Thursday, September 19, 2019

Jewish" Group Celebrating Rebellion Against G-d Demonstrates Against Yeshiva University


Parshas Ki-Savoh, 5779


18 Ellul °° Sept.18, '19


By Binyomin Feinberg, Contributor to The Jewish Press*

feinbergbinyomin@gmail.com


* The perspectives and opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the ownership or management of The Jewish Press.

~~~~~~~~~~~


On Sunday, Sept. 15, LGBTQ advocates demonstrated against Yeshiva University - right in the middle of Ellul. About 100 demonstrators appeared, with reports indicating that no more than 15 or 20 were from YU itself, out of thousands of YU students. A Rabbinical scholar handed out leaflets protesting the LGBTQ demonstration and the LGBTQ agenda. The flyers quoted a former Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshiva University, the venerable Rav Aharon Soloveichik OB"M, who fought the YU Administration over the LGBT club years ago. Rav Aharon ZT"L then had exhorted YU that it's better to close down the entire institution rather than to allow a To'aiva club. Those timeless, holy words reverberate until today.


The demonstrators made five demands, see the list posted online (attached). They are, in our words (liberally accompanied by commentary):

1) an LGBTQ (To'aiva) Tolerance Overseer (to ensure that those who choose to flaunt their proclivities in public are treated in the manner of their preference);

2) LGBTQ promotionals at student orientations (jolting new students - just starting their studies at Modern Orthodoxy's flagship institution - with pro-LGBTQ propaganda);

3) An student LGBTQ Club, which celebrates a sin which the Torah (in VaYikra 18:22 and 20:13) brands as abomination as something of which to be proud, and even to be celebrated;

4) a statement from YU leadership against the free expression of (Torah-based) opposition to LGBTQ behavior and advocacy, accompanied by a threat of sanctions (for dissidents);

5) and the ability to hold LGBTQ events at YU - and to do so under the LGBTQ label (unfettered by the "inconveniences" of Jewish Law and Thought).

Two LGBTQ organizations, both claiming to be "Jewish," Eshel and Jewish (sic) Queer Youth, helped sponsor and organize the protest.

The leafleter, Reb Yonoson, explained that he's concerned over any cave in, even partial, by the YU Administration, to any of the demands of the LGBTQ demonstrators. That Torah-true sentiment was echoed in the content and tone of YU Roshei Yeshiva subsequently reacting to the march. (See this week's Jewish Press, page 12, for some of the vociferous opposition of YU Roshei Yeshiva to this demonstration.) For example, Rav Eliahu Ben Chaim made a number of comments, including:

sample excerpt quotes from Rav Ben Chaim:


"Our Torah punishes these acts (homosexual behavior) severely... The Torah was not given to angels. If the Torah prohibits them (these acts) then we are certainly able to overcome such desires.
...
"If someone believes in the Torah, he must accept its dictates. If he doesn't believe, there's nothing to talk about."

...

Everyone who has such inclinations must be helped (to overcome them) .. and "to (help him) avoid the severe punishment" (involved in these sins).


... "I once spoke to Dr. Lamm to complain about these types of people in Cordoza..."


"... There are foolish ("shotim") people ... someone who says this is permitted is a fool..."


In reference to LGBTQ advocates, he stated that "They are harming these people" (the very people they advocate for), both spiritually, as well as physically.


~~~~

In addition to foundational religious objections, the LGBTQ demands involve serious legal issues, from religious liberty to human trafficking to freedom of expression. For example, is the YU Administration prepared to deal with the specter of minors appearing at campus LGBTQ events hosting high school youth for "mentoring and educational" programs, and then becoming involved in illicit behavior with adults?


On the other side, Mordecai Levovitz, founder of Jewish Queer Youth, led chants of “nothing about us without us” to urge that the Orthodox institution include LGBTQ activists in a committee to address inclusion of LGBT agenda (despite the obvious conflict with VaYikra, ibid.).

More ominously, he threatened YU with blackmail: "The question is, is this the hill that Rabbi Berman wants to let Yeshiva University die on?” he said. “Does he so much not want gay people to have any sense of dignity (sic) that he’s willing to risk government funding? Is he willing to risk his own students and graduate students not getting jobs because the degree is associated with homophobia? We’ve already won. The question is how much is he willing to sacrifice? And for what?”

Before the event, Molly Meisels, president of the College Democrats Democrats and lead organizer of the march, tweeted out "We're asking for the bare minimum for the Yeshiva University LGBTQ+ community. We need support @AOC (Congresswoman) @SenatorRJackson (State Senator representing YU) @ydanis (City Councilman representing YU) @CnDelarosa (Assemblywoman representing YU) @Lin_Manuel (Star for Broadway's Hamilton) @RepEspaillat (Congressman representing YU) @DeborahJGlick (Greenwich Village's lesbian assemblywoman)". It is crucial for every reader to understand her intent here. She clearly sought to encourage governmental punishment of YU - if YU refuses to cave into the LGBTQ demands - by withholding government grants, or worse. We have a word for such conduct: "Blackmail."

Blackmail is a common accusation leveled against the LGBTQ movement, which prides itself on tolerance (of its own devotees, and allied political groups). This intolerant approach towards fidelity to VaYikra 18:22 and 20:13 seems, at first glance, to contrast with the LGBTQ rhetoric of tolerance for the LGBT "community." However, in reality, the latter "tolerance" rhetoric is a natural consequence of the former deep-seated animosity to the Torah. It is precisely because of its rejection of foundational Torah principles that the LGBTQ movement needs to brand itself as "tolerant" - selectively, of course - to gain sympathy for celebrating sin.

Since the march, a group of Yeshiva University alumni have started a #PledgeNotToPledge campaign, encouraging alumni to “pledge not to contribute any financial donations to the university until it takes the following concrete steps to ensure that all students feel comfortable on campus (as requested by the student body),” according to their Facebook page. The LGBTQ proclivity for blackmail has gained them particular notoriety throughout the world, with even some on the Left using the term "The Gay Mafia."

In a foray into the bizarre, Meisels, announced her deviancy at the event, prompting applause from the similarly unhinged crowd. (Why personal deviant proclivities need to be announced in public venues, to the cheers of the audience, was not properly elucidated.)

In actuality, her brazen announcement stands, alongside the aforementioned acts and demands, as yet one more manifestation of the unspoken essence of the LGBTQ activist movement. Contrary to what many imagine, the LGBTQ activist movement is NOT primarily aimed at securing benefits for people. It is bent on celebrating evil. They seek not only to proliferate the perpetration of abomination, but to legitimize it, to celebrate it, and to force everyone else to accept it. The movement is a true "advocacy" movement whose violation of the Torah is "LeHach'is" (beShitah, lit. "for spite"), rather than merely "LeTai'avon" (for mere personal benefit). See Kovetz He'oros (of Reb Elchonon), Aggadah, 10:1-6, regarding the hallmark character of Amalek being rishus leHachis. In that light, how ironic is it that this demonstration comes just one day after Jews around the world read in the Torah about the homosexualist Amalekite attack against the spiritually weaker Jews in the Desert (at the end of parshas Ki-Saitzai, 25:18; see Rashi and Medrash).


Another grave concern here is how Modern Orthodox silence in the face of this evil would strengthen the hand of those who seek to impose an LGBTQ agenda onto Orthodox Jewish Education, in NY, NJ, and beyond, specifically under the rubric of "Educational Equivalency" (an issue which has been covered repeatedly in the Jewish Press over the past several months).
####

(Sources (partial list): The Forward, Moment Magazine, The Jewish Press, Facebook, Twitter)
####


82 comments :

  1. Is this the hill YU intends to die on? Well it's put up or shut up time. If this is a Jewish university, then the answer is clear: reject the demands and remind any students who disagree with Torah views that there are lots of other schools in the area with thriving, albeit non-religious, Jewish communities. If this is a university for Jews, then why bother fighting?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The battle is along the lines of whether this is a "Jewish university", or a mere "university for Jews".

    The Roshei Yeshiva need to emphasize the former, and that "To'eiva" should have no legitimate place in Yeshiva University.

    Can anybody post a link to the famous speech:
    “Gifter slaughters Lamm for Passover”?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Problem is , those who hold by the 3 oaths are usually the ones who rebel against their host nations.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Totally irrelevant to the discussion, which is about "To'eiva" in Yeshiva University.

    ReplyDelete
  5. very relevant - some people who hold by these oaths claim they are the most severe sins possible - more than the 3 cardinal sins, or anything in the SHulchan aruch. yet they rebel against their host nations and the law of the land.

    I agree with you 100% about Toevah, it is a very severe aveira. But according to some the 3 oaths are even worse!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Do you have a psychosis about the 3 oaths?
    Do the 3 oaths have anything to do with the deplorable situation in Yeshiva University?

    ReplyDelete
  7. name calling...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was careful not to "name call".
    In just asked some questions, which you ignored.

    I believe that a religious institution in the USA should have the legal right to maintain its religious standards, as spelled out in the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which states, “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof (of religion)”.

    When a gay and lesbian society was formed in YU, Norman Lamm allegedly did not hire a legal team to defend the university’s right to take money, even with banning the club. This prompted the famous protest by Rav Mordechai Gifter z"l, himself an alumnus of YU, which was reported under the title “Gifter slaughters Lamm for Passover”.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Do you have a psychosis about the 3 oaths?"
    You are implying that i might be psychotic. perhaps you are just projecting.


    I just listened to another lecture of rav Gifter, regarding Rav Shach's attack on Steinsaltz.
    I met Steinsaltz in Lubavitch in the UK, at the height of the Messianic fervor they had in the 90s.
    he is deluded - he falsifies halacha to suit his Messianic agenda. I realized then that rav Shach was right, and knew what he was talking about. others also criticized him, including Rav feldman, Rav Goren, and even the late genius, Prof Jacob Neusner.


    regarding the feigelach, I have made my position quite clear on here many times.
    it is not mitzvah to go to prison by publcly defaming them, when it is illegal to do so in many Western countries.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's hard to carry on a conversation, with someone who doesn't stick to the topic under discussion.

    In case you didn't notice, it's specifically about, "To'eiva" in Yeshiva University. and how YU should react. Do you have anything to add to the discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  11. since this is a live thread may i ask you - do you know the sefer yeled shaashuim which the piece about R' A Soloveitchik z'l is from? thank you

    ReplyDelete
  12. Good question. how I think shey should will differ from how they will react. A university is a big multi million or billion $ organization. They have benefactors - so we don't know the full picture of who is pulling the strings.
    I agree it is Toevah. is it l'hachis? I'm not convinced. It is for their taiveh, which B'H I do not understand.

    They could learn from our Prime Minister, who is fighting every legal battle possible, even going to the Supreme court to justify his approach. Perhaps they should do the same - fight it legally, until they are exhausted. At least they can then say it was oness. Will they close down? No way. I don't think you need to be frum to study at the university.

    Essentially, the LGBQTXYZ want a student group. Again ,I am not familiar with the Law in the USA.

    Let's put it another way - if there were LG students in the Hareidi system, what would the leaders do? Cannot execute them, so what would they do in USA? Either boot them out, or keep them and ignore, or at very best try some kind therapy, whether by Torah study to improve their middos , or conversion therapy (giur l'chumra?)
    If they allow them to stay, then how different is it from the YU situation? it is still toeivah, and they continue to learn in order to improve .

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is something about "big religion" that makes it obsess over its opponents.
    Reading the history of Jewish persecution in Europe and Arabia makes one wonder: what was the big deal? Why did the Chrisian and Muslims care so much about their Jews? Why waste all that time and effort on cruelty? Why not just leave them alone and just hope they'd disappear?
    But "big religion" isn't just content with providing for its followers. It also wants to wipe out its opponents and competitors.
    Secular Liberalism is a "big religion", make no mistake about it. And just like Chrisianity and Islam wan't to wipe out Judaism, Secular Liberalism wants to wipe out traditional religions. Why would a gay student want to go to YU when it obviously embraces values that oppose his lifestyle? Why would the LGBQTABC123 community protest outside YU when there are many equally good or better schools to attend? Because YU's existence is offensive to them and they must stamp it out.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, I thought you were going to say that the hareidi big religion is obsessed with Modern O.
    If you look at the history over the last century - LGBT was outlawed in Western countries, so much so that WW2 codebreaker who helped Britain defeat teh Nazis was put in jail and punished for his homosexuality. Today, not only is it permitted, but criticising them is the "crime".
    In any case, this is all talk. Nothing will change. YU isn't closing down voluntarily.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yeled Shaashuim / Rachem Arachamenu Neum HaShem (Soloveichik)
    Language: Hebrew | Volumes: 2 | Binding: Hard | Pages: 1584
    https://seforimcenter.com/HEBREW-Books/House-of-Brisk/Yeled-Shaashuim-/-Rachem-Arachamenu-Neum-HaShem-Soloveichik__p-73-258-11224.aspx

    ReplyDelete
  16. There's a world of a difference between single students who personally struggle with same-sex attraction, as opposed to a militant movement of "menuvalim" who seek to impose their agenda on a Jewish Orthodox institution.

    Did you read the quote from Rav Aaron Soloveichik?

    ReplyDelete
  17. not a world of difference , just that they end up joining YU and other groups and cause trouble for them.
    If you accept Rav Aron's argument, Lo Yihye Kadesh applying to homosexuals, then that just closes the gap between the 2 cases even further. I agree with what he said, Y.U. should have put up a bigger fight and been ready to lose on principle. However, I wasn't President at the time, so they didn't take my advice.


    here is another argument i will throw at you - please do not take this as being my viewpoint, I am literally playing the devil's advocate:


    the gays, as far as I can understand, are born that way.
    They will say this is how Hashem made them, and to a great degree it is true. (There was boy from our should who when we wer kids we used to joke that he looks like a feigele, and of course he ends up as one, openly).


    So they will say they are only living to fulfill Ratzon Hashem who created their teva. Hence it is not l'hachis.
    After the Mabul, G-d says that He will no longer curse the ground for man's acts, because his nature is evil from birth! So the Torah already allows for this situation, where mishkav zachar teva is there from birth.



    Their militancy is about the environment around them. it is the normal thing to do.
    In any case, Rambam says it is patur to abuse a boy under 9. If someone so great can make such a statement, what do you expect from these menuvalim who are on the wrong side of teva?

    ReplyDelete
  18. YU didn't listen to their own Rosh Yeshiva, and now it's coming back to bite them.

    The best answer to devil's advocate, is to remind ourselves that this is the "sheker" that the devil (Satan) wants us to believe, particularly, that there is some mysterious "gay gene" that makes it a person's "teva", and there's no use fighting it.

    Unfortunately, seeing how many suckers fall for his slick propaganda, the devil (Satan) must be laughing all the way to the bank.

    ReplyDelete
  19. how do you know ? Do you know the cause behind people being gay? There may not be a single gay gene, but there may be causal factors that are not understood yet.

    ReplyDelete
  20. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/63300901b6b44e8dda5ab8b7e26508589404cdc484545ed4f3ca9710d29a5e85.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rav Aron claims that kadesh refers to mishkav zachar. It's not a convincing argument. Nevertheless, the Aidah don't seem too bothered, they name their finest sons in memory of the greatest kadesh of recent times, Mr de haan. That's why I have kitniot all year round.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Last time I checked, the Torah didn't make any exceptions allowing "mishkav zachar" in cases of those who are extremely attracted to it, and can't control their desire, or for those who just aren't attracted to women.

    Bottom line, in the time of the Sanhedrin, if two males would be caught in the act, and all the relevant conditions would be met, both participants would be given the DEATH penalty, regardless of their self-proclaimed "orientation".

    The conclusion is, that even of a person struggles with homosexuality, to the point that he thinks that he was “wired” differently, nevertheless, he’s still commanded to keep a handle on his drives, and refrain from any prohibited acts.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Are you Sephardi?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am in agreement with you. The other way to argue is that sdom & Amara were exactly like LGBT qrs..z. they clearly felt it was their teva.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Regardless of what the Sodomites may have thought about themselves and their "orientation", they were still wiped out by Hashem.

    People can argue what they want, but Torah Jews believe that every word in the Torah was spoken by Hashem.
    This includes Vayikra 20:13:
    "And a man who lies with a male, as one would with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves."

    ReplyDelete
  26. that is correct

    Hence, those who name their finest sons after the people of S'dom; LGBTQ actitivists, or Jacob de Haan are clearly guilty of allowing a kadesh - according to the interpretation of Rav Aron Soloveitchik.
    On a theological perspecitve - after the Mabul, Hashem says that he will not again curse the earth on behalf of mankind, because his nature is evil from his youth. However, in Sdom and Amrah He does precisely that. The question is why? the simple answer was that it was a limited destruction, not on the scale of the mabul. However, beyond that it is still a question.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The answer is, that despite man having an evil inclination from his youth, and the temptation to do evil is innate within him, a person is ALWAYS endowed with freedom of choice and the ability to choose good over evil.

    This is expounded in the following verses:
    Devarim 30:15
    "I have placed before you today life and what is good, and death and what is evil.”
    Devarim 30:19
    “I have placed life and death before you, blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live.”

    The ability to rule over evil is not just wishful thinking. The following verse, mentions sin by name the very first time in the Chumash (Bereishis 4:7) “Sin is crouching at the door; and it desires you, but you are able to rule over it.” It teaches, that although it is inevitable that we will be tempted to sin, we clearly have Hashem's promise of an inner ability to overcome the temptation.

    Hence, those who foolishly choose that which is evil in Hashem's eyes, have only themselves to blame for their ultimate destruction.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We are in a post mabul /sdom situation. Again I'm not defending the de haans of this world (although some people do). But when they go to heaven's gate, and give account of themselves, perhaps they will say "why did You create me this way".
    Rabbi Cardozo gives a talk about alila, based on a medrash. It's a fatalistic concept, it applies in this case, if you accept the midrash.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm not familiar with such a Midrash.
    Please provide a reference to this source (not where he gives the talk).
    Does the Midrash also say what the Heavenly response will be to these alleged excuses?

    ReplyDelete
  30. "The Talmud is frequently at loggerheads with God and the Torah. Here are just a few of the many examples:

    On several occasions, the Sages opposed and even neutralized God’s opinion, telling Him to mind His own affairs (Bava Metzia 59b).
    The Sages uprooted or changed Biblical commandments, because they did not concur with the plain meaning of the text (Yevamot 90b; Sanhedrin 8:4; Sanhedrin 71a).
    In the Midrash, the Sages called God an Alila, a Being who deliberately sets up plots against man (Midrash Tanchuma on Psalms 66: 5).
    They even set God up against Himself (Midrash Rabbah on Kohelet 4:1)"

    I don't have midrash tanchuma, do you?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I make no pretensions of being able to explain all difficult statements by Chazal, and don't intend to get distracted from the relevant thread.
    If you're truly looking for answers, perhaps this might be a better site for you to be on:
    https://judaism.stackexchange.com/
    So far, I'm still waiting to see the alleged Midrash you quoted.

    ReplyDelete
  32. T for transvestite (lo yilbash).
    Yet many in frum drag cross dress by wearing the right side of the coat over the left. This is female dress siman, and is hence lo yilbash. These T societies already exist, and are justified by "kabballa", which like their mentor shabbetai zevi, gives them a bracha: matir issurim.

    ReplyDelete
  33. YU-non sectarian university, except for RIETS

    ReplyDelete
  34. YU is a non sectarian university. RIETS, separately chartered and files its own 990 is different

    ReplyDelete
  35. Agree about YU not even looking to fight, IIRC Fordham fought and lost but showed they were forced to. YU appeared to want to show they acquiesced.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hieronymos RosenbergSeptember 23, 2019 at 6:27 PM

    JQY (Jewish Queer Youth) was a driving force behind the demonstration and said they'd sponsor any gay club or gay events at YU in the future in the event the administration won't let the student councils fund them.

    JQY was founded by a flaming homosexual, a medical school dropout named Mordechai Levovitz. He grew up Orthodox and went to YU.

    What does it say about him that he named his dog "Hashem" and wants the world to know?

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d15f397b935b7bf73d2a69b4a61cb6d7150127d6262ec73e0c62a235cd66e2da.png

    ReplyDelete
  37. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/gods-false-accusations

    Rabbi Cardozo is one of the greatest thinkers in today's orthodoxy. I'm not doing your homework for you. He cites several midrashim.
    That said, just as a disabled person is not able to keep the Torah, perhaps it applies also to these lgbtq etc.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I didn't ask you to do my homework for me. I merely asked you to cite the relevant source. Otherwise, I'm unable to address phantom alleged “quotes”.

    I'm very well acquainted with the Midrash Tanchuma that Cardozo quotes.

    While I don’t happen to be a big fan of Cardozo; in this case he supports my position, which is spelled out in his conclusion:
    "[The Midrash] took the difficult road, to emphasize the paradox of free will versus determinism... It is not that sometimes determinism reigns and other times free will is given to man. Rather, they function simultaneously. God is responsible for the sin of man, everything is decided beforehand, yet man still has the opportunity to choose and must pay the consequences. "

    This applies to ALL people who are tempted by various sins, including the sin of homosexuality.

    As long as a person has free-will to choose, he is not considered "disabled", or coerced. Granted, that some people are more challenged to make the proper choices in different scenarios, but a person ALWAYS has the opportunity to choose, and if he makes poor choices, he must pay the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Fordham is a secterian University

    ReplyDelete
  40. Kalonymous is an Ashkenazi name

    ReplyDelete
  41. Well good that you agree with him. Am I surprised you are not a great fan of Rav Cardozo and are you not surprised that I am?

    Look, I have gone as far as I can to try to put some positive or mitigating angle for those people, and that is is not my usual intolerance for them, or for Mr de Haan.

    the price they pay for their teva is their price.

    YU Are challenging those groups, an hopefully Rav Shachter will use his proverbial baseball bat on them.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You conveniently ignore the fact that you made up a non-existent Midrash, which you said that Cardozo quoted. Upon closer examination, I demonstrated that Cardozo actually said the exact opposite of what you claimed.


    Cardozo himself admits that he's controversial, so I'm in reasonable company. How do you rate him in comparison to your idol Jacob Neusner?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Here is the unedited text of what i wrote, which you claim is nonexistent.


    "We are in a post mabul /sdom situation. Again I'm not defending the de
    haans of this world (although some people do). But when they go to
    heaven's gate, and give account of themselves, perhaps they will say
    "why did You create me this way".
    Rabbi Cardozo gives a talk about
    alila, based on a medrash. It's a fatalistic concept, it applies in
    this case, if you accept the midrash."


    Perhaps you mean the first citation which was on Tehillim 66 - and there is no Midrash Tanchuma on Tehilim? I first quoted another piece by R' NLC, where he cites the verse in Tehillim. But theni brought the article in Times of Israel (reader) - which you did read!


    So according to the argument he brings, yes, it was both deterministic, but also freewil is given. So what is the non existent part you are referring to from my above statement? please outline.
    If a person sins due to alila, then he can ask the question. Cardozo says that the sin of Adam + Chava was already predetermined, even though they had freewill to choose whether or not to do it. He doesn't shwo logically how this can be, he just says they are. So why not say we have a trinity and also monotheism (or for kosher jews 10 sefiros ). The question is still valid - since no one is providing a logical answer on this side of the grave.


    Regarding whom you call my "idol" - thank you.
    I showed a hechser for an Israeli salad, which is not valid during Pesach, for eidolaters. I said I rely on Rambam and Ovadiah Yosef to eat kitniot. The someone accused me of admitting to eat chazir.

    Is there any statement that eating kitnios is the same as eating chazir? (aside from the hidden midrash on tehillim).


    Neusner was an academic scholar, who published 1000 books in his time. He argued against Steinsaltz - like Rav Shach did. Buthe gives very good argumentation, which is not apparent from Rav Sach, although rav Feldman does expand.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Below is an extract, and this link shows more






    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gv_XbYRT8MAC&pg=PA363&lpg=PA363&dq=THREE+OF+ADIN+STEINSALTZ%27S+MISCONSTRUCTIONS+OF+THE+TALMUD&source=bl&ots=s8VJP10sJD&sig=ACfU3U30TG91hFo__LZOTlnDHMKDa_gtGw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju6cjxgejkAhUBhxoKHZt2C10Q6AEwEHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=THREE%20OF%20ADIN%20STEINSALTZ'S%20MISCONSTRUCTIONS%20OF%20THE%20TALMUD&f=false



























    extract:













    Steinsaltz maintains that no coherent plan everywhere
    instructs the


    compilers or authors of the Bavli how to order their materials. I shall


    show that a strict protocol governs throughout, which Steinsaltz has


    not grasped. While he is unable to see the redactional considerations


    that account for the Bavli's inclusion of massive miscellanies-some


    times impeding systematic exposition of a given problem-we shall


    see that, even if the Bavli exhibits a certain miscellaneous character,


    in fact it follows a careful program.




    2. "THE TALMUD DEALS WITH ALL POSSIBLE SUBJECTS IN THE


    Steinsaltz alleges that the Talmud conducts a "search
    for truth with


    regard to the entire Torah-in other words, with regard to all possible subjects
    in the world, both physical and spiritual." That is a


    manifest exaggeration. But it also misrepresents matters, for I shall


    show that in definitive structure, in its shank, which is to say, approximately
    90% of the whole, the Talmud limits its systematic exegetical work to a commentary
    to thirty-seven of the sixty-three tractates of the Mishnah, encompassing a
    broad range of data, to be


    sure, pertinent to that commentary. Not only does the Bavli not deal


    with "all possible subjects in the world," but it does not even cover
    all


    the subjects set forth by the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and the corpus of


    the Halakhah embodied in legal formulations associated therewith.


    And, as a matter of simple fact, the subjects that the Talmud takes up


    in a more than episodic or casual manner are dictated by the


    Mishnah and the Halakhah more generally.


    3. "THE STRUCTURE OF THE TALMUD Is ASSOCIATIVE" vs. THE TALMUD Is CAREFULLY STRUCTURED ACCORDING TO A COHERENT PLAN


    The same issue resurfaces in different ways, Steinsaltz having a problem in
    cogently and lucidly expressing his ideas. Now he explains the


    character of the document by appeal to the mnemonics: "The structure of
    the Talmud is associative. The material of the Talmud was


    memorized and transmitted orally for centuries, its ideas are joined to each other by inner links, and the order often reflects the needs of memorization. Talmudic discourse shifts from one subject to a related subject,
    or to a second that brings the first to mind in an associative way." He does not know what he is talking about. A manifest and coherent plan governs
    the unfolding of every Talmud tractate, and it does not focus upon mnemonic but substantive con…

    ReplyDelete
  45. read his analysis of the Talmud, contrasted with Steinsaltz' plans.

    Cardozo is orthodox, whereas Neusner was Conservative, though he got semicha at JTS presumably when it was still orthodox. Do you think the Talmud has a formal order or not?

    ReplyDelete
  46. you are aware of what Dog written backwards says?
    that is precisely the problem, everything is "backwards" with those people!

    ReplyDelete
  47. "Bottom line, in the time of the Sanhedrin, if two males would be caught
    in the act, and all the relevant conditions would be met, both
    participants would be given the DEATH penalty, regardless of their
    self-proclaimed "orientation"."


    Depends which Sanhedrin - wasn't it Akiva who said if he were in charge, tehre would be no deaths?
    For our sins, we do not have even the lenient sanhedrin Rebbi Akiva would have led.

    Again, I don't know why I am arguing for them, since I usually argue against them! Rambam says that peopel only sin in a moment of madness - so those people must be in a constant state of insanity!

    ReplyDelete
  48. I was careful to write, "and all the relevant conditions would be met". No rabbi would be able to avoid meting out the death penalty, under such circumstances.

    While the Talmud (Sotah 3a) describes sinning as being due to a "Ruach Shtus", the Torah nevertheless, provides various penalties for different sins. Obviously, pleas of "insanity" (due to being under the influence of the Yetzer Hara) do not generally work in Beis Din.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Rabbi Akiva said he would. So why do you think he wouldn't? (avoid giviing out death sentence)

    ReplyDelete
  50. I don't know what you mean by "formal order".
    I think it's ludicrous to suggest that someone intelligent published a book in hodge podge random manner, without rhyme or reason to the order of presentation of the material contained within.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Mishnah Makkos 1:10
    רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמְרִים, אִלּוּ הָיִינוּ בַסַּנְהֶדְרִין לֹא נֶהֱרַג אָדָם מֵעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אַף הֵן מַרְבִּין שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:

    Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva were religious Jews, and would fulfill ALL the Mitzvos of the Torah. Meting out the death penalty in cases where the Torah calls for it, are part of the 613 Mitzvos. [See Rambam (Sefer Hamitzvos, Asei 226-229), Sefer Ha'Chinuch (47, 50, 261, 555)].

    Therefore we must understand their statement to mean, that they would invoke standards of proof that were so high, as to make it nearly impossible to achieve a conviction for a capital offense. However in a case where all the relevant conditions would be met", even Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva would not be able to avoid fulfilling the Law of the Torah, and would be REQUIRED to mete out the death penalty.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Kashrus for Pesach requires an extra level of supervision. Even if you customarily eat Kitniyos on Pesach, you still need certification that the relevant product was produced in a manner fit to be consumed on Pesach,

    The Eidah Chareidis is careful to note, that it takes responsibility for the Kashrus of the product, solely for year-round consumption.
    For Pesach consumption, as far as they're concerned, you're on your own.

    ReplyDelete
  53. If they want to be non-sectarian, they should remove the word "Yeshiva" from their name.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Yes, there is certification. Kitnios is not an issue for Sephardim.

    ReplyDelete
  55. what is ludicrous? You are saying being intelligent on its own = infallibility.
    Rav Aaron Fedlman wrote a paper in Tradition attacking steinsaltz. FYI, at the time, i was more pro Chabad and steinsaltz, mainly onthe glitz of his publication and the MO acceptance of it. But I realised he is a twister - he twists things around. Rav Shach realised this.
    Rav Gifter made this point when he atatcked lookstein. Lookstein atatcked R' Shach for hsi critique of steinsaltz. Gifter said, hwo do you go against rav Shach the gadol hador etc.?
    But the point is, Steinsaltz says hter is no formal order to the Talmud. Perhaps it is the embarrasment that secular-conservative Rabbi Nesuner has to educate a frum Rav Steinsaltz on the talmud! That is the true problem here, and it is an embarassment.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Kitnios is not an issue for Sephardim, but the prohibition of Chametz is universal for all Yehudim. A product can contain Chametz ingredients, or be produced on Chametz equipment, rendering it unfit for Pesach consumption.

    If there is other certification regarding Pesach, you may rely on it. Otherwise, you should not consume it.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I made no claims about infallibility. I merely assume that an intelligent person applies intelligent design to his product.

    In pondering a historical question, we need to explore both sides of the question.

    One side requires us to assume a ludicrous position; that the writer was not intelligent enough to bother with making order in his book. While the other side asks us to consider the writer to be intelligent enough to have given thought to the presentation of his material.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Fordham admits non Catholics, makes no religious demands other than theological school. Similar to YU.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sorry, it wasn't clear which author and which book you were refer to. I'm saying the steinsaltz claim is the ludicrous one. Regarding the Talmud and it's authorship presumably it is in order. Neusner even brings proofs that the seeming miscellaneous items are tied in to the program . what a Gadol he would have been if he was orthodox

    ReplyDelete
  60. medinat hayam is originally Sephardic

    ReplyDelete
  61. Of course there is, on the item I showed. Badatz would not certify them if they sold chametz for pesach.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The picture you posted makes ZERO representation about suitability for consumption on Pesach, and the Badatz makes it clear that they take NO responsibility for Pesach use.

    ReplyDelete
  63. You miss the point. If they had chazir in their factory, badatz would not certify even their bottled water. Chametz (obviously on pesach) is worse than chazir. This batch is not for pesach, they have local hescher for ochlei kitniot when the time comes.

    ReplyDelete
  64. You claimed that item you showed indicates suitability for Pesach. That is patently FALSE.
    Anything assumptions about Pesach from the current packaging, is pure conjecture.

    Regarding a "local hescher for ochlei kitniot when the time comes", you're merely confirming what I previously wrote:
    "If there is other certification regarding Pesach, you may rely on it."

    ReplyDelete
  65. another interesting Kashrut problem, this time fish:


    "Alert Mashgiach Prevents Kashrus Blunder
    The alertness of a mashgiach prevented the use of non-kosher fish in a
    kosher catered event. The report refers to red snapper fish imported by a
    Kiryat Gat company, fish marked with a kashrut supervision. In a trash
    receptacle, the mashgiach found non kosher fish remains, leading to a
    more intensive probe.


    The rabbinical officials warn that in addition to the problem of worm
    and parasite infestation of fish today, there is the problem of certain
    fish eating non kosher species of sea creatures, which usually end up
    in the fish’s stomach, and thereby removed when the fish’s inside is
    cleaned away. In some cases however, the non-kosher fish end up in a
    fish’s mouth or oral cavity, while a rare event, one that does occur. In
    such cases, the removal of the fish’s internal organs may not include
    the removal of the prohibited fish.




    Therefore, one is required to clean them very well in the preparatory
    stage, or to cut the head of entirely. Some fish are indeed cleaned and
    inspected as such, and are sold bearing kosher certification as to
    their type, as well attesting to being worm/parasite free.


    The fish referred to in this report, imported by Y.D. Inbal Importers
    of Kiryat Gat, does not have any kosher supervision despite claiming
    otherwise. (Photo, while unclear, appears in the original document from
    Rabbanut "


    Wild fish, eat an almost completely treif diet - they live off organisms in the sea, which are not kosher species. Yet the Torah permits them (if they have fins and scales).


    I amnot saying don't be extra scrupulous - but what is in the digestive system, of the fish cannot impact the kashrus of the fish. that would be tantamount to denying the Torah!

    ReplyDelete
  66. What did I claim? can you quote me, and not yourself please?


    I said " Badatz would not certify them if they sold chametz for pesach" Do you think they would certify a Pizza place that is open on Pesach, for the rest of the year?


    Remember somebody accused me of admitting to eating chazir - i.e. equating the perfectly lawful consumption of kitnios on Pesach to chazir. Rambam says there is no chametz possible from anything other than the 5 species of grain.


    the product is certified for Pesach by other authorities. Whether Eidah agree with them or not is not my problem, I do not rely on Eidah for Kashrus, and nobody can force me to either. A number of years ago I accepted the halacha of the Rambam and the Yemenite school of rationalists - it says Aseh lecha Rav - that is our individual choice.

    ReplyDelete
  67. anyway, let's not confuse matters - the question is whether Lonna Neusner would have a kitniot society accepted in the Eidah University , and if it would have a logical order to it, spelled backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  68. The article you cited is from 2009, some 10 years ago.
    http://www.jerusalemkoshernews.com/2009/10/chief-rabbinate-kashrut-alert-001-5770/
    What's your point, or what's your problem?
    Are you suggesting that a piece of shrimp found in the stomach of a kosher fish is also kosher?

    ReplyDelete
  69. אַתָּה חוֹנֵן לָאָדָם דַּעַת וּמְלַמֵּד לֶאֱנוֹשׁ בִּינָה.
    חָנֵּנוּ מֵאִתְּךָ דֵּעָה בִינָה וְהַשְכֵּל.
    בָּרוּך אַתָּה הֳ' חוֹנֵן הַדָּעַת.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Are you suggesting all fish are treif, because their diet is not kosher? As the Taz says. What the Torah explicitly permits, the chachamim cannot forbid.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Do you think the Torah prohibited kosher fish, unless they have a 24 hour fast before they get caught? 😆

    ReplyDelete
  72. Kosher fish are always permitted to be eaten. However the Mishnah (Bechoros 7b) states that when a Kosher fish swallows a non-kosher fish, the non-kosher fish remains forbidden to be eaten.

    This is codified both in the Rambam (Ma'achalos Asuros 1:5), and in the Shulchan Aruch (YD 83:10).

    Usually fish are eviscerated before cooking, as was noted in the article you quoted, and therefore there is no concern about any non-kosher fish causing the kosher fish to absorb the taste of the non-kosher fish.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Badatz is very Ashkenazi, bless them. So there is no room for any Sephardi minhag.
    But, Rav David bar hayyim is also trying to end the prohibition on kitniot.

    ReplyDelete
  74. David Bar-Hayim along with [Conservative] David Golinkin.
    Two Torah "luminaries" of our generation.

    ReplyDelete
  75. who said or claimed the non kosher species becomes kosher? I said the Kosher species is kosher regardless of its treif diet.

    ReplyDelete
  76. if you are such a Gadol, why are you anonymous?

    ReplyDelete
  77. "The Kosher species is kosher regardless of its treif diet", and the undigested non-kosher fish found in the kosher fish remains non-kosher. Therefore one must be careful to remove the non-kosher material from the fish before cooking.

    ReplyDelete
  78. that's fine by me

    ReplyDelete
  79. What "kashrus blunder" did the mashgiach prevent?

    ReplyDelete
  80. The importer claimed to have a Kashrut cert. but apparently they didn't.


    The problem with worms in the digestive system - it isan impossible thing to get away from. For example, Krill is treif, but it is staple diet for most fish. The oil in krill becomes the oily fish we eat. So what if ther eis krill oil in the fish etc?
    What if a fish eats bread , does that mean we cannot eat fish during Pesach?

    ReplyDelete

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