fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (02/07/85)
In article <eisx.861> sms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal) writes: > > It seems to me that conversion should be done in such a way that the > *results* will satisfy the most people. A Reform Jew will accept an > Orthodox conversion but not the other way around. In order for everyone > to accept each other, the strictest must be observed. Although I truly > believe that religion is a purely personal matter (I detest proselytizing > by anyone), the issue of the act of conversion is a *public* matter. If I > as a Jew wish to marry only another *Jew* I must have no doubts about > the fact that the prospective spouse is, in fact, Jewish.... > ...If, however, the conversion would have been according to the strict > procedure (ie according to Halachah) this whole issue would have been > avoided. > This seems reasonable on paper, but it may contain a catch-22: Suppose I were a gentile who wished to become a Reform Jew. I ask my rabbi to perform a Halachic conversion. Can he do this? Or is a conversion performed by a Reform rabbi un-Halachic by definition? If all conversions performed by Reform rabbis were suspect, then suppose that I sought an Orthodox rabbi. Would any sane Orthodox rabbi perform a conversion for a gentile wishing to become a Reform Jew? Would it be any different for a gentile wishing to become a Conservative Jew? My impression is that only Orthodox conversions are universally accepted, and that to have an Orthodox conversion, I would have to demonstrate sincere desire to live my life as an Orthodox Jew. If this is correct, then your suggestion has little practical value. Frank Silbermann University of North Carolina
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (02/08/85)
> Suppose I were a gentile who wished to become a Reform Jew. > I ask my rabbi to perform a Halachic conversion. Can he do this? If s/he wants to s/he can, s/he's a Rabbi isn't s/he? > Or is a conversion performed by a Reform rabbi un-Halachic by definition? According to Orthodox standards, yes. > If all conversions performed by Reform rabbis were suspect, then suppose > that I sought an Orthodox rabbi. Would any sane Orthodox rabbi perform > a conversion for a gentile wishing to become a Reform Jew? No Orthodox Rabbi would perform a conversion knowing that the intent is to be reform. As a side note, an Orthodox Rabbi would ask the person who wants to convert, "Why?" and then try to persuade the person *not* to convert ( at least three times! ). > My impression is that only Orthodox conversions are universally accepted, > and that to have an Orthodox conversion, I would have to demonstrate > sincere desire to live my life as an Orthodox Jew. If this is correct, > then your suggestion has little practical value. > Frank Silbermann Your impression is correct, but halachic conversions do have some practical value. I hope that this can be seen. If someone says they are Jewish, why should I have to wonder if somewhere in their family a conversion was done not according to the Law? Reform conversions are invalid as far as I am concerned.
sher@rochester.UUCP (David Sher) (02/11/85)
In article <286@mhuxi.UUCP> dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) writes: >value. I hope that this can be seen. If someone says they are Jewish, >why should I have to wonder if somewhere in their family a conversion was done >not according to the Law? Reform conversions are invalid as far as I am >concerned. I don't understand this concern with whether someone's ancestors were converted according to form. I am not particularly observant but assuming that you met a woman who was a practising orthodox Jew (I assume that you would not date any other kind), and you find out that her grandfather had an illicit or problemical conversion. Since she is a practising Jew then she has already taken on the burden of Judaism. Isn't there a halachic fix for this kind of situation. In the very least one could perform a trivial conversion ceremony. But I am getting out of my depth. It still doesn't sound like a disaster. The technical status of your ancestors should not determine whether you are an orthodox Jew. Sorry for this rather incoherent article. -David Sher
schechte@csd2.UUCP (asher schechter) (02/12/85)
The 7 Noachide laws correspond to over a hundred of our mitzvoth.
If a conservative rabbi is shomer tora and mitzvoth then he is
orthodox by definition. Otherwise we can't accept his converts.
Thus the issue is halachic not political.
Asher Schechterdsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (02/13/85)
[] > I am not particularly observant but assuming > that you met a woman who was a practising orthodox Jew (I assume that you > would not date any other kind) Please don't make assumptions about the girls I date. > Sorry for this > rather incoherent article. > -David Sher Don't be sorry, just be more coherent next time and remember whenever you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (02/13/85)
> I don't understand this concern with whether someone's ancestors were > converted according to form. I am not particularly observant but assuming > that you met a woman who was a practising orthodox Jew (I assume that you > would not date any other kind), and you find out that her grandfather had > an illicit or problemical conversion. Since she is a practising Jew then > she has already taken on the burden of Judaism. Isn't there a halachic > fix for this kind of situation. In the very least one could perform a > trivial conversion ceremony. But I am getting out of my depth. It still > doesn't sound like a disaster. The technical status of your ancestors > should not determine whether you are an orthodox Jew. Sorry for this > rather incoherent article. The idea of a trivial conversion ceremony is exactly what the Rabbinate in Israel want the Ethiopians to do, and you see how many problems that caused. As for the technical status of one's ancestors determining whether one is Orthodox is concerned, the problem is not whether one is orthodox, but rather whether one is Jewish or not. If there was a problem with the conversion, the nice orthodox girl I am dating might not even be Jewish. Many years ago ( 200 or so ) there was a form of Jewish identification, called a yichus briev ( loosely translated, family tree, literally a letter of origins ) which people had to show t prove that they indeed came from a Jewish family. They had to show proof of Jewish lineage before they would be accepted into a family as a spouse. We've done away with this but if people try to change the definition of who is a Jew ( as the reform are trying ) then a reinstitu- tion of this family tree might be necessary. Eliyahu Teitz. p.s. I do not advocate using the yichus briev, but the reality of insuring what one would consider a Jewish spouse might neccessitate it.
kenw@lcuxc.UUCP (K Wolman) (02/15/85)
"...the issue is halakhic not political."
Since when are the two mutually exclusive?
--
Ken Wolman
Bell Communications Research @ Livingston, NJ
lcuxc!kenw
(201) 740-4565
". . . Toto, I don't think we're in the Bronx anymore. . . ."ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (02/15/85)
> The 7 Noachide laws correspond to over a hundred of our mitzvoth. > > If a conservative rabbi is shomer tora and mitzvoth then he is > orthodox by definition. Otherwise we can't accept his converts. > Thus the issue is halachic not political. > > Asher Schechter I think that IN ADDITION to being shomer torah and mitzvot, the rabbi must also follow rabbinical law. After all, the Falashas seem to meet the shomer tora and mitzvot requirement, but not the rabbinical interpretations and codes which have evolved over the centuries. From what I've read, the orthodox rabbis in Israel are saying that's not good enough. Now, what happens when two rabbis disagree over the correct interpretation of halacha in a specific situation? Well, they can each rule their own way, and let the chips fall where they may. Or, if the issue is very likely to cause problems for someone later on, such as a dispute involving correct halacha interpretation for someone to be converted, they may have the good sense to refer the matter to other rabbis. Even so, there must be a degree of trust among rabbis, or there could be much fighting. In Columbus, Ohio there is a working arrangement among the orthodox and conservative rabbis (though not the reform) where the Central Ohio Bet Din consists of both Conservative and Orthodox rabbis. While a conversion may be supervised by a conservative rabbi, the bet din has, to date, accepted the conversions. On the subject of doing things according to halacha, I feel that the major separation between orthodox and conservative Jews is NOT whether they think things are done according to halacha or not, but whether any authorities exist today - and if so, who they are -- to issue rulings al pi halacha which actually change the way we behave. Conservative Judiasm, and I am a Conservative Jew, has certainly issued rulings which make permissible (rather than require) changes in how a Conservative Jew may behave -- drive to shul on Shabbat, women in the minyan, women as bal torah and as rabbis, BUT in all cases have issued responsa justifying these decisions al pi halacha. It turns out that many conservative rabbis, and virtually all orthodox rabbis do not agree that these are al pi halacha. Some do not agree that in our age we are even permitted to consider an issue such as I've listed, but the major difference I see between orthodox and conservative is that conservative believes that it is permitted to consider any issue, and so as long as the resolution is al pi halacha, responsa may be issued to allow changes in how we behave. I am not trying to offend any orthodox Jews or anyone else for that matter. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (02/15/85)
> The 7 Noachide laws correspond to over a hundred of our mitzvoth. > > If a conservative rabbi is shomer tora and mitzvoth then he is > orthodox by definition. Otherwise we can't accept his converts. No, he is not Orthodox. Orthodoxy is an organized movement and it is the hypothetical "conservative rabbi"'s decision whether or not to associate with it. > Thus the issue is halachic not political. No, the issue is political and the fact that it has "halachic" aspects is irrelevant because the parties do not agree on what constitutes "halacha." It is most certainly political because policies which affect most directly the lives of other people through government (Who is a Jew legal issues) enforcement are the very heart of the issue. > > Asher Schechter Remember that I am not arguing that Orthodox Judaism is not the best way of life. I am also not arguing that Orthodox Jews should be restricted from certain activities which do not infringe on the rights of others. What I am arguing is that Orthodox Jews should not be permitted to impose their beliefs upon other people. I honestly don't believe that a single one of the contributors to the net (from the right-wing) would really disagree with me. I suspect that they are caught up in a problem which they feel forces them to publicly take a view which is distasteful even to themselves (Samet, Teitz, Meth, Saal, etc.) That view is that they should coerce others against their will with the help of government. These participants in the discussion do not wish to admit that the intolerance towards others has gone too far or that "halacha" as they perceive it has been incorrect. as ever, a Good Shabbos to all, --J. Abeles
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (02/15/85)
In article <csd2.3780010> schechte@csd2.UUCP (asher schechter) writes: >The 7 Noachide laws correspond to over a hundred of our mitzvoth. > >If a conservative rabbi is shomer tora and mitzvoth then he is >orthodox by definition. Otherwise we can't accept his converts. >Thus the issue is halachic not political. > > Asher Schechter I believe you are implying that Reform and Conservative Rabbis are really not Jewish rabbis. I understand the reasoning. If you believe that the Talmudic tradition is essential to Judaism, then a religion that rejects this tradition (in whole or in part) is not really Judaism. This brings up a related point. A Jew who converts to Christianity is no longer considered to be a member of the Jewish people. In Israel, the Law of Return does not apply to such a person (N.B. this does not mean that a Christian is forbidden to become an Israeli citizen, only that he may not demand citizenship as his right). Since Reform and Conservative congregations are viewed as practicing a non-Jewish religion, then perhaps Reform and Conservative Jews should be denied this right as well. A Jew should be "excommunicated" upon joining such a congregation. This will clear up the controversy of "who is a Jew" by attacking the problem at its source. Being a non-Halachic semi-Conservative "Jew" myself, I do not favor such an approach. I merely state that this is the logical consequence to Orthodox attitudes on the conversion question. Frank Silbermann University of North Carolina UNLESS WE CHANGE DIRECTION, WE WILL END UP WHERE WE ARE HEADED.
hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (02/16/85)
The question of yichus brief, orfamily trees having been brought up, I would like to contribute the following. During the german occupation certain rules were declared to determine whether someone was Jewish. Being Jewish made one eligible for preferential treatment such as trips to Auschwitz or other lesser pleasures. Since many Jews were not that keen on travel they researched their family tree, since if you could show you had non-jewish ancestors, an exemption could be claimed. Of course, proof had to be furnished, which was a great deal more difficult than finding ancestorswho were apparently not Jewish. Incidentally, being married to anon-Jew was also helpful. Another remark I would like to make on the topic of Jewish ancestry is: How does one account for the great variety of ethnic characteristics that are exhibited among Jews. Eastern european Jews tend to look Polish or Russian, Roumanian Jews look Roumanian, Spanish Jews look Spanish, Moroccan, Indian etc. etc. Since according to the record very little proselytizing or conversion was done, is this all the result of rapes of Jewish women? It seems clear to me that our claims to being Jewish cannot be supported by the idea that we have no ancestors whose Jewishness is beyond question by some of the previous contributors to this discussion. Herman Silbiger
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (02/19/85)
> This brings up a related point. A Jew who converts to Christianity > is no longer considered to be a member of the Jewish people. > In Israel, the Law of Return does not apply to such a person : > Frank Silbermann > University of North Carolina The Law of Return is a law of the Stste of Israel, and not a religious law. The courts which decided that the Law of Return does not apply to a Jew who has converted to Christianity were not religious courts but Israeli courts. That's really a big difference. A Jew who converts to Chrisianity is considered to be an apostate Jew, and as such, is denied most rights and rites of Judiasm. Should this Jew repent and do t'shuva, he may be restored these rights (and rites.) But Judiasm, like many other religions, has no provisions for someone to no longer be a member of that religion. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
schwadro@aecom.UUCP (David Schwadron) (02/19/85)
> Since Reform and Conservative congregations are viewed as practicing > a non-Jewish religion, then perhaps Reform and Conservative Jews > should be denied this right as well. A Jew should be "excommunicated" > upon joining such a congregation. This will clear up the controversy > of "who is a Jew" by attacking the problem at its source. > > University of North Carolina The law of return does *not* apply to non-jews because they do not practice the Jewish religion, but rather because they aren't members of the Jewish race. Denying their Jewishness as a religion does not say that they aren't decendents of Jacob. I must say though it is nice to see someone who communicates instead of argues. It's a pleasant change. michab berger @ aecom
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (02/22/85)
>> Since Reform and Conservative congregations are viewed as practicing >> a non-Jewish religion, then perhaps Reform and Conservative Jews >> should be denied this right as well. A Jew should be "excommunicated" >> upon joining such a congregation. This will clear up the controversy >> of "who is a Jew" by attacking the problem at its source. >> >> University of North Carolina > > The law of return does *not* apply to non-jews because they do >not practice the Jewish religion, but rather because they aren't members >of the Jewish race. Denying their Jewishness as a religion does not say >that they aren't decendents of Jacob. > > I must say though it is nice to see someone who communicates >instead of argues. It's a pleasant change. > michab > berger @ aecom > > > The technical reason under halakah why a Jew who converts to Christianity would be excluded from the law of return while a Jew who is practicing Reform Judaism would not be excluded is that as the Rishon leZion Yitshaq Nissim stated, "Reform is not a religion." Therefor we have a difference between a Jew who is committing a treasonous act under Jewish law and who is probably liable to execution and a Jew who is merely committing a criminal act under Jewish law. Of course, the non-Religious Jews who passed the law and who administer it do not worry about such things. Their position is intellectually inconsistent. Yehoyaqim Martillo
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (02/23/85)
> The law of return does *not* apply to non-jews because they do > not practice the Jewish religion, but rather because they aren't members > of the Jewish race. Denying their Jewishness as a religion does not say > that they aren't decendents of Jacob. > > I must say though it is nice to see someone who communicates > instead of argues. It's a pleasant change. > michab > berger @ aecom The Law of Return applies whatever it applies because that's how the politicians and judges in Israel have acted. The Law of Return is not a religious law. It was passed in the Knesset and is a mish-mosh of politics, religion, etc. P.S.: The term "Jewish race" used above had a negative reaction on me when I read it. I'm not trying to censor what you say, but let you know how it makes me feel. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
darin@tmq.UUCP (Darin Adler) (02/26/85)
> > Since Reform and Conservative congregations are viewed as practicing > > a non-Jewish religion, then perhaps Reform and Conservative Jews > > should be denied this right as well. A Jew should be "excommunicated" > > upon joining such a congregation. This will clear up the controversy > > of "who is a Jew" by attacking the problem at its source. > > > > University of North Carolina > > The law of return does *not* apply to non-jews because they do > not practice the Jewish religion, but rather because they aren't members > of the Jewish race. Denying their Jewishness as a religion does not say > that they aren't decendents of Jacob. > > I must say though it is nice to see someone who communicates > instead of argues. It's a pleasant change. > michab > berger @ aecom I hope you do not interpret this as argument, but are you sure that this law refers to a Jewish race? I know a number of people who have converted to Judaism (by Conservative, not Orthodox, standards) who would be upset to hear this interpretation. What exactly does the Law of Return state? I, for one, hope that there is no mention or implication that ancestry is the important thing. Darin Adler ...!tmq!darin