Volume 58 Number 41
Produced: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:13:52 EDT
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
buyout at Gush Katif (3)
[Shmuel Himelstein Jeanette Friedman Shoshana L. Boublil]
Emmanuel school (4)
[Abbi Adest Janice Gelb Menashe Elyashiv Martin Stern]
Exilarch's Letter
[Richard Fiedler]
Sephardic separation
[Janice Gelb]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Mon, Jul 12,2010 at 11:01 PM
Subject: buyout at Gush Katif
I would like to respectfully suggest that questions such as what percentage
of settlers accepted payment, as posed by Sandy Silverstein, are totally
inappropriate for MailJewish - even if Sandy cannot find another, more
appropriate forum.
Shmuel Himelstein
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeanette Friedman <FriedmanJ@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 13,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: buyout at Gush Katif
In answer to Sandy Silverstein <sandyeye@...> (v.58#39):
The Israeli government basically criminalized the settlers in Gush Katif
(as if Sharon hadn't moved them there from the Sinai) and many of them are
still homeless. I met with the Sapersteins and other residents a week before
the "removal", the option was that EVERYONE had to take the buyout on the
government's terms or NO ONE would get it.
It is a disgusting display of arrogance by an Israeli government that also
makes sure it's poor Holocaust survivors do not get medical care, food, eye
glasses and teeth, because it is cheaper to let them die of neglect. I can
certainly prove that, since that is my beat as a journalist and editor -- Bibi
Netanyahu told my boss (who is the treasurer of the Claims Conference) that
there is "no free lunch" for the survivors and that he wanted complete and total
control of the Claims Conference or he would destroy Israel Singer, which he
then set out to do. I am planning to write a book about this heinous disaster.
In the meantime on average, in Israel 210 poor Holocaust survivors are dying
each week in Israel. And the behavior of the gov't toward the survivors in the
North during the war with Hizbollah, don't get me started.) All you have to do
is google this material in Haaretz, Yediot and JPost. I didn't write those
articles, but many people know the truth. Just check with the ageing leadership
of Noach Flug and Zev Factor.
Jeanette Friedman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shoshana L. Boublil <toramada@...>
Date: Thu, Jul 15,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: buyout at Gush Katif
Sandy Silverstein <sandyeye@...> wrote on Tue, Jul 6,2010:
> I'm not sure this is the best forum to ask this question but I can't
> think of a better one.
>
> When the Israeli government forced families to withdraw from their
> homes in the Gaza Strip and then unilaterally turn over the strip to the
> Palestinians, I remember that the families were offered a monetary settlement
> to move out. I would like to know what percentage of the settlers that
> accepted this offer. I would also like to know what were people offered for
> agreeing to withdraw. I would also like to know if the government kept their
> promises and paid the compensation.
The final report of the review board is available, in Hebrew at:
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/heb/hitnatkut/doc/final_report.pdf
The issues are not at all simple. The sum of money offered was not enough to
actually purchase an equivalent home within the Green Line.
Only a small percentage took money before the official evacuation date.
They are in dire straits as the new homes have not yet been built, they have
problems finding jobs where they are located (which is a temporary location)
and many have used up the money on day-to-day living expenses.
Some did not receive money but were promised new towns to replace the ones
destroyed. The new towns have not been built (they haven't even started!),
so again, the people are living in temporary locations and are having a hard
time surviving.
A minority took what they got and went on their own to look for a new place
to live. A small percentage of these families have actually gotten all the
funds promised and they have moved on, settled elsewhere with jobs.
For further information on Gush Katif and the families see also:
http://new.katif.net/index.php
Shoshana L. Boublil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Abbi Adest <abbi.adest@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 13,2010 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Emmanuel school
"I've read so much - too much, perhaps - about what the school is accused of
doing... Can someone please clarify for me the nature of the school itself?
If it is private, then what is the government's complaint? And if it is public,
then what is the rabbis' complaint?"
It's unfortunate that this wasn't clarified in anything that you read. In
Israel, Chinuch Atzmai and Beis Yaakov are interchangeable terms (BY is part
of CA) and are both government supported. BY here is not private, like in
America.
> What is the rabbis' complaint?
Why should the rabbis not complain just because they are getting government
money and the demands that come along with it?
Abbi Adest
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 13,2010 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Emmanuel school
Akiva Miller wrote:
>
> Janice Gelb wrote:
>> If a private school with private funding wants to have
>> more stringent criteria for the students they accept, that's
>> one thing. However, if a school receives state funding,
>> they should not be allowed ...
>
> I agree. But this focuses precisely on the question which
> has confused me the most: What sort of school are we
> talking about?
>
> Some of the reports I've read describe the Emmanuel
> school as "Chinuch Atzmai", which is government-run.
> I've also read reports which describe it as "Bais
> Yaakov", which is a private school. I've even seen
> some articles which use both descriptions in the
> same article!
I gather that's because the terminology is different in
Israel. To quote from a description in this Haaretz article:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/court-to-weigh-
sanctioning-parents-for-school-s-segregation-1.287363
"the Beit Yaakov school, which is part of the independently
run but state-funded Hinuch Atzma'i ("Independent Education")
school system."
Here is an article describing the evolution of
educational policy in Israel related to Haredi
schools:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=175563
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv
Date: Tue, Jul 13,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Emmanuel school
In MJ 58/39 Akiva asked:
> Some of the reports I've read describe the Emmanuel school as "Chinuch
> Atzmai", which is government-run. I've also read reports which describe it as
> "Bais Yaakov", which is a private school. I've even seen some articles which
> use both descriptions in the same article!
The school is Beit Yaakov, and belongs to the Chinuch Asmai. The Chinuch
Asmai runs most of he haraidi schools: boys & girls elementery, girls high
schools & seminaries. There are also independent schools that do not take
state funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 13,2010 at 04:01 AM
Subject: Emmanuel school
On Thu, Jul 8,2010, Akiva Miller wrote:
> ... the question which has confused me the most: What sort of school are we
> talking about?
>
> Some of the reports I've read describe the Emmanuel school as "Chinuch
> Atzmai", which is government-run. I've also read reports which describe it as
> "Bais Yaakov", which is a private school. I've even seen some articles which
> use both descriptions in the same article!
Chinuch Atzmai is the Agudist education stream in Israel whose girls'
schools are known as Bais Yaakov. The latter are therefore as much
government-funded (rather than government-run) as the corresponding boys'
schools. In fact the girls probably spend a larger percentage of their time
on general subjects than the boys.
> Can someone please clarify for me the nature of the school itself? If
> it is private, then what is the government's complaint?
The complaint presented to the Supreme Court (not by the Israeli government)
was that selection was based on ethnic grounds.
> And if it is public, then what is the rabbis' complaint?
They objected to any interference by the secular authorities with the
religious standards required for admission (they asserted that this was not
based on an ethnic test) or in the way their schools were run.
Martin Stern
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Fiedler <richardfiedler@...>
Date: Sun, Jul 11,2010 at 08:01 AM
Subject: Exilarch's Letter
Sacha Stern is widely regarded as the expert in the Jewish Calendar. He has
aggregated an encyclopedia of sources pertaining to the Jewish Calendar in the
period of 2nd century BCE to 10th century CE. Yet his focus on his translation
of the The Exilarch's Letter of 835/6 CE as proof that a calculated calendar had
yet to be implemented is flawed.
This quote is from page 184-5 of his book Calendar and Community.
"Of far greater importance, however, is a much later document from
the Cairo Geniza: a letter of a Babylonian Exilarch - one of the main leaders of
the Rabbanite community - with detailed calendrical instructions for the
year 835/6 CE. The letter reveals that Passover (15 Nisan) in that year was due
to occur on a Tuesday; whilst according to the present-day rabbinic calendar, it
should have occurred on Thursday. According to the Exilarch, the setting of
Passover on Tuesday was dictated by a concern to avoid visibility of the new
moon before the first day of the month. This concern does not exist in the
present-day rabbinic calendar.
"Once discovered and published in 1922, the Exilarch's letter proved beyond
doubt that almost five hundred years after R.Yose and 'Hillel the Patriarch',
then fixed calendar in its present-day form had still not been instituted."
Now let us examine the calendrical facts and see how they affect understanding
the Exilarch's letter.
The Molad [the precise time of the New Moon - MOD] of Tishrei for 835 CE was
Friday August 27, at 22 hours and 660 parts [1080 parts = 1 hour - MOD] (4:36
PM). The year 835 CE was the 17th year of the cycle and thus a leap year. The
Molad for Tishrei for 836 CE was Thursday September 14, at 20 hours and 169
parts (2:09 PM). According to present rules both days are subject to the Dehiyya
Molad Zaqen [postponement of Rosh Hashanah because the Molad occurred after
midday - MOD]. The year 836 CE would then receive a further Dehiyya due to the
rule Lo ADU Rosh [further postponement because Rosh Hashanah cannot be on a
Sunday, Wednesday or Friday - MOD]. This would make 835 CE have a year length of
385 days starting on Saturday. Basic apportionment of days to months would be
Tishrei 30, Cheshvan 30, Kislev 30, Tevet 29, Shvat 30, Adar I 30, Adar II 29,
for a total of 208 days. Thus Rosh Chodesh Nisan would fall on Thursday March
23, 0836 and Passover would also fall on Thursday.
According to Nasa's Historical Tables the lunar conjunction actually happened on
Tuesday, Mar 21, 836 CE at 2:19 UT. LunarPhasePro shows this over Jerusalem at
5:00AM. The sun would set at 5:54PM and the moon would set at 6:25PM. The moon
would be at only 0.46% brightness and of age 13 hours and 25 minutes, clearly
not visible with the naked eye. By the standard of actual witnesses Nisan would
have begun on Thursday. All at this point appears to be fine.
But we learn that Israel actually established the Nisan as starting Tuesday, Mar
21, 836 CE. Sacha Stern tells us that this has something to do with a calendar
rule of which we have no knowledge because the visibility of the New Moon before
Rosh Chodesh. This "proved" that Israel was using a different system then we use
today.
The source of Sacha Stern's error is his misunderstanding of the moon that was
sighted being the New Moon. Actually it was the Old Moon. Furthermore his
assumption that this calendar court in Israel was using the dehiyyot
[postponements - MOD], and his forgetting that the prominent issue of this
period was the conflict of the Exilarch and rabbis in Bavel with the Karaites [a
sect that refused to accept rabbinic tradition and insisted on fixing Rosh
Chodesh by observation as is done by the Moslems - MOD].
Let us restart this analysis assuming that neither the Dehiyya Molad Zaqen nor
the Dehiyya Lo Adu Rosh were being implemented by the Calendrical Court in Israel:
The Molad of Tishrei for 835 CE was Friday August 27, at 22 hours and 660 parts
(4:36 PM). The year 835CE was the 17th year of the cycle and thus a leap year.
Basic apportionment of days to months would be Tishrei 30, Cheshvan 29, Kislev
30, Tevet 29, Shvat 30, Adar I 30, Adar II 29, for a total of 207 days. Thus
Rosh Chodesh Nisan would fall on Tuesday March 21, 0836 and Passover would also
fall on Tuesday.
Erev Rosh HaShanah, in Israel, the Old Moon rose at 3:29 AM at 3.8% visibility
and 41 hours and 45 minutes to the conjunction. This was clearly visible in the
pre-dawn sky. No doubt the Karaites were able to capitalize on this apparent
failure of the rabbinic calendar. They maintained that actual witnesses must be
used. Surely in Bavel, where the battle with the Karaites was intense, there was
no joy with this reality. Bavel wanted Israel to adopt the dehiiyyot to bring
the calculated calendar more in line with the appearance of the moon. Certainly
they did not want the Old Moon to be seen on the morning when we would start the
new month.
The Exilarch's concern was about a visible Old Moon, not the New Moon. The real
problem was Monday morning March 20 when the Old Moon rose at 5:00 AM, 38
minutes before sunrise. That evening Nisan would begin. This is the classic case
of Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri "if the old moon appears in the morning, the new moon
doesn't appear in the evening". It was the possibility of sighting the Old Moon,
not the New Moon, that concerned the Exilach. Because such a sighting would aid
the Karaites in proving that the rabbis were not properly observing Passover at
the correct time.
The Exilarch was in a major battle with the Karaites at this time and a visible
Old Moon was very helpful to the Karaites against the Rabbis. No doubt Bavel
wanted Israel to adopt the Molad Zaqen rule.
Richard Fiedler
sodhaibur.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Tue, Jul 13,2010 at 02:01 AM
Subject: Sephardic separation
In M-J V#39, Martin Stern <md.stern@...> wrote:
>
> In M-J V58#38, Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Martin Stern wrote:
> >> Shmuel is correct here since about 30% of the
> >> chassidic stream were Sephardim, whereas 30%
> >> of the other were Ashkenazim, and no Sephardi
> >> girl who wished to join the chassidic stream
> >> was refused. This shows that all claims that
> >> this was a case of ethnic discrimination are
> >> unfounded.
> >
> > Could you please provide your source for these
> > figures?
>
> Press reports. While one cannot always believe
> everything one reads in the papers, especially
> those with a strong anti-Orthodox position, the
> fact that several of the jailed fathers were
> Sephardim would seem to corroborate these
> reports.
>
The phrase "press reports" does not constitute a source.
Do you have citations from a reputable news source
for your statement? I know that some of the girls on the
Slonim side were Sephardi but would be interested to
see the source for the percentages you cite.
>
> What has state funding got to do with it?
> AFAIK state religious (Mizrachi) schools
> only accept Jewish students. Is this not
> discriminatory against non-Jews? Does not
> every Jewish school discriminate likewise
> in favour of those they deem to be Jews
> according to their criteria?
>
> Would Janice object to a strictly Orthodox
> Jewish school not being willing to admit
> children from families who publicly desecrated
> Shabbat or insisted on supplying their children
> with non-kosher snacks to take to school? What
> about halachically Jewish children whose
> families belonged to the Jews for J or some
> other Messianic cult?
>
This comparison is not the same situation:
in this case -- and this is the major objection -- the
school accepted the students but then
treated them like second-class citizens
with separate uniforms and degrading separation
walls in the hallways and the playground.
>
> Just because we do not agree with the necessity of such
> stringencies does not mean we have the right to dictate
> to others that they may not observe them.
> Any other attitude is simply the liberal bigotry
> in the Enlightenment tradition
> that has its origins in the writings of Voltaire.
>
It's bigotry, all right, but not from liberals. To quote
from a Haaretz editorial [http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/
discrimination-and-contempt-1.1258]:
"The High Court upheld the unique character
of the ultra-Orthodox education system,
which justifies division of students based
on religious - though not ethnic - criteria,
but rightly noted that 'the right to community
education is not absolute, particularly when
it comes into conflict with the right to equality.'
No excuse - whether based on halakha,
tradition or anything else - can justify the
humiliation and crass exclusion of individuals,
all the more so of young girls."
-- Janice
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 58 Issue 41
