Comments on: Embrace the abnormal

By: Nachum Lamm

Nachum Lamm — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:48:09 +0000

Yes, but corporal and capital punishment is not administered to people due to failings attributable to the yetzer hora. The threshold is much higher than that, and in an ideal society, sure, you may have- probably will have- sinners, but not to such a degree that such punishments will be meted out.

In fact, it makes one wonder: Without an ideal society, perhaps it would be better if punishment did *not* follow halacha strictly, but allowed for punishments harsher than that. There is, of course, ample precedent for such a concept in halachic history: The right of the king (or a substitute) to execute murderers who could not be convicted by strict halacha, for example.

By: Ori Pomerantz

Ori Pomerantz — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 01:28:04 +0000

Nachum Lamm, do you think that such an ideal society is consistent with human beings who have an evil inclination? Maybe I’m too cynical, but it seems to me like an impossible dream, which if pursued will be very dangerous.

By: Nachum Lamm

Nachum Lamm — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 19:08:56 +0000

Aryeh- all I can say is, “Why, thank you!” You’ve obviously read my post to mean what you want it to, and accused me of losing my religion. You want me to quote Torah, I can quote Torah at you as much as you want. This just happened to be appropriate here. And, of course, it’s an undeniable fact: An ideal society would not need coercion, no?

Speaking of which, it should be pointed out that it’s likely that an ideal halakhic society has never- never- existed in Judaism, apart, perhaps, for a few days in front of Har Sinai and some scattered periods under some kings. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen- and we all hope it will- but facts is facts.

By: Aryeh

Aryeh — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:46:10 +0000

Nachum, it’s interesting that you quote Dinesh D’Souza for your definition of a religious or irreligious society. Why not look at what the Torah says instead of a contemporary American intellectual? If you’re going to have an authentically Jewish viewpoint about this you have to go to the primary sources before you go to Dinesh D’Souza. Even a Modern Orthodox viewpoint has to take into account at least two sources. You seem to have a completly “modern” one. The Orthodox one has been lost somewhere along the way.

By: Ori Pomerantz

Ori Pomerantz — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:57:36 +0000

Nachum, I’m talking about a society prior to Yemot HaMashiach. We don’t know when Mashiach will come, and we do know that prior to that Halacha says you should enforce it, by force if needed.

BTW, AFAIK all human societies need to enforce certain virtues, such as not murdering and not stealing, by force and the threat of force.

By: Nachum

Nachum — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 04:04:52 +0000

Ori, it was Dinesh D’Souza who pointed out, shortly after 9/11, that a society which must enforce religion and virtue by force is not, by definition, a religious or virtuous society. (D’Souza himself seems to have completely reversed himself on the point, but it remains true.) I’m sure- I hope- that in a Messianic age, there will be no need for a Sanhedrin to enforce halacha through capital or corporeal punishment. Like you, I fear the alternative.

By: Ori Pomerantz

Ori Pomerantz — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:52:10 +0000

Nachum, isn’t there an inherent contradiction between personal freedoms (as practiced in modern western societies, such as Israel) and Halacha (which requires a Jewish society to enforce it)? I’d assume that a Halachic state would do #1, ignoring personal freedoms - that’s the reason I will not live in such a state.

By: Bob Miller

Bob Miller — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:52:13 +0000

Nachum,
By “State” I meant the sitting government acting for the State. If the State had a constitution, I’d include that, too.

By: Nachum

Nachum — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:01:17 +0000

APOV, one good reason is that I’m an optimist. Another is that religious Jews already account for a quarter to a third of the population. That’s not far to go until a majority.

Bob, a “State” is a legal construct. It does not approve or disapprove, etc. etc. I am talking actual halacha- the institutions of the government keeping, say, Shabbos and kashrus. What more that can be done that doesn’t infringe on personal freedoms (which would, of course, require a whole different paradigm)?

So let’s see: 2,3,5,6,8 definitely. 1 should not be necessary, of course. 4 and 7 are not necessary (see “picking up the trash” above).

By: Bob Miller

Bob Miller — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:27:34 +0000

Are Nachum Lamm’s words “pretty halachic already” meant to imply that:
1. The State generally enforces halacha in society in the manner prescribed by Torah?
2. The State falls into a category defined in halacha?
3. The State uses terminology derived from halacha?
4. The State generally reveres, consults with, and follows experts in halacha?
5. The State allows halacha to exist in some form in some parts of society?
6. The State is not against halacha in principle?
7. The State generally uses halacha to guide its domestic and foreign policy?
8. The State is not willing to openly reject all of halacha?

By: Ori Pomerantz

Ori Pomerantz — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:50:21 +0000

Without significant cultural changes, current demographic trends are likely to continue. This means that in a couple of generations Israel will be mostly populated by Charedim, Datiim-Leumiim, and Arabs.

If APOV’s opinions are at all common, it would behoove young Chilonim to either fight this trend or leave the country.

By: APOV

APOV — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 05:11:48 +0000

” Every reason ” . Please share with us one ( or two ) .

” pretty halachic ” . That is precisely the difference between halachic and non-halachic .

We would in fact be obligated to enforce all and any halacha through any means permissible including cherem Knosos and malkos , as was always the case throughout our post churban history whenever we were in a position to do so ( many gentile authorities throughout golus did not mix in to these issues )[ these do not include things that need beis din hagodol].How about removing a child from the care of parents to ensure a Halachic upbringing ?

By: Nachum Lamm

Nachum Lamm — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:39:02 +0000

APOV, I have every reason to believe it will happen “before Mashiach.” In fact, I imagine Mashiach will *then* come. If you wish it to be different, go right ahead.

A state run according to halacha? How so? Is there a halachic way to pick up the trash? Or do you mean executing mechaleli shabbos? Apart from that, the State is pretty halachic already.

I also hope you realize that “individual soldiers” do nothing, as individuals, if they don’t have an army. And an army does nothing without the infrastructure of a government and state supporting it.

By: APOV

APOV — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:40:40 +0000

Halevai is exactly my point . There is every reason to assume that this will never happen ( until Moshiach comes ) .
Also , what do you mean by religious government ? Based on halacha ? Changing most if not all the principles and laws that are currently in place ? ( even without getting into the ” modern civil librties compatibiliy with halacha ” debate ) . Do you realize that unless every resident became religious ( halevai ) , This government would be dealing with enormous and probably insurmountable obstacles .
As to your other point .If you were to continue with your logic of what wouldnt be if not for somthing else you are starting a dangerous line of reasoning . Even so there probably is some kind of chiyuv hakoras hatov as far back as possible , it simply cannot compare at all with the person or institution ( in our case the individual soldiers and the IDF ) that actually provide the benefit .

By: Nachum

Nachum — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:25:09 +0000

Who says I disagree with any of the points? I disagree with you.

“Deliberately ense” may be the most charitabe way to put it. You do realize that “individual soldiers” wouldn’t exist without the IDF, and the IDF wouldn’t exist without the State, right? “Government” has nothing to do with it. Governments change all the time. One day, halevai, there’ll be a religious government. Would you be opposed to that? (There will be those who are; I ask for information.)

By: Jewish Observer

Jewish Observer — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:20:34 +0000

“APOV, your views are shocking”

- I think he is deliberately benig dense, to spur conversation

By: APOV

APOV — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 05:08:55 +0000

Nachum , I most certainly do have Hakaras Hatov ( though more towards the IDF or even each individual soldier than towards the Government as a whole ). There is nothing to indicate in anything I’ve written to the contrary .
Anything Ive said pertains solely to the issue at hand , namely the importance ( or lack thereof ) of the Medina with regard to Klal Yisrael’s continued survival ,vitality and growth .
once again , Please try to address some of the points being made ( as opposed to my spelling ,ignorance and lack of middos ) .

By: Nachum

Nachum — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:46:27 +0000

APOV, your views are shocking, but even more so considering that you live in Israel and don’t have the deep hakaras hatov someone whose very life depends on the State should have.

By: Ori Pomerantz

Ori Pomerantz — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 02:40:01 +0000

SM: But that does not prevent Medinat Yisrael from fulfilling the purpose of being a place that Jews can go to when they cannot go anywhere else. And if that should happen again (lo aylenu) then everyone will be a Zionist.

Ori: Yes, but that’s not a valid argument because worse case hypotheticals work both ways. If Israel was the only place to flee to, everybody would be a Zionist. OTOH, if Israel had to be evacuated (chas veshalom - but it could happen if Iran is not stopped, or if Al Qaeda manages to buy an atom bomb from Pakistan or the former USSR), nobody would be a Zionist.

We lost a third of the world’s Jews in Galut during the holocaust. We also lost a third of the world’s Jews in Israel during the rebellion against the Romans. Unless I misunderstand history, this means neither is inherently safe. Which is more likely in this day and age is a question for prophets, and I hope I’m not stupid enough to pretend to be one.

By: APOV

APOV — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:55:51 +0000

SM , first of all , Jews are in fact persecuted in the land of Israel .Just ask the Sefardim ( even secular ) , chareidim , national religious and many others .Its worse because the persecution is done by Jews .
Second , if lo aleinu a 1939 should CH’vsh happen again , who’s to say we will be safe in Israel ?! Just ask all the resident’s of the North how safe they feel from outside aggresion ( not to compare of course with the Holocaust ) .
Ain lonu al me lishon ela avinu shabishomayim . He is to be found in America as well !

By: APOV

APOV — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:42:45 +0000

” I don’t feel like arguing with someone who thinks he knows enough about Israel to condemn it out of hand and yet doesn’t know how to spell “Herzl.” ” .
Very lame way of not adressing any of the issue’s .
Rabbi Rosenblum I’m sure , can spell Herzl , so perhaps you can at least adress some of his point’s .
I don’t condemn it ” out of hand ” . I live there and I do recognise that there may be some good ( though rarely without an ulterior motive far removed from Torah or even Judaism ) . My point was its lack of importance in the big picture that Netzach Yisrael represents ( unless you count the introduction of falafel ) . [ really Reb Nachum , my ability to spell has no bearing on what I know or don't know about Israel ] .
Also , why is Aguda being dragged into this ? Let’s discuss the Medina .

By: SM

SM — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 23:19:46 +0000

The ability to say that Zionism (of any description or type) has failed is wholly dependent on there not being government ordered persecution of Jews in any country where Jews live.

Those who want to bet the Jewish future on that never happening again should think hard and then repent.

The non-Zionist orthodox world is poor at thinking in these terms - as it was pre 1939. But that does not prevent Medinat Yisrael from fulfilling the purpose of being a place that Jews can go to when they cannot go anywhere else. And if that should happen again (lo aylenu) then everyone will be a Zionist.

By: Menachem Lipkin

Menachem Lipkin — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:48:24 +0000

It’s a testament to the rose-colored-glasses industry that so many of you see US Jewery as some sort of success story. Yes, orthodoxy in America has come back from the brink of extinction, but more than 90% of American Jews are not Shomrei Torah Umitzvos. The vast majority of them know zilch. For all the evils that you folks assign to the Medina, over 90% of the Jews here have a Pesach sedar and light Chanuka candles, our national holidays are Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Succos, Pesach and Shavuos. Yes, relative to the state of Judaism in the rest of the world, this is a “Triumph of Survival”. Maybe if some of you proverbial rock throwers would get out of your glass houses and become constructive members of this society the things you bellyache about would improve.

By: HILLEL

HILLEL — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:27:44 +0000

Another idol bites the dust!

By: Nachum Lamm

Nachum Lamm — Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:53:28 +0000

“Hertzl , Ben Gurion , Ben Yehuda , Rabin , Peres ,Sharon ,
chilul Shabbos , yaldei Tehran , desecration of kvarim ,rampant coruption ,other unmentionable allegations”

Yup, that sums up Israel perfectly. We can do just fine without it, you’re right.

You know what? You go ahead and be just fine without it. I don’t feel like arguing with someone who thinks he knows enough about Israel to condemn it out of hand and yet doesn’t know how to spell “Herzl.”

Bob, excluding educational institutions, yeshivos and the like? Very, very few. That’s why this whole WJC temptest is such a joke.