abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (08/27/85)
A message for Jewish readers who are not aligned with ultra-orthodox groups: At this time of the year we are beginning to prepare for Rosh Hashanah, the Yomim Noraim, and Yom Kippur. At the same time, fund-raising efforts are also being revived from their summer hiatus. Furthermore it is traditional to give to tzedakah (justly-deserved charity) at this time of the year. During the past year, a number of ultra-orthodox groups have made strong statements of opposition to recognizing the legitimacy of your Conservative and Reform rabbinical authorities in the State of Israel. These statements have been expressed in the course of public debate over the question of "Who is a Rabbi?" with regard to the Israeli Law of Return which grants Israeli citizenship to Jews, including converts by authorized rabbis. I wish to suggest to all those who are approached by such ultra-orthodox groups with requests for donations: 1) That you immediately ask any fundraisers about the position of their organization on recognizing Conservative and Reform conversions, or the position of their parent organization. 2) That you set aside all charitable contributions that would have been made to certain organizations as discussed above (according to your affiliation) and donate them as promptly as possible to other equally deserving organizations which recognize the authority of your rabbis. 3) That you give as much as you can possibly afford to these latter charities, and especially the United Jewish Appeal type of charity to promote unity and identification among all Jews. In addition, that you make special efforts to distinguish between actual tzedakah and other contributions such as those which maintain community facilities and synagogues or political contributions related to issues which are not related to actual charity. Please make certain to give generously to organizations which will support the needs of the poor and the hungry, as well as other forms of true tzedakah. Set aside in your mind a separate budget for the other charities and also give generously to them. 4) That you discuss this issue with older members of your family who may be in a position to make sizable contributions to Jewish organization, and who may not be fully aware of the fact that some of these organizations are expressing strong opposition to the authority of their rabbis. In particular last wills and testaments should be examined to ensure that they express the wishes of the person involved with respect to these issues. In addition I would like to point out that one chassidic organization, the Lubavitch, also known as "Chabad", with headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn NY operate extensive fund-raising activites among non-ultraorthordox Jews. This organization has taken special pains to be outspoken in expressing their position that only orthodox rabbis have any authority. --J. Abeles mhuxm!abeles
mis@mtunh.UUCP (Meyer Steinberg) (08/28/85)
To say not to give to "ultra-orthodox" organizations who do not support reform rabbis as being authoratative is the most disgusting remark I ever heard in this group. Do you give charity as a political support, or only to people whom have the same opinion as you? You give charity to any person who honestly needs it. I am orthodox and disagree with the reform movement totally, I also disagree with some of the "ultra-orthodox" opinions, but if any of these needs charity I will give it to them. One of the things that was told to me that I never forget is, "if you what to succeed, never turn away anyone who streaches a hand forward asking for money". I believe that for major organizations you can check if they really need the money and are a honest group, but don't tell us not to give because they don't agree with your political/religious beliefs. If you don't like a group you don't have to give to them but don't tell others not to give. Meyer Steinberg
mls@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Michael Schneider) (08/29/85)
Having just read the posting (summarized to reduce traffic on the net): > > A message for Jewish readers who are not aligned with ultra-orthodox groups: > > At this time of the year we are beginning to prepare for Rosh Hashanah, > the Yomim Noraim, and Yom Kippur. At the same time, fund-raising efforts > are also being revived from their summer hiatus. Furthermore it is > traditional to give to tzedakah (justly-deserved charity) at this time > of the year. > > During the past year, a number of ultra-orthodox groups have made > strong statements of opposition to recognizing the legitimacy of your > Conservative and Reform rabbinical authorities in the State of Israel. > I wish to suggest to all those who are approached by such ultra-orthodox > groups with requests for donations: > > 1) That you immediately ask any fundraisers about the position of their > organization on recognizing Conservative and Reform conversions, or the > position of their parent organization. > > 2) That you set aside all charitable contributions ... and donate them ... > to other equally deserving organizations which recognize the authority > of your rabbis. > > > 4) That you discuss this issue with older members of your family .... > > In addition I would like to point out that one chassidic organization, > the Lubavitch, also known as "Chabad".... This organization has > taken special pains to be outspoken in expressing their position that > only orthodox rabbis have any authority. > > --J. Abeles I understand what J. Abeles is requesting: that we check out where our money is going: we all should do that. However, the criteria stated are questionable; we are asked to make a determination based not on the people who will receive the money, but on the organization who will distribute it. This determination is to be based upon "political" divisions that are found primarily in North America. These movements are weak, is non existent in other parts of the world. In fact we are looking at a movement that, not only has a European origin, but a Western European origin. These movements have redefined the laws governing Jews. The Reform state so outright; the Conservative attempt to twist the law to make the religion "more in tune with the current times." It should be noted that these reforms have not gained total acceptance by all Conservative Jews. In Israel, religious law governs segments of daily life. The failure to accept Rabbis that do not follow the stated law at the very least further divides the Jewish people. It should be noted that the problem areas are those that effect not the people involved, but their offspring. Thus, Israel has chosen the Law of Torah as the religious law for Jews. (It should be noted that since about half of the population of Israel does not have its roots in Europe, this supports a view of the majority.) We have discussed in length on the net the problems that can occur when incorrect (or non existant) divorces occur or when conversions are not conducted correctly. Now, we are being asked not to give to an organization which helps Jews in need only because they wish to keep the Jewish people unified, not divided. Michael L. Schneider
klahr@csd2.UUCP (08/30/85)
>A message for Jewish readers who are not aligned with ultra-orthodox groups: >At this time of the year we are beginning to prepare for Rosh Hashanah, >the Yomim Noraim, and Yom Kippur. At the same time, fund-raising efforts >are also being revived from their summer hiatus. Furthermore it is >traditional to give to tzedakah (justly-deserved charity) at this time of the year. >During the past year, a number of ultra-orthodox groups have made >strong statements of opposition to recognizing the legitimacy of your >Conservative and Reform rabbinical authorities in the State of Israel. >These statements have been expressed in the course of public debate >over the question of "Who is a Rabbi?" with regard to the Israeli >Law of Return which grants Israeli citizenship to Jews, including >converts by authorized rabbis. >I wish to suggest to all those who are approached by such ultra-orthodox >groups with requests for donations: >1) That you immediately ask any fundraisers about the position of their >organization on recognizing Conservative and Reform conversions, or the >position of their parent organization. . . . etcetera ------------------------------------------------------------------ A message to the Congressional Committees on Foreign Appropriations: You are annually approached by many foreign countries with requests for various forms of loan and grant assistance. I suggest that you ascertain if there are any important issues at all upon which the United States and the said foreign country disagree. If any such issues exist, I further suggest that you deny any form of aid to the country in question, even if there are many common opinions and goals shared by our country and the foreign country in question. Since I cannot type, and I employ the venerable "hunt and peck" method , allow me to drop the long- winded phrase "the foreign country", and instead substitute a reasonable example country, such as Israel.(please excuse my digression) Anyway, as I was saying, if our country has any significant disagreements with Israel, I suggest that all foreign aid programs to Israel be terminated, no matter how worthwhile (to the interests of the U.S. OR Israel) any of these programs may be, and no matter what the negative impact of terminating these programs will be. I further suggest that when this decision is made, all members of the relevant committees should recite the following two sentences in unison: 1) My way, or the highway. 2) Cut my nose to spite your face. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Aren't we approaching the ridiculous here? We speak out of one side of our mouth about supporting efforts for Jewish unity and identification, then we do an about face and propose boycotting any efforts toward Jewish education and identification of those who have honest (albeit harsh) disagreements with us! Is this the vaunted idea of Jewish tolerance- that tolerance means when you are agreeing with me? Is it in the long-range interests of American Jews to withhold support from groups that are infinitely more successfull than UJA at combatting Jewish intermarriage and assimilation (now estimated to be occurring nationally at way over 30%, and that's a very conservative figure), because some of these groups sincerely hold some opinions bound to offend other Jews? How do we expect our country, as well as others, to respect dissenting policy opinions of Israel's, if we internally adopt a policy of blackmailing those of our own group whom we disagree with? Tha last thing we need to do now is to rehash all the arguments pro and con the proposed Who is a Jew law. Whether or not it should be passed, the supporters of the law certainly are raising valid questions about the long- term ramifications of Israel having several sets of conversion laws that are not mutually acceptable. This is certainly not the legal equivalent of one group's sticking out its tongue and giving a Bronx cheer to the other groups. At a time of year when we should all be thinking about coming to terms with each other, let's not spend our time "brainstorming" about ever-more ingenious ways of "getting even" with each other. With hopes (naive?) of no hard feelings... Good Shabbos...Pinchus Klahr {allegra,ihnp4} cmcl2!csd2!klahr
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (08/30/85)
> 3) That you give as much as you can possibly afford to these latter > charities, and especially the United Jewish Appeal type of charity > to promote unity and identification among all Jews. Having been involved in shul finances in many communities over the years, I must take exception to the above statement. My contacts with UJA/JCC/etc has been quite uniform - they will give large sums to conservative/reform projects and organizations, but they will either give nothing, or a token amount (<=$50) to anything that smells of orthodoxy, let alone chassidus! I do NOT call that type of behavious "promoting unity among all Jews". Given that these groups raise the funds in the name of helping ALL jewish organizations in their area, and that they "only act as a central clearinghouse for the community", their behaviour is all the more heinous. In regards to the rest of the previous article, which basically said not to give to orthodox groups because they don't recognize non-orthodox conversions: It is more important to look at what the group is going to do with the money you give. Are they going to encourage Jews to remain "jewish" and not inter-marry/convert or are they going to build a swimming pool?? Are they going to help war orphans or are they going to spend it on inter-faith conferences? These issues are much more important than those raised in the previous article when you plan where your charity dollars are to go. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (08/31/85)
> : > : > a European origin, but a Western European origin. These movements have > redefined the laws governing Jews. The Reform state so outright; the > Conservative attempt to twist the law to make the religion "more in tune with > the current times." It should be noted that these reforms have not gained > total acceptance by all Conservative Jews. I believe that over the centuries, Jews have interpreted (not twisted) the law to meet changes in the world. I think the major difference between Orthodox and Conservative Jews today, is in deciding just who, if anyone, is permitted to carry on the tradition of interpreting the law based on our changing knowledge of the world. I'm a Conservative Jew, and I agree that not all Conervative Jews accept all reponsa. That's fine since, to my knowledge, all Conservative responsa (issued by the Committee on Jewish Law of the Rabbinnical Assembly) are permissive, not mandatory.) > In Israel, religious law governs segments of daily life. The failure to accept > Rabbis that do not follow the stated law at the very least further divides > the Jewish people. It should be noted that the problem areas are those that > effect not the people involved, but their offspring. Thus, Israel has chosen > the Law of Torah as the religious law for Jews. (It should be noted that > : I think the State of Israel has not chosen the Law of the Torah. I think they have chosen to follow the politics of a democratic society, but have passed many laws that resemble what the Chief Orthodox Rabbis of Israel (and many others) state is Jewish Law. So, the Law of Return, or laws stating El Al cannot fly on Shabbat, are political accommodations to religious factions. I see little difference between those laws, and many U.S. laws governing morals, blue laws, abortion laws, etc. But, getting back to whether the Chief Rabbis follow Torah Law, or whether they follow the Torah as interpreted and reinterpreted over the centuries, (I've heard that referred to as rabbinncal law) they follow rabbinical law, not the Law of the Torah. Look at the bitter arguments between the Ethiopian Jews who do follow the Law of the Torah, and the Rabbis, who follow rabbinical law. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/31/85)
From Michael L. Schneider: > In Israel, religious law governs segments of daily life. The failure to accept > Rabbis that do not follow the stated law at the very least further divides > the Jewish people. It should be noted that the problem areas are those that > effect not the people involved, but their offspring. Thus, Israel has chosen > the Law of Torah as the religious law for Jews. What right do the orthodox religionist have to determine the future of non-orthodox offsprings? > We have discussed in length on the net the problems that can occur when > incorrect (or non existent) divorces occur or when conversions are not > conducted correctly. If civil marriage was available in Israel, there would not be problems with marriage and divorce because of religious prohibitions. The religionists would say that they could not marry those Jews who did not get divorce according to the halacha. My answer to this is; it is the religionist problem. > Now, we are being asked not to give to an organization > which helps Jews in need only because they wish to keep the Jewish people > unified, not divided. The imposition of religion coercion laws by the religionists divides the country rather than unites it. Many Israelis are sick and tired of the religionists' attempts to shove religion down their throats. The resistance to religious coercion is especially strong among the more educated Israelis who form the technological and scientific backbone of the country. A significant number of those people has left the country. There are many factors for this emigration, religious coercion is one of them. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
mls@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Michael Schneider) (09/04/85)
I am removing most of my comments to reduce reading and traffic on the net. > In reply to my comments, Yosi Hoshen raises a number of important points that must be answered: > > In Israel, religious law governs segments of daily life.... > > It should be noted that the problem areas are those that > > effect not the people involved, but their offspring. > > What right do the orthodox religionist have to determine the future > of non-orthodox offsprings? The orthodox, in your opinion, may not have the right to tell you what to do. BUT, if your offspring become orthodox, your actions would effect them. Your offspring would choose to live by the law of the Torah; yet, by your actions it is highly possible that their lives could be limited. In determining your lifestyle, you have apriori limited your offspring's WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. > > If civil marriage was available in Israel, there would not be problems > with marriage and divorce because of religious prohibitions. The > religionists would say that they could not marry those Jews who did > not get divorce according to the halacha. My answer to this is; > it is the religionist problem. It still does not solve the problem that I stated above. It may be ok for you, but will it be ok for your children. In fact, you have stated the problem better than I did. There would be two classes of Jews in Israel: those that followed Jewish law and those that didn't. It is when these two classes mix (read think about getting married) that the real problems arise. We have seen the same situation occur in North America with at least four major groups of Jews, each having different standards. Here it remains a religious problem. In Israel, it is, to some extent, political. But, in the long run, it will further divide the country. > > The imposition of religion coercion laws by the religionists divides the > country rather than unites it. Many Israelis are sick and tired of the > religionists' attempts to shove religion down their throats. > The resistance to religious coercion is especially strong among the > more educated Israelis who form the technological and scientific > backbone of the country. A significant number of those people has > left the country. There are many factors for this emigration, > religious coercion is one of them. > -- Having lived and traveled in a number of countries outside North America, one thing has remained constant: the view to Jewish law. People, as in North America, have different views to practice: some keep the Shabbat, some don't; some keep the laws of Kashrut, some don't; some keep the laws of family purity, some don't. However in all cases, the vast majority follow Jewish law in those areas that will effect offspring. Why? Because the adults realize that they should not take actions that may effect their children. They are acting in a responsible manner. Michael L. Schneider
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (09/05/85)
I had some problems understanding a recent posting: > The orthodox, in your opinion, may not have the right to tell you what to do. > BUT, if your offspring become orthodox, your actions would effect them... ^^^^^^ Let me see: if I understand this correctly, it means that Yosi Hoshen would bear the same children again after having raised them and after they became orthodox? > However in all cases, the vast majority follow Jewish law in those > areas that will effect offspring... ^^^^^^ Hmmm. I guess what he's saying is that "the vast majority" follow Jewish law in matters involving sexual intercourse. Does anyone have any figures to back this up? ---------- But seriously, can anyone deny that it is the existence of a group of people who believe in the power of Jewish law that creates the problems which Michael Schneider is talking about? Therefore, the problem of the imposition of religious standards on couples and their offspring would vanish if these people, or at least these beliefs, would vanish. Quod erat demonstratum: it is a problem caused by Judaism, not by those who wish to ignore some arcane belief structure called Halacha. --Joe Abeles
david@wisc-rsch.arpa (David Parter) (09/06/85)
it was asked: > > What right do the orthodox religionist have to determine the future > > of non-orthodox offsprings? Michael L. Schneider replies: > The orthodox, in your opinion, may not have the right to tell you what to do. > BUT, if your offspring become orthodox, your actions would effect them. Your > offspring would choose to live by the law of the Torah; yet, by your actions > it is highly possible that their lives could be limited. In determining > your lifestyle, you have apriori limited your offspring's WITHOUT THEIR > CONSENT. i will make many decisions which will affect my offspring without their consent. Sorry. This is what happens to parents. You have no right to tell me what to do because it might limit my children's ability to do what YOU want them to do. In fact, if I told the orthodox that they were ruining their childrens' future chances of becoming tolerant reasonable human beings, they would be insulted and tell me to go to hell. Well, if they tell me how to raise my (future) children, I will (and do) tell them to go to hell. Orthodox judasim is valid. But it has no special rights to impose upon others. david -- david parter UWisc Systems Lab uucp: ...!{allegra,harvard,ihnp4,seismo, topaz}!uwvax!david arpa now: david@wisc-rsch.arpa arpa soon: david@wisc-rsch.WISCONSIN.EDU or something like that
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (09/08/85)
> I had some problems understanding a recent posting: > > > The orthodox, in your opinion, may not have the right to tell you what to do. > > BUT, if your offspring become orthodox, your actions would effect them... > ^^^^^^ What is refered to here is mamzeirus. If a person is divorced outside of jewish law, and then remarries, the children of the second marriage are mamzers. If these children (or their decendents) decide to become frum, they are limited to marrying only other mamzeirim. This problem arises here in the US, and is often heartbreaking as a persons status is often not discovered until they are engaged to someone who they can not marry. (BTW: this emphasizes the importance of investigating someones yichus (geneology) before getting engaged.) A similar problem arrises from one who is decended from an improperly converted 'jew'. While able to convert, they are ineligable to marry a cohein. The previous discussion of actions of parents having a (possible) negative affect on their offspring should now be clearer. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
mls@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Michael Schneider) (09/09/85)
In response to my comments Joe Abeles writes (and I would like to thank him for his corrections): >But seriously, can anyone deny that it is the existence of a group of >people who believe in the power of Jewish law that creates the problems >which Michael Schneider is talking about? Therefore, the problem of >the imposition of religious standards on couples and their offspring would >vanish if these people, or at least these beliefs, would vanish. Quod >erat demonstratum: it is a problem caused by Judaism, not by those who >wish to ignore some arcane belief structure called Halacha. and David Parter comments: >I will make many decisions which will affect my offspring without their >consent. Sorry. This is what happens to parents. >You have no right to tell me what to do because it might >limit my children's ability to do what YOU want them to do. In fact, if I >told the orthodox that they were ruining their childrens' future chances >of becoming tolerant reasonable human beings, they would be insulted and tell >me to go to hell. Well, if they tell me how to raise my (future) children, >I will (and do) tell them to go to hell. Orthodox judasim is valid. But >it has no special rights to impose upon others. I would like to first comment on David's statement. He fails to draw a distinction between reversable and irreversable actions. If I were to cut off my arm and put it through a meat grinder, there would be no chance that my arm could ever be put back on; I could only have an imitation arm. If I were to cut off the arm and go directly to a hospital, there is a good chance I could still have the arm, but with some reduced function. If I were to only make a deep, nonfatal cut on the arm, the worst I could have would be a scar. So it is with the situations I mentioned above. In the case of divorce, it is like cutting off the arm and grinding it up. The status of being a mumzer can not be reversed. In that case of conversion, it is like cutting off the arm and taking it to so put back on. If the conversion were done incorrectly, it can still be corrected (by having it done again). However, there is still the truma of thinking you were Jewish and when it came down to the wire, you were not. The situation presented by David is like cutting deep into an arm. The cut can be healed, there may be a scar, but the intolerance that he suggests, if it is as deep as he says it is, can go away. All I was saying was don't close any doors to your children. In reply to Joe I can only say the following: The set of Jewish Laws has existed for over 2000 years. The limited group of people who follow these laws have a track record spanning the same time period. The current non Orthodox movements are at best 200 years old. We know that the 'arcane belief structure called Halacha' has kept Jews together through some rough times. Until I see otherwise, I can not state that the newer movements, with their relaxation or disregard of Halacha, will have the same record. I do not have the figures, so I am only making an opinion: the rate of assimilation has been growing in the last 100 years, until today it is a major problem. Could it be that the rate is higher as the restrictions of Halacha are relaxed. One can only look at the record of the early Reform movement, where, to make Jews more like everyone, Shabbat was *moved* to Sunday. I do not want everyone to do and think as I do, just as I do not wish to do and think as others. All I have stated is that we do not do anything that may cause irreversable situations. Michael L. Schneider
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (09/10/85)
[] > The current non Orthodox movements are at best 200 years old. We know that > the 'arcane belief structure called Halacha' has kept Jews together through > some rough times. Two questions: 1. How old is the so-called "orthodox" movement? 2. How does Halacha keep Jews together through rough times? > I do not have the figures, so I am only making an opinion: the rate > of assimilation has been growing in the last 100 years, until today it is > a major problem. Could it be that the rate is higher as the restrictions > of Halacha are relaxed. One can only look at the record of the early Reform > movement, where, to make Jews more like everyone, Shabbat was *moved* to > Sunday. > Michael L. Schneider Are you trying to say that only non-orthodox Jews assimilate? Shalom, Dovid HaMelekh, Chelm Hill, New Joisey. often {ihnp4|etc.}!mhuxi!dsg sometimes "" "" !hlexa!dsg now and then "" "" !hlwpb!dsg rarely "" !hlexa!david!dsg
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (09/11/85)
> The imposition of religion coercion laws by the religionists divides the > country rather than unites it. Many Israelis are sick and tired of the > religionists' attempts to shove religion down their throats. > The resistance to religious coercion is especially strong among the > more educated Israelis who form the technological and scientific > backbone of the country. A significant number of those people has > left the country. There are many factors for this emigration, > religious coercion is one of them. The imposition of non-religious standards to marriage and divorce would split the country and the entire Jewish community worse than legal squabbles do. So this point is hardly a strong one. Also, don't blame religious coercion for emmigration. I doubt that a significant percentage leave for that reason. If the economic situation was better in Israel, fewer people would leave ( and in such a situation I doubt that religion would be much of a factor ). Eliyahu Teitz.