abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (02/01/85)
Long discussion of Law of Return, Who is a Jew, with quote at end: A. Schecter defends the ultra-Orthodox position on requiring Ethiopian Jews to convert before being allowed to integrate into Israeli society. This is the same position, essentially, which says that no non-Jew can benefit from the "Law of Return" unless the person is converted by an Orthodox authority (read: rabbi). This is tyranny. Israel was not founded by Orthodox Jews for Orthodox Jews. Orthodox Jews are only one kind of Jew. Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, unaffiliated, nonreligious, etc., are other kinds of Jews. All are Jews and all have the same rights to speak up for the Jewish point of view. All their voices are equally valid. The only thing that gives a person or a group of people a more important voice is the fundamentally democratic process of leadership by consent. (Israel was founded by secular Zionists who were left to do the job because virtually all Orthodox groups opposed the creation of the Israeli state. It was populated primarily by refugees from Hitler who were not interested in a religious state as now being pressed by the Orthodox. Later many Sephardim were brought to Israel, too.) Not unless Israelis develop a wide consensus that the Orthodox conversion process is the best should it be the only one permitted. Can it be stated any more clearly than that? I for one would oppose the ultra-Orthodox position in question vigorously because it gives too much power to the Orthodox authorities. Religion should not be enforced by the State. Those who claim self-righteously that their way is the only way according to Halacha should quit enforcing their beliefs on others. If Judaism is truth, then Jews will be attracted to it by natural laws from HaShem. Education is one thing, but using the power of the State to enforce one's beliefs is anathema to me. And remember, Judaism consists of beliefs. If it were factual it would be, essentially, scientific, and we could uncover Halacha without need to resort to the arcane texts, viz., Tanach and Talmud, etc. Orthodox Judaism falsely but aggressively asserts itself to be the only legitimate heir to mainstream Judaiem which produced the traditions (including Halacha) which are handed down in the various "sources." I know a lot of Orthodox people who, unlike myself, are quite concerned about having people who consider themselves to be Jewish but who were not converted "al pi Halacha (according to Jewish Law)" getting married to Orthodox Jews as a result, possibly, of not knowing that a conversion was done incorrectly. Let me assist you in resolving this problem, which many Orthodox Jews feel could pose a danger to the entire Jewish people. Let's examine the reality. When an Orthodox person marries, he or she doesn't just take a mate by randomly selecting from among those who claim to be Jewish. The person discriminates (this kind of discrimination is perfectly alright) based on many characteristics by which people are distinguished. In reality, aside from attractiveness, character, intelli- gence, education, etc., religious background and family history (what Ashkenazim called "yichus") are quite important. If the person is a renegade, they may not pay attention to those important characteristics but by the same token may not marry someone who is Jewish at all. So realistically nobody is going around just marrying someone who says that he or she is Jewish if they are serious about being Orthodox. In the present generation the majority of Orthodox are descended from families who came out of Europe within the last three generations (counting the present one), at least among Ashkenazim. Among Sephardim, the culture is even more strict, typically, about who is and who is not suitable for marriage (note the Syrian community or Martillo's use of the phrase "Sephardim Tahor"--pure Sephardim). Among Ashkenazim, people assume that everyone from Europe pretty much is actually really Jewish. How do we know that this is true, and that they were either descended from Jacob (a. k. a. Israel?) or converted according to Halacha? We just have to accept it the way it is, because nobody really knows for sure who his ancestors were. We are told such and such, and some people can trace part of their ancestry to a documented rabbinical line, but there is still the faith that the documentation was not contrived or falsified. There is no way to reach into the dark past and hold a trial to verify that anyone is really Jewish according to the requirements. The key point is that we believe we as a people are really Jewish because we believe in G-d and we believe in G-d for strictly personal reasons! One point of the last paragraph is that at the present time it is easy to tell whether a person is really Jewish if you define anyone coming from a shtetl in Poland, etc., as being really Jewish. But this will not continue forever. In the world today there is lots of assimilation resulting in intermarriage, and regardless of whether or not an Orthodox person believes that conversion according to Halacha is mandatory, there will be people running around within four generations who will not be Jewish according to that position but who will honestly believe themselves to be Jewish and who will present themselves as being Jewish. The kind of law Orthodox want cannot prevent this. No law can prevent this. The only thing we can rely upon is the help of G-d to keep us together as the Jewish people. G-d helps those who help themselves, but when there is no way to help yourself then you must rely upon G-d. This is one of those cases. G-d *must* help us in these matters if the Jewish people are to survive. Isn't one of the best "articles of faith" that people turn to when searching for a reason to believe in Judaism the fact that the Jewish people have survived the exile for two thousand years? Could we have done this without the help of G-d? Then we must rely upon HaShem for something like this as well. However, with regard to what the individual can do, aside from general t'shuva, any serious Orthodox person must investigate the family of the person they are considering marrying. This is essentially, as I remarked above, no different from the way it is in reality anyway! And furthermore, divisiveness such as is spawned by such a move on the part of the Orthodox as the attempt to enact the amendment to the "Law of Return" is exactly what caused, according to tradition, the exile and destruction of the Second Temple. I believe that I have shown above that amending the "Law of Return" is not necessary because it cannot be effective at helping a problem which requires divine intervention to prevent. That is, it won't help, it is divisive, and we must rely on HaShem for this because there is no man-made remedy for what ails us in this case. The divisiveness is really caused by arrogance on the part of the Orthodox leaders. As a close friend has pointed out, the issue is not, "Who is a Jew?" but, rather, "Who is a Rabbi?" The issue is not whether converts are accepted as Jews by the Orthodox, but whether Conservative and Reform rabbis are accepted as rabbis by the Orthodox rabbis. The reason is simple: because the authority to convert is, according to the way the Orthodox want it, taken away from any rabbis who are Conservative or Reform. Thus, (as Rabbi Yitzchak Greenberg said, and I summarized to the net many months ago) it is a power struggle between the Orthodox and Conservative (as well as Reform) authorities. It is arrogance! A Good Shabbos to all, --J. Abeles From Asher Schechter, responding to a remark of Bill Peter: > The "racist Ultra-Orthodox" people mentioned in Bill's article are > just trying to save the Israeli society from a disaster. If the > Ethiopian Jews don't undergo a "token" giyur then their children > would be considered possible mamzarim by jewish law (like it or not). > It may be "racist" but jews don't marry into a people whose origin > is not known hallachically to be Jewish and pure. To save Israel > we ask the Ethiopian Jews to swallow their pride for a minute and > conform with this technicality. > > The rabbinical interpretation of nidda was given at Sinia and > all Jews knew about it but may have forgotten it. > > Asher Schechter
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (02/05/85)
When issues like Who is a [ Jew,Rabbi,etc] degenerate into lengthy attacks on the "self-righteous, tyrannical, intolerant, bigoted, politically-motivated, closed-minded, etc" people like me who subscribe to the "ultra-orthodox" position, it's generally futile to try to convince attacker that we are not that way. Hopefully, however, the following reflections will help the thinking person gain a more tolerant attitude towards the Torah mentality which so irritates him. American democracy arose in response to persecution. That persecution was largely "in the name of religion" and the constitutional antidote engraved separation of church and State so indelibly in our society that it became "Holy" to many Americans as did "Democracy". To some, religion evokes images of divisiveness, tyranny etc. The deterrent to such abuses is "government of the people ..." rather than by would-be dictators pontificating in the name of Heaven. A little thought will tell us that democracy ain't perfect. A Hitler could come to power via democratic election. Still, democracy seemed preferable to the earlier alternatives... Given this perspective, it becomes easier to understand Orthodox Ultracynicism towards the values they are challenging. First of all, it's unrealistic to expect a Torah non-illiterate to place Democracy at the top of his value system. He starts with a Torah as a frame of reference and deals with the host environment pragmatically. (As an aside, the common misconception that Torah commitment requires blind faith stems from guilt by association with other "religions".) The Torah-based Jew can recognize and be grateful for the benefits of modern democracy while keeping in perspective that it evolved to correct for problems in in the "other" world that produced crusades, pogroms and inquisitions "in the name of Heaven". To keep Heaven out of politics, democracy substituted the voter for G-d as the arbiter of values and the source of legitimate power. If the Jew drifted from Torah values, that universalist orientation was by default, likely to permeate his value system. But if he clinged to the Torah he saw democracy more as the local rules of the game than the Holy of Holies. Within the Jewish family, it's another matter. Why should democracy supercede the Torah and rabbinic authority? Why give up the moral, legislative, and judicial legacy that we sacrificed our lives to perpetuate for millenia? Why be intimidated by name callers who rarely comprehend what they are attacking? If we are to discuss and share in shaping the future of our people, then please, before you attack me for imposing my values on you, examine your own sacred cows, and their roots. If you read up to here, then thanks for your understanding. sincerely, Yitzchok Samet 201-522-6011
sms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal) (02/05/85)
I usually would not think of posting such a long letter, but J. Abeles has said some things which I feel very strongly about. I doubt this will be the last word, but please hear me out. J. Abeles's comments are noted by a ">". > Israel was not founded by Orthodox Jews for Orthodox >Jews. Orthodox Jews are only one kind of Jew. Conservative, Reform, >Reconstructionist, unaffiliated, nonreligious, etc., are other kinds >of Jews. All are Jews and all have the same rights to speak up for >the Jewish point of view. All their voices are equally valid. The only >thing that gives a person or a group of people a more important voice >is the fundamentally democratic process of leadership by consent. That democratic process in 1948 set up the rule that conversion was to be according to Halachah. This does not mean that on a whim *later* groups can change this. To change it in Israel would be approximately equivalent to a Constitutional Convention in the US. When was the last time we had one of those? They are allowed, but there hasn't been one in 190+ years. >(Israel was founded by secular Zionists who were left to do the job You are forgetting about all of the earlier aliyot from the middle of the 18th century and through the early 20th. These people were running away from the pogroms and were generally Shtetl residents who were very religious. Furthermore, there have ALWAYS been Jews in Israel. They lived in Jerusalem and other places and were just about all religious. It was to acknowledge this and to lend legitimacy to the term "The Jewish State" that the religious laws were accepted. >because virtually all Orthodox groups opposed the creation of the >Israeli state. Simply false. You are thinking about the Netureh Karta (sp). There were some Jews who initially felt that way but except for the NT in Israel, (and maybe a few even smaller groups) all religious Jews were for the state. Many felt that the creation of the state was actually the first step in the coming of the Mashiach. There were probably more who felt this way than there were who felt Jews should wait for the Mashiach to initiate the redemption. > It was populated primarily by refugees from Hitler >who were not interested in a religious state as now being pressed >by the Orthodox. Later many Sephardim were brought to Israel, too.) Although a good portion of the Jews who escaped Hitler's Europe were cynical about Judaism, this is a glaring generality that will withstand no close scrutiny. >Not unless Israelis develop a wide consensus that the Orthodox conversion >process is the best should it be the only one permitted. Can it be >stated any more clearly than that? 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. Imagine the following scenario that a democratically accepted, less stict, conversion could cause: The offspring (m/f) of a female convert (converted according to Reform standards) not realizing that the conversion is not 100% accepted, begins practicing a more religious form of Judaism than his/her parents. This puts the person in a group of peers who are also more religious. The person later meets and wants to marry a Jew who follows the more religious "system" This first person is not Jewish by the second's standards and the prospective spouse is now the source of great agitation in the family. Shalom Bayit is *gone*. If, however, the conversion would have been according to the strict procedure (ie according to Halachah) this whole issue would have been avoided. Convenience for one person may have an extreme effect on the people you would least want to hurt: your children. >I for one would oppose the ultra-Orthodox position in question vigorously >because it gives too much power to the Orthodox authorities. Religion >should not be enforced by the State. Now wait a minute. This is fine for the US but not for Israel. Israel is the *JEWISH* State. Therefore, it should have laws in accordance with the JEWISH rules. I doubt you would expect the Vatican to follow a purely secular set of laws. (I believe that the Vatican is subject to most, if not all, of Italy's laws and then some but don't flame me if I'm wrong about this) I believe it is a major concession to the "West" that a person in Israel can fight out a court battle in either a "religious" or a "secular" court. He must abide by whichever decision is arrived at in the place he chooses first. Go to a trial of a thief in Iran and see if he can get 30 days. He'll get his hand cut off (the punishment proscribed in the Koran - the religious law). > Those who claim self-righteously >that their way is the only way according to Halachah should quit enforcing >their beliefs on others. If Judaism is truth, then Jews will be attracted >to it by natural laws from HaShem. Education is one thing, but using >the power of the State to enforce one's beliefs is anathema to me. I doubt you will find many Reform Jews who will insist that a reform conversion was done according to Halachah (even if they do know the meaning of the word "Halachah" :-) :-) ....) As far as enforcing the law, Currently I believe that the Halachic conversion is the law of the land. If the government is not the one to enforce that, who is? By the way, I am not too thrilled by your debate technique of throwing out a term which is not commonly known and assuming everyone w/should know it. I am referring to the term "natural laws from HaShem". What is a "natural law"? Do you mean the laws which have existed for the longest amount of time? This would have to mean laws in the Torah (An impossible interpretation since the Reform conversion specifically goes against those laws) Could you be referring to the laws of Nature? (such as "the sun rises in the east"... Also doubtful since those types of laws have little bearing on this discussion). Maybe a natural law is one which *everyone* in the world adheres to. I can't think of any off hand, but maybe you know of some. >And remember, Judaism consists of beliefs. If it were factual it would >be, essentially, scientific, and we could uncover Halachah without need >to resort to the arcane texts, viz., Tanach and Talmud, etc. Judaism is far more than beliefs. It is a culture, a religion and a way of life. Those "arcane" texts you speak of are also a very important way of explaining how we should do the things outside of the belief part of Judaism. Furthermore, I know of very few texts as old as the Talmud which cogently (albeit somewhat allegorically) discuss things like transplant, abortion, technology, etc in *more* than a purely philosophical vein. >Orthodox Judaism falsely but aggressively asserts itself to be the >only legitimate heir to mainstream Judaiem which produced >the traditions (including Halacha) which are handed down in the various >"sources." It may not be the legitimate heir to mainstream Judaism, but it predates Conservative and, yes, even Reform Judaism by *many* years. The only type of Judaism existent today which is older is assimilated Judaism. That form leads to a dead end and should not form the basis for mainstream practice/belief. >I know a lot of Orthodox people who, unlike myself, are quite concerned >about having people who consider themselves to be Jewish but who were >not converted "al pi Halacha (according to Jewish Law)" getting married >to Orthodox Jews as a result, possibly, of not knowing that a conversion >was done incorrectly. Let me assist you in resolving this problem, >which many Orthodox Jews feel could pose a danger to the entire Jewish >people. >Let's examine the reality. When an Orthodox person marries, he or she >doesn't just take a mate by randomly selecting from among those who >claim to be Jewish. The person discriminates (this kind of discrimination >is perfectly alright) based on many characteristics by which people are >distinguished. In reality, aside from attractiveness, character, intelli- >gence, education, etc., religious background and family history (what >Ashkenazim called "yichus") are quite important. If the person is a >renegade, they may not pay attention to those important characteristics >but by the same token may not marry someone who is Jewish at all. So >realistically nobody is going around just marrying someone who says that >he or she is Jewish if they are serious about being Orthodox. I am a single Jewish male and I know that my primary checklist of requirements for a person to date is as short as I can allow. This list starts off with "must be female", has an age range and also says "must be Jewish". I expect to find out the rest with time. I realize that this opens me up to the possibility of getting "stuck" with some undesirable characteristics; if I "fall in love" with a person, I may not want to make sure they fit my secondary list of criteria. Furthermore, the above does not address the problem of the second generation. What happens in the scenario noted above is still a problem. I can hear you saying: "Oh, come on! that is such an uncommon problem!" Fortunately, it is uncommon. For now. As more people "convert" by the less stringent rules, you must expect incidences like this to occur more and more frequently. >In the present generation the majority of Orthodox are descended from >families who came out of Europe within the last three generations (counting >the present one), at least among Ashkenazim. Among Sephardim, the culture >is even more strict, typically, about who is and who is not suitable for >marriage (note the Syrian community or Martillo's use of the phrase >"Sephardim Tahor"--pure Sephardim). Among Ashkenazim, people assume >that everyone from Europe pretty much is actually really Jewish. How >do we know that this is true, and that they were either descended from >Jacob (a. k. a. Israel?) or converted according to Halacha? We just have >to accept it the way it is, because nobody really knows for sure who >his ancestors were. We are told such and such, and some people can >trace part of their ancestry to a documented rabbinical line, but there >is still the faith that the documentation was not contrived or falsified. >There is no way to reach into the dark past and hold a trial to verify that >anyone is really Jewish according to the requirements. An excellent argument and an important problem. One that was already addressed in the "arcane" text the book of Ezra and Nechemiah (sp). They were only dealing with the time between the first and second temples (about 70 or so years). I believe they decided that if you could trace by memory that your grandfather was Jewish you could be considered a Jew. (If you said I recall my grandfather did such and such in the temple, you would be considered a Cohen or Levi.) This was only 70 years and they had big enough problems that we can read about it even today. The amount that they knew about how Judaism was originally followed can reasonably be assumed to be significantly greater than which we know today. What right do we have to do any less? The "grandfather clause" would effectively preclude *any* convert so conversion becomes a way around the grandfather clause. That is enough of a concession. There is no need for any more. > The key point is >that we believe we as a people are really Jewish because we believe in >G-d and we believe in G-d for strictly personal reasons! I don't argue with beliefs. It is the practices which affect others that concern me. >One point of the last paragraph is that at the present time it is easy >to tell whether a person is really Jewish if you define anyone coming >from a shtetl in Poland, etc., as being really Jewish. I have never heard of this as a criteria for Jewishness. The Jews began to leave the Shtetl in the 1700's and that is long enough ago that it can't be used as a primary criteria today. > But this will not >continue forever. In the world today there is lots of assimilation >resulting in intermarriage, and regardless of whether or not an Orthodox >person believes that conversion according to Halacha is mandatory, there >will be people running around within four generations who will not be >Jewish according to that position but who will honestly believe themselves >to be Jewish and who will present themselves as being Jewish. The kind >of law Orthodox want cannot prevent this. No law can prevent this. >The only thing we can rely upon is the help of G-d to keep us together >as the Jewish people. G-d helps those who help themselves, One way to help ones self is to work hard to prevent the intermarriage (difficult) and problems with 4th generation (ie later) intermarried people not knowing their origins. To do this you must teach at the first generation. Once a person has intermarried, you must *usually* consider that to be a person who does not truly respect his roots. You cannot build the Jewish people on those who have intermarried. One reason is that there is invariably a problem that will arise when it comes to the religious education of the offspring. One of 4 things will happen: You teach the kids the religion of the (1) father, (2) the mother, (3) neither or (4) some of each. This is, at best, a 1 in 4 chance of getting Judaism. Once the intermarriage occurs, you are introuble. ("You" = the Jewish community) > but when there >is no way to help yourself then you must rely upon G-d. This is one of >those cases. G-d *must* help us in these matters if the Jewish people >are to survive. Isn't one of the best "articles of faith" that people >turn to when searching for a reason to believe in Judaism the fact that >the Jewish people have survived the exile for two thousand years? Could >we have done this without the help of G-d? Then we must rely upon HaShem >for something like this as well. You might talk about the education ethic which has enabled the Jews to survive for so long. Others have this ethic, but it when combined with some of the other attributes and values of the Jews our longevity is not so mysterious. Also, you are talking about a pretty active god here. One so active that I would first expect him to have saved a certain 6,000,000 people about 40 years ago. I use the lower case letters to write "him" and "god" because I doubt that you are referring to the Jewish God in the above. :-) >However, with regard to what the individual can do, aside from general >t'shuva, any serious Orthodox person must investigate the family of the >person they are considering marrying. This is essentially, as I remarked >above, no different from the way it is in reality anyway! >And furthermore, divisiveness such as is spawned by such a move on the >part of the Orthodox as the attempt to enact the amendment to the "Law >of Return" is exactly what caused, according to tradition, the exile >and destruction of the Second Temple. I believe that I have shown above >that amending the "Law of Return" is not necessary because it cannot >be effective at helping a problem which requires divine intervention >to prevent. That is, it won't help, it is divisive, and we must rely >on HaShem for this because there is no man-made remedy for what ails >us in this case. > >The divisiveness is really caused by arrogance on the part of the Orthodox >leaders. As a close friend has pointed out, the issue is not, "Who is >a Jew?" but, rather, "Who is a Rabbi?" The issue is not whether >converts are accepted as Jews by the Orthodox, but whether Conservative >and Reform rabbis are accepted as rabbis by the Orthodox rabbis. The >reason is simple: because the authority to convert is, according to >the way the Orthodox want it, taken away from any rabbis who are Conservative >or Reform. Thus, (as Rabbi Yitzchak Greenberg said, and I summarized >to the net many months ago) it is a power struggle between the Orthodox >and Conservative (as well as Reform) authorities. It is arrogance! >A Good Shabbos to all, > >--J. Abeles Not meaning to be divisive (:-)), but I believe it *not* the Orthodox who are divisive in this issue (at least). As I said earlier, for some- thing which effects more than just one's self, you must go by the route which will lead to the results which will satisfy the most people. Just as in many Reform synogogues there are Kosher kitchens (even though many/most members might not care one way or the other) so too with the issue of conversion. Clearly, every one accepts an Orthodox conversion, even the most reform. The converse is not true. Therefore, allowing the less strict method must be the one to split the Jewish community; this is divisiveness and is, as Abeles says, a shame. Sam Saal ..{ihnp4}!eisx!sms Every man, as a member of the common wealth, ought to be content with the possesion of his own opinion in private, without perplexing his neighbor or disturbing the public. J.Swift -- Sam Saal @ Video Heaven
tamir@ucbvax.ARPA (Yuval Tamir) (02/07/85)
Re Samuel Saal's long letter on how Israel should be ruled according to the wishes of the Orthodox Jews: The letter is based on a false assumption. Modern Israel was not established as a "Jewish State", it was established as a "state for the Jews". This will (hopefully) keep Israel from becoming another Iran . . .
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (02/07/85)
> = excerpt from Sam Saal's reply to J. Abeles >That democratic process in 1948 set up the rule that conversion >was to be according to Halachah. This does not mean that on a whim >*later* groups can change this. To change it in Israel would be >approximately equivalent to a Constitutional Convention in the US. >When was the last time we had one of those? They are allowed, but >there hasn't been one in 190+ years. But to whom does Halacha belong? The Orthodox claim that only they understand and can properly interpret Halacha, which in itself does no harm. However, by attempting to pass legislation to officially recognize their proclaimed monopoly, some Orthodox are attempting to attain by political force what they have not been able to by moral persuasion and argument. >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. Imagine the >following scenario that a democratically accepted, less stict, conversion >could cause: The offspring (m/f) of a female convert (converted >according to Reform standards) not realizing that the conversion is not 100% >accepted, begins practicing a more religious form of Judaism than his/her >parents. This puts the person in a group of peers who are also more >religious. The person later meets and wants to marry a Jew who follows >the more religious "system" This first person is not Jewish by the >second's standards and the prospective spouse is now the source of >great agitation in the family. Shalom Bayit is *gone*. If, however, the >conversion would have been according to the strict procedure (ie according >to Halachah) this whole issue would have been avoided. What if a new movement were to arise in Judaism, one which was exceedingly strict? By your rationale, you would have to accept ITS criteria. What if it were so strict as to refuse BORN Jews recognition as Jews unless they were practicing members of this sect? Now you'd be in quite a mess... As for your scenario, if the genealogy and/or religious pedigree is of such great importance to the prosopective spouse, what's to stop appropriate inquiries before marriage? >Now wait a minute. This is fine for the US but not for Israel. Israel >is the *JEWISH* State. Therefore, it should have laws in accordance >with the JEWISH rules. I doubt you would expect the Vatican to follow >a purely secular set of laws. (I believe that the Vatican is subject >to most, if not all, of Italy's laws and then some but don't flame me >if I'm wrong about this) I believe it is a major concession to the >"West" that a person in Israel can fight out a court battle in either >a "religious" or a "secular" court. He must abide by whichever decision >is arrived at in the place he chooses first. Go to a trial of a thief >in Iran and see if he can get 30 days. He'll get his hand cut off (the >punishment proscribed in the Koran - the religious law). Which Jewish rules? Round and round we go...by assuming only Orthodoxy is religously valid, we can come to the conclusion that the Orthodox are correct in their means. It is not the reasoning which is questioned by the non-Orthodox, but the assumption. By the way, are you advocating Iran as a model? Shall Israel stone its adulterers? >I am a single Jewish male and I know that my primary checklist of >requirements for a person to date is as short as I can allow. This list >starts off with "must be female", has an age range and also says "must >be Jewish". I expect to find out the rest with time. I realize that >this opens me up to the possibility of getting "stuck" with some undesirable >characteristics; if I "fall in love" with a person, I may not want to >make sure they fit my secondary list of criteria. Furthermore, the above >does not address the problem of the second generation. What happens in the >scenario noted above is still a problem. Is this reason enough to require government intervention and to deny the legitamacy of Conservative and Reform Judaism? For the convenience of your dating habits? If it really is important to you, perhaps you ought to move the matter up to the your primary list rather than asking for state intervention with a secondary list. Besides, have you not contradicted yourself by having already declared the woman Jewish ("must be Jewish" is on your primary list) but now perhaps declaring her not by reason of lax conversion in the family tree? Do you have two different definitions of Jewishness which are applied at different times during courtship? Rather than trumpeting how the non-Orthodox should consider the effect on others (especially the mating habits of the Orthodox), perhaps the Orthodox ought to consider the effect on the non-Orthodox majority of a state-supported attack on their legitimacy. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david
segs@mhuxv.UUCP (slusky) (02/07/85)
I disagreed with a number of the points Sam Saal made in his very long article, which was in turn a response to Joe Abeles' article. I'll start with the first few disagreements and continue till it gets wearing. Commenting on 311 lines is tough. > That democratic process in 1948 set up the rule that conversion > was to be according to Halachah. No it didn't. The rule has always been very vague. It is only in this past year that the suggestion was made in the Knesset to add in the qualification according to Halacha. > You are forgetting about all of the earlier aliyot from the middle > of the 18th century and through the early 20th. These people were > running away from the pogroms and were generally Shtetl residents > who were very religious. Yes, they were from the shtetls. No, they weren't very religious. They were rebels. They were nationalistic. But, in general, they weren't so religious. > ... all religious Jews were for the > state. Many felt that the creation of the state was actually the first > step in the coming of the Mashiach. There were probably more who > felt this way than there were who felt Jews should wait for the Mashiach > to initiate the redemption. That's not the way I read the history books. Most religious groups opposed the declaration of the Jewish state. Only after the the state was proclaimed and the Arabs attacked did the majority of those groups feel compelled to support it. > 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. There are two sides (or more) to this acceptance idea. Here's one you're not paying attention to. The potential convert who wants to convert to Reform Judaism will not accept an Orthodox conversion in the sense that an Orthodox rabbi will demand a commitment to observe mitzvot which the convert has no intent of observing. > It may not be the legitimate heir to mainstream Judaism, but it predates > Conservative and, yes, even Reform Judaism by *many* years. Again I disagree. Orthodox Judaism started as a response to the assimilation going on in Europe. It really begins with Samson Raphuel Hirsch and that bunch. Before that there were other movements but I think nothing clearly connected to what became Orthodoxy. > Just > as in many Reform synogogues there are Kosher kitchens... I've never seen a Reform synagogue with a kosher kitchen. I've seen prohibitions against using pork, shellfish, and the like, i.e. adherance to Chumash kashrut which Reform Judaism theoretically supports. But I haven't seen Talmudic kashrut observed. What sometimes does happen is that a kosher affair is catered at a Reform shul. But the food is cooked in the caterer's utensils. Is that what you mean? Susan Slusky --
kenw@lcuxc.UUCP (K Wolman) (02/08/85)
A thought. A hypothetical situation.
Supposing Reform and/or Conservatism one day simply refused to
recognize the validity of Orthodox conversion? Any scenarios?
--
Ken Wolman
Bell Communications Research @ Livingston, NJ
lcuxc!kenw
(201) 740-4565
". . . Toto, I don't think we're in the Bronx anymore. . . ."
"I don't act, I RE-act." -- John Waynesms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal) (02/08/85)
I was not going to add any more to my already overly long posting
(300+ lines), but Susan Slusky's quoting got me angry enough to
have to correct her.
S> Yes, they were from the shtetls. No, they weren't very religious. They
S> were rebels. They were nationalistic. But, in general, they weren't
S> so religious.
This is a matter of degree. I would challenge most people who claim to be
religious to come up to their level. You are correct that they were
nationalistic and were rebels, but this does not make them non-religious.
S> > ... all religious Jews were for the
S> > state. Many felt that the creation of the state was actually the first
S> > step in the coming of the Mashiach. There were probably more who
S> > felt this way than there were who felt Jews should wait for the Mashiach
S> > to initiate the redemption.
S> That's not the way I read the history books. Most religious groups opposed
S> the declaration of the Jewish state. Only after the the state was proclaimed
S> and the Arabs attacked did the majority of those groups feel compelled to
S> support it.
This is the section which got me angriest. Couldn't you have left in the word
"almost" before the word "all". The word "almost" in place of the ellipses
radically changes the meaning of my statement. It also makes your statement
look true (I'm too incensed to add the ":-)")
S> > It seems to me that conversion should be done in such a way that the
S> > *results* will satisfy the most people. A Reform Jew will accept an
S> > Orthodox conversion but not the other way around.
S> There are two sides (or more) to this acceptance idea. Here's one you're not
S> paying attention to. The potential convert who wants to convert to Reform
S> Judaism will not accept an Orthodox conversion in the sense that an Orthodox
S> rabbi will demand a commitment to observe mitzvot which the convert has
S> no intent of observing.
Judaism does not go looking for converts. If someone wants to join our
ranks, we try to*dissuade* him from doing so. This is not out of elitism
but because we do not feel that a non-Jew must add to the burdens of
his life by taking on the additional responsibilities of the Jews (365
Mitzvot, pogroms, holocausts etc) If a convert has no intention of taking
on judaism, why should he start the whole process. Judaism is not some
sort of hobby which can be left on the shelf to collect dust when you
are bored with it. Once you're in you're stuck with it. This is the
whole basis of why we try to dissuade the person who wishes to convert.
S> Again I disagree. Orthodox Judaism started as a response to the assimilation
S> going on in Europe. It really begins with Samson Raphuel Hirsch and that bunch.
S> Before that there were other movements but I think nothing clearly connected
S> to what became Orthodoxy.
Hirsch is the start of modern Orthodoxy, I agree. However look at what he
was working with and what he formed. He took Shtetl Judaism and those
who were headed towards assimilation and showed how you could remain
in the society as a participant as well as maintain an *observant*
Jewish lifestyle. I'm not speaking for all of the orthodox, but that
seems pretty good to me.
S> > Just
S> > as in many Reform synogogues there are Kosher kitchens...
S> I've never seen a Reform synagogue with a kosher kitchen. I've seen
S> prohibitions against using pork, shellfish, and the like, i.e. adherence
S> to Chumash kashrut which Reform Judaism theoretically supports. But
S> I haven't seen Talmudic kashrut observed. What sometimes does happen
S> is that a kosher affair is catered at a Reform shul. But the food
S> is cooked in the caterer's utensils. Is that what you mean?
S> Susan Slusky
--
The difference is significant and you are right to correct me. However,
this ignores the point that these people are willing to acknowledge the
necessity of Kashruth at some level greater than their own. The same
must be done with the matter of conversion. (That was the whole point
of this discussion, remember?)
Sam Saal
--
Sam Saal ..!{ihnp4}!eisx!sms
Vayiphtach HaShem et pee ha'Atone.teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (02/11/85)
> Re Samuel Saal's long letter on how Israel should be ruled according > to the wishes of the Orthodox Jews: > > The letter is based on a false assumption. > Modern Israel was not established as a "Jewish State", it was > established as a "state for the Jews". > This will (hopefully) keep Israel from becoming another Iran . . . Boy, this sound like something I was saying a few weeks ago. The only argument I give is that Israel should be a Jewish state, and that I will fight my hardest to try and insure that it becomes one. The analogy to Iran is very weak. Iran is reverting back to another world, long since gone. Orthodox Jews and halacha do not do this. Orthodox Jews ( excluding Chassidim ) try to synthesize the world into religion, and not the other way around. We try to be of the world. The problem with this, which the chassidim try to avoid is assimilation the oter way, when Judaism gets changed to accomodate the views of others. The chassidim retreat into their shtetl and ghetto. Other orthodox Jews challenge the world and say they can withstand the temptation. Manl. Others succeed. The common factor among the successful is education. With education we can hold up against the temptations of the world against us. Eliyahu Teitz.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (02/13/85)
In response to the articles about having more or less religious guidelines for conversion, and in response to the quote at the end here I have but one statement. Most Jews do not date non Jews for the purposse e of intermarrying. They go out just to have fun and then the relationship gets too strong and cannot be broken. So too with the scenario in the original article by Mr. Saal. If I were to go out with a girl who claimed to be Jewish and after a while I decided t marry her and only then found out that her conversion might be suspect, it would probably be too late to do anything. Therefore advocating a more religious set of guidelines is preferable because then everyone would be satisfied. Just as a side point. Why would a person want to convert to reform Judaism. What is it any different that non Judaism. In the reform brand there is very little observance of anything except maybe going to temple, and if so why not remain non Jewish and go to church? Eliyahu Teitz. > As for your scenario, if the genealogy and/or religious pedigree is of > such great importance to the prosopective spouse, what's to stop > appropriate inquiries before marriage? >
tamir@ucbvax.ARPA (Yuval Tamir) (02/14/85)
In article <1143@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: >> The letter is based on a false assumption. >> Modern Israel was not established as a "Jewish State", it was >> established as a "state for the Jews". >> This will (hopefully) keep Israel from becoming another Iran . . . > > Boy, this sound like something I was saying a few weeks ago. > The only argument I give is that Israel should be a Jewish state, > and that I will fight my hardest to try and insure that it becomes one. > The analogy to Iran is very weak. ... >>>>> NOTE <<<< In the following "orthodox Jews" refers to those that want to convert Israel into a religious Jewish State that is run according to the Halacha rather than the will of the majority. I have nothing but respect for those orthodox Jews that wish to follow their beliefs in the way they live their own life and let others (Jews and none-Jews) do the same. >>>>> END NOTE <<<< Anyone who has lived in Israel knows that if the orthodox have their way Israel will become exactly like Iran -- those Jews that do not obey the wishes of the orthodox will be punished. People who drive on Saturday will be stoned (it happens often), people who cannot afford a car will not be able to go anywhere during Saturday since the orthodox don't want public transportation to operate (this is mostly true even now), women will have to dress "appropriately" or get yelled at (or spit on) for being a "prostitute" (happens now in some neighborhoods in Jerusalem), etc, etc, etc. Many of the orthodox Jews are just as extreme as the Moslems in Iran. When they talk they sound just like the Ayatola (sp?). Like all other extreme religious groups, the organized orthodox Jews don't care about the rights of others. God is on their side . . . Israel was created so that Jews will have a country where they are the majority. Israel should be Jewish in the same sense that the US is Christian (which it is to some extent). Those Jews that are orthodox and want to follow all 10**1000 rules and regulations in their own life, are free to do so. Unfortunately, some orthodox Jews wish to impose their will on the majority and create a religious dictatorship which is identical to Iran.
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (02/15/85)
> Many of the orthodox Jews are just as extreme as the > Moslems in Iran. When they talk they sound just like the Ayatola (sp?). Aren't you following the Ayatola? The tone and content of your entire article is anti-semitic, extreme, dogmatic paranoid, and vicious.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (02/17/85)
In article <aecom.1154> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > > Just as a side point. Why would a person want to convert to Reform > Judaism? How is it any different that non-Judaism? In the reform brand > there is very little observance of anything except maybe going to temple, > and if so why not remain non-Jewish and go to church? > > Eliyahu Teitz. > In comparison with Jewish beliefs, Christian theology, what with Original Sin, the "fulfillment of Jewish law though dei-sacrifice", Virgin Birth, the Trinity, etc. strikes a few gentiles as being more than a little kludgy. Some gentiles find that the Jewish belief puts less strain on the imagination. And some of them just feel more comfortable amoung us assimilated Vus-Vus scum then among their own people. :-) Frank Silbermann University of North Carolina