A crazy head…

“Speech is silver and silence is gold”

The fellow used the site (albeit clumsily, of course) as a platform for echoing propaganda. A collection of awkward attempts to find excuses for writing the word “Haredi” as though it came from “to become Haredi” — we became Haredized, we shall Haredize-you-at-our-wedding. At a certain point the amusement from the comic relief gave way to astonishment at the level of patience shown toward someone making a circus of himself.

https://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=2&topic_id=2918646

Benjamin,
if the question really interests you and isn’t just clowning around: I once asked a psychologist about it. He claimed it’s because Haredim aren’t used to animals of that kind, and so it arouses fear in them.
As a former Haredi kid from Bnei Brak, I can say that I also used to be afraid of dogs, until I started being around them more and more and the fear subsided.

Why is it so critical for you to investigate the Haredi psyche??

Benjamin, when a Haredi barks at you, you’ll be afraid too. And as for the matter itself: once, hundreds of years ago, a dog entered the Temple Mount and the mufti of the time ordered all the dogs of Jerusalem killed, and the rotting corpses he imposed on the Jews to bury. That’s what I read in one of the history books. Since then, the writer claimed, Jews have had a phobia of dogs. And since the Haredim are the Jews of old, they’re still afraid. And you, since you’re a new Jew, I recommend you read “The Jewish Dog” by Haviva Pedaya.

Gil, that’s by Asher Kravitz, no?
https://www.google.com/search?q=the Jewish dog&oq=the Jewish dog&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.7538j0j7&client=ms-android-xiaomi-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Shai, me? Clowning around? Heaven forbid!!!
Look at my question above, where I already addressed the psychologist’s answer. His answer is relevant with respect to one Haredi individual or another, but with respect to Haredim as a whole it is completely meaningless.
Dear Giil, also look at my question above, and thanks for the reading recommendation of “The Jewish Dog”; it does indeed sound fascinating.

With God’s help, 8 Adar 5780

Benjamin — hello,

The Haredim’s fear of dogs stems from their being symbols of brazenness, as it is written: “The dogs are greedy in spirit; they never know satiety.” And so in the footsteps of the Messiah there is fulfilled: “The face of the generation is like the face of a dog” — that is, insolence rebelling against every authority and tradition. The Haredi approach is inward withdrawal, a fear of any contact with the “face of the generation,” full of insolence and brazenness.

In contrast, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook explained in the essay “The Generation” that the “insolence” of the footsteps of the Messiah is rooted in a positive trait: the desire to act from within understanding and autonomous will, and not out of submission and self-nullification. This “insolence” is the demand to understand and identify with what one is doing, and not to act as “a commandment of men learned by rote.”

Therefore, even when the brazenness spills over into insolent defiance, one should relate to the inner force driving it: the sincere desire to reach the truth. And it is our duty to deepen our thinking in Torah in order to give a fitting answer to questions, doubts, and uncertainties. And when the proper faith-based response is given, the questioners will come to a true understanding of the truth of the Torah and embrace it from within deep inner conviction.

Then the brazenness of the “face of the generation” will turn into “holy brazenness.” And when those who ask merit the proper answers that quench their thirst, the dog’s second trait will also be revealed in them: loyalty to its master. Those who dared and asked the piercing questions will once again accept upon themselves the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven out of inner desire, and they will sing (as in the dog’s song in “Chapter of Song”): “Come, let us bow and kneel; let us bless before the Lord our Maker.”

With blessing, Charlie Cocker-Spaniel

A wonderful answer, Rabbi Spaniel! 🙂

Correction —
In paragraph 2, line 2
… the desire to act from within understanding…

Note —
In letter 555 (sent to the Ridbaz), Rabbi Kook explains that the path of drawing close while grappling with people possessed of the “insolence of the footsteps of the Messiah” is not suitable for everyone. For many, involvement with the rebels may lead to spiritual decline. And indeed each person must make this careful inner clarification in order to decide whether his place is among the “Haredim” or among those who “contend.”

With blessing, Shatz

In my opinion the Rabbi meant that it’s not the Haredi who should go to a psychologist, but you…

B, I meant neither this nor that. What I said was that such a question should be directed to a psychologist, not to me.

Why does the Rabbi assume that this is a psychological question? Couldn’t it be that there is a philosophical meaning to “dog,” because of which there is aversion to it in Haredi interaction?

Indeed, Aleph, that’s what I was aiming at in my question. The Haredi fear of dogs stems from a mistaken understanding of the words of the Talmud… let’s call it fear with a cultural background…

With God’s help, 9 Adar 5780

It seems that Haredim are put off by domesticated animals. They will name their sons after the wolf, the bear, and the lion, but not after their domesticated cousins — the dog, cousin of the wolf, and the cat, cousin of the lion. It seems that the domestication of animals is a sign of modernity, and therefore Haredim oppose it.

With blessing, Hersh Levin-Bear, Elephant Without End
The Institute for Pseudo-Philosophical Parapsychology, in memory of Talia Rachel Taub

If so, one should ask a zoologist and not a psychologist. Or maybe a philosopher of zoology who can discuss the philosophical meaning of a dog.
Friends, do me a favor, let it go.
Benjamin, if you have a claim about some passage in the Talmud, and you think there is a widespread mistaken interpretation of it, you can raise it here directly and not under the guise of a zoological-psychological question.

The question is directed specifically to Rabbi Abraham, because he holds the solution to anxiety about dogs. After all, with Abraham even the sheep went about muzzled, all the more so the dogs.

If any demand is to arise from here, it should be the demand to follow Abraham and put muzzles on the mouths of dogs, and then the Haredim will no longer be anxious about dogs. Thus shall a redeemer come to Zion.

With blessing, Shunra Katz

And in our generation, when even people go around muzzled — why should the dogs’ share be less?

It’s not fear but disgust-driven rejection. A dog’s paws roam the street, the sidewalk, the road, near garbage cans, and also in food scraps and other places that are better left unmentioned. Personally, I can’t stand being licked by a dog that’s been rummaging through trash, no matter how cute the dog may be. I’m not claiming Haredi hygiene is better than everyone else’s, but in any case I completely understand this aversion. It’s strange to me that no one thinks of this argument.

Hello Buki, no normal person runs away because of a feeling of disgust; people run away from fear!!!
That is obvious to the overwhelming majority of human beings who know how to distinguish between those two feelings…

For anyone interested in getting to know Benjamin Gurlin:

https://mobile.kikar.co.il/article/164704

https://www.93fm.co.il/radio/175388/?utm_source=site&utm_medium=%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%99%D7%AA:%20%D7%96%D7%9E%D7%95%20%D7%90%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A8

Here’s another one:

http://mynetjerusalem.co.il/%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%97%D7%96%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A7-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%99%D7%A3-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%94%D7%96%D7%95%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%9B%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%94%D7%9D-436519/14

Gurlin, I’ve never in my life seen a Haaaredi running away. At most they cross to the other side of the sidewalk or recoil a little. I’ve never seen anyone run away from dogs more than from cockroaches — not Haaaredi, not seculaaaar, and not relaaagioussss.

Hello Chaim, for your consideration:
https://www.xn--4dbcyzi5a.com/%d7%aa%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%94-%d7%94%d7%95%d7%92%d7%a9%d7%94-%d7%a0%d7%92%d7%93-%d7%94%d7%a8%d7%91-%d7%a7%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%99%d7%91%d7%a1%d7%a7%d7%99-%d7%91%d7%92%d7%99%d7%9f-%d7%94%d7%97%d7%96%D7%A7/

Benjamin,
there’s really nothing to boast about in this act. I do happen to like you personally, but I think the act is truly bad and worthy of condemnation.

Shai, is the act bad because of the subject of the complaint?
Suppose that in that very same act the sinner had been Jojo Casablanca — would the act then be considered heroic?

Gurlin, the act is bad because it is clearly done out of boredom or some personal need, and your “respectable” string of lawsuits proves it. The act is bad because nobody is supposed to suffer from your problems.

Benjamin, even if I agreed with the complaint against Rabbi Shalom Cohen, regarding the second complaint I would not agree.

We are dealing with an elderly man who is not living on the same plane of reality, and as can be seen in the video he doesn’t know what “cannabis” even is, and certainly not what the criminal significance of possessing it is. How can one file a complaint against him? What is he guilty of if someone brought it into his house?

Chaim, if as a result of my complaint one Jew reached your conclusion — “We are dealing with an elderly man who is not living on the same plane of reality” — and that were my reward?

Benjamin,
indeed, as Chaim wrote, Rabbi Kanievsky did not know that he was smelling a substance that had been outlawed (besides which, there are experts who argue that this law is foolish and was made by unprofessional people who failed to distinguish properly in legislation among types of psychoactive substances). Moreover, it’s clear to both of us that the motive for the complaint was not zeal for law enforcement but a jab at a Torah scholar who belongs to the sector you despise.

To Buki and Shai Zilberstein,

The determination of whether an act is proper or improper is not related to the motive of the one performing it, as has been explained here on the site, and is obvious.

Mr. Chaim, they weren’t talking about the narrow act in and of itself; they were talking about the motive, and indeed the motive is very bad. That’s all.

“The act is bad because nobody is supposed to suffer from your problems” — Buki.

Exactly. The intention was his course of action, not the act itself. Thank you for correcting it.

Since the man has established himself as an expert in filing complaints, it should be suggested that he file a complaint against the Haredim for the “exclusion of dogs” 🙂

With blessing, Dina de-Malkhuta Zilber

With God’s help, Saturday night, Tetzaveh, 5780

In any case, fear of dogs is legitimate, and because of it the Sages forbade raising a dog that is not tied up, and they brought examples of dogs that barked at a pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry. Even today, halakhic authorities instruct people to make sure that a dog is tied up and does not roam freely, and so Rabbi Jonathan Elran, who was the rabbi of the community of Kochav HaShahar, used to say: “It is forbidden to raise a permitted dog.”

With blessing, Shatz

Gurlin,
the complaint against Rabbi Kanievsky is an immoral act (taking advantage of his lack of familiarity with cannabis), and in my opinion it also involves disgracing a Torah scholar.
I thought of going on a bit more about the greatness of your wisdom, only I’m afraid of getting hit with a lawsuit from you…

With God’s help, 12 Adar 5780

As a side note to the discussion here, I would point out what the Sages said about Queen Esther: that the Holy Spirit departed from her when she prayed, as she came before the king, “Deliver my soul from the sword, my only one from the hand of the dog,” and the Holy Spirit did not return to her until she corrected her request to: “Save me from the lion’s mouth.”

From Haman and his companions, who are likened to dogs, Esther need not be afraid; but from the king — she should be afraid. In this, Esther was given a hint that toward the king she should act with respect, and address him with arguments that would persuade him.

And indeed she speaks to him with supplications and arguments that could persuade him, such as the consideration of financial benefit the king would have in leaving the Jews alive, at least as male and female slaves, and the emotional difficulty she would have in seeing the destruction of her people.

At Haman she can hurl: “A foe and enemy, this evil Haman!” With him there is nothing to discuss. But with the king it is possible to speak and persuade with rational and emotional arguments.

From here one may derive a general principle for distinguishing, when negotiating with someone, whether he is in the category of a “dog,” with whom there is nothing to speak about, or in the category of a “lion,” with whom there is room to speak with rational and emotional arguments. And for the wise, a hint is enough 🙂

With blessing, Shatz

Dear Haredi, I am astonished at you. The “great one of the generation” is certainly familiar with cannabis, and the proof is that he declared the plant kosher for Passover and for the whole year!!!

Gurlin,
let’s assume for the sake of argument that to declare a plant kosher for Passover and year-round one does not need broad familiarity with the type of plant and its effects,
but if filing frivolous complaints against rabbis is what “does it for you” — then best of luck. I won’t spoil your joy of the commandment and your zealotry…

Apparently they showed the Rabbi the plant and asked him whether there was any concern of leaven or legumes in it, and he examined it and saw that it was not among the species of grain or legumes. That is what he was asked, and that is what he answered.

What is this comparable to? To bringing a rabbi a stain and having him rule that the woman is pure, without informing him that the stain is from a gentile woman, and afterward waving it around claiming that the rabbi permitted intercourse with a gentile.

A rabbi before whom a question of Jewish law is brought assumes that the questioner is asking in a relevant and proper way, and accordingly he answers according to Jewish law. Those who ask in order to trip him up are rare, and they are exposed very quickly, and the disgrace “at the end of the day” belongs only to them..

With blessing, Shatz

Dear Haredi, for the sake of argument let us merely assume that the “great one of the generation” was sure they had brought him mint…

Honored Shatz, what is this comparable to? To bringing before a rabbi “who does not know what a coin looks like” in order for him to rule in monetary law; likewise, that the rabbi should be trusted regarding his sons that they are not illegitimate when he saw his wife only once (months before the wedding)…

With God’s help, 12 Adar 5780

As for Mr. B.G.’s “claims,” I have already replied that for the purpose of the question placed before the Rabbi — whether the plant brought before him was among the species of grain or legumes — the Rabbi does not need great botanical expertise or familiarity with all the properties of the plant. All he needs is to verify that it is not among the grains or the legumes.

However, it is worth noting that not every cannabis mixture is intoxicating. For example, in Belgium, where the law is strict regarding marijuana consumption, they nevertheless permitted the Jewish baker Mr. Levy to bake “Cannabread,” which contains 15% cannabis. This bread has the taste and smell of cannabis, but it has no intoxicating effect, and therefore the authorities allowed Levy’s bakeries to market the cannabis bread in supermarkets in Belgium.

Now that we have come to this, that a cannabis mixture at a rate of 15% is not intoxicating and is legal in Belgium — there is room for halakhic discussion about it. And one should examine what the legal authorities in our country say about cannabis diluted to such a level. Is it permitted to buy a “bite” of the cannabis bread? 🙂

And as in the days of myrrh and myrtle, we shall buy a bite for the pocket, fill up on burekas, and for the blessing drink a cup, like birkas — Shatz Levingrass

On the Belgian “Cannabread,” see the article: “The Jewish baker behind Europe’s first cannabis bread,” on the Haaretz website