Shaloh (Asarah Mamaros 3-4:28): ... Chullin (109b): Yalsa said to her husband R’ Nachman: “We have a rule that whatever the Torah prohibits there is something similar to it which is permitted. Blood is prohibited while liver is permitted. A woman is prohibited as a nidah but is permitted when she is pure, of a domesticated animal is prohibited but is permitted from non‑domesticated beasts, pig is prohibited by the similar tasting shebuta is permitted, the girutha bird is prohibited but the similar tasting tongue of fish is permitted, a married woman is prohibited but a divorce is permitted even though her former husband is alive, one’s sister in law is prohibited but she is permitted when the brother dies, a non‑Jewish woman is prohibited but a yofas to’ar is permitted. I want to know what it is like to eat meat cooked in milk?” R’ Nachman told the cook to prepare fried udder for her. This seems problematic. Why was such a distinguished woman such as Yalsa discussing such an apparently trivial topic with her husband? It is doubly puzzling why our Sages saw fit to record this in the Talmud? My father explained that this is based on the principle that all that is prohibited is because G‑d wants it prohibited – not because it isn't pleasurable. Therefore the sole reason for not enjoying these pleasures is because G‑d prohibited them. This is similar to Toras Cohanim(Kedoshim): A person should not say that it is impossible to eat pig but he should say that it is possible but what can he do since G‑d has prohibited him from eating it. Yalsa wanted to know what she was missing by observing the prohibition of meat and milk. By knowing what pleasure she was prohibited she could have a genuine desire for the prohibited pleasure that she would refrain from solely because of G‑d's command. That is why the taste of the shebuta fish is like that of pork so that a person can no what pork tastes like and know that it is good and desire it but at the same time refrain from eating it solely because G‑d told him not to eat it. The Torah has forbidden us to eat meat and milk. She wanted to know what meat and milk tasted like so she could desire and then not eat it because G‑d said not to. Therefore her husband told her to eat fried udder which has the taste of meat and milk.
Rambam(Shemona Perakim 6): We find that to have a strong desire to sin is much better and perfect than not having any desire and not suffering from avoiding the sin. … In fact our Sages say that,“the greater the person is the greater is his yetzer harah.” Not only that but they say that the reward for self‑control is proportional to effort required for that self‑control, “According to the suffering is the reward.” Furthermore they caution a person from saying, “I naturally don’t have a desire for this sin even if the Torah hadn’t prohibited this.” That is expressed by R’ Shimon ben Gamliel:” A person should not say that it is impossible for me to eat meat and milk together or that it is impossible for me to wear shatnez or that it is impossible for me to have sexual relations with this woman who is prohibited by the Torah. But in fact it is possible but G‑d has decreed that it is prohibited.”… However those things that the philosophers say are bad and that it is much better that a person not have desire for them – that refers to things which are widely perceived by people to be bad - such as murder, robbery, stealing, fraud, harming an innocent person, harming someone who has helped you, ridiculing parents and other similar matters. These well known things are what our Sages said: “That even if they had not been prohibited by the Torah it would have been assumed that they were prohibited.”… These well known wrongs are called by some scholars as “rational mitzvos”. One who desires to violate a “rational mitzva” is obviously an imperfect being. That is because a perfected person has absolutely no desire to do this type of evil and is not upset by avoiding them. However those things which our Sages were saying that it is best to overcome a desire for them - are the religious mitzvos. Because if the Torah had not been given they would not be viewed as bad at all. For this type our Sage say that it is it is only the Torah which prevents a person from doing them.
Rambam(Shemona Perakim 6): We find that to have a strong desire to sin is much better and perfect than not having any desire and not suffering from avoiding the sin. … In fact our Sages say that,“the greater the person is the greater is his yetzer harah.” Not only that but they say that the reward for self‑control is proportional to effort required for that self‑control, “According to the suffering is the reward.” Furthermore they caution a person from saying, “I naturally don’t have a desire for this sin even if the Torah hadn’t prohibited this.” That is expressed by R’ Shimon ben Gamliel:” A person should not say that it is impossible for me to eat meat and milk together or that it is impossible for me to wear shatnez or that it is impossible for me to have sexual relations with this woman who is prohibited by the Torah. But in fact it is possible but G‑d has decreed that it is prohibited.”… However those things that the philosophers say are bad and that it is much better that a person not have desire for them – that refers to things which are widely perceived by people to be bad - such as murder, robbery, stealing, fraud, harming an innocent person, harming someone who has helped you, ridiculing parents and other similar matters. These well known things are what our Sages said: “That even if they had not been prohibited by the Torah it would have been assumed that they were prohibited.”… These well known wrongs are called by some scholars as “rational mitzvos”. One who desires to violate a “rational mitzva” is obviously an imperfect being. That is because a perfected person has absolutely no desire to do this type of evil and is not upset by avoiding them. However those things which our Sages were saying that it is best to overcome a desire for them - are the religious mitzvos. Because if the Torah had not been given they would not be viewed as bad at all. For this type our Sage say that it is it is only the Torah which prevents a person from doing them.
RaP's Farewell PostI am truly sorry that you were bullied into silence. I hate bullies and bullying. It is not a cultured, let alone a Jewish, attribute.
Two quick questions for Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn/da'as torah:
Did you consult with a competent lawyer or lawyers in Israel familiar with this area of law, relating to the alleged "libel", on a blog yet, regarding your rights and defenses in the face of the alleged threatening Email you received?
I am positive that there must be those who would defend you, probably even pro bono (for free). It can still be done!
Hopefully you have retained digital copies of all the posts you deleted for your own files if further clarification needs to be made and for your own legal protection!
I assume that you have no further interest in receiving and posting my additional posts and comments on this blog from this point on.
As you know I have shared your main concerns and I have spent well over a year researching and debating the issues of the problems at hand, and this probably means that I will no longer participate in your blog.
I have no regrets so please do not feel bad for me, and I am happy to have served as a catalyst in unmasking and showing the world the true colors of those who have bullied you, and by association Rav Shternbuch and the BADATS, into silence, for who will yet have to answer in ways that they will not be able to intimidate into silence.
Kol tuv!
May 11, 2009 2:15 PM
In the US, there is freedom of speech and blogs fall under "freedom of the press, first amendment".
In the US, what this attorney tried to do to you would be considered a SLAPP (Strategic law suit against public policy) in order to silence your First Amendment right of Free Speech.
In the US, an attorney could be disbarred for filing a SLAPP and reprimanded for even threatening it.
Furthermore in many US states, you could sue someone who files a SLAPP suit against you and collect damages. (Anti SLAPP States).
If you have no right of freedom of speech in Israel, then you may as well just pack up and forget blogging because now, anyone can control every word you write just by threatening you with a lawsuit.
In the US, there are certain conditions that have to be met for libel:
1. first of all "the person who is not to be mentioned" is a wealthy and well known celebrity so the burden of proof of libel would be virtually impossible to meet. It is unheard of to get a libel judgment against a famous person because he has to prove absolute malice in your intentions. You can look at "rags" such as the National Enquirer and see that this is true.
2. There has to be no other reason for your post except that you wish to malign the person. This is impossible to prove true in this case since you are trying to understand halachic implications of many issues.
3. what you write has to be untrue and it has to be proven that you KNEW it was untrue. This is also not the case since it is quite obvious that you believe everything you write.
4. opinion - most of what is posted on this blog is opinion and not being presented as fact and therefore cannot be libel. This is why anonymous comments cannot be libelous. Nor can you be held accountable for anonymous comments.
5. no actual injury. The person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog has not suffered any financial or other provable injury.
6. Fair comment on a matter of public interest. Obviously the future of the Jewish religion is of importance to both you and the posters of comments.
7. Religious privilege - it is normal for a Rabbi such as yourself to issue religious opinions and rulings on a topic. To attempt to restrain your right of Free Speech, by threatening a SLAPP suit, in the US would also be restraining your Right to Freedom of Religion. In the US, this is a serious crime and punished as such. What if Rabbis could never say "such and such is not kosher?" That is restraint of Freedom of Religion.
I would recommend that you get in touch with Orthomom a wonderful blogger who was sued for libel. She prevailed and I am pretty sure that her attorney was free.
The threat of a SLAPP suit against your blog is indicative of the level of control that these missionaries have on the Orthodox Jewish world.
Daas Torah seemed to be a beacon of hope in what appears to be a lost battle. Now, that this blog is completely under the control of Evangelicals who are restraining MY rights of Free Speech, why even bother to fight?
I live in the US, in fact in the same state and county as the "person who does not want to be mentioned" on a blog.
Perhaps, I am the right person to file the anti SLAPP suit against the "person who does not want to be mentioned", because it is MY First Amendment Right of Free Speech is being restrained.
Furthermore, if you want to somehow host this discussion from my IP address (or something like that), I would love to be sued for libel for blogging about the "person who does not want to be mentioned".
I have a friendly relationship with some of the writers from the local newspapers and also in Brooklyn, where I used to write for a Jewish paper. My goal would be to get the name of the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog in as many Jewish and secular newspapers as possible.
Most journalists welcome a SLAPP suit because it is lots of free publicity for their publication and cause and in the end, they usually get to collect a few thousand dollars in an anti SLAPP suit on top of it.
I would really LOVE to be sued in a SLAPP by "the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog". Then I could publicize and bring this cancerous issue among the Jewish people to light.
Maybe I should just start a blog for the sole purpose of discussing "the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog" and his goal of destroying Judaism with his billions of dollars of oil money and his puppet quasi Rabbis.
If this is a topic that posters are interested in, I will do it.