My First House Checklist

so be it! Come what may

so be it!

Lately, my professional horizons and my family landscape by large clouds darken threats, which seem to announce a devastating storm on my life and my family. Anonymous calls on my laptop, some utterances through the streets by police and other people close to the local mafia, the testimony and report of inmates sharing the same cell with the former head of investigation, the mayor Cap-Haitien who declares openly and bluntly in a television show that there is absolutely no police soaked in the kidnapping and should not take seriously those who advance such a claim are ... of warning signs that, far from scaring me, lead me thinking about my future and my commitment to strengthen citizen in this country that I am not ready to leave for the benefit of bastards. Admittedly, I have more than twenty years. At thirty six years, I am a magistrate, I am a father, a husband. My mother, my wife and my two year old daughter are still in need of my presence and my protection. Many people ask me to stop, but without being stubborn, and at the risk of being inconsistent with my conception of justice and my belief of man, I can not give up, especially not halfway. It would be too loose for me and it does not look like me. This fight is not only mine, there is a whole ideal behind me. A whole generation is looking at me. I fight for change, for the people, for the nation. What is more beautiful to fall for a noble cause! In the last anonymous call that I received, my partner, before I hang up, suggested to me bluntly that I will not have the chance to Gassant. Well, so be it! No one dies before his time. It is written, if one knows the future, we can change it. Myself, I say this for posterity and to history if it is in the treatment of kidnapping cases involving police officers that I deliver my last battle if this is where my mission is to end is that my time on earth has been written in advance and I mean no change. So be it!

Special thanks to my brother Gerard Fortune, Judge Willy Lubin, Jocelyne Elias, Serge H. Moise, François Joseph Baptiste, Caroline Benedict, Mr. Rony Joseph Mickély Mr. Bolivar and Mr. Jean-Louis Aly for their sympathy and their unwavering support.

Heidi FORTUNE
Magistrate, Magistrate
Cap-Haitien, Haiti
This

August 26, 2008 Read more ...

Streeming South Park On Mobile

Come what may I

investigated under lightning, rain, winds, mixing
me then in the storm and the floods, I drilled
mysteries and received threats
In the name of justice ... in the name of the whole race.

I decide according to law and my conscience,
Without any common measure, and without allegiance
matter what the uncertain term of my days, I will die
Thus, as time continues its course.

Until this year, all applications will be treated
not my motivation and cowardice
Whatever name they also am named,
I will stay, against all odds, great man.

I hear the bugle and the merry cymbals,
I imagine the beautiful words and the headstone,
I feel it, a chaste love will soon die,
What harmony! That's enough for who should die.

True friends? That they will shed tears,
From the City? What will hear cries of,
Everything is born, everything goes at the end of his fate unknown,
Everything wears out, everything perishes, except what is unknown.

Remove someone's life does not grow, is
extinguish the fire which you want to shine,
is lowering itself under the top where you go, It
sculpt his statue with a block of shame.

I have fought the good fight without making any noise,
Though it drew me in big trouble,
The timing of the break out is still far
As long as the horde of villains is in my corner.

Risking my life, I vowed to fight,
To continue the bad without getting tired,
But if I disappear one morning
Without fear, without reproach, I will face my fate.


Heidi FORTUNE
Magistrate, Magistrate
Cap-Haitien, Haiti
This

August 23, 2008 Read more ...

Describing Big Breasts

Eating Well (hide) in Tel Aviv

Well, since it's summer and that many French people will gather in Tel Aviv, here's a glimpse of nice places where you can eat well and kosher. Obviously, this is only partial and subjective overview of what exists in this town oh so alive, but:

- it will give you plenty to eat for your few weeks off
- I tested everything in July so it's fresh

;-) Let's go.

To eat galore

For those who dream of eating fast food hamburger, Chinese, pizza, etc. ... nothing better than shopping malls, the famous "Kanion.
In Tel Aviv, two essential contacts: Dizengoff Center in downtown and Kanion Azrieli, a little eccentric, located in the famous round towers and triangular.
There, in the same space, it's your choice: Pizza Sbarro in Double Whopper at Burger King , Chinese Fried fish or miso soup, shwarma and Lafa galore, Frozen yogurt, etc., etc. ...
short, not great food, but still worth taking. Attention, contrary to popular belief, all the stands do not have a Teouda (certificate of supervision). The Azrieli McDonald's example is not kosher (Burger King, however the east).

For those who want to sit longer and who are truly hungry, there is the option Papagayo. Still located in the Azrieli Kanion, Papagayo is a restaurant where the original for a little less than 30 €, it is possible to eat at will several kinds of meat with accompaniments correspondents. You have to pay extra drinks and desserts but for those who have stomach gurgling, it's still an excellent deal.

To eat fish

Here, I have a very good place: Derby Bar. Initially, it is a string already known in Israel for his two restaurants, but that was not kosher. The third, located in the business district around Azrieli has a well Teouda while peaking in terms of scope, service and value for money.

The place is pretty design and is very comfortable. A number of large tables well isolated from the rest of tables used to spend a great evenings. The service is very good and cooking fish is particularly sumptuous. For French, the final score is really almost ridiculous.

Also note card independent Japanese (sushi, maki, temaki, etc. ...). Less obviously good at Japanese restaurant at the Hilton Tel Aviv, but much cheaper.

Derby Bar: 96 Yigal Alon Street, Tel Aviv (note the restaurant is located in a pedestrian walkway where the taxi can not drop you off).

To eat meat:

Here there are plenty to choose from. First, an easy trick: Almost all hotels of the seaside house in general gourmet restaurants. The Hilton

the Dan the David Intercontinental offer places with a high class cuisine made with fresh ingredients and excellent quality. Of course, the addition follows. Hint: the restaurant of the Crowne Plaza is known for the quality of its meat: tender, well cooked for a price that is extremely reasonable.

If you want a restaurant outside the hotel, you can always try Tzel Hayam which is the only kosher meat restaurant on Tayelet, but that looks a bit too much like a tourist trap when the month of August is looming. The wait may also discourage some.

I would recommend an address that is now fairly well known but that does not demerit: Meatos . As its name suggests, this is a restaurant with specialties of meat (beef medallions, foie gras burger with slice of foie gras, lamb, etc ...) in a beautiful setting (you can also dinner on the terrace) and fine service. The dishes are really good, the meat is excellent, accompaniments and desserts quite refined. The prices are fair (between 70 and 140 SHEQEL SIGN dish).

Meatos: 2 rehov Weisman, Tel Aviv

Halav To eat:

There, I said a special address. She rarely appears in guidebooks, but I never fail to go there whenever I'm on Tel Aviv. It is Hungarian Blintzes. As its name suggests, this restaurant offers Blintzes salty and sweet. To the ignorant This beautiful specialty Hungarian Blintzes are the kinds of pancakes with melted cheese and a choice of spinach, eggplant, grapes, dry banana, etc. ....

is excellent, prices are riquiqui, the server is adorable and the frame is reminiscent of a canteen Communist 60s. One would not like that, but it has charm.

Hungarian Blintzes: 35 rehov Yirmiahou, Tel Aviv

That, of course, this list is imperfect and subjective, but feel free to complete!

Student Kissing Teacher

Discussion Orthodox - Conservatives


For those who have not yet seen what the Web 2.0, here is a quite interesting example that highlights the value of blogs. In the age of Web 1.0, when an article was written , anyone could read it to comment on his next door neighbor, but it went no further. with Web 2.0, everything changes with the interactivity that provide new tools 2.0 whose blogs are among the principal representatives. When I wrote an article on the book by Marc Shapiro on the relationship of Saul Liberman with orthodoxy (from an Orthodox family, he joined the training seminar rabbinic movement co nservative while maintaining a personal practice of Judaism is very close to orthodoxy) I had the pleasure of seeing appear very interesting comments from the two rabbis representing the current Masorti (Conservative) in France, and gentlemen Yeshaya Dalsace Ryvon Krygier. An exchange took place then in the pages of comments. Although my side I do not pretend to have a perfectly structured discourse on these issues, it seems to me that the dialogue is fruitful enough for you share on independent tickets. As you see, it is I who speaks last, but the subject is not closed and gentlemen Dalsace Krygier and can of course continue, the advantage with the Web is that you can change / extend a article very easily! Happy reading!

Yeshaya Dalsace:

I discover your e Blog with many inter and. Lieberman is not a unique case. Other scholars from the Orthodox world came to "grow" the Masorti movement. This was the case of Schechter discoverer of the Geniza of Cairo, Louis Ginzberg , renowned Talmudic scholar and leading expert in the Jerusalem Talmud, of escendant the Gaon; of Abraham Heschel heir to a Hasidic court; of Da vid Weiss Satmar Hasid Halivni and Hilouy (genital) in the Talmud ... There e many other examples. I think the reason why these characters s'orientèrent to the Masorti movement but they may have strained relations with him on some points, it they found what they wanted: a place to live an authentic Judaism while pushing the intellectual inquiry at the highest level and without obstacles. None of these characters did not return to orthodoxy in the proper sense, including Weiss Halivni who created a very small movement Masorti Conservative opposition to women rabbis, in fact he later admitted in mid word that this change was necessary .

Lieberman's example shows one thing: the "rupture" with the Orthodox world happens when you put one foot in the opening. Liebermann was not pushed for his ideas, or its work extremely interesting, but by what he had questioned the hierarchy is to think freely. The "change" does not come from the excess of innovative ideas Olympi nt as Masorti (position of women and other) but the refusal to retreat into an ideological position that is the orthodoxy. Therefore, it seems that every Jewish intellectual of a certain size that would come from the ranks of orthodoxy will necessarily lead to breaking point unless you know to protect themselves with the utmost prudence (which is no a priori is not very "intellectual").
The
example of Soloveitchik shows a tension without breaking and yet at the limit, against several of his students will break this (eg Hartman). Liebermann's work is a remarkable but difficult to access. Her position on women rabbis is it seems more generational than anything else. As one joke: "What differentiates a Masorti an Orthodox? 50. "

I would now criticize insertion from you: "The Orthodox are concerned, and unfortunately after them right, that conservative, losing the link with the rabbinic tradition, are inclined to make decisions that have nothing to do with the Jewish tradition . "

is going a bit hasty and badly know that Masorti the middle of af firm a loss of connection with the rabbinic tradition. This is completely untrue and unproven. Decisions, even if they are questionable and indeed sometimes challenged are inside the movement itself (though many decisions Orthodox are also) have to do with Jewish tradition and notamm ent tradition of ethics and morality without which Judaism loses all meaning. Conversely, we may well consider that the inability to confront problems and their solutions (agunot, place of women, homosexuality ...) has nothing to do with the Jewish tradition which was never based on positions unfairly trenches. Things are a little more complex and it seems inevitable that the Jewish world, whatever their ideological tendencies that some issues society will become increasingly unavoidable whether we like it or not.

Thanks for your blog that I put on the website link Massorti.com Yeshaya Dalsace (Rabbi and webmaster Massorti.Com)

The Jewish World:

M . Rabbi Dalsace Firstly, welcome to my blog, it's always with great pleasure that I welcome the comments of the quality of one vo us we have offered.

On the merits, I do not completely share your assessment: "intellectual openness" is the criterion decisive break between the world and the world othodoxe Masorti. That, I think, to ignore two phenomena.

Prime phenomenon: There is a part of many prominent members of the Orthodox world for whom the intellectual and academic world was all but unknown and yet maintained an ideological and orthodox practices. This is certainly the case of Rabbi Soloveitchik but also Yeshayaou Leibowitz (Professor of Chemistry and Neurobiology), or Rav Hutner . In France, Manitou was obviously taking this head tradition, like Levinas whose attachment to the ritual and the words of the wise is known. Even in the world called "ultra-Orthodox," personalities like Rabbi Wolber, who studied in Berlin in his youth or Rav Gedaliah Nadel , student Hazon Ish have never had the any problem to exploit each resource worldly sciences, regardless of "what people will say they" sometimes actually weighing in some of these environments. On another note, Benny Levy course has never made a clean sweep of Plato, he has always taken very seriously. His master Hierosolymites, the Rav Moshe Shapira is married to a professor of psychology at the University. Closer to home, Professor Claude Riveline , distinguished professor at the School of Mines and student Manitou never compromise in his writings as in his lectures on an orthodox approach of the Torah. We can obviously say the same thing Rabbi Bernheim .

Second problem: all these people as different and distant they may be of the Satmar Rebbe to Rav Kook via Lubavitcher Rebbe and Leibowitz, share a faith common which differentiate them radically from the Masorti. C ' is there that occurs the epistemological break in my opinion: the Orthodox are committed to comply with an unbroken tradition from Sinai and can not afford to ignore the decisions made by previous decision. Do not ignore does not say Amen to all their decisions and be unable to oppose it. You know that the Gaon of Vilna or the Hafetz Haim have sometimes made decisions halakhic up against the Shulchan Aruch.
But these decisions were not taken automatically disqualifying the former masters for sociological reasons as can Masorti rabbis. Tackle interpretation sociological or historical teachings of the Talmud is often inhibitory. It is indeed possible for these texts teach us a lesson on issues still valid today: they were disqualified from office by an example, "the patriarchal society in force in the Middle East at that time". As we recall Levinas, biblical criticism and more general academic work, despite their obvious interest, can not replace the study of the "eternal truth of texts. Concept that, for academics, has no raison d'etre.

On the role of women for example, I'm not sure that the main challenge of our time is to ensure women's access to the liturgy. It is rather to find in our texts the fundamental principles that allow us to create a fertile relationship between Man and Woman in a society where the tendency is rather uniform, even confusing the concept fundamentally opposed to the Jewish tradition. However, if the usual fate of controversial and q hether trying to get onto the field just intellectual, the split between Orthodox and Masorti is lucidly analyzed by the work of each camp on the ontology Halakha.
I remember especially a discussion with Rabbi Ryvon Krigier in which it acknowledged that its view of the Halakha was entirely inconsistent with that proposed by Rabbi Soloveitchik in his "Ich HaHalakha" . Same with Leibowitz. This did not detract from his great respect inspired thinkers Ryvon Krigier, as he confirmed to me, but this still shows that beyond a "close ideological and sociological" of Orthodoxy which I do not question the existence, there are substantive differences go deeper. But as you rightly said, that does not stop the dialogue! Thanks again for your response.

Yeshaya Dalsace:

Dear Mr. I come back months later to visit your blog which I really like the dress and the intelligence of the subject. I would therefore resume our conversation, and especially to respond late. But I push it further if you agree and integrate it as a debate site Massorti.Com to better understand the point of break between Orthodox and Masorti. It is rare to find someone of quality in which one feels a genuine intellectual inquiry, sincere and without bias. I will not deny that I miss it and that such dialogue would be helpful for gran of the public. You decide.

In the meantime, here's my response to yours above. I think it's a mistake to put in the same system and Masorti orthodoxy. There is a vast difference, not so much on form than substance. This discrepancy is due to a different conception of a theological perspective. It is based mainly on knowledge. That is to say that access to modern knowledge has pushed Masorti rabbis to rethink some problems while trying to maintain traditional Jewish law and rituals. What I absolutely refuse to do the Orthodox. It seems to me that the real difference is there.
Should I incorporate my knowledge or not contemporary to my ancestral system?
Should I instead keep me from that to preserve the ancestral system that could be challenged, partially or deeper ? is absolutely certain that many Orthodox have a quality university education (among Haredim are a tiny minority). However most of the examples you cite are not true Orthodox. Levinas, Manitou, Leibovitch but orthopraxy. The Rav Kook and Lubavitcher rabbi had no knowledge of my academic training, which does not detract from their genius. Levinas was not a man of Halacha and has very little written on it. Manitou gave his blessing to several of his students to close to study in the seminar Masorti (including Krygier), I think he was extremely conscious of the need to adapt to the new situation. Leibovitch has clearly advocated a comprehensive reassessment of the status of women in the Halakha.

You say "The Orthodox are committed to respect a tradition unbroken since the Sinai and can not afford to ignore the decisions made by previous decision. "It seems obvious the Masorti well. Thereupon there is no difference. The Masorti were created by Zekharia Frankel to face the danger of rupture in history that he felt the Reformers of his time. The idea of historical continuity of Judaism from the Sinai is a pillar of thought and theology Masorti and has been widely developed in the writings of great thinkers of the Masorti Movement (Frankel, Schechter, Heschel ...). I think the difference is not here. The Masorti will introduce into their thinking halakhic a historical and philosophical (méthahalakhique) they will take heed. This does not mean they policy makers are ignoring the past, but they always call in context. For them, the Halakha represents a dynamic system that is subject to the forces of history. So be with, accompany the movement of history and do not deny it. It is clear that for a Masorti, aspects of Jewish law are untenable today, even though they were in the past, and must be countered by all means: submission of the woman or her oppression, status of mamzer, compared to non-Jews, homosexuals ... Other aspects of the Halakha must become more realistic, conviction of the inadequacy between sociological reality and the position of Jewish Batei contemporary din ... (especially on the issue of conversions). So the contrary, it seems to me that Orthodox refuse to consider history. He may be known, but it has no influence on his theology. I believe that herein lies the real difference. This issue of the relationship to history is extremely complex and has many implications. She deserves a real debate of substance. In the case of Lieberman, the real issue is here. It took account of history is why it was Masorti. His personal attitude in relation to this or that particular item (such as the status of women) does not alter the fundamental problem. He obviously wanted to avoid a breach with the Orthodox. other hand, the non-recognition by some of its status as Orthodox rabbi, in my opinion is the same problem, for them, a rabbi who takes account of history is no longer a rabbi. This issue of the relationship to history seems fundamental.

From my point of view, do not take into account is the intellectual ineptitude, so I'm not orthodox. It seems that for many Orthodox, quite aware of the historical research, there is a fear of bringing the wolf in sheep. Begin to take account of history could put the whole system down. The Masorti were well aware of the difficulty and seek to pacify the matter, put together the wolf with the lamb, that is to say make compatible the idea of tradition and loyalty to this tradition, with the adaptation to new conditions led by modernity. It is a quasi-messianic utopia! The real question is whether it works or not.

Position Masorti has the merit of being honest. She has a big disadvantage to request a subtle effort to ordinary people to continue to practice and believe. Therefore, for the mass of members of the Masorti movement, such problems do not arise, they seek a Jewish facility. The orthodox position is more effective for the general public. It is less subtle and seeks to provide more answers than questions. For many secular Jews, the Orthodox rabbi is a reassuring image of the past. In the eyes of people like me, Orthodoxy has a huge drawback, it is intellectually difficult to defend. I can not personally believe that God is racist or misogynist. I can not believe in the literal truth of the text. I find it intellectually impossible not to contextualize, so relative, my own system of beliefs and practices. Do not do this would be a lie and would therefore unfit my Judaism. That is why I find it absolutely impossible to be orthodox. This has absolutely nothing to do with the degree of daily practice, I can be extremely "froum" on my own discipline. It seems to me that the problem was the same Rabbi Shaul Lieberman. I do not think not for a moment, a man of his quality has remained where it was without being whole with what he did, while posing some questions. Now I think the reality is much more complex.

It seems to me that there are quantities of crypto Masorti. That is to say that Orthodox officials in the background no longer believe in the orthodoxy while retaining a deep affection for it because it is a reassuring image of the past. This situation is not new, long ago, one can observe Maskilim nistarim, the world's most traditional. The real question is whether we draw practical conclusions from this Askale or not. I think the break is there. When to Soloveitchik, admirable thinker that I teach each Kippur afternoon in my community, it has this defect Orthodox do not want to look at problems in the face. In Hahalakha Ish, he argues that adhere strictly to the Orthodox Halacha is to reach the highest level of morality. But this is partly true and some sougiot are indefensible in terms of universal morality. He knew very well, but refused to address in order to defend his thesis. I prefer the position Masorti that is to say, is indefensible and I'm not trying to defend it because it corresponds to a certain mentality or a speech that is part of the history of my people, but I do not accept for myself because I can just take our history without apology necessary. That seems more clear and intellectually right. It's a bit what was said at the time of Maimonides sacrifices. not easy to know who really right in his system. It seems clear that we must assume this to have a future. In my eyes any ideological tension removes the credibility of its author.
All these problems are not simple and we are small to wear them. It remains that the survival of Judaism and speech Sinai requires of us. Hard happiness of being Jewish .... Bravo again for your blog

Yeshaya Dalsace Webmaster Massorti.com


Ryvon Krygier

I discovered with great interest this blog, to congratulate the author that I know but that seems wish to remain anonymous, I respect that. This blog is not only a high standard, it opens a dialogue and debate on the margins of institutions, and thereby to alone deserves all praise. Conflicts do arise they not much of what one believes "the other" said and done?

I respond briefly to the two following extracts relating to the gap appears to have widened between the Orthodox and Conservative (Masorti).

The Blogger: The Orthodox fear, and sadly after them right, that conservative, losing the link with the rabbinic tradition, are inclined to make decisions that have nothing to do with Jewish tradition. The evolution of this movement, as Shapiro points out in conclusion of this book (Ordination of women, legitimizing homosexuality, etc..) And that Lieberman himself was reprehensible justified to keep away from anyone who might defend this view of Judaism. Where certain positions to prevent any relationship with Lieberman, and to use his work.

Shapiro:
"Recent decades Orthodoxy Have Seen Move to the right, just as Conservative Judaism has Moved to The Left. Conservative Judaism has Embraced halakhic year as absolute egalitarianism, and On the Verge of Seems a major shift in The direction of legitimizing Homosexuality. Considering the Way The Two Movements look today, it is hard for many to imagine that there was a time when the divisions were not so stark, when one's denominational affiliation did not necessary place one in direct ideological conflict with members of other denomination. There was a time when great talmidei hakhamim of both denominations could be intellectual comrades, and outstanding minds from the Orthodox world could join their Conservatives colleagues in teaching Torah. It is a lost world of American Judaism."

Cette présentation des choses fait l’impasse sur un certain nombre de données incontournables. Notamment quand il est dit que des décisions ont été prises chez les conservative qui n’ont plus rien à voir avec la tradition juive, ou lorsqu’est implicitly justified the setting aside of Lieberman, and consequently the attempt by hard-line orthodoxy anathematizing of the conservative movement. There were always reactions anathematizing in religious debates, within the Jewish people and the outside world: hundreds of thousands of people murdered, tortured or forcibly converted deprived of freedom of conscience. The Catholic Church, as we know, has used a lot this formidable weapon in its history as towards Jews and towards its "heretics and schismatics" in it. Even if remaining traces of inquisitorial stance, the situation has changed. Today the Catholic Church is far more advanced in dialogue with the Orthodox (Christian), Anglicans and Protestants than is the orthodox Jewish, and that's saying something.

should not forget that in Judaism, in the past, the greatest figures today praised by the orthodox, such as Maimonides, Moses Haim Luzatto, the Baal Shem Tov were banned by the rabbis various community institutions, sometimes with very serious consequences! Found in the Talmud strong subject to this type of process (although there are also about opposites).
Here is an example to ponder: Rabban Gamliel, head of the Sanhedrin (supreme political and legal) at the time of Yavneh (Palestine, 100-135) demonstrates that all authoritarian measures he could take, including the excommunication of the great sage Rabbi Eliezer, had one goal: "che lo-be-yarbou mahlokot Israel that divisions do not multiply within the people of Israel" (Baba Metsia 59b). Very noble intent but nonetheless condemned by God. It is not cleared before God the multiple abuses of authority have earned him his dismissal, and terrible cataclysms throughout Israel. Is that the unification effort, commendable as it was, is facing resistance and abuses that threaten the productive dynamic of the controversy and stifle plurivocity of the Torah. If Saul Lieberman should be disregarded, that rate should be added to the blacklist Abraham Yehoshua Heschel, Louis Ginzberg, Louis Jacobs and many other figures, all Conservative / Masorti, sometimes less known but no less distinguished by both their scholarship in various fields, their wisdom as their piety. Not to mention the millions of Jews, yes millions! Currently affiliated with Reform or Conservative movement. Blaming everything
schismatic world is unfair and just causes division. The "split" understood by the Jewish Inquisition, that is to say, in fact, the divorce with the design and Orthodox practice, is primarily the result of secularization, the secularization of the dispute brought by motion lights on the whole society. Yet the modernist religious movements do not cause this crisis but to varying degrees, attempts to resolve it!
How? Balancing the gains of progress (gender equality, abolition of corporal punishment and coercion religious, scientific consideration of the evolution and history of religious ideas and practices, etc..) with the religious tradition, not by rejecting it as did others. The crisis crosses the public as non-practicing, liberal, Masorti and Orthodox. And the public is made of people trying to one degree or another good reason to be linked to religion, not people who fight it. The anathema, qualification is a slanderous accusation of heresy not only humiliating but very serious because it can call up the murder, for those who know the ancient rabbinic sources. Some ancient sources and modern are in fact not much more tender towards those who have consciously rejected tradition, atheism and by challenging the validity of adherence. But for political reasons, recovery and subjugation of the target audience that is now a critical mass of Jewish people, a sort of pseudo-amnesty amnesia reign. This is not the place to develop these aspects very painful and dangerous for the future of the Jewish people, but just mention the following.

There is currently a modern orthodoxy that it is unfortunately not mentioned in this debate. Or this one, while defending bitterly his positions, has never shunned the Masorti movement, nor the reformists. Why? Because it is not their style! They came into modernity and therefore try to convince rather than to conquer, to persuade rather than impose. These modern orthodox account and counted in their ranks very high figures like Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits who gave a very brilliant writings. I do not deny that there are now a number of discrepancies with some orthodoxy on burning issues of modernity: the status of women in religion (the right to sing in public, except as whole, to teach Drach, unequal treatment of marriage), excluded (homosexuals, mamzers, agounot, candidates for conversions), the care of children of mixed marriages and converts, etc.. But so far there in the U.S. and Israel of major figures and institutions of modern Orthodox Judaism (such as Hartmann or Pardes Institute in Jerusalem) who not only establish relations of good understanding and partnership with the Masorti movement but express very similar views on all the issues! Go and read their publications or visit the community of Shira Hadasha ("Modern Orthodox ") Of Jerusalem. Go look at the responsibility and positions such as those of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, David Hartmann on the status of women! Yeshaya Leibovits too, although it is not a rabbi.

There are many more similarities than differences between the modern Orthodox and Masorti on all religious topics! course, as Shapiro rightly says, there was a radicalization increased cleavage. It is true that for a certain hand, orthodoxy had hardened in one direction, and movement conservative / Masorti in the opposite direction. But this divide is only part of reality because there are many conservative relatives of modern orthodox, and vice versa. Besides, what must prevail is not the convergence of view, even if we can only wish, is the ability to build a civilized dialogue today. This is the great challenge of saving the unity of the Jewish people, with its rich diversity.


The Jewish World

Hello gentlemen Dalsace and Krygier, It is a pleasure to welcome you on this blog, especially for interventions of this quality. I do not answer that today, the time I spend on my blog is unfortunately limited.
interventions rabbis Dalsace Krygier and being different (one on the bottom, the other rather on the shape and perceptions) I will respond separately.
First
about orthodoxy:
- The Lubavitcher Rebbe has a university education. Although it does not correspond to a legend widely popular in Chabad circles claim that he received 7 doctorates at the Sorbonne (sic), the Lubavitcher Rebbe had apparently he studied at the ESTP, the Sorbonne and the University of Berlin. His specialties were, however, focused on science accurate (physics and mathematics with a specialization in mainly electricity).

- Leibowitz indeed proclaimed the need to redefine the role of women in Judaism, but for him it was a question more meta-halakhic qu'halakhique. When asked if he was tempted to pray in a synagogue without Mehitza he could not understand how one could define such a place with the qualifier synagogue "what's the difference between a synagogue where the halakha is not respected and no synagogue at all? " (in Israel and Judaism). Its problems on women is more sociological qu'halakhique. What underlies the position of Leibowitz is that any sociological positions and meta-halakhic should go against a halakha accepted by the entire Jewish people. That these considerations affect the decision process halakhic, yes. This is the position of many Orthodox poskim. But basically give priority to the sociology of the halakha, this is not acceptable for an Orthodox. But I will return later.

- Levinas insists repeatedly in Difficult Freedom, or in his Talmudic readings on the importance of the halakha, the rite and the yoke of mitzvot. It is for him major specificity of Judaism. If he has not written extensively on issues of halachic is simply that it would not feel capable. He says so explicitly in one of his Talmudic readings when it "apologizes" almost no passages that deal primarily aggadic the Talmud. His reluctance stemmed from the fact that he did not have the "intellectual muscle" necessary to achieve it, what was at hand if his master Mr. Chouchani. When one reads such a sentence, we regret not to have long known that mysterious Chouchani.

- To get to the heart of the matter. In your comment, you are using either multiple terms that you think is the break between Masorti and Orthodox. I particularly noted the terms of history, knowledge, morality, universal, etc. ...
These distinct points in my opinion. First, I reject the fact that all Orthodox refuse to take into account the size in their meta-halakhic psakim. It is quite clear, for example when reading the book by Marc Shapiro (which I hope to do a review soon on this blog) about the life of Rabbi Weinberg . The latter, former director of the rabbinical seminary in Berlin is a "pure orthodox", yet he regularly taken into account the sociological dimension in which he lived to state the halakha. It is very clear in his famous justification of its position on the Bat Mitzvah, not least on its famous psak allowing the youth movement Yéchouroun to sing all the boys and girls, or about changing the rules of Shehita in Nazi Germany.
Similarly, the fact that the Hazon Ish considers the secular Jewish Zionists as "Tinok cheNichba" and not as renegades within the meaning of the halakhic term is a major innovation that is based on sociological considerations, as rightly noted by Professor Ravitsky.
At the other extreme, some decisions taken by some purists are the decision makers in terms of greater risk to life that holds Jewish modernity. This does not please me necessarily, but it is undeniable that sociological considerations and meta-halakhic come into play in the process of halakhic decision Orthodox.

- Where the point seems more blocking it on your next sentence: "In the eyes of people like me, Orthodoxy has a huge drawback, it is intellectually difficult to defend. I can not personally believe God be racist or misogynist. I can not believe in the literal truth of the text. I find it intellectually impossible not to contextualize, so relative, my own system of beliefs and practices. Do not do this would be a lie and would therefore unfit my Judaism. "

You seem to think that including the Orthodox refuse to see certain statements in front of the Talmud that I imagine you feel inadequate with universal morality. Consider an example to be concrete. Is it possible to be Mehallel Shabbat to save a non-Jew? "We both know that in practice it is obviously the case. What But in theory, which requires me to save a Jew and a non-Jew on Shabbat does not meet the same intellectual categories and halachic. Given this situation, there are 3 ways of approaching the problem.

- The first is that you advocate: it is considered unacceptable from the standpoint of universal morality that the Talmud does not put on the same theoretical level a Jew and a non-Jew, he s The matter therefore a racist way that I must set aside to preserve a balance between my Judaism and my perception of humanity. We must therefore say that this passage reflects a historical context and he obviously has more meaning today.

- The second way is, as you say, close your eyes and do not address this topic.

- The 3rd track, and that is what my teachers sent me is to consider both that this passage bears a truth but it is also problematic because it hits our common sense. I think this approach the richest. For the Torah, if it is a Torah of life, can not be a Torah of bourgeois life that allows any senior living quietly with his Judaism in harmony with the times. She
also a subversive power, we must shake every time. Read the passages on women saying "women are inferior in point" is obviously not acceptable. But read these passages, arguing that "it is dated and archaic legislation" is not over. What in fact justify that kosher is not archaic? It is only hygienic habits of conservation of ancient times which obviously have more sense from the time the freezer was invented? You think this position is more intellectually honest? I think not. I think if one chooses to approach your and want to be truly consistent, one must totally abandon Judaism. Why indeed still want to refer to an education that almost all references to Talmudic discussions completely impregnated sociology Persian 4th century?

In another context, it seems that this process of contextualization at the extreme is also doomed to fail when considering the great philosophical thinkers. The greatest comments of Plato and the richest are not those who have disqualified her position on women because he lived five centuries before Christ. This are those who have tried to find a philosophical sense and took Plato seriously rather than taking a macho redneck before age. Then left to score a disagreement. Similarly, I do not think consider the sages of the Talmud as a racist or misogynist or a way to take them seriously. Some
souguiot interest me, shock me, m'éclatent face. But the sociological reasons for disqualification is too easy.
my duty to find out what these passages say to me, I steeped in Western culture of the 21st century, as every man is struggling to understand why men the 25th century we regard as imbeciles finished. Part of the work of Michel Foucault from there: how is it that we are amazed by the a priori stupid behavior of the Ancients, in terms of values that are today ours? Or as Thomas Ferenczi in a recent article in the World, Foucault has shown, contrary to what the philosophers of Enlightenment (which Frankel, founder of the Masorti, is an offshoot) that " knowledge does not result the continuous progress of reason, but a system of rules specific time ".
One way to escape this constraint is for me to keep trying to break what we said a revealed truth regardless of the place and time. It what we call the study of Torah and it so that I am orthodox.

One last point I will make the transition to response to Rabbi Krygier. What I dislike the Masorti movement (but obviously more with the liberal movement) is the break he produced with the rest of the Jewish people.
I readily admit that with Ryvon Krygier anathemas have regular rocket through the ages and it's not necessarily new. Indeed, the Baal Shem Tov, the Rambam and others have suffered the wrath of their opponents.
But it seems that there is a radical difference with the problem Masorti / Orthodox vs. Reformed before us: the "mahloket" is not only on theological topics like Hasidism or the rationalism of the Rambam. It covers orthopraxy and practice of mitzvot. Leibowitz As noted, if the opposition Hasidim / Mitnagdim has not degenerated into outright split of Judaism is that Hasidism, despite tensions, never surrendered on respect for the laws of Shulchan Aruch.
Marc Shapiro's book on Rabbi Weinberg is clearly shown: there were radical differences in design between the modern-Orthodox Jews from Germany and Eastern Europe of today we would call The ultra-Orthodox. Yet they still feel part of the same family, in particular because of their perception of the same fixation of the Halakha.
It is my opinion that the break in this is profound, especially as it relates to an ultra-sensitive about what the personal: how to ensure that the Jewish people do not split if the definition of Jewish is not the same in all the movements? A converted Jew in Baghdad by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef is considered a Jew for Rabbi Soloveitchik in New York. How to guarantee the unity of the Jewish people if nobody is in agreement on what constitutes a rabbinic Jew? I heard recently that some liberal communities in the United States, in a desire for equality between men and women do not consider a Jewish man born of a non-Jewish father and a Jewish mother. While that person is Jewish by the Orthodox halakhic (and I imagine the Masorti), it would not be considered as such by those communities. As
demonstrates this very well another work of Professor Shapiro, the anathemas launched to design problems are never really theological bearing threats and in any case have never been able to force all Jews to meet a list of beliefs imposed (even the 13 principles of faith of Maimonides did not succeed).
However, disagreements on praxis, the practical consequences are much more fundamental to Judaism. I want to show two examples.
- No one notices it anymore, but what caused the split between Christians and Jews is not so much belief in Jesus The abolition of mitzvot by Paul of Tarsus in 49 which had a devastating effect.
- More troubling given that we could find some similarities with the current situation, the Karaites were separated from the rest of the Jewish people for issues relating to their refusal to consider the Talmud as a divine law and a perception of halakha very different from that of rabbinic Judaism. A perception largely based on the ability of each individual to interpret the statute in light of personal responsibility. Far from being a small splinter sect, it is estimated that between the ninth and Eleventh century, had entered Karaism many Jewish households (nearly 40% of the world Jewish population at the time according to some historians). It is the struggle of rabbis "Pharisees" as Saadia Gaon which has enabled the reflux of Karaism. All that to say that touching the Halacha is much more sensitive to the Jews than to say we do not believe in the resurrection or reincarnation. And as history has often vindicated as fierce opponents or Saadia Gaon of Vilna Gaon . History has also shown that it is usually ended by a distance progressive dissident communities and it's really all I do not wish for the Jewish people today who, admittedly, did not really need that after the cataclysm that constituted the Holocaust.

As Orthodox, but there is one problem I do not obliterate: how to prevent the ultra-orthodox Bnei Brak becoming the norm for the entire Jewish people, including in France or in Western societies with very different issues than those encountered at the Yeshiva of Poniowicz? The election of the Chief Rabbi Bernheim is an answer.
Diffusion in France the work of the modern-orthodoxy is quite another.
Involvement in structures highlighting a study of the Torah authentic without questioning combined with taboo and open intellectual perspectives is a strong third.

vast program!