JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: DownwithIslam on April 19, 2009, 12:16:04 AM
-
I was reading an article on jpost now which said that Yitzchak Rabin, the former dictator of Israel(my words) had put down a "deposit" that he would withdraw from the entire Golan Heights if Assad just for a second said that he would not slaughter jews. Thank hashem that this drunken pig kicked off or Israel might not be in the golan right now(g-d forbid).
Abdullah floats 'deposit' to spur Israel
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON
Print Subscribe Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
E-mail Toolbar
+ Recommend:
facebook del.icio.us reddit newsvine fark
What's this?
Decrease text size Decrease text size
Increase text size Increase text size
Talkbacks for this article: 8
| Avg. rating 2.5 out of 5rated 2.5 by 28 people | Top Rated Articles [?]
King Abdullah of Jordan told Jewish leaders here Friday that Arab countries need to take steps to encourage Israel to advance final-status negotiations with the Palestinians, according to several participants in the closed-door meeting.
Jordan's King Abdullah II,...
Jordan's King Abdullah II, listens to his Romanian counterpart Traian Basescu during a press conference in Bucharest, Romania, Monday.
Photo: AP
SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World
The participants said that Abdullah's comments were notable because, in contrast to several similar meetings with him in recent years, it was the first time he spoke about Arab responsibilities for moving the process forward beyond the confines of the Arab Peace Initiative, and suggested it indicated new possibilities for regional peace-making.
Several meeting attendees said that Abdullah staked out the concept of an "Arab deposit," or commitment of deliverables, echoing the formulation of the Rabin deposit - a reported pledge of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin that Israel would withdraw from the Golan if the Syrians met certain conditions - used to push forward the peace process with Damascus.
Jordanian sources, however, denied that Abdullah referred to a "deposit" or otherwise articulated such a position at what they stressed was an off-the-record meeting.
The Jordan Embassy press office issued a statement after the event saying simply that in meetings with Jewish, as well as Arab and Muslim American groups, the king had stressed the urgency of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution and that "the Arab Peace Initiative offers a significant opportunity to reach a comprehensive peace that will meet the legitimate rights of all parties and ensure normal relations for Israel with all its Arab neighbors."
Jewish leaders who participated in the conversation, however, said Abdullah also referred to Iran and the impetus it provides for working together to solve the regional discord.
"He thought that there was more common ground than ever existed before between Arabs and Israelis, given the common threat of Iran," said one of some 20 Jewish officials at the 45-minute meeting, who described Abdullah as more optimistic about prospects for progress than in other conversations.
The issue of Iran is expected to come up between Abdullah and US President Barack Obama in their meeting Tuesday, with the Jordanian leader making the argument that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis provides the key for weakening the potency of Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hizbullah, on the Arab street by denying them a central argument for their approach.
Towards that end, Abdullah indicated he would like to see the US present its own plan for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, perhaps along the lines of the Clinton parameters for a two-state solution outlined by America during then-president Bill Clinton's term.
American sources, however, say that the new administration is still getting to know the key players and learn their positions, rather than developing an independent proposal.
While US officials see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major issue whose resolution could help improve the overall situation in the Middle East, they rejected the premise that it was the central problem driving regional developments, including Iranian influence.
Still, the US sees Jordan as a crucial moderate ally in the Middle East and is welcoming Abdullah, the first Arab leader to be received by Obama, as a means of invigorating its efforts to spur Israeli-Palestinian peace.
US officials are increasingly referring to the Arab peace plan as an approach that could provide a way forward, and appreciate Abdullah's efforts to maintain support in the Arab world for the program.
The proposal offers Israel full normalization with Arab countries in return for a complete withdrawal from the lands captured in the Six Day War, including east Jerusalem, creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees who wish to return to Israel.
-
All worthless taqiyya. Any negotiation between a muslim and a non-muslim is not binding on the muslim. This is a tactic used by Mohammed in the Treaty of Hudaibiya to promise peace for 10 years and then invade in 10 months; the lesson is to negotiate until you're strong enough to annihilate. Only Bolshevik traitors who want Israel destroyed would fall for this crap.
Israel should instead expel the arab enemy once and for all and let the arab countries worry about their own people. The Saudis alone are wealthy enough to put all the fakestinians into mansions with swimming pools. They can occupy all the apartment buildings in Dubai that have been abandoned by ex pats. But Israel is not theirs, not one square inch.
-
I thank G-d every day that Arafat Yimach Shemo said no to Rabin's offer. He got what he deserved and may he rot in hell. Hamas and the PLO will never accept Israel as a Jewish State and if Netanyahu stands true to his word that there will be no negotiations until they do then we are good.
-
:dance: :dance:
-
I was reading an article on jpost now which said that Yitzchak Rabin, the former dictator of Israel(my words) had put down a "deposit" that he would withdraw from the entire Golan Heights if Assad just for a second said that he would not slaughter jews. Thank hashem that this drunken pig kicked off or Israel might not be in the golan right now(g-d forbid).
Abdullah floats 'deposit' to spur Israel
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPOST CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON
Print Subscribe Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com
E-mail Toolbar
+ Recommend:
facebook del.icio.us reddit newsvine fark
What's this?
Decrease text size Decrease text size
Increase text size Increase text size
Talkbacks for this article: 8
| Avg. rating 2.5 out of 5rated 2.5 by 28 people | Top Rated Articles [?]
King Abdullah of Jordan told Jewish leaders here Friday that Arab countries need to take steps to encourage Israel to advance final-status negotiations with the Palestinians, according to several participants in the closed-door meeting.
Jordan's King Abdullah II,...
Jordan's King Abdullah II, listens to his Romanian counterpart Traian Basescu during a press conference in Bucharest, Romania, Monday.
Photo: AP
SLIDESHOW: Israel & Region | World
The participants said that Abdullah's comments were notable because, in contrast to several similar meetings with him in recent years, it was the first time he spoke about Arab responsibilities for moving the process forward beyond the confines of the Arab Peace Initiative, and suggested it indicated new possibilities for regional peace-making.
Several meeting attendees said that Abdullah staked out the concept of an "Arab deposit," or commitment of deliverables, echoing the formulation of the Rabin deposit - a reported pledge of former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin that Israel would withdraw from the Golan if the Syrians met certain conditions - used to push forward the peace process with Damascus.
Jordanian sources, however, denied that Abdullah referred to a "deposit" or otherwise articulated such a position at what they stressed was an off-the-record meeting.
The Jordan Embassy press office issued a statement after the event saying simply that in meetings with Jewish, as well as Arab and Muslim American groups, the king had stressed the urgency of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution and that "the Arab Peace Initiative offers a significant opportunity to reach a comprehensive peace that will meet the legitimate rights of all parties and ensure normal relations for Israel with all its Arab neighbors."
Jewish leaders who participated in the conversation, however, said Abdullah also referred to Iran and the impetus it provides for working together to solve the regional discord.
"He thought that there was more common ground than ever existed before between Arabs and Israelis, given the common threat of Iran," said one of some 20 Jewish officials at the 45-minute meeting, who described Abdullah as more optimistic about prospects for progress than in other conversations.
The issue of Iran is expected to come up between Abdullah and US President Barack Obama in their meeting Tuesday, with the Jordanian leader making the argument that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis provides the key for weakening the potency of Iran and its proxies, Hamas and Hizbullah, on the Arab street by denying them a central argument for their approach.
Towards that end, Abdullah indicated he would like to see the US present its own plan for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, perhaps along the lines of the Clinton parameters for a two-state solution outlined by America during then-president Bill Clinton's term.
American sources, however, say that the new administration is still getting to know the key players and learn their positions, rather than developing an independent proposal.
While US officials see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major issue whose resolution could help improve the overall situation in the Middle East, they rejected the premise that it was the central problem driving regional developments, including Iranian influence.
Still, the US sees Jordan as a crucial moderate ally in the Middle East and is welcoming Abdullah, the first Arab leader to be received by Obama, as a means of invigorating its efforts to spur Israeli-Palestinian peace.
US officials are increasingly referring to the Arab peace plan as an approach that could provide a way forward, and appreciate Abdullah's efforts to maintain support in the Arab world for the program.
The proposal offers Israel full normalization with Arab countries in return for a complete withdrawal from the lands captured in the Six Day War, including east Jerusalem, creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees who wish to return to Israel.
"Thank g-d that Rabin croaked", is it within the tenets of the Jewish religion to thank G-d that a person has died?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
-
Absolutely, Adrian. Judaism commands the condemnation of Erev Rav (Jewish traitors) and other scum.
-
Absolutely, Adrian. Judaism commands the condemnation of Erev Rav (Jewish traitors) and other scum.
Well is there a special formulation under the rule of Erev Rav, that in respect of a person who is classed as Erev Rab, that one should thank G-d for their death? In that whilst G-d might dispense death to the unrighteous, G-d can do as he so chooses with infinite justice, whereas human beings are anything but infinite in their capabilities?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
-
Here is some information about erev rav.
http://www.mishpattsedek.com/Docs/MODERN_EREV_RAV.pdf (http://www.mishpattsedek.com/Docs/MODERN_EREV_RAV.pdf)
-
According to the link I posted, it says in the zohar that the erev rav delay redemption much more than all the nations of the world.
-
Adrian,
In general we are not supposed to wish death on anyone. But there are cases when a Jew goes outside what is acceptable as a Jew and then we should rebuke them, and if it comes to it, we should condemn them. It saddens me that some of the Jewish people have given up their heritage and forsaken their birthright.
Hashem, our L-rd, is the master of justice. Measure for measure we are rewarded and punished.
I do not join in those who wish death on others. I join with those who seek to bless all who return to Hashem.
-
Adrian,
In general we are not supposed to wish death on anyone. But there are cases when a Jew goes outside what is acceptable as a Jew and then we should rebuke them, and if it comes to it, we should condemn them. It saddens me that some of the Jewish people have given up their heritage and forsaken their birthright.
Hashem, our L-rd, is the master of justice. Measure for measure we are rewarded and punished.
I do not join in those who wish death on others. I join with those who seek to bless all who return to Hashem.
Yes but who is deciding, what is acceptable as a Jew. Furthermore, it is one thing to rebuke a living person to their face if one believes they are engaged in wrong doing, in that they have a possibility of making arguments against one's criticism of them, it is quite another thing to speak critically of a dead person, since they do not have a possibility of argument against one's criticism of them. And by using the phraseology "thank G-d", unless it has been specifically allowed by G-d to use the phrase "thank G-d" in respect of the death of certain persons, to use that phrase is to my mind seeking to place oneself in an elevated position alongside G-d.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
-
<snip>
Yes but who is deciding, what is acceptable as a Jew. Furthermore, it is one thing to rebuke a living person to their face if one believes they are engaged in wrong doing, in that they have a possibility of making arguments against one's criticism of them, it is quite another thing to speak critically of a dead person, since they do not have a possibility of argument against one's criticism of them. And by using the phraseology "thank G-d", unless it has been specifically allowed by G-d to use the phrase "thank G-d" in respect of the death of certain persons, to use that phrase is to my mind seeking to place oneself in an elevated position alongside G-d.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Who is deciding? We know that a traitor to the Jewish people should be rebuked. The fact is Rabin could be considered a traitor to the Jewish people because he was intending to give away much more than should be given. Israel is the land which Hashem gave to the Jewish people as an inheritance. I didn't wish him to die but I do not mourn him. He was like Olmert in that he is a self-hating Jew.
It does nothing to rebuke the dead. But we can thank Hashem that justice was served and Rabin was not able to succeed in implementing a suicidal policy in Israel.
-
<snip>
Yes but who is deciding, what is acceptable as a Jew. Furthermore, it is one thing to rebuke a living person to their face if one believes they are engaged in wrong doing, in that they have a possibility of making arguments against one's criticism of them, it is quite another thing to speak critically of a dead person, since they do not have a possibility of argument against one's criticism of them. And by using the phraseology "thank G-d", unless it has been specifically allowed by G-d to use the phrase "thank G-d" in respect of the death of certain persons, to use that phrase is to my mind seeking to place oneself in an elevated position alongside G-d.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Who is deciding? We know that a traitor to the Jewish people should be rebuked. The fact is Rabin could be considered a traitor to the Jewish people because he was intending to give away much more than should be given. Israel is the land which Hashem gave to the Jewish people as an inheritance. I didn't wish him to die but I do not mourn him. He was like Olmert in that he is a self-hating Jew.
It does nothing to rebuke the dead. But we can thank Hashem that justice was served and Rabin was not able to succeed in implementing a suicidal policy in Israel.
Winston Churchill evacuated the British expeditionary force from France in 1940 to England, leaving all their tanks, artillery, motor transport, ammunition and supplies behind in France with the soldiers escaping with nothing more than the shirts on their backs and rifles. Maybe Churchill was a traitor and a self hating British person?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0JNt5QqrlU
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
-
<snip>
Yes but who is deciding, what is acceptable as a Jew. Furthermore, it is one thing to rebuke a living person to their face if one believes they are engaged in wrong doing, in that they have a possibility of making arguments against one's criticism of them, it is quite another thing to speak critically of a dead person, since they do not have a possibility of argument against one's criticism of them. And by using the phraseology "thank G-d", unless it has been specifically allowed by G-d to use the phrase "thank G-d" in respect of the death of certain persons, to use that phrase is to my mind seeking to place oneself in an elevated position alongside G-d.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Who is deciding? We know that a traitor to the Jewish people should be rebuked. The fact is Rabin could be considered a traitor to the Jewish people because he was intending to give away much more than should be given. Israel is the land which Hashem gave to the Jewish people as an inheritance. I didn't wish him to die but I do not mourn him. He was like Olmert in that he is a self-hating Jew.
It does nothing to rebuke the dead. But we can thank Hashem that justice was served and Rabin was not able to succeed in implementing a suicidal policy in Israel.
Winston Churchill evacuated the British expeditionary force from France in 1940 to England, leaving all their tanks, artillery, motor transport, ammunition and supplies behind in France with the soldiers escaping with nothing more than the shirts on their backs and rifles. Maybe Churchill was a traitor and a self hating British person?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0JNt5QqrlU
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
I think you are making an error in comparing British and Israeli/Jewish world politics. Israel was given the land by Hashem, as written in the Bible which is holy to most modern religions. It is one thing to let territory go for Britian, but an altogether another story when concerning Israel which is a tiny land surrounded by viscious enemies.
And I don't really understand what Brittan had against the Jews of Palestine before 1948 but it sounds like it was very unfair. I have heard that Jews were not allowed to have guns or weapons, leaving them vulnerable to viscious arab gangs.
Any leader of Israel who thinks that his popularity will increase by giving land to enemies is an enemy of the Jewish people. The land of Israel is not to be divided by mere politicians, it is G-d given land and it is the birthright of all Jews around the world. I look at any 'leader' who is willing to bend to the enemy in order to allow more Jews to die in terrorism and murder, is a traitor and should be judged harshly.
-
I think you are making an error in comparing British and Israeli/Jewish world politics. Israel was given the land by Hashem, as written in the Bible which is holy to most modern religions. It is one thing to let territory go for Britian, but an altogether another story when concerning Israel which is a tiny land surrounded by viscious enemies.
And I don't really understand what Brittan had against the Jews of Palestine before 1948 but it sounds like it was very unfair. I have heard that Jews were not allowed to have guns or weapons, leaving them vulnerable to viscious arab gangs.
Any leader of Israel who thinks that his popularity will increase by giving land to enemies is an enemy of the Jewish people. The land of Israel is not to be divided by mere politicians, it is G-d given land and it is the birthright of all Jews around the world. I look at any 'leader' who is willing to bend to the enemy in order to allow more Jews to die in terrorism and murder, is a traitor and should be judged harshly.
My point is not a religious one, my point is a political and military one, is that sometimes in politics or military affairs, one only has the choice between a bad thing and an even worse thing, Churchill had a choice between making a humiliating and very risky evacuation and leaving the troops in France and possibly have them defeated and captured by the Nazis. It is all very well saying G-d promised this or G-d promises that and if people have faith in G-d I would make no criticism of them, but where was G-d in Auschwitz? G-d may have promised Israel to the Jewish people but G-d doesn't seem too good at stopping Syrian tanks what with thunderbolts and stuff but the centurions did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8SU5sPoP6w
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
-
I think you are making an error in comparing British and Israeli/Jewish world politics. Israel was given the land by Hashem, as written in the Bible which is holy to most modern religions. It is one thing to let territory go for Britian, but an altogether another story when concerning Israel which is a tiny land surrounded by viscious enemies.
And I don't really understand what Brittan had against the Jews of Palestine before 1948 but it sounds like it was very unfair. I have heard that Jews were not allowed to have guns or weapons, leaving them vulnerable to viscious arab gangs.
Any leader of Israel who thinks that his popularity will increase by giving land to enemies is an enemy of the Jewish people. The land of Israel is not to be divided by mere politicians, it is G-d given land and it is the birthright of all Jews around the world. I look at any 'leader' who is willing to bend to the enemy in order to allow more Jews to die in terrorism and murder, is a traitor and should be judged harshly.
My point is not a religious one, my point is a political and military one, is that sometimes in politics or military affairs, one only has the choice between a bad thing and an even worse thing, Churchill had a choice between making a humiliating and very risky evacuation and leaving the troops in France and possibly have them defeated and captured by the Nazis. It is all very well saying G-d promised this or G-d promises that and if people have faith in G-d I would make no criticism of them, but where was G-d in Auschwitz? G-d may have promised Israel to the Jewish people but G-d doesn't seem too good at stopping Syrian tanks what with thunderbolts and stuff but the centurions did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8SU5sPoP6w
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Adrian,
G-d was where he has always been... Hashem does let bad things happen to us. It is a long and difficult topic to ask 'why' the Holocaust happened. I am not prepared at this time to cover that topic, but it has been explained and it satisfies me. As I am a direct victim of 9/11 and I am in a position to ask why these things happen, faith in Hashems providence in the world comes from understanding that he is the source of all, good and bad.
The politics of Israel is an integral part of the dream of Zion which all religious Jews should have. This dream requires the establishment of an independent Jewish state in the land of our forefathers. I don't know what the feeling of those in Brittan is, but I doubt it is as strong a yearning as a Jew who wants to bring back the Temple which was destroyed 2000 years ago. This is in our prayers daily, and I yearn for the establishment of a Jewish Israel.
-
Adrian, Churchill was NOT a self-hating British leader or traitor. He may not have been good for the Jews at all, but he was good for British territorial integrity. The British HAD NO CHOICE but to flee at Dunkirk. The Germans had overwhelming land and air superiority at the time and the soldiers would have all been annihilated if they did not retreat back to Britain. Yitzhak Rabin, on the other hand, commanded a nation more militarily powerful than all others in the Middle East combined, and yet tried to surrender to an enemy that was about as militarily powerful and effective than the black and Hispanic street gangs of urban America. Apples and lima beans, my friend.
-
SerbAvenger, Torah isn't and shouldn't be used as a source of intellectual pleasure. You have completely distorted the meaning of Erev Rav which is the mixed multitude. I kindly ask you stay from Torah. The only exception is if you want to educate yourself on Noahide laws.
-
SerbAvenger, Torah isn't and shouldn't be used as a source of intellectual pleasure. You have completely distorted the meaning of Erev Rav which is the mixed multitude. I kindly ask you stay from Torah. The only exception is if you want to educate yourself on Noahide laws.
Nadav, their is no question that Rabin was a pursuer of Jewish blood. I hope his tuchis is roasting in gehenom.
-
YItchak Rabin the drunken murdering rapist used the precious land of Israel as his personal "deposit" towards his lovely muslim buddies. We can use his farshtunkena bones as a deposit.
-
SerbAvenger, Torah isn't and shouldn't be used as a source of intellectual pleasure. You have completely distorted the meaning of Erev Rav which is the mixed multitude. I kindly ask you stay from Torah. The only exception is if you want to educate yourself on Noahide laws.
Your opinion has been duly noted, Clockwork.
-
YItchak Rabin the drunken murdering rapist used the precious land of Israel as his personal "deposit" towards his lovely muslim buddies. We can use his farshtunkena bones as a deposit.
Well this is true. It's just that erev rav is the wrong term. Rabin betrayed the Jewish people, no doubt about it.
SerbAvenger, Torah isn't and shouldn't be used as a source of intellectual pleasure. You have completely distorted the meaning of Erev Rav which is the mixed multitude. I kindly ask you stay from Torah. The only exception is if you want to educate yourself on Noahide laws.
Your opinion has been duly noted, Clockwork.
SerbAvenger, there are restrictions for gentiles to study Torah. Earlier you gave an incorrect definiton of erev rav, this only proves why there is a restriction. It's not that you couldn't figure it out, but you're just not allowed to. Ask any Rabbi about this, he'll agree.
-
Unfortunately the cat is kind of out of the bag Clockwork, about 1 billion Christians use the Tanach as a holy book, and I don't think that you of all people are going to stop that trend.
-
Unfortunately the cat is kind of out of the bag Clockwork, about 1 billion Christians use the Tanach as a holy book, and I don't think that you of all people are going to stop that trend.
Christians do not study the Torah. They study a greek translation. And besides they are missing over half of the Torah.
-
Christians do not study the Torah. They study a greek translation. And besides they are missing over half of the Torah.
The comments weren't addressed to you, but an instigator in this thread. But for the record I will say:
1--we may not use the term Torah, but the Pentateuch is an integral part of the O.T., and therefore the Bible
2--the Septuagint is considered a very accurate translation, and was always validated by ancient Hellenic-Jewish rabbinic authorities (and by the way, some Christians do study the Tanach in its original Hebrew)
3--the point being made to Nadav is that Christians do use half the Torah, whether he likes it or not
-
Christians do not study the Torah. They study a greek translation. And besides they are missing over half of the Torah.
The comments weren't addressed to you, but an instigator in this thread. But for the record I will say:
1--we may not use the term Torah, but the Pentateuch is an integral part of the O.T., and therefore the Bible
2--the Septuagint is considered a very accurate translation, and was always validated by ancient Hellenic-Jewish rabbinic authorities (and by the way, some Christians do study the Tanach in its original Hebrew)
3--the point being made to Nadav is that Christians do use half the Torah, whether he likes it or not
It is not true that Septuagint translation is accurate. It is well known what many of the errors of translation are. The Jewish sages mourned the translation into greek because it allowed some of the greatest mistranslations which led to the creation of the false messianics. As a Jew I would vehemently disagree that your New Testament has any relation to our Holy Torah.
-
This discussion was about the O.T., not the N.T.
And at the time the Septuagint was a completely accepted translation for Hellenic Jews the world over. What has been ruled about it now is after the fact.
-
Guys, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. So please don't fight.
-
Lisa, I am not fighting with Muman. I was responding to typical trolling comments by Nadav, whose name on Guzzy's forum is A Clockwork Orange.
All I will say is that the Tanach was translated into classical Greek by 70 of the world's most eminent Jewish rabbinical scholars some 200 years BCE. Does it have minor copyist errors in it? Yes, just as the earliest extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Tanach, and the extant Aramaic and Greek manuscripts of the Christian N.T., do. That does not mean that it was not always viewed as a perfectly acceptable translation in the ancient world.
-
The Origin of the Septuagint : http://www.messiahtruth.com/lxx.html
http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/1327
Greeks vs. Torah
by Rabbi Nota Schiller
The Greeks, the Midrash relates, darkened the eyes of the Jews with their decrees, saying to the Jews, "Write upon the horn of an ox that you have no portion in the G-d of Israel." What did the Greeks mean by this very cryptic decree? How does this decree epitomize their dark designs against the Jewish People?
Approximately 150 years before the Maccabees, a Hellenistic king in Alexandria ordered the translation of the Written Torah into Greek. In a sense, his need to become appraised of the Jewish world view and endow his massive Alexandrian library with Torah wisdom was a compliment to the Jewish People.
Miraculous events attended the translation: Each of the scholars summoned to Alexandria emerged from his private cubicle with an identical Greek translation.
Nevertheless, the translation of the seventy, the Septuagint, was a tragic moment for the Jewish People, a tragedy our Sages describe as "three days of darkness" which descended upon the world. What was the tragedy?
The Jewish People either exist as a separate entity or cease to exist. Anything mitigating or threatening our monopoly on Torah depreciates our ability to protect our uniqueness as a people. As soon as we share that monopoly with others, the Torah becomes merely another source of wisdom, another culture, another subject in the university catalogue. Ultimately we are to impact the world community, but only through maintaining the integrity of uniqueness will that impact come about.
One thing diminished the tragedy: Only the Written Torah was shared. The Oral Torah remained the exclusive property of the Jewish People, its transmission still necessitating the Teacher-Student relationship.
...
-
Are you saying that the 70 sages who translated the Tanach painstakingly into classical Greek were self-hating Jews whose mission was to spread Christianity? That cannot be possible as the translation predated the birth of Christ by as many as 300 years:
http://www.septuagint.net/
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.
-
Are you saying that the 70 sages who translated the Tanach painstakingly into classical Greek were self-hating Jews whose mission was to spread Christianity? That cannot be possible as the translation predated the birth of Christ by as many as 300 years:
http://www.septuagint.net/
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 B.C.E.. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term “Septuagint” means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.
According to Jewish tradition the date that the translation took place is marked as a fast day because of the calamity it caused to the Jewish people. Remember that Torah was given to the Jewish people as a gift and not as general knowledge. Once the Torah was translated it lead to things such as Christianity which was not good for the Jewish people causing much misfortune. It would have been much better if the translation never happened as the sages as the time recommended.
-
Here is a good article on this topic from Aish.com :
http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Lost_in_Translation_The_Month_of_Tevet.asp
Lost in Translation: The Month of Tevet
by Rebbetzin Tzipporah Heller
Tevet is a time of return and redefinition.
Changes took place in the Hebrew month of Tevet that have cast a shadow throughout the course of Jewish history.
On the eighth of Tevet, the Torah's translation into Greek, ordered by Ptolemy, was completed. The Egyptian monarch was fully aware of how complicated the job would be. Ptolemy gathered 70 scholars to compose a translation using only the written text. He hoped that it would not only give the Greeks a literal understanding of the Five Books of Moses, but a vicarious peak at what God actually communicated to the Jews at Mount Sinai.
The resulting translation was considered a tragedy. Why? Is this inherent to all translations? Why should the truth of the Torah be inaccessible? In modern times the plethora of translations have been stupendous. The overwhelming ignorance of Jewish tradition and liturgy that I grew up with has been just about eliminated by ArtScroll prayer books and Stone chumashim (five books of Moses).
What's the difference between the Septuagint (the 70-man translation) and ArtScroll?
Ptolemy wanted to Hellenize the Torah. He wanted it in his library along with the other classics of his time. To him it was inconceivable that a God-given document and one written by man should be treated differently.
The goal of Torah is to present us with a way of life; one that will change us and take us to parts unknown -- Gods infinity. The purpose of other works is to give us greater insight into ourselves and into the world. One deals with human beings and their world, while the other deals with a world far beyond the limitations of human observation. The authors of today's translations want to let everyone experience Torah by making them bigger. Ptolemy wanted to give everyone access to Torah by dwarfing its scope to fit the limitations of the human mind.
It was a tragedy. In fact, our sages compared it to the sin of the Golden Calf. The Jews, who found the encounter at Sinai with an unknowable God to be overwhelming, made a god of their own once they thought Moses was no longer with them. It was a god that fit their already existent repertoire of religious symbolism. They made God small just when they had the opportunity to walk forward into the unknown with pure faith and transform themselves into a far greater people than they could have at any other time.
The ninth of Tevet marks the day of the death of Ezra and Nechemia, the spiritual leaders who brought the Jews back from the Babylonian exile to begin the process of rejuvenating the Jewish people. The Babylonian exile was the forced expulsion of the Jews from the homeland that they inhabited for 850 years to Babylon. They remained there for 70 years. During the course of this time, Persians conquered the Babylonians, and the Greeks, in turn, conquered the Persians.
It seemed from the outside that the trauma of expulsion plus the subtle forces of assimilation to the conqueror that represents success and victory doomed us to becoming an anonymous non-nation. Ezra and Nechemia reversed the process, and virtually breathed new life into our sense of nationhood. They were successful beyond anyone's wildest imagination. With the political help of Cyrus of Persia, the dream of return became a reality.
Unlike the present return to Israel, the return was not scarred by spiritual ambiguity. Ezra achieved what no leader (even Moses) had achieved in our entire history. He inspired his people to not only return to their land, but simultaneously to return to God. It was a new era indeed. But with their death, the era came to an end, and the next step forward was far more hesitant than it was in their lifetimes. The entire Second Temple period was one in which slow erosion of our identity took place. There were golden moments and unforgettable personalities. Nonetheless, something was missing: the absolute clarity of purpose that Ezra brought us.
The cliche is that no one is irreplaceable. It's a lie. In fact, the opposite is true: No one is at all replaceable. Nothing brings that fact home more than the decline that took place so soon after the death of the leaders.
On the tenth of Tevet, we had the dubious distinction of a "new beginning" that still has an imprint on our national identity. It was the day in which the forces that lead to exile began to concretize, leading to diaspora after diaspora. So many Jews define their relationship to their Judaism through the continuum of tragedies that culminated with the Holocaust. We visit the concentration camps, as we close our eyes after reading or watching still another unspeakable horror. Some of us have seen their sterile remains in Europe.
The saga of persecution began on the tenth of Tevet. What exactly happened? Jerusalem was surrounded by the Babylonian forces (that we discussed previously in reference to the ninth of Tevet) surrounded Jerusalem and began a three-year siege that ended with the destruction of the Temple and the beginning of the exile that has never quite ended. Even during the time of Ezra, which was the closest we came to national redemption, the majority of Jews never quite made it back home. We found life in Babylon, Persia, Greece et al to be comfortable, acceptable and worst of all, normal.
The sages instituted a fast on the tenth of Tevet. The fast is meant to be a time to question whether we should ride through history as passive travelers looking out the window as we are driven to parts unknown, or whether we should do something to determine which way we are headed. Today, more than ever, all the doors are open. We can chose the path of letting others define who we are and then force feed it back to us. For many people liberalism and Judaism have become synonymous. The reason for this turn of events is that some parts of the Torah fit into the Neo-Grecian pattern of Western thought better than others. Judaism has been "translated" again and again since the Septuagint to mean whatever is easiest and most acceptable to Ptolemy's successors.
Another path we can choose is one of moral decay that narrows the dividing line between us and those who wish to destroy us. This path led to the destruction of both Temples, the expulsion from our land, and the irrational hatred that we experience when the nations turn against us when we become too much of what they are.
There is a third possibility. We can choose to renew our commitment to our own heritage and follow the path set by Ezra and Nechemia.
Tevet is a time of return and redefinition. May we use the power of the month to discover who we really are and who we really want to be. This is the key to personal redemption, which is in turn the key to national redemption.
-
You guys, this thread was supposed to be about how evil the late Yitzkhak Rabin was, something we ALL agree on. Now I realize that some of our Jewish members don't like it when our non-Jewish members throw around Hebrew expressions, in this case the use of Erev Rav. Still I don't think we should be arguing about whose Bible is more accurate. Like I wrote earlier, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Or at least we can get back on the topic of what a disaster Rabin was.
-
You guys, this thread was supposed to be about how evil the late Yitzkhak Rabin was, something we ALL agree on. Now I realize that some of our Jewish members don't like it when our non-Jewish members throw around Hebrew expressions, in this case the use of Erev Rav. Still I don't think we should be arguing about whose Bible is more accurate. Like I wrote earlier, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Or at least we can get back on the topic of what a disaster Rabin was.
Now that is a good idea... I agree that Rabin was not very good for the Jewish people. He is not missed by me...
-
You guys, this thread was supposed to be about how evil the late Yitzkhak Rabin was, something we ALL agree on. Now I realize that some of our Jewish members don't like it when our non-Jewish members throw around Hebrew expressions, in this case the use of Erev Rav. Still I don't think we should be arguing about whose Bible is more accurate. Like I wrote earlier, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Or at least we can get back on the topic of what a disaster Rabin was.
Now that is a good idea... I agree that Rabin was not very good for the Jewish people. He is not missed by me...
I remember awhile back during an old jtf broadcast, Chaim was talking about how Yitzchak Rabin gave an interview on Israeli TV about his actions against the heroic jews on the altelena. Rabin the nazi was bragging about how he opened fire on them and he proceeded to use the "f word" saying he f&*ked the jews on the ship. Their is nothing more I can say about Rabin other than I hope he is roasting in the most severe gehenom.
-
I don't think you need to worry about that DownwithIslam.
-
I don't think you need to worry about that DownwithIslam.
I think you are right.