Eleven Eleven Tattoos

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, an unclassifiable personality

The Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz is known worldwide for his translated edition of the Babylonian Talmud. First Hebrew (Talmud is mostly in Aramaic), then in English, Russian, English and French of course.

He was in Paris this week to celebrate the release of a new volume translated into French: the Treaty Makoti. Sunday, October 25, he participated in a debate with Jacques Attali moderated by Rabbi Josy Eisenberg .

Jacques Attali who became the new target of fascist-nags of the Jewish Defense League and is now receiving death threats for words with which we may disagree but have partial merit to show that some institutions can not process this problem otherwise than epidermal. And perhaps that should respond more actively to attack a little unworthy of which he is currently the subject.

But this was not the issue. The idea is to consider the future of the Jewish people and Israel. Faced with this huge issue, we find the first touch of mischievous humor that we know from Adin Steinsaltz: "Finally, there are only two places where the Jewish people have problems to solve: in Israel Diaspora!

But it is also recognized audacity dare to speak when the disappearance of the State of Israel "There was in many cases the history of Jewish political independence in the Land of Israel. The kingdoms of Judah and Israel, which have both disappeared. Today the State of Israel is a new form of Jewish political independence. Nobody wants her disappearance. But if that happened, the important thing safeguard the future of the Jewish people. That is what matters and at all times. "

I would call this out-of Leibowitzo Habadnik. Near Leibowitz, which if attached great importance to the existence of the State of Israel did not make a sacred value that should idolize uncritical analysis nor cold. And if you want to save something that is dear to us, it becomes fundamental to imagine that something can disappear one day if we do not create the conditions for its sustainability.

Habadnik (movement of Chabad Lubavitch, Rabbi Steinsaltz which is very close) because it focuses primarily on the existence of the Jewish people and the belief that every Jew has, whatever its level religious practice or tradition of closeness.

On conversion, the output of Attali was less noticeable than on anti-Semitism but it is perhaps more crucial, Attali believes that for the Jewish people so it must reach some critical mass he estimated at 200 million people. One way to do this: mass conversion.

To this, Rabbi Steinsaltz answers in different ways. First a little parable: "When you see a cat, you recognize a cat. If you cut your ears, you still always a cat in front of you. If you cut the legs, and is still always a cat. And so on. But when you are asked to draw a cat, you will not draw not without legs, without ears and without a mustache. For a Jew is the same. You can not ask someone who wants to become a Jew to get rid of all the characteristics that apply to a Jew, even though many "Jews by birth" would be freed "

Then by invoking the history and meets Jacques Attali, who claimed that the conversion conditions were once much less stringent than today. Prior said Rabbi Steinsaltz (say until the 19th century and in this Leibowitz joined it yet), a converted Jew who was returning necessarily in a people distinct from other peoples and accepted de facto take upon himself all the practical life of the Jewish people and especially the mitzvot. This is not the case at all today. The era is different, the conversion conditions necessarily change. Which does not intervened Josy Eisenberg, considering that the movement of stiffening conversions might have pushed the pendulum too strong and that it would be silly to reconsider.

Monday, October 26, the next day, Rabbi Steinsaltz was at the synagogue at Boulogne for the first dinner organized by the newly Association of Friends of Rabbi Steinsaltz . Very nice evening, punctuated by several interventions, including that of Rabbi about the new treaty translated into French, the treaty Makoti.

It should not be mistaken: Despite the obvious opening of Rav Steinsaltz, his interest in many things and its propensity to connect with Judaism on pedagogy, Adin Steinsaltz does not lose sight of the subversive nature of the Talmud and that c is very good news.

A small example: the treaty talks Makota said that such punishments guilty is supposed to cash it. In addition to the fines and pecuniary compensations, the Talmud knows the death penalty (although in practice its implementation is virtually excluded) and flogging.

In criminal law, the Talmud does not know the prison. And Adin Steinsaltz to justify this: "What is prison? That a person does not repeat his crime? But if someone kills his stepmother, he has no reason to start over! At what it becomes a better person? not won since the greatest villains have their main training in prisons in contact with other inmates. batons is certainly faster and more efficient. "

Obviously, this tells a humorous but showing that the study of Talmud does not support any evidence, not even that of denying judicial corporal punishment in the name of a certain "dignity" of man. And remember that more than 30 years after the publication of Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault, who was the founder in this area, places of study of the Talmud are still places where we think about what it means to "punish ". As well as how the prison and more generally the desire to monitor widespread in our modern societies have deprived of liberty not only prisoners but also each of us.

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz is unclassifiable, but after listening to you tell yourself that the two things are truly "live" the future of the Jewish people and the ability of man to be free .

Desmume Roms Soul Silver

The reaction philo Ivan Segre - the beginning of a real debate?

Two books were published in May 2009 editions Lines, signed manually by one author: Ivan Segre.

Both works The reaction philo or treason of the clerks and What do you think of Auschwitz are at complete odds with the positions we thought well established in the French intellectual field on the Zionism, antisemitism, the role of the State of Israel or the Holocaust's place in the history of the West.

Let the moment ; on What do you think of Auschwitz , book I, however, preferred and is of significance may be speculative more essential to our society's reaction philo .

But it is like a stir a debate that has crystallized as the second intifada since September 11. Recall the forces.

Since these two events, anti-Semitic acts were committed on French territory and a form of radical Islam has taken over the hackneyed themes of anti-Semitic propaganda of the last century.

The response of some intellectuals, mostly Jews, had was massive and disseminated through many channels, "community" and national print and broadcast form of discussions and articles. Some, such as Tariq Ramadan , people tried to find a doctrinal unity, essentially marked by the Jewishness of most of these authors. Bizarrely, some members of the Jewish community also had this reflex amalgam: "experienced all those who stand up for Israel and the Jews: Do not be too fussy about the goods, the main thing to find allies in this difficult time! "

Where Ivan Segre innovates, is that he wants to look in detail exactly what those supports. Is this really a defense of Israel? Or more subtly a defense of Western lifestyle (or Christian) through the defense of Israel?

Since they are called "community" can we really hold these intellectuals advocated in their arguments to the values of Jewish tradition? Or they are they ultimately have no say?

Is there no substantive difference between a Raphael Draï and Shmuel Trigano ? Or between a Finkielkraut and Bernard-Henri Levy ?

This debate is important because it should be wanting to irrigate any reflection on the strong Jewish community and its leaders: the LIRA does it take into account the ideological acquaintances with a French right of certain ultra-conservative supporters of Israel ;? Is there not a long-term risk for Jews and Israel want to assimilate tradition of Judaism and Western values ?

can discuss and point out a particular weakness of the book of Ivan Segre. But equate it to a new "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" ? Yet the boldness with which smoking has delivered Jewish News from the pen of Franklin Rausky . Comparison that is answered by Ivan Segre, found below in this blog, hoping that it may this time launch a real debate on this fascinating and crucial.

Response to an "intellectual" French
In the issue of Jewish News dated September 3 was released on account of a book which I am the author The reaction philo or treason of the clerks (Lines, 2009).

Here's what you could read under the title "A disturbing manifest anti-intellectual" "This disturbing argument designed to prove that nowadays, reactionary thinking, cons-revolutionary, anti- Progressive has changed its face: after having been the spearhead of the "anti-Semitic reaction", it becomes the last few years the term a "philo-reaction" involving the defense of the West, capitalism, and, last but not least of Zionism. Among the intellectuals accused of participating in this sinister enterprise ideological volte face: Raphael Draï, Shmuel Trigano, Alexandre Adler, Alain Finkielkraut, Pierre Andre Taguieff, Orianna Fallaci, Robert Misrahi! The controversial author with his opponents, analyzing a few sentences alleged representative of this "philo-reaction" and pro-Zionist. In short, here is a new and original version of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" conspiracy myth and demonology of the early twentieth century ! .

The text is signed Franklin Rausky. Mr. Rausky is academic, he can read, at least we must assume, as we must suppose that he actually read the book he speaks. Consider the question yet. The book The reaction philo or treason of the clerks is indeed a critical intellectuals mentioned here, with the exception of Raphael Draï as far to criticize, I salute his book Under the sign of Zion (Michalon, 2001). Why did I pay tribute? Raphael Draï Because, unlike hereinafter named, do not confuse the defense of Israel with the defense of the West. The treason of the clerks question in my book is indeed this: the fact that intellectuals claim to the "fight against anti-Semitism" and the "defense of Zionism" to disseminate ideas that contradict the values of Judaism. In other words, I blame them not to be placed under the sign of Zion. And so I "controversy" with them, analyzing "few sentences" I judge precisely "representative" or symptomatic.

I criticize So Shmuel Trigano, who writes for example, about the book St. Paul the philosopher Alain Badiou: "It is surprising how easily Alain Badiou, however famous libertarian and leftist going to endorse any doctrine Paul, up to and including his theory about the gender status of women. Defending the veiling of women advocates that Paul, a sign of "acceptance of gender difference" (sic), he believes it has the sense "is obvious that the universality of this statement includes women who endorse they are women " ( The e (xc) read. Between Jews and Christians , Denoël, 2003, p. 112). This is not Paul who advocates "the veiling of women" is the Jewish tradition. Paul, himself, took up position in the Christian debate, especially against the apostle John, to support the idea that conversion to Christianity does not require the break with Jewish religious practice. The fact is that Shmuel Trigano him, finds that the obligation for a woman to cover her hair is just another "gender theory" , and a philosopher worthy of the name should be indignant .

Finkielkraut I criticize that in a debate with Benny Levy, has taken a stand to ban the Islamic veil and the Jewish kippa in schools, arguing that he believes it is first to distinguish "opposition to any repressive measure" which defend "secularism" yes "to various forms of actual life: the veil, the yarmulke, the cap back, body piercing, the notebook, the baggy pants and navel air" (Book and books, Verdier, 2006, p. 91). Besides that Finkielkraut evades the essential point, namely that the law is perhaps not as innocent as she looks, especially since the ban in question does not on "piercing the notebook, the baggy pants or navel air" , but on the Islamic veil and the Jewish kippa, scarf and hat (or not returned), only referred by the prohibition in terms of Republican clothing, and Alain Finkielkraut also no mention of other religious symbols in its schedule, that Jewish and Muslim, one wonders: is it relevant to compare the "kippa " the" piercing " at " portable " at " baggy pants "or " navel air "? Admittedly, this was originally an oral presentation, but is then published as a book, The Book and books precisely. The speaker then reviewed. Finkielkraut is also a writer, he weighs his words.

I criticize Alexandre Adler, who writes for example in U.S. Odyssey (Grasset, 2004): "Everybody knows that the capital of the Jewish world today n is neither Jerusalem remains a city gripped by the Arab world once within its walls, or even Tel Aviv is almost an intermediate step, but New York " (p. 280). This is the Copernican revolution that we offer Alexandre Adler: "American Odyssey" is central "Jewish world" , as was yesterday, Hellenized Jews, the Athenian Odyssey.

I Taguieff critic Pierre Andre, who in his book The purpose of anti-racism (Michalon, 1995, p. 98), pays tribute to Pope Pius XI and the Vatican for their "texts battle against Nazism 1937-1939 ", and concludes: " Should we add that the Nazi monstrosity, leading the Church to take a clear stand against anti-Semitism, provoked a turning of the utmost importance, allowing the establishment of a Jewish-Christian dialogue? ". But as a" combat text " against Nazi antisemitism, Pierre Andre Taguieff can give us to read a simple "declaration of Pius XI, 6 September 1938, a group of Belgian pilgrims" , in which the Pope should "anti-Semitism is inadmissible" . Furthermore, Peter Andre Taguieff ignores or pretends to ignore that Pius XII, who succeeded Pius XI in 1939, has not said a word about the extermination of the Jews, not even "to a group of Belgian pilgrims" . Finally here Hannah Arendt said that the "combat text" Vatican during the war: "The facts themselves are indisputable. Nobody denied that the pope had all relevant information on the Nazi deportation and" resettlement "Jews. Nobody denied that the pope was careful not to raise their voices in protest when, during the German occupation of Rome, the Jews, including Jews, Catholics (that is to say those who had converted to Catholicism) were rounded up under the windows of the Vatican, and headed toward the final solution ". Is this then the way the Church has taken "clear position against anti-Semitism ", according to Pierre Andre Taguieff?


I criticize Orianna Fallaci writes in The force of reason (Editions du Rocher, 2004), " halal slaughter is barbarian , and states: "It is, I'm sorry to say, in the same felling as shechitah . That is to say, the Jewish, which takes place in an identical manner and is to slaughter animals without stunning them first, so they die slowly. Very slowly, emptying their blood. If you do not believe, goes to a or halal slaughter shechitah, and observes that this agony is endless. Which is accompanied by tearing eyes and ends only when the lamb or calf has a drop of blood. Thus, the flesh has become a "pure" very white, pure ... " (P. 51-52). We know the risks facing today in Europe the freedom to perform ritual slaughter, and even import of meat slaughtered ritually. I also criticized because she writes about how the Koran appropriates the patriarch Abraham "And it goes without saying that if I was Jewish, I do not cry. I think it is better to lose than to have found a patriarche prêt à égorger son propre enfant pour la gloire de Dieu" (p. 162). Je la critique encore parce qu'elle écrit, au sujet du négationnisme de Faurisson et Amaudruz, que leur "révisionnisme" est une manière de "revoir l'Histoire, c'est-à-dire la raconter d'une façon différente de la version officielle" (p. 27).


Enfin je ne dis mot de Robert Misrahi, si ce n'est que je cite un texte de lui paru dans Charlie Hebdo en octobre 2003, dans lequel il rend hommage à la journaliste italienne en ces termes: "On découvre ainsi qu'Orianna Fallaci est non seulement genuine free woman atheist, progressive, independent and courageous, but it is also a real writer ". I do not have the same tastes as Robert Misrahi in literature, is a crime " anti-intellectual "?


short, it will be understood, I manhandled the idols of Professor Rausky and, beyond a certain Judaism and French university. I was told that I am the author a "conspiracy myth and demonology" . With this exception, therefore, that these "few sentences" , I have not invented.

Ivan Segre

What Kind Of Necklace For A Lace Wedding Dress

Rav Elie Kahn z "l, a man Integer

about a year ago that, just before the holidays of Tishrei 5769, we were unpleasantly surprised to learn of the death of Rav Elie Kahn at the age of 51 years.

The familiar site Cheela.org know of course that was Rabbi Kahn. The site's founder and main leader, he never worked hard to meet on the Internet to hundreds or even thousands of halachic issues, from the simplest to the most advanced, the more severe the more ridiculous sometimes. A

of its main features was the tone of the responses: always precise, polite and often with a humorous highly valued by its readers. But more than form, the content of his answers was also very specific. In real Possek (decision), he was careful to always be measured in his responses within 4 cubits of halacha, taking care to offer an adequate response to the profile of the caller.

The Rav Amital at the funeral of Rabbi Kahn has provided education for every Jew very striking face in " outside world, "who will not suffer it but who wants to rub, trying to integrate what seems most important manufacturer and for human existence.

Rabbi Amital very agitated, told shortly before his death, Rabbi Kahn called to tell him how much his comments on a page of Talmud was comforted. At the time, Rabbi Amital took no notice, instead concentrating on the pain of his interlocutor.

But he remembered the event when Rabbi Kahn left this world. For the commentary of Rav Amital was a very special passage in the Talmud, one of those that flourished in the "anthology of the Talmud" and who is regularly reminded to explain the uniqueness of Judaism. This passage is the following:

- Baba Metsia 59b -

"are taught in a Mishna: an oven made of tiles and cut associated with sand n ' is not subject to rules of purity and impurity according to Rabbi Eliezer. Other wise do not. This is called the oven Akhnaï (...). A braying teaches that day, Rabbi Eliezer answered all their objections, but the wise do not accepted.

He told them: "If the law is like me, this carob tree prove it!" The carob tree was uprooted
and ran one hundred cubits. And some say four hundred cubits.
They said: "It does not provide evidence of a carob tree!"
he said: "That this flow of water proves I'm right," and went up the water supply.
They said, "it provides no evidence of flowing water!"

"Let the walls of the home study prove it. "
The walls began to crumble when Rabbi Yehoshua addressed them and said
"If wise men argue about the law, what are you interfering? "
The walls did not fall out of respect for Rabbi Yehoshua stood up and did not, out of respect for Rabbi Eliezer.
He said: "Let the heavens prove it!"

Then a heavenly way came out and said: "What have you against Rabbi Eliezer! The law is always like him! "Rabbi Yehoshua
sat up on his feet and said:" The Torah is not in heaven "(Deuteronomy Chapter 23).

What does this mean? Rabbi Jeremiah said: "The Torah has already been given at Mount Sinai, so we do not take account of a heavenly way, for it is written, according to the majority, it settles the law."

At that time, Rabbi Nathan met Elijah the Prophet and asked, "What do the Holy One, Blessed is He now? He replied:
"He laughed and said: My kids beat me, beat me my children!"

(Translation Akadem)

In general, the text is regularly cited to show the distance that operating Judaism with divine transcendence and in some respects, notably on the question of man's place in the world, this may be the "religion" closest to atheism because of the importance it gives to the achievements of man in this world and its responsibilities, without being oppressed by the presence of God.

But we rarely talk about the basic problem: the furnace Akhnaï (the name of the furnace in question) is it subject to the rules purity and impurity? Is this discussion really Picrochole who lives two dramatically opposing camps? At that point one of them (Rabbi Eliezer) retrouvât be 'excommunicated' and isolated from his colleagues? What is really the question?

resume.
A whole oven is subject to the rules of purity and impurity.
An oven broke and scattered debris that is not subject to rules of purity and impurity.

Akhnaï The furnace is special in that it has both the characteristics the entire kiln and furnace broke. It is made of several pieces (tiles cut from the text). But it still appears as an integer (because the tiles are associated with sand). It is capable of fulfilling its role, function oven.

Rav Amital deepened in his article the question for Rabbi Eliezer Akhnaï this furnace is similar to a broken furnace. Whatever it was patched up, the bottom line is that what the compound is broken, broken, made of several pieces. That counts: we must see reality absolutely. This stove is made of a material whole or broken pieces? If there are broken pieces, it can not be called "Wide.

The sages have a different vision. They take the problem more on: does this oven is capable of assuming the task conferred upon it? If so, whatever its composition, it is quite possible to compare it to an oven "Integer" and assign an all characteristics.

intimate discussion of the Talmud is actually much broader than a simple problem of purity and impurity : It is a confrontation between two worldviews, two ways of apprehending reality: should we see things in absolute or relative? What

said Rabbi Amital and what comforted Rav Kahn is that the Halacha, the law is according to Wise. And this metaphor on the entire furnace applied to a patchwork of debris reconsolidated, it is perhaps applied to himself.

For Rabbi Kahn was a character in the landscape sometimes atypical rabbinical Orthodox but no beard, deeply attached to the Halacha sometimes even its smallest details (many examples attest) but also anxious to give halachic responses corresponding to the level of the speaker, but Ashkenazi very attached to the person and work of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Torah scholar, but also passionate by the secular sciences, literature or history. Perhaps it sometimes arose the question: this diversity of interests, activities, practices made it all the same to me a man "Full" as the furnace Akhnaï composed of different pieces?

According

Rabbi Eliezer, who must always be made from a raw material, unique and absolute, it is not the case. But for refusing to comply with the opinion of the Sages, who instead responded "Yes" resounding to the risk of contradicting God Himself, Rabbi Eliezer has been isolated.

The answer is obvious and it is even more to us: Rabbi Kahn was a true man, whole, worthy of respect, consideration and admiration of his peers and his students real or virtual. And its diverse nature, far from threatening its authenticity has reinforced rather point to make a man unique.

missing for a year already, but his work is still there. This famous phrase takes on its meaning:

"Tsadikim Bemitatan Nikreou Haim" "The righteous after their death are called living creatures."

it be so for the Rav Elie Kahn z "l.