wkp@lanl.ARPA (02/28/85)
[ARI GROSS:] >There is little in the way of Jewish scholarship >among Ethiopian Jews (very few can read Hebrew). In the absence of >Jewish scholars or those who knew halacha, can we assume that their >marriages, divorces, etc, had religious validity to them? This is >a serious problem for all Jews in Israel who want to make sure that >there are uniform standards for ascertaining who is a Jew and who is >not; to make a dichotomy between Zionist and anti-Zionist is really >rather absurd. Ari, you miss the point. [And by the way, calling my statements about the Ultra-Orthodox "anti-semitic" is an obscene thing to do, but I will follow Baruch's suggestions and think about Ahavat Yisrael and Derech Eretz before I get angry.] My thesis is that THE ULTRA-ORTHODOX AUTHORITIES ARE BEING RACIST IN THEIR VIEW OF THE ETHIOPIANS. Note I said "ultra-orthodox" since all kipa siruga Jews (knitted kipa) and many other pro-Zionist orthodox elements in Israel VIEW THE ETHIOPIANS AS JEWS. I base my judgements on two simple examples: 1. There are many Jewish men in this world who have not had a valid Brit Milah. When my son Yonatan was born, I had an orthodox mohel flown in from Denver to perform the rites. From my experience in living in Chicago, California, and New Mexico, most other Jews still have circumcisions done by gentile doctors in hospitals, i.e., non-kosher. To be consistent, I would assume that these same authorities (who surely know of this problem) would call for an "insurance Brit Milah" for all Jewish Americans. Why haven't they done so, Mr. Gross? And why do they pick on the Ethiopians? 2. Why haven't these same authorities begun an anti-Mamzer campaign? Since most Jews today are born of parents not observing Taharat haMashpichah, they are technically mamzerim. Still and all, orthodox rabbis marry these people to other Jewish people, even though such marriages are illegal. To be consistent, all orthodox rabbis should check on the mikveh attendance of the parents of the engaged couple. If this is impossible, they should perform a token giyyur on ALL JEWS wishing to get married. This is what needs to be done for me to agree that the Ethiopians are not being specifically singled out for special discrimination. Until such time, I will refuse to judge other Jews by their lack of religiousness or Jewish education, something that Messrs. Gross and Samet have shown themselves unwilling to do. -- bill peter cmcl2!lanl!wkp
klahr@csd2.UUCP (02/28/85)
:a
Bill Peter's charge of "Ultra-Orthodox" racism vis a vi the Ethiopian Jews
is instructive in illustrating the Halachic, not racist, nature of the
current dispute between Orthodox religious authorities. As proof of the
"racist motivations of the Ultra-Orthodox", Mr. Peters cites:
1. If the Orthodox leaders are worried about Mamzerim, why don't
they require secularly circumcised Jews to be ritually circumcised before
marriage?
2.If the Orthodox leaders are worried about Mamzerim, why don't they
make sure that a prospective bbride/groom's parents practiced Taharas Mishpacha?
I'm sorry Mr. Peters, but you're mixing apples and oranges!(or as we
say in Hebrew, Mah inyan Shmitta aytzel Har Seenai!) While the laws of Family
Purity(Taharas Mishpacha) and the religious circumcision procedure are both
Halachic imperatives, NEITHER ONE'S ABSENCE MAKES AN INDIVIDUAL A MAMZER! THEREIS NO HALACHIC DISAGREEMENT ON THIS,EITHER!
On the other hand, if a Jewish community has not been practicing a
Halachically legitimate form of divorce, the child of a divorcee and her new
husband would be Halachically considered a Mamzer. As far as the Ethiopian
Jewish community is concerned, there are many factual and Halachic issues
which must be ascertained- social and religious practices of the community,
Halachic status of any single individual when doubts are raised about unknown
lineages in the community as a whole, and many other questions. I don't mean
to take sides on the issue, but I do think that a reasonable person should
agree that raising the question of Mamzairus is legitimate, rather than a
convenient issue to be used to slam those stereotypical "wild-eyed
Ultra-Orthodox fanatics".
Wishing a Good Shabbos to Bill Peters and everyone else,
Pinchus Klahr Arpanet klahr@nyu-csd2
.
wq
d
:wqschechte@csd2.UUCP (asher schechter) (03/01/85)
The topic has been overdiscussed but I can't let two halachic mistakes
go by unnoticed.
1. A mila performed by a non jew is not treif (although it must be
done properly of course).
2. A child born from a woman who does not adhere to taharat hamishpacha
is not a mamzer.
Asher Schechterwkp@lanl.ARPA (03/01/85)
th also agree to this principle.
(I believe that their view was that such a Jew was therefore not part
of the covenant, and HAD TO UNDERGO A RITUAL BRIT MILAH (the shedding
of blood from the foreskin, etc.). Since the Lubavitchers are part of
the Theocratic Politicos calling for a ritual immersion for the
Ethiopians, my charge of hypocrisy still stands.
2. Again, it was my understanding that a Jew born of a Jewess not
following Taharat Mishpachah was a mamzer. Can someone give me
sources for this? I remember reading it in a yeshiva class; also
Martillo mentioned it once on the net. (My talmud is in Jerusalem).
Thanks in advance to anybody who can help.
---
bill peter {ihnp4,seismo}!cmcl2!lanl!wkp
"Ben Azzai said, 'Do not be scornful of any person and do not be
disdainful of anything, for there is no person without his hour
and no thing without its place.'"
---martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (03/03/85)
Questions of tohorat hamishpahah notwithstanding, there is a serious double standard in checking into the background of Ethiopians and Indians when Reform has already existed among Ashkenazim for almost two hundred years which means many for many generations of Ashkenazim there is already a question whether divorces have been halakically proper especially when in comparison to Ethiopians and Indians Ashkenazi sexual morality is particulary low. Divorce is practically unknown among Ethiopians and Indians but has been quite common among Ashkenazim for the past couple of centuries. Already in the nineteenth century Sefardi hakamim were forbidding Sefardim from marrying Ashkenazim for precisely these reasons. While there is no question about halakic problems in the case of Ethiopians, Ashkenazim should not be adjudicating these problems unless they are willing to apply the same standard to themselves. My mother's family tends to consider Ashkenazim presumptive mamzerim. This is not so unreasonable. Consider all those religious German Jews who grew up in Washington Heights. Many had their origin in Frankfurt. Before Hirsch came to Frankfurt there was no Jewish practice whatsoever. During that timeperiod I consider it very likely that there were several improper divorces followed by new marriages. I also tend to consider the authority of Ashkenazi rabbis under a shadow because 99% of Ashkenazim would not know a Jewish idea if it ran up and bit them. Basically, the Sefardi rabbinate should be adjudicating the Jewish status of Ethoipians, Indians and Ashkenazim.
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (03/05/85)
> Questions of tohorat hamishpahah notwithstanding, there is a serious > double standard in checking into the background of Ethiopians and > Indians when Reform has already existed among Ashkenazim for .......... I am an eyewitness to the fact that the Israeli rabbinate does, in fact, check into Ashkenazi backgrounds, even of orthodox Jews. Also, anyone familiar with rabbinic responsa knows that these type of shaylas occur constantly in the Ashkenazi literature, and the problem is a major concern. Finally, the Sepahardi poskim are in agreement with the Ashkenazi ones on these issues. The double standard is imagined. Yitzchok Samet
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (03/05/85)
At the risk of copyright violation I am going to quote an article pertinent to the topic being discussed appearing in the March 1, 1985 issue of The New York Jewish Week from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency: --------------------------------------------------------------------- RABBIS OVERTURN CONVERSION RULE TEL AVIV (JTA)-- The chief rabbinate has overturned a ruling by former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel Ovadia Yosef recognizing Ethiopian Jews as such without their having to undergo symbolic conversion by immersion in a mikveh. Israel incumbent Sephardic chief rabbi, Mordechai Eliahu, was abroad when the chief rabbinate upheld its previous insistence that symbolic conversion was mandatory for the thousands of Ethiopian Jews who have immigrated to Israel. An earlier demand that a drop of blood be drawn from each Ethio- pian male to symbolize circumcision was withdrawn. The devoutly observant Ethiopian emigres reacted angrily to both demands, which they considered degrading, insulting, and a sign of doubt as to their authenticity as Jews. The Sephardic rabbinate has been more lenient to the Ethiopians than the Ashkenazic rabbis. Yosef told a conference of Ethiopians: "If the Ashenazim rejected them, the Sephardim would take them into their midst." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Questions of tohorat hamishpahah notwithstanding, there is a serious > double standard in checking into the background of Ethiopians and > Indians when Reform has already existed among Ashkenazim for almost two > hundred years which means many for many generations of Ashkenazim there > is already a question whether divorces have been halakically proper > especially when in comparison to Ethiopians and Indians Ashkenazi sexual > morality is particulary low. Divorce is practically unknown among > Ethiopians and Indians but has been quite common among Ashkenazim for > the past couple of centuries. Already in the nineteenth century Sefardi > hakamim were forbidding Sefardim from marrying Ashkenazim for precisely > these reasons. While there is no question about halakic problems in the > case of Ethiopians, Ashkenazim should not be adjudicating these problems > unless they are willing to apply the same standard to themselves. My > mother's family tends to consider Ashkenazim presumptive mamzerim. This > is not so unreasonable. Consider all those religious German Jews who > grew up in Washington Heights. Many had their origin in Frankfurt. > Before Hirsch came to Frankfurt there was no Jewish practice whatsoever. > During that timeperiod I consider it very likely that there were several > improper divorces followed by new marriages. > > I also tend to consider the authority of Ashkenazi rabbis under a shadow > because 99% of Ashkenazim would not know a Jewish idea if it ran up and > bit them. > > Basically, the Sefardi rabbinate should be adjudicating the Jewish > status of Ethoipians, Indians and Ashkenazim. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/12/85)
> 2. Why haven't these same authorities begun an anti-Mamzer campaign? > Since most Jews today are born of parents not observing Taharat > haMashpichah, they are technically mamzerim. Still and all, orthodox > rabbis marry these people to other Jewish people, even though such > marriages are illegal. To be consistent, all orthodox rabbis should > check on the mikveh attendance of the parents of the engaged couple. > If this is impossible, they should perform a token giyyur on ALL JEWS > wishing to get married. Is there a source for this. As far as I remember, there is no prejudice attached to a person born from a couple not abiding by the laws of family purity. The child is in no way a mamzer, nor does he ( she ) have any disqualification of any sort ( there my be mystical differences, but no halachik differences ). Eliyahu Teitz.