Modern Orthodox Lies

Rabbi Shlomo Brody, a Harvard grad who is the online editor of the Modern Orthodox journal Tradition and a teacher at Yeshivat Hakotel in Jerusalem, lies about Jewish law's position on breaking Shabbat law in order to save the life of a gentile.

Rabbi Shlomo Brody

Writing in his Jerusalem Post Ask The Rabbi column, Shlomo Brody, editor of the leading Modern Orthodox journal Tradition and a teacher at Yeshivat HaKotel, flat out lies:

From the outset, let me state very clearly: Jewish law obligates Jews to save the lives of all humans, Jews and gentiles alike, even if it entails violating Shabbat. This is the universal conclusion of all contemporary decisors, despite confusing media reports of a recent public lecture by a senior Israeli scholar.

While this ruling is not disputed, scholars do disagree regarding the legal argumentation that leads to this consensus position.…

Rabbinic scholars dispute whether dispensations to prevent enmity may justify breaking a biblical prohibition or only a rabbinic edict. Be that as it may, Rabbi Moshe Sofer noted that the failure to save non-Jews would not only create enmity, but could also lead to gentiles refusing to treat Jews, or even to pogroms. As such, Jews must save the lives of all humans, even if it entails violating biblical prohibitions on Shabbat, because a lack of reciprocity endangers the Jewish community.

This remains true even when one might think that no one would notice one’s dodging life-saving responsibilities.…

The senior scholar is Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. More haredi Jews and Sefardi Zionist Orthodox Jews follow Yosef than there are Jews who follow, say, YU's Hershel Schachter.

Past that bit of desception from Brody, Zionist Orthodoxy has rabbis who rule that Shabbat law should not be broken to save the lives of non-Jews – unless letting the non-Jew die would become known to non-Jewish countries.

And there are other such Zionist Orthodox rabbis who say that as long as Jews are the majority in Israel, it doesn't matter who knows that we let non-Jews die that we could have saved. We let them die because God commanded us to.

There are haredi rabbis who rule similarly, athough very few hold the second opinion that having an incident like this exposed to non-Jewish countries doesn't matter.

Rabbis have tried for centuries to find ways to rule that every human life should be saved, Jewish or not, and that Sabbath law should be broken to save human life without distinction to the victim's religion or ethnicity.

The problem has always been that most of those rabbis did so for pragmatic reasons – to avoid the retribution, pogroms and expulsions that would come from takng Jewish law literally and allowing gentiles to die who could otherwise be saved, just because it happens to be Saturday.

A far smaller number sought to find their way around the literal halakha by doing things like ruling that halakha's intent only covered ancient pagans who were very antisemitic, not the non-Jews of "our" era. And then a minority of those went on to make the clearly false claim that the Torah and halakha values all life, Jewish and non-Jewish, equally.

The truth is that Judaism has an anachronistic law (actually, many anachronistic laws), but it has no working system to repeal it or to reinterpret it in a binding way.

And therefore we have rabbis – an alarming number of rabbis – who believe that if non-Jews won't find out about it, we should just let non-Jews die on the Sabbath rather than break Sabbath law to rescue them.

Shlomo Brody lied because he doesn't want you to know the truth – a truth that might cause some of you to leave Judaism or Orthodoxy.

Yes, the normative functional behavior of most Orthodox and haredi Jews is to violate Sabbath laws to save the life of a gentile.

But normative functional behavior is not the same thing as black letter halakha and theology.

And shame on Shlomo Brody for trying to trick you into believing it is.

Comments

[Mike]

Damn those orthodox, modern, ancient all the same dreck! What a filthy religion.

[itchiemayer]

Shmarya, comments like Mike's are reasons to show some discretion some of the time. Mike, your words matter in the ultimate Court.

[larry]

scotty---- its breaking not brealing....do a spell check

[Garnel Ironheart]

Boy, you're in a bitchy mood this morning. Is it that time of month again?
You will always be able to find some rabbi somewhere who will justify some odious position you don't like, like killing gentile babies or shooting African refugees in the street. The presence of these extremists does not define the mainstream approach.
The bottom line is that when presented with a dying non-Jew, pretty much all Orthodox physicians will do whatever they need to do to resuscitate him, just as they would for a fellow Jew. Yes, the underlying intention is different but the practical result is entirely the same.

[Outcast Yid]

I get it when you criticize Haredim for their extreme positions. So now you have a Modern Orthodox rabbi stating a very moderate position, and you criticize him for discounting the opinions that you would criticize yourself! You can't have it both ways.

[Jeff]

Mike, your words matter in the ultimate Court.

Posted by: itchiemayer | June 29, 2012 at 09:48 AM

And again, with the threats. It's all you people have.

It's a shame you couldn't set it to scary music.

[Jeff]

Shmarya, do you think he's lying, or is he in denial? It may be that he wants so badly to believe it that he's talked himself int it.

[Jeff]

*into*

(You need an edit function.)

[JK2]

That there should be a question about saving anyone's life on any day of the week is reprehensible.

[nah]

Shmarya,
You have just jumped the shark, in my opinion. You now look like someone just looking to call any Rabbi a liar. Posts like this take away a lot of the credibility you engender with some more thoughtful and complete reporting. Outcast Yid is right on the money.

[Shmarya]

I get it when you criticize Haredim for their extreme positions. So now you have a Modern Orthodox rabbi stating a very moderate position, and you criticize him for discounting the opinions that you would criticize yourself! You can't have it both ways.

Posted by: Outcast Yid | June 29, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Sigh.

So you think it's okay for said MO rabbi to LIE about the existence and scope of the less moderate position-holders?

And you don't get that many of them are themselves MO?

Please.

[MO Guy]

It's not lying - it's called apologetics.

[Teddy]

Nah, he does not lie, he just does not consider THEM as Jewish.

[ah-pee-chorus]

an honest and straightforward answer should be this:

it is 100% assur to violate shabbos, even to save the life of a NJ. it is assur just like eating a treif cheeseburger. however like ALL halachos(aside from the big 3) we are permitted to violate if it places jewish lives at risk. so if poskim feel that a threat exists they may temporarily permit something which is technically assur. if jews lived in a place where anyone who refused the kings cheeseburgers would be killed, they too would be allowed to suspend the prohibition against it, and eat it. that doesnt make cheeseburgers legal just as chillul shabbos to save a NJ is still forbidden. the only issue for halachic decisors is whether jews are at risk from keeping the halacha. and just like all other halachas, they are suspended if the risk is there.
the distinction is important because it highlights the lack of morality in the halacha. were there to be a situation where it was clear that jewish lives would not be put at risk, it would be assur once again. rabbis are stuck in the awkward position of being unable to admit that the torah and halachic mesorah are immoral, and must instead find ways to hide that fact while allowing for what they know is moral to appear to follow halacha.

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

So can I eat a cheeseburger on Shabbos in New Jersey?

[Korbendallas72]

And again, with the threats. It's all you people have.

It's a shame you couldn't set it to scary music.

Posted by: Jeff | June 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM

It was a reminder.

[Jeff]

It was a reminder.

Posted by: Korbendallas72 | June 29, 2012 at 11:33 AM

It was bullshit, is what it was.

[Korbendallas72]

If you say so.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Jewish law obligates Jews to save the lives of all humans, Jews and gentiles alike, even if it entails violating Shabbat

not accurate. it PROHIBITS violating shabbos UNLESS a danger to jews exists. there is definitely a dispute as to what level of danger exists, whether just a general 'enmity' or a a graver fear of loss of actual jewish life. and not coincidentally, the level of danger is tied to many rabbis position as to whether treating a non-jew on shabbos would entail violating a biblical law or a rabbinic law. if its a biblical law, then the bar is set at actual danger, and if rabbinic law, the requirement necessary for permitting violation is simple enmity.
conveniently, most rabbis who consider it biblical also consider the danger grave, while those in the rabbinic camp arent forced to say the same. but if a rabbi felt the violation biblical and that the danger didnt rise to the level of threat to jewish life, he would have to forbid it. and some do.

[Jake]

If it is the normative halachic practice it does not appear to follow Halacha it is Halacha.

My charedeish orthodox rabbi did not permit hatzalah to enter our community for many years for reasons of darchei noam because we have primarily volunteer ambulance Corp backed up by police ambulances.

Only recently has our rabbi permitted hatzalah to be organized in our community on the condition that it serves Jews and Gentiles alike 24/7.

Did you excpect the rabbi to enter into a discourse of w hat constitutes pagan practice?
Was he suppose to explain that pagans were not permitted to live in the land of Israel?

Orthodox Jewish members of volunteer fire departments respond to fires 24/7 in communities across the country. They don't have a list of Jew fires.

Ebjven in Israel orthodox Jews respond to calls for west bank Arabs involved in car accidents on Shabbat.

So in theevo,union of Jewish law there are anarchistic things. Those issues are dealt within Jewish law the result is a normative policy of helping everyone for whatever reason.

His article was not a deep discourse of halacic development over time.

[shanda]

So can I drink unfiltered water in ny while browsing my filtered internet on shabbos?

[ah-pee-chorus]

jake-

thats good to hear. i always enjoy hearing about rabbis who are more moral than the torah and chazal.

would you agree that the question could have been posed to other ortho rabbis whose response would have been substantially different?

[fg]

He never lied. Brody made it clear from the begining that the reason we save gentiles is because of peace. And because most contamporary rabbies do permit saving a gentile despite some source that prohibit it,the laws you refere to as anachronistic, are actually bypast and modified to fit todays civilisation.

[BK]

Your claim that Shlomo is lying seems based on 'Mipnei Darchei Shalom' as being outside of the Jewish Law. So if that's not Jewish law what is it?

And to quote Marc Shapiro's recent post , "I would like someone to explain to me how it could ever not be darkhei shalom?"

[PrettyBoyFloyd]

If he's 'Haredi' and he opens his mouth, then Shmarya hears a lie. Doesn't even matter what he said.

[Reb Chaim]

Shmarya:

Once again, you are letting your personal prejudices cloud your opinions. Rabbi Brody's comments are fully in keeping with modern orthodox thinking and have no relationship to many of the idiotic comments spouted by some of the haredi fools who masquerade as rabbonim. Sure, if we Jews lived in the third commonwealth governed by a theological regime under halacha, things would be very different. But we don't live in such a state and most probably never will. So Rabbi Brody's impressions make perfect sense.

[who knows]

There are thousands upon a thousands of Orthodox doctors which perform hundreds of thousands or millions of precedures per year and there was NOT A SIGNLE CASE of refusal to save life because of Shabbat.

This fact is a proof enough for me that the author of this article (MO rabbi) is, in fact, telling the truth and Shmarya is lying by pooling out an obscure and irrelevant opinions which are not followed presently by anybody.

[The Voice of Reason]

What a stupid post.

The comments here prove why he did not lie. The best line so far was:

"the underlying intention is different but the practical result is entirely the same."

The purpose of a Jew is to be a light onto the other nations. If you really think that God wouldn't want a Jew to save another humans life (how would you know forsure he is not Jewish in today's world?) then you are just being cynical.

I love a good argument, but this isn't going anywhere until someone starts quoting from a Torah source...

[ah-pee-chorus]

If you really think that God wouldn't want a Jew to save another humans life (how would you know forsure he is not Jewish in today's world?) then you are just being cynical. Posted by: The Voice of Reason

i guess the chofetz chayim wasnt bright enough to see things as you do. and while i agree that if there were a god he would certainly agree, rabbinic/halachic judaism couldnt care less. as far as halacha is concerned, we arent permitted to make judgements as to what we think god wants. we are bound by a halachic mesorah and thats the end of it.
the same thinking would say that theres no way god would permit slavery. but the torahs author did. so either the torah wasnt authored by god, or god is immoral in which case we have no right to assume what god would want.

[WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar]

APC, good point. And that is why the frumma are prohibited from thinking on their own. You cannot assume that what is common sense, moral, or basic decency is also halacha and kosher. The Torah law, as per the frumma gedolim, is often quite the opposite.

Therefore, it is dangerous to make your own decisions if frumma halacha is important to you, no matter how logical or straightforward such a decision may seem to you.

[ah-pee-chorus]

WSC- :)

[Get a clue]

Wow, the intellectualism of these two last readers sitting around & patting each other on the back is soooo overwhelming. Is that script rehearsed ? In any case you sound like two patrons at a blue collar bar sitting around sharing racist & sexist jabs that bowl you over with laughter

[Brian]

How difficult would it be for the halachah around this to be officially changed, so that the saving of any human life is permitted?

We cannot be responsible for the moral reprehensibility of yesterday's rabbis. If this change can be enacted by today's rabbis, then hopefully this conversation will be redundant.

APC- regarding your comment:
rabbis are stuck in the awkward position of being unable to admit that the torah and halachic mesorah are immoral, and must instead find ways to hide that fact while allowing for what they know is moral to appear to follow halacha.

Rabbis have long admitted that the Torah is immoral regarding the Ben Sorer Umoreh, and they nullified it (or so i'm told; not sure whether or not this is true). I don't see any reason they can't apply similar logic in this situation...

[Eli, what me messiah?]

APC,
One of the first episodes of Mr Deity expressed a similar view,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Eli, what me messiah?]

"you sound like two patrons at a blue collar bar sitting around sharing racist & sexist jabs that bowl you over with laughter"
Posted by: Get a clue | June 29, 2012 at 04:00 PM

Is there a camera in this place?
APC, WSC, can I get you another beer?

[David]

So can I eat a cheeseburger on Shabbos in New Jersey?

Posted by: WoolSilkCotton, rock star and sports superstar | June 29, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Only if your life depends on it.

[Get a clue]

Brian, what the heck are you talking about? Do you have any idea!

[Jeff]

Rabbis have long admitted that the Torah is immoral regarding the Ben Sorer Umoreh, and they nullified it

They didn't admit it was immoral; they merely said it was rarely enacted. One rabbi got a little incensed at said it never was.

[Jeff]

*and* said it never was.

[David]

The frumma interpretation of the Torah has nothing whatsoever to do with morality.

Don't confuse yourselves by thinking that Halachic intepretations have any underlying moral meaning.

If the Halacha said that you had to sacrifice your second born son, this is exactly what the the frumma would do.

[Get a clue]

David is cutting & pasting from Joseph Goebbels

[Jeff]

And to quote Marc Shapiro's recent post , "I would like someone to explain to me how it could ever not be darkhei shalom?"

I just read Dr. Shapiro's post. It's absolute chilling. If the Haredim manage not to destroy Israel and themselves over the next couple of decades (and that's a might big "If"), they will certainly turn it into a theocracy that would do any mullah or ayatollah proud.

Highly recommended.

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2012/06/future-of-israeli-haredi-society-can.html

[Seymour]

Where does it say in Torah that one cannot be mechalal shabbos to safe a goy?

[David]

David is cutting & pasting from Joseph Goebbels

Posted by: Get a clue | June 29, 2012 at 05:03 PM

What is false about what I said?

[seymour]

David is cutting & pasting from Joseph Goebbels

Posted by: Get a clue | June 29, 2012 at 05:03 PM

What is false about what I said?

Posted by: David | June 29, 2012 at 06:04 PM

nothing frumma do not like to here the truth

[Jeff]

I think "Get a clue" is Archie's latest moniker. Don't pay any attention.

He's a sick, sick man.

[Shmarya]

Yes, he really is.

What really bothers him is that former BTs, former haredim, etc., are the people who have done the most to stop child sex abuse and other crimes in haredi communities. He wants these crimes stopped. He was wronged (not abused) himself.

But that we would do it? That we would be successful in stopping those crimes while haredim aren't or don't even try? That I – the über heretic in his mind – would be successful?

He can't handle that.

The cognitive dissonance is too great.

So he lashes out at me and the rest of us.

In a very sad way, he's no different from Lipa Margulies or Aaron Schechter or the Novominsker.

Archie can't lose the myth in his mind, the myth of a pristine, perfect haredi world led by pure, selfless rabbis and activists, that once existed.

And so he attacks us.

Just like the Moetzet, Margulies, etc., can't lose the fiction that they're holy, selfless, honest people who care about children, because if they do, who would venerate them and support them and fund them? And the haredi Judaism they represent would fade quickly away.

And so they sacrifice abused kids, marginal people, agunot, etc., to protect their fiction.

In the end, Archie is doing the same thing.

[ah-pee-chorus]

APC,
One of the first episodes of Mr Deity expressed a similar view,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf8q9QHfhI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Posted by: Eli, what me messiah?

ive never seen that before. i love it. thnx.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Rabbis have long admitted that the Torah is immoral regarding the Ben Sorer Umoreh, and they nullified it (or so i'm told; not sure whether or not this is true). I don't see any reason they can't apply similar logic in this situation...

Posted by: Brian |

brian- the rabbis didnt nullify it. and they didnt pass judgement on its morality. the majority opinion in the gemara is that there would never be an actual case of this. there are many conditions that had to be met and so they felt it was impossible to find an example of it. there are examples in the talmud of rabbis insrtructing their students not to follow a certain halacha but they didnt change the halacha, so their ruling wasnt meant to be eternal necessarily. if conditions changed so might the practice. acouple of examples are the suspension of the need to let the land lie empty every seventh year, and the prohibition to do yibbum and to do chalitza instead, even though the torah says yibbum is preferable.
in any case, the underlying law is still valid absent whatever special circumstances caused these rabbis to suspend or ignore them. so that wouldnt help the case here of saving a NJ on shabbos. it may effectively have been changed in practice nowadays, but its still against the torah if not for a ruling that the danger to jews is sufficient to permit it. further, todays rabbis are nothing more than reference librarians who look up whats written by other rabbis in old books. nobody today has the balls to apply halacha as it was done prior, with an eye to the halachas effect in actual practice, and a willingness to order it ignored or amended when necessary to comply with the universl qualifiers for everything in the torah.
'vochay bahem' - which can be understood to exclude any mitzvah which can lead to physical danger, or, that all mitzvot have to be able to be lived with. so a halacha which just wasnt working out well in day to day life could be changed. an example of this might be agunah. since the halacha is causing many horrible situations of chained women, rabbis should enact a solution that works, and that will be the de facto halacha.
the second one is 'lo bashamayim hee'- the torah wasnt given in heaven. in the talmud we learn that in a dispute over what the proper understanding of a halacha is, a direct voice from the heavens is overridden by a simple majority of men. todays rabbis havent absorbed any of this. they are pathetic weaklings having been beaten into submission by the concept that we are all such nothings next to the rabbis who lived 2000 or 1000 or 500 years ago, that we are no longer permitted to use our brains anymore.

[ah-pee-chorus]

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2012/06/future-of-israeli-haredi-society-can.html

Jeff - WOW! he lays it out pretty good.
fortuitously, he happens to provide a few responsa dealing with the topic of this post. regarding saving the life of various types of people on shabbos....

R. Israel David Harfenes, Nishmat Shabbat, vol. 5 no. 500:4.

basically, anyone who was familiar with the torah and rejected it and is mechallel shabbos in public may NOT be saved. he specifically mentions those who dared study in zionist institutions of heresy and those who were in the impure israeli army. whats especially interesting is that since this is a jew we're talking about , presumably the concept of causing enmity or retribution from the goyim wouldnt apply. if thats the case (and i cant see why not)then there would be no question that its forbidden to violate shabbos to save another dying human being if he's jewish and a heretic.
he also brings the sources for how its not necessary to return money to a jew who is an apikores, if he owns a store and gives too much change, for example. and the rambam says not only are you not obligated to return money to a jew who doesnt believe, but it is FORBIDDEN to do so.
the rambam was an asshole.

[Jeff]

the rambam was an asshole.

He was a farbissiner, but what bothers me most about him is that frum Jews treat his opinions as though they were divine pronouncements when it's convenient for them to do so, and as soon as he says something they dont like, they drop him.

I once held up to my nephew the fact that the Rambam and Joseph Caro both spoke disparagingly of kapparot. His answer was, "We don't hold by the Bais Yoseph; we hold by the Rema." Yeah, whatever. How bloody convenient.

[jacob]

I just took a quick skim of the article and it seems like rabbi brody is not dishonest at all, in fact is says very clearly that the talmud makes a distinction between saving a jewish life and a non-jewish life on shabbos: "A NUMBER of talmudic texts make clear that this understanding only permitted Shabbat desecration to save fellow Jews." further more from a purely legalistic perspective, nowadays NORMATIVE jewish law mandates saving a non jewish life on shabbos (end of discussion), (with regard to the ruling of rav ovadyah yosef his conclusion was still that a non-jewish life should be saved on shabbos but he was trying to take an approach that would minimize desecration therefore he opted for an approach that would result in both a jewish and non jewish hospital worker jointly holding a scalpel and jointly making an incision) additionally rabbi brody also states that some rabbinic scholars disagree to the extent that "mipnei evah" would apply: "Rabbinic scholars dispute whether dispensations to prevent enmity may justify breaking a biblical prohibition or only a rabbinic edict" so it seems like rabbi brody is being honest; shamarya the position that you quote in your article don't represent normative law they are fringe opinions of modern day (crazy) rabbis...a distinction should be made between modern day law as it stands now-saving a non-jewish life on shabbat-and rabbinic attitudes from the talmudic period that some modern day rabbis anti-nonjewish rabbis choose to base their views on.....

[fred]

Shmarya,

You have now lost all credibiltyy. Brody is a top notch fellow and you simply are using him to blow off steam. you cite unnamed sources and your hatefull screed really undermines any good work that you still occaissonally do. If some had the time, it would be easy to replace your blog as a scandel sheet/listing and we could get what we need to know without all the bile you spew. But it probably wont happen--- cause only lonely, losers like you take the time to obsess and manipute news about the community you once claim to have been part of. I would gladly contribute my maisser money for your therapy.

Fred

[Shmarya]

Posted by: fred | June 30, 2012 at 10:34 PM

You're an idiot, Fred.

I cited no "unnamed" sources.

What I did is discuss how this issue is actually viewed in halakha.

Brody lied and he knows it – as do lots of people, as you can see from the comments posted above yours.

Now toddle off.

[Dr. Mendel Mendel]

1) I agree with Fred.
2) Therefore I am an idiot.
3) I am proud to be an idiot.

IDIOTS OF THE WORLD UNITE, YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR SCOTTS.

[Special peace envoy]

You may not have cited unnamed sources to attack Brody but you are known for it overall.

Do you consider yourself a journalist? Why are you so quick to label people idiots?

[Shmarya]

Do you consider yourself a journalist? Why are you so quick to label people idiots?

Posted by: Special peace envoy | July 01, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Because just like you, quite often they are.

[Yochanan Lavie]

The Rambam was a product of his time. He could be an asshole at times, but he also opened the possibility that one can be observant and not a fundamentalist; that one can accept science, philosophy, and logic. Therefore, he was a very special asshole.

The whole saving a life thing is a failure of rabbinic Judaism. People of conscience find their way around it, but they have to resort to mental gymnastics. One poster earlier mentioned a rabbi (I forgot whom) who said that "Shalom" is a name of God, so "for the sake of peace" means for the sake of God. I like that interpretation but it is still apologetic. I'd rather go back to the miqra that says all human beings are made in the Divine Image, before there even was such a thing as a Jew. If the MO rabbis had balls they'd use that and frankly say the rabbis were as wrong about saving a life as they were (are?) about the geocentric theory.

I think the dehumanization of gentiles is an extreme reaction to persecution and should be understood as an unfortunate relic of the past (like the clothing of the antisemitic 18th century Polish nobility). I don't believe it's an intrinsic part of the tradition (though to chareidim, every mishegas is).

[Jeff]

If the MO rabbis had balls they'd use that and frankly say the rabbis were as wrong about saving a life as they were (are?) about the geocentric theory.

Yes, but at that point, they'd have to acknowledge the limits of Chazal and adopt Mordechai Kaplan's position - "the tradition gets a voice, not a veto" - and that they aren't prepared to do.

Look at Avi Weiss. Instead of acknowledging the rabbis' archaic view of women, he jumps through hoops to find a way to ordain a woman within the boundaries of halakhah - and they call him a heretic anyway.

[ah-pee-chorus]

that one can accept science, philosophy, and logic.

Yochanan Lavie-
its true the rambam did say this, but he also said that this may only be done in a case where a reconciliation with the torah is possible. he permitted certain parts of the creation narrative to be understood allegorically. but he was clear in setting limits and insisted that where no resolution was possible science must be ignored and assumed wrong. so while he may be lower on the fundie scale than others he was a fundie.
and i also accept that where and when he lived the mistreatment of jews may have been so great that he felt justified in cutting non-jews no slack. but if he was writing halacha to be followed forever, he should have (and could have) said that these laws only apply when relations are bad and that should they improve, one may violate shabbos to save them. ut he didnt, because like all fundies, he refused to allow morality to enter the picture. he ruled based on the laws as written, and they dont permit it.
had rambam been moral he would have found a way to permit saving a life on shabbos, perhaps as you suggested.
remember, he also said that the purpose of bris was to lower male sexual pleasure and desire, as well as to lower the pleasure of women with whom they have sex.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Look at Avi Weiss. Instead of acknowledging the rabbis' archaic view of women, he jumps through hoops to find a way to ordain a woman within the boundaries of halakhah - and they call him a heretic anyway.

Posted by: Jeff

great example. there is no room in orthodoxy for change of any kind, unless its to impose further restrictions.

[Jeff]

Shai Held wrote an article last year in which he argued that humanism is a core element of Judaism: Religion's most urgent problem.

[Brian]

APC- thanks very much for your thoughful and comprehensive response to my question. I prefaced it with "I'm not srue whether this is true" because I received the information from a shiur given in an MO shul, and I suspected there might have been some "spin" on things. In this case, the spin appears to have been, "Wow-look at how liberal the Rabbis were. This is are a humane religion after all!"

[seymour]

i was at a a shuir for people who where becoming Jewish.

The rabbie was saying how moral the Torah was. He gave an example that the Torah a slave was not for ever like property but must be released at shimtha.

Of course that is not entirely true I I mentioned it and said goyim where slaves and property and what he said only applied to Jews.

he was not happy

[ah-pee-chorus]

Shai Held wrote an article last year in which he argued that humanism is a core element of Judaism: Religion's most urgent problem.

Posted by: Jeff

thats amazing. and i was totally ignorant as to mechon hadar. i love helds thinking and give rav kook props for this....

"It is forbidden," Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook writes, "for the fear of heaven [yirat shamayim] to push aside the human being's natural morality, for then it would no longer be pure fear of heaven." Kook argues that every human being has an internal - we might say, God-given - moral compass, and that religious passion must never override its teachings. Piety is pure when it deepens our concern for others, impure when it dilutes our sense of ethics, or even gives us license to behave in ways we would have found unconscionable had we not been religious. (Many of Rabbi Kook's presumed spiritual heirs would no doubt benefit from an intensive review of his words. ) "

while im not sure how kook can reconcile that with the concept of rabbinic judaism/halachic, its still light years ahead of the majority of MO's today and ALL charedim, who insist that there is no such thing as morality exclusive of the torah. i cant tell you how many times ive been told this and have cited proof from the torah itself that this isnt true.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Brian -

no problem..

seymour -

you had to spoil his fun. :)

[sadisticstevestrong]

Shmarya is not a journalist, not even close to be one, he is a blogger, no more no less. His blog is just to express his opinions, even when he decides to call a liar someone who obviously is trying to bridge a gap on an important issue. Should we be riled up about Smarya's opinions? No, we should just view them as than, non-authoritative opinions with the intention of course to call attention, which he craves like a child.

He has done a pretty good job unmasking the hypocrisy of Hreadi and their obviously sick perversions on children, hands up for that. Anything else...is just opinions to which we either wipe our asses with, or take them as scholarly, which they are not.

[Todd]

Saving a Non-Jew on Shabbat

Q: Is it permissible to violate Shabbat in order to save a non-Jew?

A: The accepted Halachah is – yes (see Shut Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4:79).

http://www.ravaviner.com/

[Jeff]

while im not sure how kook can reconcile that with the concept of rabbinic judaism/halachic, its still light years ahead of the majority of MO's today and ALL charedim, who insist that there is no such thing as morality exclusive of the torah. i cant tell you how many times ive been told this and have cited proof from the torah itself that this isnt true.

Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | July 01, 2012 at 08:09 PM

If Rav Kook were alive to see what Orthodoxy has degenerated into, it would kill him.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Thanks Jeff and APC for your thoughtful responses. The Rambam was not perfect, and I don't idol-worship him, but he did point the way to a better direction. I consider myself a Maimonidean rationalist, but not a disciple of the Rambam, if you catch my meaning.

As much as I usually don't like kabbalah, I love Rav Kook. He is humanistic; he even accepted evolution. And, he is a Zionist. Unfortunately, the right wing of religious Zionism has captured him for an ultra-nationalist agenda. I am a proud moderate religious Zionist, but I am not an ultra-nationalist.

[Jeff]

Unfortunately, the right wing of religious Zionism has captured him for an ultra-nationalist agenda.

My understanding is that a number of groups do that with Rav Kook. He seems to be the sort of figure in whose writings you can find statements to support a variety of divergent opinions.

I think Rav Soloveitchik may be the same. The liberals and conservatives have each claimed him for their own.

[Jeff]

I meant also to say that wherever the truth lay with Rav Kook regarding his theology and political leanings, he reached out to secular Israelis (and not to convert them) and had no use for morons. If he were alive to see the behavior of the Haredim, especially as regards their sinat chinam - I honestly think he'd take to his bed and waste way.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Jeff: true, and true.

[Jeff]

I mean, not to belabor the point, but can you imagine if he'd been placed in suspended animation and revived today and taken to see how the Haredim live, how they've proliferated, taking yet contributing nothing while convincing themselves they're actually the most productive members of society, all the while denigrating the state and denying its very right to exist... then if you were to take him to see Haredim on Shabbat lobbing stones at cars and spitting at passersby; if you were to tell him about women being forced to sit in the rear of buses and being beaten up if they refuse to comply; about the rabbinate's disenfranchisement of the Modern Orthodox, especially pertaining to their marriages and conversions, and the MO's spineless capitulation to them; how they interrogate everyone who comes to them and look for any reason to deny someone's Jewish ancestry; if you were to show him footage of the lunatics chasing Naama Margolit down the street screaming "Shiksa! Curveh!" while the police stand by, terrified to get involved; if you were to show him the material here on FM... I have to think he wouldn't be able to take it. His heart would just give out.

Of course, they wouldn't care. They'd just call him a kofer and forget about him. As I keep saying, Moshe Rabbenu wouldn't have been frum enough for these people.

[Hendl]

I am a lawyer, and was raised with the Orthodox. The above is why I always say: Jewish law made law school look like kindergarten.