[net.religion.jewish] A query to "Dvar Torah"

gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (10/18/85)

First, let me say that I am looking forward to the Dvar Torah project.
My education has been primarily focused on Christian texts and its
exegetical tradition.  In this context references to the Hebrew Bible
and the rabbinic tradition have been both oblique and sometimes skewed
by specifically Christian modes of interpretation.

As of late my interest in Talmud and rabbinic exegesis has been
heightened by an interest in the latest "fad" in secular literary
criticism - Deconstruction.  Talmud and the "rules" of rabbinic
exegesis along with Kabbala serve as a prime exemplar and resource 
for those trying to cut some new paths in the secular literary
criticism (which just may re-emerge as "religious").  

In any case, thats just a little background but not the subject of this
posting.  The subject is more towards the subject of biblical
scholarship and its relation to "Dvar Torah".

Let me preface the rest of this by saying that I do in fact agree with
those critics who launch an attack on historical-critical method saying
that it is NOT the only *valid* way to exegete a text.  As I read the
history of biblical scholarship it is only recently that the "literary"
quality of these texts have been recognized and fully appreciated.

Again, reading the history of biblical scholarship both secular and
nonsecular it might be said that one point of general agreement and 
one thing that is now more or less taken as a "given" is the validity
of source criticism as applied to the Pentateuch.  In short, the
critical result of the Documentary Hypothesis is that Moses did not
write the Pentateuch/Torah.

On the one hand, the rabbinic tradition asserts the Moses gave the
Torah.  On the other hand, the last 80 years of biblical scholarship
has worked out a theory of multiple authorship and redaction.

The two views are antithetical. The former is based on an "unbroken
tradition" as you say.  The latter is based on a secular reconstruction
of the history of Israel and its literary productions.

Can the tradition out of which you(Avi) speak accommodate these results
of biblical scholarship or must they be "banished" on the authority of
the tradition ?  On the one hand, if secular historical/biblical
scholarship is banished then how does the content of "Dvar Torah" ever
"touch ground"(historical assertions of fact are made but can never be
established by the historian).  What keeps "Dvar Torah" from being a
*purely* literary enterprise ?  On the other hand, accepting the
results of critical scholarship puts the "factual" assertions of the
rabbinic tradition in jeopardy.  In effect, you must say that what the
rabbis said (about Moses and the Torah) is "true" but not in the
literal sense.  That is, you can accept the Documentary Hypothesis by
allegorizing what is said about Moses and the Torah in the tradition.

>    In each period, there are issues and problems that may be literally
>    incomprehensible to someone of a far earlier generation.  The
>    strength of the Oral Law is that even if a Moses cannot understand
>    what a Rabbi Akiba is talking about, the principles used and the
>    source of validity of the law is traced back to - 'This is a law
>    given to Moses on Mount Sinai'.

Historical Critical method is "incomprehensible" to the heretofore
rabbinic tradition.  Can the "strength" of the Oral Law, whose source
of validity can be traced back to 'This is a law given to Moses on
Mount Sinai' be used to explicate the hidden truth behind the apparent
historical falsity that "This is a law given to Moses on Mount Sinai" ?
Can a snake devour its own tail  ?

  Gary

mls@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Michael Schneider) (10/21/85)

Gary asked a key question regarding the Torah given to Moses on Mount Sinai vs
a Torah written over a period of years (with the first, second, third,... nth 
editing).  In understanding the Torah, using textual analysis, there are
specific assumptions.  

1. The Torah was given to Moses on Mount Sinai and contains the same words
   today.
2. Each word in the Torah has meaning.  To understand the Torah, one must try 
   to determine why a word, phrase, or verse exists. 
3. One must be able to examine and compare similar constructions to determine
   meaning.

This approach, which I sometimes use (although the fine points of Biblical
grammar somtimes elude me), requires the baseline of an absolute text, not
one that was edited and rewritten.  This question leads to a more important
one: the mitzvot.  For Jewish law to be valid (and I follow the opinion that it
is valid), then it must also have a strong foundation: the Torah (both written
and oral).  It is this that separates Orthodoxy from the rest; that the
Torah was the baseline from the time it was given, is the baseline, and will
continue to be the baseline in the future.

Michael L. Schneider

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/22/85)

GARY W. BUCHHOLZ writes:

> First, let me say that I am looking forward to the Dvar Torah project.
> My education has been primarily focused on Christian texts and its
> exegetical tradition.  In this context references to the Hebrew Bible
> and the rabbinic tradition have been both oblique and sometimes skewed
> by specifically Christian modes of interpretation.
> . . .
> Again, reading the history of biblical scholarship both secular and
> nonsecular it might be said that one point of general agreement and 
> one thing that is now more or less taken as a "given" is the validity
> of source criticism as applied to the Pentateuch.  In short, the
> critical result of the Documentary Hypothesis is that Moses did not
> write the Pentateuch/Torah.

No less an authority than Rabbi Meir Kahane points out, in his book
"Why Be Jewish?", that the Graf-Wellhausen "Documentary Hypothesis"
has long ago been debunked.  This hypothesis claimed that parts of
the Torah were written by "J," parts by "E" (depending upon which
name of the L-rd was used), with later interpolations by "P" (the
Priestly code), a whole additional book (Deuteronomy) added hundreds
of years later by "D," with the whole thing patched together by some
anonymous "Redactor."  Even in 5737, when Rabbi Kahane wrote, men
had thoroughly discredited this hypothesis by finding "J" words in
supposed "E" sections, and vice versa.  In the intervening years,
scholars in Israel, using computer linguistic analysis, have con-
cluded that the entire Book of Genesis was the work of one author.
(These scholars, by the way, are not fundamentalists:  their computers
also tell them that the Book of Isaiah is of multiple authorship.)
The fact that the Book of Genesis was the work of one author knocks
the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis into a cocked hat.

The one who believes such a hypothesis, and teaches men so, will
not even be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven -- he is a kofer
b'ikar and will lose his share in the World to Come!  For he is
not just a sinner, but a causer of sin:  If the Torah were not what
it claims to be, then it would not be worthy of being followed --
each man would do what was right in his own eyes.  

What is it that so many historians say is the great contribution
that the ancient Hebrews made to the world?  It is ethical monotheism,
the idea that there is one G-d and that He has made known to us how
He wants us to live.  If this were not so, then the "great contribution"
made by the Jews to the world would be a LIE!  And what would that say
about the Jews?

> On the one hand, the rabbinic tradition asserts the Moses gave the
> Torah.  On the other hand, the last 80 years of biblical scholarship
> has worked out a theory of multiple authorship and redaction.
> 
> The two views are antithetical. The former is based on an "unbroken
> tradition" as you say.  The latter is based on a secular reconstruction
> of the history of Israel and its literary productions.
> 
> Can the tradition out of which you(Avi) speak accommodate these results
> of biblical scholarship or must they be "banished" on the authority of
> the tradition ?  On the one hand, if secular historical/biblical
> scholarship is banished then how does the content of "Dvar Torah" ever
> "touch ground"(historical assertions of fact are made but can never be
> established by the historian).  [G. W. BUCHHOLZ]

As I wrote above, "these results" have fallen from the weight of their
contradictions with the facts about the text.  But Mr. Buchholz should
see that NO historical assertion of fact can be "proven," as one proves
a mathematical theorem.  We "know" that Julius Caesar existed and did
what history says he did, not because someone we know witnessed it and
told us, and not because of any "proof."  We rely on the ancient writings,
some of them by Mr. Caesar himself!  The same thing goes for the
events on Mount Sinai.  Moreover, we gotta remember that the classical
literature of Greece and Rome were preserved by foreigners (Arabs) 
because the Greeks and Romans turned into a bunch of illiterates
during the Dark Ages, whereas the Written Torah (and, since its
codification, the Oral Torah) have been meticulously preserved by
the most universally literate people who ever trod the sod, viz.,
the Jews.  So don't worry about D'var Torah not touching the ground
-- D'var Torah is a lot more firmly rooted in history than the wishful
thinking of Enlightenment types who wish there were (chas v'sholom) no
G-d so that they could lie, and whore, and defy the preacher to their
heart's content.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
---------
"Torah tzivo lanu Moshe,
 Morashah k'hillas Yaakov"

sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher) (10/23/85)

In article <2301@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes:
>
>The one who believes such a hypothesis, and teaches men so, will
>not even be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven -- he is a kofer
>b'ikar and will lose his share in the World to Come!  For he is
>not just a sinner, but a causer of sin:  If the Torah were not what
>it claims to be, then it would not be worthy of being followed --
>each man would do what was right in his own eyes.  

How can someone be considerred sinful for teaching something that he 
believes?  I can see that some who does not believe the hypothesis but
hypocritically teaches it anyway should lose his share in the World to
Come.  I do not believe that God would punish a man for being honestly
wrong.  Of course I could be mistaken, I'm no authority!  
-- 
-David Sher
sher@rochester
seismo!rochester!sher

matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (10/23/85)

DAVID SHER writes:

> How can someone be considerred sinful for teaching something that he 
> believes?  I can see that some who does not believe the hypothesis but
> hypocritically teaches it anyway should lose his share in the World to
> Come.  I do not believe that God would punish a man for being honestly
> wrong.  Of course I could be mistaken, I'm no authority!  

Try applying this idea to secular civil or criminal law:  The King of
England warns everyone that robbing the rich is a crime (the secular
counterpart of sin).  Robin Hood knows what the King has said, but
Robin Hood doesn't think robbing the rich is a crime at all if one
gives the proceeds to the poor.  Do you think the King will punish
Robin Hood if he catches him robbing the rich?  Do you think the U.S.
Government will punish the participants in the "sanctuary movement"
who honestly believed they had the right to shelter Central American
refugees?  Do you think the Israeli Government fails to punish men
who honestly believed it's no crime to shoot at Arabs who are throwing
rocks at you?

Many of us take secular law seriously, whether we agree with it or not,
because there are policemen and sheriffs waiting behind the billboards
to run us in if we don't.  Not having seen any sinners struck with
bolts of lightning, we don't take religious law that seriously, even
after reading Dante's Inferno and James Joyce's vivid descriptions in
"Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man."  Nevertheless, we have all
been warned -- see the Tochacha in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not to
mention the thunderings of the Prophets.  Because the Children of
Israel didn't heed the warnings we are even now living in Exile,
with no Temple, no animal sacrifices, no real kedushah.  Do you
think it mattered that people honestly believed in Molech, or Baal,
or Ashtoreth, or the disgusting Baal of Peor?  Does someone have to
write a book on "Why good things happen to bad people" before we
take the warnings from the King seriously?

				-- Matt Rosenblatt

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/23/85)

> No less an authority than Rabbi Meir Kahane points out, in his book
> "Why Be Jewish?", that the Graf-Wellhausen "Documentary Hypothesis"
> has long ago been debunked.  [MATT ROSENBLATT]

No LESS an authority?  Are we talking about the same Meir Kahane?
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

david@rsch.wisc.edu (David Parter) (10/25/85)

> > No less an authority than Rabbi Meir Kahane points out, in his book
> > "Why Be Jewish?", that the Graf-Wellhausen "Documentary Hypothesis"
> > has long ago been debunked.  [MATT ROSENBLATT]

> No LESS an authority?  Are we talking about the same Meir Kahane?
												  ^^^^
certainly not the sane Meir Kahane (Unless someone else got stuck with
the name).
-- 
david parter
UWisc Systems Lab

uucp:	...!{allegra,harvard,ihnp4,seismo, topaz}!uwvax!david
arpa:	david@rsch.wisc.edu 

am@vilya.UUCP (MALEK) (10/29/85)

In article <365@uwvax.UUCP>, david@rsch.wisc.edu (David Parter) writes:
> > > No less an authority than Rabbi Meir Kahane points out, in his book
> > > "Why Be Jewish?", that the Graf-Wellhausen "Documentary Hypothesis"
> > > has long ago been debunked.  [MATT ROSENBLATT]
> > No LESS an authority?  Are we talking about the same Meir Kahane?
> certainly not the sane Meir Kahane (Unless someone else got stuck with 
> the name).  [ DAVID PARTER @ UWisc Systems Lab ]
	If you wish to attack Rabbi Kahane, you may do so on the basis of his 
ideas. To attack him on an ad-hominem basis is counter-productive (and in 
this case wrong, since he was quoted here properly). In fact, I read "Why
Be Jewish" and found it quite interesting. It  gives one a chance to see what
Rabbi Kahane thinks about topics other than Israel and the Arabs.
	Let's avoid a repetition of the low level debates we had last summer.
-- 
Avi Malek @ATT Bell Labs Parsippany, NJ

daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (10/29/85)

>.................  For Jewish law to be valid (and I follow the opinion that it
>is valid), then it must also have a strong foundation: the Torah (both written
>and oral).  It is this that separates Orthodoxy from the rest; ........

This is the basis of one of the principal objections to the Falashas being
Jewish.  They had been cut off from the "mainstream"(s) of Judaism for many
centuries and thus were unaware of the various aspects of "oral" law which
have developed since; they were actually practicing a form of pre-rabbinical
Judaism.  The problem is, if the oral law is truly valid, why wasn't it
revealed to the Falashas (Falashim?).  Is pre-rabbinical Judaism valid any
more, and if not, was it ever valid, or would its validity refute the "oral"
laws (i.e. the Talmud)?

Interesting questions.

Dave Rabinowitz
hplabs!hp-pcd!daver

levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (11/04/85)

In article <2344@brl-tgr.ARPA>, matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes:
>DAVID SHER writes:
[Original quote from Rosenblatt included here: <DRL> ]

>>>The one who believes such a hypothesis, and teaches men so, will
>>>not even be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven -- he is a kofer
>>>b'ikar and will lose his share in the World to Come!  For he is
>>>not just a sinner, but a causer of sin:  If the Torah were not what
>>>it claims to be, then it would not be worthy of being followed --
>>>each man would do what was right in his own eyes.  

>> How can someone be considerred sinful for teaching something that he
>> believes?  I can see that some who does not believe the hypothesis but
>> hypocritically teaches it anyway should lose his share in the World to
>> Come.  I do not believe that God would punish a man for being honestly
>> wrong.  Of course I could be mistaken, I'm no authority!
>Try applying this idea to secular civil or criminal law:  The King of
>England warns everyone that robbing the rich is a crime (the secular
>counterpart of sin).  Robin Hood knows what the King has said, but
>Robin Hood doesn't think robbing the rich is a crime at all if one
>gives the proceeds to the poor.  Do you think the King will punish
>Robin Hood if he catches him robbing the rich?  Do you think the U.S.
>Government will punish the participants in the "sanctuary movement"
>who honestly believed they had the right to shelter Central American
>refugees?  Do you think the Israeli Government fails to punish men
>who honestly believed it's no crime to shoot at Arabs who are throwing
>rocks at you?
>Many of us take secular law seriously, whether we agree with it or not,
>because there are policemen and sheriffs waiting behind the billboards
>to run us in if we don't.  Not having seen any sinners struck with
>bolts of lightning, we don't take religious law that seriously, even
>after reading Dante's Inferno and James Joyce's vivid descriptions in
>"Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man."  Nevertheless, we have all
>been warned -- see the Tochacha in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not to
>mention the thunderings of the Prophets.  Because the Children of
>Israel didn't heed the warnings we are even now living in Exile,
>with no Temple, no animal sacrifices, no real kedushah.  Do you
>think it mattered that people honestly believed in Molech, or Baal,
>or Ashtoreth, or the disgusting Baal of Peor?  Does someone have to
>write a book on "Why good things happen to bad people" before we
>take the warnings from the King seriously?
>				-- Matt Rosenblatt

I do not wish to cast aspersion on Mr. Rosenblatt on this matter.  He is
undoubtedly a very pious, devout believer in the faith that too many of
us take for granted.  But it does appear that the thundering from that end
has about the same heat/light ratio as Christian hell-fire evangelists'
speeches.  (This is the same fellow who told us with all sincerity that
he believed that the population of Israel at one time in Biblical days was
~5*10^11 -- a figure I worked out to be about half a square foot per Jew
based on the area of modern Israel -- and he defended it stoutly.)

Anyhow, if the worst of Rosenblatt's thunder be true, I don't even under-
stand how Judaism can claim that non-Jews can also have a part in the future
world; they would clearly not meet up to Matt's standards, certainly not any
Christians (who, gasp, believe that the Laws of the Old Testament have been
overridden by their "Savior", and don't even care a hoot about the post-Christ
"oral law" of the Jews--how's THAT for tampering with the untamperable?).
Could agnostics also be totally barred?  At least these heretics are STUDYING
our Scriptures, which is more than you can say for a lot of people, and
is that worse than being agnostic?  Nobody is saying you have to believe
what they teach or that you have to keep your mouth shut about what you think
of them.  (I can already hear the fuming and thunder just the same.)

There are about a jillion religions in the world today (it seems) that have
views about G-d, Scriptures, Heaven, Hell, the World To Come, etc. which are
different enough to be mutually exclusive, and there are representatives of
them all that thunder like Matt is thundering.  It is easy to produce heat.
Should we not concentrate on producing a superior light and not get drawn up
with that rabble?

		--Dan Levy--

steinber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Louis Steinberg) (11/05/85)

> Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver:
> This is the basis of one of the principal objections to the Falashas being
> Jewish.  They had been cut off from the "mainstream"(s) of Judaism for many
> centuries and thus were unaware of the various aspects of "oral" law which
> have developed since

Actually, this is not true.  Questions about their Jewishness are NOT
based on the form of Judaism they practice.  As far as I know, the
situation is the following: the official rabbinate holds that there is
enough probablility that the Falashas are Jews that they strongly support
efforts to bring them to Israel (even to the extent of violating
Shabbat if needed to do so).  However, there has been so much turmoil
and disruption in that part of the world (Ethiopia) that for any given
person who claims to be a Jew there is some residual doubt as to
whether he really is, or is just someone who got mixed up with the
Jews without benefit of conversion (or someone whose ancestor in the
female line was such a person).  Thus, they have been requiring a dip
in the mikveh to remove all such doubt.  I have read reports of a compromise
whereby the rabbinate has agreed to accept an investigation into the
background of an individual, carried out by Ethiopian leaders, instead of
the mikveh.

Of course, none of the above should be regarded as a "psak halacha".
See your local halachik authority before you take any action that depends
these issues.

megann@ihuxi.UUCP (Mcroberts) (11/07/85)

> Many of us take secular law seriously, whether we agree with it or not,
> because there are policemen and sheriffs waiting behind the billboards
> to run us in if we don't.  

I thought the Rabbis took a dim view of choosing ones actions either
with hope of reward or fear of punishment. . .  This, of course, is
a radically different view than that of civil law (although one hopes
that most people have some sense of morality devoid of punishment and
reward. . .)

meg mcroberts
ihnp4!ihuxi!megann

matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (11/07/85)

DAN LEVY writes:

> Anyhow, if the worst of Rosenblatt's thunder be true, I don't even under-
> stand how Judaism can claim that non-Jews can also have a part in the future
> world; they would clearly not meet up to Matt's standards, certainly not any
> Christians (who, gasp, believe that the Laws of the Old Testament have been
> overridden by their "Savior", and don't even care a hoot about the post-
> Christ "oral law" of the Jews--how's THAT for tampering with the un-
> tamperable?).

It's easy!  People who are born Jews have to believe more things, and
follow more rules, than people who are not.  So a born non-Jew need only
follow the seven Noahide commandments, and he is OK.  Those who swear by
so-called "Enlightenment" values, under which any such distinctions based on 
birth are repugnant, tear their hair out when they hear such a thing.  But 
then, the Enlightenment *arose* to "free" Europeans from the "chains" of 
religion.  The _philosophes_ (like Freud, who came much later) believed
that religion represented the DARKNESS of ignorant superstition.  So those
who hold Enlightenment values supreme cannot simultaneously hold Judaism
(or any other religion) up as a LIGHT unto the nations.   Judaism starts
with ethical monotheism.  If there is no G-d, then Judaism is just one
more outmoded, discredited lie, no matter what kind of fine fellows the
Jews may be.

					-- Matt Rosenblatt
 

teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/12/85)

> DAN LEVY writes:
> 
> > Anyhow, if the worst of Rosenblatt's thunder be true, I don't even under-
> > stand how Judaism can claim that non-Jews can also have a part in the future
> > world; they would clearly not meet up to Matt's standards, certainly not any
> > Christians (who, gasp, believe that the Laws of the Old Testament have been
> > overridden by their "Savior", and don't even care a hoot about the post-
> > Christ "oral law" of the Jews--how's THAT for tampering with the un-
> > tamperable?).
> 
> It's easy!  People who are born Jews have to believe more things, and
> follow more rules, than people who are not.  So a born non-Jew need only
> follow the seven Noahide commandments, and he is OK.  


	Jews and non Jews must believe the same thing. And that is that there
 is only one G-D. Jews must keep more commandments tan non Jews but the basic
 belief is the same.


				Eliyahu Teitz.

buchbind@agrigene.UUCP (11/12/85)

> 
> Many of us take secular law seriously, whether we agree with it or not,
> because there are policemen and sheriffs waiting behind the billboards
> to run us in if we don't.  

And the Talmudic dictum "The law of the land is law".  (Practices
permitted by Jewish law may be prohibited by secular law;  we only
have problems when required rituals are prohibited by secular law
or prohibited actions are required.)
-- 
    Barry Buchbinder			    (608)221-5000
Agrigenetics Corp.; 5649 E. Buckeye Rd.; Madison WI 53716 USA
    {seismo!uwvax!|decvax|ihnp4}!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind

dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (11/14/85)

> > 
> 	Jews and non Jews must believe the same thing. And that is that there
>  is only one G-D. Jews must keep more commandments tan non Jews but the basic
>  belief is the same.
> 				Eliyahu Teitz.

s/must/,in my opinion should/

Of course *you* are entitled to your opinions but please note that blanket
statements like the above only serve to anger and alienate *many* Jews
and non-Jews.  Also, an implicit assumption from your posting is that
all non-Jews are monotheistic.  This is not the case. 

Get thee out of Washington Heights/Boro Park/Elizabeth and open thine
eyes to the world around you!  This is 1986 or Kislev 1, 5746, if
you prefer. . .
David

ayf@erc3ba.UUCP (A.Y.Feldblum) (11/15/85)

> > 	Jews and non Jews must believe the same thing. And that is that there
> > 				Eliyahu Teitz.
> s/must/,in my opinion should/
> Of course *you* are entitled to your opinions but please note that blanket
> . . .
> David

O.K., does this make you happier? According to Orthodox Judaism, both
Jews and non Jews are required to believe in the existance of a
monotheistic G-d who created the world and is without substance or form.
The blanket statement that Jews and non Jews must believe the same
things and the only difference is the the level of laws commanded is not
correct. I do not think that non Jews are required to believe that G-d
gave us the Torah at Sinia, for instance.

Avi Feldblum
AT&T
uucp: {ihnp4, allegra}!pruxc!ayf  or
		      !erc3ba!ayf

abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (11/15/85)

>      ... I do not think that non Jews are required to believe that G-d
> gave us the Torah at Sinia, for instance.
> 
What do you mean by "required?"  

Sorry, but I can't reconcile a statement like this with reality.

There are no people in the world today who are known to the public
as non-Jews who take the demands of Judaism upon themselves seriously.
I am not sure if there ever have been.  It is very unclear to me
that Judaism admits the possibility of people who believe in Judaism
but who are not Jews.  Therefore it doesn't make any sense to me
to discuss even in the context of Judaism what they are required to
do or not do.

It is another thing entirely to say that they will be better off
(favored by the deity) if they follow the Noachic laws.

--J. Abeles

buchbind@agrigene.UUCP (11/16/85)

[]
TO SUMMERIZE:

> From: matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) <2950@brl-tgr.ARPA>
> It's easy!  People who are born Jews have to believe more things, and
> follow more rules, than people who are not.  So a born non-Jew need only
> follow the seven Noahide commandments, and he is OK.
---
> From: notes@isucs1.UUCP <483@isucs1.UUCP>
> you stated that you were taught that non-Jews
> had their own religion and that it was good enough for them
> but not good enough for you [ Jews ].
---
> From: barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Lee Gold) <2455@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
> By saying "non-Jews religion was good enough for them, but not for me," I
> was basically referring to the Jewish tenet that non-Jews are only
> obligated to obey the seven Noachic commandments.  Jews have lots more
> lawss to fulfill.  Non-Jews can please God and inherit the World to Come
> if they comply with the laws they are given.  So can Jews but they have to
> work harder.
> You can always undertake
> additional responsibilities in a contractual relationship.  You can buck for
> a more demanding and more fulfilling job.
---
> From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) <2048@aecom.UUCP>
> Jews and non Jews must believe the same thing. And that is that there
> is only one G-D. Jews must keep more commandments tan non Jews but the basic
> belief is the same.

TO CONTINUE:

	Judaism introduced to the (western?) world the idea of a Universal
God but it didn't introduce the idea of Universal Religion.  That was done
by Christianity.  Judaism belives that it is the best religion/way to
approach God for the Jews, but is not concerned with what Gentiles do as
long as they obey the aforementioned 7 Noahic commandments.  That is not
to say that God does not require more of Gentiles than the 7 laws, but
rather that Judaism has nothing to say on the subect.  That Judaism
believes that the Jews have a special (e.g. "chosen") relationship with God
does not preclude other religions from having their own special - and
different - relationships with God.

-- 
    Barry Buchbinder			    (608)221-5000
Agrigenetics Corp.; 5649 E. Buckeye Rd.; Madison WI 53716 USA
    {seismo!uwvax!|decvax|ihnp4}!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind

teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/18/85)

> > > 
> > 	Jews and non Jews must believe the same thing. And that is that there
> >  is only one G-D. Jews must keep more commandments tan non Jews but the basic
> >  belief is the same.
> > 				Eliyahu Teitz.
> 
> s/must/,in my opinion should/
> 
> Of course *you* are entitled to your opinions but please note that blanket
> statements like the above only serve to anger and alienate *many* Jews
> and non-Jews.  Also, an implicit assumption from your posting is that
> all non-Jews are monotheistic.  This is not the case. 
> 


	My statement was in reference to another article which asked about
 ( commented on ) how non Jews can attain favor in G-D's eyes. Of course
 I realize that Jews and non Jews do not believe the same thing ( do you
 take me for a fool ). Just don't take my words out of context.


			Eliyahu Teitz.

teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (11/19/85)

> >      ... I do not think that non Jews are required to believe that G-d
> > gave us the Torah at Sinia, for instance.
> > 
> What do you mean by "required?"  
> 
> Sorry, but I can't reconcile a statement like this with reality.
> 
> There are no people in the world today who are known to the public
> as non-Jews who take the demands of Judaism upon themselves seriously.
> I am not sure if there ever have been.  


	Speak for yourself. I have had an ongoing private correspondence
 with a non Jew who has accepted the 7 Noachide Laws ( which is all that 
 Judaism demands of him ). So there is at least one.


			Eliyahu Teitz.

abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (11/20/85)

> > >      ... I do not think that non Jews are required to believe that G-d
> > > gave us the Torah at Sinia, for instance.
> > What do you mean by "required?"  
> > Sorry, but I can't reconcile a statement like this with reality.
> > There are no people in the world today who are known to the public
> > as non-Jews who take the demands of Judaism upon themselves seriously.
> > I am not sure if there ever have been.  
> 	Speak for yourself. I have had an ongoing private correspondence
>  with a non Jew who has accepted the 7 Noachide Laws ( which is all that 
>  Judaism demands of him ). So there is at least one.
> 			Eliyahu Teitz.
Big deal!  My statement stands.