Challenging Judaism's politics

[rosends]

It is interesting seeing that verse without the parallel terms. "Since the Jewish people were themselves strangers(gerim), they are not in a position to demean a convert (ger) because he is a stranger in their midst." B.M. 59b. Because the Jewish people were one type of A they should not demean another type of A. Yet you would have me believe that this does not apply when the Jewish people were dealing with someone of the same type of A that they were. You have not shown that any Rabbinical reading excludes recognizing refugees as converts or proselytes. In other words, you have yet to show a source that doesn't allow the user to assume this is true of geopolitical proselytes or that we should assume proselyte or convert to only extend to religious converts.

It seems as though you really want it apply only to religious converts, but that doesn't make it so.

So after I show you the rabbinic text which explicitly and exclusively applies it to religious converts, and you also quote the talmudic source which does that, you still want it to apply to the person who has decided he now prefers chocolate to vanilla. You know that the text which says "you shall do no work on the sabbath" doesn't say "only on the sabbath" so we should do no work on ANY day, right?

When a text says one thing and not another, it says one thing and not another, regardless of how you decide it should apply. It seems that you want to refigure all the laws to apply to whatever you think they might if those aren't explicitly excluded, even if others were the only ones explicitly included. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Curious George]

So after I show you the rabbinic text which explicitly and exclusively applies it to religious converts, and you also quote the talmudic source which does that, you still want it to apply to the person who has decided he now prefers chocolate to vanilla. You know that the text which says "you shall do no work on the sabbath" doesn't say "only on the sabbath" so we should do no work on ANY day, right?

When a text says one thing and not another, it says one thing and not another, regardless of how you decide it should apply. It seems that you want to refigure all the laws to apply to whatever you think they might if those aren't explicitly excluded, even if others were the only ones explicitly included. That doesn't make any sense.

Well I disagree (I know, no surprise). What I am doing is saying that it is perfectly acceptable to interpret meaning of the text on principle if there is no reason not to do so. So, the working on the sabbath example is another flawed analogy of yours.

I think we have a disconnect here in what we are arguing.

You are saying that the text cannot be interpreted in x manner without excluding all other rabbinical teaching and Talmudic understanding.

I am saying that as x manner does not contradict rabbinical teaching or Talmudic understanding, interpreting in manner x does not then entail the rejection of all rabbinical teaching and talmudic understanding.

 

[rosends]

Well I disagree (I know, no surprise). What I am doing is saying that it is perfectly acceptable to interpret meaning of the text on principle if there is no reason not to do so. So, the working on the sabbath example is another flawed analogy of yours.

Another of what you like to label a flawed analogy because you don't understand it. In each case, the text makes a statement delineating behavior and lists a single parameter. In each case, Jewish law sees that parameter as exclusive and in one case you want to say that the parameter is not exclusive. It is pretty simple; you just don't agree.

I am saying that as x manner does not contradict rabbinical teaching or Talmudic understanding, interpreting in manner x does not then entail the rejection of all rabbinical teaching and talmudic understanding.

Except that it does contradict it. Since the rabbinic teaching is that x="this", saying that it could also mean "that" when the rabbinic text didn't indicate that it means "that" is a rejection of the meaning of the text. Until you can show me that the talmudic understanding includes "that" I have no reason to take any "that" and decide that "that" is included in x. Otherwise, you could take ANY "that" and decide that because it is not explicitly listed as being excluded, it makes sense to include it (like resting on days other than the sabbath which are not, by name, excluded from the rule of resting on the Sabbath).

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I didn't watch the video so I don't know about which specific people you are trying to apply this verse to. But I want to address the verse itself.
Understanding that Judaism is originally the national religion of the people living in a certain country, the word "stranger" is usually understood to mean a convert. Someone who has come to live in the country of Jews is most likely doing so because they've adopted the religion of the Jews. For times where that's not the case, the word "resident" or something similar is added to the context. It's not the literal meaning of the word (which I believe is "dweller"), but I believe the background and context indicates that meaning when referring to people who've come to the nation. Compare for instance, Num 15:16 where the Laws of the Torah are commanded on the "stranger" to the same extent that they are commanded on the native and Deut.14:21 where we may give the "stranger in our gates" carcasses of animals that are otherwise prohibited to native Jews.

So the verse that you've quoted is commanding Jews to express love to converts to Judaism just as we are required to love native born Jews.

Interesting then what say you about this?

"True to its Zionist dream of being a haven for Jews, the Jewish state embarked on risky and expensive rescue operations in the 1980s and 1990s.

These brought tens of thousands of Jews from remote parts of Ethiopia, who had suffered from religious persecution, famine and civil wars.

Yet, when they arrived in Israel, these distinctive people faced appalling discrimination, racism and a lack of empathy for their hardships in Ethiopia and during their journey to Israel.

Moreover, this was exacerbated by a mixture of bureaucratic insensitivity and incompetence....

The article continues

The uncharacteristic violence, seen recently during demonstrations by members of the Ethiopian community in Israel, was a direct result of years of accumulated frustration against the state and especially the police.

What are the root causes of tensions?

Only 30 years after the arrival of the first Ethiopian Jews to Israel, and following recent violent clashes with the police, there is a broad acknowledgement that the state failed appallingly in absorbing the Jewish Ethiopian community.

To begin with, there was a lack of empathy in Israeli society for the hardships involved in leaving behind homes, relatives and friends who could not make the journey; not to mention the loss of family members and friends on the hazardous journey.

Upon their arrival in the Jewish state they met the inherent Israeli paradoxes involved in absorbing Jewish immigrants.

They were welcomed and granted the basic needs of accommodation, healthcare, education and general welfare.

However, this was done without sensitivity to their specific conditions and from the outset they faced discrimination and racism from the Israeli establishment.

Many in the religious establishment even dared to question their Judaism.

One of the early incidents that exposed this approach was the revelation in the 1990s that the Israeli national blood bank had routinely destroyed blood donated by Ethiopian Israelis for fear of HIV."

See: Who are Israel’s Ethiopian Jews?

Regardless if the verse was meant for a specific reason, contextually it can be applicable to a more broader view of the world. There are many sources that indicate the state of ethics within Israel is definitely questionable of course, for some who a stubborn, some think Israel is above criticism.

 

[Curious George]

Another of what you like to label a flawed analogy because you don't understand it. In each case, the text makes a statement delineating behavior and lists a single parameter. In each case, Jewish law sees that parameter as exclusive and in one case you want to say that the parameter is not exclusive. It is pretty simple; you just don't agree.

Except that it does contradict it. Since the rabbinic teaching is that x="this", saying that it could also mean "that" when the rabbinic text didn't indicate that it means "that" is a rejection of the meaning of the text. Until you can show me that the talmudic understanding includes "that" I have no reason to take any "that" and decide that "that" is included in x. Otherwise, you could take ANY "that" and decide that because it is not explicitly listed as being excluded, it makes sense to include it (like resting on days other than the sabbath which are not, by name, excluded from the rule of resting on the Sabbath).

Wait are you now saying that one cannot rest on any day but the Sabbath?

No it does not contradict it. Saying that ger means convert does not say that convert only means or refers to someone in a religious sense. It is not a matter of me saying x also equals that when in fact x equals this. It is a matter of me saying that you have no grounds to say that is not included in the definition of this.

 

[Curious George]

Another of what you like to label a flawed analogy because you don't understand it. In each case, the text makes a statement delineating behavior and lists a single parameter. In each case, Jewish law sees that parameter as exclusive and in one case you want to say that the parameter is not exclusive. It is pretty simple; you just don't agree.

You can believe that I am calling it a flawed analogy because I do not understand it, but that does not make it so.

I am talking about interpreting text to include something that is in line with the idea portrayed in the text and which does not contradict any Talmudic understanding.

You then offer an example that would contradict Talmudic understanding as a analogy.

That is a flawed analogy.

 

[Shaul]

Interesting then what say you about this?

"True to its Zionist dream of being a haven for Jews, the Jewish state embarked on risky and expensive rescue operations in the 1980s and 1990s.

These brought tens of thousands of Jews from remote parts of Ethiopia, who had suffered from religious persecution, famine and civil wars.

Yet, when they arrived in Israel, these distinctive people faced appalling discrimination, racism and a lack of empathy for their hardships in Ethiopia and during their journey to Israel.

Moreover, this was exacerbated by a mixture of bureaucratic insensitivity and incompetence....

The article continues

The uncharacteristic violence, seen recently during demonstrations by members of the Ethiopian community in Israel, was a direct result of years of accumulated frustration against the state and especially the police.

What are the root causes of tensions?

Only 30 years after the arrival of the first Ethiopian Jews to Israel, and following recent violent clashes with the police, there is a broad acknowledgement that the state failed appallingly in absorbing the Jewish Ethiopian community.

To begin with, there was a lack of empathy in Israeli society for the hardships involved in leaving behind homes, relatives and friends who could not make the journey; not to mention the loss of family members and friends on the hazardous journey.

Upon their arrival in the Jewish state they met the inherent Israeli paradoxes involved in absorbing Jewish immigrants.

They were welcomed and granted the basic needs of accommodation, healthcare, education and general welfare.

However, this was done without sensitivity to their specific conditions and from the outset they faced discrimination and racism from the Israeli establishment.

Many in the religious establishment even dared to question their Judaism.

One of the early incidents that exposed this approach was the revelation in the 1990s that the Israeli national blood bank had routinely destroyed blood donated by Ethiopian Israelis for fear of HIV."

See: Who are Israel’s Ethiopian Jews?

Regardless if the verse was meant for a specific reason, contextually it can be applicable to a more broader view of the world. There are many sources that indicate the state of ethics within Israel is definitely questionable of course, for some who a stubborn, some think Israel is above criticism.

Well that was quite a distortion. Actually the Israeli government gave lots of help to the Ethiopian Jews. They chartered special flights to bring them to Israel at no charge to the immigrants. They gave them stipends, free housing, job placement help and free Hebrew classes. In point of fact there is some resentment among the Soviet immigrants about how much assistance the Ethiopian Jews got while the Soviet immigrants didn’t get such benefits.

 

[Curious George]

Well that was quite a distortion. Actually the Israeli government gave lots of help to the Ethiopian Jews. They chartered special flights to bring them to Israel at no charge to the immigrants. They gave them stipends, free housing, job placement help and free Hebrew classes. In point of fact there is some resentment among the Soviet immigrants about how much assistance the Ethiopian Jews got while the Soviet immigrants didn’t get such benefits.

If your point is that not all Israeli people are racist then I agree. That, however, does not diminish the racism that some Ethiopian Jews faced or continue to face in Israel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

See Revisiting Operation Moses.

To equivocate about racism in Israel is to be irresponsibly complicit.

 

[rosends]

Wait are you now saying that one cannot rest on any day but the Sabbath?

Well, actually, that IS the Judaic understanding, yes. And, in the same way, each statement of exclusivity is derived by rabbinic voices based in other text.

No it does not contradict it. Saying that ger means convert does not say that convert only means or refers to someone in a religious sense.

Actually, it does whether you want to accept it or not. The explanation points to what it is. The grounds I have are the exact methodology of rabbinic discourse. Claiming that you, using a different way of thinking can innovate different meanings is useless. The definition of a word as "this" specifically means it isn't "that".

 

[rosends]

Well that was quite a distortion. Actually the Israeli government gave lots of help to the Ethiopian Jews. They chartered special flights to bring them to Israel at no charge to the immigrants. They gave them stipends, free housing, job placement help and free Hebrew classes. In point of fact there is some resentment among the Soviet immigrants about how much assistance the Ethiopian Jews got while the Soviet immigrants didn’t get such benefits.

And, of course, the reason is tied to the position, historically, of Jews as migrants, oppressed and chased from their homes -- nothing to do with "ger" in the text.

 

[rosends]

You can believe that I am calling it a flawed analogy because I do not understand it, but that does not make it so.

I am talking about interpreting text to include something that is in line with the idea portrayed in the text and which does not contradict any Talmudic understanding.

You then offer an example that would contradict Talmudic understanding as a analogy.

That is a flawed analogy.

Except that your "include something that is in line with the idea portrayed in the text and which does not contradict any Talmudic understanding." does contradict because of a talmudic methodology which you choose to ignore or reject - -that the talmud presents its parameters as limits, not as suggestions and templates.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well that was quite a distortion. Actually the Israeli government gave lots of help to the Ethiopian Jews. They chartered special flights to bring them to Israel at no charge to the immigrants. They gave them stipends, free housing, job placement help and free Hebrew classes. In point of fact there is some resentment among the Soviet immigrants about how much assistance the Ethiopian Jews got while the Soviet immigrants didn’t get such benefits.

Can you contradict my evidence, otherwise I can also post something else from a Jewish source

I notice some respondents aren't willing to criticize Israel's own issues with race and politics I see.

 

[Curious George]

Well, actually, that IS the Judaic understanding, yes. And, in the same way, each statement of exclusivity is derived by rabbinic voices based in other text.

I find it interesting that you believe that menuchah is prohibited during anytime but the Sabbath. I do not think I have heard this view before now. If you have any sources or links where I could learn more I would appreciate it. If menuchah is indeed prohibited at any time but the sabbath then this would be an appropriate analogy from your point of view.

Actually, it does whether you want to accept it or not.

It isn't about my acceptance, I do not practice . It is a simple matter of what is and what is not.

The explanation points to what it is.

Yes I agree. The explanation points to ger being "converts." Converts need not be religious.

The grounds I have are the exact methodology of rabbinic discourse. Claiming that you, using a different way of thinking can innovate different meanings is useless. The definition of a word as "this" specifically means it isn't "that".

I am not claiming that I can innovate anything. I am claiming that the exact methodology of rabbinic discourse can be seen to include geopolitical converts.

 

[Curious George]

Except that your "include something that is in line with the idea portrayed in the text and which does not contradict any Talmudic understanding." does contradict because of a talmudic methodology which you choose to ignore or reject - -that the talmud presents its parameters as limits, not as suggestions and templates.

What specifically do you think I am ignoring?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I suggest starting with the Rabbi at 2:54

 

[rosends]

I find it interesting that you believe that menuchah is prohibited during anytime but the Sabbath. I do not think I have heard this view before now.

Why are you talking about menucha? The prohibition of "lo ta'aseh kol melacha" applies to the seventh day unless there is explicit instruction otherwise. If you want to guess at how halacha is derived and then ask questions based on your erroneous guess, you won't learn anything.

Yes I agree. The explanation points to ger being "converts." Converts need not be religious.

Actually, as per what has been quoted, the explanation points explicitly to religious converts.

I am not claiming that I can innovate anything. I am claiming that the exact methodology of rabbinic discourse can be seen to include geopolitical converts.

Well, by you. And you can see it include those who convert from single breasted jackets to double breasted. Do you have any basis for your inclusiveness Judaically, or just your sense of what you think? You have yet to provide anything other than you wishes while I have given actual sources.

 

[rosends]

What specifically do you think I am ignoring?

That talmudic understanding, when establishing parameters does so with precision. By claiming that the text can include unstated things, you have rejected the talmud's method.

 

[Akivah]

You want me to provide classical sources that ger means convert now? Rosends already did that.

Continuing to duck and dodge, eh? In my book, that means you have no proof.

 

[Curious George]

Why are you talking about menucha? The prohibition of "lo ta'aseh kol melacha" applies to the seventh day unless there is explicit instruction otherwise. If you want to guess at how halacha is derived and then ask questions based on your erroneous guess, you won't learn anything.

Because you said that it is prohibited to rest on any other day but the sabbath.

Actually, as per what has been quoted, the explanation points explicitly to religious converts.

No it doesn't

[Quote
Well, by you. And you can see it include those who convert from single breasted jackets to double breasted. Do you have any basis for your inclusiveness Judaically, or just your sense of what you think? You have yet to provide anything other than you wishes while I have given actual sources.[/QUOTE]
Yes you gave actual sources that prove my point. Ger means convert. Why are you now trying to say that your sources say ger means only religious converts when clearly they just say ger means convert.