My night as an interfaith shadchan

by DK

59 comments

1 cipher { 01.30.08 at 7:20 pm }

You’ve been hanging out with former frummies? I’d like to hear more about that. Are these Malkie Schwartz’s proteges?

2 mohammed { 01.30.08 at 8:44 pm }

Nothing to do with Malkie Schwartz.
Dk when were you there? I didn’t see you.

3 cipher { 01.30.08 at 9:12 pm }

Mohammed, why were you there? You’re still frum, aren’t you?

4 mohammed { 01.30.08 at 9:45 pm }

It was misdescribed. A lot of people there are still frum.

5 DK { 01.30.08 at 10:56 pm }

cipher, I wrote all about my experience at chulent: http://kvetcher.jewschool.com/.....t-is-over/

mohammed, I must have left before you got there…though I didn’t leave that early…but it was a few weeks ago…not last Thursday.

6 Fran { 01.31.08 at 6:06 pm }

Good for you man! i wish i was part of helping destory the jewish people by helping interfaith marrages. WHat a noble goal

7 mohammed { 01.31.08 at 7:53 pm }

The way I see it, if you’re not religious, being against intermarriage is just plain racism.

8 Jenny { 01.31.08 at 8:41 pm }

Mohammed,

That’s where you’re wrong. You don’t have to be religious or even practising to still have standards or to enjoy the occasional mitzvah here and there. In Judaism there is no all or nothing. One gets rewards for whatever he can do.

There is also something deeply embedded in most jews that draws the line at marrying non-jews. No matter how skeptical a jew may get, the knowledge that he may be responsible for cutting off the line is too great. Plus, there is also the unspoken inherent unifying ideal that intermarriage is just, dare I say it - wrong, and hits a point of no return.

9 mohammed { 01.31.08 at 10:27 pm }

Jenny
That’s where you’re wrong. I have no problems with an irreligious jew saying that he won’t marry out for religious reasons. It may be illogical, he’s going to hell anyway. Possibly it’s slightly hypocritical, but that’s fine. For some reason though, I haven’t heard many irreligious people, let alone athiests, say, yeah, I eat bacon, I don’t keep sabath, but I won’t marry out for religious reasons. You know what, I’ll rephrase it. Other than religion, I can’t see any reason not to intermarry that isn’t racist. Is that better?

10 Fran { 01.31.08 at 11:20 pm }

mohammed you know i agree with the whole being frum thing, but we are going to hell too so dont be THAT full of yourself. You not perfect and neither am i.

11 mohammed { 01.31.08 at 11:26 pm }

Hey Fran
I have no problem being self righteous or hypocritical. If that’s how you want to take what I wrote, that’s fine.
I personally think there’s a slight difference between someone who chooses to be non observant and someone who’s “not perfect” but is trying, but really, take it however you want.

12 Fran { 02.01.08 at 12:35 am }

yeah….u make the rest of us frum people look good when u r self righteous or hypocritical. You def make people want to be frum…

13 Jenny { 02.01.08 at 1:27 am }

Mohammed,

Ah, but there are different levels of hell, my friend.

“Other than religion, I can’t see any reason not to intermarry that isn’t racist.” Agreed.

14 mohammed { 02.01.08 at 10:23 am }

Jenny
Let me assure you that someone who keeps none of the commandments besides not intermarrying will be deep enough in hell that he won’t be thinking about levels.
Fran
I don’t care how I make you look. I’m living my life, this is me, this is my personality. If you don’t like it fuck you. I’m not trying for first place in a popularity contest, and neither is Judaism.
Statistically speaking, every community has a percentage of assholes and the orthodox community is no exception. If it makes you feel better to consider me one of them, that’s your privilege, feel free.

15 DK { 02.01.08 at 10:30 am }

Jenny and Fran, I don’t think you recognize that this isn’t really an issue of religiousity. You are coming from a nationalist perspective, and don’t realize it. You are ultimately upset about intermarriage because it harms Jewish numbers, power, and influence.

16 Fran { 02.01.08 at 10:36 am }

no im upset because it harms jewish numbers. Thats it. Every Jew is precious because IT IS an issue of religion. Who cares about power and influence? I sure dont, i care about G-d’s word and his chosen people, and if people like you have their way we will be gone in a generation or two.

mo-
your a sick man, and im sure every regligious community does have people like that, but i dont count you as one, because i dont count you as religious. If you dont care about the image your portray (chillul hashem applies to jews as much as it does to non-jews) you will be in a far deeper level of hell then intermarried people. THey only take one person away from G-d you take many many more.

17 Sarah/froylein { 02.01.08 at 10:39 am }

Hell? In Jewish eschatology? Now, that’s news.

18 DK { 02.01.08 at 10:41 am }

“no im upset because it harms jewish numbers. Thats it. Every Jew is precious because IT IS an issue of religion. Who cares about power and influence? I sure dont, i care about G-d’s word and his chosen people, and if people like you have their way we will be gone in a generation or two.”

Isn’t this a lack of faith on your part? If you really believe in the Torah and Judaism, how could it be that “we will be gone in a generation or two”?

19 Annie { 02.01.08 at 10:58 am }

I’m just as uncomfortable with the thought of a non-Jewish woman seeking out a Jewish man specifically, as I am with people who intramarry for the sake of marrying “Jewish” and not because they want a shared culture/history/religion.

Amber’s reasons to marry Jewish smack of racism just as much as those who prefer to marry only Jews.

20 Sarah/froylein { 02.01.08 at 11:05 am }

I’ll agree with Annie there. As I already pointed out in an email conversation with ck, the attitude Amber displays is “positive” anti-Semitism as she is looking for certain traits she hopes to find in a(ny) Jewish man because of his Jewishness; traits that are not exactly accounted for theologically.

21 mohammed { 02.01.08 at 11:34 am }

Fran
How exactly is an irreligious person intermarrying an issue of religion?
God isn’t a butcher and he doesn’t need meat. In biblical times, three hundred people that didn’t bow down to idols were enough for him.
And demagoguery aside, you have no idea wtf you’re talking about. Kiddush Hashem and Chilul Hashem is not PR. The Rambams definition of Kiddush Hashem is fulfilling the commandments, and Chilul Hashem is breaking them. Making it look good is extra credit. For example, if someone found out he was wearing shatnez deoiraiso in middle of times square, a kiddush hashem would be to strip naked and walk home and a chilul hashem would be to be “normal” and keep it on.
Thank God I don’t belong to a religion that has you making the seating arrangements in heaven and hell.

22 DK { 02.01.08 at 11:38 am }

“For example, if someone found out he was wearing shatnez deoiraiso in middle of times square, a kiddush hashem would be to strip naked and walk home and a chilul hashem would be to be “normalâ€? and keep it on.”

Depends on how good looking the man or woman wearing shatnezz is.

23 Fran { 02.01.08 at 2:05 pm }

ok its offical mohamamad is not frum he just fakes it to make frum people look bad.

“if someone found out he was wearing shatnez deoiraiso in middle of times square, a kiddush hashem would be to strip naked and walk home and a chilul hashem would be to be “normalâ€? and keep it on.”

Actually that would be a violation of sniutz to walk home naked, and the halacha is that if u r already committing a sin and to stop would cause another, you should keep doing what u r doing. nice try though. In addition rambam only says that KH and CH are in respect to the mitzvot PUBLICALLY, by having people say “oh thats how a relgious jew acts” you are embarrassing the name of G-d WHICH IS A MITZVAH, adn therefore is a CH. DK- Mo no longer speaks for religious people anymore then the KKK speaks for white people

“How exactly is an irreligious person intermarrying an issue of religion?”

Because if they are jewish, when they intermarry within a generation or two none of their decendant will be jewish. There is a mitzvah (although u dont seem to care about it) to be mikarev people, there is no such mitzvah if they arent jewish. If they at least keep within the faith there is a shot to bring them back

24 Jenny { 02.01.08 at 2:06 pm }

Hey DK,

It is abt religiosity - don’t tell me it’s not. When a gentile and jew marry the religious angle multiplies. It doesn’t matter how secular one is. It is comparable to saying the conflict/debate between Clinton and Obama is not gender or race-based - it is. These factors are not ALL this coming election is about, but they play a huge role in this campaign and we cannot ignore it. It is time the American public faces race, gender and diversity in such a public manner. Intermarriage IS and always will be abt religion. How can it not? The two pple may truly love each other and get along well, but the elephant in the room will always be there.

25 Sarah/froylein { 02.01.08 at 2:22 pm }

Oddly enough, many people forego the obvious intermarriage in their own family trees.

26 Fran { 02.01.08 at 2:25 pm }

it has nothing to do with foregoing it…many peopel see that judiasm wasnt important to their parents so its not important to them. So eventaully it dies out of the family altogether

27 mohammed { 02.01.08 at 2:35 pm }

“It’s official” cool, how did you officialize this exactly?
You obviously have no idea what the fuck you are talking about.
Here’s the Rambam (klayim 10 25)
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/7110.htm#s1
×›×” [כט] הרו×?×” כל×?×™×™×? של תורה על חברו–×?פילו ×”×™×” מהלך בשוק–קופץ לו, וקורעו עליו מיד: ו×?פילו ×”×™×” רבו שלימדו חכמה–ש×?ין כבוד הברייות, דוחה ×?יסור ל×? תעשה המפורש בתורה.
Who told you there is a mitzva of kiruv?
And where does it say it?
I don’t not care about it, it doesn’t exist.

28 Sarah/froylein { 02.01.08 at 2:43 pm }

Isn’t it faking an identity to claim pure lineage even though there have been no birth records whatsoever prior to the Council of Trient? Maybe the forefathers did care and were Jews by tradition and by association, but took the validity of the biblical cases of intermarriage serious? Prior to the beginning of Orthodoxy / Chasidism, it was common practice to find exceptions to the law valid if those exceptions could also be found in the scriptures, which would be the case with intermarriage. People probably did care enough about their religion that they tried to obtain and maintain it to the degrees they were capable of. They were not inferiorly Jewish. They likely did not know the security of living in states were freedom of creed was warranted for by the respective constitution as the Rintfleisch and Armleder persecutions clearly showed. They had no concept of ordained rabbis. The oldest / wisest guy of a community usually was considered the rabbi. Particularly in the Rhineland, Jewish and Christian culture - and bloodlines - mixed greatly. Orthodoxy as we perceive it today has only been around for a comparatively little time as it started as a counter-movement in reaction to the Jewish Enlightment and social assimilation of the 18th century CE. My great-grandmother’s Yiddish would have put that of most yidishe Brooklynites to shame. Like me, she looked decidedly foreign. Yet, she was neither ever naive enough to claim pure lineage nor to claim that people that intermarried did not care about their respective religions. She would not have been so arrogant.

29 Fran { 02.01.08 at 2:47 pm }

the simplest of example of a mitzvah is “hocheach tocheach et amitecha” how about “kol yseroel arevim zeh bazeh”?
I can get u source after source about it, but i have to get ready for shabbat, so i will report back tomorrow night.
Btw cursing? Yeah thats assur too.
I repeat you speak for frum jews the way PETA speaks for all people

30 Fran { 02.01.08 at 2:50 pm }

I think im being misunderstood Sarah. I really dont mean to say taht all people who intermarry dont care or arent “pure”. I have some intermarrage (actually a lot) in my family too. But you have to admit it cant be in their top 10 most important things if they are willing to throw away a basic tenant of judiasm. ANd so they dont preach its importance to their kids. Studies have shown that if one intermarries out of judiams 9 out of every 10 times none of their decendants 2 generations later even claim to have an association with judiasm

31 mohammed { 02.01.08 at 2:53 pm }

I speak for myself and no one else. And so do you.
Amisecha batoiro uvemitzvois
Kol Yisroel Areivim is only on shomrei shabbos.
The excuse for kiruv is a minority opinion that believes all irreligious jews are tinokos shenishbu, and even then it’s far from clear.
The Satmar Rebbe didn’t hold of kiruv.
It was invented in lubavitch and adopted by some other groups in the last 15 or 20 years.

32 mohammed { 02.01.08 at 2:54 pm }

Sarah
have you ever read Harry Turtledove?
maybe you have a career writing alternative history.

33 Sarah/froylein { 02.01.08 at 3:01 pm }

Alternative history would require asking “what if?”s. I’m not too keen on fiction and prefer to go by factbooks on European Jewish history written by historians, many of which Jewish, such as Nicholas DeLange, Julius Schoeps and Rabbi Dr Michael Hilton.

34 cipher { 02.01.08 at 3:17 pm }

Let me assure you that someone who keeps none of the commandments besides not intermarrying will be deep enough in hell that he won’t be thinking about levels.

The nature of the afterlife was a matter of wide speculation in the Rabbinic literature. Some of the ultra-Orthodox focus on the few extreme, callous opinions and build a theology on them.

I mean, really - who are we, Baptists?

35 Sarah/froylein { 02.01.08 at 3:21 pm }

There’s a reason why there’s a distinction between gehenna and sheol.

36 cipher { 02.01.08 at 3:53 pm }

The excuse for kiruv is a minority opinion that believes all irreligious jews are tinokos shenishbu, and even then it’s far from clear.
The Satmar Rebbe didn’t hold of kiruv.

So, what does this mean, in practical terms? What’s the underlying belief? Non-observant Jews are committing damnable sins, and they’re too ignorant to know any better - but it isn’t our problem? Let ‘em burn?

I’ve read that Satmar parents and teachers threaten their children with hell. I had hoped the accounts were exaggerated, or that it was just bad parenting/teaching (not to minimize that).

No Jew has any business threatening anyone with hell. We’re not Christian fundamentalists. We’re supposed to be above that.

I would think, Mohammed, that if the threat were that dire, it would have been spelled out clearly in Tanakh (leaving aside for the moment the question of divine authorship ), and not left to the speculation of rabbis living hundreds of years later, no matter how gifted or filled with the Ruach HaKodesh they might have been.

37 mohammed { 02.02.08 at 9:38 pm }

Cipher
Certain commandments, such as reproof and responsibility for other people, were given as part of a social compact between religious compatriots to further communal religious life, not as morality per se. Once people cross certain lines, like sabbath observance, they are no longer considered part of the community and what they do from then on is between them and God.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse in most countries, the laws are on the books, the books are there to read, and there are people to ask if you have questions. Our job is to lead a spiritual life, not to go out proselytizing.
We’re “above” that? In what way do you consider yourself better than a baptist?
In any religion in which the belief in hell is integral, it will be part of the curriculum in school. In orthodoxy it is. Is that threatening?
Orthodox belief is that along with the written law, there was an oral law also given at sinai. And hell was in there. I see no reason to debate orthodox belief with you, it’s not relevant to this discussion. All that’s relevant is that it is a part of accepted orthodox belief today, and it is.

Sarah
I have no idea who the people you mentioned are, but their version of history doesn’t agree with the traditional jewish version, as far as I’m concerned it’s both fiction and alternative history.

38 kelly { 02.02.08 at 9:39 pm }

mohammad - the views that your only speak for urself is the reason machiach isn’t here. we are all reposible for each other, rashi says that when the torah says “all of beni yesroel did something bad” they were ALL doing it but we have a collective reposability for those who messed up. but I guess satmar doesn’t hold by rashi or torah

39 kelly { 02.02.08 at 9:41 pm }

sorry I meant they WERENT all doing it

40 kelly { 02.02.08 at 9:48 pm }

and if kol yesroel aeevim zeh bazeh applies to shabbat only, why don’t u worry about mikaraving people to keep shabbat?

41 mohammed { 02.02.08 at 9:59 pm }

Kelly
you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
I said Kol yisroel areivim zeh lozeh applies only to sabbath observers.

42 Sarah/froylein { 02.02.08 at 10:05 pm }

The “traditional Jewish version” qualifies as “popular history”, also called “folklore”.

43 cipher { 02.02.08 at 10:32 pm }

A belief in hell, in the manner that you imply, is not integral to Judaism - Orthodox or otherwise. As I said before - the nature of the afterlife was widely speculated upon among the rabbis. Just because you (or your teachers) choose to focus on the most negative opinions, that does not make them definitive.

Your attitude toward other Jews, cavalier when it isn’t condemning, is absolutely appalling. In fact, this may be the most appalling thing I’ve heard said by a Jew in a long time.

44 Sarah/froylein { 02.02.08 at 10:46 pm }

mohammed, I was trying to find you a few links to English books by the abovementioned historians, but I think you can search Amazon yourself; several of Schoeps’ (who’s one of the most important Jewish historians ever if not the most important Jewish historian alongside Heinrich Graetz) books have been translated into English, DeLange’s and Hilton’s books originally were published in English. Heinrich Graetz is generally considered the most important Jewish historian of all times; among other works, he published a 13-volume “History of the Jews” in the late 1800s that is still considered the standard reference work on Jewish history in academic circles as well as a “Popular History of the Jews”; both are worth every single penny, so I suggest you get them. (cf. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb.....ich+Graetz)

45 Fran { 02.02.08 at 11:19 pm }

sorry to back up kelly….where does it say it only applies to shabbath observers? somehow i missed that made up commentary that doesnt actually exist

46 mohammed { 02.02.08 at 11:34 pm }

Cipher
I still don’t see the point in getting into a theological discussion.
I’m willing to acknowledge that there is an argument among the commentators as to exactly what form hell takes, although all of them agree that there is one, it says so in Gemoro.
I also don’t see the point in debating the parameters of orthodoxy. It’s enough for my point if you’ll admit that all the oj’s to the right of YU accept hell as a religious belief.
What exactly did you find appalling?
I leave racial theory to stormfront and the aryan nation, and I don’t find ethnicity to be a meaningful way to identify. It’s just as illogical as self identifying by hair or eye color. (although I happen to be ethnically jewish)
I view myself as a human being and a world citizen, in some senses an American. Why would you expect me to feel anything more for a jew than any other american, if he’s american, or more than any other human being, if he’s not?
Why should I be less than cavalier?

47 mohammed { 02.03.08 at 12:14 am }

Fran
if ignorance is bliss, you’re the most blissful person I’ve met in a while.
You categorically deny things without having any idea if they exist or not.
The Rambam says המחלל שבת בפקרהסי×? הרי הו×? כגוי לכל דבר.
The only contemporary quote I found in two minutes searching on the internet is from Amnon Yitzchak,
http://www.shofar.net/site/Sho.....category=1
but this is well known and you can call any LOR (local orthodox rabbi) to confirm it.

48 DK { 02.03.08 at 2:24 am }

“In any religion in which the belief in hell is integral, it will be part of the curriculum in school. In orthodoxy it is. Is that threatening?”

Okay, I’ll personally admit I find it more threatening that Judaism promises hell to me for not obeying it’s laws than that Christianity threatens hell.

49 Sarah/froylein { 02.03.08 at 3:37 am }

DK, Catholicism banned the teaching of hell altogether in the 1960s as there’s no biblical evidence for it. But I’m not sure whether a Catholic lifestyle would suit you.

50 cipher { 02.03.08 at 8:17 am }

I view myself as a human being and a world citizen, in some senses an American. Why would you expect me to feel anything more for a jew than any other american, if he’s american, or more than any other human being, if he’s not? Why should I be less than cavalier?

Because you’re attitude violates the very nature of the principle of k’lal yisroel. The casual manner in which you’re perfectly happy to abandon millions of other Jews to hell (God knows what you think happens to gentiles) is completely unconscionable.

It’s enough for my point if you’ll admit that all the oj’s to the right of YU accept hell as a religious belief. What exactly did you find appalling?

When you make a statement like, “Let me assure you that someone who keeps none of the commandments besides not intermarrying will be deep enough in hell that he won’t be thinking about levels.”, you display the most appalling callousness. I don’t know whether you see it as an eternal state; if you do, that alone disagrees with the majority opinion in the Talmud. My understanding is that most factions within Orthodoxy view Gehenna as a state of temporary purgation. There are extremely insular groups like Satmar that seem to focus on threatening people, children especially, with damnation. If you think that’s acceptable, we have nothing more to discuss. We’re speaking two different languages.

51 mohammed { 02.03.08 at 9:37 am }

Oh, you find my callousness appalling.
What is this “principle of klal yisroel” that you speak of?
I’m willing to bet that I had a more extensive jewish education than you did, so when you make statements like the majority view in the talmud or your understanding of the view of most factions in orthodoxy, I hope you’re willing to back it up with chapter and verse.
Your willingness to believe anything you hear about satmar also speaks volumes about the extent of your jewish education, or at any rate your level of gullibility.
What do you make of this? Rosh Hashona Pg 17a
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/b/l/l2401_017a.htm
פושעי ישר×?ל בגופן ופושעי ×?ומות העול×? בגופן יורדין לגיהנ×? ונידונין בה ×™”ב חדש ל×?חר ×™”ב חדש גופן כלה ונשמתן נשרפת ורוח מפזרתן תחת כפות רגלי צדיקי×? שנ×?’ (מל×?×›×™ ×’) ועסות×? רשעי×? ×›×™ יהיו ×?פר תחת כפות רגליכ×? ×?בל המינין והמסורות {והמשומדי×?} וה×?פיקורסי×? שכפרו בתורה ושכפרו בתחיית המתי×? ושפירשו מדרכי צבור ושנתנו חיתית×? ב×?רץ ×—×™×™×? ושחט×?ו והחטי×?ו ×?ת הרבי×? כגון ירבע×? בן נבט וחביריו יורדין לגיהנ×? ונידונין בה לדורי דורות שנ×?מר (ישעיהו סו) ויצ×?ו ור×?ו בפגרי ×”×?נשי×? הפושעי×? בי וגו’ ×’×™×”× ×? כלה והן ×?ינן כלין שנ×?מר (תהילי×? מט) וצור×? לבלות ש×?ול מזבול לו

Just out of curiousity, do you self identify as religious? And you still haven’t answered why you believe that you’re better than Baptists.

52 Sarah/froylein { 02.03.08 at 10:23 am }

mohammed, if you’re Satmar, we might have a few common friends.

53 cipher { 02.03.08 at 10:34 am }

Mohammed, I won’t respond any longer. You’re a troll and a shander. You feed on this sort of confrontation like a scavenger, and I refuse to participate.

54 mohammed { 02.03.08 at 6:17 pm }

Cipher
Going ad hominem when you’re losing the argument is the cheap way out.
For some reason, I thought we were having a discussion, not a confrontation.
Sarah
maybe we do.

55 Ron Coleman { 02.03.08 at 10:26 pm }

I don’t see how anyone who has learned a few masechtos — any of them — can think that the question of whether there is such a think as hell in Judaism is an open question. Sorry, Cipher. Unless you want to take DK’s tack and call any orthodox Jew you disagree with a “haredi,” that’s just plain normative Judaism.

I certainly don’t agree with Mo’s view of the requirement of outreach however, and from what I understand the Igros Moshe doesn’t, either. I like a lot of what the Satmar Rov said but inter-Jewish relations would not be an area where I’d call him a comrade.

On the one hand I’d sooner drink wine a Satmar Yid touched than a Lubavitcher. On the other hand I’ve never had the opportunity to the former, and I’ve had (all too many) opportunities to do the latter.

56 DK { 02.04.08 at 12:49 am }

mohammed,

Satmar runs the Bikkur Holim, and they service all Jews, not just religious Jews. Why is is that?

57 mohammed { 02.04.08 at 1:31 am }

because they’re nice guys.
because that’s the way the Rebbe taught them.
to the best of my knowledge it has no basis in halacha.

58 DK { 02.04.08 at 1:33 am }

“because that’s the way the Rebbe taught them.
to the best of my knowledge it has no basis in halacha.”

Then why just Jews? Why not everyone if they are just being nice?

59 mohammed { 02.04.08 at 2:33 am }

call bikur choilim and ask them.

Leave a Comment