Today is day one for celebrating when the Haredi Jews killed the Reform Jews
December 22, 2008 Haredim, Liberal Judaism
I was ranting to Yitzchak Schoenfeld, the intuitive and sympathetic leader of the chulent crowd about my distaste for something or other about Chanukkah, and he relayed what a frum (but questioning) friend of his had once noted about Chanukkah.
“My side lost.”
Comic panel from “Festival of Lights“, co-written by myself and Eli Valley, courtesy of Eli Valley.
59 comments
Having idols in the temple? eliminating any torah study? Thank G-d the reform lost that battle (if thats what you like to refer to them as)
Its one thing to allow others to be irreligious (and as you have pointed out time and again in B”S it ISNT being allowed, which isn’t ok). But its quite another to forbid someone from being religious if they want, as long as it isn’t hurting someone else. This holiday is exactly that: a defense against people who want to forbid religious jews from practicing. It just like what happened in Europe when the Reform movement started when they started shutting down kosher butchers and mikvas because religious jews embarrassed them, who referred to themselves as “Germans of the Mosaic persuasion”
Its one thing to allow others to be irreligious (and as you have pointed out time and again in B”S it ISNT being allowed, which isn’t ok). But its quite another to forbid someone from being religious if they want, as long as it isn’t hurting someone else.
You obviously are not familiar with the war waged against Hellenists, and innocent gentiles nearby.
Forced conversions, forced circumcision, and eventual tyranny. This is what I am referencing, not Greek misdeeds.
all of that happened in the dynasty after the country was liberated. The holiday does not celebrate what happened after rather what happened during the liberation. Everyone who knows their history can tell you the years following the liberation were terrible for religious and irreligious jews alike because of the hasmonian rule.
It doesn’t divide that neatly, Rick. Not at all. Middle Eastern fundamentalist uprisings are rarely without abuse and excess. This one was hardly the exception.
And anti-religious (or so called enlightened) treatment of religious jews are hardly cakewalks. So treatment of religious jews before the liberation was just as bad if not worse. So i say we call it a draw between the two.
No, Rick. As Jews we don’t have a Holiday celebrating secular tyranny over religious people. Nice try, though.
Your right because by having a holiday that would be religious in nature and secular jews have no intention of doing anything like that.
Personally im proud to have a holiday celebrating victory over people who decide they know better then The creator of heaven and earth of how we should live our lives when they were trying to prevent G-d fearing jews from celebrating the way they wanted. And if you are going to claim it was only the rabbis word thats just plain wrong. Idols in the temple is directly forbidden and trying to prevent people from studying torah under penalty of death is just also beyond wrong and you cant claim that either was invented by the rabbis.
You cant attack chanukah over this DK. You want to talk about the aftermath? Then sure. But the treatment of religious jews by irreligious jews leading up to the uprising was just as if not more violent then the aftermath.
No. You are oversimplifying this chapter in history. The rabbis were offended by the excesses of the Hasmoneans. That is why they invented the miracle oil. Check Maccabees, which they banner because it is an embarrassment. Better yet, check the insertion for Chanukkah. No mention of the “miracle oil.” Funny, huh?
The Hasmoneans were a bunch of shmatte headed fundies.
“And they circumcised all the children whom they found in the confines of Israel that were uncircumcised: and they did valiantly.”
http://st-takla.org/pub_Deuter.....abees.html
And you are ignoring the treatment of secular jews. You act as if they didnt try and stop jews from worshiping the way they wanted.
The book of Maccabees is excluded for many reasons including inaccuracies. But on the same note: if you think its so reliable then how do you explain the miracle of the victory of the small religious group over the large greek and irreligious group? G-d took the religious jews side, and not the irreligious/assimilationist/reform side…Funny, huh?
Got to love the GIANT cross on top of the link to the book of Maccabees. Happy Chrismika!!! Lets all be one people! ignore the laws! G-d has no problem if you intermarry! The rabbis misinterpret the law that DIRECTLY says that you cannot! Sounds like we are ripe for another Chanukah miracle…
But the treatment of religious jews by irreligious jews leading up to the uprising was just as if not more violent then the aftermath.
Funny; I thought the frummies have always told us that there were no nonreligious Jews prior to Reform. I must’ve heard wrong.
Personally im proud to have a holiday celebrating victory over people who decide they know better then The creator of heaven and earth of how we should live our lives when they were trying to prevent G-d fearing jews from celebrating the way they wanted.
Yeah… it always comes down to that, doesn’t it? You guys can’t win using reason, so you cower behind the facade of God’s sovereignty. And you always manage to make it about your victimhood. Always.
I’ll say it again, DK (because I haven’t said it since yesterday) – you throw in the word “Jesus” now and again, they’re the same arguments as those of the evangelicals. Use “Allah” and “satanic Jews” instead, and they’re indistinguishable from the ravings of the imams. These guys are all reading from the same script.
Rick, the Jews don’t have the text, because it was BANNED. It was BANNED because it is a fucking embarrassment, and has NO REFERENCE to any miracle oil. It only survived in the Greek.
if you think its so reliable then how do you explain the miracle of the victory of the small religious group over the large greek and irreligious group?
Biased reporting?
G-d took the religious jews side, and not the irreligious/assimilationist/reform side…Funny, huh?
Yeah – except that if your guys had lost, you’d do whatever mental gymnastics you had to do in order to absolve God of all responsibility. That’s pretty funny, too.
so it was an embarrassment? Make up your mind! If it is an embarassment then who cares if it didnt have the miracle oil because its not reliable anyway. If is not embarassment 1) why do you say it is 2) some of it has to be reliable such as the military victory. Make up your mind son!
I think we should celebrate the rise of Khomeni and the hostage crises on Chanukkah. Ties in very nicely.
Also, a special prayer of solidarity with our brothers the Taliban.
If it is an embarassment then who cares if it didnt have the miracle oil because its not reliable anyway.
It is somewhat reliable. AND it is an embarrassment. Things can be real and embarrassing. Take metzitza b’peh. The holy sucking of the newly circumcised penis. That’s embarrassing, Rick, and so his the herpes virus that can be transmitted, believe it or not, from mouth to bloody baby penis when sucking on it. But both are quite real, Rick. Real, AND embarrassing.
Reform Jews in Europe weren’t embarrassed by their Orthodox brethren but by their deliberately badly educated Orthodox brethren. That’s a huge difference.
DK, if you e do start a holiday dedicated to oppressing the religious – don’t forget to put me on the mailing list.
Why argue about the past? Who is more embarrassed by whom and for what reason right now?
Oh wait, that’s what this and every other blog is about the rest of the time. Silly me.
Go on with second guessing the past.
BTW, if we create any more holidays, can then be ones where tzniut is relaxed and casual nudity on the part of the better looking women is encouraged? Just an idea, as long as we’re spitballing, why not come up with something fun instead of tragic.
BTW, if we create any more holidays
No new holidays. We already have too many. Even without that “second day” BS.
“BTW, if we create any more holidays, can then be ones where tzniut is relaxed and casual nudity on the part of the better looking women is encouraged?”
It’s called Tu B’Av. And while we’re on the topic: I’m still waiting on my damn flowers and candy.
DK tell us more about Chanukah. Seriously. I read Maccabees once, but couldn’t retain any of it even for our test on it — let alone years later. You think it’s apocrypha because it’s an embarrassment?
B”H
DK
What is wrong with Chashmanaim enforcing Torah observance?
Since land of Cnaan came under Yisraelite rule it was to be run by Torah law. The kings who have achieved this lofty goal are seen as righteous kings Chizkiyahu for example I don’t know why do you think later sages would be ashamed of Macabees doing just that I think you are projecting your own feelings on them.
Ariel, read the Maccabees. Then ask yourself:
1) Why was this text banner?
2) Why is there no miracle oil in the text?
3) Why did we stop doing forced conversions? Why didn’t we do forced conversions with Rome?
4) What’s wrong with taking all the power for ourselves and killing all who disagree (i.e. rabbis, separate branch of kinds) with that on the pretext that they are “Hellenist collaborators”? Doesn’t this prove that the Torah was just kidding when they said kings had to be from the tribe of Yehudah?
5) Isn’t forced circumcision performed in many devout communities in the Middle East and East Africa? Doesn’t that mean it’s okay?
6) How can we say for sure that the Hasmonean alliance with Rome was a bad idea?
SP, it requires sound knowledge of the past to understand the present and shape the future. Otherwise people may end up practising revisionist reading of history. Oh, wait…
I’ll celebrate that. Why don’t you link to the same post from last year?
David, do you light a menorah?
DK,
It wasn’t quite the way you are portraying it in the cartoon. People decide not not to circumcise because they were secular; there really were very few completely Hellenized Jews running around. Moderately Hellenized Jews didn’t circumcised their kids after the Greeks/Assyrians threatened to kill anyone who circumcised their kids.
Still heinous, but lets not make this an issue of Hareidim verses secular; it was probably more of an issue of Hareidim verses MO.
***People didn’t decide not to circumcise their kids because they were secular.****
mohammed, I did link to the comic.
Halfsours, EV and I understood that the Hellenists of these Jews were not secular in the contemporary sense, but it was a comic, and there isn’t room for nuance and to expatiate in each panel.
Well, then I would suggest not being outright misleading. There was no cultural phenomenon of people who weren’t “that religious”, and left their children uncircumcised. There were only people who were afraid of the death penalty imposed by the Hellenisers. I’m a bit disappointed that you selected sensationalism over fact. You could easily have kept that part about them not being “that religious” out.
The fact it the people were religious, but the more moderate ones chose to avert death penalty — most likely a choice that was not made with levity. You shouldn’t have portrayed that more moderate group as a secular group.
There were only people who were afraid of the death penalty imposed by the Hellenisers.
There were Jews who preferred Greek culture to some degree. It wasn’t all about force.
“There were Jews who preferred Greek culture to some degree.”
True, but I don’t recall ever having seen any textual indication of a social group that simply opted not to circumcise. They opted not to circumcise under the duress of being threatened by death, not out of preference. You take liberties with history in that panel, and it is misleading.
On an ironic sidenote, at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple the Israeli society was so much Hellenized that Greek was the everyday language and Hebrew was confined to liturgy and those performing it in the Temple (hence the Christian gospels being written in Greek as that was the language of the common people). Therefore historians and linguists make a valid point when they state that the survival of the Hebrew language is strongly linked to the diaspora situation as it became a token of cultural identity.
Sarah,
it’s my understand that Jews adapting Greek as the vernacular was a phenomenon mostly confined to the North of the country, mostly in the Galilee — and hadn’t spread widely to Jerusalem. The Galilee being the it place for budding Jesus meshichistim, that would account for why some of the Gospels were written in Greek. Matthew and Mark were written in Aramaic or Hebrew, and translated later into Greek according to most scholars.
The phenomenon of Greek vernacular outside of Jerusalem was marked as the major gripe in Maccabees against the Hellenists — that and the nude gymnasiums. There was no mention of Jews becoming so assimilated that they neglected the most basic commandments.
HS, Matthew, Mark, Luke (the letters, too) and the “logos source Q” were written in Greek for all we know; that is not disputed by exegists (and Jewish historians of standing such as Nicholas DeLange). And that is seen as strong evidence of a basically all-Greek speaking Israel apart from liturgy as explained above. The few Aramaic sentences in those gospels are statements by Jesus and they either are [commonplace] quotations from the Torah or the Psalms or are considered key phrases of Jesus’ teaching (who, at his time, still spoke Aramaic, but the gospels were only written decades after his death and there is no evidence whatsoever that the logos source Q had been written in any language other than Greek with the occasional Aramaic interjection). Also, the start of Christianity as “something new” is marked by the Pentecostal experience when the disciples met in Jerusalem for Shavuot, hence Jerusalem became not only the focal point but also the birthplace of Christianity. Galilee was the place to be when Jesus was still alive.
Jesus was also born about 130 years after the period Maccabees recounts, so the Hellenization of Jerusalem may have reached a different boiling point by then.
Apparently your scholarship has led you to different conclusions than mine; My Hebrew University crowd always seems to be on the fringe of Second Temple scholarship. However, these sources might be worth a read to you:
http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/mksec8.htm
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/bibli...../4-31.html
I welcome any you have to the opposition.
Beware though that they are (as per my very recent discovery) minority opinions.
Well, that’s what I mean by revisionist understanding of history. It’s not my scholarship that leads me to any conclusions, but I’m just reporting on facts proven by a bunch of academics from various fields, political interests and religious affiliations that all have come to the same understanding. As for Jewish authors, I suggest Nicolas DeLange’s, Sholem Ben-Chorin and Pinchas Lapide.
The first article you linked to makes the substantial error to suggest Matthew might indeed be older than Mark, which was an erroneous view held till the early 20th century CE as Mt was believed to be older than Mk as it is the longer text. (Premise is a medieval reading of documents that strikes post-Enlightment readers as terribly naive). Mt and Lk copied from Mark, not vice versa. In addition, Mt and Lk copied from the logos source Q and both had extra material to add (e.g. the Christmas narration in Lk). The notion that Mt is older than Mk by now has been ditched by pretty much any exegist [and I've met some great ones in my time, even ones that were involved with the first studies on the Qumran findings and the reconstruction of the logos source Q] that has preserved his academic credibility. The notion that the gospels were written in Aramaic / Hebrew was brought up by a Spanish prioress during the early 17th century CE.
There is no doubting that Mk, Mt, and Lk knew Aramaic and Hebrew as it can be assumed they belonged to a highly educated upper class (Lk’s use of idioms suggest he might have been a physician) just as the psalms were known by most common people (until 1965, all liturgy in Catholic churches was in Latin and older people still remember the prayers by heart afterall without necessarily understanding them).
The second article committs the logical fallacy of assuming that an idiom moved rather than translated into another language and its original language still showing provides enough of an argument to base the language of an entire book on. To compare, “hold on” doesn’t actually mean “stop” but was moved from German into English by German immigrants to the US. The German “halt an” means “stop”. The positioning of “already” at the end of a sentence is a move of the positioning of the Yiddish “shoin” [and is still considered incorrect in British English yet permissable in American English], but seeing either used in a piece of literature won’t make anyone think that piece of writing must by all means have first been written in either German or Yiddish. Idioms, metaphors and vocabulary travel and may keep or lose their meaning. But the conclusions that article draws are bizarre from a linguistic point of view to say the least.
The later Hellenization of Israel, BTW, is what I meant by the “ironic sidenote” above.
Ah, understood. On a completely different note, I was just listening to Pharoah’s Daughter, and wishing that I had a place on the Lower East Side. When exactly are you coming around again Sarah?
HS
some of the hellenizers were jews who chose greek culture of their own free will. in that aspect, the comparison to tadays secular is apt. killing anyone who disagrees with you is a long and great tradition in every civilization and all cultures, and I heartily approve when it’s us doing it to them. of course, when it’s the other way around, I’m all for tolerance.
Dk
you posted the same comic last year and I liked it then. But you had a post up here then with comments, and I couldn’t find it.
Can you link to that?
This one? http://kvetcher.net/2007/12/05.....or-moment/
B”H
Re: DK { 12.22.08 at 10:28 pm }
The sages of Yavne and later have reinterpreted many things in Judaism to enable relatively peaceful life in exile under Roman rule.
This includes the de’emphasis on the military victories of the Macabees and probably was one of the reasons why books of Macabees were not included in the Tanach.
The ban on proselitizing to make converts is also a later compromise with the Christian ruling powers.
This doesn’t make a more “militarist” Judaism of the Macabees necessarely wrong.
The ability to tolerate idols in the temple and pig sacrifices when you can stand up and stop this wouldn’t have been judged as a great merit either.
PS. You and Eli have a lot of talent and should also make a cartoon about the real history of Xmass:
http://audio.simpletoremember......ears-b.mp3
http://www.simpletoremember.co.....lStory.htm
That would actually do some good to help some Yidn resist the temptation and not be carried away by the “spirit of the season”.:-)
“some of the hellenizers were jews who chose greek culture of their own free will. ”
I think you mean some of the Hellenists* (as in Jews who indulged in Hellenist activities like going to the nude gymnasium) chose Greek culture of their own free will. I don’t recall having read anything to indicate that it was Jews actually imposing and enforcing the ban on Torah study and circumcision (though in every crowd there are informants).
As far as these Hellenized Jews forsaking circumcision, I think your Chareidi hard-line mentality has clouded your perception of the history. I’ve never read anything to indicate that Jews were forsaking circumcision as a matter of trend. I think it’s fair to assume that since other less blatant transgressions were noted in Maccabees, that a large aveira to that extent would also be noted. If there’s no source for it, then it’s baseless conjecture. From my historical understanding, we’re talking about traditional Jews being caught between the (Greek/Assyrian) Hellenizers threats, and the wrath of their Chareidi coreligionists.
This includes the de’emphasis on the military victories of the Macabees and probably was one of the reasons why books of Macabees were not included in the Tanach.
That doesn’t add up. The military victory of the Hasmoneans remains in the additional paragraph in the Amidah.
The ban on proselitizing to make converts is also a later compromise with the Christian ruling powers.
But forced conversions have no Torah precedent. correct? We are talking about FORCED conversions.
The ability to tolerate idols in the temple and pig sacrifices when you can stand up and stop this wouldn’t have been judged as a great merit either.
Once again, I am not defending Greek oppression.
DK,
Who are you responding to?
Ariel’s post.
Sarah:
I’m afraid your sources for the Greek primacy argument are out of date. Analysis of the extant Hebrew documents by Nehemia Gordon (Dead Sea Scholar at Hebrew University, I believe, amoung other things) show that the language and grammatical structure, as well as “beautifications” of the text of Matthew etc, are Hebrew and not Greek. The extant Greek manuscripts are copies of Hebrew originals.
B”H
But forced conversions have no Torah precedent. correct? We are talking about FORCED conversions.
And what do you call the case of a yafat toar beautiful woman captive? does that not involve a forced conversion?
(The Rambam paskens that unless she abandons idolworship within a year she forefeits her life)
Why was Shlomo haMelech chastised for allowing his wives to revert to idol worship?
What about the posuk in the end of the Megilat Esther about many among the goyim converting because the fear of Jews fell upon them?
What about the statement in Kuzari about the right of a king to cause his people to convert? Is that not a forced conversion?
What about the opinion in the Talmud that in the world to come the goym will be forced to observe the Shabbat?
What about the Midrash about Hashem suspending Mt. Sinai over our heads forcing us to accept the Torah?
(I am not saying that the support for forced conversions was always regarded as a good thing in Judaism rather that it is not imposible to find sources in support of it and while now we don’t practically rule like that in their time Macabees apparently chose to do so.)
“The ability to tolerate idols in the temple and pig sacrifices when you can stand up and stop this wouldn’t have been judged as a great merit either.”
Once again, I am not defending Greek oppression.
I understand that however it is hard to understand why would you expect people who just freed themselves from oppression of foreigners and their collaborators to allow full religious freedom for their opponents.
When two factions of the same religion are a minority under opression by others one can see mutual love and tolerance as the best policy yet when one party gains control over whole country after battling the foreign occupiers and the others who colabarated with them it is logical to expect it to solidify it’s rule by eliminating or marginalizing all opposition political and religious.
B”H
Also on the topic of forced conversions.
A war captive male or female would have the status of eved knaani-cananite servant.
He would be circumcized and forced to observe mitzvot lo taaseh and mitzvot oseh she ein ba zman groma – the prohibitions as well as positive commands not limited to specific time.
If such person would be freed he would have the status of a Jew .
The Torah allows Jews to wage milchamat reshut -optional war of conquest.
The war involves taking captives . May be this can explain the rationale behind the forced conversion of Edomites by Macabees?
If I remember correctly, it says in Josephus that the hellenist sympathisers dragged the skin up to cover the place of the foreskin
משכו ערלתן
I think it’s fair to presume that people that went through that wouldn’t circumsize their kids.
Ahavah, the premise for that reasoning is the long-proven incorrect assumption [explained above] that Mt is the oldest of the gospels. That assumption lost all its credibility in the early 20th century. To base a theory to an already per se determined fallacy doesn’t make neither the theory nor the fallacy any more true. I’ve explained above how a Hebrew influence could come about. The conclusions some people apparently draw from such influences are nothing but a hysteron proteron.
Should read: …to base a theory on…
The Haredi narrative about the Maccabees revolt and its causes bears no relationship to reality. Jews were content to be part of the Seleucid Empire until it became weak and oppressive just as the American colonists were happy to be subjects of the British Crown until that government became weak and oppressive and they saw advantages in challenging the status quo.
Mohammed may indeed believe that Haredim descended on the Greek polis and set the garbage cans of Reform Jews on fire just as he believes that the French Resistance in WWII are to be compared to the frummermentalists of Ramat Bet Shemesh. There is no reason to accept his version of ‘reality’.
For a historical perspective see
http://www.houseofdavid.ca/maccabee.htm
You can then light your menorah and sing Maoz Tsur and eat some latkes without suffering any moral qualms. Don’t forget to take some latkes as refreshments to Mohammed. He will be spending the night manning an anti aircraft gun ready to shoot down any reindeers flying over Monsey.
“If I remember correctly, it says in Josephus that the hellenist sympathisers dragged the skin up to cover the place of the foreskin”
If Josephus wrote that, that changes everything.
Leave a Comment