rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (01/01/70)
>>Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "Judaism" >>and "Jews", and replace "Jews" with "Christians" or "Americans" or >>some such word, and the paragraph above sounds awful hateful, doesn't >>it? [ROSEN] > Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "murders" > "theives" or any other less societally-enobled group (tax cheaters?) > and see what you read. What does this teach you about this substitution > argument? NOTE: I am NOT equating homosexuality to murder anymore > than Rich is equating it to Americanism. If you want to invoke > Freud, do it on someone else's time. [JOHN LIND] Murderers kill other people. By definition. What do either Jews or homosexuals do that harms other people? Sorry, John Lind, but the substitution argument holds very well, until you can show a difference between hating Jews and hating homosexuals, by preaching hatred for homosexuals you ARE justifying hatred for Jews. It's that simple. Whether you would like it or not. (Freud? Sounds like *your* argumentative technique is invoking FRAUD, not Freud. :-?) >>If the religious right were to make your sorts of statements about >>those who practice the "abomination of Judaism", you would be rightfully >>upset, no? Is there a reason why you can't have the same level of >>tolerance for others and their ways that you would expect others to have for >>you and your ways? It's your opinion that sexual practices other than your >>own are abominable. Fine. There are those who have the same feelings about >>the way you practice your religion. In what way are you any different from >>them? > Swell. Let them show creditable documents from antiquity with a long- > standing tradition to support them. No? If you want to reject Torah, > reject it, but at least be open about it. I reject Torah. OK? I thought I had always been VERY open about rejecting arbitrary contradictory subjective and hopelessly presumptively written religious documents. You have as much "objective" support for your "tradition" as Dan Boskovich does with his presumptive nonsense to "objectively" support Christianity (read his "objective proofs" in net.religion). Given that both of you haven't a leg to stand on, what right do either of you have to invoke your "traditions" to tell other people what to do? > Shalom The word means peace. I wish you were preaching peace instead of intolerance. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mf@cornell.UUCP (mf) (05/12/85)
In article <564@sfmag.UUCP> A.I.Samet writes in re homosexuality:: > The fact that he may have latent tendancies [sic] which were > not chosen is doesn't prevent him from controlling himself. > > If you tell them that it's a "valid" way of life, you just make it > easier for them to sin. The Talmud recognises that there are people who cannot prevent themselves from controlling some urges. In tractate Kiddushin, p. 40a, one reads: R. Il'ai the Elder said: if a man sees that his desire is conquering him, let him go to a place where he is unknown, don black and conver himself with black, and do as his heart desires [...] This attitude does in no way make it "valid" to sin, yet shows more understanding of human nature (hence compassion) than the above writer. Lest it be misinterpreted, this text does not refer to such sins as rape, theft or murder, which cause harm to another person, but those between man and God. Incidentally, there are other urges in which indulgence, or the inability of many to resist, is legitimised by many: take smoking, for instance. Here the issue of self-inflicted harm is at play, and yet it is so widely recognised that one can even smoke on the latter half of some fast days (provided one does not do it in public). On the subject of homosexuality as a sin according to the Talmud, I have several questions to the informed reader: 1. Presumption: other sexual sins which involve two consenting individuals (marital infidelity, for example) require two witnesses of the act itself in order to charge the persons involved. What is the case here? Is self-incrimination recognised (e.g., self-avowed homosexuality)? 2. Discussions in the Talmud about the heterosexual act define it (be-ila) very precisely. As to the homosexual one, the only definition known to me is Rashi's, in his commentary to the Torah: "ke-kandom bi-shfoferet" (anal sex, I suppose). Does this mean that any other homosexual act, or even homose- xual cohabitation without actual sex, etc..., do not fall into that category (but yet may be sinful according to other criteria, hence entailing a different punishment)? 3. Why is it that other sins that require a punishment as harsh as that that of homosexuality are looked upon with much greater indulgence nowadays? The striking example is "'Hillul Shabat,'' (the desecra- tion of Shabbat): according to orthodox rabbinic authorities it is allowed to call such people to the Torah on Shabbat, have them lead services, etc... One of the arguments in this case is related to 1 above: as long as they don't do it in public ("befar'hersia"), one does not presume about their private behaviour. Doesn't the same kind of reasoning apply to homosexuality (i.e., the performance of the homosexual act)?
ee181s009@ucdavis.UUCP (ee181s009) (05/15/85)
Surely the prohibition and punishment given from the mouth of G!d has precedence over ANY interpretation found in the Talmud. Perhaps we are spending far too much time studying the wisdom of men and not enough time obeying the word of God.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (05/15/85)
> On the subject of homosexuality as a sin according to the Talmud, I > have several questions to the informed reader: > > 1. Presumption: other sexual sins which involve two consenting > individuals (marital infidelity, for example) require two > witnesses of the act itself in order to charge the persons > involved. What is the case here? Is self-incrimination > recognised (e.g., self-avowed homosexuality)? > There is a general rule in the Talmud, "ein adam mesim atzmo rasha", a peson cannot incriminate himself. This goes so far that we even believe part of a person's testimony but not all of it. The case discussed is in fact homosexuality. The g'mara says, If a man comes in and says, along with another witness, that he ( the man ) had relations willingly with another man, that we believe the person's testimony regarding his mate, but not regarding himself. This concept is called "palginan dibbura", splitting the statement. > 2. Discussions in the Talmud about the heterosexual act define > it (be-ila) very precisely. As to the homosexual one, the > only definition known to me is Rashi's, in his commentary to > the Torah: "ke-kandom bi-shfoferet" (anal sex, I suppose). > Does this mean that any other homosexual act, or even homose- > xual cohabitation without actual sex, etc..., do not fall into > that category (but yet may be sinful according to other criteria, > hence entailing a different punishment)? > The same term is used to desribe the heterosexual act. It is the t. I think it is properly "kimkachol bi-shfoferet", which is literally like a brush in a tube. Apparently in the days of the g'mara, eye shadow was kept in tubes and a brush was inserted in the tube to egt some eye shadow and it was then applied to the eyes. The idea of insertion is what is being discussed. The tosafot in Yebamot ( I think the ninth chapter, I don't have the exact location ) and the Rambam ( Issurei Biya [ illegal intercourse ] chapter 21, first halacha, see te Kesef Mishna ) discuss the exact definition of the heterosexual act. I don' remember off hand if tey discuss the exact definition of the homosexual act. I'll look it up when I get home. > 3. Why is it that other sins that require a punishment as harsh as that > that of homosexuality are looked upon with much greater indulgence > nowadays? The striking example is "'Hillul Shabat,'' (the desecra- > tion of Shabbat): according to orthodox rabbinic authorities it is > allowed to call such people to the Torah on Shabbat, have them > lead services, etc... One of the arguments in this case is related > to 1 above: as long as they don't do it in public ("befar'hersia"), > one does not presume about their private behaviour. Doesn't the > same kind of reasoning apply to homosexuality (i.e., the performance > of the homosexual act)? I really don't see why it shouldn't apply. In fact Shabbat might be even stricter than other laws, in that one who publicly desecrates the shabbat has the same laws as a non-Jew in certain cases. Observance of the shabbat is considered recognition of G-D's mastery over the world. Non- observance is a defiance of G-D's creation. Ramban says we are commanded to conquer the world, as the Torah says in Bereshit ( Genesis, ch. 1 ). Ramban understands that our job is to learn as much as we can about the way the world works, we are to go into science and other endeavors. Rambam says through science oe can come to a greater appreciation of G-D. However, G-D commanded us to stop our quest for knowledge one day a week. We are commanded not to burn a fire on the sabbath day. Ramban sees this as an injunction against scientific pursuit ( or work in general ). On Shabbat we are supposed to sit back and think about G-D, not work. By disregarding this command, we reject G-D's command of the whole world, and this might be worse than homo- sexuality as far as banishment from congregational duties. Eliyahu Teitz.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/18/85)
In article <ucdavis.191> ee181s009@ucdavis.UUCP (ee181s009) writes (with respect to controlling one's sinful urges and Halakha: > Surely the prohibition and punishment given from the mouth of G!d > has precedence over ANY interpretation found in the Talmud. If the Talmud preaches tolerance for secret sinners, it does not lessen the sin. It merely states that the punishment to be delivered need not always be as strict as the punishment deserved. Ever heard of mercy? > Perhaps we are spending far too much time studying the wisdom of men > and not enough time obeying the word of God. Orthodox Jews believe that the Talmud IS the word of God, told directly to Moses and the Israelites, and passed from generation to generation by word of mouth until it was finally written down by Jewish scholars a over a thousand years ago. Frank Silbermann
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (05/19/85)
> The Talmud recognises that there are people who cannot prevent themselves > from controlling some urges. In tractate Kiddushin, p. 40a, one reads: > R. Il'ai the Elder said: if a man sees that his desire > is conquering him, let him go to a place where he is unknown, > don black and cover himself with black, and do as his heart > desires [...] > This attitude does in no way make it "valid" to sin, yet shows more > understanding of human nature (hence compassion) than the above writer. > (M. Fingerhut) >> If the Talmud preaches tolerance for secret sinners, it does not lessen >> the sin. It merely states that the punishment to be delivered need not >> always be as strict as the punishment deserved. Ever heard of mercy? >> (F. Silbermann) After looking into the gemara quoted above it seems that the above writers have added interpretations which are not suggested by the gemara and not consistent with explanations of the rishonim (Rashi, Tosafos, Rabbeinu Chananal etc.) Specifically, the gemara quoted is not addressing the issues of compassion or tolerance for sinners, mercy, or reward and punishment. From both the context and the rishonim, it seems that R. Illai's advice is confined to the limited issue of how to avoid or minimize the sin of chilul Hashem. Going to a place where he is unknown and wearing black clothing may help someone to subdue his desire to sin. Even if this fails, the chilul Hashem is lessened since he is not noticed. (There are no references in the gemara to any halachic rulings which establish this opinion as normative.) An analogy might be advising a driver to how to avoid a crash, or minimize its impact, when his brakes fail and he loses control of his car. He should attempt to slow down by shifting gears and he should attempt to direct his car to a relatively safe place to minimize the crash. Such advice is unrelated to liability for poor, drunk, or reckless driving, improper car maintenance etc. Punishment, blame, compassion, tolerance, and mercy are separate issues. Yitzchok Samet
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (05/19/85)
> Why is it that other sins that require a punishment as harsh as that > that of homosexuality are looked upon with much greater indulgence > nowadays? ... The above writer has submitted several articles with the apparent purpose of advocating indulgence towards those practicing homosexuality, arguing that the Torah might allow for such a view. In fact, this view is clearly and totally antithetical to the Torah. Debating a position which is totally bankrupt and without merit serves to desensitize readers to the fact of its basic absurdity and serves as propaganda for its proponents. (Thus, the "debate" over the past decade over "Palestinian rights" has served to obscure the true nature of the PLO and to desensitize people to the shocking nature of Arab terrorism.) However, since Eliyahu Teitz has fallen into the trap of comparing homosexuality with chilul shabbos I feel compelled to object. The so-called "Gay rights" movement is a relatively recent phenomenon in Jewish history, whereas widespread chilul shabbos has been the unfortunate status quo for some generations. At the time when a breach of the Torah first rears its head this is viewed as a "pritzus geder" or breaking of fences. The appropriate response at such a time is to make all efforts to plug the new hole in the dam, and hopefully to stem the tide of defection from the Torah before the dam collapses. Generations ago, chilul shabbos was met with strong communal sanctions. Today, this is impractical as a means of rectifying what has already occured. Furthermore, most non shabbos-observant Jews are not actively casting off yiddishkeit. They are unfortunate heirs to a climate of irrelegiosity and they have little or no idea what shabbos and Torah are about. Little purpose would be served by ostracizing them from the Jewish community. Homosexuality is quite different. It represents not only a major perversion of Jewish life, but a major violation of what non-Jews have until recently accepted as a normal lifestyle. The attempts by the media and liberal groups to portray this abomination as a viable/normal option for living is a serious attack which threatens to corrupt all of society, Jews included. The appropriate response to this attack is to make clear to everyone who cares that this is definitely out of bounds from the Torah's viewpoint. We should wage war against this serious social disease and against the fools and reshoim who attempt to soften the social sanctions which were always in place, among decent Jews and non-Jews. The Mishna in Sanhedrin equates someone attempting a homosexual act with an attempted rapist or murderer, and permits us to intervene by killing the perpetrator. This is in no way comparable with a case of chilul shabbos and suggests that Eliyau's reasoning is off the mark. Yitzchok Samet
de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) (05/20/85)
> Surely the prohibition and punishment given from the mouth of G!d > has precedence over ANY interpretation found in the Talmud. Perhaps > we are spending far too much time studying the wisdom of men and not > enough time obeying the word of God. This obviously is not true. Once the Torah was given to man it was up to man to interpet it, even(!) if it was incorrect. There is a terrific story in the Talmud of the argument of two rabbis in the Sanhedrin over a point of law. The Sanhedrin had voted for one, and the other stood firm in his rejection of that opinion. He made trees jump, rivers back up, and the walls of the building begin to tumble, all in an attempt to prove that he was correct. He even asked for a voice from heaven, which came and said that he was right. The head of the Sanhedrin then announced that the Torah was man's to interpet, and that man must do it without heaven's interference. The point remains that the Talmud is the interpretation of the Torah, and is the point we follow. We read a life for a life, and yet the rabbis note that even Moshe Rabbenu interpreted this to mean compensation for an eye, not disfigurement. David Esan (!ritcv!moscom!de)
mf@cornell.UUCP (mf) (05/21/85)
The initial article on this topic raised several questions and prompted for a *Hala'hik* discussion; the Talmud--as well as the subsequent responsa literature--is full of argumentations about human actions, some of which sinful, some not. They include very meticulous and precise definitions (in the case of sexuality: down to anatomical considerations). One of my initial contentions was that there is no such discussion about homosexuality, and that one possible approach to this lack is through analogy with other discussions in the Hala'hik literature, and following the rules and forms of Hala'hik discourse. There are other possible approaches to the problem of homosexuality: emotional, social, cultural, moral and political. None of these is Hala'hik in nature, some even conflict with it. A response that labels those who raise the problem as ``fools and reshoim [wicked]'' is emotional. The many Rabbis who discussed the contemporary problems that faced the society of their times were not accused of ``apparent purpose of advocating indulgence towards'' this or that problem. Few doubted their attempts at approaching it in a humane way, from *within* Hala'ha. One of the counter-arguments falling in the ``social'' category is ``impracticality,'' as in: " Generations ago, chilul shabbos was met with strong communal " sanctions. Today, this is impractical as a means of rectifying " what has already occured. for it sanctifies what has already become a social norm, and it could as well apply to homosexuality in not too far a future, should its incidence in the Jewish community continue to rise. Generations ago, homosexuality was virtually unknown among Jews, ergo the almost inexistent attention given to it in the Talmud and elsewhere. Those laws that are extensively discussed reflect the problems that faced the community at that time. As a matter of fact, the common explanation for the laws *against* homosexuality (and other sexual and non-sexual acts) is that such practices *were* a normal life-style among the pagans (`Toevot ha-Goyim'). Hence, the following argument is both factually and categorically wrong: " Homosexuality represents a major violation of what non-Jews " have until recently accepted as a normal lifestyle. Homosexuality is forbidden *because* it was a pagan life-style; but whatever the reason, Gentile social norms are no *Hala'hik* consideration. The comparison with observance of the Shabbat was intended to bring out the fact that *attitudes* in the Jewish community are different towards two prohibitions that are Hala'hically passible of the *same* punishment. And indeed, the response was: " [M]ost non shabbos-observant Jews are not actively casting " off yiddishkeit. Such a statement is statistical in nature, and would require a more serious research. But what does it mean, religiously speaking? That most ``non shabbos-observant'' are non-shabbos observants. ``Yi- dishkeit'' cannot mean, in this case, religious practice (for non- observance is countrary to religious practice), but some vague notion of Jewish "culture." Besides, ``many'' gay Jews do not reject it either. Some even try to preserve [other] aspects of their religious observance, in spite of their ostracisation by the established communities, as witnessed by the existence of gay synagogues. I wonder how one compares, in this respect say, reform (or conservative) synagogues to gay synagogues, from the orthodox point of view. Both are predicated on a different interpretation of, or rejection of, some parts of the Hala'ha. And yet the reaction to either is different. In summary, I would like to point out that the main negative reactions against homosexuality and homosexuals seem to me not to come for *religious* reasons, but rather from other considerations, as pointed above. Statements such as ``[w]e should wage war against this serious social disease'' ascribed to ``the media and liberal groups'' are yet another point in case. I am *not* saying, nor did I say anywhere, that the original religious prohibition is invalid. It needs a religious definition and discussion.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (05/21/85)
> > Why is it that other sins that require a punishment as harsh as that > > that of homosexuality are looked upon with much greater indulgence > > nowadays? ... > > The above writer has submitted several articles with the apparent > purpose of advocating indulgence towards those practicing > homosexuality, arguing that the Torah might allow for such a > view. > > > However, since Eliyahu Teitz has fallen into the trap of > comparing homosexuality with chilul shabbos I feel compelled to > object. > The intent of my article was not meant to sanction homosexuality in any way. I hope no one got that impression, for it was not what I intended. The gist of my article was that we cannot treat a suspected homosexual any differently than we do a straight person. If we see a person committing an illicit sexual act of any kind we have to treat it accordingly. I do not know what powers we have in our day and age to prevent these things from happening, but if we do see such things, each person will have to decide some course of action that he ( she ) sees fit. Of course, homosexuality is a gross perversion, and is not permitted by the Torah. To say that one should treat it lightly would weaken the rest of the Torah's laws. Each and every law must be kept as strictly as possible ( this does not mean that all laws are harsh ones. In fact, most are not that hard to follow at all. But something that the Torah clearly spells out as forbidden cannot be look at lightly ). I hope I have clarified my position on this matter, as I don't want anyone to misquote or misunderstand me. Eliyahu Teitz.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/22/85)
In article <moscom.537> de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) writes: > Once the Torah was given to man it was up to man to interpet it, > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > even(!) if it was incorrect. The point remains that the > Talmud is the interpretation of the Torah, and is the point we follow. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wait a minute! You are saying that the Talmud is the work of men, not God! I thought this was the Conservative Jewish point of view. Conservative Jews believe that the Talmud is merely Rabbinical wisdom and tradition. While one usually respects the wisdom of the ages, the Jewish community is free to re-interpret the Torah, and thus set aside specific Talmudic prohibitions. It was my understanding, however, that the Orthodox belief is that the Talmud is NOT the human interpretation of the Torah, but rather a vital part of the Torah, given orally by God "in person" to Moses and the Israelites. >There is a terrific story in the Talmud of the argument of two rabbis in >the Sanhedrin over a point of law. The Sanhedrin had voted for one, and >the other stood firm in his rejection of that opinion. He made trees jump, >rivers back up, and the walls of the building begin to tumble, all in an >attempt to prove that he was correct. He even asked for a voice from >heaven, which came and said that he was right. The head of the Sanhedrin >then announced that the Torah was man's to interpet, and that man must >do it without heaven's interference. I thought the point of this story was that you should not rely on signs and wonders, because even evil men can perform magical tricks. I pose this question to the net: Is the Talmud an unchangeable work of God, written down by Jewish scribes, or is it the work of men interpreting the Torah, and thus subject to re-evaluation? Frank Silbermann
meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (05/23/85)
David Esan quotes : >> Surely the prohibition and punishment given from the mouth of G!d >> has precedence over ANY interpretation found in the Talmud. Perhaps >> we are spending far too much time studying the wisdom of men and not >> enough time obeying the word of God. David Esan comments : >This obviously is not true. Once the Torah was given to man it was up to >man to interpet it, even(!) if it was incorrect. >There is a terrific story in the Talmud of the argument of two rabbis in >the Sanhedrin over a point of law. The Sanhedrin had voted for one, and ....... >The point remains that the Talmud is the interpretation of the Torah, and >is the point we follow. --------------------- It is true that "lo bashamayim hee" - it is not in the heavens, and that we base halachic decisions on the logic processes of man, even against heavenly signs (such as, moving rivers, falling walls, voices from heaven; as quoted in the above-mentioned story, also found in a few other places in the Talmud). However, just so that people out there don't make erroneous conclusions from what David wrote - all halachic decisions, and the whole halachic process itself, must be firmly based in "masorah", the accepted line of teachings from CHaZaL (our great rabbis of blessed memory). As far as man's right, nay, obligation, to interpret the Torah (according to the "masorah", of course), "even if it was incorrect" goes a little too far. We have among our teachings that HaShem will not allow an incorrect teaching/interpretation to be taught and accepted as part of the "masorah". In fact, this concept of "protection" of the great rabbis extended in some cases to even their animals (the rabbi about whom the story is told was REALLY great). The story that is brought down (as related in the Talmud) is that the donkey of one of the rabbis would not eat from grain put before it unless the grain had had the tithings tithed (terumoh, ma-aser, etc.). This was due to the greatness of this particular rabbi. Lest someone try to extrapolate/infer from the above that "there they go again, saying that the great rabbis were superhuman, infallible, never made a mistake in their lives", I am NOT saying that. However, when it comes to learning Torah and interpretting it, THEY are the "chachmei hakabbalah vehamesorah", the wise men who have/had the accepted line of teaching "in the palms of their hands". A gutten Shabbos and A Gutten Yom-Tov to all. Asher Meth ....... meth@nyu-csd2.arpa ....... allegra!cmcl2!csd2!meth
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/23/85)
> Homosexuality is quite different. It represents not only a major > perversion of Jewish life, but a major violation of what non-Jews > have until recently accepted as a normal lifestyle. The attempts > by the media and liberal groups to portray this abomination as a > viable/normal option for living is a serious attack which > threatens to corrupt all of society, Jews included. The > appropriate response to this attack is to make clear to everyone > who cares that this is definitely out of bounds from the Torah's > viewpoint. We should wage war against this serious social > disease and against the fools and reshoim who attempt to soften > the social sanctions which were always in place, among decent > Jews and non-Jews. [YITZCHOK SAMET] Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "Judaism" and "Jews", and replace "Jews" with "Christians" or "Americans" or some such word, and the paragraph above sounds awful hateful, doesn't it? If the religious right were to make your sorts of statements about those who practice the "abomination of Judaism", you would be rightfully upset, no? Is there a reason why you can't have the same level of tolerance for others and their ways that you would expect others to have for you and your ways? It's your opinion that sexual practices other than your own are abominable. Fine. There are those who have the same feelings about the way you practice your religion. In what way are you any different from them? -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (05/25/85)
> I thought this was the Conservative Jewish point of view. > Conservative Jews believe that the Talmud is merely Rabbinical wisdom > and tradition. While one usually respects the wisdom of the ages, > the Jewish community is free to re-interpret the Torah, and thus set > aside specific Talmudic prohibitions. > : > : > Frank Silbermann > From a Conservative Jewish point of view, the Talmud is the same law that Moses received from G-d on Mt. Sinai. (In fact, there is a story --a midrash??-- about Moses visiting a Talmud class being taught by Rabbi Akiva(??) and not understanding what was being taught. Then Rabbi Akiva said he was teaching the Torah that Moses received on Mt. Sinai, and Moses now understood! Conservative Jews believe that men must learn and understand the law. The Talmud is a part of that understanding. So is the Mishnah Torah, the Shulchan Aruch, and (AND here is a major difference between conservative and orthodox points of view--) even more responsa; even today, Conservative Jews continue to learn, understand and state the law. The Conservative Jewish scholars who are recognized as today's scholars form the Committee on Jewish Law of the Rabbinical Assembly. The Rabinnical Assembly is the organization of Conservative Jewish Rabbis, and is affiliated with the United Synagogue of America in New York City. At present, Rabbi Joel Roth is the head of the Committee on Jewish Law. When you hear that Conservative Judaism "allows women to read from the Torah" or other major difference between orthodox and conservative rules, you can be sure that the Committee on Jewish Law has issued a responsa on the issue. The responsa must be based on halacha, and is fully argued and documented. All responsa issued are in accordance with halacha!! I have already been flamed for saying this. But I am a Conservative Jew, and this is MY belief!! I'm don't think Orthodox Jews are wrong for their beliefs (or Reform Jews for theirs) and I get mad when another Jew (see below) tells me that I'm wrong to be a Conservative Jew; even madder than when a Christian tells me I'm wrong to be a Jew. Now, I believe that all responsa which have been issued are permissive, not required. In other words, a rabbi and his congregation may choose to follow the responsa, but is not obligated to do so. In fact, many conservative rabbis, and virtually all orthodox rabbis do not agree with at least some of the responsa, and do not follow them. That's perfectly ok. A question must be asked: Do any Jews today have the wisdom and the right to continue to understand and explain the law? (The same law that Moses received on Mt. Sinai!) If so, is the Committee on Jewish Law a body that can do so?? Conservative Judaism says yes to the first, and is not entirely unanimous on the second question. I suspect that Orthodox Jews would answer differently to both questions. Perhaps they would accept that one or two orthodox rabbis today have such wisdom, and only in limited cases. I apologize for putting words in the mouths of any orthodox folks. >> >> everyone could interpret the Law. There have been groups >> throughout history who have tried to usurp authoriry from the >> sages who received the oral Law via a chain leading back to Har >> Sinai. >> >> Today, some groups and individuals try to exploit the Talmud for >> this purpose. They argue (as Korach did) that the oral Torah is >> really a work of man, and they thereby license thmeselves to >> rationalize whatever they want via their so-called "halakha". A >> key difference between the legitimate rabbis and the fakers is >> this: The former are committed to subjugating themselves to G*d >> and to a rigorous discipline of jurisprudence, while the fakers >> prostitute themselves to "man-centered" interests and they twist >> the talmud mercilessly towards those ends. >> -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (05/29/85)
Quote at end. The Talmud was written by men and is the discussion of men. The Rabbis were empowered to interpret the Torah following a set of guidelines, known as the 'Middot sheHatorah nidreshet bahem', the rules by which the Torah is interpreted. The Talmud has different lists of rules ranging from 13 rules to 42 rules ( as I remember; I might be wrong ). The rabbis in the time of the Talmud knew how to apply these rules and therefore how to interpret the Torah. We today do not know how to use these rules; we simply know of their existence. If we could somehow find out how to properly use these rules we could, theoretically, disagree with the Talmud. However, since we do not know how to implement the rules we must abide by the Talmud. The Conservative approach to the Talmud is basically the same. They differ in that they feel that they have the right to disagree with the Talmud, even in our present day and age. They bring up proposals for votes by their rabbinic assembly and by the faculty of their seminary. Why a history professor at the seminary feels qualified to vote on proposals is beyond me; yet, such a vote counts as much as the Talmud professor's vote. The Reform movement has a totally different approach to the problem. They do away with the Divinity of the Torah, saying that it does not apply any more, and that it is simply a history book, of sorts ( if you do not believe this, try reading some reform responsa, where it is written out very clearly ). As for the lesson to be learned from the story in the g'mara ( about flying trees ), the Talmud itself says that the moral is ' lo bashamayim he', the Torah is not in the heavens, meaning, it is up to man to decide on the interpretation of the Torah, and not heavenly voices. Eliyahu Teitz. p.s. As for the whole Torah being taught to Moshe from the mouth of G-D. There is a story related in the g'mara about thee giving of the Torah. G-D said, 'if Moshe had not given the Torah, Rabbi Akiva would have been the one to receive it'. Moshe was curious to see who this Rabbi Akiva was, so he came down to this world to seek out R. Akiva. R. Akiva happened to be in the middle of a class, so Moshe sat in the back and listened. What he heard was totally foreign to him, he did not understand what R. Akiva was talking about. The g'mara says that R. Akiva was expounding on the crowns of the letters as they are written in the Torah. If Moshe had heard every bit of Torha that was orah that was ever to be said, how come he didn't recognize what R. Akiva was talking about. The answer is simple. Moshe was taught all the laws. He was given the Torah and from reading it he could learn out all the laws. By the time of R. Akiva people had forgotten many laws, and they couldn't figure them out from a simple reading of the Torah. What R. Akiva was showing them was a way to figure out the laws. Moshe didn't need this, since he saw the laws clearly with a simple reading of the Torah. G-D never had to show him these hints and calculations, since to Moshe they were elementary. So G-D never told Moshe about what R. Akiva, or any other rabbi, was going to say. He showed Moshe the laws, and the future generations tried to remember them by writing the Talmud. Eliyahu. > In article <moscom.537> de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) writes: > > > Once the Torah was given to man it was up to man to interpet it, > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > even(!) if it was incorrect. The point remains that the > > Talmud is the interpretation of the Torah, and is the point we follow. > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Wait a minute! You are saying that the Talmud is the work of men, > not God! > > I thought this was the Conservative Jewish point of view. > Conservative Jews believe that the Talmud is merely Rabbinical wisdom > and tradition. While one usually respects the wisdom of the ages, > the Jewish community is free to re-interpret the Torah, and thus set > aside specific Talmudic prohibitions. > > It was my understanding, however, that the Orthodox belief is that > the Talmud is NOT the human interpretation of the Torah, > but rather a vital part of the Torah, given orally by God "in person" > to Moses and the Israelites. > > >There is a terrific story in the Talmud of the argument of two rabbis in > >the Sanhedrin over a point of law. The Sanhedrin had voted for one, and > >the other stood firm in his rejection of that opinion. He made trees jump, > >rivers back up, and the walls of the building begin to tumble, all in an > >attempt to prove that he was correct. He even asked for a voice from > >heaven, which came and said that he was right. The head of the Sanhedrin > >then announced that the Torah was man's to interpet, and that man must > >do it without heaven's interference. > > I thought the point of this story was that you should not rely on > signs and wonders, because even evil men can perform magical tricks. > > I pose this question to the net: Is the Talmud an unchangeable work of God, > written down by Jewish scribes, or is it the work of men interpreting the Torah, > and thus subject to re-evaluation? > > Frank Silbermann *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
john@starfire.UUCP (john) (05/29/85)
Perhaps I am more the fool for even responding to this, but so be it. In his article, Rich Rosen quotes and then writes: > > Homosexuality is quite different. It represents not only a major > > perversion of Jewish life, but a major violation of what non-Jews > > have until recently accepted as a normal lifestyle. The attempts . . . > > viewpoint. We should wage war against this serious social > > disease and against the fools and reshoim who attempt to soften > > the social sanctions which were always in place, among decent > > Jews and non-Jews. [YITZCHOK SAMET] > > Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "Judaism" > and "Jews", and replace "Jews" with "Christians" or "Americans" or > some such word, and the paragraph above sounds awful hateful, doesn't > it? Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "murders" "theives" or any other less societally-enobled group (tax cheaters?) and see what you read. What does this teach you about this substitution argument? NOTE: I am NOT equating homosexuality to murder anymore than Rich is equating it to Americanism. If you want to invoke Freud, do it on someone else's time. > If the religious right were to make your sorts of statements about > those who practice the "abomination of Judaism", you would be rightfully > upset, no? Is there a reason why you can't have the same level of > tolerance for others and their ways that you would expect others to have for > you and your ways? It's your opinion that sexual practices other than your > own are abominable. Fine. There are those who have the same feelings about > the way you practice your religion. In what way are you any different from > them? Swell. Let them show creditable documents from antiquity with a long- standing tradition to support them. No? If you want to reject Torah, reject it, but at least be open about it. Shalom ------ John Lind, Starfire Consulting Services E-mail: ihnp4!umn-cs!digi-g!starfire!john USnail: PO Box 13001, Mpls MN 55414
brian@digi-g.UUCP (Merlyn Leroy) (05/31/85)
>>> Homosexuality is quite different. It represents not only a major >>> perversion of Jewish life, but a major violation of what non-Jews >>> have until recently accepted as a normal lifestyle...(etc) >>> [YITZCHOK SAMET] >> >> Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "Judaism" >> and "Jews", and replace "Jews" with "Christians" or "Americans" or >> some such word, and the paragraph above sounds awful hateful, doesn't it? >> [RICH ROSEN] > >Replace all references to homosexuality and homosexuals with "murders" >"thieves" or any other less societally-enobled group (tax cheaters?) and see >what you read. What does this teach you about this substitution argument? > [JOHN LIND] Thief = taking something against owner's will Borrower = taking something with owner's consent rapist = sex against someone's will heterosexual = sex with someone of the opposite sex with mutual consent homosexual = sex with someone of the same sex with mutual consent Murderer = killing someone against their will (killing someone with their consent is a whole different topic) It tells me that (in general) thieves/rapists/murderers all do something nasty to other people that they don't like, while borrowers/hetero/homosexuals do something with the other person's consent. Replace "homosexuals" with "foobars" and see how nasty a foobar sounds. Merlyn Leroy Foobar: N. A person who is not recognized by friends, family, etc., due to extreme ineptitude. Also Fubar (archaic). (Lat. Fu + bar, "Foul-up" (an inept person) + "Beyond All Recognition" (completely foreign, alien))