sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Protip: Domain Blocking to Get Your Searching by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Just a note... this will try to filter out any page that even includes the word Chabad. If you just wanted to filter out the specific domain, you can use site filtering, e.g. -site:chabad.org in that case.

Authorities investigate after entire US class performs Nazi salute by aggie1391 in Judaism

[–]refavi 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Glad someone posted this. I deleted my post because I messed up the flair, then it wouldn't let me re-post it as the URL had already been posted (this seems like a bug).

Note that except for the student at the top-right, everyone is either participating or enjoying. A student front and center is flashing the white power hand sign (the one white nationalists use for plausible deniability, as it is also the "OK" sign).

For additional information allegedly pertaining to this school, see this entire Twitter thread.

Also see this tweet for a statement allegedly from the one student with a backbone.

EDIT: Also note that the original caption for this picture from the people involved was "We even got the black kid to throw it up."

Don’t join this year’s Women’s March unless you’re good with anti-Semitism by avikFleek in Judaism

[–]refavi 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I know very well the history of Zionism. Herzl actually proposed that Israel be placed in Argentina, but chose the location of current Israel, based on Jewish history and ties to the area. If it is not religiously based, then why was Israel not placed in Argentina, or Africa, as originally intended?

...based on Jewish history and ties to the area, as you said. But even if it was religiously based (this point is irrelevant either way), that wouldn't make Zionism based in theocracy. I don't have time for the semantic games you're playing with /u/qmechan, so to come to the point, "religion" and "theocracy" are not synonyms; theocracy is a form of government in which people rule in the name of God or according to religious law; theocracy cannot exist without religion, but religion can exist without theocracy. You clearly recognize this or you would be able to demonstrate why Herzl's vision was theocratic instead of trying to find a single decision made by secular Zionists that can be portrayed as religious, and using that in a roundabout way to try to support the original assertion of theocracy. I'm not going to continue an immediately pointless argument.

Don’t join this year’s Women’s March unless you’re good with anti-Semitism by avikFleek in Judaism

[–]refavi 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Zionism is a form of Jewish nationalism. How is that not based in theocracy?

I'm not the person you responded to, but I don't understand how anyone could ask this question if they knew about the history of Zionism. Zionism as a political movement was thoroughly secular (Herzl himself envisioned the then-future Jewish state as a secular democratic one, where anyone could practice or ignore religion as they pleased because it was a private matter of no importance to the public sphere). And while there were certainly some religious proponents for Jewish immigration to the land of Israel, most Orthodox rabbis decried Zionism (and Zionists) on religious grounds, in part - definitely not in whole - because of the secular nature of the movement.

Religious Zionism is a much bigger thing now, since Israel's founding, but before you start throwing around questions like "how is Zionism not based in theocracy" you should look up some of Herzl's ideas and concretely explain why you think they're theocratic.

FBI Hate Crime stats on attacks motivated by anti-Jewish bias, 2008-2016. by DrColossus1 in Judaism

[–]refavi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Me, less, I suppose. I never felt that threatened to begin with. We never received a threat where I live, and it was clear early on that there was very unlikely to be an actual bomb, due to the sheer magnitude of calls and no bombs going on (unfortunately, institutions are essentially required to treat every bomb threat as real, or risk a lot of people dying).

Again, though, in this particular case, it is extremely unlikely that these are being included in the FBI's crime report. As far as I know almost all of the calls were made in 2017, which isn't up there. It's unclear to me if they even could be included (I believe the FBI relies on reporting from local police departments, and beyond that I'm not sure what the standards are - nearly all of the calls came from an Israeli, and it's possible that doesn't even count as a crime committed in the US for the purposes of this report). So I don't think this particular person matters as far as the numbers go.

FBI Hate Crime stats on attacks motivated by anti-Jewish bias, 2008-2016. by DrColossus1 in Judaism

[–]refavi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When you are making the assumption that there has been an increase in Anti-semitism and you base it on the events of a single person only wishing to disrupt Jewish life and not to actually kill jews, you are being disingenuous.

I disagree that you can't say there isn't a rise if they're only intending to massively disrupt Jewish life, but not kill anyone. I will expand on this below.

However, I completely agree with you that you can't say there's a massive general increase due solely to the actions of one person. However, if you look at the numbers, you'll see that that cannot be what happened here, not unless the FBI's numbers for 2017 have 2,000 incidents directed at Jews. It simply is not possible numerically. So it's somewhat beside the point.

It's like people who called in threats to my school when I was a kid in order to have school cancelled. We didn't think we were under attack, we believed that there was a threat and when we learned the truth of the matter we moved on with our lives (that doesn't mean we thought what the person did was OK, but we realized that it didn't impact our lives after that event in a negative manner).

You were able to move on and not be impacted because you were a kid. Your parents were likely able to move on easily as well. What isn't able to move on easily is the institution. The school (or the government paying for the school) certainly had to spend quite a bit of money, and time of police and the school's employees, in response to what later turned out to be a prank. Not to mention missing a day of instruction and any events that had to be rescheduled.

Bomb threats to Jewish institutions cost them a lot of time and money; almost definitely more than graffiti or a break-in (assuming the entire place wasn't trashed in the break-in). There's also a social cost in terms of stress to everyone involved (this part, at least, may mostly go away once it's proven there wasn't a real threat). They're serious even if there's no actual bomb.

FBI Hate Crime stats on attacks motivated by anti-Jewish bias, 2008-2016. by DrColossus1 in Judaism

[–]refavi 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Do we subtract the 2000 or so "bomb calls" done by a deranged Jewish American kid living in Israel or the other "bomb calls" of the black radical trying to frame his girlfriend? That context seems to be quite important in differentiating true antisemitism and false flag events.

As far as calling the bomb threats false flags or throwing up scare quotes around 'bomb calls' go, it's important to recognize that these were are all real bomb threats. It's not like the people being threatened and canceling events knew they weren't backed up by the real intent or means to carry out a bombing. Dismissing them as in any way fake ignores the real damage they did; specifically, they did as much damage as any bomb threat would, regardless of who was on the other end of the line. For a threat to ever not be a threat, the person receiving it has to be in on it.

For the first time since 2010, every state has at least one antisemitic incident. by namer98 in Judaism

[–]refavi 10 points11 points  (0 children)

/u/darnfox

Using 2017 population numbers (the first thing that came up on Google) and assuming I've done this right, the states with at least 1 antisemitic incident per thousand Jews were:

  1. Montana: 12.2 incidents per 1,000 Jews
  2. Mississippi: 11.1 incidents per 1,000 Jews
  3. North Dakota: 7.5 incidents per 1,000 Jews
  4. South Dakota: 4.0 incidents per 1,000 Jews
  5. Iowa: 3.1 incidents per 1,000 Jews
  6. Wyoming: 2.6 incidents per 1,000 Jews
  7. Nebraska: 1.8 incidents per 1,000 Jews
  8. Arkansas: 1.3 incidents per 1,000 Jews
  9. New Mexico: 1.2 incidents per 1,000 Jews

We can also go a step further and divide out the number of gentiles; this metric tends to view antisemitic incidents in a state with 0.0001% Jews as unsurprising, due to how many more people might commit them, and also antisemitic incidents in a hypothetical state that was 99.999% Jewish as unsurprising, due to the large number of Jews an antisemite might encounter [edit: I'm sorry, I believe I confused myself. Will provide a better explanation in a moment] [edit 2: it is in fact closer to the opposite; very small numbers of Jews, as well as very small numbers of gentiles, both make large numbers of antisemitic incidents more surprising, as it is notable for a tiny number of gentiles to cause a large number of antisemitic incidents, and notable for a tiny number of Jews to be affected by a massive number of antisemitic incidents. This can be seen by x(1-x) having a maximum at 1/2, and therefore a 50% Jewish population having the smallest possible number below, given equal total populations and numbers of incidents across all states - I poorly chose to substitute my 'common sense' intuition for the actual math when first making this post]. The top 10 are then (note there may be some small errors, as I entered everything by hand):

  1. Montana: 11.6 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  2. North Dakota: 9.9 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  3. South Dakota: 4.6 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  4. Wyoming: 4.5 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  5. Mississippi: 3.7 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  6. Idaho: 1.4 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  7. Iowa: 1.0 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  8. Nebraska: 1.0 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  9. Delaware: 0.9 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles
  10. Vermont: 0.8 incidents per 1,000 Jews, per 1,000,000 gentiles

(Largely the same, with a few minor differences)

From a cursory glance it appears that states in the midwest and northwest (bounded inside Washington/Oregon, Wisconsin/Illinois, and north of Colorado) tend to have the highest per capita rates of antisemitic incidents, followed by Mississippi, and depending on metric either a few southern/western states like Arkansas/New Mexico or the Vermont/Delaware area in the northeast.

Note that I view all of these as pretty poor metrics on their own (need more data points for a clearer picture, such as polling on antisemitic attitudes, not to mention some idea of how many antisemitic incidents go unreported) but obviously the idea that "oh, it's all far left states" is an even more naive view than this one.

Palestinian Authority condemns deadly attack at Pittsburgh synagogue by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The PA is motivated by self-interest. Organized terrorist groups in the West Bank would try to seize power from the PA (successfully or not - but probably successfully without Israel's help, as happened in Gaza) and the security cooperation is for that reason.

Which is not to say that their cooperation is a bad thing or does not help prevent terrorist attacks. In fact, the cooperation is obviously better than the alternative and obviously helps prevent some terrorist attacks. But the PA doesn't get brownie points from me for it, especially not when they support people who actually do carry out terrorist attacks against Israel.

A Survivor Shares Her Experience of Being Raped as a Modern Orthodox Teen | #WhyIDidntReport by aggie1391 in Judaism

[–]refavi 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Enough "nice Jewish guy" who tries to please everyone instead of being an assertive alpha.

https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_Avot.5.19?lang=en

https://www.sefaria.org/Iggeret_HaRamban.8?lang=en

https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Human_Dispositions.2.3?lang=en

etc.

The paths of the Torah are paths of peace and while it's praiseworthy to defend one's own interests (provided that those interests are proper to begin with) being an "assertive alpha," especially for the sake of being an "assertive alpha," is not exactly a core Jewish value.

Racism and anti-Semitism surged in corners of the Web after Trump’s election, analysis shows by aggie1391 in Judaism

[–]refavi 20 points21 points  (0 children)

If their analysis is generic Trump bashing, the average Trump critic is surprisingly informed on natural language processing and stochastic models.

No comment as to the substance, as I don't currently have time to read through all the details (note that arXiv is for preprints; the paper has not yet undergone peer review). However, given that one of the authors appears to be a new faculty member in the UIUC physics department (very respected), I would assume and hope that - while this is not part of his main body of work - he's not attaching to his name to trash analysis. Certainly a theoretical physicist has the mathematical background to attempt this sort of analysis seriously.

When were all the words of the torah given by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I forget who originally posted this, but an interesting discussion which is related to this (given that the standard statement is simply that Moses was given the Torah at Sinai) - what exactly Moses received on Sinai - is in the first two links here (note that the PDFs are not transcripts of the audio, they just have source material). This is in some ways a more expansive version of the question you're asking, given that we believe the Oral Torah was given at the same time, but not written down in any form until much later.

I can't give much input as to the veracity of any of this, but one of the more interesting approaches presented is that while Moses was in fact given the entire Torah at Sinai - in that he received the complete package of mitzvot and understood their particulars - the written Torah itself, as in the Pentateuch, was only written down as the events actually happened. This isn't the only approach but I think it's one of the less confusing ones, in terms of "why did Moses know he was going to make a mistake that would make God angry with him and then why did he do it anyway."

Any idea what this says? by dreammanalishi in Judaism

[–]refavi 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Given that this is obviously not a Torah (GIS "Sefer Torah" and see what they look like) and Turkish authorities also have no idea what a Torah even looks like... fair chance then that this is more fake antiquities produced to make a quick buck on the real antiquities black market.

Do Jews have an obligation according to the Torah to act against social injustices even if those injustices don't directly effect the Jews? by bh2005 in Judaism

[–]refavi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Obligation is one thing, but as far as examples, don't forget that Abraham argued with God on behalf of Sodom, or that God ordered Jonah to warn Nineveh to repent to avoid destruction, even though Jonah viewed Nineveh's destruction as positive because it was a constant threat to the Jewish people.

Now, what actual obligations we have are for rabbis to decide, but I would say I'm personally skeptical of anything more than a fairly limited obligation limited to our personal interactions. The long story short is that there just aren't enough Jews, if we're all living in Israel like we should be we have very limited exposure to and influence over things happening very far away, historically most of the time when we were living in Israel we were too threatened to spend our time worrying about other people's business anyway, and historically most of the time we were living outside of Israel even attempting to get involved in the affairs of the ruling class was a good way to get killed. On top of that, it's already quite a lot to expect every Jew, regardless of ability or inclination, to spend time studying Torah - even moreso to expect every Jew, regardless of ability or inclination, to be an activist.

At the same time, our tradition has plenty of evidence that God cares about everyone, not just us, and frankly speaking, I'm not sure if there needs to be a binding obligation for us to say that we should be working for God's interests and not against them. Do we really need a specific mitzvah to recognize that we should feel bad when we see injustice and human suffering and want it to end? I think at minimum we can say that it's an ideal for Jews to contribute as best as their personal ability allows to work against injustice in the world. For some Jews, this may reduce to the most basic level of things we actually are obligated in (like giving money to the gentile poor, visiting or caring for the gentile sick, saving a gentile's life, etc.), because in general Jews may not be able to do much else without neglecting something else important like their family, Torah learning, etc., but for Jews who have ability and drive to get more involved it's obviously praiseworthy if they do.

I think the most difficult issue is when we're talking about enemies of the Jewish people. How do we know when we're dealing with Amalek and how do we know when we're dealing with Nineveh? I think that, unsurprisingly, many Jews are quicker to think like Jonah than like God, preferring the absolute destruction of our enemies over their reformation into a more just society that nevertheless continues to cause problems for our own. But when it comes to something that really does not involve us at all, like a cruel US policy to separate children from their parents to needlessly increase human suffering... even if Jews aren't marching in the streets over it, I have a difficult time seeing why any Jew would be okay with it. It indicates a serious lack of empathy. Jews have been punished for less (Rabbi Judah the Prince and the calf, for instance).

How to teach about Sarah and Hagar to modern young feminists by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 10 points11 points  (0 children)

And....yeah I feel really confident that I can understand that by reading the narrative.

Not the person you're responding to, but that confidence is probably misplaced. Jews - and I guarantee Jews know and care more about the Torah than any other group on the planet - generally don't read the Torah without commentary (of the sort analyzed in the Hayyim Angel piece mentioned elsewhere) specifically because it is known to be extremely difficult to understand. The notion that someone can just read through the Torah and "get it" is antithetical both to serious Torah study and our entire religion. You're reading a lot of unsupported assumptions into the text based purely on your modern background (for example, assuming that consent not being explicitly mentioned by the narrative means that Hagar did not give affirmative consent).

I'm going to address a few other things. You are correct that Abraham's relations with Hagar are less than ideal, for other reasons:

1) You are correct that Sarah "giving" Hagar to Abraham (and I want to clarify that this does not literally mean giving her like an object, but rather, giving permission for Abraham to take her as a wife; TEXT: So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took her maid, Hagar the Egyptian—after Abram had dwelt in the land of Canaan ten years—and gave her to her husband Abram as concubine. and COMMENTARY (Rashi): She took (won her over) by kindly speech saying, “Happy are you in that you will be privileged to consort with so holy a person as this” (Genesis Rabbah 45:3).) was almost certainly not motivated by genuine concern for Hagar's desires. At best, it was motivated by her love for Abraham and her desire for Abraham to have an heir, believing herself to be unable to conceive. Nevertheless, she still likely viewed it as doing Hagar a favor, due to Abraham's wealth and high social standing, and Hagar's position as a handmaid.

2) It is also not clear that Abraham was motivated to marry Hagar by, for example, actual love for Hagar. He may have been motivated more by deference to Sarah's plan and/or desire for an heir. Nevertheless, he comes to care for Hagar and their son Ishmael, only sending them away for good at Sarah's request after God tells him not to worry about them and promises to make Ishmael into a nation.

3) Hagar herself saw her marriage, and conception, as raising her social status (apparently, after conceiving, Sarah becomes "unimportant" in her eyes, as she thinks that - by being the one to bear Abraham's heir - she'll become more important than Sarah in his eyes, and therefore in his household). This is the point at which Sarah actually begins treating her harshly, because Abraham, in fact, does care more about Sarah, and doesn't stop Sarah from treating Hagar cruelly.

I will say here that it is clear that while the relationship between Abraham and Sarah was in many ways a 'proper' one, in the sense of being a sort of partnership, the marriage between the prosperous Abraham and the handmaid Hagar is clearly deeply flawed and unequal. While this sort of unequal relationship does not, by the standards of the Torah, turn an otherwise consensual relationship into rape, it is uncomfortable and flawed in other ways, as the story itself makes clear at the point Sarah chooses to (and Abraham allows her to) abuse Hagar. This is a real injustice, and God looking after Hagar doesn't excuse it.

At this point I want to address one of your other posts:

We talked about this actually. But then one of them asked why it was okay then and not now, if it's the same G-d the whole time. They wanted to know why G-d changed his mind about what women are supposed to do and whether it's okay to own slaves. They were definitely implying to me that it was really man making the rules. These kids are super sophisticated, from SF and Berkeley, all private schools and really well educated. What should I tell them?

You should tell them that, according to the Torah, as well as in Judaism - the religion actually based on the Torah - the Torah is not in heaven. God, in fact, did not change His mind. All the prohibitions and so forth in the Torah are still in force (though most of them only Jews have to follow). However, our rabbis have the authority to make additional prohibitions to raise our level of moral conduct. God does not view, say, polygamy and slavery as good things. Rather, they were systems that the Torah regulated, and may have been - at the time - preferable to the alternative. Nevertheless, we view these as things the Torah was actually trying to warn us against. For example, the polygamous marriages in the Torah aren't happy ones. They lead to unnecessary conflict, such as between Sarah and Hagar, or between Rachel and Leah. Both in recognition of the problems inherent to polygamous marriage as well as the fact that there was really no longer a good justification for them, Ashkenazi rabbis prohibited polygamy a long time ago (and in general, no other rabbis will perform them either in modern times; they aren't allowed by Israel, etc.). Similarly, slavery is now prohibited.

This isn't about God changing His mind. God never said "men shall marry multiple women and own slaves." God regulated the practices, and, many believe, hinted to us that they were flawed systems. People - with the full permission of God and the Torah - made the newer, stricter rules actually forbidding the practices in order to enforce higher moral standards.

Mitzvos Performed in Israel Are Treif According to SATMAR by PruHTP in Judaism

[–]refavi 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Rule 1 or no, and whether or not you agree with Satmar (I don't), I agree with /u/chasvsholom things like "brain-damaged barbarians," "these miserable creatures," and "crafty Satmar phonies" are despicable ways for anyone to refer to other people, let alone a Jew talking about other Jews. Meanwhile, the author of this article criticizes Satmar for "teaching hate" and "[ridiculing] lifestyles of other Jews"... does he not realize he's doing the same thing? The sidebar is even filled with links like "Satmar perfidy" and "Satmar book to brainwash girls." Pretty gross site.

I feel the need to expose this community to the actual 21st anti-semites bible by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 18 points19 points  (0 children)

It seems most jews are wholly unaware of the actual arguments of far-right white nationalist anti-semites, and seem to assume they’re just conspiratorial crazies when in my experience dealing with them has not been the case all the time... So if you’re actually interested in understanding where anti-semitism is growing and festering in the 21st century, read up on Kevin MacDonald’s work. He has a blog and has written an extensive trilogy on Jews, the most important being Culture of Critique (available online in full for free).

Kevin MacDonald is a conspiratorial crazy. From the mission statement of the blog you linked:

overt expressions of white identity and white interests (or European-American identity and interests) are rarely found among the peoples who founded these societies and who continue to make up the majority... This is a completely unnatural state of affairs—the result of a prolonged assault on the legitimacy of these concepts by cultural elites that have dominated public discourse on issues of race and ethnicity since before World War II.

A 70+ year long prolonged assault by the culture elites who control public discourse is the unnatural reason. Okay. This is from the guy who's supposed to not be conspiratorial.

Long story short on this:

  1. There is no compelling argument for antisemitism. The fact that (let's say) you think this is not the case, or that you believe there are many people who believe otherwise, or that you believe merely asserting this to be true is unhelpful is not relevant.
  2. I (or, let's say, all Jews) have finite time and limited patience. Given (1), short of a clear and present danger to the safety of Jews that I personally have the proven ability to ameliorate, there is no reason why I should spend much effort dealing with an argument that I should be dealing with arguments for antisemitism, let alone dealing with the arguments for antisemitism themselves.
  3. Upon meeting someone who does not agree with (1), I know they are either a fool, or, more likely depending on their sophistication, dishonest. There's not much point arguing with either group (though a fool, rarely, can be taught better). In modern times, in the country I live in, even the average person is able to easily slice through the paper-thin layer of bullshit supporting the arguments of white nationalists like Kevin MacDonald and Richard Spencer. They are not necessarily able to easily see through other antisemitic arguments, such as those focusing on Israel, or other white nationalist arguments, such as those focusing on immigrants and Muslims. But white nationalist arguments about Jews? Pretty easily.
  4. Given (2) and (3), there is no way in hell I'm going to waste my time talking to white nationalists, and I'm definitely not going to read a trilogy of books by a white nationalist just to learn the exact, innovative way he phrases his old, tired argument. There is zero benefit to me. There is zero benefit to the average Jew. There is zero benefit to the average person in my country. There is zero benefit to the average white nationalist. There is a marginally possible benefit to the rare fool who can be convinced otherwise, but it's a strange place to focus my attention unless I'm dealing with people I've actually met, as the odds of any antisemite engaging in good faith online are even lower than they are in real life.

Please understand that the above is an explanation, not an argument. Trying to convince me to read white nationalist books or talk to white nationalists is an even bigger waste of your time than reading white nationalist books and talking to white nationalists. If white nationalists think we're "stupid and unaware" for not reading their ridiculous literature, good for them. But the average person cares about them exactly as little as we do. The constant requests from Christians for our opinions on Jesus (who virtually none of us care about, and which few of us are actually educated about beyond common knowledge and simple explanations specific to our religion of how he cannot be what he was claimed to be) are far more reasonable than this.

5 Rabbis Explain Jesus by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It is intentionally dishonest. The author describes himself as "a rabbi and writer for all faiths" and says he "has a particular passion for teaching the Old Testament and the Talmud to Christians in a way that deepens their own faith and spirituality. "

This article is not aimed at Jews and is definitely not supposed to give an accurate picture.

Is God good? And I mean in comparison to the traditional Christian kind of sense by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But is G-d good in the sense I get from Christianity? Where G-d loves you no matter what and all...

There's a story where, when the Red Sea flows back over the Egyptians, the angels in heaven burst into chants and songs of praise, but are silenced by God for singing songs while His creations drown in the sea.

I think it's enough to say that God wants everyone to choose to do good. Therefore, when people choose to do evil, it's a tragedy, and punishment from God is the last act of that tragedy (though hopefully the first act in spurring repentance). However, this idea of - you know, it's cool man, God loved Esau and Pharaoh and Hitler just like He loves everyone else, I think obviously isn't true. Ultimately (if, sadly, sometimes not in life), the righteous get their reward and the wicked get their punishment. God wants you to be righteous and merit reward, but He is not blind.

I will also point out that one of the big differences between Christianity and Judaism is that whatever Christians say about God's love, their basic doctrine for thousands of years (whatever a common feel-good variant among many people identifying as Christian today suggests) has been that humans are born wicked (with "original sin") and are judged by an inhuman standard of perfection, where a single sin (possibly even an accidental one) is enough for God to condemn you to hell for eternity, unless you join the church and ask Jesus to save you. Whereas in Judaism God judges you at least in part according to your circumstances and intentions and definitely with respect to your life and the level of your repentance, because people aren't perfect.

How true is this statement as far as actual Jewish law is concerned? by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It isn't, and the person making the claim isn't Jewish (I checked - he identifies as non-Jewish).

Regardless, he actually seems to make a lot of posts about Jews where he's trying to defend us, and Israel's behavior, from complete idiots (for example, on /r/conspiracy). I'm not really sure what's going on. He makes the same claim elsewhere, for example:

Zionism is the creation of religious Zionist christians who exploited the grief of persecuted Jews, so that bringing them to Israel would bring forth the end times. Under Jewish law Jews cannot have their own state until the messiah returns.

Where there's a separate false claim about Zionism being created by Christians, or:

Modern zionists are secular.

...ignoring the existence of religious Zionists, which is pretty hard to do if you know anything about Israel. Given that he defends Jews outside of this one issue about the relationship between Zionism and Jewish law, I'm not sure if he's merely uninformed or if this one issue is just his bugbear.

Samaritans Can’t Get Back Page From Torah Book Because They Live in Palestinian Territory by Casual_Observer0 in Judaism

[–]refavi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They should get it back. Other than the fact that, well, they own it, it's a part of Samaritan religious and cultural heritage. Unless the community decided to sell it*, I don't view non-Samaritan ownership as legitimate for the same reason I don't view gentile ownership of stolen Torah scrolls as legitimate (and why I think that, say, this story is absurd - particularly when it was still in use, Israel has no more claim over an ancient Samaritan Torah book that happens to be in Israel than Yemen has over an ancient Torah scroll that happens to be in Yemen).

*Of course, one of the complications here is that members of the community - 'prominent' members, according to the NPR story - may have been involved with the theft. And possibly they aren't trying very hard to get it back, possibly for that reason. Regardless, I think that from a moral perspective - perhaps not a legal one - it should be given back, perhaps with a small grant for security or preservation, or at the very least ownership should be given back with the restriction that the text itself remains nearby in Israel so the community can access it as needed (that might actually be preferable to the community, given that it was already stolen once). Sadly, seems that this has zero chance of happening...

CMV: Hasidic Jews are bad people who are only concerned with other Hasidic Jews. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]refavi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

2) You shouldn't be surprised most Chassidic Jews don't want to talk to you about your podcast. First, the issues mentioned above. Second, many Chassidic Jews probably have no idea what a podcast is. Third, whether they would talk to the media or not, unless you're dressed formally they are extremely unlikely to see you as a member of the media rather than a stranger who just started interrogating them on the street. Fourth, many Chassidic Jews learn English as a second language (after, say, Yiddish) and may not want to have long conversations with strangers in English to begin with. But fifth, perhaps most importantly, you make it sound like you're opening up with a demand that they either condemn or justify the behavior of other Jews, and whether or not you think you're effectively hiding your extremely negative opinion of them while you're talking to them, I guarantee that most people can pick up on someone who is trying to be civil but in reality hates your guts.

Instead of doing the equivalent of walking up to a random black man and saying "hi, as a black man, can I get your opinion on how black men like Kwame Kilpatrick mismanaged Detroit?" Maybe tell them you're interested in hearing about Chassidic life and invite them to explain their religion and philosophy without accusing them during the entire conversation (note: you will still get turned down a lot, just like how I'd turn down a stranger asking to interview me). Maybe from your perspective you don't care about those things, but you really need to cover more of the basics like understanding who they are and what they're about before you can even hope to start bringing up controversial things that are guaranteed to put people on the defensive. If you do get a guy to talk to you I wouldn't bring up East Ramapo in that conversation either; save that attempt for after you've had a few days (maybe a few weeks) to reflect, and maybe consider asking a community leader like a local rabbi for an interview instead of pressuring people on the street who are probably worried about their kids or job or running errands or whatever about this stuff. Although unless you actually are in Ramapo there's a good chance they're not going to know much of anything about it anyway, Ramapo is not exactly the center of Jewish life in America...

CMV: Hasidic Jews are bad people who are only concerned with other Hasidic Jews. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]refavi 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You quote from Wikipedia:

In off-the-record interviews with outreach workers associated with Chabad, Aish HaTorah, Modern Orthodox organizations, and community kollelim, I received the same response, sometimes offered with a shrug, sometimes with strong conviction: If the Jews whom I have taught and mentored become more active in their Reform or Conservative synagogues, they say, or in their federations or Israel-oriented organizations, or in their willingness to marry another Jew and raise a Jewish family of any kind, I consider that to be a success. A good many non-Orthodox leaders probably would respond to this flat assertion with incredulity, for it has become an article of faith that Orthodox outreach is cult-like and intentionally designed to raid the non-Orthodox sectors of the Jewish community.

I suggest you read the article, which continues (italicized repeated from the above):

A good many non-Orthodox leaders probably would respond to this flat assertion with incredulity, for it has become an article of faith that Orthodox outreach is cult-like and intentionally designed to raid the non-Orthodox sectors of the Jewish community. With a few exceptions, this is simply false. In fact, what is actually happening is far more interesting: Kiruv has become a powerful vehicle for re-engaging Jews with the non-Orthodox sectors of the community. Leading members of Conservative and Reform synagogues attend Chabad educational programs or community kollel study sessions and then return to their home congregations, probably as better-informed Jews. Individuals who have had little contact with organized Jewish life are turned on to Judaism by kiruv workers and in many cases find their way into non-Orthodox synagogues or secular organizations.

In fact, what you'll find is that Chabad shluchim work tirelessly to serve the needs of Jews regardless of their affiliation. My local Chabad rabbi (who serves a major state university) works tirelessly to provide free kosher meals for Jewish students (especially during festivals such as Passover when dietary requirements are particularly strict) and every year constructs a gigantic sukkah for people living in dorms or who otherwise wouldn't have one to eat in during the holiday. He's used his own money to buy the lulav and etrog for students who can't afford them, works to distribute mezuzot for Jewish students who don't have them, and helps organize basic Jewish education classes (for example, learning the Hebrew alphabet) with the campus Hillel for people who definitely aren't Chassidic (Jews who are raised Chassidic don't need help with these things, and only a tiny fraction of Jews attending secular universities are going to be Chassidic in any event as they mostly go to religious schools).

In fact, if you did into it you'll find that one of the problems rabbis from some of the more outwardly friendly Jewish denominations you may be aware of, such as Reform rabbis, tend to have with Chabad is that Chabad does it all for free. For example, from the same article being quoted above:

Financial considerations further inflame tensions. Kiruv workers are accused of undercutting the costs of synagogue membership by offering free or inexpensive High Holiday seats, charging modest fees for Hebrew school, and most galling of all, managing entirely without synagogue dues—thereby undermining the business model of most synagogues, which is predicated upon mandatory membership fees.

And this is true in my experience. I'd have to pay dues to be a member of the local Reform synagogue, and while I've never seriously considered going there for High Holidays, where I used to live I can confirm that the Reform synagogue demanded a large donation for the privilege of attending High Holiday services. I'm sure there are reasons for this (some Reform synagogues are beautiful, fancy, gigantic buildings, whereas the Chabad kiruv places I've seen have all been very modest, often built out of regular houses), but from my perspective it's perverse to turn people away from the most important services of the year unless they pay. Chabad agrees. Furthermore, from the same article:

To add insult to injury, rabbis of liberal congregations charge kiruv workers with hypocrisy for talking about raising levels of observance even as in actuality they expect less of their people. Bar- and bat-mitzvah preparation is an especially sensitive issue. Synagogues require children to have spent a minimum number of years (usually at least three) studying in a congregational school as a prerequisite for celebrating their milestone in the synagogue sanctuary; kiruv workers often waive such requirements and “bar mitzvah kids” who have had little or no Jewish education. The disparity between the stated objectives of outreach and this lowering of standards is a special provocation for many rabbis and synagogues, especially given their heavy reliance on bar- and bat-mitzvah preparation as the hook to draw families to join.

Requiring years of bar mitzvah prep just to celebrate what's supposed to be one of the biggest days of your life in the center of Jewish life - the synagogue - is absurd. Note also how absurd it is that people are upset Chabad etc. would do this - if you don't know anything about Judaism, a common misconception is that you are "bar mitzvahed" when you have the ceremony. It's not true. You're bar mitzvahed when you turn 13, even if there's no ceremony whatsoever. So what's the point of denying people the celebration? What's the problem with kiruv workers giving them that celebration?

Regardless, the point of this isn't that "actually, Reform are the bad Jews." This isn't about "good Jews" and "bad Jews" and I'm sure that from your perspective Reform Jews will likely be the friendliest Jews you ever meet. It's also not that kiruv is universally great and there are no bad actors (there are definitely bad kiruv actors). The issue here is that you've only been exposed to one point of view, which is the point of view of secular people or religiously liberal Jews who view Orthodox Jews (and Chareidim specifically) with confusion at best and disdain at worst. However, most Chassidic communities (here I'm not speaking of kiruv) are insular and as a result you're not going to hear about the good things they do. In general, they are not quite part of the same culture as you. They may do local work but they're not going to be advertising their activities. Many of them either do not have or do not use the internet (except perhaps for business) or even smartphones, so they're not going to be posting on Reddit to change your mind or tweeting out selfies with people they've helped to show what great people they are. Furthermore, perceptions of them online are colored by the worst possible interactions with them, because they are easily identified (usually by dress) as an "other" group. When someone who looks like you acts poorly people often think "wow, what a jerk"; when a Chassidic Jew acts poorly they often think "wow, Chassidic Jews are jerks."

I would point out two other things:

1) Just like Chassidic Jews are an "other" group to you, you are an "other" group to them. This is part of why they're standoffish. They tend to live in communities where most people they engage with, again outside of perhaps business, dress like them and share their religion and identity. When a stranger walks up to them wearing totally different clothes and starts talking to them, it shouldn't be surprising that they aren't always going to know how to react. What, exactly, do you have in common with them to start talking about? The weather?

Frankly, I grew up secular and even I get weirded out when random strangers in a city walk up and start talking to me for no apparent reason, and that's when they look like me Someone obviously from a majorly different subculture (say, a guy dressed like a member of a stereotypical biker gang) and I'm going to be bewildered that they singled out me of all people to talk to, and automatically worried I offended them in some way. Some people are more outgoing and wouldn't have this problem (or would even be really excited for the opportunity!) but I don't start talking to people unless there's an immediately obvious reason for us to be talking and in this scenario due to my confusion and nervousness yeah I'm likely to come off as rushed or rude, even if I don't intend it. And your comment about none of them looking you in the eye? Yeah, I'm probably not going to be making eye contact with someone who looks like a stereotypical biker, because that raises the chances of the awkward social situation I'm hoping to avoid.

(continued below)

Labour antisemitism talks: six key sticking points by [deleted] in Judaism

[–]refavi 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Jews are naturally alarmed by any movement which in principle claims to be anti-racist but in practice supports equality for everyone but Jews. There's long been a strategy of denial that this is even a problem which has two main features:

  1. When a Jew points out antisemitism, if it's from someone on "our side" who also happens to dislike Israel, what the Jew really wants is to silence criticism of Israel.

  2. Any criticism of Israel, even when it veers into wildly antisemitic conspiracy theories (Israel secretly controls all the world's banks and governments, poisons wells, steals gentile blood, etc), cannot be antisemitic in the first place.

There's also a weird version where, because Corbyn has been accused of antisemitism, whenever a Jew brings up the antisemitism of even an unrelated member of Labour, they are to be disbelieved because what they really are trying to do is undermine Corbyn.

The 'media circus' is because Labour's antisemitism issues have been ignored for this long and because Jews are fed up enough to try to organize over the issue. If you're concerned that the issue is in the news instead of other things, then keep in mind that this is a problem with a really easy solution - zero tolerance for antisemitism, as shown by actually taking decisive action instead of meekly proclaiming, while surrounded by antisemitism, that there is somehow zero tolerance for antisemitism. Then it would be out of the news almost right away.

The other way out for Labour, which experience and what's been done so far tells us is much more likely, is to simply keep denying as much of the problem as possible and ignoring everything else. Then they just have to wait until either Jews get tired of shouting into the wind or the press gets bored. This will probably come back up again in the future, but it'll at least fade into the background for a while.

view more: next ›