Toby in temple with no yamulke?
kfj
Sabbath Day, when Toby's at synagogue, is he not wearing a yamulke? And
then again when he goes back to speak to the rabbi? Maybe we got to
different synagogues (i mean, we do, of course) but every temple I've
been to has a little box of yamulkes . . .
-k
and toby goes regularly enough that Sam knows where his temple is . . .
--
Ya sure you want your one question to be that stupid? - Josh Lyman, The
West Wing
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ron Jarrell
> okay, it's minor and I do have a somewhat fuzzy copy - but in Take This
> Sabbath Day, when Toby's at synagogue, is he not wearing a yamulke? And
> then again when he goes back to speak to the rabbi? Maybe we got to
No, he's not wearing it either time. I noticed that too, but didn't
know if there was a perfectly acceptable reason for him to not wear
one, not being jewish myself, like if there's some rules regarding
being bald. Or maybe he's just not one to follow conventional rules;
like some folks will genuflect, wash their hands in holy water, etc,
etc, at a catholic church, while others can hardly be bothered to wipe
their feet during a snowstorm.
Jane Harper
>
> okay, it's minor and I do have a somewhat fuzzy copy - but in Take This
> Sabbath Day, when Toby's at synagogue, is he not wearing a yamulke? And
> then again when he goes back to speak to the rabbi?
In the first instance, yer right. When Toby goes for services, he
*should* be wearing a kippah (that's Hebrew for yarmulke). Every
synagogue or temple I've ever been in has a BIG container of kippot
(plural of kippah) by the door. Every male over the age of 12 is
required to wear one in ANY synagogue.
For the visit later in the day, it would be optional. Many Jews wear a
head covering whenever they're in the synagogue building. Some Jews
wear one all day, no matter where they are, even in the bathroom; almost
every Orthodox Jewish male I've ever seen does so. You may notice that
Joe Lieberman does NOT. So it may have to do with being a politician ..
I dunno.
In any case, shame on you, Toby! <g> And shame on A. Ron for missing
it.
Janie
(Sarah Yael bat Avraham Avinu v'Sarah Imenu)
--
"Can we get this Godforsaken event over with so I can get back to
presiding over civilization gone to hell in a handcart?" -- Jed Bartlet
Lynn
>>
>> okay, it's minor and I do have a somewhat fuzzy copy - but in Take This
>> Sabbath Day, when Toby's at synagogue, is he not wearing a yamulke?
>>
>
>You may notice that
>Joe Lieberman does NOT. So it may have to do with being a politician ..
>I dunno.
>
>In any case, shame on you, Toby! <g> And shame on A. Ron for missing
>it.
But wasn't everybody else in the scene wearing theirs? Since there's no
reason to suppose that the extras were all Jewish and happened to have
theirs with them, I thought it was deliberate. Whether or not it's standard
practice because of his position within the government, I don't know. (Does
that mean Christians in gov't. don't wear crucifixes(sp)?)
The question of Lieberman came up on a local radio talk show, but they just
left it at, "It's optional." I can't remember now who the guest was (not a
rabbi).
--
Lynn
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes
genius... -Arthur Conan Doyle, "The Valley of Fear"
============================================================================
WingNuts: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/wingnuts001.htm> *
West Wing: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/westwing001.htm> *
Netiquette: <http://users.lmi.net/ennui/usenet001.htm> *
**********************************************************
kfj
"Lynn" <rameses...@postmark.net> wrote:
> >kfj wrote:
> >>
> >> okay, it's minor and I do have a somewhat fuzzy copy - but in Take
This
> >> Sabbath Day, when Toby's at synagogue, is he not wearing a yamulke?
> >>
[...]
> >In any case, shame on you, Toby! <g> And shame on A. Ron for missing
> >it.
>
> But wasn't everybody else in the scene wearing theirs? Since there's
no
> reason to suppose that the extras were all Jewish and happened to have
> theirs with them, I thought it was deliberate. Whether or not it's
standard
> practice because of his position within the government, I don't
know. (Does
> that mean Christians in gov't. don't wear crucifixes(sp)?)
I was at Rosh hashonah services yesterday and my synagogue had a big
ol' sign of sorts right by the big ol' containers of kippahs that said,
in effect, "wear one!" The only males i've seen not wearing a yamulke
in temple are gentile guests during a bar/bat mitzvah. i think it's a
boo-boo. it's not standard practice because of his gov't position.
thanks for all the answers!
-k
D.F. Manno
<jar...@babylon5.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
> No, he's not wearing it either time. I noticed that too, but didn't
> know if there was a perfectly acceptable reason for him to not wear
> one, not being jewish myself, like if there's some rules regarding
> being bald. Or maybe he's just not one to follow conventional rules;
> like some folks will genuflect, wash their hands in holy water, etc,
> etc, at a catholic church, while others can hardly be bothered to wipe
> their feet during a snowstorm.
You don't wash your hands in the holy water; you dip your fingers in it
and do the Sign of the Cross.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane." ‹ Jimmy Buffett
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>okay, it's minor and I do have a somewhat fuzzy copy - but in Take This
>Sabbath Day, when Toby's at synagogue, is he not wearing a yamulke? And
>then again when he goes back to speak to the rabbi? Maybe we got to
>different synagogues (i mean, we do, of course) but every temple I've
>been to has a little box of yamulkes . . .
In most Reform synagogues they are optional but not common; in most
Conservative synagogues they are optional but very common. Given the
attitudes of Toby's rabbi in his discussions with Toby during _This
Sabbath Day_, I am inclined to think that Toby's syngogue (if not
Toby) is aggressively Reform. I was *very* disappointed in the way
they wrote that rabbi; he said things about Torah law that most rabbis
would be dismissed or censured for saying, and that even Reform
rabbis, who are *allowed* to say almost anything, generally wouldn't.
-Naomi
kfj
nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 04:14:43 GMT, kfj <kar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
This
> >Sabbath Day, when Toby's at synagogue, is he not wearing a yamulke?
And
> >then again when he goes back to speak to the rabbi? Maybe we got to
> >different synagogues (i mean, we do, of course) but every temple I've
> >been to has a little box of yamulkes . . .
>
> Conservative synagogues they are optional but very common.
really? i'm totally not trying to be snarky, but the two reform temples
i attended growing up required yamulkes. They didn't patrol the
aisles, :) but they did put them out for everyone to use.
Given the
> attitudes of Toby's rabbi in his discussions with Toby during _This
> Sabbath Day_, I am inclined to think that Toby's syngogue (if not
> Toby) is aggressively Reform. I was *very* disappointed in the way
> they wrote that rabbi; he said things about Torah law that most rabbis
> would be dismissed or censured for saying, and that even Reform
> rabbis, who are *allowed* to say almost anything, generally wouldn't.
i totally agree with you on that one. definitely reform, and i was
similarly surprised at the way the rabbi expressed himself.
-k
TheFlinx
D.F. Manno wrote in message ...
>In article <8r6iks$a5o$4...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, Ron Jarrell
><jar...@babylon5.cc.vt.edu> wrote:
>
>You don't wash your hands in the holy water; you dip your fingers in it
>and do the Sign of the Cross.
and gargling is out of the question?
Boy is my face red!
Capt. Tuttle
> > they wrote that rabbi; he said things about Torah law that most rabbis
> > would be dismissed or censured for saying, and that even Reform
> > rabbis, who are *allowed* to say almost anything, generally wouldn't.
>
> i totally agree with you on that one. definitely reform, and i was
> similarly surprised at the way the rabbi expressed himself.
> -k
>
Maybe a little off topic, but could you be more specific and the Torah
law?
Priscilla H Ballou
: kippah (that's Hebrew for yarmulke).
What language is "yarmulke?" Yiddish?
Priscilla
--
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
-- Philip K. Dick
Priscilla H Ballou
: You don't wash your hands in the holy water; you dip your fingers in it
: and do the Sign of the Cross.
Or not, as the case may be. At the last Catholic church I was active in,
if you knew any better, you didn't *touch* the water in the holy water
font. I'd cleaned it once and was totally grossed out.
Jane Harper
>
> Jane Harper (jha...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : kippah (that's Hebrew for yarmulke).
>
> What language is "yarmulke?" Yiddish?
Yup.
J.
Iocaste
>> Conservative synagogues they are optional but very common.
>
>really? i'm totally not trying to be snarky, but the two reform temples
>i attended growing up required yamulkes.
Ditto for my reform temple.
But I am curious -- what did the rabbi say that was wrong? I went to a Reform
hebrew school for awhile, but that represents the total of my education about
my religion.
iocaste
ioc...@aol.com
________________________________________________
"If the Apocalypse comes, beep me."
-- Buffy
Jane Harper
> attitudes of Toby's rabbi in his discussions with Toby during _This
> Sabbath Day_, I am inclined to think that Toby's syngogue (if not
> Toby) is aggressively Reform. I was *very* disappointed in the way
> they wrote that rabbi; he said things about Torah law that most rabbis
> would be dismissed or censured for saying, and that even Reform
> rabbis, who are *allowed* to say almost anything, generally wouldn't.
Uh .. I belong to two shuls, both Conservative, and Toby's rabbi didn't
say anything that would have shocked either of mine. "Torah law" means
different things to different people; the spectrum of Jewish thought is
at least as wide as the spectrum of Christian thought. There are Jews
who think they should be able to stone someone who drives on Shabbat;
there are Jews who go to services on Shabbat then go shopping; there are
Jews who never go to shul at all. There are Rabbis who teach that every
word of the Torah and the Talmud came down from Mt. Sinai with Moses;
there are Rabbis who teach that Torah and Talmud must be re-interpreted
for each generation; there are Rabbis who teach that much of the
Scriptures is irrelevant to modern life.
As far as Toby's bare head is concerned, if it's optional in his shul,
then he was clearly within its practice. He wasn't wearing a tallit,
either. <g> And none of the women that I saw were wearing either one.
Methinks A.Ron and/or the director just made a boo-boo ..
Janie
kfj
Jane Harper <jha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Uh .. I belong to two shuls, both Conservative, and Toby's rabbi
didn't
> say anything that would have shocked either of mine. "Torah law"
means
> different things to different people; the spectrum of Jewish thought
is
> at least as wide as the spectrum of Christian thought. There are Jews
> who think they should be able to stone someone who drives on Shabbat;
> there are Jews who go to services on Shabbat then go shopping; there
are
> Jews who never go to shul at all. There are Rabbis who teach that
every
> word of the Torah and the Talmud came down from Mt. Sinai with Moses;
> there are Rabbis who teach that Torah and Talmud must be re-
interpreted
> for each generation; there are Rabbis who teach that much of the
> Scriptures is irrelevant to modern life.
well, none of the rabbis i've known have said that much of the torah is
irrelevant. . . i know there's a wide diversity, of course. and my
preference has always been towards the more Conservative near Orthodox
side of the spectrum, so i clearly have my own bias. :)
>
> As far as Toby's bare head is concerned, if it's optional in his shul,
> then he was clearly within its practice. He wasn't wearing a tallit,
> either. <g> And none of the women that I saw were wearing either
one ...
> Methinks A.Ron and/or the director just made a boo-boo ..
yup, that's my belief. Is Schiff jewish?
-k
kfj
> Maybe a little off topic, but could you be more specific and the Torah
> law?
i'm no expert and wouldn't try to be. there's a website (of course!)
http://www.jewish.com/askarabbi/
that might be helpful to you.
-k
Capt. Tuttle
>
> In article <39D7996E...@mash4077.com>,
>
> > Maybe a little off topic, but could you be more specific and the Torah
> > law?
>
> i'm no expert and wouldn't try to be. there's a website (of course!)
> http://www.jewish.com/askarabbi/
>
> that might be helpful to you.
> -k
>
link) I was curious and thought others might be too if you would be more
specific about what the rabbi said to Toby that surprised you.
AMYSA
>Sorry. Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. (but thanks for the
>link) I was curious and thought others might be too if you would be more
>specific about what the rabbi said to Toby that surprised you.
you can find a transcript here on geege's site:
http://homepages.go.com/~iluvtww/sabbath.html
amy
~proud agc keeper of janeane garofalo and richard schiff~
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In article <39d77b0...@news.cris.com>,
> nri...@concentric.net (Naomi Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>> In most Reform synagogues they are optional but not common; in most
>> Conservative synagogues they are optional but very common.
>
>really? i'm totally not trying to be snarky, but the two reform temples
>i attended growing up required yamulkes. They didn't patrol the
>aisles, :) but they did put them out for everyone to use.
"Classical Reform" synagogues don't even put them out -- and some
don't *permit* them. Of course Classical Reform still holds its
services on Sundays so the one in the West Wing wouldn't be that
anyway, the timing's wrong. The Reform synagogue I grew up in and the
one I attend now, both somewhat on the traditional end of Reform, do
put them out for people to use if they want to, but don't require them
in any way, and most men don't notice the box or don't bother. Of
course we also have men who show up with tallitim and, on appropriate
days, tefillin, so we're a very mixed group.
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<Tut...@mash4077.com> wrote:
>> > I was *very* disappointed in the way
>> > they wrote that rabbi; he said things about Torah law that most rabbis
>> > would be dismissed or censured for saying, and that even Reform
>> > rabbis, who are *allowed* to say almost anything, generally wouldn't.
>>
>> i totally agree with you on that one. definitely reform, and i was
>> similarly surprised at the way the rabbi expressed himself.
>
>Maybe a little off topic, but could you be more specific and the Torah
>law?
The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
all but the most extreme Reform positions. Most Jews believe that G-d
wrote the Torah directly or through close dictation; the Reform and
some of the left-wing Conservatives do not but still believe that the
law as given in Torah is G-d's word and binding. No decent rabbi would
simply brush it aside by saying that the people who wrote the Torah
didn't know any better and we should be different now. The rabbinic
view of the death penalty, if one wants a valid Torah-based argument
for opposing it, is that there are certain halakhic procedural
requirements for imposing a death penalty which are almost impossible
to meet, and it's improper to use it without them. While those
restrictions only formally bind a Jewish court, they are evidence of
the gravity with which Jewish law regards sentencing someone to death
and how hard it tries to avoid it, even to the extent of letting
obvious criminals free rather than risk convicting on a capital
offense. Toby went into that a little in his own statement to the
President about the subject, with a reference to the Bloody Sanhedrin
(which, by the way, is not as clear-cut as it sounds -- nobody is
quite sure if it was called that because one execution in seventy
years was too many, or if it was called that because one execution in
seventy years was far too few and encouraged murder in the community),
and I think the rabbi was shorted in the scriptwriting because they
wanted Toby to get the good lines of sophisticated legal exposition.
But the upshot of it was that they had a rabbi dismissing Torah
casually when there was a perfectly good closely-reasoned halakhic
argument available and that is just not plausible.
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Ballou) wrote:
>Jane Harper (jha...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: kippah (that's Hebrew for yarmulke).
>
>What language is "yarmulke?" Yiddish?
Yup.
>Priscilla
-Naomi
Priscilla H Ballou
: The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
: understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
: what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
: all but the most extreme Reform positions. Most Jews believe that G-d
: wrote the Torah directly or through close dictation; the Reform and
: some of the left-wing Conservatives do not but still believe that the
: law as given in Torah is G-d's word and binding. No decent rabbi would
: simply brush it aside by saying that the people who wrote the Torah
: didn't know any better and we should be different now.
Wow! I would have thought that there would be as wide a continuum of
thought in Judaism as there is in Christianity, but if you're correct
there is not. What you describe is a much narrower continuum of
understanding of scripture than exists in Christianity.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Ballou) wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis (nri...@concentric.net) wrote:
>
>: The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
>: understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
>: what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
>: all but the most extreme Reform positions. Most Jews believe that G-d
>: wrote the Torah directly or through close dictation; the Reform and
>: some of the left-wing Conservatives do not but still believe that the
>: law as given in Torah is G-d's word and binding. No decent rabbi would
>: simply brush it aside by saying that the people who wrote the Torah
>: didn't know any better and we should be different now.
>
>Wow! I would have thought that there would be as wide a continuum of
>thought in Judaism as there is in Christianity, but if you're correct
>there is not. What you describe is a much narrower continuum of
>understanding of scripture than exists in Christianity.
Actually there's a pretty wide range in Judaism, it's just on a
somewhat different type of scale than in Christianity.
what you have to understand is that Christianity is a faith-based
religion while Judaism is a law-based religion. Just as, while
essentially all Christians believe that Jesus was the son of G-d,
there is a lot of difference in what they each think that means in
practice, virtually all Jews believe that the Torah is G-d's Law, but
have very different ideas of what that means in practice. The
interpretations of Torah are endless, but its status as law is beyond
dispute; it is the core of the religion. What I object to about the
way Toby's rabbi was portrayed is that, precisely *because*
interpretations are so varied, they did not need to make him brush
aside Torah's binding status in order to give him a good excuse to say
anything about capital punishment -- or any other issue -- they wanted
him to say. They could have found a plausible interpretation within
the framework of Jewish practice that would have supported the
position, without needing to simply abandon the wole concept of
interpreting the law at all.
>Priscilla
-Naomi
Priscilla H Ballou
: religion while Judaism is a law-based religion. Just as, while
: essentially all Christians believe that Jesus was the son of G-d,
: there is a lot of difference in what they each think that means in
: practice, virtually all Jews believe that the Torah is G-d's Law, but
: have very different ideas of what that means in practice. The
: interpretations of Torah are endless, but its status as law is beyond
: dispute; it is the core of the religion. What I object to about the
: way Toby's rabbi was portrayed is that, precisely *because*
: interpretations are so varied, they did not need to make him brush
: aside Torah's binding status in order to give him a good excuse to say
: anything about capital punishment -- or any other issue -- they wanted
: him to say. They could have found a plausible interpretation within
: the framework of Jewish practice that would have supported the
: position, without needing to simply abandon the wole concept of
: interpreting the law at all.
Yes, I get your point. I hope AS makes up his error in judgement in
future episodes. I'm always delighted when well written shows portray
Jews not separating their religion from the rest of their lives --
probably because the topic in general is one I struggle with and most
portrayals of Christianity in the popular media are not of that "flavor"
of Christianity which works for me (indeed, they're often the flavor I
find horribly offensive). So I latch onto portrayals of Jews because
that's close enough that I can relate (my religion did start, after all,
within Judaism), plus the politics are usually right! ;-)
That, plus my ongoing fascination with Richard Schiff as an actor (I was
so glad when I saw he was going to be in TWW), accounts for Toby being my
favorite character on the show.
Wick Deer
>In most Reform synagogues they are optional but not common; in most
>Conservative synagogues they are optional but very common. Given the
>attitudes of Toby's rabbi in his discussions with Toby during _This
>Sabbath Day_, I am inclined to think that Toby's syngogue (if not
>Toby) is aggressively Reform.
In the reform congregation I attend, as the goyish half of a mixed marriage.
Kippot are available and used by about half the male attendees. The
conservative congregation that my wife grew up with requires kippot for all
males.
The real tip off that Toby's congregation is reform is the female cantor.
Wick Deer
kfj
wick...@aol.comKillSpam (Wick Deer) wrote:
> The real tip off that Toby's congregation is reform is the female
cantor.
well . . . :) my conservative to traditional congregation has a female
cantor. and the conservative congregation i went to in college, albeit
small, had a female rabbi.
but i agree, toby's congregation is prolly reform.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>Naomi wrote:
>The real tip off that Toby's congregation is reform is the female cantor.
Not quite. Conservative synagogues have them too, as do Traditoinal
Egalitarian synagogues.
>Wick Deer
-Naomi
Lynn
>
>The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
>understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
>what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
>all but the most extreme Reform positions.
Thank you for the clarification. I remember thinking at the time that it
was an odd thing to say. Religious dogma seems to be the one thing that
never changes.
Jane Harper
> The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
> understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
> what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
> all but the most extreme Reform positions. Most Jews believe that G-d
> wrote the Torah directly or through close dictation; the Reform and
> some of the left-wing Conservatives do not but still believe that the
> law as given in Torah is G-d's word and binding.
I'm a Conservative Jew and I must respectfully disagree. The idea that
Torah is reinterpreted for every generation goes back to Hillel, whose
position could hardly be considered "extreme Reform". And the statement
that "Most Jews" believe that G!d wrote the Torah directly isn't borne
out by the statistics; this belief is limited to Orthodoxy, which is
less than 10% of the total Jewish population of the US.
Jane Harper
Jane Harper
> The real tip off that Toby's congregation is reform is the female cantor.
The Conservative movement has been training and "ordaining" women
cantors since the mid-1908s. Both of the Conservative shuls to which I
belong have woman cantors.
RJFrankel
>Date: 10/02/2000 5:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote...
>>
>>The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
>>understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
>>what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
>>all but the most extreme Reform positions.
>
>was an odd thing to say. Religious dogma seems to be the one thing that
>never changes.
>--
>Lynn
>
Wait I second, I beg to differ with this opinion (Gail's, not Lynn's). Yes,
few, if any, Rabbi's would say that it is okay to put aside Torah -- WITHOUT
THOUGHT, that is. Hence the huge body of Reform and Conservative Responsa --
modern responses to Torah/Talmud laws. In fact, the genesis (sorry for the
pun) of the Conservative movement was an attempt to bring Jewish law into a
historical context -- meaning, "What do we do with this today?"
However, when pushed, many Rabbi's, Reform and Conservative, do NOT hold to the
idea of "Torah given by God on Sinai". Many many Rabbi's and Jews believe it
was written by men and women. Some say "God inspired", some say that it is the
result of a huge redaction with several different writers (J, P, etc)... In
fact, the best discussion I was ever involved with on this very issue was
resolved by an Orthodox teacher of mine saying, "It does not matter who wrote
it. It is the story we have told about ourselves for 2500-3000 years, and that
is what makes it important."
Anyway, I'll go back to lurking around here.
Ricki
=======================================================
Ricki J. Frankel
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>>From: "Lynn" rameses...@postmark.net
>>Date: 10/02/2000 5:56 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>
>>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote...
>>>
>>>The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
>>>understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
>>>what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
>>>all but the most extreme Reform positions.
>>
>>Thank you for the clarification. I remember thinking at the time that it
>>was an odd thing to say. Religious dogma seems to be the one thing that
>>never changes.
>
>Wait I second, I beg to differ with this opinion (Gail's, not Lynn's). Yes,
>few, if any, Rabbi's would say that it is okay to put aside Torah -- WITHOUT
>THOUGHT, that is. Hence the huge body of Reform and Conservative Responsa --
>modern responses to Torah/Talmud laws. In fact, the genesis (sorry for the
>pun) of the Conservative movement was an attempt to bring Jewish law into a
>historical context -- meaning, "What do we do with this today?"
Sure. But look closely at the responsa of those movements: it follows
the halakhic model even if it is not actually halakha (and the
Conservatives *do* consider their responsa part of halakha). It treats
the laws laid out in Torah as specifically relevant, each one, and
where it effectively insubstantiates one it does so by
reinterpretation, not cavalier abandonment, and lays out the logic of
the decision step by step using the old sources as well as the new. I
am not saying that no rabbi would come to the conclusion that a Torah
law was de facto inapplicable in today's world; many have done so, all
the way back to Rabbi Gershom who outlawed polygamy in the middle
ages. But they do so, not by saying, "Well, the Torah was just the law
of the time, not the law for our time," -- they do it by saying, "the
way the Torah was written made the details of *how* to obey it clearer
for their time than for ours, and we'll have to rely on some careful
deduction to figure out how to properly apply it to ours." It's a very
different approach.
>However, when pushed, many Rabbi's, Reform and Conservative, do NOT hold to the
>idea of "Torah given by God on Sinai". Many many Rabbi's and Jews believe it
>was written by men and women. Some say "God inspired", some say that it is the
>result of a huge redaction with several different writers (J, P, etc)... In
>fact, the best discussion I was ever involved with on this very issue was
>resolved by an Orthodox teacher of mine saying, "It does not matter who wrote
>it. It is the story we have told about ourselves for 2500-3000 years, and that
>is what makes it important."
Exactly. But all of them honor the laws as given therein as
representative of what G-d wants us to do, regardless of how they
think those were communicated.
Oh, yes, I know; there are a few for whom even that doesn't apply.
There exists somewhere out there the one famous atheist Reform rabbi
and all that. The point is that a television show which tries to paint
people realistically and with some sensitivity should not make their
only portrait of a rabbi be one totally nonrepresentative of ANY of
the major branches of Judaism, even if someone like him technically
could exist somewhere. It's roughly on a par with the folks on a
certain other NBC show who painted a lactation consultant as a vicious
fanatic who was responsible for the death of a baby, and then when
people protested the show complained, "But we were just talking about
HER, not about lactation consultants in general!!" Well, sorry; if you
only show one of something and they don't come up on TV very often you
should not show the one who is so far out to lunch as to give all the
others a bad name. Especially if there is absolutely no reason your
plot requires it. The West Wing could have done just fine with the
plotline of _This Sabbath Day_ while making the rabbi's views just as
strong on the subject of capital punishment but more closelyderived
from Jewish sources. There was no reason to insult religious Jews or
paint them in a bad light by their own standards.
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<jha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>
>> The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
>> understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
>> what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
>> all but the most extreme Reform positions. Most Jews believe that G-d
>> wrote the Torah directly or through close dictation; the Reform and
>> some of the left-wing Conservatives do not but still believe that the
>> law as given in Torah is G-d's word and binding.
>
>I'm a Conservative Jew and I must respectfully disagree. The idea that
>Torah is reinterpreted for every generation goes back to Hillel, whose
>position could hardly be considered "extreme Reform".
You're saying exactly what I'm asying -- that it gets REINTERPRETED,
not thrown away. Toby's rabbi just threw it away. Conservative and
most reform rabbis will reexamine it in detail, using Talmudic and
later responses together with modern ones, and come to conclusions
about the laws and the ways in which they apply to the present. They
will *not* just say, "Well, theTorah doesn't matter anymore."
>Jane Harper
-Naomi
Pat
"kfj" <> okay, it's minor and I do have a somewhat fuzzy copy - but in Take
This
> Sabbath Day, when Toby's at synagogue, is he not wearing a yamulke? And
> then again when he goes back to speak to the rabbi? Maybe we got to
> different synagogues (i mean, we do, of course) but every temple I've
> been to has a little box of yamulkes . . .
Here's my take on the controversy: Surely somebody in the group that was
making this show is Jewish. I really doubt that they all just waded in
without consulting anybody or asking if they were proceeding in a proper
manner. If anyone thinks this is the case, then they are grossly
underestimating all of the people involved in the production. Therefore,
somebody, some where decided that Toby should go in the synagogue and not
wear a yarmulke and that it would be all right for him to do so.
Pat
Nomi S Burstein
A number of years ago (~20), I attended a bar mitzvah at a Reform shul,
and my father was asked to remove his kippah before entering the shul.
I believe the Reform movement has relaxed on this issue, but not wearing
a kippah in shul had not been unheard-of in the Reform movement. Now,
personally, I think Toby's conservative (or, at least, that his Rabbi is),
but hey, he might be Reform (or attending a Reform shul).
--Nomi :-)
Jane Harper
> You're saying exactly what I'm asying -- that it gets REINTERPRETED,
> not thrown away. Toby's rabbi just threw it away. Conservative and
> most reform rabbis will reexamine it in detail, using Talmudic and
> later responses together with modern ones, and come to conclusions
> about the laws and the ways in which they apply to the present. They
> will *not* just say, "Well, theTorah doesn't matter anymore."
I guess I'm confused 'cuz I didn't really hear Toby's rabbi say they
were throwing it out...
Janie
M Blaze Miskulin
> The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
> understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
> what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
> all but the most extreme Reform positions. Most Jews believe that G-d
> wrote the Torah directly or through close dictation; the Reform and
> some of the left-wing Conservatives do not but still believe that the
> law as given in Torah is G-d's word and binding.
Let me preface this by saying that my own upbringing was as a Catholic,
but I have done my best to study and understand other religions as best
as I am able.
That said, I question your statement. Would not the laws of keeping
kosher, practicing daily holocausts (burnt sacrifices), cleansing
rituals after menstruation, childbirth, and other times, as stated in
Leviticus be considered outdated by several Jewish "denominations"
(what's the proper word?)? I know that the laws of keeping kosher are
often dismissed as non-relevant to modern life, as as many of the other
laws laid out in Leviticus.
I could see this as being a valid grounding in stating that parts of the
Torah were writen for the times. I have also talked quite a bit with
some Jewish persons I know about the extensive degree to which the Torah
and Jewish law is reinterpreted by the rabbinical council, whereas
Christian doctrines (especially Catholic) tend to be overly rigid.
I'd appreciate help in reconciling the differnt positions I've heard. I
may be missing some important aspects of the overall view.
--
M Blaze Miskulin
Winterborne Scenic Studios
http://www.winterborne-ss.com
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<jha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>
>> You're saying exactly what I'm asying -- that it gets REINTERPRETED,
>> not thrown away. Toby's rabbi just threw it away. Conservative and
>> most reform rabbis will reexamine it in detail, using Talmudic and
>> later responses together with modern ones, and come to conclusions
>> about the laws and the ways in which they apply to the present. They
>> will *not* just say, "Well, theTorah doesn't matter anymore."
>
>I guess I'm confused 'cuz I didn't really hear Toby's rabbi say they
>were throwing it out...
He said some of the laws in Torah just didn't apply to today's world.
That's throwing it out rather than reinterpreting. A real rabbi, even
a Reform rabbi, would have said that they all still apply and will
always apply, but we have to incorporate what else we know about the
world today in determining what they mean.
>Janie
-Naomi
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
<brb...@winterborne-ss.com> wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>
>> The rabbi said, in essence, that human beings wrote the Torah by their
>> understanding of their own time and it was okay to put aside some of
>> what it said in a more enlightened age. That is simply outrageous by
>> all but the most extreme Reform positions. Most Jews believe that G-d
>> wrote the Torah directly or through close dictation; the Reform and
>> some of the left-wing Conservatives do not but still believe that the
>> law as given in Torah is G-d's word and binding.
>
>Let me preface this by saying that my own upbringing was as a Catholic,
>but I have done my best to study and understand other religions as best
>as I am able.
>
>That said, I question your statement. Would not the laws of keeping
>kosher, practicing daily holocausts (burnt sacrifices), cleansing
>rituals after menstruation, childbirth, and other times, as stated in
>Leviticus be considered outdated by several Jewish "denominations"
>(what's the proper word?)? I know that the laws of keeping kosher are
>often dismissed as non-relevant to modern life, as as many of the other
>laws laid out in Leviticus.
Taking these separately: no denomination practices animal sacrifice
right now because the Temple has been destroyed and it s the only
place where we are permitted to perform them. Orthodoxy and some
Conservatives pray for the time when the Temple will be rebuilt and we
will resume the sacrifices. Some Conservatives and many of the Reform
pray for th rebuilding of th Temple but believe that its destruction
was partially a signal from G-d that the sacrifices had never been
meant as a permanent command, but as a transitional period, and we're
past the need for it, replacing it instead with study and prayer. Some
Reform Jews believe that we don't need the Temple to be rebuilt at
all, having outgrown that too. The justification for those who say
we've outgrown it is that G-d made it physically impossible for us to
perform it correctly by allowing the Temple to be demolished.
Kashruth and tacharat hamishpacha are still kept by the Orthodox and
many Conservative Jews. The Reform understand the latter as meant to
adjust certain aspects of marital relations in order to ensure
frequent children and also to make marriages within the old society
closer and more egalitarian than they might otherwise be. They believe
therefore that so long as we keep the spirit of the law by arranging
our own marriages by whatever method will work best to meet the needs
of both parties, and take the responsibility to fulfil our obligation
to have children, it is not necessary to accomplish the commanded ends
by the exact *method* described in Torah.
Kashruth has a variety of elements, and people see it in different
ways. some of them the Reform believe were instituted as health
measures, and therefore other methods can be substituted which are
just as safe as refraining from those foods. Some of them are ethical
considerations, and many of the Reform keep what they call "ethical
Kashruth" in which they try to maintain the spirit of the laws which
use one's selection of food as an instrument to avoid cruelty in
several ways -- by avoiding veal, by insisting on free-range animal
products, by boycotting dolphin-unsafe tuna, sometimes by going
vegetarian altogether, by using one's money (the modern equivalent of
the kind of wealth that food products were in the ancient world) only
in way which meet Jewish ethical standards. All these are different
interpretations of kashruth, altered for the modern age but not and
never dispensed with.
>I could see this as being a valid grounding in stating that parts of the
>Torah were writen for the times.
>
>I have also talked quite a bit with
>some Jewish persons I know about the extensive degree to which the Torah
>and Jewish law is reinterpreted by the rabbinical council, whereas
>Christian doctrines (especially Catholic) tend to be overly rigid.
>
>I'd appreciate help in reconciling the differnt positions I've heard. I
>may be missing some important aspects of the overall view.
The terms in which the Torah was written are, by some Jews, believed
to have been those of the time from which it comes. The principles
within it are eternal. Since we take it on faith that nothing in Torah
is there just for the heck of it, anything which looks as if it isn't
meant for our times must mean something different from what it looks
like it means -- hence the reinterpretations.
-Naomi
Lone waddie
Gayle Rivkis) writes:
> -Naomi
>
Really nice post, thank you for the info.
Brian
As the old joke goes, two Jews, three opinions.
But ...
My complaint, in addition to the others noted, is the story told by the
priest at the end ("God said, 'I sent you a radio report, a helicopter,
and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?'").
I always learned that it was a _Jewish_ story. I've heard it in Jewish
contexts many times. Any one know the origin?
Brian
P.S. Favorite Lieberman joke: If Gore/Lieberman wins, we'll have a
two-China policy in the White House.
Priscilla H Ballou
: My complaint, in addition to the others noted, is the story told by the
: priest at the end ("God said, 'I sent you a radio report, a helicopter,
: and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?'").
: I always learned that it was a _Jewish_ story. I've heard it in Jewish
: contexts many times. Any one know the origin?
I've heard it in entirely too many sermons in Roman Catholic and Episcopal
churches (two branches of Christianity). ("Too many" means that I think
the point is an excellent one, but it gets old after a while.)
Oh, and I think I heard it in AA meetings, too, back when I did that.
ronniecat
"Lynn" <rameses...@postmark.net> wrote in message
news:ste91a6...@corp.supernews.com...
> But wasn't everybody else in the scene wearing theirs? Since there's no
> reason to suppose that the extras were all Jewish and happened to have
> theirs with them...
Maybe the producers were trying to avoid cultural appropriation? Jewish
characters = Jewish extras :) :) :)
On a more serious note, that's an excellent observation. I bet it was
deliberate. At the very least, somebody on cast or crew would've noticed
Richard Schiff wasn't wearing one.
ronniecat
--
<ronniecat at hotmail dot com> =^..^=
About.com's Guide to Fredericton: http://fredericton.about.com
The West Wing at Suite101.com: http://suite101.com/welcome.cfm/west_wing
Return address altered to foil spambots - remove mycollar to reply
Michael A Burstein
Nomi S Burstein <gn...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>A number of years ago (~20), I attended a bar mitzvah at a Reform shul,
>and my father was asked to remove his kippah before entering the shul.
>I believe the Reform movement has relaxed on this issue, but not wearing
>a kippah in shul had not been unheard-of in the Reform movement. Now,
>personally, I think Toby's conservative (or, at least, that his Rabbi is),
>but hey, he might be Reform (or attending a Reform shul).
>
A few years ago, circa 1991, I visited Hebrew Union College in NYC, the
rabbinical school of the Reform movement. I attended a morning service, and
noted that almost no one wore a kippah. However, I was told that I could
wear one or not as I wished, and I chose to wear one. No one commented.
Toby's shul is most likely Reform, given the fact that he wasn't always
wearing a kippah (and I think some others in the shul weren't either).
But it could be left-leaning Conservative.
At least we're pretty sure it's not Orthodox.
--
Michael A. Burstein
www.mabfan.com
Charles A Lieberman
Pat
>Surely somebody in the group that was
>making this show is Jewish.
Isn't AS?
--
Charles A. Lieberman | Taylor, you can't love a man with no head!
Brooklyn, New York, USA |
http://calieber.tripod.com/home.html No relation.