Comprehensive coverage

clarification

On June 5, an article titled - "A Country Haunted by Demons XNUMX - The Demon Entered Them" was published on the Hedaan website.
The article directed the reader to the source of the news on the website "Hadari Haredim" where a dog was reported to have been stoned
In stones at the instruction of the judges of the High Court for Appointed Affairs in Jerusalem.
It was also reported there that a complaint had been filed with the police about the abuse of the police. Many media, also abroad
Cite the source of the news.
Due to the article being an opinion piece, the court's response was not attached to it.
We are sorry if the judges of the court were offended.

The following is Rabbi Levin's response as it appeared on the Shabbat Square website.

And so Rabbi Levin writes in his response: "It is the bitter humor of the one who invented this story. A parasitic and pointless joke that isn't even funny. Even he who invented it, perhaps because he wanted to confuse those who heard him or embarrass him with ignorance, undoubtedly did not think that his words would be taken seriously."
"There is no basis for such a thing, neither in law nor in logic. There is and has never been stoning of dogs or any animal in the Jewish religion, not at the time of the Temple or at the time of Abraham our father, such an idea does not appear in the Torah, nor in the Prophets, nor in the Scriptures", Rabbi Levin's response...
According to Rabbi Levin, "The only action that was taken after the dog came in and sat quietly and smelling on the side - dial 106 to the Jerusalem Municipality's call center, you can check it at the call center, I don't know if the city inspectors came and took the dog out or if she went out on her own because I wasn't personally there that day at all, and after When I heard about the dog that came in, I inquired on the phone that they had already invited the municipality."
"Any addition to this simple story is nothing but the imagination and bitter humor of the person who invented it (that is, there was no talk of reincarnation, no mention of a lawyer from before or after 20 years, no correction was made, no hint of punishment, no stoning or stones), such inventions They definitely belong to the type of blood plots, and I wonder why the inventor stopped with his humor at this point and did not describe that we also slaughtered the dog and stored her blood in a jar for the next year to be used for kneading the matzots", so far is Rabbi Levin's response, which was not expressed on the Hidan website and the many media outlets that They covered the story.

Comments

  1. In addition to M. Rothschild's fantastic answers - himself a knight of honor in the Order of Enlightenment - I can only add one point: the fact that the news that was published and began to circulate on an ultra-Orthodox website and was written by ultra-orthodox children of ultra-Orthodox (probably ultra-Orthodox and Jewish) was accepted with such naturalness and was seen as logical against the background of the religious world The dark and burning only shows that even if the source of the news is false (a lie of the ultra-orthodox, yes????) that software is seen as possible in a world where there are atonements for chickens, people believe in reincarnation and push this belief in lectures, conferences and video clips, there are halachic rulings that can be defined as strange Until today (on YNET), a completely serious question was published: What is the meaning of a plastic vessel that is bathed in scotch tape....those who want entertainment will also look for the answer....

    This is the essence of the point: even if it is false information, it makes sense in the world of religion. Totally logical.

    And to all those who "recommend" the website not to publish the series of articles: "A Haunted World". You are completely wrong. If the opposition is based on faith-religious motives, it is completely clear because that is what to expect anyway, and it is quite a reflexive reaction. The problem with others who consider themselves enlightened but with infinite innocence are gravely mistaken.
    We should understand - the articles are published in a section called society and history and as far as academic branches are concerned they have a place on this website and within this framework there is also a place for these types of articles. Moreover, there is an obligation ("sanctity" I would say if I were one of the victims of faith and religion...) for the site to publish this. Exactly for the same reason. Dawkins one of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse of militant atheism deals with this.
    And in the building of Zion Nunham.

  2. jelly:
    Let's start with the facts:
    1. I know the site "Bechadari Haredim" very well. On what basis do you say no? Based on nothing!
    2. I didn't write the article, and if you want to know the facts for sure, then know that my father showed it to me before publication and I suggested that he tone it down. Unfortunately (and unfortunately) he gave less than I offered him.
    3. The fact that I suggested he moderate things is precisely because I know the extortionate goods he was talking about. In fact, it was my fear and not my sense of justice. In the press, it is common to quote others and in the case that an ultra-Orthodox website is speaking about the ultra-Orthodox, this adds a lot to credibility.
    4. One of my suggestions that my father accepted was to point to the source (which I found for him) on the website "Ba Hadari Haredim" (I simply took advantage of my lack of familiarity with the website to find the original article there). I guess my father is congratulating that he took this advice of mine. This is much closer to the source than the reports on other sites and closer than that is hard to come by.
    5. Until this moment I do not know if the story is true. I'm sure you don't either. I only know that an ultra-Orthodox website published it and ultra-Orthodox blackmailed it with threats.
    6. If it were up to me - even though the article was uploaded in a way that did not match the (more moderate) way in which I proposed to upload it - I would not have taken it down following the threat (but it is easy for me to speak because they threatened my father and not me).

    how did you say Before you write should you find out the facts? Great advice! You should internalize it!

  3. A. Ben Ner, as you can see I refrain from commenting in this discussion. Please write me an email and I will answer your questions personally.

  4. Michael,
    Even if the news appeared on an ultra-Orthodox website (which you probably don't know and don't know what it is) then you write something like, "It's hard to know if the story is true or not, according to the scriptures it may be true and maybe it's a power struggle in the ultra-Orthodox world"... and then you express the Your personal opinion on the subject. And that way you do not enter into the possibility of libel and slander because you expressed doubt and did not write that the story definitely happened.
    As long as you don't have facts and proof, you must use the language of doubt and only then can you express your personal opinion and write what you want. And this is true for every case and not necessarily for the religious and the secular.
    This is a thousand houses in historical and academic research in general. If the source is questionable and you are not sure what it is then write for example, "It is not clear if the story is true or not, but it sounds reasonable in light of other sources". Or they write: "It is not clear if the story is true, but it sounds familiar in light of other stories." And that's how you don't decide fate without having proof.

  5. To my father Blizovsky
    I wanted to go back to the article in "Yaden" dated June 5, but I realized that the article
    deleted As far as I remember, there were some of the people commenting on the article who did cast doubt
    In the credibility of the story and I wanted to mention it.

    And there is, in my opinion, also a very important conclusion!!!! and she :
    The science website should deal only with scientific-technological and conceptual news but....
    There is no point and there is no need to enter into quarrels and disputes with people of religious beliefs,
    And this is for two main reasons:
    One - in a debate between beliefs there is no chance of convincing.
    The second - in the heat of the debate you can fail in your speech and be exposed to a lawsuit.

  6. My uncle:
    These are quotes from the holy books and a description of actions that happened in our holy land.
    These are not my concepts but concepts of the religion.
    The fact that you do not notice this is because you are sitting in the dark and cannot see what is written.

  7. If your concepts about religion and Halacha come from this link then have a good day I thought I was arguing with someone educated and not dark

  8. Abraham:
    You are absolutely right and there are more examples in the link I provided (among other things) in response 39

  9. My uncle:
    Of course, your claim that the dark ones don't read the science website is also wrong and all those who attack evolution out of conditioned reflex necessity will testify to that.
    In general - many of the commenters here prove the opposite and I get the impression that you yourself are an example of this.

  10. My uncle:
    Palestinians and Iranians are an origin - not an ideology.
    Being ultra-Orthodox is an ideology.
    Whoever believes in the need to impose a Halacha state here is in the dark.
    Whoever thinks thatThese laws Moral is dark.
    If you show me an ultra-orthodox who does not meet either of these two criteria - I too say that we are not dark.
    There are some, but unfortunately they are not many.
    But what can be understood from the fact that there are such is that what "you understand" is not true.

  11. I understand that for you the ultra-Orthodox are all dark. But among us, those among the ultra-Orthodox whom the religion has labeled as such, did not refer to the article at all and probably never surfed the internet in their lives and certainly not on the science website

  12. My uncle:
    Both the dark Iranians and the dark Palestinians can organize a cyber attack.

    To be clear - I am not claiming that all Iranians or all Palestinians are dark (although I assume but I don't know that my uncle does think they are dark). I'm only talking about those among them who have been corrupted by religion to such an extent that they think they should attack Israel.

  13. point:
    Don't you really know?
    Do you think the automatic responses we see here every time there is an article about evolution or something else that doesn't fit with some ancient book are enlightening?
    You think a system of rules based on This morality Is she enlightened?
    And what about This morality?
    And what about This morality?

    These are all things that non-Orthodox people are not good at.
    These people can have other flaws - that's true - but it's not about flaws that Orthodox people don't have.

  14. Rabbi Levin's response is full of lies that are hard to believe are fundamentally wrong.
    Does the respected rabbi not know what is the judgment of a bull that gores and kills?
    From a proverb: "The bull will be stoned and its owners will be killed"!
    Here there is such a phenomenon, and the specific case does not matter. The issue here is barbarism.

  15. Uncle, what is dark in the Haredim that is illuminated by non-Orthodox?

  16. Tags: ultra-Orthodox, dogs.
    Hurry hurry
    You probably continued with the black humor

  17. Suddenly the dark ultra-Orthodox can organize a cyber attack?

  18. captivity:
    You are confused all along.
    We did not pay a price and the news is already known to everyone.
    As mentioned - the extortion attempt also led to further exposure of the character of the extortionists.
    This is not an opinion piece but a news item - a news item that was quoted, as mentioned, from an ultra-Orthodox website.
    I hope the site will work in a similar way in the future.

  19. This is a science site
    You paid a price for your uncontrollable whims.

    For now, limit yourself to posting on topics such as replacing Niagara with the space shuttle

    And leave the "news articles" to the Or party newspaper and its 800 voters

  20. The science site was not brought to its knees.
    Everyone knows the story and now also knows about the extortion acts.
    Besides, with your help, the readers also got to know the character of the people who support the blackmailers.

  21. In light of response 25

    I changed my mind
    Arrives at the site of the scientist who was brought down to his knees

  22. withering:
    Some answers to the questions you raised:
    1. He is really a fool because any sane person could see how far-fetched his arguments are and no sane person would insist so much on being humiliated.
    2. He has no confidence in the fact that there was no hacker attack, but he is a liar and liars do not need confidence in the truth of their words - they will assert their claims even in situations where they know they are false claims.

  23. By the way - regarding the cyber attack - a complaint was filed with the police at the time (by the Hedan website) and you are invited to check with them.
    In addition to this, the ultra-Orthodox threats in the lawsuit were also directed against "Let Live Live" following the complaint they filed with the police.

  24. sit (20)
    Are you pretending to be stupid or do you really not understand? How did you come to misidentify that threats of a lawsuit mean that a lawsuit is a threat? If a short white boy with a weak body threatens you, if you don't bring him the ball he will blow you up with punches, will you feel threatened? Does the fact that you will not feel threatened in such a situation, even if it is clear that the child cannot really carry out his threats, change in any way his intention or the meaning of his words, i.e. an attempt to blackmail with threats?

    Can you explain how certain you are that there was no hacker attack? And on what basis do you accuse MR (19) of telling lies?

  25. captivity:
    I am not lying.
    There was a cyber attack and you accused me of a brazen and childish lie.
    My father also reported this before.
    Even a spiteful, baseless and brazen idle claim requires the employment of a lawyer and it requires time and money

  26. do not lie to me

    There was no hacker attack - it is simply painful for the scientific website to admit that it got a head start from the ultra-Orthodox.

    If you believe so much in your righteousness, why is a lawsuit a threat?

  27. captivity:
    A cyber attack is also extortion.
    Besides, after the attack, there were also threats of a lawsuit.

  28. What kind of extortion is this?

    In the article here on the site it was written that due to a cyber attack it is impossible to enter it except with a password only.

    So what is the truth?

  29. It is worth remembering the things that have been said for a long time:
    "The beginning of wisdom is
    Calling things by their names."
    "The root of evil is the belief in the one and only truth
    The more evil and wicked acts
    They are done out of religious conviction."
    Yeah, though I walk through the valley of death"
    I will fear no evil, for I am the meanest
    "Son of a bitch in the valley.

  30. In fact, in my opinion, there is room to apologize for succumbing to blackmail, but that is a completely different matter.

  31. jewel:
    The word apology was not replaced by the word clarification.
    No mistake was made here (apart from yours), so there is nothing to apologize for

  32. I wonder when exactly the word "apology" was replaced by the word "clarification" in the media. No more apologizing for mistakes, but clarifying.

  33. jelly:
    And in relation to the content suitable for the site:
    The site is intended to promote science.
    One of the measures that must be taken to promote science is also to expose the stupidity of opposition to science.
    If you read the comments here you will see that the overwhelming majority of the opposition to science comes from religion and this is a good enough reason to deal with religion and its harms.

    Ami:
    And when my father reports on a scientific experiment that was carried out, he must also, in your opinion, perform the experiment himself - even if it is an experiment that involved thousands of people and decades. Right? Or maybe here he is allowed to quote and only when it comes to religion he is not allowed!

  34. jelly:
    True things are true regardless of what they say

  35. To Ami, my father apologized for not asking for the response, even though in an opinion article this is not necessary. He can't apologize for an opinion just because it goes against your opinion, if you read (also Gali if you read) the series you will understand that it reacts to events, in cases where irrationality seems to rear its head.

    Irrationality on such a scale threatens science and society as a whole because the conversion to religion (any religion), the belief in astrology and other nonsense and the pursuit of pseudo-scientific idol medicines divert good people who could contribute and turn them into zombies of one guru or another.
    Not every criticism of nonsense that religious people happen to believe is anti-Semitism as implied in the response regarding the original creators of the news.

  36. As I already mentioned in the body of the previous article:
    My father had to find out the facts before publishing the article. A scientific website should stick to the truth, not rumors or gossip.
    If he is not able to find out the facts for sure, he should have at least received the reactions of all those involved in the matter, before any publication, and he would also publish the reactions in full.

    Avi Belizevsky must apologize, both for the publication, both for the opinion expressed, and for the lack of comments.

  37. In my personal opinion, the science site should focus on scientific articles and not on the war against the ultra-orthodox, because it is a scientific-technological site and not a political site. As soon as the site focuses on the war against the ultra-orthodox, it gets into trouble.
    You are not Stephen Hawking or Galileo or Albert Einstein, that you can talk like them in the way they talked about religion.
    And so when articles are published here about a country haunted by demons, this is the result.

  38. jelly:
    I explained well what I think is the reason for the article being taken down on all sites.
    This is indeed the same reason in all of them: intimidation and threats rather than checking the truth.
    In the case of the science site, at least, I know the story first hand.
    We were looking (and we are still looking) for a way to check the issue - it's really not easy because at Disneyland the origins of the story are hidden and a real check is not possible at all.
    The article was taken down, as mentioned, because of intimidation and threats.
    The article was published, as I explained, in the ultra-orthodox rooms and Maariv only quoted it.
    On Richard Dawkins' website, they don't read "in ultra-Orthodox rooms", so they quoted Maariv.
    This is also the reason why they did not know how to write in their defense the fact that the source is "in ultra-orthodox rooms" (and of course this is an excellent defense!). This proves in itself that they did not check the facts before taking down the news, because if they had checked and discovered that the source was on the website "in the ultra-orthodox rooms" they would surely have used this fact as part of the "clarification" (which, as mentioned - does not clarify anything but throws sand in the eyes to hide the fact that they were blackmailed).

    People's beliefs are indeed their private business - but only up to a certain limit.
    If they believe that they are allowed to interfere in my life it already becomes a matter of concern.
    Unfortunately, this is the situation with Judaism in Israel.
    Religion is - as we know - a law - and in the eyes of the religious (all except the reformers) - the religious laws are the ones that should prevail in the country - the religious laws as written by a primitive society thousands of years ago and not the democratically determined state laws.
    The only way to maintain democracy in the country requires the separation of religion and state.
    In fact - a defensive democracy should outlaw anti-democratic parties and any party that advocates a halachic state is anti-democratic.

    The distance between secularism and religiosity is like the distance between East and West. There is no very thin border or thin at all, but a separation of infinite magnitude.
    It is true that there are people on the whole spectrum between religiosity and secularism, but this does not belong to the meaning of the concept of religiosity or to the meaning of the concept of secularism.

    The point is that religion determines all the lifestyles of the religious while secularism does not determine anything for the secular and therefore there are all kinds of secular and the distances between them are huge.

    But of course, all this does not belong to the article about the dog and the blackmailing of its download.

    The matter of anti-Semitism is of course a serious matter and I fight a lot on this front as well, but there are things that cannot be done.
    The role of the press is to report the truth and not cover-up.

    I refer you in this matter to what I answered to the very sad gentleman.

    Maariv is not anti-Semitic, the Ydan site is not anti-Semitic, Yedioth Ahronoth is not anti-Semitic and neither is Dawkins anti-Semitic.
    Everyone - to one degree or another - understands the dangers inherent in religion and what to do? The news on the website "Ba Haderi Haredim" as well as the blackmail to cancel it - illustrate this issue well.

  39. Very sad:
    Aren't you confused?!
    The news was spread by the ultra-Orthodox website "Ba Haderi Haredim".
    The scientist - like others - quoted her.
    That is: there is and is something here that stinks with the ultra-Orthodox - either the story is true - or the intrigues there are so great that an ultra-Orthodox website allows itself to fabricate such a story.
    All the other newspapers told the truth: they said that an ultra-Orthodox/Israeli website published the news.
    Everyone gave her the interpretation they thought was most likely, but nothing would change the fact that all possible interpretations reeked of Disneyland.
    Those who serve anti-Semitism are those who do actions that justify anti-Semitism and not those who report the truth.

  40. Michael
    After Richard Dawkins published the story, think why he suddenly published the clarification It appears that this entire story is a lie, from start to finish?
    In the link to his clarification, he brought the clarification that Ma'ariv published: roughly the text that my father published above, the Rabbi's words and their English translation on Google.
    Why did Haaretz publish the article in question?
    Apparently there is a common reason for everything (Maariv, Dawkins, Haaretz, etc.)...
    There really is antisemitism in the world. Well then, when there are several rabbis standing guard it is good.
    There is a very fine line between secularism and religiosity. It is infuriating that most yeshiva students do not serve in the IDF and they receive various benefits and all. And it is true that they believe in a humanized creator who punishes and is in the form of a father, and many secularists believe in spontaneous creation, spontaneous creation, etc. Then when the anger towards the ultra-orthodox grows, for a moment this border is crossed and that's what the journalists abroad are waiting for. And there are many of them who are very anti-Semitic and have the figure of the Jew in mind. They don't really distinguish between you and the religious Jew. For them we are all Jews and disenfranchised Palestinians. And there is no shortage of such journalists abroad. Then one of us makes a mistake and happens to find a story that shows that the ultra-Orthodox believe in beliefs that are against science. And the journalists abroad turn it into the classic Jewish story.
    Therefore, in my opinion, we should focus on fighting for equality between the secular and the religious regarding service in the IDF and that they will not receive benefits from the government more than needy families, for example, and more than us. As for their beliefs... their problem. Every man shall live by his faith (this is a secular proverb by the way - a distortion of a proverb from the Bible).

  41. I don't know this story. But according to what I understand, this story proves how stupid the public is

  42. One idiot throws a stone into the pit - ten wise men will not be able to rescue it!
    The scientist in his innocence in the service of the rising anti-Semitism in the world?!?!
    This apology is not enough.
    Sometimes it seems to me that mysticism and prejudice (as opposed to science!) guides the writers on this site.

  43. jelly:
    As stated in the article on the Hidaan website - things did not start with a news in Ma'ariv but with a news in none other than the website "Ba Hadari Haredim"!
    The story sounds delusional, but the site that originally published the news is a site that is not in a hurry to discredit ultra-Orthodox, and the denials of the story sound even more delusional than the story itself.
    It is clear that the withdrawal of the newspapers from the report is entirely the result of pressure and threats and not of ascertaining the facts.

  44. It all started from a news item in Maariv. Then a celebration abroad began.
    Richard Dawkins in the UK responded to the story and gave a link to the news in Maariv and another news:

    http://richarddawkins.net/articles/640111-update-false-story-jerusalem-rabbis-condemn-dog-to-death-by-stoning

    The AFP news agency reported the news under the title: "Jewish court sentences dog to death by stoning"

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpVCUh9KzOc5uEutaeYfOTL_m2dw?docId=CNG.7cb7d99990eea60a7a2805cbbc294dbf.631

    And this is news from the USA:

    http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/18/shocking-sentence-jewish-court-condemns-dog-to-death-by-stoning/

    Then Haaretz made an article: Why were all the news sites in the world so quick to report on the dog case and the court that sentenced him to death? Here is Haaretz's article:
    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-dog-wags-international-media-s-tail-1.369056

    The problem with the story is that Marib later announced that the story was wrong, yet news websites and journalists from around the world continued to report on it and did not go to the source to find out if the story was true. Because they didn't really want to find out if the story was true either.
    When foreign journalists write about such a story and spread it abroad - see the examples above, the BBC celebrated, and Time and the foreign press as well - they have an interest in presenting Israel as something demonic. And that's how they also cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They don't get first-hand information, but they refer to rumors.
    And Richard Dawkins wrote a clarification on his website after he published this story about the dog and the Rabbinical Court following the UK news:
    It appears that this entire story is a lie, from start to finish.
    See the link I provided above to Dawkins' website.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.

Science website logo
Search