Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Joseph
“What do gangsters in America have to do with European Jews”
Many of those gangsters where once European Jews themselves.
Can you garantee that none of the St. Louis refugees were going to join the Jewish Mob? (odds are some would have given the hardship at finding a job and the extensive network of Jewish crime existing at the time)
Can you garantee there were no Nazi spies hidden on the boat?
Can you garantee none were communists?
More to the point. Was there a way for the US to gaurantee that at the time?
Speaking of disengenuity care to address my main point:
Can we agree on the OU statment above. ITs not concrete its kind of vague and obviously meaningless but at least as an attitute.
If not. which part do you object to?
Syag
Just because you can point to one child who grew up to do bad things doesnt mean we should ban all children.
I can point to several jews who grew up to do bad things. IT would be wrong to ban all Jews becasue of that.
More to my point. In the 30’s those who banned my ancestors from arriving and left them to their deaths could have said let in “JEwish children like Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel etc “
What would you have told them?
I would ahve said YES! and I hold them accontable for turning back the st/ Louis, and today many are doing the same.
If you say The US was right to tur away Jews then because of those “non-innocent bystanters” Then I disagree but at least you are being consitent
“secondly – if you can keep paralleling jews in the 30s to terrorists who come in already part of a multi-million-dollar in-place plot with advanced training and networking behind them then I will bow out.”
I am not at all. chas Veshalom!
I am comparing the innocent Jews then to the innocent Muslims today. and if you say there are no innocent muslims today then join Trump in his forming a muslim database. MAybe we can have all Muslims wear a Yellow (or green?) cresecent.
BTW
i’m sorry if I’m not being clear. I’m not saying we should let them all (or even any) in. I am just talking about attitude we should have having been in a similar (though not the same by any means) boat a few decades ago
Syag
“by children do you mean, like, cute little innocent ten year olds? You know, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was when he came? “
Yes. Muchj Like not all JEws should have be banned banned because of ALfred Rosenberg, MEyer lansky Bugsy Seigel, Micky choen, Arnold Rothstein, dutch Shultz
“Ubiquitin, is it feasible to take in the children without their parents?”
Yes!!! that is how my wife is here today her grandmother was sent off on her own and the English at the time wwere more compassionate than some people today.
jospeh
There were gangsters in America. The Americans were the ones banning. Their were nazis in Europe. there was no way to make sure that there was no nazi spy on the St. Louis.
“And the less than handful that might have been around did what, pickpockets? “
um no. Halevai
America had an aversion to communism violence or not. And I have news for you even among those sympathetic to islmaic extremism they also rarely engage in violence.
(and i cant help but notice that you still havent addressed the issue of children…)
Can we agree on the OU statment above. ITs not concrete its kind of vague and obviously meaningless but at least as an attitute.
If not. which part do you object to?
syag
“and dont kid yourself, the same people who say you cannot close the door on refugees just because known ISIS members are among them, will also tell you you cannot monitor them, background check them, put surveilance on them etc because then we are discriminating and profiling.”
So be different!
“Tell me which one of those lice infested Jews coming without suitcases, money, or resources was a known physical threat to the community he moved into? “
None where known! If they were they should have been banned from coming but not all Jews because of the few gangsters and communists.
joseph
“The idea that Jews in the 30s were in any serious way or numbers involved in violence is a clear canard.”
Many were communists, several were gangsters. I’m sure there was a nazi spy or two sent along with refugees to infiltrate other groups.
“There is no way for America to do a real background check on Syrian applicants. “
How about children? (you ignored that question like you usually do. so yes i am repeating myself)
Here is the OU statment on the subject do you agree with it
“The heinous attacks in Paris this week demonstrate that ISIS, and other similar militant Islamic terrorist groups, have both the desire and means to strike terror in the capitals of the Western world. Clearly, this must impact the manner in which the United States considers the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries in the Middle East. While most of those refugees are innocent bystanders whose lives have been wrecked by ISIS and similar groups, security concerns are real and serious. We cannot be naive in our assessment of the determination of terrorists to exploit the refugee crisis. And we should limit immigration to those individuals who share our American ideals and aspirations.
“
Joseph
So come up with a way
At the very least how about the children?
Also would you accept that excuse in the 30’s? Granted it isnt quite the same. But did the US governemt have the ability to make sure there were now Nazi spies among the >900 people on the St. Louis? Could they make sure non of them would join the very active Jewish Mob at the time? Could they make sure none were communists?
Go to Yad vashem there is a whole exhibit dedicated to the plight of the St. Louis and the calous indiference of the world at the time. As there should be.
SDD
Entitled “give (someone) a legal right or a JUST CLAIM to receive or do something” (From Oxford dictionary, emphasis added
But we arent really arguing that point. I misunderstood. apolagies
Your response to my 4 points isnt neccesary either. I am not saying there isnt a valid approach to strive towards only eating to serve the borei olam.
I am saying that not everybody is on that madreiga, and certainly not all children. Thus asking kids about their interests is completly appropriate and is actually excellent chinuch. Again depending on age and madreiga (of both involved).
SCD
It is. And we of all people should now that.
The rhetoric being used should make us veeeery uncomfortable. Ive heard commentators saying not to take in people who arent willing to assimilate. Donald Trump suggestd a database of all Muslims.
I’m not saying we should just open the borders. Put the call should be towards taking in as many as possible/safe with some exceptions not the reverse.
DY
“Is that a retraction? Because that’s not what you said.”
not a retraction at all. If Joseph had said Look it may come from the goyim, and if it does then it may be assur. I wouldnt have argued so vehmently certainly not year after year.
My argument is with the blanket dismissal of something as innocuous as gift giving and as practiced by most yidden and many frum ones as chukas akum. That is silly for several reasons.
The other idea that is silly is to view gift giving as a religious act. In spite of what you googled.
555
I’m sorry I have absolutly no idea what you are talking about
DY
1) those arent real theories. gifts is a form of human expresion, that some attach religous significance to it doesnt make it so. (did you think we are the only ones who do that with customs?)
2) Cool thanks.
Though thats not how its practiced by most people
(andI love how you accept academics for minhagim you dont like yet not for those you do, and do you agree that the gelt is not “milenia old” and was probably not always given to children?.)
The position that i think is silly is dismissing it as out of hand chukas akum. If someone said look it feels goyish, acccording to some shitas it might be chukas akum, its better to be machmir etc, i wouldnt argue.
But to outright dismiss what in Emes leyaakov is reffered to as a “minhag” and to say all those frum people giving presents are over a d’oraisah is absolutly silly.
That and the idea that gift giving is a form of avoda zarah is silly too inspite of what you say in 1
DY
“1) Gift giving on the chogo has religious significance”
why? and why more than smiling/having a party/singing
“2) We specifically copied it from them, in the sense that we do it on the holiday which falls in the same season (because we didn’t want our kids to be jealous).”
Agreed!
Though I wouldnt say “specifically”. I would say subconsciously absorbed via osmosis.
“This is dissimilar to your examples.”
why why why? Ive been asking over and over. gift giving isnt exactly wearing a specific color cape or putting a key in bread it is a basic form of human expression. You keep saying it is dissimilar. why?
“(as apparently do others)”
I was referring to Joseph,
“but your inability to see legitimacy in the other side is.”
Do you say the same to those who outright say it is chukas akum? In this thread it would seem you disagree with joseph (almost?) as much as with me. why not call him out? Especialy since its not like I’m saying there is a chiyuv to give presents. You dont want to give, gezunterheit dont All I am really doing is defending those who do give. why arent you doing the same if my opinion isnt wrong?
Sdd
I’m sorry perhaps I misunderstood “entitled” I assumed in this context you meant aas in have a right to or it is a correct act, which you clearly say in your op it is not.
You didnt reply to my point. There are many places in halacha where “favorite food” is discussed. whether with kedima librachos, or which Shabbos meal to eat them etc etc… how do you explain this if not only is having a favorite food is so bad but even for children!
As for your point here are some of dozens of posible replies:
1) There are shitos that argue on the metzudos david
2) That is a goal to strive towards for yechidim
3) He means food shouldnt be the thrust of your life, but there is nothing wrong with the having a favorite food
4) Even if food is eaten primarily to serve Hashem it is still allowed to taste good. Consider the mishna “pas bamelech tochal” Even if limited to bread salt can be added to enhance the flvor
Joseph
I try not to lie
Here is where you allowed christmas chocolate
You called giving Christmas chocolate on Chanuka
“Also sounds like a good idea that’s kind of borderline.”
“Your ignorance and inability to comprehend points that are repeated to you and broken down to you repeatedly, is no excuse.”
Its hard to comprehend points that arent logical and even harder to understand points that arent said
Here are several direct questions I posed to you that you have not responded too in this thread alone!
“Why the double standard?” [ie why you allow christams chocolate when called chanuka gelt but not christmas presents when called chanuka presents]
“How long does a Jewish practice have to be done until it is called a minhag?”
“The Gemara discusses Gelt? Rishonim?”
“source?”
“Why?” [as to why you were clerring chocolate might not be as bad as another christmas present.”
DY
“I have heard b’sheim poskim”
which?
“You’re repeating your same arguments,”
How are you not doing the same?
How is this entire tangent of the thread not the same?
“which I have addressed”
I’m sorry, where?
Again my question is why is gift giving more of a shemetz of avoda zara than smiling/having a party/singing all of which are basic modes of human festivity and take place on both Chanuka and lehavdil christmas? (and again keep in mind which came first doesnt necessarily matter according to many poskim)
“(sound familiar?).”
Yes its is your go to response when you have trouble responding to my points so you claim you did already then when I ask where, you stop responding.
Ask yourself this, weve had countless arguments on this forum have you ever given in? I mean by sheer luck alone at soem point I should raise a point that youd have to concede. My arguments are fact based, often sourced, thought out, though perhaps usually not well written and often full of typos. By sheer luck alone what are the odds that you can respond to every point with out ever being wrong? Not even once out of hundreds by now? Rather you arent man enough to own up when you are wrong so whe you lose or dont have a response you say you responded already. So yes it sounds quite familiar. You are not the only poster who does this.
Lol joseph
Your knowledge of history is almost as bad as halacha
Chanuka Gelt in its present form is at most a few hundred years old. Some Achronim (I beleive Magen Avrohom) do mention a minhag of giving money to teachers and from there it evolved to giving money to kids and from there to gifts.
After all Shava kesef kekesef
“Yes, millenia.”
source?
” I didn’t say chocolate is okay. I was clerring it might not be as bad as another christmas present.”
Why?
See Emes leyaakov 670: footnote 583 where he says this explicitly
DY
“Do you say that about anything you don’t agree with? “
Nope only things that are silly. And saying a basic expression of human festivities like gift giving is assur because it has a “shemetz of avado zara” is silly Goyim smile to each other on Christmas, they sing songs, they have parties/get-togethers are these assur on Chanuka? (as you know even if they copy us once it is part of an avodo zara it might become assur).
“There are poskim on either side”
That says chanuka gifts are chukas akum?????? I’m sorry Ive never seen any saying it is. (I have seen several saying it is not) source?
555
“That means they are giving ‘Chanukah Gelt’ as a Xmas present not the other way around. “
I dont follow. Christmas is among the busieset time of year for chocolate companies (the busiest according to some stats). From there it spread to Chaunuka. I assure you Rashi didnt give his kids chocolate coins
“”Chanukah Gelt” dates back before “J” was born.”
Nope it is a few hundred years old first mentioned by late achronim.
“Besides Who ever said Xmas chocolate was OK?”
Joseph did!
“‘How long something is done’ does not make it a good/kosher minhag. It’s the origin, Who started it and Why that matter.”
Lol! of course it does In fact in a hundred years or so our descendents will continue our argument, though yours will insist on hoyiche inyanim involved int eh “millenia old” minhag of giving davka presents based on all sorts of gematriyos while my descendet will respond actually gifts as minhag is only a few hundred years old and before that it was money and before that it was money to poor/melamdim
DY
Was silly last year and is silly this year. Gift giving, singing, eating and smiling are all basic human expressions of festivity and celebration and dont take on a “??? ????? ??????
Joseph
Millenia? Are you serious? The Gemara discusses Gelt? Rishonim? why do you make stuff up to fit your agenda?
And besides why is christmas chocolate ok but not christmas presents?
Joseph
“When did Jews start giving Christmas presents on Chunkah (and call it a Chanukah present)?”
Less than a century ago. Though if given on Chanuka it isnt a christmas present. A birthday present isnted a “Christmas present given on a birthday” and a Chanuka present isnt a “christmas present given on Chanuka”
“Also sounds like a good idea that’s kind of borderline. It is questionably Chanukah Gelt,”
When did Jews start giving christmas chocolate on chanuka (and call it Chanuka gelt)
I’ll bet more recently than presents. Why the double standard?
“which is indeed the tradition. “
For how long?
How long does a Jewish practice have to be done until it is called a minhag?
“Chanukah presents are chukas akum. “
Machlokes you and the Remah.
Y”D 178:1 (edited from wiki source)
[ny underlying]
R’ Yaakov explictly defends gifts in Emes L’yaakov on Shulchan Aruch.
DY, mw13 and whomever else
Do you agree with kerry’s comments here?
LC
I dont as painful as it is to read the ahistorical conterfactual illogical posts made by those in A I dont reply becasue of B and C.
Though why did you limit the question to one side?
sdd
In the op you did in fact deny the entitlement
“because it doesn’t even make sense. Colors are just various forms of light. Why should it be expected that one in particular appeal to you more than any others?
and “what’s your favorite food?”. That one is the opposite of chinuch. It’s in effect stating that food is to be eaten for purposes other than nourishment.”
Never mind the fact that halacha takes favorite foods into account eg regarding kedicma for brachos and doesnt dismiss it as “the opposite in chinuch”
Asking these questions is actually GOOD chinuch since at the age when most of these questions are asked these are things that children care about, and parents/others showing interest in things important to their children is excellent chinuch.
akuperma
Thats true, but in spite of that the Zionist government supports them financially anyway
I dont follow, you say “The only reason why most orthodox jews choose to live outside of Eretz Yisroel, Is Financial or gashmiyus”
but then you list several examples that are not financial nor gashmiyus related:
“For some it may be hard to adjust to israeli attitude.”
“For some, Living in a semi developed country is very difficult”.
“For Some, It’s simply the zionists”
“Some are scared of the rockets”
atloss
Not quite
They placed processed meat in category one which are “carcinogenic to humans”
They placed read meat in 2a which are “probably carcinogenic to humans”
they did not jst look at trends, they looked at over 800 studies on the sbject and have a few theories as to the mechanism.
They did in fact say that processed mead causes cancer and red meat probably does.
they last paragraph is correct though, generally speaking
Joseph
your opening line, indicates that like many news outlets you misunderstood the IARC.
In no way is processed meat as dangerous as tobacco. The only comparison is that both are now classified as “causing cancer” (along with alcohol, asbestos among others).
they did not comment on how much risk is associated w/ processed meat.
for example while 19% of all cancers are believed to be caused by tobacco, only 3% are believed to be caused by red meat (processed + unprocessed).
If no one in the UK smoked there would be 64,500 fewer cancers yearly, but only 8,800 fewer if no one ate processed or red meat.
Thus “Should the Gedolim ban processed meat along with tobacco?”
whther you meant it seriously or not, is simply silly.
BTW Joseph
There is a great article in the Atlantic which explains why your OP is silly.
It is called “Beefing With the World Health Organization’s Cancer Warnings”
Bellevue doesnt have a 19th floor
There is no 19th story.
joseph
Its no just the “regular liberal bloggeratti”
There where protests thorughout meah shearim, I was present when eggs were thrown at Rav shtiemnan r”l.
Grafiti saying “shteinamn = Kook” (and I dont think it was meant as a compliment) is still visible in areas of meah shearim and beis yisroel.
Gedolim are allowed to change their minds, and circumstances often change too. But please dont rewrite history most of us have better memories than that
Frumguy
1) that it no way changes the fact that he was “mevayesh a fellow yid b’rabim” As oldman says the gabai may have been right but that still sounds pretty embarassing
2) You really cant hink of another way other than the one you describe?
“Was he mevayesh a fellow yid b’rabim?”
Obviously!
But hey maybe THAT is the shul’s minhag
Excellence
what do you think of it?
Joseph
um, tobaco has been linked to bowel cancer too!
So lets start with tobacco (linked to bowel cancers, lung ancers, bladder cancer, tongue, esophagus, laryngeal, thyroid among many others. ) and then they can move on to banning processed meat
less chumros
Part of the answer to your question lies in the fact that the kriah for Simchas Torah (i.e. the second day of shemini atzeres even before it recieved the name “simchas torah”) is Vezos habracha. This has nothing to do with regular Shabbos reading
Even when the Torha was finished in three years. On Simchas Torah they lained vezos habracha. See Gemara end of Megila. Rashi gives the reason based on birchas hamelech
With time this turned into the Simchas Torah we have today
less chumros
There is a fantastic sefer on the subject called toldos chag simchas torah. All about the development of simchas torah over the ages.
The author traces the development of many minhagim over the centuries both in chul and EY.
DY
“Query if the benefit of free speech outweighs the danger.”
Yes I know the tzedadim.
Same query regarding freedom of worship.
and not capitulating to terror
DY
There is another flaw. Because while the pedestrian may have been wrong to cross against traffic, The driver is completely wrong for swerving in order to hit him.
Could you imagine the conversation the next day
“Did you hear about the crazy driver who saw somebody jaywalking and drove right into him, then was so enraged at the dent in his car that he started stabbing people who looked like the jaywalker?”
DY, Joseph, Mw13, and media “Weeeeeeeeeeell you have to understand the guy really shouldn’t have been jaywalking, he is partially responsible…”
And keep in mind, jaywalking is more wrong than ascending har habayis.
BTW as far as the cartoons
So should governments ban offensive cartoons in order to protect their populace?
MW13
“If the only one who are responsible for an attack are those who actually perpetrate it (which is what I believe you said earlier), no body else can be at all responsible. Why does the ethical nature of an action change this black and white equation?”
the inciter is not responsible for the attack. He is not tried as a murderer not in olam hazeh nor in olam hames. He is responsible for inciting the attack.
“No. Even if this action did play a role in causing an attack to happen, since that action was entirely justified self-defense, they are not responsible for any negative consequences.”
whole heartedly agree! And to me it sounds pathetic and desperate when terrosits (including Abbas) use it to “justify” further attacks.
Bottom line is as you said ” Even if this action did play a role in causing an attack to happen, since that action was entirely justified…, they are not responsible for any negative consequences.”
This is the case for “inciting attacks” by shooting terrorists, walking on har habayis, drawing cartoons or being Jewish. Since all of these are entirely justified (even if they did lead to an increase in attacks) there is ZERO blame to be had by those commiting the justified acts.
“However, the truth is that I disagree with your premise; I don’t believe that the shooting of the terrorists is a contributing factor in the current round of terrorism.”
I provided quotes to that affect earlier
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/har-habayis-revisited/page/4#post-583884
“Putting aside the halachic prohibition, do you think that it is a good idea for Jews to ascend HHB? Should these actions be encouraged or discouraged?”
Its hard for me to put aside the halachic prohibition against ruba deruba of gedolim but I’d have to say encouraged. (though I am neutral about it).
“If somebody runs into traffic and gets killed, is he responsible for his own death?”
a better moshol wold be, then the motorist then is so enraged at the dent caused in his car by this guy who ran in front of him so he starts stabbing people who look like the guy. Is the jaywalker responsible for all their deaths? (even in an imaginary world where the driver doesnt kill people on other days)
mw13
yes because inciting and encouraging attacks is wrong
(this was covered earlier)
incidently I dont think you replied to my question to you: when the shooting of “innocent” palestinian stabbers is used to incite terrorism, does that make the police responsible?
DY
I think what Avi Gordon is trying to tease out, and what I think is clouding your judgement is trying to remove the issur from the equation.
I for one dont fully get those who ascend, most Poskim including many zionist ones forbid going. Why mess with a possible kares?
I think you cant move past that (admittedly large) hurdles, and thus you view ascending har habayis as something “wrong”. You are having trouble seperating the issur of ascending from the conversation.
Consider another example say the kosel was being used as the excuse, should we stop going? ASH above claimed he would stop going to kever rachel if it was used as an excuse. Sadly he may no longer go in keeping with kol hayotzeh mepicho (arguably). Do you agree? Mearos hamachpela has been used as well, is it wrong to go?
In the 20’s and 30’s riots and deaths were blamed on benches at the kosel, mechitzahs, blowing the shofar etc. Were they to blame? (careful the they in that sentence includes the edah who protested the removal of the mechitzah)
DY
Or If only you could realise your “shita” is offensvie , blames the victims and is based on non-factual circular reasoning (it is wrong becasue it incites and it is considred incitemnet because it is wrong) we too could be in agreement
I’m sorry which question
if you meant this one
“Just curious, all those who say that since it’s the terrorists’ fault, there’s no culpability for incitement: do you hold the muslim clerics who get up in public, waving a knife screaming to kill the Jews, responsible, or are they entirely blameless if they do no actual stabbing? “
I did in fact answer it
“”No, blame is a wholly inappropriate term when someone does the correct thing.”
Inciting people to commit violence is wrong, thus they are to blame. Walking on har habyais is not wrong (again I’m not talking halachicly) so as you say “blame is a wholly inappropriate term when someone does the correct thing.””
If you mant another question, Id be more than happy to answer
DY
You are coming dangerously close to circular reasoning. It is incorrect becasue it incites, but if it is correct (like killing terrorists or practicing Judaism) the fact that it incites would be irrelevant yet it is incorrect BECAUSE it incites…
Ash
“If the Palestinians/Muslims would make as big a fuss of say Kever Rochel and turn it in a cause for incitements and death threats r”l, I would stop going there too”
I’m really sorry to break it to you, but they do! thats why a fortress was constructed around it!
DY
“BTW, I haven’t noticed you answer my question:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/har-habayis-revisited/page/4#post-583911″
sorry I missed it.
However you answered your question:
“No, blame is a wholly inappropriate term when someone does the correct thing.”
Inciting people to commit violence is wrong, thus they are to blame. Walking on har habyais is not wrong (again I’m not talking halachicly) so as you say “blame is a wholly inappropriate term when someone does the correct thing.”
ditto for all the example Ive cited rejecting oso hoish, dressing Jewish, killing terrorists, walking on har habayis. All of these are correct actions . Therefore anybody who uses it to justify or explain terror is wrong (I dont mean you I mean the media and the terroists)
DY
thanks for your patience i think i got it. (i still think you are wrong, and your view is offensive, but I think I get it)
though to be clear, the Charlie Hebdo people are to blame for their own deaths. correct?
and it wouold seem from the christian perspective that we are wrong for rejecting odso haish, we are to blame for our persecution. In other words my coworker who beleives in oso hoish and thinks we are wrong for rejecting him is right when she said we are to balme for our persecution. correct?
DY
Thanks though that seems like an arbitrary divide beacuse you are uncomfortable with the outcome of your position.
In cases where it isnt correct but was accidental (like Yosef lipshutz hitting Gavin Cato ultimatly resulting in Yankel Rosenbaum’s death) does that carry “blame” albeit accidental?
DY
again I dont quite follow are you saying that the soldiers and those who reject oso hoish are partly to blame for terror/persecution but their is no other option?
DY
Calling them ridiculous doesnt make them ridculous. Granted my Jospeh example was made up, but the quote form The Independent and the question from my coworker were both real.
I get that in both those cases (ie killing terroists and rejecting oso hoish) there is no othe roption. ut that is just dodging the issue.
namely in those cases is their blame to be had by the police or us.
The blame may be mtigated somewaht or even completly since thier is no other choice, fine. But do you beleive their is any blame at all to be had for rejecting oso hosih? If not why is it different han ascending har habayis?
You gave a vague answer
“Precisely. It’s about weighing the benefits vs. the risk/loss, and the same holds true for locking ourselves up or disguising ourselves.”
but I dont follow?
DY
“If someone knowingly does something which is likely to lead to harm to others, of course they take some blame and culpability when it happens.”
To what extent. For example as I asked earlier
“If I smack some guy named Joseph, because I feel Jospeh is obnoxious. Is he (at all) responsible for my smacking Joseph?
Even if I warn and say hey Joseph youre not nice If you make a snide comment again Im smacking my neighbor Jospeh Smith.” would Jospeh be bear blame or culpability for his namesake’s pain?
Or as a coworker once asked do you think that by rejecting oso hoish we incited violence against ourselves over the centuries bear some blame or culpability for our persecution?
mw13
I am only discussing responsibility and blame.
BTW
Regarding my comparing the “provokation” for ascending har habayis t the “provocation” of killing terorists (again not in my mind, bu tin the terrorist’s)
Here is a quote from The Independent describing the motives of one of the terrorists:
DY
“if there were double blind control studies demonstrating the increase in violence due to ascension to HH”B, would it be okay since the blame is anyhow solely on the terrorists?”
I do think so. But I can see two tzedadim. so that isnt what I was focusing this discussion on.
mw13
“Forget who is “responsible”. Can we agree that if the editors hadn’t published the cartoons, they would still be alive?”
Most probably. Unlike terrorism in ISrael simply becasue we are there, attacks on tabloids in France have not hapened in the past. But that makes my point stronger! They would most proabbly be alive if not for the cartoons. They still have zero blood on their hands. Cartoons as offfesive as they are do not justify terror. Walking on har habayis does not justify terror. Even if the only time there was ever violence in Eretz Yisorel was when people walked on har habayis. The terrosists and only the terroists are fully to blame.
“Translating this into our sugya, can we agree that there are people who have been killed that would still be alive if no Jews ascending HHB (again, regardless of who is actually “responsible” for those deaths)?”
I’m not sure, probably not
Though you lost me “regardless of who is actually “responsible””
What do you mean “regardless” Isnt that the exact point we are discussing? whether those who asscen har habayis are responsible (to whatever degree) to the current terror.
BTW I had a very naive coworker who honestly wanted to know why didnt just embrace oso hoish. she said by not accepting him obviously this would upset the church so of course they persecuted us what should we expect.
Now leaving aside the halachic aspect (as I have for har habayis) do you think she raises a good point, that by rejecting oso hoish we incited violence against ourselves over the centuries and are partly responsible or as DY put it “have blood on our hands”?