While I usually find myself diametrically opposed to most of what Yaakov Ne’eman stands for, I actually partially agree with him here, at least with the sentiment.

The Israeli legal system today, is based on English common law. This is not unlike the rest of the colonized, and ex-colonized world. If you will, the prevailing legal system in the world today is one of the most pronounced relics of European colonialism.

When people get all worked up about Sharia law, or Halacha in a modern governance, what I hear is a certain white-elitism that assumes that any legal system besides one based on Western common law is barbaric. If we put the shoe on the other foot, it would be like saying that English common law is barbaric, because what could possibly be more cruel and violent than having someone hanged drawn and quartered?

I don’t think there is a reason why a system based on Muslim or Jewish law cannot be as progressive as any other Western/Christian system. Besides the sensational halachos that we all bring up when this is discussed (like the cartoon above), Jewish law is a comprehensive, evolving, system that touches everything from criminal, property, and family law.

The Talmud is a sophisticated canon of law, that rivals any of it’s contemporary systems. It is probably one of the reasons why the Romans were never able to pacify Judea: The “civilization” they imported was not adopted, because it was not needed, Judea was a mature and functioning society.

I think this is still the truth in modern times. We get all worked up about Islamic states, but if we looked at it in the context of colonialism, the backlash is very obvious.

What is interesting is that marriage is viewed differently in other cultures; here in the west it is the ostensible outcome of romantic love, which actually is a new concept and which is not recognized in other parts of the world. In many traditions, marriage was and is a way of forging ties between families and tribes. In my Pakistani exhusband’s family, it was a way to protect and increase the family wealth.

I never, ever, once said I agreed that instituting Halakha would be a good thing.

Every comment you made here regarding halacha indicated that you approve of it strongly. You argued that halacha is essentially not archaic and that anything in halacha that is is essentially ignored. You added that instituting halacha as the operative law of Israel would impose no marked change on Israel. You attacked me for criticizing Neiman for arguing that halacha should be the law of the land. Yet now you wish to claim that you don’t support Neiman’s proposal, something you never ever said earlier. Well despite your hatred, you now concede you agree with my position though of course you would refuse to say it in those words.

If that was indeed the case, then I stand corrected.

Don’t believe me. Believe Myron. He wrote it himself in this very comment thread & in a private e mail to me. Your original reason for coming here & slamming me was yr claim that Haaretz & I deliberately took Neiman’s remarks out of context & they they dealt solely with halachic monetary/fiscal policy. Myron himself wrote here that the remarks were unforgiveable & disturbing to him because they could easily be interpreted as saying much more than that. Further, Myron wrote that Neiman’s attempt to clarify his earlier remarks were just as bad as the original remarks. In other words, Myron though perhaps not in every word, essentially agreed w. my perspective. And now you say you’re willing to stand corrected & perhaps Neiman did say something like what the Haaretz article & I did write. Don’t you think you could’ve saved us all the strurm und drang by reading Myron’s comments more closely to begin with? Hey, I don’t care that you don’t like me & don’t believe anything I say. That’s fine. The feeling is pretty mutual. But the sheer fact of yr obtuseness & myopia in not seeing Myron’s comment right in front of yr nose is frustrating beyond measure.

don’t use Yiddish, it’s a garbage language.

Don’t ever, ever write that here again. That is the height of disrespect toward a sacred portion of my Jewish identity & I will simply not allow this type of Jewish boorishness. If you do, you will not comment here again.

that does not justify you in making rash statements without any evidence

Oh, you mean a report in Israel’s most distinguished newspaper, Haaretz, on which my post was based, is considered “not any evidence?” The link to Haaretz & quotation fr. it are clear in this post & yet you are so presumptuous as to claim I had no basis whatsoever for making the claim I did. And your evidence to the contrary is the Jerusalem Post, Israel’s leading neocon newspaper & Yeshiva World??

I never once insulted you

You call me “delusional?” I’m afraid you have absolutely no concept of reality if you can write what you write & claim these were not insults.

your comments indicate profound dishonesty, and more dishonesty, both of which they did, and neither of which is an insult, because I did not actually make the claim that you are dishonest.

You wrote that I was “intellectually dishonest” or some similar phrase & yet stand before my readers & claim you did call me dishonest. It’s not you who should pity me, but I should pity you since you clearly don’t have any idea of what you’re writing.

Not once did I resort to name calling, except when I called you ignorant

“Not once did I call you a name except when I did.”

Never did I claim that my word is right. I claimed that yours were wrong

Your rhetoric reminds me of a kitten chasing its tail. When you claim that your interpretation of halacha or its impact on Jewish society is correct & another person’s is wrong that means you’re claiming your word is right. Sorry, but this is elementary rhetoric & you can’t get around it no matter how much you try.

You made a number of claims that are contrary to the facts. I have demonstrated that

Actually, you haven’t. I asked you to do so in my last reply to you & you still haven’t demonstrated any claim I made to be contrary to facts.

I gave about 8 examples of how your blunt comparison between Shariah and Halakha is completely inadequate, and how basically nothing could possibly take effect even if we instituted the Halakhic system, a claim which you denied (and continue to deny)

Actually, I never made any comparison between Sharia and Halacha in my post or in the comments. Though perhaps you’re again showing how intellectually sloppy you are by attributing views to me that another commenter expressed, which shows you don’t have enough respect for anyone here to articulate your ideas & research them carefully.

you made up a Halakha completely

Once again you make a claim w/o providing any reference to what you’re talking about.

I gave four examples of people who are CLEARLY above me (and it’s funny you characterize them as Conservative, seeing as Lieberman was 100% Orthodox and Weiss-Halivni left JTS to start a more Orthodox institution.

You didn’t say anything about them being clearly above you. In fact, in the context of claiming that my knowledge was poor at least in part because of the insufficiency of the institution where I was educated (JTS), you said that if several of the greatest Talmudists who’ve taught at JTS claimed something was false, it would still be false.

Saul Lieberman wasn’t a Talmudist at YU. He was a scholar who spent his life teaching at JTS. So claiming he was Orthodox while he embraced a Conservative Jewish seminary seems odd. David Weiss was my Talmud teacher at JTS, not my favorite by any means. But I studied with him and he seemed happy at the time to be teaching there. In fact, he was on the faculty for many years. Besides, you yoked all these scholars together because they taught at JTS and because it was where I got my degree. So saying they were Orthodox is completely besides the point.

I would just as well have ridiculed you for using your “degree” as proof of anything

As a rule, I hardly ever talk about my “authority” or degrees. I only do when under attack from people like you who seek to disparage my knowledge. But contrary to yr view, degrees DO mean something. A degree from JTS has value and authority though clearly not w. you. But that’s much more a reflection on yr misanthropy toward some of yr fellow Jews than it reflects any reality.

you claimed it meant unclean. In your response, you included impure as a possibility, which is far more accurate.

Really, there is a distinction there that no one except you seems to understand. The distinction appears to be in yr own mind alone. They are clearly synonyms when used in a ritual context. When used in connection with menstruation and other rules governing behavior & treatment of women the meaning “unclean” is entirely warranted. Men are forbidden to have sex with their wives when they are menstruating because menstrual blood is viewed as “unclean.” And this is a halachic context so your claim falls like a house of cards. And the halachic online reference to which I linked in a recent reply to you supports both meanings.

this whole conversation has, from the start, been predicated on your hatred Orthodox Jews

That is a LIE. Another one of my comment rules prohibits such deliberate falsifications of others views. I have said to you that I admire and respect many Orthodox Jews. I am a student of Judaism and hating Orthodox Jews would mean I hate aspects of my own tradition. I strongly disagree with SOME Orthodox Jews regarding their politics, their views of Israel and their halachic interpretations of tradition. Some is not all. Where do you get off lying about this? Or do you not understand the words I’ve written?

I’M NOT ORTHODOX!

Good for you. I guess it’s a game of gotcha for you. I’m not sure what all of this is proving. If you’re not Orthodox you were at one time & clearly some of the same angry, intolerant, judgmental attitudes that infect some Orthodox attitudes is retained within you.

I’m deeply weary of whatever this is–a dialogue of the deaf. Normally, I politely ask people who’ve published thousands of words in a single comment thread & who I’ve grown tired of reading & responding to to leave the thread and not respond further. I also encourage them to contribute to other threads. Clearly, you don’t have any respect for anything I would ask of you, so I’m going to pre-empt that courtesy and suspend yr comment privileges. You’re one nasty piece of work and I prefer dealing with people who have less hate and anger in them. And aside from the reasons above, you have violated my comment rules multiple times by smearing me with claims that are deliberately falsified & other violations.

“If you are sincere in this (& I don’t frankly see much sincerity in anything you’ve written) then you would be dismantling one of Israel’s prime security weapons. Frankly, I doubt you would really be willing to do this. But if so, then I say bravo, sincerely.”

You doubt I would do this? Well who cares? This stereotyping people into oblivion without actually listening to what they say explains a lot about how you argue.

“Actually, that’s not the case. The IDF ethics code, deficient as it is, was drawn up by noted Orthodox Rabbi Moshe Halbertal and Prof. Asa Kasher. Being an Orthodox rabbi of course Halbertal introduced elements & consideration of halacha into the code he drafted. So once again what you claim isn’t quite precise. Regardless of all this, the current code is not only insufficient, it isn’t even honored in the breach, so it’s pretty much a piece of paper. But if under yr system halacha would be TRULY adhered to in war, then the IDF would be fighting a much diff. fight than it is now.”

“Halakhic elements in an ethical code” and Halakha are two VERY VERY different things. I don’t have the patience to explain why that is the case step by step. I’ll trust other readers to do that for me.

“Perhaps you should pay attention to what he said. He was OUTRAGED by Neiman’s statements. He found them entirely overstated AND he found Neiman’s attempt to explain himself to be inadequate. This is a fellow Orthodox Jew who disagrees w. yr perspective on these comments. And Myron said that despite the fact that the context in which the comments were made was a discussion of fiscal policy, that Neiman’s comments didn’t restrict themselves to monetary policy, but rather made sweeping claims about halacha that went far beyond that.”

See, this is what I love about this stereotyping you do (should I cry intolerance? prejudice? bigotry? I’d be justified, that’s for sure.) I never, ever, once said I agreed that instituting Halakha would be a good thing. As far as I’m concerned, another opportunity to increase Shas’s ability to game the system is the last thing anyone needs. But you decided to assume I thought this was the best of ideas anyway, because you don’t actually argue based on what people say, but rather, what you want them to say. (oooooh another word for you, straw-man arguments! A straw-man argument is when someone does what you do.)

If that was indeed the case, then I stand corrected. In every article I saw, I did not see any indication that Neeman was saying anything of the sort. The only line that was ever quoted was “this is how we should bring in Halakha into the legal system, step by step.” If this guy knows more than I do, then I have no reason not to trust him. I haven’t been following the system since then (because frankly, it’s being given attention for the same reason that Mark Sanford’s affair got attention) and it’s quite possible that his response, or other quotes, made the context clearer. However, that does not justify you in making rash statements without any evidence, and despite evidence to the contrary.

“If I had to trust your perspective or Myron’s on this I’d choose his any day of the week.”

Back to the arguments from authority again!

“I mentioned a few representative unpalatable practices of those who adhere to halacha & you pretend that those are the only objectionable practices that exist in its corpus. THey were REPRESENTATIVE examples, not meant to be exhaustive. There are scores, if not hundreds of such practices that non-halachic Jews would scream bloody murder about if they were forced to comply w. them.”

No, you didn’t. You mentioned two. One (women walking behind men) is based on a more aggadic piece in Kiddushin that the majority of the Halakhic world does not follow. Not only that, but even where it is adhered to, it is broken regularly, and the Halakha does not prescribe consequences. The violator is “chayav b’dinei shamayim” (he’s liable under heavenly jurisdiction, in case you don’t know what the phrase means.) The other, you completely made up. And, seeing as we’re going to play this game, cite a source. Prove that a menstrual woman may not appear in public, and that it is practiced today, and that the Halakha mandates a punishment in the event that it is not adhered to. (hint: you can’t, because it’s simply not the case.)

“Indeed I do. Provide a single example of a claim I’ve made about halacha or any other substantive subject which I have not substantiated.”

I did in the above paragraph, actually, that was convenient.

“Oh, I see the rules you play by–you get to shower someone you detest with insults and then when they are returned you get to cry “ad hominem attack!” Shrei gevald! Gimme a break. When you insult me and my knowledge of Jewish sources you’ll get as good as you give. Don’t expect any quarter fr. me. I simply do not allow anyone to claim that I am ignorant of halacha, Talmud or the Jewish sources.”

First of all, don’t use Yiddish, it’s a garbage language. Second of all, I do not detest you at all. I pity you and your delusional state. Third of all I never once insulted you. I made claims based on the evidence presented. I stated that your comments indicate profound dishonesty, and more dishonesty, both of which they did, and neither of which is an insult, because I did not actually make the claim that you are dishonest. Not once did I resort to name calling, except when I called you ignorant (which you’ve substantiated for me over and over and over). And why don’t you allow them to claim it? Because you’re afraid you are? Or because you have degrees to convince yourself, which are only worth the respect given them by others?

“On the contrary, you claim to have a monopoly on the truth of halacha. Your word is the right & only valid one. And I find that attitude to be churlish & unmenschlich. I never said I have a monopoly on halacha. I am humble enough to know what I do not know about Jewish tradition, which is not insignificant. But I will not allow you to behave in this way and sling insults & untruths as you have.”

Never did I claim that my word is right. I claimed that yours were wrong, based on the conflict between what you claim and what is the case. You made a number of claims that are contrary to the facts. I have demonstrated that, and never claimed anything on the basis of MY saying it. You, on the other hand, have done so numerous times: “I give up. And you’re a total twit.” (who’s slinging insults?) “I have a BHL in Talmud fr. Jewish Theological Seminary. I have many years of studying Jewish religious texts in my background. I’m quite familiar w. all the issues you deal with here.” “And don’t start quarreling with me about Hebrew.”

“Look, I’m not going to continue this senselessness. I’ve proven indisputably that I have mastery of every field in which you claim I have none. You have never proven that I do not. And I’m still waiting for you to do so with facts. Prove that my knowledge of halacha or any other field is inadequate. If you can’t get off this subject then you’ll lose yr comment privileges.”

In my VERY FIRST POST, I gave about 8 examples of how your blunt comparison between Shariah and Halakha is completely inadequate, and how basically nothing could possibly take effect even if we instituted the Halakhic system, a claim which you denied (and continue to deny). Additionally, you made up a Halakha completely. And yet you pose as a “master” of the material.

“Once again you prove yrself a boor. I am fluent in Hebrew and French. I read German, speak and read Yiddish passably well, and have graduate degrees in Comp Lit so my English is pretty good as well.”

Do you now? Then you should probably know what sarcasm means. And the irony is that you followed it up with a) another ad hominem, but b) specifically calling me a boor. In the event that I was, in fact, suggesting languages aren’t you strong suit, and not remarking sarcastically, how would that qualify me as a “rude and unmannerly person?”

And now, the classic:

“Congratulations, you have placed yrself above the Conservative movement’s gedolay ha-dor. That’s rich. You just had to take a potshot at Talmudic scholars to whom you undoubtedly couldn’t hold a candle, and merely because they taught at Jewish Theological Seminary, my alma mater. I think you’ve proven yrself once again to be a total ass.

And btw, I’m tickled that being the boorish Orthodox Jew that are, you’ve spat upon my academic degrees because they don’t come fr. a sufficiently frum institution proving once again the deep well of intolerance in which you swim.”

To start with: the first thing you said was patently false, as anyone with a mind can see. I did not, in fact, put myself above anyone. I gave four examples of people who are CLEARLY above me (and it’s funny you characterize them as Conservative, seeing as Lieberman was 100% Orthodox and Weiss-Halivni left JTS to start a more Orthodox institution. But I don’t care for distinctions like these, because unlike you, I don’t base my judgment of people on their institutional affiliation.) Ironically, I chose those two so that you wouldn’t be able to argue about their stature. But ok.

Second of all: not once did I claim that the reason I mocked your degree is because it’s not “frum enough.” I would never do such a thing, because I judge “frum” and “non-frum” scholars based on the same criteria, namely, their scholarly work. I mocked your degree because a) you cited it to demonstrate your non-existent authority, and b) because those that I’ve met with undergrad Talmud degrees didn’t know what a shevu’at heset was, to give an example. The particular irony here is that if you had called yourself a rabbi from YU, one of those Chabad places in Brooklyn, or some other such place, I would just as well have ridiculed you for using your “degree” as proof of anything, in addition to the degree itself – even though I identify to the left of both institutions, and both degrees indicate more Halakha-exposure than your own.

You response here quite clearly that you read only what you wanted to read, and filled in the differences with what you wanted to have been said.

“Nothing of the sort. You said that tamey did not mean “unclean.” I said it did and I was right. In normal debate, when one claims one has been quoted out of context one provides the statement one wrote & explains how it was taken out of context. You haven’t done that. And I’m not going to do the work you should’ve done yrself in presenting yr own claim.”

First of all, you’ve changed your mind twice now. In your original post, you claimed it meant unclean. In your response, you included impure as a possibility, which is far more accurate. And now you’ve gone back to just unclean. So you need to make a decision.

Second of all, you most certainly did quote me out of context. In case you’re confused as to how: the full sentence was “If we’re talking about tum’ah in the context of Halakha, which has its own internal nuances, then indeed, it does not, in fact, mean unclean.” You then quoted this part: “indeed, it does not, in fact, mean unclean.” If it’s still not obvious: the word “materialism,” when used to discuss a theory of consciousness, means something VERY DIFFERENT than when it’s used by pastors to decry the consumerism they claim is endemic in modern society. The concept of tum’ah means something different in *each different Halakhic context it’s used* to say nothing of the differences between those Halakhic contexts and actual use in, say, Haredi posters about the internet. And in its Halakhic contexts, it certainly does not mean unclean. I can quote a number of sources, but this one makes the point exceptionally well: http://www.uscj.org/Koach/podcasts/twomintorah/5769/tazria-metzora.html Plus it’s Conservative so you can’t play your McCarthy-istic game of challenging a document’s veracity on the basis of partisanship.

“I’ve done nothing of the sort. I don’t have a monopoly on truth. But I will fight intolerant, arrogant, insufferable know-it-all Jews like you to the death for the right and value of my own opinion, smear it as you will.”

For the last time: claiming an opinion when you know none of the facts is sophistry. Sophistry is bad. It also renders your opinion valueless. You are not entitled to sophistry, and will be called on it when you practice it.

And lastly: this whole conversation has, from the start, been predicated on your hatred Orthodox Jews. Guess what? I’M NOT ORTHODOX!

I would not endorse executions without a trial. Those would cease.

If you are sincere in this (& I don’t frankly see much sincerity in anything you’ve written) then you would be dismantling one of Israel’s prime security weapons. Frankly, I doubt you would really be willing to do this. But if so, then I say bravo, sincerely.

If the army IS bound by Halakha, then it IS CURRENTLY THE CASE…Is that CURRENTLY THE CASE? NO.

Actually, that’s not the case. The IDF ethics code, deficient as it is, was drawn up by noted Orthodox Rabbi Moshe Halbertal and Prof. Asa Kasher. Being an Orthodox rabbi of course Halbertal introduced elements & consideration of halacha into the code he drafted. So once again what you claim isn’t quite precise. Regardless of all this, the current code is not only insufficient, it isn’t even honored in the breach, so it’s pretty much a piece of paper. But if under yr system halacha would be TRULY adhered to in war, then the IDF would be fighting a much diff. fight than it is now.

Then pay attention to Myron Joshua instead

Perhaps you should pay attention to what he said. He was OUTRAGED by Neiman’s statements. He found them entirely overstated AND he found Neiman’s attempt to explain himself to be inadequate. This is a fellow Orthodox Jew who disagrees w. yr perspective on these comments. And Myron said that despite the fact that the context in which the comments were made was a discussion of fiscal policy, that Neiman’s comments didn’t restrict themselves to monetary policy, but rather made sweeping claims about halacha that went far beyond that.

If I had to trust your perspective or Myron’s on this I’d choose his any day of the week.

One, and only one, of the practices you mentioned is still practiced, by a minority of the Halakhic world

I mentioned a few representative unpalatable practices of those who adhere to halacha & you pretend that those are the only objectionable practices that exist in its corpus. THey were REPRESENTATIVE examples, not meant to be exhaustive. There are scores, if not hundreds of such practices that non-halachic Jews would scream bloody murder about if they were forced to comply w. them.

When you made a claim you substantiate it.

Indeed I do. Provide a single example of a claim I’ve made about halacha or any other substantive subject which I have not substantiated.

do you know what the ad-hominem fallacy is? Or do you not know Talmud or basic reasoning either?

Oh, I see the rules you play by–you get to shower someone you detest with insults and then when they are returned you get to cry “ad hominem attack!” Shrei gevald! Gimme a break. When you insult me and my knowledge of Jewish sources you’ll get as good as you give. Don’t expect any quarter fr. me. I simply do not allow anyone to claim that I am ignorant of halacha, Talmud or the Jewish sources.

I do not have a monopoly on anything. However, that doesn’t mean you do either.

On the contrary, you claim to have a monopoly on the truth of halacha. Your word is the right & only valid one. And I find that attitude to be churlish & unmenschlich. I never said I have a monopoly on halacha. I am humble enough to know what I do not know about Jewish tradition, which is not insignificant. But I will not allow you to behave in this way and sling insults & untruths as you have.

I know languages aren’t your strong suit

Once again you prove yrself a boor. I am fluent in Hebrew and French. I read German, speak and read Yiddish passably well, and have graduate degrees in Comp Lit so my English is pretty good as well.

you’re not entitled to an opinion about something you don’t know anything about

Look, I’m not going to continue this senselessness. I’ve proven indisputably that I have mastery of every field in which you claim I have none. You have never proven that I do not. And I’m still waiting for you to do so with facts. Prove that my knowledge of halacha or any other field is inadequate. If you can’t get off this subject then you’ll lose yr comment privileges.

you could be Saul Lieberman and David Weiss Halivni and Rav Ashi and Moses combined, if what you say is false, it’s still false?…I don’t care how many meaningless degrees you have

Congratulations, you have placed yrself above the Conservative movement’s gedolay ha-dor. That’s rich. You just had to take a potshot at Talmudic scholars to whom you undoubtedly couldn’t hold a candle, and merely because they taught at Jewish Theological Seminary, my alma mater. I think you’ve proven yrself once again to be a total ass.

And btw, I’m tickled that being the boorish Orthodox Jew that are, you’ve spat upon my academic degrees because they don’t come fr. a sufficiently frum institution proving once again the deep well of intolerance in which you swim.

you quoted me out of context.

Nothing of the sort. You said that tamey did not mean “unclean.” I said it did and I was right. In normal debate, when one claims one has been quoted out of context one provides the statement one wrote & explains how it was taken out of context. You haven’t done that. And I’m not going to do the work you should’ve done yrself in presenting yr own claim.

assert HIS monopoly on truth based on his degrees

I’ve done nothing of the sort. I don’t have a monopoly on truth. But I will fight intolerant, arrogant, insufferable know-it-all Jews like you to the death for the right and value of my own opinion, smear it as you will.

I have many Pakistani friends, most of whom live in the Northwestern Tribal Areas and also Islamabad. They all speak badly of Punjabs. I absolutely love the Pakistani people, and it is so unfair that the west’s perception of them is based on half-truths and outright lies. I find them to be the most loving, peaceful and moral people I have ever known.

In Lahore, the family members I knew best were young ladies in purdah; they stayed at home unless there was a halal, or lawful, excuse for them to leave. A young cousin of my ex’s could not go out with us without her father’s permission. The culture may be viewed by westerners as oppressive, but it is fascinating, complex and who are we to criticize it, with our women and girls behaving so immorally, and our young men so enamored of violence? The more of the world I see, the less critical I am of other ways of life.