# Shmuly Yanklowitz, Novominsker and OO theology

Home Forums Controversial Topics Shmuly Yanklowitz, Novominsker and OO theology

Viewing 50 posts - 201 through 250 (of 289 total)
• Author
Posts
• #1095230
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

“Sam, I meant the status of a kofer b’bias goel”

I think that Mashiach has a different status than other ikkarim because the Gemara says that it’s an explicit nevuah of Zecharia and doesn’t provide any way out of that (as a justification for R’ Hillel).

#1095231
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

It is the original subject of this thread.

#1095232
Avram in MD
Participant

Patur Aval Assur,

I understand your argument this way:

1. Hashem in “reality” is A (corporeal) or B (non-corporeal).

2. We do not know what Hashem is in “reality”.

3. Rambam holds that we must believe B is correct, and that anyone who professes A to be correct is a kofer.

4. There were sages before Rambam who argued a type of A, and were not considered to be kofrim.

5. Therefore, how can we consider someone who truly believes A to be correct to be a kofer, when we don’t know “reality” and he has those earlier sages to rely on?

My problem with this argument is with points 1 and 2. Reality, A, and B are things only on our level. We perceive the universe to be corporeal (A), and the opposite is non-corporeal (B), but who’s to say that our perceptions are reality? Hashem is completely beyond our conceptions and conventions, so how can we make any statements using our limited terminology about the nature of Hashem Himself?

The way I understand the Rambam is that our conception of corporeality is linked to creation and modification. In other words, if something is corporeal, than it was created by something (or someone) else and has the potential to be altered by created things. Therefore, to say that Hashem is corporeal is to argue that He Himself has a creator or could be affected by creations. Would you agree that such a statement is kefira? And if we went back and asked R’ Hillel if he thought Hashem was a creation or could be changed, do you think he’d agree or disagree?

#1095233
gavra_at_work
Participant

Let’s use mashiach as a simple example. If you agree that there is no way to determine the objective reality of whether there will be a Mashiach (and assuming there was no nevuah or unanimous tradition) how would you believe that Mishiach will come. If you acknowledge that there is a deiah that there won’t be mashiach, and you acknowledge that there is no way to determine the reality then the best you can do is to think Mashiach will come or to be more noteh that he will come, but you can’t absolutely believe it.

If there was a way to objectively determine the truth/reality, then there would be no need to believe. It would be a proven and inarguable fact.

#1095235
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

Avram:

I would say the steps slightly differently

1)Hashem is in reality either A (corporeal) or B (incorporeal)

2)There is a machlokes in this matter

3)It is not possible to KNOW which opinion is correct

4)It is not possible to absolutely believe that a certain side is correct because the other side might actually be right

5a)Either everyone who ever held the wrong belief is a kofer including Roshonim and including us

5b)Or everyone who held the wrong belief BECAUSE they had no way of definitively determining the truth is excused

6)The Rambam obviously holds that these things are pashut enough that there are no excuses, but for us once there is a machlokes, it is not pashut

7)Some people say that whichever side became accepted must be right because H’ wouldn’t let kefira become accepted

8)I object to step 7 because if you hold like 5b then it wouldn’t matter if kefira became accepted because we would be excused anyway and if you hold like 5a then the same way that H’ allowed earlier generations to be kofrim, he can allow us to be kofrim

9)Because of step 8, step 7 does not have to be true. Once it does not have to be true then we are by definition back to steps 3 and 4 and therefore either the Rishonim/Acharonim who disagreed with the Rambam were kofrim or everyone is excused. You can’t say that they were excused but we are not.

Feel free to dispute my logic. But if you do please explain why you disagree. (All my above steps do not apply to something about which there is an unequivocal tradition in which case we don’t have any sfeikos).

#1095236
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

“If there was a way to objectively determine the truth/reality, then there would be no need to believe. It would be a proven and inarguable fact”

#1095237
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

Avram, why do you think “??? ???? ?????” means created and/or modifiable?

And if you are sure that even those who, according to the Ra”avad, didn’t mean that, why didn’t the Ramba”m realize that?

(also, R’ Hillel’s statement was regarding Moshiach).

#1095238
Avram in MD
Participant

DaasYochid,

Avram, why do you think “??? ???? ?????” means created and/or modifiable?

It’s very likely that I lack the knowledge necessary to mix into this conversation meaningfully. I’ve understood the Rambam’s position to be against idolatrous religions such as Christianity, that believe their deities can be born, transformed, married, injured, or killed. Or analyzed to determine what they’re made up of, etc. Also, if the universe was created ex nihilo, it would follow that all “corporeality” was created.

Regarding images – if we were to say that Hashem had an image, we would be saying that He was on a level that we could comprehend, which is clearly false.

And if you are sure that even those who, according to the Ra”avad, didn’t mean that, why didn’t the Ramba”m realize that?

I don’t understand the question, I am sorry.

(also, R’ Hillel’s statement was regarding Moshiach)

R’ Hillel wasn’t denying the concept of the coming of Moshiach, just that Chizkiyahu was the Moshiach, right? My understanding of the Rambam is that denying the idea of Moshiach is the kefira, not perhaps mistakenly identifying who it is (although deifying a man as the Christians have done certainly falls into that category).

#1095239
gavra_at_work
Participant

PAA – Then it is provable, you just choose not to do so and rely on others.

At this point we disagree only on semantics and how to define “belief”.

#1095240
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

“At this point we disagree only on semantics.”

This is not semantics at all. Someone who doesn’t know math cannot prove something in math. He can choose which group of mathematicians to rely on for practical purposes but he has no way to absolutely believe they are right. The best he can do is take his chances and follow them.

#1095241
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

Avram:

The Rambam’s argument is that corporeality is a limitation (Yesodei Torah 1:7)

????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???

The other side of the coin is that not being able to have a corporeal manifestation is a limitation. Which I believe the Rambam discusses in the beginning of ???? ??????

#1095242
Sam2
Participant

PAA: Not only is it a limitation, it’s a lack of One-ness. Because anything that has defined areas has, by definition, areas not within its definition.

#1095243
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

Sam2:

The Rambam says it the other way

???? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????

In other words since there is no guf there can’t be multiple deities.

#1095244
Sam2
Participant

PAA: One-ness should not be confused with the lack of other deities. Although, according to the Rambam, the lack of other deities is obvious because other deities would be a lack of One-ness (and a lack of Infinity, but those are one and the same).

#1095245
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

Correct. I am just pointing out that the Rambam uses incorporeality to prove an aspect of oneness but does not use oneness to prove incorporeality. (Which is not to say that your argument isn’t true. It’s just that the Rambam didn’t employ it in Yesodei Torah 1:7 where he discusses oneness and incorporeality. It could be he mentions it in some of the other places where he discusses these issues, perhaps I will check later.)

#1095246
Avram in MD
Participant

Patur Aval Assur,

1)Hashem is in reality either A (corporeal) or B (incorporeal)

We can’t really say that – A and B are within our framework of understanding, and Hashem is completely beyond that understanding. He interacts with us through our framework, and that we can talk about.

2)There is a machlokes in this matter

3)It is not possible to KNOW which opinion is correct

4)It is not possible to absolutely believe that a certain side is correct because the other side might actually be right

5a)Either everyone who ever held the wrong belief is a kofer including Roshonim and including us

5b)Or everyone who held the wrong belief BECAUSE they had no way of definitively determining the truth is excused

There was a machlokes in the Gemara about the date of Yom Kippur, but now the date of Yom Kippur is completely settled across all Jewish communities. If Bob came along and said that he believed Yom Kippur was the other date and ate and drank on Yom Kippur, how would we treat him?

6)The Rambam obviously holds that these things are pashut enough that there are no excuses, but for us once there is a machlokes, it is not pashut

I know this has been around the block on this thread, but why is it not pashut if it has been settled by the Jewish people at large?

7)Some people say that whichever side became accepted must be right because H’ wouldn’t let kefira become accepted

This is consistent with our belief that Hashem guides and protects our people, and brings us close to Him.

8)I object to step 7 because if you hold like 5b then it wouldn’t matter if kefira became accepted because we would be excused anyway

The goal of Judaism isn’t to be excused, but to become close to Hashem.

and if you hold like 5a then the same way that H’ allowed earlier generations to be kofrim, he can allow us to be kofrim

Isn’t the status of a kofer something that we confer, not Hashem? If someone keeps the Torah and mitzvos but harbors private doubts, he is not treated like a kofer. The kofer is the person who publicly rejects settled beliefs. Since this status is in our hands, I don’t think your step 8 works.

#1095248

Avram – if I may correct a side point of yours. Someone who harbors private beliefs that are kefira, even if he never expresses them to anyone, he has the status of a kofer. (Whether or not we know it and even if the community doesn’t treat him as such due to our lack of knowledge of his status.)

#1095249
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

Avram:

Regarding Yom Kippur, a person has every right to believe that in reality R’ Yehoshua was right and Rabban Gamliel was wrong and in fact you can’t fully believe that Rabban Gamliel was right, because it’s very likely that he was wrong. However the halachic principles tell us that we have to observe Yom Kippur AS IF Rabban Gamliel was right. But it doesn’t tell us anything about the underlying reality.

“but why is it not pashut if it has been settled by the Jewish people at large?”

Because we have no way of knowing if the Jewish people settled it correctly.

“This is consistent with our belief that Hashem guides and protects our people, and brings us close to Him”

1) So why didn’t he protect those who disagreed with the Rambam?

2) If we will be excused then there is nothing to be protected from so G-d does not have to intervene.

“Since this status is in our hands, I don’t think your step 8 works.”

I was principally talking about his actual status, not his societal status. But even regarding his societal status, if I am correct then if someone legitimately can’t completely believe something then perhaps he shouldn’t get the societal status either.

#1095250
midwesterner
Participant

Sorry I am not really up to all the philosophical debate here. But one thing is in my purview and that is pshat in a gemara.

R’ Yehoshua was saying that Rabban Gamliel made the incorrect psak. He was told by R Akiva, and subsequently even more clearly by R’ Dosa ben Harkinas, that Kiddush Hachodesh is dependent on the Nasi, and even if he’s wrong, he’s still right, because the entire power of kiddush hachodesh is invested in Klal Yisroel in general, and specifically the Nasi. The gemara says that the Malachim sit around waiting for Klal Yisroel to be mekadesh Chodesh Tishrei before they sit down to Din. To paraphrase the old sign, “Rule #1, the boss is always be right, Rule #2, if the boss is wrong, see rule #1.”

So we don’t say that R Yehoshua was right. Only that if Rabban Gamliel would have used his intuition better, as R Yehoshua would have and his intiution was correct, he would have rejected those eidim and paskened differently, delaying ROsh Hashana and Yom Kippur by a day. But since he didn’t, R Yehoshua is WRONG, and Rabban Gamliel is correct. The halachic principles aren’t telling us to follow Rabban Gamliel even if he’s wrong. The halachic principles are telling us that Rabban Gamliel is right.

#1095251
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

midwesterner:

When I say “wrong” I mean wrong about the cosmological reality of what was really the tenth of Tishrei according to the moon’s cycle.

#1095252
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

Also by kiddush hachodesh, there is a special drasha of ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????.

See Shu”t B’nei Banim (2:32) where he asks:

????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????

??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????

??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???’ ??”? ??? ??? ??? ?????

???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????

#1095253
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

“I think that Mashiach has a different status than other ikkarim because the Gemara says that it’s an explicit nevuah of Zecharia and doesn’t provide any way out of that (as a justification for R’ Hillel)”

The Maharal says similarly (Chiddushei Aggados Sanhedrin p. ???):

??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????

???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????

#1095254
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

.??”? ??????? ??

??? ??? ???? ??????. ??? ???”? ????? ????? ?????? ????: ??? ??? ????. ????? ?? ???”? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??

#1095255
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

Right, but why was it “????? ??? ?? ??”? The Gemara doesn’t say anywhere that it was because he violated a fundamental belief of the religion. The pashut pshat is that it was wrong because it was against a nevuah. Now you might respond that it can’t be that an amora doesn’t know a nevua. But the Maharal clearly says that it was a “????? ?????? ?????”.

#1095256
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

The Gemara says why it was wrong: ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???, but it wasn’t a violation of a fundamental belief, because he didn’t deny the geulah, but, as Rashi says, he thought that Hashem will be the goel. Yanklowitz says it’s all some vague metaphor, chalilah. He is an apikores, and there is not even a rejected opinion on his side.

I’m not arguing with you, I’m just pointing out that you don’t need to bring the Mahara”l; it’s a Gemara with Rashi (I am arguing with your first post on this thread, but it seems you’ve retracted).

#1095257
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

“but it wasn’t a violation of a fundamental belief, because he didn’t deny the geulah, but, as Rashi says, he thought that Hashem will be the goel”

Granted, but according to the Rambam, included in the fundamental belief is that the geula will come about via mashiach.

“I am arguing with your first post on this thread, but it seems you’ve retracted”

I will assume that when you say “retracted” you mean “clarified”.

#1095258
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

Granted, but according to the Rambam, included in the fundamental belief is that the geula will come about via mashiach.

Not necessarily.

I will assume that when you say “retracted” you mean “clarified”.

I meant retracted, because I assumed that you felt that quoting that Gemara was somehow relevant to the discussion of Shmuly Yanklowitz, and that now you realized that it wasn’t. I guess I’m wrong about one of those two assumptions.

#1095259
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

“Not necessarily”

How now?

“I meant retracted…”

The original statement about Mashiach was “he denies that there will be a moshiach, being that that is one of the yud gimmel ikrim that qualifies as apikorsus.” To which I responded with the statement of R’ Hillel. At that point, my main purpose was just to discuss the general ideas (and the statement of R’ Hillel was a good way to get started); indeed at that point in the thread there was no information given as to what exactly were the parameters of this individual’s denial.

#1095260
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

How now?

The belief in the geula is fundamental. The specifics are only important if one is denying the words of the Neviim, but R’ Hillel wasn’t, he was somehow misinterpreting them.

at that point in the thread there was no information given as to what exactly were the parameters of this individual’s denial

#1095261
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

“The belief in the geula is fundamental. The specifics are only important if one is denying the words of the Neviim, but R’ Hillel wasn’t, he was somehow misinterpreting them.”

That’s very nice but do you have a source for this?

I guess not.

#1095262
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

That’s very nice

Thank you.

but do you have a source for this?

It makes sense. Also, look at the Ramba”m on Chelek.

I guess not.

We’ve b”H identified the source of some of the misunderstanding.

#1095263
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

“Also, look at the Ramba”m on Chelek”

That’s exactly where I’m coming from. He writes ???? ?????? ????? ????

#1095264
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

Look at the whole piece.

#1095265
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

I have read the whole piece many a time.

#1095266
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

According to that Rambam, why is someone who denies Moshiach a kofer?

#1095267
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

Well he says

??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??????

????? ???? ????? ??? ????? which could theoretically be a redemtion without Mashiach, the Rambam there also clearly states things that are specific to Mashiach such as ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?????

#1095268
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

That’s not necessarily specific to a human goel, but even if you read it that way, it doesn’t mean it’s a fundamental belief vs. what R’ Hillel erroneously thought.

Interestingly, there’s another version: ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????.

#1095269
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

This would seem to support my overall argument:

(??? ????? (?????:

?? ??????

???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ????

???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????

???? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??’ ??? ????

?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??

???’ ????? ?? ??? ??? ?”? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????

???? ????? ???? ?????”? ?????? ????? ??? ???? ??’ ????? ????

#1095270
HaLeiVi
Participant

I’m not so sure that: ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????

Torah Shel Baal Peh is not about trying to figure out what Hashem was really thinking. It’s the other way around. Hashem quotes the Chachamim. The Torah Shebichsav is the seeds and Torah Shel Baal Peh is brought out and created by the Chachamim, as the Medrash quotes Rebbi Akiva.

By a usual Halachic discussion we don’t say this one is right and that one is wrong. But there are times that they did. That is not “?????”, that is ????? or ??? ??? ???? or ???? ???? or ?????????. There we don’t apply Eilu Va’eilu (unless you explain it like Rabbi Miller, that the intention is pure and it is Torah).

#1095271
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

The point that I am trying to bring out is that whatever the Chachamim are Maskim to becomes the Emes even though it might not be the emes of the metzius. Now this works fine for a halachic matter. But on a matter of belief you can’t believe something if you are acknowledging that it is only true because the Chachamim said so because what you are supposed to be believing is not that the Chachamim said that XYZ is true, but rather that XYZ is intrinsically true. The Dor Revi’i does seem to support this distinction as he clearly says that the Chachamim are only right because the rule is that the Chachamim are right but not because they are intrinsically right. (It would be instructive to see the whole piece inside – I only quoted one part that was directly to the point at hand.)

#1095272
Patur Aval Assur
Participant

?????? ?????? ????”? ???? ??????? ??? ??? (It’s Kedai to read the whole piece but here are some excerpts):

?????? ??? ??? ??”? ?????? ????? ?’ ?? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? (??? ??? ???) [??? ????] ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? [????? ???? ???] ??? ?? ??? [???? ?”?: ???

??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????

??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?”? ??? ????? ?’ ?????? ?’ ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??????

And particularly what he writes about Mashiach:

?????? ??? ??? ??”? ?????? ????? ???????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???

#1095273
Joseph
Participant

A brand new brainstorm today from the indefatigable Mr. Shmuly Yanklowitz:

(This is a real verbatim quote, believe it or not.)

“I’d like to suggest we stop referring to a category of people as “non-Jews.” There is no such group of collective identity consisting of “them,” “the goyim.” Each group has its own unique dignity. They are called Christians, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, Americans, nurses, neighbors, friends, etc. Furthermore I’m not a non-Christian or a non-Muslim.”

#1095274
nishtdayngesheft
Participant

Speaking of Sean Yanklowitz and Ari Hart,

I went out with my family to eat at a restaurant the other night. On the way out, I noticed that had a Tav Yosher, from the mamzerim (Well Yanklowitz is probably not a Jew, based on his own confession that his mother was not Jewish, so he may not be an actual mamzer) at Uri Ltzedek. ( I had checked on the hashgocho before going there). I will BL”n never go there again.

#1095275
Sam2
Participant

Nisht: That’s not fair. A lot of restaurants don’t know better. And they think it’s a good thing to certify that they treat their employees nicely and whatever.

#1095276
☕ DaasYochid ☕
Participant

They should. If the owner doesn’t know better, perhaps that’s not someone I should be buying prepared foods from.

#1095277
nishtdayngesheft
Participant

Sam,

Notice I did not name the place, I said I would not go there anymore.

As DY said, they should know. And this was not some new little place.

And there is absolutely nothing legitimate about auto Ltzedek.

#1095278
Sam2
Participant

I mean, it’s not a negative. If you also have a Hechsher, you’re still Kosher. And if you want someone you think certifies that you’re being nice to your workers and stuff, why is that a negative?

#1095279
nishtdayngesheft
Participant

Sam,

1) They are not trustworthy for anything, they just coerce money out of people and provide no benefit.

2) They are reshaim gemurim who use this to further their rishus and to harm Jews.

It is a huge negative.

#1095280
Sam2
Participant

Nisht: I have never heard such claims of Uri L’tzedek, but I am uninformed. If you could provide sources, I would be happy to read them.

If this restaurant is having money coerced out of them by a bad organization, all the more reason to shop there.

#1095281