troubled about this NG again
tryin...@my-deja.com
Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with him
than with any of you.
I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see how
all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite babies
(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
shalom
tryinghard
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Susan Cohen
Don Shelman wrote:
> Robert occasionally takes a hiatus, but always comes back. I've not been
> too active myself, lately, either. Sometimes, a troll from alt.messianic
> will stir me up, but I've taken to lurking a lot. I sure wish Lisa or
> Debra, or even Susan would give that wat4ycuz some of their classic
> rebukage.
Can I file this away the next time
somebody complains about my doing just that?
I;ve been told that my doing thins like that is what causes
all the soam here. So I've held off from doing things like
that. And y'know, I think the crap is getting worse.
> I've attempted it, but I'm simply not up to their standards of
> black-belt Judaism.
I humbly bow in the face of such praise.
> Ah, but hope springs eternal.
Keep pitching!
Susan
Susan Cohen
tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
> I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>
> Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
> he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with him
> than with any of you.
I'm sorry to hear that. Being "accused" of being "O", I would
hate for you to think that you couldn't come to my house for
dinner, where I would have been pleased to have you.
> I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
> intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see how
> all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite babies
> (assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
> that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
Except, I would have to say, for those whose idea of destroying
Amalek was to convert them into Jews - and those who say that
there are no Amalekites anywhere, much less babies, do any
such commandment is moot.
Susan
Don Shelman
too active myself, lately, either. Sometimes, a troll from alt.messianic
will stir me up, but I've taken to lurking a lot. I sure wish Lisa or
Debra, or even Susan would give that wat4ycuz some of their classic
black-belt Judaism. Ah, but hope springs eternal.
As for Robert, well, soon he'll post his FAQ's again, and all will be well.
Don Shelman
<tryin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:87vfof$2k9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
> I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
(O-bait snippage)
toi...@my-deja.com
> Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
> I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>
> he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with
> him
> than with any of you.
Which is a pity, my wife is a knock out cook (after you finish her
cholent, bed is not an option it's an imperative), but I respect your
decision. However the underlying insinuation is that those who believe
in not killing Amalek are somehow better people than those who advocate
killing them. This could not be further than the truth, the orthodox
community which believes in killing Amalek to a man, has a lower rate
of crime, family violence, drugs or any other of the ills plaguing
contemporary enlightened society. The orthodox level of charity and
communal voluntarism is light years more advanced than any other
culture. This is a good example of how a rigorous code of right and
wrong improves the person and not the opposite, which brings us back to
the hate thread.
> I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
> intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see
how
> all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite babies
> (assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
> that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
Not having seen that thread I take the opportunity of commenting on
that subject here. The question is are the judaic laws moral or are
they not. Some would say that seeing it is God who commands, though we
might perceive some of those commands as being immoral it is incumbent
for us to keep His word. There is another school of thought which says
as follows, Gods commands were given so that we should be moral people
and therefore by definition all of Gods commands are moral. This second
opinion leads us to the question of how can God command to kill an
innocent baby just on the basis of his race. This school of thought
answers as follows, if you had the option of killing Hitler when he was
a baby or leaving him to maturity and letting him kill 40000000 people
(I include in this figure all thoses who were killed as a result of the
second world war even indirectly) any sane man would choose killing
Hitler. So too Amalek is determined on the basis of race only in sofar
that race determines that this child will grow up to a life of
thorough evil (I am not saying that race determines a persons behaviour
on the basis of his genes but rather people that grow up in specific
societies show specific character traits, a sumo wrestler from Tokyo is
in no way comparable in character to the street fighter from Harlem).
This explains why Amalek has traditionally been identified with
different nations throughout history.
Finally I am not sure how advisable it is discussing these preplexing
questions in public, judging by the amount of Jesus lovers posting here
these posts were definitely eagerly perused by those nuts, this has the
potential of causing all sorts of negative repercussions. Perhaps it
would be better to leave these subjects for the get togethers.
tryin...@my-deja.com
fla...@hers.com wrote:
>
>
> tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his
posts.
> > I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
> >
> > Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
> > he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> > you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with
him
> > than with any of you.
>
> hate for you to think that you couldn't come to my house for
> dinner, where I would have been pleased to have you.
>
> > intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see
how
> > all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
babies
> > (assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem,
something
> > that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
>
> Amalek was to convert them into Jews - and those who say that
> there are no Amalekites anywhere, much less babies, do any
> such commandment is moot.
I understand the halakhic position, reiterated by Shimoff, that its
moot. If it is moot, why did several posters spend so much bandwith
correcting Mr. Kaiser on the question of whether it is indeed a mitzvah?
I could see their concern with correcting Mr. Kaiser if , heaven forbid,
he had misled people over what brocha to say over an onion. In a
previous thread I had suggested that such a thing is "Halkhic Minutaie"
but i wish to retract that, seeing as it is a situation that actually
could and does come up. But why be so concerned over him misleading
people on whether it is indeed a mitzvah to kill amalekite babies, since
that is a situation that can never come up? Maybe these people are
really into thoroughly academic disputes - or maybe they are not
convinced that there are no more amalekites.
Eliot Shimoff
TH (re the Amalekite thread):
>I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
>intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser.
Go back and reread the thread. I did _not_ attack Robert;
I did not call him names, question his sanity or morality,
or impugn his integrity. (If I did any of these, I shouldn't
have; show me where I did, and I'll apologize in public.)
What I _did_ do was to point out instances in which Robert
apparently misunderstood or misrepresented sources, or in
which he cited sources that he had not read, or in which
selective and out-of-context citations misrepresented the
O position.
A few minutes ago, I reviewed some of those threads on deja.com;
while my review was admittedly cursory, I found nothing that I
now, in retrospect, regret having written.
A good general principle (at least one that _I_ think is good,
and to which I try to adhere) is to assiduously avoid ad hominem
attacks, and to focus on what people _write_ rather than on who
they are or what their motivations might be. I attacked what
Robert wrote, not Robert. And I'm not interested in threads
on "Robert;" I'm more concerned about substantive topics.
Nor am I especially bothered if someone calls me names; I
don't have to come to scj to be insulted -- I can be insulted
in some of the finest academic institutions in the world. :-)
TH:
>Don't you see how
>all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite babies
>(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
>that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
That gets into the fascinating issue of what defines a hillul HaShem.
As I pointed out recently on another thread, there is a halakhic
category of things that shouldn't be said, not because they are
wrong, but because they are ineffective. On the other hand,
if someone asks about a halakha, there is an obligation to answer.
I do not believe that there is anything in the halakhot of
Amalekites that is so embarrassing that it should be hidden.
There is a biblical commandment (that appears in every listing
of the 613 mitzvot) to eradicate Amalek. But, as Micha pointed
out at the time, the same halakha that tells me to eradicate
Amalek also tells me that there are no longer any identifiable
Amalekites. [For those familiar with halakhic terminology, it
could be "ha'peh she'hitir hu ha'peh she'asar" -- the same
"mouth" that permitted it, also forbad it.]
Nitpick: It's not "Prof. Shimoff;" it's Eliot. My _students_ call
me Professor; I assume they reserve the right to say nasty things
behind my back. On scj, anyone who wants to say anything nasty
about me does so in public. :-) More seriously, my professional
title has no bearing on my expertise or status on scj; what I write
should be judged on its content, not by my academic credentials.
(That's why I refer to Rabbi Lapidus by his title; that title _is_
relevant to his scj postings.)
--
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) | Interested in Talmud study
Proud saba of Tani, T'mima, Moshe, | by email?
Hillel,Tsivia, Chani & | Visit my website ...
Yosef Ephraim | http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff
tryin...@my-deja.com
shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) wrote:
> In article <87vfof$2k9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <tryin...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
> TH (re the Amalekite thread):
> >I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
> >intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser.
>
> Go back and reread the thread. I did _not_ attack Robert;
> I did not call him names, question his sanity or morality,
> or impugn his integrity. (If I did any of these, I shouldn't
> have; show me where I did, and I'll apologize in public.)
>
> What I _did_ do was to point out instances in which Robert
> apparently misunderstood or misrepresented sources, or in
> which he cited sources that he had not read, or in which
> selective and out-of-context citations misrepresented the
> O position.
>
> A few minutes ago, I reviewed some of those threads on deja.com;
> while my review was admittedly cursory, I found nothing that I
> now, in retrospect, regret having written.
It is not what you posted on that thread that I take issue with, but
with what you failed to post. You found nothing to take issue with in
the posts of Lisa and the others.
> TH:
> >Don't you see how
> >all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
babies
> >(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
> >that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
>
> That gets into the fascinating issue of what defines a hillul HaShem.
> As I pointed out recently on another thread, there is a halakhic
> category of things that shouldn't be said, not because they are
> wrong, but because they are ineffective. On the other hand,
> if someone asks about a halakha, there is an obligation to answer.
> I do not believe that there is anything in the halakhot of
> Amalekites that is so embarrassing that it should be hidden.
> There is a biblical commandment (that appears in every listing
> of the 613 mitzvot) to eradicate Amalek. But, as Micha pointed
> out at the time, the same halakha that tells me to eradicate
> Amalek also tells me that there are no longer any identifiable
> Amalekites. [For those familiar with halakhic terminology, it
> could be "ha'peh she'hitir hu ha'peh she'asar" -- the same
> "mouth" that permitted it, also forbad it.]
Is it the same - according to the O posts in that thread, the halakha to
eradicate is the position of Rambam. Did Ramaam declare that there are
no more Amalekites? My understanding is that it was several 19th c
rabbis of considerably lesser stature than Rambam.
In a recent thread on the halakhic status of the Falashas Mr. Josh
Backon expressed the position that when a halakha is explicitly based on
a historical or scientific fact, a change in historic/scientific
understanding can be the basis for overruling the halakha. Thus while a
medieval rabbi declared the falashas to be Jews, and that has been
accepted for centuries, modern secular historical scholarship seems to
indicate that they are in fact descended from Ethiopian Christians who
never converted. On this basis he and at least some other O do not
consider the Falashas jews, unless they formally convert.
Now suppose that tomorrow some scientist were to establish that there
were still descendants of Amalek(unlikely, but not impossible), and that
they could be identified. The decisions of the 19th c rabbis would
fall, while the mitzvah from the Rambam would stand. This is why Kaiser
tried so hard to show that the assur came from Rambam himself, and from
the Talmud.
Now one could say that the above could never happan, because Hashem is
merciful and would never allow it to happen. THAT would be an
interesting line of reasoning, but it was not raised.
This is of more than academic interest. While I can not speak to what
some now beleive about Amalek (I dont read Kahanist propoganda - I dont
have the stomach for it) it is not beyond the realm of possibility that
at some point in the future some people will decide they have
succesfully identified Amalek.
Shalom
Tryinghard
jody eisenman
>
>
>Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
>I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>
>Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
>he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
>you've accused him of.
Maybe? It's been proven dozens of times; interesting how you seem to
gloss over it.
I still would rather, say, have dinner with him
>than with any of you.
>
Gee, isn't that special?
You are a troll, tryinghard. You don't even have the guts to post
under your real name. I wonder why?
Why don't you just admit once and for all, that you hate Orthodoxy?
So, we learn about you that you have more in common with a liar and a
deceiver than an O person.
This speaks volumes about you.
Try a little harder, son.
tryin...@my-deja.com
jo...@idt.net wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:57:21 GMT, tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
> >I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
> >
> >Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
> >he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> >you've accused him of.
>
> Maybe? It's been proven dozens of times; interesting how you seem to
> gloss over it.
>
> I still would rather, say, have dinner with him
> >than with any of you.
> >
>
> Gee, isn't that special?
>
> You are a troll, tryinghard. You don't even have the guts to post
> under your real name. I wonder why?
>
> Why don't you just admit once and for all, that you hate Orthodoxy?
I have made every effort to be civil and respectful of Orthodoxy on this
forum. I would love nothing more than to see a world in which R, C and O
all respect each other and live together in peace. The post you
responded to was made more in sorrow than in anger.
I'm sorry if even this attitude toward O is unacceptable to you.
> So, we learn about you that you have more in common with a liar and a
> deceiver than an O person.
Remember the Lousiana Senate race between the corrupt Democrat, Edwards,
and the klansman, David Duke? Some people sported bumper stickers that
said "vote for the crook, its important". I would be proud to sport such
a bumper sticker.
shalom
tryinghard
Simcha Streltsov
: intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see how
: all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite babies
: (assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
who found? babies? amalekites? posters? repetitions?
: that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
or such people? can you name one such person?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Simcha Streltsov
: > Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
: > he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
: > you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with him
: > than with any of you.
: I'm sorry to hear that. Being "accused" of being "O", I would
: hate for you to think that you couldn't come to my house for
: dinner, where I would have been pleased to have you.
very considerable of you. I am more concerned that our anonymous
contributor (I assume he is a man, as he mentions his wife and does
not participate in the Hawaii thread) is willing to share food
with a person who in his own assumption is breaking basic human
rules of decency. A similar issue came in the MLK thread - somehow
we seem to put less value to integrity, etc than to other human
and halachik considerations.
Simcha Streltsov
: they are or what their motivations might be. I attacked what
: Robert wrote, not Robert. And I'm not interested in threads
: on "Robert;" I'm more concerned about substantive topics.
I believe TH means that attacking person's positions _is_ attacking
a person. I don't know what to make out of it.
tryin...@my-deja.com
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) wrote:
> tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see
how
> : all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
babies
> : (assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem,
something
>
> who found? babies? amalekites? posters? repetitions?
>
> : that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
>
> or such people? can you name one such person?
OK, maybe it doesnt. Continue to post such things. Better yet write
then on huge banners, post them at the door of every Orthodox shul,
distribute them widely in Eretz Israel, especially at election time.
tryinghard
> --
> Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
> simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
> http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
>
>
tryin...@my-deja.com
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) wrote:
> Susan Cohen (fla...@his.com) wrote:
>
> : > Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and
maybe
> : > he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> : > you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner
with him
> : > than with any of you.
>
> : I'm sorry to hear that. Being "accused" of being "O", I would
> : hate for you to think that you couldn't come to my house for
> : dinner, where I would have been pleased to have you.
>
> very considerable of you. I am more concerned that our anonymous
> contributor (I assume he is a man, as he mentions his wife and does
> not participate in the Hawaii thread) is willing to share food
> with a person who in his own assumption is breaking basic human
> rules of decency.
I try to judge people based on all I know of them and their actions.
Look at his recent post on "prayer for an Autistic child". Look at his
post on healthcare, and on assisted suicide. This is not an evil
neshuma. We all have weaknesses.
tryinghard
Sheldon Glickler
>
> > Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his
posts.
> > I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
> >
> > he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> > you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with
him
> > than with any of you.
>
> I'm sorry to hear that. Being "accused" of being "O", I would
> hate for you to think that you couldn't come to my house for
> dinner, where I would have been pleased to have you.
>
see how
> > all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
babies
> > (assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem,
something
>
> Amalek was to convert them into Jews - and those who say that
> there are no Amalekites anywhere, much less babies, do any
> such commandment is moot.
Susan, that is not the point -- and you know it. That there are those
among the O (not all) who not only wouldn't think twice about killing
such a baby, and would even consider it a high honor, speak volumes of
ill against those O. That they then hide behind "Oh, but there aren't
any Amalekites" is totally irrelevent.
As such, knowing you to be a good person, would you if you were 100%
certain that a certain baby was an Amalekite then kill it? (I'll even
assume that there would be no threat of judicial action against you).
Frankly, I don't think you would even consider it -- but then I may
have misjudged you.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
Craig Winchell
I don't consider Tryinghard to be a troll. I sometimes (but not all of the
time) consider Kaiser to be a troll, but at other times, he actually has
worthwhile content in his posts.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
jody eisenman <jo...@idt.net> wrote in article
<38a4073c...@news.idt.net>...
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:57:21 GMT, tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
> >I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
> >
> >Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
> >he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> >you've accused him of.
>
>
> Maybe? It's been proven dozens of times; interesting how you seem to
> gloss over it.
>
> I still would rather, say, have dinner with him
> >than with any of you.
> >
>
> Gee, isn't that special?
>
> You are a troll, tryinghard. You don't even have the guts to post
> under your real name. I wonder why?
>
> Why don't you just admit once and for all, that you hate Orthodoxy?
>
> So, we learn about you that you have more in common with a liar and a
> deceiver than an O person.
>
> This speaks volumes about you.
>
> Try a little harder, son.
>
> >
toi...@my-deja.com
> >
> > > Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his
> posts.
> > > I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
> > >
> > > Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and
maybe
> > > he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
with
> him
> > > than with any of you.
> >
> > hate for you to think that you couldn't come to my house for
> > dinner, where I would have been pleased to have you.
> >
> > > I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
> > > intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you
see
> how
> > > all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
> babies
> > > (assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem,
> something
> > > that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
> >
> > Except, I would have to say, for those whose idea of destroying
> > Amalek was to convert them into Jews - and those who say that
> > there are no Amalekites anywhere, much less babies, do any
> > such commandment is moot.
>
> moot. If it is moot, why did several posters spend so much bandwith
> correcting Mr. Kaiser on the question of whether it is indeed a
mitzvah?
> I could see their concern with correcting Mr. Kaiser if , heaven
forbid,
> he had misled people over what brocha to say over an onion. In a
> previous thread I had suggested that such a thing is "Halkhic
Minutaie"
> but i wish to retract that, seeing as it is a situation that actually
> could and does come up. But why be so concerned over him misleading
> people on whether it is indeed a mitzvah to kill amalekite babies,
since
> that is a situation that can never come up? Maybe these people are
> really into thoroughly academic disputes - or maybe they are not
Most orthodox jews enjoy thoroughly academic disputes that is what they
do most of the day in yeshiva. However this particular case is not an
academic point it is the touchstone of who is orthodox and who is not,
similar to a mind experiment in physics. The question an orthodox man
asks himself is "would I be prepared to fulfill Gods commandment
however distateful I happen to find it?" The way he answers it tells
him alot about his relationship to God and his commandments.
> shalom
> tryinghard
toi...@my-deja.com
tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8813if$5bn0r$1...@umbc7.umbc.edu>,
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) wrote:
> > In article <87vfof$2k9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <tryin...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > TH (re the Amalekite thread):
> > >intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser.
> >
> > I did not call him names, question his sanity or morality,
> > or impugn his integrity. (If I did any of these, I shouldn't
> > have; show me where I did, and I'll apologize in public.)
> >
> > What I _did_ do was to point out instances in which Robert
> > apparently misunderstood or misrepresented sources, or in
> > which he cited sources that he had not read, or in which
> > selective and out-of-context citations misrepresented the
> > O position.
> >
> > A few minutes ago, I reviewed some of those threads on deja.com;
> > while my review was admittedly cursory, I found nothing that I
> > now, in retrospect, regret having written.
>
> It is not what you posted on that thread that I take issue with, but
> with what you failed to post. You found nothing to take issue with in
> the posts of Lisa and the others.
>
> > TH:
> > >all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
> babies
> > >(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem,
something
> > >that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
> >
It was the rambam that said that one cannot identify Amalek no 19th
century rabbi. And Amalekites are impossible to find as anyone who
knows the relevant talmudic sources can tell you. As to the falasha
they are less jewish than the Coptics who adpted far more jewish
practices than they did.
Jay Lapidus
<881ple$o9c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote to Susan:
Susan:
>> Except, I would have to say, for those whose idea of destroying
>> Amalek was to convert them into Jews - and those who say that
>> there are no Amalekites anywhere, much less babies, do any
>> such commandment is moot.
>
>Susan, that is not the point -- and you know it. That there are those
>among the O (not all) who not only wouldn't think twice about killing
>such a baby, and would even consider it a high honor, speak volumes of
>ill against those O. That they then hide behind "Oh, but there aren't
>any Amalekites" is totally irrelevent.
>
>As such, knowing you to be a good person, would you if you were 100%
>certain that a certain baby was an Amalekite then kill it? (I'll even
>assume that there would be no threat of judicial action against you).
>Frankly, I don't think you would even consider it -- but then I may
>have misjudged you.
It's amazing how things never change in this ng!
Check out article number 33df29ce...@news.ntr.net, dated
7/30/97, which was when this whole Amalekite toddler/baby started!
For those who enjoy reruns, go to this URL:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/dnquery.xp?ST=PS&QRY=amalekite+%26+%28toddler+%7C+baby%29&defaultOp=AND&DBS=2&format=terse&showsort=date&maxhits=100&LNG=english&subjects=&groups=soc.culture.jewish&authors=&fromdate=jul+1+1997&todate=dec+31+1998
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
******************************
http://jlapidus.tripod.com ICQ #2083554
Jonathan J. Baker
>I understand the halakhic position, reiterated by Shimoff, that its
>moot. If it is moot, why did several posters spend so much bandwith
>correcting Mr. Kaiser on the question of whether it is indeed a mitzvah?
>I could see their concern with correcting Mr. Kaiser if , heaven forbid,
>he had misled people over what brocha to say over an onion. In a
>previous thread I had suggested that such a thing is "Halkhic Minutaie"
>but i wish to retract that, seeing as it is a situation that actually
>could and does come up. But why be so concerned over him misleading
>people on whether it is indeed a mitzvah to kill amalekite babies, since
>that is a situation that can never come up? Maybe these people are
>really into thoroughly academic disputes - or maybe they are not
>convinced that there are no more amalekites.
Because, as they say about the Stubborn and Rebellious Son, another
case which is considered moot by the Talmud because it can never
happen in practice, Torah Hi Ulelomdah Ani Tzarich: it is Torah, and
I must study it. It brings a reward for studying the matter. And
if someone is (intentionally?) misleading people about the nature
of a Torah mitzvah, it is our duty to correct that idea.
--
Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
jjb...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
New web page, featuring Rambam Resources: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/
mei...@qqqerols.com
tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>
>
>Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
>I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
Unless you have a cable modem, maybe you haven't read enough to
appreciate it.
>
>Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
>he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
>you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with him
>than with any of you.
You've been involved in some nice threads lately. I'm surprised you
would bring this up now, and personalize it so. Feel free to have
dinner with him rather than me, for example, but believe what he tells
you at your peril and at the peril of those you repeat it to.
>
>I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
>intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see how
>all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite babies
>(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
>that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
Do you think when the Christians urge people to put an end to Satan
that is disgrace to their god. Or when the people in Invasion of the
Body Snatchers call out the army to kill all those whose bodies have
been snatched, or those people in another movie who had that wierd
look in their pupils, or the mark on the back of their necks, when
they try to kill all of them, is that a disgrace. I suspect you
recognize those as the threat the movies imply they are. What you
seem to be saying is that you don't believe the Bible.
You and your daughter seem to be making a substantial effort to learn,
so there may be some truth in the notion that something like this
drives you two away from O. But I don't think it is true of most
people. IIUC it wasn't you who left O but your parents or
grandparents, etc. I wonder what reason they would give.
>
>shalom
>tryinghard
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
Harry Weiss
: In article <881813$a28$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
: tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
:> In article <8813if$5bn0r$1...@umbc7.umbc.edu>,
:> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) wrote:
:> > In article <87vfof$2k9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <tryin...@my-deja.com>
:> wrote:
:> >
:> > TH (re the Amalekite thread):
:> > >intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser.
:> > Go back and reread the thread. I did _not_ attack Robert;
:> > I did not call him names, question his sanity or morality,
:> > or impugn his integrity. (If I did any of these, I shouldn't
:> > have; show me where I did, and I'll apologize in public.)
:> >
:> > What I _did_ do was to point out instances in which Robert
:> > apparently misunderstood or misrepresented sources, or in
:> > which he cited sources that he had not read, or in which
:> > selective and out-of-context citations misrepresented the
:> > O position.
:> >
:> > A few minutes ago, I reviewed some of those threads on deja.com;
:> > while my review was admittedly cursory, I found nothing that I
:> > now, in retrospect, regret having written.
:>
:> It is not what you posted on that thread that I take issue with, but
:> with what you failed to post. You found nothing to take issue with in
:> the posts of Lisa and the others.
That is a big difference between Judaism and C. If there is a difference
between the Torah and American - e.g. Protestant ethic we follow the
Torah. Trying Hard and Kaiser follow the protestant ethic.
Somethings may appear distastefull us because of our acculturation, but
we know the ONLY real truth is the Torah and follow it since G-d knows
more than we do. Hard and Kaiser seem to stress they are superior to G-d.
Jonathan Steinberg
jody eisenman <jo...@idt.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:57:21 GMT, tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
>>I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>>
>>he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
>>you've accused him of.
>
>
>gloss over it.
>
>>than with any of you.
>>
>
>
>You are a troll, tryinghard. You don't even have the guts to post
>under your real name. I wonder why?
>
>Why don't you just admit once and for all, that you hate Orthodoxy?
>
You must be new here. You must also be a moron. TH has never trolled,
certainly has never posted anything that resembles hatred of Orthodoxy,
and has only the noticible flaw of trying to defend Robert, who I personally
feel is indefensible. (BTW, TH, the dinner comment really was uncalled for.
Come join my family. We're serving a very nice roast of Amalek baby tonight.
(JOKE) )
Yoni S.
jst...@panix.com
Not just Ultra-Orthodox...
Industrial Strength Orthodox!
Sheldon Glickler
Jodye is not new here.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
Jonathan Steinberg
>
>
>Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
>I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>
>Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
>he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
>than with any of you.
>
>all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite babies
>(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
>that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
>
Which are you calling the Chillul Hashem - the posters, or the
position that it's a mitzva to kill Amalekite babies? (I am not aware
of the thread you are discussing, so bear with me.)
Lisa
>Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
>I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>
>Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
>he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
>you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with him
>than with any of you.
>
>I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
>intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see how
>all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite babies
>(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
>that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
Why do you care about that?
Why is it that every non-Orthodox (anti-Orthodox) Jew on this
newsgroup who can't accept what Judaism actually says tries to get us
to stop talking about it by bemoaning how it's liable to keep people
from being Orthodox? You should rejoice, no?
Kaiser is a bug. He's a demented and nasty phenomenon who needs some
serious counseling. He's the most dishonest person I've ever had the
misfortune of meeting, and I include so-called messianic jews.
Your antagonistic attitude isn't much better, to tell the truth, and
I'm sure we all care ever so much about whether you want to have a
treyf meal with the Kaiser-'bot or not.
Lisa
(sick of "tryinghard"'s whining)
Lisa
wrote:
>Robert occasionally takes a hiatus, but always comes back. I've not been
>too active myself, lately, either. Sometimes, a troll from alt.messianic
>will stir me up, but I've taken to lurking a lot. I sure wish Lisa or
>Debra, or even Susan would give that wat4ycuz some of their classic
>rebukage. I've attempted it, but I'm simply not up to their standards of
>black-belt Judaism. Ah, but hope springs eternal.
Why would I ever waste my time with wat4ycuz? He doesn't even claim
to have anything to do with Judaism. He's in the wrong newsgroup,
just like the Nazis and skinheads who wander in here. Rebuking them
or paying them any mind whatsoever simply increases their bandwidth
and encourages them. See chrismoshe and Lorr for examples of that.
>As for Robert, well, soon he'll post his FAQ's again, and all will be well.
His FAQs are only good for people who are utterly disinterested in
reality.
Lisa
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
:>I understand the halakhic position, reiterated by Shimoff, that its
:>moot. If it is moot, why did several posters spend so much bandwith
:>correcting Mr. Kaiser on the question of whether it is indeed a mitzvah?
Perhaps if you spent some time learning Talmud you would not have asked such a
question.
There are argument where the difference between the opinions is immeasurable.
For example, if I recall correctly, there are various opinions in Lavud
whether the amount is 3 less a Mah Shehu, exactly 3, or 3 plus a Mah Shehu.
A Mah Shehu is the smallest possible thing and would not practically be
measurable - perhaps it is an atoms width. Yet the great sages discussed this
because it is the word of G-d.
Of course, there are the opinions that the entire case of the Ben Sorer
U'Moreh is just for study - as its qualifications, which require (among
others) that the parents themselves deliver the boy/man to the court for the
death sentence, are impossible to meet.
Yes, Virginia^W tryinghard (or, perhaps, your name is Virginia?) Jews discuss
Torah even if it has no practical effects - simply because it is the word of
G-d and discussing it helps us to the impossible task of understanding G-d.
[ snipped ]
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Craig Winchell
I suppose I had better step up to the plate here, since I was perhaps the
first who proudly proclaimed his willingness to kill Amalekites, even if
they were cute and adorable babies.
A mitzvah is a mitzvah, and a Jew must be ready and willing to perform it,
because it is incumbent on him as a Jew. At this point in time, it is
impossible to determine who is an Amalekite, so we cannot fulfill the
mitzvah (and therefore, it would be improper to try). However, we study
the mitzvos incumbent on us at the time of the Beis HaMikdash, because we
believe that there will eventually come a time when they will again be
fulfillable. So, too, the knowledge of who is an Amalekite might
eventually become available to us (through prophesy around the time of
Moshiach), in which case it would be incumbent upon us to fulfill these
mitzvos. So, too, with all mitzvos.
As had been said previously by a host of individuals that we also study the
minutia of halachos, including mind experiments. Indeed the Talmud is full
of examples of such things. And the Talmud is considered by many to be
worth studying, even if they only consider it great literature or a
valuable historical document (in the case of reform, where some shuls have
Talmud classes, using Steinsaltz).
Getting back to the question of Amalekite babies (grin), the question is
whether we are more influenced by Jewish values or secular values. For
many of us, we are Judeocentric, and would try to fulfill Jewish law even
if at odds with secular law (of course, there are few instances where this
would occur-- mostly in the case of bringing actions in beis din rather
than court, and things of that nature). Would we, if push came to shove,
follow halacha even if it meant prison or death at the hands of the goyim?
Many of us believe that we would (we couldn't know for certain until such a
quandary really came to relevance). We know that we fulfill mitzvos even
though it is politically incorrect in goyish society to do so.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in article
<8nrcas062477da7j4...@4ax.com>...
Susan Cohen
tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I understand the halakhic position, reiterated by Shimoff, that its
> moot. If it is moot, why did several posters spend so much bandwith
> correcting Mr. Kaiser on the question of whether it is indeed a mitzvah?
Why not? :-)
> I could see their concern with correcting Mr. Kaiser if , heaven forbid,
> he had misled people over what brocha to say over an onion. In a
> previous thread I had suggested that such a thing is "Halkhic Minutaie"
> but i wish to retract that, seeing as it is a situation that actually
> could and does come up. But why be so concerned over him misleading
> people on whether it is indeed a mitzvah to kill amalekite babies, since
> that is a situation that can never come up?
Possibly for the same reason many of us get so ticked off when
someone posts all sorts of "Talmud quotes". I strongly suspect
that Robert posts things like that about te Orthodox because he
doesn't like Orthodoxy in general.
> Maybe these people are
> really into thoroughly academic disputes -
I know I enjoy them myself.
> or maybe they are not
> convinced that there are no more amalekites.
When Moshiach comes, we may frind out that there *are* some.
Hopefully they will be as I was taught: identifiable by behavior
& deserving of death - or we can "destroy" them by converting
them
Susan
Susan Cohen
Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> Susan, that is not the point -- and you know it. That there are those
> among the O (not all) who not only wouldn't think twice about killing
> such a baby, and would even consider it a high honor, speak volumes of
> ill against those O. That they then hide behind "Oh, but there aren't
> any Amalekites" is totally irrelevent.
And the point that I also didn't write was the real reason the
question ever came up in the first place - Robert likes to make
the O look as bad as possible.
Having said that, *none* of the O who stated that they would
feel compelled to murder the child was in the least happy about it.
> As such, knowing you to be a good person,
I am very complimented.
> would you if you were 100%
> certain that a certain baby was an Amalekite then kill it? (I'll even
> assume that there would be no threat of judicial action against you).
> Frankly, I don't think you would even consider it -- but then I may
> have misjudged you.
Well, I've said that I'd convert it - the Amalekite would thus
be dead & the Jew would be born.
Susan
tryin...@my-deja.com
toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <881813$a28$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8813if$5bn0r$1...@umbc7.umbc.edu>,
> > shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) wrote:
> > > >
halakha
> to
are
> century rabbi. And Amalekites are impossible to find as anyone who
> knows the relevant talmudic sources can tell you.
Thank you for a relevant and helpful response.
shalom
tryinghard
tryin...@my-deja.com
"Craig Winchell" <gan...@ganeden.com> wrote:
> B"H
>
> I don't consider Tryinghard to be a troll. I sometimes (but not all
of the
> time) consider Kaiser to be a troll, but at other times, he actually
has
> worthwhile content in his posts.
>
> GAN EDEN Wines
thank you.
Shalom
Tryinghard
tryin...@my-deja.com
jst...@SPAMMIRNISHT.panix.com wrote:
> In article <38a4073c...@news.idt.net>,
> jody eisenman <jo...@idt.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his
posts.
> >>I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
> >>
> >>Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
> >>he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> >>you've accused him of.
> >
> >
> >gloss over it.
> >
> >>than with any of you.
> >>
> >
> >
> >You are a troll, tryinghard. You don't even have the guts to post
> >under your real name. I wonder why?
> >
> >Why don't you just admit once and for all, that you hate Orthodoxy?
> >
>
> You must be new here. You must also be a moron. TH has never trolled,
> certainly has never posted anything that resembles hatred of
Orthodoxy,
> and has only the noticible flaw of trying to defend Robert, who I
personally
> feel is indefensible. (BTW, TH, the dinner comment really was uncalled
for.
> Come join my family. We're serving a very nice roast of Amalek baby
tonight.
> (JOKE) )
Thank you for your response. The dinner comment came out of sheer
emotion (I will not therefore say it was wrong, so many here have
defended the passion of hatred, and I tried to keep hatred out of it -
notice that I said I'd RATHER break bread with Kaiser, not that I'd
never break bread with any of you - but then I did know how you feel
about Kaiser and i knew how all of you would react - I was trying to
express something about my visceral reaction to what i perceived
as hatred and inhumanity - a reaction I DO NOT think is part of my
Yetzer HaRa)
In any case my emotional reaction called for a rational, Halakhic anser,
one which Toichen has provided.
Shalom
Tryinghard
>
> Yoni S.
> jst...@panix.com
> Not just Ultra-Orthodox...
> Industrial Strength Orthodox!
>
tryin...@my-deja.com
jst...@SPAMMIRNISHT.panix.com wrote:
> In article <87vfof$2k9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <tryin...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
> >I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
> >
> >Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
> >he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
him
> >than with any of you.
> >
> >intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see
how
> >all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
babies
> >(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
> >that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
> >
>
> position that it's a mitzva to kill Amalekite babies? (I am not aware
> of the thread you are discussing, so bear with me.)
>
The posters, who seemed more concerned to argue for the existence of the
mitzvah, than to show how early and strong is the the
determination that the mitzvah is moot.
The former is as far as i am concerned, a matter of technical minutaie
- the latter is the essential thing that people need reminding of.
shalom
tryinghard
tryin...@my-deja.com
mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> In soc.culture.jewish on Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:57:21 GMT
> tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>
> >
> >
> >Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
> >I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>
> appreciate it.
> >
> >he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
> >you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with
him
> >than with any of you.
>
> would bring this up now, and personalize it so.
After threads about hatred, and other matters in which all the O
posters seemed more concerned demonstrating the accpetability of
hatred under the halacha, rather than about derech eretz,and a subthread
(under week at C middle school) rejecting as nonsense the importance
of aggada as a context for halakha, and then seeing similar patterns in
threads about mamzerim and amalekites. I began to get fed up about the
prioroties here. To his credit Mr. Baker made a very nice response on
the subject of Heschel's view of Aggadah, and Toichen helpfully
addressed some specific questions I had on the Amalekite issue.
> Do you think when the Christians urge people to put an end to Satan
> that is disgrace to their god.
In general Im not particularly concerned with what the Christians
believe, as I am not one of them (baruch hashem). If they want to put an
end to a mythical character I dont care. If, OTOH, a xtian preacher
cited texts on the need to destroy satan and his followers, in the
context of a discussion of real, living human beings, whom some might
reasonablly infer he was reffering to as followers of Satan, I would be
very concerened. I would be even more concerned if some of this
preachers audince had guns and bombs, and if there were real wars and
conflicts concerening the group he had been discussing. I would
consider it the duty of members of all christian denomiations to set the
record straight. If, say, a methodist denied that it was xtian duty to
destroy satan, and a baptist attacked the methodist for the intellectual
weakness of that position, without overtly and stronlgy distancing
themselves from the preacher in question, I would say that they had
disgraced the baptist denomination, and that the methodist had brought
honor to the methodists, whatever the technical details of the matter
might be.
When a Jewish "leader" urges an end to Amalek, in teh context of a
discussion of Arabs, it is the duty of Jews to distance oursleves from
that "leader". Those whose concern with establishing the duty to destroy
amalek is greater than their concern about the possible consequences of
groups of armed people identifying the Arabs as Amalek, disgrace not
G-d, but whatever form of Judaism they follow.
Shalom
tryinghard
rkaiser1
Susan Cohen wrote :
>And the point that I also didn't write was the real reason the
>question ever came up in the first place - Robert likes to
> make the O look as bad as possible.
Nonsense. In fact, I have posted *dozens* of posts to this newsgroup in
defense of Orthodoxy. I strongly suggest that you read what I actually
wrote, and stop relying on the slander that the nuts here sometimes post
about me. How would you like it if people made judgements about _you_ based
on the slander that some write about you?
>Having said that, *none* of the O who stated that they would
>feel compelled to murder the child was in the least happy about it.
Who cares? We have a whole crowd of people here who claim to be willing
to murder babies in the name of God. Doesn't this sicken you and frighten
you? These people need psychiatrict help, not applause.
I think the Ultra-Orthodox fanatics here are the ones who make Orthodox
Judaism look bad. Why don't you get it?
Robert Kaiser
tryin...@my-deja.com
lisaNOb...@bigfoot.com (Lisa) wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:57:21 GMT, tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> >I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
> >intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see
how
> >all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
babies
> >(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
> >that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
>
(snip bait)
> from being Orthodox? You should rejoice, no?
Well if they all went from O to C shuls, and became enthusiatic C, I
suppose I should rejoice. But that is not necessarily what happens. Many
become secular, or members of Jewish groups that do not follow halakha.
Or if they do enter C, they are gruding C, whose disgruntlement with O
looms large for them than their identity as C. As a C jew I'd rather
they be O than that they turn away from mitzvot. After all, O and C
are but slightly different approaches to Judaism, not distinct
religions.
>
> Lisa
> (sick of "tryinghard"'s whining)
Given what i know of you and your opinions, Lisa, that is a high honor.
Jonathan Steinberg
>In article <885ilc$6gk$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
>> >I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
>> >intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see
>how
>> >all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
>babies
>> >(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
>> >that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
>> >
>>
>> position that it's a mitzva to kill Amalekite babies? (I am not aware
>> of the thread you are discussing, so bear with me.)
>>
>
>The posters, who seemed more concerned to argue for the existence of the
>mitzvah, than to show how early and strong is the the
>determination that the mitzvah is moot.
>The former is as far as i am concerned, a matter of technical minutaie
>- the latter is the essential thing that people need reminding of.
>
I still don't understand. Becaust they feel that the mitzva is not moot
it is a chillul hashem? Is it the position or the tone?
Susan Cohen
Jonathan Steinberg wrote:
> In article <889q7m$cds$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:38:09 GMT, tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >: The posters, who seemed more concerned to argue for the existence of the
> >: mitzvah, than to show how early and strong is the the
> >: determination that the mitzvah is moot.
> >
> >I refrained from going around this mulberry bush yet again. However, FWIW,
> >I believe the mootness of the mitzvah, IOW, G-d's hiding of the identity
> >of Amalekites, is as much a message from Him as the imperative in the
> >Torah.
> >
>
> You know, I was thinking something like this myself - that the fact that
> this mitzva is not practicible these days is not a coincidence. Do you
> have any sources that discuss this idea?
To me, this really smacks of Avraham being asked
to sacrifice his son Isaac. Avraham readily acquiesced
to commit what most of us would consider a heinous
crime, only to be held back by HaShem from following
His Command.
So it *must* be with Amalekites: He won't let us do it
because there aren't any there.
Susan
tryin...@my-deja.com
fla...@hers.com wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > In article <889q7m$cds$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> > Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > >On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:38:09 GMT, tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >: The posters, who seemed more concerned to argue for the existence
of the
> > >: mitzvah, than to show how early and strong is the the
> > >: determination that the mitzvah is moot.
> > >
> > >I refrained from going around this mulberry bush yet again.
However, FWIW,
> > >I believe the mootness of the mitzvah, IOW, G-d's hiding of the
identity
> > >of Amalekites, is as much a message from Him as the imperative in
the
> > >Torah.
> > >
That was the kind of thing I was hoping to find in a discussion of the
Amalekite issue.
Shalom
Tryinghard
Sheldon Glickler
fla...@hers.com wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Steinberg wrote:
>
> > In article <889q7m$cds$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> > Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > >On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 14:38:09 GMT, tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >: The posters, who seemed more concerned to argue for the
existence of the
> > >: mitzvah, than to show how early and strong is the the
> > >: determination that the mitzvah is moot.
> > >
> > >I refrained from going around this mulberry bush yet again.
However, FWIW,
> > >I believe the mootness of the mitzvah, IOW, G-d's hiding of the
identity
> > >of Amalekites, is as much a message from Him as the imperative in
the
> > >Torah.
> > >
> >
that
> > this mitzva is not practicible these days is not a coincidence. Do
you
> > have any sources that discuss this idea?
>
> To me, this really smacks of Avraham being asked
> to sacrifice his son Isaac. Avraham readily acquiesced
> to commit what most of us would consider a heinous
> crime, only to be held back by HaShem from following
> His Command.
>
> So it *must* be with Amalekites: He won't let us do it
> because there aren't any there.
As I have stated before, IMO, if Abraham passed the "test" at all, it
was with barely a D-. To have gotten the A+ he would have had to say
something like "This is obviously a test of what you have taught me.
You taught us to love life and family. Therefore, I cannot listen to
this false directive. In doing this I am following your sacred
teachings". That is my opinion.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
tryin...@my-deja.com
The obvious contrast is with Abraham's behaviour WRT Sodom, where he
bargained with G-d to save the city. While I am sure there is
extensive midrash and later writings on this, let me venture a word or
two, as it seems particulary relevant to many of the discussions we have
here.
The torah gives us many different stories, incidents, etc. which in some
case seem to have conflicting ethical and meta-halakhic imperatives -
take issue with G-d when he gives a command that seems to conflict with
his justice and mercy, or submit to his will, placing it above our own
ethical sense. The diversity of torah enables us to interpret the Akeda
in light of Sodom, or to interpret Sodom in light of the Akeda. The
choice we make reflects many things, from our view of what the Mesorah
is telling us, from our degree of confidence in the ability of ethical
reasoning to overcome cultural prejudice, and even from our own
personalities. That is why when we take on the meta-halakhic issue of
whether there are external ethical standards with which we can validly
judge the halakhah we get into so many and such devisive issues. Namely
1. Is it Jewishly authentic to look at the halakha from outside? - Thus
we get debates on the status of agadah as giving meaning to halakha per
R' Heschel or not - unfortunately these tend to fall into semantic
disputes about what it means to give meaning, etc.
2. Is there any valid, objective, rational basis for human ethical
judgements? I will admit that my own sense that there is such, is now
intellectually out-of-fashion, with the multi-culturalist approach to
truth so dominant in certain quarters.
shalom
tryinghard
Sheldon Glickler
The reads as the opening statements of a treatise on the subject. I
found myself eagerly reading -- and thoroughly disappointed when it
abruptly ended. It seemed that for once I might find something to help
reconcile the (what I consider deplorable) story of the Akidah. You
left it dangling. Do you have more?
As to your point 1 -- YES, if by "outside" you mean those that do not
automatically accept it as the **THE** word of God (through
his "prophets"). For those of us Jews who view halacha as a man-made
instrument, devised to best implement what was believed to be God's
messages, it is fully "authentically Jewish".
As for 2, we tend to agree. Wanton killing our own species would tend
to fit into that category, as an example.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
tryin...@my-deja.com
> > > >
Susan,helpfully relating Amalekite question to the Akedah:
> > > > To me, this really smacks of Avraham being asked
> > > > to sacrifice his son Isaac. Avraham readily acquiesced
> > > > to commit what most of us would consider a heinous
> > > > crime, only to be held back by HaShem from following
> > > > His Command.
> > > >
> > > > So it *must* be with Amalekites: He won't let us do it
> > > > because there aren't any there.
> > >
Sheldon, commenting on the Akeda:
> > > As I have stated before, IMO, if Abraham passed the "test" at all,
> it
> > > was with barely a D-. To have gotten the A+ he would have had to
> say
> > > something like "This is obviously a test of what you have taught
me.
> > > You taught us to love life and family. Therefore, I cannot listen
> to
> > > this false directive. In doing this I am following your sacred
> > > teachings". That is my opinion.
> > >
> >
TH: relating the Akeda to the story of Sodom:
Sheldon, dissatisfied with my pat answer:
> The reads as the opening statements of a treatise on the subject. I
> found myself eagerly reading -- and thoroughly disappointed when it
> abruptly ended. It seemed that for once I might find something to
help
> reconcile the (what I consider deplorable) story of the Akidah. You
> left it dangling. Do you have more?
>
TH, trying, well, hard:
I have the fragments of what seems like a dozen or more high holiday
sermons relating to the Akedah floating around in my head. I will try
and see if I can find something more specific that can be of help.
SG:
> As to your point 1 -- YES, if by "outside" you mean those that do not
> automatically accept it as the **THE** word of God (through
> his "prophets"). For those of us Jews who view halacha as a man-made
> instrument, devised to best implement what was believed to be God's
> messages, it is fully "authentically Jewish".
TH:
Its true even for those of us who do see the Tanach as in some sense the
word of G-d and halacha as in some sense the will of G-d. The question
for us is, given that there is more than one possible interpretation, is
it proper to let our ethical senses play a role in determining the
correct interpretation, and to what extent? This gets to at least some
of the O vs C debates here. (I will not speak for R - it seems to me
the C vs R debate is parallel - is it ever proper to let tanach and
halacha over-ride our ethical sense? to what extent and on what kinds of
issues?) Thus Kaiser who ethically couldnt accept the idea that it was
EVER a mitzvah to kill Amalekite babies, attempted to establish that
position by citing the Talmudic assertion that one does not punish the
child for the sins of the parent, and claiming this over-rode the
specific injunction to kill Amalekites. To do this he had to ignore,
IIUC, certain accepted rules about the relationship of positive and
negative commandments, and certain difficulties created by the later
chain of interpretations upto the Rambam. Therefore from the point of
view of a purely formal approach to Halakha he was wrong (and to the O
here, infuriating) From the point of view of an approach that sees
ethical imperatives as conditioning the way we interprate halakha, his
approach COULD be reasonable (caveat here - I am not learned enough to
judge the approach from a C standpoint - consult your local C rabbi)
Thus what appear to be technical arguments over texts tend to be rooted
in different meta-halakhic approaches - that is different views of the
relationship of halakha to G-d's will, of our own ethical judgements to
ultimate right (or to G-d's will), and thus of our ethical judgements to
the halakhic process.
Shalom
Tryinghard
mei...@qqqerols.com
tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>In article <h1ecasotc38ns6jud...@4ax.com>,
> mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>> In soc.culture.jewish on Thu, 10 Feb 2000 22:57:21 GMT
>> tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
>> >I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>>
>> Unless you have a cable modem, maybe you haven't read enough to
>> appreciate it.
>> >
>> >Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
>> >he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
>> >you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with
>him
>> >than with any of you.
>>
>> You've been involved in some nice threads lately. I'm surprised you
>> would bring this up now, and personalize it so.
>
>After threads about hatred, and other matters in which all the O
>posters seemed more concerned demonstrating the accpetability of
>hatred under the halacha, rather than about derech eretz
You're the one defining this as a contrast. Don't you think you
should make it clear that this idea is yours. Either that or repeat
what they actually said and no one else used the words derech eretz.
>,and a subthread
>(under week at C middle school) rejecting as nonsense the importance
>of aggada as a context for halakha,
I thought the topic was 'did it define the meaning?' rather than 'was
it not part of the context?'. The second statement is weaker and I
don't think people would have said that was nonsense. The first
statement was originally 'deals with the meaning' but was contrasted
with only one alternative in a way that I think made it mean, 'define
the meaning'.
>and then seeing similar patterns in
>threads about mamzerim and amalekites. I began to get fed up about the
>prioroties here. To his credit Mr. Baker made a very nice response on
>the subject of Heschel's view of Aggadah, and Toichen helpfully
>addressed some specific questions I had on the Amalekite issue.
>
>
>> Do you think when the Christians urge people to put an end to Satan
>> that is disgrace to their god.
>
>In general Im not particularly concerned with what the Christians
>believe, as I am not one of them (baruch hashem). If they want to put an
>end to a mythical character I dont care. If, OTOH, a xtian preacher
>cited texts on the need to destroy satan and his followers,
The other Amalakites aren't followers of any one Amalakite, so why are
you inserting the word 'follower'? The effect that might have, which
I don't think is good, is to gradually shift the topic to something
people would more easily object to? Why is Amalek any less mythical
than Satan when no one can identify any of them? In fact my point was
that Amalek is in many ways equivalent to the xian notion of Satan.
And who can you resolve any of this pleasantly if you personalize it
so. Because you're fed up. That's everyone's excuse, including for
violence.
> in the
>context of a discussion of real, living human beings, whom some might
>reasonablly infer he was reffering to as followers of Satan, I would be
>very concerened. I would be even more concerned if some of this
>preachers audince had guns and bombs, and if there were real wars and
>conflicts concerening the group he had been discussing. I would
>consider it the duty of members of all christian denomiations to set the
>record straight. If, say, a methodist denied that it was xtian duty to
>destroy satan, and a baptist attacked the methodist for the intellectual
>weakness of that position, without overtly and stronlgy distancing
>themselves from the preacher in question, I would say that they had
>disgraced the baptist denomination, and that the methodist had brought
>honor to the methodists, whatever the technical details of the matter
>might be.
>
>
>When a Jewish "leader" urges an end to Amalek, in teh context of a
>discussion of Arabs,
When was the last time Arabs were mentioned? I can't remember it.
And you said you didn't want to have dinner with a whole bunch of O
posters, most or all of whom had never said anything like that.
>it is the duty of Jews to distance oursleves from
>that "leader". Those whose concern with establishing the duty to destroy
>amalek is greater than their concern about the possible consequences of
>groups of armed people identifying the Arabs as Amalek, disgrace not
>G-d, but whatever form of Judaism they follow.
It was also a bad idea to mention RK in the same post. That also
personalized it instead of making it sound like you were making a
stand on policy.
As I said, I saw nothing in your statement to relate in any way to
Arabs, or a description of the link you see like you provide here.
>Shalom
>tryinghard
mei...@qqqerols.com
tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>In article <885ilc$6gk$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
> jst...@SPAMMIRNISHT.panix.com wrote:
>> In article <87vfof$2k9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <tryin...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Curious as to where Robert Kaiser has been, I searched for his posts.
>> >I found threads dealing with mamzerim, amalekites etc.
>> >
>> >Now all you O posters may be much more learned then he is, and maybe
>> >he'd even twist quotes, and misquote, and do all the other things
>> >you've accused him of. I still would rather, say, have dinner with
>him
>> >than with any of you.
>> >
>> >I was particularly disappointed to find Prof. Shimoff's only
>> >intervention in that thread was to attack Mr. Kaiser. Don't you see
>how
>> >all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
>babies
>> >(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
>> >that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
>> >
>>
>> Which are you calling the Chillul Hashem - the posters, or the
>> position that it's a mitzva to kill Amalekite babies? (I am not aware
>> of the thread you are discussing, so bear with me.)
>>
>
>The posters, who seemed more concerned to argue for the existence of the
>mitzvah, than to show how early and strong is the the
>determination that the mitzvah is moot.
>The former is as far as i am concerned, a matter of technical minutaie
>- the latter is the essential thing that people need reminding of.
Wasn't the point of another thread that O see what you call minutiae
as just about as important as everything else. So you establish a
priority system which they don't share, and then you infer things from
their lack of obedience to your priorities, and then judge them for it
too.
I'm not just picking. You don't seem to appreciate that even though
Amalek isn't identifiable, and none of this can happen, people will
discuss it anyhow.
>
>
mei...@qqqerols.com
tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>In article <885j01$6jo$1...@panix6.panix.com>,
>notice that I said I'd RATHER break bread with Kaiser, not that I'd
>never break bread with any of you - but then I did know how you feel
>about Kaiser and i knew how all of you would react - I was trying to
>express something about my visceral reaction to what i perceived
>as hatred and inhumanity -
strong words.
> a reaction I DO NOT think is part of my
>Yetzer HaRa)
None of us knows until we are tested. G-d willing, you won't be.
Eliot Shimoff
>I understand the halakhic position, reiterated by Shimoff, that its
>moot. If it is moot, why did several posters spend so much bandwith
>correcting Mr. Kaiser on the question of whether it is indeed a mitzvah?
>he had misled people over what brocha to say over an onion. In a
>previous thread I had suggested that such a thing is "Halkhic Minutaie"
>but i wish to retract that, seeing as it is a situation that actually
>could and does come up. But why be so concerned over him misleading
>people on whether it is indeed a mitzvah to kill amalekite babies, since
>really into thoroughly academic disputes - or maybe they are not
>convinced that there are no more amalekites.
No, it's not a matter of "thoroughly academic disputes." There was a
question raised about the halakha relating to Amalek. The O position,
over which there was no dissent, was that there is such a mitzva, and
that it is moot.
That raises what may be a more interesting question; given that all
O halakhic sources (and, AFAIR, all O scj posters) agree that the
matter is moot, why would anyone refer to O Jews (or some subset thereof)
as babykillers or advocates of genocide?
--
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) | Interested in Talmud study
Proud saba of Tani, T'mima, Moshe, | by email?
Hillel,Tsivia, Chani & | Visit my website ...
Yosef Ephraim | http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff
Eliot Shimoff
>In article <8813if$5bn0r$1...@umbc7.umbc.edu>,
>> In article <87vfof$2k9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <tryin...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>It is not what you posted on that thread that I take issue with, but
>with what you failed to post. You found nothing to take issue with in
>the posts of Lisa and the others.
I'm not certain which specific comments by Lisa and others are
in question. From what I recall, Lisa (and every other O poster
in that thread) was very explicit about the mitzva to eradicate
Amalek. It is clearly a mitzva by O standards; it appears in
every count of the 613 as a biblical obligation, and it so brought
down by all the codes ... all of which agree that the issue is moot
since Amalekites can no longer be idendified.
I have, on occasion, explicitly disavowed Lisa's rhetorical style
(but must admit that, in some threads, I find her style not only
appropriate, but admirable). But, in general, I figure that the
best way to show my disagreement with her style is to stick to
my own style.
Nor do I feel obligated to disavow every intemperate posting by an
O scj contributor, any more than I expect you do disavor every
intemperate posting by a C contributor. (As I noted before, I'm
more interested in the content of the posting than the name of the
poster.)
When Lisa makes factual errors in postings, I _do_ post my disagreement.
One notable example was the question of when and whether it is
halakhically appropriate to physically attack Christian missionaries in
Israel. Lisa suggested that it was indeed acceptable. I disagreed,
and posted translations of the relevant sections of Choshen Mishpat
(the relevant sections of the Shulkhan Arukh).
And when I make mistakes in posting, other O scj posters don't
hesistate to correct me. I've been torn into by Josh (I made
a mistake in citing a responsum on contraception), and by Micha
(who appropriately chastised me for making a serious mistake on
presenting halakhot of adoption).
TH:
>> >Don't you see how
>> >all the repetitions by posters of the mitzvah to kill amalekite
>babies
>> >(assuming they could be found) constitute a chillul hashem, something
>> >that drives people away from Orthodox Judaism.
Eliot:
>> That gets into the fascinating issue of what defines a hillul HaShem.
>> As I pointed out recently on another thread, there is a halakhic
>> category of things that shouldn't be said, not because they are
>> wrong, but because they are ineffective. On the other hand,
>> if someone asks about a halakha, there is an obligation to answer.
>> I do not believe that there is anything in the halakhot of
>> Amalekites that is so embarrassing that it should be hidden.
>> There is a biblical commandment (that appears in every listing
>> of the 613 mitzvot) to eradicate Amalek. But, as Micha pointed
>> out at the time, the same halakha that tells me to eradicate
>> Amalek also tells me that there are no longer any identifiable
>> Amalekites. [For those familiar with halakhic terminology, it
>> could be "ha'peh she'hitir hu ha'peh she'asar" -- the same
>> "mouth" that permitted it, also forbad it.]
TH:
>Is it the same - according to the O posts in that thread, the halakha to
>eradicate is the position of Rambam. Did Ramaam declare that there are
>no more Amalekites? My understanding is that it was several 19th c
>rabbis of considerably lesser stature than Rambam.
It was the Rambam. And, before the Rambam, the gemara. As I (and
others) noted, the mootness of the halakhot of wiping out Amalek
are not disputed.
...
TH:
>Now suppose that tomorrow some scientist were to establish that there
>were still descendants of Amalek(unlikely, but not impossible), and that
>they could be identified. The decisions of the 19th c rabbis would
>fall, while the mitzvah from the Rambam would stand. This is why Kaiser
>tried so hard to show that the assur came from Rambam himself, and from
>the Talmud.
It was not, AFAIR, Robert who pointed out the mootness, but the O posters.
But, if we are going to consider unlikely events ... Suppose that G-d
appeared to you and told you to kill an Amalekite, and went so far as
to point out the specific Amalekite. And suppose that G-d really made
a convincing case that this was His command. Would you comply with
G-d's explicit command? Or would you (who, as a C Jew, conforms to so
many rabbinic rulings), decide to disobey G-d? Choose the former and
you're a genocidal babykiller; choose the latter and you're a hypocrite
whose religious beliefs are a joke. See why hypothetical cases lead
to absurdities?
Binyomin Kaplan
Eliot Shimoff wrote:
>
>
> It was the Rambam. And, before the Rambam, the gemara. As I (and
> others) noted, the mootness of the halakhot of wiping out Amalek
> are not disputed.
>
I wonder if the homiletic aspects of the mitzvah should be
mentioned. Here it is Adar I. In Adar II we read Parshas Zachor.
Haman was a descendant of Amalek. Somehow, a subject
which happens to be so timely shouldn't only get its usual
treatment in scj.
Be well,
Binyomin
Simcha Streltsov
: Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: > As I have stated before, IMO, if Abraham passed the "test" at all, it
: > was with barely a D-. To have gotten the A+ he would have had to say
: personalities. That is why when we take on the meta-halakhic issue of
: whether there are external ethical standards with which we can validly
: judge the halakhah we get into so many and such devisive issues. Namely
...
: 2. Is there any valid, objective, rational basis for human ethical
: judgements? I will admit that my own sense that there is such, is now
what bothers me is that while seemingly advocating having a universal
human ethical judgement, you, in fact, destroy any objective approach
by allowing anyone to come up with their own "objective judgement".
see, for example, ou have no problems with Shelly's D- grade that
was taken by him out of the thin air - with no justification at all
except appealing to his own feeling of justice. And you are not
even curious how Shelly came up to his conclusion.
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Jonathan J. Baker
>prioroties here. To his credit Mr. Baker made a very nice response on
>the subject of Heschel's view of Aggadah,
By which you mean that you agreed with it. That's what seems to be
meant by "nice response". After all, I do engage in plenty of
arguments without personal namecalling, but they don't get called
"nice responses".
>When a Jewish "leader" urges an end to Amalek, in teh context of a
>discussion of Arabs, it is the duty of Jews to distance oursleves from
>that "leader". Those whose concern with establishing the duty to destroy
Really? Consider why we have to hate Amalek: because he attacked the
weak in the rearguard when we werre weary from the road (look it up, it's
in the chumash). Shouldn't we then hate the Palestinians for doing the
same thing, e.g., bombing innocent civilians aon buses, on planes, etc.?
>amalek is greater than their concern about the possible consequences of
>groups of armed people identifying the Arabs as Amalek, disgrace not
>G-d, but whatever form of Judaism they follow.
Not that we should necessarily kill them unprovoked, as we would with
real Amalek, but there is a real basis for comparison on behavior grounds.
--
Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
jjb...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
New web page, featuring Rambam Resources: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/
rkaiser1
tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>Its true even for those of us who do see the Tanach as in some sense the
>word of G-d and halacha as in some sense the will of G-d. The question
>for us is, given that there is more than one possible interpretation, is
>it proper to let our ethical senses play a role in determining the
>correct interpretation, and to what extent? This gets to at least some
>of the O vs C debates here. (I will not speak for R - it seems to me
>the C vs R debate is parallel - is it ever proper to let tanach and
>halacha over-ride our ethical sense? to what extent and on what kinds of
>issues?) Thus Kaiser who ethically couldnt accept the idea that it was
>EVER a mitzvah to kill Amalekite babies, attempted to establish that
>position by citing the Talmudic assertion that one does not punish the
>child for the sins of the parent, and claiming this over-rode the
>specific injunction to kill Amalekites.
Oh no, this was not my argument. That was perhaps one paragraph out of
four pages of material! Did you ever read my original post?
To do this he had to ignore,
>IIUC, certain accepted rules about the relationship of positive and
>negative commandments, and certain difficulties created by the later
>chain of interpretations upto the Rambam.
No, you missed what I originally wrote.
> Therefore from the point of view of a purely formal approach
> to Halakha he was wrong (and to the O here, infuriating)
No, Tryinghard, you are not representing my views correctly at all. Why
are you ignoring the many classical and Orthodox rabbis that I quoted? Do
you really believe that Maimonides does not represent Judaism and halakha?
While I am sure that you disagree with him on certain issues - as do I - it
is astonishing to see you claim that Maimonides is flat out wrong and
infuriating to orthodoxy. That's just not correct. The true situation is
that most Orthodox jews I have spoken with agree with me 100%. As I have
stated many times before, it is only here on this forum do I find this
handful of fanatisc who write such scandalous things. Orthodox Judaism in
the real world is much more tolerant than the tiny faction you see here.
Please tell what you think about the statements of the many later
classical and Orthodox rabbis who totally agree with Maimonides (who I agree
with)? On what do you base your position?
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
tryin...@my-deja.com
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
> In <8894vh$jft$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> tryin...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >prioroties here. To his credit Mr. Baker made a very nice response on
> >the subject of Heschel's view of Aggadah,
>
> By which you mean that you agreed with it. That's what seems to be
> meant by "nice response". After all, I do engage in plenty of
> arguments without personal namecalling, but they don't get called
> "nice responses".
>
Nice was a poor choice of words - compelling, powerful, unifying,
open-minded - geesh, i need a thesaurus. I was addressing something
more than simply absence of personal namecalling.
> >When a Jewish "leader" urges an end to Amalek, in teh context of a
> >discussion of Arabs, it is the duty of Jews to distance oursleves
from
> >that "leader". Those whose concern with establishing the duty to
destroy
>
> Really? Consider why we have to hate Amalek: because he attacked the
> weak in the rearguard when we werre weary from the road (look it up,
it's
> in the chumash). Shouldn't we then hate the Palestinians for doing
the
> same thing, e.g., bombing innocent civilians aon buses, on planes,
etc.?
If we should hate anyone, it is those individuals who have actually
committed those acts. Those Palestinians who have opposed such acts and
reached out to Israel (eg Fouad Ajami) should be honored. That large
body of Palestinians which does not commit terrorist acts, yet which
approves of them, at least at times of political frustration, we should
reach out to and persuade, using argument, carrot AND stick, as
necessary, but without hatred.
Saying we should hate terrorists is profoundly different from saying we
should hate Palestinians in general. It is precisely this distinction
that the Kahanes have sought to erase, attempting to use quotes from
Torah to accomplish this.
>
> >amalek is greater than their concern about the possible consequences
of
> >groups of armed people identifying the Arabs as Amalek, disgrace not
> >G-d, but whatever form of Judaism they follow.
>
> Not that we should necessarily kill them unprovoked, as we would with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> real Amalek, but there is a real basis for comparison on behavior
grounds.
Surely you could have said something stronger than that.
tryin...@my-deja.com
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) wrote:
> tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> : > As I have stated before, IMO, if Abraham passed the "test" at all,
it
> : > was with barely a D-. To have gotten the A+ he would have had to
say
>
> : personalities. That is why when we take on the meta-halakhic issue
of
> : whether there are external ethical standards with which we can
validly
> : judge the halakhah we get into so many and such devisive issues.
Namely
> ...
> : 2. Is there any valid, objective, rational basis for human ethical
> : judgements? I will admit that my own sense that there is such, is
now
>
> what bothers me is that while seemingly advocating having a universal
> human ethical judgement, you, in fact, destroy any objective approach
> by allowing anyone to come up with their own "objective judgement".
>
> see, for example, ou have no problems with Shelly's D- grade that
> was taken by him out of the thin air - with no justification at all
> except appealing to his own feeling of justice. And you are not
> even curious how Shelly came up to his conclusion.
>
I do not state that Shellys approach was objective. I simply was not
interested in a detailed discussion of Abraham in the Akeda, which to be
done seriously would require a far greater command of both midrash and
modern sermons than I have.
If you are curious about Shelly's approach I suggest you ask Shelly.
Given Shelly's own ethical behaviour here, I feel entitled to give him
the benefit of the doubt .
shalom
tryinghard
tryin...@my-deja.com
mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
Because 1. Amalek did in fact exist at one point in the past, and
conceivably could be identified.
2. Unlike Satan, Amalek was an entire people including women and
children.
Thats why I could not extend your analogy without replacing Satan with a
human group.
In fact my point was
> that Amalek is in many ways equivalent to the xian notion of Satan.
>
> >
> >When a Jewish "leader" urges an end to Amalek, in teh context of a
> >discussion of Arabs,
>
> When was the last time Arabs were mentioned? I can't remember it.
> And you said you didn't want to have dinner with a whole bunch of O
> posters, most or all of whom had never said anything like that.
In various sermons by the Kahanes. I grant that I did not cite any in my
original post. I apologize.
>
> >it is the duty of Jews to distance oursleves from
> >that "leader". Those whose concern with establishing the duty to
destroy
> >amalek is greater than their concern about the possible consequences
of
> >groups of armed people identifying the Arabs as Amalek, disgrace not
> >G-d, but whatever form of Judaism they follow.
>
> It was also a bad idea to mention RK in the same post.
A number of posters in the thread in question (IIRC) personalized their
responses to RK. I did not you see taking issue with that. I did not
start the personalization, but said soemthing kind about a personality
who had been under attack. And for a perfectly reasonable post.
Shalom
tryin...@my-deja.com
"rkaiser1" <rkai...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >issues?) Thus Kaiser who ethically couldnt accept the idea that it
was EVER a mitzvah to kill Amalekite babies, attempted to establish that
> >position by citing the Talmudic assertion that one does not punish
the
> >child for the sins of the parent, and claiming this over-rode the
> >specific injunction to kill Amalekites.
>
out of
> four pages of material! Did you ever read my original post?
>
I think I did, although I admit I was more concerned at the time with
the response it received.
> To do this he had to ignore,
> >IIUC, certain accepted rules about the relationship of positive and
> >negative commandments, and certain difficulties created by the later
> >chain of interpretations upto the Rambam.
>
> No, you missed what I originally wrote.
>
> > Therefore from the point of view of a purely formal approach
> > to Halakha he was wrong (and to the O here, infuriating)
>
> No, Tryinghard, you are not representing my views correctly at
all. Why
> are you ignoring the many classical and Orthodox rabbis that I quoted?
Probably because I was most struck by the talmudic and Ramban arguments,
not the later ones. I am very concerned with what the core of classical
Judaism says on the subject. I am not particularly concerned with what
19thc O rabbis say - showing the extent of moderation within O is your
agenda, not mine.
Do
> you really believe that Maimonides does not represent Judaism and
halakha?
> While I am sure that you disagree with him on certain issues - as do I
- it
> is astonishing to see you claim that Maimonides is flat out wrong and
> infuriating to orthodoxy.
I really would like to avoid trying to charecterize Rambams position.
From your own quote I find the Rambam's position confusing. On the one
hand Rambam included the Mitzvah in his 613 mitzvots, on the other hand
there are other positions on the permissibality of an Amalekite
converting that seem to force us to read that Mitzvah as meaning some
thing other than killing amalekites, OTOH I see no explicit retraction
by Rambam of the position to kill Amalekites. (perhaps because it was a
moot point, and no one was holding otherwise in his time?) In particular
I do not see him addressing the talmudic issues raised in the article
you quoted, but then IIUC rambam generally does not provide sources for
his Halakhic positions in Mishneh Torah.
Again I see the problem here as related to some you have had with O
posters in the past. The position I stated was wrong was the position
of you and the Bar Ilan professor re the positions in the Talmud. On
re-reading it I will admit my judgement was hasty, but I am still not
sure if it is right - my own understanding of Halakhic procedure is
still too limited, and so I must await the response of a C rabbi, if any
wish to get involved with this. However I do not see Rambam addressing
these talmudic points - if this is explained in the article please point
it out for me.
And of course I did not say infuriating to Orthodoxy, but to the O here.
Therefore while i may have mischarecterized your position, (for which i
apologize) you have responded rather imprecisely regarding what I had
said. Had I been a hostile O poster I could have taken advantage of
that to make you the issue, rather than the substance of the thread.
That would be a pity.
That's just not correct. The true
situation is
> that most Orthodox jews I have spoken with agree with me 100%. As I
have
> stated many times before, it is only here on this forum do I find this
> handful of fanatisc who write such scandalous things. Orthodox
Judaism in
> the real world is much more tolerant than the tiny faction you see
here.
I think I made it clear I was discussing posters in this NG only.
>
> Please tell what you think about the statements of the many later
> classical and Orthodox rabbis who totally agree with Maimonides (who I
agree
> with)? On what do you base your position?
As I had not heard of them, and feared the O posters would pick apart
their credentials, I did not see this as an advisable ground to argue
from. If you wish to argue from it, feel free.
shalom
Lisa
wrote:
>
>Susan Cohen wrote :
>>And the point that I also didn't write was the real reason the
>>question ever came up in the first place - Robert likes to
>> make the O look as bad as possible.
>
> Nonsense. In fact, I have posted *dozens* of posts to this newsgroup in
>defense of Orthodoxy.
Not one. Only in support of the radical fringe wackos who still call
themselves "Orthodox" long after they've left any kind of Torah
hashkafa. Such as Yitz "God lost his moral authority in Auschwitz"
Greenberg, and his wife Blu "God is a sexist".
You've defined them as "Modern Orthodox", ignoring the fact that most
Modern Orthodox Jews wouldn't spit on them if they were on fire, and
defined any Orthodox Jews who don't consider their views to be any
part of Judaism as "Ultra-Orthodox", fanatics and haters.
Lisa
Eliot Shimoff
>
>
>Eliot Shimoff wrote:
>> It was the Rambam. And, before the Rambam, the gemara. As I (and
>> others) noted, the mootness of the halakhot of wiping out Amalek
>> are not disputed.
Binyomin K:
>I wonder if the homiletic aspects of the mitzvah should be
>mentioned. Here it is Adar I. In Adar II we read Parshas Zachor.
>Haman was a descendant of Amalek. Somehow, a subject
>which happens to be so timely shouldn't only get its usual
>treatment in scj.
Actually, at least one homiletic aspect may be related to another recent
thread on whether hatred is ever justified or good. One _might_ learn
a lesson from Amalek -- that there are circumstances under which hatred
is indeed not only justifiable, but even obligatory. There are events
that we cannot forget, violations that we are not free to forgive, and
transgressions that we are not permitted to overlook.
Other than that, Binyomin makes a good point. Given that Purim is
coming, it would be a good idea for someone to post some aggadic -
homiletic material on Amalek. (I'd take it upon myself, but I'm not
sure when and if I'll have the time.)
Susan Cohen
Jonathan J. Baker
>While I am sure that you disagree with him on certain issues - as do I - it
>is astonishing to see you claim that Maimonides is flat out wrong and
>infuriating to orthodoxy. That's just not correct. The true situation is
>that most Orthodox jews I have spoken with agree with me 100%. As I have
>stated many times before, it is only here on this forum do I find this
>handful of fanatisc who write such scandalous things. Orthodox Judaism in
>the real world is much more tolerant than the tiny faction you see here.
> Please tell what you think about the statements of the many later
>classical and Orthodox rabbis who totally agree with Maimonides (who I agree
>with)? On what do you base your position?
Note that Maimonides holds that it is a mitzvah to wipe out Amalek.
Positive Mitzva 188: to cut out the seed of Amalek, as it is written,
"Erase all memorial of Amalek".
Micha Berger
: Note that Maimonides holds that it is a mitzvah to wipe out Amalek.
: Positive Mitzva 188: to cut out the seed of Amalek, as it is written,
: "Erase all memorial of Amalek".
And, as he only counts those mitzvos he considers eternally binding, the
law of Amaleik is in force today.
It does *not* mean, however, that Maimonides believed the law could actually
be implemented. Just that theoretically, it is in force.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 16-Feb-00: Revi'i, Tetzaveh
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 115b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-II 17
Harry Weiss
: In article <2deiasco95f5nj2oe...@4ax.com>,
: mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
: Because 1. Amalek did in fact exist at one point in the past, and
: conceivably could be identified.
: 2. Unlike Satan, Amalek was an entire people including women and
: children.
: Thats why I could not extend your analogy without replacing Satan with a
: human group.
But their eradication was called for by G-d. G-d did not call for
eradication of other groups. The Torah was given and it is forever.
Such a call cannot come again.
: In fact my point was
:> that Amalek is in many ways equivalent to the xian notion of Satan.
:>
:> >
:> >When a Jewish "leader" urges an end to Amalek, in teh context of a
:> >discussion of Arabs,
:>
:> When was the last time Arabs were mentioned? I can't remember it.
:> And you said you didn't want to have dinner with a whole bunch of O
:> posters, most or all of whom had never said anything like that.
: In various sermons by the Kahanes. I grant that I did not cite any in my
: original post. I apologize.
ACtually as much as Kahana or his son was/is despicable, they never
called for killing Arabs. They called for removal, but not killing.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
>
> tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>Its true even for those of us who do see the Tanach as in some sense the
>>word of G-d and halacha as in some sense the will of G-d. The question
>>for us is, given that there is more than one possible interpretation, is
>>it proper to let our ethical senses play a role in determining the
>>correct interpretation, and to what extent? This gets to at least some
>>of the O vs C debates here. (I will not speak for R - it seems to me
>>the C vs R debate is parallel - is it ever proper to let tanach and
>>halacha over-ride our ethical sense? to what extent and on what kinds of
>>issues?) Thus Kaiser who ethically couldnt accept the idea that it was
>>EVER a mitzvah to kill Amalekite babies, attempted to establish that
>>position by citing the Talmudic assertion that one does not punish the
>>child for the sins of the parent, and claiming this over-rode the
>>specific injunction to kill Amalekites.
>
> four pages of material! Did you ever read my original post?
>
>
>>IIUC, certain accepted rules about the relationship of positive and
>>negative commandments, and certain difficulties created by the later
>>chain of interpretations upto the Rambam.
>
>
>
>> to Halakha he was wrong (and to the O here, infuriating)
>
> you really believe that Maimonides does not represent Judaism and halakha?
Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 6:4 is explicit in requiring the death of those
of the 7 Nations and Amalek who (upon conquest of the land of Israel) didn't
make peace with Israel and accept as binding the 7 Mitzvot of Bnei Noach
("aval shiv'a amamin v'amalek shelo hishlimu, EIN MEINICHIM MEYHEM NESHAMA".)
> While I am sure that you disagree with him on certain issues - as do I - it
RAAVAD, move over. Robert Kaiser is in town :-)
> is astonishing to see you claim that Maimonides is flat out wrong and
> infuriating to orthodoxy. That's just not correct. The true situation is
> that most Orthodox jews I have spoken with agree with me 100%. As I have
> stated many times before, it is only here on this forum do I find this
> handful of fanatisc who write such scandalous things. Orthodox Judaism in
> the real world is much more tolerant than the tiny faction you see here.
Is Maimonides (Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 6:4) "intolerant" Mister Kaiser ?
>
> Please tell what you think about the statements of the many later
> classical and Orthodox rabbis who totally agree with Maimonides (who I agree
> with)? On what do you base your position?
>
Josh
>
> Shalom,
>
> Robert Kaiser
>
>
>
tryin...@my-deja.com
Lisa didnt save you anything, Susan. Only Lisa calls the Greenbergs
radical fringe whackos. The majority of O posters here certainly did say
that they didnt consider the Greenbergs O. Most however would I think
still consider their views part of Judaism. As for the "wouldn't spit on
them if they were on fire" I dont think most modern O posters share that
feeling. And if they did why wouldnt this be properly called "hatred"?
In fact Kaiser listed many others he considers "moderate" other than the
Greenbergs. It is apparently important to him to establish that there is
a considerable and important group of moderates within O. I dont
necessarily agree with him on that, but I think Lisa has
mischarecterized his position.
shalom
tryinghard
Talqcom
>From: "rkaiser1" rkai...@msn.com
> If what Jon said was correct, then Maimonides would hold that Jews are
>commanded to kill all Amalekites.
He does. It is a law obligating the Jewish Nation. It includes all
Amalekaites if no peace is accepted by them.
>In fact, this is the precise opposite of
>Maimonides true position - which is that Jews are never commanded to kill
>any Amalekites at all - except in the case of war, when members of Amalek
>refuse to make peace.
But the war is required. Amalaeq can opt out and accept the peace terms. The
misva of the war is not optional though. Your "exception" is actually the
rule!
>When specifically considering Amalekites, he notes that
>neither their conversion nor inclusion in the community poses any problem.
But not all Aamalekites would necessarily genuinely want to convert. If they
claimed so just to save their lives it would not be accepted, they would remain
Amalekites, and subject to the law of eradication.
Conversion is hardly necessary to save their lives, as the remainder of your
post indicates.
> It is
> true that Joshua condemned Achan to death on the latter's
> admission, and that David ordered the execution of the
> Amalekite stranger on the latter's admission. But those
> were emergency cases, or the death sentences pronounced
> in those instances were
>prescribed by the state law.
> [The Book of Judges, Laws concerning Sanhedrin 18.6]
I do not know what "state law" is. The original reads "din malkhuth" -- the
law of the kingdom -- referring to the fact that a Jewish king is not bound in
his civil courts by the evidentiary rules of the Judiciary court. So David
killed the Amalekite based upon an admission, whereas a court could not.
>Maimonides thus assumes that the only grounds for slaying the stranger
>were the fact that it was either an immediate emergency, or a penalty
>prescribed by state law, and not that he was an Amalekite.
???. Because it was *his admission* that *he was an Amalekite* the killing did
not comply with judicial procedure, so because he *was the king* David could do
it anyway.
The next line reads: "However, the Sanhedrin does not execute or flog one who
admits to a crime." This law deals with the Sanhedrin/King :: Legal
Procedure/Ad Hoc procedure opposition.
>Whereas the
>Mekhilta assumes that slaying the Amalekite stranger complies with the
>biblical injunction to destroy Amalek, Maimonides assumed this killing,
>unless justified in terms of another legitimate principle, would be
>unacceptable.
Sorry, but not at all supported in the text.
Maimonides *clearly* states the basis for the killing is the Amalekite
affiliation. The lack of *procedure* is justified because it was the king.
> Relying in rabbinic exegesis which made the destruction of the seven
>nations contingent upon their behavior, Maimonides concluded that the
>command to blot out Amalek should also be considered contingent, and
>restricted to specific circumstances in which Amalek refused to accept a
>peace offer.
>
The peace offer, as you say, includes acceptance of servitude and making their
physical labor and property available to the king.
Not everyone would accept such terms. If not, they are killed. All. Even
babies.
Amalek never accepted such an offer, it appears.
>The Sifre commentary on this explicitly
>states "When you draw nigh unto a city - Scripture speaks here of a
>non-obligatory war".
The issue of the Sifre transcends this discussion. There are textual variants.
It appears to me you are quoting from a secondary source. If you check the
Sifre you will see that there is a mahloqeth. Maimonides, following Rabbinic
protocol, adopts the opinion of Ribbi Shim'on, as "setham Sifre kevvateh."
Ray
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jonathan J. Baker writes:
>>> Please tell what you think about the statements of the many later
>>> classical and Orthodox rabbis who totally agree with Maimonides
>>> (who I agree with)? On what do you base your position?
>>Positive Mitzva 188: to cut out the seed of Amalek, as it is written,
>>"Erase all memorial of Amalek".
> Note that Jon Baker is not quite presenting Maimonides _full_ position
>on this subject. In point of fact, Maimonides only claims that the written
>Torah lists wiping out the remembrance of Amalek as a mitzvah..but then he
>goes on to say more.
Note that Bob is not quite presenting Maimonides _full_ position on
genocidal commanded wars. Yes, Amalek is given the chance to make
peace - collectively, as a nation. I don't know if this extends to
Amalekite individuals who happened to survive the initial war, such
as Haman is alleged to have been.
Note further, that in at least one case, we are not allowed to
make peace offers: Amon and Moav. Against those two we had no
choice but to wage genocidal war. See Laws of Kings 6:6.
mei...@qqqerols.com
tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>In article <2deiasco95f5nj2oe...@4ax.com>,
> mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>>
>> It was also a bad idea to mention RK in the same post.
>
>A number of posters in the thread in question (IIRC) personalized their
>responses to RK. I did not you see taking issue with that. I did not
>start the personalization, but said soemthing kind about a personality
>who had been under attack.
I'm not objecting here to the kindness. But I think it would have
been better in a separate post. I don't recall for sure but I think
their personalizations and mine too are not combined in this way.
What is the term? Synergism, where the sum is greater than the
arithmetic sum of the parts. This is not an observation from scj but
from the rest of my life where I see how people annoy others more than
necessary.
> And for a perfectly reasonable post.
>
??
>Shalom
>tryinghard
>>
>
>
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
mei...@qqqerols.com
<hjw...@netcom19.netcom.com> posted:
>: In various sermons by the Kahanes. I grant that I did not cite any in my
>: original post. I apologize.
>
>ACtually as much as Kahana or his son was/is despicable, they never
>called for killing Arabs. They called for removal, but not killing.
That was my understanding too and there is an enormous difference.
tryin...@my-deja.com
Maybe somebody should have said that in the earlier thread in which
someone said that the expulsion from Spain was not philosophically
distinct from the Shoah.
In any case, the following is from a sermon by B kahane:
'Another favorite hobby of the "humanists" is to condemn randomn attacks
on "innocent" Arabs. After all, these Arabs
were just passing by. They personally did not commit any acts of
terror, and simply suffer for the "ultra-nationalism" of their
brethren. The answer to such arguements may come as a shock to
those who were weened on western culture, and view "collective
punishment" as an abhorrent concept. But Judaism certainly views
collective punishment as something quite legitimate.'
Now I am sure you will point out, Meirman, that "collective pusnishment"
could mean to expulsion rather than killing. I note however tht this is
preceded by a reference to "random attacks" on Arabs. I dont see how
that can mean anything other than acts of violence. Perhaps it means
acts of violence intended to wound rather than kill. Granted I will
have to do more research to provide evidence that they have ever
admitted to actually wanting to kill Arabs.
Shalom
Tryinghard
> e-mail by removing QQQ
Simcha Streltsov
: If you are curious about Shelly's approach I suggest you ask Shelly.
: Given Shelly's own ethical behaviour here, I feel entitled to give him
: the benefit of the doubt .
benefit of the doubt that he uses his own ethical standards for his
interpretations? yes
benefit of the doubt that he seriously bothered checking sources? no,
and I assume that he'll agree with me.
Simcha Streltsov
: In any case, the following is from a sermon by B kahane:
this is not from Rav Kahane, but fmr his son, right?
toi...@my-deja.com
> Its true even for those of us who do see the Tanach as in some sense
the
> word of G-d and halacha as in some sense the will of G-d. The question
> for us is, given that there is more than one possible interpretation,
is
> it proper to let our ethical senses play a role in determining the
> correct interpretation, and to what extent? This gets to at least some
> of the O vs C debates here. (I will not speak for R - it seems to me
> the C vs R debate is parallel - is it ever proper to let tanach and
> halacha over-ride our ethical sense? to what extent and on what kinds
> of
> issues?)
There are 3 points here.
1. Assuming God commanded us in a completely unambiguous manner to
perform what we perceive to be an unethical act do we perform it or
not? The answer, for any believer in God, is an unequivocal yes.
2. The next question is, that given that the bible is open to
interpretation do we let our moral feelings of right and wrong play a
role in deciding the true interpretation, the answer is again an
unequivocal yes, the talmud does exactly that in a number of cases.
3. Can we reinterpret any commandment that does not fit into our sense
of right and wrong so that it should suit our sensibilities, the answer
to that is an unequivocal no. There are certain specified rules on how
to interpret the Torah and only within those parameters can we use our
moral sense to interpret the Torah one way or the other.
Finally at the risk of breaking netiquette I must point out that you
consistently come up with stimulating subjects and for that I thank you.
toichen
> Thus Kaiser who ethically couldnt accept the idea that it was
> EVER a mitzvah to kill Amalekite babies, attempted to establish that
> position by citing the Talmudic assertion that one does not punish the
> child for the sins of the parent, and claiming this over-rode the
> specific injunction to kill Amalekites. To do this he had to ignore,
> IIUC, certain accepted rules about the relationship of positive and
> negative commandments, and certain difficulties created by the later
> chain of interpretations upto the Rambam. Therefore from the point of
> view of a purely formal approach to Halakha he was wrong (and to the O
> here, infuriating) From the point of view of an approach that sees
> ethical imperatives as conditioning the way we interprate halakha, his
> approach COULD be reasonable (caveat here - I am not learned enough to
> judge the approach from a C standpoint - consult your local C rabbi)
> Thus what appear to be technical arguments over texts tend to be
rooted
> in different meta-halakhic approaches - that is different views of the
> relationship of halakha to G-d's will, of our own ethical judgements
to
> ultimate right (or to G-d's will), and thus of our ethical judgements
to
> the halakhic process.
>
> Shalom
> Tryinghard
tryin...@my-deja.com
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) wrote:
> tryin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> : In any case, the following is from a sermon by B kahane:
>
> this is not from Rav Kahane, but fmr his son, right?
Correct, from B kahane, (ie Binyamin zev Kahane) , rather than from M.
Kahane (ie Meir kahane) Did I get the names right?
shalom
tryinghard
tryin...@my-deja.com
toi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Its true even for those of us who do see the Tanach as in some sense
> the
> > word of G-d and halacha as in some sense the will of G-d. The
question
> > for us is, given that there is more than one possible
interpretation,
> is
> > it proper to let our ethical senses play a role in determining the
> > correct interpretation, and to what extent? This gets to at least
some
> > of the O vs C debates here. (I will not speak for R - it seems to
me
> > the C vs R debate is parallel - is it ever proper to let tanach and
> > halacha over-ride our ethical sense? to what extent and on what
kinds
> > of
> > issues?)
>
> There are 3 points here.
> 1. Assuming God commanded us in a completely unambiguous manner to
> perform what we perceive to be an unethical act do we perform it or
> not? The answer, for any believer in God, is an unequivocal yes.
This is a tremendous ethical/meta-ethical question, one which I hope I
will always find to be moot. I would note however that John Stuart Mill
directly addresses it and comes up with an unequivical no. I will note
that R' Eugene Borowitz wrestles with it as well. Note that R' Borowitz
(who is Reform) explicitly goes out of his way to make it "non-moot".
IIRC he challenges C rabbis with the question of what they would do IF
they could find no way out of the Agunah problem. (note also that on
this as on many other questions the Reform challenge to the tenabality
of the C "middle way" is parallel to or even identical to the O
challenge, though the R of course draw radically different
consequences).
> 2. The next question is, that given that the bible is open to
> interpretation do we let our moral feelings of right and wrong play a
> role in deciding the true interpretation, the answer is again an
> unequivocal yes, the talmud does exactly that in a number of cases.
That is my sense of the masorah, but my impression, perhaps incorrect,
is that there are some on this NG who can find no valid basis for our
"moral feelings" (please note that there is controversy in the field of
ethics whether our ethical beliefs are properly based on feelings, a
"rational intuition" which is held to be distinct from emotion, or
deductive logic) outside of the 4 cubits of halakha.
> 3. Can we reinterpret any commandment that does not fit into our sense
> of right and wrong so that it should suit our sensibilities, the
answer
> to that is an unequivocal no. There are certain specified rules on how
> to interpret the Torah and only within those parameters can we use our
> moral sense to interpret the Torah one way or the other.
But of course there is ambiguity and disagreement about the those rules,
and at least to some extent the interpretation of how broad that
halakhic flexibility ought to be is conditioned by the extent of our
concern for the conflict between halakha and our moral sense. we dont
live behind "a veil of ignorance" that allows objecitivity. to give a
more tangible example, when we argue about the rights of current
generations of rabbis to determine to take major halakhic actions in
areas where earlier (and greater generations) felt inadequate to do so,
we do so knowing full well that this impacts the question of annulments,
and that it has a real (and ethically significant) impact on real live
agunot. So when one side argues that it is absurd for a lesser
generation of rabbis to issue annulments when the earlier generations
would not, and the other side argues that there is an agunah problem
today that far exceeds in magnitude the agunah problem of previous
generations, they find that the meta-halakhic argument over the
methodology of change is inseperable from the meta-halakhic arguement
overe the seriousness of conflicts between halakha and ethics.
> Finally at the risk of breaking netiquette I must point out that you
> consistently come up with stimulating subjects and for that I thank
you.
> toichen
Thank YOU.
mei...@qqqerols.com
tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>In article <8m9naschb7kvcg03k...@4ax.com>,
> mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
>> In soc.culture.jewish on 16 Feb 2000 21:28:52 GMT Harry Weiss
>> <hjw...@netcom19.netcom.com> posted:
>>
>> >: In various sermons by the Kahanes. I grant that I did not cite any
>in my
>> >: original post. I apologize.
>> >
>> >ACtually as much as Kahana or his son was/is despicable, they never
>> >called for killing Arabs. They called for removal, but not killing.
>
>>
>> That was my understanding too and there is an enormous difference.
>>
>
>Maybe somebody should have said that in the earlier thread in which
>someone said that the expulsion from Spain was not philosophically
>distinct from the Shoah.
I truly don't understand. Are you saying that someone else's silence
about an incorrect statement would somehow entitle you to make an
incorrect statement? (You seem to make this point, whatever it is,
independently of below where you are in the process of trying to show
it is a correct statement.) BTW, I have heard that as many as a third
of the Jews of Spain were killed in Spain during the Inquisition. I
would think that Spain and the Shoah are in many respects the same
misosophically and different in other respects.
>
>In any case, the following is from a sermon by B kahane:
>
>'Another favorite hobby of the "humanists" is to condemn randomn attacks
>on "innocent" Arabs. After all, these Arabs
> were just passing by. They personally did not commit any acts of
>terror, and simply suffer for the "ultra-nationalism" of their
>brethren. The answer to such arguements may come as a shock to
>those who were weened on western culture, and view "collective
>punishment" as an abhorrent concept. But Judaism certainly views
>collective punishment as something quite legitimate.'
>
>
>Now I am sure you will point out, Meirman, that "collective pusnishment"
>could mean to expulsion rather than killing. I note however tht this is
>preceded by a reference to "random attacks" on Arabs. I dont see how
>that can mean anything other than acts of violence. Perhaps it means
>acts of violence intended to wound rather than kill. Granted I will
>have to do more research to provide evidence that they have ever
>admitted to actually wanting to kill Arabs.
>
I agree. And this statement is only by Benny.
>
>Shalom
>Tryinghard
Sheldon Glickler
I, for one, find it ludicrous and hypocritical to try to
justify "genocidal war" under the guise of "God told me to do it" while
at the same time condemning the genocidal war committed against us, aka
the holocaust, under the guise of "racial purity".
Genocidal war is genocidal war, no matter what "excuse" you try to give
for it. It is fundamentally wrong.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
tryin...@my-deja.com
mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> In soc.culture.jewish on Thu, 17 Feb 2000 19:55:35 GMT
> tryin...@my-deja.com posted:
>
> >In article <8m9naschb7kvcg03k...@4ax.com>,
> > mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> >> In soc.culture.jewish on 16 Feb 2000 21:28:52 GMT Harry Weiss
> >> <hjw...@netcom19.netcom.com> posted:
> >>
> >> >: In various sermons by the Kahanes. I grant that I did not cite
any
> >in my
> >> >: original post. I apologize.
> >> >
> >> >ACtually as much as Kahana or his son was/is despicable, they
never
> >> >called for killing Arabs. They called for removal, but not
killing.
> >
> >>
> >> That was my understanding too and there is an enormous difference.
> >>
> >
> >Maybe somebody should have said that in the earlier thread in which
> >someone said that the expulsion from Spain was not philosophically
> >distinct from the Shoah.
>
> I truly don't understand. Are you saying that someone else's silence
> about an incorrect statement would somehow entitle you to make an
> incorrect statement? (You seem to make this point, whatever it is,
> independently of below where you are in the process of trying to show
> it is a correct statement.)
I made my specific point later as you point out. I too think there is
a difference between attempting genocide and attemptiong expulsion even
if the latter results in many deaths. So I am agreement with you as far
as this thread. A felt that was ONE key aspect of the other thread,
distinguishing the Shoah from many other Jewish tragedies. I would have
appreciated some support in that thread. When posters here can
distinguish genocide from expulsion for the purpose of defending B.
Kahane from "incorrect statements", but cannot or will not make that
distinction when R' Greenberg, Elie Wiesel, and Emil Fackenheim are
under attack ..... puzzles me, to say the least.
BTW, I have heard that as many as a third
> of the Jews of Spain were killed in Spain during the Inquisition.
Note that the inquisition as such did not apply to open Jews, but to
"conversos" converts to Christianity, who were accused of secretly
practicing Judaism. Some of them were genuine Marranos - according to a
recent book by Prof. Netanyahu (yes, Bibi's father) many (most?)were
not.
I dont know how many of the deaths you site were conversos who were
killed before the expulsion, or were Jews who tried converted in or
shortly after 1492 to avoid leaving Spain, or were Jews who died in the
chaotic conditions of the expulsion itself. I would venture to say that
most mass expulsions of peoples in history involve death on a large
scale. I suspect rather the same thing would happen were the Kahanist
expulsion plan to be put into practice. Those who support it, or
apologize for it, must bear that in mind.
I
> would think that Spain and the Shoah are in many respects the same
> misosophically and different in other respects.
> >
> >In any case, the following is from a sermon by B kahane:
> >
> >'Another favorite hobby of the "humanists" is to condemn randomn
attacks
> >on "innocent" Arabs. After all, these Arabs
> > were just passing by. They personally did not commit any acts of
> >terror, and simply suffer for the "ultra-nationalism" of their
> >brethren. The answer to such arguements may come as a shock to
> >those who were weened on western culture, and view "collective
> >punishment" as an abhorrent concept. But Judaism certainly views
> >collective punishment as something quite legitimate.'
> >
> >
> >Now I am sure you will point out, Meirman, that "collective
pusnishment"
> >could mean to expulsion rather than killing. I note however tht this
is
> >preceded by a reference to "random attacks" on Arabs. I dont see how
> >that can mean anything other than acts of violence. Perhaps it means
> >acts of violence intended to wound rather than kill. Granted I will
> >have to do more research to provide evidence that they have ever
> >admitted to actually wanting to kill Arabs.
> >
> I agree. And this statement is only by Benny.
I realize there are some followers who consider Benny to be not the true
heir to Meir's legacy. I dont really follow Kahanist politics that
closely. May it be Hashem's will that such things will remain academic.
Are you saying that the other group of Kahanists is less supportive of
"random attacks" then is Benny?
Shalom
Tryinghard
toi...@my-deja.com
Not knowing what either of what the above 2 people say on this subject
I cannot dispute it. I suspect however, that they approach this
question on a radically different basis than I do and thus I am nearly
sure I would not find their conclusions valid as regarding myself.
Assuming God created everything (morals included), add to that, that
God is perfect, adding also that we have limited understanding, I just
do not see an option for disobeying him.
> Note that R' Borowitz
> (who is Reform) explicitly goes out of his way to make it "non-moot".
I have found R' Borowitz to be one of the few liberal writers of note
that actually understand orthodox opinion even though he does not agree
with it.
> IIRC he challenges C rabbis with the question of what they would do IF
> they could find no way out of the Agunah problem. (note also that on
> this as on many other questions the Reform challenge to the tenabality
> of the C "middle way" is parallel to or even identical to the O
> challenge, though the R of course draw radically different
> consequences).
> > 2. The next question is, that given that the bible is open to
> > interpretation do we let our moral feelings of right and wrong play
a
> > role in deciding the true interpretation, the answer is again an
> > unequivocal yes, the talmud does exactly that in a number of cases.
>
> That is my sense of the masorah, but my impression, perhaps incorrect,
> is that there are some on this NG who can find no valid basis for our
> "moral feelings" (please note that there is controversy in the field
> of
> ethics whether our ethical beliefs are properly based on feelings, a
> "rational intuition" which is held to be distinct from emotion, or
> deductive logic) outside of the 4 cubits of halakha.
What exactly are morals is also a question required to be considered
within the nexus of this discussion. For instance some people insist
that abortion is wrong while other people insist equally that abortion
is a fundamental right. I think it in place to quote Germaine Greer
here viz. If men could get pregnant abortion would be sacrament. The
jewish view of morals is, in brief, a set of feelings that arise from a
life devoted to Torah, this is a lengthy subject which space at present
does not permit going into.
In rabbinic judaism the above argument would be invalid. If a question
has a direct bearing on a moral matter we would indeed use our moral
sense in deciding one way or the other. However when a question has
only an indirect relationship to morals than we would not be justified
in bringing the moral standard to bear. For even if perhaps the moral
issue would force the decision one way we could quite well imagine a
different moral issue also affecting this question and influencing this
question in quite a different direction, this would lead to an
absurdity. However every rule has its exceptions and we do find certain
limited circumstances of rabbis using morals to decide questions that
have only an indirect relation to the moral issue involved.
> shalom
> tryinghard
best wishes toichen
Shalom2240
Lisa states >Wrong. to the previous posters' comment that "After all, O and C
are but slightly different approaches to Judaism, not distinct religions."<
O and C certainaly are different approaches to the same religion. So are
Reform, Reconstructionists and Renewal.
Yet, I wouldn't say these are "slightly" different, instead I would say they
are quite different.
Be that as it may - the emphasis and paradigm shift imo, should be on what
they ALL have in common - NOT on what they have as differences. There is a
need for Jewish Unity we all seem to forget on this Newsgroup - in favor of
"debate."
Regards, Esther
* Love does what Hate cannot
Lisa
>
>Lisa states >Wrong. to the previous posters' comment that "After all, O and C
>are but slightly different approaches to Judaism, not distinct religions."<
>
>O and C certainaly are different approaches to the same religion.
No, they most certainly are not. No more than Judaism and
Christianity are variants of a single religion.
Just because the Conservative movement wears a veneer of Jewishness
does not make it any form of Judaism. It is a different religion with
different base assumptions and different values. And an entirely
different concept of God.
>So are Reform, Reconstructionists and Renewal.
>Yet, I wouldn't say these are "slightly" different, instead I would say they
>are quite different.
>
>Be that as it may - the emphasis and paradigm shift imo, should be on what
>they ALL have in common - NOT on what they have as differences. There is a
>need for Jewish Unity we all seem to forget on this Newsgroup - in favor of
>"debate."
Who decided that unity is so all-important? A disunity where truth
can thrive is far preferable to a unity in which all is false. At
least that's so in Judaism.
Lisa
Binyamin Dissen
:>Lisa states >Wrong. to the previous posters' comment that "After all, O and C
:>are but slightly different approaches to Judaism, not distinct religions."<
:>O and C certainaly are different approaches to the same religion. So are
:>Reform, Reconstructionists and Renewal.
:>Yet, I wouldn't say these are "slightly" different, instead I would say they
:>are quite different.
:>Be that as it may - the emphasis and paradigm shift imo, should be on what
:>they ALL have in common - NOT on what they have as differences. There is a
:>need for Jewish Unity we all seem to forget on this Newsgroup - in favor of
:>"debate."
You seem to have forgotten j4j and messianics.
Why would that be?
You do want to be inclusive, don't you?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Shalom2240
>You seem to have forgotten j4j and messianics.
>
>Why would that be?
>
>You do want to be inclusive, don't you?
>
Good shot <G>... j4j and other "messianics" are not Jews and there IS a BIG
distinction - They ALL believe that the Messiah HAS come.
The first component of Jewish Unity which imo is part of the Tikkum Olam
process, is recognising that the Messiah has NOT come and is at least 240 years
off by O standards (The start of the 7th millenia!)
Whether we as Jews, all choose to see this as the start of a Messianic Age or
an actual Single Messiah may differ - but it is a BIG difference which
separates us from our "sister" religions.
Regards, Esther
Binyamin Dissen
:>In article <88c47q$nrf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
:> Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[ snipped ]
:>> As I have stated before, IMO, if Abraham passed the "test" at all, it
:>> was with barely a D-. To have gotten the A+ he would have had to say
:>> something like "This is obviously a test of what you have taught me.
:>> You taught us to love life and family. Therefore, I cannot listen to
:>> this false directive. In doing this I am following your sacred
:>> teachings". That is my opinion.
Around and around and around we go.
And why cannot the j4j give the same reason for worshiping jesus?
:>The obvious contrast is with Abraham's behaviour WRT Sodom, where he
:>bargained with G-d to save the city. While I am sure there is
:>extensive midrash and later writings on this, let me venture a word or
:>two, as it seems particulary relevant to many of the discussions we have
:>here.
You seem to have missed the glaring difference between the two cases.
In the case of S'dom, G-d did not ask/order Avrohom to destroy S'dom. G-d
mentioned to Avrohom that due to the sins of its inhabitants, that He, G-d,
was going to destroy it. Avrohom, realizing that the only possible reason that
G-d could have to tell him that was so that he should ask for mercy. Otherwise
there was no point for G-d to tell him at all.
If the case of the Akayda, G-d asked/ordered Avrohom to sacrifice Yitzchok. In
the Jewish spirit of Na'asseh V'Nishma, Avrohom followed G-ds orders.
Now do you understand?
P.S. In the conservative religion is it Nishma, v'Eem K'dy Na'aseh? In
reformed is it Lo Nishma b'Chlall?
[ snipped ]
Mike Medved
: Binyamin Dissen writes:
So, Esther, you arbitrarily pick one "standard" - that is,
"jesus as messiah" and completely ignore other standards
(like "Torah miSinai").
Please explain why someone who thinks Jesus was a messiah is not
practicing Judaism, but someone who rejects divine authorship
of the Torah is. That is, how do you decide which principles
of Judaism are important enough that rejecting them makes the
movement "not Judaism", and which principles are not that important.
Shalom2240
E
>>O and C certainaly are different approaches to the same religion.
L> No, they most certainly are not. No more than Judaism and
Christianity are variants of a single religion.Just because the Conservative
movement wears a veneer of Jewishness does not make it any form of Judaism. It
is a different religion with different base assumptions and different values.
And an entirely different concept of God.<
I respect the right to your opinion but saying the these factions of Judaism
(which you appear to not be comfortable with) are then entirely different
"religion(s) could be construed as ignorance on the part of those who do know
them.
These other approaches are nothing more than continuations of Jacob's ongoing
"wrestle with G-d", imo.
E
>>So are Reform, Reconstructionists and Renewal. Yet, I wouldn't say these are
"slightly" different, instead I would say they are quite different. Be that as
it may - the emphasis and paradigm shift imo,should be on what they ALL have
in common - NOT on what they have as differences. There is a need for Jewish
Unity we all seem to forget on this Newsgroup - in favor of "debate."
L>Who decided that unity is so all-important? A disunity where truth
can thrive is by far preferable to a unity in which all is false. Atleast
that's so in Judaism.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure I agree. Definitions of truth and "distruth" are not so
easy to write. Personally, I prefer to "wrestle" … but with respect.
Have you seen any of the "Olam" ad additions to the Jewish Journal yet? The
message of unity is compelling and imo the only way we will see "the Messiah"
(or Messianic age") in as little as 240 years.
Regards, Esther
Jonathan J. Baker
>tryin...@my-deja.com writes:
>>In fact Kaiser listed many others he considers "moderate" other than the
>>Greenbergs. It is apparently important to him to establish that there is
>>a considerable and important group of moderates within O.
In fact, he only listed them after *I* forced him to admit that there
are other MO leaders besides the two or three fringies that he had previously
put forth as *the* MO leadership.
> It is a fact that Modern Orthodox Jews exist, whether Lisa agrees with
>or not. It is only important to me that a tiny handful of hateful fanatics
>do not spread bizarre lies about Orthodox Judaism, and slander about so many
>Orthodox rabbis.
It is a fact that MO Jews exist, which is not a statement that Lisa would
disagree with. What Lisa and I and others disagreed with was the character-
ization of a small subset of them as the only *real* MO Jews, while Mr Kaiser
dismissed many other MO Jews as "ultra-Orthodox" and/or "fanatics".
"bizarre lies" -> truths; slander -> descriptions.
>> I dont necessarily agree with him on that, but I think Lisa has
>>mischarecterized his position.
> Well, check out the websites of the Modern Orthodox groups below, and
>send away for their material and articles. You might find that you will
>change your mind very quickly! [For example, did you know that the Jewish
>Orthodox Feminist Alliance is inviting Conservative and Reform scholars to
>their upcoming conference in NYC ! That sounds tolerant to me. ]
And it's something that several members of JOFA are not happy about.
Tolerance is one thing, inviting them to present at your conference
is practically acceptance. Several JOFA people I know consider Dr.
Shalvi to be virtually a traitor. Her defection to JTS only validates
the criticisms of those like R' Hershel Schachter, that women's davening
is dangerous because it's "like what the Conservatives and Reformers do."
> Lisa has done far more than mischaracterize my position. Lisa has made
>it virtually a career to slander all Modern Orthodox, Conservative and
>Reform rabbis. Virtually no one escapes her wrath, except for the
Actually, this sentence only makes sense in the Kaiserian conceit that
only the radical fringies are truly "Modern Orthodox". I don't see her
slandering "all MO rabbis" otherwise.
>particulat rabbis that _she_ approves of. Yet while she claims to be sole
Interesting how this also describes Kaiser's conduct: all MO rabbis are
characterized as UO/fanatics except those who RK likes. It used to be
a small set, now the set is growing.
>arbiter of who is officially an Orthodox, in fact it is she who is fringe
>element. Unfortunately, it seems that Susan has been misled by Lisa's
>groundless claims of authority.
Let's not forget Bob's claims to have the authority to write a "responsum"
when he admittedly cannot read Hebrew.
> As I have tried to inform readers here time and again, the posters on
>this forum are not representative of all of Orthodox Judaism in the real
>world (i.e. off of this forum); further, the posters on this newsgroup have
>no authority to decide who is, and who is not, Orthodox.
Said lack of authority extends to our noted Conservative essayist, Mr. Kaiser.
Unfortunately, he seems unaware of this.
> While some may try to mislead readers into believeing that the people I
>listed are "fringe" and are "not really Orthodox" they in fact are part of a
>long standing tolerant and Modern Orthodox tradition; Modern Orthodoxy is
>only now growing again, after years of being overshadowed by the
>ultra-Orthodox right-wingers. Like it or not, its real, and we have no
>right to deny it as being Orthodox Judaism.
And yet, from this list of groups which follows, it's hard to understand
Bob's claim that there is a "long standing tolerant and Modern Orthodox
tradition" in the sense he means it, e.g., acceptance of C/R as religiously
valid forms of Judaism.
>Edah [United States]
>AEDA...@aol.com
>http://www.edah.org/
Recent group.
>OzVe Shalom-Netivot Shalom (Israel)
>http://www.ariga.com/ozveshalom/
Recent group.
>Meimad (Israel)
>http://www.meimad.org.il/
Political affiliation of one or two Orthodox and a political party.
>The Orthodox Caucus [USA]
>http://www.orthodoxcaucus.org/
Primarily consists of younger rabbis.
>The Jewish Orthodox Feminists Alliance [USA]
>http://www.jofa.org
Recent group.
>Shalom,
>Robert Kaiser
>(posted and mailed)
Jonathan J. Baker
> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
>> In <> "rkaiser1" <rkai...@msn.com> writes:
>> >on this subject. In point of fact, Maimonides only claims that the
>written
>> >Torah lists wiping out the remembrance of Amalek as a mitzvah..but
>then he >> >goes on to say more.
>>
>> Note that Bob is not quite presenting Maimonides _full_ position on
>> make peace offers: Amon and Moav. Against those two we had no
>> choice but to wage genocidal war. See Laws of Kings 6:6.
>I, for one, find it ludicrous and hypocritical to try to
>justify "genocidal war" under the guise of "God told me to do it" while
>at the same time condemning the genocidal war committed against us, aka
>the holocaust, under the guise of "racial purity".
If you really cannot see the difference between "God told me to do it"
and "My own ideas told me to do it", you have not the moral standing
to even argue the question on its own terms.
>Genocidal war is genocidal war, no matter what "excuse" you try to give
>for it. It is fundamentally wrong.
No, it is wrong by your moral standard. It feels like a wrong idea. It
is morally problematic. But it is not "fundamentally wrong". If it were,
in an existential sense, if there were an ontological sense of wrongness
about it, it would not happen. We see that it does happen, we see that in
one case, God commands it, yet as Jews who are fundamentally merciful people,
who were *created by God as benei rachamim, merciful people*, we have moral
qualms about even trying to udnerstand how God could have commanded it.
We cannot stand by and watch others do it. But we cannot characterize
it as fundamentally wrong.
Shalom2240
E>> The first component of Jewish Unity which imo is part of the Tikkum Olam
process, is recognizing that the Messiah has NOT come and is at least 240 years
off by O standards (The start of the 7th millennia!). Whether we as Jews, all
choose to see this as the start of a Messianic Age or an actual Single Messiah
may differ - but it is a BIG difference which separates us from our "sister"
religions.
M > So, Esther, you arbitrarily pick one "standard" - that is,"jesus as
messiah" and completely ignore other standards (like "Torah miSinai").
…Please explain why someone who thinks Jesus was a messiah is not practicing
Judaism, but someone who rejects divine authorship of the Torah is. That is,
how do you decide which principles of Judaism are important enough that
rejecting them makes the movement "not Judaism", and which principles are not
that important.<
Actually as contentious as your question(s) are, they are good ones. Thanks.
Do not ALL Jews decide which principles of Judaism are important in some manner
as they go about daily life and make decisions on how and which mitzvoth they
will practice and which they won't?
Can you say you uphold ALL 613 Commandments - "perfectly?" Most likely not,
although I am sure you try and I am sure you also try to have kavanah in the
performance of the mitzvoth you do.
Which commandments do you chose to be sure to follow "exactly" and which do you
determine or rationalize is not applicable to you.
And while we are all more familiar with the Rabbinic teachings on the 613, who
is to say the Karaites, who had more "fundamentalist views" of Judaism weren't
"right" too?
IMO, this is the real beauty of Judaism, our personal and collective "wrestles"
with G-d and the Torah.
Talqcom
>Date: 02/21/2000 6:26 PM Eastern
>I respect the right to your opinion but saying the these factions of Judaism
>(which you appear to not be comfortable with) are then entirely different
>"religion(s) could be construed as ignorance on the part of those who do know
>them.
Or it could simply be a conclusion based upon what defines "religion."
>These other approaches are nothing more than continuations of Jacob's ongoing
>"wrestle with G-d", imo.
????
This is a derasha shel dofi, IMO.
Derashoth, like anything else, have a form, and what they cannot be also has a
form.
To use a vague reference to a biblical story
to legitimize some "finding yourself" and "whatever judaism means to you"
type of agenda reflects an approcah to the Bible less Jewish than many Jews are
willing to still call a genuine derasha.
>Hmmm, I'm not so sure I agree. Definitions of truth and "distruth" are not so
>easy to write. Personally, I prefer to "wrestle" … but with respect.
>
i.e. Judaism has no standards and no form. Whatever we make, it is.
This is Ijtihad, the basis of all non-Jewish
religions.
>The
>message of unity is compelling and imo the only way we will see "the Messiah"
>(or Messianic age") in as little as 240 years.
If unity implies rejection of the Mosaic Law
then messianism is yet another illusion.
Where does 240 years come from? Mehashebhe haqqes? Neo Qabbalism?
Ray
Talqcom
>Message-id:
>j4j and other "messianics" are not Jews and there IS a BIG
>distinction - They ALL believe that the Messiah HAS come.
Not Jews? By what standard?
How do you know the standard or criterion?
If the Law is the standard, belief in a false Messiah does not imply non
Jewishness.
It is not even prohibited.
>The first component of Jewish Unity which imo is part of the Tikkum Olam
>process, is recognising that the Messiah has NOT come and is at least 240
>years
>off by O standards (The start of the 7th millenia!)
>
The seventh millenium has little to do with the/any messianic age in the
Judaism that I and my ancestors have known these 3300 years. Pray tell what
this thesis is based upon?
Ray
Shalom2240
>Not Jews? By what standard? How do you know the standard or criterion? If the
Law is the standard, belief in a false Messiah does not imply non Jewishness.
It is not even prohibited.<
Um ... I think you may need a bit more study. You seem to have two concepts
confused
R
>The seventh millenium has little to do with the/any messianic age in the
Judaism that I and my ancestors have known these 3300 years. Pray tell what
this thesis is based upon?<
Um … The year by the Jewish calendar is 5760 not 3300. You might want to
start your studies with finding out how the Jewish calendar was calculated.
Then there is the Midrash that a day is like a 1000 years in the mind of G-d.
Thus, the ancient Rabbis concluded that if there were 7 days in a week and the
seventh day is Shabbat, then there are 6 millenium before the "Great Shabbat"
of Peace or the start of the Messianic Age.
Try Aish HaTorah web sites for additional material.
Regards, Esther
* Love does what hate cannot
Mike Medved
: Mike Medved writes:
:> So, Esther, you arbitrarily pick one "standard" - that is,"jesus as
:> messiah" and completely ignore other standards (like "Torah miSinai").
:> Please explain why someone who thinks Jesus was a messiah is not
:> practicing
:> Judaism, but someone who rejects divine authorship of the Torah is.
:> That is,
:> how do you decide which principles of Judaism are important enough that
:> rejecting them makes the movement "not Judaism", and which principles
:> are not that important.
: Actually as contentious as your question(s) are, they are good ones. Thanks.
: Do not ALL Jews decide which principles of Judaism are important in some manner
: as they go about daily life and make decisions on how and which mitzvoth they
: will practice and which they won't?
"Principles" and "mitzvot" are two different things, so the first half of
your sentence above is not related in any way to the second half.
: Can you say you uphold ALL 613 Commandments - "perfectly?" Most likely not,
: although I am sure you try and I am sure you also try to have kavanah in the
: performance of the mitzvoth you do.
As I pointed out in earlier discussions, I am not a very
observant Jew, so, no, I do not uphold ALL 613 Commandments.
BUT I recognize them as binding upon me, even as I do not
follow all of them. I do not pick and choose which are binding
and which are not, as the Reform religion tells you to do.
: Which commandments do you chose to be sure to follow "exactly" and which do you
: determine or rationalize is not applicable to you.
I do not rationalize that some commandments are not applicable to me.
They are all applicable.
: And while we are all more familiar with the Rabbinic teachings on the 613, who
: is to say the Karaites, who had more "fundamentalist views" of Judaism weren't
: "right" too?
They were "right" - if you want to be a Karaite.
And the Reform views are "right" - if you want to
follow the Reform religion. It's just not Judaism,
that's all.
: IMO, this is the real beauty of Judaism, our personal and collective "wrestles"
: with G-d and the Torah.
And you still have not explained to me, why you think that if someone
born Jewish "wrestles" with G-d and the Torah, and decides that Jesus
was the messiah - then he does not follow Judaism, while if someone
born Jewish "wrestles" with G-d and the Torah and decides that Torah was
not given to us on Sinai but was written by men later, then that's still
Judaism. Seems like pretty arbitrary standard to me.
Sheldon Glickler
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
> In <> Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> writes:
> > jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote:
> >> In <> "rkaiser1" <rkai...@msn.com> writes:
> >> >on this subject. In point of fact, Maimonides only claims that
the
> >written
> >> >Torah lists wiping out the remembrance of Amalek as a mitzvah..but
> >then he >> >goes on to say more.
> >>
> >> Note that Bob is not quite presenting Maimonides _full_ position on
> >> genocidal commanded wars...we are not allowed to
> >> make peace offers: Amon and Moav. Against those two we had no
> >> choice but to wage genocidal war. See Laws of Kings 6:6.
>
> >I, for one, find it ludicrous and hypocritical to try to
> >justify "genocidal war" under the guise of "God told me to do it"
while
> >at the same time condemning the genocidal war committed against us,
aka
> >the holocaust, under the guise of "racial purity".
>
> If you really cannot see the difference between "God told me to do it"
> and "My own ideas told me to do it", you have not the moral standing
> to even argue the question on its own terms.
YOU invoke "God told me". THEY can do the same. The can, and did, say
they were performing a "higher calling". Are you saying it is OK for
us because we KNOW God told us and it is wrong for them because we KNOW
that their claims of "their 'God' told them" are wrong? What arrogance!
If you can PROVE to me that God told you to do it, then you will have
the moral standing to even begin to question my moral standing.
> >Genocidal war is genocidal war, no matter what "excuse" you try to
give
> >for it. It is fundamentally wrong.
>
> No, it is wrong by your moral standard. It feels like a wrong idea.
It
> is morally problematic. But it is not "fundamentally wrong". If it
were,
> in an existential sense, if there were an ontological sense of
wrongness
> about it, it would not happen. We see that it does happen, we see
that in
That is nonsense. People don't do "fundamentally wrong things"?
Nonsense.
> one case, God commands it, yet as Jews who are fundamentally merciful
people,
> who were *created by God as benei rachamim, merciful people*, we have
moral
> qualms about even trying to udnerstand how God could have commanded
it.
> We cannot stand by and watch others do it. But we cannot characterize
> it as fundamentally wrong.
PROVE that God said "do it" and you _might_ have an argument. Until
then, it is funadamentally wrong, as you are invoking a personal BELIEF
to justify a despicable, unjustifiable action.
By your criterion, it would have been perfectly fine for the Inquistors
to kill the Jews, rather than expel them, because they had the "WORD OF
GOD". By your criterion it would have been perfectly fine to carry out
the holocaust if Hitler had put in Mein Kampf that God had visited him
and told him to exterminate the Jews.
Try to at least be consistent in your argumentation. Remember goose
and gander.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
Yaakov Kayman
If unity *of Jews* is premised upon _anything less_ than trying to
*the very best of one's ability* to keep _all_ those mitzvot from the
*Divinely-authored Torah* that apply to one, without sham or pretense,
(there are mitzvot which apply only to Kohanim, others which apply
only to the Jewish king, still others which are able to be practiced
only within the Land of Israel, and still others yet which are not
mandatory for women)
and *with the recognition that one's failure to keep _any_ of those
that do apply* _IS a failing, one which *must be corrected*, and moreover
a failing of oneself ALONE, and not of G-d's Torah_, then such a "unity"
is a false one, and one of which I would want no part.
Obviously, to keep all the mitzvot that apply to an individual or group
of individuals (to the very best of their abilities, since we are not
angels) will require *MUCH* study of primary sources just to determine
exactly WHICH mitzvot are apllicable to that individual or group,
and exactly HOW they are to be kept.
Yaakov K.
Talqcom (=Ray) <tal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: troubled about this NG again
>>From: shalo...@aol.com (Shalom2240)
>>Date: 02/21/2000 6:26 PM Eastern
Esther to Lisa:
>>I respect the right to your opinion but saying the these factions of Judaism
>>(which you appear to not be comfortable with) are then entirely different
>>"religion(s) could be construed as ignorance on the part of those who do know
>>them.
Ray:
> Or it could simply be a conclusion based upon what defines "religion."
myself (YK):
The phrase "HaEmet veHaShalom Ehavu," "love peace and truth," should tell
us that without truth - *absolute truth* - there is no peace, nor can there be.
Esther:
>>These other approaches are nothing more than continuations of Jacob's ongoing
>>"wrestle with G-d", imo.
Ray:
> ????
> This is a derasha shel dofi, IMO.
> Derashoth, like anything else, have a form, and what they cannot be also has a
> form.
> To use a vague reference to a biblical story
> to legitimize some "finding yourself" and "whatever judaism means to you"
> type of agenda reflects an approcah to the Bible less Jewish than many Jews are
> willing to still call a genuine derasha.
Esther:
>>Hmmm, I'm not so sure I agree. Definitions of truth and "distruth" are not so
>>easy to write. Personally, I prefer to "wrestle" … but with respect.
>>
Ray:
> i.e. Judaism has no standards and no form. Whatever we make, it is.
> This is Ijtihad, the basis of all non-Jewish
> religions.
Esther:
>>The
>>message of unity is compelling and imo the only way we will see "the Messiah"
>>(or Messianic age") in as little as 240 years.
Ray:
Shalom2240
E:
>>Do not ALL Jews decide which principles of Judaism are important in some
manner as they go about daily life and make decisions on how and which mitzvoth
they will practice and which they won't?<<
M
>"Principles" and "mitzvot" are two different things, so the first half of
your sentence above is not related in any way to the second half.<
Read my comments again, I think you may be choosing NOT to hear something said
….. Principles lead to the practice of mitzvoth. Principles are the main
belief or paradigm upon which a person launches his/her practices. So the first
half of my response was VERY related to the second half.
E>>
Can you say you uphold ALL 613 Commandments - "perfectly?" Most likely not,
although I am sure you try and I am sure you also try to have kavanah in the
performance of the mitzvoth you do. <<
M
>As I pointed out in earlier discussions, I am not a very observant Jew, so,
no, I do not uphold ALL 613 Commandments.
BUT I recognize them as binding upon me, even as I do not follow all of them. I
do not pick and choose which are binding and which are not, as the Reform
religion tells you to do.<
First you seem to misunderstand much about the Reform movement in Judaism. How
is it you determine that the 613 are binding on you?? Isn't that from
"Tradition" and aren't these traditional values and principles "man made"??
For example, I recognize the 13 principles of "faith" BUT as much as I respect
Maimonides OBM, I do not see him as a "mini god or a "jewish pope."
While "Tradition" teaches us many principles, the fact is those principles come
from human not divine comprehension and as well intentioned as they are, these
principles of faith are NOT "binding" as interpreted by the great Rabbis, thus
they are open to "wrestling."
E
>> Which commandments do you chose to be sure to follow "exactly" and which do
you determine or rationalize is not applicable to you. <<
M
>I do not rationalize that some commandments are not applicable to me. They are
all applicable. <
Yet you have stated that you are NOT observant and do not practice them - isn't
this rationalization??
E
>> And while we are all more familiar with the Rabbinic teachings on the 613,
who is to say the Karaites, who had more "fundamentalist views" of Judaism
weren't "right" too? <<
M
>They were "right" - if you want to be a Karaite. And the Reform views are
"right" - if you want to follow the Reform religion. It's just not Judaism,
that's all.<
IYO (which you are welcome to) but I recommend you look inward and decide if
you really can identify with O Judaism then.
It seems as if you yourself arbitrarily choose what principles and commandments
are binding and which are not, simply by determining how observant you will be.
It is in the "walking of the talk" that ones principles are determined.
E
>> IMO, this is the real beauty of Judaism, our personal and collective
"wrestles" with G-d and the Torah.<<
M
>And you still have not explained to me, why you think that if someone born
Jewish "wrestles" with G-d and the Torah, and decides that Jesus
was the messiah - then he does not follow Judaism.<
IMO and the opinion of many others, it is NOT possible to "wrestle" with the
Torah (or the Hebrew Bible for that matter) and come to the conclusion that
Jesus was the Messiah/God incarnated. The only way one can do this is to step
outside the Torah and into Christology (which was based on the Greek Logos
premise), thus one has left Judaism and has become Christian.
M
>>while if someone born Jewish "wrestles" with G-d and the Torah and decides
that Torah was not given to us on Sinai but was written by men later, then
that's still Judaism. <<
That fact is Moses OBM was a human being subject to error.
And I am not sure where you get the (Torah) was "not given to us on Sinai"
(unless you are referring to the Oral Tradition).
M
>Seems like pretty arbitrary standard to me.<
Seems like you are searching to me - keep wrestling - The answers will come.
Regards, Esther
*Love does what hate cannot
Simcha Streltsov
: "conversos" converts to Christianity, who were accused of secretly
: practicing Judaism. Some of them were genuine Marranos - according to a
: recent book by Prof. Netanyahu (yes, Bibi's father) many (most?)were
: not.
the book is an updated re-print of his book in the 50-s, AFAIK
: chaotic conditions of the expulsion itself. I would venture to say that
: most mass expulsions of peoples in history involve death on a large
: scale. I suspect rather the same thing would happen were the Kahanist
: expulsion plan to be put into practice. Those who support it, or
: apologize for it, must bear that in mind.
this is a ridiculous statement, if you in fact equating Kahane's
intentions with say Spaniards of 1492 or Stalin's expulsions (with
indeed 50%+ death rate). I would not be surprised that people who
read your post will become followers of Rav Kahane - when they see
that you have to distort his ideas in order to criticize him. why
can't you criticize him based on his own writings?
Simcha Streltsov
: The first component of Jewish Unity which imo is part of the Tikkum Olam
: process, is recognising that the Messiah has NOT come ...
why is it indeed the first component of Jewish unity?
why not, say, Torah is the document where G-d transmitted to us
his will for our actions?
please, explain