tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post5833484191732476621..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: Rabbi David Bibi clarifies the point of his articlejoshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-29773040945421158202009-08-13T08:33:13.025-04:002009-08-13T08:33:13.025-04:00the thing is, i am not sure this is the case. he i...the thing is, i am not sure this is the case. he is right that this is a "famous" story among those who know such stories. i heard it as a Jewish story in 6th grade, in a good elementary school.<br /><br />not every aspect of a story, especially if intended allegorically, or if one minor point of the story is intended as the lesson.<br /><br />for example, consider the following story:<br /><br />"This may be compared to a man who puts his son onto his shoulder and then sets off on the way. The son sees some object and says: Father – lift up that object and give it to me – and he gives it to him, and thus a second time and a third time. They then meet another person, and the son says to that man: 'Have you seen my father?' His father says to him: 'Don't you know where I am?!' He casts him down from atop his shoulder, and a dog comes and bites him."<br /><br />Is this necessarily the best conduct for a father, to cast his son down in an area where he can be bitten by a dog? But this is a mashal used to explain why Amalek waged war on the bnei yisrael right after they tested Hashem saying 'Is God in our midst or not?'<br /><br />as i discussed in the previous post, we saw an "Application" for one variant of the story in which it was used to be something not about friendship at all.<br /><br />though once a story enters into the corpus of popular Jewish stories, it can be taken in all sorts of ways.<br /><br />the question is how Rabbi Weinberg used it; and the question is how Rabbi Bibi used it. i have to read the article again, but his point was not that *WE* should cover up their crimes, or cover up murder. rather, it was one motivating factor for those rabbis in helping this younger person, who was the son of a friend, despite it being against the law. and not that if it was done, in the end, it would be entirely right, but rather that this should be considered a slight mitigating factor.<br /><br />one can agree or disagree with this assertion -- i am not sure i agree -- but that does not make him crazy. it makes him wildly misunderstood by his audience, at the same time as being possibly misguided. there is a difference.<br /><br />i have more to say, but perhaps in that post i was considering writing.<br /><br />kt,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-25125159031747681072009-08-13T01:00:41.617-04:002009-08-13T01:00:41.617-04:00In many shuls, the rabbi would be forced to resign...In many shuls, the rabbi would be forced to resign after publishing the crap that Bibi published. His piece is right up there with Shafran's defense of Madoff, and leads me to doubt his sanity. The story he told is a defense of covering up murder (or at least manslaughter). This rabbi is really crazy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com