The Anti Defamation League's Disgusting Polemic On Anti Semitism

In the following, from which I will post excerpts, Abraham Foxman and the rest of the ADL disgustingly and perhaps even disingenously label Messianic Jews (including Messianic Karaites), Non-Messianic Karaites and other Non-Messianic Jews, and others as Anti Semitic for criticizing Talmud Bavli and P'rushi Yahadut as a perversion of Tanakh and Yahadut.

The Anti Defamation League In Self-Hating-Jewish Polemics

• "Recently there has been a renewal of attacks on Judaism and Jews through
  recycling of old accusations and distortions about the Talmud. Anti-
  Talmud tracts were originally developed in the Middle Ages as Christian
  polemics against Judaism, but today they emanate from a variety of
  Christian, Moslem and secular sources. Sometimes such “studies” have
  blatantly anti-Semitic tones; sometimes they are more subtle. Yet all of
  them remain as false and pernicious today as they did in the Middle Ages.
  
  "Because of their unfortunate frequent reappearance, there is a need to
  
  
  formally rebut these accusations and canards. The Anti-Defamation
  
  
  League developed the following essay that explains in an honest and
  
  
  scholarly way the Talmudic teachings as understood by Jewish religious
  
  authorities."

Many of these "anti-Semitic sources" are Messianic Jews, Non-Messianic Karaites, and other Jews who are well versed in, have or had consistently studied, and left P'rushi Yahadut because of Talmud Bavli.

• "Are the polemicists anti-Semites? This is a charged term that should not be used lightly,
  but the answer, by and large, is yes. Now and then a polemicist of this type may himself
  have been born Jewish, but rfrom contemporary Jews, and their dismissal of any
  voices opposing their own, suggests that their goal in reading ancient rabbinic literature is
  to produce the Frankenstein version of Judaism that they invariably claim to have
  uncovered."

An ad hominem right in the beginning, it charges that G-d is also an Anti Semite. Tanakh clearly warns not to add or take from it.

• "In fact many anti-Talmud polemicists have never studied the Talmud at all."

Deliberate misstatement of fact. As aforementioned, "Many of these "anti-Semitic sources" are Messianic Jews, Non-Messianic Karaites, and other Jews who are well versed in, have or had consistently studied, and left P'rushi Yahadut because of Talmud Bavli." For example, Nehemia Gordon was born and raised the son of a recently-deceased "rabbi".

• "The visceral hatred that Jews are alleged to bear for non-Jews is
  proven, they claim, by a variety of statements in the Talmud and by Jewish law itself,
  which purportedly encourages Jews to exploit their non-Jewish neighbors and engage in
  criminal activities against them."

One need look no further than a devout follower of Talmud Bavli-- Meir Kahane. Also, Yaron Yardan-- one of the Non-Messianic Jews who was in a yeshiva for years-- cites, among other parshot b'P'rushi halakhah (Menakhot 73b):

The peace-offerings of gentiles are to be treated as burnt-offerings.

1 This I can prove either by

simple reasoning or by a verse from Scripture. Either by simple reasoning: because a gentile in his

heart [devotes the offering entirely] to Heaven.

2 Or by a verse from Scripture: Which they will offer

unto the Lord for a burnt-offering:

3 whatever they4 offer shall be a burnt-offering.

R. Hama b. Guria raised an objection: If a gentile made a freewill-offering of peace-offerings and

he gave them to an Israelite,

5 the Israelite may eat them;6 if he gave them to a priest, the priest may

eat them.

6 — Raba answered, It means this: if [he gave them to an Israelite] that the Israelite shall

receive atonement thereby,
7 the Israelite may eat them;

if [he gave them to a priest] that the priest

shall receive atonement thereby, the priest may eat them.

So goyim can't recieve kippur for their own korbanot. By the way, the Soncino or Artscroll translation does not matter in this case-- the original content and context, to which the Soncino is closer, is the same.

• "One of the more horrifying charges leveled at Judaism is that it condones the sexual
  molestation of young girls. This charge was made in 1892 by the Russian Catholic cleric
  Reverend I.B. Pranaitis in his Latin book,
  Christianus in Talmude Iudaeorum. Despite
  Pranaitis’ humiliation at the Beilis blood libel trial in 1913, where as an “expert” witness
  for the prosecution he demonstrated during cross-examination that he could not answer
  even simple questions about the Talmud, his book was translated into English in 1939,
  and the charge has been making the rounds in anti-Semitic circles ever since."

Notorious talmidim of Talmud Bavli (e.g., Yisroel Shapiro) had and have molested countless young women and even young man. Examples one and two (Be warned-- these are graphic, and maybe not even the most graphic. There are ones which I won't post here. And is Abraham Foxman a pedophile?):

1. "Our Rabbis taught: It is related of Justinia¹⁷ the daughter of 'Aseverus son of Antonius that she once appeared before Rabbi 'Master', she said to him, 'at what age may a woman marry?'. 'At the age of three years and one day', he told her. 'And at what age is she capable of conception?' 'At the age of twelve years and one day', he replied. 'I', she said to him, 'married at the age of six and bore a child at the age of seven; alas for the three years that I have lost at my father's house'. But can a woman conceive at the age of six years? Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman: Three classes of woman may use an absorbent¹⁸ in their marital intercourse:¹⁹ A minor, and an expectant and a nursing mother. The minor,²⁰ because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,²⁰ because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.²¹ A nursing mother,²⁰ because otherwise she might have to wean her child prematurely,²² and this would result in his death. And what is the age of such a 'minor'?²³ From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under²⁴ or over this age²⁵ must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir." (Niddah 45a)
2. "But is she,¹ however, capable of [normal] conception?² Did not R. Bibi recite in the presence of R. Nahman:³ Three [categories of] women may use an absorbent⁴ in their marital intercourse:⁵ a minor, and an expectant and nursing mother. The minor,⁶ because otherwise she might become pregnant and die. An expectant mother,⁶ because otherwise she might cause her foetus to degenerate into a sandal.⁷ A nursing mother,⁶ because otherwise she might have to wean her child [prematurely]⁸ and this would result in his death.⁹ And what is [the age of such] a minor?¹⁰ From the age of eleven years and one day to the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under,¹¹ or over this age¹² must carry on her marital intercourse in a normal manner; so R. Meir. But the Sages said: The one as well as the other carries on her marital intercourse in a normal manner, and mercy¹³ will be vouchsafed from Heaven, for it is said in the Scriptures, The Lord preserveth the simple.¹⁴ And should you reply that this is a case where she conceived when she was a na'arah and gave birth to a child when she was still a na'arah [it could be objected:] Does one give birth to a child within six months [after conception]? Did not Samuel, in fact, state: The period between the age of na'aruth¹⁵ and that of bagruth¹⁶ is only six months? And should you suggest [that he meant to say] that there were no less but more [than six months] surely [it could be retorted] he used the expression, only'!¹⁷ It must be this, then, that he¹⁸ asked: Is the state of adolescence¹⁹ attainable in the grave²⁰ and her father consequently forfeits²¹ [his right],²² or is perhaps the state of adolescence not attainable in the grave²³ and the father, therefore, does not forfeit²⁴ [his right]? " (Ketubot 39a)

I could go on, but you get the point by now.

The Antimissionary Canards Are As Stale Challah... Try Some, So to Speak, Matazh

For example:

1. Tehillim 112:1-4
2. D'varim 32:7-10. Who did not acknowledge his ima, akhim v'achot, u' ava? And who was the "ava" left unacknowledged?
3. D'varim 31:16-21, 26-29 After whose met did Yisra'el become corrput, and Beit Hakodesh fall? Understand that d'varim-Moshe were prophecies as well.

My Mom Really Doesn't Understand the Talmud or Crypto Jews...

She thinks that my Crypto-Jewish, chauvinist granddad is (at minimum) possibly "a latent homosexual". She has no idea: I had to explain to her, and I also called my aunt (who has no idea that my mom thinks that) to explain that, he probably has a copy of Talmud Bavli around somewhere-- where it is, I probably wouldn't be able to guess, as I never even saw a hint of the Talmud when I would go to Pop-Pop's and Grandma's house. Remember that I didn't know that we are Jewish back then, anyway.

Meanwhile, here's an analysis of an example of P'rushi chauvinism. For more examples of chauvinism in the Talmud, read it yourself or get started with examples from Da'at Emet, whose founder left P'rushi Yahadut a long time ago.

In Reform Judaism, "Aliyah" Is A Lot More About Parashot Than Following Yirimiyahu 8:1-13

Based on search results for "making aliyah" and "aliyah", I gather that Reform Judaism seems less serious about the mitzvah to make aliyah than to do the traditional "aliyah" each week in a beit din. Since the URJ doesn't take the inerrancy of Tanakh seriously, though, the URJ sadly doesn't take the concept of aliyah seriously.

I Agree With the Following Re Eric Yoffe's Op Ed

Eric Yoffe's disingenous & hypocritical Op Ed was well responded to:

"Michael Doyle said:

I couldn't be more embarrassed to be a Reform Jew right now. This op-ed manages to insult all parties and invite Israel to feel free to continue to act unilaterally. If Rabbi Yoffie was trying to alienate non-AIPAC supporting Reform Jews, this piece does a really good job of it.

I have a better question for Rabbi Yoffie--where is the evidence that Israel wants peace? In the outrageously still-growing settlements? In the Netanyahu government's repeated pandering to the virulently xenophobic (including to other Jews!) ultra-Orthodox community? In the inability of low-wage Arab workers to reach jobs on the other side of security walls at any moment Israel deems they shouldn't be allowed to cross?

If this piece were a little less angry and a little less pandering, there might have been a little more substance to it. And grace and compassion, for that matter."

Michael Doyle hit it. For example:

 
• "To the leaders of the Palestinian Authority: Stop deluding yourselves! You will not be taken seriously as proponents of a two-state solution if you fail to support the underlying principles that make such a solution possible. A two-state solution means that there is no "right of return" to Israel, and that once a treaty is signed, the conflict is over. Really over. If you cannot say this now, and if you talk about Palestine being occupied since 1948, you are not serious about two states--or about peace."

Many Pleshetim are Pro Israel and learned from what happened to Goly'at.

• "To the leaders of the Israeli left: Stop deluding yourselves! You say that the Palestinians want peace, and Israelis would like to believe that, but where, for heaven's sake, is the evidence? Hints, and feints, and winks are not enough. Abbas at the UN should have said: "I welcome the Jewish state as my neighbor, and I welcome the Jews home;" but he had his chance, and he blew it. Please, no more making excuses for him."

Reverend Yoffe stereotypes Pleshetim again. And he gets angry at many of the haredim? Excuse me, but he is sounding haredi.

• "To the leaders of the settlement movement: Stop deluding yourselves! No one believes you when you claim that the thugs who burn mosques, uproot olive trees on Arab land, spout anti-Muslim slogans, and deface army bases exist only on the margins of your community. This violence has been going on for years, feeding on extremist views of Jewish law put forward by too many of your rabbinic leaders. And everyone knows that you could do far more about this hooliganism than you are now doing if you really wanted to."

Yoffe stereotypes Pleshetim again and fellow Jews this time as well. Many Pleshetim want Pleshet shel Goly'at b'Yehudah back and recognize that Noah David Simon and David Appletree, Yad L'Achim, and the Jewish Defense League don't represent all Jews who'd like the West Bank and kol Yerushalayim back.

Besides looking at a historical map for once and taking the inerrancy of Tanakh seriously, Reverend Yoffe and most of the URJ (who couldn't love and agree with Reverend Yoffe any more) need to get a clue.

Who Was Great-Granddad Czarnecki Really? Besides a Jew, We Won't Know Now...

"843-86/11
Szanowny Panie, informujemy, ze Archiuwm w Suwałkach nie posiada akt okregu mojzeszowego w Lipsku. Akta metrykalne z powiatu Augustow ulegly zniszczeniu w czasie II wojny swiatowej.
Zoja Luksza"


"843-86/11

Dear Sir, We inform you the Archive in Suwalki the county does not have files of Jewish people in Lipsk. Records of birth certificates from the county Augustow were destroyed during World War II.
Zoya Luksza"

 

It means that whoever "Antoni Jan Julianowicz" Chernetski and his parents, "Julian Jan 'Feliks'" and "Aleksjondria Alicja" nee Andrulewicza Chernetski, were is gone from human knowledge. And "Antoni" and "Katarzyna" Chernetski, Danilowicza, Andrulewicz, and Morgiewicza ("Margiewicza")? Absolutely gone. 

While their being meshumadim and koferim (since they were Crypto-Jewish Roman Catholics) saved their lives and enabled them to live as Anusim in Sugar Notch, they destroyed much of their mishpacha for the knowledge of which they deliberately left them in lack. And while even many of their children became Meshichim (Alexandria Alice, Stanley-- which grandchildren Mark and Renee can confirm, since Mark even prayed with his "Pop-Pop"--, Edward, Bernie, and Cecelia. And as for Regina, I can't confirm since she died when she was 16; and Great-Granddad and his brothers John and Jospeh did not), they left both their Meshichim v'Lo Meshichim Zerim without a full and solid knowledge of their history and heritage vin Yisra'el v'b'Yeshua.

And the Problem With Being Spiritual Is? Tracey R. Rich Is A Classical P'rushit Chauvinist...

"Women are discouraged from pursuing higher education or religious pursuits, but this seems to be primarily because women who engage in such pursuits might neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers. The rabbis are not concerned that women are not spiritual enough; rather, they are concerned that women might become too spiritually devoted....

"There is no question that in traditional Judaism, the primary role of a woman is as wife and mother, keeper of the household. However, Judaism has great respect for the importance of that role and the spiritual influence that the woman has over her family. The Talmud says that when a pious man marries a wicked woman, the man becomes wicked, but when a wicked man marries a pious woman, the man becomes pious. The child of a Jewish woman and a gentile man is Jewish because of the mother's spiritual influence; the child of a Jewish man and a gentile woman is not. See Who Is a Jew? Women are exempted from all positive mitzvot ("thou shalts" as opposed to "thou shalt nots") that are time-related (that is, mitzvot that must be performed at a specific time of the day or year), because the woman's duties as wife and mother are so important that they cannot be postponed to fulfill a mitzvah. After all, a woman cannot be expected to just drop a crying baby when the time comes to perform a mitzvah. She cannot leave dinner unattended on the stove while she davens ma'ariv (evening prayer services).

"It is this exemption from certain mitzvot that has led to the greatest misunderstanding of the role of women in Judaism. First, many people make the mistake of thinking that this exemption is a prohibition. On the contrary, although women are not required to perform time-based positive mitzvot, they are generally permitted to observe such mitzvot if they choose (though some are frustrated with women who insist on performing visible, prestigious optional mitzvot while they ignore mundane mandatory ones). Second, because this exemption diminishes the role of women in the synagogue, many people perceive that women have no role in Jewish religious life. This misconception derives from the mistaken assumption that Jewish religious life revolves around the synagogue. It does not; it revolves around the home, where the woman's role is every bit as important as the man's.

1. Let's (according to Tracy R. Rich) blame the women for the man. "[W]hen a pious man marries a wicked woman, the man becomes wicked, but when a wicked man marries a pious woman, the man becomes pious." Tracey R. Rich, raised Reform, has become Orthodox in Yahadut shel HaP'rushim. So she believes that a man isn't personally responsible for how he is ultimately affected.
2. Women can apparently be too spiritual. "Women are discouraged from pursuing higher education or religious pursuits, but this seems to be primarily because women who engage in such pursuits might neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers. The rabbis are not concerned that women are not spiritual enough; rather, they are concerned that women might become too spiritually devoted." A truly-spiritual woman would perform the duties of her calling or vocation with a sound spiritual foundation in mind, for anything and everything that she does should glorify G-d. After all, D'vorah was a shofetah.
3. "There is no question that in traditional Judaism, the primary role of a woman is as wife and mother, keeper of the household." Do we need to go over D'vorah again?
4. " However, Judaism has great respect for the importance of that role and the spiritual influence that the woman has over her family." This statement contradicts that "women might become too spiritually devoted." If the woman is supposed to be such an influence, how can she be too spiritual? Can one be too truly-- not legalistically, not ritually, but spiritually-- pious?