Question on "who is a jew?"
Ytshak Artzi - CPS
When me and my family immigrated to Israel in 1974 (from Romania)
we were not asked to prove we're actually Jews. I know that many
romanian citizen use fictious marriages to Jews to leave the country. So
is the situation in the USSR. From what a friend whose mother is a
non-jewish Russian told me, the newcomers simply have to state their
religion when they arrive at Ben Gurion airport and they immediately get
a new immigrant id card (this is temporary, until they get the permanent
id card). I wonder if this is true...
If it is indeed so simple to become a Jew, why is there such a big
argument with American Jewry ? How come all black basketball players in
Israel come as "genuine" Jews (each team has at least 2) ?
How can the authorities disprove the fact that some is a Jew if he/she
say so, and their mother do so also ? How big the doubt must be on
someone's status in order not be considered a Jew ?
Itzik.
==============================================================================
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
\ \ \ | / / / "Aude, vide, tace, si vis videre in pace"
\ \ \|/ / /
\ \ | / /
^^^^^^^^^^^
|||
/===\
==============================================================================
Yaakov Kayman
>
> When me and my family immigrated to Israel in 1974 (from Romania)
>we were not asked to prove we're actually Jews. I know that many
>romanian citizen use fictious marriages to Jews to leave the country. So
>is the situation in the USSR. From what a friend whose mother is a
>non-jewish Russian told me, the newcomers simply have to state their
>religion when they arrive at Ben Gurion airport and they immediately get
>a new immigrant id card (this is temporary, until they get the permanent
>id card). I wonder if this is true...
> If it is indeed so simple to become a Jew, why is there such a big
>
I am still amazed at the way people seem to believe that any *civil*
law passed by the *secularist* *political* entity known as the State
of Israel can somehow transform someone whom Jewish Law considers to
be a complete non-Jew into a Jew! This is quite ridiculous!
Israeli civil law may determine who is an Israeli, and who will be
granted automatic Israeli citizenship, but *only*(!) Jewish (religious)
Law determines who is a Jew.
> Itzik.
>
Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York
BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"
Dan Berleant
>How come all black basketball players in
>Israel come as "genuine" Jews (each team has at least 2) ?
By a brilliant process of deduction, I came up with an answer:
Because they *are* genuine Jews!
Or are you suggesting that Black basketball players are doing this
as a career move, to escape racial discrimination in American
pro sports? Not a bad idea, but somehow it seems unlikely...
Daniel P. Faigin
>I am still amazed at the way people seem to believe that any *civil* law
>passed by the *secularist* *political* entity known as the State of Israel
>can somehow transform someone whom Jewish Law considers to be a complete
>non-Jew into a Jew! This is quite ridiculous!
>
>Israeli civil law may determine who is an Israeli, and who will be granted
>automatic Israeli citizenship, but *only*(!) Jewish (religious) Law
>determines who is a Jew.
Ah, but Yaavok, the problem is that the civil authorities in Israel have
said that any *Jew* who wants to claim Israeli citizenship can. So, Moshe
from America decides to move to Israel and become an Israel citizen. He
thinks he's a good Jew -- he's gone to temple all his life, observed the
holidays as he was taught. Anyway, he goes to Israel and tries to claim
citizenship. He's told, sorry, you can't, because you're not a Jew. "What!",
he exclaims. "Well, ..." the official says "your mother was converted by a
Reform rabbi, therefore she's not Jewish, and neither are you."
So who is a Jew? More important, what does a situation like this teach more
Moshe? It is far better to set a good example in your life about what *to*
be, rather than to constantly tell people what they are not.
After all, it is not *our* job to judge others. That privilege is reserved
by a higher authority. It is our responsibility to be the best Jew that we
can be at the current time. As time goes on, and we grow and are inspired,
our depth of *practice* may change.
Since this discussion seems to be rearing its ugly head again, and since it
is that time of year again, let me ask a few questions to think about next
week:
1. Have I made Judaism a part of my life, or is it words that I just say?
How much a part of your life you make it depends on your particular
beliefs, but have you included something of the teachings? (after all, a
little bit is better than none at all)
2. Have I shown tolerance to others on this network and in my life that I
disagree with? I can easily accept that not everyone in the world
believes as I believe; can I as easily accept that it is not *my*
responsibility to change them to my beliefs? I can, however, set an
example by living life according to my beliefs.
3. Have I shown respect to others on this network and in my life with whose
practices and behaviour I think is lax in some area, recognizing that I
don't agree with the practice? Everything created by G-d has a bit of
G-dliness in them, and deserve respect for that.
4. Have I tried to better myself in some way during the year, or have I
stagnated in my life and/or beliefs?
5. Have I responded to what I have seen on this net with *facts*, or with
verbal attacks? We can agree to disagree, but attacking the person is
different from disagreeing with the beliefs.
In my postings this year, I have tried to be fair and evenhanded, presenting
facts. I have not agreed with everyone, but I have tried to listen. Many in
this group have earned my respect for doing the same. May all of the s.c.j
community (which at last count was 38.2% Conservative, 27.6% Orthodox, 12.2%
Reform, 4.1% Conservadox, 4.1% Atheist, 3.3% Christian, 1.6% Humanistic,
1.6% Goy, 1.6% Chassidic, 1.6% Agnostic, 0.8% Reconstructionalist, 0.8%
Non-affiliated, 0.8% Generic, 0.8% Druid and 0.8% Deconstructive) have the
happiest of new years, and, in the upcoming year, grow in the fashion that
is meant for you.
L'Shana Tovah
Daniel (one of the 12.2%)
Work :The Aerospace Corp M8/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 213/336-3149
Home :=> 9758 Natick Avenue * Sepulveda CA 91343 <= NEW ADDRESS * 818/892-8555
Email:fai...@aerospace.aero.org (or) Fai...@dockmaster.ncsc.mil
Voicemail: 213/336-5454 Box#3149 * "Take what you like, and leave the rest"
Yaakov Kayman
>
>In article <2558YZKCU@CUNYVM> YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes:
>>Israeli civil law may determine who is an Israeli, and who will be granted
>>automatic Israeli citizenship, but *only*(!) Jewish (religious) Law
>>determines who is a Jew.
>
>Ah, but Yaavok, the problem is that the civil authorities in Israel have
>said that any *Jew* who wants to claim Israeli citizenship can. So, Moshe
>from America decides to move to Israel and become an Israel citizen. He
>thinks he's a good Jew -- he's gone to temple all his life, observed the
>holidays as he was taught.
(we're not talking about what it means to be a "good Jew", but rather
what it means to be a Jew. A person's thoughts, by themselvesm, have
nothing to do with this -- YK)
>Anyway, he goes to Israel and tries to claim
>citizenship. He's told, sorry, you can't, because you're not a Jew. "What!",
>he exclaims. "Well, ..." the official says "your mother was converted by
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a Reform rabbi, therefore she's not Jewish, and neither are you."
^^^^^^
It is not *who* converts someone that is critical, but rather *how*
the conversion is done that matters. Jewish Law does not encourage
conversions but will warmly accept *sincere* converts, i.e., those
whose sole purpose for wanting to be a Jew is *to be a Jew*, rather
than to marry a Jew. This is not to say that no convert may marry a
Jew. That is certainly not the case. What Jewish Law does try to do,
however, is to disqualify those who would undergo a sham conversion
(that is to say, a "conversion" in name only, without ever having had
the slightest intention of observing Judaism's 613 Torah commandments
and its many more Rabbinic laws) with a motive *other than* to become
a Jew.
My former next-door neighbor, a great guy and a very good neighbor, is
Reform. He used to wave "Shabbat Shalom" to me as he drove by me as I was
walking to shul. Driving on Shabbat is against Jewish Law. It is but one
example of Jewish Laws dispensed with by Reform. It happens to be one of
Judaism's capital crimes to deliberately violate the Shabbat.
My former neighbor is what you, as a Reform Jew, would call a RABBI! (I,
as an Orthodox Jew, would *not* call him a rabbi). How can it be expected
of one who himself does *not* keep Jewish Law to admit into the Jewish
faith only those who will, except if it be done together with and under
the authority of those rabbinic authorities whose standing under and
knowledge of Jewish Law cannot be questioned?
>
>So who is a Jew?
Whoever Jewish Law says is a Jew. See Tractate Gerim, the Shulchan 'Aruch
and other Judaic sources of Jewish Law.
>
>L'Shana Tovah
>
The very same to you. Ketivah VeChatimah Tovah.
>Daniel (one of the 12.2%)
Yaakov K.
steven.m.ehrlich
Dont you think its shall we say, quite a coincidence, that all the
Black ballplayers on Israeli teams have just happened to see the
light of the Holy Torah? In the U.S. how many black converts are there
altogether?
Steve Ehrlich
att!ihlpl!stevee
Daniel P. Faigin
>>He thinks he's a good Jew -- he's gone to temple all his life, observed the
> ^^^^^^ ^^^^
>>holidays as he was taught.
>
>(we're not talking about what it means to be a "good Jew", but rather
>what it means to be a Jew. A person's thoughts, by themselvesm, have
>nothing to do with this -- YK)
No, we're talking about what is good enough to claim Israeli citizenship. Your
original article stated that the question was not who is a Jew, but was a
secular question. Why, then, does the particular branch you belong to make a
difference in terms of citizenship?
Also, you cannot fault a person for something he doesn't know. Our Moshe in
question is being a Jew in the best way that he was taught. What's the result
-- he gets trampled by someone like you. This is a compassionate and loving
people, right?
>
>>Anyway, he goes to Israel and tries to claim
>>citizenship. He's told, sorry, you can't, because you're not a Jew. "What!",
>>he exclaims. "Well, ..." the official says "your mother was converted by
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>a Reform rabbi, therefore she's not Jewish, and neither are you."
> ^^^^^^
>It is not *who* converts someone that is critical, but rather *how*
>the conversion is done that matters.
As I have gone over many, many times, the Reform conversion ceremony gets
sincere converts too. The Reform conversion ceremony incorporates most of the
aspects of the more traditional conversions, and does not prohibit the person
from being more traditional. Lastly, this is a case of holding the child
responsible for the parents actions.
>Jewish Law does not encourage
>conversions but will warmly accept *sincere* converts, i.e., those
>whose sole purpose for wanting to be a Jew is *to be a Jew*, rather
>than to marry a Jew.
What makes you think that this marriage case is the only reason that people
choose Reform conversion ceremonies? How well do you know *and understand*
Reform?
>What Jewish Law does try to do,
>however, is to disqualify those who would undergo a sham conversion
>(that is to say, a "conversion" in name only, without ever having had
>the slightest intention of observing Judaism's 613 Torah commandments
>and its many more Rabbinic laws) with a motive *other than* to become
>a Jew.
What makes you think that Reform Jews do not have the "slighest" intention of
following the commandments?
>My former next-door neighbor, a great guy and a very good neighbor, is
>Reform. He used to wave "Shabbat Shalom" to me as he drove by me as I was
>walking to shul. Driving on Shabbat is against Jewish Law. It is but one
>example of Jewish Laws dispensed with by Reform. It happens to be one of
>Judaism's capital crimes to deliberately violate the Shabbat.
It is against Jewish Law as *you* interpret it. There are no mentions of cars
in the Torah. They weren't invented until this century. It is not against
Jewish Law as Reform inteprets it, however, you are free to choose to refrain
from driving on Shabbat.
>My former neighbor is what you, as a Reform Jew, would call a RABBI! (I,
>as an Orthodox Jew, would *not* call him a rabbi).
What makes someone a Rabbi? It is not ordination, as many Orthodox Rabbis are
not formally ordained. It is respect for the learning that the person has. I
have respect for someone who has gone through Hebrew Union College. They do
study all aspects of the law (after all, only by understanding the law can you
intellegently decide what gives you sanctity in your life).
>How can it be expected
>of one who himself does *not* keep Jewish Law to admit into the Jewish
>faith only those who will, except if it be done together with and under
>the authority of those rabbinic authorities whose standing under and
>knowledge of Jewish Law cannot be questioned?
I think judging your friend by appearances (which is what you appear to be
doing) is something you need to think long and hard about. Do you really know
the man and his learning and beliefs?
Oh, and Yaakov, do think about the questions I posted.
Daniel (one of the 12.2% Reform on s.c.j)
Lazer Danzinger
>law passed by the *secularist* *political* entity known as the State
>of Israel can somehow transform someone whom Jewish Law considers to
>be a complete non-Jew into a Jew! This is quite ridiculous!
>
a problem. Many people tend to confuse the standards of the State
of Israel with Jewish Law. They erroneously conclude that if Israel
admits a person as a "Jew", conferring upon him citizenship, etc., then
that person is 'ipso facto' really Jewish.
As a result, assimilation and intermarriage are fueled by this
tragic piece of Israeli legislation.
I would like to wish everyone a "kesiva veh-chasima tova", a good
year both materially and spiritually, and may we merit that this new
year indeed be a year of miracles: Taf Shin Nun, te'he-yeh shnas nisim.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Rabbi) L. Danzinger | "Ben Zoma said, 'Who is wise? One who learns from
lazer@mnetor | every person...Who is courageous? One who conquers
| his [evil] inclination...Who is wealthy? One who is
| satisfied with his portion...Who is respected? One who
(416) 475-8980 | respects his fellow man...'" -- Avot 4:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lazer Danzinger
>In article <47...@cps3xx.UUCP>, Ytshak Artzi, writes:
**How come all black basketball players in
**Israel come as "genuine" Jews (each team has at least 2) ?
>By a brilliant process of deduction, I came up with an answer:
>Because they *are* genuine Jews!
>
>Or are you suggesting that Black basketball players are doing this
>as a career move, to escape racial discrimination in American
>pro sports? Not a bad idea, but somehow it seems unlikely...
Guess again. A career move, though it may seem unlikely, is in fact
usually the motive.
For several examples, see "Sports Illustrated," April 29, 1985.
The entire report from the aforementioned S.I article is quoted in
"Who is A Jew," by Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Schochet. A second expanded
edition has recently been published. It should be available at
better Jewish book stores everywhere.
Herman Rubin
...........................
> My former next-door neighbor, a great guy and a very good neighbor, is
> Reform. He used to wave "Shabbat Shalom" to me as he drove by me as I was
> walking to shul. Driving on Shabbat is against Jewish Law. It is but one
> example of Jewish Laws dispensed with by Reform. It happens to be one of
> Judaism's capital crimes to deliberately violate the Shabbat.
>
> My former neighbor is what you, as a Reform Jew, would call a RABBI! (I,
> as an Orthodox Jew, would *not* call him a rabbi). How can it be expected
> of one who himself does *not* keep Jewish Law to admit into the Jewish
> faith only those who will, except if it be done together with and under
> the authority of those rabbinic authorities whose standing under and
> knowledge of Jewish Law cannot be questioned?
Why cannot those authorities be questioned? As I read the Torah, I see that
it is to be reinterpreted in each generation. Reinterpretation means that
we must be free to disagree with our prececessors. When the Supreme Court
interprets our Constitution, they go back to the original intent. When a
legislature acts, they can overthrow preceding legislation, but not the
Constitutional principles. Our Constitution is the Torah only.
You consider driving on the Sabbath to be a major religious crime. I do not
consider it a violation at all. But I consider the institution of the
Shabbos Goy to be a direct literal violation of the Fourth Commandment,
and it was universally practiced by at least East European Orthodox Jews.
It is a common failing of the Orthodox to assume that everything is contained
in the religious writings. Only reluctantly are they willing to accept that
other information is to be taken into account. But Halakhic medicine is
not followed, even by the Orthodox. One cannot truly understand these
writings without putting them in the context of the times they were written.
The Reform rabbi takes into account all of the rabbinical writings, as well
as history, sociology, and science.
> >So who is a Jew?
>
> Whoever Jewish Law says is a Jew. See Tractate Gerim, the Shulchan 'Aruch
> and other Judaic sources of Jewish Law.
This is a difficult question. In the days of the Temple, one could give an
answer, which differs from the present Orthodox. I quote from the article
by Rabbi Schulweis in _Reform Judaism_ that Ezra
"saw calamity in the intermingling of the 'holy seed' with the foreign wives
whose children could not speak the Jew's language." ...
He ends this paragraph with Ezra 10:11
'Make confession unto the Lord God of your fathers...separate yourselves from
the people of the land and the strange foreign women.'
The historical record is not too accurate, and according to many, Jonah was
written as an answer to Ezra; Nineveh had been destroyed long before.
What happened to the children of the Jews and the foreign wives? Most of
them were accepted into the community as Jews, and we know that the use
of Hebrew as the language of the country was replaced by Aramaic, the
language of the Captivity and of the wives and children.
This acceptance of the wives and children is in direct contradiction with
the current Orthodox interpretation of who is a Jew.
Do not follow those who would exclude knowledge as (quoting from the same
source) the Tanya (chapter 9) warns against those who occupy themselves
'with the sciences of the world, for the uncleanness of the science of nations
is greater than that of profane speech.'
We should not learn physics because Galileo and Newton were instrumental in
finding it? We should not attempt to learn the inviolable laws of God, the
laws of nature, because goyim discovered some of them? No, it is the laws
of science which we must apply to understanding Jewish law.
'
> >
> >L'Shana Tovah
L'shana tovah; may a good year be inscribed and sealed.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
Stan Krieger
> My former next-door neighbor, a great guy and a very good neighbor, is
> Reform. He used to wave "Shabbat Shalom" to me as he drove by me as I was
> walking to shul. Driving on Shabbat is against Jewish Law. It is but one
> example of Jewish Laws dispensed with by Reform. It happens to be one of
> Judaism's capital crimes to deliberately violate the Shabbat.
>
> My former neighbor is what you, as a Reform Jew, would call a RABBI! (I,
> as an Orthodox Jew, would *not* call him a rabbi). How can it be expected
> of one who himself does *not* keep Jewish Law to admit into the Jewish
> faith only those who will, except if it be done together with and under
> the authority of those rabbinic authorities whose standing under and
> knowledge of Jewish Law cannot be questioned?
>
> and other Judaic sources of Jewish Law.
>
I tried very hard to stay out of this discussion, but find it's
impossible. Even though, in the spirit of the holidays, I should
probably be upbeat and try to avoid criticizing, I also feel that
there is no place in our religion for the blatant intolerance
towards his fellow Jews that Yaakov has displayed on this net,
especially at this time of year. Letting his intolerance go
unanswered could imply that it is condoned, which clearly it cannot be,
nor ever should be.
The bottom line, and the only line, is that the Reform, Reconstructionist,
and Conservative interpretations and observance of our common law
is NOT wrong! It is different, but not wrong. People like Yaakov
who pretend that they are the only Jews who know what our religion
is all about, and what our laws really are, are really ruining what is a
beautiful religion. Such an attitude is to be pitied.
For example, I personally do not believe in the fundamental principles
of the Reform movement, but I will not say they are wrong. For example,
I would not want a Reform Rabbi performing a wedding ceremony that
I am involved in, but I would not challenge the religious validity
of such a marriage (and the same goes for a conversion). I will
observe Rosh Hashanah for two days but will not say it is wrong
for Reform to observe it for only one day. Also, I will recognize
the religious leader of a Reform Temple as a Rabbi although I disagree
with his or her policy of not requiring men to keep their heads
covered, or their willingness, possibly with restrictions, to
perform a wedding between a Jew and goy. Why do you, Yaakov,
think that you're the only ones who know what Judaism is all
about and thus continue to pretend that non-Orthodox observances
of our religion is wrong and thus refuse to recognize their legitimacy?
Next Monday, when we read, or read through, the Al Chet and the
Ashamnu, we probably should all think about how many of these sins
all of us are committing simply because of intolerance towards our
fellow Jews and the erroneous classification of a different observance
of our common religion as "wrong".
Finally a postscript. Driving to shul on the Shabbat and Holidays
is not a violation of Jewish law; it is a violation of only the
Orthodox interpretation of that law. You are absolutely not wrong
in believing that driving to Shul is forbidden, but you are absolutely
wrong in trying to impose that standard on others. And a second
postscript; if the Reform call your neighbor a Rabbi, he is a
Rabbi!
--
Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
...!att!attunix!smk
Class Account
driving on Shabbat, which is accepted in Reform Judaism but is quite
frowned upon by most other Jewish authorities.
Be aware that Judaism has many different *categories* of laws. Some of the
laws are hard and fast laws, others are not. The latter may be
subject to revision, the former may not. There are also types of
questions which are widely open to interpretation (and these give
rise to differences in practice across the centuries.) On other
questions, there is little or no leeway for interpretation.
So it's bad to take a naive attitude of "judaism changes over the
centuries anyway" and then go ahead and make any changes that seem
desireable. That's is just as bad as saying "nothing can change, and
we can't make any changes in interpretation either". You must
investigate the type of laws, and you must keep changes within a
certain framework (which I hope will be as tolerant as possible).
Hillel was a really tolerant guy, & his attitudes have helped shape
Jewish practice. But, as tolerant as he might be, he always stayed
within a certain bounds, and did not stray from the "hard rules".
Now, let me give you what *I* consider two extremes. Note that I am
not a Rabbi, so these are just one person's view. "Driving on Shabbat"
looks to me as if it violates clearly defined laws of Shabbat
that go back at least as far as the Gemara. You
can't light fires, or cause any combustion, on Shabbat. I don't know
how the Reform rabbis got around this, & I'd be interested in hearing
if they offered halachic arguments (and thus attempted to stay within
Jewish halacha) or if they just dispensed with halacha when they made
their ruling.
At the other extreme, I see a law/custom regarding mixing fish and
meat in the same dish or plate. It was forbidden, some time in the
middle ages, for purely health reasons (people believed mixing meat & fish in
close proximity triggered leprosy). Now that we know this is not the
cause of leprosy, this law may be dispensed with. It is charming that
it persists as a custom, but it should not be a law, in my opinion.
It is not based in any Mishne or Gemara. (Has it been revoked???)
One of the big "things" about Judaism is its continuity. Even at moments of
its greatest change, it retained continuity. When Yavne was established,
an amalgem of sectarian practices were combined and standardized, many
rituals of the Temple were introduced into Synagogue service, etc. etc.
There were major changes, but it was the "peripheral" things that
were allowed to change. The core was not changed.
Maimonides' philosophies were condemned in his day, & they were later
widely accepted as essential to Judaism -- but he never advocated any
changes as severe as a clear violations of Shabbat. He retained the
core of the religion & interpretation, & merely offered a different way
to view certain ideas. Today, when a Rabbi wants to make a decision,
many will go to amazing lengths to try to make Jewish law "fit" the
decision they believe is the best (for a particular case), and they
will pore over gemara to find precedents that will match their opinion
-- but they *always* must keep their opinions within that system of thought.
So, I hope people won't go too far in saying "well, Judaism is a flexible
religion, so it must be OK to drive on Shabbat". True, Judaism is
flexible, but this argument is really abuse of Judaism's built-in
capacity for flexibility. That flexibility does not extend to every
aspect of Judaism.
Dan Dyckman dyc...@miro.berkeley.edu
Dr J A K Cave
Mark C. Carroll <MC>
]
They key problem here is that you SAY you judge by the intent of the
person converting, not by the Rabbi. But, you assume that any person
not converted by a Rabbi you approve of has the wrong intent.
In my synagogue, we have a person who has a Jewish father, and a
non-jewish mother. He was raised non-jewish. Around the time he turned
15, he came to speak to our Rabbi. Since then, he has spent 3 years of
study; he has been through a ritual circumsision; he has been to the
mikvah; and he was recently bar-mitzvahed. He is continuing to study
with the Rabbi (even though the conversion ceremony is long over).
This kid is a Jew. I can't see ANY way to criticize his intent. But,
because he chose a Conservative Rabbi for philisophical reasons, you
claim he is not a Jew. How can you reconcile this with your previous
argument for intent? He has no "romantic" reason to convert. His ONLY
reason for converting is belief. Why do you try to prevent him from
being considered a Jew?
] Yaakov K.
<MC>
--
\ Mark Craign Carroll: <MC> \ "Man may trust man, but we'll never \
\ mcca...@topaz.rutgers.edu \ have a truly sane world until men \
\ ...!rutgers!mccarrol \ learn to trust mankind" \
\ car...@zodiac.bitnet \ -Michael Moorcock \
Joe Bernstein
observant (i.e. Shabbat, Kashrut) Jew, who was brought up in a "Reform"
household, and as someone who was very active in the Reform Movement,
I feel qualified to address some issues.
As a movement, Reform has very specific stands on Jewish Law. The
feeling is that most of it does not apply to us today in modern life.
Consequently, it is not important to learn what the laws are. Hence,
Reform education ceases to become available after around Bar-Mitzvah
age. Hebrew is not necessary if you can find appropriatly translated
prayer books, thus, it is not important for a Reform Jew to learn
Hebrew. And for that matter, Since the prayers are outdated, there is
a great deal of pressure to continue writing new ones to fill the void.
Essentially, the only formal means of obtaining a Jewish education, or
to express ones own spirituality through Judaism in the Reform
structure is to attend HUC-JIR or some equivalent and become a RABBI.
Then, you learn more than the average Reformnick and are qualified to
be a rabbi, and keep your congregation as uninformed about Halacha etc.
The problem with Reform Conversion is that it denies the importance of
Jewish law, so to become a Jew while admitting that the laws do not
apply, one is really saying that they do not really want to become a
Jew at all. If a person does honestly want to accept the heritage and
the responsibility of being a Jew, why not follow the full Halachic
tradition, and then decide to choose which laws are applicable.
This is the feeling of the rabinate in general, who do see the
availability of Reform conversion, and for that matter, the whole
movement as a threat to Judaism, because it gives legitamacy for being
a Lazy, uneducated Jew who has no strong feelings for the Torah or
Halacha at all, and encourages leaving the faith. I have no trouble
with the decision to not accept Reform conversions. I have less
trouble with Reform as a movement since it allowed me to transcend my
Parent's level of abservance and find more of my own spirituality in
more educated circles.
-JB
samuel.saal
> In article <2566YZKCU@CUNYVM>, YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Yaakov Kayman) writes:
> > except if it be done together with and under
> > the authority of those rabbinic authorities whose standing under and
> > knowledge of Jewish Law cannot be questioned?
>Why cannot those authorities be questioned? As I read the Torah,
>I see that it is to be reinterpreted in each generation.
Whoa! Hold on there! Herman: you blow your whole argument by
taking Yaakov's figure of speech literally. A rabbinic authority
whose standing and knowledge are beyond question has gotten to
that position by _being_ questioned. It takes years of study,
not just of Tanach and Talmud, but of living as a Torah (and
tradiditon and Halacha) respecting Jew, to be considered among
those with knowledge that cannot be questioned. Now, before
anyone goes yelling about how Conservative and Reform do respect
one or more of tradition and/or Halachah, I am only talking about
how it works under [oO]rthodoxy. I am neither confirming nor
denying anything about any other branch of Judaism nor any other
religion. I am also not attempting to deligitimize anyone. I am
attempting to stick to my plea that we not get embroiled in
another, semiannual "who is a Jew and why not me/them" inferno.
My point is to complain about a misinterpretation that Herman
Rubin makes in his understanding of Yaakov's post.
....
>It is a common failing of the Orthodox to assume that everything is contained
>in the religious writings.
This statement is unclear . If it means that (with
interpretation), all knowledge is contained in the Torah (we just
have to, somehow, find it), then it is correct for _some_ of
Orthodoxy. If it means that all [oO]rthodox believe that nothing
other that Torah should be studied because the only things
_worth_ studying are in the religious writings, then you are
incorrect. Some evidence is in the latter half of the same
paragraph that you wrote:
> . . . Only reluctantly are they willing to accept that
>other information is to be taken into account. But Halakhic medicine is
>not followed, even by the Orthodox. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
....
>What happened to the children of the Jews and the foreign wives? Most of
>them were accepted into the community as Jews, and we know that the use
>of Hebrew as the language of the country was replaced by Aramaic, the
>language of the Captivity and of the wives and children.
This is historical conjecture. It should be labeled as such.
There _may_ be arguments against Orthodoxy's determination of
whether a person is a Jew, but claiming your conjecture as fact
will, in no way, lead you closer to them.
>This acceptance of the wives and children is in direct contradiction with
>the current Orthodox interpretation of who is a Jew.
Naaaah. I don't think you have enough of the ancillary information
(commentaries, etc) to say without certainty that the text is
giving all the details. How do you know that the specific details of the
conversion, etc, weren't simply left out of the text at the "pshat"
level?
>L'shana tovah; may a good year be inscribed and sealed.
--
Sam Saal ...!{att}!floyd!saal <-- NOTE: Please use this path.
NOTE new path Do not use the reply feature. It doesn't know me.
Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
Yaakov Kayman
> (his reaction to my saying that Reform has no Halakhic standing -- YK)
>
>I tried very hard to stay out of this discussion, but find it's
>impossible. Even though, in the spirit of the holidays, I should
>probably be upbeat and try to avoid criticizing, I also feel that
>there is no place in our religion for the blatant intolerance
>towards his fellow Jews that Yaakov has displayed on this net,
>especially at this time of year. Letting his intolerance go
>unanswered could imply that it is condoned, which clearly it cannot be,
>nor ever should be.
>
>The bottom line, and the only line, is that the Reform, Reconstructionist,
>and Conservative interpretations and observance of our common law
>is NOT wrong! It is different, but not wrong. People like Yaakov
>who pretend that they are the only Jews who know what our religion
>is all about, and what our laws really are, are really ruining what is a
>beautiful religion. Such an attitude is to be pitied.
Stan:
In addition to the flame I sent, which I feel you richly deserve(d),
I owe you some actual explanation of part of the halakhic viewpoint.
True, cars were not around when the Halakha was originally codified, but
combustion certainly was. Torah scholars throughout the ages have added
to Halakha, using only Torah-true halakhic reasoning (see Rabbi
Yishma'el's "Thirteen characteristics" (by which Torah is expounded) ), to
take new inventions and situations into account. While it takes no great
Torah scholar to rule something "treif", and a great one to rule
something about which there are halakhic questions legitimately kosher,
no grounds could (and, I suspect, ever will) be found - using the long-
recognized halakhic method - to rule the internal combustion of an auto-
motive engine to be anything other than the prohibited lighting of a
fire.
Most halakhic authorities hold that one can indirectly turn on
electric lights, for instance, by means of a "Shabbat clock", even though
the electric current flowing in the opened circuit is a form of "fire".
Obviously, electricity was not known at the time Halakha was originally
codified, and yet we see it *does* take the modern world into account.
I make no secret whatsoever that I consider Reform *ideology*,
as well as those of the Conservative and Reconstructionist movements to
be nothing more or less than heresy. None who strive to be Torah-true,
without making allowances for the modern world in ways that no allowances
are permissible according to the halakhic method, will ever think differ-
ently than this. As such, I will continue to oppose them.
I had once studied in a Conservative (high) school for several years.
I have never studied in a school affiliated with Reform. The only way I
have to judge those movements is by observation of the leaders and mem-
bers of those movements, measuring them by their knowledge of and
conformance to Jewish Law. I consider the level of Jewish education of
the non-Orthodox rank-and-file to be somewhere between woefully inade-
quate and nonexistent. My wife has taught in Conservative schools for
many years. Many times, my youngest son, now six years old and in first
grade of yeshivah, was able (as a nursery student!) to provide her
students, all *many* years older than he, answers they were totally
ignorant of. As such, I do not blame the rank-and-file for their non-
observance.
Ignorance, in this case ignorance of Judaism and Jewish Law, is no
crime where one has never had the opportunity to truly learn. Its remedy
is simple: earnest Jewish education. The inability, or worse, unwilling-
ness to see that the various non-Orthodox movements have either dis-
carded or compromised principles vital to Judaism in order to either
be "with the times", or to attract or retain membership, is not,
however, ignorance. It is simple stupidity, and that *is* a crime.
You may certainly continue, in spite of the protests of Torah's
defenders, to practice whatever you wish, but the words "right" and
"legitimate" will have to come from a dictionary that your movements
have themselves invented. There never will be an Orthodox stamp of
approval for your movements' actions that have moved far away from
Judaism. If that's okay with you, and I can't change your mind(s),
then it's okay with me.
Gemar Chatimah Tovah to a fellow less-than-perfectly-observing Jew,
Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York
BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"
>
>Stan Krieger
>Summit, NJ
>....!att!attunix!smk
Daniel P. Faigin
writes:
>driving on Shabbat, which is accepted in Reform Judaism but is quite
>frowned upon by most other Jewish authorities.
Actually, driving to Shul on Shabbat is also accepted by the Conservative,
and, I believe, the Reconstructionalist movements.
>So it's bad to take a naive attitude of "judaism changes over the
>centuries anyway" and then go ahead and make any changes that seem
>desireable. That's is just as bad as saying "nothing can change, and
>we can't make any changes in interpretation either". You must
>investigate the type of laws, and you must keep changes within a
>certain framework (which I hope will be as tolerant as possible).
Actually, this is what Reform calls for. Investigate the laws, study them, and
retain those practices which improve the sanctity of your life and the
sanctity of your relationship to your fellow people.
>Now, let me give you what *I* consider two extremes. Note that I am not a
>Rabbi, so these are just one person's view. "Driving on Shabbat" looks to me
>as if it violates clearly defined laws of Shabbat that go back at least as
>far as the Gemara. You can't light fires, or cause any combustion, on
>Shabbat. I don't know how the Reform rabbis got around this, & I'd be
>interested in hearing if they offered halachic arguments (and thus attempted
>to stay within Jewish halacha) or if they just dispensed with halacha when
>they made their ruling.
I am not familiar with how Reform came to the decision, but you could easily
investigate the published responsas from the Conservative movement. I can tell
you how I view this particular issue.
Look at when the Torah was written, and consider what is meant by lighting
fires. Does the Torah mean the literal act? Wood and ignition? Sparks? We can
create sparks just by walking on carpet. Does it mean creating a fire for a
specific purpose? For warmth? For food? For light? These are issues left for
interpretation. Back in Torah days, you could get to services that were nearby
by walking. I'd have to walk 10 miles to get to my synagogue, for cities today
are much larger.
The basic purpose of Shabbat is separation and rest. I try and do things on
Shabbat that make it a special day distinct from the other days of the week. I
can do this with special meals. I can do this by going to services. I can do
this by taking time out to meditate. By going back to the original meaning,
and not just the words, I preserve the day in such a way that I am aware of
its specialness, not bound by the minutae.
That's how *I* view it. You may disagree with it, and that's OK. In other
words, this opinion is my view only, your milage may differ.
>At the other extreme, I see a law/custom regarding mixing fish and meat in
>the same dish or plate. It was forbidden, some time in the middle ages, for
>purely health reasons (people believed mixing meat & fish in close proximity
>triggered leprosy). Now that we know this is not the cause of leprosy, this
>law may be dispensed with. It is charming that it persists as a custom, but
>it should not be a law, in my opinion. It is not based in any Mishne or
>Gemara. (Has it been revoked???)
Now here, your get a greatly different opinion. As I understand it, the
purpose of these laws is not health reasons (although that is a common
rationalization). The purpose is to maintain a separateness and conscious
Jewish identity from the community around you.
Now, I don't keep Kosher. But I do understand the meaning of the law, and that
it is not for health reasons. One day, I may keep Kosher. One never knows to
where one's higher power will direct.
Daniel (one of the 12.2%)
Daniel P. Faigin
>I have been reading a great deal about this and as a Traditionally
>observant (i.e. Shabbat, Kashrut) Jew, who was brought up in a "Reform"
>household, and as someone who was very active in the Reform Movement,
>I feel qualified to address some issues.
Since we're stating qualifications: I have lived all my life as a Reform Jew.
I have attended numerous Reform camps, and have studied all branches of
Judaism.
>As a movement, Reform has very specific stands on Jewish Law. The
>feeling is that most of it does not apply to us today in modern life.
Actually, the current feeling is that some of it does not apply (much of the
temple ritual). Many of the other rituals Reform currently takes no stand on,
leaving it up to the individual to determine the importance of the ritual in
their lives.
>Consequently, it is not important to learn what the laws are.
Actually, Reform encourages you to study the laws. Only by studying the laws
and opinions can you make informed and intellegent decisions about what is
significant in your life.
>Hence, Reform education ceases to become available after around Bar-Mitzvah
>age.
Not true. Most Reform congregations encourage children to continue after BM
through their high-school years, culminating in a Confirmation ceremony.
Learning is encouraged after that through adult education programs. During our
RH evening service last Friday, our Rabbi talked about the time he tried to
start an adult morning Torah study class for 8 weeks. They said no one would
come. It has been going strong for 3 years now. Adult education is *very*
important.
If it wasn't, would our congregation be building a new school to enlarge the
old one that is bursting at the seams?
>Hebrew is not necessary if you can find appropriatly translated
>prayer books, thus, it is not important for a Reform Jew to learn
>Hebrew.
Not true. Although I did not learn much Hebrew myself (I'm not sure Rabbi
Soloff has ever given up hoping, however), you do have to learn hebrew in
Reform. Initially (in the "classic german") days, you only needed it for BM
and the prayers. Now, there is increased emphasis on the teaching of Hebrew.
>And for that matter, Since the prayers are outdated, there is
>a great deal of pressure to continue writing new ones to fill the void.
Reform does not generally write new prayers. Occasionally, there are
reinterpetations of older prayers (but they are always indicated as such).
Look at the current Gates of Prayer. Prayers may have been reworded out of the
Thee and Thou forms of UPB I, but they are the same words, the same Hebrew
(which is increasingly what is used in the service).
>Essentially, the only formal means of obtaining a Jewish education, or
>to express ones own spirituality through Judaism in the Reform
>structure is to attend HUC-JIR or some equivalent and become a RABBI.
Again, not true. You obtain a Jewish education through your Synagogue. You can
also take classes at the local college/Hebrew High (depending on your location
and inclination). To express one's spirituality in a Reform congregation is
easy. You participate. You become part of a Havurah. You volunteer to teach.
You volunteer to lead discussion groups and adult education classes. If you
want to be a Rabbi or Cantor you go through the program at HUC.
>Then, you learn more than the average Reformnick and are qualified to
>be a rabbi, and keep your congregation as uninformed about Halacha etc.
That all depends on the Rabbi. Most younger Rabbis encourage their
congregations to learn halacha (and many even teach adult educations classes
on the subject). Older Rabbis do this less often (due to their being rooted in
the more classic German Reform), but they still do some of it.
>The problem with Reform Conversion is that it denies the importance of
>Jewish law
No, it doesn't. You have to go through an educational process where you learn
Jewish law. All that Reform Conversion denies is the importance of a mikvah.
The other steps in a Reform conversion are the same as in more traditional
conversions.
>so to become a Jew while admitting that the laws do not
>apply, one is really saying that they do not really want to become a
>Jew at all.
Nowhere in a Reform conversion is it taught that the laws do not reply. Get
your facts straight.
>If a person does honestly want to accept the heritage and
>the responsibility of being a Jew, why not follow the full Halachic
>tradition, and then decide to choose which laws are applicable.
Surprise, surprise. This is what Reform says. Study the Halachic tradition and
choose which laws are applicable. Remember, today's Reform is drastically
different from the Reform movement of the 1890's.
>This is the feeling of the rabinate in general, who do see the
>availability of Reform conversion, and for that matter, the whole
>movement as a threat to Judaism, because it gives legitamacy for being
>a Lazy, uneducated Jew who has no strong feelings for the Torah or
>Halacha at all, and encourages leaving the faith.
Most Rabbi's I have met do not consider Reform at "threat". They consider
modern society more of a threat. They consider drugs in the community a
threat. They consider all of our myriad social ills a threat. Reform is not a
threat.
Reform does not give legitimacy to being lazy, uneducated Jews. Reform Jews
are encouraged regularly by their rabbis to be seriously committed to their
religion, to study it, to work at it. The Reform movement belives that the
biggest threat to Judaism is the lack of committment of people, whatever
movement they are "officially" affiliated with.
Reform Jews *have* strong feelings for Torah and Halacha. Just because you do
not follow all the minutae of the fences does not mean that you do not revere
the word. Attend a Reform service, talk to a Reform rabbi. Do you need the
name of one?
Lastly, Reform does not encourage its members to leave the faith. I have
posted many times that it is intolerance in general that drives people away.
There *are* multigenerational Reform families.
You seem to be lacking in education about the Reform movement today. Let me
know if you need sources. The best book on the subject that I can recommend is
"Liberal Judaism" by Eugene Borowitz. It is published by UAHC Press. I would
also recommend the UAHC liturgy: Gates of Prayer, Gates of Repentance, Gates
of Understanding (two volumes), Gates of the Home, Gates of the Seasons,
Gates of Mitzvah, A Shabbat Manual, and The Passover Hagaddah. If you have
trouble finding these in your community, let me know.
Daniel (a serious, comitted, Reform Jew -- one of the 12.5% Reform Jews on
soc.culture.jewish)
Ken Wolman
Not again....
--
Kenneth Wolman (201)564-2085 mhuxo!ktw
"These fistfights in the kitchen, they're enough to make me cry,
The mailman comes in, even he's gotta take a side,
Even the butler, he's got somethin' to prove...."
MIK...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and
such a declaration should be respected by others. It's one of
the basic human rights. It becomes especially important when
a minority group is persecuted on the grounds that it doesn't
exist. Good example would be persecution of Turks in Bulgaria.
Or the case of Jews in USSR. Who is a person who declares
himself a Jew, his first language is yiddish but is not religious?
(Not so rare before the Holocaust). Or, according to religious
interpreters of "beeing a Jew" what was the percentage of
6 millions of Holocaust victims who "were Jewish"?
Mikolaj
Bruce Krulwich
>
> No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
Shabbat candles should be lit before sunset ("shiyah"). The tradition is to
light them 18 minutes before sunset, and most charts of candle-lighting times
list the time 18 minutes before sunset for each friday. Technically, though,
candles can be lit until sunset.
Most people when lighting candles will consider themselves to be entering
Shabbat by doing so. Unless you specifically have in mind that you are not
doing this, you should (1) put down the burning match after lighting the
candles, and not blow or shake it out, and (2) refrain from other acts
prohibitted on Shabbat from that time on. Again, if you're lighting more than
a minute before sunset you can have in mind that you're not accepting Shabbat
and consequently do anything until sunset.
G'mar Chatima Tova: May the sealing of the
Books of Judgement go well for all of us.
Bruce
Miriam Nadel
>
>
> No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
Assuming you're talking about lighting candles on Friday night, they're
lit before Shabbos begins. (In fact, candle-lighting time is 18 minutes before
sunset - 20 in some traditions.) Practically, lighting the candles begins
Shabbos. There have been some explanations of the practice of covering the
eyes while saying the bracha which are related to this. One normally says a
bracha before performing the action; however, saying the bracha would be
starting Shabbos and you wouldn't be able to then light the candles so you
must light them first. If you don't look at the light until after saying the
bracha, the problem goes away. There is also a related issue of kavanah
(intent). It is supposedly possible for one who knows she will be detained
until just before sunset to light the candles earlier in the afternoon while
having the kavanah to not start Shabbos by that action but this is considered
acceptable only in emergencies.
A bigger problem actually involves lighting the havdalah candle. Saying
havdalah ends Shabbos but you need to light the candle before saying
havdalah. Davening maariv includes havdalah so that's the way to resolve
this. Note too, that looking at the fingertips after saying the bracha is
analogous to the above in that light which isn't used "doesn't count". (I
put that in quotes because I don't mean to imply that it's alright to go
around lighting candles you won't look at.)
The general principle defining melacha (the type of "work" that is forbidden
on Shabbos) applies - namely melacha is creative activity, activity that shows
the mastery of mankind over his environment.
Miriam Nadel
[While I'm here, I'd like to wish everyone a happy and healthy year and to
apologize for any harm I may have done to anyone, intended or not.]
--
Not one of the 42% of Americans who cannot name a country near the Pacific
Ocean.
mhn...@gryphon.COM <any backbone site>!gryphon!mhnadel na...@aspen.aero.org
Sean Engelson
>
> No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
You light them just before Shabbat, yes?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Philip Engelson, Poet Errant Make your learning a fixture;
Yale Department of Computer Science Say little and do much;
Box 2158 Yale Station And receive everyone with
New Haven, CT 06520 a kindly attitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Esperanto: la metodo por krei paca mondo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I see the eigenvalue in thine eye,
I hear the tender tensor in thy sigh.
Bernoulli would have been content to die
Had he but known such a^2 cos 2(phi)!
--Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad"
gold...@delni.enet.dec.com
>I have been reading a great deal about this and as a Traditionally
>observant (i.e. Shabbat, Kashrut) Jew, who was brought up in a "Reform"
>household, and as someone who was very active in the Reform Movement,
>I feel qualified to address some issues.
There is no zealot more zealous than a convert.
Shall we also ask "Jews for Jesus" their opinion of Jewish law and
practice? (presuming we can find a real born Jew among them!) Converts
are NOT a good source of information about their "previous" beliefs!
Likewise, Joe Bernstein, or other BTs, have some serious prejudices
in their view of Reform and Conservative Judaism. They may have had
some bad experiences -- probably near the worst, as they abandoned it --
but descriptions like Joe's by no means typify non-Orthodox belief and
practice. Consider this little note to say "it doesn't go
unchallenged".
fred
mark
#
# No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
We light them before shabbat, of course. What kind of question
is that ?
#
#
# --
# "You kill what you fear and you fear what you don't understand..."
# - Genesis
avi.y.feldblum
>In article <17...@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> e290...@katerina.UUCP (Class Account)
>writes:
>
>>the same dish or plate. It was forbidden, some time in the middle ages, for
>>purely health reasons (people believed mixing meat & fish in close proximity
>>triggered leprosy). Now that we know this is not the cause of leprosy, this
>>law may be dispensed with. It is charming that it persists as a custom, but
>>it should not be a law, in my opinion. It is not based in any Mishne or
>>Gemara. (Has it been revoked???)
I believe it is based on a Gemara, and it is just stated to be a
"Sakana", a dangerous thing to do and is not related to leprosy.
>
>Now here, your get a greatly different opinion. As I understand it, the
>purpose of these laws is not health reasons (although that is a common
>rationalization). The purpose is to maintain a separateness and conscious
>Jewish identity from the community around you.
Dan, I think you are thinking of milk and meat, not fish and
meat. If so, your second sentance giving the purpose is no
different a rationalization for the keeping of the laws of Kashrut
than health reasons.
As to the status of fish and meat, the prohibition is brought down
by many of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch (including
discussion about a (probably) misprinted opinion forbidding fish
and milk). In most orthodox houses that I know, meat and fish are
never cooked together, and in many (esp. Hassidic) one drinks some
shnaps (wiskey) after the fish before eating meat.
Avi Feldblum
avi_fe...@att.com
j...@gaon.berkeley.edu
> You
>can't light fires, or cause any combustion, on Shabbat. I don't know
>how the Reform rabbis got around this, & I'd be interested in hearing
>if they offered halachic arguments (and thus attempted to stay within
>Jewish halacha) or if they just dispensed with halacha when they made
>their ruling.
Reform rabbis have not been distinguished, by and large, for their
Halachic responsa. One of the leading German Reformers of the early
19th century, Abraham Geiger, advocated abolishing the practice of
circumcision. His rationale? He considered it a "bloody, barbaric act."
At the occasion of the ordination of the first group of Reform rabbis
from the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, the banquet included such
delicacies as shrimp and pork products. I've yet to see a responsum
halachically sanctioning those foods.
Even those Reform rabbis who do make an attempt to reconcile their
actions with halacha leave a bitter taste in the mouth of the informed
reader. To wit: Rabbi Solomon Freehof, in one of his "Reform Responsa" series,
quotes the famous dictum of the Rabbis, "L'olam yilmad adam Torah V'ya'aseh
Mitzvos afilu she-lo l'sh'ma, she-mitoch she-lo l'sh'ma ba l'sh'ma", (a per
son
should learn Torah and perform Mitzvos even with an ulterior motives [i.e.
for the reward], because through ulterior motives one develops noble motive
s.)
Freehof decided that this saying was the precursor of Reform: "A person sho
uld
always perform good deeds even if HE HAS NO DOCTRINE, because later he can
develop a doctrine." This he offered not as an INTERPRETATION, but a
TRANSLATION.
The Jewish People has never suffered from a lack of internal strife.
>From the Hellenists, to the Sadducees, to the Samaritans, to the
Karaites, there has been no dearth of philosophies opposed to traditional
Judaism. But apparrently, those who have held steadfast must be doing
something right; how many Karaites do you know? This once powerful cult
has been reduced to a mere handful of members in Cairo and Israel.
I fear that we are once again witness to a repetition of history in our
generation. Reform (and other non-traditional) Jews are leaving the fold
in droves through intermarriage, and other means. Instead of taking the
bold move that is called for in such a crisis, namely reexamining its
doctrine (or lack thereof, as per Freehof above), Reform added knife-wounds
to internal hemorrhaging: Patrilineal Descent.
Short-sighted leaders presiding over economic crises will often go for the
"quick fix", at the expense of further damage somewhat later: print more
money. In the short run, it injects some life into the economy, and to the
casual onlooker it appears like a total recovery. In reality, it has the sa
me
effect as counterfeiting - spiralling inflation, and many other ills. The
analogy to Patrilineal Descent should be clear.
At the outset of a new year, perhaps it's time for us all to do some seriou
s
introspection - without prejudices; an authentic search for truth. We no lo
nger
have the luxury of endlessly debating these issues. The Jewish people in th
is
country is simply disappearing. We have done something horribly wrong, and
we
owe it to posterity to right it.
Jem
Dan Dyckman
I can find sources if you wish, but I'm quite sure that the prohibition
against fish & meat together was instituted purely for health reasons,
and NOT because of any principle of separateness. this was from a
source at Y.U. This is quite different than other kashrut issues, and
in NO WAY do I mean to imply that kashrut is for health reasons. I
think the "its for health" excuse used to break kashrut is particularly
wrong, since there's no indication most kashrut is for this purpose at all!
re the "grasshoppers" issue, the Chumash lists a few insects, by
specific species, that are kosher. For instance, there are specific
species of locusts listed as kosher. (Note, when birds are listed, they
are listed by specific species. so it's not a surprise to see the insect
species listed thus, also.) Unfortunately, (or fortunately) we're not
sure which species all those ancient hebrew names refer to. I don't know
if we're sure about anything, in fact.
Dan Dyckman e-mail to dyc...@miro.berkeley.edu
Daniel P. Faigin
>Now, before anyone goes yelling about how Conservative and Reform do
>respect one or more of tradition and/or Halachah, I am only talking about
>how it works under [oO]rthodoxy. I am neither confirming nor denying
>anything about any other branch of Judaism nor any other religion. I am
>also not attempting to deligitimize anyone. I am attempting to stick to
>my plea that we not get embroiled in another, semiannual "who is a Jew and
>why not me/them" inferno.
I, too, would like to echo this plea. I post on this subject to make people
aware of the position of Reform. To educate, not to denegrate. I understand
that one branch may not accept or like the practices of another branch.
However, if, G-d forbid, another holocaust happens, "the authorities" will
not care what halacha says when determining the Jews to persecute. Reform,
Conservative, Reconstructionalist, Orthodox, Non-affiliated -- all will be
Jews -- no matter the parentage. The reason Israeli citizenship provokes
such a concern is that if, G-d forbid, the situation ever arises that Jews
need a place of refuge, we should not turn our backs on our brothers
because they did not comply with every nuance of Halacha.
We are Jews to the world if we call ourself Jewish. Our bickering cannot
and will not change that. Can we learn to understand our bretheren, even if
we don't let them marry our daughters?
L'shana tovah: may a good year be inscribed and sealed.
Daniel
Marcos Frid
> No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
>
>
The Shabbes candles are lit ~18 minutes *before* the sun sets on Friday
night.
The Havdala candles are lit after the sun sets on Saturday night.
Marcos
Edward Greenberg
>shnaps (wiskey) after the fish before eating meat.
>
>Avi Feldblum
We have Gefilte Fish most every Shabbos, then progress to the main
course which is either Chicken, Beef, Veal, etc. I think this is a
custom I could get into :-)
--
Ed Greenberg
uunet!apple!netcom!edg
Mike Mahler
> In article <82...@cloud9.Stratus.COM> m...@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Mike Mahler) writes:
> # No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
>
> We light them before shabbat, of course. What kind of question
> is that ?
Oh, your everyday type of question: The type asked when one wants
to learn something. Tell me, what type of pompous putz are you?
PS: I'd like to thank the people that have taken the time to
explain to me by mail how it is that you extinguish the "combustible"
(match) after the candles are lit (and Shabbas has begun). Truly,
I wasn't aware of how you could light the candles and be holding
a "combustion".
--
"You kill what you fear and you fear what you don't understand..."
- Genesis
Bruce Krulwich
> I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and
> such a declaration should be respected by others. It's one of
> the basic human rights.
Do you really mean this?? Should anyone in the world who "declares" themselves
to be American be considered citizens without any kind of testing, ceremony,
or anything else??
I really don't think you mean this. If you do, it seems a bit drastic.
G'mar Chatima Tova,
Bruce
robert.j.brown
>
> Shall we also ask "Jews for Jesus" their opinion of Jewish law and
> practice? (presuming we can find a real born Jew among them!) Converts
> are NOT a good source of information about their "previous" beliefs!
>
This is a gratuitous slam dunk of JFJ, especially the "born Jew" part.
I know several "born Jews" who are part of the "Messianic" (yuk for you
I'm sure) movement. If I swatted at Jews on soc.rel.christian like
this, I'm sure I'd be charbroiled in a New York nanosecond.
Bobby
Bruce Krulwich
> Likewise, Joe Bernstein, or other BTs, have some serious prejudices
> in their view of Reform and Conservative Judaism. They may have had
> some bad experiences -- probably near the worst, as they abandoned it --
> but descriptions like Joe's by no means typify non-Orthodox belief and
> practice.
Sorry, but your generalization doesn't hold. I happen to have had a great
Conservative upbringing. I remember almost _no_ "bad experiences" with
Conservative Judaism. I went to a Conservative Day School for 9 years, had
alot of fun in USY, believed the party line, and all the rest.
In college (for reasons I won't go into here) I started trying to make my
practices and beliefs consistent. There were things that I'd always believed,
like "food has to be cooked in seperate milk/meat dishes," and I started
thinking things like "are the things I eat in resteraunts consistent with
this??" I never had any bad experiences with the things I was doing, I just
started thinking about them and slowly made some changes in my life.
The same is true for many friends of mine. Several BT's (recently Orthodox) I
know were very happy Conservative or Reform Jews that simply decided that they
prefer to be Orthodox. Their experience and memories of their pre-Orthodox
practices are as honest or _more_ honest than still-Reform or Conservative
people, because they've _thought_ about things and analyzed the reasons for
things. In contrast, many Reform/Conservative people get insulted when I ask
"why" questions, thinking that I'm knocking them or insulting them. It's
ironic that the branches of Judaism that claim to "analyze things" and "think
honestly about things" would get insulted at being asked logical questions
about their beliefs and practices.
Bruce
Daniel P. Faigin
either accept them or you don't. This is not the medium to try and have heated
discussions or try and change positions. I only try and correct misstatements.
In article <14...@riscy.dec.com> j...@gaon.Berkeley.EDU writes:
>I fear that we are once again witness to a repetition of history in our
>generation. Reform (and other non-traditional) Jews are leaving the fold
>in droves through intermarriage, and other means. Instead of taking the
>bold move that is called for in such a crisis, namely reexamining its
>doctrine (or lack thereof, as per Freehof above), Reform added knife-wounds
>to internal hemorrhaging: Patrilineal Descent.
Most people know the Patrilineal Descent descision only by name. It does not
say that, automatically, if you have a Jewish father, you are Jewish.
I regularly have to post this. Some have seen it before. I urge you to read
it closely. You may not agree with it, but it describes the decision and how
Reform came to it. You should note that Reform was not unanimous in accepting
this decision.
[Note: _text_ indicates text in italics]
Report of the Committee on Patrilineal Descent on the Status of Children of
Mixed Marriages
(Adopted by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, March 15, 1983)
The purpose of this document is to establish the Jewish status of the
children of mixed marriages in the Reform Jewish community of North America.
One of the most pressing human issues for the North American Jewish
community is mixed marriage, with all its attendant implications. For our
purpose, mixed marriage is defined as a union between a Jew and a non-Jew. A
non-Jew who joins the Jewish people through conversion is recognized as a Jew
in every respect. We deal here only with the Jewish identity of children born
of a union in which one parent is Jewish and the other parent is
non-Jewish....
According to the _halachah_ as interpreted by traditional Jews over
many centuries, the offspring of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is
recognized as a Jew, while the offspring of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish
father is considered a non-Jew. To become a Jew the child of a non-Jewish
mother and a Jewish father must undergo conversion.
As a Reform community, the process of determining an appropriate response
has taken us to an examination of the tradition, our own earlier responses,
and the most current considerations. In doing so, we seek to be sensitive to
the human dimension of this issue.
Both the biblical and the rabbinical traditions take for granted that
ordinarily the paternal line is decisive in the tracing of descent within the
Jewish people. The biblical genealogies in Genesis and else in the Bible
attest to this point. In intertribal marriage in ancient Israel, paternal
descent was decisive. Numbers 1:2, etc., says: "By their families, by their
fathers' houses" (_le-mish-pehotam le-veit avotam_), which for the rabbis
means "The line (literally: 'family') of the father is recognized; the line of
the mother is not" (_mishpahat av keruyah mishpahah; mishpahat eim einah
keruyah mishpahah; Baba Batra 109b, Yebamot 54b; cf. Yan, Nahalot 1:6_).
In the rabbinic tradition, this tradition remains in force. The offspring
of a male _kohen_ who marries a Levite or Israelite is considered a
_kohen_, and the child of an Israelite who marries a _kohenet_ is an
Israelite. Thus _yachus_, lineage, regards the male line as absolutely
dominant. This ruling is stated succinctly in _Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12_,
that when a _kiddushin_ (marriage) is licit and no transgression (_ein
avera_) is involved, the line follows the father. Furthermore, the most
important parental responsibility to teach Torah rested with the father
({Kiddushin 29a; cf. Shulchan Aruch Yore De-ah 245:1_).
When, in the tradition, the marriage was considered not to be licit, the
child of that marriage followed the status of the mother (_Mishnah
Kiddushin 3:12, ha-velad Kemotah_). The decisions of our ancestors thus to
link the child inseparably to the mother, which makes the child of a Jewish
mother Jewish and the child of a non-Jewish mother non-Jewish, regardless of
the father, was based upon the fact that the woman with her child had no
recourse but to return to her own people. A Jewish woman could not marry a
non-Jewish man (cf. _Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 4:19, la tafsei
kiddushin_). A Jewish man could not marry a non-Jewish woman. The only
recourse in rabbinic law for the woman in either case was to return to her own
community and people.
But since the Emancipation, Jews have faced the problem of mixed marriage
and the status of offspring of mixed marriage. The Reform Movement responded
to the issue, and in 1947 the CCAR adopted a proposal made by the Committee on
Mixed Marriage and Intermarriage:
"With regard to infants; the declaration of the parents to raise them as
Jews sall be deemed sufficient for conversion. This could apply, for example,
to adopted children. This decision is in line with the traditional procedure in
which, according to the Talmud, the parents bring young children (the Talmud
speaks of children earlier than the age of three) to be converted and the
Talmud comments that although an infant cannot give its consent, it is
permissible to benefit somebody without his consent (or presence). On the same
page the Talmud salso speaks of a father bringing his children for conversion,
and says that the children will be satisfied with the action of their father.
If the parents therefore will make a declaration to the rabbi that it is their
intention to raise the child as a Jew, the child may, for the sake of
impressive formality, be recorded in the Cradle-Roll of the religious school
and thus be considered coverted.
"Children of religious school age should likewise not be required to
undergo a special ceremony of conversion but should receive instruction as
regular students in the school. The ceremony of Confirmation at the end of the
school course shall be considered in lieu of a conversion ceremony.
"Children older than confirmation age should not be converted without
their own consent. The Talmudic law likewise gives the child who is converted
in infancy by the court the right to reject the conversion when it becomes of
religous age. Therefore, the child above religous school age, if he or she
consents sincerely to conversion, should receive regular instruction for that
purpose and be converted in the regular conversion ceremony." (Vol. 57, CCAR
Annual).
This issue was again addressed in the 1961 edition of the _Rabbi's
Manual_: "Jewish law recognizes a person as Jewish if his mother was Jewish,
even though the father was not a Jew. One born of such mixed parentage may be
admitted to membership in the synagogue and enter into a marital relationship
with a Jew, provided he has not been reared in or formally admitted into some
other faith. The child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, according
to traditional law, is a _Gentile_; such a person would have to be
formally converted in order to marry a Jew or become a synagogue member.
"Reform Judaism, however, accepts such a child as Jewish without a formal
conversion, if he attends a Jewish school and follows a course of studies
leading to Confirmation. Such procedure is regarded as sufficient evidence
that the parents and the child himself intend that the shall life as a Jew.
(p. 112, _Rabbi's Manual._)"
We face today an unprecedented situation due to the changed conditions in
which decisions concerning the status of the child of a mixed marriage are to
be made. There are tens of thousands of mixed marriages. In a vast majority of
these cases, the non-Jewish extended family is a functioning part of the
child's world, any may be decisive in shaping the life of the child. It can no
longer be assumed _a priori_, therefore, tha the child of a Jewish mother
will be Jewish any more than the child of a non-Jewish mother will not be.
This leads us to the conclusion that the same requirements must be applied
to establish the status of the child of a mixed marriage, regardless of
whether the mother or the father is Jewish. Therefore,
The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of
one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This
presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed
marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public
and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.
The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate
in them, both parent and child, to Jewish life.
Depending on circumstances(1), mitzvot leading toward a positive and
exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant,
acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, bar/bat mitzvah, and Kabbalat
Torah (Confirmation)(2). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish
identify, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted
after consultation with their rabbi.
(1) According to the age or setting, parents should consult a rabbi to
determine the specific mitzvot which are necessary.
(2) A full description of these and other mitzvot can be found in "Shaarei
Mitzvah" (Gates of Mitzvah), A Guide to the Jewish Life Cycle, CCAR, New York,
1979. ISBN 0-916694-37-2.
MIK...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
I really mean that. You confused two things: nationality and citizenship.
American example is not a very good one, because "beeing an American"
means "beeing a citizen of USA". But generally you cannot equate these
two words. I think in my original posting I gave sufficient evidence
why I consider freedom to declare freely my own nationality as one
of my basic rights as a human. Irish, German, Poles, Jews and many, many
others have the right to remain such in this country even though
they have american citizenship. It does not matter what is their status
in Ireland, Germany, Poland and Israel, that is whether they have the
citizenship rights there.
Mikolaj
Yevgeny Y. Itkis
>In article <12...@accuvax.nwu.edu>, Krul...@eecs.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
>
>> In article <48...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, MIKOLAJ@ohstpy writes:
>>> I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and
>>> such a declaration should be respected by others. It's one of
>>> the basic human rights.
>>
>> Do you really mean this?? Should anyone in the world who "declares" themselves
>I really mean that. You confused two things: nationality and citizenship.
I really doubt that if I declared myself Japanese, Eskimo, or a member of tribe
umbu-mumbu my declaration would deserve anything but a laugh.
>of my basic rights as a human. Irish, German, Poles, Jews and many, many
>others have the right to remain such in this country even though
^^^^^^
>they have american citizenship. It does not matter what is their status
>in Ireland, Germany, Poland and Israel, that is whether they have the
>citizenship rights there.
That "remain" I think is a key word. "Remain" not "declare/become"
Sean Engelson
>... and in many (esp. Hassidic) one drinks some
>shnaps (wiskey) after the fish before eating meat.
Me, I'm a vegetarian, but I keep this minhag anyway.... :-)
Stan Krieger
> ironic that the branches of Judaism that claim to "analyze things" and "think
> honestly about things" would get insulted at being asked logical questions
> about their beliefs and practices.
The problem with "logic" is that people trying to prove their own points
use "loaded questions" under the guise of using logic. To show this
point, I'll first use a hypothetical example of cross-examination in
a date-rape case, and you'll see it's all "logical"-
Q: Prior to the alleged rape, were you a virgin?
A: No.
Q: When you had sex in the past, did you ever initially
resist the advances of your lovers?
A: Yes.
Q: Then how was my client supposed to know when "no" meant
"no" and when "no" meant "come and get it"?
Clearly, what the defense did here was pick on a small piece of
the total picture, and using questions to which the answers were
known (e.g., pre-trial interviews with the victim's former lovers)
was able to show that the victim was probably "loose" and "teasing".
Religious "logic" often follows the same line. An absolute assumption
is made by the Orthodox, an assumption which may or may not be true,
and then they use that, possibly false, assumption, to discredit the
Conservative position.
Two cases in point-
1. Driving to shul on Shabbat and Yom Tov: the Orthodox will
make the absolute assumption that starting a car is lighting
a fire, and that is absolutely forbidden. Now, I do not
know the Conservative reasoning for this issue, but it may
be that the Mitzvah of public prayer conflicts with this
fire prohibition (can anyone provide the authoritative
Conservative reason?) and thus some middle-ground must
be reached. Of course a "logical" argument that starts
with, "Well, I'm sure you realize that starting or changing
a fire on Shabbat is forbidden?" will steer the discussion
to the Orthodox position (because the y/n answer to that
question will not be "maybe"), although such a question
avoids other issues.
2. The eating of broiled fish or fresh salads in a restaurant is
another example. The absolute question "Well I'm sure you
realize that dishes cannot be used for both milk and meat
meals, and no food can be eaten from dishes on which
treif food has been served?" ignores the fact that modern
dishwashing techniques probably remove all (enough?) of
the residue so that in fact no mixing of milk, meat, and
treif is present. Also, I think the Conservative position
on the 1:60 rule is different too in defining accidental
contamination.
Now, I will approach the "logic" from a different direction, and
will thus lead to a point where readers would find themselves
supporting the Conservative position (remember though, for this
"logic" to work, you would have to be unaware as to where the
questioner was leading you to):
a. Do you feel it is very important to pray with a
minyan if one is available? (Answer this one
"yes" and you can be guidded right into agreeing
it's OK to drive to shul on Shabbat, or being accused
of being "illogical" when trying to answer that it's
not OK after answering all the questions leading up
to it).
b. Do you feel that modern dishwashing techniques
sterilize utensils, etc?
As Mr. Spock would say, "It's all logical, Captain."
--
Stan Krieger
Summit, NJ
...!att!attunix!smk
Daniel P. Faigin
writes:
>I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and
>such a declaration should be respected by others.
How much of our problems are due to the fact that Judaism is both a religion
and a nationality? Surely, anyone can state what their belief system is, and
expect that that declaration be accepted by others. That is the religious
belief. It is nationality and heritage that is acquired by birth, not
religion.
An interesting area to explore is not "Who" is a Jew, but "What" is a Jew. How
do the different movements and beliefs color our perceptions of Jewish
nationality and peoplehood versus the Jewish religion and ethical systems? Can
a distinction be made between the two? Can you have someone who is Jewish
under one and not under the other?
Ben Pashkoff
:
> No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
>
chapter.
>
> - Genesis
--
________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Ben Pashkoff B...@VMSA.TECHNION.AC.IL |
| B...@TECHMAX.BITNET |
| B...@TECHUNIX.BITNET |
| VAX/VMS Systems |
| Computer Center |
| Technion IIT Phone:(972)-4-292176 |
| Haifa, Israel 32000 FAX: (972)-4-221581 |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Sean Engelson
>
>The problem with "logic" is that people trying to prove their own points
>use "loaded questions" under the guise of using logic.
>
>is made by the Orthodox, an assumption which may or may not be true,
>and then they use that, possibly false, assumption, to discredit the
>Conservative position.
>
>Two cases in point-
>
> 1. Driving to shul on Shabbat and Yom Tov: the Orthodox will
> make the absolute assumption that starting a car is lighting
> a fire, and that is absolutely forbidden.
As I have argued in a previous post, it is quite difficult to say that
driving a car is *not* lighting a fire, halachically. This is a
matter of reasoning through the halacha, *not* of making an "absolute
assumption ... which may or may not be true".
> Now, I do not
> know the Conservative reasoning for this issue, but it may
> be that the Mitzvah of public prayer conflicts with this
> fire prohibition (can anyone provide the authoritative
> Conservative reason?) and thus some middle-ground must
> be reached.
>
[ Here's the question leading one to the Conservative position: ]
>
> a. Do you feel it is very important to pray with a
> minyan if one is available? (Answer this one
> "yes" and you can be guidded right into agreeing
> it's OK to drive to shul on Shabbat, or being accused
> of being "illogical" when trying to answer that it's
> not OK after answering all the questions leading up
> to it).
I would very much like to see this sequence of questions. You see,
there is an iron-clad rule in Halacha: "Ein mitzvah ba'ah b'aveirah",
"a commandment cannot be fulfilled through a sin". Thus, not only is
it not permitted to perform a commandment (such as davening in schul)
by means of an sin (such as driving on Shabbat), but if it is
done, there is no mitzvah fulfillment at all. I strongly believe that
any line of questioning you would take to justify driving on Shabbat
would run up against this as a stone wall.
G'mar chatimah tovah!
Sean Engelson
Key:
> = faigin@sunstroke (Daniel P. Faigin)
>> = e290...@katerina.UUCP (Class Account)
In article <58...@aerospace.AERO.ORG>, faigin@sunstroke (Daniel P. Faigin) writes:
>
>Actually, this is what Reform calls for. Investigate the laws, study them, and
>retain those practices which improve the sanctity of your life and the
>sanctity of your relationship to your fellow people.
Such a decision would necessitate, at the least, a complete knowledge
of Shas, and the writings of the Rishonim. Probably a deep
familiarity with classical and Jewish philosophy, as well. Almost no
Orthodox Jews I know have that level of knowledge, even with 12 years
of Yeshivah day school and several years of Yeshivah Gdolah. I would
hardly expect someone to gain this knowledge with 2 years of afternoon
Hebrew school.
>Look at when the Torah was written, and consider what is meant by lighting
>fires. Does the Torah mean the literal act? Wood and ignition? Sparks? We can
>create sparks just by walking on carpet. Does it mean creating a fire for a
>specific purpose? For warmth? For food? For light? These are issues left for
>interpretation. Back in Torah days, you could get to services that were nearby
>by walking. I'd have to walk 10 miles to get to my synagogue, for cities today
>are much larger.
So what? If you accept that driving a car is lighting a fire
halachically (more on this later), then the halachic principle of
'mitzvah haba'ah b'aveirah' kicks in. You see, a mitzvah which is
performed by means of an aveirah (sin) not only is prohibited, but
doesn't even count as a mitzvah. So you see that permitting driving
to schul because of the mitzvah of davening with a minyan is a bit of
an oxymoron (so to speak).
As far as the intent of the Torah when it speaks of kindling a fire,
it seems to be hard to say that it only referred to creating a fire
for specific purposes, as it didn't mention such at all. One may
contrast this with the discussion of `malechet avodah', those types of
`melacha' which are forbidden on Yom Tov; there it says that only that
which is not `ochel nefesh' (for food) is prohibited. Here, where
there is a context-dependent rule, the context is clearly spelled out.
As far as fire on Shabbat goes, it says `lo t'va'aru eish b'chol
moshvoteichem' (don't light/burn fires amongst all your dwelling
places). The only context here is "amongst all your dwelling places",
which can be seens, from other uses of the phrase, to mean anywhere
inhabited. One may argue then that fire may be burned outside towns;
but certainly not inside.
Now to the question whether internal combustion is fire or not. It is
clear that according to the physical definition (rapid oxidation with
intense release of heat) that internal combustion is fire. However,
one may (and should) point out that halachic definitions are not
necessarily bound to definitions from physics. So what do we know
that *is* considered fire, traditionally? Well, one that's quite
clear is that burning oil is definitely forbidden on Shabbat. This
includes not only vegetable oils, but also naphtha, thus petroleum.
Gasoline is, in essence, refined petroleum, thus burning it is
certainly in this category. Now that that's established, is exploding
aerated gasoline the same as burning it? Well, the reason that
aerated gasoline explodes, rather than just burning, is because its
surface-area to volume ratio is so high. Since the amount of gasoline
burned is proportional to the surface area (sine oxidation requires
air, the interface is the only place it can occur), when we greatly
increase the surface area, the gasoline burns extremely quickly
producing an explosion. The fact that we are burning tiny droplets
suspended in air rather than a large "drop" in a bucket makes no
difference---the process involved is the same, thus the halacha is the
same. So we see that driving is inherently forbidden on Shabbat.
Please note that this argument has nothing to do with electricity or
riding horses.
>The basic purpose of Shabbat is separation and rest. I try and do things on
>Shabbat that make it a special day distinct from the other days of the week. I
>can do this with special meals. I can do this by going to services. I can do
>this by taking time out to meditate. By going back to the original meaning,
>and not just the words, I preserve the day in such a way that I am aware of
>its specialness, not bound by the minutae.
But the minutiae *are* the original meaning! You are layering your
idea of what a "day of rest" should be on top of several chosen bits
and pieces out of traditional practice. I don't see how you can "go
back to the original meaning" when you throw out large portions of the
"original practice", n'est pas?
>>At the other extreme, I see a law/custom regarding mixing fish and meat in
>>the same dish or plate. It was forbidden, some time in the middle ages, for
>>purely health reasons (people believed mixing meat & fish in close proximity
>>triggered leprosy). Now that we know this is not the cause of leprosy, this
>>law may be dispensed with. It is charming that it persists as a custom, but
>>it should not be a law, in my opinion. It is not based in any Mishne or
>>Gemara. (Has it been revoked???)
>
>Now here, your get a greatly different opinion. As I understand it, the
>purpose of these laws is not health reasons (although that is a common
>rationalization). The purpose is to maintain a separateness and conscious
>Jewish identity from the community around you.
First, it should be noted that the original poster was referring to
the separation of meat and fish, which is a Rabbinic ordinance based
on health reasons, rather than the other laws of Kashrut, derived from
the Torah. Secondly, we should note here that whatever understanding
we have regarding mitzvot, they can only be regarded as good reasons
for the mitzvot, not their purposes. In the case of Torah Law, we
have no way of knowing the true purposes of the mitzvot, since we can
never (even theoretically) truly know G-d's will. As one sage once
said "If I could understand Him, I'd *be* Him".
G'mar chatima tovah!
Jeremy Steinberg
in> writes:
> First of all, I'm not going to try and defend the practices of Reform. You
> either accept them or you don't. This is not the medium to try and have heated
> discussions or try and change positions. I only try and correct misstatements.
>
> In article <14...@riscy.dec.com> j...@gaon.Berkeley.EDU writes:
> >generation. Reform (and other non-traditional) Jews are leaving the fold
> >in droves through intermarriage, and other means. Instead of taking the
> >bold move that is called for in such a crisis, namely reexamining its
> >doctrine (or lack thereof, as per Freehof above), Reform added knife-wounds
> >to internal hemorrhaging: Patrilineal Descent.
>
> say that, automatically, if you have a Jewish father, you are Jewish.
>
> I regularly have to post this. Some have seen it before. I urge you to read
> it closely. You may not agree with it, but it describes the decision and how
> Reform came to it. You should note that Reform was not unanimous in accepting
> this decision.
I have seen this text before, and to me, it is another example of Reform sophistry.
The author seeks justification from the Talmud, although his denomination has consistently
rejected BIBLICAL law! I gave several examples of this in my note, and there is no
lack of evidence for the inquiring mind. In most cases, little or no attempt is made
to reconcile the decision with Jewish sources; "inconsistency with modern sensibilities"
is often the sole rationalization.
To put it another way, let's assume the first two verses in Genesis would read as follows:
1. In the begining, G-d created the heavens and the Earth.
2. And G-d said, let each person's Jewishness be determined matrilineally, each man
according to the house of his mother.
Would this imaginary verse stop the innovators? What would lead me to such an assumption?
No other source, biblical or otherwise has ever been allowed to impede such "progress".
>It does not
>say that, automatically, if you have a Jewish father, you are Jewish.
In my reading of the document, it says quite clearly:
>The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of
>one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent.
Which, it is then clarified, means that no conversion is necessary.
I believe strongly that each individual should examine and rexamine his beliefs, or
lack thereof, frequently. Most people arrive at philosophic and religious conclusions
during their formative years, late teens to early twenties. From that point on, we
usually coast, relying on those early conclusions, and become set in our ways through
force of habit. I submit that those conclusions might be colored by our relative
immaturity, laziness, or plain ignorance. We owe it to ourselves to seek the truth,
constantly; otherwise we may be living a lie.
G'mar Tov,
Jem
Sean Engelson
>of Yeshivah day school and several years of Yeshivah Gdolah. I would
>hardly expect someone to gain this knowledge with 2 years of afternoon
>Hebrew school.
I meant *12* years of afternon Hebrew school. No disrespect intended.
G'mar chatima tovah!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Philip Engelson, Poet Errant Make your learning a fixture;
Yale Department of Computer Science Say little and do much;
Box 2158 Yale Station And receive everyone with
New Haven, CT 06520 a kindly attitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Esperanto: metodo por krei paca mondo.
Bruce Krulwich
> >I fear that we are once again witness to a repetition of history in our
> >generation. Reform (and other non-traditional) Jews are leaving the fold
> >in droves through intermarriage, and other means. Instead of taking the
> >bold move that is called for in such a crisis, namely reexamining its
> >doctrine (or lack thereof, as per Freehof above), Reform added knife-wounds
> >to internal hemorrhaging: Patrilineal Descent.
>
> Most people know the Patrilineal Descent descision only by name. It does not
> say that, automatically, if you have a Jewish father, you are Jewish.
[ ... discussion of the decision that patrilineal descent required ]
[ the child to accept Judaism upon him/her-self ... ]
I have a theory versus reality problem with this. Can anyone name a single
child from a mixed marriage that Reform hasn't considered Jewish?? Does
ANYONE in practice consider there to be any requirements upon a child with a
non-Jewish mother to be considered Jewish by the Reform movement?? More
importantly, does anyone in the Reform "establishment" consider there to be
such a requirement in practice?? I have heard "no" from so many Reform
Rabbis, teachers, etc. to be dubious of this.
Bruce
Bruce Krulwich
> Krul...@eecs.nwu.edu (Bruce Krulwich) writes:
> >> I believe everyone has a right to declare his own nationality and
> >> such a declaration should be respected by others. It's one of
> >> the basic human rights.
> >
> > Do you really mean this?? Should anyone in the world who "declares"
> > themselves to be American be considered citizens without any kind of
> > testing, ceremony, or anything else??
>
> American example is not a very good one, because "beeing an American"
> means "beeing a citizen of USA". But generally you cannot equate these
> two words. I think in my original posting I gave sufficient evidence
> why I consider freedom to declare freely my own nationality as one
> of my basic rights as a human. Irish, German, Poles, Jews and many, many
> others have the right to remain such in this country even though
> they have american citizenship. It does not matter what is their status
> in Ireland, Germany, Poland and Israel, that is whether they have the
> citizenship rights there.
OK, I agree with everything you've said here, but you're reduced it to saying
almost nothing of consequence, because declaring yourself to be of a
nationality but not have the technical rights of that nationality is almost
irelevant. To go back to the case of Judaism which started the discussion,
you're saying that someone can freely declare him/herself to Jewish without
being "technically Jewish," i.e., without having the analog to citizenship
rights. In other words, someone can consider him/herself to be Jewish but not
have the rights or responsibilities associated with members of the Jewish
religion such as Aliya, marriage, or buying Israeli bonds. I see no reason
why anyone in the world would ever argue with this.
Bruce
Mike Mahler
> In article <17...@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> e290...@katerina.UUCP (Class Account)
> writes:
> >driving on Shabbat, which is accepted in Reform Judaism but is quite
> >frowned upon by most other Jewish authorities.
>
> Actually, driving to Shul on Shabbat is also accepted by the Conservative,
> and, I believe, the Reconstructionalist movements.
Although many people do drive to schul on Shabbas at my congregation
(Conservative) the Rabbi seems to frown on it heavily saying in
a recent Rosh Hashanah sermon that "there are more aliyot on Shabbat
than on Roahs Hashanah and it's therefore more important NOT to drive
on Shabbat than even on Rosh Hashanah and ESPECIALLY when Rosh Hashanah
falls on Shabbat."
Preacher
Ok I have a small question on this subject. Where I live there is only
place for Jewish people to worship. It is the only place for 60 miles.
How would people gather here to worship but to drive? Or would it be
recommended not to travel?
--
Some people too big, | mailrus!sharkey!lopez!preacher
Some poeple too small, |--------------------------------------
Some people just right but they talk too much. -- My Grandfather
Dick Schoeller
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard, Massawhat?
prea...@lopez.UUCP (Preacher) writes:
>Ok I have a small question on this subject. Where I live there is only
>place for Jewish people to worship. It is the only place for 60 miles.
>How would people gather here to worship but to drive? Or would it be
>recommended not to travel?
There are several answers to this question. Some of them will seem more
reasonable (to some people) than others.
1) There is a principle that you should not violate a prohibitive mitvah
in order to fulfill another. Therefore, if the only way that you can
daven with a minyan or hear a Torah reading is to drive then you should
stay home and daven without a minyan.
2) In light of point #1 you could make arrangements to stay within walking
distance of the shul for Shabbat. In most Conservative and all Orthodox
congregations such arrangements should be easy to make.
3) In light of the difficulties posed in the previous 2 points you could
answer with a question. Why would anybody who takes Judaism seriously
move to a place where the closest shul is 60 miles away? (As I said,
some will not find this response very reasonable 8^{).
Now that I have expressed the basic principles, I should make one more
comment. In most Conservative congregations, driving to shul on Shabbat
is in the category of violations for which no one will make a fuss. It
doesn't make it legal only "unenforced". (Sort of like Massachusetts
drivers and speed limits 8^{).
Gavriel (aka Dick Schoeller) | scho...@gvriel.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation | 508-493-1670
129 Parker Street, PKO3-1/H21 |
Maynard, MA 01754-2571 | This author has no opinions to disclaim!
David Sher
#m...@cloud9.Stratus.COM (Mike Mahler) writes:
#
#
#Ok I have a small question on this subject. Where I live there is only
#place for Jewish people to worship. It is the only place for 60 miles.
#How would people gather here to worship but to drive? Or would it be
#recommended not to travel?
#
#
#--
#Some people too big, | mailrus!sharkey!lopez!preacher
#Some poeple too small, |--------------------------------------
#Some people just right but they talk too much. -- My Grandfather
Is there some reason people can not live within walking distance of
the shul? That is what most orthodox jews do, I believe, when they
move into an area they find a place that is within walking distance of
the shul. Of course, this involves some sacrifice, but sacrificing to
elevate oneself is one of the things Judaism is about.
-David Sher
-David Sher
ARPA: sh...@cs.buffalo.edu BITNET: sher@sunybcs
UUCP: {rutgers,ames,boulder,decvax}!sunybcs!sher
David Sher
on Shabbos. The traditional source for what is or isn't forbidden on Shabbos
is that in the dessert the Jews were in the process of building the
holiest building ever constructed which would allow G-d to dwell among
the Jews. However G-d commanded that the construction all
activities that supported this construction be halted to honor the
Shabbos. Thus G-d felt that the Shabbos was important enough to delay
the joint service of the entire Jewish people in the holiest building
ever constructed.
From this, perhaps one can derive that praying with a minyan is hardly
as important as causing G-d to come down to earth and dwell among us
or having the entire nation engage in a service, and thus much less
reason to take the chance on desecrating Shabbos.
Perhaps there is something that causes this analogy to fail or maybe I
have my sources screwed up. Please enlighten me, and if I should fail
to respond, it may be that my work is keeping me busy or I did not
receive your message, please do not take offense. I am not
knowledgeable in hallacha and my opinions are not even close to
definitive please check out anything I say before using it.
Stan Krieger
> Now that I have expressed the basic principles, I should make one more
> comment. In most Conservative congregations, driving to shul on Shabbat
> is in the category of violations for which no one will make a fuss. It
> doesn't make it legal only "unenforced".
This is not altogether accurate. While Conservative Rabbis with
Orthodox leanings may frown upon driving to shul or Shabbat,
but accept it because there's not other way for people to reasonably
get there, others, even if they personally would insist on
living within walking distance of the shul, would not consider
it an unenforced violation.
The main problem with allowing driving to shul is that once people
drive to shul, they'd also drive to high school football games,
or to the mall, etc.
benjamin.h.dickman
>
>place for Jewish people to worship. It is the only place for 60 miles.
>How would people gather here to worship but to drive? Or would it be
>recommended not to travel?
>
violate the Sabbath by driving to a synagogue. You may be able to
arrange Sunday communal breakfast to keep the community spirit going,
though. And try to move to within walking distance of the synagogue.
Stacy Lynn Maltzman
pass a closer shul that you could have walked to. Also you cannot
stop along the way. (you should also lock your things in the car
(except keys) so as not to carry from the *private* car to the
*public*) I know the orthodox disagree, but hey, that's what makes
the world go 'round :-)
Stacy (Chava) Maltzman
mark
# a. Do you feel it is very important to pray with a
# minyan if one is available? (Answer this one
# "yes" and you can be guidded right into agreeing
# it's OK to drive to shul on Shabbat, or being accused
# of being "illogical" when trying to answer that it's
# not OK after answering all the questions leading up
# to it).
Yes, I feel it is very important, but not as important as
not driving on Shabbat. (and the combination of praying at
home and not driving on shabbat is much better than praying
at the shul with driving)
# Stan Krieger
# Summit, NJ
# ...!att!attunix!smk
Micha Berger
> No combustion on Shabbas? How do we light the candles?
The Sudducee practice was that no fire can burn on Shabbos.
However, what was actually prohibited related to three aspects:
1- lighting or increasing a fire
2- extinguishing or diminshing one
3- putting a raw dry object, or a cool liquid near enough to the fire
to heat it above the temperature the human hand can tolerate.
We call this cooking.
We therefor try to avoid situations that will cause one to adjust the flame.
For example, one is allowed to leave food on the fire as long as that fire is
covered. This way one will be reminded before the fire is adjusted.
Interestingly, glowing hot metal is considered "fire". This predates the
discovery that both a flame and glowing metal are examples of the phenomenon
of black-body radiation, by thousands of years. (In other words, a flame is
just heating the air until it glows, just as a blacksmith heats metal until it
glows.)
Using electricity is considered cooking, not because our Rabbis are naive on
the subject, but because it is spontaneously converted to heat. With the
possible exception of superconductors, every object has some resistance. This
resistance converts the electricity flowing through it to heat. For example,
in an incadescent bulb, the resistance of the filament causes electricity to
directly convert in "fire" - i.e. the filament glows.
--
Micha Berger
mberger1%ta...@graf.poly.edu
Imitatio Dei means never having to say "I'm sorry."
Sean Engelson
>
>Ok I have a small question on this subject. Where I live there is only
>place for Jewish people to worship. It is the only place for 60 miles.
>How would people gather here to worship but to drive? Or would it be
>recommended not to travel?
I can't speak for the Conservative position (of the post you responded
to), just the Orthodox one, but here goes. First of all, if you have
a minyan (10 men) within walking distance of each other, you can pray
anywhere. I know of many small `shuls' (shtiblach) in peoples
basements, and so forth. The only problem there is getting a Torah,
but even if you can't, you can still pray with a congregation. As
I mentioned previously in a post about driving on Shabbat, since
driving on Shabbat is forbidden, driving to shul actually negates the
mitzvah of praying with a minyan, and all you're left with is the
aveirah of driving on Shabbat. So it is better, if there's nothing
else you can do (like move?) do pray at home by yourself, than drive
to shul. In my hometown (Portland, OR) we had to walk 4-1/2 miles to
shul on Shabbat; when the weather didn't permit, we stayed home.
Chag Sameach!
Bruce Krulwich
>Using electricity is considered cooking, not because our Rabbis are naive on
>the subject, but because it is spontaneously converted to heat. With the
>possible exception of superconductors, every object has some resistance. This
>resistance converts the electricity flowing through it to heat. For example,
>in an incadescent bulb, the resistance of the filament causes electricity to
>directly convert in "fire" - i.e. the filament glows.
I think that there is more to the issue of using electricity on Shabbat than
the issue of cooking by heating up the electrical components. For example,
there are people who consider using electricity to be "Boneh" (building)
because completing an electrical circuit is finishing the creation of a
circuit that does a job. As another example, I've heard many types of
lightbulbs considered to be like fire, meaning that turning them on or off
violates the direct prohibition against using fire (not just against
cooking).
Bruce
Bruce Krulwich
>I think that there is more to the issue of using electricity on Shabbat than
>the issue of cooking by heating up the electrical components. For example,
>there are people who consider using electricity to be "Boneh" (building)
>because completing an electrical circuit is finishing the creation of a
>circuit that does a job. As another example, I've heard many types of
>lightbulbs considered to be like fire, meaning that turning them on or off
>violates the direct prohibition against using fire (not just against
>cooking).
I didn't mean to imply in this message that the prohibition against cooking is
in any way "less" a prohibition than other uses of fire. I just wanted to say
that there are different issues involved as well as the issue of cooking.
Bruce
G. Levine
> The main problem with allowing driving to shul is that once people
> drive to shul, they'd also drive to high school football games,
> or to the mall, etc.
My rabbi pretty much said, if you must drive in order to attend
services, at least do not drive otherwise. Also, Dennis Prager
pointed out that you should at least obey Shabat restrictions as
far as you can, ie don't listen to the radio or use the air
conditioner as you drive.
gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once you start compromising your thoughts, you become a candidate
for mediocrity--Neil Simon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------