Converting
Valkris Rayna
interested in converting to Judaism. Does anyone on this list have any
suggested resources for me?
and, are there any usenet groups or e-mail lists that might be helpful?
thank you in advance,
Paula Drennan
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
Drago...@webtv.net wrote:
> Hi. I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, but i am
> interested in converting to Judaism. Does anyone on this list have any
> suggested resources for me?
> and, are there any usenet groups or e-mail lists that might be helpful?
Dear Paula Drennan,
http://www.convert.org is the Conversion to Judaism home page by Dr. Larry
Epstein. While its emphasis is Conservative, it provides information for the
other movements as well.
Good luck,
--
(Rabbi) Jay S. Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET>
http://members.tripod.com/~jlapidus/index.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Rafael
I'm a convert myself. I don't know of any *worthwhile* resources on the
web for converts. Such a serious matter should only be dealt with
*in-person.*
Is there an Orthodox community in your area? If so, I would approach a
rabbi. Only an Orthodox conversion will be accepted by everyone.
All the best,
Rafael
Valkris Rayna wrote:
>
> Hi. I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, but i am
> interested in converting to Judaism. Does anyone on this list have any
> suggested resources for me?
> and, are there any usenet groups or e-mail lists that might be helpful?
>
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35AA018C...@nyct.net>...
>Hi Paula,
>
>I'm a convert myself. I don't know of any *worthwhile* resources on the
>web for converts. Such a serious matter should only be dealt with
>*in-person.*
>
>Is there an Orthodox community in your area? If so, I would approach a
>rabbi. Only an Orthodox conversion will be accepted by everyone.
>
>All the best,
>Rafael
>
Of course, that means you will force yourself to become a part of the
approximately 10% of Jews who are Orthodox. That may be right for you and
if it is, go that route. At the outset, however, I would not recommend
limiting your options in that manner. Be true to yourself and investigate
the other 90% as well. It should yield the path that is best for _you_
(which may, in fact, be Orthodox) and is why you are considering converting
after all, isn't it?
Shelly
Micha Berger
: Of course, that means you will force yourself to become a part of the
: approximately 10% of Jews who are Orthodox.
Shelly appears to think there are no Jews outside the US. O is a minority
globally, but the 10% figure is only true for the US. Outside of North America
where C and R have populations less than 1%, O obviously holds a larger
percentage of religious Jews.
"Force yourself"? Couldn't figure out a less emotionally loaded way of saying
it?
-mi
--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287 Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5863 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (11-Jun-82 - 13-Jul-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Gmachine9
>if it is, go that route. At the outset, however, I would not recommend
>limiting your options in that manner. Be true to yourself and investigate
>the other 90% as well
just beware--as Rafael correctly stated that only Orthodox conversions are
accepted by all "branches" of Judaism.
steve
cel...@usa.net
> At the outset, however, I would not recommend
> limiting your options in that manner. Be true to yourself and investigate
> (which may, in fact, be Orthodox) and is why you are considering converting
> after all, isn't it?
Definitely investigate all the options. I was pretty sure I knew what
movement was right for me when I started down this path; now that I've
talked to representatives of the big three (and attended services at
half a dozen shuls), that initial assumption isn't so clearly right
any more. Don't limit yourself.
Also, there is no reason you have to choose a single movement and never
talk to the others again. I expect to pursue a conversion in one movement
while attending classes and (some) services from the other two, because
there are things all of them can offer me. I don't know *nearly* enough
yet to be ruling anyone out. And I, at least, have found the rabbis
involved to be fairly encouraging of this sort of exploration.
Monica
"cellio <at> pobox <dot> com", NOT the posting address!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Sheldon Glickler
Gmachine9 wrote in message
<199807131821...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>Of course, that means you will force yourself to become a part of the
>>approximately 10% of Jews who are Orthodox. That may be right for you and
>>limiting your options in that manner. Be true to yourself and investigate
>
>just beware--as Rafael correctly stated that only Orthodox conversions are
>accepted by all "branches" of Judaism.
>
.....and when you invite people to your home make sure that all you serve are
vegetables that have been organically grown and harvested without machines
that use gasoline (that pollutes the air) and, etc. etc. When they say
something with you disagree be sure not to vocalize those objections. Etc,
etc.
After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
To quote the bard, "To thine own self be true".
Shelly
J. Olson
On 13 Jul 1998, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 13:10:55 -0400, Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> : Of course, that means you will force yourself to become a part of the
> : approximately 10% of Jews who are Orthodox.
>
> "Force yourself"? Couldn't figure out a less emotionally loaded way of saying
> it?
Not only that, but I really think Shelly is overstating his case...I know
more than one person who converted Orthodox, and I know that they don't
have the feeling that they are "forced" to do anything...however much of a
surprise this may come to Shelly, many people find living an Orthodox
lifestyle a positive choice and privledge, rather than submission to
coersion.
Jess
J. Olson
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
>
> To quote the bard, "To thine own self be true".
>
> Shelly
Also a good point.
Jess
Gmachine9
>.....and when you invite people to your home make sure that all you serve are
>vegetables that have been organically grown and harvested without machines
>that use gasoline (that pollutes the air) and, etc. etc. When they say
>something with you disagree be sure not to vocalize those objections. Etc,
>etc.
There is a big difference here Shelly. The non-acceptance here has possible
reprecussions (sp?) down the line. A potential convert may not realize that a
certain percentage of Jews will not accept his/her conversion and therefore not
marry there child, etc. I believe that is a legitimate concern.
>After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
>
Is this a tag or an argument. I happen to accept most people. but im pretty
sure that I dont have to accept as Jewish, jews who are not.
steve
Valkris Rayna
to this group or in private, so far. all of you have been very halpful.
the closest congregation to me (50miles) is a REform congregation. I
have attended services there once or twice and I am very comfortable
with the Rabbi there. I will most likely be going thru that Temple for
conversion.
I will be looking into as many options as are out there. Is there anyone
on here who is familiar with congregations in the San Antonio/Austin TX
area? I live about 1 1/2 miles outside of New Braunfels, wich puts me
about half way between those two major cities.
Again, thank you all for your help and offers of support.
Paula Drennan
Nathanael Robinson
Such a serious matter should only be dealt with
> *in-person.*
>
> Is there an Orthodox community in your area? If so, I would approach a
> rabbi. Only an Orthodox conversion will be accepted by everyone.
>
> All the best,
> Rafael
Ultimately, the best resource you will have is the community into which
you will integrate. BTW, don't neglect looking at Sephardic
authorities.
NR
--
'"You try to be free through writing. How wrong.
Every word unveils another tie."'
--Edmond Jabes
Simcha Streltsov
: On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Sheldon Glickler wrote:
: > After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
: Also a good point.
and that is actually an established Jewish view -
you dont really have to become a Jew, you can fulfill
G-d's will in your current status
--
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 (-:
Zev Sero
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Drago...@webtv.net (Valkris Rayna) wrote:
>the closest congregation to me (50miles) is a REform congregation.
but then...
>I will be looking into as many options as are out there. Is there anyone
>on here who is familiar with congregations in the San Antonio/Austin TX
>area? I live about 1 1/2 miles outside of New Braunfels, wich puts me
>about half way between those two major cities.
There are Orthodox congregations in both Austin and San Antonio, i.e. no
further from you than the 50 miles that you say the Reform congregation
is (IIRC, the distance between the two cities is about 80 miles).
In Austin, you can contact Rabbi Levertov, on Nueces near UT. Look in
the Austin phone directory. In San Antonio, I think the shul is called
Rodef Sholom; they've got a web page, so you can search for it.
--
Zev Sero Programming: the art of debugging an empty text file
zs...@bigfoot.com
Sheldon Glickler
J. Olson wrote in message ...
My turn to clarify. Micha, you used a much to literal reading of "force".
(remember "suicide"). By "force" here, I was stating that this restricts
your view of Judaism to that held by only 10% of the world's Jews. It was
not used in "coercive" sense. Read my other posts on this thread and you
will see that you read a meaning I did not intend.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
Valkris Rayna wrote in message
<14009-35...@newsd-142.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
I would like to thank all that have posted helpful information, either
to this group or in private, so far. all of you have been very halpful.
the closest congregation to me (50miles) is a REform congregation. I
have attended services there once or twice and I am very comfortable
with the Rabbi there. I will most likely be going thru that Temple for
conversion.
I will be looking into as many options as are out there. Is there anyone
on here who is familiar with congregations in the San Antonio/Austin TX
area? I live about 1 1/2 miles outside of New Braunfels, wich puts me
about half way between those two major cities.
Again, thank you all for your help and offers of support.
Paula Drennan
==========================================================================
For some reason, my news reader did not put ">" in the original so I have
enclosed it above.
I am happy that you found a congregation and rabbi whith whom you are
comfortable. As an outspoken _Reform_ Jew, I would still encourage you to
investigate all the branches and speak to rabbis from each.
Shelly
Jonathan J. Baker
>I would like to thank all that have posted helpful information, either
>to this group or in private, so far. all of you have been very halpful.
>the closest congregation to me (50miles) is a REform congregation. I
>have attended services there once or twice and I am very comfortable
>with the Rabbi there. I will most likely be going thru that Temple for
>conversion.
>I will be looking into as many options as are out there. Is there anyone
>on here who is familiar with congregations in the San Antonio/Austin TX
>area? I live about 1 1/2 miles outside of New Braunfels, wich puts me
>about half way between those two major cities.
Huh? San Antone - Austin is only about 75 miles. New Braunfels, I
see on the map, is 32 mi from downtown S-A. The Orthodox synagogue
is just of NW Military Drive somewhere between 410 and L1604 in the
northwest part of town, so you can't be more than about 30 miles
from there. Don't worry about having to drive, the rabbi there is
used to that, most of the congregation drives, although more & more
are moving into the subdivision across the road from the synagogue.
Debbie & I spent a very pleasant shabbat with some people from the
Orthodox synagogue when we were in S-A for a medical thing.
Here's the info:
Rodfei Sholom Congregation
3003 Sholom Dr
San Antonio, TX 78230-5400
Phone: (210)493-3557
Rabbi A. Scheinberg
Sholom Dr. is off NW Military (Fm 1535), about 2 miles south of the
1604 loop.
There's also a Conservative synagogue, Agudas Achim, listed at
1201 Donaldson Ave, (210) 736-4216. Rabbi S. Spiegel.
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Rafael
> After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
>
> To quote the bard, "To thine own self be true".
Why am I not surprised that you had to draw from non-Jewish source to
support your advice?
Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35AB3724...@nyct.net>...
Why am I not surprised that you do not value any source that is not Jewish,
even from one generally recognized as the greatest playwrite of all time?
Why am I not surprised that I predicted [to myself when writing it] that you
would respond in this fashion?
Why am I not surprised by your completely closed mind to anything that is
not Orthodox Judaism?
Shelly
>
>Rafael
a...@wynn.com
decision. You have chosen wisley, yet you have a long and sometimes bumpy
road untill you reach your goal. We have found that there are many books
available to help cushion any "bumps" and give you a solid source to which
you can refer to again and again.
Among the popular choices are the following:
Migrant Soul By: Avi Schafern. A poingnant story of an American Ger
(convert) and his experience of conversion. (16.50)
Jewish Conversion By: Rabbi Joel Schwartz. A guide of the process of Jewish
conversion, its meaning and laws. (10.95)
The Laws of Kashrus By: Rabbi Binyomin Forst. A comprehensive exposition
of their underlying concepts and applications. Included is an alphabetical
listing of over one hundred items found in the modern kitchen, with
guidelines on how to avoid problems. (22.99)
The Magic of Shabbos By: Rabbi Mordechai Rhine. This book is intended to
introduce the beauty of Shabbos. It is most useful as a starting point, as a
tool for spiritual growth. Perhaps you’ve yearned to know more about the
meaning of candle lighting or how to recite kiddush. Or you’ve wondered what
exactly happens in the synagogue service and why. Each section of this book
is divided to one aspect of the Shabbos experience and will guide you through
it one step at a time. No matter what level of observance you are accustomed
to, this book will assist you in bringing the joy of Shabbos into your like.
Come, hold to my hand and journey through Shabbos with me. (12.50)
In article <11345-35...@newsd-144.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Drago...@webtv.net (Valkris Rayna) wrote:
> Hi. I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, but i am
> interested in converting to Judaism. Does anyone on this list have any
> suggested resources for me?
> and, are there any usenet groups or e-mail lists that might be helpful?
>
> thank you in advance,
> Paula Drennan
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Giora Drachsler
I used to think that the Otrhodox were a big pain in the neck. Now I
have a much lower opinion of them.
--
Giora Drachsler
Jerusalem, Israel
Gmachine9
>have a much lower opinion of them.
>
>
i am sorry that you feel that way. After all,if you cut us do we not bleed?
steve
Rafael
via this antisemitic remark:
Giora Drachsler wrote:
>
> Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> >
> > Rafael wrote in message <35AB3724...@nyct.net>...
> > >Sheldon Glickler wrote:
> > >
> > >> After all, you want to be accepted by _ALL_ humans.
> > >> To quote the bard, "To thine own self be true".
> > >
> > >Why am I not surprised that you had to draw from non-Jewish source to
> > >support your advice?
> >
> > Why am I not surprised that you do not value any source that is not Jewish,
> > even from one generally recognized as the greatest playwrite of all time?
> >
> > Why am I not surprised that I predicted [to myself when writing it] that you
> > would respond in this fashion?
> >
> > Why am I not surprised by your completely closed mind to anything that is
> > not Orthodox Judaism?
> I used to think that the Otrhodox were a big pain in the neck. Now I
> have a much lower opinion of them.
Shelly, I'm not at all closed-minded to anything non-O. I live and work
in NYC and am exposed daily to the marketplace of ideas (here on SCJ, as
well), which I confront, consider, and decide upon regularly (not to
mention that I only became O a few years ago).
"To thine own self be true" may not be deductively false, but in can
certainly be misleading in the Jewish context (in which I believe our
discussion is taking place). If a convert approaches Judaism with
maxims floating around in her head that don't necessarily apply to the
subject at hand, she will either never discover what she is looking for
or she will be very turned off when she finds it. As such, it would be
much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
you die.")
Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
succeeding bad-taste reply, simply cut out his/her byline and what he/she
wrote. All that would be left would be mine with an extra ">".
Rafael wrote in message <35AC87B0...@nyct.net>...
We differ here. One (IMO) must _always_ be true to him/herself.
>discussion is taking place). If a convert approaches Judaism with
>maxims floating around in her head that don't necessarily apply to the
>subject at hand, she will either never discover what she is looking for
That, again, is by _YOUR_ definition. It is not the _GENERAL_ definition.
There are more converts to Judaism in this world, Rafael, than are
considered in your philosophy (-- to once again sort-of borrow from the
bard).
>or she will be very turned off when she finds it. As such, it would be
This is an unwarranted assumption. It _may_ be true, but certainly doesn't
qualify for "will".
>much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was exclusionary
rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
>Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
>you die.")
Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
Shelly
Rafael
>
> Before starting, let me comment. If you wanted to reply to me without the
> succeeding bad-taste reply, simply cut out his/her byline and what he/she
> wrote. All that would be left would be mine with an extra ">".
I guess I wanted you to see what you bring out in people :-)
> Rafael wrote in message <35AC87B0...@nyct.net>...
> >"To thine own self be true" may not be deductively false, but in can
> >certainly be misleading in the Jewish context (in which I believe our
>
> We differ here. One (IMO) must _always_ be true to him/herself.
What is the self? The self can be *self*-delusionary. One cannot often
rely on oneself--that's why we look to others, to God.
In the case of one who pursues the Jewish approach to truth-finding, I
would say "Be true to God's Torah." That's because Judaism historically
treats the halakhic system as objective. Only one's relationship with
that system is subjective.
> >discussion is taking place). If a convert approaches Judaism with
> >maxims floating around in her head that don't necessarily apply to the
> >subject at hand, she will either never discover what she is looking for
>
> That, again, is by _YOUR_ definition. It is not the _GENERAL_ definition.
> There are more converts to Judaism in this world, Rafael, than are
> considered in your philosophy (-- to once again sort-of borrow from the
> bard).
Converts to what?
> Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was exclusionary
> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
No, it did not. See above and below.
> >Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
> >you die.")
>
> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
That's very Western of you. Now please show me where our Torah tradition
says likewise. [Who knows? You might just find it. Of course, if you
never look, you can hardly claim to be a qualified spokesperson for
Judaism (which is based on the Torah, you know).]
Rafael
Y...@my-dejanews.com
"Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
> >much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
>
> Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was exclusionary
> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
>
> >Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
> >you die.")
>
> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
Shelly, you're being (unintentionally, I believe) offensive. These are Jewish
Sages we're talking about. Whatever opinion you may hold about how informed
they were, they were not stupid, and not prone to uttering nonsense, much less
recording it.
When I see a quotation from the Chazal that doesn't make sense, I explore the
following possibilities:
1) It was not translated correctly, or was otherwise garbled in transmission.
2) It is out of context ("Kill the best of Gentiles" is a good example.)
3) The definition of the terms used in the quotation is different from the one
I'm using.
I then ask for clarification or look it up myself. This method usually works
pretty well. Why don't you two define what you mean by "belief in yourself"?
Hint: does it have something to do with self-esteem?
Regards,
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35ACAEE4...@nyct.net>...
>Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>>
>> Before starting, let me comment. If you wanted to reply to me without
the
>> succeeding bad-taste reply, simply cut out his/her byline and what he/she
>> wrote. All that would be left would be mine with an extra ">".
>
>I guess I wanted you to see what you bring out in people :-)
Do you _really_ want to play that game? I'll take the smiley as I believe
you intended it.
>
>> Rafael wrote in message <35AC87B0...@nyct.net>...
>
>> >"To thine own self be true" may not be deductively false, but in can
>> >certainly be misleading in the Jewish context (in which I believe our
>>
>> We differ here. One (IMO) must _always_ be true to him/herself.
>
>What is the self? The self can be *self*-delusionary. One cannot often
>rely on oneself--that's why we look to others, to God.
>
>In the case of one who pursues the Jewish approach to truth-finding, I
>would say "Be true to God's Torah." That's because Judaism historically
>treats the halakhic system as objective. Only one's relationship with
>that system is subjective.
No sense even pursuing that one. It will lead nowhere.
>
>> >discussion is taking place). If a convert approaches Judaism with
>> >maxims floating around in her head that don't necessarily apply to the
>> >subject at hand, she will either never discover what she is looking for
>>
>> That, again, is by _YOUR_ definition. It is not the _GENERAL_
definition.
>> There are more converts to Judaism in this world, Rafael, than are
>> considered in your philosophy (-- to once again sort-of borrow from the
>> bard).
>
>Converts to what?
Read above.
>
>> Knowledge doesn't hurt. However, your original statement was
exclusionary
>> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
>
>No, it did not. See above and below.
Shall I produce it? Effectively you said, "convert only to O because only
by doing that will you be recognized by all Jews. What you didn't say was
convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews and
convert to R and you will be (effectively) recognized by almost as much.
Further, and most important, you didn't include the main criterion -- why
the person wants to convert may be totally inconsistent with O but may be
more in tune with C or R. Your answer, of course, is "don't convert". That
is what I meant by exclusionary.
>
>> >Chazal that comes to mind is "Do not believe in yourself until the day
>> >you die.")
>>
>> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
>
>That's very Western of you. Now please show me where our Torah tradition
Once again, we use different yardsticks. Mine is the belief and practice of
the vast majority of the worlds Jews. I don't accept your yardstick just as
much as you don't accept mine. We can leave it at that as we will never
convince the other. However, realize that I don't accept playing by your
rules to determine proper procedure so you can't "win" an argument by
showing it doesn't match with your criterea.
>says likewise. [Who knows? You might just find it. Of course, if you
>never look, you can hardly claim to be a qualified spokesperson for
>Judaism (which is based on the Torah, you know).]
We differ in what we mean by "based on" -- as you know.
Shelly
Colin Rosenthal
Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
I'm not sure I believe this figure.
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
Rafael
> Shall I produce it? Effectively you said, "convert only to O because only
> by doing that will you be recognized by all Jews. What you didn't say was
> convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews and
> convert to R and you will be (effectively) recognized by almost as much.
> Further, and most important, you didn't include the main criterion -- why
> the person wants to convert may be totally inconsistent with O but may be
> more in tune with C or R. Your answer, of course, is "don't convert". That
> is what I meant by exclusionary.
If your going back to the numbers game, I might point out that,
statistically speaking, in several generations, her (O) children would
most likely be recognized by the vast majority of Jews (but that's about
as meaningful to you as your numbers are to me).
> Once again, we use different yardsticks. Mine is the belief and practice of
> the vast majority of the worlds Jews. I don't accept your yardstick just as
> much as you don't accept mine. We can leave it at that as we will never
> convince the other. However, realize that I don't accept playing by your
> rules to determine proper procedure so you can't "win" an argument by
> showing it doesn't match with your criterea.
Your "vast majority" statement is false, but putting that aside, you're
right about convincing one another.
I might point out, however, that I have a distinct advantage over you,
in that I've been at your knowledge level of Judaism before, whereas you
have never been at mine (unless you have amnesia). IOW, you don't know
what Judaism is, so your rejection of it is meaningless to anyone who
has ever seriously studied it.
It's like when my 18-month-old daughter calls an "ear" a "nose." It's
cute for now, but I sincerely hope she'll grow out of it. (As a child,
she thankfully still has an open mind.)
Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
>In article <6oike4$j...@news9.noc.netcom.net>,
> "Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >much more helpful to prepare her for what's in store. (One aphorism from
>>
exclusionary
>> rather than the broader statements I made -- which also include yours.
>>
>> >you die.")
>>
>> Nonsense. You must _first_ believe in yourself before you can proceed.
>
Jewish
>Sages we're talking about. Whatever opinion you may hold about how informed
>they were, they were not stupid, and not prone to uttering nonsense, much
less
>recording it.
>
>When I see a quotation from the Chazal that doesn't make sense, I explore
the
>following possibilities:
>
>1) It was not translated correctly, or was otherwise garbled in
transmission.
>2) It is out of context ("Kill the best of Gentiles" is a good example.)
>3) The definition of the terms used in the quotation is different from the
one
>I'm using.
>
>I then ask for clarification or look it up myself. This method usually
works
>pretty well. Why don't you two define what you mean by "belief in
yourself"?
>Hint: does it have something to do with self-esteem?
My statement of nonsense refers the quote. It it contrary to everything I
believe (as I understand it from the context of the discussion we were
having). Yes, it has everything to do with self-esteem, belief in what you
are doing is right and proper and having the confidence to follow through.
To defer that kind of belief to "a higher authority" to say "do this, now do
that, etc." is how I would view a slave -- not an independent, thinking
human being.
You fully grasped what I meant by this, perhaps because of our extensive
conversations. I think that he did as well.
Lastly, when a sage said something I consider nonsense, that doesn't change
the evaluation because he was a "sage". [OK Richard, make your cracks. I
can see them coming].
Shelly
P&M
Sheldon Glickler
Since your definition is self-fulfilling (knowledge means deep study of
Talmud and Torah, I can hardly argue with you. Clearly you have studied the
classical texts far more than I have. However, as I said before, I won't
submit to your yardstick. I have spent considerable periods (at least 15
years) in each arena (though not chassid). I started out keeping kosher
until age 17 and belonged to an Orthodox synagogue. I went to a camp run by
a Yeshiva for parts of five summers. I belonged to a Conservative synagogue
for 15 years and as long in a Reform synagogue. Over the course of that
period, from after-school Talmud Torah to life experience and learning until
now, I have different knowledge of Judaism. Your saying that you have been
"at my knowledge level" from your viewpoint is then accurate. However, it
is not from mine.
>
>It's like when my 18-month-old daughter calls an "ear" a "nose." It's
>cute for now, but I sincerely hope she'll grow out of it. (As a child,
>she thankfully still has an open mind.)
>
>Rafael
Now if you want to continue in an polite and civil manner, fine. If you
want to assume a condescending posture, then I will withdraw as I have
already been through one such nasty experience and have no desire for
another.
Shelly
P&M
Colin Rosenthal
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>OW, you don't know
>what Judaism is, so your rejection of it is meaningless to anyone who
>has ever seriously studied it.
However surely one might say the same for _your_ rejection of - depending
on your personal circumstances - Islam, Buddhism, Astrology, UFOology,
trad jazz ........
Binyamin Dissen
:>On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:40:35 -0400,
:>Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>>convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
:>I'm not sure I believe this figure.
If one limits oneself to marriage, I would guess that 90+% of the set that
accepts reformed conversions would also be in the set of not caring at all if
the potential mate had converted (though it may not even hit 50% in the
parents or relatives of the truly Jewish side).
--
Binyami...@theoffice.net
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
rafael
>
> On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 16:14:09 GMT,
> Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>
> >OW, you don't know
> >what Judaism is, so your rejection of it is meaningless to anyone who
> >has ever seriously studied it.
>
> However surely one might say the same for _your_ rejection of - depending
> on your personal circumstances - Islam, Buddhism, Astrology, UFOology,
> trad jazz ........
The difference is that I don't claim to be practicing any of these.
[Imagine my getting on alt.religion.islam and telling them that what
they call Islam is fine for them, but it's not what I consider Islam
(even though I know relatively little about it). They may just ignore
me, but I think I'd watch my back for a while.]
Rafael
rafael
> Since your definition is self-fulfilling (knowledge means deep study of
> Talmud and Torah, I can hardly argue with you. Clearly you have
<resume deleted>
> until
> now, I have different knowledge of Judaism. Your saying that you have been
> "at my knowledge level" from your viewpoint is then accurate. However, it
> is not from mine.
Fine. I can't stop you from calling cats dogs, hotdogs hamburgers, and
pop-Western-philosophy Judaism. I guess this is an inevitable result of
being a nation as well as a religion, in a host country that welcomes
us, at the cost of millions of Jewish souls.
> Now if you want to continue in an polite and civil manner, fine. If you
> want to assume a condescending posture, then I will withdraw as I have
> already been through one such nasty experience and have no desire for
> another.
Nasty? Try telling a religious Muslim that you practice Islam and that
it's just as valid an Islam as what he's practicing. See how he reacts.
Rafael
Richard Schultz
: Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
converted to C?".
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
jord...@my-dejanews.com
Rather, a R jew is more similar to a Protestant who is telling his
Catholic brothers that he is still a Christian. A schism (or two, or
three or four) has already happened within the Jewish people; the question
is now how should we live with it, how should people deal with those
who are on the other side of the ideological divide.
>
> Rafael
>
Jordi
Les Brown
>I used to think that the Otrhodox were a big pain in the neck. Now I
>have a much lower opinion of them.
>--
That must've been the treif you ate.
You really should keep kosher. It's far healthier
Les Brown
Les Brown
Rafael
> Rather, a R jew is more similar to a Protestant who is telling his
> Catholic brothers that he is still a Christian. A schism (or two, or
> three or four) has already happened within the Jewish people; the question
> is now how should we live with it, how should people deal with those
> who are on the other side of the ideological divide.
While I believe that R has adopted many Protestant criteria, I don't
believe they work in the Jewish context. Judaism is unique.
The question of how a Jew deals with a non-observant Jew has been
addressed for millenia and is part of the halakhic system. Some of us
just let our emotions get the best of us.
Rafael
Colin Rosenthal
>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>: Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
>
>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
>
>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>converted to C?".
Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
multiply by 5/9.
Richard Schultz
: Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
: multiply by 5/9.
That depends on what you're converting *from*. . .
Sheldon Glickler
Colin Rosenthal wrote in message <6ol58s$bd6$1...@ncar.ucar.edu>...
>On 16 Jul 1998 06:32:55 GMT,
>Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>: Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
>>
>>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
>>
>>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>>converted to C?".
>
>multiply by 5/9.
>
Fantastic!!! ROTFL three times over!!!
Shelly
jord...@my-dejanews.com
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Rather, a R jew is more similar to a Protestant who is telling his
> > Catholic brothers that he is still a Christian. A schism (or two, or
> > three or four) has already happened within the Jewish people; the question
> > is now how should we live with it, how should people deal with those
> > who are on the other side of the ideological divide.
>
> While I believe that R has adopted many Protestant criteria, I don't
> believe they work in the Jewish context. Judaism is unique.
Rafael, that was not the sense I meant to use in my comparison. Rather,
R sees itself as an authentic branch of Judaism, somewhat like Protestantism
often sees itself as a branch of Christianity. Similarly to the way that
Protestantism disagrees with a number of Catholic rituals (which it sees
as outdated, etc.), so R sees some of the ritual aspects of traditional
Judaism as no longer necessarily valid. At no point am I equating
Protestantism and Reform, altough I agree that Reform has taken some
inspiration from Protestantism... and that's OK.
I do believe that R works in a Jewish context, for its holy texts are
the Jewish ones, its celebrations (circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings,
etc.) are the Jewish ones, etc. Only Jews celebrate the Passover Seder; only
Jews fast on Yom Kippur; only Jews light the Shabbat candles.
>
> The question of how a Jew deals with a non-observant Jew has been
> addressed for millenia and is part of the halakhic system. Some of us
However, it is not obvious that R is equivalent with non-observance.
> just let our emotions get the best of us.
I can see that.
Simcha Streltsov
: Catholic brothers that he is still a Christian. A schism (or two, or
: three or four) has already happened within the Jewish people; the question
: is now how should we live with it, how should people deal with those
: who are on the other side of the ideological divide.
you are right, and we should look at previous schisms to see how
to deal with the current ones. Maybe someone else knows, but I dont
know about halachot that are a compromise between Prushim and Tzedukim,
otherwise, I think Mishna Megilah ends with lists of cases when we
stop or do not stop someone when he deviates from the usual practice -
i.e. makes changes in the prayer
I believe the principle is that if he is simply mistaken, it is not a big
deal, but if he is following tzdukim, we do stop him.
--
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 (-:
Rafael
> Rafael, that was not the sense I meant to use in my comparison. Rather,
> R sees itself as an authentic branch of Judaism, somewhat like Protestantism
> often sees itself as a branch of Christianity.
> Similarly to the way that
> Protestantism disagrees with a number of Catholic rituals (which it sees
> as outdated, etc.), so R sees some of the ritual aspects of traditional
> Judaism as no longer necessarily valid. At no point am I equating
> Protestantism and Reform, altough I agree that Reform has taken some
> inspiration from Protestantism... and that's OK.
We're saying similar things, only I'm saying it's not OK for Jews to
measure the Torah with a Xian yardstick. While Xians claim the New
Testament to be a *record* of miraculous revelations (i.e a man-made
document), for Jews, the Torah IS the revelation.
Also, there are qualities of Judaism that distinguish it from ALL other
religions:
(1) we are the only religion that is also a nation;
(2) as such, we are the only religion that is eternally linked to a
particular national homeland; and
(3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
people)
Furthermore, while various sects have arisen over the ages, who have
challenged the Oral Torah that necessarily accompanied the Written
Torah, they are today absent from the Jewish world. In making the
changes it has, the liberal movements have taken their place amongst
these sectarian forbears: the Sadducees, Balthusians, Essenes, Karaites,
and early Xians. If this historical trend continues (and the statistics
show that it is), then divisiveness and assimilation is the formula you
recommend for our people.
> I do believe that R works in a Jewish context, for its holy texts are
> the Jewish ones, its celebrations (circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings,
> etc.) are the Jewish ones, etc. Only Jews celebrate the Passover Seder; only
> Jews fast on Yom Kippur; only Jews light the Shabbat candles.
My understanding is that Jews for Jesus also do these things, but
outside their Halakhah context, they are hallow customs, which again
accounts for the mass exodus of non-O Jews away from anything Jewish.
> However, it is not obvious that R is equivalent with non-observance.
From the halakhic standpoint, it is.
The best that classical thinkers can say for R is that it retards the
rate of intermarriage. It does, but it is still over 50% (compared to
3% amongst O). Their answer to the this marketing dilemma is to declare
the children of all these forbidden unions Jewish, which is unacceptable
to anyone but themselves. This type of universalism hearkens back to
Paul of Tarsus.
Rafael
Harvey S. Cohen
>>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>>converted to C?".
>rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>multiply by 5/9.
This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
--
harve...@home.foo.com (Harvey S. Cohen)
(Remove foo to reply)
jord...@my-dejanews.com
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Rafael, that was not the sense I meant to use in my comparison. Rather,
> > R sees itself as an authentic branch of Judaism, somewhat like Protestantism
> > often sees itself as a branch of Christianity.
> > Similarly to the way that
> > Protestantism disagrees with a number of Catholic rituals (which it sees
> > as outdated, etc.), so R sees some of the ritual aspects of traditional
> > Judaism as no longer necessarily valid. At no point am I equating
> > Protestantism and Reform, altough I agree that Reform has taken some
> > inspiration from Protestantism... and that's OK.
>
> We're saying similar things, only I'm saying it's not OK for Jews to
> measure the Torah with a Xian yardstick. While Xians claim the New
> Testament to be a *record* of miraculous revelations (i.e a man-made
> document), for Jews, the Torah IS the revelation.
For the record, I am not using a Christian yardstick, but a secular one.
For many Jews, the Torah IS NO LONGER TO BE SEEN AS THE DIRECT
WORD OF GOD. Why? We don't believe in miracles, that's all.
>
> Also, there are qualities of Judaism that distinguish it from ALL other
> religions:
>
> (1) we are the only religion that is also a nation;
I never claimed otherwise. As for R, the Miami declaration agrees with
you.
http://ccarnet.org/platforms/miami.html
> (2) as such, we are the only religion that is eternally linked to a
> particular national homeland; and
Never claimed otherwise. As for R, check the same document.
> (3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
> simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
> people)
... that is if you believe the traditional text is historically accurate.
Anyway, see the same document, once more. Incidentally, unless one
talks about gilgul and so forth, what you say does not apply to converts.
>
> Furthermore, while various sects have arisen over the ages, who have
> challenged the Oral Torah that necessarily accompanied the Written
> Torah, they are today absent from the Jewish world. In making the
> changes it has, the liberal movements have taken their place amongst
> these sectarian forbears: the Sadducees, Balthusians, Essenes, Karaites,
> and early Xians. If this historical trend continues (and the statistics
> show that it is), then divisiveness and assimilation is the formula you
> recommend for our people.
But R doesn't reject the Oral Torah. From the Centenary Platform
http://ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html :
3.Torah -- Torah results from the relationship between God and the
Jewish people. The records of our earliest confrontations are uniquely
important to us. Lawgivers and prophets, historians and poets gave us a
heritage whose study is a religious imperative and whose practice is
our chief means to holiness. Rabbis and teachers, philosophers and
mystics, gifted Jews in every age amplified the Torah tradition. For
millennia, the creation of Torah has not ceased and Jewish creativity
in our time is adding to the chain of tradition.
>
> > I do believe that R works in a Jewish context, for its holy texts are
> > the Jewish ones, its celebrations (circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings,
> > etc.) are the Jewish ones, etc. Only Jews celebrate the Passover Seder; only
> > Jews fast on Yom Kippur; only Jews light the Shabbat candles.
>
> My understanding is that Jews for Jesus also do these things, but
> outside their Halakhah context, they are hallow customs, which again
> accounts for the mass exodus of non-O Jews away from anything Jewish.
Wrong. For J4J, the main holy text is the NT, not the Tanach. R utterly,
absolutely rejects the NT and its related literature.
>
> > However, it is not obvious that R is equivalent with non-observance.
>
> From the halakhic standpoint, it is.
Non-obsevance would entail not doing anything at all. High holiday
celebrations, etc. ought to count towards one's observance, shouldn't
they?
>
> The best that classical thinkers can say for R is that it retards the
> rate of intermarriage. It does, but it is still over 50% (compared to
And which classical thinkers would these be? Spinoza, Freud, Kafka
and Levi-Strauss? ;0)
> 3% amongst O). Their answer to the this marketing dilemma is to declare
> the children of all these forbidden unions Jewish, which is unacceptable
> to anyone but themselves. This type of universalism hearkens back to
> Paul of Tarsus.
Nu? Paul doesn't deal with this issue at all. Children are not born
Christian, but need to be baptised.
As for patrilineal descent, I think R should perform child conversions
instead, in order to avoid this issue.
Sheldon Glickler
Harvey S. Cohen wrote in message <35b967fc.156157731@news>...
Yeah, for him you have to add 273 to the result.
Shelly
Tina Anderson
: >rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
: >multiply by 5/9.
: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
...Kelvin?...
--
-----
Chana Sarah bat Margalit v'Avraham
tandersn at freenet dot columbus dot oh dot us
Madison Finch
> ===> FWIW, many seventh day adventists and other christian branches
> celebrate Jewish holidays, mainly Passover. 7th day types keep
> saturday as their sabbath, say brochos, and keep *kosher*.
>
> Randy
Thought I would put in my two cents' worth about coversion from one
still involved in the process after eight months, to illustrate the
difficulties in deciding which "branch" to choose.
I am a former Seventh-Day Adventist, and my husband is a former secular
humanist. After years of thought and discussion, we made a commitment
to convert our family (which includes three children) to Judaism. I
preferred an Orthodox conversion, because (a) such a conversion *does*
has the greatest recognition, (b) I am very concerned about
assimilation, (c) it is my understanding that C and R also require a
thorough understanding of halacha, and this seemed to be the best way to
learn, and (d) a variety of personal and spiritual reasons. My husband,
however, preferred Reform (a choice which would also be more palatable
to his secular humanist parents), due in large part to his perception of
the way in which Orthodoxy views women. I spoke to the O rabbi about
this issue at the outset and was surprised when he did not treat this as
the major stumbling block I thought it would be.
I attended shul and pursued the course of study my rabbi assigned to me
for many months, until I had some questions about kol isha and called to
make an appointment. The rabbi flatly refused to see me, apparently
based on my husband's non-attendance. Emotionally wrenching, but
understandable. So we are again back at square one in our conversion.
It would appear that the only solution is a Reform conversion for the
entire family, and I am trying not to regard this as compromising for
myself. After all, under Reform, I am certainly free to choose to
practice an Orthodox level of observance--except that, in the eyes of
most others keeping those practices, I won't be a Jew at all.
Because this thread is under the heading of "Converting," I thought you
might like to hear something of how the O-C-R situation looks from the
outside, to prospective converts.
Madison
Randy B
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>
>I do believe that R works in a Jewish context, for its holy texts are
>the Jewish ones, its celebrations (circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings,
>etc.) are the Jewish ones, etc. Only Jews celebrate the Passover Seder; only
>Jews fast on Yom Kippur; only Jews light the Shabbat candles.
===> FWIW, many seventh day adventists and other christian branches
Colin Rosenthal
>Harvey S. Cohen (harve...@home.foo.com) wrote:
>: >rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>: >multiply by 5/9.
>
>: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
>
>...Kelvin?...
Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
rafael
> For the record, I am not using a Christian yardstick, but a secular one.
> For many Jews, the Torah IS NO LONGER TO BE SEEN AS THE DIRECT
> WORD OF GOD. Why? We don't believe in miracles, that's all.
But Judaism has been founded on the concept of miracles for thousands of
years. Why do you now come along and tell us that one can strip away the
religion's historic core and still be left with the same entity? This is
what the Xians did, as well as the other defunct sects that rejected the
Oral Torah. It's a time-proven recipe for assimilation and
self-destruction.
> I never claimed otherwise. As for R, the Miami declaration agrees with
> you.
> http://ccarnet.org/platforms/miami.html
Now they do.
> > (2) as such, we are the only religion that is eternally linked to a
> > particular national homeland; and
>
> Never claimed otherwise. As for R, check the same document.
Now they do. (Berlin used to be the "New Jerusalem.")
> > (3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
> > simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
> > people)
>
> ... that is if you believe the traditional text is historically accurate.
No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
the past 3,300 years.
Why is it that no other religion has ever made this claim? It's a very
strong one. The normal formula for a religion is that one or two people
claim to have privately communed with a higher power or spiritual
energy, and people believe them.
Not so with us. We believe because our parents, grandparents,
great-grandparents, etc. all relate the same miraculous event witnessed
by our nation's ancestors at Sinai (see Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah,
ch.8). No other religion claims national prophecy, as they would have
never gotten away with it (which is why Xianity, Islam, and others
"borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims. Can you imagine if the
Pope got up one day and announced to the world that, 100 years ago, all
Italians witnessed a revelation from God. Do you think the Italians
would believe him, without having ever heard a word about it from their
parents and grandparents?)
> Anyway, see the same document, once more. Incidentally, unless one
> talks about gilgul and so forth, what you say does not apply to converts.
Halakhically, converts become the offspring of Abraham and Sara, but
there is a mystical opinion, among others, about their souls having been
at Sinai.
> But R doesn't reject the Oral Torah. From the Centenary Platform
> http://ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html :
<delete>
No. The Oral Torah (Torah She'bal peh) are those lessons taught orally
to Moses by God but not written. It's never meant anything else (prior
to the R transvaluation, I suppose). In addition, the prophets and
sages over the millenia have guarded it and added legislative "fences"
to protect the people from transgression of Sinaitic law, as well as
made decrees, all in keeping with the power vested in them by the Torah.
(To understand how this legal system works, you really must start
learning Talmud, but a good introduction is H. Chaim Schimmel's The Oral
Law, Feldheim Publishers.)
> Wrong. For J4J, the main holy text is the NT, not the Tanach. R utterly,
> absolutely rejects the NT and its related literature.
You mentioned the practices, not the "main holy text." Anyway, I'm
arguing that once a group does away with fundamental articles of faith
of the religion (even if they retain the same central text), it ceases
to subscribe to that religion (the "boreinu" fringe among the
Lubavitchers are swiftly heading in this direction). As such, I believe
it is only fair for them to forfeit their claim to the religion as well.
> Non-obsevance would entail not doing anything at all. High holiday
> celebrations, etc. ought to count towards one's observance, shouldn't
> they?
Again, they are not observant of the major tenets of the religion.
Perhaps "observant" is the wrong term. They do not subscribe to the
traditional Jewish ideology, as historically shaped by Halakhah. (While
I'll agree that there are many sub-philosophies within Judaism, there
are certain, basic parameters we do not cross. R/C went beyond the pale.
See Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith).
> And which classical thinkers would these be? Spinoza, Freud, Kafka
> and Levi-Strauss? ;0)
By "classical thinker," I meant those of the normative rabbinic mindset.
> Nu? Paul doesn't deal with this issue at all. Children are not born
> Christian, but need to be baptised.
Nor are children born of gentile mothers Jews. Declaring bilineal
descent and liberalizing the conversion process beyond recognition is a
form of universalization that is akin to Paul's transformation of
Xianity from a Jewish sect into a universal religion. Now, virtually
anyone can become a Jew, according to their arbitrary standards.
> As for patrilineal descent, I think R should perform child conversions
> instead, in order to avoid this issue.
That's a separate issue which concerns C conversions as well. O does not
recognize either as valid. As O is the only denomination that is not
only replenishing itself, but is growing, the offspring of R and C
converts are going to have some tough choices to make (given current
trends).
Rafael
Nathanael Robinson
toward a flame war) I thought I'd ask a question about conversion that
has troubled me lately. The Talmud makes several references to converts
whom halakhah prevented from assimilating with the Isrealites (one of
these being the Canaanites). According to some recent posts, a convert
can expect nothing of the ancestral inheritance of the Holy Land. This
would seem to imply that multiple Jewish nations should exist. I'm
certain that someone has said something about this throught the years
and that I might have an exaggerated sense of what I have encountered.
Can anyone clarify?
NR
--
'"You try to be free through writing. How wrong.
Every word unveils another tie."'
--Edmond Jabes
Binyamin Dissen
[ SNIPPED ]
:>I am a former Seventh-Day Adventist, and my husband is a former secular
:>humanist. After years of thought and discussion, we made a commitment
:>to convert our family (which includes three children) to Judaism. I
:>preferred an Orthodox conversion, because (a) such a conversion *does*
:>has the greatest recognition, (b) I am very concerned about
:>assimilation, (c) it is my understanding that C and R also require a
:>thorough understanding of halacha, and this seemed to be the best way to
:>learn, and (d) a variety of personal and spiritual reasons. My husband,
:>however, preferred Reform (a choice which would also be more palatable
:>to his secular humanist parents), due in large part to his perception of
:>the way in which Orthodoxy views women. I spoke to the O rabbi about
:>this issue at the outset and was surprised when he did not treat this as
:>the major stumbling block I thought it would be.
I am surprised as well.
Perhaps he thought after a while that you would decide that this path was not
for you or your husband would see through the falseness of a reformed
conversion.
When he saw you were proceeding and intending to live with a non-Jewish man
even after your conversion, by definition you do not accept the Torah, and
thus there is no conversion.
[ snipped ]
Sheldon Glickler
Colin Rosenthal wrote in message <6om5l6$81o$1...@ncar.ucar.edu>...
>On 16 Jul 1998 19:57:08 -0400,
>Tina Anderson <tand...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>>Harvey S. Cohen (harve...@home.foo.com) wrote:
>>: >rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>>: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>: >multiply by 5/9.
>>
>>: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
>>
>>...Kelvin?...
>
>Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
>
You are right. I was thinking of it backwards (to get _to_Eliot - K - where
you would have to add rather than subtract -- to get from the formula to
him). Of course, with Eliot, it is a simple subtraction. However, I
thought it was 273.16, not 273.15. It's been almost 40 years so I might be
off by the .01 C. Sorry for the rounding <g>.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>: Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>: multiply by 5/9.
>That depends on what you're converting *from*. . .
Right, you could just subtract 273...
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
jord...@my-dejanews.com
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > For the record, I am not using a Christian yardstick, but a secular one.
> > For many Jews, the Torah IS NO LONGER TO BE SEEN AS THE DIRECT
> > WORD OF GOD. Why? We don't believe in miracles, that's all.
>
> But Judaism has been founded on the concept of miracles for thousands of
> years. Why do you now come along and tell us that one can strip away the
> religion's historic core and still be left with the same entity? This is
> what the Xians did, as well as the other defunct sects that rejected the
Not quite, as they added a layers of miracles upon the old ones, in part
to gloss over the fundamental incompatibility between their tenets and
those of Judaism. Islam co-opts the entire issue by calling the Tanach
and the NT "corrupted" long time ago, so that it doesn't deal with the
discrepancies between it and the Koran.
.
> Oral Torah. It's a time-proven recipe for assimilation and
> self-destruction.
I'd argue that the religion is following a natural evolution. Rabbinic
judaism was born when Jews could no longer worship at the Temple. R was
born when some Jews no longer were willing to accept those tenets of
their faith that went against secular knowledge As an aside. I acknowedge
that the other branches of Judaism have come to their own compromises
w.r.t. secular knowledge (Torah U'Madah comes to mind), but I am limiting
myself to discussing R.
I would like to keep two issues distinct:
- What is a rationally sound doctrine?
- What is necessary to keep a religious comminity alive?
It is essential not to confuse the two. I am merely stressing that
In my view, R's doctrines are, for the most part, a sound compromise
between faith and secular knowledge. Whether R's policies are conducive
to the permanence of the Jewish people, that is an entirely different matter.
To take an example from another tradition: the anti family-planning stance
of Catholicism has helped, rather than hurt, increase the number of
its faithful. Does that mean I think it is a sound policy (socially,
ethically, etc.)? No.
> > I never claimed otherwise. As for R, the Miami declaration agrees with
> > you.
> > http://ccarnet.org/platforms/miami.html
>
> Now they do.
That's _good_, isn't it?
>
> > > (2) as such, we are the only religion that is eternally linked to a
> > > particular national homeland; and
> >
> > Never claimed otherwise. As for R, check the same document.
>
> Now they do. (Berlin used to be the "New Jerusalem.")
And a sad irony it is.
>
> > > (3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
> > > simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
> > > people)
> >
> > ... that is if you believe the traditional text is historically accurate.
>
> No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
> the past 3,300 years.
Validation of... ?
>
> Why is it that no other religion has ever made this claim? It's a very
> strong one. The normal formula for a religion is that one or two people
Islam claims that Adam was a Muslim. i will not discuss the merits of
this doctrine.
> claim to have privately communed with a higher power or spiritual
> energy, and people believe them.
>
> Not so with us. We believe because our parents, grandparents,
> great-grandparents, etc. all relate the same miraculous event witnessed
> by our nation's ancestors at Sinai (see Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah,
> ch.8). No other religion claims national prophecy, as they would have
> never gotten away with it (which is why Xianity, Islam, and others
> "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims. Can you imagine if the
> Pope got up one day and announced to the world that, 100 years ago, all
> Italians witnessed a revelation from God. Do you think the Italians
> would believe him, without having ever heard a word about it from their
> parents and grandparents?)
For me, Torah MiSinai is a powerful founding myth, but just that, a myth.
Different groups have grappled with this doctrine. I find that R's approach
to it is intellectually sound. Again, let us not confues the two issues
of what is intellectually sound and what is urseful to keep a people
together.
>
> > Anyway, see the same document, once more. Incidentally, unless one
> > talks about gilgul and so forth, what you say does not apply to converts.
>
> Halakhically, converts become the offspring of Abraham and Sara, but
> there is a mystical opinion, among others, about their souls having been
> at Sinai.
Rceaputulating, one can be a Jew without having any ancestors at Sinai,
except for "adopted" ones.
>
> > But R doesn't reject the Oral Torah. From the Centenary Platform
> > http://ccarnet.org/platforms/centenary.html :
> <delete>
>
> No. The Oral Torah (Torah She'bal peh) are those lessons taught orally
> to Moses by God but not written. It's never meant anything else (prior
> to the R transvaluation, I suppose). In addition, the prophets and
Let us employ the term to describe the body of teachings that are _claimed_
to have been given to Moses by God but not written. These teachings, as
embodied in the classics of Judaism, are not being rejected by Reform. Reform
still looks to them for inspiration and guidance. As to the doctrine of the
Oral Torah, it is in a similar position as that of the Written one, i.e.
these two are to be seen as God-inspired creations.
> sages over the millenia have guarded it and added legislative "fences"
> to protect the people from transgression of Sinaitic law, as well as
> made decrees, all in keeping with the power vested in them by the Torah.
> (To understand how this legal system works, you really must start
> learning Talmud, but a good introduction is H. Chaim Schimmel's The Oral
> Law, Feldheim Publishers.)
I am familiar with the basic doctrines, but thanks a lot for the reference!
I enjoyed Max Kaddushin's _Organic Mind_. I have also read Jacob Neusner
_An invitation to the Talmud_.
>
> > Wrong. For J4J, the main holy text is the NT, not the Tanach. R utterly,
> > absolutely rejects the NT and its related literature.
>
> You mentioned the practices, not the "main holy text." Anyway, I'm
> arguing that once a group does away with fundamental articles of faith
> of the religion (even if they retain the same central text), it ceases
> to subscribe to that religion (the "boreinu" fringe among the
> Lubavitchers are swiftly heading in this direction). As such, I believe
> it is only fair for them to forfeit their claim to the religion as well.
I would disagree, inasmuch as Maimonides Articles of Faith reflect his
personal opinion, and are subject to questioning. R's position is that
revelation is a continual process. We now know more (God has told us more)
about the world that we can no longer accept the Torah miSinai doctrine
at face value. People's ideas on the divinity change with time. I
believe that R's views are consistent with the our knowledge of the
world... and that's the paramount thing for me. Torah miSinai
has oultived its intellectual usefulness. If those who still believe in
it refuse to grant a "Jewish" status to those who no longer believe in it,
then so be it. The Jewish people may need to divide between those
who accept Torah miSinai, and those who don't. I believe this has already
happened to a great extent. As to who remains "Jewish" in his beliefs
and who doesn't, neither side is going to budge, and that's too bad.
God will decide in the end. As for me, who finds Torah miSinai
untenable, I consider both equally Jewish. Both represent strands of
the Jewish loom.
>
> > Non-obsevance would entail not doing anything at all. High holiday
> > celebrations, etc. ought to count towards one's observance, shouldn't
> > they?
>
> Again, they are not observant of the major tenets of the religion.
> Perhaps "observant" is the wrong term. They do not subscribe to the
> traditional Jewish ideology, as historically shaped by Halakhah. (While
> I'll agree that there are many sub-philosophies within Judaism, there
> are certain, basic parameters we do not cross. R/C went beyond the pale.
> See Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith).
But where did God say that the 13 Principles of Faith were the last word?
Maimonides was wrong about many things, such as astronomy. Why should
his chosen set of dogmas be seen as unquestionable?
>
> > And which classical thinkers would these be? Spinoza, Freud, Kafka
> > and Levi-Strauss? ;0)
>
> By "classical thinker," I meant those of the normative rabbinic mindset.
And to claim that these would consider that the only worth of R is
that it keeps intrmarriage somewhat down is a futile exercise, IMO.
>
> > Nu? Paul doesn't deal with this issue at all. Children are not born
> > Christian, but need to be baptised.
>
> Nor are children born of gentile mothers Jews. Declaring bilineal
> descent and liberalizing the conversion process beyond recognition is a
> form of universalization that is akin to Paul's transformation of
> Xianity from a Jewish sect into a universal religion. Now, virtually
> anyone can become a Jew, according to their arbitrary standards.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim that R is becoming "universalistic". If
such, it would become a proselytizing sect, instead of claiming
that Jews are a people (see, once more, the Miami platform).
>
> > As for patrilineal descent, I think R should perform child conversions
> > instead, in order to avoid this issue.
>
> That's a separate issue which concerns C conversions as well. O does not
> recognize either as valid. As O is the only denomination that is not
> only replenishing itself, but is growing, the offspring of R and C
> converts are going to have some tough choices to make (given current
> trends).
Indeed it's a worrisome trend, and I hope R, C, and O can work towards a
compromise that will help stem this trend (and which brings us
closer to the thread topic! :). Otherwise, it will become
harder and harder for O to marry non-O.
>
> Rafael
>
Shabbat shalom,
Harvey S. Cohen
>But Judaism has been founded on the concept of miracles for thousands of
>years.
>[sd]
Didn't RAMBAM state as a fundamental precept that miracles are *not* necessary
to Judaism? Sorry my memory is so vague. I will ask my teacher about this [B"N]
next week.
Harvey S. Cohen
>>: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>: >multiply by 5/9.
Harvey S. Cohen (harve...@home.foo.com) wrote:
>>: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
Tina Anderson <tand...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>>...Kelvin?...
rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
I suspect Eliot would be the first to point out that converting him to C would
be a subtraction. :-)
rafael
> Not quite, as they added a layers of miracles upon the old ones, in part
> to gloss over the fundamental incompatibility between their tenets and
> those of Judaism. Islam co-opts the entire issue by calling the Tanach
> and the NT "corrupted" long time ago, so that it doesn't deal with the
> discrepancies between it and the Koran.
Yes, but the early Xians,Sadducees, Baithusians, Karaites rejected the
Oral Law, but maintained belief in Torah MiSinai. This in itself was
untenable for the three groups that remained Jewish. The Xians, who went
universal, supplanted even the Written Law with a "new covenant."
Fundamental changes.
> I'd argue that the religion is following a natural evolution. Rabbinic
> judaism was born when Jews could no longer worship at the Temple.
The Pharasees (whose teachings are brought down in the Talmud, along
with the Zugot and Anshei Kenesset Hagadolah) were all pre-destruction.
> R was
> born when some Jews no longer were willing to accept those tenets of
> their faith that went against secular knowledge
Speculation.
> As an aside. I acknowedge
> that the other branches of Judaism have come to their own compromises
> w.r.t. secular knowledge (Torah U'Madah comes to mind), but I am limiting
> myself to discussing R.
>
> I would like to keep two issues distinct:
> - What is a rationally sound doctrine?
> - What is necessary to keep a religious comminity alive?
>
> It is essential not to confuse the two. I am merely stressing that
> In my view, R's doctrines are, for the most part, a sound compromise
> between faith and secular knowledge. Whether R's policies are conducive
> to the permanence of the Jewish people, that is an entirely different matter.
The permanence of the Jewish people (at least until the coming of the
Messiah) is part of our religion. That we've seen so many mighty
civilizations come and go is support for our claim. That we've been
guided by what is today called "Orthodoxy" all this time (and you have
yet to show evidence against this) is also a support for the traditional
interpretations. Those movements that have veered from these teachings
have historically perished. That R/C appears to be doing the same is
relgiously significant.
> To take an example from another tradition: the anti family-planning stance
> of Catholicism has helped, rather than hurt, increase the number of
> its faithful. Does that mean I think it is a sound policy (socially,
> ethically, etc.)? No.
>
> > > I never claimed otherwise. As for R, the Miami declaration agrees with
> > > you.
> > > http://ccarnet.org/platforms/miami.html
> >
> > Now they do.
>
> That's _good_, isn't it?
It shows a fickle attitude towards truth.
> > No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
> > the past 3,300 years.
>
> Validation of... ?
Of Judaism (today known as "Orthodoxy").
> For me, Torah MiSinai is a powerful founding myth, but just that, a myth.
> Different groups have grappled with this doctrine. I find that R's approach
> to it is intellectually sound. Again, let us not confues the two issues
> of what is intellectually sound and what is urseful to keep a people
> together.
It is only "intellectually sound" in that, in the short-run, it keeps
Jews from baptism. Beyond that, it flies in the face of the wisdom of
ages. The early R sounded Judaism's death nell. With that message, they
founded their assimilationist movement. Today, we see that if R is in
fact "intellectually sound," it is only as a non-Jewish religion (which
is, no doubt, why they originally pronounced Jews no longer a nation).
That's not to say that I see R as "intellectually sound," as simply
doesn't work as Judaism.
> Rceaputulating, one can be a Jew without having any ancestors at Sinai,
> except for "adopted" ones.
If you are talking about converts, yes. And a Jew needn't be taught
Torah by his parents to become halakhically observant. Both must to
learn to be halakhically observant (through hard personal study and
lessons with rabbis & "FFB's") in order to better ensure their
contribution to the Jewish nation's continuity. This is part of the
message of the verses I cited.
> Let us employ the term to describe the body of teachings that are _claimed_
> to have been given to Moses by God but not written. These teachings, as
> embodied in the classics of Judaism, are not being rejected by Reform. Reform
> still looks to them for inspiration and guidance. As to the doctrine of the
> Oral Torah, it is in a similar position as that of the Written one, i.e.
> these two are to be seen as God-inspired creations.
The Talmud does not permit a "God-inspired" interpretation. It teaches
explicitly that every word of the Torah was dictated to Moses and he
recorded it as he was told, while receiving verbal more detailed
explanations along with it. This is a fundamental article of faith that
R/C reject, placing themselves outside the pale of Judaism. The halakhic
ramifications of espousing such a belief is found elsewhere in the
Talmud as well as in the writings of the Rishonim and Acharonim up to
the present day.
> I am familiar with the basic doctrines, but thanks a lot for the reference!
> I enjoyed Max Kaddushin's _Organic Mind_. I have also read Jacob Neusner
> _An invitation to the Talmud_.
So your knowledge is compete? If you think so, trust me, you haven't
learned that much about Talmud. Check out this book.
> I would disagree, inasmuch as Maimonides Articles of Faith reflect his
> personal opinion, and are subject to questioning.
Seeing as how they plainly rooted in the Talmud & Tanakh and are found
in our daily siddurim, they are a little more than just "his" opinion.
In fact, those Rishonim who argued with Rambam over these argued little
details, like: should there be more? or if he wants to limit himself to
only 13, should resurection of the dead belong in the top 13? But no
authorities argued that they are fundamental articles of Jewish faith.
R's position is that
> revelation is a continual process. We now know more (God has told us more)
> about the world that we can no longer accept the Torah miSinai doctrine
> at face value. People's ideas on the divinity change with time. I
> believe that R's views are consistent with the our knowledge of the
> world... and that's the paramount thing for me. Torah miSinai
> has oultived its intellectual usefulness. If those who still believe in
> it refuse to grant a "Jewish" status to those who no longer believe in it,
> then so be it. The Jewish people may need to divide between those
> who accept Torah miSinai, and those who don't. I believe this has already
> happened to a great extent. As to who remains "Jewish" in his beliefs
> and who doesn't, neither side is going to budge, and that's too bad.
> God will decide in the end. As for me, who finds Torah miSinai
> untenable, I consider both equally Jewish. Both represent strands of
> the Jewish loom.
I don't believe, from what you've shown me, that you have seriously
engaged yourself in the study of classical Judaism, so I think it is
very easy for you to dismiss it. Nothing I can say here on the Internet
can pull you out of your comfortable non-observant life and make you
understand this. All I can say, with great pain, is that you are sadly
mistaken (this coming from a born & raised agnostic).
But I will agree that Jewish people has indeed split, and it is by no
means the first time in history. Only "Orthodoxy" is alive to tell about
it.
> But where did God say that the 13 Principles of Faith were the last word?
> Maimonides was wrong about many things, such as astronomy. Why should
> his chosen set of dogmas be seen as unquestionable?
His astronomy came from Aristotle. His 13 Principles came from Jewish
tradition, which has its origin at Sinai. It is a very important
distinction.
> And to claim that these would consider that the only worth of R is
> that it keeps intrmarriage somewhat down is a futile exercise, IMO.
Not in the opinion of those O who feel they have a better chance of
reaching out to R than to unaffiliated or Xian, Buddhist, etc. Jews.
> I wouldn't go so far as to claim that R is becoming "universalistic". If
> such, it would become a proselytizing sect, instead of claiming
> that Jews are a people (see, once more, the Miami platform).
Actually, about 2 or 3 years ago, I recall an article in the local
Jewish Sentinel about R's idea to start a new campaign to proselytize to
gentiles. I don't know if they ever got started (they probably got
side-tracked by their venture into Israel--which I see as abandoning a
sinking ship).
> Indeed it's a worrisome trend, and I hope R, C, and O can work towards a
> compromise that will help stem this trend (and which brings us
> closer to the thread topic! :). Otherwise, it will become
> harder and harder for O to marry non-O.
Such compromise is halakhically and historically untenable. Also, I
recall some R leader saying in a New York magazine article about the
disappearance of American Jewry something to the effect that "if it
comes between Orthodoxy or assimilation, we're choosing assimilation."
With such a low regard for classical Judaism, I can't foresee
reconciliation on the official level.
Shavua Tov,
Rafael
PS: I hope we move on to more positive subjects one day. You sound like
a really nice guy.
Richard Schultz
: Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
Actually, I thought to convert to C you had to multiply by the speed
of light. (Extra bonus points -- or perhaps extra points deducted --
for any physics nerds who know which units I'm talking about.)
-----
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 --
jord...@my-dejanews.com
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Not quite, as they added a layers of miracles upon the old ones, in part
> > to gloss over the fundamental incompatibility between their tenets and
> > those of Judaism. Islam co-opts the entire issue by calling the Tanach
> > and the NT "corrupted" long time ago, so that it doesn't deal with the
> > discrepancies between it and the Koran.
>
> Yes, but the early Xians,Sadducees, Baithusians, Karaites rejected the
> Oral Law, but maintained belief in Torah MiSinai. This in itself was
> untenable for the three groups that remained Jewish. The Xians, who went
> universal, supplanted even the Written Law with a "new covenant."
> Fundamental changes.
My point exactly. Reform has not instituted any new covenant,
nor any new holy text. This is a fundamental difference w.r.t. Xianity,
and a main reason I consider comparisons between the two to be unfair.
As for ccmparisons between R and Sadducees, etc., again you have stated the
main difference. R does not reject (or claims not to reject, if you will)
the Oral Law. It DOES reject Torah miSinai. This makes comparisons
with these other movemnts only of limited value.
I am not discussing the viability or unviability of Reform as a Jewish
movement; rather, I am arguing that it is a bona fide movement, regardless
of its future.
>
> > I'd argue that the religion is following a natural evolution. Rabbinic
> > judaism was born when Jews could no longer worship at the Temple.
>
> The Pharasees (whose teachings are brought down in the Talmud, along
> with the Zugot and Anshei Kenesset Hagadolah) were all pre-destruction.
An oversimplification on my part. The Gemara, crowning achievement of
Rabbinic Judaism, was written after the destruction of the Temple.
>
> > R was
> > born when some Jews no longer were willing to accept those tenets of
> > their faith that went against secular knowledge
>
> Speculation.
And valid speculation, I think. REgardless, this is one of the ways
Reform has explained its rejection of the Torah miSinai doctrine. I
quote from the 1885 platform, http://ccarnet.org/platforms/pittsburgh.html :
2. We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of
the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God,
and value it as the most potent instrument of religious and
moral instruction. We hold that the modern discoveries of
scientific researches in the domain of nature and history are not
antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism, the Bible reflecting
the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its
conception of divine Providence and Justice dealing with men
in miraculous narratives.
> > I would like to keep two issues distinct:
> > - What is a rationally sound doctrine?
> > - What is necessary to keep a religious comminity alive?
> >
> > It is essential not to confuse the two. I am merely stressing that
> > In my view, R's doctrines are, for the most part, a sound compromise
> > between faith and secular knowledge. Whether R's policies are conducive
> > to the permanence of the Jewish people, that is an entirely different
matter.
>
> The permanence of the Jewish people (at least until the coming of the
> Messiah) is part of our religion. That we've seen so many mighty
> civilizations come and go is support for our claim. That we've been
> guided by what is today called "Orthodoxy" all this time (and you have
> yet to show evidence against this) is also a support for the traditional
> interpretations. Those movements that have veered from these teachings
> have historically perished. That R/C appears to be doing the same is
> relgiously significant.
You are continuing to the two issues. Whether the policies of R or C
--or rather, the individual decisions of those millions of Jews unaffiliated
to O-- doom non-O Judaism to extinction (though I still see plenty of
hope for them) is IRRELEVANT as far as the intellectual soundness of
a theological position is concerned.
To take a rather extreme example, for all we know, the Egyptians were right,
and our souls are getting destroyed because we don't mummify our bodies
when we die. THe fact that nobody follows the ancient Egyptian religion
anymore doesn't mean that it is wrong. Sure, I definitely bet it is wrong,
but that is another story.
[...]
> > > No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
> > > the past 3,300 years.
> >
> > Validation of... ?
>
> Of Judaism (today known as "Orthodoxy").
I believe that the continuing existence of Jews attests to its persuasive
power, the cohesion of its people, and sheer luck. For me, it has nothing
to do with the truth of Judaism or lack thereof. I stay within my
secular bounds when explaining its continuing existence.
> > For me, Torah MiSinai is a powerful founding myth, but just that, a myth.
> > Different groups have grappled with this doctrine. I find that R's approach
> > to it is intellectually sound. Again, let us not confues the two issues
> > of what is intellectually sound and what is urseful to keep a people
> > together.
>
> It is only "intellectually sound" in that, in the short-run, it keeps
> Jews from baptism. Beyond that, it flies in the face of the wisdom of
No; that is not intellectually sound but socially sound. Entirely different
things.
> ages. The early R sounded Judaism's death nell. With that message, they
> founded their assimilationist movement. Today, we see that if R is in
Since then, R has rejected its earlier assimilatiionist ideology, and
instead bases its relaxation of halacha on theological and philosophical
grounds. R today is not committed to the assimilation of Jews, but to the
perpetuation of its doctrines. Whether it is doing enough to perpetuate
the Jewish people is a different matter.
> fact "intellectually sound," it is only as a non-Jewish religion (which
> is, no doubt, why they originally pronounced Jews no longer a nation).
> That's not to say that I see R as "intellectually sound," as simply
> doesn't work as Judaism.
I think it does, and believe that the only thing to do is agree to disagree.
[...]
> > Let us employ the term to describe the body of teachings that are _claimed_
> > to have been given to Moses by God but not written. These teachings, as
> > embodied in the classics of Judaism, are not being rejected by Reform.
Reform
> > still looks to them for inspiration and guidance. As to the doctrine of the
> > Oral Torah, it is in a similar position as that of the Written one, i.e.
> > these two are to be seen as God-inspired creations.
>
> The Talmud does not permit a "God-inspired" interpretation. It teaches
> explicitly that every word of the Torah was dictated to Moses and he
> recorded it as he was told, while receiving verbal more detailed
> explanations along with it. This is a fundamental article of faith that
Then perhaps the Talmud is wrong. R/C are attempts to correct the
errors of our ancient sages.
> R/C reject, placing themselves outside the pale of Judaism. The halakhic
> ramifications of espousing such a belief is found elsewhere in the
> Talmud as well as in the writings of the Rishonim and Acharonim up to
> the present day.
So R goes against a number of Talmudic and post-Talmudic doctrines. I
never claimed otherwise. Whether that puts it beyond the pale
of Judaism depends on your set of axioms of what Judaism is.
>
> > I am familiar with the basic doctrines, but thanks a lot for the reference!
> > I enjoyed Max Kaddushin's _Organic Mind_. I have also read Jacob Neusner
> > _An invitation to the Talmud_.
>
> So your knowledge is compete? If you think so, trust me, you haven't
> learned that much about Talmud. Check out this book.
Correction: it's "Organic Thinking". Mister Kaddushin also wrote "The
Rabbinical Mind"
Of course my knowledge is far from complete. IT will NEVER be complete.
However, my current knowledge is sufficient for me to claim that I know the
basic doctrines of classical Judaism. I also know I reject them.
>
> > I would disagree, inasmuch as Maimonides Articles of Faith reflect his
> > personal opinion, and are subject to questioning.
>
> Seeing as how they plainly rooted in the Talmud & Tanakh and are found
> in our daily siddurim, they are a little more than just "his" opinion.
> In fact, those Rishonim who argued with Rambam over these argued little
> details, like: should there be more? or if he wants to limit himself to
> only 13, should resurection of the dead belong in the top 13? But no
> authorities argued that they are fundamental articles of Jewish faith.
I direct you to the "More fundamentals" thread; I would like to see you
answer Jay and Robert's objections.
[...]
> I don't believe, from what you've shown me, that you have seriously
> engaged yourself in the study of classical Judaism, so I think it is
> very easy for you to dismiss it. Nothing I can say here on the Internet
> can pull you out of your comfortable non-observant life and make you
> understand this. All I can say, with great pain, is that you are sadly
> mistaken (this coming from a born & raised agnostic).
Although I definitely look forward to knowing more about classical Judaism
(I am currently reading Levinas' _Talmudic Readings_), I feel I must dismiss
it. I CANNOT BELIEVE IN TORAH MISINAI. I CANNOT ACCEPT REVELATION, PERIOD.
No matter how much I study, no matter if I devoted my entire life to the
study of Jewish sources, I probably could not reconcile myself to these
doctrines, end of story.
I am glad that you have found in O the answers you have been searching for.
Still, I must ask you to remember that it is an intellectually and morally
valid stance to remain an agnostic, even if one is open to other opinions.
>
> But I will agree that Jewish people has indeed split, and it is by no
> means the first time in history. Only "Orthodoxy" is alive to tell about
> it.
It needn't be the same way this time.
>
> > But where did God say that the 13 Principles of Faith were the last word?
> > Maimonides was wrong about many things, such as astronomy. Why should
> > his chosen set of dogmas be seen as unquestionable?
>
> His astronomy came from Aristotle. His 13 Principles came from Jewish
> tradition, which has its origin at Sinai. It is a very important
> distinction.
Tradition does not make truth. Again, please refer to the thread I mention.
[...]
>
> > I wouldn't go so far as to claim that R is becoming "universalistic". If
> > such, it would become a proselytizing sect, instead of claiming
> > that Jews are a people (see, once more, the Miami platform).
>
> Actually, about 2 or 3 years ago, I recall an article in the local
> Jewish Sentinel about R's idea to start a new campaign to proselytize to
> gentiles. I don't know if they ever got started (they probably got
> side-tracked by their venture into Israel--which I see as abandoning a
> sinking ship).
nteresting, and it shows the ambivalent position R still has.
>
> > Indeed it's a worrisome trend, and I hope R, C, and O can work towards a
> > compromise that will help stem this trend (and which brings us
> > closer to the thread topic! :). Otherwise, it will become
> > harder and harder for O to marry non-O.
>
> Such compromise is halakhically and historically untenable. Also, I
It doesn't need to be. As long as the child conversion is not as
harsh in its terms as the adult O one, I don't see why it must be
untenable.
> recall some R leader saying in a New York magazine article about the
> disappearance of American Jewry something to the effect that "if it
> comes between Orthodoxy or assimilation, we're choosing assimilation."
An unfortunate remark, but not one that reflects upon the entire R
movement. Still with a certain sadness, I must say that if I had to
choose between complete assimilation and certain kinds of Orthodoxy,
I would not hesitate to choose the former. Many non-O Jews are
angry at the attitudes of certain O towards us. This rabbi's
remark may reflect some of this anger, rather than a dismissal
of the entire O community.
> With such a low regard for classical Judaism, I can't foresee
> reconciliation on the official level.
I still have hope, nonetheless.
Best regards,
Jordi
P.D. RAfael, I am afraid I must bow out of this thread; the next couple
of weeks are going to be really busy. I've enjoyed our conversation
very much, though.
rafael
> My point exactly. Reform has not instituted any new covenant,
> nor any new holy text. This is a fundamental difference w.r.t. Xianity,
> and a main reason I consider comparisons between the two to be unfair.
> As for ccmparisons between R and Sadducees, etc., again you have stated the
> main difference. R does not reject (or claims not to reject, if you will)
> the Oral Law. It DOES reject Torah miSinai. This makes comparisons
> with these other movemnts only of limited value.
<sigh> They do reject the Oral Law as it's been understood for millenia.
Furthermore, the belief in Torah MiSinai is mandated by Oral Law (see
the Mishna in Sanhedrin 10:1). They are similar to Xianity in their
rejection of halakhah. Both movements maintain that God's covenant with
the Jews is an impossible one to follow.
> And valid speculation, I think. REgardless, this is one of the ways
> Reform has explained its rejection of the Torah miSinai doctrine. I
> quote from the 1885 platform, http://ccarnet.org/platforms/pittsburgh.html :
>
> 2. We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of
> the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God,
> and value it as the most potent instrument of religious and
> moral instruction. We hold that the modern discoveries of
> scientific researches in the domain of nature and history are not
> antagonistic to the doctrines of Judaism, the Bible reflecting
> the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its
> conception of divine Providence and Justice dealing with men
> in miraculous narratives.
I'm not sure how this relates, but "primitive ideas" sounds like an
annulment of the religion to me.
> You are continuing to the two issues. Whether the policies of R or C
> --or rather, the individual decisions of those millions of Jews unaffiliated
> to O-- doom non-O Judaism to extinction (though I still see plenty of
> hope for them) is IRRELEVANT as far as the intellectual soundness of
> a theological position is concerned.
I continue to disagree. I see a link between "intellectual soundness"
(your subjective term) and success in maintaining a continuous
community. Orthodoxy is vibrant and growing. These "intellectually
sound" movements have shown themselves unworthy of maintaining Jewry, as
O has done for the past 3,300 years.
> To take a rather extreme example, for all we know, the Egyptians were right,
> and our souls are getting destroyed because we don't mummify our bodies
> when we die. THe fact that nobody follows the ancient Egyptian religion
> anymore doesn't mean that it is wrong. Sure, I definitely bet it is wrong,
> but that is another story.
No, they were wrong and that's why their civilization perished. A better
example would be Xianity, which is approaching its 2,000th birthday, but
its universality puts it into a different category than Judaism, which
is a national religion (unless you include Noachidism).
> I believe that the continuing existence of Jews attests to its persuasive
> power, the cohesion of its people, and sheer luck. For me, it has nothing
> to do with the truth of Judaism or lack thereof. I stay within my
> secular bounds when explaining its continuing existence.
I'm not challenging your skepticism so much as your understanding of the
possibility for pluralism in Judaism. (An argument over personal beliefs
might be even more futile than this thread.:-))
> No; that is not intellectually sound but socially sound. Entirely different
> things.
See above. I should mention that I'm not arguing a rationalistic "social
soundness" on the part of O. My theory on Judaism's longevity emanates
more from religious conviction.
> Since then, R has rejected its earlier assimilatiionist ideology, and
> instead bases its relaxation of halacha on theological and philosophical
> grounds. R today is not committed to the assimilation of Jews, but to the
> perpetuation of its doctrines. Whether it is doing enough to perpetuate
> the Jewish people is a different matter.
You raise a good point here. I interpret this as "relaxation of halacha
on whatever grounds we can find without destroying ourselves." Their
intentions today may be good, but their raison d'etre is inherently
mistaken. The answer is no "relaxation of halacha" but "strengthening of
halacha." That's the traditional Jewish way.
> Then perhaps the Talmud is wrong. R/C are attempts to correct the
> errors of our ancient sages.
Wrong on what basis? It's a metaphysical truth. (Has a "bat kol"
declared this to R/C and not O?)
> So R goes against a number of Talmudic and post-Talmudic doctrines. I
> never claimed otherwise. Whether that puts it beyond the pale
> of Judaism depends on your set of axioms of what Judaism is.
Correct. It is intellectual theft, however, to change the axioms and
call it the same thing.
> Of course my knowledge is far from complete. IT will NEVER be complete.
> However, my current knowledge is sufficient for me to claim that I know the
> basic doctrines of classical Judaism. I also know I reject them.
Again, this is another issue. (I still maintain that you have not
wrestled with Judaism enough to make an informed decision.)
> I direct you to the "More fundamentals" thread; I would like to see you
> answer Jay and Robert's objections.
Answered Jay already. I don't want to get into an exchange with Robert
("liar," "get help" and all that mishugas). I'll just add here that
there are are 3 schools of thought amgonst the Rishonim about Rambam's
13 Principles of Faith: (1) he didn't go far enough; (2) he went to far
(in condemning erroneous conclusions in addition to wilfull rebellion);
and (3) agree that there are principles, but argue about the specific
list. Rambam's code, however, has received the widest acceptance and is
recited every morning (in poetic form).
> Although I definitely look forward to knowing more about classical Judaism
> (I am currently reading Levinas' _Talmudic Readings_), I feel I must dismiss
> it. I CANNOT BELIEVE IN TORAH MISINAI. I CANNOT ACCEPT REVELATION, PERIOD.
> No matter how much I study, no matter if I devoted my entire life to the
> study of Jewish sources, I probably could not reconcile myself to these
> doctrines, end of story.
That's what I used to think :-)
> I am glad that you have found in O the answers you have been searching for.
> Still, I must ask you to remember that it is an intellectually and morally
> valid stance to remain an agnostic, even if one is open to other opinions.
I agree, but I would add (from experience) that your reasons are more
emotional than you may be allowing yourself to believe. (But again, this
is only tangential to our discussion).
> It needn't be the same way this time.
I'm afraid it does (but I'm no prophet).
> Tradition does not make truth. Again, please refer to the thread I mention.
In Judaism, it usually does. You don't like Judaism, fine. Just please
don't tell me what it is.
> It doesn't need to be. As long as the child conversion is not as
> harsh in its terms as the adult O one, I don't see why it must be
> untenable.
If you are suggesting converting children who will be raised
non-observant Jews, then no compassionate, God-fearing O rabbi would
convert such children.
> An unfortunate remark, but not one that reflects upon the entire R
> movement. Still with a certain sadness, I must say that if I had to
> choose between complete assimilation and certain kinds of Orthodoxy,
> I would not hesitate to choose the former. Many non-O Jews are
> angry at the attitudes of certain O towards us. This rabbi's
> remark may reflect some of this anger, rather than a dismissal
> of the entire O community.
The traditional belief that the Jewish nation is judged collectively
accounts for some of the O resentment towards non-O. Many, however,
don't give them much thought. I think there is generally more pity for
unaffilliated Jews than resentment. The feelings towards the movements
(at least the O-bashing leaders), however, stem (as I said) more from
the copyright issue.
All the best,
Rafael
Eliot Shimoff
Harvey S. Cohen <harve...@home.foo.com> wrote:
>Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
>
>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
>
>Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>>>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>>>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>>>converted to C?".
>
>>Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>multiply by 5/9.
Harvey:
>This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
Eliot assures all that he has no intention of converting. If nothing
else, Eliot worries about the consequences of subtracting 32 (or 273).
I _know_ we're not talking about 32 pounds (which could be subtracted
for good cause, although 273 would be a bit much). And I don't have
32 (kal v'homer 273) _degrees_ to lose. And I don't mess around
with dimensionless numbers (at least since I started programming in
Visual Basic, and learned about Option Explicit, which requires that one
dim _everything_.)
--
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
Sheldon Glickler
>In article <35b967fc.156157731@news>,
>Harvey S. Cohen <harve...@home.foo.com> wrote:
>>Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>: >convert to C and you will be recognized by 90% of the worlds Jews
>>
>>Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>>>>: I'm not sure I believe this figure.
>>
>>Richard Schultz <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>>>When you convert to C, they have a big publicity campaign (TV ads,
>>>>billboards, milk cartons) so that by the time they're done, 90% of the
>>>>world's Jews will be able to say "hey, isn't that the guy who
>>>>converted to C?".
>>
>>>rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>>>Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>>multiply by 5/9.
>
>Harvey:
>>This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
>
>Eliot assures all that he has no intention of converting. If nothing
>else, Eliot worries about the consequences of subtracting 32 (or 273).
>I _know_ we're not talking about 32 pounds (which could be subtracted
>for good cause, although 273 would be a bit much). And I don't have
>32 (kal v'homer 273) _degrees_ to lose. And I don't mess around
>with dimensionless numbers (at least since I started programming in
>Visual Basic, and learned about Option Explicit, which requires that one
>dim _everything_.)
It is always a good practice to require the definition of the fundamentals.
Eliot, in C it is required that everything be declared and defined C also
has a lot more flexibility, applicability and universality.
Shelly
Eliot Shimoff
Harvey S. Cohen <harve...@home.foo.com> wrote:
>rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu (Colin Rosenthal) wrote:
>>>: >Actually to convert to C all you need to do is subtract 32 and
>>>: >multiply by 5/9.
>
>>>: This will not work for Eliot, who has already pointed out that he is K.
>
>Tina Anderson <tand...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> wrote:
>>>...Kelvin?...
>
>>Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
Harvey:
>I suspect Eliot would be the first to point out that converting him to C would
>be a subtraction. :-)
I will not, cannot, switch to K
Not tomorrow, and not today
Would I, could I, become C?
No, that's something I'd never be.
Would I, could I, to be egal?
I would not, could not, Harvey, pal!
Would I, could I, reject G'dolim?
I would not, could not, my friend Colin!
Would I, could I, just for play?
Not even for you, Tina A.
But what a great change for scj
Replacing OCR flames with C/F/K !
Eliot Shimoff
In article <6ovg9a$5...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
Sheldon Glickler <shel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eliot (writing in the third person, while the other two were busy):
>>Eliot assures all that he has no intention of converting. If nothing
>>else, Eliot worries about the consequences of subtracting 32 (or 273).
>>I _know_ we're not talking about 32 pounds (which could be subtracted
>>for good cause, although 273 would be a bit much). And I don't have
>>32 (kal v'homer 273) _degrees_ to lose. And I don't mess around
>>with dimensionless numbers (at least since I started programming in
>>Visual Basic, and learned about Option Explicit, which requires that one
>>dim _everything_.)
>It is always a good practice to require the definition of the fundamentals.
>Eliot, in C it is required that everything be declared and defined C also
>has a lot more flexibility, applicability and universality.
The problem with C is that it's base of operations is rather arbitrary.
K, on the other hand, has a real and permanent beginning point that is
immutable, and really cooool! Naturally, as an O, I have a preference
for K.
Unless, of course, you mean _that_ C. But why would anyone want to
convert to _that_ C. We all agree that the Blue Book was written
by men (and men who never even _claimed_ Divine inspiration). The
fundamentals of _that_ C are far too flexible; they have already been
superseded by C++ (which, as we all know, is really D)!
Unless, of course, you mean _that_ C. In which case, you are a liar.
And what you write is really bizarre. And that's exactly what I've been saying
all along; why are you lying about me? You really need help.
(So she went into the bar and asked for a Double Entendre. And the
barkeep gave her one. [Lifted shamelessly from a recent rec.humor.funny
list of one-liners.])
Sheldon Glickler
Eliot Shimoff wrote in message <6ovksl$e...@umbc7.umbc.edu>...
Personally, while I like metric for most things, in this case I find F far
more human oriented and understandable (0 is cooold, and 100 is hoooot).
However, since I go back to basics (the beginning) it is understandable why
I added 460 and became R.
Shelly
D S Levene
: jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > > (3) we are are the only religion to claim national prophecy (the
: > > simultaneous witness to revelation of all of its ancestry--3,000,000
: > > people)
>
: > ... that is if you believe the traditional text is historically accurate.
: No, that's if you believe the validation of every generation of Jews for
: the past 3,300 years.
: Why is it that no other religion has ever made this claim? It's a very
: strong one. The normal formula for a religion is that one or two people
: claim to have privately communed with a higher power or spiritual
: energy, and people believe them.
: Not so with us. We believe because our parents, grandparents,
: great-grandparents, etc. all relate the same miraculous event witnessed
: by our nation's ancestors at Sinai (see Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah,
: ch.8). No other religion claims national prophecy, as they would have
: never gotten away with it (which is why Xianity, Islam, and others
: "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims. Can you imagine if the
: Pope got up one day and announced to the world that, 100 years ago, all
: Italians witnessed a revelation from God. Do you think the Italians
: would believe him, without having ever heard a word about it from their
: parents and grandparents?)
I can see no difficulty in the Italians believing such a thing - PROVIDED
we increase the length of time slightly, AND adjust the story to make it
more closely parallel to the Torah - you'll see what I mean below.
The argument you are putting forward here is of course a very famous
one, derived originally (I believe) from the Kuzari by R' Yehuda HaLevi.
However, there are plenty of counterexamples, and, more importantly, the
argument depends on at least four false premises. For a random
counterexample, consider, for example, the Theban foundation legend,
according to which the original Thebans sprung fully-formed from the earth
after their lawgiver, Cadmus, had sowed dragons' teeth into it. If (as
I presume) you don't believe this legend to be true, then on your account
you should have difficulty explaining how the Thebans, supposedly
descended from these people, believed it when it was introduced. Indeed,
may I suggest that you spend a little time investigating ancient
foundation-myths more generally?
But even if there *were* no counterexamples, the Kuzari's argument
would still be fatally flawed, because, as I said, it depends on a set of
erroneous underlying assumptions:
(1) It assumes that the factual status of texts remains constant across
time. But in fact a text that was written and originally regarded as a
total or partial fiction may gradually be regarded with greater reverence
and status across the generations, until it is seen as fully factual. In
which case people *would* have heard about the story from their parents,
but would not know of its imperceptible drift from the way in which it
had been regarded by their ancestors. There are many examples both
ancient and modern, from Homer to the so-called "Angel of Mons".
(2) It assumes a society in which texts and information are widely
distributed, such that people, when receiving a new text or story, will
*know* that it is new. In fact, however, this was often not the case in
ancient societies: people often would have only the vaguest knowledge of
their own family or national pasts, and they were aware that information
might well be in slow circulation about which they knew nothing. If
an individual learned of what appeared to be such information, it would
be welcomed, not questioned.
(3) It assumes that texts predate practices; in fact religious practices
often predate texts. If a text then emerges that in part provides
apparent aetiologies for pre-existing practices, that very fact is a major
factor in validating the text for its readers. The history of the
"Sibylline Books" at Rome is an instructive example.
(4) It assumes a simple introduction of a unitary text in a set form. But
in fact texts can circulate in multiple formats for generations, and even
more if they are supplemented by shifting oral traditions. When a final
format emerges, it will be validated by its similarity to things that have
been around for a long time; and the very fact of the tradition's prior
polyvalency means that no one can have a firm basis for questioning
particular details within it.
That the argument depends on assumptions like these can be seen,
apart from anything else, by the way in which you set up your "Pope"
parallel. Note your own words:
: "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims. Can you imagine if the
: Pope got up one day and announced to the world that, 100 years ago, all
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Italians witnessed a revelation from God. Do you think the Italians
: would believe him, without having ever heard a word about it from their
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: parents and grandparents?)
All of the underlined passages depend on the false assumptions I have
outlined.
As I said, I have no difficulty in thinking that the Italians could
be led to accept such a revelation as historical, *providing* we change
the example to make it more realistic. If we accept that these Italians
knew little about their own history; that Italy was a society where there
was no firm historical knowledge to be had of the period, and where few
texts existed and few had access to them; where the Italians were
practising a religion with a complex set of taboos of whose origins
they were unaware, and for which the story provided an aetiology; where
there were a multiple and shifting set of versions of a similar story
(though without the crucial details) already in circulation; where the
Pope didn't "announce it to the world" (having no facility for doing so),
but to a smaller group, and it then circulated gradually; and where he
did not intend his version as fully historically true, but where it
gradually took on factual status through the years as it circulated -
under *these* circumstances, yes indeed, I can easily imagine it
happening. 100 years is a little short for the sort of processes I
have in mind, but increase it to (say) 300, and there is no problem.
All of these factors can easily be paralleled from other ancient
societies, and out of them one can construct many possible pictures of how
the idea of Torah being revealed to the nation could have achieved
currency. As to which (if any) of them is correct, I don't need to
decide. The Kuzari's argument is an a priori argument: stripped to its
bare bones, it is claiming that there is *no* plausible way in which such
a story could come to be believed unless it were true. The instant that
one can provide *any* plausible alternative, as I have done here, the
Kuzari's case collapses.
For the same reason, however, I should make it clear that I do not
regard myself as having even to the slightest degree *disproved* the
divine origin of the Torah. All that I have shown is that one particular
famous argument *for* its divine origin does not work.
David Levene
Department of Classics
University of Durham
Hadass Eviatar
>
> Colin Rosenthal (rose...@asp.hao.ucar.edu) wrote:
>
> : Exactly. To convert to C (!) he just needs to subtract 273.15
>
> of light. (Extra bonus points -- or perhaps extra points deducted --
> for any physics nerds who know which units I'm talking about.)
It's been a very long time, but this sounds like the wonderful units in
which c = h-bar = G. Those were fun to work with, luckily the results
never had to be applied to the real world ...
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.
Rafael
Whoa! I wish I had the time to answer your lenghty diatribe of the
Kuzari argument ad seriatum. Instead I'll just toss back a question:
Are there any other religions that claim to have experienced national
prophecy (i.e. the entire ancestry of a particular nation witnessing a
supernatural event simultaneously)?
Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35B35874...@nyct.net>...
>D S Levene wrote:
>
>Whoa! I wish I had the time to answer your lenghty diatribe of the
>Kuzari argument ad seriatum. Instead I'll just toss back a question:
Interesting. Very interesting. Do what he did was a "diatribe"? What a
wonderful way to dismiss a completely scholarly piece that was magnificently
and thoroughly presented! A diatribe!
Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
[rest snipped]
Shelly
Rafael
> Interesting. Very interesting. Do what he did was a "diatribe"? What a
> wonderful way to dismiss a completely scholarly piece that was magnificently
> and thoroughly presented! A diatribe!
I used the term "diatribe" as "an extensive or exhaustive discussion" as
opposed to "a strain of abusive or railing language." If my choice
offends Prof. Levene, I will quickly retract it.
> Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
And you offer nothing to the discussion, Shelley.
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: fundamentals of _that_ C are far too flexible; they have already been
: superseded by C++ (which, as we all know, is really D)!
some naive people think that C++ is O. or that R++ is C.
they are wrong!
first it is a bad practive to call variables O -
it can be confused with 0 on traditional pre-Shulkhan Oruch terminals.
second, when operations are defined on male converts
it is G-- = R, R-- = C, C-- = O (O-- is of course O).
(that proves of course that '--' has a less than 1 norm, and
O is a fixed point as it should be)
--
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 (-:
Jonathan J. Baker
>Unless, of course, you mean _that_ C. But why would anyone want to
>convert to _that_ C. We all agree that the Blue Book was written
>by men (and men who never even _claimed_ Divine inspiration). The
>fundamentals of _that_ C are far too flexible; they have already been
>superseded by C++ (which, as we all know, is really D)!
YM "P". HTH.
(For the uninitiated: first there was BCPL, the "British Computer
Programming Language" (which was, BTW< the first available true
compiler for the Mac), which was superseded by B, which was superseded
by C. So what comes next? P!
--
Jonathan Baker
jjb...@panix.com
Sheldon Glickler
Rafael wrote in message <35B36346...@nyct.net>...
>Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Very interesting. Do what he did was a "diatribe"? What a
>> wonderful way to dismiss a completely scholarly piece that was
magnificently
>> and thoroughly presented! A diatribe!
>
>I used the term "diatribe" as "an extensive or exhaustive discussion" as
>opposed to "a strain of abusive or railing language." If my choice
>offends Prof. Levene, I will quickly retract it.
===================================================================
Main Entry: di戢暗ribe
Pronunciation: 'dI-&-"trIb
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribE pastime, discourse, from
diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub -- more at
THROW
Date: 1581
1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironical or satirical criticism
===================================================================
First: Notice that your "usage" is "archaic. The common usages are 2 and 3
and not 1.
Second: Your posting is in the public domain, not email, so your
implication here of Prof. Levene being offending as the only one of
importance is not appropriate. Rather, it is for anyone who completely
agrees with him.
>
>> Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
>
>And you offer nothing to the discussion, Shelley.
"Shelly". Au contraire. I pointed out where you had dismissed an
exceedingly scholararly discussion which was not to your liking as a
"diatribe". I consider that quite important for it then reflects upon
whatever _you_ may have to say. Of course, YMMV.
Shelly
Simcha Streltsov
: argument depends on at least four false premises. For a random
: counterexample, consider, for example, the Theban foundation legend,
: according to which the original Thebans sprung fully-formed from the earth
: after their lawgiver, Cadmus, had sowed dragons' teeth into it. If (as
this is an interesting subject that goes far beyond my competence
in history, but interests me as a valid statistical question.
first, do we have enough claims like that and what their features are:
do they claim to have written documents, or at least other artifacts that go
back to the time of the claimed origin? say, did Thebans keep
any of hte remaining teeth, or dentures or something?
can we list a reasonable list of such claims?
: But even if there *were* no counterexamples, the Kuzari's argument
: would still be fatally flawed, because, as I said, it depends on a set of
: erroneous underlying assumptions:
these are all reasonable questions, IMHO, this century gives enough
information to think twice about Kuzari argument - we saw how
a powerful propaganda machine in Communist and Nazi states
moved people into bizarre theories and beliefs in several years -
and this in the age of book, newspapers, radios, etc.
what _does_ add to the power of Kuzari is the forecasting power
of the tradition in verifiable history - Torah says that Jews will be
important in history - and they are, that they'll suffer, etc - and they
did.
Maybe we can compute some numbers - let's collect all ancient claims
similar to Kuzari, and estimate their validity both from the POV of
verifiability and predictive power, and see whether Judaism is
an outlier, or simply one of more successful ones
rafael
> First: Notice that your "usage" is "archaic. The common usages are 2 and 3
> and not 1.
It was number one on my on-line dictionary and it didn't say "archaic."
If it makes you happy, I'll retract ahead of time and replace it with
the word "criticism."
> Second: Your posting is in the public domain, not email, so your
> implication here of Prof. Levene being offending as the only one of
> importance is not appropriate. Rather, it is for anyone who completely
> agrees with him.
> >> Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
> >
> >And you offer nothing to the discussion, Shelley.
>
> "Shelly". Au contraire. I pointed out where you had dismissed an
> exceedingly scholararly discussion which was not to your liking as a
> "diatribe". I consider that quite important for it then reflects upon
> whatever _you_ may have to say. Of course, YMMV.
You assume I've dismissed his post. I haven't. I just didn't respond
line by line. I'm hoping we'll have an enlightening discussion on the
points he raised.
Now do you have anything intelligent to say on this subject, or are you
just going to cheerlead?
Rafael
rafael
just add a thought or two prior to his next reply>
Simcha Streltsov wrote:
> first, do we have enough claims like that and what their features are:
> do they claim to have written documents, or at least other artifacts that go
> back to the time of the claimed origin? say, did Thebans keep
> any of hte remaining teeth, or dentures or something?
> can we list a reasonable list of such claims?
This myth about the Thebans seems more akin to a creation story than
Torah MiSinai. The creation story is certainly not unique to Judaism
(nor is the Flood). What is unique to Judaism (AFAIK, and I hope Prof.
Levene will correct me if I'm wrong) is its origin in simultaneous,
national prophecy. The strength of the claim is in inverse proportion to
the number of people it involves (3,000,000 in our case).
It is certainly possible to synthesize an elaborate explanation for
Torah MiSinai, but if such an explanation is so plausible, one would
expect to find such claims among other nations. It is after all, a very
strong claim, as any later religious claims to the contrary would demand
a "repeat performance" (see the Torah's prescription for a false
prophet). That other religions (most notably Xianity and Islam) felt
obliged to "borrow" Torah MiSinai to back their own claims (as opposed
to concocting their own national prophecy myth) should cause one to
wonder.
Rafael
Harvey S. Cohen
>[sd]
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
>Whoa! I wish I had the time to answer your lenghty diatribe of the
>Kuzari argument ad seriatum. Instead I'll just toss back a question:
>
>prophecy (i.e. the entire ancestry of a particular nation witnessing a
>supernatural event simultaneously)?
IMHO calling David's scrupulously polite, elegantly reasoned, and beautifully
written argument a "diatribe" reveals a serious lack of either derech eretz or
facility with English. I hope it's the latter.
I think it is unfortunate when a someone requires specious flummery like this,
or the "divine watchmaker," or Bible codes, to support their Judaism. It makes
their faith dependent on a frail reed.
Harvey S. Cohen
>[sd]
>what _does_ add to the power of Kuzari is the forecasting power
>of the tradition in verifiable history - Torah says that Jews will be
>important in history - and they are, that they'll suffer, etc - and they
>did.
If a person's Judaism depends on such specious support, he is easy prey for the
first fortune teller or magician who crosses his path.
rafael
> IMHO calling David's scrupulously polite, elegantly reasoned, and beautifully
> written argument a "diatribe" reveals a serious lack of either derech eretz or
> facility with English. I hope it's the latter.
I hope it's the latter, as well.
> I think it is unfortunate when a someone requires specious flummery like this,
> or the "divine watchmaker," or Bible codes, to support their Judaism. It makes
> their faith dependent on a frail reed.
Now who's lacking derech eretz? Prof. Levene has indeed offered some
well-thought-out reasons to challenge the Kuzari's classic argument. (I
should have been clearer about this in my first reply.) However, I am
not yet satisfied with his explanation (as I've pointed in out in
another post).
It would be nice if all posters could disagree as eloquently and
substantially as Prof. Levene has.
Rafael
jlap...@my-dejanews.com
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > I direct you to the "More fundamentals" thread; I would like to see you
> > answer Jay and Robert's objections.
>
> Answered Jay already.
But not my follow up.
--
Jay S. Lapidus <jlap...@USA.NET>
http://members.tripod.com/~jlapidus/index.html
Simcha Streltsov
: If a person's Judaism depends on such specious support, he is easy prey for the
: first fortune teller or magician who crosses his path.
one of the 1st times I heard it articulated to the extreme was
in Vienna 1990 - an old Rabbi frmo Baden-Baden, Nazi camp survivor, who
was coming to visit Russians passing thru Vienna - I dont remember his
name unfortunately - in his half-Polish, half-Russian words
"Judaism is a materialistic science - it can be proven thru looking
at Jewish history" - and with this POV he did not look like an easy
prey of any magician.
But then any person who claims to listen to reasning, can be an
easy prey to the arguments of someone - maybe even someone evil! -
so you are right - it is much safer simply to assert one's views,
and just say "I believe my opinions are so and so"
Richard Schultz
: Main Entry: di戢暗ribe. . .
: 1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
: 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
: 3 : ironical or satirical criticism
But just ask him to define "ignoramus" and see how far that gets you. . .
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Richard Schultz
: Richard Schultz wrote:
: > Actually, I thought to convert to C you had to multiply by the speed
: > of light. (Extra bonus points -- or perhaps extra points deducted --
: > for any physics nerds who know which units I'm talking about.)
: It's been a very long time, but this sounds like the wonderful units in
: which c = h-bar = G. Those were fun to work with, luckily the results
: never had to be applied to the real world ...
No, that's not it. You're thinking of the system where c = h-bar = G = 1,
which makes a lot of calculations much simpler. In the conversion to
C I was thinking of, you have to multiply by (small) c (~3 x 10^8 m/sec).
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."
Sheldon Glickler
rafael wrote in message <35B3CC...@nyct.net>...
>Sheldon Glickler wrote:
>
>> First: Notice that your "usage" is "archaic. The common usages are 2
and 3
>> and not 1.
>
>It was number one on my on-line dictionary and it didn't say "archaic."
>If it makes you happy, I'll retract ahead of time and replace it with
>the word "criticism."
>
>> Second: Your posting is in the public domain, not email, so your
>> implication here of Prof. Levene being offending as the only one of
>> importance is not appropriate. Rather, it is for anyone who completely
>> agrees with him.
>
>> >> Oh well, I guess we should have expected you to respond like this.
>> >
>> >And you offer nothing to the discussion, Shelley.
>>
>> "Shelly". Au contraire. I pointed out where you had dismissed an
>> exceedingly scholararly discussion which was not to your liking as a
>> "diatribe". I consider that quite important for it then reflects upon
>> whatever _you_ may have to say. Of course, YMMV.
>
>You assume I've dismissed his post. I haven't. I just didn't respond
Sure looked that way to me!
>line by line. I'm hoping we'll have an enlightening discussion on the
>points he raised.
>
>Now do you have anything intelligent to say on this subject, or are you
>just going to cheerlead?
No, I will let him continue. You see, I too know when to defer to someone
else. He is vastly more knowledgeable on this subject.
Shelly
>
>Rafael
Sheldon Glickler
Richard Schultz wrote in message <6p1686$llo$7...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>...
>Sheldon Glickler (shel...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>
>: Main Entry: di戢暗ribe. . .
>: 1 archaic : a prolonged discourse
>: 2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
>: 3 : ironical or satirical criticism
>
>But just ask him to define "ignoramus" and see how far that gets you. . .
>
I (unfortunately) stumbled across this at work where I don't have a good
kill filter and I accidentally hit the wrong line in the listing of email.
so, in this one instance:
From:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary (Merriam-Webster)
Main Entry: ig搖o斟a搶us
Pronunciation: "ig-n&-'rA-m&s also -'ra-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mus搪s also ig搖o斟a搶i /-mE/
Etymology: Ignoramus, ignorant lawyer in Ignoramus (1615), play by George
Ruggle, from Latin, literally, we are ignorant of
Date: circa 1616
: an utterly ignorant person : DUNCE
From the thesaurus:
Entry Word: ignoramus
Function: n
Text: Synonyms DUNCE, dullard, dullhead, dumbbell, ||dummkopf, dummy, idiot,
moron, simpleton, stupid
For the definition, note the word "utterly". It is all-important
Lets go over the synonyms again:
"dunce", "dullard", "dullhead", "dumbbell", "dummkopf", "dummy", "idiot",
"moron", "simpleton", "stupid". Sure, not a single one of these is a
personal insult. Frankly, I find it hard to find a single one of these that
is _not_ a personal insult.
This speaks volumes about one who will translate this definition along with
the synonyms to simply "ignorant of a particular subject".
Shelly
Robert Rubinoff
><As I was hoping to get a more speedy response from Prof. Levene, I'll
>just add a thought or two prior to his next reply>
>Simcha Streltsov wrote:
>> first, do we have enough claims like that and what their features are:
>> do they claim to have written documents, or at least other artifacts that go
>> back to the time of the claimed origin? say, did Thebans keep
>> any of hte remaining teeth, or dentures or something?
>> can we list a reasonable list of such claims?
>This myth about the Thebans seems more akin to a creation story than
>Torah MiSinai. The creation story is certainly not unique to Judaism
>(nor is the Flood). What is unique to Judaism (AFAIK, and I hope Prof.
>Levene will correct me if I'm wrong) is its origin in simultaneous,
>national prophecy. The strength of the claim is in inverse proportion to
>the number of people it involves (3,000,000 in our case).
No, the usual creation story took place at most a few people around, and most
of it happens before the people show up.
But the Thebes story involved a large number of people, certainly a few
thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current inhabitants of
the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the Kuzari argument: how
could someone have convinced them that something miraculous had happened to
their ancestors, as a group, without *anyone* having heard it from their
parents?
Robert
Rafael
>
> In article <35B2C4...@nyct.net>,
> raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> > jord...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > I direct you to the "More fundamentals" thread; I would like to see you
> > > answer Jay and Robert's objections.
> >
> > Answered Jay already.
>
> But not my follow up.
Where is it? Can you post it again or e-mail it?
Rafael
Rafael
> If a person's Judaism depends on such specious support, he is easy prey for the
> first fortune teller or magician who crosses his path.
Do not seek out mediums, nor seek out oracles,
so as to defile yourselves through them. I am
God your Lord. (Lev. 19:31)
If a person turns to the mediums and oracles, so as
to prostitute himself to their way, I will direct
My anger against him, and cut him off from his people.
(Lev. 20:6)
The nations that you are driving out listen to
astrologers and stick diviners, but what God has
given you is totally different. (Deut. 18:14)
If there arise among you a prophet or a
dreamer of dreams and he gives you a sign or a
wonder, and the sign or the wonder of which he
spoke to you comes to pass, and he says, "Let us
go after other gods which you have not known
and let us serve them, do not listen to the words
of that prophet or dreamer. G-d your lord is testing
you to see if you are truly able to love G-d your Lord
with all your heart and all your soul. (Deut. 13:2-6)
(thanks to R. Aryeh Kaplan and R. Yisroel Chait for translations)
Rafael
Rafael
> No, the usual creation story took place at most a few people around, and most
> of it happens before the people show up.
>
> But the Thebes story involved a large number of people, certainly a few
> thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current inhabitants of
> the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the Kuzari argument: how
> could someone have convinced them that something miraculous had happened to
> their ancestors, as a group, without *anyone* having heard it from their
> parents?
I'm at a distinct disadvantage, as all I know of the Thebes myth is what
you and Prof. Levene have told here, but to continue my defense of the
Kuzari argument, I have another question:
How convinced were the Thebans?
We have in the Torah, after the splitting of the sea, God saying to
Moses:
I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that all
the people will hear when I speak to you. They will
then also believe in you forever. (Exodus 19:9)
As 3,300 years later, we still find millions of Jews believing in Torah
MiSinai (plus the other world religions who have latched on to it), is
fair to compare it to a myth that people probably haven't taken
seriously for thousands of years?
Rafael
Simcha Streltsov
: But the Thebes story involved a large number of people, certainly a few
: thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current
: inhabitants of
: the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the Kuzari argument: how
we can easily come up with a quick list of differences - written sources?
number of people? time frame? etc - but this quickly become too subjective.
I very much prefer, if you could first compile a list of such stories
and then look for similarities and dis-similarities in the whole list
Robert Rubinoff
>Robert Rubinoff wrote:
>
>> No, the usual creation story took place at most a few people around, and most
>> of it happens before the people show up.
>>
>> thousand, and involved the direct ancestors of the then-current inhabitants of
>> the city. So the same sort of questions arise as in the Kuzari argument: how
>> their ancestors, as a group, without *anyone* having heard it from their
>> parents?
>I'm at a distinct disadvantage, as all I know of the Thebes myth is what
>you and Prof. Levene have told here,
Let me be clear; I don't know anything about the Thebes myth except for what
Dr. Levene posted. I was just pointing out ways in which what he described is
more like the Kuzari argument and less like a typical creation story.
Robert
Rafael
> Let me be clear; I don't know anything about the Thebes myth except for what
> Dr. Levene posted. I was just pointing out ways in which what he described is
> more like the Kuzari argument and less like a typical creation story.
Hopefully, then, Prof. Levene will pick up on my question.
Rafael
Jay Lapidus
<35B46C10...@nyct.net>,
Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
REPOST:
In article <35B15E...@nyct.net>,
raf...@nyct.net wrote:
> jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <35A9EE0E...@nyct.net>,
> > Rafael <raf...@nyct.net> wrote:
> > > jlap...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > That is, more than what R' Hai Gaon, the Conservative poseq, had found
> > > > necessary!
> > > You mean he rejected Torah MiSinai and other fundamentals of Judaism?
> > Non sequitur.
> Not really. Before C made any major practical halakhic changes, the
> gedolim (Torah giants) of the American O community rejected them as
> heretical.
What "gedolim of the American O community"? Oh sure, you can name
names, but who says that they speak for the majority of
synagogue-affiliated American Jews? "Heretical"? Perhaps, the ones
who label others as "heretics" are the actual heretics themselves.
> > > I think not.
> > You said it, not I!
> > Rafael, I have news for you. Every Tanna, every Amora, every Gaon and every
> > Rishon was a Conservative Jew. Conservative Judaism originated with HaZaL
> > (on God's behalf) and has developed over through the centuries to our own
> > times.
> LOL.
LOL all you want, but you are going to have to do more than that. C
Judaism is an authentic continuation of the Judaism of the Tradition.
Orthodoxy certainly does not have a greater claim to the Tradition.
> > Rafael, if I may ask, which "fundamentals of Judaism" do *you* reject? If
you
> > claim that you reject none of them, then I'll ask, which ones do you have
> > trouble accepting fully?
> Of Rambam's 13 Ikkarim, I reject none and have no trouble accecting any
> of them fully. It's called faith ("Ani maamin be'emunah shelamah..."). I
> don't *know* these things. I *believe* them.
As you yourself said, "I think not." Do you really mean that you have
never questioned any of what you consider to be "fundamental beliefs"?
Have you examined them in depth?
Kol tuv,
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
Simcha Streltsov
: names, but who says that they speak for the majority of
: synagogue-affiliated American Jews? "Heretical"? Perhaps, the ones
what does 'affiliated' mean?