There is more to Judaism than Orthodoxy
John Sherwood
At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
The religion of the Prophets was different from the religion of the
Levitical priests, which was different from the religion of the Tannaim,
etc, etc.
He, more correctly, defined Judaism as a civilization, in which
religion was one of its many elements.
Institutionally, today, there are five different religious
Judaisms: (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Humanistic, Orthodox,
Reconstructionist, and Reform.
There also are a number of secularist Judaisms, as illustrated by
the plethora of Jewish organizations that exist for the sake of elevating
humanity in general, promoting Jewish learning, fighting anti-Semitism,
building better interfaith relations, and many more.
No one group, and no one individual has a monopoly on being
Jewish. Whether by birth or by choice, we are all members of this wonderful
civilization. We, as klal Yisrael, define it daily as it grows and changes.
Let us continue our dialogue, rasing our sights and lowering our
voices, as we celebrate the reality that no one has a monopoly on truth.
Dr. John M. Sherwood
Rabbi Emeritus, Temple Emet
Harry Weiss
: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
G-d has a monopoly on the truth which he transmitted to us in his Torah
which is also known as emet.
: Dr. John M. Sherwood
: Rabbi Emeritus, Temple Emet
Fresh816
Daniel P Faigin
> G-d has a monopoly on the truth which he transmitted to us in his Torah
> which is also known as emet.
You are correct; where we disagree is on the mode of transmission, the amount
of translation performed by the receiving unit, and the amount of signal
degredation over time. As it is difficult to go to G-d and do a diff of the
original, we have to take these items as faith -- something we believe but
cannot scientifically prove.
Daniel
--
fai...@aero.org The Aerospace Corp Moderator, Liberal Judaism ML
| @pacificnet.net POB 92957 MS M1/055 Maintainer, S.C.J FAQ/RL
v @shamash.org LA CA 90009-2957 Advisor, S.C.J.Parenting
Fai...@dockmaster.ncsc.mil (310) 336 8228 Daddy, Erin Shoshana m.k pg48
Lisa Aaronson
>John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
>: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
Lisa
-------------------------------------
I still believe in all my dreams
And all that I can be
I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
To make it eventually
'Cause I still believe in me.
- from the TV show "Fame"
Jonathan Baker
>Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
He may have been ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1902, but
at the time there was little to distinguish Orthodox from Conservative.
The two movements were so close together that Rabbi Kaplan's first two
positions were with major Orthodox synagogues. He served as assistant
rabbi first at Kehilath Jeshurun under the Ramaz, R' Moshe Zevulun
Margolies, the preeminent Orthodox rabbi in New York at the time, and
later at the Jewish Center, under the prominent Orthodox rabbi Dr.
Leo Jung. Rabbi Rakeffet (in his biography of Rabbi Dov Revel) states
that Kaplan was Orthodox until the death of his father (although he doesn't
give a date for this).
As late as 1926, when a merger was proposed (by the boards) and put down
(by Rabbi Revel) between Yeshiva College and JTS, the main stopping point
was the presence of Dr. Kaplan, the only (by-then) non-Orthodox rabbi on
the faculty of JTS.
Rabbi Kaplan started out an Orthodox rabbi, but later drifted away. As
such, I would not call him a "rabbi", but a rabbi without quotes. Rabbinic
ordination does not go away (despite the efforts of some). I don't think
Lubavitch even took away Zalman Schachter's ordination when he drifted
away into his (and Michael Lerner's) "Jewish Renewal" movement.
Jonathan Baker
ba...@sacco.nyu.edu
wayne cohen
> In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
> >: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
> >: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
> Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
> Lisa
> -------------------------------------
> I still believe in all my dreams
> And all that I can be
> I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
> To make it eventually
> 'Cause I still believe in me.
> - from the TV show "Fame"
--
Very Very Nice Post. Too bad Lisa had to ruin it. Ya know that
Cockamamie Signature Sign Off From 'Fame' really has got to go. I mean,
"I still believe in me" ?! Lisa you might believe in you, but very few
others still do. -wayne
Martin Fox
>John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
>
>: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>
>: Levitical priests, which was different from the religion of the Tannaim,
>: etc, etc.
>
>: He, more correctly, defined Judaism as a civilization, in which
>: religion was one of its many elements.
>
>: Institutionally, today, there are five different religious
>: Judaisms: (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Humanistic, Orthodox,
>: Reconstructionist, and Reform.
>
>: There also are a number of secularist Judaisms, as illustrated by
>: the plethora of Jewish organizations that exist for the sake of elevating
>: humanity in general, promoting Jewish learning, fighting anti-Semitism,
>: building better interfaith relations, and many more.
>
>: No one group, and no one individual has a monopoly on being
>: Jewish. Whether by birth or by choice, we are all members of this wonderful
>: civilization. We, as klal Yisrael, define it daily as it grows and changes.
>
>: Let us continue our dialogue, rasing our sights and lowering our
>: voices, as we celebrate the reality that no one has a monopoly on truth.
>
>
>which is also known as emet.
>
But which of us can claim to have the only true understanding of that many
faceted truth?
Martin Fox
John Sherwood
In a previous article, hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) says:
>John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
>
>: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>
>: The religion of the Prophets was different from the religion of the
>: Levitical priests, which was different from the religion of the Tannaim,
>: etc, etc.
>
>: He, more correctly, defined Judaism as a civilization, in which
>: religion was one of its many elements.
>
>: Institutionally, today, there are five different religious
>: Judaisms: (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Humanistic, Orthodox,
>: Reconstructionist, and Reform.
>
>: There also are a number of secularist Judaisms, as illustrated by
>: the plethora of Jewish organizations that exist for the sake of elevating
>: humanity in general, promoting Jewish learning, fighting anti-Semitism,
>: building better interfaith relations, and many more.
>
>: No one group, and no one individual has a monopoly on being
>: Jewish. Whether by birth or by choice, we are all members of this wonderful
>: civilization. We, as klal Yisrael, define it daily as it grows and changes.
>
>: Let us continue our dialogue, rasing our sights and lowering our
>: voices, as we celebrate the reality that no one has a monopoly on truth.
>
>
>G-d has a monopoly on the truth which he transmitted to us in his Torah
>which is also known as emet.
>
Harry,
We have reached the epistemological abyss. There are many
epistemologies. Revelationism is only one of them. There is the
subjective idealism of Berkeley, the naive realism of Buber, rationalism,
empiricism, coherence theory, the logical positivism of Wittgenstein, and
others.
Ones epistemological choice is purely subjective. Therefore, it
cannot be debated. You and I see the world through different eyes.
Your Judaism and mine are radically different. Your God concept and
mine are radically different. Since epistemology preceeds theology, we
really have nothing to say to one another other than we respectfully
disagree.
To others who are following this thread, let me observe that to
the liberal Jew, the Torah and all that follows is partially divine in
origin, possibly through inspiration. The balance is human in origin.
Since human beings are finite, and therefore imperfect, the documents
cannot be infallible, and therefore cannot be authoritative. They
represent the continuing history of Jewish thought. More aesthetically
they may be considered the poetry of faith.
As to the name of Temple Emet, it was selected by the founders of
the congregation to assert that we are all equal partners in the search
for "Emet", truth.
Lisa Aaronson
>> li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) writes:
>> In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss)
>writes:
>>
>> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
>>
>> >: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>> >: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>>
>> Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
>>
>> Lisa
>>
>>Now didn't you recently suggest that is is a sin
>to publicly say something bad about a rabbi?
Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
Just curious,
Isaac Balbin
> At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
[deleted]
In 1996, John Sherwood, who isn't an Orthodox musmach attempted to convince
us all that because Jews held different views on a wide range of matters
both religious and otherwise, that
>There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
John, please don't insult our intelligence with your political nonsense.
Lo Yovoi Mamzer Bikhal Hashem----the Mamzer will not be part of the
G-dly congregation.
The *existence* of the Mamzer does not change this, nor does your
white-out pen remove this law, nor does Mordechai Kaplan.
G-d defined Judaism long ago, and passed it on through properly ordained
Rabbis who maintained the tradition. John Sherwood you aren't one
of them, and worse, you articles are intellectually dishonest and politically
crafted.
"As the process of Reform continues to re-define fundamentals as temporal
abberations, the kernel of eternal truth becomes a virtual reality that is
able to re-model itself to many value systems. It loses its distinctiveness,
it loses its past theology and becomes a figment of human minds, a cousin
to a religion of yesteryear"
--------------------
Dr Isaac Balbin, Dept. of Comp. Sci., RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
is...@cs.rmit.edu.au +61 3 9660 2803 http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~isaac
Y. Goldiner
On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Lisa Aaronson wrote:
> In article <4epjap$b...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
>
> >> li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) writes:
> >>
> >> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
> >>
> >> >: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
> >> >: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
> >> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
> >>
> >> Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
> >>
> >> Lisa
> >>
> >>Now didn't you recently suggest that is is a sin
> >to publicly say something bad about a rabbi?
>
> Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
Just curious,
Yehudis
Jacob Love
Lisa Aaronson <li...@interport.net> wrote:
>Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
My recollection is that Mordecai Kaplan had Orthodox smikha as well.
Do you a factually verifiable reason for doubting this?
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Robert Kaiser
tda...@panix.com
>
> At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
> orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
> There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>
> Levitical priests, which was different from the religion of the Tannaim,
> etc, etc.
>
> He, more correctly, defined Judaism as a civilization, in which
> religion was one of its many elements.
>
> Institutionally, today, there are five different religious
> Judaisms: (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Humanistic, Orthodox,
> Reconstructionist, and Reform.
>
> There also are a number of secularist Judaisms, as illustrated by
> the plethora of Jewish organizations that exist for the sake of elevating
> humanity in general, promoting Jewish learning, fighting anti-Semitism,
> building better interfaith relations, and many more.
>
> No one group, and no one individual has a monopoly on being
> Jewish. Whether by birth or by choice, we are all members of this wonderful
> civilization. We, as klal Yisrael, define it daily as it grows and changes.
>
> Let us continue our dialogue, rasing our sights and lowering our
> voices, as we celebrate the reality that no one has a monopoly on truth.
>
> Rabbi Emeritus, Temple Emet
>
>>>>
How wonderfully open minded and inspirational this is!
May I ask...what is the meaning of the term 'musmach'
as you used it in the first paragraph?
Regards,
td
tda...@panix.com
> In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
>
> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
>
> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>
>
>
>Now didn't you recently suggest that is is a sin
to publicly say something bad about a rabbi?
td
Jacob Love
Lisa Aaronson <li...@interport.net> wrote:
>Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
Quite possibly you may be involved in a "minor" thing called lashon
hara`.
tda...@panix.com
> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) wrote:
> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
> >
> >: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
> >: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
> >
> >: etc, etc.
> >
> >: He, more correctly, defined Judaism as a civilization, in which
> >: religion was one of its many elements.
> >
> >: Institutionally, today, there are five different religious
> >: Judaisms: (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Humanistic, Orthodox,
> >: Reconstructionist, and Reform.
> >
> >: There also are a number of secularist Judaisms, as illustrated by
> >: the plethora of Jewish organizations that exist for the sake of elevating
> >: humanity in general, promoting Jewish learning, fighting anti-Semitism,
> >: building better interfaith relations, and many more.
> >
> >: No one group, and no one individual has a monopoly on being
> >: Jewish. Whether by birth or by choice, we are all members of this wonderful
> >: civilization. We, as klal Yisrael, define it daily as it grows and changes.
> >
> >: Let us continue our dialogue, rasing our sights and lowering our
> >: voices, as we celebrate the reality that no one has a monopoly on truth.
> >
> >
> >which is also known as emet.
> >
>
> faceted truth?
>
> Martin Fox
>
> >
> >
> >: Rabbi Emeritus, Temple Emet
>
>
>
>>>>
The problem is that some would say they are "the Chosen" among "the Chosen."
td
John Sherwood
In a previous article, tda...@panix.com () says:
>> ao...@lafn.org (John Sherwood) writes:
>>
>> At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>> orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>> There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>>
>> The religion of the Prophets was different from the religion of the
>> Levitical priests, which was different from the religion of the Tannaim,
>> etc, etc.
>>
>> He, more correctly, defined Judaism as a civilization, in which
>> religion was one of its many elements.
>>
>> Institutionally, today, there are five different religious
>> Judaisms: (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Humanistic, Orthodox,
>> Reconstructionist, and Reform.
>>
>> There also are a number of secularist Judaisms, as illustrated by
>> the plethora of Jewish organizations that exist for the sake of elevating
>> humanity in general, promoting Jewish learning, fighting anti-Semitism,
>> building better interfaith relations, and many more.
>>
>> No one group, and no one individual has a monopoly on being
>> Jewish. Whether by birth or by choice, we are all members of this wonderful
>> civilization. We, as klal Yisrael, define it daily as it grows and changes.
>>
>> Let us continue our dialogue, rasing our sights and lowering our
>> voices, as we celebrate the reality that no one has a monopoly on truth.
>>
>> Dr. John M. Sherwood
>> Rabbi Emeritus, Temple Emet
>>
>>>>>
>Dear Rabbi:
>
>How wonderfully open minded and inspirational this is!
>
>May I ask...what is the meaning of the term 'musmach'
>as you used it in the first paragraph?
>
>Regards,
>
>
>td
>
Dear friend,
Thanks for your inquiry, and for your kind words. A musmach is one who
has received ordination. S'michah is the act of ordination and the
certificate that says it has happened. The two words have the same
derivation. The term musmach is usually used as an in-house reference to a
rabbi.
Rabbi Kaplan z"l actually was ordained twice, in 1902 at JTS (conservative)
and in 1908 by Rabbi Yitchak Reines, a reknowned Orthodox rabbi in Lida,
Russia. His first pulpit was an orthodox congregation in New York.
Shalom,
Rab JMS
John Sherwood
In a previous article, hfli...@csun.edu (wayne cohen) says:
>Lisa Aaronson (li...@interport.net) wrote:
>> In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) writes:
>
>> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
>
>> >: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>> >: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>
>> Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
>
>> Lisa
Fact. Rabbi Kaplan z"l received his first ordination in 1902 at JTS,
which is conservative. So far you are correct.
Add a little research, and you will discover that he received a
second ordination from Rabbi Yitchak Reines of Lida Russia, a prominent
orthodox scholar. Rabbi Kaplan's first pulpit was Kehilath Jeshhurin, a
major orthodox synagogue in NY.
Documentation of this may be found inthe American Jewish
Archives, Volume XLVI, No. 1.
Lisa, Derech eretz prohibits the use of such terms as "of less
than blessed memory". Be critical. Disagree honestly and with passion.
Demonstrate your sense of humor, which I enjoy even when not agreeing
with your point of view. But, please, don't use nasty ploys.
Shalom,
Rab JMS
John Sherwood
<lisa.1419...@interport.net> <4epjap$b...@news1.panix.com>
Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net
In a previous article, li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) says:
>In article <4epjap$b...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
>
>>> li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) writes:
>>> In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss)
>>writes:
>>>
>>> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
>>>
>>> >: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>>> >: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>>> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>>>
>>> Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
>>>
>>> Lisa
>>>
>>>Now didn't you recently suggest that is is a sin
>>to publicly say something bad about a rabbi?
>
>Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
>
>Just curious,
>Lisa
You may not like his conservative ordination, but see my earlier post
about his orthodox s'michah. (957231)
Shalom,
Rab JMS
Lisa Aaronson
>> >>Now didn't you recently suggest that is is a sin
>> >to publicly say something bad about a rabbi?
>>
>> Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
> Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
>non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
About a choteh u'machti et ha'rabim? No.
Lisa Aaronson
>>>: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>>>: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
>>>: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>>
>>Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
> Whoa there, nelly. Kaplan LEFT the Conservative movement
>and started an atheistic movement. As soon as he did that he was
>no longer Conservative.
Pantheistic; not atheistic ("...that power in the cosmos, including man, which
makes for the salvation of men and nations." - Yechh!).
Harry Weiss
: <lisa.1437...@interport.net>
: Organization: The Los Angeles Free-Net
: In a previous article, li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) says:
: >In article <4epjap$b...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
: >
: >>> li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) writes:
: >>> In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com> hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss)
: >>writes:
: >>>
: >>> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
: >>>
: >>> >: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
: >>> >: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
: >>> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
: >>>
: >>> Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
: >>>
: >>> Lisa
: >>>
: >>>Now didn't you recently suggest that is is a sin
: >>to publicly say something bad about a rabbi?
: >
: >Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
: >
: >Just curious,
: >Lisa
: You may not like his conservative ordination, but see my earlier post
: about his orthodox s'michah. (957231)
: Shalom,
: Rab JMS
So you are saying he was wicked person who was knowingly wicked rather
than through lack of knowledge. That makes him even worse.
Harry
Jacob Love
Robert Kaiser <kai...@pofvax.pnb.sunysb.edu> wrote:
> Whoa there, nelly. Kaplan LEFT the Conservative movement
>and started an atheistic movement. As soon as he did that he was
>no longer Conservative.
This is true, however, as has already been pointed out, there is no
method within Judaism (at least of which I am aware) to "defrock" a
rabbi. My understanding is that at JTS there are two types of
ordination offered, public and private. Public ordination consists of
receiving the academic credential which attests to the completion of
the academic program. Private ordination consists of the smikhah ritual
in which authority is passed from one person who received it from their
rav to the disciple. Thus, in the JTS world it is possible to have
the academic credential, but lack the traditional ritual.
It is interesting to note that most of the founding authorities for
Reform also had authentic smikhah (to the extent that the term has
post-Talmudic meaning). My recollection of the Reform position is that
they argue that the academic credentialling ceremony creates the
transmission of smikhah and that the private ceremony is not
necessary. I don't know whether any Reform rabbis do it anyway.
Fresh816
You've probably never been to a reconstructionist shul, have you?
John Sherwood
>>and started an atheistic movement. As soon as he did that he was
>>no longer Conservative.
>
>makes for the salvation of men and nations." - Yechh!).
>
>Lisa
>
possible meanings of the term God".
Rabbi Kaplan was not the only one to offer a definition relevant
to contemporary Jewry. For example, Rabbi Roland Gittlesohn, z"l, "the
power that makes for the upward surge in evolution and ethics", and Rabbi
Alvin Reines, "the enduring possibility of being."
We can not be bound by the past. Even orthodoxy is constantly
evolving, thank God, however you choose to define that term. Read Avot
1:1. The tannaim completely cut out the priesthood and the kings from the
chain of tradition. Study the prosbul (legal fiction) of Rabbi Hillel,
which, through the vehicle of interpretation, completely, in effect, did
away with the yovel (the Jubilee year).
Lisa Aaronson
>>>> Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
>>>>Now didn't you recently suggest that is is a sin
>>>to publicly say something bad about a rabbi?
>>Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
>>
>>Just curious,
>You may not like his conservative ordination, but see my earlier post
>about his orthodox s'michah. (957231)
Worse. A Jew who started out properly doesn't even have the excuse of being
k'tinok she'nishba. This just makes him more of a rasha.
Lisa Aaronson
>Kaplan was NOT an atheist, nor in reconstructionism atheistic.
>You've probably never been to a reconstructionist shul, have you?
A lot of people get the kind of primitive pantheism touted by the
Reconstructionist movement mixed up with atheism. Understandable.
Harry Weiss
Pruzbul has nothing to do with Yovel - Jubille year. The yovel stopped
for numerous reasons before Hilel was even born. The pruzbul has to do
with loans and shmita to encourage lending money to those in need.
Shmita is still in effect today. The year before last was Shmita.
This is something that most elementary school children are expected to
know. That someone who claims to be a rabbi doees not know it shows
what a farce the reform religion is.
Harry
Harry Weiss
: Hello
: I came to America about 6 years ago and since then i've read some books
: on the Jewish revival in USSR in the 70-80's. From what i understand the
: people involved, both in USSR and outside were mostly O. Do I have the
: right impression and if so why weren't there any C or R?
: Thank you
: Ilya Grinberg
Your assumption is correct. It has traditionally been only Orthodox that
has been involved in outreach. The liberal groups believe that everyone
should do as they wish so they had no with Marxism vs. Judaism.
Traditionally most Jewish religious causes are not given priority by the
R or C untill it becomes financially advantageous or PC.
Harry
Harry Weiss
: On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Lisa Aaronson wrote:
: > In article <4epjap$b...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
: >
: > >> li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) writes:
: > >>
: > >> >John Sherwood (ao...@lafn.org) wrote:
: > >>
: > >> >: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
: > >> >: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
: > >> >: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
: > >>
: > >> Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative "rabbi".
: > >>
: > >> Lisa
: > >>
: > >>Now didn't you recently suggest that is is a sin
: > >to publicly say something bad about a rabbi?
: >
: > Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
: Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
: non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
: Just curious,
: Yehudis
It is absolutely not a sin. Look at what the Tanach say about the evil
people such as Achav, the King Menashe, Korah, etc.
Kaplan was a Choteh u Muchteh as Harabim. A sinner who caused many more
to sin. He is considered the lowest level possible.
It is true that one may not say Ymach Shmo- May his name be blotted out
about a Jew, but one may say Dam Reshaim Yirkov - The blood of the
wicked will rot.
Harry
Ilya Grinberg
Ilya Grinberg
I'd like to ask the R and C people a few questions. First of all why
don't the C accept the reform halacha (if it exists)? Secondly what do
the reform think about it? Thirdly, statistically speaking the rate of
assimilation by which i mean people not identifying themselves as Jews
but rather as American is much much greater in C and R communities than
in the O ones, do thje R and C rabbis think that it is a problem and if
so how do they intend to fix it? Fourthly, if a religion by definition
concerns itself with eternal values and truths than how come the R and C
position on such matters as Shabbos, egalitarian minyanim, kasrus, etc.
varied so much over the last 100 years?
Another question i have is for rabbi Sherwood, from what i understand the
R do not accept all of Rambam's 13 principles, since they state that
Torah is eternal, cannot be changed and given directly from God. Now
since the Rambam's principles wer accepted by all Jews of that time and
following until the 18th-19th century, then how can you speak of R being
in harmony with" traditional" Judaism, i.e. Judaism which existed since
the Temple times? Basically what i am trying to say is that for a
religion to have any authority it must claim that its origins are
divine, a claim which reform cannot make as it was created by people who
broke away from the claim of traditional Judaism. My point is basically
is that from what i understand is that the R judaism is a man-made
religion trying to substitue the new truth for the old tradition, much
like xianity, islam, communism, etc. (by traditional judaism i mean
judaism as it existed from the times of the Temple).
These questions always puzzled me and because of them most Russian
immigrants like myself, from my experience, having no exposure to any jewish
religion
in Russia, whatsoever, tend to regard the O as the real thing, even if
not necessarily believing.
Thank you very much
Ilya "eliyahu" grinberg
Fresh816
My answers come from the "left-wing C" perspective
1) I'm not entirely sure on this one, but I think the key difference is
oral Torah, which I believe Reform rejects and which Conservativism, for
the most part, accepts.
2) Not an R, so won't answer
3) I saw Harold Kushner speak last night (I believe he's C)--he said the
solution to the problem of intermarriage was welcoming converts more
openly. I tend to agree, being a convert myself. As for other forms of
assimilation, we must remember that Judaism is our RELIGION, which
dictates SOME aspects of our cultural lives, but not all. If we want to
vote here, and enjoy the rights of US citizenship, we cannot deny that we
are Nationally American, and Religiously Jewish.
4) My best guess to your last question would be, well, we were looking for
the eternal truths that we (or our precessors) DIDN'T find via Orthodoxy.
Hope that helps a little,
Andrew
John Sherwood
In a previous article, kai...@pofvax.pnb.sunysb.edu (Robert Kaiser) says:
>
>
>>>: At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
>>>: orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long
time. >>>: There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
>> >>Mordecai Kaplan, of less than blessed memory, was a Conservative
"rabbi". > > > Whoa there, nelly. Kaplan LEFT the Conservative movement
>and started an atheistic movement. As soon as he did that he was >no
longer Conservative. > >Robert See my earlier post. He was also ordained
orthodox. Who taught you that reconstructionism is atheistic. Not true.
Read "Judaism as a civilization".
Rabbi John M. Sherwood
Victor Yodaiken
The poor fellow was not at the standard of your hero Kahane. But not
everyone has the stomach to advertise the
Nuremburg doctrine as Torah, you know.
Some people have some intelligence, some personal integrity, some
learning, and love of israel. I know these qualities excite your
contempt.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> At the turn of the twentieth century, Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, an
> orthodox musmach, first voiced what had been a reality for a long time.
> There is no such thing as a specific religion called Judaism.
Sigh ......
Mordechai Menachem Kaplan, founder of the Reconstructionist movement,
was ordained at the CONSERVATIVE Jewish Theological Seminary and started
his career at Kehilat Yeshurun Congregation in NYC. He was about as
Orthodox as you are :-)
>
> The religion of the Prophets was different from the religion of the
> Levitical priests, which was different from the religion of the Tannaim,
> etc, etc.
>
> He, more correctly, defined Judaism as a civilization, in which
> religion was one of its many elements.
>
> Institutionally, today, there are five different religious
> Judaisms: (in alphabetical order) Conservative, Humanistic, Orthodox,
> Reconstructionist, and Reform.
>
> There also are a number of secularist Judaisms, as illustrated by
> the plethora of Jewish organizations that exist for the sake of elevating
> humanity in general, promoting Jewish learning, fighting anti-Semitism,
> building better interfaith relations, and many more.
>
> No one group, and no one individual has a monopoly on being
> Jewish. Whether by birth or by choice, we are all members of this wonderful
> civilization. We, as klal Yisrael, define it daily as it grows and changes.
>
> Let us continue our dialogue, rasing our sights and lowering our
> voices, as we celebrate the reality that no one has a monopoly on truth.
I just LOVE this kind of gibberish. You remind me of an old MAD Magazine
satire on politicians. Go away ! I have shown your posts to no less than
two Reform rabbis in Jerusalem and even they were repulsed by your
nonsense. You are an embarrassment to Judaism.
Thomas G. Shafer
>But which of us can claim to have the only true understanding of that many
>faceted truth?
>
>Martin Fox
>
A quick re read of the last chapters of Job can be quite instructional in
this regard. G-d is so vast and his creation is incredibly complex. How
can any person or group claim to completely understand Him, His ways or
His will?
Shalom, Tom
Micha Berger
: Rabbi Kaplan z"l actually was ordained twice, in 1902 at JTS (conservative)
: Russia. His first pulpit was an orthodox congregation in New York.
I believe that calling the JTS of 1902 "Conservative" is an anachronism.
While JTS later became the flagship of the C movement, I don't think C
existed in 1902. JTS was just left-wing O. Certainly the "historical
approach" to halachah did not dominate yet.
--
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3255 days!
Ais...@haven.ios.com (16-Oct-86 - 5-Oct-95)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
Polar
Aaronson) writes:
>
>In article <1996Feb1.2...@lafn.org> ao...@lafn.org (John
Sherwood) writes:
>
>Worse. A Jew who started out properly doesn't even have the excuse of
being
>k'tinok she'nishba. This just makes him more of a rasha.
>
of Hebrew terms.
Polar
>
Polar
writes:
>
>Ilya Grinberg (ig...@columbia.edu) wrote:
>
><snip>
>Your assumption is correct. It has traditionally been only Orthodox
that
>has been involved in outreach. The liberal groups believe that
everyone
>should do as they wish so they had no with Marxism vs. Judaism.
>
>Traditionally most Jewish religious causes are not given priority by
the
>R or C untill it becomes financially advantageous or PC.
>
Well, here goes, lashan hara or not! Harry is not only smug but
downright snotty about anyone who differs from his own iron-clad
certainty. He & Lisa (they have more in common than they appear to be
willing to concede!) deserve a newsgroup all their own, where we lesser
mortals would not contaminate their pure air. Except for an occasional
visit to monitor how much they are tearing out each other's hair.
Feh!
Polar
Jeff Amdur
Aaronson) wrote:
> Worse. A Jew who started out properly doesn't even have the excuse of being
> k'tinok she'nishba. This just makes him more of a rasha.
We are all Jews here. Please, let's stop the intolerance and respect the
beliefs of one another. We here are beginning to sound like the
fundamentalist goyim who each talk about their version of Xianity being
the "absolute truth".
Enough is enough!!!
--
Jeff Amdur
quality foreign language instruction since 1971 (Oy, gevalt! THAT long?!?)
quality timekeeping for sports events since 1973
Doing all that stuff at Arundel High School in Gambrills, Md. since 1977
e-mail je...@clark.net or (VERY last resort) jia...@umd5.umd.edu
Lisa Aaronson
> Lisa, Derech eretz prohibits the use of such terms as "of less
>than blessed memory". Be critical. Disagree honestly and with passion.
>Demonstrate your sense of humor, which I enjoy even when not agreeing
>with your point of view. But, please, don't use nasty ploys.
No, John. It doesn't prohibit any such thing. In fact, in the case of a
choteh u'machti et ha'rabim, it even encourages it. There are those who hold
that "yimach sh'mo" would be out of line, but others who disagree. And "shem
r'shaim y'rakeiv" fits as well.
You'd be less likely to get one of these after your name, only because there's
little evidence that you even know better. If Kaplan actually did have real
smicha, then he did know better and was a worse person and a worse Jew for it.
Lisa Aaronson
>Pruzbul has nothing to do with Yovel - Jubille year. The yovel stopped
>for numerous reasons before Hilel was even born. The pruzbul has to do
>with loans and shmita to encourage lending money to those in need.
>Shmita is still in effect today. The year before last was Shmita.
And according to my rav, the prosbul won't even work when Shmitta is d'orayta.
And as long as the Yovel isn't operative, neither is Shmitta (except
d'rabbanan).
>This is something that most elementary school children are expected to
>know. That someone who claims to be a rabbi doees not know it shows
>what a farce the reform religion is.
You sound surprised, Harry. I have friends who are Reform, even Reform
"rabbis". All of them have gotten pained looks on their faces from this
refugee from the Pittsburgh Platform.
Lisa Aaronson
>Orthodox Judaism---Yechh!*
>Now why is it ok for YOU to say "Yechh" to
>someone else's belief, but no one can say the
>same about yours? Are you THAT chosen or just
>THAT confused?
Um, Ted...? Because Orthodox Judaism is Judaism. Reconstructionism is not.
Is that hard for you to understand? I thought so.
Lisa Aaronson
>In article <lisa.1437...@interport.net>,
>Lisa Aaronson <li...@interport.net> wrote:
>>Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
>Quite possibly you may be involved in a "minor" thing called lashon
>hara`.
Well, Jacob, you might want to run out and get a copy of the Chafeitz Chaim's
Shmirat HaLashon and read it. There's even an English translation. Speaking
badly about rashaim is *not* lashon hara.
Lisa Aaronson
>> >> Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
>>
>> > Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
>> >non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
>>
>> About a choteh u'machti et ha'rabim? No.
>Oh, speak English will ya?
Oh, get a life. And a Jewish education, will you? And Gwen, I'm not flaming
this jerk for being ignorant, just for being an ass.
Ilya Grinberg
I posted this some time ago and did not receive a reply. Are the R
afraid of these questions?
Ilya Grinberg
Nu, reply somebody.
Olga from the Volga
>In article <4f0unr$p...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
>>> >> Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
>>>
>>> > Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
>>> >non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
>>>
>>> About a choteh u'machti et ha'rabim? No.
>>Oh, speak English will ya?
>Oh, get a life. And a Jewish education, will you? And Gwen, I'm not flaming
>this jerk for being ignorant, just for being an ass.
Its considerate to translate. Not *everybody* has their face in the
talmud all the time. Even people who are *almost* as observant as you
are.
Hopefully nobody will have a Jewish education like yours, because it
turned you into a 100% positively controlling meanspirited person.
This is NOT what your shul teaches you.
Lisa Aaronson
>What a lame answer, Lisa.
It's not at all lame, Gwen. This whole argument revolves around the fact that
you believe in pluralism and we (Orthodox/Torah/Normative Judaism) do not. We
don't accept your pluralism and you don't accept our lack of it.
But that being the case, we are at least being consistent with our principles.
You are not. You insist that we adopt a pluralist stance. That we preface
everything we say with "In my opinion", or "at least, according to Orthodoxy".
You insist that we accept without argument the premise that there are various
denominations in Judaism and that they all have value.
You insist that we abandon everything we believe in and be like you instead.
You are a hypocrite, Gwen. Nothing more. Get down off of your high horse,
will you?
>Rudeness is rudeness, you have no excuse.
Ted is one of the rudest things to appear on this newsgroup. His vile and
hateful rantings are appalling. He probably stamps his feet and holds his
breath until he turns blue as he's writing. I *need* no excuse.
>You are entitled to your opinion, but your manner of expressing
>it is shameful in someone over the age of eight.
Your hypocrisy is shameful. Period. No age limit there.
Gwen A Orel
him without reducing yourself to insults? Your points would
be much better received by all if you did.
Gwen
Lisa Aaronson (li...@interport.net) wrote:
: In article <4f0unr$p...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
: >> >> Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
: >>
: >> > Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
: >> >non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
: >>
: >> About a choteh u'machti et ha'rabim? No.
: >Oh, speak English will ya?
: Oh, get a life. And a Jewish education, will you? And Gwen, I'm not flaming
: this jerk for being ignorant, just for being an ass.
: Lisa
: -------------------------------------
: I still believe in all my dreams
: And all that I can be
: I'll learn from mistakes, do all that it takes
: To make it eventually
: 'Cause I still believe in me.
: - from the TV show "Fame"
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Matthew P Wiener
>Well, Jacob, you might want to run out and get a copy of the Chafeitz
>Chaim's Shmirat HaLashon and read it. There's even an English
>translation. Speaking badly about rashaim is *not* lashon hara.
It _is_ lashon hara. But it is permitted in such cases. Note that
one is still not permitted to exaggerate.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Gwen A Orel
Rudeness is rudeness, you have no excuse.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your manner of expressing
it is shameful in someone over the age of eight.
Disgusted,
Gwen
Lisa Aaronson (li...@interport.net) wrote:
: In article <4f0tf6$p...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
: >Orthodox Judaism---Yechh!*
: >Now why is it ok for YOU to say "Yechh" to
: >someone else's belief, but no one can say the
: >same about yours? Are you THAT chosen or just
: >THAT confused?
: Um, Ted...? Because Orthodox Judaism is Judaism. Reconstructionism is not.
: Is that hard for you to understand? I thought so.
: Lisa
tda...@panix.com
>
>
> It is absolutely not a sin. Look at what the Tanach say about the evil
> people such as Achav, the King Menashe, Korah, etc.
>
> Kaplan was a Choteh u Muchteh as Harabim. A sinner who caused many more
> to sin. He is considered the lowest level possible.
>
> It is true that one may not say Ymach Shmo- May his name be blotted out
> about a Jew, but one may say Dam Reshaim Yirkov - The blood of the
> wicked will rot.
>
> Harry
>
>>>>
of us who do not deeber ivreet.
td
Lisa Aaronson
>In a previous article, li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) says:
>>
>>> Whoa there, nelly. Kaplan LEFT the Conservative movement
>>>and started an atheistic movement. As soon as he did that he was
>>>no longer Conservative.
>>
>>Pantheistic; not atheistic ("...that power in the cosmos, including man, which
>>makes for the salvation of men and nations." - Yechh!).
> Rabbi Kaplan was not the only one to offer a definition relevant
>to contemporary Jewry. For example, Rabbi Roland Gittlesohn, z"l, "the
>power that makes for the upward surge in evolution and ethics", and Rabbi
>Alvin Reines, "the enduring possibility of being."
The term is "irrelevant", John. Not "relevant".
> We can not be bound by the past. Even orthodoxy is constantly
>evolving, thank God, however you choose to define that term. Read Avot
>1:1. The tannaim completely cut out the priesthood and the kings from the
>chain of tradition. Study the prosbul (legal fiction) of Rabbi Hillel,
>which, through the vehicle of interpretation, completely, in effect, did
>away with the yovel (the Jubilee year).
Really, John? How amusing. I've read Avot 1:1 (and the rest of it). What
does the fact that Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to
Joshua have to do with you rejecting that very Torah?
The prosbul wasn't a legal fiction. Hillel is not and was never called Rabbi
Hillel. The prosbul didn't work through interpretation. The prosbul had
nothing whatsoever to do with the Jubilee year. The prosbul didn't even "do
away with" the release of loans on a Sabbatical year (which was probably what
you meant). Rather, it created a leniency in the d'rabbanan Sabbatical year
which was the only one in effect at the time. The rabbis instituted it; they
are entitled to modify it. This has nothing to do with the d'orayta
Sabbatical year, which hadn't been in effect for centuries before the time of
Hillel.
Now, John, given all the examples of egregious ignorance in your post, why do
you think you should be respected and granted the title of "rabbi". Sort of
like devaluing currency, don't you think?
Lisa Aaronson
>But Lisa, why flame at all? Can't you find a way to criticize
>him without reducing yourself to insults? Your points would
>be much better received by all if you did.
Why do you say that when you know it isn't true. You and others who object to
my posts object first and format to the fact that I refuse to acknowledge any
kind of "legitimacy" in your "judaisms". There are some people who have
objected to my style who I know share most of these views, but the vast
majority, such as you, simply find it easier to attack the form, rather than
the content, of what I've written.
It's been suggested to me that by writing as I do, I make it easier for you
precisely in that way. And that if I did the soft-spoken thing, you'd have a
more difficult time of it, because you'd have to address the actual issues.
Maybe.
Thomas G. Shafer
>1) I'm not entirely sure on this one, but I think the key difference is
>oral Torah, which I believe Reform rejects and which Conservativism, for
>the most part, accepts.
I'm not sure it is so much a matter of rejecting as seeing the Oral
traditions differently. Reform tends to view the tradition as the product
of man's minds trying to understand G-d and a constantly evolving thing.
Most Reform theologians would dispute the belief that Oral Tradition was
handed down to Moshe at the same time as the Torah, if this is what you
mean by rejecting.
>3) I saw Harold Kushner speak last night (I believe he's C)--
This is how he describes himself.
>he said the
>solution to the problem of intermarriage was welcoming converts more
>openly. I tend to agree, being a convert myself.
Major good point. The fact that someone would marry a Jew without
insisting that the Jew convert certainly indicates respect for Jewish
tradition on the part of the Gentile spouse. Ever think that G-d may call
some people to convert by giving them Jews to fall in love with?
> As for other forms of
>assimilation, we must remember that Judaism is our RELIGION, which
>dictates SOME aspects of our cultural lives, but not all. If we want to
>vote here, and enjoy the rights of US citizenship, we cannot deny that we
>are Nationally American, and Religiously Jewish.
Big issue for many religions really. American Jews can tend to be
different just like American Catholics, etc. One of the major differences
is a tradition of respect for other people's beliefs and observances.
Thomas Jefferson wrote his"Statue for Religious Freedom" for the Virginia
colonial legislature after consulting with Jewish friends, among others.
He considered this statute the greatest accomplishment of his life.
Shalom Andrew, Tom
Simcha Streltsov
: Ilya Grinberg (ig...@columbia.edu) wrote:
: : Hello
: : I came to America about 6 years ago and since then i've read some books
: : on the Jewish revival in USSR in the 70-80's. From what i understand the
: : people involved, both in USSR and outside were mostly O. Do I have the
: : right impression and if so why weren't there any C or R?
: Your assumption is correct. It has traditionally been only Orthodox that
: has been involved in outreach. The liberal groups believe that everyone
: should do as they wish so they had no with Marxism vs. Judaism.
Hi, I came here same time as Ilya -
as to Jewish revival in the 70-s/80-s -
I can attest mostly for Moscow "intellegentsia"
that has almost no previous connection with religious life
(that is partly different from Ukraine and Baltics).
Many future religious teachers started in early 70-s
after they were refused to emigrate to ISrael:
they first started learning Hebrew, and reading secular zionist
literature. With more reading, came more questions,
and many of those people became religious, and where teaching others.
thje level of desolation at that time is described
by Herman Branover who went to Riga and met an old observant Jew there -
when they went to the synagogue together - the old man was shining
when he showed his friend that he brought a person below 50 y.o.
Indeed, even in the early 80-s, in Moscow shul, most of the people
were older than 70, or younger than 30 with noone in between.
I would estimate that a majority of the first observant waive started
as "religious zionists", but many moved later towards more
"black hat".
As to emissars who were bringing books, teachers, etc -
I would name Bnei Akiva in Israel, British, NY, Batimore, Lakewood
yeshivot. In many cases, Israelis could not go directly
as "tourists" to USSR, therefore, a number of people were
Americans who lived in Israel (and used their American passport
to travel - sometimes they were saying to us that they Americans,
so it is hard to tell who was what)
As to the orignal question - I recall at least one Reform ((?) book that
was going around in photocopies - Diamond "Jews, God and History",
but I do not recall actually meeting anyone - beyond the biannual
International book Fair (that's where Diamond came from, I think).
But who knows - maybe they were posing as Chabadnikim (-:
The sad appendix to the story:
AFAIK (newspapers): major American non-Orthodox organizations
helped to "elect" a KGB representative - former Moscow Rabbi -
to be the Rabbi of Russia - over the Orthodox Rabbi
(if there are any changes - please, let me know!)
Simcha Streltsov to subscribe send
Moderator of Russian-Jews List sub russian-jews <fullname>
sim...@shamash.org to list...@shamash.org
home page: http://cad.bu.edu/go/home.html
archives via WWW: http://shamash.org/lists/russian-jews
Jerry B Altzman
Jeff Amdur <je...@clark.net> wrote:
>We are all Jews here. Please, let's stop the intolerance and respect the
>beliefs of one another. We here are beginning to sound like the
Even when the beliefs are dead wrong and, worse, actively bad, according to
the traditional view?
>fundamentalist goyim who each talk about their version of Xianity being
>the "absolute truth".
What, you mean there's no "absolute truth"? My math degree was a waste!
>Jeff Amdur
//jbaltz
jerry b. altzman Entropy just isn't what it used to be +1 212 650 5617
jba...@columbia.edu jba...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML (HEPNET) NEVIS::jbaltz
Fresh816
While I don't know one way or the other if the outreach programs in the
USSR were mainly O, I DO know that here in New York, the vast majority of
outreach programs are run by either National Jewish Outreach or Chabad,
both of which are O organizations.
And dat's all I know. I posted another thing to you about OCR
differences; hope you got it.
Andrew
Jonathan Baker
>Mordechai Menachem Kaplan, founder of the Reconstructionist movement,
>was ordained at the CONSERVATIVE Jewish Theological Seminary and started
>his career at Kehilat Yeshurun Congregation in NYC. He was about as
>Orthodox as you are :-)
You have no idea of the state of American rabbinical seminaries in
1900, do you? Nor do you have any idea of who were major figures in
American Orthodoxy of the time. While he may have made his name on
"loony" ideas, Mordechai Kaplan was raised Orthodox, had an Orthodox
rabbinic education, and served under two of the greatest Orthodox
rabbis in the early part of this century in America. The Jewish
Theological Seminary was the major Orthodox rabbinical school at the
time (RIETS was still much smaller, having started ten years later)
although rather small. The Rabbi of Kehillath Jeshurun was Rabbi
Moshe Zevulun Margolies, the preeminent Orthodox Rabbi in America
at the time. Rabbi Margolies was also the head of the RIETS, the
yeshiva that later became YU. Rabbi Kaplan later became assistant
rabbi at the Jewish Center, the first Jewish Center (as in big bldg
with gym, pool, classes for the community, & other services, not just
a shul & besmedresh) in America, founded by my great-great-uncle,
Joseph H. Cohen z"l. As far as I know, it is the only Jewish Center
that is and always was Orthodox. At the time, Rabbi Leo Jung was the
main rabbi (I think) who was also a major figure in American Orthodoxy.
Apparently, rumor has it that the leadership at the Jewish Center thought
that Kaplan had some nutty ideas, but they couldn't bring themselves
to fire him. It was while at the Jewish Center that he invented the
bas-mitzvah for his daughter Judith Kaplan Eisenstein in 1916, a rite
that has been adopted across the board in America, from Lubavitch to
Reform.
To rephrase your paragraph above,
Mordechai Menachem Kaplan ... was ordained at the ORTHODOX Jewish
Theological Seminary and started his career at the ORTHODOX Kehilat
Yeshurun Congregation in NY. He was about as Orthodox as you are.
What he did later did not reflect a CONSERVATIVE upbringing. It was
a product of his own efforts.
It's very easy to disassociate yourself from someone you find odious
by saying "He's not one of us". Christians do this all the time
("Those guys who did the Crusades/Holocaust/whatever weren't REAL
Christians") However, he is very much one of us. (Also, at least
some of his grandchildren & great-grandchildren are frum).
Jonathan Baker
ba...@sacco.nyu.edu.
Harry Weiss
: li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) wrote:
: >In article <4f0unr$p...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
: >>> >> Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
: >>>
: >>> > Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
: >>> >non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
: >>>
: >>> About a choteh u'machti et ha'rabim? No.
: >>Oh, speak English will ya?
: >Oh, get a life. And a Jewish education, will you? And Gwen, I'm not flaming
: >this jerk for being ignorant, just for being an ass.
: Its considerate to translate. Not *everybody* has their face in the
: talmud all the time. Even people who are *almost* as observant as you
: are.
Choteh U Machti et Harabim is a sinner who cause many others to sin.
: Hopefully nobody will have a Jewish education like yours, because it
: turned you into a 100% positively controlling meanspirited person.
: This is NOT what your shul teaches you.
While Lisa opinion's may be expresed overly strong at time I don't think
they are meanspirited. What I do find extremely meanspirited are people
like you. It often hard not to respond in kind.
Harry
: >Lisa
Gwen A Orel
: In article <4f18t5$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) writes:
: >What a lame answer, Lisa.
: It's not at all lame, Gwen. This whole argument revolves around the fact that
: you believe in pluralism and we (Orthodox/Torah/Normative Judaism) do not. We
: don't accept your pluralism and you don't accept our lack of it.
: But that being the case, we are at least being consistent with our principles.
: You are not. You insist that we adopt a pluralist stance. That we preface
: everything we say with "In my opinion", or "at least, according to Orthodoxy".
According to Orthodoxy is a phrase that has yet to preface your statements,
but one which would be very appropriate, considering this is a forum for
*all Jews* of whom, you are quite aware, not all are Orthodox.
: You insist that we accept without argument the premise that there are various
: denominations in Judaism and that they all have value.
That is two thoughts conflated into one.
That there are different denominations is fact.
What value they have is opinion.
: You insist that we abandon everything we believe in and be like you instead.
Oh, where? If by this you mean, polite, then yes, I do.
: You are a hypocrite, Gwen. Nothing more. Get down off of your high horse,
: will you?
I'm not a hypocrite. I'm just someone who realizes that not everyone
shares my opinions, no matter how right I consider them, and that when
I discuss my opinions with others, I won't get very far by insulting people
for not sharing them.
: >Rudeness is rudeness, you have no excuse.
: Ted is one of the rudest things to appear on this newsgroup. His vile and
: hateful rantings are appalling. He probably stamps his feet and holds his
: breath until he turns blue as he's writing. I *need* no excuse.
Why sink to his level, then?
: >You are entitled to your opinion, but your manner of expressing
: >it is shameful in someone over the age of eight.
: Your hypocrisy is shameful. Period. No age limit there.
My being able to talk politely with people whose opinions I do
not share is not hypocrisy. It's self-control.
Gwen
Gwen A Orel
: In article <4f18vf$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel) writes:
: >But Lisa, why flame at all? Can't you find a way to criticize
: >him without reducing yourself to insults? Your points would
: >be much better received by all if you did.
: Why do you say that when you know it isn't true. You and others who object to
I wouldn't say it if I didn't think it was true. Consider how much
respect Debra, Hadass and others gain for their *manner* of expressing
themselves. People have come to expect vitriol from you, which ultimately
damages the content of your posts.
: my posts object first and format to the fact that I refuse to acknowledge any
: kind of "legitimacy" in your "judaisms". There are some people who have
: objected to my style who I know share most of these views, but the vast
: majority, such as you, simply find it easier to attack the form, rather than
: the content, of what I've written.
It's not that it's easier, Lisa. It's appropriate. About matters of
spirituality and belief, it's not reasonable to expect those you insult
to trust/honor your opinions.
: It's been suggested to me that by writing as I do, I make it easier for you
: precisely in that way. And that if I did the soft-spoken thing, you'd have a
: more difficult time of it, because you'd have to address the actual issues.
: Maybe.
Definitely.
Your arguments would be much stronger if you expressed them in a way
that suggested you heard what was said, cared about communicating, and
respected the people you were talking to-- while pitying their misguided
ways.
Jacob Love
Lisa Aaronson <li...@interport.net> wrote:
>Well, Jacob, you might want to run out and get a copy of the Chafeitz Chaim's
>Shmirat HaLashon and read it. There's even an English translation. Speaking
>badly about rashaim is *not* lashon hara.
I have read it in the original many times, and I have not the slightest
doubt that the Hafetz Hayyim would hold you liable.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
tda...@panix.com
>
> >
> Well, here goes, lashan hara or not! Harry is not only smug but
> downright snotty about anyone who differs from his own iron-clad
> certainty. He & Lisa (they have more in common than they appear to be
> willing to concede!) deserve a newsgroup all their own, where we lesser
> mortals would not contaminate their pure air. Except for an occasional
> visit to monitor how much they are tearing out each other's hair.
>
> Feh!
>
> Polar
>
>>>>
Well put! And precisely my thoughts as well!
td
tda...@panix.com
>
> >Rudeness is rudeness, you have no excuse.
>
> Ted is one of the rudest things to appear on this newsgroup. His vile and
> hateful rantings are appalling. He probably stamps his feet and holds his
> breath until he turns blue as he's writing. I *need* no excuse.
I needn't stamp my feet, nor do I turn blue. I enjoy watching you
shame yourself. And each of your replies speaks reams about you
and about the way your parents raised you.
> >You are entitled to your opinion, but your manner of expressing
> >it is shameful in someone over the age of eight.
>
> Your hypocrisy is shameful. Period. No age limit there.
To believe differently than you is hypocrisy?
Repeat after me, " I will respect other people's points of view
even if I do not agree with them."
You're like the ex-alcoholic or ex-smoker...impossible to live with
because now everyone has to see the world thru your eyes.
td
Lisa Aaronson
>li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) wrote:
>>In article <4f0unr$p...@news1.panix.com> tda...@panix.com writes:
>>>> >> Well, close enough. What does that have to do with Mordechai Kaplan?
>>>>
>>>> > Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
>>>> >non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
>>>>
>>>> About a choteh u'machti et ha'rabim? No.
>>>Oh, speak English will ya?
>>Oh, get a life. And a Jewish education, will you? And Gwen, I'm not flaming
>>this jerk for being ignorant, just for being an ass.
>Its considerate to translate. Not *everybody* has their face in the
>talmud all the time. Even people who are *almost* as observant as you
>are.
That may be true, but it's not relevant here. Ted was just being a jerk.
That's all.
Richard Schultz
: I wouldn't say it if I didn't think it was true. Consider how much
: respect Debra, Hadass and others gain for their *manner* of expressing
: themselves. People have come to expect vitriol from you, which ultimately
: damages the content of your posts.
I normally don't pay much attention to any thread that has Lisa
Aaronson in it, but this caught my eye. When Debra, Hadass, and others
post things that are simply not true -- how much respect for them am I
supposed to have? (This is not saying how much respect for them I *do*
have -- only asking whether the sword should be expected to cut both
ways.) Especially when the untrue things are clearly posted for
polemical purposes.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
Lisa Aaronson
>Lisa Aaronson (li...@interport.net) wrote:
>: In article <4f18t5$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> gao...@pitt.edu (Gwen A Orel)
>writes:
>: >What a lame answer, Lisa.
>: It's not at all lame, Gwen. This whole argument revolves around the fact that
>: you believe in pluralism and we (Orthodox/Torah/Normative Judaism) do not. We
>: don't accept your pluralism and you don't accept our lack of it.
>: But that being the case, we are at least being consistent with our principles.
>: You are not. You insist that we adopt a pluralist stance. That we preface
>: everything we say with "In my opinion", or "at least, according to Orthodoxy".
>According to Orthodoxy is a phrase that has yet to preface your statements,
>but one which would be very appropriate, considering this is a forum for
>*all Jews* of whom, you are quite aware, not all are Orthodox.
But "according to Orthodoxy" would be a tacit admission that there are other
valid views. I'm not searching you out offline, tying you down and forcing
you to eat kosher food. I'm talking. Writing, actually. You have no right
to demand that I accept something which is wrong according to Judaism. You
have no right to demand that I adopt your view of multiple acceptable
denominations of Judaism.
You demand of others that which you object to yourself. I call that hypocrisy.
John Sherwood
>
>: Um, Ted...? Because Orthodox Judaism is Judaism. Reconstructionism is
not. >: Is that hard for you to understand? I thought so. > >: Lisa > >:
>
This is true according to Lisa, not according to the rest of the world.
Every board of rabbis in the country has O,C,Rec, and R rabbis, male and
female, gay and straight alike, in its membership.
The lady refuses to deal with reality, but chooses to live in her private
ultra-orthodox ghetto.
Rabbi John M. Sherwood, D.D.
Daniel P Faigin
> I'd like to ask the R and C people a few questions. First of all why
> don't the C accept the reform halacha (if it exists)?
In some areas, they intepret the halacha differently.
> Secondly what do the reform think about it?
There are many ways to read halacha.
> Thirdly, statistically speaking the rate of assimilation by which i mean
> people not identifying themselves as Jews but rather as American is much
> much greater in C and R communities than in the O ones, do thje R and C
> rabbis think that it is a problem and if so how do they intend to fix it?
How much space do I have? Of course, assimilation is a problem -- look at
almost every issue of Reform Judaism and you'll see articles on it. The
congregational organizations are continually working on programs to address
the problem, and make Judaism more meaningful for the layity, believing that
is the solution to the problem.
> Fourthly, if a religion by definition concerns itself with eternal values
> and truths than how come the R and C position on such matters as Shabbos,
> egalitarian minyanim, kasrus, etc. varied so much over the last 100 years?
It is how those values are expressed. Reform holds that the values are
eternal, but the specifics must be interpreted based on the present context.
Orthodoxy holds that both the values and specifics are unchanging.
> Another question i have is for rabbi Sherwood, from what i understand the
> R do not accept all of Rambam's 13 principles, since they state that
> Torah is eternal, cannot be changed and given directly from God.
Have you looked at how Reform fits within the 13 principles? Take a look at
the Reform FAQ. Send the message "send faq 10-Reform" to fai...@shamash.org.
The primary disagreement is the raising of the dead.
> Now since the Rambam's principles wer accepted by all Jews of that time and
> following until the 18th-19th century, then how can you speak of R being in
> harmony with" traditional" Judaism, i.e. Judaism which existed since the
> Temple times? Basically what i am trying to say is that for a religion to
> have any authority it must claim that its origins are divine, a claim which
> reform cannot make as it was created by people who broke away from the claim
> of traditional Judaism. My point is basically is that from what i
> understand is that the R judaism is a man-made religion trying to substitue
> the new truth for the old tradition, much like xianity, islam, communism,
> etc. (by traditional judaism i mean judaism as it existed from the times of
> the Temple).
Your point is wrong. See the Reform FAQ.
Harvey S. Cohen
>I must admit that I AGREE with Lisa 100% on this comment. It's
>extremely disappointing to me that she began as a CONSERVATIVE
>Jew up at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, then turned out as she did,
>but I guess that it's easy to lose one's way, and one's humanity,
>when you surround yourself with intolerant people and ideas.
It is mere bigotry to generalize from Lisa to O (or any other) Jews. She does
not represent them. Her faults, whatever they may be, are her own.
Scott Buchanan
Harry Weiss <hjw...@netcom.com> wrote:
>It is absolutely not a sin. Look at what the Tanach say about the evil
>people such as Achav, the King Menashe, Korah, etc.
>
>Kaplan was a Choteh u Muchteh as Harabim. A sinner who caused many more
>to sin. He is considered the lowest level possible.
Yep, and that information may be necessary to a Jew who wants to be Torah
observant, and needs to know that Kaplan's theological writings are not
acceptable to Orthodoxy.
However, the objection I sometimes have to discussions of this sort is
that facts (such as Kaplan's writings being insufficiently grounded
in halacha), tend to get obscured by personal observation ("Oy, I'm sure
'Rav' Ploni is rotting in Gehenom for being such a yutz") which is in
no way a necessary part of the discussion.
scott
--
R. S. Y. "Scott" Buchanan | sup...@tiac.net
Senior Customer Service Rep. | 617-276-7200
The Internet Access Company | http://www.tiac.net
John Sherwood
>My ultra-Orthodox friends and acquaintances may not agree with each
>other's interpretation of Judaism, but we do have a mutual respect for
>each other's beliefs. Why is it so hard for some of you who have been
>posting in this thread to do the same?
>
>--
>Jeff Amdur
Jeff, Thank you for this statement. We need more people like you on
this board in order to maintain civility and rationality.
Rabbi John M. Sherwood
Matthew P Wiener
>It was while at the Jewish Center that he [M Kaplan] invented the
>bas-mitzvah for his daughter Judith Kaplan Eisenstein in 1916, a rite
>that has been adopted across the board in America, from Lubavitch to
>Reform.
Lubavitch bas-mitzvah's their daughters? That is news to me. Nothing
more exciting than a kiddush, ever.
David Roth
I didn't read Todd's comment as being about all Orthodox (or other)
Jews. Only those who are intolerant. Perhaps we need a new
abbreviation. I Judaism. I halakhah, etc... Lisa only represents a
group to the extent that they accept her as a spokesperson.
Cheers,
David
Daniel P Faigin
> Why do you say that when you know it isn't true. You and others who object
> to my posts object first and format to the fact that I refuse to acknowledge
> any kind of "legitimacy" in your "judaisms".
I don't require you to give any "legitimacy" to Reform. It has its legitimacy
indpendant of your position. Feel free to always qualify it as "Reform"
Judaism; that's fine. All I would ask is:
a) Always state your opinions as opinions, unless mathematically provable.
b) Always clarify that you are talking about Orthodox Judaism, because
regardless of your opinion, the term "Judaism" unqualified is ambiguous, as
there are multiple groups claiming to be "Judaism".
c) Always treat people with respect.
Daniel
Y. Goldiner
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Harry Weiss wrote:
> Y. Goldiner (ygo...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>
> : Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
> : non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
>
> It is absolutely not a sin. Look at what the Tanach say about the evil
> people such as Achav, the King Menashe, Korah, etc.
>
> Kaplan was a Choteh u Muchteh as Harabim. A sinner who caused many more
> to sin. He is considered the lowest level possible.
>
> It is true that one may not say Ymach Shmo- May his name be blotted out
> about a Jew, but one may say Dam Reshaim Yirkov - The blood of the
> wicked will rot.
But Achav and Menashe were kings and Korach also had some autority by
birth. They had the power to force people to sin. How can a Conservative
rabbi force other people to sin? He can't say something like "If you
don't become Conservative, I'll kill you." He might tell someone "This is
what Conservative Judaism teaches," but telling someone about the
teachings of Conservative Judaism is not causing that someone to sin. It
is up to him to make a decision.
I just don't understand how someone can say "of less than blessed
memory" about anybody, but I guess this is not a logical question.
Yehudis
Matthew P Wiener
>How much space do I have? Of course, assimilation is a problem --
>look at almost every issue of Reform Judaism and you'll see articles
>on it.
Kind of sad.
Perhaps I have a selective memory, but I can't recall anything in the
various O magazines I sometimes read other than stuff like "Danger--the
Internet will corrupt you forever".
Oops. Too late.
Jacob Love
Lisa Aaronson <li...@interport.net> wrote:
>But "according to Orthodoxy" would be a tacit admission that there are other
>valid views. I'm not searching you out offline, tying you down and forcing
>you to eat kosher food. I'm talking. Writing, actually. You have no right
>to demand that I accept something which is wrong according to Judaism. You
>have no right to demand that I adopt your view of multiple acceptable
>denominations of Judaism.
Once again, a seriously flawed understanding of Judaism. Orthodoxy is
one valid sect of Judaism. Of course, it is wrong to view Orthodoxy as
"one" anything, since once one becomes part of the O world, one quickly
finds that their fellow O Jews are just as likely to be finding cause
to flame one another as when the dispute was between O and non-O. There
has *never* been a period of Judaism in which one group did not assert
that they were the only "valid" variety thereof. We see frequent
predictions in this NewsGroup that one or another of our denominations
will survive and the others will fade. Of course none of us really
knows to whom these fates belong--but what is predictable is that
whichever of our groups does survive will be faced with challenges that
claim that some other group is the only valid form.
Harry Weiss
: In article <hjweissD...@netcom.com>, hjw...@netcom.com (Harry
: Weiss) wrote:
: > Kaplan was a Choteh u Muchteh as Harabim. A sinner who caused many more
: > to sin. He is considered the lowest level possible.
: Oh, come on, now. Just because he doesn't subscribe to *your* particular
: ultra-Orthodox version of Judaism is no reason to call him pond scum.
: Do you also consider as "sinners": Jews like me who go into Italian
: restaurants and order chicken parmesan? Jews like me who have to drive to
: shul on the high holy days because I live 20 miles from the shul my family
: worships at? Jews like me who are typing on computer terminals on a
: Saturday at 12:35 in the afternoon?
What you are doing is a sin. I don't think you have enough knowldege to
be considred a sinner. Kaplan did and was a sinner.
: My ultra-Orthodox friends and acquaintances may not agree with each
: other's interpretation of Judaism, but we do have a mutual respect for
: each other's beliefs. Why is it so hard for some of you who have been
: posting in this thread to do the same?
What do you consider ultra Orthodox? Someone who doesn't have chees on
their burger at McDonalds? You refer to me as ultra Orthodox which I
find funny. I would suggest you learn a bit about true Torah Judaism so
that you can truly make an informed choice.
Harry
: --
: Jeff Amdur
: quality foreign language instruction since 1971 (Oy, gevalt! THAT long?!?)
: quality timekeeping for sports events since 1973
: Doing all that stuff at Arundel High School in Gambrills, Md. since 1977
: e-mail je...@clark.net or (VERY last resort) jia...@umd5.umd.edu
Harry Weiss
: >
: >: Um, Ted...? Because Orthodox Judaism is Judaism. Reconstructionism is
My are you knowlegeable. I know all of the Rabbis in town and I also
know their wives. Which one is gay. We really need to let the wives
know. Do you reform require rabbis to be gay. Also they all look males.
Which one is cross dresser.
Most Orthodox organizations have prhobited belonging to joint
organizations. Rabbi Soleveitchik was the only one who allowed belonging
to the Synagogue council of America. He prohibited any interaction of
religious items, but allowed the membership for non religious communal needs.
NO Orthodox Rabbi will recognize C or R as legitimate. If they do they
are not Orthodox. (Or by Orthodox do you mean Eastern Orthodox. )
Harry
Harry Weiss
: >It is absolutely not a sin. Look at what the Tanach say about the evil
: >Kaplan was a Choteh u Muchteh as Harabim. A sinner who caused many more
: >to sin. He is considered the lowest level possible.
: Yep, and that information may be necessary to a Jew who wants to be Torah
: observant, and needs to know that Kaplan's theological writings are not
: acceptable to Orthodoxy.
: However, the objection I sometimes have to discussions of this sort is
: that facts (such as Kaplan's writings being insufficiently grounded
: in halacha), tend to get obscured by personal observation ("Oy, I'm sure
: 'Rav' Ploni is rotting in Gehenom for being such a yutz") which is in
: no way a necessary part of the discussion.
I have no objection to what you are saying. Except my comment was in
response to Rev. Sherwood who said that O should accept Kaplan because he
was an O Musmach. There are also halachic problems regarding studying
and reading heresy.
Harry
: scott
Harry Weiss
: On Mon, 5 Feb 1996 06:48:30, li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) said:
: >> According to Orthodoxy is a phrase that has yet to preface your statements,
: >> but one which would be very appropriate, considering this is a forum for
: >> *all Jews* of whom, you are quite aware, not all are Orthodox.
: > But "according to Orthodoxy" would be a tacit admission that there are other
: > valid views.
: The phrase "according to Orthodoxy" does admit that there are other views
: (which is a fact), but says nothing about their validity or lack thereof.
: > You have no right to demand that I accept something which is wrong according
: > to Judaism. You have no right to demand that I adopt your view of multiple
: > acceptable denominations of Judaism.
: Correct. No one has made such demands (or at least I haven't). However,
: regardless of whether you accept them as "Jewish" or not, you must admit there
: are other movements in the words that have "Judaism" in the name. This doesn't
: make them Jewish -- for example, both you (O) and I (R) agree that Messianic
: Judaism isn't Judiasm.
: In other words, I *ask* you to recognize that there are multiple movements
: that call themselves part of Judaism. I *do not* ask you to accept them as
: Jewish movements, but merely to clarify from which movement's point of view
: you are speaking, so as to remove ambiguity.
: > You demand of others that which you object to yourself. I call that
: > hypocrisy.
: I cannot speak for others, but I believe you will find that I never say
: "Judaism says"; I always qualify my statements.
: Daniel
Somehow you have a way of saying things that show the massive
disagreements, but make it look like we agree. While you and I disagree
on almost everything, at least your view are thought out. Unfortunately
too much of what we read here is based on ignorance.
Harry
Harry Weiss
homer03.u.washington.edu>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Y. Goldiner (ygo...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Harry Weiss wrote:
: > Y. Goldiner (ygo...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: >
: > : Isn't is a sin to publicly say something bad about any Jew (or a
: > : non-Jew, IMHO), and especially about the dead?
: >
: > It is absolutely not a sin. Look at what the Tanach say about the evil
: > people such as Achav, the King Menashe, Korah, etc.
: >
: > Kaplan was a Choteh u Muchteh as Harabim. A sinner who caused many more
: > to sin. He is considered the lowest level possible.
: >
: > It is true that one may not say Ymach Shmo- May his name be blotted out
: > about a Jew, but one may say Dam Reshaim Yirkov - The blood of the
: > wicked will rot.
: But Achav and Menashe were kings and Korach also had some autority by
: birth. They had the power to force people to sin. How can a Conservative
: rabbi force other people to sin? He can't say something like "If you
: don't become Conservative, I'll kill you." He might tell someone "This is
: what Conservative Judaism teaches," but telling someone about the
: teachings of Conservative Judaism is not causing that someone to sin. It
: is up to him to make a decision.
: I just don't understand how someone can say "of less than blessed
: memory" about anybody, but I guess this is not a logical question.
: Yehudis
A choteh u Machtic as harabim does not have to do his actions through
force. Convincing people to do evil is also bad. Also the idea of not
speaking bad about the dead is an Xian belief not a Jewish one.
Harry
Jerry B Altzman
Daniel P Faigin <fai...@aero.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 4 Feb 1996 13:39:55, li...@interport.net (Lisa Aaronson) said:
>I don't require you to give any "legitimacy" to Reform. It has its legitimacy
>indpendant of your position. Feel free to always qualify it as "Reform"
>Judaism; that's fine. All I would ask is:
>a) Always state your opinions as opinions, unless mathematically provable.
But Daniel, according to O, Torah laws are as axiomatic as anything else.
What is opinion to you is fact to O. By reducing Torah law to opinion, you
are delegitimizing O.
>b) Always clarify that you are talking about Orthodox Judaism, because
>regardless of your opinion, the term "Judaism" unqualified is ambiguous, as
>there are multiple groups claiming to be "Judaism".
But Daniel, according to O, there is only one Judaism, and a bunch of
other folks legitimizing sin through rationalization of Torah law.
>Daniel
//jbaltz
jerry b. altzman Entropy just isn't what it used to be +1 212 650 5617
jba...@columbia.edu jba...@sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML (HEPNET) NEVIS::jbaltz
Jerry B Altzman
Jeff Amdur <je...@clark.net> wrote:
>Do you also consider as "sinners": Jews like me who go into Italian
>restaurants and order chicken parmesan? Jews like me who have to drive to
>shul on the high holy days because I live 20 miles from the shul my family
>worships at? Jews like me who are typing on computer terminals on a
>Saturday at 12:35 in the afternoon?
According to O, Yes, Yes, Yes. All of the above are sinners. Sorry if that
makes you one.
>My ultra-Orthodox friends and acquaintances may not agree with each
>other's interpretation of Judaism, but we do have a mutual respect for
>each other's beliefs. Why is it so hard for some of you who have been
>posting in this thread to do the same?
Because, according to O, other "interpretations" like R and C are plain
wrong.
>Jeff Amdur
John Sherwood
In a previous article, is...@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Isaac Balbin) says:
>ao...@lafn.org (John Sherwood) writes:
>
>>This is true according to Lisa, not according to the rest of the world.
>
>Really, John.
>
>>Every board of rabbis in the country has O,C,Rec, and R rabbis, male and
>>female, gay and straight alike, in its membership.
>
>That is not the case here. Perhaps your american-centric view of the
>world has not only supplanted any vestige of authentic Judaism, but has
>now annexed the rest of the world.
>
>>The lady refuses to deal with reality, but chooses to live in her private
>>ultra-orthodox ghetto.
>
>Reality is not American Pie.
>
>"As the process of Reform continues to re-define fundamentals as temporal
>abberations, the kernel of eternal truth becomes a virtual reality that is
>able to re-model itself to many value systems. It loses its distinctiveness,
>it loses its past theology and becomes a figment of human minds, a cousin
>to a religion of yesteryear."
>
Do I detect some hostility to the largest, most creative Jewish
community in the world today? Let's not ignore the cooperation among
rabbis of the various Jewish denominations in the UK and in continental
Europe. Only in Israel do rabbis not respect one another.
Our goal should be to bring Jews of all stripes closer together,
not through vitriol to drive them apart. We in the US and UK etc.,are
making our Jewish communities work. We transcend our theological differences
when we work together to support Israel, when we battle anti-Semitism,
when we worked to free Soviet Jewry, and brought the Jews of Ethiopa to
Israel. We are a civilization, a notion without borders. Let's not
permit inter movement hostility give aid and comfort to the anti-Semites
of the world. "Each Israelite is responsible, one for the other".
Rab JMS
Lisa Aaronson
> Do I detect some hostility to the largest, most creative Jewish
>community in the world today? Let's not ignore the cooperation among
>rabbis of the various Jewish denominations in the UK and in continental
>Europe. Only in Israel do rabbis not respect one another.
Largest? Most creative? ROTFL! The whole reason the Reformees adopted
patrilineal descend was that it was the only way to *seem* to stem the tide of
intermarriage and assimilation.
Even today, this is given as one of the main reasons for it: "What, do you
want these people to be lost to Judaism?"
Reform is *shrinking*, not growing. If you only count the Jewish members.
Micha Berger
: We can not be bound by the past. Even orthodoxy is constantly
: evolving, thank God, however you choose to define that term. Read Avot
: 1:1. The tannaim completely cut out the priesthood and the kings from the
: chain of tradition. Study the prosbul (legal fiction) of Rabbi Hillel,
: which, through the vehicle of interpretation, completely, in effect, did
: away with the yovel (the Jubilee year).
I already posted Avos 1:1. It says nothing about the priesthood and Kings
because they were not _necessarily_ conduits of the Oral Torah. They had roles
in Jewish leadership, but they were not what we would call today Rabbis.
BTW, if you look at Maimonides' more itemized list showing the chain of
tradition from Moses until the Mishna, a number of Kings happened to
also be Rabbis, as well as a number of prophets and priests.
I'm not sure pruzbul should be translated legal fiction. But either way,
the pruzbul does not do away with Yovel. Yovel still meant a return
of the land to its tribal inheritor. Yovel never had anuything to do
with loans.
Shmittah, which does anull loans, is a different concept. It was once every
7 years. Pruzbul means that charitable loans can be extended beyond the
shmittah year, by handing the loan over to a court to collect for you.
Pruzbul was not targetted at business loans. The idea was to make charitable
loans more common.
People wonder why I'm concerned about the educational level of R clergy.
Dr. Sherwood, who on the same day can discuss various definitions of G-d
proposed by Jews of the 20th century, makes an elementary mistake about
the laws of Yovel and shmittah, made in both Hebrew and English, so I'm
assuming it was not just a mistype. I checked with my son, age 7, grade 2.
He picked up on this error. I'm impressed with the breadth of Dr. Sherwood's
philosophical knowledge. He knows all the choices. I just don't see how
he is equipped to help his congregants identify the Jewish one.
--
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3255 days!
Ais...@haven.ios.com (16-Oct-86 - 5-Oct-95)
<a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
<a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
Micha Berger
: As for other forms of
: assimilation, we must remember that Judaism is our RELIGION, which
: dictates SOME aspects of our cultural lives, but not all. If we want to
: vote here, and enjoy the rights of US citizenship, we cannot deny that we
: are Nationally American, and Religiously Jewish.
That this statement was made by a leader in the Jewish community is scary.
Judaism may not fill my entire cultural life, but it does define it. I
know that Vivaldi is more kosher than Boyz 2 Men. Although both are
non-Jewish in origin, by choosing what of Western Culture should
or shouldn't be incorporated, more -- by making me constantly think
about these decisions -- it does DICTATE my entire cultural life.
Christianity invented the pschyzophrenic notion of "render unto Caeser".
Jews are not of two minds: Torah comes first, and dictates how I use
(or not use) the rest.
Judaism is NOT a religion. It is not about a belief-system, although it
includes one. It is very much a lifestyle. Judaism is not about what you
do in synagogue, but what you do when you leave.
Olga from the volga
>Fresh816 (fres...@aol.com) wrote:
>: As for other forms of
>: assimilation, we must remember that Judaism is our RELIGION, which
>: dictates SOME aspects of our cultural lives, but not all. If we want to
>: vote here, and enjoy the rights of US citizenship, we cannot deny that we
>: are Nationally American, and Religiously Jewish.
>That this statement was made by a leader in the Jewish community is scary.
>Judaism may not fill my entire cultural life, but it does define it. I
>know that Vivaldi is more kosher than Boyz 2 Men. Although both are
>non-Jewish in origin, by choosing what of Western Culture should
>or shouldn't be incorporated, more -- by making me constantly think
>about these decisions -- it does DICTATE my entire cultural life.
>Christianity invented the pschyzophrenic notion of "render unto Caeser".
>Jews are not of two minds: Torah comes first, and dictates how I use
>(or not use) the rest.
>Judaism is NOT a religion. It is not about a belief-system, although it
>includes one. It is very much a lifestyle. Judaism is not about what you
>do in synagogue, but what you do when you leave.
The goyim say the same things about themselves
Gwen A Orel
and shame on you for attempting to justify artistic aesthetics
through religion. What's next, censorship of books?
Gwen
Micha Berger (ais...@haven.ios.com) wrote:
: Fresh816 (fres...@aol.com) wrote:
: : As for other forms of
: : assimilation, we must remember that Judaism is our RELIGION, which
: : dictates SOME aspects of our cultural lives, but not all. If we want to
: : vote here, and enjoy the rights of US citizenship, we cannot deny that we
: : are Nationally American, and Religiously Jewish.
: That this statement was made by a leader in the Jewish community is scary.
: Judaism may not fill my entire cultural life, but it does define it. I
: know that Vivaldi is more kosher than Boyz 2 Men. Although both are
: non-Jewish in origin, by choosing what of Western Culture should
: or shouldn't be incorporated, more -- by making me constantly think
: about these decisions -- it does DICTATE my entire cultural life.
: Christianity invented the pschyzophrenic notion of "render unto Caeser".
: Jews are not of two minds: Torah comes first, and dictates how I use
: (or not use) the rest.
: Judaism is NOT a religion. It is not about a belief-system, although it
: includes one. It is very much a lifestyle. Judaism is not about what you
: do in synagogue, but what you do when you leave.
: --
: Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3255 days!
: Ais...@haven.ios.com (16-Oct-86 - 5-Oct-95)
: <a href=news:alt.religion.aishdas>Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed</a>
: <a href=http://haven.ios.com/~aishdas>AishDas Society's Home Page</a>
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz (sch...@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il) wrote:
: : I normally don't pay much attention to any thread that has Lisa
: : Aaronson in it, but this caught my eye. When Debra, Hadass, and others
: : post things that are simply not true -- how much respect for them am I
: : supposed to have? (This is not saying how much respect for them I *do*
: : have -- only asking whether the sword should be expected to cut both
: : ways.) Especially when the untrue things are clearly posted for
: : polemical purposes.
: I'm sorry to think your respect for the person you talk to depends
: entirely on how factually correct they are, or how much you agree
: with them. Any teacher knows better than this. So, the minute
: y8ou see a post you disagree with, you feel namecalling, insults
: and vitriol are in order? This is known as "ad hominem" attack,
: to the man, not the point. There is simply no excuse for it.
Although I thought what I was saying was fairly clear, let me rephrase
a little.
If a person posts something to usenet that is (a) factually incorrect
and (b) deliberately written in a polemical style, that is, to score
debating points rather than to advance the argument, how much respect
for that person's intellectual honesty am I supposed to retain?
Obviously there is a difference between someone who posts something that
is wrong out of simple ignorance, and someone who posts something that is
wrong and clearly has no particular interest in whether it is true or not.
Or am I the only person left who thinks that there is (or ought to be)
such a difference?
By the way, could you give me an instance where I responded to any post
here with "namecalling," "insults," or "vitriol"? Or where I have ever
supported such methods of argument? You do realize, I am sure, that
unless you can defend the above accusation with a substantive example,
I might perhaps be justified in reading as -- dare I say it? -- an
insult. You know, an "ad hominem" attack.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
". . .in short, his post became untenable; and having swallowed his
quantum of tea, he judged it expedient to evacuate."
Charlotte Bronte, _Shirley_
Jacob Love
Lisa Aaronson <li...@interport.net> wrote:
>Largest? Most creative? ROTFL! The whole reason the Reformees adopted
>patrilineal descend was that it was the only way to *seem* to stem the tide of
>intermarriage and assimilation.
>
>Even today, this is given as one of the main reasons for it: "What, do you
>want these people to be lost to Judaism?"
>
>Reform is *shrinking*, not growing. If you only count the Jewish members.
Once again, you do not know what you are talking about. Say what you
want about the patrilineal decision (and I am certainly not one of its
defenders), it is ludicrous to attribute this to a marketing decision.
Not that Reform is shy about marketing--obviously some of Schindler's
musings on proselytization would be a logical candidate for such.
Reform congregations in most parts of the country are doing very well,
and Reform rabbis continue to be in great demand at very comfortable
salaries.
None of this means that I agree with the original poster about either
"largest" or "most creative". With respect to "largest" I have never
seen a statistical citation which I could feel confident about. With
respect to "creative", I find congregations which are lively and
creative wherever I go, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with
movement affiliation. Unfortunately, I also find the opposite wherever
I go, but likewise there, it seems to have nothing to do with movement
affiliation.
Martin Fox
>In article <FAIGIN.96...@solarium.aero.org> fai...@aero.org (Daniel P Faigin) writes:
Mostly snipped.
>>c) Always treat people with respect.
>
>I *always* treat people with all due respect, Daniel. Really.
>
>Lisa
>
What always?
Martin Fox
Debra Fran Baker
>In article <baker.823474568@sacco>, baker@cs (Jonathan Baker) writes:
>>It was while at the Jewish Center that he [M Kaplan] invented the
>>bas-mitzvah for his daughter Judith Kaplan Eisenstein in 1916, a rite
>>that has been adopted across the board in America, from Lubavitch to
>>Reform.
>Lubavitch bas-mitzvah's their daughters? That is news to me. Nothing
>more exciting than a kiddush, ever.
They may not have a big party, or a religious ceremony, but they do have
a celebration for her class and the family and call it a bas mitzvah.
Or, at least, *my* Lubavitch relatives do.
Debra
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
* For its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace. *
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Debra Fran Baker dfb...@panix.com