Comments on: In the beloved Old Country, a Jew has visions of her homeland

By: Shmuel

Shmuel — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:10:10 +0000

Seansmom,
If you mean give up the Holocaust as an excuse for theft and murder, I’m all with you. If you mean give up the Holocaust as a weapon, hear hear. If you mean give up the Holocaust as something to be jealously guarded against comparison to other human tragedy and suffering, amen. But if you mean move on and forget about it, I wish we could. The Holocaust is a giant hole in my family and my culture. It is the disappearance of a civilisation, and the tremendous peronal anguish of people I have known and loved. As a Jew I am ashamed of Israel’s actions and of the many Jews and non-Jews who support them. I am also outraged at the cynical exploitation of the Holocaust and the descration of the memories of my aunts and uncles and cousins. Sadly, tragically, we can’t just give it up.

By: seansmom

seansmom — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:53:10 +0000

I would give up the holocaust if I was a Jew out of embarrassment. . After all these years it seems to be getting rather obvious to most people. A bromide that doesn’t do the job when Israel massacres people who were there before they got there and who are not going away.

By: seansmom

seansmom — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:46:51 +0000

When innocent people are made to suffer from man’s inhumanity, each instance is one to which we should say, “Never again.”

amen g.pod!

By: seansmom

seansmom — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:37:14 +0000

They mostly conclude, “IF” there is a demonstrated path in which Palestinians and Jews/Israelis (often not distinguished in Arabic) can coexist, then wonderful. If not, then, we cannot just suicide or agree that we are even mosquito fodder (rockets, intermittent terror).

try going home? Or maybe just give tourism revenue back to the people of the land? Give them back the airport you people call the Ben Gurion but was not really the name of the airport? Move out of the village that belongs to some of the people murdered in the Gaza massacre! Move out of Jerusalem that belong to them too! I have to say, I really don’t like thieves either! YES the USA is a thief too! I am ALL on the side of the native Americans! I don’t like this thieving business and I don’t like genocide! I don’t like the people who perpetrate it or condone it! People like this make the world an ugly place! So naturally I don’t like Israel! I root against you day and night.

By: wondering jew

wondering jew — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:11:56 +0000

I realize the discussion has left the original article by Ms. Ratner behind, but I was not overly impressed by the original essay. Particularly: “No doubt any Zionists or ultra religious folk who happen to be reading this are probably frothing at the mouth right now, yanking at their beard hairs.” Obviously Ms. Ratner does not feel much sympathy for Zionism or for ultra religious Jews, but I don’t see how this kind of rhetoric improves the atmosphere of discussion. Ms. Ratner has respect for the side that she sympathizes with, that is the Palestinians, but guess what: that means that the Zionist and the ultra religious are now the Other. So if she wishes to respect the Other, a different tone would be necessary.

By: Shmuel

Shmuel — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 22:49:06 +0000

My pleasure MRW. To answer your question – in a way, all of the above. Rabbinic Judaism is the stream of Judaism that gained ascendancy (as opposed to the Sadducess or Essenes or Jewish Nazarenes for example) after the fall of the Second Commonwealth, and dominated Jewish history until the Enlightenment and Emancipation. All modern streams of Judaism developed from Rabbinic Judaism, although most now reject its traditional authority.

By: MRW

MRW — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:35:03 +0000

You’re right about that. Just check out Bialystock. It changed nationhood constantly.

By: MRW

MRW — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:32:57 +0000

Thanks, Shmuel. One final question. By “Rabbinic Judaism,” do you mean Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc?

By: Shmuel

Shmuel — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:56:15 +0000

Forgot to answer your final query, MRW. There is no final arbiter in Jewish religious law, although some halakhists enjoy more recognition than others. You are supposed to pick one authority (or at least school of thought) and stick to him. Shopping around for whoever you think will give you the answer you want to hear is frowned upon but not unheard of, especially in more liberal Orthodox circles. It’s somewhat more chaotic than the Catholic system, but it works for us :-)

By: Shmuel

Shmuel — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:45:16 +0000

Dear MRW (may I call you M?),
The first rule of Orthodox (and to a certain extent Conservative) Jewish law is “don’t try this at home”. In matters of law and practice, one must ask a competent halakhist, who will interpret the ancient texts in light of subsequent development of the law, including interpretations and even amendments (as in the case of the famous amendments of Rabbi Gershom “Light of the Diaspora”, prohibiting polygamy, and divorce without the woman’s consent). As a matter of fact, this principle of understanding earlier concepts only in terms of later interpretation is at the very heart of Rabbinic Judaism and its split with Karaite Judaism: Do we just read the Bible, or is there a huge body of interpretation and development that goes with it? Like all legal and ethical systems, Jewish religious tradition evolves, sometimes more and sometimes less, but it always evolves (whether the fundies like to admit it or not). So my answer is yes, even among the Orthodox minority, ancient text cannot be taken without later interpretation, and the later authorities take precedence. For the non-halakhic Jewish majority, the Talmud is merely a source (conscious or unconscious) of inspiration and an important part of our culture. Anything we don’t like, we don’t have to accept.