Oct 01, · So, I’m listening to your interview with Andrew Sullivan—and based on it, and this essay, may I strongly suggest that, in regards to Judaism and especially the question of the tension between particularism and universalism, take a listen to Rabbi Soloveichik’s Bible podcast. It is behind a pay wall, but R. Soloveichik is a brilliant Hasidic Judaism is a movement within Haredi Judaism that focuses on the study of the spiritual and joyful elements of the Talmud. It has its roots in the anti-Kabbalah movements of the 13th century. Hasidim focus on a loving and joyful observance of the laws laid out in the Torah, and a boundless love for everything God created In which John Green teaches you the history of Christianity, from the beginnings of Judaism and the development of monotheism, right up to Paul and how Chris
What is the Difference Between Haredi, Hasidic, and Orthodox Judaism?
This week, I noticed one of the signatories - Professor Shaul Magid, a former Orthodox rabbi with a long white beard - appearing on Facebook, judaism essay. It was regarding a post about judaism essay violence by Robby Berman, a person with the unusually nuanced view that Israel commits terrible judaism essay to Palestinians on a regular basis, judaism essay, but withdrawing from the West Bank right now would be a mistake, just like withdrawing from Gaza was a mistake.
I decided to take the opportunity to engage Professor Magid regarding Gaza, judaism essay. The following extraordinary exchange ensued.
I have lightly condensed it for clarity; you can see the original at this link. The parallels judaism essay the Daas Torah condemnation of my books are striking! Natan Slifkin: Shaul Magid, I would love to hear an explanation of why you condemned the Judaism essay for taking action against Hamas. This was after Israel was targeting the Hamas military apparatus that was firing rockets into Israel.
So I am asking you, why was it wrong for Israel to this? What else should they have done to stop the rockets? Shaul Magid: Not much time today, but briefly.
The question for me and others is all about proportionality, which is stipulated in international law, as you know. If I throw a rock through your living room you do not have the right to blow up my house. This was also raised in the Goldstone Report on Gaza. Every sovereign entity has the right to respond to attack and that would include Hamas, do you agree? although it does not have the right to target civilians or act in ways that judaism essay will be killed.
When rockets are fired from Hamas to Israel, Israel has the right to respond proportionally. We believe it did not do so. And to say "we don't target civilians" while you blow up neighborhoods judaism essay you know children live is not legitimate. And second they have a far superior military force. That is the way it is. Thus, when Israel responds to aggression, which it has a right to do, it must do with with proportionality, judaism essay.
That letter was a protest against what we felt was a response that did judaism essay meet the standard of proportionality. Thank you for asking. Natan Slifkin: What is "proportionately"? Surely you don't mean that Israel needs to kill the same number of Gazans. Rather, Israel has to do the minimum necessary to stop the rockets, judaism essay.
What evidence do you have that Israel exceeded this? although it does not have the right to act in ways that judaism essay will be killed. Shaul Magid: There are rules of proportionality in international law. But sometimes its like the famous line about pornography. I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Natan Slifkin: Really? So let's measure it by other wars. In urban warfare - where combatants place themselves among civilians - the ratio is much, much higher.
In the Gaza campaign, even if you adopt the anti-Israel UN's numbers, the ratio was and according to Israel's numbers, judaism essay, it was about So if your assessment is not based on any actual data, but merely that "you know it when you see it," then you have simply confirmed what many others of us know when we see it - an anti-Israel bias.
And the rules of proportionality in international law state that the civilian casualty rate must not be disproportionate to the military objective. Well, the military objective was to prevent rockets being fired at towns. And that wasn't even fully achieved yet - there are STILL rockets. This means that Israel still has judaism essay right to take even more action. Meanwhile, Israel took unprecedented measures to reduce civilian casualties - dropping flyers, sending warning phone calls, etc, judaism essay.
It's perfectly obvious that Israel tried to minimize civilian casualties even if for no other reason than to reduce international condemnation. Shaul Magid: "Unprecedented measures"? If so, they failed miserably. Tell that to the mothers of children killed judaism essay the bombing, judaism essay.
Anti-Israel bias? Should I accuse you of having a pro-Israel bias? Judaism essay would say it in reverse, your position is actually anti-Israel disguised as pro-Israel. But have it your way. Hasbara is not really working. At least from these shores, it is failing pretty dismally. But it makes you feel some righteous indignation. I don't underestimate that, judaism essay.
Natan Slifkin: It's silly to say "but children were killed! And you've only responded with judaism essay know it when I see it! And your hasbara is a failure! But others who are expert in these matters have weighed judaism essay to state the disproportionality of the response.
Others disagree. That is what that letter was about. You can certainly disagree with that, judaism essay. Judaism essay I do not think the claim of disproportionality in regards to Israel's response in Gaza is somehow outrageous or "anti-Israel bias. You don't have to agree with it. But deflecting it with such nonsense is simply not worthy of comment. You think I'm anti-Israel?
That's your right. Good judaism essay, good yuntif. Robby Berman: Shaul. Slifkin brought numbers showing the Israeli attack was not disproportion relative to other urban fighting. The least you can do is offer a suggestion of what Israel could have done to further minimize civilian casualties amongst the Palestinians.
At this point Professor Magid left the conversation. But we were joined by another signatory to the condemnation of Israel, Professor Joshua Shanes. Joshua Shanes: Robby Berman FYI, the question is problematic. As to the rest, Jewish violence in the West Bank with IDF backing is so well documented that it's really not worth a conversation with anyone who denies it any more than I have interest in those who deny the Judaism essay. I don't mean that as criticism but rather as a factual statement.
It's not worth conversation. Natan Slifkin: Great, here we have another signatory to the condemnation. Joshua, perhaps you can explain why you condemned Israel for trying to stop Hamas firing rockets.
In case it's not absolutely clear, nobody here is denying Jewish violence in the West Bank with IDF backing. And it's pathetic to try to use this claim as an excuse not to explain a condemnation of Israel for trying to neutralize those who are firing rockets at its towns, judaism essay.
Are you saying that because Israel put Gaza in a bad position, then Israel has no right to try to stop Hamas firing rockets? Joshua Shanes: Natan, you are mischaracterizing a nuanced statement, a version of a strawman, above all ignoring its judaism essay focus of sustained and long-term Israeli policy and violence that makes such violence inevitable. Natan Slifkin: Joshua Shanes, you condemned Israel for state violence in Gaza no nuance there!
I'm simply asking why. Now you seem to be saying that Israel made the rockets inevitable. And that Israel therefore has no right to try to stop them. I find that argument extraordinary. Joshua Shanes: Judaism essay argument that you are positing on me and then tearing down you mean? Okay, cool. Natan Slifkin: Okay, so please explain the argument. I was just quoting you about Israel having made the violence inevitable, judaism essay.
Your words, not mine. Joshua Shanes: You were not "just" doing that. Robby Berman: Joshua Shanes, that's how I understood you as well. Shaul Magid: Natan I wish you well. You have proven nothing. You, like me, are no expert. You have not "proven" anything Judaism essay said in my post was inaccurate.
The Ramchal's Essay on Fundamentals - Part 23 - Rabbi Yirmiyahu Ullman
, time: 36:13Rationalist Judaism
Sep 20, · This website is an exploration into the rationalist approach to Judaism that was most famously presented by Maimonides. It also explores contemporary rationalist approaches, as well as being a forum for various other notes. Well-written comments in the spirit of this enterprise will be posted; please include a name (even a pseudonym) Oct 01, · So, I’m listening to your interview with Andrew Sullivan—and based on it, and this essay, may I strongly suggest that, in regards to Judaism and especially the question of the tension between particularism and universalism, take a listen to Rabbi Soloveichik’s Bible podcast. It is behind a pay wall, but R. Soloveichik is a brilliant Jun 02, · Orthodox Judaism has not changed its policy, and still views homosexuality, or at least anal sex, among men as a grave sin, since the Bible explicitly says so. As for lesbians, Jewish law has ignored homosexuality among women, with the exception of a passage in the Talmud banning it because it could lead women to have illicit sex with men
No comments:
Post a Comment