Volume 49 Number 54
Produced: Fri Aug 12 6:50:08 EDT 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Bigoted Postings (2)
[Mordechai, Avi Feldblum]
Brich Shmei
[Yisrael & Batya Medad]
Notice to Visitors in shul
[Baruch J. Schwartz]
Sins and Sinners
[Akiva Miller]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mordechai <mordechai@...>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:06:17 -0400
Subject: Bigoted Postings
Eitan writes
>If you want to do some unbiased research why don't you go to the medical
>literature and do it yourself rather than relying on a group
>ideologically and irrationally committed to the elimination of both
>homosexuals and Jews?
Please post your evidence that any of the sources I quoted support
murder of either homosexuals or Jews. There are none of course. This
is nothing more than a bigoted ad hominen attack.
Again I am disapointed in our moderator, who allows such libelous
postings, while adding comments to almost every post I make on this
issue. I've been on this list long enough to know he is better than
allowing this type of posting.
Attacking the facts I quote, because you think they come from Christians
is as racist and bigoted if someone says you can't trust a Jew talking
about Israel because he is Jewish or an African American talking about
civil rights.
There is no such thing as unbiased research. Much of the medical
literature Eitan wants to quote is dominated by pro gay activists who
won't allow an opposing position to be published. Unbiased in the
secular academic world means pro gray.
The same arguement Eitan uses can be used to "prove " the Torah is not
from Sinai. After all you will never find a secular academic journal
with an article that the Torah is divine. To believe in documentary
hypothesis is a requirement in any "quality" graduate program in Judaic
Studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <avi@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 06:19:45 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Bigoted Postings
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Mordechai wrote:
> Please post your evidence that any of the sources I quoted support
> murder of either homosexuals or Jews. There are none of course. This
> is nothing more than a bigoted ad hominen attack.
>
> Again I am disapointed in our moderator, who allows such libelous
> postings, while adding comments to almost every post I make on this
> issue. I've been on this list long enough to know he is better than
> allowing this type of posting.
There have been a number of people on the list that have strongly
questioned my allowing your posts to be published on the list. There are
those who view what you write as hateful speech as opposed to civil
dialogue. As a result, it generates fairly strong responses. I have chosen
to allow your posting to be posted, because even though I do think they at
least skirt on the edge of hateful speech, they represent a view that at
least a minority of the list may identify with and open and frank
discussion of it may be of some value. Nevertheless, to the extent that
there are "bigoted postings", I believe that describes your postings,
more than the replies to them.
To your point in the first paragraph, Eitan did not say that the Christian
far right wants to kill all the Jews and homosexuals. They want to convert
all the Jews and they want to "fix" all the homosexuals, and in that
manner they will have eliminated the Jews and homosexuals. That is how I
clearly interpreted Eitan's comments.
> Attacking the facts I quote, because you think they come from Christians
> is as racist and bigoted if someone says you can't trust a Jew talking
> about Israel because he is Jewish or an African American talking about
> civil rights.
The information you posted was not being attacked because it came from
Christians. There is a reasonable probability that much of the medical
research Eitan suggests you research was authored by Christians, as they
are the dominant religion here and in Europe. The statement is that the
two web sites you have quoted material from are known to be highly
biased organizations with a history of perverting relatively unbiased
information / data for their own purposes. You may disagree with that
statement. I happen to fully agree with Eitan on that point. I have no
hard information, but I think that a significant majority of the list
agrees that both NAMBLA and the far right Christian organizations such
as Family Research Council fall into the catagory I listed above of
sources not to be relied on.
> There is no such thing as unbiased research. Much of the medical
> literature Eitan wants to quote is dominated by pro gay activists who
> won't allow an opposing position to be published. Unbiased in the
> secular academic world means pro gray.
While I agree that there may be no such thing as totaly unbiased
research, since the biases of the investigator may color how s/he sees
and interprets results or structures the experiments, most valid
peer-reviewed research limits / minimizes the effect of the bias on the
final results. I'm not involved in this academic area, but I strongly
suspect that there are respected medical journals where any valid
research could be published, and that it be pro-gay is not a
requirement. In areas that I have been more involved with, in general
the claim that position X is not represented in the liturature because
the "establishment" does not agree with that position, when carefully
investigated results in the conclusion that the review of the research
did not support that position and the authors tried to force a
pre-determined position on the data. That is to say, it is those who are
making the claim who are trying to impose a "religious / political
correctness" on the data and are therefore being excluded from the
academic discussion.
> The same arguement Eitan uses can be used to "prove " the Torah is not
> from Sinai. After all you will never find a secular academic journal
> with an article that the Torah is divine. To believe in documentary
> hypothesis is a requirement in any "quality" graduate program in Judaic
> Studies.
I find the comparison to Torah from Sinai interesting. There are two
approaches you can take to a topic. One is that of academic research,
the other is that of faith. I "believe" that haShem gave us the Torah at
Sinai. I do not think I can "prove" that as a historical fact. If I were
to submit an article purporting to prove that the Torah was given to the
Jews on Sinai 40 days after they left Egypt under quite dramatic
circumstances, I would need to present supporting documentation to
justify that claim. If the basis of the article was that this was my
belief, I think they would be completely justified in rejecting it. At
the same time, if I submitted something to a Yeshiva's collection of
divrei torah that started with the assumption that since there was no
historical record of matan torah, therefore it never happened, they
would be fully justified in rejecting that submission as well. On the
other hand, a submission to an academic journal analyzing a passage in
the torah in the light of information from other contemporary semitic
documents, e.g. the sale of the kever to Avraham in light of Hitite laws
of sale, should be viewed on it's merits even if it is a strong
indicator that the Baraishit story has to be fairly old and not as late
as some academics postulate that it is.
You may have the right to "believe" that what you have posted is God
given dogma. That is between you, your LOR / Halachic Authority and
God. That the far right Christian groups believe this and have the
support of their theological leaders, I have little doubt. But if you
are presenting it as scientific 'fact', then I agree with those you
require that the source of the information be more academically /
scientifically accurate.
I'd let someone more conversant with the current state of Biblical
higher critisism to respond to final comments, but my understanding is
that the documentary hypothesis is far from the dominant position today
than it was 30 years ago.
Avi Feldblum
<avi@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yisrael & Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 12:09:14 +0200
Subject: Brich Shmei
Mosh Chalamish mentions this matter several times in his collection
HaKabbalah - B'tfillah, b'halacha uv'minhag.
p. 122 the Ar"i is responsible for putting Rashbi's words in the Zohar
into practice (II, 206A) regarding Brich Shmei, making it a normative
demand, an integral part of the service although there is a dispute
whether only on Shabbat or also weekday or only weekday.
p. 215 Rav Yitzhak Vana's commentary to the Siddur records that "the
Chazzan and the congregation with him pronounce in a whisper
word-by-word the prayer Brich Shmei
p. 224 [the commentary of Rav Yihye Tzalah (Yemen, 1714-1805)] notes
that the Kabbalah, because of its loss and disappearance, includes
prayers which the Rambam did not include, like Keter for Kedusha and
Brich Shmei, but are now to be said.
p. 289 [here is a list of inclusions in the Siddur due to Kabbalistic
influence and regarding Brich Shmei he writes]: see Chida, Responsa
Yosef Ometz 44. As for the custom of bowing at the words Segidna Kamei,
see Responsa Yithak Yeranein III, 12; Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, V,
8:4-5 and on the prayer's importance see Yesod Yosef 1968, 5A; Binyan
Yosef, p. 36
Yisrael Medad
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Baruch J. Schwartz <schwrtz@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 07:16:07 +0300
Subject: Notice to Visitors in shul
On the effectiveness of a "Welcome to Visitors notice, prominently
displayed in the entrance hall, which would list such local customs",
here is a recent experience I had:
I was on sabbatical in the US during the year that I was saying kaddish
for my father z"l. I davened at one shul during the week, where I was
permitted to daven at the amud, and at another one on Sunday mornings,
where I was constantly passed over--despite the fact that there were no
other avelim and there were numerous people present, including the
gabbai, who knew that I was a competent baal tefillah. I deduced that
the local custom must be not to allow guests to daven at the amud, which
(for reasons we have recently been discussing here on mj) is not such a
bad idea, so I was fine with it. But when I began to notice other guests
being offered the amud, I asked one of the members what was going on,
and he had no idea. I remained perplexed, but never approached the
gabbai to inquire, and my period of saying kaddish eventually came to an
end.
A few months later, on the very last Sunday of my year abroad, I was
standing in the entry foyer saying farewell to some of the members.
Looking up at the bulletin board--which I had never noticed before,
since I was a once-a-week, in-and-out visitor--I saw a notice containing
a brief list of local customs, including the regulation that the sheliah
tzibbur is required to wear a jacket at all times. Needless to say, this
satisfied my curiosity.
Three lessons: One, if you are the guest, look for the list of local
minhagim; if you don't find it, ask. Two, if you are the gabbai, call
the visitor's attention to the local customs; he may not have noticed
the list. Three, heveh dan kol adam lechaf zechut: if you are the
visitor, don't assume that the gabbai is discriminating against you; if
you are the gabbai, don't assume that the guest is deliberately ignoring
your notices.
Baruch Schwartz
<schwrtz@...>
Efrat
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 03:51:56 GMT
Subject: Sins and Sinners
In the thread "Homosexuality: how to act vs. what to think", Sarah Beck
wrote <<< I hate to use the pop-Christian formulation, but much of what
has been said comes down to "love the sinner but detest the sin." >>>
It is a very common error to think that this is a Christian
viewpoint. It is actually a very Jewish one, with its source in how
Bruriah, the wife of Rabi Meir, explained a verse of Tehillim (Psalms).
The rest of this post is my translation (with help from Rabbi
Steinzaltz's Hebrew version) of a Gemara near the top of Brachos 10a:
There were some scoundrels who lived in Rabi Meir's neighborhood, who
used to give him a lot of trouble, and he prayed for mercy for them,
that they should die.
His wife Bruriah said to him, "What's your logic?"
[He answered:] "Because of the verse [Psalms 104:35] 'Sin will cease.'"
[She responded:] "It doesn't say 'SINNERS'! It says 'SINS'! Furthermore,
go look at the end of that verse: 'And evildoers will be no more.' Once
the sins stop, evildoers will be no more. Rather, pray for mercy for
them, that they should do teshuva."
He prayed for mercy for them, and they did do teshuva.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 49 Issue 54