJM. *Somebody's* gotta get worked up in every thread. At least
this one isn't political, a nice change of pace. :-)
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Eliyahu Rooff
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lA3_d.95607$H05....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Because that's how they're raising geese for pate -- by cramming food
down their throats by machines or tools. To quote from the Jewish
Vegetarians of North America site,
" a. Israeli Supreme Court Landmark Decision on Force Feeding of Ducks
and Geese
Richard H. Schwartz, Ph.D. (This article was written in August 2003)
In a landmark decision, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled on August 11,
2003 that the force-feeding of geese and ducks for the production of
liver is cruel and illegal, and that the temporary regulations allowing
the birds to be force-fed are to be annulled by March 2005. This ruling
conforms to the position of major Ashkenazic and Sefardic rabbinical
authorities in Israel, including Rabbis Zvi Pesach Frank and Eliezer
Waldman of the previous generation, and Rabbis Ovadia Yosef and Shear
Yashuv Cohen, among today's chief rabbis.
The judges indicated that, to produce this pâté delicacy, the birds are
force fed enormous amounts of grain through a pressurized pipe shoved
down their throats. As a result the birds develop degenerative diseases
of the liver.
Rabbi David Rosen, a contemporary Israeli Orthodox rabbi and former
Chief Rabbi of Ireland, states: "It should be obvious that pate de foie
gras is produced in a manner that is in complete contravention of the
Torah's prohibition of causing tsa'ar ba'alei chayim - pain to animals
(see Maimonides, Yad Chazakah, Hilchot Rozeah, Ch. 13, M. 8). Rabbi
Yechezkel Landau, the Noda Bi-Yehuda, clarifies that causing any cruelty
to an animal while alive is a desecration of this prohibition (Noda
Bi-Yehuda, Yoreh Deah, Response No. 10) and that if food can be obtained
in a manner that does not involve additional pain and one chooses to
obtain such through causing pain to an animal, one desecrates a Torah
prohibition. Pate de foie gras is obtained through the willful
desecration of a Torah prohibition and any truly God-revering Jew will
not partake of such a product which is an offense against the Creator
and His Torah." "
(http://jewishveg.blogspot.com/2005/03/3305-jvna-online-newsletter.html#a030305a4)
While I'm not a vegetarian and disagree with a lot of their ideas, I
think they're still right on target here.
Eliyahu
cindys
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dU7_d.237$dJ....@fe06.lga...
-----
Oh, come on, Eliyahu! What you are citing below is the usual vegetarian
agenda with the usual suspects (Richard Schwartz, PhD. and Rabbi David
Rosen). These people are the darlings of PETA and have been for years.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Garry
This is interesting. Information is posted regarding the statements
of several O rabbis, and citations to halachic literature. But it all
can be dismissed without discussion because it agrees with PETA, which
is a demonic organization because it tries to eliminate cruelty to
animals.
_______________________________________
A haggadah that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version of the Haggadah, handsomely printed.
The entire purchase price goes to charity. http://www.matzoh.net/hagg/main.html
Feel free to contact me thru matzoh.net. Garry
cindys
"Garry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:klqj319n00e6brst9...@4ax.com...
>
> This is interesting. Information is posted regarding the statements
> of several O rabbis, and citations to halachic literature. But it all
> can be dismissed without discussion because it agrees with PETA, which
> is a demonic organization because it tries to eliminate cruelty to
> animals.
> >
No, not because it tries to eliminate cruelty to animals. PETA puts animals
on a higher level than humans. It interferes with medical research and has
been responsible for destroying millions of dollars worth of lab equipment,
"liberating" lab animals, and setting research back by years at medical
research facilities. Maybe we could have had a cure for cancer by now, if
not for PETA. It has also been working for years to make shechita illegal in
Europe, and this was long before Postville. PETA has also used the images of
Jews at Auschwitz in its advertising campaign to demonstrate the horrors of
killing chickens for food. The chickens were likened to the Holocaust
victims. It is for these reasons (and others) that PETA is an evil
organization, not to mention anti-torah.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
> "Garry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:klqj319n00e6brst9...@4ax.com...
> > >
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it's digital, but that
is another story).
Cindy, I dislike PETA intensely, and for many of the same reasons you do.
However, do you admit to the possibility that there are pro-Torah
authorities which might occasionally agree with certain specific
positions that PETA has taken? Even if for different reasons, and
using different justification?
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters.
Eliyahu Rooff
PETA or not, they can still be right on this particular issue. (Even if
they're right for the wrong reasons...) Since I'm sure you won't argue
that Torah allows us to mistreat animals as badly as we might want,
what's your basis for feeling that the rabbi is wrong in this particular
instance? Ignore the source and consider just the argument, please.
Eliyahu
cindys
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3sm2t5...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> > "Garry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:klqj319n00e6brst9...@4ax.com...
>
Yes. I was responding to his statement that my reason for "demonizing" PETA
was that it tries to eliminate cruelty to animals.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Louis Theran
> These people are the darlings of PETA and have been for years.
What's this supposed to mean? PETA may be a bunch of clowns, but they
didn't fabricate those Agriprocessors videos, which essentially make
the claims about shechita in principle arguments.
It's well-documented that high-density farming of meat and poultry is
inhumane to animals, poisons the environment, and produces unhealthy
products. PETA didn't make any of this up either. (If PETA focused on
humans more, it would also note that factory feedlots contribute to
rural poverty by destroying the value of real estate for miles around
and make people sick as well.)
Shouting ``PETA! PETA! PETA!'' isn't convincing or particularly
effective, even when talking to non-vegetarians. Why not research and
promote sustainable alternatives to the status quo instead? Surely
somebody is producing sustainable kosher beef and poultry. These taste
better and directly address all of the substantive points raised by
radical vegans.
^L
cindys
"Louis Theran" <the...@cs.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:d1hvn7$kig$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> On 2005-03-17 11:52:38 -0500, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
> > These people are the darlings of PETA and have been for years.
>
> What's this supposed to mean?
It means that there is a group of people out there (vegans) who have an
agenda to make the whole world vegetarian. Richard Schwartz et.al. has
created the myth that the torah promotes vegetarianism and that meat eating
is anti-torah (which is just the opposite of the truth). Jewish vegetarians,
many of whom are not torah-observant, have informed me that "vegetarianism
is the ultimate expression of Judaism." In order to promote this
fabrication, Richard Schwartz and the Jewish vegetarian gang "prove" their
positions by repeatedly citing Rav Kook (who actually wasn't a vegetarian)
and R' David Rosen, two rabbis who promoted vegetarianism, conveniently
overlooking the thousands of rabbis (including our sages) who considered
meat eating to be an integral part of joy and celebration in Judaism.
>PETA may be a bunch of clowns, but they
> didn't fabricate those Agriprocessors videos, which essentially make
> the claims about shechita in principle arguments.
I don't understand the statement "essentially make the claims about shechita
in principle arguments"
>
> It's well-documented that high-density farming of meat and poultry is
> inhumane to animals, poisons the environment, and produces unhealthy
> products.
And the high-density poulty argument does not apply to kosher chickens at
all, as it leads to chickens fighting and causing and sustaining injuries
which render them treif. At the Empire Chicken Company, for example, the
chickens are free-roaming, not treated with antibiotics or hormones, and not
high density.
>PETA didn't make any of this up either.
Not with respect to treif chicken farms, no.
>(If PETA focused on
> humans more, it would also note that factory feedlots contribute to
> rural poverty by destroying the value of real estate for miles around
> and make people sick as well.)
Actually, this is part of their argument, along with world hunger, rain
forest destruction, etc. anything that will convince someone to stop eating
meat. But the real agenda is that animal life is sacred and transcends human
life in value.
>
> Shouting ``PETA! PETA! PETA!'' isn't convincing or particularly
> effective, even when talking to non-vegetarians. Why not research and
> promote sustainable alternatives to the status quo instead?
Empire has done a great job of that vis-a-vis chickens. But you are
actually conflating 2 issues in this post. Do you want to talk about
shechita or do you want to talk about overcrowded conditions? If the former,
there is no problem at all with shechita. PETA's supposed complaint was
regarding the pens, and the film portrayed an instance where a windpipe was
removed from an animal that was supposedly not dead yet. Assuming the latter
is true, how long did PETA have to film to find an isolated incident? But
the reality as that they can talk about an isolated incident and the upside
down pens as much as they want, the bottom line is that nothing would make
them happier than to see shechita become prohibited (in every country).
>Surely
> somebody is producing sustainable kosher beef and poultry.
As I said, I know for a fact that Empire is.
> These taste
> better and directly address all of the substantive points raised by
> radical vegans.
>
The vegans have an agenda. The agenda is that everyone should become a
vegan. They are not concerned with raising substantive points except to
achieve their end.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Louis Theran
> Jewish vegetarians, many of whom are not torah-observant, have informed
> me that "vegetarianism is the ultimate expression of Judaism."
If vegetarianism is somebody's preferred way to express his or her
Judaism, it hardly seems threatening. Nobody's forcing anything on
you, and it shouldn't be a big deal to just acknowledge your
differences and move on. This relentless attacking of vegetarians is
juvenile. (If it matters to you, I'm not a vegetarian.)
PETA's a different story, since its use of Holocaust and slavery
imagery is antisemitic and racist. PETA's ideas are also relatively
easy to dismiss. Hence my curiosity about the PETA obsession in this
NG.
>> PETA may be a bunch of clowns, but they didn't fabricate those
>> Agriprocessors videos, which essentially make the claims about shechita
>> in principle arguments.
>
> I don't understand the statement "essentially make the claims about
> shechita in principle arguments"
Maybe in theory shechita is the most humane form of slaughter. But
given Agriprocessors' dominant marketplace position and the evident
problems there, we aren't discussing theory in the vigorous defense of
Agriprocessors in this NG.
>> PETA didn't make any of this up either.
>
> Not with respect to treif chicken farms, no.
And not with respect to cattle feedlots either.
>> (If PETA focused on humans more, it would also note that factory
>> feedlots contribute to
>> rural poverty by destroying the value of real estate for miles around
>> and make people sick as well.)
>
> Actually, this is part of their argument, along with world hunger, rain
> forest destruction, etc.
This part of their argument is correct, then. Eating beef raised on
high-density feedlots contributes to rural poverty and environmental
destruction.
> But you are actually conflating 2 issues in this post. Do you want to
> talk about shechita or do you want to talk about overcrowded conditions?
I want to talk about Agriprocessors and factory feedlots together,
since they are just different stages in the same system. Given the
market position of Agriprocessors, shechita got sucked in as well.
> If the former, there is no problem at all with shechita. PETA's
> supposed complaint was regarding the pens, and the film portrayed an
> instance where a windpipe was removed from an animal that was
> supposedly not dead yet.
Do you have any evidence the film was fabricated? None of the NYT and
WP articles I read about it suggested that.
> Assuming the latter is true,
I will.
> how long did PETA have to film to find an isolated incident?
Until there are better oversight agencies that collect accurate
statistics, we'll never know.
>> Surely somebody is producing sustainable kosher beef and poultry.
>
> As I said, I know for a fact that Empire is.
Beef as well? That's great to hear.
^L
cindys
> On 2005-03-19 22:01:08 -0500, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
> > Jewish vegetarians, many of whom are not torah-observant, have informed
> > me that "vegetarianism is the ultimate expression of Judaism."
>
> If vegetarianism is somebody's preferred way to express his or her
> Judaism, it hardly seems threatening.
It's not an expression of Judaism at all and to claim that it is, is wishful
thinking at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. And it is
threatening. Maybe not plain vanilla vegetarianism but *veganism,* which is
an actual religion and actually trains people to missionize and proselytize,
using some of the same techniques as J4J and the like.
>Nobody's forcing anything on
> you
Not for lack of trying.
>, and it shouldn't be a big deal to just acknowledge your
> differences and move on. This relentless attacking of vegetarians is
> juvenile.
No one is *relentlessly attacking* vegetarians. On the contrary, I limit my
attacks to people who relentlessly twist the torah, the interpretation of
which, believe it or not, is not based on the
politically-correct-interpretation-of-the-week club. And considering that
this is a Jewish newsgroup, there is nothing *juvenile* about criticizing
people who fabricate their own torah interpretations and then insist that
the sages are wrong. My issue is with Richard Schwartz's inference that the
torah practically mandates vegetarianism, which is 180 degrees from reality.
>(If it matters to you, I'm not a vegetarian.)
It doesn't matter.
>
> PETA's a different story, since its use of Holocaust and slavery
> imagery is antisemitic and racist. PETA's ideas are also relatively
> easy to dismiss. Hence my curiosity about the PETA obsession in this
> NG.
What obsession?
>
> >> PETA may be a bunch of clowns, but they didn't fabricate those
> >> Agriprocessors videos, which essentially make the claims about shechita
> >> in principle arguments.
> >
> > I don't understand the statement "essentially make the claims about
> > shechita in principle arguments"
>
> Maybe in theory shechita is the most humane form of slaughter. But
> given Agriprocessors' dominant marketplace position and the evident
> problems there, we aren't discussing theory in the vigorous defense of
> Agriprocessors in this NG.
I will reiterate the same point as the last time this issue was raised: The
issue at Postville was NOT shechita. No one, not even PETA, was suggesting
that shechita was *less humane* than other forms of slaughter. The issue was
that the animals were being turned upside down in rotating pens. And that in
one instance, the shochet removed an animal's windpipe when it was
supposedly not yet dead.
>
> >> PETA didn't make any of this up either.
> >
> > Not with respect to treif chicken farms, no.
>
> And not with respect to cattle feedlots either.
>
> >> (If PETA focused on humans more, it would also note that factory
> >> feedlots contribute to
> >> rural poverty by destroying the value of real estate for miles around
> >> and make people sick as well.)
> >
> > Actually, this is part of their argument, along with world hunger, rain
> > forest destruction, etc.
>
> This part of their argument is correct, then. Eating beef raised on
> high-density feedlots contributes to rural poverty and environmental
> destruction.
>
> > But you are actually conflating 2 issues in this post. Do you want to
> > talk about shechita or do you want to talk about overcrowded conditions?
>
> I want to talk about Agriprocessors and factory feedlots together,
> since they are just different stages in the same system.
Agriprocessors may be on topic for SCJM (even though this topic/incident was
already thoroughly discussed ad nauseum on SCJM in December), but I really
don't see where the generic topic of factory feedlots is on topic for SCJM
at all.
>Given the
> market position of Agriprocessors, shechita got sucked in as well.
>
> > If the former, there is no problem at all with shechita. PETA's
> > supposed complaint was regarding the pens, and the film portrayed an
> > instance where a windpipe was removed from an animal that was
> > supposedly not dead yet.
>
> Do you have any evidence the film was fabricated? None of the NYT and
> WP articles I read about it suggested that.
I didn't say it was fabricated. What I said was that it may have been an
isolated instance.
>
> > Assuming the latter is true,
>
> I will.
>
> > how long did PETA have to film to find an isolated incident?
>
> Until there are better oversight agencies that collect accurate
> statistics, we'll never know.
And which agency do you think should oversee AgriProcessors?
>
> >> Surely somebody is producing sustainable kosher beef and poultry.
> >
> > As I said, I know for a fact that Empire is.
>
> Beef as well? That's great to hear.
>
The Empire beef company is treif, which I'm sure you know. And again, I
really don't see where discussions of factory farms, rain forests, and world
hunger are on topic for SCJM.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Fiona
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote
> "Louis Theran" <the...@cs.umass.edu> wrote
> > "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
> >
> > > Jewish vegetarians, many of whom are not torah-observant, have
informed
> > > me that "vegetarianism is the ultimate expression of Judaism."
> >
> > If vegetarianism is somebody's preferred way to express his or her
> > Judaism, it hardly seems threatening.
>
> It's not an expression of Judaism at all and to claim that it is, is
wishful
> thinking at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. And it is
> threatening.
It is threatening to Judaism because it encourages the anti-Shechita lobby.
They use those Jewish vegetarians and vegans that claim "veggie is the
highest form of expression of Judaism" as a model implying that the rest of
us don't need shechita because practice an inferior form of Judaism anyway.
Fiona
Louis Theran
> It is threatening to Judaism because it encourages the anti-Shechita lobby.
> They use those Jewish vegetarians and vegans that claim "veggie is the
> highest form of expression of Judaism" as a model implying that the rest of
> us don't need shechita because practice an inferior form of Judaism anyway.
The entire discourse of this NG and within the larger Jewish community
is poisoned by claims that one group or the other is practicing an
inferior form of Judaism. Vegetarians are hardly the worst---or even
major---offenders.
^L
Louis Theran
> I will reiterate the same point as the last time this issue was raised: The
> issue at Postville was NOT shechita.
This is your own very narrow interpretation. Considering the entire
context of what was going on at Agriprocessors and the heated
discussion among rabbinic authorities it provoked, it's safe to say
that yours is just one opinion.
Similarly, you're trying to label anything that doesn't conform to your
particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
topic. Perhaps respect for the environment and animals isn't
consistent with Jewish values to you, but it is to me and other posters.
^L
Fiona
"Louis Theran" <the...@cs.umass.edu> wrote
I think you misread my post, I was talking about non-Jews using Jewish
vegetarians as a excuse to ban shechita.
Fiona
Harry Weiss
The problem is that people are saying that vegetanrianism is a part of
Judaism. While some Jews may be vegtetarian it is NOT in a a way a part
of Judaism. Judaism is a religion based on the Jewish halacha, not on
extreme lefftist fringe politics.
> ^L
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Eliyahu Rooff
values, but whether they're part of Jewish values. There's a
difference.
Eliyahu
cindys
> On 2005-03-20 02:15:20 -0500, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
> > I will reiterate the same point as the last time this issue was raised:
The
> > issue at Postville was NOT shechita.
>
> This is your own very narrow interpretation.
It's not a question of interpretation. When did any of the parties in the
sordid affair claim that *shechita* was inhumane?
> Considering the entire
> context of what was going on at Agriprocessors and the heated
> discussion among rabbinic authorities it provoked, it's safe to say
> that yours is just one opinion.
None of the rabbinic authorities was suggesting that *shechita* was
inhumane.
>
> Similarly, you're trying to label anything that doesn't conform to your
> particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
> topic.
While there may be a lot of Jewish people who are concerned about world
famine or rain forest destruction, there is nothing inherently "Jewish"
about these topics. And they are not "Jewish values" either. A lot of Jewish
people watch the Superbowl too, but that doesn't mean that the Superbowl is
suddenly on topic for SCJM.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
> there
cindys
I wasn't saying that Rabbi Rosen was necessarily wrong in this instance. I
was saying that, in general, Rabbi Rosen is not exactly an unbiased source.
(I'm assuming you are talking about Rabbi Rosen. Richard Schwartz, Ph.D., of
course, is not a rabbi of any persuasion.)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.nospam.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>> It is threatening to Judaism because it encourages the anti-Shechita
>> lobby. They use those Jewish vegetarians and vegans that claim
>> "veggie is the highest form of expression of Judaism" as a model
>> implying that the rest of us don't need shechita because practice
>> an inferior form of Judaism anyway.
>
> The entire discourse of this NG and within the larger Jewish
> community is poisoned by claims that one group or the other is
> practicing an inferior form of Judaism.
Possibly. But it remains as "discourse"
> Vegetarians are hardly the worst---or even major---offenders.
But Fiona pointed out that they're the ones who are _actively_ trying
to _stop_ others from practicing their form of Judaism, by outlawing
Shechita.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
"respect for... animals". Could you please explain that?
Garry
How about an understanding that animals have consciousness, albeit not
the same as that of humans, and that they are not to be subject to
unneccessarity indignity or pain--both for the sake of the animal, and
for the sake of the humans involved. It's not an accident that the
slaughter and preparation of meat is strictly controlled by halacha.
>
>Moshe Schorr
>It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
_______________________________________
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>Louis Theran <the...@cs.umass.edu> writes:
>>> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>>>
>>>> I will reiterate the same point as the last time this issue was
>>>> raised: The issue at Postville was NOT shechita.
>>>
>>> This is your own very narrow interpretation. Considering the entire
>>> context of what was going on at Agriprocessors and the heated
>>> discussion among rabbinic authorities it provoked, it's safe to say
>>> that yours is just one opinion.
>>>
>>> Similarly, you're trying to label anything that doesn't conform to your
>>> particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
>>> topic. Perhaps respect for the environment and animals isn't
>>> consistent with Jewish values to you, but it is to me and other posters.
>>
>>"respect for... animals". Could you please explain that?
>
> How about an understanding that animals have consciousness,
> albeit not the same as that of humans, and that they are not to be
> subject to unneccessarity indignity or pain
Garry, try assuming that animals do _not_ have "feelings" like humans
do. How can an animal have "dignity" such that I can subject it to
_indignity_?
> --both for the sake of the animal, and for the sake of the humans
> involved. It's not an accident that the slaughter and preparation
> of meat is strictly controlled by halacha.
Would you claim that the animal can feel pain (and suffer indignity)
_after_ it's been slaughtered in the _preparation_ stages? Maybe we
shouldn't cook meat because the water's too hot?
Garry
>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>Louis Theran <the...@cs.umass.edu> writes:
>>>> "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>> I will reiterate the same point as the last time this issue was
>>>>> raised: The issue at Postville was NOT shechita.
>>>>
>>>> This is your own very narrow interpretation. Considering the entire
>>>> context of what was going on at Agriprocessors and the heated
>>>> discussion among rabbinic authorities it provoked, it's safe to say
>>>> that yours is just one opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, you're trying to label anything that doesn't conform to your
>>>> particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
>>>> topic. Perhaps respect for the environment and animals isn't
>>>> consistent with Jewish values to you, but it is to me and other posters.
>>>
>>>"respect for... animals". Could you please explain that?
>>
>> How about an understanding that animals have consciousness,
>> albeit not the same as that of humans, and that they are not to be
>> subject to unneccessarity indignity or pain
>
>Garry, try assuming that animals do _not_ have "feelings" like humans
>do. How can an animal have "dignity" such that I can subject it to
>_indignity_?
>
I agree that animals do not have all the feeling that humans do. But
if you're asking me to imagine that animals have no feelings, how do
you explain Rambam's statement about Shiluach haKen -- "the pain of
the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no
difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other
living beings". Guide 3:28
Treating animals with contempt -- which is one of the dictionary
definitions of "indignity"-- shows a lack of respect for those
feelings animals definitely do have. I was trying to distinguish
between physical pain and other, mental pain we can cause animals --
terror, isolation, violation of the mother/child bond, etc. Causing
such pain is wrong.
And it's wrong not only because of the effect on the animal. It's
wrong because of the effect on the human being. In the words of Rabbi
David Feinstein "It is inevitable that one who develops compassion
for a bird will learn to be kind to human beings, as well."
Similarly, I believe the converse to be true. If we accustom
ourselves to cruelty or harshness to animals, there is a strong danger
that quality may c'v enter into how we treat other people.
In analyzing this second reason, the objective truth as to whether the
animal suffers is secondary. Whether the animal is actually cognizant
of the indignity, WE are, and we realize we are inflicting it. I'm
obviously not saying that animal need to be treated like humans;
that's silly and can itself be cruel. But I think erring on the side
of not causing animals pain is a good thing.
>> --both for the sake of the animal, and for the sake of the humans
>> involved. It's not an accident that the slaughter and preparation
>> of meat is strictly controlled by halacha.
>
>Would you claim that the animal can feel pain (and suffer indignity)
>_after_ it's been slaughtered in the _preparation_ stages?
Obviously not. And yet, for myself, I consider the principle of baal
tashkhit to apply with more force to meat than to other food. If an
animal was killed to supply me with the food, it seems even more
important not to waste it. Obviously it makes no difference to the
animal, but I think it makes a difference to me.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
I don't study the Guide (you can ask Micha about that). The Mishna
states that Shiluach haKen is _not_ about "rachamim - pity".
>
> Treating animals with contempt -- which is one of the dictionary
> definitions of "indignity"-- shows a lack of respect for those
> feelings animals definitely do have. I was trying to distinguish
> between physical pain and other, mental pain we can cause animals --
> terror, isolation, violation of the mother/child bond, etc. Causing
> such pain is wrong.
Unless it's required.
> And it's wrong not only because of the effect on the animal. It's
> wrong because of the effect on the human being. In the words of Rabbi
> David Feinstein "It is inevitable that one who develops compassion
> for a bird will learn to be kind to human beings, as well."
> Similarly, I believe the converse to be true. If we accustom
> ourselves to cruelty or harshness to animals, there is a strong danger
> that quality may c'v enter into how we treat other people.
>
> In analyzing this second reason, the objective truth as to whether the
> animal suffers is secondary. Whether the animal is actually cognizant
> of the indignity, WE are, and we realize we are inflicting it. I'm
> obviously not saying that animal need to be treated like humans;
> that's silly and can itself be cruel. But I think erring on the side
> of not causing animals pain is a good thing.
You might want to bolster your argument from the custom of covering
the challot Friday night during Kiddush, so they shuldn't see their
"shame".
>>> --both for the sake of the animal, and for the sake of the humans
>>> involved. It's not an accident that the slaughter and preparation
>>> of meat is strictly controlled by halacha.
>>
>>Would you claim that the animal can feel pain (and suffer indignity)
>>_after_ it's been slaughtered in the _preparation_ stages?
>
> Obviously not.
But that's what it _sounded_ like.
> And yet, for myself, I consider the principle of baal tashkhit to
> apply with more force to meat than to other food. If an animal was
> killed to supply me with the food, it seems even more important not
> to waste it. Obviously it makes no difference to the animal, but I
> think it makes a difference to me.
OK. Just as long as you don't in _any way_ elevate these so-called
"feelings" of the animal to a par with human feelings.
Garry
>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>"respect for... animals". Could you please explain that?
>>>>
>>>> How about an understanding that animals have consciousness,
>>>> albeit not the same as that of humans, and that they are not to be
>>>> subject to unneccessarity indignity or pain
>>>
>>>Garry, try assuming that animals do _not_ have "feelings" like humans
>>>do. How can an animal have "dignity" such that I can subject it to
>>>_indignity_?
>>>
>> I agree that animals do not have all the feeling that humans do. But
>> if you're asking me to imagine that animals have no feelings, how do
>> you explain Rambam's statement about Shiluach haKen -- "the pain of
>> the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no
>> difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other
>> living beings". Guide 3:28
>
>I don't study the Guide (you can ask Micha about that). The Mishna
>states that Shiluach haKen is _not_ about "rachamim - pity".
I didn't see anything quite that clear when I looked. Which mishna
are you thinking of?
And do we know what any law is "about"?
In any event, regardless of whether you agree with Rambam about what
is behind Shiluach haKen (and shechita, for that matter), he finds no
difference between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings
in situations like this.
>>
>> Treating animals with contempt -- which is one of the dictionary
>> definitions of "indignity"-- shows a lack of respect for those
>> feelings animals definitely do have. I was trying to distinguish
>> between physical pain and other, mental pain we can cause animals --
>> terror, isolation, violation of the mother/child bond, etc. Causing
>> such pain is wrong.
>
>Unless it's required.
>
Agreed. This is a thread about force-feeding geese to give them
abnormal diseased livers that have a taste some people like. Does
that fall under "required?"
>> And it's wrong not only because of the effect on the animal. It's
>> wrong because of the effect on the human being. In the words of Rabbi
>> David Feinstein "It is inevitable that one who develops compassion
>> for a bird will learn to be kind to human beings, as well."
>> Similarly, I believe the converse to be true. If we accustom
>> ourselves to cruelty or harshness to animals, there is a strong danger
>> that quality may c'v enter into how we treat other people.
>>
>> In analyzing this second reason, the objective truth as to whether the
>> animal suffers is secondary. Whether the animal is actually cognizant
>> of the indignity, WE are, and we realize we are inflicting it. I'm
>> obviously not saying that animal need to be treated like humans;
>> that's silly and can itself be cruel. But I think erring on the side
>> of not causing animals pain is a good thing.
>
>You might want to bolster your argument from the custom of covering
>the challot Friday night during Kiddush, so they shuldn't see their
>"shame".
>
>>>> --both for the sake of the animal, and for the sake of the humans
>>>> involved. It's not an accident that the slaughter and preparation
>>>> of meat is strictly controlled by halacha.
>>>
>>>Would you claim that the animal can feel pain (and suffer indignity)
>>>_after_ it's been slaughtered in the _preparation_ stages?
>>
>> Obviously not.
>
>But that's what it _sounded_ like.
I'm not sure why you thought this. I didn't bring up treatment after
the animal is dead, you did.
>
>> And yet, for myself, I consider the principle of baal tashkhit to
>> apply with more force to meat than to other food. If an animal was
>> killed to supply me with the food, it seems even more important not
>> to waste it. Obviously it makes no difference to the animal, but I
>> think it makes a difference to me.
>
>OK. Just as long as you don't in _any way_ elevate these so-called
>"feelings" of the animal to a par with human feelings.
The feelings are the same -- I agree with the Rambam on that. The
extent to which I consider them in regards to my actions is not on a
par with how I consider the feelings of humans, if that's what you
mean. But I disagree with the idea that because humans are more
important, any whim of a human is more important than any feeling of
an animal.
>
>Moshe Schorr
>It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
_______________________________________
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:>
>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>>>"respect for... animals". Could you please explain that?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about an understanding that animals have consciousness,
>>>>> albeit not the same as that of humans, and that they are not to be
>>>>> subject to unneccessarity indignity or pain
>>>>
>>>>Garry, try assuming that animals do _not_ have "feelings" like humans
>>>>do. How can an animal have "dignity" such that I can subject it to
>>>>_indignity_?
>>>>
>>> I agree that animals do not have all the feeling that humans do. But
>>> if you're asking me to imagine that animals have no feelings, how do
>>> you explain Rambam's statement about Shiluach haKen -- "the pain of
>>> the animals under such circumstances is very great. There is no
>>> difference in this case between the pain of man and the pain of other
>>> living beings". Guide 3:28
>>
>>I don't study the Guide (you can ask Micha about that). The Mishna
>>states that Shiluach haKen is _not_ about "rachamim - pity".
>
> I didn't see anything quite that clear when I looked. Which mishna
> are you thinking of?
The one in Brachot where a chazzan who says "al kan tzippor yagiu
rachamacheh" is stopped.
> And do we know what any law is "about"?
No, I just said what the law is _not_ about.
> In any event, regardless of whether you agree with Rambam about what
> is behind Shiluach haKen (and shechita, for that matter), he finds no
> difference between the pain of man and the pain of other living beings
> in situations like this.
>>> Treating animals with contempt -- which is one of the dictionary
>>> definitions of "indignity"-- shows a lack of respect for those
>>> feelings animals definitely do have. I was trying to distinguish
>>> between physical pain and other, mental pain we can cause animals --
>>> terror, isolation, violation of the mother/child bond, etc. Causing
>>> such pain is wrong.
>>
>>Unless it's required.
>>
> Agreed. This is a thread about force-feeding geese to give them
> abnormal diseased livers that have a taste some people like. Does
> that fall under "required?"
You got me. I should have said unless it's useful for humans. Then
you could still ask the question about "useful".
You said "the slaughter and preparation of meat". What "preparation"
were you refering to?
>>> And yet, for myself, I consider the principle of baal tashkhit to
>>> apply with more force to meat than to other food. If an animal was
>>> killed to supply me with the food, it seems even more important not
>>> to waste it. Obviously it makes no difference to the animal, but I
>>> think it makes a difference to me.
>>
>>OK. Just as long as you don't in _any way_ elevate these so-called
>>"feelings" of the animal to a par with human feelings.
>
> The feelings are the same -- I agree with the Rambam on that. The
> extent to which I consider them in regards to my actions is not on a
> par with how I consider the feelings of humans, if that's what you
> mean. But I disagree with the idea that because humans are more
> important, any whim of a human is more important than any feeling of
> an animal.
See what I said above about "use". I can agree about "whim" but if
you say I can't use animals for experimentation purposes, I'll give
you an argument.
cindys
snip
>
> The evil here, as far as I'm concerned, is that specialty of the
> yetzer hara called "all or nothing". If you''re against animal
> experimentation for cosmetics, then you attack places trying to cure
> cancer. If you feel that human needs trump animal needs, then you
> pride yourself on how you torture geese to make a specialty food item
> out of their diseased liver. The truth is not in the extremes.
-----
I'm not sure who is the "you," here.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Garry
As I understand that mishna (I think it's at br'achot 333b), it
objects to the idea of describing a mitzvoh (any mitzvoh, not just
this one) to _divine_ pity. The mitzvot are not God's statements of
her compassion, they are the commandments of a ruler, and the mishna
warns us against sorting out what mitzvot comes from what motivation,
for fear we will start second-guessing them.
What the Rambam is saying is entirely different. He is not talking
about God being compassionate in giving this ruling. He is saying
that the ruling requires _us_ to be compassionate, because the pain of
an animal in this case is identical with the pain of a human..
>> And do we know what any law is "about"?
>
>No, I just said what the law is _not_ about.
Equally inappropriate speculation. Would the s/tz not be silenced if
he said "lo yagiu rachamecha"?
Ah, I see. I was saying that we are commanded to deal with taking
life in a respectful manner, from the very first commandment that the
blood must be poured on the ground. (Which happens after the animal
dies). This is the second issue -- where it can have no possible
effect on the animal, but teaches us. Ultimately, though, I think
it's a single mindset.
>>>> And yet, for myself, I consider the principle of baal tashkhit to
>>>> apply with more force to meat than to other food. If an animal was
>>>> killed to supply me with the food, it seems even more important not
>>>> to waste it. Obviously it makes no difference to the animal, but I
>>>> think it makes a difference to me.
>>>
>>>OK. Just as long as you don't in _any way_ elevate these so-called
>>>"feelings" of the animal to a par with human feelings.
>>
>> The feelings are the same -- I agree with the Rambam on that. The
>> extent to which I consider them in regards to my actions is not on a
>> par with how I consider the feelings of humans, if that's what you
>> mean. But I disagree with the idea that because humans are more
>> important, any whim of a human is more important than any feeling of
>> an animal.
>
>See what I said above about "use". I can agree about "whim" but if
>you say I can't use animals for experimentation purposes, I'll give
>you an argument.
>
You want to experiment on animals to save lives, you get no argument
from me. You want to see which of the latest petrochemicals should be
added to cosmetics by smearing it in the animals' eyes, I'm with PETA.
The evil here, as far as I'm concerned, is that specialty of the
yetzer hara called "all or nothing". If you''re against animal
experimentation for cosmetics, then you attack places trying to cure
cancer. If you feel that human needs trump animal needs, then you
pride yourself on how you torture geese to make a specialty food item
out of their diseased liver. The truth is not in the extremes.
>Moshe Schorr
>It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
_______________________________________
Garry
One who is misguided by the sense of all-or-nothing I referred to.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:>
>>>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>>>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
Nice deep thread, but my "mohel" instincts are coming to the fore.
SNIP
>>>>I don't study the Guide (you can ask Micha about that). The Mishna
>>>>states that Shiluach haKen is _not_ about "rachamim - pity".
>>>
>>> I didn't see anything quite that clear when I looked. Which mishna
>>> are you thinking of?
>>
>>The one in Brachot where a chazzan who says "al kan tzippor yagiu
>>rachamacheh" is stopped.
>
> As I understand that mishna (I think it's at br'achot 333b),
33B
> it objects to the idea of describing a mitzvoh (any mitzvoh,
> not just this one) to _divine_ pity. The mitzvot are not God's
> statements of her compassion,
Umm Garry, the _standard_ gender used when describing G-d is the
masculine. If you do that, you don't run afoul of giving G-d a
gender, because that's the standard as found in the Bible. Once you
use the feminine you're _ascribing_ a gender which is a no-no.
> they are the commandments of a ruler, and the mishna warns us
> against sorting out what mitzvot comes from what motivation,
> for fear we will start second-guessing them.
Interesting thought. The Gemoro there gives two explanations. One,
not to make "jealousy" among the creaters, that only on birds was
the compassion manifested. Two is that we shouldn't think the mitzvah
is for compassion but rather, like all mitzvot, is a matter of
subjugating ourselves to Divine decree.
> What the Rambam is saying is entirely different. He is not talking
> about God being compassionate in giving this ruling. He is saying
> that the ruling requires _us_ to be compassionate, because the pain of
> an animal in this case is identical with the pain of a human..
Maybe identical in "type" but not in intensity. But as I said, I do
not study the Guide.
>>> And do we know what any law is "about"?
>>
>>No, I just said what the law is _not_ about.
>
> Equally inappropriate speculation. Would the s/tz not be silenced if
> he said "lo yagiu rachamecha"?
:-)
SNIP
>>> Agreed. This is a thread about force-feeding geese to give them
>>> abnormal diseased livers that have a taste some people like. Does
>>> that fall under "required?"
Inter alia. I didn't know that such livers are "diseased". What's
your source?
>>You got me. I should have said unless it's useful for humans. Then
>>you could still ask the question about "useful".
SNIP
>>> I'm not sure why you thought this. I didn't bring up treatment after
>>> the animal is dead, you did.
>>
>>You said "the slaughter and preparation of meat". What "preparation"
>>were you refering to?
>
> Ah, I see. I was saying that we are commanded to deal with taking
> life in a respectful manner, from the very first commandment that the
> blood must be poured on the ground. (Which happens after the animal
> dies). This is the second issue -- where it can have no possible
> effect on the animal, but teaches us. Ultimately, though, I think
> it's a single mindset.
Not all shechita requires covering the blood.
>>See what I said above about "use". I can agree about "whim" but if
>>you say I can't use animals for experimentation purposes, I'll give
>>you an argument.
>>
> You want to experiment on animals to save lives, you get no argument
> from me. You want to see which of the latest petrochemicals should be
> added to cosmetics by smearing it in the animals' eyes, I'm with PETA.
So better use _humans_ for the experiment?
> The evil here, as far as I'm concerned, is that specialty of the
> yetzer hara called "all or nothing". If you''re against animal
> experimentation for cosmetics, then you attack places trying to cure
> cancer. If you feel that human needs trump animal needs, then you
> pride yourself on how you torture geese to make a specialty food item
> out of their diseased liver. The truth is not in the extremes.
Another good point.
Garry
Modern english is evolving to where "she" can also be used as a
signifier of an individual regardless of gendert: "when the chief
operating officer receives the forms, she must sign them within thirty
days". The use of alternative forms for the neutral gender is
preferable, as it doesn't lead to the mistaken impression that is
often derived from the neutrally used "he", that male gender is
expected and female gender is the exception. In reality, I strongly
doubt that anyone reading a remark like mine assumes that God is
female, although they may rethink casual thought patterns that
visualize God as male.
>> they are the commandments of a ruler, and the mishna warns us
>> against sorting out what mitzvot comes from what motivation,
>> for fear we will start second-guessing them.
>
>Interesting thought. The Gemoro there gives two explanations. One,
>not to make "jealousy" among the creaters, that only on birds was
>the compassion manifested. Two is that we shouldn't think the mitzvah
>is for compassion but rather, like all mitzvot, is a matter of
>subjugating ourselves to Divine decree.
>
The rambam discusses the mishnah, but I don't understand what he
saying, probably because I'm not up to reading the original:
When in the Talmud (Ber. p. 33b) those are blamed who use in their
prayer the phrase," Thy mercy extendeth to young birds," it is the
expression of the one of the two opinions mentioned by us, namely,
that the precepts of the Law have no other reason but the Divine will.
We follow the other opinion.
>> What the Rambam is saying is entirely different. He is not talking
>> about God being compassionate in giving this ruling. He is saying
>> that the ruling requires _us_ to be compassionate, because the pain of
>> an animal in this case is identical with the pain of a human..
>
>Maybe identical in "type" but not in intensity. But as I said, I do
>not study the Guide.
>
Well, I am reading it, but certainly can't claim to be studying. The
full wording of the segment (this is M.Friendlander's translation) is
"There is no difference in this case between the pain of man and the
pain of other living beings, since the love and tenderness of the
mother for her young ones is not produced by reasoning, but by
imagination, and this faculty exists not only in man but most living
beings."
I doubt the english word "imagination" does justice to what Rambam is
saying here, "p'al haka hamdama" (sorry, not sure of the vowels) which
I'm guessing might be something more like instinct.
So by Rambam's reasoning, the type and intensity are both the same.
>SNIP
>
>>>> Agreed. This is a thread about force-feeding geese to give them
>>>> abnormal diseased livers that have a taste some people like. Does
>>>> that fall under "required?"
>
>Inter alia. I didn't know that such livers are "diseased". What's
>your source?
>
According to Professor Ian Duncan of the University of Guelph,
Ontario, "Forcing food down a bird’s gullet beyond the limits of its
appetite will cause pain and suffering... Force feeding quickly
results in birds that are obese and in a pathological state, called
hepatic lipidosis or fatty liver disease."
Although waterfowl do store fat in their livers as part of the
migration cycle, the fat deposits caused by force feeding are
different by an order of magnitude. Obviously, I would think, since
the animals (who are greedy eaters by themselve) wouldn't begin to
consume the amount of food that has to be forced into them.
>>>You got me. I should have said unless it's useful for humans. Then
>>>you could still ask the question about "useful".
>
>SNIP
>
>>>> I'm not sure why you thought this. I didn't bring up treatment after
>>>> the animal is dead, you did.
>>>
>>>You said "the slaughter and preparation of meat". What "preparation"
>>>were you refering to?
>>
>> Ah, I see. I was saying that we are commanded to deal with taking
>> life in a respectful manner, from the very first commandment that the
>> blood must be poured on the ground. (Which happens after the animal
>> dies). This is the second issue -- where it can have no possible
>> effect on the animal, but teaches us. Ultimately, though, I think
>> it's a single mindset.
>
>Not all shechita requires covering the blood.
>
>>>See what I said above about "use". I can agree about "whim" but if
>>>you say I can't use animals for experimentation purposes, I'll give
>>>you an argument.
>>>
>> You want to experiment on animals to save lives, you get no argument
>> from me. You want to see which of the latest petrochemicals should be
>> added to cosmetics by smearing it in the animals' eyes, I'm with PETA.
>
>So better use _humans_ for the experiment?
There are numerous alternatives that don't involve either human or
animal experimentation (see
http://www.allforanimals.com/alternatives1.htm)
Even when human volunteers are used, they are not tied down and have
stuff poured in their eyes...they use the cosmetic and, if there are
problems they stop and report.
>
>> The evil here, as far as I'm concerned, is that specialty of the
>> yetzer hara called "all or nothing". If you''re against animal
>> experimentation for cosmetics, then you attack places trying to cure
>> cancer. If you feel that human needs trump animal needs, then you
>> pride yourself on how you torture geese to make a specialty food item
>> out of their diseased liver. The truth is not in the extremes.
>
>Another good point.
>
>Moshe Schorr
>It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
_______________________________________
cindys
snip
> The question of whether Jewish values apply to these issues is
> precisely what makes this subject on topic. The O position, as far as
> I can understand it, is that there is no such thing as Jewish values,
> there is only halacha.
The *Jewish values* are inherent in the torah (written and oral). If
*values* are contrary to torah, they are not *Jewish* values. If they are
not addressed in the torah at all, they may subjectively be good or bad
values, but they are not inherently *Jewish values.*
>That is not a position shared by the majority
> of Jews.
Mainly those who are not well-educated in torah. Just because X number of
people believe a certain thing doesn't necessarily make it so. 5 million
Jews could believe that *vegetarianism* is a *Jewish value,* and that
wouldn't make it so.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Eliyahu Rooff
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:40:37 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>
> >
> >> it objects to the idea of describing a mitzvoh (any mitzvoh,
> >> not just this one) to _divine_ pity. The mitzvot are not God's
> >> statements of her compassion,
> >
> >Umm Garry, the _standard_ gender used when describing G-d is the
> >masculine. If you do that, you don't run afoul of giving G-d a
> >gender, because that's the standard as found in the Bible. Once you
> >use the feminine you're _ascribing_ a gender which is a no-no.
> >
> Modern english is evolving to where "she" can also be used as a
> signifier of an individual regardless of gendert: "when the chief
> operating officer receives the forms, she must sign them within thirty
> days". The use of alternative forms for the neutral gender is
> preferable, as it doesn't lead to the mistaken impression that is
> often derived from the neutrally used "he", that male gender is
> expected and female gender is the exception.
Modern English hasn't evolved to the point that "she" can be used in
reference to G-d without both offending many listeners and distracting
just about everyone from whatever point the speaker or writer is trying
to make. It draws the attention from the issues to the person making
them and tends to create the impression that he or she is attempting to
make a "radical feminist" point of some sort. As a side issue, practice
in both traditional and modern English is also to capitalize the first
letter of pronouns used in reference to G-d...
Eliyahu
cindys
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:58:58 +0000 (UTC), "Eliyahu Rooff"
> <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
snip
> >
> >Modern English hasn't evolved to the point that "she" can be used in
> >reference to G-d without both offending many listeners
>
It seems like the speaker is trying to make a feminist political statement.
>
> >and distracting
> >just about everyone
>
> Simply untrue
Completely true. One of the several reasons I left the egalitarian C shul
was that all the politically correct/egalitarian additions to the liturgy
were distracting and interfering with my kavanah (concentration).
>
> >from whatever point the speaker or writer is trying
> >to make. It draws the attention from the issues to the person making
> >them and tends to create the impression that he or she is attempting to
> >make a "radical feminist" point of some sort.
>
> Obviously, if you think it does, it does.
>
Most people think it does.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> On 2005-03-20 19:38:14 -0500, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
> >>
> >> Similarly, you're trying to label anything that doesn't conform to your
> >> particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
> >> topic.
> >
> > While there may be a lot of Jewish people who are concerned about world
> > famine or rain forest destruction, there is nothing inherently "Jewish"
> > about these topics.
>
No. A simple statement of fact.
> It's not ``off topic'' to ask why
> you're so stridently defending attaching kosher beef to an inhumane
> company
So, now, you are the judge and the jury? Do you have first-hand knowledge of
AgriProcessors? Did you witness the "inhumane" activities with your own
eyes? No? Then what is your proof that *the company* is inhumane (as opposed
to a single unfortunate incident)? Oh, I know...PETA says so.
and highly destructive farming practices.
>
How is AgriProcessors attached to destructive farming practices any more so
than any other beef processing company? And the last time I checked,
*destructive farming practices* were not even addressed in Jewish law, much
less prohibited. Sorry, buddy. Destructive farming practices may be on-topic
for alt.environment or alt.ecology, but they are off-topic for SCJM unless
you can demonstrate a Jewish connection, which you can't. Cite me the
halachos (Jewish laws) that deal with *destructive farming practices,* and
then we'll talk.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Harry Weiss
> On 2005-03-20 19:38:14 -0500, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
> >>
> >> particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
> >> topic.
> >
> > While there may be a lot of Jewish people who are concerned about world
> > famine or rain forest destruction, there is nothing inherently "Jewish"
> > about these topics.
> This is intentional obtuseness. It's not ``off topic'' to ask why
> you're so stridently defending attaching kosher beef to an inhumane
> company and highly destructive farming practices.
> ^L
When I see opinions. One is coming from organization such the OU, and other
Rabbinical groups. The opposite is coming from groups of people who goal is to
destroy our Torah way of life, is it surprising that a Jew will trust the view of our
leaders more than our enemies.
Garry
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Garry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:nml041pvvc17r9jdi...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:58:58 +0000 (UTC), "Eliyahu Rooff"
>> <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>snip
>> >
>> >Modern English hasn't evolved to the point that "she" can be used in
>> >reference to G-d without both offending many listeners
>>
>> Care to explain what precisely they're "offended" about?
>
>It seems like the speaker is trying to make a feminist political statement.
What is the statement, and why is it offensive?
>>
>> >and distracting
>> >just about everyone
>>
>> Simply untrue
>
>Completely true. One of the several reasons I left the egalitarian C shul
>was that all the politically correct/egalitarian additions to the liturgy
>were distracting and interfering with my kavanah (concentration).
Obviously, then, it was distracting to you. If it was distracting to
"just about everyone", then why did anyone stay?
>>
>> >from whatever point the speaker or writer is trying
>> >to make. It draws the attention from the issues to the person making
>> >them and tends to create the impression that he or she is attempting to
>> >make a "radical feminist" point of some sort.
>>
>> Obviously, if you think it does, it does.
>>
>
>Most people think it does.
You think it does. Most people don't have this as a hot button. The
more it's used, the less of an issue it becomes.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
Garry
<Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>Louis Theran <the...@cs.umass.edu> writes:
>
>> On 2005-03-20 19:38:14 -0500, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>> >> Similarly, you're trying to label anything that doesn't conform to
>> >> your
>> >> particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
>> >> topic.
>> > While there may be a lot of Jewish people who are concerned about
>> > world
>> > famine or rain forest destruction, there is nothing inherently "Jewish"
>> > about these topics.
>>
>> This is intentional obtuseness. It's not ``off topic'' to ask why
>> you're so stridently defending attaching kosher beef to an inhumane
>> company and highly destructive farming practices.
>>
>Unless you believe that it is un-Jewish to make such a defense, it
>sure is. Just as a discussion of other corporate practices is
>technically off-topic, except to the point that it discusses Jewish
>values, practices, and communities *as* Jews.
The question of whether Jewish values apply to these issues is
precisely what makes this subject on topic. The O position, as far as
I can understand it, is that there is no such thing as Jewish values,
there is only halacha. That is not a position shared by the majority
of Jews.
_______________________________________
Steve Goldfarb
>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:43:21 +0000 (UTC), Garry <sp...@spam.com> wrote:
>: The question of whether Jewish values apply to these issues is
>: precisely what makes this subject on topic. The O position, as far as
>: I can understand it, is that there is no such thing as Jewish values,
>: there is only halacha. That is not a position shared by the majority
>: of Jews.
>Actually, that's not the O position.
>It's the Maimodian position, as well as Lisa's. Probably Brisk's as well.
>But that's a minority.
>See the "Anything that's not prohibited..." thread.
Thank you for posting this, I thought I was losing my mind. (and for the
record -- I'm not taking your comment as support for any of my positions,
just as support for the specific idea that Judaism is about more than just
"The Law")
--s
>-mi
>--
>Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
>mi...@aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
>http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual
>Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter
--
Louis Theran
>> The entire discourse of this NG and within the larger Jewish community
>> is poisoned by claims that one group or the other is practicing an
>> inferior form of Judaism. Vegetarians are hardly the worst---or even
>> major---offenders.
>
> I think you misread my post, I was talking about non-Jews using Jewish
> vegetarians as a excuse to ban shechita.
I understand. I'm just pointing out that the notion of a hierarchy of
different kinds of Judiasm is so entrenched in the discourse (even
though there are disagreements about the ordering), that it shouldn't
be surprising that non-Jews have picked up on it. That's one, but not
the only, deleterious effect of all the spurious claims to superiority
being thrown around.
^L
Garry
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Garry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:d5m041ln8mbht11us...@4ax.com...
>
>snip
>
>> The question of whether Jewish values apply to these issues is
>> precisely what makes this subject on topic. The O position, as far as
>> I can understand it, is that there is no such thing as Jewish values,
>> there is only halacha.
>
>The *Jewish values* are inherent in the torah (written and oral). If
>*values* are contrary to torah, they are not *Jewish* values. If they are
>not addressed in the torah at all, they may subjectively be good or bad
>values, but they are not inherently *Jewish values.*
>
As I said, I find the O position on this less than clear. Can you
name a "Jewish Value" that is not halacha?
>>That is not a position shared by the majority
>> of Jews.
>
>Mainly those who are not well-educated in torah.
No, those who don't accept the O view of what torah is.
Tim Meushaw
> As I said, I find the O position on this less than clear. Can you
> name a "Jewish Value" that is not halacha?
Chicken soup. :-)
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Garry
<lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Garry" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:cnmv31hvs7bm30tvg...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:40:37 +0000 (UTC), mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> it objects to the idea of describing a mitzvoh (any mitzvoh,
>> >> not just this one) to _divine_ pity. The mitzvot are not God's
>> >> statements of her compassion,
>> >
>> >Umm Garry, the _standard_ gender used when describing G-d is the
>> >masculine. If you do that, you don't run afoul of giving G-d a
>> >gender, because that's the standard as found in the Bible. Once you
>> >use the feminine you're _ascribing_ a gender which is a no-no.
>> >
>> Modern english is evolving to where "she" can also be used as a
>> signifier of an individual regardless of gendert: "when the chief
>> operating officer receives the forms, she must sign them within thirty
>> days". The use of alternative forms for the neutral gender is
>> preferable, as it doesn't lead to the mistaken impression that is
>> often derived from the neutrally used "he", that male gender is
>> expected and female gender is the exception.
>
>Modern English hasn't evolved to the point that "she" can be used in
>reference to G-d without both offending many listeners
Care to explain what precisely they're "offended" about?
>and distracting
>just about everyone
Simply untrue
>from whatever point the speaker or writer is trying
>to make. It draws the attention from the issues to the person making
>them and tends to create the impression that he or she is attempting to
>make a "radical feminist" point of some sort.
Obviously, if you think it does, it does.
> As a side issue, practice
>in both traditional and modern English is also to capitalize the first
>letter of pronouns used in reference to G-d...
Again, something tha's changing.
>
>Eliyahu
Don Levey
> On 2005-03-20 19:38:14 -0500, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
> >> Similarly, you're trying to label anything that doesn't conform to
> >> your
> >> particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
> >> topic.
> > While there may be a lot of Jewish people who are concerned about
> > world
> > famine or rain forest destruction, there is nothing inherently "Jewish"
> > about these topics.
>
> This is intentional obtuseness. It's not ``off topic'' to ask why
> you're so stridently defending attaching kosher beef to an inhumane
> company and highly destructive farming practices.
>
Unless you believe that it is un-Jewish to make such a defense, it
sure is. Just as a discussion of other corporate practices is
technically off-topic, except to the point that it discusses Jewish
values, practices, and communities *as* Jews.
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters.
Louis Theran
>>
>> Similarly, you're trying to label anything that doesn't conform to your
>> particular notion of Jewish-American identity and Jewish values as off
>> topic.
>
> While there may be a lot of Jewish people who are concerned about world
> famine or rain forest destruction, there is nothing inherently "Jewish"
> about these topics.
This is intentional obtuseness. It's not ``off topic'' to ask why
you're so stridently defending attaching kosher beef to an inhumane
company and highly destructive farming practices.
^L
Micha Berger
: precisely what makes this subject on topic. The O position, as far as
: I can understand it, is that there is no such thing as Jewish values,
: there is only halacha. That is not a position shared by the majority
: of Jews.
Actually, that's not the O position.
It's the Maimodian position, as well as Lisa's. Probably Brisk's as well.
But that's a minority.
See the "Anything that's not prohibited..." thread.
-mi
Louis Theran
>>> While there may be a lot of Jewish people who are concerned about world
>>> famine or rain forest destruction, there is nothing inherently "Jewish"
>>> about these topics.
>>
>> This is intentional obtuseness.
>
> No. A simple statement of fact.
There are no facts in your statement.
I will be direct: The entire content of the discussion is whether
Jewish values are just a mechanical set of ritual practices or there is
morality present at all. I take your sneering and dismissive attitude
to say that you don't think so. If Agriprocessors has met a few ritual
requirements, then you're happy to support a destructive enterprise
that values neither animals nor people. Since your personal politics
is heavily wrapped up in your diet, this is really too bad.
This is not an Orthodox only newsgroup. I do not have to accept your
particular Jewish identity politics to post here and be ``on topic.''
If that's the case, then the charter needs to be changed.
^L
Susan Cohen
> On 2005-03-22 12:07:59 -0500, "cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> said:
>
>>>> While there may be a lot of Jewish people who are concerned about world
>>>> famine or rain forest destruction, there is nothing inherently "Jewish"
>>>> about these topics.
>>>
>>> This is intentional obtuseness.
>>
>> No. A simple statement of fact.
>
> There are no facts in your statement.
>
> I will be direct: The entire content of the discussion is whether Jewish
> values are just a mechanical set of ritual practices or there is morality
> present at all.
You are conflating 2 separate issues.
Just because there is nothing inherently Jewish about something does not
make it or Judaism immoral.
I take your sneering and dismissive attitude
> to say that you don't think so.
I take your assumption that she is sneering/dismissive just because she's
making a statement to be....sneering/dismissive.
If Agriprocessors has met a few ritual
> requirements, then you're happy to support a destructive enterprise that
> values neither animals nor people.
Now *there's* an opinion without basis in fact.
Since your personal politics
> is heavily wrapped up in your diet, this is really too bad.
And another - one that it also sneering & dismissive.
>
> This is not an Orthodox only newsgroup.
No one said it was.
I do not have to accept your
> particular Jewish identity politics to post here and be ``on topic.'' If
> that's the case, then the charter needs to be changed.
No, you just have to defend your position.
All you've done is complain about & mischaracterize Cindy's.
Susan
BlackMonk
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:TfY%d.152023$nC5....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
What are the Reform and Conservative positions on the subject?
Micha Berger
: I will be direct: The entire content of the discussion is whether
First, halakhah is not limited to ritual by a long stretch.
Second, while I believe there's a value system beyond the law, I find it
hard to call them "Jewish values" if they are inconsistent with halakhah.
IOW, saying there are Jewish values doesn't mean that any particular
value is particularly Jewish; to prove that, you have to show they derive
from Jewish sources -- including halakhah.
-mi
--
Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l
BlackMonk
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2005Mar2...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:>
>>>>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>>>>>Garry <sp...@spam.com> writes:
>
> Nice deep thread, but my "mohel" instincts are coming to the fore.
>
> SNIP
>
>>>>>I don't study the Guide (you can ask Micha about that). The Mishna
>>>>>states that Shiluach haKen is _not_ about "rachamim - pity".
>>>>
>>>> I didn't see anything quite that clear when I looked. Which mishna
>>>> are you thinking of?
>>>
>>>The one in Brachot where a chazzan who says "al kan tzippor yagiu
>>>rachamacheh" is stopped.
>>
>> As I understand that mishna (I think it's at br'achot 333b),
>
> 33B
>
>> it objects to the idea of describing a mitzvoh (any mitzvoh,
>> not just this one) to _divine_ pity. The mitzvot are not God's
>> statements of her compassion,
>
> Umm Garry, the _standard_ gender used when describing G-d is the
> masculine. If you do that, you don't run afoul of giving G-d a
> gender, because that's the standard as found in the Bible. Once you
> use the feminine you're _ascribing_ a gender which is a no-no.
>
It serves a purpose, though. Using the masculine pronoun ascribes a gender,
whether the speaker intends it or not. Using the feminine every so often
makes people aware of it and forces them to consciously reject the idea that
God has a gender. Otherwise, one could use the masculine pronoun so often
that they'll come to think of God as male on some level. (BTW, I think you
mean "sex" rather than "gender." "Gender" is just a linguistic term, like
"semetic.")
Shlomo Argamon
> > masculine. If you do that, you don't run afoul of giving G-d a
> > gender, because that's the standard as found in the Bible. Once you
> > use the feminine you're _ascribing_ a gender which is a no-no.
> >
>
> It serves a purpose, though. Using the masculine pronoun ascribes a
gender,
> whether the speaker intends it or not. Using the feminine every so
often
> makes people aware of it and forces them to consciously reject the
idea that
> God has a gender. Otherwise, one could use the masculine pronoun so
often
> that they'll come to think of God as male on some level. (BTW, I
think you
> mean "sex" rather than "gender." "Gender" is just a linguistic term,
like
> "semetic.")
This is actually changing, BTW. (And I assume you meant "semitic"?)
Among those who study such things, the current parlance (more or less)
is that "sex" is a biological category, and "gender" is either a
psychological stance (masculinity/femininity or
male/female-identification) or the usual grammatical construct. Two
parenthetic notes, "gender" comes from the same root as "genre", both
originally just meaning "type" or "kind" (of thing), similar to the
Hebrew word "min" (which has also taken on the meaning of "sex" as
well). Also, for fun, there are languages with gender systems VERY
different from what we're used to - George Lakoff gives the wonderful
example of (IIRC) Warlpuri (a language of the Aboriginal Australians)
in which one "gender" category covers "women, fire, and dangerous
things" (which is also the title of Lakoff's book). The mind is a
wondrous weird place...
Cheers!
-Shlomo-
Lisa
Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:43:21 +0000 (UTC), Garry <sp...@spam.com>
wrote:
> : The question of whether Jewish values apply to these issues is
> : precisely what makes this subject on topic. The O position, as far
as
> : I can understand it, is that there is no such thing as Jewish
values,
> : there is only halacha. That is not a position shared by the
majority
> : of Jews.
>
> Actually, that's not the O position.
>
> It's the Maimodian position, as well as Lisa's.
...as Micha masters the art of SGRing...
For the record, no, it is not my position. I simply reject the idea
that such values can *ever* override the halakha. Such as, for
instance, frum Jews treating other frum Jews like frei Jews (or worse)
because they feel those other frum Jews are not operating according to
a deduced "Jewish value".
Context, Micha.
> Probably Brisk's as well. But that's a minority.
>
> See the "Anything that's not prohibited..." thread.
Yes, do.
Lisa
Don Levey
*Which* subject? I can see several here, right off:
1) Farming techniques
2) Environmentalism
3) Shechita as a Reform/Conservative practice
4) How said movements will reconcile traditional practices with
"modern" Judaism.
There were one or two more, but I've forgotten. Could you be
more specific in your question?
Steve Goldfarb
>> Actually, that's not the O position.
>>
>> It's the Maimodian position, as well as Lisa's.
>...as Micha masters the art of SGRing...
>For the record, no, it is not my position. I simply reject the idea
>that such values can *ever* override the halakha. Such as, for
>instance, frum Jews treating other frum Jews like frei Jews (or worse)
>because they feel those other frum Jews are not operating according to
>a deduced "Jewish value".
>Context, Micha.
No one *ever* suggested that such values can override halacha. Ever. You
are mis-stating the argument. Again.
There is a general case, and your specific case. In the general case, you
have always and repeatedly contended that in the absence of a prohibition,
it is simply "permitted" . That formulation denies the existence of any
extra-halachic values. By you, if it's not explicitly prohibited, one is
free to do whatever one wants. Legal or illegal. Values don't enter into
it.
Your specific case is more complicated, and is built up of several layers
of presumptions and counter-presumptions.
--s
>> Probably Brisk's as well. But that's a minority.
>>
>> See the "Anything that's not prohibited..." thread.
>Yes, do.
>Lisa
--
Micha Berger
:> It's the Maimodian position, as well as Lisa's.
: ...as Micha masters the art of SGRing...
I'm tired of personal invective.
: For the record, no, it is not my position. I simply reject the idea
: that such values can *ever* override the halakha. Such as, for
: instance, frum Jews treating other frum Jews like frei Jews (or worse)
: because they feel those other frum Jews are not operating according to
: a deduced "Jewish value".
: Context, Micha.
:> Probably Brisk's as well. But that's a minority.
:> See the "Anything that's not prohibited..." thread.
: Yes, do.
Recall, that thread started on your assertion applying that rule to
lesbianism on the "Adoption" thread. The subject was /not/ overriding
halakhah, but whether one can say that something is a bad idea even if
not outright prohibited.
Your reduction of the problem to a tautology also relies on your belief
that there is only prohibited amd permitted, two states with no other
ground.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Richard Bach
BlackMonk
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m31xa6t...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
One and/or 2. I believe Reform, at least, puts a high value on social
activism and am guessing that opposition to destructive farming practices
and support of environmentalism would be a Reform position. If so, there is
a Jewish connection.
Lisa
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:18:43 +0000 (UTC), Lisa <li...@starways.net>
wrote:
> :> It's the Maimodian position, as well as Lisa's.
>
> : ...as Micha masters the art of SGRing...
>
> I'm tired of personal invective.
Probably not as tired as I am of having other people state what *my*
views are when they're misrepresenting me. Don't react, Micha. Just
sit there and think about that for a minute. How would you feel to
have people continually attributing to you views that are not yours?
I'd love to see your equinimity at that point.
> : For the record, no, it is not my position. I simply reject the
idea
> : that such values can *ever* override the halakha. Such as, for
> : instance, frum Jews treating other frum Jews like frei Jews (or
worse)
> : because they feel those other frum Jews are not operating according
to
> : a deduced "Jewish value".
>
> : Context, Micha.
>
> :> Probably Brisk's as well. But that's a minority.
>
> :> See the "Anything that's not prohibited..." thread.
>
> : Yes, do.
>
> Recall, that thread started on your assertion applying that rule to
> lesbianism on the "Adoption" thread. The subject was /not/ overriding
> halakhah, but whether one can say that something is a bad idea even
if
> not outright prohibited.
That was Goldfarb's take on it. Never mine. If you think otherwise,
demonstrate it.
But it's not relevant. You referred people to that thread. I've made
myself so abundantly clear on that thread about what my position is
that it takes a special kind of bloody-mindedness to misstate me at
this point.
> Your reduction of the problem to a tautology also relies on your
belief
> that there is only prohibited amd permitted, two states with no
other
> ground.
'Tain't belief, Micha. Even aside from the fact that I have little
truck with the concept of belief, it is *true* that when it comes to a
person's freedom of action in Judaism, there are only chiyuvim and
issurim, and everything else is up to the individual.
Sure. Within that area of "everything else", there are things that are
better and worse, but those are almost entirely subjective, and can
never be forced on others. And they can certainly never be used as an
excuse for violating issurim.
Think about it a little, Micha. All along, I've been talking about
people commiting issurim because of their ignorant homophobia, without
so much as consulting a rav. You want to excuse that. Fine. If you
don't care what that says about you, just... fine.
Lisa
Don Levey
> "Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
> news:m31xa6t...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
> >>
> > 1) Farming techniques
> > 2) Environmentalism
> > 3) Shechita as a Reform/Conservative practice
> > 4) How said movements will reconcile traditional practices with
> > "modern" Judaism.
> >
> > There were one or two more, but I've forgotten. Could you be
> > more specific in your question?
>
> One and/or 2. I believe Reform, at least, puts a high value on social
> activism and am guessing that opposition to destructive farming practices
> and support of environmentalism would be a Reform position. If so, there is
> a Jewish connection.
>
>
a grain or two of salt):
Reform may indeed believe that it is our responsibility to curtail
"destructive" farming practices, if they serve no higher purpose.
First, we'd need to define "destructive". As I understand it, there
is not agreement as to what farming practices do indeed qualify. Well,
agreement in environmental circles, but we might perceive them as
having an axe to grind (ironic, since it wouldn't be used to chop
anything...). They may well be right, though.
Then, we'd have to weigh that against any higher purpose. For example,
eating meat is certainly "destructive": it destroys the lives of the
animals in question. But we recognise that there is a higher purpose:
feeding people. Not to mention, of course, that eating meat is mandated
in certain situations, as Reform doesn't tend to recognise such a mandate
as binding.
Add kosher slaughter to the mix, and Reform is *less* likely to try
and stop such farming. Why, when Reform doesn't require kashrut?
Because it still recognises kashrut as a good thing, and encourages
it. I am unaware of any specific instance where Reform *demands* that
an observance be stopped due to current social concerns (though I'm
willing to be enlightened).
At most, I can see that Reform would work to encourage more
responsible farming practices, so that shechita could continue.
But I know of no (non-lunatic) Reform rabbi that would advocate
the cessation of shechita based upon farming methods. Yes, there
are a few lunatics - in EVERY movement.