It would be a relief in many ways to know what G-d wants me to do, it would help me guide my life. However, wanting to know an answer does not mean that you know it. And in this case, I really don’t want to lose my wife. I’d need very strong evidence to change my mind about that.

It is not I who analogized the halakhic process to development of other legal systems, it was Dr. Lamm.

My point is that the analogy is a false one. When secular legal systems want to change, they are straightforward about it. No legal scholar is going to deny that slavery was a legal institution in America circa 1787 (or for that matter 1860). The country changed its mind — in this particular case with tremendous upheavel leading to civil war. But there was no pretense of using legal technicalities to update the law in light of new moral sensitivities.

You ipse dixit that there is no nafka mina I do not accept — there are plenty of them.

And I am still waiting for a Talmudic source as the alternative to mishum eivah.

A non-Jew is not only not obligated to keep Shabbos, he is forbidden to do so. Furthermore, he can keep the 7 mitzvos bnei Noach and be considered one of the Chassidei Umos ha Olam — he can be completely righteous in God’s eyes without keeping Shabbos. So there is no particular reason to believe that a non-Jew might one day convert and keep Shabbos. Might happen, might not.

Not so a “non-religious” Jew, who is obligated to keep Shabbos, and we can always hope that deep down he may be inspired to return to the Torah which is the heritage of the Jewish people.

Ori (re: #25),

Of course G-d wants you to observe Halachah! The question is if you want to observe Halachah, and I’m far from convinced that the answer is no.

I live in the Northeast, by the way, and space is not a problem. It would do my kids good to sleep on the floor and learn to appreciate the mitzvah of “hachnasas orchim”.

yy

No need for that assumption. Yom Kippur can’t fall out on a Sunday

Next, as far as big dramas go,comes Noach (not Feldman!). There are a number of fascinating Rashy’s that reveal that Noach wasn’t so pure after all. A few times he didn’t 100% heed to G-d’s instructions, but factored in his own morality. Like when he was supposed to reproach the rabble rousers and enter the Ark. Then there was the way he reacted to the family member who maimed him during his drunkeness by cursing him. Mankind, Noach’s children, have never stopped paying the price for that egregarious act of doing one’s OWN morality.

Then comes Avraham. His WHOLE life was about learning morality — *on G-d’s terms* and, slowly but surely, adapting his sensitivities to it. You thought this only began when he argued about the Destruction of Sdom and lost? Or when he tried to fulfill that terrible, horrible Command to sacrifice Isaac? Nope. It actually began with his very first Mitzvah: Lech-lcha. G-d tells him to pilgrimage, to leave “home” forever, and he’ll be rewarded accordingly. Yet the verse tells us he did what G-d said not out of any interest in that reward but merely because it was “as G-d Commanded.”

The rest is history.

Yes, Ori, on Sunday every faithful Jew would do his very best to save every single human being. Asumming, that it is, it wan’t Yom Kippur!

yy: We are complex beings, with many experiences that obstruct our ability to act on the truth we know.

Ori: I think this is the point I’m having such difficulty with - having rules that contradict normal human morality (which I think is innate, we can argue about that if you disagree), and believing that those rules are the true morality and everything else is only good as much as it conforms to them.

Logically, I understand that this is implicit in believing that:

1. G-d exists.
2. G-d is good.
3. You have a copy of the rules G-d gave.

Emotionally, this concept is so foreign to me it’s hard to even think about its implications.

yy: Ultimately, of course, this really only works if one truly believes what that Rav told me about trusting that it is G-d and only G-d who takes lives. Certainly when no human being intervenes.

Ori: Yet if the same rubble pile happened on Sunday, we wouldn’t think for a moment that G-d wanted to kill the gentile - we’d all be there with our shovels, digging him/her out.

Where did you read that Eytan allowed that “Boteach accords with normative belief?” I don’t believe he said any such thing? Did I miss those words in his post or do believe that he inferred it?

I wonder about the Eytan Kobre’s judgment however, when he criticizes R’ Lamm as not according “with normative Orthodox Jewish belief.” and yet allowing that Boteach does accord with normative belief.

Let me stress from the outset that your interest in what *I* would do is a quite seperate issue from appreciating the integrity of Torah law. We are complex beings, with many experiences that obstruct our ability to act on the truth we know. As “Jew” noted (#14, 15), this is indeed one topic that gets into everyone’s craw. So in all honesty, let us distinguish between what we MIGHT do vs. what is the truly CORRECT thing to do.

As a little example, I was once teaching high level English to a group of secular Israeli teenagers, discussing an article about the morality of a mother carrying a fetus that was expected to die within 2 weeks. Should she be able donate the live, severely deformed newborn to science? The class was divided. So we began to consider the issue on a scale of higher lifespan expectation; like 6 months, a year, 2 years, etc. EVERYone conlcuded that it all boils down to when we fix that actual human life takes place. Once that pt is reached, all agreed that an inestimable Gift had been given that no human has the right to forfeit, no matter how lofty the theoretical alternative.

Still — go and say that to a mother (like the one in the article was about to be) who gave birth to a terribly deformed “vegatable” who has convinced herself that giving his eyes, kidneys and heart to science somehow makes the whole ordeal worthwhile!!

So too, I can tell you that I have had the honor of knowing and loving many wonderful gentiles and respectively do not know how I’d react at the moment of seeing one of them struggling underneath a pile of rubble on Shabbos. Yet I do know — as a faithful and somewhat learned Jew — that it would not be right, in the ultimate scheme of things, for me to use the intervening medicine, as it were, of desecrating Shabbos to save them (i.e. 2000 yrs ago when that Halacha had yet to recieive political emmendations).

Ultimately, of course, this really only works if one truly believes what that Rav told me about trusting that it is G-d and only G-d who takes lives. Certainly when no human being intervenes.

As to how a non-Shabbos committed Jew qualifies for being saved vs. a gentile who might be contemplating conversion, I can only repeat what others have tried to share with you on a Hlachic plane about the mystically wondrous power of the Jewish soul to truly want Mitzvos even as he conciously fights them. That does NOT mean H’ necessarily loves him more. To die under a Shabbos rubble as a faithful goy might earn a far greater Eden than a rebellious Jew will get.

Hence, once again, the issue is not about evaluating the ultimate worth of lives, but about honoring Shabbos.

That was not why I invoked Ziuf ha Torah. I was negating apologetics which often descend into Ziuf ha Torah.

And BTW, can you offer any justification for this thought:

“Why, then, can you not be as generous to Jewish law, and appreciate that certain biblical laws are unenforceable in practical terms, because all legal systems — including Jewish law — do not simply dump their axiomatic bases but develop them. Why not admire scholars of Jewish law who use various legal technicalities to preserve the text of the original law in its essence, and yet make sure that appropriate changes would be made in accordance with new moral sensitivities?”

Assuming the writer really meant what he wrote (which some have claimed otherwise), is this Orthodoxy?

And BTW, apart from whatever hashkafic problems there are with this, as an analogy it is dead wrong.

The U.S Constitution originally provided for slavery. Slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person, and the right to import slaves was protected until a certain date. (1820 I believe.) In retrospect, quite embarassing, morally speaking.

Yet how was this changed? Through scholarly sophistry? No, through a Constitutional Amendment (or perhaps Amendments).

Makes the asserted process of “scholars of Jewish law who use various legal technicalities” to ” make sure that appropriate changes would be made in accordance with new moral sensitivities” seem rather intellectually dishonest, no?

Your argument that “whatever the rationale, that offers no practical halakhic ramification today” is simply incorrect. There are many scenarios one can imagine (one of which I even discussed on a prior thread — the issue of organ donation, which involves other issurim) which do not involve eivah.

RSZA’s psak related to Shaarei Tzedek Hospital — a world famous institution located in the capital of Israel. That does not exhaust the possible scenarios that are halakha le maaseh.

Perhaps you missed where Eytan wrote, “In my intended Part II of this post, I hope to share a differing perspective on the subject.” How do you know what he’ll say that caused you to make all these allegations against him?

Furthermore, someone as opinionated and thoughtful as you ought to know better than to merely state: “Dr. Lamm’s approach is one valid one” and refuse to explain why. I believe Mr. Kobre deserves a bit more respect than you’ve shown him.

What next? Are we now going to censor the gemara in Avodah Zara that discusses mishum eivah? Sorry, not very enlightened.

Harry, when you have calmed down, could you please explain the Gemara in Sanhedrin I cited above? As a Jew I feel discriminated against. Is my life less valuable than a goy? Why must I give up my life to avoid idolatry, when he does not? Really, you think God cares so much? Especially when a coerced act of idolatry is really an empty exercise (which is why in fact Rava holds one is patur, but that is another story).

As part of my spiritual housecleaning this month, I hereby give my absolute and total forgiveness to anyone who has claimed to be my fan.

Such people’s misplaced priorities in becoming my fans must have been due to factors outside their control.

Instead of writing words that will enlighten and inspire the nations to the word of God you are making a mockery of the Torah with essays like this.”

Apparently we are living in a post-enlightenment age.

After reading the mind-numbing quantity of absolute distortions that SB has written, I agree with many writers on this forum that even responding to his nonsense — and referring to him as a “Rabbi” — creates some level of credibility that is not appropriate. However, “Torah hee, v’lilmod anu tzrichim” so the request for sources shouldn’t be left unanswered.

There are many, and I would suggest that our learned moderator, Rabbi Adlerstein, catalog them. But here are a few that are immediately available to me.

Ramchal in Derech HaShem Section 2, Chapter 4 discusses the issue of the differences between the Jewish nation and the other seventy nations. The entire chapter should be studied, but in paragraph 5 he discusses the chance given to the nations to accept the Torah, as did the Jewish nation, thereby elevating itself from the lower spiritual state caused by Adam’s sin. After all other nations rejected this last opportunity, “It still remained possible for any individual… to convert and enter, through his personal free choice, under the ‘tree’ of Avraham Avinu,” which enables ones descendants to be part of the elevated level discussed in the first part of that chapter.

You should also see paragraph 7, about the difference between the Jewish souls and non-Jewish souls in the World To Come, as well as paragraph 9. (I refraining from providing direct quotes on a google-searchable blog :-).)

The Maharal in Netzach Yisrael is “peppered” with sources to refute SB. I will list a few, which also reference explicit verses in the Torah. (These verses are one of the reasons that X-tian theology, which believes in the Divinity of the Torah, needed to render the Jewish people “unchosen, ” and in fact Netzach Yisrael was written to refute that claim.)

Entire Ch. 2, Ch. 10 (paragraph beginning “vod tavin”), Ch. 11 fist part, and also the last part of the chapter. (For verses in the Torah, see Devarim 7:6, 14:1,2; Shemot 4:22, and commentaries.) There are many other sources in Netzach, as well as in Gevuros HaShem.

The thesis is fundamental to Judaism and what our sources teach us is clear. (In stating otherwise, SB reveals either his complete ignorance, or his willingness to lie in order to find favor in the eyes of his readers.) However, we need to think carefully about how to present this core belief in an egalitarian world. While I don’t have an answer, I am sure that the pages of the popular press is NOT the forum.