- This topic has 66 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
AAQ, that’s exactly the misunderstanding of rabbi breitowitz that jack is claiming. Listen to the piece, that sentence was not meant that way at all.
Jack, i don’t think you read what I wrote. Your understanding of rabbi breitowitz is misleading and wrenched out of context. He clearly says that wanting halacha to be the law is the ideal, and that *some can argue*, that the practical issue of possibly letting a suicidal woman die from an abortion outweighs that gain.
He isn’t saying “don’t mix politics and halacha” in principle. He misspoke. I took the time to listen to the shiur; he is not saying that you’re entitled to believe one way politically absent halacha. He’s saying that halacha mandates the preservation of life of suicidal mothers. (Not everyone would agree to that, actually) and even then he doesn’t even agree that such a position is viable, just that such an argument can be made.
Dear Avira,
Your post, (#2085843) contained some beautiful morals. That is your own thinking. It doesn’t explain why anyone should follow your example. Other people morally disagree.
Also, Rav Avigdor Miller is not Rav Moshe Feinstein. Rav Moshe is not Rav Yitzchok Breitowitz. It feels good to type some pure facts.
Your halachic position should (almost) never dictate your political position. You’ll end up using your politics to influence halacha.
“One of the reasons that the whole city of shchem was killed was because they didn’t bring shchem to din”
Outlaw abortion all you want, but I take issue with this reading of the Rambam.
Dear Er,
This is not a Torah issue. Here in the great US of A, the national religion is only when we are off of work. As the great god ‘football’ has went to the higher realms, Americans turn to the realm of abortion to divine their own fate. However, it is a fierce debate if legal abortions facilitate the powers of football or not. Thus their is a civil debate/spiritual war if legal abortion are good or bad. Illegal abortions, or abortions that are beyond the reach of the law, do not harm the spirit of football at all. Unless the fetus would have been the next great quarterback. The highest spiritual act is to participate in an anti abortion advertisement during the super bowl. Unfortunately too many Jews are interested in worshipping football.
jackk> They will have to rule on the legality of cases coming from all 50 states.
I did not study this close at all, as I feel that the issue is so controversial and not germane to our role in society – that Jews should stay away from this in politics. But it seems to me that the Supremes are moving towards decreasing federal role in these cases. So, they are not going to rule on legality, but simply defer to states. In modern Us, some issues, like slavery and discrimination, see so outrageous that the country is not willing to tolerate individual states having separate policies. But on abortion, the country seems to be far from agreement … So, after we will have states fully developing their positions, then it will be possible to see viability and morality of those positions and, hopefully, there will be some conversion of positions across states over time – something Roe prevented. It may actually be good for liberals that conservatives will be less motivated to get to elections and vote in order to approve conservative Supremes.
Avira, looks like my position is slightly different from the Rav you are quoting. I simply think we should not get involved into controversial topics where our stakes are low and controversy is high. For example, fighting Nazis was somewhat controversial in US but was important for us and also very clear morally. Advocating for Soviet Jews was important for us, clear morally, and while opposed by some commies, did not really intrude on most Americans. Supporting civil rights in the 60s was reasonable morally, but ventured into controversy and while satisfying some, lead to mixed results (as I heard from people who participated). In this case, this is a very peripheral issue for our community (possibly affecting an Alabama Chabad House), very controversial, and with somewhat mixed morality. So, I would simply stay away. I do admit that other positions are possible (except rabid defense of abortion for the sake of liberal dogma which is disgusting).
I also hear an interesting argument repeated by the libs, up to Pelosi – historically SC ignored previous decisions “to expand liberties” and this is somehow part of the founders’ wisdom. But ignoring it to “decrease liberties” is unheard of! In other words, we can do it, but you can’t. A very entertaining idea.
Nomesorah – any sources that would say to separate politics from “religion”? Or is it that we’re looking from the outside of Judaism now, as “higher criticism” would demand? And that it is us thinkers who are determining the appropriate limits of “religion”?
For a torah jew, there’s no such thing as something “outside the purview of torah” because Hashem created the world through it; everything in the world is a reflection of that Torah, hafoch bo vehafoch ba dekulah boh
Reform said to seperate religion from…. culture, politics, basically everything outside of shul. That’s where you’re headed when you place artificial limits on what Hashem has to say on a given issue.
Re, politics affecting halacha – i agree (wow!) With this to an extent, as we see zionist rabbis routinely mix their politics into their “psakim”, such as sacrificing Jewish life for a state, converting goyim who maintain the arbitrary Israeli standard of traditional observance, skirting shmitah, terumos and maasros (but yishuv eretz yisroel is the biggest mitzvah….just were going to be extremely lenient in ita mitzvos, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…)
Where we differ is that if you are first a big person in learning, politics will not affect your halachik jurisprudence. Rav miller was very political, but it was entirely based on his learning. It’s the same risk of learning secular studies; the extent to which it will affect you depends on how much you’ve honed yourself as a product of your learning, how much of your daas is daas torah (which is how reb elchonon defines the term ‘daas torah’, a cumulative, quantifiable measure of how much of your thinking process is fueled by torah)
This is why true gedolei yisroel rejected politically advantageous movements like mizrachi, when they were fraught with hashkofa problems.
My point about rabbi breitowitz is clear though; whatever ideas people want to cram into that one sentence is intellectual dishonesty. Listen to the shiur, you’ll see what he says.
No rosh yeshiva advocates an ideology where torah is not complete primacy and that everything else is subservient to dvar Hashem zu halacha.
> if you are first a big person in learning, politics will not affect your halachik jurisprudence.
politics was never easy and there were places/times to stand tall or compromise. For example, R Yohanan b Zakkai successfully asked Vespasian for what could have been saved – and dreaded later in life whether he made a mistake and could have asked for more … Chofetz chaim successfully ran away from Soviet Russia and later regretted that he, and other Rabbis, abandoned remaining Russian Jews
Avira,
I am not here to convince you on overturning RvW.
You are entitled to your opinion. But you need to recognize that there are other opinions.My goal is that you should open your eyes to the possible consequences of overturning RvW.
I read my post again and listened to Rabbi Breitowitz again.
Nowhere in my post did I suggest what Rabbi Breitowitz’s opinion is regarding overturning RvW. I have no idea where you got that idea from.
By the time I got to reading to the end of your posts , you put more words in my mouth and his that were never said.
Here are some examples.
You wrote, “He isn’t saying “don’t mix politics and halacha” in principle. He misspoke.”
I never said that and neither did he. In fact, he said the exact opposite. In his beautiful words he was saying that the Torah guides us in this area.You wrote.” No rosh yeshiva advocates an ideology where torah is not complete primacy and that everything else is subservient to dvar Hashem zu halacha.”
Neither he nor I said not that way.I completely stand by my understanding of Rabbi Breitowitz’s words and I personally hold him in very high regard. So please do not accuse me of being Motzi Shem Ra on him.
You wrote, “He ends it with saying clearly “Many people would say that’s wrong”.”He ends it with saying clearly “The net result of all of this is that your halachik position does not automatically dictate your political position. But that is a bit of a subtlety and many people would say that’s wrong, but that is something to think about.”
There is such a view point and he explained very clearly the basis for such a view point.
The view that we need to worry about the secular law infringing on halacha is the exact view that you disagree with and that you hold is so wrong that you can’t stand than any Rav would even say such a view in a lecture. He explained clearly in the lecture that overturning RvW will cause that secular law will be infringing on Halacha. He gave an example. It is one in a million examples that he could have given.You don’t seem to be concerned with it. He is saying that there is a basis to be concerned with it.
Lchvod Hatan Haeloki Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.
The Gmara Shabbos 33B
They emerged from the cave, and saw people who were plowing and sowing. Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai said: These people abandon eternal life of Torah study and engage in temporal life for their own sustenance. The Gemara relates that every place that Rabbi Shimon and his son Rabbi Elazar directed their eyes was immediately burned. A Divine Voice emerged and said to them: Did you emerge from the cave in order to destroy My world? Return to your cave. They again went and sat there for twelve months. They said: The judgment of the wicked in Gehenna lasts for twelve months. Surely their sin was atoned in that time. A Divine Voice emerged and said to them: Emerge from your cave. They emerged. Everywhere that Rabbi Elazar would strike, Rabbi Shimon would heal.
Rabbi Yaakov Ruderman Zatsal asks. What happened in those 12 months that after they left the second time that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai was no longer burning every place but was able to heal?
Rabbi Ruderman Zatsal answers that being able to countenance in other people what appears to you as if they are ‘abandoning eternal life’ is a very high madreigah. They only reached it after a 13th year in the cave.“The view that we need to worry about the secular law infringing on halacha”
Halacha says you can kill an intruder who comes in your home, on the spot without warning (unless it is your father.)
Do you therefore insist secular law in all 50 states permit killing such a person, in order – as you said – “that we need to worry about the secular law infringing on halacha”?
Jack, So far, the only concern raised is that a suicidal person might kill herself rather than bear the innocent child of a criminal. Some poskim call that pikuach nefesh. The other side is that suicide is a capital offense and that normally speaking, we don’t sit shiva for such a person. We’re essentially advocating the mother commit murder of her child to stop her from commiting murder on herself. I admit that this is a machlokes, and that while the 2nd opinion rings true for me, i can respect those who disagree.
What i do not admit to is the way you chose that one line; he was not being medayak in his choice of words, because the plain meaning is nomesorah’s splitting of torah from politics, which you are agreeing is not the case. We both agree that rabbi breitowitz was speaking about halacha above everything, not that your political views can be independent of halacha, but that in order to protect halacha, *there are those that say*, as he ends off with, that we shouldn’t oppose roe v wade because it’s possible to run into a situation where secular law will prohibit us from keeping halacha.
Ujm’s argument is strong; whicu halachos are we concerned with? He makes us question our negius – are we worried about the suicidal mother(which is extremely rare – less than 1% of abortions are due to rape or incest even by goyim, certainly in the frum world where such things are rarer..) more than, say, haba bemachtere? Or is there a negius involved.
I’d argue the other way, that not opposing it opens the door to the pro abortion extremists permitting the killing of babies after delivery. Are we not to be concerned with a Jewish mother with severe post partum depression having regret and wanting to “abort” when her baby is delivered? I honestly think that’s a more realistic concern and would happen more frequently than the suicidal mother.
Perhaps then, according to the nameless “yesh omrim” in rabbi breitowitz’s view, it would be “shev ve’al taaseh adif”, since eirher side can potentially inflict us with anti-halachik problems
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.