Are Jews required to save a non-Jew's life on the Sabbath? [Archive]

danholo

09-29-2002, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Philip

I'm afraid that I find that to be a disingenuous answer. I think I have demonstrated, in agreement with your statement, that Israel's High Court has ruled that Israel's laws prohibit discrimination against non-Jews in allocating state land. I think that I have also demonstrated, however, that the High Court's ruling on this matter has been ignored, a matter which you side-stepped. Of what concern is "the law" when it does not apply?

Since there are clearly, as evidenced by the continued denial of a lease of state land in Katzir to the Arab Kadaanan family (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2115857.stm), instances of discrimination against non-Jews in the allocation of state lands --even in defiance of a High Court ruling -- will you declare that you do not accept these practices either?

I do not accept what the community of Katzir has done.

I would certainly prefer to learn about Judaism directly, but I can't because I don't know Hebrew.

This is false. I don't know Hebrew and I have been studying Judaism these past 5 months. There are many books on Judaism that are in English.
No where do they say not to save a Gentiles life. A Gentile's life is as precious as a Jews. This is the truth in Judaism.

(And what if it is not Yom Kippur? -- what is your source for this unusually specific pronouncement?)

I used Yom Kippur as an example, since it is the holiest day for Jews and like a Shabat.

Shahak apparently was accurate in his quote of Maimonides, whom I understand to be regarded as the most important of all Talmudic scholars -- I followed your links and the nearest thing to a refutation of the Maimonides quote about the prohibition against saving a Gentile was a statement about how a man's virtues are timeless but his vices belong only to the age he finds himself in, which I took to be a verification. On this matter, it seems that Shahak told the truth.

Yes. You are right. I will have to go ask a Rabbi about this.

Also, I think Shahak has been pretty clear that he was looking to the influences and attitudes conveyed by traditional Judaism, and not insisting that the anti-Gentile pronouncements were religiously followed by Israel (though apparently they are religiously followed by certain sects).

There are lots of sects in Israel. I am least fond of the one's who hate Arabs by following Meir Kahane's interpretation of Torah.

And, if we read carefully, we can see that the extension of pikuach nefesh to cover Gentile as well as Jewish life can be seen (not must be seen, but can be seen) as just an indirect means to serve Jewish interests. While one of your links proclaimed that the Rabbinic Council had, contrary to Shahak's claims, ruled that Gentile lives as well as Jewish lives should be actively protected, Shahak's take on this is "They added much sanctimonious twaddle to the effect that if the consequence of such an act puts Jews in danger, the violation of the Sabbath is permitted, for their sake." And the excerpt from the Talmud that I re-quoted from Shahak earlier speaks of "the Gentiles in whose [protective] shade we, the people of Israel, are exiled" -- is it for their own sake that such Gentile lives are to be valued, or only because of the '[protective] shade' that they provide to Jews?

Pikuach nefesh extends to everyone everywhere. That is the way I see it and that is what I have come to learn from my study of Judaism. Israel Shahak really hates Jews for some reason by spewing this bile.
What excrept ot the Talmud is Shahak quoting? I can tell you that Shahak was no Jewish scholar.

Finally, I point to Miriam's post in this thread:

This is not a statement that Jewish interests must be balanced against non-Jewish interests, but rather a statement that Jewish interests must be served, and all else be damned. Will you disavow this sentiment, Danholo?

I'll have to consult a Rabbi concerning Deuteronomy 23:20 if this is what you are implying. If it is truly what the literal interpretation implies, yes I disavow this.

Thank G-d there is www.askmoses.com

Philip

09-29-2002, 06:50 AM

Danholo, thank you for your responses. I appreciate your honesty and I perceive that you are a good person; I won't hold it against you if you do not return this sentiment.

Originally posted by danholo
I don't know Hebrew and I have been studying Judaism these past 5 months. There are many books on Judaism that are in English.
No where do they say not to save a Gentiles life. A Gentile's life is as precious as a Jews. This is the truth in Judaism.

I submit that by studying Judaism through English translations, you are ultimately getting a second-hand account, as I am. Of course your study is more valid than mine, because my only concern is with particular aspects and not with the whole. I hope that you are right about pikuach nefresh. There are awful things in the literature of most religions, I expect, and it is not particularly damning to Judaism that it is no exception. I think that it is damning, however, when those awful things are accepted and followed.

Pikuach nefesh extends to everyone everywhere. That is the way I see it and that is what I have come to learn from my study of Judaism. Israel Shahak really hates Jews for some reason by spewing this bile.
What excrept ot the Talmud is Shahak quoting? I can tell you that Shahak was no Jewish scholar.

My perception is that Israel Shahak was a humanist first and foremost, but also a Jew who insisted upon a form of Judaism that is compatible with his humanism, which he was content that he had found. What you see as his hatred of Jews, I see as his hatred of the anti-humanistic aspects of certain forms of Judaism, and his disappointment with those who accept them.

The lenient interpretation quoted by Shahak he noted as coming from Moses Rivkes, Be'er Haggolah on Shulhan 'Arukh, 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425. (I hope that means more to you than it does to me.) The strict interpretation (i.e., the prohibition against acting to save a non-Jew's life) he noted as coming from 'Yoreh De'ah' 158 and Shulhan 'Arukh in 'Hoshen Mishpat' 425. He also notes of the lenient interpretation that

Thus Professor Jacob Katz, in his Hebrew book Between Jews and Gentiles as well as in its more apologetic English version Exclusiveness and Tolerance, quotes only this passage verbatim and draws the amazing conclusion that 'regarding the obligation to save life no discrimination should be made between Jew and Christian'. He does not quote any of the authoritative views I have cited above or in the next section.

He also quotes a correspondence between an Israeli soldier and a rabbi (Shim'on Weiser), "published in the yearbook of one of the country's most prestigious religious colleges, Midrashiyyat No'am" in 1974. Most of the correspondence concerns halakhik "purity of arms" in wartime (...and concludes that, contrary to Israel's wartime rules for its troops, civilian Arabs encountered in wartime should always be killed unless it is quite clear that they have no evil intent -- let's leave this one as a separate matter for now), but part of it addresses the protection of life:

But we find the true explanation in the Tosalot. There [ .... ] we learn the following comment on the talmudic pronouncement that Gentiles who fall into a well should not be helped out, but neither should they be pushed into the well to be killed, which means that they should neither be saved from death nor killed directly.

danholo

09-29-2002, 07:00 AM

I submit that by studying Judaism through English translations, you are ultimately getting a second-hand account, as I am.

Not actually. I read Torah with the original Hebrew and English side by side. I know a little Hebrew and read both languages together.

I don't really get this "second-hand" account.. I read many translations in English also and other books about Judaism.
None of them have anything "negative" in them.
I really would suggest that you would speak with a Rabbi about this.
www.askmoses.com is a great source. Sometimes though there might not be anyone to help and the connection could disconnect for some reason.

ibrodsky

09-29-2002, 07:54 AM

Posted by philip: But when we get to the Talmud (and, not reading Hebrew, I am again reduced to relying on secondary sources, and at this point just a single secondary source), things run wild. Maimonides himself wrote

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As for Gentiles with whom we are not at war ... their death must not be caused, but it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued, for it is written: 'neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy fellow'17 - but [a Gentile] is not thy fellow."

Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ibrodsky responds: I can't guarantee that Maimonides didn't say this.

However, I have read a good deal of Maimonides and I can say with certainty that this quote is at complete odds with his philosophy. It is almost certainly taken out of context.

Anyone who is seriously interested in understanding Maimonides should read: Maimonides: A Guide For Today's Perplexed by Kenneth Seeskin (head of Philosophy Dept. at Northwestern University.

The main theme of Maimonides philosophy was that religion must conform to facts and reason. If religion teaches moral behavior, then commandments or observances that require, invite, or could be misinterpreted to excuse immoral behavior have either been misinterpreted or are in need of repair.

Maimonides lived in the 12th century and much of his writing seems arcane to the modern reader. I confess the first time I read Guide for the Perplexed I completely misunderstood it. Maimonides' style was to state opposing arguments without comment or even any hint of where he stood; only after doing so would he begin to analyze the arguments.

So it is easy to pull statements out of his writing that are, in fact, simply restatements of what others believed or proposed.

The claim that Maimonides believed it was forbidden to save Gentiles at the point of death is absurd. Maimonides was a physician. Not only that -- he was court physician for the Sultan of Egypt!

As a non-observant Jew, I would not have spent as much time reading Maimonides as I have were it not for the fact that I became convinced he played a major role in freeing Jews, Christians, and everyone else from prejudice.

The fact that he would present arguments exactly as their proponents presented them before analyzing and refuting (or confirming) them only testifies to his scrupulous attachment to accuracy and fairness. Thomas Aquinas was an admirer of Maimonides and used similar logic, i.e., presenting a series of arguments, then a series of objections, and only after that drawing conclusions.

One can only conclude that Israel Shahak either 1) completely misunderstood Maimonides or 2) purposely used such quotes to give a false impression.

I have never read the Talmud, but I suspect that this same method of presenting, analyzing, and only then refuting ideas is used. Thus, most of the "quotations" that appear on Islamist and NeoNazi Websites are probably taken out of context.

ibrodsky

09-29-2002, 08:02 AM

Here is an excerpt from a letter Maimonides wrote to another physician:

...I live in Fostat and the Sultan resides in Cairo; these two places are two Sabbath limits (marked off areas around a town within which it is permitted to move on the Sabbath; approximately one and a half miles) distant from each other. My duties to the Sultan are very heavy. I am obliged to visit him every day, early in the morning, and when he, any of his children or any one of his concubines are indisposed, I cannot leave Cairo but must stay during most of the day in the palace. It also frequently happens that one or two of the officers fall sick and I must attend to their healing. Hence, as a rule, every day, in the morning I go to Cairo. Even if nothing unusual happens there, I do not return to Fostat until the afternoon. Then I am famished, but I find the antechambers filled with people, both Jews and Gentiles, nobles and common people, judges and policemen, friends and enemies - a mixed multitude who await the time of my return.

I dismount from my animal, wash my hands, go forth to my patients and entreat them to bear with me while I partake of some light refreshment, the only meal I eat in 24 hours. Then I go to attend to my patients and write prescriptions and directions for their ailments. Patients go in and out until nightfall, and sometimes even, as the Torah is my faith, until two hours or more into the night. I converse with them and prescribe for them even while lying down from sheer fatigue. When night falls, I am so exhausted that I can hardly speak.

Clearly, most of Maimonides' patients were Gentiles.

Mediocrates

09-29-2002, 08:09 AM

Miriam it is absolutely inappropriate to defend your religion to someone like Philp. Religion is not to be excused or defended in the face of people who hate it and use your own words against you.

Philip

09-29-2002, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by danholo
Oh yeah. Where exactly did Maimonides write what he wrote? That saving of life thing I mean.

Shahak gives the reference as Mishneh Torah, 'Murderer' 4, 11.

danholo

09-29-2002, 02:17 PM

This should be Murderer and Protection of Life - Rotze'ach u-Shemiras Nefesh 4:11:

éà [ç] ääåøâ ðôùåú, åìà äéå ùðé äòãéí øåàéï àåúå ëàçú, àìà øàäå äàçã àçø äàçã, àå ùäøâ áôðé ùðé òãéí áìà äúøàä, àå ùäåëçùå äòãéí ááãé÷åú åìà äåëçùå áç÷éøåú--ëì àìå äøöçðéï, ëåðñéï àåúï ìëéôä åîàëéìéï àåúï ìçí öø åîéí ìçõ òã ùéöøå îòéäï; åàçø ëê îàëéìéí àåúï ùòåøéí, òã ùëøñí ðá÷òú îëåáã äçåìé.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/b504.htm

All we need now is a person who can translate this for us!

elke

09-29-2002, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by freethepeeps

Well, all the above examples apply across the board, to people of all races, no!

Racism is only one type of discrimination. No, these examples do not apply across the board: they apply to people under 55, to people who cannot earn income high enough to be able to live in these communities, or to people who are not Native Americans. All these attributes are not the matter of choice for most people, they are something intrinsic to them. Therefore, this is certainly "discrimination".

Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that this is necessarily bad or immoral, all I am saying is that communities have been given the right to decide on the types of people they wish to live among.

The subject of this discussion is "Israel's Apartheid", and as an example of this "apartheid" the Katzir community has been given. What I am saying is that this is not an uncommon situation elsewhere as well.

Philip

09-30-2002, 09:00 AM

A search of the web suggests that pikuah nefresh applies only with regard to saving Jewish lives. Gentile lives may be required to be saved according to eivah (emnity) or according to darkei shalom (keeping peace among the nations).

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i46.html

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i52.html

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i56.html

http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v33/mj_v33i62.html

http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume7/v7n77

http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume7/v7n86

http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume7/v7n87

http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume7/v7n93

http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume7/v7n103

http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume7/v7n109

I think this was a very thoughtful comment:

If the halacha did demand that the Jew, in such a situation, should allow the non-Jew to die, then the halacha itself would give rise to eivah, so I would think that the halacha cannot be written that way.

...although a shortcoming of this is that eivah (nor darkei shalom?) is apparently not sufficient ground to violate the sabbath.

Mediocrates

09-30-2002, 09:36 AM

I have a better idea. Why don't you ask a Rabbi. I did and he sez yer all wet.

I believe there is a website called ask a rabbi

http://server1.jrmportal.com/askarabbi/

But try not to be insulting and oblique like "Tell me why it's ok to kill gentiles on the Sabbath" or something equally useless.

Or you could ask one in person. (look out for the 'horns' though, they can be sharp suckas).

It would appear that the listserv you posted has lay people on it though I didn't look at it long enough. I'm sure though that if you want to believe that Jews advocate the death of goyim on shabbat there nothing on God's gray earth that will shake you of that National Alliance belief system.

danholo

09-30-2002, 10:23 AM

I just logged on to AskMoses.com (http://www.askmoses.com) and had a chat with a rabbi about Philip's "accusations".

Here is the transcript:

Rabbi Kaplan: Welcome. I'll be with you in a moment...
Daniel: Shalom Rabbi
Daniel: On a pro-Israel board some man is trying to convince us that Pikuach Nefesh only concerns Jews.
Daniel: Isn't it true that Pikuach Nefesh extends also to non-Jews everywhere any time?
Rabbi Kaplan: Practically, it extends to non-Jews as well, althouth in theory there is a difference.
Daniel: So what's the difference.. and why?
Daniel: Isn't that a little racist?!
Daniel: You are telling me that I am not commanded to save a non-Jews life?
Rabbi Kaplan: Practially, you are. In theory there is a difference. The Torah tells us that we should vioulate a Mitzvah to save a human life because this would bring many more Mitzvot in the future. However, for a non-Jew, who doesn't do Mitzvot anyway, the this reason doesn't exist. However, our authoritied declared that since we can't separate between the lives of a Jew or a non-Jew, practically we have to violate a Mitzvah even to save the life of a non-Jew.
Daniel: So in the long run I do have to save a non-Jews life?
Daniel: But in a sense I would not be allowed to save a Hindu's life, since they are idolators?
Daniel: At least they don't sacrifice their children to their gods.
Rabbi Kaplan: In practice, yes, you have to save any person.
Daniel: But you would save any person, right?
Daniel: That was a stupid question...
Daniel: oops
Daniel: of course you would :)
Rabbi Kaplan: Yes.
Daniel: So, in theory, the man on the board is correct and he can continue spreading his stuff and prove that Jews or Judaism are racist in a way?
Rabbi Kaplan: Not really. Actually what we see is that the opposite is true. Even though from an objective point of view there is a reason to save only Jews and not non-Jews, we still don't practice this difference in order to not make a difference between them. Isn't this just the opposite of racism?
Daniel: Yes it is.
Daniel: Other question.
Daniel: I was reading Torah the other day, for the "fun" of it and Deuteronomy 23:20 cought my eye.
Daniel: It says that to a fellow Jew you are not to demand interest, but to a non-Jew you are allowed to.
Daniel: At first impression, the verse sounds a little anti-Gentile, since you have to favour the Jew.
Daniel: What explanation would you give to 23:20, since I went to Chabad.org and checked the Parshah for Ki Teitzei, but it didn't help enough.
Rabbi Kaplan: I think it's very just. You can't demant interest from a Jew becase he can't do the same to you. You can demand interest from a non-Jew because he can do the same to you.
Daniel: That was simple.

I know I'm trolling now, but I'm doing it on my own behalf. I think AskMoses.com (http://www.askmoses.com) is great resource fot Jews and non-Jews alike, who have "Jewish" questions. You can log on and talk to a Rabbi one-on-one 24/6.
The service is provided by Chabad. (These people sure are do-gooders.)

minusthejihad

09-30-2002, 11:22 AM

Great, as if the Rabbis don't have enough advice to deliver to those in need. Now you're giving anti-semites the chance to go bother them until the end of time. Oy Vey. :)

Hey, can you write the rabbi and let him know that my company writes plenty of filtering programs and provides firewalls too? he he

danholo

09-30-2002, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Great, as if the Rabbis don't have enough advice to deliver to those in need. Now you're giving anti-semites the chance to go bother them until the end of time. Oy Vey. :)

Oops. Didn't see that coming. I don't think that that will happen, since I posted the link on this board.

Philip

09-30-2002, 01:12 PM

Two issues, danholo. Rabbi Kaplan wrote "our authorities declared that since we can't separate between the lives of a Jew or a non-Jew..." On what basis was that decided? I expect that it is either eivah or darkei shalom. (The only direct reason I have seen given that observent Jews ought to preserve non-Jewish is that the non-Jew is created b'tzelem elokim (in G-d's image), but I don't think that there is any requirement that the non-Jew's life is preserved for this reason.) But either of these is something like obeying the law out of fear of being punished, and not so much like obeying the law out of respect for other people's rights.

Also, I went to "askmoses" to follow up on your Deuteronomy 23:20 question (I did not ask if I could reproduce the dialogue, and so won't), and the first answer the Rabbi I conversed with gave was that you look after family before stangers. I then wrote that I had seen elsewhere that it was considered appropriate to charge "strangers" interest because they would charge Jewish people interest, but that this did not sit well because a Moslem, for example, would not charge Jewish people interest, if he were properly following Islam. Ultimate conclusion: Jewish lender can get around charging interest to non-Jew by returning the interest charged as a gift.

danholo

09-30-2002, 01:47 PM

But either of these is something like obeying the law out of fear of being punished,

By whom?

Of course, when you do something wrong, you get punished.

and not so much like obeying the law out of respect for other people's rights.

You're telling me that observant Jews don't respect other people's rights?

BTW,

Why don't you go to askmoses about this too. I am clearly not equipped to answer such questions, since I am getting almost cofused myself... and I am no scholar of Judaism.

Philip

09-30-2002, 01:51 PM

Suppose we accept Jewish morality as a "mitzvot maximizing paradigm;" i.e., the observant Jew is to do whatever he needs in order to maximize mitzvot (I'm drawing from Rabbi Kaplan's response to Danholo). If this were openly declared, I don't see how anyone could criticize it: maybe you don't agree that maximizing mitzvoh is the most important thing in the world, but you probably don't think all the time and money Richard Penske spends with race cars makes a lot of sense either. In both cases, it is not really any of your business.

But we can usually serve our own interests better if we can convince others that we share their values, and that they will benefit wheneve we benefit, even if this is not really true. An issue I have with Judaism is that it seems not to be open about some of the values that shape it. Suppose the Maimonides quotation is correct, as I think it probably is. If it is merely a historical document, there is no reason that it's publication other than in Hebrew should be hindered, as seems to happen: it is just something that an important person once said, and it isn't necessarily adhered to today. Or if it correctly reflects current application, and is applied because it maximizes mitzvot, there is no direct reason to conceal it in this case, either.

Now, no doubt there are those who don't think that there would be nothing wrong with holding a mitzvot maximizing morality. If we assume for the moment that this is what Jewish morality is, then such people would be antisemites. And if there were danger to Jews from such people, it would be reasonable for the mitzvot maximizing nature of Jewish morality to be kept concealed.

But at the same time, if, for example, in concealing the assumed mitzvot maximizing nature of Jewish morality, it were claimed that Jewish morality were actually a strictly humanist morality, that raises other issues. What if Jews benefit (and thus are able to perform more mitzvot) because they are aided by people who misguidedly think that they are aiding a people who hold a strictly humanist morality? Would it not be appropriate, in a meta-morality, to hold that would be wrong for Jews to advance their moral goals (and not just protect themselves from the harm of others) by misleading others about what those goals are?

(I might add that when I was younger, I was very likely to drop a quarter into the "Plant a Tree in Israel" boxes; I now expect that I was also helping to plant Palestinians...)

I brace myself for the charges of antisemitism.

Philip

09-30-2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by danholo
But either of these is something like obeying the law out of fear of being punished,

By whom?

Of course, when you do something wrong, you get punished.

and not so much like obeying the law out of respect for other people's rights.

You're telling me that observant Jews don't respect other people's rights?

BTW,

Why don't you go to askmoses about this too. I am clearly not equipped to answer such questions, since I am getting almost cofused myself... and I am no scholar of Judaism.

(I certainly think that other people's rights have gotten run over in Palestine...)

I feel somewhat constrained in what I can do at askmoses. Essentially, I would be asking the Rabbis there to admit that Judaism is dishonest with non-Jews -- if I asked such a question directly (as a non-Jew), of what worth would any answer I got be? But I really, really have a problem with being deceptive in trying to get an answer to such a question; like "seething a kid in its mother's milk," I think it is wrong to turn someone's efforts against his interests. If I could somehow get someone to agree to being the target of deception without at the same time making the deception impossible, then maybe...

The Deuteronomy 23:20 question was as much as I could bring myself to do.

danholo

09-30-2002, 02:07 PM

An issue I have with Judaism is that it seems not to be open about some of the values that shape it.

So which values is it not open about then? The one's you've been ranting now?

danholo

09-30-2002, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Philip

(I certainly think that other people's rights have gotten run over in Palestine...)

I feel somewhat constrained in what I can do at askmoses. Essentially, I would be asking the Rabbis there to admit that Judaism is dishonest with non-Jews -- if I asked such a question directly (as a non-Jew), of what worth would any answer I got be? But I really, really have a problem with being deceptive in trying to get an answer to such a question; like "seething a kid in its mother's milk," I think it is wrong to turn someone's efforts against his interests. If I could somehow get someone to agree to being the target of deception without at the same time making the deception impossible, then maybe...

The Deuteronomy 23:20 question was as much as I could bring myself to do.

You could always give askmoses a shot. I think you have completely misunderstood what Judaism is.

danholo

09-30-2002, 02:20 PM

You are to violate the Torah to save another's life so the saved person can do more mitzvah, not the saver. So you do not do anything for yourself. It is a selfless act entirely. So mitzvot maximizing is a great thing. By saving another's life, more good deeds will be done.

Philip

09-30-2002, 02:45 PM

You are miss-stating the response you received from Rabbi Kaplan, Danholo: "However, for a non-Jew, who doesn't do Mitzvot anyway, the this reason doesn't exist." It is clearly not for the sake of the non-Jew performing more mitzvot that the observant Jew should save his life.

danholo

09-30-2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Philip
You are miss-stating the response you received from Rabbi Kaplan, Danholo: "However, for a non-Jew, who doesn't do Mitzvot anyway, the this reason doesn't exist." It is clearly not for the sake of the non-Jew performing more mitzvot that the observant Jew should save his life.

Tell me this. Why should I save your life if mine is at risk? Why should I risk my life for your's? Are you more important than me?

This is what Maimonides is getting at.

Philip

09-30-2002, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by danholo
An issue I have with Judaism is that it seems not to be open about some of the values that shape it.

So which values is it not open about then? The one's you've been ranting now?

And am I ranting, Danholo?

We are still not clear about why non-Jews must be treated the same as Jews; it seems that Maimonides did not see things this way. We are not clear about whether it is required under halakha to protect non-Jewish lives for their own sakes or just because the effect this is to protect Jewish lives. Every single thing Rabbi Kaplan wrote to you about how non-Jewish lives must be treated the same as Jewish lives used the terms "practically" or "in practice." This means that in the situation we find ourselves in now, this is what happens; it also allows for other situations in which something else is what happens. Racism necessarily goes to motivation: if a man treats white people respectfully because he thinks that they deserve his respect, and he also treats blacks respectfully, though in this case it is only because he is afraid he will be punished if he does otherwise, then he is a racist, even if he treats blacks and whites the same. In the first case he is respecting white people; in the second case he is respecting the threat of punishment.

Similary, if halakha holds that Jews must protect the lives of Jews because they are precious, and that Jews must protect the lives of non-Jews because doing otherwise might endanger the Jews, then it is a racist (or 'anti-gentile,' if you like) doctrine, even if 'practically' it calls for Jewish and non-Jewish life to be treated the same.

We are also not clear about why it would be "very just" for a Jew to charge interest of a devout Moslem, who can not do the same to him.

Philip

09-30-2002, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by danholo

Tell me this. Why should I save your life if mine is at risk? Why should I risk my life for your's? Are you more important than me?

This is what Maimonides is getting at.

This does not seem to be Maimonides point -- "it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued." Nothing is said of the risk to the Jew. There is also a comment from Rabbi David Halevi (Poland, 17th century) on Shulhan 'Arukh "when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly." (You know my source.)

Mediocrates

09-30-2002, 04:36 PM

Clearly you want to say that Jews advocate brutal treatment of non Jews. If you don't know what the rest of the commandments are then I suppose you could make some strange determination - so be it - if you have a deep interest you could study and learn about them. Including the commandments that talk specifically about the treatment of non Jews in your home, the grace to strangers, field gleaning and the covenants of conversion. And since you express an interest you should or must know that the Rabbis' comments above are not casual. Specifically so. Halahkic law is only one half of the story. The other is tradition, that is what is traditionally or commonly practiced regardless of what the law says. That is absolutely the case. Specifically speaking. One would not engender in one'self such an odd 'maximizing' strategy because such a thing is impossible. To try would be to minimize other things. It's really not algebra no matter how much you want it to be. But frankly I don't think that was your point to begin with. You are after all perilously close to the literal Friday sermons of the Qaaba al Medina Mosque that preach their own special kind of narrow intolerant rant.

You have some odd moral calculus about interest for example forgetting that Islam has exactly the same precepts. Take Caribou Coffee - it's 85% owned by a fundamentalist bank that does not charge interest to muslims. OK, there' some exclusion to it. Does that mean (if you don't know any better) that non muslims are descriminated against? Not overtly so. Though it would depend on what kind of terms are actually laid out.

Mediocrates

09-30-2002, 04:40 PM

Come to think of it what you suggest alludes to the Spanish Inquisition's putting the Torah itself on trial. Is that what you had in mind?

Miriam

09-30-2002, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Miriam it is absolutely inappropriate to defend your religion to someone like Philp. Religion is not to be excused or defended in the face of people who hate it and use your own words against you.Uh? Where am I "defending my religion"? :confused:

Now, I'll recall the exchange in full:
Originally posted by danholo
Originally posted by Philip
Finally, I point to Miriam's post in this thread:
Originally posted by Miriam (post #5 (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=27345#post27345))
There is one very simple question behind all these endless debates: would any less "pro-Jewish" course of action have negative consequences for the Jewish population of Israel? If no, then it is worthwhile to discuss it, if yes - well, Israel is not required to commit suicidal acts in the name of high ideals, real or presumed. On the contrary, it is the duty of the government to prevent the destruction of the state.

And while I'm at it, I propose a thread on how to deal with obvious flamers and trolls. Anyone interested?
This is not a statement that Jewish interests must be balanced against non-Jewish interests, but rather a statement that Jewish interests must be served, and all else be damned. Will you disavow this sentiment, Danholo?
I'll have to consult a Rabbi concerning Deuteronomy 23:20 if this is what you are implying. If it is truly what the literal interpretation implies, yes I disavow this.

Gentlemen, to make one thing clear: this is not a matter of religion. Philip is a top-notch troll, no doubt, but don't play along.

The issue at stake is citizenship, an absolutely secular topic.

Minority problems similar to the ones claimed for Israeli Arabs exist throughout the Western world (and even more outside of it). I see absolutely no need give in to the traditional Jewish urge and reinvent the wheel over this - to the greatest joy of all the Philips of the world.

Genuine citizenship is not about who gets the better welfare check. It is also a "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish till death do us part" thing. Translated into the Jewish-Arab conflict of interests, it is not merely about Palestinians getting the last shirt off the backs of "rich Jews'". It is also about the contribution the Arab minority can make to the predominantly Jewish society. (And, becoming part of the Jewish destiny can easily be much more "for poorer", at least in the lifetimes of most of us here.)

To quote a discussion between IBrodsky and sweet Philip (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=26283#post26283) from a different thread:
Originally posted by Philip
Originally posted by IBrodsky
Philip, we have heard it a thousand times. The Jewish homeland can't be for the Jews. Oh no, that would be discrimination.

Aren't you ignoring that France is for the French, Italy is for Italians, and Saudi Arabia for Arabs? I guess since there is no real threat to that status quo, it's OK.
Let me see, now -- one becomes French by virtue of living in France; one becomes Italian by virtue of living in Italy. Once you are French or Italian, you are treated the same as any other Frenchman or Italian.
Both statements are absolutely wrong. "France [or any other European country] for the [ethnic] French [or any other "native" ethnic group]" is a characteristic neofascist slogan, often used against Jews as well.

AFAIK, not a single European state (certainly not a EU member state) is legally defined by the ethnicity or religion of its population, even though they tend to accomodate Christian religious practices first, by determining the official holidays, etc.. In theory, the definition of "Frenchman", "Italian", "German", etc. is more or less the same as of "American": that of a citizen of the respective state. But only in theory. It would be good if Philip's statement were true, unfortunately the situation of ethnic/religious minorities is often very problematic. Some European countries have naturalization laws or practices that do not entirely comply with democratic standards, and even when people of non-European descent do become full citizens on paper, it doesn't mean that they are such in real life.

Here, a comparison is telling in an entirely different respect than both of you think.

Let's take a look at typical movements for minorities' rights in Western countries of the last 50-60 years. Slavery practices in the US (along with the treatment of Blacks in the "South" well into the 1960ies) have surpassed any anti-Zionist's worst nightmare, should s/he bother to ponder the matter. French colonialism was everything but a humanitarian project. The Belgian occupation of Congo has become a symbol of colonialist brutality (any of you ever seen the historic pictures of Belgian colonial officials posing proudly next to baskets full of cut off hands of the natives, a popular "punishment"?). Even the initial German treatment of the so-called guest workers could have been much better. Yet when French civil rights groups organize demonstrations they usually carry French flags and sometimes sing the "Marseillaise". The more intelligent of the leaders of the American civil rights movement (regarded justly as the mother of all movements for minority rights in the Western world), most notably M L King, never ceased to stress their Americanness. When Turks in Germany demanded decent naturalization procedures (until 1999 many were excluded by bureaucratic whims even if their parents were born in the country) they stressed their acceptance and knowledge of the German culture. AFAIK, no serious political activists representing Arab or Turkish minorities in France resp. Germany have ever demanded putting up bilingual street signs in districts inhabited predominantly by their "constitutents" - they prefer to stress the need for better courses in the official languages of the resp. countries. Same goes to different degrees for places like Italy, Belgium (well, Belgium has a rather ugly conflict between its two major "native" groups as well...) and Britain (I remember an interesting British article (http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006D90C.htm) on poorly interpreted "multiculturalism" - someone like to comment on it?), it seems, although I know less of the details there.

Applying what might be loosely termed as liberal Western criteria, citizenship implies, first and foremost, the acceptance of the basic principles of the state one lives in, no matter how terrible the woes of the past. Only then can a citizen, real or aspiring, be entitled to demand changes. Consequently, it is up to the Israeli Arabs (call them Palestinians or whatever), or, to put it exactly, up to their political representatives (there are, I am told, many excellent Jewish-Arab relationships on personal level) to display their understandment and acceptance of the basic tenets of the State of Israel, which happens to include the concept of (secular as an absolute minimum) Zionism, to come up with a decent co-existence proposal rather then the current "do as we demand and then, maybe, well, just maybe, we'll stop butchering your kids" melody. Until then, no one can seriously discuss civil rights issues. No state in the world can be expected to accomodate a largerly hostile population (or one that is bent on portraying itself as such), even less so in Israel's vulnerable situation. To return to European parallels: the main argument that former colonial powers use both in order to refuse citizenship or the right of residence to every last of their former subjects who would like to have them and to deny payments of appropriate reparations to their former colonies is that they themselves would cease to exist in their current form: they would destroy their social fabric in the first case, and collapse financially in both. Any government that would endanger the survival of the state would be regarded as perpetrating high treason, forget moral and justice (let's send some more grain to the miserable wretches...)

This is an absolutely secular issue - please stop pestering your poor Rabbis with the stuff ;)

danholo

10-01-2002, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by Philip

This does not seem to be Maimonides point -- "it is forbidden to save them if they are at the point of death; if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea, he should not be rescued." Nothing is said of the risk to the Jew.

Yes, yes it is. Don't you see it?

if, for example, one of them is seen falling into the sea

You risk your life, when going out to resque him.

Philip

10-01-2002, 06:13 AM

Danholo, the words are "it is forbidden." Maybe the means of rescuing is just to drop a rope to him -- is that risking one's own life? I don't think that position can seriously be argued. And yet it is still forbidden to do. Don't you see it?

If you want to argue that Maimonides words don't apply for some reason, or that the translation (or its context) is incorrect, that's fine. But please don't add something to his words that is not there and expect me to accept that it is there.

Philip

10-02-2002, 06:05 AM

In any religion with very much history, again, you are likely to find a lot that is awful. Martin Luther was profoundly antisemitic, for example. But the Lutheran church doesn't really make any bones about this -- yes, Luther was a foaming-at-the-mouth antisemite, but he was a product of his time and they don't feel any obligation to accept everything he wrote, even if their church is named after him.

It seems (and I'm clearly not the most informed on the matter) that a difference with Judaism is that a lot of its old literature is the transcript of "the oral torah," which (as torah) is unchanging. So it is not so easy to say, yes, Maimonides was a racist, but we don't feel any obligation to accept everything he wrote. To say that would be to accept either that torah is not unchanging or that there are errors in the transcript of torah that has been being used for centuries. Either of these would diminish the authority of the transcript of oral torah.

So instead it seems that accurate translations are made difficult to find and evasive answers are given.

Mediocrates

10-02-2002, 06:24 AM

Well if you want a detailed analysis you could go to stormfront.com and debate back and forth with the folks there who are each and every one the world's preeminent scholars of Judaism having spent toilsome years pouring over the relgion in between lynchings and bowling tournaments.

You want to say we're all evil that we espouse a religion of evil, we're deceitful, ruthless pitiless and so on. Don't be coy, stand up and be proud give a nice rousing seig heil. You know you want to.

danholo

10-02-2002, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Philip
Maimonides was a racist

No he was not. I hear it forbidden to break the Shabat to save a Gentile, but it is allowed since it is important to maintain trust between both sides. So in practice, you should help the Gentile.

Maimonides was a doctor in Egypt. First of all, Jews are not allowed to live in Egypt and Maimonides helped Arabs/Moslems with his medical skills. What a racist!

Philip

10-02-2002, 07:44 AM

Attributed to Maimonides:

Some of the Turks and the nomads in the North, and the Blacks and the nomads in the South, and those who resemble them in our climates. And their nature is like the nature of mute animals, and according to my opinion they are not on the level of human beings, and their level among existing things is below that of a man and above that of a monkey, because they have the image and the resemblance of a man more than a monkey does.

Guide to the Perplexed, book III, chapter 51

Mediocrates

10-02-2002, 08:52 AM

Aparently Philip can't tolerate metaphors. There are many many christian fundamentalist borderline hate groups who point this. You would have to go back to the source and translate yourself to be sure of what it says. I'm sure someone could dig up an edition that translates something else. Either from the original or from some other language.

Mediocrates

10-02-2002, 08:55 AM

See the problem is that Philip has at his disposal the entire catalog of hate speech posted on the internet. He doesn't come by this randomly - he consults others who point him there or there or there. I doubt seriously whether Philip is one person or if Philip works alone. Philip seems to be the point troll for a group or a mesh of sites that all want to play this game. If this was an unmoderated board Philip would go straight to Nazi cut and paste work.

ibrodsky

10-02-2002, 09:21 AM

Philip completely ignored my earlier posts proving that Maimonides served non-Jewish patients, and continues to use quotes provided by Islamist and White Power Web sites.

The quote is taken out of context. Maimonides was referring to people who have no faith of any kind, "neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition." He mentioned two specific groups (not as races, but as specific isolated communities) known for their lack of any faith and "and those in our country who are like these."

The anti-semitic assumption is that when Maimonides said "and those in our country who are like these" he was referring to Turks and Blacks living in Egypt, but in fact he was referring to those in Egypt who have no faith.

P.S.: in Philip's own post he quotes Maimonides saying "Some of the Turks..." If this was a racial observation, why did he not cite all Turks? It was because he was referring to people with a particular attitude, not race or ethnicity.

Mediocrates

10-02-2002, 09:27 AM

now philip uses the rhetorical device of secret knowledge - something is not generally admitted so we are bound to find scant refutation of it.

Philip

10-02-2002, 09:41 AM

I just didn't respond, ibrodsky. I didn't completely ignore you. I don't have any idea what the context of the "monkey" reference is, so maybe you are right for once.

As to treating non-Jews, I think the story is that Maimonides thought it was permissable if the non-Jew was powerful, so that ist would be worthwhile in practice to have him on your good side, or if the non-Jew paid. Also, Maimonides accepted that Moslems were at least not idolators. I don't know if he treated Christians, who apparently are considered idolators due to the trinity and to worshipping Christ.

As to Mediocrates, Danholo posted Maimonides comments on saving non-Jews in Hebrew and invited translation, which I have not yet seen. There are a couple possibilities for the "secret knowledge" angle, among them that it just isn't so to begin with, so their is nothing to renounce. This does not seem to be the case. It is likely that a lot was censored out of fear of inciting antisemitism (the "censored phrase" of the aleynu (sp?) for example), and maybe the powers-that-be think it is still to dangerous to acknowledge such things. But another possibility is that the powers-that-be don't think that they should be renounced.

danholo

10-02-2002, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Philip
Danholo had been denying this possibility with the insistence that Judaism inherently precludes racism or discrimination against non-Jews

So what is the racism then? I see no mitzvot that command or allow discrimination or racism. It's all there. There isn't any. 613 commandments uncensored. Where is the racism? No where.
Unto where it goes, one commandment is "do not treat the stanger badly" or along these lines. I don't see that you are allowed to treat the stranger badly, now, are you?

Judaism can be put into one sentence: "Do not do unto another what you would not want to be done to yourself. Everything else is commentary." Is this sentence so hard to understand?

And by the way. This thread was supposed to be "Israel's Apartheid" with land law. You haven't proven it to be correct in any way, except for Katzir and that is only one incident.
I have no idea what "charging interest" or "saving life" has to do with land or "apartheid" for that matter!

I talked with a Rabbi by the way, and he said that you can save a Gentiles life any means necessary if you do not risk your life and as long as it isn't Shabat.

danholo

10-02-2002, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Philip
Sorry, Mediocrates. I am just one person. Do you still feel surrounded?

Of course you are one person, but I can bet that you've done your fare share of studying antisemitism, since you start bringing up stuff like aleinu. What is the censored phrase then and where is it censored from?
If you would grasp the whole idea of Jewish thinking, you wouldn't just take individual things that are nicely categorized on a neo-Nazi website.

And, given the activities of the IDF in the Occupied Territories and the apartheid practices in Israel proper, it is clear that some Jews treat non-Jews brutally.

Where does Torah say to treat non-Jews brutally? If this is what you are trying to prove, don't bother. It isn't there.

Miriam

10-02-2002, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Philip
Attributed to Maimonides:

What exactly is your point?

ibrodsky

10-02-2002, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Philip
I just didn't respond, ibrodsky. I didn't completely ignore you. I don't have any idea what the context of the "monkey" reference is, so maybe you are right for once.

Perhaps you need to understand Maimonides' worldview before you denounce specific comments that may be taken out of context, mistranslated, or both.

As to treating non-Jews, I think the story is that Maimonides thought it was permissable if the non-Jew was powerful, so that ist would be worthwhile in practice to have him on your good side, or if the non-Jew paid. Also, Maimonides accepted that Moslems were at least not idolators. I don't know if he treated Christians, who apparently are considered idolators due to the trinity and to worshipping Christ.

A mean-spirited interpretation that contradicts his worldview. Maimonides' philosophy was not based on "might is right" but that moral behavior must be upheld to its full logical extension. Maimonides central argument can be boiled down to this: if religion tells us to do something immoral then either we are misinterpreting it or it has been corrupted and needs to be fixed.

If anything, Maimonides was a cosmopolitan in a sea of provincial interests. Maimonides did not just treat Moslems because they paid or were powerful. He was obviously a dedicated physician. The Egyptians honored him.

As to Mediocrates, Danholo posted Maimonides comments on saving non-Jews in Hebrew and invited translation, which I have not yet seen. There are a couple possibilities for the "secret knowledge" angle, among them that it just isn't so to begin with, so their is nothing to renounce. This does not seem to be the case. It is likely that a lot was censored out of fear of inciting antisemitism (the "censored phrase" of the aleynu (sp?) for example), and maybe the powers-that-be think it is still to dangerous to acknowledge such things. But another possibility is that the powers-that-be don't think that they should be renounced.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Has it ever occurred to you that a person can disagree with others yet save them if in need of rescue? Or that a philosopher can divide humans into two groups -- one that ponders our existence and another seemingly oblivious to such mysteries -- without denying the rights of either group?

As for monkeys... Maimonides did not suggest other humans were monkeys. (Someone else, ahem, did that.)

He said that in his opinion people who have no need for answers to life's imponderables are not rational. He understood that our ability to reason is one of the things that separate us from the beasts. Therefore, those who do not fully exercize their mental faculties are (in his opinion) still above the beasts, but not on the same level as those who do speculate about such things. I.e., people who do not employ their intellects are a step closer to "mute animals."

Philip

10-03-2002, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by danholo
So what is the racism then? I see no mitzvot that command or allow discrimination or racism. It's all there. There isn't any. 613 commandments uncensored. Where is the racism? No where.

From A List of the 613 Mitzvot (http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm):

(directly racist)

199. To keep the Canaanite slave forever (Lev. 25:46) (affirmative).

353. Not to make a covenant with the seven (Canaanite, idolatrous) nations (Ex. 23:32; Deut. 7:2) (negative).

601. Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 20:16) (negative).

602. To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel (Deut. 20:17) (affirmative).

607. Not to offer peace to the Ammonites and the Moabites before waging war on them, as should be done to other nations (Deut. 23:7) (negative).

613. To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19) (CCA77).

(harsh on 'idolators')

324. To destroy idolatry and its appurtenances (Deut. 12:2-3) (affirmative).

326. Not to love the enticer to idolatry (Deut. 13:9) (CCN24).

327. Not to give up hating the enticer to idolatry (Deut. 13:9) (CCN25).

328. Not to save the enticer from capital punishment, but to stand by at his execution (Deut. 13:9) (negative).

334. Not to suffer any one practicing witchcraft to live (Ex. 22:17) (negative).

352. Not to show favor to idolaters (Deut. 7:2) (CCN20).

354. Not to settle idolaters in our land (Ex. 23:33) (negative) (CCI26).

355. To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city (Deut. 13:16-17) (affirmative).

Most of these refer to historical situations and do not directly apply today (though I guess there are different opinions on that). The most egregious racism/anti-idolotry/anit-gentilism today comes not from these things, but from a narrow interpretation of who the mitzvot applies to; i.e., 'your fellow man' or 'your neighbor' or 'your brother' means Jews only, and many of the most basic 'rights' protected through the mitzvot apply only to Jews.

Unto where it goes, one commandment is "do not treat the stanger badly" or along these lines. I don't see that you are allowed to treat the stranger badly, now, are you?

If he's an idolator, I guess you're allowed to treat him badly.

Judaism can be put into one sentence: "Do not do unto another what you would not want to be done to yourself. Everything else is commentary." Is this sentence so hard to understand?

I guess it is hard to understand; else why would the Jewish nation have forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and continued to oppress a couple million more to this very day?

And by the way. This thread was supposed to be "Israel's Apartheid" with land law. You haven't proven it to be correct in any way, except for Katzir and that is only one incident.
I have no idea what "charging interest" or "saving life" has to do with land or "apartheid" for that matter!

Danholo, you are the one who began the tangent by your claim that the JNF and Jewish nationalism were not ractist and that "By the way, there isn't any racism in Jewish law."

I talked with a Rabbi by the way, and he said that you can save a Gentiles life any means necessary if you do not risk your life and as long as it isn't Shabat.

So are we back to not breaking Shabat for something as insignificant as the life of a gentile? How charming.

Philip

10-03-2002, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by danholo
Of course you are one person, but I can bet that you've done your fare share of studying antisemitism, since you start bringing up stuff like aleinu. What is the censored phrase then and where is it censored from?

I don't particularly study antisemitism at all. This is perhaps why I don't recoil from observations just because they may agree with David Duke, et al -- I don't know very much of what David Duke thinks (though I did read one thing where he basically laid 9/11 at Israel's feet; the reasoning was surprisingly not entirely bad). The censored phrase is apparently

she-heim mishtakhavim lehevel variq umitpalalim le-el lo yoshia.

I don't know what it means, but apparently it is offensive to Christians. The last part apparently means "a god who does not save," which may be a reference to Christ failing to fulfill what was prophesied for the messiah. Or it may be just that "yoshia" sounds like "yeshua."

If you would grasp the whole idea of Jewish thinking, you wouldn't just take individual things that are nicely categorized on a neo-Nazi website.

Again, I don't frequent neo-Nazi websites. I visit some pro-Arab websites, but I discount probably 85% of what's there. I got my Shahak material from a pro-Arab website, but I have tried to work only from what he wrote.

Where does Torah say to treat non-Jews brutally? If this is what you are trying to prove, don't bother. It isn't there.

See above.

Philip

10-03-2002, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
A mean-spirited interpretation that contradicts his worldview. Maimonides' philosophy was not based on "might is right" but that moral behavior must be upheld to its full logical extension. Maimonides central argument can be boiled down to this: if religion tells us to do something immoral then either we are misinterpreting it or it has been corrupted and needs to be fixed.

...except that

14. Not to add to the commandments of the Torah, whether in the Written Law or in its interpretation received by tradition (Deut. 13:1) (CCN159).

15. Not to take away from the commandments of the Torah (Deut. 13:1) (CCN160).

If anything, Maimonides was a cosmopolitan in a sea of provincial interests. Maimonides did not just treat Moslems because they paid or were powerful. He was obviously a dedicated physician. The Egyptians honored him.

From Shahak:

In particular, a Jewish doctor must not treat a Gentile patient. Maimonides - himself an illustrious physician - is quite explicit on this; in another passage [Mishneh Torah 'Idolatry' 10, 1-2.] he repeats the distinction between 'thy fellow' and a Gentile, and concludes: 'and from this learn ye, that it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment...'

However, the refusal of a Jew - particularly a Jewish doctor - to save the life of a Gentile may, if it becomes known, antagonize powerful Gentiles and so put Jews in danger. Where such danger exists, the obligation to avert it supersedes the ban on helping the Gentile. Thus Maimonides continues: ' ... but if you fear him or his hostility, cure him for payment, though you are forbidden to do so without payment.' In fact, Maimonides himself was Saladin's personal physician. His insistence on demanding payment - presumably in order to make sure that the act is not one of human charity but an unavoidable duty - is however not absolute. For in another passage he allows Gentile whose hostility is feared to be treated 'even gratis, if it is unavoidable'.

The whole doctrine - the ban on saving a Gentile's life or healing him, and the suspension of this ban in cases where there is fear of hostility - is repeated (virtually verbatim) by other major authorities, including the 14th century Arba'ah Turirn and Karo's Beyt Yosef and Shulhan 'Arukh. Beyt Yosef adds, quoting Maimonides: 'And it is permissible to try out a drug on a heathen, if this serves a purpose'; and this is repeated also by the famous R. Moses Isserles.

Has it ever occurred to you that a person can disagree with others yet save them if in need of rescue?

Sure. And on the Sabbath?

Or that a philosopher can divide humans into two groups -- one that ponders our existence and another seemingly oblivious to such mysteries -- without denying the rights of either group?

As for monkeys... Maimonides did not suggest other humans were monkeys. (Someone else, ahem, did that.)

He said that [I]in his opinion people who have no need for answers to life's imponderables are not rational. He understood that our ability to reason is one of the things that separate us from the beasts. Therefore, those who do not fully exercize their mental faculties are (in his opinion) still above the beasts, but not on the same level as those who do speculate about such things. I.e., people who do not employ their intellects are a step closer to "mute animals."

And how much effort do the Lubavitchers, for example, devote toward encouraging "mute animals" to follow Noahide Law?

Mediocrates

10-03-2002, 07:42 AM

And how much effort do the Lubavitchers, for example, devote toward encouraging "mute animals" to follow Noahide Law?

More than most, but in a spiritual way you wouldn't underdstand.

BTW you left out a whole canon a hate speech that goes on in some detail how Ramban's biggest sin was he was a secret atheist and Hellenist. From this follows that all Jews aren't really following Judiasm but instead some atheistic world religion akin to communism. I'm sure stormfront has a pointer to it.

After you get back from the klavern give it a look see.

Philip

10-03-2002, 07:44 AM

I suggest that all queries regarding antisemitic websites be addressed to my Brotherman/Enemy Mediocrates.

ibrodsky

10-03-2002, 07:51 AM

Philip, you continue to quote and rely on the one Jew revered by Islamists and NeoNazis.

I've read approx 1,000 pages of Maimonides writings and Shahak's quotes are in stark contradiction to Maimonides' philosophy.

Do you think Maimonides would be a respected philosopher if his "philosophy" was essentially a cover for prejudice? Maimonides was quoted with great respect by Thomas Aquinas.

I do recall, quite vividly, that Maimonides said it is immoral to work for someone else without being paid, just as it is immoral to have someone work for you without being paid. Perhaps that offends socialist sensibilities.

Shahak was a flat out liar. If you want to quote him, as related to you by Islamist and NeoNazi Websites, go right ahead. In fact, since you think David Duke laid out a pretty good case that Israel "caused" the WTC massacre, you ought to qoute him, too. You are closer in outlook to him and the KKK than you think.

Philip

10-03-2002, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Philip, you continue to quote and rely on the one Jew revered by Islamists and NeoNazis.

I've tried to give book and verse of what Shahak was refering to. I hope we can judge the facts on their own merits and not on the merits of whose interests they serve.

I've read approx 1,000 pages of Maimonides writings and Shahak's quotes are in stark contradiction to Maimonides' philosophy.

Do you think Maimonides would be a respected philosopher if his "philosophy" was essentially a cover for prejudice? Maimonides was quoted with great respect by Thomas Aquinas.

As I noted before, Martin Luther was a foaming-at-the-mouth antisemite, and one of the largest Christian churches in the world bears his name (it does not, to my knowledge, accept his antisemitism). Luther's antisemitism and Maimonides' antigentilism are not what they are respected for.

I do recall, quite vividly, that Maimonides said it is immoral to work for someone else without being paid, just as it is immoral to have someone work for you without being paid. Perhaps that offends socialist sensibilities.

And what sensibilities are offended by the statement "that it is forbidden to heal a Gentile even for payment" that is attributed to Maimonides?

Shahak was a flat out liar. If you want to quote him, as related to you by Islamist and NeoNazi Websites, go right ahead. In fact, since you think David Duke laid out a pretty good case that Israel "caused" the WTC massacre, you ought to qoute him, too. You are closer in outlook to him and the KKK than you think.

So far, Shahak's references to Maimonides seem to be accurate. And you are among the most dishonest people I know, ibrodsky.

danholo

10-03-2002, 08:50 AM

199. To keep the Canaanite slave forever (Lev. 25:46) (affirmative).

353. Not to make a covenant with the seven (Canaanite, idolatrous) nations (Ex. 23:32; Deut. 7:2) (negative).

601. Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations (Deut. 20:16) (negative).

602. To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel (Deut. 20:17) (affirmative).

607. Not to offer peace to the Ammonites and the Moabites before waging war on them, as should be done to other nations (Deut. 23:7) (negative).

These are racist, but they do have a reason for them. Also, these enemies of Jews don't exist any more.
Canaanites were hated, because they were indeed idolators. It described as everything they did was antithetical to the whole Jewish faith. i.e. they sacrificed children to their "gods".

Deuteronomy 23:4-7:

An Ammonite or Moabite man may not enter God's marriage group.
They may never enter God's marriage group, even after the tenth generation. This is because they did not greet you with bread and water when you were on the way out of Egypt, and also because they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to curse you. Of course, God did not consent to listen to Balaam, and God you Lord transformed the curse into a blessing for you, since God your lord loves you. You must never seek peace or anything good with these nations, as long as you exist.

613. To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19) (CCA77).

Amalek is seen as the "arch" enemy of the Jewish nation. It attacked cowardly from behind at the Israelite women and children.
Amalek can also be a metaphor for anything like antisemitism etc. everything that hate Jews.
So I would, as a Jew, destroy all this.

danholo

10-03-2002, 09:15 AM

I guess it is hard to understand; else why would the Jewish nation have forced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes and continued to oppress a couple million more to this very day?

1. No one knows how many were forced out as Arabs claim and how many left in hopes they would return as Jews claim. 2. The Jews who fought for Israel were almost all secular Jews. Today though it is mostly the ultra-orthodox who do not like Arabs. Especially those who follow the twisted Mier Kahane. These people want to "protect" the Holy Land from the "Arab enemy". Also many religious people are not fond of Arabs these days, because they bring up their kids to kill themselves and to sacrifice them. 3. Why did Jordan have to attack Israel? Israel would not occupy the West Bank, if Jordan would've not attacked.
Why didn't the Arabs accept calls for peace after the six-day war?
If they would have, all the lands that Israel occupied would be in Arab hands.
4. Before 1948 no Arabs were displaced. Jews bought land fair and square. If Jews bought land from absentee land lords and Arabs squatted that land, the buyer had all the right to displace the squatter.

Palestinians would have a country of their own, if Arabs wouldn't have started a war in 1948 and probably no Arabs would've had to leave if Arabs wouldn't have attacked. Since Arabs did attack, maybe many Jews took the opportunity to force out Arabs in fright that they would've joined their fellow Arabs in the annihilation of a Jewish state or they just did it cause they wanted more land.

Philip

10-03-2002, 09:41 AM

Would you break sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew, Danholo?

danholo

10-03-2002, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Philip
Would you break sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew, Danholo?

Yes. Yes I would.

Philip

10-03-2002, 10:12 AM

And the Rabbi you spoke to -- the one who said thay you may save a gentile's life as long as you don't risk your own life or break the sabbath -- can we infer that he generally would not have broken sabbath in order to save the life of a gentile?

NewsGuy

10-03-2002, 10:13 AM

Look at this nonsense.

Philip, extremely worried about whether Danholo would save the life (if he were a doctor and not a teenager) of a non-Jew on the Sabbath, has devoted now, what, 3 posts to determine that?

Who cares?

We've seen that every hater of Israel and of the Jewish people tries their best to discuss Talmudic debates into the minutia of centuries-past haggling over subjects that haven't been relevant for more than a hundred years. And even then, who knows if these debates had any meaning to the general population, other than an exercise in logic.

One of the funniest things is how Philip and others who are ignorant of every aspect of Jewish life, all of a sudden pose as some great Torah scholars, pretending to be experts in the intricacies of Talmudic interpretation that would normally take decades of intensive scriptural study to approach reasonably. This is reminiscent of a kindergarten tot debating quantum physics and throwing a fit when others smirk.

At the same time, the underlying message of the enemy of the Jewish people is always a very simple one - that in their personal opinion, Judaism doesn't measure up to their own hypocritical standards of "enlightenment."

And to prove that the Jew hater is correct, self-hating Jews, rejected by all but Neo-nazis and IslamiNazis, must be quoted extensively and, of course, ad naseum, as “authoritative” sources. After, all isn’t every self-hating Jew an expert authority just because they have a Jewish-sounding name?

But we seldom hear that the same Noam Chompsky vermin-like pests are not only anti-Israel and anti-Semitic, but also anti-American, anti-Capitalist, anti-Western-civilization and anti-anything that could possibly sell the vermin’s books to a certain segment of social misfits. Same thing with Shahak and same thing with other similar pests.

There’s really nothing new here from Philip. No need to get excited.

Mediocrates

10-03-2002, 10:20 AM

In the 613 Mitzvoth there are positive and negative Mitzvoth, that is things one must do and things one must not do. Among the things that one must not do is a large sphere of behaviours related to idolatry. Idolatry is to be stamped out. Utterly. It is to be destroyed and its practicers shunned, exiled, punished.

Coupled with that is the nature of the idolater and who is one. There are many classifications of strangers in and around a Jewish community. Most of them are looked on very favorably. In this context a stranger is a person who is not in the Covenant of Abraham but who lives near or among Jews. As long as that person is not an idolater then everything works out.

If the person is an idolater then that person must be removed from the community or proximity to it. This includes someone who builds an idol, tries to make a Jew an idol worshipper or otherwise introduces idolatry into a Jews or Jewish communities life.

There are severe punishments for an idolater including withholding support, punish, banish, expose, withhold information that would be beneficial to, feed, house and so on. This is not obscure material. This is very widely understood in Judaism.

This roundabout discussion of Gentile and Shabbat is little more than a somewhat more modern discussion of the same tenets. There is really nothing to this, none of it is shocking nor is it particularly interesting either. It is, like in any other religion on earth a set of rules established to help insure the continuance of religion itself. That Jew haters, nazis and Islamists want to discuss it at all speaks more to their familiarity with genocide and oppression and its tools than it does to any interest or insight they have about Judaism.

danholo

10-03-2002, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Philip
And the Rabbi you spoke to -- the one who said thay you may save a gentile's life as long as you don't risk your own life or break the sabbath -- can we infer that he generally would not have broken sabbath in order to save the life of a gentile?

All the Rabbis I've asked, said that they would save a Gentiles life. Second, they are not sure of Mishneh Torah Murderer 4,11 and if Israel Shahak's "interpretation" is correct.

Philip

10-03-2002, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by danholo
All the Rabbis I've asked, said that they would save a Gentiles life.

On the sabbath, though? I've looked again at what you wrote about the conversation:

I talked with a Rabbi by the way, and he said that you can save a Gentiles life any means necessary if you do not risk your life and as long as it isn't Shabat.

Why "as long as it isn't Shabat?" If something does not matter, why mention it?

Second, they are not sure of Mishneh Torah Murderer 4,11 and if Israel Shahak's "interpretation" is correct.

Isn't that an evasive answer? What are we to do when even the rabbis are not sure of what the Torah prescribes?

Philip

10-03-2002, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Look at this nonsense.

Philip, extremely worried about whether Danholo would save the life (if here were a doctor and not a teenager) of a non-Jew on the Sabbath, has devoted now, what, 3 posts to determine that?

Who cares?

I'm not extremely worried. I've been having a discussion with Danholo, and I have accepted that he is a good person. He has the belief that there is no inconsistency in his being a good person and Jewish law; that there is no racism and no abuse of non-Jews in the mitzvot. I think there are racist and anti-gentile elements to some of the mitzvot, and I just wanted to make sure that I could still consider Danholo a good person or if he was choosing following Jewish law over the aspects that I think make him a good person.

We've seen that every hater of Israel and of the Jewish people tries their best to discuss Talmudic debates into the minutia of centuries-past haggling over subjects that haven't been relevant for more than a hundred years. And even then, who knows if these debates had any meaning to the general population, other than an exercise in logic.

One of the funniest things is how Philip and others who are ignorant of every aspect of Jewish life, all of a sudden pose as some great Torah scholars, pretending to be experts in the intricacies of Talmudic unterpretation that would normally take decades of intensive scriptural study to approach reasonably. This is reminiscent of a kindergarten tot debating quantum physics and throwing a fit when others smirk.

I think I've been pretty clear that I know next to nothing about Talmud or Torah.

At the same time, the underlying message of the enemy of the Jewish people is always a very simple one - that in their personal opinion, Judaism doesn't measure up to their own hypocritical standards of "enlightenment."

And would you break sabbath to save the life of a gentile, NewGuy?

And to prove that the Jew hater is correct, self-hating Jews, rejected but all but Neo-nazis and IslamiNazis, must be quoted extensively and, of course, ad naseum, as “authoritative” sources. After, all isn’t every self-hating Jew an expert authority just because they have a Jewish-sounding name?

I think the most damning things I've found have been from discussions among observant Jews.

There’s really nothing new here from Philip. No need to get excited.

You seem a bit excited, NewGuy. Your post was rather involved for just saying "Never mind Philip."

minusthejihad

10-03-2002, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Philip

On the sabbath, though? I've looked again at what you wrote about the conversation:

Why "as long as it isn't Shabat?" If something does not matter, why mention it?

Isn't that an evasive answer? What are we to do when even the rabbis are not sure of what the Torah prescribes? [/B]

Fillup,

If its any concellation to you, I wouldn't break the Sabbath to save your life. Any other gentile who doesn't hate me because I am a Jew, sure. But also, I'm not religious, so I wouldn't interrupt a snore to save your life.

Philip

10-03-2002, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
In the 613 Mitzvoth there are positive and negative Mitzvoth, that is things one must do and things one must not do. Among the things that one must not do is a large sphere of behaviours related to idolatry. Idolatry is to be stamped out. Utterly. It is to be destroyed and its practicers shunned, exiled, punished.

Coupled with that is the nature of the idolater and who is one. There are many classifications of strangers in and around a Jewish community. Most of them are looked on very favorably. In this context a stranger is a person who is not in the Covenant of Abraham but who lives near or among Jews. As long as that person is not an idolater then everything works out.

If the person is an idolater then that person must be removed from the community or proximity to it. This includes someone who builds an idol, tries to make a Jew an idol worshipper or otherwise introduces idolatry into a Jews or Jewish communities life.

There are severe punishments for an idolater including withholding support, punish, banish, expose, withhold information that would be beneficial to, feed, house and so on. This is not obscure material. This is very widely understood in Judaism.

This roundabout discussion of Gentile and Shabbat is little more than a somewhat more modern discussion of the same tenets. There is really nothing to this, none of it is shocking nor is it particularly interesting either. It is, like in any other religion on earth a set of rules established to help insure the continuance of religion itself. That Jew haters, nazis and Islamists want to discuss it at all speaks more to their familiarity with genocide and oppression and its tools than it does to any interest or insight they have about Judaism.

Five paragraphs to say "there is really nothing to this ... nor is it particularly interesting."

Are Christians idolators, Mediocrates?

Philip

10-03-2002, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by minusthejihad
If its any concellation to you, I wouldn't break the Sabbath to save your life. Any other gentile who doesn't hate me because I am a Jew, sure. But also, I'm not religious, so I wouldn't interrupt a snore to save your life.

And would you murder me, if you had the chance, minusthejihad?

danholo

10-03-2002, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Philip
Isn't that an evasive answer? What are we to do when even the rabbis are not sure of what the Torah prescribes?

Mishneh Torah is not Torah. The problem here is that none of the Rabbis on askmoses.com have had Mishneh Torah available. I believe myself that Shahak has taken the verse completely out of context.

I've been actually talking everyday with different Rabbis on askmoses and they don't get this. Just now one said about not being allowed to save a Gentiles life: "Why would G-d allow one of his precious creations to die on Shabat."

Philip

10-03-2002, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by danholo
Mishneh Torah is not Torah. The problem here is that none of the Rabbis on askmoses.com have had Mishneh Torah available. I believe myself that Shahak has taken the verse completely out of context.

As I understand it, there is an Oral Torah in addition to the written Torah, and Mishneh Torah is considered to be a transcription of the former. And the Oral Torah is considered no less important the the writtern. Am I wrong?

I came across an indirect reference (http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume11/v11n43) on the matter, Danholo.

But I wonder... after all, the Rambam was a master stylist and surely knew that the plain meaning of his words would be taken as allowing the coburial of Jews and nonJews! Secondly, note the Rambam's mention of visiting the gentile sick. Did the Rambam not know of all the Gamaras which seem to prohibit saving idolators? Does it make any sense to visit the sick idolator but refuse to heal him? True, "akum" here may be a censor's substitution for "nachri", but then that is true of the G'marras I am alluding to as well!

This suggests that perhaps, as ibrodsky is so insistent of, Maimonides really was quite liberal regarding the treatment of gentiles, but that he came out of a tradition (the gamaras, which I understand to be the Babylonian Talmud) that was really, really restrictive.

I've been actually talking everyday with different Rabbis on askmoses and they don't get this. Just now one said about not being allowed to save a Gentiles life: "Why would G-d allow one of his precious creations to die on Shabat."

The question is not why G-d would allow one of his precious creations to die on Shabat, but why an observant Jew would allow one of G-d's precious creations to die on Shabat. Why such an oblique answer? It is as if it is left to G-d to preserve the life of the gentile on Shabat.

danholo

10-03-2002, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Philip

As I understand it, there is an Oral Torah in addition to the written Torah, and Mishneh Torah is considered to be a transcription of the former. And the Oral Torah is considered no less important the the writtern. Am I wrong?

Oral Torah is today's Talmud. Mishneh Torah is an "easier" version of it. Schulchan Aruch is also.

This suggests that perhaps, as ibrodsky is so insistent of, Maimonides really was quite liberal regarding the treatment of gentiles, but that he came out of a tradition (the gamaras, which I understand to be the Babylonian Talmud) that was really, really restrictive.

Mishnah is Jewish law according to tradition. Gemarah is commentary of Mishah. These two are always together and it is called Talmud. In Talmud there is even more commentary on Gemarah and Mishnah.

The question is not why G-d would allow one of his precious creations to die on Shabat, but why an observant Jew would allow one of G-d's precious creations to die on Shabat. Why such an oblique answer? It is as if it is left to G-d to preserve the life of the gentile on Shabat.

Jews are an instrument of G-d on this earth and are supposed to show the world on how to act. Why would a Jew act in contradiction to G-d? I believe that there is no incident recorded, where a Jew has not saved a non-Jews life.
Until we are certain, I am pretty sure that the verse taken out of Misheh Torah is taken out of context.

Let me ask you this: If the Jew is anti-Gentile, why does the Jew not attempt to convert the Gentile?

danholo

10-03-2002, 12:01 PM

Philip:

I think I've been pretty clear that I know next to nothing about Talmud or Torah.

So why are you talking about then? If you do not understand Torah then what is the point of talking about it at all?

danholo

10-03-2002, 12:03 PM

This suggests that perhaps, as ibrodsky is so insistent of, Maimonides really was quite liberal regarding the treatment of gentiles, but that he came out of a tradition (the gamaras, which I understand to be the Babylonian Talmud) that was really, really restrictive.

I have read that Maimonides considered Christians idolators. That is why he lived in an Islamic country.

Miriam

10-03-2002, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by danholo
So why are you talking about then? If you do not understand Torah then what is the point of talking about it at all? Let me guess: trolling

Philip

10-03-2002, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by danholo
Let me ask you this: If the Jew is anti-Gentile, why does the Jew not attempt to convert the Gentile?

As I understand it, the Gentile lacks the particular soul necessary to be a Jew.

So why are you talking about then? If you do not understand Torah then what is the point of talking about it at all?

I am looking for an understanding of why Israel treats Palestinians so badly.

Do you think that I am a bad person, Danholo?

danholo

10-03-2002, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Philip

As I understand it, the Gentile lacks the particular soul necessary to be a Jew.

You understood wrong. First of all, Judaism does not seek converts. Secondly, it takes a lot of commitment to be a Jew. See, when you become Jewish you must accept the G-d and Torah and practically have to follow it.
And lastly, the Jew must also respect other cultures and nations.

I am looking for an understanding of why Israel treats Palestinians so badly.

Well then. I think you should study Torah. By this, you would come to understand that bad treatment is not found in there.
By my understanding of Torah I have come to respect human life even more and life in general. Now if Torah is so racist toward non-Jews shouldn't I be a racist too?!

Do you think that I am a bad person, Danholo?

I don't believe you are. You are concerned about the Palestinian's humanitarian situation. Is that an attribute of a bad person?

Mediocrates

10-03-2002, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Philip

Five paragraphs to say "there is really nothing to this ... nor is it particularly interesting."

Are Christians idolators, Mediocrates?

Do you think they are?

ibrodsky

10-03-2002, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Philip

...and Maimonides' antigentilism are not what they are respected for.

This is a big fat lie. Your only source are mistranslations and quotes taken out of context by Shahak, the only Jew revered by Islamist terrorists and neoNazis.

Since you insist on slandering Maimonides, who isn't here to defend himself, why don't you read one or two of his books. Or try Seeskin's commentary, which is brief and easy to read.

Of course, you won't because if Arab sites peddling lies about Israel and Jews say Shahak is authoritative, that's good enough for you. Why risk learning otherwise if there is a serious risk it will prove you were wrong?

ibrodsky

10-03-2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by danholo
This suggests that perhaps, as ibrodsky is so insistent of, Maimonides really was quite liberal regarding the treatment of gentiles, but that he came out of a tradition (the gamaras, which I understand to be the Babylonian Talmud) that was really, really restrictive.

I have read that Maimonides considered Christians idolators. That is why he lived in an Islamic country.

He lived in the Islamic world because at that time Jews suffered even greater persecution at the hands of Christians.

danholo

10-03-2002, 12:42 PM

Yeah Philip,

Why don't you read Maimonides yourself?! You are keen on quoting him, but you haven't read his works at all.

danholo

10-03-2002, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky

He lived in the Islamic world because at that time Jews suffered even greater persecution at the hands of Christians.

True. Wasn't the Rambam from Spain? Or was that the Ramban. Or were they both from there? I always get mixed up.

Philip

10-03-2002, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by danholo
Jews are an instrument of G-d on this earth and are supposed to show the world on how to act. Why would a Jew act in contradiction to G-d?

As I understand it, the keeping of sabbath holds an extremely high position of importance relative to other things, and it would be acting in contradiction to G-d to violate it. Does it outweigh the importance of saving a non-Jewish life? I get the impression that it does, and the only reason to save a non-Jewish life on sabbath is that doing so helps to preserve Jewish life through eivah or darkhei shalom. (Let it also be said that the only reason to break sabbath in order to save a Jewish life may be that doing so will allow sabbath to be observed in the future by the Jew thus saved, and not directly for the sake of the Jewish life.)

I believe that there is no incident recorded, where a Jew has not saved a non-Jews life.

Here (http://shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume7/v7n87) is not an account of an incident where a Jew indeed did endeavor to save the life of a non-Jew, but was chided for it:

Years ago I was involved in an attempt to resuscitate an Arab who drowned [unsuccessful]. At the time, the event achieved a certain amount of notoriety.

I was approached by a Talmud Hacham who knew I was a physician [I usually do not work at that profession] who told me, "There is no reason to kill an Arab but to go out of your way to save his life? That is mugzam [exaggerated]."

Does a Jew have an obligation to attempt to save the life of non-Jew? Does a Jewish physican [I have the Rambam, a man who earned his living as a physician to Arabs, in mind specifically.] have a special obligation? Or only a terutz?

danholo

10-03-2002, 01:01 PM

Probably Arabs are considered enemies by some Jews these days?

Philip

10-03-2002, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by danholo
You understood wrong. First of all, Judaism does not seek converts. Secondly, it takes a lot of commitment to be a Jew. See, when you become Jewish you must accept the G-d and Torah and practically have to follow it.
And lastly, the Jew must also respect other cultures and nations.

??

I got the notion that a Jew has an extra soul that the gentile does not have from the askmoses site. I have also seen a site (Lubavitcher, I think) that went on about how it was wrong to try to convert gentiles to Judaism because a piece of paper or the pronouncement of a human authority could not change how G-d had made things. Related to this is the notion that Jewish-ness is inherited, whether one observes or not.

Well then. I think you should study Torah. By this, you would come to understand that bad treatment is not found in there.

??

I would call "Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations" and "To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel" and "Not to suffer any one practicing witchcraft to live" and "To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city" bad treatment.

By my understanding of Torah I have come to respect human life even more and life in general. Now if Torah is so racist toward non-Jews shouldn't I be a racist too?!

Not necessarily. Perhaps you have focused on those parts of Torah that indicate respect for human life. Should Lutherans be as antisemitic as Martin Luther was?

I don't believe you are. You are concerned about the Palestinian's humanitarian situation. Is that an attribute of a bad person?

I don't think so. Others here indicate through their statements that they might not agree.

Philip

10-03-2002, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Do you think they are?

While it is entirely an intellectual exercise to me and while my lack of understanding of Christianity rivals in degree my lack of understanding of Judaism, I would say that, no, Christians are not idolators: the practices that make some suggest that they are idolators are really just manners of worshipping different aspects of a single divinity.

On the other hand, I've seen the same said of Hinduism.

But what is significant, really, is whether Jews see them as idolators. Do you think Christians are idolators, Mediocrates?

danholo

10-03-2002, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Philip
[quote]
I got the notion that a Jew has an extra soul that the gentile does not have from the askmoses site. I have also seen a site (Lubavitcher, I think) that went on about how it was wrong to try to convert gentiles to Judaism because a piece of paper or the pronouncement of a human authority could not change how G-d had made things. Related to this is the notion that Jewish-ness is inherited, whether one observes or not.

It is wrong to try to convert gentiles into Judaism. Judaism is not a missionary religion. It is all up to the convert if he wants to convert. Nobody can or is allowed to make him do it.

I would call "Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations" and "To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel" and "Not to suffer any one practicing witchcraft to live" and "To slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city" bad treatment.

It is bad treatment. But you might also want to consider what idolaters were in those days. In their religions, children were sacrificed to statues etc. The idea behind "destroying" all of this, is that Jews wouldn't get contaminated with such idolatrous thinking. Idolatry is what brought the ancient Israel into ruin by the way.

Not necessarily. Perhaps you have focused on those parts of Torah that indicate respect for human life. Should Lutherans be as antisemitic as Martin Luther was?

No, I focus on the Torah as a whole. Not "some" parts.
Martin Luther became antisemitic because Jews didn't want to convert to Lutherans. He went crazy in a matter of speaking.

Philip

10-03-2002, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by danholo
Yeah Philip,

Why don't you read Maimonides yourself?! You are keen on quoting him, but you haven't read his works at all.

I expect that 90% of what he writes is about things I don't really care about; i.e., dietary laws, etc. I took a look at a couple books about Maimonides and about his works (there were no direct translations at the bookstores I went to), and index entries didn't lead me to anything relevant to his attitudes as indicated in the "don't save gentiles" quotation.

Philip

10-03-2002, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by danholo
Martin Luther became antisemitic because Jews didn't want to convert to Lutherans. He went crazy in a matter of speaking.

... the fact that he read Talmud in the original Hebrew may have something to do with it as well.

danholo

10-03-2002, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Philip

... the fact that he read Talmud in the original Hebrew may have something to do with it as well.

No, he did not. Do you really have any knowledge of Judaism or do you learn Judaism from Radio Islam and other pro-Arab websites?

So, are you going to start quoting the Talmud now?

danholo

10-03-2002, 03:12 PM

I just remembered that Herman Wouk says something about Mishneh Torah in his book "This Is My God".
He states that Maimonides' work was sharply critisized by his "oppnents" since it lacked sources. Even Rambam admitted that he regretted not citing his sources. Even Herman Wouk's grandfather said that some verses were "questionable" in MT.
A Rabbi said in Askmoses just now, that even the MT needs commentary. If it has none accompanying it, it is like Written Torah without Oral Torah. Bones without flesh as I would say.

L@mplighterM

10-03-2002, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by danholo

Martin Luther became antisemitic because Jews didn't want to convert to Lutherans. He went crazy in a matter of speaking.

He was most likely nuts in the first place.

Mediocrates

10-03-2002, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Philip

... the fact that he read Talmud in the original Hebrew may have something to do with it as well.

Much of the Talmud is in Aramaic.

danholo

10-04-2002, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates

Much of the Talmud is in Aramaic.

I believe most of it is in Aramaic and there is some Hebrew. I believe Rashi's commentary is in Ladino, but I'm not sure.

Philip

10-04-2002, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by danholo
No, he did not. Do you really have any knowledge of Judaism or do you learn Judaism from Radio Islam and other pro-Arab websites?

So, are you going to start quoting the Talmud now?

Luther spent three years of his life translating the old testament (http://members.aol.com/lutherland/stuff/mluther.html). Why would he not have also read Talmud during that time? Are you an expert on what Luther did and did not do?

Maybe he didn't read the Aramaic parts.

By the way, I think that the lack of a direct answer in the affirmative would indicate that the rabbis you spoke with would not break sabbath to save the life of a gentile, or at least that they would consider it a violation of halakah to do so -- for what reason would they not just say, "yes, I would break sabbath in order to save a gentile's life" if that were the case?

If you would break sabbath to save a gentile's life, perhaps it is in spite of your Judaism, and not because of it. If this would be an exercise of virtue, then perhaps you have a source of virtue independent of (and sometimes contrary to!) your Judaism. And I base this conclusion on my readings here and from Mail.Jewish Mailing List, not from Radio Islam or any other pro-Arab website.

"Why would G-d allow one of his precious creations to die on Shabat?" I don't know; I do know that Torah says that on the seventh day G-d rested, so apparently he wasn't doing anything to keep any of his precious creations from dying. If this is what G-d would do, and if Jews "are an instrument of G-d on this earth and are supposed to show the world on how to act," then they might very well be supposed to rest on sabbath rather than working to save a gentile's life as well. I haven't seen anything to contradict this conclusion here; I've seen plenty to support it.

danholo

10-04-2002, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Philip
Why would he not have also read Talmud during that time? Are you an expert on what Luther did and did not do?

I don't know. Do you? You are speculating yourself also. Secondly, you just don't read Talmud. You read one page a day and the whole period takes about seven years. You can do it faster, but I don't believe he had time in reading the whole Talmud. Lastly, where the hell would he have gotten one? It's not actually a "best seller" that you go into a book store and say "one talmud please"... he'd need a whole cart to take it home.
Talmud was common among Jews those day (I believe Jews lived in Ghettos) but it sure baffles me how Luther came by one and started reading it.

BTW, My father has the two first books of the "Steinsaltz edition" Talmud that has English translation with it. It sure isn't the easiest read. The first page deals with a cloth and two men and who gets the cloth... Then it goes down to speculation of who gets the cloth! This law stuff can be very mind boggling!

Maybe he didn't read the Aramaic parts.

What a rebuttal to mine!
If you don't even understand what it says in Talmud, why even bother?! Luther sure didn't get far with his Talmudic studies, if he even found one copy to begin with. Jews in Ghetto Yeshivas were probably wondering why a nice German man preaching Jesus would come and study some Talmud!
I don't believe they had one in German for him to read, since they didn't have many Aramaic-German dictionaries around.
Even if he did know Hebrew, it would take him a long time to pick up the Aramaic.

danholo

10-04-2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Philip
By the way, I think that the lack of a direct answer in the affirmative would indicate that the rabbis you spoke with would not break sabbath to save the life of a gentile, or at least that they would consider it a violation of halakah to do so -- for what reason would they not just say, "yes, I would break sabbath in order to save a gentile's life" if that were the case?

The last Rabbi I talked to about this wasn't sure of what the Halachah said about this, but if it would forbid it, he wouldn't save the life. Since he wasn't sure, he said at "this moment" he would.
Why don't you go ask yourself from a Rabbi there? I believe they would be ready to answer a non-Jew about this... are you afraid?

Philip

10-04-2002, 12:45 PM

I love you too, Mediocrates.

Philip

10-04-2002, 12:59 PM

Danholo, I don't think it should come as a surprise that a religion would hold honoring G-d more important than serving other people. I think I outlined a non-racist interpretation of Judaism along these lines.

However, in the same manner that I have seen it suggested that the reason for the rules about the treatment of animals in Judaism is to keep practicing Jews from falling into the habit of accepting cruelty. A differentiation between Jews and non-Jews -- due strictly to mitzvot maximizing -- could by similar means lead practicing Jews into racism, or into an anti-gentilism that goes far beyond the direct mitzvot-maximizing reasons for it.

With barely any reading, it is quite clear to me that Christianity is in all likelihood a bad, bad thing to Judaism. I think all the mitzvot regardind "enticers to idolatry" would apply to Christ and to evangelical Christians. And properly so. It would not surprise me if many of the profoundly hostile anti-Christian things I've seen attributed to the Talmud are accurate, and I would expect that Martin Luther, having read such things, would naturally become the foaming-at-the-mouth antisemite that he was.

danholo

10-04-2002, 01:17 PM

Philip,

There is no anti-Christian stuff in the Talmud. I have posted a thread which refutes Talmud claimes called "Talmud" it's in the "Tackling anti-Semitism" section.

Philip

10-05-2002, 05:45 AM

Danholo, of the claims you have made about an absence of racism/antigentilism in Jewish doctrines that I have been able to investigate myself, you have proven to be wrong. You backpedaled from "there are no racist mitzvot" to "there are good reasons for the racist mitzvot."

I submit to you that you want to believe that your religion is purely humanitarian and benevolent, and so you patch together those aspects of it that support that view (and I don't dispute that a majority of Judaism supports that view), and accept it as proof. You ask some softball questions of rabbis, and accept their evasive answers as verification.

I am not condemning you for this; it is perfectly natural that someone will want to believe that there is a consistency in the beliefs that he has subscribed to, and that one aspect of the consistency is that they match his moral values. But it is also perfectly natural that someone looking for something that he doesn't want to find will not find it.

I am also not condemning Judaism. Again, it is not very remarkable that a religion would hold serving G-d to be more important than serving other people. And I don't see anything wrong with this: ultimately, I have absolutely no claim at all on anyone else's effort. If someone would not expend the least effort to save my life (hi, Mediocrates), that's his choice. I might admire more someone who is willing to make an effort to protect others, but I cannot say that someone who does not is evil or deserving of punishment. Since you brought up Jewish values as evidence against mistreatment of gentiles in Israel, I think it is appropriate that we should consider what those Jewish values really are, and whether they do direct against mistreatment of gentiles in Israel.

As to the perception of Christianity, obviously I cannot directly read Talmud. But perhaps we can get an idea of the attitude there -- Danholo, can you tell me what symbol is used in Jewish Israeli elementary school books to indicate the addition function; i.e., what symbol is used in place of "+" in Jewish Israeli elementary math textbooks? Why is this?

danholo

10-05-2002, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Philip
Danholo, of the claims you have made about an absence of racism/antigentilism in Jewish doctrines that I have been able to investigate myself, you have proven to be wrong. You backpedaled from "there are no racist mitzvot" to "there are good reasons for the racist mitzvot."

I did not say they are necessarily good reasons, but reasons nonetheless. The reason for Amalek is a good reason IMO, because Amalek is perceived as the enemy of Jews and it started the blood shed. Canaanites and others were child sacrificing idolators and they all did this and everything else antithetical to Judaism in those days. They were not all wiped out though, because king Shaul couldn't make himself do it, even though G'd commanded him.

I never heard of the "+" thingy though.

Philip

10-05-2002, 01:28 PM

From another thread:

Oh Jeusalem wrote:
Although I did previously look up and explain (and correctly translate) all the Talmudic references brought up by some poster elsewhere, here it's much easier to make it brief.

Judaism completely opposes Christianity and views it as a sham, plain and simple.

Jesus was a Jewish Talmudic student who went on his own messianic ways and is view as a false prophet, also plain and simple.

There are no secrets here, just as there are no secrets that Christianity has nothing to do with Judaism itself, even though Jesus was otherwise a practicing Jew. Indeed, chances are that had Jesus known that his Jewish disciples would abandon Judaism the way they did, he most probably would have been disgusted.

No mincing words here. No apologetics needed either.

I'll see if I can track down his translations, though NewsGuy may have decided to delete them.

In any case, if we can believe Oh Jerusalem, it would seem that your claim that "There is no anti-Christian stuff in the Talmud" is completely wrong. Do you claim that Oh Jerusalem was lying, or that he misunderstood, or that I have miss-characterized his position?

danholo

10-05-2002, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Philip
From another thread:

I'll see if I can track down his translations, though NewsGuy may have decided to delete them.

In any case, if we can believe Oh Jerusalem, it would seem that your claim that "There is no anti-Christian stuff in the Talmud" is completely wrong. Do you claim that Oh Jerusalem was lying, or that he misunderstood, or that I have miss-characterized his position?

The Talmudic references themselves do not mock Christianity. Go to the Talmud thread and check the anti-christian accusations yourself.
On the other hand though, the Christian claims made towards Judaism that Christianity is "right" is a sham. There were several public debates in the Middle Ages to prove that Christianity was now the "right religion" and that the covenant had been renewed. The most famous debate was between Nachmanides and Pablo Christiani (an apostate Jew). Nachmanides won the debate and his reward: expulsion!
There is a good book on this by Chaim Maccoby "Judaism on Trial"

danholo

10-05-2002, 02:13 PM

Most of the Talmud's so-called "anti-Christian" text are refuted here (http://groups.msn.com/Mishpocha/thetalmudpart3.msnw).

Philip

10-05-2002, 02:20 PM

Have you read all of Talmud? I expect that a Talmud website would have evasive answers regarding what's written regarding Christianity. "Refuted" is a strong word, but I'll look at your site.

Oh Jerusalem seems only to have translated some oddball tracts (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=4301#post4301) of the Talmud, and accepted the anti-Christian claims as accurate because there is no reason to dispute them.

danholo

10-05-2002, 02:26 PM

I haven't read any Talmud. Only the first page from the "Steinsaltz" edition. Many Jews don't own Talmud themselves. It is damn expensive.

I checked Oh, Jerusalem's post. It has all the same accusation's as "my" site.

Philip

10-05-2002, 03:23 PM

...among them "Given how severely Jews were persecuted by Christians, it would be surprising if absolutely no bitter statements were made about Jesus in the Talmud."

There are also a lot of references on your site to the "common" or "standard" Talmud, generally to the effect that the quotations do not exist in these versions.

From my friend Shahak:

The first mechanism I shall discuss is that of sereptitious defiance, combined with outward compliance. As explained above, talmudic passages directed against Christianity or against non-Jews had to go or to be modified - the pressure was too strong. This is what was done: a few of the most offensive passages were bodily removed from all editions printed in Europe after the mid-16th century. In all other passages, the expressions 'Gentile', 'non-Jew', 'stranger' (goy, eino yehudi, , nokhri) - which appear in all early manuscripts and printings as well as in all editions published in Islamic countries - were replaced by terms such as 'idolator', 'heathen' or even 'Canaanite' or 'Samaritan', terms which could be explained away but which a Jewish reader could recognize as euphemisms for the old expressions.

As the attack mounted, so the defence became more elaborate, sometimes with lasting tragic results. During certain periods the Tsarist Russian censorship became stricter and, seeing the above mentioned euphemisms for what they were, forbade them too. Thereupon the rabbinical authorities substituted the terms 'Arab' or 'Muslim' (in Hebrew, Yishma'eli - which means both) or occasionally 'Egyptian', correctly calculating that the Tsarist authorities would not object to this kind of abuse. At the same time, lists of Talmudic Omissions were circulated in manuscript form, which explained all the new terms and pointed out all the omissions. At times, a general disclaimer was printed before the title page of each volume of talmudic literature, solemnly declaring, sometimes on oath, that all hostile expressions in that volume are intended only against the idolators of antiquity, or even against the long-vanished Canaanites, rather than against 'the peoples in whose land we live'. After the British conquest of India, some rabbis hit on the subterfuge of claiming that any particularly outrageous derogatory expression used by them is only intended against the Indians. Occasionally the aborigines of Australia were also added as whipping-boys.

Needless to say, all this was a calculated lie from beginning to end; and following the establishment of the State of Israel, once the rabbis felt secure, all the offensive passages and expressions were restored without hesitation in all new editions. (Because of the enormous cost which a new edition involves, a considerable part of the talmudic literature, including the Talmud itself, is still being reprinted from the old editions. For this reason, the above mentioned Talmudic Omissions have now been published in Israel in a cheap printed edition, under the title Hesronot Shas.) So now one can read quite freely - and Jewish children are actually taught - passages such as that [Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b] which commands every Jew, whenever passing near a cemetery, to utter a blessing if the cemetery is Jewish, but to curse the mothers of the dead if it is non-Jewish. In the old editions the curse was omitted, or one of the euphemisms was substituted for 'Gentiles'. But in the new Israeli edition of Rabbi Adin Steinsalz (complete with Hebrew explanations and glosses to the Aramaic parts of the text, so that schoolchildren should be in no doubt as to what they are supposed to say) the unambiguous words 'Gentiles' and 'strangers' have been restored.

Under external pressure, the rabbis deceptively eliminated or modified certain passages - but not the actual practices which are prescribed in them. It is a fact which must be remembered, not least by Jews themselves, that for centuries our totalitarian society has employed barbaric and inhumane customs to poison the minds of its members, and it is still doing so. (These inhumane customs cannot be explained away as mere reaction to antisemitism or persecution of Jews: they are gratuitous barbarities directed against each and every human being. A pious Jew arriving for the first time in Australia, say, and chancing to pass near an Aboriginal graveyard, must - as an act of worship of 'God' - curse the mothers of the dead buried there.) Without facing this real social fact, we all become parties to the deception and accomplices to the process of poisoning the present and future generations, with all the consequences of this process.

Also, from The Jewish Encyclopedia -- "BALAAM" (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=161&letter=B&search=balaam):

Henceforth he became the type of false prophets seducing men to lewdness and obscene idolatrous practises (Rev. ii. 14; II Peter ii. 15; Jude 11; Abot v.19). The name "Nicolaitanes," given to the Christian heretics "holding the doctrine of Balaam" (Rev. ii. 6, 15), is probably derived from the Grecized form of Balaam, = Nικο-γάος, and hence also the pseudonym "Balaam," given to Jesus in Sanh. 106b and Giṭ. 57a. See Geiger, "Bileam and Jesus," in "Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für Jüdische Theologie," vi. 31-37).

This would tend to corrobarate the equivalence of "Balaam" and "Jesus" from one of the claims of anti-Christianity from your site

CLAIM (33)

Gloats over Christ Dying Young A passage from Sanhedrin 106 gloats over the early age at which Jesus died: "Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was?-He replied: It is not actually stated but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days it follows that he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old."

as to blow a hole through the two responses

RESPONSE (1)

Notice the "Jesus" in parentheses? The text does not say "Jesus". It says "Balaam". How to trump up a charge of blasphemy, in one easy lesson.

RESPONSE (2)

The Talmud states that the wicked Bilaam (Numbers 23:24) died after living only half his allotted time span, in accordance with the statement in Psalms 55:24, that the wicked do not survive half their allotted life span. The commentary of Rashi makes it clear that the reference is to the biblical Bilaam.

Mediocrates

10-05-2002, 03:40 PM

I can buy complete Talmud sets. One I see is 75 volumes and the other is 57. That's volumes as in books. Each one is several hundred pages. Each page is divided into typically 4 sections.

There are no complete Talmud translations into vernacular. There are partial translations into several European languages but let me stress again there are no complete translations of any Talmud into vernacular. Anyone who has had to work with ancient languages that have limited vocabularies will understand the difficulty of doing this.

My dear fried who is completing a PhD in Judaic studies and Jewish education is struggling with Aramaic and Hebrew as well as Greek just to cover the source material. And by that I mean Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Aramaic none of which has been spoken or written in common usage in over 1500 years.

danholo

10-05-2002, 05:11 PM

Balaam/Jesus (http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/jesus.html#balaam)

danholo

10-05-2002, 05:17 PM

I cannot laugh more!!! "Curse at cemeteries"?! What the hell is that all about?! I say, Israel Shahak is a LIAR. No doubt about that. There is no such thing as to "curse at cemeteries". I don't know where he got this from. His twisted old brain? Indeed, it sounds "believable" but it isn't. It's all a flat out lie.

"The Jews hate Gentiles" - Shahak is trying to convince his readers.

Ok, Philip, why do you bother quoting him? It is like citing "the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" when trying to "prove" something.

A good essay (http://www.edah.org/backend/document/jakobovits1.html) on saving life on Shabat.

Philip

10-06-2002, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by danholo
I cannot laugh more!!! "Curse at cemeteries"?! What the hell is that all about?! I say, Israel Shahak is a LIAR. No doubt about that. There is no such thing as to "curse at cemeteries". I don't know where he got this from. His twisted old brain? Indeed, it sounds "believable" but it isn't. It's all a flat out lie.

As noted in my earlier post, it is apparently from Hesronot Shas, Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b. Although I am not familiar with that particular document, that seems to be a very precise reference. A prudent person, Danholo, would at least try to look at the indicated text before insisting that it does not read as claimed. Have you done this? I suspect that you have not.

"The Jews hate Gentiles" - Shahak is trying to convince his readers.

Ok, Philip, why do you bother quoting him? It is like citing "the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" when trying to "prove" something.

I do not think "The Jews hate Gentiles" is Shahak's point in the least. If you read him with the lenience with which you read about Jewish law, you would certainly not reach this conclusion.

A good essay (http://www.edah.org/backend/document/jakobovits1.html) on saving life on Shabat.

Thank you for tracking this down. I don't really like the summary it gives of Unterman's ruling, though -- if violating sabbath is a transgression of the level of idolatry, then should observant Jews also practice idolatry if doing so preserves "the ways of peace?" I would be interested in seeing a translation of the actual ruling; the interpretation of your article and Shahak's interpretation cannot be reconciled.

danholo

10-06-2002, 06:50 AM

As noted in my earlier post, it is apparently from Hesronot Shas, Tractate Berakhot, p. 58b. Although I am not familiar with that particular document, that seems to be a very precise reference. A prudent person, Danholo, would at least try to look at the indicated text before insisting that it does not read as claimed. Have you done this? I suspect that you have not.

Have you? I know I don't have to do it, since I myself never heard of this. Has anyone else? No. This is one of Shahak's blatant lies like the incident when he claimed that a religious Jew hadn't let a Gentile use his phone to call an ambulance.

Philip

10-06-2002, 07:58 AM

"I know I don't have to do it, since I myself never heard of this."

This is a difficult "logic" to make any sort of reasonable appeal to.

danholo

10-06-2002, 11:57 AM

You are right. On the other hand, Israel Shahak was a liar who had longer nose than a Pinocchio. Why would I trust what he says? He makes a book like the Elders and every antisemite in this world believes him. Sure, the book sounds and looks believable and seems to be full of facts and accurate information. like Rabbis censoring Talmuds, but in fact it's just a big lie. All the accusations made on the Talmud on neo-Nazi sites have been false anyway, so why would I believe anything what another liar has to say?
It is clearly a stupid claim what he has made. The only place anyone has probably heard the "cursing at cemetaries" from is Shahak anyway. It seems that you haven't got a hard time absorbing his book's bs.

Oh yeah, that "censored" passage in Aleinu is in my Siddur. (Artscroll siddur to be precise.) The verse is in parentheses and it has an explanation that a baptized Jew, who tried to prove his loyalty to Chrstianity, claimed that the word "Yoshia" means Jesus. This is not so, and gradually the verse has been included in Siddurim, because it belongs in the prayer.

Jorge

10-06-2002, 12:55 PM

Quote from a quote in Phillip's post #80:

Years ago I was involved in an attempt to resuscitate an Arab who drowned [unsuccessful]. At the time, the event achieved a certain amount of notoriety.

I was approached by a Talmud Hacham who knew I was a physician [I usually do not work at that profession] who told me, "There is no reason to kill an Arab but to go out of your way to save his life? That is mugzam [exaggerated]."

This is really a touching anecdote that somewhat ellicits the essence of all your arguments in this thread.

I'm not arguing whether the incident occured or not. If it occured, what does it prove? Merely, that some people can be a
Talmud scholar and study the Talmud for years and still remain stupid.

To try to infer from it general conclusions about the nobleness or cruelty of Judaism is unwarranted, to say the least. It may be opposed by a 100 other anecdotes that prove exactly the opposite. But, there's no point on opposing anecdotes upon anecdotes. No point at all, because the argument is basically flawed. Bringing up the anecdote purports to prove that, from the behavior of isolated individuals we can draw general conclusions about the quality of their religions, which is just not correct.

Not so long ago, a certain Pope of infamous memory, didn't
lift a finger while millions of people were murdered by the Nazis.
On the assumption that all human lives have equal value that Pope was millions of times more guilty than your Talmud student.

Can this be taken to prove that Catholicism is a wicked faith? No, it can not. The only thing it proves is that given men under certain conditions may act wickedly or cowardly.

The sad truth is that we all have still a long way to go till we always act according to the values that our respective religions preach. We ought to keep in mind that Perfection belongs to God not to humans and that religions are only a path towards an aim that may be approached but not reached.

The former doesn't mean that we shouldn't denounce or condemn evil actions whenever we witness them. On the contrary, it's our duty to do so otherwise we become accomplices
of the act. However, if from actions of individuals we conclude that that a whole religious faith or a whole nation is guilty, then we are behaving stupidly or maliciously, or both.

To end up, Phillip: there's so much actual wrongdoing in this world of ours that should be denounced and repaired. To go around imagining more seems to me a sheer waste of your time and your noble sentiments towards humanity.

Miriam

10-06-2002, 01:37 PM

*sigh*

Philip

10-07-2002, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by danholo
You are right. On the other hand, Israel Shahak was a liar who had longer nose than a Pinocchio. Why would I trust what he says? He makes a book like the Elders and every antisemite in this world believes him. Sure, the book sounds and looks believable and seems to be full of facts and accurate information. like Rabbis censoring Talmuds, but in fact it's just a big lie. All the accusations made on the Talmud on neo-Nazi sites have been false anyway, so why would I believe anything what another liar has to say?

I have only seen two matters over which Shahak's accuracy has been directly challenged ("directly challenged" does not include such amusements as your "I have not seen it therefore it does not exist" position; are you also an atheist, Danholo?). These are from the Traditions article that you provided the link for. From that source we have a claim -- a claim, Danholo -- that Shahak "was eventually forced to admit that the Orthodox Jew he had 'witnessed' refusing the use of his telephone simply did not exist." We have no citation for this claim, and Shahak many years later writes of the incident that supposedly he was forced to admit was a fabrication as though it actually happened. Maybe he did admit that it was a fabrication; I'd like to see a direct source for that claim rather than accepting the account of an aritcle that spends three paragraphs recounting the evils of antisemitism before getting to this "wretched story." If I believed second-hand accounts from Israel's supporters, I'd believe that 400,000 Palestinians had recently been granted Israeli citizenship.

We also have a summary of Rabbi Unterman's ruling. This summary seems more credible to me since it goes through a logical path in detailing the ruling, and it seems to contradict Shahak's account. Still, I'd like to see something more direct.

Israel Shahak is perhaps more complicated than the caricature you bear of him. He was very proud of his service in the IDF -- did you know that? I know it is much easier to think of him as a low-browed, self-hating Jew, and that's probably the path you have committed yourself to, but that does not make it so.

It is clearly a stupid claim what he has made. The only place anyone has probably heard the "cursing at cemetaries" from is Shahak anyway. It seems that you haven't got a hard time absorbing his book's bs.

Loshon hora.

Oh yeah, that "censored" passage in Aleinu is in my Siddur. (Artscroll siddur to be precise.) The verse is in parentheses and it has an explanation that a baptized Jew, who tried to prove his loyalty to Chrstianity, claimed that the word "Yoshia" means Jesus. This is not so, and gradually the verse has been included in Siddurim, because it belongs in the prayer.

And what is its meaning?

Philip

10-07-2002, 06:22 AM

Jorge --

I expect that, as with most religions, the followers of Judaism will be remarkably successful in finding whatever they want in it.

The proposition has been put forth that "Jewish values" preclude discrimination in Israel, which is nonsense because there is discrimination (LOTS of it) in Israel. Jewish chauvinism of varying degrees is the national ideology of Israel. Do you think I imagine that?

I am not arguing that Judaism is a wicked faith. I am only arguing that it is not the humanistic faith that Danholo imagines it to be. If you are a Talmudic scholar, I encourage you to clarify the many things that Danholo and I are unable to write with authority about. If you are not a Talmudic scholar, then you really don't know whether the Talmud Hacham from the story was "stupid" as you claim -- maybe he was correct that G-d according to his religion did not intend for Jews to ressussitate Arabs.

Mediocrates

10-07-2002, 06:50 AM

I am not arguing that Judaism is a wicked faith.

Of course you are. Anyone could see that.

If you are not a Talmudic scholar, then you really don't know whether the Talmud Hacham from the story was "stupid" as you claim -- maybe he was correct that G-d according to his religion did not intend for Jews to ressussitate Arabs.

a) neither are you - you make a claim as 'fact' and then dare someone to challenge you because they are not 'experts'.
b) you're making a claim you don't understand and can't demonstrate.
c) literalism is a branch of study all its own. for example I know modern educated people, engineers, who believe that the world is 6000 years old and that every word every punctuation mark in the KJ Bible is literally true, literally accurate. If it says 6 days it means 6 days - no interpreation.

I'm fairly sure though that there are many other Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and so on who take a completely different view on that and refute this literalist approach. Point being if you want to, if you really really need to tell the world about your earnest deeply felt belief that Judaism is evil, go ahead. That's basically your problem, not ours. You are shanda.

Philip

10-07-2002, 07:12 AM

Yawn.

Mediocrates

10-07-2002, 08:53 AM

you could have saved us all a lot of trouble and opened the whole thread that way.

danholo

10-07-2002, 01:37 PM

Philip:

Loshon hora.

It's lashon ha-ra and it means "gossip" or literally "Bad Tongue". lashon ha-ra is talking about some one in a bad manner even if it's true or false. It is forbidden to gossip in Judaism, and this is it.

Mediocrates

10-07-2002, 01:53 PM

Rabbinically - gossip is described as the murder of three people.

danholo

10-08-2002, 02:18 AM

Yes Mediocrates,

Talmudic Rabbis say that "Murdering one's name, is like murdering him."
"Gossip" is only allowed to be told, when it is vital information, like for a court or police.

Philip

10-08-2002, 04:29 AM

Came across this tidbit. (http://www.aleinu.org/aleinu_commentary.html):

for they bow to vanity and nothingness.

"They" (the nations of the world) bow by spreading their hands and feet. What does "vanity" mean? An idol is manufactured from natural material like metal, wood or stone and these have no power of their own. What does "nothingness" mean? It is like a shell which has nothing in it. For example, the sun, moon, and stars, by themselves are nothing, for they have no force except natural forces which were built into them by G-d, the Creator. The point is obvious. Whatever is made, however wonderful it is it should move us to worship its creator rather than the object itself.

Some people have the custom of spitting after saying these words, to indicate that they do not wish to derive any benefit from idolatry and the like. Speech stimulates saliva, and we do not wish to derive any benefit from this saliva. However, if one wishes to spit, it must be done either into a handkerchief or onto the ground, immediately rubbing it with the foot, so that it is not noticeable. Some do not spit at all in a synagogue, because they feel that it is disgraceful to spit while praises to G-d are on their lips, nor is it respectful to one's friend, who may become repulsed by it. Indeed, the Ari Zal was very particular never to spit in a synagogue, just as he would not in his home.

The Siddur of Ge'onim and Mikubalim states that many people who do not understand Hebrew may mistakenly spit by the words "but we bend the knee...," which is reference to G-d. So to refrain from making this mistake, the author suggests that one should not spit at all. The author also says that it is a great danger to spit because the Gentiles may, heaven forbid, harm Jewish people because of it.

Nevertheless; it is a Chabad custom to spit when saying "for they bow to vanity and nothingness." This is in accordance with the aforementioned reason of speech stimulating saliva, and we do not wish to derive benefit from this saliva.

It would seem that spitting at the mention of other religions is part of at least some Jewish traditions. Is spitting and cursing at the cemetaries of other religions so different from this? I think not. Is gossip a greater transgression when it is false?