Volume 53 Number 68
Produced: Tue Jan 9 6:20:00 EST 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Apology
[SBA]
Back of the Bus
[Andy Goldfinger]
Back of the Bus, remembered (2)
[Ari Trachtenberg, Freda B Birnbaum]
Bigotry and Halacha
[SBA]
Charedei Response
[Abbi Adest]
NK at the source
[SBA]
Rape as War Crime
[Leah S. Gordon]
Segregated Buses (2)
[Perets Mett, SBA]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:07:49 +1100
Subject: Apology
>From: Sarah Beck
>> Again, if this story really happened, we have no idea about the
>> background of this violent passenger. The chances are that he could
>> very well be one of those crazy BTs who take matters too far
>
>Interestingly, you can plug in "FFB," "ger," "kohen," "levi," "Karaite,"
>"Samaritan," or countless other groups in for "BT," and make the same
>point. Or you could just have said, "he could very well be a crazy
>person who takes matters too far."
>Honestly, you owe the BTs on this list, and elsewhere, an apology.
As Yehudah once said 'tzadka mimeni'.
You are 100% correct. I realised my error immediately after
posting. After all crazy is crazy - whoever it is.
So I humbly apologise to all BTs or anyone else whom I may have hurt.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andy Goldfinger <Andy.Goldfinger@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 08:51:27 -0500
Subject: re: Back of the Bus
Freda Birnbaum writes:
> Even if one accepts the idea of separate seating, whether front-to-back
> or side-to-side (which I hasten to assure you, I don't), what about the
> situation where someone is assisting a spouse or an elderly or
> less-than-fully-abled person of the other gender? Does the wife have to
> sit in the back while the elderly husband with the walker sits elsewhere?
> (I've actually encountered difficulties of this sort at some events.)"
I attended a levaya (funeral) in Baltimore. Officiating was a well
known Rabbi who is Haredi (Chassidish -- wears a long black coat daily
and a Shtreimel on Shabbos). He was sitting on the raised platform near
the podium. At one point, a relative came to the podium to speak. It
was a woman with some sort of medical problem (cerebral palsy?) that
made it very difficult for her to walk. As she approached the stairs,
it was apparent it would be very difficult for her to climb them. This
Rabbi, without hesitation and in full view of the attendees, went over
to her, took her arm and assisted her as she went up the stairs. When
she finished, he helped her down the stairs. He did not, however, shake
her hand.
Similarly, I once had a medical exam performed by a Haredi woman. We
did not shake hands when we met. The physical exam was done with great
respect for my physical privacy, but of course there was physical
contact of a very personal nature. When the exam was finished, we again
did not shake hands.
To me, it is nice to know that there are people who understand the
sometimes fine distinctions between permitted and not-permitted contact.
It is nice to know that there are people who are sensitive to other's
needs and who can think clearly about things.
Andrew D. Goldfinger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:49:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Back of the Bus, remembered
> From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
> Even if one accepts the idea of separate seating, whether
> front-to-back or side-to-side (which I hasten to assure you, I don't),
> what about the situation where someone is assisting a spouse or an
> elderly or less-than-fully-abled person of the other gender?
This situation currently happens with public bathrooms. Are you
suggesting we make all bathrooms unisex as well? Society imposes its
standards and then people are forced to go along with them ... sometimes
at great personal inconvenience.
> When I was nine years old, I saw those signs on the buses (and the
> water fountains) in North Carolina where we lived at the time. I knew
> it was wrong then. It's still wrong.
Sorry ... I don't find any meaning in this statement. On what basis is
it wrong [segregating buses by sex]? Right/wrong doesn't exist in a
vacuum ... if this violates some halachic principles, our tradition, or
the like, please make this clear. Otherwise, what you *feel* is wrong,
others might not ... and it is not clear to me on what basis you would
impose your own feelings on others.
Best,
-Ari
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Freda B Birnbaum <fbb6@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 09:41:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Back of the Bus, remembered
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Ari Trachtenberg wrote:
> This situation currently happens with public bathrooms. Are you
> suggesting we make all bathrooms unisex as well? Society imposes its
> standards and then people are forced to go along with them
> ... sometimes at great personal inconvenience.
Of course not. But sometimes the standards are unreasonable. When
enough people started to speak up, changing tables for babies were made
available in men's rooms as well as ladies' rooms. That didn't mean
unisex bathrooms. (Indeed, one will occasionally see a single-occupant
bathroom labeled for wheelchairs and either sex... for one-at-a-time
use.)
You have taken the example to its farthest extreme and applied it
inappropriately.
> Sorry ... I don't find any meaning in this statement. On what basis
> is it wrong [segregating buses by sex]? Right/wrong doesn't exist in
> a vacuum ... if this violates some halachic principles, our tradition,
> or the like, please make this clear. Otherwise, what you *feel* is
> wrong, others might not ... and it is not clear to me on what basis
> you would impose your own feelings on others.
It is not clear to me on what basis these haredi folks are allowed to
impose their extreme views on others in a public place.
Are you suggesting that the culture of the American South in the 1950s
had the right to impose that sort of thing? I certainly hope not. And
I certainly hope you aren't suggesting that there might be some halachic
basis for such a thing.
Freda Birnbaum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:02:04 +1100
Subject: Bigotry and Halacha
From: Meir Shinnar <chidekel@...>
>Perets Mett:
> >Is it not reasonable for a public transport monopoly to make provision
> >for a sizeable section of its customers?
>
>If one would survey Israelis, I am sure that one would find a sizable
>section of the bus riders who do not want to sit next to haredim. Would
>you say the same thing about egged providing a similar provision
>(haredim to the back of the bus) to make provision for its customers?
I think that this is indeed your problem. What our rabbonim call
halacha - you call bigotry.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abbi Adest <abbi.adest@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:28:55 +0200
Subject: Re: Charedei Response
From: SBA
> You REALLY think that a RY who hears that a student of his beat up a
> woman (for whatever reason) would simply let it pass...? You portray
> them to be almost as evil as the mullahs of the Taliban.
> Have you even considered the possibilty that these RYs do not waste
> their precious time reading the openly anti-religious Haaretz nor the
> rantings of anti-Charedi and anti-Torah bloggers - with their alleged
> accounts of the rotteness of the entire Charedi world?
> Have you even considered that they may have never even heard of this
> attack (or should I say "attack") ?
I'm positive that all roshei yeshiva have heard of the terrible violent,
property destroying riots in Yerushalayim that occurred surrounding the
gay parade in the fall and the unspeakable allegations coming out
Brooklyn regarding sexual predators (backed up by numerous named
witnesses) and I haven't heard more then a tepid response from either
Roshei Yeshiva or the charedi leadership at large.
Once again, to echo Michael, Avi and myself, it is irresponsible for
both the leadership and community to ignore the violent and depraved
streaks that currently exist in the charedi community. The charedi
leadership is simply not leading, which is very dangerous, for both
charedim and non charedim.
As for the bus beating, both the police and the Israeli Supreme Court
are looking into the case. I'm not sure how much more evidence you would
like to prove the reality of this incident. In addition, it's not enough
for an RY to rebuke his student in a case like this (although who knows
if these 'yeshiva bochurs' (I use that term very loosely) even have an
RY). Community wide action and the strongest condemnations are
necessary (I'm thinking along the lines of the recent ban on higher
education for charedi women).
Abbi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 01:48:31 +1100
Subject: NK at the source
From: Yisrael Medad <ybmedad@...>
> If anyone is interested, here's NK philosophy on YouTube:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO050zt-MR0
Yep, that may well be the official NK philosophy, and I suppose they too
have a right to have a philosophy.
But attending a holocaust denial circus is definitely NOT NK philosophy
and that is why they - the Teheran 6 - have been ostracised by the
entire Charedi (including NK) community.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2007 17:22:23 -0800
Subject: Rape as War Crime
> The Torah's institution of Yefat Toar is to correct the
>bediavad circumstance of a soldier raping a woman in the heat of a
>battle. This is not proper behavior, but it happens all the time
>unfortunately. The Torah thereby instituted a way for the woman to
>become the wife of the soldier. In antiquity (and probably in most of
>the non-Western world today) no woman in such a situation would refuse
>marriage.
>
>Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Without shooting the messenger too much....
Let me point out for the record that rape is always a crime of power and
aggression (using sex as a weapon). Rape is not, despite mistaken
thoughts to the contrary, sexual attraction gone overly-passionate.
Thus it is significant litotes to say only that "this is not proper
behavior".
Particularly in wartime, rape is one of the most heinous things that a
soldier can do, because he is perpetrating violence and anger against
someone who is presumably not even in the process of attacking him.
It's like torturing children or pets, or (to choose a Torah example)
cutting down fruit trees.
I have always found unfathomable that the Torah would even allow the
"marriage" of any rape victim to her attacker. I realize that it isn't
just in this rape case that the Torah provides for such an option. I
find only the coldest comfort in the explanation provided by Dr. Katz
and scores of commentators, i.e. that otherwise such a woman would be
"damaged" or unable to live any kind of normal life.
I would rather believe that the Torah was giving a "way out" for a
couple that did have [consensual] sexual relations and wanted to get
married, i.e. to call it a rape after the fact. This is pretty sleazy,
but less so than having a woman marry her rapist. (Would any man who
thinks otherwise like the "option" of going into business with his
violent mugger?)
Fortunately, I am in a position to dispute Dr. Katz' assertion that
"probably in most of the non-Western world today...no woman in such a
situation would refuse marriage". There are significant actions
nowadays by the Red Cross and other organizations to give victims of
war-rape other options, including immigration to other countries and
protection for the women and their children. This has been facilitated
by the classification of rape as a "war crime" per se, by the
international community.
--Leah S. R. Gordon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 11:29:24 +0000
Subject: Re: Segregated Buses
Meir Shinnar wrote:
> If one would survey Israelis, I am sure that one would find a sizable
> section of the bus riders who do not want to sit next to haredim.
> Would you say the same thing about egged providing a similar provision
> (haredim to the back of the bus) to make provision for its customers?
> The problem is that the essential bigotry of the situation is not
> recognized.
I am not sure how this reads to others, but to me it seems to be
describing chareidim who do not wanted to be jammed between persons of
the opposite gender as bigots.
I would take exception to such a description on grounds of common
decency and morality, something quite lacking in public in Western
society. Any time I need to travel on public transport in England this
is quite evident.
I take particular exception though that such a view might be propounded
on a list which is supposed to reflect halachic norms. I have yet to be
persuaded that any rov would seek to find a heter for men and women to
be jammed together in the way that happens frequently on public
transport.
Bigotry?
Perets Mett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 01:52:13 +1100
Subject: Re: Segregated Buses
From: (David I. Cohen)
> Perets Mett wrote:
> > The only alternative is to take a taxi which, for one person
> > travelling, is considerably more expensive. So perhaps it is
> > understandable that many men who would rather not travel on Egged
> > buses feel that they have no choice."
>
> So let me see if I understand:
> It's OK to lose lots of money but keep the ElAl boycott for Shabbat
> desecration, but when it comes to avoiding bus interactions with women,
> in order to save money it's OK to use the busses,
El Al flying Shabbos has been ruled being a Chilul Hashem. And while the
boycott cost some people plenty, it would have been a oncer only, as
they had already purchased their tickets.
I can assure you that should the rabbonim say don't use Egged, that too
will be obeyed.
> this still doesn't answer the question, why aren't the men in the
> back?
Actually it has been answered quite a few times. Men at the back can
still see the ladies, unlike when they are seated in the front. I
didn't think that was so hard to work out..
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 53 Issue 68
