High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
Brett Weiss
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dan Izenberg February, 20 2002 / Jerusalem Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The High Court of Justice this morning, in an 9-2 decision, ruled
that the Interior Ministry must register as Jews Israeli citizens
who were converted by the Conservative or Reform movements in Israel
or abroad.
Supreme Court President Aharon Barak stressed that the court
declined to go into the question of whether Reform or Conservative
conversions were valid according to Jewish religious law. Instead,
he based his judgement on the long-standing precedent which states
that the ministry's population registry must list details given to
them by Israeli citizens reguarding their personal status without
question.
This is the first time that court has ruled on the non-Orthodox
conversion of Israeli citizens living within the country.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com>
>Subject:High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:08:32 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<igNc8.74645$8d1.24...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>
>(10:20) High Court accepts Reform, Conservative conversions
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>By Dan Izenberg February, 20 2002 / Jerusalem Post
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>The High Court of Justice this morning, in an 9-2 decision, ruled
>that the Interior Ministry must register as Jews Israeli citizens
>who were converted by the Conservative or Reform movements in Israel
>or abroad.
But that's only as far as the Interior Ministry is concerned; it still
has NO effect whatsoever on the Rabbinate who will categorically NOT
recognize these gentiles as "Jews". It's a pyrrhic victory; all it means
is that on someone's ID card it states "JEWISH". Big deal.
The Ministry plans on simply eleiminating this field from the database.
>
>Supreme Court President Aharon Barak stressed that the court
>declined to go into the question of whether Reform or Conservative
>conversions were valid according to Jewish religious law. Instead,
>he based his judgement on the long-standing precedent which states
>that the ministry's population registry must list details given to
>them by Israeli citizens reguarding their personal status without
>question.
>
See above. It's a precedent and the Ministry is simply going to remove
the field from the database.
>This is the first time that court has ruled on the non-Orthodox
>conversion of Israeli citizens living within the country.
Josh
Micha Berger
: Supreme Court President Aharon Barak stressed that the court
: declined to go into the question of whether Reform or Conservative
: conversions were valid according to Jewish religious law. Instead,
: he based his judgement on the long-standing precedent which states
: that the ministry's population registry must list details given to
: them by Israeli citizens reguarding their personal status without
: question.
: This is the first time that court has ruled on the non-Orthodox
: conversion of Israeli citizens living within the country.
Without a joke, and I am not simply trying to reopen that can of
worms again, but...
"Moish" Rosen, founder of j4j, is now appealing to have his conversions
included as they too qualify by this criterion.
-mi
Dan Kimmel
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:73363
>
> >From: "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com>
> >Subject:High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
> >Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:08:32 +0000 (UTC)
> >Message-ID:<igNc8.74645$8d1.24...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>
>
> >(10:20) High Court accepts Reform, Conservative conversions
> >
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >By Dan Izenberg February, 20 2002 / Jerusalem Post
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >The High Court of Justice this morning, in an 9-2 decision, ruled
> >that the Interior Ministry must register as Jews Israeli citizens
> >who were converted by the Conservative or Reform movements in Israel
> >or abroad.
>
>
> But that's only as far as the Interior Ministry is concerned; it still
> has NO effect whatsoever on the Rabbinate who will categorically NOT
> recognize these gentiles as "Jews". It's a pyrrhic victory; all it means
> is that on someone's ID card it states "JEWISH". Big deal.
>
> The Ministry plans on simply eleiminating this field from the database.
No, it's a major victory and one you should be supporting. It gets the
government OUT of the business of determining who is a Jew except insofar as
the Law of Return. And Orthodox family doesn't want to accept a Reform
convert without an Orthodox conversion? That's *their* business, not the
government's.
Micha Berger
: What are you talking about? The ruling related to Conservative
: and Reform, not J4J. This was a short article; I'm sure you were
: not confused about its wording.
I wasn't basing myself on the article posted here. Otherwise, how would
I know what Rosen is planning?
The court ruled that Jewishness ought not be in the hands of the
Rabbanut because of a "long standing precedent" that the ministry record
information as given by the person being asked. So, Rosen figures,
if that's good for C and R, why shouldn't his "completed Jews" also be
able to be recorded as Jews if they say they are?
As I said, he's appealing. The court did not and would never accept
such a notion. His argument/hope is that their current ruling mean
they backed themselves into a corner and will.
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905
J. J. Levin
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:24:08 +0000 (UTC), David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
> : What are you talking about? The ruling related to Conservative
> : and Reform, not J4J. This was a short article; I'm sure you were
> : not confused about its wording.
>
> I wasn't basing myself on the article posted here. Otherwise, how would
> I know what Rosen is planning?
>
> The court ruled that Jewishness ought not be in the hands of the
> Rabbanut because of a "long standing precedent" that the ministry record
> information as given by the person being asked. So, Rosen figures,
> if that's good for C and R, why shouldn't his "completed Jews" also be
> able to be recorded as Jews if they say they are?
>
> As I said, he's appealing. The court did not and would never accept
> such a notion. His argument/hope is that their current ruling mean
> they backed themselves into a corner and will.
>
> -mi
>
>
I am not a lawyer, but I believe that in the case of Brother Daniel the
High Court denied the petition to recognize Judaism based on the fact
that the petitioner had accepted another religion and was therefore
not Jewish. By accepting Jesus (in the case of J4J) the same argument
might stand.
There is ample precedent for accepting R & C converts. The High Court
has routinely and for many years instructed the Interior Ministry
to register these converts as Jews. The only new factor now is that
it included R & C conversions ** performed in Israel ** whereas
up until now only conversions performed abroad were recognized.
I cannot imagine the Court including J4J in this category.
Much as the Orth might protest that this decision is meaningless,
it is not. For the first time the Court has granted some measure of
recognition to R & C rabbis ** in Israel **. It's a good start.
Jay
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net>
>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:24:11 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<Xns91BB680...@65.96.0.182>
>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>
>....
>> But that's only as far as the Interior Ministry is
>> concerned; it still has NO effect whatsoever on the
>> Rabbinate who will categorically NOT recognize these
>> gentiles as "Jews". It's a pyrrhic victory; all it means is
>> that on someone's ID card it states "JEWISH". Big deal.
>
>Gentiles?
Someone without GIUR (Orthodox conversion) who "converts" using
non-Orthodox clergy is a gentile.
Josh
Fiona
David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote in message ...
>> concerned; it still has NO effect whatsoever on the
>> Rabbinate who will categorically NOT recognize these
>> gentiles as "Jews". It's a pyrrhic victory; all it means is
>> that on someone's ID card it states "JEWISH". Big deal.
>
Jews?
J. J. Levin
In your Orthodox view.
I beg to differ. Apparently so does the Israeli High Court.
Jay
toichen
> <BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> > X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:73363
> >
> > >From: "Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com>
> > >Subject:High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
> > >Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:08:32 +0000 (UTC)
> > >Message-ID:<igNc8.74645$8d1.24...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com>
>
> > >(10:20) High Court accepts Reform, Conservative conversions
> > >
> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >By Dan Izenberg February, 20 2002 / Jerusalem Post
> > >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >The High Court of Justice this morning, in an 9-2 decision, ruled
> > >that the Interior Ministry must register as Jews Israeli citizens
> > >who were converted by the Conservative or Reform movements in Israel
> > >or abroad.
> >
> >
> > But that's only as far as the Interior Ministry is concerned; it still
> > has NO effect whatsoever on the Rabbinate who will categorically NOT
> > recognize these gentiles as "Jews". It's a pyrrhic victory; all it means
> > is that on someone's ID card it states "JEWISH". Big deal.
> >
> > The Ministry plans on simply eleiminating this field from the database.
>
> No, it's a major victory
And a hollow one. There are close to a million non-jews living in
Israel at the present, including russians, black-hebrews, r and c
converts etc. Another couple of hundred won't make a difference either
way.
> and one you should be supporting. It gets the
> government OUT of the business of determining who is a Jew
And gets the government out of the business of building a cohesive
society, something Israel is utterly lacking at present.
toichen
J. J. Levin
Ramming more religious coercion down Israelis' throats,
as the rabbinate and the Ministry of Religion have been
doing for over 50 years will not add cohesiveness to the society.
When almost 20% of Israelis cannot get married in their own
country because there are no civil weddings and the sole
authority in charge of marriages is capricious, bureaucratic
and frozen in the 16th century -- this does not build cohesiveness
either.
When the rabbinate recognizes a marriage certificate issued
by a non-Jewish civil servant in Cyprus or Paraguay but will not
recognize the marriage certificate of a Jewish rabbi in israel
because he is not "one of ours", that certainly won't add to
cohesiveness.
Israel is happy to accept young olim to its military service
where they might (and sometimes unfortunately do) get killed
in the defense of the country, but then there's a big to-do
about where to bury the young victim because he became Jewish
with the wrong rabbi or the wrong stream of Judaism.
One of the petitioners on which the High Court ruled
today was converted by a modern Orthodox rabbi in
the US. Even that wasn't good enough for the Ministry
of the Interior.
And you talk of cohesiveness ??
Jay
Susan Cohen
Micha Berger wrote:
> The court ruled that Jewishness ought not be in the hands of the
> Rabbanut because of a "long standing precedent" that the ministry record
> information as given by the person being asked. So, Rosen figures,
> if that's good for C and R, why shouldn't his "completed Jews" also be
> able to be recorded as Jews if they say they are?
>
> As I said, he's appealing. The court did not and would never accept
> such a notion. His argument/hope is that their current ruling mean
> they backed themselves into a corner and will.
It's a corner I would LEAP into, and be darned loud about,
were it up to me. It would give me the chance to state in an
INETRNATIONAL forum that these lying bastards are just
that: sneaky, sleazy, conniving missioners.
(As my husband says over my shoulder, "Why are you
holding back? Tell us how you really feel!" Well, lemme get
started on the Mormons who came to my door the other day....)
Susan
Susan Cohen
"J. J. Levin" wrote:
> I beg to differ. Apparently so does the Israeli High Court.
Not to weigh in on any one side, I am saying now
what I always say when this sort of thing comes up
(e.g., usually concerning the Law of Return).
Irsaeli political policy is just that.
It is *not* a religious decision.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Micha Berger wrote:
> "Moish" Rosen, founder of j4j, is now appealing to have his conversions
> included as they too qualify by this criterion.
How can they, seeing as how the Meshugianics
are in no way Reform Jews????
(Of course, they lie so much, maybe they can't
really figure out what's true anymore....)
Susan
Harry Weiss
> Micha Berger wrote:
>> The court ruled that Jewishness ought not be in the hands of the
>> Rabbanut because of a "long standing precedent" that the ministry record
>> information as given by the person being asked. So, Rosen figures,
>> if that's good for C and R, why shouldn't his "completed Jews" also be
>> able to be recorded as Jews if they say they are?
>>
>> As I said, he's appealing. The court did not and would never accept
>> such a notion. His argument/hope is that their current ruling mean
>> they backed themselves into a corner and will.
> It's a corner I would LEAP into, and be darned loud about,
> were it up to me. It would give me the chance to state in an
> INETRNATIONAL forum that these lying bastards are just
> that: sneaky, sleazy, conniving missioners.
Well, won't that encourage the supreme court even more.
> (As my husband says over my shoulder, "Why are you
> holding back? Tell us how you really feel!" Well, lemme get
> started on the Mormons who came to my door the other day....)
> Susan
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Susan Cohen
Harry Weiss wrote:
> Susan Cohen <fla...@ihers.com> wrote:
>
> > It's a corner I would LEAP into, and be darned loud about,
> > were it up to me. It would give me the chance to state in an
> > INETRNATIONAL forum that these lying bastards are just
> > that: sneaky, sleazy, conniving missioners.
oops - that should have been "misisonizers".
But y'all knew that already.
> Well, won't that encourage the supreme court even more.
My, I will take that as a compliment that little old me could
inspire them to any action on this matter.
And why shouldn't it (even if it did come form just me!)?
Anything that puts the Meshugianics in their place is
to be applauded.
Susan
Michael Shimshoni
"Brett Weiss" <law...@erols.com% writes:
%(10:20) High Court accepts Reform, Conservative conversions
%
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
%By Dan Izenberg February, 20 2002 / Jerusalem Post
%--------------------------------------------------------------------
%
%The High Court of Justice this morning, in an 9-2 decision, ruled
%that the Interior Ministry must register as Jews Israeli citizens
%who were converted by the Conservative or Reform movements in Israel
%or abroad.
%
%Supreme Court President Aharon Barak stressed that the court
%declined to go into the question of whether Reform or Conservative
%conversions were valid according to Jewish religious law. Instead,
%he based his judgement on the long-standing precedent which states
%that the ministry's population registry must list details given to
%them by Israeli citizens reguarding their personal status without
%question.
%
%This is the first time that court has ruled on the non-Orthodox
%conversion of Israeli citizens living within the country.
This decision took a long time, but better late than never.
Michael Shimshoni
Michael Shimshoni
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org% writes:
%On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:08:32 +0000 (UTC), Brett Weiss <law...@erols.com> wrote:
%: Supreme Court President Aharon Barak stressed that the court
%: declined to go into the question of whether Reform or Conservative
%: conversions were valid according to Jewish religious law. Instead,
%: he based his judgement on the long-standing precedent which states
%: that the ministry's population registry must list details given to
%: them by Israeli citizens reguarding their personal status without
%: question.
%
%: This is the first time that court has ruled on the non-Orthodox
%: conversion of Israeli citizens living within the country.
%
%Without a joke, and I am not simply trying to reopen that can of
%worms again, but...
%
%"Moish" Rosen, founder of j4j, is now appealing to have his conversions
%included as they too qualify by this criterion.
How very typical to compare the Jewish denominations of the majority
of American Jews to that Christian sect.
%-mi
Michael Shimshoni
Michael Shimshoni
David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net% writes:
%BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
%news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
%
%....
%> But that's only as far as the Interior Ministry is
%> concerned; it still has NO effect whatsoever on the
%> Rabbinate who will categorically NOT recognize these
%> gentiles as "Jews". It's a pyrrhic victory; all it means is
%> that on someone's ID card it states "JEWISH". Big deal.
%
%Gentiles?
Are you surprised? Anyone who does not go to his shul is a gentile.
Michael Shimshoni
Susan Cohen
Michael Shimshoni wrote:
Yes, I agree that it's typical of the founder of the Meshugianics.
After all, that's the one doing the comparison.
Or did you miss the words "WITHOUT A JOKE"?
Susan
Susan Cohen
David Ehrens wrote:
> MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) wrote in
> news:804A118...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il:
>
> ....
> > Are you surprised? Anyone who does not go to his shul is a
> > gentile.
>
> The only thing that surprised me was that he didn't say
> "damned goyim". It couldn't have dripped with any more hate.
Hate is as hate does.
He could just as easily say that you are being
hateful by insisting he accept gentiles as Jews.
See how it works?
Susan
Dan Kimmel
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
news:3C74EFE5...@hers.com...
I see how it doesn't work in your example. In the first case the statement
is made with contempt. In the second it is difference of opinion. A person
can say that, for example, a Conservative conversion is valid without
expressing any opinion at all about Orthodox Jews, let alone "hate."
Susan Cohen
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:3C74EFE5...@hers.com...
> >
> >
> > David Ehrens wrote:
> >
> > > MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) wrote in
> > > news:804A118...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il:
> > >
> > > ....
> > > > Are you surprised? Anyone who does not go to his shul is a
> > > > gentile.
> > >
> > > The only thing that surprised me was that he didn't say
> > > "damned goyim". It couldn't have dripped with any more hate.
> >
> > Hate is as hate does.
> > He could just as easily say that you are being
> > hateful by insisting he accept gentiles as Jews.
> > See how it works?
>
> I see how it doesn't work in your example. In the first case the statement
> is made with contempt. In the second it is difference of opinion.
That is *solely* in your opinion.
He said *ONE WORD*.
*You* said he said it with hate.
Susan
Dan Kimmel
No, actually, *I* didn't.
Which goes to show what the problem is here. You are attempting an
objective rule based on subjective experience.
Harry Weiss
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
> ....
>>>Gentiles?
>>
>> Someone without GIUR (Orthodox conversion) who "converts"
>> using non-Orthodox clergy is a gentile.
> I'm sorry. It was the characterization of Jews as Gentiles that
> caught me by shock.
The problem is they are not Jews.
Susan Cohen
Dan Kimmel wrote:
Then what does your sentence above:
> > > > The only thing that surprised me was that he didn't say
> > > > "damned goyim". It couldn't have dripped with any more hate.
mean? I repeat: *you* said he said it with hate.
> Which goes to show what the problem is here. You are attempting an
> objective rule based on subjective experience.
Excuse me, but you are, and I agree that that's the problem.
Susan
Dan Kimmel
It's not *my* sentence. *I* didn't say it.
>
> > Which goes to show what the problem is here. You are attempting an
> > objective rule based on subjective experience.
>
> Excuse me, but you are, and I agree that that's the problem.
No, you are. You are so involved in showing that you must be right that you
are falsely attributing statements. Perhaps it's time to turn off the
computer and say, "It's only a hobby, it's only a hobby...." :)
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net>
>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:02:34 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<Xns91BCD3D...@65.96.0.178>
>Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in
>news:a543cj$2l2$1...@reader2.panix.com:
>
>....
>> The problem is they are not Jews.
>
>When you say "they", are you referring to ANYONE Conservative or
>Reform, all converts, or only the Israeli converts in question?
A gentile who gets a non-O conversion is still a gentile.
Josh
Harry Weiss
> Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in
> news:a543cj$2l2$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> ....
>> The problem is they are not Jews.
> When you say "they", are you referring to ANYONE Conservative or
> Reform, all converts, or only the Israeli converts in question?
The non halachic converts in question. Real converts are as Jewish as any
born Jew. If a C or R was born Jewish or had a halachic conversion they
are Jewish.
Harry Weiss
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
> ....
>> A gentile who gets a non-O conversion is still a gentile.
> So C and R Jews whose parents were C and R Jews are not
> considered goyim?
If the parents were halachically Jewish.
Eliyahu
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a54l68$nq8$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Father's religion doesn't come into play here. This, of course, is from the
O POV. R Jews will generally recognize O, C and R conversions as equally
valid, while C Jews will recognize O and C conversions and may recognize
some R conversions depending upon the circumstances.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Susan Cohen
Dan Kimmel wrote:
You have my complete & total apology.
No, you did *not* say it, I was wrong.
Susan
Susan Cohen
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> No, you are. You are so involved in showing that you must be right that you
> are falsely attributing statements. Perhaps it's time to turn off the
> computer and say, "It's only a hobby, it's only a hobby...." :)
It was a simple missed attribution, for which I
have already posted a formal apology.
Maybe *you* ought to also remember that "it's only a hobby"?
Susan
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net>
>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 05:15:51 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<Xns91BCE64...@65.96.0.178>
>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>
>....
>> A gentile who gets a non-O conversion is still a gentile.
>
>So C and R Jews whose parents were C and R Jews are not
>considered goyim?
Of course not. They're Jews ! Only GENTILES converted under R and C
auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
Josh
Dan Kimmel
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a54f4p$go6$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Translation: When he says "they" he means any convert who is not Orthodox.
Dan Kimmel
And some O auspices, too. Remember, if they're not up to your high
standards they must be apostates. :)
GKlein112473633
>>
>>So C and R Jews whose parents were C and R Jews are not
>>considered goyim?
>
>
>Of course not. They're Jews ! Only GENTILES converted under R and C
>auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
>
>Josh
To clarify: Former gentiles who are converted by any Rabbi become Jews. O
Jews do not consider certain Jews to be Jews if their conversion was done by a
Rabbi with which they do not approve. (I.e. a Rabbi who is not O). Because of
this er. uh. quaint way of thinking, when an O Jew meets a potential mate, s/he
feels the need to inquire into the Jewishness of their ancestors.
Gene
My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;But ah, my foes, and
oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!
Dan Kimmel
Let's see:
1. You misattribute a quote.
2. You are called on it and you apologize for it.
3. A few seconds later you take another statement from my *same* post,
obviously said in jest, and reference the apology which I have obviously not
seen at that point, and appear to take umbrage.
Who needs to be reminded this is only a hobby?
Shabbat shalom. This will all seem less important by Saturday night. :)
Susan Cohen
Dan Kimmel wrote:
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@hers.com> wrote in message
> news:3C760DFB...@hers.com...
> >
> >
> > Dan Kimmel wrote:
> >
> > > No, you are. You are so involved in showing that you must be right that
> you
> > > are falsely attributing statements. Perhaps it's time to turn off the
> > > computer and say, "It's only a hobby, it's only a hobby...." :)
> >
> > It was a simple missed attribution, for which I
> > have already posted a formal apology.
> > Maybe *you* ought to also remember that "it's only a hobby"?
>
> Let's see:
>
> 1. You misattribute a quote.
> 2. You are called on it and you apologize for it.
> 3. A few seconds later you take another statement from my *same* post,
> obviously said in jest,
So the Smiley was not meant as you laughing at me? Okay.
> and reference the apology which I have obviously not
> seen at that point, and appear to take umbrage.
Appear. Yes, thank you for not assuming!!
> Who needs to be reminded this is only a hobby?
You do :-)))))
> Shabbat shalom. This will all seem less important by Saturday night. :)
Of course! By Friday night!!
Susan
janet rosenbaum
we have this conversation over and over.
speaking as an o convert daughter of a r convert (with mikvah) who spoke
with over a dozen rabbis, there is some doubt whether i am a born jew.
15 american rabbis said i definitely wasn't, one musmach of yu said i was,
another yu musmach said maybe i was, and a musmach of ateret kohanim
said i might be but he didn't want to look into the question because
i already had an answer.
not that this would come up, but i would imagine that if i married
a kohein, there would be rabbis who would rule leniently on the status
of the children.
janet
Susan Cohen
janet rosenbaum wrote:
This is why I want to keep my paperwork in order!!!
Susan
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net>
>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 14:45:23 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<Xns91BD5D6...@65.96.0.182>
>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>
>....
>> Of course not. They're Jews ! Only GENTILES converted under
>> R and C auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
>
>What exactly about R and C conversions make them null and void to
>O's? Is there something special about O conversions, something
>extra, something less? It seems to be less a religious and more
>a 'franchise' issue. And why is this only a problem only in
>Israel?
Shabbat is in a few minutes so I'll have to write only the basics:
I have posted extensively on this on SCJM in the past
[check: http://groups.google.com]
1. The Bet Din [court] of the C and R is invalid as the members are
ineligible witnesses as per halacha
2. The sine qua non of GIUR is "kabbalat ohl mitzvot" (agreeing to obey
any and every of the positive and negative commandments). Simce C and R
extensively violate or have abrogated many biblical commandments, their
conversion ceremonies have absolutely zero halachic validity.
Josh
Joel N. Shurkin
BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
Obviously that is not an universally accepted statement.
j
--
Joel Shurkin
HopkinsHealth
Baltimore, Maryland
Joel N. Shurkin
jero...@hcs.harvard.edu (janet rosenbaum) wrote:
And of course you would be accepted by Rs and Cs and everyone else in
the family.
Joel N. Shurkin
Susan Cohen
David Ehrens wrote:
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>
> ....
> > Of course not. They're Jews ! Only GENTILES converted under
> > R and C auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
>
> What exactly about R and C conversions make them null and void to
> O's? Is there something special about O conversions, something
> extra, something less? It seems to be less a religious and more
> a 'franchise' issue.
For someone who in the previous two sentences admits that he has no
idea what the difference is, you sure are making some nasty accumptions.
> And why is this only a problem only in Israel?
You have GOT to be KIDDING!!!
Susan
Susan Cohen
David Ehrens wrote:
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>
> ....
> > 1. The Bet Din [court] of the C and R is invalid as the
> > members are ineligible witnesses as per halacha
> >
> > 2. The sine qua non of GIUR is "kabbalat ohl mitzvot"
> > (agreeing to obey any and every of the positive and negative
> > commandments). Simce C and R extensively violate or have
> > abrogated many biblical commandments, their conversion
> > ceremonies have absolutely zero halachic validity.
>
> You're saying that O's observe all 613 commandments !?!?!?!?!
Now, do you mean this as a trick question, or do you really
not know the answer?
Susan
mpfreed
This, of course, is from the
> valid, while C Jews will recognize O and C conversions and may recognize
> some R conversions depending upon the circumstances.
Gets complicated doesn't it ?
Dan Kimmel
"David Ehrens" <0s...@0spam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91BD5D6...@65.96.0.182...
> > R and C auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
>
> O's? Is there something special about O conversions, something
> extra, something less? It seems to be less a religious and more
> Israel?
As a non-O, I would agree this really is a political argument, but the
*explanation* is that the only valid conversion is when someone agrees to be
completely observant by O standards and thus, by definition, an R or C
conversion (which does not require that the convert agree to practice
Orthodoxy) is insufficient.
And it is a problem only in Israel because only in Israel do the Orthodox
have sufficient political power to legally discriminate against Conservative
and Reform Judaism. In an "ideal" world, they would make this a worldwide
problem.
Dan Kimmel
> > members are ineligible witnesses as per halacha
> >
> > 2. The sine qua non of GIUR is "kabbalat ohl mitzvot"
> > (agreeing to obey any and every of the positive and negative
> > commandments). Simce C and R extensively violate or have
> > abrogated many biblical commandments, their conversion
> > ceremonies have absolutely zero halachic validity.
>
Of course they don't. Many have to do with Temple worship, which no one can
do right now.
Of course there are other Torah rules that have been changed in the past
(how many children who sass their parents are stoned to death these days?)
so what he's really saying is that ONLY Os may decide which "biblical
commandants" may be "extensively violate[d] or... abrogated."
WE THE PEOPLE of NEWINGTON, CT
<Xns91BD6A4...@65.96.0.178>,
David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>
>....
>> 1. The Bet Din [court] of the C and R is invalid as the
>> members are ineligible witnesses as per halacha
Josh's "halacha."
>> 2. The sine qua non of GIUR is "kabbalat ohl mitzvot"
>> (agreeing to obey any and every of the positive and negative
>> commandments).
That's not the Halakhah. I refer you to the discussion between (Rabbi) Eli
D. Clark and me in 1996 on SCJ.
I had written:
We have to understand what Kabbalat Ol HaMitzvot means. In the words
of a CJLS teshuvah by Rabbi David Novak:
"This does not mean that the convert is expected to observe every aspect of
Jewish law -- clearly an impossible demand, intellectually, morally, and
religiously. Rather it means that conversion must involve an unconditional
acceptance of the valid authority of Jewish law and an initial rejection of
none of its specifics."
In addition, as Josh must be aware, there is no traditional source anywhere
that requires a convert to know all the mitzvot and their particulars at
the time of conversion.
Josh, no doubt, will respond with a list of references. But if he's true
to form, many if not most will be off-point, if not irrelevant.
Rabbi Clark, who is Modern Orthodox, then responded:
"David Novak's statement is 100% accurate (which surprises me not at all;
he has always demonstrated an excellent grasp of Halakhah). Kabbalat ol
mitzvot does not require observance of every mitzvah and never has. He is
also correct in saying that it does require "acceptance of the valid
authority of Jewish law."
Josh, again:
>> Simce C and R extensively violate or have
>> abrogated many biblical commandments, their conversion
>> ceremonies have absolutely zero halachic validity.
David, incredulously:
>You're saying that O's observe all 613 commandments !?!?!?!?!
I'm not sure if Josh himself knows what he is saying. For sure, all of his
statement quoted above are incorrect.
Shabbat Shalom,
Jay S. Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
"I don't care what denomination you belong to,
as long as you're ashamed of it."
- Rabbi Yitz Greenberg
Jay S. Lapidus
WE THE PEOPLE FORMS AND SERVICE CENTER OF HARTFORD, CT, LLC
1100 Main St., Newington CT 06111
860-665-0540
http://pages.cthome.net/wtp-hfd
Micha Berger
: What exactly about R and C conversions make them null and void to
: O's?
An element of conversion is accepting the ideal of following mitzvos.
As R and C do not define "following mitzvos" the same way O does, their
converts do not accept something close enough to that ideal to qualify.
A conversion also must be performed before a court. Halachah defines
a court as three shabbos-observant men. Again, an R or C court would
not likely consist of three men who do what O calls observing Shabbos.
Third, the R procedure might not follow O forms.
: And why is this only a problem only in
: Israel?
It's not. It's just that only in Israel does Jewishness matter legally.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Micha Berger
: You're saying that O's observe all 613 commandments !?!?!?!?!
Acceptance means accepting the ideal that one ought to.
No one is perfect.
Also, no one can do all 613 -- you can't be a kohein, and a levi, and
a Yisrael, and a king...
Besides, why try to be a divorcee?
Micha Berger
: Of course there are other Torah rules that have been changed in the past
: (how many children who sass their parents are stoned to death these days?)
: so what he's really saying is that ONLY Os may decide which "biblical
: commandants" may be "extensively violate[d] or... abrogated."
I think it's fair for an O Jew, when voicing his opinion (such as posting
to Usenet) to only arccept the abrogations permitted by O. Not that your
example (the child who steals from his parents) is believed to be such a
case.
You also switched topics. We were discussing the 613 mitzvos, i.e. halachah.
Not "Torah rules".
Micha Berger
: Rabbi Clark, who is Modern Orthodox, then responded:
: "David Novak's statement is 100% accurate (which surprises me not at all;
: he has always demonstrated an excellent grasp of Halakhah). Kabbalat ol
: mitzvot does not require observance of every mitzvah and never has. He is
: also correct in saying that it does require "acceptance of the valid
: authority of Jewish law."
Still would mean that O can't accept C conversions, as the C convert
is not taught to accept the authority of much of O's law. So aside from
scoring points on Josh, how does this post help support your
position?
-mi
Jay Lapidus
<a55v7b$4q2qq$6...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de>,
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Jay Lapidus wrote:
>: Rabbi Clark, who is Modern Orthodox, then responded:
>: "David Novak's statement is 100% accurate (which surprises me not at all;
>: he has always demonstrated an excellent grasp of Halakhah). Kabbalat ol
>: mitzvot does not require observance of every mitzvah and never has. He is
>: also correct in saying that it does require "acceptance of the valid
>: authority of Jewish law."
Micha:
>Still would mean that O can't accept C conversions, as the C convert
>is not taught to accept the authority of much of O's law.
"O's law" regarding conversions is not authentic, traditional Jewish
law, i.e., halakha. Rather, it is a product of Orthodoxy's reaction
to modernity, the strength of competing streams, and politics.
Orthodox Judaism itself did not come about until the 19th century as a
reaction to the Emancipation, modernity, Reform and other trends.
>So aside from scoring points on Josh,
(Heh, heh!)
>how does this post help support your position?
It sets the record straight.
Micha Berger
:>Still would mean that O can't accept C conversions, as the C convert
:>is not taught to accept the authority of much of O's law.
: "O's law" regarding conversions is not authentic, traditional Jewish
: law, i.e., halakha. Rather, it is a product of Orthodoxy's reaction
: to modernity, the strength of competing streams, and politics....
If done in accordance with how the halachos of adapting halachah to
the times, then what's the issue?
: Orthodox Judaism itself did not come about until the 19th century as a
: reaction to the Emancipation, modernity, Reform and other trends.
I disagree, of course. The current set of O movements did, but O
itself not.
Some were actionary, such as Hirsch's embracing of the new opportunities
or the mussar of Slabodka, and others were reactionary. To say that all
are a the same response to the new venue is a hard position to support.
What makes them O is not the given response, but that the response was done
within halachah as opposed to by its redefinition.
Jay Lapidus
<a563c3$4udba$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de>,
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 18:03:43 +0000 (UTC), Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>:>Still would mean that O can't accept C conversions, as the C convert
>:>is not taught to accept the authority of much of O's law.
>
>: "O's law" regarding conversions is not authentic, traditional Jewish
>: law, i.e., halakha. Rather, it is a product of Orthodoxy's reaction
>: to modernity, the strength of competing streams, and politics....
>
>If done in accordance with how the halachos of adapting halachah to
>the times, then what's the issue?
I refer you to Wertheimer, ed., _The Uses of Tradition_. My copy's at
home, but I'll cite examples of how Orthodoxy deviated from that
principle.
>: Orthodox Judaism itself did not come about until the 19th century as a
>: reaction to the Emancipation, modernity, Reform and other trends.
>
>I disagree, of course. The current set of O movements did, but O
>itself not.
That's not a given and requires elaboration.
>Some were actionary, such as Hirsch's embracing of the new opportunities
>or the mussar of Slabodka, and others were reactionary. To say that all
>are a the same response to the new venue is a hard position to support.
And I was not saying that. But whether "actionary" or reactionary,
the various streams within the Orthodox camp are at most only a few
centuries old.
>What makes them O is not the given response, but that the response was done
>within halachah as opposed to by its redefinition.
Next week, I'll show that it was such figures as the Hasam Sofer and
the Hazon Ish who redefined halakha. Prior to them, there was of
course the Hasidic redefinition of halakha
CW
some parts of the O-sephardic and O-ashkenazic establishments will open a
dialogue with Israeli C and R rabbis (and whether the C and R rabbis will
reciprocate) to produce joint committees overseeing conversions. Who knows,
it could lead to a mutual reduction of inflammatory rhetoric.
CW
Jay Lapidus
<blxd8.5904$Im1.4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"CW" <chsw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
It's happened.
Harry Weiss
> CW
It will have no real difference except for identity cards. Marriages
still must be conducted by the Rabbinate who will not marry a Jew and a
Gentile even if the identity card says Jewish. It will just require
applicants to marry more work to provide adequate proof that they are
really Jewish, since the identity card will no longer have any value.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Harry Weiss
The difference is accepting the obligation to keep the Mitzvot. We accpet
that we must perform all 613, but are unable for various reasons. As a
man I cannot peform several Mitzvot specifically for women. As a Yisroel,
I cannot peform Mitzvot for koahnim or leviim. since I amnot a thief, I
cannot return property that I stole, since nothing was stolen.
Since there is no Temple or Sanhedrin , I cannot do the commandment
relating to them. Since I live in California I cannot do the Mitzvot
that are for those living in Israel.
There are other Mitzvot that I am negligent in, such as bittul torah, by
being on the internet, but I realize that I am negligent and accept it as
Mitzvah.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net>
>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:29:50 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<Xns91BD6A4...@65.96.0.178>
>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>
>....
>> 1. The Bet Din [court] of the C and R is invalid as the
>> members are ineligible witnesses as per halacha
>>
>> 2. The sine qua non of GIUR is "kabbalat ohl mitzvot"
>> (agreeing to obey any and every of the positive and negative
>> commandments). Simce C and R extensively violate or have
>> abrogated many biblical commandments, their conversion
>> ceremonies have absolutely zero halachic validity.
>
>You're saying that O's observe all 613 commandments !?!?!?!?!
SHAVUA TOV.
No one can observe all 613 commandments (hundreds are not in effect
because the Temple was destroyed). However, the defining concept of
someone who follows halacha [call it O] is that they implicitly
ACCEPT AS BINDING any and every negative and positive commandment.
Whether in practice they don't follow the negative or positive precept
is irrelevant. It's the 100% unconditional acceptance of the Toraitic
status and its binding obligation is what is crucial.
Josh
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "WE THE PEOPLE of NEWINGTON, CT" <wtp...@snet.net>
>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:18:24 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:29:50 +0000 (UTC), in article
><Xns91BD6A4...@65.96.0.178>,
>David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
>
>>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>>
>>....
>>> 1. The Bet Din [court] of the C and R is invalid as the
>>> members are ineligible witnesses as per halacha
>
>Josh's "halacha."
>
Shulchan Aruch CHOSHEN MISHPAT 34:2 defines the inelegible witness
as the one who willfully violates a biblical command ]"eizehu rasha:
kol she'avar aveira she'chayavim aleyha malkot; v'ein tzarich lomar
im chayavim aleyha mitat bet din; lo shaba im avar l'teiyavon o
l'hach'is"]
Shulchan Aruch CHOSHEN MISHPAT 7:9 defines who is ineligible to serve as
a judge on a Beit Din: anyone who is an ineligible witness ["kol
hapsulim l'ha'id machmat kurva i machmat aveira, psulim ladun"].
The C movement has willfully abrogated many Biblical prohibitions
(marrying of Kohen to grusha; the concept of mamzerut; massive violation
of shabbat (driving), etc.). Ergo, each and every one who asssociates
with the C rabbinical body is an ineligible witness by halacha.
Josh
>>> 2. The sine qua non of GIUR is "kabbalat ohl mitzvot"
>>> (agreeing to obey any and every of the positive and negative
>>> commandments).
>
>That's not the Halakhah. I refer you to the discussion between (Rabbi) Eli
>D. Clark and me in 1996 on SCJ.
>
>I had written:
>We have to understand what Kabbalat Ol HaMitzvot means. In the words
>of a CJLS teshuvah by Rabbi David Novak:
>
>"This does not mean that the convert is expected to observe every aspect of
>Jewish law -- clearly an impossible demand, intellectually, morally, and
>religiously. Rather it means that conversion must involve an unconditional
>acceptance of the valid authority of Jewish law and an initial rejection of
>none of its specifics."
>
>In addition, as Josh must be aware, there is no traditional source anywhere
>that requires a convert to know all the mitzvot and their particulars at
>the time of conversion.
>
>Josh, no doubt, will respond with a list of references. But if he's true
>to form, many if not most will be off-point, if not irrelevant.
>
>Rabbi Clark, who is Modern Orthodox, then responded:
>"David Novak's statement is 100% accurate (which surprises me not at all;
>he has always demonstrated an excellent grasp of Halakhah). Kabbalat ol
>mitzvot does not require observance of every mitzvah and never has. He is
>also correct in saying that it does require "acceptance of the valid
>authority of Jewish law."
>
>Josh, again:
>>> Simce C and R extensively violate or have
>>> abrogated many biblical commandments, their conversion
>>> ceremonies have absolutely zero halachic validity.
>
>David, incredulously:
>>You're saying that O's observe all 613 commandments !?!?!?!?!
>
>I'm not sure if Josh himself knows what he is saying. For sure, all of his
>statement quoted above are incorrect.
>
>Shabbat Shalom,
>
>Jay S. Lapidus http://jlapidus.tripod.com
>"I don't care what denomination you belong to,
> as long as you're ashamed of it."
> - Rabbi Yitz Greenberg
>
Garry
CT" <wtp...@snet.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:29:50 +0000 (UTC), in article
><Xns91BD6A4...@65.96.0.178>,
>David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
>
>>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>>
>>....
>>> 1. The Bet Din [court] of the C and R is invalid as the
>>> members are ineligible witnesses as per halacha
>
>Josh's "halacha."
>
>>> 2. The sine qua non of GIUR is "kabbalat ohl mitzvot"
>>> (agreeing to obey any and every of the positive and negative
>>> commandments).
>
>That's not the Halakhah. I refer you to the discussion between (Rabbi) Eli
>D. Clark and me in 1996 on SCJ.
>
>I had written:
>We have to understand what Kabbalat Ol HaMitzvot means. In the words
>of a CJLS teshuvah by Rabbi David Novak:
>
>"This does not mean that the convert is expected to observe every aspect of
>Jewish law -- clearly an impossible demand, intellectually, morally, and
>religiously. Rather it means that conversion must involve an unconditional
>acceptance of the valid authority of Jewish law and an initial rejection of
>none of its specifics."
>
This does seem perilously close to accepting "I may not fulfill all
the mitzvot but I'll feel guilty about the ones I don't."
_________
_________
A Hagodoh that feeds the hungry! A carefully translated and revised version of the Haggadah, that retains the tradittional tone. Handomely printed. The entire purchase price goes to charity.
www.haggadah.freeservers.com
Henry Goodman
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a56g90$4ld$2...@reader2.panix.com...
Shavua Tov
Do you really think being on the internet is bittul Torah? Quite a lot of
the activity on this newsgroup is learning or teaching Torah. makes your
conscience easier if you think that!
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
23/2/02 10:10 p.m. GMT
janet rosenbaum
>An element of conversion is accepting the ideal of following mitzvos.
>As R and C do not define "following mitzvos" the same way O does, their
>converts do not accept something close enough to that ideal to qualify.
except that's not necessarily meakev. the rambam says you
instruct a convert briefly beforehand.
>A conversion also must be performed before a court. Halachah defines
>a court as three shabbos-observant men. Again, an R or C court would
>not likely consist of three men who do what O calls observing Shabbos.
except bidiavad, if they're not men or not shomer shabbat or even non-O
rabbis, there is some room for leniency. (if this was meakev in my
case, the three rabbis who said maybe it was acceptable would have
said so.)
janet
Harry Weiss
You are correct, but of course a bigger question is, if we were not on
line would be learning. In my case the answer is a best occasionally yes,
but mostly I would probably not.
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry....@virgin.net
> 23/2/02 10:10 p.m. GMT
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Eliyahu
> Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>
> > "Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:a56g90$4ld$2...@reader2.panix.com...
> >> There are other Mitzvot that I am negligent in, such as bittul torah,
by
> >> being on the internet, but I realize that I am negligent and accept it
as
> >> Mitzvah.
> >>
> > Shavua Tov
> > Do you really think being on the internet is bittul Torah? Quite a lot
of
> > the activity on this newsgroup is learning or teaching Torah. makes your
> > conscience easier if you think that!
>
> You are correct, but of course a bigger question is, if we were not on
> line would be learning. In my case the answer is a best occasionally yes,
> but mostly I would probably not.
>
For those of us who are geographically isolated, the internet and newsgroups
give us a chance to learn and interact with other Jews that we simply
wouldn't get without it.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Michael Shimshoni
Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com% writes:
%David Ehrens wrote:
%
%> MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) wrote in
%> news:804A118...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il:
%>
%> ....
%> > Are you surprised? Anyone who does not go to his shul is a
%> > gentile.
%>
%> The only thing that surprised me was that he didn't say
%> "damned goyim". It couldn't have dripped with any more hate.
%
%Hate is as hate does.
%He could just as easily say that you are being
%hateful by insisting he accept gentiles as Jews.
%See how it works?
No. I do not. Calling members of a different Jewish denomination
gentiles, is much worse than not accepting the rites of your denomination.
See it now?
%Susan
Michael Shimshoni
Michael Shimshoni
Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com% writes:
%David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
%> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
%> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
%
%> ....
%>>>Gentiles?
%>>
%>> Someone without GIUR (Orthodox conversion) who "converts"
%>> using non-Orthodox clergy is a gentile.
%
%> I'm sorry. It was the characterization of Jews as Gentiles that
%> caught me by shock.
%
%The problem is they are not Jews.
They are not in the view of your (minority) denomination.
%Harry J. Weiss
Michael Shimshoni
Michael Shimshoni
BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL writes:
%X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:73714
%
%>From: David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net>
%>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
%>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 02:02:34 +0000 (UTC)
%>Message-ID:<Xns91BCD3D...@65.96.0.178>
%
%>Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in
%>news:a543cj$2l2$1...@reader2.panix.com:
%>
%>....
%>> The problem is they are not Jews.
%>
%>When you say "they", are you referring to ANYONE Conservative or
%>Reform, all converts, or only the Israeli converts in question?
%
%
%
%A gentile who gets a non-O conversion is still a gentile.
Only according to Josh's denomination. How bigheaded can one be?!
%Josh
Michael Shimshoni
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "WE THE PEOPLE of NEWINGTON, CT" <wtp...@snet.net>
>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 17:18:24 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:29:50 +0000 (UTC), in article
><Xns91BD6A4...@65.96.0.178>,
>David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
>
>>BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>>news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>>
>>....
>>> 1. The Bet Din [court] of the C and R is invalid as the
>>> members are ineligible witnesses as per halacha
>
>Josh's "halacha."
Since my earlier answer miraculously [tm] never made it to the server
I will repost:
Shulchan Aruch CHOSHEN MISHPAT 34:2 defines who is an ineligible witness:
one who deliberately violates a biblical prohibition whose punishment is
at least "lashes" ["eizehu rasha: kol she'avar aveira she'chayavim aleha
malkot, v'ein tzarich lomar im chayavim aleha mitat bet din, lo shana
im avar l'teiavon o l'hach'is"]
Shulchan Aruch CHOSHEN MISHPAT 7:9 defines who is ineligible to serve
on a bet din:anyone who is an ineligible witness as per CM 34:2 ["kol
ha'psulim l'ha'id machmat kurva o machmat aveira psulim ladun"]
Since the C rabbinicalbody has abrogated many biblical prohibitions
(kohen marrying "grusha", abolishing theconcept of "mamzerut", massive
desecration of the sabbath], anyone allied to or associating with this
body is automatically pasul l'edut.
>
>>> 2. The sine qua non of GIUR is "kabbalat ohl mitzvot"
>>> (agreeing to obey any and every of the positive and negative
>>> commandments).
>
>That's not the Halakhah. I refer you to the discussion between (Rabbi) Eli
>D. Clark and me in 1996 on SCJ.
You misunderstood what Rabbi Clark wrote: you did this either due to lack
of knowledge or disingenuously.
>
>I had written:
>We have to understand what Kabbalat Ol HaMitzvot means. In the words
>of a CJLS teshuvah by Rabbi David Novak:
>
>"This does not mean that the convert is expected to observe every aspect of
>Jewish law -- clearly an impossible demand, intellectually, morally, and
>religiously. Rather it means that conversion must involve an unconditional
>acceptance of the valid authority of Jewish law and an initial rejection of
>none of its specifics."
Which is PRECISELY what I wrote in my earlier post. There has to be an
UNCONDITIONAL total acceptance of any and every biblical and rabbinic
postive or negative command.
Needless to say, this UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE is missing in non-O
conversions [how could it if these non-O bodies don't follow halacha ?]
>
>In addition, as Josh must be aware, there is no traditional source anywhere
>that requires a convert to know all the mitzvot and their particulars at
>the time of conversion.
Straw man.I NEVER said or implied that there is.
>
>Josh, no doubt, will respond with a list of references. But if he's true
>to form, many if not most will be off-point, if not irrelevant.
>
>Rabbi Clark, who is Modern Orthodox, then responded:
>"David Novak's statement is 100% accurate (which surprises me not at all;
>he has always demonstrated an excellent grasp of Halakhah). Kabbalat ol
>mitzvot does not require observance of every mitzvah and never has. He is
>also correct in saying that it does require "acceptance of the valid
>authority of Jewish law."
>
Which is what non-O conversions don't follow. For starters, Jewish law
[and not the CCAR or RA] determines who is 'pasul l'eidut".
>Josh, again:
>>> Simce C and R extensively violate or have
>>> abrogated many biblical commandments, their conversion
>>> ceremonies have absolutely zero halachic validity.
>
>David, incredulously:
>>You're saying that O's observe all 613 commandments !?!?!?!?!
>
>I'm not sure if Josh himself knows what he is saying. For sure, all of his
>statement quoted above are incorrect.
>
>Shabbat Shalom,
Josh
janet rosenbaum
>%The problem is they are not Jews.
>They are not in the view of your (minority) denomination.
i'm not sure if that's true. i met a sfb (secular from birth) israeli
saxophonist on the bus to ny and he was saying how he didn't think reform's
conversions were legitimate.
janet
Micha Berger
:>An element of conversion is accepting the ideal of following mitzvos.
:>As R and C do not define "following mitzvos" the same way O does, their
:>converts do not accept something close enough to that ideal to qualify.
: except that's not necessarily meakev. the rambam says you
: instruct a convert briefly beforehand.
Which means he could believe that in theory one must accept the ideal
of following mitzvos even if he's a bit ignorant of what that entails.
NOT that one may convert accepting some laws and explicitly not others.
The Rambam also goes on at length about presumptions -- how others ought
assume this person is or isn't Jewish -- given that we can't know what's
really in someone's mind. Do NOT confuse the Rambam's statement that we
can assume someone is Jewish until more information arrives with his
actually being Jewish.
:>A conversion also must be performed before a court. Halachah defines
:>a court as three shabbos-observant men. Again, an R or C court would
:>not likely consist of three men who do what O calls observing Shabbos.
: except bidiavad, if they're not men or not shomer shabbat or even non-O
: rabbis, there is some room for leniency. ...
Source?
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Micha Berger
:>If done in accordance with how the halachos of adapting halachah to
:>the times, then what's the issue?
: I refer you to Wertheimer, ed., _The Uses of Tradition_. My copy's at
: home, but I'll cite examples of how Orthodoxy deviated from that
: principle.
Halachah ain't tradition. It's a legal process of which precedent is only
one (albeit large) factor.
:>Some were actionary, such as Hirsch's embracing of the new opportunities
:>or the mussar of Slabodka, and others were reactionary. To say that all
:>are a the same response to the new venue is a hard position to support.
: And I was not saying that. But whether "actionary" or reactionary,
: the various streams within the Orthodox camp are at most only a few
: centuries old.
I'll agree with that -- at least in Ashkenaz.
I'm arguing that the element that they share in common, and in common
with those Sepharadim who consider the Igros Moshe differently than
Klien's responsa, is older.
:>What makes them O is not the given response, but that the response was done
:>within halachah as opposed to by its redefinition.
: Next week, I'll show that it was such figures as the Hasam Sofer and
: the Hazon Ish who redefined halakha. Prior to them, there was of
: course the Hasidic redefinition of halakha
I'll wait.
GKlein112473633
>>%The problem is they are not Jews.
>>They are not in the view of your (minority) denomination.
Janet
>i'm not sure if that's true. i met a sfb (secular from birth) israeli
>saxophonist on the bus to ny and he was saying how he didn't think reform's
>conversions were legitimate.
>
>janet
I think the more general statement would hold, but certainly we can keep the
first statement if we limit ourselves to dispora Jews.
Gene
My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;But ah, my foes, and
oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!
maurie fox-warren
> Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote in
> news:3C766564...@hers.com:
>
> ....
> >> You're saying that O's observe all 613 commandments
> >> !?!?!?!?!
> >
> > not know the answer?
>
> Only for you is it a trick question.
Let me as a non-O Jew make it simple. There are mitzvot that can only be
practiced in the land of Israel with the Temple (inlcuding the sacrificial
cult) re-established. Therefore, no one can observe all 613 mitzvot.
Maurie
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd. (Tirana, Albania)
>
Take my wife, please! (Mods: Henny Youngman is Jewish, and Purim is almost
here. Ergo, Jewish content.)
Ian (single and intending to stay that way).
janet rosenbaum
>: except bidiavad, if they're not men or not shomer shabbat or even non-O
>: rabbis, there is some room for leniency. ...
>Source?
empirically, my case involved a case with all of the above, and two
rabbis of unquestionable learnedness said they weren't sure about my
status. if these were prohibitive factors without doubt, there
wouldn't have been uncertainty.
janet
Jay Lapidus
>: Next week, I'll show that it was such figures as the Hasam Sofer and
>: the Hazon Ish who redefined halakha. Prior to them, there was of
>: course the Hasidic redefinition of halakha
On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 14:52:09 +0000 (UTC), in article
<a5autb$5ua0h$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de>,
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> declared:
>I'll wait.
Michael Silber in his article, "The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy:
The Invention of a Tradition," in Wertheimer, ed. _The Uses of
Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era_ (NY, Jerusalem:
1992) notes, "Belying the conventional wisdom of both its
adherents and opponents, [ultra-Orthodoxy] is not an unchanged
and unchanging remnant or pre-modern, traditional Jewish society,
but as much a child of modernity and changes as any of its
'modern' rivals" (pp.24f). Silber shows how the Hatam Sofer and
his successors elevated stringencies, eschewed leniencies, and
canonized the Shulhan Arukh to the level of the Ten Commandments
(p. 49, referring to R' Schlesinger's Yad Ivri). Their
"uncritical acceptance of the codes belied an impatience with the
give and take of the halakhic process..." (ibid.). All this
reflected the milieu of mid-19th century Hungary.
Two examples are the unprecedented, Hungarian "Ultra-Orthodox"
(Silber's term, not mine) mandates that the bimah always be in
the center of the shul, and that the Hupa must be placed under
the open sky. Both were despite the Shulhan Arukh's being open
to liberal interpretation (pp.53f.). Regarding the former, R'
Karo in the Kesef Mishne to Hilchot Tefilla 11:3 endorsed as
"more pleasing" the bimah's being placed on one side in smaller
shuls where there's no problem with hearing. Regarding the
latter, the Remah in SA EH 61 notes that the custom of having the
Hupa under the stars is "yesh omrim" - "SOME say."
If Micha doesn't mind waiting <g>, I'll give details about
another article in the Wertheimer volume, "The Lost Kiddush Cup:
Changes in Ashkenazi Haredi Culture - A Tradition in Crisis," by
Menachem Friedman, pp. 175-190. There, Friedman shows how it
came to be that centuries-old kiddush cups, handed down from
generation to generation within families, suddenly in the 1950s
became unkosher for use because they were supposedly too small.
The grandsons of no less a figure than the Chofetz Chaim refused
to use their grandfather's kiddush cup because it did not meet
the novel specifications of the Hazon Ish (p. 181).
In a month's time, many readers will be punctilious about the
large amounts of wine, matzah and maror they ingest, resorting to
the charts and templates issued by a number of Orthodox
institutions. But there is little if anything that's traditional
about this post-mid 20th century practice.
Hillel Sabba Markowitz
> (10:20) High Court accepts Reform, Conservative conversions
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> By Dan Izenberg February, 20 2002 / Jerusalem Post
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The High Court of Justice this morning, in an 9-2 decision, ruled
> that the Interior Ministry must register as Jews Israeli citizens
> who were converted by the Conservative or Reform movements in Israel
> or abroad.
>
> Supreme Court President Aharon Barak stressed that the court
> declined to go into the question of whether Reform or Conservative
> conversions were valid according to Jewish religious law. Instead,
> he based his judgement on the long-standing precedent which states
> that the ministry's population registry must list details given to
> them by Israeli citizens reguarding their personal status without
> question.
>
> This is the first time that court has ruled on the non-Orthodox
> conversion of Israeli citizens living within the country.
Here is an interesting article on this subject by Rabbi Avi Shafran.
I am preceding it with his permission to post it on this newsgroup in
order to avoid copyright problems and because he points to an article
by Rabbi Adlerstein.
> From: "Rabbi Avi Shafran" <sha...@amechad.com>
> Absolutely, though a better piece on the topic (I've seen a draft) is being
> written by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein for the coming week's Los Angeles
> Jewish Journal. You may wish to monitor its website for its appearance.
> AS
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz" <Sabba....@verizon.net>
> To: "Avi Shafran" <sha...@amechad.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re: "Who is a Perceptive Jew?" -- Am Echad Resources submission,
>> May I have your permission to submit this article to
>> soc.culture.jewish.moderated, a Jewish newsgroup on the internet?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WHO IS A PERCEPTIVE JEW?
Rabbi Avi Shafran
It's tempting to dismiss as insignificant the recent Israeli High
Court
ruling that the state's Interior Ministry must recognize Israeli
converts to
the Reform and Conservative movements as Jews.
Indeed, the decision has no repercussions for religious matters, and
no
impact on the Israeli Rabbinate. Its effects are limited to things
like
population rolls and identity cards. And no secular court's opinion
can
budge the deep-seated belief of Orthodox Jews like me that halacha
alone,
not any temporal judge, must define Jewishness.
All the same, though, the ruling carries an undeniable symbolic
cachet, and
perhaps even something more. Giddy claims of non-Orthodox leaders
notwithstanding, truly perceptive Jews of all affiliations know that
it
bodes ill for the Jewish future.
For starters, it is sure to sow confusion, disillusionment and
heartbreak.
With the large number of non-Jews who have immigrated in recent years
to
Israel from the former Soviet Union, we can expect (and non-Orthodox
leaders
are eagerly awaiting) a surge of non-Orthodox conversion applicants.
Innocent people will come to be convinced that they will be widely
accepted
as Jews when, in fact, neither Jewish religious law nor Orthodox Jews
anywhere will be able to recognize their conversions as valid.
What is more, the decision will serve to only further widen the gulf
between
Jews who remain faithful to halacha and those who choose to reject or
revise
it. Israel, tragically, is now one step closer to our regrettable
situation
here in the United States, where there are two distinct "Jewish
worlds" -
one that in effect validates all "Judaisms" and all "conversions," and
another that stubbornly clings to what has kept us a single Jewish
people
for more than three thousand years.
At the moment, anyone in Israel claiming to be a Jew can likely be
assumed
by all other Jews to be just that. Unless a law is enacted to render
the
High Court's decision null, that will not long remain the case. The
easy
availability of wholesale non-halachic conversions, sweetened now with
the
promise of the word "Jew" on an identity card, will see to that.
Ironically, whether the "two Jewish worlds" model indeed spreads, G-d
forbid, to Israeli society or whether some legislation is crafted to
avoid
it, we can be sure that non-Orthodox Jewish leaders will inform us who
the
villains are: the "rejectionist" Orthodox, the usual suspects.
Yet all that those who remain faithful to halacha have done is uphold
the
Jewish religious heritage that lies at the roots of all of us Jews.
The
Orthodox have not been the sowers of discord, but, on the contrary,
the
nurturers of what forged Jewish unity in the first place, millennia
ago.
The story is told of a middle-aged couple in the front seat of a car,
back
in the days when bucket seats were the exception. The husband
addresses his
wife, the driver, and says in an injured tone of voice, "Remember the
days,
dear, when we were young, and would sit close to one another on
trips?"
The wife responds with a tear in her eye, "Yes, I do. But I'm still
in
front of the steering wheel, where I have always been. It is you who,
over
the years, has moved gradually away."
That message, in the context of Jews' relationship to the Jewish
religious
tradition, is one that all perceptive non-Orthodox American Jews need
to
share with their leaders. Along with another: Israel is facing a
challenge
to its very existence, targeted by a violent, cruel and hate-consumed
enemy
and bereft of any evident military or political solution. What we
Jews
desperately need today is to merit G-d's protection, to affirm, not
chip
away, at our spiritual heritage.
We've all just celebrated Purim, whose most basic theme is that
seeming
darkness and threat can turn out - through the merits of the Jewish
people
and G-d's resultant will - to be light and salvation.
If those who seek to advance their religious agendas in Israel at the
cost
of true Jewish unity are confronted by their perceptive congregants'
principled protest, and thereby come to reconsider their dangerous
folly,
the recent High Court decision could turn out to be a truly beneficial
turning point indeed for the Jewish people, the beginning of a moving
together rather than a moving apart.
AM ECHAD RESOURCES
[Rabbi Avi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of
America]
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd. (Tirana, Albania)
stringency and higher standards, which also came about in the US as the O
community increased in size, strength and financial resources. Now, as for
some real redefinition of halacha, which derives from the Admou"r
meCreedmoor:
1) Parshas Zachor: Instead of reading about Amalek, the Admou"r reads the
Israeli Declaration of Independence in a Purim like ceremony during which
each of his multiple personalities tries to drown out every word.
2) Tfilah: During Kedusha, a word which rhymes with truck is placed in front
of the word Zionism and is recited three times instead of "Kadosh, Kadosh,
Kadosh."
3) Kashrus: Only products under the supervision of the Beis Din of Creedmoor
are accepted. Since the Admou"r is clearly a shoiteh who is exempt from the
rules of kashrus except for the one he invented which states that even
products under the Satmar CRC are treyf as they are secret Zionists, the
Beis Din restricts its hechsher to shrimp cocktail, ham, and library paste.
4) Ad D'Lo Yada. The Admou"r is constantly in this state unless he takes his
Thorazine. After all, he praises Arafat and curses Sharon. Therefore, during
the weeks (as in 52 weeks) leading to Purim, he avoids his medications so as
to stay in a state of Ad D'Lo Yada without alcohol.
Ian
I should have some similar material later today. Be forewarned.
Ian
--
Michael Shimshoni
jero...@hcs.harvard.edu (janet rosenbaum) writes:
%MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
%>%The problem is they are not Jews.
%>They are not in the view of your (minority) denomination.
%
%i'm not sure if that's true. i met a sfb (secular from birth) israeli
%saxophonist on the bus to ny and he was saying how he didn't think reform's
%conversions were legitimate.
I am sure that Josh will now include the psak of that sfbis when he
will post us in future references to great authorities.
%janet
Michael Shimshoni
Micha Berger
: Michael Silber in his article, "The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy:
: The Invention of a Tradition," ...
"UO", or the yeshiva movement, is not Orthodoxy. It's an O movement. A
huge difference, as I agree that the O movements are products of the
times. As it should be: each era and community needs to find its own
expression.
: ... notes, "Belying the conventional wisdom of both its
: adherents and opponents, [ultra-Orthodoxy] is not an unchanged
: and unchanging remnant or pre-modern, traditional Jewish society,
: but as much a child of modernity and changes as any of its
: 'modern' rivals" (pp.24f). Silber shows how the Hatam Sofer and
: his successors elevated stringencies, eschewed leniencies, and
: canonized the Shulhan Arukh to the level of the Ten Commandments
: (p. 49, referring to R' Schlesinger's Yad Ivri). Their
: "uncritical acceptance of the codes belied an impatience with the
: give and take of the halakhic process..." (ibid.). All this
: reflected the milieu of mid-19th century Hungary.
Actually, the SA was accepted as such well befor the HS. R' Moshe Isserlis
didn't write an addendum to the Mishnah Torah did he? No, it was the SA
that he saw gaining such acceptance as to threaten the survival of the
Ashkenazi tradition. And the wealth of commentaries on the SA (or the
Tur or the Rambam) shows that these codes were taken far more seriously
for far longer than this snippet suggests.
But in any case, if this argument were about O, and not merely hungarian
UO, it would have to explain why other movements did embrace change.
A single man's "the new is forbidden by the Torah" may show where he
and his movement were going, but not the rest of us. Nor why both they
and we (and R' Yosef el Gafeh or the Ben Ish Hai) recognize eachother
as mutually O.
: In a month's time, many readers will be punctilious about the
: large amounts of wine, matzah and maror they ingest, resorting to
: the charts and templates issued by a number of Orthodox
: institutions. But there is little if anything that's traditional
: about this post-mid 20th century practice.
Another unflagged topic shift. No one denies that "Tradition" evolves.
(Poor Reb Tevye.) The question, as I wrote last post, is whether it
evolves in accordance with the halachic rules for halachic and minhagic
(is that a word?) change, or not.
You also don't mention the mid-20th century leniencies that arose.
The ubiquity of the eiruv, universal Torah education for both genders,
the leniencies involved in the mass production of kosher meat, etc...
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Harry Weiss
> BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
> news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
> ....
>> Of course not. They're Jews ! Only GENTILES converted under
>> R and C auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
> What exactly about R and C conversions make them null and void to
> O's? Is there something special about O conversions, something
> extra, something less? It seems to be less a religious and more
> a 'franchise' issue. And why is this only a problem only in
> Israel?
This is a problem everywhere there are Rabbis who do not follow Jewish
law. Only Jewish law determines who is a Jew.
to covnert one must immerse in a Mikvah, have a circumcision (if male) and
accept the Mitzvot. This must be as directed by a competent Bet din.
SOme R converts do none of the above. C generally does cirumcision, they
have immersion which is often in a kosher Mikvah, but most C converts
generally do not accept the Mitzvot as is demonstrated by their lack of
observance of halacha. In addition most if not all C and R Rabbis do not
qualify to be on a bet din.
Therefore their conversion have no validity.
Eliyahu
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:a56fau$3dp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
> > BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
> > news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>
> > ....
> >> Of course not. They're Jews ! Only GENTILES converted under
> >> R and C auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
>
> > What exactly about R and C conversions make them null and void to
> > O's? Is there something special about O conversions, something
> > extra, something less? It seems to be less a religious and more
> > a 'franchise' issue. And why is this only a problem only in
> > Israel?
>
> This is a problem everywhere there are Rabbis who do not follow Jewish
> law. Only Jewish law determines who is a Jew.
>
after all, the Rabbis who determine what is and is not Jewish law, and the
Rabbis who founded Reform Judaism did have Orthodox credentials when they
made the decisions that split away from O.
> to covnert one must immerse in a Mikvah, have a circumcision (if male) and
> accept the Mitzvot. This must be as directed by a competent Bet din.
> SOme R converts do none of the above. C generally does cirumcision, they
> have immersion which is often in a kosher Mikvah, but most C converts
> generally do not accept the Mitzvot as is demonstrated by their lack of
> observance of halacha. In addition most if not all C and R Rabbis do not
> qualify to be on a bet din.
>
> Therefore their conversion have no validity.
>
But this conclusion is based on the premis that only Orthodox interpretation
of halachah and/or Torah is the correct one. Since R and C Jews disagree
with that premis, they aren't going to accept that conclusion.
Eliyahu
Yitzchak Goodman
>
> Joe Smith wrote:
>
> > In article <a5biq9$i6r$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> > Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > "
> > >
> > >> 1) they are now Jews, not gentiles
> > >
> > >No, they are gentiles. The hocus pocus does not make them Jews. They
> > >did not have proper conversion and are no more Jewish than any other non
> > >Jew.
> >
> > How nice to know that there are bigots in Judaism as well. One of the
> > Rabbis who did the Ugandan conversions will be converting me soon.
> >
> > A year and a half of study, a mikveh and willingness to have a second
> > circumscision doesn't seem like hocus pocus to me.
> >
> > Too bad Mr Weiss will not welcome me to judaism.
>
> Joe,
>
> Mr. Weiss and his ilk belong to a small minority. There are
> plenty of Jews who will welcome you with open arms as
> a 100% bona fide Jew after your conversion.
>
> Assuming you are in the US, you will find hundreds -- yes,
> literally close to 2,000 -- Conservative and Reform congregations
> where you and your family will be welcomed with open arms
> and where your conversion will not be a question or a subject
> of discussion.
>
> I am a born Jew (affiliated with Reform), and there are few
> things in Judaism that infuriate me more than the exclusionary,
> holier-than-thou, closed-club practices and policies of some in the
> Orth sector. I suspect that there are many hundreds of thousands
> of Jews world wide who are just as angry as I am.
Are you similarly angry at other instances in which Orthodox Jews
insist on adherence to halachah? Are you angry that we don't
accept a mezuzah written on paper, or a sukkah built under
a tree?
Yitz
Jay Lapidus
<a5de1d$6asnc$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de>,
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 01:57:14 +0000 (UTC), Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>: Michael Silber in his article, "The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy:
>: The Invention of a Tradition," ...
>
>"UO", or the yeshiva movement, is not Orthodoxy. It's an O movement.
The author notes that. He applies the "Ultra-Orthodox" label to the
Hungarians, not to the yeshiva movement, a separate study.
>A
>huge difference, as I agree that the O movements are products of the
>times. As it should be: each era and community needs to find its own
>expression.
Which is what Conservative Judaism has been saying all along.
J:
>: ... notes, "Belying the conventional wisdom of both its
>: adherents and opponents, [ultra-Orthodoxy] is not an unchanged
>: and unchanging remnant or pre-modern, traditional Jewish society,
>: but as much a child of modernity and changes as any of its
>: 'modern' rivals" (pp.24f). Silber shows how the Hatam Sofer and
>: his successors elevated stringencies, eschewed leniencies, and
>: canonized the Shulhan Arukh to the level of the Ten Commandments
>: (p. 49, referring to R' Schlesinger's Yad Ivri). Their
>: "uncritical acceptance of the codes belied an impatience with the
>: give and take of the halakhic process..." (ibid.). All this
>: reflected the milieu of mid-19th century Hungary.
Micha:
>Actually, the SA was accepted as such well befor the HS. R' Moshe Isserlis
>didn't write an addendum to the Mishnah Torah did he? No, it was the SA
>that he saw gaining such acceptance as to threaten the survival of the
>Ashkenazi tradition. And the wealth of commentaries on the SA (or the
>Tur or the Rambam) shows that these codes were taken far more seriously
>for far longer than this snippet suggests.
I'm not talking about mere "acceptance," but rather, the uncritical
acceptance elevating the SA to the level of the Aseret haDibrot.
>But in any case, if this argument were about O, and not merely hungarian
>UO, it would have to explain why other movements did embrace change.
Please clarify "other movements." Are you referring just to other
Orthodox movements, or just to C and R, or to all of them?
>A single man's "the new is forbidden by the Torah" may show where he
>and his movement were going, but not the rest of us. Nor why both they
>and we (and R' Yosef el Gafeh or the Ben Ish Hai) recognize eachother
>as mutually O.
>
>: In a month's time, many readers will be punctilious about the
>: large amounts of wine, matzah and maror they ingest, resorting to
>: the charts and templates issued by a number of Orthodox
>: institutions. But there is little if anything that's traditional
>: about this post-mid 20th century practice.
>
>Another unflagged topic shift.
Stop it. The above is on-topic, expanding the examples, which you
have not yet dealt with.
>No one denies that "Tradition" evolves.
>(Poor Reb Tevye.) The question, as I wrote last post, is whether it
>evolves in accordance with the halachic rules for halachic and minhagic
>(is that a word?)...
(It is now!)
>...change, or not.
My contention is that _not_ all of the changes within the O camp were
in accordance with the halachic rules for halacha and minhag.
>You also don't mention the mid-20th century leniencies that arose.
>The ubiquity of the eiruv, universal Torah education for both genders,
>the leniencies involved in the mass production of kosher meat, etc...
Now, that would be an "unflagged topic change," but since you bring it
up, many of those leniencies were no less than those changes within
the halakhic and "minhagic" processes acknowledged by Conservative
rabbis. In more cases than one, it was a matter of who came up with
the "leniency" first. If it came from O, then it's kosher; if from C,
it's automatically treif.
Micha Berger
:>"UO", or the yeshiva movement, is not Orthodoxy. It's an O movement.
: The author notes that. He applies the "Ultra-Orthodox" label to the
: Hungarians, not to the yeshiva movement, a separate study.
:>A
:>huge difference, as I agree that the O movements are products of the
:>times. As it should be: each era and community needs to find its own
:>expression.
: Which is what Conservative Judaism has been saying all along.
I would agree to this notion, but I would guess that's about as far as
we agree.
In response to the new situations, various groups of Jews sought new
expressions of their Judaism.
Those that followed the old system for finding such expressions recognize
eachother as mutually O. Those that did so by abandoning or modifying
the system, do not.
Since O is a property of those movements that adapted /within/ the old
system, O itself predates these expressions. The feature they share in
common is what is "O", not the movement itself.
: Micha:
:>Actually, the SA was accepted as such well befor the HS. R' Moshe Isserlis
:>didn't write an addendum to the Mishnah Torah did he? No, it was the SA
:>that he saw gaining such acceptance as to threaten the survival of the
:>Ashkenazi tradition. And the wealth of commentaries on the SA (or the
:>Tur or the Rambam) shows that these codes were taken far more seriously
:>for far longer than this snippet suggests.
: I'm not talking about mere "acceptance," but rather, the uncritical
: acceptance elevating the SA to the level of the Aseret haDibrot.
Kindly reread what I wrote about the Rama's stated reason for writing
his Mappa. The SA became /the/ legal code pretty immediately.
:>But in any case, if this argument were about O, and not merely hungarian
:>UO, it would have to explain why other movements did embrace change.
: Please clarify "other movements." Are you referring just to other
: Orthodox movements, or just to C and R, or to all of them?
Other Orthodox movements. As I mentioned earlier in the post, Hirsch's
neoOrthodoxy, much of the Mussar movement, Telzh, etc... /did/ accept
more than they counter-reacted.
:>: In a month's time, many readers will be punctilious about the
:>: large amounts of wine, matzah and maror they ingest, resorting to
:>: the charts and templates issued by a number of Orthodox
:>: institutions. But there is little if anything that's traditional
:>: about this post-mid 20th century practice.
:>Another unflagged topic shift.
: Stop it. The above is on-topic, expanding the examples, which you
: have not yet dealt with.
It's not. It intentionally blurs the line between "doing things the
way we always did" and "preserving the Judaism we always had".
My mistake was in the word "another". It's the same topic shift,
repeated.
:>No one denies that "Tradition" evolves.
:>(Poor Reb Tevye.) The question, as I wrote last post, is whether it
:>evolves in accordance with the halachic rules for halachic and minhagic
:>(is that a word?) change, or not.
: My contention is that _not_ all of the changes within the O camp were
: in accordance with the halachic rules for halacha and minhag.
That's an interesting contention. Now bring some evidence in support.
The acceptance of all the rabbis of streams of Ashkenazi O by our Sepharadi,
Italian, and Middle Eastern brothers' rabbis seem to indicate otherwise.
There are many people who maintained the O attribute without going through
the emanicpation experience that caused these new movements.
:>You also don't mention the mid-20th century leniencies that arose.
:>The ubiquity of the eiruv, universal Torah education for both genders,
:>the leniencies involved in the mass production of kosher meat, etc...
: In more cases than one, it was a matter of who came up with
: the "leniency" first. If it came from O, then it's kosher; if from C,
: it's automatically treif.
You aren't really claiming that O and C follow identical legal processes.
Are you?
The bottom line is that C did not stick to the old process, claiming that
a pre-code system needed "restoration". While the O movements did.
J. J. Levin
And in the eyes of many C and R Jews the O are making
themselves less and less relevant with their exclusionary
policies and practices. In Israel the rabbinate and the
Ministry of Religions are making themselves less and less
respected and liked by most Israelis. These chickens WILL come
home to roost one day. The O want to be a small, exclusive,
biologically-based sect. As someone once said, "Be careful what
you wish for."
Jay
Harry Weiss
> "Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:a56fau$3dp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
>> > BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>> > news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>>
>> > ....
>> >> Of course not. They're Jews ! Only GENTILES converted under
>> >> R and C auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
>>
>> > What exactly about R and C conversions make them null and void to
>> > O's? Is there something special about O conversions, something
>> > extra, something less? It seems to be less a religious and more
>> > a 'franchise' issue. And why is this only a problem only in
>> > Israel?
>>
>> This is a problem everywhere there are Rabbis who do not follow Jewish
>> law. Only Jewish law determines who is a Jew.
>>
> We're getting into some circular reasoning when we go down this road. It is,
> after all, the Rabbis who determine what is and is not Jewish law, and the
> Rabbis who founded Reform Judaism did have Orthodox credentials when they
> made the decisions that split away from O.
Some may have had O smicha, many were not Rabbis. AFter they became
hertics their ruling had no validity. The xian apostles were also Jewish
and may have been Rabbis, but their rulings have no validity.
>> to covnert one must immerse in a Mikvah, have a circumcision (if male) and
>> accept the Mitzvot. This must be as directed by a competent Bet din.
>> SOme R converts do none of the above. C generally does cirumcision, they
>> have immersion which is often in a kosher Mikvah, but most C converts
>> generally do not accept the Mitzvot as is demonstrated by their lack of
>> observance of halacha. In addition most if not all C and R Rabbis do not
>> qualify to be on a bet din.
>>
>> Therefore their conversion have no validity.
>>
> But this conclusion is based on the premis that only Orthodox interpretation
> of halachah and/or Torah is the correct one. Since R and C Jews disagree
> with that premis, they aren't going to accept that conclusion.
> Eliyahu
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Jay Lapidus
<a5e5mg$6k3ou$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de>,
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
[snip] Micha:
>:>Actually, the SA was accepted as such well befor the HS. R' Moshe Isserlis
>:>didn't write an addendum to the Mishnah Torah did he? No, it was the SA
>:>that he saw gaining such acceptance as to threaten the survival of the
>:>Ashkenazi tradition. And the wealth of commentaries on the SA (or the
>:>Tur or the Rambam) shows that these codes were taken far more seriously
>:>for far longer than this snippet suggests.
>
>: I'm not talking about mere "acceptance," but rather, the uncritical
>: acceptance elevating the SA to the level of the Aseret haDibrot.
>
>Kindly reread what I wrote about the Rama's stated reason for writing
>his Mappa. The SA became /the/ legal code pretty immediately.
Kindly reread what I wrote. There's a difference between something
becoming "the" legal code in its time, and something becoming as
unchanging and as elevated as the "Ten Commandments."
>... As I mentioned earlier in the post, Hirsch's
>neoOrthodoxy, much of the Mussar movement, Telzh, etc... /did/ accept
>more than they counter-reacted.
IOW, these O movements too engaged in reform.
>
>:>: In a month's time, many readers will be punctilious about the
>:>: large amounts of wine, matzah and maror they ingest, resorting to
>:>: the charts and templates issued by a number of Orthodox
>:>: institutions. But there is little if anything that's traditional
>:>: about this post-mid 20th century practice.
>
>:>Another unflagged topic shift.
>
>: Stop it. The above is on-topic, expanding the examples, which you
>: have not yet dealt with.
>
>It's not. It intentionally blurs the line between "doing things the
>way we always did" and "preserving the Judaism we always had".
>
>My mistake was in the word "another". It's the same topic shift,
>repeated.
WADR, it seems to me that you are blurring the lines, which is what O
does. Perhaps, I'm not understanding your point.
J:
>: My contention is that _not_ all of the changes within the O camp were
>: in accordance with the halachic rules for halacha and minhag.
>
>That's an interesting contention. Now bring some evidence in support.
>The acceptance of all the rabbis of streams of Ashkenazi O by our Sepharadi,
>Italian, and Middle Eastern brothers' rabbis seem to indicate otherwise.
Such "acceptance" only shows that the other groups within the O camp
likewise deviate towards non-traditional stringencies. I've already
given three examples as evidence: the novel shiurim k'Hazon Ish,
invalidating even the kiddush cup used by the Chofetz Chaim, the
demand that the chupa be under the stars, and the demand that the
bimah be in the center to avoid "Huqat haGoy."
>There are many people who maintained the O attribute without going through
>the emanicpation experience that caused these new movements.
>
>:>You also don't mention the mid-20th century leniencies that arose.
>:>The ubiquity of the eiruv, universal Torah education for both genders,
>:>the leniencies involved in the mass production of kosher meat, etc...
>
>: In more cases than one, it was a matter of who came up with
>: the "leniency" first. If it came from O, then it's kosher; if from C,
>: it's automatically treif.
>
>You aren't really claiming that O and C follow identical legal processes.
>Are you?
I'm merely claiming that C has a more authentic approach.
>The bottom line is that C did not stick to the old process, claiming that
>a pre-code system needed "restoration". While the O movements did.
The so-called "old process" is not so old. C sought to "restore" not
only the flexibility of the "pre-code system," but that of the Shulhan
Arukh as well.
I'm sorry, but I'm rushing this post.
Harry Weiss
Yes and we Jews are just a small percentage of the population, so why not
just become xians. We must do what is right and we told in the Torah
what is right. Just become some breakaway sects don't like Judaism
doesn't mean we should throw it away.
> Jay
GKlein112473633
>accept a mezuzah written on paper, or a sukkah built under
>a tree?
>
How about a sukka that uses an elepahant as one of the walls. Would you
accept that?
GKlein112473633
>hertics their ruling had no validity. The xian apostles were also Jewish
>and may have been Rabbis, but their rulings have no validity.
>
Its comparisons like this (xians = R and C) that cause other posters to view O
as antisemitic
J. J. Levin
There is a vast difference between becoming a Christian and between
accepting less stringent interpretations of Judaism. There is nothing wrong
with your adhering to halacha for your own purposes, because
you wish to. I would be the first to protect your right to believe
as you wish and do so. But there is a great deal of wrong in being
exclusionary to the point of not recognizing converts to what you
call "breakaway sects" as Jewish because they don't adhere to every
iota of your interpretation of Jewish law, which has become fossilized over
the years and which no Orth rabbi seems to have the courage to change.
There are Orth rabbis who tried to cooperate with R and C rabbis
on conversions (the Denver experiment, if you recall). They
were almost drummed out of the tribe because they dared
believe that there might, just might, be a slightly less stringent
or different interpretation of halacha. The Orth community today
remembers Shammai and his ways very well -- but seems to have
forgotten Hillel.
Jay
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com>
>Subject:Re: High Court Accepts Reform, Conservative Conversions
>Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 21:43:48 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<a5e4uk$t3t$1...@reader2.panix.com>
>Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:a56fau$3dp$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>> David Ehrens <0s...@0spam.net> wrote:
>>> > BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote in
>>> > news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org:
>>>
>>> > ....
>>> >> Of course not. They're Jews ! Only GENTILES converted under
>>> >> R and C auspices are still GENTILES by halacha.
>>>
>>> > What exactly about R and C conversions make them null and void to
>>> > O's? Is there something special about O conversions, something
>>> > extra, something less? It seems to be less a religious and more
>>> > a 'franchise' issue. And why is this only a problem only in
>>> > Israel?
>>>
>>> This is a problem everywhere there are Rabbis who do not follow Jewish
>>> law. Only Jewish law determines who is a Jew.
>>>
>> We're getting into some circular reasoning when we go down this road. It is,
>> after all, the Rabbis who determine what is and is not Jewish law, and the
>> Rabbis who founded Reform Judaism did have Orthodox credentials when they
>> made the decisions that split away from O.
>
>Some may have had O smicha, many were not Rabbis. AFter they became
>hertics their ruling had no validity. The xian apostles were also Jewish
>and may have been Rabbis, but their rulings have no validity.
None had O smicha. Israel Jacobson (Hamburg Germany 1815) was a businessman.
Samuel Holdeim (YMSH"V) born 1806, studied at a O yeshiva for 2 years as a
very young man (teens) but did NOT get O smicha. As the expression goes: a
little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What's odd is that on the basis of his
2 years in a yeshiva (high school) he received the rank of Landesrabbiner
by the German authorities (possibly for political reasons). The rest is
history (and destruction of Judaism).
Josh
>
>
>>> to covnert one must immerse in a Mikvah, have a circumcision (if male) and
>>> accept the Mitzvot. This must be as directed by a competent Bet din.
>>> SOme R converts do none of the above. C generally does cirumcision, they
>>> have immersion which is often in a kosher Mikvah, but most C converts
>>> generally do not accept the Mitzvot as is demonstrated by their lack of
>>> observance of halacha. In addition most if not all C and R Rabbis do not
>>> qualify to be on a bet din.
>>>
>>> Therefore their conversion have no validity.
>>>
>> But this conclusion is based on the premis that only Orthodox interpretation
>> of halachah and/or Torah is the correct one. Since R and C Jews disagree
>> with that premis, they aren't going to accept that conclusion.
>
>> Eliyahu
>
Harry Weiss
>>
>> Yes and we Jews are just a small percentage of the population, so why not
>> just become xians. We must do what is right and we told in the Torah
>> what is right. Just become some breakaway sects don't like Judaism
>> doesn't mean we should throw it away.
>>
> There is a vast difference between becoming a Christian and between
> accepting less stringent interpretations of Judaism.
They are not less stringent they are rejction.
There is nothing wrong
> with your adhering to halacha for your own purposes, because
> you wish to. I would be the first to protect your right to believe
> as you wish and do so. But there is a great deal of wrong in being
> exclusionary to the point of not recognizing converts to what you
> call "breakaway sects" as Jewish because they don't adhere to every
> iota of your interpretation of Jewish law, which has become fossilized over
> the years and which no Orth rabbi seems to have the courage to change.
Your comment reminds me of the story of the Jews who became a Catholic.
One day the priest walked by on a Friday and saw this person eating beef.
The priest said what are you doing, it is Friday and you can't eat meat.
The man said just like sprinkled some water on me and said you are a
Catholic, I sprinkled water and meat and say you are a fish.
Judaism has rules on how one becomes a Jew. That is the ONLY way to
become a Jew. As much as someone calls the "convert" who did not convert
according to the rules it is no more a Jew than the beef was fish.
> There are Orth rabbis who tried to cooperate with R and C rabbis
> on conversions (the Denver experiment, if you recall). They
> were almost drummed out of the tribe because they dared
> believe that there might, just might, be a slightly less stringent
> or different interpretation of halacha. The Orth community today
> remembers Shammai and his ways very well -- but seems to have
> forgotten Hillel.
Actualy is O that follow Hillel. It is the other movement whose do not
even understand what Hillel said.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org> Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> writes:
>
>Such "acceptance" only shows that the other groups within the O camp
>likewise deviate towards non-traditional stringencies. I've already
>given three examples as evidence: the novel shiurim k'Hazon Ish,
>invalidating even the kiddush cup used by the Chofetz Chaim,
Please bring a non-tertiary reference for this apparently apocryphal
story. My understanding is that the grandson of the Chafets Chayim
categorically denied this when asked.
>the
>demand that the chupa be under the stars, and the demand that the
>bimah be in the center to avoid "Huqat haGoy."=20
But would people holding these positions claim that someone married
inside a building wasn't married? Or that it is assur to daven in a
shul with an off-center bimah? I doubt it.
>I'm merely claiming that C has a more authentic approach.
On what basis? Because C embraces more leniencies on the whole than
O? That's just silly. Koa`h dehetera `adif does *not* mean "use any
leniency you can invent". As Micha said eloquently there are a
variety of streams of O, with different halachic rulings on a variety
of questions. But they all recognize each others' legitimacy.
Attempting to "reconstruct" a hypothesised system of deciding halacha
from scratch is not necessarily more authentic.
Tell me, do you agree with a serious C Jew who once gave me, as an
axample of C's "tikkun olam" the C heter to eat swordfish? That
strikes me as utterly ridiculous, even ignoring the overwhelming
counterproofs (as cited by R. Tendler in his article on the subject).
>The so-called "old process" is not so old. C sought to "restore" not
>only the flexibility of the "pre-code system," but that of the Shulhan
>Arukh as well.
First, you need to restore the level of scholarship of the decisors.
Then worry about the system.
A frailikhen Purim!
-Shlomo-