Looks like the reformed will no longer be causing trouble at Kotel
Binyamin Dissen
The leader of the "rabbinical council" of the reformed, Yehoram Mazor, has
stated that the Kotel isn't holy and any worship performed near it is idol
worship. This was published in the reformed magazine "B'Telem".
Might I hope that the reformed will now stay home and not bother the Jews who
do worship there? After all, according to the reformed leaders it is idol
worship, and reformed don't want to perform idol worship, do they?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
Shomer Et haTorah (Mesoret), MiChaved Et haDemocratia
Albert Reingewirtz
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
> According to this weeks ba'Kehilla:
>
> The leader of the "rabbinical council" of the reformed, Yehoram Mazor, has
> stated that the Kotel isn't holy and any worship performed near it is idol
> worship. This was published in the reformed magazine "B'Telem".
>
> Might I hope that the reformed will now stay home and not bother the Jews who
> do worship there? After all, according to the reformed leaders it is idol
> worship, and reformed don't want to perform idol worship, do they?
Judaism can and did exist without this wall for centuries. Furthermore,
true Judaism regards the worship of the dead as idolatery. What do you
think is all the O's forever praying on graves of proplematically
identified graves of "saints?" Idolatery! When someone ask for a
"Saint" in his grave to help them how is it different than what Judaism
demands that it should not be done?
Jerry B. Altzman
Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>According to this weeks ba'Kehilla:
>The leader of the "rabbinical council" of the reformed, Yehoram Mazor, has
>stated that the Kotel isn't holy and any worship performed near it is idol
>worship. This was published in the reformed magazine "B'Telem".
Huh? Would you mind providing an actual quote?
>Might I hope that the reformed will now stay home and not bother the Jews who
>do worship there? After all, according to the reformed leaders it is idol
>worship, and reformed don't want to perform idol worship, do they?
What R Jewish precept expressly forbids idol-worship? I'm being serious.
Is the prohibition against idol worship "ethical" or "ritual"?
>Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman There is no universe -- P. Halmos +1 212 785 4445
jba...@cs.columbia.edu jba...@pam-llc.com KE3ML
Binyamin Dissen
Altzman) wrote:
:>In article <37ca4c9d...@news.netvision.net.il>,
:>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
:>>According to this weeks ba'Kehilla:
:>>The leader of the "rabbinical council" of the reformed, Yehoram Mazor, has
:>>stated that the Kotel isn't holy and any worship performed near it is idol
:>>worship. This was published in the reformed magazine "B'Telem".
:>Huh? Would you mind providing an actual quote?
To see the article (in Hebrew):
Small Image (60K): http://www.dissensoftware.com/israel/reformed.gif
Large Image (650k): http://www.dissensoftware.com/israel/reformed.jpg
:>>Might I hope that the reformed will now stay home and not bother the Jews who
:>>do worship there? After all, according to the reformed leaders it is idol
:>>worship, and reformed don't want to perform idol worship, do they?
:>What R Jewish precept expressly forbids idol-worship? I'm being serious.
:>Is the prohibition against idol worship "ethical" or "ritual"?
So they claim.
They deny that j4j is a legitimate Jewish practice.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
Albert Reingewirtz
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
> On 30 Aug 1999 09:14:49 -0400 jba...@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu (Jerry B.
> Altzman) wrote:
>
> :>In article <37ca4c9d...@news.netvision.net.il>,
> :>Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>
> :>>According to this weeks ba'Kehilla:
>
> :>>The leader of the "rabbinical council" of the reformed, Yehoram Mazor, has
> :>>stated that the Kotel isn't holy and any worship performed near it is idol
> :>>worship. This was published in the reformed magazine "B'Telem".
>
> :>Huh? Would you mind providing an actual quote?
>
> To see the article (in Hebrew):
>
> Small Image (60K): http://www.dissensoftware.com/israel/reformed.gif
>
> Large Image (650k): http://www.dissensoftware.com/israel/reformed.jpg
>
> :>>Might I hope that the reformed will now stay home and not bother the Jews
> who
> :>>do worship there? After all, according to the reformed leaders it is idol
> :>>worship, and reformed don't want to perform idol worship, do they?
>
> :>What R Jewish precept expressly forbids idol-worship? I'm being serious.
> :>Is the prohibition against idol worship "ethical" or "ritual"?
>
> So they claim.
>
> They deny that j4j is a legitimate Jewish practice.
>
They have a point! Praying to a wall or to some graves is not exactly
Judaism is it? Ever since Rabbi Akiva, Jews could practice their
religion anywhere, any time without a temple, sacrifices, Cohen Gadol
... "Bechol makom she tazkir et shemi, avo ve havarecheka."
Karl Klingman
"Jerry B. Altzman" wrote:
> What R Jewish precept expressly forbids idol-worship? I'm being serious.
> Is the prohibition against idol worship "ethical" or "ritual"?
It's what we call a Commandment from G-d. It's one of the big ones -- up near the
top of the list. :-)
B'Shalom
Karl
Jerry B. Altzman
Sheldon Glickler
jba...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) wrote:
> In article <37CCB057...@mindspring.com>,
> Karl Klingman <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >"Jerry B. Altzman" wrote:
> >> What R Jewish precept expressly forbids idol-worship? I'm being
serious.
> >> Is the prohibition against idol worship "ethical" or "ritual"?
> >It's what we call a Commandment from G-d. It's one of the big ones
-- up near the
> >top of the list. :-)
>
> Shabbat is on the list too.
Yes it is, and so those who observe Shabbat refrain from working and
try to get some rest. Too many of us (me included) fail to
consistently do either.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Richard Schultz
: Yes it is, and so those who observe Shabbat refrain from working and
: try to get some rest. Too many of us (me included) fail to
: consistently do either.
". . . and so those who observe the precept of Monotheism refrain from
worshipping idols and try to serve God alone. Too many of us (me
included) fail to consistently do either. . ."
Would you agree that if a Reform Jew is entitled to make the first
statement, he is also entitled to make the second one? If not, why not?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
Jerry B. Altzman
Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <7qjpkm$1...@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu>,
> jba...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) wrote:
>> In article <37CCB057...@mindspring.com>,
>> Karl Klingman <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >"Jerry B. Altzman" wrote:
>> >> What R Jewish precept expressly forbids idol-worship? I'm being
>serious.
>> >> Is the prohibition against idol worship "ethical" or "ritual"?
>> >It's what we call a Commandment from G-d. It's one of the big ones
>-- up near the
>> >top of the list. :-)
>> Shabbat is on the list too.
>try to get some rest. Too many of us (me included) fail to
>consistently do either.
That's all well and good but it doesn't address the original issue: R
Judaism and its view on idolatry. Karl claimed that the prohibition was
"near the top of the list", to which I pointed out that so Shabbat is in
the top 5 also...
Erev shabbat shalom
>Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
....and I pointed out that I agreed with you and that we try to (a)
refrain from working and (b) get some rest.
It is all in how you define "Shabbat". By doing those things, and in
driving to synagogue and by enjoying a nice meal with the family with
some stuff prepared on the barbeque or microwave, we are (a) refraining
from work and (b) getting some rest --- and so are observing Shabbat.
I think it really _does_ address the original issue.
Jackie Cappiello
anything in fire or electricity (which includes microwave or barbecue)
on Shabbat. (Have you ever eaten cold poached salmon with mayonnaise.
Yummy and a good substitute for cholent during hot weather!!) I also
either turn off my computer prior to lighting candles or not use it
during Shabbat if I have left it running.
But I will agree, again as a Reform Jew, that each person has to take
his/her own way towards observing Shabbat.
Sheldon Glickler
Jackie Cappiello <jack...@home.com> wrote:
> Sorry, Shelly, but the ideal that I as a Reform Jew follow is to not
put
> anything in fire or electricity (which includes microwave or
barbecue)
> on Shabbat. (Have you ever eaten cold poached salmon with mayonnaise.
> Yummy and a good substitute for cholent during hot weather!!) I also
> either turn off my computer prior to lighting candles or not use it
> during Shabbat if I have left it running.
> But I will agree, again as a Reform Jew, that each person has to take
> his/her own way towards observing Shabbat.
Exactly!
Shelly
Richard Schultz
: jba...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) wrote:
:> Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:>> Yes it is, and so those who observe Shabbat refrain from working and
:>> try to get some rest. Too many of us (me included) fail to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:>> consistently do either.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:> That's all well and good but it doesn't address the original issue: R
:> Judaism and its view on idolatry. Karl claimed that the prohibition
:> was "near the top of the list", to which I pointed out that so
:> Shabbat is in the top 5 also...
: ....and I pointed out that I agreed with you and that we try to (a)
: refrain from working and (b) get some rest. . . .
: I think it really _does_ address the original issue.
You missed a major point, namely that you haven't addressed the questions
arising from the statement you made that I have underlined. It seems
to be acceptable within Reform to "fail to consistently" observe Shabbat.
Why should it be unacceptable to "fail to consistently" refrain from
worshipping idols?
The other point you are missing is that Shabbat observance, while
recommended, is *not* required of Reform Jews. Karl seemed to be
arguing that idol worship, on the other hand, *is* forbidden absolutely.
Jerry and I are simply asking how you differentiate between the two,
given that the textual basis Karl used for excluding idol worship also
seems to *require* Shabbat observance. As I read it, the text does not
make any obvious distinction between the levels of importance of the two.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
Dan Winter
I'm taking it on faith), then I can look at the remaining commandments in
terms of what their violation implies to my relationship with god.
The directive to keep the sabbath for me is a desire to allow people to rest
and regenerate, coming from a time when people usually worked 7 days a week.
This forced humane tratment of others. Similarly, the bulk of the remaining
commandments are also designed to encourage peacful coexistance (no
coveting, murder, etc).
Praying to false idols, on the other hand, is a direct refutation of god.
For me to pray to another idol says that I do not accept the one true god,
and instead see him at best as one of many who deserve my prayers.
If I fail to follow most of the commandments, I fail myself and my fellow
man (I would expect god to be disappointed in my weakness). If I fail to
follow the "no idols" commendment, I am failing god (I would expect god to
reject me, since I have rejected him).
Dan Winter
Not speaking for anyone but myself
Richard Schultz wrote in message <7r8g7t$oiu$1...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>...
Simcha Streltsov
: The directive to keep the sabbath for me is a desire to allow people to rest
: and regenerate, coming from a time when people usually worked 7 days a week.
: This forced humane tratment of others. Similarly, the bulk of the remaining
: commandments are also designed to encourage peacful coexistance (no
: coveting, murder, etc).
: Praying to false idols, on the other hand, is a direct refutation of god.
: For me to pray to another idol says that I do not accept the one true god,
: and instead see him at best as one of many who deserve my prayers.
but commandment of shabbat directly refers to (1) G-d's creation of
the world and (2) His taking us out of Mitzraim, Thus, if you refuse
to follow it, it seems that you defy both (1) theology and
(2) history of Judaism.
to be consistent, you should at least not celebrate
(1) Rosh Hasnana and (2) Pesach.
Micha Berger
: to follow it, it seems that you defy both (1) theology and
: (2) history of Judaism.
: to be consistent, you should at least not celebrate
: (1) Rosh Hasnana and (2) Pesach.
Well, it's unclear that Rosh haShanah actually marks creation. We do
Birchas haChamah once every 28 years on Wed Nissan 4th -- because that
supposedly matches creation.
What about "Hayom haras olam", part of the R"H liturgy? According to Tosafos,
it means "Today the world was concieved". The world was concieved in the spirit
of Tishrei, that of Justice. However, it was (according to Tosafos) born in
Nissan, representing Mercy/Kindness.
OTOH, the Vilna Gaon associates the Ashkenazic practice of starting Selichos
the Sun before Rosh Hashanah to be about the week of creation. Creation ends
on R"H; there is no assertion that "creation week" was within the normal
calendar. (We've already discussed those within Jewish tradition who didn't
take the "week" literally.)
It would seem that we hold by both sides of the b'raisa -- for some things we
act as though it was created in Nissan, for others, in Tishrei. Perhaps this
is because of the general dialectic between "chessed v'emmes" -- kindness vs.
truth.
All this would mean that tying R"H to creation is more about G-d-as-Judge then
about assuming an actual date for creation.
Similarly, one could say the same about Passover and the full moon of the month
representing kindness, the month of spring.
In kabbalistic thought, the holidays caused the events, not the other way
around. Which means that the attachment of the holiday to the date is not
logically caused by the event. Even someone who does not believe the event
occurred might agree with the symbolic/mystical thought that traditional
Judaism believes caused the event to be on that date. Perhaps Jewish Renewal
(non-traditional, but spiritually minded) people in particular.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 9-Sep-99: Chamishi, Bereshis
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 35b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Nefesh Hachaim I 21
Simcha Streltsov
: : to follow it, it seems that you defy both (1) theology and
: : (2) history of Judaism.
: : to be consistent, you should at least not celebrate
: : (1) Rosh Hasnana and (2) Pesach.
: All this would mean that tying R"H to creation is more about G-d-as-Judge then
: about assuming an actual date for creation.
OK, you convinced me that someone who rejects Creation as defined in Bereshit
may still celebrate R'H, but he still should not do Pesach - as the 2 reasoning
for Shabbat is remembering Exodus, and he is rejecting that part also.
but still, the most important (IMHO) issue is that by doing Shabbat we
testify to the fact that we do it from generation to generation from
Sinai - this is an actualization of Kuzari's principle - evryone -
who has eyes - sees that this is going form generation to generation.
this view of Shabat explains why it is exactly 7 days a week - not 8
or 6 sometimes to fir the holidays, not 1/4 of a month, and why
we do it every week - I always wondered why we can't have a break, say,
during Tishrei - where we have enough time off already, or during
a personal vacation on Taiti.
and given that Shabbat is this kind of testimony to a tradition -
doing it "sometimes" or "almost always" looses all the value
of testimony of an unbreakable tradition.
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Karl Klingman
Richard Schultz wrote:
You missed a major point, namely that you haven't addressed the questions
> arising from the statement you made that I have underlined. It seems
> to be acceptable within Reform to "fail to consistently" observe Shabbat.
> Why should it be unacceptable to "fail to consistently" refrain from
> worshipping idols?
>
> The other point you are missing is that Shabbat observance, while
> recommended, is *not* required of Reform Jews. Karl seemed to be
> arguing that idol worship, on the other hand, *is* forbidden absolutely.
> Jerry and I are simply asking how you differentiate between the two,
> given that the textual basis Karl used for excluding idol worship also
> seems to *require* Shabbat observance. As I read it, the text does not
> make any obvious distinction between the levels of importance of the two.
Since, my quip is still being discussed, I'll venture back into the thread. I
would assert that Reform Judaism does indeed "require" observance of Shabbat,
even though some disregard the requirement. I suspect, however, that this
is not peculiar to Reform Judaism. Although, it is true that there are
differences in the interpretation of what constitutes observance between each
of the many streams of Judaism. The fact that we have dispensed with the
legal fictions that the O's find necessary does not mean that we ignore the
Sabbath.
Gut Yontif,
Karl
Mike Medved
: Richard Schultz wrote:
Please refer me to a document, an article or SOMETHING that would
show that R "require" observance of Shabbat. Nothing I have
ever seen would point to such a "requirement".
As for "differences in interpretation" - yeah sure. Going the
same way, you may have a statue of Ganisha in the corner of
your living room and prostrate yourself in front of it daily while
chanting loudly - yet you can interpret it away as "not idol
worship" - maybe it would be "artistic self-expression"
and then it will be okay... Sure, you would be "dispensing
with the legal fictions" if you do it - but hey, what's another
legal fiction.
David Barak
> Since, my quip is still being discussed, I'll venture back into the thread. I
> would assert that Reform Judaism does indeed "require" observance of Shabbat,
> even though some disregard the requirement. I suspect, however, that this
> is not peculiar to Reform Judaism. Although, it is true that there are
> differences in the interpretation of what constitutes observance between each
> of the many streams of Judaism. The fact that we have dispensed with the
> legal fictions that the O's find necessary does not mean that we ignore the
> Sabbath.
> Gut Yontif,
Mr. Klingman,
I'd like to assume that this statement was the product of a long hard working
day, and that you were tired when you wrote it. Assuming that your motives were
pure, I still have to adress this sentence.
Reform Judaism dispensed with far more than "legal fictions" - it dispensed with
Jewish Law entirely, preferring a democratic/individualistic approach to Judaism.
Obviously, as an Orthodox Jew, I disagree with that approach, and would assert
that G-d is not democratic - He is by definition Autocratic - the blessing "Barukh
She-amar" sums it up nicely: "Blessed is He who spoke and the world came into being;
Blessed is he who speaks and does..." - Jewish tradition and History is filled with
an understanding of a G-d who cares about our actions, but doesn't ask for our
opinions before He acts.
If you're interested in discussing alternative interpretations of "Melekhet Avodah"
or "Melakha" and the differences between them (i.e. these are what one can't do
on the Festivals/Shabbat respectively), I'd happily talk about it with you.
Is that more of what you were trying to get at?
Shanah Tovah,
David Barak
Jacob Love
Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
>Please refer me to a document, an article or SOMETHING that would
>show that R "require" observance of Shabbat. Nothing I have
>ever seen would point to such a "requirement".
Can you show such a "requirement" in most world religions? I have
Catholic friends who attend Mass every day, others who attend on
Sundays, and still others who try to make it on Christmas and Easter.
Likewise I have Jewish friends who get to daily minyan, others who try
to make every Shabbat, and still others who can only be bothered on Yom
Kippur. Even at the Orthodox congregations, some only turn up on the
High Holy Days.
Reform Judaism does not need to specify a *different* requirement from
the Orthodox, because all Jews accept the *same* traditional sources.
What disturbs you, perhaps, is that the local Reform rabbi is not
willing to call fire and brimstone down on the congregants who avoid
attending their daily or Shabbat minyan. Reform Judaism did not
*abrogate* the halakhah, it is not some form of Lurianism which
holds that Jews should go out of their way to violate the mitzvot.
Rather, it *acknoweldges* the truth that most modern Jews will not
be persuaded to regard Shabbat attendance as mandatory and hopes
that by providing good services tailored to the needs of those
Jews who choose to attend their services, that this will provide
a positive incentive for Jews to come.
You can continue to post your anti-Jewish drivel, but it's only true
purpose can be to attempt to humiliate and deride your fellow Jews (an
attempt which says far more about you than it does about them). At this
time of the year, you should give careful consideration to modifying
your ways. You may someday learn that the cause you prefer is better
served by providing a better example than by condemning others.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Mike Medved
I posted my request in response to someone's claim that
Reform religion DOES, in fact, require Shabbat observance.
A you admit here, that's not true. Reform religion does
not, in fact, "require" almost anything (I can't think of
anything it does require).
I am also glad you finally are comparing R religion to
"most world religions" and not to Judaism (because Judaism
does require Shabbat observance). That's the first step
to admitting that R is a separate religion, somewhat
resembling Judaism.
Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
: In article <7rffcn$m...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
: Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
:>Please refer me to a document, an article or SOMETHING that would
:>show that R "require" observance of Shabbat. Nothing I have
:>ever seen would point to such a "requirement".
: Can you show such a "requirement" in most world religions? I have
: Catholic friends who attend Mass every day, others who attend on
: Sundays, and still others who try to make it on Christmas and Easter.
: Likewise I have Jewish friends who get to daily minyan, others who try
: to make every Shabbat, and still others who can only be bothered on Yom
: Kippur. Even at the Orthodox congregations, some only turn up on the
: High Holy Days.
That does not mean that Judaism does not require Shabbat observance.
It certainly does. Some people do not follow that requirement, but
it certainly is there.
: Reform Judaism does not need to specify a *different* requirement from
: the Orthodox, because all Jews accept the *same* traditional sources.
It's news to me that Reform accept that Shabbat observance is
a requirement of their religion. Proof?
: What disturbs you, perhaps, is that the local Reform rabbi is not
: willing to call fire and brimstone down on the congregants who avoid
: attending their daily or Shabbat minyan.
Strawman. Shul attendance is certainly not a requirement, so
I would not expect a rabbi to "call fire and brimstone" for that.
Shabbat observance is a requirement of Judaism, but not of the
Reform religion.
: Reform Judaism did not
: *abrogate* the halakhah, it is not some form of Lurianism which
: holds that Jews should go out of their way to violate the mitzvot.
: Rather, it *acknoweldges* the truth that most modern Jews will not
: be persuaded to regard Shabbat attendance as mandatory and hopes
: that by providing good services tailored to the needs of those
: Jews who choose to attend their services, that this will provide
: a positive incentive for Jews to come.
Once again, Shabbat observance does not require "attendance".
Where do you get that from?
: You can continue to post your anti-Jewish drivel, but it's only true
: purpose can be to attempt to humiliate and deride your fellow Jews (an
: attempt which says far more about you than it does about them). At this
: time of the year, you should give careful consideration to modifying
: your ways. You may someday learn that the cause you prefer is better
: served by providing a better example than by condemning others.
No condemnation is necessary. I don't mind Reform religion existing,
as long as it does not pretend it's Judaism.
Karl Klingman
Mike Medved nagged:
> I posted my request in response to someone's claim that
> Reform religion DOES, in fact, require Shabbat observance.
> A you admit here, that's not true. Reform religion does
> not, in fact, "require" almost anything (I can't think of
> anything it does require).
>
> IIt's news to me that Reform accept that Shabbat observance is
> a requirement of their religion. Proof?
>
That's a pretty simple one:
Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
> No condemnation is necessary. I don't mind Reform religion existing,
> as long as it does not pretend it's Judaism.
On the contrary, we (the majority of Jews in America) are not going to be
told what Judaism IS by a minority stream -- at least not in America. Thus,
it is we who do not mind Orthodoxy existing as long at is does not pretend to
speak for all Jews on what constitutes Judaism. Orthodoxy has no more right
to speak on behalf of ALL Judaism than Jerry Falwell does to speak for all of
Xtianity or Al Sharpton does to speak for all black Americans.
Further, I find it very hypocritical for O's to claim strict Sabbath
observance when they string an eruv around 50 city blocks to evade the carry
laws, and use automatic light timers, and Shabbes elevators to evade the
kindling laws. If you want to claim strict Sabbath observance, then by all
means sit around in the dark and munch on cold day old gifelte. Make sure
not to use any water from the tap since that might trigger a spark in the
water meter. Also make sure that on that day you don't have any heating or
cooling in your house. If you do all of these things (and perhaps you do)
then you may have some claim to feel ritually superior, otherwise you're
just whistling Dixie as we say here in the South.
Speaking of which, driving is considered taboo on Shabbes under the kindling
laws. What is you PROOF of this requirement. Which part of the Torah
contains automotive regulations, I seem to be unable to locate them --
perhaps its in the Prophets?
Karl
Mike Medved
: Mike Medved nagged:
:> IIt's news to me that Reform accept that Shabbat observance is
:> a requirement of their religion. Proof?
: That's a pretty simple one:
: Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
That's proof? You must be joking. There are a lot of "commandments"
in the Torah - does that mean that Reform require them? Why are you
trying to deliberately mislead?
You want to prove your assertion that Reform religion requires
Shabbat observance? Show me some document by Reform "authorities",
some Reform "responsa", something - that says that R "require"
Shabbat observance. Can't? Thought so.
<Karl's rant about Orthodox snipped as irrelevant>
Once again - you invent a new religion - call it something else.
It seems that you all rave at "moshe" for calling his religion
"Messianic Judaism". Why do you deny him the right to call it that
while you take Judaism, change it out of recognition, yet insist
on calling it "Reform Judaism"? Is it numbers? You're a majority
you say? Well, guess what, some Jews two thousand years ago decided
to create a new religion, and their followers now are muh more numerous
than Jews. If we go by your "majority rules" rule - they win.
Xtians do consider themselves the "new Jews", you know. They think
they are the new "Judaism" - and they are the majority.
Karl Klingman
Mike Medved wrote:
> Karl Klingman <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> : Mike Medved nagged:
>
> :> IIt's news to me that Reform accept that Shabbat observance is
> :> a requirement of their religion. Proof?
>
> : That's a pretty simple one:
> : Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
>
> That's proof? You must be joking. There are a lot of "commandments"
> in the Torah - does that mean that Reform require them? Why are you
> trying to deliberately mislead?
>
That's not misleading at all Mike. The Torah says it therefore it is proof
-- correct? One might assert that that the Torah is a direct quotation
from G-d to Moses. One might assert that it is the work of divinely
inspired men. One might assert that that it is simply the work of men with
uncommon wisdom. Regardless of which of the above beliefs one ascribes to,
accepting Judaism means accepting Torah as the guiding eternal truth. If
there are those who reject Torah as valid then I agree with you, that
person is not practicing Judaism -- but that is not the Reform Judaism that
I know.
I don't know how other Reform congregations work, and I've been told that
the temple I attend is not typical. I wouldn't know. I can assure you
however, that we do not think that Torah is just some book which contains
the 10 suggestions. Many of our congregation wear tefillin, many are glot
kosher and all men wear kipas when in the temple. The rabbis urge the
congregants to walk to shul if possible, however, in the outer suburbs of
Atlanta, Ga. it would be impossible for those who live 10 or 20 miles away
to attend unless they drove -- hence they do. All understand that the
Sabbath is a holy day as far as I know. I'm sure there are those who do
not observe it, but as I said earlier I doubt that this is unique to the
Reform stream.
> <Karl's rant about Orthodox snipped as irrelevant>
I don't think that my rant was at all irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I
believe that it strikes right at the heart of the issue. Just as religion
effects culture, so too does culture effect religion. The difference
between us is not that we disagree that the Sabbath is a holy day, but
rather what we believe defines observance. At some time in the past, the
stream of Judaism that you participate in was forced to deal with cultural
and technological issues which were unforeseen when the Torah and Talmud
were written and so did the Reform stream. You might argue that the Reform
stream went way too far in the beginning and I would agree with you.
However, as rabbi Bob Dylan said, "The times they are a changing."
But, I'm sure that at some time in the past, there was no such thing as an
eruv and I'll bet people were constantly whining about not being able to
leave their property on Sabbath. So some rabbi or rabbi's came up with the
legal fiction of the eruv. I'm also sure that there were plenty of elderly
Jews in New York and elsewhere that were not thrilled with the idea of
having to climb 10 flights of stairs on the Sabbath either, hence the
Shabbes elevator. The point is that Orthodox Judaism has also made
concessions to the modern world -- it really had to didn't it? Nowadays
one can find nice Hasidic boys standing behind the counters of retail
stores talking to immodestly dressed female customers and saying, "Will
that be cash or charge? Thank you for shopping at the Computer Emporium.
Have a nice day." The times they are a changing.
>
> Once again - you invent a new religion - call it something else.
We did, we called it Reform Judaism.
>
> It seems that you all rave at "moshe" for calling his religion
> "Messianic Judaism".
Once again. I'm not raving at all. They can call it whatever they like.
It does not have any relevance to either me or you.
> Xtians do consider themselves the "new Jews", you know. They think
> they are the new "Judaism" - and they are the majority.
What effect does that have on either of us? I'm not planning on joining up
are you? Look here's the deal Mike. You are free to believe whatever you
like, so am I and so are they. Not one of us can "prove" anything about
any of this, that's why it's called religion not science. We buy's our
ticket and we takes our chances, eh? Maybe your right, maybe you aren't
who knows?
Mike Medved
: Mike Medved wrote:
:> : That's a pretty simple one:
:> : Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
:>
:> That's proof? You must be joking. There are a lot of "commandments"
:> in the Torah - does that mean that Reform require them? Why are you
:> trying to deliberately mislead?
:>
: That's not misleading at all Mike. The Torah says it therefore it is proof
: -- correct? One might assert that that the Torah is a direct quotation
: from G-d to Moses. One might assert that it is the work of divinely
: inspired men. One might assert that that it is simply the work of men with
: uncommon wisdom. Regardless of which of the above beliefs one ascribes to,
: accepting Judaism means accepting Torah as the guiding eternal truth. If
: there are those who reject Torah as valid then I agree with you, that
: person is not practicing Judaism -- but that is not the Reform Judaism that
: I know.
Please tell me, do Reform require kashrut? It's in the Torah after
all. Or do you differ on what "kashrut" means as well?
And if you tell me that R require kashrut - that will be news to
all the other R posting to this NG. Sorry, won't fly.
:>
:> Once again - you invent a new religion - call it something else.
: We did, we called it Reform Judaism.
:> It seems that you all rave at "moshe" for calling his religion
:> "Messianic Judaism".
: Once again. I'm not raving at all. They can call it whatever they like.
: It does not have any relevance to either me or you.
Tell it to your fellow Reform in this forum who are frothing at the
mouth every time they see "moshe" use the term "Messianic Judaism".
Richard Schultz
: Regardless of which of the above beliefs one ascribes to,
: accepting Judaism means accepting Torah as the guiding eternal truth. If
: there are those who reject Torah as valid then I agree with you, that
: person is not practicing Judaism -- but that is not the Reform Judaism
: that I know.
The Torah also explicitly forbids people from eating pork, and yet while
nowadays Reform *recommends* kashrut for those who find it fulfilling,
Reform has not ever required keeping kosher. Indeed, the Pittsburgh
Platform specifically rejects the idea of keeping such ritual laws.
: I don't know how other Reform congregations work, and I've been told that
: the temple I attend is not typical. I wouldn't know. I can assure you
: however, that we do not think that Torah is just some book which contains
: the 10 suggestions. Many of our congregation wear tefillin, many are glot
: kosher and all men wear kipas when in the temple.
If it's not a "suggestion," then why is it that only "many" wear
tefillin and keep kosher rather than "all"? (Incidentally, there is
nothing in the Torah that requires men to keep their heads covered
while praying.)
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."
Reuven Singer
"Messianics" distort the Torah and call it Messianic Judaism. Both are
distortions of Torah Judaism.
Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7rkcpv$d...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com...
> Karl Klingman <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> : Mike Medved nagged:
>
> :> IIt's news to me that Reform accept that Shabbat observance is
> :> a requirement of their religion. Proof?
>
> : Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
>
> That's proof? You must be joking. There are a lot of "commandments"
> in the Torah - does that mean that Reform require them? Why are you
> trying to deliberately mislead?
>
> Shabbat observance? Show me some document by Reform "authorities",
> some Reform "responsa", something - that says that R "require"
> Shabbat observance. Can't? Thought so.
>
>
> while you take Judaism, change it out of recognition, yet insist
> on calling it "Reform Judaism"? Is it numbers? You're a majority
> you say? Well, guess what, some Jews two thousand years ago decided
> to create a new religion, and their followers now are muh more numerous
> than Jews. If we go by your "majority rules" rule - they win.
Reuven Singer
treif food in shul, banning the wearing of head converings in shul,
scheduling outings involving driving on Shabbat and Yom Tovs etc. Many
Reform used to celebrate Shabbat on Sunday to imitate the Xtians. Trying to
claim Reform is a tolerant version of Orthodoxy doesnt wash, it is a
fundamentally anti-halachic movement.
Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:939D3.166$a5.8...@srvr1.engin.umich.edu...
> In article <7rffcn$m...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
> >Please refer me to a document, an article or SOMETHING that would
> >show that R "require" observance of Shabbat. Nothing I have
> >ever seen would point to such a "requirement".
>
> Can you show such a "requirement" in most world religions? I have
> Catholic friends who attend Mass every day, others who attend on
> Sundays, and still others who try to make it on Christmas and Easter.
> Likewise I have Jewish friends who get to daily minyan, others who try
> to make every Shabbat, and still others who can only be bothered on Yom
> Kippur. Even at the Orthodox congregations, some only turn up on the
> High Holy Days.
>
> Reform Judaism does not need to specify a *different* requirement from
> the Orthodox, because all Jews accept the *same* traditional sources.
> What disturbs you, perhaps, is that the local Reform rabbi is not
> willing to call fire and brimstone down on the congregants who avoid
> attending their daily or Shabbat minyan. Reform Judaism did not
> *abrogate* the halakhah, it is not some form of Lurianism which
> holds that Jews should go out of their way to violate the mitzvot.
> Rather, it *acknoweldges* the truth that most modern Jews will not
> be persuaded to regard Shabbat attendance as mandatory and hopes
> that by providing good services tailored to the needs of those
> Jews who choose to attend their services, that this will provide
> a positive incentive for Jews to come.
>
> You can continue to post your anti-Jewish drivel, but it's only true
> purpose can be to attempt to humiliate and deride your fellow Jews (an
> attempt which says far more about you than it does about them). At this
> time of the year, you should give careful consideration to modifying
> your ways. You may someday learn that the cause you prefer is better
> served by providing a better example than by condemning others.
Jacob Love
Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
>: That's a pretty simple one:
>: Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
>
>That's proof? You must be joking. There are a lot of "commandments"
>in the Torah - does that mean that Reform require them? Why are you
>trying to deliberately mislead?
Who's "misleading" here? There are hundreds of commandments in the
Torah that no Jews observe today, but the Orthodox position is that
they are still commandments. Why should the Jews in the Reform movement
be denied the same religious rights of interpreting the law?
>You want to prove your assertion that Reform religion requires
>Shabbat observance? Show me some document by Reform "authorities",
>some Reform "responsa", something - that says that R "require"
>Shabbat observance. Can't? Thought so.
Mike's patented form of "proof by assertion."
[Balance of blather deleted.]
Jacob Love
Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
>Karl Klingman (ka...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>: Regardless of which of the above beliefs one ascribes to,
>: accepting Judaism means accepting Torah as the guiding eternal truth. If
>: there are those who reject Torah as valid then I agree with you, that
>: person is not practicing Judaism -- but that is not the Reform Judaism
>: that I know.
>
>The Torah also explicitly forbids people from eating pork, and yet while
>nowadays Reform *recommends* kashrut for those who find it fulfilling,
>Reform has not ever required keeping kosher. Indeed, the Pittsburgh
>Platform specifically rejects the idea of keeping such ritual laws.
The same Torah also requires capital punishment for violation of some
these laws, and it is hardly legitimate to claim ignorance of that fact
for most people these days. If a couple of your hot-headed friends on
this group warn some of the rest of us about it in the halakhically
specified way, will you personally be willing to carry out the Torah's
sentence?
Jacob Love
Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
[Mike continues his anti-Jewish tirade...]
>Please tell me, do Reform require kashrut? It's in the Torah after
>all. Or do you differ on what "kashrut" means as well?
They "require" it in the same way that the Orthodox movement "requires"
it. The Reform movement recognizes that it is a mitzvah, a precept, to
honor Jewish traditional dietary law. They also understand that due to
the pressures of the times, very few Jews are going to be willing to do
so. Just as the Orthodox movement holds that by teaching and honoring
tradition, more Jews will be motivated to honor tradition, so the
Reform movement as well. The approach may be different, and perhaps
less caustic than some within Orthodoxy would like, but the reality is
that more Jews will likely remain Jews with Reform as an option than if
any schizm should become reality.
>And if you tell me that R require kashrut - that will be news to
>all the other R posting to this NG. Sorry, won't fly.
What is your definition of "require"? In the United States and to the
best of my knowledge in Israel as well, even the majority of Orthodox
congregants will usually admit to lapses in their obedience to Orthodox
standards of kashrut. Have you noticed any such being tossed out of
their congregations? Any signs of having them flogged? Anyone
stockpiling stones for the upcoming spectacles?
Your complaint is rather that Reform rabbis do not spend as much time
begging compliance with dietary laws they know will be ignored as you
would personally prefer. Fine, attend the congregation of you choice
(as I recall you have admitted that your own observance of kashrut and
Shabbat leave much to be desired, and I assume that means that you
consider yourself guilty of captital offenses). But kindly save your
fire and brimstone for yourself and your friends and leave the rest of
us alone.
[Balance deleted.]
Jacob Love
Reuven Singer <reuv...@netmedia.co.il> wrote:
[To me.]
>There are many cases where Reform deliberately violates halacha eg. serving
>treif food in shul, banning the wearing of head converings in shul,
>scheduling outings involving driving on Shabbat and Yom Tovs etc. Many
>Reform used to celebrate Shabbat on Sunday to imitate the Xtians. Trying to
>claim Reform is a tolerant version of Orthodoxy doesnt wash, it is a
>fundamentally anti-halachic movement.
I don't believe I called Reform a "tolerant version of Orthodoxy." The
Reform movement simply does not recognize that the Orthdodox movement
has a monopoly on interpreting Jewish practice. Just as the Orthodox
movement feels that it can impose strictures never envisioned by the
original recipients of the Torah, and grant leniencies never
anticipated, the Reform movement does have the audacity to consider
itself equally qualified to such tasks. When you can prove that
religious authority is delegated only to your group of Jews and not
to the rest of us, then this discussion might have some interest.
Otherwise, it is just chasing after wind.
janet rosenbaum
>If it's not a "suggestion," then why is it that only "many" wear
>tefillin and keep kosher rather than "all"?
if it's not a "suggestion," then why is it that at best only "many" jews,
ORC and anything else, make any effort to keep themselves from lashon hara,
rather than "all"?
>(Incidentally, there is
>nothing in the Torah that requires men to keep their heads covered
>while praying.)
as long as this has come up, can anyone give a reference which treats
the kipah's evolution over time? i've not made a conscious search for
such a thing, but i've not come across one either.
janet
Simcha Streltsov
: : What disturbs you, perhaps, is that the local Reform rabbi is not
: : willing to call fire and brimstone down on the congregants who avoid
: : attending their daily or Shabbat minyan.
: Strawman. Shul attendance is certainly not a requirement, so
: I would not expect a rabbi to "call fire and brimstone" for that.
: Shabbat observance is a requirement of Judaism, but not of the
: Reform religion.
Mike, do you understand why Jacob refers to shul attendance as
a synonym of shabat observance? I dont
Mike Medved
: Mike Medved (med...@netcom4.netcom.com) wrote:
Because Reform try to be like the goyim in all respects they
borrowed the "Shabbat observance=attendance in shul" concept
from Xtianity's "Sunday". No surprise here. Jack Love just
expresses his ignorance of Judaism..
David Barak
>> :> a requirement of their religion. Proof?
>> : That's a pretty simple one:
>> : Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
>> That's proof? You must be joking. There are a lot of "commandments"
>> in the Torah - does that mean that Reform require them? Why are you
>> trying to deliberately mislead?
> That's not misleading at all Mike. The Torah says it therefore it is proof
> -- correct? One might assert that that the Torah is a direct quotation
> from G-d to Moses. One might assert that it is the work of divinely
> inspired men. One might assert that that it is simply the work of men with
> uncommon wisdom. Regardless of which of the above beliefs one ascribes to,
> accepting Judaism means accepting Torah as the guiding eternal truth. If
> there are those who reject Torah as valid then I agree with you, that
> person is not practicing Judaism -- but that is not the Reform Judaism that
> I know.
Just as a question, what do you think of the assorted prohibitions of
sexual immorality - ie "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman;
it is an abomination." - do you consider that binding too?
> I don't know how other Reform congregations work, and I've been told that
> the temple I attend is not typical. I wouldn't know. I can assure you
> however, that we do not think that Torah is just some book which contains
> the 10 suggestions. Many of our congregation wear tefillin, many are glot
> kosher and all men wear kipas when in the temple. The rabbis urge the
> congregants to walk to shul if possible, however, in the outer suburbs of
> Atlanta, Ga. it would be impossible for those who live 10 or 20 miles away
> to attend unless they drove -- hence they do. All understand that the
> Sabbath is a holy day as far as I know. I'm sure there are those who do
> not observe it, but as I said earlier I doubt that this is unique to the
> Reform stream.
The difference in approach is fairly apparent here: in the orthodox
world, you don't find people who live 10 or 20 miles away from a shul:
they start one. This is why O. shuls are nearly always smaller than
R or C. synagogues. (also, there's the fact that we don't use microphones)
>> <Karl's rant about Orthodox snipped as irrelevant>
> I don't think that my rant was at all irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I
> believe that it strikes right at the heart of the issue. Just as religion
> effects culture, so too does culture effect religion. The difference
> between us is not that we disagree that the Sabbath is a holy day, but
> rather what we believe defines observance. At some time in the past, the
> stream of Judaism that you participate in was forced to deal with cultural
> and technological issues which were unforeseen when the Torah and Talmud
> were written and so did the Reform stream. You might argue that the Reform
> stream went way too far in the beginning and I would agree with you.
> However, as rabbi Bob Dylan said, "The times they are a changing."
Yes, we have been forced to deal with new technologies and circumstances:
and here's the answer: there are some things which are permissable, and
some which aren't. One may rely on automatic electric processes, but
may not initiate them on the Sabbath. An automobile (as anyone who understands
internal COMBUSTION engines knows) produces oodles of sparks (i.e. fire)
every second - and as producing even one such spark intentionally would
be forbidden, obviously driving is forbidden as well.
> But, I'm sure that at some time in the past, there was no such thing as an
> eruv and I'll bet people were constantly whining about not being able to
> leave their property on Sabbath. So some rabbi or rabbi's came up with the
> legal fiction of the eruv.
The eruv is actually an interesting, and instructive case: an eruv merely
allows one to carry in either a carmelit or makom patur; both of those
categories of domains are permitted according to the Torah, but
forbidden by the early Mishnaic-era Rabbis, because they resemble a
Rishut haRabim (public domain) too much, and it's hard to tell the
difference between them.
Therefore, an eruv is a Rabbinic device, which permits the lifting of a
Rabbinic restriction. No Torah-based restrictions can be lifted by
Rabbinic decree.
>I'm also sure that there were plenty of elderly
> Jews in New York and elsewhere that were not thrilled with the idea of
> having to climb 10 flights of stairs on the Sabbath either, hence the
> Shabbes elevator.
Nu, what exactly is the problem with finding a solution to a problem
within the Halakhic framework? Does the desire to make life easier
within the rules somehow invalidate the entire framework? Personally,
I wouldn't choose to live in a building where I was required to use
a Shabbat elevator - but that's my choice.
> The point is that Orthodox Judaism has also made
> concessions to the modern world -- it really had to didn't it? Nowadays
> one can find nice Hasidic boys standing behind the counters of retail
> stores talking to immodestly dressed female customers and saying, "Will
> that be cash or charge? Thank you for shopping at the Computer Emporium.
> Have a nice day." The times they are a changing.
Orthodox Judaism has been forced (some groups more eagerly than others)
to deal with the modern world - not make concessions. The simple fact
that there are Orthodox Jews in America who can strictly observe
Kashrut, Shabbat, Taharat haMishpaha, etc... proves that one need not
compromise on these measures.
>>
>> Once again - you invent a new religion - call it something else.
> We did, we called it Reform Judaism.
So then, do you say that Reform Judaism is a different religion
that the one which has classicly been defined as Judaism?
Would you argue that a Reform Jew who became Orthodox has
:"left the faith?" That's certainly an interesting point of view...
> What effect does that have on either of us? I'm not planning on joining up
> are you? Look here's the deal Mike. You are free to believe whatever you
> like, so am I and so are they. Not one of us can "prove" anything about
> any of this, that's why it's called religion not science. We buy's our
> ticket and we takes our chances, eh? Maybe your right, maybe you aren't
> who knows?
Of course, there is a qualitative difference between the beliefs of
Orthodox Judaism and the beliefs of Reform Judaism: the acceptance of
tradition. I (and other Orthodox Jews) can rely on my ancestors - who
were closer to the events described in the Torah (and who were closer
to the earlier legal periods) and can trust that all of those Jews
who were willing to make hitherto unheard-of acts of piety and faith
were correct. Reform Judaism is a modern belief system - which relies
on each person to figure out what G-d wants. Personally, I know
that I trust the opinions of those before me more than I trust my own.
However, while you are correct - we all will be shown the correctness
or incorrectness of our beliefs after our death - I urge you to
make a scholarly study of the development of halakhah - even if you
don't accept it, it's fascinating, and it could give you a great
deal of insight into the way Orthodox Jews approach issues.
G'mar Hatima Tova,
David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
Jacob Love
Since the only remarks of mine quoted above don't have anything obvious
to do with such an equation (nor would I be very likely to make such an
equation), I'd suggest you get an early start on apologizing for
slander. That's of course presuming that you actually care to consider
the Jewish views of derekh eretz.
David Barak
> Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Please tell me, do Reform require kashrut? It's in the Torah after
>>all. Or do you differ on what "kashrut" means as well?
> They "require" it in the same way that the Orthodox movement "requires"
> it. The Reform movement recognizes that it is a mitzvah, a precept, to
> honor Jewish traditional dietary law. They also understand that due to
> the pressures of the times, very few Jews are going to be willing to do
> so. Just as the Orthodox movement holds that by teaching and honoring
> tradition, more Jews will be motivated to honor tradition, so the
> Reform movement as well. The approach may be different, and perhaps
> less caustic than some within Orthodoxy would like, but the reality is
> that more Jews will likely remain Jews with Reform as an option than if
> any schizm should become reality.
Just to correct a subtle point here: Orthodox Judaism teaches that if
one wants to fulfill the wishes of G-d, as best we understand them through
His holy Torah, one is obligated to be careful about one's observance of
Kashrut. My understanding (and I'm certain to be corrected whether or
not I'm wrong ;) is that Reform Judaism teaches that Kashrut, like all
so-called "ritual" mitzvot, is entirely optional, depending on whether
it is meaningful for the person in question. The difference here is
that we (i.e. O) believe that everyone is obligated to the mitzvot, and
by teaching otherwise, the Reform leadership is encouraging Jews to sin.
You can see why this might be something that would be frustrating to
Orthodox leaders and laity, no?
>>And if you tell me that R require kashrut - that will be news to
>>all the other R posting to this NG. Sorry, won't fly.
> What is your definition of "require"? In the United States and to the
> best of my knowledge in Israel as well, even the majority of Orthodox
> congregants will usually admit to lapses in their obedience to Orthodox
> standards of kashrut. Have you noticed any such being tossed out of
> their congregations? Any signs of having them flogged? Anyone
> stockpiling stones for the upcoming spectacles?
By "require" we mean this: we say that there is a standard of observance,
and that one who would be described as "observant" would keep Kosher to
the standard of their community. Of course no one is "tossed out of the
congregation!" - but we believe that the existance of people who do not
keep a standard does not render the standard to be invalid. In my
community, the majority of Jews (it's an O neighborhood) keep kosher, and
will eat in each other's homes. There are others, who do not (most add the
word "yet"), and people are friendly to them (as they should be), and if
they want to have a get-together, they use paper and prepared food.
This is a "Lo ba-shamayim hi" moment here - it isn't too hard to keep
these laws, because there are people who do. Therefore, those who don't
are choosing not to of their own free will (which is their business).
> Your complaint is rather that Reform rabbis do not spend as much time
> begging compliance with dietary laws they know will be ignored as you
> would personally prefer. Fine, attend the congregation of you choice
> (as I recall you have admitted that your own observance of kashrut and
> Shabbat leave much to be desired, and I assume that means that you
> consider yourself guilty of captital offenses). But kindly save your
> fire and brimstone for yourself and your friends and leave the rest of
> us alone.
"Fire and brimstone" is a little bit harsh, no? All we do is say that
there is a standard to observance, and while some people won't do
what is required to meed the standard, some/many/most will.
-Gmar Hatimah Tovah,
David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
-David Barak
David Barak
>>The Torah also explicitly forbids people from eating pork, and yet while
>>nowadays Reform *recommends* kashrut for those who find it fulfilling,
>>Reform has not ever required keeping kosher. Indeed, the Pittsburgh
>>Platform specifically rejects the idea of keeping such ritual laws.
> The same Torah also requires capital punishment for violation of some
> these laws, and it is hardly legitimate to claim ignorance of that fact
> for most people these days. If a couple of your hot-headed friends on
> this group warn some of the rest of us about it in the halakhically
> specified way, will you personally be willing to carry out the Torah's
> sentence?
We don't carry out death sentances anymore. Examine Talmud Sanhedrin, Makkot,
and the Mishneh Torah for a full description as to why.
One of the obvious reasons being that only the Sanhedrin can sentence
a person to die (and even then only under really specific circumstances),
and there hasn't been a Sanhedrin for well over 2000 years...
-Gmar Hatima Tova,
-David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
Mike Medved
within the Reform religion. You posted:
>: : : What disturbs you, perhaps, is that the local Reform rabbi is not
>: : : willing to call fire and brimstone down on the congregants who avoid
>: : : attending their daily or Shabbat minyan.
From that I understand that you equated Shabbat observance with
"temple" attendance. Did I misconstrue what you said? I think it
was pretty clear.
Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
: In article <7rm0bm$c...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>,
David Barak
> Who's "misleading" here? There are hundreds of commandments in the
> Torah that no Jews observe today, but the Orthodox position is that
> they are still commandments. Why should the Jews in the Reform movement
> be denied the same religious rights of interpreting the law?
The commandments to which you're referring are not observed because the
circumstances in which they should be observed are not possible.
Example: one does not bring a sin-offering (for which one is liable by
committing certain kinds of unintentional offenses) anymore, because
a sin offering can only be brought to the Temple, which is not standing
(speedily in our days). Were the Temple to be rebuilt (again, speedily
in our days), we would be obligated.
Another (non-Temple) example is this: it is a mitzvah to remarry one's
ex-wife - but this is not a relevant mitzvah to the vast majority of
Jews (thank G-d). It only becomes in force when one is actually
divorced, before either ex-spouse has remarried.
Another example (for Americans) is the taking of the tithes on
vegetables and fruit - this is only relevant to Israeli produce.
See my point? They're just not applicable - but they're still
commandments nonetheless.
Jacob Love
David Barak <dba...@servint.com> wrote:
[To me.]
>Just to correct a subtle point here: Orthodox Judaism teaches that if
>one wants to fulfill the wishes of G-d, as best we understand them through
>His holy Torah, one is obligated to be careful about one's observance of
>Kashrut. My understanding (and I'm certain to be corrected whether or
>not I'm wrong ;) is that Reform Judaism teaches that Kashrut, like all
>so-called "ritual" mitzvot, is entirely optional, depending on whether
>it is meaningful for the person in question. The difference here is
>that we (i.e. O) believe that everyone is obligated to the mitzvot, and
>by teaching otherwise, the Reform leadership is encouraging Jews to sin.
>You can see why this might be something that would be frustrating to
>Orthodox leaders and laity, no?
Perhaps frustrating, but no reason to go around creating more hatred
and pushing Jews away from Judaism. The Torah clearly and unequivocably
commands that a brother marry the widow of his childless brother, and
clearly indicates that this is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, our
rabbis have (correctly, imo) insisted that levirs *not* perform their
mitzvah, but rather escape their responsibility by performing the
humiliating ritual of halitzah. Now, to some Karaite who might use this
as an explanation for why Rabbinic Judaism would be anathema to people
who just want to encourage people to honor the Torah, you can see why
this would be frustrating, no?
The Reform movement does not seek to distance Jews from the halakhah,
no matter how many times a certain poster might like to flash the
Pittsburgh Platform to us. I have never witnessed a Reform rabbi urging
a congregant to drive to synagogue or to eat shrimp. In spite of all of
the outraged (and outrageous) comments displayed daily on SCJ, I have
never been served any obviously unkosher food at any Reform synagogue.
(Am I claiming that the food was certifiably kosher? No. But I have
never seen shrimp, shellfish of any kind, pork, or mixtures of milk and
meat. Would it astonish me that some Reform synagogues do, no. But my
point is that all of this shouting is actually about a relatively small
portion those Reform congregations who felt that they had something to
prove by ignoring tradition. This is a dwindling population which
simply does not deserve all of the attention being focused on it, any
more than Naturei Karta should be regarded as exemplary of Orthodoxy.)
[Balance deleted for another day...]
G'mar hatimah tovah.
Jacob Love
Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
>We were discussing "Shabbat observance requirement" (or lack of such)
>within the Reform religion. You posted:
>
>>: : : What disturbs you, perhaps, is that the local Reform rabbi is not
>>: : : willing to call fire and brimstone down on the congregants who avoid
>>: : : attending their daily or Shabbat minyan.
>
>From that I understand that you equated Shabbat observance with
>"temple" attendance. Did I misconstrue what you said? I think it
>was pretty clear.
There is no "equivalence" here. Attendance at a synagogue is only one
aspect of Shabbat observance. If you know of any way to publicly read
the Torah without a minyan, and if you feel that there is no obligation
to participate in the Q'dushah, then I suppose you could disentangle
Shabbat from synagogue attendance altogether. As far as I understand
things, these are important aspects in the observance of Shabbat.
Obviously there are many others.
Jacob Love
>We don't carry out death sentances anymore. Examine Talmud Sanhedrin, Makkot,
>and the Mishneh Torah for a full description as to why.
I'm well aware of the relevant passages, but many of your Orthodox
colleagues here disagree with you.
>One of the obvious reasons being that only the Sanhedrin can sentence
>a person to die (and even then only under really specific circumstances),
>and there hasn't been a Sanhedrin for well over 2000 years...
That's not the point, though, is it? The commandments are still there
and the punishments still apply, do they not?
Jacob Love
>commandments nonetheless.
I see your point. Find anything you don't want to observe and define as
it "not applicable." It's the same attitude some Reform Jews have
towards kashrut. Attacking Reform Jews is counter-productive to anyone
with a serious interest in preserving Judaism. In my experience, it
doesn't move a single soul towards Orthodoxy, but it makes many
resentful of it.
G'mar hatimah tovah.
Micha Berger
:>We don't carry out death sentances anymore. Examine Talmud Sanhedrin, Makkot,
:>and the Mishneh Torah for a full description as to why.
: I'm well aware of the relevant passages, but many of your Orthodox
: colleagues here disagree with you.
I would agree, and I'd be surprised if anyone O doesn't. Unless we're discussing
a case that would permit vigilantism (ala Pinechas). The circumstances that
loophole includes is rare; the most common being killing someone who sneaks
into your home or who otherwise is a threat to another's life.
:>One of the obvious reasons being that only the Sanhedrin can sentence
:>a person to die (and even then only under really specific circumstances),
:>and there hasn't been a Sanhedrin for well over 2000 years...
: That's not the point, though, is it? The commandments are still there
: and the punishments still apply, do they not?
They still apply -- to someone who is warned that beis din would find him
guilty and kill him, acknowledges the warning, and says that he wants to do
it anyway. Such people don't currently exist in practice, even if the law
exists in principle. No one can be warned that they're about to be dragged
to beis din for a capital case without a beis din.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 14-Sep-99: Shelishi, Ha'Azinu
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 38a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Nefesh Hachaim I 24
Micha Berger
: I see your point. Find anything you don't want to observe and define as
: it "not applicable."
But there's a system that rigorously limits what definitions exist.
Please don't attack us for being both tradition bound and also malleable to
the point of arbitrariness.
: Attacking Reform Jews is counter-productive to anyone
: with a serious interest in preserving Judaism. In my experience, it
: doesn't move a single soul towards Orthodoxy, but it makes many
: resentful of it.
Agreed. The most productive post is one that explains the beauty of your own
position -- not the flaws in others'. The latter also has the pragmatic
disadvantage of angering people and putting them on the defensive. Instead of
getting intelligent conversation, the heat and invective drive the thread on
a downward spiral.
-mi
: towards kashrut. Attacking Reform Jews is counter-productive to anyone
: with a serious interest in preserving Judaism. In my experience, it
: doesn't move a single soul towards Orthodoxy, but it makes many
: resentful of it.
: G'mar hatimah tovah.
: --
: -----------------------
: Jack F. Love
: Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
janet rosenbaum
>The Torah clearly and unequivocably
>commands that a brother marry the widow of his childless brother, and
>clearly indicates that this is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, our
>rabbis have (correctly, imo) insisted that levirs *not* perform their
>mitzvah, but rather escape their responsibility by performing the
>humiliating ritual of halitzah.
the levirate marriage is no longer done because the men stopped doing it
for the sake of the mitzvah, but out of lust for the brother's widow.
if you can make a similar argument about kashrus, i would be interested.
my great grandfather (unknowingly paraphrasing the xtian bible, as my
father is sure he'd never seen one) used to say that people should be
concerned with what comes out of their mouth before they worry about
what goes in their mouth.
while i don't put so much faith in this (in that i don't see it's a
reason not to keep kosher or fast as appropriate), i do agree with the
sentiment: there are certainly those who have a huge gap in their
observance. it's definitely much harder to watch one's tongue than to
drink only cholov yisrael.
otoh, i'm frankly disappointed that the reform movement doesn't teach
rigid rules in the ethical mitzvot either. i would have hoped they
would, rather than relying on people to judge themselves at the time
what seems right.
>The Reform movement does not seek to distance Jews from the halakhah,
>no matter how many times a certain poster might like to flash the
>Pittsburgh Platform to us. I have never witnessed a Reform rabbi urging
>a congregant to drive to synagogue or to eat shrimp.
in fact, our reform rabbi urged people to keep kosher even if their
parents didn't.
>In spite of all of
>the outraged (and outrageous) comments displayed daily on SCJ, I have
>never been served any obviously unkosher food at any Reform synagogue.
me either. we served only ceritifiably kosher food in our synagogue, and
the same held true in all the neighboring reform synagogues.
janet
janet rosenbaum
>Yes, we have been forced to deal with new technologies and circumstances:
>and here's the answer: there are some things which are permissable, and
>some which aren't. One may rely on automatic electric processes, but
>may not initiate them on the Sabbath. An automobile (as anyone who understands
>internal COMBUSTION engines knows) produces oodles of sparks (i.e. fire)
>every second - and as producing even one such spark intentionally would
>be forbidden, obviously driving is forbidden as well.
you've picked an easy case. how about a bicycle?
disregarding the question of whether it is carrying (say the bicycling
takes place inside an eruv), there are many O who will say that it is not
allowed, without being able to name the reason. maybe it's like horse
riding, which is prohibited because one might rip a branch off a tree to
hit the horse with. even though the original reason doesn't hold,
bicycling still isn't an option on shabbat because it violates the
spirit of it.
or, better, keycards. there are O rabbis which allow them, but no one
will hold by this because the entire idea of electricity on shabbat wigs
them out, even though electricity itself is not forbidden.
O does have an annoying habit of having some set of practise which really
weren't as carefully considered as they should have been. the general
impulse nowadays (and to a lesser extent since the existence of reform) is
weighted towards asuring quite a lot, when it's not clear that this is
the right way to go. a real rabbi is the one who can declare the
chicken kosher if it can be so declared, not treif.
what it seems to me is that (for a long time, anyhow) the right is going
to hold its ground that almost everything is asur, and those who attempt to
mutar some things will find themselves gradually worn down until they feel
themselves forced out.
this restriction on intellectual freedom hardly seems to be the optimal
atmosphere for creating good and innovative work, dealing completely
honestly with new technology.
otoh, i don't think C or R makes a sufficiently careful study of new
technology either. R leaves decisions like these up to its members,
while C sometimes seems a little "off".
janet
Herman Rubin
>> Who's "misleading" here? There are hundreds of commandments in the
>> Torah that no Jews observe today, but the Orthodox position is that
>> they are still commandments. Why should the Jews in the Reform movement
>> be denied the same religious rights of interpreting the law?
>The commandments to which you're referring are not observed because the
>circumstances in which they should be observed are not possible.
>Example: one does not bring a sin-offering (for which one is liable by
>committing certain kinds of unintentional offenses) anymore, because
>a sin offering can only be brought to the Temple, which is not standing
>(speedily in our days). Were the Temple to be rebuilt (again, speedily
>in our days), we would be obligated.
>Another (non-Temple) example is this: it is a mitzvah to remarry one's
>ex-wife
I certainly do not get that impression from the Torah.
I cannot see that if there is the type of incompatibility
envisaged in Deuteronomy, one should expect it to disappear.
- but this is not a relevant mitzvah to the vast majority of
>Jews (thank G-d). It only becomes in force when one is actually
>divorced, before either ex-spouse has remarried.
>Another example (for Americans) is the taking of the tithes on
>vegetables and fruit - this is only relevant to Israeli produce.
Again, I do not see this at all. The obligations are just
as great. It may be that one has to convert the produce
into money and donate the money, which I believe was the
case to some extent even during the days of the Temple, but
the obligation is no less.
>See my point? They're just not applicable - but they're still
>commandments nonetheless.
The real question is about what is from God and what from those
humans who have claimed to speak in His name. Some of them
have been greatly overzealous, and have added to His words
much which He did not intend.
--
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, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Joel N. Shurkin
jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) wrote:
> In article <7rkcpv$d...@dfw-ixnews17.ix.netcom.com>,
> Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com> wrote:
>>: That's a pretty simple one:
>>: Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
>>
>>That's proof? You must be joking. There are a lot of "commandments"
>>in the Torah - does that mean that Reform require them? Why are you
>>trying to deliberately mislead?
>
> Who's "misleading" here? There are hundreds of commandments in the
> Torah that no Jews observe today, but the Orthodox position is that
> they are still commandments. Why should the Jews in the Reform movement
> be denied the same religious rights of interpreting the law?
Because they aren't a bunch of bearded old guys sitting in a dark room in a
Mediaeval ghetto, that's why.
...
-------
Joel N. Shurkin
Science Writer
Baltimore, Maryland
***
"Kids were very different then. They didn't have their heads filled with all
this Cartesian dualism."
Monty Python's Flying Circus
Joel N. Shurkin
(Richard Schultz) wrote:
>...
> If it's not a "suggestion," then why is it that only "many" wear
> tefillin and keep kosher rather than "all"? (Incidentally, there is
> nothing in the Torah that requires men to keep their heads covered
> while praying.)
>
>
Let's try something less dramatic than capital punishment. Got blue threads
on the corner of your tallit? Why not?
j
--
Jacob Love
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 19:19:12 GMT, Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>: I see your point. Find anything you don't want to observe and define as
>: it "not applicable."
>
>But there's a system that rigorously limits what definitions exist.
I'm not trying to offend you, but to my eyes and to the eyes of a great
many other Jews, the system that your refer to is as arbitrary as I
have suggested. At various points in the development of the halakhic
system, it is clear that there were opportunities both to make rules
more restrictive and less so. For a variety of social reasons, the
Jewish community is no longer concentrated with all of us needing to
arrive at compromise. Instead, as a result of Emancipation and the
industrial revolution, among many other factors, those Jews who prefer
not to compromise can agree amongst themselves, and to that extent we
have separated into these various major strands. The ongoing question
reviewed here time and again is whether we can maintain at least
enough mutual understanding so that Jews will be free to move among
these strands--so that my children, if they feel your arguments are
valid will perhaps one day join an Orthodox congregation while perhaps
one of yours decides to join ours. If we continue the animosity that
is displayed here on a daily basis, and which is becoming an
increasing feature of Israeli life, this will become ever more
difficult. Now, it may be true that owing to its adherence to
tradition that Orthodoxy will outlast some other segments of
Jewish theology, but only at the cost of the vast majority of
Jews in the world. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a
dream world.
G'mar hatimah tovah,
Jacob Love
janet rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
[To me.]
>the levirate marriage is no longer done because the men stopped doing it
>for the sake of the mitzvah, but out of lust for the brother's widow.
That's just an excuse, Janet. The Torah makes it abundantly clear that
it does not matter what the wife's view is of the situation. It is
crystal clear that the reason for yibbum is to preserve the brother's
heritage in Israel. That heritage cannot be preserved without progeny,
and it is the duty of the levir to ensure that progeny are produced.
Note that in the case of Ruth, the potential levir was quite interested
in the proposition until Boaz pointed out to him that it would carry a
substantial financial burden. Ploni Almoni's lust for Ruth would not
have impeded him from accepting the mitzvah, and so Boaz had to resort
to other forms of persuasion.
Obviously, when it became clear that a) there was much in the way of
tribal land to redistribute to the brother's children (because among
other things no one was going to obey the mitzvah of yuval), our rabbis
had to figure something else out. And so they did, to their great
credit.
Micha Berger
: Let's try something less dramatic than capital punishment. Got blue threads
: on the corner of your tallit? Why not?
I do!
-mi
Jackie Cappiello
>
> jl...@engin.umich.edu (Jacob Love) writes:
> >The Torah clearly and unequivocably
> >commands that a brother marry the widow of his childless brother, and
> >clearly indicates that this is the right thing to do. Nevertheless, our
> >rabbis have (correctly, imo) insisted that levirs *not* perform their
> >mitzvah, but rather escape their responsibility by performing the
> >humiliating ritual of halitzah.
>
> for the sake of the mitzvah, but out of lust for the brother's widow.
This is true in Canada as well, with most of the Reform synagogues havig
a dairy only policy. Incidentally, the recently opened camp for Reform
Jews in Ontario has a Kosher-only policy that includes all food on the
premises, even the snacks that people bring with them.
Daniel P Faigin
wrote:
>Please refer me to a document, an article or SOMETHING that would
>show that R "require" observance of Shabbat. Nothing I have
>ever seen would point to such a "requirement".
Gates of the Seasons, published by CCAR. A-1. "The mitzvah of
Shabbat". "It is a mitzvah for every Jew, single or married, young or
old, to observe Shabbat.".
Daniel
W/H: fai...@aero.org/fai...@pacificnet.net http://www.pacificnet.net/~faigin/
Mod., Mail.Liberal-Judaism (.../~faigin/MLJ) Advisor, s.c.j.Parenting
Maintainer, S.C.J FAQ/RL (.../~faigin/SCJ) Daddy to Erin Shoshana
Maintainer, Calif. Highways List (.../~faigin/CA-HWYS)
Daniel P Faigin
wrote:
>Please tell me, do Reform require kashrut? It's in the Torah after
>all. Or do you differ on what "kashrut" means as well?
Gates of Mitzvah, E-6, The Tradition of Kashrut.
Many Reform Jews observe certain traditional dietary disciplines as
part of their attempt to establish a Jewish home and life style. For
some, traditional Kashrut will enhance the sanctity of the home and be
observed as a mitzvah; for some, a degree of kashrut (e.g., the
avoidance of prok products and/or shellfish) may be meaningful; and
still others may find nothing of value in Kashrut. Howeve,r the fact
that kashrut was an essential feature of Jewish life for so many
centuries should motivate the Jewish family to study it and to
consider whether or not it may enhance the sanctity of their home
For more information, visit
http://www.pacificnet.net/~faigin/MLJ/bin/ifreqfrm.cgi
and request the file ethics_and_kashrut
or you can send the command
send infofiles ethics_and_kashrut
Mike Medved
Not even a strong recommendation. They recommend
that a "Jewish family" should "consider" it.
I don't think this can in any way be considered a
"requirement". I wonder if Jack Love does, though.
Or Karl Klingman?
Daniel P Faigin <fai...@pacificnet.net> wrote:
: On 14 Sep 1999 05:18:23 GMT, Mike Medved <med...@netcom4.netcom.com>
Mike Medved
: wrote:
:>Please refer me to a document, an article or SOMETHING that would
:>show that R "require" observance of Shabbat. Nothing I have
:>ever seen would point to such a "requirement".
: Gates of the Seasons, published by CCAR. A-1. "The mitzvah of
: Shabbat". "It is a mitzvah for every Jew, single or married, young or
: old, to observe Shabbat.".
Again, not a "requirement", is it? It may be a mitzvah, but R
certainly give up on a lot of mitzvot, or "let the people decide"
whether they are worth keeping or not. A requirement would be a
directive to keep Shabbat - and if people don't, they are violating
the requirement.
Karl Klingman
Mike Medved wrote:
> : Mike Medved wrote:
>
>
>
> Please tell me, do Reform require kashrut? It's in the Torah after
> all. Or do you differ on what "kashrut" means as well?
>
Mike,
BZZZT wrong answer, but thank you for playing.
First, it depends on what you mean by "require." Do the rabbis at our temple say
that we should follow the dietary laws? Yes. Do they follow us around to make
sure that we do? No. Will the congregation shun you if you don't? No. Will the
congregants even ask? Only if you invite them to dinner. Are there non-kosher
items at the Oneg Shabbat? Definitely not. Some members are glot kosher, some
are not, some do not keep kosher at all. I suspect that is true of all of the
different streams of Judaism. I'd be willing to stipulate that there is probably
a higher percentage of O's who are strictly kosher, but I don't think anyone has
taken a poll. I do recall that at a brotherhood BBQ someone brought cheese for
the hamburgers a few years ago, which created quite a stir -- it hasn't happened
since. Since that time all temple newsletters indicate whether a particular
event's food will be dairy or meat. Doesn't sound like a bunch of goyim to me,
does it to you?
To head off the inevitable next questions: Yes we use the Mikvah. Yes converts
are required to spend at least one year studying Judaism (learning the major and
minor mitzvot). Yes, circumcision is required for male converts. Yes the mikvah
is required of all converts. Yes the Hatafat Dam Brit is required for all males
previously non-ritually circumcised. Do we care if O's don't recognize the
conversions. Not a bit.
You're barking up the wrong tree with these sorts of questions when you are
talking about the differences between O Judaism and the Reform temple that I
attend. There are indeed many differences between O and R but you're way off
base when you start talking about our understanding of such major mitzvot. The
differences are generally much less blatant, yet I'm sure still sufficiently
aggravating to you. I think you would benefit yourself and others, however, by
not trying to depict R's as heathen idol worshipers with pork hanging from their
pointy teeth. It's just not accurate.
Anyhow, I don't know why you complain so much, you need Reform Judaism -- so that
there can be the shul that you go to and the shul you wouldn't set foot in. :-)
B'shalom,
Karl
Richard Schultz
: In article <7rko2p$fh6$3...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il> , sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: (Richard Schultz) wrote:
: > If it's not a "suggestion," then why is it that only "many" wear
: > tefillin and keep kosher rather than "all"? (Incidentally, there is
: > nothing in the Torah that requires men to keep their heads covered
: > while praying.)
: Let's try something less dramatic than capital punishment. Got blue
: threads on the corner of your tallit? Why not?
I don't own a tallit, not being married and coming from a Litvishe-type
background. (I do own a supply of "tallitot ketanot," and these do
not have techelet. That is because (1) the commandment to put fringes
on the corners of one garment is separate from that of having one of
the fringes be dyed with "techelet," and (2) there is still some
dispute about what dye techelet was exactly, so the majority of people
who wear tzitzit do not use "techelet," neither the kind that is
definitely incorrect nor that the kind that is apparently very close
(or identical) to what was actually used back when there was a living
tradition.)
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"A condemned man does not request egg salad for his last meal. He also
doesn't order Alka-Seltzer."
Kehlog Ahlbran, _The Profit_
Lisa
>On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 20:13:55 -0400, Joel N. Shurkin <shu...@vipmail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>: Let's try something less dramatic than capital punishment. Got blue threads
>: on the corner of your tallit? Why not?
>
>I do!
Radzin or real?
Lisa
Micha Berger
:>: Let's try something less dramatic than capital punishment. Got blue threads
:>: on the corner of your tallit? Why not?
:>I do!
: Radzin or real?
Dyed with indigo, reduced from dibromoindigo by sunlight. The dibromoindigo is
retrieved from the gland of the murex trunculus snail, which lives along the
coast of the Mediterranean.
Is it real? Some people certainly think so, including R' Herschel Schachter
and R' Tendler. I'm not as convinced. However, even if wrong, my tzitzis are
still kosher tzitzis. And if right -- I've gained another [half of a] mitzvah!
To explain to spectators: The Radziner Rebbe, the Ba'al Hatecheiles, identified
the source of techeiles to be the cuttlefish, a nearly transparent squid-like
invertebrate. He then asked a chemist to produce a blue dye from cuttlefish ink.
The chemist succeeded in doing so by producing Prussian Blue. He used a
well-known process that gets nitrogen from pretty much any biochemical and
added the rest of the ingrediants of the dye to the cuttlefish ink. In short,
had he started with maple syrup the results would have been identical. It's
hard to believe this is what the gemara was talking about.
OTOH, the gemara warns against using "kaleh ilan" dye, as though there's a
specific plant dye that can fool the eye -- not that the fake dye comes from
pretty much anything. (IOW, don't think you can fool G-d just because you wear
something that looks kosher to other people. A good lesson for the season.)
Indigo is a plant in the tea family. The dye on my tzitzis has only two natural
sources: the murex, and the indigo plant.
FWIW, the Tif'eres Yisrael says that any colorfast sky-blue dye would be
kosher. In his (admittedly minority) opinion the chilazon derived dye is
either preferable or was the only such dye known in the Talmudic period.
If you check deja, I posted my thoughts on how to tie tzitzis. When I wore
white tzitzis, I (like everyone but Chabad and Yemenites) relied on the Rosh's
statement that chulios (chain-links, probably groups of three windings) are
only relevant when wearing techeiles. As there's a problem understanding the
sources when taking both the number of chulios and the number of knots into
account, the Rosh suggests ignoring the chulios issue until techeiles is
restored.
So, what's the right way to tie tzitzis if one can't ignore chulios?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 MMG"H for 15-Sep-99: Revi'i, Ha'Azinu
mi...@aishdas.org A"H
http://www.aishdas.org Pisachim 38b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light. Melachim-I 17
Micha Berger
: I'm not trying to offend you, but to my eyes and to the eyes of a great
: many other Jews, the system that your refer to is as arbitrary as I
: have suggested.
I notice that whenever we get to a certain point in understanding how O
works you step back from assuming O's postulates and cry arbitrariness.
Your belief that something is arbitrary doesn't change how O views that
thing, and therefore how it is going to work. We believe there to be
certain limits as to which definitions are included in "Eilu va'Eilu".
Your opinion of those limits has nothing to do with the conclusions O
is going to reach from its opinion.
Second, when you only vaguely know parts of something very complex its
consequences will certainly look arbitrary. How can someone who doesn't
understand exponentiation understand why "2^3" is smaller than "3^2"?
David Barak
> The Reform movement does not seek to distance Jews from the halakhah,
> no matter how many times a certain poster might like to flash the
> Pittsburgh Platform to us. I have never witnessed a Reform rabbi urging
> the outraged (and outrageous) comments displayed daily on SCJ, I have
> never been served any obviously unkosher food at any Reform synagogue.
> never seen shrimp, shellfish of any kind, pork, or mixtures of milk and
> meat. Would it astonish me that some Reform synagogues do, no. But my
> point is that all of this shouting is actually about a relatively small
> portion those Reform congregations who felt that they had something to
> prove by ignoring tradition. This is a dwindling population which
> simply does not deserve all of the attention being focused on it, any
> more than Naturei Karta should be regarded as exemplary of Orthodoxy.)
Actually, I've been informed of parties catered a Reform Cantor which
made use of a place named "____'s Pork Barbeque" (name deleted for
anonymity). I've seen oodles and oodles of examples like this -
I hope you are correct in your assertion that this population is
dwindling. Personally, I'm thrilled about the new Reform Platform -
of course I'd like it to go further, but it's a few steps in the
right direction.
By the way - for people who keep kosher, "kosher-style" is a real
problem - because (unlike shrimp) it resembles kosher food, but
is NOT kosher.
G'mar Hatima Tova,
-David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
David Barak
> otoh, i'm frankly disappointed that the reform movement doesn't teach
> rigid rules in the ethical mitzvot either. i would have hoped they
> would, rather than relying on people to judge themselves at the time
> what seems right.
well said - we could all use more instruction about our speech.
>>The Reform movement does not seek to distance Jews from the halakhah,
>>no matter how many times a certain poster might like to flash the
>>Pittsburgh Platform to us. I have never witnessed a Reform rabbi urging
>>a congregant to drive to synagogue or to eat shrimp.
> in fact, our reform rabbi urged people to keep kosher even if their
> parents didn't.
I'm pleasantly surprised - thank you for brightening my day a bit.
>>In spite of all of
>>the outraged (and outrageous) comments displayed daily on SCJ, I have
>>never been served any obviously unkosher food at any Reform synagogue.
> me either. we served only ceritifiably kosher food in our synagogue, and
> the same held true in all the neighboring reform synagogues.
Again, another pleasant surprise - I don't think all Reform congregations
are that frum, but it's good to know that there are some that are.
G'mar Hatima Tova,
David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
David Barak
> Let's try something less dramatic than capital punishment. Got blue threads
> on the corner of your tallit? Why not?
ooh, oooh! (hand waving in air) - let me answer this one!
Actually, I do wear Tekhelet (the kosher kind, from P'til Tekhelet in
Israel), and I wear it according to the understanding of the Rambam,
who said that we should dye half of one thread per corner, and have
13 knots of a certain type. This is in accordance with the view of
my Rav, R. Freundel shlit"a of Kesher Israel, Washington DC.
Gmar Hatima Tova
David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
David Barak
>> David Barak <dba...@servint.com> wrote:
>>We don't carry out death sentances anymore. Examine Talmud Sanhedrin, Makkot,
>>and the Mishneh Torah for a full description as to why.
> I'm well aware of the relevant passages, but many of your Orthodox
> colleagues here disagree with you.
I haven't exactly seen a substantial number of posters insisting that
it is permissable nowadays to impose and carry out a death sentance!
It is no secret that we don't do this (and I can't really imagine any
knowledgeable Orthodox Jews challenging this).
>>One of the obvious reasons being that only the Sanhedrin can sentence
>>a person to die (and even then only under really specific circumstances),
>>and there hasn't been a Sanhedrin for well over 2000 years...
> That's not the point, though, is it? The commandments are still there
> and the punishments still apply, do they not?
Yes and No. The commandments to do a lot of things (such as bring
sacrifices) are still there, but we are not able to fulfill them at
this time (without a Temple), so they are not incumbent upon us.
This is also true with the death penealty = as we have no Sanhedrin,
we are not obligated to impose a death sentance. We understand that
there are lesser penalties which we can impose (under certain
circumstance, like Herem, or communal pressure) - but that the
real punishments are imposed by G-d.
Jacob Love
Richard Schultz <correct address in .sigfile> wrote:
>I don't own a tallit, not being married and coming from a Litvishe-type
>background. (I do own a supply of "tallitot ketanot," and these do
>not have techelet. That is because (1) the commandment to put fringes
>on the corners of one garment is separate from that of having one of
>the fringes be dyed with "techelet," and (2) there is still some
>dispute about what dye techelet was exactly, so the majority of people
>who wear tzitzit do not use "techelet," neither the kind that is
>definitely incorrect nor that the kind that is apparently very close
>(or identical) to what was actually used back when there was a living
>tradition.)
No flames intended:
1) How do you deal with the halakhic obligation that a man of your age
should be married? One of my close personal friends felt obligated to
attend Kollel and was provided an arranged marriage in order to comply
at least according to his understanding of the halakhah. I must say I
was and continue to be impressed with the strength of this marriage--
now more than 20 years and going strong. It makes me inclined to
accept the commonplace that arranged marriages are more successful
than chance encounters.
2) How do you explain the fact that our tradition argues that on the
one hand, some of the most minute details have been handed down with
pure and pristine accuracy from the time of Moshe himself, yet we
cannot recall how to make a the stripe that supposedly adorned every
male Jew for centuries if not millennia?
Micha Berger
: I wear it according to the understanding of the Rambam,
: who said that we should dye half of one thread per corner, and have
: 13 knots of a certain type. This is in accordance with the view of
: my Rav, R. Freundel shlit"a of Kesher Israel, Washington DC.
Actually, the Rambam says one should make 13 groups of three windings and
tie them. The Yemenite tradition is that this means making 13 knots that
have three windings around the outside (they look like three windings). It
is equally possible that he meant making double knots between each set of
three windings -- which some do.
Of the windings, the Rambam has all but the first and the last in blue.
Both require ignoring the Medrash Tanchuma which is our source for making 5
knots. The S"A haRav's resolution is to have the windings grouped in threes
by a chain of knots down the side (the word in the Talmud for these groups is
"chulios" which does mean "chain-links") in addition to the traditional Ashkezic
custom of 5 double knots. (This means that some groups of three are interrupted
by a double knot.) The Radziner held that this is the proper way of fulfilling
the Rambam's opinion -- that the Rambam's knots are the side-loops many
Chassidim make.
The Vilna Gaon said that in theory one ought follow the Ra'avad, not the
Rambam. And R' Herschel Schachter holds like Rashi and Tosafos, half his
strings are blue and half are white.
FWIW, I use murex "techeiles" but tied according to the Radziner. Just because
I think his science was off does not rob the Radziner of his halachic
pronouncements. I am somewhat prejudiced in favor of this opinion, though, since
it allows me to preserve all of Hirsch's symbology (his description of tzitzis
with techeiles as well as the meaning of the common Ashkenazi practice.) This
shouldn't be a halachic criterion, but when all else is equal, why not?
My father, OTOH, follows one understanding of the Gr"a. One full string of
blue (1 out of 4), three white, three blue, etc... The Gr"a also speaks of
5 of one kind of knot and 13 of another for chulios. I'm not sure whether the
other kind of knot was intended to be the same used by Yemenites, the same
used by Chabad, a third idea, or any-of-the-above.
Sheldon Glickler
My Reform synagogue requires for all functions in the temple and for
all temple functions in or outside:
1 - No pork or shellfish
2 - No mixing of meat and milk
We do NOT, however, require the degree of kashreth that some O go to.
IOW, most O would probably not eat there.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jacob Love
David Barak <dba...@servint.com> wrote:
>Actually, I've been informed of parties catered a Reform Cantor which
>made use of a place named "____'s Pork Barbeque" (name deleted for
>anonymity). I've seen oodles and oodles of examples like this -
If you are posting this in response to what I said, I think you should
reread my article. No one denies that there are members of the Reform
community who are not interested in observing Jewish dietary law. There
are even a few rabbis and synagogue functionaries who behave as you
suggest. But what is the purpose of your pointing this out if not to
create a controversy which can only polarize and worsen the very
situation you claim to want to correct? The fact is, and few would deny
it, that the Reform movement has moved away from this type of
extremism, and the members are being encouraged to pay greater
attention to tradition. This type of flame war only serves to harden
the more radical views and makes it more difficult to come to other
solutions.
[Deletia]
>By the way - for people who keep kosher, "kosher-style" is a real
>problem - because (unlike shrimp) it resembles kosher food, but
>is NOT kosher.
I agree.
>G'mar Hatima Tova,
You too. :-)
David Barak
>>commandments nonetheless.
> I see your point. Find anything you don't want to observe and define as
> it "not applicable." It's the same attitude some Reform Jews have
> towards kashrut. Attacking Reform Jews is counter-productive to anyone
> with a serious interest in preserving Judaism. In my experience, it
> doesn't move a single soul towards Orthodoxy, but it makes many
> resentful of it.
That's not a fair characterization! It is ovious that one must have
a temple before one can bring a sacrifice.
It is also clear (from the Oral Law) that some laws only apply within
the land of Israel.
To paraphrase you, attacking Orthodox Jews is counter-productive to
anyone with a serious interest in preserving Judaism.
So, nu, when exactly was I attacking Reform Jews? Many come to my home
for Shabbat meals! Obviously, we disagree on a few things, but
their relationship with G-d is inherently up to them! I only argue
when we're talking about institutions such as Kashrut - which allows
Jews to eat in each other's houses.
Gmar Hatima Tova (at least on this we agree),
David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
Jacob Love
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Sep 1999 00:35:46 GMT, Jacob Love <jl...@engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>: I'm not trying to offend you, but to my eyes and to the eyes of a great
>: many other Jews, the system that your refer to is as arbitrary as I
>: have suggested.
>
>I notice that whenever we get to a certain point in understanding how O
>works you step back from assuming O's postulates and cry arbitrariness.
I can understand why you would think this. But the fact is that I think
it is *all* arbitrary. At some point a person has to decide, I'm going
to accept a and b but not c. We can attempt to assuage our feelings by
defering the decision to a group (as in "I do whatever thus and such
a movement or so-and-so the rebbe tells me"), but that doesn't make
it any less arbitrary.
>Your belief that something is arbitrary doesn't change how O views that
>thing, and therefore how it is going to work. We believe there to be
>certain limits as to which definitions are included in "Eilu va'Eilu".
>Your opinion of those limits has nothing to do with the conclusions O
>is going to reach from its opinion.
My belief is that O will reach whatever position it desires based on
its internal politics. I understand that you might not agree, although
as a person of great integrity I bet you would agree that this is true
at least in certain instances. The problem is that you need to convince
the rest of us that it isn't all politics.
>Second, when you only vaguely know parts of something very complex its
>consequences will certainly look arbitrary. How can someone who doesn't
>understand exponentiation understand why "2^3" is smaller than "3^2"?
I don't understand this point, it appears that you are questioning
whether I understand the complexity of how certain O positions have
been arrived at. Although I unquestionably have great hubris, it would
look even worse if I attempted to delineate the ways in which I have
made the attempt to understand that complexity. So I will leave it that
I have made an honest effort, and I believe a number of my Orthodox
teachers would concede that this is true. And so the question becomes,
if anyone, whether bright or dull, makes the effort and decides to
disagree with you, is that tolerable, or must you raise the spectres of
herem, etc?
G'mar hatimah tovah.
David Barak
> David Barak <dba...@servint.com> writes:
> you've picked an easy case. how about a bicycle?
I picked the easy case of the automobile for this reason: the prohibitions
are D'Oriata (from the Torah), and the lifestyle change required to not
drive on Shabbat is dramatic. If someone walks to shul on Shabbat, they're
most of the way toward keeping it fully.
Bicycles are forbidden (on Shabbat) for a few reasons:
1) pikuah Nefesh - one should avoid doing activities in which
there is a significant chance of injuring oneself. Certainly, if
one were to attempt to teach one's child how to ride a bike on Shabbat,
the child would likely fall and get scraped up. We try to avoid that
if possible.
2) Repair. If you bike (and are competant enough not to injure yourself)
a few miles, and then the chain breaks, you would be forbidden to fix it, but
the temptation to do so would be too great (and otherwise you'd be stranded).
3) carrying. If the bike gets a flat tire, you would carry it (at least until
you could lock it up, and that would probably be further than 4 Amot) - so
if you were outside of an Eruv, that would be prohibited.
4) forrowing. If you ride on a dirt path, you will be plowing.
5) get my point? There are a bunch of problems with this, but what it
really comes down to is "we don't do that." why? "It's not Shabbostic."
> disregarding the question of whether it is carrying (say the bicycling
> takes place inside an eruv), there are many O who will say that it is not
> allowed, without being able to name the reason. maybe it's like horse
> riding, which is prohibited because one might rip a branch off a tree to
> hit the horse with. even though the original reason doesn't hold,
> bicycling still isn't an option on shabbat because it violates the
> spirit of it.
Correct - it violates the spirit - remember, "travelling" per se is forbidden
so a device which enables one to do so would also be forbidden.
> or, better, keycards. there are O rabbis which allow them, but no one
> will hold by this because the entire idea of electricity on shabbat wigs
> them out, even though electricity itself is not forbidden.
Keycards are an issue on which not everyone agrees, but most Rabbis don't
permit them. Generally, the reason against has to do with building -
completing circuts.
> O does have an annoying habit of having some set of practise which really
> weren't as carefully considered as they should have been. the general
> impulse nowadays (and to a lesser extent since the existence of reform) is
> weighted towards asuring quite a lot, when it's not clear that this is
> the right way to go. a real rabbi is the one who can declare the
> chicken kosher if it can be so declared, not treif.
I agree that electricity is an issue that needs to be reconsidered - and I
expect it will be in the next 20 years. Our understanding of how it works
has grown dramatically since the publication of the Mishnah Breurah, and
I expect that some Rosh Yeshiva somewhere will address it comprehensively.
As for a "Real Rabbi" - a real Rabbi is one who says that what is assur is
assur, and what is mutar is mutar. Here's an example: my Rabbi feels that
dishwashers are problematic, and so says that the community standard is to
wait one year (to kasher one) - this isn't easy in a mostly apartment
population! However, he also poskens in such a way that one can live with
only one oven...
See - if you actually talk to these O Rabbis, you'll find plenty of times
when the chicken is Kosher...
> what it seems to me is that (for a long time, anyhow) the right is going
> to hold its ground that almost everything is asur, and those who attempt to
> mutar some things will find themselves gradually worn down until they feel
> themselves forced out.
> this restriction on intellectual freedom hardly seems to be the optimal
> atmosphere for creating good and innovative work, dealing completely
> honestly with new technology.
There are splits within O over how to approach technology: but these, (and
those O who are more permissive) aren't helped by the C and R attitudes
of extreme permissivenesss - the fear is that being lenient on one thing
leads to excessive leniency. I don't think that any of these are a
"restriction on intellectual freedom."
> otoh, i don't think C or R makes a sufficiently careful study of new
> technology either. R leaves decisions like these up to its members,
> while C sometimes seems a little "off".
Agreed.
Gmar Hatima Tova,
David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
David Barak
> In article <7rlnet$d8b$4...@news.servint.com>,
> David Barak <dba...@servint.com> wrote:
>>The commandments to which you're referring are not observed because the
>>circumstances in which they should be observed are not possible.
>>Example: one does not bring a sin-offering (for which one is liable by
>>committing certain kinds of unintentional offenses) anymore, because
>>a sin offering can only be brought to the Temple, which is not standing
>>(speedily in our days). Were the Temple to be rebuilt (again, speedily
>>in our days), we would be obligated.
>>Another (non-Temple) example is this: it is a mitzvah to remarry one's
>>ex-wife
> I certainly do not get that impression from the Torah.
> I cannot see that if there is the type of incompatibility
> envisaged in Deuteronomy, one should expect it to disappear.
This mitzvah actually derives from the Nevi'im - the Prophets. The
prophet (I believe it's Hosea) took back his unfaithful wife -
and this was likened to G-d taking back Israel after our idolatrous
infidelities. Thus, we learn that it is a mitzvah to remarry one's
wife (there's more than that, but that's the thumbnail).
> - but this is not a relevant mitzvah to the vast majority of
>>Jews (thank G-d). It only becomes in force when one is actually
>>divorced, before either ex-spouse has remarried.
>>Another example (for Americans) is the taking of the tithes on
>>vegetables and fruit - this is only relevant to Israeli produce.
> Again, I do not see this at all. The obligations are just
> as great. It may be that one has to convert the produce
> into money and donate the money, which I believe was the
> case to some extent even during the days of the Temple, but
> the obligation is no less.
No. The obligation is to tithe the "fruit of the land which
G-d has given you" - this is Israel. I have no obligation to
tithe American produce.
>>See my point? They're just not applicable - but they're still
>>commandments nonetheless.
> The real question is about what is from God and what from those
> humans who have claimed to speak in His name. Some of them
> have been greatly overzealous, and have added to His words
> much which He did not intend.
Correct, but not in the way you mean. The Oral Law was given to us
by G-d as well as the written. However, there are plenty of
people who go around claiming to know G-d's wishes (as opposed to
claiming to know what he told us in the Torah and Talmud).
Gmar Hatima Tova,
David Barak
David Barak
>> Torah that no Jews observe today, but the Orthodox position is that
>> they are still commandments. Why should the Jews in the Reform movement
>> be denied the same religious rights of interpreting the law?
> Because they aren't a bunch of bearded old guys sitting in a dark room in a
> Mediaeval ghetto, that's why.
Wow - that's a pretty harsh description of the people who have maintained
the faith of your and my ancestors...
What is it about Orthodoxy that gets you so angry?
Gmar Hatima Tova,
David Barak
Jacob Love
David Barak <dba...@servint.com> wrote:
>That's not a fair characterization! It is ovious that one must have
>a temple before one can bring a sacrifice.
Huh? Why is that obvious?
>It is also clear (from the Oral Law) that some laws only apply within
>the land of Israel.
You must rely on a claim to a tradition for which you cannot provide
any evidence. Exercise: name the earliest tradent who makes this claim
and tell us when s/he lived. Next, explain to us why that tradent
couldn't cite the tradition in the name of someone earlier.
>To paraphrase you, attacking Orthodox Jews is counter-productive to
>anyone with a serious interest in preserving Judaism.
I am *not* attacking Orthodox Jews. I have nothing but respect and
admiration for those of us who choose to adhere to tradition in greater
degree than I do. I have encouraged hundreds, perhaps thousands of Jews
to educate themselves about our tradition, and I have personally
arranged for many of these to do so by going to Orthodox schools and
institutions. My objective in these flame wars is only to attempt to
get our various hotheads to see the need for greater understanding and
cooperation. When some of our Orthodox contributors take pot-shots at
the rest of us, one of my methods is to attempt to point out the flaws
in their arguments. Perhaps you see that as attacking Orthodoxy, but
that is not my intent. To put it another way, I think Orthodox is fine
for Orthodox Jews, and I have not the slightest complaint about any
attempt of Orthodox Jews to appeal to non-Orthodox Jews to honor more
of Jewish tradition. I draw the line when those appeals move to
hostility, and perhaps I do get a bit carried away when some of these
threads appeal more to emotion than reason...
>So, nu, when exactly was I attacking Reform Jews? Many come to my home
>for Shabbat meals! Obviously, we disagree on a few things, but
>their relationship with G-d is inherently up to them! I only argue
>when we're talking about institutions such as Kashrut - which allows
>Jews to eat in each other's houses.
I agree that you've been much less hostile than some others. Perhaps
my own remarks devolve from unfairly grouping you with the others--
that's a perennial problem here.
>Gmar Hatima Tova (at least on this we agree),
I suspect we really agree on much more. :-)
janet rosenbaum
>In article <7rm8rg$u6b$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>,
>janet rosenbaum <jero...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>the levirate marriage is no longer done because the men stopped doing it
>>for the sake of the mitzvah, but out of lust for the brother's widow.
>That's just an excuse, Janet. The Torah makes it abundantly clear that
>it does not matter what the wife's view is of the situation. It is
>crystal clear that the reason for yibbum is to preserve the brother's
>heritage in Israel. That heritage cannot be preserved without progeny,
>and it is the duty of the levir to ensure that progeny are produced.
why are you disagreeing with me, then?
i never said that the widow's feelings had anything to do with it.
the mitzvah of yibum is to preserve the brother's heritage in israel,
and should be done for that reason. the reason chalitza began to be
encouraged over yibum is because the rabbis reasoned that the mitzvah
was no longer done for the sake of itself, but because the levir had
the hots for his brother's widow and was no longer doing it with his
brother in mind.
>Obviously, when it became clear that a) there was much in the way of
>tribal land to redistribute to the brother's children (because among
>other things no one was going to obey the mitzvah of yuval), our rabbis
>had to figure something else out. And so they did, to their great
>credit.
where do you get this from?
janet
Sheldon Glickler
David Barak <dba...@servint.com> wrote:
> Joel N. Shurkin <shu...@vipmail.earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Who's "misleading" here? There are hundreds of commandments in the
> >> Torah that no Jews observe today, but the Orthodox position is that
> >> they are still commandments. Why should the Jews in the Reform
movement
> >> be denied the same religious rights of interpreting the law?
>
> > Because they aren't a bunch of bearded old guys sitting in a dark
room in a
> > Mediaeval ghetto, that's why.
>
> Wow - that's a pretty harsh description of the people who have
maintained
> the faith of your and my ancestors...
>
> What is it about Orthodoxy that gets you so angry?
>
Some suggestions:
1 - Read the discourse that place here on SCJ -- especially from people
like Dissen, Weiss and Singer.
2 - Insistence upon a so-called "Oral Law", and that we defer to it.
3 - The "my way or the highway" attitude (look at Kotel discussions).
That's a few for starters. SCJ has a way of jading people. Stick
around a while and you'll find out. You, personally, may have just
arrived and just started posting, but we have seen "your" posts for
last number of years.
janet rosenbaum
>I picked the easy case of the automobile for this reason: the prohibitions
>are D'Oriata (from the Torah),
exactly.
were someone to create some sort of neo-reform movement which was to
have any credibility, they couldn't do anything about the 39 labours.
it's the details they could argue with.
>5) get my point? There are a bunch of problems with this, but what it
>really comes down to is "we don't do that." why? "It's not Shabbostic."
that's my point.
your objections to bicycling on shabbat are not overwhelming and none of
them link to d'oraisa prohibitions (assuming the bicycling occurred
inside an eruv and on pavement), and end up reducing to "we just don't do
this."
>Correct - it violates the spirit - remember, "travelling" per se is forbidden
>so a device which enables one to do so would also be forbidden.
i believe that "travelling" is defined as leaving a populated area. in
the hypothesised inside-an-eruv case, that's not a problem.
>As for a "Real Rabbi" - a real Rabbi is one who says that what is assur is
>assur, and what is mutar is mutar.
which is what i said, as well.
>There are splits within O over how to approach technology: but these, (and
>those O who are more permissive) aren't helped by the C and R attitudes
>of extreme permissivenesss - the fear is that being lenient on one thing
>leads to excessive leniency. I don't think that any of these are a
>"restriction on intellectual freedom."
this is exactly what i mean by a restriction on intellectual freedom.
an o rabbi cannot say certain things even if he's of high stature without
being held as suspect. e.g., the reports on the death of "professor"
soleveitchik. now that women's tefillah groups have come up as a
question anew and people realise that the rav was not as liberal on them
as he could have been, people refer to him as rabbi again.
now that orthodoxy is a community of choice, we aren't forced to deal
with all opinions since those who are on the leftish end can just leave,
and it's expected they will. hardly the best thing for the klal.
if things reverted to how they were even thirty or forty years ago,
i bet there would be way more frum jews.
gmar tov,
janet
Karl Klingman
David,
First, let me congratulate you on your thoughtful and courteous posts.
Karl
David Barak wrote:
> Just as a question, what do you think of the assorted prohibitions of
> sexual immorality - ie "a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman;
> it is an abomination." - do you consider that binding too?
Yes I do from a religious point of view. However, from a purely personal
perspective I don't care what a person's sexual preferences are.
As an aside -- from the O perspective, I take it that this prohibition does not
apply to women. Is this correct?
> .The difference in approach is fairly apparent here: in the orthodox
> world, you don't find people who live 10 or 20 miles away from a shul:
> they start one. This is why O. shuls are nearly always smaller than
> R or C. synagogues. (also, there's the fact that we don't use microphones)
That is correct and directly to the point that I was trying to make. Outside of
the major urban centers, the Jewish population is dispersed over a much larger area
than one would find in say, Brooklyn. Thus, if one is going to attend Shabbat
services one must drive -- there is no alternative. So to a large extent certain
streams of Judaism, such as Reform, exist in large part due to the demographics of
the Jewish population in America and to the culture in which we live.
If one looks at a Chassid community, for example, it is not possible for one of
them to move to the suburbs unless either the entire group moves or enough move to
start a new shul and Chassid community. This is a choice not only of religion, but
also one of culture and sense of community. We, as Reform Jews, don't generally
look down our noses at such traditions or beliefs (in fact many of us find them
admirable). They are simply different from our own customs and traditions.
> Yes, we have been forced to deal with new technologies and circumstances:
> and here's the answer: there are some things which are permissable, and
> some which aren't. One may rely on automatic electric processes, but
> may not initiate them on the Sabbath. An automobile (as anyone who understands
> internal COMBUSTION engines knows) produces oodles of sparks (i.e. fire)
> every second - and as producing even one such spark intentionally would
> be forbidden, obviously driving is forbidden as well.
I find the Shabbat elevator to be very interesting. I presume that the elevator
doors open and close automatically and that one steps onto the elevator when the
doors are open. However, as those of us who ride elevators know, sometimes the
doors start to close before you are all the way inside. If one were to stop the
door with one's hand, or even if the door closed upon your body then the door will
retract -- hence creating a spark initiated on Shabbat. Is the person committing a
sin at that time?
The eruv is actually an interesting, and instructive case: an eruv merely
> allows one to carry in either a carmelit or makom patur; both of those
> categories of domains are permitted according to the Torah, but
> forbidden by the early Mishnaic-era Rabbis, because they resemble a
> Rishut haRabim (public domain) too much, and it's hard to tell the
> difference between them.
>
> Therefore, an eruv is a Rabbinic device, which permits the lifting of a
> Rabbinic restriction. No Torah-based restrictions can be lifted by
> Rabbinic decree.
I too find the eruv to be very interesting. Do you happen to know when this
Rabbinic device was first employed?
So then, do you say that Reform Judaism is a different religion
> that the one which has classicly been defined as Judaism?
> Would you argue that a Reform Jew who became Orthodox has
> :"left the faith?" That's certainly an interesting point of view...
No. I was being sarcastic. That R is a different religion than O is the assertion
that Mike Medved and others make. My assertion is that it is that it is a separate
stream of Judaism. I admit that they differ in certain ways, particularly those
relating to O rabbinic rulings, but that both are Judaism.
> Of course, there is a qualitative difference between the beliefs of
> Orthodox Judaism and the beliefs of Reform Judaism: the acceptance of
> tradition. I (and other Orthodox Jews) can rely on my ancestors - who
> were closer to the events described in the Torah (and who were closer
> to the earlier legal periods) and can trust that all of those Jews
> who were willing to make hitherto unheard-of acts of piety and faith
> were correct. Reform Judaism is a modern belief system - which relies
> on each person to figure out what G-d wants. Personally, I know
> that I trust the opinions of those before me more than I trust my own.
I would tend to agree with that statement. While Reform Judaism does rely less on
tradition than the Orthodox stream, that does not mean that we completely reject
it. I would agree that we do filter much of it through a lens of modernity. For
example, the ruling that a woman cannot be left alone in the same room with a boy
above the age of nine for more than a few minutes is probably something we are not
going to worry about too much.
I suspect that the major differences are not disagreements about what G-d said, but
about what the rabbis said (ancient or modern). Another example, and one which is
the source of much angst, is families davening together in shul. My contention is
that these differences, while infuriating to some, are not really as earth
shattering as some believe they are. Certainly, I do not believe that these
differences are significant enough to warrant the label of a "different religion."
> However, while you are correct - we all will be shown the correctness
> or incorrectness of our beliefs after our death - I urge you to
> make a scholarly study of the development of halakhah - even if you
> don't accept it, it's fascinating, and it could give you a great
> deal of insight into the way Orthodox Jews approach issues.
Thank you. I have been doing just that.
B'shalom,
Karl
Karl Klingman
mitzvah of
> : Shabbat". "It is a mitzvah for every Jew, single or married, young or
> : old, to observe Shabbat.".
>
> Again, not a "requirement", is it? It may be a mitzvah, but R
> certainly give up on a lot of mitzvot, or "let the people decide"
> whether they are worth keeping or not. A requirement would be a
> directive to keep Shabbat - and if people don't, they are violating
> the requirement.
Mike,
Perhaps there is a language problem.
A mitzvah is a commandment from G-d. Agreed?
A commandment from G-d is a requirement or prohibition given by G-d.
Agreed?
Hence:
"The requirement given by G-d of Shabbat." It is a requirement given by
G-d for every Jew, single or married, young or old, to observe Shabbat.
Does that parse satisfactorily for you?
Karl
Karl Klingman
David Barak wrote:
> Actually, I've been informed of parties catered a Reform Cantor which
> made use of a place named "____'s Pork Barbeque" (name deleted for
> anonymity). I've seen oodles and oodles of examples like this -
David,
We've all seen oodles of examples like this. I was talking to a friend
recently who went on a cruise with his wife and O in-laws. He was perplexed
to see them gobbling shrimp from the buffet, like there was no tomorrow,
while he and his wife (now Reform) abstained.. The fact that people violate
the law, does not mean that they deny the law exists. I know that if the
cantor at our shul did something like your example, the cantor would be
singing a different tune -- and he'd be singing it somewhere else.
Which reminds me of a timely joke.
A man tells his rabbi that he has failed to follow a mitzvah.
"Which mitzvah did you fail to fulfill?" the rabbi asks.
"I failed to wash before I ate," the man replies.
"Why did you do that?" the rabbi asks.
"Because I was eating in a non kosher restaurant," the man says looking down
at his feet.
"Why on earth were you eating in a non kosher restaurant?", the rabbi asks.
"Because all of the kosher restaurants were closed," the man replies.
"Why would all of the kosher restaurants be closed?" the rabbi asks in
amazement.
The man says, "Because it was Yom Kippur."
B'shalom
Karl
Simcha Streltsov
: >: : I would not expect a rabbi to "call fire and brimstone" for that.
: >: : Shabbat observance is a requirement of Judaism, but not of the
: >: : Reform religion.
: >
: >: Mike, do you understand why Jacob refers to shul attendance as
: >: a synonym of shabat observance? I dont
: >
: >Because Reform try to be like the goyim in all respects they
: >borrowed the "Shabbat observance=attendance in shul" concept
: >from Xtianity's "Sunday". No surprise here. Jack Love just
: >expresses his ignorance of Judaism..
: Since the only remarks of mine quoted above don't have anything obvious
: to do with such an equation (nor would I be very likely to make such an
: equation), I'd suggest you get an early start on apologizing for
: slander. That's of course presuming that you actually care to consider
: the Jewish views of derekh eretz.
we made this conclusion because you answered the question about
observance by talking in length about shabbat observance. maybe
we are guilty of assigning an incorrect reason to your action -
what was the correct explanation?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Mike Medved
: Mike Medved wrote:: Gates of the Seasons, published by CCAR. A-1. "The
: mitzvah of
: Mike,
: Hence:
Nope. It is absolutely a requirement given by G-d to observe
Shabbat. It's just not a requirement by Reform religion, that's
all. You cannot say "each of you decide for yourself whether
observing Shabbat is something that you consider beneficial" -
like Reform officially do (since NOTHING is required by Reform,
everything is left to the members' discretion) and then turn
around and say "we require it". I know you're uncomfortable with
the facts, but that does not justify you misleading others in
your posts.
David Barak
> First, let me congratulate you on your thoughtful and courteous posts.
sinat hinam. Thank you.
> As an aside -- from the O perspective, I take it that this prohibition does not
> apply to women. Is this correct?
Well, there are a couple of operative points: one is that there is the
prohibition on "zniut" - "wantonness," which is generally interpreted
fairly broadly; then there are specific restrictions regarding a "zonah"
(lit. "prostitute," but often with a wider meaning). In addition, there
are oodles of Rabbinic restrictions: for example, male homosexual acts
are prohibited D'Oraita (from the Torah), while female homosexual acts are
prohibited D'Rabbanan (from the Rabbis) - and the general perception is
that female homosexuality is not nearly as punishable as, say, Sabbath
violation. Interestingly, that said, homosexual marriage is prohibited
for both sexes as being one of the "Egyptian practices" which we are
to abstain (D'Oraita).
>> .The difference in approach is fairly apparent here: in the orthodox
>> world, you don't find people who live 10 or 20 miles away from a shul:
>> they start one. This is why O. shuls are nearly always smaller than
>> R or C. synagogues. (also, there's the fact that we don't use microphones)
> That is correct and directly to the point that I was trying to make. Outside of
> the major urban centers, the Jewish population is dispersed over a much larger area
> than one would find in say, Brooklyn. Thus, if one is going to attend Shabbat
> services one must drive -- there is no alternative. So to a large extent certain
> streams of Judaism, such as Reform, exist in large part due to the demographics of
> the Jewish population in America and to the culture in which we live.
Here I have to disagree: If you go to Memphis (not exactly a huge Jewish
community), you will find that there are about four O. shuls (including 2 big
ones), one C. shul, and one R. shul. The majority of the people going to
the O shuls walk, while the majority of the people going to the C and R
shuls drive. The Jewish populations there are fairly mingled.
The difference is the general "attitude" of the shuls - in O shuls, it's
generally considered a "bad thing" to drive, while at (most) C and R shuls
it isn't even an issue or question.
> I find the Shabbat elevator to be very interesting. I presume that the elevator
> doors open and close automatically and that one steps onto the elevator when the
> doors are open. However, as those of us who ride elevators know, sometimes the
> doors start to close before you are all the way inside. If one were to stop the
> door with one's hand, or even if the door closed upon your body then the door will
> retract -- hence creating a spark initiated on Shabbat. Is the person committing a
> sin at that time?
Generally, Shabbat elevators move VERY slowly - both because of the ways
in which they are constructed (to use the same amount of force lifting
a loaded elevator as unloaded), but also for this very reason. The
person may or may not have committed an unintentional violation of
Shabbat - depending on whose opinion you follow.
>> Therefore, an eruv is a Rabbinic device, which permits the lifting of a
>> Rabbinic restriction. No Torah-based restrictions can be lifted by
>> Rabbinic decree.
> I too find the eruv to be very interesting. Do you happen to know when this
> Rabbinic device was first employed?
There is a tractate of Mishna called "eruvin." It deals with the laws of
construction of an eruv. The Mishna was written approximately 200 CE, and
is based on teachings that are substantially older.
> I would tend to agree with that statement. While Reform Judaism does rely less on
> tradition than the Orthodox stream, that does not mean that we completely reject
> it. I would agree that we do filter much of it through a lens of modernity. For
> example, the ruling that a woman cannot be left alone in the same room with a boy
> above the age of nine for more than a few minutes is probably something we are not
> going to worry about too much.
Generally the rule is that an adult man or adult woman may not be alone in a
room with only a person of the opposite sex to whom they are not related. The
obvious advantage here is that, while this is strict, it completely prevents
any kind of impropriety from occurring. Wouldn't we all have been better off
if a certain intern had observed this law?
> I suspect that the major differences are not disagreements about what G-d said, but
> about what the rabbis said (ancient or modern). Another example, and one which is
> the source of much angst, is families davening together in shul. My contention is
> that these differences, while infuriating to some, are not really as earth
> shattering as some believe they are. Certainly, I do not believe that these
> differences are significant enough to warrant the label of a "different religion."
Some of the issues are minor - some are major.
>> However, while you are correct - we all will be shown the correctness
>> or incorrectness of our beliefs after our death - I urge you to
>> make a scholarly study of the development of halakhah - even if you
>> don't accept it, it's fascinating, and it could give you a great
>> deal of insight into the way Orthodox Jews approach issues.
> Thank you. I have been doing just that.
> B'shalom,
> Karl
Just to let you know, a good line is "L'shalom" - "B'shalom" refers to the
dead. (notice "to peace" rather than "in peace")
G'mar Hatima Tova,
David Barak
http://www.freeyellow.com/members5/masoret/index.html
Mike Medved
: Jacob Love (jl...@engin.umich.edu) wrote:
: : >: : I would not expect a rabbi to "call fire and brimstone" for that.
: : >: : Shabbat observance is a requirement of Judaism, but not of the
: : >: : Reform religion.
: : >
: : >: Mike, do you understand why Jacob refers to shul attendance as
: : >: a synonym of shabat observance? I dont
: : >
: : >Because Reform try to be like the goyim in all respects they
: : >borrowed the "Shabbat observance=attendance in shul" concept
: : >from Xtianity's "Sunday". No surprise here. Jack Love just
: : >expresses his ignorance of Judaism..
: : Since the only remarks of mine quoted above don't have anything obvious
: : to do with such an equation (nor would I be very likely to make such an
: : equation), I'd suggest you get an early start on apologizing for
: : slander. That's of course presuming that you actually care to consider
: : the Jewish views of derekh eretz.
: we made this conclusion because you answered the question about
: observance by talking in length about shabbat observance. maybe
: we are guilty of assigning an incorrect reason to your action -
: what was the correct explanation?
If I may correct you, Simcha - the "talking in length about
shabbat observance" above should be "talking in length about
Shabbat attendance".
Jonathan J. Baker
>Mike Medved nagged:
>> IIt's news to me that Reform accept that Shabbat observance is
>> a requirement of their religion. Proof?
>That's a pretty simple one:
> Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy. -- Exodus 20:4
That's a pretty dumb answer. Sure, to an Orthodox or a Conservative
Jew, that would be a requirement. But to a Reform Jew? At best, it
is a suggestion, a desirable option.
Have you read the various Reform platforms, those documents which claim
to set policy for (at least American) Reform Judaism? Given that each
of those documents affirms the principle of individual autonomy WRT
at least ritual commands, if not (as in later documents) also ethical
commands, a statement from the Torah is BY DEFINITION not binding.
You'll have to do better than that.
--
Jonathan Baker | Ksivechsimetoiveh!
jjb...@panix.com | (It's a contraction, like Shkoiech, or Brshmo)
Joel N. Shurkin
<dba...@servint.com> wrote:
...
[I enjoy your posts]
>
> Correct - it violates the spirit - remember, "travelling" per se is forbidden
> so a device which enables one to do so would also be forbidden.
Now explain to me how stringing wires around telephone poles so you can
carry on Shabbos does not "violate the spirit."
j
Joel N. Shurkin
Science Writer
Baltimore, Maryland
***
"Kids were very different then. They didn't have their heads filled with all
this Cartesian dualism."
Monty Python's Flying Circus
Joel N. Shurkin
<dba...@servint.com> wrote:
> Joel N. Shurkin <shu...@vipmail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Who's "misleading" here? There are hundreds of commandments in the
>>> Torah that no Jews observe today, but the Orthodox position is that
>>> they are still commandments. Why should the Jews in the Reform movement
>>> be denied the same religious rights of interpreting the law?
>
>> Because they aren't a bunch of bearded old guys sitting in a dark room in a
>> Mediaeval ghetto, that's why.
>
> Wow - that's a pretty harsh description of the people who have maintained
> the faith of your and my ancestors...
>
> What is it about Orthodoxy that gets you so angry?
>
>
1. Any institution that tells me that its way of devotion is the only true
and real one and that mine is not makes me angry.
2. Any institution that tells me it will judge whether my rabbi(s) are real
rabbis makes me angry.
3. Any institution that tells me it will define what is and what is not
Jewish (and, incidentally, that I how I practice is not ) makes me angry.
4. Any institution that says its way of praying to God is the only one and
valid Jewish way of doing it and mine is not makes me angry, especially when
the institution decides for itself which inconsistency they will accept and
which they will reject.
Arrogance, in short, makes me angry.
j
--
-------
Joel N. Shurkin
<sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7ro2dg$gsr$3...@news.servint.com>,
My former synagogue in Santa Cruz (R) got around the whole thing by
requiring only dairy products or vegetarian meals (this was Santa Cruz,
after all). No meat.
j
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Herman Rubin
>> David Barak <dba...@servint.com> wrote:
>>>The commandments to which you're referring are not observed because the
>>>circumstances in which they should be observed are not possible.
>>>Example: one does not bring a sin-offering (for which one is liable by
>>>committing certain kinds of unintentional offenses) anymore, because
>>>a sin offering can only be brought to the Temple, which is not standing
>>>(speedily in our days). Were the Temple to be rebuilt (again, speedily
>>>in our days), we would be obligated.
>>>Another (non-Temple) example is this: it is a mitzvah to remarry one's
>>>ex-wife
>> I certainly do not get that impression from the Torah.
>> I cannot see that if there is the type of incompatibility
>> envisaged in Deuteronomy, one should expect it to disappear.
>This mitzvah actually derives from the Nevi'im - the Prophets. The
>prophet (I believe it's Hosea) took back his unfaithful wife -
>and this was likened to G-d taking back Israel after our idolatrous
>infidelities. Thus, we learn that it is a mitzvah to remarry one's
>wife (there's more than that, but that's the thumbnail).
Had Hosea divorced his wife? He certainly had the grounds to
do so, but had he actually issued the get?
>> - but this is not a relevant mitzvah to the vast majority of
>>>Jews (thank G-d). It only becomes in force when one is actually
>>>divorced, before either ex-spouse has remarried.
>>>Another example (for Americans) is the taking of the tithes on
>>>vegetables and fruit - this is only relevant to Israeli produce.
>> Again, I do not see this at all. The obligations are just
>> as great. It may be that one has to convert the produce
>> into money and donate the money, which I believe was the
>> case to some extent even during the days of the Temple, but
>> the obligation is no less.
>No. The obligation is to tithe the "fruit of the land which
>G-d has given you" - this is Israel. I have no obligation to
>tithe American produce.
Again, I have a question here. I believe that the Jews in the
diaspora during the Temple days, quite possibly more than in
Eretz Yisrael, did tithe.
There have generally been more Jews than Eretz Yisrael could
accommodate. They did make pilgrimages, and they converted the
tithes which it would be impracticable to physically bring to
the Temple to money and contributed this instead.
>>>See my point? They're just not applicable - but they're still
>>>commandments nonetheless.
>> The real question is about what is from God and what from those
>> humans who have claimed to speak in His name. Some of them
>> have been greatly overzealous, and have added to His words
>> much which He did not intend.
>Correct, but not in the way you mean. The Oral Law was given to us
>by G-d as well as the written. However, there are plenty of
>people who go around claiming to know G-d's wishes (as opposed to
>claiming to know what he told us in the Torah and Talmud).
This even violates one of the sections of the Torah. After
crossing the Jordan, the Jews were commanded to write ALL of
the commandments on plastered rocks.
The evidence is far too strong that even the Sefer Torah
does not date to Sinai, although some form of it may date
to Ezra, with its clear evidence of editing. The case
for the Oral Law is far weaker, and I cannot see it as
other than the canonization of traditional interpretations,
wishful thinking, etc.
Any claim that there is a large body of unwritten commandments
accurately continued for centuries, let alone more than a
millennium, is more than mind boggling.
--
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, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
David Barak <dba...@servint.com> wrote:
>Joel N. Shurkin <shu...@vipmail.earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> Who's "misleading" here? There are hundreds of commandments in the
>>> Torah that no Jews observe today, but the Orthodox position is that
>>> they are still commandments. Why should the Jews in the Reform movement
>>> be denied the same religious rights of interpreting the law?
>> Because they aren't a bunch of bearded old guys sitting in a dark room in a
>> Mediaeval ghetto, that's why.
>Wow - that's a pretty harsh description of the people who have maintained
>the faith of your and my ancestors...
You say "maintained". I say "continually revised and even
distorted". God did not dictate even the Sefer Torah.
>What is it about Orthodoxy that gets you so angry?
That they want to mandate to others how to live, and will
even contort the facts about the universe in an effort to
do this.
Karl Klingman
> Don't waste your key strokes, Karl, on hopeless causes. No matter what
> you type, it won't change anything there.
>
> Shelly
I prefer to think that Mike just enjoys pulling our chains and is being
deliberately obtuse, rather than the obvious alternatives. I must admit
that when I first started reading this news group some months ago, I was
quite dismayed and more than a little put off be posters such as Mike. I
was even to the point of thinking that they (and we all know who they are)
might be representative of Orthodox Jews. I am happy to report, however,
that this is not the case. There are many O lurkers here, who have emailed
me concerning some of the posts I've made. While we generally agree to
disagree on certain points, they have mostly been courteous, helpful and
generally very nice people. Also, those posters such as David Barak and
Meir among others, illustrate that it is possible to be both Orthodox and
courteous, even when they disagree with you.
L'shalom
Karl
Sheldon Glickler
Karl Klingman <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Mike Medved wrote:: Gates of the Seasons, published by CCAR. A-1. "The
> mitzvah of
>
> > : Shabbat". "It is a mitzvah for every Jew, single or married,
young or
> > : old, to observe Shabbat.".
> >
> > Again, not a "requirement", is it? It may be a mitzvah, but R
> > certainly give up on a lot of mitzvot, or "let the people decide"
> > whether they are worth keeping or not. A requirement would be a
> > directive to keep Shabbat - and if people don't, they are violating
> > the requirement.
>
> Mike,
>
> Perhaps there is a language problem.
> A mitzvah is a commandment from G-d. Agreed?
> A commandment from G-d is a requirement or prohibition given by G-d.
> Agreed?
>
> Hence:
>
> "The requirement given by G-d of Shabbat." It is a requirement
given by
> G-d for every Jew, single or married, young or old, to observe
Shabbat.
>
> Does that parse satisfactorily for you?
>
>
Don't waste your key strokes, Karl, on hopeless causes. No matter what
you type, it won't change anything there.
Shelly
--
Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
TDave
Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <7qog04$j...@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu>,
> jba...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) wrote:
> > In article <7qk0uo$44q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Sheldon Glickler <sheldo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >In article <7qjpkm$1...@shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu>,
> > > jba...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Jerry B. Altzman) wrote:
> > >> In article <37CCB057...@mindspring.com>,
> > >> Karl Klingman <ka...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > >> >"Jerry B. Altzman" wrote:
> > >> >> What R Jewish precept expressly forbids idol-worship? I'm
being
> > >serious.
> > >> >> Is the prohibition against idol worship "ethical" or "ritual"?
> > >> >It's what we call a Commandment from G-d. It's one of the big
> ones
> > >-- up near the
> > >> >top of the list. :-)
> > >> Shabbat is on the list too.
> > >Yes it is, and so those who observe Shabbat refrain from working
and
> > >try to get some rest. Too many of us (me included) fail to
> > >consistently do either.
> >
> > That's all well and good but it doesn't address the original issue:
R
> > Judaism and its view on idolatry. Karl claimed that the prohibition
> was
> > "near the top of the list", to which I pointed out that so Shabbat
is
> in
> > the top 5 also...
> >
> > Erev shabbat shalom
>
> ....and I pointed out that I agreed with you and that we try to (a)
> refrain from working and (b) get some rest.
>
> It is all in how you define "Shabbat". By doing those things, and in
> driving to synagogue and by enjoying a nice meal with the family with
> some stuff prepared on the barbeque or microwave, we are (a)
refraining
> from work and (b) getting some rest --- and so are observing Shabbat.
>
> I think it really _does_ address the original issue.
>
> Shelly
> --
> Please reply to sheldon + l...@earthlink.net.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
>
What most people miss is that the whole point of the sabbath was to
give everyone, including the work animals one day of the week off. It
was a labor law before we had a labor commission or OSHA.
Kosher laws likewise were health laws before the FDA. You didn't eat
pork because they didn't know how to cure it, yet and the chances were
that you would get trichinosous(I know that is probably spelled wrong,
but you know what I mean). You didn't use meat and milk for the same
food because there was a bacteria that would grow and make you sick if
you did.
One more thing, I'm really tired of Orthodox and Conservative Jews
telling us Reformed Jews that we aren't Jewish enough. I'm told I
should keep the practices of my grandparents. Guess what! My
grandfather did not wear a yamika, and neither did his father. When I
was a kid, no one in the reformed synagogue I went to wore one. Now
they all do. Even some of the women wear them. My greatgrandmother
used to complain that there was too much hebrew in the services, and
that was 50 years ago. My mother tells me that when she was young they
were trying to do away with Bar Mitvahs. Why? Because you didn't want
to tell a 13 year old boy that he was a man. Teenagers already think
that they are grown up and you can't tell them anything that they don't
already know. Why would you want to tell a 13 year old that he/she is
an adult?
Well, that's my two cents on the matter!
Amy