Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Dynamics of Dispute - Recipients and Publicity takes the offensive

Some of you have wondered why I am publishing this material. - after all I am clearly right and Recipients and Publicity is clearly wrong. The answer is simply that this dispute has the same DNA of the major disputes we have been discussing. The same language and modes of expression exist in our dispute with R' Tropper, or exist between the Modern Orthodox and Chareidim on many issues.

Perhaps if we can understand the parameters of what is going on - we can gain a greater understanding of why disputes between intelligent, sincere individuals and groups are not easily resolved by rational discussion but rather by raw power politics.

RaP is clearly dedicated, intelligent and sincere - and yet at some point these talents have been channeled into a path which most of us find puzzling and unproductive. He in turn views that the rest of us have betrayed our original goals and he has appointed himself the thankless task of returning us to a more honest and productive approach.

In short - this discussion is not about the Syrian Takana per se - but on meta issues and values which are so basic they are not being articulated. For those who have the patience read his very long comment on Recipients and Publicity attacks the Syrian Takana...":
=====================================

Recipients and Publicity has left a new comment on your post "Recipients and Publicity attacks the Syrian Takana...":

Mel kaminsky said:

"the problem with 'recipients and publicity's statements about the Syrian Takana seems to be that his statements have been proven to be wrong,"

RaP: Please specify what has been "proven wrong" with the Syrians when noone has done what they did.


"and yet he continues to promote falsehoods as if they are truths."

RaP: OK so you are calling me a liar, cheap shot. Show me, specifically, where I am "promoting falsehoods" instead of just saying that it is so.


"'Recipients and Publicity' continually rails against people for not loving the Convert."

RaP: Huh, no I do not. My main point is that the mitzvah of loving a ger is in the Torah, multiple times and that there cannot be an institutional block to sincere and genuine geirim, and sometimes even when circumstances are not "perfect" and "ideal" but as judged acceptable by a competent Bais Din with competent dayanim.


"Having read through the previous posts, it's clear that the ongoing debate is about who is a Ger, not about how Geirim are treated."

RaP: You read which posts? Specify please.


"In the military, we call this technique "firing chaff"."

RaP: Whatever. Judaism is not the military, and if I was firing chaff the owner of this blog wouldn't be taking me so seriously that he has given major prominence to what I have stated and written. Has any of your "chaff" made it to anything?


"Virtually his entire post seems to have the purpose of deflecting the topic of discussion away from the Halachic discourse"

RaP: Nonsense yet again. Have you read how many times Jersey girl talks about her private life, family matters and trivia that have nothing to do with Halachic discourse at all? Indeed if she is an Orthodox Jewish woman in real life, according to many Charedi rabbis, she is forbidden to engage in Halachic discourse because it's reserved only for true Torah scholars (I guess that is why she must resort to many bobba meises all the time.)


"and toward painting himself as being the righteous victim of Rabbi Eidensohn's bad personal qualities,"

RaP: This is sheer trash! I am not a victim of anything, but I do defend myself which is my right. Talk of being in the "military" do you only believe in one way surrenders? How much fun would that be to read, huh? And I have NOT said that Rabbi Eidensohn has "bad personal qualities" because I have NOT attacked him personally anywhere, our disagreements are between gentlemen and scholars and it is now you that is a liar.


"and he further tries to paint Rabbi Eidensohn as a person with silly ideas"

RaP: Nope. How on Earth do you say that? Would I bother to spend hours of my time on this Blog if I did not respect its owner? You are now stooping to worse insults than you accuse me of.


"by declaring anyone who appears to agree with him to be a small minority in the 'peanut gallery.'"

RaP: I was referring to the two main posters "Jersey girl" and "Bright Eyes" (who may even be the same person, as you may be one of them) and to noone else. It was self-understood to anyone who has spent time on this blog which you evidently have not.


"It's very strange. Thank you to Rabbi Eidensohn for providing such an interesting blog"."

RaP: What is strange is how you can spew forth lies and assume that people will not notice.

-------


Marc who says:

"It's really amazing how like every time anyone brings up any subject, recipients and publicity turns it into an attack on the Syrian Community."

RaP: If you had been following the major discussions on this blog for the last six months you would know that the topic of how the Syrian RABBIS (not the "community") enacted a takana against accepting geirim has been a central litmus test of much else that has been talked about on this blog. I have no interest in the Syrian community and I wish them well on a personal level. But the discussions here are nor "personal" but rather about how communities formulate and enact religious (Halachik) policies and how they can be used as either precedents or warnings about what works and what does not work, what to do and what not do. Nothing less and nothing more, so quit pretending that I have an axe to grind against Syrian Jews when I do not.


"Why is that? Does he have something to hide?"

RaP: Like what? If there is one thing that makes me laugh on this blog as how easily I can be aaccused of being "paranoid" and this and that insult but I live with it, 'cause so what, but that posters on this blog are sometimes freely allowed to voice their own idiotic fears (they are too babyish to be on the level of real paranoia) instead of talking about the issues.


"What, is he like a missionary or something like that?"

RaP: very funny! Back to the "missionary theories" about posters that are such a joke. That line always comes up here, and it is crazy. I know that some people in the Eidensohn family are obsessed with Christian missionaries (why is that? have some of them been won over by them, whatvere it is, it's frustrating to debate here sometimes when any disagreements come up, right away out come the missionary theories, as if it's a witchhunt or communist hunt, shame on you and grow up!) but it is so stupid to accuse me of that that I think it is just a huge joke. Be nuts, see what I care. It is no substitute for good reasoning and patient responses.

"Ok, I guess this makes 3 from the 'Peanut Gallery', lol! Thanks so much for this blog, Rabbi Edensohn :)"

RaP: When was the last time you ever commented on this blog, if ever? Don't flatter yourself, you have to be as hard-working and ever-available like Jersey girl and Bright Eyes to make it to the level of being a "peanut" let alone a "peanut gallery"!

10 comments :

  1. Recipients and PublicityJuly 1, 2008 at 11:50 AM

    Hi Dr. Eidensohn: It would have been a lot more helpful had you re-posted my latest lengthy comments of Monday, June 30, 2008 "Recipients and Publicity attacks the Syrian Takana & me -again & again & again" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/06/recipients-and-publicity-attacks-syrian.html instead of these minor refutaions that evidently amuse you and mean a lot more than you seem to be reading into them.

    Therefore, for those who care about the real debate about the Syrian Takana and why it is still unresolved on this blog, I am reposting my full comments here again for the benefit of those who wish to remain informed of not just my "defenses" but of the long labor of love (it took me a couple of hours to find and read all the discussions of the past six months): So here we go, again:

    Recipients and Publicity said...

    CHRONOLOGY of the debate about the Syrian Takana on this Blog, so far

    It is very funny that readers here are not aware that it was not I that brought up the Syrian Takana issue over the past months.

    I am also suprised that Dr. Eidensohn does not remember the history of his posts and my involvement with it, but for the sake of clarity I will recap what has been going on for those posters who are now saying nutty things about me that reveal they have no clue about what has transpired here.

    From what I can recall I only joined this blog with my first post as "Recipients and Publicity" on the Thursday, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 post "Bedatz Letter regarding EJF signed by Gaavad" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/02/bedatz-letter-regarding-ejf-signed-by.html following Dr. Eidensohn's/Daas Torah posts, I had subsequently been exclusively focused on the hypocrisy of the EJF organization in its efforts and I devoted much time and research to that topic, hence my poster ID of "Recipients and Publicty" when I requested that Dr. Eidensohn post ("Publicity") the names of those rabbis who had received warnings ("Recipients") from the BADATZ in Yerushalayim not to go along with the EJF's agenda of helping all manner of intermarried couples to convert.

    It was Dr. Eidensohn who introduced the subject of the example of the Syrian Jews, as if they were some sort of paradigm of perfection to emulate, in his Tuesday, DECEMBER 25, 2007 post "Strategies against intermarriage I - Syrian Jews" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2007/12/strategies-against-intermarriage-i.html and I watched how the discussion unfolded there with its nine posts of different points of view. There was then more talk about the Syrian Takana in the Monday, DECEMBER 31, 2007 post "The Emperor has no clothes - Eternal Jewish Family & Daas Torah" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2007/12/emperor-has-no-clothes-eternal-jewish.html and I was still not involved.

    Starting with the Monday, MARCH 3, 2008 post of "HaRav Aaron Soloveichik zt"l - descendants of Marranos are treated as Jews
    I just received" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/03/harav-aaron-soloveichik-ztl-descendants.html I began to take serious issue with "Jersey girl's" idealization of some sort of superior defensive "Sefardic hashkafa" that somehow casts the general Orthodox/Haredi non-defensive approach to yichus and geirus in a negative light.

    This debate has still not been resolved, coming as it did AFTER Dr. Eidensohn had posted a pro-Syrian post from a secular news magazine allied with his friend "Jersey girl's" "sefardim know better and do things better attitude" I started to vigorously question a stance that is not followed by the mainstream Ashkenazi Torah world and rabbinate.

    On Monday, March 3, 2008 Dr. Eidensohn posted my comments "Descendants of Marranos (Anousim) - should they be encouraged to convert? II" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/03/descendants-of-marranos-anousim-should.html IMPLICITLY questioning "Jersey girl's" pro-Sefardic approach (but we we are still in general agreement at that point.)

    In the Thursday, March 27, 2008 post "Lakewood baal teshuva marrano is Christian? I" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/03/lakewood-baal-teshuva-marrano-is.html "Jersey girl" lets her slip show when she defends the rights of long lost "Conversos" (unlike "marranos") to return to the fold, provided they can prove it even after hundreds of years living like Christians (she will defend Sefardi issues even when they contradict each other, like accepting the "genuine conversos" but reject geirim via the Syrian Takana as will be shown.)

    It was in the Tuesday, April 1, 2008 post "An unintentional intermarriage - Jewish Action Magazine" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/04/unintentioal-intermarriage-jewish.html a brief post by Dr. Eidensohn about "There is a good article on unintentional intermarriage in Jewish Action http://www.ou.org/index.php/jewish_action/article/38176/ concerning a woman who discovered that despite being raised as a Jew - she was not a Jew according to halacha." Wherein Jersey girl was forcefully confronted by another poster that then led to the issues of the hard-line Syrian-like attitude to geirim.

    After Jersey girl describes many instances of intermarraige in her own family, the "Anti-Hypocrite Heeb" poster attacked Jersey girl's response to the OU article:

    "The hypocrisy & self-righteousness of Jersey Girls and other arrogant Torah-rejecting so-called frum Jews astounds me.
    Since you are all the self-declared watchdogs of Taliban Jewry, do you even accept the geirus of the woman in the Jewish Action article, or even though she now did EVERYTHING correct according to all halacha, is she forever banned from being a Jew because she didn't emerge from a Jewish womb? Just admit that you hate all goyim and that all converts to Torah Judaism, no matter how sincere and no matter how halachachly correct their conversion was, will NEVER be acceptable Jews in your eyes and the other evil ones who simply HATE!"

    The above then became the launch pad for Jersey girl, but in the interim in a Wednesday, April 2, 2008 post "Lakewood baal teshuva marrano is Christian? II" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/04/lakewood-baal-teshuva-marrano-is.html Jersey girl digressed yet again, as she often does about her personal life, to talk about her Sephardic roots and heritage and about how Sephardim are required to produce "proof" of their lineage before marriages and acceptance into communities:

    "Back in the day, when I was growing up at the Shore, I had to produce two witnesses to my mother's halachic Jewish status before I could even VISIT another kid's house let alone eat there" she proudly says and "I have not known an Orthodox Sephardic synagogue to accept a person as Jewish without some proof (a visitor won't get an aliyah usually without witnesses)"

    and

    "In the Sephardic synagogues our family has been affiliated with, we were asked to fill out a genealogy and it was followed up with elder Rabbis and community members where we had grown up"

    and

    "Even the mohel who circumcised my sons would not do so without "checking" even though he knew both of our families for many years"

    These set the xenophobic tone and context for the Syrian takana and the discussion about it. She continues in that manner without relenting as in the Friday, April 4, 2008 post "Brain death & the intermarriage-conversion problem" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/04/brain-death-intermarriage-conversion.html where she is the lone poster (she does not mind talking to herself it seems because people tire of her rigidity and one track mind):

    "Each of the Orthodox Rabbis who have done conversions to permit intermarriages think that it has been only the "two dozen" or a that they have personally done. What American Orthodox Rabbis do not realize is that most of the 1000 members of the RCA have each done on average a "few" or a "few dozen" conversions to permit intermarriages" feeling free to attack "American Orthodox Rabbis" (who are not as smart as Sephardic Syrian rabbis it is implied as will be seen.)

    At this point, on Monday, April 7, 2008 "What you find sometimes lurking under the rocks!" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-you-find-sometimes-lurking-under.html Dr. Eidensohn decided to go backwards to the earlier attack by Anti-Hypocrite Heeb against Jersey girl and insults Anti-Hypocrite Heeb who said what was on his mind and that reflects a common view outside of limited Haredi tunnel vision and it's worth repeating:

    "The hypocrisy & self-righteousness of Jersey Girls and other arrogant Torah-rejecting so-called frum Jews astounds me. Since you are all the self-declared watchdogs of Taliban Jewry, do you even accept the geirus of the woman in the Jewish Action article, or even though she now did EVERYTHING correct according to all halacha, is she forever banned from being a Jew because she didn't emerge from a Jewish womb?"

    When I saw that Jersey girl and Dr. Eidensohn were not dealing with Anti-Hypocrite Heeb in a respectful and rational manner who even thanked me, and wondered out aloud:

    "Recipients, Thank you so much for your posts. They have restored my faith in this blog, where Taliban-Jewish elements have been trying to take over. Baruch Hashem there is no Jewish version of the Pope, l'havdil. If the Bedatz & the Israeli Rabbinate were actually in charge, chas v'shalom, all Jewish women would be wearing burkas. New Jersey girl's comments are way off and against halacha. What bothers me more than that is that you, Recipients, are the only other poster her who has rebuked her."

    At that point, based on Jersey girl's own admissions of her Sephardic leanings, and in NYC, the majority of Sephardim are Syrians, that is just the way it is, and I responded to an anonymous who was rejecting a reply I had give to Jersey girl as "cooking the books" (very odd expression, if anyone is not doing things lechumra 'your way' then they are "cooking the books"? funny!):

    "What the Syrian community has done goes against pure Halachah because it prevents even a 100% sincere ger tzedek from becoming a Jew and tht is aaginst Halachah. So this is not part of the discussion. The proof is that even the BADATZ and the Israeli chief rabbinate accpet converts, so are the Syrians "holkier than thou" than the BADATZ of the Rabbanut? Obviously not, they are just scared that all their carefree men will run off with their shiksa mistresses."

    The battle is joined as Jersey girl responds to me "RaP- Have you ever READ the Syrian Edict? Or spoken to a Syrian Rabbi about this? It is quite a statement to make that an entire Jewish community is practicing outside of halacha? Is there a specific ruling on the Syrian community by a Posek that you can cite to support such a declaration? The actual text of the Edict reads: “No male or female member of our community has the right to intermarry with non-Jews; this law covers conversion, which we consider to be fictitious and valueless”."

    And she is supported by an anonymous poster who chimes in:

    "I've seen you lambast the Syrian Takana. If you read the original from 1935, you will note that it only refers to those who have converted for marriage. Since this identical position is supported by the Bedatz statement made this past November, am I to assume that you judge that Bedatz has acted totally against Halacha? What qualifies you to rule that the Bedatz of Jerusalem do not know Halacha?"

    AND IT IS AT THIS POINT THAT WE SEE THE REAL HOPES AND AGENDA OF Jersey girl, her anonymous supporter, Bright Eyes and in all probability this blog, that as far as they are concermed the Syrian Takana is something noteworthy to emulate, or they delude themselves to think that the BADATZ is now like a bunch of Syrian rabbis, when they are NOT saying the same things in any way because the BADATZ's constituency in Meah Shearim and Bnai Brak and in Haredi and Hasidic enclaves is not running to marry shiksas like the secularized hyped Syrian males, with limited or zero Torah true chinuch had started to do in the early 20th century and which they still salivate to do but must live with artificial takanos to keep all the SYs in check which is not the case with the Charedim of Meah Shearim and Bnai Brak.

    Dr. Eidensohn took note of the stormy discussions and named a post on Friday, April 11, 2008 "Cheshbon Hanefesh - Let's pause to take an accounting" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/04/cheshbon-hanefesh-lets-pause-to-take.html but he does say inter alia:

    "There has of late been significant dispute and strong disagreement on this blog between our commentators - especially since Eternal Jewish Family seems to be fading from the picture. I have basically stayed out and not expressed my views on these internal dispute - even though I do have strong opinions on the matter. However by not publicly judging the views..."

    BUT it was when Dr. Eidensohn posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 "Rav Kook zt"l - Supported Argentina ban on conversion - for welfare of Jews and non-Jews" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/04/rav-kook-ztl-supported-argentina-ban-on.html an opinion from Rav Kook of all people, who was the arch universalist and inclusionist and Jersey girl delved deeper into the Syrian Takana claiming that it was "Ashkenazic by association" since the Syrian rabbis hired an unknown mysterious "Ashkenazic rabbi" to write (sounds like those stories of people who write ghost mesechtos that are unmasked for their fraudulence down the line):

    "Aaron Halevy Goldman, rabbi and leader of Moisesville, the first Jewish agricultural settlement in Argentina, which was settled by Russian Jews in 1889. (Rabbi Aaron Halevy Goldman wrote the original Edict Against Conversions for Marriage that was later adopted by Rabbi David Sutton of the Buenos Aires Syrian community and that was also signed in NY by Rabbi Haim Tawil. Yes, it is true that the "Syrian Takana" is of Russian Ashkenazic origin.) Although in those years, most Jewish families rejected marriage to a non-Jewish partner..."

    and to which I responded clearly and unambiguously:

    "The "Syrian Takana" is essentially anti-Halachik because it excludes even genuine 100% Geirei Tzedek which all Halachik Jews are obligated to accept and love according to the Torah. Rav Kook's words here are actually very Halachically enlightening and enlightened if anyone reads what he is saying carefully, and Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn is to be commended for the willingness and intellectual hinesty to translate and post them, and Jersey Girl does noone a service by distracting readers with prattle about "how great" the "Syrian Takana" is, regardless of its supposed origins. There was only one reason, and still is only one reason for why the Syrian rabbis did what they did and that was because as a fairly small community, and without a strong internal Torah-dikke chinuch system to educate and keep their youth in the fold, as exists among Chasidim, Yeshiva-leit and serious Mizrachistim, the young Syrian men were running off with shiksas in droves, even taking them at the same time that they "kept" their Jewish Syrian wives who were shallow-headed material girls. So the Syrian rabbonim went radical by issuing "decrees" but such things are desperation measures and only reveal the panic, insecurity and fear of the ones who resorted to such radical measures that don't really stop anyone really if they are determined to marry their favorite shiksa."

    To which both Dr. Eidensohn and Jersy girls respond with questions, such as:

    "I don't understand the basis for your assertion. Do you have any source that a community can not make such a decree to protect themselves from destruction?"

    and praises for the unknown:

    "The "Syrian" Takana isn't even "Syrian" . Rabbi Aaron Halevy Goldman ztl who authored the Argentinian Ban was a Russian born Ashkenazic Rabbi. Rabbi Goldman was reputed to have been a Talmudic and halachic genius of world renown. I do not know of a source to learn more about Rabbi Aaron Goldman and would like to learn more about the Rabbi who was able to extrapolate ahead four generations given the social conditions in the early 1930s."

    Jersy girl admits he is an unknown yet the entire community relies on this unknown. Very unimpressive.

    The discussions then go on and on on this topic and heat up. "Bright Eyes" even has to chime in:

    "...I suppose that the Ashkenazic ban on polygamy enacted just over 1,000 years ago is essentially anti-Halachik because it excludes even 100% genuinely kosher Jewish marriages by people who lives according to the Torah. Continuing on this logic, would you attack this famous Takana on the basis that Ashkenazi men couldn't control themselves sexually and that the need for this illegal Takana would have been eliminated if they only learned more Torah? Your post reveals that your bigotry drives your words more than your logic or religiosity."

    To which I responded:

    "Now ridiculous is this comparison?! Are you comparing what Rabbi Gershon Me'Or HaGola, who is the father of the Rishonim, enacted in his age -- when almost all Jews were holy observers of the Torah beyond what we can even imgaine today, to what the Syrians rabbis did in a panic in Argentina of all places -- where the Jews were nebech falling like flies into the arms of all the sinoritas? The CHEREM Rabbeinu Gershom, as it is called, forbidding a Jewish man to take more than one wife had NOTHING to do with making goyim into Jews or a fear of Jews becoming goyim. He was concerned that since the Catholic Church had made monogomy compulsory and that would in turn endanger Jews living under the rule of Christendom who would violate dina demalchusa by taking more than one wife as the Torah allows. Therefore, as well as for a few more deeper spiritual reasons such as showing absolute loyalty to only one bashert, he enacted his famous Cherem forbidding any Ashkenazi man from taking more than one wife. And as you know, this Takana was not applicable to, nor accepted by, Jews in Islamic lands because Islam, unlike Christianity, allows a man to take more than one wife and does not consider it special nor a sin to have a few wives so that therefore Jews living even as dhimmis could still follow their own Torah to take more than one wife. And that became the Halacha until this day. Only when the Sefardim came to Israel and Western lands in the twentieth century were they obligate per force to stop taking more than one wife so that they too now abide by Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom de facto and are zocheh to this great mitzvah of being married to only one true zivug. The Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom has nothing to do with the yetzer hara and sexual impulses. It was first and foremost a response to Jews living under Christian rule and has nothing to do with learning more or less Torah. You also reveal that you do not understand what I am saying and you are twisting my words. When I stated that the Syrian community like all Jewish communities need/ed a strengthening of Chinuch, Kiruv, Yeshivas, Bais Yaakovs, I am not talking about robotic and meaningless "learning more Torah" as if it's a prescription given to children to write a thousand lines of "I must be a good Syrian Jew by learning more Torah" -- this is not what is meant and it will never work and you know full well that is not what I meant or what I was saying so quit twisting my words please. The discussion was about the value of a takana not to accept converts, even genuine converts, adopted by the Syrian Jewish communities, and my simple observation was that they were definitely barking up the wrong tree when they did that because such things cannot and will not stop people from chasing after pretty secretaries if they are not endowed with a CERTAIN TYPE of strong Torah chinuch and values, not just "commands" of dos and donts that sound like an out-of-touch grandparent issuing imperious obnoxious commands to the younger generation who will not listen and will do what they want in any case. The only known cure to assimilation and intermarriage is to start by giving your children a Torah true and genuine chinuch at a yeshiva like Ateret Torah and not at places like Magen David and Yeshiva of Flatbush and such like that will only prove that trying to stuff even Torah down kids throats the wrong way only makes the kids more resentful and not interested in Yiddishkeit. It's complicated I know, but there has to be not just merachek besmol but also mekarev beyemin, and notice that "kiruv" must be done in a stronger way with the yemin and richuk is done in a lesser way with the weaker semol so that reversing the order is not just unsound it will also backfire badly, as you happening all around you. All I can say is that personal attacks on me is not going to resolve this debate and it's the easy way out rather than to try to think it through and stick to arguing the facts as best we can and know them rather than personally attacking or speculating about the mind and religious motives of our discussion partners." (May 2, 2008 8:53 AM)

    MAY was an interesting month because we got into some deeper issues relating to the institution of geirus in the Torah, Tanach and Jewish history which Dr. Eidensohn did not much like, but he posted it all the same.

    It started with the post of Thursday, May 1, 2008 "The Syrian ban on Converts" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/syrian-ban-on-converts.html that described the actual ban and its making. Even though the post is great information-wise, Jersey girl can't resist throwing in insults against Ashkenazim as if that is a "reference and praise" for what the Syrians did and she is looking for a copy of a letter that ripped Ashkenzai Jewish men:

    "In the ashkenaz world men often marry non-jews and convert them. The non-jewish woman converts in order to marry the man. Then ashkenaz Jewish women have no one to marry. In the Syrian world, this rarely happens. This was nipped in the bud in 1935"

    As if the world is waiting to hear about the Syrians in Panama.

    An anonymous poster chimes in and makes excuses:

    "This ban is something which is frequently misunderstood. For example, one could read the text and assume that the Syrians accept no converts at all. This is not true. In fact, a grandchild of one of the authors of the Takana married a Ger Tzedek and has been fully accepted..."

    (umm, basically admitting that the Takana is not fool proof either) and the discussions continue with Jersey girl citing a letter from the NY Times of Oct. 15, 2007 from Rabbi Moshe Shamah, Sephardic Synagogue.

    There is then the post of Friday, May 2, 2008 "Banning conversion for the sake of the community" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/banning-conversion-for-sake-of.html where attempts are made to RETROACTIVELY justify what the Syrians did when they had no such lofty thoughts in mind but this is red meat for Jersey girl who chirps:

    "The Syrian communities in Mexico City used the Takana against intermarriage issued by Brooklyn's Syrian Jewish Rabbinical Council in 1935 until 1986 when the community Rabbis issued their own Takana against intermarriage..."

    And I ask:

    "Rabbi Eidensohn: What shaichos do any of these mekoros you quote in this post have bazman hazeh, bechol asar ve'asar? Are you questioning the right of kosher properly constituted Baitei Din of qualified Dayanim mumchim to accept geirim bazman hazeh? ARE YOU LOBBYING TO HAVE THE TAKANA THAT THE SYRIAN RABBIS IMPOSED ON THEIR PEOPLE, NOW ACCEPTED BY THE ENTIRE OILAM HATORAH BIZMANEINU?"

    To which he acts surprised:

    "...I don't understand how you would extrapolate from these sources that I am advocating a universal ban. I am just defending the right of the rabbonim of a particular community to institute such a ban."

    SURE AND IF THEY CAN DO IT, WHY CAN'T EVERYBODY ELSE, RIGHT?

    The debate goes on there and it is very meaty and important reading.

    And in self-justification Jersey girl's one sided lengthy post is reposted independently (surprise, noone bothers responding when she is preaching to herself) on Friday, May 2, 2008 "Syrian ban is not against sincere gerim" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/syrian-ban-is-not-against-sincere-gerim.html as that is that, but it's not because so far THE SYRIANS ARE THE ONLY ONES STICKING TO THIS TAKANA THAT NOONE ELSE HAS SEEN THE NEED TO ENACT OR EMULATE IN ANY WAY, PROOF ENOUGH THAT IT IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT'S PRINTED ON AND IT'S JUST NOT A NORMAL THING FOR ORTHODOX JEWS TO DO.

    In a now questionable tactic, Dr. Eidensohn reposts my own words again on Friday, May 2, 2008 "Recipients and Publicity - questions the integrity of the Syrian community as well as my own"
    http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/recipients-and-publicity-questions.html this time there is debate as well, see it.

    At this point the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Sherman and Rabbi Drukman erupted, a controversy that is still on the go. But the subjects are conjoined and Dr. Eidensohn reposts my comments with his derision added on Sunday, May 4, 2008 ""Recipients and Publicity's" fantasy about the awesome power and ambition of the Bedatz" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/recipients-and-publicitys-fantasy-about.html and this is a key point I am trying to make:

    "...It would be ARROGANT!!! It would in effect mean that the BADATZ is taking upon itself the job and role of the Sanhedrin that can only be established with the arrival of the Mashiach. What the Syrian's did with their Takana also goes against this. How dare any Kehiilla, no matter how self-righteous take upon itself what can only be done in Yemos HaMashiach when Klal Yisroel will no longer be mekabel geirim? As I have said, sure, make the acceptance standards for geirus tough, make them very very tough, make them even EXTREMELY tough, but never let the door be bolted tightly shut so that noone can come through to be megayer because that is something that is still possible until such time as ALL of Klal Yisrael rabbonim can agree and when all the robbonim agree maybe that will be a sign that Mashiach is around the corner." And "Bright Eyes" tries to poo-poo and minimise it "Also, I don't think that Rabbi Eidensohn posted the Syrian Takana in order to endorse it. Throughout these last few months, Rabbi Eidensohn has posted various aspects to the question of how conversion is viewed and handled and opened the topic to discussion. The Syrian Takana was one of many viewpoints posted."

    The discussions now open up to major cases of positive acceptance of GENUINE geirim in the Torah, Tanach and Jewish history.

    At this point Rabbi Eidensohn starts personal insults and everyone has long forgotten my involvement or work on the EJF issues, just as by now most have forgotten this "history" that I am recounting for the record.

    My last serious comments ended with the posts of Tuesday, May 13, 2008 "Judaism as a missionary religion?" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/judaism-as-missionary-religion.html and reposted with comments on Wednesday, May 14, 2008 "Jewish attitude towards gerim as manifested towards the Erev Rav" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/jewish-attitude-towards-gerim-as.html that shows that there is more than enough proof for POSITIVE and GENUINE geirus in the Torah, Tanach, Chazal, Rabbonim until our day as the Belzer Rebbe shows.

    In the interim, the seriousness of the chasm between hardline views on geirus and what they could lead to was brought up in the Monday, May 19, 2008 post "Different paths to the Final Redemption or civil war?" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/different-paths-to-final-redemption-or.html wherein Jersey girl totally demonizes the Russians in Israel (not drawing distinctions between the Jews and non-Jews among them) and their conflict with the Israeli Sefardim.

    I had added nothing much since then UNTIL RECENTLY on Sunday, June 29, 2008 "Conversion crisis - because the Modern Orthodox are wimps! III" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/06/conversion-crisis-because-modern_29.html I took note as follows:

    "By the way, if anyone has access to it, the most recent edition of the English Mishpacha magazine has a reoprt about how the Belzer Rebbe himself attended the entire chupa and shevah brochas of a young Polish ger tzedek (who claims to have a paternal Jewish ancestor as well) who was recently learning in the Belzer BT "Torah Ve'Emunah" yeshiva in Yerushalayim and who married the daughter from a family of geirim from Germany who were megayerd in Switzerland and now live in Israel. The young ger is completely a Belzer with the peyos, shtreimel, levush and all. One thing is for sure, the present Belzer Rebbe is different to most others and he certainly does not hold that Belz should follow in the steps of the notorious "Syrian takana" banning the acceptance of any geirim (especially by marraige) into the Syrian community and that he (the Belzer Rebbe) understands the deep significance and merit of accepting true geirei tzedek bazman hazeh"

    Which then lead to Dr. Eidensohn odd retort:

    "The horse that you are beating died a long time ago. You are misrepresenting the Syrian Takana - as has been amply documented on this blog. Why don't you find out if the Belzer Rebbe has ever condemned the Syrian Takana - in fact why not compile a list of all the gedolim who have condemned it. I haven't seen credible evidence that even a single gadol has denounced it. But according to you the list should include every rabbi from the last 70 years."

    All of which is strange because why should the Belzer Rebbe or anyone say ANYTHING about the Syrian Takana when it is clearly NOT WORTH commenting upon because it is a dead letter waste?

    All that in turn has also resulted in the two latest posts of Monday, June 30, 2008 "Recipients and Publicity attacks the Syrian Takana & me -again & again & again" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/06/recipients-and-publicity-attacks-syrian.html

    Poster Bartley Kulp says something half rational, but misinformed, and is honored witha re-post, the very latest, on Monday, June 30, 2008 "Creative leadership - Syrian Takana and Rav Hirsch - One size doesn't fit all" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/06/creative-leadership-syrian-takana-and-r.html

    As I return to the unfinished related two posts of Tuesday, May 13, 2008 "JUDAISM AS A MISSIONARY RELIGION?" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/judaism-as-missionary-religion.html and of Wednesday, May 14, 2008 "JEWISH ATTITUDE TOWARDS GERIM AS MANIFESTED TOWARDS THE EREV RAV" http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/05/jewish-attitude-towards-gerim-as.html that WERE NEVER RESOLVED AND STAND AS STRONG PROOFS FOR WHY THE SYRIAN TAKANA IS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUDAISM AND DEFINITELY NOT AN IDEAL TO BE EMULATED.

    That is how I see where the discussion is standing and not as Dr. Eidensohn would conveniently forget where all the complex threads and related discussions have been, but which I have gathered up here for all to see and familiarize themselves with, and rather than joining the clueless peanut gallery let them become well informed and join in the rational discussions.

    Thank you.

    July 1, 2008 9:58 AM

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

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is this a blog about schizophrenia?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wow. I didn't think my first comment would get such a back lash.

    'Recipients and publicity' said "My main point is that the mitzvah of loving a ger is in the Torah, multiple times and that there cannot be an institutional block to sincere and genuine geirim."

    Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be repeating himself again. I just re-read the prior posts about the Syrian Takana, and it is quite clear the decree only applies to the conversions that they consider fictitious. In other words, it doesn't apply to sincere and genuine geirim.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My only 'hope' and 'agenda' is to learn, and to occasionally add information when it appears to be relevant. If Rabbi Eidensohn had an 'agenda', he wouldn't need this blog to achieve it....after all, he has direct access to the Gedolim of our generation in Jerusalem. Those who wish to influence Rabbi Eidensohn may have an agenda, but I am confident that Rabbi Eidensohn can discern between a hysterical argument and a halachic one.

    RAP said "AND IT IS AT THIS POINT THAT WE SEE THE REAL HOPES AND AGENDA OF Jersey girl, her anonymous supporter, Bright Eyes and in all probability this blog, that as far as they are concermed the Syrian Takana is something noteworthy to emulate, or they delude themselves to think that the BADATZ is now like a bunch of Syrian rabbis, when they are NOT saying the same things in any way because the BADATZ's constituency in Meah Shearim and Bnai Brak and in Haredi and Hasidic enclaves is not running to marry shiksas like the secularized hyped Syrian males, with limited or zero Torah true chinuch had started to do in the early 20th century and which they still salivate to do but must live with artificial takanos to keep all the SYs in check which is not the case with the Charedim of Meah Shearim and Bnai Brak."

    Nonsense.

    First, I'd like to say that for most of the last 15 years I have lived in what everyone would consider to be a Haredi community, and all of my major shailos are asked of a fairly famous Ashkenazic dayan.

    The 'Haredi' men are MEN, and like all men, they experience lust and some get into trouble as a result.

    Sadly, when I have seen these men get into trouble, I have also seen my famous dayan perform conversions to permit the intermarriage. He knew his conversions were performed against Halacha and even told me so.

    Anyway, my point is that RAPs assertion that Syrians have a unique zipper problem due to poor upbringing and education, which in turn necessitates a Takana, is silly.

    Before RAP arrived on this blog, the main topic was in identifying what is a kosher conversion and how to address the issues of intermarriage and of inconsistencies in conversion practices.

    Th Syrian Takana was merely brought up as an example of ONE way that ONE community dealt with it. Rabbi Eidensohn didn't advocate it...he was merely exploring and discussing various views on the matter.

    RAP just could not let go of his vehement rhetoric and listen to facts.

    The thing that is consistently strange in RAP's criticism of it is that he claims it is unique in Judaism (ignoring two other contemporary Ashkenazi Takanas that were the inspiration and source of the Syrian version) and his insistence that they reject ALL converts when this is easily disproven by the fact that the grandchild of a Takana author married a convert and was fully accepted by the community.

    Maybe RAP would like to finally explain why he ignores these facts.

    Whatever he may think of the Syrian's ruling, the BADATZ ruling says essentially the same thing...that conversion for marriage is against Halacha and should not be accepted.

    It saddens me to see the sinas hinam that RAP directs toward Syrian Jewry. It is plain old wrong to denigrate an entire community.

    ReplyDelete
  5. the "zipper" problem goes back to eishat yafat toar, so if the torah recognizes it as an issue, its not new.

    The thing I don't quite know how to understand is the fact the european jews look very different from sfardic jews, but dont look "that" different from their fellow europeans. There must have been a significant amount of non jewish DNA to enter the ashkenazic jewish bloodline at some point. Do we have good explanations for it?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Recipients and PublicityJuly 2, 2008 at 8:05 AM

    To Mel Kaminsky who says:

    "Wow. I didn't think my first comment would get such a back lash."

    RaP: What "back lash"? this is a debate that goes back and forth. I try not to be boring.

    "Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but he seems to be repeating himself again. I just re-read the prior posts about the Syrian Takana, and it is quite clear the decree only applies to the conversions that they consider fictitious. In other words, it doesn't apply to sincere and genuine geirim."

    RaP: While some nice spinmeistering has been done on the Syrian's behalf on this blog, it is common knowledge that the Syrian rabbis "takana" (it's actually more of a "decree" or a "declaration of intent") on the Syrian rabbis' part that they have decided to take a stand against any conversions into their community, that they are against it, they will not perform it and that they will exclude anyone who goes against them. That is how it is understood by THEIR people and by the general Jewish public that is familair with that community. Of course there are "legalisms" and ex post facto retroactive situations of conversions they have no control over that they will exclude from their arbitrary anti-Torah decree (the Torah decrees that converts be loved, and hence there cannot be a policy created to stop what the Torah commands), but to a man they will neither participate in process of preparing converts for conversion should they apply nor will they sit on Bait Din that does conversions. And, to repeat, they are only accepting of converts who get thrust into their proverbial laps. But to all intents and purposes the gate to conversion into the Syrian Jewish community is in essence tightly shut de facto (and they are proud of it and will come up with their curious self-serving "statistics" of how little intermarriage they have), even though there may be some de jure loopholes and some acts of TOKENISM here and there and some misleading shmaltzy articles or letters to editors denying it all, when everyone who knows them and their community knows them, is positive that they are anti-geirim in practice and in spirit. That is the reality, regardless of how people may want to white-wash it or cover it with excuses.

    --------

    To "Bright Eyes" (phew, Jersey girl must be on vacation, she would be having cows no doubt if she could read my latest posts) who says:

    "My only 'hope' and 'agenda' is to learn, and to occasionally add information when it appears to be relevant."

    RaP: From what I can tell, having read your posts, you are being less than frank when you say this because you seem to appear on the scene on this blog whenever there is strong opposition or discussion that does not agree with Dr. Eidensohn take on things, and then you appear out of the digital ether and proceed to attack the views and persons of those who state another point of view. So quit the "innocent routine" you are not fooling me.


    "If Rabbi Eidensohn had an 'agenda', he wouldn't need this blog to achieve it....after all, he has direct access to the Gedolim of our generation in Jerusalem."

    RaP: Now how nonsensical is that statement? Take a look at what you have justy stated. What does "direct access to gedolim" have to do with Blogging? Nothing! Gedolim do not Blog and they don't need blogs and their true followers do not follow blogs either. Thus, Dr. Eidensohn has this blog in order to sway those that do read such blogs and wish to hear what he has to say, and it is because he has SOME access to some famous living rabbis, which by the way, is somewhat overstated by you because there are tens of thousands of more important people with such access in the Torah world and they have no wish or desire to get online and spout forth their ideas. So bottom line, this blog, like all blogs, is a place for the blog owner to get HIS point of view across to whoever will listen and in the process hope to bring his audience over to his side. And that is why, those who know him in person (as Jersey girl has told us in the past) are very strongly invested in helping him and this blog and they do many "hatchet jobs" for him and get away with it because Rabbi Eidensohn has his allies and they all essentially move in unison be it openly agreed or self-understood.

    "Those who wish to influence Rabbi Eidensohn may have an agenda,"

    RaP: Now this is the biggest joke of all. Who on earth can "influence" him on this blog? That is such a moronic thing to say it is unbelievable you can utter it. And then here you go again with insinuations that whoever may have a different view must be "missionaries" when missionaries have a lot better things to do that debate in places where they know they will lose and have no hope of influencing anyone let alone the owner of this blog who can smell a missionary rat a thousand miles away as well (but it does not stop you or Jersey girl from uttering your cynical paranoid ideas about anyone who is not agreeing with you. How sad.)

    "but I am confident that Rabbi Eidensohn can discern between a hysterical argument and a halachic one."

    RaP: Another huge joke. Do you think that this is a Bais Medrash and that all come here with either the abilities or interests to have dry "Halachic debates"? And evidently it is easier for you to denigrate another person's Torah thinking by casting it as "not halachik" than to battle through all the tough questions and Torah information.

    "First, I'd like to say that for most of the last 15 years I have lived in what everyone would consider to be a Haredi community, and all of my major shailos are asked of a fairly famous Ashkenazic dayan."

    RaP: Ok, great.

    "The 'Haredi' men are MEN, and like all men, they experience lust and some get into trouble as a result."

    Rap: Ok, so what?

    "Sadly, when I have seen these men get into trouble, I have also seen my famous dayan perform conversions to permit the intermarriage. He knew his conversions were performed against Halacha and even told me so."

    raP: So then he is not your "dayan" and you are openly telling the world that you have no respect for this man, that he is a hypocite, that he cannot stand up and protect the principles of Halacha that he should be doing according to his own admission, AND IT IS SUCH A MAN THAT YOU CALL "YOUR" DAYAN? He is a moral pygmy and how could someone like you who is so high-minded go anywhere near such a man. Find yourself a better rabbi and "famous dayan"! And by the way, most people do NOT have a relationship with a "dayan" so your involvement with such a person needs clarification.

    "Anyway, my point is that RAPs assertion that Syrians have a unique zipper problem due to poor upbringing and education, which in turn necessitates a Takana, is silly."

    RaP: No I did not say that their problem is "unique" I said that the way the PROBLEM was being dealt with was unique (you have a bad habit of twisting my words and in the past I have requested that you not do this like a cunning lawyer). Thus, everyone has the same problems because the yetzer hara is universal, BUT what I did say is that while in the Syrian community the rabbis responded with their notorious "Takana" the "zipper problem" then led to guys getting too cozy with their shiksas and then wanting to convert their shiksa lovers and marry them, in the Ashkenazi world the response to the SAME yetzer hara that any men have led to a decision by the Ashkenazi rabbis to work on an intensification of Torah life and learning through better and more intense chinuch and yeshivas and bais yaakovs for the Ashkenazi children which produced Bnai Torah while the general Syrian community was late in realizing that they had to do the same and that relying solely on "takans" and decress would not do it to keep people in the fold. And I strees again, you see now, as I cited the latest English Mishpacha article, that the Belzer rebbe PUBLICLY welcomed and honored geirim couple witha tisch and sheva brocahs. When was the last time any Syrian rabbi ever thought or dared to do such a thing? Like, never! If he did he wowuld probabaly be run out (the Syrian's part of) town.

    "Before RAP arrived on this blog, the main topic was in identifying what is a kosher conversion and how to address the issues of intermarriage and of inconsistencies in conversion practices."

    RaP: You make it sound like my arrival was unwelcome on this blog, which is the exact opposite of the truth. Dr. Eidensohn is not forced by me or anyone to publish my posts, let alone give them prominence, and he does not post when he does not like some of them. It's all his choice. But I can tell you that I have been treated relatively well here, albeit I have to put up with the ocassional personal insults from some people which are uncalled for since it seems that when they can't debate me properly and lack either brains or patience (ssometimes its both) they resort to the old tricks of curses and insults which are never substitutes for rational and clear discussion (yeah I know, you like "Halachic discourses" and make it sound like you are such a "Halachist" when most people who read this blog are not like that, or at least they are too humble to put it that way.) My words and style have also increased Internet traffic (judging my the traffic meter at the bottom of this blog) and that is the biggest gift I could have given Dr. Eidensohn, because a blog or website without traffic is like a body without blood.

    "Th Syrian Takana was merely brought up as an example of ONE way that ONE community dealt with it. Rabbi Eidensohn didn't advocate it...he was merely exploring and discussing various views on the matter."

    RaP: I do not wish to repeat myself too much, and I have written a lot to disprove your assertion.

    "RAP just could not let go of his vehement rhetoric and listen to facts."

    RaP: What "facts" do you refer to please? Kindly specify!

    "The thing that is consistently strange in RAP's criticism of it is that he claims it is unique in Judaism"

    RaP: Because it is!

    "(ignoring two other contemporary Ashkenazi Takanas that were the inspiration and source of the Syrian version)"

    RaP: Remind us all again which these great "Ashkenazi Takanas" are, please.

    "and his insistence that they reject ALL converts when this is easily disproven by the fact that the grandchild of a Takana author married a convert and was fully accepted by the community."

    RaP: Such poor logic, it's unbelievable. What connection is there between something that is a rabbinical and communal policy and what happens to one's of its signatorry's descendants or family? To illustrate: Let's say we know that President Bush is sworn to uphold the US consitution and the laws of the land. Then later, one of his rebellious daughters is arrested and jailed for proven drunken driving. Would anyone then claim that President Bush or the US constitution are thereby understood differently? It is comparing apples and oranges.

    "Maybe RAP would like to finally explain why he ignores these facts."

    RaP: EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE, while they may be facts of some sort, DO NOT DISPROVE THE RULE, ON THE CONTRARY, THEY PROVE THE RULE!

    "Whatever he may think of the Syrian's ruling, the BADATZ ruling says essentially the same thing..."

    RaP: Flatter yourself, but it's amazing how now you become the victim of your own propaganda. Can you tell me how the Syrian ban on conversions into THEIR community (they basically DO NOT CARE about any other community) is "like" the BADATZ negation OF OTHER RABBIS' conversions. Furthermore, the BADATZ has not and did not issue a ruling that "all conversions to BADATZ-type communties are banned as per the Syrian 'takana'" and it is truly amazing how much chutzpa you deploy to justify your very clear and self-vident faulty logic and misrepresentation of reality.

    "that conversion for marriage is against Halacha and should not be accepted."

    RaP: One does not need anyone to state the obvious and it is not what the Syrian rabbis wanted to stem in the 1930s. Noone is arguing that "that conversion for marriage is against Halacha and should not be accepted" but by the same token, the Torah, Judaism and Halacha DO NOT HAVE SYSTEMATIC COMMUNITY ENFORCED ATTITUDES AND BANS AGAINST THE CONCEPT, INSTITUTION AND MITZVA OF GEIRUS, which you do not like nor wish to accept, so you fantasize that the Syrian rabbis of the 1930s are like today's BADATZ rabbis when it is nothing of the sort, and ironically we come full circle and it brings me to the point I started out making and that I repeat yet again: That this blog and its owner, supported by the likes of posters like you and Jersey girl have an agenda to push the very notion that you admit is happening in your imagination, that the Orthodox world should and maybe must do what the Syrians rabbis did in the 1930s "or else" who knows what "calamity" will befall Jewry. You know, sometimes it's best to let H-shem worry about the global issues and we should try to get more perspective that we are only on a measly blog on the Internet having a discussion.

    "It saddens me to see the sinas hinam that RAP directs toward Syrian Jewry. It is plain old wrong to denigrate an entire community."

    RaP: I have said it a few times and I will say it again, that I have no personal animosity to the Syrian Jewish community or to any Jewish community, and you mistake a vehement discussion for "sinas chinam" when there is no other way sometimes than to express strong and forceful views to make things clear. You are choosing to cast yourself as the "wounded party" when you are far from it when you engage in lots of malicious lies and language against Ashkenazim as well as against those you disagree with on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "it is common knowledge that the Syrian rabbis "takana" (it's actually more of a "decree" or a "declaration of intent") on the Syrian rabbis' part that they have decided to take a stand against any conversions into their community, that they are against it,"

    The Syrian Takana is against conversions that permit intermarriage.

    The Syrian community runs 22 yeshivot as well as numerous programs for adult education and outreach. The first Syrian Jewish school opened ca. 1908 on the Lower East Side. There was a Sephardic yeshiva for advanced studies in Harlem in that era(ca. 1900) from which my grandfather a"h got smicha.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RAP said "Can you tell me how the Syrian ban on conversions into THEIR community (they basically DO NOT CARE about any other community) is "like" the BADATZ negation OF OTHER RABBIS' conversions."

    RAP....the Syrian Rabbis only have authority over THEIR community. Surely you don't think that one community can make a ruling that applies to all others!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Recipients and PublicityJuly 2, 2008 at 10:06 PM

    To anonymous who says:

    "The thing I don't quite know how to understand is the fact the european jews look very different from sfardic jews,"

    RaP: They do not, just ask any Arab and Muslim who will tell you that all Jews are and look the same to him.

    "but dont look "that" different from their fellow europeans."

    RaP: This comment is so unbelievably childish that it's hard to conceive that an intelligent person would say this, because (a) Sefardim look "just like" the people in the Middle Eastsern and Oriental countries they come from and noone says or implies that they are "less Jewish" than lighter-skinned European Jews, and (b) to Europeans, most Jews in their midst look very different to them and that is why they were able to pinpoint them at a drop of a hat and help the Nazis send them off to the death camps during the Holocaust.

    "There must have been a significant amount of non jewish DNA to enter the ashkenazic jewish bloodline at some point."

    RaP: Well, seems that Dr. Eidensohn's recent talk of "DNA" is now backfiring on us because there is absolutely no proof that European Jews have have any more "non-Jewish DNA" (if there is such a distorted "scientific" concept) than Sefardic Jews. In fact it's the opposite, that BOTH the vast majority of Ashkenazic and Sefardi Jews have the same GENETIC characteristics (there are good studies that prove this) in spite of the millenia they spent apart, and it must therefore be concluded that there was minimal conversion of gentiles into their midst.

    "Do we have good explanations for it?"

    RaP: None is needed. It may have been along term reaction to geographic and weather conditions. Each of the Twelve Tribes had their own features and characteristics and that was continued as the descendants of those Twelve Tribes continued with some difference but with greater commonlaties. It is wise to note that while being Jewish is indeed an ethnicity (unlike members of other religion) but at the same time, being Jewish means being part of Judaism which is not concerned with race or phyiscal dimensions as long as the Jew claiming to be Jewish can be defined as such by Jewish law.

    ReplyDelete
  10. to 'Recipients and publicity' who said

    "just ask any Arab and Muslim who will tell you that all Jews are and look the same to him."

    I recommend that you read their press. They definitely see a difference, just as many Ashkenazim and Sephardim do.

    I do not think it is accurate to say that all Arabs and Muslims are anti-Jewish. My encounters with both Arabs and Muslims lead me to believe the opposite; that only the few are really anti-Jewish.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.