So, Tuvia and I have been having a pleasant conversation (see the comments) about the recent conviction and sentencing of Dr. Mazeltov Borukhova -- who was accused of hiring a hitman to kill her estranged husband. Tuvia's contention is that she wasn't convicted according to Torah law, we have no right to think she's guilty of the aforementioned crime.
Okay. I don't agree, but that's his opinion. But then he added this little gem:
I think you are still did not get my point, which is; just because the goishe court found someone guilty does not make that person guilty in my eyes, regardless of the “evidence” that they have presented. The basses for that thinking are that they were not found guilty in a court that is based on Toiroh principles. I know that such court does not exist today, and for that matter they are being judged by a goishe court, but their decision is nothing for me to the point when tomorrow they will go free because they will win the appeal I will have absolutely no problem to become Mechusonim with any one of them!
Ah, so I see. So, let me get this straight... to reject someone as a potential shidduch because his/her mother may have worn a jeans skirt, or he may have worn a blue shirt, or used the wrong type of tablecloth or any of the other silly reasons that people use to reject potential shidduchim is fine, but you'd have no problem marrying an actual murderer???*
* To be fair, I don't know that Tuvia would have a problem with any of the above mentioned "defects" - perhaps he wouldn't. But even if not him, it would not surprise me to find that there are people who would subscribe to that convoluted logic.
Yeah, what's the problem with that? Clearly, you can't see someone is a murderer based on the clothes they wear. However, you can see if someone is wearing a blue shirt.
But seriously, it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
You know, that would explain a lot. Such as why families whose father "sat" (did jail time), particularly for financial crimes, are not only pareve, but glatt, when it comes to shidduchim.
I implore you not to get exercised by this warped nonsense. I sincerely hope that he is the exception, not the rule, but I have a sinking feeling that he is spokesperson for a significant sub-culture...emphasis on "sub."
Clearly Tuvia is either living in a different reality or is pushing your buttons. It's usually not worth the effort to get involved in a debate with these people. You'll never get them to see things rationally, because they're not rational.
The question that presumably needs to then be asked if this means that Tuvia thinks that there is an obligation to believe that no one ever commits any serious crimes since we can't convict anyone of murder or theft or assault in a Jewish court now.
So does this mean I'm also obligated to assume that Bernie Maddof is tzadik?
Is Tuvia really who he wants to appear to be? "Toiroh" I buy, but "Mechosonim"? The tav has a dagesh (it's a pual), and I grew up with Yiddish speakers who pronounced it with a "t." Is there any Yiddish-speaking community where it's pronounced with an "s"?
I realize that this has no bearing on his arguments, such as they are. I guess my real gripe is with this anonymity stuff.
(BT"W, Wolfish and M. Fred and a few others give anonymity a good name, and I'm not griping at them. And Wolfish is probably now ethically bound to remain anonymous, given that he has talked about his family.)
Post a Comment