Who would you want to be PM of Israel

[Manch]

Let me spell it out.  Disagreeing with the Talmud's opinion about Bar Kochva is not "denying oral law."   First of all, there were many sages who were involved in the hundreds of years of redaction process behind the finished product of Talmud, and there was not one single opinion on most things.   Certainly at the time of the revolt itself, the rabbis were not against it.    Certainly, after the results, in dealing with the aftermath and destruction of Jewish life on a scale (by percentage) greater even than the holocaust, the rabbis had reason to be against it.   Manch calls that a "bias" - maybe that's not the friendliest term to use, but it's probably accurate.   Of course there was a bias to not have another revolt which would result in a million murdered Jews and especially at a time when Jews were incapable of victory and would be slaughtered.   So the Talmud redactors had good reason to downplay the revolt.   So too, the sages in the generations of bar kochva and shortly after him, had reason to point out his flaws given how it turned into a disaster where so many loved ones were lost and innocent men women and children destroyed.     Are you going to react to that positively?  No one in their right mind would.

Secondly, what that site is referring to is disputing the interpretations of Jewish law similar to the way the Baltusians and Tzaddokim did (aka Sadducees).   An example would be claiming that tefillin don't go on the head - something all the sages agreed on was an oral law from sinai.   Or if somebody came along and tried to say the beautiful fruit is not an esrog.  Something along those lines.  That person would be an apikorus.   Not a person who differs in opinion about a Jewish historical figure!   (even if they are mistaken).  That simply does not fit the bill of "denying the Oral Law."    Jews are allowed to have opinions about things.   And even sometimes personally disagree with rabbis, yes, *gasp!

You need to be careful about slinging insults around.   

I completely agree with your and thank your for your post! Calling me an apostate or apikorus because I can see and judge, is a sign that Muman simply did not have a valid argument.

One more thing I may add on the subject is that I suspect that one of the greatest tragic outcome of the revolt was that mostly weakling genome of the Jewish nation survived. The warrior genotype of our people, that of fearsome heroes who fought alongside Joshua, king David, Bar Kochba, rabbi Akiva, has been extinguished for two millenniums and is being reborn now.  If Bar Kochba looked at Jews now or hundred years ago, his heart would be incredulously saddened.

[muman613]

I completely agree with your and thank your for your post! Calling me an apostate or apikorus because I can see and judge, is a sign that Muman simply did not have a valid argument.

One more thing I may add on the subject is that I suspect that one of the greatest tragic outcome of the revolt was that mostly weakling genome of the Jewish nation survived. The warrior genotype of our people, that of fearsome heroes who fought alongside Joshua, king David, Bar Kochba, rabbi Akiva, has been extinguished for two millenniums and is being reborn now.  If Bar Kochba looked at Jews now or hundred years ago, his heart would be incredulously saddened.

Uhh... My point is not invalid... You just reject the Talmud... And by doing so you place yourself in the category of rejecting the Torah. If you want to continue to say you know better than the sages of the Talmud then this places you outside normative Jewish belief. I am not trying to have a problem with you Manch but I am trying to get you to understand that the Talmud is not something you just agree with or don't agree with.... While the other 'branches' of Judaism don't hold the Talmud as dearly as the Orthodox do it is still a part of Reform and Conservative Judaism.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

One more thing I may add on the subject is that I suspect that one of the greatest tragic outcome of the revolt was that mostly weakling genome of the Jewish nation survived.

 That's uncalled for and insulting to all of the Jewish people now. Many people were enslaved that's a fact, also their were many converts after the revolt who joined because they saw the greatness of the Jewish nation especially from it.
 We don't look at "genes" but culture. Our culture and law is the Torah. The weaklings are those who break it and don't follow it (each on his/her own level)- that's including national issues as well.

[muman613]

That's uncalled for and insulting to all of the Jewish people now. Many people were enslaved that's a fact, also their were many converts after the revolt who joined because they saw the greatness of the Jewish nation especially from it.
 We don't look at "genes" but culture. Our culture and law is the Torah. The weaklings are those who break it and don't follow it (each on his/her own level)- that's including national issues as well.

I agree... Hashem has promised the Jewish people redemption... As Chaim explained in the Ask JTF last night it will come one way or the other, whether we deserve it or not.... What happened during the Revolt was exactly what was needed to bring about the future redemption...

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Uhh... My point is not invalid... You just reject the Talmud... And by doing so you place yourself in the category of rejecting the Torah. If you want to continue to say you know better than the sages of the Talmud then this places you outside normative Jewish belief. I am not trying to have a problem with you Manch but I am trying to get you to understand that the Talmud is not something you just agree with or don't agree with.... While the other 'branches' of Judaism don't hold the Talmud as dearly as the Orthodox do it is still a part of Reform and Conservative Judaism.

 the Talmudh is great, but it was/is censored. Both from the inside (Rabbis) and from outside (gentile printers). Their was definitely a need to hide anti-Roman sentiment or else the wars and uprisings would continue and at the time it was tragic (after the Bar Kochba revolt, their was a need to stop all violence towards Rome, since it wasn't working and we wouldn't have won at that time). The strategy was to wait it out, eventually they (Rome) would perish and the Jewish nation would and did survive. Tragically it took nearly 2,000 years but still we are here and the "great Roman empire" is crumbled and gone.

[muman613]

the Talmudh is great, but it was/is censored. Both from the inside (Rabbis) and from outside (gentile printers). Their was definitely a need to hide anti-Roman sentiment or else the wars and uprisings would continue and at the time it was tragic (after the Bar Kochba revolt, their was a need to stop all violence towards Rome, since it wasn't working and we wouldn't have won at that time). The strategy was to wait it out, eventually they (Rome) would perish and the Jewish nation would and did survive. Tragically it took nearly 2,000 years but still we are here and the "great Roman empire" is crumbled and gone.

Yes, and the Rabbis of the Talmud related what was needed by future generations to learn in order to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

We just need to study it and learn the lessons... Sometimes we learn, and sometimes we don't learn...

[muman613]

As I said before there is no problem considering Bar Kochba a 'hero. He sure was a mighty warrior and he appeared to have what it took to be the Moshiach.... I hold him in high esteem. But I also think that we must remember the shortcomings in order to prevent the same thing from happening in the future. We need to have leaders who are mighty and purely righteous... The intentions must be for Hashems sake and not to make a name for oneself...

And Manch... I dont disagree that the Jewish people had their failings also... But leaders of the Jewish people are judged according to a stricter standard than a normal Jew...

And I also would like to make it clear that my calling you 'apikoris' is just my opinion. I have no malace towards you.. My intention is to change your opinion to understand what the Talmud is trying to say concerning the subject.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

And I also would like to make it clear that my calling you 'apikoris' is just my opinion. I have no malace towards you.. My intention is to change your opinion to understand what the Talmud is trying to say concerning the subject.

   this is one of those, no offense but.....
 In fact this is the topic I read today at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/with-respect-youre-kofer.html

 - About changing someone Else's opinion, do that by logic and debate. NOT name calling and threats. I know that some will react to the threats of others, but overall it is disastrous and not intellectually honest. I have seen this first hand before and I simply tell the other person name calling me that they can't prove what they want to soo they resort to "you'll burn in hell" tactics that aren't even Jewish in origin.

[muman613]

  this is one of those, no offense but.....
 In fact this is the topic I read today at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/with-respect-youre-kofer.html

 - About changing someone Else's opinion, do that by logic and debate. NOT name calling and threats. I know that some will react to the threats of others, but overall it is disastrous and not intellectually honest. I have seen this first hand before and I simply tell the other person name calling me that they can't prove what they want to soo they resort to "you'll burn in hell" tactics that aren't even Jewish in origin.

Alright already... I was not 'treatening' or meaning to 'intimidate' or any such things. Look at what I said concerning learning from the sages of the Talmud.

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Alright already... I was not 'treatening' or meaning to 'intimidate' or any such things. Look at what I said concerning learning from the sages of the Talmud.

 Okay. Anyway I think both you and Manch are not getting something (in my opinion). Both of you think that what the Talmudh says in this subject is exactly what the Rabbis who were discussing this subject actually felt and did. Also don't forget many people today choose what they want in teaching various things especially in this regard. For example many people today focus mainly on the issue of "Sinat Hinam". Their ideology draws them to this, and the problem is when its only this that they are considering and not the many other sayings of the Talmudh and the sages. (Check for example what the Rambam says in this regard or what Reish Lakish says to Rav Bar Bar Channa on the same page) Soo what becomes then is that this small statement becomes the official "what the Talmudh says" and if you reject it then you are rejecting the Talmudh, and if you accept it then you are accepting the Talmudh. The problem is what happened to the other statements? What happened to the other reasons given? Perhaps seeing them all and together brings the bigger picture and not just "Sinat Hinam"- therefore lets learn Hilhot Lashon Hara and the redemption will come. (as is espoused by some today)

[Tag-MehirTzedek]

Also another very important issue is the fact that the Talmudh was/ and even had to be censored and one needs to see and know the circumstances it was written at, and then you will better understand why it was written in such a way. (NOT that those Rabbis were some sort of weaklings as Manch was suggesting G-D forbid).
 It was written in the Galuth after the revolts. Some things needed to be said the way they were because at that exact time the correct (or perceived correct) policy was to wait it out. Revolting against Rome was fatal. We had many losses (we killed many Romans, but also had great calamity). Many orphans/widows, many Jewish people sold into slavery. Revolting again was not an option/practical.
 Addressing Rome directly could have meant certain death and slaughter of men, women and children. Some things needed/ were hidden. Sometimes buried within different texts as well.
  Understanding all of this (and this is a part of it), should show how and why things are written the way they are, and also why some in today's generation say and do what they do. ALSO why sometimes understanding the historical circumstances of then tells us why what is said is said/ written, and why and what needs to be chosen in different situations as well. For example today besides perhaps bringing moral support against having Sinat Hinam/ talking lashon hara the "other" important aspects and teachings need to get out to the Jewish masses, and the policy needs to change. NOT because the sages were wrong, G-D forbid. In fact the opposite if they had been in our situation they would have the option to do otherwise and in my opinion they would (as happened at the beginning of the revolts, during Hannukah, Purim and the days of the Prophets and Judges).

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Uhh... My point is not invalid... You just reject the Talmud...

No, I don't believe there was a rejection of the Talmud in this thread.   I think you are jumping to conclusions and extrapolating to something about Manch which isn't true.    Having a different opinion about a particular issue (especially a subjective one like an opinion about a Jewish historical figure) is NOT a rejection of the Talmud or denial of the Talmud's authority!     I tried to explain this in my previous post where I explained that calling him an apikorus was wrong, did you read it?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

  this is one of those, no offense but.....
 In fact this is the topic I read today at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/with-respect-youre-kofer.html

haha, great point - I happened to just read that post at the rationalistjudaism site yesterday, and it's exactly what happened here!   

Muman, you say that calling him an apikorus is "your opinion" but the parameters for what defines an apikorus is not a matter of opinion, and nothing he did here fits those parameters.   So that would make your opinion an incorrect one (or based on an incorrect premise).  So not only is it insulting, (saying you don't have malice while calling someone an apikorus does not make it no longer insulting), it is also inaccurate.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Also another very important issue is the fact that the Talmudh was/ and even had to be censored and one needs to see and know the circumstances it was written at, and then you will better understand why it was written in such a way. (NOT that those Rabbis were some sort of weaklings as Manch was suggesting G-D forbid).
 It was written in the Galuth after the revolts. Some things needed to be said the way they were because at that exact time the correct (or perceived correct) policy was to wait it out. Revolting against Rome was fatal. We had many losses (we killed many Romans, but also had great calamity). Many orphans/widows, many Jewish people sold into slavery. Revolting again was not an option/practical.   

Not to mention, at this point the Jewish cultural milieu in Babylonia was not at all military-based and if there was no chance of conquest in the times shortly after Bar Kochva, there was even less than no chance of conquest taking place by a band of Babylon Jews marching their way to Eretz Yisrael with no training and no abilities.   Bavel Jewish culture was certainly not Spartan, and that's part of the very nature of galut.   Similarly, the persian overlords ruling in Bavel had become quite oppressive over time, and rebelling against them even just to get them off the Jews' backs and get some basic freedoms in Bavel would also have been disastrous.   So the redactors (for Talmud Bavli, Ravina and Rav Ashi and then the saboraim and gaonim who followed them, all scholars of Bavel) had this in mind also when composing the text.

[wonga66]

Yekutiel Guzofsky!

[mord]

Yekutiel Guzofsky!

Well he sure doesn't look like Bar Kosiba

[IsraeliGovtAreKapos]

Yekutiel Guzofsky!

Are you joking?