mls@wxlvax.UUCP (Michael Schneider) (03/21/85)
The postings regarding religion in Israel, levels of observance,
and Humanistic Judaism have one thing in common, they ask the question:
Do I have the right to determine what I wish to observe?
The answer in at least two cases must be NO. Those areas where every Jew
must follow the most rigid level of observance are conversion and divorce.
They effect not only the people who are directly involved, but any
children resulting from marriage. Say, for example, you think that
the observance of Halachic conversion is outmoded or is unnecessary. You have
children and they believe they are Jewish. In fact, they become more observant
than you (this is not an uncommon situation these days). It is now time
to get married and they tell the Rabbi the family history. If the Rabbi
says the original conversion was invalid and it was the person's mother, then
THEY, not YOU, have problems. In this case, it can be corrected, the
individual can convert. How you think they will feel toward you and your
child toward him or herself? If the child was a woman and she wanted to
marry a Cohen, it is highly probable that the marriage would be called off.
If it were a case of divorce, and the child declared a mumzer, there is
little that can be done. How do you think the child would feel knowing that
the choices for marriage have become highly limited?
What would you say to either your child, the mumzer, or the woman who wanted
to marry a Cohen? =I did not agree with Halachic Judiasm and did it my way.
I have closed paths that would have been open to you because I was only
interested in myself. For me to have my freedom, I have taken away your.=
In serious cases of depression, a person may, G-d forbid, take his life.
Would it all be worth it?
Having taught in a university and was the advisor to the Jewish student union,
I was faced with students comming to me with some of the problems I mentioned
above. In many cases I had no answer. These problems not only effected
the direct children of the parent who disregarded Halacha, but also the
person who wanted to marry the child. The hate that was shown to parents
can not be described. I remember one case of a woman who found out two months
prior to her wedding that her father did not have a Get (Jewish divorce) from
his first marriage. In that case, things came out ok, the wedding was
postponed (some excuse was found), the couple spent over six months digging
up information, and finally found a respected Rabbi who would poskin (many
Rabbis or Beit Dins avoid this area). This event turned daughter against
father. The father, who had to relive a painfull divorce almost had a
breakdown. I attended the wedding. The woman's family was absent; much
of the joy was lost. But, the father did it his way years earlier. Was it
worth it?
In the past, when there was only one standard, these problems were less
prevalent. There was a single standard toward conversion, marriage, and
divorce. Just as we have standards in many technical issues, we should
have standards in the halachic status of Jews. (I do not think that
halachic standards should apply toward the secular Law of Return, whose
intent is to provide a safe haven for people who are persecuted as Jews;
their halachic status can be resolved when they are safe.)
Even if you are strongly anti-halachac, think of the following generations.
The actions you take today may effect your children, and their children,
and their children.... The actions you may take today may ruin the lives
of your offspring and the people they intend to marry. Why should your
beliefs destroy the happyness of those who are innocent.
M.L. Schneidermartillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (03/24/85)
> I remember one case of a woman who found out two months >prior to her wedding that her father did not have a Get (Jewish divorce) from >his first marriage. In that case, things came out ok, the wedding was >postponed (some excuse was found), the couple spent over six months digging >up information, and finally found a respected Rabbi who would poskin (many >Rabbis or Beit Dins avoid this area). This event turned daughter against >father. The father, who had to relive a painfull divorce almost had a >breakdown. I attended the wedding. The woman's family was absent; much >of the joy was lost. But, the father did it his way years earlier. Was it >worth it? I rather like a good story but the tikun of Rab Gershom has expired. Even when the tikun had not expired, there were Ashkenazi Rabbis who accepted it who held it only applied in Germany, parts of France and parts of Eastern Europe. There have always been Ashkenazi rabbis who have held that this particular tikun is an erroneus immitation of non-Jewish practice. Sefardim and Oriental Jews have always rejected this tikun and have always been willing to marry Ashkenazim to a second wife or to marry a Sefardi, who has an Ashkenaziah as first wife, to a second wife. There was even a decent-sized business, my uncle Mahmud tells me, in marrying Ashkenazim to second wives in Tarabolus in Libya -- we as Fezzanim did not take part. In any case, no Rabbi who accepted Gershom's rather silly tikun -- which to tell the truth I believe is a myth -- would consider mamzerim the children by a second wife of a man who never gave his first wife a get.
meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (03/27/85)
In response to Yakim Martillo : >I rather like a good story but the tikun of Rab Gershom has expired. Interesting. Yet many great rabbis have said that even though the original cherem (which was for 1000 years) has expired, it is still in force (because the people continued to accept it, or because the rabbis renewed it; i'm not sure why). >In any case, no Rabbi who accepted Gershom's rather silly tikun -- which >to tell the truth I believe is a myth -- would consider mamzerim the >children by a second wife of a man who never gave his first wife a get. Yakim, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease. There is no reason to belittle rishonim. (Rabbeinu Gershom was the rebbi of Rashi; or was he the rebbi of the rebbi of Rashi. I'll have to recheck the source - in the last perek of Pesachim.) By the way, among us Ashkenazim, it is called Cherem DeRabbeinu Gershom, and not Tikun. Granted that this cherem was not accepted by the Sepharadim; but it was accepted by the Ashkenazim. asher meth
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/27/85)
> In any case, no Rabbi who accepted Gershom's rather silly tikun -- which > to tell the truth I believe is a myth -- would consider mamzerim the > children by a second wife of a man who never gave his first wife a get. Yakim, Don't you think you're going a little overboard in calling R. Gershom silly. He was greater than you'll ever be, so I wouldn't call him silly. Because the s'faradim did not accept the decree does not mean that there wasn't good reason for it. In general, ashkenazim accepted many decrees on themselves which the s'faradim did not. It doesn't mean that either is sillier than the other. One last point. No matter what you think of R. Gershom, he was a great rabbi, and you should refer to him by his title ( Rav, Rabbenu, or at least R. A simple Gershom isn't respectful. ). Eliyahu Teitz.
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (03/29/85)
If you read the article, I did not call Rab Gershom silly. I called the tikun silly. I consider this not disrespectful because I do not believe he ever made such a tikun. Anyway Sefardim do not use rab or rabbi the same way as Ashkenazim but usually only apply the term to individuals who have smikah when the Sanhedrin is in existence. I doubt that Moshe bar Maimon ever was addressed by title Rab or Rabbi in conversation. Likewise since Gershom comes from the provencal tradition probably he was never addressed as Rab while he lived. My mother tells me she has always been amused by Ashkenazi usage of rebbi because for Libyans rebbi, ribbi or rubbi are disparaging terms for people who know little of Judaism but exaggerate the value of their opinions (people like Rich Rosen). Ribbi and Rebbi are also Karaite usage for a Karaite scholar. The Hakam Bernays, Hirsch's teacher, held that all religious Jews should avoid the use of Rab and Rabbi because using these terms give legitimacy to certain illegitimate approaches to Judaism common among Ashkenazim.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/01/85)
> My mother tells me she has always been amused by Ashkenazi usage of > rebbi because for Libyans rebbi, ribbi or rubbi are disparaging terms > for people who know little of Judaism but exaggerate the value of their > opinions (people like Rich Rosen). The term couldn't possibly apply to you, could it, YAKim? (I believe that's the right Anglicized spelling, since it includes an English word that describes you so well...) -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (04/02/85)
/* csd2:net.religion.jewish / martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) / 10:45 am Mar 29, 1985 */ If you read the article, I did not call Rab Gershom silly. I called the tikun silly. I consider this not disrespectful because I do not believe he ever made such a tikun. Anyway Sefardim do not use rab or rabbi the same way as Ashkenazim but usually only apply the term to individuals who have smikah when the Sanhedrin is in existence. I doubt that Moshe bar Maimon ever was addressed by title Rab or Rabbi in conversation. Likewise since Gershom comes from the provencal tradition probably he was never addressed as Rab while he lived. My mother tells me she has always been amused by Ashkenazi usage of rebbi because for Libyans rebbi, ribbi or rubbi are disparaging terms for people who know little of Judaism but exaggerate the value of their opinions (people like Rich Rosen). Ribbi and Rebbi are also Karaite usage for a Karaite scholar. The Hakam Bernays, Hirsch's teacher, held that all religious Jews should avoid the use of Rab and Rabbi because using these terms give legitimacy to certain illegitimate approaches to Judaism common among Ashkenazim. /* ---------- */
meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (04/02/85)
Sorry about the previous posting in which the previous article (by Yakim) is reposted under my name. It was an accident. ---------- [Yakim Martillo writes :] >Likewise since Gershom comes from the provencal tradition probably he >was never addressed as Rab while he lived. Perhaps. But today (and for the past few hundered years) he has been titled as Rabbeinu Gershom. Furthermore, you end your posting with ... >The Hakam Bernays, Hirsch's teacher, held that all religious Jews should >avoid the use of Rab and Rabbi because using these terms give legitimacy >to certain illegitimate approaches to Judaism common among Ashkenazim. It is interesting that you will use the term 'Hakam'. And I would expect you to use this term when referring to a Sfardi gadol (or, chacham). In light of this, I would also expect you to treat non-sfadi chachamim with the same respect. You do, of course, admit that they were great talmidei chachamim and gedolim, even though they were Ashkenazim. ----- A correction to a previous posting that I made (and as was pointed out to me by Jay Schachter, alias humbert) - Rabbeinu Gershom was the rebbi of the rebbi of Rashi, as can be found in 'Hagahos Maharav Ranshburg' in his comment on Rashi in Pesachim 111a. ----- Chag Kasher Vesameach to all. asher meth allegra!cmcl2!csd2!meth meth@nyu-csd2.arpa