Women and aliyot
Robert Kaiser
I have an article available on the history and halakha pertaining
to women and aliyot. Its based on the teshuvot (rabbinic responsa) of the
Conservative movement, which are the first halakhic responsa in modern
times to assert that women as well as men may both ascend to the bima and
read from the Torah. As far as I can see, it proves that one can
introduce egalitarian changes in normative halakhic Judaism, without
abandoning traditional Jewish law.
Jewish halakhic works discussed include the classic reference to the
subject in Talmud Bavli (Megillah 23a) the responsa of Rabbi Jacob Emden,
the Ran, Rabbi Akiba Eger, the B'er Hetev (Rabbi Judah ben Simon
Ashkenazi) and the modern Conservative responsa. If anyone wants a
copy, just e-mail me directly at: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu
Shalom,
Robert
Halevalaw
>From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
>Date: Fri, May 22, 1998 18:10 EDT
> I have an article available on the history and halakha pertaining
>to women and aliyot. Its based on the teshuvot (rabbinic responsa) of the
>Conservative movement, which are the first halakhic responsa in modern
>times to assert that women as well as men may both ascend to the bima and
>read from the Torah. As far as I can see, it proves that one can
>introduce egalitarian changes in normative halakhic Judaism, without
>abandoning traditional Jewish law.
>
>
If one grants, as did the communities of the entire southern meditarranean,
Israel, Yemen, and MiddleEast, that Maimonides was not articulating an
individual opinion, but rather codifying the Talmudic law, MT Tefila WuBirkath
Kohanim 12:17 would prohibit calling women to the Tora under the current state
of the law. Inasmch as this is a rabbinic law, it can, of course, be changed
by a new Sanhedrin.
Most of your prolific posts imply that the law committee sees itself vested
with the authority to legislate without a Sanhedrin or Semikha. This most
definitely does abanadon traditional Jewish law. it is an innovation, maybe
nice, maybe solving the anachronisms of Talmudic law problem, but nonetheless
absolutely untraditional.
Sometimes the slowest way to a goal is actually the quickest.
Halevalaw
Ethel Jean Saltz
On 24 May 1998 05:59:52 GMT, hale...@aol.com (Halevalaw) wrote:
>>From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
>>Date: Fri, May 22, 1998 18:10 EDT
This very deed is what turned me on to Reform Judaism. I was called to
give the first aleeyah in 1993 and having been bat mitsvahed myself at
the age of 51 at a Conservative Synagogue, about ten years earlier,
this act on real Shabbat was so cool. I was nervous as could be. In
fact, my son set up a video camera to record his daughter's bat
mitzvah so I can see myself and my two daughters participating in the
alyot, pointers and all. I still pinch myself to believe it really
happened. That's when I discovered, to my delight, that the Reform
Movement decided to identify with Judaism in it's services. And that's
when I felt completely honest with myself in prayers.
Since then, the Conservative Movement has taken on some of the
practices of the Reform and both of them should thank Rabbi Mordecai
Kaplan for all this, especially we Jewish women.
be-Ahavah ve-Shalom, Ethel Jean of Creekbend,
MAC-NIET-SPIN-GAL,Khai Y'all, C-O-H-N, ADTR, 0389A.G.,
Trinity=Torah(Ethics)+Ne'eveem(Sociology)
+Ketuveem(Multimedia)
Trinity=Periodic Table of Elements
+Direct Current Circuits+Electromagnetic Spectrum
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan/Miami Platform
mailto:nie...@airmail.net
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199805240559...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
hale...@aol.com (Halevalaw) replied to Robert Kaiser:
> Most of your prolific posts imply that the law committee
(The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly)
> sees itself vested
> with the authority to legislate without a Sanhedrin or Semikha. This most
> definitely does abanadon traditional Jewish law.
In your humble opinion, of course. Whoever you are, you are unfamiliar with
the workings of the CJLS. Last year, I posted extensively on the subject.
You can find my articles via DejaNews. Once you have read them, if there
something that you do not understand, I'd be glad to elaborate, but not
debate.
> it is an innovation, maybe
> nice, maybe solving the anachronisms of Talmudic law problem, but
> nonetheless absolutely untraditional.
You do not have the knowledge to issue such a pronunciamento. Halakha has
changed long before the formal establishment of Conservative Judaism, without
a Sanhedrin. As for the Sanhedrin itself, what it actually was and how it
functioned is far from clear historically. Oh sure, there are numerous
sources in the Talmud (of course, there is an entire tractate with the name
"Sanhedrin"), but we have relatively little that is contemporaneous.
The CJLS, as you will learn, determines halakhic parameters for the
Conservative movement.
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * - Rabbi Saul Lieberman z"l *
******************************
http://members.tripod.com/~jlapidus/index.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Halevalaw
>From: jlap...@my-dejanews.com
>Date: Sun, May 24, 1998 12:22 EDT
>In your humble opinion, of course. Whoever you are, you are unfamiliar with
>the workings of the CJLS. Last year, I posted extensively on the subject.
>You can find my articles via DejaNews. Once you have read them, if there
>something that you do not understand, I'd be glad to elaborate, but not
>debate.
I responded to Mr. Kaiser who posted decisions regarding permiting Kohanim and
divorcees to marry, permitting setam yenam, and I believe calling women to the
Tora, as well as other issues I do not recall at the moment. What I did take
from all those posts was that there was an explicit law against these things in
the Talmud, as codified by Maimonides, Alfasi, and others (you may not agree
that Maimonides codified the Talmud; you may assert that his was an individual
opinion; this is not my tradition, nor the tradition of most
Andalusian/Oriental/Yemeni Jews, so I speak from this point of view).
>> it is an innovation, maybe
>> nice, maybe solving the anachronisms of Talmudic law problem, but
>> nonetheless absolutely untraditional.
>
>You do not have the knowledge to issue such a pronunciamento.
After begging a thousand pardons, how exactly would you know?
Have we met? From my point of view a simple reading of Maimonides supplies the
requisite knowledge. It is not terribly complex.
>Halakha has
>changed long before the formal establishment of Conservative Judaism, without
>a Sanhedrin. As for the Sanhedrin itself, what it actually was and how it
>functioned is far from clear historically. Oh sure, there are numerous
>sources in the Talmud (of course, there is an entire tractate with the name
>"Sanhedrin"), but we have relatively little that is contemporaneous.
>
No, no, no, no and no. The halakha, as far as explicit Talmudic decisions, has
not. That is the Southern Spanish school's view, as expressed by Maimonides in
the introduction to the Hibbur and in Hilkhoth Mamrim, Chapters 1-3. We have
the gamut of teqanoth, gezeroth and dinim muflaim as they existed at the close
of the court of Rabena and Rabh Ashe. Application of those Talmudic decisions
is not static (inasmuch as Talmudic laws are often functionally defined, thus
the recent teshubhoth permitting lighting matches on Yom Tob, turning
electicity on on Yom Tob, as well as immersion in a certain type of bathtub,
under certian circumstances, as a tebilla -- all seemingly counterintuitive
conlusions), but in the post Talmudic epoch only where the is no positive law,
is there freedom to innovate, and only for a locale, not for all of Israel.
>The CJLS, as you will learn, determines halakhic parameters for the
>Conservative movement.
I understand that very well. But can a movement violate Talmudic law and
permit a Kohen to marry a divorcee, and still be faithful to Rabbinic law? Can
a movement permit setham yenam and still follow Talmudic law? A movment can do
whatever it likes; that is not my point. I only point out an inconsistency
where this "development" of halakha is presented as apposite with traditional
Rabbinic jurisprudence.
Halevalaw
Hadass Eviatar
Ethel Jean Saltz wrote:
<snip description of Adult Bat Mitzvah, which is great>
However:
> Since then, the Conservative Movement has taken on some of the
> practices of the Reform and both of them should thank Rabbi Mordecai
Kaplan > for all this, especially we Jewish women.
No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
Kol tuv, Hadass
--
Dr. Hadass Eviatar (XX) mailto:evi...@ibd.nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada Phone: (204) 984 - 4535
Institute for Biodiagnostics Fax: (204) 984 - 7036
435 Ellice Avenue, Winnipeg,MB,R3B 1Y6 http://www.ibd.nrc.ca/~eviatar
Obligatory disclaimer: NRC wouldn't dream of saying a thing like that.
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
In article <199805251744...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
hale...@aol.com (Halevalaw) wrote:
> >From: jlap...@my-dejanews.com
> >Date: Sun, May 24, 1998 12:22 EDT
>
> >In your humble opinion, of course. Whoever you are, you are unfamiliar
with
> >the workings of the CJLS. Last year, I posted extensively on the subject.
> >You can find my articles via DejaNews. Once you have read them, if there
> >something that you do not understand, I'd be glad to elaborate, but not
> >debate.
> I responded to Mr. Kaiser who posted decisions regarding permiting Kohanim
and
> divorcees to marry, permitting setam yenam, and I believe calling women to
the
> Tora, as well as other issues I do not recall at the moment.
A problem with those posts is that many readers (not necessarily you) could
end up thinking that reading Robert's articles, instead of reading the actual
teshuvot, is sufficient.
> What I did take
> from all those posts was that there was an explicit law against these things
in
> the Talmud, as codified by Maimonides, Alfasi, and others (you may not agree
> that Maimonides codified the Talmud; you may assert that his was an
individual
> opinion; this is not my tradition, nor the tradition of most
> Andalusian/Oriental/Yemeni Jews, so I speak from this point of view).
(This paragraph is not addressed to you but rather to other readers, since you
know what follows.) The prohibition against Kohanim, in fact, comes from the
Written Torah (Emor). The issue of setam yenam is not clear-cut if one reads
the responsa literature.
A Baraita and a Tosefta (both statements of Mishnaic vintage) in Megilla state
that strictly speaking, women may receive aliyot, but that it is customary not
to do so. The question of why is not only a textual issue but a sociological
and historic one as well.
Has halakha been frozen in the medieval period? Why shouldn't women receive
aliyot when the congregation does not consider it a violation of its honor?
In C synagogues, there is no issue of meHitza, which contrary to late O
belief, is not Toraitic. As for Kohanim and divorcees, I suggest reading the
Klein teshuva in its entirety.
> >> it is an innovation, maybe
> >> nice, maybe solving the anachronisms of Talmudic law problem, but
> >> nonetheless absolutely untraditional.
>
> >You do not have the knowledge to issue such a pronunciamento.
> After begging a thousand pardons, how exactly would you know?
Because I doubt that you have read and analyzed the CJLS responsa in question.
That is not necessarily a negative reflection on you, because many of them
were not readily available to the general public until this year.
> Have we met?
We don't even know your name! I post mine. Please post yours. 8-)
In any case, readers should be wary of such terms as "absolutely
untraditional," especially when they come from O correspondents.
> From my point of view a simple reading of Maimonides supplies the
> requisite knowledge. It is not terribly complex.
The Rambam is not enough. As you know, the Yad (his code) was not
uncontroversial. The Shealot uTeshuvot (Responsa) literature is essential.
> >Halakha has
> >changed long before the formal establishment of Conservative Judaism,
without
> >a Sanhedrin. As for the Sanhedrin itself, what it actually was and how it
> >functioned is far from clear historically. Oh sure, there are numerous
> >sources in the Talmud (of course, there is an entire tractate with the name
> >"Sanhedrin"), but we have relatively little that is contemporaneous.
> No, no, no, no and no. The halakha, as far as explicit Talmudic decisions,
has
> not. That is the Southern Spanish school's view, as expressed by Maimonides
in
> the introduction to the Hibbur and in Hilkhoth Mamrim, Chapters 1-3. We
have
> the gamut of teqanoth, gezeroth and dinim muflaim as they existed at the
close
> of the court of Rabena and Rabh Ashe. Application of those Talmudic
decisions
> is not static (inasmuch as Talmudic laws are often functionally defined,
thus
> the recent teshubhoth permitting lighting matches on Yom Tob, ...
If lighting matches on Yom Tov is not a change in more than in just
"application," then I do not know what is!
> ... turning
> electicity on on Yom Tob, as well as immersion in a certain type of bathtub,
> under certian circumstances, as a tebilla -- all seemingly counterintuitive
> conlusions), but in the post Talmudic epoch only where the is no positive
law,
> is there freedom to innovate, and only for a locale, not for all of Israel.
In response to your "No, no, no, no and no" (did I get them all?), I state,
"Is too, is too, is too, is too and is too!" Seriously, you are taking the
standard O ahistorical approach, which denies the existence of changes except
with regard to applications. The history of the halakhic process demonstrates
otherwise. BTW, other than a fifth "no," you do not contradict my statement
about the historical issues related to the Sanhedrin.
> >The CJLS, as you will learn, determines halakhic parameters for the
> >Conservative movement.
>
> I understand that very well. But can a movement violate Talmudic law and
> permit a Kohen to marry a divorcee, and still be faithful to Rabbinic law?
The issue is not simple. Have you read the responsum?
> Can
> a movement permit setham yenam and still follow Talmudic law?
The definition of setam yenam, in the light of modern machine production and
of pasteurization is not as simple as you imply. In any case, there is a
recent teshuva by the CJLS recommending against the drinking of unhechshered
wines because of the use of nonkosher fining agents. (Two years ago, I
brought up a similar issue here, but a Haredi correspondent in Israel
questioned the significance of such fining agents. Lest he be misunderstood,
he is by no means advocating unhechshered wines!)
> A movment can do whatever it likes; that is not my point.
Actually for the record, the CJLS does not do what it likes.
> I only point out an inconsistency
> where this "development" of halakha is presented as apposite with
> traditional Rabbinic jurisprudence.
Again, no analysis of Rabbinic jurisprudence is complete without extensive
references to the traditional Responsa. The decisions of the CJLS have never
been made lightly. They often result when halakhic values are in conflict.
E.g., without going into detail since the Kohen-gerusha teshuva needs to be
read, what does an American rabbi do with an assimilated Kohen-divorcee couple
of whom neither cares about the halakha and is ready to go to a justice of the
peace or simply shack up? Unless you have been confronted by that situation,
as I have been, then please don't answer. (It's a rhetorical question
anyway!)
Simcha Streltsov
jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: Has halakha been frozen in the medieval period?
No. why would you tinhk so?
Simcha Streltsov
jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: Actually for the record, the CJLS does not do what it likes.
finally, a fresh topic - Jay, so that we can see the whole picture -
can you quote some of the decisions of this CJLS body that
forbids things (esp. when it would like to allow them) - and
what their reasoning is
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer:
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Art Kamlet
In article <6kdee6$kku$1...@news1.bu.edu>,
Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>: Actually for the record, the CJLS does not do what it likes.
>
>finally, a fresh topic - Jay, so that we can see the whole picture -
>can you quote some of the decisions of this CJLS body that
>forbids things (esp. when it would like to allow them) - and
>what their reasoning is
I really don't understand the question?
We already have quite a few forbidden things -- a large number of
mitzvot and halacha which forbid one thing or another.
Why would anyone wake up one day and say, "I think we need to
also forbid XXX?"
As society changes, science presents us with "opportunities" and
with inventions that our parents did not have or know.
But why would we begin with the presumption that Here is
something, perhaps something new, and let's see how we can forbid
it?
While many person-to-person relations that some people would like
to prohibit or reaffirm that they have already been prohibited,
in those areas it is probably true "there is nothing new under
the sun."
Yet science does present us with new ways of conceiving children,
new ways of transplanting organs from one person to another,
new ways of communicating (email for example.)
So it is not surprising that people should ask: What is the
halacha on sending email to someone where it is Shabbat there but
not here?
What is the halacha of kidney transplants? Cornea transplants?
Heart transplants?
What is the halacha of using electricity on Shabbat?
What is the halacha of various infertility treatment methods?
I would think if someone approaches the question with the attitude
of How can we prohibit this, one will find ways. If one
approaches it with the attitude of how can wer adopt this to
halacha, one will also find ways.
The idea that authorities approach an issue with absolutely no
idea of finding for or against the new-fangled stuff, but merely
use existing halacha and apply it to a new technology is
theoretically interesting, and a very nice concept, but I
personally don't believe it. My experience and personal
beliefs say that people approach problems in certain ways.
I prefer to approach a problem (I'm not a posek of course)
with the attitude of how can a new technology be adapted to
halacha, and not how can this new thing be prohibited.
So when I read a question that asks what has the CJLS done to
prohibit one thing or another, I find it reflects a mindset
that says we should be looking to prohibit rather than we should
look to adapt new things to halacha.
Having said all this, there are a very few issues which the
conservative movement felt so strongly about they re-affirmed
existing halachic prohibitions (as contrasted with suddenly
finding prohibitions of something new). Examples are performing
conversions without immersion and, for men, brit milah/hatafat
dam brit or officiating at intermarriages. This is not new, but
re-affirmations of existing halacha.
--
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6kdflm$7...@user2.infinet.com>,
kam...@infinet.com wrote:
>
> In article <6kdee6$kku$1...@news1.bu.edu>,
> Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
> >jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >: Actually for the record, the CJLS does not do what it likes.
> >
> >finally, a fresh topic - Jay, so that we can see the whole picture -
> >can you quote some of the decisions of this CJLS body that
> >forbids things (esp. when it would like to allow them) - and
> >what their reasoning is
>
> I really don't understand the question?
Art, you are wasting your time if you attempt to make sense out of most of
Simcha's posts. I don't even read them anymore.
Simcha Streltsov
jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: Art, you are wasting your time if you attempt to make sense out of most of
: Simcha's posts. I don't even read them anymore.
I want to thank Art for his patience
Simcha Streltsov
Art Kamlet (kam...@user2.infinet.com) wrote:
: >
: >: Actually for the record, the CJLS does not do what it likes.
: >
: >finally, a fresh topic - Jay, so that we can see the whole picture -
: >can you quote some of the decisions of this CJLS body that
: >forbids things (esp. when it would like to allow them) - and
: >what their reasoning is
: I really don't understand the question?
: Why would anyone wake up one day and say, "I think we need to
: also forbid XXX?"
: As society changes, science presents us with "opportunities" and
: with inventions that our parents did not have or know.
I think, there are two groups of issues:
a. when people feel that something that was forbidden should be now
allowed:
a liberal-minded Jew in this case just does what he wants, a
halachik-minded Jew investigates the issue and, when appropriate
asks more knowledgeable people/bodies. So, these questions come
to this CJLS and they answer. We saw several examples of their
permissions and justification of that - I would like to see
what are their arguments when they decide that the sought permission
should not be granted or limited to exeptional cases - and what logic
do they use. that will give us a so to speak lower and upper boundary
of this body (and that is how, AFAIU, most halachot are worked out -
each issue is pushed to a limit - until the boundary is set)
b. I am very confused with your blank statement that "science brings
us opportunity" that always correspond to the need to permit previously
forbidden things, and never require being more stringent -
sounds like a line from a 17-th century utopian book ..
surely, say, - in no particular order - internet porn, drugs at schools,
atom bomb, GULags, TV violence, unsafe drivers, hate groups on Internet,
international drug cartels, marxist and nazi ideologies, food production
that mixes hundreds of ingredients, pseudo-scholars who publish pseudo-
halachik books, business ethics that put strock value before moral
judgement, professions that require people to work on Shabbat or 60
hours work day and not learn Torah -
all may require certain safeguards -
are you saying they ar neve needed?!
for just one example,
Talmud talks about those who raise small cattle - due to their
professions they are involved in theft of property, thus their halachik
status is questioned - do you think there are no issues with new modern
professions?
--
Art Kamlet
In article <6keh33$i42$4...@news1.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>: Art, you are wasting your time if you attempt to make sense out of most of
>: Simcha's posts. I don't even read them anymore.
>
>I want to thank Art for his patience
I have never minded talking to anyone who would converse with
me in a civil manner, even if I do not agree with what is
being argued.
Simcha and I disagree over issues, but a few years ago Simcha
introduced me to a friend of his who was studying math in
Columbus, and his friend and my wife and I had a delightful
dinner together, and I owe Simcha the courtesy of a civil
response so long as it is returned.
Kol tuv,
Art Kamlet
In article <6keh02$i42$2...@news1.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>Art Kamlet (kam...@user2.infinet.com) wrote:
>: I really don't understand the question?
>: Why would anyone wake up one day and say, "I think we need to
>: also forbid XXX?"
>: As society changes, science presents us with "opportunities" and
>: with inventions that our parents did not have or know.
>
>I think, there are two groups of issues:
>
>a. when people feel that something that was forbidden should be now
> allowed:
> a liberal-minded Jew in this case just does what he wants, a
And where does that leave me, a liberal halachic Jew?
> halachik-minded Jew investigates the issue and, when appropriate
> asks more knowledgeable people/bodies. So, these questions come
> to this CJLS and they answer. We saw several examples of their
> permissions and justification of that - I would like to see
> what are their arguments when they decide that the sought permission
> should not be granted or limited to exeptional cases - and what logic
> do they use. that will give us a so to speak lower and upper boundary
> of this body (and that is how, AFAIU, most halachot are worked out -
> each issue is pushed to a limit - until the boundary is set)
If you would like to see the written tshuvot, som eof the older
ones have been published in book form, and are available from the
United Synagogue book store. Newer ones are available from your
friendly neighborhood conservative rabbi. I regret, for myself
especially, that they are not on line. And I know that orthodox
publishers have been more prolific in getting out material than
conservative, but if you are truly interested, that should not stop
you.
>b. I am very confused with your blank statement that "science brings
> us opportunity" that always correspond to the need to permit previously
> forbidden things, and never require being more stringent -
> sounds like a line from a 17-th century utopian book ..
Please re-read what I said. I did not say new opportunities
"always" correspond to the need to permit previously things.
The new things on my list are, in my opinion, good things that
should be brought into our practices, and I'm glad to see my rabbis
agree.
And I certainly agree there are new things that shouldnot
be brought into our practices, yet are creeping into our society.
> surely, say, - in no particular order - internet porn, drugs at schools,
> atom bomb, GULags, TV violence, unsafe drivers, hate groups on Internet,
> international drug cartels, marxist and nazi ideologies, food production
> that mixes hundreds of ingredients, pseudo-scholars who publish pseudo-
> halachik books, business ethics that put strock value before moral
> judgement, professions that require people to work on Shabbat or 60
> hours work day and not learn Torah -
> all may require certain safeguards -
> are you saying they ar neve needed?!
Quite a list! And many of those items scare me as well.
Let's quickly look at two.
Your atomic weapons. Scary stuff. The world now has them
And every year more countries, some whom I absolutely do not trust
with bullets much less atomic weapons, join the club.
So -- yes -- we should ask -- is there a halachic question that
can be asked and answered: Under what conditions, if any, can a
state develop such weapons; under what conditions can they be
used?
Good example. I don't know the answer.
Your other example, about jobs becoming more time consuming and
people feeling they need to work Shabbat -- that is a very very
old question, and while I think in very recent years this may
betrue - jobs are getting more pressure packed, for many years
before that, it was the other way round. In the US we went from
a 6 day week -- the Bible's model -- to a 5 day week.
(Unfortunately 100 years ago inthe US, Sunday was the "Lord's day"
not to work, and many Jews -- many orthodox Jews -- found
themselves working onShabbat.
This is an old problem.
>
>for just one example,
>Talmud talks about those who raise small cattle - due to their
>professions they are involved in theft of property, thus their halachik
>status is questioned - do you think there are no issues with new modern
>professions?
>
>
>--
>Simcha Streltsov disclaimer:
>simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
>http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
>
>
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca> writes:
>Ethel Jean Saltz wrote:
>> Since then, the Conservative Movement has taken on some of the
>> practices of the Reform and both of them should thank Rabbi Mordecai
>Kaplan > for all this, especially we Jewish women.
>No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
>now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
And eliminating the restoration of sacrifices from the services,
and appointing women as rabbis and cantors,
and denying the Sinaitic origin of the Torah text and oral Torah,
(although I think that was Solomon Schechter's idea in the beginning)
and permitting driving to shul on Shabbat,
(de facto, if not completely de jure)
and having equalized language in the liturgy
(despite Harlow's opposition)
But I don't see what all of this has to do with Mordechai Kaplan,
since most of these innovations happened either before he seaparated
from Orthodoxy, or after he set up the Reconstructionist movement.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Robert Kaiser
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
>>No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
>>now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
>And eliminating the restoration of sacrifices from the services,
Which is a good thing! Who here really believes that Jews
should abandon everything rabbinic Judaism has created [including the
siddur and prayer in synagogues] and go back to animal sacrifices?
Consider Avot D'Rabbi Nathan:
The Temple is destroyed. We never witnessed its glory.
But Rabbi Joshua did. And when he looked at the Temple
ruins one day, he burst into tears. 'Alas for us! The
place which atoned for the sins of all the people Israel
lies in ruins!' Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to
him these words of comfort: 'Be not grieved, my son.
There is another way of gaining ritual atonement, even
though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain ritual
atonement through deeds of loving-kindness.'
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Robert Kaiser
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
>>No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
>>now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
>and appointing women as rabbis and cantors,
Which is a good thing!
>and denying the Sinaitic origin of the Torah text and oral Torah,
> (although I think that was Solomon Schechter's idea in the beginning)
Whoa! Decades before Schechter became the head of JTS, many
lingusitic scholars in Europe had shown that the text of the Torah we
have today is a composite. However, Solomon Schechter actually was
hesitant to accept such findings, considering them possibly wrong, and
definately irrelevent. (At least regarding the Torah. He was open
to all critical scholarship for the rest of the Tanakh.)
Robert
Halevalaw
>From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
> Which is a good thing! Who here really believes that Jews
>should abandon everything rabbinic Judaism has created [including the
>siddur and prayer in synagogues] and go back to animal sacrifices?
>Consider Avot D'Rabbi Nathan:
>
> The Temple is destroyed. We never witnessed its glory.
> But Rabbi Joshua did. And when he looked at the Temple
> ruins one day, he burst into tears. 'Alas for us! The
> place which atoned for the sins of all the people Israel
> lies in ruins!' Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to
> him these words of comfort: 'Be not grieved, my son.
> There is another way of gaining ritual atonement, even
> though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain ritual
> atonement through deeds of loving-kindness.'
Why is an abandonment required? Why cannot both coexist, as they did in the
times of the Temple? Do people really want to do away with dozens of biblical
laws pertaining to the Temple ritual?
Halevalaw
Richard Schultz
Art Kamlet (kam...@user2.infinet.com) wrote:
: We already have quite a few forbidden things -- a large number of
: mitzvot and halacha which forbid one thing or another.
: Why would anyone wake up one day and say, "I think we need to
: also forbid XXX?"
If one felt that there was a problem so severe that the only way of
solving it is to forbid people to do something. If I am not mistaken,
the CLJS forbade smoking. Are you suggesting that they were wrong to
do so?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
The gardener plants an evergreen whilst trampling on a flower. . .
Robert Kaiser
hale...@aol.com (Halevalaw) says:
>
>> The Temple is destroyed. We never witnessed its glory.
>> But Rabbi Joshua did. And when he looked at the Temple
>> ruins one day, he burst into tears. 'Alas for us! The
>> place which atoned for the sins of all the people Israel
>> lies in ruins!' Then Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai spoke to
>> him these words of comfort: 'Be not grieved, my son.
>> There is another way of gaining ritual atonement, even
>> though the Temple is destroyed. We must now gain ritual
>> atonement through deeds of loving-kindness.'
>
>Why is an abandonment required? Why cannot both coexist, as they did in the
>times of the Temple?
I am afraid that I do not understand you. What is this "both"
that you refer to? Both what?
The Temple simply doesn't exist anymore. That's a fact.
> Do people really want to do away with dozens of biblical
>laws pertaining to the Temple ritual?
They already are passe! And this happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
Robert
Simcha Streltsov
Art Kamlet (kam...@user2.infinet.com) wrote:
: Simcha and I disagree over issues, but a few years ago Simcha
: introduced me to a friend of his who was studying math in
: Columbus, and his friend and my wife and I had a delightful
: dinner together, and I owe Simcha the courtesy of a civil
: response so long as it is returned.
aga, I had a friend near Jay's place, but he moved to Seattle -
I could stop by myself when I drive on I-95, but it is probably
a kal-vehomer - if kill-files my posts ...
Simcha Streltsov
Art Kamlet (kam...@user2.infinet.com) wrote:
: And where does that leave me, a liberal halachic Jew?
as Eliahu said to the Jews "are you for Hashem, or are you for Baal", ie
"could you please at least choose a position"? if you think, there is
not enough rahmanut in Jewish history, and that you need another
measurement system - it is a problem. If you simply know and think more about
nuclear physics than Rashi - then you aren't as liberal as you wish you'd be (-:
: If you would like to see the written tshuvot, som eof the older
: ones have been published in book form, and are available from the
: United Synagogue book store. Newer ones are available from your
: friendly neighborhood conservative rabbi. I regret, for myself
: especially, that they are not on line. And I know that orthodox
: publishers have been more prolific in getting out material than
: conservative, but if you are truly interested, that should not stop
: you.
I am interested in ideas that are in the Jewish minds - if noone wants
to summarize these opinions here - obviously, it is not a popular or
breath-taking material - just compare how many people are rushing here
to discuss Rema!!
: The new things on my list are, in my opinion, good things that
: should be brought into our practices, and I'm glad to see my rabbis
: agree.
I asked to discuss prohibitions or rejected liberalizations, and you were
trying to say that they never happen - now we are back to the original Q
Simcha Streltsov
Art Kamlet (kam...@user2.infinet.com) wrote:
: So -- yes -- we should ask -- is there a halachic question that
: can be asked and answered: Under what conditions, if any, can a
: state develop such weapons; under what conditions can they be
: used?
this is a good Q-n, but not many people need to know it l'maase.
how about: how should you relate in your social and business dealings
with such coutries or their supporters?
I discussed - in passing - an issue of food donations to North Korea with
the local Rav - he first suggested that "he is always for giving food", but
was less enthusiastic when I described the distance between Seoul and
North Korean border and that the donated food goes primarily to the
army.
or, for example, people who put kosher symbol on Russian vodka -
and thus increase their market share, esp. among Jews
: betrue - jobs are getting more pressure packed, for many years
: before that, it was the other way round. In the US we went from
: a 6 day week -- the Bible's model -- to a 5 day week.
I was thinking not about people who have to work for living -
an old story, indeed, but about people who do not need to work so much
to earn a living, but still work - like me. quite a different story.
: (Unfortunately 100 years ago inthe US, Sunday was the "Lord's day"
: not to work, and many Jews -- many orthodox Jews -- found
: themselves working onShabbat.
also 50 years ago, AFAIK
Joe Slater
The Mishna and Tosefta long precede the medieval period, but in any
event "medieval" is not a useful term when talking about Judaism. The
medieval period is a Eurocentric construction of history, in which
there were two great eras - the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.
Anything in the middle ("medi-") was primitive and not worth talking
about. It became a term of abuse and a way of discounting the period
in which, for instance, new farming methods opened Europe to large
scale colonisation, many of the Pacific islands were settled, the
Arabs were laying the foundations of modern mathematics, astronomy and
chemistry, the Aztecs were building their great empire and so forth.
When applied to Judaism it is even more clearly a term of abuse
because the standard slur against Judaism is that it is primitive and
archaic. Calling any part of Judaism medieval is therefore a double
slur: not only does it call it antiquated, but it does so with a term
whose other meanings (check a dictionary) include everything from
primitive to cruel.
I don't suggest that you were using the word in this sense, but you
should take care to use terms which are both relevant and free from
implicit judgments. I know that you don't like it if I err in a
similar way.
jds
Hadass Eviatar
Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> In <> Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca> writes:
> >Ethel Jean Saltz wrote:
>
> >> Since then, the Conservative Movement has taken on some of the
> >> practices of the Reform and both of them should thank Rabbi
> Mordecai
> >Kaplan > for all this, especially we Jewish women.
>
> >No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
>
> >now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
>
> And eliminating the restoration of sacrifices from the services,
But not the Temple.
> and appointing women as rabbis and cantors,
This is true.
> and denying the Sinaitic origin of the Torah text and oral Torah,
> (although I think that was Solomon Schechter's idea in the
> beginning)
Not necessarily. There is a broad spectrum of opinion within C on that
one.
> and permitting driving to shul on Shabbat,
> (de facto, if not completely de jure)
No, no, no. Tolerating it, yes. Permitting or encouraging, no.
> and having equalized language in the liturgy
> (despite Harlow's opposition)
Not in the Hebrew, AFAIK. But then, I haven't seen the new Sim Shalom.
OTOH, I'm told it now has Rabbi Yishma'el back in his place, which I can
only see as a return to our roots.
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
>>>No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
>>>now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
>>and appointing women as rabbis and cantors,
> Which is a good thing!
Which is not surprising, as you're a C Jew, but it is evidence of
C practice moving towards Reform.
>>and denying the Sinaitic origin of the Torah text and oral Torah,
>> (although I think that was Solomon Schechter's idea in the beginning)
> Whoa! Decades before Schechter became the head of JTS, many
>lingusitic scholars in Europe had shown that the text of the Torah we
>have today is a composite. However, Solomon Schechter actually was
>hesitant to accept such findings, considering them possibly wrong, and
>definately irrelevent. (At least regarding the Torah. He was open
>to all critical scholarship for the rest of the Tanakh.)
Nor did I claim that Schechter originated the idea. However, he
advocated it as a part of a Judaism that claimed to accept halacha.
Spinoza originated the idea, but rejected Judaism in so doing.
The Reform who came afterwards accepted the idea, and used it as
to justify their conscious rejection of traditional Jewish practice
and ideology. Schechter was willing to combine acceptance of the
idea with a halachic form of Judaism, while ignoring the evident
contradiction.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser) writes:
> jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) says:
>>>No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
>>>now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
>>And eliminating the restoration of sacrifices from the services,
> Which is a good thing! Who here really believes that Jews
>should abandon everything rabbinic Judaism has created [including the
>siddur and prayer in synagogues] and go back to animal sacrifices?
>Consider Avot D'Rabbi Nathan:
"For igorots 'tis bliss" - Walt Kelly.
1) The siddur and prayer in synagogues were created after the First
Destruction, and persisted during the entire Second Temple period,
586 years, alongside of sacrifices
2) Rabbinic Judaism has hardly eliminated sacrifice from the realm
of halachic Judaism - viz. the tractates of Menachot, Zevachim,
Tamid, Chagigah, etc., not to mention large parts of the Mishneh
Torah. Just because we can't do it now doesn't mean that we
will never do it again.
3) I seriously doubt that anyone cited in Avoth deRebbi Nathan
would have said "we will never do sacrifices again." The
"alternate forms of achieving atonement and forgiveness" are
just substitutes, not replacements.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca> writes:
>Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
>> In <> Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca> writes:
>> >Ethel Jean Saltz wrote:
>> >> Since then, the Conservative Movement has taken on some of the
>> >> practices of the Reform and both of them should thank Rabbi
>> >> Mordecai Kaplan for all this, especially we Jewish women.
>> >No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
>> >now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
>> And eliminating the restoration of sacrifices from the services,
>But not the Temple.
Closer does not mean identical.
>> and appointing women as rabbis and cantors,
>This is true.
>> and denying the Sinaitic origin of the Torah text and oral Torah,
>> (although I think that was Solomon Schechter's idea in the
>> beginning)
>Not necessarily. There is a broad spectrum of opinion within C on that
>one.
but that idea is acceptable within C views of revelation, and it is
not acceptable within O views of revelation. I don't mean that any
of these are mandatory, but are acceptable and are considered part of
the mainstream of C thought and practice.
>> and permitting driving to shul on Shabbat,
>> (de facto, if not completely de jure)
>No, no, no. Tolerating it, yes. Permitting or encouraging, no.
Permitting, yes. De facto. Toleration is the de jure position,
but de facto, it is permitted ("I'm Conservative, so I can drive.")
>> and having equalized language in the liturgy
>> (despite Harlow's opposition)
>Not in the Hebrew, AFAIK. But then, I haven't seen the new Sim Shalom.
>OTOH, I'm told it now has Rabbi Yishma'el back in his place, which I can
>only see as a return to our roots.
As I said, Harlow, the author of Sim Shalom, opposes equalized language.
But from the perido when I subscribed to CJ-L, it seemed increasingly
acceptable to used equalized language.
C covers such a wide range of opinions and practices that it practically
cannot mandate anything (see Emet v'Emunah, the great statement of
waffle, also Joel Roth's "The Halachic Process" which argues for
unbounded flexibility in decisionmaking by local rabbis).
C and O have different limits on what is acceptable/mainstream.
C's limits have moved closer to R's mainstream positions, away
from O's mainstream positions, since 1902 when JTS hired Schechter.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Art Kamlet
In article <6khbj2$pnb$1...@news1.deshaw.com>,
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 May 1998 04:17:05 GMT, Art Kamlet <kam...@user2.infinet.com> wrote:
>: Why would anyone wake up one day and say, "I think we need to
>: also forbid XXX?"
>
For example, electricity.
Or using candles instead of oil.
Or using the newfangled Hebrew fonts, instead of the ancient
Hebrew font.
All of these were opposed at one time or another, and the
reaction was to ban those newfangled things.
But I think this does demonstrate different approaches to halacha.
One aapproach, as these examples, show, it to look at a new
situation and say it;s new, let;s find within halacha ways to ban
it.
Others'; would look at this half full glass and say let's see what
we can do with htis and find ways within halacha to permit it.
And so most conservative authorites permit electricity on Shabbat,
while most orthodox authorities find mostuse of electricity as
prohibited. (Except for even more creative methods of using
electricity such as randomly dialing tgelephones and Shabbat
elevators.)
>2- Violation of the spirit of a law becomes commonplace, so laws are enacted
> to reinforce the sacredness of the idea. (din diRabanan)
Or -- as more often occurs -- violations of the law becomes
permitted since everyone's doing it. In the cases I know f a
creative solution is found to permit was used to be prohibited.
Shabbat Telephones, Shabbat elevators, eruv, prosbul, are all
methods to permit was was prohibited. So now violations being
commonplace will be legal.
>3- People were getting lax in some law, so we tell them to avoid that
> situation altogether. (gezeirah)
This is a viewpoint --- it is also an approach to life. Some
Jews do take this approach, others take the approach that
if more and more people are doing it, see if halacha really does
allow it.
Ethel Jean Saltz
I would rather suggest the Reform is getting closer to the
Conservative, after all is said and done.
Isn't it true that many many Reconstructionist Theological grads
become Rabbis in both Conservative and Reform synagogues?
Possibly, more in Conservative than in Reform?
Also isn't it true that the Reconstructionist movement has changed the
revelation philosophy of Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan?
be-Ahavah ve-Shalom, Ethel Jean of Creekbend,
MAC-NIET-SPIN-GAL,Khai Y'all, C-O-H-N, ADTR, 0389A.G.,
Trinity=Torah(Ethics)+Ne'eveem(Sociology)
+Ketuveem(Multimedia)
Trinity=Periodic Table of Elements
+Direct Current Circuits+Electromagnetic Spectrum
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan/Miami Platform
mailto:nie...@airmail.net
Simcha Streltsov
Art Kamlet (kam...@user2.infinet.com) wrote:
: And so most conservative authorites permit electricity on Shabbat,
: while most orthodox authorities find mostuse of electricity as
I dont know how you manage to find such philosophical difference between
C- and O-. are you saying that if I would transfer a group of C- Jews
to 15th ventury Poland - they will start following all the previous
halachot?
: Or -- as more often occurs -- violations of the law becomes
: permitted since everyone's doing it. In the cases I know f a
: creative solution is found to permit was used to be prohibited.
: Shabbat Telephones, Shabbat elevators, eruv, prosbul, are all
: methods to permit was was prohibited. So now violations being
: commonplace will be legal.
none of this is relevant - are you saying that Shabbat elevators
are introduced because everyone is taking them anyway ??
and what is new with eruv from the times of the Gemora "Eruvin"?
: >3- People were getting lax in some law, so we tell them to avoid that
: > situation altogether. (gezeirah)
: This is a viewpoint --- it is also an approach to life. Some
: Jews do take this approach, others take the approach that
: if more and more people are doing it, see if halacha really does
: allow it.
this viewpoint is developed in Halacha. can you quote an opinion in
Talmud that rejects it (serious Q)
Micha Berger
On Thu, 28 May 1998 01:53:50 GMT, Art Kamlet <kam...@user2.infinet.com> wrote:
: One aapproach, as these examples, show, it to look at a new
: situation and say it;s new, let;s find within halacha ways to ban
: it.
: Others'; would look at this half full glass and say let's see what
: we can do with htis and find ways within halacha to permit it.
Why is the goal "to ban" or "to permit"? The goal ought be to find how it fits
in the pieces of the picture that we already have. Sometimes, as in the case
of lighting candles instead of oil for Shabbos or Chanukah, you end up lenient.
Other times, as in using electricity on Shabbos, you'll end up strict.
If your answers are consistantly one way or the other, I'd consider the system
suspect.
: Or -- as more often occurs -- violations of the law becomes
: permitted since everyone's doing it. In the cases I know f a
: creative solution is found to permit was used to be prohibited.
: Shabbat Telephones, Shabbat elevators, eruv, prosbul, are all
: methods to permit was was prohibited. So now violations being
: commonplace will be legal.
Eiruvim (there's more than one kind: for carrying, for going from one town to
another, for cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbos, and possibly others I'm
forgetting right now) are poor examples, as they were written into the
original prohibition.
For example, it's not that a string around the area permits one to carry in a
public domain that doesn't qualify for the biblical prohibition. Rather, the
Rabbis prohibited carrying in such a domain where no marking of its borders
exist.
Prusbul and Shabbos appliances (BTW, the telephone is only permissable for
medical purposes, even if not life-threatening) are using pre-existing legal
loopholes. In neither case was violation common. In the case of prusbul, poor
people weren't getting loans -- not just getting them, but with interest. In
the case of Shabbos appliances, people were doing without, thereby
impositioning the elderly needlessly or hampering medical care. (In many cases
use of a regular phone is permitted if no alternative is available, so I'm not
sure how much this is so).
: >3- People were getting lax in some law, so we tell them to avoid that
: > situation altogether. (gezeirah)
: This is a viewpoint --- it is also an approach to life. Some
: Jews do take this approach, others take the approach that ...
The approach in #3 is called, as I write, the gezeirah. This "approach to
life" is very fundamental to how halachah was historically created. It's why
they banned putting food back on the fire, horseback riding or taking
medicines (in many circumstances: CYR!!!) on Shabbos. Gezeiros are most likely
the most common form of new legislation found in the mishnah and Talmud.
Talmud. To choose another approach isn't quite the same system of halachah
anymore. No?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5821 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 28-May-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz) writes:
> If I am not mistaken, the CLJS forbade smoking.
Could you verify this? More power to them if it's true. Do you know
if the prohibition is accepted by the rank-and-file?
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)
Robert Kaiser
>> If I am not mistaken, the CLJS forbade smoking.
>
>Could you verify this? More power to them if it's true. Do you know
>if the prohibition is accepted by the rank-and-file?
Conservative rabbis have issued responsa banning the smoking of
cigarettes. The Rabbinical Assembly has officially backed these responsa
with a resolution passed in 1982.
Conservative Judaism mandates that its carefully follow the
mitzvah of Shemirat Ha-briut - Preventative Care: In addition to
requiring a response to illnesses when they occur, Jewish law also
requires that we make all attempts to stay well. In Deuteronomy, God
tells the Jewish people, "take utmost care and watch yourselves
scrupulously." The Talmud derives from these verses that a person must
scrupulously guard his physical health (Berakhot 32b), and this ruling
was codified by Maimonides (Hilkhot Rotzeah 11:4) and the Shulhan Arukh
(Hoshen Mishpat 427:8). Maimonides understands this obligation to
include both positive aspects, such as regular exercise and the
seeking out of proper medical care, as well as negative ones, such
as refraining from damaging of one's body through the consumption
of harmful foods or drugs. [Hilkhot Deot, 4:1ff
Rabbi David Golinkin, a member of the Masorti movement's Va'ad
Halakha (law committee) ruled that that smoking is prohibited by
Jewish law. See his essay in Moment Magazine, Oct. 1991, pp.14-15.
The full version of this responsa appears in the teshuvot of the Vaad,
volume 4, 37-52 with an English summary. The Vaad said that smoking is
absolutely forbidden by Jewish law.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
mar...@juno.com
In article <35742...@news.ic.sunysb.edu>,
Interesting! The response from the O rabbis I asked about this were along the
lines of "not allowed, but not forbidden either" and "Hashem watches over
children and fools" (smokers being fools in this case). Smoking is rather
insidious. I suspect that even if , e.g., the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZY"A has
forbidden his chasidim to smoke, many would've continued.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Money is a beautiful thing: brilliant in conception, ingenious in
design, versatile in use, and awesome in power.
Micha Berger
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:39:13 GMT, mar...@juno.com wrote:
: Interesting! The response from the O rabbis I asked about this were along the
: lines of "not allowed, but not forbidden either" and "Hashem watches over
: children and fools" (smokers being fools in this case). Smoking is rather
: insidious. I suspect that even if , e.g., the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZY"A has
: forbidden his chasidim to smoke, many would've continued.
Notably, HaRav Ovadia Yosef forbad smoking. And, unlike most of his rulings,
it hasn't had much effect on the observant Sepharadi community.
Frankly, I think this is the real reason O Rabbis don't forbid
I had the honor of studying under Rabbi Nissan Alpert zt"l, Rav Moshe
Feinstein's talmud muvhak (student protege). Rav Nissin chain smoked cigars
-- except during shi'ur (class), when he had consideration for us students.
But we'd come back from lunch and we'd see him sitting next to the window, a
sefer (book) and notebook in hand, puffing clouds out the window r"l.
When I came back from Israel (and went to Rav Dovid zt"l's shiur -- I was one
fortunate YU boy!) Rav Nissin was a changed man. Cancer had taken its toll.
Rav Moshe was also sick, he passed away not long after Rav Nissin did. But
even so, it bothered me that Rav Moshe didn't ban smoking after seeing his
beloved student of 4 decades suffer.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5826 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 3-Jun-98)
Jonathan J. Baker
>> >> If I am not mistaken, the CLJS forbade smoking.
>> >Could you verify this? More power to them if it's true. Do you know
>> >if the prohibition is accepted by the rank-and-file?
>> Conservative rabbis have issued responsa banning the smoking of
>> cigarettes. The Rabbinical Assembly has officially backed these responsa
>> with a resolution passed in 1982.
>> Rabbi David Golinkin, a member of the Masorti movement's Va'ad
>> Halakha (law committee) ruled that that smoking is prohibited by
>> Jewish law. See his essay in Moment Magazine, Oct. 1991, pp.14-15.
>> The full version of this responsa appears in the teshuvot of the Vaad,
>> volume 4, 37-52 with an English summary. The Vaad said that smoking is
>> absolutely forbidden by Jewish law.
>Interesting! The response from the O rabbis I asked about this were along the
>lines of "not allowed, but not forbidden either" and "Hashem watches over
>children and fools" (smokers being fools in this case). Smoking is rather
>insidious. I suspect that even if , e.g., the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZY"A has
>forbidden his chasidim to smoke, many would've continued.
I had heard in someone's name, it might have been Reb Moshe Sez, that
there was a ruling that it is forbidden to start smoking, but once
addicted, one was not required to stop.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
If the cigarette smoke bothers a nonsmoker, then it is forbidden for that
person to smoke (Iggrot Moshe Choshen Mishpat Chelek Bet Siman 18). The Iggrot
Moshe (in Siman 76) says it's strongly suggested that those who study Torah
should refrain from ever smoking in the first place and take up the
habit. (The Iggrot Moshe on Yoreh Deah Chelek Bet Siman 49 also discusses
smoking and it is here that he states :" Hashem watches over children and
fools").
The Tzitz Eliezer (Rav Waldenberg) did state (in a newspaper article) that
it is forbidden by halacha to smoke.
Josh
>
> --
> Jonathan Baker
> jjb...@panix.com
Moshe Shulman
>From: jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>>Interesting! The response from the O rabbis I asked about this were
along the
>>lines of "not allowed, but not forbidden either" and "Hashem watches
over
>>children and fools" (smokers being fools in this case). Smoking is
rather
>>insidious. I suspect that even if , e.g., the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZY"A
has
>>forbidden his chasidim to smoke, many would've continued.
>I had heard in someone's name, it might have been Reb Moshe Sez, that
>there was a ruling that it is forbidden to start smoking, but once
>addicted, one was not required to stop.
I have heard my Rebbe say that one should not smoke, and that had the
problems with it been known to Chazal they would have forbidden it.
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website
Michael Shimshoni
In article <6l3n2d$pem$1...@news1.deshaw.com%
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org% writes:
%On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:39:13 GMT, mar...@juno.com wrote:
%: Interesting! The response from the O rabbis I asked about this were along the
%: lines of "not allowed, but not forbidden either" and "Hashem watches over
%: children and fools" (smokers being fools in this case). Smoking is rather
%: insidious. I suspect that even if , e.g., the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZY"A has
%: forbidden his chasidim to smoke, many would've continued.
%
%Notably, HaRav Ovadia Yosef forbad smoking. And, unlike most of his rulings,
%it hasn't had much effect on the observant Sepharadi community.
Not even on his very own Der`i who still smokes his pipe in public.
OTOH when R. Yosef came out against wigs (sheitels) for women, Mrs
Der`i who used to wear a wig stopped doing so and covered her head
with cloth plus a hat. It seems easier to change your wife's
head cover than stop smoking...
%Frankly, I think this is the real reason O Rabbis don't forbid
Cowards! What kind of leaders are they? Just trying to make the
life of us poor `hilonim misserable!
%I had the honor of studying under Rabbi Nissan Alpert zt"l, Rav Moshe
%Feinstein's talmud muvhak (student protege). Rav Nissin chain smoked cigars
%-- except during shi'ur (class), when he had consideration for us students.
%But we'd come back from lunch and we'd see him sitting next to the window, a
%sefer (book) and notebook in hand, puffing clouds out the window r"l.
%
%When I came back from Israel (and went to Rav Dovid zt"l's shiur -- I was one
%fortunate YU boy!) Rav Nissin was a changed man. Cancer had taken its toll.
%Rav Moshe was also sick, he passed away not long after Rav Nissin did. But
%even so, it bothered me that Rav Moshe didn't ban smoking after seeing his
%beloved student of 4 decades suffer.
%Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5826 days!
Michael Shimshoni
Zev Sero
On Wed, 03 Jun 1998 13:39:13 GMT, mar...@juno.com wrote:
>Interesting! The response from the O rabbis I asked about this were along the
>lines of "not allowed, but not forbidden either" and "Hashem watches over
>children and fools" (smokers being fools in this case). Smoking is rather
>insidious. I suspect that even if , e.g., the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZY"A has
>forbidden his chasidim to smoke, many would've continued.
Rabbi Bleich ruled that it is permitted, because it does not pose a
direct or immediate threat to life. When people cross an unsound
bridge, occasionally they die from it. Nobody smokes a cigarette and
drops dead; on the contrary, there is no way to link any one cigarette
with a decrease in health. All we have is a statistical link - people
who smoke have a higher chance of developing cancer and other diseases,
and the more they smoke the higher this risk gets. From this we can
deduce that each cigarette past some safe dosage increases the
probability that years later things will go wrong, but that doesn't
make the cigarette into a possible cause of death, which could make
it forbidden under `and you shall be very careful of your lives'.
However wise it may be to recommend that people not smoke, and I know of
no Rabbis who would not make such a recommendation, smoking simply does
not fit the model of things that chazal forbade under `and you shall be
very careful...', so I can't see what justification there could be for
banning it.
Furthermore, there is almost certainly a safe dosage; one cigarette on
Purim will not do any harm at all. I don't think halacha has a category
of something that is permitted on occasion, but forbidden as a habit.
Each instance of smoking in itself is not a danger, so how could it be
forbidden? Unless one wants to treat this as a case of `chatzi shiur',
of course...
--
Zev Sero, posting from Toronto - support Toronto in '03
zs...@bigfoot.com
Harvey S. Cohen
zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) wrote:
>[sd]
>However wise it may be to recommend that people not smoke, and I know of
>no Rabbis who would not make such a recommendation, smoking simply does
>not fit the model of things that chazal forbade under `and you shall be
>very careful...', so I can't see what justification there could be for
>banning it.
>
>Furthermore, there is almost certainly a safe dosage; one cigarette on
>Purim will not do any harm at all. I don't think halacha has a category
>of something that is permitted on occasion, but forbidden as a habit.
>Each instance of smoking in itself is not a danger, so how could it be
>forbidden? Unless one wants to treat this as a case of `chatzi shiur',
>of course...
I think that this argument gives inadequate attention to the addictive quality
of nicotine. A dose that is "safe" in and of itself may have an unacceptable
probability of leading to addiction. The addiction, in turn, presents a variety
of risks. These include but certainly are not limited to cancer, lung diseases,
and heart disease. They also include things like dying by fire, long-term
poisoning one's family, and punching somebody because one is irritable from
withdrawal.
Please note that I have absolutely no idea whether smoking is properly permitted
al pi halacha or not. I just wanted to contribute some thought to the
discussion.
--
hsc...@att.com_(Harvey S. Cohen)
HildaR1
>HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: Women and aliyot
>From: Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca>
>Date: Mon, May 25, 1998 14:21 EDT
>Message-id: <3569B6C5...@ibd.nrc.ca>
>
>Ethel Jean Saltz wrote:
>
><snip description of Adult Bat Mitzvah, which is great>
>
>However:
>
>> Since then, the Conservative Movement has taken on some of the
>> practices of the Reform and both of them should thank Rabbi Mordecai
>Kaplan > for all this, especially we Jewish women.
>
>No, they haven't, except for calling up women. If anything, Reform is
>now moving closer to the practices of the Conservative movement.
>
>
>--
>Dr. Hadass Eviatar (XX) mailto:evi...@ibd.nrc.ca
>National Research Council of Canada Phone: (204) 984 - 4535
>Institute for Biodiagnostics Fax: (204) 984 - 7036
>435 Ellice Avenue, Winnipeg,MB,R3B 1Y6 http://www.ibd.nrc.ca/~eviatar
>Obligatory disclaimer: NRC wouldn't dream of saying a thing like that.
>
>
Yes, my friend is all upset because her Reform temple aint what it used to
be---the men are actually sporting talitot and kipot.
I'd like to tell you about a most delight bat mitzvah we had observed in our
egalitarian Conservative temple today. The bat mitzvah did almost rhe entire
service ---read torah, haftorah, musoff, Kiddush and did everything flawless
and in a beautiful voice. The parts she did not do shachrit , some of the
torah portions and a few little things were done by her two older sisters who
themselves had beautiful ceremonies when they achieved bat mitzvah. It was
truly a pleasure . These 3 young women are products of a mixed marriage
(g)--ashkenazi/mizrach (Iraqii) and they are beautiful as well as talented.
Everytime I see them I imagine that they look like what Queen Esther must have
looked like. No young man ever preformed any better. I really pity the
Orthodox because they could not enjoy this wonderful morning.
Hilda
Ethel Jean Saltz
On 07 Jun 1998 03:10:56 GMT, hil...@aol.com (HildaR1) wrote:
>I'd like to tell you about a most delight bat mitzvah we had observed in our
>egalitarian Conservative temple today. The bat mitzvah did almost rhe entire
>service ---read torah, haftorah, musoff, Kiddush and did everything flawless
>and in a beautiful voice. The parts she did not do shachrit , some of the
>torah portions and a few little things were done by her two older sisters who
>themselves had beautiful ceremonies when they achieved bat mitzvah. It was
>truly a pleasure . These 3 young women are products of a mixed marriage
>(g)--ashkenazi/mizrach (Iraqii) and they are beautiful as well as talented.
>Everytime I see them I imagine that they look like what Queen Esther must have
>looked like. No young man ever preformed any better. I really pity the
>Orthodox because they could not enjoy this wonderful morning.
>
>Hilda
===========
I hope you gave thanks to GOD for Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan for all this.
Both Reform and Conservative, equally, have Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan to
thank for forming a more united Judaism based on American culture.
Which, when one thinks about it, really comes from TaNaK, since the
great many of the American Fathers were Deists. Some of them even
could translate their Hebrew prayers.
Of course, you realize it is only this year that the Reform have
officially joined the historical tribe (Miami Platform). It is sad,
about your friend's feelings. I can't understand them myself. I've
heard the same thing though. I also think Rabbi Zimmerman is going to
make a big difference in the Reform Rabbinate.
It would also be interesting to find out how much influence having a
German background makes in one's attitude toward religion, in general.
I've just discovered that it makes a difference in religious music, in
my music appreciation class. I even read MEIN KAMPF differently since
I've taken this music appreciation class. Boy, was Hitler ever a true
German. Thus, this prevented him from accepting Jews as equals,
although the German Jews thought they were. I doubt that Germans
consider German Jews to be equal even now. So how about the German in
the Reform Jew? Weren't the early Reform predominantly REAL Germans?
Joshua Lee
> From: kai...@physiology.pnb.sunsyb.edu (Robert Kaiser)
>
> hale...@aol.com (Halevalaw) says:
> > Do people really want to do away with dozens of biblical
> >laws pertaining to the Temple ritual?
>
> They already are passe! And this happened nearly 2,000 years ago.
No they are not passe. After all, Ezekiel prophecies about the 3rd Beis
Hamikdash, may it be rebuilt speediliy and in our time. In fact, the Talmud,
the Rambam's Yad, and all other classical Jewish sources agree that the Temple
will be rebuilt during the messianic era. The only difference of opinion is
will it be rebuilt in a miraculous way or not.
It was only Reform, and the Conservative movement following their lead, who
decided that the halachos connected with the Beis Hamidkash were "passe". The
rest of us pray for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the return of the
korbanos.
--
Joshu...@f201.n278.z1.fidonet.org
... nfx v2.8 [C0000]
Hadass Eviatar
Joshua Lee wrote:
> It was only Reform, and the Conservative movement following their lead, who
> decided that the halachos connected with the Beis Hamidkash were "passe". The
> rest of us pray for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the return of the
> korbanos.
>
Just a small correction here: we Conservatives also pray for the
rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of the Temple. We also read
about the korbanot at the appropriate times.
There is reason to believe (based on some sources) that *animal*
sacrifices will no longer be necessary when the Mashiach comes. But
there are plenty of others.
Jonathan J. Baker
>> It was only Reform, and the Conservative movement following their lead, who
>> decided that the halachos connected with the Beis Hamidkash were "passe". The
>> rest of us pray for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the return of the
>> korbanos.
>Just a small correction here: we Conservatives also pray for the
>rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of the Temple. We also read
>about the korbanot at the appropriate times.
If you use Bokser. Silverman and Harlow differ, and put the sacrifical
references in past tense.
>There is reason to believe (based on some sources) that *animal*
>sacrifices will no longer be necessary when the Mashiach comes. But
>there are plenty of others.
I've heard this, but I've never seen an actual source
aside from the usual appeal to the Rambam's Guide, which
is clearly bogus (given the amount of time he spends on
sacrifical halacha in the Yad)
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Michael Shimshoni
In article <35801CF1...@ibd.nrc.ca%
Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca% writes:
%Joshua Lee wrote:
%> It was only Reform, and the Conservative movement following their lead, who
%> decided that the halachos connected with the Beis Hamidkash were "passe". The
%> rest of us pray for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the return of the
%> korbanos.
%>
%
%Just a small correction here: we Conservatives also pray for the
%rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of the Temple. We also read
%about the korbanot at the appropriate times.
%
%There is reason to believe (based on some sources) that *animal*
%sacrifices will no longer be necessary when the Mashiach comes. But
%there are plenty of others.
"others", do you mean human sacrifices like Avraham and son or
Yifta`h and daughter?
%Kol tuv, Hadass
Michael Shimshoni
Hadass Eviatar
>
> references in past tense.
Notice that I didn't say we pray for the reinstitution of sacrifices,
just for the rebuilding of the Jerusalem and of the Temple.
>
> >There is reason to believe (based on some sources) that *animal*
> >sacrifices will no longer be necessary when the Mashiach comes. But
> >there are plenty of others.
>
> I've heard this, but I've never seen an actual source
> aside from the usual appeal to the Rambam's Guide, which
> is clearly bogus (given the amount of time he spends on
> sacrifical halacha in the Yad)
What did Rav Kook say about it, does anybody know? I will try (bli
neder) to remember to look into my book about Judaism and Vegetarianism
this Shabbat, and see if I can find any quotes from him.
Hadass Eviatar
Michael Shimshoni wrote:
>
> In article <35801CF1...@ibd.nrc.ca%
> Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca% writes:
> %
> %sacrifices will no longer be necessary when the Mashiach comes. But
> %there are plenty of others.
>
> "others", do you mean human sacrifices like Avraham and son or
> Yifta`h and daughter?
Are you paying me back for having thought, even briefly, that you might
have changed your spots? 8-) I was referring to sacrifices of bread,
first fruits, etc. Not to mention prayer.
Robert Kaiser
MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) says:
Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca% writes:
>%Just a small correction here: we Conservatives also pray for the
>%rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of the Temple. We also read
>%about the korbanot at the appropriate times.
>%There is reason to believe (based on some sources) that *animal*
>%sacrifices will no longer be necessary when the Mashiach comes. But
>%there are plenty of others.
>"others", do you mean human sacrifices like Avraham and son or
>Yifta`h and daughter?
How can you accuse Hadass of praying to institute the sacrifice
and murder of human beings? Please don't ever say anything like this,
even as a sarcastic joke. As you might well be aware, this also happens
to be the same kind of anti-Jewish propaganda that the Syrians and Ku
Klux Klan use to demonize Jews.
Hadasss was certainly referring to non-animal sacrifices, such
as grain and wine. I don't think anyone should be offeneded at a
wheat offering, nu?
Robert Kaiser
Richard Schultz
Hadass Eviatar (evi...@ibd.nrc.ca) wrote:
: Just a small correction here: we Conservatives also pray for the
: rebuilding of Jerusalem, and the rebuilding of the Temple. We also read
: about the korbanot at the appropriate times.
Only those Conservative Jews who pray on weekdays! Also note that the
korbanot section of the mussaf is now considered "optional", so not all
Conservative Jews are reading them at the "appropriate" times.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --
Zev Sero
On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:02:33 -0500, Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca>
wrote:
>> >There is reason to believe (based on some sources) that *animal*
>> >sacrifices will no longer be necessary when the Mashiach comes. But
>> >there are plenty of others.
>>
>> I've heard this, but I've never seen an actual source
>> aside from the usual appeal to the Rambam's Guide, which
>> is clearly bogus (given the amount of time he spends on
>> sacrifical halacha in the Yad)
>
>What did Rav Kook say about it, does anybody know? I will try (bli
>neder) to remember to look into my book about Judaism and Vegetarianism
>this Shabbat, and see if I can find any quotes from him.
I'm not sure exactly what R Kook may have said about it, but one thing
I *am* sure of, and that is that he never said, or even hinted, that
the animal sacrifices will not be resumed. If he had said that, he
would have been left with no followers in less time than it takes to
say `niduy, shamta, arur'. I can only speculate that the persistent
rumours that he said something like that were originally vicious
slanders by his opponents, with no basis in fact.
--
Zev Sero Programming: the art of debugging an empty text file
zs...@bigfoot.com
Simcha Streltsov
Zev Sero (zs...@bigfoot.com) wrote:
: would have been left with no followers in less time than it takes to
: say `niduy, shamta, arur'. I can only speculate that the persistent
someone quoted to me in the name of the Satmar Rav:
what is the difference between my hasidim and other hasidim?
if their Rebbe will say "you can eat ham", they'll say
"Ham? probably Rebbe said _ram_ and we were mistaken".
my hasidim will say: "sheigetz"
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
Alan Pfeffer
In article <36619fa9....@news.idt.net>, Zev Sero (zs...@bigfoot.com)
wrote (edited):
> On Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:02:33 -0500, Hadass Eviatar <evi...@ibd.nrc.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >> >There is reason to believe (based on some sources) that *animal*
> >> >sacrifices will no longer be necessary when the Mashiach comes. But
> >> >there are plenty of others.
> >>
> >> I've heard this, but I've never seen an actual source...
> >
> >What did Rav Kook say about it, does anybody know? ...
>
> I'm not sure exactly what R Kook may have said about it, but one thing
> I *am* sure of, and that is that he never said, or even hinted, that
> the animal sacrifices will not be resumed. If he had said that, he
> would have been left with no followers in less time than it takes to
> say `niduy, shamta, arur'. I can only speculate that the persistent
> rumours that he said something like that were originally vicious
> slanders by his opponents, with no basis in fact.
R. Menahem of Galya, a fifth generation tanna, is quoted (in Leviticus
Rabbah 9:7 and 27:12 and Midrash Tanhuma Emor 14) as saying "In the world
to come all sacrifices wil be dispensed with but the Thanksgiving [todah]
sacrifice will not be dispensed with." A commentary I have seen explains
that actually only private sacrifices are meant, but I suppose it is not
impossible to take R. Menahem at his word.
Getting from there to the abolition of meat sacrifices is another
question. The todah sacrifice seems from the written Torah to be a type of
shelamim sacrifice (Lev. 7:11-15), which involves an animal as well as
baked goods. Nehama Leibowitz ( New Studies in Vayikra, Tzav 3, page 82)
cites the Ha'amek Davar of R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv) for the
statement that "the leavened loaves constitute the main purpose of the
[todah] offering." I suppose one might stretch to a claim when all
sacrifices are dispensed with except the todah, what will be kept of the
todah is what is distinctive to it, the bread.
Leibowitz (Vayikra 4, page 43) gives the following quote from Rav
Kook, Olat Re'iya, page 292: "Since animals possess no mind, they attain
their essential perfection only through being sacrificed to God with the
offering up of their blood and fat -- the repositories of their vitality.
The intelligent human being, on the other hand, grasps the essence of the
sacrificial ritual, and draws closer to God by means of his mind. However,
by the end of time, the knowledge of the Lord will extend to the animals
also, as stated by Isaiah: 'They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy
mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord' (11:9),
whereupon this offering -- the vegetarian minhah, 'will be pleasant to the
Lord, as in the days of old and as in former years'."
She also refers to R. Kook's discussion of slaughtering animals in
Tallelei Orot, which she says she quotes in her Iyunim B'Sefer Bereshit
page 55. I do not have this book, but perhaps someone else can track down
the reference there or in her Studies in Bereshit, page 77.
In the meantime I am curious about the "vicious slanders by his [Rav
Kook's] opponents." Which of his oponents engaged in vicious slanders?
Alan Pfeffer
apfe...@videotron.ca
Micha Berger
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998 20:40:54 GMT, Alan Pfeffer <apfe...@NOSPAM.videotron.ca> wrote:
: R. Menahem of Galya, a fifth generation tanna, is quoted (in Leviticus
: Rabbah 9:7 and 27:12 and Midrash Tanhuma Emor 14) as saying "In the world
: to come all sacrifices wil be dispensed with but the Thanksgiving [todah]
: sacrifice will not be dispensed with." A commentary I have seen explains
: that actually only private sacrifices are meant, but I suppose it is not
: impossible to take R. Menahem at his word.
My understanding, also from the commentary in my Medrash Rabba, was that he
was saying that since there will be no sin, there will be no call for
sin-expiating offerings. That leaves the Todah (and the Pesach, but the Pesach
is structured like a communal sacrifice in other ways as well) as the only
personal offering.
This is not to say they'll be abolished from the law books. Rather, the
opportunity to give one will never arise.
This kills Alan's next "stretch":
: Nehama Leibowitz ( New Studies in Vayikra, Tzav 3, page 82)
: cites the Ha'amek Davar of R. Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv) for the
: statement that "the leavened loaves constitute the main purpose of the
: [todah] offering." I suppose one might stretch to a claim when all
: sacrifices are dispensed with except the todah, what will be kept of the
: todah is what is distinctive to it, the bread.
Since the tanna isn't understood as actually aboloshing any offerings, but
rather announcing that they'll be moot, you have nothing to stretch from.
This is actually a pretty strong claim, one in opposition to Sh'muel's "There
is no difference between this world and the days of the messiah except being
ruled by [others'] kings", a position supported by Maimonides, but not
Nachmanides.
Thank you very much for the quoting and paraphrasing of Nechama Leibowitz. Her
divrei Torah are consistantly excellent.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5839 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 17-Jun-98)
Nan Walker
My apologies if this topic has been done before, but I do wonder why
there doesn't seem to be any reference to cats of the housecat kind in
all Tanakh. The Lion of Judah does not fit my definition of "cat" here,
although I welcome any reasonable arguments for or against the inclusion
of kitties in the Bible.
It has been suggested that the Egyptians' worship of the cat turned the
children of Israel off to cats forever, but that doesn't make sense to
me, even more so because Moses doesn't mention them (does he?) one way
or the other. It seems cats are exempt from sacrifice - because they are
not only useful but cuter than ox or lamb and can sit on your lap?
Nevertheless any farmer will find it tough going without some cats and
our ancestors did farm, or at least glean.
Any ideas?
Zev Sero
On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, apfe...@NOSPAM.videotron.ca (Alan Pfeffer) wrote:
> R. Menahem of Galya, a fifth generation tanna, is quoted (in Leviticus
>Rabbah 9:7 and 27:12 and Midrash Tanhuma Emor 14) as saying "In the world
>to come all sacrifices wil be dispensed with but the Thanksgiving [todah]
>sacrifice will not be dispensed with." A commentary I have seen explains
>that actually only private sacrifices are meant, but I suppose it is not
>impossible to take R. Menahem at his word.
Well, it is impossible, because if he had meant it literally, then he
would have been a heretic, and his words would never have made it into
the Medrash Rabba or the Tanchuma. Even referring to all private
sacrifices being abolished seems far too much. I would read this in
the same light as the other famous lines about how `all x will be
abolished except y', which are generally taken to mean either:
a) `even if x were ever to be abolished, y would not be', the point
being to stress the importance of y within class x; or
b) that in Moshiach's times the world will be steeped in so much
holiness that x will no longer seem special or noteworthy, but that
y will stand out even then.
> Leibowitz (Vayikra 4, page 43) gives the following quote from Rav
>Kook, Olat Re'iya, page 292: "Since animals possess no mind, they attain
>their essential perfection only through being sacrificed to God with the
>offering up of their blood and fat -- the repositories of their vitality.
>The intelligent human being, on the other hand, grasps the essence of the
>sacrificial ritual, and draws closer to God by means of his mind. However,
>by the end of time, the knowledge of the Lord will extend to the animals
>also, as stated by Isaiah: 'They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy
>mountain, for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord' (11:9),
>whereupon this offering -- the vegetarian minhah, 'will be pleasant to the
>Lord, as in the days of old and as in former years'."
This reference to a time when nature is so changed that animals exhibit
intelligence can clearly not be `the days of Moshiach', but `the Next
World', i.e. after the Resurrection. I can certainly see that if we
come across talking animals, we would have no right to sacrifice them;
and if there are no dumb animals left, then animal sacrifices would be
as impossible as they are now.
> In the meantime I am curious about the "vicious slanders by his [Rav
>Kook's] opponents." Which of his oponents engaged in vicious slanders?
I don't know names, but he was not a popular person in some quarters, so
it would not surprise me to find that any nasty rumour I heard about him
had been circulated by his enemies. Many people opposed his Zionist
philosophy, and would have been delighted to find out that he was a
heretic, so that they could just dismiss him and his followers from
consideration. I did say that I was speculating that this story was the
result of such a process.
Zev Sero
On 17 Jun 1998 21:15:33 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>My understanding, also from the commentary in my Medrash Rabba, was that he
>was saying that since there will be no sin, there will be no call for
>sin-expiating offerings. That leaves the Todah (and the Pesach, but the Pesach
>is structured like a communal sacrifice in other ways as well) as the only
>personal offering.
What of private olot, for festivals (olat re'iyah), or just because?
And what of shlamim, whether for festivals (chagiga and simcha), tithes,
first-borns, or just because? Even sin-offerings can't completely
disappear - what of the sacrifices of a new mother?
Art Kamlet
In article <35882E...@epix.net>, Nan Walker <pink...@epix.net> wrote:
>It seems cats are exempt from sacrifice - because they are
>not only useful but cuter than ox or lamb and can sit on your lap?
Cats an dogs and lions and elephants are not kosher animals, so
cannot be offered as a sacrifice.
As far back as Noah, it is clear that "clean" or kosher animals
only can be sacrificed.
--
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
Art Kamlet
In article <35ae7c5e....@news.idt.net>,
Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>This reference to a time when nature is so changed that animals exhibit
>intelligence can clearly not be `the days of Moshiach', but `the Next
>World', i.e. after the Resurrection. I can certainly see that if we
>come across talking animals, we would have no right to sacrifice them;
>and if there are no dumb animals left, then animal sacrifices would be
>as impossible as they are now.
Simply talking doesn't indicate the ability to know right from
wrong, good from evil. Parrots and myna birds talk. Who knows
if other animals ta;lk in a language we just don;t understand?
Rashi says the difference between animals and people is that
people know right from wrong (they ate from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil.)
R
Kook's opponents, and that he "was not popular" among the pre-WWII
Rabbinate of Eastern Europe. Perhaps he can list some of these opponents
for us.
Eliot Shimoff
Consider the implications of the following story (perhaps apocryphal):
The Chofetz Chaim was asked why he had never visited (what was at that
time called) Palestine. He replied: Were I to visit, I would, of course,
have to pay my respects to the great scholars there. If I went to Rav
Kook before visiting Rav Sonnenfeld, Rav Kook's followers would loudly
proclaim that I honored him over Rav Sonnenfeld. If I visited Rav
Sonnenfeld first, _his_ followers would use that to denigrate the
greatness of Rav Kook.
Perhaps it was not the pre-WWII _rabbinate_, but their followers who
were the most vociferous opponents of Rav Kook. There were, after
all, real halakhic differences over such issues as what to do about
Shmita. (Recall the attacks on R. Yitzchak Elkhanan Spektor when he
ruled that is was acceptable to sell land to nonJews to resolve the
Shmita problem.)
--
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) | Interested in Talmud study
Proud saba of Tani, T'mima, | by email?
Moshe, Hillel,Tsivia & Chani | Visit my website ...
(Space reserved for new entries) | http://www.umbc.edu/~shimoff
Micha Berger
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 02:44:57 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: Well, it is impossible, because if he had meant it literally, then he
: would have been a heretic, and his words would never have made it into
: the Medrash Rabba or the Tanchuma.
Like Hillel's opinion on moshiach?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5840 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 18-Jun-98)
Zev Sero
On 18 Jun 1998 12:12:05 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 02:44:57 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>: Well, it is impossible, because if he had meant it literally, then he
>: would have been a heretic, and his words would never have made it into
>: the Medrash Rabba or the Tanchuma.
>
>Like Hillel's opinion on moshiach?
R Hillel's opinion wasn't obviously heretical, since he didn't deny
that God had promised us Moshiach, but merely that he had already come,
and died, and wasn't coming back. After Moshiach *has* come, it
certainly won't be heretical to agree with R Hillel that he won't be
coming again; R Hillel's error was in being a premature post-messianist.
Nowadays we would call anyone who agreed with R Hillel a heretic, but at
the time his opinion wasn't considered heretical, because the halacha
hadn't been decided yet. An opinion that the sacrifices are only
temporary seems to me to be in a different category; it's clearly
inconsistent with the Torah.
Micha Berger
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 02:44:57 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: Well, it is impossible, because if he had meant it literally, then he
: would have been a heretic, and his words would never have made it into
: the Medrash Rabba or the Tanchuma.
On 18 Jun 1998 12:12:05 GMT, I overly-snidely (Sorry!) replied:
> Like Hillel's opinion on moshiach?
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 13:58:53 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: R Hillel's error was in being a premature post-messianist.
Interesting take.
: Nowadays we would call anyone who agreed with R Hillel a heretic, but at
: the time his opinion wasn't considered heretical, because the halacha
: hadn't been decided yet.
This was actually my point. Is it so clear that the idea that halachah stands
unchanged even post-moshiach true, never mind halachicly mandated?
You and I agree with the tanna Sh'mual and the Rambam, that the messianic
age is part of this world, the olam haba is the spiritual afterlife, and
that life after the messiah will be much like this one. However, acording
to the Ramban, the messianic age IS olam haba -- it's literally a whole new
world, to be ushered in by many miracles. There are a number of kabbalistic
writings suggesting that certain mitzvos will change. For example, that
Pesach will be replaced by a new Exodus holiday; that first-born sons will
get the priesthood back from Aaron's family, &c.
Albert
> In article <35882E...@epix.net>, Nan Walker <pink...@epix.net> wrote:
> >It seems cats are exempt from sacrifice - because they are
> >not only useful but cuter than ox or lamb and can sit on your lap?
>
> Cats an dogs and lions and elephants are not kosher animals, so
> cannot be offered as a sacrifice.
>
> As far back as Noah, it is clear that "clean" or kosher animals
> only can be sacrificed.
>
> --
> Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
OY! The Bible mention the ass, the camel, the lion, the wolf.... none of
whom are kasher.
--
God never died, it never existed
Albert
> My apologies if this topic has been done before, but I do wonder why
> there doesn't seem to be any reference to cats of the housecat kind in
> all Tanakh. The Lion of Judah does not fit my definition of "cat" here,
> although I welcome any reasonable arguments for or against the inclusion
> of kitties in the Bible.
>
> It has been suggested that the Egyptians' worship of the cat turned the
> children of Israel off to cats forever, but that doesn't make sense to
> me, even more so because Moses doesn't mention them (does he?) one way
> or the other. It seems cats are exempt from sacrifice - because they are
> not only useful but cuter than ox or lamb and can sit on your lap?
>
> Nevertheless any farmer will find it tough going without some cats and
> our ancestors did farm, or at least glean.
>
> Any ideas?
That is a great question. It is inconceivable that they did not have cats.
You are right!
Simcha Streltsov
Eliot Shimoff (shi...@umbc.edu) wrote:
: The Chofetz Chaim was asked why he had never visited (what was at that
: time called) Palestine. He replied: Were I to visit, I would, of course,
: have to pay my respects to the great scholars there. If I went to Rav
: Kook before visiting Rav Sonnenfeld, Rav Kook's followers would loudly
: proclaim that I honored him over Rav Sonnenfeld. If I visited Rav
: Sonnenfeld first, _his_ followers would use that to denigrate the
: greatness of Rav Kook.
that story also assumes that they are not going to come and great Ch.Ch.
together ...
that reminds of what I heard from R Steinsaltz - maybe
it is an old joke - it says somewhere that when all the gedolei
haDor will pray together on one street in Yerushalaim - Moshiach
will come. why then they dont just do it? - the correct reading is -
it will happen only when Moshiach will come
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>On 18 Jun 1998 12:12:05 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 02:44:57 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>: Well, it is impossible, because if he had meant it literally, then
he
>>: would have been a heretic, and his words would never have made it
into
>>: the Medrash Rabba or the Tanchuma.
>that God had promised us Moshiach, but merely that he had already
come,
>and died, and wasn't coming back. After Moshiach *has* come, it
Zev if that is what he said then he would definatly have been a
heretic. Did ou ever see how this was explained by the Sefer
HaIkkarim?
--
Moshe Shulman mshu...@ix.netcom.com 718-436-7705
http://www.pobox.com/~chassidus Chassidus Website
Jonathan J. Baker
In < mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>R Hillel's opinion wasn't obviously heretical, since he didn't deny
>>that God had promised us Moshiach, but merely that he had already
>>come, and died, and wasn't coming back.
>Zev if that is what he said then he would definatly have been a
>heretic. Did ou ever see how this was explained by the Sefer
>HaIkkarim?
Rav Soloveitchik explains Hillel II's opinion as "there won't be
a person qua moshiach, since there already was one. Rather, God
Himself will come and lead us in the final redemption."
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Zev Sero
On 18 Jun 1998 15:56:51 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>This was actually my point. Is it so clear that the idea that halachah stands
>unchanged even post-moshiach true, never mind halachicly mandated?
>
>You and I agree with the tanna Sh'mual and the Rambam, that the messianic
>age is part of this world, the olam haba is the spiritual afterlife, and
>that life after the messiah will be much like this one. However, acording
>to the Ramban, the messianic age IS olam haba -- it's literally a whole new
>world, to be ushered in by many miracles. There are a number of kabbalistic
>writings suggesting that certain mitzvos will change. For example, that
>Pesach will be replaced by a new Exodus holiday; that first-born sons will
>get the priesthood back from Aaron's family, &c.
Torah cannot change, no matter what happens. Nobody, including God
Himself, has the authority to change it. "`And this is the Torah' - no
prophet has the right to innovate anything from here on" (Megilla 3a).
Ramban's vision of a physical Next World is another issue; he's not
talking about Moshiach's times, but about after the Resurrection.
The `changes' that you mention are - AFAIK - generally understood to
be additions, not changes to existing laws. Yes, first-borns
and/or Leviyim will become Cohanim, but nobody suggests that Cohanim
will lose that status. God certainly retains the right to appoint new
Cohanim, either hereditary or for life; he did it with Pinchas, and I
know of nowhere where it says that he can't do it again. A new festival
may well be instituted to celebrate the Redemption, though it would have
to have the status of Rabbinic law, not Torah law; there's ample
precedent for such festivals, in the form of Chanukah and Purim. This
festival may well eclipse Pesach in its significance, but nobody says
that Pesach will disappear (cf the end of the 1st chapter of Brachot).
Zev Sero
On 18 Jun 1998 23:10:41 -0400, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
wrote:
Well, of course; Rashi says *that*. But that doesn't explain how
R Hillel could have denied that Moshiach was coming; my understanding
is that he did believe in Moshiach, but that it had already happened,
Moshiach had come and gone and there wasn't going to be any second
coming. The only thing wrong with his belief is that he was about
1600 years too early; very soon may we all believe as he did, because
it will be true :-)
Herman Rubin
In article <35c90a89....@news.idt.net>,
Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 1998 15:56:51 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
.....................
>Torah cannot change, no matter what happens. Nobody, including God
>Himself, has the authority to change it.
Even if this is so, do we have God's Torah? Or do we merely have what
people have thought was the Torah?
If it is God's Torah, it must agree with God's unbreakable laws, the
laws of the behavior of the physical world. As has been amply pointed
out, what we have written does not.
"`And this is the Torah' - no
>prophet has the right to innovate anything from here on" (Megilla 3a).
And where does this come from? Oral tradition is notoriously unreliable,
except for a few mysteries carried by a selective priesthood. This is
not what is claimed.
.....................
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Moshe Shulman
>From: jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>In < mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman) writes:
>>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>>R Hillel's opinion wasn't obviously heretical, since he didn't deny
>>>that God had promised us Moshiach, but merely that he had already
>>>come, and died, and wasn't coming back.
>>Zev if that is what he said then he would definatly have been a
>>heretic. Did ou ever see how this was explained by the Sefer
>>HaIkkarim?
>Rav Soloveitchik explains Hillel II's opinion as "there won't be
>a person qua moshiach, since there already was one. Rather, God
>Himself will come and lead us in the final redemption."
That is just a restatement of what Rashi appears to say. However that
is not what it says in Sefer HaIkkarim.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>>>heretic. Did ou ever see how this was explained by the Sefer
>>>HaIkkarim?
>>Rav Soloveitchik explains Hillel II's opinion as "there won't be
>>a person qua moshiach, since there already was one. Rather, God
>>Himself will come and lead us in the final redemption."
>R Hillel could have denied that Moshiach was coming; my understanding
>is that he did believe in Moshiach, but that it had already happened,
>Moshiach had come and gone and there wasn't going to be any second
>coming. The only thing wrong with his belief is that he was about
>1600 years too early; very soon may we all believe as he did, because
>it will be true :-)
Did you look at the sefer HaIkkarim? BTW, if your view was correct
then the question asked of Rabbi Hillel, would destroy his argument.
Alan Pfeffer
In article <6mbdc3$h4i$1...@news1.deshaw.com>, Micha Berger
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote (edited):
> On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 13:58:53 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> : Nowadays we would call anyone who agreed with R Hillel a heretic, but at
> : the time his opinion wasn't considered heretical, because the halacha
> : hadn't been decided yet.
>
> This was actually my point. Is it so clear that the idea that halachah stands
> unchanged even post-moshiach true, never mind halachicly mandated?
>
> You and I agree with the tanna Sh'mual and the Rambam, that the messianic
> age is part of this world, the olam haba is the spiritual afterlife, and
> that life after the messiah will be much like this one. However, acording
> to the Ramban, the messianic age IS olam haba -- it's literally a whole new
> world, to be ushered in by many miracles. There are a number of kabbalistic
> writings suggesting that certain mitzvos will change. For example, that
> Pesach will be replaced by a new Exodus holiday; that first-born sons will
> get the priesthood back from Aaron's family, &c.
Another example is the statement that "All the holidays in the future
will be dispensed with, but Purim will never be dispensed with," Midrash
Mishle 9. There is also the odd claim that pig will be kosher in the world
to come, criticized by R. Barukh Halevi Epstein in the Torah Temimah on
Lev. 11:7 (note 21).
The Yalqut Shimoni Nach 429 on Isaiah 26:2 goes a good deal further.
It says:"And the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and expounds a new Torah
that will be given in the future by the Messiah."
As for the quotation from Rav Kook that Nehama Leibowitz reproduced,
it seems to me (with all the qualifications necessary in interpreting an
excerpt in translation) it is a reference to the "Yehi Ratzon" prayer
(Ashkenaz version) at the close of the Amidah.
Rav Kook said: "However, by the end of time, the knowledge of the Lord
will extend to the animals, also, as stated by Isaiah ...[11:9] whereupon
this offering -- the vegetarian minhah -- 'will be pleasant to the Lord, as
in the days of old and as in former years.'"
The quote is from Malachi 3:4, and concludes the "Yehi Ratzon."
"May it be your will, HASHEM our God and the God of our forefathers,
that the Holy Temple be rebuilt, speedily in our days. Grant us our share
in Your Torah, and may we serve You there with reverence, as in days of old
and in former years. Then the offering ["minhat"] of Judah and Jerusalem
will be pleasing to HASHEM, as in days of old and in former years."
(ArtScroll translation of Yehi Ratzon)
The word "minhat," a form of "minhah," can indeed mean "offering" as
rendered by ArtScroll. But the minhah is also in a more limited sense a
non-meat offering.
Thus I am tentatively inclined to understand Rav Kook as reading
Malachi and Yehi Ratzon to say that when the Temple is rebuilt our
offerings will be minhahs in the limited "vegetarian" sense.
However, I am uncertain about the limits of legitimate discourse in
twentieth-century Orthodoxy. If this interpretation involves Rav Kook in
what would be regarded as heresy, then it must be mistaken.
Alan Pfeffer
apfe...@videotron.ca
Micha Berger
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:02:14 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: Torah cannot change, no matter what happens.
See Avodah Zarah 3a. It appears to say that conversions will cease. (That is,
no new converts.)
And then, of course, are the examples I already cited.
: Yes, first-borns
: and/or Leviyim will become Cohanim, but nobody suggests that Cohanim
: will lose that status.
Ok then. It still means that while pre-moshiach a bichor may not walk on
certain parts of the Temple mountain, post-moshiach he will be. If we could
establish the proper location for the mizbeiach, he is not alowed to be the
one to bring the offering -- but post-moshiach he would.
: A new festival
: may well be instituted to celebrate the Redemption, though it would have
: to have the status of Rabbinic law, not Torah law; there's ample
: precedent for such festivals, in the form of Chanukah and Purim. This
: festival may well eclipse Pesach in its significance, but nobody says
: that Pesach will disappear (cf the end of the 1st chapter of Brachot).
Actually, that's exactly what the Zohar says. I don't have my Chok LiYisrael
for Sh'mos with me, but I do remember that it says that Pesach won't be
celebrated. Perhaps what is meant is that it will be so eclipsed, it will be
as if...
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5841 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 19-Jun-98)
Micha Berger
On 18 Jun 1998 23:10:41 -0400, Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
: Rav Soloveitchik explains Hillel II's opinion as "there won't be
: a person qua moshiach, since there already was one. Rather, God
: Himself will come and lead us in the final redemption."
Still a halachicly prohibited belief. BTW, Rav Soloveitchik was quoting Rashi.
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
In article <35882E...@epix.net>, Nan Walker <pink...@epix.net> writes:
> My apologies if this topic has been done before, but I do wonder why
> there doesn't seem to be any reference to cats of the housecat kind in
> all Tanakh. The Lion of Judah does not fit my definition of "cat" here,
> although I welcome any reasonable arguments for or against the inclusion
> of kitties in the Bible.
Although the domestic cat wasn't mentioned in the TANACH, it is mentioned
extensively in the talmudic literature and its commentaries (a search
found: Rashi on Exodus 22; Mechilta on Parshat Mishpatim [Exodus], Breishit
Rabba 60:3, Tosephta in Bechorot 1:5, many times in the Talmud itself,
Rashi and Tosaphot on these talmudic sources, and of course the Rambam
and Shulchan Aruch on these sources).
Josh
Lyle Rooff
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote in message <1998Jun19.115604@hujicc>...
>In article <35882E...@epix.net>, Nan Walker <pink...@epix.net> writes:
>> My apologies if this topic has been done before, but I do wonder why
>> there doesn't seem to be any reference to cats of the housecat kind in
>> all Tanakh. The Lion of Judah does not fit my definition of "cat" here,
>> although I welcome any reasonable arguments for or against the inclusion
>> of kitties in the Bible.
>
>
>Although the domestic cat wasn't mentioned in the TANACH, it is mentioned
>extensively in the talmudic literature and its commentaries (a search
>found: Rashi on Exodus 22; Mechilta on Parshat Mishpatim [Exodus], Breishit
>Rabba 60:3, Tosephta in Bechorot 1:5, many times in the Talmud itself,
>Rashi and Tosaphot on these talmudic sources, and of course the Rambam
>and Shulchan Aruch on these sources).
>
For those of us who lack access to a good Jewish library, could you please
summarize in a paragraph or so what those sources say on the topic? As a cat
owner (or is it the other way around? :-)) I've wondered about it myself.
Eliyahu Rooff
Halevalaw
>From: hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
>Date: Fri, Jun 19, 1998 13:00 EDT
>Even if this is so, do we have God's Torah? Or do we merely have what
>people have thought was the Torah?
>
>If it is God's Torah, it must agree with God's unbreakable laws, the
>laws of the behavior of the physical world. >As has been amply pointed
>out, what we have written does not.
If one accepts the tradition regarding prophecy then yes. It is a divine
revelation. If that smply is unacceptable, it is doubtful whether one's
ancestors actually stood there. So says Maimonides.
To say the Torah does not agree with the halikhoth 'olam requires the cultural
apparatus necessary to read the Torah. A Western secularist cultural outlook
just does not cut it. Perhaps the linguistics influenced school of post
strucuralist criticism is the closest thing the West has to empathize with the
Tora. For example, to read the story of the Tree of Knowledge as actually
involving eating something, and actually then and only then becoming concious
of "right and wrong" is to misread the Tora.
To read the Tora with the literary categories of a foreign culture is to either
rape the Tora, or to steal it. So say the Rabbis.
>And where does this come from? Oral tradition is notoriously unreliable,
>except for a few mysteries carried by a selective priesthood. This is
>not what is claimed.
You judge from a point of view that has never experienced the systematized
transmission of an oral tradition. You simply cannot know. Eastern cultures
have successfully done this for centuries. Yemenite Tanaim (not the
historical, but the functional, usage) faithfully transmit the Mishnah by heart
over centuries. You too live in an oral tradition, actually, which has been,
in this case, unconciously, or at least unsystematically, transmitted to you.
But you have faithfully internalized its values and cultural forms none the
less.
Perhaps to criticize Tradiitonal Judaism and Rabbinic tradition so easily one
should have some internal and existential experience with it first at some
level of mastery. Nothing I have seen suggests such an ad intra experience on
your part.
Halevalaw
Albert
He did not answer your question at all isn't it? Why is the cat no
mentioned in the Tanach? Maybe the cat did not exist in Noach's time and it
evolved later long after the mythical flood?
Lyle Rooff
Albert wrote in message ...
He didn't answer the question I asked because I just asked it yesterday. The
question about the cat not being mentioned in the Tanach was someone else's
question, which he did answer, and I asked for elaboration.
As far as its existance during biblical times, that's not an issue. There
are thousands of animals that are not mentioned in the Tanach. What makes
the absence of the cat noteworthy is that it's a popular and useful
domesticated animal which was worshipped as a god by the Egyptians. (Cats,
by the way, have not forgotten this fact. That accounts for their attitude
toward humans. ;-))
Eliyahu Rooff
Albert
The whole Tanach is compilation of myths, story telling, mostly not based
on any historical fact. There is no archeological record of Jews ever being
slaves in Egypt. None of Noach and the great flood, Yehoshua's conquest of
Canaan, the walls of Yericho falling because of trumpets jamming in unison.
True enough not all animals are mentioned in the Tanach. The new world and
Australians can't be. Your question was about cats not mentioned in the
Tanach and indeed it isn't. Why? It is an excellent question. That Rashi or
some later myth pusher mentions cats is uninteresting. Why aren't cats
mentioned in the Tanach?
Zev Sero
On 19 Jun 1998 19:48:37 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:02:14 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>: Torah cannot change, no matter what happens.
>
>See Avodah Zarah 3a. It appears to say that conversions will cease. (That is,
>no new converts.)
Not only isn't this a change, but there's even a precedent. In Shlomo's
day there was so much incentive to be Jewish that the competent batei
din decided that they couldn't tell sincere candidates from insincere
ones, so they didn't accept anyone. When Moshiach comes, the same will
apply, and the batei din will behave exactly as they do today when they
can't tell whether the candidate is sincere. It's just that then, this
doubt will exist in every case. It would, of course, remain open to
candidates to prove their sincerity somehow, and get accepted, and there
may still be unofficial batei din performing conversions, as there were
in Shlomo's time.
>And then, of course, are the examples I already cited.
>: Yes, first-borns
>: and/or Leviyim will become Cohanim, but nobody suggests that Cohanim
>: will lose that status.
>Ok then. It still means that while pre-moshiach a bichor may not walk on
>certain parts of the Temple mountain, post-moshiach he will be. If we could
>establish the proper location for the mizbeiach, he is not alowed to be the
>one to bring the offering -- but post-moshiach he would.
But this isn't a change in halacha, and once again there's a precedent.
Hashem has always had the right to appoint new Cohanim - He did it for
Pinchas, and nowhere in the Torah did He say that He wouldn't do it
again. Any Navi could come along at any time and announce that Hashem
had told him that so-and-so has been appointed to the Kehuna, either for
all his generations, or as a Life Cohen, like Moshe.
>: festival may well eclipse Pesach in its significance, but nobody says
>: that Pesach will disappear (cf the end of the 1st chapter of Brachot).
>
>Actually, that's exactly what the Zohar says. I don't have my Chok LiYisrael
>for Sh'mos with me, but I do remember that it says that Pesach won't be
>celebrated. Perhaps what is meant is that it will be so eclipsed, it will be
>as if...
I searched for `BTL' and `PSCh' within 20 words of each other, and
couldn't find it. Could you give a reference?
Zev Sero
On 19 Jun 1998 19:05:07 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
wrote:
><The only thing wrong with [R Hillel's] belief is that he was about
>>1600 years too early; very soon may we all believe as he did, because
>>it will be true :-)
>Did you look at the sefer HaIkkarim? BTW, if your view was correct
>then the question asked of Rabbi Hillel, would destroy his argument.
Who says it didn't?
Herman Rubin
In article <359497c1...@news.idt.net>, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>On 19 Jun 1998 19:48:37 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:02:14 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>: Torah cannot change, no matter what happens.
>>See Avodah Zarah 3a. It appears to say that conversions will cease. (That is,
>>no new converts.)
>Not only isn't this a change, but there's even a precedent. In Shlomo's
>day there was so much incentive to be Jewish that the competent batei
>din decided that they couldn't tell sincere candidates from insincere
>ones, so they didn't accept anyone.
I keep seeing this weird statement. How close in time is there any
written evidence of this?
In fact, what is the earliest evidence that conversion was carried
out by a Beth Din? I suspect that it was like most of the other
religions; one took the appropriate vows in the presence of a priest,
and provided a sacrifice.
Moshe Shulman
>From: zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero)
>On 19 Jun 1998 19:05:07 GMT, mshu...@ix.netcom.com(Moshe Shulman)
>wrote:
>><The only thing wrong with [R Hillel's] belief is that he was about
>>>1600 years too early; very soon may we all believe as he did,
because
>>>it will be true :-)
>>Did you look at the sefer HaIkkarim? BTW, if your view was correct
>>then the question asked of Rabbi Hillel, would destroy his argument.
>Who says it didn't?
Sefer Haikkarim. :) I asked you to look there.
Micha Berger
On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 05:40:39 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: Not only isn't this a change, but there's even a precedent. In Shlomo's
: day there was so much incentive to be Jewish that the competent batei
: din decided that they couldn't tell sincere candidates from insincere
: ones, so they didn't accept anyone.
Except for Sh'lomo's wives -- some of whom were even over-hastily accepted?
I'll concede this point. The gemara accredits this attitude to David's day as
well. A far superior list of sources that suggest post-messianic changes in
halachah has already been posted, though, so the ball is still in play.
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5844 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 22-Jun-98)
Sheldon L. Glickler
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 07:02:14 GMT, zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) wrote:
>On 18 Jun 1998 15:56:51 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
>>This was actually my point. Is it so clear that the idea that halachah stands
>>unchanged even post-moshiach true, never mind halachicly mandated?
>>
>>You and I agree with the tanna Sh'mual and the Rambam, that the messianic
>>age is part of this world, the olam haba is the spiritual afterlife, and
>>that life after the messiah will be much like this one. However, acording
>>to the Ramban, the messianic age IS olam haba -- it's literally a whole new
>>world, to be ushered in by many miracles. There are a number of kabbalistic
>>writings suggesting that certain mitzvos will change. For example, that
>>Pesach will be replaced by a new Exodus holiday; that first-born sons will
>>get the priesthood back from Aaron's family, &c.
>
>Torah cannot change, no matter what happens. Nobody, including God
>Himself, has the authority to change it. "`And this is the Torah' - no
You mean the all-powerful God who "created the universe in only six
days" can't change "his own document"???? Wow! I can't even begin to
fathom how you could say this.
Shelly
Zev Sero
On 22 Jun 1998 17:30:57 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jun 1998 05:40:39 GMT, Zev Sero <zs...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>: Not only isn't this a change, but there's even a precedent. In Shlomo's
>: day there was so much incentive to be Jewish that the competent batei
>: din decided that they couldn't tell sincere candidates from insincere
>: ones, so they didn't accept anyone.
>
>Except for Sh'lomo's wives -- some of whom were even over-hastily accepted?
They were converted by unofficial ad hoc `batei din'; I assume that such
conversions will also happen when Moshiach comes - there's no way to
stop them.
Zev Sero
>>Torah cannot change, no matter what happens. Nobody, including God
>>Himself, has the authority to change it. "`And this is the Torah' - no
>You mean the all-powerful God who "created the universe in only six
>days" can't change "his own document"???? Wow! I can't even begin to
>fathom how you could say this.
Because He gave it to us. `It's not in heaven', and He has no more
authority to change it than anyone else. Even if He appeared to the
entire nation and told us that He'd changed His mind, and we're no
longer to follow this Torah but rather a new one, we're commanded to
ignore Him and stick to the Torah we've got. No `new testament' for us!
Jonathan J. Baker
In <> shel...@earthlink.net (Sheldon L. Glickler) writes:
>You mean the all-powerful God who "created the universe in only six
>days" can't change "his own document"???? Wow! I can't even begin to
>fathom how you could say this.
Because the Torah is itself an "eternal covenant" and incorporates
other "eternal covenants." By making it an "eternal covenant,"
God gave up His right to change it.
Furthermore, saying that God can change the Torah legitimizes the
Christians' abrogation of the Torah, and replacement of the Jews
as the chosen descendents of Abraham with the Christians.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Susan Cohen
Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> In <> shel...@earthlink.net (Sheldon L. Glickler) writes:
>
> >You mean the all-powerful God who "created the universe in only six
> >days" can't change "his own document"???? Wow! I can't even begin to
> >fathom how you could say this.
>
> Because the Torah is itself an "eternal covenant" and incorporates
> other "eternal covenants." By making it an "eternal covenant,"
> God gave up His right to change it.
Would it be better to say: "The Torah is whole & perfect. Of *course* He
could change it, but why would he?"
> Furthermore, saying that God can change the Torah legitimizes the
> Christians' abrogation of the Torah, and replacement of the Jews
> as the chosen descendents of Abraham with the Christians.
(Which also supports my version, above - thank you in hindsight!!)
Susan
Simcha Streltsov
Susan Cohen (ze...@smart.net) wrote:
: > other "eternal covenants." By making it an "eternal covenant,"
: > God gave up His right to change it.
: Would it be better to say: "The Torah is whole & perfect. Of *course* He
: could change it, but why would he?"
Hashem calls certain things in the Torah "eternal", should we trust
His word or not?
at a minimum, we should probably trust it absent direct revelation
of the opposite
am I contradicting Gemorah where R Eliezer appeals to miracles and
"voice of Heaven" in the halachik argument, but R Yehoshua & K
reply "Torah is on the Earth, not in Heaven" - or do we simply see
that minimal requirements for such revelation are beyond trivial
things like flying trees and voice from Heaven?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Sheldon L. Glickler
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 05:18:30 GMT, zs...@bigfoot.com (Zev Sero) wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:15:33 GMT, shel...@earthlink.net (Sheldon L.
>Glickler) wrote:
>
>>>Torah cannot change, no matter what happens. Nobody, including God
>>>Himself, has the authority to change it. "`And this is the Torah' - no
>
>>You mean the all-powerful God who "created the universe in only six
>>days" can't change "his own document"???? Wow! I can't even begin to
>>fathom how you could say this.
>
>Because He gave it to us. `It's not in heaven', and He has no more
>authority to change it than anyone else. Even if He appeared to the
>entire nation and told us that He'd changed His mind, and we're no
>longer to follow this Torah but rather a new one, we're commanded to
>ignore Him and stick to the Torah we've got. No `new testament' for us!
I give up. It is pointless to proceed.
Shelly
Sheldon L. Glickler
On 23 Jun 1998 22:33:58 GMT, sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) wrote:
>Susan Cohen (ze...@smart.net) wrote:
>
>: > other "eternal covenants." By making it an "eternal covenant,"
>: > God gave up His right to change it.
>
>: Would it be better to say: "The Torah is whole & perfect. Of *course* He
>: could change it, but why would he?"
>
>Hashem calls certain things in the Torah "eternal", should we trust
>His word or not?
>
>at a minimum, we should probably trust it absent direct revelation
>of the opposite
>
Since you have opposing opinions here, why don't you and Zev duke it
out?
Shelly
Zev Sero
On 23 Jun 1998 22:33:58 GMT, sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) wrote:
>Hashem calls certain things in the Torah "eternal", should we trust
>His word or not?
>
>at a minimum, we should probably trust it absent direct revelation
>of the opposite
>
>am I contradicting Gemorah where R Eliezer appeals to miracles and
>"voice of Heaven" in the halachik argument, but R Yehoshua & K
>reply "Torah is on the Earth, not in Heaven" - or do we simply see
>that minimal requirements for such revelation are beyond trivial
>things like flying trees and voice from Heaven?
Either we take notice of His changing His mind, or we don't. R Eliezer's
opponents did not question the authenticity of the miracles that
happened to show that Hashem agreed with him; it was absolutely clear to
them that Hashem wanted them to rule like R Eliezer. So what are you
suggesting, that if He'd put on a more spectacular show for them they'd
have gone along with Him? What do you want, fireworks? Synaesthesia,
like at Mt Sinai? Since He can perform whatever miracles He likes,
flying trees and collapsing buildings and migrating rivers, etc, are no
easier for Him than any other sign you care to name, so what would a
direct revelation have proved that these miracles didn't?