Open Orthodoxy: Recognizing Reform and Conservative
Robert Kaiser
Our newsgroup is sadly full of people who hate Reform and
Conservative Judaism. However, you should know that many of their
claims have little basis in reality. They incorrectly claim that
Orthodox Judaism must regard non-Orthodox movements as mortal enemies,
and that there is no room for compromise, recognition, or discussion,
That is simply false. Thus, for a change of pace it might be
interesting to read an essay by an Orthodox Jew who does not fit the
S.C.J. stereotype, and who does not hate or libel non-Orthodox Jews.
Despite the false claims of a few people on this newsgroup,
there are more tolerant and open minded Orthodox Jews out there than
you have been led to believe.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
**********************************
Reform and Conservative Judaism
by Yitzhak Frankenthal
When I was a young religious Zionist, and much older, until age 43, I
knew that Judaism had enemies from without and from within. I knew
that the enemies from within were the Reform and Conservative Jews,
because I was always told, - They created a new Judaism. - There were
many examples: men and women pray together; they marry a non-Jew
with a Jew; at a wedding they serve pork under Reform supervision; and
I forgot to include the marriage of gays and lesbians, and other examples
contrary to the Jewish tradition. Indeed, I was a religious Zionist
orthodox Jew and I didn’t accept their innovations that in my eyes
violated halacha, that turned laws from the Torah into theatrics, that
turned Judaism into slavery and reforms into Judaism.
When I became the executive director of - Netivot Shalom - an
organization that works for peace - I began to become acquainted with
the Reform and Conservative Jews in order to learn their position and to
see if it was possible to make peace among the different denominations.
And it became clear to me that the picture was entirely different from
what I had thought previously. Just as in the religious circles there are
haredim and religious Zionists, so too there are Israeli Reform Jews and
American Reform Jews, and among the American Reform Jews there are
those that are close to their Israeli counterparts and those that are far
from them. It is clear to an Israeli Reform Jew that a Jew is someone
who is born to a Jewish mother. It is clear to an Israeli Reform Jew that
the Torah forbids us to eat pork, and that it is not permitted to marry a
Jew and a non-Jew, and that gays and lesbians are free to be who they
are but that all Israeli and most American Reform rabbis will not agree to
marry them.
It is true that Reform Jews have changed many halachot and therefore I
do not agree with their teachings, but it is necessary to recognize the
Reform who are Jews who wish to serve God in their way. The Reform
Jew is someone who seeks to come closer to God, who searches for a
way to serve God. His way is not my way. But just as I am an orthodox
Zionist and not haredi, and I don’t follow their teachings, I cannot argue
that the haredim are not Jews! (And this despite the fact that many
haredim argue that we, the religious Zionists, are nothing more than
vermin, and they see even Rav Kook Z’tl as a heretic and a traitor
amongst the Jewish people!)
And so it is with the Reform, who are religious, and I also don’t follow
their teachings. (Incidentally, Conservative Judaism is rather different
from Reform, but this is not the place to delve into the matter, except to
mention that it is merely a figure of speech to say Reform and
Conservative in one breath.) The time has come to stop regarding the
Reform and Conservative as enemies of Judaism. The time has come to
sit with the Reform and to establish red lines that define our common
tradition, and if one crosses these lines we will not be speaking about
Reform Judaism but rather another religious sect that is not a part of
Judaism. It is possible to establish these red lines. It is necessary
for us to begin this dialogue.
There are groups of fringe Reform Jews in the United States that,
through their practices, are turning themselves into a religion separate
from Judaism. These fringe Reform Jews - who marry Jews to
non-Jews, a rabbi with a priest, or certify as kosher pork or gay and
lesbian marriages - are not like most Reform Jews in Israel and like
most Reform rabbis in the United States, who are do not accept these
practices.
It is our responsibility to build an understanding between us and the
Reform and Conservative - not on the basis of halacha, but on the basis
of red lines. Not in order to force them to join us, or to cause some of
us to become like them, but rather so that we can be united under the
saying, "These and these are the words of God" in order that we will
not become two different sects, in order that we will have common
ground, so that the Law of Return will unite and not divide.
I do not agree with the path of the Reform, but I want them to be a part
of my nation, a part of our nation.
They serve God in a way that I don’t agree with, but I still respect them.
Gmachine9
I admit to reading this quickly, but I do not see here any point that the O
posters disagree with. Maybe ill read it again and see. But otherwise, I
believe that all the O poster do not feel otherwise to achenu b'nai yisrael.
steve
Harry Weiss
Wow, what mainstream sources Bobo brings. I am sure he first consulted
with his spiritual leader - yaaser arafat. You must have been very
happy to hear that two religous Jewish boys were murdered by your friends
last week.
: Our newsgroup is sadly full of people who hate Reform and
: Shalom,
: Robert Kaiser
: **********************************
: Reform and Conservative Judaism
: by Yitzhak Frankenthal
: http://www.ariga.com/ozveshalom/newslet.htm
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
David Goldman
>I do not agree with the path of the Reform, but I want them to be a part
>of my nation, a part of our nation.
>They serve God in a way that I don’t agree with, but I still respect them.
Your interpretation of nation is typically nationalist/Zionist, but
not Jewish. Yitzchak, you are about as confused as Robert Kaiser. What
are the buzz words "respect" and "serve G-d"? The Torah defines
serving G-d as observing the mitzvos, and not agreeing is not the
issue. Those reform Jews who are born of Jewish women are Jews in
error, wayward Jews. That's all. Why make a big megillah, a big
politically correct thing out of it?? How do you define respect and/or
disrespect? Don't fly in the ethereal. Get down to practical
definitions and criteria.
Douglas MacGowan
Thank you for posting it.
- Douglas
Stanley Klein
:
: Our newsgroup is sadly full of people who hate Reform and
: Conservative Judaism. However, you should know that many of their
: claims have little basis in reality. They incorrectly claim that
: Orthodox Judaism must regard non-Orthodox movements as mortal enemies,
: and that there is no room for compromise, recognition, or discussion,
I just wish that all the people to whom Robert Kaiser refers could have
attended the community-wide study session held on Tisha B'av in the
Washington, D.C. area. The session was sponsored by a large number of
Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist congregations as
well as the UJA Federation. The study topic was Sinat Chinam. If some of
these people could have heard the speakers at that session, perhaps this
newsgroup could be soc.culture.jewish and not sinat.chinam.jewish, as many
people seem to use it.
Stan Klein
Randy B
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>>There are groups of fringe Reform Jews in the United States that,
>>through their practices, are turning themselves into a religion separate
>>from Judaism. These fringe Reform Jews - who marry Jews to
>>non-Jews,
===> I believe it was in Forward magazing from a year or so ago that
cited a statistic that 50% of American R rabbis will marry a jew to a
non-jew. That is more than the fringe, it is the mainstream.
>>I do not agree with the path of the Reform, but I want them to be a part
>>of my nation, a part of our nation.
===> So do I. There is still a need to discuss and argue the
differences between us. It doesn't mean we have to hate each other,
and that goes both ways.
Randy
"Can't we all just get along?"
chaim...@my-dejanews.com
> Our newsgroup is sadly full of people who hate Reform and
> Orthodox Judaism must regard non-Orthodox movements as mortal
> enemies, and that there is no room for compromise, recognition,
> or discussion,
>
> That is simply false. Thus, for a change of pace it might be
> hate or libel non-Orthodox Jews.
>
> Despite the false claims of a few people on this newsgroup,
> there are more tolerant and open minded Orthodox Jews out there than
> you have been led to believe.
>
> Shalom,
>
> Robert Kaiser
I would be happy to try to oblige, not with an essay, perhaps, but
with a few brief observations.
First, you seem to conflate feelings about people (Jews who affiliate
with the Reform or Conservative movement) with feelings about ideas
and practices (those of the Reform and Conservative movements).
Of course a Jew should not hate another just because the latter
attends a Reform or Conservative synagogue. But unfortunately,
those movements are essentially about the violation of Jewish
standards. Orthodoxy IS the view that Jewish standards are
binding on all Jews. How is compromise possible?
More of me below.
> **********************************
>
> Reform and Conservative Judaism
>
> by Yitzhak Frankenthal
>
> Reform and Conservative Jews... I was always told... created
> a new Judaism... There were many examples: men and women pray
> together; they marry a non-Jew with a Jew; at a wedding they
> serve pork under Reform supervision; and I forgot to include
> the marriage of gays and lesbians, and other examples
> contrary to the Jewish tradition... I didn’t accept their
> innovations that in my eyes violated halacha, that turned
> laws from the Torah into theatrics, that turned Judaism into
> slavery and reforms into Judaism...
>
> [Later] I began to become acquainted with the Reform and
> Conservative Jews...
>
> And it became clear to me that the picture was entirely
> different from what I had thought previously. Just as in
> the religious circles there are haredim and religious Zionists,
> so too there are Israeli Reform Jews and American Reform Jews,
> and among the American Reform Jews there are those that are close
> to their Israeli counterparts and those that are far
> from them. It is clear to an Israeli Reform Jew that a Jew
> is someone who is born to a Jewish mother. It is clear to an
> Israeli Reform Jew that the Torah forbids us to eat pork, and
> that it is not permitted to marry a Jew and a non-Jew, and that
> gays and lesbians are free to be who they are but that all Israeli
> and most American Reform rabbis will not agree to marry them.
I don't see how this picture is entirely different from the one the
author initially held. He initially knew of a list of respects in
which non-orthodox institutions departed from Jewish practice, and
he later realized that some of them depart in just some of those
respects, and others in other respects. That's not an entirely
different view; it's just slightly more fine-grained. If
an institution did not depart from Jewish practice in any respect,
it would be orthodox. The details of knowing which sins characterize
which institutions seem inessential. If the author meant to say
that reform Israelis disapprove of pork and intermarriage, then
I doubt he has the details right; but as I say, they don't seem
essential.
> It is true that Reform Jews have changed many halachot and therefore
> I do not agree with their teachings, but it is necessary to recognize
> the Reform who are Jews who wish to serve God in their way. The Reform
> Jew is someone who seeks to come closer to God, who searches for a
> way to serve God. His way is not my way. But just as I am an orthodox
> Zionist and not haredi, and I don’t follow their teachings, I cannot
> argue that the haredim are not Jews! (And this despite the fact that
> many haredim argue that we, the religious Zionists, are nothing more
> than vermin, and they see even Rav Kook Z’tl as a heretic and a
> traitor amongst the Jewish people!)
Not only his his way not my way; I am committed to the view that
his way is the wrong way for me, and for him, and for everyone.
The relationship is not similar to that among orthodox followers
of various trends. Perhaps the author actually has some basis for
the remarks about vermin and heretics, but of course someone who
espoused those views would not represent orthodox thought on the
matter.
There are reform Jews who seek to serve G-d, as the author
says, but how should I respond to the disasterous approach they
have chosen?
And the author displays either confusion or dishonesty when he
comments that he cannot argue that the haredi are not Jews. He
seems to suggest that the orthodox argue that merely by virtue
of their apostacy and sin, the reform Jews have ceased to be Jews.
Of course that is not the orthodox view; otherwise the reform
movement would be of no more interest than a gentile religious
movement. It is precisely because reform Jews are Jews that
the orthodox continue to think about them as Jews and to try
to encourage their return to a Jewish life.
(Of course that is not to deny that there are gentiles affiliated
with non-orthodox synagoges.)
> And so it is with the Reform, who are religious, and I also don’t
> follow their teachings. (Incidentally, Conservative Judaism is rather
> different from Reform...) The time has come to stop regarding the
> Reform and Conservative as enemies of Judaism. The time has come to
> sit with the Reform and to establish red lines that define our common
> tradition, and if one crosses these lines we will not be speaking about
> Reform Judaism but rather another religious sect that is not a part of
> Judaism. It is possible to establish these red lines. It is necessary
> for us to begin this dialogue.
It strikes me as a dismal project. Anyone who wants to know
what constitutes orthodox thought on any point, or conservative
or reform, need only look it up; we have all produced a totally
astonishing number of books. So what is the goal of the conference?
If it is the semantic one, of fixing the meaning of the terms
"reform Judaism" etc., the respective movements have a better
chance than a conference, and they have virtually no chance at
all. Orthodoxy would simply point to the ten million books
written by the greatest scholars and saints of three thousand
years, and say "That, and whatever is consistent with it, is
orthodoxy." I guess the conservative movement would say the same,
with a provision for the inconsistencies which it can stomach.
And what would the reform movement say?
What are "the red lines that define our common tradition"? They are
simply the elements of the Jewish tradition that any particular
institution still acknowledges. Put that way, the idea could
obviously not work to define whether any particular institution
has departed too far still to be called Jewish. If you look
at traditional attempts to define central Jewish thoughts,
such as the Thirteen Principles, you quickly realize that
the conservative and reform movements would not endorse that
as the loyalty oath of the Jewish people.
Perhaps some orthodox rabbis could meet with non-orthodox rabbis,
but what would be the stuff of the discussion? If we were dreamers,
we could make up a mutually advantageous agreement. For instance,
we should all be able to agree that status-questions are very
destructive, and that conversion should therefore be left to
orthodox standards. Think that would fly?
I went on so long I want to quote these lines a second time:
> The time has come to sit with the Reform and to establish red
> lines that define our common tradition, and if one crosses these
> lines we will not be speaking about Reform Judaism but rather
> another religious sect that is not a part of Judaism. It is
> possible to establish these red lines. It is necessary
> for us to begin this dialogue.
What would be the practical ramification if we concluded that
Shul A was reform, but Shul B was another religious sect that
is not a part of Judaism. Are you thinking of the halachic
signifcance of ruling someone an apostate?
> There are groups of fringe Reform Jews in the United States that,
> through their practices, are turning themselves into a religion
> separate from Judaism. These fringe Reform Jews - who marry Jews to
> non-Jews, a rabbi with a priest, or certify as kosher pork or gay and
> lesbian marriages - are not like most Reform Jews in Israel and like
> most Reform rabbis in the United States, who are do not accept these
> practices.
Why are these practices especially odious? If they serve improperly
slaughtered beef they are within the pale, but not if they serve
pork? How does the author approve certain lapses but not others?
It sounds like speculation about popular standards: most Jews
would say this is going too far. So are we just making standards
for the moment, knowing that tomorrow many Jews will approve things
that today only a few approve? And in fact most Jews today eat pork;
maybe we should only consider the opinions of the clergy.
> It is our responsibility to build an understanding between us and
> the Reform and Conservative - not on the basis of halacha, but on
> the basis of red lines. Not in order to force them to join us, or
> to cause some of us to become like them, but rather so that we can
> be united under the saying, "These and these are the words of God"
> in order that we will not become two different sects, in order that
> we will have common ground, so that the Law of Return will unite and
> not divide.
The saying "these and these" refers to facially inconsistent statements
of halacha that are both authoritative and legitimate. It certainly
could not be said honestly of two views about whether the entire
halachic system is binding. The entire basis of non-orthodox
movements seems inimical to a limiting rule, that you may disregard
Orach Chaim and Yoreh Deah, but not Choshen Mishpat or Even Haezer,
for instance. If we may draw our lines, why draw them there?
When he mentioned the Law of Return, did the author mean to say
that all he really wants is clearer standards of personal status?
Does he just mean to say that we should cooperate to make clearer
who is a Jew? If so, all that would be required would be for
the non-orthodox movements to agree to accept orthodox standards.
> I do not agree with the path of the Reform, but I want them to be
> a part of my nation, a part of our nation.
Me too. I just want them to be an orthodox part of our nation.
> They serve God in a way that I don’t agree with, but I still
> respect them.
Me too. But it would be better if they kept kosher.
-Chaim
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Rafael
> Reform and Conservative Judaism
>
> by Yitzhak Frankenthal
> us to become like them, but rather so that we can be united under the
> saying, "These and these are the words of God" in order that we will
> not become two different sects, in order that we will have common
> ground, so that the Law of Return will unite and not divide.
Here is where this author is likely to lose most educated O thinkers, as
he is asking for an abandonment of Halakhah, which clearly rejects
certain interpretations as heretical. Hiding this fact will not bring
unity between O and non-O. It can only bring more misunderstanding and
false expectations.
"Eilu v'eilu.." (These are these...) refers to a series of debates over
halakhic minutia between two schools of the same sect (Pharasees, a.k.a.
"Our Sages of Blessed Memory," the rabbis of the Talmud). The
Pharasees, whose teachings Jews have followed for the past 2,000+ years,
rejected their sectarian rivals in the strongest terms (see the twelfth
blessing of the Shemoneh Esrei, "Against Heretics," which Jews have
recited thrice daily for millenia). Like it or not, O sees R and C
ideologies as spiritual, if not pedagogic, descendents of those ancient
(now defunct) heresies.
Any terms of understanding have to recognize that O, who continue in the
pre-R halakhic tradition, cannot accept or respect R or C ideology. O
can and should, however, treat all individual Jews with respect and
warmth. Admittedly, it is very difficult to achieve this sort of
relationship, but it is the only chance for O Jews to remain O and still
endeavor for peace within the tribe.
The author, quoted above, does no service to Klal Yisrael in misleading
it with misrepresentations of traditional halakhic thought. I see no
less anger and resentment resulting from such rhetoric than I do from
the already difficult task ahead of us.
Rafael
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>> us to become like them, but rather so that we can be united under the
>> saying, "These and these are the words of God" in order that we will
>> not become two different sects, in order that we will have common
>> ground, so that the Law of Return will unite and not divide.
>Here is where this author is likely to lose most educated O thinkers, as
>he is asking for an abandonment of Halakhah, which clearly rejects
>certain interpretations as heretical. Hiding this fact will not bring
>unity between O and non-O. It can only bring more misunderstanding and
>false expectations.
Rafael, since when did _you_ become appointed to teach us all
what is, and what is not heresy? Despite your anti-historical claims
to the contrary, Judaism has no one set principles of belief that all
Jews must accept.
>"Eilu v'eilu.." (These are these...) refers to a series of debates over
>halakhic minutia between two schools of the same sect (Pharasees, a.k.a.
>"Our Sages of Blessed Memory," the rabbis of the Talmud).
No, it most certainly does not. It is a general halakhic principle
that has been applied by Jewish thinkers for the past 2,000 years. Your
attempt to rewrite history may make you feel more secure in your own
religious practice, but it won't change any facts,
Robert
Robert Kaiser
chaim...@my-dejanews.com says:
>What are "the red lines that define our common tradition"? They are
>simply the elements of the Jewish tradition that any particular
>institution still acknowledges. Put that way, the idea could
>obviously not work to define whether any particular institution
>has departed too far still to be called Jewish. If you look
>at traditional attempts to define central Jewish thoughts,
>such as the Thirteen Principles, you quickly realize that
>the conservative and reform movements would not endorse that
>as the loyalty oath of the Jewish people.
>
>Perhaps some orthodox rabbis could meet with non-orthodox rabbis,
>but what would be the stuff of the discussion? If we were dreamers,
>we could make up a mutually advantageous agreement. For instance,
>we should all be able to agree that status-questions are very
>destructive, and that conversion should therefore be left to
>orthodox standards. Think that would fly?
I am afraid that you have displayed your own utter ignorance
of everything that has happened in Israel for the past two years.
This is exactly what was proposed, and the Conservative and Reform
Jews agreed to it. It was a deal.
Where have you been these last two years?
Then the Orthodox rabbinate walked out anyways, and tried to cover
their betrayal of Jewish unity by spewing hateful libel at all
non-Orthodox Jews; further, their slander was phrased in over-the-top
exagerration that is sure to lead many people to hatred and violence.
Were I an Orthodox Jew, I would have been deeply ashamed.
Robert Kaiser
David Goldman
>their betrayal of Jewish unity by spewing hateful libel at all
>non-Orthodox Jews; further, their slander was phrased in over-the-top
>exagerration that is sure to lead many people to hatred and violence.
>Were I an Orthodox Jew, I would have been deeply ashamed.
>Robert Kaiser
Orthodox Shmorthodox. These kinds of discussions are ridiculous to
start with. The Zionist Orthodox participants just did it to get their
names in the media along with the Reform and Conservative. If you want
any guidelines on how to deal with sectarians, take a look at R.
Saadya and R. Hai Gaon on how they and others rejected any legitimacy
for the Karaites. Same with R. Yakov Sasportas and the Sabbatians.
Same for R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch and the Reformistas in Deutschland.
The phoney ideologies Deformed Judaism and Provokative Judaism and
Deconstructionist Judaism (as well as Zionism) invariably will go the
way of Karaism, Saducceeism, Sabbatianism and Frankism, to the
dustbin of history.
Rafael
> Rafael, since when did _you_ become appointed to teach us all
> what is, and what is not heresy? Despite your anti-historical claims
> to the contrary, Judaism has no one set principles of belief that all
> Jews must accept.
I wasn't. See Sanhedrin 10:1. ALL treatises on halakhic belief are
informed by this Mishna. The most widely accepted codification, the one
found in the traditional siddur, is based on Maimonides' 13 Ikkarim
(Principles of Faith), from his commentary to this mishna.
But, again, I'm not trying to argue denominational teachings here. I'm
only stating the fact that O rejects R and C ideologies as heretical. If
you truly want to make peace with O, then you'll have to accept this
obstacle and work around it.
> No, it most certainly does not. It is a general halakhic principle
> that has been applied by Jewish thinkers for the past 2,000 years. Your
> attempt to rewrite history may make you feel more secure in your own
> religious practice, but it won't change any facts,
Eruvin 13b:
"Rabbi Abba said in the name of Shmuel: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel
argued for three years, each side claiming the Halakha was as they
maintained. A bas kol then came forth and stated: Eilu ve'eilu divrei
Elokim chaim (These and those are the living words of Hashem), but the
Halakha is according to Beis Hillel . . ."
Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel were two schools of the same sect
(Pharasees). Their differences, found elsewhere in the Talmud, were
over minute details of legal practice that had nothing to do with
fundamental beliefs about the origin of the Torah (Written or Oral),
Messiah, resurrection of the dead, etc. Those types of differences
existed between the Pharasees (rabbis of the Talmud) and their sectarian
rivals (primarily, the Sadducees, [Tzadukkim] who rejected the Oral Law,
and World to Come/resurrection of the dead).
Anyone who learns Talmud can attest to this.
Rafael
J. Olson
> >>There are groups of fringe Reform Jews in the United States that,
> >>through their practices, are turning themselves into a religion separate
> >>from Judaism. These fringe Reform Jews - who marry Jews to
> >>non-Jews,
>
> ===> I believe it was in Forward magazing from a year or so ago that
> cited a statistic that 50% of American R rabbis will marry a jew to a
> non-jew. That is more than the fringe, it is the mainstream.
I would love to look this up. Do you have a more exact citation? (I'm not
holding my breath.) I have met many a R rabbi, and never have I spoken
with one who would perform an intermarriage. You know, no matter what you
may think of other Jewish groups, most of their leadership is as concerned
with the continuity of K'lal Yisrael as you. Just for some perspective.
> >>I do not agree with the path of the Reform, but I want them to be a part
> >>of my nation, a part of our nation.
>
> ===> So do I. There is still a need to discuss and argue the
> differences between us. It doesn't mean we have to hate each other,
> and that goes both ways.
Oh really? Well, the little "statistic" you post above is not the way to
promote rational and mutually respectful discourse. But it is a great way
to make others look bad.
Jess
chaim...@my-dejanews.com
> I am afraid that you have displayed your own utter ignorance
> of everything that has happened in Israel for the past two years.
Oh dear. Utter ignorance of everything that has happened in Israel
for the past two years? Could you fill me in? Not on everything
that has happened in Israel for the past two years. Just on
the part that you think relevant.
> This is exactly what was proposed, and the Conservative and Reform
> Jews agreed to it. It was a deal.
What was proposed?
> Where have you been these last two years?
I spent part of them in Atlanta and part in Philadelphia. Thanks
for asking. What was proposed?
> Then the Orthodox rabbinate walked out anyways, and tried to
> cover their betrayal of Jewish unity by spewing hateful libel
> at all non-Orthodox Jews;
Wow. That sounds pretty bad. They walked out of a deal that
the conservative and reform movements accepted? It sounds sort
of like the situation I described, and which you helped me
to see as utter ignorance: there was no way to formulate standards
that all acknowledged.
Betrayal of Jewish unity sounds pretty bad though.
Spewing hateful libel at all non-Orthodox Jews sounds pretty bad, too.
Do you have some examples, or should your analysis suffice?
> [F]urther, their slander was phrased in over-the-top
> exagerration that is sure to lead many people to hatred and
> violence. Were I an Orthodox Jew, I would have been deeply ashamed.
Wow. Sounds like you're lucky you're not.
Could you provide some examples of this slander phrased in
over-the-top exageration? Or was it the same as the hateful
libel you mentioned just a moment ago? Did it actually
lead many people to hatred and violence? Remember, I'm
utterly ignorant. Information might help me more than
another exploration of your unpleasant emotional experience.
jody eisenman
wrote:
>
> chaim...@my-dejanews.com says:
>
>>
For instance,
>>we should all be able to agree that status-questions are very
>>destructive, and that conversion should therefore be left to
>>orthodox standards. Think that would fly?
>
>
> I am afraid that you have displayed your own utter ignorance
>of everything that has happened in Israel for the past two years.
Gald to see that you are back from the sinas chinam trip you were on,
Robert.
>This is exactly what was proposed, and the Conservative and Reform
>Jews agreed to it. It was a deal.
>
There was no deal. The Ne'eman Commission made a proposal. The Chief
Rabbinate accepted only one part. Most of Torah Jewry rejected it. The
R accepted it. The C sort of rode the fence. On the one hand. they
reluctantly accepted it; on the other hand, they refused to drop their
lawsuit against the Chief Rabbinate which continues to this day.
The rest of your slanders are deleted.
Robert Kaiser
jo...@idt.net (jody eisenman) says:
>
>>This is exactly what was proposed, and the Conservative and Reform
>>Jews agreed to it. It was a deal.
>There was no deal. The Ne'eman Commission made a proposal.
Jody, this is the deal I was talking about.
>The Chief
>Rabbinate accepted only one part.
They totally rejected it.
> Most of Torah Jewry rejected it.
False. Only a tiny part of Judaism, the fanatic and extremist
part, rejected it. Most of Judaism accepted it.
>The R accepted it. The C sort of rode the fence. On the one hand. they
>reluctantly accepted it; on the other hand, they refused to drop their
>lawsuit against the Chief Rabbinate which continues to this day.
This is totally false, with zero basis in fact. The Conservative
movement _did_ withdraw their lawsuit. It was only reinstated when
the Orthodox parties broke their word and refused to go along with the
Neeman commissiin plan.
Jody, you do no do Orthodox Judaism any favor by printing fiction
about it.
Robert
Rafael
> Jody, you do no do Orthodox Judaism any favor by printing fiction
> about it.
"Wolf!" "Wolf!"
Rafael
jody eisenman
wrote:
>
>jo...@idt.net (jody eisenman) says:
>>
>>>This is exactly what was proposed, and the Conservative and Reform
>>>Jews agreed to it. It was a deal.
>
>
>>There was no deal. The Ne'eman Commission made a proposal.
>
> Jody, this is the deal I was talking about.
>
Then you should know that this was not a deal, but a proposal. No one,
save for the commission, agreed to it in advance.
>
>>The Chief
>>Rabbinate accepted only one part.
>
> They totally rejected it.
You are incorrect here. The Chief Rabbinate accepted the part that
acknowledged the Rabbinate's rule on religious affairs. Please reread
the news stories and see for yourself.
>
>
>> Most of Torah Jewry rejected it.
>
>
> False. Only a tiny part of Judaism, the fanatic and extremist
>part, rejected it. Most of Judaism accepted it.
Please reread what I wrote. Torah Judaism rejected it. This includes
Jews who follow the Torah. I wasn't talking about anyone else here. In
fact, I later on go to talk about C and R below. Thus, your comments
make no sense.
>
>
>>The R accepted it. The C sort of rode the fence. On the one hand. they
>>reluctantly accepted it; on the other hand, they refused to drop their
>>lawsuit against the Chief Rabbinate which continues to this day.
>
> This is totally false, with zero basis in fact. The Conservative
>movement _did_ withdraw their lawsuit. It was only reinstated when
>the Orthodox parties broke their word and refused to go along with the
>Neeman commissiin plan.
>
1. They never withdrew the lawsuit.
2. "broke their word" - What do you mean? They did not agree in
advance to support the Ne'eman's Commissions proposal. So how on Earth
did they break their word??????
Please stop printing fiction. You do no justice to the cause of
Conservative Judaism by doing so.
Simcha Streltsov
: >
: > Reform and Conservative Judaism
: >
: > by Yitzhak Frankenthal
: >from them. It is clear to an Israeli Reform Jew that a Jew is someone
: >who is born to a Jewish mother. It is clear to an Israeli Reform Jew that
it seems that the bottom line of the article is: we can deal with
Israeli Reform Jews because they are not like [most] American Reform
Jews. Probably American Reformers should wake up and stop sending
their money to support those renegates
Randy B
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>>
>> ===> I believe it was in Forward magazing from a year or so ago that
>> cited a statistic that 50% of American R rabbis will marry a jew to a
>> non-jew. That is more than the fringe, it is the mainstream.
>
>I would love to look this up. Do you have a more exact citation? (I'm not
>holding my breath.) I have met many a R rabbi, and never have I spoken
>with one who would perform an intermarriage. You know, no matter what you
>may think of other Jewish groups, most of their leadership is as concerned
>with the continuity of K'lal Yisrael as you. Just for some perspective.
===> It was a Jewish Federation stat. Give me some time, I'll dig it
up for you. That the Reform movement's intermarriage rate is at 50% is
not under dispute. Call up one of the R rabbis in Seattle, and ask
them the rate, and see if you get a straight answer. As far as your
point for perspective, here is one for you. Last year at Rosh Hashana,
the Rabbi from the largest R temple here in San Diego attacked the
local Chabad communities in his sermon, and implored his flock to stop
lending financial support to Chabad here. ( interestingly enough, he
qualified this statement with an appeal to give to his own building
fund!) He was angry that Chabad apparantly did not support the R in
Israel. Some interesting points from his diatribe. Most glaringly is
that the local Chabad rabbis are the only Orthodox rabbis that
participate regularly in local events. They have not and do not
involve themselves in Israeli politics. To stop supporting them would
have no impact on the Israeli Chabad. Also, in a newspaper article, he
complained how Chabad solicited his congregants directly, and this was
somehow *wrong*. What did I get in the mail today? A slick flyer from
his temple asking me to join their congregation!!
>
>> >>I do not agree with the path of the Reform, but I want them to be a part
>> >>of my nation, a part of our nation.
>>
>> ===> So do I. There is still a need to discuss and argue the
>> differences between us. It doesn't mean we have to hate each other,
>> and that goes both ways.
>
>Oh really? Well, the little "statistic" you post above is not the way to
>promote rational and mutually respectful discourse. But it is a great way
>to make others look bad.
===> That little "statistic" I posted is reality, and needs to be
addressed. It should make them look bad because it is bad. I've
pointed out the failings of Orthodoxy, and the C movement that I was
raised in. If you want a sugar coating of the truth, than please
ignore my posts.
Randy
Yaakov Kayman
Who is this Yitzchak Frankenthal whose purported opinions you posted here?
Yes, I say "purported," since it wouldn't be the first time you tried to
pass off a fantasy and a fabrication as truth?
Yes, Orthodox Judaism indeed needs to clearly recognize R & C, for the
enemies of Torah that they are. I do not refer to the rank-and-file, but
rather those few of their leaders who have some meaningful knowledge of
Torah and have chosen, quite deliberately, to rebel against Torah's
Author.
HaEMET vehashalom ehavu (love peace ONLY when it is coupled with truth),
Yaakov K.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaakov Kayman yaa...@j51.com
"Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock,
about whom the wolves complain"
Richard Schultz
: Most glaringly is
: that the local Chabad rabbis are the only Orthodox rabbis that
: participate regularly in local events. They have not and do not
: involve themselves in Israeli politics. To stop supporting them would
: have no impact on the Israeli Chabad.
To be absolutely clear, Israeli Chabad has in fact involved itself in
politics here despite their promises that they would not. Indeed, my
vote for Prime Minister in the last election was influenced by Chabad.
I had been intending to vote for "None of the Above" on the theory that
he was more qualified than either of the two official candidates. When
Chabad started putting up signs telling us to vote for Netanyahu because
he would be better for the Jews, it occurred to me that this was almost
certainly the closest thing I would ever get to a direct message from God.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either
charming or tedious."
Amitai Halevi
; Randy B (r...@nospam.adnc.com) wrote:
;
; : Most glaringly is
; : that the local Chabad rabbis are the only Orthodox rabbis that
; : participate regularly in local events. They have not and do not
; : involve themselves in Israeli politics. To stop supporting them would
; : have no impact on the Israeli Chabad.
;
; To be absolutely clear, Israeli Chabad has in fact involved itself in
; politics here despite their promises that they would not. Indeed, my
; vote for Prime Minister in the last election was influenced by Chabad.
; I had been intending to vote for "None of the Above" on the theory that
; he was more qualified than either of the two official candidates. When
; Chabad started putting up signs telling us to vote for Netanyahu because
; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
; he would be better for the Jews, it occurred to me that this was almost
; certainly the closest thing I would ever get to a direct message from
;God.
;
"Modeh ve-`ozev (at least, I hope so) yeru`ham".
Amitai
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| E. Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> |
| Department of Chemistry, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology |
| http://www.technion.ac.il/technion/chemistry/staff/halevi |
| |
| "`Od yenuvun be-seva, deshenim ve-ra`ananim yihyu", Psalms 92,15 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> Kaiser:
>
> Who is this Yitzchak Frankenthal whose purported opinions you posted here?
> Yes, I say "purported," since it wouldn't be the first time you tried to
> pass off a fantasy and a fabrication as truth?
Although I sympathize with any father who had his son murdered by the
Palestinians, the reaction of Mister Frankenthal (to the murder of his
son) has been closer to the well known psychiatric condition of
"identifying with the enemy". He joined Netivot Shalom, has had
warm and friendly meetings with the Palestinians, welcomes Reform
and Conservative groups with open arms, etc.
Josh
Craig Winchell
Randy B <r...@nospam.adnc.com> wrote in article
<35d23418....@news2.cts.com>...
(snipped)
> >Oh really? Well, the little "statistic" you post above is not the way to
> >promote rational and mutually respectful discourse. But it is a great
way
> >to make others look bad.
>
> ===> That little "statistic" I posted is reality, and needs to be
> addressed. It should make them look bad because it is bad. I've
> pointed out the failings of Orthodoxy, and the C movement that I was
> raised in. If you want a sugar coating of the truth, than please
> ignore my posts.
>
> Randy
>
B"H
Randy, the first statistic that you posted claimed that 50% of Reform
rabbis would perform intermarriage. I've never seen that statistic before.
Later, you justified the statistic by saying that the intermarriage rate
is 50%. I have no reason to doubt this. The first statistic you gave,
however, might be difficult to justify with documentation. However, while
I will reserve judgement until the documentation is in, I have no reason to
doubt that information, either.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
Randy B
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
On 13 Aug 1998 05:24:31 GMT, sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard
Schultz) wrote:
>Randy B (r...@nospam.adnc.com) wrote:
>
>: Most glaringly is
>: that the local Chabad rabbis are the only Orthodox rabbis that
>: participate regularly in local events. They have not and do not
>: involve themselves in Israeli politics. To stop supporting them would
>: have no impact on the Israeli Chabad.
>
>To be absolutely clear, Israeli Chabad has in fact involved itself in
>politics here despite their promises that they would not. Indeed, my
>vote for Prime Minister in the last election was influenced by Chabad.
>I had been intending to vote for "None of the Above" on the theory that
>he was more qualified than either of the two official candidates. When
>Chabad started putting up signs telling us to vote for Netanyahu because
>he would be better for the Jews, it occurred to me that this was almost
>certainly the closest thing I would ever get to a direct message from God.
===> That Israeli Chabad does involve itself in politics is
incidental. The local Rabbis don't support them financially, so to
harm them by stopping donations in order to somehow get back at the
Israeli branch is a little absurd.
Randy
chaim...@my-dejanews.com
In article <35d23418....@news2.cts.com>,
r...@nospam.adnc.com (Randy B) wrote:
>>
>> ===> I believe it was in Forward magazing from a year or so ago that
>> cited a statistic that 50% of American R rabbis will marry a jew to a
>> non-jew. That is more than the fringe, it is the mainstream.
>I would love to look this up. Do you have a more exact citation?...
>I have met many a R rabbi, and never have I spoken with one who
>would perform an intermarriage...
>> ===> It was a Jewish Federation stat. Give me some time, I'll dig it
>> up for you. That the Reform movement's intermarriage rate is at 50% is
>> not under dispute. Call up one of the R rabbis in Seattle, and ask
>> them the rate, and see if you get a straight answer...
...
>Oh really? Well, the little "statistic" you post above is not the way to
>promote rational and mutually respectful discourse. But it is a great way
>to make others look bad.
>> ===> That little "statistic" I posted is reality, and needs to be
>> addressed. It should make them look bad because it is bad...
For what little it's worth, the initial claim was that most rabbis,
not most members, of the reform movement involve themselves in
intermarriage. I believed the claim when I read it, but when
someone challenged it, I thought again: it sounds very unlikely.
I know a Jew who intermarried, and I know that her family had
to look pretty hard to find a rabbi willing to perform the
ceremony. I assume that many intermarriages are performed
by the clergy of the other religion represented, or by civil
servants.
chaim...@my-dejanews.com
Oh dear. What seems clear is that Robert Kaiser has some sort
of highly idiosyncratic way of using words, that often leads people
away from his secret meaning. It is also becoming clear that
several people think that several other people don't do any
favor to yet other people by printing lies and fiction about
various things.
It remains to be clarified what Robert Kaiser thinks people
had agreed to do, and what he thinks they did in fact. It
sounds like something called the Ne'eman Commission made a
proposal, of undisclosed content; somebody Robert Kaiser
regards as representing the Conservative and Reform movements
agreed to be bound, if the representatives of Orthodoxy would
also agree to be bound; those latter representatives did agree,
but they then did something that Robert Kaiser thinks was
inconsistent with their agreement.
Is that right?
Is the tiny, fanatic, extremist part of Judaism that Robert Kaiser
thinks rejected something, all of Orthodoxy? In Israel, that's
not so tiny, is it? What part of the population rejected the
proposal (through their representatives)?
RedH...@webtv.net
"How good and how pleasant it is that brothers dwell together. It is
like fine oil on the head running down onto the beard, the beard of
Aaron, that comes down over the collar of his robe; like the dew of
Hermon that falls upon the mountains of Zion. There the Lord ordained
blessing, everlasting life."
Only when we can accept others where they are will we be able to receive
this blessing that was ordained. God is not through with any of us yet.
We all have a lot of rough edges. But if we can work together and focus
on what we have in common--rather than what divides us--we will soon see
the glorious future that was foretold through the prophets.
Robert Kaiser
yaa...@smtp.j51.com (Yaakov Kayman) says:
>
>Kaiser:
>
>Who is this Yitzchak Frankenthal whose purported opinions you posted here?
>Yes, I say "purported," since it wouldn't be the first time you tried to
>pass off a fantasy and a fabrication as truth?
Yaakox, please stop writing fiction. I never wrote such lies,
and your claims to the contrary are pure libel, Further, stop
attacking Modern Orthodox Jews and denying that they exist, and having
such opinions.
Are you so delusional that you would deny the existence of
one of Israel most well known and outspoken Modern Orthodox institutions?
Would you also deny the existence of the Chief Rabbinate as well?
Yaakox, please take your medication.
>Yes, Orthodox Judaism indeed needs to clearly recognize R & C, for the
>enemies of Torah that they are. I do not refer to the rank-and-file, but
>rather those few of their leaders who have some meaningful knowledge of
>Torah and have chosen, quite deliberately, to rebel against Torah's
>Author.
Such are the words that lead to violence and death. I hope you
get some help before you incite people to violence.
Robert
J. Olson
> >> ===> I believe it was in Forward magazing from a year or so ago that
> >> cited a statistic that 50% of American R rabbis will marry a jew to a
> >> non-jew. That is more than the fringe, it is the mainstream.
> >holding my breath.) I have met many a R rabbi, and never have I spoken
> >with one who would perform an intermarriage. You know, no matter what you
> >may think of other Jewish groups, most of their leadership is as concerned
> >with the continuity of K'lal Yisrael as you. Just for some perspective.
> up for you. That the Reform movement's intermarriage rate is at 50% is
> not under dispute.
Lovely, but this was not the statistic you are citing. I don't doubt that
intermarriage among non-O (and, to be fair, in my experience non-C)
persons is quite high. You wrote that you had a statistic, cited in
Forward (are you referring to _Forward_ [Vorwerts] the newspaper or some
other "Forward" of which I am not aware?), which stated that when polled,
50% of Reform rabbis would perform intermarriage. I believe this is
poppycock--however I may feel about the Reform movement, I find it really
hard to believe that this is an accurate statistic. So far as I know, only
a few fringe R rabbis would officiate at such a ceremony.
As your interesting (yet hackneyed) information about the intermarriage
problem in Reform, does not pertain to the point I was making, I
will snip it for bandwidth.
But one thing I would like to say, I am not an apologist for the Reform
movement, and I agree, it is inappropriate for _any_ leader in a given
movement to criticize his/her congregation's choices in supporting
something they themselves might not believe in. It creates a silly seige
mentality.
> >> ===> So do I. There is still a need to discuss and argue the
> >> differences between us. It doesn't mean we have to hate each other,
> >> and that goes both ways.
> >
> >Oh really? Well, the little "statistic" you post above is not the way to
> >promote rational and mutually respectful discourse. But it is a great way
> >to make others look bad.
>
> ===> That little "statistic" I posted is reality, and needs to be
> addressed. It should make them look bad because it is bad. I've
> pointed out the failings of Orthodoxy, and the C movement that I was
> raised in. If you want a sugar coating of the truth, than please
> ignore my posts.
This is exactly the issue. Your statistic is NOT reflective of any
reality of which I have heard. I agree, intermarriage is a distinct
problem. I do NOT agree, nor will I until I see it with my own eyes and am
able to evaluate the sources used in the article, that half of all Reform
rabbis would perform intermarriages. I know of plenty of people who
affiliate with the Reform movement, marry out, and continue to affiliate
with the Reform movement...but never with the blessing, implicit or
explicit, of a Reform rabbi. In fact, the trend I have seen lately (in my
very little exposure to what goes on in the Reform movement) is that
Reform rabbis are trying very hard to curb intermarriage.
I don't expect sugar-coated truth; but truth of some kind would be nice.
Jess
>
> Randy
>
>
Rafael
> Are you so delusional that you would deny the existence of
> one of Israel most well known and outspoken Modern Orthodox institutions?
> Would you also deny the existence of the Chief Rabbinate as well?
> Yaakox, please take your medication.
(Speaking as an O Jew) what "Modern O" institution might that be?
> Such are the words that lead to violence and death. I hope you
> get some help before you incite people to violence.
The only one I would worry about becoming violent is you, Robert. Take
a break. Your sinat chinam (baseless hatred) has turned off SCJ regulars
of all stripes.
Rafael
Rafael
> Lovely, but this was not the statistic you are citing. I don't doubt that
> intermarriage among non-O (and, to be fair, in my experience non-C)
> persons is quite high.
Here are the 1990 NJOP figures on intermarriage:
Reform 53%
Conservative 37%
Centrist Orthodox 3%
Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
These figures are based on a definition of Jewishness called "core,"
which means those who, when asked if they are Jewish, reply that they
are. It does not mean that they would all be accepted as halakhically
Jewish by every denomination.
The figure concerning R rabbis performing intermarriages at a rate of
50% sounds really inflated, and is probably being confused with the
intermarriage rate. It is just as likely that these intermarriages are
done civilly or by non-Jewish clergy.
Rafael
Robert Kaiser
chaim...@my-dejanews.com says:
>Oh dear. What seems clear is that Robert Kaiser has some sort
>of highly idiosyncratic way of using words, that often leads people
>away from his secret meaning.
The plans from the Neeman commission have never been a "secret";
In fact they have been made available to the public in full detail,
for many months now. Come on Chaim, you sound like the paranoid
schizophrenic on this newsgroup who always rants about "the secret
communists". Get a grip.
>It remains to be clarified what Robert Kaiser thinks people
>had agreed to do, and what he thinks they did in fact. It
>sounds like something called the Ne'eman Commission made a
>proposal, of undisclosed content;
Are you really this seriously disconnected from the real world?
Come on, if this is a joke, it is a poor one. Stop pretending that you
from another planet, and that you have absolutely no idea what has
happened in Israel for the past two years. *No-one* is that stupid
and ignorant. This ins't funny anymore.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>> Are you so delusional that you would deny the existence of
>> one of Israel most well known and outspoken Modern Orthodox institutions?
>> Would you also deny the existence of the Chief Rabbinate as well?
>> Yaakox, please take your medication.
>(Speaking as an O Jew) what "Modern O" institution might that be?
Other than the many I have listed !? Come on Rafel. It is one
thing to disagree with people from such groups. It is another to pretend
that they don't exist. Please try to get some sort of grip on reality.
Just because you disagree with them is no reason to pretend that
they aren't real. The Modern Orthodox Jews of Edah, Oz VeShalom, Meimad,
and the Hartman Institute, among others, won't disappear just because
you pretend they don't exist.
>> Such are the words that lead to violence and death. I hope you
>> get some help before you incite people to violence.
>The only one I would worry about becoming violent is you, Robert. Take
>a break. Your sinat chinam (baseless hatred) has turned off SCJ regulars
>of all stripes.
That's truly sick. I have come out strongly against violence
and fanatacism, yet you somehow turn this around into a paranoid claim
that I would be violent? Huh? That's just bizzarre.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>Here are the 1990 NJOP figures on intermarriage:
>
>Reform 53%
>Conservative 37%
>Centrist Orthodox 3%
>Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
These are NOT the numbers I read in that survey. I suspect that
you are creatively misreading the numbers.
Robert
J. Olson
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Rafael wrote:
Thanks--I think I read these statistics somewhere. What organization is
the NJOP?
I have no doubt they are probably accurate; and also that most of these
are not performed by Jewish clergy of any stripe--or at least O, C or
R...Very unfortunate indeed.
Jess
> J. Olson wrote:
>
> > Lovely, but this was not the statistic you are citing. I don't doubt that
> > intermarriage among non-O (and, to be fair, in my experience non-C)
> > persons is quite high.
>
> Here are the 1990 NJOP figures on intermarriage:
>
> Reform 53%
> Conservative 37%
> Centrist Orthodox 3%
> Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
>
J. Olson
On 13 Aug 1998, Robert Kaiser wrote:
> Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
> >Here are the 1990 NJOP figures on intermarriage:
> >
> >Reform 53%
> >Conservative 37%
> >Centrist Orthodox 3%
> >Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
>
> you are creatively misreading the numbers.
Robert, you must have read a different survey. I have read this survey
(from a source _other_ than Raphael) and he is reporting the figures
accurately. (Btw, when one presents cold statistics, it is sort of
difficult to say he is "misreading the numbers". "Misreading" really only
applies when one attempts to _intepret_ the figures, fyi.)
Jess
>
>
>
> Robert
>
>
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>Here are the 1990 NJOP figures on intermarriage:
>
>Reform 53%
>Conservative 37%
>Centrist Orthodox 3%
>Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
Nope. This is wrong. The 1990 NJPS reports that American Jews
intermarry at a 52% rate. On this basis, some observers have argued
that "the battle to prevent intermarriage is over." Moreover, it is
assumed from the data, that all sectors of U.S. Jewry equally have
succumbed to this pattern of assimilation.
Critics, on the other hand, wisely have noted that this national data
is very misleading. The 52% figure has been artificially inflated because:
Small-town single Jews intermarry at very high rates
Adult offspring of mixed-married parents intermarry at a rate
which exceeds 90%
Unaffiliated Jews intermarry with great frequency
In contrast, Jews who belong to synagogues, are the sons and daughters
of two Jewish parents, and reside in moderate to large-size Jewish
communities, intermarry at far smaller rates.
This criticism of the 52% generalization is born out in the JTS Report
by Prof. Jack Wertheimer, particularly in its description of the
unaffiliated. The authors point to a dramatic cultural difference
between synagogue-members and self-identifying nonmembers. The large
majority of synagogue members are married to born-Jews. Nonmembers by
contrast, have a higher rate of intermarriage. Here are the figures:
Orthodox -
3% of members are intermarried/
in contrast to 17% of self-identifying unaffiliated Orthodox Jews
Conservative -
6% of members are intermarried/
in contrast to 36% of self-identifying unaffiliated Conservative Jews
Reform -
17% of members are intermarried/
in contrast to 49% of self-identifying unaffiliated Reform Jews
Like Orthodoxy, the culture of Conservative synagogues clearly remains in the camp of those who marry within the faith.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
(posted and mailed)
Daniel B. Schwartz
Robert Kaiser wrote in message <35d32...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
>
> Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>>Here are the 1990 NJOP figures on intermarriage:
>>
>>Reform 53%
>>Conservative 37%
>>Centrist Orthodox 3%
>>Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
>
>
Daniel B. Schwartz
How can you make that claim and equate Conservativism with Orthodoxy?
CJ, by your own figures hase twice the intermarriage rate of Orthodoxy. I
think it is clear that Orthodoxy stands alone is winning the war against
intermarriage. But even Orthodoxy's numbers are too high.
Robert Kaiser wrote in message <35d33...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>...
Rafael
> Just because you disagree with them is no reason to pretend that
> they aren't real. The Modern Orthodox Jews of Edah, Oz VeShalom, Meimad,
> and the Hartman Institute, among others, won't disappear just because
> you pretend they don't exist.
Oz VeShalom and Hartman I know only through you. As I'm on the inside of
O and you are no the out, who are you to tell us who speaks for O?
As for Edah & Meimad, I do know about them and I perceive them as
left-of-center (but where did you mention any of these on this thread?).
> That's truly sick. I have come out strongly against violence
> and fanatacism, yet you somehow turn this around into a paranoid claim
> that I would be violent? Huh? That's just bizzarre.
Robert, EVERY regular poster on SCJ that I can think of has denounced
your rantings at some time or another. Many of them just ignore your
posts (I often do). I stand with them.
You don't speak for the Conservative movement and your daily
anti-Orthodox postings are nauseating. If you don't see your behavior
as threatening, you are all the moreso in need of professional attention
(I know you'll say the same thing about anyone who disagrees with you,
but methinks thou dost protest to much. Get help, Robert. GET HELP!!)
Rafael
Rafael
>
> Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
> >Here are the 1990 NJOP figures on intermarriage:
> >
> >Reform 53%
> >Conservative 37%
> >Centrist Orthodox 3%
> >Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
>
> These are NOT the numbers I read in that survey. I suspect that
> you are creatively misreading the numbers.
Those are the numbers I have. To see them in chart form, check out this
site:
Rafael
Harry Weiss
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Rafael (raf...@nyct.net) wrote:
: J. Olson wrote:
: > Lovely, but this was not the statistic you are citing. I don't doubt that
: > intermarriage among non-O (and, to be fair, in my experience non-C)
: > persons is quite high.
: Here are the 1990 NJOP figures on intermarriage:
: Reform 53%
: Conservative 37%
: Centrist Orthodox 3%
: Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
: These figures are based on a definition of Jewishness called "core,"
: which means those who, when asked if they are Jewish, reply that they
: are. It does not mean that they would all be accepted as halakhically
: Jewish by every denomination.
: The figure concerning R rabbis performing intermarriages at a rate of
: 50% sounds really inflated, and is probably being confused with the
: intermarriage rate. It is just as likely that these intermarriages are
: done civilly or by non-Jewish clergy.
I don't think anyone said that 50% of the marriages performed by R
Rabbis were intermarriages. It was that 50% of R Rabbis performed
intermarriages. I would presurme that not all of the marriages by any R
Rabbi would be intermarriages. (There may still be a few like one who
recently died in Miami who specialized in such marriages)
The fact is that when you look at your numbers and you add in those that
are not considered intermarriages in the numbers when there was a non
halachic conversions, in the very near future (if not already) most R
would be non Jews.
: Rafael
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
Peter Borregard.
husband opposed intermarriage and had never performed one. (Of course, he
recognizes non-halachic conversions as valid, but he would still require a
conversion that he recognized), but that a Reform rabbi looking for a
pulpit today would find it difficult if not impossible to get a pulpit
without agreeing to perform intermarriages.
Rafael
> >
> >Reform 53%
> >Conservative 37%
> >Centrist Orthodox 3%
> >Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
>
> intermarry at a 52% rate. On this basis, some observers have argued
> that "the battle to prevent intermarriage is over." Moreover, it is
> assumed from the data, that all sectors of U.S. Jewry equally have
> succumbed to this pattern of assimilation.
What I have presented above are the 1990 NJPS figures, broken down by
denomination, that were published in Moment, Jewish Spectator, Jewish
Observer, and The Vanishing American Jew by Alan Derschowitz. (It also
says that secular Jews intermarry at a rate of 72%).
Your figures come from a partisan source (JTS), but these are the 1990
NJPS figures that the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies shelled out
$400,000 for (from 2,441 interviews with Americans who call themselves
Jewish).
Rafael
chaim...@my-dejanews.com
> Come on Chaim, you sound like the paranoid schizophrenic on this
> newsgroup who always rants about "the secret communists". Get a
> grip.
>...
> Are you really this seriously disconnected from the real world?
> Come on, if this is a joke, it is a poor one. Stop pretending that
> you from another planet, and that you have absolutely no idea what
> has happened in Israel for the past two years. *No-one* is that
> stupid and ignorant. This ins't funny anymore.
>
Well, I think more is clear than formerly.
You bring to bear a combination of social grace and informative
exposition that makes me wonder, against my will, about your
personal life.
However, I still entertain the possibility that you know
of something that happened in Israel for the past two years,
that you think relevant, and you are keeping it to yourself
for some reason that may one day be revealed.
I've heard about you, Robert Kaiser, and I'm glad to get
to see for myself.
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>> Just because you disagree with them is no reason to pretend that
>> they aren't real. The Modern Orthodox Jews of Edah, Oz VeShalom, Meimad,
>> and the Hartman Institute, among others, won't disappear just because
>> you pretend they don't exist.
>Oz VeShalom and Hartman I know only through you.
Then you are ignorant of much of Orthodox Judaism. You are
only aware of its right-wing. If I were you, I'd realize that this
means that more reading is in order.
>As I'm on the inside of
>O and you are no the out, who are you to tell us who speaks for O?
Huh? What are you talking about? No one here claimed that any one
of these groups, or *any* one Orthodox group, speaks for all of Orthodox
Judaism. They speak for themselves. Just like the rest of Orthodoxy.
Agudath Yisrael speaks for no-one but themselves. The Iggud HaRabbonim
speak for no one but themselves. The Rabbinical Council of America
speaks for no ome but themselves.
Again, you try and duck the issue by attacking statements
that no one has ever made.
>As for Edah & Meimad, I do know about them and I perceive them as
>left-of-center (but where did you mention any of these on this thread?).
While they are indeed left of the fanatics, they are more
right-wing than most of Judaism.
>> That's truly sick. I have come out strongly against violence
>> and fanatacism, yet you somehow turn this around into a paranoid claim
>> that I would be violent? Huh? That's just bizzarre.
>Robert, EVERY regular poster on SCJ that I can think of has denounced
>your rantings at some time or another. Many of them just ignore your
>posts (I often do). I stand with them.
You're ignoring the point. I strongly spoke out against hatred,
intolerance, and violence - and yet you made some bizarre pronouncement
that I am a violent person. Are you now pretending you never said this?
>You don't speak for the Conservative movement and your daily
>anti-Orthodox postings are nauseating.
I don't like it when people steal millions of dollars from
taxpayers in the name of Orthodox Judaism. I find that nauseating.
Evidently, crime, theft and hatred are part of what you call "Orthodox
Judaism". By me, that's a Hillul HaShem.
>If you don't see your behavior
>as threatening, you are all the moreso in need of professional attention
I see. You think that being against theft and violence somehow
marks me as being mentally ill. Funny, I would say the same thing about
people who are for such things. Thank God religious lunatics like
yourself are in the tiny minority.
Robert
Rafael
>
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Rafael wrote:
>
> Thanks--I think I read these statistics somewhere. What organization is
> the NJOP?
It stands for the National Jewish Population Survey. It was sponsored by
the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies.
Rafael
Robert Kaiser
Jess Olsen writes:
>Robert, you must have read a different survey. I have read this survey
>(from a source _other_ than Raphael) and he is reporting the figures
>accurately.
The raw numbers from the NJOP survey were accurate. However,
it has now been shown that the _analysis_ of their figures was analyzed
in a terribly misleading way. This was discovered a few years ago, and
now no one takes those figures seriously. The problem is that the NJOP
report mixed up the number of people marrying with the number of
marriages. These are two very different things.
Here is an example of what was screwed up: Imagine ten Jews.
Imagine that two of them marry gentiles, and eight of them marry each
other, fellow Jews. That means that only 2/10, or 20%, of the Jews
in this set intermarried.
But the NJOP counted this differently: They said that this
means that there were 6 marriages, of which two were intermarriages,
and four were in-marriages. Thus they claime that 2/6, or 33% were
intermarriages.
They confuse the number of marriages with the number of people.
This has then accidentally people who read the survey. Since then,
most articles about that NJOP study have noted this error, and have
re-presented these numbers in the usual format. (% of Jews who
intermarry).
So the raw numbers of the original NJOP are technically correct,
but are always totally misunderstood. Unless you present them in
the correct percentile form, they are way off base.
Shalom,
Robert
J. Olson
> A while back, I heard the wife of a retired Reform rabbi say that her
> husband opposed intermarriage and had never performed one. (Of course, he
> recognizes non-halachic conversions as valid, but he would still require a
> conversion that he recognized), but that a Reform rabbi looking for a
> pulpit today would find it difficult if not impossible to get a pulpit
> without agreeing to perform intermarriages.
Now this, in my opinion, is pure speculation--and, AFAIK, completely
false. In fact, I would wager that it is the opposite--that any R person
seeking Rabbinic ordination in the R movement would not be granted such
ordination if he or she publicly asserted that they wouldn't have any
problem performing intermarriages--and without ordination, you can't get a
pulpit.
Look, there is no denying that Liberal Judiasm does set the stage for a
greater preponderance of intermarriage, just by virtue of the fact that it
seeks a more direct relationship and more active participation in the
majority culture (for the most part, the United States). It is sad for
those of us to whom legitimate Jewish continuity is important, as well
as for those who seek in liberal Judaism a religious connection that
they find unique and meaninful--but you know what? It is not all that big
a deal to those for whom it is not, and who do not seek their personal
fulfillment through Judaism. For most Reform Rabbis, Jewish
continuity is important--even though they may hold to a different
understanding of what Jewish continuity means. Most, if not all, will
refuse to perform an intermarriage because they see this trend as much, if
not more often than other affiliated Jewish leaders.
So why is it necessary to trash on these people (Reform rabbis--or any
Jewish leaders, for that matter) for something over which
they cannot control? Because when it comes down to it, a Jew who wants to
marry a gentile is going to find some way to do it, no matter if they were
Satmar, Lubavitcher, Beltzer, Bratislaver, Misnagdic, Modern Orthodox,
Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or belong to the Kabbalah Center
in Los Angeles. And even the most shellfish eating, shabbos violating,
anti-religious, atheist, cynical and completely secular Jew often feels
that it is essential to marry another Jew--although they may not know
exactly why they have this strong inclination. And since we live in an
intergrated, multi-ethnicity/nationality society (I am speaking in
particular of the United States, at this point), and not in the shtetl,
there is little that the community can do to make a person feel much
pressure--aside from the possible disapproval and/or derision of their
Jewish peers--not to marry out.
It is sad to say, but we are living in the logical extreme of a free
society, where it is generally accepted that the only morality--regardless
of the morality that a person has been given in life--comes down to the
morality the individual chooses to accept.
So ease up on the doctrinal discussion, already.
Jess
Micha Berger
: They confuse the number of marriages with the number of people.
Let's then adjust the stats.
The quoted numbers were:
> Reform 53%
> Conservative 37%
> Centrist Orthodox 3%
> Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
This becomes:
Reform 36%
Conservative 23%
Centrist Orthodox 1.5%
Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 1.5%
For example:
53 out of 100 R marriages are intermarriage, and therefore represent
one Jew apiece. The other 47 represent 2 Jews. Therefore the 100
marriages represent 53+47+47 = 157 Jews. Of the 157, 53 intermarried,
53 / 157 = 0.3605+.
The numbers are still pathetic.
They're also 8 years out of date. What has happened since?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5892 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 13-Aug-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Micha Berger
: >Oz VeShalom and Hartman I know only through you.
: Then you are ignorant of much of Orthodox Judaism. You are
: only aware of its right-wing. If I were you, I'd realize that this
: means that more reading is in order.
I must plead this ignorance as well. If enough Os on scj never heard of them,
will Robert accept that they aren't in O's mainstream?
: While they are indeed left of the fanatics, they are more
: right-wing than most of Judaism.
This statement is misleading, because we're discussing which wing of O they're
in, not which wing of Judaism. All of O is on the right.
: You're ignoring the point. I strongly spoke out against hatred,
: intolerance, and violence...
It would be more powerful if you practiced it yourself. Instead, you stand on
a soapbox and speak out against another group's hatred -- and in so doing,
show the very hatred you're condemning. Don't worry, we're well aware of our
imperfections.
I once was at a shul melavah malkah where two people were standing near the
dais, talking about the conflict between R. Schach and Lubavitch. (At the
time, it was "hot news".) One commented, "That is why moshiach hasn't come
yet. They have so much hatred."
Rav Pam (Rosh Yeshiva of Torah Voda'as) leaned over from his seat at the dais
held the man's arm in a grandfatherly way, and explained, "No, you don't
understand. Moshiach hasn't come yet because we're still saying '/They/ are
keeping him from coming, and not 'we are'".
-mi
PS: Rav Dovid Lifshitz would also make physical contact while correcting or
rebuking someone. It was very effective in both aiding the words reaching the
heart, and reminding you that the words are spoken from love.
yafael
>
> How can you make that claim and equate Conservativism with Orthodoxy?
> CJ, by your own figures hase twice the intermarriage rate of Orthodoxy. I
> think it is clear that Orthodoxy stands alone is winning the war against
> intermarriage. But even Orthodoxy's numbers are too high.
You do a disservice by even conceding the truth of Mr. Kaiser's partisan
figures. *The* definitive study on America Jewry puts the intnermarriage
rate at 37% for Conservative affiliates and 3% for Orthodox (the former
being over 12 times the latter). [Of course, one could argue that anyone
who intermarries is not truly representative of either denomination.
Nonetheless, that's how the interviewees responded.]
Rafael
Robert Kaiser
chaim...@my-dejanews.com says:
>You bring to bear a combination of social grace and informative
>exposition that makes me wonder, against my will, about your
>personal life.
>However, I still entertain the possibility that you know
>of something that happened in Israel for the past two years,
>that you think relevant, and you are keeping it to yourself
>for some reason that may one day be revealed.
Chaim, please check yourself into a mental hospital. I'm not
joking. The Ne'eman commission is not part a secret conspiracy that
I am keeping secret. In fact, it has been discussed in newspapers
around the world for the past two years, very often on the front page.
If you truly believe that I am part of some sort of secret
conspiracy that is keeping this information from you, then you really
are quite sick.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> says:
>
>: Then you are ignorant of much of Orthodox Judaism. You are
>: only aware of its right-wing. If I were you, I'd realize that this
>: means that more reading is in order.
>I must plead this ignorance as well. If enough Os on scj never heard of them,
>will Robert accept that they aren't in O's mainstream?
No. What it proves is that the small number of Orthodox Jews
here on S.C.J. are so self- ghettoized and that they actually know very
little about the rest of Orthodox Judaism. For years a few Orthodox Jews
here have pretended that they are representative of most of Orthodox
Judaism - but now the truth comes out. Many Orthodox Jews here admit
that they don't even know that other factions in Orthodox Judaism exist!
I find that both sad as well as disturbing.
>: You're ignoring the point. I strongly spoke out against hatred,
>: intolerance, and violence...
>It would be more powerful if you practiced it yourself. Instead, you stand on
>a soapbox and speak out against another group's hatred -- and in so doing,
>show the very hatred you're condemning.
HUH? Speaking out against the theft is the same as theft?
Speaking out against keeping women agunah, is the same as keeping women
agunah? Speaking out against beating people up, is the same as actually
beating people up?
Micha, that is sick, sick, sick. Is it any wonder why so many
people are totally disgusted by right-wing Orthodoxy? Heaven help us!
Robert
Robert Kaiser
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>What I have presented above are the 1990 NJPS figures, broken down by
>denomination, that were published in Moment, Jewish Spectator, Jewish
>Observer, and The Vanishing American Jew by Alan Derschowitz. (It also
>says that secular Jews intermarry at a rate of 72%).
>
Are you accusing Prof. Jack Wertheimer of fraud?
If you had actually read the report, instead of insinuating
some sort of bias, you would never have made such a claim in the first
place. This report contained both good and bad news about the
Conservative movement. If you had actually read it, you would see
that no one would ever want to make up such statistics about themselves.
It is to the Conservative movement's credit and intellectual
honesty that they released it in ite entirety. Contrast that to the
statistic by the OU survey in Israel which didn't come out they way
wanted it to - so they refused to release the report.
Robert
Robert Kaiser
yafael <yaf...@nyct.net> says:
>> How can you make that claim and equate Conservativism with Orthodoxy?
>> CJ, by your own figures hase twice the intermarriage rate of Orthodoxy. I
>> think it is clear that Orthodoxy stands alone is winning the war against
>> intermarriage. But even Orthodoxy's numbers are too high.
>You do a disservice by even conceding the truth of Mr. Kaiser's partisan
>figures.
They are not my figures. I had nothing to do with the survey.
If you wish to accuse Prof. Wertheimer of fraud, you had damn well
better have solid proof. Otherwise, that is libel.
We're all waiting to see your proof.
Robert
Harry Weiss
: Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
: >> Just because you disagree with them is no reason to pretend that
: >> they aren't real. The Modern Orthodox Jews of Edah, Oz VeShalom, Meimad,
: >> and the Hartman Institute, among others, won't disappear just because
: >> you pretend they don't exist.
: >Oz VeShalom and Hartman I know only through you.
: Then you are ignorant of much of Orthodox Judaism. You are
: only aware of its right-wing. If I were you, I'd realize that this
: means that more reading is in order.
bobo keeps on lying. they are less than 100 people out of 2 million or
so O Jews. That is a big perecentage.
: >As I'm on the inside of
: >O and you are no the out, who are you to tell us who speaks for O?
: Huh? What are you talking about? No one here claimed that any one
: of these groups, or *any* one Orthodox group, speaks for all of Orthodox
: Judaism. They speak for themselves. Just like the rest of Orthodoxy.
: Agudath Yisrael speaks for no-one but themselves. The Iggud HaRabbonim
: speak for no one but themselves. The Rabbinical Council of America
: speaks for no ome but themselves.
: Again, you try and duck the issue by attacking statements
: that no one has ever made.
: >As for Edah & Meimad, I do know about them and I perceive them as
: >left-of-center (but where did you mention any of these on this thread?).
: While they are indeed left of the fanatics, they are more
: right-wing than most of Judaism.
No, theuy are the far left 1 1/10 or 1 Percent of Judaism.
: >> That's truly sick. I have come out strongly against violence
: >> and fanatacism, yet you somehow turn this around into a paranoid claim
: >> that I would be violent? Huh? That's just bizzarre.
: >Robert, EVERY regular poster on SCJ that I can think of has denounced
: >your rantings at some time or another. Many of them just ignore your
: >posts (I often do). I stand with them.
: You're ignoring the point. I strongly spoke out against hatred,
: intolerance, and violence - and yet you made some bizarre pronouncement
: that I am a violent person. Are you now pretending you never said this?
You are the most hateful person on SCJ. I would trust a KKK member on the
street more than I would you.
: >You don't speak for the Conservative movement and your daily
: >anti-Orthodox postings are nauseating.
: I don't like it when people steal millions of dollars from
: taxpayers in the name of Orthodox Judaism. I find that nauseating.
: Evidently, crime, theft and hatred are part of what you call "Orthodox
: Judaism". By me, that's a Hillul HaShem.
No O Jew condones theft. Of course c has a CJLS than can cancel the
prohibiton against theft at its whim.
: >If you don't see your behavior
: >as threatening, you are all the moreso in need of professional attention
: I see. You think that being against theft and violence somehow
: marks me as being mentally ill. Funny, I would say the same thing about
: people who are for such things. Thank God religious lunatics like
: yourself are in the tiny minority.
you are right in last weeks parasha we were told that Jews are the small
among nations. What a shame that some Jews such as yourself choose to
abandon Judaism.
: Robert
Robert Kaiser
chaim...@my-dejanews.com says:
>You bring to bear a combination of social grace and informative
>exposition that makes me wonder, against my will, about your
>personal life.
I'm glad you asked.
I am a dynamic figure, often seen scaling walls and crushing
ice. I have been known to remodel train stations on my
lunch breaks, making them more efficient in the area of heat
retention. I translate ethnic slurs for Cuban refugees, I write
award-winning operas, I manage time efficiently.
Occasionally, I tread water for three days in a row.
I woo women with my sensuous and godlike trombone playing,
I can pilot bicycles up severe inclines with unflagging speed,
and I cook Thirty-Minute Brownies in twenty minutes. I am an
expert in stucco, a veteran in love, and an outlaw in Peru.
Using only a hoe and a large glass of water, I once
single-handedly defended a small village in the Amazon
Basin from a horde of ferocious army ants. I play bluegrass
cello, I was scouted by the Mets, I am the subject of
numerous documentaries. When I'm bored, I build large
suspension bridges in my yard. I enjoy urban hang gliding.
On Wednesdays, after school, I repair electrical appliances
free of charge.
I am an abstract artist, a concrete analyst, and a ruthless
bookie. Critics worldwide swoon over my original line of
corduroy evening wear. I don't perspire. I am a private
citizen, yet I receive fan mail. I have been caller number
nine and have won the weekend passes. Last summer I toured
New Jersey with a traveling centrifugal-force demonstration.
I bat 400.
My deft floral arrangements have earned me fame in
international botany circles. Children trust me.
I can hurl tennis rackets at small moving objects with deadly
accuracy. I once read Paradise Lost, Moby Dick, and David
Copperfield in one day and still had time to refurbish an
entire dining room that evening. I know the exact location of
every food item in the supermarket. I have performed
several covert operations with the CIA. I sleep once a week;
when I do sleep, I sleep in a chair. While on vacation in
Canada, I successfully negotiated with a group of terrorists
who had seized a small bakery.
I balance, I weave, I dodge, I frolic, and my bills are all
paid. On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in
full-contact origami. Years ago I discovered the meaning of
life but forgot to write it down. I have made extraordinary
four course meals using only a mouli and a toaster oven.
I breed prizewinning clams. I have won bullfights in San
Juan, cliff-diving competitions in Sri Lanka, and spelling
bees at the Kremlin. I have played Hamlet, I have
performed open-heart surgery, and I have spoken with Elvis.
Shalom,
Robert
(P.S. I wish I could take credit for this, but I can't. It's Hugh
Gallagher's winning entry in the humor category of the 1990 Scholastic
Writing Awards. This essay won first prize in the humor category of
the 1990 Scholastic Writing Awards. It appeared in the May issue of
Literary Cavalcade, a magazine of contemporary fiction and student
writing published by Scholastic in New York City.)
Craig Winchell
J. Olson <je...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.OSF.3.96b.98081...@saul4.u.washington.edu>...
(snipped)
> other "Forward" of which I am not aware?), which stated that when polled,
> 50% of Reform rabbis would perform intermarriage. I believe this is
> poppycock--however I may feel about the Reform movement, I find it really
> hard to believe that this is an accurate statistic. So far as I know,
only
> a few fringe R rabbis would officiate at such a ceremony.
B"H
I would doubt it is as high as 50%, but it is quite high, at least in
California. It is certainly much more than a fringe group. Much to my
dismay, 2 first cousins of mine, of different genders, were married to
their respective nonJewish spouses by two different rabbis here, and there
seemed to be no lack of other rabbis interested in performing the ceremony.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
>
> Jess
>
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
>
>
Joe Slater
>> A while back, I heard the wife of a retired Reform rabbi say that her
>> husband opposed intermarriage and had never performed one. (Of course, he
>> recognizes non-halachic conversions as valid, but he would still require a
>> conversion that he recognized), but that a Reform rabbi looking for a
>> pulpit today would find it difficult if not impossible to get a pulpit
>> without agreeing to perform intermarriages.
"J. Olson" <je...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>Now this, in my opinion, is pure speculation-
Goodness knows I am willing to believe the worst of Reform and
Conservatism, and to endlessly impugn their motives, but this is going
too far. What someone heard the wife of a retired Rabbi say she
thought about other Rabbis' job prospects is simply the weakest kind
of hearsay. You wouldn't shoot a dog on this sort of evidence.
jds
Craig Winchell
One question: Are these figures for people affiliated with these groups,
who married within these groups? The reason I ask is that there are a
signifiacnt number of Orthodox Jews who became observant *after* they were
married, and yet have not yet divested themselves of their nonJewish
spouses for various reasons. I would sincerely doubt, for instance, that
3% of Orthodox Jews intermarried while they were Orthodox affiliated, but I
have no reason to doubt that 3% of the Orthodox Jews surveyed were
currently intermarried. I know several myself. One went away to yeshivah
and later divested himself of his wife (who, by the way, converted properly
to Judaism after her husband had already left), one is currently in the
process of divesting himself of his nonJewish spouse. I am sure that there
are plenty of Jewish women in the same boat.
I *know* there are plenty of reform rabbis who will perform intermarriages,
because many of my cousins (3 first cousins, a slew of 2nd cousins and
further removed) have been married to nonJews in services officiated by
Reform rabbis.
yafael
> They are not my figures. I had nothing to do with the survey.
> If you wish to accuse Prof. Wertheimer of fraud, you had damn well
> better have solid proof. Otherwise, that is libel.
>
> We're all waiting to see your proof.
Wertheimer is a professor at JTS. AFAIK, he is not a statistician, he is
a partisan of the C movement by virtue of his job. One needn't accuse
him of fraud to see that he is no more qualified (or impartial) to
dictate what the real stats are than is a yeshiva rebbe.
The NJPS was conducted by impartial professionals, hired by the
Federation. That you, someone at JTS, or anyone, for that matter,
dislikes the results is irrelevant.
Skeptical about the NJPS? That's fine. I encourage that. But as far
studies go, the NJPS is as universally accepted as they come. And it
says that 37% of your movement intermarries, as opposed to 3% among O.
(Now what are you going to do about it?)
Rafael
Harry Weiss
: chaim...@my-dejanews.com says:
: >You bring to bear a combination of social grace and informative
: >exposition that makes me wonder, against my will, about your
: >personal life.
: >However, I still entertain the possibility that you know
: >of something that happened in Israel for the past two years,
: >that you think relevant, and you are keeping it to yourself
: >for some reason that may one day be revealed.
: Chaim, please check yourself into a mental hospital. I'm not
bobo, the KGB is out of business. People are no longer put in Mental
Hospitals for disagreeing.
: joking. The Ne'eman commission is not part a secret conspiracy that
: I am keeping secret. In fact, it has been discussed in newspapers
: around the world for the past two years, very often on the front page.
: If you truly believe that I am part of some sort of secret
: conspiracy that is keeping this information from you, then you really
: are quite sick.
Amitai Halevi
; In article <6qtic9$ohs$2...@supernews.com>, yaa...@smtp.j51.com (Yaakov
; Kayman) writes:
;> Kaiser:
;>
;> Who is this Yitzchak Frankenthal whose purported opinions you posted here?
;> Yes, I say "purported," since it wouldn't be the first time you tried to
;> pass off a fantasy and a fabrication as truth?
;
;Although I sympathize with any father who had his son murdered by the
;Palestinians, the reaction of Mister Frankenthal (to the murder of his
;son) has been closer to the well known psychiatric condition of
; "identifying with the enemy". He joined Netivot Shalom, has had
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> warm and friendly meetings with the Palestinians, welcomes Reform
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> and Conservative groups with open arms, etc.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Josh
>
Josh is to be commended for his frankness in identifying "the enemy".
He doesn't even bother to make the identification more abstract by
adding "of the Torah", as Yaakov K. does below. Let him not be
surprised if his sentiments are reciprocated.
Amitai
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| E. Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> |
| Department of Chemistry, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology |
| http://www.technion.ac.il/technion/chemistry/staff/halevi |
| |
| "`Od yenuvun be-seva, deshenim ve-ra`ananim yihyu", Psalms 92,15 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
> > Yes, Orthodox Judaism indeed needs to clearly recognize R & C, for the
> > enemies of Torah that they are. I do not refer to the rank-and-file, but
> > rather those few of their leaders who have some meaningful knowledge of
> > Torah and have chosen, quite deliberately, to rebel against Torah's
> > Author.
> >
> > HaEMET vehashalom ehavu (love peace ONLY when it is coupled with truth),
> >
> > Yaakov K.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Yaakov Kayman yaa...@j51.com
> >
> > "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock,
> > about whom the wolves complain"
>
While it is by not immediately obvious whom to identify with the
wolves, the vicious howling of some of the O posters on this NG
is suggestive.
A.
Rafael
>
> On 13 Aug 1998 15:51:29 -0500, Robert Kaiser <kai...@biosys.net> wrote:
> : They confuse the number of marriages with the number of people.
>
> Let's then adjust the stats.
>
> The quoted numbers were:
> > Reform 53%
> > Conservative 37%
> > Centrist Orthodox 3%
> > Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 3%
>
> This becomes:
> Reform 36%
> Conservative 23%
> Centrist Orthodox 1.5%
> Yeshiva/Hasidic O. 1.5%
> The numbers are still pathetic.
In fact, if we accept Robert's adjustment, C comes out looking worse
than it did before in relation to O. 37% compared to 3% is a ratio of
12.33:1, while 23% compared to 1.5% is a ratio of 15.33:1.
In actuality, the situation is worse, as the study used a criterion of
Jewishness that isn't halakhically acceptable (viz., whoever calls
himself a Jew).
> They're also 8 years out of date. What has happened since?
After that last $400,000 kill-joy, I'm sure no one's in rush to find out
where we are today (but I personally hope there will be another one in
2000). (Also, I seem to recall an addendum in 1994 that only reinforced
the 1990 results.)
Rafael
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
> On 13 Aug 1998 bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
> ; In article <6qtic9$ohs$2...@supernews.com>, yaa...@smtp.j51.com (Yaakov
> ; Kayman) writes:
> ;> Kaiser:
> ;>
> ;> Who is this Yitzchak Frankenthal whose purported opinions you posted here?
> ;> Yes, I say "purported," since it wouldn't be the first time you tried to
> ;> pass off a fantasy and a fabrication as truth?
> ;
> ;Although I sympathize with any father who had his son murdered by the
> ;Palestinians, the reaction of Mister Frankenthal (to the murder of his
> ;son) has been closer to the well known psychiatric condition of
> ; "identifying with the enemy". He joined Netivot Shalom, has had
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> warm and friendly meetings with the Palestinians, welcomes Reform
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> and Conservative groups with open arms, etc.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Josh
>>
> Josh is to be commended for his frankness in identifying "the enemy".
Enemy from the Latin: "in" + "amicus" = not a friend. The reference
to the Palestinians refers to an enemy in the physical sense; the reference
to the C & R refers to a destructive attitude or action in the spiritual
sense.
Thank you, Amitai, for being so coy.
Josh
J. Olson
> Wertheimer is a professor at JTS. AFAIK, he is not a statistician, he is
> a partisan of the C movement by virtue of his job. One needn't accuse
> him of fraud to see that he is no more qualified (or impartial) to
> dictate what the real stats are than is a yeshiva rebbe.
Moment, please. You forget that JTS is, along with being a seminary for
the C movement, also a fairly well-respected and accredited academic
institution. It is not necessarily true that a person who is a professor
at JTS is a "partisan of the C movement by virtue of his job." In fact, I
would say that JTS would not have the respect in the purely *academic*
realm that it does (and it does, especially in the field of academic
Jewish studies [this is as opposed to "religious" Jewish studies--rabbinic
studies, and so forth]), if all of its professors had to be card-carrying
cheerleaders for the C movement. It goes against the spirit of academic
inquiry.
Of course, in the *Rabbinic* school division of JTS, yes, it makes much
more sense that the instructors are big advocates of the C movement. But
you can't extrapolate that to the rest of the institution, where many
people are there because, well, it is a good place to teach Jewish studies
and it has a _fantastic_ library. If you go along those lines, where do
you stop? Do you say any Orthodox Jewish scholar (or secular Jewish
scholar, which is just as likely) who needs access to a
rare manuscript at the JTS is de facto a "partisan of the C movement by
virtue of his library choice"?
I don't expect that this argument will hold water with those of you who
hold to the "fruit of the poison tree" theory, but that's not really my
concern.
> Skeptical about the NJPS? That's fine. I encourage that. But as far
> studies go, the NJPS is as universally accepted as they come. And it
> says that 37% of your movement intermarries, as opposed to 3% among O.
> (Now what are you going to do about it?)
I know this isn't addressed to me, but from what I understand this survey
was undertaken in a pretty scientific way; so I don't know if it is worth
arguing over its representative quality.
But I will say you can't necessarily blame intermarriage on the leaders of
a given denomination of Judaism. But I ranted on that point earlier.
Jess
> Rafael
>
>
Jonathan J. Baker
>Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> says:
>>Bob Kaiser wrote:
>>> Just because you disagree with them is no reason to pretend that
>>> they aren't real. The Modern Orthodox Jews of Edah, Oz VeShalom, Meimad,
>>> and the Hartman Institute, among others, won't disappear just because
>>> you pretend they don't exist.
>>Oz VeShalom and Hartman I know only through you.
> Then you are ignorant of much of Orthodox Judaism. You are
>only aware of its right-wing. If I were you, I'd realize that this
>means that more reading is in order.
Oz VeShalom and Hartman Institute are both quite lefty as well.
>Judaism. They speak for themselves. Just like the rest of Orthodoxy.
>Agudath Yisrael speaks for no-one but themselves. The Iggud HaRabbonim
>speak for no one but themselves. The Rabbinical Council of America
>speaks for no ome but themselves.
OK, The first two you mention in this paragraph are rightie, and
the third is centrist.
>>As for Edah & Meimad, I do know about them and I perceive them as
>>left-of-center (but where did you mention any of these on this thread?).
> While they are indeed left of the fanatics, they are more
>right-wing than most of Judaism.
That is misleading, because all of O is more right-wing than most of
Judaism. We were talking about O organizations, and which are rightie
or leftie.
Then there's the distinction between "moderns" and "centrists" at YU which
I don't quite get - the "centrists" may be more lefty than the "moderns"
or is it vice versa? Micha? One group follows R' Lamm, the other
follows R' Schachter. Is it like the "Antients" and the "Moderns" among
the Masons, where the Antients are the newer group?
So far you have identified four organizations that are lefty which you
consider authoritative, one organization which is centrist which you
have not said (in this thread) what you think of it, and two organizations
which are rightie. Do you only consider leftie Orthodoxy to be "true
Orthodoxy"?
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Hadass Eviatar
> The reason I ask is that there are a
> signifiacnt number of Orthodox Jews who became observant *after* they were
> married, and yet have not yet divested themselves of their nonJewish
> spouses for various reasons.
That is a rather cruel way to describe the breakup of a family,
especially when there are children involved.
Kol tuv, Shabbat Shalom, Hadass
--
Dr. Hadass Eviatar (XX) mailto:evi...@ibd.nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada Phone: (204) 984 - 4535
Institute for Biodiagnostics Fax: (204) 984 - 7036
435 Ellice Avenue, Winnipeg,MB,R3B 1Y6 http://www.ibd.nrc.ca/~eviatar
Obligatory disclaimer: NRC wouldn't dream of saying a thing like that.
Rafael
> Moment, please. You forget that JTS is, along with being a seminary for
> the C movement, also a fairly well-respected and accredited academic
> institution. It is not necessarily true that a person who is a professor
> at JTS is a "partisan of the C movement by virtue of his job."
Fair enough. It's Robert's attribution of 6% intermarriage (as compared
to the NJPS's 37%) that I question the most. And yes, I do see the
non-partisan Federation (sponsor of the NJPS) as more impartial than JTS
(which, according to Robert, released it's own figures).
> I know this isn't addressed to me, but from what I understand this survey
> was undertaken in a pretty scientific way; so I don't know if it is worth
> arguing over its representative quality.
I share your implied skepticism over statistical studies, but if we are
going to use them at all, the NJPS is the most authoritative one.
> But I will say you can't necessarily blame intermarriage on the leaders of
> a given denomination of Judaism. But I ranted on that point earlier.
Here we disagree (no surprise). While Diaspora Jews will most likely
intermarry with or without R or C, the fact that people more inclined to
do so are attracted to these movements says something about their
message. Many O affiliates, like myself, see the movements as an
inherent part of the trend towards assimilation. If one examines their
ideological link with Western democratic ideals (which in many or most
cases take precedence over Torah tradition), the matter is a davar
pashut (something simple).
Rafael
Hadass Eviatar
<snip nice story of grandfatherly rebuke from Rosh Yeshivah>
>
> PS: Rav Dovid Lifshitz would also make physical contact while correcting or
> rebuking someone. It was very effective in both aiding the words reaching the
> heart, and reminding you that the words are spoken from love.
Just out of curiosity, how did he manage to have the same effect while
talking to women?
Robert Kaiser
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
>So far you have identified four organizations that are lefty which you
>consider authoritative, one organization which is centrist which you
>have not said (in this thread) what you think of it, and two organizations
>which are rightie. Do you only consider leftie Orthodoxy to be "true
>Orthodoxy"?
I was showing people that some Modern Orthodox Jews still exist,
and that not all Jews have abandoned Modern Orthodoxy for Haredi Judaism.
Further, I was showing that despite the false claims of many people here,
that Haredi [Ultra-Orthodox] Judaism is not the only type of Orthodoxy,
and that it cannot be fairly called the only true Orthodoxy.
How can you twist all this around and turn it backwards? No one
said anything about Modern Orthodoxy being the only true Orthodoxy.
Again, you argue against something that no one has ever said.
All I did was prove someting that many Orthodox Jews here wanted
to hide: That despite the scorn and hate heaped upon it by their fellow
Orthodox Jews, some Modern Orthodox Judaism still exists.
Robert Kaiser
Harry Weiss
: jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
: >So far you have identified four organizations that are lefty which you
: >consider authoritative, one organization which is centrist which you
: >have not said (in this thread) what you think of it, and two organizations
: >which are rightie. Do you only consider leftie Orthodoxy to be "true
: >Orthodoxy"?
: I was showing people that some Modern Orthodox Jews still exist,
: and that not all Jews have abandoned Modern Orthodoxy for Haredi Judaism.
: Further, I was showing that despite the false claims of many people here,
: that Haredi [Ultra-Orthodox] Judaism is not the only type of Orthodoxy,
: and that it cannot be fairly called the only true Orthodoxy.
bobo, you are really a total idiot. Most of the O Jewish posters on SCJ
are Modern O, by O definitions. Of course your view is different a
Modern O is one who does not use a Mikvah, does not keep Kosher or
Shabat, but that view is held only by bobo Kaiser and not by anyone else.
: How can you twist all this around and turn it backwards? No one
: said anything about Modern Orthodoxy being the only true Orthodoxy.
: Again, you argue against something that no one has ever said.
: All I did was prove someting that many Orthodox Jews here wanted
: to hide: That despite the scorn and hate heaped upon it by their fellow
: Orthodox Jews, some Modern Orthodox Judaism still exists.
: Robert Kaiser
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com
J. Olson
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Hadass Eviatar wrote:
> Craig Winchell wrote:
>
> > The reason I ask is that there are a
> > signifiacnt number of Orthodox Jews who became observant *after* they were
> > married, and yet have not yet divested themselves of their nonJewish
> > spouses for various reasons.
>
> That is a rather cruel way to describe the breakup of a family,
> especially when there are children involved.
Thank you for posting this, Hadass. I don't think I could have put it this
eloquently. Very insensitive and unfortunate word on Craig's part.
Jess
J. Olson
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Rafael wrote:
> J. Olson wrote:
>
> > Moment, please. You forget that JTS is, along with being a seminary for
> > the C movement, also a fairly well-respected and accredited academic
> > institution. It is not necessarily true that a person who is a professor
> > at JTS is a "partisan of the C movement by virtue of his job."
>
> Fair enough. It's Robert's attribution of 6% intermarriage (as compared
> to the NJPS's 37%) that I question the most. And yes, I do see the
> non-partisan Federation (sponsor of the NJPS) as more impartial than JTS
> (which, according to Robert, released it's own figures).
Right, I don't know the bias of Prof. Werthheimer. I just wanted to
reiterate that you can't necessary assume a JTS professor will be a
C apologist. Werthheimer may be, but I would assert that that is somewhat
independant of his being a JTS professor.
> > But I will say you can't necessarily blame intermarriage on the leaders of
> > a given denomination of Judaism. But I ranted on that point earlier.
>
> Here we disagree (no surprise). While Diaspora Jews will most likely
> intermarry with or without R or C, the fact that people more inclined to
> do so are attracted to these movements says something about their
> message. Many O affiliates, like myself, see the movements as an
> inherent part of the trend towards assimilation. If one examines their
> ideological link with Western democratic ideals (which in many or most
> cases take precedence over Torah tradition), the matter is a davar
> pashut (something simple).
To quote you, fair enough. But often the leadership of these movements do
not see it this way, and to me it is still up to debate as to whether
they are somehow deluding themselves.
Jess
>
> Rafael
>
>
Robert Kaiser
hjw...@netcom.com (Harry Weiss) says:
>: I was showing people that some Modern Orthodox Jews still exist,
>: and that not all Jews have abandoned Modern Orthodoxy for Haredi Judaism.
>: Further, I was showing that despite the false claims of many people here,
>: that Haredi [Ultra-Orthodox] Judaism is not the only type of Orthodoxy,
>: and that it cannot be fairly called the only true Orthodoxy.
>bobo, you are really a total idiot. Most of the O Jewish posters on SCJ
>are Modern O, by O definitions.
Huh? What do you mean "Modern O by O defintions"? Modern
Orthodox Jews exist whether or not you approve, and they have their
own definitions. Further, some of the Orthodox members of this
forum have admitted that they are in fact unaware of these Modern
Orthodox organizations. I only know of two Modern Orthodox
posters on this newsgroup save Jon Baker and Elliot Shimoff. The
rest are right-wing and Haredi Jews. Some may be "centrist", which
is the name used by Jews that used to be Modern Orthodox, but have
since moved to the right.
>Of course your view is different a
>Modern O is one who does not use a Mikvah, does not keep
>Kosher or Shabat, but that view is held only by bobo
>Kaiser and not by anyone else.
Again, we have a perfect example of a right-wing Orthodox
Jew hatefully slandering Modern Orthodox Jews. I find this rather
sad.
Robert Kaiser
y...@my-dejanews.com
Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca> wrote:
> Craig Winchell wrote:
>
> > The reason I ask is that there are a
> > signifiacnt number of Orthodox Jews who became observant *after* they were
> > married, and yet have not yet divested themselves of their nonJewish
> > spouses for various reasons.
>
> That is a rather cruel way to describe the breakup of a family,
> especially when there are children involved.
[wince] Yes, it is. But what way would you suggest? Craig was not discussing
the emotional and ethical issues involved, but only the fact of existing
secular marriages between newly observant Jews and Gentiles.
BTW, I've heard that according to Halacha a Gentile woman married to a Jewish
man (but not vice versa) may be entitled to monetary damages for deception,
for she has been deceived into believing that the man could contract a valid
marriage with her. Sources/refutations, anyone?
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Brute force is the only avenue of action open to men who regard
themselves as mindless aggregates of chemicals." -- Ayn Rand
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Gmachine9
posters on this newsgroup save Jon Baker and Elliot Shimoff. The
rest are right-wing and Haredi Jews. Some may be "centrist", which
is the name used by Jews that used to be Modern Orthodox, but have
since moved to the right.
I know this is somewhat silly to ask b/c Im not sure how the categories work.
Seriously, what is M.O. vs. Centrist. I am curious.
steve
Craig Winchell
Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca> wrote in article
<35D4737A...@ibd.nrc.ca>...
> Craig Winchell wrote:
>
> > The reason I ask is that there are a
> > signifiacnt number of Orthodox Jews who became observant *after* they
were
> > married, and yet have not yet divested themselves of their nonJewish
> > spouses for various reasons.
>
> That is a rather cruel way to describe the breakup of a family,
> especially when there are children involved.
B"H
So, how would you have had me say it? Sure, the family breaks up, because
it necessarily must, as people of divergent interests and philosophies do.
Would you rather have them stay married? That would be far more cruel to
the children, assuming there are any (none of the people I know in this
situation have children, by the way).
I fully support Jews becoming observant, even at the risk of the breakup of
mixed families. While it would be better to interest the spouse in
converting properly and becoming a ger tzedek, this is not always possible.
Consequently, the families break up, and properly so.
I am a proponent of families, but not of mixed marriages.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
>
Harry Weiss
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
Craig Winchell (gan...@ganeden.com) wrote:
: Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca> wrote in article
: <35D4737A...@ibd.nrc.ca>...
: > Craig Winchell wrote:
: >
: > > The reason I ask is that there are a
: > > signifiacnt number of Orthodox Jews who became observant *after* they
: were
: > > married, and yet have not yet divested themselves of their nonJewish
: > > spouses for various reasons.
: >
: > That is a rather cruel way to describe the breakup of a family,
: > especially when there are children involved.
: B"H
: So, how would you have had me say it? Sure, the family breaks up, because
: it necessarily must, as people of divergent interests and philosophies do.
: Would you rather have them stay married? That would be far more cruel to
: the children, assuming there are any (none of the people I know in this
: situation have children, by the way).
: I fully support Jews becoming observant, even at the risk of the breakup of
: mixed families. While it would be better to interest the spouse in
: converting properly and becoming a ger tzedek, this is not always possible.
: Consequently, the families break up, and properly so.
This is a serious problem that does happen. I feel very sorry for those
in this situation.
Thank G-d, the situation I see much more often is that the non Jewish
spouse is often the one who becomes interested in converting properly and
is the impetus for the other party to become observant.
: I am a proponent of families, but not of mixed marriages.
: Craig Winchell
: GAN EDEN Wines
:
: >
: > Kol tuv, Shabbat Shalom, Hadass
: >
: > --
: > Dr. Hadass Eviatar (XX) mailto:evi...@ibd.nrc.ca
: > National Research Council of Canada Phone: (204) 984 - 4535
: > Institute for Biodiagnostics Fax: (204) 984 - 7036
: > 435 Ellice Avenue, Winnipeg,MB,R3B 1Y6 http://www.ibd.nrc.ca/~eviatar
: > Obligatory disclaimer: NRC wouldn't dream of saying a thing like that.
: >
Herman Rubin
Randy B <r...@nospam.adnc.com> wrote:
>>> ===> I believe it was in Forward magazing from a year or so ago that
>>> cited a statistic that 50% of American R rabbis will marry a jew to a
>>> non-jew. That is more than the fringe, it is the mainstream.
>>I would love to look this up. Do you have a more exact citation? (I'm not
>>holding my breath.) I have met many a R rabbi, and never have I spoken
>>with one who would perform an intermarriage. You know, no matter what you
>>may think of other Jewish groups, most of their leadership is as concerned
>>with the continuity of K'lal Yisrael as you. Just for some perspective.
There are such. It does not mean that they will just perform an
intermarriage if requested, but most who will do it will do so only
if they feel that it is more likely to promote Judaism than to harm
Judaism. Responsible rabbis make responsible decisions. Our
congregation, for one, requires the rabbi to be willing to do so.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Richard Schultz
: There are such. It does not mean that they will just perform an
: intermarriage if requested, but most who will do it will do so only
: if they feel that it is more likely to promote Judaism than to harm
: Judaism. Responsible rabbis make responsible decisions. Our
: congregation, for one, requires the rabbi to be willing to do so.
How does he prove his willingness to do so? Suppose that he decides
that a particular intermarriage is not likely to "promote Judaism"?
Would he be able to refuse to perform the intermarriage without
jeapordizing his job?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>Herman Rubin (hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu) wrote:
:>: There are such. It does not mean that they will just perform an
:>: intermarriage if requested, but most who will do it will do so only
:>: if they feel that it is more likely to promote Judaism than to harm
:>: Judaism. Responsible rabbis make responsible decisions. Our
:>: congregation, for one, requires the rabbi to be willing to do so.
:>How does he prove his willingness to do so? Suppose that he decides
:>that a particular intermarriage is not likely to "promote Judaism"?
:>Would he be able to refuse to perform the intermarriage without
:>jeapordizing his job?
I would assume that in such a case the "rabbi" would decide that keeping
his/her job would be promoting Judaism.
BTW, assuming that the couple would "marry" anyway, would a reform "rabbi"
choose to allow the minister/priest to have the full spotlight and not insist
and sharing the action?
--
Binyami...@theoffice.net
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Jonathan J. Baker
>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
>>So far you have identified four organizations that are lefty which you
>>consider authoritative, one organization which is centrist which you
>>have not said (in this thread) what you think of it, and two organizations
>>which are rightie. Do you only consider leftie Orthodoxy to be "true
>>Orthodoxy"?
> I was showing people that some Modern Orthodox Jews still exist,
>and that not all Jews have abandoned Modern Orthodoxy for Haredi Judaism.
>Further, I was showing that despite the false claims of many people here,
>that Haredi [Ultra-Orthodox] Judaism is not the only type of Orthodoxy,
>and that it cannot be fairly called the only true Orthodoxy.
> How can you twist all this around and turn it backwards? No one
>said anything about Modern Orthodoxy being the only true Orthodoxy.
>Again, you argue against something that no one has ever said.
That's OK, your claims of Modern Orthodoxy being the only real Orthodoxy
against "a few fanatics or extremists" counterbalance the Haredi claims
of being the only true Orthodoxy. For example, your claims that Rabbi
Rackman on annulment is a "leading ORthodox authority", when even the
lefty groups you like to cite, such as Edah, reject his reasoning on
that. However, since Rackman's position resembles Conservative
positions on annulment, you find it "authoritative".
> All I did was prove someting that many Orthodox Jews here wanted
>to hide: That despite the scorn and hate heaped upon it by their fellow
>Orthodox Jews, some Modern Orthodox Judaism still exists.
Amazing, you proved that water is wet. Most of the O posters here are
"Modern" in that they believe in a) a positive value in Zionism (perhaps
messianic) and the State of Israel, b) a positive value in secular
education, beyond just what one needs to learn a trade, c) integration
into greater society without losing one's distinctive Jewish identity
and practices.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
>I know this is somewhat silly to ask b/c Im not sure how the categories work.
>Seriously, what is M.O. vs. Centrist. I am curious.
One group follows R' Lamm, the other group follows R' Schachter, among
the YU rabbonim. I forget which is which. R' Riskin calls himself
"centrist", R' Saul Berman and Edah call themselves "modern". So far
as I can tell, the major differences between R' Berman and R' Riskin
are that R' Berman is more of an academic, and stricter on the Manhattan
Eruv, and R' Riskin is more of a preacher, and more lenient on the
Manhattan Eruv. R' Riskin is also more of an active Zionist than
R' Berman - his big message since he committed Aliyah in 1984 has been
"move to Efrat".
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Simcha Streltsov
: I share your implied skepticism over statistical studies, but if we are
: going to use them at all, the NJPS is the most authoritative one.
Just remember that federation surveys are based on business models (at
least the ones saw), i.e their definition of a Jew is someone who can
donate to Federation or request their services. that creates biases
sometimes making an intermarried family
that puts the tree and responds to UJA solicitation as the
ideal Jewish family (donations increased twice from previous generation!)
and a Hasidic family becomes totally goyish
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Harry Weiss
Organization: ICGNetcom
Distribution:
Binyamin Dissen (Binyami...@theoffice.net) wrote:
: On 16 Aug 1998 05:43:39 GMT sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
: wrote:
: :>Herman Rubin (hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu) wrote:
Probably the size of the check will be the deciding factor.
: --
: Binyami...@theoffice.net
: Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Lyle Rooff
Craig Winchell wrote in message
<01bdc7cf$1dc43ec0$c3ed...@ganeden.dnai.com>...
>
>
>Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca> wrote in article
><35D4737A...@ibd.nrc.ca>...
>> Craig Winchell wrote:
>>
>> and yet have not yet divested themselves of their nonJewish
>> > spouses for various reasons.
>>
>> That is a rather cruel way to describe the breakup of a family,
>> especially when there are children involved.
>
>B"H
>
>So, how would you have had me say it
Perhaps the problem is in the choice of words. "Divested" suggests that a
spouse (Jewish or not) is just another commodity like a car or an item in a
stock portfolio which can be discarded when it becomes a liability or an
inconvenience. The second problem I see is the phrase "have not yet
divested...", which suggests that marital separation is either inevitable or
desirable when one becomes a B"T. Whether or not you believe the latter, it
is still a good idea to remember that you are dealing with people and not
things, and a return to religious observance does not automatically
eliminate the feelings and affection between husband and wife.
Eliyahu Rooff
yafael
>
> Rafael (raf...@nyct.net) wrote:
>
> : I share your implied skepticism over statistical studies, but if we are
> : going to use them at all, the NJPS is the most authoritative one.
>
> Just remember that federation surveys are based on business models (at
> least the ones saw), i.e their definition of a Jew is someone who can
> donate to Federation or request their services. that creates biases
> sometimes making an intermarried family
> that puts the tree and responds to UJA solicitation as the
> ideal Jewish family (donations increased twice from previous generation!)
> and a Hasidic family becomes totally goyish
UJA hired professionals to design the NJPS. Demographer, Sergio
DellaPergola, of Hebrew University (who helped to design it) called the
results "relatively reliable," in that studying Jews is very tricky
business. While rabbis examine each person's Jewishness on a
case-by-case basis, demographers lack the time or resources to check
pedigrees, so they have to invent their own criteria. In any case, NJPS
is the definitive study on American Jewry (so far).
[Again, the category of Jewishness used in the NJPS is called "core,"
which is defined as those who, when asked if they are Jewish, reply that
they are--obviously not an halakhic criterion, but as narrow as they
could get, given the complexity of their task.]
Rafael
yafael
> One group follows R' Lamm, the other group follows R' Schachter, among
> the YU rabbonim. I forget which is which. R' Riskin calls himself
> "centrist", R' Saul Berman and Edah call themselves "modern". So far
> as I can tell, the major differences between R' Berman and R' Riskin
> are that R' Berman is more of an academic, and stricter on the Manhattan
> Eruv, and R' Riskin is more of a preacher, and more lenient on the
> Manhattan Eruv. R' Riskin is also more of an active Zionist than
> R' Berman - his big message since he committed Aliyah in 1984 has been
> "move to Efrat".
Interesting. Lincoln Square Synagogue (founded by R. Riskin) calls
itself "Modern," but it's starting a new "Religious Zionist" kollel this
fall.
Frankly, I'm not sure who constitutes left-wing O if R. Riskin is the
"center" (R. Rackman, I suppose), but I have a hard time pinning down
the meanings of these terms, anyway.
Suffice it to say, RK's way off if he thinks that most of the O's he's
been banging heads with are "charedim."
Rafael
Susan Cohen
Harry Weiss wrote:
Now, wait a minute. Whether or not anyone agrees with what Reform do/n'tdo, it is
unfair to categorize them as venial, cynical or unspiritual.
Susan
Sheldon L. Glickler
Herman Rubin wrote in message <6r5c4u$n...@b.stat.purdue.edu>...
>In article <35d23418....@news2.cts.com>,
>Randy B <r...@nospam.adnc.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> ===> I believe it was in Forward magazing from a year or so ago that
>>>> cited a statistic that 50% of American R rabbis will marry a jew to a
>>>> non-jew. That is more than the fringe, it is the mainstream.
>
>>>I would love to look this up. Do you have a more exact citation? (I'm not
>>>holding my breath.) I have met many a R rabbi, and never have I spoken
>>>with one who would perform an intermarriage. You know, no matter what you
>>>may think of other Jewish groups, most of their leadership is as
concerned
>>>with the continuity of K'lal Yisrael as you. Just for some perspective.
>
>intermarriage if requested, but most who will do it will do so only
>if they feel that it is more likely to promote Judaism than to harm
>Judaism. Responsible rabbis make responsible decisions. Our
>congregation, for one, requires the rabbi to be willing to do so.
>This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
>are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette
IN47907-1399
>hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Our rabbi flatly refuses to do it.
Shelly
yafael
>
> Craig Winchell wrote in message
> >So, how would you have had me say it
>
> Perhaps the problem is in the choice of words. "Divested" suggests that a
> spouse (Jewish or not) is just another commodity like a car or an item in a
> stock portfolio which can be discarded when it becomes a liability or an
> inconvenience. The second problem I see is the phrase "have not yet
> divested...", which suggests that marital separation is either inevitable or
> desirable when one becomes a B"T. Whether or not you believe the latter, it
> is still a good idea to remember that you are dealing with people and not
> things, and a return to religious observance does not automatically
> eliminate the feelings and affection between husband and wife.
While I agree that Craig's choice of words may have been harsh (though
no moreso than those of Ezra and Nechemia), it is hard for me to sit by
and ignore the content of his message, which I feel is being lost in all
this stylistic upbraiding.
The important point to remember is that intermarriage is absolutely
forbidden by Jewish law, and a Jew who comes to appreciate his sacred
heritage has to make very hard decisions. [That's assuming that the Jew
became religious on his own, whereas the gentile spouse is often the
impetus for his/her becoming Jewishly observant. "Conversion upgrade" is
also not uncommon, where the gentile spouse starts with a R conversion,
then a C, then finally an O, as the couple gradually becomes more
observant together.]
If, however, the spouse is not sincerely interested in Judaism, then the
decision to separate will most likely be mutual, anyway (but by no means
painless). I've never personally encountered this situation, but I have
the utmost respect for those who have made this supreme sacrifice for
Torah and Klal Yisrael.
Rafael
Herman Rubin
Peter Borregard. <p...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>A while back, I heard the wife of a retired Reform rabbi say that her
>husband opposed intermarriage and had never performed one. (Of course, he
>recognizes non-halachic conversions as valid, but he would still require a
>conversion that he recognized), but that a Reform rabbi looking for a
>pulpit today would find it difficult if not impossible to get a pulpit
>without agreeing to perform intermarriages.
This is not correct. Some congregations require that their rabbi be
willing to perform intermarriages under appropriate conditions, but
only a large minority of rabbinical graduates are so willing. They
still get pulpits.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
>> One group follows R' Lamm, the other group follows R' Schachter, among
>> the YU rabbonim. I forget which is which. R' Riskin calls himself
>> "centrist", R' Saul Berman and Edah call themselves "modern". So far
>Interesting. Lincoln Square Synagogue (founded by R. Riskin) calls
>itself "Modern," but it's starting a new "Religious Zionist" kollel this
>fall.
Right. Rabbi Mintz, the current rabbi, I think he calls himself "modern".
I think he calls his kollel "RZ" to contrast with the "chareidi" West
Side Kollel, which interestingly is a successor to Congregation Moriah,
where the Rav (Soloveitchik), the gadol hador of Modern O, gave weekly
shiurim for many years.
>Frankly, I'm not sure who constitutes left-wing O if R. Riskin is the
>"center" (R. Rackman, I suppose), but I have a hard time pinning down
>the meanings of these terms, anyway.
Me too. I suppose the real left wing is people who believe in a minimal
revelation of the Oral Torah, such as R' Eliezer Berkovits z"l and yibadel
lechaim R' David Hartman. R' Rackman might be left for his playing fast &
loose with the rules of annulments, as would R' Yitz Greenberg for playing
fast & loose with the term "eternal covenant". Do the supporters of
women's tefillah groups count as left, or as stam Modern? I suppose it
depends on perspective.
>Suffice it to say, RK's way off if he thinks that most of the O's he's
>been banging heads with are "charedim."
Sho' nuff.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Simcha Streltsov
: [Again, the category of Jewishness used in the NJPS is called "core,"
: which is defined as those who, when asked if they are Jewish, reply that
: they are--obviously not an halakhic criterion, but as narrow as they
: could get, given the complexity of their task.]
afair, they also use a definition of a "Jewish household" that also
AFAIR is something like having a "core Jew" in a household
and, I did read in one of the surveys major problems that they have
in sampling - they often _do_ base their sampling on their own lists
(ie "Federation Jews"), controlling them by general calls by the phone
book - but that does not necessarily takes care of the difference between
counted and not counted population. and, again, according to their
own goals, they dont _need_ to invest additional amounts of money
to uncover another hasidic group that does not want to do anything with
them. Thus, it is mot probably that their "relative" reliability is
most often a bias for the crowd they know and need - there should be
no surprise about it.
Richard Schultz
: since he committed Aliyah in 1984
Well, it probably is true that anyone who makes Aliyah should be
committed. . .