Rabbi Reissues Call To Not Rent Or Sell Homes To Arab Israelis

"This struggle has nothing to do with racism and hatred. It is aimed in its entirety only at preserving our state as Jewish."

 

Safed rabbi says struggle to keep the city Jewish moving forward
Chief Rabbi of Safed's latest statement follows his earlier call for Jews not to sell or rent homes to non-Jews.
By Eli Ashkenazi • Ha'aretz

The chief rabbi of Safed issued a statement this week proclaiming that efforts to keep the city Jewish are beginning to progress and must be widened, though he also added a plea for non-violence in the "struggle."

"The struggle to preserve the special character of the city of Safed is beginning to bear fruit here and everywhere in the country and it is necessary to continue with this here. It has not stopped with one call and a rabbinical ruling," wrote Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, Chief Rabbi of Safed, in a statement he issued this week under the heading "Continuation of the Rabbis' Letter on the Issue of Selling Apartments to Gentiles."

The official letter follows an earlier one in which Eliyahu called for Jews not to sell or rent homes to non-Jews. Racial tensions have risen in recent months with Arab students in the city reporting being attacked and having their property vandalized, including two cars which were torched last month outside the city's academic college. Anti-Arab posters have also been put up in the city.

In his letter, Eliyahu stressed that "this struggle has nothing to do with racism and hatred. It is aimed in its entirety only at preserving our state as Jewish."

Eliyahu also called for activists to refrian from violence.

"This struggle must not spill over into violence, which is both negative and interferes with the struggle," he said. "It is possible to win and it is necessary to win without violence. ... It is necessary to see this struggle as action completing the Law of Return and the declaration of a Jewish state, as a continuation of the redemption of lands by the founders of the state and as action completing the government's decision on Judaizing the Galilee."

Comments

[the usual chaim]

if that is no racist, then what is?

[ruthie]

peace...
peace is being able to go to your neighbor and borrow a cup of milk.
i don't care if it's a jewish family or an arab muslim one.
peace...is being able to borrow a cup of milk from a neighbor

[Maskil]

if that is no racist, then what is?

The ruling is guided not by the rabbi's discretion but by previous rulings regarding similar risky security situations but were never meant to apply carte banche to any foreign nationality for all time. This ruling is temporary and applies only to the current political security situation in Israel, whereas under different circumstances there would be no halachic prohibition whatsoever.

That is the difference. And you don't borrow a cup of milk from your neighbor (or lend him one) when you know he is (literally of figuratively) lying in wait with a dagger to stab you. That doesn't make peace, that makes pieces of your family's bodies strewn in the streets. Why doesn't Obama just sit down for tea with Bin Laden already? Huh? Maybe lend him a cup of milk and he'll let this whole "you westerners destroyed the holy caliphate" thing. Moronic.

[A. Nuran]

Don't sell to niggers. It's not racist. We just want to preserve the uniquely White character of our neighborhood.

[tooclose2detroit]

so, what IS the solution?-is there a need for a jewish state, or not?-couldnt one make the case that the entire state is based on a racist idea?-I mean, how do you give automatic citizenship to jews, and not to gentiles?-how is THAT not considered racist?-on the other hand, if the purpose of a secular jewish state is to keep the gentiles from turning us into lampshades, how do you preserve that jewish state without this "racist" idea?-if you let everyone in, then it cease being a jewish state very quickly-so, it sounds great to condemn this Rabbi's "racism", but, without being swept away by emotion and condemning me to eternal damnation, how do you successfully balance the 2?-and please make your answer deeper than "as long as we can go next door to get a glass of milk".

[Shmuely]

A Nuran: "Don't sell to niggers. It's not racist. We just want to preserve the uniquely White character of our neighborhood."

As as any Israeli will tell you, Eretz Yisroel is for the Jews. G-d said so. There IS no separation of church and state in Israel. G-d ALSO said so.

The comparison with America is misplaced.

America is a "Proposition Nation" for anybody to join whenever they feel like. America has a duty to take in refugees and take care of them, (and particularly Jewish refugees if they want to be blessed, according to G-d).

This difference between the Jewish nation and and and the American "nation" is fundamental.

This difference is why members of the Jewish nation living in America fight to open America borders and fight to keep Israel's borders closed.

Different peoples, different mitzvot.

There is no G-dly reason for American borders and American segregation, no reason for separating Mexicans from United Statesians, or separating white people from black people.

On the other hand, G-d clearly commanded Am Yisroel to be set apart from the Nations.

Why is this so hard to understand?

[tooclose2detroit]

Shmuely-to a non religious person, your argument obviously holds no water-it seems that you are saying that no Torah, no Israel, and therefore Jews should spend eternity constantly living in fear that one day the paradise of the day will turn into hell on earth-But since they dont believe in Torah, then they will say that racism is never justified-I think somehow the argument needs to be developed that because of our unique history, we have a right to live in a place where we can at least shoot back-but if we say OUR book gives it to us, they will say that THEIR book gives it to them.

[Shmarya]

There is no G-dly reason for American borders and American segregation, no reason for separating Mexicans from United Statesians, or separating white people from black people.

On the other hand, G-d clearly commanded Am Yisroel to be set apart from the Nations.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Posted by: Shmuely | April 08, 2011 at 08:43 AM

Perhaps because it has no basis in halakha.

The Torah clearly commands Jews living in Israel (and everywhere else, for that matter) to be kind to the stranger that come to us because we were once strangers in Egypt.

We have to help them and care for them.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[tooclose2detroit]

Shmarya-if I am not mistaken, then what you are speaking about is referring to a ger toshav-I believe that means they have to be willing to live in peace, not cause trouble, etc etc-not quite sure if you can apply that definition to the Palestinian population in Israel now-I dont live there, unfortunately, so maybe I am wrong-also, stop with the frikkin "you ought to be ashamed of yourself" horseshit-try to have an intellectual discourse without deliberately making it a nasty personal attack.

[Jon]

Posted by: Shmuely | April 08, 2011 at 08:43 AM

Is this suppose to be sarcasm?

[tonda]

Reading the thread here is exactly why there will never be peace in the mideast. Reasonable people believe that having good neighbours means being a good neighbour. While religious zealots always fall back on "the word of God" to rationalize whatever they are doing.

It is irrelevent if it's the Jewish God, the muslim God, the christian, God, or any other incarnation you choose.

God told us this is our land, so damnit, we're going to take it. If we have to kick out whoever is here, well that's just too damn bad for them. We're just following God's commanment.

What a bunch of BS! ANY person that uses religion to justify the abuse of another person or racial group deserves not a bit of support, sympathy, or even common curtosey.

It's amazing that the people here that will shout "anti-semitism" at the drop of a hat, have no problem condemning the Palestinians or Arabs as a group. And yet also clam they aren't racist. Guess what, you're as much a racist as any white supremicist. Maybe even more so.

[WoolSilkCotton]

'God Sez So' is the #1 reason for the violence and murder in this world for the past few thousand years.

[Dr. Davd]

Damn. And just when we're getting that new kosher/hallal slaughterhouse so we could sit down and share some schwarma!

[ZZZ]

http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/759928/Rabbi_Moshe_Feinstein/Blockbusting:_May_a_Jew_move_out_and_harm_the_neighborhood

[tooclose2detroit]

'God Sez So' is the #1 reason for the violence and murder in this world for the past few thousand years.

Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | April 08, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Agreed, but the atheist communists have done their best to catch up in the past century.

[Dovid]

Maskil already proved his ignorance of Torah (and Hebrew) in his previous attempt to defend Eliyhau. So this latest attempt at halachic commentary is idiotic. Especially when combined with the arrogant self-assurance with which he makes his statements.

As for 'too close to Detroit," he asks "if the purpose of a secular jewish state is to keep the gentiles from turning us into lampshades.." then what to do? And the implication is what, that you have to become racist ourselves? That's just the dumbest thing ever. It's like saying that in order to prevent thieves, you have to become a thief yourself.

[tonda]

How about we start calling all the "lampshade" and "soap" accusations exactly what they are. Blood libel.

Except instead of being directed AT Jews, it's be used BY Jews against Gentiles.

Personally I have never seen any of the products described above, and I can gaurantee you, I would never purchase them.

[shimon baum]

Considering the price of real estate in Israel Im surprised anyone Jew or Arab can afford a home to begin with.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Agreed, but the atheist communists have done their best to catch up in the past century.

Posted by: tooclose2detroit

tooclose, you are missing an important distinction. the many millions killed (and who continue to be killed every day)because of religion were killed because believers said and thought they were doing gods will. the murders were MANDATED by their god. and nobody may question god. that is dogma. the murders committed by atheists that you allude to cannot be attributed to "atheism" because there is no rulebook of atheism. atheism is just a name for those that say there is no reason to assume a gods existence. it doesnt call for any actions based on that , just as those who are 'atheist' in regards to astrology are not required by that stance to do anything specific.
the regimes and actions of pol pot or stalin were just different manifestations of the ultimate evil which is dogma in all its forms, be it religion, communism or anything else. and please dont make trhe mistake of calling hitler an atheist. he was a believer in the divine providence and the words "god with us" were inscribed on the belt buckles of the S.S.

[tooclose2detroit]

That's just the dumbest thing ever. It's like saying that in order to prevent thieves, you have to become a thief yourself.

Posted by: Dovid | April 08, 2011 at 11:08 AM
Dovid-I understand the quandary-what can I tell you-you cant just ignore 2k yrs of our history of always winding up on the wrong end of the sword, spear, or gun. We can ignore it, allow Israel to evaporate due to a whole host of reasons, find ourselves with no place to run next time some strongman decides that WE are the problem-doesnt seem like a wonderful alternative, but to quote Billy Joel (I cant stand Billy Joel) "We didnt start the fire", but are just somehow trying to avoid being thrown into it---again.

[Dovid]

What does this have to do with not renting apartments to Arabs? I fail to see the connection.

[tooclose2detroit]

Personally I have never seen any of the products described above, and I can gaurantee you, I would never purchase them.

Posted by: tonda

Just checked it out on Google, and you may be right-seems like that particular charge was exagerated-o well-I feel much better now knowing that if another holocaust happens, then the extra fat in my belly wont go to washing the perpetrators armpits-thanks-i wouldnt want to be considered anti gentile for accusing our gentile murderers of being gross, ,now, would I?

[tooclose2detroit]

APC-I never meant Hitler-give me a break-I only went to college one year, but even I know that Hitler wasnt a communist!-as far as your idea that one cant blame communism for the hundreds of millions killed by Chairman Mao and Stalin, I am not sure if the New Testament calls for murdering of heretics either (never read it, but I would tend to doubt that it does)-the Moslems even say that their book doesnt call for murdering non believers, although I tend to believe them less-so its the practioners, and therefore it wasnt always "in the name of God", but in the name of dogma-WSC said God, and thats why I commented on that point.

[ah-pee-chorus]

How about we start calling all the "lampshade" and "soap" accusations exactly what they are. Blood libel.
Posted by: tonda

tonda-even if not a single lampshade or bar of soap from jews were ever made, calling it a blood libel is ridiculous. a blood libel is meant to describe when one religious group stirs up hatred against another such group by claiming that the other religion requires them to kill members of their group as part of a ritual. needless to say it is based on a total and complete lie.
but in the case of the nazis, whether or not soap or lampshades were ever made from jews, the jews really were slaughtered. that is not libel, it is fact. the comparison would only be valid if jews really were killing gentile babies, but werent doing so as part of a specific passover or other such ritual.

[A. Nuran]

tooclose2detroit and Shmuley - It would take longer than your combined writings to catalog the inconsistencies and logical fallacies in the crap you just spewed onto the page. But since logic doesn't seem to enter into much of what you say there wouldn't be much point.

So I'll keep it simple.

You whine and cry like little babies when someone isn't sufficiently deferential to you or when a goy fails to fall down and worship at your feet for simply being yids. Anti-Semitism is the worst thing you can imagine.

In the real world, the one where people's value isn't determined by the amount of skin the witch doctor sliced off his cock, you get out what you put in. If you treat others fairly, with respect and as you'd like to be treated there's no guarantee they'll treat you the same. But if you're an insufferable racist prick who acts like he's God's gift to humanity and treat everyone else like trash you can be pretty sure to receive the same back. And you'll deserve every speck of abuse.

If someone is committing crimes there's law to deal with it. If someone is engaging in sedition we have governments to stop it.

And if someone who lives in the country legally and isn't breaking any laws wants to rent or buy a house refusing simply on the basis of his race and religion is about as racist as you can get.

There is absolutely no moral difference between you and the kind of scum who say "Don't buy from the Jew". None whatsoever. The only difference is whose hand is holding the whip. And while I'm sure you don't actually touch yourselves inappropriately at the thought of being junior grade wannabe cossacks it's not much of a jump.

[tooclose2detroit]

so, Nuran, you have no answer to my initial question, and as usual you must attempt to sound creatively aggressive-but the question still remains-it would seem that, with or without Torah, the entire state of Israel IS based on racism-why does a jew get automatic citizenship, but a gentile does not?-and if you disagree with that law, then it is only a matter of time before it is not a Jewish state at all?-why deny hundreds of thousands of black Africans immediate citizenship if they sneak into the country?-if it were hundreds of thousands of jews, then celebrations would be held-so, save your fingers from the silly personal attacks, and try to use your brain to answer that KEY question-(not that I believe it will happen, but hey, I asked).

[Dovid]

APC - I think that Tonda meant that it's a blood libel to accuse Israeli Arabs of wanting to turn us into lampshades, and using that as an excuse to say "Don't Rent To Arabs" or other racist stuff.

At least that's my reading of it.

[tonda]

I was referring to the Aaskil quote in Dovid's earlier post.

As for 'too close to Detroit," he asks "if the purpose of a secular jewish state is to keep the gentiles from turning us into lampshades."

But the use of sensationalist claims against Gentiles, Arabs or Palestineans as an excuse to excuse or perpetuate hatred agaist the groups is EXACTLY the same thing as saying Jews used christian babies blood for motzas.

So I'll stand by my statement both can be called blood libel.

APC, the killing may not be done as part of a ritual, but false claims of mutilation by one group of another whether for baking bread, making lampshades or soap, or any other hideous and greusome use is equally insidious. These stories are told to children as a way of creating a boogeyman based on stereotypes.

So I ask which is more troubling. One used by ignorant or ill informed people to demonize a religion. Or one used by a supposedly educated and respected community leader to slander a group of people and further spread mistrust and to excuse and rationalize hatred.

[tooclose2detroit]

But the use of sensationalist claims against Gentiles, Arabs or Palestineans as an excuse to excuse or perpetuate hatred agaist the groups is EXACTLY the same thing as saying Jews used christian babies blood for motzas
Tonda

I think its wrong to compare it to blood matzohs is a really bad comparison-these jews were murdered by the millions and millions-so, the claim was made, perhaps incorrectly about the lampshades-but, unless you are a holocaust denier, the main thrust of the crime was the murder-dont let the lampshades claim block the light of the real point-on the other hand, the blood matzo thing never happened-no christians kids were KILLED for blood, right?-so we are dealing with a situation where its crime versus no crime-I hope ya got that distinction, because it seems real clear to me.

[Dovid]

I guess whether or not it's a "blood libel" is just a question of strict definition.

Certainly there may be a difference in that SOMEONE DID turn skin of Jews into lampshades (or at least murder them by the million and perform gruesome mutilations etc), whereas Jews certainly did NOT use gentile blood for matzos.

On the other hand, it's certainly illegitimate to claim that because SOMEONE did it to you, it justifies bad behavior towards SOMEONE ELSE because you want to make sure no-one does it to you again. That really seems like the heart of the matter.

If it were discovered that witches had made bread from the blood of Germans, and then some Nazis used that as a justification for discrimination against Jews, you might justifiably consider it to constitute a "blood libel." I think I'd have to come down on Tonda's side here.

Sure there may be a difference that Jews are somehow traumatized by a history of persecution. But that's no excuse.

Anyway, this is a red herring.

[tonda]

I won't argue that horrors have been comitted against almost every group, by almost every other group in the past. My beef is that certain Rabbi's (specific radical ones, not all), get a mostly free pass for language and leadership that if directed in the opposite direction would cause immediate denouncement.

The specific quote I referred to insinuates that given a chance, Gentile's would start slaughtering Jews. Does he really believe this? I hope not. But it's use to influence and give direction to his followers is pretty damn scary because he obviously feels that some of his followers will. Once you dehumanize your enemies in the eyes of your followers, any behaviour against them can be immediately rationalized, condoned, or even applauded.

The thread had gotten a bit off topic, but the main thrust is that this man is using hate and parinoia to promote specific real actions against another group.

[tooclose2detroit]

I think the Rabbi may be over the top on this, but the general question wont go away-the country was formed on a racist idea that Jews have special rights-the right of return being one of them-the question is, can our history of horrors justify this-and if you dont believe so, then bear in mind that the outgrowth of your belief will lead to the eventual elimination of Israel-now again, I am not saying if that is good or bad in my opinion-my thinking its good or bad wont change it-I dont make that type of commision-but seems pretty simple to me that if you allow everyone in, then the jews will very quickly be a minority-on the other hand, how is it NOT racism to give special treatment to jews?-APC-can ya help me out here?

[Dovid]

TC2D: What you are saying makes no sense.

Many people claim/get "special rights" to something because of something bad that has been done to them. It's called "affirmative action." Some might consider it racist in principle, but most people don't. Some would argue that sometimes you have to do something that's normally wrong in principle because it has positive results in making up for something much worse.

What you are doing is trying to claim that there's no distinction between the Right of Return to banning Arabs from renting apartments, and who knows what else. This is obviously a fallacy. Granting African-Americans special rights to college entry does not imply banning whites from renting apartments in black neighborhoods. Or killing and beating up whites.

And your other step is equally fallacious. You tell Tonda that "the outgrowth of your belief will lead to the eventual elimination of Israel." How's that? That's like saying that if we decide to end affirmative action for African-Americans, it will lead to the re-establishment of slavery. Which is obviously complete nonsense.

So what's your claim here? That if you support the Law of Return you can't argue against banning Arabs from renting apartments?

[tooclose2detroit]

Most people dont consider affirmative racism, but I dont really care what most people think-when you are giving priveledge to people of one skin color over another, to me, it is racism-now the question is it justified racism?-thats a different question-but as soon as this guy gets in because of his mellanin, and this guy doesnt, then its racism-
My claim is that the Law of Return is racism-I dont see how one can call it anything else-the question is, like "affirmative action", is it justified?-Anyhow, wife just called-gots to go home and make shabbos, or i will have to find a new place to live-good shabbos y'all.

[ah-pee-chorus]

tonda-
i agree that...

but the main thrust is that this man is using hate and parinoia to promote specific real actions against another group.

i just object to the term being used willy-nilly ala sarah palin.

tooclose- its not racist that the world realized there was a need and justification for a state for jews in light of the many atrocities we have endured at the hands of antisemites. in order for israel to indeed be a safe haven for jews, it was and is necessary for there to be a law of return applicable to jews. if that same law were extended to anybody, the state would no longer be a state of majority jews and its entire raison d'etre would be gone. racism implies a belief that your race is superior to others and/or that races should be kept separate. israels law of return for jews only is based on neither of those.
on the other hand a fair, decent and moral country must ensure that within its citizenry no group is favored over another. there is no contradiction between the right of return and the need to ensure that edicts prohibiting renting to arabs are deemed illegal.

[Maskil]

Maskil already proved his ignorance of Torah (and Hebrew) in his previous attempt to defend Eliyhau. So this latest attempt at halachic commentary is idiotic. Especially when combined with the arrogant self-assurance with which he makes his statements.

Dovid,

The moment you claimed that "pasken" is written with a holam vav... Well I don't know where to begin. פּוֹסְקֵן is not Hebrew at all, there is no such format for a verb, noun, adjective or particle in Hebrew. The notion is so obnoxious I don't think I could set you straight. I read and write in Ashkenazi inflected Hebrew (the pronunciation that runs through my mind) and I speak Hebrew with the Israeli pronunciation. I have studied Biblical Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, Classical Hebrew and Israeli Hebrew (I didn't study Geonic, Karaitic or Haskalah Hebrew). I know the difference between kamatz and patah for Ashkenazim. No one prounounces your name Dovid with 'o' as in 'dog', but rather 'o' as in 'wonder'. "pasken" is a Yiddishized word and the first vowel sound is a patah. OMG! And R' Eliyahu certainly remembers the language spoken by his parents and grandparents in the home - Arabic, and as you (probably) think of yourself racially but not ethnically as White/Caucasion (rather than Middle-Eastern) Rabbi Eliyahu thinks of himself racially but not ethnically as an Arab, although I doubt he knows whether he is from the benei yisrael or the male-line descendant of a freed "Canaanite slave" (perhaps even a Philistine) or a Greek, Roman, Moorish, or Arab convert. Unless you are a kohen or a levi you don't know your pedigree in this regard either, but you probably assume that if you are a male-line descendant of a convert then you're patralineally an Aryan rather than assume you're patralineally an Arab - and vice versa for Rabbi Eliyahu q.v.

Just go on the web and search about "derech rehokah" (or however you'd like to spell it) together with erev pesach and you'll find that all great poskim have urged Jerusalemites to be on a דרך רחוקה on the eve of Pesach to spare themselves the חשש of ביטול מצות העשה of the korban pesach, which carries כרת. And the new initiative was indeed approved by R' Kanievsky, who himself signed up for a portion, as a way to be exempt from the chiyuv when it begins to apply.

In this instance you'll find in hilchot shabbat the imperative to violate Shabbat and go to war with foreign nationalities who come to enter the territory during wartime, even if they are only asking to collect straw. The extrapolations of this halacha are dealt with at length by the commentaries and halachic decisors. In response to the current security situation in this country, of which Rabbi Eliyahu is more familiar with than you or me (and I live here), and his knowledge of the application of halacha he issued this ruling regarding renting and selling, and it's not personal it's survival, and under other circumstances he has no problem with it.

Go back to BT school and learn the both the languages and the laws - correctly.

[tooclose2detroit]

on the other hand a fair, decent and moral country must ensure that within its citizenry no group is favored over another. there is no contradiction between the right of return and the need to ensure that edicts prohibiting renting to arabs are deemed illegal.

Posted by: ah-pee-chorus
re apartments, you are correct, because there is no security issue-the prob is, where to draw a line-in other words how does one discriminate in, for example, not allowing Arab citizens into the military (I have to believe that some would be interested, if only for the career opportunities that open up), police, etc-so, it seems one can say that is disgusting to discriminate in apts of citizens of one race, but then ok to keep an Arab out of the army, even if the guy swears alliegance to the country, etc.-It would seem that one could make a case that this is unfair discrimination of a segment of the citizenry also.

[Dovid]

Maskil - I don't even know where to start.

In America most people whose first language is American English mispronounce "Dovid" and say it the way they pronounce "wonder." i.e. incorrectly. They (you) also pronounce "Boruch" like "Bahrooch." Again, incorrectly.

Also, I think I know how my own name (and that of my father z"l) are correctly prounounced. (And American English is not my first language, BTW).

Whatever the root, posken is spelled (as you have spelled it yourself in hebrew) with a holom vov. So I have no clue what you're talking about, you make no sense at all.

As for the other stuff (on Eliyahu and the korban Pesach), there are no poskim who support his extremist garbage, whatever their position may be as it relates to the logic of his argument on why it's others who have to carry it out, and not him.

And don't try to pull the old trick about "he lives there and knows better what's going on" about the security situation. There are lots of other people living there, and 99% of them don't agree with his racism and his extremism, nor with his bogus pronouncements.

And finally, your condescending and insulting attitude towards BT's is neither attractive nor helpful. It just makes you look like a dick. (And by the way, I'm not a BT - and again your groundless assumption that I am makes you the fool. As always).

[Maskil]

1. Even if R' Eliyahu was the only posek who ruled this way (which he's not), it doesn't make him a racist. He has a very halachic mind - like a misnagdisheh godol (you should read Halachaman, by R' Y.B. Soloveitchik) and it's purely halacha based, he really has no racist edge. He was very clear on this when he pointed out that he would "appear" racist in the hypothetical situation that the halachic imperative to destroy the remaining living Amalekites were to present itself (and challanged is National Religious detractors claiming that their rejection of his ruling leads him to believe that they would be against killing the Amalekites - a clear and unequivocal biblical imperative - again, in the hypothetical instance that it was (or would become) relevant). But let us leave this issue behind us. You may disagree with his ruling, but you have to know him to conclude that he's racist, and this country is über-racist (like you can't imagine) but he is not.

2. Re: The korbon pesach - All poskim agree that there is a halachic quagmire for Jews in Jerusalem (or even outside) who are not considered to be on a "derech rechokah," and R' Kanievsky did endorse the initiative as a way to be exempt from the chiyuv and thus not have to worry about the derech rechokah solution. Whether he has any aspiration of the initiative actually working out so that the korbon is brought - I do not know. The fact that if it "falls through" the money will be given to kollel students learning the laws of kodoshim, rather than given to a team of legal experts, gives be strong reason to doubt that there is any aspiration in the initiative for this to "work" and perhaps it was drawn up purely as a heter for the derech rechokah problem. However, knowing R' Eliyahu, he certainly was calling to actually bring it because it can be done legally and his mind is pure halacha so that's certainly what he wanted when he mentioned it. This country is still somewhat democratic and if we want it then it is not a dream (or fairytale).

3. I want to address the Hebrew issue: There is a word in Israeli Hebrew "פָּסְקָן", which is a term in linguistics for a "normativist" (I don't know what this means) and in Israel it may be written with a 'vov' to indicate a komatz koton and would be transliterated "poskán" (I added the accentuation mark), whereas in golus it would be pronounced by Ashkenazim as "póskon." There is room in Hebrew for a word "פסקן" to have the same meaning as a posek, but I am not familiar with any dialect of Hebrew that has ever made use of this word, and it would be pronounced by Ashkenazim as "páskon," and by Israelis and Sepharadim as "paskán." The verb for paskening a halacha can be looked up in any table of verb conjugations, but the word you write of does not exist - I don't know where you think you saw it. The verb "pasken" is Yiddish and is spelled "פסקען".

4. Given the that you thought the word was פּוֹסְקֵן - I understand your transliteration. But regarding your name and the komatz patach distinction for Ashkenazim, perhaps we have different regional pronunciations for the English words we are using. The word 'dog' as I know it does not rhyme with the word 'dug' (the past tense of to dig - which is the vowel sound for the 'o' in Dovid). The 'o' in 'dog' is virtually indistinguishable from the 'a' in 'wander' and is not how Ashkenazim pronounce the komatz. Whereas the 'o' in 'wonder' is the same as the 'u' in 'dug' and is the vowel sound for the komatz (except in Central-Eastern Europe, where the komatz is pronounced like the 'u' in 'bull'). And the 'u' in boruch should be pronounced with the short 'oo' sound and in 'wool', which rhymes with 'bull', as opposed to 'school' (and in Central-Eastern Europe it is pronounced as 'i' in 'machine' giving us 'burich' - but neither of us are talking about this). I'm pretty sure we are talking about the exact same pronunciation of 'Dovid' - your own name - and I really think that 'dog' is a poor example, and by your transliteration of how you thought I pronounce 'boruch' (bahrooch - where the 'ah' is exactly how I pronounce the 'o' in dog) I'm thinking you mistook the word 'wonder' for 'wander'. I'm near certain that you pronounce the 'o' in 'Dovid' just as I do, and just as I pronounce the 'o' in 'money' or 'wonder'.

If you're not a BT then I indeed "wonder" why you think you've seen the word "pasken" with the spelling you've described, but it was my error to mistake you for one when you were thinking of a cholom and not a patach. However, given your grave error in the word (which simply does not have a place in Hebrew) you should understand why I drew that conclusion.

[waitaminute]

first off, keeping arabs out Safed does NOT make the STATE more Jewish. they will just live somewhere else. It makes SAFED more jewish, which is quite another matter.

second, if he really wants the state to be more jewish, he can do something to ease conversion.

third, the way the state has used to address local security issues related to demographics is to POSITIVELY encourage jews to migrate to sensitive areas. Sanctions on renting to Arabs will only harm the international interests of the state.

[tooclose2detroit]

second, if he really wants the state to be more jewish, he can do something to ease conversion.
waitaminute

i dunno if thats such a good idea-tuff to be a jew, and I know a number of converts that have backed out after the emotional thrill was gone-leaves a trail of destruction-(same thing with BT's-and I am one)- can have lots of emotional thrill at the beginning, and then buyer's remorse after a few yrs-both should have a higher entry fee, in my opinion, to cut down on the eventual buyers remorse that may come later and destroy lives.

[Maskil]

Or he could do something to ease the abortions. More Jews are aborted in Israel than the number of potential converts turned away - 50,000 a year. Also, according to halacha, a non-Judean-national during wartime, no matter if he is sincere and is only asking for human rights, is seen as an existential threat to the State and we violate Shabbat to ward him/her off. Not so much unlike the law where a Jew walks into a crowd of Gentiles following which a building collapses on one of them, as long as we cannot identify whether the Jew is the one upon whom fell the structure - we (when we have total autonomy and sovereignty) do not initiate rescue efforts on Shabbat because the presumption is that the trapped and potentially living individual is a Gentile - even if he is actually the Jew!

[tooclose2detroit]

"ease abortions"?-how the hell can he do that?-give out the morning after pill?

[Maskil]

With the same magical wand that he can "ease conversions."

[Maskil]

And I didn't mean to make abortions "easier," I meant to ease the number of abortions by giving the unborn child the choice to live or take his or her own life rather than depriving that person from ever getting the option to choose.

[tooclose2detroit]

Ok-I cant a handle on how Judaism poskins about abortion-I have heard that for a gentile it is considered murder, for a jew it is not---what a confusing religion!

[Maskil]

No, for both it is considered murder. The prohibition for killing a fetus (40 days from conception and onwards), for a Jew, is prohibited by the commandment "Thou shalt not murder" - just that for Jews this does not carry the death sentence and for Gentiles abiding by Judean laws for Gentiles living in Eretz Israel (when the majority of Jews reside in Eretz Israel) it does carry the death sentence. But even for Gentiles, just as for Jews it is considered a "human" but not a "life" so too it is prohibited for Gentiles to take a life (i.e. the life of a human after the head crests) to save a fetus (a "human" but not a life). It's not that complicated.

[tooclose2detroit]

Ok-In America, it seems to change relative to the situation-I remember when Scott Peterson killed his wife and unborn child, he was convicted of 2 counts of murder-so, in America, I guess, if you want the baby, it is murder, and if you dont, it's an afternoon away from work-now THAT is confusing!

[Maskil]

I hear you and concur!

[anon]

The Rabbi is esteemed and in my view right