Challenging Judaism's politics

[Curious George]

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

Asking for clarification is hardly ducking and dodging. But if you want to attack me because you cannot attack my argument, I suppose it is ok.

"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.

 

[Curious George]

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.

You see, this is exactly what I am trying to say to you. Ger means convert. You are trying to say ger means [and only means religious] convert.

No text says "and only means religious" you are adding that in. Willy nilly. With no talmudic reasoning; simply because you want it to mean that.

 

[Tumah]

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?

The Israeli government shipped in millions of Jews from a number of countries in order to maintain a Jewish majority over the Arabs. Only, because that was their goal, those of questionable or unlikely Jewish status were included.
In an effort to control the character of the nation, the government would kidnap Yemenite babies from religious families and give them to secular families. The Jewish Agency is believed to have engaged in all sorts of unethical practices to that end.
The nascent Jewish state was mainly composed of European Zionists. They (perhaps like many Europeans of the time) looked at non-Europeans as barbaric and backwards. Mizrahi/Sephardic Jewry suffered from discrimination often at their hands.

These are all facts. What is also a fact though, is that the great majority of the government and the people are either secular or atheist. Quoting them a verse from the Torah is to them as relevant as quoting a verse from the Baghavad Gita. When they talk about the Jewish nature of the state they don't mean from a religious perspective, but cultural and ethnic one. So in my opinion, your OP is useless because you're barking up the wrong tree altogether by quoting verses from the Torah towards the Israeli government.

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.

I don't really agree with you. If the verse has an inherent meaning there's no point in quoting it for an erroneous meaning. Just make the point without it or find a different verse.

 

[rosends]

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

Yes, and then you cited a transliteration of a word that doesn't appear in the law regarding resting on the sabbath. If I am talking about the laws of the sabbath, then your introduction of a separate word is irrelevant.

No it doesn't

Only because you reject the rabbinic methodology.

Yes you gave actual sources that prove my point. Ger means convert.

No, I gave sources which say that it means a religious convert. Your concern was that I didn't give sources that say that it doesn't mean anything else. Have you lost your way?

 

[rosends]

You see, this is exactly what I am trying to say to you. Ger means convert. You are trying to say ger means [and only means religious] convert.

Actually, I'm not saying it -- Judaism says. And you and your personal sense of what you think it could mean has no bearing on what Judaism teaches it does mean.

No text says "and only means religious" you are adding that in. Willy nilly. With no talmudic reasoning; simply because you want it to mean that.

So you demand of every legal point that it lists explicitly all the situations in which it doesn't apply, or else it must include all those others. That's the rejection. You keep doing it. You should at least own it.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, I'm not saying it -- Judaism says. And you and your personal sense of what you think it could mean has no bearing on what Judaism teaches it does mean.

But it not what Judaism says, and what you and your personal sense on what Judaism teaches has no bearing on what Judaism teaches it to mean.

So you demand of every legal point that it lists explicitly all the situations in which it doesn't apply, or else it must include all those others. That's the rejection. You keep doing it. You should at least own it.

Nope that is not what I demand at all. But I do demand that if people are going to add points they have reasons for doing so. You have none that you have offered so far.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, and then you cited a transliteration of a word that doesn't appear in the law regarding resting on the sabbath. If I am talking about the laws of the sabbath, then your introduction of a separate word is irrelevant.

Again, if you have sources on the fact that rest is prohibited during all other times then the analogy was correct from your perspective. I am certainly interested in your claim that rest is prohibited during all other times. I did not want this to spiral off into another point of contention.

Only because you reject the rabbinic methodology.

Only because I accept rabbinic methodology which you reject.

No, I gave sources which say that it means a religious convert. Your concern was that I didn't give sources that say that it doesn't mean anything else. Have you lost your way?

Where do you see it means religious convert in your sources? I just saw convert.

 

[rosends]

But it not what Judaism says, and what you and your personal sense on what Judaism teaches has no bearing on what Judaism teaches it to mean.

So the codification of laws by Jews and the explanation by Jewish experts has no bearing on what Judaism says and teaches? Fascinating.

Nope that is not what I demand at all. But I do demand that if people are going to add points they have reasons for doing so. You have none that you have offered so far.

Except I'm not adding. I am saying that what the text says is what it means. You are saying that what the text says could mean other things that you add. So the problem you point to is yours.

 

[Curious George]

So the codification of laws by Jews and the explanation by Jewish experts has no bearing on what Judaism says and teaches? Fascinating.

Except I'm not adding. I am saying that what the text says is what it means. You are saying that what the text says could mean other things that you add. So the problem you point to is yours.

What did I add. I am only saying convert. You are adding religious convert.

 

[rosends]

Again, if you have sources on the fact that rest is prohibited during all other times then the analogy was correct from your perspective. I am certainly interested in your claim that rest is prohibited during all other times. I did not want this to spiral off into another point of contention.

Well, the Abarbenel does say ויום הז' בלבד הוא אשר אין ראוי לפעל
but you can read his entire argument here http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40216&st=&pgnum=74

Only because I accept rabbinic methodology which you reject.

What methodology is that? Can you provide any examples if this methodology which you claim?

Where do you see it means religious convert in your sources? I just saw convert.

So the rabbinic quote explaining Ger which reads " do not say to him, “Only yesterday you were an idol worshipper, and now you come to learn Torah, which was given over by the Almighty God Himself! " does not mean a religious convert?

 

[rosends]

What did I add. I am only saying convert. You are adding religious convert.

No, the rabbinic/Jewish explanation of the word as substantiated by the sources is as a religious convert. The word "convert" by itself says nothing about what is being converted -- in fact, you innovated the "political convert" earlier. When the word Ger is explained it is explained as religious convert. No other sort of "convert" exists. In Hebrew there is a word and a specific concept used as a definition. There is no generic concept reflected by the word.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The Israeli government shipped in millions of Jews from a number of countries in order to maintain a Jewish majority over the Arabs. Only, because that was their goal, those of questionable or unlikely Jewish status were included.
In an effort to control the character of the nation, the government would kidnap Yemenite babies from religious families and give them to secular families. The Jewish Agency is believed to have engaged in all sorts of unethical practices to that end.
The nascent Jewish state was mainly composed of European Zionists. They (perhaps like many Europeans of the time) looked at non-Europeans as barbaric and backwards. Mizrahi/Sephardic Jewry suffered from discrimination often at their hands.

These are all facts. What is also a fact though, is that the great majority of the government and the people are either secular or atheist. Quoting them a verse from the Torah is to them as relevant as quoting a verse from the Baghavad Gita. When they talk about the Jewish nature of the state they don't mean from a religious perspective, but cultural and ethnic one. So in my opinion, your OP is useless because you're barking up the wrong tree altogether by quoting verses from the Torah towards the Israeli government.


I don't really agree with you. If the verse has an inherent meaning there's no point in quoting it for an erroneous meaning. Just make the point without it or find a different verse.

Then that is interesting perspective considering here in the states politically, it appears that the Likud party (along with the Haredim) are center right Jewish traditionalist with power and influence especially influential on the likes of Sharon and Bibi. You know, the irony I find that you claim that the verse has a particular meaning, yet now you understand what Muslims go through when others misappropriate verses contextually coming from an outsider's position. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I took the verse from that Biblical text much like I take the sayings on the statute of liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore,” she wrote. “Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 

[Curious George]

No, the rabbinic/Jewish explanation of the word as substantiated by the sources is as a religious convert. The word "convert" by itself says nothing about what is being converted -- in fact, you innovated the "political convert" earlier. When the word Ger is explained it is explained as religious convert. No other sort of "convert" exists. In Hebrew there is a word and a specific concept used as a definition. There is no generic concept reflected by the word.

When ger is explained for the verse in question it is explained as convert. I will agree that other verses are explained in a way demonstrate the word convert obviously includes religious convert. But if we stick to the verse 19:33-34 just the general concept of convert is given.

 

[rosends]

When ger is explained for the verse in question it is explained as convert. I will agree that other verses are explained in a way demonstrate the word convert obviously includes religious convert. But if we stick to the verse 19:33-34 just the general concept of convert is given.

No, if you stick to 19:33 then you have the clear rabbinic explanation that it is a religious convert. You also have the same talmudic explanation for the first part of 34. For the second part of 34 there are rabbinic commentaries which explain it as something else (which I also cited in this thread).

 

[Curious George]

No, if you stick to 19:33 then you have the clear rabbinic explanation that it is a religious convert. You also have the same talmudic explanation for the first part of 34. For the second part of 34 there are rabbinic commentaries which explain it as something else (which I also cited in this thread).

Sure explain to me how "Since the Jewish people were themselves strangers, they are not in a position to demean a convert because he is a stranger in their midst"

indicates we are referring to religious converts.

I hear you saying for what there is clear rabbinic explanation, but I do not see it.

 

[rosends]

Sure explain to me how "Since the Jewish people were themselves strangers, they are not in a position to demean a convert because he is a stranger in their midst"

indicates we are referring to religious converts.

I hear you saying for what there is clear rabbinic explanation, but I do not see it.

Because the rabbinic commentary to that particular verse (19:33 and the first part of 34) explicitly reads:
do not say to him, “Only yesterday you were an idol worshipper, and now you come to learn Torah, which was given over by the Almighty God Himself! ”.

How is this NOT a clear rabbinic explanation that this refers to religious converts?

If you are looking for the source material, check here http://www.mrbrklyn.com/resources/Sifra_hu_Torat_kohanim.pdf chapter 8, subsection 2, page 81.
------------
As a separate note, I was alerted to this source sheet which you might find helpful (especially the first source)
האם העבודה היא מצווה?

 

[Curious George]

Because the rabbinic commentary to that particular verse (19:33 and the first part of 34) explicitly reads:
do not say to him, “Only yesterday you were an idol worshipper, and now you come to learn Torah, which was given over by the Almighty God Himself! ”.

How is this NOT a clear rabbinic explanation that this refers to religious converts?

If you are looking for the source material, check here http://www.mrbrklyn.com/resources/Sifra_hu_Torat_kohanim.pdf chapter 8, subsection 2, page 81.
------------
As a separate note, I was alerted to this source sheet which you might find helpful (especially the first source)
האם העבודה היא מצווה?

I am looking at the Rashid and it looks like that is giving an example of taunting not defining ger. In that particular site I see "[for instance]" also included.

 

[rosends]

I am looking at the Rashid and it looks like that is giving an example of taunting not defining ger. In that particular site I see "[for instance]" also included.

In the Rashi, the writer is explaining what kind of taunting is forbidden when dealing with a ger (at issue is the type of "tonu" which assumes that "ger" is a religious convert. There is no "for instance" -- the brackets indicate that this is inserted by the editor of the English translation. Try this translation
------
This implies vexing him with words (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20) — do not say to him, “Yesterday you were an idolator and now you come to study the Torah which was given from the mouth of the Almighty!” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 2; Bava Metzia 58b, 59b.)
------
The Chizkuni on Ex 22:20 writes
וגר לו תונה, “and you must not oppress a convert;” the reason why this verse follows that about converts serving both Hashem and their previous deities, is that G-d wishes to go on record that although He finds serving another deity as something repulsive, He does love converts and appreciates that they distanced themselves from their former religion.
-------
The Rabbeinu Bahya and the Ralbag on that verse are also pretty explicit. The Rashbam writes (on Ex 20:22)
-------
, do not wrong him with words. In Leviticus 25,14 the Torah refers to similar legislation when applying to monetary matters. The same legislation applies to not wronging fellow Jews who are not converts, of course. The reason the Torah chose the convert as the example of the victim in our verse is that converts have much less of a chance to protect themselves against abuse of any kind, seeing they have no family to stand up for them if a wrong has been committed against them. Not only this, it is so easy to wrong a convert by mentioning what his parents do and what he himself used to do before he converted.
--------
The Tur Ha'aroch, referencing the Ramban writes
-------
I think that the moral/ethical message here is that we must not taunt the proselyte, reminding him of his lack of illustrious ancestors, seeing that we ourselves not so long ago were no better than he while we were idol worshipping aliens in Egypt. I, the Lord, have saved you from there because I took note of your pitiful state. Similarly, any proselyte will certainly also enjoy My full protection a soon as he turns to Me complaining about being discriminated against.
--------

So, again, how are these rabbinic voices NOT talking about specifically religious converts?

 

[Tumah]

Then that is interesting perspective considering here in the states politically, it appears that the Likud party (along with the Haredim) are center right Jewish traditionalist with power and influence especially influential on the likes of Sharon and Bibi.

Let's start with the facts:

[Likud]is a centre-right to right-wing political party[17][18] in Israel. A secular party,[19] it was founded in 1973 by Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon in an alliance with several right-wing parties.
Chairperson Benjamin Netanyahu
Knesset (seats) 30 / 120
-Source: Likud - Wikipedia

[UTJ] is an alliance of Degel HaTorah and Agudat Israel, two small Israeli Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) political parties in the Knesset.
Knesset (seats) 6 / 120
-Source: United Torah Judaism - Wikipedia

[Shas] is an ultra-Orthodox religious political party in Israel.
Knesset (seats) 7 / 120
- Source: Shas - Wikipedia​

And the whole government.

Political groups
Government (66)[1]

• Likud (30)
• Kulanu (10)
• The Jewish Home (8)
  • Tkuma (2)
• Shas (7)
• United Torah Judaism(6)
  • Agudat Yisrael (4)
  • Degel HaTorah (2)
• Yisrael Beiteinu (5)

Opposition (54)

• Zionist Union (24)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hatnuah (5)
    • Green Movement (1)
• Joint List (13)
  • Hadash (5)
  • Balad (3)
  • Ra'am (3)
  • Ta'al (2)
• Yesh Atid (11)
• Meretz (5)
• Independent (1)

-Source: Knesset - Wikipedia​

Can you explain what it is you are trying to say about Likud and Haredi parties?

You know, the irony I find that you claim that the verse has a particular meaning, yet now you understand what Muslims go through when others misappropriate verses contextually coming from an outsider's position. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I took the verse from that Biblical text much like I take the sayings on the statute of liberty

I don't think I have questioned internal interpretations of Islamic texts, so I don't really see the irony there.

 

[Curious George]

In the Rashi, the writer is explaining what kind of taunting is forbidden when dealing with a ger (at issue is the type of "tonu" which assumes that "ger" is a religious convert. There is no "for instance" -- the brackets indicate that this is inserted by the editor of the English translation. Try this translation
------
This implies vexing him with words (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20) — do not say to him, “Yesterday you were an idolator and now you come to study the Torah which was given from the mouth of the Almighty!” (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 2; Bava Metzia 58b, 59b.)
------
The Chizkuni on Ex 22:20 writes
וגר לו תונה, “and you must not oppress a convert;” the reason why this verse follows that about converts serving both Hashem and their previous deities, is that G-d wishes to go on record that although He finds serving another deity as something repulsive, He does love converts and appreciates that they distanced themselves from their former religion.
-------
The Rabbeinu Bahya and the Ralbag on that verse are also pretty explicit. The Rashbam writes (on Ex 20:22)
-------
, do not wrong him with words. In Leviticus 25,14 the Torah refers to similar legislation when applying to monetary matters. The same legislation applies to not wronging fellow Jews who are not converts, of course. The reason the Torah chose the convert as the example of the victim in our verse is that converts have much less of a chance to protect themselves against abuse of any kind, seeing they have no family to stand up for them if a wrong has been committed against them. Not only this, it is so easy to wrong a convert by mentioning what his parents do and what he himself used to do before he converted.
--------
The Tur Ha'aroch, referencing the Ramban writes
-------
I think that the moral/ethical message here is that we must not taunt the proselyte, reminding him of his lack of illustrious ancestors, seeing that we ourselves not so long ago were no better than he while we were idol worshipping aliens in Egypt. I, the Lord, have saved you from there because I took note of your pitiful state. Similarly, any proselyte will certainly also enjoy My full protection a soon as he turns to Me complaining about being discriminated against.
--------

So, again, how are these rabbinic voices NOT talking about specifically religious converts?

Well I am pretty sure that these are explaining different verses. But are you suggesting the translation I quoted is wrong?