arndt@squirt.DEC (02/20/86)
Well, I guess I have gathered all the 'slings and arrows' on my mailing
"Reed's Attack on the Jews" that were shot, so I think I'll take them
down off the shelf and formulate a reply.
Remember the issues. Bob Brown equated abortion with the Holocaust and
Adam Reed lifted off into orbit. I reposted with the reminder to Reed
that those who see abortion as the murder of innocent life are making
a valid analogy from their viewpoint and not at all "attempt(ing) to
trivialize the Holocaust". The question turns upon is abortion murder?
Better for Reed to address the issue of abortion than act as if he
cannot see the above distinction.
Of course I know (having been told enough times) that one MUST mention
abortion ONLY in net.abortion! A regular ole Union Shop of the mind here
on the nets, eh? The one who can draw himself up into the highest self
rightous posture and look down one's nose, as if at some poor benighted
wart, and shrill the loudest gets to arbitrate the topics by pure force
of 'character', eh? 'Moma don' allow no fiddlin' aroun' in here.' The
one I love the best is the hue and cry from net.religion.jewish against
any mention of Jesus or any mention period from a Christian. That REALLY
makes Jews look stupid!! Because they vault over their own mental
barricades into every net under the sun to slam Christianity, eh Rosen et al?
As I said, I may be Jewish myself and you turkeys are an embarrassment!
Bigots yelling 'bigotry'.
To get a flavor for the way Reed's comment about "trivializing" strikes
an odd note in the ear of those who believe abortion is murder, say to
yourself "Comparing abortion to the Holocaust trivializes abortion!"
The maker of that statement obviously believes the Holocaust was not
murder. SINCE BOB BROWN BELIEVES ABORTION IS MURDER HIS EQUATING OF
IT WITH THE HOLOCAUST IS VALID FROM HIS VIEWPOINT.
Adam Reed then goes on, embarrassingly, to make an appeal for his position
on the basis of his having lost relatives to the Holocaust. Sad as that is
it gives no force to his statements. One could say one had lost relatives
to abortion. I do not for a minute downplay the horror of the Holocaust.
I have stood in the gas chamber at Dachau, and the punishment block behind
the administration building. (I have been there several times and one time
the old SS cell block was open so I walked into a cell by myself and closed
the door behind me to stand there for a few minutes and think.) And we do
agree next time to resist?? And there very well may be a next time. "The
bitch is in heat again." Read the Turner Diaries? And the warmth with which
so many elitist intellectual Jews embrace the Left does not endear them to
the great moronic masses in the center and the right - but that's another
swamp, eh?
Adam Reed then appealed to 'Jewish Tradition'.
The point that I made -that appeals to Jewish 'tradition' are difficult
to sustain with the same force of an appeal to Torah, the whole Law
(by which I mean what Christians call the Old Testament, not
including the Talmud, and not just the books of Moses), and that
there is no one 'tradition' in Jewish thought, still stands. Any appeal
to 'interpretations', 'commentaries', etc. is always subject to the original
body of law and CANNOT be AS binding! Especially extrapolations on fuzzy
areas. ONE MUST ALWAYS COMPARE AN 'OPINION' WITH THE TEXT!! It is quite
clear that when looking in the Talmud for 'tradition' there is no ONE tradition
on many many topics. ABORTION IS ONE OF THESE. So when Reed or anyone else
appeals to 'his' Jewish tradition, fine. Which one?? And how does that
square with the Law??
Realize that I am making a distinction here between Torah and tradition.
Torah, the Law was WRITTEN down immediately, either by the speaker or
someone else (Moses, the prophets, etc.). Tradition is recognized as
largely being oral and handed down from father to son (JewEnc xii,p.213).
Jewish 'traditions' are largely if not entirely found in the Talmud.
The Talmud is comprised of the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah is
a collection of writings about the oral traditions that developed around
the Law (Scripture), containing interpretations and applications to
specific questions which the Law deals with only in principle. The Gemara
is comprised of discussions by teachers/speakers (Amoraim); again, dealing
mainly with specific cases mentioned only in principle in the Law.
While the Mishnah was set down in writing by Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi in the
second century A.D. and contains material far older than that date,
the Gemara was being added to as late as the fifth century A.D., NEITHER
OF THEM ARE FROM GOD IN THE SAME SENSE THAT THE TORAH IS. "Thus says the Lord",
from the mouth of the prophet/speaker! In fact some parts of the Haggada
(part of the Gemara) speak on ideas not in the law at all and at times
becomes fanciful or allegorical.
I cannot help but think that this kind of thing was the very point made so
long ago by Jesus and Paul to the effect that 'your traditions have made the
Law ineffective'. I am thinking here as well of the building up of the Haggada
after their time.
I have not even included the mystical writings, largely from the middle ages.
The Kabbala.
Layer on this the several 'sects' of Jewish belief - Orthodox, Conservative,
Reform, and several others, and the web of what is 'tradition' becomes even
more tangled.
It is indeed unfortunate that for some Jews the Talmud has become as authoritive
as the Torah. I beleive, no matter who says so, that this posture does not
make sense. It is rather like the Roman Catholic origin of authority for
the Church - a three legged stool, the Bible, the pronouncements of Councils,
and pronouncements of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra (which they have done
on only a handful of times). THE JEWS NEED A MARTIN LUTHER TO RISE AND SAY
"HERE I STAND (on Torah), THE POPES AND COUNCILS (Talmud) HAVE OFTEN
CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES." But for a Christian to take the writings of Luther
as 'gospel' - binding as though from God, would be wrong. I realize full well
that many Christians have and are doing just what I am speaking against as a
form of Jewish practice - taking the commentaries as as authoritative or binding
as the original text.
I am reminded of SHOSHA, by Issac Bashevis Singer when the character Aaron
says of his father,"My father stood at a lectern all day long and looked into
large books that lay open in a great pile. He wrote commentaries, trying to
answer the contradictions that one commentator found in the works of another."
[By the by gang, the Orthodox are gathering Levitical Priests - through family
records - and, holding with Torah and Talmud that 'without the shedding of blood
there is no forgiveness of sin', are sacrificing (symbolically) chickens in
NYC, looking forward to a new temple sacrifice. But that's another posting.]
The best that Reed or any Jew can say, if they don't accept Torah alone,
and they are not quoting DIRECTLY from it, and if the Torah doesn't
speak directly to the case at hand is, 'I as a Jew believe . . .',
but not that 'Jewish tradition says . . . ' in the sense that there is ONE
interpretation.
Now so this posting doesn't get too long let me just say that I believe that
the Torah DOES speak about the wrongness of abortion. Not to mention plain
logic!! But I'll address that in another posting. This one's getting far too
long.
Perhaps one last point. Silly (but loveable) people have accused me of being
antisemitic! (By which, as near as I can make out, they mean I disagree with
their viewpoint) My word! If you recall, I can't even SPELL it!
Keep chargin'
Ken Arndtrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (02/21/86)
Ken, you were much more pleasant and affable when you were Don Black. Why don't you go back to being him for a while? (Never mind, forget I said that...) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (02/22/86)
It seems to me that it can be justified that equating abortion with the Holocaust is trivializing the Holocaust. The reason is this: In the case of abortion, it is a legitimate opinion to hold that a fetus is not a human being and that abortion is not murder. By making the comparison to the Holocaust, you are implying that it is a legitimate opinion to hold that the people killed in the Holocaust were not human beings and thus there was no murder committed. The fact that someone who makes the comparison personally believes that abortion is murder is not an excuse, unless he/she also believes that it is not a legitimate opinion to be in favor of abortion. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
teitz@aecom2.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (02/27/86)
Long quote at the end. I am not going to get involved in the debate on whether abortion is comparable to the Holocaust or not. I just want to respond to a few points raised in the article about Torah and tradition. G-D gave us the Torah ( the Five Books of Moses ). The rest of the Bible, the writings of the prophets, were not necessarily the word of G-D. They might have been the prophets own words, written at G-D's command. The Torah, on the othe hand, was G-D's own work, in His own words. ( see the introduction of the Abravanel to the prophet Jeremiah for a more in-depth discussion of this matter ). G-D also gave to Moses, on Mount Sinai some specific laws not mentioned in the Torah, known as Halacha l'Moshe miSinai ( laws given to Moses at Sinai ). These laws were passed down, generation to generation, from Moses to Joshua, to his student,..., till the time of the writing of the Talmud. On these laws there are no debates or argu- ments. There can't be. They were given to Moses by G-D. Unfortunately, G-D didn't tell all that much to Moses. He didn't want to. What G-D wanted, as He told us in the Torah, was to figure out the laws for ourselves. G-D, in Deuteronomy ( I don't have the exact location at hand ), said, 'Lo bashamayim he,' ( It, the Torah, is not in the heavens ), meaning, it is up to us to interpret the Torah. One of the things that G-D did give Moshe was a set of rules by which to interpret the Torah. With those rules in hand, Moshe and every Jew could interpret the Torah. Unfortunately, we do not have these rules available to us. And even if we had them available we wouldn't be able to use them. Only people who were deemed knowledgable could use them. Moshe gave this distinction to Joshua, and he to his pupil. This chain continued, unbroken, until the time of the Talmud. This is why the Talmud is as binding as the Torah itself. Because G-D told Moshe that He wanted the Jewish nation to apply these rules to interpret the Torah. These interpretations were written down in the Talmud. Now you can ask, But there are contradicting opinions in the Talmud. Which do we follow. The answer is we follow the majority opinion ( At the time the Talmud was being compiled this did not apply. If a person had one teacher, who was deem worthy of interpreting ( by his teacher,..., back to Moshe ), then he could follow his teacher, even against the others. The Talmud relates many cases like this. One quick one relating to whether chicken is considered meat or not. One of the rabbis deemed it neutral, and in his city they ate chicken with milk, even though the law was eventually decided that it was indeed meat. Even after the decision a person from the rabbi's city could still eat chicken with milk, because he followed his rabbi's interpretation. We cannot pick and choose. Since we came after the fact, we must follow the majority opinion, which is why we consider chicken to be in the category of meats, as opposed to the category of neutrals ). The chain of generations was broken at the time of the compiling of the Talmud, when it was decided by the few who had the right to interpret that there was no one worthy of continuing. And rather than lower their standards they simply discontinued the chain. This led to big problems. Judaism would not be dynamic any more. It would have to remain, for the most part, in the form that it was at that time. All that could be done, from that point on, was to apply the laws written in the Torah and the Talmud to cases that didn't arise until much later on ( which is how we can decide problems such as using electricity on the Sabbath ). Just to conclude, let me say that the Talmud is as binding as the Torah because it is what G-D wanted us to do with the Torah. For an interesting story about what G-D wanted wit the Torah the Talmud relates what happened when some rabbis got together to decide a certain case. One rabbi was of one opinion and all the others were against him. He, the lone rabbi ( Rabbi Eliezer, I think ), to prove that his was the proper ruling called upon the trees to prove his assertion. And a tree uprooted itself and moved. The rabbis said that trees were no proof. He brought other proofs, all of which were rebuffed by the majority. Finally he called upon G-D to prove him correct. And a heavenly voice declared that indeed he was correct. At which point Rabbi Joshua stood up and said 'Lo bashamayim he', the decision is not in G-D's hands. Once He gave us the Torah, it is ours to interpret, according to the rules He set down, but G-D has no right to impose His interpretations upon us.( pretty strong words ). The decision went against R. Elazer, and like the majority. The end of the story relates that Eliyahu, the prophet, visited one of the rabbis. The rabbi inquired what G-D did when He heard R. Joshua speak. Eliyahu said that G-D laughed and said 'nitzchuni banai, nitzchuni' ( literally, My children have won Me they have won over Me ). I am not saying you have to believe this story literally. The point of the story though, illustrates what I have said. G-D gave us the Torah to interpret as we see fit, using His guidelines of interpretation. We, living in the 20th century, and for every century since the 4th or 5th, do not have the guidelines. Therefore we must rely on what was discussed in the past when the rules were known and in use. The day might come when G-D will relate these rules once again, and we will be able to set up our own rules and laws. But for now, we must use what was set down and that is what is binding upon us. Eliyahu Teitz. > The point that I made -that appeals to Jewish 'tradition' are difficult > to sustain with the same force of an appeal to Torah, the whole Law > (by which I mean what Christians call the Old Testament, not > including the Talmud, and not just the books of Moses), and that > there is no one 'tradition' in Jewish thought, still stands. Any appeal > to 'interpretations', 'commentaries', etc. is always subject to the original > body of law and CANNOT be AS binding! Especially extrapolations on fuzzy > areas. ONE MUST ALWAYS COMPARE AN 'OPINION' WITH THE TEXT!! It is quite > clear that when looking in the Talmud for 'tradition' there is no ONE tradition > on many many topics. ABORTION IS ONE OF THESE. So when Reed or anyone else > appeals to 'his' Jewish tradition, fine. Which one?? And how does that > square with the Law?? > > Realize that I am making a distinction here between Torah and tradition. > Torah, the Law was WRITTEN down immediately, either by the speaker or > someone else (Moses, the prophets, etc.). Tradition is recognized as > largely being oral and handed down from father to son (JewEnc xii,p.213). > > Jewish 'traditions' are largely if not entirely found in the Talmud. > The Talmud is comprised of the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Mishnah is > a collection of writings about the oral traditions that developed around > the Law (Scripture), containing interpretations and applications to > specific questions which the Law deals with only in principle. The Gemara > is comprised of discussions by teachers/speakers (Amoraim); again, dealing > mainly with specific cases mentioned only in principle in the Law. > > While the Mishnah was set down in writing by Rabbi Judah Ha-Nasi in the > second century A.D. and contains material far older than that date, > the Gemara was being added to as late as the fifth century A.D., NEITHER > OF THEM ARE FROM GOD IN THE SAME SENSE THAT THE TORAH IS. "Thus says the Lord", > from the mouth of the prophet/speaker! In fact some parts of the Haggada > (part of the Gemara) speak on ideas not in the law at all and at times > becomes fanciful or allegorical. > > I cannot help but think that this kind of thing was the very point made so > long ago by Jesus and Paul to the effect that 'your traditions have made the > Law ineffective'. I am thinking here as well of the building up of the Haggada > after their time. > > Layer on this the several 'sects' of Jewish belief - Orthodox, Conservative, > Reform, and several others, and the web of what is 'tradition' becomes even > more tangled. > > It is indeed unfortunate that for some Jews the Talmud has become as authoritive > as the Torah. I beleive, no matter who says so, that this posture does not > make sense. It is rather like the Roman Catholic origin of authority for > the Church - a three legged stool, the Bible, the pronouncements of Councils, > and pronouncements of the Pope when speaking ex cathedra (which they have done > on only a handful of times). THE JEWS NEED A MARTIN LUTHER TO RISE AND SAY > "HERE I STAND (on Torah), THE POPES AND COUNCILS (Talmud) HAVE OFTEN > CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES." But for a Christian to take the writings of Luther > as 'gospel' - binding as though from God, would be wrong. I realize full well > that many Christians have and are doing just what I am speaking against as a > form of Jewish practice - taking the commentaries as as authoritative or binding > as the original text. >
teitz@aecom2.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (02/27/86)
> > [By the by gang, the Orthodox are gathering Levitical Priests - through family > records - and, holding with Torah and Talmud that 'without the shedding of blood > there is no forgiveness of sin', are sacrificing (symbolically) chickens in > NYC, looking forward to a new temple sacrifice. But that's another posting.] > Where did you get this ? > > Keep chargin' > No thanks, I'll pay cash. Eliyahu Teitz.