How Nazism Shaped Islamist Views
Fiona Abrahami
Standards thread, by some sheer synchronistic coincidence this article
appeared in Friday's Jewish Chronicle.
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/28694/how-nazism-shaped-islamist-views
"Political Islam is partly the product of a cultural fusion between European
and Islamist traditions of Jew-hatred. Nazism's Arabic-language propaganda
aimed at the Middle East during the Second World War indicates that a
crucial chapter in the history of that fusion took place in Berlin during
the war."
"It was then and there that the highest-ranking officials of the Nazi
regime, including Hitler and officials in the Foreign Ministry and the SS,
had a meeting of hearts and minds with pro-Nazi Arab and Muslim exiles such
as Haj Amin el-Husseini (the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) and Rashid Ali
Kilani, the former head of a short-lived Iraqi regime. Throughout the Second
World War, their collaboration led to thousands of hours of short-wave
Arabic-language radio broadcasts to the Middle East."
[...]
"In the years following the war, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in
Egypt, Hassan al-Banna and, its leading ideologue of the 1950s, Sayyid Qutb,
offered evidence that the messages from Berlin had found a welcome reception
among Muslim extremists. In June 1946, when Husseini returned to Cairo,
Al-Banna said that Husseini would "continue the struggle" that Hitler and
Germany had waged against Zionism."
Note: The Muslim Brotherhood founded by Al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb is the
parent organisation of Hamas, and when first set up Al Qaeda had close links
with the Brotherhood. In the USA today there are a number or Islamic
organisations (including MAS and CAIR) with direct links to the Muslim
Brotherhood.
"In his important essay of the early 1950s, Our Struggle with the Jews, Qutb
described the Jews as implacable enemies of Islam. He further claimed that
Allah had sent Hitler to earth to "punish" the Jews for their evil deeds.
During the war, Nazi Orientalists working for Himmler's SS wrote
Arabic-language propaganda that presented Hitler as a figure sent by Allah
to punish the Jews."
Read the article...
Fiona
Amitai
<fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Apropos the sub-thread discussion I am having with Amitai in the Double
> Standards thread, by some sheer synchronistic coincidence this article
> appeared in Friday's Jewish Chronicle.
>
I still believe that the Palestinian opposition to Israel was
primarily territorial, with the religious dimension (to which,
regrettably we have contributed our share) achieving ever-increasing
importance, and that the Islamists readily adopted the Nazi
terminology as a tactic when the Mufti joined tha Nazi camp. I am
prepared to concede, however, that I may have understimated the extent
of the fusion that occurred since the between the two inherently
different atisemitisms, and will look forward to "the history of the
seven decades of that mutation and evolution" that" remains to be
written".
Amitai
> Fiona
fla...@verizon.net
On 28-Feb-2010, Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> A very interesting article. Thanks, Fiona.
> I still believe that the Palestinian opposition to Israel was
> primarily territorial,
I agree with you, but also Fiona.
I do not believe the territorial dispute would have been
anywhere near as bad had it not been non-Muslims.
Susan
Amitai
we are!.
Amitai
> Susan
DoD
I have never heard of anyone but anti-semites talk about G-d as a real
estate agent before...
David
Amitai
Amitai
> David
lee
the British empire!
however I still dont understand how Muslims can accept the Tanach &
yet not accept our right to Israel
Fiona Abrahami
"lee" <scho...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>however I still dont understand how Muslims can accept the Tanach &
>yet not accept our right to Israel
Simples. They don't accept the Tanach as it is, they only accept that
scripture was given to the Jews. The Islamic stance on the Torah is that
Allah gave the Torah to the Jews but the Jews corrupted it, removing all the
references to Mohammed scripture originally contained and twisting it to
benefit ourselves. And that, according to the Koran, is why Allah had to
give the Koran to Mohammed.
Of course, the argument doesn't withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny, but
when you've got a scimitar or an AK-47 in you hand debating opponents tend
not to push the point.
Fiona
lee
that we are unfairly claiming to be the only chosen people
a bit rich coming from them seeing as they prohibited us from
proselytising (is that the correct word?)
incidentally I dont remember this
"The Islamic stance on the Torah is that
> Allah gave the Torah to the Jews but the Jews corrupted it, removing all the
> references to Mohammed scripture originally contained and twisting it to
> benefit ourselves. And that, according to the Koran, is why Allah had to
> give the Koran to Mohammed."
is there more than one version of the koran ?
or is it in the side writings, commentaries a bit like the oral torah
in our case
On 1 Mar, 11:26, "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> "lee" <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote
Fiona Abrahami
"lee" <scho...@gmail.com> wrote
> Isnt that what the Christians say too though
> that we are unfairly claiming to be the only chosen people
> a bit rich coming from them seeing as they prohibited us from
> proselytising (is that the correct word?)
> incidentally I dont remember this
> "The Islamic stance on the Torah is that
>> Allah gave the Torah to the Jews but the Jews corrupted it, removing all
>> the
>> references to Mohammed scripture originally contained and twisting it to
>> benefit ourselves. And that, according to the Koran, is why Allah had to
>> give the Koran to Mohammed."
> from the english translation of the koran when i read it
> is there more than one version of the koran ?
> or is it in the side writings, commentaries a bit like the oral torah
> in our case
Please learn to format your text, I can't be arsed to parse this. And don't
top post.
Fiona
lee
& people moan if about bottom posts.
as is gmails default.
why such an unfriendly response anyway ?
On 1 Mar, 13:49, "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> "lee" <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote
fla...@verizon.net
And yet we do not behave the way they do about them -
why is that do you think?
Maybe it has not as much to do with "rights" as it has
to do with what they think G-d *made them*, as opposed
to how we view *our* relationship w/G-d & the world.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 1-Mar-2010, "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "lee" <scho...@gmail.com> wrote
> >
> >however I still dont understand how Muslims can accept the Tanach &
> >yet not accept our right to Israel
>
> Simples. They don't accept the Tanach as it is, they only accept that
> scripture was given to the Jews.
The same way Xians can accept certain parts of Torah & not the rest of it.
> The Islamic stance on the Torah is that
> Allah gave the Torah to the Jews but the Jews corrupted it, removing all
> the
> references to Mohammed scripture originally contained and twisting it to
> benefit ourselves. And that, according to the Koran, is why Allah had to
> give the Koran to Mohammed.
>
Ok, *that's* defintiely not the same as the way the Xians view it :-)
> Of course, the argument doesn't withstand the slightest bit of scrutiny,
> but
> when you've got a scimitar or an AK-47 in you hand debating opponents tend
> not to push the point.
It would be a nice alternative, tho'...
Susan
Amitai
I don't want to discount cultural diversity, but let's not ignore a
mundane factor that affects their behaviorin contrast to ours: The
disputed territories are presently in our hands, not in theirs.
Amitai
>Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 1-Mar-2010, Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> > > > I do not believe the territorial dispute would have been
> > > > anywhere near as bad had it not been non-Muslims.
> >
> > > No question. Muslims are as convinced about their God-given rights as
> > > we are!.
> >
>
> > And yet we do not behave the way they do about them -
> > why is that do you think?
> > Maybe it has not as much to do with "rights" as it has
> > to do with what they think G-d *made them*, as opposed
> > to how we view *our* relationship w/G-d & the world.
> >
> The theological distinction is beyond me, Susan.
You can't see a wide difference in "we have a right to this
because G-d promised it to us" and "we have a right to this
because we're superior to you (because of our religion)"?
> I don't want to discount cultural diversity, but let's not ignore a
> mundane factor that affects their behaviorin contrast to ours: The
> disputed territories are presently in our hands, not in theirs.
Now this is beyond me.
Are you saying that they're acting that way because
we have the territories & that *we'd* act like *them* if
it were reversed??
Susan
Steve Goldfarb
>> The theological distinction is beyond me, Susan.
>You can't see a wide difference in "we have a right to this
>because G-d promised it to us" and "we have a right to this
>because we're superior to you (because of our religion)"?
For the record I don't see a difference between those statements either.
--s
--
sheldonlg
> On 1-Mar-2010, Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
>>>>> I do not believe the territorial dispute would have been
>>>>> anywhere near as bad had it not been non-Muslims.
>>>> No question. Muslims are as convinced about their God-given rights as
>>>> we are!.
>>> And yet we do not behave the way they do about them -
>>> why is that do you think?
>>> Maybe it has not as much to do with "rights" as it has
>>> to do with what they think G-d *made them*, as opposed
>>> to how we view *our* relationship w/G-d & the world.
>>>
>> The theological distinction is beyond me, Susan.
>
> You can't see a wide difference in "we have a right to this
> because G-d promised it to us" and "we have a right to this
> because we're superior to you (because of our religion)"?
No, none! They are both based upon their respective religious beliefs.
lee
ooooh, now you've put your foot in your mouth Amitai, any sign of
sympathy or empathy for the 'pals' & you might as well be a Haaretz
subscriber!
lee
I mistakenly clicked on soc.culture.jewish rather than scjm, before,
& noticed some of your posts.
Why do you bother with them there?
a quick glance at the headers was enough to make my blood boil.
Amitai
The "cultural diversity" that I mentioned would not allow us to act
like them even if the situation were reversed. I am not comparing "us"
to "them", but rather "us", say, before the establishment of the
State,* when we obliged to clear out populated areas or be pushed into
the sea, to "us" now, when we are strong enough to adopt a set of
ethical rules and try to adhere to them. I don't know how they would
behave if the situation were reversed and don't want to find out!
_________
*I made my aliya in 1946. .
Amitai
> Susan
Amitai
>
Surprise! Surprise! I am a Haaretz subscriber.
Amitai
> - Show quoted text -
fla...@verizon.net
On 1-Mar-2010, Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> > > The theological distinction is beyond me, Susan.
> >
> > You can't see a wide difference in "we have a right to this
> > because G-d promised it to us" and "we have a right to this
> > because we're superior to you (because of our religion)"?
> >
> > > I don't want to discount cultural diversity, but let's not ignore a
> > > mundane factor that affects their behaviorin contrast to ours: The
> > > disputed territories are presently in our hands, not in theirs.
> >
> > Now this is beyond me.
> > Are you saying that they're acting that way because
> > we have the territories & that *we'd* act like *them* if
> > it were reversed??
> >
> Please read what I said, not what you want to think think I said.
Please stop attributing negative behavior to me when I
*specifically* said that I wasn't sure what you wrote &
I was *asking* you what you said.
> The "cultural diversity" that I mentioned would not allow us to act
> like them even if the situation were reversed.
Fine - this is the clarification I wanted.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 1-Mar-2010, Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> > > Now this is beyond me.
> > > Are you saying that they're acting that way because
> > > we have the territories & that *we'd* act like *them* if
> > > it were reversed??
> >
> > > Susan
> >
> > ooooh, now you've put your foot in your mouth Amitai, any sign of
> > sympathy or empathy for the 'pals' & you might as well be a Haaretz
> > subscriber!- Hide quoted text -
Well, I am not surpised that *Lee* took my *qeustion* as a *statement*.
> >
> Surprise! Surprise! I am a Haaretz subscriber.
Um, is this supposed to be a none fides, or a confession....? ;-P
Susan
DoD
How is that cryptic?
I take that back... *I* have only heard one Jew talk about G-d as a
real estate agent, and
that was some punk kid that was drunk off his tushie... (I would guess
that before that day
was over, he prolly barfed on himself). Other than that incident, I
have never heard any Jew
say that. I have only heard anti-semites bring up that canard.
David
DoD
> I think you'll find the swindling real estate agent in this case, was
> the British empire!
I think you will find that I am very much not interested in $@#$@#@^$%#
$ comments
like that...
David
Amitai
I wrote nothing at all about what God was or was not. I was merely
referring to what everybody on SCJM knows - or should know:
The conflicting religious claims of Jews and Muslims to the Holy Land
are based on what each believes to be the will of God, as recorded in
their respective scriptures.
Amitai
> David- Hide quoted text -
lee
Why so, I thought that was a perfect comment on my countries
'illustrious' past?
Amitai
Britain was acting like a swindling real estate agent: guaranteeing in
the secret Sykes-Pico agreement (1916) that Palestine would go to the
Arabs and promising openly in the Balfour Declaration (1917) that is
would be the Jewish National Home.
Amitai
Amitai
> On Mar 2, 3:10 pm, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 3:32 am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 4:47 am, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I think you'll find the swindling real estate agent in this case, was
> > > > the British empire!
>
> > > I think you will find that I am very much not interested in $@#$@#@^$%#
> > > $ comments
> > > like that...
>
> > > David
>
> > Why so, I thought that was a perfect comment on my countries
> > 'illustrious' past?
>
> David's comment was spot on.
> Britain was acting like a swindling real estate agent: guaranteeing in
> the secret Sykes-Pico agreement (1916) that Palestine would go to the
> Arabs and promising openly in the Balfour Declaration (1917) that is
> would be the Jewish National Home.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
SORRY Lee. Not "David's comment, but "Lee's comment"!!!!
Amitai
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I think you'll find the swindling real estate agent in this
>> >> case, was the British empire!
>>
>> > I think you will find that I am very much not interested in
>> > $@#$@#@^$%#$ comments like that...
>>
>> 'illustrious' past?
>>
> David's comment was spot on.
> Britain was acting like a swindling real estate agent: guaranteeing in
> the secret Sykes-Pico agreement (1916) that Palestine would go to the
> Arabs and promising openly in the Balfour Declaration (1917) that is
> would be the Jewish National Home.
Now I am _totaly_ confused. I understood lee's original post as an
insult to the British empire. So David's post, to me, sounded like a
_defense_ of said empire. You say that David's comment was spot on,
and procede to slam the British empire yourself. Is it just me that's
confused? Or perhaps I didn't understand David's post?
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>> lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > I think you'll find the swindling real estate agent in this
>> > > > case, was the British empire!
>>
>> > > I think you will find that I am very much not interested in
>> > > $@#$@#@^$%# $ comments like that...
>>
>> > 'illustrious' past?
>>
>> David's comment was spot on.
> ERROR!!!!
>> Britain was acting like a swindling real estate agent: guaranteeing in
>> the secret Sykes-Pico agreement (1916) that Palestine would go to the
>> Arabs and promising openly in the Balfour Declaration (1917) that is
>> would be the Jewish National Home.
>>
>> Amitai
>
Aha, so I _was_ right in being confused. Thanks for the sanity check.
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Mar-2010, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Now I am _totaly_ confused. I understood lee's original post as an
> insult to the British empire. So David's post, to me, sounded like a
> _defense_ of said empire. You say that David's comment was spot on,
> and procede to slam the British empire yourself. Is it just me that's
> confused? Or perhaps I didn't understand David's post?
I think that David, like me, was thinking of "swindling"
being one of the false accusations of the so-called
"Palestinians" being "swindled [sic]" out of "their [sic]" land.
But I could be wrong.
Susan
Don Levey
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
fla...@verizon.net
On 2-Mar-2010, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 2-Mar-2010, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >
> >> Now I am _totaly_ confused. I understood lee's original post as an
> >> insult to the British empire. So David's post, to me, sounded like a
> >> _defense_ of said empire. You say that David's comment was spot on,
> >> and procede to slam the British empire yourself. Is it just me that's
> >> confused? Or perhaps I didn't understand David's post?
> >
> > I think that David, like me, was thinking of "swindling"
> > being one of the false accusations of the so-called
> > "Palestinians" being "swindled [sic]" out of "their [sic]" land.
> >
> > But I could be wrong.
> >
> But they were. Jordan is in its place.
Ah - I sit corrected.
Susan
DoD
Well Amitai, it appears that your reading skills are not up to snuff.
Or
can you demononstrate precisely where I said you were writing
about G-d? I didn't think so cause I didn't.
> I was merely
> referring to what everybody on SCJM knows - or should know:
> The conflicting religious claims of Jews and Muslims to the Holy Land
> are based on what each believes to be the will of God, as recorded in
> their respective scriptures.
I certainly don't know that, because like I already said, I have never
heard any
Jew besides one (singular) who was drunk, make that claim. Every Jew
I talk
to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in Israel.
David
DoD
You are entiteled to your opinion, I suppose. I just don't care to
hear it. I get enough
of that type of stuff on the unmoderated forum.
David
DoD
Spot on in what I was thinking. I was also particularly even more
annoyed
comming off the comments of Benny whats his face writing in ynet
news..
The left has a way of ticking me off to no end...
David
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On 2-Mar-2010, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>
>>> Now I am _totaly_ confused. I understood lee's original post as an
>>> insult to the British empire. So David's post, to me, sounded like a
>>> _defense_ of said empire. You say that David's comment was spot on,
>>> and procede to slam the British empire yourself. Is it just me that's
>>> confused? Or perhaps I didn't understand David's post?
>>
>> I think that David, like me, was thinking of "swindling"
>> being one of the false accusations of the so-called
>> "Palestinians" being "swindled [sic]" out of "their [sic]" land.
>>
>> But I could be wrong.
>>
> But they were. Jordan is in its place.
No Don, Jordan is in the place of _Israel_. The whole of the British
Mandate was supposed to be for the Jews. There WERE _NO_
"PALESTINIANS" at the time. Many Arabs came to Palestine to find
work, but they never had a "national" feeling till the 60's.
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-Mar-2010, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >> I think that David, like me, was thinking of "swindling"
> >> being one of the false accusations of the so-called
> >> "Palestinians" being "swindled [sic]" out of "their [sic]" land.
> >>
> >> But I could be wrong.
> >>
> > But they were. Jordan is in its place.
>
> No Don, Jordan is in the place of _Israel_. The whole of the British
> Mandate was supposed to be for the Jews. There WERE _NO_
> "PALESTINIANS" at the time. Many Arabs came to Palestine to find
> work, but they never had a "national" feeling till the 60's.
I think Don is being a trifle snarky here, in light
of the way Jordan treats them.
But I could be wrong.
Susan
mm
wrote:
Sure you did. Your first statement was "I have never heard of anyone
but anti-semites talk about G-d as a real estate agent before..."
Plainly , you were saying that Amitai was the first non-anti-semite to
talk about G-d as a real estate agent. His talking was all done in
writing, so you said he was writing about G-d. So you did what you
think you didn't do.
Then you changed that to "*I* have only heard one Jew talk about G-d
as a real estate agent," You dont' repeat "before" but plainly you
are saying Amitai is the second such Jew. So again you wrote what
you think you didn't.
>> I was merely
>> referring to what everybody on SCJM knows - or should know:
>> The conflicting religious claims of Jews and Muslims to the Holy Land
>> are based on what each believes to be the will of God, as recorded in
>> their respective scriptures.
>
>I certainly don't know that, because like I already said, I have never
>heard any
>Jew besides one (singular) who was drunk, make that claim. Every Jew
>I talk
>to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in Israel.
That's interesting, but it doesnt' change what you wrote before, and
how you unfairly criticized Amitai's reading skills, apparently just
because he had criticized yours, justifiably.
>David
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mm
wrote:
>Isnt that what the Christians say too though
>that we are unfairly claiming to be the only chosen people
Anti-semites who don't know or don't notice much about Xianity
complain that we are the chosen people. It's just one of the things
they complain about, some true, some not.
Xians agree with us about our being the chosen people, except then
they claim that God unchose us and chose them. That's what
Replacement Theology is, but very many of those xians who didn't and
don't use that particular phrase believe the notion behind it,
including Catholics from 300 CE onwards.
There are some Xians apparently (see the wiki article on
Fundamentalism) who think Jews get to go to heaven. I'm not sure if
that has ramifications about chosenness, probably not.
But I'm sure a lot of liberal Xians don't think about Xians being
chosen, probably don't think about Jews being chosen, but if they do,
may not deny that Jews are.
Really, although it's in the blessings before the Torah and in Oleynu,
I still think Xians and antisemites spend a lot more time thinking
about Jews and chosenness than Jews themselves on average do. Even
than Jews who go to shul do, on average. Because I'm sure that a lot
of Jews, even those who read it in the English (or their daily
language) or read and understand the Hebrew, just don't think about it
that much when they read those parts.
>a bit rich coming from them seeing as they prohibited us from
>proselytising (is that the correct word?)
>incidentally I dont remember this
mm
wrote:
>On Mar 2, 7:10 am, lee <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote:
Then don't read his posts. People here are not obliged to not repeat
what you've read on the unmoderated forum.
>
>David
--
Amitai
I apologize to the readership for dragging the entire previous
correspondence along, but I don't kow how else to make sense of the
neary unintelligible.
Then what did you think I was writing about? I wrote:
> > > > > > No question. Muslims are as convinced about their God-given rights as
> > > > > > we are!.
and you answered:
> > > > > I have never heard of anyone but anti-semites talk about G-d as a real
> > > > > estate agent before...
In what way does your response relate to my question?
> > I was merely
> > referring to what everybody on SCJM knows - or should know:
> > The conflicting religious claims of Jews and Muslims to the Holy Land
> > are based on what each believes to be the will of God, as recorded in
> > their respective scriptures.
>
> I certainly don't know that, because like I already said, I have never
> heard any
> Jew besides one (singular) who was drunk, make that claim. Every Jew
> I talk
> to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in Israel.
>
More dyslexia!
Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
much more) on the Quran?
All I wrote was that the answer to both questions was "Yes", and that
this was the RELIGIOUS basis for the conflict.
Nowhere did I say that it was the reason Israelis have for living in
Israel. It is not my reason or that of the secular majority of
Israelis. Nevertheless, it certainly is the basis for some Jews,
particularly - but not exclusively - for religious West Bank
settlers. If no Jew ever told you so, you evidently haven't been
speaking to the right ones.
Amitai
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 04:39:14 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com>
If I had sees your post a few minutes earlier, I might have saved
myself the bother of responding to David myself.
Amitai
> --
>
> Meir
>
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."- Hide quoted text -
lee
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 04:39:14 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com>
Do we have to get into recriminations again? I'm sure David was just
being humorous.
For what its worth I've heard lots of Jewish, drunken or otherwise,
jokes about the G-d & the promised land. Most of which seem to revolve
the lack of oil. But my favourite comment was 'we got lemons & made
lemonade' .
I'm not complaining about David & Susan not understanding my comment,
even though Amitai & I hope others understood. I'm just gonna shrug
instead.
lee
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:50:31 +0000 (UTC), lee <schotn...@gmail.com>
My impression of early Christianity in regard to Judaism, & I know I'm
probably very wrong here, is that by relaxing the rules they were
letting more people become sort of Jewish. So its not that we get to
go to their heaven but that they get to come to our 'world to come'.
Abe Kohen
"Amitai" <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
news:71cc86e8-5242-490f-aac3-
*I made my aliya in 1946. .
-----------------------------------------------
Before Kom Hamdina and right after the Holocaust. You were about 26 then.
I'm curious, if I may ask, as to what prompted the move.
Best,
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Amitai" <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote
> ooooh, now you've put your foot in your mouth Amitai, any sign of
> sympathy or empathy for the 'pals' & you might as well be a Haaretz
> subscriber!- Hide quoted text -
>
Surprise! Surprise! I am a Haaretz subscriber.
Amitai
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except for surprising any Am Haaretz, I am definitely not surprised as you
have been explicit about it before.
While I read Haaretz online, I take some joy in knowing that I'm not paying
for it. (Bad enough that we pay for the paper version of the NY Times.)
BTW, on my last trip to Haifa, I noticed on Fridays that Yediot and Maariv
were at all stands. Haaretz, OTOH, had to be seeked out. So I got a Yediot
with my Hallot at Maafiat Ariel. Maariv I paid for. Israel Hayom was
distributed for free. And Haaretz I read online using a gracious neighbor's
unsecured wireless network or free wireless at Cafe Aroma.
Best,
Abe
lee
Sorry please ignore my recriminations comment, I'll butt out of this
one!
Amitai
> "Amitai" <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
Briefly. I was brought up as a bilingual Zionist and had already spent
two years (age 12-14) in pre-Israel Palestine. I came to the HU of
Jerusalem on the GI Bill of Rights immediately after my (stateside)
service in the US armed forces, and Israel has been my home base ever
since.
Amitai
> Best,
> Abe
Don Levey
Well, yes - but from the 1920 documents I saw, the dividing line was
supposed to be the Jordan River.
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-Mar-2010, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:50:31 +0000 (UTC), lee <scho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Isnt that what the Christians say too though
> >that we are unfairly claiming to be the only chosen people
>
> Anti-semites who don't know or don't notice much about Xianity
> complain that we are the chosen people. It's just one of the things
> they complain about, some true, some not.
Anti-semites - and other more benignly ignorant folk -
also insist that they know what "chosen" means,
when they don't.
> Xians agree with us about our being the chosen people, except then
> they claim that God unchose us and chose them. That's what
> Replacement Theology is, but very many of those xians who didn't and
> don't use that particular phrase believe the notion behind it,
> including Catholics from 300 CE onwards.
>
Some of them are little more clever - or even more
well-meaning - and insit they are "grafted onto our tree
(which is the phrase I've read)."
> There are some Xians apparently (see the wiki article on
> Fundamentalism) who think Jews get to go to heaven. I'm not sure if
> that has ramifications about chosenness, probably not.
>
> But I'm sure a lot of liberal Xians don't think about Xians being
> chosen, probably don't think about Jews being chosen, but if they do,
> may not deny that Jews are.
>
> Really, although it's in the blessings before the Torah and in Oleynu,
> I still think Xians and antisemites spend a lot more time thinking
> about Jews and chosenness than Jews themselves on average do.
Which brings us (or just me?) back to my first comment, above.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-Mar-2010, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> >>> But they were. Jordan is in its place.
> >> No Don, Jordan is in the place of _Israel_. The whole of the British
> >> Mandate was supposed to be for the Jews. There WERE _NO_
> >> "PALESTINIANS" at the time. Many Arabs came to Palestine to find
> >> work, but they never had a "national" feeling till the 60's.
> >
> > I think Don is being a trifle snarky here, in light
> > of the way Jordan treats them.
> >
> > But I could be wrong.
> >
>
> Well, yes
Yes, I was wrong, or yes, you were being snarky?
Susan
Don Levey
> On 3-Mar-2010, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>
>>>>> But they were. Jordan is in its place.
>>>> No Don, Jordan is in the place of _Israel_. The whole of the British
>>>> Mandate was supposed to be for the Jews. There WERE _NO_
>>>> "PALESTINIANS" at the time. Many Arabs came to Palestine to find
>>>> work, but they never had a "national" feeling till the 60's.
>>> I think Don is being a trifle snarky here, in light
>>> of the way Jordan treats them.
>>>
>>> But I could be wrong.
>>>
>> Well, yes
>
> Yes, I was wrong, or yes, you were being snarky?
>
> Susan
>
>> - but from the 1920 documents I saw, the dividing line was
>> supposed to be the Jordan River.
lee
> flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 3-Mar-2010, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> >>>> I think that David, like me, was thinking of "swindling"
> >>>> being one of the false accusations of the so-called
> >>>> "Palestinians" being "swindled [sic]" out of "their [sic]" land.
>
> >>>> But I could be wrong.
>
> >>> But they were. Jordan is in its place.
> >> No Don, Jordan is in the place of _Israel_. The whole of the British
> >> Mandate was supposed to be for the Jews. There WERE _NO_
> >> "PALESTINIANS" at the time. Many Arabs came to Palestine to find
> >> work, but they never had a "national" feeling till the 60's.
>
> > I think Don is being a trifle snarky here, in light
> > of the way Jordan treats them.
>
> > But I could be wrong.
>
> Well, yes - but from the 1920 documents I saw, the dividing line was
> supposed to be the Jordan River.
> --
That's what I thought too, & in case there is still no oil in Jordan
either. Just lots more Palestinians, apparently.
Yisroel Markov
Professor, have you committed any of your memoirs to writing? If so,
are any online? I'd be very interested.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
DoD
> On Mar 3, 6:39 am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I apologize to the readership for dragging the entire previous
> correspondence along, but I don't kow how else to make sense of the
> neary unintelligible.
Why apologize? Nobody is forcing anyone to read any of this......
In that I never heard anyone but a specific Jew talk about "God gave
us the land". Also
if you note, I never said anything about what you specifically
believe. I don't see why this
is so hard.
> > > I was merely
> > > referring to what everybody on SCJM knows - or should know:
> > > The conflicting religious claims of Jews and Muslims to the Holy Land
> > > are based on what each believes to be the will of God, as recorded in
> > > their respective scriptures.
>
> > I certainly don't know that, because like I already said, I have never
> > heard any
> > Jew besides one (singular) who was drunk, make that claim. Every Jew
> > I talk
> > to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in Israel.
>
> More dyslexia!
What dyslexia?
> Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
> 1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
I don't know, does it? What I know about Judaism can fit into a
thimble. I do
know that you have a prayer that says "next year in J'lem" or
something like that. Does
that count?
> 2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
> much more) on the Quran?
I don't know. But the gist of what I get is that if territory was once
Muslim, then generally
it is considered Muslim for all time. This is why I have seen PalArabs
talk about
getting Spain back. The thing is, though.... Would an Indian Muslim
talk like that? I don't know.
It is hard to say, because there is no ***Pope*** in Islam. Some
Muslims might have difference
of opinions. I have personally talked to Pakistani Muslims, for
instance, who seem baffled at
why there is so much strife in "Palestine". They told me that they
couldn't figure out why
Jews and Arabs can't live in peace together. Go figure......
> All I wrote was that the answer to both questions was "Yes", and that
> this was the RELIGIOUS basis for the conflict.
> Nowhere did I say that it was the reason Israelis have for living in
> Israel. It is not my reason or that of the secular majority of
> Israelis. Nevertheless, it certainly is the basis for some Jews,
> particularly - but not exclusively - for religious West Bank
> settlers. If no Jew ever told you so, you evidently haven't been
> speaking to the right ones.
Well, I certainly never heard any, although I am sure there are. Just
not from anyone
I have ever talked to..... My only point was the only people I hear
that talk about
G-d being a real estate agent are anti-semites...
David
DoD
Still putting word in people mouths.... How arrogantly disgusting...
Stay killfiled
Amitai
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 14:35:43 +0000 (UTC), Amitai
> <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> said:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 3, 3:09 pm, "Abe Kohen" <abeko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Amitai" <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
>
> >> news:71cc86e8-5242-490f-aac3-
>
> >> *I made my aliya in 1946. .
>
> >> -----------------------------------------------
>
> >> Before Kom Hamdina and right after the Holocaust. You were about 26 then.
> >> I'm curious, if I may ask, as to what prompted the move.
>
> >I have enough years of my own; don't add any! I was 24.
>
> >Briefly. I was brought up as a bilingual Zionist and had already spent
> >two years (age 12-14) in pre-Israel Palestine. I came to the HU of
> >Jerusalem on the GI Bill of Rights immediately after my (stateside)
> >service in the US armed forces, and Israel has been my home base ever
> >since.
>
> Professor, have you committed any of your memoirs to writing? If so,
> are any online? I'd be very interested.
> --
On another matter, Yisroel: Isn't it customary for members of a
newsgroup to address one another by given name, without honorifics?
Amitai
> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand- Hide quoted text -
lee
>
> Still putting word in people mouths.... How arrogantly disgusting...
> Stay killfiled
Oh hows this for a non real estate answer David?
Ok so G-d gave it to us but said first you gotta get rid of those
pesky Caananites.
Then he changed his mind took it from us & gave it to the Christians &
the Romans.
Then He changed his mind cos the Christians split him in 3.
& gave it to the Moslems who's progressive culture seem to have
atrophied for the last 500 years or so
Then he changed his mind & gave it to the British, just cos we were
British.
Then we took it back, cos weve never really been welcome anywhere else
for 2000 years.
& we promised each other it back over the generations.
Now lets see anyone try to take it from us without starting World War
3.
Amitai
Not a bad summary, Lee, though you missed a few changes of ownership
between getting rid of the Canaanites and being thrown out by the
Romans. Besides, you seem to be using the pronoun "we" rather loosely.
Amitai
lee
Ah all those enemies between the Canaanites & the Romans, where are
they now?
You mean the lack of distinction between the we as in 'We British' &
'We Jews' ?
Sorry, loyalty wise, I guess I kinda climb on board around 1939 with
the British empire & then jump ship again round about mid 1945.
Yisroel Markov
<chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> said:
>On Mar 4, 2:22 am, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
[snip]
>> Professor, have you committed any of your memoirs to writing? If so,
>> are any online? I'd be very interested.
>> --
>Nothing to speak of in writing and nothing at all on line.
A pity. When I was young, I didn't care much about history, oral or
written. Now I do, and I find personal accounts to be of special
value.
>On another matter, Yisroel: Isn't it customary for members of a
>newsgroup to address one another by given name, without honorifics?
True, Amitai. I just felt that using a honorific would indicate the
level of my interest and convey my respect for your achievements and
experience.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
cindys
snip
>
> In that I never heard anyone but a specific Jew talk about "God gave
> us the land".
Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
Tanach. Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
Abraham's descendants, but when Sarah dies, Abraham pays a large sum
of money for the Cave of Machpelah to bury her. Ephron the Hittite,
who was the owner of the land and the cave is willing to give it to
Abraham for free, but Abraham not only insists on paying for it but
pays much more than it is actually worth. According to Rashi, the
reason is so that no one would ever be able to say that Abraham had
stolen the land from Ephron the Hittite.
>>> Every Jew
> > > I talk
> > > to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in Israel.
It is. At least, traditional Jews believe it is.
>
> > Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
> > 1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
Yes.
>
> > 2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
> > much more) on the Quran?
I believe they do.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
DoD
> On Mar 3, 8:50 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip
>
>
>
> > In that I never heard anyone but a specific Jew talk about "God gave
> > us the land".
>
> Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
> Tanach. Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
> Abraham's descendants,
And that is one of the tools anti-semites use to ridicule "Jews
rights to the
land" .
You can't prove G-d exists and if you can't do that then you can't
prove that
he was your real estate agent.
David
fla...@verizon.net
On 4-Mar-2010, cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mar 3, 8:50�pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip
> >
> > In that I never heard anyone but a specific Jew talk about "God gave
> > us the land". �
>
> Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
> Tanach.
I agree, but I think David means "... & that's the
only reason we are entitled to modern day Israel."
> Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
> Abraham's descendants, but when Sarah dies, Abraham pays a large sum
> of money for the Cave of Machpelah to bury her. Ephron the Hittite,
> who was the owner of the land and the cave is willing to give it to
> Abraham for free, but Abraham not only insists on paying for it but
> pays much more than it is actually worth. According to Rashi, the
> reason is so that no one would ever be able to say that Abraham had
> stolen the land from Ephron the Hittite.
> >>> Every Jew
> > > > I talk
> > > > to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in
> > > > Israel.
>
> It is. At least, traditional Jews believe it is.
>
But not the only legal right to do so.
> >
> > > Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
> > > 1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
>
> Yes.
>
Ok, I could be wrong - now it seems as tho' David is s
peaking solely about religion. Up until this point, I though
he was talking about political sicussinons with Jews
about Israel.
> >
> > > 2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
> > > much more) on the Quran?
>
> I believe they do.
>
Except for the whole "& so we told them "Go up &
live in the land (WTTE)": said to Jews about Israel.
They don't like when we bring that up. It's about
that time that the nastier ones dredge up the Khazar lie.
Susan
mm
wrote:
>On Mar 4, 9:03 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
This is why your voice is so valuable on this iist [sarcasm], you who
said you what you know about Judaism could only fill a thimble.
>
>David
fla...@verizon.net
On 4-Mar-2010, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
> >> Tanach. Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
> >> Abraham's descendants,
> >
> >And that is one of the tools anti-semites use to ridicule "Jews
> >rights to the
> >land" .
> >
> >You can't prove G-d exists and if you can't do that then you can't
> >prove that he was your real estate agent.
>
> This is why your voice is so valuable on this list [sarcasm], you who
> said you what you know about Judaism could only fill a thimble.
Except that he's absolutely right - when it comes
to the *politics* that I was certain he was discussing.
He is not saying "You Jews are wrong!"
He is saying "Jews can't rely just on G-d's Word
to vaidate your claims to modern Israel."
Susan
DoD
> On 4-Mar-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >> Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
> > >> Tanach. Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
> > >> Abraham's descendants,
>
> > >And that is one of the tools anti-semites use to ridicule "Jews
> > >rights to the
> > >land" .
>
> > >You can't prove G-d exists and if you can't do that then you can't
> > >prove that he was your real estate agent.
>
> > This is why your voice is so valuable on this list [sarcasm], you who
> > said you what you know about Judaism could only fill a thimble.
Well, well, well, Mr. Sarcasm..... some would find a voice that is
friendly useful. Hillel
tells me it is nice to have a friend give objective observances... But
I could care less what
*you* think.
> Except that he's absolutely right - when it comes
> to the *politics* that I was certain he was discussing.
I was... Wait for my post to come up that is hung in moderation. It
was
Amitai's question... Not mine.
> He is not saying "You Jews are wrong!"
> He is saying "Jews can't rely just on G-d's Word
> to vaidate your claims to modern Israel."
Exactly, and in the other post, I have the sig you prolly were
thinking
about. And in that sense of that sig... Having a sky daddy real estate
agent
presents a pickle for the Muslims...
David
mm
wrote:
>On Mar 4, 11:19 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On 4-Mar-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > >> Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
>> > >> Tanach. Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
>> > >> Abraham's descendants,
>>
>> > >And that is one of the tools anti-semites use to ridicule "Jews
>> > >rights to the
>> > >land" .
>>
>> > >You can't prove G-d exists and if you can't do that then you can't
>> > >prove that he was your real estate agent.
>>
>> > This is why your voice is so valuable on this list [sarcasm], you who
>> > said you what you know about Judaism could only fill a thimble.
>
>Well, well, well, Mr. Sarcasm..... some would find a voice that is
>friendly useful.
Useful? You spend most of your time here, certainly the threads you
start, spreading dissension between Jews and people who disagree with
us or dislike us. Sure there is already dissension, but you amplify
it.
As I wrote before, most of your posts are of the nature "Let's you and
him fight.".
> Hillel
>tells me it is nice to have a friend give objective observances... But
>I could care less what
>*you* think.
>
>> Except that he's absolutely right - when it comes
>> to the *politics* that I was certain he was discussing.
>
>I was... Wait for my post to come up that is hung in moderation. It
>was
>Amitai's question... Not mine.
>
>> He is not saying "You Jews are wrong!"
>> He is saying "Jews can't rely just on G-d's Word
>> to vaidate your claims to modern Israel."
>
>Exactly, and in the other post, I have the sig you prolly were
>thinking
>about. And in that sense of that sig... Having a sky daddy real estate
>agent
>presents a pickle for the Muslims...
>
>David
--
Amitai
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:14:02 +0000 (UTC), Amitai
> <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> said:
>
> >On Mar 4, 2:22 am, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Professor, have you committed any of your memoirs to writing? If so,
> >> are any online? I'd be very interested.
> >> --
> >Nothing to speak of in writing and nothing at all on line.
>
> A pity. When I was young, I didn't care much about history, oral or
> written. Now I do, and I find personal accounts to be of special
> value.
>
> >On another matter, Yisroel: Isn't it customary for members of a
> >newsgroup to address one another by given name, without honorifics?
>
> True, Amitai. I just felt that using a honorific would indicate the
> level of my interest and convey my respect for your achievements and
> experience.
> --
Noted and appreciated, but I am glad that we are back on a first name
basis.
Amitai
> Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Memberwww.reason.com-- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
lee
> On Mar 5, 2:43 am, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:14:02 +0000 (UTC), Amitai
> > <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> said:
>
> > >On Mar 4, 2:22 am, Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > >> Professor, have you committed any of your memoirs to writing? If so,
> > >> are any online? I'd be very interested.
> > >> --
> > >Nothing to speak of in writing and nothing at all on line.
>
> > A pity. When I was young, I didn't care much about history, oral or
> > written. Now I do, and I find personal accounts to be of special
> > value.
>
> > >On another matter, Yisroel: Isn't it customary for members of a
> > >newsgroup to address one another by given name, without honorifics?
>
> > True, Amitai. I just felt that using a honorific would indicate the
> > level of my interest and convey my respect for your achievements and
> > experience.
> > --
>
> Noted and appreciated, but I am glad that we are back on a first name
> basis.
>
> Amitai
>
>
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
So are you are Professor?
lee
For what's its worth, loyalty wise, I also jump ship with the
Israelites (not strictly chronologically speaking) round about
Hanukkah, & Masada & the Bar Kokhba revolts, then only climb back
onboard with Zionism & The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Not withstanding my
respect & admiration for 2 millennia of passive resistance. My one
true love is international socialism, if you hadn't guessed already!
DoD
> On 4-Mar-2010, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 8:50 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > snip
>
> > > In that I never heard anyone but a specific Jew talk about "God gave
> > > us the land".
>
> > Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
> > Tanach.
>
> I agree, but I think David means "... & that's the
> only reason we are entitled to modern day Israel."
Yes.
> > Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
> > Abraham's descendants, but when Sarah dies, Abraham pays a large sum
> > of money for the Cave of Machpelah to bury her. Ephron the Hittite,
> > who was the owner of the land and the cave is willing to give it to
> > Abraham for free, but Abraham not only insists on paying for it but
> > pays much more than it is actually worth. According to Rashi, the
> > reason is so that no one would ever be able to say that Abraham had
> > stolen the land from Ephron the Hittite.
> > >>> Every Jew
> > > > > I talk
> > > > > to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in
> > > > > Israel.
>
> > It is. At least, traditional Jews believe it is.
>
> But not the only legal right to do so.
>
> > > > Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
> > > > 1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
>
> > Yes.
>
> Ok, I could be wrong - now it seems as tho' David is s
> peaking solely about religion. Up until this point, I though
> he was talking about political sicussinons with Jews
> about Israel.
That was Amitai's question... Not mine. You are correct in that I am
talking
about "what works in the real world"...
> > > > 2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
> > > > much more) on the Quran?
>
> > I believe they do.
>
> Except for the whole "& so we told them "Go up &
> live in the land (WTTE)": said to Jews about Israel.
> They don't like when we bring that up. It's about
> that time that the nastier ones dredge up the Khazar lie.
Ah yes... The one of a kind, Anonmoos and his sig.....
Qur'an quotes: 5:20 qaala muusaa 5:21 "yaa qawmi dkhuluu l-'arDa l-
muqaddasata
llatii kataba llaahu lakum" 17:104 waqulnaa ... libanii 'israa'iila
"skunuu l-
'arDa" || In English: Moses said "My people, go into the Holy Land
which God
has assigned to you" And we said to the Children of Israel "Inhabit
the land"
David
Herman Rubin
> On Mar 3, 8:50 pm, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> snip
>> In that I never heard anyone but a specific Jew talk about "God gave
>> us the land".
> Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
> Tanach. Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
> Abraham's descendants, but when Sarah dies, Abraham pays a large sum
> of money for the Cave of Machpelah to bury her. Ephron the Hittite,
> who was the owner of the land and the cave is willing to give it to
> Abraham for free, but Abraham not only insists on paying for it but
> pays much more than it is actually worth. According to Rashi, the
> reason is so that no one would ever be able to say that Abraham had
> stolen the land from Ephron the Hittite.
The negotiation process was typical for the culture of
that time. It is unclear why Abraham insists on paying
so much; possibly to make a very strong claim for his
descendents.
>>>> Every Jew
>> > > I talk
>> > > to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in Israel.
> It is. At least, traditional Jews believe it is.
>> > Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
>> > 1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
> Yes.
>> > 2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
>> > much more) on the Quran?
> I believe they do.
I do not believe they get it directly from the Quran.
It was only after Muhammad's death that Jerusalem
was even considered; I believe it is not even mentioned
in the Quran, nor is Eretz Yisrael in any way. However,
there is the interpretation that any land ever Muslim
is permanently Muslim.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
cindys
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:30:31 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 4, 11:19 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> On 4-Mar-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >> Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
> >> > >> Tanach. Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
> >> > >> Abraham's descendants,
>
> >> > >And that is one of the tools anti-semites use to ridicule "Jews
> >> > >rights to the
> >> > >land" .
>
> >> > >You can't prove G-d exists and if you can't do that then you can't
> >> > >prove that he was your real estate agent.
>
> >> > This is why your voice is so valuable on this list [sarcasm], you who
> >> > said you what you know about Judaism could only fill a thimble.
>
> >Well, well, well, Mr. Sarcasm..... some would find a voice that is
> >friendly useful.
I do.
>
> Useful? You spend most of your time here, certainly the threads you
> start, spreading dissension between Jews and people who disagree with
> us or dislike us. Sure there is already dissension, but you amplify
> it.
How does he do that? All religion is a matter of faith, and Judaism is
no exception. There is no scientifically demonstrable proof that God
exists and that He wrote the torah. A person either believes it or he
doesn't. David is just stating the obvious. I can't see where David
does anything other than support the State of Israel and show interest
in the Jewish people. He admits that he doesn't know much about
Judaism. So what? Knowledge of Judaism isn't a prerequisite for
participation on SCJM. I would rather have someone like David who
admits he knows nothing than some other person who also knows nothing
but insists he knows everything.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Harry Weiss
> On Mar 3, 6:39?am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I apologize to the readership for dragging the entire previous
> correspondence along, but I don't kow how else to make sense of the
> neary unintelligible.
> > On Mar 2, 4:32?am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 2, 5:29?am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Mar 1, 3:36?am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Mar 1, 10:13?am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Mar 1, 1:55?am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > On Mar 1, 4:14?am, flav...@verizon.net wrote:> On 28-Feb-2010, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > > A very interesting article. Thanks, Fiona.
> > > > > > > > > I still believe that the Palestinian opposition to Israel was
> > > > > > > > > primarily territorial,
> >
> > > > > > > > I agree with you, but also Fiona.
> > > > > > > > I do not believe the territorial dispute would have been
> > > > > > > > anywhere near as bad had it not been non-Muslims.
> >
> > > > > > > No question. Muslims are as convinced about their God-given rights as
> > > > > > > we are!.
> >
> > > > > > I have never heard of anyone but anti-semites talk about G-d as a real
> > > > > > estate agent before...
> >
> > > > > Please explain that cryptic remark.
> >
> > > > How is that cryptic?
> >
> > > > I take that back... *I* have only heard one Jew talk about G-d as a
> > > > real estate agent, and
> > > > that was some punk kid that was drunk off his tushie... (I would guess
> > > > that before that day
> > > > was over, he prolly barfed on himself). Other than that incident, I
> > > > have never heard any Jew
> > > > say that. ?I have only heard anti-semites bring up that canard.
> >
> > > I fear, David, that your reading skills are impaired.
> > > I wrote nothing at all about what God was or was not.
> >
> > Well Amitai, it appears that your reading skills are not up to snuff.
> > Or
> > can you demononstrate precisely where I said you were writing
> > about G-d? I didn't think so cause I didn't.
> >
> Then what did you think I was writing about? I wrote:
> > > > > > > No question. Muslims are as convinced about their God-given rights as
> > > > > > > we are!.
> and you answered:
> > > > > > I have never heard of anyone but anti-semites talk about G-d as a real
> > > > > > estate agent before...
> In what way does your response relate to my question?
> > > I was merely
> > > referring to what everybody on SCJM knows - or should know:
> > > The conflicting religious claims of Jews and Muslims to the Holy Land
> > > are based on what each believes to be the will of God, as recorded in
> > > their respective scriptures.
> >
> > I certainly don't know that, because like I already said, I have never
> > heard any
> > Jew besides ?one (singular) who was drunk, make that claim. Every Jew
> > I talk
> > to has never told me that was their basis for Jews to live in Israel.
> >
> More dyslexia!
> Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
> 1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
> 2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
> much more) on the Quran?
> All I wrote was that the answer to both questions was "Yes", and that
> this was the RELIGIOUS basis for the conflict.
The problem with what your wrote is that now where in the Koran is there
any reference to Palestine or Jerusalem
> Nowhere did I say that it was the reason Israelis have for living in
> Israel. It is not my reason or that of the secular majority of
> Israelis. Nevertheless, it certainly is the basis for some Jews,
> particularly - but not exclusively - for religious West Bank
> settlers. If no Jew ever told you so, you evidently haven't been
> speaking to the right ones.
> Amitai
> > David- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Steve Goldfarb
>How does he do that? All religion is a matter of faith, and Judaism is
>no exception. There is no scientifically demonstrable proof that God
>exists and that He wrote the torah. A person either believes it or he
>doesn't. David is just stating the obvious. I can't see where David
>does anything other than support the State of Israel and show interest
>in the Jewish people. He admits that he doesn't know much about
>Judaism. So what? Knowledge of Judaism isn't a prerequisite for
>participation on SCJM. I would rather have someone like David who
>admits he knows nothing than some other person who also knows nothing
>but insists he knows everything.
Yeah, all those people who think they know everything ruin it for those of
us who really do! :-)
--s (is it still purim season?)
--
Amitai
> Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> > On Mar 3, 6:39?am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
> > 1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
> > 2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
> > much more) on the Quran?
> > All I wrote was that the answer to both questions was "Yes", and that
> > this was the RELIGIOUS basis for the conflict.
>
> The problem with what your wrote is that now where in the Koran is there
> any reference to Palestine or Jerusalem
>
I confess to have been a bit sloppy in my formulation. I agrree that
there is no explicit reference to Jerusalem in the Quran. However, the
Muslims claim that the Qibla in Chapter 2 of the Quran and the
"farthest mosque" in Capter 17 both refer to Jerusalem. The claim that
the entire region is Waqf - i.e. unalterably Islamic property - is
more recent, but it is sufficiently well established to be considered
religious dogma.
[snip]
> > Amitai
> > > David- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Harry J. Weiss
> hjwe...@panix.com- Hide quoted text -
fla...@verizon.net
On 5-Mar-2010, Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 7:37�pm, Harry Weiss <hjwe...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> > > On Mar 3, 6:39?am, DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Please answer, preferably with a "yes" or a "no":
> > > 1. Does the Jewish religion base its claim to Palestine on the Tanakh?
> > > 2. Does the Muslim religion base its claim to the same region (and
> > > much more) on the Quran?
> > > All I wrote was that the answer to both questions was "Yes", and that
> > > this was the RELIGIOUS basis for the conflict.
> >
> > The problem with what your wrote is that now where in the Koran is there
> > any reference to Palestine or Jerusalem
> >
> I confess to have been a bit sloppy in my formulation. I agrree that
> there is no explicit reference to Jerusalem in the Quran. However, the
> Muslims claim that the Qibla in Chapter 2 of the Quran and the
> "farthest mosque" in Capter 17 both refer to Jerusalem
Yeah, they claim it NOW.
> The claim that
> the entire region is Waqf - i.e. unalterably Islamic property - is
> more recent, but it is sufficiently well established to be considered
> religious dogma.
But it's not once which supercedes ours in any case.
Susan
Amitai
we call Eretz Yisrael and they call Palestine. They argue that their
claim supersedes ours; we disagree.
My own opinion is that the outcome will not be determined on the basis
of whose religious or historical claim is stronger but by more mundane
factors, primarily possession but also military strength and
international politics.
Amitai
> Susan- Hide quoted text -
cindys
snip
>
> For what's its worth, loyalty wise, I also jump ship with the
> Israelites (not strictly chronologically speaking) round about
> Hanukkah, & Masada & the Bar Kokhba revolts, then only climb back
> onboard with Zionism & The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
snip
----
Ironically, I was reading just today that the events at Masada were
actually the inspiration for the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and that
someone has written a play based on a poem a young boy in the Warsaw
Ghetto wrote entitled "Masada."
Have you ever actually studied the history (social, political, and
military) behind Chanukah, Masada, and the Bar Kohkba revolts? Do you
know what the war of the Macabees was all about? Do you know what the
Bar Kokhba revolts were all about?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
I don't know if it's still Purim season, but I just received the
latest issue of _Kashrus_ magazine, and apparently worms in fish is
going to be the new focus of kashrus concerns for months to come.
(That's in addition to ongoing concerns regarding bugs in raisins and
raspberries.)
Apparently, the gemara permits some of these worms because in the days
of the gemara, it was believed that the worms were generated
spontaneously from the fish flesh and not ingested by the fish. But
now that we have greater scientific knowledge (and lightboxes), we
know that the fish actually ingest the parasites (in some cases as
eggs or specks). The dilemma is that an acceptance of the scientific
knowledge would seemingly involve an admission that the gemara is
wrong. One explanation, of course, is that in the days of the gemara,
the fundamental nature of the worms was different, and the worms used
to generate spontaneously, and now they don't. Then, there is another
position that the worms are permitted because they don't fit the
biblical definition of a forbidden animal on the basis of whether they
are in the water or not (I can't remember the exact argument now, as I
read the article very quickly).
At any rate, the article promised that there will be no shortage of
forthcoming speaking engagements by various rabbis to discuss the
issue. I think the article may have even mentioned that a series of
new chumros are being formulated as a result of all this. I thought
you might appreciate that, Steve, as I know you are very machmir
(strict) about keeping as many chumros as possible, so I thought I
would give you a heads' up. :-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 6-Mar-2010, Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> > > I confess to have been a bit sloppy in my formulation. I agrree that
> > > there is no explicit reference to Jerusalem in the Quran. However, the
> > > Muslims claim that the Qibla in Chapter 2 of the Quran and the
> > > "farthest mosque" in Capter 17 both refer to Jerusalem
> >
> > Yeah, they claim it NOW.
> >
> > > The claim that
> > > the entire region is Waqf - i.e. unalterably Islamic property - is
> > > more recent, but it is sufficiently well established to be considered
> > > religious dogma.
> >
> > But it's not once which supercedes ours in any case.
> >
> I was merely pointing out that both sides had religious claims to what
> we call Eretz Yisrael and they call Palestine. They argue that their
> claim supersedes ours; we disagree.
>
I wasn't so much "arguing with you" as I was just making the point.
> My own opinion is that the outcome will not be determined on the basis
> of whose religious or historical claim is stronger but by more mundane
> factors, primarily possession but also military strength and
> international politics.
Oh, absolutely.
Susan
Harry Weiss
This was a major topic of discussion at the recent AKO meeting in Dallas.
Apparently there the consensus was that this was noneense. In his recent
e mail, Rabbi Edilitz gave both the view of the OU/Rabbi Belsky permitting
and the prohbition by the RCC. I heard that the RCC may be backing down.
I just wonder if this was all caused by some macher ready to open his worm
free fish business.
I heard in a lecture from Rabbi Rakefet that many years ago someone wanted
to start selling scotch with a hechsher and went to local Rabbi who was
one of the major gedolim of his time. This Rov zt:l contacted Reb Moshe
Feinstein zt"l who ruled basically that all scotch is kosher.
There is at least one poster here who may know much more about this than I
do and may wish to comment.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Exactly, and in the other post, I have the sig you prolly were
> thinking about. And in that sense of that sig... Having a sky
> daddy real estate agent presents a pickle for the Muslims...
I doubt that. Whenever they have a pickle, they use a _sword_ to
get out. <SIGH>
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
lee
Hanukkah, only really the official Jewish stuff, my later
understanding is that it was really much more of a civil war between
Hellenized Jews & non Hellenized Jews & quite nasty too, but civil
wars tend to get a bit nasty. The Bar Khokhba revolts were national
liberation revolts with the addition of messianic zeal. I suppose in
my mind they were both about the Israelites right to be jews in their
own land, as is Zionism imo . The Warsaw Ghetto to me as well as being
about survival is about saying enough is enough & we wont take this
anymore, anybody else who wants to kill jews needs to realize it has a
cost. Which is also about the Israelites rights to be alive & as who
we choose to be, imho.
cindys
> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
------
We'll see. The A and B Fish Company has been advertising for years
that (unlike their competitors' gefilte fish), their fish is worm-
free. The way the article made this worms-in-fish issue sound, the
issue promises to be at least as big if not bigger than the bugs-in-
vegetables thing.
The article opened with its author (a particular mashgiach) stating
that lately, at every simcha (happy event - like a wedding or bar
mitzvah reception), he supervises, dozens of people have been coming
up to him and asking him "What's with the fish problem?" (Right.
Nobody has anything better to do at a simcha than to search for the
mashgiach to discuss worms in fish? Well...maybe in Monsey and
Lakewood, they don't.)
Then, the article goes on to describe at length the various rabbinic
positions that I have outlined above and concludes with a list of
permitted and forbidden fish (not on the basis of fins and scales, but
on the basis of which biblically kosher fish should now be avoided due
to problems with worms). It seemed like most farmed fish (as opposed
to some of the wild-caught) were okay.
The same issue of _Kashrus_ also revisited the raisin issue, and the
bottom line of that was that basically all raisins are a problem, even
the ones with a good hechsher, and the only "safe" raisins are those
that emanate from Such-and-Such company where all the kosher bakeries
buy their raisins in bulk and consumers can order them from there
too.
There was also a reiteration of the raspberry issue, which are
outright ossur (forbidden), unlike the strawberries that can
eventually be eaten, (after first being washed in soapy water,
inspected and peeled until they turn to mush). In answer to how is it
possible that there can be hechshered raspberry jam on the supermarket
shelf?, the response was that it's not really jam but jelly made from
raspberries that have been completely pulverized into liquid and then
reformulated in some manner to give the illusion of containing
actually hunks of raspberry fruit. The article provided the name of a
specific brand of raspberry "jam" that is processed in this way.
There was praise for a certain caterer who when he caters an event
doesn't use the regular mashgiach (kosher supervisor) of the event to
check vegetables for bugs but hires specialists to do this specific
task because the specialists are going to be much more careful. The
article also states that romaine lettuce is so bug-infested that it's
impossible to get rid of all the bugs no matter how carefully you wash
and inspect, and therefore you should throw away the leaves and use
only the stalks for maror on Pesach (after the stalks have been de-
bugged according to the usual multiple washing and inspection process,
of course).
These are just the highlights. I'll have to go back and read all these
articles again. I admit I didn't read them very thoroughly the first
time because the parts that I did read were making my head spin.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
DoD
> DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Exactly, and in the other post, I have the sig you prolly were
> > thinking about. And in that sense of that sig... Having a sky
> > daddy real estate agent presents a pickle for the Muslims...
>
> I doubt that. Whenever they have a pickle, they use a _sword_ to
> get out. <SIGH>
True that.... True that.... :o( :o(
David
DoD
> On Mar 5, 12:41 am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 05:30:31 +0000 (UTC), DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Mar 4, 11:19 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > >> On 4-Mar-2010, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > >> Well, here is another one who makes that claim (me). It is in the
> > >> > >> Tanach. Not only does God promise the land of milk and honey to
> > >> > >> Abraham's descendants,
>
> > >> > >And that is one of the tools anti-semites use to ridicule "Jews
> > >> > >rights to the
> > >> > >land" .
>
> > >> > >You can't prove G-d exists and if you can't do that then you can't
> > >> > >prove that he was your real estate agent.
>
> > >> > This is why your voice is so valuable on this list [sarcasm], you who
> > >> > said you what you know about Judaism could only fill a thimble.
>
> > >Well, well, well, Mr. Sarcasm..... some would find a voice that is
> > >friendly useful.
>
> I do.
>
>
>
> > Useful? You spend most of your time here, certainly the threads you
> > start, spreading dissension between Jews and people who disagree with
> > us or dislike us. Sure there is already dissension, but you amplify
> > it.
I do? Whatever you say, dude.....
> How does he do that? All religion is a matter of faith, and Judaism is
> no exception. There is no scientifically demonstrable proof that God
> exists and that He wrote the torah. A person either believes it or he
> doesn't. David is just stating the obvious. I can't see where David
> does anything other than support the State of Israel and show interest
> in the Jewish people. He admits that he doesn't know much about
> Judaism. So what? Knowledge of Judaism isn't a prerequisite for
> participation on SCJM. I would rather have someone like David who
> admits he knows nothing than some other person who also knows nothing
> but insists he knows everything.
Thank you Cindy... There are a lot of things, like I just wrote to
Maxine, about
you Jewish culture that I find interesting. Some things I like, some
not so much,
but is that any different than anyone else here? But I certainly don't
see where
I spread dissension... Whateva that is supposed to mean.
David
cindys
> On Mar 7, 3:53 am, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> > DoD <danskisan...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Exactly, and in the other post, I have the sig you prolly were
> > > thinking about. And in that sense of that sig... Having a sky
> > > daddy real estate agent presents a pickle for the Muslims...
>
> > I doubt that. Whenever they have a pickle, they use a _sword_ to
> > get out. <SIGH>
I prefer to use a fork. With a knife, the pickles have a tendency to
slide off the blade and fall back into the jar ;-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>I prefer to use a fork. With a knife, the pickles have a tendency to
>slide off the blade and fall back into the jar ;-)
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
"I eat my peas with honey. I've done it all my life. It may sound
kind of funny, but it keeps them on the knife." My brother.
Steve Goldfarb
You know I'm certainly very machmir on throwing my two cents in :-)
I found an article online with some details on this issue, gotta tell you
if I were O I'd be concerned about this lack of confidence in the law. I'm
being totally serious btw - with the raspberries issue, OK, one can claim
that perhaps our ancestors had no idea there were bugs in fruit. But here,
this is specifically a case of settled law - the gemara flat-out says yes,
there are indeed worms in fish, and nevertheless they are kosher. The
article I read doesn't say it's because of spontaneous generation, but
because it enters the salmon as a non-worm, and only becomes a worm within
the body of the fish. Thus, halachically it is ruled to be part of the
fish.
Scientifically speaking one could agree or disagree with this ruling,
PRECISELY as one might agree or disagree with the notion that onions are
"sharp" and thus transfer some mysterious "taam" across milk and meat.
In my view, both approaches - it is kosher because the gemara is wrong,
and it is NOT kosher because the gemara is wrong - are philsophically
identical. You either trust the settled law, or you don't.
FWIW, I think the "mainstream" O need to watch their step a bit - times
are different, now. Used to be a community in Minsk could come up with
whatever crazy idea it wanted and the community of Lvov might ignore it,
or not even hear about it - now, with the modern flow of communication and
the way the commerce factor works, as you describe, seems like you've
potentially got a much more serious issue.
I really think that this "super-machmir" movement has quite a bit in
common with the original Reform movement in Germany - it's doing very much
the same thing, just from the opposite point of view - and is likely to be
just as disruptive to mainstream O. Just my two cents.
--s
--
cindys
IIRC (I haven't looked at the article again since I last posted on
this topic), this is related to the reason the worms would be
permitted on a biblical level (for those who hold that they are
permitted). Since the worms were only eggs and not mature worms *while
they were in the water,* they do not technically fit the biblical
definition of the water-borne abominations.
>
> Scientifically speaking one could agree or disagree with this ruling,
> PRECISELY as one might agree or disagree with the notion that onions are
> "sharp" and thus transfer some mysterious "taam" across milk and meat.
>
> In my view, both approaches - it is kosher because the gemara is wrong,
> and it is NOT kosher because the gemara is wrong - are philsophically
> identical. You either trust the settled law, or you don't.
>
> FWIW, I think the "mainstream" O need to watch their step a bit - times
> are different, now.
I don't know what you mean that the "mainstream O" should watch their
step. As a "movement," they are disappearing. Like the Cs, they are
splitting, with a significant percentage increasingly headed in a
black hat direction and a separate (smaller) group headed in a liberal
leftwing direction (the group that recently changed the title of
maharat to "rabbat" and ordained a female rabbi). The ordination of
this woman rabbi has really deepened the rift between the leftwing MO
and the more rightwing MO and black hats. The right wingers have flat
out declared that any movement which ordains a woman rabbi or any
synagogue which employs a woman in a rabbinical position cannot be
considered Orthodox. I will go so far as to say (IMHO), this almost
seems analogous to the rift created between C and R when R instituted
patrilineal descent.
>Used to be a community in Minsk could come up with
> whatever crazy idea it wanted and the community of Lvov might ignore it,
> or not even hear about it - now, with the modern flow of communication and
> the way the commerce factor works, as you describe, seems like you've
> potentially got a much more serious issue.
Potentially? There is already a very big issue here, but it's not
about differences of opinion regarding kashrus; that's the least of
the problems.
>
> I really think that this "super-machmir" movement has quite a bit in
> common with the original Reform movement in Germany - it's doing very much
> the same thing, just from the opposite point of view - and is likely to be
> just as disruptive to mainstream O. Just my two cents.
As I said, there is a huge disruption, but the disruption is more
about the ordination of this female rabbi than it is about worms in
fish.
BTW, I've been wanting for several weeks to comment regarding your
thoughts on the Satmar (that they have gone so far off in their own
direction that at some future time, they will no longer be part of the
larger Jewish people and will disappear). I disagree with your
position on the basis of their prolific birthrate. I firmly believe
that the groups that are going to disappear are the Cs and the modern
Os. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I think we are
ultimately going to be seeing two distinct groups - the Rs and the
blackhats. It is conceivable that there may be a smaller group which
consists of a combination of former right-leaning Cs and liberal MOs,
but I think this third group will be comparatively very small and not
terribly influential. And that's my 2 cents worth :-)
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>I don't know what you mean that the "mainstream O" should watch their
>step. As a "movement," they are disappearing. Like the Cs, they are
>splitting, with a significant percentage increasingly headed in a
>black hat direction and a separate (smaller) group headed in a liberal
>leftwing direction (the group that recently changed the title of
>maharat to "rabbat" and ordained a female rabbi). The ordination of
>this woman rabbi has really deepened the rift between the leftwing MO
>and the more rightwing MO and black hats. The right wingers have flat
>out declared that any movement which ordains a woman rabbi or any
>synagogue which employs a woman in a rabbinical position cannot be
>considered Orthodox. I will go so far as to say (IMHO), this almost
>seems analogous to the rift created between C and R when R instituted
>patrilineal descent.
I'm sure you're right, you're much closer to it than I am. It's
unfortunate, I think.
>As I said, there is a huge disruption, but the disruption is more
>about the ordination of this female rabbi than it is about worms in
>fish.
Sure, that seems like a larger issue, no doubt.
>BTW, I've been wanting for several weeks to comment regarding your
>thoughts on the Satmar (that they have gone so far off in their own
>direction that at some future time, they will no longer be part of the
>larger Jewish people and will disappear). I disagree with your
>position on the basis of their prolific birthrate. I firmly believe
>that the groups that are going to disappear are the Cs and the modern
>Os. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I think we are
>ultimately going to be seeing two distinct groups - the Rs and the
>blackhats. It is conceivable that there may be a smaller group which
>consists of a combination of former right-leaning Cs and liberal MOs,
>but I think this third group will be comparatively very small and not
>terribly influential. And that's my 2 cents worth :-)
That's not exactly what I meant, about the Satmar - as long as the US is
fine, I imagine they'll be fine. I was thinking more long-term than that,
and more hypothetical. But even so - perhaps the way you interpreted what
I meant is what I should have said, as I don't that type of community is
really stable.
Consider the Lubavitchers, after all, 20 years ago they would probably
have been voted "most likely to succeed" but as far as I'm concerned
they're already gone, they just haven't realized it yet. They've still got
some momentum from the structures that existed previously, but they're a
group built around the notion of central leadership, and that leadership
is gone - they've already fragmented massively, no reason to believe that
trend won't continue. Satmars aren't much different in that respect I
don't think, maybe just 20 or 30 years later in the curve. Dynasties just
don't last.
Regarding C and MO - I'm not sure what'll happen. Maybe the current O will
take things so far to the right (ARE taking things so far to the right)
that they'll leave a vacuum into which other groups might move. Sometimes
these things go in cycles.
--s
--
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>IIRC (I haven't looked at the article again since I last posted on
>this topic), this is related to the reason the worms would be
>permitted on a biblical level (for those who hold that they are
>permitted). Since the worms were only eggs and not mature worms *while
>they were in the water,* they do not technically fit the biblical
>definition of the water-borne abominations.
I don't know about worms in fish, but if you can't see the zygotes or
whatever is floating in the water that the fish eat, if they are too
small to see with the naked eye, aiui, they don't count. HaShem didn't
give us laws we couldn't apply, and we're not held responsible for
things too small to see with the naked eye, even though now there
exist microscopes. How and whether this applies to fish, like I say,
I don't know.
>>
....
cindys
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 03:35:11 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
>
> >IIRC (I haven't looked at the article again since I last posted on
> >this topic), this is related to the reason the worms would be
> >permitted on a biblical level (for those who hold that they are
> >permitted). Since the worms were only eggs and not mature worms *while
> >they were in the water,* they do not technically fit the biblical
> >definition of the water-borne abominations.
>
> I don't know about worms in fish, but if you can't see the zygotes or
> whatever is floating in the water that the fish eat, if they are too
> small to see with the naked eye, aiui, they don't count. HaShem didn't
> give us laws we couldn't apply, and we're not held responsible for
> things too small to see with the naked eye, even though now there
> exist microscopes. How and whether this applies to fish, like I say,
> I don't know.
Yes, that is my understanding of the halacha as well, but the worms in
the fish flesh are clearly visible to the naked eye. The gemara
ostensibly stated (I have not learn this gemara myself) that these
worms did not present a problem because they were actually part of the
fish and had ostensibly grown spontaneously from the fish itself. Even
though we now know this is not the case (there is no such thing as
spontaneous generation of worms in fish), and we know that the fish
ingest the eggs from the water, and the eggs then develop into worms
once inside the fish, there is no biblical prohibition against eating
specks or microscopic eggs that are in the water.
To cut to the chase, this promises to be a hot topic of conversation
for months (maybe years) to come, as a number of prominent rabbis have
already scheduled speaking tours on this subject. I can tell you for a
fact that the A and B Company (which produces frozen gefilte fish) has
for years been using the worm issue as a selling point: "We are the
only company that ensures there are no worms in the fish we use to
make our gefilte fish" or something like that. I have seen worms in
fish flesh depicted in _Kashrus_ magazine in the past, but I can't
remember if it's part of the A and B advertisement or just one of the
articles that _Kashrus_ routinely prints on various topics having to
do with kashrus.
Suffice it to say, that the photo of the fish with the round worm
clear and obvious within the flesh is sickening to look at, and over
the past few years, I have thought twice and three times about buying
any gefilte fish other than A and B just on the basis of gross-out
factor alone. So, even if the worms are halachically permitted, who
wants to eat that??? Yuck! Which of course is the bottom line
psychological aspect which is separate from the Jewish legal aspect.
Do a google search for images of worms in fish flesh. Even though the
worms are ostensibly harmless from a health standpoint, they look
totally disgusting. It will really make you feel like you never want
to eat fish again.
So, halacha aside, I don't think the rabbis are going to have much
trouble convincing their audiences to increase their vigilance on the
subject of fish.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>Yes, that is my understanding of the halacha as well, but the worms in
>the fish flesh are clearly visible to the naked eye. The gemara
>ostensibly stated (I have not learn this gemara myself) that these
>worms did not present a problem because they were actually part of the
>fish and had ostensibly grown spontaneously from the fish itself. Even
>though we now know this is not the case (there is no such thing as
>spontaneous generation of worms in fish), and we know that the fish
>ingest the eggs from the water, and the eggs then develop into worms
>once inside the fish, there is no biblical prohibition against eating
>specks or microscopic eggs that are in the water.
Not necessarily "spontaneous generation" though, is it? To defend the
gemara for a moment, whether the worms sponteneously generated or
developed from eggs ingested by the fish, it's still quite reasonable IMO
to draw a distinction between a parasite which develops inside the animal
versus an adult animal that enters the body of another.
>Suffice it to say, that the photo of the fish with the round worm
>clear and obvious within the flesh is sickening to look at, and over
>the past few years, I have thought twice and three times about buying
>any gefilte fish other than A and B just on the basis of gross-out
>factor alone. So, even if the worms are halachically permitted, who
>wants to eat that??? Yuck! Which of course is the bottom line
>psychological aspect which is separate from the Jewish legal aspect.
>Do a google search for images of worms in fish flesh. Even though the
>worms are ostensibly harmless from a health standpoint, they look
>totally disgusting. It will really make you feel like you never want
>to eat fish again.
>So, halacha aside, I don't think the rabbis are going to have much
>trouble convincing their audiences to increase their vigilance on the
>subject of fish.
Putting gefilte fish aside, seems to me that these "authorities" have
jumped several levels in logic - sounds like the gemara is saying if you
find a fish with worms, not only is the fish suitable for eating but you
can actually eat the worms as well. So there's your baseline. For me, I'd
prefer to not to eat the worms - so if I can see them, I'm going to remove
them. And if you can't see them, then they are still not an issue based
upon the halacha you stated above. So that's the second case.
So to make the pronouncement that some species of fish is flat-out
prohibited on the grounds that it MIGHT contain (presumably invisible)
worms is to flout TWO halachas, to deny the sanctity of the Oral Torah in
two different ways - both for non-visible contaminants, as well as the
ruling on worms in fish.
I'm being quite serious - living a halachic lifestyle depends upon one's
trust in the Law, and that trust needs to go in both directions. Trust us
when we say not to use the same knife for onions, meat, and cheese even
though scientifically you know there's no actual food being transferred,
and conversely trust us when we say you can eat the fish, even though
scientifically you know there might be worms. It's really two halves of
the same coin.
--s
--
cindys
> In <5f7c4f03-2282-4bda-8867-98402d8fd...@g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> >Yes, that is my understanding of the halacha as well, but the worms in
> >the fish flesh are clearly visible to the naked eye. The gemara
> >ostensibly stated (I have not learn this gemara myself) that these
> >worms did not present a problem because they were actually part of the
> >fish and had ostensibly grown spontaneously from the fish itself. Even
> >though we now know this is not the case (there is no such thing as
> >spontaneous generation of worms in fish), and we know that the fish
> >ingest the eggs from the water, and the eggs then develop into worms
> >once inside the fish, there is no biblical prohibition against eating
> >specks or microscopic eggs that are in the water.
>
> Not necessarily "spontaneous generation" though, is it? To defend the
> gemara for a moment, whether the worms sponteneously generated or
> developed from eggs ingested by the fish, it's still quite reasonable IMO
> to draw a distinction between a parasite which develops inside the animal
> versus an adult animal that enters the body of another.
I understand what you're saying, but on the basis of what I read in
the article in _Kashrus_, and as I said, I have not personally studied
the gemara on this subject, so I am only saying over what I read in
the magazine, the rabbis of the gemara believed that the worms were
actually spontaneously generated.
>
> >Suffice it to say, that the photo of the fish with the round worm
> >clear and obvious within the flesh is sickening to look at, and over
> >the past few years, I have thought twice and three times about buying
> >any gefilte fish other than A and B just on the basis of gross-out
> >factor alone. So, even if the worms are halachically permitted, who
> >wants to eat that??? Yuck! Which of course is the bottom line
> >psychological aspect which is separate from the Jewish legal aspect.
> >Do a google search for images of worms in fish flesh. Even though the
> >worms are ostensibly harmless from a health standpoint, they look
> >totally disgusting. It will really make you feel like you never want
> >to eat fish again.
> >So, halacha aside, I don't think the rabbis are going to have much
> >trouble convincing their audiences to increase their vigilance on the
> >subject of fish.
>
> Putting gefilte fish aside, seems to me that these "authorities" have
> jumped several levels in logic - sounds like the gemara is saying if you
> find a fish with worms, not only is the fish suitable for eating but you
> can actually eat the worms as well.
That would be my understanding as well, as the worms are actually part
of the fish.
>So there's your baseline. For me, I'd
> prefer to not to eat the worms - so if I can see them, I'm going to remove
> them. And if you can't see them, then they are still not an issue based
> upon the halacha you stated above. So that's the second case.
That is my understanding.
>
> So to make the pronouncement that some species of fish is flat-out
> prohibited on the grounds that it MIGHT contain (presumably invisible)
> worms is to flout TWO halachas, to deny the sanctity of the Oral Torah in
> two different ways - both for non-visible contaminants, as well as the
> ruling on worms in fish.
That's assuming that there is only one interpretation of the oral
torah (the one you have cited above). The bone of contention (you
should excuse the pun) is that not everybody agrees on the points you
have made above.
>
> I'm being quite serious - living a halachic lifestyle depends upon one's
> trust in the Law, and that trust needs to go in both directions. Trust us
> when we say not to use the same knife for onions, meat, and cheese even
> though scientifically you know there's no actual food being transferred,
> and conversely trust us when we say you can eat the fish, even though
> scientifically you know there might be worms. It's really two halves of
> the same coin.
Don't forget: Logic flies out the window when there's an emotional
agenda.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
>
> --s
> --
Harry Weiss
> On Mar 8, 2:48?am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 03:35:11 +0000 (UTC), cindys
> >
> > <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >IIRC (I haven't looked at the article again since I last posted on
> > >this topic), this is related to the reason the worms would be
> > >permitted on a biblical level (for those who hold that they are
> > >permitted). Since the worms were only eggs and not mature worms *while
> > >they were in the water,* they do not technically fit the biblical
> > >definition of the water-borne abominations.
> >
> > I don't know about worms in fish, but if you can't see the zygotes or
> > whatever is floating in the water that the fish eat, if they are too
> > small to see with the naked eye, aiui, they don't count. HaShem didn't
> > give us laws we couldn't apply, and we're not held responsible for
> > things too small to see with the naked eye, even though now there
But, they are not really visible to an ordinary naked eye. Look at the
next piece of fish you get, including the healthier wild vs. the unhealth
farm that they claim is kosher. I have never found a worm that I can
see. They say that it is visisble but all pictures are under major
maginification,.
> ---Cindy S.