Who is a Jew? And who gets to decide?
Amitai
We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach
a consensus.
Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
for Jews living the UK.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
partner=rss&emc=rss
mm
I started to make what follows part of the url, but it didn't seem to
fit.
>partner=rss&emc=rss
Talk about assuming what is supposed to be proved, here is the start
of the fifth paragraph: "The case began when a 12-year-old boy, an
observant Jew whose father is Jewish and whose mother is a Jewish
convert, applied to the school, JFS."
I wonder if they tried my argument, that someone who enters Britain
and lives like an Englishman or a Briton isn't one unless he follows
the proper nationalization procedures. AIUI, there are a whole
bunch of people hanging out at the French end of the Chunnel, trying
to sneak into England and some of them must have succeeded. Do they
get all the rights of a Briton just because they got into the country?
What about a tourist who doesn't leave, or someone who's changing
planes in London. When I changed planes in London, I was able to
leave the airport.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mm
<chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
In case I wasn't clear, it's really outrageous for the British
government to butt in like this.
Reading further, it says the Catholics are worried now too that they
won't be allowed to use their long-time standard. If one is baptized
a Catholic they consider him a Catholic, not whether he practices
Catholicism or not. Catholic school starts at 5 or 6. Who knows what
those kids do?
And what about the Church of England? Doesn't it rely on baptism
also?
mm
It also says this: "The case has stirred up long-simmering resentments
among the leaders of different Jewish denominations, who, for
starters, disagree vehemently on the definition of Jewishness."
I don't know if the reporter got the word wrong of if the Jews
themselves are confused. The issue is not Jewishness or the
definition of Jewishness. If you raise a non-Jew as if he were an
observant Jew, he will have lots of Jewishness.
The issue is "Jew" or the "definition of Jew".
If the Jews themselves have muddled thinking, they won't be able to
present a cogent argument to the court.
Although one shouldn't discount the blind, antisemitic nature of some
Britons, for one example, a majority of those voting for the academic
boycott of Israel and possibly of this court as well. Education is
no bar to blind antisemitism. In fact, educated people are probably
better able to rationalize their biases, and more smug that they can't
suffer from improper bias and intolerance. (They're so smart they are
able to distinguish "proper" bias and intolerance from what other
people have, which is "improper". That was sarcasm.)
It also seems to me that if they are going to look at practice in
determining whether the boy is a Jew or not, they shouldn't just look
at whether he goes to shul or keeps kosher etc. They should primarily
look at whether he got for himself a proper conversion. What is more
important to being a practicing Jew than to be a Jew. It's one of the
two words. And practicing is made up of many things. Being a Jew is
just one thing, it's yes or no.
Being a Jew seems to me to be the sine qua non of practicing Judiasm.
I could go vote somewhere on the day that the the UK has elections,
but that wouldn't make me British. I could eat fish and chips every
day. I could learn to talk with a British accent. When everyone
around me is singing America, I could sing "God save the Queen". I
could do everything the most loyal British citizen and British subject
does, but it wouldnt' make me British. The sine qua non of being a
British citizen, for one who didn't inherit the status from his
parents, is to have a proper British naturalization. That is part of
British practice. Just acting British in other ways won't do it.
He's 12 years old. He should be able to appreciate the difference.
If he's really been living in an observant household, he should be way
far along and able to convert soon after his 13th birthday. Lisa told
a story about a yeshiva student in his late teens or early 20's who
found out his mother was not a Jew and converted the next day. He'd
already done everything any other convert would be expected to do.
If this boy's mother's not a Jew but keeps kosher and everything else,
I would guess her not being a Jew shouldn't interfere with his
conversion or his living as a Jew.
Just as a Jewish male is primarily? iirc responsible, but at least
secondarily responsible for getting himself circumcized (primarily
responsbile after the age of 13 maybe), it seems to me that any person
not a Jew who wants to be a Jew is primariy responsible for making
sure it happens. Can't he, if he doesn't want to say that his mother
is no Jew, schedule a giyur d'chumra, a conversion usually used when
it's unknown and impossible to find out if one's mother was a Jew,
where iiuc there is no statement that the person involved was not
yesterday a Jew, just a statement that he is now.
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 13:24:31 +0000 (UTC), mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
We need one standard for all Jews. Judaism, like Christianity, has
become divided (there are over 4000 different christian "religions" in
the US). Judaism can not survive if so divided.
We need to decide what is a Jew. This also means dealing with those
whose parents converted (like those under the Spainish rule or some
Palestinians) but meet the standard. Also we need to think of how to
bring those children whose fathers married a non Jew but the children
were raised to be Jewish. How do you convert to a religion that you
are already practicing? (Might we even have Jewish education for such
children so that they can make the decision to "convert" on their 13th
birthday?)
It sounds like we need a worldwide court for such matters.
lee
Can you guess what my position is on this.
Therefore I can stay out of the bearpit on this one
I would however like to clarify that the court is not deciding who is
jewish or not.
it is saying that if jewishness is decided by the mother
then that is a test of ethnicity rather than religion
& selection on that basis is illegal here
General Schvantzkoph
Well good luck with that. There is no such thing as a Jewish Pope, at
least not since the last high priest died nearly 2000 years ago. We don't
have a king either, the last one was Herod who's mother was a Greek BTW.
Israel has two Chief Rabbis, the US doesn't have any (the very idea of a
Chief Rabbi is obnoxious and un-American). Britain has a Chief Rabbi for
historical reasons, there was a time that Jews needed someone with a
similar rank as the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the Archibishop isn't
what he used to be either.
The bottom line on this is if you take the governments money you have to
abide by the government's rules, that's even true here in the US where we
have separation of Church and State (the UK doesn't). In the US a
religion can do anything it want's short of human sacrifice unless they
take taxpayer's money, as soon as they do the government gets a say in
what they do.
cindys
wrote:
> On Nov 8, 6:56 am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
> > We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
> > Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
> > Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach
> > a consensus.
>
> > Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
> > for Jews living the UK.
>
> > See:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> > partner=rss&emc=rss
>
> We need one standard for all Jews. Judaism, like Christianity, has
> become divided (there are over 4000 different christian "religions" in
> the US). Judaism can not survive if so divided.
>
> We need to decide what is a Jew. This also means dealing with those
> Palestinians) but meet the standard.
No, it doesn't. Again, I don't understand this obsession with the
Palestinians who are mostly all Muslims (there are a few who identify
as Christians) and have not expressed any desire at all (that I am
aware of) to be Jewish or practice Judaism. Nevertheless, you
repeatedly post that we ought to regard them as being Jewish. Why?
Nobody other than you considers that they are "Jewish" (including
them). The Palestinians aren't trying to "meet the standard." So, I
really don't think their "Jewishness" is any kind of a cause
celebre.
>Also we need to think of how to
> bring those children whose fathers married a non Jew but the children
> were raised to be Jewish.
Why do we? The R already accept them as Jewish, and the C and O
require a conversion. So, if they are R, they are fine as long as they
stay within R, and if they want to be C or O, they can convert.
Problem solved.
>How do you convert to a religion that you
> are already practicing?
If you are a male, you convert by having a circumcision or hatafas dam
bris (whichever is applicable) and a dunk in the mikvah. If you are a
female, you have a dunk in the mikvah.
>(Might we even have Jewish education for such
> children so that they can make the decision to "convert" on their 13th
> birthday?)
Aren't the parents usually responsible for providing the Jewish
education for their children?
>
> It sounds like we need a worldwide court for such matters.
I don't think we do.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
One standard, orthodox. Period. With a worldwide court to make
decisions, made up of Rabbis and scholars like the 70 during the 2nd
Temple period.
And we need a chief rabbi for each state of the US as well.
As for the children of those who are born to a non Jewish mother, they
do not meet Jewish standards even though they practice a form of
Judaism. Thus the need to bring them back into the tribe as a means
to atone for their fathers' sin.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
It is the easiest solution to the current problems in Israel. If the
Palestinians are Jewish then Jews have a right to land in the eyes of
Western leftwingers. It stops the arguement that Jews are Western and
not Eastern. Likewise it cuts off the Muslim claims to the land.
I am supporting those who seek to bring the Palestinians back into
Judaism. It is hoped that this can be done within the next 40 years.
cindys
Unbelievable.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
We need to create a council of scholars from all over the globe. Its
goals would be to unify Judaism, create one standard and to have a
worldwide Biet Din. The Chief Rabbi of Israel is acting much like the
Chief Priest did during the 2nd Temple and could function in that
capacity until there is a new Temple. It might even be wise to have a
requirement that the Chief Rabbi be of the Kohanim.
My guess is that it would take about 50 years for such a council work
something out. One thing that is happening is that secular, Reform
and Conservative Jews seem to have their numbers decreasing as their
children assimilate into McWorld.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
wrote:
The Chief Rabbi of Israel seems to be functioning much like the Chief
Priest used to.
Herman Rubin
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch <omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 6:56=A0am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>> We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
>> Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
>> Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach
>> a consensus.
>> Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
>> for Jews living the UK.
>> See:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>> partner=3Drss&emc=3Drss
>We need one standard for all Jews. Judaism, like Christianity, has
>become divided (there are over 4000 different christian "religions" in
>the US). Judaism can not survive if so divided.
>We need to decide what is a Jew. This also means dealing with those
>whose parents converted (like those under the Spainish rule or some
>Palestinians) but meet the standard. Also we need to think of how to
>bring those children whose fathers married a non Jew but the children
>were raised to be Jewish. How do you convert to a religion that you
>are already practicing? (Might we even have Jewish education for such
>children so that they can make the decision to "convert" on their 13th
>birthday?)
>It sounds like we need a worldwide court for such matters.
No, we need to go the other way. There is no way the
Orthodox will abandon their version of the halakhic
process, and there is no way the other sects will accept it.
To all non-Orthodox scholars, the Torah was not given to
Moses at Sinai, and the idea of a Mosaic Oral Law is even
more ridiculous. There was a Jewish people by the time of
David, according to archaeology, and we do know that they
eschewed the pig.
I do not believe that the Babylonian Jewish community, after
the end of the Captivity, followed the Palestinian change to
matrilineal descent, although they may have adopted in after
the Hasmonean overthrow of the Seleucids. And we have to use
what we know about the distant past from records, mainly from
gentile sources, to correct our assumptions.
We COULD use an intelligent Sanhedrin, but the Orthodox will
not allow non-Orthodox to have any say, and the non-Orthodox
will not accept the Orthodox denial of history. It is only
the Arabs who keep the Orthodox fanatics and the others from
almost having a civil war now.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
cindys
Yes, since Israel would then cease to exist, there wouldn't be any
more "problems."
> If the
> Palestinians are Jewish
Which they aren't.
>then Jews have a right to land in the eyes of
> Western leftwingers. It stops the argument that Jews are Western and
> not Eastern.
There is no such argument (that merits any notice anyway). Whether
Jews are "Western" or "Eastern" is not even a subject for discussion
at the negotiating table. Nor is the claim that Eretz Yisrael is
"Muslim" land. Some of the issues at the negotiating table are
discussions of Israel's borders, the recognition on the part of the
Arabs that Israel has a right to exist, the status of Jerusalem, and
the Arab demand that they be given the right to "return" to Israel,
which overnight would result in hundreds of terrorist attacks and the
destruction of Israel. What you are suggesting is beyond insane.
>Likewise it cuts off the Muslim claims to the land.
No it wouldn't. The Muslims have been demanding to emigrate to Israel
as part of the "Right of Return," since Israel was established. This
would just hand them their wish on a silver platter. The Israeli
government would never, never allow such a thing because it would lead
to the immediate destruction of Israel.
>
> I am supporting those who seek to bring the Palestinians back into
> Judaism.
Then you are supporting the destruction of Israel. Fortunately, the
Palestinians who are Muslims have absolutely no desire to "come back
to" (sic) Judaism.
>It is hoped that this can be done within the next 40 years.
Hoped by whom? I don't know of anyone (other than you) who keeps
insisting that the Palestinians are "Jewish" and should move to Israel
on that basis. This suggestion is insane. The "Palestinians" are
Muslims and have zero interest in becoming Jewish. And thank God for
that because the only result would be the destruction of Israel. I
don't know of any group who is seeking to "bring the Palestinians back
to Judaism." And if such a group genuinely exists, they've totally
lost their minds.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Arthur Kamlet
>Priest used to.
The Chief Priest who was intimately concerned with animal sacrifice?
Certainly not the chief priest who drew an angry etrog-throwing mob?
Or maybe so.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
fla...@verizon.net
On 8-Nov-2009, Amitai <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> partner=rss&emc=rss
This is unfortunately a textbook-class example of
why gov't & religion should be sharply separated.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 8-Nov-2009, lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you guess what my position is on this.
> Therefore I can stay out of the bearpit on this one
> I would however like to clarify that the court is not deciding who is
> jewish or not.
Yes, it is.
Whentheycan go against Jewish law to say that a
person is Jewish when Jewish law (if only as defined
by that school) does not, they are doing just that.
> it is saying that if jewishness is decided by the mother
> then that is a test of ethnicity rather than religion
Right: they are deciding what Judaism is.
That's just plain wrong.
> & selection on that basis is illegal here
If you want the British gov't to decide what Judaism is, yeah.
Susan
mm
Are you saying the Chief Rabbi of England made halachic decisions for
the entire Engish Jewish community? AFAIK, they never did that.
They certainly don't do that now. They are the liaison between the
Jewish community and the government. They are chosen by the regent
of England, with the advice of the Jewish community, but they're not
chosen to be in charge of other rabbis or other Jews. Was there a
time when that wasn't the case?
The Reform rabbi at the congregation my family attended when I was 10
and younger had been the Chief Rabbi of Danzig before the war. But
he was only in his 20's then. He was too young to make halachic or
any other kind of decisions for the Jewish community of Danzig, and
afaik even before the war Reform rabbis didn't make many halachic
decisions for other Jews anyhow. (although I don't really know what
they did in that area.) My point is that he wasn't the big shot
rabbi in charge of the other rabbis or of rabbinical stuff in Danzig.
I think he was just the liaison between the Jewish community of Danzig
and the mayor's office, or the city council, or both.
AFAIK only in Israel chief rabbis have or have had any authority, and
in Israel their authority extends to govermental stuff, like Jewish
afairs in the IDF and the miluim (the Reserves), but even in Israel,
chief rabbis have by dint of their office no authority over other
rabbis or Jews who aren't working for the government. Some of the
chief rabbis have been great, respected, renowned rabbis and they had
authority because of that, but not because they were chief rabbis.
> but the Archibishop isn't
>what he used to be either.
>
>The bottom line on this is if you take the governments money you have to
>abide by the government's rules, that's even true here in the US where we
>have separation of Church and State (the UK doesn't).
This decision in Britain has nothing to do with taking government
money.
>In the US a
>religion can do anything it want's short of human sacrifice unless they
>take taxpayer's money, as soon as they do the government gets a say in
>what they do.
It's true, I think, that JCC's have been forced to take non-Jews as
members and maybe Jewish old age homes have been forced to take
non-Jews. Either because they take United Fund money or government
money, or because they don't consider JCC's and old-age homes to be
places where religion is practiced. One reason would be about money
and one wouldn't. Does anyone know the reason that applies?
The government shouldnt' be giving money to religious places like
shuls and churches, and if it does give money and some place takes it,
that clearly implies that the place isn't religous.
Obama has partially or fully changed the office of faith based
initiatives from a place where religious groups lined up to get money
to a place where religious people give their ideas on how the
government can do a good job. This sounds like a big change to me and
if it is as it sounds, I fully support it. Let religious people give
to the government rather than take from it. I'm sure no one will
force the government to adopt their ideas.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Shmaryahu b. Chanoch <omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>The Chief Rabbi of Israel seems to be functioning much like the Chief
>>Priest used to.
>
> The Chief Priest who was intimately concerned with animal sacrifice?
>
> Certainly not the chief priest who drew an angry etrog-throwing mob?
I don't recal that he was a "chief" priest
> Or maybe so.
???????
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Nov-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >The bottom line on this is if you take the governments money you have to
> >abide by the government's rules, that's even true here in the US where we
> >have separation of Church and State (the UK doesn't).
>
> This decision in Britain has nothing to do with taking government
> money.
Actually, it has everything to do with it.
They would/*could* have had absolutely
no say if they weren't funding the school.
Susan
Micha Berger
>> Certainly not the chief priest who drew an angry etrog-throwing mob?
> I don't recal that he was a "chief" priest
I imagine Sukkos was when the Kohein Gadol took as much of a break
as possible. His routine for Yom Kippur must have been exhausting!
Simchas Beis haShoeivah was probably his time to relax and enjoy.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Lee Ratner
> > On Nov 8, 6:56 am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> >> We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
> >> Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
> >> Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach a
> >> consensus.
>
> >> Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
> >> for Jews living the UK.
>
> >> See:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> >> partner=rss&emc=rss
>
> > We need one standard for all Jews. Judaism, like Christianity, has
> > become divided (there are over 4000 different christian "religions" in
> > the US). Judaism can not survive if so divided.
>
> > We need to decide what is a Jew. This also means dealing with those
> > whose parents converted (like those under the Spainish rule or some
> > Palestinians) but meet the standard. Also we need to think of how to
> > bring those children whose fathers married a non Jew but the children
> > were raised to be Jewish. How do you convert to a religion that you are
> > already practicing? (Might we even have Jewish education for such
> > children so that they can make the decision to "convert" on their 13th
> > birthday?)
>
> > It sounds like we need a worldwide court for such matters.
>
> Well good luck with that. There is no such thing as a Jewish Pope, at
> least not since the last high priest died nearly 2000 years ago.
I think you are bit off with your history. The last person to have
religious authority over the entire Jewish community was Nasi Gamaliel
VI, the last Patriarch of the Sanhedrin. Gamaliel IV died in 425 C.E.
He was executed by Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II, who then
abolished the office of the Nasi and the institution of the
Sanhedrin.. The institution of High Priest ended with the destruction
of the Temple.
Steve Goldfarb
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>> partner=rss&emc=rss
Susan, I'm always surprised (and somewhat dismayed) when we agree on
something, but here you're exactly right.
If it were a private school, then it should be allowed to define its
eligibility requirements however it wants.
But here's an option that no one's suggested as an overall solution for
this problem - why not incorporate a conversion ceremony into the bar/bat
mitzvah celebration for everyone? It's only a stigma if certain people are
singled out and required to convert - if you make everyone go through the
same ceremony, then no stigma, and extra added bonus of reconciling any
issues in regards to doubt about ancestry that could impact someone's
future marriage plans or whatever. No longer any need to try to find
grandma's ketubah or whatever.
--s
--
mm
It certainly *could* be done even if they werent' funding the school.
The US has laws about public accomodations that apply to places the
government doesn't fund. This isn't a public accomodation since no
set of people can just walk in and get served, but it would certainly
be possible to write a law that applies to, for example, private
schools in the US meaning of the word.
But I reread the article and the school is indeed "publicly funded".
And that certainly does make legislators feel more entitled, even
obliged, to make what they consider fair rules to be followed.
That does make it harder to avoid government rules, including this
one, but lobbying and log-rolling can sometimes avoid onerous laws.
The current law seems to include "Under a 2006 law, the schools can in
busy years give preference to applicants within their own faiths,
using criteria laid down by a designated religious authority." and
apparently they are always busy.
So I apologize to the general for saying money had nothing to do with
it, but I also don't think money has everything to do with it.
Britain too has laws that regulate people and groups they do not fund.
And it may have Jews trying to convince legislators that liberal forms
of conversion are conversion. If the boy lives in an observant home,
he should express his intention to convert as soon as he is 13. He's
12 now. Because when he has children, he's not going to want them
going to the Jews' Free School with non-Jews. Of course he loves his
mother and hasn't yet figured out what a big problem this is causing.
It's a lot to ask from a 12 year old to figure all this out. His
father is probably committed to his mother's position.
Micha Berger
> I think you are bit off with your history. The last person to have
> religious authority over the entire Jewish community was Nasi Gamaliel
> VI, the last Patriarch of the Sanhedrin. Gamaliel IV died in 425 C.E.
> He was executed by Eastern Roman Emperor Theodosius II, who then
> abolished the office of the Nasi and the institution of the
> Sanhedrin.. The institution of High Priest ended with the destruction
> of the Temple.
Arguably it was Rav Ashi and Ravina, the primary compilers of the
Babylonian Talmud. Compilation of the talmud continued for at least
another 50 years, possibly even centuries later, although that was of
the discourse portion. There aren't new positions introduced during
this, the savoraic, period.
That's not just academia speaking, there are rishonim who identify all the
laws introduced "vehilkhita" with the Baal Halakhos Gedolos, R' Shim'on
Kayyara, early 9th cent. R Treibitz argues that the actual sealing of
the text happened in the mod- or late 10th century, and is the actual
point of the legend of the 4 captives. For the story, see
<http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111839/jewish/The-Four-Captives.htm>
although signficant to Rabbi Treibitz's understanding is the point that
R' Nasan haDayan of Cordoba was teaching Tosefta, not Talmud (as the
version I pointed you to claims). In this theory, this is what pushed
Rabbeinu Moshe to finally set the talmud down in writing.
Still, Lee, I think the General is correct. People disagreed with the
rulings of the talmud, the geonim, the Rambam and the Shulchan Arukh.
These had authority only in the sense of being the yardstick a halachic
decisor had to measure from. A Sepharadi can differ from the SA, or an
Ashkenazi form the Rama, but they have to justify it based on a source
of at least similar authority. This fact is what separates the rishonim
from the acharonim -- a rishon is defined as someone I can turn to as
a similar authority without going so far back that I would be expected
to read the text as filtered by the rishonim. Meaning, going back to the
talmud or before.
However, one wasn't allowed to disagree with the Sanhedrin by simply
choosing another authority. And Rabbi Hillel or R' Gamliel IV was the
last head of anything with that kind of universtal authority to declar
correctness.
But still not pope-hood. The Sanhedrin is fallible. There is an entire
tractate, admittedly only 13-1/2 folios long (19 in the J-m talmud,
still the shortest), on how to handle such errors. However, if their
position is valid, it's binding on all of the Jewish people. And no
institution since can claim that.
cindys
snip
>
> But here's an option that no one's suggested as an overall solution for
> this problem - why not incorporate a conversion ceremony into the bar/bat
> mitzvah celebration for everyone? It's only a stigma if certain people are
> singled out and required to convert - if you make everyone go through the
> same ceremony, then no stigma, and extra added bonus of reconciling any
> issues in regards to doubt about ancestry that could impact someone's
> future marriage plans or whatever. No longer any need to try to find
> grandma's ketubah or whatever.
It would never work. Let's suppose the kid who is celebrating his/her
Bar/Bat Mitzvah at the Reform synagogue undergoes a conversion
ceremony as part of the celebration as you suggest above. Which
Orthodox Jew is going to accept this as a valid conversion? etc And in
order for the Orthodox to accept this as a valid conversion, the
conversion would have to be performed under the auspices of an O beis
din. An O beis din be unwilling to perform a conversion for a child
who is not being raised shomer torah u'mitzvos, but for argument's
sake, let's say they were willing. Don't you think many/most R Jews
would be offended that their child's conversion needed to be overseen
by O rabbis and not their own R rabbi? It would be a denial of the
validity of R Judaism.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
I don't know of any Reform Jew who would accept such a thing. Cindy's
right: it would be a denial of Reform Judaism's validity to suggest that
a non-Reform authority would be required to "bless" the proceeding.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
Steve Goldfarb
>It would never work. Let's suppose the kid who is celebrating his/her
>Bar/Bat Mitzvah at the Reform synagogue undergoes a conversion
>ceremony as part of the celebration as you suggest above. Which
>Orthodox Jew is going to accept this as a valid conversion? etc And in
>order for the Orthodox to accept this as a valid conversion, the
>conversion would have to be performed under the auspices of an O beis
>din. An O beis din be unwilling to perform a conversion for a child
>who is not being raised shomer torah u'mitzvos, but for argument's
>sake, let's say they were willing. Don't you think many/most R Jews
>would be offended that their child's conversion needed to be overseen
>by O rabbis and not their own R rabbi? It would be a denial of the
>validity of R Judaism.
Ah, but it would be an explicit choice made at the time - you'd do the
conversion at whatever shul you'd today be doing your bar mitzvah at, and
under the same rules. The R bar mitzvah would contain an R conversion. An
O bar mitzvah would contain an O conversion. If you wanted to switch from
R to O, you'd simply undergo the equivalent of another bar mitzvah /
conversion - you'd go through the same process that every O boy and girl
went through. So there wouldn't be the stigma - you're just asking the
formerly R or unaffiliated child to do the same thing as everybody else,
you aren't singling them out.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>I don't know of any Reform Jew who would accept such a thing. Cindy's
>right: it would be a denial of Reform Judaism's validity to suggest that
>a non-Reform authority would be required to "bless" the proceeding.
That's not what I'm suggesting.
--s
--
sheldonlg
Hmm. Yes, you are correct of course. However, I misread his suggestion
as "As part of the entrance process to the school". In that case, his
suggestion would work and R would not be offended because it was an
entrance requirement of the school for everyone in order to satisfy that
any miss (even among O) was corrected.
Arthur Kamlet
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>> Certainly not the chief priest who drew an angry etrog-throwing mob?
>
>> I don't recal that he was a "chief" priest
>
>I imagine Sukkos was when the Kohein Gadol took as much of a break
>as possible. His routine for Yom Kippur must have been exhausting!
>Simchas Beis haShoeivah was probably his time to relax and enjoy.
This refers to a story of King Alexander Yanni, a decendant of
Mattituahu, the priest at the time of the Maccabbean revolt, who
became king following the death of his brother Aristobulus, and
also appointed himself Kohen Gadol.
He also married his brother's widow, Alexandra, who was the sister
of Rabbi Shimon ben Schetach.
Yanni greatly expanded the borders of Israel, though was not a very
nice man :-(
In a very public show of opposition to the rabbis (paharisees) Yanni
led the Succos service in the Temple, and followed his (sadducee?)
interpretation, at which point the crowd, got angry enough to pelt
him with their etrogim.
Steve Goldfarb
>Hmm. Yes, you are correct of course. However, I misread his suggestion
>as "As part of the entrance process to the school". In that case, his
>suggestion would work and R would not be offended because it was an
>entrance requirement of the school for everyone in order to satisfy that
>any miss (even among O) was corrected.
You read it correctly - that's what I'm suggesting, that O convert
everybody including their own children. Then, no stigma.
--s
--
lee
Yes they would its illegal to select on ethnicity in the UK, thats why
the BNP is being forced to allow black membership.
Read the article again, the decision is being challenged because the
selection is based on ethnicity, not religion
Henry Goodman
news:gu7ff5lalae3uiei6...@4ax.com...
________________________________________________________________________________________
I don't know who you mean by "the regent of England" but the Chief Rabbi is
appointed by the United Synagogue.
This case is about the JFS (Jewish Free School) who recognise the Chief
Rabbi as their halachik authority. The Chief Rabbi is accepted as the
halachik authority, together with the London Beth Din by the vast majority
of Orthodox Jews in Britain and hence by the majority of Jews.
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Henry Goodman
news:32099940-f119-41a3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
____________________________________________________________
The JFS is state aided which is why the state can interfere in selection
procedures. AFAIK private schools like the various strictly Orthodox schools
can admit who they wish.
Henry Goodman
news:hd99i1$odd$4...@reader1.panix.com...
A major part of Orthodox conversion is kabbalat oll mitzvot (acceptance of
all the commandments). If a person goes through a conversion process then
immediately starts eating pork or driving on Shabbat then their acceptance
of the mitzvot was obviously insincere and the conversion is retrospectively
invalidated. In the case of one of the children concerned the mother married
a Cohen shortly after conversion. The London Beth Din decided that that was
her intention at the time of the conversion and retrospectively invalidated
the conversion.
Lee Ratner
> Lee Ratner <lbrat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Still, Lee, I think the General is correct. People disagreed with the
> rulings of the talmud, the geonim, the Rambam and the Shulchan Arukh.
> These had authority only in the sense of being the yardstick a halachic
> decisor had to measure from.
Well my main point was that the High Priest, the Kohen HaGadol,
was not the last person with authority over the entire Jewish
Community. The last person with authority over the entire Jewish
community was the last Nasi, Gamaliel VI, and the Nasi was a
completely different office from that of High Priest.
Herman Rubin
From the many Reform bar-bath mitzvoth I have attended,
the impression I get is that the requirements imposed
about the study of Judaism IS the equivalent of a conversion
to Reform Judaism, as are the Reform confirmations, which
require an explicit confirmation of Reform Judaism. Not
all observant Reform families have a bar-bath mitzvah
ceremony for their children; from the legal standpoint,
this ceremony is meaningless per se for all the groups.
The Reform criterion for mixtilineal children is definitely
the equivalent of a Reform conversion.
lee
> "lee" <schotn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Actually your right there Henry, I'm not sure how the orthodox schools
escape this, but to use a rather odious comparison the BNP is being
challenged to take non white members.
However the ruling is still being challenged on the ethnicity rather
than the religious component of its selection process
Isnt the same guy who's a Cohen too & his wife works in the school
Henry Goodman
news:1718e16b-1968-48ec...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> what he used to be either.
>
> abide by the government's rules, that's even true here in the US where we
> religion can do anything it want's short of human sacrifice unless they
> take taxpayer's money, as soon as they do the government gets a say in
The Chief Rabbi of Israel seems to be functioning much like the Chief
Priest used to.
______________________________________________________________
There are 2 Chief Rabbis of Israel (Ashkenazi & Sefardi). Which one do you
mean?
Henry Goodman
You need to know who is a convert and who is a born Jewess if she wants to
marry a Cohen. In fact, how would you treat Cohanim and Levites under your
procedure?
Herman Rubin
Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:hd9kcr$eml$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In <kIGdnbb1NO8K0mXX...@giganews.com> sheldonlg
>> <shel...@giganews.com> writes:
>>>Hmm. Yes, you are correct of course. However, I misread his suggestion
>>>as "As part of the entrance process to the school". In that case, his
>>>suggestion would work and R would not be offended because it was an
>>>entrance requirement of the school for everyone in order to satisfy that
>>>any miss (even among O) was corrected.
>> You read it correctly - that's what I'm suggesting, that O convert
>> everybody including their own children. Then, no stigma.
>You need to know who is a convert and who is a born Jewess if she wants to
>marry a Cohen. In fact, how would you treat Cohanim and Levites under your
>procedure?
That is correct. A Cohen may not marry a convert.
However, one can distinguish between "born converts"
and the others; the Torah does not prohibit a required
conversion service to remain a member of the Jewish
people.
As I read the Torah, the marriage with a convert who
is not a "born convert" is valid, but the Cohen is no
longer a Cohen. I see no problem for marriage to Levites.
Micha Berger
> In a very public show of opposition to the rabbis (paharisees) Yanni
> led the Succos service in the Temple, and followed his (sadducee?)
> interpretation, at which point the crowd, got angry enough to pelt
> him with their etrogim.
Thank you. I hadn't seen the version in Gittin 57a and Menachot 28b
before. In Sukkah he isn't named.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
maxine in ri
> In <hd7n2g$6p...@news.eternal-september.org> flav...@verizon.net writes:
You would ask boys whose brit were properly done to go through another
so that those whose circumcisions were done by a doctor with no
religious commitment involved would not (forgive me) feel the pain of
being different?
Interesting concept.
maxine in ri
Steve Goldfarb
>You would ask boys whose brit were properly done to go through another
>so that those whose circumcisions were done by a doctor with no
>religious commitment involved would not (forgive me) feel the pain of
>being different?
>Interesting concept.
No need - the point is to eliminate the issue of maternal versus paternal
descent, and make one's Jewishness a result of positive actions taken by
the parents and the child upon reaching bar/bat mitzvah. Same for
everyone. If you want to be recognized as R, then you'd need only get a
bris that's recognized by R. Same for C and O. If at some future date you
change your mind and decide to be O, then you'd do the same thing any
other O person would have done - you get the O-recognized bris, and then
you do the bar mitzvah ceremony that includes a dunk the mikvah.
--s
--
Henry Goodman
news:hd9q8e$2b...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
The point I was making is that if you pretend that everybody is a convert
then there will no longer be any Cohanim or Levites. These classes must have
fathers who were Cohanim or Levites respectively.
Steve Goldfarb
>The point I was making is that if you pretend that everybody is a convert
>then there will no longer be any Cohanim or Levites. These classes must have
>fathers who were Cohanim or Levites respectively.
The conversion ritual I'm suggesting only applies in regards to the
mother. No reason you couldn't still apply the same patrilineal standards
as always for tribal affiliation.
Also, you wouldn't be pretending everyone is a convert - you'd be
pretending that no one is a convert. As you're supposed to, IIUC.
--s
--
sheldonlg
The O school, as part of the admissions process, right?
A side benefit of this, since they are using a practices test now
anyway, is to remove any uncertainty in *their* minds as to whether or
not a student is Jewish.
Steve Goldfarb
>The O school, as part of the admissions process, right?
>A side benefit of this, since they are using a practices test now
>anyway, is to remove any uncertainty in *their* minds as to whether or
>not a student is Jewish.
For the school specifically, but perhaps more generally as well. And I
agree about the side benefit.
Listen, I'm not actually sure if this is really a good idea or not, I just
threw it out there, but seems to me it's kind of interesting. Intead of
demanding that non-O Jews need to do something so that O can consider them
Jewish, why not just make it something that O Jews do for themselves? That
is, here's something we do so that we can be sure we are Jewish, and if
you want us to consider you Jewish, or perhaps more accurately
"O-eligible," then you need to do it as well. It becomes about what they
do, rather than just who they are.
I appreciate that this is quite a substantial change from current policy.
--s
--
sheldonlg
Not mothers :-) ?
Arthur Kamlet
>> convert then there will no longer be any Cohanim or Levites. These
>> classes must have fathers who were Cohanim or Levites respectively.
>
>Not mothers :-) ?
Well, there is a rule concerning who is exempt from the law of
pidyon haben, the redemption of the first born son.
If the mother of the first born son is the daughter of a kohen or
levi, then the son is exempted from the requirement for pidyon haben.
Fattush
> I should have read the whole article at one time:
>
> It also says this: "The case has stirred up long-simmering resentments
> among the leaders of different Jewish denominations, who, for
> starters, disagree vehemently on the definition of Jewishness."
>
> I don't know if the reporter got the word wrong of if the Jews
> themselves are confused. The issue is not Jewishness or the
> definition of Jewishness. If you raise a non-Jew as if he were an
> observant Jew, he will have lots of Jewishness.
>
> The issue is "Jew" or the "definition of Jew".
>
> If the Jews themselves have muddled thinking, they won't be able to
> present a cogent argument to the court.
>
> Although one shouldn't discount the blind, antisemitic nature of some
> Britons, for one example, a majority of those voting for the academic
> boycott of Israel and possibly of this court as well. Education is
> no bar to blind antisemitism. In fact, educated people are probably
> better able to rationalize their biases, and more smug that they can't
> suffer from improper bias and intolerance. (They're so smart they are
> able to distinguish "proper" bias and intolerance from what other
> people have, which is "improper". That was sarcasm.)
>
> It also seems to me that if they are going to look at practice in
> determining whether the boy is a Jew or not, they shouldn't just look
> at whether he goes to shul or keeps kosher etc. They should primarily
> look at whether he got for himself a proper conversion. What is more
> important to being a practicing Jew than to be a Jew. It's one of the
> two words. And practicing is made up of many things. Being a Jew is
> just one thing, it's yes or no.
>
> Being a Jew seems to me to be the sine qua non of practicing Judiasm.
>
> I could go vote somewhere on the day that the the UK has elections,
> but that wouldn't make me British. I could eat fish and chips every
> day. I could learn to talk with a British accent. When everyone
> around me is singing America, I could sing "God save the Queen". I
> could do everything the most loyal British citizen and British subject
> does, but it wouldnt' make me British. The sine qua non of being a
> British citizen, for one who didn't inherit the status from his
> parents, is to have a proper British naturalization. That is part of
> British practice. Just acting British in other ways won't do it.
IIRC the decision correctly, the court is saying that schools based on
race or ethnic group are not allowed. The court is refusing to
recognize Jews as an ethnic group. Or at least the court is saying
that one cannot set up a school which is open only to one ethnic
group. Religious schools are OK under British law, so to the judges
ruled, to be a member of a particular religion, one must "practice"
it, whatever that means.
Fattush
> On Nov 8, 11:29 am, "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <omega....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 6:56 am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
> > > We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
> > > Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
> > > Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach
> > > a consensus.
>
> > > Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
> > > for Jews living the UK.
>
> > > See:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> > > partner=rss&emc=rss
>
> > We need one standard for all Jews. Judaism, like Christianity, has
> > become divided (there are over 4000 different christian "religions" in
> > the US). Judaism can not survive if so divided.
>
> > We need to decide what is a Jew. This also means dealing with those
> > Palestinians) but meet the standard.
>
> Palestinians who are mostly all Muslims (there are a few who identify
> as Christians) and have not expressed any desire at all (that I am
> aware of) to be Jewish or practice Judaism. Nevertheless, you
> repeatedly post that we ought to regard them as being Jewish. Why?
> Nobody other than you considers that they are "Jewish" (including
> them). The Palestinians aren't trying to "meet the standard." So, I
> really don't think their "Jewishness" is any kind of a cause
> celebre.
>
> >Also we need to think of how to
> > bring those children whose fathers married a non Jew but the children
> > were raised to be Jewish.
>
> require a conversion. So, if they are R, they are fine as long as they
> stay within R, and if they want to be C or O, they can convert.
> Problem solved.
>
> >How do you convert to a religion that you
> > are already practicing?
>
Question: if an adult converts and needs a bris, can he have pain
medicine? Or must he have the circimcision without pain killers? I
would think that if an adult goes through it, it would be
excrutiating.
Fattush
> We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
> Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
> Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach
> a consensus.
>
> Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
> for Jews living the UK.
>
> See:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> partner=rss&emc=rss
I read about that in on the web. It's scary.
So being Jewish depends on practicing? What does that mean? If a
person visits a shule once a year, does that make them a practicing
Jew?
What if a person is born of a Jewish mother, never converts, but does
not keep the Sabbath, does not keep Kosher, etc.? Are they Jewish
according to this court?
Fattush
> On Nov 8, 1:00 pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 11:29 am, "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <omega....@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > > We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
> > > > Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
> > > > Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach
> > > > a consensus.
>
> > > > Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
> > > > for Jews living the UK.
>
> > > > See:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> > > > partner=rss&emc=rss
>
> > > become divided (there are over 4000 different christian "religions" in
> > > the US). Judaism can not survive if so divided.
>
> > > We need to decide what is a Jew. This also means dealing with those
> > > whose parents converted (like those under the Spanish rule or some
> > > Palestinians) but meet the standard.
>
> > No, it doesn't. Again, I don't understand this obsession with the
> > Palestinians who are mostly all Muslims (there are a few who identify
> > as Christians) and have not expressed any desire at all (that I am
> > aware of) to be Jewish or practice Judaism. Nevertheless, you
> > repeatedly post that we ought to regard them as being Jewish. Why?
> > Nobody other than you considers that they are "Jewish" (including
> > them). The Palestinians aren't trying to "meet the standard." So, I
> > really don't think their "Jewishness" is any kind of a cause
> > celebre.
>
> Palestinians are Jewish then Jews have a right to land in the eyes of
> Western leftwingers. It stops the arguement that Jews are Western and
> not Eastern. Likewise it cuts off the Muslim claims to the land.
You lost me.
>
> I am supporting those who seek to bring the Palestinians back into
> Judaism. It is hoped that this can be done within the next 40 years.-
I doubt that many Palestinians would consider themselves Jewish or
would want to convert to Judaism or practice Judaism.
Fattush
wrote:
> On Nov 8, 6:56 am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
> > We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
> > Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
> > Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach
> > a consensus.
>
> > Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
> > for Jews living the UK.
>
> > See:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> > partner=rss&emc=rss
>
> We need one standard for all Jews. Judaism, like Christianity, has
> become divided (there are over 4000 different christian "religions" in
> the US). Judaism can not survive if so divided.
>
> We need to decide what is a Jew. This also means dealing with those
> Palestinians) but meet the standard. Also we need to think of how to
> bring those children whose fathers married a non Jew but the children
> are already practicing? (Might we even have Jewish education for such
> children so that they can make the decision to "convert" on their 13th
> birthday?)
>
> It sounds like we need a worldwide court for such matters.
In the US, it is my understanding that under Reform Judaism, a child
born of a Jewish parent (mom or dad) is Jewish.
Henry Goodman
news:9a1de389-c726-4d99...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it is done under a general anaesthetic
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Nov-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:59:38 +0000 (UTC), fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
> >
> >On 9-Nov-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >The bottom line on this is if you take the governments money you have
> >> >to
> >> >abide by the government's rules, that's even true here in the US where
> >> >we
> >> >have separation of Church and State (the UK doesn't).
> >>
> >> This decision in Britain has nothing to do with taking government
> >> money.
> >
> >Actually, it has everything to do with it.
> >They would/*could* have had absolutely
> >no say if they weren't funding the school.
> >
> >Susan
>
> It certainly *could* be done even if they werent' funding the school.
> The US has laws about public accomodations that apply to places the
> government doesn't fund. This isn't a public accomodation since no
> set of people can just walk in and get served, but it would certainly
> be possible to write a law that applies to, for example, private
> schools in the US meaning of the word.
>
Do you really think a law like that would ever get passed in the US?
I don't. Not without a huge demographic swing & a revolution involved.
> But I reread the article and the school is indeed "publicly funded".
> And that certainly does make legislators feel more entitled, even
> obliged, to make what they consider fair rules to be followed.
>
Absolutely - the school made a major mistake.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Nov-2009, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> Don't you think many/most R Jews
> > would be offended that their child's conversion needed to be overseen
> > by O rabbis and not their own R rabbi? It would be a denial of the
> > validity of R Judaism.
>
> I don't know of any Reform Jew who would accept such a thing. Cindy's
> right: it would be a denial of Reform Judaism's validity to suggest that
> a non-Reform authority would be required to "bless" the proceeding.
I agree completely - it would never work from either end.
(But it was a nice thought...)
Susan
sheldonlg
It is just that I found it amusing that they staunchly cry "matrilineal
descent", but when it comes to these special rules, all of a sudden it
is "patrilineal descent". Mildly inconsistent?
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Nov-2009, lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 Nov, 07:59, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On �9-Nov-2009, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >The bottom line on this is if you take the governments money you have
> > > >to
> > > >abide by the government's rules, that's even true here in the US
> > > >where we
> > > >have separation of Church and State (the UK doesn't).
> >
> > > This decision in Britain has nothing to do with taking government
> > > money.
> >
> > Actually, it has everything to do with it.
> > They would/*could* have had absolutely
> > no say if they weren't funding the school.
> >
> > Susan
>
> Yes they would its illegal to select on ethnicity in the UK, thats why
> the BNP is being forced to allow black membership.
What has this to do with what I said?
I am talking about why the gov't had a say that
they should not have had, not their stupid ruling itself.
> Read the article again, the decision is being challenged because the
> selection is based on ethnicity, not religion
I have read the article - the gov't can say whatever it wants,
but what it's doing in the end is making religious rulings.
Susan
sheldonlg
_IF_ the child is raised as a Jew.
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Nov-2009, Fattush <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IIRC the decision correctly, the court is saying that schools based on
> race or ethnic group are not allowed. The court is refusing to
> recognize Jews as an ethnic group.
Or, rather, is recognizing it as an ethnic group *only*,
& using it to the detriment of the school's rules.
>Or at least the court is saying
> that one cannot set up a school which is open only to one ethnic
> group. Religious schools are OK under British law, so to the judges
> ruled, to be a member of a particular religion, one must "practice"
> it, whatever that means.
Yes - the gov't is deciding what makes someone a Jew, not Jews.
HORRIBLE precedent, and a stark warning of the need for
separation of church & state
Susan
cindys
snip
>
> Question: if an adult converts and needs a bris, can he have pain
> would think that if an adult goes through it, it would be
----
It's performed in a hospital operating room with general anesthesia.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Herman Rubin
Fattush <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 11:29=A0am, "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch" <omega....@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 6:56=A0am, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
....................
>In the US, it is my understanding that under Reform Judaism, a child
>born of a Jewish parent (mom or dad) is Jewish.
This is not sufficient; the child must be raised Jewish
according to Reform standards, which are essentially the
equivalent of what is required for conversion.
Fattush
> On 8-Nov-2009, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> > partner=rss&emc=rss
>
> This is unfortunately a textbook-class example of
> why gov't & religion should be sharply separated.
>
> Susan
I agree. And IMO the Court's ruling is insulting to Judaism. It
suggests that the Jewish way of defining Jewishness for purposes of
admission is racist/bigoted and illegal. This ruling right now
concerns a school but it may interfere in other institutions such as a
day camps, shules, charities, etc.
lee
My dad used to have a cigar guillotine which for a while I thought was
for something else
Herman Rubin
Fattush <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 7:27=A0pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
>> On =A08-Nov-2009, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>> > partner=3Drss&emc=3Drss
>> This is unfortunately a textbook-class example of
>> why gov't & religion should be sharply separated.
>> Susan
>I agree. And IMO the Court's ruling is insulting to Judaism. It
>suggests that the Jewish way of defining Jewishness for purposes of
>admission is racist/bigoted and illegal. This ruling right now
>concerns a school but it may interfere in other institutions such as a
>day camps, shules, charities, etc.
Considering that racial schools are prohibited, the
court's ruling was definitely in order. If the Jews
are a racial tribe, admittedly with admissions policies,
a Jewish school with government support would violate
British law as stated.
What is being stated is that religion is not something
inherited. It is time that Judaism realized this.
mm
wrote:
I"ll have to read your post later, but I wanted to post this where you
would see it.
Tonight on Jay Leno's "Headlines", a contributor sent in a flyer for
the Fattoush Restaurant. Maybe you can find out where it is and go
there. Maybe it's owned by family. If not your family, maybe their
family.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mm
<lbra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The institution of High Priest ended with the destruction
>of the Temple.
The office is vacant, but I don't think the institution has ended.
mm
Kamlet) wrote:
>In article <hd8t7p$r3r$2...@harrier.steinthal.us>,
>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>>>> Certainly not the chief priest who drew an angry etrog-throwing mob?
>>
>>> I don't recal that he was a "chief" priest
>>
>>I imagine Sukkos was when the Kohein Gadol took as much of a break
>>as possible. His routine for Yom Kippur must have been exhausting!
>>Simchas Beis haShoeivah was probably his time to relax and enjoy.
>
>This refers to a story of King Alexander Yanni, a decendant of
>Mattituahu, the priest at the time of the Maccabbean revolt, who
>became king following the death of his brother Aristobulus, and
>also appointed himself Kohen Gadol.
>
>He also married his brother's widow, Alexandra, who was the sister
>of Rabbi Shimon ben Schetach.
>
>
>Yanni greatly expanded the borders of Israel, though was not a very
>nice man :-(
>
>
>In a very public show of opposition to the rabbis (paharisees) Yanni
>led the Succos service in the Temple, and followed his (sadducee?)
>interpretation, at which point the crowd, got angry enough to pelt
>him with their etrogim.
Wow. We don't have services like that anymore.
mm
>
>On 9-Nov-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:59:38 +0000 (UTC), fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >On 9-Nov-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >The bottom line on this is if you take the governments money you have
>> >> >to
>> >> >abide by the government's rules, that's even true here in the US where
>> >> >we
>> >> >have separation of Church and State (the UK doesn't).
>> >>
>> >> This decision in Britain has nothing to do with taking government
>> >> money.
>> >
>> >Actually, it has everything to do with it.
>> >They would/*could* have had absolutely
>> >no say if they weren't funding the school.
>> >
>> >Susan
>>
>> It certainly *could* be done even if they werent' funding the school.
>> The US has laws about public accomodations that apply to places the
>> government doesn't fund. This isn't a public accomodation since no
>> set of people can just walk in and get served, but it would certainly
>> be possible to write a law that applies to, for example, private
>> schools in the US meaning of the word.
>>
>Do you really think a law like that would ever get passed in the US?
We were talking about Britain.
I only brought up the US to show that the US already has laws that
apply to people and organizations that the government doesn't fund.
That was what I thought you said couldn't happen. AFAIK, Britain
could extend the concept to religious organizations too. Look what
they just did to Jewish schools.
>I don't. Not without a huge demographic swing & a revolution involved.
>
>
>> But I reread the article and the school is indeed "publicly funded".
>> And that certainly does make legislators feel more entitled, even
>> obliged, to make what they consider fair rules to be followed.
>>
>Absolutely - the school made a major mistake.
What mistake did it make? And when? I have the feeling that the
school been taking public money ever since the notion of what the
British call public schools arose, 50?? or 100? years ago, and maybe
they wouldn't have lasted without that aid. Yes, there are O day
schools now that accept no aid, but times are different now.
Could it refuse the aid now and be left alone, or would the law still
apply to them and the findings of the court case still be applied to
them?
>Susan
I came across this in wikipedia under Jewish_Free_School
>Admissions criteria
>
>In October 2006, a Jewish father made enquiries with the United Synagogue as
>to whether his son, born to a mother who had been converted to Judaism
>under the auspices of the Masorti[10] movement, could convert under
>Orthodox auspices for entry to JFS in September 2007. He was advised
So he started cooperatively, it seems.
>the process could take several years and that such applications to JFS
So despite what I said that the kid should be able to convert quickly
if he lived in an observant home, either they think he doesn't live in
an observant home or for some other reason they think he can't convert
quickly. I figure that Masorti in England and maybe their members are
probably more observant than most Conservatives and even maybe the C
rules in the USA, but I'm not sure and I don't know how much.
As I said, the NYTimes assumed as true what probably hasn't been
proven, that the boy is "observant", which in this case means fully
observant: "The case began when a 12-year-old boy, an observant Jew
whose father is Jewish and whose mother is a Jewish convert, applied
to the school,"
>are very rarely successful given that the school is highly oversubscribed.
>He applied for his son but did not declare to the
>school's admissions board the mother's conversion history.
>
>By April 2007, he had not supplied JFS with the requested information,
>whereupon the school advised him that, being oversubscribed that year,
>it was unlikely his son could be offered a place. He thereupon
>unsuccessfully appealed for reconsideration of his application.[11]
>
>In July 2008, the father sought to prosecute JFS on the grounds of
>alleged racial discrimination, but High Court judge, Mr Justice Munby,
>ruled contrariwise, holding JFS' selection criteria were not intrinsically
>different from Christian or Islamic faith schools and their being declared
>illegal could adversely affect "the admission arrangements in a very large
>number of faith schools of many different faiths and denominations".[12]
I'll bet that is true.
>The Court of Appeal, however, in June 2009 declared that JFS, under the Race
> Relations Act, had illegally discriminated against the child on
>grounds of ethnicity. They ruled that the mother's religious status,
>and thus her child's religious status, had been determined using a
>racial criterion rather than a religious criterion.[13][14] JFS and
Just what Lee said. I could have reread the original article too, but
havent' done that yet.
>the United Synagogue have announced that they will appeal to the
>Supreme Court, with the support of chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks.[15]
So it's not over in court yet. Arguments concluded October 30.
fla...@verizon.net
Then why did you say "The US has laws..."?
I thought you wanted to shift the subject.
Susan
mm
>
>On 8-Nov-2009, lee <scho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Can you guess what my position is on this.
>> Therefore I can stay out of the bearpit on this one
>> I would however like to clarify that the court is not deciding who is
>> jewish or not.
>
>Yes, it is.
>Whentheycan go against Jewish law to say that a
>person is Jewish when Jewish law (if only as defined
>by that school) does not, they are doing just that.
>
>
>> it is saying that if jewishness is decided by the mother
>> then that is a test of ethnicity rather than religion
>
>Right: they are deciding what Judaism is.
>That's just plain wrong.
>
>> & selection on that basis is illegal here
>
>If you want the British gov't to decide what Judaism is, yeah.
>
>Susan
I finally get what you are saying, Lee.
Sad to say, Lee's description of the issue makes sense. The British
government doesnt' have to even try to decide who is a Jew. They can
leave that up to the Jews. And the Jews can have one or many answers,
it doesn't matter. Lee is saying that if this school says that
someone is a Jew because his mother is a Jew, then the school is
saying that Jews are an ethnic group (which is what I say here all the
time) and the school cannot discriminate against a member of a
different ethnic group. So even if this decision holds, unless they
claim otherwise and they certainly don't seem to be doing so, they're
not making any determination about who is a Jew. They're saying that
a school can't make admissions decisions based on who is a Jew. Only
on how much someone practices Judaism, even if the person doing the
practicing is not a Jew.
If applied to Moslems this could be just as problematic except for a
few big differences. Moslems are recent arrivals, not very
assimilated, much less likely to marry a non-Muslim, and if one does,
maybe more likely to leave the Moslem world. It may also be easier
for a non-Moslem woman to become a Moslem. And I think being
observant might be easier too. This is bad for us.
While according to the wiki article "Mr Justice Munby, ruled
contrariwise, holding JFS' selection criteria were not intrinsically
different from Christian or Islamic faith schools" it seems to me that
it is different from Xian schools. Despite the fairly common
terminology that someone was born Xian, I don't think any of them are.
Not until their baptism aiui is any person a Xian by Xian standards,
so there is no ethic component to being an Xian if one emphasizes the
need for baptism. This is bad for us.
What seems ironic to me iiuc is that if the boy himself had converted,
it would be eaasier to say that he didn't do it right, his practice
was incorrect, and he had to convert correctly. But merely because it
was his mother who had converted, he is immune to the fact that she
converted incorrectly. Because the court that ruled against the
school are not saying that the mother is a Jew, or that she's not a
Jew. The court is saying that if the school thinks the mother is not
a Jew and therefore the boy is not a Jew, the court is judging the boy
by his mother, which is an ethnic distinction which is illegal.
The problem is probably not that they can't exclude this boy for lack
of observance. I'll bet they can. But if they use the same standard
on some of the other students, some of them might practice no more
than he does. Bad for us.
I wonder how many of those who voted for the law against ethnic
discrimnation realized that it could cause religions discrimination
against Jews because we are an ethnic group with religion (or more
than one) and we are a religious group whose membership is usually
transmitted parent to child. I wonder how many of them are happy
it's causing us problems, or if there is any chance of amending the
law.
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Nov-2009, Fattush <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 7:27�pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On �8-Nov-2009, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> > > partner=rss&emc=rss
> >
> > This is unfortunately a textbook-class example of
> > why gov't & religion should be sharply separated.
> >
> > Susan
>
> I agree. And IMO the Court's ruling is insulting to Judaism. It
> suggests that the Jewish way of defining Jewishness for purposes of
> admission is racist/bigoted and illegal.
On top of saying that they are actually entitled to
tell us what Judaism is!!
> This ruling right now
> concerns a school but it may interfere in other institutions such as a
> day camps, shules, charities, etc.
That is my worry, as well: English law is even more
heavily dependent on precedent than US law.
Susan
Fattush
IMO a decision like this is further reason and proof why Jews around
the world need Israel.
Fattush
> In article <8dccd156-4153-410f-8ac8-3e9344795...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Fattush <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 8, 7:27=A0pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> On =A08-Nov-2009, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> >> > partner=3Drss&emc=3Drss
> >> This is unfortunately a textbook-class example of
> >> why gov't & religion should be sharply separated.
> >> Susan
> >I agree. And IMO the Court's ruling is insulting to Judaism. It
> >suggests that the Jewish way of defining Jewishness for purposes of
> >admission is racist/bigoted and illegal. This ruling right now
> >concerns a school but it may interfere in other institutions such as a
> >day camps, shules, charities, etc.
>
> Considering that racial schools are prohibited, the
> court's ruling was definitely in order. If the Jews
> are a racial tribe, admittedly with admissions policies,
> a Jewish school with government support would violate
> British law as stated.
>
> What is being stated is that religion is not something
> inherited. It is time that Judaism realized this.
I respectfully disagree. Judaism is more than a religion. It is an
ethnic identity tied to an ancient and beautiful national identity.
Fattush
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 23:18:23 +0000 (UTC), Fattush <fattuc...@yahoo.com>
Here's a link. It appears this name is more popular than I had
thought if one is looking for Meditteranean food.
http://www.bing.com/search?srch=106&FORM=AS6&q=%22fattousch+restaurant%22
>
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Henry Goodman
news:1nvhf558ld16rlgps...@4ax.com...
enormous. The parents would have to find very large sums of money. It could
hardly then be called "Jews' Free School"
mm
To tell you what jurisdiction's laws I was referring to, to show that
it was possible.
>I thought you wanted to shift the subject.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.
>Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>>>> Certainly not the chief priest who drew an angry etrog-throwing mob?
>>
>>> I don't recal that he was a "chief" priest
>>
>>I imagine Sukkos was when the Kohein Gadol took as much of a break
>>as possible. His routine for Yom Kippur must have been exhausting!
>>Simchas Beis haShoeivah was probably his time to relax and enjoy.
>
> This refers to a story of King Alexander Yanni, a decendant of
> Mattituahu, the priest at the time of the Maccabbean revolt, who
> became king following the death of his brother Aristobulus, and
> also appointed himself Kohen Gadol.
>
> He also married his brother's widow, Alexandra, who was the sister
> of Rabbi Shimon ben Schetach.
>
> Yanni greatly expanded the borders of Israel, though was not a very
> nice man :-(
>
> In a very public show of opposition to the rabbis (paharisees) Yanni
> led the Succos service in the Temple, and followed his (sadducee?)
> interpretation, at which point the crowd, got angry enough to pelt
> him with their etrogim.
I am aware of the story it's in Sukka 48B. There it just says
"...one kohen..." without mentioning names. Perhaps the Tosefta
gives the name you mentioned.
Thanks for the history lesson.
--
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Arthur Kamlet <kam...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In a very public show of opposition to the rabbis (paharisees) Yanni
>> led the Succos service in the Temple, and followed his (sadducee?)
>> interpretation, at which point the crowd, got angry enough to pelt
>> him with their etrogim.
>
> before. In Sukkah he isn't named.
On E-Daf, I don't see it in wither place. :-( Sukkah just references
Yuma and there is no name given there either.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> sheldonlg <shel...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> Henry Goodman wrote:
>
>>> The point I was making is that if you pretend that everybody is a
>>> convert then there will no longer be any Cohanim or Levites. These
>>> classes must have fathers who were Cohanim or Levites respectively.
>>
>>Not mothers :-) ?
>
> Well, there is a rule concerning who is exempt from the law of
> pidyon haben, the redemption of the first born son.
>
> If the mother of the first born son is the daughter of a kohen or
> levi, then the son is exempted from the requirement for pidyon haben.
Correct. I am a levi. So the two daughters of mine who had bchorim
(first-born sons) did not need a pidyon haben. The first pidyon haben
in my family was for my first great grandson, who is the son of my
first grandson. When he got married he told his wife, "I 'made' my
mother's father a grandfather, now I want to make him a great
grandfather". KA"H
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
mm
wrote:
>
>Question: if an adult converts and needs a bris, can he have pain
>medicine? Or must he have the circimcision without pain killers? I
>would think that if an adult goes through it, it would be
>excrutiating.
I had a friend whose boss's son wanted to be circumcised when he was a
teenager. No one was a Jew except my friend. The father spent the
morning with his son, but asked my friend his employee to spend the
afternoon with him, at their home. I don't remember but I guess like
everyone said he had a general anesthetic, but he was awake by the
time he got home**. My friend said he went back to sleep for part of
the time, actual sleep, and wasn't in much pain, taking some pain
killer. He thought it didn't seem to be a bad experience for the boy.
**They have anesthesia that puts one entirely out, but wears off
within 20 minutes after a certain time, iirc, based on how much you
weight and how much they give you. I don't know what they use for
circcumcisions, but this is what they use for colonoscopies, and for
some reaason, even though the person is totally asleep, it's not
called general anesthesia. I forget what it's called. They insisted
I get a ride home, and I did, but I was wide awake with no
after-effects 5 or 10 minutes from the time I woke up.
Micha Berger
> Considering that racial schools are prohibited, the
> court's ruling was definitely in order. If the Jews
> are a racial tribe, admittedly with admissions policies,
> a Jewish school with government support would violate
> British law as stated.
The reason why college kids (or we here on scjm) can bat around the
question of whether Judaism is a religion or an ethnic group for hours
on end is simply because it's not really either.
English was shaped over the centuries by a culture that was primarily
Christian, and so its terms pigeonhole things as per that worldview.
That means that those of us from other fait communities will often have
concepts that don't really fit any English word.
Some examples that caused troubles for us in the past:
Baalus isn't really the same as property, as a rentor has partial baalus,
and someone who is prohabited to use an object that he owns in the
western sense (eg milk and meat) lacks full baalus.
Qedushah isn't holiness or sanctity, they're just the nearest words.
Etc...
"Arab" is a linguistic and cultural designation. We have a similar
concept in "veromamtanu mikol halshonos" (from the holiday prayers,
"and You lifted us from all the other language-groups), but English
doesn't. It makes it complicated to describe what's going on in Darfur,
where genetically African Moslems are killing genetically African Moslems,
but those on the attack are Arabs, and those who get raped, killed and
sent homeless are African.
There is also no word in English for what the Jewish People are. "Clan"
might actually be closer than "religion" or "ethinicity", as it reflects
the family concept of "Benei Yisrael". And, like in a family, in laws
and adoptive children can leave, but no matter how much mad uncle George
offends everyone else, he's still our uncle. (And in fact part of what
makes us so furious with him is *because* he's family.)
In any case, if British law allows religious schools to only take children
of their religion, then the law doesn't map one-to-one with the concept
of only taking Jews. How the British court sees things -- that Jews have
a different definition of religion or that the law doesn't protect the
right for a school to select on criteria other than strictly religion --
will be interesting to see.
Whether the court chooses to consider our self-definition overly racial
in orientation so as to cross that legal line remains to be seen.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org then what do you need tomorrow for?
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
fla...@verizon.net
On 9-Nov-2009, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> In article
> <8dccd156-4153-410f...@t18g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
> Fattush <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 8, 7:27=A0pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> >> On =A08-Nov-2009, Amitai <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
> >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
> >> > partner=3Drss&emc=3Drss
>
> >> This is unfortunately a textbook-class example of
> >> why gov't & religion should be sharply separated.
>
> >> Susan
>
> >I agree. And IMO the Court's ruling is insulting to Judaism. It
> >suggests that the Jewish way of defining Jewishness for purposes of
> >admission is racist/bigoted and illegal. This ruling right now
> >concerns a school but it may interfere in other institutions such as a
> >day camps, shules, charities, etc.
>
> Considering that racial schools are prohibited, the
> court's ruling was definitely in order.
Except that Judaism is *not* racial.
If it were, there would be no conversion.
The complaint from the school is not that the boy is
descended from a convert, but descended from
someone who did not, in their eyes, convert properly.
> If the Jews
> are a racial tribe, admittedly with admissions policies,
See previous comment.
> a Jewish school with government support would violate
> British law as stated.
>
Which is why the school should never have taken their money -
this left them wide oopen to this insulting ruling - which is
fruadulent by their own standards (see previous comment).
> What is being stated is that religion is not something
> inherited.
Which is somehting that court would say,
it being non-Jewish, and, in fact, Xian.
> It is time that Judaism realized this.
Of course I disagree.
Susan
Fattush
> "Fattush" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9a1de389-c726-4d99...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> medicine? Or must he have the circimcision without pain killers? I
> would think that if an adult goes through it, it would be
> excrutiating.
>
> I think it is done under a general anaesthetic
Thank goodness!
Fattush
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hilarious!! Thanks for posting this and giving me a chuckle.
You should use that as a "sig."
Fattush
Well, it's not owned by my family. Thanks for mentioning this.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow
> mi...@aishdas.org than you were today,
> http://www.aishdas.org then what do you need tomorrow for?
> Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
Micha, I'm not familiar woth this quote. Do you have a citation?
TIA
Micha Berger
> It is just that I found it amusing that they staunchly cry "matrilineal
> descent", but when it comes to these special rules, all of a sudden it
> is "patrilineal descent". Mildly inconsistent?
"They" meaning the talmud?
In either case, there is a simple reason -- tribal affiliation for most
tribes is a matter of inheritence, which are patrilineal. With
membership in a tribe (excluding Levi, who isn't really a tribe anyway,
or else there would be 13 of them) comes a piece of the tribe's
territory. Dad is typically the one who farms, so inheritence is defined
by his line.
The Levites are defined similarly, as their landlessness and being
supported by tithing is what freed them up to serve.
While dad was out farming, mom was home with the kids. It was therefore
mom who instilled in them their most basic religious values. Not
concepts, something even more fundamental that we pick up during our
early years about basic worldview and right-vs-wrong.
Below is a copy of http://www.aishdas.org/asp/bamidbar.shtml . It
explains the same idea at more length, and also applies it to the two
laws of the firstborn.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org then what do you need tomorrow for?
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
Aspaqlaria: Bamidbar
By Their Father's Household
In this week's parshah Moshe and Aharon are asked to count the Jewish
people. They are told to organize the count "by their families, by
their fathers' households." (Num 1:2) They are told only to count
males (ibid) "20 years old and above, every one that goes into public
service in Israel." (ibid 3)
From this pasuk the Gemara learns that the Shevet (tribe) is determined
by patrilineal descent. Membership in the Jewish people, however,
is decided by the Jewishness of the mother. Why are these things
judged by different criteria?
Even more fundamentally - does this distinction somehow reflect
the difference in intellectual legacy? Do we learn something more
shevet-specific from our fathers but learn something fundamental
about being a Jew by being raised by a Jewish mother?
There are two laws that apply to first born sons. The first is
called Bichor Likehunah, the Eldest for Priesthood. Originally the
first-born of each family were to serve as kohen. After the story
of the Golden Calf this honor was transferred to the Tribe of Levi,
and to Aharon's children in particular. Because the firstborn son
still has the vestiges of holiness, one must redeem him from a Kohen
(Pidyon HaBen), normally done when the child is thirty days old.
The other law is called Bichor LiNachalah, the Eldest for Inheritance.
The first-born son receives a double portion of the inheritance. So
that three brothers would divide up the inheritance four ways,
the bichor receives two portions, or one half of the inheritance,
and his brothers each receive only one quarter.
We find an interesting parallel between the laws of bichorah and our
original problem. The Bichor LiKehunah is the mother's first born
(Bichoros 46a). The Torah (Exod 34:19) tells us that "the one who
opens the womb is Mine." However the Bichor LiNachalah is the father's
first-born (Bichoros ibid.) This is based on the pasuk (Deut 21:16)
which tells us that when a man has two wives and prefers one of them,
"when it comes time for him to bequeath all he has to his sons, he
can not choose the son of the beloved wife over the son of a hated
wife who is the first-born."
We see here a pattern. The mother, who traditionally bore most of
the responsibility of child rearing, determines who is the spiritual
leader among the sons. The father's first son follows in his footsteps
taking over the financial obligations of the estate.
At the end of the journeys in the desert (Num 26:2), Hashem asks Moshe
and Elazar to recount the Jewish people. Again he is told to perform
this count "from 20 years old and upward according to the house of
their fathers." Immediately after the count of all of the tribes but
Levi (Ibid. 55), Hashem commands that when it comes time to divide
the Land of Israel, "only by lottery shall the inheritance [land]
be distributed, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers."
The land of Israel is called an inheritance. Thus, as all inheritances,
it would be passed from father to son.
The division of land is by shevet. In fact it is impossible to sell
any piece of the land of Israel, outside of Yerushalayim or the Arei
Miklat (cities of refuge, where those who murder by accident would be
exiled). Every 50 years, at Yovel (Jubilee), the land returns to the
original owners, and therefor to the family to which it was allotted.
Land can be leased, but not sold. Every tribe holds onto their own
portion of land.
We have to picture the effects of this. Each family of Yehoshua's
generation received a portion of land. This land stayed within the
family until the end of Bayis Rishon, divided and redivided as the
family grew. This would mean that no only do you live within your
shevet, but your immediate neighbors are your extended family.
Since the concepts of shevet and family are rooted in an inheritance,
the tribe of the child is that of the father.
One thing particular to inheritence is that it only comes
automatically. You can not choose to be someone's child, and therefor
get an inheritence.
Being part of the Jewish people, however, is more along the lines
of the Bichor LiKihunah. It follows matrilineal descent. We know it
can not be an inheritence, because it can be accepted volunatrily -
a non-Jew can decide to be a ger.
The exception is the tribe of Levi, for whom we are told (Deut 18:2)
"but inheritance among its brothers it shall not have; Hashem is its
inheritance, as He has spoken for it." The father has no financial
obligations to an estate. Since his sustenance is his role as Kohen
or Levi, these are his legacy and inheritance. Like all the laws of
inheritance, they are passed from father to son.
This result is somewhat hard to understand: the original kohanim, the
mothers' eldest, was replace by B'nei Aharon, children patrilineally
descended from Aharon. However, it too is an inheritence - one can
not choose to be a kohen.
In Mishlei 1:8, Shlomo writes, "sh'ma b'ni musar avichah, vi'al
titosh Toras imechah" - "Listen, my son, to the legacy of your father,
and do not abandon your mother's Torah."
The first interesting thing to note is the use of the word "musar",
legacy, a term which is related to inheritence. The father's teachings
are called the child's legacy.
Rashi does not take father and mother literally in this pasuk. Father,
he says, is your Father in heaven. Mother, is your nation - replacing
"imechah" with "umaschah". This is also interesting, as it implies
that the Torah of the mother is the Torah of the nation. What defines
Judaism is Toras Imechah, the Torah we do not even think about, the
subconscious value-system we absorb as children at our mother's knee.
ￜ 1995 The AishDas Society
Micha Berger
> On 9-Nov-2009, Fattush <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I agree. And IMO the Court's ruling is insulting to Judaism. It
>> suggests that the Jewish way of defining Jewishness for purposes of
>> admission is racist/bigoted and illegal.
>
> On top of saying that they are actually entitled to
> tell us what Judaism is!!
No, they are saying they are entitled to tell us whether a school's
admission policy is about something other than what they call
"religion".
lee
Actually it still gives me the shivers
Matt Silberstein
soc.culture.jewish.moderated , mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> in
<6bfdf5ltsguvj6ve3...@4ax.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 11:56:14 +0000 (UTC), Amitai
><chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>We have been debating this question among ourselves for decades, since
>>Ben Gurion sent letters to all and sundry "experts" when the State of
>>Israel was established, but - not surprisingly - have failed to reach
>>a consensus.
>>
>>Now a British court has seen fit to decide the issue for us - at least
>>for Jews living the UK.
>>
>>See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>
>I started to make what follows part of the url, but it didn't seem to
>fit.
>
>>partner=rss&emc=rss
>
>Talk about assuming what is supposed to be proved, here is the start
>of the fifth paragraph: "The case began when a 12-year-old boy, an
>observant Jew whose father is Jewish and whose mother is a Jewish
>convert, applied to the school, JFS."
>
>I wonder if they tried my argument, that someone who enters Britain
>and lives like an Englishman or a Briton isn't one unless he follows
>the proper nationalization procedures.
And what makes the procedure "proper"? O? R? Which should the
government follow? This is a messy thing from a legal standpoint. I
know what answer I want (that the various "accepted" branches of
Judaism get to decide), but I am not sure if there is a set of
principles involved here. The issue of how a government determines a
religion is hard with Judaism since the "who is a Jew" question is
harder and more complex. Whether one is a Christian or a Muslim is, by
those religions rules, a fact just about the individual. You make the
right statement of faith and you are a member. Judaism is different
and, in this case, needs to be treated as different by the secular
law.
> AIUI, there are a whole
>bunch of people hanging out at the French end of the Chunnel, trying
>to sneak into England and some of them must have succeeded. Do they
>get all the rights of a Briton just because they got into the country?
>
>What about a tourist who doesn't leave, or someone who's changing
>planes in London. When I changed planes in London, I was able to
>leave the airport.
In the U.S. you get many, but not all rights just for being in
country.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Don Levey
> sheldonlg <shel...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> It is just that I found it amusing that they staunchly cry "matrilineal
>> descent", but when it comes to these special rules, all of a sudden it
>> is "patrilineal descent". Mildly inconsistent?
>
> "They" meaning the talmud?
>
> In either case, there is a simple reason -- tribal affiliation for most
> tribes is a matter of inheritence, which are patrilineal. With
> membership in a tribe (excluding Levi, who isn't really a tribe anyway,
Eh? Do you mean Kohenim, as not really being a tribe? As I recall (and
as stated in the blog post you include:
" The exception is the tribe of Levi, for whom we are told (Deut 18:2)
"but inheritance among its brothers it shall not have; Hashem is its
inheritance, as He has spoken for it." The father has no financial
obligations to an estate. Since his sustenance is his role as Kohen
or Levi, these are his legacy and inheritance. Like all the laws of
inheritance, they are passed from father to son."
While there is no land inheritance, that's not quite the same thing as a
lack of tribal status, is it?
>
> The Levites are defined similarly, as their landlessness and being
> supported by tithing is what freed them up to serve.
> ...
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
Don Levey
>
>
> What is being stated is that religion is not something
Sure it is. Else, how could you raise a child to be Jewish? How can
you give them something that isn't yours to begin with? At which point,
it is inherited.
Steve Goldfarb
>What if a person is born of a Jewish mother, never converts, but does
>not keep the Sabbath, does not keep Kosher, etc.? Are they Jewish
>according to this court?
Why would this person want to go to an explicitly Jewish school with a
Jewish-inflected curriculum? And if they did decide they wanted that, then
wouldn't that be a factor that should be taken into account? (they don't
keep Kosher now, but they wish to learn more about it)
--s
--
Henry Goodman
news:hdbspb$3b3$3...@reader1.panix.com...
They want to go to this particular school because it gives the best
education in the neighbourhood, has best exam results, university admissions
etc.
It is particular famous with Christian schools, both Catholic and C of E,
that parents pretend to be religous, attend church regularly for the
critical few weeks when decisions are taken etc. in order to get their child
into the school.