By Bill Narvey, Jewish Israel News & Views
April 20th, 2012?
Some Thoughts on Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman’s Proposed Bill to Add a 15th Law to ?Israel’s Existing 14 Basic Laws
On April 19th, 2012, Ted Belman posted a brief article by Jonathon Lis entitled Israel’s Justice ?Minister defends bill allowing MKs to bypass High Court. Lis’ article briefly described ?Neeman’s proposed bill and made some reference to the controversy it has generated between ?Neeman and his supporters and Israel’s left wing. Belman prefaced this article with his own ?comment, all of which is posted under the title In a democracy, power rests with the people ?and not the Courts
Belman sees some parallels between Canada’s efforts to repatriate its constitution from Britain ?which until that event occurred, had sole and final authority when it came to any constitutional ?amendment, Canada’s notion of Quebec being a distinct society and Neeman’s effort to ?incorporate a new 15th law into Israel’s 14 Basic Laws, which appears primarily concerned with ?enshrining a balance between government’s/ Knesset’s power and authority on the one hand ?and Israel’s Supreme Court on the other.?
Neeman’s proposed 15th Basic Law also appears to seek to give sole authority to the ?government/Knesset when it comes to policy given the force of law to address and deal with ?certain internal and external challenges of critical importance to Israel’s security and well ?being.?
While there may be some parallels Belman has alluded to, they are substantively different both ?in intent and the historical and present circumstances Neeman is seeming to address and deal ?with.?
Two similar circumstances in Canada and one in the U.S. that will be later dealt with, do ?coalesce in some measure with what Neeman is seeking to achieve in relation to curbing the ?power and authority of Israel’s liberal-left leaning activist court and enabling Knesset to again ?pass a law that will be valid in spite of that same law being ruled unconstitutional by Israel’s ?Supreme Court.?
?1.? The Patriation of the Canadian Constitution and the Idea of Quebec being a Distinct ?Society
The Canadian historical political/societal experience, situation and circumstances back in the ??1970’s when the effort to patriate (not re-patriate) its constitution from Britain differ markedly ?from Israel’s.?
The initiative to patriate Canada’s constitution was under then Liberal PM Trudeau, a federalist. ?Part of his initiative was to first have a Bill of Rights, dealing more specifically with federal ?rights and powers vs. provincial rights and powers as well as individual rights agreed on ?between the Federal government and the provinces. On achieving that, Britain was called on to ?amend Canada’s constitution to incorporate that Bill of Rights into the Constitution and then to ?relinquish any authority of the new and expanded constitution in favor of Canada.?
The patriated Canadian constitution did give power and authority to the judicial branch of ?government to rule on the constitutionality of Federal and provincial laws, with the ultimate ?arbiter of the constitutionality of Canada’s laws resting with Canada’s Supreme Court.?
The Canadian Constitution does not give Quebec constitutional authority to proclaim itself and ?be a legally recognized distinct society. It has however, been so politically recognized by the ?Federal and other provincial governments in many ways. The roadblock to so constitutionally ?recognizing such status for Quebec was that the other 9 provinces feared Quebec would use ?that constitutional recognition and the power and authority it entailed to gain rights and ?privileges not available to the other provinces. Further, the concern was that Quebec would ?use such constitutional authority to solidify the position Quebec separatists were then ?advancing based on a sense of Quebec nationalism that began in the 1950’s and grew from ?there and to that end, have a constitutional basis to separate from Canada and declare itself an ?independent state.?
The consequences of Quebec separating were enormous and threatened Canada’s ability in ?such circumstances to remain a nation.?
Federal initiated efforts to have the Canadian constitution further amended after patriation to ?incorporate a “distinct society” provision in favor of Quebec by way of 1st the Meech Lake ?Accord and thereafter, the Charlottetown Accord, failed. To this day has not signed onto the ?Canadian constitution, though it practically recognizes that authority when it serves their ?purposes.?
The separatist movement, while still alive in Quebec, has lost much of its steam as Quebec has ?found that it has gained much advantage and privileges under our Federalist system.?
As regards Israel being a Distinct Society, that is covered in one or more of the 14 Basic Laws ?that declare Israel to be a Jewish and Democratic state. ?
Issues as regards Palestinian nationalism and self determination differ in just about every ?material particular. ?
Quebec was since 1967, part of Canada and in the 1970’s – 1980’s was actively seeking to ?separate and be an independent nation on land it inhabited. The history and issues that ?presaged and remained in that regard was far different than the history of Palestinians and the ?rise of their own nationalism and desire of self determination. ?
No foreign nation was pushing Quebec to separate for the purpose of harming and destroying ?the rest of Canada, though such separation would in the result be harmful, if not destructive of ?the remaining provinces ability to remain a Canadian nation.?
The situation as regards Palestinians, their intractable hatred and enmity of Jews and Israel and ?their 1st allowing themselves to be the witting tool of the Arab nations in their effort to weaken ?and ultimately destroy Israel in stages , but more recently taking on that goal for themselves is ?a vastly different historical situation than contrasted with Quebec’s desire to be a “distinct ?society”. ?
?2.? Ideological Judicial Activism of the Israeli Supreme Court
Whether Canada’s Supreme Court should have that power and authority over Parliament and ?provincial legislators, appears not to have been a big issue. Our judiciary historically were ?seen as relatively impartial when it came to ruling on legal issues that came before it.?
This reality of Canada’s judiciary being less influenced by political ideology and more faithful to ?jurisprudence and legal principles, was then and still is the Canadian reality which still stands in ?stark contrast to the American experience where Americans and their governments have ?created an ideological battleground within their judicial system right up to and including their ?Supreme Court.?
As regards Neeman’s proposed 15th Basic Law, it appears to be an effort to correct an ?imbalance as between the legislative power and authority of the Knesset and Israel’s judiciary ?and Supreme Court in particular. ?
In terms of the essential proposal that the Knesset be legislatively empowered to re-enact a law ?previously found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it is an interesting after the fact ?approach, whereas the Canadian constitution has a before the fact approach to enabling it to ?pass legislation that in some fashion does offend Canada’s constitution.?
To that end, the Canadian constitution has what has been referred to as the “notwithstanding ?clause”.?
Simply put, the government can pass legislation that offends the constitution in some particular, ?provided that law specifies that the law is passed, notwithstanding some particular ?constitutional right or power. Such notwithstanding clause legislation applies only to certain ?constitutional rights and powers and it is to be time limited. The government of course at the ?expiry of the temporary enactment, can if the situation, that law was intended to address ?remains, can again pass the law for another temporary period of time.?
It seems Canada’s notwithstanding clause would be a more practical and efficient way to deal ?with the concerns Neeman is addressing. ?
Neeman’s proposal contemplates having to invest time and effort in the Knesset to get a law ?passed that the government deems necessary to address some critical issue or challenge, only ?to have to revisit that whole exercise if that law is ruled invalid by the Supreme Court and the ?critical issue remains.?
If Neeman were to amend his proposed bill to incorporate a “notwithstanding clause”, then the ?government/Knesset could deal with the wisdom of a law that a particular situation demanded, ?but which law in order to address the situation, would be contrary to right that would otherwise ?be protected. ?
Not only would such “notwithstanding clause” approach save the government a lot of time and ?effort, it would drastically reduce delay in dealing with an extant problem that needed ?immediate attention.?
The 2nd concern Neeman’s proposal seeks to address is that the Israeli Supreme Court has been ?accorded ultimate authority to determine the legality or illegality of a Knesset enactment. If ?the Supreme Court were balanced and not ideological as Canadian courts are in the main, the ?problem Neeman seeks to deal with would not be nearly as great and perhaps never would ?have arisen
The problem however is that the Israeli Supreme Court has gone beyond the traditional role of ?interpreting and applying the law as it is. Instead, it has been in the business of making new ?law and as such has earned its reputation as being an activist court. ?
Ordinarily, enactment of laws is the sole purview of the legislative branch of government. The ?role of the courts is to determine whether that Knesset enacted law is constitutional or lawful, ?based on jurisprudential analysis and past legal precedent.?
The Supreme Court, before known as the Barak court and now the Dorit Beinish court have ?been often accused, mostly by conservatives and the right, over successive past Israeli ?governments as being an ideologically liberal-left leaning activist court that has subverted the ?Knesset’s power and authority to make new law. ?
Even under PM Olmert, in spite of his being left leaning, he too found Israel’s Supreme Court ?too activist for his taste and too often seeming to be involved in subverting certain ?government/Knesset efforts to pass laws that were intended as an extension of government ?policy to meet and deal with internal or external certain challenges. ?
Olmert appointed a new Justice Minister, Friedmann to deal with the problem, but whatever ?Friedman may have done to restrain the Barak court’s judicial activism, obviously was not ?enough. ?
Earlier this year, the government sought to pass law that would allow the government to have ?some minor input in the appointment of new judges to the Supreme Court. That effort too, ?does not seem to have been proceeded with by the Knesset, due to objections by the court and ?the efforts liberal-left objectors.?
Now, Justice Minister Neeman is taking a run at the problem the Israeli government and ?Knesset have with being undermined by the Supreme Court’s judicial activism to the extent the ?government and Knesset seek to put policy it deems necessary as regards particular internal ?and external challenges, into law.?
As regards the issue of judicial activism, as noted in the U.S., the judicial system, especially at ?the appellate levels including the Supreme Court, have been and remain an ideological ?battleground. ?
Confirming that situation that marks the U.S. Judicial system, the media, relying on informed ?pundits and legal scholars all have weighed into how the Supreme Court will rule as regards ?the recent hearing into the constitutionality of Obama Care. ?
All predict the court will rule 5 to 4 in favor or against the constitutionality of Obama Care. The ?deciding vote in that regard is predicted to fall to SC Justice Kennedy, who has been known to ?swing to the liberal left or conservative right side of the bench on various issues, unlike the ?other 8 justices that can virtually be counted on to equally divide between voting on the liberal ??– left or conservative – right side of an issue.?
The situation of judicial activism based on ideological lines is exacerbated in Israel because the ?Israeli Supreme Court has been under past governments, weighted with liberal-left leaning ?judges. ?
The process of judicial appointment has been imprudently left in the hands of the court. Thus ?the Supreme Court has been vested with the ability to determine itself which judges will be ?appointed and in that fashion, assure that the Israeli Supreme court remains a self perpetuating ?dynasty of ideologically liberal-left activists, just as former Chief Justice Barak ensured it was ?and would be.?
It is no wonder that the left scream that Neeman’s proposed 15th Basic Law will be the death of ?democracy. ?
It is of course hysterical hyperbole. The liberal-left know however, in their head and gut, if ?Neeman’s proposed bill for a 15th Basic Law is passed in the Knesset, they will lose a very ?significant advantageous edge they have had to advocate, undermine, weaken and sometimes ?defeat government policy and efforts to legislate those policies, that offend their liberal-left ?ideological sensibilities and agendas.?
The liberal left thus does not want a balance struck between the power and authority of ?government/Knesset and the Supreme Court. ?
What the liberal-left want is to keep their edge and have that edge continue to be protected by ?a liberal-left activist Supreme Court. ?
Further, the liberal-left do not want government/Knesset to be have ultimate power and ?authority in establishing policy, enforced by the weight of law, that seeks to deal with critical ?internal and external challenges to Israel’s best interests, her character as a Jewish and ?democratic state, her well being, security and indeed national aspirations that are existentially ?threatened. ?
The reason for the liberal-left’s concern in this regard is that they have before challenged the ?government/Knesset’s position in that regard. If the government/Knesset gain such authority ?and power over the Supreme Court, the liberal-left fear they will lose their ability to see their ?own ideological dreams for themselves and Israel realized. ?
Those then are the power struggle battle lines drawn between Neeman and his supporters of ?his effort to address and correct the imbalance between government/Knesset and the Israeli ?Supreme Court and those on the Israeli liberal-left that don’t want balance because such ?balance would mean giving up the significant edge they have that has been until now protected ?by the ideologically liberal-left leaning Supreme Court. ?
Bill Narvey
@ yamit82:
Don’t have an hour or more to spend listening to this shpiel, but if it’s anything like this long, wordy post, then I see little of the “rational” in it
— quite a bit of rationalizing, but little in the way of the rational.
There are other possibilities. Maybe Moshe’s ivrit was a trifle far-shimmelt?
— Maybe his only teacher in that dept (Yokheved) wasn’t exactly a literary stylist (so sue her!); so what?
And on this discussion (above) you want to drape the divinity of the oral tradition?!??
Maybe YOUR species of ‘Jew’ maintains this.
— But if it were true, we could have created ourselves as well (and for the same reason).
It is increasingly accepted among scholars that “at the end of the 1st century AD there were not yet two separate religions called ‘Judaism’ and ‘Christianity’.” [Robert Goldenberg. Review of Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, by Daniel Boyarin, The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 92, No. 3/4 (Jan.–Apr., 2002), pp. 586-588.
And in Boyarin’s book, he writes:
“[F]or at least the first three centuries of their common lives, Judaism in all of its forms and Christianity in all of its forms were part of one complex religious family, twins in a womb, contending with each other for identity and precedence, but sharing with each other the same spiritual food… Without the power of the orthodox Church and the Rabbis to declare people heretics and outside the system it remained impossible to declare phenomenologically who was a Jew and who was a Christian. At least as interesting and significant, it seems more and more clear that it is frequently impossible to tell a Jewish text from a Christian text. The borders are fuzzy, and this has consequences. Religious ideas and innovations can cross borders in both directions.” [Daniel Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford: Stanford Univ Press, 1999, p. 15]
honeybee Said:
NO! 🙁
yamit82 Said:
Can you belly dance,soldier, for chocolate.
@ yamit82:
a You told me you worked with cows on the Kibbutz! Did you milk them! Our neighbor had a cow with a infected teat. TX and friend brought her in a shed to tie her down and treat her. Que curumba what a rodeo! Cow 2 Cowboys 0! They came flying,literly, out of the shed.
@ dove:
You confuse posting on a website with being penpals. It’s not strictly one-on-one here (or on any other blogsite).
When one posts a comment he/she doesn’t merely address an individual. He addresses the entire website, and everyone who reads it. (Actually one addresses the entire blogosphere WHENEVER he goes online; it’s inevitable.)
To ignore a post that needs followup or refutation purely for the sake of avoiding somebody’s displeasure is to leave the discussion & the issues at stake at the mercy of those who do choose to post.
As I’ve said to others who can’t bear to see my remarks, ‘if you don’t like ’em, don’t read ’em.’
But if you presume to tell (or ‘request) me not to make them, then YOU’VE crossed the line.
“Nice try”? — you think what what I wrote was a ploy? It was the truth.
I repeat: The comment had nothing to do with Xty. You need help, lady; you’re truly paranoid. (I’d suggest a shrink, but I’ve yet to encounter one who wasn’t clueless; educated out of all the common sense he/she was ever born with.)
To begin with, my “version of jesus/paul” ISN’T contrary to what THIS particular Jew thinks
— and in any case, I wasn’t ‘spouting’ anything, at the time of that posting, about jesus/paul. The comment was strictly about what I said it was, the Jewish People.
It’s clear that when you read, you don’t read for meaning. Instead you read INTO a matter what you (perhaps unconsciously) want it to say.
(Besides, are YOU not frequently spouting YOUR ‘version’ of “jesus/paul”?)
But in any case, if you’re so sure that the post you referenced [above] was about ‘jesus/paul,’ then SHOW me the connection — BECAUSE I DON’T SEE IT.
So do I.
Nor is it either when I defend myself. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Your sanctimony is thick enough to cut with a carpet knife. (Are there no mirrors in your house?)
“Boundaries” such as?
You very definitely don’t know spit about what I do or don’t ‘feel’ — let alone, my ‘temperature.’
No matter. You WILL respect my rights on this website, however.
WHAT “horrible statements” regarding the holocaust are you talking about? — What was ‘horrible’ about them?
— explain, and be specific.
So far, you’ve made the assertion over half-a-dozen times, but never ONCE supported it with concrete examples.
Neither. So far, you’re 0 for 2.
Keep swinging, batter; maybe you’ll get lucky.
honeybee Said:
Yes. But I’m not a Klutz. 😉
dweller Said:
History shows that substitutes for halachic Judaism have a shelf life of four generations or less.
Reform Judaism’s founder Moses Mendelssohn had nine grandchildren; eight of them were baptized as Christians.
Zionist founder Theodore Herzl’s children were not only not Zionists, they were not Jews.
How many of the grandchildren of the great Yiddish writer I.L. Peretz married under a chupah?
How many of his great-grandchildren know what a chupah is?
What is Orthodox Judaism?
Kosher Jesus?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK1FKjuPWd0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBl0l9L9uIs
@ Shy Guy:
Are you saying it’s not so? — Or just trying to discredit the statement without having to refute it?
I don’t care WHO adopts the “line” — or WHY.
— If it’s true (and it most certainly IS true), then it’s irrelevant who does or doesn’t make use of it.
@ yamit82:
You were talking about the “three legged stool of Judaism” , have you ever tried siting on a three legged stool? I never mastered it!
@ yamit82:
I sit on TX’s lap every night while he reads me a bedtime story. I think I would go stir crazy siting on a plane that long. Willie Nelson has song “even when I’m still I’m still moving”. However holding hands is nice, if you don’t have sweaty palms
I would love to see the Kotel and Mt Tabor where I would sit under the fabled palm tree.
@ honeybee:
Depending from where you leave it is between 10-13 hours direct flight, you could always combo by taking a flight via Europe spend some time and then continue on to Israel 4-5 hours from Europre to Israel.
If you don’t weigh over 80 lbs you can sit on my lap. If you weigh more, I will sit on yours.
@ yamit82:
How long does a flight like that take? I am not a good flyer and would need to sit in some ones lap or hold a hand.
Off Topic: 🙂 Chicago-Tel Aviv: $506, Dallas-Tel Aviv: $538, Miami-Tel Aviv: $689
@ yamit82:
I understand, I take taking pain meds at night which knock me out in the afternoon so I siesta or watch TV for an hour
@ yamit82</a
What did you say Sweeie.
as IIIIIiiiiiiiiiiii Predicted the Bear [not Klein} has moved on the Crimea. My Grandfather was in the Crimea when he was in the Czar's Army. They rounded him up when he was 15/16 years old. He was a sharp shooter and when he lived in Denver he would shoot with Buffalo Bill. Grandpa won mainly because he wa then young and sober.
12 words to HB and it’s in moderation????
honeybee Said:
Wasn’t you dear it’s them damn Meds I take for acute Bronchitis.
@ yamit82:
You fell asleep in front of you screen? I can’t be that boring already?
@ yamit82:
Extremely enlightening thanks. Exactly what I come to expect from you.
dweller Said:
dweller Said:
Such as???
dweller Said:
A Rational Approach to the Divinity of the Oral Tradition
I start with the premise that the Torah was given over at mt Sinai. If you don’t then you won’t or cannot accept the orthodox position re: the Talmud.
When you open any copy of the Torah scroll you will see if you know even a min of Hebrew and Hebrew grammer that on every page there are numerous apparent erors: Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, syntactical errors and textual contradictions and not a few of them. Example: First verse of the Torah: Breshit barah et ha shamyim and et ha aretz. Translated In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This is not grammatically correct. Breshit does not mean in the beginning. If you want to write in the beginning using (Resh Aleph Shin) you would need to write breeshana. Breshit is construct form so therefore the first word of the Torah means: In the beginning of…. Barah Elokim et hashamyim et haaretz. The verse as it’s written in the Torah is grammatically incorrect. Read is it’s written it should read In the beginning of_____ God created the heaven and the earth. There is a word missing from the verse. What’s the word??? This is only one example of thousands of similar errors in the Torah. Read “Chumash with Rashi” Rashi would not comment on a verse that was readable only those fatally flawed. He went through the whole Tanach and corrected all of the mistakes to the best of his knowledge and ability. There is hardly a single verse that is without such errors in the Tanach that without the corrections render the Text unreadable as there are so many textual flaws.
If yoy believe that G-d gave the Torah you would need to come to two conclusions: A-G-d is mentally retarded or B- These are not flaws but each of the textual anomalies purposeful stylistic manipulation inserted into the text as a flag to hint to you some deeper meaning and message there. For example if you read the first verse of the Torah literally “In the beginning of___________ God created heaven and earth”…this mistake goes away if you read exactly the verse as it’s written.
Since there are only 2 determinants of Human behavior, (Nurture and Nature, genes and environment ) and comes the Torah in the first verse read literally Reshit, with(B)-Reshit God created the heaven and earth. Now the grammatical error is gone. Only problem is we are left with a noun and don’t no what it means. So open up a concordance and look up all instances in biblical verses where reshit appears as a noun. You will find that Reshit invariably means only one of two things.1- The Jews or 2- the torah. Plug those verses back into the verse and you will see it can’t be the Jews as they didn’t exist yet. So if you read the first verse with the Torah instead of Reshit it will read: “With the Torah God created heaven and earth. This a fascinating concept because the Torah is a nature creating device. Theoretically If we were to take this thing Torah and turn it around and point it at ourselves, In theory we (mankind) can change our own nature.
Jews as opposed to you christians maintain that we can change our innate natures(behavviors) and overcome our evil inclinations and those genetic influeces that lead to base primal drives. The Torah tells us we can overcome and defeat our base inclinations. Torah says based on the First verse, that we can reconstruct our own natures with Torah because Torah is a nature creating device. So the first verse is the most important verse in the Torah because without it no one would ever be bound to it. The apparent mistake is really no mistake at all but a hint to a tremendously deep lesson. That a Human Being Can Rebuild Their Nature Using Torah.
Claim all those orthox Jews that all those mistakes in the Torah are not because G-d is mentally retarded because behind every one of those errors in the tex is a deep meaning 2000 year before biblical critics they had a vibrant literature describing the deep meaning behind every one of those mistakes in Torah Text.
Until the 6th century CE all Torah scrolls were un-vocalized. There were no vowels until the BenAsher family known as the Masorites created a book called chumash. Hebrew is a language very dependent on vocalization if you change the vocalization the exact same letters can mean something different. Before the 6th century without vowels the Torah would have been very difficult to read if you didn’t have the oral tradition explaining how to read it.
In the Torah there are many many institutions and commandments with out definitions like divorce. Divorce is mentioned but not how one is divorced, married or even converted to Judaism. They existed, we know from the Torah text but no instruction were given as how to perform or institute them. Laws of Kashrut too vague to coply with just from a literal reading of the Text. Would G-d have commanded observance and obedience to his laws without instructs as to how to comply with them?
When the Torah speaks as to how to construct the Mishkan “When you want to build an Ark build it according to the Tunah that I have showed you” There are no pictures or architectural designs in the Torah. It also says “construct the alter according to the Tunah that I showed you” many many similar verses alluding to extra textual instructions given to Moses that are not in the Book.
In Deut it says “when you want to eat meat slaughter the animal as I taught you” Where in the Torah does it speak about Shechita(Ritual Slaughtering)? No place!!!
Can you follow the Torah if you can’t read it? Can you read the Torah if there is no vocalization and concepts of institutions that are not in the texts? No, your dead in the water. Since G-d wanted every generation of Jews to observe and obey his Torah he would certainly want to ensure that the Knowledge existed and preserved.
Without this extra textual knowledge and illumination of the Torah text there could never until today be a Judaism. Who has that body of knowledge and who still preserves it today? In the world today there are 5 groups who believe G-d gave the Torah at Sinai. Members of the High faith (Bahai), Sikhs, Most Muslims, Most christians and a tiny minority of Jews. What Jews? Only the Orthodox Jews. Kapish?
dweller Said:
Self-justifying christian revisionist history showing its face once again. No wonder the Reform movement were so quick to adapt this line.
@ yamit82:
What you MEAN is, rabbinical Judaism is clearly defined. And rabbinical Judaism of Orthodox inclination or affiliation is clearly defined.
But Judaism is bigger than that, and it’s more than that.
Rabbinical Judaism was only one of a myriad approaches to the faith that emerged from the ruins of the Second Temple. . . .
If “that Book” DID include the Oral tradition, then the latter would not be called the “Oral” tradition. Quite the contrary, the tradition would be part of the Book. Would be IN the Book. It isn’t
— because it isn’t scripture.
Are you prepared to demand that it be MADE part of scripture? — put up, or shut up.
@ yamit82:
No, you CANNOT say that about the whole of “my” “christian” bible
— unless, of course, you’re just into making cheap shots. (Are you?)
The contradiction is in seeing a nation that did not yet EXIST as having been ‘chosen.’
— As I’ve noted above, it was Abraham that was ‘chosen,’ not the Jewish people — because it was ABRAHAM who existed when the ‘choosing’ was DONE. It was from Abraham and by way of Abraham that the Jewish People were created.
Not so. Even after Sinai, they were not Am Yisrael — only the rudiments of B’NAI Yisrael (as distinct from a collection of disparate Hebrew tribes).
They would not become AM Yisrael until the Philistines effectively forced the mutually squabbling tribes to unite under a monarchy three centuries later.
Hunh??? — Again, not so. God spoke to the prophets (and lots of other individuals too) — personally, again & again — without making it a major MGM production w/ a cast of thousands, and gaffer’s tape holding the show together, etc.
It’s not I that’s confused about this. The primary point-of-departure in this discussion was the matter of ‘chosenness’ — Who chose whom (or who chose Whom), etc.
And chosenness is not about Judaism. It IS about the Jewish People.
— The promise of the Most High to Avram was NOT, ‘I will make of you a great religion,’ but rather, “I will make of you a great NATION.”
@ yamit82:
Tautological indeed. And telling evidence that He did NOT “choose” them; rather, He created them from scratch, as He created Adam from scratch — a special operation, for a special purpose. No “eeny, meeny, miney, mo” among nations that had already come into existence in the conventional way.
He DIDN’T ‘choose’ a nation.
He chose one man — and USED him to create a nation from ground level, up.
Maimonides doesn’t know this. He only assumes it, based on his own projection, because he cannot conceive of any other way.
But Maimonides was not in Avram’s shoes. Rambam’s faith was bequeathed to him by earlier generations & traditions; he could not possibly know what it was like to be the first
— with no scripture, no body of literature & commentary, no scholarly community, no community at all (other than the hostile one he left behind); nothing — except the direct, moment-to-moment commands of the Most High. In that vacuum, “his own reasoning powers” would’ve had extremely limited utility.
NOBODY’s own “correct understanding” ever brought him to THAT truth. He could “think” till his hair turned blue, but it wouldn’t take him anywhere.
The “wondering” part is closer — but even there, it is God that gives a man the impetus to WONDER in the first place.
In the end, Avram accepted God’s leading, but it was GOD who made the approach (not vice versa). And why He approached Avram instead of somebody else is strictly God’s mystery
— and perhaps always will be.
It’s a pity we can’t discuss this with Shlomo Riskin [Chief Rabbi of Efrat], since it was HIS discussion of Parshat LEKH L’KHA that you cut & pasted above.
@ dweller:
Yup…order, request – not that I expect you to honor it.
Nice try – you are constantly spouting your version of jesus/paul which you KNOW is contrary to what the Jews think
Nice try again hypocrite. From time to time I do respond in defense of myself and/or the Jewish people. That is hardly bible thumping.
perhaps not but there are boundaries that for some reason you are aloud to cross. You are definitely a very cold unfeeling person and I have no respect for you – especially after the horrible statements you made regarding the holocaust. Obviously your ploy cannot be to ‘win’ people – but rather stand alone and become the lowest denominator.
I just wanted to let you know and I would prefer if you would refrain from making comments to me and I will gladly do the same.
@ yamit82:
A childish and bestial interpolation. (And your CITE is completely far-kok’d. “Gen 13”???)
The scripture says neither “borrowed” NOR “lent” NOR “stole”
— it says ASKED.
‘Borrowing’ the jewelry would have constituted a deliberate deception.
“Stealing’ the jewelry would have shown an unreadiness to trust God’s providential power to provide honorable means for them to have what was theirs by right.
In the end, ASKING was altogether quite sufficient; the Egyptians were more than willing to oblige.
— The Egyptians were thoroughly demoralized and were not only willing but also ANXIOUS to be rid of the Hebrews. “And the Egyptians were urgent upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste; for they said: ‘We are all dead men’.” [Ex 12:33]
Saving their jewelry was the last thing on their minds at that juncture.
Jettisoning their Jews was the first.
” In a democracy, power rests with the people ? and not the Courts” unless U r from the left. We see this phenomenon taking place in the US as well and the independents/right keep complaining and do nothing!!!
@ dove:
That looks like an Order (imperative voice & all that).
— Tell me once more (since I seem to have forgotten) why I should obey an order coming from YOU?
Not one word in the post you referenced had ANYTHING to do with ‘Christianity.’
— My post was strictly about the Jewish People.
If you dislike ‘Bible thumping,” then I suggest that you not indulge in it. Maybe that way you won’t get responses in the same coin.
This is the part where I remind you that nobody needs anybody else’s permission to be here
— and that if you don’t like it, I’ve got a standard “order” of my OWN: for you (it’s anatomically impossible, but altogether appropriate at this time and thoroughly warranted).
Ketchin’ muh drift?
the phoenix Said:
Yes!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDDI0TwfG8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioYAjdDALqk
@ the phoenix:
If you lived in the Southwest you would understand. Father Sanchez is a delight. You don’t understand the culture. Post to Schumel HaLevi, he can help you understand,he lived in NMex.
@ the phoenix:
Your looking for anti-Semitism where it doesn’t exist. The reporter is just an overly dramatic young women!!!
@ honeybee:
dear honeybee,
please understand that i am NOT disputing the genetical facts.
the presentation, and the choice of positioning of the words is the KEY.
this ‘aryan looking’ newsreporter, has STARTED her spiel by informing the audience that many hispanics did not know that their ancestry is jewish.
when she continued THE SAME LINE OF THOUGHT by adding, that “there is an increased potential for carrying a deadly disease” it implies (to me anyway) that these poor hispanics did not know that they “carry a deadly disease”….their “jewish ancestry”
REMEMBER,
a subliminal suggestion is BARELY NOTICEABLE… it is merely A HINT, which is allowed to take root in your mind.
reread my transcript, listen to her again and let me know…
btw (By The Way) my niece had a partial mastectomy due to breast cancer. as i have said, i am NOT disputing the genetic facts.
the phoenix Said:
Yes, I lost a very young paternal cousin to early onset breast cancer !!!!! Tx’s family also suffers from it, because of that and other peculiarities in his family I think his family may have distant Jewish antecedents.
@ yamit82:
When my parents would argue my Father would always claim an exemption be because he was of a “stiff-necked people”.
@ yamit82:
Thanks for the info,I lost everything in the “great computer crash”
@ the phoenix</a
Et tu Phoenix, Tx was so anticipating fried chicken! He made me sleep on floor!
dweller Said:
There is a series of book you may enjoy by Hugh Ralston PhD U of Toronto. He is an astrometor and a believing Christian. He has a very interesting view on the Creation.
@ honeybee:
…so much for barter… 🙂
@ the phoenix:
OY what a disaster, the burner on my range went “haywire” burned the chicken to a crisp and left it raw inside. The house was filled with smoke and I can still smell it.
Comment to yamit in moderation
@ yamit82:
@ yamit82:
I listened to the video clip… And my ‘antisemitic radar detector’ (a.r.d.) came to life…almost identical to reading one of the curious american posts….
Here is the transcript of the first 30 seconds of the clip:
The subliminal suggestion (to me) is unmistaken….
“Jewish/Judaism = deadly disease”
Do you think that my a.r.d. Needs recalibration?? 😉
DNA unlocks Hispanic-Jewish history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TIi0maJZQU
@ dove:
@ honeybee:
Both of you are correct.
Jewish DNA – Genetic Research and The Origins of the Jewish People
Jewish DNA – The Kohanim Gene and the Lost Tribes of Israel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioYAjdDALqk
honeybee Said:
Are you part Indian?
dweller Said:
True but you can also say the same about the whole of your christian bible.
Contradiction in terms; Abraham was one man, the Jewish people are many. Jews became a nation only after the revelation at Sinai. From that Point G-d only spoke to the Jews in the collective (plural). The Jews are no different than any other people except those who accept and take on the Yoke of Heaven. Do not confuse Jews and Judaism. Jews can believe whatever they want, they can do whatever they want. Judaism is clearly defined. It’s a system of behavior divided by laws that govern our relationship with the creator and laws that govern our relationship with other people. Judaism has many customs and traditions developed and handed down through our history. Judaism is Talmudic and it incorporates some of Jewish mysticism. Judaism encompasses the whole package. Judaism is particularist in that it is for Jews only. In Judaism today there are different streams but they do not define Judaism they define Jews. Jews are different and one should never confuse the two because. We are the people of the Book and believe it’s that Book (includes the oral tradition)is what has defined us preserved us.
dweller Said:
Lech Lecha: Why G-d chose Abraham?
“… And he built there an altar to the Lord and he called out in the name of the Lord” (Genesis 12:8)
Abraham is the first Hebrew, the founder of the Hebrew nation and the path-breaker who created the Hebrew religion. From the 12th chapter of the Book of Genesis until the last word of the Book of Deuteronomy, it is Abraham’s Israelite descendants who are the major subjects of the Bible.
Fascinatingly, G-d commands Abraham to leave his country, his birthplace and his father’s house to travel to the unknown land of Canaan (Israel) without any introduction to Abraham’s personality or his previous connection with G-d. G-d elects Abraham as the progenitor or patriarch of “a great nation which will become a blessing to all the families of the earth” without any mention of Abraham’s worthiness. This blessing, reiterated several times throughout the Bible, became the basis for the doctrine of chosenness–the idea that the Jewish people have a relationship with G-d unlike that of any other nation.
This is very different from G-d’s commandment to Noah to build an ark, which comes after the Bible has already informed us that Noah “was a righteous man, wholehearted in his generation. Noah walked with God” (Gen. 6:9). It also contrasts with G-d’s charge for Moses to lead His people in the Book of Exodus, which comes after Moses left Pharaoh’s palace to empathize with his Hebrew brethren and put his life on the line by slaying the Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Hebrew slave.
What is strange about the selection of Abraham is the apparently arbitrary nature of G-d’s choice. The Torah does not explain why Abraham is chosen and does not suggest that Abraham is more deserving of G-d’s attention than anyone else.
So why did G-d choose Abraham? The logic here is tautological. G-d chose the Jews because G-d favored the Jews. G-d favored the Jews because G-d chose Abraham. And, as we have seen, the Torah offers no explanation for the selection of Abraham. Two chapters later, Moses specifies that “it is not for any virtue of yours that the Lord your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people (Deuteronomy 9:6).” The only real justification for the selection of the Israelite people is the suggestion that G-d’s choice reflects a desire to punish all of the other nations (Deuteronomy 9:5).
@ dweller:
Stop your Christian Bible thumping. We (Jews) have much more important matters than continuing to debate with you.
dove Said:
Gen 13:35-36 And the children of Israel did according to Moses’ order, and they borrowed [STOLE]from the Egyptians silver objects, golden objects, and garments. The Lord gave the people favor in the eyes of the Egyptians, and they lent [STOLE] them, and they emptied [LOOTED]out Egypt.
This wealth was the Israelites’ just recompense for centuries of forced labor, affliction and servitude. 🙂
(Ex. 13:18) So God led the people around [by] way of the desert [to] the Red Sea, and the children of Israel were armed when they went up out of Egypt.
They lifted all the weapons they could take. So they left Egypt with great wealth and heavily armed in order to fight the wars in the Desert before entering the Land.
@ dove:
True.
Not true.
@ dove:
The mere fact that folklore occasionally finds its way into the High Holyday Prayer Book does not thereby render it holy writ or any other species of fact.
A simple examination of the scriptural narrative makes it clear that there was NO ‘choosing’ in any substantive sense — on ANYBODY’s part.
The Jewish People are not like some pre-packaged breakfast cereal that a Shopper chooses amongst when pushing His shopping cart down the aisle of a supermarket.
The Jewish People were created from scratch — virtually called into being — beginning with one man: “Lekh l’kha me’artz’cha…”
— Hashem was moulding them to His purpose from that day onward.
honeybee Said:
Alas! Not fried….
Grilled, maybe?
😉
9@ dove:
Sutter’s Fort, CA.
@ dove:
Sutter’s Fort, CA!!!!!