DONMEH WEST: THE KABBALAH YESHIVA OF THE INTERNET
John Corey
You're cordially invited to join Donmeh West, A Virtual Yeshiva for
Education
in Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah.
Donmeh West is not a "discussion list," but a virtual "yeshiva" (Kabbalistic
academy) of nearly 700 (and still growing) world-class teachers and students
of what has been dubbed the "Yalhakian" Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah that Reb
Yakov Leib HaKohain has been configuring, practicing, teaching, writing, and
publishing about over the past 40 of his 67 years.
The mission of Donmeh West is to teach, learn and practice the Kabbalah of
"Repairing the Face of God," initiated over 300 years ago by the great
Kabbalist,
Rabbi Nathan of Gaza -- based on his Lurianic interpretations of the
personality
and Ma'asim Zarim ("Mystical Strange Actions") of Sabbatai Zevi -- through
which God is returned to His unity and the cosmos redeemed.
On the other hand, we cannot state strongly enough that the goal of Donmeh
West is NOT to convert Jews to either Christianity, Islam or any other
non-Jewish
religion but, on the contrary, to redeem the Nitzotzot ("Holy Sparks") that
have
fallen into THOSE realms and return THEM to the Community of Israel. For
that
reason, the membership of Donmeh West spans a wide spectrum of religious
backgrounds, but particularly welcomes our fellow Jews to join us as
"Servants of Job"
through whose prayers and intecession the Gentiles will be saved:
"The Lord.....turned to Eliphaz of Temen. 'I burn with anger against you and
your two
[Edomite/Gentile] friends,' he said, 'for not speaking truthfully about me
as my servant
Job [the Jew] has done so now.....offer a sacrifice for yourselves while
Job, my [Jewish]
servant offers prayers for you. I will listen to him with favor and excuse
your folly in not
speaking of me properly as my [Jewish] servant Job has done.' [Then the
Edomite/Gentiles]
Eliphaz of Teman, Bildad of Shuah and Zopar of Naamath went away to do as
the Lord had ordered, and the Lord listened to Job [the Jew] with favor."
(Job 42:7-9)
Although founded in 1972 and incorporated as a non-profit foundation eleven
years later in 1983, Donmeh West went on the World Wide Web as recently as
October, 1998 and since that time has grown to a "virtual yeshiva" of almost
700 subscribers -- the largest number of whom, even though not necessarily
Jewish, either practice or are preparing to practice the Neo-Sabbatian
Kabbalah taught by Reb Yakov Leib.
You can join Donmeh West in any one of the following two ways:
o Point and click on
http://www.egroups.com/group/DONMEH_WEST
o Send the message "subscribe donmeh" to
Don...@Donmeh-West.Org
WE HOPE YOU'LL JOIN US SOON!
Micha Berger
: You're cordially invited to join Donmeh West, A Virtual Yeshiva for Education
: in Neo-Sabbatian Kabbalah.
I question the moderator's judgement in approving this post. However, I'm
posting my reaction here (rather than emailing) to get other people's
reactions:
IYO, is Sabbateanism any more "Judaism" than Christianity?
What about Karaitism?
Why?
-mi
QandA
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:9kmfmm$j5o$5...@bob.news.rcn.net...
"Karaitism"? Is that like "Reform*ed*"? Lol.
Anyway, I know very little about Sabbatians. As far
as I can tell, it's the ultimate extention of
O / Rabbinical Judaism. The whole religion is
based on "hidden" meanings and on mysticism.
Why didn't you ask about Messianic Lubavitch?
As I said, I know very little about S, but aren't
S and ML at least somewhat similar?? Or is it
not politically correct to bring up ML??
As for the "is it Judaism?" question. It all
depends on the definition of the word "Judaism".
Two types of definition are possible: normative
(how it "should" be), and positive (how it is).
Usually, when people discuss "what is Judaism",
they talk about normative definition. That to me
makes little sense.
A while ago, I posted here my definition of
Judaism (which was positive). I will post it again
if anyone cares. Anyway, according to it,
any group that believes that the Messiah has already
arrived, or any group that adopts key beliefs
of another religion is not part of Judaism.
Thus:
* early Christianity, S, ML: not Judaism because
believe that Messiah has arrived.
* "J4J": not Judaism because adopt Christian
beliefs.
Hope this clears things up....
=====
__________________________________________________
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/qanda3000/
Last updated 21 June 2001
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
Micha Berger
: * early Christianity, S, ML: not Judaism because believe that Messiah
: has arrived.
: * "J4J": not Judaism because adopt Christian beliefs.
And they believe the messiah has arrived (and that the "m" should be
capitalized, with all the implications you didn't intend).
I'm not sure I go for this, because there are things that I'd call Jewish
that deny equally important fundamentals of my own belief system.
-mi
med...@shore.net
>
> A while ago, I posted here my definition of
> Judaism (which was positive). I will post it again
> if anyone cares. Anyway, according to it,
> any group that believes that the Messiah has already
> arrived, or any group that adopts key beliefs
> of another religion is not part of Judaism.
>
> Thus:
> * early Christianity, S, ML: not Judaism because
> believe that Messiah has arrived.
> * "J4J": not Judaism because adopt Christian
> beliefs.
Reform - not Judaism because it adopts and puts more
emphasis on the key beliefs of another religion
(Secular Humanism) than on any Jewish beliefs.
QandA
<med...@shore.net> wrote in message news:iqEb7.589$Fn4....@news.shore.net...
> Reform - not Judaism because it adopts and puts more
> emphasis on the key beliefs of another religion
> (Secular Humanism) than on any Jewish beliefs.
Good one! But I'm afraid not...
1. I did not post the entire definition (can't find it
now but it should be archived by Google).
2. The definition is positive, not normative. Reform
*is* one of the branches of Judaism.
3. *Some* Reform are atheist. These I would not consider
to be practicing Judaism. (another religion; denial
of monotheism)
4. Why did you feel the need to post this? There is
no need to be more O than the O, so to speak...
med...@shore.net
>
> <med...@shore.net> wrote in message news:iqEb7.589$Fn4....@news.shore.net...
>
>> Reform - not Judaism because it adopts and puts more
>> emphasis on the key beliefs of another religion
>> (Secular Humanism) than on any Jewish beliefs.
>
> Good one! But I'm afraid not...
> 1. I did not post the entire definition (can't find it
> now but it should be archived by Google).
> 2. The definition is positive, not normative. Reform
> *is* one of the branches of Judaism.
Not according to your definition.
> 3. *Some* Reform are atheist. These I would not consider
> to be practicing Judaism. (another religion; denial
> of monotheism)
> 4. Why did you feel the need to post this? There is
> no need to be more O than the O, so to speak...
To point out that your definition puts Reform outside of
Judaism.
I do not feel that Judaism should be defined by what it
isn't. Judaism should be defined by what it is. But by
either definition Reform is not it.
.jackie cappiello
QandA wrote:
>
> <med...@shore.net> wrote in message news:iqEb7.589$Fn4....@news.shore.net...
>
> > Reform - not Judaism because it adopts and puts more
> > emphasis on the key beliefs of another religion
> > (Secular Humanism) than on any Jewish beliefs.
>
> Good one! But I'm afraid not...
> 1. I did not post the entire definition (can't find it
> now but it should be archived by Google).
> 2. The definition is positive, not normative. Reform
> *is* one of the branches of Judaism.
> 3. *Some* Reform are atheist. These I would not consider
> to be practicing Judaism. (another religion; denial
> of monotheism)
And, as has been noted in another thread or threads previously, the UAHC
refused admittance to a congregation that did not accept the existance
of G-d. So it would seem that Reform Jews must accept the principle of
monotheism.
Charles Vitez
of the original post, and comments should be directed to us *by e-mail*.
Let's try to keep that part of the discussion out of the newsgroup.
Thank you. ]
This is the most disgusting posting I have seen so far in any Jewish forum.
Having almost managed to push Judaism onto the rocks in the 17th century,
these maniacs are now inviting us to join their tea party? What a chutzpa?
Forgive and forget such an injury? Not likely!
For anyone out of memory on this subject - the opportunistic charlatan, who
is the subject of the posting, came on the scene when the Jewish people were
in the depths of despair. The accumulation of suffering was breaking their
spirit - they had just suffered an early equivalent of the Holocaust in
eastern Europe, every man's hand was against them in the East and in the
West and the Hasidic revival was still some decades away. In short our
nation was at its weakest.
He mislead many of the leaders of that generation. All begged to believe in
the Messiah to save the Jewish people at the end of their tether and he
cruelly conned them all. The numbers of our brethren influenced by him at
one time were immense - even respected rabbonim.
In my opinion the Jewish nation only really came to its senses when he
over-reached himself and found himself in an Ottoman jail. For a confidence
trickster, casting off one coat and putting on another was no big deal. Not
quite the behaviour you would have expected from a scion of David!
There is nothing spiritual about the man, his philosophy or his malicious
adherents (one of their best tricks was to live in secret amongst us, act as
scribes and write additional -pornographic?- words into tefilin so as to
make them posul). All of their kind were put under a perpetual ban and I
thought that we had seen the last of them. Obviously wishful thinking.
It irritates me immensely to find this posting here and I would humbly ask
the moderators to reconsider their policy.
Charles Vitez
"John Corey" <ami...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1Qda7.586$_72....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Micha Berger
: Reform...
I would prefer this not become yet another OCR thing. It would be a pity
if we can't discuss the topic of how to relate to the Donmeh -- and
whether or not that ought to influence moderation policy -- because we
can't avoid returning to the same rut.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
med...@shore.net
> On 7 Aug 2001 00:26:22 GMT, med...@shore.net wrote:
> : Reform...
>
> I would prefer this not become yet another OCR thing. It would be a pity
> if we can't discuss the topic of how to relate to the Donmeh -- and
> whether or not that ought to influence moderation policy -- because we
> can't avoid returning to the same rut.
>
This is relevant for one simple reason - in order to reject Donmeh,
karaites, J4Js, Messianics, etc you have to create a set of criteria
that would exclude them and include the Reform, Reconstructionists
and Renewal (if you think they should be included). In spite of all the
mental gymnastics of the Reform posters, such criteria have not been
produced yet.
Eliyahu
<med...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:ZJSb7.652$Fn4....@news.shore.net...
It's really much simpler than that. While you may want to see logical
constructs or criteria for inclusion and exclusion, this is how it works in
the real world: O, C, R, Ren, and Recon are generally accepted by most Jews
as being parts of Judaism, whereas the other groups you mention are almost
universally rejected as not being part of Judaism. Ergo, O, C, R, Ren, and
Recon are acceptable topics for discussion here, whereas the others are
generally not.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Micha Berger
: This is relevant for one simple reason - in order to reject Donmeh,
: karaites, J4Js, Messianics, etc you have to create a set of criteria
: that would exclude them and include the Reform, Reconstructionists
Simply define Jewishness sociologically: a movement that is striving to
stay within the Jewish people that is based (however loosely) on Jewish
tradition.
The first clause will exclude j4j and other messianics as well as the
Donmeh.
-mi
med...@shore.net
Huh? The messianics are certainly striving to stay within the Jewish
people - they self-identify as Jews and are fighting (however futilely,
hopefully) for recognition as a "branch of Judaism". So they certainly
fall under your definition.
med...@shore.net
but the extension to what is on-topic here is *not*. Comments on that
subject should be directed to the moderators by e-mail. ]
1. The 3Rs are not generally accepted as being parts of Judaism by
a majority of Orthodox Jewry, I think. They are accepted as
religions that resemble Judaism but aren't - same as Karaites
and Shomronim.
2. At what % does the "acceptance" have to stand in order for the
"branch" to be an acceptable topic for discussion in SCJM?
Joel N. Shurkin
"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
OK guys. I was the moderator who approved that message, mostly to see the
reaction. I shouldn't have done it and I apologize.
For what it's worth, I've been working for several years on a novel about
Zvi and have a personal interest (not a religious one) in the character. It
got the best of me.
J
Micha Berger
: Huh? The messianics are certainly striving to stay within the Jewish
: people - they self-identify as Jews and are fighting (however futilely,
: hopefully) for recognition as a "branch of Judaism". So they certainly
: fall under your definition.
Don't fall for their literature. They are trying to produce Baptists. They
want to lower the barrier between us and them in order to open the gate
that keeps Jews in.
J4J is funded by Southern Baptists and Billy Graham's church. One point
of note, a number of the top names at Amway (who belong to the above
groups) tithe to j4j.
Also, FWIW, Jews now make up a minority of j4j. At least, that's what a
spot-check of those I bump into the in subway indicates.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905
med...@shore.net
> On 7 Aug 2001 23:59:23 GMT, med...@shore.net wrote:
> : Huh? The messianics are certainly striving to stay within the Jewish
> : people - they self-identify as Jews and are fighting (however futilely,
> : hopefully) for recognition as a "branch of Judaism". So they certainly
> : fall under your definition.
>
> Don't fall for their literature. They are trying to produce Baptists. They
> want to lower the barrier between us and them in order to open the gate
> that keeps Jews in.
You're talking about J4Js. Apparently messianics are a different
group with a different ideology and not affiliated with Baptists.
> J4J is funded by Southern Baptists and Billy Graham's church. One point
> of note, a number of the top names at Amway (who belong to the above
> groups) tithe to j4j.
>
> Also, FWIW, Jews now make up a minority of j4j. At least, that's what a
> spot-check of those I bump into the in subway indicates.
See above. Assume, for the sake of argument, that messianics are
Jews who for some silly reason decided that Yoshke was a messiah.
They have their "shuls" and they celebrate Jewish holidays in their
way, and, although I do not consider their religion Judaism, it
is at least as much "Judaism" (and, in terms of ritual observance,
a lot more) as the Reform is. So - how are you going to define
the boundaries so that TMS-rejecting Reform and practically
atheist Renewal and Recon are in and messianics are out?
Steven Goldfarb
>For what it's worth, I've been working for several years on a novel about
>Zvi and have a personal interest (not a religious one) in the character. It
>got the best of me.
Please let us know when it's published - sounds like a heck of a story.
--sg
>J
--
---------------------------------------
Steve Goldfarb Eppur si muove
s...@stevegoldfarb.com (and still, it moves)
http://stevegoldfarb.com/ - Galileo
Steven Goldfarb
>See above. Assume, for the sake of argument, that messianics are
>Jews who for some silly reason decided that Yoshke was a messiah.
>They have their "shuls" and they celebrate Jewish holidays in their
>way, and, although I do not consider their religion Judaism, it
>is at least as much "Judaism" (and, in terms of ritual observance,
>a lot more) as the Reform is. So - how are you going to define
>the boundaries so that TMS-rejecting Reform and practically
>atheist Renewal and Recon are in and messianics are out?
To give you a serious answer, I think you can get them on the "unity of
God" issue. If they simply believed Jesus was the Messiah, maybe they
could sneak in. But they don't -- the belief that Jesus is God contradicts
Judaism. Reform gets in under that criteria. Don't know much about Renewal
and Reconstructionism, but in my personal opinion if they are atheistic,
then they aren't "Judaism," although they are still "Jewish movements,"
that is, movements composed of Jews.
--sg
med...@shore.net
> In <z42c7.697$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net> med...@shore.net writes:
>
>>See above. Assume, for the sake of argument, that messianics are
>>Jews who for some silly reason decided that Yoshke was a messiah.
>>They have their "shuls" and they celebrate Jewish holidays in their
>>way, and, although I do not consider their religion Judaism, it
>>is at least as much "Judaism" (and, in terms of ritual observance,
>>a lot more) as the Reform is. So - how are you going to define
>>the boundaries so that TMS-rejecting Reform and practically
>>atheist Renewal and Recon are in and messianics are out?
>
> To give you a serious answer, I think you can get them on the "unity of
> God" issue. If they simply believed Jesus was the Messiah, maybe they
> could sneak in. But they don't -- the belief that Jesus is God contradicts
> Judaism. Reform gets in under that criteria.
1. You won't catch messianics saying that Yoshke is "god". They insist
he is the messiah, though.
2. Rejection of Torah mi Sinai contradicts Judaism. Reform does not
get in under that criteria. (if you're going by "they contradict
Judaism, so they are not Judaism" principle).
meirm...@erols.com
Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>
>Also, FWIW, Jews now make up a minority of j4j. At least, that's what a
>spot-check of those I bump into the in subway indicates.
>
How do you find out? They admit it? What questions do you ask? Are
you charming?
>-mi
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
Sheldon Glickler
Why is all this discussion taking place here? This is a discussion
of moderation policy. The CHARTER states that messianics and J4J
are not allowed. End of story. "Debating" this with certain people
who get their jollies out of it is (a) fruitless and (b) violating
the moderators rule against policy discussion in SCJM.
If certain people want to turn this into SCOrthodoxJM, that is
pointless.
As for Donmeh, I know nothing about them so I cannot comment.
Shelly
QandA
<med...@shore.net> wrote in message news:fNZb7.692$Fn4....@news.shore.net...
> 1. The 3Rs are not generally accepted as being parts of Judaism by
> a majority of Orthodox Jewry, I think. They are accepted as
> religions that resemble Judaism but aren't - same as Karaites
> and Shomronim.
I just want to say that upon further consideration, I agree
with Medved completely. 100%! There is only one Judaism! All
the imitators are not Real Judaism(tm). What I would like
to see is that our leaders separate the heretics out of our
midst. That means, for starters, forbidding marriages with
the apostates. Ending business dealings with them might also
be a good idea.
Yes, I'm not just talking about the evil Karaites. (Remember
what they did during the Holocaust!) Those have been dealt with
long ago by our great sages. I mean: Renewal, Reconstructionist,
Reform, and Concervative. At the least. I'll have to think about
Traditional and Modern Orthodox. They might be OK, I don't know.
This is what I'd like to see! Oh boy, Medved... I wonder why
the Orthodox leaders haven't done this already. *That* will be
the day when pigs fly... Lol...
Micha Berger
:> Don't fall for their literature. They are trying to produce Baptists. They
:> want to lower the barrier between us and them in order to open the gate
:> that keeps Jews in.
: You're talking about J4Js. Apparently messianics are a different
: group with a different ideology and not affiliated with Baptists.
J4J is an organization. It belongs to the messianic movement. I cited
them as an example I know something about. Messianics are all out to
pull Jews into the general Christian community.
In addition Messianic "Judaism" and Hebrew Christianity are built on
the Christian tradition at least as much (in reality far more) than
ours. If they followed another dead messiah (such as giving that status
to a certain 20th cent rabbi), though, it could well be Jewish -- a
Jewish heresy, but still Jewish.
I should note that I think I picked up the definition I proposed from
a post from Eliot. He pointed out that there is a pragmatic difference:
an R Jew who joins O is not expected to go the mikvah as part of the
switch. However, a Jewish j4j would lechatchilah (if the situation can be
handled proactively) require such immersion befor being counted toward
a minyan.
So the difference is real. The question is defining the distinguishing
feature.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Binyamin Hecht
JudeoMoorKrav18
>to be practicing Judaism. (another religion; denial
>of monotheism)
Actually, "atheist" Jews who still identify with Judaism and Jewish ethics
are "Secular Humanist Jews", who have their own branch. Jewish mystics like
myself are Renewal. Most Reform I know belive in G-d.
Micha Berger
: To give you a serious answer, I think you can get them on the "unity of
: God" issue....
Isn't finding the defining criteria the whole point of the conversation?
Here you presuppose one, but don't explain why you don't presuppose the
other.
Why is "unity of G-d" more of a defining issue than the Torah's text being
transmitted word-for-word (plus or minus copying errors, to be more liberal
about it) at Sinai? I'm not saying they both should be, I'm asking for
your criteria.
Also noted last time we went around this bend: Moslems and J's Witnesses
believe in unity of G-d. This criterion alone is insufficient to define
Jewishness. It may be a necessary component, but it's not the whole thing.
Micha Berger
: 1. You won't catch messianics saying that Yoshke is "god". They insist
: he is the messiah, though.
You're confusing two issues: what they believe, and what they admit to
in public. It's not good for their missionary agenda to announce that
they are trinitarians. Just as they tend not to use the words "Jesus
Christ" (they use Yeshua Hamoshiach [sic]) or anything else that jars
the Jewish reader. But they are trinitarians, just like any other
Protestant.
Micha Berger
:>Also, FWIW, Jews now make up a minority of j4j. At least, that's what a
:>spot-check of those I bump into the in subway indicates.
: How do you find out? They admit it? What questions do you ask? Are
: you charming?
If I'm not late for the train (or in the morning, late for a meeting), I
tend to engage them in a conversation. I try to leave my AishDas business
card with the Jewish ones. ("I'll take your pamphlet and read it if you'll
take this.") Who knows? Maybe some day one of 'em will notice that he's
in a Baptist church with none of those Ashkenazic cultural trappings that
they used to rope him in and wonder what happened to his Jewishness.
Worse comes to worst, I wasted time they would otherwise have spent
handing those broadsides out.
I used to bother debating them. Do not try it at home, you're arguing
on their turf -- most people don't know those few texts as well as they
do. Now I try for a more emotional approach. In line with the
truism from my collection of signature files:
The mind is a wonderful organ
for justifying conclusions
the heart already reached.
(It ought to be a Haiku.)
Steven Goldfarb
>Why is "unity of G-d" more of a defining issue than the Torah's text being
>transmitted word-for-word (plus or minus copying errors, to be more liberal
>about it) at Sinai? I'm not saying they both should be, I'm asking for
>your criteria.
It's a question of degrees, I think. The O posters here are asserting that
there's O Judaism, which is "Judaism," and then there's everything else,
which is "not Judaism." That is, the defining characteristics of "Judaism"
are precisely the characteristics of Orthodoxy. I'm asserting that this
isn't necessarily the case, and that one can move that line further over.
I contend that the phrase "a form of Judaism" is meaningful, I accept that
you do not. Thus, the C and R movements are both "forms of Judaism."
For a movement to be a form of Judaism, it must meet these criteria:
1) be composed of Jews
2) require belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
3) require belief in the unity of this God, as per the Sh'ma
4) not permit belief in any other religion
Thus being "Christian" excludes a movement from being "a form of Judaism."
Yes, Dissen, I made these up -- I don't have a source. Don't bother
posting "Where is your source? Be specific." I don't have one.
Note that calling something "a form of Judaism" doesn't imply that you
accept it as being "correct."
>Also noted last time we went around this bend: Moslems and J's Witnesses
>believe in unity of G-d. This criterion alone is insufficient to define
>Jewishness. It may be a necessary component, but it's not the whole thing.
But they aren't movements composed of Jews.
--sg
>-mi
>--
>Micha Berger Life is complex.
>mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
>http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
>Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Micha Berger
: For a movement to be a form of Judaism, it must meet these criteria:
: 1) be composed of Jews
: 2) require belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
: 3) require belief in the unity of this God, as per the Sh'ma
: 4) not permit belief in any other religion
Your number 4 begs the question. It defines what is Judaism in terms of
already knowing what isn't.
-mi
Steven Goldfarb
>: 4) not permit belief in any other religion
>Your number 4 begs the question. It defines what is Judaism in terms of
>already knowing what isn't.
I don't think so. It's up to the other religion to define itself. That is,
if you accept another movement that is (a) a religion and (b) defines
itself as something other than Judaism then you've violated rule 4.
So, for instance, if a movement believed that Jesus, Shabbatai Tzvi, or
the Rebbe were "the Messiah" in a Jewish sense of the term, then IMO they
might still be considered "a form of Judaism" albeit "a form of Judaism
rejected by most other Jews." OTOH, belief in Jesus in the Christian
sense of that word, i.e., "as your Savior" or whatever, is Christianity --
it's a different religion.
Now, if your movement is affiliated with another movement that doesn't
define itself as a religion -- I don't know, yoga, maybe - then once again
it could be "a form of Judaism." Here's one - Vegan Jews, say. It's a
philosophy, not a religion, so I'd say "Vegan Judaism," if such a thing
exists, might well be "a form of Judaism, albeit one rejected by most
other Jews."
--sg
>-mi
med...@shore.net
> On 8 Aug 2001 04:30:24 GMT, med...@shore.net wrote:
> : 1. You won't catch messianics saying that Yoshke is "god". They insist
> : he is the messiah, though.
>
> You're confusing two issues: what they believe, and what they admit to
> in public.
Exactly the same as Reform. They beleve that Torah is bunk and
primitive superstition written by ancients who didn't know better - they
pay lip service to it in order to pretend that they are "Judaism".
> It's not good for their missionary agenda to announce that
> they are trinitarians.
As it would not be good for the Reform agenda to admit that
they are not Judaism - they would suddenly have a LOT fewer
adherents.
med...@shore.net
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 8 Aug 2001 02:33:21 GMT Micha
> Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>
>>
>>Also, FWIW, Jews now make up a minority of j4j. At least, that's what a
>>spot-check of those I bump into the in subway indicates.
>>
> How do you find out? They admit it? What questions do you ask? Are
> you charming?
With the rate of intermarriage that Reform have, it may be a couple
of decades before Jews will make a minority of Reform membership.
Is that the criterium?
med...@shore.net
>
> <med...@shore.net> wrote in message news:fNZb7.692$Fn4....@news.shore.net...
>
>> 1. The 3Rs are not generally accepted as being parts of Judaism by
>> a majority of Orthodox Jewry, I think. They are accepted as
>> religions that resemble Judaism but aren't - same as Karaites
>> and Shomronim.
>
> I just want to say that upon further consideration, I agree
> with Medved completely. 100%! There is only one Judaism! All
> the imitators are not Real Judaism(tm). What I would like
> to see is that our leaders separate the heretics out of our
> midst. That means, for starters, forbidding marriages with
> the apostates. Ending business dealings with them might also
> be a good idea.
>
> Yes, I'm not just talking about the evil Karaites. (Remember
> what they did during the Holocaust!) Those have been dealt with
> long ago by our great sages. I mean: Renewal, Reconstructionist,
> Reform, and Concervative. At the least. I'll have to think about
> Traditional and Modern Orthodox. They might be OK, I don't know.
>
> This is what I'd like to see! Oh boy, Medved... I wonder why
> the Orthodox leaders haven't done this already. *That* will be
> the day when pigs fly... Lol...
Why? There are still a lot of Jews in those movements - so
intermarriage with them is not a problem. As for business dealings -
we deal with both Jews and Goyim regardless of their religious
affiliation.
Binyamin Dissen
:>In <9krc9s$45q$2...@bob.news.rcn.net> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
:>>Why is "unity of G-d" more of a defining issue than the Torah's text being
:>>transmitted word-for-word (plus or minus copying errors, to be more liberal
:>>about it) at Sinai? I'm not saying they both should be, I'm asking for
:>>your criteria.
:>It's a question of degrees, I think. The O posters here are asserting that
:>there's O Judaism, which is "Judaism," and then there's everything else,
:>which is "not Judaism." That is, the defining characteristics of "Judaism"
:>are precisely the characteristics of Orthodoxy. I'm asserting that this
:>isn't necessarily the case, and that one can move that line further over.
:>I contend that the phrase "a form of Judaism" is meaningful, I accept that
:>you do not. Thus, the C and R movements are both "forms of Judaism."
:>For a movement to be a form of Judaism, it must meet these criteria:
:>1) be composed of Jews
By whose definition? This statement is not meaningful.
:>2) require belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Must believe that:
(1) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob existed and
(2) They worshipped the same G-d
All forms of Xianity and Islam fit.
Are there those among R/C that do not accept as fact that "Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob" existed?
:>3) require belief in the unity of this God, as per the Sh'ma
Islam and some Xian sects fit.
:>4) not permit belief in any other religion
Do not understand what this means. Permit who?
:>Thus being "Christian" excludes a movement from being "a form of Judaism."
Not necessarily.
A Messianic/Unitarian/Islam congregation who believes that they are the
new/replacement Jews would easily fit your qualifications.
:>Yes, Dissen, I made these up -- I don't have a source. Don't bother
:>posting "Where is your source? Be specific." I don't have one.
As you clearly stated that you made these up there is no need for a source.
:>Note that calling something "a form of Judaism" doesn't imply that you
:>accept it as being "correct."
Using your definition.
:>>Also noted last time we went around this bend: Moslems and J's Witnesses
:>>believe in unity of G-d. This criterion alone is insufficient to define
:>>Jewishness. It may be a necessary component, but it's not the whole thing.
:>But they aren't movements composed of Jews.
But what does "composed of Jews" mean?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
med...@shore.net
>
> For a movement to be a form of Judaism, it must meet these criteria:
> 1) be composed of Jews
> 2) require belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
> 3) require belief in the unity of this God, as per the Sh'ma
> 4) not permit belief in any other religion
Several issues with your definitions.
1. Messianics qualify (they would argue that they do
not consider Yoshke as God, only as the messiah).
2. When Reform get to the point where they consist of
less than 50% Jews (probably in a couple of decades)
do they stop qualifying? And don't say that Reform
converts are Jews to the Reform - that's meaningless.
If every "Jewish movement" gets to change the rules of
"who is a Jew" then I can form the "Cybernetic Judaism"
movement today and supply conversions over the Internet
to anyone who asks - for free, with a certificate that
the person is now Jewish - would that qualify under the
above "be composed of Jews" criterion?
3. What is the rationale behind picking an arbitrary
"Shma" criterion and not others - like TMS belief for
example? Is it that you have your hole in the target
(inclusion of 3Rs) and you are drawing the target
circles around it?
Eliyahu
<med...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:a4bc7.705$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net...
> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> > On 8 Aug 2001 04:30:24 GMT, med...@shore.net wrote:
> > : 1. You won't catch messianics saying that Yoshke is "god". They insist
> > : he is the messiah, though.
> >
> > You're confusing two issues: what they believe, and what they admit to
> > in public.
>
> Exactly the same as Reform. They beleve that Torah is bunk and
> primitive superstition written by ancients who didn't know better - they
> pay lip service to it in order to pretend that they are "Judaism".
>
to read minds and thus to know what Reform Jews think, what's the payoff for
them in this theory of yours, that they are only pretending to be part of
Judaism? I know that if I were going to pretend to be something that I'm
not, it would have to be something that would bring me great benefits and
profit and not just something that would make me a target for discrimination
and mark me as "different" from the majority of the community.
There's a very big difference between questioning the correctness of
someone's beliefs and questioning their sincerity, especially for an entire
group. A parallel might be if a Reform member were to attack us, claiming
"Orthodox pretend that Torah was handed down directly from G-d and that the
Oral Torah has been passed on without error in order to pretend that there
is a real basis for all their primitive superstitions and to justify their
control over the entire lives of their members, while pretending that it's
'Judaism' ." We would both be justly offended by that sort of claim, and yet
it could be made with the same validity as what you've stated above, because
it's only an opinion without factual basis.
The other question is, what do you hope to achieve here with these constant
attacks against Reform? Have you managed to berate any Reform Jews into
switching to Orthodox or Conservative Judaism by calling them names or
telling them that what they believe isn't really Judaism? I"ve known a
couple who have quit posting because of it or have remained occasional
lurkers for that reason, but I've yet to find anyone who has become frum
because of insulting attacks against Reform.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
med...@shore.net
>
> <med...@shore.net> wrote in message
> news:a4bc7.705$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net...
>> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> > On 8 Aug 2001 04:30:24 GMT, med...@shore.net wrote:
>> > : 1. You won't catch messianics saying that Yoshke is "god". They insist
>> > : he is the messiah, though.
>> >
>> > You're confusing two issues: what they believe, and what they admit to
>> > in public.
>>
>> Exactly the same as Reform. They beleve that Torah is bunk and
>> primitive superstition written by ancients who didn't know better - they
>> pay lip service to it in order to pretend that they are "Judaism".
>>
> Setting aside for the moment the question of your suddenly-acquired ability
> to read minds and thus to know what Reform Jews think, what's the payoff for
> them in this theory of yours, that they are only pretending to be part of
> Judaism? I know that if I were going to pretend to be something that I'm
> not, it would have to be something that would bring me great benefits and
> profit and not just something that would make me a target for discrimination
> and mark me as "different" from the majority of the community.
The payoff and the great benefits are psychological. By perverting
Judaism they manage to have the "best of both worlds" - do anything
they want without any regard to any religious rules, and still
consider themselves "religious Jews". Look at Glicker here in this NG -
he is militantly anti-Judaism, he does not care for any rules of
Judaism that contradict something that he wants to do (and openly
ridicules any Judaism concept that contradicts his lifestyle), any
time there is a conflict between what Judaism says and what his American
Secular Humanism says, he would not even think for one moment to
pick Judaism's position, etc. But he considers himself a religious
Jew - a warm fuzzy feeling, I am sure, but completely removed from
reality.
> There's a very big difference between questioning the correctness of
> someone's beliefs and questioning their sincerity, especially for an entire
> group.
I know a lot of Jews who are nominally Reform. Less religious
people it is hard to imagine. For them, the "temple" is basically
a social club, with a nominally religious veneer thrown for
tradition's sake, and to "look good" to the goyim. US has an
enormous pressure for "good people" to belong to some kind of
a religious institution. Joining a Reform "temple" satisfies
this pressure without "really" involving yourself in religion.
> A parallel might be if a Reform member were to attack us, claiming
> "Orthodox pretend that Torah was handed down directly from G-d and that the
> Oral Torah has been passed on without error in order to pretend that there
> is a real basis for all their primitive superstitions and to justify their
> control over the entire lives of their members, while pretending that it's
> 'Judaism' ." We would both be justly offended by that sort of claim, and yet
> it could be made with the same validity as what you've stated above, because
> it's only an opinion without factual basis.
Everything is an opinion. Micha Berger's note above that messianics
believe some things that they do not admit to is an opinion. No one
is psychic.
> The other question is, what do you hope to achieve here with these constant
> attacks against Reform? Have you managed to berate any Reform Jews into
> switching to Orthodox or Conservative Judaism by calling them names or
> telling them that what they believe isn't really Judaism? I"ve known a
> couple who have quit posting because of it or have remained occasional
> lurkers for that reason, but I've yet to find anyone who has become frum
> because of insulting attacks against Reform.
I don't "hope to achieve". When I see hypocrisy I object. When
I see a movement that is destroying Jewish people, like Reform
does, I object. I don't expect people to become frum from reading
what I write. Do you expect people to become frum from reading
what you write?
QandA
> > This is what I'd like to see! Oh boy, Medved... I wonder why
> > the Orthodox leaders haven't done this already. *That* will be
> > the day when pigs fly... Lol...
>
> Why? There are still a lot of Jews in those movements - so
> intermarriage with them is not a problem. As for business dealings -
> we deal with both Jews and Goyim regardless of their religious
> affiliation.
But you forget. These evil movements lead Jews astray. They
fool Jews into believing that they are a valid form of Judaism.
I mean, you wouldn't do business with J4J. Why? Because they are
liars and through their lies cause Jews to sin. The same is true
for R, etc. Right? What's the difference?
Eliyahu
<med...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:Pdhc7.747$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net...
> Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > The other question is, what do you hope to achieve here with these
constant
> > attacks against Reform? Have you managed to berate any Reform Jews into
> > switching to Orthodox or Conservative Judaism by calling them names or
> > telling them that what they believe isn't really Judaism? I"ve known a
> > couple who have quit posting because of it or have remained occasional
> > lurkers for that reason, but I've yet to find anyone who has become frum
> > because of insulting attacks against Reform.
>
> I don't "hope to achieve". When I see hypocrisy I object. When
> I see a movement that is destroying Jewish people, like Reform
> does, I object. I don't expect people to become frum from reading
> what I write. Do you expect people to become frum from reading
> what you write?
I still have much too far to go in my own life as far as "frumness" to hope
for anyone else to follow me. At the same time, I've found that posts which
offer encouragement and positive statements about following mitzvot and
minhagim without putting anyone down for not doing so help me to move in
that direction a great deal more than those that come across as attacks. The
latter tend to make people dig their heels in and fight back rather than
listening. A lot of that is just human nature, too. If a respected rabbi
tells us personally that we shouldn't (for example) wear 2-piece swim suits,
we'll usually listen and consider what he's telling us. OTOH, if someone
here posts a message telling us, "Rabbi X says you're going to hell for
wearing those indecent swim suits," the natural reaction is to respond with
something along the line of "who are you to be telling me what to wear?" and
to continue with what we're doing.
It's all in the presentation, Michael. If I'm a car salesman and I want to
sell you a new car, and you aren't even really thinking about replacing what
you have, I'm not going to have much success by telling you that what you
have is a piece of junk, that it's putting your family at risk every time
you get in it, and that you should be embarrassed to drive it. You'll
probably tell me to take a flying leap and that there's nothing wrong with
your car. If I take a positive approach and show you the new features on my
line of cars, the safety features, how smoothly and comfortably it rides,
how reliable it is, and how much it will add to your driving enjoyment, you
still might not buy, but you'll listen to me and think about it. It's the
same way with O vs R. We can tell Reform posters what's wrong with R and how
"incorrect" their mindset is until we're blue in the face, but it's not
going to change anyone's mind. I think you'd really like to see all Jews
following Orthodox teaching and practice, not just give up on Judaism
completely. Nu? If we want to see that, we need to provide positive reasons
to change; things that will make them desire an O lifestyle. Otherwise,
you're just venting your frustration and closing their minds to what you
want.
med...@shore.net
I would not do business with any of the Reform leaders - because
they lead Jews astray and are causing destruction of a big segment
of Jewish people. Regular Reform members are the ones lead astray,
not the leaders. Same with Jewish J4J members who are not leaders
of the movement. No difference.
med...@shore.net
>
> <med...@shore.net> wrote in message
> news:Pdhc7.747$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net...
>> Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>
>>
>> > The other question is, what do you hope to achieve here with these
> constant
>> > attacks against Reform? Have you managed to berate any Reform Jews into
>> > switching to Orthodox or Conservative Judaism by calling them names or
>> > telling them that what they believe isn't really Judaism? I"ve known a
>> > couple who have quit posting because of it or have remained occasional
>> > lurkers for that reason, but I've yet to find anyone who has become frum
>> > because of insulting attacks against Reform.
>>
>> I don't "hope to achieve". When I see hypocrisy I object. When
>> I see a movement that is destroying Jewish people, like Reform
>> does, I object. I don't expect people to become frum from reading
>> what I write. Do you expect people to become frum from reading
>> what you write?
>
<snip>
> It's the
> same way with O vs R. We can tell Reform posters what's wrong with R and how
> "incorrect" their mindset is until we're blue in the face, but it's not
> going to change anyone's mind. I think you'd really like to see all Jews
> following Orthodox teaching and practice, not just give up on Judaism
> completely. Nu? If we want to see that, we need to provide positive reasons
> to change; things that will make them desire an O lifestyle. Otherwise,
> you're just venting your frustration and closing their minds to what you
> want.
I know quite a few people that "hazru betshuva" who were completely
secular before. I don't know even one baal teshuvah who before that was
a Reform follower. Tells you something, doesn't it.
Eliyahu
<med...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:WLjc7.753$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net...
When I became a BT, I started out with Reform at the local R. Synagogue.
Chabad encouraged me to go further with it. I did.
med...@shore.net
> Quoth Eliyahu:
> :
> : <med...@shore.net> wrote in message
> :> I know quite a few people that "hazru betshuva" who were completely
> :> secular before. I don't know even one baal teshuvah who before that was
> :> a Reform follower. Tells you something, doesn't it.
> :
> : When I became a BT, I started out with Reform at the local R. Synagogue.
> : Chabad encouraged me to go further with it. I did.
>
> too!"
>
> Only in my case, it wasn't Chabad. I joined the local synagogue, which
> happened to be Reform, and got more and more involved in it. As ours is a
> part-time but growing shul, the congregation last year sent me to the UAHC's
> Para-Rabbinic Fellows program for a crash-course in lay leadership.
>
> I was moving in a more BT direction before that on my own, but I really
> caught fire afterward -- and am seemingly becoming more frum with every
> passing thought. ;-)
>
> So now, Mr. Medved, you know two of us.
Sorry, does not count, either of you. Passing through Reform on your
way to BT is one thing, but you still are a BT from a secular
background. Show me an example of someone who grew up as R but
became a BT afterwards, and you will have a point.
N. Samuel R.
news:9kruta$bmn$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> So, for instance, if a movement believed that Jesus, Shabbatai Tzvi, or
> the Rebbe were "the Messiah" in a Jewish sense of the term, then IMO they
> might still be considered "a form of Judaism" albeit "a form of Judaism
> rejected by most other Jews." OTOH, belief in Jesus in the Christian
> sense of that word, i.e., "as your Savior" or whatever, is Christianity --
> it's a different religion.
There's much more than that; it's the whole Trinity thing- the belief in the
*divinity* of J. The sentiment you express above is the exact reason that J4J
and the like focuses on J as 'Messiah' and avoids mentioning the Trinity.
--
'Reply-To:' field is set to correct address. Address in 'From:' field is not
checked. Please EMAIL me a copy of any *non-provocative* replies. Thank you.
"The Sabbath!...delight of spirits and bliss of souls..." - 'Kah Echsof', R'
Aharon of Karlin, zt'l (Artscroll translation)
Harry Weiss
> Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
> I know quite a few people that "hazru betshuva" who were completely
> secular before. I don't know even one baal teshuvah who before that was
> a Reform follower. Tells you something, doesn't it.
I know quite few people that grew up Reform and became religous. some
are with Chabad, other went to Aish, Ohr sameach and some just become
religous and joined mainstream O.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Harry Weiss
After Shabtai Tzvi was proven as a fraud in Europe he went to Turkey where
he converted to Islam. The donmeh are his followers. they practice Islam
but also hold some Sabbatian beliefs.
> Shelly
Eliyahu
<med...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:b8oc7.772$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net...
Your original statement didn't ask for a lifelong Reform Jew, only someone
"who before that was
a Reform follower." You can continue to change and tighten your definitions
as you go, but I'm not sure what it will prove. We have only a limited group
of Jews posting here, and since it's a self-selected sampling, it's
certainly not representative of Judaism as a whole, and doesn't include
representatives of every circumstance. Finding "R to O" BT's here doesn't
prove that there are lots of us out there, but not finding them here doesn't
prove that there are few or none, either. It only means that 99.999+% of
Jews don't post or read SCJM, and that there are millions of Jews none of us
know. You asked for BT's who used to be Reform, and you found two. Changing
your terms to exclude us proves nothing.
Warren Burstein
> I know quite a few people that "hazru betshuva" who were completely
> secular before. I don't know even one baal teshuvah who before that was
> a Reform follower. Tells you something, doesn't it.
It tells you that you don't know my friend in NY who grew up R and
became O in college. Or the couple in my shul in Israel who were
originally married by R (before they made aliya) and are now O (they
remarried).
med...@shore.net
It's not "tighten definitions", it is making them more clear.
It was pretty clear that the intention of my "R to BT" example
was not to show that it is impossible for one to be secular,
then briefly R, on the way to BT. That's a trivial example.
What is unlikely (at least I have never seen it) is for
someone brought up as Reform to become a BT (going the other
way - completely secular and atheist - is, on the other hand
all too common).
So, returning to your "catch the bees with honey" diatribe,
apparently the Reform "bees" are not caught, neither with
honey nor with vinegar - which supports my contention of the
destructiveness of Reform.
Ben Dreyfus
: I know quite a few people that "hazru betshuva" who were completely
: secular before. I don't know even one baal teshuvah who before that was
: a Reform follower. Tells you something, doesn't it.
I don't see what this proves, even if one assumes that this claim is
accurate to first order (it's not, but we'll assume), and one accepts your
implied definition of BT as "one who becomes Orthodox", and your
emendation to "people brought up in the Reform movement". All this would
mean (if it were empirically correct) is that people brought up Reform who
want to live Jewish lives feel no need to switch to another movement (O)
in order to do so, since they already have a Jewish foundation within the
Reform movement; whereas someone beginning with no Jewish background might
well become Orthodox if s/he wants to be come an active Jew (and btw, many
secular Jews also choose to become Reform Jews). Everything above could
also be said with the words "Reform" and "Orthodox" switched (and one
would also need to evaluate the empirical claim that no Orthodox Jews
become Reform). In order for any of this to "tell you something" (i.e. as
you imply, that the tendency of Reform Jews to stay Reform is a bad
thing), one has to accept your initial premise that Reform Judaism is {a
bad thing / not Judaism / etc.} in the first place, so this is circular
reasoning.
--
Benjamin W Dreyfus
dre...@post.harvard.edu
Ben Dreyfus
: I know quite few people that grew up Reform and became religous. some
In fact, many Jews are Reform and religious at the same time!
Charles Vitez
spoken in anger as being the official dogma. I cannot speak for all strands
of orthodox Jewry and can only inform you of the viewpoint of a significant
segment of British Jewry (what we call "central orthodoxy") - though not as
their official spokesman (you would need to contact the Chief Rabbi's office
for that).
There is no orthodox dogma whatsoever that says that a Jew fails to remain a
Jew merely by being afiliated to Reform (I use this term to cover the
Masorti, Reform, Liberal and Progressive communities). However, we are
beginning to have increasing problems in accepting certain individuals as
Jews because of personal status (or genealogy). I can only accept a person
as a Jew if they are halakhically Jewish.
We do not accept that Reform "rabbis" are entitled to be called rabbis
because of their lack of qualification for ordination.
It is a very big step to deduce from that reluctance to recognise that we
are deligitimising Reform Jews. That I would wish to see all Reform Jews
performing more mitzvos goes without saying, but even if they fail to
perform the mitzvos (and cause me pain), they remain my brethren.
There is thus no problem from my viewpoint in discussing issues in this
forum with Reform Jews and debating issues of Reform practice, etc. Indeed I
am very interested in hearing from them.
This tolerance cannot extend to debating the "messages" of Samaritans,
Karaites, followers of the charlatan of Smyrna (who appear to now refer to
themselves as Dönmeh), J4J and other Xtian sects, Islam, the Moonies, etc,
etc. Not only am I not interested in their message, I find their urge to
push their message under my nose extremely offensive! Perhaps it is because
all of their blandishments always start with some lie.
Charles Vitez
"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:3ti2nt0clg1tvjkq5...@4ax.com...
Elizabeth M. Levin
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Warren Burstein (warr...@my-deja.com) wrote:
: med...@shore.net wrote in message news:<WLjc7.753$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net>...
:
: > I know quite a few people that "hazru betshuva" who were completely
: > secular before. I don't know even one baal teshuvah who before that was
: > a Reform follower. Tells you something, doesn't it.
: It tells you that you don't know my friend in NY who grew up R and
: became O in college. Or the couple in my shul in Israel who were
: originally married by R (before they made aliya) and are now O (they
: remarried).
Or mine, the son of a R rabbi who made aliya, became O, married, and is
now the father of a very busy toddler.
--
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227,
any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Dan Kimmel
news:9ktiu9$59l$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> We do not accept that Reform "rabbis" are entitled to be called rabbis
> because of their lack of qualification for ordination.
>
> It is a very big step to deduce from that reluctance to recognise that we
> are deligitimising Reform Jews.
No, actually it isn't.
If one were to refer to so-called Orthodox "rabbis" from England, you would
no doubt feel the same way.
It's nice that you still consider most non-O Jews your brethren. Regardless
of your own practices and beliefs, to which you are of course entirely
entitled, common courtesy would suggest that insulting the teachers and
leaders of another religious movement en masse is absolutely delegitimizing
the entire movement, no matter how much you claim it isn't.
Dan Kimmel
"Ben Dreyfus" <dre...@hcs.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:9kth1a$vv2$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
> Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
> : I know quite few people that grew up Reform and became religous. some
>
> In fact, many Jews are Reform and religious at the same time!
Indeed, two of the biggest critics of Reform in this newsgroup claim to be
both religious AND not Orthodox.
Dan Kimmel
news:i2pc7.776$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net...
And yet you fail once again. A close friend grew up Reform, was bat
mitzvahed Reform, married Reform. Her parents and sisters are still Reform.
She and her husband went from Reform to Conservative to Orthodox. They are
now very frum. Another couple I know were married Reform. She grew up
Reform and he grew up Conservative. They are now both at Young Israel which
is, as I'm sure you know, Orthodox.
If you don't know anyone who grew up Reform and became *more* observant, I
can only say you don't get out much.
Linda
>
>You're talking about J4Js. Apparently messianics are a different
>group with a different ideology and not affiliated with Baptists.
>
Have you done your research or are you just going by one non missionizing
messianic that you know?
Messicanics are now related to which ever church will sponsor them...and when
large enough, have their own church, but the ones I know believe it is their
commission to go out and bring in more to the fold....see what J taught....J4J
are simply more obvious in your area.
It doesnt matter what you call a Christian, even if it is a messianic...or even
if they follow all the law, if they are a true messianic, then the difference
is a cross...and of course belief in a son.
<--->
~*~*~*~*~
Be Well,
Linda
~*~*~*~*~
Harry Weiss
He is separting between the people and movement. That is the reason why
in real life O and R Jews get along just fine. They aren't debating the
issues that we are here, but are discussion sports, what their family
members are doing and how things are going at work.
meirm...@erols.com
med...@shore.net posted:
>meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 8 Aug 2001 02:33:21 GMT Micha
>> Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> posted:
>>
>>>
>>>Also, FWIW, Jews now make up a minority of j4j. At least, that's what a
>>>spot-check of those I bump into the in subway indicates.
Today I heard of a new group of J4J in Baltimore. Janitors for
Justice. No kidding. They're threatening to strike.
>> How do you find out? They admit it? What questions do you ask? Are
>> you charming?
>
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
med...@shore.net
Glad to hear that Reform does not manage to destroy *all* Jews
that it counts as its members. Judging by R intermarriage rate
(50%+) it does manage to destroy most of them though. Spiritual
destruction, not physical, but destruction nonetheless.
Eliyahu
policy should be taken as being as a moderator, and is not an invitation
for discussion here; such followups should go to
scjm-mo...@scjm.nj.org by e-mail. Thank you. ]
"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9ktiu9$59l$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> >
> We do not accept that Reform "rabbis" are entitled to be called rabbis
> because of their lack of qualification for ordination.
>
Who is this "we" I see in the above paragraph? I'm not aware of anyone in
this group who is authorized to speak for all Jews, for all Orthodox Jews,
or for all C or R. While Reform rabbis are not entitled to be called
Orthodox rabbis, I've never heard of one who made such a claim nor who
wanted to. We don't hold the copyright on the word "rabbi" and there is no
rational basis for any of us to suggest that only Orthodox rabbis may use
it.
There is also, BTW, a long-standing policy in SCJM prohibiting the use of
"rabbi" in quotation marks as you've used it, as being offensive. I'm sure
you weren't aware of that when you posted.
I agree,however, with the rest of your post.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
meirm...@erols.com
ele...@ripco.com (Elizabeth M. Levin) posted:
>e.com>
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>
>Warren Burstein (warr...@my-deja.com) wrote:
>: med...@shore.net wrote in message news:<WLjc7.753$Fn4.1...@news.shore.net>...
>:
>: > I know quite a few people that "hazru betshuva" who were completely
>: > secular before. I don't know even one baal teshuvah who before that was
>: > a Reform follower. Tells you something, doesn't it.
>
>: It tells you that you don't know my friend in NY who grew up R and
>: became O in college. Or the couple in my shul in Israel who were
>: originally married by R (before they made aliya) and are now O (they
>: remarried).
>
>Or mine, the son of a R rabbi who made aliya, became O, married, and is
>now the father of a very busy toddler.
What would make a great project would be to compare the children of R
and C clergy (that is, rabbis and cantors) with other people the same
age in the same congregations, and where they end up religiously.
Even O maybe, considering my rabbi is pretty surprised how right wing
or maybe I mean Hassidic his kids turned out to be. He didn't even
have a suit black enough for one wedding. Had to buy one. (That
might have been partly because he'd lost weight.)
But I still think the C&R would be more interesting.
QandA
> > But you forget. These evil movements lead Jews astray. They
> > fool Jews into believing that they are a valid form of Judaism.
> > I mean, you wouldn't do business with J4J. Why? Because they are
> > liars and through their lies cause Jews to sin. The same is true
> > for R, etc. Right? What's the difference?
>
> I would not do business with any of the Reform leaders - because
> they lead Jews astray and are causing destruction of a big segment
> of Jewish people. Regular Reform members are the ones lead astray,
> not the leaders. Same with Jewish J4J members who are not leaders
> of the movement. No difference.
Ah. But who is the "regular member" and who is the leader? I am
certainly not a member of anything. But I say many things on this
group (and in real life). Why can't *my* lies lead people astray?
Any person who repeats the anti-Real Judaism(tm) R dogma is (at
least potentially) leading people astray. So what's the difference
between R leaders and regular members?? They must all be excommunicated
immidiately!
med...@shore.net
You're welcome to do so.
meirm...@erols.com
<lro...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
><med...@shore.net> wrote in message
>>
>> I know quite a few people that "hazru betshuva" who were completely
>> secular before. I don't know even one baal teshuvah who before that was
>> a Reform follower. Tells you something, doesn't it.
>
>When I became a BT, I started out with Reform at the local R. Synagogue.
>Chabad encouraged me to go further with it. I did.
Shabbes, holidays, kosher, and hilchos niddah, or other things?
meirm...@erols.com
<lro...@hotmail.com> posted:
NO. It asked for more than that. The previous sentence said he knew
several people who were completely secular before. He already knew
them and he acknowedged them. So that category of people he already
knew of was not what he asked for. They were excluded from the
beginning.
> You can continue to change and tighten your definitions
Mike, you didn't tighten your definitions and you didn't clarify them
either beyond what you yourself had already said. Well maybe you did
clarify a little :) , but all your requirements were there at the
start.
>as you go, but I'm not sure what it will prove. We have only a limited group
>of Jews posting here, and since it's a self-selected sampling, it's
>certainly not representative of Judaism as a whole, and doesn't include
>representatives of every circumstance. Finding "R to O" BT's here doesn't
>prove that there are lots of us out there, but not finding them here doesn't
>prove that there are few or none, either. It only means that 99.999+% of
>Jews don't post or read SCJM, and that there are millions of Jews none of us
Of course to all of this.
>know. You asked for BT's who used to be Reform, and you found two. Changing
>your terms to exclude us proves nothing.
No he didn't change them. Look at the first paragraph at the very top.
meirm...@erols.com
<hjw...@panix.com> posted:
>Sheldon Glickler <shel...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> [snip]
>
>> Why is all this discussion taking place here? This is a discussion
>> of moderation policy. The CHARTER states that messianics and J4J
>> are not allowed. End of story. "Debating" this with certain people
>> who get their jollies out of it is (a) fruitless and (b) violating
>> the moderators rule against policy discussion in SCJM.
>
>> If certain people want to turn this into SCOrthodoxJM, that is
>> pointless.
>
>> As for Donmeh, I know nothing about them so I cannot comment.
>
>After Shabtai Tzvi was proven as a fraud in Europe he went to Turkey where
>he converted to Islam.
FWIW, I think they arrested him and threatened to kill him if he
didn't convert.
>The donmeh are his followers. they practice Islam
>but also hold some Sabbatian beliefs.
>
>
>> Shelly
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
Warren Burstein
> What would make a great project would be to compare the children of R
> and C clergy (that is, rabbis and cantors) with other people the same
> age in the same congregations, and where they end up religiously.
>
> Even O maybe, considering my rabbi is pretty surprised how right wing
> or maybe I mean Hassidic his kids turned out to be. He didn't even
> have a suit black enough for one wedding. Had to buy one. (That
> might have been partly because he'd lost weight.)
>
> But I still think the C&R would be more interesting.
I think another interesting comparison would be the intermarriage rate
between children who grow up in R and unafilliated families.
Sheldon Glickler
I guess one must never be certain. I was certain that EVERYONE
(with the possible exception of Medved -- and even he saw that)
would see the obvious tightening of his requirements as his initial
blast was totally demolished. Meir, your perspective seems to slide
closer to the far-O end of the spectrum by the day.
Shelly
meirm...@erols.com
Glickler <shel...@mediaone.net> posted:
A sloppy reader might imagine that you had said that EVERYONE except
me and Mike did see tightening, when you didn't say that. AFAWK only
you and Eliyahu do. IIUScoopCorrectly, he says he fits the set Mike
was looking for but he didn't say Mike tightened his standards. And
Dan tells about two, I think, people he knows in the set, but he
doesn't say Mike tightened his standards
>blast was totally demolished. Meir, your perspective seems to slide
>closer to the far-O end of the spectrum by the day.
This one has nothing to do with O and nothing to do with perspective.
It's straight logic, and reading what Mike said carefully. He
acknowledged he knew completely secular Jews who were now bt's. One
could argue what he meant by "R follower", but none of the 2 examples
that he said were no good were dependent on what R follower meant,
since neither E. nor Scoop were raised in Reform congregations.
Unlike my understanding of the two of them, I *was* raised in an R
congregation, but a) I'm not O; Even less so am I BT b) I wasn't
raised in an R home. I was raised in a lax home, by traditional but
lax** parents. c) Not needed after a and b but I was dragged out of R
and into C part way through my childhood, by my mother, not by myself.
(solely because we moved back to my mother's hometown)
**Can one be traditional but lax? I think so. They certainly weren't
R. Over the years they said hundreds of things that weren't R. Can
one be O but lax? Most people seem not to want to use the word that
way so I won't. It can lead to losing it's meaning, because people
may confuse what they do with what is permitted to be done. Anyhow
by traditional but lax, I mean they didn't challenge what they were
supposed to do, but they didn't always do it. Often my mother at least
asserted firmly that what she did wasn't permitted.
>Shelly
Jack Kessler
"Harry Weiss" <hjw...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9kuvf3$gt0$1...@news.panix.com...
Which are the same topics we discuss with gentiles, whom we also get along
with by not discussing religion.
I am not crazy about Reform, but I agree with Harry Weiss. One cannot deny
the legitimacy of the Reform rabbinate without denying the legitimacy of
Reform schules and thus of their members.
Both O's and R's must find way to make everything that separates us less
important to us than the imperative for the unity and survival of our people
and nation.
Charles Vitez
is more terminology than substance which has divided us.
By not accepting the bona fides of a semicha, I am not saying that the
communal leader who claims the semicha and his community fail to be Jews.
What I am saying is that in my personal view such a community leader cannot
be a religious authority ("pasken") for me. In this I would be far from
alone in the UK.
For me to call someone Rabbi who does not have a semicha which is acceptable
to me (the potential user) would be hypocritical. That is not to say that in
other ways the person could not have my total respect. There are many fine
leaders of Reform and sometimes I have wished that our own community could
have such calibre of leadership.
But I would also have to go further. I do believe that such community
leaders - probably from entirely good motives and misplaced ideals - do a
great deal of harm in encouraging division amongst Jews. Indeed the finer
the leader the more likely it is that people will take example from him.
Clearly you would not be too surprised to hear that I would like the example
given by a leader of a Jewish community to be one which encourages their
communities to fulfill more mitzvos.
In recent years in the UK, the late Hugo Gryn - clearly a wonderful man -
provided a charismatic rallying point for Reform in the UK. In
correspondence with another rabbi, following his death, Chief Rabbi, Dr
Sacks, referred to him, effectively, as a person who had turned Jews away
from mitzvos. This caused considerable reaction when publicised. I cannot
understand why the position you would precisely expect from an orthodox Jew
should hurt.
My problem with the Reform leadership is that I want them to use their
leadership skills to bring all Jews together in the performance of more
rather than less mitzvos. I want a brotherhood of shared ideals. I have read
the platforms of the CCAR on the internet. There is a lot there that we
share. I think that we could share much more. I get the sense that the CCAR
also feel that and would like to move much more towards my position.
Charles Vitez
"Jack Kessler" <kes...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:9l05pl$gbu$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Dan Kimmel
news:9l05pl$gbu$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> news:9kuvf3$gt0$1...@news.panix.com...
> > Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
> > > It's nice that you still consider most non-O Jews your brethren.
> Regardless
> > > of your own practices and beliefs, to which you are of course entirely
> > > entitled, common courtesy would suggest that insulting the teachers
and
> > > leaders of another religious movement en masse is absolutely
> delegitimizing
> > > the entire movement, no matter how much you claim it isn't.
> >
> > He is separting between the people and movement. That is the reason why
> > in real life O and R Jews get along just fine. They aren't debating the
> > issues that we are here, but are discussion sports, what their family
> > members are doing and how things are going at work.
> Which are the same topics we discuss with gentiles, whom we also get along
> with by not discussing religion.
>
> I am not crazy about Reform, but I agree with Harry Weiss. One cannot
deny
> the legitimacy of the Reform rabbinate without denying the legitimacy of
> Reform schules and thus of their members.
I'll let Harry elaborate but I think you've misstated/misunderstood his
position. I believe he's of the "Reform Jews are Jews, but Reform Judaism
isn't Judaism and their rabbis aren't rabbis" school of thought.
> Both O's and R's must find way to make everything that separates us less
> important to us than the imperative for the unity and survival of our
people
> and nation.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is the sort of thing that gets Orthodox Rabbi
Yitz Greenberg in trouble with those on the far right of his movement.
There are issues where O/C/R Jews will never agree. Fine. Now let's focus
on the things that unite us whether it's Israel or helping needy Jews or
lobbying for or against legislation of particular interest to the Jewish
community.
meirm...@erols.com
Kessler" <kes...@ix.netcom.com> posted:
Let me say that that's not as easy as that might seem. Even you had a
problem just a couple lines further up. (As an aside, I don't think
Harry would agree with the second sentence of that paragraph.)
I think, unless I misunderstand it, it is incorrect and inflammatory
towards R against O and C. I don't know what you mean by "thus of
their members". But it sounds so much like what others say
incorrectly in the name or O and sometimes C Jews. That the members
of R congregations are not legitimate. Legitimate what? Legitimate
Jews? No one says that they're not.**. Non-O sometimes say say that O
or C say it, but no one says it themselves in their own name. They do
say that those of R members who weren't born Jews and didn't have
valid conversions aren't but that doesn't cover most of the members.
**If you don't mean that, I don't know what you mean by not legitimate
members, but I'll be glad to withdraw what I said here.
No matter what. I don't see how it follows that if the rabbis aren't
legitimate, that the members aren't legitimate. I can think of plenty
of good counter analogies.
Ezekiel Rox
> In my opinion the Jewish nation only really came to its senses when he
> over-reached himself and found himself in an Ottoman jail. For a confidence
> trickster, casting off one coat and putting on another was no big deal. Not
> quite the behaviour you would have expected from a scion of David!
>
Yes, this is the same David who was an adulterous murderer (so says Abravanel,
all the other biblical commentators, including Chazal in the Talmud, attempt
to whitwash David's actions regarding Batsheva and Uriah in ways that would
make a Bill Clinton partisan, like me, proud.) The same David whose scions
did such a great job as kings of Judah that (1) the northern 12 tribes were
seperated from the kingdom by divine decree, and (2) G-d finally got so
sick of their disgusting behavior that He sent in the Babylonians to
overthrow the kingdom and destroy the Temple.
Compared to that, ol' Shabsi's antics were bush-league when it comes to the
commission of evil.
Come to think of it, why do we pray for resumption of rule by the family of
David?
Zeke
Ezekiel Rox
> On 7 Aug 2001 23:59:23 GMT, med...@shore.net wrote:
> Also, FWIW, Jews now make up a minority of j4j. At least, that's what a
> spot-check of those I bump into the in subway indicates.
>
Yes, and as I've heard, Jews in J4J make up a small minority of all Jews who
have turned to Christianity. I've also heard it stated that there are several
hundred thousand people who were born Jews who have since converted to
Christianity -- to mainstream Christian denominations who are open about their
desire to accept converts, and many of which maintain cordial ties with Jewish
groups. In other words close to 10% of the Jewish population has become
Christian, and J4J had little to do with that.
However, I don't blame the mainstream Christain denominations, accepting
converts is part of their theology. The responsbility is strictly that of the
Jews who abandon Judaism -- and of the Jewish community that makes
being Jewish so unpleasant that these people feel they need to find their
spiritual life elsewhere.
Zeke
Ezekiel Rox
>
What?! Shabetai Zvi was _from_ Turkey (Smyrna, I believe) and spent most,
if not all of his career preaching in the Turkish Empire. He finally
caught the attention of the Sultan who, understandably, got concerned about
the impication of Shabetai's movement. (Kind of like the Chinese
government and the Fulan Gong of today), so he imprisoned Shabetai and
offerred him Islam or death. Shabetai chose Islam, and many of his
shocked followers followed him, but secretly practiced a form of
Shabatean messianic Judaism. These followers are the Donmeh.
I don't think Shabetai was ever "proven as a fraud" in Europe, in fact, I
think that Shabetai wasn't "proven a fraud" until he accepted Islam. I think
that the only relation between Shabetai and Askenazic European Jews was
that the Ashkans credulously believed the fraud, thus giving lie to the
sterotype tha "all Jews are smart."
However, the Ashkans did give us Jacob Frank, a fine fellow who brought
Sabbateanism to new heights. He held to the principle that it was
impossible to acheive holiness by avoiding sin, but one could do so
by doing the opposite.
Zeke
Dan Krashin
> OK guys. I was the moderator who approved that message, mostly to see the
> reaction. I shouldn't have done it and I apologize.
>
> For what it's worth, I've been working for several years on a novel about
> Zvi and have a personal interest (not a religious one) in the character. It
> got the best of me.
Sounds very interesting. Have you read Robert Stone's novel _Damascus
Gate_? Two of the main characters are based very closely on Zvi and
Nathan of Gaza, from reviews I've read.
(Assuming you are one of those writers who reads books on similar
themes, and not the other kind)
Dan Krashin
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>Yes, this is the same David who was an adulterous murderer (so says Abravanel,
Do you happen to know exactly where the individual you quote says that, so I
can look it up? Do you perhaps mean the Abarbenel (My spelling may be off as
well).
>all the other biblical commentators, including Chazal in the Talmud, attempt
>to whitwash David's actions regarding Batsheva and Uriah in ways that would
>make a Bill Clinton partisan, like me, proud.) The same David whose scions
>did such a great job as kings of Judah that (1) the northern 12 tribes were
>seperated from the kingdom by divine decree, and (2) G-d finally got so
>sick of their disgusting behavior that He sent in the Babylonians to
>overthrow the kingdom and destroy the Temple.
>
Makes no sense to me to have one individual say something and EVERYONE else
say somehting else, and then believe the ONE individual. But I guess you are
not me. I would still like you to find me the quote where the Abarbanel says
what you claim.
>Come to think of it, why do we pray for resumption of rule by the family of
>David
For that matter why do we find the psalms so important. Perhaps the
Abarbanel does not say exactly what you claim he says? Perhaps David did
T'shuva. I have no idea.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>> rabbis because of their lack of qualification for ordination.
>>
> Who is this "we" I see in the above paragraph? I'm not aware of anyone in
> this group who is authorized to speak for all Jews, for all Orthodox Jews,
> or for all C or R. While Reform rabbis are not entitled to be called
> Orthodox rabbis, I've never heard of one who made such a claim nor who
> wanted to. We don't hold the copyright on the word "rabbi" and there is no
> rational basis for any of us to suggest that only Orthodox rabbis may use
> it.
Um, Eliyahu, it's not fair to snip the part of a post which explains
where the person is "coming from" and then ask "Where are you coming
from?". Charles stated clearly that he is telling us the viewpoint of
an Orthodox community in England. He told us the name. Maybe you
didn't realize that that information was specifically to answer your
question.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
.jackie cappiello
I would humbly suggest that it is not the Judaism is made unpleasant,
but that people who are ignorant of the true beauty of Judaism who are
vulnerable to the appeals of the missionaries. I personally find
everything I need in Judaism, in my shul, in the people I know
personally and on this newsgroup. Sure, we may disagree on certain
points, but isn't debate a part of Judaism as well?
Charles Vitez
have good jokes about the holocaust?
You see I have always looked on these events as national tragedies. The
devastation caused by the massacres in 16th century Europe was very similar
to the effects of the holocaust and the impostor of Izmir took full
advantage of that climate to practice his fraud. Not only were the Jews not
smart they were made crazy by pain and grief.
Charles Vitez
"Ezekiel Rox" <docf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6877f376.01081...@posting.google.com...
Yisroel Markov
After the Bat-Sheva affair he got chewed out by the prophet Natan, and
did some serious repentance. See Psalm 51. He was apparently a fairly
aggressive personality, as you had to be to get anywhere back then. He
nearly murdered Abigail's husband Naval for being a lout and for
having a beautiful wife; if not for Abigail's communication skills, he
would have (Shmuel I 25).
I have a bigger problem with David's behaviour when he was hiding from
Shaul in Gat of the Pelishtim. During those 16 months he raided
Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites. Since those were the Pelishtim's
allies, he pretended to be raiding the towns of Yehuda; therefore he
couldn't afford witnesses, and raided utilizing the scorched-earth
policy - no man, woman, or child were left alive (Shmuel I 27).
Granted that this was a very common thing to do back then, and the
Jews did it to each other often enough... still, it stinks.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Ezekiel Rox
> I had not realised that this was such a good subject for humour. Do you also
> have good jokes about the holocaust?
>
Actually, I do. Not the Holocaust itself, but rather the period of Nazi
rule in Germany right before the worst started. Such jokes were not my
invesntion, but were rather told nby the Jews themselves. At least they
used humor to keep their sanity about an insane situation.
I will not repeat the actual joke, as it is totally tasteless and would be
immediately bounced by the moderators. However, it has been posted in
Usenet, in alt.tasteless.jokes (where else?) under the heading "lunch with
Hitler." You can probably find it in the google archive.
> You see I have always looked on these events as national tragedies. The
> devastation caused by the massacres in 16th century Europe was very similar
> to the effects of the holocaust
Oh come now. That's overstating things a bit, at least based on the accounts
I've read. There were plenty of Jews left in Poland after Chemnicki went
through, and the massacres didn't affect lots of areas, and certainly didn't
affect the Jews in the Ottoman Empire or Italy or Holland.
> and the impostor of Izmir took full
> advantage of that climate to practice his fraud. Not only were the Jews not
> smart they were made crazy by pain and grief.
We need to get over it.
It was partly the Jews' fault for falling for the scam.
What's the saying?
"Trick me once, shame on you;
trick me twice, shame on me."
We Jews were tricked once about the false messiah (Bar Kokhba), with
Shabsi we were tricked twice. And for an encore, Jacob Frank had
little trouble picking up followers. These people will believe anything.
(Hey, I'm trash-talking my own people, you understand, being of Eastern
European descent myself. But then, I see how my relatives think, especially the
old-timers from the old country, and I can understand how eastern European
Ashkans might fall for a fraud like Shabsi, massacres or no massacres.
It's pretty obvious that eastern European Ashkans are the West Virginia
hillbillies of the Jewish world. The Litvaks might be an exception.)
Personally, for me, the Messiah could come up to me and blow smoke rings in
my face, and I wouldn't believe it.
Anyway, lighten up, as Lord Keynes said,
"in the long run, we're all dead."
Zeke
Warren Burstein
>
> Do you perhaps mean the Abarbenel (My spelling may be off as well).
You can read the Hebrew letters either way. Abravenel is what
academics call him, Abarbanel is what they call him in yeshiva.
B. Netanyahu in "Don Isaac Abravanel" has an appendix on the many
different ways the name has been spelled. Abravanel, he says, was the
most common spelling in Portugese documents, but Abarbanel also
appears. He says that Abarbanel is probably a distortion of
Abravanel, but it could be the other way around.
Harry Weiss
I think Shlock rock finalized it as Ababarbanel :-)
Micha Berger
: However, I don't blame the mainstream Christain denominations, accepting
: converts is part of their theology. The responsbility is strictly that of the
: Jews who abandon Judaism -- and of the Jewish community that makes
: being Jewish so unpleasant that these people feel they need to find their
: spiritual life elsewhere.
I have never met a Hebrew Christian who abandoned Judaism. (Although I
have read, and reread, the story of the four or five they interview for
their magazines and radio shows.)
The overwhelming majority were raised with little to know knowledge
of Judaism. They had nothing to abandon.
-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
Susan Cohen
".jackie cappiello" wrote:
> I would humbly suggest that it is not the Judaism is made unpleasant,
> but that people who are ignorant of the true beauty of Judaism who are
> vulnerable to the appeals of the missionaries.
YES! ABOSULTELY!
Susan
Charles Vitez
Messiah (may he come in our time to redeem us) and a lot shorter for me to
type.
As to King David, the balance of the good over the evil that he did was
overwhelmingly in favour of the good. Given the enormity of his evil deeds
and the evil deeds of his descendents, that is going some. But it clearly is
so since the Almighty made a covenant with him that the kingship over Israel
would always remain with his dynasty.
Perhaps another way to view the House of David is in an analogy with the
Kohanim. The Kohen, good or evil, is a tool of the All Merciful to bless
Israel.
Charles Vitez
"Ezekiel Rox" <docf...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6877f376.01081...@posting.google.com...
Ezekiel Rox
> On 13 Aug 2001 19:02:23 GMT, Ezekiel Rox <docf...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> : However, I don't blame the mainstream Christain denominations, accepting
> : converts is part of their theology. The responsbility is strictly that of the
> : Jews who abandon Judaism -- and of the Jewish community that makes
> : being Jewish so unpleasant that these people feel they need to find their
> : spiritual life elsewhere.
>
> I have never met a Hebrew Christian who abandoned Judaism. (Although I
> have read, and reread, the story of the four or five they interview for
> their magazines and radio shows.)
>
> The overwhelming majority were raised with little to know knowledge
> of Judaism. They had nothing to abandon.
>
> -mi
I'm not talking about "Hebrew Christians," (or J4Js or whatever) I'm talking
about people who are born Jews who now find their religious life at the local
Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist, Unitarian (though that might not be strictly
"Christian"), Baptist, etc. church. They may not have been raised with a lot
knowledge of Yiddishkeit, but they knew they were Jews, and for whatever reason,
they obviously don't feel that Judaism has anything to offer them.
And I'm not sure that having knowledge would presvent defections. In my own
case, the more I learn about traditional Judaism, and the more I'm involved
with he Jewish community (of all streams), the more turned-off I become.
(not that I'd turn to Christianity, G-d forbid.)
Zeke
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: warr...@my-deja.com (Warren Burstein)
>Subject:Re: David HaMelekh (Was Re: DONMEH WEST: THE KABBALAH YESHIVA OF THE INTERNET
>Date: 14 Aug 2001 20:19:40 GMT
>Message-ID:<dd99563a.01081...@posting.google.com>
>acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) wrote in message news:<slrn9ngf8v....@amanda.dorsai.org>...
>> In article <6877f376.01081...@posting.google.com>, Ezekiel Rox wrote:
>>
>> >.... so says Abravanel,
>>
>
>> Do you perhaps mean the Abarbenel (My spelling may be off as well).
>
>You can read the Hebrew letters either way. Abravenel is what
>academics call him, Abarbanel is what they call him in yeshiva.
That's why the 99.99% of the hundreds of Israelis with the surname Abarbanel
spell and pronounce it as ABARBANEL (and not the way some well-meaning
academics insist it being spelled).
Josh
Michael Shimshoni
y...@my-deja.com (Yisroel Markov) writes:
%acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) wrote in message news:<slrn9ngf8v....@amanda.dorsai.org>...
%> In article <6877f376.01081...@posting.google.com>, Ezekiel Rox wrote:
%>
%> >
%> >Yes, this is the same David who was an adulterous murderer (so says Abravanel,
%>
%> Do you happen to know exactly where the individual you quote says that, so I
%> can look it up? Do you perhaps mean the Abarbenel (My spelling may be off as
%> well).
%>
%> >all the other biblical commentators, including Chazal in the Talmud, attempt
%> >to whitwash David's actions regarding Batsheva and Uriah in ways that would
%> >make a Bill Clinton partisan, like me, proud.) The same David whose scions
%> >did such a great job as kings of Judah that (1) the northern 12 tribes were
%> >seperated from the kingdom by divine decree, and (2) G-d finally got so
%> >sick of their disgusting behavior that He sent in the Babylonians to
%> >overthrow the kingdom and destroy the Temple.
%> >
%>
%> Makes no sense to me to have one individual say something and EVERYONE else
%> say somehting else, and then believe the ONE individual. But I guess you are
%> not me. I would still like you to find me the quote where the Abarbanel says
%> what you claim.
%>
%> >Come to think of it, why do we pray for resumption of rule by the family of
%> >David
%>
%> For that matter why do we find the psalms so important. Perhaps the
%> Abarbanel does not say exactly what you claim he says? Perhaps David did
%> T'shuva. I have no idea.
%
%After the Bat-Sheva affair he got chewed out by the prophet Natan, and
%did some serious repentance. See Psalm 51. He was apparently a fairly
%aggressive personality, as you had to be to get anywhere back then. He
%nearly murdered Abigail's husband Naval for being a lout and for
%having a beautiful wife; if not for Abigail's communication skills, he
%would have (Shmuel I 25).
It seems that David was not disturbed by Naval being a lout, what
bothered him was that Naval refused to pay him protection money
which David thought was his due. Naval thought otherwise.
%I have a bigger problem with David's behaviour when he was hiding from
%Shaul in Gat of the Pelishtim. During those 16 months he raided
%Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites. Since those were the Pelishtim's
%allies, he pretended to be raiding the towns of Yehuda; therefore he
%couldn't afford witnesses, and raided utilizing the scorched-earth
%policy - no man, woman, or child were left alive (Shmuel I 27).
%Granted that this was a very common thing to do back then, and the
%Jews did it to each other often enough... still, it stinks.
%
%Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
Michael Shimshoni
Ezekiel Rox
>
> >
> >Yes, this is the same David who was an adulterous murderer (so says Abravanel,
>
> Do you happen to know exactly where the individual you quote says that, so I
> can look it up? Do you perhaps mean the Abarbenel (My spelling may be off as
> well).
>
the Judaica Books of the Prophets series, edited by Rabbi A.J.
Rosenberg, translated and commentary digest by Rabbi Moshe Ch.
Sosevsky, with a Haskama by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, first published
1978, my edition is a 1996 reprint.
Judaica Press, New York.
The main action is found in II Samuel, chapter 11. From the
"Commentary Digest:"
"A [referring to 'Don Isaac Abravenel or Abarbanel'] in almost
merciless fashion, refuses to exonerate David from any of his actions
of this chapter. Instead, he heaps upon him one trangression after
another until he arrives at the total of five major offenses:
[the offenses are then listed.]
"A concludes that it was only David's sincere repentance that allowed
him to re-enter the grace of G-d despite the enormity of his sins.
"Despite A's powerful reproach of David, the Talmud, Midrashim, and
the
majority of other commentataries come stalwartly to the defense of
"G-d's
annointed." "Whosoever states that David sinned is but in error," is
the
famous statement of the second century Tana Rebi in BT Sab 56a
(presumably
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 56a)."
[The commentary digest then summarizes the sophistry used by
traditional rabbinic commentators to whitewash the crime of "God's
annointed."]
As to David's so-called "teshuvah," here it is in the text:
"And Nathan said to David, 'You are the man..[details of sin
described]..And now the sword will never depart from your household,
becuase you have despised Me...So says the Lord, behold I will raise
up evil against you from your own house..etc. For you have acted in
secrecy, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the
sun.'
"And David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned before the Lord.'
"And Nathan said to David, 'Also the Lord has removed your sin; you
will not die.'
-II Samuel 12:7-13
In the next few verses, G-d causes the death of the son conceived by
David's
sin, which I supposes punishes David for his sin, but it also punishes
Batsheva, whose guilt doesn't seem to be as great, and, of course, the
child,
who is blameless. After David finally pubically acknowledges G-d's
"just
decree," he goes back to Batsheva for another roll in the hay and the
conception of Solomon.
Some teshuva. Had I been David, aside from not having committed the
sin in
the first place, I would have immediately abdicated as not being fit
to
be G-d's annointed and asked God to annoint someone else. At the very
least.
I would have also given away all my property and wandered the streets
as
a homeless man, begging for alms until G-d saw fit to end my miserable
existence. Now _that_ would have been teshuva worth bragging about!
I mean
all that happened to David was that he lost a child, a tragedy, but
David
had lots of other children, and he immediately replaced the one he
lost.
And he got to hold on to political power.
This is the origin of the Line of David that is supposed to be the
source of
the Messiah. From such yichus, as far as I'm, concerned, the messiah
should never ever come to us. In fact, I have serious questions about
a G-d who would annoint such a character.
From the commentary digest, the Malbim justifies the superior nature
of David's
"teshuvah" to that of Saul's by noting that David immediately admits
his wrongdoing, whereas Saul "hedeges and bickers" before admitting
his sin. Of
course, perhaps David knew that Saul's teshuva was not accepted due to
hedging
and bickering, and so admitted his sin immediately as a tactical
move.
And of course, Saul had good reason to hedge and bicker, G-d was
punishing
him becuase he didn't commit an act of genocide (against the evil
Amalekites
and commanded by G-d, to be sure, but genocide, nonetheless.)
So I really don't care for David or his descendants. Shabetai Zvi may
have
been a fraud, but at least he wasn't a murderer. And the attempts by
the
commentators to whitewash David's actions makes traditional Judaism an
accessory to David's crimes.
Art Werschulz
docf...@my-deja.com (Ezekiel Rox) was discussing David HaMelech's
character defects, as well as whether David's penance was sufficient.
My take on this:
I'd respectfully disagree. David had a lot of tzuris in his life; if
you read the Psalms, you'll see that a lot of bad stuff was going down
for him. Moreover, I'd be wary of trying to figure out what's going
on in someone's head based on externals ("don't judge another person's
insides by her outsides", as someone wiser than I once said). You
never know what penance (to use a word I don't like all that much) is
appropriate for another person; that's up to the Kadosh Baruch Hu.
There's a chasidic tale about this (isn't there always?), wherein a
simple Jew wanted to do tshuva for violating Shabbat. His rebbe told
him to bring some candles to the shul. One of the rebbe's disciples
disapproved of such a light [no pun intended] requirement, and
apparently this disapproval was the cause of things "happening" to the
candles. The rebbe eventually straightened out the disciple by having
him visit the Baal Shem Tov for Shabbat. Things kept "happening" to
the disciple, so that he barely got there in the nick of time.
Moreover, the BeShT decided to accept Shabbat early that day, so that
when the disciple arrived, the BeShT was already making kiddush. The
disciple dropped in a faint, fearing that he had violated Shabbat.
All in all, a neat little object lesson for the disciple regarding
being in a rush to judgement.
> This is the origin of the Line of David that is supposed to be the
> source of the Messiah. From such yichus, as far as I'm, concerned,
> the messiah should never ever come to us.
I think it was Rabbi Riskin who had a different take on this. The
Christian quasi-messiah was supposedly born in absolute perfection.
As a result, he couldn't deal with the imperfection of the world, and
hence he couldn't do the job. OTOH, our Messiah is human. He comes
from a line with lotsa character defects. Even the circumstances
surrounding his birth are not the sort of thing you'd like to see in
the newspaper (Tamar and Judah, incestual origin of Moab, whether a
Moabite ancestress disqualifies one from being Jewish, much less the
royalty). One having such imperfections is perhaps the right person
to redeem an imperfect world.
AshDabVbatAshNalComE.
--
Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
GCS/M (GAT): d? -p+ c++ l u+(-) e--- m* s n+ h f g+ w+ t++ r- y?
Internet: a...@cs.columbia.edu<a href="http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~agw/">WWW</a>
ATTnet: Columbia U. (212) 939-7061, Fordham U. (212) 636-6325
Michael Shimshoni
Art Werschulz <a...@cs.columbia.edu% writes:
%Hi all.
%
%docf...@my-deja.com (Ezekiel Rox) was discussing David HaMelech's
%character defects, as well as whether David's penance was sufficient.
%
%My take on this:
%
%I'd respectfully disagree. David had a lot of tzuris in his life; if
%you read the Psalms, you'll see that a lot of bad stuff was going down
%for him. Moreover, I'd be wary of trying to figure out what's going
%on in someone's head based on externals ("don't judge another person's
%insides by her outsides", as someone wiser than I once said). You
%never know what penance (to use a word I don't like all that much) is
%appropriate for another person; that's up to the Kadosh Baruch Hu.
%
%There's a chasidic tale about this (isn't there always?), wherein a
%simple Jew wanted to do tshuva for violating Shabbat. His rebbe told
%him to bring some candles to the shul. One of the rebbe's disciples
%disapproved of such a light [no pun intended] requirement, and
%apparently this disapproval was the cause of things "happening" to the
%candles. The rebbe eventually straightened out the disciple by having
%him visit the Baal Shem Tov for Shabbat. Things kept "happening" to
%the disciple, so that he barely got there in the nick of time.
%Moreover, the BeShT decided to accept Shabbat early that day, so that
%when the disciple arrived, the BeShT was already making kiddush. The
%disciple dropped in a faint, fearing that he had violated Shabbat.
%All in all, a neat little object lesson for the disciple regarding
%being in a rush to judgement.
%
%> This is the origin of the Line of David that is supposed to be the
%> source of the Messiah. From such yichus, as far as I'm, concerned,
%> the messiah should never ever come to us.
%
%I think it was Rabbi Riskin who had a different take on this. The
%Christian quasi-messiah was supposedly born in absolute perfection.
%As a result, he couldn't deal with the imperfection of the world, and
%hence he couldn't do the job. OTOH, our Messiah is human. He comes
%from a line with lotsa character defects. Even the circumstances
%surrounding his birth are not the sort of thing you'd like to see in
%the newspaper (Tamar and Judah, incestual origin of Moab, whether a
%Moabite ancestress disqualifies one from being Jewish, much less the
%royalty). One having such imperfections is perhaps the right person
%to redeem an imperfect world.
May I appoint you as my PR man? You have just proven that I am
perfect for the role to redeem this world. Ta very much!
%AshDabVbatAshNalComE.
Same to you.
%Art Werschulz (8-{)} "Metaphors be with you." -- bumper sticker
Michael Shimshoni
Shaineleah
> acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) wrote in message news:<slrn9ngf8v....@amanda.dorsai.org>...
> > In article <6877f376.01081...@posting.google.com>, Ezekiel Rox wrote:
Oops. I erased the attributions by accident in my previous post. Here
they are, above.
Shaineleah
Shaineleah
> Some teshuva. Had I been David, aside from not having committed the
> sin in the first place, I would have immediately abdicated as not being fit
> to be G-d's annointed and asked God to annoint someone else.
I already see two wrongs that come out of this melodramatic teshuva.
1. By abdicating the position upon which he was placed by G_d and
asking G_d to anoint someone else, David would have declared that G_d
was wrong in anointing him in the first place. (G_d is never wrong.)
At the least, David would have called into question the quality of
G_d's judgement in Himself not asking David to abdicate as part of his
repentance. Either way, G_d's credibility would have come into
question. Besides, asking G_d to anoint someone else is equivalent to
saying that you are qualified to make these decisions that only G_d is
qualified to make. So in that case, David would have been declaring
that he is G_d.
2. Secondly, abdicating his G_d-given role as King of Israel would
have demonstrated great irresponsibility. It's not like just anyone
off the
street is qualified to be King of Israel.
Being King of Israel (and thus, Messiah) is a responsibility, and not
a privilege.
Shaineleah
Warren Burstein
> >
> > Some teshuva. Had I been David, aside from not having committed the
> > sin in the first place, I would have immediately abdicated as not being fit
> > to be G-d's annointed and asked God to annoint someone else.
>
> I already see two wrongs that come out of this melodramatic teshuva.
>
> 1. By abdicating the position upon which he was placed by G_d and
> asking G_d to anoint someone else, David would have declared that G_d
> was wrong in anointing him in the first place. (G_d is never wrong.)
> At the least, David would have called into question the quality of
> G_d's judgement in Himself not asking David to abdicate as part of his
> repentance. Either way, G_d's credibility would have come into
> question. Besides, asking G_d to anoint someone else is equivalent to
> saying that you are qualified to make these decisions that only G_d is
> qualified to make. So in that case, David would have been declaring
> that he is G_d.
Hedge against being misunderstood: I am not saying either that
David's repentence was insincere
or
David should have abdicated
but that
David could have prayed for permission to abdicate.
I agree as far as not abandoning the job without permission, but
seeing as how God replaced Saul with David, and that doesn't mean God
was wrong, David could have said "God, if you want replace me now like
you replaced Saul, go ahead".
I don't know why it's worse to ask God to annoint someone else than it
is to ask God to heal the sick (as David did for his child with
Batsheva). God annointed David, but he also made the person sick. A
person who thinks he's God doesn't ask God to intervene, he admits
that God makes the decisions by asking.
And God doesn't ask David to do anything (including repenting). He
just annouces a punishment, there will be strife in the royal family
and the child will die. David could say "if I wasn't king, this
punishment would only affect me, not my subjects as well." David also
speaks before the punishment is annouced, he could have asked to be
replaced then, too.
> 2. Secondly, abdicating his G_d-given role as King of Israel would
> have demonstrated great irresponsibility. It's not like just anyone
> off the street is qualified to be King of Israel.
If God tells David to stay, he will, but at least he'll have made the
offer.