samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (03/05/85)
> I would appreciate your public comments. I am especially interested > in the views of the orthodox netters. An oft-cited, legitimate case of coercion in Israel would be throwing rocks at cars on Shabbos. This is an irresponsible, foolish, and forbidden act from the Torah viewpoint. Fortunately, such conduct is extremely atypical of Orthodoxy. The Talmud classifies a rock thrower as one attempting manslaughter. Despite propaganda stereotyping, rock throwing is far more infrequent than murder in Israel, and it is fiction to characterize orthodoxy as a rock throwers, just as it would be fiction to characterize Israelis as murderers. Attempting to pass a law in the Knesset defining who is a Jew, or similar religious matters, is a far cry from the above. Such a law would be unconstitutional in America but it's not in Israel. The State proclaims itself to be Jewish and thereby legitimizes things like the "law of return", which could be easily attacked as racist in an American context. It is hysteria mongering to cry "coercion" whenever orthodoxy casts a vote for a religious measures. The law empowering a draft limits personal freedom, but few people will seriously argue coercian to be an issue in that case. All laws can be labeled coercive, but such labeling distracts attention and frustrates intelligent discuss of issues. Similarly, the rabbinate in Israel is duly empowered by law to rule halachically on issues such as marriage, divorce, and conversion, and to advise individuals according to those rulings. That is the law, just like taxes. You may not like it, but it's sidestepping the issue to chant the buzzword "coercion" every time the rabbinate makes a halachic decision which upsets you. If you don't like the laws, or the democratic process in Israel, I understand you. But avoid applying a double standard. Don't rant incessantly about orthodox coercian unless you are talking about "rocks". Yitzchok Samet
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (03/07/85)
Yitzchok Samet writes (responding to my posting): >An oft-cited, legitimate case of coercion in Israel would be >throwing rocks at cars on Shabbos. This is an irresponsible, >foolish, and forbidden act from the Torah viewpoint. This is sidetracking of the main issue. In my posting I did not even refer to throwing rocks at cars by religious thugs. The greater majority of religious people in Israel are not violent and do not practice the biblical skill of 'skila' (stoning). Such behavior becomes a problem only if it is condoned by the government, and this is not the case. Now lets get back to the issue of state legislated religious coercion. >The State proclaims itself to be Jewish and thereby legitimizes >things like the "law of return", which could be easily attacked >as racist in an American context........ Let me remind you that even if Israel is defined as a "Jewish State" (I prefer the term a State for the Jews) it does not imply a Jewish orthodox state according to halacha. T. Herzel who envisioned the modern "Jewish State" was not a religious person (possibly an atheist). Most of the Zionist founders of Israel were secular Jews who saw the state as a refuge from religious and other forms of coercion applied against Jews in the diaspora. What do we have now? Jews fleeing from oppression in other parts of the world (communist and Arab countries) find a new form of religious coercion imposed on them by the Jewish State. >Similarly, the rabbinate in Israel is duly empowered by law to >rule halachically on issues such as marriage, divorce, and >conversion, and to advise individuals according to those rulings. >That is the law, just like taxes. You may not like it, but it's >sidestepping the issue to chant the buzzword "coercion" every >time the rabbinate makes a halachic decision which upsets you. I guess personal matters such as marriage and divorce can be compared to taxes. Since Jews comprise <3% of the American population, I assume you would not complain If the US would require that all marriages should be performed by Christian clergy. Since Christians are the majority, they could democratically pass such a law. Would you like to undergo a Christian marriage ceremony. Obviously you would consider it as state mandated 'avoda zara', humiliation and coercion . This is what is happening in Israel. When I got married, I had no choice, but to be married by a Rabbi in a religious marriage ceremony. This was a deeply humiliating experience for me, as from my point of view religion is a form of superstition, just as Christianity is to you 'avoda zara'. If civil marriage was availble in Israel, I would not be faced with such a humiliating experience. So now, I hope you understand the difference between marriage and taxation. I am not concerned with the halachic decisions the rabbinate makes. I don't think anyone has the right to tell religious people how to interpret their religious laws. Doing so would be also religious coercion. The issue is not the rabinnate, but the state that follows the rabinnate. I will restate my point again. The state should not be in the religion business, trying to impose religious laws on those who do not practice the religion. In previous postings, I posted quotes from the former Israeli minister of religious affairs, Dr. Zerach Varhaftig. I think these quotes reflect the attitude of the religionists in Israel. I have not seen any response from any orthodox Jew to these quotes. Is this silence an agreement with Varhaftig's position? In case it did not get to you I will repost them again. Varhaftig said: "According the religious concept, every Jew is a religious Jew. The fact of him being a Jew makes him religious.... We think that every Jew has a Jewish affinity (zika), however, his negative desires* (itzro) destroy his mind. If a law comes, and restricts his (the Jew) susceptibility to his negative desires, his positive passion (regesh tov) will be awakened. And it will begin with coercion and end with desire (t'chilato b'o'nes v'sofo b'ratzon)." [Ha'aretz, February 1962] ____________________ * not accepting the Jewish law. Let's hypothesize that the Pope makes a similar statement on Christianity. If you replace in the above Jew -> person, religious Jew -> Chrisitian, Varhaftig -> Pope, Hebrew -> Latin, you would get: "According the religious concept, every person is a Christian. The fact of him being a person makes him a Christian.... We think that every person has a Christian affinity (zika), however, his negative desires* (itzro) destroy his mind. If a law comes, and restricts his (the person's) susceptibility to his negative desires, his positive passion (regesh tov) will be awakened. And it will begin with coercion and end with desire (t'chilato b'o'nes v'sofo b'ratzon)." ________________ * Not accepting Christ as your personal savior How would you feel about such statement? There is a Hebrew saying (which the religionists seem to forget): "Al ta'ase l'chavercha mah sh'sanu aleicha" "Don't do to your friend what you detest" -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (03/12/85)
I received the following correspondence: >On the subject of weddings >in Israel--isn't it true that some people who feel as you did (and what about >that ritual-bath business for women? Surely some women consider it a disgusting >humiliation to be regard as unclean?) go off to some foreign country, usually >Cyprus, but now perhaps Egypt, and get married there? Is there any problem >in getting such a marriage recognized by civil or religious authorities at >home? I'd appreciate a posting on this. Contrary to popular beliefs, a certificate from a ritual-bath 'mikveh' place is not a prerequisite for marriage in Israel. The religionists are trying to convey the impression that if a woman does not go to the mikveh, the rabbi will not perform the marriage ceremony. This is not the case. When my wife was told that she has to bathe in the mikveh, she refused, and dared them not to marry us. My wife did not go to the mikveh, and no questions on mikveh-bathing were asked during the marriage ceremony. The state of Israel recognizes civil marriage certificates issued by other countries. The religious authorities in Israel do not recognize civil marriages. But as long as the state recognizes these marriages then there is nothing to complain. The fact that there is no civil marriage in Israel, can complicate the lives of some Jews in Israel. For example, if a Jewish guy has the name Cohen, Katz, or Rappaport, he cannot marry a divorced women, because the religious law forbids it. In addition, a mamzer, for all practical purposes, cannot get married in Israel. -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/14/85)
> For example, if a Jewish guy has the name Cohen, Katz, or Rappaport, > he cannot marry a divorced women, because the religious law forbids it. The reason for this is not descrimination against people called Cohen or Katz or Rappaport. The idea is that these are usually surnames of Kohanim, priests, who the Torah forbade to marry a divorcee. ( I'm just giving the reason, not getting involved with whether this should be enforced. The article made this statement seem arbitrary ). Eliyahu Teitz.
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (03/17/85)
> > For example, if a Jewish guy has the name Cohen, Katz, or Rappaport, > > he cannot marry a divorced women, because the religious law forbids it. > > The reason for this is not descrimination against people called Cohen > or Katz or Rappaport. The idea is that these are usually surnames of Kohanim, > priests, who the Torah forbade to marry a divorcee. ( I'm just giving the > reason, not getting involved with whether this should be enforced. The > article made this statement seem arbitrary ). > > Eliyahu Teitz. I don't think it is very important to "Mr. Cohen", who wishes to marry a divorced woman in Israel, that his ancestors were priests. His only desire is to get married to his sweetheart. Yet, the law in Israel does not allow him to do so. I am not suggesting that the state should force the Orthodox to change the religious laws to permit the marriage of "Mr. Cohen". I am requesting that the state should permit civil marriages and divorces, so people such as "Mr Cohen" could get married in Israel. -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (03/17/85)
In article <1256@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: || The reason for this is not discrimination against people called Cohen || or Katz or Rappaport. The idea is that these are usually surnames of Kohanim, || priests... I'm curious as to the etymology of Katz and Rappaport, and why they indicate a Kohen. (Cohen/Kahn/Cohn etc. is obvious.) Can someone explain? (When I think of it, all the Katzim and Rappaporten I know are Kohanim, so it must be right.) Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (03/20/85)
In article <lsuc.517> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes: > >I'm curious as to the etymology of Katz and Rappaport, and why >they indicate a Kohen. Can someone explain? Katz is an acronym for Kahen Tzadik. I'm not sure exactly what "tzadik" means. It's something like "saint" or "righteous one". Frank Silbermann (University of North Carolina)