https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/jerusalem-pride-march-sets-out-for-first-time-in-2-years-670022
Heavy police barriers were set up in Bloomfield Park near Liberty Bell Park in preparation for a counter-protest by the far-right Lehava organization.
Officers will work to prevent clashes and protect participants, while
preserving freedom of expression and the right to protest.
An
ad reportedly by Lehava on behalf of the counter-protest referred to
the march as a “disgrace of Jerusalem,” “the dissolving of the natural
family” and a “trampling of traditional Judaism.”
Forget the usual protests. Hold up signs saying "Why don't you march in Moscow and Mecca?"
ReplyDeleteHopefully the Kanoim are out in force.
ReplyDeleteOr Gaza
ReplyDeleteHaving Kanoim come out in force to protest the parade, is EXACTLY what the Menuvalim are hoping for. It helps create public discourse about the legitimacy of their perverted lifestyle, and allows them to be portrayed as "victims" of the "backward fanatics". That’s a win-win scenario for them.
ReplyDeleteThere is no kanaus allowed and they are not sinning at the parade even if it were allowed. It's a terrible chillul Hashem. Not just the feigelach but the entire world would then focus on hareidim, and not only tzionim.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who supports the Democrats and the leftwing agenda in the US, must also support this. Or else it's massive hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteIt's the proper Torah way to publicly protest a public chilul Hashem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, in theory. However sometimes the benefit to be gained is outweighed by the cost to achieve it בגדר יצא שכרו בהפסדו.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who supports the Zionists and its secular agenda iS, must also support this. Or else it's massive hypocrisy
ReplyDeleteWow!
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying espousing Torah values is a chillul Hashen?!
So you think its a good thing to kill people in the street? But you wouldn't lift a finger if attacked by terrorists.
ReplyDeleteBtw, since all your eidah buddies only lionise gay boy dr dehaan, it is just hollow rhetoric about Torah values. When your community erase him, denounce him, then i will tske them seriously as being orthodox.
ReplyDeleteNope, can be right wing or religious zionist. Does smotrich support this?
ReplyDeleteHolding up placards and burning some trash cans is not kanaus.
ReplyDeleteWhat Ginsburg is alluding to is Pinchas killing zimri.
Even if that is technically permitted, the pride is just a public festival and the act of mishkav z, is not there in public.
There are good ways to espouse Torah values and bad ones. Any attempt to "uphold the banner of Torah!" that leads to Orthodox Jews being looked at as primitive and violent is not a good way.
ReplyDeleteWhen Rabin was shot, when Baruch Goldstein shot 30 worshippers, hareidi rabbis were saying its not our way, violence is forbidden, etc. Some blaming the Zionists.
ReplyDeleteNow people here are suggesting a massacre of Jews on a gay pride march.
By killing people?
ReplyDeleteHamas got it right. Lob rockets to clear the streets.
ReplyDeleteAre you asking about a moser or rodef?
ReplyDeleteNo, about the LGBT menuval parade.
ReplyDeleteA few years ago, one such kanoi attacked them with a knife, killing one teenage girl.
Moe, have you ever protested the chilul Hashem of the gay-menuval Dr Yacov de haan?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-36634148
ReplyDeleteYour analogy is terrible, while mine was accurate. You literally want LGBTQ+ and CRT agenda for America, but don't want the same thing for Israel. I have never supported any "secular agenda."
ReplyDeleteAnd "non-charedi" does not equal secular, before you even bother trying that
Quick DT, post another "GOP is bad because they (supposedly) hate gays!" type of article, maybe we won't notice the blatant hypocrisy
ReplyDeleteThat's a complete lie and fabrication initiated by Torah-hating zionists.
ReplyDeleteNope, the lie is your own - you are lying to yourselves.
ReplyDeleteHe continued to write about it even in his Aid-ah days, and how he was menuval enough to go to the kotel for gay arab young men. Not even the the "Pride" of today have the arrogance to desecrate the kotel the way he did.
as for his "martyrdom", no kiddush Hashem at all, just like the "pride" parade is the opposite of Kiddush Hashem, so were his underhand mishkav z. actitivites.
ReplyDeleteWhat year do think that De Haan did Teshuva, and ceased his same-sex activities?
ReplyDeleteHopefully before the bullet killed him.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence have you he engaged in any, especially after becoming a Baal Teshuva? (Anything prior is irrelevant.)
ReplyDeleteThat's a total falsehood. He was a bigger Tzadik than Rabbi Kook.
ReplyDeleteHow do you quantify "Baal Teshuva"?
ReplyDeleteBefore he came to Yerushalayim?
After he came to Yerushalayim?
What year?
I quantify it by the time he decided to accept following the Torah.
ReplyDeleteYou are truly deluded regarding this subject.
ReplyDeleteYou have no clue about the Gadlus of Rav Kook, and you also have no clue about the secret depraved life of de Haan.
“Rav Berel Soloveichik ZT”L, son of the Brisker Rav ZT”L, used to relate to his students the Chofetz Chaim’s response when he heard of Rav Kook’s position on the chloni soccer players. “Kook shmook!”, the Chofetz Chaim said, dismissing both the man and the position. The story about the Chofetz Chaim – the paragon of Shemiras Halashon himself – is easily confirmed. The person who it happened with was named Rabbi Avrohom Moshe Gorelick, father of Rav Yeruchem Gorelick ZTL, who was a talmid of the Chofetz Chaim and a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University. Rav Yeruchem Gorelick (who was personally present and heard it directly from the Chofetz Chaim’s own mouth) said the story over publicly numerous times (including at the Yeshiva of South Fallsburg, where his son was Rosh Yeshiva), as did Rav Berel Soloveichik ZTL, Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk. (Rav Berel also related that Rav Kook said about the opening of the Hebrew University, that it is a fulfillment of kimitzion etc. – immediately the gedolim in Poland and Russia organized a protest against this chilul Hashem – and the Chofetz Chaim came in and said Kook shmook and then he left. See “Mishkenos Harayim” 3:1-108.)
ReplyDeleteAnd the Chofetz Chaim’s statement is mild compared to what other Gedolim have said about him. Particularly relevant in this context is a letter by Rav Elchonon Wasserman to Rav Yosef Zvi Dushinsky, printed in Kovetz Maamarim, of which a facsimile of his Ksav Yad is readily accessible, where he refers to R. Kook as a “rasha gamur.” This was the eternally loyal Talmid of the Chofetz Chaim, who spent his life disseminating his Rebbi’s Torahs. (When the Chofetz Chaim was considering moving to EY, Rav Chaim Ozer asked him who will take care of Klall Yisroel in Chutz Laaretz if he leaves. The Chofetz Chaim answered, “What do you mean? You have Reb Elchonon!”)
Regarding Rav Kook specifically, I have heard that the Chazon Ish ZT”L used to censor his Seforim by taping or marking over the anti-Torah writings in them. Of course, the Chazon Ish was more able to know what is undesirable and what is not, than the average student. If someone was the biggest Apikores and enemy of Hashem, as long as he would “work the land” of Israel, Rav Kook considered him holy. The soccer players, mechalelei shabbos b’farhesia, were to Rav Kook, “holy”. He did not mean “Tzelem Elokim” holy, but rather, because they assisted the Zionist cause they were “holy”, regardless of their status according to the Torah. Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld ZTL said that he was like a person who is drunk – saying irrational, nonsensical things – and in his case, he is drunk on Ahavas Yisroel. Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld’s description of him as a “Purim Rav the whole year”. Rav Kook was considered a lone, sad case of greatness gone irrational. A more hard-line position is found in the Teshuvos Divrei Yoel by the Satmar Rav ZT”L (CM 131), where he rules outright that it is forbidden according to Halachah to follow any Halachic rulings of Rav Kook, who he categorizes as an apikores, in any area of Torah. His reasoning is based mainly on the following sources: Birkei Yosef 243:3; Responsa Bais Shlomo YD II:101; Chasam Sofer CM 163; The Gemora (Shabbos 116a).”
Don't hijack this thread into a Rav Kook thread, pro or con. I'm not going there.
ReplyDeleteYou made no objection about the hijacking of this thread into Rav Yaakov de Haan zt'l HY"D. In fact, you participated in that hijacking.
ReplyDeleteNooe, , the thread is about gay pride. seems you are very proud of your own feygeyles.
ReplyDeleteThe neturei karta falsify and distort things. The CC didn't call his friend rav kook "shmook "
ReplyDeletealso, , not clear who the various brisker sons were. one of them, Chaim, was totally nuts.
reb elchonon was great in learning. His world view was distorted , and not anything exemplary. The opposite in fact. Would you eat chazir to save your life? No chazir in yu.
ReplyDeletedo you think they served glatt kosher in the camps?
I got it. You refuse to list a year, because you're afraid I'm going to pull something out of my hat.
ReplyDeleteWhat year did he accept to follow the Torah, and was he successful in keeping his commitment?
If he wrote and/or published gay erotica after that year, would you agree that he still hadn't done "Teshuva" yet?
The subject of Jacob de Haan's defilement of Jerusalem, with his alleged Toeiva activities, is tangentially related to the OP, which deals with the recent defilement of Jerusalem with pro-Toeiva activities.
ReplyDeleteIt's not only a tangent
ReplyDeleteThere is no good toeivah. Can't say toeiva is OK, because my friend or fellow chassid is a feigele . MOe is saying "my feigele is kosher"
http://www.elisarolle.com/queerplaces/fghij/Jacob%20Isra%C3%ABl%20de%20Haan.html
ReplyDeleteDid I miss some kind of rule only permitting tangentially related comments but banning off tangent comments arising from the flow of the conversation?
ReplyDeleteI don't know when he wrote what nor do I believe others attributions of dates to his alleged writings have any accuracy whatsoever rather than their being fabrications by his atheist zionist enemies that murdered him in cold blood, Al Kiddush Hashem, who had every reason to lie in an attempt to discredit him. Heck, I don't even know if the writings alleged to be his aren't fabrications themselves. Any writings or activities prior to his becoming a BT are completely and utterly irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAs to "when" he became a BT, I don't know that there's an exact date. Becoming a BT then, just as becoming a BT today, is a process. It isn't an overnight transformation. One doesn't go from a mechallel Shabbos, trief dressing pervert to a perfect keeper of the Taryag Mitzvos as soon as he decides to do teshuva. Heck, even regular people tend to go slowly.
I do know that even if one decided to do teshuva as he was dying, he becomes a full BT and past sins are forgiven. We do not hold a BT responsible for his life of sins from before his teshuva.
And we do know that Rav Yaakov de Haan zt'l HY"D became a Baal Teshuva during his lifetime.
I differentiate between tangentially related comments, as opposed to Thread Hijacking.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thread%20Hijacking
But of course, that is up to the blog owner's discretion.
You slimily keep weaseling around, avoiding giving concrete facts and dates that can be refuted.
ReplyDeleteYou don’t know that when living in Jerusalem, he had a young Arab man as his valet. Each afternoon, de Haan and his friend would lock themselves in the room. No one in Jerusalem had much doubt as to what the two were doing behind closed doors.
You don’t know about the erotica that he allegedly wrote, and when he wrote it.
You also don’t know when he became a BT.
But you’re absolutely sure that he was a Kadosh veTahor, and a Tzadik Yesod Olam, because he was shot by a rival Jewish political enemy.
Give me a break!
You slimly take every lie the atheist zionist mechallel Shabbos killers who murdered him in cold blood, Al Kiddush Hashem, fabricated about their Torah observing, Gedolei Yisroel adhering, enemy in order to attempt to discredit him; and you present those lies as facts.
ReplyDeleteYou disregard what the Gedolei Yisroel ZT"L of his lifetime said about De Haan in favor of accepting the falsehoods peddled by his chazer-eating murderers.
I respect all tzadikim for their piety and Torah knowledge. But that doesn't mean that they know everything.
ReplyDeleteWe likely know today more about the secret life of Jacob Israël de Haan, then his contemporaries did.
wow, comes out of a BT yeshiva propaganda handbook.
ReplyDeletePresumably, you don't accept his frumkeit while he was still an RZ BT?
A mere half an hour ago you wrote that "No one in Jerusalem had much doubt as to what the two were doing behind closed doors." Yet when confronted with the fact that the Gedolei Yisroel called him a Tzadik you changed your tune to "that doesn't mean that they know everything." You gotta stick to one story. And you still haven't clarified why you accept the storyline peddled by his Torah-hating enemies rather than what Gedolei Yisroel declared.
ReplyDeleteNo, de haan was like Michael Elkohen in many ways. He led a double life. In front of the rabbonim he was frum. In his private life he was queer.
ReplyDeletehe wrote gay kuntres for his Dutch audience. His acceptance by rabbonim doesnt do anything to thr facts. Even the xtian Elkohen was given chizkas kashrus on here. Does that make him a rabbi?
Kalonymous HaQatan wrote (two years ago):
ReplyDeletehttp://disq.us/p/22kbrjd
Furthermore, I read a few years back, a quote from rav Sonnenfeld, that he said he is not responsible for what De haan does from shoulders downwards. Thus, it was well known... that de haan was queer. They just chose to turn a blind eye.
You're taking an anonymous internet poster, who elsewhere refers to Gedolim as an "apikores" (on that very same webpage) and takes claims from those who are mechallel Shabbos and eat chazer over the statements of Gedolim, seriously?
ReplyDeleteAnd you know this from what objective source? Or you just like making things up?
ReplyDeleteYU, then as now, served apikorsus. Better to die a physical death at the hands of the Nazis, Al Kiddush Hashem, then to turn to apikorsus.
ReplyDeleteThe Brisket Rov, Rav Forelock and Rav Elchonon weren't affiliated with the NK.
ReplyDeleteGorelick is cited on the fake Torah Jews website.
ReplyDeleteRav elchonon was refuted by history, and by his son.
"For all his adherence to an Orthodox brand of Judaism, de Haan continued to have sex with males, mostly Arab youths from East Jerusalem. These relations he immortalized in a book of poems called Quatrains, which was published in the Netherlands in the same year as his death."
ReplyDeleteQuatrains - queer quntres
https://glreview.org/article/article-964/
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.9783/9780812291865-009/pdf
ReplyDeleteChapter 8. Pederasty in Palestine: Sexuality and Nationality in Arnold Zweig’s De Vriendt kehrt heim
False on both counts
ReplyDeleteYu did not force apikorsus on him or anyone else, nor did they threaten to kill him. He volunteered for death, that is outside of halacha.
He was a rav? 🤣
ReplyDeleteIn 1904, the socialist teacher, poet, and journalist Jacob (Israël) de Haan published Pijpelijntjes, which is often called the first homosexual Dutch novel. It describes the passionate, rather kinky but not unhappy relationship between two male students and is dedicated to Aletrino, who—far from pleased—bought up nearly all copies and had them destroyed. De Haan lost his job, went to law school, earned a Ph.D., returned to Judaism, but continued to write homoerotic poetry (Fontijn 2015). Amsterdam’s Homomonument, completed in 1987, is inscribed with one of his verses: “such a singular longing for friendship.” It is taken from his poem “To a Young Fisherman,” which alludes to the Song of Songs but also to the story about the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet (Luke 7:47). Years earlier, De Haan (1985) even published five sultry poems about Jesus on the cross. Both sexually and religiously ambiguous, his life and works resist sexual, religious, or national appropriation (Dudink 2015).
ReplyDeletehttps://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-56326-4_2
De haan lost his Chezkas Kashrus, with regard to being a Toeivanik, with the publication of his first and second books, and his close associations with Toeivahniks. Just because he later masqueraded as an Orthodox Jew, doesn’t mean that he abandoned his deviant tendencies.
ReplyDeleteGiven his later gay erotic writings, which were published the year he was killed, combined with his alleged daily Yichud with a young “valet”, we are justified in our conjecture, that he was a closeted Menuval, who did sexual perversions behind closed doors.
https://youtu.be/hUsIDJbGsLo
ReplyDeleteDe haan was queer. Fact.
ReplyDeleteGadol Miller compared the mishkav zachar queer boy with lehavdil Avraham avinu.
Miller was a shoot from the hip, loose cannon, who let out equal amount of nonsense to cancel out the good he spoke.
As i said before, theres a beer called Miller Lite, and thst describes r'miller , the clumsy maggid who tripped himself into nebach apikorsus.
Once he is killed, they can call him a tzaddik, especially if he was martyred . Its not the same as saying he lived lefi ha Torah
ReplyDeletehttps://www.torahmusings.com/2007/10/chafetz-chaim-and-rav-kook/
ReplyDeletethe CC did not insult rav kook
And this proves what?
ReplyDeleteAnd the kanoim who got de haan?
ReplyDeleteYou were questioning whether i made up stories about his queerness.
ReplyDeleteNot a tzaddik in any sense. He kept some mitzvos, hopefully to his merit. His high status is only that he had secular education (usually opposed in the circles that praised him). And his anti-zionist activity.
ReplyDeleteIts a pity he went from traditional upbringing, to gay secular, to religious zionist, to gay chareidi anti_zionist.
It proves that chareidim are always ahead of their time. They were celebrating gay pride 100 years ago, when it was still illegal in Britain, Holland, and halacha. Open orthodox is only 10 years old.
ReplyDeleteThe CC attended shiurim by Rav Kook, zt"kl and stood the whole time.
ReplyDeleteChazon ish did too.
ReplyDeleteYou are not showing he continued after becoming religious
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43855720?read-now=1&seq=21#page_scan_tab_contents
ReplyDeletethe way to read this on Jstor is to use a google account to log in, and get 100 free articles
he was RZ in 1919
In 1919 his friend Avraham Goldsmit ran an orphanage for boys,a nd De haan worked there, becasue of his gay perversion towards boys
In the same year ,he switched to Rav sonnenfeld
In 1923, Frederick Kisch, the Zionist opposite, started to counter the destructive acts of De haan, and began dsiclosing 2 unpleasant facts:
a) his gay tristes with Arab boys
b) the fact that he was still married to his non Jewish wife.
This is a 4 or more years BT, who had ditched his kippa sruga, and is now fully hareidi!
1 month before his death in 1924, de haan published his "sefer" Quatrains, which was poems about his gayness, and his penchant towards arab boys. Hugo Begman, the libararian expressed both hsi disdain for the author, and how he was moved by the man's gay poetry.
So he has already been fully hareidi for 5 years and is still publishing his gay quntres -
which shows
a) he has not yet separated from his gay ways (or his non jewish wife)
b) he is still very much a crude (or sophisticated) menuval, who is very active in his gay literary nivul peh career.
It is like a modern day case of a pornography filmmaker, who becomes a BT. Even if he becoems hareidi and keeps Badatz kashrut, he continues with his lucrative porn business. Is he frum? is he Tzaddik? Is he required by halacha to ruin his own parnassah?
The best דן לכף זכות I can come up with is that he was conflicted about his SSA. Intellectually he knew that, religiously, he was not allowed to act upon his SSA. Nevertheless, emotionally, he struggled with his Yetzer Hara, and he failed his test when it came down to למעשה.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a regular thing for a bt to be able to change his gay behavior
ReplyDeleteSo with this deep knowledge of human psychology you feel free to play G-d and pass judgement on others?!
ReplyDeletewhich people ?
ReplyDeleteyou publish books on Halacha, and child abuse. correct? B'H , you don't lead a double life.
De Haan was hareidi in public, but published books about his own perversions, pederasty, and homosexuality.
where is your rachmanus for the Gay Pride you castigate? Nowhere. But for one of your own, you try to whitewash such perversions. This is typical ... behaviour.
I don't think that this is related to being a BT.
ReplyDeleteFFBs (frum from birth) who struggle with SSA, also find it difficult to change.
"I don't know when he wrote what "
ReplyDeleteSo you don't know the history but you constructed your own anyway based on your personal beliefs
LOLOLOL
ReplyDeleteindeed, i was pointing out the specific case under discussion. The assumption that someone is a BT Tzaddik, and is still publishing such filth, proves a) he was not a Tzaddik - at least not how it is spoken of today, and b) the protestations that he left his gay ways are false, and knowingly so.
ReplyDeleteWho fed you this false information? These canards were invented by his enemies. Without a shred of truth.
ReplyDeleteComing from yourself, who isn't even an Orthodox Jew, this is funny.
ReplyDeleteThose were cold blooded zionist atheist murderers, who are chazer and drove on Shabbos.
ReplyDeleteRabbi miller couldn't have known the evidence about de haan, otherwise his statement would be wilfull bizayon chas v shalom, of Avraham avinu.
ReplyDeleteIt was an error he made, based on his buying the propaganda about your queero hero.
But it is still a very damaging claim to make.
My frumkeit - irrelevant. Im not a bender.
Fair point. They need to be Tzaddikim in order to be kanoim.
ReplyDeleteWhich part of what I wrote, do you think is false, and how do you know that it's false?
ReplyDeleteLet's start with your dating of any alleged publication to after his becoming a Baal Teshuva.
ReplyDeleteThen we can move on to how you claim to know what physical acts he ever engaged in, even before becoming a BT, other than accepting untruths posthumously peddled by his enemies seeking to discredit him. And why you flip-flipped on this point That's aside from considering the fact that acts prior to become a BT are irrelevant.
And to state the obvious, you need to prove the occurrence of any claims you submit. No one else is responsible to disprove your (or anyone else's) claims about him.
His gay kuntres were published only 1 month before he was shot.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it was published in Holland, the librarian in Jerusalem had a copy and gave a haskama to it.
Michael Elkohen was accepted as a Rav in Israel, even though he had openly espoused his missionary work on TV, and was kicked out of another yishuv in Eretz yisrael, before setting up shop in Jerusalem.
When rabbi riskin once said that moshe rabbenu wasn't a good "politician", he was called an apikores. Nowhere in the Torah are we told he was a politician or not.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, by the same token, rabbi Miller made a political commrnt, comparing de haan, lehavdil to avraham avinu! So for that, he has made a terrible mistake and chillul Hashem.
"The deepest expression of his newfound passions, however, was carnal. Arab men—very young men in particular—became his obsession. He wrote poems about men like Mahmoud the stable boy, being explicit about his lust. As always, he saw his stirrings in metaphysical terms. In one poem, entitled “Doubt,” he wrote: “The year sneaks in in God’s capital city / Near the Western Wall / Tonight, what is it that I long for? / The sanctity of Israel, or an Arab male prostitute?”"
ReplyDeleteA shhabetai zvi character
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/jacob-de-haan-political-poet
And you know this is accurate because you agree with it?
ReplyDeleteWho called him an apikores because of that?
ReplyDeleteAnd that proves what?
ReplyDeleteThis was back in the early 90s, . I know lubavitch attacked him, also the misnagdim, but I don't have the names for you.
ReplyDeleteThe book is well referenced by many scholars.
ReplyDeleteHe was leading a double life.
ReplyDeleteHe only got involved with hareidim, because the Zionists ditched him, and he liked dressing up (and down) like an Arab.
He visited Manchester, and there were ugly scenes of kanoim protesting against him. Fact.
ReplyDeleteAuthorities?!
ReplyDeleteAuthority in which field? Gay studies? Nuclear physics? Tiddlywinks?
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. Riskin was denounced when he praised "Rabbi Jesus".
ReplyDeleteThe yashke comment was much later.
ReplyDeleteIn any case he was talking to Christians, and has a right to make a living.
Yoshka was a talmid of gedolim, went astray. But Rambam says this was part of Hashem's plan to spread Torah concepts to the world
The rabbis tested him for his claims of being moshiach, and rejected him.
Riskin opined (!) that the Biblical prohibition on homosexual relations only applies to one who voluntarily chooses homosexuality, but that one who considers himself wired as homosexual and feels that he can only experience intimacy with another man is exempt from the prohibition.
ReplyDeletehttps://blogs.timesofisrael.com/sorry-rabbi-riskin-and-rabbi-greenberg-homosexual-relations-are-not-permitted-by-the-torah/
Maybe applies to idolatry too!
ReplyDeleteWhich Rambam was it when he speaks about the spirit of madness taking over?
ReplyDeleteit's a very big problem today, and young MO are brainwashed by society to accept it.
presumably riskin wants to be inclusive, maybe the pink dollar is also a factor.
When Lubavitcher rebbe was still alive, r Riskin would say that "if moshiach were to come today, i can think of no better candidate than the rebbe "
ReplyDeleteThat might sound reasonable but it is actually nonsense. It is not eurovision, where you vote for the best song.
O.M.G.!!
ReplyDeleteNo wonder there was a rainbow in Yerushalayim within these past few weeks (and elsewhere, I'm sure!)
That would stand to reason!
ReplyDeleteThere was a rainbow in Yerushalayim within these past few weeks? Are you sure?
ReplyDeleteIt hasn't rained there for a few months...
Why do you think he made such a statement?
ReplyDeleteIt is clearly wrong - although there may be some truth intermingled. A person who is wired correctly will presumably not struggle with this toevah.
A fegeleh will struggle. There is a clear difference.
But that is not an exemption. That is up to the Divine Court to judge after a person has left this world.
I remember HP having taken a picture of it.
ReplyDeleteIt was at a minimum a few weeks ago. At a maximum, three months ago.
I remember it well.
I gave a course on NtJP, about what a rainbow signifies. It is a time for self introspection, repentance and prayer, NOT celebration.
I was very thorough on all fronts.
I’m not Riskin’s spokesperson, and I will not attempt to understand or justify his twisting of the Torah.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that there are people who appear to have a greater test in the area of homosexuality, more than most others who are not. However I question the premise that maintains, that most people are “wired correctly”, and then there are those who are “wired differently”. I have yet to see proof that “gayness” is like a physical disability, and that the intrinsic nature of homosexuals is inherently different. Is there such a thing as a "gay gene"?
There’s an interesting Ramban (Devarim 29:18) who posits, that bad “Taivos” are progressively acquired. When a person indulges in to a small “Taivoh”, that indulgence primes the pump, and fuels further Taivoh. Therefore, says the Ramban, if a person lusts beautiful women, and becomes steeped in this lust, this will lead him to further lust, including homosexuality and bestiality.
The Ramban should be studied in context. However here are the critical lines:
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%98%D7%A2:%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%22%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D_%D7%9B%D7%98_%D7%99%D7%97
הטעם, כי נפש האדם הרוה, שאיננה מתאוה לדברים הרעים לה, כאשר תבא בלבו קצת התאוה והוא ימלא תאותו אז יוסיף בנפשו תאוה יתירה, ותהיה צמאה מאד לדבר ההוא שאכל או שעשה יותר מבראשונה, ותתאוה עוד לדברים רעים שלא היתה מתאוה להם מתחלה; כי המתאוה לזמת הנשים היפות, כשיהיה שטוף בזמתן, תבואהו תאוה לבוא על הזכר ועל הבהמה וכיוצא בזה בשאר התאוות, וכענין שהזכירו חכמים (סוכה נב.): "משביעו רעב מרעיבו שבע".
I am not his spokesman either, but I meant to suggest by that question that there is a large upswing in cases of homsoexuals in the frum community, which may be pressuring him to find a "heter" or a mitigating factor, since he would otherwise be very unsuccessful in containing these numbers.
ReplyDeleteThat is a good argument that RambaN brings, and it is interesting that many people in the movie and other creative industries end up at least trying mishkav zachar - however, not sure it covers everyone.
There are a limited number of frum people that I am acquainted with who at some point came "out of the cupboard". The one that I used to see at my shul , even looked gay as a boy and that is what everyone said about him. And guess what the otehr one was- same story, I heard, that everyone in his youth group would call him a queer even before he had come out, due to his deportment. Thus, the Ramban thesis does not explain the naturally gay people, who exist in every culture, race, and religion.
I’ve said before, that I question the existence of so-called “naturally gay people”, which implies that supposedly there’s a G-d given nature, of being gay. I have not yet seen scientific evidence for such a reality.
ReplyDeleteEven if some homosexuals claim that they were never attracted to the opposite gender whatsoever, who is to say that their attraction to their same gender was “naturally” in-born with them. Perhaps their attraction to their same gender was ACQUIRED at a very young age, without them even realizing that they were gravitating to their own gender (before it was too late), and without even knowing about the possibility of sexual attraction to the opposite gender.
Well, there are people who have other deformities, who are exempt from kiyum mitzvot . and there are tumtum, and other types of trans- or non, or bi- sxual.
ReplyDeleteNot clear if there is any one answer.
I'm talking about people who were born with normal genitalia.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there may be more than one explanation, how this unnatural lust is ACQUIRED, and the Ramban’s explanation is one of them. However I do not accept the notion that a person is “born with it”.
But are they born with normal brainitalia?
ReplyDeleteKoheles (7:29)
ReplyDeleteאשר עשה האלהים את האדם ישר והמה בקשו חשבנות רבים
Except for the ones who are Tragically born with deformities (even the Torah excludes them eg from kehunah)
ReplyDeleteIn context, I don't think that the word ישר is referring to physical qualities, as is evident from the study in contrast of חשבנות רבים.
ReplyDeleteIf you can show the word ישר is referring to physical perfection, I will be happy to consider your thesis.
Otherwise, this is in line with other places in Tanach, where the word ישר presents itself. Such as:
Tehillim 92:16
להגיד כי ישר הוי"ה
Iyov 1:8
כי אין כמהו בארץ איש תם וישר
The emphasis is on who Adam is. Look at Rashi,( and Torah Temimah), they say it is Adam Harishon.
ReplyDeleteRashi: The Holy One, Blessed Is He [created] Adam perfectly upright.
We can expand on this theme in many directions.
But look also at 1:15
מְעֻוָּ֖ת לֹא־יוּכַ֣ל לִתְקֹ֑ן וְחֶסְר֖וֹן לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל לְהִמָּנֽוֹת׃ A twisted thing that cannot be made straight, A lack that cannot be made good.