Rebbe warned about the Ethiopians

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

But there is an association being made that these groups descended from Ham who was cursed (for doing evil).   These cultures had very bad aspects to them (ancient egyptians, canaanites)...     But no, hamites are not evil necessarily (or good).  Like any group they can be either.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I have heard the opinion that Noah was wrong to curse his child--that he was drunken and dishonored himself--is that false?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

But there is an association being made that these groups descended from Ham who was cursed (for doing evil).   These cultures had very bad aspects to them (ancient egyptians, canaanites)...     But no, hamites are not evil necessarily (or good).  Like any group they can be either.

So what do you think Mifletzet's true goal is here? Is this person a self-hating, anti-Torah Jew, a black nationalist who wants to make Jews look bad, or perhaps a WN who wants to make a biblical argument for untermenschen theories?

[muman613]

I have heard the opinion that Noah was wrong to curse his child--that he was drunken and dishonored himself--is that false?

I dont think that this conclusion is correct. Ham had castrated Noach and deserved a curse... It is a difficult story to understand but basically the curse fell on Canaan, one of the sons of Ham...

There has always been some wonder at why Canaan was cursed. Concerning the text of the Torah it is unclear that Canaan had anything to do with Noach. All we know is that Ham saw his father’s nakedness, told his brothers, and Noach awoke to curse Canaan. At the very least this is a strange sequence of events.

There are several theories offered to explain this strange event. One theory is that since Ham had already been blessed by G-d Noach was unable to curse him and so cursed his son instead. This is very strange if Noach were only naked. Cursing someone with slavery for seeing their nakedness does not sound just for someone as righteous as Noach.

There are two primary theories about what happened. The first is that seeing his father’s nakedness Ham had an illicit affair with Noach while he slept. This gruesome scene does not seem to fit with the curse. The punishment must be equal to the crime. The second theory seems more likely. Ham, seeing his father’s nakedness realized that if Noach had another son, a fourth son, that the world would be split between four peoples and not three. Realizing this, Ham thought it best if Noach were not able to produce any more heirs and castrated his father.

As a result Noach cursed Canaan to be a slave to his brothers. A slave does not rule, everything the slave owns is actually the master’s. The reasoning behind this explanation was that just as Ham had castrated his father Noach to prevent a fourth son of Noach from having a share in the world; Noach would curse Ham’s fourth son, therefore preventing him from having a true share in this world

I think the curse was appropriate..

Although this site uses this to show that Noach was not a complete Tzadik, he was a Tzadik in comparison with the rest of his generation:

http://www.jewishmag.com/118mag/noah-tzadik/noah-tzadik.htm
http://njop.org/html/NOAH5763-2002.htm

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

I dont think that this conclusion is correct. Ham had castrated Noach and deserved a curse.

I read it... isn't that still theorization? Why would he tell his brothers that he committed such a savage crime? Wouldn't he be afraid that they would kill him on the spot?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I dont think that this conclusion is correct. Ham had castrated Noach and deserved a curse.

Why would he tell his brothers that he committed such a savage crime?

I think they knew without him telling them......  Use your imagination.   

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

What I mean is, wouldn't he want to get far, far away from them so that he doesn't get caught?

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

haha, oh I thought you meant about the castration....

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

So where do you think Mifletzet went to, and what his or her or its motive was?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

24. And Noah awoke from his wine, and he knew what his small son had done to him.

25. And he said, "Cursed be Canaan; he shall be a slave among slaves to his brethren."


It was either castration or a different form of violation.   But Noah certainly knew and was reacting to it by cursing ham's son...

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So where do you think Mifletzet went to, and what his or her or its motive was?

I don't really know exactly, nor do I much care.    I honestly think he might be sincere.   Sincerely misguided (even if not completely... he does intimate allegiance to Torah Judaism and some Kahanist principles).    But it does seem to me these are his actual views.

At the end of the day it really makes no difference who "he" really is... or what his motive is...   Once somebody writes something here, the view becomes its own entity that can be judged on its merits (or lack thereof).   As with any person we should only worry if we don't know the facts ourselves and if we can't determine whether the view is meritorious or not.   As long as we can distinguish, the source is irrelevant, IMO.

[Moshe92]

So where do you think Mifletzet went to, and what his or her or its motive was?

Remember that his original name was Nonny. He posted under that name at revava. He also posted at kahane.org as Mifletzet.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

So where do you think Mifletzet went to, and what his or her or its motive was?

Remember that his original name was Nonny. He posted under that name at revava. He also posted at kahane.org as Mifletzet.

kahane.org did that place get shut down?

[Moshe92]

So where do you think Mifletzet went to, and what his or her or its motive was?

Remember that his original name was Nonny. He posted under that name at revava. He also posted at kahane.org as Mifletzet.

kahane.org did that place get shut down?

Kahane.org and revava both shut down.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Kahane.org and revava both shut down.

Oh, do you know why?

[Moshe92]

Kahane.org and revava both shut down.

Oh, do you know why?

I don't know why kahane.org shut down. Before it shut down, someone on kahane.org wrote that David Ha'ivri felt like he did not need a forum anymore which is why revava shut down. David Ha'ivri's Hebrew forum must still be active since there was a post on that forum last week, but it was probably the fifth or sixth post on that forum in the past year.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Good riddance to that worthless dreck.

[wonga66]

As can be heard on this 30 second audio clip whether you agree or disagree with him,this Rabbi Miller didn't mince his words about anything -  including the Ethiopians!
 
falashas.mp3
 

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Uggh.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Somewhat surprising/hypocritical that R.  Miller would state directly a policy opinion (or existential qualifier on a controversial issue) regarding the state of Israel or what it should do since his hashqafa was to have nothing to do with the "evil atheist zionist state."  With all due respect to a great man.  This also reflects the difference between a rabbi who is live, on the ground, practical and relevant vs. someone who is "out of touch" with the realities by sitting comfortably in galuth.  The opinion can't possibly be well-informed, nor particularly astute.  I think we see that here.   And I think that basic truth is unavoidable.

Some "Ethiopian Jews" (ie blacks that came to Israel calling themselves such) are really Jews, and many of them did a conversion to solidify it in case of doubt.    How can anyone question such a group?  They serve in the army, they get educations, they try to be good citizens, and they identify with Jewish culture and practices (even despite discrimination that they unfortunately face).  There are such Ethiopian Jews in Israel.   R. Miller makes a mistake when he labels all of them as one and the same.   As if all the missionaries who snuck in, and at the same time all the sincere real ethiopian Jews are just one big conglomerate of "ethiopian Jews" who are "not really Jews."    Of course, if one pointed this out to him, he would correct himself and of course he did not mean that.    But because mifletzet hates black people, he would like to present as if R. Miller does too, and as if this cherry picked quote supports his view that all ethiopian Jews should be carted off to ghettos, thrown out or not allowed in Israel in the first place because their "just blacks."

Many of the REAL ethiopian Jews who are sincere, despise the phony missionary ethiopians who want to sneak into Israel by pretending to be Jewish and doing a phony conversion if necessary.   Because this group of people (the missionaries) made life hell for the real Jews back in Ethiopia, for many years.
Mifletzet would lump in the real black Jews with those fakers/Ethiopian non-Jews they rightfully hate.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Aren't Gentile Ethiopians a Semitic nation too though? I don't deny their anti-Semitism, but they do appear to be a really unique people. They don't look "black" at all--they have very delicate features oftentimes, and almost look like a combination of Hispanic and South Asian.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Aren't Gentile Ethiopians a Semitic nation too though?

Who cares?

Indeed you are right though, Ethiopians have sort of a unique racial composition different from blacks you see in America or Africans.   They have different facial structure than African americans.  Better looking if you ask me but just my opinion.

[Masha]

One of the greatest tragedies that I have seen is when the Torah is used, not to illuminate the darkness of this world, but to defend some shameful idea that the Torah really has nothing to do with. One of the most shameful uses of the Torah has been to claim that one of the three great families of humanity is nothing more than a slave to the rest.

The idea of slavery has become associated in everyone's mind with absolute evil. Nobody questions that slavery is evil incarnate. But where does this idea come from? Chaim said that slavery is not at all against the Torah and not necessarily immoral. It depends on how you treat the slave. This to me implies that when the righteous Jewish state will be restored, the rabbis might decide to re-institute slavery.

There are several theories offered to explain this strange event. One theory is that since Ham had already been blessed by G-d Noach was unable to curse him and so cursed his son instead. This is very strange if Noach were only naked. Cursing someone with slavery for seeing their nakedness does not sound just for someone as righteous as Noach.

It sounds like the author is judging by today's standards.

There are two primary theories about what happened. The first is that seeing his father’s nakedness Ham had an illicit affair with Noach while he slept. This gruesome scene does not seem to fit with the curse. The punishment must be equal to the crime. The second theory seems more likely. Ham, seeing his father’s nakedness realized that if Noach had another son, a fourth son, that the world would be split between four peoples and not three. Realizing this, Ham thought it best if Noach were not able to produce any more heirs and castrated his father.

As a result Noach cursed Canaan to be a slave to his brothers. A slave does not rule, everything the slave owns is actually the master’s. The reasoning behind this explanation was that just as Ham had castrated his father Noach to prevent a fourth son of Noach from having a share in the world; Noach would curse Ham’s fourth son, therefore preventing him from having a true share in this world.

This is the first time I hear about the castration. This is not in the Torah, right? Is this a standard Talmudic interpretation?

[Masha]

Somewhat surprising/hypocritical that R.  Miller would state directly a policy opinion (or existential qualifier on a controversial issue) regarding the state of Israel

The opinion can't possibly be well-informed, nor particularly astute. 

Wait, are you allowed to speak about a Rabbi like this on this board? Chaim always warns us not to talk disrespectfully about rabbis, because they are great scholars, and we must show veneration. There are things about their opinions we might not understand.

I sense hostility from you towards the Ashkenazim. What is your own background?