JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Chaimfan99 on November 03, 2011, 03:13:02 PM
-
Ofcourse #1 would be Chaim, if the Israeli people demanded he be let back into Israel.
The other leader i like is Arieh Eldad.
-
Israel's actually supposed to have a King, not a Prime Minister, right?
-
Israel's actually supposed to have a King, not a Prime Minister, right?
When Moshiach arrives we will live under him as a King... The Torah mostly relates that we should live according to Torah law with a Court called the Sanhedrin... But because we would like to be judged similarly to the nations Hashem allows us to appoint a King...
-
I would vote for Chaim...Not sure what the choices would be by then...What about Avigdore Lieberman..Any thoughts?
-
I would vote for Chaim...Not sure what the choices would be by then...What about Avigdore Lieberman..Any thoughts?
I am not against Lieberman but around JTF he does not have enought 'street cred' or whatever you want to call it. He is a politician who often acts as a politician instead of being concerned with the big picture for the Jewish people. Of all the current crop of politicians I think he has the best shot at being 'right-wing'... But surely he pales in comparison to a true Kahanist.
-
Chaim!
Who else?!?!? ;D
-
Today - Chaim! No questions about it.
As a political giant from the past - HaRav Kahane!
I wouldn't mind a Bar Kochba type of hero as well!
-
Today - Chaim! No questions about it.
As a political giant from the past - HaRav Kahane!
I wouldn't mind a Bar Kochba type of hero as well!
I would hope if Bar Kochba 'comes back' he would achieve the redemption rather than disappoint the entire nation {who believe he was Moshiach}.
-
Chaim!
Who else?!?!? ;D
No one else... Chaim is the only man for the job :dance: It would give the Rav's dreams for Israels future a new chance at success.
-
Manch,
Chaim has explained this several times over the last couple of weeks. It is not too hard to understand why Bar Kochba let down the entire Jewish people because of his arrogant ways. The Talmud and the Sages clearly say that it is because of Bar Kochba's behavior that the Jewish people were not redeemed...
http://www.jewishmag.com/77mag/barkokhba/barkokhba.htm
During the time of the rebellion, bar Kokhba was referred to as the Nasi, the leader or prince of the Jewish people. The Messianic hopes that the Jews possessed during those times were centered around him. Because of this he was called bar Kokhba, the son of a star.
No less than the great sage, Rabbi Akiva, called bar Kokhba the messiah as related in the Talmud Jerusalmi, tractate Tannit, "When Rabbi Akiva saw bar Kokhba, he said, 'this is the king Messiah'. Rabbi Yochanan was not so impressed and replied to Rabbi Akiva, "grass will grow from your cheeks and yet the son of David (the king messiah) will not have come." The Rambam explains that the sages of that generation were convinced that bar Kokhba was the Messiah. However since due to his sins he was killed, the sages realized he was not the Messiah. (Rambam, Malachim, 11:3) Because of this, he is not referred to in the Talmud as bar Kokhba, but as bar Koseba, the son of deceit, since he was not the Messiah. Instead of redemption, he brought upon them greater destruction.
-
When Moshiach arrives we will live under him as a King... The Torah mostly relates that we should live according to Torah law with a Court called the Sanhedrin... But because we would like to be judged similarly to the nations Hashem allows us to appoint a King...
Why do you think he will just arrive? (as if falling from the sky or something). Perhaps he will be elected, or better yett nominated. And perhaps the Sanhedrin needs to be formed before a Moshiah is even made because someone needs to anoint him. Either the Sanhedrin or a prophet.
-
Why do you think he will just arrive? (as if falling from the sky or something). Perhaps he will be elected, or better yett nominated. And perhaps the Sanhedrin needs to be formed before a Moshiah is even made because someone needs to anoint him. Either the Sanhedrin or a prophet.
I did not state 'how Moshiach will arrive'... I am stating that once he has been revealed as Moshiach he will be King. As always the exact sequence of events is open to interpretation. I have never been on the belief that he will 'fall from the sky' or other such fantasy. Obviously Moshiach will have to accomplish the mission of the redeemer in order to be called as such...
-
I like eldad. Chaim ben pesach is choice # 1. No phony peaceniks like lieberman!
-
Chaim, Noam Federman, anybody who caries on the ideals of HaRav Meir David Kahane (ZTzL, HYD)!
-
Manch,
Chaim has explained this several times over the last couple of weeks. It is not too hard to understand why Bar Kochba let down the entire Jewish people because of his arrogant ways. The Talmud and the Sages clearly say that it is because of Bar Kochba's behavior that the Jewish people were not redeemed...
I completely disagree with you and with Chaim on the great Jewish Hero and martyr, Bar Kochba!
-
I completely disagree with you and with Chaim on the great Jewish Hero and martyr, Bar Kochba!
Then you disagree with the Talmud and the Rabbis placing yourself in the category of an apikoris...
-
I like Aryeh Eldad. I would love to see Chaim as UN Ambassador. For the future I would like to see how this kid Daniel Pereg develops. He is the kid in LA who carried the Israeli flag through the Hamas rally. He has since moved to Israel and says he wants to be a Knesset member.
-
Then you disagree with the Talmud and the Rabbis placing yourself in the category of an apikoris...
Yes, you are right. I 100% disagree with that, if that is what Talmud is saying. Rabbis who wrote it were not completely unbiased on the matter, were they? And the scapegoat for the disaster was conveniently found. Why couldn't rabbi unite the whole Jewish nation behind the revolt? Where they or the whole Jewish people completely blameless. More importantly, was HaRav Akiva, ZT"L ever critical of Simeon Bar Kochba, ZT"L
-
Yes, you are right. I 100% disagree with that, if that is what Talmud is saying. Rabbis who wrote it were not completely unbiased on the matter, were they? And the scapegoat for the disaster was conveniently found. Why couldn't rabbi unite the whole Jewish nation behind the revolt? Where they or the whole Jewish people completely blameless. More importantly, was HaRav Akiva, ZT"L ever critical of Simeon Bar Kochba, ZT"L
When it was obvious that Bar Kochba was not the Moshiach he admitted his mistake, as anyone who makes such pronouncements must do. So you are an admitted Apikoris? You realize that a Jew who renounces the Talmud, the oral Torah, has no place in the world to come? Your claiming 'bias' in the Rabbis of the Talmud sounds like an attack on the entire Oral tradition...
Torah Jews accept the Talmud just as much as they accept the Chumash... It is said that at Sinai both the Oral and the Written Torah were given...
-
Then you disagree with the Talmud and the Rabbis placing yourself in the category of an apikoris...
Uhh not really.
There are very specific notions which one must reject in order to fit the bill of apikorus. Disagreeing with the Talmud in subjective opinion on a jewish historical figure is not even close to one of those things, even if it is mistaken. Please try to keep the sensationalisn in check, since we're among friends here.
-
Uhh not really.
There are very specific notions which one must reject in order to fit the bill of apikorus. Disagreeing with the Talmud in subjective opinion on a jewish historical figure is not even close to one of those things, even if it is mistaken. Please try to keep the sensationalisn in check, since we're among friends here.
What I mean to say is that in believing that Bar Kochbah had what was necessary to be the Moshiach, in order to lead the Jewish people in a military battle against the mighty powers which rise to destroy us, it does not benefit our future.
While I do admit that Bar Kochba was a mighty warrior, and he was righteous and a great leader of men. I do not say anything against him. But when the Rabbis of the Talmud give their opinions, it is not for political purposes, nor is it to be concerned with what the nations think. There are many parts of the Talmud which the gentiles have problems with just because the Rabbis were attempting to be very clear in their thought process. I do not believe that the Rabbis of the Talmud were being 'Politically Correct' but during persecutions of the middle ages some parts of the Talmud were edited and redacted in order not to upset the gentiles.
The Talmud attempts to give the Jewish people the wisdom needed to judge events in our own time. This, I believe, is one of the reasons it is so essential for Jews to study the Talmud. The lesson which is learned from the Talmud should be taken to heart and learned from.
I have no problem really with considering Bar Kochba a hero, in a way... We should hope that Moshiach will come with the mighty strength of Bar Kochba and the wisdom of David HaMelech and Shlomo HaMelech.
PS: Concerning the appellation 'apikoros' there are varying opinions... I found this definition..
http://www.chayas.com/punish.htm#pun
Three Individuals are described as Apicursim:
* one who denies the existence of prophecy and maintains that there is no knowledge communicated from G-D to the hearts of men
*one who disputes the prophecy of Moses, our teacher
*one who maintains that the Creator is not aware of the deeds of men.
Each of these three individuals is an Apicurus
There are three individuals who are considered as "one who denies the Torah":
* one who says Torah, even on verse or one word, is not from G-D. If he says: "Moses made these statements independently," he is denying the Torah.
* one who denies the Torah's interpretation, the oral law, or disputes [the authority of] its spokesman as did Tzadok and Beitus
* one who says that though the Torah came from G-D, the Creator has replaced one mitzvah with another one and nullified the Torah, for example, the Arabs...
Each of these individuals is considered as one who "denies the Torah."
-
Yes, you are right. I 100% disagree with that, if that is what Talmud is saying. Rabbis who wrote it were not completely unbiased on the matter, were they? And the scapegoat for the disaster was conveniently found. Why couldn't rabbi unite the whole Jewish nation behind the revolt? Where they or the whole Jewish people completely blameless. More importantly, was HaRav Akiva, ZT"L ever critical of Simeon Bar Kochba, ZT"L
They did support the revolt (at first at least). And many died. They saw that this strategy was not working. At that time- if the nation was going to continue in its ways everything was going to get destroyed. Among other things as well as what they saw) they then "killed it" after seeing the disaster of the decisions being made.
-
What I mean to say is that in believing that Bar Kochbah had what was necessary to be the Moshiach, in order to lead the Jewish people in a military battle against the mighty powers which rise to destroy us, it does not benefit our future.
Had what was necessary? What do you mean by that phrase? He had an army and weapons. What else is needed to lead the Jewish people in a military battle "against the mighty powers which rise to destroy us?" He was a prime candidate to lead an army, since he was a great general and pious Jew. Rabbi Akiva saw it in him that he had the greatness necessary. Unfortunately things took a bad turn and his character flaws (pointed out by the Talmud) may have exacerbated the shift of momentum toward our enemies to our destruction. I don't dispute this, and neither should any wise person dispute it. But I really don't get what you are driving at, muman, with what I quoted you saying here.
While I do admit that Bar Kochba was a mighty warrior, and he was righteous and a great leader of men. I do not say anything against him. But when the Rabbis of the Talmud give their opinions, it is not for political purposes, nor is it to be concerned with what the nations think. There are many parts of the Talmud which the gentiles have problems with just because the Rabbis were attempting to be very clear in their thought process. I do not believe that the Rabbis of the Talmud were being 'Politically Correct' but during persecutions of the middle ages some parts of the Talmud were edited and redacted in order not to upset the gentiles.
I never claimed they were being politically correct. So this is a non-issue.
PS: Concerning the appellation 'apikoros' there are varying opinions... I found this definition..
http://www.chayas.com/punish.htm#pun
Yes, and just as I said, while Manch may be mistaken, what he said does not fit any of these definitions!
-
Had what was necessary? What do you mean by that phrase? He had an army and weapons. What else is needed to lead the Jewish people in a military battle "against the mighty powers which rise to destroy us?" He was a prime candidate to lead an army, since he was a great general and pious Jew. Rabbi Akiva saw it in him that he had the greatness necessary. Unfortunately things took a bad turn and his character flaws (pointed out by the Talmud) may have exacerbated the shift of momentum toward our enemies to our destruction. I don't dispute this, and neither should any wise person dispute it. But I really don't get what you are driving at, muman, with what I quoted you saying here.
I never claimed they were being politically correct. So this is a non-issue.
Yes, and just as I said, while Manch may be mistaken, what he said does not fit any of these definitions!
KWRBT,
I originally commented on a comment which Manch made in response to my explaining why the sages said what they said about Bar Kochba Manch wrote this:
Yes, you are right. I 100% disagree with that, if that is what Talmud is saying. Rabbis who wrote it were not completely unbiased on the matter, were they? And the scapegoat for the disaster was conveniently found. Why couldn't rabbi unite the whole Jewish nation behind the revolt? Where they or the whole Jewish people completely blameless. More importantly, was HaRav Akiva, ZT"L ever critical of Simeon Bar Kochba, ZT"L
By disparaging the Rabbis of the Talmud and implying that they had ulterior motives for writing what they did about Bar Kochba I interpreted it as disrespecting the Sages and the Talmud, and by extension the entire Oral Law... And as that quote I brought above points out, a person who denies the Oral Law, and the interpretations of the Talmudic sages, they are 'deniers of Torah'. I was wrong to use the term 'apikoris' but both are not such good things. I don't seriously consider Manch in that category, but what he wrote rubbed me to say that.
-
Let me spell it out. Disagreeing with the Talmud's opinion about Bar Kochva is not "denying oral law." First of all, there were many sages who were involved in the hundreds of years of redaction process behind the finished product of Talmud, and there was not one single opinion on most things. Certainly at the time of the revolt itself, the rabbis were not against it. Certainly, after the results, in dealing with the aftermath and destruction of Jewish life on a scale (by percentage) greater even than the holocaust, the rabbis had reason to be against it. Manch calls that a "bias" - maybe that's not the friendliest term to use, but it's probably accurate. Of course there was a bias to not have another revolt which would result in a million murdered Jews and especially at a time when Jews were incapable of victory and would be slaughtered. So the Talmud redactors had good reason to downplay the revolt. So too, the sages in the generations of bar kochva and shortly after him, had reason to point out his flaws given how it turned into a disaster where so many loved ones were lost and innocent men women and children destroyed. Are you going to react to that positively? No one in their right mind would.
Secondly, what that site is referring to is disputing the interpretations of Jewish law similar to the way the Baltusians and Tzaddokim did (aka Sadducees). An example would be claiming that tefillin don't go on the head - something all the sages agreed on was an oral law from sinai. Or if somebody came along and tried to say the beautiful fruit is not an esrog. Something along those lines. That person would be an apikorus. Not a person who differs in opinion about a Jewish historical figure! (even if they are mistaken). That simply does not fit the bill of "denying the Oral Law." Jews are allowed to have opinions about things. And even sometimes personally disagree with rabbis, yes, *gasp!
You need to be careful about slinging insults around.
-
Let me spell it out. Disagreeing with the Talmud's opinion about Bar Kochva is not "denying oral law." First of all, there were many sages who were involved in the hundreds of years of redaction process behind the finished product of Talmud, and there was not one single opinion on most things. Certainly at the time of the revolt itself, the rabbis were not against it. Certainly, after the results, in dealing with the aftermath and destruction of Jewish life on a scale (by percentage) greater even than the holocaust, the rabbis had reason to be against it. Manch calls that a "bias" - maybe that's not the friendliest term to use, but it's probably accurate. Of course there was a bias to not have another revolt which would result in a million murdered Jews and especially at a time when Jews were incapable of victory and would be slaughtered. So the Talmud redactors had good reason to downplay the revolt. So too, the sages in the generations of bar kochva and shortly after him, had reason to point out his flaws given how it turned into a disaster where so many loved ones were lost and innocent men women and children destroyed. Are you going to react to that positively? No one in their right mind would.
Secondly, what that site is referring to is disputing the interpretations of Jewish law similar to the way the Baltusians and Tzaddokim did (aka Sadducees). An example would be claiming that tefillin don't go on the head - something all the sages agreed on was an oral law from sinai. Or if somebody came along and tried to say the beautiful fruit is not an esrog. Something along those lines. That person would be an apikorus. Not a person who differs in opinion about a Jewish historical figure! (even if they are mistaken). That simply does not fit the bill of "denying the Oral Law." Jews are allowed to have opinions about things. And even sometimes personally disagree with rabbis, yes, *gasp!
You need to be careful about slinging insults around.
I completely agree with your and thank your for your post! Calling me an apostate or apikorus because I can see and judge, is a sign that Muman simply did not have a valid argument.
One more thing I may add on the subject is that I suspect that one of the greatest tragic outcome of the revolt was that mostly weakling genome of the Jewish nation survived. The warrior genotype of our people, that of fearsome heroes who fought alongside Joshua, king David, Bar Kochba, rabbi Akiva, has been extinguished for two millenniums and is being reborn now. If Bar Kochba looked at Jews now or hundred years ago, his heart would be incredulously saddened.
-
I completely agree with your and thank your for your post! Calling me an apostate or apikorus because I can see and judge, is a sign that Muman simply did not have a valid argument.
One more thing I may add on the subject is that I suspect that one of the greatest tragic outcome of the revolt was that mostly weakling genome of the Jewish nation survived. The warrior genotype of our people, that of fearsome heroes who fought alongside Joshua, king David, Bar Kochba, rabbi Akiva, has been extinguished for two millenniums and is being reborn now. If Bar Kochba looked at Jews now or hundred years ago, his heart would be incredulously saddened.
Uhh... My point is not invalid... You just reject the Talmud... And by doing so you place yourself in the category of rejecting the Torah. If you want to continue to say you know better than the sages of the Talmud then this places you outside normative Jewish belief. I am not trying to have a problem with you Manch but I am trying to get you to understand that the Talmud is not something you just agree with or don't agree with.... While the other 'branches' of Judaism don't hold the Talmud as dearly as the Orthodox do it is still a part of Reform and Conservative Judaism.
-
One more thing I may add on the subject is that I suspect that one of the greatest tragic outcome of the revolt was that mostly weakling genome of the Jewish nation survived.
That's uncalled for and insulting to all of the Jewish people now. Many people were enslaved that's a fact, also their were many converts after the revolt who joined because they saw the greatness of the Jewish nation especially from it.
We don't look at "genes" but culture. Our culture and law is the Torah. The weaklings are those who break it and don't follow it (each on his/her own level)- that's including national issues as well.
-
That's uncalled for and insulting to all of the Jewish people now. Many people were enslaved that's a fact, also their were many converts after the revolt who joined because they saw the greatness of the Jewish nation especially from it.
We don't look at "genes" but culture. Our culture and law is the Torah. The weaklings are those who break it and don't follow it (each on his/her own level)- that's including national issues as well.
I agree... Hashem has promised the Jewish people redemption... As Chaim explained in the Ask JTF last night it will come one way or the other, whether we deserve it or not.... What happened during the Revolt was exactly what was needed to bring about the future redemption...
-
Uhh... My point is not invalid... You just reject the Talmud... And by doing so you place yourself in the category of rejecting the Torah. If you want to continue to say you know better than the sages of the Talmud then this places you outside normative Jewish belief. I am not trying to have a problem with you Manch but I am trying to get you to understand that the Talmud is not something you just agree with or don't agree with.... While the other 'branches' of Judaism don't hold the Talmud as dearly as the Orthodox do it is still a part of Reform and Conservative Judaism.
the Talmudh is great, but it was/is censored. Both from the inside (Rabbis) and from outside (gentile printers). Their was definitely a need to hide anti-Roman sentiment or else the wars and uprisings would continue and at the time it was tragic (after the Bar Kochba revolt, their was a need to stop all violence towards Rome, since it wasn't working and we wouldn't have won at that time). The strategy was to wait it out, eventually they (Rome) would perish and the Jewish nation would and did survive. Tragically it took nearly 2,000 years but still we are here and the "great Roman empire" is crumbled and gone.
-
the Talmudh is great, but it was/is censored. Both from the inside (Rabbis) and from outside (gentile printers). Their was definitely a need to hide anti-Roman sentiment or else the wars and uprisings would continue and at the time it was tragic (after the Bar Kochba revolt, their was a need to stop all violence towards Rome, since it wasn't working and we wouldn't have won at that time). The strategy was to wait it out, eventually they (Rome) would perish and the Jewish nation would and did survive. Tragically it took nearly 2,000 years but still we are here and the "great Roman empire" is crumbled and gone.
Yes, and the Rabbis of the Talmud related what was needed by future generations to learn in order to not repeat the mistakes of the past.
We just need to study it and learn the lessons... Sometimes we learn, and sometimes we don't learn...
-
As I said before there is no problem considering Bar Kochba a 'hero. He sure was a mighty warrior and he appeared to have what it took to be the Moshiach.... I hold him in high esteem. But I also think that we must remember the shortcomings in order to prevent the same thing from happening in the future. We need to have leaders who are mighty and purely righteous... The intentions must be for Hashems sake and not to make a name for oneself...
And Manch... I dont disagree that the Jewish people had their failings also... But leaders of the Jewish people are judged according to a stricter standard than a normal Jew...
And I also would like to make it clear that my calling you 'apikoris' is just my opinion. I have no malace towards you.. My intention is to change your opinion to understand what the Talmud is trying to say concerning the subject.
-
And I also would like to make it clear that my calling you 'apikoris' is just my opinion. I have no malace towards you.. My intention is to change your opinion to understand what the Talmud is trying to say concerning the subject.
:laugh: this is one of those, no offense but.....
In fact this is the topic I read today at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/with-respect-youre-kofer.html
- About changing someone Else's opinion, do that by logic and debate. NOT name calling and threats. I know that some will react to the threats of others, but overall it is disastrous and not intellectually honest. I have seen this first hand before and I simply tell the other person name calling me that they can't prove what they want to soo they resort to "you'll burn in hell" tactics that aren't even Jewish in origin.
-
:laugh: this is one of those, no offense but.....
In fact this is the topic I read today at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/with-respect-youre-kofer.html
- About changing someone Else's opinion, do that by logic and debate. NOT name calling and threats. I know that some will react to the threats of others, but overall it is disastrous and not intellectually honest. I have seen this first hand before and I simply tell the other person name calling me that they can't prove what they want to soo they resort to "you'll burn in hell" tactics that aren't even Jewish in origin.
Alright already... I was not 'treatening' or meaning to 'intimidate' or any such things. Look at what I said concerning learning from the sages of the Talmud.
-
Alright already... I was not 'treatening' or meaning to 'intimidate' or any such things. Look at what I said concerning learning from the sages of the Talmud.
Okay. Anyway I think both you and Manch are not getting something (in my opinion). Both of you think that what the Talmudh says in this subject is exactly what the Rabbis who were discussing this subject actually felt and did. Also don't forget many people today choose what they want in teaching various things especially in this regard. For example many people today focus mainly on the issue of "Sinat Hinam". Their ideology draws them to this, and the problem is when its only this that they are considering and not the many other sayings of the Talmudh and the sages. (Check for example what the Rambam says in this regard or what Reish Lakish says to Rav Bar Bar Channa on the same page) Soo what becomes then is that this small statement becomes the official "what the Talmudh says" and if you reject it then you are rejecting the Talmudh, and if you accept it then you are accepting the Talmudh. The problem is what happened to the other statements? What happened to the other reasons given? Perhaps seeing them all and together brings the bigger picture and not just "Sinat Hinam"- therefore lets learn Hilhot Lashon Hara and the redemption will come. (as is espoused by some today)
-
Also another very important issue is the fact that the Talmudh was/ and even had to be censored and one needs to see and know the circumstances it was written at, and then you will better understand why it was written in such a way. (NOT that those Rabbis were some sort of weaklings as Manch was suggesting G-D forbid).
It was written in the Galuth after the revolts. Some things needed to be said the way they were because at that exact time the correct (or perceived correct) policy was to wait it out. Revolting against Rome was fatal. We had many losses (we killed many Romans, but also had great calamity). Many orphans/widows, many Jewish people sold into slavery. Revolting again was not an option/practical.
Addressing Rome directly could have meant certain death and slaughter of men, women and children. Some things needed/ were hidden. Sometimes buried within different texts as well.
Understanding all of this (and this is a part of it), should show how and why things are written the way they are, and also why some in today's generation say and do what they do. ALSO why sometimes understanding the historical circumstances of then tells us why what is said is said/ written, and why and what needs to be chosen in different situations as well. For example today besides perhaps bringing moral support against having Sinat Hinam/ talking lashon hara the "other" important aspects and teachings need to get out to the Jewish masses, and the policy needs to change. NOT because the sages were wrong, G-D forbid. In fact the opposite if they had been in our situation they would have the option to do otherwise and in my opinion they would (as happened at the beginning of the revolts, during Hannukah, Purim and the days of the Prophets and Judges).
-
Uhh... My point is not invalid... You just reject the Talmud...
No, I don't believe there was a rejection of the Talmud in this thread. I think you are jumping to conclusions and extrapolating to something about Manch which isn't true. Having a different opinion about a particular issue (especially a subjective one like an opinion about a Jewish historical figure) is NOT a rejection of the Talmud or denial of the Talmud's authority! I tried to explain this in my previous post where I explained that calling him an apikorus was wrong, did you read it?
-
:laugh: this is one of those, no offense but.....
In fact this is the topic I read today at http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/11/with-respect-youre-kofer.html
haha, great point - I happened to just read that post at the rationalistjudaism site yesterday, and it's exactly what happened here!
Muman, you say that calling him an apikorus is "your opinion" but the parameters for what defines an apikorus is not a matter of opinion, and nothing he did here fits those parameters. So that would make your opinion an incorrect one (or based on an incorrect premise). So not only is it insulting, (saying you don't have malice while calling someone an apikorus does not make it no longer insulting), it is also inaccurate.
-
Also another very important issue is the fact that the Talmudh was/ and even had to be censored and one needs to see and know the circumstances it was written at, and then you will better understand why it was written in such a way. (NOT that those Rabbis were some sort of weaklings as Manch was suggesting G-D forbid).
It was written in the Galuth after the revolts. Some things needed to be said the way they were because at that exact time the correct (or perceived correct) policy was to wait it out. Revolting against Rome was fatal. We had many losses (we killed many Romans, but also had great calamity). Many orphans/widows, many Jewish people sold into slavery. Revolting again was not an option/practical.
Not to mention, at this point the Jewish cultural milieu in Babylonia was not at all military-based and if there was no chance of conquest in the times shortly after Bar Kochva, there was even less than no chance of conquest taking place by a band of Babylon Jews marching their way to Eretz Yisrael with no training and no abilities. Bavel Jewish culture was certainly not Spartan, and that's part of the very nature of galut. Similarly, the persian overlords ruling in Bavel had become quite oppressive over time, and rebelling against them even just to get them off the Jews' backs and get some basic freedoms in Bavel would also have been disastrous. So the redactors (for Talmud Bavli, Ravina and Rav Ashi and then the saboraim and gaonim who followed them, all scholars of Bavel) had this in mind also when composing the text.
-
Yekutiel Guzofsky!
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/275098_1231438014_1668448882_n.jpg)
-
Yekutiel Guzofsky!
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/275098_1231438014_1668448882_n.jpg)
Well he sure doesn't look like Bar Kosiba
-
Yekutiel Guzofsky!
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/275098_1231438014_1668448882_n.jpg)
Are you joking?