One of the shining slogans of early Zionism was the notion that Israel should be a “light unto the nations.” Well, Israel’s Justice Minister has turned that slogan on its head and advocates that Israel become a laughingstock unto the nations:
Justice Minister Ya’akov Ne’eman on Monday said he believes Halakha (Jewish law) should be the binding law in Israel, Army Radio reported.
“Step by step, we will bestow upon the citizens of Israel the laws of the Torah and we will turn Halakha into the binding law of the nation,” said Ne’eman at a Jewish law convention at the Regency hotel in Jerusalem, in the presence of many rabbis and rabbinical judges.
“We must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel,” Ne’eman said. “The Torah has the complete solution to all of the questions we are dealing with,” he added.
Can anyone doubt that Bibi Netanyahu’s governing coalition (or at least many of his ministers) is a total farce? This man supposedly directs Israel’s justice system? Let’s leave aside that this is clearly base political pandering to the coalition’s right-wing religious base. But isn’t this an indication of the direction Bibi’s government would take Israel in if it could? What further damage to Israeli democracy can it inflict than it has already?
Let’s call a spade a spade here. Instead of a western democracy, we have a call to turn Israel into a theocracy. It isn’t bad enough that Israel is currently a truncated democracy, or ethnocracy. While we’re at it, why don’t we rule Israel according to the medieval laws of the Shulchan Aruch? Tell women they are unclean during their menstrual cycle and must abandon public life. Tell them they must walk behind their husbands and male relatives on the public street. And lets revive the ancient Temple rites as well and appoint a High Priest and conduct animal sacrifices. If we’re going back to the Dark Ages why don’t we go all the way?
Cartoon h/t Sol Salbe.
Hey,if the Israelis continue along this path, the Swiss might ban synagogues like they did minarets. After all, it is only the fear of Sharia (Islamic law) that persuaded them. Halakha might scare them just as much. And the Israelis have the chutzpah to criticize Iranian mullahs?
I find this amusing, although terrible. The fearmongers in the world have been warning people of the dreadful Sharia’a law (which isn’t all that dreadful, it’s just that no one understands it), now these same people are touting Halakha, and Israel’s so-called democracy be damned. Bibi and his cronies have been selling fear and loathing of Islam in Europe, at least partially causing the rise of the BNP in the UK and the outrageous silliness about the minarets in Switzerland.
The more I see of Netanyahu, the more dangerous I perceive him to be. I am heartily sorry he was elected, both for the Israeli people (what on earth were they thinking??), of course the Palestinians, and the whole world.
Religious fear tends to run deep; these kinds of shenanigans will only bring about more anti-Semitism. Division of Church (or synagogue, or mosque) and State is a wise doctrine anywhere in the world.
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed with Switzerland over the minaret issue, very unbecoming for such an old democracy. Some Americans seem to be mad at Switzerland over holding Roman Polanski, uhh, I think I’ll reserve my opprobrium for breaches of religious freedom and freedom of expression.
At the same time, and I’m going to open myself up to charges of cultural chauvinism and Eurocentrism by saying this, on an instinctual aesthetic level I (scarily) kind of relate to the Swiss resistance to the minarets. Not that minarets aren’t beautiful and appealing, they are, and in general I find Islamic architecture incredibly beautiful and appealing, it’s just that the image of a minaret cuts against my ‘storybook’ aesthetics of what the built environment and architecture in Switzerland looks like (and is supposed to look like).
I realize it is ethically wrong for me to have that reaction and I’m perhaps baring my own cultural prejudices and privileging here, and I do believe strongly in pluralism and full-blown democracy—but I have in my head that sense of the distinctive architecture of a particular place or region.
So, I overtly & explicitly reject this regressive, undemocratic move by the Swiss, but still have that other, different, inner aesthetic reaction that’s a little too comfortably sympathetic toward the Swiss. Do I need help, here?
I’m ready for the deconstruction to begin.
I just finished reading an article by Tariq Ramadan on this subject which was published in the Guardian. As usual, he is eloquent and wise in putting this issue where it belongs, not merely a symptom of the growing prejudice against Muslims in Europe but a reflection of the increasing fear of the loss of identity among Europeans in general.
Mr. Ramadan related his astonishment at the outcome of the Swiss vote to ban the minarets by correctly saying that the very issue was “silly.” But even more shocking is the fact that, as Mr. Ramadan states, there are only four minarets in Switzerland anyway.
So the minarets aren’t really the issue; Islam is. And as he says, the only Muslims acceptable in Europe are the Muslims they cannot see.
Yeah, I think you’re right that the minaret issue is really cover for prejudice against flesh and blood people, and a kind of drawing a line in the sand around cultural/national identity, that can be a pretty ugly space. And as you said, there are only 4 minarets in Switzerland anyway, we’re not talking about some massive alteration to the look of the place.
Also, to be clear, my ‘deconstruction’ comment was about my own conflicted, contradictory feelings and my waiting to be rhetorically savaged, NOT that Switzerland should tear down those 4 lonely minarets that they do have.
Some of my favorite architecture is Islamic, including minarets (is that like me saying some of my best friends are Jews?). I particularly love those amazing dazzling buildings in Samarqand, what is it, the big blue mosque, and several others? There’s something really powerful about a lot of it. And structures I’ve seen from photos of Morocco.
Warren, if you appreciate the tranditional architectural esthetic of Switzerland, then may I assume you are not bothered by church steeples?
Yeah, I’m not bothered by church steeples, because they fit into my image of what ‘traditional’ architecture in Switzerland is ‘supposed’ to look like. Listen, I realize that this is prejudiced, that’s my whole point, I’m psychologically ‘deconstructing’ myself.
I formally reject the Swiss move in terms of my actual position on the issue and my intellectual understanding of what democracy and pluralism includes and is about, yet I recognize this other feeling and reaction I have, and that’s my boorish sense of Eurocentrism when it comes to ‘traditional’ Swiss architecture, which yes, in my visual imagination I suppose privileges a ‘Christian’ built environment, as in church steeples over minarets, amongst other ‘traditional’ architecture, non-religious as well.
Ah well, thank the great world spirit for Reason and Ethics I suppose, to (hopefully) keep in check bad, pernicious nativist & tribalist impulses.
(And don’t worry, I’m not remotely on the verge of heading out into the loony moonbat ether to join Glenn Beck, Michael Wiener Savage and the rest of the merry band of Yahoo Nutjob Bubbas in ‘defending’ “Western civilization” from the encroaching “Muslim hordes”, or to badly transpose Bertrand Russell, ‘I’d become a western “civilization” if I ever met one’.)
One of the hallmarks of bigotry is its inherently selfish nature. It’s so evident in the minaret issue. “I want things the way I want them to be, and to hell with the rights of everyone else,” is basically the issue. Architecture? Some of the most beautiful architecture in the world can be seen in the world’s mosques. Go to Istanbul and see the beauty of mosques and churches standing together.
Mary, in all fairness to Warren, he did express appreciation for Islamic architecture, which is unarguably among of the most spectacularly beautiful in the world.
I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see all that much difference between minarets and church steeples. They are both column-like objects sticking up from houses of worship for the purpose of notifying the faithful that it’s time to come and worship. And I am aware of no Islamic rule that minarets have to have a certain appearance, so there is no reason they can be designed to harmonize with the architectural character of their surroundings, particularly since 1) the muezzin no longer needs to climb to the top to sing the call to prayer, 2) most mosques in western environments have agreed to forego broadcasting the call to prayer anyway, out of consideration for the neighbors, so minarets are at this point more about form than function.
And maybe it is because I am just too accumstomed to seeing an architectural landscape in which minarets and church bell towers are both seen, very often standing side by side, and from time to time one hears church bells and the call to prayer sounding simultaneously. Maybe that is why I don’t see any architectural or other disharmony there.
Good points, Shirin. It’s true, when I think of Istanbul or Jerusalem or Beirut, the image of churches and mosques side by side is totally organic and natural for me. The Middle East had a good and impressive degree of cultural & religious heterogeneity (and tolerance) for centuries and centuries.
Our Disneyfied images of Europe in a lot of American popular culture, particularly when it comes to Alpine Europe, are far more monolithic and culturally homogenous. In this sense, Europe and the ‘West’ could learn a great deal from the Arabic & Islamic Middle East about cultural & religious heterogeneity and pluralism.
http://www.amazon.com/Hollow-Land-Israels-Architecture-Occupation/dp/1844671259
Israel’s Architecture of Occupation:
I’d like to point out that America officially celebrates Easter and Christmas. The word separation is a subjective word concerning government.
There is a vast difference between observing religious holidays and governing by religious law.
The Easter holiday falls on a Sunday, which does not involve much “celebrating” anyway.
If such foolishness should be officially realized and Halakha established as the law of the land, then what a glorious opportunity for Israel to tout its goodness by then requiring its Muslim citizens to adhere to Shariya, thus confirming that it (Israel) is, oxymoronically at least, a democratic theocracy. One positive spin-off of such an arrangement would be to support by example those arguing that religion, given half a chance, can harm love, life and logic. However, a warning: there will be others who will swear on a Bible that Holy Law is goodness personified but often misinterpreted and thus misapplied. Tell that to the stoned (and not on marijuana) and exiled and variously condemned. A laughingstock? Richard, you’re being kind.
Israel already requires its Muslim citizens to adhere to Sharia in matters of birth, marriage, inheritance (to a certain extent), and burial, just as it requires members of its Jewish millet do to so via Halacha. It’s part of being a successor state to the Ottoman Empire. Sharia-allowed polygyny is already an aspect of Israeli life and law, a significant restriction of women’s rights in the views of some feminists.
It was probably inevitable that a religious Jewish Minister of Justice would advocate theocracy, given the tensions and vulnerabilities of the cobbled-together Israeli system of law, constitutional and otherwise. But because of that very ad hoc nature, theocracy won’t wash.
Can Israel have constitutional law without having a constitution?
Not in the strictest sense of law embodied in a single document, but there are cases of governments where a certain “body” of law or tradition serves to framework law and government in the way a formal constitution does so. Great Britain does this.
Israel’s legal system comes from England, as does the office of the Chief Rabbinate. You could say that gentile law prevails in Israel.
Israel has a a system of Basic Laws which are usually held to be superior to other laws. As such, they function as constitutional laws. The Basic Laws are not comprehensive. These laws include those that prefer Jews to non-Jews in immigration.
http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_yesod.htm
I have never understood how polygamy is a restriction of women’s rights. It is, in fact, neither intrinsically good, nor intrinsically bad, nor does per se restrict women’s rights any more than monogamous marriage does.
It’s only a restriction on women’s rights if they’re forced into it, and that’s a cultural thing and not Islamic. Marriage is a private thing, and politicians ought to stay out of it, especially those who have deemed themselves morally superior to the rest of us. Women should have equal rights in matters of marriage and divorce, whether monogamous or polygamous.
“It’s only a restriction on women’s rights if they’re forced into it”
As I said, polygamous marriage is no more a restriction of women’s rights than is monogamous marriage. :o}
“that’s a cultural thing and not Islamic.”
Quite so. In fact, in Islam both partners to the marriage have the right to accept or refuse the marriage, if a husband wishes to take more than one wife, the existing wives have a right to agree to the marriage or not, and the Qur’an orders any man who takes more than one wife to treat them equally in every way.
There was a house in Baghdad in the ’60’s which was somewhat famous for this. The owner had two wives and he had built the house as a duplex with each side an exact mirror image of the other, and the gossip was that the interiors, down to the furniture, were also identical. Too bad if the two women did not share identical taste, but at least he was trying to comply with the letter of the law.
My only beef with polygamy is if a woman can have >1 husband. If not then it’s sexist in any case.
One of the original purposes in the times of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) for polygamy was that there were a great many war widows with no means of support. By marrying these widows, they were provided with homes and with the dignity of marriage, which was a blessing both on the woman and on the man who married her.
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.
This post is actively dishonest, and purposely distorts the facts.
The differences between Shariah law and Halakha are vast. Just pay the slightest attention to the details and you’ll figure that out. A particularly relevant example: countries that operate on Sharia execute transgressors on a regular basis. Contrast Halakha, which states that until the Messiah comes and the Sanhedrin sits in the Lishkat Hagazit (Chamber of Hewn Stone) in the Temple complex, no cases involving capital punishment can be adjudicated, and, even then, there’s the statement R. Akiva makes in BT Makkot that capital punishments are all theoretical.
Secondly, this comment was VERY CLEARLY referencing the “choshen mishpat” part Halakha. If you didn’t pay attention, it was made at a conference devoted to JEWISH MONETARY LAW. So, aside from the obvious distortion, you tell me, what do you (any of you) know about monetary Halakha? If you did, you might figure out that a) plenty of people are practicing it already, without “being in the dark ages,” and b) there’s nothing in there that is reminiscent of the “dark ages” anyway. Pretending like Neeman was referring to ritual law and the like, in this context, indicates profound dishonesty.
Thirdly, in case you weren’t aware, plenty of women declare themselves “unclean” (an inaccurate translation, but ok) on a regular basis. Yet they’ve still been participating in public life. There are plenty of sections of Shulkhan Arukh that have gone out of style, as well as plenty of sections in the Mishneh Torah, sections in the Talmud, etc. Using examples like the ones you used indicates even more dishonesty.
And lastly, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that all this was not the case: Halakha would be implemented full-stop across the land, with all the details of the Shulkhan Arukh and commentaries and everything. What then? Do you know how difficult it is to actually incur the punishments prescribed? No, you don’t, because you don’t know how Halakha works, which is belied by your comparison to Sharia. Even *that* arrangement would have a minimal effect on people’s lives as they live them now. There is just so much literature demonstrating that your characterization of Halakha is patently false, literature that comes from both the Modern Orthodox and Haredi camps.
It’s one thing if we just disagreed about the facts. But you’re completely ignorant and yet insist on having an opinion regardless, an opinion you likely are not at all entitled to.
How does halacha deal w. capital punishment meted out in the form of targeted assassinations or to Palestinian civilians murdered in cold blood by the IDF? I guess the halacha as you practice it must make wide allowances for capital punishment against Arabs, while it shies away from capital punishment against Jews. In fact, many extremist settler rabbis advocate the murder of Arabs, even children and indiscriminately, because they will likely grow up to be terrorists (cf. Reb Avraham Shapira of Od Yosef yeshiva in Yitzhar. How do you reconcile that with yr claims about halacha’s reluctance to execute for capital crimes?
So, are there places in which sharia may be practiced in a severe form which contradicts our western notions of justice & fairness? Yes. But is Israel pure as driven snow when it comes to its own justice system or its own military behavior? No.
You may not be aware of how this site operates. If you make a claim, you back it up with evidence. If you have new information about the context in which the minister’s remarks were made you provide a source so we can judge for ourselves whether you got it right. Hebrew sources are fine as well. As long as you provide one.
Pls. don’t be an ass. I based my post on the reporting of the story by Haaretz. Watch the histrionics. I don’t take too well to it. You provide more background, I’ll respond to it. But if all you want to do is grandstand then do it somewhere else.
Yes, many Orthodox women may do this. That wouldn’t be “many” in the context of world Jewry. But it would be some. And don’t start quarreling with me about Hebrew. I know perfectly well what tamey means & it means impure or unclean.
Are you claiming that Orthodox women do not observe the laws of tzniyut (of which these rules are part) & that they don’t walk behind &/or separate fr. males in public?? If so, then I’d suggest you haven’t seen what I’ve seen on the streets of Jerusalem and other places.
If you’re talking to me you’ve made a big mistake. 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.
Full implementation of halacha would have “minimal” effect on Jews’ lives? Are you kidding? Not to mention the fact that the 80% of Israeli Jews who are secular would take extremely strong issue w. that statement, & rightly so.
Spoken like the truly intolerant, anti-democractic Orthodox Jew you are (& I don’t mean to say that ALL Orthodox Jews are as intolerant as you). Sad really.
Other than Saudi Arabia, which practices a form of fundamentalist Islam known as Wahhabism, can anyone name another country on the planet that rules by Sharia’a law? Or give an intelligent definition of the term “Muslim country,” for that matter?
I didn’t know the answer to that question for sure but I was thinking of saying this in my response to that commenter. There are certainly regions where it is practiced in Nigeria & perhaps (though I’m not sure) Pakistan &/or Iran. But I don’t know of any other country.
I lived for a brief period in Pakistan, and as far as Sharia’a goes, it’s not part of Pakistani government at all. Their government is loosely based on the old British Raj; and they do have a Family Court where women can sue for divorce, child custody and child support.
I was referring to various regions, but not entire countries. I assume there must be some form of sharia used in the Frontier provinces but not of course in Pakistan as a whole.
I would assume so, since they are autonomous regions governed by tribal authorities. Or a combination of Sharia’a and tribal law.
Mary, I have spent some time in Pakistan as well, though I have not lived there. I have been adopted by a Pakistani family who are absolutely some of the finest people on the face of the earth. Nor are the women in the family to any extent subservient or shy about letting their opinions be known, even when it means shouting down their male relatives.
Which city did you live in? My family are in the Punjab in Sialkot, which is between Lahore and Islamabad.
Shirin, I lived in the cities of Multan and Lahore. I found my experience just the opposite of yours. I think it depends on the family. My exhusband’s family (and my exhusband, too) did not like outspoken, liberated American women. Unfortunately, modesty and stupidity were confused one with the other. In my ex’s family, women kept their mouths shut, especially when it came to questioning or contradicting anything a man said or did. The only exception to that was my former sister-in-law’s pronouncement that George W. Bush “should go @#%&* himself.
Sorry to hear about your experience, Mary. It just demonstrates what I have always told people. Just as in the West, attitudes and behaviour toward women varies from family to family.
In my family there are three daughters and two sons. All but the youngest son are married. All marriages are arranged, but nothing takes place without the mutual approval of both prospective partners. One of my “sisters”, with whom I am particularly close, told me that when the time came for her parents to begin searching for a husband they talked to her and she told them her specifications, and when they found a likely fellow they talked to her about him before moving forward to see whether he sounded like a fit. All the marriages are successful, and there is real love there.
As I said, the women are not at all hesitant to speak out vociferously. Unfortunately, though I know a bit of Urdu, I do not speak any Panjabi, so cannot follow the discussions without a translator, but I usually know the subject, and can get an idea what is going on, and no one is telling the girls to shut up. The girl children are equally strong willed and unafraid to stick up for themselves.
It sounds like there was one thing you and your sister-in-law could agree upon at least.
There were things I liked about Pakistan, and also things I disliked. Despite my exhusband’s admonitions to keep my mouth shut, I spoke freely about my life as an American and won many friends, both male and female. We did not have political discussions but did discuss cultural topics at length, including their phenomenally inaccurate perceptions of Americans.
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.
People seem to assume that Shari`a law is some sort of ossified, immutable pre-medieval horror when it is nothing of the kind. First of all, it is a living thing that is constantly being argued and re-interpreted, and there is by no means unanimity of opinion among authorities.
Second, it is not by its nature the horrible, repressive, backward system it is represented to be. The problem is not with Shari`a but with the mentality of most of those who try to apply it. As an example, in some areas where Shari`a has been imposed, it has actually given women a legal and religious basis to challenge aspects of their traditional rights and status.
Second, there are several schools of Islamic jurisprudence each of which has differing views regarding interpretation and application.
Third, many religious people do not agree with the way Shari`a is interpreted and applied in places like Saudi Arabia. Law should not be used to repress or oppress anyone, and should not be used as an excuse for regressive policies. It should be a living, breathing, evolving organism that contributes order and stability to a society while protecting the rights and well-being of its members. That is certainly what the Prophet had in mind.
In the Muslim world people embrace Sharia’a because it gives the individual rights that they do not have under dictatorship.
Also, any Muslim knows that there is no “single” Sharia’a and that there are several schools of fiqh, or jurisprudence, which interpret the law and determine its applications. It is a complex system, which most non-Muslims do not realize. Sharia’a was a replacement for the tyranny that was in effect in many Arab cultures, and it gave rights to women and girls (and to children) that they did not have in the past.
Sharia’a is not stoning adulterers to death, or beheading, or the nightmare things of western fantasy. That is an extreme. In fact, Sharia’a, when properly interpreted, guaranteed that almost no one would be physically punished or executed.
Thanks for that amplification & important information about Sharia.
Thanks Mary, for that good information. Hopefully we can help some people to rethink their assumptions about Shari`a, and not react to the term in such a knee-jerk fashion.
“our western notions of justice & fairness?
Germany was and is a western country, with it’s periods of unfairness.
Israel is a majority secular as a result of the Holocaust. If those Jews would have lived, it’s likely that the majority would be observant. This is a point that is rarely brought up in the public forum.
You’re assuming that the holocaust Jews would have emigrated to Israel, which is a far-fetched notion. And you don’t know whether the six million who died in the Holocaust were religious or secular Jews, so what do you base your statement on? Really, how do you know what six million people would have done had they lived? The Zionist project in Palestine began early in the 20th century; what stopped the six million from going there before the Holocaust?
That’s right. The Holocaust also wiped out the Jewish Bund, which was a socialist workers movement & quite strong & popular in eastern Europe. Many secular Jews were murdered along with Orthodox Jews (including Hasidim). If they had lived, it would have taken far longer to create the State of Israel and its nature might be far diff. than it is now. And certainly it would not have had as large a population given that not as many European Jews would have emigrated there as did after the Holocaust.
Do you have some documentation for your implied claim that the Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust were predominantly observant and not secular such that they could change the character of the society? From what I have read, heard, and seen the majority of European Jews were not religiously observant Orthodox, and that part of the shock of the whole thing was that being secular and completely assimilated did not exempt anyone from being swept into the net. In fact, assimilated Jews were extremely vulnerable. My guess would be that the number of secular/non-observant Jews who were not murdered in the Holocaust and ended up emigrating to Palestine/Israel was more or less proportional to their numbers in the population.
Also, I wonder how you justify your assumption that without the Holocaust observant Jews would have flocked en masse to Palestine/Israel when they weren’t doing so prior to the Holocaust. In fact, it is quite possible that were it not for the Holocaust the Zionist project would have failed, since there was not terribly widespread enthusiasm for Zionism prior to that, and it was precisely the Holocaust that provided the Zionists with enough critical mass population-wise to be able to succeed in their goal of creating The Jewish State in Palestine.
I would suggest that it is more likely that Israel is a majority secular country because Zionism was a secular movement whose founders and most of whose major leaders were secular (and very assimilated) European Jews, and because most Jews in the world are, if not secular, at least not observant Orthodox.
In passing, as it turns out, I can. It’s funny, because I was reading this about 10 minutes ago:
“The Orthodox Jews were particularly bewildered to discover that they had been hardest hit and that their strategies for survival had on their face been a terrible mistake, nowhere more so than among those who had been most uncompromising in their Orthodoxy.”
Samuel Heilman, Sliding to the Right, p. 20. He goes on to quote a speech made by the head of Tzeiray Agudat Yisrael who gives examples.
Whether or not they could have changed things… well we can all come up with a bunch of hypotheticals one way or another right? On the one hand, had they not been murdered, they probably would have maintained their anti-Zionist stance. On the other hand, given their birthrates then and now, they likely would have constituted a very large portion of World Jewry in a few years, so if they had, somehow, changed their stance, they might have made Israel a very, very not-secular country. But the first part is true – while the majority of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were not Orthodox, the Orthodox were the hardest hit.
“the Orthodox were the hardest hit.”
You have not demonstrated that. All you have demonstrated is that one author, quoting one speech by one person SAYS the Orthodox were hardest hit. And there is nothing here that says by what measure they were hardest hit. If they were hardest hit in terms of percentage of their population, that means nothing if we do not know their proportion within the European Jewish population. Even if the number of Orthodox murdered made up a plurality of victims it is meaningless for our purposes unless we know what percentage of the total victims they were.
I agree with the rest of your reasoning. Whether Orthodox would ever have made up a significant portion of Israel’s society depends on a number of factors about which we can only speculate. As you say, Orthodox European Jews were by and large anti-Zionist, and without a huge incentive such as the Holocaust combined with factors that left them nowhere else to go but Palestine there is no particular reason to believe they would have ended up there. In fact, as I said before, there is no particular reason to believe that without the Holocaust and the aforementioned other factors there would ever have been enough immigration to Palestine to form the critical mass needed to create The Jewish State.
On the whole Orthodox were anti-Zionist, and Zionism was not popular among observant or secular Jews prior to the Holocaust (though many European anti-Semites, such as Lord Balfour, thought it was a grand idea and supported it enthusiastically). Even after the Holocaust Palestine was not the destination of choice for most Jewish refugees, many if not most of whom ended up there only as a result of very restrictive immigration policies on the part of the U.S., engineered in part by the Zionists who undertook a number of (very shameful in my view) machinations intended to ensure that as many Jewish refugees as possible were left with no choice but to go to Palestine.
I doubt that the Nazis gave a damn who was an Orthodox Jew and who wasn’t.
See, I couldn’t make this up on my own. The vast array of assumptions you quietly, sneakily inserted, I couldn’t make that up on my own. To start with:
“How does halacha deal w. capital punishment meted out in the form of targeted assassinations or to Palestinian civilians murdered in cold blood by the IDF? I guess the halacha as you practice it must make wide allowances for capital punishment against Arabs, while it shies away from capital punishment against Jews. In fact, many extremist settler rabbis advocate the murder of Arabs, even children and indiscriminately, because they will likely grow up to be terrorists (cf. Reb Avraham Shapira of Od Yosef yeshiva in Yitzhar. How do you reconcile that with yr claims about halacha’s reluctance to execute for capital crimes?
So, are there places in which sharia may be practiced in a severe form which contradicts our western notions of justice & fairness? Yes. But is Israel pure as driven snow when it comes to its own justice system or its own military behavior? No.”
What??? What are you talking about? What do targeted assassinations, killing in cold blood (both contentious points, but I don’t care enough about it in this context, I’ll grant you those), anything Od Yosef Hai or its faculty do, have to do with ANYTHING we’ve been discussing??? The army isn’t an army of rabbis, nor is it bound by Halakha in battle. (I know by “many” you mean “that one guy” by the way, so I took that into account for you.) But I mean, seriously, where did any of this come from??? What does Israel’s military behavior have to do with the distinction between Halakha and Shariah? I’m just absolutely confused over here.
“You may not be aware of how this site operates. If you make a claim, you back it up with evidence. If you have new information about the context in which the minister’s remarks were made you provide a source so we can judge for ourselves whether you got it right. Hebrew sources are fine as well. As long as you provide one.”
Ok, you want a source? You should check more than one newspaper you know:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260181017325&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Oh and just for the hell of it
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=43065
“Pls. don’t be an ass. I based my post on the reporting of the story by Haaretz. Watch the histrionics. I don’t take too well to it. You provide more background, I’ll respond to it. But if all you want to do is grandstand then do it somewhere else.”
I can tell you’re sensitive, but that won’t be an issue. I just provided the information. And I’ll say it again: you should really read more than one newspaper.
“Yes, many Orthodox women may do this. That wouldn’t be “many” in the context of world Jewry. But it would be some. And don’t start quarreling with me about Hebrew. I know perfectly well what tamey means & it means impure or unclean.”
And why shouldn’t I? 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.
“Are you claiming that Orthodox women do not observe the laws of tzniyut (of which these rules are part) & that they don’t walk behind &/or separate fr. males in public?? If so, then I’d suggest you haven’t seen what I’ve seen on the streets of Jerusalem and other places.”
Buddy, I’ve lived there for the last two years. And yes, there are a number of Haredi neighborhoods that keep doing that stuff. But I would definitely say the majority of observant people in the world do not care whether a woman walks behind, in front, sideways, whatever. And anyway, the Mishneh Torah it states quite unequivocally that a man should not let his wife out of the house more than twice a month. Do you know of ANYONE that practices that? (hint: no you don’t, it went out of fashion like I said!)
“If you’re talking to me you’ve made a big mistake. 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 I love arguments from authority too (though I’m not impressed, as I’m still the one who knows how to read a piece of Talmud. You’re not the first person I’ve spoken to with a degree from JTS, believe it or not, and like I said, I’m not impressed.) I’m very happy to hear you’re familiar with all these issues. And of course, you completely ignored this alleged familiarity in the interest of making some sort of point? Much better. See, if it were me, I’d rather be ignorant than intellectually dishonest. Note that you did not respond to a single one of the arguments I made. Do you know what sophistry is?
“Full implementation of halacha would have “minimal” effect on Jews’ lives? Are you kidding? Not to mention the fact that the 80% of Israeli Jews who are secular would take extremely strong issue w. that statement, & rightly so.”
With which statement? And yes, it would have a minimal effect. Just off the top of my head: full implementation of anything would require real semikha. Real semikha cannot happen without a Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin cannot happen without agreement from world Jewry. Even if we fully implemented Halakha right this moment, no decision would be binding.
“Spoken like the truly intolerant, anti-democractic Orthodox Jew you are (& I don’t mean to say that ALL Orthodox Jews are as intolerant as you). Sad really.”
I knew the ad hominems would happen at some point! This one itself deserves a “where to begin….” First of all, I have not demonstrated intolerance of anything other than your blatant sophistry. Second of all, where does anti-democratic come in? And lastly, either you meant to accuse ALL Orthodox Jews of being as “intolerant” as I am or you meant Orthodox Jew as an insult in and of itself. And I’m the intolerant one now?
Oh and I should have read carefully. You have a BHL – Hebrew Literature, no? Why should that be ANY indication that you know anything about capital punishment in Halakha, much less that you’re an authority on the topic?
Because they are Israel’s form of capital punishment without bothering to resort to any legal process. Since you claim that Israel should or could be governed by halacha, I wondered how you would deal w. the fact that the state currently (or at least until quite recently) executes Palestinians without trial. Under your new halachic Israeli jurisprudence would all such forms of capital punishments cease? Or would you make an exception for executing Palestinians?
I beg to differ, rabbi. The army, if it is an army of a state bound by halacha, would indeed be bound by halacha in battle. Unless you’re arguing that halacha shouldn’t apply to every situation in which a Jew finds himself. It would be a very puny philosophical system indeed if halacha didn’t govern all of life.
The Jerusalem Post and Yeshiva World are not credible sources for the purposes of this blog. Another of my comment rules insists on the use of credible journalistic sources and not shmates and partisan tabloids like the Post. You do realize the Post was just hoaxed into claiming Norway was beset by a torrent of anti-Semitism which never existed. And you want me to believe the Post because you say I should??
I give up. And you’re a total twit. It does mean that and I can’t for the life of me understand why you’re quarreling other than to prove you can. Just go look at any reputable Hebrew-English dictionary or online halachic resource like this one & you’ll find “unclean” or a synonym listed as one of the meanings.
I see. Before you called these practices out of date & implied they were no longer practiced. Now, you admit they are. Thank you.
No, you’re a boor. Because I too know how to read a page of Talmud and you have NO MONOPOLY on wisdom or knowledge of halacha.
Then I’m afraid you’ve lost out because you are shot through with intellectual dishonesty.
Indeed you have. I remind you of the specific statement you wrote which reeked of condesension and intolerance:
I certainly AM entitled to my opinion and no one, not even a tin pot halachic dictator like you can take that away from me though you may try.
I know nuance isn’t yr strong suit so let me explain: all Orthodox are not as “intolerant” as you are. But many are. I meant that you fit a classic stereotype of a certain segment of Orthodox Jews who are deeply anti-democratic & intolerant. But I know & respect many other Orthodox Jews who actually practice humility and are menschen. You are not one of those.
Because I majored in Talmud at JTS and studied Talmud at the Hebrew University as well. I also have an MA in Hebrew literature (including extensive study of all forms of Judaic texts). Does being a boor come easy to you or do you really have to work at it?
I see little Tikkun Olam in this “exchange”…
i think I will just turn off the subscription to this entry.
myron, don’t take strong words as absence of tikun olam. These are important points being made; it is a lively discussion. Richard’s credentials and knowledge have been called into question (mocked, I should say) and he has every right to set the record straight. Sometimes attack calls for a counterattack, for the sake of clarity and moving the discussion forward.
I am appreciating this comment thread as a Muslim learning a bit here and there about aspects of Judaism. It is good, spirited discourse.
This is the saddest thing I’ve seen in a while. Aren’t you an adult? Why are you throwing a fit like a child?
Let’s continue:
Umm is the political example supposed to be some sort of bait? No, I would not endorse executions without a trial. Those would cease. What was the point of that hypothetical???
And I think you have a bit of confusion between what IS the case and what WOULD BE the case. If the army IS bound by Halakha, then it IS CURRENTLY THE CASE that the army is bound by Halakha. Do you disagree? Well you did. IS BOUND BY HALAKHA. Is that CURRENTLY THE CASE? NO. If the army WERE bound by Halakha, then all this would be relevant, and I might actually have something to talk about.
Oh, ok, they’re lying, naturally, about the details of the conference. Then pay attention to Myron Joshua instead, he said it as well. Or is he not credible because he agrees with Jpost? Like I said, you should really read more than one newspaper.
One, and only one, of the practices you mentioned is still practiced, by a minority of the Halakhic world. The vast majority of laws like it are out-dated. One of the ones you made up was, well, made up. By you. So good job.
I’m a boor? I have an idea. Whenever you make a ridiculous claim, you substantiate it. And not with your imagination, I know you think that counts as a credible source of information, but it isn’t. Oh, and do you know what the ad-hominem fallacy is? Or do you not know Talmud or basic reasoning either?
Fortunately, no, I do not have a monopoly on anything. However, that doesn’t mean you do either. As such, please desist from inserting ridiculous assumptions.
Listen, I know languages aren’t your strong suit, so let me explain something for you: intolerance and condescension are not the same thing. Was that statement condescending? 100%. You needed it. Was it intolerant? If by intolerant you mean “based on the distinction between truth and falsehood,” then yes it was intolerant.
No, you’re not entitled to an opinion about something you don’t know anything about. That’s what’s known as sophistry. Look it up.
Hahahaha nice stereotyping is ok now? Wonderful, I wasn’t sure.
And again with the fallacies. Do you not realize that 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. What you said was false. I’m going to call you on it, regardless of how many institutions certify and/or license you.
Now the tam’eh thing. It is exceedingly clear, even for someone not paying attention up until this point, that you quoted me out of context. Quoting someone out of context is an example of intellectual dishonesty. What you quoted is not at all the entirety of what I said, and you know it. So please, quote the rest this time, and then respond. Thank you.
Oh and I just want to point out, one more time: YOU DID NOT REPLY TO A SINGLE SUBSTANTIVE POINT I MADE. All you did was throw a fit like a six year old girl and call me a boor. (really? a boor?) Mary, with all due respect, if you think you’re learning anything about Judaism from this thread, then I suggest you kill your computer, because it’s lying to you. If you pay attention, all this fellow has done so far is, in fact, demonstrate intolerance for MY opinion, assert HIS monopoly on truth based on his degrees (which frankly are not impressive) and then accuse me of the same while calling me a boor. If you’d like to learn about Judaism, I’d love to tell you all about it, and I’m sure this guy would too, but name-calling, lying, and bearing false testimony are in fact all biblical prohibitions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 take back what I said about this guy earlier. He has become antagonistic and purposely hostile in making sarcastic personal attacks. Really, if you can’t argue without descending to the level of an adolescent (and you, sir, mentioned adulthood, how ironic), get off the thread, please, and find somewhere else to post your views (possibly where the blog host agrees with you).
“Where to begin,” I think it’s time we tell you, this is a good place for you to END.
Swiss leader calls for Jewish cemetery ban
December 3, 2009
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/12/03/1009507/swiss-leader-calls-for-jewish-cemetery-ban
BERLIN (JTA) — A mainstream Swiss political leader is calling for a ban on separate Muslim and Jewish cemeteries.
Christophe Darbellay, president of the Christian Democratic People’s Party of Switzerland, made the statement in a television interview Tuesday, two days after Swiss voters passed an initiative to ban minarets.
The anti-minaret initiative came from the opposition ultra-conservative Swiss People’s Party and other right-wing political organizations. Critics say Darbellay is starting a “crusade” to attract voters by proposing similarly xenophobic measures.
Mainstream politicians and religious leaders across Europe have reacted with dismay to the anti-minaret vote.
According to the Swiss online daily Tagesanzeiger, Darbellay also wants to ban the wearing of burkas, head-to-toe veils worn by some fundamentalist Muslim women.
Darbellay reportedly said that existing cemeteries would not be affected by a ban, but that there should be no separate cemeteries in the future.
The Swiss People’s Party called for crackdowns on expressions of Muslim fundamentalism in 2006. Observers said the demand for separate cemeteries is an escalation.
I was also very upset with remarks of Yaakov Neeman and still am, even after he tried to explain it away.
But, i am not partner to the analysis of some of the comments here. They are mixing up different social trends (some very problematic) in israel. Neeman himself is responsible for this since his comments were made using language that could support this view. He did so since he wanted to suck up to the rabbinic community he was addressing..and that in itself is not only silly, but dangerous.
It is true that the conference he was addressing was dealing with the area of Jewish law that is totally civil- cases of monetary claims, etc. Neeman is not interested in creating a theocracy..but he does believe that Jewish legal tradition can be beneficial..and that it has, in fact, proved itself to be so (alongside small claims courts, etc..some of which actually use, knowingly or not, principles shared by the Jewish legal tradition.
The Israeli courts need not be embarrassed that they have been informed by Jewish legal tradition.
The question if, which and how these legal values can inform the legal system is valid. This challenge has occupied and enriched Israeli legal minds both secular and religious.
Neeman did a major disservice in his remarks..and even his backtracking was tainted with a religious- ideological stance that is certainly dangerous when it mixes itself with politics and the real world.
I should make clear that I am not opposed to halacha INFLUENCING or INFORMING Israeli law since it is the Jewish tradition & this is part of what makes Israel what it is. Similarly, I would be pleased if aspects of sharia could inform Israeli law esp. as applied to its Muslim citizens. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
As you say, Neiman’s remarks were entirely too categorical and unqualified and that was my problem with them.
Richard..I understand..and that is why my comments were geared at other readers comments rather than at your post..
I was so ticked off yesterday..i wrote to Neemans office..i wrote to the religious knesset members whose attempts to support neeman were symptomatic of shallow thinking and dedication to slogans that is not conducive to public discourse.
On the one hand neeman was pandering to Shas..but i think that the language used is indicative of a serious problem that religious zionists have and that does find concrete expression in the social sphere.
You might be interested in this recent article that i just received in the mail today from my old friend Steven Friedelll Rutgers Law School.
SOME OBSERVATIONS ABOUT JEWISH LAW IN ISRAEL’S SUPREME COURT
http://law.wustl.edu/WUGSLR/Issues/Volume8_4/Friedell.pdf
The article considers whether the Israeli Supreme Court‟s effort to incorporate the parts of Jewish law that deal with secular subjects is internally flawed. ….. (it) considers the approach of looking to Jewish law, not for specific rules that will be applied, but as a storehouse from which one can seek enlightenment. …This Article suggests ways that some of these cases could have better employed Jewish law and also describes cases that have properly done so. It concludes that, when used properly, Jewish law can help to link Israeli law to a rich cultural heritage
Ne’eman in Knesset: Support alternative litigation system
Justice minister draws public criticism for calling for Torah law to be instated in Israel. In Knesset speech, Ne’eman explains he was referring to proposed financial courts
Amnon Meranda
Published: 12.08.09, 18:18 / Israel News
The justice minister tried to calm the storm that ensued following his previous statements on Torah law in Israel, but again has caused controversy. Following the sharp public criticism of Minister Yaakov Ne’eman’s call for Torah law to be instated in Israel, he stood at the Knesset podium Tuesday to respond to his critics.
“The court system in Israel is overloaded. Therefore, transferring conflicts to an alternative litigation system under mutual consent must be encouraged. Financial courts rule according to halachic law as was established through dozens of generations,” explained Ne’eman.
Eternal Laws
Legalists: Ne’eman cannot stay in post / Aviad Glickman
Following comments that Torah law should be restored in Israel, sources from legal system tell Ynet, ‘If he is of this opinion, he cannot serve as minister in State of Israel’
Full Story
Minister Ne’eman spoke before the Knesset plenum as part of a discussion on International Human Rights day, but his speech was dedicated to clarifying and defending his previous statements made during a conference on Hebrew law in Jerusalem. “I hear the calls being made from all directions and want to put things back on the right track,” he said.
“Financial courts rule according to halacha, as it was codified in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, in the writings of the wise, and in halachic rulings,” he explained.
Therefore, he asserted, “I did not say anything new at my appearance at the financial law conference. After all, the prophet Isaiah in Chapter 1 verses 26-27 already said many years ago: ‘Then I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning; after that you will be called the city of righteousness, a faithful city. Zion will be redeemed with justice and her repentant ones with righteousness.'”
In response to his critics, he said, “I find it difficult to accept the statements attributed to me in the reports, as if I said that the State’s laws must be replaced right now with Torah laws.”
The minister’s statements at the conference, while loudly applauded by the rabbis in attendance, were slammed in the political echelons, especially among the Left. Minister Ne’eman already clarified that his statements were misunderstood and claimed that they were in no way a call “to replace the State’s laws with halacha laws, neither directly nor indirectly.”
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3817093,00.html
ALSO SEE: The Daily Star – “Israeli minister: Jewish law must become binding”, 12/09/09
(excerpt)…Yaakov Neeman, an observant Jew, told a rabbinical conference Monday that the Bible contains “a complete solution to all the things we are dealing with.” “Step by step we will bestow religious law upon the citizens of Israel and transform religious law into the binding law of the state,” he said. Israeli newspapers said the rabbis attending the conference applauded him wildly, but some lawmakers on Tuesday attacked his remarks as anti-democratic.
Opposition MP Haim Oron warned of a “troubling process of Talibanization” in Israel. In the wake of the commotion, Neeman’s office put out a statement Tuesday saying he spoke only “in broad terms” about “the importance of Jewish law in the life of the state.” The minister’s remarks did not imply “a call to replace state laws with religious laws, either directly or indirectly,” the statement added.
SOURCE – http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=109571
For god’s sake, do you realize how many times you’ve quoted me out of context now? You have a really difficult time reading, don’t you? I will make this as systematic as possible, so you won’t be confused as to just how incorrect you are:
“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!
Again nuance is not yr strong suit. You said the IDF is not governed by halacha. I said that was not PRECISELY true. Do you understand the meaning of that word? I never claimed that the IDF IS currently governed by halacha. But I claimed that the IDF code of ethics retains very strong elements of halacha due to one of the formulators of the code being one of the most distinguished Orthodox rabbis in Israel. So halacha plays a role in the IDF code of ethics, period. Really do you have so much hate in your body that you can’t be bothered to acknowledge the specific words & meaning that someone you hate writes & must twist them into something they are not??
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.
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 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.
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??
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.
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 call you a name except when I did.”
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.
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.
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.
Once again you make a claim w/o providing any reference to what you’re talking about.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Disclaimer: I didn’t read the entire comments thread, maybe I am not saying anything new below.
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.