RETURN OF THE HERETIC!

Absolute Celibacy ( http://absolutecelibacy.blogspot.com/), whose perverse take on reality I'm starting to appreciate more and more, has graciously poison-penned in my direction, in a posting entitled "Refutation of the Heretic" (which may be found here: http://absolutecelibacy.blogspot.com/2006/01/refutation-of-heretic.html ) .




His blogposting deserves to be reproduced in its entirety. I do so below (italic). With some commentary interpolated ...[bold]...


The heretic scum ...[That's me, by the way]... who calls himself "Back of the Hill" has written a post ...[http://atthebackofthehill.blogspot.com/2006/01/feisty-i-absolute-celibacy.html]... sharply criticizing this one ...[See second link given above].... What's worst of all is that he can't even criticise me seriously, in a way worthy of a Ben Torah. Rather, he mocks me snidely, turning my Torah into a joke!

In many places, Mr. "Back of the Hill" falls into the same pattern of argument that all heretics do: quoting out of context.

For example, he takes issue with my quoting of the Rambam to show how diabolical s*x is:"Need I point out that the Rambam was married? And had offspring?Perhaps the Rambam was being ironic - certainly not an unusual concept. There's plenty of evidence in the Talmud that scholars knew irony.Or could it be, chosveshalom, that the Rambam may have quarreled with his aishes chayil that day? "

I don't even know where to begin pointing out how wrongheaded this is-- but let me start.

First of all, there's no authentic Torah source that tells us that the Rambam was married. Only the historians, who were all either goyim, or non-religious, s*x-practicing Jews, ...[Unlike frummy bonk-jobs who advocate absolute celibacy]... state that Rambam had a wife. And we yeshiva-educated ...[Which Yeshiva?]... people all know that it's impossible to trust the historians on any matter, especially if they contradict true Torah sources. After all, the historians all contradict each other, and they change their views every few years. A man named Heinrich (Tzvee) Gratz is considered by historical-minded people to be the greatest historian of Judaism, and it is a dovor yadua that he shook hands with women. And you know what shaking hands with women leads to? S*x. ...[And kissing causes pregnancy, begorah. How does his sex-life negate his scholarship?
I am (relatively) sure he did not write while pre-occupied with shapely female hands or other shapely body parts (chosveshalom).
His sex-life is perhaps the fit subject of another meshune post, but is alas not relevant here.]....
But since there's no Torah source that explicitly says that Rambam wasn't married, let's admit to Mr. "Back of the Hill" that he was, indeed, married to a woman or girl.

I'm not even sure that Back of the Hill has been educated at any yeshiva; on his website, he gives a link to something that calls itself "Yeshiva Chipas Emess", but the link leads to a site that is clearly a joke-- a joke in very poor taste.
...[You dare denigrate my alma mater? Apikoros!]...

Now, even if the historians are right (which occasionally happens), there's still no evidence that Rambam actually had s*x with the girl or woman who he married.
...[He had a son. Spontaneous generation?]...
To do so would have been to violate the clear halocho of Leviticus 18:22.
...["ve'et zachar lo tishkav mishkevei isha to'eva hiv" - this means that you should not lie with a man LIKE with a woman, NOT that you should not lie with man NOR woman. If you have any doubts about this interpretation, I strongly suggest that you reread the commentaries - Rashi would be a good choice.
You might also want to re-read psook 18:19 ("ve'el isha benidat tumata lo tikrav legalot ervata"), which makes clear that the limitation on hanky panky with a woman is strictly AT THE TIME of impurity (seven days of regular flow, up to eleven days of spottiness). What a man and his aishes chayil do thereafter is not any of your business - not even if you're a bahble-thumping baptist.]...
Back of the Hill mentions "offspring" of the Rambam. The only child that the Rambam is ever claimed to have had was the reputed "Avrohom ben HaRambam". Now, Reb Avrohom, if he even existed, is irrelevant to the issue at hand, because he's clearly not part of our holy Mesoyra, as transmitted to us through the years of poskim. Rambam himself is clearly part of the Mesoyra-- he is one of the three streams that the Mechabeir used to paskin halocho for us in the Shulchan Oruch. So certainly, the Mishne Torah (the work which I quoted in my earlier post) is an authentic part of the Mesoyra. The supposed "Avrohom ben Harambam" never wrote anything so important, and he's nowhere quoted by the authoritative Beis Yoseif.
...[The Beis Yosef is a history text? That comes as a complete surprise! I had NO idea that the Mechaber was a historian - let me quote: ".....the historians, who were all either goyim, or non-religious, s*x-practicing Jews (cut) yeshiva-educated people all know that it's impossible to trust the historians on any matter....."]...
To claim that the Rambam was being ironic in a work so serious as the Mishne Torah is downright offensive. It's astounding that anyone would have such gall to impute such a thing to the Rambam. Makes me want to puke. Doesn't Back of the Hill realize that Rambam's Mishne Torah was used by Sfardim for many years as their primary seifer of halocho, and that Teimanim still use it that way?
...[Maybe those Yemenis don't get out much?]...
Or does he not care, because he's a koifer, who doesn't even care about halocho? Remember, as the Gaon of Vilna has written, the Rambam wrote every word of the Mishne Torah through ruach hakoydesh.
...[I'd suggest that such a statement either also be taken as irony, OR as evidence that the Vilner was smoking crack - though the data of our historians shows that crack was not invented until our own more fortunate era.]...

To suggest that he would use irony in a work that he knew (through the ruach hakoydesh) would be used as a halocho seifer by hundreds of millions of people is really impossible. And offensive.

Back of the Hill writes: "Which many of the Tosafists and Chassidei Ashkenaz also believed. Which would explain their objection to his philosophy. It's hard to keep warm in Northern Europe in winter. "

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, but it's making fun of Rishonim. If the Rishonim are mocked, then the whole Mesoyra falls appart....[To quote a former Christian seminary student whom I know (Hi JT in Seattle!), "if you cannot laugh at your own religion, you don't deserve to have one".
Mocking Rishonim is a well-established custom - where would we be if we could not dispute with them, disagree with them, even poke fun at some of their more insane ideas? Who died and made them king? Mesora comes from a mountain, not from a mole-hill.]...
Back of the Hill criticizes my knowledge of other religions:

"Do ANY religions think this? Has any one actually met someone like this? Other than the Heaven's Gate cult, that is. Until that unfortunate event with the fliegende tegele they may have been all over the place, even though I never saw them here, but still, they qualify more as erev rav than 'many other'. "

Now, I admit that I have not dirtied my hands in the direct study of other religions. However, I have read books and pamphlets by Rabbonim explaining various other religions, and even read the descriptions of the other religions in the Beis Yosef and the Bayis Chodosh on Hilchos Avoda Zora. Lest anyone criticize me of wasting my time with this, note that this, too, counts as a kiyum of the mitzva of Talmud Tora. As the Gemoro states in Maseches Sanhedrin: לא תלמד לעשות, אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות מה מגונה עבודה זרה זו. "You can't learn foreign religions in order to practice them, but you can learn them in order to understand them and teach others how disgusting they are."...[From which we shper that narrow-mindedness is minhag?]...Now, in terms of castration. It is well known that there are many different sects of Christianity. Heaven's Gate is a large one, with about 75 million members.
...[75 million!?!?! You smokin' crack there, boy? Zeit azoy git, provide a web-link, and prove your numbers.]...
However, they are not the only Christian sect that practices ritual castration or penectomy. Why, the founder of Christianity himself (sheim resho'im yirkav) is claimed to have said: "If your eye offend you, cut it out." It seems pretty clear to me that "eye" here is merely a euphemism for test*cle.
...[No no my blinkered friend! Beitzim and einim are NOT the same! If I cast my eye on a pretty young thing, I am by no means throwing my scr_tum at her!]...

Thus, all through the ages, from the founding of Christianity until the Heaven's Gate group of today, many forms of Christianity have practiced widespread castration and other genital mutilation.
...[Which explains why there are SO MANY of the buggers! Like shrotzim, they have gone forth and multiplied! Lively! Vigorous, indeed. Which is commendable, and enviable.]...

Another snide comment of his:"This would lead to a total absence of Jews in one generation. Which might please some people immensely. "

Oh, this would please you immensely, you little Nazi? I can't believe you just wrote that! Just horrifying. Hashem is crying out for all the Jews of this generation that you want to kill in gas chambers....[How, precisely, would the Yiddishe oilam regenerate itself without sex? Or the reform oilam? Families of ten or more kinderlech, unlike mold, dew, and mushroom circles, do not happen overnight - they happen over MANY nights (takkah, at least ten or more). And where do you see any indication of gas-chambers in my scrivening? You can read, yes? I presume this because you quote Maimonides ad nauseum. But can you read critically? My guess would be not.]...

--- --- --- --- ------ --- --- --- ---

In conclusion, having now both entertained myself, and exposed the remarkable talents of Desolate Celibate to the wider world, I wish all of my readers, and all of his readers, a gitte und gebentshte shabbes.
.
.
.
Neener, neener, neener.

[Did I already mention that I really dig his whacked-out take on reality? ]