Conversion without accepting the yoke of commandments

Here it is no longer the separation of religion (Judaism) from the state, but the separation of Jewishness (the nation) from the state. Is the rabbi against the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people? Is he against the Law of Return?

Judaism in some national sense I have no problem with. But it is impossible to base it on Orthodox conversion. And if we do not reach an agreement then we will indeed give up on the Jewishness of the state. And if people oppose that, let them bear the consequences and reach an agreement.

The content of the ruling is far from being agreed upon by everyone. The fact that there is no judicial activism here: the court had no legitimate option to avoid ruling, since there is a real loophole in the law. But they certainly could (and, in my opinion, today should) say that the loophole in the term “conversion” will be interpreted according to the status quo, until the Knesset decides to cast a different content in it.

But we have nothing to blame but ourselves. For years there were right-wing coalitions that did not reach a solution, and they did not ensure that the composition of the court represented the people. Now we eat what we cooked.

“That which is not here” C”L “It is true that it is not here”. By the way, the big problem is not in marriage (this is also problematic but it is solvable), but in the back door that was created here for Israeli citizenship for all.

If they see that there is a problem with Israeli citizenship for all Jews, then they will make amendments (for example, Nadav Shnerb's proposal that the Law of Return not apply to converts). Or they will decide that instead of receiving a commandment and immersion in a mikveh, one should run a marathon with a tangerine tied above their head.

How can Judaism be founded without Orthodox conversion? You yourself have written a thousand times that the definition of the term Jew is only through Halacha. What other definition could there be? A Jew is someone who can eat Kegels. If there is no agreement on the Jewishness of the state, then there is no point in living together at all. Let's separate into two states. I will never serve in an army that does not belong to the Jewish people. Whoever wants to die for democracy, let them be defeated. He is a fool in my eyes. With all his foolishness, he only confirms my feeling that I live under foreign rule. Now I am already starting to justify the Haredim. This was really never their country.

Rabbi Miri Either you are starting to lose your mind or you are on your way to becoming a traitor. I wish you a complete recovery

Gabi,
Such an amendment is tantamount to overturning the ruling. After all, there is no legal basis for recognizing conversion other than the Law of Return and Marriage. If it is a purely religious act, no one cares whether the state recognizes it or not.

Not like overturning the ruling because today there is some special civil status for Orthodox conversion that requires belief in all sorts of things and a commitment to do all sorts of religious actions. Such a conversion is of course a ridiculous and meaningless ceremony just like a Reform conversion or running a marathon.
You claimed that the main problem with Reform conversion – and hence the main benefit of Orthodox conversion – is that it is easy to go through. In other words, you are saying that the advantage of Orthodox conversion is that it is difficult to go through. I assume that you were just claiming this in order to defend your true opinion that Orthodox conversion really does bring about something meaningful, but in any case, I replied that it is possible to think of more relevant obstacles than an arbitrary obstacle called Orthodox conversion.

Emmanuel
And are you willing, in your nobility, to die for a group of Gentiles who believe in the Torah from heaven and keep the commandments? The hanging of Jewish nationalism in some connection with modern Orthodoxy is ridiculous in the eyes of anyone who does not think that with voices and lightning many, many years ago two stone tablets came from heaven. Every cucumber threatens to stop watering the garden.

Gabi,

Of course I think that Orthodox conversion creates something meaningful, but in my opinion it has nothing to do with the ruling. Putting on tefillin also creates something in my opinion and I have no interest in the state recognizing it, because such recognition neither elevates nor lowers.

The State of Israel, the state of the Jews, has chosen a path of granting citizenship based on religion. Indeed, this path is only possible if conversion is a significant barrier. If the entire point of the ruling was a declaratory ruling that the State of Israel considers Reform Jews, without affecting citizenship, I would have no problem with that. As far as I am concerned, the state can also recognize titles of nobility from Micronesia.

The technical problem of the barrier has many solutions, none of which need to be Orthodox conversion (which, as far as I'm concerned, is an internal matter for those who observe the commandments. Like the regulations for the temperature of the oil at McDonald's). You could require three years of volunteering in a Jewish community abroad or comprehensive knowledge of the history of the Maccabees. Therefore, if a problem arises and it appears that "any undesirable scoundrel" is actually taking advantage of this entry option, then we will add barriers or cancel entry through conversion. Right now, Reform conversion functions very well as an expression of a desire for a close connection with the Jewish nation.

Emmanuel, Istra in the Latin alphabet, Kish Kish is readable.

I'm not ready to die for anyone anymore. I thought it would be good for me and peace be upon you. But it turns out it's not and I'll still get hurt even after I stop serving in the army. Nothing will ever change if other people don't rebel too. But who am I to stop someone who wants to be a sucker and a fool?

The question of whether your perception of conversion stems from your religiosity or whether you think you have a reasonable reason to suggest to a secular person (very nice) why there is a fundamental difference between Orthodox and Reform conversion or the devil knows what.
Feeling a deep identification with a collection of observant Jews regardless of their nationality, so that it is with them that a certain person would want to establish a state and serve in its army (today the Haredim are completely parasitic on military defense and the religious are semi-parasites) is, in my opinion, a delusion. Nationalism is a strange feeling, but as an existing and well-known fact and in some place it is elaborated on strings of broad family affiliation and identity. This collection of observant Jews seems completely superficial to me. Maybe tomorrow the shoemakers' guild will also decide that it wants a state in which shoemakers from all over the world will unite and in the conversion they will test their skills as an awl and a hammer. The most talented shoemaker will be appointed to the council and his mediocre sons will take his place after him.

Gabi, I didn't understand who your question was directed at. But it's clear that from a secular perspective there is no difference between conversions. But you're talking about a national "conversion" and not about a conversion that belongs to the religious sphere.

If it is clear that from the secular perspective there is no difference between the converts, then everything is good. Emanuel simply talked here about a Jewish state and an army until I got the impression that he thinks his position is also relevant to those who actually carried and still carry most of the burden of establishing and maintaining the Jewish state, its army and economy (a.k.a. seculars).

In addition, someone who is truly convinced that the Jewish religion is correct and therefore converts to Orthodoxy, in my opinion, remains exactly as he was before. Someone who is interested in joining the nation and not just the religion is a “resident” in my opinion. Of course, if because of religion he wants to be part of the nation and not just the community of believers who perform the commandments, then that is also good. But I understand that this is just my personal opinion. National conversion is not a dichotomous matter that is done with a legal sword, but rather if there is a process of assimilation into the nation, then the degree of belonging increases with time and settlement.

Here I completely disagree with you. In my opinion, national conversion has no meaning. Think about someone who wants to join the Italians in the US. Does he need an Italuk procedure (becoming Italian)? No. If he wants to speak Italian and call himself Italian and marry an Italian - for health. A procedure is required either for naturalization or for joining a religion. Nationality is not something with a value dimension. On the national level, whether you are Jewish or not, it is just a neutral fact. It has no value significance. And if someone wants to join the Jewish nation - for health. And if you don't want to - even more so for health. Why is it important and why is it valuable? Joining a religion requires different values and therefore has a value dimension and requires a conversion process. What is happening here is that there is a connection between religion and the state and therefore the secularists are desperately looking for a parallel process to religious conversion, instead of talking about citizenship as in any other country. And of course they don't find such a procedure and they won't find one. And the reason is that there is no such thing as secular Judaism in any defined sense. The secular Jew is no different from the secular Gentile except perhaps in his language and the literature he reads. His values are similar. So what exactly will you demand of the convert? That he speak the language? That's naturalization, not conversion.

Regarding

I don't have much to offer the secular (except what I will point out later). In principle, he is a captive baby. That is, from his point of view, the concept of "Jew" is no different from the concept of "German". From a secular point of view, nationalism does not have much value. It's just that it is like a big family. So on the one hand, after people experience betrayals even in their small family, then not only is the people not given importance, but even the family is not. But if this is so, and even in a family, then who can you trust (it is indeed written, “Cursed is the man who trusts in man,” and you can only trust God. But I’m actually talking about faith in people, not trust in people (it’s not the same thing. There’s a big difference). In other words, if you can’t trust in family members, then who can you trust? Family is actually the only basic form of human existence on which human society is built. The communes in the kibbutzim, where they tried to abolish the concept of family: children lived separately from their parents, and no woman belonged to any specific man (this wasn’t official, of course, but I’ve heard rumors about this subject that they were exchanging wives), did not last).

But in the case of Jews, there is something special:

A. Metaphysical (which you might call religious. But from a religious person’s perspective, it’s a reality) – The People of Israel – Someone who is defined as a Jew according to Halacha (the Torah). These are people who have made a covenant between themselves and with God for a certain form of existence that also includes a mutual guarantee. And God is responsible for the sanctions for failure to fulfill the terms of the covenant on our part. From a religious point of view, the nationalism of other peoples is truly of little value and is built on cheap sentiment. As long as a person is a liar, no family or nation will help him come to his defense. And deciding that he is honest and associating with other people who have also declared themselves as such does not help. To be honest, one needs the fear of God. And this is not something one is born with and must learn.

B. Historical observation The Jewish people cannot be erased and will not help individuals in assimilating and escaping from their Judaism. The Gentiles will always see them as Jews and not belonging to them and as a foreign body, no matter how much they disguise themselves as Gentiles. We were in this film with emancipation and the rise of modern anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. The whole story of Zionism is built on the (secular!) insight that the Jewish people should live with themselves alone in their own country and take care of and protect themselves on their own because no one else in the world will do it for them. And this “Jew” that they talked about – even without intending to – is the Jew according to the halakhah. Not the one who eats kegels. I’m sure Hitler could have been convinced (if they had tried hard enough) that if the Jews don’t see you as a Jew then you’re not one (he may have wanted to be stricter about the laws of killing Jews and also killed anyone who had an eighth of Jewish blood involved, from any side, but I’m convinced he would have agreed with the gist of the law). In fact, he perceived the real Jew as a Haredi Jew. He saw the assimilated Jews as Haredi Jews in disguise (there are Nazi propaganda photographs on this subject in the museum at Kibbutz Lohamei Haghetaot).

In any case, for me it is not about emotional identification with any group, but rather about an intellectual insight that I am connected in destiny and calling with the recipients of the Torah from Sinai, their descendants and those who join them according to the laws of this covenant itself (which are divine laws)

In any case, reform conversion is nothing even according to the reformist system – after all, from their perspective, everything they do is rituals and culture and has no real value. The Orthodox believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are creating things in reality. Therefore, they are not in the same position. It is like pseudoscientists coming and asking for budgets for their pseudoscience for reasons of equality of budgets for scientists. And the pseudoscientists admit that what they do has no scientific value, only that there is really no such thing as science. Obviously, in such a case, it makes sense that I would not treat (as someone objective from the outside) with equality with pseudoscientists. Maybe the scientists are wrong, but they claim that they are making claims about reality – Claims that work or not - some believe it works and some don't, but their claims have real scientific value. But pseudo-scientists - even in their own way - are playing games. They simply make statements that have no scientific value even in their own way. For them, there is no science, only culture. So they should contact the Ministry of Culture and not the Ministry of Religious Affairs. In this sense, Muslims and Christians are also better than them (they believe in something. Therefore, I respect them - I just think they are wrong). In the same way, the High Court could also recognize a conversion that I would call "academic conversion" - I will open an office tomorrow and anyone who comes to me and says "academic" will be declared a Jew. And even then, I will demand in the High Court that my conversions be recognized. I am also a practicing Jew and demand recognition of my conversion. This is completely ridiculous. At most, the High Court could claim that a Jew is not a legal concept and claim that there is no such thing as a Jewish state because it contradicts some holy basic law of equality that the God of democracy established, and that's it. Let's see him do it. And if the secularists support this, what's in it for me and them?

Therefore, the main point of my claims is not to you, but to Rabbi Michi, who knows all this, but because of his blind adherence to the separation of religion and state, reaches paradoxes and loses his sanity. He contradicts things that he himself writes: 1. A Jew is only a convert according to Halacha

2. Apparently he wants a Jewish state (now he is only willing to “allow” it. Thank you very much to him). If he doesn't, I have nothing to talk to him about. In that case he pretends to be a friend.

Then suddenly he wants the decision of who is a Jew in the country not to be based on Halacha (any other criteria, however stupid and empty, is fine, but not according to Halacha)

If we assume that conversion is valid in communities with secular people, then conversion can also be valid for traditional Israeli society (known as secular). For atheistic Ashkenazi society, secular conversion is indeed not valid, but most Russians do not belong to this society.

Continuing the previous comment.
The rabbi assumes that the Russians are atheists and therefore accepting their commandments is a bluff. In my opinion, the reality is the opposite. The vast majority of Russians believe in God and that He gave Israel the Torah in its traditional sense. In this they are no different from the wildest Ars. The Russians also know that they can remain Gentiles and not commit to the commandments. And that there is no obstacle to living in a civil union or getting married abroad. They can also go down to Canada and live there among the Gentiles. If they choose to convert, it is because they prefer to be Jews than Gentiles. From their point of view, it is better to be a Jew in hell than a Gentile in heaven. They know that they will commit sins and go to hell, but from their point of view it is better for them. They do not deceive themselves as if they will be righteous and so on, but they also do not think that there is no God and that the Torah is a lie. On the contrary, they are sure that the Torah is true and they want to be a part of it.

Y”D, where did I put that here? It is true that in my opinion this is the correct description for most immigrants from Russia, although of course not for everyone.
Talking about the characteristics of the “Russians” is almost meaningless.

“They know they will commit sins and go to hell, but from their perspective it is better for them. They do not deceive themselves as if they will be righteous and so on, but they also do not think that there is no God and that the Torah is a lie. On the contrary, they are sure that the Torah is true and they want to be a part of it.”

Really? Most of the Russian population that is turning to conversion, and according to your words, probably also those that are not, have such a strong faith in Judaism that they really delve into it.”And they know” That the Torah is true to such a degree that they also know that if they convert and do not keep the commandments, they will enter hell? (And what fool would force himself into hell if he is so sure that he is going to enter there and would not be satisfied with being a Righteous Among the Nations who will be granted Paradise if, according to you, “that is their belief.” Or maybe most of them are also devout Kookists who think that being a Jew is being an ultra-spiritual and excellent person who will bring redemption to all of humanity, so they are willing to sacrifice their lives and even enter hell to be granted the right to be Jewish. But of course not to keep the commandments. I wonder). Maybe most of them are no different from the average traditionalist as you say. It’s just that neither they nor that idiot really delve into matters of faith. Certainly not into unpleasant things like reward and punishment or hell. Rather, they perceive God and Judaism as some kind of traditional folk religion with nice customs and prayers. .And along the way, the most dominant consideration is probably to simply stay in the comfortable place where they already have family and friends and for some also a respectable profession. And to assimilate by accepting the local religion of the majority of the public. (For those among them who have it. Others who fail to acclimatize do indeed consider immigration) Another point is that both immigrate and find an Israeli spouse or live as an atheist minority - for those among them who are atheists. It is not that easy. Yes, even if there are absorption baskets and civil benefits.

Of course, this does not mean that the same conversion to a traditional folk religion is not valid. To the extent that there is faith in the principled acceptance of commitment. There are methods in which it is valid. And this does not mean that they are righteous converts who have really delved into it and really want to seriously observe the commandments (whether at the level of scholastic scholars or at the level of the peoples of the lands). But it is worth being precise with the facts

From the air*

And this is another point*

Mikyab,
You completely disagree with me, but I almost completely agree with what you said – Indeed, national conversion has no meaning as a legal procedure and is not a matter of “values”. But national conversion does have a social meaning and is not the same as naturalization; Naturalization is the result of belonging to a nation, and this belonging is indeed a gradual matter like Italian. Indeed, I think that there should be no legal status for immigrants. And not because of technical problems that many unwanted people will enter, but really because this ceremony, as a one-time ceremony, Orthodox or Reform, does not mean much but only a personal declaration of intentions. Indeed, it would be honorable for an immigrant to marry a Jewish woman and live with Jews, and then his belonging will gradually grow stronger.
The reason that Orthodox immigrants are accepted by secularists is because of the Reform/national conversion component of the matter, that is, the general desire to connect with the Jewish nation, and not because of its religious component. So now they are distilling from Orthodox conversion what is significant to them. Today, a Reform conversion truly indicates a desire to belong, and if that changes, then we will also change the law.

Emmanuel,
It seems that we have diverged on many issues here. On the matter of metaphysics, we will remain divided. I treat the Jewish nation the same as the Italian nation, and what is good for the Italians is good for me too. As for historical observation, it is not clear to me what is relevant, who spoke about erasing the Jewish nation?! A nation can absorb a certain percentage of annexes and remain the same group. Of course, if fifty million people want to become Jews tomorrow, then this is not joining the Jewish nation, but rather swallowing it.
I am just reminding you again that on the one hand, you seem to be basing your entire argument on a religious view, and on the other hand, you are arguing about the national interest of the State of Israel and its army. This national issue has nothing to do with religion, except for the fact that it is the cultural folklore of our ancestors and is also carried by parts that have taken and are taking an (insufficient) part in this national enterprise. When you see that the opposition to reformist conversion comes mainly from religious circles, you can understand exactly that the claims stem from a religious root and not from the national concept. The problem is that this religious root is not supposed to interest (and from my impression in my circles: it is not interesting either) secularists. And of course it is supposed to interest (and indeed is very interesting) religious people. If we agree on this, then excellent.

Regarding

When I talk about erasing the Jewish nation, I'm talking more about a worldview and identifying processes rather than a specific case of a few appendages. My main problem is with this exiled attempt by the spiritual left to assimilate again among the Gentiles only within the Jewish people's state itself. To return to exile again only within the land itself as if they had learned nothing from history. This is an attempt to assimilate again among the Gentiles only on a political level and not on a personal level. Those who didn't understand that Jews have nothing to look for in the Gentiles ended up in the gas chambers. I'm not interested in a second round. This mentality itself is what will kill us. It's a kind of reflex that secularists have to say everything the opposite of the religious. Personally, I'm very liberal in matters of religion and state except for this matter (not so much in practice, but in principle yes. I'm also liberal in matters of prostitution and drugs in principle only when in practice, in light of experience, I oppose them too). It's a matter of common sense and learning from experience. We need to learn from the theory that the Jewish mentality has failed. Even the Haredim have not yet escaped it (they really love the exile). We are different from any other people in our history and also in the circumstances that led to the establishment of our state. What worked for other peoples will not work for us. There are several things on which life in the land is built here - honesty and justice, and the second thing is mutual guarantee between Jews - and only Jews according to Halacha. Don't forget that in principle Mapai agreed to this. They only allowed Israeli citizenship even for non-Jews who came through marriage or family ties with Halacha Jews. What is happening today is something else - This is an attempt to abolish nationalism and turn it into (empty) universalism in the name of postmodernism and democracy and progressivism and holy equality, which is the same exploitative, disloyal Jewish mentality to ensure their peaceful existence among the nations without having to commit to anyone or anything that will make them come out of their small private lives. This is simply anti-Zionism in disguise.

You went too far. All in all, I presented a normal position of nationalism and citizenship here. In the national basis, we are no different from any other people, today anyone who does not specifically recognize the Jewish nation is a delusional anti-Semite. If you are interested in the covenant of destiny of believers in the Jewish religion (or in the covenant of destiny of those who have sworn the doctors' oath) you will be healthy.
Why do you connect all these ideas (Jews are different from any other people, mutual guarantee between Jews “according to Halacha”) specifically to the state here, which, to the best of my memory, was established without this speculative background – that I do not understand. And you further claim that you are the great nationalist while distinguishing between a foreigner who observes the commandments (enters the nation like a king) and a foreigner who does not observe the commandments (does not enter the nation, who is he anyway), a real example of a logical national perception.

Reflexes of secularists… anti-Zionism… You made me laugh. Zionism (= a nation-state for the Jewish people) needs religion about as much as someone who eats an avocado needs its inedible kernel. In the past, religion preserved the nation from assimilation and kept it solidified around itself, but now that there is a stable and independent nation, religion is an unnecessary burden in this regard. From a national perspective, the religious have been more of a hindrance than a help for a century, in all areas, and you are still a moral preacher. Pathetic in my opinion.

Conversion according to Halacha includes the essential national conversion (a strong and convincing decision about wanting to join the nation) and other irrelevant peacock feathers (belief in the giving of the Torah and a commitment to observe the commandments), so Mapai had no problem with it. On the other hand, precisely because of the disconnection from Halacha, there should be no difference in the Law of Return between a Jewish mother and a Jewish father, because this artificial distinction is truly an internal Halacha matter (which makes no sense in my opinion, by the way), and indeed no secular party has ever thought of this distinction. This is precisely the difference between a national perception (normal, human, reasonable, and understandable) and a religious perception (divine, strange, arbitrary, and arbitrary).

Regarding the Torah's arbitrariness, arbitrariness, and strangeness, you speak from ignorance. I am not accusing. In order to understand the internal logic of the Torah - don't forget that it is God's logic - He did not give it so that every detail would be accepted by us - there must be a T.H. This is what distinguishes a T.H. from the people of the land (who could be someone who read and changed and did not serve the T.H.). In any case, the national perception of the Jewish people is indeed different from that of other peoples (the Rabbis wrote: "Our nation is not a nation except in its Torahs." The reason a secular person is considered a Jew is because he is also obligated to the commandments.) In any case, why this is so (why there should be such a different people) is not the place to discuss it.

Regarding the connection between Zionism and religion, it is actually a process that can be seen with the human eye. But I refer you to the book "Two Carts" by Rabbi Michi. There he will explain to you what the connection is between nationalism and religion (synthetics). That is, why secularism ultimately leads to universalism (empty) and particularism. I don't know how old you are (sixty maybe?), but you can see that the army is becoming more and more populated with religious people. Seculars like Mapai and Mapim - communists who hate religion (today it's the religion-hating equality fighters) - and not traditionalists and right-wingers - are a dying breed among the fighters. That was when I was already in the army and I assume that this trend has become even stronger since then. The young secular leftists today don't believe in the concept of nationality at all. It's a word that, for them, represents racism (which is the most serious offense. More than three offenses). Look at how many ridiculous wars there are just over a law that the State of Israel declares (it has almost no validity beyond a declaration) the obvious. God forbid that the obvious be stated. It is only because of this declaration that all negotiations with the Palestinians are stalled. Because they are precisely not willing to recognize this. What will I bring them with claims if the left does not recognize this either. You represent an extinct species. This is the anti-Zionism I am talking about. In any case, the disintegration of nationalism is currently a global process in the West (until the next reactions and uprisings that will come from the common people against the exploitative immigrants, and then they will blame the Jews for them (quite rightly. They are at the top of the left-wing parties all over the world)). But there is no people in the world who does not want to be a people more than the Jews. It is like the national religious sector that does not want to be a sector and somehow everyone else looks at it as such and nothing will help it.

By the way, I'm not preaching morality either. I claim that all this behavior by the High Court and its sympathies is stupid and illogical.

Emmanuel asked
Why do you think Hitler would have been convinced if they had explained to him that someone who is not Jewish according to the Jews, as you say. That is, according to Halacha. But yes, with Jewish roots. Should not be murdered?
You are aware that Hitler was not really interested in Jewish law. I am also quite sure that he was aware that the sons and grandsons of a Jewish father are not Jewish from a halakhic perspective and he murdered *some* of them in this way. Indeed, there were those who had Jewish roots only on one side (both those with Jewish roots only on the mother's side and only on the father's side. Again, the law did not really interest him) who received a personal exemption from the racial laws (certainly the grandchildren of those in occupied territories were not examined with such strictness) because he was convinced that the Jewish filth in their case somehow escaped them. And these were usually people who were willing to identify very much with the Nazi ideology and who seemed to him to be blond Aryans and very German. I am interested in understanding why you think that the whole world speaks precisely the same internal language that you speak and acts according to the same exogamy that you act in. And I am using this question only as an example.

Clarification: I Not from those who think that one should convert or even grant citizenship just because of the definition of the Nuremberg Laws.

To the rational

I wrote there in response: “In fact, he perceived the real Jew as a Haredi Jew. He saw the assimilated Jews as Haredi Jews in disguise (there are Nazi propaganda photos on this subject in the museum at Kibbutz Lohamei Hagetaot) “. There are propaganda photos there of an assimilated German Jew without a beard and wigs and next to it a “photo”of what he looks like with the beard and wigs. In other words, he perceived the Jews as Haredi. It would probably be according to how the Haredi see themselves. Otherwise, why all these photos? Blood ties are enough. He saw the evil in Haredi Judaism.

Emmanuel

1. Given that the Jewish religion is passed down through the mother and not (also) through the father, unlike any other nation in the world that doesn't bother to define exactly how nationality is passed down and certainly doesn't distinguish between mother and father. I said that was strange and arbitrary, you replied that I was speaking out of ignorance, and then with a shofar blast you fled the field. If you decide to come back, I'm here.

2. I'm happy to inform you that all over the world there are nations and nation-states and this division does not coincide with the religious division. There are several nations with the same religion, several religions within the same nation, countries that continue to function well despite a high level of secularism, and even without religion at all in the Western sense. Everything is there and everything is fine. I myself don't attach too much importance to nationality, it's a nice sense of belonging and as an individual it's something that has a certain weight, but it really wouldn't prevent me from marrying a "gentile" Italian, Russian or Brazilian if it suits me. I am 27 by the way. A nationality has no excess rights over other nationalities (just as I have no excess rights over others), and nothing will happen if this nationality changes a little as a result of the assimilation of 10% foreigners. And Christians can also be Jews in a very nice national sense, just as there are religious Jews and Muslim Italians will also be Christian Jews.

3. Regarding the fact that the army is populated by religious people. Even today, many of the religious serve in an outrageous “order” track. In addition, they study fewer advanced degrees in exact sciences, open fewer private businesses and initiate fewer successful technology companies. Even today, in places where the IDF’s decisive strategic advantage lies – the Air Force, the Intelligence Corps and special patrols – you will find an overwhelming majority of secular people. And I haven’t even talked about the disgraceful conduct of the ultra-Orthodox, which is truly beyond all criticism. In short, when you examine it, you discover that, as in all the last hundred years, those who are still pushing this nation forward and, to a considerable extent, carrying the others on their backs are the secularists - both in the army, in science, and in the economy - while they are forced to listen to the musings of the religious and accommodate their madness at every turn. This is what I saw in the statistics and this is also my personal impression, but I cannot vouch for the correctness of this matter. I am not a sociologist or a historian, but I deal with other fields. In any case, and forgive me if I take off my gloves a little - it is not the first time that I have encountered this puffed-up pretension among the religious, as if someone was waiting for them to come with some good news and they would "save the nation from itself". To them I say: No one is waiting for your good news, in all the relevant tests you are actually setting a problematic example, and it is recommended that you free yourself from this ridiculous megalomania. Say thank you and shut up (three words that come out of my not-so-democratic animal instinct, and I don't stand behind them, but so be it).

2. All of this is very nice, but I am not interested in fighting for someone with whom I do not share a common destiny. If you do not share a common destiny with me, then what do you want from me? I will unite with those who do and that is it. I will fight for myself and for my family. If you think that you will be welcomed by the rest of humanity, then good luck to you – But what do you want from me? A Christian Jew, this really sounds like a good joke. The fact that you do not see this says something about you

3. I do not know where you got your information about education in the religious community. I am sorry, but I experienced the reality in academia very differently from you. It seems that the percentage of religious people in the natural sciences is actually greater than their percentage in the population. But I will not argue about it because who cares at all. After all, if for you nationality is a nice and insignificant thing, then our army is not the people's army but just a fighting organization, and then who cares how many religious people are there. It does not represent them anyway (and it seems to me that there is indeed unjustified discrimination in the appointment of senior officers. But then again, who cares). All the secular people who go to the places you mentioned do it so they can go to high-tech or get girls later, and not out of concern for the people as a whole. If the religious people stopped being suckers, they would leave the army and give their husbands the "qualitative advantage" to do security. But that has nothing to do with me and I don't care about them. The leftist secular people are not part of me and do not represent me. And in that sense, I am with the Haredim. This is not my country and its army is not my army. And just as the Arabs are exempt from the army because it is not their army, the Haredim also deserve an exemption from the army, and at least I deserve an exemption from the army. I personally don't need special budgets. I also argue that for the rest of the religious people who don't know this - right now, this is not their country or their army. In any case, know that as far as I am concerned, there is no honor at all in being prime minister or in any other senior position here, and I have no ambition for it. It's like being the king of the dwarves.

Rabbi,
In this matter I didn't need you to write it explicitly to know that this is what you think.

Rational (relatively),
Gotha. The heretics are the biggest believers in hell and the like. There is no abstraction for them. For transgressions they accept hell literally. They also don't deny that they have transgressions. They know that they are wicked, but from their perspective, that is what it is.

Regarding

By the way, regarding the descent of Judaism from the mother, there are things in Halacha in which the descent is according to the father. Such as the descent of belonging to the tribe – Judah, Benjamin, Levi. Priesthood is also passed down from the father. Even in ancestral customs, they follow the father. That is, Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Yemenites, etc.

In addition, according to Halacha, the identity of other peoples is determined by the father: Regarding the prohibition of bringing an Ammonite or Moabite into the congregation, Ammonites and Moabites are considered those whose fathers are Ammonites or Moabites, as well as regarding the prohibition of abhorring an Egyptian or an Edomite after three generations.

In addition, there is something halachically complicated called a "Ger Mizra Yisrael" who is someone who was born to a Jewish father, or if not a Jewish one, who converted. He has a special status that creates controversial halachic nuances. In short, the transfer of identity from father to son was something that was in front of the eyes of the Giver of the Torah, and what shows of course that the matter of Jewish identity being determined by the mother is perhaps not understood, but certainly not arbitrary, but was determined with deliberate intention and thought.

You add a lot of details. Complexity is not always depth, sometimes it is just an arbitrary mess or the result of historical constraints and ancient and irrelevant social structures. First of all, the idea of a dichotomous legal determination of who belongs to a nationality or tribe is completely foreign to me. Another thing, if you are going to determine then there should also be some (up-to-date) logic as to why according to the mother or according to the father or according to one of them or according to both together. Until such a logic is proposed, any additional details are only problematic.

I get the impression that you also have no explanation to offer, so I don't understand why you are returning to this topic. The truth is that from my experience, which is not that extensive to be honest, but I have been interested in similar topics several times (with intelligent religious people whom I generally appreciate professionally!), I also don't have many expectations. Either they tell me that this is how God wanted it and that's it, or they start inventing metaphysical inventions that the devil knows where they came from. For what is logical, they don't need religion, and therefore all that remains unique to religion are only the strange parts.

The mystery that sometimes bothers me is how religious/ultra-Orthodox people think they have something to sell even to those who don't believe that the Ten Commandments came down from heaven. There are internal achievements in the field of religion, and I have no doubt that if we measure Torah study and Sabbath observance, then in this the religious achieve enormous achievements that even a secular person would not achieve. The thing is, I don't measure this thing and it doesn't interest me, and the important point is that it's not the only thing they're trying to sell.
Sitting on the podium with their hands in their pockets, giving advice and preaching sermons.
Have they achieved such impressive achievements that it would be logical to think that ”these people know what they're saying” and therefore it's worth listening to them even if you don't understand? No, no.
Do they have logical, organized explanations to offer even to those who aren't convinced by the Ten Commandments from heaven? It turns out time and again that they don't.
My heart sank from this. Everyone can use their democratic finger as they please and I'm not complaining about it, but for these losers (sorry) to speak with pathos as they know what's right even outside of a synagogue without any cover for any of their statements - it's no longer ridiculous, ridiculous, stupid, astonishing and charlatan, it's also annoying.

It is not my sociological role to defend or explain or market what other people believe. I am primarily responsible for my own words. I am really not trying to sell you the giving of the Torah, nor do I think it is possible (Rabbi Michi tried to make sense (not necessary) of the subject in his fourth notebook, which I did not bother to read in its entirety, but I still doubt whether it would have made me keep the mitzvot in the first place. It can only prevent me from stopping keeping them because of the claim that the giving of the Torah could not have happened). It is a matter of trust in people, you do not (partially justified). I have trust in the Torah from my many years of experience and I am convinced that it has esoteric logic. Therefore, I really have no interest in convincing you of this. I can only explain details (but not reason). If I were in the rank of Moses, then I could. But if I were Moses, you would have to chase me and even then I would reveal to you little by little.

Regarding the idleness of the religious, this is actually a classic Jewish trait - a wise and an idle people. In fact, wisdom leads to nullification (due to the recognition of many futile aspects of human existence). But we won't get into that now. I'm sorry to tell you, but from my many years of experience, the secular public (including the Ashkenazi) is no less stupid and foolish than the average religious person, and even more so. And no less a loser in this sense. The secular public is not really a winner, it's simply more wild (more boundless and therefore less stressed). And there are also advantages to such a thing. It's always the old debate between the smart nerd and the stupid thug. Not that it's entirely like this. In any case, a thug is not a "winner." He's simply an animal. And in fact, there's no such thing as secular people either. They're religious too. They believe in other religions (communism, democracy, etc.) that are even more stupid (because they make them ignore common sense in the event that it deviates from the principles of this non-divine religion) and in an even more fanatical way. Therefore, the religious have the feeling that they are smarter than the secular and give them explanations about the outside world. I agree that it is annoying, but that does not mean that what they say is true. If we really compare the great men of Israel to the greatest people in the secular public in history - then the two do not reach the heights of the former. It is not a matter of intelligence or scientific achievements (which is indeed a significant and valuable thing). It is a matter of greatness as a human being. Albert Einstein did not come close to the heights of the Gra or Rav Kook. And I greatly appreciate him and his scientific work (the theory of general relativity, his contributions to quantum mechanics and above all his contributions to physical thought. He was truly a philosopher of nature). But he did not have the fear of heaven or the fear of God (which is not devoutness (religious piety) which indeed characterizes losers), which is something that is taught and connected with the teachings of Kabbalah, and more on that in the next paragraph.

In any case, for me, when I approach a secular person, I have no goal at all to convince him of the truth of the Torah. The Torah was given for a specific purpose and this purpose is what is important. The purpose and meaning of existence. And that is what I am talking about. The purpose and meaning of existence are closely related to the teachings of Kabbalah and it is the first floor on top of which the Torah given from Sinai exists as a second floor and at the moment its importance in my eyes is secondary (a person who does not have the first floor and only the second has a second floor in the air). I would come to sell you the teachings of Kabbalah, but this is not the place for that.

In addition, part of studying Torah is indeed understanding the logic behind the details. The collection of these details is a collection of natural phenomena that we, as Torah students, need to find the collection of laws that make them happen. This is part of the effort of studying Torah itself. God intended it that way. It is simply foolish of you to think that God will explain the logic to you and only then will you be willing to keep His commandments. The whole meaning of faith disappears in such a case. You are not keeping His commandments, but your own commandments then.

1. You wrote, “I can only explain details (but not give reasons).” What is the difference between an explanation and a reason? And what do you think, for example, as a start, of offering an “explanation” for the many details you wrote about national and tribal succession?

2. In complete contrast to your words about idleness and losers, the secular group in Israel has achievements: it established a state, absorbed immigration, merged communities, and built an economy (certainly in some of these things there were religious partners, but the driving vision and most of the drivers were primarily secular). Therefore, the pretense of certain religious people to think that without their advice everything here would collapse is simply disconnected from reality. They hold the supreme truth that how to protect the borders, how to protect the people, how to protect human happiness and families, they will teach these blind secular people everything (who in the meantime have done everything here and have usually successfully ignored the whining of the religious). Simply pathetic.

I didn't say a word about religious people who say “We believe that's what God said, so we will try our best to promote it”. I have a bitter argument with them, but at least it's clear where everyone is and what the argument is about (is the Jewish religion correct). I did argue against religious/ultra-Orthodox people, like you for example, who make general arguments about what is “right” for the people, the state, and the world. When in the end, it has no cover without the cover of religion.
If the root of the argument is religious, then what's the point of presenting it to a person traveling on Shabbat? They (and you among them) certainly present it, and this is in an attempt to deceive (others or themselves? I don't know) that their argument is worth something even if the religion is not correct. People who pretend and roll their eyes as if “this particular argument” It is reasonable and convincing even for those who do not believe in religion: “Reform conversion is an attack on the nation”, “Gays are an attack on the institution of the family”, “Shabbat in the country is a social issue”, you name it.
The arguments are always unconvincing (and as I mentioned, also fraudulent because their conservative roots are religious), and the idea that religious conservatives are the responsible adults who know ‘what to do’ has never been proven (if anything, then the opposite). Just an empty pose without any cover. Nada. Like opening a Kinder Egg and discovering that there is no toy there. And sending me to read ancient writings that are subject to a thousand interpretations when I have no reason to believe that in the end it will actually turn out that there is something there is usually the behavior of charlatans (it is possible that you are one of a thousand who owns ancient writings and is not a charlatan, but I have no way of distinguishing).

I am addressing all of this directly to you, although I would not do it if I thought you were exceptional. You are a fairly clear archetype of the phenomenon I described, and therefore I do not expect you to defend the opinions of others, but rather your own positions.

3. Please explain what is meant by “greatness as a human being”. If by a certain measure “Rabbi Kook” comes out higher than Einstein (whose teachings I do not know but I do know how to evaluate scientific achievements. I am a mathematician) then there is a problem with the measure. I hope your measure does not test who had whiter teeth.
By the way, when you say “Rabbi Kook” you mean the one who sent people to settle in the hills from a religious perspective - mainly that ”our land”? Are you serious? He was a complete no-brainer. Anyway, if he had done it from a pragmatic standpoint of what would benefit everyone, then I wouldn't be so upset (although I think he caused enormous damage). But when it's clear to me that his motive was greatly influenced by religion and he, together with his audience, tried (and succeeded) to “establish facts on the ground” for the rest of the population based on his religious opinions when he knew that they were unacceptable to others, I think this is insolence and despicable of the first order. And this is an example of the damage that religious arrogance causes.
I don't know who the Gra is, what he said and what he did. Wikipedia says that he studied a lot of Torah and was knowledgeable in science. Okay?

1. By explanation I meant detail (it's a kind of explanation but we won't elaborate at the moment) and expansion. It's a step on the way to reasoning.

2.3. Well. I think I'm already exhausted. I've written a lot and I don't have the strength to write more. I have a feeling that you might be talking to yourself. First of all, I talked about the vision. And the one who has a problem with the index is you. Because there is also what is called the “sciences of the Godhead” (this is the “field” of Rabbi Kook. It's a little more than a scientific field) and you have no idea about them at all. In addition, if you write about Rabbi Zvi Yehuda being “zero from zero” then you have gaps to fill. By the way, I also have an academic background in physics and mathematics, so I have the ability to evaluate intellectual enterprises against each other. You have no ability to evaluate the other side at all. In any case, as I wrote, I have no interest in convincing you. My arguments were against Rabbi Michi and you somehow got in here. As far as I'm concerned, accept the claim that if you want my vote for a coalition with you, I have a demand for the criterion of Judaism based exclusively on halakhic law and that's it. That's the language you understand.

And in addition, if someone feels that they are the responsible adult, they are allowed to. It's not a sin. They are part of the state and it doesn't matter at all who founded it. Whatever happens to it now will happen to them too, and therefore they are allowed to participate in determining its fate. Regardless, these secularists who founded the state are an extinct species and there is no connection between them and today. Today's secularists are more busy destroying it (at least as the Jewish state. So anyway, the religious have more to work with here). And in matters of arguments and thought, they don't owe you anything. Anyone is allowed to argue what is true in the world based on religion. No one asks your permission to argue. If you get angry, that's your choice alone. Your nerves are part of the stupidity I'm talking about (stupid is emotional. A thought from the gut)

Instead of trying to convince yourself of your own righteousness (which is clearly not productive for you), I suggest you take my words to heart and continue to ponder them (even if they don't seem right to you, if you discover the error in them you will benefit).

By the way, I don't understand what arguments you are talking about when you write: ” I did argue against religious/ultra-Orthodox people, like you for example, who argue general arguments about what is “right” for the people, the state, and the world. When in the end, there is no cover for this without the cover of religion” or “people who pretend and roll their eyes as if “this particular argument” is reasonable and convincing even for those who do not believe in religion: “Reform conversion is an attack on the nation”, “Gays are an attack on the institution of the family”, “Shabbat in the country is a social issue”

Where exactly did I argue such arguments exactly? Except for the Sabbath issue, which I agree with you on, there is such a thing called conservatism, which is separate from religiousness, only usually they come together (although not necessarily – there is a conservative who is not religious and there is also a liberal religious (like Rabbi Michi)). Besides, someone who is religious cannot really separate their religion from reality. It is reality for them (they think that religion is right and will be punished for its non-existence)

So like this: For most religious people, conservatism comes before religiosity. Therefore: ”Gays are an insult to the family” This is a legitimate claim that you can understand too. I really think that the conservative aspect is much more disturbing than the religious aspect here

Reform conversion is an insult to the nation. Indeed, this is the only place where religious reality and physical reality merge. Even as a secular (conservative) I would accept a criterion for Judaism only according to Halacha (and as a secular – Judaism according to tradition). There is nothing to be done about the history of the people, which is closely intertwined with this tradition. Any other claim sounds ridiculous to me. Historically, it is clear to me that the Jews are different from other peoples, even if it is not clear why and how. And it is clear to me that this difference is related to their tradition. But as I said, my claims were against Rabbi Mikhi, who is religious, and not against you.

In any case, I also do not like the phenomenon of people disguising their true positions under the guise of other claims and trying to achieve their real goal through them. It is a kind of dishonesty. It is only in matters of conversion that I think there is a real mental failure in the secular Zionist public. And when I make the argument of conversion to them, I want to point out to them a kind of contradiction between their secularism and Zionism. What can be done, while it is possible to talk about a German nation regardless of their religion, it is impossible to do so in relation to the Jews. Because for thousands of years, Judaism was both a nation and a religion. The secular can found a new nation, but they cannot call it “Jewish” (and in fact, not Israeli either). This nation could really not be based on religion. But when we talk about the Jewish nation that is 3000 years old or more, then this nation is defined by the definitions of religion (because that was its reality until 130 years ago). But the nation that came together here in this country (the Zionist enterprise) was created by persecution, and this persecution was largely of Jews according to Halacha. I am quite convinced that if there were any community in the world of non-Jews who all have a Jewish father, they would not be persecuted and degraded. This is an observation of reality itself. But in general, this whole discussion is unnecessary because from the perspective of secularists today, a nation is a bad thing, so what definition are we even arguing about?

You claimed that Reform conversion is an attack on nationality (as opposed to Orthodox conversion), while stating that nationality is defined by religion. I added the issue of Shabbat and homosexuals from other (failed) discussions. And I said two things about that. One, that it is a claim that pretends to be a “general” claim that can be exported abroad but in reality stems only from religious roots. The second, that the pretension of religious people to try to save secular people from themselves is ridiculous when you examine who actually did and succeeded and who was humming in the background and didn't do much. So you say that the secular people have changed and suddenly now, suddenly today, they do need the saving of religious people. Allow me to tell you that this is not true. The cucumbers are popping and the garden is growing. You answered me “in my language” that if I want your finger in the coalition, then you have demands. Fair Enough, that is excellent and legitimate. Just to be clear, this is a game of arm wrestling and there is no argument here that can be brought out.

I really don't think that the Jewish nation is fundamentally different from other nations (it is only different in the way that I am different from you, while we are both human beings). This thought of yours is itself purely religious, and you yourself are here and now trying to market it to secularists. And I really think and think and can't understand where this disgusting thought emerged from. In the past, the Jewish nation was characterized by a certain religion, and today less so. It's really not fundamental in my opinion (and as I said, Catholic Christians can also join the Jewish nation, even if it's in a gradual process, and we will accept Christian Jews for the glory of the people of Israel). And I also didn't understand what the pogroms have to do with the matter. Did a massive secularization process suddenly create a new nation there? Were you appointed chairman of the Academy of the Hebrew Language (the ultra-Orthodox also interfered with the process of revitalizing the Hebrew language, by the way) when you talk to me about the use of the word "Jew"? Or are you trying to make "substantive" claims through the use of the word?

When I see that conservatism goes hand in hand with religiosity, and religiosity is simply a belief in a particular historical event, so it has no essential connection to conservatism, then I conclude that conservatism is probably a cover designed to protect religion. Why is the "harm to the family" that homosexuals do orders of magnitude more important to religious people than to secular people? I feel that the reason simmering in the shadows is religion.

Gabi .

The moment you wrote that it is possible to include people who were "Christian Jews" in the Jewish nation, I think you pointed out the paradox that Michi is trying to (or rather tried in his series of columns on the subject in the past). And also Emmanuel (whom I often have trouble understanding what he wants, but on this matter I agree with his words. At least if I understood him correctly). The ethnic group/people/nation or club (no matter what you call it, these concepts simply did not exist back then) was defined in one of two ways. Either a person who was born a Jew. According to Halacha. Because all Jewish communities lived according to Halacha. Or as a person who came from outside and accepted the set of commandments and beliefs of the Jews upon joining the Jewish community. The Conservative Reforms. And the secular-atheists (or agnostics or deists). All of you in your own way want to change the rules of entry to the Jewish community. That is, to lend the name Jew. And to determine for him a new essence and new conditions of joining. I will not go into the story of the Reform and Conservative definition of Jews. They at least have consistency and a clear definition of who is a Jew in their eyes (at least for the Conservatives. The Reformers, as they are, give vague definitions to things. But at least they try to start defining). But you, as a secular atheist Israeli Jew, are trying to give a paradoxical and clearly illogical definition of a Jew. As someone who is actually Israeli and contributes to the security of the state. And is interested in marrying a Jewish woman and living in the company of the majority(?). The secular Jew. And in fact you don't care if he believes in Christianity. And is a Christian in his religion. From your point of view, if he contributes to the state. And marries an Israeli Jew, he is a Jew. You have created here a clearly unacceptable definition of who is a Jew. And without paying attention. You are not talking at all about belonging to Judaism or to Jews. But about belonging to the State of Israel and being Good Israeli. What do you think connects a secular atheist Jew like you to an “American” Jew who doesn’t live in Israel and feels good in America (whether he associates with the American Haredim, who are simply interested in preserving religious life and see no value in establishing the state, or whether he associates with American Reformers who see the United States as their home and people, and Judaism as a universal, non-binding religion, or between you and American Conservatives or Modern Orthodox, who often hold a dual identity and do not attribute great and exclusive value to the state like you do?). You don’t have much in common. But if you do, you don’t have much in common. And what connects you is only the Jewish mother you both have. What would connect them with that Gentile who came from outside? And from your perspective, once he is an Israeli citizen, he is no less Jewish than them? Nothing. That Gentile atheist (or even a Christian or Muslim for you). He is a good Israeli and that is enough for you (from your point of view, your right, of course). But there is nothing that connects him with Jewish history. Pindars, I, Miki and Emanuel, for the sake of the example, do not accept him as a member of the club and we only hold a common citizenship. Which simply means a mutual interest that the state not be destroyed. We have no shared values. No shared culture. Nothing!. He and American Orthodox such as Ben Shapiro and Yaakov Lemar have nothing in common. Not even living together in the same country and an interest in it not being destroyed. Therefore, defining a Jew as a person who wants to marry a Jewish woman and contributes to the security of the country is simply an unacceptable definition. And quite stupid. In fact. From an atheist or non-Orthodox point of view (except for extremely conservative conservatives). There really is nothing that holds all Jews of all shades of beliefs and opinions in the same group. So why call the process of assimilation in society Secular-Israeli “conversion”. Why not simply call it “Israelization”. Or “assimilation”? Apparently, the root of your problem and that of others like you lies there. In fact, there is no strong secular Israeli today that is completely disconnected from the Jewish religion. Both because the majority of the public does not share your opinion, in my humble opinion. And because of the simple fact that there is no real value or content in this kind of Israeliness. That it does not and cannot have any positive value. Original or cultural innovation from the beginning. Except for the need to protect the Jews here from being persecuted by the Nazis again. And to preserve the customs from grandma's house of donuts and candles on Hanukkah. And to be a good Israeli of this kind who serves in the IDF and pays taxes for this purpose - any atheist, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian gentile can join. He was a good citizen. We just shouldn't call this thing conversion to Judaization. And we shouldn't define this Gentile as a Jew. Because there is nothing Jewish about him. And it has nothing to do with the historical concept of the meaning of the word Jew. Call him a good Israeli. And that's it. About the lack of patience that exists towards Gentiles. Even Gentiles who are good Israelis in Jewish society. Both the religious Haredi and the one in the secular-traditional range. I was the first to strongly protest. But we don't need to change and invent concepts for this.

As a staunch secularist, I have no interest, like Gabi apparently, in seeing myself as an authentic Jew. In my view, authentic Judaism is primarily Orthodox Judaism, and that is precisely why my interest is to largely distance (Orthodox) Judaism from the state. The core of authentic Judaism, the Torah, is a particularly negative thing (but not only, of course).
Therefore, even if it is true that secular Zionism is to a large extent a distortion of the original Jewish heritage, I welcome that. The product before our eyes (Israel) is worthy enough in this respect and certainly should not be burdened with the pretense of “replacing” the Jewish heritage, nor “improving” it. In short, to receive some inspiration from it. The main thing is not too much.

Gabi

I'm not trying to sell you anything. I truly and sincerely think you're ridiculous in all this attempt to define a Jew outside of the law. . I have no idea if someone who is not religious doesn't see the ridiculousness in this. As rationally said, Rabbi Michi talked about it in all his columns here. Trying to sell means I'm trying to get you to my side. That's not what's happening here. But I really have, personally, an observation that the suffering of the Jews has something to do with their religion and not just their nationality. Even after the massive secularization in Turkey, no new nation was created because really, apart from the Jewish people, no nation was defined by any religion. The Jews are simply different. I don't know if I wouldn't be religious if I saw it, but now that I see it – it's an observation that stands on its own. It may be that my belief in religion made it possible, but it doesn't stem from it.

In contrast to Shabbat – Where I completely agree with you and I observe Shabbat and want Shabbat observance in public institutions not out of socialism but out of the Torah (not from the point of view of forcing secular people because coercion does not belong in the halakhic law to babies who have been born. Only to people who believe) and homosexuals where naturally I personally do not care about sociological definitions of family and I will not try to force the non-existence of homosexual relations to the same extent that I would not force the observance of Shabbat (privately) but despite this homosexual marriage seems ridiculous to me (from the conservative side of me and not because of the commandments of the Torah. You can understand that it can also seem ridiculous to someone who is not religious. After all, in the non-religious Arab world it is also considered ridiculous). That is, homosexual marriage is at least not equal to heterosexual marriage (even if I believed in equality between people (I think this is an undefined concept at all), I still do not believe in equality between different types of marriage. Not all things are equal in the world. Just as the natural sciences are more equal as sciences than the humanities. Not all sciences are equal). Therefore, I will also fight you on the issue of homosexual marriage - contrary to all this, I am not trying to convince you that Reform conversion is something that you are also supposed to deny and that the Jewish nation is defined through religion. It simply seems so ridiculous to me that I tell you that it is ridiculous (absurd) and that is it. Absurdity is something that if a person does not see his own problematic nature, he lacks knowledge (on the same matter). And the secular opinion on this matter is simply lack of knowledge (not even a mistake). I will not try to convince you of anything. At most, I will explain myself. That is indeed wringing my hands. But gently

I have no desire at all to market anything. Marketing is for people who lack self-confidence in their faith and need reinforcement for it. I allow myself to not know everything and anyway I am only busy explaining why I think what I think to those who try to understand me and that is it. There is such a thing as spreading the Torah and converting Jews to repentance. But it is not done through cheap marketing but through education (it is not the same as marketing). And I would do that with regard to the teachings of Kabbalah.

By the way, most religious people do not believe in the Torah because of their belief in a particular historical event but because of questions related to the meaning of their existence and matters of reward and punishment for good and evil. Belief in the giving of the Torah is a related matter as part of a more general belief.

Emmanuel Yedidy,
Let's leave aside the renewing and branching parts. I will deal again with the categorical separation of nationalism from religion, and because Mr. Rational recently presented his position in detail, I will write my opinion in response to his words. The truth is that you have opened several interesting topics, but if we go into them, we will not get out.

Rational,
You have presented your position very well. Now see how I look at things.
In the past, entering the national club was through the gates of religion and joining the religious nation. Today, the nation (club) has changed and accordingly, the way to join it has also changed. Religion is a garment that the nation wears. In the past, the buttons of the religious suit were fastened tightly to the body, and today many have thrown this ancient suit into the basket for honor. This is a process that many other peoples have also gone through.

I do not have a clear definition of who is a Jew and I am not looking for one. Do you have a definition of who is an Italian? When you explain to me who is Italian, I will explain to you who is Jewish. When you look at the collection of religious and secular Jews in the world or in Israel, don't you see them as a nation even without religion? What do the Filipinos and the Druze and the Uzbeks and the Argentines have that the Jews don't?! A ribosome of the world! I don't even know how to begin to think about such a strange position.
I wasn't talking specifically about the State of Israel, because the nation comes before this state. The Law of Return tries to capture in sharp legal definitions the delicate definition of who belongs to or is assimilated into a nation, and it is clear that this cannot always be exactly successful. I don't insist on the term conversion, but it is not just naturalization either. You could call it assimilation and integration (and in the Jewish nation-state, those who are assimilated also receive citizenship).
Dialectical tricks to attack definitions can be done with any concept. What is orange juice? What is language? The boundaries are fluid and vague and it is pointless to demand that I formulate sharp criteria for such concepts.
One. If a Chinese in a remote village decides to convert (an Orthodox conversion according to all protocols) then he is really not getting closer to the Jewish nation. He is a Chinese of the Jewish religion and I, for example, have no shred of connection to him. And vice versa, as I keep saying and I still don't understand what's so jarring about it, a Christian Brazilian can get closer to the Jewish nation while sacrificing potatoes to the Viking goddess of wrath. Religion aside, nation aside, billions in the world see it this way and there is nothing simpler than that.

No. I don't see a connection between the entire collection of religious and secular people around the world if I take religion out of the story. Not just during the emancipation period. During the heyday of the Reform movements. Who saw Judaism as a universal religion with only moral ethical rules. They said that they belonged to the nation of the country they lived in. To the people of the country they lived in. And that they were Jews only in religion. And there is nothing that connects them with the Orthodox Jews. Nor between them with Reform Jews in other communities (except belonging to the same religion according to their system. But not in nationality and shared fate). And not just Orthodox movements that were influenced by this Renaissance spirit. Adopted similar definitions. German Orthodox rabbis from Sumy and also Hungarians began to define themselves as also belonging to their local nations. And declared that they had absolutely no connection with Reform and secular Jews who they believed had cut themselves off. From religion. And they have more in common with Hungarians or Germans among whom they live than with Jews who have cut themselves off from religion. Because the former, according to their system, were at least of the same nationality as them. And it is not by chance that the rabbis and Jews who remained more conservative as a scribe were among those who were against these trends and said that it was an explicit prohibition from their point of view for a Jew to define himself as belonging to another people.

But forget it, I dug too much into history. If there is no God, and the Torah was not given, and all Jews around the world do not have some common mission. I do not see a connection between all Jews in the world at all. What connects me as an Israeli Orthodox Jew to a Reform Jew with an American lifestyle, a way of thinking, a completely different worldview and values? The fact that we both eat donuts on Hanukkah? After all, even in this we celebrate the holiday differently and it is reasonable to assume that at the holiday table it speaks of freedom of religion and conscience, and how much Hanukkah shows that coercion is terrible. But for me, Hanukkah is the victory of the children of light over the children of darkness. Resistance to idolatry and idolatry. The very opposite of tolerance and freedom of conscience. We do not have a common mother tongue. We watch different series. And so on. For me, I currently see a connection between us because I believe that God gave the Torah to the Jewish people and because of that, in the potential of all Jews share a common spiritual mission of keeping the commandments. Therefore, the Jewish motherhood that we both have connects us to this obligation. This is the only essential connection that can be shared between Jews in the world, as far as I am concerned. The same connection that the Halacha has established as essential.
What is it about Druze and Georgian Italians that the definitions of their nationality are different from the national definition of Jews? Very simply, Georgian Italians and Hungarians have never been defined as peoples according to their religion. They have a common language, common foods, common poetry, common patriotism. And in such things, the definition is also usually more fluid and changing. Jews do not have all of these things. Since they have never undergone complete secularization. And the projects of Ahad Ha'am and Bialik, for example, to create such a culture have failed. (And rightly so in my opinion). There is nothing wrong with a Christian Brazilian marrying a secular Jewish woman and integrating into a secular/Reform Jewish community there (from a secular perspective). If so, this will not make him a Jew even if he was very well-liked by the members of the community there and volunteered in the community center. Their communal every Friday. If only because most Jews in the world will not see him as a Jew. And to define yourself as belonging to a people of the end at a time when a large part of that people and even the majority in this case. does not see you as belonging to it. This is paradoxical and unacceptable. Whereas that Chinese who converts to Orthodoxy and keeps the commandments is a Jew by necessity and by necessity of all secular Jews of your kind. Even if you do not accept him because his Judaism is an essential thing. He keeps the commandments. He is obliged by the law and this is the historical definition of a Jew. A righteous immigrant and anyone born to a Jewish mother. And whoever wants to change the definition and give a more acceptable definition has the burden of proof on him and not vice versa.

Well and good. I think the positions have been clarified enough and the thinking reader will judge.
In my opinion, I present a simple reality of things that are self-evident.
But my throat, and your throat, and certainly Emmanuel's throat, all snored at the same time and we urgently need to look for some lemon juice. I came, I heard, I made it clear, it turns out I failed to convince and on the other hand I was not convinced at all, peace and thanks for the fish.

Gabi. I don't think the point here is persuasion. I didn't come to convince. But to ask how, in your opinion, the essence of a secular Jew can be defined. Because you don't have an answer for that. And you don't know what, apart from religion, connects all Jews in the world to one people, apart from the religious definition. I'll stay with you. If you were to bring me values that are unique to "secular Jewish culture" (or even show me that there is such a common culture for all secular Jews in the world, even if it is empty of content), I would say that I don't agree with the definition. But that it is acceptable in a comprehensive way). But as you said, the discussion is leading nowhere. So we'll end it here.

I definitely think the point here is persuasion. And if there is a chance of progress, I will stay.
I asked you to define for me the essence of an Italian (there are Christians, secular Muslims, fascists and democrats, there are in Italy, there are in the US, in the village, in the city, in the field, in Sicily, in Florence, thin, tall, beautiful, housewives and monks) and then I will be able to define for you the “essence” of a Jew. You will not find a clear criterion with which you can classify any person as Italian or not with the wave of a finger. At most, you will be able to measure how close they are to the Italian nation. This is how I look at the world and can say, without having a clear and sharp definition, that these and those people belong to the Jewish nation (and perhaps are affiliated to a certain extent with other nations as well). You treat the Jewish people differently from all the peoples in the world, and I simply cannot see any thread of reason for this strange attitude.
The truth is, if you ask me, there is a very real chance that within two hundred years or so the religious fringes of the Jewish people will drop out of the Jewish nation and separate into an alternative channel. It would be a bit of a shame, to be honest, but not that much.

An Italian is any person whose ethnic product is Italian (ethnic Italian) and any person whose culture and customs are Italian. And also any person who takes part in maintaining the Italian state and is its patriot. (If he sees himself as such at least. I assume that most Italians would see such a person as Italian in this respect - as belonging to a country called Italy and as part of its society. Even if he is disconnected from the culture and ethnic-Italian history). The same thing, in my humble opinion, can be said about French, Germans, Danes, etc. These are indeed fluid definitions, but here I have given one. (Or actually three). And Jews have two of these or a person who is Jewish in terms of origin and birth (born to a Jewish mother). Or a person who joined the Jewish religion (a ger tzedek). The other definitions are not acceptable by most Jews. (I agree that a person who was born only to a Jewish father can be defined as a Jew in terms of ethnicity or genetics. After all, he really has Jewish roots. But he still does not belong to the Jewish people). On the day when there will be an original Jewish secular culture that is shared by most Jews The secular world. It would be possible to define someone who joins it as a Jew from a cultural perspective.

In his excellent series of columns on Judaism and Jewish identity, Michi described the view I present here well

Correction of a spelling error: Its origin, of course, and not the product

Another clarification: I think of course that the original, true and authentic definition of a Jew is the halakhic definition. And I'm just saying that if there were a true cultural-secular Jewish existence, there could be another alternative definition that holds water. I would of course still think it is wrong. But it would be acceptable and true (as conservatives live from endings, I suppose, can be considered part of another parallel Jewish existence. Even if it is wrong in my opinion).

The reason I say that there is no true secular Jewish existence today is because I think that most Jews are not secular these days. And the religious and traditional ones are definitely not marginal. Because abroad, any Jew who is not one of those (not traditional/religious Orthodox or conservative) assimilates into the society in which he lives almost automatically. And because even those who do remain secular but do not assimilate already think in the same language. Speak the same language and believe in the same Western democratic values as their Gentile neighbors. Therefore, there is no such thing today. Secular Judaism. It is a minority that exists with you and with certain elites. And it is certainly not the majority. Here in Israel, the majority are on the continuum of traditional-religious sycophants.

An interesting way to define national affiliation according to scientific success was suggested by Albert Einstein, who said:

‘If my theory of relativity turns out to be correct – the Germans will call me German, the Swiss will call me Swiss, and the French will call me a great scientist; if the theory of relativity is disproved – the French will call me Swiss, the Swiss will call me German, and the Germans will call me Jew’.

In short: ‘The theory of national relativity’ 🙂

With best regards, Levi & Ger