Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• Jonathan Daniel <jdaniel1@nyc.rr.com>

• Herman Rubin <hrubin@stat.purdue.edu>

• Avigdor Loeb <raloeb@flash.net>

• Dan Yurman <djysrv@hotmail.com>

• johanna <rebiljo@voyager.net>

From: Jonathan Daniel <jdaniel1@nyc.rr.com>
Date: Tue Jun 12 13:27:32 US/Pacific 2001
Subject: Re: Adam and Eve's Grief

Nadaclue states:

> Cute?  CUTE?  I have been around a long time and I have never been accused
> of acting cute!  Are you suggesting that to speculate on what is written in
> the TaNaKh is an exercise in "cuteness?"  And "modern" cuteness at that!  If
> speculation is cute, is Midrash also cute or does the speculation have to be
> modern to qualify?  I am a mother and I know that if I lost two sons as Adam
> and Eve did - one by murder and one by banishment - I would grieve.  If I
> have read the story subjectively, is that improper?  Is it not proper to
> read these stories and look at them in relation to our own experiences?
> And, if not, what is their purpose other than as a collection of legends,
> myths and half-truths?

I have seen many criticize the Tanakh as being imperfect because it does not
live up to their expectations of what they feel it should contain.  I imagine
that if we view the Tanakh as divinely inspired or a product of some divine
intelligence then such criticisms might have some ground since it is
apparently not all things to all people and therefore is deficient.  Of
course, if we do so, then we are not criticizing the Tanakh but the divinity
that created it.  If we criticize the divinity that created it we are saying
that this divinity is imperfect.  I suppose this brings us to the old dilemma
of, "If God is God he is not good and if God is good he is not God." (i.e. if
God is omnipotent, then God is responsible for both good and evil, but if God
is only good, then God is not responsible for all things and is not
omnipotent).  In the Talmud there is a story that one of the Rabbis was
walking down the road and criticized a person for being ugly.  This person
replied with something like, "Don't take it up with me, take it up with the
one who made me."  The Rabbi of course learned his lesson.  On the other hand,
if the Tanakh is not divinely inspired but rather a collection of the
traditions of our ancestors, if one feels that this collection is deficient
because it does not conform to modern sensibilities of what one feels should
be there, this might lead one to speculate and criticize the psychological
motivations or deficiencies of our ancestors.  But since the time and place
and context in which these stories were set down in the form that we know is
so remote, it seems to me to be very difficult and perhaps impossible to
understand what was the motivation behind the omissions of the compilers.
Without looking into the historical and sociological context in which our
ancestors lived then makes such an exercise quite subjective.  Truly this may
be a useful exercise to the speculator in that it brings the speculator into a
greater understanding of him/herself.  Reflection on anything can do this.
However I do not think such an exercise brings us much closer to understanding
the original motivations of the compilers and I think it is a delusion to
imagine that it does.  Self-reflection using the stories of the Tanakh can be
a useful enterprise; but I think that one should remember that this is what
one is doing.  To imagine that through this we have come to a greater
understanding of the society in which the stories were written and the purpose
for which these stories were written is, I think, illusory.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Herman Rubin <hrubin@stat.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 07:51:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Does Social Activism Interfere with Religion?

In a message dated June 11 14:40:41, Patricia <PDZ99@aol.com> writes:

>Previous posts have answered the question as to what one does when one's no
>longer happy with the religion.  The answer was "go someplace else."  But the
>reality is, I'm not unhappy with my religion, just it's political arm.  And
>to me, you are right, the religion and the activism seem to have become so
>entwined that it's hard to keep it separate.

I find myself in the same position, and have been for some time.  I was "born"
Jewish, but have never been able to accept tradition as a basis for much of
anything, so Reform looked like the place for me.  The Reform RELIGIOUS
position is, essentially, study and make your choices accordingly; with this I
agree.

However, their political positions seem to be as totalitarian as the religious
positions of the ultra-Orthodox.  I do not believe that I should go into the
details which many left-wing posters had done, but I am politically
libertarian, and so I consider the intervention of governments to have become
a major source of damage to humanity.  I include the public schools and the
major social aspects of the federal budget.

This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558

Return to Table of Contents

From: Avigdor Loeb <raloeb@flash.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 10:47:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Lest we forget: Miriam's Lashon Hara

Polar wrote:

> My point was that it seems a bit selective to zap Miriam, when the Torah is
> full of much more egregious examples of lashon hora.  Has anyone, rabbinic
> or other, wondered about this?

Indeed, this is exactly the point. Miriam certainly intended no harm to her
beloved brother, Moshe, she wasn't blabbing around, but talking with Aaron
her other brother.  Moshe himself wouldn't have minded, since he was humble
and forgiving of personal slights. So what gives? Firstly, G-d judges tzadikim
to a hair's breadth. That is, more is expected of leadership, especially
moral leadership. Second, Lashon Hara is really bad stuff.

A separate point, why do we not have tzaras today? We aren't elevated
enough. We don't deserve G-d giving us almost instant feedback on our sins
so we can correct them, or maybe we wouldn't know what to do with it. We
just wallow in them and have to figure it out for ourselves. 

Yours, Avigdor Loeb

Return to Table of Contents

From: Dan Yurman <djysrv@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:46:13 -0600
Subject: Letter from D. Lipstadt

The follow message was sent to supporters of Prof. Deborah Lipstadt concerning
possible new legal action in the Irving case.  Circulate at will to any public
data network.

Apologies for any cross posting.

  June 12, 2001

  Dear Friends:

  I know many of you thought this long saga was over. However, like a bad
  novel or Shabbat in Alaska in mid-June, this matter seems to be never
  ending. On June 20th I shall be going back into court to fight Irving's
  attempt to appeal the verdict in the case. According to British law he must
  get permission, "leave" in British forensic parlance, to do so. He has
  three opportunities, two of which he has exhausted, to request
  permission. The first was from the trial judge. The judge turned him down
  cold.  The next step was a written brief submitted to a member of the Court
  of Appeals. That judge also turned him down. [Irving immediately went on his
  web page and said that this judge was a Jew and a former Communist and that
  was why he turned Irving down.] The third and final step is oral arguments
  in the Court of Appeals.

  1. Background on the Appeal: The hearing will be before a tribunal of three
  judges from the Court of Appeals beginning on June 20th in the Royal High
  Court in London.  Normally this is a short hearing with each side only
  making oral arguments. However, in my case it is much more complicated
  because of Irving's legal actions. [Why am I not surprised??]

  2. Irving's Attempt to Introduce New Evidence: Irving has introduced 300
  pages of evidence, mainly on the scientific "impossibilities" of gas
  chambers.  He claims that this evidence is new and that its author, Germar
  Rudolph, a German who has for many years been associated with neo-Nazis and
  Holocaust deniers, was not available to serve as a witness during the trial.

  Rudolph's report purports to use chemical and physical analysis to prove
  that the gas chambers were a scientific impossibility. When one first
  glances at the report, it looks authoritative. [Of course, given its
  conclusion one knows that it is not. However, a novice in this field might
  be impressed.]  My lawyers will argue that this evidence is not new. Much of
  it was on the web prior to the trial.  They will further argue Rudolph
  offered to testify for Irving prior to the trial. Given that the material is
  not new and that Rudolph was available to give testimony, we shall contend
  that permission to appeal should not be granted.

  3.  The Potential Response of the Court of Appeals: There is however, a good
  chance that the Court of Appeals will let Irving introduce the "new"
  material.  They may bend over backwards so as not to appear unfair to
  someone who was a litigant in person, i.e. represented himself, during the
  trial.  If Irving is given permission to appeal, i.e. to introduce this
  material, the appeal hearing may well take place immediately after the first
  hearing. Therefore, I have to go into court prepared for the appeal, even
  though Irving may not be granted permission to appeal.  It is also possible
  that they will allow the material to be introduced and then schedule
  hearings for the fall.

  4. Expert Reports: If the Court of Appeals does not allow the so-called new
  evidence to be introduced the matter should end there. However, if they do
  allow it to be introduced we will have to argue to substance. Therefore, we
  instructed two experts [Robert Jan Van Pelt, who was so magnificent the
  first time around, and Rich Green, a chemist who has been analyzing
  deniers's arguments for years] to analyze Irving's so-called new evidence.
  The research done by the experts is first rate.  Therefore, irrespective
  whether the information is used or not, once again, Irving has inadvertently
  done us a service. We have been compelled by him to demonstrate that the
  latest Holocaust denial argument is a lot of bunk. Consequently, in the
  future, when a student or anyone else says, "I read a report showing how
  the gas chambers were a physical impossibility," we can say cite these
  experts's reports. [The reports will be posted on our website
  www.hdot.org as soon as we can do so.]

  5. Recovering Costs from Irving: After we, it is to be hoped, "win"
  the appeal we shall then turn to recovery of costs.  Given Penguin's
  commercial calculations in relation to the appeal, there may not pursue
  Irving for costs once the appeal is done. [In England loser pays.] Penguin
  might calculate that Irving doesn't have the funds so why make this
  costly attempt.  My calculation is a bit different.  The only way to stop
  this guy from doing this again is to go after him for what he owes us even
  if it leads to bankrupting him.  Even if Penguin does not pursue him for
  costs, I will.  Irving, of course, has no funds that are easily
  traceable. Therefore, it will probably cost more in legal fees to pursue him
  for costs than we have any hope of ever recouping.  However, we feel
  committed to doing this to demonstrate to him and others who might try this
  kind of action in the future that there is a "cost" to it.

  6.  Irving the Fund Raiser: Irving has recently been in the US on a fund
  raising trip. He has, he reports, raised a substantial portion of the
  $200,000 that he says he needs for the appeal. His chief supporters are, one
  can assume, those who share his ideological beliefs.  He appeared in Orange
  Country, California at a meeting of the Institute for Historical Review, the
  leading Holocaust denial entity in this country, if not the world.

  As you can all well imagine, this is like being hit with a recurring case of
  an illness when you thought you had completely recovered.  We are quite
  confident about our chances because, once again, my lawyers and the
  researchers have done incredible work.  They are committed to not allowing
  Irving to gain an inch.  Let's hope that the Court of Appeals feels
  similarly.

  I will be in touch from London.

  In friendship, Deborah

  Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ph.D. Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and HOlocaust
  Studies Director, Institute for Jewish Studies Emory University 205S Callaway
  Center Atlanta, GA. 30322

  Tel: 404-727-2298 Dept. Office: 404-727-6301 Fax 404-727-3297

  WARNING: I DON'T CORRECT TPYOS IN EMAIL. THAT WOULD DEFEAT THE PRUPOSE OF
  EMAIL.

Return to Table of Contents

From: johanna <rebiljo@voyager.net>
Date: Wed Jun 13 14:23:31 US/Pacific 2001
Subject: McVey and Hell

Last night, on one of the news commentary shows my husband loves to watch,
Rabbi Marc Gillman and a Catholic priest were discussing the execution of Tim
McVey.  The question was asked "Is McVey going to Hell?"  Rabbi Gillman,
without hesitation, stated "Yes, absolutely!"  He went on to discuss the
magnitude of McVey's sins.

The priest, on the other hand, responded to Rabbi Gillman by saying that no
one knows but G-d and that this is in G-d's hands.  That we should pray for
the redemption of McVey's soul, that no human being is beyond redemption.

My husband freaked out at Rabbi Gillman's responce.  I was disgusted by it. It
seemed to both of us that the priest's view was much more Jewish than the
rabbi's!  What ever happened to tchuvah?

Did anyone else see this program?  What do you think of what happened?

Johanna Smith

Return to Table of Contents

"It is not our task as liberal Jews to complain about the Orthodox attitude or to be bullied by it, but rather to choose our legitimate path according to the inner logic and development of liberal Judaism" (Rabbi Walter Jacob)

Previous Issue: v10n131		Next Issue: v10n133
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form