wkp@lanl.ARPA (09/26/85)
Not that anyone should care, but here is my wish list for those issues which
I feel need to be raised by all Jewish communities during this new year:
1. The responsibility of religious Jews to human freedom in South Africa.
Most orthodox rabbis, unlike their counterparts in other movements,
have remained silent in South Africa on apartheid. Only one courageous
orthodox rabbi, Rev Ben Isaacson, has been outspoken in his condemnation
of racism. ("You cannot suppress the G-d given rights of fellow human
beings with impunity." he has stated). Rev Isaacson is now being called
a "rebel rabbi" since his ostracization from the orthodox establishment
in South Africa.
2. The treatment of Ethiopian Jews by the orthodox establishment in Israel
in order to obtain more money from the government. Both =former= chief
rabbis (Shlomo Goren and Ovadia Yosef) have supported the Ethiopian
position. Rev David Shloush, the current Sephardi Chief Rabbi of
Netanya, and a member of the Chief Rabbinical Council, also supports
their position. The refusal of the current powers-that-be in the
Rabbanut (especially Ashkenazi elements) to discuss the situation
fairly is an unfortunate result of the mixing of religion and politics.
3. The refusal of most of the orthodox establishment to confront the
issue of women's rights. Many orthodox women in Israel, members of
the Israel Women's Caucus, are observant Jews who only wish to change
their demeaning status by appeal to halachic authorities. Many point out
that, for example, the ineligibility of women to be witnesses (which is
a crucial element of female legal inferiority) rests on very weak
foundations. [cf., Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 6 or Rambam's Hilchot
Edut 9].
As a postscript to this, I would like to bring up the recent psak
halacha decided on by Rev Moshe Feinstein and the North American
Rabbinate (all males, of course) regarding the ban on husbands
accompanying their wives into birthing rooms. Ostensibly, as reported
in the Hebrew press, the ban on husbands assisting their wives in
the birth of their children was due to the fact that it violates the
principle of modesty and also that the husband upon seeing his naked
wife may do "an ugly and shameful thing" (lit., "she'hoo ya'aseh davar
mchoar v'mayvish") or may violate the laws of Niddah. I personally
find the reasoning behind this ban to be rather dubious.
--
bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkpfsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (09/29/85)
In article <31087@lanl.ARPA> ihnp4!lanl!wkp (bill peter) writes: > >Here is my wish list for issues which I believe need to be raised >by all Jewish communities during this new year: > >1. The responsibility of religious Jews to human freedom in South Africa. > Most orthodox rabbis, unlike their counterparts in other movements, > have remained silent in South Africa on apartheid. Only one courageous > orthodox rabbi, Rev Ben Isaacson, has been outspoken in his condemnation > of racism. ("You cannot suppress the G-d given rights of fellow human > beings with impunity." he has stated). Rev Isaacson is now being called > a "rebel rabbi" since his ostracization from the orthodox establishment > in South Africa. If the Orthodox rabbis in South Africa publicly express their disapproval of apartheid, what will this accomplish? These rabbis have no influence on the non-Jewish community there. Most rabbis have a hard enough time getting their own congregations to listen. I believe their role should be to try to prevent South African Jews from absorbing the racist mentality of their fellow citizens. But when Rev Ben Isaacson did speak out, why did the other Rabbis "ostracize" him (assuming your information is correct)? Were they afraid of a white, anti-Jewish backlash, or what? Frank Silbermann
wkp@lanl.ARPA (10/04/85)
In article <97@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >If the Orthodox rabbis in South Africa publicly express their disapproval >of apartheid, what will this accomplish? In the words of Rabbi Isaacson: "As Jews we should have known better. We should have instincively recoiled from perpetrating on others the injustices that we, more any other people, have suffered from." >These rabbis have no influence on the non-Jewish community there. >Most rabbis have a hard enough time getting their own congregations to >listen. I believe their role should be to try to prevent South African >Jews from absorbing the racist mentality of their fellow citizens. This viewpoint seems a little provincial, and not worthy of an "am segula" [chosen people]. Recently, another orthodox rabbi (R. Barry Marcus of the Northern Suburbs Hebrew Congregation in South Africa) has called publicly for "a new spirit of brotherhood." The South African Jewish Board of Deputies has for the first time criticized the government's apartheid policies. >But when Rev Ben Isaacson did speak out, why did the other Rabbis "ostracize" >him (assuming your information is correct)? Were they afraid of a white, >anti-Jewish backlash, or what? For those of you who don't read Hebrew, an account of this appears in the September 18th Israel edition of the Jerusalem Post, p. 2. It is not uncommon for outspoken rabbis to be ostracized from their peers because of social and religious disagreements. [B'karov etzl'cha, Meir Kahane!] -- bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp
am@vilya.UUCP (MALEK) (10/14/85)
> Not that anyone should care, but here is my wish list for those issues which > I feel need to be raised by all Jewish communities during this new year: > 1. The responsibility of religious Jews to human freedom in South Africa. > Most orthodox rabbis, unlike their counterparts in other movements, > have remained silent in South Africa on apartheid. Only one courageous > orthodox rabbi, Rev Ben Isaacson, has been outspoken in his condemnation > of racism. ("You cannot suppress the G-d given rights of fellow human > beings with impunity." he has stated). Rev Isaacson is now being called > a "rebel rabbi" since his ostracization from the orthodox establishment > in South Africa. bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp While it is necessary and proper for Rabbis to speak out against the excesses of apartheid, as Jews we should not speak out against the rule of SA by those presently in charge until the black opposition shows us that it will treat the Jews of SA differently than the Jews of the other countries in Africa were treated when independence was granted. It is a well known fact that the whites of those countries (and in many cases the blacks from minority tribes) were treated in a manner worse than the blacks had been treated before independence. In many cases, the Jews were singled out for special persecution. In almost all of Africa, minorities were deprived of their rights. Bishop Tutu has spoken out against Israel and in favor of the terrorist organization known as the PLO on many occasions, so the future of the Jews in SA would be rather bleak if the currect government were to fall. It is our obligation as Jews not to do anything which may endanger the lives or property of our brethren in SA, and although the lack of responsible black opposition to apartheid is probably caused by the current opression, we cannot fix things up. I believe that most of the people in SA, blacks and whites, would rather have the current regime continue than have an Idi Amin or a Khoumeini take over. Any overt act on our part to overthrow the Botha government may put us into the category of "moser" or "rodeph", so we must take great care to qualify our opposition to SA's system. In addition, supporting a movement whose spiritual leader is a notorious anti-semite (yes, Johnny, anti-zionism === anti-semitism) is downright foolish. I understand that the Jewish community is under pressure from outside to help in the SA campaign and that the issue is sensitive, but I don't believe that all black people here support the abrupt end of the SA system either. -- Avi Malek @ATT Bell Labs Parsippany, NJ
am@vilya.UUCP (MALEK) (10/14/85)
> Not that anyone should care, but here is my wish list for those issues which > I feel need to be raised by all Jewish communities during this new year: ........ > 3. The refusal of most of the orthodox establishment to confront the > issue of women's rights.... > As a postscript to this, I would like to bring up the recent psak > halacha decided on by Rev Moshe Feinstein and the North American > Rabbinate (all males, of course) regarding the ban on husbands > accompanying their wives into birthing rooms. Ostensibly, as reported > in the Hebrew press, the ban on husbands assisting their wives in > the birth of their children was due to the fact that it violates the > principle of modesty and also that the husband upon seeing his naked > wife may do "an ugly and shameful thing" (lit., "she'hoo ya'aseh davar > mchoar v'mayvish") or may violate the laws of Niddah. I personally > find the reasoning behind this ban to be rather dubious. > bill peter ihnp4!lanl!wkp Where did you see this BS about what R. Moshe Feinstein said? I read an article in the Jewish Press which quoted him as publishing in Igrot Moshe that it is proper for a husband to be present at the delivery time. I also checked things out with the Feinstein family and found that Rav Moshe's grandson was present at the birth of his own child. It is however forbidden for the husband to actually help if this help involves physical contact unless is is necessary for medical reasons, since the tumah of birth begins before the baby is actually born. There is no justification in halacha for banning the husband from the room, it is just that a man may not watch the actual birthing (unless it is necessary for medical reasons). In fact, in many cases the husband MUST according to halacha, STAY in the room through the entire process to assist. The talmud and halacha forbid any outsiders from interfering with anything having to do with modesty between husband and wife. This is based in the Talmud on a verse in Micha "Nshei ami tegarshun mebait taanugeha", which is also the source of the prohibition on any person sleeping in the same room as a married couple even when it is known that marital relations are forbidden (such as immediately after childbirth). This prohibition also implies that no one may legislate a ban on a husband being present. I must assume that you are speaking about a different Rav Moshe or about a halachic system other than the one we normally discuss on this net. If you can quote a reliable source, I will accept your postscript as legitimate, but I believe that this story was invented by those who oppose halacha in the first place and am sorry they faked you out. Avi Malek @ATT Bell Labs Parsippany, NJ