OK. Your source, Shahak, avers that many of a particular small class of
rabbis used as an example to justify a war of revenge in which it was
alright to kill noncombattants, even children, the war against the
Midianites (I had no idea what you were talking about. Who the hell are the
Miniades?). That's many of a few = some rabbis. But I expect you know that.
He goes on to say that to the best of his knowledge no other of that small
class of rabbis spoke up in opposition. I know this not to be true because
I heard them do so. I have no idea if there was press coverage.
Shahak, for reasons having to do with the peculiar politics of Israel, in
which that small class of rabbis have unusual power, seems to be supporting
the interpretation in order to demonstrate what he takes to be a
fundamental stance of Jewish law. It's not, and he gives not a single
passage in Talmud as cited by those rabbis. Which is why, when I gave
examples of another way--the more common way by far--of reading the
tradition I didn't talk about this instance. Because it's not a part of the
tradition and hasn't been for a millenium. Whatever your motives, you fell
for a rhetorical trick.
He's talking about a fringe of Jewish Orthodoxy. Very few Jews are
Orthodox--Israel is overwhelmingly secular Jewish, and fewer still are on
that fringe. Even in the US, where Orthodoxy is much more popular, only a
million and a half of 6 million Jews consider themselves Orthodox, and few
of those (and I've known some) would interpret traditional law in this way.
Let me make it clear that I'm hardly a supporter of Israeli treatment of
Palestinians. I'll go further--I don't think the state of Israel should
have been created, altho I understand why most Jews at the time thought it
was necessary for survival. The problem that it was meant to solve was a
European problem and should have been dealt with within European societies.
Shahak is trying, rather dishonestly, I think, to deal with some of the
contradictions of the situation as it has been post 1948, and his remarks
have to be read in that very political context.
But what you say by quotation is outside that context--it proposes a cancer
within traditional Jewish ideology. And I thought I understood why. As I
say, maybe I'm wrong, which is why I apologized. But you're doing your best
to convince me that I got it right in the first place.
Then again, maybe you're taking your position for political reasons, too.
No more justified than when anyone else does. These things have their costs.
That's it--I'm taking Candice's cue. No more on this from me, back or
frontchannel.
Mark
At 04:11 AM 9/28/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>>From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>>Reply-To: Poetryetc provides a venue for a dialogue relating to poetry and
>> poetics <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Letter to a leftist friend/the real mystics/innocents
>>Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 20:30:49 -0700
>>
>>You do like quoting out of context. How about "some" rabbis, as your
>>sources make clear?
>
>Wow. Actually, in that specific passage concerned with the Miniades, my
>source, Shahak, actually wrote "many rabbis."
>
>>But if I'm wrong about bias, I apologize.
>
>You're spoiling the punchline of the anecdote, homes.
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
|