Kabbalah - basic intro & info
Robert Kaiser
Kabbalah teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. Rather God is
the creator of both, but is Himself neither. But if God is so different
than His creation, now can there be any interaction between the Creator
and the created? The answer, accroding to kabbalah, is that there are
ten emanations, called Sephirot, which emanate from God, and interact
with the physical and spritiual world. These forces may be thought of as
analogues to the four fundamental physical laws. Just as gravity,
electro-magnetisim, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force
allow for interactions between matter and energy, the ten sephirot allow
for interaction between God and the Universe.
As one might guess, the idea that there are ten divine sephirot
might mistakenly be corrupted into the idea that "God is One, yet in that
One there is Ten". This would be basically the same as the Christian
belief in the Trinity: God is One, yet in that One is Three. This
misinterpretation of Kabbalah in fact did occur among some Jews in the
17th century. For example, a 17th century Venetian rabbi, Leon Modena,
wrote that the Christian trinity is compatible with Jewish monotheism, as
the Trinity resembles the Kabbalistic doctrine of Sephirot. A small
number of Jews went so far as to address individual Sephirot individualy
in some of their prayers.
In response, opponents of the Kabbalah attacked Kabbalah as being
"worse than Christianity", as it made God into 10, not just into three.
Louis Jacobs notes that Rabbi Abraham Abulafia seems to have been the
first critic to compare the Sephirot doctrine to Christianity.
The critique, however, is unfair. Yes, the Kabbalistic doctrine
was indeed made by some into something fundamentally incompatible with
Judaism. As such, a critique was indeed proper as long as it was aimed
this particular misunderstanding. The problem, however, was that critics
lashed out at all followers of kabbalah, whether they held such beliefs
or not.
In fact, most followers of Kabbalah never believed such things, and did
not confuse the ten paths, or emanations, with God Himself. For example,
all formulations of the Christian Trinity concept posits that there are
three _persons_ existing within the Godhead, one of whom literally became
a human being - and in fact talked with Himself on more than one
occasion. In contrast, the Kabbalistic Sephirot have no mind or
intelligence, they are never addressed in prayer, and most certainly
could never imitate a human being. They are merely conduits for
interaction; they are not beings.
Kabbalists speak of God as "En Sof", "that which has no limits".
Of this aspect of deity nothing at all can be said. Even the way of
negation is impermissible when applied to En Sof. (Jacobs) En Sof
reveals the impersonal character of this aspect of the hidden God from
the standpoint of man as clearly as, and perhaps even more clearly than
[the other Hebrew names of God]....It signifies "the infinite" as such;
not, as has been frequently suggested, "He Who is infinite" but "that
which is infinite". [Scholem]
A terrific on-line question and answer FAQ, is available at:
http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/faq.htm
http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/biblio.htm
Suggested reading
-------------------
"Inner Space : Introduction to Kabbalah, Meditation and Prophecy" by
Aryeh Kaplan, Hardcover, $18.00, ISBN: 0940118564. Moznaim Publishing
Corp., 1990. Among the topics discussed are the Kabbalistic universes
through which we may draw close to God, the constant interplay
between the spiritual and the physical, and the concept of Divine
Providence. Rabbi Kaplan also explores the mystical significance of
the text of Ezekiel's "Vision of the Chariot". (254 Pages)
"The Jewish Mystical Tradition" by Ben Zion Bokser, $22.50 Paperback,
277 pages Published by Jason Aronson, 1994. A comprehensive overview of
the Kabbalah, Rabbi Bokser starts each section with a brief description
and overview, and then gives extended quotes from important Kabbalistic
works. Some topics include the mystical dimension in Bible and Talmud;
Early mystical works such as Mystical Midrashim, Sefer Yezirah, and Sefer
haBahir. From there it moves into the classic phase of Kabbalah,
covering Abraham Abulafia, The Zohar, Moses Cordovero, Isaac Luria, Judah
Loew of Prague, Moses Hayyim Luzzato, among others. The later sections
cover the Rise of Hasidism, and latter Day Mystics such as Hayyim of
Volozhin and Abrahah Isaac Kook
"Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism" by Gershom Scholem, $16.00 Pb, 460
pages, Schocken Books, 1995. This book is the seminal work in Kabbalah
scholarship, and is simply indispensible for anyone interested in
Kabbalah's history and development. It covers Jewish mysticism from its
early beginnings to recent times. Scholem's scholarship is excellent, and
his writing is lucid, informed, and interesting. (JBC)
"Meditation and Kabbalah" by Aryeh Kaplan. Published by Samuel Weiser,
1982. This is the first book published in any language to reveal the
methodology of the ancient Kabbalists and stress the meditative
techniques that were essential to their discipline. Rabbi Kaplan offers a
lucid presentation of the mantras, mandalas and other devices used by
these schools, as well as a penetrating interpretation of their
significance in light of contemporary meditative research. Also presents
relevant portions of classic Jewish meditative texts. (355 Pages) (JBC)
Daniel B. Schwartz
I have not read this, but people be wary of Kaiser on Kalbalah. He does
not have the required Jewish knowledge to say anything of any value on the
subject
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<35971...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
Robert Kaiser
Daiel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>I have not read this, but people be wary of Kaiser on Kalbalah. He does
>not have the required Jewish knowledge to say anything of any value on the
>subject
(1) What is Kalbalah? I'm sure an expert such as yourself would
never be so ignorant as to unable to actually spell "Kabbalah", so
I assume you must be talking about a different subject altogether.
(2) Daniel, are you trying to out yourself? In the past you have
claimed to be a Modern Orthodox Jew - yet you slander a post based on
the works of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (of blessed memory); a post that also
publicly promotes several Orthodox and Traditional books on the subject
that are held in the highest esteem by a huge segment of the Orthodox
community. In fact, several of these books are sold by the Union of
Orthodox Congregations.
While you pretend to simply hate Conservative Judaism - which
is certainly bad enough as it is - you also have a seething hatred for
any book or thought that is accepeted by Modern Orthodox Jews. That's
just sad.
Then again, you've repeatedly posted lies about the Rosh Yeshiva
of your own alma mata (Norman Lamm, of Yeshiva University), so I guess
your seething hatred for Modern Orthodox Jews is already well known.
Robert Kaiser
Eliot Shimoff
Responding to Robert Kaiser's posting on Kabbalah ...
>Daniel B. Schwartz <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>>I have not read this, but people be wary of Kaiser on Kalbalah. He does
>>not have the required Jewish knowledge to say anything of any value on the
>>subject
If you want to disagree with the material that Robert posts, by all
means do so. In fact, some of those disagreements have indeed shed
light on some interesting topics (e.g., the discussion of the R'ma's
position on stam yeinam, or Zev Sero's recent comments on Robert's
posting of Schorsch's text.
It might even be defensible to question the accuracy of something
that Robert wrote, based on the assumption (that you would have to
make explicit and defend) that Robert is unfamiliar with the original sources.
But to reject what Robert has posted (even though he is not the author),
and to do so without having read it ...
--
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) | Interested in Talmud study
Proud saba of Tani, T'mima, | by email?
Moshe, Hillel,Tsivia & Chani | Visit my website ...
(Space reserved for new entries) | http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff
Simcha Streltsov
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) wrote:
: But to reject what Robert has posted (even though he is not the author),
: and to do so without having read it ...
wouldn'y a hazaka work - based on the previous analysis of everything
he posted (those who don't like religiously sounding "hazoka" are
welcome to use Bayesian priors instead!!)
A Bayesian conclusion should not be of course be a judgement on the material
or on RK himself (that will be circular [tm] indeed) - but simply a judgement
that one does not have to waste his time to read the material -
probability og punching the same words into Altavista and finding good material
is larger than by reading what he quoted
p.s.
you may be right that if something is actually written by RK it has
even higher probability to be wrong than when he quotes others.
--
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 (-:
Eliot Shimoff
In article <6nb765$m3u$3...@news1.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) wrote:
Eliot:
>: But to reject what Robert has posted (even though he is not the author),
>: and to do so without having read it ...
Simcha:
>wouldn'y a hazaka work - based on the previous analysis of everything
>he posted (those who don't like religiously sounding "hazoka" are
>welcome to use Bayesian priors instead!!)
Bayes Hillel or Bayes Shammai? (Sorry; I couldn't help it.)
Simcha:
>you may be right that if something is actually written by RK it has
>even higher probability to be wrong than when he quotes others.
Like most of us (I assume), I have come to have certain expectations
of content based on authorship. Precisely because of those expectations,
around Purim time, we will be able to come up with some spoofs of
posters. I've got a little list of people whose posts I try to read
regularly ... and another list of those whom I am less likely to read.
My objection is to gratuitously nasty comments about Robert ... or
any other poster. We can keep busy enough attacking positions
without bothering to attack those who advocate positions. For
example, I learn nothing when someone who calls Robert names,
or when Robert calls someone else names. I learn a great deal
when people deal with the _issues_ (e.g., _how_ the CJLS decision
on stam yeinam misrepresented the R'ma's ruling).
Robert Kaiser
shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>My objection is to gratuitously nasty comments about Robert ... or
>any other poster. We can keep busy enough attacking positions
>without bothering to attack those who advocate positions. For
>example, I learn nothing when someone who calls Robert names,
>or when Robert calls someone else names. I learn a great deal
>when people deal with the _issues_ (e.g., _how_ the CJLS decision
>on stam yeinam misrepresented the R'ma's ruling).
Elliot, for shame. You know full well that this never happened,.
What happened was that Daniel Shwartz and a few others deliberately
spread lies about the Conservative teshuva, and criticised things that
it never actually said. They also deliberately misrepresented the
Rema's own teshuva, which I found both ignorant and shameful.
Why don't you actually try *read* the teshuvot in question,
intsead of simply accepting the lies and slander that were spread
about it and it's authors?
Robert
Robert Kaiser
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) says:
>: But to reject what Robert has posted (even though he is not the author),
>: and to do so without having read it ...
>wouldn'y a hazaka work - based on the previous analysis of everything
>he posted (those who don't like religiously sounding "hazoka" are
>welcome to use Bayesian priors instead!!)
>A Bayesian conclusion should not be of course be a judgement on the material
>or on RK himself
Simchan, why don't you stop condemning things you have never read?
Do you want to help the other Orthodox Jews here slander *themselves* ?
In recent weeks, there have been multiple posts by a few Orthodox Jews
in which they flatly say that certain essays are garbage - and at the
same time they admit they have never even read them!
If someone hated all Orthodox Jews, and wished to make them all
look like weak-minded fundamentalists, this is exactly the sort of
thing they would want you to do. And yet you help a few Orthodox people
here do this to themselves?
Sigh; another mole uncovered.
Robert
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Look in DejaNews. I transliterated major parts of the Tshuva which showed
how the Rema CATEGORICALLY did not allow stam yeinam for ANY community.
If Bobo continues lying, I will have the Tshuvat HaRemah 124 optically
scanned, placed in jpeg format and post on SCJ the URL where this jpeg will
be placed.
In fact, I will try doing this on Wednesday. I will then ask Hadass (a
Conservative Jew and an Israeli) for her opinion whether the Remah permitted
or forbade stam yeinam.
Josh
>
> Robert
Randy B
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
On 30 Jun 98 18:53:34 GMT, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert
Kaiser) wrote:
> Sigh; another mole uncovered.
===> Robert, please pay attention to your moles. They can be a
precursor to skin cancer.
Randy
Simcha Streltsov
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: Sigh; another mole uncovered.
Sigh - pure absurd and lashon hara - as I never was a part of anything, I
can not be an uncovered mole.
a $20 paranoid question for everyone else, esp. those with psychological
education - if we would live in another country, say, where I was born -
would RK inform on uncovered moles?
a more general question - AFAIR, according to German Communist archives,
about 1/4 of population were involved in direct or indirect collobaration.
I heard similar anecdotal numbers for USSR.
the question is: when people live in a free country - do they get some
education/morals/information that will prevent them from such activities
or would they collabarate in the same proportions?
some books (for example, Vladimir Matlin "Effekt Liberzona", in Russian)
fantasize that yes - this particular book describes Cambridge MA liberals
after USSR occupies US, and Harvard start having party meetings, professors
share their former apartments with black people - professors welcome it
[at the beginning], etc - but I wonder if there is any research on that
[say, my guess would be that, say, Poland has less informers than others]
and is there a psychological profile of a potential informer?
Eliot Shimoff
M&P
In article <35993...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
>shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
...
>>I learn a great deal
>>when people deal with the _issues_ (e.g., _how_ the CJLS decision
>>on stam yeinam misrepresented the R'ma's ruling).
Robert (referring to critics of the C responsum on stam yeinam:
>They also deliberately misrepresented the
>Rema's own teshuva, which I found both ignorant and shameful.
A minor editorial correction: I know that you did not mean it,
but the indefinite antecedent in your sentence quoted above
is a classic. :-)
> Why don't you actually try *read* the teshuvot in question,
>intsead of simply accepting the lies and slander that were spread
>about it and it's authors?
I recall two major issues that were discussed:
1: The R'ma's responsum:
The R'ma's liberal responsum on stam yeinam; harsh words flew
back and forth, until Zev actually read it and presented it to all
of us. It is indeed a remarkable document; last night, I finally
got a copy and had a chance to read it, and Zev's description was
accurate. The R'ma says again and again and again that drinking
stam yeinam is absolutely forbidden, that it is wrong, that there
is no halakhic basis for permitting it. The only leniency that the
R'ma was willing to extend -- with great hesitation and ambivalence,
lest he be misunderstood -- is that the residents of the area in
question could still be trusted if they said that a particular bottle
of wine was indeed kosher. There is no way that I can see to possibly
use this responsum as a permissive source for stam yeinam.
If the C citation of the R'ma did not use it as evidence of a lenient
position, how was it used?
(The question of censorship is an interesting one. Apparently, the
respomsum appeared in the first three editions, but not in the fourth.
It _does_ appear in more recent editions of the R'ma's responsa. I have
seen a summary of the halakhic history, based on R. Asher Siev's
introduction to the recent critical edition of the R'ma's responsum.
There is, indeed, good (but not absolutely conclusive) reason to
question the authorship of the responsum.)
2: Automated production:
According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
extends only to US wines, not to imported wines. The permissive
position may be even more restricted. Craig Winchell (scj's resident
vintner) reports that there is human contact, even in US mass-produced
wines. I called a local Maryland small vintner, and asked; they
confirmed that there is human contact. Could it be that the
permissive ruling should extend only to US mass-produced wines
by a few of the very largest vintners?
There was a third issue ... one that, IIRC, never got addressed.
The CJLS decision raised questions about the possibility of nonkosher
or dairy refining agents used in wine production. (Notice that this
is different from the stam yeinam question.)
Your posting (The Kashrut of wines, 2/3/98) says (were you directly
quoting either Rabbi Klein or the CJLS?):
"Whenever situations make it either unfeasible or impossible to
refrain from drinking them [wines that are not rabbinically certified],
one who drinks them is not drinking unkosher wine."
I do not understand what situations these might be. I regularly
attend meetings, conferences, and social events in which nonkosher
wines are served, and have never had any trouble refraining.
When does one _have_ to drink? When is one _forced_ to drink?
(This also raises an additional question: If the wine is considered
kosher by C standards, does that not imply that brachot [both before
and after drinking the wine] must be recited? Or do the same social
pressures that make refraining from drinking unfeasible or impossible
also obviate the need for the brachot?)
Robert Kaiser
shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>The R'ma's liberal responsum on stam yeinam; harsh words flew
>back and forth, until Zev actually read it and presented it to all
>of us. It is indeed a remarkable document; last night, I finally
>got a copy and had a chance to read it, and Zev's description was
>accurate. The R'ma says again and again and again that drinking
>stam yeinam is absolutely forbidden, that it is wrong, that there
>is no halakhic basis for permitting it.
No, he does not. He says no such thing! In fact, he eventually
says the exact opposite. Dammit, Elliot, how could you stoop to this ?
The Rama explicitly states that there *is* halakhic justification for
it, and on the basis of such justification, gives a legal heter.
>The only leniency that the
>R'ma was willing to extend -- with great hesitation and ambivalence,
>lest he be misunderstood -- is that the residents of the area in
>question could still be trusted if they said that a particular bottle
>of wine was indeed kosher. There is no way that I can see to possibly
>use this responsum as a permissive source for stam yeinam.
This is simply, flat-out wrong, on two counts. (A) What you
write about the teshuva is wrong; you misrepresent the Rema.
And (B) The Conservative teshuva does *not* rely on the Rema's.
Please stop arguing against a position that isn't held by anyone!
>If the C citation of the R'ma did not use it as evidence of a lenient
>position, how was it used?
Elliot, this was posted about a dozen times, by three separate
authors, in every relevent thread. Threads which you read. So stop
pretending you never read any of these, ok?
>2: Automated production:
>According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
>CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
>hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
>This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
>extends only to US wines, not to imported wines.
Yes, that is exactly what we have been telling you all along.
Robert
Daniel B. Schwartz
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<359a7...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
> >The R'ma's liberal responsum on stam yeinam; harsh words flew
> >back and forth, until Zev actually read it and presented it to all
> >of us. It is indeed a remarkable document; last night, I finally
> >got a copy and had a chance to read it, and Zev's description was
> >accurate. The R'ma says again and again and again that drinking
> >stam yeinam is absolutely forbidden, that it is wrong, that there
> >is no halakhic basis for permitting it.
>
>
> No, he does not. He says no such thing! In fact, he eventually
> says the exact opposite. Dammit, Elliot, how could you stoop to this ?
> The Rama explicitly states that there *is* halakhic justification for
> it, and on the basis of such justification, gives a legal heter.
Now you're just being silly. It has been proven by multiple people that
what you say is wrong. Just accept that.
>
>
> >The only leniency that the
> >R'ma was willing to extend -- with great hesitation and ambivalence,
> >lest he be misunderstood -- is that the residents of the area in
> >question could still be trusted if they said that a particular bottle
> >of wine was indeed kosher. There is no way that I can see to possibly
> >use this responsum as a permissive source for stam yeinam.
>
>
> This is simply, flat-out wrong, on two counts. (A) What you
> write about the teshuva is wrong; you misrepresent the Rema.
> And (B) The Conservative teshuva does *not* rely on the Rema's.
> Please stop arguing against a position that isn't held by anyone!
>
>
> >If the C citation of the R'ma did not use it as evidence of a lenient
> >position, how was it used?
>
> Elliot, this was posted about a dozen times, by three separate
> authors, in every relevent thread. Threads which you read. So stop
> pretending you never read any of these, ok?
>
>
> >2: Automated production:
> >According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
> >CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
> >hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
> >This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
> >extends only to US wines, not to imported wines.
>
>
> Yes, that is exactly what we have been telling you all along.
And that is poor rabbinic policy. Tell me Kaiser do you think it
appropriate for a Conservative rabbi to give a hechsher to a resteraunt
that serves meat and milk if all the products are kosher? Would that not
imply an endorsement of eating basar bechalav, an inducement to sin? This
teshiva does that same thing. Most people will not inquire as to how a
particular wine id produced, and will merely rely on the CJLS heter that
all wine is allowed? Chachamim hizharu bedivreichem. . .
>
>
> Robert
>
Eliot Shimoff
M&P
In article <359a7...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
>
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
Eliot:
>>The R'ma's liberal responsum on stam yeinam; harsh words flew
>>back and forth, until Zev actually read it and presented it to all
>>of us. It is indeed a remarkable document; last night, I finally
>>got a copy and had a chance to read it, and Zev's description was
>>accurate. The R'ma says again and again and again that drinking
>>stam yeinam is absolutely forbidden, that it is wrong, that there
>>is no halakhic basis for permitting it.
Robert:
> No, he does not. He says no such thing! In fact, he eventually
>says the exact opposite. Dammit, Elliot, how could you stoop to this ?
>The Rama explicitly states that there *is* halakhic justification for
>it, and on the basis of such justification, gives a legal heter.
Here are some relevant selections from the R'ma's responsum. The
translation is my own [bracketed stuff is my own interpolation]:
=====
I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
kosher]. ... All this is according to the lienent rulings in areas where
there is no other wine, and do not rely on my words [as a source of leniency],
because I came as if to prove that a sheretz [creepy crawly thing] is tahor
[pure] by kal v'homer, even though it is tameh [impure] according to the
Torah. Therefore, I say about this that I did not come except to show
a strained leniency, and it should not be relied upon.
===
I've read it through several times, and I get the very clear impression
that what bothers the R'ma more than anything else is the possibility
that someone will misinterpret what he wrote as a leniency. He
repeats the caveat several times towards the end of the responsum:
No, there is no justification for accepting stam yeinam.
If you are working from a different text, could you fax me a copy
at 410 455-1055. I will gladly translate it and publically admit
that the R'ma's responsum really did permit stam yeinam.
Eliot:
>>The only leniency that the
>>R'ma was willing to extend -- with great hesitation and ambivalence,
>>lest he be misunderstood -- is that the residents of the area in
>>question could still be trusted if they said that a particular bottle
>>of wine was indeed kosher. There is no way that I can see to possibly
>>use this responsum as a permissive source for stam yeinam.
Robert:
> This is simply, flat-out wrong, on two counts. (A) What you
>write about the teshuva is wrong; you misrepresent the Rema.
>And (B) The Conservative teshuva does *not* rely on the Rema's.
>Please stop arguing against a position that isn't held by anyone!
As far as point A is concerned (that I have misrepresented the
R'ma), we should not be arguing about it. I have presented
my translation, which is, to the best of my ability, accurate.
If it's wrong, show me where, and I'll readily retract.
As far as point B is concerned -- the role of the R'ma's ruling
in the C responsum, I may well be wrong. I assumed that, since
the R'ma was cited in the responsum, the R'ma was seen as (or
presented as) supporting evidence. If the R'ma's responsum was
_not_ cited as supporting evidence, why was it cited?
Eliot:
>>If the C citation of the R'ma did not use it as evidence of a lenient
>>position, how was it used?
Robert:
> Elliot, this was posted about a dozen times, by three separate
>authors, in every relevent thread. Threads which you read. So stop
>pretending you never read any of these, ok?
Hoenstly, Robert, I did not read it. Can you repost?
Eliot:
>>2: Automated production:
>>According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
>>CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
>>hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
>>This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
>>extends only to US wines, not to imported wines.
Robert:
> Yes, that is exactly what we have been telling you all along.
I stand corrected; I had always assumed that the stam yeinam permissive
ruling was a general one, and did not realize that it applied only to
US wines. I still wonder whether it is appropriate to extend the
leniency to all US wines, or whether it should apply only to wines
made by the big vintners who rely on automation.
MEANWHILE, my third question remains: Is it the case that the
leniency applies only when refraining from uncertified wine is
"unfeasible or impossible"?
Rafael
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
> >The R'ma's liberal responsum on stam yeinam; harsh words flew
> >back and forth, until Zev actually read it and presented it to all
> >of us. It is indeed a remarkable document; last night, I finally
> >got a copy and had a chance to read it, and Zev's description was
> >accurate. The R'ma says again and again and again that drinking
> >stam yeinam is absolutely forbidden, that it is wrong, that there
> >is no halakhic basis for permitting it.
>
> says the exact opposite. Dammit, Elliot, how could you stoop to this ?
> The Rama explicitly states that there *is* halakhic justification for
> it, and on the basis of such justification, gives a legal heter.
Mr. Kaiser, I don't recall your claiming that you have read the Rema's
teshuva. Elliot claims that he has. Are you accusing of him of lying
based on your reading of the primary source or of a secondary source?
Rafael
Rafael
> >According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
> >CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
> >hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
> >This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
> >extends only to US wines, not to imported wines.
>
Why did you not repost this section in its entirety? Your editing makes
it look as if he agrees with your position. As can be seen below, he
has a question for you:
Elliot wrote:
> 2: Automated production:
> According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
> CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
> hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
>
> This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
> extends only to US wines, not to imported wines. The permissive
> position may be even more restricted. Craig Winchell (scj's resident
> vintner) reports that there is human contact, even in US mass-produced
> wines. I called a local Maryland small vintner, and asked; they
> confirmed that there is human contact. Could it be that the
> permissive ruling should extend only to US mass-produced wines
> by a few of the very largest vintners?
Well, Mr. Kaiser?
Rafael
Robert Kaiser
shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>Here are some relevant selections from the R'ma's responsum. The
>translation is my own [bracketed stuff is my own interpolation]:
>
>=====
>I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
>more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
>say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
>And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
>in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
>for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
>halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
>suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
>kosher]. ...
According to your translation, the Rema is being schitzoid.
How can he clearly say that it is *not* kosher...and then rule that we
can trust them when they rule that it *is* kosher?
Did you even read what you wrote?
Robert
Daniel B. Schwartz
>
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
> >Here are some relevant selections from the R'ma's responsum. The
> >translation is my own [bracketed stuff is my own interpolation]:
> >
> >=====
> >I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
> >more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors
everywhere
> >say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
> >And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
> >in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained
justification
> >for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
> >halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
> >suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
> >kosher]. ...
>
>
> How can he clearly say that it is *not* kosher...and then rule that we
> can trust them when they rule that it *is* kosher?
>
> Did you even read what you wrote?
Kaiser did you go to elementary school? Were you there day they taught
reading? Or are you intentionally being stupid? The Rema says that Stam
Yeinam is assur, But since the Jews of Moraivia have been drinking it
while falsely believing it to be permitted (even though it is forbidden),
and as such they are not *intentionally* transgressing, but are acting
uninetentionally as they sincerely belive that which is prohibitted is
permitted, they have credibility to say that wine of unknown origin is in
fact not stam yeinam or yayin nesech. That is what the Rema says. He is
not schizoid (but It's typical of you to say he is).
>
>
> Robert
>
Gmachine9
>How can he clearly say that it is *not* kosher...and then rule that we
>can trust them when they rule that it *is* kosher?
>
>
i dont want to get involved where i clearly lack knowledge. However, Robert
you should know , i think, that in teshuvas it is not uncommon for a posek to
judge people favorably and possibly argue that they are not sinning. see for
examle the marharm shick (?) who speaks of people who allow ketanim to carry
for them on Shabbos. He tries very hard to show how these people are not
sinning--although he disapproves. Neither he not the rema are being
"schitzoid". Im suprised you never encounter this before in your learning.
And Im sure Elliot did indeed read what he wrote.
kol tuv
steve
Eliot Shimoff
In checking DejaNews on the previous incarnation of this thread, I noted
that someone (perhaps Robert, but I may be mistaken) suggested that the
R'ma's responsum had been censored, and that others (Moshe Shulman?)
had suggested that the responsum was a forgery.
Here is a bit more information:
The responsum in question appeared in the first three editions, Krakow,
Hamburg, and Hanv'ye (Hanover?). But the responsum was dropped from the
Amsterdam edition (with an apparent shell-game renumbering of adjacent
responsa ... I still can't quite figure out how it worked). The
Amsterdam text was the basis for several others that followed.
The responsum got back in to the Warsaw edition.
Doubts about the authenticity of the authorship were expressed most
clearly by R. Avraham b. Yehiel Danzig (1748-1820, the Hayyei Adam),
who was struck by the inconsistency of the (alleged) responsum's
leniency permitting a "holeh sh'ein bo sakana" (a seriously ill person,
but one whose life is not endangered) to drink stam yeinam, with the
R'ma's ruling (YD 155) explicitly forbidding it under the same
circumstances. R. Danzig suggests that the reason for the alleged
forgery was that, at that time of the R'ma's ruling, the leading halakhic figures
(e.g., The Mabit, R. M. Alshikh, and the MaHaRal) had refused to the
rabbis of Maharin; the alleged forgery was designed to enhance the
credibility of Maharin rabbinic authorities. R. Danzig, incidentally,
in general takes a very strong stance against stam yeinam.
R. Netanel Weil (the Korban Netanel) also questions the authenticity
of the responsum, based on the fact that it is not cited or mentioned
anywhere else in the extant writings of the R'ma.
If the responsum is genuine ...
Alas, the poor R'ma. As much as he tried to avoid it, and despite
the many caveats, his responsum _was_ widely misunderstood.
If the responsum was a forgery ...
Alas, the poor pseudo-R'ma; as much as the forger tried, he was
unable to get his position widely accepted.
From what I can tell, the main contemporary applications of the
responsum are (a) wrt the CJLS position, and (b) wrt the question
of stam yeinam for seriously (but not life-threateningly) ill
patients. The latter is probably less of an issue today, given
modern medicine. The former ...
(Zev Sero, in his postings, identified Maharin as Moravia. I've
stuck with Maharin, but for no particularly good reason; it's
certainly not because I don't trust Zev. :-) If I get a chance,
I'll do some reading about Moravia (Official state drink: Stam Yeinam).
Robert Kaiser
"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>The Rema says that Stam
>Yeinam is assur, But since the Jews of Moraivia have been drinking it
>while falsely believing it to be permitted (even though it is forbidden),
>and as such they are not *intentionally* transgressing, but are acting
>uninetentionally as they sincerely belive that which is prohibitted is
>permitted, they have credibility to say that wine of unknown origin is in
>fact not stam yeinam or yayin nesech. That is what the Rema says.
No, that is *not* what he says.
In fact, the Rema explicitly tells us that there are other
halakhot on this issue which *allow* such wine as kosher, and he accepts
them as valid. Further, he tells us that we can trust the testimony
of people of this town when they inform us that such wine is kosher.
Honestly Daniel, are there *any* rabbis that you *won't* spread
deliberate lies about?
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Eliot Shimoff here translates part of the Rema's responsum:
>I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
>more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
>say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
>And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
>in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
>for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
>halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
>suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
>kosher]. ... All this is according to the lienent rulings in areas where
>there is no other wine, and do not rely on my words
Elliot, your translation of his teshuva is overly literal;
Doesn't it mistakenly conflates two different uses of the word "halakha"?
As such it renders the above paragraph senseless and illogical
Halakha can mean two different things: (A) It can mean one
particular rule, which is valid in one particular circumstance, as
interpreted by a particular legal index or halakhic authority. Or it
can mean (B) the system of Jewish law as a whole, which is binding
in general, although flexible in its particulars.
In your translation, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) repeatedly
says that the wine is *not* kosher, and then says that it *is* kosher.
This makes no sense, and occurs because of your conflation of the
different uses of the term "halakha".
What the Rema was saying - and I agree - is that there is a valid
halakha [particular] law, that generally states that such wine should
not consumed by Jews. But this law does *not* claim that the wine itself
is inherently unkosher - the law claims that the wine should not be
consumned because (a) It might be used for pagan idol worship, or (b) it
might lead to socializing with gentiles, which might, for some people,
eventually help lead to intermarriage.
Nor is this the only halakha. We must not rewrite history:
The Rema clearly informs us that multiple other halakhot on this subject
also exist - and these do allow such wine as kosher. Further, the
Rema accepts such halakhot [particular rulings] valid and normative.
Consider pork: Its treif, right? What if the Rema was presented
with the case of an otherwise fully observant Jewish town, but they
had the custom of eating pork, as they thought it was allright. Would
the Rema saction this, as he sanctioned gentile wine? No, of course not.
Pork is inherently trief, so one can't allow it. But gentile wine isn't
inherently treif - Instead, there are rabbinic laws that generally ban
its use, for certain specific reasons. As such, when those reasons
are not pressing and other circumstances are present, such wine can
be allowed. (I can even imagine circumstances where it should be
mandated, but that's a separate topic).
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>
>> Yes, that is exactly what we have been telling you all along.
>
>Why did you not repost this section in its entirety? Your editing makes
>it look as if he agrees with your position.
No, he just is *stating* my position. He never claimed to
agree with it. Understanding someone, and agreeing with someone,
are two different things!
>> This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
>> extends only to US wines, not to imported wines. The permissive
>> position may be even more restricted. Craig Winchell (scj's resident
>> vintner) reports that there is human contact, even in US mass-produced
>> wines. I called a local Maryland small vintner, and asked; they
>> confirmed that there is human contact. Could it be that the
>> permissive ruling should extend only to US mass-produced wines
>> by a few of the very largest vintners?
>Well, Mr. Kaiser?
I don't know. BTW, I hope you are not under the mistaken impression
that I am a halakhic decisor. I understand how you could be under this
impression - Daniel Schwartz has been falsely stating that I have
claimed to be a halakhic authority. Daniel's simply lying. I have never
made any such claim.
If you are really interested in the specifics of when this
CJLS teshuva applies and when it doesn't, I'd start with a letter to
the CJLS, care of the Rabbinical Assembly.
Robert
Daniel B. Schwartz
I really don't understand what you are syaing here. Can you please explain
it?
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<359aa...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>
> Eliot Shimoff here translates part of the Rema's responsum:
>
> >I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
> >more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors
everywhere
> >say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
> >And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
> >in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained
justification
> >for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
> >halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
> >suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
> >kosher]. ... All this is according to the lienent rulings in areas
where
> >there is no other wine, and do not rely on my words
>
>
> Elliot, your translation of his teshuva is overly literal;
> Doesn't it mistakenly conflates two different uses of the word "halakha"?
> As such it renders the above paragraph senseless and illogical
>
> Halakha can mean two different things: (A) It can mean one
> particular rule, which is valid in one particular circumstance, as
> interpreted by a particular legal index or halakhic authority. Or it
> can mean (B) the system of Jewish law as a whole, which is binding
> in general, although flexible in its particulars.
>
> In your translation, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) repeatedly
> says that the wine is *not* kosher, and then says that it *is* kosher.
> This makes no sense, and occurs because of your conflation of the
> different uses of the term "halakha".
It only makes no sense because you refuse to read the teshuva in a
reasonable way. While I don'y fully grasp what you are saying, it seems to
me that you are trying to turn a simple responsum on it's head by use of
some clever linguistics which probably don't apply to the original Hebrew
text. But this is typical of the Conservative approach (see for example
the responsum on womens aliyot where the text of the gemara in Megilla is
distorted as well as the attendent literature)
Daniel B. Schwartz
Please send me a JPG of the teshuva
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote in article <1998Jul2.000207@hujicc>...
> In article <359a7...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
> >
> > shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
> >>The R'ma's liberal responsum on stam yeinam; harsh words flew
> >>back and forth, until Zev actually read it and presented it to all
> >>of us. It is indeed a remarkable document; last night, I finally
> >>got a copy and had a chance to read it, and Zev's description was
> >>accurate. The R'ma says again and again and again that drinking
> >>stam yeinam is absolutely forbidden, that it is wrong, that there
> >>is no halakhic basis for permitting it.
> >
> >
> > No, he does not. He says no such thing! In fact, he eventually
> > says the exact opposite. Dammit, Elliot, how could you stoop to this ?
> > The Rama explicitly states that there *is* halakhic justification for
> > it, and on the basis of such justification, gives a legal heter.
>
>
>
> Guess what Bobo. I photocopied the Tshuvat HaRemah (124) today and I will
> have a student optically scan it and place in JPG format on Thursday and
> will have someone place it on a website for all to read.
>
> I see it wasn't enough that Zev and I transliterated word-by-word the
> actual Hebrew text (followed by a translation). You C still have the
> temerity and monumental chutzpa to brazenly lie even when faced with the
> evidence. This time, you're not going to get away with it.
>
> If anyone wants the JPG version, please email me privately.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>The only leniency that the
> >>R'ma was willing to extend -- with great hesitation and ambivalence,
> >>lest he be misunderstood -- is that the residents of the area in
> >>question could still be trusted if they said that a particular bottle
> >>of wine was indeed kosher. There is no way that I can see to possibly
> >>use this responsum as a permissive source for stam yeinam.
> >
> >
> > This is simply, flat-out wrong, on two counts. (A) What you
> > write about the teshuva is wrong; you misrepresent the Rema.
> > And (B) The Conservative teshuva does *not* rely on the Rema's.
> > Please stop arguing against a position that isn't held by anyone!
> >
> >
>
> Check on DejaNews to see Bobo's original post where he explicitly wrote
> that the C *responsum* (I can't get myself to call this farce a tshuva)
> relied heavily on the Tshuvat haRemah (124).
>
>
>
> >>If the C citation of the R'ma did not use it as evidence of a lenient
> >>position, how was it used?
> >
> > Elliot, this was posted about a dozen times, by three separate
> > authors, in every relevent thread. Threads which you read. So stop
> > pretending you never read any of these, ok?
> >
> >
> >>2: Automated production:
> >>According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
> >>CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
> >>hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
> >>This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
> >>extends only to US wines, not to imported wines.
> >
>
>
> The problem is that a wine producer (Craig) posted that wine making is
NOT
> fully automated and that it is inevitable that a human will touch or move
> the wine barrel.
>
> Josh
>
> >
> > Yes, that is exactly what we have been telling you all along.
> >
> >
> > Robert
>
Daniel B. Schwartz
> >The Rema says that Stam
> >Yeinam is assur, But since the Jews of Moraivia have been drinking it
> >while falsely believing it to be permitted (even though it is
forbidden),
> >and as such they are not *intentionally* transgressing, but are acting
> >uninetentionally as they sincerely belive that which is prohibitted is
> >permitted, they have credibility to say that wine of unknown origin is
in
> >fact not stam yeinam or yayin nesech. That is what the Rema says.
>
>
> No, that is *not* what he says.
>
> In fact, the Rema explicitly tells us that there are other
> halakhot on this issue which *allow* such wine as kosher, and he accepts
> them as valid. Further, he tells us that we can trust the testimony
> of people of this town when they inform us that such wine is kosher.
Please quote the section of the teshiva to which you refer. I think
you're misreading it.
>
> Honestly Daniel, are there *any* rabbis that you *won't* spread
> deliberate lies about?
I'm not the one who called the Rema schizoid in a previous post. You were
mezalzel him in that way.
>
> Robert
>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <359a9...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>>translation is my own [bracketed stuff is my own interpolation]:
>>
>>=====
>>I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
>>more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
>>say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
>>And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
>>in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
>>for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
>>halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
>>suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
>>kosher]. ...
>
>
> can trust them when they rule that it *is* kosher?
How would you know Bobo when you NEVER read the Tshuvat HaRema (124) ?
BTW I just scanned in the 3 double pages of the Tshuva (and didn't wait
til a computer savvy med student would help me scan in the material).
After all ZRIZIN MAKDIMIN L'MITZVOT :-) The 3 scans are in PCX format
and anyone that wants them can email me.
It's going to be fun seeing how Mister Kaiser will get out of this
one.
Josh
>
> Did you even read what you wrote?
>
>
> Robert
Harry Weiss
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) wrote:
: M&P
deletions
: Robert (referring to critics of the C responsum on stam yeinam:
: >They also deliberately misrepresented the
: >Rema's own teshuva, which I found both ignorant and shameful.
: A minor editorial correction: I know that you did not mean it,
: but the indefinite antecedent in your sentence quoted above
: is a classic. :-)
ROTFL
: 1: The R'ma's responsum:
: The R'ma's liberal responsum on stam yeinam; harsh words flew
: back and forth, until Zev actually read it and presented it to all
: of us. It is indeed a remarkable document; last night, I finally
: got a copy and had a chance to read it, and Zev's description was
: accurate. The R'ma says again and again and again that drinking
: stam yeinam is absolutely forbidden, that it is wrong, that there
: is no halakhic basis for permitting it. The only leniency that the
: R'ma was willing to extend -- with great hesitation and ambivalence,
: lest he be misunderstood -- is that the residents of the area in
: question could still be trusted if they said that a particular bottle
: of wine was indeed kosher. There is no way that I can see to possibly
: use this responsum as a permissive source for stam yeinam.
: If the C citation of the R'ma did not use it as evidence of a lenient
: position, how was it used?
This makes me think of a book published by a Rabbi who I will leave
unnamed. In religous works is customary to have approvals from the great
Rabbis. This book (in English) had a letter in Hebrew - not translated
from Reb Moshe zt'l saying he reviewed the book and that much is not in
accordance with accepted practices.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Harry Weiss
Rafael (raf...@nyct.net) wrote:: > >2: Automated production:
: > >According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
: > >CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
: > >hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
: > >This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
: > >extends only to US wines, not to imported wines.
: > Yes, that is exactly what we have been telling you all along.
: Why did you not repost this section in its entirety? Your editing makes
: it look as if he agrees with your position. As can be seen below, he
: has a question for you:
: Elliot wrote:
: > 2: Automated production:
: > According to R. Klein's _Guide_, citing Rabbi Silverman's report to the
: > CJLS, US wine-making is fully-automated, and is untouched by human
: > hands. On that basis, these US wines are not stam yeinam.
: >
: > This suggests (at least to me) that the C permissive position
: > extends only to US wines, not to imported wines. The permissive
: > position may be even more restricted. Craig Winchell (scj's resident
: > vintner) reports that there is human contact, even in US mass-produced
: > wines. I called a local Maryland small vintner, and asked; they
: > confirmed that there is human contact. Could it be that the
: > permissive ruling should extend only to US mass-produced wines
: > by a few of the very largest vintners?
: Well, Mr. Kaiser?
That is not just Kaiser. It is the genral pattern in C responsa to
change facts, distort viewpoints and bring only partial quotes to justify
the postion. This enables them to justify non halachic decsions that
meet their political desires.
: Rafael
Harry Weiss
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
: >The Rema says that Stam
: >Yeinam is assur, But since the Jews of Moraivia have been drinking it
: >while falsely believing it to be permitted (even though it is forbidden),
: >and as such they are not *intentionally* transgressing, but are acting
: >uninetentionally as they sincerely belive that which is prohibitted is
: >permitted, they have credibility to say that wine of unknown origin is in
: >fact not stam yeinam or yayin nesech. That is what the Rema says.
: No, that is *not* what he says.
: In fact, the Rema explicitly tells us that there are other
: halakhot on this issue which *allow* such wine as kosher, and he accepts
: them as valid. Further, he tells us that we can trust the testimony
: of people of this town when they inform us that such wine is kosher.
: Honestly Daniel, are there *any* rabbis that you *won't* spread
: deliberate lies about?
: Robert
Elliot and everyone else says the exact oppssite of you. Why don't you
transliterate the exact words of the Rama you are referring to and
translate.'
PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Harry Weiss
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
: >Here are some relevant selections from the R'ma's responsum. The
: >translation is my own [bracketed stuff is my own interpolation]:
: >
: >=====
: >I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
: >more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
: >say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
: >And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
: >in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
: >for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
: >halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
: >suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
: >kosher]. ...
: According to your translation, the Rema is being schitzoid.
: How can he clearly say that it is *not* kosher...and then rule that we
: can trust them when they rule that it *is* kosher?
: Did you even read what you wrote?
: Robert
NO that is not what he said. He said we could trust them regarding other
wine that they say is kosher even though they themselves drink non kosher
wine. One could not rely on Robert Kaiser to say some wine is Kosher
since he publicly says he will drink non kosher wine.
Harry Weiss
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: Eliot Shimoff here translates part of the Rema's responsum:
: Elliot, your translation of his teshuva is overly literal;
: Doesn't it mistakenly conflates two different uses of the word "halakha"?
: As such it renders the above paragraph senseless and illogical
: Halakha can mean two different things: (A) It can mean one
: particular rule, which is valid in one particular circumstance, as
: interpreted by a particular legal index or halakhic authority. Or it
: can mean (B) the system of Jewish law as a whole, which is binding
: in general, although flexible in its particulars.
: In your translation, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) repeatedly
: says that the wine is *not* kosher, and then says that it *is* kosher.
: This makes no sense, and occurs because of your conflation of the
: different uses of the term "halakha".
: What the Rema was saying - and I agree - is that there is a valid
: halakha [particular] law, that generally states that such wine should
: not consumed by Jews. But this law does *not* claim that the wine itself
: is inherently unkosher - the law claims that the wine should not be
: consumned because (a) It might be used for pagan idol worship, or (b) it
: might lead to socializing with gentiles, which might, for some people,
: eventually help lead to intermarriage.
Quote the Rama exactly if you are not lying. In Hebrew. and then
everyone who knows Hebrew can do their own translation. If you are not
lying prove it.
Richard Schultz
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) wrote:
: I do not understand what situations these might be. I regularly
: attend meetings, conferences, and social events in which nonkosher
: wines are served, and have never had any trouble refraining.
: When does one _have_ to drink? When is one _forced_ to drink?
I was once at a conference in France, and it being France, there were
two bottles of wine on the table at every lunch and dinner. The only
two people not drinking the wine were me and a Mormon attendee. The
general attitude was not "why won't these bozos drink the wine" but
"well, that's more for the rest of us."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
Zev Sero
On 30 Jun 98, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
>shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>>I learn a great deal
>>when people deal with the _issues_ (e.g., _how_ the CJLS decision
>>on stam yeinam misrepresented the R'ma's ruling).
> Elliot, for shame. You know full well that this never happened,.
>What happened was that Daniel Shwartz and a few others deliberately
>spread lies about the Conservative teshuva, and criticised things that
>it never actually said.
Did the C teshuva say, or did it not, that modern production of wine
takes place without contact by human hand? We have Craig Winchell's
testimony that this is false.
Did the C teshuva say, or was this your own fabrication, that the
Rema, in Teshuvot Harama 124, permitted goyishe wine to one community?
It is a fact that he did not.
What other `lies' do you claim were spread about this C teshuva?
> They also deliberately misrepresented the
>Rema's own teshuva, which I found both ignorant and shameful.
Misrepresented in what way? You categorically claimed, and repeated,
that the Rema permitted goyishe wine to a community who had the custom
of permitting it. Unlike you, I have *read* the teshuva in question,
and can state without any hesitation that the secondary source in which
you read this, or the source in which your source read it, etc, is a
liar. Just like your `Rabbi' Schorch is a liar. The teshuva in
question discusses the common practice in Moravia and other countries
of drinking goyishe wine, and what halachic implications that practice
had for other Jews; it does not in any way justify or permit this
`custom', for Moravian Jews or anyone else.
--
Zev Sero Programming: the art of debugging an empty text file
zs...@bigfoot.com
Zev Sero
On 1 Jul 1998 11:28:39 -0400, shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) wrote:
>
>Your posting (The Kashrut of wines, 2/3/98) says (were you directly
>quoting either Rabbi Klein or the CJLS?):
>
>"Whenever situations make it either unfeasible or impossible to
>refrain from drinking them [wines that are not rabbinically certified],
>one who drinks them is not drinking unkosher wine."
>
>I do not understand what situations these might be. I regularly
>attend meetings, conferences, and social events in which nonkosher
>wines are served, and have never had any trouble refraining.
>When does one _have_ to drink? When is one _forced_ to drink?
Nechemia was also known as Hatirshata, because he got a heter to drink
(hatir-shata) the King's wine. Someone in a similar situation, where
he is forced to drink unkosher wine or risk being killed, should usually
find another job; but if his keeping his current job is important to the
welfare of the Jewish community, then he should contact his local
Sanhedrin for a heter, as Nechemia did :-)
Zev Sero
On 1 Jul 98, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>>The R'ma says again and again and again that drinking
>>stam yeinam is absolutely forbidden, that it is wrong, that there
>>is no halakhic basis for permitting it.
> No, he does not. He says no such thing! In fact, he eventually
>says the exact opposite. Dammit, Elliot, how could you stoop to this ?
>The Rama explicitly states that there *is* halakhic justification for
>it, and on the basis of such justification, gives a legal heter.
Let me get this straight, Kaiser - you have not read the teshuva;
indeed, you show no signs of being capable of reading Rabbinic Hebrew
at all. I've read the teshuva, Josh has read it, Jonathan's read it,
and Elliot's read it, and we all agree on what it says. But you
continue to insist that it says what you think it says, and that we're
all consipiring to lie about it. What possible basis could you have
for such a belief? How can you possibly be so sure about the contents
of a document that *you* *have* *not* *read*?
Zev Sero
On 1 Jul 98, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>>Here are some relevant selections from the R'ma's responsum. The
>>translation is my own [bracketed stuff is my own interpolation]:
>>
>>=====
>>And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
>>in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
>>for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
>>halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
>>suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
>>kosher]. ...
> According to your translation, the Rema is being schitzoid.
>How can he clearly say that it is *not* kosher...and then rule that we
>can trust them when they rule that it *is* kosher?
Kaiser, you show so little ability to comprehend plain English, that
there's no way anyone in their right mind would trust you to comprehend
anything written in Hebrew, even if you were capable of reading that
language.
The Rema does not say that we accept their *ruling* that goyishe wine
is permitted; on the contrary, he is quite clear that we do not. But
he says that despite the fact that Moravian Jews habitually drink
unkosher wine, we can trust them if they assure us that a particular
bottle of wine *is* kosher. If they were deliberate sinners, then we
could not take their word about the kashrut of *any* wine; if they told
us that a particular bottle is kosher, we would have to worry that they
were lying. But since they are inadvertant sinners, sincerely believing
that unkosher wine may be drunk, their honesty is not in question, so
when they tell us that one particular bottle is *kosher*, i.e. *not*
unkosher-but-permitted-anyway, but actually kosher, we need not suspect
them of lying.
Zev Sero
>>The Rema says that Stam
>>Yeinam is assur, But since the Jews of Moraivia have been drinking it
>>while falsely believing it to be permitted (even though it is forbidden),
>>and as such they are not *intentionally* transgressing, but are acting
>>uninetentionally as they sincerely belive that which is prohibitted is
>>permitted, they have credibility to say that wine of unknown origin is in
>>fact not stam yeinam or yayin nesech. That is what the Rema says.
> No, that is *not* what he says.
That is exactly what he says.
> In fact, the Rema explicitly tells us that there are other
>halakhot on this issue which *allow* such wine as kosher, and he accepts
>them as valid.
No, he explicitly rejects any such notion.
>Further, he tells us that we can trust the testimony
>of people of this town when they inform us that such wine is kosher.
No, he says that we can trust the testimonly of people from this
*country* (Moravia is not a town) when they inform us that a particular
bottle of wine is *not* the unkosher wine that they drink, but is
actually kosher, and has never been contacted by a goy. (If they say
that the wine is the normal wine that they are in the mistaken habit
of drinking, then we believe them and know *not* to drink it.)
Richard Schultz
Zev Sero (zs...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: But you [Robert Kaiser] continue to insist that it says what you
: think it says, and that we're all consipiring to lie about it. What
: possible basis could you have for such a belief? How can you possibly
: be so sure about the contents of a document that
: *you* *have* *not* *read*?
Which is why I figure that anyone who actually wastes his time arguing
with Robert Kaiser is getting about what he deserves. (A word to the
wise: "Never argue with an idiot -- the people listening to you might
not be able to tell the difference.")
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"French bread makes very good skis"
Eliot Shimoff
M&P
In article <359a9...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
>
Eliot:
>>Here are some relevant selections from the R'ma's responsum. The
>>translation is my own [bracketed stuff is my own interpolation]:
>>
>>=====
>>I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
>>more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
>>say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
>>And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
>>in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
>>for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
>>halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
>>suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
>>kosher]. ...
Robert:
> According to your translation, the Rema is being schitzoid.
No. According to _your_ understsanding of my translation, the R'ma
is being inconsistent. Here are the R'ma's words, transliterated:
U'l'hachi, gam b'nidon ze yesh limtzo k'tzat ta'am heter l'midinot
Maharin u'k'motam, AF AL PI SH'EINO K'HALAKHA, [uppercase not in original]
mikol makom m'achar sh'sovrim v'ainam chashudim, yesh lismokh aleihem,
v'ne'emanim alav l'acheirim hanohagim bo issur.
>How can he clearly say that it is *not* kosher...and then rule that we
>can trust them when they rule that it *is* kosher?
In other words, the use of stam yeinam in Moravia is categorically in violation
of halakha. But since it is an honest mistake on their part (i.e., they
do not believe that stam yeinam is forbidden) they can be trusted when they
say that a particular bottle _is_ kosher. If I were visiting a Moravian
Jew at that time, I would expect that person to have lots of stam yeinam
around the house, and I would not be permitted to drink it. But if my
Moravian host said "Here is a bottle of wine, and this wine -- unlike
the rest of the stuff I've got -- is kosher," I can assume that my
host is being honest about the wine's kashrut.
> Did you even read what you wrote?
Yes, I did read what I wrote. And I have thusfar expressed my disagreement
very politely. When you ask whether I read what I had written, were you
being polite?
Eliot Shimoff
In article <hjweissE...@netcom.com>,
Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom.com> wrote:
Eliot:
>: If the C citation of the R'ma did not use it as evidence of a lenient
>: position, how was it used?
Harry:
>This makes me think of a book published by a Rabbi who I will leave
>unnamed. In religous works is customary to have approvals from the great
>Rabbis. This book (in English) had a letter in Hebrew - not translated
>from Reb Moshe zt'l saying he reviewed the book and that much is not in
>accordance with accepted practices.
A classic book review -- I forget the name of the reviewer:
"There is much in this book that is new and good. Unfortunately,
that which is new is not good, and that which is good is not new."
Eliot Shimoff
In article <36175c67....@news.idt.net>,
Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>No, he says that we can trust the testimonly of people from this
>*country* (Moravia is not a town)
I checked EJ last night. Now I know where Moravia is. It is the
hyphen between Czecho and Slovakia. Really. Just nestled between
them. :-)
Eliot Shimoff
M&P
In article <359aa...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
>Eliot Shimoff here translates part of the Rema's responsum:
>
>>I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
>>more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
>>say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
>>And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
>>in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
>>for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
>>halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
>>suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
>>kosher]. ... All this is according to the lienent rulings in areas where
>>there is no other wine, and do not rely on my words
Robert:
> Elliot, your translation of his teshuva is overly literal;
>Doesn't it mistakenly conflates two different uses of the word "halakha"?
>As such it renders the above paragraph senseless and illogical
I see no such ambiguity in the R'ma's use of the term halakha.
> Halakha can mean two different things: (A) It can mean one
>particular rule, which is valid in one particular circumstance, as
>interpreted by a particular legal index or halakhic authority. Or it
>can mean (B) the system of Jewish law as a whole, which is binding
>in general, although flexible in its particulars.
The R'ma (and, as far as I can tell, this is characteristic of the
use of the term in all responsa written in Hebrew) uses the term
halakha in a way that can only be translated as "the law." The
term is not restricted to very specific cases (this town, this
person, this instance) or in the more general sense of "the entire
body of Jewish law."
> In your translation, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) repeatedly
>says that the wine is *not* kosher, and then says that it *is* kosher.
>This makes no sense, and occurs because of your conflation of the
>different uses of the term "halakha".
The R'ma _never_ writes that stam yeinam is kosher. When the R'ma
referred to "lenient rulings" (my own translation), he referred to
"ha'me'kilim."
And the R'ma also writes about such leniencies: "V'af al pi she'ein
kol adam yode'a ta'am heter" -- Even though nobody knows a rationale
for the leniency. The R'ma is being as explicit as he can: No, you
cannot drink stam yeinam, and no, the Moravians cannot drink stam yeinam,
and there is absolutely no known basis for leniency.
...
> Nor is this the only halakha. We must not rewrite history:
>The Rema clearly informs us that multiple other halakhot on this subject
>also exist - and these do allow such wine as kosher. Further, the
>Rema accepts such halakhot [particular rulings] valid and normative.
The R'ma very explicitly says that there is absolutely no basis for
the leniency. Zilch. Efes. Nada. Gornischt.
Let me make a suggestion: Several of us have read the R'ma's responsum,
and we all agree on its content. Thusfar, you have not cited any of the
R'ma's text, which leads me to believe that you either don't have the
text or can't read it. (That's not such a terrible thing; lots of good
people cannot manage a complex responsum in its original.)
So, here is my suggestion. Call your local C rabbi and tell him/her
that you have been trying to explain the C responsum, and that some
scj readers disagree with the CJLS analysis of the R'ma's responsum.
Ask the rabbi for assistance with the translation. Sit down, spend
some time ... and get back to us with details of exactly where the
rest of us are mis-reading the R'ma.
At the same time, ask whether the CJLS leniency applies only to
cases in which refraining from stam yeinam is unfeasible or
impossible.
Simcha Streltsov
Zev Sero (zs...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: Did the C teshuva say, or did it not, that modern production of wine
: takes place without contact by human hand? We have Craig Winchell's
: testimony that this is false.
AFAIR, he said "it is false in some cases" - majority or not - I dont know
Daniel B. Schwartz
Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<hjweissE...@netcom.com>...
> Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
What the Rema was saying - and I agree - is that there is a valid
> : halakha [particular] law, that generally states that such wine should
> : not consumed by Jews. But this law does *not* claim that the wine
itself
> : is inherently unkosher - the law claims that the wine should not be
> : consumned because (a) It might be used for pagan idol worship, or (b)
it
> : might lead to socializing with gentiles, which might, for some people,
> : eventually help lead to intermarriage.
>
>
> Quote the Rama exactly if you are not lying. In Hebrew. and then
> everyone who knows Hebrew can do their own translation. If you are not
> lying prove it.
The problem is that Robert is unable to translate the teshuva. He does
not know enought Hebrew to do so.
Gmachine9
> don't know. BTW, I hope you are not under the mistaken impression
>that I am a halakhic decisor. I understand how you could be under this
>impression - Daniel Schwartz has been falsely stating that I have
>claimed to be a halakhic authority. Daniel's simply lying. I have never
>made any such claim.
>
>
>
RETREAT!!!!
kol tuv
steve
Jonathan J. Baker
In <jwe...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
>Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
>: >I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
>: >more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
>: >say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
>: >And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
>: >in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
>: >for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
>: >halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
>: >suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
>: >kosher]. ...
>: According to your translation, the Rema is being schitzoid.
>: How can he clearly say that it is *not* kosher...and then rule that we
>: can trust them when they rule that it *is* kosher?
>: Did you even read what you wrote?
>NO that is not what he said. He said we could trust them regarding other
>wine that they say is kosher even though they themselves drink non kosher
>wine. One could not rely on Robert Kaiser to say some wine is Kosher
>since he publicly says he will drink non kosher wine.
No, Harry. That's exactly the Rema's point. Absent other evidence of
untrustworthiness, even though Robert explicitly drinks non-hechshered
wines, we should be able to trust him to tell us that "this bottle is
hechshered, that bottle is not." However, given the other evidence of
his need to lie to the detriment of Orthodox ideas, the end result is
the same: we probably can't rely on him to say some wine is kosher,
since he is known to lie about things concerning Orthodox ideas of
Judaism.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Robert Kaiser
zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>Did the C teshuva say, or did it not, that modern production of wine
>takes place without contact by human hand? We have Craig Winchell's
>testimony that this is false.
Huh? Testimony? Zev, we are talking about a published teshuva.
It says what it says. When someone talk about it, it's not "testimony".
Stop pretending that truth is relative and malleable.
>Did the C teshuva say, or was this your own fabrication, that the
>Rema, in Teshuvot Harama 124, permitted goyishe wine to one community?
>It is a fact that he did not.
Are you insane? It is a fact that he did, and a fellow Orthodox
Jew just printed its translation here!
Then again, look who I'm talking to. You are a messianic Jew
who thinks its Ok for Jews to worshp Jesus Christ or Menachem Schneerson
as the messiah. I think that says enough about your so-called Jewish
credibility.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>> Elliot, your translation of his teshuva is overly literal;
>>Doesn't it mistakenly conflates two different uses of the word "halakha"?
>>As such it renders the above paragraph senseless and illogical
>
>I see no such ambiguity in the R'ma's use of the term halakha.
Elliot, stop pretending that you are stupid. You know full
well that there is a difference between (a) halakha as a legal system
and (b) one particular rule, from one particular law code.
>> Halakha can mean two different things: (A) It can mean one
>>particular rule, which is valid in one particular circumstance, as
>>interpreted by a particular legal index or halakhic authority. Or it
>>can mean (B) the system of Jewish law as a whole, which is binding
>>in general, although flexible in its particulars.
>
>The R'ma (and, as far as I can tell, this is characteristic of the
>use of the term in all responsa written in Hebrew) uses the term
>halakha in a way that can only be translated as "the law."
HUH? That's totally meaningless, and you know it! The law
meaning the legal system, or one particular law in a legal system?
That's my whole point.
>> In your translation, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) repeatedly
>>says that the wine is *not* kosher, and then says that it *is* kosher.
>>This makes no sense, and occurs because of your conflation of the
>>different uses of the term "halakha".
>The R'ma _never_ writes that stam yeinam is kosher. When the R'ma
>referred to "lenient rulings" (my own translation), he referred to
>"ha'me'kilim."
Elliot, how can you write such Orwellian double-speak?
Its not kosher...but its kosher....they can't drink it...but they
can drink it...
You make the Rama look like an idiot or a schizoid.
>And the R'ma also writes about such leniencies: "V'af al pi she'ein
>kol adam yode'a ta'am heter" -- Even though nobody knows a rationale
>for the leniency. The R'ma is being as explicit as he can: No, you
>cannot drink stam yeinam, and no, the Moravians cannot drink stam yeinam,
>and there is absolutely no known basis for leniency.
No, he does not say this. he says the opposite.
>Let me make a suggestion: Several of us have read the R'ma's responsum,
>and we all agree on its content. Thusfar, you have not cited any of the
>R'ma's text,
Elliot, YOUR OWN TRANSLATION shows my point. You translate it,
and even in your stilted translation, it clearly allows it. How can
you be so disingenuous as to then claim "but it doen't allow it" !?
Are you trying to play some sort of game?
Robert
Robert Kaiser
"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> saysal heter.
>
> Now you're just being silly. It has been proven by multiple people that
>what you say is wrong. Just accept that.
No, multiple people have dleiberate spread lies about the Rema,
just as you have spread lies about Rabbis Lamm and Roth. But a tiny
handul of lying fanatics can't rewrite Jewish history, no matter how
hard they try. Honestly, you and your buddies wouldn't last ten
seconds at JTS.
> And that is poor rabbinic policy. Tell me Kaiser do you think it
>appropriate for a Conservative rabbi to give a hechsher to a resteraunt
>that serves meat and milk if all the products are kosher? Would that not
>imply an endorsement of eating basar bechalav, an inducement to sin?
Folks, be aware that Daniel is a pathological liar. The fact is
that Conservative rabbis don't give hekshers to restauarants; they are
not in the kashrut certification industry. Daniel's implications to
the contrary are pure fiction.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>Let me get this straight, Kaiser - you have not read the teshuva;
>indeed, you show no signs of being capable of reading Rabbinic Hebrew
>at all. I've read the teshuva, Josh has read it, Jonathan's read it,
>and Elliot's read it, and we all agree on what it says. But you
>continue to insist that it says what you think it says, and that we're
>all consipiring to lie about it.
Sorry Zev, but Elliot's own translation clealy states that
the Rama accepts that there is legitimate halakhic basis for allowing
gentile wine. He dos this reluctantly, and is afraid that this
conclusion may be misused, bu he does so anyways. Look, how can you
accept Elliot's conclusions, yet refuse to read his own translation?
A tiny group of fundmentalists on this newsgroup are terribly
uncomfortable the the Rama made one tiny exception for one group. If
you were to understand this, this would destroy your entire worldview,
a worldview in which halakha never changes. So you use cognitive
dissonance. You actually read a text which flat out allows something
...and then twist it in your minds so that you convince yourself it
reads the opposite. Its not a conspiracy, its just sad.
You remin me of the Chrisitians I have met who claim that the
Shema "proves" that God is a Trinity. There is no conspiracy. Its
just that they have certain preconceptions, and they are so welded to
these preconceptions, that any change, no matter how slight, will
destroy their entire belief system. So they "re-interpret" the phrases
over and over until they can get them to mean exactly the opposite of
the plain meaning of the text.
Robert
Gmachine9
The fact is
that Conservative rabbis don't give hekshers to restauarants;
Robert, I'm assuming this is out of context becuase as you know in Philadelphia
Rabbis do give Hechsherim on restauarants and catering establishmnets. I know
of one catering establishment that served non-kosher wine (stam yeinam) at a
bar mitzvah.
if indeed i speaking out of turn, my apologies.
steve
Gmachine9
You are a messianic Jew
who thinks its Ok for Jews to worshp Jesus Christ or Menachem Schneerson
as the messiah. I think that says enough about your so-called Jewish
credibility.
if your not going to play nice robert we're not going to play
steve
Daniel B. Schwartz
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<359ba...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>
> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
> >Did the C teshuva say, or did it not, that modern production of wine
> >takes place without contact by human hand? We have Craig Winchell's
> >testimony that this is false.
>
>
> Huh? Testimony? Zev, we are talking about a published teshuva.
> It says what it says.
I see, so that which is published is automatically true? I suppose you
then accept the truth of the New Testament, the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion, Mein Kampf etc. What do you do with "contradictory truths? Kaiser?
When someone talk about it, it's not "testimony".
> Stop pretending that truth is relative and malleable.
Indeed you should stop so pretending.
>
>
> >Did the C teshuva say, or was this your own fabrication, that the
> >Rema, in Teshuvot Harama 124, permitted goyishe wine to one community?
> >It is a fact that he did not.
>
>
> Are you insane? It is a fact that he did, and a fellow Orthodox
> Jew just printed its translation here!
Yes and it said that stm Yeinam is always prohibitted. Your problem si
that you never read the Rema inside and are relying on a distortion of it.
>
> Robert
>
Eliot Shimoff
M&P
In article <359ba...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
>
>shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
Eliot:
>>> Elliot, your translation of his teshuva is overly literal;
>>>Doesn't it mistakenly conflates two different uses of the word "halakha"?
>>>As such it renders the above paragraph senseless and illogical
>>
>>I see no such ambiguity in the R'ma's use of the term halakha.
Robert:
> Elliot, stop pretending that you are stupid. You know full
>well that there is a difference between (a) halakha as a legal system
>and (b) one particular rule, from one particular law code.
Yes, I do know that there is a difference. My point was that
there is no such ambiguity in the R'ma's use of the term
halakha.
Robert:
>>> Halakha can mean two different things: (A) It can mean one
>>>particular rule, which is valid in one particular circumstance, as
>>>interpreted by a particular legal index or halakhic authority. Or it
>>>can mean (B) the system of Jewish law as a whole, which is binding
>>>in general, although flexible in its particulars.
Eliot:
>>The R'ma (and, as far as I can tell, this is characteristic of the
>>use of the term in all responsa written in Hebrew) uses the term
>>halakha in a way that can only be translated as "the law."
Robert:
> HUH? That's totally meaningless, and you know it! The law
>meaning the legal system, or one particular law in a legal system?
>That's my whole point.
No. When the R'ma says "Even though it (drinking stam yeinam) is
against halakha", he refers to Jewish law. Not a single isolated
ruling, and not the entire corpus of Jewish law, but the halakha of
stam yeinam.
Robert:
>>> In your translation, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) repeatedly
>>>says that the wine is *not* kosher, and then says that it *is* kosher.
>>>This makes no sense, and occurs because of your conflation of the
>>>different uses of the term "halakha".
Eliot:
>>The R'ma _never_ writes that stam yeinam is kosher. When the R'ma
>>referred to "lenient rulings" (my own translation), he referred to
>>"ha'me'kilim."
Robert:
> Elliot, how can you write such Orwellian double-speak?
>Its not kosher...but its kosher....they can't drink it...but they
>can drink it...
>
> You make the Rama look like an idiot or a schizoid.
The R'ma did not say that stam yeinam is kosher, and did not
say that they could drink it. HE NEVER WROTE ANY SUCH THING.
Eliot:
>>And the R'ma also writes about such leniencies: "V'af al pi she'ein
>>kol adam yode'a ta'am heter" -- Even though nobody knows a rationale
>>And the R'ma also writes about such leniencies: "V'af al pi she'ein
>>kol adam yode'a ta'am heter" -- Even though nobody knows a rationale
>>for the leniency. The R'ma is being as explicit as he can: No, you
>>cannot drink stam yeinam, and no, the Moravians cannot drink stam yeinam,
>>and there is absolutely no known basis for leniency.
Robert:
> No, he does not say this. he says the opposite.
Where? I have presented several sentences, both in translation and
in transliteration, in which the R'ma categorically forbids stam yeinam.
Can you present one in which he permits it?
I cited the R'ma's words "V'af al pi she'ein kol adam yode'a ta'am heter."
You wrote that "he does not say this. he says the opposite." Are
you saying that the words I quoted above were not from that responsum?
Robert:
> Elliot, YOUR OWN TRANSLATION shows my point. You translate it,
>and even in your stilted translation, it clearly allows it. How can
>you be so disingenuous as to then claim "but it doen't allow it" !?
>Are you trying to play some sort of game?
Show me where in my translation that the R'ma allows stam yeinam.
WHERE DOES THE R'MA'S RESPONSUM PERMIT STAM YEINAM?
I reiterate my suggestion. Would you be willing to consult with your
local C rabbi, and review the R'ma's ruling with him/her?
Think about what a great comeback it would be. You can prove once
and for all that we are all wrong. And all it would take would be
a simple direct citation to the R'ma's responsum, showing that he
permits stam yeinam for Moravian Jews. It would be a great way to
confirm the position you have been supporting. The phrase you
would be looking for would be something along the lines of "v'lakhen
nir'eh d'stam yeinam mutar, aval rak l'anshei Maharan" ("It would
thus appear that stam yeinam is permitted, but only to the people
of Moravia").
It's easy Robert. Just sit down with your local C rabbi and review
the responsum. Find the source, and post it.
Eliot Shimoff
Zev:
>>Did the C teshuva say, or was this your own fabrication, that the
>>Rema, in Teshuvot Harama 124, permitted goyishe wine to one community?
>>It is a fact that he did not.
Robert:
> Are you insane? It is a fact that he did, and a fellow Orthodox
>Jew just printed its translation here!
If the "fellow Orthodox Jew" referred to is me (I am the one who
recently posted a partial translation), there is nothing -- not
in the R'ma and not in my translation -- that can possible be
read as permission for stam yeinam.
Rather than engage in more polemics and name-calling, I reiterate
my suggestion, Robert. Sit down with your local C rabbi, explain
what has gone on, and ask him/her to review the R'ma in question.
Then come back to us with the text in which the R'ma permits
stam yeinam.
I assure you that, if you do so, all of us who have read the responsum
(so far, it seems to be Zev, Jonathan, Josh, and I) will be forced
to retract.
No polemics, no ad hominems (homina?). Just a short postinng, something
like: On page 4 of the responsum [citing the edition], the R'ma writes
[then give the text in translation and transliteration].
It's simple, Robert. How about it?
Daniel B. Schwartz
> >
> > Now you're just being silly. It has been proven by multiple
people that
> >what you say is wrong. Just accept that.
>
>
> No, multiple people have dleiberate spread lies about the Rema,
> just as you have spread lies about Rabbis Lamm and Roth. But a tiny
> handul of lying fanatics can't rewrite Jewish history, no matter how
> hard they try. Honestly, you and your buddies wouldn't last ten
> seconds at JTS.
I'm sure the only exam I would flunk outrightly would be the one on
biblical criticism.
>
>
> > And that is poor rabbinic policy. Tell me Kaiser do you think
it
> >appropriate for a Conservative rabbi to give a hechsher to a resteraunt
> >that serves meat and milk if all the products are kosher? Would that
not
> >imply an endorsement of eating basar bechalav, an inducement to sin?
>
>
> Folks, be aware that Daniel is a pathological liar. The fact is
> that Conservative rabbis don't give hekshers to restauarants; they are
> not in the kashrut certification industry. Daniel's implications to
> the contrary are pure fiction.
Really I was informed by an Orthodox rabbi in Harrison New York of
precisely that story. A conservative rabbi there, gives an endorsement of
a resteraunt that serves meant and milk on the excuse that all the products
there aer kosher. I've heard of it from a very credible first and witness.
>
>
> Robert
>
Daniel B. Schwartz
> >> Elliot, your translation of his teshuva is overly literal;
> >>Doesn't it mistakenly conflates two different uses of the word
"halakha"?
> >>As such it renders the above paragraph senseless and illogical
> >
> >I see no such ambiguity in the R'ma's use of the term halakha.
>
>
> well that there is a difference between (a) halakha as a legal system
> and (b) one particular rule, from one particular law code.
That distinction (assuming it is valid and I believe it is not as any
individual rule is part of the greater system) is one with no practical
difference. If you think there is a nafka minah, please supply it with
full citation to the primary source.
>
>
> >> Halakha can mean two different things: (A) It can mean one
> >>particular rule, which is valid in one particular circumstance, as
> >>interpreted by a particular legal index or halakhic authority. Or it
> >>can mean (B) the system of Jewish law as a whole, which is binding
> >>in general, although flexible in its particulars.
> >
> >The R'ma (and, as far as I can tell, this is characteristic of the
> >use of the term in all responsa written in Hebrew) uses the term
> >halakha in a way that can only be translated as "the law."
>
>
> HUH? That's totally meaningless, and you know it! The law
> meaning the legal system, or one particular law in a legal system?
> That's my whole point.
And you point is a klutz kasheh.
>
>
> >> In your translation, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) repeatedly
> >>says that the wine is *not* kosher, and then says that it *is* kosher.
> >>This makes no sense, and occurs because of your conflation of the
> >>different uses of the term "halakha".
>
> >The R'ma _never_ writes that stam yeinam is kosher. When the R'ma
> >referred to "lenient rulings" (my own translation), he referred to
> >"ha'me'kilim."
>
> Elliot, how can you write such Orwellian double-speak?
> Its not kosher...but its kosher....they can't drink it...but they
> can drink it...
>
> You make the Rama look like an idiot or a schizoid.
No you try to present a false understanding which makes the Rema say what
he does not in fact say. I would suggest that you learn pashut p'shat and
the techniques of how to arrive at it before you try your hand at pilpul.
As of now you are that RaAaron Kahn at RIETS calls a moderatly
"sophisticaped am Ha'aretz."
>
>
> >And the R'ma also writes about such leniencies: "V'af al pi she'ein
> >kol adam yode'a ta'am heter" -- Even though nobody knows a rationale
> >for the leniency. The R'ma is being as explicit as he can: No, you
> >cannot drink stam yeinam, and no, the Moravians cannot drink stam
yeinam,
> >and there is absolutely no known basis for leniency.
>
> No, he does not say this. he says the opposite.
No Elliot is right. I've read the teshuva many times during our
discussion here. Have you?
>
>
> >Let me make a suggestion: Several of us have read the R'ma's responsum,
> >and we all agree on its content. Thusfar, you have not cited any of
the
> >R'ma's text,
>
> Elliot, YOUR OWN TRANSLATION shows my point. You translate it,
> and even in your stilted translation, it clearly allows it. How can
> you be so disingenuous as to then claim "but it doen't allow it" !?
> Are you trying to play some sort of game?
Are you?
>
>
>
> Robert
>
Robert Kaiser
Let us try to agree on a few simple facts, shall we?
Pork is treif, right? What if the Rema was presented with the
case of an otherwise fully observant Jewish town, but they had the custom
of eating pork, as they thought it was allright. Would the Rema ever
sanction this, as he sanctioned gentile wine? No, of course not. Why
not? Pork is inherently trief, so no one can allow it.
Kosher wine, wine with a heksher, is kosher, right? Does the Rema
ban it? No, of course not. Why? Because Jewish law recognizes this as
being kosher.
So at the least, we can agree that (A) Jewish law recognizes that
some things are inherently kosher or treif, and (B) the Rama would rule
that such kosher food is of course kosher, and such trief food is of
course treif.
So let's look at precisely what the Rama says. Someone told him
about a locale where otherwise observant Jews drank wine without a heksher,
gentile wine. If this was outright trief, with no possibility of
leniency - would the Rama allow it? Of course not. He simply would
have said "no, this cannot ever be consumed". If it was totally kosher,
with no controversy, would he not simply allow it, with no fuss? Again,
yes. If it were unambiguously kosher, he would have allowed it without
almost no comment at all. But that is not what happened here! Elliot
Shimoff translates the Rema's teshuva on the use of gentile wine for a
particular European region, and it clearly states:
=====
I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become
even more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors
everywhere say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
=====
According to the interpretation given this by Zev, Elliot and
Daniel's interpretation, the Rama's decalration makes no sense. It
only makes sense if the Rama is allowing - in a limited case - the use of
something that would otherwise be prohibited. Simply put, no other
explnation is possible. He quite clearly states that his ruling might
open the door to further leniency, which he does not want to do, yet he
is put in a position of having to state a leniency.
I have noted a tendancy for people to use the terms "kosher" and
"treif" in ways that are not always technically accurate. To be more
precise, when a food is deemed "kosher", that means that Jews can eat it,
right? In general, yes. But it really means that there exists a rabbinic
rule that says at least some Jews can eat it, some of the time. Chametz
is kosher all year round - except on Passover. Kitniyot is kosher all
year round for all Jews, but is trief for Ashkenazim on Pesach, while
it is kosher for Sephardim. Most kosher meat is kosher for Ashkenazim
- but its trief for Sephardim. Sephardim insist that meat must
additionally be 'glatt'.
Even glatt kosher meat can be treif. If a butcher is known to be
unethical in a very serious way, it is fully within a rabbi's rights to
forbid the food sold by that butcher. The sheilot-u-teshuvot (responsa)
literaure is replete with cases of kosher items and practices being
banned for certain reasons, and is also replete with cases of leniencies
This is precisely the case here. Gentile wine is not inherently
treif - Instead, there are rabbinic laws that generally ban its use, for
certain specific reasons. (a) It might be used for ritual idol worship
(b) It might be drunk in the company of gentiles, leading to socializing,
which may in some cases lead to intermarriage. However, when a posek
rules that those reasons are not currently pressing, and other
circumstances are present, a posek is within full rights to allow such
wine to be consumed. And this is precisely what the Rama did.
Let us not continue to play word games. A few people here are
playing with the word "kosher", as if I had been claiming that the Rama
ruled that gentile wine was inherently kosher, or that drinking gentile
wine is a neutral or fully correct practice. As you all correctly point
out, he did rule that way. But - and this is the key issue - I never
made this claim either!
I confess that in recent days I may have allowed my posts to
become somewhat ambiguous on this point, solely because I thought I made
this point very clearly in _many_ previous posts on this topic. But
evidently all such posts of mine are being disregarded. In fact, in
recent days some people have labored to present me as claiming (a) The
Rama ruled that gentile wine, in general, is kosher, i.e. allowable for
consumption by Jews. However, what I actually said is that the Rama
reluctantly refused to outlaw their practice, and refused to label their
practice as unhalakhic, and thus permitted these particular people this
wine, in this situation. Thus, by any reasonable definition of the word,
he ruled it as kosher _for them only_. (Just like kitniyot on Pesach is
kosher for Sephardim).
Also (b) People are incorrectly claiming that this teshuva is
somehow important for the Conservative movement's teshuva of the subject.
It most certainly is not - the CJLS teshuva uses another line of logic
altogether, and is only applicable for machine made wines in the US.
Elliot translates:
=====
And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing
so in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained
justification for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it
is a violation of halakha, still, since they believe that it is
permissible, they are not suspect, and they can be trusted [if they
say that a particular wine is kosher]. ...
=====
Note that Elliot's addition here, which he puts in brackets, is
not found in the original text. It complete reverses the meaning of the
Rama's teshuva! This alone demonstrates why I can't agree with Elliot's
(and Zev's and Daniel's) reading of it. To make the text come to the
same conclusion they want it to, they need to add a sentence which
reverses its very meaning.
Elliot further writes:
=====
All this is according to the lienent rulings in areas where
there is no other wine, and do not rely on my words [as a source of
leniency], because I came as if to prove that a sheretz [creepy crawly
thing] is tahor [pure] by kal v'homer, even though it is tameh
[impure] according to the Torah. Therefore, I say about this that
I did not come except to show a strained leniency, and it should
not be relied upon.
===
I believe that the interpolation here is appropriate. But note
that this paragraph is senseless and contradictory if we read it together
with the paragraph above, with Elliot's additional sentence added. This
latter paragraph only makes logical sense if we read the former paragraph
the way the Rama wrote it (i.e. without Elliot's addition). The Rama is
clearly saying that used a strained leniency to permit this wine for this
one town, but other people should not rely on it.
In summary, it is fair to say that the Rama explicitly allowed
gentile wine for that locale, due to their particular circumstances.
He also stated that this reasoning is _not_ generally applicable, and
thus may not be rlied upon to generally drink gentile wine. Logically,
a posek _may_ of course rely on this teshuva, *if* the posek determines
that there is a similar situation in which the rama's reasoning is also
applicable. If not, the teshuva cannot be used as a heter. And finally,
this is all moot for the halakhic basis of the Conservative teshuva, as
its reasoning proceeds along seprate lines and depends on an entirely
different set of facts.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>
>> >Did the C teshuva say, or did it not, that modern production of wine
>> >takes place without contact by human hand? We have Craig Winchell's
>> >testimony that this is false.
>> Huh? Testimony? Zev, we are talking about a published teshuva.
>> It says what it says.
> I see, so that which is published is automatically true? I suppose you
>then accept the truth of the New Testament, the Protocols of the Elders of
>Zion, Mein Kampf etc. What do you do with "contradictory truths? Kaiser?
Daniel, are you really this stupid? This is grotesque, even
for you.
I *never* claimed that if something was printed, then it must
be true. Never. rather, I pointed out that if something is printed,
then it truly exists whether you like it or not. For instance, the
Conservative teshuva ruled that some gentile wine is definately kosher.
Now I can't show that this is true or false - but I *can* prove that
this was printed!
You can't give "testimony" about something that has been printed.
For instance, someone can "testify" that the CJLS teshuva on gentile
wine allows only Ashkenazi Jews to rely on it. But such testimony is
worthless - it is simpyl false. reality and truth are not malleable.
The *correctness* of the teshuav is debateable - but the fact that it
contains certain words and opinion is *not* debateable.
To give a more relevant example, consider Daniel: He continualy
states that the Conservative teshuva relies upon the Rama's teshuva,
and is thus wrong. However this is a lie. The Conservative teshuva
simply does not rely on the Rama's teshuva. Never did. Daniel is
simply making this up (Quite brave of him to do so, as he never even
read the teshuva!)
Daniel seems to think that repeating a lie will literally
change reality. That's sad.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Steve, why would you say such a thing? In fact, I have
continually come out *against* such positions. The only Jew here
who holds such positions is Zev Sero. Are you not aware of this?
Also, many of Zev's fellow Orthodox Jews took him to task for his
bizarre beliefs quite recently. Did you miss all those posts?
Look, its no slur or lie. Zev Sero really did promote these
positions as being within halakha (Jewish law). And all his fellow
Orthodox Jews attacked him for these beliefs!
Robert
Daniel B. Schwartz
>
> "Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
> >
> >> >Did the C teshuva say, or did it not, that modern production of wine
> >> >takes place without contact by human hand? We have Craig Winchell's
> >> >testimony that this is false.
>
> >> Huh? Testimony? Zev, we are talking about a published teshuva.
> >> It says what it says.
> > I see, so that which is published is automatically true? I
suppose you
> >then accept the truth of the New Testament, the Protocols of the Elders
of
> >Zion, Mein Kampf etc. What do you do with "contradictory truths?
Kaiser?
>
>
> Daniel, are you really this stupid? This is grotesque, even
> for you.
>
> I *never* claimed that if something was printed, then it must
> be true. Never. rather, I pointed out that if something is printed,
> then it truly exists whether you like it or not. For instance, the
> Conservative teshuva ruled that some gentile wine is definately kosher.
> Now I can't show that this is true or false - but I *can* prove that
> this was printed!
Big deal. As the Rabbi J.B. Soloveithchik once said when asked why he
published so little: "not everything should be said, not everything said
should be written, not everything written should be published. . ."
vehameivin yavin.
Daniel Israel
Okay. I have posted the scanned in text of the t'shuva on
http://cfd.ame.arizona.edu/~daniel/scj/
Now everyone can read the text for themselves. Unfortunately the
text is small, so the scanned version is hard to read in some
places. If someone makes a better copy, I will post it.
BTW, I noted that there is a slightly different girsah [text] from
Elliot's transliteration, although nothing that changes the meaning
as far as I can tell. If Elliot has any comments, I'd welcome them,
although I accept no responsibility for eye strain.
--
Daniel M. Israel "It's raining in Tucson."
<dan...@cfd.ame.arizona.edu> "Yeah, but it's a dry rain."
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <359ba...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>
>
> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>>Let me get this straight, Kaiser - you have not read the teshuva;
>>indeed, you show no signs of being capable of reading Rabbinic Hebrew
>>at all. I've read the teshuva, Josh has read it, Jonathan's read it,
>>and Elliot's read it, and we all agree on what it says. But you
>>continue to insist that it says what you think it says, and that we're
>>all consipiring to lie about it.
>
>
> Sorry Zev, but Elliot's own translation clealy states that
> the Rama accepts that there is legitimate halakhic basis for allowing
> gentile wine. He dos this reluctantly, and is afraid that this
> conclusion may be misused, bu he does so anyways. Look, how can you
> accept Elliot's conclusions, yet refuse to read his own translation?
>
> A tiny group of fundmentalists on this newsgroup are terribly
> uncomfortable the the Rama made one tiny exception for one group. If
> you were to understand this, this would destroy your entire worldview,
> a worldview in which halakha never changes. So you use cognitive
> dissonance. You actually read a text which flat out allows something
> ...and then twist it in your minds so that you convince yourself it
> reads the opposite. Its not a conspiracy, its just sad.
Kaiser, you are one of the most seriously disturbed individuals I have
ever encountered in my entire career.
Daniel has just posted my scan of the Tshuvat haRemah (124) on his website.
I think we ought to invite Hadass and Amitai and let *them* translate
the tshuva for you. (I think I may rescan in the material at better
resolution).
Josh
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <6ngi3v$le8$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, dan...@ganymede.ame.arizona.edu (Daniel Israel) writes:
> Okay. I have posted the scanned in text of the t'shuva on
>
> http://cfd.ame.arizona.edu/~daniel/scj/
>
> Now everyone can read the text for themselves. Unfortunately the
> text is small, so the scanned version is hard to read in some
> places. If someone makes a better copy, I will post it.
I will rescan in the material a higher resolution and post each
half page as a separate scan.
Josh
Eliot Shimoff
In article <6ng6d7$n...@panix2.panix.com>,
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
The R'ma (Eliot's translation):
>>: >I am afraid to respond, lest transgressors rely on it and become even
>>: >more lenient, and I am afraid no to answer, lest transgressors everywhere
>>: >say "these people do it, why can't we?" ...
>>: >And therefore [since they are following a local tradition, but doing so
>>: >in good faith] in the case before us, we can find a strained justification
>>: >for a leniency in places like Maharin, even though it is a violation of
>>: >halakha, still, since they believe that it is permissible, they are not
>>: >suspect, and they can be trusted [if they say that a particular wine is
>>: >kosher]. ...
Jonathan:
>That's exactly the Rema's point. Absent other evidence of
>untrustworthiness, even though Robert explicitly drinks non-hechshered
>wines, we should be able to trust him to tell us that "this bottle is
>hechshered, that bottle is not."
This raises an interesting question. At least superficially, there
are three possible reasons for the R'ma's trust of Moravians:
1. Moravian Jews know the laws of kashrut, and therefore can be
trusted. Generally-non-observant Jews, however, do not know the
laws of kashrut, and their statements about kashrut could not be
accepted. In modern settings, if someone knows the laws of kashrut
(even if he/she does not observe them), that person's statement about
kashrut would be credible. (Thus, an informed but non-observant Jew
could be a mashgiach.)
2. Moravian Jews respect halakha, and are therefore credible. But
the statement of a generally-non-observant Jew would not be credible --
not because of halakhic ignorance, but because of disrespect. The
disrespect might not be offensive, but could take the form of "This
observant Jew is hungry. I'll assure him that the food is kosher,
even though it is not, and the sin will be on my head." The lack
of credibility stems not from ignorance, but from lack of respect
for the bindingness of halakha. (Thus, an informed but non-observant
Jew could not be a mashgiach.)
3. Moravian Jews are credible because they are generally-observant.
There is an inherent "flaw" in the halakha-related credibility of any
non-observant Jew, even though such a person might be a wonderful
person in every other respect.
Robert Kaiser
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il says:
>Kaiser, you are one of the most seriously disturbed individuals I have
>ever encountered in my entire career.
I have stated that many Orthodox Jews are fundamentalists.
By you, this makes me mentally ill? Umm, whatever....
By the way folks, for people new to this thread. Josh Backon is
a compulsive liar. He has spread hateful lies about a number of rabbis,
has slandered *all* Reform and Conservative Jews in the most hateful
of terms, and has even publicly posted false rape allegations. But by
him, this is acceptable behaviour for an Orthodox Jew. I wonder how
he'd feel if people here on this newsgroup started posting false
criminal allegations about him, or members of his family? (Oh, but
that would be different, right?)
Robert
Eliot Shimoff
M&P
In article <6ngi3v$le8$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Daniel Israel <dan...@ganymede.ame.arizona.edu> wrote:
>Okay. I have posted the scanned in text of the t'shuva on
>
>http://cfd.ame.arizona.edu/~daniel/scj/
>
>Now everyone can read the text for themselves. Unfortunately the
>text is small, so the scanned version is hard to read in some
>places. If someone makes a better copy, I will post it.
Well done, and thanks. It's not too small at all ... but then,
I've got a big monitor. :-)
>BTW, I noted that there is a slightly different girsah [text] from
>Elliot's transliteration, although nothing that changes the meaning
>as far as I can tell. If Elliot has any comments, I'd welcome them,
>although I accept no responsibility for eye strain.
I was working off Sperber, who used Prof. Asher Sief's critical
edition. That's probably what accounted for the discrepancies.
PS: If you lean over the back of the monitor and read the
text backwards, you can see where it says "Drink Stam Yeinam,
the official beverage of the 1720 Moravian Olympic Games."
Eliot Shimoff
>zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>>Let me get this straight, Kaiser - you have not read the teshuva;
>>indeed, you show no signs of being capable of reading Rabbinic Hebrew
>>at all. I've read the teshuva, Josh has read it, Jonathan's read it,
>>and Elliot's read it, and we all agree on what it says. But you
>>continue to insist that it says what you think it says, and that we're
>>all consipiring to lie about it.
Robert:
> Sorry Zev, but Elliot's own translation clealy states that
>the Rama accepts that there is legitimate halakhic basis for allowing
>gentile wine. He dos this reluctantly, and is afraid that this
>conclusion may be misused, bu he does so anyways. Look, how can you
>accept Elliot's conclusions, yet refuse to read his own translation?
Sorry, Robert, but your assertion is supported neither by my
translation nor by my transliteration, nor by the JPEG available
at Daniel Israel's site.
The R'ma permitted stam yeinam precisely to the same extent
that he approved of chelev for the Jews of Reinus, which is
to say that he did not permit it.
> A tiny group of fundmentalists on this newsgroup are terribly
>uncomfortable the the Rama made one tiny exception for one group.
The "tiny group of fundamentalists" turns out to be precisely
the only ones on this newsgroup who have read the responsum.
Think about it, Robert. You haven't even _read_ the responsum,
but you disagree with those who have done so.
But, the text is now available to you. There is no longer any
need to argue. All you have to do is to ask your local C rabbi
for assistance. Or check in with anyone who can read enough
rabbinic Hebrew to do a translation. And show us where the
R'ma permits the Moravian Jews to drink stam yeinam.
>If
>you were to understand this, this would destroy your entire worldview,
>a worldview in which halakha never changes. So you use cognitive
>dissonance. You actually read a text which flat out allows something
>...and then twist it in your minds so that you convince yourself it
>reads the opposite. Its not a conspiracy, its just sad.
Strong words from someone who has still not bothered to read
the text of the responsum in question. If _anyone_ in this
thread is guilty of unsupported reliance on a worldview, it is
you, defending the C position without having read the text in
question.
Daniel B. Schwartz
The text is hard to read, but it is very readable. Kudos to Dr. Backon and
Daniel Israel for their efforts. Now, would Mr. Kaiser care to comment
further on the subject?
Daniel Israel <dan...@ganymede.ame.arizona.edu> wrote in article
<6ngi3v$le8$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
> Okay. I have posted the scanned in text of the t'shuva on
>
> http://cfd.ame.arizona.edu/~daniel/scj/
>
> Now everyone can read the text for themselves. Unfortunately the
> text is small, so the scanned version is hard to read in some
> places. If someone makes a better copy, I will post it.
>
> BTW, I noted that there is a slightly different girsah [text] from
> Elliot's transliteration, although nothing that changes the meaning
> as far as I can tell. If Elliot has any comments, I'd welcome them,
> although I accept no responsibility for eye strain.
>
Daniel B. Schwartz
Thank you. That would be very very helpful.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote in article <1998Jul2.212414@hujicc>...
> In article <6ngi3v$le8$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
dan...@ganymede.ame.arizona.edu (Daniel Israel) writes:
> > Okay. I have posted the scanned in text of the t'shuva on
> >
> > http://cfd.ame.arizona.edu/~daniel/scj/
> >
> > Now everyone can read the text for themselves. Unfortunately the
> > text is small, so the scanned version is hard to read in some
> > places. If someone makes a better copy, I will post it.
>
>
> I will rescan in the material a higher resolution and post each
> half page as a separate scan.
>
> Josh
>
>
> >
Art Werschulz
Hi.
shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
> A classic book review -- I forget the name of the reviewer:
>
> "There is much in this book that is new and good. Unfortunately,
> that which is new is not good, and that which is good is not new."
I have heard this attributed to Steinhaus (as in the Banach-Steinhaus
Theorem). There's also the famous review (maybe due to Erdos?):
"This result fills a well-needed gap."
TTFN.
--
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: a...@cs.columbia.edu<a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet: Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325
Eliot Shimoff
M&P
Is the following a fair summary of the facts thusfar?
1. The C responsum cited the R'ma, and asserted that the R'ma ruled
that stam yeinam was acceptable for the Moravian Jews.
2. Those on scj who read that responsum disagree, claiming that
the R'ma never permitted stam yeinam for Moravian Jews. Nobody on
scj who has read the responsum has been able to find a single
phrase in which the R'ma permits stam yeinam for Moravian Jews.
3. The C responsum cited the R'ma, but the citation was irrelevant
to the thrust of the responsum (although it is not clear why the
responsum was cited).
4. The C leniency was based on a finding the mass-produced
wines are not touched human hands. Craig Winchell has disagreed,
asserting that there is such contact.
5. The C leniency applies only to US-made mass-produced wines,
but (presumably) not to wines made by small vintners.
6. The C leniency only applies in those cases in which it is
unfeasible or impractical to refrain from stam yeinam. So far,
nobody on scj has been able to describe a convincing scenario
in which refraining is either unfeasiable or impossible.
7. Although not explicit in the C responsum, it would certainly
appear that a male C taking advantage of that leniency would have
to covver his head, and (for males or females) the brakhot before
and after would have to be recited. No one on scj has been able
to describe a scenario in which one is "forced" (by social convention)
to drink wine, yet would not hesitate to cover his head (male) and
recite the brakhot (male and female).
Rafael
Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:
>
> The text is hard to read, but it is very readable. Kudos to Dr. Backon and
> Daniel Israel for their efforts. Now, would Mr. Kaiser care to comment
> further on the subject?
It is? I couldn't read it (and, yes, I read Hebrew). Anyway, Josh is
re-scanning, so hopefully that will improve it's legibility.
It should be interesting. Judging from Elliot's transliteration, it
seems quite clear that the Rema did not permit stam yeinam, even for the
Moravians.
OTOH, Mr. Kaiser maintains that the Rema's teshuva was only *mentioned*
in the C responsum, and was not pivotal to its conclusion, which means
that this is all just an exercise in proving Mr. Kaiser wrong about the
Rema, and not about the C responsum itself (unless someone would like to
also post the responsum text [I assume it's in English] to this NG, so
we can see for ourselves exactly what role the Rema's teshuva did play
in the C leniency.)
Rafael
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <6ngp1g$9...@umbc7.umbc.edu>, shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>
> M&P
>
>
> Is the following a fair summary of the facts thusfar?
>
> 1. The C responsum cited the R'ma, and asserted that the R'ma ruled
> that stam yeinam was acceptable for the Moravian Jews.
>
> 2. Those on scj who read that responsum disagree, claiming that
> the R'ma never permitted stam yeinam for Moravian Jews. Nobody on
> scj who has read the responsum has been able to find a single
> phrase in which the R'ma permits stam yeinam for Moravian Jews.
>
> 3. The C responsum cited the R'ma, but the citation was irrelevant
> to the thrust of the responsum (although it is not clear why the
> responsum was cited).
Check www.dejanews.com for Mister Kaiser's *original* posting on the C
responsum. In it, he explicity stated that the responsum based itself
heavily on the Tshuvat haRemah 124.
Of course Kaiser will (and actually did) deny he ever posted it but
what else is new ? :-)
Josh
Robert Kaiser
shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
>Is the following a fair summary of the facts thusfar?
>1. The C responsum cited the R'ma, and asserted that the R'ma ruled
>that stam yeinam was acceptable for the Moravian Jews.
It asserted that the Rama reluctantly admitted that there was
reason for leniency in this regard, and thus said that in our day,
we too should see if there are similar grounds for leniency.
>2. Those on scj who read that responsum disagree, claiming that
>the R'ma never permitted stam yeinam for Moravian Jews. Nobody on
>scj who has read the responsum has been able to find a single
>phrase in which the R'ma permits stam yeinam for Moravian Jews.
Um, _you_ did. I saw that your own translation showed this
permission quite clearly. But then you effectively removed it, by
adding a few words that you said would help explain it - but in fact
it seems your additions nearly reverse it's meaning.
>3. The C responsum cited the R'ma, but the citation was irrelevant
>to the thrust of the responsum (although it is not clear why the
>responsum was cited).
Oh, don't play games. All good teshuvot always quote from many
previous relevent halakhic literature. This is de rigeur.
>4. The C leniency was based on a finding the mass-produced
>wines are not touched human hands. Craig Winchell has disagreed,
>asserting that there is such contact.
Sometimes there is such contact. Sometimes there isn't. Where
there is no contact, as it is for the largest wine manufactorers, the
wine is considered kosher by the CJLS. And if I understand it correctly,
where there is such contact, such wine would not be kosher by the CJLS.
>5. The C leniency applies only to US-made mass-produced wines,
>but (presumably) not to wines made by small vintners.
Well, it applies to wine made with automated equipment. At
the time the teshuva was made, this was mostly applicable for American
only wines. Perhaps today, due to growth in the wine industry, and the
scaling up of production, its also applicable for some non-US wines
>6. The C leniency only applies in those cases in which it is
>unfeasible or impractical to refrain from stam yeinam.
Nope. The CJLS teshuva allows stam yeinam, for lay people, always.
However, for a totally separate reason, it notes that lay people should
prefer hekshered wine from Israel, and insists that all synagogue
functions use hekshered wine from Israel. This is to show out support
for the State of Israel. (Conservative Judaism is a religious Zionist
movement.)
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
I wonder if my Orthodox debating partners here remember their
own posts from just a few weeks ago. In the past, they claimed that
this teshuva of the Rama's was so liberal and dangerous, that many
people claimed it was a forgery. Some people here insisted that there
is no doubt - the Rama would never have made such a liberal and lenient
opinion, and thus it must be a fraud, written by somone else and
falsely published under his name.
Other editors throughout the years have been so scared by the
contents of his teshuva that they deliberately omitted it from many
collections of his teshuvot. (i.e. they censored it)
Yet now you all claim that there was nothing lenient in it? That
the teshuva does *nothing* at all, and that all it does is restate that
all stam yeinam is always treif? This by you is so shocking and
dangerous that much of Orthodoxy considers it a fraud? This restatement
of the Shulkhan Arukh is so dangerous that it should be censored?
Give it up, guys. It was censored and denied for a reason.
And that reason was _not_ that it said "I agree with the Shulkhan
Arukh, and will no lenient rulings to anyone, at anytime". It was
feared precisely because it was lenient - and this terrfies those
with an Orthodox mindset.
Robert Kaiser
Daniel B. Schwartz
>
>
> shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
> >Is the following a fair summary of the facts thusfar?
> >1. The C responsum cited the R'ma, and asserted that the R'ma ruled
> >that stam yeinam was acceptable for the Moravian Jews.
>
> It asserted that the Rama reluctantly admitted that there was
> reason for leniency in this regard, and thus said that in our day,
> we too should see if there are similar grounds for leniency.
So had the Rema not according to the CJLS found those alleged grounds, the
CJLS would have abandoned its' quest for a hter a well?
>
>
> >2. Those on scj who read that responsum disagree, claiming that
> >the R'ma never permitted stam yeinam for Moravian Jews. Nobody on
> >scj who has read the responsum has been able to find a single
> >phrase in which the R'ma permits stam yeinam for Moravian Jews.
>
>
> Um, _you_ did. I saw that your own translation showed this
> permission quite clearly. But then you effectively removed it, by
> adding a few words that you said would help explain it - but in fact
> it seems your additions nearly reverse it's meaning.
No Elliot simply made the text more clear.
>
>
> >3. The C responsum cited the R'ma, but the citation was irrelevant
> >to the thrust of the responsum (although it is not clear why the
> >responsum was cited).
>
>
> Oh, don't play games. All good teshuvot always quote from many
> previous relevent halakhic literature. This is de rigeur.
>
>
> >4. The C leniency was based on a finding the mass-produced
> >wines are not touched human hands. Craig Winchell has disagreed,
> >asserting that there is such contact.
>
> Sometimes there is such contact. Sometimes there isn't. Where
> there is no contact, as it is for the largest wine manufactorers, the
> wine is considered kosher by the CJLS. And if I understand it correctly,
> where there is such contact, such wine would not be kosher by the CJLS.
How is one to know the difference? I'm at a party at the home of a
non-Jew and there is wine being served by a waiter ona tray. How am I
supposed to know how the wine in a glass in front of me was prepared? Am I
expected to know how all wineries in the world produce theiw wine? Is it
reasonable for rabbis to think people will do that in order to rely on this
heter? I think not. CHACHAMIM HIZHARU B'DIVREICHEM. . .SHEMA YOGLU
LEMAKOM HAMAYIM HARAIM VEYISHTU.
>
>
> >5. The C leniency applies only to US-made mass-produced wines,
> >but (presumably) not to wines made by small vintners.
>
> Well, it applies to wine made with automated equipment. At
> the time the teshuva was made, this was mostly applicable for American
> only wines. Perhaps today, due to growth in the wine industry, and the
> scaling up of production, its also applicable for some non-US wines
>
>
> >6. The C leniency only applies in those cases in which it is
> >unfeasible or impractical to refrain from stam yeinam.
>
> Nope. The CJLS teshuva allows stam yeinam, for lay people, always.
> However, for a totally separate reason, it notes that lay people should
> prefer hekshered wine from Israel, and insists that all synagogue
> functions use hekshered wine from Israel. This is to show out support
> for the State of Israel. (Conservative Judaism is a religious Zionist
> movement.)
Or was it out of fear that assur wine might make it's wy into the
Conservative schuls? BTW I recently when to a bar-mitzva in a Conservative
schul (I davened at a local hashkama minyan beforehand). At the kiddush
there was a beautiful bottle of Courvasier cognac. I don't recall
Courvasier being made in Israel, nor do I recall a hechsher.
>
>
>
> Robert Kaiser
>
Daniel B. Schwartz
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote in article <1998Jul3.004212@hujicc>...
> In article <359bf...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
> >
> >
> > shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
> >>Is the following a fair summary of the facts thusfar?
> >>1. The C responsum cited the R'ma, and asserted that the R'ma ruled
> >>that stam yeinam was acceptable for the Moravian Jews.
> >
> > It asserted that the Rama reluctantly admitted that there was
> > reason for leniency in this regard, and thus said that in our day,
> > we too should see if there are similar grounds for leniency.
>
>
>
> So the C responsum *did* distort the text of the Rema ! Because the
Tshuvat
> haRema (124) NEVER "reluctantly admitted that there was reason for
leniency".
> This is totally fraudulent. I dare you to request Amitai Halevi or Hadass
> to read the tshuva (in its entirety on the website) and ask them whether
> the Rema EVER wrote what the C purport what he wrote.
>
> Too bad 18 months ago, we didn't scan in the ACHIEZER's ruling on
conversion
> when Lapidus quoted some C am ha'aretz with a diploma who totally
distorted and
> twisted what the Achiezer wrote.
>
> Josh
Well now we know what to do in the future.
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>OTOH, Mr. Kaiser maintains that the Rema's teshuva was only *mentioned*
>in the C responsum, and was not pivotal to its conclusion, which means
>that this is all just an exercise in proving Mr. Kaiser wrong about the
>Rema, and not about the C responsum itself
I don't just "maintain" this. It's an objective fact that
exists whether or not anyone accepts it. Rabbi Silverman's teshuva for
the CJLS does not rely on the Rama's teshuva. Why do you guys keep
implying that it does? Does it give you all pleasure to attack an
argument that doesn't exist?
Even if the Rama's teshuva never existed, all of your arguments
would be in vain, because the Silverman teshuva doesn't rely on it.
Why are people still pretending otherwise?
Robert
Robert Kaiser
"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> says:
>> Sometimes there is such contact. Sometimes there isn't. Where
>> there is no contact, as it is for the largest wine manufactorers, the
>> wine is considered kosher by the CJLS. And if I understand it correctly,
>> where there is such contact, such wine would not be kosher by the CJLS.
> How is one to know the difference? I'm at a party at the home of a
>non-Jew and there is wine being served by a waiter ona tray. How am I
>supposed to know how the wine in a glass in front of me was prepared? Am I
>expected to know how all wineries in the world produce theiw wine? Is it
>reasonable for rabbis to think people will do that in order to rely on this
>heter? I think not.
For the first time today, you actually have written a logical
and reasonable post. It contains to exagerations or lies. Impressive.
Yes, the position you point out above is reasonable, and in
fact this too is a Conservative position. Remember : Conservative
Jews are _allowed_ to rely on Silverman's teshuva for the CJLS. They
are not required to accept it.
Robert
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
Josh
>
>
>>2. Those on scj who read that responsum disagree, claiming that
>>the R'ma never permitted stam yeinam for Moravian Jews. Nobody on
>>scj who has read the responsum has been able to find a single
>>phrase in which the R'ma permits stam yeinam for Moravian Jews.
>
>
> Um, _you_ did. I saw that your own translation showed this
> permission quite clearly. But then you effectively removed it, by
> adding a few words that you said would help explain it - but in fact
> it seems your additions nearly reverse it's meaning.
>
>
>>3. The C responsum cited the R'ma, but the citation was irrelevant
>>to the thrust of the responsum (although it is not clear why the
>>responsum was cited).
>
>
> Oh, don't play games. All good teshuvot always quote from many
> previous relevent halakhic literature. This is de rigeur.
>
>
>>4. The C leniency was based on a finding the mass-produced
>>wines are not touched human hands. Craig Winchell has disagreed,
>>asserting that there is such contact.
>
> Sometimes there is such contact. Sometimes there isn't. Where
> there is no contact, as it is for the largest wine manufactorers, the
> wine is considered kosher by the CJLS. And if I understand it correctly,
> where there is such contact, such wine would not be kosher by the CJLS.
>
>
>>5. The C leniency applies only to US-made mass-produced wines,
>>but (presumably) not to wines made by small vintners.
>
> Well, it applies to wine made with automated equipment. At
> the time the teshuva was made, this was mostly applicable for American
> only wines. Perhaps today, due to growth in the wine industry, and the
> scaling up of production, its also applicable for some non-US wines
>
>
>>6. The C leniency only applies in those cases in which it is
>>unfeasible or impractical to refrain from stam yeinam.
>
> Nope. The CJLS teshuva allows stam yeinam, for lay people, always.
> However, for a totally separate reason, it notes that lay people should
> prefer hekshered wine from Israel, and insists that all synagogue
> functions use hekshered wine from Israel. This is to show out support
> for the State of Israel. (Conservative Judaism is a religious Zionist
> movement.)
>
>
>
> Robert Kaiser
David Ellis
Robert Kaiser presented his interpretation of the Rema (Rabbi Moshe
Isserles) on this issue.
"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I really don't understand what you are syaing here. Can you please explain
>it?
If I may be so bold as to summarize, I understand Robert's take on the
Rema to be that prohibitions of consumption of stam yeinam (wine
handled by gentiles) are not an issue of kashrut, but rather an issue
of separation from idolatry and prevention of intermarriage. It is
further posited that some authorities and communities allow the
drinking of stam yeinam. This appears to provide some justification
for a modern position that is permissive on the question of stam
yeinam.
hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) wrote:
>Quote the Rama exactly if you are not lying. In Hebrew. and then
>everyone who knows Hebrew can do their own translation. If you are not
>lying prove it.
This is not a matter of lying; it's how Robert reads and understands
the text. He may be inaccurate; I can't judge that. But that doesn't
make him dishonest.
I consider it fair game for others to present their reading of the
same text. But let's treat this as an honest difference of opinion.
Can we make it through a discussion without namecalling?
--
David J Ellis
92 Wilson Drive / Framingham, MA 01702
d...@mkitso.ultranet.com
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
In article <1998Jul3.004212@hujicc>,
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Too bad 18 months ago, we didn't scan in the ACHIEZER's ruling on conversion
> when Lapidus quoted some C am ha'aretz with a diploma who totally distorted
and
> twisted what the Achiezer wrote.
Dr. Backon,
I look forward to your contacting the individual in question, whom I believe
you know, Rabbi David Golinkin. Then, you'll see who the actual "a.h." is.
Perhaps, you would prefer it that I forward your words to Rabbi Golinkin and
his colleagues? Keep maligning him and I might very well, as you are aware.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Zev Sero
On 2 Jul 98, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) wrote:
> zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>>Did the C teshuva say, or did it not, that modern production of wine
>>takes place without contact by human hand? We have Craig Winchell's
>>testimony that this is false.
> Huh? Testimony? Zev, we are talking about a published teshuva.
>It says what it says. When someone talk about it, it's not "testimony".
> Stop pretending that truth is relative and malleable.
<bashes head against Kaiserian wall> Yes, we are talking about a
published teshuva, and I asked whether it says what I recall you saying
that it says, or my recollection of your quote is faulty and it doesn't
say that (or alternatively that you misquoted it). Because the
assertion (which it may or may not make) is a false one, and for that
we have Craig's testimony. You seem to have this notion that truth is
relative and malleable, and dictated by what is in published books;
it isn't, and if a published book makes a claim that does not accord
with reality, then reality is right and the book is wrong.
>>Did the C teshuva say, or was this your own fabrication, that the
>>Rema, in Teshuvot Harama 124, permitted goyishe wine to one community?
>>It is a fact that he did not.
> Are you insane? It is a fact that he did, and a fellow Orthodox
>Jew just printed its translation here!
Yes, he did, and that translation was in accord with those supplied by
Josh, Jonathan and yours truly. All four of us have read this alleged
teshuva, while you have not; and all four of us are in agreement that
whatever its true provenance, it does not say what you claimed that it
said, and in particular the author maintained that the Moravian custom
he discusses, of drinking goyishe wine, is wrong, and that he did not
permit that community to continue this unlawful custom.
> Then again, look who I'm talking to. You are a messianic Jew
>who thinks its Ok for Jews to worshp Jesus Christ or Menachem Schneerson
>as the messiah. I think that says enough about your so-called Jewish
>credibility.
You are a liar, your lies have been exposed over and over again, and
nobody who has read your output for more than a short while can treat
anything you write has having the slightest correlation with the truth.
You are always the first to accuse others of libel and slander, but you
regularly defame others. Kaiser, if you told me that it was raining,
I'd put away my umbrella at once.
--
Zev Sero, posting from Washington DC
zs...@bigfoot.com
Zev Sero
>> You are a messianic Jew
>>who thinks its Ok for Jews to worshp Jesus Christ or Menachem Schneerson
>>as the messiah. I think that says enough about your so-called Jewish
>>credibility.
>>if your not going to play nice robert we're not going to play
> Steve, why would you say such a thing? In fact, I have
>continually come out *against* such positions.
Sanguinary cheeses (now there's an image for you), you really are
an idiot. Gmachine was *quoting you*. Yes, his indentation was
screwed up, probably using some retarded software that doesn't
quote properly, but can't you recognise your own words when they're
quoted back at you? Merry mother of gold! (it's like mother of pearl
but more expensive)
> The only Jew here who holds such positions is Zev Sero.
I do not
> Are you not aware of this?
Nobody but you has access to your internal fantasy life, Kaiser
>Also, many of Zev's fellow Orthodox Jews took him to task for his
>bizarre beliefs quite recently. Did you miss all those posts?
> Look, its no slur or lie. Zev Sero really did promote these
>positions as being within halakha (Jewish law).
I did not
> And all his fellow Orthodox Jews attacked him for these beliefs!
Nobody but you claimed that I supported idolatry.
Moshe Shulman
>From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
>zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) says:
>>Let me get this straight, Kaiser - you have not read the teshuva;
>>indeed, you show no signs of being capable of reading Rabbinic Hebrew
>>at all. I've read the teshuva, Josh has read it, Jonathan's read it,
>>and Elliot's read it, and we all agree on what it says. But you
>>continue to insist that it says what you think it says, and that
we're
>>all consipiring to lie about it.
>the Rama accepts that there is legitimate halakhic basis for allowing
>gentile wine. He dos this reluctantly, and is afraid that this
>conclusion may be misused, bu he does so anyways. Look, how can you
>accept Elliot's conclusions, yet refuse to read his own translation?
Robert, Josh was kind enough to email me a scanned image of the
tshuva, which I have printed out. Even though it is difficult to read
the meaning is clear. In fact until now NO ONE has explained the
tshuva and what it is about properly. Let me explain it. There is an
halacha, if X is not careful with some halacha he is not trusted in
that. For example if X doesn't eat kosher food on purpose, he cannot
be trusted to say that a food is kosher. (There is a similar din with
regards to a sofer who writes tephilin d'rabbanu Tam. If he doesn't
wear then, then they are not kosher.) The question was about those
people if they could be trusted. The Rema tries to produce some type
of argument to show that they are shogig, so that one can purchase
wine from them. He states clearly that they are wrong, but tries to
make some sevorah that the custom they have is one of error, and not
wilful violation. At then end he states clearly that one should NOT
USE this,and the one who does HaShem should forgive him.
>A tiny group of fundmentalists on this newsgroup are terribly
>uncomfortable the the Rama made one tiny exception for one group. If
I am not uncomfortable with the line of argument. Anyone familiar
with Reb Moshe's tshuva on milk, sees a similar line of argument in
allowing it.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website
rafael
Robert Kaiser wrote:
>
> Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
> >OTOH, Mr. Kaiser maintains that the Rema's teshuva was only *mentioned*
> >in the C responsum, and was not pivotal to its conclusion, which means
> >that this is all just an exercise in proving Mr. Kaiser wrong about the
> Even if the Rama's teshuva never existed, all of your arguments
> would be in vain, because the Silverman teshuva doesn't rely on it.
> Why are people still pretending otherwise?
I'm not pretending otherwise. You edited out my request that you (or
someone else who possesses it) post the Silverman responsum (or at least
those parts which deal with the Rema teshuva). This way you will have
have a counter argument to those who transliterated and/or placed on the
web the Rema teshuva. Of course, if you're being as honest and
forthcoming about the Silverman responsum as you've been about the Rema
teshuva...
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
David Ellis (d...@mkitso.ultranet.com) wrote:
: This is not a matter of lying; it's how Robert reads and understands
: the text. He may be inaccurate; I can't judge that. But that doesn't
: make him dishonest.
He is honest enough so that he never claimed to produce his own
translation or reading of the teshuvah.
His confuision most probably comes from the following:
Rema says "we trust them in the kashrut of wine", i.e. they
have a status of people who are mistaken only, not willful
violators, therefore their testimony is trusted - wine is probably
only an example. RK - or his source - confuses it that we trust them
in the kashrut of that particular wine - for, as it seems, no
reasons.
: same text. But let's treat this as an honest difference of opinion.
: Can we make it through a discussion without namecalling?
So, it seems that according to Rema reasoning we should treat RK as
honestly mistaken - but the fact that he goes on a limb and refuses
to read what people write after spending some effort to research the topic
wuld make him a willful violator, assuming his psychological condition
allows it.
a bigger question is - why so many posters insist on argueing with
him even if they see that they only provoke a person to post
idicy - it is not good regardless of whether he is a boor or a sick 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 (-:
Harry Weiss
Robert Kaiser (kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu) wrote:
: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> saysal heter.
: >
: > Now you're just being silly. It has been proven by multiple people that
: >what you say is wrong. Just accept that.
: No, multiple people have dleiberate spread lies about the Rema,
: just as you have spread lies about Rabbis Lamm and Roth. But a tiny
: handul of lying fanatics can't rewrite Jewish history, no matter how
: hard they try. Honestly, you and your buddies wouldn't last ten
: seconds at JTS.
: > And that is poor rabbinic policy. Tell me Kaiser do you think it
: >appropriate for a Conservative rabbi to give a hechsher to a resteraunt
: >that serves meat and milk if all the products are kosher? Would that not
: >imply an endorsement of eating basar bechalav, an inducement to sin?
: Folks, be aware that Daniel is a pathological liar. The fact is
: that Conservative rabbis don't give hekshers to restauarants; they are
: not in the kashrut certification industry. Daniel's implications to
: the contrary are pure fiction.
I just go in the latest issue of Kashrus Magazine today. It lists a
Rabbi William Berman of the Commack Jewish Center (Conservative) as
giving a number of Hashgachot. (e.g. Shop rite brand string cheese)
Rabbi Jay, since Kaiser paskended C Rabbis can't give Hashgachot you have
to run, don't walk, to the RA to have this Rabbi Berman thrown out for
violating the Halachaot in according with the Tzumishte Rebbe, Reb Kaiser.
: Robert
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Harry Weiss
ltranet.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
David Ellis (d...@mkitso.ultranet.com) wrote:
: Robert Kaiser presented his interpretation of the Rema (Rabbi Moshe
: Isserles) on this issue.
: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: >I really don't understand what you are syaing here. Can you please explain
: >it?
: If I may be so bold as to summarize, I understand Robert's take on the
: Rema to be that prohibitions of consumption of stam yeinam (wine
: handled by gentiles) are not an issue of kashrut, but rather an issue
: of separation from idolatry and prevention of intermarriage. It is
: further posited that some authorities and communities allow the
: drinking of stam yeinam. This appears to provide some justification
: for a modern position that is permissive on the question of stam
: yeinam.
: hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) wrote:
: >Quote the Rama exactly if you are not lying. In Hebrew. and then
: >everyone who knows Hebrew can do their own translation. If you are not
: >lying prove it.
: This is not a matter of lying; it's how Robert reads and understands
: the text. He may be inaccurate; I can't judge that. But that doesn't
: make him dishonest.
: I consider it fair game for others to present their reading of the
: same text. But let's treat this as an honest difference of opinion.
: Can we make it through a discussion without namecalling?
He claims to be quoting the Rama in a way that is 100% the opposite of
everyone who has read the answer which is available on Daniel's web site.
I am asking Kaiser to quote which phrase says that it is allowed. He
repeats over and over that it is prohibited, but does not want to call
the people of Moravia sinners, but says they are just misinformed.
If Kaiser has a part of the Rama's answer that we have not seen let him
scan it and post it.
: --
: David J Ellis
: 92 Wilson Drive / Framingham, MA 01702
: d...@mkitso.ultranet.com
Craig Winchell
Robert Kaiser <kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu> wrote in article
<359ba...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>
> "Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> saysal heter.
(snipped)
> Folks, be aware that Daniel is a pathological liar. The fact is
> that Conservative rabbis don't give hekshers to restauarants; they are
> not in the kashrut certification industry. Daniel's implications to
> the contrary are pure fiction.
B"H
Perhaps they don't as individuals, but there are several "kosher"
restaurants in Philadelphia which are under the certification of the
Rabbinical Assembly, which (the last I heard) is the conservative
rabbinical group. Now, I put quotation marks around kosher to indicate
that I *do not know* whether they fulfill all of the halachic requirements
for kashrus. I would, however, not eat in one of these establishments,
because I could not trust that my standards are met.
The bottom line, however, is that Conservative rabbis *do* become involved
in certification of restaurants, contrary to Robert's contention.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
>
>
> Robert
>
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <359c0...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>, kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>
> Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>>OTOH, Mr. Kaiser maintains that the Rema's teshuva was only *mentioned*
>>in the C responsum, and was not pivotal to its conclusion, which means
>>that this is all just an exercise in proving Mr. Kaiser wrong about the
>>Rema, and not about the C responsum itself
>
>
> exists whether or not anyone accepts it. Rabbi Silverman's teshuva for
> the CJLS does not rely on the Rama's teshuva. Why do you guys keep
> implying that it does? Does it give you all pleasure to attack an
> argument that doesn't exist?
Since Mister Kaiser vacillates between sayimg Silver DIDDID rely vs. saying
he did NOT rely on the Tshuvat haRema (124), I ask Mister Kaiser to kindly
post the precise source for obtaining the Silverman responsum so that I
and others can read IN THE ORIGINAL text what is going on. If necessary,
the relevant part will be scanned in and posted on the net.
>
> Even if the Rama's teshuva never existed, all of your arguments
> would be in vain, because the Silverman teshuva doesn't rely on it.
> Why are people still pretending otherwise?
>
God help you if I and others find that Silverman "heavily relied" on
the Tshuvat haRemah 124 as you yourself stated in your original post on the
subject (which can be checked via www.dejanews.com).
Josh
>
> Robert
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <6nhg6q$lei$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jlap...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> In article <1998Jul3.004212@hujicc>,
> bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>> Too bad 18 months ago, we didn't scan in the ACHIEZER's ruling on conversion
>> when Lapidus quoted some C am ha'aretz with a diploma who totally distorted
> and
>> twisted what the Achiezer wrote.
>
> Dr. Backon,
>
> I look forward to your contacting the individual in question, whom I believe
> you know, Rabbi David Golinkin. Then, you'll see who the actual "a.h." is.
>
> Perhaps, you would prefer it that I forward your words to Rabbi Golinkin and
> his colleagues? Keep maligning him and I might very well, as you are aware.
Rabbi Lapidus, are you threatening me ? It's bad enough you posted terrible
LASHON HA'RA about me publicly on RAVNET (the closed listserv discussion
group of C rabbis).
I don't tolerate threats and I detest the twisting and distorting of texts
to fit an agenda. Why is it that no Orthodox person on SCJ ever for a moment
hesitated in accepting at face value Talmudic texts which Amitai Halevi had
posted ? Although Amitai is totally secular in outlook, he has enormous
personal integrity and NO ONE on SCJ would ever have doubts on what he posts.
DejaNews will show how the C distorted and twisted the text of the ACHIEZER
on conversion to fit their agenda. I regret to this day that I didn't think
of scanning in the text, placing the text on the net, and have a neutral
party (like Amitai or Hadass) read it and see who read the text correctly.
BTW don't think for a second I'm intimidated by your threats to *inform*
(or to use the halachic term MOSER with all its halachic implications) on
me to Ted, Jacob, Josh A., Pessach, Reuven, etc. They need me more than
I need them. It reminds me of the following scene from a 1947 movie:
A very shabbily dressed man is escorted by the house detective from the
hotel lobby. He turns to the detective and says, "Son, you're making a big
mistake". The guard asks why and the shabbily dressed man replies, "BECAUSE
I HAPPEN TO **OWN** THIS HOTEL !" :-)
V'ha'mayvin yavin et ha'remez.
Josh
Eliot Shimoff
In article <359bf...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
>
>
>shi...@umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) says:
Eliot:
>>Is the following a fair summary of the facts thusfar?
>>1. The C responsum cited the R'ma, and asserted that the R'ma ruled
>>that stam yeinam was acceptable for the Moravian Jews.
Robert:
> It asserted that the Rama reluctantly admitted that there was
>reason for leniency in this regard, and thus said that in our day,
>we too should see if there are similar grounds for leniency.
Everyone agrees that the R'ma was lenient. The question is lenient
about _what_? From what I can tell (based on reading the responmsum),
the R'ma was lenient in accepting the credibility of the Moravians.
You (based, I assume, on a seconday source) believe otherwise.
Could you check the text of the C responsum to see whether
it refers to the R'ma's position as lenient (accurate, IMHO), or
whether it explicitly claims that the R'ma permitted stam yeinam
for the Moravians.
Eliot:
>>2. Those on scj who read that responsum disagree, claiming that
>>the R'ma never permitted stam yeinam for Moravian Jews. Nobody on
>>scj who has read the responsum has been able to find a single
>>phrase in which the R'ma permits stam yeinam for Moravian Jews.
Robert:
> Um, _you_ did. I saw that your own translation showed this
>permission quite clearly. But then you effectively removed it, by
>adding a few words that you said would help explain it - but in fact
>it seems your additions nearly reverse it's meaning.
I give up on this one. I see no way of reading the R'ma as permitting
stam yeinam. More to the point ... you are at best relying on exegesis
of a translation. If the R'ma really permitted stam yeinam for the
Moravians, wouldn't he have said so explicitly _somewhere_ in the
responsum? But he did not. Not anywhere.
Eliot:
>>3. The C responsum cited the R'ma, but the citation was irrelevant
>>to the thrust of the responsum (although it is not clear why the
>>responsum was cited).
Robert:
> Oh, don't play games. All good teshuvot always quote from many
>previous relevent halakhic literature. This is de rigeur.
I suspect that I've been through more responsa than you; don't
accuse me of playing games. The introductions to doctoral dissertations
are thorough reviews of all the relevant literatures, designed to impress
the reader with the author's scholarship. Responsa (like journal
articles) only cite the _relevant_ literature.
I have not reads many C responsa, but I fimnd it difficult to
imagine that they would cite (and presumably discuss) an irrelevant
R'ma.
...
Eliot:
>>6. The C leniency only applies in those cases in which it is
>>unfeasible or impractical to refrain from stam yeinam.
Robert:
> Nope. The CJLS teshuva allows stam yeinam, for lay people, always.
The "unfeasible and impractical" was from your posting on the kashrut
of wines. I assumed that your posting reflected the accepted C
position. (In fact, I thought it was quoting R. Klein.)
If your posting did _not_ accurately reflect the C position, then
I apologize for raising it, and am glad the your clarified it.
Eliot Shimoff
>own posts from just a few weeks ago. In the past, they claimed that
>this teshuva of the Rama's was so liberal and dangerous, that many
>people claimed it was a forgery. Some people here insisted that there
>is no doubt - the Rama would never have made such a liberal and lenient
>opinion, and thus it must be a fraud, written by somone else and
>falsely published under his name.
Yes, I remember. In fact, I posted some of the material.
> Other editors throughout the years have been so scared by the
>contents of his teshuva that they deliberately omitted it from many
>collections of his teshuvot. (i.e. they censored it)
No, Robert. Not scared. Many scholars felt, with some
justification, that this responsum was not written by the R'ma.
It is not a bizarre suspicion. The R'ma himself never cites it,
and it is inconsistent with other decisions that we _know_
are his.
Robert:
> Yet now you all claim that there was nothing lenient in it? That
>the teshuva does *nothing* at all, and that all it does is restate that
>all stam yeinam is always treif? This by you is so shocking and
>dangerous that much of Orthodoxy considers it a fraud? This restatement
>of the Shulkhan Arukh is so dangerous that it should be censored?
The leniency was that the Moravians could be trusted to say that
Wine X is kosher, even though they themselves drink non-kosher wine.
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
In article <1998Jul3.103714@hujicc>,
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> In article <6nhg6q$lei$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jlap...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > In article <1998Jul3.004212@hujicc>,
> > bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
> >
> >> Too bad 18 months ago, we didn't scan in the ACHIEZER's ruling on
conversion
> >> when Lapidus quoted some C am ha'aretz with a diploma who totally distorted
> > and
> >> twisted what the Achiezer wrote.
> >
> > Dr. Backon,
> >
> > I look forward to your contacting the individual in question, whom I believe
> > you know, Rabbi David Golinkin. Then, you'll see who the actual "a.h." is.
> >
> > Perhaps, you would prefer it that I forward your words to Rabbi Golinkin and
> > his colleagues? Keep maligning him and I might very well, as you are aware.
>
> Rabbi Lapidus, are you threatening me ? It's bad enough you posted terrible
> LASHON HA'RA about me publicly on RAVNET (the closed listserv discussion
> group of C rabbis).
You and I have discussed this in private. Suffice it to say in public that I
disagree with your characterization.
> I don't tolerate threats and I detest the twisting and distorting of texts
> to fit an agenda. Why is it that no Orthodox person on SCJ ever for a moment
> hesitated in accepting at face value Talmudic texts which Amitai Halevi had
> posted ? Although Amitai is totally secular in outlook, he has enormous
> personal integrity and NO ONE on SCJ would ever have doubts on what he posts.
>
> DejaNews will show how the C distorted and twisted the text of the ACHIEZER
> on conversion to fit their agenda.
[snip]
Josh,
Since you do not approve, and rightly so, of Lashon Ha'Ra, it behooves you to
bring your concerns directly to Rabbi Golinkin, instead of maligning him on
SCJ. If you can demonstrate to him that he erred or was unclear, then I'm
sure that he would update his teshuva. Rabbi Shulman noted that R' Feinstein
z"l to his zechut had done that at least three times.
In the remainder of your post, you say that certain individuals need you more
than you need them. Doesn't that sound rather grandiose?
Kol tuv,
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
******************************
http://members.tripod.com/~jlapidus/index.html
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
In article <hjweissE...@netcom.com>,
hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) wrote:
> Rabbi Jay, since Kaiser paskended C Rabbis can't give Hashgachot you have
> to run, don't walk, to the RA to have this Rabbi Berman thrown out for
> violating the Halachaot in according with the Tzumishte Rebbe, Reb Kaiser.
I have to run to get MYSELF thrown out of the RA! Last year, when I was on
Long Island, I supervised a local deli. It was patronized only by people
like my congregants in a predominantly non-Jewish area. We local rabbis do
get involved, but usually under limited circumstances. In my new location, I
need not and will not get involved in kashrut supervision. It is too time
consuming for a congregational rabbi.
The Philadelphia Region of the Rabbinical Assembly is the only region that
does kashrut certification as an organization within the Conservative
movement. They do a good job and have credibility, in private, with the
local O community.
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> d...@mkitso.ultranet.com (David Ellis) writes:
>"Daniel B. Schwartz" <schwa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Robert Kaiser presented his interpretation of the Rema (Rabbi Moshe
>Isserles) on this issue.
>>I really don't understand what you are syaing here. Can you please explain
>>it?
>If I may be so bold as to summarize, I understand Robert's take on the
>Rema to be that prohibitions of consumption of stam yeinam (wine
>handled by gentiles) are not an issue of kashrut, but rather an issue
>of separation from idolatry and prevention of intermarriage. It is
>further posited that some authorities and communities allow the
>drinking of stam yeinam. This appears to provide some justification
None of us have found any reference to authorities and communities
which "allow the drinking of stam yeinam". Not in that teshuva,
not in the other sources Robert alluded to, etc. Do you have some
documented source which allows drinking stam yeinam (other than
Conservative sources)?
>for a modern position that is permissive on the question of stam
>yeinam.
If such sources existed, yes, they could serve as such a basis.
However, Robert has not yet presented any such sources. Yes,
the 16th-century Moravian Jews drank stam yeinam, but there was
no authoritative ruling permitting them to do so, nor could the
Rema find any reasonable rationale for permitting them to do so.
>hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) wrote:
>>Quote the Rama exactly if you are not lying. In Hebrew. and then
>>everyone who knows Hebrew can do their own translation. If you are not
>>lying prove it.
>This is not a matter of lying; it's how Robert reads and understands
>the text. He may be inaccurate; I can't judge that. But that doesn't
>make him dishonest.
The point is that Robert *cannot* read the text, much less understand
it. He can only read secondary and tertiary sources in English. So
he's defending a (possible misreading of) a Conservative rabbi's
understanding of this teshuvah. Since half a dozen of us have actually
read the teshuvah and realize that it does not say what Robert thinks
it ought to, and have pointed this out, Robert has called us all liars.
In fact, since he cannot read the responsum, yet claims to be be the
authoritative source on the real meaning of the responsum, and his
understanding disagrees with that of the 5-6 people here who have
actually read the responsum in the original Hebrew, he is indeed being
dishonest.
>I consider it fair game for others to present their reading of the
>same text. But let's treat this as an honest difference of opinion.
>Can we make it through a discussion without namecalling?
If it were clear that all sides were reading the same text in good
faith, yes. However, it is quite clear that the "O side" is reading
the text in the original, and the "Kaiser side" (N.B. not the "C side")
is not.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com