Conversion Question
no...@helix.nih.gov
>>
>> If a person has had an orthodox conversion but is no longer keeping
>> many of the mitzvot, is there a procedure by which a rabbi can
>> "un-convert" the person?
>
>I don't know. But I'd think that a Bet Din of sufficiently large
>numbers of Rabbis can decide that he/she didn't really intend on
>converting if this person's actions are bad enough.
>--
>David Charlap |"there aren't 50,000 things for which it's worth writing
>dic...@hertz.njit.edu| software; and the computer industry doesn't have enough
>----------------------+ programmers to create that much good software.
>Therefore, most of it must be worthless" -- Boris Beizer "The Frozen Keyboard"
I wonder if "the person" is a male, would they undo the bris milah(or the
drop of blood) or if "the person" was female, would they undo the mikvah.
I don't know whether to treat the original question as a come on or not.
Certainly if a convert is not going to observe mitzvahs, it is their
perogative. I don't know how you can undo being Jewish. There are
certainly plenty (unfortunitly) born Jewish person who do not observe
mitzvahs and until they declare themselves otherwise, usually by
converting, they are still Jewish.
+--------------------------------------------------------+
* *** ** *
* * * * *
* * * * *
* *** ***
*
* nison reuven b'R Shami
* * * *** *** ** **
* ** * * * * * * ** *
* * ** * * *** * *
* * * *** * * * *
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Stephen Phillips
> +From : j...@cs.tulane.edu (Jan Silbermann)
> +Subject : Conversion Question
>
>
> If a person has had an orthodox conversion but is no longer keeping
> many of the mitzvot, is there a procedure by which a rabbi can
> "un-convert" the person?
You say that the person is NO LONGER keeping MANY of the mitzvot,
from which one might infer that he or she at one time kept all the
mitzvot and still keeps some of them. If that is the case, then in
all probability the conversion would remain valid. The only way it
could be found to be invalid is if one of the conditions for
conversion was lacking at the time of the conversion, viz. the Beis
Din was not Kosher (eg. Conservative), there was no Tevilah in a
Mikvah or there was not Kabbolat Ol Mitzvot (full acceptance of the
"burden" all the Mitzvot, even if not actually observed). In the case
of a man, there would also need to have been Brit Milah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen (Yisroel) Phillips Tel: 44-895-442141
Burch Phillips & Co. Fax: 44-895-421231
63a Station Road
West Drayton
Middlesex
UB7 7LR
United Kingdom step...@compulink.co.uk
Arthur S. Kamlet
>You say that the person is NO LONGER keeping MANY of the mitzvot,
>from which one might infer that he or she at one time kept all the
>mitzvot and still keeps some of them. If that is the case, then in
>all probability the conversion would remain valid. The only way it
>could be found to be invalid is if one of the conditions for
>conversion was lacking at the time of the conversion, viz. the Beis
I try hard not to let my anger get the best of me, but why does the
author have to go out of his was to provoke so many people?
Wasn't it sufficient to say "the Beis Din was not kosher" without
being insulting and political and wrong?
To state that a conservative Bet Din is not kosher is inflammatory,
insulting and wrong. True, there are significant political issues
at stake, but they do not per se make a conservative Bet Din not
kosher. What they do is, in practice, make a conservative
conversion much more difficult or near impossible to be accepted in
certain circles. And many people will defend the politics as being
religious in nature. I don't.
But because a conversion was handled by a conservative bet din does
not mean it is unkosher, and it is unnecessary to deliberately be
provocative in this newsgroup. Or perhaps this newsgroup has simply
become a place for people to be nasty and provocative?
--
Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Stephen Phillips
> +From : a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
> +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
>
> In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk> step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
> >You say that the person is NO LONGER keeping MANY of the mitzvot,
> >from which one might infer that he or she at one time kept all the
> >mitzvot and still keeps some of them. If that is the case, then in
> >all probability the conversion would remain valid. The only way it
> >could be found to be invalid is if one of the conditions for
> >conversion was lacking at the time of the conversion, viz. the Beis
> >Din was not Kosher (eg. Conservative), ...
>
> I try hard not to let my anger get the best of me, but why does the
> author have to go out of his was to provoke so many people?
>
> Wasn't it sufficient to say "the Beis Din was not kosher" without
> being insulting and political and wrong?
I'm not trying to insult anybody, merely stating a fact.
> To state that a conservative Bet Din is not kosher is inflammatory,
> insulting and wrong. True, there are significant political issues
> at stake, but they do not per se make a conservative Bet Din not
> kosher. What they do is, in practice, make a conservative
> conversion much more difficult or near impossible to be accepted in
> certain circles. And many people will defend the politics as being
> religious in nature. I don't.
Politics has nothing to do with it. My concern is strictly halachik
and I claim for support the Teshuvos (Responsa) of Reb Moshe
Feinstein z'tzl who in many of them stated that a conversion through
a Conservative Beis Din was not a valid conversion. And anyone who
thinks that Reb Moshe had any considerations other than halachik ones
is completely misguided.
> But because a conversion was handled by a conservative bet din does
> not mean it is unkosher, and it is unnecessary to deliberately be
> provocative in this newsgroup. Or perhaps this newsgroup has simply
> become a place for people to be nasty and provocative?
"Nasty"? No. "Provocative"? Well, if by that you mean that it
provokes discussion (which is what this newsgroup is all about after
all), then I plead guilty.
Arthur S. Kamlet
>Politics has nothing to do with it. My concern is strictly halachik
>and I claim for support the Teshuvos (Responsa) of Reb Moshe
>Feinstein z'tzl who in many of them stated that a conversion through
>a Conservative Beis Din was not a valid conversion. And anyone who
>thinks that Reb Moshe had any considerations other than halachik ones
>is completely misguided.
Many teshuvot? I have seen reference here to teshuvot where a woman
was not granted a get by her husband and a way out was needed for
her to remarry. Or a case where a husband disappears. As I recall,
in at least one instance the marriage and another occasion the conversion
by a reform Bet Din (perhaps you are right - a conservative Bet Din)
was decided to be invalid. But the situation was to help a woman in
need of help, and was after the fact, and in particular, was judged
on facts of a very particular case and not a general, broad brush
attack as I see painted here.
Andrew Solovay
>In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk> step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>]
>]] +From : a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
>]] +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
>]]
>]] In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk> step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>]] ]You say that the person is NO LONGER keeping MANY of the mitzvot,
>]] ]from which one might infer that he or she at one time kept all the
>]] ]mitzvot and still keeps some of them. If that is the case, then in
>]] ]all probability the conversion would remain valid. The only way it
>]] ]could be found to be invalid is if one of the conditions for
>]] ]conversion was lacking at the time of the conversion, viz. the Beis
>]] ]Din was not Kosher (eg. Conservative), ...
>]]
>]] I try hard not to let my anger get the best of me, but why does the
>]] author have to go out of his was to provoke so many people?
>]]
>]] Wasn't it sufficient to say "the Beis Din was not kosher" without
>]] being insulting and political and wrong?
>]
>]I'm not trying to insult anybody, merely stating a fact.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>You _deliberately_ went out of your way to add something to your post
>in order to make it pointedly insulting to a large number of your
>fellow Jews on the net. There was _no_ reason to go out of your way
>and point out your (unjustified) belief that Conservative conversion
>are invalid _unless_ you wanted to make an effort to insult and/or
>denigrate the Conservative readers on the net.
As I recall, the question was, under what circumstances might
Orthodox Jews view a conversion as invalid. One such circumstance
would be an invalid bet din. There's pretty much only one
siutuation in which a bet din is convened which an Orthodox Jew
would consider invalid, and that's when the members of the bet
din belong to a non-Orthodox movement. Given that, it was
entirely appropriate to give a Conservative bet din as an example.
Why does it bother you so much? By now it's well established that
Orthodox Jews don't accept Conservative conversions. If you're so
outraged by that viewpoint, perhaps you shouldn't follow a forum
on which OJs post...
--
Andrew M. Solovay "Until there was rock, you only had God."
--Ziggy Stardust
#include <disclaimer.h>
Mark C. Carroll
]
]] +From : a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
]] +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
]]
]] In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk> step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
]] ]You say that the person is NO LONGER keeping MANY of the mitzvot,
]] ]from which one might infer that he or she at one time kept all the
]] ]mitzvot and still keeps some of them. If that is the case, then in
]] ]all probability the conversion would remain valid. The only way it
]] ]could be found to be invalid is if one of the conditions for
]] ]conversion was lacking at the time of the conversion, viz. the Beis
]] ]Din was not Kosher (eg. Conservative), ...
]]
]] I try hard not to let my anger get the best of me, but why does the
]] author have to go out of his was to provoke so many people?
]]
]] Wasn't it sufficient to say "the Beis Din was not kosher" without
]] being insulting and political and wrong?
]
]I'm not trying to insult anybody, merely stating a fact.
Nonsense.
You _deliberately_ went out of your way to add something to your post
in order to make it pointedly insulting to a large number of your
fellow Jews on the net. There was _no_ reason to go out of your way
and point out your (unjustified) belief that Conservative conversion
are invalid _unless_ you wanted to make an effort to insult and/or
denigrate the Conservative readers on the net.
]] To state that a conservative Bet Din is not kosher is inflammatory,
]] insulting and wrong. True, there are significant political issues
]] at stake, but they do not per se make a conservative Bet Din not
]] kosher. What they do is, in practice, make a conservative
]] conversion much more difficult or near impossible to be accepted in
]] certain circles. And many people will defend the politics as being
]] religious in nature. I don't.
]
]Politics has nothing to do with it. My concern is strictly halachik
]and I claim for support the Teshuvos (Responsa) of Reb Moshe
]Feinstein z'tzl who in many of them stated that a conversion through
]a Conservative Beis Din was not a valid conversion. And anyone who
]thinks that Reb Moshe had any considerations other than halachik ones
]is completely misguided.
]
Pointing a finger at someone else and saying "He said it first, and
you know that he didn't mean it as an insult" is hardly an excuse.
Rabbi Feinstein was an excellent Rabbi. But I don't think that he
would have defended your insulting post. Whether you believe that
Conservative conversions are valid or not, to go out of your way to
point out your belief *for no good reason* is deliberately insulting
your fellow Jews. And that, my friend, is something which is *not*
defensible halachically.
<MC>
--
|| Mark Craig Carroll: <MC> || "There is no such thing as a problem
|| Univ of Delaware, Dept of CIS|| without a gift for you in its hands. You
|| Grad Student/Labstaff Hacker || seek problems because you need their
|| car...@udel.edu || gifts" - _Illusions_, by Richard Bach
Matthew P Wiener
>]I'm not trying to insult anybody, merely stating a fact.
>You _deliberately_ went out of your way to add something to your post
>in order to make it pointedly insulting to a large number of your
>fellow Jews on the net.
He deliberately went out of his way to give information that may be
relevant to the question someone raised. You, on the contrary, have
deliberately gone out of your way to be insulted.
> There was _no_ reason to go out of your way
That's a complete lie.
>and point out your (unjustified) belief that Conservative conversion
>are invalid _unless_ you wanted to make an effort to insult and/or
>denigrate the Conservative readers on the net.
Tell you what. If you want a moderated group where no one is allowed
to mention beliefs stricter than Conservatism, go for it. Otherwise,
save the hysterics for your pet, not USENET.
>]Politics has nothing to do with it. My concern is strictly halachik
>]and I claim for support the Teshuvos (Responsa) of Reb Moshe
>]Feinstein z'tzl who in many of them stated that a conversion through
>]a Conservative Beis Din was not a valid conversion.
>Pointing a finger at someone else and saying "He said it first, and
>you know that he didn't mean it as an insult" is hardly an excuse.
He's not excusing anything. He's pointing out that the charge of
"politics" is completely baseless and idiotic.
>Rabbi Feinstein was an excellent Rabbi.
That's an understatement. Do you realize just how much of an under-
statement that is? Perhaps you belong in comedy. Try HITCHHIKER'S
GUIDE TO THE GALAXY, where Arthur's feelings about the Earth being
destroyed are on the order of "bad day", never could get "the hang
of Thursdays", and so on. In high school I once began a history
paper on HENRY VIII with "Shakespeare wrote with a flair", and then
moved on to the history aspects. I have friends who still make fun
of me for that one.
> But I don't think that he
>would have defended your insulting post.
Why not? Did his teshuvos merely say "since the beis din was not kosher"
and let people figure out wink-wink-nudge-nudge why they weren't. No,
he deliberately went out of his way to state the reason: Conservatives
don't count.
> Whether you believe that
>Conservative conversions are valid or not, to go out of your way to
>point out your belief *for no good reason* is deliberately insulting
>your fellow Jews.
Considering there *is* a good reason--it's highly relevant to many
people just what their status is--your complaints are nonsense.
There is, however, absolutely no reason to be insulted in the first
place. If you're not Orthodox, what do you care what they believe
regarding Conservatives in the first place?
> And that, my friend, is something which is *not*
>defensible halachically.
Grow up.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Matthew P Wiener
>As I recall, the question was, under what circumstances might
>Orthodox Jews view a conversion as invalid.
I don't recall Orthodoxy being mentioned in the original post. But I do
have the impression that unconversion is a rare, but mostly an Orthodox
phenomenon, so it seems to be a reasonable assumption when such a question
is raised.
> One such circumstance
>would be an invalid bet din. There's pretty much only one
>siutuation in which a bet din is convened which an Orthodox Jew
>would consider invalid, and that's when the members of the bet
>din belong to a non-Orthodox movement.
Hardly so. There are Orthodox rabbis that have trouble with other
Orthodox rabbi's conversions, who apparently are in it for the money
or other embarrassments.
> Given that, it was
>entirely appropriate to give a Conservative bet din as an example.
I agree. Whoever was seeking general information about a potential
unconversion needs the information, not the politics. General statements
about "maybe the beis din wasn't kosher" _without_ giving examples is
not very informative.
Joel Goldberg
>In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk>
>step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>
>> be accepted by an Orthodox Beis Din? I really don't think it would;
>> certainly not in London and certainly it wasn't by Reb Moshe. I
>> therefore do not consider my belief to be unjustified. For that
>> reason, it was not meant as an insult, merely a statement of fact.
>It's pointless in SCJ to draw a distinction between insulting
>someone intentionally and stating facts which others find insulting.
I'm going to anyway. The original statement was not "Orthodox
batei din do not recognize Conservative batei din." Had it been
so, no one would have been insulted. The original statement was
that Conservative batei din are not kasher. As a blanket statement,
this is clearly wrong, _by O halachic standards_. That some
elements in the O community (and if I tread on the toes of a gadol
here, so be it) have chosen to do so, does not constitute a halachic
basis for it (it=blanket pasuling.)
Arthur S. Kamlet
>>
>> Nonsense.
>> You _deliberately_ went out of your way to add something to your post
>> in order to make it pointedly insulting to a large number of your
...
>Are you saying that a conversion before a Conservative Beis Din would
>be accepted by an Orthodox Beis Din? I really don't think it would;
>certainly not in London and certainly it wasn't by Reb Moshe. I
>therefore do not consider my belief to be unjustified. For that
>reason, it was not meant as an insult, merely a statement of fact.
Again, I ask if the response you refer to was not one of compassion
for a woman either whose husband had disappeared or whose husband
refused to grant her a get? In such a very specific case I have
heard of rulings that declared certain marriages or conversions as
null, but those were not sweeping generalizations. They never said
to my knowledge that a conservative Bet Din proves the conversion is
not kosher. They were to help a particular woman in a particular
circumstance. (And in some cases the Bet Din or rabbi who
officiated at the wedding was consulted in advance, to say the
ruling isn't an insult but rather a way to help out the woman.)
We here in this group should only have the understanding and
compassion of the sources you yourself cite.
----
>Belief doesn't come into it. The fact is that Conservative
>conversions are not recognised by the Orthodox. If you find that fact
>hard to swallow, well I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do about
>it.
You know, I have lived in a moderately large town in Ohio for about
16 years. It is not a major center of Jewish public opinion, it
is not New York or Crown Heights or Chicago or Jersulem or Bnei
Brak, and so is not in the public spotlight.
And the strange thing is there are Jews and rabbis who are reform
and conservative and orthodox and there are Lubavitcher Chasidim and
we all get along together. I have never seen one rabbi insult
another, or even laypeople insult each other. And if a reform or
conservative Bet Din asks the orthodox rabbi in charge of the mikveh
(we have only one in the city) for permission to use the mikveh for
a conversion, the rabbi always says yes!
And if a convert enters an orthodox synagogue he or she is treated
as any other Jew.
Why is this? I think in a smaller town Jews don't have the glare of
publicity, don't have to show any sort of holier than thou attitudes
to the world.
More important, and a lesson that many but not all of us have
learned: it is really Ok to live together, to be nice to
one another, to care about one's fellow Jews, to say a kind word
when it's as easy to cast an insult, to do teshuva all the time and
not merely at Yom Kippur. These things are possible and you will be
pleased to know the orthodox are still orthodox, the Chasidim are
still Chasidim, the conservative and reform are still conservative
and reform. Getting along together did not cause the mezzuah to
fall off the door or cast an evil eye on anyone. But it did promote
peace within the Jewish community, and discouraged those who would
seek the opposite.
When I read statements of people who hate, I am saddened more when
these people are Jews. I do not think there is a commandment to
hate our neighbor.
andy
Silbermann) says:
> I was trying not to give too much information as I don't want to
> say anything about the actual people involved which could be
> damaging to either one.
>
> I am sorry for all the baggage flying back and forth, that is not
> what I intended to happen.
welcome to s.c.j.:)
Eliot Shimoff
>step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
>
>> Are you saying that a conversion before a Conservative Beis Din would
>> be accepted by an Orthodox Beis Din? I really don't think it would;
>> certainly not in London and certainly it wasn't by Reb Moshe. I
>> therefore do not consider my belief to be unjustified. For that
>> reason, it was not meant as an insult, merely a statement of fact.
>
>someone intentionally and stating facts which others find insulting.
It's important to distinguish between stating unpleasant facts that
must be said ("A Conservative conversion is unlikely to be acceptable
in the Orthodox community"), and stating unpleasant facts that _don't_
have to be said.
If someone asks about conversion by a Conservative rabbi, I would feel
compelled to point out that it would almost certainly not meet Orthodox
criteria. But if someone were to ask whether Judaism accepts converts,
it would be needlessly inflammatory for me to reply "Yes, but watch out
for Conservative 'rabbis' who offer quickies that are not accepted by
'real' Jews." (Which is not to imply that Stephen's parenthetical
insertion of "Conservative" was _that_ inflammatory.)
--
Eliot Shimoff | n n n
shi...@umbc3.umbc.edu | X + Y = Z . Easy to prove no solutions
Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu ... | for n greater than 2. Darn. Can't fit
Better luck next year! | it into this little .sig file. Oh well.
Jan Silbermann
>>have the impression that unconversion is a rare, but mostly an Orthodox
>>phenomenon, so it seems to be a reasonable assumption when such a question
>>is raised.
I aised the original question. The conversion was Orthodox. I really
can't believe that I neglected to mention that. I didn't mean to start a
flame war!
>
>>Hardly so. There are Orthodox rabbis that have trouble with other
>>Orthodox rabbi's conversions, who apparently are in it for the money
>>or other embarrassments.
I needed to know that if a convert and rabbi have differences after
the conversion and wants to undo the conversion can he do so? Does
the convert have any recourse. Can a rabbi just say "I made a
mistake with this person" and undo it?
>
>>I agree. Whoever was seeking general information about a potential
>>unconversion needs the information, not the politics.
I was trying not to give too much information as I don't want to
Matthew P Wiener
>>Politics has nothing to do with it. My concern is strictly halachik
>>and I claim for support the Teshuvos (Responsa) of Reb Moshe
>>Feinstein z'tzl who in many of them stated that a conversion through
>>a Conservative Beis Din was not a valid conversion.
>Many teshuvot? [misinformation omitted]
Yes.
See a summary discussion in J David Bleich CONTEMPORARY HALAKHIC
PROBLEMS Vol 3, p 91. In discussing conversion witnesses, he points
out that the requirements include complete acceptance of the Written
and Oral Law in their entirety, and even the most minor deviation
from this is grounds for disqualification. Bleich goes on:
... it was the stated opinion of halakhic authorities
that ideological adherents of Reform and Conservativism
fall into this category. ... R Moses Feinstein has written
in no less than nine different responsa ... that all who
identify themselves as non-Orthodox clergy must be con-
sidered to be in this category.
Bleich's footnote references these nine teshuvot, and he then mentions
seven others. Even someone who is completely observant, by Orthodox
standards, but has Conservative beliefs (say regarding the origin of
the Oral Law), would be an invalid witness.
The early Hasidim were rejected on much weaker grounds. The Vilna
Gaon's core objection to Hasidus was its explicit change in _emphasis_.
Robert A. Levene
> Are you saying that a conversion before a Conservative Beis Din would
> be accepted by an Orthodox Beis Din? I really don't think it would;
> certainly not in London and certainly it wasn't by Reb Moshe. I
> therefore do not consider my belief to be unjustified. For that
> reason, it was not meant as an insult, merely a statement of fact.
It's pointless in SCJ to draw a distinction between insulting
someone intentionally and stating facts which others find insulting.
Rob
--
Robert A. Levene Internet: lev...@aplpy.jhuapl.edu
"/ // / /" Bitnet: RXL1@APLVM
Eliot Shimoff
Summarizing to save bandwidth:
Stephen (Yisroel), answering a question about post hoc invalidation
of a conversion, suggested that invalidation might occur if the Bet
Din were improperly constituted, and then added "e.g., Conservative"
as a parenthetical explanation. Art, who has often identified himself
as a Conservative Jew took offense. And the battle began ... :-(
For whatever it's worth, here's my perspective. If someone (Orthodox,
Conservative, Reform, or non-observant) were to ask about conversion,
it's incumbent on _all_ of us (O,C, or R) to honestly spell out the
differences. It is vitally important (as well as truth-in-advertising)
to indicate that a Conservative conversion may create difficulties later
on in life were the issue to come before an Orthodox rabbi. I am
pretty certain that many Conservative and Reform rabbis warn potential
converts about the problem; at least they _should_.
My objection to Stephen's (Yisroel's) parenthetical reference to
Conservative conversion is that it was gratuitous; if necessary,
it could have been rephrased ("e'g., the the rabbis of the Bet Din were
not properly ordained or did not follow required procedures").
To end on a cheerful note: You both were correct, but in different
ways. To end on a less cheerful note: You were both wrong, but
in different ways.
More seriously, we could all use a little bit more ahavat chinam!
Stephen Phillips
> +From : car...@ori.cis.udel.edu (Mark C. Carroll)
> +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
>
> In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk> step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
> ]In-Reply-To: <1992Nov4.1...@cbnews.cb.att.com> a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arth
ur S. Kamlet)
> ]
> ]] +From : a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
> ]] +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
> ]]
> ]] In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk> step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes
:
> ]] ]You say that the person is NO LONGER keeping MANY of the mitzvot,
> ]] ]from which one might infer that he or she at one time kept all the
> ]] ]mitzvot and still keeps some of them. If that is the case, then in
> ]] ]all probability the conversion would remain valid. The only way it
> ]] ]could be found to be invalid is if one of the conditions for
> ]] ]conversion was lacking at the time of the conversion, viz. the Beis
> ]] ]Din was not Kosher (eg. Conservative), ...
> ]]
> ]] I try hard not to let my anger get the best of me, but why does the
> ]] author have to go out of his was to provoke so many people?
> ]]
> ]] Wasn't it sufficient to say "the Beis Din was not kosher" without
> ]] being insulting and political and wrong?
> ]
> ]I'm not trying to insult anybody, merely stating a fact.
> ]
>
> Nonsense.
>
> You _deliberately_ went out of your way to add something to your post
> in order to make it pointedly insulting to a large number of your
> fellow Jews on the net. There was _no_ reason to go out of your way
> and point out your (unjustified) belief that Conservative conversion
> are invalid _unless_ you wanted to make an effort to insult and/or
> denigrate the Conservative readers on the net.
Are you saying that a conversion before a Conservative Beis Din would
be accepted by an Orthodox Beis Din? I really don't think it would;
certainly not in London and certainly it wasn't by Reb Moshe. I
therefore do not consider my belief to be unjustified. For that
reason, it was not meant as an insult, merely a statement of fact.
> ]] To state that a conservative Bet Din is not kosher is inflammatory,
> ]] insulting and wrong. True, there are significant political issues
> ]] at stake, but they do not per se make a conservative Bet Din not
> ]] kosher. What they do is, in practice, make a conservative
> ]] conversion much more difficult or near impossible to be accepted in
> ]] certain circles. And many people will defend the politics as being
> ]] religious in nature. I don't.
> ]
> ]Politics has nothing to do with it. My concern is strictly halachik
> ]and I claim for support the Teshuvos (Responsa) of Reb Moshe
> ]Feinstein z'tzl who in many of them stated that a conversion through
> ]a Conservative Beis Din was not a valid conversion. And anyone who
> ]thinks that Reb Moshe had any considerations other than halachik ones
> ]is completely misguided.
> ]
>
> Pointing a finger at someone else and saying "He said it first, and
> you know that he didn't mean it as an insult" is hardly an excuse.
And just because I said it and not Reb Moshe is hardly an excuse for
accusing me of being deliberately insulting.
> Rabbi Feinstein was an excellent Rabbi. But I don't think that he
> would have defended your insulting post.
You don't? I would have to disagree on that.
> Whether you believe that
> Conservative conversions are valid or not, to go out of your way to
> point out your belief *for no good reason* is deliberately insulting
> your fellow Jews. And that, my friend, is something which is *not*
> defensible halachically.
Belief doesn't come into it. The fact is that Conservative
conversions are not recognised by the Orthodox. If you find that fact
hard to swallow, well I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do about
it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Burstein
weeks since the last one!
--
/|/-\/-\ Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
|__/__/_/
|warren@
/ nysernet.org Jerusalem
Hillel Applebaum
|> As I recall, the question was, under what circumstances might
|> Orthodox Jews view a conversion as invalid. One such circumstance
|> would be an invalid bet din. There's pretty much only one
|> siutuation in which a bet din is convened which an Orthodox Jew
|> would consider invalid, and that's when the members of the bet
|> din belong to a non-Orthodox movement. Given that, it was
|> entirely appropriate to give a Conservative bet din as an example.
As I recall, the question was, under what circumstances might
Orthodox Jews view an ORTHODOX conversion as invalid. Therefor
brining an non-O BAIT-DIN is irralevent.
I also agree with Mr. Kamlet that declaring that ALL C conversion
are invalid - is wrong. I heared that the GRI"D Solovatzik SLIT"A
said once that it's possiable to take some C-rabbies (?) into a
BAIT-DIN for conversions, but since it'll have to be the O-RABBNIM
that will dicide who will be KOSHER and who won't - this idea won't
work (it didn't)
--
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
/ Hillel P. Applebaum |> ISRAEL - where all
/ Jerusalem, Israel | jews should live !
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Stan Krieger
>>You _deliberately_ went out of your way to add something to your post
>>in order to make it pointedly insulting to a large number of your
>>fellow Jews on the net. There was _no_ reason to go out of your way
>>and point out your (unjustified) belief that Conservative conversion
>>are invalid _unless_ you wanted to make an effort to insult and/or
>>denigrate the Conservative readers on the net.
>
>As I recall, the question was, under what circumstances might
>Orthodox Jews view a conversion as invalid. One such circumstance
>would be an invalid bet din. There's pretty much only one
>siutuation in which a bet din is convened which an Orthodox Jew
>would consider invalid, and that's when the members of the bet
>din belong to a non-Orthodox movement. Given that, it was
>entirely appropriate to give a Conservative bet din as an example.
>
>Why does it bother you so much? By now it's well established that
>Orthodox Jews don't accept Conservative conversions. If you're so
>outraged by that viewpoint, perhaps you shouldn't follow a forum
>on which OJs post...
Oh boy, here we go again. Well folks, here's another reality
reminder. Maybe this time it will sink in-
1. Orthodox Jews do not "own" our religion; theirs is but
one legitimate INTERPRETATION of what God expects from
all of us Jews!
2. In justifying the legitimacy of the Conservative and
Reform movements, we do NOT have to show consistency
with the Orthodox INTERPRETATION of our Law; after all,
who died and made them boss?
3. While there may be some issues regarding the Reform
definition of who is a Jew, and these are issues that
ALL Jews need to work out, to the satisfaction of
ALL Jews, there is be NO REASON whatsoever for Jews
of all sects to refuse to accept a convert from a Bet
Din of Conservative Rabbis.
As I've said before, and for the benefit of newcomers who have
nothing better to do than to bash their fellow Jews at a time
when worldwide anti-Semitism is increasing, there will come
a time when I will have to recite Kaddish, and there is a
very strong possibility that at the shivah home there will
be adults who are Jewish as a result of Conservative conversions;
and any sonofabitch who even peeps about the possibility that
the minyan isn't "kosher" because they're not "really" Jewish
knows where they can go.
Finally, a little more reality folks. Pro-communist
demonstrators on November 7 (the anniversary of the communist
takeover of Russia in 1917) made references to the Jewish
influence in the Yeltsin government (and isn't it funny that
it used to be the anti-communists who used to accuse the Jews
of being part of the communist takeover). Also in Germany,
at the very time that the typical German feels that they aren't
the ones responsible for the Holocaust (they blame their parents
and grandparents, if anybody), it's clear from other actions
within the country that such behavior is in fact ingrained in
their mentality.
And then, just in case there isn't enough anti-Semitism, we have
Jews mocking out other Jews, discrediting their interpretations,
rejecting their converts, rejecting their converts' children;
in short, doing almost as good a job on 90% of the Jewish population
as are the Russians, Germans, Arabs, and any other group for
whom the Jews are a convenient scapegoat. It was only a few
short months ago that I reminded us all, in a message clearly
aimed at the Orthodox, that civil war among ourselves led to
the destruction of the Temple; WHEN WILL THAT LESSON BE LEARNED
FOLKS??!!
--
Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
s...@usl.com
Ronald Cohen
>
>Oh boy, here we go again. Well folks, here's another reality
>reminder. Maybe this time it will sink in-
>
> 1. Orthodox Jews do not "own" our religion; theirs is but
> one legitimate INTERPRETATION of what God expects from
> all of us Jews!
I must say that I agree with Mr. Krieger whole-heartedly. In
fact, the controversy between O and C seems very much to me like
the controversy between Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel--you can guess
which I equate with which. Controversy, though, is not
necessarily bad--"A controversy in the name of heaven will lead to
something permanent."
I think what galls Conservative Jews the most is the Orthodox
attitude of "all or nothing," and that only the Orthodox are true
jews. Meanwhile Conservatives think that their approach better
follows the traditions of the great rabbis. It is a historical
approach to Judaism that accepts the fact that the interpretation
of the halacha has always changed to meet new historical
circumstances, and that the law was given us for life. The
emphasis of the law was always on ethical treatment of fellow men,
and the O's often SEEM to us C's to have forgotten that basic
principle.
I think this newsgroup is great place for cross-denominational
discussion, and I do not see why discussions have to turn into
flame wars. However, every critical discussion is not a flame
war. We have to consider other opinions and learn from each
other. This newsgroup is not soc.culture.jewish.orthodox, nor
is it soc.culture.jewish.conservative, and I think that is good.
We need to talk to each other and accept each other as Jews.
And to add to what Stan Krieger said, the antisemites of the
world do not care if we are reform, conservative, or orthodox.
We need to stick together. But on the other hand, that does not
make heated discussion bad, as long as we accept the standing of
the other groups. The point here in this whole thread is the O
position that does not even accept the standing of a C bet din.
That should be hard for everyone to swallow--not just O's.
--
Ronald Cohen
Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington
5251 Broad Branch Rd., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015
Stephen Phillips
> +From : a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
> +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
>
> In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk> step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
> >> ]I'm not trying to insult anybody, merely stating a fact.
> >> ]
> >>
> >> Nonsense.
> >>
> >> You _deliberately_ went out of your way to add something to your post
> >> in order to make it pointedly insulting to a large number of your
> >> fellow Jews on the net. There was _no_ reason to go out of your way
> ...
> >Are you saying that a conversion before a Conservative Beis Din would
> >be accepted by an Orthodox Beis Din? I really don't think it would;
> >certainly not in London and certainly it wasn't by Reb Moshe. I
> >therefore do not consider my belief to be unjustified. For that
> >reason, it was not meant as an insult, merely a statement of fact.
>
> Again, I ask if the response you refer to was not one of compassion
> for a woman either whose husband had disappeared or whose husband
> refused to grant her a get? In such a very specific case I have
> heard of rulings that declared certain marriages or conversions as
> null, but those were not sweeping generalizations. They never said
> to my knowledge that a conservative Bet Din proves the conversion is
> not kosher. They were to help a particular woman in a particular
> circumstance. (And in some cases the Bet Din or rabbi who
> officiated at the wedding was consulted in advance, to say the
> ruling isn't an insult but rather a way to help out the woman.)
> We here in this group should only have the understanding and
> compassion of the sources you yourself cite.
No, I was not referring to such a case. In fact, yesterday I had a
brief look at Igros Moshe (Reb Moshe's Teshuvos) and I cam across a
question where a Cohen had married a woman who had been converted
through a Conservative Beis Din. A Cohen is not permitted to marry a
convert. Reb Moshe held (as far as I can recall) that the conversion
was not valid as it was a Conservative one. But even if the wife were
to convert through the Orthodox, she would still not be permitted to
marry her husband again as he was a Cohen. Thus, both parties would,
according to Reb Moshe, have to separate. A very sad case, I think
you will agree, but Reb Moshe had no hesitation in upholding the
Halachah in reaching his decision.
>
> ----
> >Belief doesn't come into it. The fact is that Conservative
> >conversions are not recognised by the Orthodox. If you find that fact
> >hard to swallow, well I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do about
> >it.
>
> You know, I have lived in a moderately large town in Ohio for about
> 16 years. It is not a major center of Jewish public opinion, it
> is not New York or Crown Heights or Chicago or Jersulem or Bnei
> Brak, and so is not in the public spotlight.
>
> And the strange thing is there are Jews and rabbis who are reform
> and conservative and orthodox and there are Lubavitcher Chasidim and
> we all get along together. I have never seen one rabbi insult
> another, or even laypeople insult each other. And if a reform or
> conservative Bet Din asks the orthodox rabbi in charge of the mikveh
> (we have only one in the city) for permission to use the mikveh for
> a conversion, the rabbi always says yes!
We're back to insults now. Let me repeat, I am not trying to insult
anybody.
> And if a convert enters an orthodox synagogue he or she is treated
> as any other Jew.
I would have to question the judgment of an Orthodox Rabbi who treats
a Conservative convert as halachicly Jewish. Do you know of any cases
where such a person has applied to marry in an Orthodox Shul? If so,
I would be interested to know whether he or she was required to
undergo another conversion through the Orthodox.
> Why is this? I think in a smaller town Jews don't have the glare of
> publicity, don't have to show any sort of holier than thou attitudes
> to the world.
The Torah is no different in Columbus to Chicago or New York.
>
> More important, and a lesson that many but not all of us have
> learned: it is really Ok to live together, to be nice to
> one another, to care about one's fellow Jews, to say a kind word
> when it's as easy to cast an insult, to do teshuva all the time and
> not merely at Yom Kippur. These things are possible and you will be
> pleased to know the orthodox are still orthodox, the Chasidim are
> still Chasidim, the conservative and reform are still conservative
> and reform. Getting along together did not cause the mezzuah to
> fall off the door or cast an evil eye on anyone. But it did promote
> peace within the Jewish community, and discouraged those who would
> seek the opposite.
>
> When I read statements of people who hate, I am saddened more when
> these people are Jews. I do not think there is a commandment to
> hate our neighbor.
I don't hate any of my fellow Jews, be they Orthodox, Conservative,
Reform or unaffiliated. So kindly quit making such statements.
What I will say is that I have no regard for those leaders of Jewish
movements whose actions are contrary to the Torah and result in a
watering down of Torah true Judaism and in some cases result in much
anguish when, God Forbid, Mamzerus occurs. The fact that Conservative
conversions are not valid is not an insurmountable problem; a person
can always undergo a further conversion through the Orthodox to cure
the invalidity. What causes inurmountable problems, however, is the
fact that Gittin (Divorce Documents) granted through the Conservative
and Reform are not valid and any children born to a woman divorced
through the C or R from a subsequent marriage are Mamzerim as the
woman is considered still to be an Eishes Ish (married to her first
husband).
In such cases, no amount of compassion can help, although one's heart
goes out to such unfortunate people. It is true that Reb Moshe was,
in certain cases involving a Reform marriage, able to declare that
the marriage was invalid in the first instance and a Get was not
required. But I do not believe that his opinion was universally
accepted.
Eliot Shimoff
>In article <1992Nov9.0...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> st...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
... Stan's "legitimate interpretation" argument deleted ...
>I think what galls Conservative Jews the most is the Orthodox
>attitude of "all or nothing," and that only the Orthodox are true
>jews. Meanwhile Conservatives think that their approach better
>follows the traditions of the great rabbis. It is a historical
>approach to Judaism that accepts the fact that the interpretation
>of the halacha has always changed to meet new historical
>circumstances, and that the law was given us for life. The
>emphasis of the law was always on ethical treatment of fellow men,
>and the O's often SEEM to us C's to have forgotten that basic
>principle.
Just for a clarification: As you know (I assume), Orthodox
Jews do _not_ question the "Jewishness" of Conservative Jews.
And I will also assume that the reason you capitalized "SEEMS"
in the above paragraph is to avoid starting a flame-war over
whether Orthodoxy demands ethical behavior: of course it does
(although that does not guarantee that all nominally Orthodox
Jews behave ethically, any more that all Conservative Jews
abide by Conservative halakha).
But now to a serious question. You object to Orthodoxy's claim
that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
process. I can understand your dismay. But -- I really want
to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions? For example, the
child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
Jewish? Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
argument?
>And to add to what Stan Krieger said, the antisemites of the
>world do not care if we are reform, conservative, or orthodox.
>We need to stick together. But on the other hand, that does not
>make heated discussion bad, as long as we accept the standing of
>the other groups. The point here in this whole thread is the O
>position that does not even accept the standing of a C bet din.
>That should be hard for everyone to swallow--not just O's.
We certainly have to stand together on some communal issues,
antiSemitism being the most salient example. But antiSemitism
does not imply what the Orthodox community should do about
Conservative batei din, anymore that it suggests that the
Conservative movement should accept the Reform decisions on
patrilineal descent.
Ronald Cohen
>But now to a serious question. You object to Orthodoxy's claim
>that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
>process. I can understand your dismay. But -- I really want
>to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
>a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions? For example, the
>child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
>temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
>Jewish? Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
>argument?
Actually I don't know the answer to this, and I think it is a
difficult problem. If I had my druthers, there would be no
reform Judaism, since they have thrown out the Halacha
altogether. Solomon Schecter and other fathers of
Conservativism used the phrase "Catholic Israel" and held that
the halacha should be decided by those who cared about
halacha--i.e. C and O. O feels that halacha can be only decided
by O, and R says "what's halacha?" I'm in trouble now!
Arthur S. Kamlet
>In-Reply-To: <1992Nov6.1...@cbnews.cb.att.com> a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
>
>> for a woman either whose husband had disappeared or whose husband
>> refused to grant her a get? In such a very specific case I have
>> heard of rulings that declared certain marriages or conversions as
>> null, but those were not sweeping generalizations. They never said
>> to my knowledge that a conservative Bet Din proves the conversion is
>> not kosher. They were to help a particular woman in a particular
>> circumstance. (And in some cases the Bet Din or rabbi who
>> officiated at the wedding was consulted in advance, to say the
>> ruling isn't an insult but rather a way to help out the woman.)
>> We here in this group should only have the understanding and
>> compassion of the sources you yourself cite.
>
>No, I was not referring to such a case. In fact, yesterday I had a
>brief look at Igros Moshe (Reb Moshe's Teshuvos) and I cam across a
>question where a Cohen had married a woman who had been converted
>through a Conservative Beis Din. A Cohen is not permitted to marry a
>convert. Reb Moshe held (as far as I can recall) that the conversion
>was not valid as it was a Conservative one. But even if the wife were
>to convert through the Orthodox, she would still not be permitted to
>marry her husband again as he was a Cohen. Thus, both parties would,
>according to Reb Moshe, have to separate. A very sad case, I think
>you will agree, but Reb Moshe had no hesitation in upholding the
>Halachah in reaching his decision.
A very sad case. So, let's see what the ruling could have been
where a Kohen marries a convert, even though prohibited. Orthodox
authorities will generally discourage the marriage in advance, and
if the marriage proceeds, will actively try to dissolve it.
So, how could this particular marriage be dissolved?
Well, the Kohen could have been persuaded to give a get, which he
may or may not have done.
Or the ruling could be that the woman is not Jewish and so there is
no marriage so there need be no get.
Thus the Kohen does not have to be persuaded to give a get; the
marriage is deemed invalid; the law has not been broken!
This is a brilliant ruling, it seems to me. It doesn't compromise
with orthodox understanding of the Halacha preventing a Kohen from
marrying a convert, but it gets the Kohen out of "living in sin" or
continuing to break Halacha.
To use this brilliant ruling, which removes the onus of violating
this mitzvah from the Kohen, is not, it seems to me, any sort of
blanket condemnation of a Conservative Bet Din.
I have no idea if this happened, but it would not surprise me if Reb
Moshe talked with the head of the conservative Bet Din: Say, I have
this problem; a Kohen married one of your converts, and it just
won't do to have him violate that mitzvah. I'd plan to say the
conversion did not meet my understanding of the Halacha and so the
marriage is not really a marriage? OK?
I am glad you posted this information. It shows how decent are the
great rabbis.
>> >Belief doesn't come into it. The fact is that Conservative
>> >conversions are not recognised by the Orthodox. If you find that fact
>> >hard to swallow, well I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do about
>> >it.
>>
>> You know, I have lived in a moderately large town in Ohio for about
>> 16 years. It is not a major center of Jewish public opinion, it
>> is not New York or Crown Heights or Chicago or Jersulem or Bnei
>> Brak, and so is not in the public spotlight.
>>
>> And the strange thing is there are Jews and rabbis who are reform
>> and conservative and orthodox and there are Lubavitcher Chasidim and
>> we all get along together. I have never seen one rabbi insult
>> another, or even laypeople insult each other. And if a reform or
>> conservative Bet Din asks the orthodox rabbi in charge of the mikveh
>> (we have only one in the city) for permission to use the mikveh for
>> a conversion, the rabbi always says yes!
>
>
>We're back to insults now. Let me repeat, I am not trying to insult
>anybody.
>
?????
I have gone out of my way to avoid insults.
I have tried very hard to demonstrate that here in Columbus we avoid
insults. I say I have never seen either rabbis or laypeople insult
each other.
And you reply "We're back to insults."
I'm at a loss to reply.
>> And if a convert enters an orthodox synagogue he or she is treated
>> as any other Jew.
>
>I would have to question the judgment of an Orthodox Rabbi who treats
>a Conservative convert as halachicly Jewish. Do you know of any cases
>where such a person has applied to marry in an Orthodox Shul? If so,
>I would be interested to know whether he or she was required to
>undergo another conversion through the Orthodox.
OK, you are free to question their judgments But I have spoken with
them from time to time, and I have a large amount of respect for
them.
I don't know of specific cases of marriage, but I do know of other
synagogue honors conveyed to conservative converts in orthodox
shuls. And I will not question the judgments of these orthodox
rabbis, respected members of the RCA, because you happen to
question their judgment.
>> Why is this? I think in a smaller town Jews don't have the glare of
>> publicity, don't have to show any sort of holier than thou attitudes
>> to the world.
>
>The Torah is no different in Columbus to Chicago or New York.
Aren't we talking of people here?
>> More important, and a lesson that many but not all of us have
>> learned: it is really Ok to live together, to be nice to
>> one another, to care about one's fellow Jews, to say a kind word
>> when it's as easy to cast an insult, to do teshuva all the time and
>> not merely at Yom Kippur. These things are possible and you will be
>> pleased to know the orthodox are still orthodox, the Chasidim are
>> still Chasidim, the conservative and reform are still conservative
>> and reform. Getting along together did not cause the mezzuah to
>> fall off the door or cast an evil eye on anyone. But it did promote
>> peace within the Jewish community, and discouraged those who would
>> seek the opposite.
>>
>> When I read statements of people who hate, I am saddened more when
>> these people are Jews. I do not think there is a commandment to
>> hate our neighbor.
>
>I don't hate any of my fellow Jews, be they Orthodox, Conservative,
>Reform or unaffiliated. So kindly quit making such statements.
I am sorry you thought this was directed at you. It is directed at
people who hate.
Let your words declare if you do or not:
>What I will say is that I have no regard for those leaders of Jewish
>movements whose actions are contrary to the Torah and result in a
>watering down of Torah true Judaism and in some cases result in much
>anguish when, God Forbid, Mamzerus occurs. The fact that Conservative
>conversions are not valid is not an insurmountable problem; a person
>can always undergo a further conversion through the Orthodox to cure
>the invalidity. What causes inurmountable problems, however, is the
>fact that Gittin (Divorce Documents) granted through the Conservative
>and Reform are not valid and any children born to a woman divorced
>through the C or R from a subsequent marriage are Mamzerim as the
>woman is considered still to be an Eishes Ish (married to her first
>husband).
So now we move from "conservative conversions are invalid" to
"conservative gittin are invalid." Why? Where does this occur?
Where is there a single documented case of mamzerut who
resulted from a marriage between a man and a woman who
received a conservative get?
There may have been attempts to "fix up" or override a conservative
get with an orthodox get. I view this as political and not
Halacha.
>In such cases, no amount of compassion can help, although one's heart
>goes out to such unfortunate people. It is true that Reb Moshe was,
Which people? What cases? Where is there a single documented
case of mamzerut because the woman received a conservative get?
>in certain cases involving a Reform marriage, able to declare that
>the marriage was invalid in the first instance and a Get was not
>required. But I do not believe that his opinion was universally
>accepted.
So some authorities would rather see people suffer than accept his
opinion? Any sources for this? Any names of authorities who
allowed endless suffering because they refused to accept his
opinion? The law is in our hands, after all. And it is to live
by, to spend our lives with, not to cause endless suffering. The
great rabbis find ways to avoid such suffering.
I can't help being reminded of how many bureaucracies work.
Consider an agency set up to help people, to find ways to grant
their requests, to say "Yes" to their needs.
At the bottom are entry level employees who know a few regulations
and try to follow them to the letter, not truly knowing why.
If a decision might be Yes or No, they will almost always say No
unless it is a clear cut yes. That is how they view their job.
In the middle are managers who understand more about why the rules
are there, and who can often find ways to say Yes within the rules.
They might have to balance two rules against each other, but will
often find ways to help their clients.
But at the very top are those whose attitude is to find a way to
always say yes. To enforce the rules, to be sure, but to have such
a wide understanding of the reasons the agency is there that their
very purpose for being there is to be helpful, to find Yes when
others find No.
And isn't is true that the higher up you go in any organization the
easier it is to find someone with the knowledge and authority to say
Yes?
Maybe one of the purposes of life is to find ways to say yes.
Shavua Tov
Dave Kantor
> If I had my druthers, there would be no
> reform Judaism, since they have thrown out the Halacha
> altogether. Solomon Schecter and other fathers of
> Conservativism used the phrase "Catholic Israel" and held that
> the halacha should be decided by those who cared about
> halacha--i.e. C and O. O feels that halacha can be only decided
> by O, and R says "what's halacha?"
Given the persecution and intolerance we've endured from others over the past
2,000 years, it is truly sad that we cannot tolerate our own.
If I had MY druthers, we would respect inter-denominational differences and
celebrate our common tradition. What possible good could come from wishing that
a large section of our people be cut off from the Jewish family ?
The OCR debates have raged often in this group, and IMHO have done more to
polarize us than bring us together. Can we not instead focus on our shared
values ? We may disagree about halacha, but we all care deeply about our
heritage and our future as a people. Let us put aside this divisive and sometimes
insulting debate, and seek a more supportive and respectful relationship among
all Jews.
I know that "united we stand, divided we fall" is a tired, old cliche. But I
think it still has deep meaning for us all.
Shalom...
--
===========================================================================
David Kantor
Computervision Services (formerly PrimeService, formerly Prime Computer)
dka...@uspi2.prime.com
===========================================================================
Eliot Shimoff
>In article <1992Nov9.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> shi...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>>But now to a serious question. You object to Orthodoxy's claim
>>that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
>>process. I can understand your dismay. But -- I really want
>>to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
>>a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions? For example, the
>>child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
>>temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
>>Jewish? Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
>>argument?
>
>Actually I don't know the answer to this, and I think it is a
>difficult problem. If I had my druthers, there would be no
>reform Judaism, since they have thrown out the Halacha
>altogether. Solomon Schecter and other fathers of
>Conservativism used the phrase "Catholic Israel" and held that
>the halacha should be decided by those who cared about
>halacha--i.e. C and O. O feels that halacha can be only decided
>by O, and R says "what's halacha?" I'm in trouble now!
I assume that some Reform Jews will soon enter the fray. In
case they don't, let me suggest that they are convinced that
_they_ are the legitimate inheritors of rabbinic Judaism!
Which does not imply that your rejection of them is necessarily
incorrect. But it should suggest that you can't reject Reform
Judaism and then object to Orthodox rejection of Consservatism.
(Does Reform Judaism reject Reconstructionist doctrine?
"And so ad infinitem ...?")
Ronald Cohen
>
>I assume that some Reform Jews will soon enter the fray. In
>case they don't, let me suggest that they are convinced that
>_they_ are the legitimate inheritors of rabbinic Judaism!
I don't know how they can think they are "the legitimate..."
when they don't even accept the concept of halacha.
>
>Which does not imply that your rejection of them is necessarily
>incorrect. But it should suggest that you can't reject Reform
>Judaism and then object to Orthodox rejection of Consservatism.
>(Does Reform Judaism reject Reconstructionist doctrine?
>"And so ad infinitem ...?")
>
But one case does not prove another. Both Conservatives and
Orthodox accept the authority of halacha, and differ to the
extent that interpretations can change with time. This
distinction is actually rather subtle, since some Conservative
thinkers are closer to Orthodox and some Orthodox are closer to
the Conservative outlook. However, the reform throw out
everything. They have no standing to participate in halachic
discussions if they do not accept the concept. That was my only
point.
My personal view is that reform Judaism is a failure, as is
clearly exemplified by the intermarriage rates among reform jews.
Now the reform are moving back towards some observance. But they
still regard the halacha and the halachic process as inapplicable
to modern Jews.
This is not meant as flame war, nor should it be insulting to
anyone. I do not "reject" Reform. They are the ones that reject
halacha, and thus can have nothing to do with it. Conservatives
DO NOT reject halacha. Most of the arguments between O and C
revolve around the few differences of opinion, which can be very
important in individual lives, such as conversion, marriage, and
divorce. Agreement between O and C should be made on these
issues.
CAR...@auvm.american.edu
>(Eliot
>Shimoff) writes:
>>But now to a serious question. You object to Orthodoxy's claim
>>that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
>>process. I can understand your dismay. But -- I really want
>>to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
>>a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions? For example, the
>>child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
>>temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
>>Jewish? Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
>>argument?
Eliot raises an interesting point, in his typical thoughtful and
respectful fashion.
Conservative rabbis do not and may not, upon risk of expulsion from The
Rabbinical Assembly, accept as Jewish the child of a non-Jewish woman,
absent a valid conversion.
Why is this different than the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
conversions? Because the focus is not on the identity of the rabbi
supervising the ritual or making the decision but on the ritual or
decision itself.
A better example would be the Conservative attitude toward Reform conversions.
Conservative rabbis will accept Reform conversions if they are performed
according to the proper ritual -- milah, t'vilah, bet din of three. If they
are not performed halachically they will not be accepted-- but the reason
is not the identity of the supervising rabbi, it is the problematic
way in which the conversion was performed.
In contradistinction, the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
conversions is based not on the form of the conversion but the identity
of the supervising rabbis, since the procedure and ritual in Conservative
and Orthodox conversions is identical.
Rabbi Charles Arian
CAR...@american.edu
Eliot Shimoff
>In article <1992Nov10.0...@umbc3.umbc.edu> shi...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
... Stuff about whether Reform Judaism accepts halakha, on the grounds
that (a) I would hope that _some_ Reform supporter will step in
with informed comment, and (b) I can't truly defend Reform J. anyway ...
>
>My personal view is that reform Judaism is a failure, as is
>clearly exemplified by the intermarriage rates among reform jews.
>Now the reform are moving back towards some observance. But they
>still regard the halacha and the halachic process as inapplicable
>to modern Jews.
I don't think that the Reform movement has been successful either.
BUT -- I could use similar criteria to assert the failure of the
Conservative movement too. How many Conservative Jews truly observe
Conservative halakha, as opposed to simply being non-observant. Baltimore
has a fairly large Conservative Jewish community, but _very_ _very_ few
Conservative Jews are observant -- and the percentage appears to be
dropping (my own perspective -- not data).
More significantly, I do not believe that "success" can be
measured by number of synagogue members, or even by the number
of "observant" members. Success should be defined, IMHO, by the
degree to which the movement correctly teaches what G-D expects of
us. Body counts won't help. (An interesting theological question is
whether it would be "possible" for G-D to tell Jews to do something
that would limit the Jewish survival potential. But that's for
another thread.)
>This is not meant as flame war, nor should it be insulting to
>anyone. I do not "reject" Reform. They are the ones that reject
>halacha, and thus can have nothing to do with it. Conservatives
>DO NOT reject halacha. Most of the arguments between O and C
>revolve around the few differences of opinion, which can be very
>important in individual lives, such as conversion, marriage, and
>divorce. Agreement between O and C should be made on these
>issues.
Well, I'm not insulted. Yet. On _some_ halakhic issues, differences
between O and C appear minimal; often, the RA simply adopts a position
with minimal classic halakhic support that is overwhelmingly rejected
by the vasdt majority of halakhic sources. But there are MAJOR
theological differences (e.g., Torah mi'shamayim, the absolute Divine
origin of the Torah, and the binding nature of the Oral Tradition) that
have MAJOR practical implications. Thus (and here's where we start
insulting folks), IF a legitimate Bet Din requires rabbis who accept
these basic principles, and IF Conservative rabbis do not accept
those principles, THEN the Bet Din's decisions are problematic.
Let the wars begin. (I've gotta run to earn a living now, but
I should note that those IF statements were provisional: I do not
know what most C rabbis believe.)
Ronald Cohen
>
>I don't think that the Reform movement has been successful either.
>BUT -- I could use similar criteria to assert the failure of the
>Conservative movement too. How many Conservative Jews truly observe
>Conservative halakha, as opposed to simply being non-observant. Baltimore
>has a fairly large Conservative Jewish community, but _very_ _very_ few
>Conservative Jews are observant -- and the percentage appears to be
>dropping (my own perspective -- not data).
I don't think this is true at all, at least in my experience.
Our Conservative synagogue is almost full even on the second
days of Yom-Tov, and the percentage of shomer shabbat may be as
high as at many orthodox synagogues. Our course, things may
very from place to place. But as another example, many if not
most Conservative synagogues have daily minyans.
>
>
> ... But there are MAJOR
>theological differences (e.g., Torah mi'shamayim, the absolute Divine
>origin of the Torah, and the binding nature of the Oral Tradition) that
>have MAJOR practical implications. Thus (and here's where we start
>insulting folks), IF a legitimate Bet Din requires rabbis who accept
>these basic principles, and IF Conservative rabbis do not accept
>those principles, THEN the Bet Din's decisions are problematic.
>
There is no Conservative theological principles that disavows
Torah mi'shamayim, the absolute Divine origin of the Torah, and
the binding nature of the Oral Tradition. On the other hand, it
is not a sin to think such, as long as one follows Halacha.
Interpretation of Halacha can change, especially as regards
Rabbinic laws, however. The Talmud was written down so that we
could understand the reasoning behind the halacha, and adapt it
as needed. If the O view was correct that Judaism is a fossil
religion, and nothing can change, why did the sages redact the
Talmud, with all of the reasoning, arguments, and differences of
opinion? If all that matters is a frozen law, why not just
write the halacha down, and leave it at that?
One notable example of difference of opinion between O and C is
the COMPLETE inclusion of women in the Jewish community in
Conservative Judaism. The Orthodox, of course, need not accept
this, and need not attend a Conservative shul to pray if it bugs
them to see a woman read from the Torah. It is not hard to see
that the position of women in society has changed since the time
of the Talmud, and even since the time of the Schulhan Aruch. The
tradition does not exist in a vacuum, and reflects the society of
the time. Now it no longer makes no sense to exclude women from
religious society. But whether you agree or not, in any case, it
has no bearing on the authority of Conservative rabbis, their
conversions, marriages, or gets.
Herman Rubin
>>In article <1992Nov9.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> shi...@umbc4.umbc.edu
>>(Eliot
>>Shimoff) writes:
>>>But now to a serious question. You object to Orthodoxy's claim
>>>that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
>>>process. I can understand your dismay. But -- I really want
>>>to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
>>>a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions? For example, the
>>>child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
>>>temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
>>>Jewish? Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
>>>argument?
>Eliot raises an interesting point, in his typical thoughtful and
>respectful fashion.
>Conservative rabbis do not and may not, upon risk of expulsion from The
>Rabbinical Assembly, accept as Jewish the child of a non-Jewish woman,
>absent a valid conversion.
It is NOT true that the child of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman (or
conversely) is automatically Jewish in Reform. The child may be considered
presumptively Jewish until there is clear indication by word and deed that
the child considers himself/herself as Jewish. This requirement is rather
similar to the substantive parts of a Reform conversion.
The process is not all that different from the Orthodox making a conversion
at an early age, and then having it confirmed later.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Herman Rubin
>>But now to a serious question. You object to Orthodoxy's claim
>>that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
>>process. I can understand your dismay. But -- I really want
>>to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
>>a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions? For example, the
>>child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
>>temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
>>Jewish? Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
>>argument?
>Actually I don't know the answer to this, and I think it is a
>difficult problem. If I had my druthers, there would be no
>reform Judaism, since they have thrown out the Halacha
>altogether. Solomon Schecter and other fathers of
>Conservativism used the phrase "Catholic Israel" and held that
>the halacha should be decided by those who cared about
>halacha--i.e. C and O. O feels that halacha can be only decided
>by O, and R says "what's halacha?" I'm in trouble now!
R does NOT ignore halakhah; it reexamines everything. Reform rabbis
call the Talmud, Midrash, Responsa, etc., holy books, by which they
mean that they are Divinely inspired. Inspired, but not written.
Stephen Phillips
> +From : st...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
> +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
>
>
> Oh boy, here we go again. Well folks, here's another reality
> reminder. Maybe this time it will sink in-
>
> 1. Orthodox Jews do not "own" our religion; theirs is but
> one legitimate INTERPRETATION of what God expects from
> all of us Jews!
Nobody "owns" a religion. But for 3,000 odd years the Orthodox
"interpretation" as you put it has been the one that has been
universally accepted (apart from a few breakaway groups like the
Saducees and Karaites). I think that the Orthodox are quite justified
in maintaining that 3,000 odd years tradition.
> 2. In justifying the legitimacy of the Conservative and
> Reform movements, we do NOT have to show consistency
> with the Orthodox INTERPRETATION of our Law; after all,
> who died and made them boss?
O.K., but then don't expect the Orthodox to go along with the
Conservative and Reform interpretations and certainly don't get upset
when they don't.
> 3. While there may be some issues regarding the Reform
> definition of who is a Jew, and these are issues that
> ALL Jews need to work out, to the satisfaction of
> ALL Jews, there is be NO REASON whatsoever for Jews
> of all sects to refuse to accept a convert from a Bet
> Din of Conservative Rabbis.
The reasons are quite clear. First, they don't accept Torah Mi'Sinai
(ie. both the written and oral Torah) completely and secondly they
don't feel bound by ALL the Mitzvos (a sine qua non in conversion).
Ronald Cohen
>"interpretation" as you put it has been the one that has been
>universally accepted (apart from a few breakaway groups like the
>Saducees and Karaites). I think that the Orthodox are quite justified
>in maintaining that 3,000 odd years tradition.
The Orthodox Jews were not maintaining the tradition while those
Reform and Conservative Jews were fooling around for 3000 years.
That 3000 year old tradition is ours too! And there was
certainly no "single orthodox interpretation" for 3000 years.
Were Sages that held minority opinions heretics? The principle
is that halacha follows majority rule. Does that makes
the orthodox the heretics if there are more Conservatives?
Reread the story of the oven of Ankara!
Miriam Nadel
>Conservative rabbis will accept Reform conversions if they are performed
>according to the proper ritual -- milah, t'vilah, bet din of three. If they
>are not performed halachically they will not be accepted-- but the reason
>is not the identity of the supervising rabbi, it is the problematic
>way in which the conversion was performed.
>
Reform conversion was not done halachically. In the absence of specific
information to the contrary, it would seem perfectly consistent to reject
the conversion on the grounds that a Reform conversion is unlikely to meet
Conservative halachic criteria.
>In contradistinction, the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
>conversions is based not on the form of the conversion but the identity
>of the supervising rabbis, since the procedure and ritual in Conservative
>and Orthodox conversions is identical.
It's not as simple as that. I've heard several Orthodox rabbis say that
some Conservative conversions may be legitimate. The issue involves the
converts acceptance of halacha and whether the bet din has adequately
addressed this. Which is a procedural issue from the Orthodox viewpoint.
The identity of the supervising rabbis is primarily of concern as to whether
or not it may be presumed that the convert was adequately questioned as to
intent to follow halacha.
In fact, this affects intra-Orthodox relations, as well. There are some
Orthodox rabbis whose conversions are not widely accepted because they
are believed to be lax on this point.
Miriam Nadel
Eliot Shimoff
>
>It is NOT true that the child of a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman (or
>conversely) is automatically Jewish in Reform. The child may be considered
>presumptively Jewish until there is clear indication by word and deed that
>the child considers himself/herself as Jewish. This requirement is rather
>similar to the substantive parts of a Reform conversion.
So we come full circle, despite Stan's "legitimate interpretation"
assertion.
Orthodox refuse to accept actions by a Conservative bet din.
Conservative refuse to accept Reform patrilineal descent.
And an adult with a nonJewish father and Jewish mother will be
recognized the the Orthodox community as fully Jewish even though
the Reform community would decide that the person is NOT Jewish
(assuming that there had been no identification with the Jewish
community in adulthood).
Daniel P. Faigin
> If I had my druthers, there would be no reform Judaism, since they have
> thrown out the Halacha altogether.
This is a misrepresentation of Reform. Although Reform does not consider the
Halacha to be the writing of G-d, there is the distinct notion of divine
inspiration in the laws. The halacha is used as the basis in all responsa and
decisions, tempered by the environment in which the responsa was developed.
Daniel
--
[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:fai...@aerospace.aero.org [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
"And as they say, the rest is compost"
Daniel P. Faigin
> I assume that some Reform Jews will soon enter the fray. In
> case they don't, let me suggest that they are convinced that
> _they_ are the legitimate inheritors of rabbinic Judaism!
What is a legitimate inheritor to begin with? Can't all major movements
determine a common basis, and all be valid as forms of Judaism? Why must there
be only one way to worship and interpret halacha?
Daniel P. Faigin
> I don't know how they can think they are "the legitimate..."
> when they don't even accept the concept of halacha.
This is a misrepresentation of the Reform position. There is a very
interesting article in the latest CCAR journal that addresses this very
question. I summarized it for the Liberal Judaism Mailing List (which I run,
plug, plug :-)) to provide discussion. Here is the relevant portion:
In the Survey Essay of this issue, Peter Haas from Vanderbuilt University
discusses the changing of the American Jewish (by which he appears to imply
Reform) Theology. He notes that it has moved from the foundational assumptions
of liberal Judaism (i.e., that reason would set people free) to the concept
that finding a mode of Jewish spirituality that will give life meaning in a
world realing from the destruction of optimism and the influence of
secularity.
He notes that there are a number of important themes in these new theologies.
1. It is necessary to have a Jewish theology and that that theology needs to
be adopted as part of a personal decision.
2. The Holocaust as a symbol of a shared reality that defies the reason of
the Enlightenment.
3. The need to reaffirm Gods covenant with Israel, stressing the necessity to
the part of the individual Jew to make a personal commiment to that
covenant and its halakhah, however these may be understood.
Let's look at the first and the third, for they raise some interesting
questions. The first is a break from the past, as a characteristic of American
Judaism has been its non-theological character. In America, Judaism is often
felt to be more of a civilization than a religion (one of the reason that
Reconstructionism started). "American Jews", states Haas, "are much more
likely to feel themselves part of a people or an ethnic group than of a
theological tradition."
Question: Do you see a return to theology? Do you see yourself as part of an
ethnic group, or part of a particular religious tradition?
The third is also interesting. We have all seen in Reform a revival of the
importance of Halakhah. Yet this creates a problem. If you consider it, there
are two possibilities: return to traditional Jewish sources and discard the
insights of the enlightenment, or base one's ethic on the principles of the
enlightenment, leading to "classic" Reform. Some synthesis much exist for
liberal Judaism, but what? How are we to describe a Judaism that both accepts
the halachah and yet transcends the authority of the halachah?
Haas next explores the question of what the modern Jew is. Is it a person
whose mother happens to be Jewish? Is it a person who self-consciously and
actively identifies with Judaism and worry about what being Jewish might mean
today? Some synthesis of the two?
What are your opinions?
> However, the reform throw out
> everything. They have no standing to participate in halachic
> discussions if they do not accept the concept. That was my only
> point.
However, Reform does not throw out everything.
> My personal view is that reform Judaism is a failure, as is
> clearly exemplified by the intermarriage rates among reform jews.
> Now the reform are moving back towards some observance. But they
> still regard the halacha and the halachic process as inapplicable
> to modern Jews.
That's not true. Rather Reform regards the halachic process as something
ongoing. Intermarriage rates are high, yes, but is that a failure of Reform?
Is it more a failure of the parents for not educating their children properly?
Here's another summarization from the latest CCAR Journal relating to this:
Topic: Worship and Education
In this article, Daniel Schecter (member of Beth Emet the Free Synagogue in
Evanston IL, co-chair of the UAHC-CCAR Comission on Religious Living)
discusses the link between religion and education. He begins by describing his
underlying assumption that Judaism is not a two-tiered religion -- one for
professionals, and one for others, with different obligations. He goes on to
say:
"I believe my Judaism envelops my entire life, and is not something to be
recalled only at isolated moments, as though our relationship with God
occurs at an occasional Friday night service, a Bar/Bat Mitzvah, or the High
Holy Days. Furthermore, I believe that religion should demand something of
us and that we should not be afraid to state that and teach that right up
front. I believe that the Judaism of the non-professionals is not an
extracurricular activity; and that, finally, when those who plan and conduct
worship cater to the lowest common denominator in our congregations, than we
are missing the best use of that unique opportunity frequently called ``the
teachable moment''.
What do you think of this?
Schecter states that the problem stems from our lack of competance in the
study of Jewish texts to prepare us for worship. The liturgy presupposes a
knowledge of the themes, imagery, and midrash of the human relationship with
God. We miss the drama of the scene if we don't understand this.
He asks:
Attendance at services can not only teach us about Judaism, but it can also
stimulate us to see ourselves as part of the Jewish community. But how do we
use that regular or even occasional moment to make meaningful the sense of
togetherness? How do we help people, many of them not used to prayer, to
pray?
What's your answer?
In his closing paragraph, he says "I believe there are many congregants who
are yearning for more spirituality in thier lives, but whose competence as
Jews is very shaky. Rabbis state that the time has come for each of us to
claim Torah study as a lifelong pursuit, and congregants say a prayer
committing themselves to attend the house of study daily". How do we help
Reform Jews cope with the complexities of being Jewish?
> This is not meant as flame war, nor should it be insulting to
> anyone. I do not "reject" Reform. They are the ones that reject
> halacha, and thus can have nothing to do with it.
"Reject" is a strong word. Look at any of the published volumes of Reform
Responsa. Look at the Reform Liturgy. Talk to Reform Rabbis. Read the
publications of CCAR. You will see that halacha has not been rejected in
modern-day Reform; in fact, it is seeing a resurgance.
Daniel P. Faigin
> O.K., but then don't expect the Orthodox to go along with the
> Conservative and Reform interpretations and certainly don't get upset
> when they don't.
This raises an interesting point, which is also raised in the mythical FAQ
:-). Namely, Orthodoxy can never accept the validity of Reform or
Conservative, because it has the implication that they have been doing
something wrong. Reform and Conservative can easily accept Orthodoxy, since
they both allow for variety of worship and practice. It's an argument that
can't be settled.
I don't think Reform or Conservative should try and get Orthodox to go along
with their interpretations. If someone from a Reform background goes to an
Orthodox background, it should be made clear that there are a different set of
ground rules. That's the risk you take. Nothing in Reform prevents someone
from being fully Orthodox while still considering themselves Reform. It's a
conscious decision to join the Orthodox.
However, in an environment where we are talking about Jews in general (such as
in Israel), we should not enforce the particular requirements of one
particular movement. In that case, we should go with the more liberal stance.
Stan Krieger
>> 1. Orthodox Jews do not "own" our religion; theirs is but
>> one legitimate INTERPRETATION of what God expects from
>> all of us Jews!
>Nobody "owns" a religion. But for 3,000 odd years the Orthodox
>"interpretation" as you put it has been the one that has been
>universally accepted (apart from a few breakaway groups like the
>Saducees and Karaites). I think that the Orthodox are quite justified
>in maintaining that 3,000 odd years tradition.
I don't think so. Orthodox Judaism, today, is just one of the evolutionary
paths that our religion took. It is not THE path; it is not the ONLY
path.
>> 2. In justifying the legitimacy of the Conservative and
>> Reform movements, we do NOT have to show consistency
>> with the Orthodox INTERPRETATION of our Law; after all,
>> who died and made them boss?
>O.K., but then don't expect the Orthodox to go along with the
>Conservative and Reform interpretations and certainly don't get upset
>when they don't.
No problem here; I don't agree with the Reform interpretation of our
common law, but I do respect their right to believe that it's what
Judaism expects of its adherents.
>> 3. While there may be some issues regarding the Reform
>> definition of who is a Jew, and these are issues that
>> ALL Jews need to work out, to the satisfaction of
>> ALL Jews, there is be NO REASON whatsoever for Jews
>> of all sects to refuse to accept a convert from a Bet
>> Din of Conservative Rabbis.
>
>The reasons are quite clear. First, they don't accept Torah Mi'Sinai
>(ie. both the written and oral Torah) completely and secondly they
>don't feel bound by ALL the Mitzvos (a sine qua non in conversion).
We most certainly to accept the Torah that God gave to ALL of us; just
because we don't accept some of your INTERPRETATIONS doesn't mean that
we don't accept His Law.
As far as the ALL the Mitzvot, even Orthodox don't observe ALL the
mitzvot that are listed in His Torah. Of course you rationalize them
away, but what it comes down to is that what you observe is one of several
valid, legitimate interpretations of what obeying God's Word of 3000+ years
ago means today. I mean, in the last 50 years or so-
1. How many of you Orthodox brought your sacrifices to the
Kohanim?
2. How many of you who claim to be Kohanim performed the sacrifices
listed in His Torah?
3. How many of you married your brother's widow?
4. How many of you returned your property to its original owner?
5. How many of you who farm for a hobby let your fields lie idle
one year o within the last 7 years?
6. How many of you have worn the "thread of blue" that the Torah
requires of us?
In short, when the Orthodox claim to be observing ALL the Mitzvot, what
they are really claiming is that they are observing the Mitzvot as
they are defined for the current time, and that goes back to point 1
of my posting about their claiming to "own" our religion to the exclusion
of other equally legitimate interpretations of it. I can't speak
for the Reform, but the Conservative Movement, like Orthodox Judaism,
is based on observing His Law to us, as defined and interpreted for
the current time.
Dave Rabinowitz
>when they don't even accept the concept of halacha.
I understand that at one time it was forbidden to write down the "oral" law and
that only later it became acceptable. Why was it originally forbidden and why
was this ban later lifted? Was there a major change in how the law was
developed when this change occurred? Thanks.
Michah Lerner
>>
>> Nothing in Reform prevents someone
>>from being fully Orthodox while still considering themselves Reform. It's a
>>conscious decision to join the Orthodox.
>>
It does not correspond to the actual Jewish practice. By
definition if one is "fully Orthodox" they one does not accept
such reform positions as patrilinial descent. Talk to a "fully
Orthodox" Rabbi if you want to know if one can be a fully Orthodox
reform Jew.
--
/M
Dave Kantor
celebrating common tradition and respecting differences has been either
ignored or rejected. I can't tell since there's been no response from
anyone who has participated so vigorously in criticizing and insulting
their fellow Jews.
In article <10Nov92.03...@granite.ciw.edu>, co...@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.0...@umbc3.umbc.edu> shi...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
> >
> >I assume that some Reform Jews will soon enter the fray. In
> >case they don't, let me suggest that they are convinced that
> >_they_ are the legitimate inheritors of rabbinic Judaism!
I assume you've interviewed a representative sampling of Reform Jews to
arrive at this blanket generalization. My own experience among Reform
Jews has been one of inclusion and community. I have heard or seen nothing
that would support this observation.
>
> I don't know how they can think they are "the legitimate..."
> when they don't even accept the concept of halacha.
Why must Reform Jews past a litmus test of legitimacy proscribed
by other Jews ? More importantly, what is to be gained by this kind
of condescension ? How could this possibly be good for the
Jewish people ?
> My personal view is that reform Judaism is a failure...
I think that many thousands of Reform Jews who have enjoyed an
enriched and meaningful Jewish life would be profoundly insulted
by being called failures. The only failure among Jews that I see
is a failure to put aside divisive inter-denominational struggles,
and concentrate on building a stronger feeling of community among
the Jewish people as a whole. Calling an entire section of our
community a failure is at best counter-productive and at worst
simply mean-spirited.
> This is not meant as flame war, nor should it be insulting to
> anyone.
Just because you say it shouldn't be insulting does not make everything
OK. By questioning their legitimacy and calling them failures, you HAVE
insulted many of your fellow Jews. I wish you could find it in your heart
to honor and respect all members of the Jewish family, not just those who
share your views on halacha.
> I do not "reject" Reform.
In a previous posting, you stated that " If I had my druthers, there would be no
reform Judaism...". If that isn't a rejection, what is it ?
Allow me to include an excerpt from my previous posting, which for me sums
up this whole issue:
"The OCR debates have raged often in this group, and IMHO have done more to polarize us than bring us together. Can we not instead focus on our shared
values ? We may disagree about halacha, but we all care deeply about our
heritage and our future as a people. Let us put aside this divisive and sometimes
insulting debate, and seek a more supportive and respectful relationship among
all Jews."
We can do this if we try.
Daniel P. Faigin
>>> Nothing in Reform prevents someone
>>>from being fully Orthodox while still considering themselves Reform. It's a
>>>conscious decision to join the Orthodox.
> The above statement is false. At best it is a reform opinion.
> It does not correspond to the actual Jewish practice. By
> definition if one is "fully Orthodox" they one does not accept
> such reform positions as patrilinial descent.
Actually, that's not true. I know many Reform Jews, including Reform Rabbis,
who disagree with this decision, and do not accept it. One thing Reform gives
is the freedom to disagree.
Daniel P. Faigin
> Other differences are more serious. If you don't keep chalav yisrael
> ("kosher milk"), I can still eat in your house. But if you don't
> keep kosher at all, I can't eat at your house (unless you make
> special preparations for me). Do your prayer rituals include
> practices that violate my interpretation of halakha?; if so,
> I cannot worship with you.
But if I'm aware of the rituals (as any serious Reform Jew would be), then I
can easily make simple accomidations for you. If I don't keep kosher and
invite you over, I give you fresh fruit, OU products, unopened packages of
plastic utensils. We want to prey together and have different rituals: I can
follow the more observant one for that day, because of the shared meaning of
its importance to you. In any case, the fundamentals are the same: the Shema,
the V'Hafta, the Avot, the Adoration, the Torah service, the Kaddish (I'll
stand, you can sit), the Mi Chamocha, the Barchu. All of these are part of the
Reform service too. So we can worship together if we work together.
> And the most serious difference of all are difficulties in
> defining personal status. If we differ on who is a Jew, or on
> who is married, our groups necessarily diverge.
Not necessarily, but only when a person transfers from one movement to a more
stringent movement. After a number of generations of practicing Judaism, a
proper conversion in the past becomes less significant. As for who is married,
there's always Dina D'Malchuta Dina: Are they married in the eyes of the
state. If so, I'll consider them married. After all, the particular marriage
ceremony is not written in stone. If two Jews have a civil marriage, are they
considered to be married by Judaism? I think so.
> Must there be only one way? Perhaps not. But if two ways
> include mutually exclusive practices, was are in deep trouble.
Unless we set aside our differences, focus on our commonalities, and show
understanding and respect for the fact that we do differ.
P.S.: You also write:
> Welcome back Daniel. I look forward to your contributions to
> this discussion!
Actually, I've been here all the time. There's just be nothing worth saying.
You really should join the m.l-j list, where I'm really more active (and we do
have Orthodox participants).
Eliot Shimoff
I wrote:
>> I assume that some Reform Jews will soon enter the fray. In
>> case they don't, let me suggest that they are convinced that
>> _they_ are the legitimate inheritors of rabbinic Judaism!
Welcome back Daniel. I look forward to your contributions to
this discussion!
>What is a legitimate inheritor to begin with? Can't all major movements
>determine a common basis, and all be valid as forms of Judaism? Why must there
>be only one way to worship and interpret halacha?
Some differences are easy to overlook. Do you pray with or without a
gartel ("prayer belt" worn by some hassidim, and sifrei Torah that are
p'sulim)? Do you include v'yatzmach pirkuneh in kaddish? No problem.
Other differences are more serious. If you don't keep chalav yisrael
("kosher milk"), I can still eat in your house. But if you don't
keep kosher at all, I can't eat at your house (unless you make
special preparations for me). Do your prayer rituals include
practices that violate my interpretation of halakha?; if so,
I cannot worship with you.
And the most serious difference of all are difficulties in
defining personal status. If we differ on who is a Jew, or on
who is married, our groups necessarily diverge.
Must there be only one way? Perhaps not. But if two ways
include mutually exclusive practices, was are in deep trouble.
They do, and we are. :-(
Herman Rubin
....................
>But I remain confused about why a Conservative rabbi would accept a
>Reform coversion. First, it seems likely that Reform rabbis would not
>meet [Orthodox] halakhic requirements for a bet din; at the very least,
>they (the rabbis) are likely to be public desecrators of Shabbat. Wouldn't
>that disqualify them from serving on a Conservative-acceptable bet din?
>And doesn't the Conservative halakha demand sincere acceptance of
>halakha, again presumably absent in a Reform conversion?
There can be no reconciliation until the O and C accept that the R follow
their version of halakhah. Serious Reform Jews take Shabbat very seriously,
but their interpretation of what is work differs.
Eliot Shimoff
A curious example indeed! Usually, the Orthodox position is attacked
for being overly ritualistic, and ignoring the "spirit of the law."
Here, the Orthodox position is that the ritual actions (milah, tvilah,
bet din) aren't enough; what is required is kaballat ol mitzvot
(full acceptance of the "yoke of mitzvot), and the acceptance of
the yoke of Orthodox [or Conservative] halakha is presumed absent
in a Reform conversion.
But I remain confused about why a Conservative rabbi would accept a
Reform coversion. First, it seems likely that Reform rabbis would not
meet [Orthodox] halakhic requirements for a bet din; at the very least,
they (the rabbis) are likely to be public desecrators of Shabbat. Wouldn't
that disqualify them from serving on a Conservative-acceptable bet din?
And doesn't the Conservative halakha demand sincere acceptance of
halakha, again presumably absent in a Reform conversion?
Michah Lerner
> I point out that "Orthodox" halacha no longer requires
> sacrifices, even though they still are listed as mitzvot by RAMBAM.
But it is a mitzvah that we are not able to do now because the Bais HaMikdash
is, due to our faults, no longer standing.
> How many
> "Jews for Jesus" have you stoned for trying to corrupt your town? The answer
> had better be all of them, otherwise you have thrown out "The Halacha".
If you stone them you will be arrested which will be a big chillul HaShem.
Moreover, unless you happen to have a Sanhedrin there is no Halachic basis
for this form of capital punishment.
> While you might not approve of the Reform
> movement, or indeed the Conservative movement, neither one is attempting to
> invalidate Orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy shows the greatest success in learning, in raising family, in
coping with distress, and in celebrating happy events.
> The Reform phylosophy is that one should LEARN what
> the religion is about, then MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS about its practice.
If a decision is truly informed it will stick to standards. Are we such
geniuses that we can always decide what is "best" for us? Does the Torah
say you can pick which mitzvahs to observe? But if you start to throw
out mitzvahs (on the basis of an "informed decision") you have instantly
violated the Torah.
For example, Shabbos. It is forbidden to make a fire, and by extension it
is forbidden to drive a car on Shabbos. What allows anyone to drive a car
on Shabbos? It is forbidden. And yet, "fully Orthodox" people do it
every Shabbos when the Halacha REQUIRES it (i.e. to save a life). This is
truly an INFORMED DECISION because tbe Halacha says it is a Mitzvah to
drive in such a case. Indeed, as the great sefer "Kitzur" states, one
who is so pious as to abstain from a permitted labor in such a case is
a fool.
The key distinction is that the permisable form of driving is based on
Halacha by the greatest sages of the generation. This is not the
same as an individual forming such a decision.
> While the Reform movement does not REQUIRE that Halacha be observed, it
> equally does not REQUIRE that it be discarded.
Does this mean you are allowed to deceive someone if you are "right"?
Does this mean you do not REQUIRE a witness to tell the truth, but
he may if he wants to?
--
/M
Seth Chazanoff
> ... If I had my druthers, there would be no reform Judaism, since they have
> thrown out the Halacha altogether ....
Just as every other movement has been accused of every time that it differs from
the current "Mainstream". I point out that "Orthodox" halacha no longer requires
sacrifices, even though they still are listed as mitzvot by RAMBAM. How many
"Jews for Jesus" have you stoned for trying to corrupt your town? The answer
had better be all of them, otherwise you have thrown out "The Halacha".
I don't have the reference handy, but I remember a story about an arguement
during which one rabbi calls upon the walls of a building, a tree, and finally
HaShem to show that he is correct, the other rabbi tells the building to stand
up straight, the tree to move back to its place, and tells HaShem to butt out
of the arguement, that once the words were given to humans, they remain with
humans to interpret. A Bat Kol was heard to say "My children have defeated
me." What you are saying, is that once there is an interpretation, by a
rabbi you approve of, there can not be any further interpretation of the
matter, EVER! I reject this. While you might not approve of the Reform
movement, or indeed the Conservative movement, neither one is attempting to
invalidate Orthodoxy. The Reform phylosophy is that one should LEARN what
the religion is about, then MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS about its practice.
While the Reform movement does not REQUIRE that Halacha be observed, it
equally does not REQUIRE that it be discarded.
Seth
P.S. Do you wear pants? Trousers were considered womens clothes in Talmudic
times. They were not considered to be fitting for Jewish men till somewhere
around the 10th or 12th century C.E. See what the RAMBAM says about men
wearing womens clothes<GRIN>
Andrew M. Solovay
>There can be no reconciliation until the O and C accept that the R follow
>their version of halakhah. Serious Reform Jews take Shabbat very seriously,
>but their interpretation of what is work differs.
Which is to say, "There can be no reconciliation." To an Orthodox
(or, for that matter, a Conservative) Jew, what marks Halachah is
that it is mandatory. Reform differs on that.
--
Andrew M. Solovay "Until there was rock, you only had God."
--Ziggy Stardust
#include <disclaimer.h>
Matthew P Wiener
>Were there no other problems than that of fundamental Conservative
>Movement ideology or belief, and there are, I wonder how any Orthodox
>rabbi can legitimize any Conservative conversion,
That's easy. There are some with overall Orthodox beliefs but a few
Conservative practices. As long as they stay within enough of a
d'oraisa level of Orthodox observance, they are still considered a
kosher witness by many.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Yaakov Kayman
(Miriam Nadel) says:
>
>In article <92314.212...@auvm.american.edu> <CAR...@auvm.american.edu>
>writes:
>>conversions is based not on the form of the conversion but the identity
>>of the supervising rabbis, since the procedure and ritual in Conservative
>>and Orthodox conversions is identical.
>
>
>It's not as simple as that. I've heard several Orthodox rabbis say that
>some Conservative conversions may be legitimate. The issue involves the
>converts acceptance of halacha and whether the bet din has adequately
>addressed this. Which is a procedural issue from the Orthodox viewpoint.
>The identity of the supervising rabbis is primarily of concern as to whether
>or not it may be presumed that the convert was adequately questioned as to
>intent to follow halacha.
Were there no other problems than that of fundamental Conservative
Movement ideology or belief, and there are, I wonder how any Orthodox
rabbi can legitimize any Conservative conversion, given that the official
position of the (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary and its ideo-
logues is that the Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) is somehow not divinely-
authored(!), which is outright minnut and kefirah (heresy and denial of
G-d)! The concept of "Torah min HaShamayyim" (Torah authored by G-d, and
therefore the *binding* Word of the Master of all that is), is one of
the Jewish faith's fundamentals - NOT the "<x> Jewish" faith, but the
Jewish faith.
If this position has changed, and perhaps some Conservative authority
might enlighten us on that score, there would still remain the problema-
tical situation of Conservative clergy who themselves do not accept all
of Torah, Written and Oral, as divinely-authored and therefore binding,
(and I HAVE *personally* heard, IN SO MANY WORDS, from at least one
member of the Conservative clergy, that there is at least one Jewish
law he does not consider binding, even though he observes it(!?))
who consequently could certainly not be relied upon to ensure a prospec-
tive convert's willingness in principle to adhere to all of halakha, a
willingness absolutely required for a conversion to be effective.
The only possible exception *I* could personally see (and NO, I DON'T
personally see everything! :-) ) would be those cases of individuals
accepting ALL of halakha as binding and serving as Conservative clergy
for other-than-ideological, e.g., (NOT "i.e.,") financial, reasons.
>Miriam Nadel
Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York
BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM Internet: YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
"I will teach willful transgressors Your ways, and sinners will
return to You" -- Tehillim (Psalms) 51:15
After all, I speak the lingo!
Ronald Cohen
> ... There would still remain the problema-
>tical situation of Conservative clergy who themselves do not accept all
> as divinely-authored and therefore binding,
That would have been news to the sages. Some oral halachot were
given to Moses on Sinai, but surely not the entire Gemara,
Rambam, Shulchan Aruch, etc! That must not be what you mean.
I think Orthodox should accept Conservative conversions,
marriages, and divorces on the basis of darchay shalom. The O
position on this is not tenable for the long term, because it is
impossible to demonstrate that some ancestor did not become Jewish
by a C conversion. Just because one is brought up O does not mean
that all of ones ancestors back to some ancient time (when?
Jacob? But Joseph's wife was Egyptian!) were kosher. By
emphasizing these issues they cause pain and are mean spirited,
but the basic fact remains: there is no way to demonstrate "pure
blood" back to Abraham! Correct me if I am wrong, but the O
halacha does not put a statute of limitations on this.
O does not have to back down on halacha here to bring peace (and
Moshiach?). They merely have to decide to not press the issue.
Just as they do not stone a sabbath breaker to death
(hopefully!) they should not destroy a persons sole by kicking
out an observant member of the Jewish community because of what
they regard as an unkosher conversion.
I think Rambam had the right point of view on this. He states
that one should not investigate a family to see if they are
Jewish if they claim so. Their claim should be accepted unless
they are mean-spirited, in which case the presumption is that
they are not Jewish!
Randall Holmes
>
>> I assume that some Reform Jews will soon enter the fray. In
>> case they don't, let me suggest that they are convinced that
>> _they_ are the legitimate inheritors of rabbinic Judaism!
>
>What is a legitimate inheritor to begin with? Can't all major movements
>determine a common basis, and all be valid as forms of Judaism? Why must there
>be only one way to worship and interpret halacha?
I am a liberal Reform Jew, but I agree with the Orthodox that
if their understanding of the nature of the Law is correct, there can
indeed be only one way (or a narrow range of ways) to worship and
interpret the Law. Since I remain Reform, I clearly do not think that
this is true.
>
>Daniel
>--
>[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
>[Email]:fai...@aerospace.aero.org [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
> "And as they say, the rest is compost"
--
The opinions expressed | --Sincerely,
above are not the "official" | M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person | Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution. | hol...@opal.idbsu.edu
Randall Holmes
Again, from the standpoint of this Reform Jew, this is perfectly
comprehensible. Conclusions need to be drawn from this which will
necessarily be uncomfortable for someone.
CAR...@auvm.american.edu
>writes:
>>A better example would be the Conservative attitude toward Reform
>conversions.
>But there does tend to be the assumption among Conservative rabbis that a
>Reform conversion was not done halachically. In the absence of specific
>information to the contrary, it would seem perfectly consistent to reject
>the conversion on the grounds that a Reform conversion is unlikely to meet
>Conservative halachic criteria.
>
With all due respect, I don't believe that there is an automatic assumption
by Conservative rabbis that all Reform conversions are done non-halachically.
Certainly *I* don't make such an assumption.
I have seen this and similar statements made before (about assumptions of the
status of particular conversions) and never really understood the point.
It's not as if any particular rabbi is faced day in and day out with so many
conversions that there is not the time or ability to ask the appropriate
questions. And most Reform rabbis who perform halachic conversions take
great pains to give their converts documentation attesting to that fact, so
one can generally know that a conversion was halachic by simply looking
at the "teudat giyur."
I'm not sure what percentage of Reform conversions today are halachic but it
is not insignificant. Reform rabbis often use the same mikveh that the
Rabbinical Assembly here in Washington uses for conversions and I have met
numerous Reform colleagues at the mikveh for that purpose.
I was a Reform rabbi for six years and never officiated at other than a
halakhic conversion.
Rabbi Charles Arian
CAR...@american.edu
Warren Burstein
>Oh boy, here we go again. Well folks, here's another reality
>reminder. Maybe this time it will sink in-
It has certainly sunk in that OCR flames eventually mention
> legitimate INTERPRETATION
Then someone asks Stan to define this. Then Stan says that C is
legitimate BY DEFINITION. Then someone asks if this or that group
(outside of OCR) is LI. Maybe someone from that group takes that as
an invitation to post something from that group's perspective. Then
we yell at one another for a few days until everyone gets bored and
wait for the next OCR flame.
So look, we don't agree on what halacha means, we don't agree on what
"legitimate interpretation" means. But that won't stop us from having
the argument again.
Enjoy.
--
/|/-\/-\ Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
|__/__/_/
|warren@
/ nysernet.org Jerusalem
Eliot Shimoff
I wrote:
>> Other differences are more serious. If you don't keep chalav yisrael
>> ("kosher milk"), I can still eat in your house. But if you don't
>> keep kosher at all, I can't eat at your house (unless you make
>> special preparations for me). Do your prayer rituals include
>> practices that violate my interpretation of halakha?; if so,
>> I cannot worship with you.
Daniel replies:
>But if I'm aware of the rituals (as any serious Reform Jew would be), then I
>can easily make simple accomidations for you. If I don't keep kosher and
>invite you over, I give you fresh fruit, OU products, unopened packages of
>plastic utensils. We want to prey together and have different rituals: I can
>follow the more observant one for that day, because of the shared meaning of
>its importance to you. In any case, the fundamentals are the same: the Shema,
>the V'Hafta, the Avot, the Adoration, the Torah service, the Kaddish (I'll
>stand, you can sit), the Mi Chamocha, the Barchu. All of these are part of the
>Reform service too. So we can worship together if we work together.
And I would appreciate your cooperation, and your willingness to
adjust to my practices. That's why I characterized these as "more
serious" but not insurmountable. What about my halakhic restrictions
against mixed seating? Well, I could do something sneaky like praying
in private before joining you in Temple (and I have done so on several
occasions).
Then I wrote:
>> And the most serious difference of all are difficulties in
>> defining personal status. If we differ on who is a Jew, or on
>> who is married, our groups necessarily diverge.
And Daniel replied:
>Not necessarily, but only when a person transfers from one movement to a more
>stringent movement. After a number of generations of practicing Judaism, a
>proper conversion in the past becomes less significant. As for who is married,
>there's always Dina D'Malchuta Dina: Are they married in the eyes of the
>state. If so, I'll consider them married. After all, the particular marriage
>ceremony is not written in stone. If two Jews have a civil marriage, are they
>considered to be married by Judaism? I think so.
As I said, here we've got problems. Several generations of practicing
Judaism does not make one Orthodox-halakhically Jewish, and proper
conversion remains a problem (for the Orthodox community). Dina
d'malchuta applies for business matters, not personal status (although
there are other arguments that might make even a civil marriage
Orthodox-halakhically acceptable).
As you probably know, the most serious problems are not with
conversion (the person can always convert Orthodox-halakhically
after the Reform conversion), or marriage, but divorce. Orthodox-
halakha requires a standard get; Reform rabbis typically (I have
been told) do not. The children of a woman who remarries without
a get are mamzerim according to Orthodox-halakha, and this is a
very serious problem indeed.
I wrote:
>> Must there be only one way? Perhaps not. But if two ways
>> include mutually exclusive practices, was are in deep trouble.
>
Daniel replied:
>Unless we set aside our differences, focus on our commonalities, and show
>understanding and respect for the fact that we do differ.
Let's focus on commonalities whenever possible, recognize our differences,
respect one another's commitment, etc. But it is also important for
all of us to remain faithful to our own understanding of what G-d
demands of us.
CAR...@auvm.american.edu
(Eliot Shimoff) says:
>
>
>But I remain confused about why a Conservative rabbi would accept a
>Reform coversion. First, it seems likely that Reform rabbis would not
>meet [Orthodox] halakhic requirements for a bet din; at the very least,
>they (the rabbis) are likely to be public desecrators of Shabbat. Wouldn't
>that disqualify them from serving on a Conservative-acceptable bet din?
Certainly there is no requirement that members of a Conservative bet din
meet *Orthodox* halakhic requirements; if so, certain Conservative rabbis
themselves would not qualify.
Certain conversion which are invalid l'hatchila are acceptable b'diavad,
and in fact conversions supervised by a "bet din hediotot" are acceptable
even l'hatchila.
>And doesn't the Conservative halakha demand sincere acceptance of
>halakha, again presumably absent in a Reform conversion?
>
Yes, Conservative conversions require sincere acceptance of the binding
nature of halakha.
This does not mean that the convert must agree to be fully and completely
observant from the moment of conversion. If this were a requirement the
number of conversions in any movement would be close to nil.
A conversion is not invalidated if the candidate has erroneous ideas about
what the halacha does or doesn't require -- even if, from a Conservative
perspective, those "erroneous ideas" are the result of being taught them
by a Reform rabbi (or for that matter an Orthodox rabbi). Didn't Hillel
convert someone who thought that they could subsequently become High
Priest?
The hope is that by having the attitude of Hillel and tending toward
acceptance rather than toward rejection, more people will be brought under
the wings of the Shechina.
Rabbi Charles Arian
CAR...@american.edu
Eliot Shimoff
Ron Cohen writes:
>I think Orthodox should accept Conservative conversions,
>marriages, and divorces on the basis of darchay shalom. The O
>position on this is not tenable for the long term, because it is
>impossible to demonstrate that some ancestor did not become Jewish
>by a C conversion. Just because one is brought up O does not mean
>that all of ones ancestors back to some ancient time (when?
>Jacob? But Joseph's wife was Egyptian!) were kosher. By
>emphasizing these issues they cause pain and are mean spirited,
>but the basic fact remains: there is no way to demonstrate "pure
>blood" back to Abraham! Correct me if I am wrong, but the O
>halacha does not put a statute of limitations on this.
I would guess that there were very few non-"Orthodox-halakhic"
conversions before the 1850's, and that such converts rarely
(if ever) tried to rejoin the Orthodox community. While there
is no statute of limitations (so far as I know, but I'm no
rabbi), but there is the concept of "hazaka" (presumption,
curiously enough a major topic in recent daf yomi classes).
IF (all upper case) Conservative conversions are not
halakhically valid (remember, I wrote IF, dammit), it
is unreasonable to ask the Orthodox to accept them in the
name of darchey shalom; would you ask the Conservative movement
to accept patrilineal descent for darchey shalom?
Ron wrote:
>O does not have to back down on halacha here to bring peace (and
>Moshiach?). They merely have to decide to not press the issue.
>Just as they do not stone a sabbath breaker to death
>(hopefully!) they should not destroy a persons sole by kicking
>out an observant member of the Jewish community because of what
>they regard as an unkosher conversion.
The issue may well be, to some extent, a red herring. After all,
under the (more-or-less) worst of circumstances, a person seeking
acceptance by the Orthodox community could always undergo an
Orthodox conversion.
Does anyone know how often (if ever) this has become a practical
issue? Or is it like giyur k'halakha in Israeli law -- raises
everyone's blood pressure, but with very rare practical ramifications.
Stephen Phillips
> +From : a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
> +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
>
> In article <memo....@cix.compulink.co.uk> step...@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
> >In-Reply-To: <1992Nov6.1...@cbnews.cb.att.com> a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthu
r S. Kamlet)
> >
> >> Again, I ask if the response you refer to was not one of compassion
> >> for a woman either whose husband had disappeared or whose husband
> >> refused to grant her a get? In such a very specific case I have
> >> heard of rulings that declared certain marriages or conversions as
> >> null, but those were not sweeping generalizations. They never said
> >> to my knowledge that a conservative Bet Din proves the conversion is
> >> not kosher. They were to help a particular woman in a particular
> >> circumstance. (And in some cases the Bet Din or rabbi who
> >> officiated at the wedding was consulted in advance, to say the
> >> ruling isn't an insult but rather a way to help out the woman.)
> >> We here in this group should only have the understanding and
> >> compassion of the sources you yourself cite.
> >
> >No, I was not referring to such a case. In fact, yesterday I had a
> >brief look at Igros Moshe (Reb Moshe's Teshuvos) and I cam across a
> >question where a Cohen had married a woman who had been converted
> >through a Conservative Beis Din. A Cohen is not permitted to marry a
> >convert. Reb Moshe held (as far as I can recall) that the conversion
> >was not valid as it was a Conservative one. But even if the wife were
> >to convert through the Orthodox, she would still not be permitted to
> >marry her husband again as he was a Cohen. Thus, both parties would,
> >according to Reb Moshe, have to separate. A very sad case, I think
> >you will agree, but Reb Moshe had no hesitation in upholding the
> >Halachah in reaching his decision.
>
> A very sad case. So, let's see what the ruling could have been
> where a Kohen marries a convert, even though prohibited. Orthodox
> authorities will generally discourage the marriage in advance, and
> if the marriage proceeds, will actively try to dissolve it.
But I don't think that in such a case the parties could be forced to
divorce, in which case any children would not be Mazerim, but
Chollolim (ie. kosher, but not able to carry out any Priestly
duties).
> So, how could this particular marriage be dissolved?
>
> Well, the Kohen could have been persuaded to give a get, which he
> may or may not have done.
>
> Or the ruling could be that the woman is not Jewish and so there is
> no marriage so there need be no get.
>
> Thus the Kohen does not have to be persuaded to give a get; the
> marriage is deemed invalid; the law has not been broken!
>
> This is a brilliant ruling, it seems to me. It doesn't compromise
> with orthodox understanding of the Halacha preventing a Kohen from
> marrying a convert, but it gets the Kohen out of "living in sin" or
> continuing to break Halacha.
>
> To use this brilliant ruling, which removes the onus of violating
> this mitzvah from the Kohen, is not, it seems to me, any sort of
> blanket condemnation of a Conservative Bet Din.
But surely the parties would have been in a much better position if
the conversion had been treated as valid in the first instance. At
least then they would have been able to stay together, even though
the Rabbis might try and persuade them to divorce. Now that the
conversion is considered to have been invalid, there is no way that
they could marry in an Orthodox Shul.
> I have no idea if this happened, but it would not surprise me if Reb
> Moshe talked with the head of the conservative Bet Din: Say, I have
> this problem; a Kohen married one of your converts, and it just
> won't do to have him violate that mitzvah. I'd plan to say the
> conversion did not meet my understanding of the Halacha and so the
> marriage is not really a marriage? OK?
I'm sure you'd like to think this was the case, but I very much doubt
it.
> I am glad you posted this information. It shows how decent are the
> great rabbis.
How kind of you to say so. I don't think, though, that a Rabbi can be
considered great unless he is "decent" or indeed a Tzadik.
> >> >Belief doesn't come into it. The fact is that Conservative
> >> >conversions are not recognised by the Orthodox. If you find that fact
> >> >hard to swallow, well I'm sorry but there's nothing I can do about
> >> >it.
> >>
> >> You know, I have lived in a moderately large town in Ohio for about
> >> 16 years. It is not a major center of Jewish public opinion, it
> >> is not New York or Crown Heights or Chicago or Jersulem or Bnei
> >> Brak, and so is not in the public spotlight.
> >>
> >> And the strange thing is there are Jews and rabbis who are reform
> >> and conservative and orthodox and there are Lubavitcher Chasidim and
> >> we all get along together. I have never seen one rabbi insult
> >> another, or even laypeople insult each other. And if a reform or
> >> conservative Bet Din asks the orthodox rabbi in charge of the mikveh
> >> (we have only one in the city) for permission to use the mikveh for
> >> a conversion, the rabbi always says yes!
> >
> >
> >We're back to insults now. Let me repeat, I am not trying to insult
> >anybody.
> >
>
>
>
> ?????
>
>
>
> I have gone out of my way to avoid insults.
>
> I have tried very hard to demonstrate that here in Columbus we avoid
> insults. I say I have never seen either rabbis or laypeople insult
> each other.
>
> And you reply "We're back to insults."
>
>
> I'm at a loss to reply.
I was trying to make the point that it was you who were accusing me
of being insulting, which I deny.
> >> And if a convert enters an orthodox synagogue he or she is treated
> >> as any other Jew.
> >
> >I would have to question the judgment of an Orthodox Rabbi who treats
> >a Conservative convert as halachicly Jewish. Do you know of any cases
> >where such a person has applied to marry in an Orthodox Shul? If so,
> >I would be interested to know whether he or she was required to
> >undergo another conversion through the Orthodox.
>
> OK, you are free to question their judgments But I have spoken with
> them from time to time, and I have a large amount of respect for
> them.
>
> I don't know of specific cases of marriage, but I do know of other
> synagogue honors conveyed to conservative converts in orthodox
> shuls. And I will not question the judgments of these orthodox
> rabbis, respected members of the RCA, because you happen to
> question their judgment.
I think you have to understand where I am "coming from", as it were.
In England the divide between the Orthodox and the Conservative and
Reform movements is much wider than it is in the States. My wife is
from Schenectady N.Y., a small city with smallish O, C and R
congregations. I've seen how the 3 are much closer to each other than
they would be in any city in England. For instance, there was a Rabbi
in the Orthodox Shul who made some statements with which a whole
group of the congregants strongly disagreed and they promptly went
and joined the Conservative Shul. This just would not happen here.
> >> Why is this? I think in a smaller town Jews don't have the glare of
> >> publicity, don't have to show any sort of holier than thou attitudes
> >> to the world.
You could well be right. I think also that in the States each Rabbi
is to a large extent autonomous and doesn't need always to refer to
some central authority. Here in England, most Orthodox Shuls are
under the authority of the Chief Rabbi and the London Beis Din and
all questions of marriage, divorce, conversions, etc. have to be
referred to the Beis Din whose decision is final.
> >
> >The Torah is no different in Columbus to Chicago or New York.
>
> Aren't we talking of people here?
>
> >> More important, and a lesson that many but not all of us have
> >> learned: it is really Ok to live together, to be nice to
> >> one another, to care about one's fellow Jews, to say a kind word
> >> when it's as easy to cast an insult, to do teshuva all the time and
> >> not merely at Yom Kippur. These things are possible and you will be
> >> pleased to know the orthodox are still orthodox, the Chasidim are
> >> still Chasidim, the conservative and reform are still conservative
> >> and reform. Getting along together did not cause the mezzuah to
> >> fall off the door or cast an evil eye on anyone. But it did promote
> >> peace within the Jewish community, and discouraged those who would
> >> seek the opposite.
> >>
> >> When I read statements of people who hate, I am saddened more when
> >> these people are Jews. I do not think there is a commandment to
> >> hate our neighbor.
> >
> >I don't hate any of my fellow Jews, be they Orthodox, Conservative,
> >Reform or unaffiliated. So kindly quit making such statements.
>
> I am sorry you thought this was directed at you. It is directed at
> people who hate.
Fair enough.
>
> Let your words declare if you do or not:
>
> >What I will say is that I have no regard for those leaders of Jewish
> >movements whose actions are contrary to the Torah and result in a
> >watering down of Torah true Judaism and in some cases result in much
> >anguish when, God Forbid, Mamzerus occurs. The fact that Conservative
> >conversions are not valid is not an insurmountable problem; a person
> >can always undergo a further conversion through the Orthodox to cure
> >the invalidity. What causes inurmountable problems, however, is the
> >fact that Gittin (Divorce Documents) granted through the Conservative
> >and Reform are not valid and any children born to a woman divorced
> >through the C or R from a subsequent marriage are Mamzerim as the
> >woman is considered still to be an Eishes Ish (married to her first
> >husband).
>
>
> So now we move from "conservative conversions are invalid" to
> "conservative gittin are invalid." Why? Where does this occur?
>
> Where is there a single documented case of mamzerut who
> resulted from a marriage between a man and a woman who
> received a conservative get?
Such cases are usually documented in works such as Igros Moshe and I
will consult it again to see if I can come across any. Certainly,
when I spoke to our Rav (who has worked with the London Beis Din) he
said that Conservative Gittin are not valid.
> There may have been attempts to "fix up" or override a conservative
> get with an orthodox get. I view this as political and not
> Halacha.
I will not deny that some Orthodox Botei Din do sometimes allow
political considerations to creep into their judgments. But I do
believe that for the most part only halachic considerations are taken
into account.
> >In such cases, no amount of compassion can help, although one's heart
> >goes out to such unfortunate people. It is true that Reb Moshe was,
>
>
> Which people? What cases? Where is there a single documented
> case of mamzerut because the woman received a conservative get?
See above.
>
> >in certain cases involving a Reform marriage, able to declare that
> >the marriage was invalid in the first instance and a Get was not
> >required. But I do not believe that his opinion was universally
> >accepted.
>
> So some authorities would rather see people suffer than accept his
> opinion? Any sources for this? Any names of authorities who
> allowed endless suffering because they refused to accept his
> opinion? The law is in our hands, after all. And it is to live
> by, to spend our lives with, not to cause endless suffering. The
> great rabbis find ways to avoid such suffering.
The law may well be in our hands ("Lo Bashomayim Hi") but it is
nevertheless to be observed and not to be tampered with. As to
authorities that do not accept Reb Moshe's opinion on Reform
marriages, I believe that the London Beis Din are one.
>
> I can't help being reminded of how many bureaucracies work.
>
> Consider an agency set up to help people, to find ways to grant
> their requests, to say "Yes" to their needs.
>
> At the bottom are entry level employees who know a few regulations
> and try to follow them to the letter, not truly knowing why.
>
> If a decision might be Yes or No, they will almost always say No
> unless it is a clear cut yes. That is how they view their job.
>
> In the middle are managers who understand more about why the rules
> are there, and who can often find ways to say Yes within the rules.
> They might have to balance two rules against each other, but will
> often find ways to help their clients.
>
> But at the very top are those whose attitude is to find a way to
> always say yes. To enforce the rules, to be sure, but to have such
> a wide understanding of the reasons the agency is there that their
> very purpose for being there is to be helpful, to find Yes when
> others find No.
>
> And isn't is true that the higher up you go in any organization the
> easier it is to find someone with the knowledge and authority to say
> Yes?
There is a saying - "Ko'ach De'Hetera Odif" - which in effect means
that it is very easy to prohibit something, but it requires much
greater knowledge to permit something. This was the greatness of Reb
Moshe. If he permitted something, then you knew that he had brought
to bear all his great knowledge and wisdom in the attempt to find the
Heter. But even Reb Moshe drew the line at overstepping the
boundaries of halachah and (as in the case I cited above) was not
able to find a Heter.
> Maybe one of the purposes of life is to find ways to say yes.
One of the major banks in the U.K. once had an advertising campaign
with the slogan "The Bank that likes to say "Yes"". I think you will
agree that this bank must have on occasions said "no" where
circumstances were such that it would not have been good business to
say "yes".
Shabbat Shalom.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen (Yisroel) Phillips Tel: 44-895-442141
Burch Phillips & Co. Fax: 44-895-421231
63a Station Road
West Drayton
Middlesex
UB7 7LR
United Kingdom step...@compulink.co.uk
Stephen Phillips
> +From : CAR...@auvm.american.edu
> +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
>
> >In article <1992Nov9.1...@umbc3.umbc.edu> shi...@umbc4.umbc.edu
> >(Eliot
> >Shimoff) writes:
> >>But now to a serious question. You object to Orthodoxy's claim
> >>that they are the only legitimate inheritors of the halakhic
> >>process. I can understand your dismay. But -- I really want
> >>to know -- Do not Conservative rabbis act the same way vis
> >>a vis CCAR (Reform) rabbinic decisions? For example, the
> >>child of a non-Jewish woman is accepted as Jewish by a Reform
> >>temple; will a Conservative synagogue accept that person as
> >>Jewish? Does that not compromise the "legitimate interpretation"
> >>argument?
>
> Eliot raises an interesting point, in his typical thoughtful and
> respectful fashion.
>
> Conservative rabbis do not and may not, upon risk of expulsion from The
> Rabbinical Assembly, accept as Jewish the child of a non-Jewish woman,
> absent a valid conversion.
>
> Why is this different than the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
> conversions? Because the focus is not on the identity of the rabbi
> supervising the ritual or making the decision but on the ritual or
> decision itself.
>
> A better example would be the Conservative attitude toward Reform conversions.
> Conservative rabbis will accept Reform conversions if they are performed
> according to the proper ritual -- milah, t'vilah, bet din of three. If they
> are not performed halachically they will not be accepted-- but the reason
> is not the identity of the supervising rabbi, it is the problematic
> way in which the conversion was performed.
>
> In contradistinction, the Orthodox non-acceptance of Conservative
> conversions is based not on the form of the conversion but the identity
> of the supervising rabbis, since the procedure and ritual in Conservative
> and Orthodox conversions is identical.
Is that really the case. Does not conversion require "Kabbolas Ol
Mitzvos"? And is it not the case that the Conservative movement does
not consider all the Mitzvos as binding? If so, then to that extent
the conversion procedures are not identical.
Stephen Phillips
> +From : st...@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger)
> +Subject : Re: Conversion Question
>
> >> 1. Orthodox Jews do not "own" our religion; theirs is but
> >> one legitimate INTERPRETATION of what God expects from
> >> all of us Jews!
>
> >Nobody "owns" a religion. But for 3,000 odd years the Orthodox
> >"interpretation" as you put it has been the one that has been
> >universally accepted (apart from a few breakaway groups like the
> >Saducees and Karaites). I think that the Orthodox are quite justified
> >in maintaining that 3,000 odd years tradition.
>
> I don't think so. Orthodox Judaism, today, is just one of the evolutionary
> paths that our religion took. It is not THE path; it is not the ONLY
> path.
Torah true Judaism is THE only path. Anything that rejects its
legitimacy is not the correct path.
>
> >> 2. In justifying the legitimacy of the Conservative and
> >> Reform movements, we do NOT have to show consistency
> >> with the Orthodox INTERPRETATION of our Law; after all,
> >> who died and made them boss?
>
> >O.K., but then don't expect the Orthodox to go along with the
> >Conservative and Reform interpretations and certainly don't get upset
> >when they don't.
>
> No problem here; I don't agree with the Reform interpretation of our
> common law, but I do respect their right to believe that it's what
> Judaism expects of its adherents.
Anyone can believe what they like. We have, after all, been given
free will. I reserve the right, however, not to respect certain
beliefs.
>
> >> 3. While there may be some issues regarding the Reform
> >> definition of who is a Jew, and these are issues that
> >> ALL Jews need to work out, to the satisfaction of
> >> ALL Jews, there is be NO REASON whatsoever for Jews
> >> of all sects to refuse to accept a convert from a Bet
> >> Din of Conservative Rabbis.
> >
> >The reasons are quite clear. First, they don't accept Torah Mi'Sinai
> >(ie. both the written and oral Torah) completely and secondly they
> >don't feel bound by ALL the Mitzvos (a sine qua non in conversion).
>
> We most certainly to accept the Torah that God gave to ALL of us; just
> because we don't accept some of your INTERPRETATIONS doesn't mean that
> we don't accept His Law.
That's just it. You don't accept the binding authority of the Torah
She'Ba'al Peh (Oral Torah).
>
> As far as the ALL the Mitzvot, even Orthodox don't observe ALL the
> mitzvot that are listed in His Torah. Of course you rationalize them
> away, but what it comes down to is that what you observe is one of several
> valid, legitimate interpretations of what obeying God's Word of 3000+ years
> ago means today. I mean, in the last 50 years or so-
>
> 1. How many of you Orthodox brought your sacrifices to the
> Kohanim?
Don't be ridiculous. The laws of sacrifices only apply where there is
a Beis Hamikdash, may it be rebuilt Bimheiroh Beyomeinu.
> 2. How many of you who claim to be Kohanim performed the sacrifices
> listed in His Torah?
Ditto.
> 3. How many of you married your brother's widow?
The Torah gives the option of Chalitzah, which is practised even
nowadays.
> 4. How many of you returned your property to its original owner?
I have, especially at my kids school where I often find some kid's
school bag laying on the ground, left and forgotten about.
>
> 5. How many of you who farm for a hobby let your fields lie idle
> one year o within the last 7 years?
I'm not a farmer, nor do I live in Israel where the laws of Shemittah
apply. But there are Orthodox farmers in Israel who do observe such
laws.
> 6. How many of you have worn the "thread of blue" that the Torah
> requires of us?
There are those who claim to know the source for the blue colouring
and so do wear it.
> In short, when the Orthodox claim to be observing ALL the Mitzvot, what
> they are really claiming is that they are observing the Mitzvot as
> they are defined for the current time, and that goes back to point 1
> of my posting about their claiming to "own" our religion to the exclusion
> of other equally legitimate interpretations of it. I can't speak
> for the Reform, but the Conservative Movement, like Orthodox Judaism,
> is based on observing His Law to us, as defined and interpreted for
> the current time.
I really cannot understand your argument. But let me ask you this; if
there were a Beis Hamikdash today, would the Conservative movement
take part in its ceremonies (sacrifices, etc.)?
seth.r.rosenthal
> n article <09Nov92.1...@granite.ciw.edu> co...@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
> > ... If I had my druthers, there would be no reform Judaism, since they have
> > thrown out the Halacha altogether ....
>
> Just as every other movement has been accused of every time that it differs from
> the current "Mainstream". I point out that "Orthodox" halacha no longer requires
> sacrifices, even though they still are listed as mitzvot by RAMBAM. How many
> "Jews for Jesus" have you stoned for trying to corrupt your town? The answer
> had better be all of them, otherwise you have thrown out "The Halacha".
>
Civil laws supercede here.
> I don't have the reference handy, but I remember a story about an arguement
> during which one rabbi calls upon the walls of a building, a tree, and finally
> HaShem to show that he is correct, the other rabbi tells the building to stand
> up straight, the tree to move back to its place, and tells HaShem to butt out
> of the arguement, that once the words were given to humans, they remain with
> humans to interpret. A Bat Kol was heard to say "My children have defeated
> me." What you are saying, is that once there is an interpretation, by a
> rabbi you approve of, there can not be any further interpretation of the
> matter, EVER! I reject this. While you might not approve of the Reform
> movement, or indeed the Conservative movement, neither one is attempting to
> invalidate Orthodoxy. The Reform phylosophy is that one should LEARN what
> the religion is about, then MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS about its practice.
> While the Reform movement does not REQUIRE that Halacha be observed, it
> equally does not REQUIRE that it be discarded.
>
> Seth
>
> P.S. Do you wear pants? Trousers were considered womens clothes in Talmudic
> times. They were not considered to be fitting for Jewish men till somewhere
> around the 10th or 12th century C.E. See what the RAMBAM says about men
> wearing womens clothes<GRIN>
Seth C. points out something that is at the core of the Reform
and Conservative philosophies. Times change, and old interpretations
need to be updated to reflect the times the people live in.
Nice post Seth.
Seth Rosenthal
Disclaimer: All opinions are mine, not my employers'.
Daniel P. Faigin
>> The Reform phylosophy is that one should LEARN what
>> the religion is about, then MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS about its practice.
> If a decision is truly informed it will stick to standards. Are we such
> geniuses that we can always decide what is "best" for us?
It is in this question that history of Reform is important. Reform was, and to
some extent still is, a product of the German enlightenment in the 1800s. The
key view of the enlightenment is that of "reason", and that man is a
"reasoned" beaast. Thus, in the Reform view, man (in the humanity sense) has
the reason to decide. This is not the Orthodox view, which views man as a
servant (under the yoke) of God. Hence questions such as:
> Does the Torah say you can pick which mitzvahs to observe?
are distinctly Orthodox questions. The enlightenment would hold that man has
the capacity to reason and to determine what is meaning for worship. Orthodox
views hold the Torah as the literal word of God; thus under Orthodoxy you
cannot "pick" what to observe. (of course, this forgets the fact that the
Orthodox have indeed done some amount of "picking", as not all mitzvah in the
Torah are observed today. After all, God didn't say you could throw them away
because times have changed either.)
This is not to say that one side is "right" and the other is "wrong"; there
are no "rights" and "wrongs" when were talking about religious belief systems.
But this is a difference that must be recognized.
Daniel P. Faigin
> As you probably know, the most serious problems are not with
> conversion (the person can always convert Orthodox-halakhically
> after the Reform conversion), or marriage, but divorce. Orthodox-
> halakha requires a standard get; Reform rabbis typically (I have
> been told) do not.
Although it is true that Reform does not impose a requirement for a get during
a civil divorce, if the Rabbi is consulted, they often recommend it. However,
civil divorce is recognized as a divorce by most Reform rabbis.
Richard Schultz
This brief note is mainly for the newer readers of s.c.j.
Welcome to the semi-annual OCR flamefest! Usually about 2-4 times a year,
the OCR stalwarts get together and start the same arguments over and over
again. Most of the participants are long-time posters to s.c.j., and say
exactly the same thing each go around, often at great length. I won't spoil
the suspense by telling you who is going to say what. But just because most
people have done this before doesn't mean that you can't join in! Just keep
the following pointers in mind.
First, remember that you aren't going to change the mind of anyone you argue
with. The best you can hope for is to convince other people that your
interlocutor is wrong. The best way to do this is by using ad hominem
arguments. Call him or her names, accuse him or her of insincerity, hypocrisy,
or worse, lay the Death of Judaism at the feet of your opponents.
Along these lines, don't forget to USE CAPITAL LETTERS as much as possible.
It has long been known (since the days of net.jewish at least) that if you
WRITE IT IN CAPITAL LETTERS it *must* be true. And leave any politeness you
might have at the door. When getting ready to post to the OCR flame war, ask
yourself the following question: if the other person were in the room with
me, would I say this out loud? If the answer to that question is "no", then
you should post it. That's what computers are for.
You might be afraid to post on this thread because of fear of sinat chinam
(causing needless hatred). That is not a problem, really. Remember, the
people on the other side of the argument are evildoers and heretics and
should be banished from the net, if not from the religion. They are outside
the category of people to whom this whole argument applies. Remember, God
has friends like you. He doesn't need enemies like them.
Finally, in case you're wondering about whether this whole argument is a
shanda far die goyim: of course it is. That's what we're here for.
Richard Schultz
Miriam Nadel
>(Miriam Nadel) says:
>>
>>It's not as simple as that. I've heard several Orthodox rabbis say that
>>some Conservative conversions may be legitimate. The issue involves the
>>converts acceptance of halacha and whether the bet din has adequately
>>addressed this. Which is a procedural issue from the Orthodox viewpoint.
>>The identity of the supervising rabbis is primarily of concern as to whether
>>or not it may be presumed that the convert was adequately questioned as to
>>intent to follow halacha.
>
>Were there no other problems than that of fundamental Conservative
>Movement ideology or belief, and there are, I wonder how any Orthodox
>rabbi can legitimize any Conservative conversion, given that the official
>position of the (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary and its ideo-
>logues is that the Book of Devarim (Deuteronomy) is somehow not divinely-
>authored(!), which is outright minnut and kefirah (heresy and denial of
>G-d)! The concept of "Torah min HaShamayyim" (Torah authored by G-d, and
>therefore the *binding* Word of the Master of all that is), is one of
>the Jewish faith's fundamentals - NOT the "<x> Jewish" faith, but the
>Jewish faith.
As I recall the discussion, it had to do with the need to determine just
who the individual members of the (Conservative) bet din are and what their
positions on these issues are. The opinions of the JTS are not binding
on Conservative rabbis and it appears quite likely that one could find
at least three Conservative rabbis who believe in Torah min HaShamayyim.
(I've even heard of one Reform rabbi who has stated that he believes in
Torah min HaShamayyim.)
What I'm getting at is that, in the absence of other evidence, one could
presume that the bet din was not acceptable to Orthodox standards, but there
are some cases where this problem may not exist. They are likely to be
rare, but may well exist. At any rate, the point is not the label but
the practice. And it seems to me that the same arguments still applies to
Conservative acceptance of Reform conversions - in the absence of other
evidence, one would have to assume that the standards did not apply.
Miriam Nadel
Matthew P Wiener
>Although it is true that Reform does not impose a requirement for a
>get during a civil divorce, if the Rabbi is consulted, they often
>recommend it. However, civil divorce is recognized as a divorce by
>most Reform rabbis.
Meaning what? That there are Reform rabbis who consider a remarriage
after civil divorce a form of adultery? That they won't perform a
marriage between a mamzer and a non-convert non-mamzer?
Andrew M. Solovay
death. I think it's time we start one of the other Perenial
FlameWars. I humbly offer the following as FlameBait(TM):
You Zionists wouldn't be so brutal to the Palestinians if you'd
just accept Y'shua.
(As a rare boon to the Humor Impaired, I am adding a smiley to
this posting, contrary to my usual scruples...)
..
MM .M
.MMMMMMMM, MM MM ,.
., .M .MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, 'MM. MM MM .M'
. M: M; M .MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, 'MM,:M M'!M'
;M MM M: .M .MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, 'MM'...'M
M;MM;M :MM .MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. .MMMMMMMM
'M;M'M MM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. ,,M.M.'MMM'
MM'MMMM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.'M''MMMM;MM'
MM., ,MM MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM '.MMM
'MM;MMMMMMMM.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. 'MMM
''.'MMM' .MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMM
MMC MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. 'MMMM
.MM :MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM''MMM MMMMM
MMM :M 'MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM'.MM MM:M. 'MMMMM
.MMM ...:M: :M.'MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM'.M'' MM:MMMMMMMMMMMM'
AMMM..MMMMM:M. :M.'MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM'.MM' MM''''''''''''
MMMMMMMMMMM:MM 'M'.M'MMMMMMMMMMMMMM'.MC'M' .MM
'''''''''':MM. 'MM!M.'M-M-M-M'M.'MM' MMM
MMM. 'MMMM!MMMM' .MM
MMM. ''' '' .MM'
MMM. MMM'
MMMM ,.J.JJJJ. .MMM'
MMMM. 'JJJJJJJ'JJJM CMMMMM
MMMMM. 'JJJJJJJJ'JJJ .MMMMM'
MMMMMMMM.' 'JJJJJ'JJMMMMM'
'MMMMMMMMM'JJJJJ JJJJJ'
''MMMMMMJJJJJJJJJJ'
'JJJJJJJJ'
JJJJJJ
--
Andrew M. Solovay "I've learned a secret about keeping house... after
four years, the dust doesn't get any thicker."
--Quentin Crisp
Seth Chazanoff
Re: The current OCR "Flame Fest", and the guys on the other side of the arguement are the enemy ...
With all due respect, the guys on the other side of the arguement are our friends and family. If you can't scream, yell, and swear at your friends and family (who understand, and love you), who can you scream, yell and swear at?<G>
Seth
Avi Frydman
In article <FAIGIN.92N...@soldan.aero.org>, fai...@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin) writes...
>On Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:28:58 GMT, shi...@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) said:
>
>> As you probably know, the most serious problems are not with
>> conversion (the person can always convert Orthodox-halakhically
>> after the Reform conversion), or marriage, but divorce. Orthodox-
>> halakha requires a standard get; Reform rabbis typically (I have
>> been told) do not.
>
>a civil divorce, if the Rabbi is consulted, they often recommend it. However,
>civil divorce is recognized as a divorce by most Reform rabbis.
>
Can you see where this might be a problem?
Orthodox and Conservative Jews consider a woman
without a get as a person who is STILL MARRIED. If she were to consider
herself "single" and then marry she would, in effect, be an ADULTRESS and all
of her subsequent children would be MAMZIRIM (according to Orthodox and
Conservative Jews).
CAR...@auvm.american.edu
(Stephen Phillips) says:
>
>Is that really the case. Does not conversion require "Kabbolas Ol
>Mitzvos"? And is it not the case that the Conservative movement does
>not consider all the Mitzvos as binding? If so, then to that extent
>the conversion procedures are not identical.
>
statement in Bechorot 30b, we require converts without reservation
to accept the binding character of *all* mitzvot.
Conservative Judaism considers all the mitzvot as binding. On some
matters we disagree with the Orthodox understanding of how a particular
mitzvah is to be observed, but the mitzvot are binding.
Rabbi Charles Arian
CAR...@american.edu
Arthur S. Kamlet
>legitimacy is not the correct path.
Faith is an axiom system. What you accept on faith is yours, and
what I accept is mine.
Arguing about faith -- about basic beliefs -- will get us no where.
Living together however, in a world where peoples with different
beliefs whose faiths differ, simply takes recognition of that fact.
...
>Anyone can believe what they like. We have, after all, been given
>free will. I reserve the right, however, not to respect certain
>beliefs.
Sure. And so do others. No argument there. But how we treat
people, whether or not we respect their beliefs, is something that
should make us a light unto the nations. Our actions speak for us.
>> 4. How many of you returned your property to its original owner?
>I have, especially at my kids school where I often find some kid's
>school bag laying on the ground, left and forgotten about.
I'm not sure if "property" means "real property" as in "real estate."
If so, please re-read this question with that in mind.
....
>I really cannot understand your argument. But let me ask you this; if
>there were a Beis Hamikdash today, would the Conservative movement
>take part in its ceremonies (sacrifices, etc.)?
As you surely know, the conservative siddurim have modified the
Amidah prayer, which orthodox siddurim have as Restore the
Bet Hamikdash "where we will once again perform the sacrifices" to
"where the sacrifices were performed."
This change has gotten lots of folks up in a tizzy; it doesn't
deny the possibility of sacrifices.
Considering the reaction in some orthodox quarters to women in a
minyan, reading Torah, becoming rabbis and cantors, permitting
electricity on Shabbat, and even driving to shul on shabbat -- and I
do understand why these actions cause a reaction, I am surprised
the modification of this prayer gets the reaction in orthodox
circles that it does.
Frankly, I do not particularly look forward to performing
sacrifices, but it is not something I need to worry about today.
The last time I looked, the Temple would not be rebuilt until the
Messiah comes, and who knows if he will return to the ways of
sacrifice? Was it Rav Kook who believed the Messiah will do away
with the need for sacrifices? If true, conservative Judaism may be
ahead fo the times.
But you ask a theoretical question, one that cannot truly be
answered. It's like saying, Tell me, when the resurrection comes,
will wives, who had the (mis)fortune to outlive several husbands, be
permitted to stay with their several husbands? When the Temple is
rebuilt, will you wear techeilet? Will you go to the Kohen to
diagnose leprosy (or whatever)? Will synagogue prayer stop? I
don't know. These are theoretical questions.
--
Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
>
>This brief note is mainly for the newer readers of s.c.j.
>
>Welcome to the semi-annual OCR flamefest!
Aw shoot!!!!! you gave it all away.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
(215) 242-8712
g...@mendelson.com or uunet!gsm001!gsm
Andrew M. Solovay
>But you ask a theoretical question, one that cannot truly be
>answered. It's like saying, Tell me, when the resurrection comes,
>will wives, who had the (mis)fortune to outlive several husbands, be
>permitted to stay with their several husbands?
That one's easy. Unless I'm very much mistaken, a marriage is
voided by the death of either partner. Thus, when the woman is
resurrected, she's not married to any of her former husbands. She
might choose to remarry one of them, but it's entirely up to her.
Am I wrong?
Gedaliah Friedenberg
In article <10Nov92.14...@granite.ciw.edu> co...@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
>There is no Conservative theological principles that disavows
>Torah mi'shamayim, the absolute Divine origin of the Torah, and
>the binding nature of the Oral Tradition. On the other hand, it
>is not a sin to think such, as long as one follows Halacha.
Who's halacha? The C movement says that it is permissable under halacha
to drive to shul on Shabbos, and that *ALL* North American wine is
Kosher (teshuva of Rabbi Israel Silverman of Canada).
Let's face it, the only minyanim that hold to C halacha is at JTS.
Individual synagogues have "Ritual Comittees" of laymen making
halachic decisions.
>One notable example of difference of opinion between O and C is
>the COMPLETE inclusion of women in the Jewish community in
>Conservative Judaism.
Rabbi Joel Roth (halachic authority for C movement) advocates women
making chiuv before they are given "equal" rights in C shuls. Therefore
women would have to take upon themselves the same obligations that men are
born into: davening 3x/day with t'fillin and tallis, shomer shabbos and
yom tov, keeping kosher, etc...
This, of course, will never be adopted by the C movement, because it
is more concerned with halacha than the ever sliding ruler which
measures "equality".
I left the C movement because I saw that they seem to have lost sight
of what it was that they were trying to "conserve." I wonder what A.J.
Heschel and Solomon Shechter would think of driving to shul on Shabbos
to hear a woman Rabbi and make kiddush over Blue Nun Wine?
Gedaliah Friedenberg
-=-Department of Mechanical Engineering
-=-Department of Metallurgy, Mechanics and Materials Science
-=-Michigan State University
Yaakov Kayman
Wiener) says:
>
>In article <92315.12...@CUNYVM.BITNET>, YZKCU@CUNYVM (Yaakov Kayman)
>writes:
>>Were there no other problems than that of fundamental Conservative
>>Movement ideology or belief, and there are, I wonder how any Orthodox
>>rabbi can legitimize any Conservative conversion,
>
>Conservative practices. As long as they stay within enough of a
>d'oraisa level of Orthodox observance, they are still considered a
>kosher witness by many.
My point here was that for a conversion to be effective, the prospective
convert MUST agree IN PRINCIPLE to conform to Jewish Law - ALL of it
without exception, as applicable (we have no Beit HaMikdash, so we can't
bring sacrifices, etc.). This is something NO clergy with "overall
Orthodox beliefs but with a few Conservative practices" can assure, since
those "few" Conservative practices form the basis of denying G-d's ulti-
mate authority, substituting Man's "right" to choose in its place.
How then could ANY Orthodox rabbi worthy of the name accept Conservative
conversions as valid?
Though it is, of course, hypothetically possible that three members of
the Conservative clergy can be found who believe in "Torah min
haShammayyim," i.e., divinely-authored Torah, and even still hypotheti-
cally possible that three might be found who even accept "ohl malkhut
shammayyim," the yoke of the Kingship of Heaven, i.e., G-d's ultimate
total authority, in practice it would be virtually IMpossible.
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York
BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM Internet: YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
"I will teach willful transgressors Your ways, and sinners will
return to You" -- Tehillim (Psalms) 51:15
After all, I speak the lingo!
Matthew P Wiener
>>>I wonder how any Orthodox rabbi can legitimize any Conservative
>>>conversion,
>>That's easy. There are some with overall Orthodox beliefs but a few
>>Conservative practices. As long as they stay within enough of a
>>d'oraisa level of Orthodox observance, they are still considered a
>>kosher witness by many.
>My point here was that for a conversion to be effective, the prospective
>convert MUST agree IN PRINCIPLE to conform to Jewish Law - ALL of it
>without exception, as applicable (we have no Beit HaMikdash, so we can't
>bring sacrifices, etc.). This is something NO clergy with "overall
>Orthodox beliefs but with a few Conservative practices" can assure, since
>those "few" Conservative practices form the basis of denying G-d's ulti-
>mate authority, substituting Man's "right" to choose in its place.
A kosher witness is a kosher witness, and is defined by halakha, not
by what appears logical at the moment. Orthodoxy is "stuck" with a
definition of kosher witness that has numerous strange things in it.
The role of the witness is not to assure anything, but to be a witness.
If he eats swordfish, gelatin, McDonald's french fries, or drinks any
US wine, but does nothing else that Orthodoxy can criticize, he is, I've
heard, a kosher witness. The same if he bikes to shul on Shabbos.
>How then could ANY Orthodox rabbi worthy of the name accept Conservative
>conversions as valid?
In general, he can't. In particular cases, the halakha allows for some
remote possibilities.
>Though it is, of course, hypothetically possible that three members of
>the Conservative clergy can be found who [meet O kashrus for witnessing.]
It's not so hypothetical.
Ronald Cohen
>
>In article <10Nov92.14...@granite.ciw.edu> co...@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
>
>>is not a sin to think such, as long as one follows Halacha.
>
>Who's halacha? The C movement says that it is permissable under halacha
>to drive to shul on Shabbos, and that *ALL* North American wine is
Certainly wine used for idolatry is not a major problem these
days. Many Conservative Jews do make special efforts to buy and
drink only kosher wine, and almost all would only use Kosher wine
for kiddush. But I again think if this is a major issue with one
than there is something wrong with one's priorities.
The question is whether halacha can change, and even the orthodox
agree that it can. So what's the problem? The problem is that
there are differences in opinion, and C does not accept O's
authority, and O does not accept C's. But certainly O's opinion
is no more sacred than C's. The important thing is not to agree
(until Elijah comes) but to learn to live together as fellow Jews
(or Elijah will not come), and to respect those fundamental things
such as conversions, marriage, and divorce when done according to
the halacha, regardless of the affiliation of the rabbi(s)
performing the service.
The driving to shul decision was not so straightforward as the
problem of wine. It first of all requires individual permission
from one's rabbi. Most rabbi's have spoken with are against
the decision and would never grant permission. It also has other
restrictions. I think the driving problem is important, but that
the wrong decision was made which lead to greater fragmentation of
the Jewish community. However, I do currently drive to synagogue
on shabbat, but have my house is on the market so we can move
within walking distance to a synagogue. Our Conservative rabbi is
constantly preaching for people to buy homes within walking
distance of the synagogue. It may be a sin for me to drive to
synagogue on shabbat, and soon, G-d willing, I will no longer have
to wrestle with this problem.
>Let's face it, the only minyanim that hold to C halacha is at JTS.
>Individual synagogues have "Ritual Comittees" of laymen making
>halachic decisions.
>
Never heard of it. It may happen, but never heard of it.
>Rabbi Joel Roth (halachic authority for C movement) advocates women
>making chiuv before they are given "equal" rights in C shuls. Therefore
>women would have to take upon themselves the same obligations that men are
>born into: davening 3x/day with t'fillin and tallis, shomer shabbos and
>yom tov, keeping kosher, etc...
>
>This, of course, will never be adopted by the C movement, because it
>is more concerned with halacha than the ever sliding ruler which
>measures "equality".
Incorrect again, at least in my experience. Women are expected to
follow the halacha. Again, at our synagogue the girls wear
tefillin and learn the halacha like the boys. I don't get the
"shomer shabbos, yom tov, keeping kosher..." Those halacha are
binding regardless of whether women can davin or not. The problem
is this--if you let men read torah, etc. that are not observant in
every way, how can you discriminate again women for this reason.
Ideally all would follow the halacha. I would hold that women
should still be allowed exemption from time-related commandments,
but take it on themselves to do the most possible. Of course,
others would claim that child-rearing etc. is not exclusively a
woman's domain anymore, so that there should not be any difference
in treatment with respect to time-related halacha. Speaking from
my own experience, even with a relatively modern and sharing
marriage, my wife tends to be in urgent demand by my kids more
often than I am.
>
>I left the C movement because I saw that they seem to have lost sight
>of what it was that they were trying to "conserve." I wonder what A.J.
>Heschel and Solomon Shechter would think of driving to shul on Shabbos
>to hear a woman rabbi and make kiddush over Blue Nun Wine?
I never saw ANYONE make kiddush over Blue Nun. I have heard women
rabbis and have learned Torah from them, and I never felt a loss.
Is learning Torah from a woman a sin? As far as driving on
shabbat goes, I think Heschel and Shecter would understand the
tensions of modern society, but work towards the rebuilding of
traditional Jewish communities where driving was not necessary.
Paraphrasing Heschel (Understanding Halacha, in Conservative
Judaism and Jewish Law, Ed. S. Siegel, 1977, p. 140): There
are two ideas concerning Jewish law which are inimical to its
survival. The first is the assumption that you observe all or
nothing. The second is that every iota of the law was revealed to
Moses at Sinai. Of the Torah it is said "The measure thereof is
longer than the earth and broader than the sea." Could Moses have
learned it all in forty days? No, he learned the principles.
(Exodus Rabba)
--
Ronald Cohen
Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington
5251 Broad Branch Rd., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015
Danny Rothenberg
>
>> Other differences are more serious. If you don't keep chalav yisrael
>> ("kosher milk"), I can still eat in your house. But if you don't
>> keep kosher at all, I can't eat at your house (unless you make
>> special preparations for me). Do your prayer rituals include
>> practices that violate my interpretation of halakha?; if so,
>> I cannot worship with you.
>
>can easily make simple accomidations for you. If I don't keep kosher and
>invite you over, I give you fresh fruit, OU products, unopened packages of
>plastic utensils. We want to prey together and have different rituals: I can
Surely you mean 'pray? :-)
>follow the more observant one for that day, because of the shared meaning of
>its importance to you. In any case, the fundamentals are the same: the Shema,
>the V'Hafta, the Avot, the Adoration, the Torah service, the Kaddish (I'll
>stand, you can sit), the Mi Chamocha, the Barchu. All of these are part of the
>Reform service too. So we can worship together if we work together.
>
>Daniel
>--
>[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
>[Email]:fai...@aerospace.aero.org [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
> "And as they say, the rest is compost"
--
Be'ahavat chinam (with causeless love)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg | ^
Bitnet: | \-/-\-/ "He's not the messaiah. He's a
rothberg@bimacs | X X naughty little boy."
Internet: | /-\-/-\ - Brian's Mum
roth...@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il | V
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yaakov Kayman
>writes:
>
>A kosher witness is a kosher witness, and is defined by halakha, not
>by what appears logical at the moment. Orthodoxy is "stuck" with a
>definition of kosher witness that has numerous strange things in it.
>
>The role of the witness is not to assure anything, but to be a witness.
>If he eats swordfish, gelatin, McDonald's french fries, or drinks any
>US wine, but does nothing else that Orthodoxy can criticize, he is, I've
>heard, a kosher witness. The same if he bikes to shul on Shabbos.
It appears that only one of us, i.e., you, was talking about witnesses.
I was referring to who would be allowed to sit as a dayyan (rabbinical
judge) in a beit din performing an actual conversion. Unobservant wit-
nesses, btw, can also prove problematical, but that's a different matter.
>>How then could ANY Orthodox rabbi worthy of the name accept Conservative
>>conversions as valid?
>
>In general, he can't. In particular cases, the halakha allows for some
>remote possibilities.
>
>>Though it is, of course, hypothetically possible that three members of
>>the Conservative clergy can be found who [meet O kashrus for witnessing.]
>
>It's not so hypothetical.
Again, I speak of rabbinical JUDGES, not witnesses. I still stand by my
previous words that one who himself does not unconditionally accept the
ultimate authority of G-d as given us in His Torah (both Written and
Oral, the two parts of one whole) cannot be a dayyan.
>-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Yaakov K.
--------
Yaakov Kayman (212) 903-3666 City University of New York
BITNET: YZKCU@CUNYVM "Lucky is the shepherd, and lucky his flock
Internet: YZ...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU about whom the wolves complain"
Stan Krieger
>Matthew P Wiener says:
>>>Though it is, of course, hypothetically possible that three members of
>>>the Conservative clergy can be found who [meet O kashrus for witnessing.]
>>
>>It's not so hypothetical.
>
>Again, I speak of rabbinical JUDGES, not witnesses. I still stand by my
>previous words that one who himself does not unconditionally accept the
>ultimate authority of G-d as given us in His Torah (both Written and
>Oral, the two parts of one whole) cannot be a dayyan.
This all goes back to a point I raised a few days ago. The
Orthodox Jewish community does not define our religion. In
refusing to recognize, as Jewish, a number of people who
underwent an halachically correct conversion, they are forcing
the issue.
It still amazes me how, after the lesson of Tisha B'Av and the civil
war that led to the Roman conquest, how after the Holocaust, when
the Nazis didn't care who was Orthodox, Conservative, Reform,
non-observant, or even halachically not Jewish, and how even as we
see the emergence of anti-Semitism in Europe today, we see
Jews on this net, under the guise of being the only ones who
"know" how to observe our religion, fragmenting what's left
of our people.
Maybe, just maybe, it's time to acknowledge the legitimacy and
reality of the Conservative and Reform movements, so we can
all work together.
--
Stan Krieger All opinions, advice, or suggestions, even
UNIX System Laboratories if related to my employment, are my own.
Summit, NJ
s...@usl.com
Gideon Ehrlich
........
.......
>--
>/|/-\/-\ Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
> |__/__/_/
> |warren@
>/ nysernet.org Jerusalem
Warren's moto :
" Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh" means:
"It is better to kick out Jews than to oppose Arabs"
Joseph and Adolf like it.
Matthew P Wiener
>It appears that only one of us, i.e., you, was talking about witnesses.
>I was referring to who would be allowed to sit as a dayyan (rabbinical
>judge) in a beit din performing an actual conversion. Unobservant wit-
>nesses, btw, can also prove problematical, but that's a different matter.
Both of us were talking about a conversion. That meant qualifications
for a witness, not a judge, were the issue.
Arthur S. Kamlet
>to drive to shul on Shabbos, and that *ALL* North American wine is
>Kosher (teshuva of Rabbi Israel Silverman of Canada).
A subsequent teshuva adopted recommends using only kosher wine.
>Let's face it, the only minyanim that hold to C halacha is at JTS.
>Individual synagogues have "Ritual Comittees" of laymen making
>halachic decisions.
Ritual committees are only people; the rabbi is Mara D'Atra for the
congregation, and as such should (note the should) guide and direct
the congregation.
Orthodox synagogues sometimes also have formal or informal ritual
committees. The problem being attacked by JTS leadership who wish
to get rid of ritual committees, is that all too many rabbis fail
to guide the religious direction of the synagogue; who fail to seize
their role as Mara D'Atra. IMHO ritual committee or not, a rabbi
must be the congregational leader, must command the respect of the
congregation, must be sensitive to the needs of the congregation and
must try to satisfy these needs without compromising Jewish law.
>>One notable example of difference of opinion between O and C is
>>the COMPLETE inclusion of women in the Jewish community in
>>Conservative Judaism.
>
>Rabbi Joel Roth (halachic authority for C movement) advocates women
>making chiuv before they are given "equal" rights in C shuls. Therefore
>women would have to take upon themselves the same obligations that men are
>born into: davening 3x/day with t'fillin and tallis, shomer shabbos and
>yom tov, keeping kosher, etc...
>
>This, of course, will never be adopted by the C movement, because it
>is more concerned with halacha than the ever sliding ruler which
>measures "equality".
Actually, many women rabbis have, indeed, taken such a vow.
>I left the C movement because I saw that they seem to have lost sight
>of what it was that they were trying to "conserve." I wonder what A.J.
>Heschel and Solomon Shechter would think of driving to shul on Shabbos
>to hear a woman Rabbi and make kiddush over Blue Nun Wine?
Hyperbole. The same teshuvah Gedaliah cited above says blue nun and
the like NOT be used for kiddush.
Danny Rothenberg
>>I have, especially at my kids school where I often find some kid's
>>school bag laying on the ground, left and forgotten about.
>
>I'm not sure if "property" means "real property" as in "real estate."
^^^^ ^^^^
I thought that 'real' in this sense is a corruption of 'royal' (as in
'real' mayonnaise).
>--
>Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
--
Be'ahavat chinam (with causeless love)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Rothenberg | ^
Bitnet: | \-/-\-/ "He's not the messaiah. He's a
rothberg@bimacs | X X very naughty boy."
Yaakov Kayman
>for a witness, not a judge, were the issue.
Wrong. The composition and qualifications of the beit din to effect a
conversion are the issue.
Isaac Balbin
>This all goes back to a point I raised a few days ago. The
>Orthodox Jewish community does not define our religion.
It does, always has, and always will, and you acknowledge that yourself.
Stan Krieger doesn't accept the definition though.
That's fine, Stan.
>It still amazes me how, after the lesson of Tisha B'Av and the civil
>war that led to the Roman conquest, how after the Holocaust, when
>the Nazis didn't care who was Orthodox, Conservative, Reform,
>non-observant, or even halachically not Jewish, and how even as we
>see the emergence of anti-Semitism in Europe today, we see
>Jews on this net, under the guise of being the only ones who
>"know" how to observe our religion, fragmenting what's left
>of our people.
It amazes me even more that you can with one rather sweeping brush of pixels
attempt to cast the sadness of Tisha B'Av and the tragedy of the Holocaust
over the quite legitimate theological distinction between Orthodox and the rest.
What are you saying?
That it is based on Sinas Chinam (your pointer to Tisha B'Av)
We know that's just plain rubbish.
That Hitler defined who is a Jew? (your pointer to the Holocaust)
I find that thought repulsive in the extreme
That Anti-semitism in Eurpoe should somehow weaken one's resolve to attach
oneself to (in the Orthodox view) The theologically correct interpretation
of Judaism?
I can't even begin to see the connection
That maintaining ones theological conviction is tantamount to fragmenting
our people?
This is preposterous.
Get of your soap box Krieger, look at yourself and then go out and
set a good example. That's all you have to do. If you do it, then
you will have achieved a hell of a lot more than the nonsense you
posted above.
Matthew P Wiener
>>Both of us were talking about a conversion. That meant qualifications
>>for a witness, not a judge, were the issue.
>Wrong. The composition and qualifications of the beit din to effect a
>conversion are the issue.
Then why are YOU puzzled that O rabbis say that some C conversions
could be valid, and I'm not puzzled?
Arthur S. Kamlet
>In article <13Nov92.02...@granite.ciw.edu> co...@quartz.ciw.edu
>(Ronald Cohen) writes:
>what the Orthodox believe?)
>
>>Ideally all would follow the halacha. I would hold that women
>>should still be allowed exemption from time-related commandments,
>>but take it on themselves to do the most possible.
>
>levels of oblitgation. This is one Halacha that the Conservative
>Movement implicitely (if not explicitely) rejects.
The teshuva written by Rabbi Joel Roth acknowledges the differing
levels of obligation of men and women, and finds it al pi halacha
for a woman to decide to take upon herself an obligation.
As an aside, no one argues when men take upon themselves an
obligation. For example, the big talit discussion going on right now
should note that wearing a talit is an obligation that those wearers
voluntarily take upon themselves. They go out and make or buy a
talit just to take upon themselves this obligation. In another
mail.list, I believe Rabbi Frimer points out that women may also
take upon themselves this obligation.
It cuts across
>more than just the issue of women; I believe Stan, for example, pointed
>out that the Conservative Movement is moving towards the elimination of
>the role of the kohanim, another group in the Jewish people that
>effectively has a different level of obligation of mitzvot.
As I understand the new responsa dealing with Kohanim, their basis
is the uncertainty that anyone really knows who is a Kohen.
samuel.saal
>Certainly wine used for idolatry is not a major problem these
>days. Many Conservative Jews do make special efforts to buy and
>drink only kosher wine, and almost all would only use Kosher wine
>for kiddush. But I again think if this is a major issue with one
>than there is something wrong with one's priorities.
Were this the only problem, I suspect even the Orthodox might someday
accept it. However, it is not the only problem. For details, cylOr (and,
yes, the "O" for "Orthodox" is intentional; how else would you find out
what the Orthodox believe?)
>binding regardless of whether women can davin or not. The problem
>is this--if you let men read torah, etc. that are not observant in
>every way, how can you discriminate again women for this reason.
>Ideally all would follow the halacha. I would hold that women
>should still be allowed exemption from time-related commandments,
>but take it on themselves to do the most possible. Of course,
For this, one must understand the concept of differences in inherent
levels of oblitgation. This is one Halacha that the Conservative
Movement implicitely (if not explicitely) rejects. It cuts across
more than just the issue of women; I believe Stan, for example, pointed
out that the Conservative Movement is moving towards the elimination of
the role of the kohanim, another group in the Jewish people that
effectively has a different level of obligation of mitzvot.
--
Sam Saal kingfish!saal OR sa...@kingfish.att.com
Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Gedaliah Friedenberg
Not so. It is only *recommended* that heckshered wine be used for religious
purposes. It is based in ma'aris ayin, and *not* based in the "kosherness"
of the wine itself. This was told to me by Rabbi Silverman (the author of
the teshuva) himself when I was the mashgiach of a Camp where he is the Rav.
He wanted to allow non-kosher (non-hecksered if you prefer) grape products
to be used in the dining hall. This issue naturally arose.
The teshuva likewise *recommends* that Israeli wine be used. The reason
given is that it is a mitzvah to support the State of Israel. This does
not mean that we are bound to Israeli wine (or heckshered wine in the
same sense). It is simplay a "recommendation."
As far as I am concerned, either it is kosher, or it is not. This is not
a dispute between two respected hechskers. This is a dispute between
(e.g.) Manischevitz and Blue Nun.
These recommendations sound more like "fence sitting" than like halacha.
CAR...@auvm.american.edu
<YZ...@CUNYVM.BITNET> says:
>
>In article <97...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P
>Wiener) says:
>>
>>Both of us were talking about a conversion. That meant qualifications
>>for a witness, not a judge, were the issue.
>
>Wrong. The composition and qualifications of the beit din to effect a
>conversion are the issue.
>
for a conversion to be valid. "Hediotot", i.e. lay people, can supervise
a conversion even l'hatchila.
In the late, lamented Denver Conversion experiment, where the three major
movements united to have a joint conversion process, the bet din was made
up of observant laypeople intentionally, so that the Orthodox rabbis could
be satisfied that the witnesses were sufficiently observant without
denigrating the standing of the non-Orthodox rabbis.
Rabbi Charles Arian
CAR...@american.edu
Gideon Ehrlich
Rothenberg) writes:
>
>--
>Be'ahavat chinam (with causeless love)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Danny Rothenberg | ^
>Bitnet: | \-/-\-/ "He's not the messaiah. He's a
>rothberg@bimacs | X X very naughty boy."
>Internet: | /-\-/-\ - Brian's Mum
>roth...@bimacs.cs.biu.ac.il | V
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure Danny did not meant it but:
" Beahavat chinam" is nothing but a declaration of hatered.
there is a mizva to love every good one , but not to love criminals.
So if you declare your love is "chinam" - without a real risson , you
actualy declared the other to be a criminal!
( The origion of the term Ahavat hinam is a humoristic word play with
the term " sinat hinam " . It related to what the Hoze of Lublin
said: The 1st Temple was destroyed by Sinat hinam in order the 3rd
Temple will be built we should keep doing love among us."
Later on several Hasidic Rabbis used the humoristic formula:
... the 3rd temple will be built up by "ahavat hinam" which should be
understand as a somewhat funny substitution for a lot of love )
Shalom , beahavat lo-hinam gideon ehrlich
ERETS YISRAEL
Stan Krieger
>Stan Krieger writes:
>
>>This all goes back to a point I raised a few days ago. The
>>Orthodox Jewish community does not define our religion.
>
>It does, always has, and always will, and you acknowledge that yourself.
Huh?
>Stan Krieger doesn't accept the definition though.
>That's fine, Stan.
Actually, 90% of your coreligionists don't; I'm just one of millions.
>>It still amazes me how, after the lesson of Tisha B'Av and the civil
>>war that led to the Roman conquest, how after the Holocaust, when
>>the Nazis didn't care who was Orthodox, Conservative, Reform,
>>non-observant, or even halachically not Jewish, and how even as we
>>see the emergence of anti-Semitism in Europe today, we see
>>Jews on this net, under the guise of being the only ones who
>>"know" how to observe our religion, fragmenting what's left
>>of our people.
>
>It amazes me even more that you can with one rather sweeping brush of pixels
>attempt to cast the sadness of Tisha B'Av and the tragedy of the Holocaust
>over the quite legitimate theological distinction between Orthodox and
>the rest.
Yes, there is a theological distinction; that's why there are O, C,
and R. The only problem is that O doesn't acknowledge the
legitimacy of C and R, and to the extent that it tries to
discredit C and R, which is what Tisha B'Av is probably all about.
In case you forgot, we are one people, and the infighting over
whether the child of a woman converted by a Bet Din of Conservative
Rabbis is Jewish is just as harmful to our people as are our
real enemies.
>
>What are you saying?
>
>That it is based on Sinas Chinam (your pointer to Tisha B'Av)
> We know that's just plain rubbish.
Huh?
>That Hitler defined who is a Jew? (your pointer to the Holocaust)
> I find that thought repulsive in the extreme
Let's face it; people were murdered for being Jewish who you, in
your infinite wisdom, would exclude from our community. That's
why I think is repulsive in the extreme.
>That Anti-semitism in Eurpoe should somehow weaken one's resolve to attach
>oneself to (in the Orthodox view) The theologically correct interpretation
>of Judaism?
> I can't even begin to see the connection
>That maintaining ones theological conviction is tantamount to fragmenting
>our people?
> This is preposterous.
Maintain your theological conviction all you want, but don't forget
the REALITY that what you observe as Judaism is one of several
LEGITIMATE interpretations of what God expects of US, the Jewish
people. You seem to, very conveniently, forget that reality, and
are willing to exclude 90% of your co-religionists from "your"
religion. Look it's OUR religion, and don't you for one second
ever forget that we're in it together.
>Get of your soap box Krieger, look at yourself and then go out and
>set a good example. That's all you have to do. If you do it, then
>you will have achieved a hell of a lot more than the nonsense you
>posted above.
The only nonsense is your head in the sand attitude. It's time you
recognize the real world.