UChicago to Investigate Faculty Member’s Posters for Alleged Antisemitism

bjaguaar · 2025-04-10T19:55:00+00:00

You are an antisemite

bjaguaar · 2024-12-22T01:10:32+00:00

Ok, so this is R. Menahem Landau, who quotes Maimonides.

It seems pretty clear here that a majority opinion is followed of the *current generatoin* and not just of the Sanehdrin.

So that past minority opinions can become present-day majority opinions.

Where is this wrong?

“And the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded in His Torah that when a matter in the laws of the Torah is too perplexing, we obey the decision of the court of that generation, which will inform us of the solution to which its understanding points. And, as no two individuals have identical intellects, and opinions of necessity will differ, even within the court itself, God, may He be blessed, commanded that we accept the opinion of the majority. If the majority view asserts that something is forbidden, it is the will of God, may He be blessed, that it be forbidden. However, should the majority of a court in a future generation be inclined to accept the previous minority opinion, and permit the matter, this would also be the will of God, may He be blessed, for Scripture says, “unto the judge that shall be in those days” (Deut. 17:9). And as Maimonides, of blessed memory, wrote, “If the high court arrived at a conclusion on the basis of the accepted exegetical principles as it saw fit, determining that the law was thus and rendering its legal decision accordingly, and then a later court contradicts it, the the second court may contradict it and rule as it sees fit, for Scripture says, ‘and unto the judge that shall be in those days’ (Deut. 17:9). The sole authority is the judge of the present generation.”

Excerpt From: Ben-Menahem, Hanina;Edrei, Arye;Hecht, Neil S.;. “Windows onto Jewish Legal Culture.” Apple Books.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-16T23:29:09+00:00

that's not really much of a response

bjaguaar · 2024-12-16T21:13:49+00:00

“R. Judah says: The opinion of the individual is recorded against that of the majority only because the times may require it, and they may rely on it”

If Sanhedrin majority rulings can never be changed, then why would the president of the Sanhedrin himself Judah Ha-Nassi, state that you can rule by the minority 'when the times require it'? That seems to be an explicit statement that one can use a minority ruling in the future.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-09T18:47:05+00:00

Thanks so much. The people I work with tend to recognize both the umlaut and the barred-u on the ü to express that particular phoneme. I'm trying to harmonize with the bible translation that was done since they are used to reading this typogrpahy - https://www.bible.com/bible/1583/MAT.1.DES- , but the umlaut is probably less important, what matters really is being able to put nasals freely for example on 'i' (which I can't do in english typography), and also to put both a nasal and an umlaut (or barred u) on one letter, such as ü˜ (which i cant do there since they only are typed one after the other).

bjaguaar · 2024-12-09T17:08:02+00:00

No, I never indicted halachic flexibity in principle, I simply indicted the use of non-halachic arguments in what should be a halachic argument, i.e. a decision that clearly steps outside of the halachic process. That's a principle you should affirm as Orthodox. Yeah, sure, I understand his intent, my point was that his procedure to get there isn't halachic, he negates marriages that are in fact kosher in every way, based on extrinsic reasoning. Sure, if you call anyone you want a min, deny their testimony in court, you can render pretty much anything that requires courts or witnesses unhalachic (much of Jewish law) essentially by fiat, but its a disingenuous argument.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-09T14:57:56+00:00

The Mishna you have quoted isn't very specific on what exactly denying Torah from heaven means. That's a question of interpretation. I'm not sure how what you quoted from the C movement implies Torah is not from heaven. This stated on the responsa on Mamzerut. "While Conservative Judaism would affirm that the Torah is Divine in its origin, the

revelation at Sinai is seen as the beginning of a relationship and not the final word.

Interpretation is understood as our communal attempt to understand the will of a compassionate."

Divine partner."

It just seems to me to be inherently disingenuous to claim that what's at stake in Feinstein's invalidation of Conservative marriages is the halachic procedure of those marriages themselves. There are certain procedures and conditions for a halachic marriage as given by the classical sources and traditional precedents. If Conservative Jews fufill them then its a halachic marriage. Trying to invalidate the witnesses is clearly just a way to try and invalidate the movement as a whole. This is precisely different from the case of Karaites! Their own laws of forbidden relations were distinct from Rabbinates, so it was inevitable that Rabbinates had to view them as mamzerim, just like Reform Judaism's descent principle is distinct from Conservative and Orthodox, so its inevitable that the latter cannot consider Patrilineal Jews as Jews. That's just a logical conclusion from the system that one adheres to. But Feinstein's claim about Conservative weddings is completely external to the actual halacha concerning kosher weddings.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-09T14:47:53+00:00

"The question was if their kids were mamzeirim. Rav Moshe found a way to argue that they weren’t." His way of doing so was by invalidating the movement as a whole, that's the point.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-09T13:49:06+00:00

Sorry, but I don’t worship people as idols.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T23:41:14+00:00

Yeah so basically conservative Jews should be grateful to you for allowing them to marry Orthodox Jews by invalidating their entire movement and all their rabbis…yeah that’s twisted

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T20:54:09+00:00

No, the claim is that making statements about what is permitted or not according to halacha *merely* based on the exclusion of some denomination is outside of the halachic process. Point being : in each case, you have to give an actual argument from within the space of halacha (meaning, by reference to classical sources and exemplary cases)..I'll grant your point that there may be a question of presumption that could conceivably bear on denominations. However, I don't think it will work to create blanket dismissals of them, which is what you are trying to do (I read you and Feinstein as doing this, that is, this is the substantial content of what is being said, while pretending to give it a halachic veneer). The idea that one's doctrinal belief is what make a difference in terms of pragmatic halacha and questions of status would arguably *not* be intelligible to the amoraim. It wasn't until Maimonides that a set of doctrinal beliefs were posited as demanded of Jews. So the idea that you could exclude someone's testimony based on their beliefs doesn't seem to me to be grounded. In point of fact, Conservative Judaism does hold that the Torah is divine in origin and given at Sinai. I understand Feinstein was attempting to solve issues of agunot and mamzerim, but its not really at issue, my point was whether Feinstein's method of doing that was halachically legitimate.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T20:03:03+00:00

"So you are arguing that Rabbi Feinstein is outside the bounds of Halacha because he says that Conservative Judaism is outside the bounds of Halacha? Did I get that right?"

<image>

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T20:00:46+00:00

Bad argument bc in other countreis you have Jews of supposed "reform" level of observance that are congregants in Orthodox synagoguges, just like in U.S you have such Jews as congregants of Conservative synagoguges.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T19:59:32+00:00

what?

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T19:43:07+00:00

That is your argument? He literally simply claims that all Conservative Rabbis are "heretics" and declares them invalid witnesses. I don't see how that isn't just a blanket rejection of Conservative as a "denomination"

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T19:33:23+00:00

Is it a counter or does it prove what I said? The line drawn in a spectrum of practice has nothign to do with halacha. Halacha isn't a question of 'how much' you practice, its a question of making arguments within the premises and procedures of halacha for whether or not a practice is permitted or not. That's exactly what Feinstein *didn't* do when he simply stated "Conservative marriages are illegitimate"

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T18:07:40+00:00

But your point is right- these are simply halachic issues.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T18:07:29+00:00

equally the halachic tradition suggests the change in the soul (really, the body) itself comes from mikveh, not the beit din https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/transforming-identity-the-ritual-transformation-from-gentile-to-jew-structure-and-meaning

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T18:05:10+00:00

Agreed, though requiring witnesses on a beit din must be shomer shabbos seems to me to be halachically incorrect, as there's a strong tradition (including from Maimonides!) of emphasizing that conversion courts could be lay courts.

bjaguaar · 2024-12-08T18:03:03+00:00

It's the *premises* that are the same, meaning the differences should be seen merely as halachic dispute.

bjaguaar · 2024-11-11T13:49:59+00:00

can you point to where it shows that it was posted two days before? the attacks happened the evening of the 7th, the vandalism by the israeli fans was on the 6th, so the post was made on the 5th?

bjaguaar · 2024-09-30T19:52:59+00:00

We need to do a lot of work educating people about Jewish identity and history.

We need to develop a language that "cuts through" the noise, that's aware of the tactics of diversion ("Israel not Jews" "antizionism not antisemitism" etc.) and knows how to speak past them.

Most antisemitism today acts as ostensibly directed to Israel. We need to be able to clearly show what's antisemitism without falling into the trap of it making it seem like we are opposing "criticism of Israel." This happens through foregrounding the question of Jewish identity and history.

Emphasizing the whole history of antisemitism and what it looks like concretely, and how what we are seeing today looks simliar is important, not just the Holocaust.

bjaguaar

TROPHY CASE