An all time favorite shmuess of mine.
Well summarized.
A Rebbe of mine applied this shmuess to the psukim in Vyakhel saying "kaashee tziva hashem es Moshe" or some variant thereof about 17 times. Moshe was so exact in his application of Hashem's word that it was noteworthy each and every time. As opposed to added your own kneitch in the spirit of Baal Peor.
And you consider this guy to be some sort of great source of wisdom? His arguments are so weak, I can counter them while I'm participating at the same time in a teleconference at work.
That when people "do the right thing" because of their internal moral compass they are not manifesting subservience to HaShems authority.
So basically, Shmuelevitz is agreeing with the arch-heretic the Daat Emet that Torah "morality" is nothing more than blind obedience to God's will.
If a king tells us to exterminate an opponent, it's a war crime, if God tells us to do the same, it's a mitzvah.
And, of course, because we never hear from God directly, in practical terms, the Shmuelevitz is suggesting that he submit to the authority of the Rabbis -- such Shmuelevitz, for example. Pretty self-serving, if you ask me.
In fact when the Mitzvah in question is a "khok" then, by definition, it is almost impossible that the motivation to perform it is internal. On the contrary, the mind cannot accept it and the emotions often recoil as a result.
This comment displays an amazing ignorance of basic psychology and human behavior. While it's true that some people may behave that way, other are quite happy in keeping bizarre arbitrary rules. (A recent historical example -- no male in the year before WW2 would even think about going outdoors without wearing a hat. And God help you if you wore a straw hat before memorial Day.)
Human nature is very resistant to this type of subservience or to anything that will keep us chained or bound.
Hahaha, another overgeneralization. Obviously, Shmuelevitz has never worked for the military, or seen people who work for years at jobs they hate. Only some people are resistant to authority. Most people follow like sheep.
Among his many proofs is the case of Shimee ben Geirah whom Shlomo HaMelekh "tricked" into incurring the death penalty (to fulfill his fathers deathbed vendetta) by limiting his movement to the Jerusalem City limits.
"Proofs?" This is one story from a collection of possibly fictional or semi-fictional legends.How is that a "proof" of anything?
Rav Chaim opines that the bizarre cult of Ba'al Pe'or is predicated on the human desire for autonomy and TOTAL liberation from external authority.
Maybe it was based merely on the normal human desire for sexual gratification. Maybe the Israelites would never have worshiped some crazy idol if God has allowed them to have a normal sex life.
It was worshipped by defecation upon the icon itself.
That's nowhere in the actual text, but was derived by some sort of bizzare rabbinical reasoning. I don't know if I want to be Hazal's shrink and figure out how they came up with that.
It was, says Rav Chaim, the religion of non-religion, the worship of denigrating worship and subservience. The exercise and demonstration of "Nothing being sacred". In essence the creed of Baa'l Peor can be summarized as follows: "So you're my god? So YOU"RE gonna tell ME what to do and not do? I s**t on you!"
This only males sense if you believe that people actually defecated on their idol. But then, why would God have had a problem with Israelites defecating on a false idol?
In summary, Shmuelivitz' little lesson is merely sophistry to justify sheeplike obedience from his followers, which I guess is the hareidi way.
That when people "do the right thing" because of their internal moral compass they are not manifesting subservience to HaShems authority.
One of the arguments made against atheism says that we cannot derive our morality from ourselves, that it must come from a higher source, from G-d. If this is true, when people "'do the right thing, because of their internal moral compass," aren't they are manifesting an expression of HaShem's will?
2. Human nature is very resistant to this type of subservience or to anything that will keep us chained or bound. Human beings affirm their own autonomy and it's trappings of freedom of conscience and of movement whenever possible and recoil from any authority even, or especially, a Divine one, that would demand total surrender of personal autonomy. This authoritarian compulsion is another word for slavery and humans desire freedom and total autonomy.
Does free will exist or not? Someone who follows HaShem out of free will does not totally surrender personal autonomy. If one totally surrenders personal autonomy, they have no free will, and their service to HaShem (and their moral actions) are but that of a robot. We're always told that G-d created evil in the world because he didn't want robots, but rather people who chose good over evil.
Otherwise is to suggest that HaShem did not want intelligent beings chosing to follow him by conciously choosing (with every choice, with their "personal autonomy") to do his will, but rather that he wanted intelligent beings, of their own free will, to become robots that do not possess the ability to choose to serve or not (that is what happens when one "totally surrenders personal autonomy).
Another great post from Bray. The question you pose in the addendum is one that I have contemplated at length. In fact, your recent post re the Arei Hamiklat that quotes the Chinuch rekindled this question.
I think the answer, like much in life, lies in degree. In short, we can search for taamei hamitzvot so long as we are bound by and observe all the mitzvot even if no reason can be found for a particular mitzvah. We can strive for greater understanding so long as our lives are rooted in Avodas Hashem.
I highly recommend my grandfather A'H's sefer on the topic (link below). His book, "A Philosophy of Mitzvot" analyzes the Chinuch's approach to Taamei Hamitzvot and dedicates the first few chapters to the debate as to whether we should deliniate taamei hamitzvot at all.
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Mitzvot.html
when people "'do the right thing, because of their internal moral compass," aren't they are manifesting an expression of HaShem's will?
Welcome to the world of the Jewish Kantians and New-Kantians. You've got no shortage of Jewish thinkers who would agree with you: Wurtzberger, Cohen, Hirsch (to perhaps a lesser degree), Kook, etc. That these viewpoints are completely shut out of the yeshiva system is a travesty.
The idea that "Chok" means "irrational law" is one that really needs to be debunked. Irrationality (or super-rationality) is, according to the majority of commentators, a symptom of a chok, NOT a defining characteristic (See Hirsch, Soloveitchik, Ramban, and, IIRC, S'forno and Ibn Ezra, among others).
Writers of sifrei ta'amei hamitzvot (such as Hirsch's Horeb and Sefer Hachinuch) are, of course, using the philosophical speculation of their times to find meaning in the mitzvot; they make perfectly clear, however, that the obligation is in no way dependent upon the explanation.
Gut Gezukt
very true and applicable to many suffering from a disease of the soul and look for sources that can convince them that their really healthy. The sick person confuses healthy objects/activities with those that are detrimental.
Nice tidbit about Ba'al P'or. Is this historically accurate or simply a nice vort?
I've been looking for historical back up all weekend but no luck. I can't find anything outside of rabbinics which confirms or even suggests this is how baal peor was actually worshipped.
DB:
I have also looked, but to no avail, I am not home so I can't check my "History of the Jews" by Paul Johnson. Do you have a copy? He may mention it...
And Israel abode in "Shit-tim"...
I can't find anything outside of rabbinics
and, of course, anything without outside verification is to be summarily dismissed.
After all the Talmudic Rabbis, although not technically Haredim, were equally bad ad science, history and basic truth telling *WINK WINK*
And you consider this guy to be some sort of great source of wisdom?
AAMOF I do. Not only was he a true Gaon withan incredible breadth and depth of Torah knowledge but he was also a great Baal Mussar/Ethicist who "walked the walk" and was famous for his soft heart and parent like capacity for empathy and caring.
Furthermore like many members of the "greatest generation" he honed his middos during the crucible of wartime leadership when he led the legendary Mirrer Yeshiva through it's most trying, and arguably greatest, era; Golus Kobe and Shanghai.
That said in general I personally have a greater affinity for Khasidic thought than for Mussar thought.
So basically, Shmuelevitz is agreeing with the arch-heretic the Daat Emet that Torah "morality" is nothing more than blind obedience to God's will.
Is Daat Emet a book or a blog? In any event never heard of it before this comment so I'll take your word for it. The short answer is yes. Does this surprise you? I mean what was the akeida? The difference between Rav Chaim and the arch heretic is that Rav Chim attaches positive value to this blind obediemce.
Pretty self-serving, if you ask me.
Show me a Rabbi who built an army, a museum, a parliament or a harem and you might have had a point.
Rav Chaim was as far from a power-hungry machiavelian as one could possibly imagine. G-d serving actually.
As for your comment Pretty superficial if you ask me.
other are quite happy in keeping bizarre arbitrary rules.
All you're proving is that peopel do, in fact, have the worshipful capacity to surrender rational thinking as well. The question is to what/whom does one offer that surrender?
being a slave to social convention is a form of Avodah Zarah.
Is Daat Emet a book or a blog?
http://www.daatemet.org/?LANG=en
http://www.daatemet.org/aboutus.cfm
DE has reached the conclusion that the amazingly rich classical Jewish legacy, which makes up the main body of Jewish culture, has been deliberately misinterpreted for a long period of time; as a result, it has become a political tool in the hands of self-interested fundamentalists who lay claim to having exclusive ownership of this legacy. Over the last several decades, the state of Jewish culture has been steadily deteriorating. Today, in fact, there is a mere handful of academic researchers resisting the onslaught of those who openly exploit the Jewish legacy for their own political and social agenda. Not only is the voice of these scholars virtually unheard; the fundamentalist interpretations have started to permeate academia itself.
There is another, still more crucial factor: before DE appeared on the scene, it had not occurred to anyone to engage in a public dialogue with the adherents of Jewish fundamentalism, to address them in their own language, or to take part in the cultural process taking part in their own midst. This process, however, is becoming fatally important for the Jewish people and the state of Israel.
The corpus of Jewish culture contains masterpieces of world importance created in different times, under different circumstances, and for different purposes. Unfortunately, in the last millennium the traditional Jewish thought has practically frozen in its treatment of classical texts, having provided them with an extra-contextual, fundamentalist, essentially political interpretation. Naturally, the role of classical texts in the Jewish mentality has been drained of substance. Were it not for the external, non-Jewish humanistic interpretations, we would treat the inspired predictions of Jewish prophets as trivial halachic reminiscences; more likely yet, they would have been totally forgotten. The humanistic interpretation of biblical prophecies, the greatest edifice of Jewish culture, has been preserved for us by people belonging to a different spiritual domain -- a stern reminder that retains its relevance to this day.
CA-
I believe that the entire quoted passage itself constitutes an an extra-contextual, universalistic, essentially political interpretation.
When in fact the role of a light unto the nations cannot be acheived by a Jewish Nation uncommitted to a specific, chosen particularist calling and destiny.
"Proofs?" This is one story from a collection of possibly fictional or semi-fictional legends.How is that a "proof" of anything?
Playing the devils advocate and allowing for your kefira for a moment suffice it to say that it is an analysis of the author(s) of this legends understanding oif human nature.
Hope that works for you.
Maybe the Israelites would never have worshiped some crazy idol if God has allowed them to have a debauched sex life.
fixed your typo. For once you were mekahven to a chazal לא עבדו אבותנו לעגל אלא בכדי להתיר להם עריות בפרהסי'="the only reason our forefathers worshipped the Golden Calf was in order to allow themselves to engage in immoral public orgies."
Here's a backgrounder on Yaron Tadan, the force behind the Daat Emet:
http://www.daatemet.org/news/HaA...etz/
livneh.html
http://www.daatemet.org/articles...?
article_id=117
In this essay we will clarify the moral views of Judaism. First we will say that moral issues, as regarding individuals or whole societies, are, it seems, part of our human make-up and not given to rational explanation. Most people in the world agree with and support "justice and mercy" as the Kuzari wrote in essay two, paragraphs 47 and 48: "'What does G-d demand of you but to do justice and love mercy?' and much like this. This and others like it are the laws of reason, and they precede the Divine Torah in nature and time. Without them no human community can be led. Even a community of bandits must have some justice amongst themselves or their community will not last long."
. . .
Since we have come to explain Jewish morals as reflected in Halacha, we must first detail which supreme value the religious Jew accepts upon himself.
This supreme value is the worship of G-d, to fulfill the commandments of the Torah given by G-d, and thus a person fulfills the purpose for which he was created. It is written in Tractate Nedarim 32a: "R' Eliezer said: Great is the Torah--for without the Torah the heavens and earth would not exist, for it is written, 'Were it not for My covenant day and night, the laws of heaven and earth I would not have set'."
According to the Torah worldview, the world was created only so that the nation of Israel would fulfill G-d's commandments.
Another important thing is that even though there are natural morals common to most humans, such as pity and generosity, the Jew must use them only because Halacha commands him to, as part of worshipping G-d, and not because this is how he naturally feels! As brought in Tractate Megillah 25a, where it is explained why one who says in his prayers, "to a bird's nest Your mercy reaches" should be silenced--because "He makes the holy One blessed be He's traits into mercy when they are naught but decrees." And Rashi explains: "To place upon us His yoke to announce that we are His servants and the keepers of His commandments." A commandment-fulfilling Jew is forbidden to beg for mercy except in those cases where mercy is a religious decree.
Thus it is written in Responsa Ateret Paz, part one, volume two - Yoreh Deah, notes on paragraph ten, note four: "…the Jewish man is obligated to fulfill the rational commandments not because they are rational but because of G-d's commandment, as is written, 'And since you hear the laws…' Even when it comes to the rational laws you hear what the Torah commanded and do not do them because of your intellect, but as part of the other heard laws [which are not rational]."
. . .
Here it is appropriate to note the instructive words of Prof. Yeshayahu Leibowitz OBM:
. . .
". . .The religious faith revealed in the Torah and the commandments is not an moral classification. It does not recognize the human conscience; it is not coincidental that none of the 48 prophets and seven prophetesses in Israel ever appealed to the human conscience. The human conscience, its appreciation and its centrality are possible only if man does not recognize G-d. Morals as a supreme and absolute value are atheistic categories, stemming from the view of man as the purpose of reality and the center of creation. The atheist Kant was a great moralist, because for him Man was god. The prophets presented Man standing before G-d, and only from this viewpoint did they discuss the relationships between people. The Jewish nation never marched at the forefront of moral pronouncements. We should not understand our forefathers in a manner different than they understood themselves. Moreover: It is highly doubtful if morality is given to specification based on human groupings, and if there is any sense to the term 'Jewish morality.' It is possible that morality cannot be qualified by some adjective taken from the name of a human grouping, nor even perhaps from the name of some ideological stream, from some world view."
Prof. Leibowitz's words are deep and difficult. According to him, the religious Jew has no human morals at all (for in his example of the reading of the Shema he negates the only two meanings of "morality"). One who fulfills the commandments has naught but Divine imperatives which guide his acts, whether he wants it to or not! It is appropriate to look deeply into these matters.
why would God have had a problem with Israelites defecating on a false idol?
Perhaps G-d despises the incapacity to worship as much or more than worshipping falsely.
And if so perhaps a atheists is as contemptible or moreso than a pagan.
CA-
I don't get your point. Proffessor Leibowitz and Yaron Tadan seem to agree with Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz 100%.
Where's the kefira?
Does free will exist or not? Someone who follows HaShem out of free will does not totally surrender personal autonomy. If one totally surrenders personal autonomy, they have no free will, and their service to HaShem (and their moral actions) are but that of a robot.
There is no contradiction here. We exercise our free will and choose good again and again and again until, trough second nature, we become automaton-like in it's performance.
Don't worry...the Yetzer HaRah is waiting right around the bend with the next set of challenges that will again be a mighty struggle and not be on auto-pilot.
In his classic esays on "bechira-point" Rav Dessler explains how the exercise of free will AKA the war with ones Yetzer had a sliding front with a limited amount of "contested territory" at any given moment of our lives. There are vast tracts that are "below" our bechira points (i.e. firmly in the grasp of "good") and "above" our bechira points (i.e. firmly in the grasp of "evil").
Our challenge is to keep pushing forwward and conquering more territory such that we are "good" automotons for more and more and "free-will choosers" for higher and more complex challenges.
Rav Yisarel Salanter writes that those mitzvah that are presently done automatically as a result of many yesterdays exercise of free will are also reckoned by G-d as exercises of free will.
Irrationality (or super-rationality) is, according to the majority of commentators, a symptom of a chok, NOT a defining characteristic (See Hirsch, Soloveitchik, Ramban, and, IIRC, S'forno and Ibn Ezra, among others).
I'm enough of a lamdan do discern the lingo of siamn vs. sibah here. But do tell and please share...what IS/ARE the sibah sibot of Chukim?
don't get your point. Proffessor Leibowitz and Yaron Tadan seem to agree with Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz 100%.
Where's the kefira?
Shmuelvitz thinks it's a good thing. Mr. Yadan (and I) have a different opinion.
I've been looking for historical back up all weekend but no luck. I can't find anything outside of rabbinics which confirms or even suggests this is how baal peor was actually worshipped.
This would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
here we have a post that is deep insightful and touches on such basics as human free will and our relationaship to G-d and all you find interesting s corroborating the historicity of Pe'or worship.
What a pedantic pinhead.
Fine. But you never quoted where Yadan criticized it. What's Leibowitz's opinion?
In the passage you quoted he sure seems far from a Neo-Kantian.
I see Bray is back. The Kh is always a dead giveaway.
Why was Bray banned?
CA:
Sounds to me like the same claims Jesus made 2000 years ago are just being rehashed with a more academic approach by DE...
right?
(not that there's anything wrong with that...)
the 10-20 comments in a row is a bigger dead giveaway
Rob wants to know why you were banned Bray.
Who's Bray? 
As you seem to know TO why not go ahead and tell him...? yourself...
Better yet TO why not weigh in on the issues of Autonomy and Authority or are you among those who only finds the minutae of Pe'or worship compelling?
"BY" - Think you already know where I stand on this issue. Only believers see lack of belief in god as the equivalent of anarchy and bucking all authority.
People feel more secure and safe when there is structure. They generally seek out a balance of autonomy and structure with anarchists being statistical outliers.
My belief is that religion itself evolved from people's desire to structure a society where people could coexist, share resources, keep people safe and create a system in which there is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Not so different from secular law and order from my point of view.
Religious law and order and secular law and order are the same to me with the exception of the fact that religion is predicated on the myth that a god created the laws and consequences and I believe it was created by the people and for the people, again, no different from secular law.
And of course secular law has a much easier time (though clearly not easy) adapting itself to changing times as it is created by the people. Whereas religious law stemming from thousands of yrs ago, even though it also adapts to changing times, adapts at a much slower pace which leaves it many yrs behind the times and look to atheists like me as barbaric, outdated and in some areas, quite aversive.
As for why Bray was banned, it was not discussed with me so I couldn't tell you.
discussed with you?
it was declared on a thread for all the world to see..
Which thread? I want to see what DB found so objectionable.
here's the history of the ban:
Bray impolite to Dov last week two threads got his goat . here are the links:
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009...nd-
perhaps.html
he was probably most upset about these comments:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3573960/
#513870
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3573960/
#513873
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3573960/
#513875
here's the one when he actually banned Bray
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...3573960/
#513878
There was another thread going on simultaneously.
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2009...d-
medicine.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...6747769/
#513858
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...6747769/
#513865
I think it was the synergy of the two that earned Bray the ban.
Thanks for clarifying. I was away from my computer Friday.
Bray, I am a fan of yours and often enjoy your posts and comments. Perhaps you should (and I think this sometimes applies to DB as well) direct your comments at what has been said as opposed to the person who said it i.e. the idea is qefirah as opposed to the person saying it being a qofer.
To be honest, Bray is a necessary figure on this blog (DB, every superhero needs an arch enemy 
) and I ask that DB remove the ban. Didn't we vote on this a while back?
just call me Braniac or Lex Luther never the Joker or the Penguin
Fine. But you never quoted where Yadan criticized it. What's Leibowitz's opinion?
In the passage you quoted he sure seems far from a Neo-Kantian.
OK, this is what he says about Torah "morality" after prsented the classical Jewish sources on the subject:
So you see that the supreme value of one who observes Torah and the commandments is the worship of G-d. Whoever is not in this category (non-Jews, apostates, secular Jews who do not fulfill commandments, etc.) is not included in the commandment "love your fellow"! It is not for naught that the Torah ended the verse "Love your fellow as yourself" with the phrase "I am G-d."
Here it is appropriate to note that in every human society there is a tendency to protect society members more than all those outside the society. Almost every human group will legislate rules which set standards of behavior within the group and these standards will give an advantage to group members over non-group members. Go look at the laws of developed nations -- the state is not obligated to aid and assist those who are not a citizens. Yet: Laws legislated by countries about human rights, equality, and freedom are based on an ethical worldview which holds over time and place, even for those who are not citizens of a particular country. In a system which sees man as the point of reality, whoever harms Man deserves condemnation, while in a system which sees the worship of G-d as the point of Creation, all who interfere in the worship of G-d are worthy of condemnation.
So we see how meticulous the Torah was to command us on charity and how the rabbis called one who shirks from fulfilling this commandment a cruel creature. But, all of this notwithstanding, there are human beings to whom one ought be cruel.
Charity to a transgressor--But what is the rule about giving charity to one who sins? The Shulchan Aruch wrote in Yoreh Deah, paragraph 251, section one: "There is no obligation to sustain one who intentionally transgresses one of the commandments given in the Torah and who has not repented, nor to loan to him." The Rama explains in his Responsa, paragraph 62: "R' Eliezer of Metz said that if one deliberately transgressed one of the commandments given in the Torah and did not repent, there is no obligation to sustain him or loan to him, as it is written, 'And your brother shall live with you.' It is written 'your brother,' but since one deliberately sinned, he has removed himself from the fraternity until he is punished."
Moreover, if one sins as a matter of deliberate policy, not only are the others not obligated to give him chairty, they are forbidden to, as the Shach wrote on Yoreh Deah 251, subsection three, s.v. assur lifdoto, "The rule follows that it is forbidden to support him or sustain him."
So you see that all those who travel by car or turn on electricity on the Sabbath are counted as those who sin as deliberate policy, and it is forbidden to give them charity. The mercy and pity of giving charity are reserved, according to Halacha, not for all those who need the help but only for the needy who observe the commandments! It is forbidden to give the needy secular Jew charity.
Returning a lost item to a secular Jew who does not keep the Sabbath--Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, paragraph 266, section two: "One must return a Jew's lost item, even if the owner of the lost item is an evil man and eats carcasses for pleasure. But one who eats carcasses to anger [the Heavens] is an apostate, and it is forbidden to return the lost item of apostates and Samaritans and Jews who violate the Sabbath in public, just as of idolaters." This law is learned from Tractate Avodah Zarah 26b; see there.
Know that anyone who walks along Shenkin Street in Tel Aviv (where most people "violate the Sabbath in public") and finds there a lost item is not obligated to return it at all!
Returning a lost item to a gentile--Tractate Sanhedrin 76b: "One who returns a lost item to a gentile--of him the Scripture says (Deuteronomy 29:1
: 'To the utter ruin of the moist and the dry alike; the Lord will never forgive him'." And Rashi explains: "One who returns a lost item to a gentile--one who equates and links gentile and Jew and shows on his own that returning lost items is not important to him as a commandment of his Creator, for he does so even to a gentile, of whom he was not commanded."
We find in the Jerusalm Talmud, Bava Metzia, chapter two, halacha five, that Simon the son of Shetach returned a lost item to a gentile for the glory of G-d, and thus wrote the Shulchan Aruch, Choshem Mishpat, paragraph 266, section one: "The lost item of an idolater is permitted [it should not be returned], for it says 'your brother's lost item' (Deuteronomy 22:3). One who returns it transgresses a prohibition, for he strengthens the hands of transgressors. Yet, if he returns it to glorify the name of G-d, so that they will praise the Jews and know that they are faithful people, it is commendable.
Your own eyes see how much Jewish morality leads to only one goal, the worship of G-d. It is forbidden to pity a gentile even if he is very pitiful and it is forbidden to return any lost item to him. Only if the intent is to glorify the name of G-d (as a result of the lost item being returned gentiles will praise the Jewish faith) is it a commandment to return the lost item, but if the Jews themselves are praised, it is forbidden to return lost items to gentiles.
Maimonides, Laws of Lender and Borrower, chapter five, halacha one: "Idolaters and the ger toshav may be borrowed from and loaned to with interest, as it is said, 'You shall not deduct interest from loans to your brother.' From your brother it is forbidden, from the rest of the world it is permitted. It is a positive commandment to charge interest to idolaters, as it is said: 'From the foreigner you shall deduct.' They learned from tradition that this is a positive commandment and this is the rule of the Torah."
Not only is there no "brotherly love and mercy" toward gentiles (only amongst the Jews), but one who wishes to be merciful towards the gentile and loan to him, in good faith, without charging interest, transgresses a positive commandment.
Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, paragraph 159, section two: "It is permissible to loan to a convert away from Judaism at interest and it is forbidden to borrow from him at interest." But according to the Rama, "There are those who are stringent even about loaning to a convert away from Judaism."
In Responsa Yabiah Omer, part five, Yoreh Deah, paragraph 13a, it is ruled leniently. "The Chacham Tzvi (paragraph 43) wrote that, it is doubtlessly permitted to loan at interest to one who publicly violates the Sabbath. See there. Yet the Shvut Yaakov, part two (paragraph 73) adopts the Bach's view described above. In any case, it appears that there is room to be lenient since the plain words of the author of the Shulchan Aruch are 'a convert away from Judaism.' It is brought in the Beit Yosef that even if one eats carcasses to anger [the Heavens, and not for his own benefit], it is permissible to loan to him at interest… And in the Beit Yosef Yoreh Deah (paragraph 28 it is written that one who publicly violates the Sabbath, even for his own benefit, is as one who eats carcasses to anger [the Heavens]."
According to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, one who eats in a non-kosher restaurant (and he counts as one who eats simply to anger, as he has the opportunity to eat in a kosher restaurant across the street) may be loaned to at interest and the commandments of mercy and brotherly love through which the Torah commanded we not charge a Jew interest, once again do not apply to him, though he is fully a Jew.
Again we see that all the mercy and brotherly love and pity of the Halachic/Torah world is bent only towards the worship of G-d. There is no mercy for a man who is needy nor brotherly love for a person who is indigent nor pity for a man simply because he is a man. Mercy and brotherly love and pity are all based on what a man puts into his mouth and belly, according to the commands of religion.
According to Judaism (see the opinion of the Ramchal above) the meaning of life in this world is the fulfillment of commandments according to which a person should behave and determine his way of life. Therefore one who does not fulfill the commandments (because he is not obligated to or does not wish to) is not important in Judaism and one does not show him mercy, pity, or render assistance. Even when he innocently loses an item, there is no obligation to return it.
While I presume his quotes of the sources are accurate his interpretations are very often shallow and way off the mark.
If time allows I'll bl"n try to adress it point by point.
While I presume his quotes of the sources are accurate his interpretations are very often shallow and way off the mark.
Well, the guy was hareidi for 17 years and was head of kollel before he went off the reservation. He has been criticized for not providing alternate interpretations of the classic texts, but I think he probably knows the official interpretations used in hareidi community very well.
If time allows I'll bl"n try to adress it point by point.
Better yet, why not show us quotes from haredi gedolim that unambiguously refute the substance of his charges?
No can do ...not nearly the scholar he is. (That's all you really wanted isn't it???)
My way is easier and, more importantly, it's MY way.
Whoever is not in this category (non-Jews, apostates, secular Jews who do not fulfill commandments, etc.) is not included in the commandment "love your fellow"!
While this statement was accurate for most of Halakhic history post-war halakha includes the vast majority of contemporary Secular jews in the commandment "love your fellow"! by dint of their being Tinokos SheNishbu
It is not for naught that the Torah ended the verse "Love your fellow as yourself" with the phrase "I am G-d."
Jewish tradition would find this reading (that loving one another is significant only in the fellowship of G-d)untenable.
See Rashi ad locum and in numerous other p'sukim with this denoument that explains it to mean "Only G-d, omniscient and transcendant, can know whther or not this (such) mitzvos are being complied with" whereas human observers can be fooled.
In a system which sees man as the point of reality, whoever harms Man deserves condemnation, while in a system which sees the worship of G-d as the point of Creation, all who interfere in the worship of G-d are worthy of condemnation.
A false dichotomy if I ever read one. In Torah Judaism it is impossible to harm man without interfering with the worship of G-d. It is also impossible to harm man without diminishing the tzelem and d'mus of G-d.
But, all of this notwithstanding, there are human beings to whom one ought be cruel.
Why is this something unique to a Torah ethical system? I think it's true of a humanistic one as well. While the latter wants no abuses of human rights in jails is not incarceration, by definition, cruel?
His irrelevant quotes from the Shulchan Aruch, " The Rama, R' Eliezer of Metz and Shach that mislead him to this conclusion: So you see that all those who travel by car or turn on electricity on the Sabbath are counted as those who sin as deliberate policy, and it is forbidden to give them charity. is misinformative nonsense for the reason given above. Contemporary violatres of Shabbos are Tinokos shenishbu.
As a matter of pragmatic policy as well as complying with Halakhically mandated prioritizing in the allocation of scarce resources it may be that tere is nothing left in the till by the time we "come around" to the Shabbos desecrators.
Know that anyone who walks along Shenkin Street in Tel Aviv (where most people "violate the Sabbath in public") and finds there a lost item is not obligated to return it at all!
another false conclusion from a false premise. This one more egregious in than the others. How in the world did he paint the strollers on Shenkin street as "apostates to anger"? Also...I think that it is arguable thatbeing counted among those who "violate the Sabbath in public" presupposses that the violations occur among a Sabbath observant public. Again, inapplicable to the strollers down Shenkin Street.
but if the Jews themselves are praised, it is forbidden to return lost items to gentiles.
fabricated out of whole cloth. Utterly illogical...How did he EVER connect these dots???
(and he counts as one who eats simply to anger, as he has the opportunity to eat in a kosher restaurant across the street)
deliberate disinformation. If the treif restaraunt is cheaper,(and which fast food joint isn't?) or if the cuisine in the kosher restaraunt is of inferior taste or quality (and which kosher joint isn't?) then IIRC the treif fresser is still called a mumar l'teyavon.
While this statement was accurate for most of Halakhic history post-war halakha includes the vast majority of contemporary Secular jews in the commandment "love your fellow"! by dint of their being Tinokos SheNishbu
What about apostates and non-Jews?
In Torah Judaism it is impossible to harm man without interfering with the worship of G-d.
Torah demands capital punishment, wars, genocide,etc. against certain people.
And, in a less dramatic way, this blog contains many accounts of how the "Torah-true" community inflicts psychological pain on members who are mildly noncomformist in action or thought.
Just to be fair to the Daat Emet, I should mention that I only quoted selected passages, and it's possible that I ommitted something that might help understand his points better.
Her's a link to the entire essay:
http://www.daatemet.org/articles...?
article_id=117
If you're posting from a yeshiva, you might want to set your browser into "porn" mode (aka "private browsing") so your rosh yeshiva doesn't find out that you're visiting this evil heretic web site.
Torah demands capital punishment, wars, genocide,etc. against certain people.
Any Torah mandated violence is not harming man but advancing mankind.
What about apostates and non-Jews?
TTBOMK Daat Emet did NOT distort anything in either the letter or spirit of Halakha vis a vis non-Jews.
So what? What has he proven? That the Halakhic ssytem is informed by havdala consciousness and that one of the greatest of Havdolos is the one that obtains bein Yosrael L'Ahmim? You'd have known that a LONG time ago if you'd been paying ME any attention. I've never tried to hide , distort, soft-pedal or apologize for this.
As for apostates, if they are Jewsih they too may fall under the rubric of "captive children"
Commenting by HaloScan
