Posted on 05/30/2021 7:57:13 AM PDT by JayGalt
Americans may be surprised to learn from Alan Dershowitz that their constitution is far more intrusive and oppressive than what they and their forefathers have believed for generations. The law ‘scholar’ declared yesterday that “you have no (constitutional) right to not be vaccinated.” One possible explanation for Dershowitz’s peculiar constitutional ‘interpretation’ is that some parts of the American constitution were actually written in Yiddish, Hebrew and Aramaic. As such, their meaning is only accessible to a small privileged segment within the American population, one that amounts to 2% or less.
But there is a far better explanation that shines light into the ‘reasoning’ offered by Dershowitz.
In a spectacularly brave Huffpost article titled “What Is Pilpul, And Why On Earth Should I Care About It?” author David Shasha writes, “Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the (Jewish) sages used to formulate their legal decisions… It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as ‘Casuistry’.”
The English word “casuistry” is defined as: “the use of clever but unsound reasoning, especially in relation to moral questions; sophistry.”
Dershowitz, is a pilpul master. He often employs peculiar reasoning in relation to moral questions especially when it comes to his own morality and conduct.
Shasha writes of the history of pilpul tradition that “the Ashkenazi rabbis were less concerned with promulgating the Law transmitted in the Talmud than they were with molding it to suit their own needs. Pilpul was a means to justify practices already fixed in the behaviors of the community by re-reading the Talmud to justify those practices.”
Pilpul, as described, is not about understanding of the law and its meaning but about the deliberate miss- interpretation of the law so it fits with one’s core interests.
(Excerpt) Read more at dissidentvoice.org ...
Pilpul is basically a legalistic exercise that is removed from truthfulness, ethical thinking or even logic. What we see from Dershowitz is a dramatic pilpul-ization of the American legal culture and ethos.
“In this context,” Shasha continues, “the Law is not primary; it is the status of the jurist. Justice is extra-legal, thus denying social equality under the rubric of a horizontal system. Law is in the hands of the privileged rather than the mass.”
In a pretty accurate description of Dershowitz’ modus operandi Shasha writes, “Pilpul is the rhetorical means to mark as ‘true’ that which cannot ever be disputed by rational means.”
Pilpul and common law sound like they have a lot in common.
In pondering the essence of the left I came across this article this morning. Many of the current generation of the Left are Jewish. This article discusses a uniquely Jewish practice of defeating logical rational argument with hairsplitting, smoke screens and violence.
From the article
“since the rational has been removed from the process, all that is left is yelling, irrational emotionalism, and ultimately, the threat of violence.”
This seems to accurately describe the behavior of the left.
In a spectacularly brave Huffpost article titled “What Is Pilpul, And Why On Earth Should I Care About It?” author David Shasha writes, “Pilpul is the Talmudic term used to describe a rhetorical process that the (Jewish) sages used to formulate their legal decisions… It is a catch-all term that in English is translated as ‘Casuistry’.”
Pro_3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart; do not depend on your own understanding.
Pro_18:2 Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions.
As such, their meaning is only accessible to a small privileged segment within the American population, one that amounts to 2% or less.
Pilpul, schmilpul. Come at me with that needle and I’ll shoot.
That's an odd way to say it.
What's true is that you have every right to require anyone who enters your own house to be vaccinated.
Businesses have every right to require their employees to be vaccinated along with people entering their establishments -- i.e., ball parks.
You can refuse to be vaccinated, but you cannot then claim a "right" to enter someone else's private property.
As for what the government can require... you can't drive without a driver's license, so reasonable restrictions pass constitutional muster.
No, I'm not defending what Dershowitz is quoted as saying, just saying some requirements are lawful.
Great article and post. Thanks.
Excuse me but Dershowitz is wrong.
I’m not sure what constitutional presumptions he has, but the true constitutional presumption (based on the Declaration of Independence from which the Constitution springs) is that the Constitution itself created the federal government and is the only source of the federal government’s authority.
The Constitution delegates certain limited powers to the federal government, enumerated mostly in Article I, Section 8.
If it isn’t an enumerated power in the Constitution, it is not a valid power of the federal government. Period.
The Constitution DOES NOT enumerate meddling with individual’s healthcare as a power of the federal government in any way shape or form. Thus, the federal government has no legitimate power to meddle in individual’s healthcare.
Dershowitz like the Left wants to give the feds powers that the Constitution simply has not delegated to the feds.
Sorry Alan, you’re way off on this one.
Denial of objective reality is the entire core of the secular Jewish/progressive/Democrat/Bolshevik world view - the view that when observed and pointed out gets conservatives hit with charges of "anti-Semitism" to obscure the reality that they are actually engaging in anti-Communism. Dershowitz often seems like a man who knows better, but unfortunately he gets sucked into the same thinking.
So the Warren court used pilpul to construct the “umbras and penumbras” that were then held up as justification to say something was constitutional, when in fact there was no constitutional basis.
Sounds like the religion forum. People arguing about the Law, the whole bit.
The 2nd Amendment is why I will not be forced to take the shot which is NOT A VACCINE!!!
I've been all over the net this morning trying to get a clear answer without trying to learn yiddish first
I read about pilpul when I was in high school and VAGUELY remember that it is a technique/practice to come to the best answer of a thing.
Are you awake?
Do I look asleep?
OY!
Someone please break it down in one syllable words.
Dershowitz is a liberal. The surprise is that sometimes he bucks the liberal playbook and argues for fair play and legitamacy. This is not one of those times.
Yes, that was my take. When your opponent denies reality, using every trick to confuse and ensnare you there is no win through logic, reason or necessity. Engagement is futile.
Once that is understood the way forward is through disengagement and forward momentum.
No, I think that is the shadow of the thing. Not the thing itself.
Jewish people did not contrive the idea to answer a question with a question. It is called the “Socratic method” and is supposed to get the person disagreeing with you to critically think about what he/she is arguing about.
Pilpul is a different process. Read the posted article for a head start.
This article is also good.
https://www.winterwatch.net/2021/01/the-use-of-pilpul-to-cloud-and-obscure-issues-and-discussions/
When you’re in a battle ‘of emotions’ it’s a battle you’re bound to loose.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.