Volume 55 Number 77
Produced: Wed Sep 19 5:19:59 EDT 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Complaints about the First Amendment? (2)
[Akiva Miller, Keith Bierman]
Da'as Torah (2)
[Joel Rich, Richard Fiedler]
Fasting during Elul
[Carl Singer]
The First Amendment
[Carl Singer]
Natural Law
[Carl Singer]
Two Day Rosh HaShanah
[Lemkin Realty]
Tzavaas HaRivash
[Eitan Fiorino]
Whether to support Zionism
[Leah-Perl]
Why 2 days RH are different from other Yamim Tovim (2)
[William Gewirtz, Martin Stern]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:21:11 GMT
Subject: Re: Complaints about the First Amendment?
<meirman@...> (Meir) asked:
> ... in a country with religious freedom, the law allows people to do
> things that they shouldn't. Yeah, but if there were going to be less
> religious freedom, it would be Christians imposing their religious
> values on Jews and Noahides. ... They may have legalized blasphemy and
> in most states adultery, but despite that sort of thing, all in all,
> isn't the First Amendment a good thing for Jews and Noahides?
As I see it, this exact same question could be asked about Freedom of
Speech and Freedom of the Press. My ability to speak Holy Truth is
protected by allowing the next guy to speak Utter Garbage. You can't
have one without the other.
The ideal, of course, would be to have a government which sees things as
I do, and would protect my speech while banning all others. But I don't
know of any way to implement that on a practical level. The choices are
between (a) freedom for everyone, or (b) a government which does censor
the press and the speech to a certain extent, while we hope and pray
that the government views will be mostly consistent with ours.
Personally, I think that far too many things are allowed in today's
America, and I do think we'd be better off with a little censorship. But
that is speaking only theoretically. Speaking practically, I don't know
how to keep the censorship at an acceptable level. The tendency for
censorship to get out of hand is all too real. I admire 1950s movies for
their lack of explicit sex, but I'm ashamed of Senator McCarthy and his
blacklist.
PS: This same problem affects other areas of law as well. I think
current laws are so lenient that they've allowed abortion to become a
form of birth control. But I don't want law to be tightened so much that
abortion is illegal even in cases where the woman's rabbi paskens that
it is allowed.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Keith Bierman <khbkhb@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:47:54 -0600
Subject: Re: Complaints about the First Amendment?
> Now I'm in a discussion with two Noahides who think they are bad
> because in a country with religious freedom, the law allows people to
> do things that they shouldn't.
It being a country with freedom of speech (and thought) they are welcome
to those opinions. But why is a topic for this list?
Let's rephrase, perhaps "does anyone know of a halachic of hasgafick
(legal or philosophical ;>) reason to criticize 'Dinah deMalchulut' (law
of the civil state) providing freedom from government mandated religion
(ala the USA) in a country where the majority are not Jewish (so we
can't be arguing about a Halachic based state vs. a Secular based state
... just a Secular vs. religions which are not halachic in nature)".
Phrased that way, it's hard to see how there could be much to discuss. I
think the Noahides may suffer under the delusion that if the government
was free to impose it's views upon the citizens that it would be a
Noahic consistent framework and they view that as desirable.
Personally (not that it's germane to this list) for questions about what
is OK for the State to do in the US, I always do the thought experiment
"if the Government (or the majority) were real idol worshippers
(e.g. followers of the Norse idol Thor) and mandatory Norse bits of
worship were required by law, would that be OK?"
So personally, I'm not happy with Christmas being a civil holiday,
because I'm certain my Christian neighbors would riot if they were
forced to witness rites of Thor, and take time off of work, etc. in
honor of Thor.
Keith H. Bierman <khbkhb@...>
<speaking for myself*> Copyright 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joel Rich <JRich@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:15:47 -0400
Subject: Da'as Torah
>Dr. Ben Katz wrote:
>> The problem for those who believe in "daas Torah" is that those very
>> rabbis were by and large, wrong about the 2 momentous decisions facing
>
>> 20th century Jewry:
>> 1. whether to stay in Europe
>> 2. Whether to support Zionism
>
>That is your opinion. But it is not a provable fact.
>
>I'll admit that the way things turned out, it does APPEAR that those
>rabbis were wrong. But Who knows how things would have turned out if
>more people had actually listened to those rabbis and followed them?
>
>(I am NOT claiming to know that the rabbis were correct. My point is
>that no mortal human can know these things.)
>
>Akiva Miller
==================================
>
>Which rabbis were wrong about whether to support Zionism?
>
>History has shown that Zionism is a tool to dissociate Jews from
>Judaism, and the rabonim have sadly been proved correct.
>Perets Mett
Beautiful matched pair of responses. I suppose one can never prove
anything in this world beyond a shadow of a doubt (e.g. the world was
created as you read this word but everyone had memories implanted -
prove this wrong) or can prove anything to one who believes it anyway
(e.g. Martians run the world and are great at hiding it - proof-have you
ever seen a Martian?)
I would point out that History usually proves exactly what one wants it
to
May we all do an objective cheshbon hanefesh as to our personal state of
existence and in doing so merit the biat goel tzedek.
GCT
Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Fiedler <richardfiedler@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:51:21 +0200
Subject: Re: Da'as Torah
> From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
> Which rabbis were wrong about whether to support Zionism? History has
> shown that Zionism is a tool to dissociate Jews from Judaism, and the
> rabonim have sadly been proved correct. ksiva vachasima tova
By this logic Das Torah was a tool to kill many religious jews in the
holocaust. In many respects Zionism is dead or dying as can be evidenced
by what one might have thought as a zionistic institution the Grus
Center, an Israeli division of Yeshiva University, in Jerusalem
rejecting the heter mechira and supporting the arab cause by purchasing
its produce this year from them.
Richard Fiedler
Old City, Jerusalem
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:28:07 -0400
Subject: Fasting during Elul
From: Robert Schoenfeld <frank_james@...>
> Was there any hint of fasting during the daytime Elul before destruction
> of the second bas hamigdosh or any sect after the destruction
Are you looking for a precursor to the Muslim daytime fasting during the
month of Ramadan fasting?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:25:42 -0400
Subject: The First Amendment
From: <meirman@...> (Meir)
> Does anyone know of any USA Jews, especially Orthodox, who object to the
> two freedom of religion clauses in the First Amendment, in the Bill of
> Rights? Does anyone know of any USA Jews who criticize Jefferson for
> his part in writing them. What are their reasons? Every Jew I've ever
> read or talked to has thought they were good things.
>
> Now I'm in a discussion with two Noahides who think they are bad because
> in a country with religious freedom, the law allows people to do things
> that they shouldn't. Yeah, but if there were going to be less religious
> freedom, it would be Christians imposing their religious values on Jews
> and Noahides. Like when I grew up. They may have legalized blasphemy
> and in most states adultery, but despite that sort of thing, all in all,
> isn't the First Amendment a good thing for Jews and Noahides?
What's a Noahide? Or more precisely what do you mean by a Noahide?
When I "googled" the term -- the first references are to a website
established by Chabad Lubavitch. Are there any people who SELF-IDENTIFY
as "Noahides" today? Or is this a red herring?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke a few years ago at the
Spanish Portuguese Synagogue in Manhattan in observance of 350 years of
Jews in America. He spoke in great depth about the first amendment,
"Freedom of religion", Jefferson and other founding fathers.
I can't capture the intellectual depth of his discussion here, but in
essence freedom of religion was FOR religion but AGAINST the
establishment of any specific religion (as the state religion.)
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:38:08 -0400
Subject: Natural Law
> Not to beat this to death or dance in semantics, the purpose of my
> statement re: "fresh from a shiur" was in response to the "nowadays"
> response.
Semantics aside, I don't see significant distinction between human
nature and "natural law" in the closing assertion.
>Explaining people's behavior is certainly an interesting question, but
>it's a matter of psychology and sociology. There's no need to assume
>that there really is such a thing as natural law, only that it is part
>of human nature to be inclined to accept such a notion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lemkin Realty <lemkinrealty2@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:07:38 +0200
Subject: Two Day Rosh HaShanah
Regarding the issue of whether Rosh HaShanah should be one or two days
in Eretz Yisrael-here's an interesting article with Machon Shilo's Rav
David Bar-Hayim's commentary on the matter.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448819,00.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eitan Fiorino <AFiorino@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:34:11 -0400
Subject: RE: Tzavaas HaRivash
>From Yossi Ginzberg:
> Judge for yourselves. I quote the Tzavaas HaRivash, not from
> where the whitewash comes, but from chapter 117: " ach hatzer
> harah mefateh oso shelo yilmod aize davar sheyavo lo yiras
> shamayim meza, k'mo sifrei musar o shulchan aruch leda hadin
> al buryo, ach mefateh oso sheyaasok tamid rak b'gemara im kol
> hamefarshim".
>
> My translation: "The evil influence seduces him not to learn
> things from which he will have fear of heaven, as in books of
> musar or the halachic codes to know the halacha clearly, but
> rather it (the evil influence/ yetzer hara) seduces him into
> always learning only Talmud and its commentaries".
>
> Is this is not a clear rejection of the basic principles of
> Torah study according to the historical tradition?
My limited understanding is that early chasidut viewed as a highly
intellectualized exclusive focus on the learning of Talmud, which was
what was the norm at the time in Eastern Europe, was spiritually sterile
and was designed to serve only an academic elite. To be sure, there
have been more expansive definitions of Torah study through the ages - I
mean really, all he is saying is that one should study musar and
shulchan aruch in addition to Talmud - what principle of Torah study
does that violate? I'm not sure that the fetishization of Talmud study
as the only religiously important endeavor in which Jewish males should
be engaged can be charaterized as a basic principle "of Torah study
according to the historical tradition."
Shana tova!
-Eitan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah-Perl <leahperl@...>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:43:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Whether to support Zionism
> History has shown that Zionism is a tool to dissociate Jews from
> Judaism, and the rabonim have sadly been proved correct.
Yes -- in reference to secular-political Zionism. And sadly, not even
that variety is still around anymore -- its all "post-Zionism" -- which
is a statement about the staying power of anything that's not based on a
foundation of emet.
Leah-Perl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <wgewirtz@...> (William Gewirtz)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:10:07 +0000
Subject: Why 2 days RH are different from other Yamim Tovim
From: Richard Fiedler <richardfiedler@...>
> From: <wgewirtz@...> (William Gewirtz)
>> 2 days RH is entirely different from other 2 day yomim Tovim. Because
>> of an error as stated in the order of service, there was gezirah to
>> disallow witnessess that arrived very late in the afternoon. Clearly,
>> given the manipulation practiced leading up to Tishrai, BD knew that
>> the day should be rosh chodesh and RH, were visbility not impai red
>> with no eidim showing up. so when they decalred the arrival period
>> over they would be effectively declaring the next daty RH and that day
>> chol. Not wanting to do that, they celebarted both days as Kodesh.
>> subequent history is a major machloket rishonim.
>
>You don't need to go to the rishonim. The Gemorah itself said that the
>Takana never took effect because Elul was there after always 29 days.See
>Beitza 6a.
Takana did take effect; what is not clear if it was ever used in
practice. Were it to be used the first day would be decalred Kodesh
even though the next day would be celebrated as RH and YK counted as the
10th day after. Remember given weather the likelihood of no witnesses
after gerrymandering the previous month of Elul is very, very small.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <md.stern@...> (Martin Stern)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:03:31 +0100
Subject: Re: Why 2 days RH are different from other Yamim Tovim
Perhaps the most obvious reason why the 2 days RH are different from the
2 days of other Yamim Tovim (in chuts la'arets)is that the first day RH
is treated as the first day of Tishri whereas for every other Rosh
Chodesh, on which the date of the other Yamim Tovim depend, it is the
second day which is the first of the month.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 55 Issue 77