JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Secularbeliever on January 12, 2011, 11:40:05 PM
-
I hope she recovers and lives a happy and healthy life. But I really don't relate to this media obsession with this. I was at the gym tonight and they covered the memorial service. There was no sound so I did not hear what Obama said. Then CNN had breaking news with a woman Senator who had visited Giffords and was thrilled because she raised her hand. Again, I truly wish her well, but I don't want to hear about every blink, every toe wiggle, every hand raise. They will need 24 hour coverage the first time she goes to the bathroom by herself. This thing was a tragedy and aside from the left trying to use it to stifle dissent it is just not that compelling to me.
-
This is a supremely evil far-left, self-hating white, pseudo-Jew Aztlanist who practically supported the boycott of her own state. I hope Giffords survives to--so that she can continue her political career south of the border with her bros and sisters she loves more than fellow Arizonans.
-
This is a supremely evil far-left, self-hating white, pseudo-Jew Aztlanist who practically supported the boycott of her own state. I hope Giffords survives to--so that she can continue her political career south of the border with her bros and sisters she loves more than fellow Arizonans.
Please provide some evidence of any of this. I have read several times that she was a supporter of Israel, had traveled there several times, and she was proud of her Jewish heritage...
I have not seen any of the allegations you have stated...
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-on-her-jewish-roots.html#links
While certainly she is far left of a Kahanist view.... But she is not anti-Israel... I believe she, like many other liberal Jews, believes she is looking out for the best interests of Israel and the Jewish people. Although we know she is misguided we should not hate her because of her beliefs. Only if she does something obviously against the best interests of the Jewish people. At this time land for peace is obviously a failure, but it will take some time for everyone to agree on this...
-
Please provide some evidence of any of this. I have read several times that she was a supporter of Israel, had traveled there several times, and she was proud of her Jewish heritage...
I have not seen any of the allegations you have stated...
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2011/01/gabrielle-giffords-on-her-jewish-roots.html#links
While certainly she is far left of a Kahanist view.... But she is not anti-Israel...
I am stipulating that she is a nice person and probably relatively unobjectable for a liberal Democrat. My point is I just don't think it is a big story.
-
I am stipulating that she is a nice person and probably relatively unobjectable for a liberal Democrat. My point is I just don't think it is a big story.
I did not suspect you held her accountable for her predicament. I was asking TBF for some examples which support his beliefs...
-
The media has an obsession. They promote the govt and especially leftwing figures within it and leftwing causes, no matter how untruthful their means of doing so.
-
The story is Zzzzzzz city. Especially because the media acts as if the Right/Tea Party had influence on this. The man was fueled by Leftism [Mein Kampf], extreme Leftism [Communist Manifesto], and American Leftism [enshrined in his listening to of Anti-Flag, et al; no Right winger could stomach those lyrics]. -- And just as the Bolshevik media will not miss a chance to slam Palin or any other non-Bolshevik, Obama would never miss a chance to hear the sound of his own voice [as if the country needs any consoling commentary on this event!].
-
I did not suspect you held her accountable for her predicament. I was asking TBF for some examples which support his beliefs...
I was saying that the issue was not is she a good person, my issue is this really such a huge story.
-
I think this pretty much speaks for itself:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=28507 (Giffords' congressional voting record)
http://www.jewishtucson.org/page.aspx?id=136353 (Giffords supports the "peace process" while pretending to be pro-Israel)
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/042310_brewer_sign (Giffords calls SB1070 "racist")
http://azjewishpost.com/2010/3767/ (AZ Jews Say Giffords Not A Friend Of Israel)
I think supporting every amnesty- and abortion-related piece of legislation that comes up, opposing SB1070, voting for fags in the military and nuclear disarmament, and being good friends with the other Tucson congressman (Grijalva, who is a vicious Jew-hater ) speaks for itself.
-
I think this pretty much speaks for itself:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=28507 (Giffords' congressional voting record)
http://www.jewishtucson.org/page.aspx?id=136353 (Giffords supports the "peace process" while pretending to be pro-Israel)
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/042310_brewer_sign (Giffords calls SB1070 "racist")
http://azjewishpost.com/2010/3767/ (AZ Jews Say Giffords Not A Friend Of Israel)
I think supporting every amnesty- and abortion-related piece of legislation that comes up, opposing SB1070, voting for fags in the military and nuclear disarmament, and being good friends with the other Tucson congressman (Grijalva, who is a vicious Jew-hater ) speaks for itself.
I think you will find a two headed mountain lion before you find a liberal Democrat who is pro Israel in the sense that we think of. The Israeli government in the Oslo Process has among all the other fiascos blurred the line as to what is pro Israel and what is not. When you criticize her, or any politician, for supporting the phoney peace process or the suicidal two state solution they can just retort they are following the same policy as the Israeli government. That is a very difficult argument to rebut.
-
I know that. I posted that for Muman who was claiming that she supports Israel.
-
It's getting prety sick I have to admit
-
I guess the senators life is more important than all the other victims who were shot...
-
I agree with the argument that this story is to boost King Obama's toilet hole ratings.
-
I know that. I posted that for Muman who was claiming that she supports Israel.
There are those who consider the peace-process pro-Israel. Not every Jew understands that it is a very bad thing for the Jewish people. I do not consider them evil because of it, just because they are misguided.
I do not know the facts but I do know that some people here are quick to accuse and blame.
-
Don't mince your words Muman, everybody knows full well you mean me. It's interesting that you think that ignorance is a free pass for pressuring Israel to commit suicide; since some people think the "peace process" is a good thing, then they are morally off the hook in your eyes? WTH? I suppose that since Giffords also thinks abortion on demand is a good thing, that it's okay for her to fight for that at every turn too.
I guess that since Adolf Shitler thought that he was doing a good thing for the world, that he was a good guy too.
-
Don't mince your words Muman, everybody knows full well you mean me. It's interesting that you think that ignorance is a free pass for pressuring Israel to commit suicide; since some people think the "peace process" is a good thing, then they are morally off the hook in your eyes? WTH? I suppose that since Giffords also thinks abortion on demand is a good thing, that it's okay for her to fight for that at every turn too.
I guess that since Adolf Shitler thought that he was doing a good thing for the world, that he was a good guy too.
So you are comparing her to Adolph shitler? I don't really understand where you are coming from TBF. But that is another issue... There are Jews who hold political opinions all over the spectrum. Some consider the peace plan in the best interest of the Jews. I know some of these people and I will not condemn them all to eternal damnation as you so easily do.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but you will not hear me condemn anyone unless I know that they are evil. I have not seen the evidence of this yet... So I apologize that I cannot agree with you...
If she is supporting abortion on demand this issue needs to be investigated. I personally think it is a terrible thing that people kill babies. But Judaism does not have as clear a prohibition as other religions seem to have. I think the basic idea is that we should not destroy any life, or potential life, and thus abortion is prohibited.
-
You are entitled to think however you want, Muman. However, I kindly ask you to stop referring to Giffords as a Jew. She is very definitely not.
-
I know we are getting off track but I thought Judaism did clearly prohibit abortion except to save the mother's life
-
You are entitled to think however you want, Muman. However, I kindly ask you to stop referring to Giffords as a Jew. She is very definitely not.
I have said, ever since this topic came up, that I do not consider anyone who is not Halachically Jewish as a Jew. Do not imply that I said anything other than this because it is a belief which causes me much personal anguish {because of the fact I must 'cut-off' some members of my family because of it}.
I say that she has stated her desire to be Jewish. I welcome such desires and wish some of the members of my family who have intermarried would wish to be Jewish, and then go through a full conversion process. There is nothing wrong with a person wanting to be Jewish because of their fathers Judaism. And as I said, we should encourage them to pursue the Torah lifestyle by bringing them in, not pushing them away.
You animosity towards liberal/reform Jews is not the best way to confront the problem, at least according to my understanding of Judaism. Jews are supposed to bring other Jews closer to Hashem through setting a good example which the other Jews will emulate. We are not supposed to build a wall and separate Jews into categories and exclude those who don't necessarily agree with us 100%. We obviously must be aware who our enemies are, and clearly not every Jew is our friend. But I believe that the majority of those who identify themselves as Jewish have a reason to do so, and we should give some the benefit of the doubt.
I attend Shabbatons held by Religious Orthodox Jews who also invite Jews of all beliefs. The outreach to other Jews is a great thing, and brings many into better observance, and eventually into obviously Zionist thinking.
I do not say that she is a 'Jew', but that she has an affinity towards Judaism. I wish that more people born of Jewish fathers would pursue their fathers faith and convert according to Halacha.
-
I know we are getting off track but I thought Judaism did clearly prohibit abortion except to save the mother's life
Yes, that is one of the major exceptions where abortion is allowed.
But the question as to when 'life' starts is a little different from the non-Jewish sources. I believe we have had this discussion in the forum before, and I do not want to cut/paste again. Let me see if I can find that discussion...
Here are some sources which discuss the Jewish view on abortion:
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html
As abortion resurfaces as a political issue in the upcoming U.S. presidential election, it is worthwhile to investigate the Jewish approach to the issue. The traditional Jewish view of abortion does not fit conveniently into any of the major "camps" in the current American abortion debate. We neither ban abortion completely, nor do we allow indiscriminate abortion "on demand."
.
.
.
To gain a clear understanding of when abortion is permitted (or even required) and when it is forbidden requires an appreciation of certain nuances of halacha (Jewish law) which govern the status of the fetus.1
The easiest way to conceptualize a fetus in halacha is to imagine it as a full-fledged human being -- but not quite.2 In most circumstances, the fetus is treated like any other "person." Generally, one may not deliberately harm a fetus. But while it would seem obvious that Judaism holds accountable one who purposefully causes a woman to miscarry, sanctions are even placed upon one who strikes a pregnant woman causing an unintentional miscarriage.3 That is not to say that all rabbinical authorities consider abortion to be murder. The fact that the Torah requires a monetary payment for causing a miscarriage is interpreted by some Rabbis to indicate that abortion is not a capital crime4 and by others as merely indicating that one is not executed for performing an abortion, even though it is a type of murder.5 There is even disagreement regarding whether the prohibition of abortion is Biblical or Rabbinic. Nevertheless, it is universally agreed that the fetus will become a full-fledged human being and there must be a very compelling reason to allow for abortion.
-
I know we are getting off track but I thought Judaism did clearly prohibit abortion except to save the mother's life
You are right, Chaim has stated this many times on Ask JTF.
-
I say that she has stated her desire to be Jewish. I welcome such desires and wish some of the members of my family who have intermarried would wish to be Jewish, and then go through a full conversion process. There is nothing wrong with a person wanting to be Jewish because of their fathers Judaism. And as I said, we should encourage them to pursue the Torah lifestyle by bringing them in, not pushing them away.
So... marrying a 100% Gentile, casually attending an extreme-leftist Deform "synagogue", pushing for such Jewish policies as fag marriage and fags in the military, and demanding that Israel commit suicide mean that she "really wants to be Jewish"?
You animosity towards liberal/reform Jews is not the best way to confront the problem, at least according to my understanding of Judaism. Jews are supposed to bring other Jews closer to Hashem through setting a good example which the other Jews will emulate.
Are you kidding me? Tell me, what professedly Jewish member of JTF is constantly flaming other forum members who aren't as devout as he claims to be?
But I believe that the majority of those who identify themselves as Jewish have a reason to do so, and we should give some the benefit of the doubt.
Translation: "We should refrain from attacking Joey Lieberman and Neturei Karta because they claim to be proud Jews."
I do not say that she is a 'Jew', but that she has an affinity towards Judaism. I wish that more people born of Jewish fathers would pursue their fathers faith and convert according to Halacha.
Once more, are you serious? :laugh: :::D :laugh:
-
So... marrying a 100% Gentile, casually attending an extreme-leftist Deform "synagogue", pushing for such Jewish policies as fag marriage and fags in the military, and demanding that Israel commit suicide mean that she "really wants to be Jewish"?
Are you kidding me? Tell me, what professedly Jewish member of JTF is constantly flaming other forum members who aren't as devout as he claims to be?
Translation: "We should refrain from attacking Joey Lieberman and Neturei Karta because they claim to be proud Jews."
Once more, are you serious? :laugh: :::D :laugh:
TBF,
Are you kidding me? Tell me, what professedly Jewish member of JTF is constantly flaming other forum members who aren't as devout as he claims to be?
Who the heck have I flamed? I don't know what the heck you are talking about. I do not say anything against any forum member for their observance. I do say that it would be best for all Jews to observe the mitzvot, and that it is a mitzvah for me to do so. But I do not have any bad opinion of any Jewish member here {except maybe that Ben M. character}. My opinion of virtually all JTF members is very high and I am sorry that you feel that I am flaming others.
Translation: "We should refrain from attacking Joey Lieberman and Neturei Karta because they claim to be proud Jews."
I said you can do as you will, but I will refrain from attacking Lieberman on the forums. Regarding NK I have stated repeatedly that I rebuke them and I feel that they are rodefs against the Jewish people and should be cut off from normative Judaism. I have stated that the branch of Chassidic Judaism from which the NK originated, the Satmar Chassidic Judaism, is an authentic Chassidic Jewish sect and I know some Satmar Jews who are good Jews, even if they are not Zionistic.
The Torah clearly tells a Jew what to do concerning treatment of other Jews. Those who are born of Jewish mothers are considered Jewish and Torah says that we should not be 'tale-bearers' against our brothers. I am of the belief that the laws of Lashon Hara are very important, and Jews today do not realize how bad we speak of other Jews. I too am disappointed by many Jewish leaders but I do not try to tear them down, I try to build up Jews who will replace these sorry leaders. I believe that it is best to expend 'positive' energy rather than constantly expending 'negative energy' tearing down others.
Regarding whether I want Jews who are far from Jewish belief, and from Halacha, to come back to their roots.... Yes I am 100% serious. And I even want those who have Jewish fathers to investigate the Jewish beliefs and then desire to convert to Judaism. I hope that my believing this is not offensive to your religion, but I do want my relatives to one day want to become Jewish.
It is a command for a Jew to love a convert. Do you wonder why we are commanded to do this? It is a long and interesting explanation. But I will save it for another time.
I am sorry that we are disagreeing once again TBF... I sometimes wish we had better understanding..
-
I'm not going to get into a blamegame with a pathological liar. If this sits well with your conscience, then I'm done. Have a good day.
-
Laws to consider:
Negative Mitzvot
301 Not to gossip, as it is written "thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people" (Leviticus 19,16).
302 Not to hate another in one's heart, as it is written "thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart" (Leviticus 19,17).
303 Not to shame any person of Israel, as it is written "thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him" (Leviticus 19,17).
304 Not to take revenge, as it is written "thou shalt not take vengeance" (Leviticus 19,18).
305 Not to bear a grudge, as it is written "nor bear any grudge" (Leviticus 19,18).
.
.
.
315 Not to curse a judge, as it is written "thou shalt not revile a judge" (Exodus 22,27).
316 Not to curse a ruler, which is the King or the head of the Great Rabbinical Court in the Land of Israel, as it is written "nor curse a ruler of thy people" (Exodus 22,27).
317 Not to curse any other Israelite, as it is written "thou shalt not curse the deaf" (Leviticus 19,14).
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/e0002.htm
-
Laws to consider:
Negative Mitzvot
301 Not to gossip, as it is written "thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people" (Leviticus 19,16).
302 Not to hate another in one's heart, as it is written "thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart" (Leviticus 19,17).
303 Not to shame any person of Israel, as it is written "thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him" (Leviticus 19,17).
304 Not to take revenge, as it is written "thou shalt not take vengeance" (Leviticus 19,18).
305 Not to bear a grudge, as it is written "nor bear any grudge" (Leviticus 19,18).
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/e0002.htm
Except Christians, of course! Damn those pesky idolaters!
-
Except Christians, of course! Damn those pesky idolaters!
Idolatry is expressly forbidden for Jews... You know this TBF. Do you want to bring this up again?
Unfortunately it was the Christians who killed the Jews through the centuries. Killing Jews because of various reasons inspired by nothing but pure hatred. Yet you are the one who points the finger at me, whose family was driven from Europe by pogroms and genocides.... That is surely ironic, don't you think?
Torah tells us Jews that it is permissible for Jews to marry Edomites after the third generation...
Negative Mitzvah 54:
Not to exclude the seed of Esau from the community of Israel more than three generations, as it is written "thou shalt not abhor an Edomite" (Deuteronomy 23,8).
Yet you claim that I imply that there is a command to hate the Edomite... There is no such command and I do not hate the non-Jew. I will, as you can see, point out the obvious facts which indicate that the Jews were the persecuted ones, and not the Christians.
The Torah does not say that we must hate non-Jews... But when it comes to Idolatry the Torah does not pull any punches about how serious the sin is. Once again looking at the list of negative commandments we find the following:
1 The first of the negative commandments is not to entertain the thought that there is any G-d but the LORD, as it is written "thou shalt have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20,2; Deuteronomy 5,6).
2 Not to make a graven image, neither to make oneself nor to have made for oneself by others, as it is written "thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image" (Exodus 20,3; and see Deuteronomy 5,7).
3 Not to make an idol even for others, as it is written "nor make to yourselves molten gods" (Leviticus 19,4).
4 Not to make figures for decoration, even if they are not worshipped, as it is written "ye shall not make with Me--gods of silver" (Exodus 20,19).
5 Not to bow down to an object of idolatry, even if that is not its normal way of worship, as it is written "thou shalt not bow down unto them" (Exodus 20,4; Deuteronomy 5,8).
6 Not to worship an object of idolatry in its normal ways of worship, as it is written "nor serve them" (Exodus 20,4; Exodus 23,24; Deuteronomy 5,8).
7 Not to turn over to Molech, as it is written "and thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech" (Leviticus 18,21).
8 Not to divine by consulting ghosts, as it is written "turn ye not unto the ghosts" (Leviticus 19,31).
9 Not to resort to familiar spirits as it is written "nor unto familiar spirits" (Leviticus 19,31).
10 Not to turn to idolatry, as it is written "turn ye not unto the idols" (Leviticus 19,4).
11 Not to set up a pillar, as it is written "neither shalt thou set thee up a pillar" (Deuteronomy 16,22).
12 Not to set down a stone for prostration, as it is written "neither shall ye place any figured stone in your land" (Leviticus 26,1).
13 Not to plant a tree in the Sanctuary, as it is written "thou shalt not plant thee an Asherah of any kind of tree" (Deuteronomy 16,21).
14 Not to swear by an idolatry to its worshipers nor cause them to swear by it, as it is written "and make no mention of the name of other gods" (Exodus 23,13).
15 Not to proselytize the children of Israel to idolatry, as it is written "neither let it be heard out of thy mouth" (Exodus 23,13); this is a warning to the proselytizer.
16 Not to entice an Israelite to idolatry, as it is written "and shall do no more any such wickedness" (Deuteronomy 13,12).
17 Not to love the enticer to idolatry, as it is written "thou shalt not consent unto him" (Deuteronomy 13,9).
18 Not to leave off hating the enticer, as it is written "nor hearken unto him" (Deuteronomy 13,9).
19 Not to save the enticer but to stand by at his death, as it is written "neither shall thine eye pity him" (Deuteronomy 13,9).
20 For a person whom he attempted to entice not to plead for acquittal of the enticer, as it is written "neither shalt thou spare" (Deuteronomy 13,9).
21 For a person whom he attempted to entice not to refrain from pleading for conviction of the enticer, as it is written "neither shalt thou conceal him" (Deuteronomy 13,9).
22 Not to benefit from the coverings of any object of idolatrous worship, as it is written "thou shalt not covet the silver or the gold that is on them" (Deuteronomy 7,25).
23 Not to rebuild a city that has been proselytized over to idolatry, as it is written "it shall not be built again" (Deuteronomy 13,17).
24 Not to benefit from the property of a city that has been proselytized over to idolatry, as it is written "and there shall cleave nought of the devoted thing to thy hand" (Deuteronomy 13,18).
25 Not to benefit from an object of idolatry, its accessories, or its offerings or wine given as a libation to it, as it is written "and thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy house" (Deuteronomy 7,26).
26 Not to prophesy in its name, as it is written "or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die" (Deuteronomy 18,20).
27 Not to prophesy falsely, as it is written "that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak" (Deuteronomy 18,20).
28 Not to obey one who prophesies in the name of idolatry, as it is written "thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet" (Deuteronomy 13,4).
29 Not to refrain from killing a false prophet nor be in fear of him, as it is written "thou shalt not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18,22).
30 Not to adopt the institutions of idolaters nor their customs, as it is written "and ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation" (Leviticus 20,23).
31 Not to practice black magic, as it is written "there shall not be found among you . . . one that useth divination" (Deuteronomy 18,10).
32 Not to practice soothsaying, as it is written "nor soothsaying" (Leviticus 19,26).
33 Not to practice divination, as it is written "neither shall ye practise divination" (Leviticus 19,26).
34 Not to practice sorcery, as it is written "there shall not be found among you . . . a sorcerer" (Deuteronomy 18,10).
35 Not to practice the charmer's art, as it is written "or a charmer" (Deuteronomy 18,11).
36 Not to consult a ghost, as it is written "or one that consulteth a ghost" (Deuteronomy 18,11).
37 Not to consult a familiar spirit, as it is written "or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit" (Deuteronomy 18,11).
38 Not to enquire of the dead in a dream, as it is written "or a necromancer" (Deuteronomy 18,11).
That is 38 negative commandments against Idolatry and Avodah Zarah... I think Hashem doesn't want the Jews to engage in that...
That is no comment on non-Jewish belief... But when Jewish people are tempted to follow others... That becomes something which I cannot be involved with, and I will surely complain... I know that is not happening here...
-
Are you upset that I have questioned your stance on Giffords, or because I've reminded everyone of your agenda at JTF?
-
Are you upset that I have questioned your stance on Giffords, or because I've reminded everyone of your agenda at JTF?
And what do you mean 'my agenda'?
-
This thread can't be about to end well :o
-
I think this pretty much speaks for itself:
http://www.jewishtucson.org/page.aspx?id=136353 (Giffords supports the "peace process" while pretending to be pro-Israel)
The following is attention getting from this particular article that you provided.
'Peace between Israel and her neighbors can only be achieved by direct talks between the parties. Until the Palestinian leadership and other hostile regimes are willing to accept Israel’s right to exist, it will be impossible to achieve peace. I believe that the United States can help by providing a mediator who can be trusted by both sides, like former President Bill Clinton. It’s an approach that worked in achieving a peaceful settlement to the violence in Northern Ireland. People in the Middle East need to know that the U.S. is serious about the peace process'.
I hope that Gab. Giffords recovers from the shooting and changes her views. The fact that she believed that Bill Clinton could be trusted by Israel is alarming. Tragically, she's far from the only person of this opinion.
-
The following is attention getting from this particular article that you provided.
'Peace between Israel and her neighbors can only be achieved by direct talks between the parties. Until the Palestinian leadership and other hostile regimes are willing to accept Israel’s right to exist, it will be impossible to achieve peace. I believe that the United States can help by providing a mediator who can be trusted by both sides, like former President Bill Clinton. It’s an approach that worked in achieving a peaceful settlement to the violence in Northern Ireland. People in the Middle East need to know that the U.S. is serious about the peace process'.
I hope that Gab. Giffords recovers from the shooting and changes her views. The fact that she believed that Bill Clinton could be trusted by Israel is alarming. Tragically, she's far from the only person of this opinion.
Again she is saying something that no leader in Israel would disagree with. Be becoming appeasing surrenderists, and acting like colonial subjects instead of a sovereign nation they have obscured the lines between pro and anti Israel. Supposedly (although I find it hard to believe) Clinton is popular in much of Israel.
-
Secularbeliever, I think your post here makes a great point you should go back and try to fix the post so it more clearly shows what part of the post is yours
I think you will find a two headed mountain lion before you find a liberal Democrat who is pro Israel in the sense that we think of. The Israeli government in the Oslo Process has among all the other fiascos blurred the line as to what is pro Israel and what is not. When you criticize her, or any politician, for supporting the phoney peace process or the suicidal two state solution they can just retort they are following the same policy as the Israeli government. That is a very difficult argument to rebut.
Honestly I hope this woman gets well enough to go home with her family however I really do not wish for her to be well enough to return to politics... Brass tacks for me is her policy is very damaging to the well being of America... She was elected to political office here in America and thats where her interests should be... It's very nice that she seems to be supportive of Israel however I even see problems with her level of support there...The woman is a hopeless liberal and as such she deserves very little respect from people of opposing viewpoints.
-
cjd,
Are you ever going to shorten your signature? Yours is one of the biggest signatures on the forum...
I agree with your point... She should stay out of politics. Maybe she can finally find more faith from surviving this horrible attack.
-
Again she is saying something that no leader in Israel would disagree with. Be becoming appeasing surrenderists, and acting like colonial subjects instead of a sovereign nation they have obscured the lines between pro and anti Israel. Supposedly (although I find it hard to believe) Clinton is popular in much of Israel.
Yes you are right. When a congressional Republican delegation visited Israel in July 1996 to try to bolster resistance to Clinton's suicide initiatives, they were met with nothing but scorn.
What can I say, most Jews around the world are self-hating. That doesn't give evil, duplicitous, pseudo-Jewish Gentile politicians the right to take advantage of them.
-
cjd,
Are you ever going to shorten your signature? Yours is one of the biggest signatures on the forum...
Not really sure what the relevance of his signature is.
-
Again she is saying something that no leader in Israel would disagree with. Be becoming appeasing surrenderists, and acting like colonial subjects instead of a sovereign nation they have obscured the lines between pro and anti Israel. Supposedly (although I find it hard to believe) Clinton is popular in much of Israel.
Along the lines of what you expressed in the first part of your reply is what Liz Berney mentioned to MK Tzipi Hotovely this past Monday Night:
http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,52328.0.html
Like Chaim has mentioned repeatedly, Israel's greatest enemies are the self hating Jews in leadership positions.
Despite everything else, it's totally unacceptable for anyone in a government position to put Israel in danger. I'm not giving any of the U.S. elected officials who have endangered Israel a free pass.
-
Certainly we know that the liberal Jews are completely wrong on this, and many other, issues.... I do not support them in any way. But my only point of disagreement comes when it comes to cursing them. We curse the evil, those who stand against us, and want to destroy us. These I curse every day, with my fullest intentions. But I also draw a line between evil and misguided. Those who are merely misguided may come to realize their errors and change their ways.
In the final analysis we are judged by where we end up in life and what we have made out of our life. Along the way people do make mistakes and this world allows us to return and repair our sins. This is a basic Jewish belief which we affirm each year during the days of repentence.
-
For the last time, she's not Jewish. She's not even pseudo-Jewish actually. She is a--a Gentile, and b--she pretends to be Deformed which is not Judaism).
-
For the last time, she's not Jewish. She's not even pseudo-Jewish actually. She is a--a Gentile, and b--she pretends to be Deformed which is not Judaism).
Ok, I was talking about liberal Jews... I have said that her status as a Jew is clear, she is currently not counted as a Jew because Judaism is a trait passed from the mother. I am never saying that non-halachically Jewish people are Jews... I have stated this many times and will hopefully never again have to state it...
The separate issue concerns the hope that those Jews who are born in such a situation may somehow come to follow their fathers faith by converting.
-
Yes you are right. When a congressional Republican delegation visited Israel in July 1996 to try to bolster resistance to Clinton's suicide initiatives, they were met with nothing but scorn.
What can I say, most Jews around the world are self-hating. That doesn't give evil, duplicitous, pseudo-Jewish Gentile politicians the right to take advantage of them.
So why should any American politician stick his neck out to be more strong on Israel's behalf than Israel is when they will get trashed for doing so by the very Israelis they are helping? That is asking for more than we have any reason to expect.
-
Like I said already, the fact that Jews are self-hating doesn't give evil politicians, Jewish or Gentile, the right to take advantage of it. Giffords could have kept her ugly face out of the entire ME issue.
-
I know we are getting off track but I thought Judaism did clearly prohibit abortion except to save the mother's life
You are right, Chaim has stated this many times on Ask JTF.
Here is what the actual Halakcha is regarding abortion in Judaism:
http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/abortion-rhetoric-within-orthodox-judaism-consensus
"The Abortion Rhetoric Within Orthodox Judaism: Consensus, Conviction, Covenant
* share
* Printer-friendly version
Rabbi Yuter is the Rabbi of B'nai Israel, the Orthodox synagogue of downtown Baltimore. He is a faculty member in the department of Bible and Jewish Law at the Institute for Traditional Judaism.
The abortion rhetoric provides the hermeneutic key whereby the contemporary contenders to the faith franchise called "Orthodox Judaism" reveal the moral essences of their alternative constructions of religious reality. At stake in this conversation is the meaning of Masorah, a culturally encrusted code word. According to the Judaism of the Rabbinic canon, or book-based Orthodox Judaism, it is the transmitted oral Torah as preserved for the collective of Israel in the public, vetted literature of the rabbis up to and including the Babylonian Talmud. Masorah is however also invoked as the retort of last resort to resolve the often occurring conflicts between the canonical Torah library and the living culture of affiliating Orthodox Jews. While, in theory, the Orthodox Jew consults the canon, the literary trove of which is both necessary and sufficient source of normative value, in practice this trove is mediated by rabbis, known as gedolim, great ones, or hakhmei ha-Mesorah, Masoretic sages, whose divinely inspired intuition is empowered to parse divine intent and to preserve the cohesiveness of culture based Orthodox Judaism.
This study contrasts the legal rhetoric regarding the abortion issue. What does the plain sense of the canonical library actually prescribe? And what is the view of that version of Orthodox Judaism that bases itself on the intuitive consensus of an elite group of rabbis through a kind of "continuous revelation"?
To accomplish this goal, we examine:
1. the apologia and rhetoric of "pro-life" Orthodox Judaism
2. the actual values encoded in the Judaism of the canonical documents regarding A: fetal life and B: the grounds for authorizing an abortion
3. the actual position of the Judaism of the canonical documents regarding abortions
4. the self-understandings of the two Orthodox Judaisms that compete with each other, in pre-modern and in modern times
1. The apologia and rhetoric of "pro-life" Orthodox Judaism
This version of Orthodox Judaism reflects the publicly proclaimed consensus of those who are self-authorized, empowered, and emboldened to speak as spokesmen [women have no voice in this Judaism] for Torah. The pronouncements of this dialect of Orthodox culture are apodictic, dogmatic, authoritative and authoritarian. For this Orthodox Judaism, conversation is condemned as disrespectful to G-d because G-d's vicarious spokesmen alone are authorized to speak-because they are intuitively endowed-- on G-d's behalf. Persuasion of peers is for this Orthodox Judaism pointless because those issuing bold, culture conservative apodictic rulings are, by their own account, without peer. According to Rabbi Herschel Schachter's understanding of his teacher, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, great rabbis may rule from intuition or "from the gut," but most rabbis may not even entertain the right to articulate a reasoned opinion. After all, these second tier rabbis do not understand Torah deeply and intimately because they [1] have not been vetted as great rabbis by the clique of great rabbis and [2] these second rate Orthodox rabbis, by dint of their corrosive exposure to non-Jewish and non-ultra-Orthodox culture, are presumably under the influence of un-Jewish heretical ideas, ideologies, and sensibilities. Therefore, in order to be considered to be legitimate Orthodox rabbis, second tier rabbis are required to defer to the pious policies of the truly great rabbis, those untainted by secularity, and forgoing the role of posek [religious authority] and assuming the role of police, who deferentially and piously enforce the policies, positions, and proclamations of the truly authentic great rabbis. To this view, citing relevant sources is insufficient, and otherwise compelling logic is spiritually inadequate. Only those accepted as great rabbis are authorized as Masoretic sages to preserve the ethic, ethos and spirit of authentic Judaism. In this Judaism, authentic Torah opinion, Daas Torah, resides primarily in the charismatic person, rather than in the canonical object, or sacred text. In this Judaism, the sacred Torah serves as the rhetorical resource trove which is sifted, shifted, and manipulated in order to justify the apodictic rulings of the actual and ultimate source of living Torah, the inspired intuition of great rabbis, the actual word of the Lord that applies in contemporary times.
The Judaism "of the canonical documents" is the alternative Orthodox Judaism that challenges the claims of the charisma-led Orthodoxy described above. According to Rabbi Marc Angel, this is the Judaism of the oral Torah applied appropriately to current settings. And according to Prof. Jacob Neusner, this is the Judaism of the Dual, i.e., oral and written Torah, which alone expresses G-d's will as proclaimed at Sinai, in the wilderness sojourn, in the Prophetic writings and Hagiographa, and in the Oral Torah library. Contemporary Orthodox Judaism has undergone change in modernity because it is self-conscious about its religious choice and identity, which is not the case for pre-modern Traditional Jewish religious communities. Modern Orthodoxy's adherents and advocates, this writer included, believe that G-d is revealed in the sacred text as explained persuasively by whoever makes the most reasonable, persuasive, and compelling reading of that canon. Apodictic rulings, declaratory judgments, and ex cathedra decrees are not recognized to be legitimate value statements according to the version of Jewish Orthodoxy that is encoded in the Oral Torah canon. These apodictic rulings may only issue with authority from a Sanhedrin sitting in plenum, but not from post-Talmudic self-selective clerics sitting in clergy conclaves, whose intuition is taken to represent G-d's will.
The charismatic Orthodox Judaism opposes an expanded abortion license by appealing to the sanctity of life and human humility, a code term intended to intimidate ethical initiative, demean the rectitude of the individual moral conscience, and to foster legal inactivity by besmirching and delegitimating those who would dare to revisit classical texts in order to reconsider and perhaps revise practices and policies, based upon a philological reading of the sacred canon. While for the Judaism of the Oral Torah, halakhic discourse rejects mysteries and vague platitudes out of hand, [Dt. 10:28] "pro-life" culture conservative Judaism, representing what it takes to be the moral high ground, with its accompanying legitimating stringency, cannot tolerate a conversation regarding what the canon actually records because with conversation comes the moral demand for accountability.
2. The actual values encoded in the Judaism of the canonical documents regarding [a] fetal life and the grounds for authorizing an abortion
The most relevant Biblical passage informing the abortion controversy is:
When [at least two] men fight and [inadvertently] strike a pregnant woman
and [as a consequence of the blow] the fetuses abort but there is no calamity [i.e. the pregnant woman survives the blow] [the offending culprit] must assuredly be punished as to be mandated by the woman's husband in court. [Ex. 21:22-23]
In this passage, the incident of unintentional feticide is punished by a fine, but the offending culprit is not consigned to a city of refuge, which would be the case were this accidental abortion to be viewed as a homicide [Exodus 21:23]. Therefore, the assault upon the fetus is, according to the Pentateuchal document that every Orthodox Judaism accepts to be the will and word of G-d, the human fetus carries the status of property, but not person.
However, the canonical library of the Oral Torah, the foundation documents of which are also sacred canon for Orthodox Judaism, provides the literary, theological, and legal filter whereby Biblical norms are legally processed and culturally applied. The approaches of our two contending Orthodox Judaisms to this canonical legal filter reveals, en passant, that there are two competing and ideologically incompatible Orthodox Judaisms contending for recruits, recognition, and the collective soul of the Orthodox affiliating community.
The tendentious reading of this passage advanced by pro-life Orthodoxy cites the following Talmudic comment, with its accompanying ideological spin, to be the final, exhaustive, and to its view unquestionable will and word of G-d:
[In the case of] a woman in hard labor [the court mandates] the cutting of the unborn fetus and removing it [from the womb] limb by limb because her [i.e. the mother's] life takes precedence over its [i.e. the fetal] life. [bSan 72a]
According to Rabbi J. David Bleich, only in this case, where the fetus endangers the life of the gestating mother, may an abortion be condoned, and in other cases, i.e., when the gestating mother is not in mortal danger, the abortion procedure is by implication forbidden. [Contemporary Halachic Problems, New York, 1977, 327) But the Talmudic context cited here only refers to a legally mandated abortion. Philologically parsed, this canonical statement prescribes that in a case in which the maternal life, i.e., a legally defined person carrying moral rights, is endangered by a life threatening fetus, which prior to birth is considered to be not a person but property, Oral Torah law mandates the destruction of the fetus, which is property, in order to spare the actual living human person, the gestating mother. The claim, advanced by R. Bleich and others, that an abortion is in fact forbidden by statutory implication, reflects the a priori ideology of the exegete but neither the philological sense of the statute nor the actual norm encoded in that statute. Maimonides astutely and precisely ruled [Laws of the Murderer and Life Preservation 1:9] that this case, when the gestating mother is herself endangered by the fetus she carries, is akin [but not identical] to that of the pursuer, when it appears that one person pursues another person with apparent intention to commit rape or murder, a bystander may take the requisite vigilante action to stop the pursuer, even by killing the presumptive culprit, should circumstances so require.
3. The actual position of the Judaism of the canonical documents
According to what Orthodox Jewish believers, committed to the Written Law as filtered by the Oral Law, are supposed to maintain, the penalty for fetal destruction is a fine, indicating that in Israel's canon, feticide is a tort, not a crime, an assault upon property, not person. The identical definition recorded in Israel's sacred canon also appears in Hammurabi's code. [CH 210, ANET 17-19] The only, but critical, difference between the ethic of the Torah and the ethos of Hammurabi's code is that for the latter, human and property worth inhabit the same moral universe, while for the Torah ethic the human person carries moral rights because s/he carries the image of G-d and may not be reduced to or treated as property.
Pro-life Orthodox Judaism ignores the astonishing fact that the religiously canonical bArakhin 7a-b actually fills the gap of the wrongly and ideologically imputed silence of bSanhedrin 72a. The claim that non-therapeutic abortions must be halakhically forbidden is based [or biased] upon an ideological reading of a passage that only and explicitly deals with a mandated abortion. In bArakhin 7a-b, a woman about to be executed by the court is, if pregnant, aborted, [a] even though the biological father has property rights to the unborn, because the court is empowered to confiscate property, in this case, the fetus for which there is a paternal claim of property concern, and the grounds for taking this action, the destruction of the fetus, is the shame that the condemned woman would endure if executed while pregnant. Therefore, the condemned woman's shame provides sufficient warrant to confiscate what Jewish law in its canonical statement defines as property. We have in this passage an explicit warrant for discretionary abortion.
In search of an anti-abortion argument, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein ["Abortion: a Halakhic Perspective," Tradition 25 (Summer 1991), 4] contends that [a] since the Israelite law must be more rigorous for an Israelite than non-Israelite, [bHullin 33a], and a non-Israelite is executed for the crime of feticide, [ bSan 57a] , R. Lichtenstein concludes syllogistically, abortion "must" be forbidden to Jews by implication because it is forbidden explicitly to non-Jews. Like R. Bleich, R. Lichtenstein is ideologically predisposed to justify a restrictive abortion ruling and not to read the canon as an objective text scholar applying philological controls, going where the data leads, being disinterested in the resultant findings, and to use R. Bleich's very felicitous idiom, letting "the chips fall where they may." R. Lichtenstein's very clever construction is however parried by the legal fact that non-Israelites suffer execution for assaults on property, while Israelites are not so sanctioned. Thus, the claims that Israelite law "must" be stricter than other legal systems and that only therapeutic abortions are by implication licit, must be addressed philologically, not ideologically. Therefore, in its canonical version, Orthodox Judaism requires an abortion when there is a danger to human life, and considers shame to be a ground to authorize other, i.e., discretionary abortions. Were Jewish law to outlaw abortions undertaken to avoid shame, then the bArakhin 7a-b passage would not appear in the Talmudic canon. In the case of a woman pregnant with an illegitimate fetus, R. Yair Bacharch [Havot Yair 31] was restrictive on public policy grounds, conceding that a lenient ruling might be justified if the letter of the law were the only relevant consideration. Jewish law does allow for policy strictures, but not for ideologically driven misrepresentations of the evidence, here evidence of the popular refusal to deal with or address the implications of the bArakhin 7a-b evidence. Furthermore, the Lichtensteinian position, that stricture is per se a quality of Torah ethic, while finding roots in Tosafot, does not seem to reflect the religion of sacred canon. After all, Nadab and Abihu were both extra strict and extra wrong. [Leviticus 10:1-7]
4. The self-understandings of the two Orthodox Judaisms that compete with each other, in pre-modern and in modern times
While taken in amazement with the creative, innovative, and dazzling apologias for the pro-life position, argued brilliantly by Rabbis Bleich and Lichtenstein, both nevertheless seem to arrive at their respective conclusions prior to their investigation of the data. Neither rabbi advocates a strict construction reading of the canonical law but both appeal to "morality," derived from culture bias, a self-defined "spirit of the law," and what appears to be culture conservative subjective taste. R. Lichtenstein also suggests that there is a normative morality that is beyond the halakha that is nevertheless binding. Pro-life culture traditionalist Orthodox rabbis read the canonical documents as if their intuitions reflect G-d's intentions, and accordingly read the sacred canon selectively, finding in the Torah that ethic which they are programmed, conditioned, and expected to find, and will ignore and, in the case of bArakhin 7a-b, suppress facts, however canonical those facts may be, when those facts fly in the face of deeply revered sensibilities, self-evident intuition, and consensus social policy. G-d transmitted a textual Torah book to all Israel but did not transmit a secret, private, hidden interpretation code entrusted only to a special self-select elite. By allowing the book/text of the Jewish sacred canon to be superseded by policy driven posekim, albeit with the best of intentions and moral instincts, pro-life Orthodox Judaism de jure claims that G-d's Torah, while divine and from Heaven, is transferred to their human hands and authority and is no longer in Heaven. According to the Judaism of the Oral Torah, only the Great Sanhedrin is invested with this power, and without this legislative/judicial institution, Torah is entrusted to all Israel and is read with literary and historical tools and with a public conversation, not with intuitive explanations bereft of review, dialogue, and persuasion.
The abortion debate has a long history in Jewish law. One Tosafist view allows abortion, and another does not, arguing that Judaism cannot be less strict than non-Jewish religions. The restrictive view is often cited, the lenient view is not. While to his abiding moral credit, Rabbi Feinstein unflinchingly cited and addressed the lenient Tosafist view, he argued from conjecture and without a shred of evidence that the lenient view must be rejected because the Tosafist text is corrupt. Maimonides argues that the claim, "Judaism must be stricter than other religions," is inadmissible, that Judaism alone defines Judaism, and we do not spin texts in order to find what we wish to find. [Iggeret ha-Shemad] So for Maimonides, [1] Torah religion is about obeying G-d's law and not being reflexively strict, and we argue that [2] before one claims that a given text should be discarded because it is corrupt, that corruption must be identified and defined, and not merely proclaimed because the textual content conflicts with the interpreter's positions.
The pro-life Orthodox culture conservatives are what Professor Jeffery Gurock calls modernity "resisters," while the scientific modern Orthodox who are committed to a philological parsing of the canon, seek to "accommodate" modernity. For the former, Halakha is not primarily what the Jew must do, it is the lomdus/conceptualism that the rabbinic elite imposes upon the canon so that religious culture not change, the cohesiveness of Orthodox society not become unglued, and its leadership status not be challenged. But lomdus, or "learningness," is a term unattested in Israel's canonical library; it is an invented culture construct created to empower an exclusive rabbinic elite to monopolize the interpretive access to the canon in order to make theologically correct normative judgments. This elite is unabashedly and passionately opposed to the philological reading of the canon because, in the words of the late R. Ahron Soloveichik, academic, philological readings of the canon undermine "the sanctity of Torah." To this view, allowing access to parse the divine word is a recipe for theological, communal, and sectarian anarchy.
Ironically, ultra-Orthodoxy denies the great rabbi credentials to modern Orthodox rabbinic elite rabbis because they are too "modern." When religious legitimacy is political but not exegetical, it is power and not persuasion that invests ideas that are politically correct with religious valence, as these ideas are proclaimed to be theologically correct. Thus, being a "great rabbi" is determined not only by expertise and scholarship, but by politics, culture taste, and social policy. Thus, for Haredi Judaism, Rabbis Lichtenstein and Joseph Soloveitchik cannot be great rabbis because [a] they are Zionists and earned secular doctorates in English and Philosophy, respectively. Furthermore, the reading presented here reflects the influence of Responsa Piskei Ben Zion Uzziel 52, that has been ignored but not refuted by the rabbinic consensus.
The Arakhin passage quoted above is in culture conservative Orthodox circles vocalized "erkhin." [sic] According to Hebrew grammar, the singular erekh, value, in the plural becomes arakhin, not erkhin. And the form erkhin is also grammatically improper because were the form to exist-which it does not-it would be vocalized erkin, with a "k". In order to condition its affiliating community not to read Israel's sacred canon philologically, like the early authorities, i.e., the rishonim, and in our time, R. Uzziel, there may be no applied study of grammar, syntax, semantics, or hermeneutics in culture conservative, pro-life, modernity resisting Orthodoxy. By obfuscating the tradition/masora of canonically correct Hebrew, the Tradition of canonical text is replaced with and is superseded by the "tradition" of culture conservatives who are singularly endowed to divine G-d's true intentions.
The other Orthodoxy, populated by the militant moderates of Modern Orthodoxy, are committed to philology because this Orthodoxy pines to hear and obey the actual voice of the living G-d as revealed in the Torah's living words. G-d did not entrust the Torah to any sacred synod of Torah sages, but to the collective of Israel, Morasha kehillat Ya'akob. Maimonides ruled not based on human charisma, but the best reasoning based upon the best rendering of the canonical reading. Culture conservative modernity- resisting Orthodoxy prizes conformity in practice, dress, thought and attitude; the moderate militants of Modern Orthodoxy culture accommodators believe that G-d's unchanging principles apply to ever changing social realities. The culture conservative Orthodox looks to the sociology of the community and is therefore ironically similar to the Reconstructionist approach, which claims that ultimate religious normativity is grounded in social rather than in theological and covenantal concerns.
R. Ya'ir Bachrach [Responsum 31] ruled restrictively regarding the termination of a fetus conceived in adultery on policy grounds. Policy claims must persuade but may not intimidate. They certainly may not claim that their voice is G-d's voice. G-d gave the Torah to "us," the collective called Israel, not to an elite, save the Great Sanhedrin; not to a clique, however convinced it may be by its self- selecting consensus, and not by partisans of any party. Like the statutes/mishpatim that are rational and are intended to persuade, we welcome conversation, not coercion, reason, not reproach, and ideas, not ideology.
The abortion debate within Orthodox Judaism reveals that there are two contenders for the mantle of Orthodoxy. The modernists read the sacred canon and its law literally, the Biblical and rabbinic narratives figuratively, and find G-d in the sacred text. Orthodoxy's culture conservatives read the law figuratively and the narratives literally so that critical thinking be suppressed, so that G-d's presence is transferred from the holy text to the holy person. The modernists read texts critically because they want to know how to think; Orthodoxy's anti-modernists read their agenda into the text because [1] the Jew is taught what to think and [2] challenging those who tell others what to think is akin to challenging G-d. Which version of Orthodoxy do you, the reader, believe to be the true seeker of G-d's will?"
EDIT: I dont know why some of this article is bolded still, I tried to edit the 'b' in brackets to a non-code B:, but it seems the change did not take [yet? maybe it will after some time has sunk in?]. Anyway, I was not trying to highlight anything in particular by the bold.
-
Wow,
That is quite complex to understand. So it explains what I had posted earlier that there does exist some disagreement between the Rabbis on the issues.
I have heard parts of this argument before:
In search of an anti-abortion argument, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein ["Abortion: a Halakhic Perspective," Tradition 25 (Summer 1991), 4] contends that [a] since the Israelite law must be more rigorous for an Israelite than non-Israelite, [bHullin 33a], and a non-Israelite is executed for the crime of feticide, [ bSan 57a] , R. Lichtenstein concludes syllogistically, abortion "must" be forbidden to Jews by implication because it is forbidden explicitly to non-Jews. Like R. Bleich, R. Lichtenstein is ideologically predisposed to justify a restrictive abortion ruling and not to read the canon as an objective text scholar applying philological controls, going where the data leads, being disinterested in the resultant findings, and to use R. Bleich's very felicitous idiom, letting "the chips fall where they may." R. Lichtenstein's very clever construction is however parried by the legal fact that non-Israelites suffer execution for assaults on property, while Israelites are not so sanctioned. Thus, the claims that Israelite law "must" be stricter than other legal systems and that only therapeutic abortions are by implication licit, must be addressed philologically, not ideologically. Therefore, in its canonical version, Orthodox Judaism requires an abortion when there is a danger to human life, and considers shame to be a ground to authorize other, i.e., discretionary abortions. Were Jewish law to outlaw abortions undertaken to avoid shame, then the bArakhin 7a-b passage would not appear in the Talmudic canon. In the case of a woman pregnant with an illegitimate fetus, R. Yair Bacharch [Havot Yair 31] was restrictive on public policy grounds, conceding that a lenient ruling might be justified if the letter of the law were the only relevant consideration. Jewish law does allow for policy strictures, but not for ideologically driven misrepresentations of the evidence, here evidence of the popular refusal to deal with or address the implications of the bArakhin 7a-b evidence. Furthermore, the Lichtensteinian position, that stricture is per se a quality of Torah ethic, while finding roots in Tosafot, does not seem to reflect the religion of sacred canon. After all, Nadab and Abihu were both extra strict and extra wrong. [Leviticus 10:1-7]