New Reform Provocations
JGa...@worldnet.att.net
>
> Lefties are a religion no matter how you conceal it or what name you call
> it
> George<
Of course. The orthodox form was called Communism. The less stringent
"Protestant" form is Socialism. And then we get a Unitarian form called
Social Democrat. It's just a toxin delivered at different strengths.
It's poison no matter if you die slowly or quickly from it.
>
> jody eisenman wrote:
>
> > We are all familiar with the old canards constantly dredged up by
> > reform rabbis: The orthodox hate us, don't consider us jewish,etc.
> >
> > But this one takes the cake!
> >
> > The reform movement in Israel recentl opened a "yeshiva" to teach
> > people about it's beliefs. It is loctaed in Jerusalem and called
> > Reform Beit Shmuel. One can be enlightened by such courses as :
> >
> > 1. spoken Arabic
> >
> > 2. advanced sculpture
> >
> > 3. Women Goyim and Minorites in Chazal's literature
> >
> > However, by far the most enlightening course should be the one taught
> > bu the grand pupa himself, Uri Regev. Clearly frustated at his
> > movement's lack of acceptance in Israel, Regev titles his course:
> > "Chareidi politics and a secular state".
> >
> > The curriculum states "how the chareidi politicians steal the public
> > chest".
> >
> > One can imagine a course in the US titled "How African Americans and
> > Hispanics rip off the public"
> >
> > Can these guys possibly sink any lower?
> >
> > I guess when you have nothing to offer, you must attack the other
> > side.
jody eisenman
Paul S. Wolf
......... drivel deleted ............
> Can these guys possibly sink any lower?
>
> I guess when you have nothing to offer, you must attack the other
> side.
Pot - Kettle - Black ?
--
Paul S. Wolf, PE mailto:Paul....@alum.wpi.edu
Past President, Great Lakes Region, Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs
george
it
George
jody eisenman wrote:
> We are all familiar with the old canards constantly dredged up by
> reform rabbis: The orthodox hate us, don't consider us jewish,etc.
>
> But this one takes the cake!
>
> The reform movement in Israel recentl opened a "yeshiva" to teach
> people about it's beliefs. It is loctaed in Jerusalem and called
> Reform Beit Shmuel. One can be enlightened by such courses as :
>
> 1. spoken Arabic
>
> 2. advanced sculpture
>
> 3. Women Goyim and Minorites in Chazal's literature
>
> However, by far the most enlightening course should be the one taught
> bu the grand pupa himself, Uri Regev. Clearly frustated at his
> movement's lack of acceptance in Israel, Regev titles his course:
> "Chareidi politics and a secular state".
>
> The curriculum states "how the chareidi politicians steal the public
> chest".
>
> One can imagine a course in the US titled "How African Americans and
> Hispanics rip off the public"
>
gab...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>However, by far the most enlightening course should be the one taught
>bu the grand pupa himself, Uri Regev. Clearly frustated at his
>movement's lack of acceptance in Israel, Regev titles his course:
>"Chareidi politics and a secular state".
>
>The curriculum states "how the chareidi politicians steal the public
>chest".
>
Change "steal" with "fleece" and you'd get a majority of secularists
to agree with the statement.
Lisa
>george wrote:
>>
>> Lefties are a religion no matter how you conceal it or what name you call
>> it
>> George<
>
>Of course. The orthodox form was called Communism. The less stringent
>"Protestant" form is Socialism. And then we get a Unitarian form called
>Social Democrat. It's just a toxin delivered at different strengths.
>It's poison no matter if you die slowly or quickly from it.
God, I hate having to agree with you...
Lisa
Michael Berman
<paul....@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
>jody eisenman wrote:
>
>> Can these guys possibly sink any lower?
>>
>> I guess when you have nothing to offer, you must attack the other
>> side.
>
>Pot - Kettle - Black ?
A nice rejoinder that entirely misses Jody's very valid point. You
only believe that the charedim act this way because the media pounces
on anything negative that some Rabbi says and ignores the positive.
See a very recent Jerusalem Post article about charedi charitable
activities for an all-too-rare exception.
It is an obvious fact: never in Jewish history has an entire course
been taught in a 'yeshiva' about how bad another group is. Is this the
great innovation in Jewish learning that the Reform movement wants to
bring to Israel?
Michael
Michael Berman
>On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 17:51:28 GMT, jo...@idt.net (jody eisenman)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The curriculum states "how the chareidi politicians steal the public
>>chest".
>>
>Change "steal" with "fleece" and you'd get a majority of secularists
>to agree with the statement.
Only because you have people like Tommy Lapid feeding them patently
wrong information. Neutral folks like Olmert look at the real numbers,
and note that per student the charedim get far *less* than their
secular brethren, from elementary school through university.
Michael
mei...@qqqerols.com
(jody eisenman) posted:
>We are all familiar with the old canards constantly dredged up by
>reform rabbis: The orthodox hate us, don't consider us jewish,etc.
...
>However, by far the most enlightening course should be the one taught
>bu the grand pupa himself, Uri Regev. Clearly frustated at his
>movement's lack of acceptance in Israel, Regev titles his course:
>"Chareidi politics and a secular state".
>The curriculum states "how the chareidi politicians steal the public
>chest".
>One can imagine a course in the US titled "How African Americans and
>Hispanics rip off the public"
It wasn't a whole course, but I did see an article in a "Jewish"
newspaper reporting on a sermon from I think a Shabbes service
somewhere entitiled "What's wrong with Orthodoxy".
In a letter to the editor, which they printed, I chided the "paper"
for reporting such a story at all, and I announced my tour of the US
and Israel speaking on the topic, What's wrong with Islam, and asked
the paper to report that.
Meir meirm...@erols.com
Remove the QQQ
and I'll get back to you.
Paul S. Wolf
My comment was directed specifically at the fact that Jody had
absolutely nothing constructive to say, and did nothing but attack the
Reform movement, then ended his statement with the line, "I guess when
you have nothing to offer, you must attack the other side."
I question the veracity of Jody's quotations on the syllabus at the HUC
Yeshiva, and didn't feel they rated a comment. However, since you did
bring it up again, let me state some obvious points.
If the Charedi would just observe their form of Judaism and let those
who are Reform and Masorti do the same, Israel would be much better off.
That includes allowing prayer at the Kotel, in the manner which we feel
is correct and appropriate. However, since the Charedi insist on
foisting their version on others, they should expect to be challenged at
every instance.
The fact that Orthodox synagogues are built and maintained, and the
rabbis are paid, by the state, while Reform and Masorti synagogues and
Rabbis must do without, and that Reform and Masorti Rabbis have no
rights to conduct marriages, funerals, etc. is both unfair and an abuse
of power.
When ALL Jews are treated the same, as opposed to "We're all equal, but
my form of Judaism is more equal than yours", Israel will be a better
place. When all religions are allowed to flourish without the
internecine bickering we have seen in Israel, Northern Ireland, and the
Balkans, the world will be a better place for all.
Perhaps we all should listen to what the 12th point of the BSA's version
of the Scout Law says:
A Scout is Reverent.
A Scout is reverent toward God.
He is faithful in his religious duties.
He respects the beliefs of others.
Robert Kaiser
mei...@QQQerols.com says:
>It wasn't a whole course, but I did see an article in a "Jewish"
>newspaper reporting on a sermon from I think a Shabbes service
>somewhere entitiled "What's wrong with Orthodoxy".
There are some problems in parts of the Orthodox community. In
fact, there are some pretty big ones. And the number one reason why
they persit is because (a) many Orthodox Jews deny that such problems
exists, and (b) many Orthodox Jews write slander about anyone who tries
to fix the problem. Fortunately, some Orthodox Jews are brave enough
to take a public stand.
http://www.orthodoxcaucus.org/ads/default.htm
The information on this website has been appearing in full page
ads in Jewish newspapers.
Shalom,
Robert
Simon L. Klein
> I question the veracity of Jody's quotations on the syllabus at the HUC
> Yeshiva, and didn't feel they rated a comment. However, since you did
> bring it up again, let me state some obvious points.
I have no way of verifying Jody's quote, but his posting does have some
inaccuracies.
jody eisenman <jo...@idt.net> wrote:
>The reform movement in Israel recentl opened a "yeshiva" to teach
>people about it's beliefs. It is loctaed in Jerusalem and called
>Reform Beit Shmuel.
The Beit Shmuel Cultural and Education Center has been in Jerusalem for
over a decade. It is not a yeshiva.
Perhaps Jody meant Beit Midrash which is a program that "opened its
doors in October, 1995, on HUC's Jerusalem campus with a part-time study
program in Hebrew. The program has provided men and women the chance to
widen their spiritual horizons together within an atmosphere of
tolerance and respect for diversity in Jewish life and observance
<http://rj.org/wupj/news/issue1.html>." In 1997, an English track,
subtitled A Liberal Yeshiva, was added. The school runs yearround. Here
is an announcement of its activities this summer:
"BEIT MIDRASH ENGLISH TRACK TO OFFER SHORT TERM STUDY PROGRAM IN ISRAEL:
The Beit Midrash/A Liberal Yeshivah will hold an intensive seminar in
Jerusalem on July 1-17, 1999. Each of three study modules - God, Torah
and Israel - will take place over the course of four days, during which
time participants will study Chumash, Halacha, Midrash, the weekly Torah
portion, Talmud, Prayer, contemporary Israel and Jewish philosophy. The
program will include a number of excursions in and around Jerusalem.
Tuition fees without housing will be $550, or $1,350 with housing,
including an Israeli breakfast. Interested individuals who are already
in Israel should contact <bmidr...@huc.edu>; all others can send
e-mail to <beitm...@huc.edu>. The Beit Midrash/A Liberal Yeshivah is
a joint project of the World Union, Hebrew Union College-Jewish
Institute of Religion and the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, in
cooperation with the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College and the Leo
Baeck College. <http://rj.org/wupj/news/issue38.html>"
--
Simon L. Klein <slk...@tiac.net>
PageCrafters, since 1987
Chelmsford, MA (USA)
mei...@qqqerols.com
(Robert Kaiser) posted:
>mei...@QQQerols.com says:
>>It wasn't a whole course, but I did see an article in a "Jewish"
>>newspaper reporting on a sermon from I think a Shabbes service
>>somewhere entitiled "What's wrong with Orthodoxy".
> There are some problems in parts
And of course you missed my point.
Michael Berman
<Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org> wrote:
>Michael Berman wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 11:18:08 -0400, "Paul S. Wolf"
>> <paul....@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >jody eisenman wrote:
>> >> I guess when you have nothing to offer, you must attack the other
>> >> side.
>> >
>> >Pot - Kettle - Black ?
>>
>> been taught in a 'yeshiva' about how bad another group is. Is this the
>> great innovation in Jewish learning that the Reform movement wants to
>> bring to Israel?
>>
>absolutely nothing constructive to say, and did nothing but attack the
>Reform movement, then ended his statement with the line, "I guess when
>you have nothing to offer, you must attack the other side."
Aha. This I can't speak to. But it's a little different, no? Griping
for a minute on a newsgroup vs. making it a course? I am sure that
Jody has made some positive posts too.
>I question the veracity of Jody's quotations on the syllabus at the HUC
>Yeshiva, and didn't feel they rated a comment.
OK. You didn't contest them the first time -- now that you have, I
certainly cannot say one way or the other.
>If the Charedi would just observe their form of Judaism and let those
>who are Reform and Masorti do the same, Israel would be much better off.
Now, wait a minute. It has always been my understanding that the way
the Christians work in Israel is that each sect has its own
authorities. The reason they have no control over each other is that
each group applies for _separate_ recognition. Catholics have nothing
to do with Eastern Orthodox have nothing to do with Presbyterian (sp)
-- because all are recognized as separate groups by the Israeli
government.
The Reform and Conservative groups, again AFAIK, have never applied
for _separate_ recognition. It is obvious that they aren't Orthodox,
that their conversion standards represent their own conscious choice
to differ from the (Orthodox understanding of) historical tradition,
that their requirements for marriage, divorce and remarriage are (or
may be) different.
If they are trying to _replace_ Orthodox standards with their own,
obviously the Orthodox will fight it. But if, as you suggest, they are
merely trying to gain their own separate recognition, then why don't
they apply for that? I am sure that the government would give Reform
Jews the same status under the Law of Return in that instance.
I think it makes a lot of difference if you say "we want this marriage
recognized as a Reform marriage" vs. "we want the ORTHODOX to
recognize this as a marriage, just like their own." Who is coercing
whom, in the latter case?
>That includes allowing prayer at the Kotel, in the manner which we feel
>is correct and appropriate.
Again, it is my understanding that there are various places which have
been offered to Reform and Conservative groups, and they have never
accepted anything other than intrusion into the plaza itself, used by
Orthodox Jews 99% of the time. Why should they not happily agree to a
separate location for their own services, if this is all they want?
And another obvious point: neither Thoreau nor Ghandi nor King ever
felt that a religious service was the appropriate place for political
protest. King, a fervent Christian, didn't go into white churches, but
into white restaurants.
>The fact that Orthodox synagogues are built and maintained, and the
>rabbis are paid, by the state, while Reform and Masorti synagogues and
>Rabbis must do without, and that Reform and Masorti Rabbis have no
>rights to conduct marriages, funerals, etc. is both unfair and an abuse
>of power.
Well, I suggest that support require that they be recognized
separately, and funded in proportion to their numbers. Meanwhile, if
you go over to Israel you will find that the vast majority of
Conservative and Reform synagogues are more grandiose and
better-maintained than the average Orthodox synagogue.
Michael
Robert Kaiser
>The Reform and Conservative groups, again AFAIK, have never applied
>for _separate_ recognition. It is obvious that they aren't Orthodox,
>that their conversion standards represent their own conscious choice
>to differ from the (Orthodox understanding of) historical tradition,
>that their requirements for marriage, divorce and remarriage are (or
>may be) different.
This is totally false. All Conservative and Reform rabbis in
Israel agreed to follow Orthodox interpretations of halakhah for
conversion to Judaism. The Orthodox then rejected this. How could
you have missed every article on the Neeman commission for the past year?
Robert
Paul S. Wolf
> Paul S. Wolf wrote:
> >If the Charedi would just observe their form of Judaism and let those
> >who are Reform and Masorti do the same, Israel would be much better
> >off.
>
> The Reform and Conservative groups, again AFAIK, have never applied
> for _separate_ recognition. It is obvious that they aren't Orthodox,
> that their conversion standards represent their own conscious choice
> to differ from the (Orthodox understanding of) historical tradition,
> that their requirements for marriage, divorce and remarriage are (or
> may be) different.
Michael, you write very well, but a number of your arguments are "straw
men", in that they presuppose that Reform and Conservative Judaism is a
different religion than Orthodox, in the same way that Lutheranism is a
different religion than Catholicism, an analogy we do not acccept.
Reform and Masorti Jews in Israel shouldn't need separate recognition,
in the first place. We are all Jews.
As amn example, The Israeli government has determined that all marriages
must be conducted by recognized religious authorities. Any Christian
minister or priest, muslim imam, etc. can conduct weddings, but ONLY
Orthodox Rabbis, as certified by the Chief Rabbis' Office can do so, or
perform conversions. Reform and Conservative Rabbis are not recognized
as Rabbis in the only Jewish State in the world.
On another point, as Robert Kaiser said in another post, the Reform and
Masorti (Conservative) movements in Israel reluctantly agreed to the
findings of the Neeman Commission on conversions, but the Orthodox
rabbanut would not agree.
> If they are trying to _replace_ Orthodox standards with their own,
> obviously the Orthodox will fight it. But if, as you suggest, they are
> merely trying to gain their own separate recognition, then why don't
> they apply for that? I am sure that the government would give Reform
> Jews the same status under the Law of Return in that instance.
We aren't trying to "replace" orthodox standrds with our own. We just
feel that there are multiple standards that should all be recognized as
valid by the STATE.
They already have the same rights under the Law of Return, in theory,
even though the Orthodox have tried to take thaose rights away a number
of times, or have you forgotten that? It sometimes takes a fight to get
recognized as a Jew, but eventually the government does so. However,
even then, the Orthodox Rabbanut will not recognize their rights as
Jews. If I were a Reform or Conservative convert and single, I could
move to Israel and gain citizenship under the Law of Return, but I
couldn't marry in Israel.
> I think it makes a lot of difference if you say "we want this marriage
> recognized as a Reform marriage" vs. "we want the ORTHODOX to
> recognize this as a marriage, just like their own." Who is coercing
> whom, in the latter case?
Its not " we want this marriage recognized as a Reform marriage" OR
"we want the ORTHODOX to recognize this as a marriage, just like their
own" Its actually "we want the STATE to allow us to perform marriages
just like other Jews, the Muslims, the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans,
the Ba'hai's, and we want the STATE to recognize this as a marriage.
>
> >That includes allowing prayer at the Kotel, in the manner which we
> >feel is correct and appropriate.
>
> Again, it is my understanding that there are various places which have
> been offered to Reform and Conservative groups, and they have never
> accepted anything other than intrusion into the plaza itself, used by
> Orthodox Jews 99% of the time. Why should they not happily agree to a
> separate location for their own services, if this is all they want?
If the various Christian sects can agree to have different sections of
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, available for prayers in different
traditions, why can't we Jews have different sections of the Kotel Plaza
available for prayers in different traditions. You referred to MLK. He
fought to have the "separate but equal" laws changed, since Separate is
NOT equal, and fought to get the "Blacks must ride in the back of the
bus" laws overturned as unfair. The Masorti movement just wants to be
able to pray in the same place as others.
In addition, even when they DO try to pray in locations away from the
actual Kotel, like they did last month on Shavuot, they are threatened,
abused, and pelted with bottles.
>
> >The fact that Orthodox synagogues are built and maintained, and the
> >rabbis are paid, by the state, while Reform and Masorti synagogues
> >and Rabbis must do without, and that Reform and Masorti Rabbis have
> >no rights to conduct marriages, funerals, etc. is both unfair and an
> >abuse of power.
>
> Well, I suggest that support require that they be recognized
> separately, and funded in proportion to their numbers. Meanwhile, if
> you go over to Israel you will find that the vast majority of
> Conservative and Reform synagogues are more grandiose and
> better-maintained than the average Orthodox synagogue.
>
> Michael
I've prayed at the Masorti synagogue on Agron Street, the Great
Synagogue a couple of blocks away, and the synagogue in Yemin Moshe.
Which are better maintained and grandiose?
And who pays for their construction and upkeep, and pays their Rabbis?
In the case of most, if not all, Orthodox synagogues, it is the STATE,
out of everyone's taxes. In the case of Masorti and Reform synagogues,
it is the members of the synagogue, IN ADDITION to the taxes they pay to
maintain Orthodox synagogues.
Michael Berman
<paul....@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
>Michael Berman wrote:
>
>> Paul S. Wolf wrote:
>Michael, you write very well, but a number of your arguments are "straw
>men", in that they presuppose that Reform and Conservative Judaism is a
>different religion than Orthodox, in the same way that Lutheranism is a
>different religion than Catholicism, an analogy we do not acccept.
Well, then, since Israel's Chief Rabbinate represents the same
religion (according to you), what's the problem?
Look, either its the same religion, or a different one. If you say its
the same, then "your" rabbis get to perform officially recognized
marriages and divorces. If you say it is different, then register as a
different religion.
2nd question: since when are Israelis obligated to accept your
definitions? Since you don't accept that Reform and Conservative are
as distinct as, say, Lutheran from Presbyterian Protestant
Christianity, the Israeli Knesset *must* accept it? Paul, try reading
Maimonides' 13 Principles of Judaism. Reform and the vast majority of
Conservative Rabbis could not accept a good number of them. To force
someone else to accept your definition... is religious coercion!
>Reform and Masorti Jews in Israel shouldn't need separate recognition,
>in the first place. We are all Jews.
Jews, yes -- but observing a vastly different form of Judaism.
>As an example, The Israeli government has determined that all marriages
>must be conducted by recognized religious authorities. Any Christian
>minister or priest, muslim imam, etc. can conduct weddings, but ONLY
>Orthodox Rabbis, as certified by the Chief Rabbis' Office can do so, or
>perform conversions. Reform and Conservative Rabbis are not recognized
>as Rabbis in the only Jewish State in the world.
They can surely be recognized as Rabbis of Reform or Conservative
Judaism. But if you claim it's the same religion, why aren't you
satisfied that only Chief Rabbinate-certified Rabbis get to perform
official functions? Rather what is it...
You want to have it both ways. _Israelis_ have to see it as the same
religion, but _you_ want to have your own liberal Rabbi, not an
Orthodox one.
>On another point, as Robert Kaiser said in another post, the Reform and
>Masorti (Conservative) movements in Israel reluctantly agreed to the
>findings of the Neeman Commission on conversions, but the Orthodox
>rabbanut would not agree.
Again, that's silly. The Rabbinate said that they would have nothing
to do with a "joint conversion board" -- but that they would look at
each potential convert as an individual. It is the Reform and
Conservative groups that insisted that they have official recognition,
rather than simply training people. It was they who rejected Neeman's
solution.
What they really wanted was a rubber stamp rabbinate. Otherwise, how
does someone who does _not_ follow Maimonides train someone else to
follow all the laws according to Maimonides?
>We aren't trying to "replace" orthodox standrds with our own. We just
>feel that there are multiple standards that should all be recognized as
>valid by the STATE.
That happens under separate streams, not by forcing others to accept
your definition of the same stream.
>> I think it makes a lot of difference if you say "we want this marriage
>> recognized as a Reform marriage" vs. "we want the ORTHODOX to
>> recognize this as a marriage, just like their own." Who is coercing
>> whom, in the latter case?
>
>Its not " we want this marriage recognized as a Reform marriage" OR
>"we want the ORTHODOX to recognize this as a marriage, just like their
>own" Its actually "we want the STATE to allow us to perform marriages
>just like other Jews, the Muslims, the Roman Catholics, the Lutherans,
>the Ba'hai's, and we want the STATE to recognize this as a marriage.
Again -- fine. Register as a separate religious stream like the Roman
Catholics and the Lutherans, and there you are. You seem instead bent
upon coercing the Orthodox and the Israelis to accept _your_
definition of Judaism.
>> Again, it is my understanding that there are various places which have
>> been offered to Reform and Conservative groups, and they have never
>> accepted anything other than intrusion into the plaza itself, used by
>> Orthodox Jews 99% of the time. Why should they not happily agree to a
>> separate location for their own services, if this is all they want?
>
>If the various Christian sects can agree to have different sections of
>the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, available for prayers in different
>traditions, why can't we Jews have different sections of the Kotel Plaza
>available for prayers in different traditions.
That's precisely what I was suggesting. But not by taking away from
the Orthodox -- there are separate areas available for you, which
Reform and Conservative leaders in Israel have consistently rejected.
These sections would be away from the plaza now in full use, in areas
just as holy. Why are these suggestions rejected?
Oh, but of course -- if they actually had their own spot, away from
the Orthodox, where no trouble would be caused, why would someone who
thinks the 'veneration of old stones' is now idolatry show up?
> You referred to MLK. He
>fought to have the "separate but equal" laws changed, since Separate is
>NOT equal, and fought to get the "Blacks must ride in the back of the
>bus" laws overturned as unfair. The Masorti movement just wants to be
>able to pray in the same place as others.
No, in America separate wasn't equal. This is not so by definition,
nor does it permit me to force myself into your services. The Church
of the Sepulchre, btw, is completely divided into sections by
religious stream.
>In addition, even when they DO try to pray in locations away from the
>actual Kotel, like they did last month on Shavuot, they are threatened,
>abused, and pelted with bottles.
That's simply not true -- they put themselves into the Orthodox, who
encompassed the whole plaza.
>I've prayed at the Masorti synagogue on Agron Street, the Great
>Synagogue a couple of blocks away, and the synagogue in Yemin Moshe.
>Which are better maintained and grandiose?
Good. What percentage of Orthodox Jews pray in the Great Synagogue,
the Chief Rabbinate's synagogue?
>And who pays for their construction and upkeep, and pays their Rabbis?
In both cases, American money. And a lot more of that goes to R & C.
Michael
Harry Weiss
: Michael Berman wrote:
: > Paul S. Wolf wrote:
: > >If the Charedi would just observe their form of Judaism and let those
: > >who are Reform and Masorti do the same, Israel would be much better
: > >off.
: >
: > The Reform and Conservative groups, again AFAIK, have never applied
: > for _separate_ recognition. It is obvious that they aren't Orthodox,
: > that their conversion standards represent their own conscious choice
: > to differ from the (Orthodox understanding of) historical tradition,
: > that their requirements for marriage, divorce and remarriage are (or
: > may be) different.
: Michael, you write very well, but a number of your arguments are "straw
: men", in that they presuppose that Reform and Conservative Judaism is a
: different religion than Orthodox, in the same way that Lutheranism is a
: different religion than Catholicism, an analogy we do not acccept.
There are a group of Catholics that do not accept the authority of the
Vatican etc. They are not recognized at Catholics by the Isareli
Government. Only those autorized by the Vatican are can perform Catholic
marriages.
: Reform and Masorti Jews in Israel shouldn't need separate recognition,
: in the first place. We are all Jews.
You may be Jewish, but your religion is not Judaism.
: As amn example, The Israeli government has determined that all marriages
: must be conducted by recognized religious authorities. Any Christian
: minister or priest, muslim imam, etc. can conduct weddings, but ONLY
: Orthodox Rabbis, as certified by the Chief Rabbis' Office can do so, or
: perform conversions. Reform and Conservative Rabbis are not recognized
: as Rabbis in the only Jewish State in the world.
Because they are not Rabbis of the Jewish religion. They are clergy of
the Conservative and reform relgions. The Chief Rabbbinate determines
who are the legitimate clergy of the Jewish religion in Israel.
: On another point, as Robert Kaiser said in another post, the Reform and
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Jonathan J. Baker
>Michael Berman wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 11:18:08 -0400, "Paul S. Wolf"
>> >> Can these guys possibly sink any lower?
>> >> I guess when you have nothing to offer, you must attack the other
>> >> side.
>> >Pot - Kettle - Black ?
>> It is an obvious fact: never in Jewish history has an entire course
>> been taught in a 'yeshiva' about how bad another group is. Is this the
>> great innovation in Jewish learning that the Reform movement wants to
>> bring to Israel?
>My comment was directed specifically at the fact that Jody had
>absolutely nothing constructive to say, and did nothing but attack the
>Reform movement, then ended his statement with the line, "I guess when
>you have nothing to offer, you must attack the other side."
>I question the veracity of Jody's quotations on the syllabus at the HUC
>Yeshiva, and didn't feel they rated a comment. However, since you did
>bring it up again, let me state some obvious points.
Well, I just looked on the huc.edu website, and did a search on "Orthodox."
I found the following course offering:
At the Magnin School of Graduate Studies in HUC-LA:
Boundaries of Normative Jewish Behavior 680
A study of the institutions which claim to be authentically Jewish (e.g.,
atheistic synagogues, so called ultra-orthodox Jews, Hebrew Christians).
--
Jonathan Baker | Ehh, you Sivan Sinaitic revelation, you've
jjb...@panix.com | seen 'em all.
Richard Schultz
: At the Magnin School of Graduate Studies in HUC-LA:
: Boundaries of Normative Jewish Behavior 680
: A study of the institutions which claim to be authentically Jewish (e.g.,
: atheistic synagogues, so called ultra-orthodox Jews, Hebrew Christians).
I think that the above is just an example of someone writing a
course description without paying too much attention to what they
were doing. At least I hope that the course is about "what do each
of these groups mean by the word 'authentic'," without making a
judgment that the only group who uses the word correctly is Reform.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."
Simon L. Klein
> On Fri, 11 Jun 1999 21:54:20 -0400, "Paul S. Wolf"
> <paul....@alum.wpi.edu> wrote:
> >Michael Berman wrote:
> >
> >> Paul S. Wolf wrote:
> >Michael, you write very well, but a number of your arguments are "straw
> >men", in that they presuppose that Reform and Conservative Judaism is a
> >different religion than Orthodox, in the same way that Lutheranism is a
> >different religion than Catholicism, an analogy we do not acccept.
>
> Well, then, since Israel's Chief Rabbinate represents the same
> religion (according to you), what's the problem?
>
> Look, either its the same religion, or a different one. If you say its
> the same, then "your" rabbis get to perform officially recognized
> marriages and divorces. If you say it is different, then register as a
> different religion.
>
> 2nd question: since when are Israelis obligated to accept your
> definitions? Since you don't accept that Reform and Conservative are
> as distinct as, say, Lutheran from Presbyterian Protestant
> Christianity, the Israeli Knesset *must* accept it? Paul, try reading
> Maimonides' 13 Principles of Judaism. Reform and the vast majority of
> Conservative Rabbis could not accept a good number of them. To force
> someone else to accept your definition... is religious coercion!
>
Strange that you should mention Lutherans and Presbyterians. These two
churches, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America (ELCA) plus the Reformed Church in America and the
United Church of Christ, are in full communion. I have read that this
means they can share clergy, for instance, to serve two small
congregations of different denominations in the same area. Leaders train
together for some purposes. Educational ideas and materials are shared.
I suspect each group also recognizes marriages and conversions performed
by the others.
Richard Schultz
: If the Charedi would just observe their form of Judaism and let those
: who are Reform and Masorti do the same, Israel would be much better off.
: That includes allowing prayer at the Kotel, in the manner which we feel
: is correct and appropriate.
(1) You seem to ignore the main problem: according to Orthodox Judaism,
it is *absolutely* forbidden for their to be mixed prayer. According
to Conservative Judaism, it is up to the individual congregation
(so in the case of the Kotel, Conservative Judaism would have to agree
to keep the sexes separate). Only Reform feels that it is correct
and appropriate to have mixed-sex prayer. Why should the rest of
the Jewish world be required to submit to the demands of what is in
practice a tiny minority?
(2) Why is it that Reform Jews go on and on about how awful it is that
they cannot pray in a mixed service at the Kotel, but that they never
complain about the lack of mixed services at the Tomb of the Patriarchs
in Hebron? After all, Reform even has the names of the Matriarchs
(three of whom are supposedly buried there) in the liturgy, while Reform
does not attach any religious significance to the Temple.
: Perhaps we all should listen to what the 12th point of the BSA's version
: of the Scout Law says:
: A Scout is Reverent.
: A Scout is reverent toward God.
: He is faithful in his religious duties.
: He respects the beliefs of others.
Why do you refuse to respect the beliefs of others yourself? Could it be
because you believe that all forms of Judaism are equal, but that yours
is more equal than the others?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"How many boards would the Mongols hoard if the Mongol hordes got bored?"
Paul S. Wolf
>
> Paul S. Wolf (Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org) wrote:
>
> : If the Charedi would just observe their form of Judaism and let
> : those who are Reform and Masorti do the same, Israel would be much
> : better off. That includes allowing prayer at the Kotel, in the
> : manner which we feel is correct and appropriate.
>
> (1) You seem to ignore the main problem: according to Orthodox
> Judaism, it is *absolutely* forbidden for their to be mixed prayer.
> According to Conservative Judaism, it is up to the individual
> congregation (so in the case of the Kotel, Conservative Judaism would
> have to agree to keep the sexes separate). Only Reform feels that it
> is correct and appropriate to have mixed-sex prayer. Why should the
> rest of the Jewish world be required to submit to the demands of what
> is in practice a tiny minority?
As I also said, EVEN IF you consider the Kotel and its environs a
synagogue (and I don't), why can't separate sections of the Kotel and
Plaza be established where the different services can be conducted (i.e.
an area where the Orthodox can conduct sevices, with Men and Women
separated by a Mechitza, and another area where mixed services can be
held), in the same way that the various Christian sects have separate
areas in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? There already are numerous
minyanim conducted simultaneously at the Kotel now, using different
minhagim (i.e. Chabad vs. Belzer vs. Ohr Somayach vs. Sephardic, etc.).
We just want to be able to conduct services using our minhag.
And your statement that "Only Reform feels that it is correct and
appropriate to have mixed-sex prayer" is not the fact. As you also
said, "According to Conservative Judaism, it is up to the individual
congregation." Virtually all Conservative synagogues hold mixed-sex
services. The "Congregation" in the case of the Kotel would be those
Conservative Jews wishing to pray there, and if they wanted mixed-sex
prayer, then they would make that determination - not you.
> (2) Why is it that Reform Jews go on and on about how awful it is that
> they cannot pray in a mixed service at the Kotel, but that they never
> complain about the lack of mixed services at the Tomb of the
> Patriarchs in Hebron? After all, Reform even has the names of the
> Matriarchs (three of whom are supposedly buried there) in the liturgy,
> while Reform does not attach any religious significance to the Temple.
It may be a case of one step at a time. It may also be their desire to
avoid confrontation with the Muslims that also pray there, until such
time as a peaceful solution to the "problem" is reached.
I'd love to be able to pray there in a Conservative service. I just
don't think the time is right to do so, not because of YOUR objections,
but because of safety concerns. I'd love to be able to pray on the
Temple Mount, too, but I don't expect to in my lifetime.
> : Perhaps we all should listen to what the 12th point of the BSA's
> : version of the Scout Law says:
>
> : A Scout is Reverent.
> : A Scout is reverent toward God.
> : He is faithful in his religious duties.
> : He respects the beliefs of others.
>
> Why do you refuse to respect the beliefs of others yourself? Could it
> be because you believe that all forms of Judaism are equal, but that
> yours is more equal than the others?
I respect the beliefs of others. I respect their right to pray to God
however they feel it's appropriate. I just don't respect those
individuals who won't respect me or my beliefs. There is a big
difference.
I've prayed at many Orthodox shuls, and have many Orthodox friends and
acquaintances. I've helped make minyanim when asked, and have asked
them to help me make a minyan when needed. However, when I and my
beliefs are treated with disrespect by individuals and organizations, I
return that disrespect to those individuals and organizations.
Mike Medved
: >
: > Paul S. Wolf (Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org) wrote:
: >
: > : If the Charedi would just observe their form of Judaism and let
: > : those who are Reform and Masorti do the same, Israel would be much
: > : better off. That includes allowing prayer at the Kotel, in the
: > : manner which we feel is correct and appropriate.
: >
: > (1) You seem to ignore the main problem: according to Orthodox
: > Judaism, it is *absolutely* forbidden for their to be mixed prayer.
: > According to Conservative Judaism, it is up to the individual
: > congregation (so in the case of the Kotel, Conservative Judaism would
: > have to agree to keep the sexes separate). Only Reform feels that it
: > is correct and appropriate to have mixed-sex prayer. Why should the
: > rest of the Jewish world be required to submit to the demands of what
: > is in practice a tiny minority?
: As I also said, EVEN IF you consider the Kotel and its environs a
: synagogue (and I don't), why can't separate sections of the Kotel and
: Plaza be established where the different services can be conducted (i.e.
: an area where the Orthodox can conduct sevices, with Men and Women
: separated by a Mechitza, and another area where mixed services can be
: held), in the same way that the various Christian sects have separate
: areas in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? There already are numerous
: minyanim conducted simultaneously at the Kotel now, using different
: minhagim (i.e. Chabad vs. Belzer vs. Ohr Somayach vs. Sephardic, etc.).
: We just want to be able to conduct services using our minhag.
Somehow I think this is one of the best examples of how divisive
Reform is for Jews - Chabad, Belzer, etc., as you mentioned, pray together
with no problems, but you with your "minhag" require separation.
: And your statement that "Only Reform feels that it is correct and
: appropriate to have mixed-sex prayer" is not the fact. As you also
: said, "According to Conservative Judaism, it is up to the individual
: congregation." Virtually all Conservative synagogues hold mixed-sex
: services. The "Congregation" in the case of the Kotel would be those
: Conservative Jews wishing to pray there, and if they wanted mixed-sex
: prayer, then they would make that determination - not you.
Do Reform "require" mixed-sex prayer? Is that a requirement of service
that men and women are in physical proximity to each other? If not, you
can respect the rules at the Kotel and not compromise your "minhag"
can't you?
: > (2) Why is it that Reform Jews go on and on about how awful it is that
: > they cannot pray in a mixed service at the Kotel, but that they never
: > complain about the lack of mixed services at the Tomb of the
: > Patriarchs in Hebron? After all, Reform even has the names of the
: > Matriarchs (three of whom are supposedly buried there) in the liturgy,
: > while Reform does not attach any religious significance to the Temple.
: It may be a case of one step at a time. It may also be their desire to
: avoid confrontation with the Muslims that also pray there, until such
: time as a peaceful solution to the "problem" is reached.
It also may be the case of hypocrisy.
: I'd love to be able to pray there in a Conservative service. I just
: don't think the time is right to do so, not because of YOUR objections,
: but because of safety concerns. I'd love to be able to pray on the
: Temple Mount, too, but I don't expect to in my lifetime.
Since there were things thrown at the Reform doing their demonstration
at the Kotel, there are safety concerns there as well. How come you're
ignoring that, while worried about the other?
: > : Perhaps we all should listen to what the 12th point of the BSA's
: > : version of the Scout Law says:
: >
: > : A Scout is Reverent.
: > : A Scout is reverent toward God.
: > : He is faithful in his religious duties.
: > : He respects the beliefs of others.
: >
: > Why do you refuse to respect the beliefs of others yourself? Could it
: > be because you believe that all forms of Judaism are equal, but that
: > yours is more equal than the others?
: I respect the beliefs of others. I respect their right to pray to God
: however they feel it's appropriate. I just don't respect those
: individuals who won't respect me or my beliefs. There is a big
: difference.
According to the above, do not expect respect from Orthodox when you
come to the Kotel and disrespect their beliefs.
: I've prayed at many Orthodox shuls, and have many Orthodox friends and
: acquaintances. I've helped make minyanim when asked, and have asked
: them to help me make a minyan when needed. However, when I and my
: beliefs are treated with disrespect by individuals and organizations, I
: return that disrespect to those individuals and organizations.
See above.
Paul S. Wolf
> Since there were things thrown at the Reform doing their demonstration
> at the Kotel, there are safety concerns there as well. How come you're
> ignoring that, while worried about the other?
First of all, it was a Masorti minyan (i.e. Conservative - not Reform).
Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
It was the Charedi that were cursing, screaming, and throwing things.
That sounds to me like "demonstrating".
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
: As I also said, EVEN IF you consider the Kotel and its environs a
: synagogue (and I don't),
I don't remember anyone soliciting your opinion of the matter.
: why can't separate sections of the Kotel and
: Plaza be established where the different services can be conducted (i.e.
: an area where the Orthodox can conduct sevices, with Men and Women
: separated by a Mechitza, and another area where mixed services can be
: held),
This question has been asked and answered. Would you be willing to have
the space alloted for mixed services be in proportion to the number of
Reform Jews who pray at the Kotel?
: in the same way that the various Christian sects have separate
: areas in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?
And we see just how well that arrangement works. Just ask any Copt.
: There already are numerous
: minyanim conducted simultaneously at the Kotel now, using different
: minhagim (i.e. Chabad vs. Belzer vs. Ohr Somayach vs. Sephardic, etc.).
: We just want to be able to conduct services using our minhag.
None of the minhagim you cite is inconsistent with any of the others
being in the same location. (Except possibly for Chabad if one of the
other groups thinks that it's avodah zarah.) A mixed service would
make it impossible for any of these other groups to pray there.
: And your statement that "Only Reform feels that it is correct and
: appropriate to have mixed-sex prayer" is not the fact. As you also
: said, "According to Conservative Judaism, it is up to the individual
: congregation." Virtually all Conservative synagogues hold mixed-sex
: services. The "Congregation" in the case of the Kotel would be those
: Conservative Jews wishing to pray there, and if they wanted mixed-sex
: prayer, then they would make that determination - not you.
No, the congregation would be the people who pray there, the overwhelming
majority of whom are Orthodox.
: > (2) Why is it that Reform Jews go on and on about how awful it is that
: > they cannot pray in a mixed service at the Kotel, but that they never
: > complain about the lack of mixed services at the Tomb of the
: > Patriarchs in Hebron? After all, Reform even has the names of the
: > Matriarchs (three of whom are supposedly buried there) in the liturgy,
: > while Reform does not attach any religious significance to the Temple.
: It may be a case of one step at a time. It may also be their desire to
: avoid confrontation with the Muslims that also pray there, until such
: time as a peaceful solution to the "problem" is reached.
If this is naivete, it's rather charming. But I fear that disingenuousness
would be a more accurate description.
: I'd love to be able to pray there in a Conservative service. I just
: don't think the time is right to do so, not because of YOUR objections,
: but because of safety concerns.
What safety concerns? If you look at the last five years, Muslims are
in considerably more danger than Jews. I know people who study in
yeshivot in Hebron, and people (well, let's be more accurate -- loonies)
from my synagogue often go on tiyyulim to Hebron. None of them have
been molested.
: I'd love to be able to pray on the Temple Mount, too, but I don't
: expect to in my lifetime.
You'd better keep quiet about that one -- it's a violation of both
Reform and Conservative dogma.
: > : Perhaps we all should listen to what the 12th point of the BSA's
: > : version of the Scout Law says:
: >
: > : A Scout is Reverent.
: > : A Scout is reverent toward God.
: > : He is faithful in his religious duties.
: > : He respects the beliefs of others.
: >
: > Why do you refuse to respect the beliefs of others yourself? Could it
: > be because you believe that all forms of Judaism are equal, but that
: > yours is more equal than the others?
: I respect the beliefs of others. I respect their right to pray to God
: however they feel it's appropriate. I just don't respect those
: individuals who won't respect me or my beliefs. There is a big
: difference.
Except that they feel that it is only appropriate to pray to God in
a place where the sexes are kept strictly segregated. Essentially none
of them would walk in to your synagogue uninvited and demand that you
start praying in a way that you feel is inappropriate. Why are
you demanding that they pray in their synagogue in a way that they feel
is inappropriate?
Richard Schultz
: Do Reform "require" mixed-sex prayer? Is that a requirement of service
: that men and women are in physical proximity to each other?
Actually, I believe that it does. In its current incarnation, Reform
requires absolute egalitarianism.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"A condemned man does not request egg salad for his last meal. He also
doesn't order Alka-Seltzer."
Kehlog Ahlbran, _The Profit_
Richard Schultz
: First of all, it was a Masorti minyan (i.e. Conservative - not Reform).
: Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
Ha ha ha. By picking a place to pray where they knew they would
be attacked, they were demonstrating.
: It was the Charedi that were cursing, screaming, and throwing things.
: That sounds to me like "demonstrating".
Actually, the problem is a bit more complicated than you seem to
think. There is a major problem of juvenile delinquency among the
charedi. But they would rather have people like you think that such
behavior is accepted by their community than to have to admit that their
social structure has failed those people who are not cut out for yeshiva
life. And don't think that the Masorti don't know that. They pray at
the Kotel as a deliberate provocation because they know it will get them
time on the evening news, and as the saying goes, "there is no such thing
as bad publicity."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
I'm sorry if I hurt you when I fell asleep last night,
But I was just exhausted from the act of being polite.
Robert Kaiser
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) says:
Paul S. Wolf (Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org) wrote:
>: First of all, it was a Masorti minyan (i.e. Conservative - not Reform).
>: Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
>Ha ha ha. By picking a place to pray where they knew they would
>be attacked, they were demonstrating.
Richards bigotry against non-Orthodox Jews is thus exposed as
exactly the same as bigotry towards blacks. For those of us here who
have actually read history books, Richard's hateful provocations are
old hat. "If those niggers didn't go into the restaurant, we wouldn't
have had to beat them....if those kikes and chinks hadn't moved into
that neighborhood, we wouldn't have had to set their houses on fire".
The victims have changed, but the hate-speech and logic are the same.
In disgust,
Robert
Jacob Love
Mike Medved <med...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Somehow I think this is one of the best examples of how divisive
>Reform is for Jews - Chabad, Belzer, etc., as you mentioned, pray together
>with no problems, but you with your "minhag" require separation.
No, it is the Orthodox who are "requiring" it by insisting that women
be excluded from prayer.
>Do Reform "require" mixed-sex prayer? Is that a requirement of service
>that men and women are in physical proximity to each other? If not, you
>can respect the rules at the Kotel and not compromise your "minhag"
>can't you?
Reform require (as well as many Conservative congregations) that women
have the right to read the Torah for themselves, not to have a man
fulfill the mitzvah on their behalf (unless that is their preference)
and to fulfill the function of shaliah tzibbor. What right do you have
to deny them these religious privileges?
>According to the above, do not expect respect from Orthodox when you
>come to the Kotel and disrespect their beliefs.
As far as I know, the Reform and Conservative Jews who are involved in
this controversy have no problem with Orthodox Jews utilizing the
public resource, and would in all likelihood agree that it should be
available for segregated worship for much of the day. They object to
the notion that they should be entirely excluded, and I suspect that
they believe that should interest among non-O Jews rise in observance
at the Wall, that some effort to fairly divide the time available
should be made.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Jacob Love
Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
>: First of all, it was a Masorti minyan (i.e. Conservative - not Reform).
>: Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
>
>Ha ha ha. By picking a place to pray where they knew they would
>be attacked, they were demonstrating.
So when Orthodox Jews attempted to pray at the wall during the
Jordanian period, they were "demonstrating"? (After all, they knew
that they might be attacked as well.) And if they were, is there
something really wrong with that?
Mike Medved
: In article <medvedFD...@netcom.com>,
: Mike Medved <med...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Do Reform "require" mixed-sex prayer? Is that a requirement of service
: >that men and women are in physical proximity to each other? If not, you
: >can respect the rules at the Kotel and not compromise your "minhag"
: >can't you?
: Reform require (as well as many Conservative congregations) that women
: have the right to read the Torah for themselves, not to have a man
: fulfill the mitzvah on their behalf (unless that is their preference)
: and to fulfill the function of shaliah tzibbor. What right do you have
: to deny them these religious privileges?
You did not answer my question, did you. I asked whether Reform
require (not allow, require) that men and women pray in physical
proximity to each other. Is that a Reform requirement or not?
You answered a question I didn't ask.
: >According to the above, do not expect respect from Orthodox when you
: >come to the Kotel and disrespect their beliefs.
: As far as I know, the Reform and Conservative Jews who are involved in
: this controversy have no problem with Orthodox Jews utilizing the
: public resource, and would in all likelihood agree that it should be
: available for segregated worship for much of the day. They object to
: the notion that they should be entirely excluded, and I suspect that
: they believe that should interest among non-O Jews rise in observance
: at the Wall, that some effort to fairly divide the time available
: should be made.
Sure - when the numbers of non-O Jews who do want to pray at the wall
rise to let's say one tenth of the O, and when the non-O show that
they do want to pray at the Kotel to the point that they are actually
willing to observe the traditions of the place, and not just come and
demonstrate, then there may be something done. And pigs will be flying
over such a gathering.
Robert Kaiser
We have seen many bigoted statements on this issue by those who
wish to push Orthodoxy as the only acceptable form ofJudaism. Their
false and misleading comparisons, and outright distortions, are being
used to unjustly malign those who differ from them.
As such, it is interesting to see the opposite case: How Reform
Jews react when Orthodox wish to gather in their midst. On this issue,
it is obvious that the Reform are presenting the true Jewish view.
http://ccarnet.org/cgi/respdisp.pl5?file=12&year=5758
Shalom,
Robert
Roberta Hatch
> We have seen many bigoted statements on this issue ...
We have also seen a bunch of loons crossposting this issue.
Why not keep it in soc.culture.jewish. Better yet, move it to
alt.flame where it belongs.
Followup-To set...
Bobbi
---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)
Paul S. Wolf
Thank You Robert. A fine article. Jacob Love's comments were also
quite appreciated.
I'd previously promised myself I wouldn't get involved in the OCR wars
on these groups. Since it's obvious that those responding to my posts
have closed minds, I will return to my previous silence, and will not
respond to any more messages in this thread.
jody eisenman
wrote:
>In article <7k60k9$ib0$4...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>,
>Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
>>: First of all, it was a Masorti minyan (i.e. Conservative - not Reform).
>>: Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
>>
>>Ha ha ha. By picking a place to pray where they knew they would
>>be attacked, they were demonstrating.
>
>So when Orthodox Jews attempted to pray at the wall during the
>Jordanian period, they were "demonstrating"?
Poor example.
Orthodox Jews have prayed at the Kotel for almost 2000 years. It is
mentioned as far back as the Talmud. Conservative and Reform Jews only
wish to pray there, under their own anti-halachic custom, when the
following conditions are met:
1. It is a Jewish holiday.
2. The press is notified.
3. They can get maximum pr exposure.
If any of these conditions are not met, they couldn't give a hoot
about praying at the Kotel, or for that matter, virtually anywhere.
Sheldon Glickler
"Paul S. Wolf" <Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org> wrote:
> >
> > We have seen many bigoted statements on this issue by those who
> > wish to push Orthodoxy as the only acceptable form ofJudaism. Their
> > false and misleading comparisons, and outright distortions, are
being
> > used to unjustly malign those who differ from them.
> >
> > As such, it is interesting to see the opposite case: How Reform
> > Jews react when Orthodox wish to gather in their midst. On this
> > issue, it is obvious that the Reform are presenting the true Jewish
> > view.
> >
> > http://ccarnet.org/cgi/respdisp.pl5?file=12&year=5758
> >
> > Shalom,
> >
> > Robert
>
> Thank You Robert. A fine article. Jacob Love's comments were also
> quite appreciated.
>
> I'd previously promised myself I wouldn't get involved in the OCR wars
> on these groups. Since it's obvious that those responding to my posts
> have closed minds, I will return to my previous silence, and will not
> respond to any more messages in this thread.
>
In the same spirit as the article, as I castigate when it is due, so
must I praise when it is due.
Thank you very much Robert for posting a reference to a wonderful
article. Maybe we can all learn from it.
Shelly
--
Due to the inordinate amount of junk and trash
appearing in my mailbox every day, I have changed
my email address. Please reply to
shel...@earthlink.net.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Karl Klingman
Richard Schultz wrote:
> Paul S. Wolf (Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org) wrote:
>
> : If the Charedi would just observe their form of Judaism and let those
> : who are Reform and Masorti do the same, Israel would be much better off.
> : That includes allowing prayer at the Kotel, in the manner which we feel
> : is correct and appropriate.
>
>
> (2) Why is it that Reform Jews go on and on about how awful it is that
> they cannot pray in a mixed service at the Kotel, but that they never
> complain about the lack of mixed services at the Tomb of the Patriarchs
> in Hebron? After all, Reform even has the names of the Matriarchs
> (three of whom are supposedly buried there) in the liturgy, while Reform
> does not attach any religious significance to the Temple.
---- the rest of the argument deleted -----
A man was taken by an angel to see hell. There were long rows of tables
covered with a sumptuous feast, but all of the people stood in front of the
tables wailing and crying. "Why do they cry so?" asked the man. "Because
their arms do not bend at the elbows and so they cannot eat," answered the
angel.
Next the angel took the man to see heaven. Just as in hell there were long
rows of tables set out with a feast, but all of the people were happy and
smiling. "Do their arms bend at the elbow here in heaven?" the man asked.
"No." replied the angel. "But, here they feed one another."
B'Shalom
Karl
Sheldon Glickler
We need more of your postings. I look forward to seeing them.
Harry Weiss
Organization: Netcom
Distribution:
Paul S. Wolf (Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org) wrote:
: Mike Medved wrote:
: > Since there were things thrown at the Reform doing their demonstration
: > at the Kotel, there are safety concerns there as well. How come you're
: > ignoring that, while worried about the other?
: First of all, it was a Masorti minyan (i.e. Conservative - not Reform).
: Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
: It was the Charedi that were cursing, screaming, and throwing things.
: That sounds to me like "demonstrating".
: --
: Paul S. Wolf, PE mailto:Paul....@alum.wpi.edu
: Past President, Great Lakes Region, Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs
No it is the conservative church learder thar are demonstrating. The
conservative church permits mixed services but allows one to pray
separated. They changed their liturgy to delte references to the
reestablishment of hte temple services and its sacrifices. The only
reason they conducted their demonstration is part of their on going war
against the Jewish religous leaders, in general and the Chief Rabbinate
specifically.
Binyomin Kaplan
Robert Kaiser wrote:
> As such, it is interesting to see the opposite case: How Reform
> Jews react when Orthodox wish to gather in their midst. On this issue,
> it is obvious that the Reform are presenting the true Jewish view.
>
> http://ccarnet.org/cgi/respdisp.pl5?file=12&year=5758
>
>
I read this and noticed that the author of the document referenced above
summarizes the question in terms of a conflict between "Jewish pluralism"
and "Reform Jewish integrity." It is as if the author is familiar with
ethical dilemmas from other contexts and knows that they are often analyzed
in terms of conflicting prinicples, but he has not noticed that the question
of having principles at all is what is at issue between the two "conflicitng
principles" that he has formulated here. "Reform Jewish integrity" simply
means that you should be true to your principles, doesn't it? And promoting
"pluralism" involves some sort of denial that there are absolute principles.
BTW, could an Orthodox minyan daven in a Reform shul even if they let them?
Binyomin
Robert Kaiser
> I read this and noticed that the author of the document referenced above
> summarizes the question in terms of a conflict between "Jewish pluralism"
> and "Reform Jewish integrity." It is as if the author is familiar with
> ethical dilemmas from other contexts and knows that they are often
> analyzed in terms of conflicting prinicples, but he has not noticed that
> the question of having principles at all is what is at issue between the
> two "conflicitng principles" that he has formulated here.
You are correct to note that this is the big difference between Reform
Judaism and other forms of Judaism. However, I read the paper as an ethical
and tactical debate: They are asking, what is the right thing, for us as
Reform Jews, to do in such a situation? They could then have gone on to
discuss the point you bring up, but my experience is that most Reform Jews
are uncomfortable with this fact. They try to make Reform sound as if it
has liberal principles (instead of classical principles), but when you try
and pin them down on it, it turns out that they don't have any set
principles at all, liberal or not. On the other hand, a few Reform rabbis
will admit this straight-out:
Reform Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut writes "there is no such thing as a Jewish
theological principle, policy, or doctrine." This is because Reform Judaism
affirms "the fundamental principle of Liberalism: that the individual will
approach this body of mitzvot and minhagim in the spirit of freedom and
choice. Traditionally Israel started with harut, the commandment engraved
upon the Tablets, which then became freedom. The Reform Jew starts with
herut, the freedom to decide what will be harut - engraved upon the personal
Tablets of his life." [Bernard Martin, Ed., Contemporary Reform Jewish
Thought, Quadrangle Books 1968.]
Similarly, Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) President Rabbi
Simeon J. Maslin wrote a pamphlet about Reform Judaism, entitled "What We
Believe...What We Do..." It states " If anyone were to attempt to answer
these two questions authoritatively for all Reform Jews, that person's
answers would have to be false. Why? Because one of the guiding principles
of Reform Judaism is the autonomy of the individual. A Reform Jew has the
right to decide whether to subscribe to this particular belief or to that
particular practice."
> "Reform Jewish integrity" simply means that you should be true to your
> principles, doesn't it? And promoting "pluralism" involves some sort of
> denial that there are absolute principles.
Well, within Reform Judaism, this is certainly true. There are no
theological or halakhic principles that members feel required to hold. This
certainly makes it easy to affirm pluralism!
But the reverse is not true. Affirming pluralism does not mean that one
has no principles. Conservative Jews have principles. So many, in fact,
that many Reform Jews claim that we are practically Orthodox! Yet
Conservative Judaism (and the liberal parts of Modern Orthodoxy) affirms
pluralism. However, we [Conservative Jews] do not claim that "everyone is
always right". Pluralism does not mean that everything is equally true, and
that all positions are equally correct and just. While some people make
that claim, they are plainly idiots. How can a belief and its exact
opposite both be true? (Answer: They can't). Orthodox Rabbi Avi Weiss
states that "pluralism does not mean that the respective movements agree on
every issue, rather pluralism means that each movement ought to present its
beliefs with conviction, while recognizing that it is not the only one
caring passionately about the Torah, land, and people of Israel."
How can any form of pluralism be legitimate then? Well, just throw away
the labels (Orthodox, Reform, etc.) and you will see that a form of
pluralism has always existed within Judaism. There have always been major
differences over statements of faith, images of God, and halakhic positions.
Even within Orthodox there still are. (see the below website for examples!)
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/363_Transp/08_Orthodoxy.html
How could this be? The answer is that wise rabbis have always realized
that no matter how hard we try, no human can ever know the mind of God with
certainty. We are not God, we cannot know Him like that. Thus, on every
issue, in every fashion, there is much uncertainty. Since this is so, we
can never be absolutly sure of ourselves. When we do, we are just
mistaking our own mind for the will of God, and that is idolatrous. Who is
to say that we are right? Only God. Yet the Torah, the Bible, the Codes -
in practice - all have uncertainty, and a variety of possible
interpretations. The rabbis in fact talk about the 70 faces of Torah! So
we must not pretend that we are ever certain. This isn't a Reform view
Judaism, this is the traditional Jewish view:
1.There are 70 faces of the Torah according to the rabbis, and Moses
was -not- taught the final decision on each matter of law "so that
the Torah may be capable of interpretation with forty nine points
pro and forty nine points contra." Numbers Rabbah 13;15-16, and
Talmud Yerushalmi, tractate Sanhedrin 4:2 (22a).
2.The Mishna explicitly teaches that people should listen to each
and other and be prepared to change their minds on legal
matters, and the opinion of a dissenting judge is recorded because
in a later generation the court may revise the law to agree with
him. [Mishna Eduyot 1:4-5]
3."You should make your ear like a grain receiver and acquire a
heart that can understand the words of the scholars who declare a thin
impure as well as those who declare it pure...Although one scholar
offers his view and another scholar offers his, the words of both are
derived from what Moses the shepard received from the One Lord
of the Universe". See Avot d'Rabbi Natan 18:3 , Tosefta Sotah 7:7,
Talmud Bavli, tractate Hagigah 3b, and midrash Numbers Rabbah 14:4
4.Indeed the Talmud tells us that we must intentionally expose
ourselves to diverse approaches by studying with at least two rabbis,
for "One who studies Torah from only one teacher will never achieve a
sign of blessing [i.e. success]" Talmud Bavli, tracate Avodah Zarah, 19a.
5.Rabbi Menahem ben Solomon Meiri (1249-1316) maintained that
disagreement is not only inevitable, but -desirable- as an integral
part of establishing the truth, for without dispute people are not
This is how Conservative, and some Modern Orthodox, Jews justify
pluralism.
On the other hand, the Reform often "talk the talk, but do not walk the
walk". What they ignore is this: None of these precedents were ever meant
to imply that "anything goes". On the contrary, all of these statements are
made with the assumption that the Jews who disagree have in common a desire
to search for the truth, and that both sides accept that Jewish law is
normative, i.e. Jewish law is governing for Jews. There are, and always
have been, assimilationists who say that Jews no longer need to keep Kosher
or keep the Sabbath; Jews don't need to observe the holidays or engage in
daily prayer; that Jews don't need to study Torah and Talmud, etc.
Nevertheless, any purely historic assessment must admit that such extreme
anti-nomian positions have no basis in the Jewish tradition.
We have to recognize that there is a difference between arguing about
how best to follow Jewish law - and simply throwing the law away. A good
way to describe it is to compare halakha to American law. American law is
based on the Constitution (The Written Law) and the judgements rendered by
the Supreme Court and Federal Courts (analogous to the Oral Law). All
Americans admit that it is valid for our legally elected representatives to
argue about the law, and to change it on occasion. This is fine as long as
our representatives themselves follow American law, and follow the set legal
procedures for modifying the system. On the other hand, if someone were to
say "I do not recognize any American law as binding, and I will only do
what I feel like doing", then it is clear that such a person has forsaken
any claim of legal legitimacy. Such a person has no right to claim that
American law no longer exists, and that all Americans should just do what
they please. By analogy, if one has any respect at all for the validity of
American law (or English law, or Canadian law, etc.) it should be obvious
that one should also have respect for the validity of Jewish law.
Shalom,
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Whoops! I left something out. None of that is to imply that
Reform Jews can't have binding principles. Many do. But when they do,
they accept these principles as binding despite the position of the
Reform Movement, not because of it. Just see the writings of Reform
rabbis like Richard Levy, Eugene Borowitz or Jakob Petuchowski. They
certainly have set principles; however they are to the far right-wing
of the Reform movement, and they only speak for themselves as individuals.
Those to the left of them have castigated them as "fundamentalist" for
daring to speak of some minimal set of principles that all Reform Jews
should accept.
Shalom,
Robert
Karl Klingman
Robert Kaiser wrote:
> "Robert Kaiser" <kai...@biosys.net.spamblock> says:
> > You are correct to note that this is the big difference between Reform
> >Judaism and other forms of Judaism. However, I read the paper as an ethical
> >and tactical debate: They are asking, what is the right thing, for us as
> >Reform Jews, to do in such a situation? They could then have gone on to
> >discuss the point you bring up, but my experience is that most Reform Jews
> >are uncomfortable with this fact. They try to make Reform sound as if it
> >has liberal principles (instead of classical principles), but when you try
> >and pin them down on it, it turns out that they don't have any set
> >principles at all, liberal or not. On the other hand, a few Reform rabbis
> >will admit this straight-out:
Robert,
You offer some interesting criticisms. However, it is actually pretty easy to
pin down what we Reform Jews espouse as our principles at this particular
juncture, since only last month the final draft of "A Statement of Principles of
Reform Judaism" was adopted by the 1999 Pittsburgh Convention Central Conference
of Rabbis it says, in part:
(Please note any typos are mine)
G-D
We affirm the reality and oneness of G-d, even as we may differ in our
understanding of the Divine presence.
We affirm that the Jewish People are bound to G-d by an eternal b'rit, covenant,
as reflected in our varied understandings of Creation, Revelation and Redemption.
We affirm that every human being is created b'tzelem Elohim in the image of G-d,
and that therefore every human life is sacred.
We regard with reverence all of G-d's creation and recognize our human
responsibility for its preservation and protection.
We encounter G-d's presence in moments of awe and wonder, in acts of justice and
compassion, in loving relationships and in the experiences of everyday life.
We respond to G-d daily: through public and private prayer, through study and
through the performance of other mitzvot, sacred obligations -- bein adam la
Makom, to G-d, and bein adam la chaveiro, to other human beings.
We strive for a faith that fortifies us through the vicissitudes of our lives --
illness and healing, transgression and repentance, bereavement and consolation,
despair and hope.
We continue to have faith that, in spite of the unspeakable evils committed
against our people and the sufferings endured by others, the partnership of G-d
and humanity will ultimately prevail.
We trust in our tradition's promise that although G-d created us as finite
beings, the spirit within us is eternal.
In all these ways and more, G-d gives meaning and purpose to our lives.
TORAH
We affirm that torah is the foundation of Jewish life.
We cherish the truths revealed in Torah, G-d's ongoing revelation to our people
and the record of our people's ongoing relationship with G-d.
We affirm that Torah is a manifestation of ahavat olam, God's eternal love for
the Jewish people and for all humanity.
We affirm the importance of studying Hebrew, the language of Torah and Jewish
liturgy, that we may draw closer to our people's sacred texts.
We are called by Torah to lifelong study in the home, in the synagogue and in
every place where Jews gather to learn and teach. Through Torah study we are
called to mitzvot, the means by which we make our lives holy.
We are committed to the ongoing study of the whole array of mitzvot and to the
fulfillment of those that address us as individuals and as a community. Some of
these mitzvot, sacred obligations, have long been observed by Reform Jews;
others, both ancient and modern, demand renewed attention as the result of the
unique context of our own times.
We bring Torah into the world when we seek to sanctify the times and places of
out lives through regular home and congregational observance. Shabbat calls us
to bring the highest moral values to our daily labor and to culminate the
workweek with kedushah, holiness, menuchah, rest and oneg, joy. The High Holy
Days call us to account for our deeds. The Festivals enable us to celebrate with
joy our people's religious journey in the context of the changing seasons. The
days of remembrance remind us of the tragedies and the triumphs that have shaped
our people's historical experience both in ancient and modern times. And we mark
the milestones of our personal journeys with traditional and creative rites that
reveal the holiness in each stage of life.
------------
Several more pages follow, but I have grown weary of typing and probably there is
no one still reading at this point anyway. For those few of you who have made it
this far. Let me just say that these do sound like principles to me.
B'Shalom,
Karl
Binyomin Kaplan
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Affirming pluralism does not mean that one
> has no principles.
I think it has to mean that one sees oneself as having principles in common with
those to whom one wants to grant legitimacy and it requires a certain relativism
about that which divides people into groups. This is simple enough in a
political context; everyone wants law and order,
prosperity, etc. It is more difficult in a religious context, however. A
religion of any kind usually takes a stand on ultimate reality. Refusal to do
this indicates, I think, the substitution of a religiously neutral political
philosophy (promoting pluralism) for a religious one. So the principles are
there; they are just not religious principles. That is why, I think, the author
of the essay on letting an Orthodox Jew daven in a Reform shul extricates
himself from his initial difficulty by invoking hachnasas orchim, which doesn't
address the issue as he formulates it and which he later admits might not be
relevant. But he perceived that at least some sort of perfunctory stab at
invoking a religious principle was called for.
Be well,
Binyomin
Binyomin Kaplan
Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> In article <3766E255...@gs.net>,
> Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> wrote:
> >
> > BTW, could an Orthodox minyan daven in a Reform shul even if they let
> them?
>
>
> I'll avoid commenting on the attempt at a backhand slap. Instead, I'll
> pose the questions to you.
>
> (1) Do Orthodox congregations that can't afford to own a building rent
> space?
> (2) Is there some prohibition that prevents renting space from a Reform
> synagogue?
>
> I am sure the answer to (1) is Yes. If your answer to (2) is "Yes"
> then you are effectively saying that you consider a building owned by a
> Reform congregation to be worse than one owned by anyone else. If so,
> then hatred of non-O is showing through loud and clear. If your answer
> to (2) is "No", then you already have your answer.
>
I don't know the answer to (2). I thought I did remember there being some
kind of problem
about going into the sanctuary of a Reform shul, but I was just wondering
out loud what the halachah was. Perhaps the problem with the sanctuary just
means that they would have to rent the social hall or some other part of the
building. And if I did know the answer, it wouldn't indicate anything about
what I hate or don't hate.
Be well,
Binyomin
Sheldon Glickler
>
> > As such, it is interesting to see the opposite case: How
Reform
> > Jews react when Orthodox wish to gather in their midst. On this
issue,
> > it is obvious that the Reform are presenting the true Jewish view.
> >
> > http://ccarnet.org/cgi/respdisp.pl5?file=12&year=5758
> >
> >
>
above
> summarizes the question in terms of a conflict between "Jewish
pluralism"
> and "Reform Jewish integrity." It is as if the author is familiar with
> ethical dilemmas from other contexts and knows that they are often
analyzed
> in terms of conflicting prinicples, but he has not noticed that the
question
>
> of having principles at all is what is at issue between the two
"conflicitng
>
simply
> means that you should be true to your principles, doesn't it? And
promoting
> "pluralism" involves some sort of denial that there are absolute
principles.
>
them?
>
I'll avoid commenting on the attempt at a backhand slap. Instead, I'll
pose the questions to you.
(1) Do Orthodox congregations that can't afford to own a building rent
space?
(2) Is there some prohibition that prevents renting space from a Reform
synagogue?
I am sure the answer to (1) is Yes. If your answer to (2) is "Yes"
then you are effectively saying that you consider a building owned by a
Reform congregation to be worse than one owned by anyone else. If so,
then hatred of non-O is showing through loud and clear. If your answer
to (2) is "No", then you already have your answer.
Remember that the solution was for the Orthodox congregation to _rent_
space from the Reform congregation, and that the scheduling of the
Reform congregation would take precedence. Nowhere in the solution was
there a call for the Orthodox to join in with the Reform services. In
fact, the solution found it imperative that the Orthodox congregation
not give the image of being part of the Reform congregation, but rather
that the Reform was extending the favor of providing the Orthodox a
place and time for their separate service at a [nominal] fee.
I think their solution was beautiful. It satisfied both camps.
mei...@qqqerols.com
Paul said:
> >: Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
Richard said:
>>Ha ha ha. By picking a place to pray where they knew they would
>>be attacked, they were demonstrating.
Robert claimed he said something parallel to:
>we wouldn't have had to beat them..
>we wouldn't have had to set their houses on fire".
Do you want me to explain how Richard never said 'had to beat' or 'had
to set' or 'had to attack' or would it be a waste of time?
Did you realize that the point of this paragraph was whether they were
demonstrating or not, or would it be a waste of time?
Disgusted,
Meir meirm...@erols.com
Remove the QQQ
and I'll get back to you.
Harry Weiss
Organization: Netcom
Distribution:
Sheldon Glickler (sheldo...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: In article <3766E255...@gs.net>,
You are basing things on wrong assumptions. You are right that the
answer to 1 is yes, but there is a big if. When you rent a building it
is for your sole use. To rent use of a building that is occupied by
someone else that you only have secondary use is a totally different story.
Much would be dependant on the usage of the primary user. I know it is
absolutely prohibited to share a building with a church since a Jew is
prohibited from even entering a church. There are other type of
activities that would also prohibit joint usage. The question that
applies to a R facility.
I am sure that many Rabbis would prohibit it, but there are also
exceptions. I know that the Santa Fe O congregation was based in the R
temple. Our synagogue when we first started and used a room in a private
house and then used a room in the Jewish Federation did use a R temple
for Bar Mitzvas. That was done with the approval of R. Yaakov Weinberg
Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel.
Each situation would have to be looked at and a decision would have to be
made by a qualfied posek.
: Remember that the solution was for the Orthodox congregation to _rent_
: space from the Reform congregation, and that the scheduling of the
: Reform congregation would take precedence. Nowhere in the solution was
: there a call for the Orthodox to join in with the Reform services. In
: fact, the solution found it imperative that the Orthodox congregation
: not give the image of being part of the Reform congregation, but rather
: that the Reform was extending the favor of providing the Orthodox a
: place and time for their separate service at a [nominal] fee.
: I think their solution was beautiful. It satisfied both camps.
: Shelly
: --
: Due to the inordinate amount of junk and trash
: appearing in my mailbox every day, I have changed
: my email address. Please reply to
: shel...@earthlink.net.
: Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
: Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Richard Schultz
: In article <medvedFD...@netcom.com>,
: Mike Medved <med...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Reform is for Jews - Chabad, Belzer, etc., as you mentioned, pray
: >together with no problems, but you with your "minhag" require separation.
: No, it is the Orthodox who are "requiring" it by insisting that women
: be excluded from prayer.
Please reread that sentence, think carefully about what it means (not
what you intended it to mean, whatever that was), and consider:
do you actually care whether what you post is the truth or not?
: Reform require (as well as many Conservative congregations) that women
: have the right to read the Torah for themselves, not to have a man
: fulfill the mitzvah on their behalf (unless that is their preference)
: and to fulfill the function of shaliah tzibbor. What right do you have
: to deny them these religious privileges?
What right do you have to deny the religious privileges of the >90% of
the people who pray at the Kotel to express their religion in the way
they feel is most appropriate? What right do you have to deny the
religious privileges of the Temple Mount Faithful to pray at Jewish
Holy Sites in the way they see fit? What right do you have to deny
"Messianic Jews" the religious prvilige to pray at the Kotel as
*they* see fit?
: >According to the above, do not expect respect from Orthodox when you
: >come to the Kotel and disrespect their beliefs.
: As far as I know, the Reform and Conservative Jews who are involved in
: this controversy have no problem with Orthodox Jews utilizing the
: public resource, and would in all likelihood agree that it should be
: available for segregated worship for much of the day. They object to
: the notion that they should be entirely excluded, and I suspect that
: they believe that should interest among non-O Jews rise in observance
: at the Wall, that some effort to fairly divide the time available
: should be made.
So then why do you object to Jonathan Baker's suggestion that the time
be divided in proportion to the population of people of each denomination
who pray there? What could be fairer than that?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --
Richard Schultz
: In article <7k60k9$ib0$4...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>,
: Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
: >: Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
: >
: >Ha ha ha. By picking a place to pray where they knew they would
: So when Orthodox Jews attempted to pray at the wall during the
: Jordanian period, they were "demonstrating"?
Did you really think that I would answer "no" to that question?
: (After all, they knew
: that they might be attacked as well.) And if they were, is there
: something really wrong with that?
Here is a piece of advice for you: if you want to "communicate" with
me, you should start by reading my posts under the assumption that I
mean what I say. Thus, if I do not say that there is something really
wrong with it, that means that either (a) I do not think there is
something wrong with it or (b) I am merely reporting a fact without
passing judgment on it.
I never said whether I felt there was anything wrong with the Masorti
congregation demonstrating at the Kotel for their beliefs. What I do
feel is wrong (and this is, alas, something that you are unlikely
to understand, based on my prior experience of you) is the hypocrisy
of claiming that they are only going to the Kotel to pray and they
hope that nothing untoward will happen. They are going to the Kotel
incidentally to pray, but primarily to provoke a confrontation to
publicize their stand on certain issues. Let me reiterate: I don't
find the demonstration in and of itself wrong. (I was thinking of
the Rosa Parks analogy, but IIRC, she really did just want a seat on
the bus and had no intention of doing anything particularly heroic.)
Lying about one's motivations, however, is something to which I
take exception.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . .
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
: > (2) Why is it that Reform Jews go on and on about how awful it is that
: > they cannot pray in a mixed service at the Kotel, but that they never
: > complain about the lack of mixed services at the Tomb of the Patriarchs
: > in Hebron? After all, Reform even has the names of the Matriarchs
: > (three of whom are supposedly buried there) in the liturgy, while Reform
: > does not attach any religious significance to the Temple.
: ---- the rest of the argument deleted -----
: A man was taken by an angel to see hell. There were long rows of tables
: covered with a sumptuous feast, but all of the people stood in front of the
: tables wailing and crying. "Why do they cry so?" asked the man. "Because
: their arms do not bend at the elbows and so they cannot eat," answered the
: angel.
: Next the angel took the man to see heaven. Just as in hell there were long
: rows of tables set out with a feast, but all of the people were happy and
: smiling. "Do their arms bend at the elbow here in heaven?" the man asked.
: "No." replied the angel. "But, here they feed one another."
The story is cute but (a) not relevant and (b) not an answer to my
question.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners
Giora Drachsler
> >On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 17:51:28 GMT, jo...@idt.net (jody eisenman)
> >>The curriculum states "how the chareidi politicians steal the public chest".
>
> >>
> >Change "steal" with "fleece" and you'd get a majority of secularists
> >to agree with the statement.
>
> Only because you have people like Tommy Lapid feeding them patently
> wrong information. Neutral folks like Olmert look at the real numbers,
> and note that per student the charedim get far *less* than their
> secular brethren, from elementary school through university.
>
> Michael
The students, of course, don't get much because the lions share in
the contributions goes to the corrupt leaders which find better use
for the money.
This days, in spite of frenetically efforts of Deri to cover it up, an
other scandal is up with millions missing from a Yeshiva's budget.
--
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Sheldon Glickler
Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> wrote:
>
>
> Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>
> > In article <3766E255...@gs.net>,
> > Binyomin Kaplan <biny...@gs.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, could an Orthodox minyan daven in a Reform shul even if they
let
> > them?
> >
> >
I'll
> > pose the questions to you.
> >
> > (1) Do Orthodox congregations that can't afford to own a building
rent
> > space?
> > (2) Is there some prohibition that prevents renting space from a
Reform
> > synagogue?
> >
> > I am sure the answer to (1) is Yes. If your answer to (2) is "Yes"
> > then you are effectively saying that you consider a building owned
by a
> > Reform congregation to be worse than one owned by anyone else. If
so,
> > then hatred of non-O is showing through loud and clear. If your
answer
> > to (2) is "No", then you already have your answer.
> >
>
some
> kind of problem
> about going into the sanctuary of a Reform shul, but I was just
wondering
The problem, AIUI, was doing so while a Reform service was underway.
> out loud what the halachah was. Perhaps the problem with the sanctuary
just
> means that they would have to rent the social hall or some other part
of the
I think they could rent the sanctuary.
> building. And if I did know the answer, it wouldn't indicate anything
about
> what I hate or don't hate.
My original was "your hatred". I excised the "your", because I wanted
to "hatred" to reflect upon those who would make such a ruling -- not
you in particular, Binyamin. I still maintain that.
Sheldon Glickler
Karl, you are a newcomer. As I said before, welcome.
What you started to type, I posted here about a month or so ago. Robert
read them and went on with the mantra that these were only "proposed"
principles. Now that they have been accepted, he changed his mantra to
"oh well, they are only suggestions".
The point is that he says there are no principles because that is what
he wants to believe (and truly believes). He cannot fathom the
difference between "God says, therefore you must do" and "These are the
principles; we choose to accept them". In other words, because we do
not agree to be _bound_ by halacha (and his is different from O's), ergo
it must be a free-for-all.
You will _NEVER_ convince him. Understand that, and move on -- for your
own sake. Otherwise, you might suffer burn-out before having had the
chance to meet and establish relationships with some truly wonderful
people (from all the walks of Judaism).
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> It was the Charedi that were cursing, screaming, and throwing things.
> That sounds to me like "demonstrating".
Paul, were you there? Do you believe everything you read? Do you
sometime suspect that someone may have an agenda when they report?
I would suggest to all those taking part in this discussion to come
to Israel and _see_ what happens on Shavuot.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)
Robert Kaiser
Karl Klingman <ka...@mindspring.com> says:
>You offer some interesting criticisms. However, it is actually pretty easy to
>pin down what we Reform Jews espouse as our principles at this particular
>juncture, since only last month the final draft of "A Statement of Principles of
>Reform Judaism" was adopted by the 1999 Pittsburgh Convention Central Conference
>of Rabbis it says, in part:
After this was distributed to the press, CCAR offered a clarification:
These are NOT what Reform Jews have to believe or do. They are being offered
as a non-binding suggestion.
>G-D
>We affirm the reality and oneness of G-d, even as we may differ in our
>understanding of the Divine presence.
Which includes outright atheism. Alvin Reines and Eric Fromm
are influential theologians within Reform Judaism, and both are atheists.
Both also use the word "God". Thus this sentence has no content.
>We affirm that the Jewish People are bound to G-d by an eternal b'rit, covenant,
>as reflected in our varied understandings of Creation, Revelation and Redemption.
This is a contradiction: How can they say they are part of a
covenant if they admit that eahcperson has a different idea of what
this covenant is?
>We affirm that every human being is created b'tzelem Elohim in the image of G-d,
>and that therefore every human life is sacred.
>
>We regard with reverence all of G-d's creation and recognize our human
>responsibility for its preservation and protection.
>
>We encounter G-d's presence in moments of awe and wonder, in acts of justice and
>compassion, in loving relationships and in the experiences of everyday life.
These parts make sense.
>We respond to G-d daily: through public and private prayer, through study and
>through the performance of other mitzvot, sacred obligations -- bein adam la
>Makom, to G-d, and bein adam la chaveiro, to other human beings.
Yet according to CCAR, even with this new platform, NONE of
these things are required for Reform Jews. Even this minimal list is
only a suggestion. A good suggestion, yes. But standards that Reform
Jews have to accept? Nope.
Shalom,
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> says:
>
>What you started to type, I posted here about a month or so ago. Robert
>read them and went on with the mantra that these were only "proposed"
>principles. Now that they have been accepted, he changed his mantra to
>"oh well, they are only suggestions".
But that is precisely what CCAR says. Many CCAR rabbis have
stated this, repeatedly. Are you saying they all are wrong?
>The point is that he says there are no principles because that is what
>he wants to believe (and truly believes). He cannot fathom the
>difference between "God says, therefore you must do" and "These are the
>principles; we choose to accept them".
That is Shelly's own personal position. However, it is NOT the
official position of the Reform movement. This has been the dispute all
along. I am talking about the official position of the Reform movement
as stated by CCAR. Shelly, on the other hand, is pushing his personal
interpretation as the official CCAR position. That is wrong.
>You will _NEVER_ convince him.
Sure you can. Just prove to me that CCAR has been lying. But
until then, I will take them at their word: These are suggested principles,
and Reform Jews are under no obligation to accept all, or even any, of
them.
Shalom,
Robert
Binyomin Kaplan
Sheldon Glickler wrote:
Since the ruling would involve the application of sources that predate
the Reform Movement, I don't see what would make it evidence of anyone's
"hatred,"
unless you could show that the sources in question were not being applied
correctly.
Be well,
Binyomin
Simon L. Klein
> Whoops! I left something out. None of that is to imply that
> Reform Jews can't have binding principles. Many do. But when they do,
> they accept these principles as binding despite the position of the
> Reform Movement, not because of it. Just see the writings of Reform
> rabbis like Richard Levy, Eugene Borowitz or Jakob Petuchowski. They
> certainly have set principles; however they are to the far right-wing
> of the Reform movement, and they only speak for themselves as individuals.
> Those to the left of them have castigated them as "fundamentalist" for
> daring to speak of some minimal set of principles that all Reform Jews
> should accept.
>
None of us has binding principles for born Jews. To install a new piece
of software, one has to click the "Agree" button. There is no such
button to click on, when one joins a Conservative congregation (I doubt
there is one for Orthodox congregations, but do not know). There is no
practical way to force the ordinary Jew to observe kashrut or even to
believe in G-d. What does it mean to say this is compulsory, but we
won't compel you? When you write of binding principles, what do you mean
by the word "binding"?
--
Simon L. Klein <slk...@tiac.net>
PageCrafters, since 1987
Chelmsford, MA (USA)
Jacob Love
jody eisenman <jo...@idt.net> wrote:
[To me]
>>So when Orthodox Jews attempted to pray at the wall during the
>>Jordanian period, they were "demonstrating"?
>
>
>
>Orthodox Jews have prayed at the Kotel for almost 2000 years. It is
>mentioned as far back as the Talmud. Conservative and Reform Jews only
>wish to pray there, under their own anti-halachic custom, when the
>following conditions are met:
If I were willing to admit that there was such a thing as an "Orthodox"
Jew prior to the late 1700s, I might think you had a point here.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Jacob Love
Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
>: be excluded from prayer.
>
>Please reread that sentence, think carefully about what it means (not
>what you intended it to mean, whatever that was), and consider:
>do you actually care whether what you post is the truth or not?
Yes, I care, and yes I think it is "truthful".
>: Reform require (as well as many Conservative congregations) that women
>: have the right to read the Torah for themselves, not to have a man
>: fulfill the mitzvah on their behalf (unless that is their preference)
>: and to fulfill the function of shaliah tzibbor. What right do you have
>: to deny them these religious privileges?
>
>What right do you have to deny the religious privileges of the >90% of
>the people who pray at the Kotel to express their religion in the way
>they feel is most appropriate? What right do you have to deny the
>religious privileges of the Temple Mount Faithful to pray at Jewish
>Holy Sites in the way they see fit? What right do you have to deny
>"Messianic Jews" the religious prvilige to pray at the Kotel as
>*they* see fit?
We've been over this before. To answer the question properly, I would
need to know a bit more about the legal status of the "holy sites"
under Israeli law than I currently do. But I think a fair place to
start would be this--is it merely a question of "might makes right"? In
other words, if (God forbid) for some reason the Jewish holy places
such as the Cave of Mahpelah or the Wall should fall under the
political authority of non-Jews, will it be OK with you if they rule
that only Reform Jews can use these places, or that only so-called
Messianic Jews can? If *they* have the power, what religious freedom
would you request for Orthodox Jews, and on what basis?
>: >According to the above, do not expect respect from Orthodox when you
>: >come to the Kotel and disrespect their beliefs.
>
>: As far as I know, the Reform and Conservative Jews who are involved in
>: this controversy have no problem with Orthodox Jews utilizing the
>: public resource, and would in all likelihood agree that it should be
>: available for segregated worship for much of the day. They object to
>: the notion that they should be entirely excluded, and I suspect that
>: they believe that should interest among non-O Jews rise in observance
>: at the Wall, that some effort to fairly divide the time available
>: should be made.
>
>So then why do you object to Jonathan Baker's suggestion that the time
>be divided in proportion to the population of people of each denomination
>who pray there? What could be fairer than that?
I don't actually object to Jonathan's suggestion, it might very well
have merit. There are many places in the world where various religions
and denominations have conflicting claims to a place, and there are a
variety of solutions, some good, some bad that have been tried. If
Jon's suggestion or something like it leads to a mutually acceptable
solution, then I would be happy with it.
gab...@hotmail.com
<gi...@cc.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>Michael Berman wrote:
>
>> >On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 17:51:28 GMT, jo...@idt.net (jody eisenman)
>> >>The curriculum states "how the chareidi politicians steal the public chest".
>>
>> >>
>> >Change "steal" with "fleece" and you'd get a majority of secularists
>> >to agree with the statement.
>>
>> Only because you have people like Tommy Lapid feeding them patently
>> wrong information. Neutral folks like Olmert look at the real numbers,
>> and note that per student the charedim get far *less* than their
>> secular brethren, from elementary school through university.
>>
>> Michael
>
>The students, of course, don't get much because the lions share in
>the contributions goes to the corrupt leaders which find better use
>for the money.
>
The problem with estimating the figures is that the money flows from
several sources, including the Interior, Religious Affairs and Housing
ministries.
>This days, in spite of frenetically efforts of Deri to cover it up, an
>other scandal is up with millions missing from a Yeshiva's budget.
They also found millions from the Labor ministry funds in there.
Nobody knows yet how they got there.
Mike Fessler
: What I do
: feel is wrong (and this is, alas, something that you are unlikely
: to understand, based on my prior experience of you) is the hypocrisy
: of claiming that they are only going to the Kotel to pray and they
: hope that nothing untoward will happen. They are going to the Kotel
: incidentally to pray, but primarily to provoke a confrontation to
: publicize their stand on certain issues.
I was one of the group who was at the Kotel on Shavuot slightly over a year ago.
I went to pray with my friends and community, knowing that some haredim might
react poorly, but hoping that we would be permitted to pray unmolested,
according to our custom. I would have *infinitely* preferred that a) we had been
left alone (particularly as we made a point of gathering not at the Kotel
itself, but rather at the other end of the Kotel plaza, near the security
gates.) and b) that nothing worthy of press coverage had happened. I would be
much happier if my memories of that Shavuot morning included only my wonder and
happiness in being part of the flow of Jews gathering from all over Jerusalem to
stream through Jaffa Gata and the shuk on the way down to the Kotel plaza; the
sense of holiness and anticipation that I felt while watching the sky for the
first glimmer of light; the tefillot themselves.
But that was stolen from me -- tainted by the violence and hatred of a relative
few, and by the indifference and complicity of thousands of others.
I think you are way out of line in presuming to know others' motivations or
kavvanah. You have no idea.
--Michael Fessler
Simon L. Klein
> Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> says:
> >
>
> >What you started to type, I posted here about a month or so ago. Robert
> >read them and went on with the mantra that these were only "proposed"
> >principles. Now that they have been accepted, he changed his mantra to
> >"oh well, they are only suggestions".
>
>
> But that is precisely what CCAR says. Many CCAR rabbis have
> stated this, repeatedly. Are you saying they all are wrong?
>
>
> >The point is that he says there are no principles because that is what
> >he wants to believe (and truly believes). He cannot fathom the
> >difference between "God says, therefore you must do" and "These are the
> >principles; we choose to accept them".
>
>
> That is Shelly's own personal position. However, it is NOT the
> official position of the Reform movement. This has been the dispute all
> along. I am talking about the official position of the Reform movement
> as stated by CCAR. Shelly, on the other hand, is pushing his personal
> interpretation as the official CCAR position. That is wrong.
>
>
> >You will _NEVER_ convince him.
>
>
> Sure you can. Just prove to me that CCAR has been lying. But
> until then, I will take them at their word: These are suggested principles,
> and Reform Jews are under no obligation to accept all, or even any, of
> them.
>
These are not suggested principles. In the words of the A Statement of
Principles for Reform Judaism, these are "a set of principles that
define Reform Judaism in our own time".
The dictionary lists several definitions for the word "principle". These
are not principles in the sense of being truths, laws, assumptions, or
standards. They are principles in the sense of being the CCAR's
assessment of what is basic and essential and characteristic of Reform
Judaism, in North America now.
These principles are intended to be broad enough to include most Reform
Jews, and narrow enough to set us apart. They are our consensus, not our
admission ticket.
Simon L. Klein
> Karl Klingman <ka...@mindspring.com> says: >You offer some interesting
> criticisms. However, it is actually pretty easy to >pin down what we
> Reform Jews espouse as our principles at this particular >juncture, since
> only last month the final draft of "A Statement of Principles of >Reform
> Judaism" was adopted by the 1999 Pittsburgh Convention Central Conference
> >of Rabbis it says, in part:
>
>
> After this was distributed to the press, CCAR offered a clarification:
> These are NOT what Reform Jews have to believe or do. They are being offered
> as a non-binding suggestion.
>
>
>
> >G-D
> >We affirm the reality and oneness of G-d, even as we may differ in our
> >understanding of the Divine presence.
>
> Which includes outright atheism. Alvin Reines and Eric Fromm
> are influential theologians within Reform Judaism, and both are atheists.
> Both also use the word "God". Thus this sentence has no content.
>
>
> >We affirm that the Jewish People are bound to G-d by an eternal b'rit,
> >covenant, as reflected in our varied understandings of Creation,
> >Revelation and Redemption.
>
> This is a contradiction: How can they say they are part of a
> covenant if they admit that eahcperson has a different idea of what
> this covenant is?
>
>
> >We affirm that every human being is created b'tzelem Elohim in the image
> >of G-d, and that therefore every human life is sacred.
> >
> >We regard with reverence all of G-d's creation and recognize our human
> >responsibility for its preservation and protection.
> >
> >We encounter G-d's presence in moments of awe and wonder, in acts of
> >justice and compassion, in loving relationships and in the experiences of
> >everyday life.
>
>
> These parts make sense.
>
>
> >We respond to G-d daily: through public and private prayer, through study
> >and through the performance of other mitzvot, sacred obligations -- bein
> >adam la Makom, to G-d, and bein adam la chaveiro, to other human beings.
>
>
> Yet according to CCAR, even with this new platform, NONE of
> these things are required for Reform Jews. Even this minimal list is
> only a suggestion. A good suggestion, yes. But standards that Reform
> Jews have to accept? Nope.
>
Synopsis: Karl says this is what Reform Jews do believe.
Robert says this is not what Reform Jews must believe.
Robert Kaiser
slk...@tiac.net (Simon L. Klein) says:
>None of us has binding principles for born Jews. To install a new piece
>of software, one has to click the "Agree" button. There is no such
>button to click on, when one joins a Conservative congregation (I doubt
>there is one for Orthodox congregations, but do not know).
You are mistaking theology for police enforcement.
> There is no practical way to force the ordinary Jew to observe
> kashrut or even to believe in G-d. What does it mean to say this
> is compulsory, but we won't compel you? When you write of binding
> principles, what do you mean by the word "binding"?
This is a false dichotomy. The leaders of Reconstructionist and
Reform Judaism have repeated this cannard over and over until, apparently,
many Jews have accepted it. But its bunk.
When an Orthodox or Conservative Jew says that halakha is normative
(binding), he is not saying that there exists a halakha police. Normative
halakha does not imply that religious fanatics will attack you if you
do not follow the law! Yet in Reform and Reconstructionist ideology,
that is the only way they can concieve of things. Either halakha is
enforced by some sort of halakha police, or it doesn't exist at all, and
everything is up for grabs.
Outside of some Haredi sects, I can't imagine any Jew having
such a belief. Yet, Reform and Recon. leaders insist that we do have
these beliefs,and then shape their movements in opposition to these
beliefs (which we don't really have!)
When a Conservative Jew says that halakha is binding, he/she means
that we Jews are part of a brit (covenant), and this brit obligates us
to follow halakha (Jewish law). Obviously, we do not mean that there is
a halakha police!
We just have totally different worldviews. We believe that laws
can be normative without using physical force or lawsuits to enforce them
Halakha is what we are supposed to do, EVEN THOUGH no one will arrest
us if we fail to do so. We follow Judaism out of love, not fear.
Reform Jews believe that unless someone forces them to do something,
then a law cannot exist. As such, each person does what they please.
I find this hypocritical - for in every other way, Reform Jews do admit
that there are laws that exist without enforcement - the social contract.
Reform Jews do not thumb their collective noses at every one of society's
laws and customs. They follow them just as closely as any other Jew, or
gentile. It is only when it comes to Judaism that this idea of "physically
enforce the law or abandon it" comes in - and I just don't buy that.
Shalom,
Robert
Mike Fessler
: "Paul S. Wolf" <Paul...@CuyCtyEngineers.org> writes:
:
: > It was the Charedi that were cursing, screaming, and throwing things.
: > That sounds to me like "demonstrating".
:
: Paul, were you there? Do you believe everything you read? Do you
: sometime suspect that someone may have an agenda when they report?
:
: I would suggest to all those taking part in this discussion to come
: to Israel and _see_ what happens on Shavuot.
I was there, a year and a bit ago. Paul is right, with the qualification that
not all the haredim there were doing so -- there was a core group of a couple of
hundred hotheads, mostly teenagers and men in their early 20's. . The vast
majority of haredim ignored what was happening, though I estimate at least
30-40% were in a position to see the behavior of members of their community.
There were a very few older haredi men who took it upon themselves to try to
calm some of the more profane or violent teenagers and young men down, which was
unsuccessful largely due to their small number. (3-4). If the haredi community
really took responsibility for what members of their community were doing,
there's no question in my mind that the verbal and physical violence could have
been prevented. But they didn't -- not in a hands-on way.
Micha Berger
: to pray unmolested,
: according to our custom.
Stupid and tangential nit:
Your custom? Your custom, like everyone else's is to pray separately. You might
feel that custom is wrong, and you may feel it ought to be changed. But isn't it
revisionist to say that mixed prayer is a custom?
I wonder the same thing when I here the phrase "in the R tradition". The
tradition of R Jews, like those of C Jews, is basically O. They represent
intentional breaks with that tradition to answer other callings they feel
to be of greater value.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 16-Jun-99: Revi'i, Korach
mi...@aishdas.org A"H O"Ch 328:18-24
http://www.aishdas.org Eruvin 96b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-I 4
Jonathan J. Baker
>As I also said, EVEN IF you consider the Kotel and its environs a
>synagogue (and I don't), why can't separate sections of the Kotel and
To do a bit of variable substitution:
"As I also said, EVEN IF you consider the Capitol and its environs
a seat of government (and I don't)..."
Doesn't that sound stupid?
--
Jonathan Baker | It's almost time ta muze
jjb...@panix.com | about the Destruction.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Mike Medved wrote:
>> Since there were things thrown at the Reform doing their demonstration
>> at the Kotel, there are safety concerns there as well. How come you're
>> ignoring that, while worried about the other?
>First of all, it was a Masorti minyan (i.e. Conservative - not Reform).
>Second, they were praying, not demonstrating.
The two are often the same act. E.g., the demonstration against the
Baga"tz, the daily minyanim in front of the Soviet mission to the U.N.
for years before glasnost, etc.
>It was the Charedi that were cursing, screaming, and throwing things.
>That sounds to me like "demonstrating".
There are demonstrations, and there are demonstrations.
Simon L. Klein
Reform Jews believe we are part of a covenant, and that we have
obligations arising from this covenant. In fact, while you consistently
emphasize the freedom we have, my experience has been that we
concentrate on the obligations.
> We just have totally different worldviews.
You are right. When you write about Reform Judaism and about classical
Reform, we clearly have different understandings. The only problem
occurs when you try to tell other people what I believe. Some people can
write about a different worldview with sensitivity. You have insisted
that either every Reform Jew in this forum is lying or the CCAR is. It
ain't necessarily so.
>We believe that laws
> can be normative without using physical force or lawsuits to enforce them
> Halakha is what we are supposed to do, EVEN THOUGH no one will arrest
> us if we fail to do so. We follow Judaism out of love, not fear.
>
> Reform Jews believe that unless someone forces them to do something,
> then a law cannot exist. As such, each person does what they please.
> I find this hypocritical - for in every other way, Reform Jews do admit
> that there are laws that exist without enforcement - the social contract.
> Reform Jews do not thumb their collective noses at every one of society's
> laws and customs. They follow them just as closely as any other Jew, or
> gentile. It is only when it comes to Judaism that this idea of "physically
> enforce the law or abandon it" comes in - and I just don't buy that.
>
Binyomin Kaplan
Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>
> >
> > Since the ruling would involve the application of sources that predate
> > the Reform Movement, I don't see what would make it evidence of
> anyone's
> > "hatred,"
> > unless you could show that the sources in question were not being
> applied
> > correctly.
> >
>
> This makes no sense. What has the calendar to do with anything here?
>
> The only reason for _not_ renting the space is that would give the
> appearance of approval of the practices of those damn apostate
> heretics. That is hatred and bigotry.
>
Well, perhaps the reason would be that when our esteemed bretheren are
unfortunately not doing the right thing, then we are not allowed to act in
ways that imply approval about it. But I don't think this is relevant to the
point I was making. My point is that a halachic ruling is supposed to be
based on a dispassionately accurate application of the relevant sources. So
the motivation of the one making the ruling should simply be to derive the
ruling correctly. And the motivation of the classical sources, at any rate,
can hardly be hatred of the Reform movement since they predate it.
Be well,
Binyomin
JGa...@worldnet.att.net
>
> Simon L. Klein (slk...@tiac.net) wrote:
>
> : These principles are intended to be broad enough to include most Reform
> : Jews, and narrow enough to set us apart. They are our consensus, not our
> : admission ticket.
>
> movement taken to encourage aliyah?<
It is trying to bring down the price of pork in ISrael by encouraging
Israel to reduce tariffs on US swine sales to Israel. If ham sandwiches
become cheap enough in Israel then millions of reform Jews will swarm
in.
JGa...@worldnet.att.net
> : > movement taken to encourage aliyah?
>
>
> : 1. We moved our world headquarters from New York to Jerusalem.
>
> How will that encourage aliyah?<
The real question should be, what has the Israeli government and Israeli
society in general done to encourage Jews to leave the wealthiest and
best country in the world to come to ISrael?
JGa...@worldnet.att.net
> also get to set the rules for only that portion of the day in proportion
> to their numbers in the population of the State, and others, i.e. the
> Masorti, Reform, Reconstructionist, and the rest of the population, get
> to set the rules for the rest of the day. Since the majority of
> Israel's population is "Secular" to use that term, that would give the
> orthodox less than 50% of the time, if memory serves me correct. Given
> the choice and education, I'd be willing to bet the majority of the
> "secular" Jews in Israel would embrace Masorti or other liberal
> viewpoints. I'm sure the various Liberal movements would be willing to
> adopt similar rules, the same way the various Orthodox sects do now.<
The simple fact is that Reform is a creation of a Jewish minority in the
Western diaspora trying to fit in with gentiles. Reform simply makes
little or no sense in Israel. IN Israel you are either religious or not
(though I am not referring to the so-called "ultraorthodox.") Or, you go
to a synagogue on sabbath morning and later take off your skullcap and
go to the soccer game in the afternoon. It's like some Catholic mafiosa
who go to church and afterwards goes out to assassinate someone. They
aren't conflicted with it.
Sheldon Glickler
> the Reform Movement, I don't see what would make it evidence of
anyone's
> "hatred,"
> unless you could show that the sources in question were not being
applied
> correctly.
>
This makes no sense. What has the calendar to do with anything here?
The only reason for _not_ renting the space is that would give the
appearance of approval of the practices of those damn apostate
heretics. That is hatred and bigotry.
Shelly
--
Due to the inordinate amount of junk and trash
appearing in my mailbox every day, I have changed
my email address. Please reply to
sheldon <then add the> l...@earthlink.net.
Sheldon Glickler
slk...@tiac.net (Simon L. Klein) wrote:
> Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
>
> > Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> says:
> > >
> >
Robert
> > >read them and went on with the mantra that these were only
"proposed"
> > >principles. Now that they have been accepted, he changed his
mantra to
> > >"oh well, they are only suggestions".
> >
> >
> > stated this, repeatedly. Are you saying they all are wrong?
> >
> >
what
> > >he wants to believe (and truly believes). He cannot fathom the
> > >difference between "God says, therefore you must do" and "These
are the
> > >principles; we choose to accept them".
> >
> >
> > official position of the Reform movement. This has been the dispute
all
> > along. I am talking about the official position of the Reform
movement
> > as stated by CCAR. Shelly, on the other hand, is pushing his
personal
> > interpretation as the official CCAR position. That is wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > until then, I will take them at their word: These are suggested
principles,
> > and Reform Jews are under no obligation to accept all, or even any,
of
> > them.
> >
> These are not suggested principles. In the words of the A Statement of
> Principles for Reform Judaism, these are "a set of principles that
> define Reform Judaism in our own time".
>
> The dictionary lists several definitions for the word "principle".
These
> are not principles in the sense of being truths, laws, assumptions, or
> standards. They are principles in the sense of being the CCAR's
> assessment of what is basic and essential and characteristic of Reform
> Judaism, in North America now.
>
Reform
> Jews, and narrow enough to set us apart. They are our consensus, not
our
> admission ticket.
>
Well said, but its useless. Some people hear but do not listen. As I
said, not that the set has _passed_, he had to change his tune to
_something_, didn't he?
Shelly
--
Due to the inordinate amount of junk and trash
appearing in my mailbox every day, I have changed
my email address. Please reply to
sheldon <then add the> l...@earthlink.net.
Sheldon Glickler
slk...@tiac.net (Simon L. Klein) wrote:
> Synopsis: Karl says this is what Reform Jews do believe.
> Robert says this is not what Reform Jews must believe.
Simon, the more I read what you write, the more admiration I have. You
have truly summed it up in a nutshell.
Mike Fessler
: On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:51:09 GMT, Mike Fessler <m...@netaxs.com> wrote:
: : to pray unmolested,
: : according to our custom.
:
: Stupid and tangential nit:
:
: Your custom? Your custom, like everyone else's is to pray separately.
No, it isn't.
: You might
: feel that custom is wrong, and you may feel it ought to be changed. But isn't it
: revisionist to say that mixed prayer is a custom?
Only to someone who defines custom to mean "custom I recognize as legitimate."
Mixed seating has been around a significant fraction of the lifetime of, say,
kabbalat shabbat.
: I wonder the same thing when I here the phrase "in the R tradition". The
: tradition of R Jews, like those of C Jews, is basically O. They represent
: intentional breaks with that tradition to answer other callings they feel
: to be of greater value.
We have enough of a paradigm clash here that I suspect further conversation
isn't going to get us anywhere. Happy Tammuz.
--mef
Harry Weiss
Organization: Netcom
Distribution:
Mike Fessler (m...@netaxs.com) wrote:
: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: : On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:51:09 GMT, Mike Fessler <m...@netaxs.com> wrote:
: : : to pray unmolested,
: : : according to our custom.
: :
: : Stupid and tangential nit:
: :
: : Your custom? Your custom, like everyone else's is to pray separately.
: No, it isn't.
: : You might
: : feel that custom is wrong, and you may feel it ought to be changed. But isn't it
: : revisionist to say that mixed prayer is a custom?
: Only to someone who defines custom to mean "custom I recognize as legitimate."
: Mixed seating has been around a significant fraction of the lifetime of, say,
: kabbalat shabbat.
Mixed seating ;has been around starting with Pauls actions to say Xianity
is no longer Judaism. Mixed seating is a prohibited by Jewish law .
:
: : I wonder the same thing when I here the phrase "in the R tradition". The
: : tradition of R Jews, like those of C Jews, is basically O. They represent
: : intentional breaks with that tradition to answer other callings they feel
: : to be of greater value.
: We have enough of a paradigm clash here that I suspect further conversation
: isn't going to get us anywhere. Happy Tammuz.
: --mef
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Richard Schultz
: sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
: I was one of the group who was at the Kotel on Shavuot slightly over a
: year ago. I went to pray with my friends and community, knowing that some
: haredim might react poorly,
At best, you were guilty of extreme naivete.
: but hoping that we would be permitted to pray unmolested,
: according to our custom.
Since you know that your custom is against the policy of the place
in which you were praying, you cannot pretend that you expected to
be unmolested.
: I would have *infinitely* preferred that a) we had been
: left alone (particularly as we made a point of gathering not at
: the Kotel itself, but rather at the other end of the Kotel plaza,
: near the security gates.) and b) that nothing worthy of press coverage
: had happened.
Then why did you go to the Kotel area at all? And why did you go
at a time when you knew there would be a large crowd there?
: I would be much happier if my memories of that Shavuot morning included
: only my wonder and happiness in being part of the flow of Jews gathering
: from all over Jerusalem to stream through Jaffa Gata and the shuk on the
: way down to the Kotel plaza; the sense of holiness and anticipation
: that I felt while watching the sky for the first glimmer of light; the
: tefillot themselves.
: But that was stolen from me -- tainted by the violence and hatred of
: a relative few, and by the indifference and complicity of thousands
: of others.
Just to make it clear (although Robert Kaiser is in my kill file, a
couple of his comments made it through via replies, and apparently,
he is busy libelling me, so I thought I'd better reiterate this).
I codemn absolutely the people who performed acts of violence against
the Masorti minyan that was trying to pray at the Kotel. What they
(the charedi hooligans) did can only be described as a chillul Hashem.
: I think you are way out of line in presuming to know others'
: motivations or kavvanah. You have no idea.
Do you actually live in Israel? I do, and I got to hear the
interview with the rabbi that was broadcast on the Kol Israel
English news. I also have this amazing ability to put two and two
together, and perhaps it's overly cynical of me, but the behavior
of the Masorti leadership simply does not admit of your explanation.
I can believe that you really just wanted to go to the Kotel to pray.
But the choice of when to pray and where was obviously made with a
cynical eye to the maximum likelihood of confrontation.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Richard Schultz
: These principles are intended to be broad enough to include most Reform
: Jews, and narrow enough to set us apart. They are our consensus, not our
: admission ticket.
Maybe you can answer my question: what specific steps has the Reform
movement taken to encourage aliyah?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
Richard Schultz
: It is Robert's habit to tell others-- both O and R--what they believe,
: and to insist that they're lying when they tell him he has
: misinterpreted their movement's position.
Actually, it is his habit to be certifiably a lunatic. I still think
that while I am by any definition crazy, anyone who wastes his time
arguing with Robert Kaiser is almost certainly crazier than I am.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"French bread makes very good skis"
Lisa
wrote:
>In article <medvedFD...@netcom.com>,
>Mike Medved <med...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Somehow I think this is one of the best examples of how divisive
>>Reform is for Jews - Chabad, Belzer, etc., as you mentioned, pray together
>>with no problems, but you with your "minhag" require separation.
>
>No, it is the Orthodox who are "requiring" it by insisting that women
>be excluded from prayer.
Wrong. You'll continue to maintain that we are "excluded" from prayer
no matter how many times you're corrected, but maybe there are people
out there who are capable of learning, so I'll correct you once again.
There are different obligations for men and women in prayer. There
are obligations for men to pray separately from women. None of this
is exclusionary, except to people who are coming from the outside to
begin with and judging us on the basis of their preconceived notions.
Lisa
mei...@qqqerols.com
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) posted:
>Barbara (ba...@TRASHerols.com) wrote:
>: It is Robert's habit to tell others-- both O and R--what they believe,
>: and to insist that they're lying when they tell him he has
>: misinterpreted their movement's position.
>Actually, it is his habit to be certifiably a lunatic. I still think
>that while I am by any definition crazy, anyone who wastes his time
>arguing with Robert Kaiser is almost certainly crazier than I am.
Hey, there's no need for personal attacks. Actually ROTFLOL. It's
sort of like trying to push a 5 ton truck off the railroad tracks
before the train hits it. After pushing a while, I know I'm not big
enough, but I just have to try. Definitely I'm crazy.
>-----
>Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
>Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
>Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
>-----
>"French bread makes very good skis"
Meir meirm...@erols.com
Remove the QQQ
and I'll get back to you.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
> On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:51:09 GMT, Mike Fessler <m...@netaxs.com> wrote:
> : to pray unmolested,
> : according to our custom.
>
> Stupid and tangential nit:
>
> Your custom? Your custom, like everyone else's is to pray separately. You might
> feel that custom is wrong, and you may feel it ought to be changed. But isn't it
> revisionist to say that mixed prayer is a custom?
>
> I wonder the same thing when I here the phrase "in the R tradition". The
> tradition of R Jews, like those of C Jews, is basically O. They represent
> intentional breaks with that tradition to answer other callings they feel
> to be of greater value.
Not that this should be construed as approval of mixed prayer or
anything, but when, Micha, does a practice become a "custom" rather than
a "change"? When does a practice become a "tradition" rather than a
"break"? It is indeed impossible to argue that no new traditions or
customs have ever arisen. Once this is understood, the rest is just
"haggling over the price".
-Shlomo-
Sheldon Glickler
mei...@QQQerols.com wrote:
> In soc.culture.jewish on 17 Jun 1999 06:11:58 GMT
> sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) posted:
>
> >Barbara (ba...@TRASHerols.com) wrote:
>
> >: It is Robert's habit to tell others-- both O and R--what they
believe,
> >: and to insist that they're lying when they tell him he has
> >: misinterpreted their movement's position.
>
> >Actually, it is his habit to be certifiably a lunatic. I still think
> >that while I am by any definition crazy, anyone who wastes his time
> >arguing with Robert Kaiser is almost certainly crazier than I am.
>
> Hey, there's no need for personal attacks. Actually ROTFLOL. It's
> sort of like trying to push a 5 ton truck off the railroad tracks
> before the train hits it. After pushing a while, I know I'm not big
> enough, but I just have to try. Definitely I'm crazy.
I see someone is up to his old habits of personal insults. Although I
am no psychiatrist (and thus cannot offer a medical opinion), and I do
believe that Robert has some rather severe problems to work through, I
would definitely _NOT_ call him a lunatic. I think that is totally
uncalled for.
The second sentence was sarcasm. I don't read the first as such. If I
am wrong, and Richard meant the first also as sarcasm, then I have to
say that SDNWOTN and I offer my apology, in advance, for misreading his
intentions.
Jacob Love
Lisa <lisaNOb...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[To me]
>Wrong. You'll continue to maintain that we are "excluded" from prayer
>no matter how many times you're corrected, but maybe there are people
>out there who are capable of learning, so I'll correct you once again.
You can call your error whatever you like on UseNet, that's the
nature of the medium. But unless your religious views are somehow
enforceable on me, that's all it is.
>There are different obligations for men and women in prayer.
As you believe. I (and millions of Jewish men and women) disagree.
>There
>are obligations for men to pray separately from women.
And millions of Jewish men and women disagree.
>None of this
>is exclusionary, except to people who are coming from the outside to
>begin with and judging us on the basis of their preconceived notions.
It is exclusionary if a Jewish woman wants to, say, fulfill her
obligation to read the Torah at the synagogue at the Wall, but other
people interfere with her rights.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Simon L. Klein
> In soc.culture.jewish on 17 Jun 1999 06:11:58 GMT
> sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) posted:
>
> >Barbara (ba...@TRASHerols.com) wrote:
>
> >: It is Robert's habit to tell others-- both O and R--what they believe,
> >: and to insist that they're lying when they tell him he has
> >: misinterpreted their movement's position.
>
> >Actually, it is his habit to be certifiably a lunatic. I still think
> >that while I am by any definition crazy, anyone who wastes his time
> >arguing with Robert Kaiser is almost certainly crazier than I am.
>
> Hey, there's no need for personal attacks. Actually ROTFLOL. It's
> sort of like trying to push a 5 ton truck off the railroad tracks
> before the train hits it. After pushing a while, I know I'm not big
> enough, but I just have to try. Definitely I'm crazy.
>
My wife has a different slant. She says I'm just weird (according to my
dictionary, one meaning of weird is "concerned with the supernatural").
Here are some weird personal reasons (not meant to be exhaustive) for
engaging in these arguments, regardless of my chances of winning. Every
time I put my beliefs in writing, I learn about my self and my beliefs.
Whenever I can listen to someone with a different point of view before I
pass judgment on their words, I learn - especially if I express in my
words what I heard the other say. While it would be presumptuous to say
that any Usenet thread is for the sake of Heaven, I can at least write
with that intent.
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
: > Maybe you can answer my question: what specific steps has the Reform
: > movement taken to encourage aliyah?<
: It is trying to bring down the price of pork in ISrael by encouraging
: Israel to reduce tariffs on US swine sales to Israel. If ham sandwiches
: become cheap enough in Israel then millions of reform Jews will swarm in.
I doubt that very much. Anyway, you can get substitute ham made from
turkey in Israel (although the Hebrew label doesn't actually tell
you that it's ham). I suspect that bringing a decent pizza to
Israel would work a lot better. After all, we already have
Ben & Jerry's and Shop-Rite saltines.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"A condemned man does not request egg salad for his last meal. He also
doesn't order Alka-Seltzer."
Kehlog Ahlbran, _The Profit_
Richard Schultz
: >What right do you have to deny the religious privileges of the >90% of
: >the people who pray at the Kotel to express their religion in the way
: >they feel is most appropriate? What right do you have to deny the
: >religious privileges of the Temple Mount Faithful to pray at Jewish
: >Holy Sites in the way they see fit? What right do you have to deny
: >"Messianic Jews" the religious prvilige to pray at the Kotel as
: >*they* see fit?
: We've been over this before. To answer the question properly, I would
: need to know a bit more about the legal status of the "holy sites"
: under Israeli law than I currently do. But I think a fair place to
: start would be this--is it merely a question of "might makes right"?
In a democracy, is following the will of the majority when it
inconveniences a minority necessarily "might makes right"?
: In other words, if (God forbid) for some reason the Jewish holy places
: such as the Cave of Mahpelah or the Wall should fall under the
: political authority of non-Jews, will it be OK with you if they rule
: that only Reform Jews can use these places, or that only so-called
: Messianic Jews can? If *they* have the power, what religious freedom
: would you request for Orthodox Jews, and on what basis?
As I've said before, you have this tendency to choose hypotheticals
that vary between the merely irrelevant to the utterly ridiculous.
The holy places are not under the authority of non-Jews. Should they
ever be under the authority of non-Jews, then it would be the
responsibility of those authorities either to allow all Jews to use
them, or to allow the Jews themselves to decide who uses them and how.
After all, the Muslim holy places on the Temple Mount are under the
political authority of Jews, but the actual administration is in the
hands of the Muslims themselves.
But this is beside the point. What we have here is a situation where
it has to be one way or the other. In this case, the majority of the
population (or at least of that fraction of the population that cares,
which in a democracy amounts to the same thing) have made it clear
how they want it. I have already explained to you the obvious way of
changing the status quo -- but unfortunately it is one that would
require effort on your part.
And you have yet to answer my question to you: on what basis do you
deny the Temple Mount Faithful the right to pray on the Temple Mount?
(You have almost certainly forgotten, but you once claimed to believe
that the right to pray where one wants is an "absolute" right. At
least until I brought up the Temple Mount Faithful, at which point,
true to form, we found out that when you use the word "absolute"
you mean something different than the rest of us. . .)
: >So then why do you object to Jonathan Baker's suggestion that the time
: >be divided in proportion to the population of people of each denomination
: >who pray there? What could be fairer than that?
: I don't actually object to Jonathan's suggestion, it might very well
: have merit. There are many places in the world where various religions
: and denominations have conflicting claims to a place, and there are a
: variety of solutions, some good, some bad that have been tried. If
: Jon's suggestion or something like it leads to a mutually acceptable
: solution, then I would be happy with it.
You missed the point of his suggestion: if it were followed, the
Reform would get something under 5 minutes a day. Do you think
that such an arrangement would be unfair? After all, they would be getting
the use of the facility in exactly the same proportion as their
numbers. What could be more fair than that?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
Look outside the window, there's a woman being grabbed.
They've dragged her to the bushes, and now she's being stabbed.
Maybe we should call the cops and try to stop the pain.
But Monopoly is so much fun, I'd hate to blow the game.
Richard Schultz
: I see someone is up to his old habits of personal insults. Although I
: am no psychiatrist (and thus cannot offer a medical opinion), and I do
: believe that Robert has some rather severe problems to work through, I
: would definitely _NOT_ call him a lunatic. I think that is totally
: uncalled for.
: The second sentence was sarcasm. I don't read the first as such. If I
: am wrong, and Richard meant the first also as sarcasm, then I have to
: say that SDNWOTN and I offer my apology, in advance, for misreading his
: intentions.
My description of Mr. Kaiser as a lunatic (or, more politely, certifiably
mentally disturbed) was not sarcastic, nor is it a conclusion that
I arrived at lightly. Nor does it have anything much to do with
the libels about me he appears to have been spreading in the knowledge
that I probably wouldn't see them. I decided that he was not mentally
fit after observing his behavior on the net *and* after receiving a
series of quite vicious and disturbed personal emails from him. (I
have long since deleted those letters, so don't ask me for details of
what they said.) It got to the point where I told him that if he
ever sent me another email, I would contact his sysadmin and complain
that he was harassing me. The only other person whose email I promised
to delete unread was someone who sent an email to my sysadmin claiming
that I was a Hamas supporter and that my account should be closed
(just to give you an indication of the level of provocation I find
necessary).
I am completely serious when I say that Mr. Kaiser is a seriously
mentally disturbed individual, and that in my (admittedly non-professional)
opinion, paying any attention to him only worsens his condition.
I have previously quoted in this context the words of another famous
short person (well, not exactly *person*, but he was short): "He is
fallen, and his cure is beyond us. But let us spare him, in the hope
that he may find it."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
Paul S. Wolf
>
> Jacob Love (jl...@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
> : >So then why do you object to Jonathan Baker's suggestion that
> : >the time be divided in proportion to the population of people of
> : >each denomination who pray there? What could be fairer than that?
>
> : I don't actually object to Jonathan's suggestion, it might very well
> : have merit. There are many places in the world where various
> : religions and denominations have conflicting claims to a place, and
> : there are a variety of solutions, some good, some bad that have been
> : tried. If Jon's suggestion or something like it leads to a mutually
> : acceptable solution, then I would be happy with it.
>
> You missed the point of his suggestion: if it were followed, the
> Reform would get something under 5 minutes a day. Do you think
> that such an arrangement would be unfair? After all, they would be
> getting the use of the facility in exactly the same proportion as
> their numbers. What could be more fair than that?
I'm glad you agree that it would be fair. However, the Orthodox would
also get to set the rules for only that portion of the day in proportion
to their numbers in the population of the State, and others, i.e. the
Masorti, Reform, Reconstructionist, and the rest of the population, get
to set the rules for the rest of the day. Since the majority of
Israel's population is "Secular" to use that term, that would give the
orthodox less than 50% of the time, if memory serves me correct. Given
the choice and education, I'd be willing to bet the majority of the
"secular" Jews in Israel would embrace Masorti or other liberal
viewpoints. I'm sure the various Liberal movements would be willing to
adopt similar rules, the same way the various Orthodox sects do now.
--
Paul S. Wolf, PE mailto:Paul....@alum.wpi.edu
Past President, Great Lakes Region, Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs
Sheldon Glickler
I opened it up so that I could see your response to this first hand,
without waiting for someone else to post so that I would see it.
I, personally, agree with your assessment that he has severe
psychological problems (as you put it, mentally disturbed). I also
agree that paying attention to him only worsens the situation. I also
have no need for you to "prove" the emails -- I believe you.
Words are more than just mere descriptions. Each word in a language
carries with it a whole baggage of emotion that is dependent upon the
context of its use. The word "lunatic" brings to mind someone in a
padded cell, possibly confined to straight jacket. That is the image,
_and_ emotion, set forth by use of that word. You may not have that
image and emotion for the word. I do. I suspect I am not alone. He
does not qualify for that. As such, I still maintain that its use was
uncalled for. YMMV.
Shelly
(keeping it open to see your reply here).
Robert Kaiser
slk...@tiac.net (Simon L. Klein) says:
>You are right. When you write about Reform Judaism and about classical
>Reform, we clearly have different understandings. The only problem
>occurs when you try to tell other people what I believe. Some people can
>write about a different worldview with sensitivity. You have insisted
>that either every Reform Jew in this forum is lying or the CCAR is. It
>ain't necessarily so.
Oh, no, I have not been saying this. Please re-read my posts;
I have never tried to tell other people what *you* believe, nor what
Shelly believes. Rather,all I have done is tried to draw a line between
your personal beliefs, and the official position of the American Reform
movement. There is a huge difference. If you missed that, you'll be angry
at me for a position that I do not hold.
I am insisting that no Reform Jew on the forum has the right
to force their belief as some sort of official statement of principles
that all Reform Jews must accept. Even all CCAR rabbis totally agree
with me - the new Reform statement ofprinciples is not binding; it is
instructive, and no Reform Jew is required to accept any or all of the
planks in this platform.
Shalom,
Robert
Robert Kaiser
I don't know who this Barbara person is. Apparently, she thinks
that shamelessly lying about me is some form of service to her religion.
How sad.
I wish people on this forum would confine themselves to commenting
on statements that were actually made, instead of making up lies and
attacking them.
In article <376947f8...@news.erols.com>, ba...@TRASHerols.com (Barbara) says:
>
>On Wed, 16 Jun 1999 20:28:31 -0400, slk...@tiac.net (Simon L. Klein)
>wrote:
>
>>You are right. When you write about Reform Judaism and about classical
>>Reform, we clearly have different understandings. The only problem
>>occurs when you try to tell other people what I believe. Some people can
>>write about a different worldview with sensitivity. You have insisted
>>that either every Reform Jew in this forum is lying or the CCAR is. It
>>ain't necessarily so.
>
>It is Robert's habit to tell others-- both O and R--what they believe,
>and to insist that they're lying when they tell him he has
>misinterpreted their movement's position. Our mutual resentment of
>this treatment is probably the single largest unifying factor on scj ;
>we should probably bottle it and dispense as necessary :->
>
>Barbara
>----
>Take out the garbage to reply
Robert Kaiser
Folks, is you believe the delusional claims bvy Richard, then
I've got a bridge to sell you. He's just mad because I exposed several
of his straw man arguments as such. Since I am not an Orthodox Jew,
and he is, he has been having a raving, screaming fit for two years now.
Its pretty scary stuff. But no scarier than his pathological cyber-stalking
of Jack Love. Dick's greatest passion in life has been to spread lies
and slander about Jack Love, and then scream bloody murder when his lies
get exposed.
Hey, believe Dick if you like. And contact me about that bridge...
mei...@qqqerols.com
(Robert Kaiser) posted:
> I am insisting that no Reform Jew on the forum has the right
>to force their belief as some sort of official statement of principles
>that all Reform Jews must accept.
>Even all CCAR rabbis totally agree with me -
ROTFLOL
>the new Reform statement ofprinciples is not binding; it is
>instructive, and no Reform Jew is required to accept any or all of the
>planks in this platform.
>Shalom,
>Robert
Richard Schultz
: > You missed the point of his suggestion: if it were followed, the
: > Reform would get something under 5 minutes a day. Do you think
: > that such an arrangement would be unfair? After all, they would be
: > getting the use of the facility in exactly the same proportion as
: > their numbers. What could be more fair than that?
: I'm glad you agree that it would be fair. However, the Orthodox would
: also get to set the rules for only that portion of the day in proportion
: to their numbers in the population of the State, and others, i.e. the
: Masorti, Reform, Reconstructionist, and the rest of the population, get
: to set the rules for the rest of the day.
The suggestion was that the time be apportioned proportionally according
to the number of people who actually pray at the Kotel. Since the number
of secular Jews who pray there is roughly zero, they would get roughly
zero percent of the time.
: Since the majority of
: Israel's population is "Secular" to use that term, that would give the
: orthodox less than 50% of the time, if memory serves me correct.
You should have stuck to your promise not to involve yourself in this
discussion. The "secular" Jews in Israel are not carbon-copy Reform
Jews, by and large. Most of them don't practice, but they agree
that what they don't practice is Orthodox Judaism. Don't forget that
a lot of them come from a culture that lacks the Enlightenment tradition
that produced Reform Judaism in the first place.
: Given the choice and education, I'd be willing to bet the majority of the
: "secular" Jews in Israel would embrace Masorti or other liberal
: viewpoints.
Why don't you move here and educate the secular Jews? Perhaps if they
felt that they had an alternative to Ordthodoxy, they would be less
secular.
: I'm sure the various Liberal movements would be willing to
: adopt similar rules, the same way the various Orthodox sects do now.
I wish I could parse that sentence into something that makes sense.
The way the Orthodox treat the Kotel now is that anyone who wants to
make a minyan goes and makes a minyan.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"You don't even have a clue as to which clue you're missing." -- Miss Manners