Archive for the ‘Baba Kamma 113a’ Category

Anyone Whose (Alleged) Representatives are Engaged in "Dialogue" With Zionists, Pay Close Attention to This

January 29, 2011

Anyone paying attention already knew that “dialogue” with “The Jews” is a one-way racket, but the depth of the fraud is far worse than most could imagine.

Tear up the Palestine Papers

Betrayed by their leaders, Palestinians have to start their struggle again in a spirit of national reconciliation and unity

Abdel Bari Atwan – Gulf News
January 30, 2011

Trusted colleagues inform me that the cache of 1.600 leaked documents now known as the ‘Palestine Papers’ came from three main sources: Palestinian nationalists who are opposed to Palestinian National Authority (PNA) policies and reject their role as negotiators; former members of the PNA who have defected due to differences with the leadership and have old scores to settle; and people who anticipated financial reward for their contribution.

While Palestinians reel with shock at the contents of confidential minutes, e-mails, memos and handwritten notes, the PNA’s leadership is equally horrified at having been discovered courting Israeli and US officials and selling its countrymen down the line.

It should come as no surprise that the PNA is so porous. The organisation’s internal affairs are chaotic and its leaders embarrassingly amateurish.

As countless commentators have pointed out, not one of the group currently brokering the future of Palestine — Mahmoud Abbas, Saeb Erekat, Ahmad Qorei, Yasser Abed Rabbo and Salam Fayyad — has a current mandate to do so. Mahmoud Abbas’ presidential term, for example, expired on January 9, 2009, when he unilaterally re-elected himself!

Any notion that this desperation to cling to power was motivated by anything other than self interest, has now been extinguished.

The Palestine Papers reveal a gut-wrenching level of PNA collusion — against its own people — with Israel, the US and Britain. It is also clear that for PNA leaders the enemy is Hamas, not Israel.

Infamous for human rights abuses and imprisoning its rivals without trial, the PNA’s security apparatus — we now discover — was founded on a blueprint commissioned by Tony Blair and developed by the British secret service, MI6, in 2004. Israel is close at hand to help: in a 2006 conversation with America’s Keith Dayton, Erekat celebrated the PNA’s ‘security liaison with Israel’.

At its most sinister, this unpalatable collaboration includes a casual approach to the murder of fellow Palestinians: documents from 2005 detail a discussion between Israeli defence minister, Shaul Mofaz and PNA interior minister, Nasser Yousuf about Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Hassan Al Madhoun. “We know his address … Why don’t you kill him?” Mofaz asked.

Yousuf replied that ‘instructions’ had been given but complains ‘you haven’t offered anything’. In the event Madhoun was murdered by Israeli forces. In September 2009, Erekat told a US official that “we have killed our own people to … establish one authority, one gun and the rule of law”.

The documents reveal an incomprehensible attitude to Israel’s winter 2008-09 onslaught (code-named Operation Cast Lead) in which 1,400 Palestinians — nearly half of them women and children — lost their lives.

Clandestine meeting

First we discover that Israeli intelligence chief, Amos Gilad, alerted Abbas prior to the attack and met with no resistance. Then from WikiLeaks, we learn that on December 29, 2008, PNA security chiefs held a clandestine meeting with top Israeli military and intelligence officials: not, as we would have hoped, to angrily berate their bloodthirsty enemy, but to discuss the best way to handle anti-Israel protests in the West Bank. According to the US Embassy cable, “the two sides agreed to expedite coordination and exchange information on disturbances”.

On October 2, 2009, Abbas blocked a UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) resolution supporting the Goldstone Report. The resolution would have paved the way for a war crimes prosecution against the architects of ‘Operation Cast Lead’ including Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni (then foreign minister).

Leaked minutes from a Washington meeting between Senator George Mitchell and Erekat suggest that the UNHRC vote was used as a bargaining tool: Mitchell promised to broker a resumption of the stalled peace process and to talk up the Palestinians’ demands in exchange for Abbas calling for the vote to be deferred. It was during this meeting that Erekat enthusiastically insisted that “we want to help the Israelis”.

The papers consistently portray a PNA more concerned with remaining in power than the welfare of fellow Palestinians. In 2008, it blocked the release of 450 Arab prisoners in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Qorei bluntly informed Livni that such a move would “make Hamas appear as a hero before the public and that Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] gives speeches only”.

Also in 2008, concerned that Israel’s brutal siege of Gaza was being thwarted by Palestinians tunnelling along the Egyptian border, Qorei urged Livni to “occupy the [Philadelphi] crossing”.

Six months before Livni personally oversaw ‘Operation Cast Lead’, Qorei flattered the Kadima leader saying “I’d vote for you”. The papers are littered with such sycophancy: Erekat frequently addresses Netanyahu by his pet name ‘Bibi’.

Yet the Israeli and US negotiators showed little respect for the PNA group. In 2008, the Israelis presented a map of proposed land swaps, but wouldn’t let the Palestinians keep a copy. The sight of the then 73-year-old Abbas copying the map on to a paper napkin is truly painful.

The end of the Palestine Papers’ depressing saga sees an increasingly desperate Palestinian team surrendering one key national position after another: it offers Israel nearly all of occupied east Jerusalem (Erekat cringe-makingly refers to it by its Hebrew name, Yerushalayim); it agrees to Israel annexing its illegal colonies and it limits the right of return to just 10,000 refugees. The Israelis scorn every offer and cold-bloodedly ask for more. Then US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice expertly extinguishes the last flickerings of Palestinian pride with the suggestion that its refugees could be transferred to Latin America.

The PNA leaders and negotiators have completely discredited themselves and the Peace Process. As valiant protesters put their lives on the line for regime change in Egypt, Jordan and Yemen, Abbas and his men must realiee that the days of autocratic, oppressive and corrupt Middle Eastern regimes are numbered.

Abbas is making it known that he intends to resign in September — no doubt hoping that a miracle will occur in the intervening time to save him. The whole group should go immediately, but will probably cling to power until the last possible moment, unwilling to relinquish the material benefits and status they have become addicted to.

There can be no more negotiations between today’s Israeli government and these fake Palestinian representatives. The Palestinian people have to start their struggle again in a spirit of national reconciliation and unity, never forgetting that they are an occupied people, resisting all the evils of Israeli occupation through civil disobedience and, if necessary, intifada.

The Palestine Papers represent a shameful history that should now be torn up.

http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/tear-up-the-palestine-papers-1.754082

Advertisements

An Embarrassment to Journalism: Der Spiegel’s Sloppiness and Lies

February 3, 2010

EMBARRASSMENT FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: Bishop Williamson Unrepentent in Holocaust Denial

Der Spiegel: The Real Story

How Many Lies Can You Spot in this Lying Rabbi’s Lying Article published in a Lying Kosher-Catholic Journal?

May 10, 2008

Jewish Views of Other Faiths

By Rabbi Gilbert S. Rosenthal | MAY 19, 2008

America The National Catholic Weekly

P ope Benedict XVI’s recent revision of the “Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews” in the Latin text of the 1962 Good Friday liturgy set off a wave of questioning by puzzled Catholics and anxious concern among Jewish observers. Did the revival of language calling for the conversion of the Jewish people signify a departure from the ideals of the Second Vatican Council and its landmark document Nostra Aetate, which marked a radical change in the relationships between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people? Jews were wary of a return to preconciliar times, when the “teaching of contempt” marked the relationship between the two faiths. In restoring the 1962 liturgy, why did the pope not simply insert a Latin version of the lovely prayer adopted by Pope Paul VI and in use since 1970 in the vernacular services—a prayer that does not offend Jews and yet embodies the church’s hope for the union of the faiths at the end of days?

The concern expressed by Jewish leaders about a return to proselytizing Jews provoked two puzzling and unexpected reactions—one from Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago, the other from Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Cardinal George asked why Jews did not expunge passages in the Talmud that are insulting to Christians and refer to Jesus as a bastard. Cardinal Kasper reaffirmed “the freedom of Catholics to formulate our own prayers” and noted that “Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we don’t like.”

Are the charges true? Are there anti-Christian passages in the Talmud? Are there anti-Christian prayers in Jewish liturgy?

Censoring the Talmud

Over 5,800 pages long, the Talmud is a vast sea of learning that contains the opinions of thousands of rabbis, many of whom are not even named, on a variety of subjects, including law, lore, history, theology, ethics and many other topics. The Talmud does not represent authoritative law or theology or liturgy. There are perhaps four references to Jesus—all badly garbled, all written at least a century or two after his death. It is not at all clear if Jesus of Nazareth is even the intended subject of those citations.

In 1240, when Rabbi Yehiel of Paris had to defend the Talmud in a public disputation, he maintained that another man named Jesus, who lived a century before Jesus of Nazareth, was the subject of references in the Talmud. Jesus, after all, was the Greek name for Joshua, a common name at the time. In fact, Rabbi Yehiel argued, there was reference to another Jesus in the New Testament itself. But even if Jesus of Nazareth was the intended subject of some of these troubling passages, they reflect the opinion of one man, not the consensus of Jewish thought then or now.

Several polemical passages in the Talmud reflect the sharp controversies between rabbinic Judaism and the minim—a generic term that means “heretics or schismatic sects.” Whether the minim referred to in these passages are Judeo-Christians (Nazarenes, notzrim) or some other sect, like the gnostics, is not always clear from the text. Certain of these polemical passages were probably aimed at the new Jewish sect that split away from the synagogue and engaged in sharp theological and religious debates in the first centuries of the Common Era. Interestingly, the Talmud (Shabbat 116a-b) quotes only one passage from the New Testament, Mt 5:17—“I come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.”

In any case, the heavy hands of the censors removed the offensive passages. Sparked by the vindictiveness of apostate Jews who, for whatever personal or psychological reasons, maligned their former faith, cartloads of copies of the Talmud (and other Hebrew books) were torched in Paris in 1242. This happened again in Italy in the years 1553 to 1559. Censorship of all Hebrew books was introduced and enforced by agents of the Inquisition, often ex-Jews who turned with mindless fury on their former faith. Frequently the censors deleted inoffensive material; sometimes they substituted absurd and ridiculous texts for the original.

In 1554 in Italy, as a result of the relentless attacks on Jewish writings and in order to preserve the ability to publish Hebrew texts, Jewish communities installed a system of self-censorship so that no book would be published in the community without the approval of three qualified rabbis. As a result, no European edition of the Talmud contains anti-Christian texts or anti-Jesus statements. Texts published in oriental lands, however, were not subject to censorship, and they continue to contain the few offensive passages. Current editions of the Talmud text published in Israel indicate in the footnotes the original texts and explain the reasons for their elimination.

Problematic Liturgical Passages

Turning to the Jewish liturgy, we find it is virtually free of any references to other faiths except paganism and idolatry. There is not a single reference to Christianity or Islam in all the prayers. Yes, there are prayers that some day pagans will cease worshiping idols and come to acknowledge the God of Israel, the Father and Creator of all human beings, but surely no Christian or Muslim would object to these expressions of hope for the future?

Cardinal Kasper may have been thinking of two problematic passages in the liturgy of past centuries. The 12th blessing in the daily Amidah prayer, the so-called blessing of the slanderers, reads currently: “May there be no hope for those who slander and malign us and may all evil be crushed and all evildoers disappear.” This is a very ancient prayer; it was revised and rewritten any number of times in antiquity. It may have initially been formulated in the days of the Maccabees as a curse against the Hellenizing Jews who betrayed their people and the God of Israel. Later on, it was applied to the traitors who went over to the Romans and spied on the Jewish people. It was revised yet again as a prayer against the various sects and cults that contended with rabbinic Judaism: the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the gnostics—and for a time, the notzrim, the Judeo-Christians. In time, however, those ancient Palestinian texts were discarded. The version I have cited is the one universally used in the synagogue liturgy today—as it has been for centuries.

The second problematic text is the well-known Aleinu prayer, recited at the close of every synagogue service since the 14th century. The prayer has been attributed to the distinguished Babylonian sage Rav and his school of liturgists, who worked in the early third century, although recent scholarship has demonstrated that the prayer predates Rav and may well go back to the time of the Jerusalem Temple. The text clearly expresses the hope that some day the pagans who worship idols will accept the God of Israel and, in the spirit of the Prophet Zechariah, will unite in serving the one God. The line that has generated controversy reads, “For they bow to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save, whereas we bow and prostrate ourselves before the King of Kings.”

As there were few Christians in Babylonia with whom Rav (if indeed he was the author) came in contact, the prayer is obviously directed against pagans, not Christians. Moreover, the passage is a fusion of two verses from Isaiah, 30:7 and 45:20, words uttered centuries before the appearance of Christianity. Once again, apostate Jews ignited the controversy. They claimed that the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in the offending passage equals the name of Jesus. Other apostates went even further: they insisted that the numerical value of the phrase equals Jesus and Muhammad. Rabbi Lippmann Muelhausen in Germany successfully refuted this slander in 1399, but the matter refused to die. Finally, Frederick the Great of Prussia ordered the passage stripped from the liturgy in 1703, installing guards in the synagogues to confirm that the phrase was deleted. And so it has remained in European liturgy until today. The Italian rite changed the verb to the past tense, “For they used to bow to idols and pray to a god who cannot save,” etc. Jews from the Middle East and orient retained the original text. Current Israeli prayer books often restore the text, sometimes placing it within parentheses. But I doubt if many or even any interpret the text as directed against Christians or Muslims. Needless to say, Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Jewish prayer books have eliminated the passages in question.

Moving Forward

What conclusions may we draw from this information? Centuries ago, a few bizarre statements about Jesus and Christianity could be found among the tens of thousands of rabbinic statements. These passages, however, have been deleted for many centuries. A denunciation of the new Judeo-Christian sect possibly was inserted in the Palestinian liturgy perhaps 19 centuries ago, a reflection of the sharp and often bitter theological polemics that raged at the time. That passage, too, has been long banished. A line in the Aleinu prayer that was surely intended as criticism of paganism and may have been misconstrued by some was deleted.

But all of these controversial passages together are dwarfed by the oceans of anti-Jewish preaching and teachings that attacked Judaism from the first century on. John Chrysostom alone (fourth century) delivered eight vitriolic anti-Jewish sermons—and this comprised but a fraction of the literature.

No anti-Christian material was ever inserted in our most sacred liturgy on Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur, but the Good Friday service—one of the most sacred for Christians—codified anti-Jewish sentiment and, until 1962, slandered the “perfidious Jews,” who are blind to God’s truths and whose hearts are veiled to Jesus’ saving light.

It was not just the combination of external and internal censorship, however, that nudged Judaism to its stance. Jews concluded with the Prophet Malachi (3:10), that we all, indeed, have one Father, one God who has created us all. And the sages reasoned, perhaps as early as the second century, that “the righteous of all nations have a portion in the age to come” (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2). There should be no place in our liturgy or teachings or preaching for the demeaning of any other faith. This explains why Jews—and many Catholics—are so puzzled and disappointed by Pope Benedict’s changes to the 1962 liturgy. Does this return to a language of conversion reflect an erosion of the advances of Vatican II and its landmark documents, which have been part of the magisterium of the Catholic Church? Are we to forfeit the remarkable legacy of the late, lamented Pope John Paul II? We all pray that we will not retreat, but rather move forward in our relationship, the relationship of elder and younger brother, to borrow Pope John Paul II’s matchless language, so that we both may be a blessing to each other and “a blessing to the world.”


Rabbi Gilbert S. Rosenthal is the executive director of the National Council of Synagogues and the author and editor of 11 books, including Contemporary Judaism and The Many Faces of Judaism.


http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10824

How Many Lies Can You Spot in this Lying Rabbi’s Lying Article published in a Lying Kosher-Catholic Journal?

May 10, 2008

Jewish Views of Other Faiths

By Rabbi Gilbert S. Rosenthal | MAY 19, 2008

America The National Catholic Weekly

P ope Benedict XVI’s recent revision of the “Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews” in the Latin text of the 1962 Good Friday liturgy set off a wave of questioning by puzzled Catholics and anxious concern among Jewish observers. Did the revival of language calling for the conversion of the Jewish people signify a departure from the ideals of the Second Vatican Council and its landmark document Nostra Aetate, which marked a radical change in the relationships between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people? Jews were wary of a return to preconciliar times, when the “teaching of contempt” marked the relationship between the two faiths. In restoring the 1962 liturgy, why did the pope not simply insert a Latin version of the lovely prayer adopted by Pope Paul VI and in use since 1970 in the vernacular services—a prayer that does not offend Jews and yet embodies the church’s hope for the union of the faiths at the end of days?

The concern expressed by Jewish leaders about a return to proselytizing Jews provoked two puzzling and unexpected reactions—one from Cardinal Francis George, archbishop of Chicago, the other from Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. Cardinal George asked why Jews did not expunge passages in the Talmud that are insulting to Christians and refer to Jesus as a bastard. Cardinal Kasper reaffirmed “the freedom of Catholics to formulate our own prayers” and noted that “Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we don’t like.”

Are the charges true? Are there anti-Christian passages in the Talmud? Are there anti-Christian prayers in Jewish liturgy?

Censoring the Talmud

Over 5,800 pages long, the Talmud is a vast sea of learning that contains the opinions of thousands of rabbis, many of whom are not even named, on a variety of subjects, including law, lore, history, theology, ethics and many other topics. The Talmud does not represent authoritative law or theology or liturgy. There are perhaps four references to Jesus—all badly garbled, all written at least a century or two after his death. It is not at all clear if Jesus of Nazareth is even the intended subject of those citations.

In 1240, when Rabbi Yehiel of Paris had to defend the Talmud in a public disputation, he maintained that another man named Jesus, who lived a century before Jesus of Nazareth, was the subject of references in the Talmud. Jesus, after all, was the Greek name for Joshua, a common name at the time. In fact, Rabbi Yehiel argued, there was reference to another Jesus in the New Testament itself. But even if Jesus of Nazareth was the intended subject of some of these troubling passages, they reflect the opinion of one man, not the consensus of Jewish thought then or now.

Several polemical passages in the Talmud reflect the sharp controversies between rabbinic Judaism and the minim—a generic term that means “heretics or schismatic sects.” Whether the minim referred to in these passages are Judeo-Christians (Nazarenes, notzrim) or some other sect, like the gnostics, is not always clear from the text. Certain of these polemical passages were probably aimed at the new Jewish sect that split away from the synagogue and engaged in sharp theological and religious debates in the first centuries of the Common Era. Interestingly, the Talmud (Shabbat 116a-b) quotes only one passage from the New Testament, Mt 5:17—“I come not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.”

In any case, the heavy hands of the censors removed the offensive passages. Sparked by the vindictiveness of apostate Jews who, for whatever personal or psychological reasons, maligned their former faith, cartloads of copies of the Talmud (and other Hebrew books) were torched in Paris in 1242. This happened again in Italy in the years 1553 to 1559. Censorship of all Hebrew books was introduced and enforced by agents of the Inquisition, often ex-Jews who turned with mindless fury on their former faith. Frequently the censors deleted inoffensive material; sometimes they substituted absurd and ridiculous texts for the original.

In 1554 in Italy, as a result of the relentless attacks on Jewish writings and in order to preserve the ability to publish Hebrew texts, Jewish communities installed a system of self-censorship so that no book would be published in the community without the approval of three qualified rabbis. As a result, no European edition of the Talmud contains anti-Christian texts or anti-Jesus statements. Texts published in oriental lands, however, were not subject to censorship, and they continue to contain the few offensive passages. Current editions of the Talmud text published in Israel indicate in the footnotes the original texts and explain the reasons for their elimination.

Problematic Liturgical Passages

Turning to the Jewish liturgy, we find it is virtually free of any references to other faiths except paganism and idolatry. There is not a single reference to Christianity or Islam in all the prayers. Yes, there are prayers that some day pagans will cease worshiping idols and come to acknowledge the God of Israel, the Father and Creator of all human beings, but surely no Christian or Muslim would object to these expressions of hope for the future?

Cardinal Kasper may have been thinking of two problematic passages in the liturgy of past centuries. The 12th blessing in the daily Amidah prayer, the so-called blessing of the slanderers, reads currently: “May there be no hope for those who slander and malign us and may all evil be crushed and all evildoers disappear.” This is a very ancient prayer; it was revised and rewritten any number of times in antiquity. It may have initially been formulated in the days of the Maccabees as a curse against the Hellenizing Jews who betrayed their people and the God of Israel. Later on, it was applied to the traitors who went over to the Romans and spied on the Jewish people. It was revised yet again as a prayer against the various sects and cults that contended with rabbinic Judaism: the Samaritans, the Sadducees, the gnostics—and for a time, the notzrim, the Judeo-Christians. In time, however, those ancient Palestinian texts were discarded. The version I have cited is the one universally used in the synagogue liturgy today—as it has been for centuries.

The second problematic text is the well-known Aleinu prayer, recited at the close of every synagogue service since the 14th century. The prayer has been attributed to the distinguished Babylonian sage Rav and his school of liturgists, who worked in the early third century, although recent scholarship has demonstrated that the prayer predates Rav and may well go back to the time of the Jerusalem Temple. The text clearly expresses the hope that some day the pagans who worship idols will accept the God of Israel and, in the spirit of the Prophet Zechariah, will unite in serving the one God. The line that has generated controversy reads, “For they bow to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save, whereas we bow and prostrate ourselves before the King of Kings.”

As there were few Christians in Babylonia with whom Rav (if indeed he was the author) came in contact, the prayer is obviously directed against pagans, not Christians. Moreover, the passage is a fusion of two verses from Isaiah, 30:7 and 45:20, words uttered centuries before the appearance of Christianity. Once again, apostate Jews ignited the controversy. They claimed that the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in the offending passage equals the name of Jesus. Other apostates went even further: they insisted that the numerical value of the phrase equals Jesus and Muhammad. Rabbi Lippmann Muelhausen in Germany successfully refuted this slander in 1399, but the matter refused to die. Finally, Frederick the Great of Prussia ordered the passage stripped from the liturgy in 1703, installing guards in the synagogues to confirm that the phrase was deleted. And so it has remained in European liturgy until today. The Italian rite changed the verb to the past tense, “For they used to bow to idols and pray to a god who cannot save,” etc. Jews from the Middle East and orient retained the original text. Current Israeli prayer books often restore the text, sometimes placing it within parentheses. But I doubt if many or even any interpret the text as directed against Christians or Muslims. Needless to say, Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist Jewish prayer books have eliminated the passages in question.

Moving Forward

What conclusions may we draw from this information? Centuries ago, a few bizarre statements about Jesus and Christianity could be found among the tens of thousands of rabbinic statements. These passages, however, have been deleted for many centuries. A denunciation of the new Judeo-Christian sect possibly was inserted in the Palestinian liturgy perhaps 19 centuries ago, a reflection of the sharp and often bitter theological polemics that raged at the time. That passage, too, has been long banished. A line in the Aleinu prayer that was surely intended as criticism of paganism and may have been misconstrued by some was deleted.

But all of these controversial passages together are dwarfed by the oceans of anti-Jewish preaching and teachings that attacked Judaism from the first century on. John Chrysostom alone (fourth century) delivered eight vitriolic anti-Jewish sermons—and this comprised but a fraction of the literature.

No anti-Christian material was ever inserted in our most sacred liturgy on Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur, but the Good Friday service—one of the most sacred for Christians—codified anti-Jewish sentiment and, until 1962, slandered the “perfidious Jews,” who are blind to God’s truths and whose hearts are veiled to Jesus’ saving light.

It was not just the combination of external and internal censorship, however, that nudged Judaism to its stance. Jews concluded with the Prophet Malachi (3:10), that we all, indeed, have one Father, one God who has created us all. And the sages reasoned, perhaps as early as the second century, that “the righteous of all nations have a portion in the age to come” (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2). There should be no place in our liturgy or teachings or preaching for the demeaning of any other faith. This explains why Jews—and many Catholics—are so puzzled and disappointed by Pope Benedict’s changes to the 1962 liturgy. Does this return to a language of conversion reflect an erosion of the advances of Vatican II and its landmark documents, which have been part of the magisterium of the Catholic Church? Are we to forfeit the remarkable legacy of the late, lamented Pope John Paul II? We all pray that we will not retreat, but rather move forward in our relationship, the relationship of elder and younger brother, to borrow Pope John Paul II’s matchless language, so that we both may be a blessing to each other and “a blessing to the world.”


Rabbi Gilbert S. Rosenthal is the executive director of the National Council of Synagogues and the author and editor of 11 books, including Contemporary Judaism and The Many Faces of Judaism.


http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10824

Benedict’s Elder Brothers and their Tradition of Deceit

September 21, 2007

Indictments Hit Prominent Crown Heights Family

Marissa Brostoff

Wed. Sep 19, 2007

Two members of an influential family in Brooklyn’s Chabad-Lubavitch community were arrested this week after being indicted by a federal grand jury The indictment from the district attorney in Philadelphia charges Moshe Rubashkin with leaving hazardous waste at a textile plant in Allentown, Pa. Rubashkin is a communal leader in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, the stronghold of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Orthodox Judaism.

Rubashkin’s son, Sholom, was also charged with misleading an investigation into a fire at the plant. The younger Rubashkin ran the real estate branch of the family’s business under the alias Sam Sternburg …

The family got its start in America when the patriarch, Aaron Rubashkin, came over from Russia in 1945. Once in Brooklyn, Rubashkin, set up a local butcher shop in Brooklyn. In the ’80s, the family began expanding its business interests aggressively. Two of Rubashkin’s sons set up the AgriProcessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa. The plant, which produces meat under the Aaron’s Best label, has been under scrutiny due to complaints about the way it has treated the animals that are slaughtered there and the people who work there.

Nathan Lewin, a lawyer who is representing the family in the case, did not return calls seeking comment …

In the indictment, the EPA claims that when it attempted to charge the party responsible for costs incurred in cleaning out the mill, it discovered that the property had been held by a confusing tangle of real estate companies with no clear owner. Sholom Rubashkin, 28, ran the real estate branch of the family business under his alias and informed the EPA that he had no connection to the mill site at the time of the fires. The indictment alleges that Sholom “knowingly and willfully made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11650/

Wow, the language of this indictment is refreshingly appropriate. How often we see accusations of lying referred to euphemistically or avoided altogether today, particularly where Talmud-upholding “chosen people” are concerned–where it quite often applies. But here we see lies referred to specifically for what they are–knowingly and willfully made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements–and in reference to “chosen” Lubavitchers.

This is a positive development, but there is still a long way to go. In a sane world it would be common knowledge that knowingly and willfully making materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements is the essence of the Talmudic tradition and to be expected from pious Orthodox Judaics, not only the indicted Lubavitchers referred to in the above article, but also their lawyer, Nathan Lewin and all Orthodox Judaics who uphold the Talmudic tradition and it’s offshoots, such as Zionism, as well as Judaism’s philo-Judaic stepchildren, Freemasonry and the myriad of Kabbalistic variants. We have a long way to go before we arrive at the point when Orthodox Judaic Lieberman and Skull and Bones Bush are perceived as suspect liars before they even open their mouths, and certainly not worthy candidates for high office.

As a society we have come to expect that our leaders will tell us lies. We’ve come to believe that God’s chosen people are liars. These are symptoms of a terribly, terribly sick society and the prognosis is death if the illness remains untreated.

Benedict’s Elder Brothers and their Tradition of Deceit

September 21, 2007

Indictments Hit Prominent Crown Heights Family

Marissa Brostoff

Wed. Sep 19, 2007

Two members of an influential family in Brooklyn’s Chabad-Lubavitch community were arrested this week after being indicted by a federal grand jury The indictment from the district attorney in Philadelphia charges Moshe Rubashkin with leaving hazardous waste at a textile plant in Allentown, Pa. Rubashkin is a communal leader in the Crown Heights neighborhood of Brooklyn, the stronghold of the Chabad-Lubavitch sect of Orthodox Judaism.

Rubashkin’s son, Sholom, was also charged with misleading an investigation into a fire at the plant. The younger Rubashkin ran the real estate branch of the family’s business under the alias Sam Sternburg …

The family got its start in America when the patriarch, Aaron Rubashkin, came over from Russia in 1945. Once in Brooklyn, Rubashkin, set up a local butcher shop in Brooklyn. In the ’80s, the family began expanding its business interests aggressively. Two of Rubashkin’s sons set up the AgriProcessors slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa. The plant, which produces meat under the Aaron’s Best label, has been under scrutiny due to complaints about the way it has treated the animals that are slaughtered there and the people who work there.

Nathan Lewin, a lawyer who is representing the family in the case, did not return calls seeking comment …

In the indictment, the EPA claims that when it attempted to charge the party responsible for costs incurred in cleaning out the mill, it discovered that the property had been held by a confusing tangle of real estate companies with no clear owner. Sholom Rubashkin, 28, ran the real estate branch of the family business under his alias and informed the EPA that he had no connection to the mill site at the time of the fires. The indictment alleges that Sholom “knowingly and willfully made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements.

http://www.forward.com/articles/11650/

Wow, the language of this indictment is refreshingly appropriate. How often we see accusations of lying referred to euphemistically or avoided altogether today, particularly where Talmud-upholding “chosen people” are concerned–where it quite often applies. But here we see lies referred to specifically for what they are–knowingly and willfully made materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements–and in reference to “chosen” Lubavitchers.

This is a positive development, but there is still a long way to go. In a sane world it would be common knowledge that knowingly and willfully making materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements is the essence of the Talmudic tradition and to be expected from pious Orthodox Judaics, not only the indicted Lubavitchers referred to in the above article, but also their lawyer, Nathan Lewin and all Orthodox Judaics who uphold the Talmudic tradition and it’s offshoots, such as Zionism, as well as Judaism’s philo-Judaic stepchildren, Freemasonry and the myriad of Kabbalistic variants. We have a long way to go before we arrive at the point when Orthodox Judaic Lieberman and Skull and Bones Bush are perceived as suspect liars before they even open their mouths, and certainly not worthy candidates for high office.

As a society we have come to expect that our leaders will tell us lies. We’ve come to believe that God’s chosen people are liars. These are symptoms of a terribly, terribly sick society and the prognosis is death if the illness remains untreated.