I got this email a few minutes ago, from jddaniel9247@verizon.net:
I am considering a portion of a posting on your blog "The Real Shliach" as an insert for a work to be published.
Please reply with all your requirements (citation, format of same, etc.) for both circumstances (profit/non-profit) as I have yet to decide which route this project will go.
Thank you and regards,
JD Daniel
Some quick Googling revealed this.
So I wrote him:
Sorry, I do not allow republication of any of my work under any circumstances, especially not for Christian publications.
What say you, loyal readers?
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Jews
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
61 comments:
1. Brings me back to the chabad.org days, when dealing with Hebrew Christians was an everyday experience.
2. I would have asked him which passage he wanted to quote, out of curiosity.
I wonder what I should use as my head apparel atop my blog as theRealPianist...
Send a virus.
Or just stand firm in your response. Whatever works.
Dear Mr. R.S.
First let me say how nice it is to have you back in the R.S. World - your contributions to the daily internet discourse have been sorely missed.
The problem you reference is interesting. On my iPod, I have a recording of a talk given by Rabbi Manis Friedman (exemplary credentials) which he begins by stating that he periodically speaks to groups of non-Jewish religious leaders (pastors? priests?). (The topic was "suffering" by the way.) From this I learn that the exchange of views (though probably not the debate of beliefs) is acceptable.
Given that control of internet writing is very hard to enforce and therefore plagiarism is easy, it is to this person's credit that he at least asked if he could use your material and did not merely proceed to "cut and paste" without attribution.
Another approach would be to have set a high fee for the use of your material and only allow publication if it was paid.
Depends I suppose if Rabbi Friedman accepts a fee for speaking to non-Jewish groups...
Always thinking of the bottom line,
Your faithful reader,
Leo de Toot.
Shouldn’t it be "re-publishing"? "Republication" sounds like making your work Republican. Which is not as bad as democratization or greenpartization, I suppose.
gah
I recall a nice lecture by Rabbi Schochet on the subject of "religious" exchange... here is it: http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/299778/jewish/Bible-Criticism-Part-1.htm
Is this the one where he slams the table every few minutes, making a ringing noise?
What did the Rebbe say about religious exchange? It seems to me he was against it. (Except, maybe, debates with atheists.)
e: Fun times, eh?
Sara: Yup.
LdT: The bottom line is very important, but I doubt I'd ever see any money anyway.
CA: Well, what does the Torah say about comparative religious courses?
Anyway, he emailed me back:
This is not a christian publication.
It is a work to expand the comprehension and meaning of Shabbat.
But by your response it is clear who your "father" is as that is the attitude of haSatan towards this work which I have encountered before.
NOTHING of your writing shall garnish anymore consideration until you do T'shuva for this work is of haShem to His honor and due restoration.
wow! :D Yashar Koach TRS
Oh and , yeah CA, it's that one
he spends the first 25 minutes talking about why interfaith dialogue is useless, and actually counterproductive.
Communal committees and talking about issues on a communal level within communal life, however, is very important and encouraged!
P.S. Who's yo daddy!?
I want to see a debate between Rabbi Paltiel and Rabbi Schochet.
TRP: Whose daddy?
CA: Moderated by?
What do they disagree upon?
I've been to an interfaith dialogue at Tulane. My rabbi was there too.
There were: a Protestant, a Buddhist, a Muslim, and, lehavdil, my rabbi. The Catholic dude didn't show up.
It was quite funny. Someone would ask a question, usually directed at everyone, and everyone would answer. The answer was most often:
Protestant: something incomprehensible.
Buddhist: something weird.
Muslim: something obvious.
Jew: in our religion, it's actually similar to what Imam X said.
Sometimes my rabbi and the imam would be reversed in order.
Two questions I remember. Someone asked what the meaning of trinity is. The Protestant guy said: "It's the lover, the loved and the love."
Then someone asked what each religion thinks about the concept of mercy to the animals.
Protestant: There is no such concept. Mercy is for humans.
Imam: In our religion, it's exactly the same.
Buddhist: This is an excellent question. Killing animals is unmerciful.
My rabbi: If you love animals, you eat them. That's the ultimate mercy towards them.
TRS: moderated by Rabbi Gottlieb.
TRP: According to Rabbi Paltiel, Judaism is based on emunah, and the leap of faith is a good and necessary thing. According to Rabbi Schochet, "I don't believe in G-d, I don't believe in Torah, and I certainly don't believe in prophets. I know about them."
??? Derekh Mitsvosecha chapter 1 didn't answer that for you?
Are you saying Rabbi Paltiel is wrong?
TRP: Ahh, I understand what you meant. I too wonder who the daddy is.
CA: That's pretty funny.
And who is Rabbi Gottlieb
They are talking about emunah of different things.
I agree. So, then, why did you bring DM?
Emunah that DM talks about is the emunah in Hashem's achdus.
Furthermore, emunah from Chaya shebeNefesh still needs to be justified by seichel.
But, al pi Rabbi Paltiel, if our avoidas Hashem is based on seichel, it is limited by seichel. And therefore what? We have no other way of accessing emes except through seichel. Now, this is not the same as saying: "Only the things that make sense to my seichel are true." That is problematic. Our seichel can lead us to a door, and on the other side of the door are things that are beyond seichel — that's where emunah comes in. But the journey up to the door must be based on seichel.
TRS: Rabbi Gottlieb is a Ph.D. in Mathematical Logic (or something like that) from Princeton. He went to Brandeis. After he got his Ph.D., he became frum and became a chossid of the Bostoner Rebbe.
Now he lives in EY (afaik) and teaches at Ohr Someach. His approach to Yiddishkeit is based on very strict application of logic to a lot of Jewish sources. Most of his lectures are good, where they talk about the things that philosophy, mussar, etc. discuss. For instance, rayas on Torah. How do we know that Oral Torah didn't suffer from broken telephone. What happened with the Golden Calf story, men and women, can you be good without G-d, etc.
Things that Chassidus specializes his lectures lack in, because they are based on Rav Dessler and Ramchal. Like, meaning of mitzvos, reason for creation, etc. Obviously, they are true, but not to the deepest level. Also, his lectures on Chassidus, evolution, and freedom are not very good.
But overall, he is a very good speaker.
http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/Rabbi_Gottlieb_Tapes.html
He also wrote this: http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/publications.htm
Regarding TRS' daddy, I believe the dude was referring to John 8:44 http://niv.scripturetext.com/john/8.htm
You know, when I want people to listen to me, I don't curse them out when at first they don't.
It seems that the leap of faith that both Paltiel and Schochet agree about, is the leap of faith in Hashem's Unity, whereas believing in Hashem's existence is no leap of faith whatsoever. Hence, they don't disagree.
You could just ask them.
About?
Rabbi Schochet does NOT agree on the leap of faith in existence of Hashem and veracity of Torah. His argument in support of them is a version of Kuzari argument.
About the substance of their disagreement.
Oh, I never hit "Publish your comment" button.
I don't need to ask about it. I know their views. I'd like to see them address each other's positions, then address the arguments, etc., etc.
I doubt it will ever happen, because Rabbi Paltiel doesn't like debates, and Rabbi Schochet considers everyone who disagrees with him a crockpot.
A crockpot? Do you mean a crackpot?
My wife says it's "crockpot".
Never mind. My wife says I am confused. Wouldn't be the first time.
I can sympathize.
As can my wife.
R'Shochet does not disagree with the idea that the leap of faith is required within Hashem's Unity, hence I derive that he agrees with the statement that there is a leap of faith, not within Hashem's existence stam, but dafka within Hashem's Unity
Vos fershteistu nit? Rabbi Paltiel says that we need (and indeed it's a good thing) the leap of faith to believe in existence of Hashem and veracity of Torah. Rabbi Schochet says leap of faith in this case is a bad idea, and we don't need it, since we can use seichel enoshi.
I am not talking about Hashem's Unity at all.
Confusion of concepts seems to be the source of many problems in Lubavitch nowadays...
http://www.chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?p=169909#post169909
Of course, as my wife mentioned just now, I confuse crackpot and crockpot, but I don't think it's as bad a confusion as confusing something the Rebbe wants you to do and something he davka does NOT want you to do.
i think that Rabbi Paltiel is referring to Hashem's Unity. This includes the concept that Hashem communicated his wisdom (that there could even be wisdom), this is all part of the concept of Hashem's Unity. Him Caring, Him being personally vested, etc...
If I recall correctly, R'Paltiel was talking about the concept of a Hashem who communicated to you what he wants.
Lastly, stop being a presumptuous Pay Tsaddik!
> i think that Rabbi Paltiel is referring to Hashem's Unity.
No he doesn't. He is talking about veracity of Judaism. It's very poshut from what he says.
> This includes the concept that Hashem communicated his wisdom
No it doesn't. Hashem's Unity means that He is one b'tachlis ha'pshitus. Hashem's existence means that there is G-d who created Heavens and Earth and gave us Torah.
Who said I am presumptuous. Chassidim must do what the Rebbe explicitly told them to do. Not make remezim.
According to last week's Chitas, even the concept of there being a communication from Hashem falls under the category of His Unity by virtue of the incomprehensibility of there even existing a level as Chochma.
What's the source of Paltiel's statements? Also, even on that level, believing in a stam Higher Being is not faith. Believing that he has anytihng to do with this world is faith.
You do miftsoim?
What does last week's Chitas mean? Which book and where?
What's wrong with Rabbi Paltiel's statement is that we can prove al pi seichel that Hashem exists and that Torah is true.
a) I am not a bochur in yeshiva.
b) Who said I am perfect?
c) I don't go around telling people not to do mivtzoim.
d) There is a difference between not doing something the Rebbe wants from you and doing something heipach his wishes. In the first case, you're not being the best soldier of his army. In the second case, you're waging a war against him.
I was referring specifically to Thursday's and Friday's Tanya.
Because of the incomprehensibility of the existence of such an inyon as Chochmah, if does not make sense that there could be from Hashem a Torah.
I'm saying that the true leap of faith is within "grasping" that.
Everything else, knowing there's a G-d, knowing there's a Torah, but that they are one and unified, this is not possible to co me to understand. On the outside of it, it is, but on the inside it is not.
True, but I don't think pointing fingers at others does much for the war effort regardless, if nothing worse.
Plus, how do you know its what the Rebbe wants from you? and not say, from a Mashpia to do? A soldier doesn't look at other soldiers, he does his mission and that's it
It means you can't understand the nitty-gritty of it. I don't know what's inside the internal combustion engine, and it's impossible for me to understand that a liquid can be converted into a fire. So, I need to believe that. But THAT it happens and THAT such an engine exists, I can know and don't have to believe.
Rabbi Paltiel would disagree with that statement.
I think opening a seifer and reading the Rebbe's clear instructions and then using your seichel is an easy thing to do.
Perhaps I'll send R'Paltiel a question with that statement :) Nonetheless, ultimately a person cannot truly know that something is until they know how. At least that's the "knowledge" that the Tanya was referring to. I"ll review and cite tomorrow bezrat Hashem.
I think Chossidim such as Reb Mendel Futurfas OBM were quite capable of reading the Rebbe's clear instructions and lived up to them to the fullest...
I have only one Rebbe. If tzaddikim like Yochanan haKohen could go astray...
Do you know that the sun exists, shines and moves around in the sky, or do you believe? I bet you don't know all inyonim of gravitation, General Theory of Relativity, Quantum mechanics anf nucleas fission.
Plus, the stories are not clear at all.
Which stories.
About the "real Chassidim" doing something or not doing it, saying something or not saying it, at the end of their life.
you should do tshuva just for those quotation marks :p
Those are inch signs.
That reminded me of a story that happened to me. I was on a date in Peabody Museum of Art. We took a break from the art galleries and went to buy drinks. I was drinking mine as we entered back into a gallery. At that moment, a gallery curator came to me and asked: "Excuse me, sir, is that a juice?"
I was so shocked by the question that I actually looked at the label and said: "Umm. I think it's a nectar."
His answer was: "I am sorry, we don't allow drinks in the galleries."
What reminded you of that?
I believe it was a spamming comment about peaches? I usually check my e-mail when I just wake up on my Android.
What's the difference between writing for one group whose wine (and whine) is yayin nesech and a different group?
Post a Comment