Question of Conversion
RLC
affiliation. My immediate family is dominantly Christian yet, through
my studies in college and personal readings since that time, I can not
count myself in their number.
I am much more comfortable with what I have learned regarding Judaism.
Could anyone offer suggestions of reading material or any other type
of reference that would be considered a 'must'?
I have visited a local synagogue and there is a second that I would like
to visit before I contact a Rabbi. Any assistance and/or direction will
be greatly appreciated.
rlc
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Lisa Beth
wrote:
I'm curious, Rachelle. Why would you want to convert? Judaism isn't
a religion that thinks everyone needs to be a Jew, and that non-Jews
are somehow less in the eyes of God.
Lisa
Noach
news:91agt2$l2e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Could anyone offer suggestions of reading material or any other type
> of reference that would be considered a 'must'?
>
> I have visited a local synagogue and there is a second that I would like
> to visit before I contact a Rabbi. Any assistance and/or direction will
> be greatly appreciated.
I appreciate your interest but you must realize that being a Jew carries
with it an overwhelming number of obligations and responsibilites and the
punishment for not abiding by them is most severe. As a non-Jew, on the
other hand, you are obligated to keep seven commandents: The 'sheva mitzvos
b'nei Noach' and if you abide by them sincerely you are considered righteous
and will have a place in the World to Come.
I suggest that you start by familiarizing yourself with these 7 commandments
and all that they entail and try living your life according to them. If you
have mastered that and still feel interested in undertaking much, much,
more, then you can start looking into conversion.
I am sure that others here can refer you to resources for learning about and
connecting with people who observe the Noachide laws. Off-hand, I know of
www.noach.com (no affiliation w/ me!). I'm sure that doing a web search for
'Noahide', 'Noachide', 'B'nei Noach', etc. will yield many more.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: I'm curious, Rachelle. Why would you want to convert? Judaism isn't
: a religion that thinks everyone needs to be a Jew, and that non-Jews
: are somehow less in the eyes of God.
And since Ms. !Aaronson has a direct hotline to the Big Guy himself,
she ought to know if anyone does that anyone who disagrees with her
is less in the eyes of God than she is.
To answer the original question, I think that Donin's book "To Be a Jew"
is one good place to start. Another is Telushkin's "The Nine Questions
People Ask about Judaism." I've never read Herman Wouk's book ("This
Is My God," IIRC), but it seems to be highly recommended to people who
ask your question.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
Rabbi David Y. Costa
RLC wrote:
> I am much more comfortable with what I have learned regarding Judaism.
> Could anyone offer suggestions of reading material or any other type
> of reference that would be considered a 'must'?
>
Dear Rachelle ,
I may advise as a "must read " To Be a Jew : A Guide to Jewish Observance in
Contemporary Life
by Hayim Halevy Donin, Norman Lamm (Illustrator) "
you can find it at http://www.askarabbi.com/rabbistudy.cfm
Also pay a visit to www.convert.org
Of course you need to consider many things before conversion , perhaps you
can try to be in touch with some of the Rabbis at
http://www.convert.org/infoort.htm
Best Wishes
--
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
Rabbi David Yehuda Costa ,
E-Mail : Yes...@Suissemail.ch
ASK ME A QUESTION ONLINE AT http://www.AskaRabbi.Com
Moderator of Alt.Religion.Judaism.Orthodox
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,
Brett Weiss
containing a ton of information that you should find helpful.
--
Brett
"RLC" <rachelle_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:91agt2$l2e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Eliyahu
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:91baia$omt$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
> In article <3a38e848...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Lisa Beth
<star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : I'm curious, Rachelle. Why would you want to convert? Judaism isn't
> : a religion that thinks everyone needs to be a Jew, and that non-Jews
> : are somehow less in the eyes of God.
>
> And since Ms. !Aaronson has a direct hotline to the Big Guy himself,
> she ought to know if anyone does that anyone who disagrees with her
> is less in the eyes of God than she is.
>
with a rabbi about it, so this gives her a chance to have considered it
beforehand. She should also be aware that the traditional response will be
to turn her away three times if she seeks conversion.
> To answer the original question, I think that Donin's book "To Be a Jew"
> is one good place to start.
It is an excellent book, and I have it in my library. She does need to be
aware that it is written from an Orthodox POV. I don't want to start another
OCR squabble here... only issue is that if her friends and acquaintences are
C or R, what she reads in the book may be quite different than what she's
seen or expected to find.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Lisa Beth
>In article <3a38e848...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>: I'm curious, Rachelle. Why would you want to convert? Judaism isn't
>: a religion that thinks everyone needs to be a Jew, and that non-Jews
>: are somehow less in the eyes of God.
>
>And since Ms. !Aaronson has a direct hotline to the Big Guy himself,
>she ought to know if anyone does that anyone who disagrees with her
>is less in the eyes of God than she is.
Only you, Mr. !Vegetarian.
I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
obligations that you don't have to?
Lisa
Sheldon Glickler
"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a39e50b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Why are you a BT?
Shelly
Polar
wrote:
>I live in the Midwest of the United States and have no formal religious
It's good that you are visiting more than one synagogue. There
are distinct differences among the branches of Judaism --
reading from Left to Right: Reconstruction, Reform, Conservative,
Modern Orthodox, Orthodox, Extreme Orthodox.
For a potential Jew by Choice, entering via the Reform or
Conservative branches would probably be less "intimidating"
than the Orthodox. After you get your feet wet, as it
were, you can look around and see where you are
comfortable.
Others will no doubt send you reading lists, but be aware
that various sources can reflect ideological bent.
Very happy that you are considering becoming a
MOT (Member of the Tribe). You can be sure
that members of this NG will offer you every
help and support.
--
Polar
Polar
wrote:
>I live in the Midwest of the United States and have no formal religious
It's good that you are visiting more than one synagogue. There
are distinct differences among the branches of Judaism --
reading from Left to Right: Reconstruction, Reform, Conservative,
Modern Orthodox, Orthodox, Extreme Orthodox.
For a potential Jew by Choice, entering via the Reform or
Conservative branches would probably be less "intimidating"
than the Orthodox. After you get your feet wet, as it
were, you can look around and see where you are
comfortable.
Others will no doubt send you reading lists, but be aware
that various sources can reflect ideological bent.
Very happy that you are considering becoming a
MOT (Member of the Tribe). You can be sure
that members of this NG will offer you every
help and support.
(Note to Netcops - this showed in my Outbox
that it didn't go through, so am re-sending.)
--
Polar
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Thanks, Shelly. I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings
that non-Orthodox Jews (and even some Orthodox Jews) have.
The mitzvot are not merely incumbent upon those who choose to accept
them. They are obligatory to all Jews, whether those Jews accept the
fact or not.
I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
Jewish. But I knew my maternal-maternal great-grandmother, and I'm
afraid that's never going to happen.
I'm Jewish, Shelly. And I'm informed. I'm aware of my obligations.
I wish they weren't my obligations, and I would never in a billion
years take them on if they weren't.
I'm BT because I inadvertantly (*trust me*, it was not intentional)
hit critical mass in terms of knowledge of Judaism when I was in
college. All I wanted was to be able to argue with this horribly
anti-relligious professor without making an utter ass out of myself.
Believe it or not, I used to be very shy about expressing opinions.
It was this course that got me started arguing. You can send your
letters of thanks to Prof. Joe Rosenblum, at Washington University in
St. Louis.
So to sum it up, Shelly, I was always obligated to be frum, just as
you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
Lisa
meirm...@erols.com
<lro...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
><sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
>news:91baia$omt$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
>> In article <3a38e848...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Lisa Beth
><star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> : I'm curious, Rachelle. Why would you want to convert? Judaism isn't
>> : a religion that thinks everyone needs to be a Jew, and that non-Jews
>> : are somehow less in the eyes of God.
>>
>> And since Ms. !Aaronson has a direct hotline to the Big Guy himself,
>> she ought to know if anyone does that anyone who disagrees with her
>> is less in the eyes of God than she is.
>>
>Why so snippy? Rachelle will encounter the same question when/if she speaks
>with a rabbi about it, so this gives her a chance to have considered it
>beforehand. She should also be aware that the traditional response will be
>to turn her away three times if she seeks conversion.
That raises a good question. Should she be aware of that? Doesn't
that defeat the purpose of turning her away, if she knows it will
happen, and if she knows how many times? I thought the purpose was as
a test of sincerity and ardent desire. It seems to me if someone
knows he merely has to ask twice more, it takes no greater enthusiasm
than if there were no policy of turning people down twice.
If a child wants a cookie, and he knows he'll get a different answer
if he asks the third time, what is the point of saying no the first
two times?
>> To answer the original question, I think that Donin's book "To Be a Jew"
>> is one good place to start.
>
>It is an excellent book, and I have it in my library. She does need to be
>aware that it is written from an Orthodox POV. I don't want to start another
>OCR squabble here... only issue is that if her friends and acquaintences are
>C or R, what she reads in the book may be quite different than what she's
>seen or expected to find.
Good way of phrasing it. :) . It's not just friends and acquaintances
either. It's the popular presentation of Judaism on tv and in movies,
which doesn't capture much of it. Certainly not things outside a
normal script, such as how converting limits my choices in finding a
spouse, how it affects where I should live, how the children of a
woman who has a non-Orthodox-conversion are regrarded.
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me only, please say, so I won't
e-mail by removing QQQ wait forever for a post and then forget to
answer the email at all. If you post &
mail, please say, so I will wait for the post.
Alan D Glick
is more basic than the Donin book and might be a better starting point. It
also addresses the question of conversion in a way that makes it must
reading for anyone considering converison to Judaism.
Alan Glick
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:91baia$omt$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
Noach
> On 15 Dec 2000 17:31:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
> Jewish.
??!!!! We are supposed to be happy and thankful for being part of the 'Am
Ha Mivchar', the Chosen People of G-d.
Then again, maybe I should have learned by now not to be shocked at
_anything_ you say.
--
Wishing you seemly serenity, true tranquility, decorous delights, righteous
requiescence, beneficent bougainvillea and magnificent magnolias.
Get rebates for shopping at many online stores
http://www.ebates.com/index.jsp?referrer=ocean...@mybizrate.com
wba...@panix.com
: Prager & Telushkin's book" The Nine Questions People Ask about Judaism"
: is more basic than the Donin book and might be a better starting point. It
: also addresses the question of conversion in a way that makes it must
: reading for anyone considering converison to Judaism.
: Alan Glick
: <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
: news:91baia$omt$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
:> In article <3a38e848...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Lisa Beth
: <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thee is an old book (1940's or 50's) by Rabbi Milton Steinberg "Basic
Judiasm" which does explain the differences between the three major
groups, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform as well as some of the
commonalities. I don't know if it is still in print, but if you could
find it, it would be a worthwhile read. "This Is My God",by Herman Wouk
gives an excellent, readable account of the Orthodox perspective. I would
suggest this even before the Donin for its readability and ersonal
viewpoint.
Wendy Baker
maurie fox-warren
meirm...@erols.com wrote in message ...
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 15 Dec 2000 16:57:36 GMT "Eliyahu"
snipped
>
>>> To answer the original question, I think that Donin's book "To Be a Jew"
>>> is one good place to start.
>>
>>It is an excellent book, and I have it in my library. She does need to be
>>aware that it is written from an Orthodox POV. I don't want to start
another
>>OCR squabble here... only issue is that if her friends and acquaintences
are
>>C or R, what she reads in the book may be quite different than what she's
>>seen or expected to find.
>
>Good way of phrasing it. :) . It's not just friends and acquaintances
>either. It's the popular presentation of Judaism on tv and in movies,
>which doesn't capture much of it. Certainly not things outside a
>normal script, such as how converting limits my choices in finding a
>spouse, how it affects where I should live, how the children of a
>woman who has a non-Orthodox-conversion are regrarded.
Of course a woman who has a non-Orthodox conversion and who joins a
non-Orthodox community will not face problems with her conversion and her
children won't face barriers because of that conversion. Which brings
another question. If in Orthodox eyes a non-Orthodox conversion isn't
valid, perhaps instead of discouraging the conversion, Orthodox Jews should
simply suggest a C or R conversion the first few times :-).
Maurie
Marc Andrews
maurie fox-warren wrote:
Joking apart, how does this work one or two generations down the line? Let's say
a woman converts to Reform. Now, this isn't recognised by O because it hasn't
been done in accordance with halacha. But a child of that person will consider
him or herself Jewish . And a grandchild will also consider him or herself to be
Jewish, if they have been raised that way. So now, if that grandchild decides to
become frum, what happens? Do they investigate into the original background
(which in my hypothetical case is a non-halachic conversion two generations
ago)? Or what? I suspect not, but I don't know.
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:>And since Ms. !Aaronson has a direct hotline to the Big Guy himself,
:>she ought to know if anyone does that anyone who disagrees with her
:>is less in the eyes of God than she is.
: Only you, Mr. !Vegetarian.
I have already admitted that I am less in the eyes of God than you are,
and why. I hope you don't seriously expect us to believe that I am
the only one. Incidentally, my name is given in every one of my posts,
and it is does not contain the string "Vegetarian." You, on the other
hand, explicitly stated that your surname is "not Aaronson," which is how
I have referred to you since you said that (with typography stolen from
Alfred Bester's inexplicably classic sf novel _The Demolished Man_).
: I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
: obligations that you don't have to?
What business is it of yours? As I understand the halakhah, the *Beit Din*
is required to dissuade a potential convert -- and you are forbidden by
halakhah from serving on a Beit Din.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad."
meirm...@erols.com
Andrews <nom...@me.pls> posted:
>maurie fox-warren wrote:
>
>> meirm...@erols.com wrote in message ...
>> >In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 15 Dec 2000 16:57:36 GMT "Eliyahu"
>>
>> snipped
>> >
>> >>> To answer the original question, I think that Donin's book "To Be a Jew"
>> >>> is one good place to start.
>> >>
>> >>It is an excellent book, and I have it in my library. She does need to be
>> >>aware that it is written from an Orthodox POV. I don't want to start
>> another
>> >>OCR squabble here... only issue is that if her friends and acquaintences
>> are
>> >>C or R, what she reads in the book may be quite different than what she's
>> >>seen or expected to find.
>> >
>> >Good way of phrasing it. :) . It's not just friends and acquaintances
>> >either. It's the popular presentation of Judaism on tv and in movies,
>> >which doesn't capture much of it. Certainly not things outside a
>> >normal script, such as how converting limits my choices in finding a
>> >spouse, how it affects where I should live, how the children of a
>> >woman who has a non-Orthodox-conversion are regrarded.
>>
>> Of course a woman who has a non-Orthodox conversion and who joins a
>> non-Orthodox community will not face problems with her conversion and her
>> children won't face barriers because of that conversion. Which brings
I tried to point RLC to a question of vital concern to her, without
going into it and without starting an OCR war. But your statement is
much more explicit. So for the sake of RLC alone, I think I have to
clarify.
I know a person who's not certified for the job she holds, and her
effort to get certification failed. But lots of other people have it.
Now things are fine. They gave her the job either because they were
just starting out, or because they'd known her pesonally for decades.
Her job is a good job, near her home, etc. But if she were to want a
higher paying job, or she were to have to move to another city, or
were to be fired, she can't get a job in her field anywhere else. So
someone with a non-orthodox-conversion can be part of the
non-orthodox-community**, but she can't leave. She's stuck there. If
she has a reform-conversion, she's stuck in a smaller group. Without
going into more details I think those are real barriers.
As for children, how does this compare with telling chilren when they
are young that they are adopted? If one tells them the conversion
issues, they have a barrier and they know it. If one doesn't, it may
be traumatic when they find out, or heartbreaking, or anger and
resentment-causing.
**I suspect there are members of both C and R congregations who don't
accept their conversions. It's one thing where you go and what you
do, and another thing, lifetime status issues.
>> another question. If in Orthodox eyes a non-Orthodox conversion isn't
>> valid, perhaps instead of discouraging the conversion, Orthodox Jews should
>> simply suggest a C or R conversion the first few times :-).
>
>Joking apart, how does this work one or two generations down the line? Let's say
>a woman converts to Reform. Now, this isn't recognised by O because it hasn't
>been done in accordance with halacha. But a child of that person will consider
>him or herself Jewish . And a grandchild will also consider him or herself to be
>Jewish, if they have been raised that way. So now, if that grandchild decides to
>become frum, what happens? Do they investigate into the original background
>(which in my hypothetical case is a non-halachic conversion two generations
>ago)? Or what? I suspect not, but I don't know.
I suspect they do, but I have no first or second-hand experience. In
Europe, people could rely on previous generations. Not only is that
not true here, but the differences are trumpeted.
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>
>meirm...@erols.com wrote in message ...
>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 15 Dec 2000 16:57:36 GMT "Eliyahu"
>
>snipped
>>
>>>> To answer the original question, I think that Donin's book "To Be a Jew"
>>>> is one good place to start.
>>>
>>>It is an excellent book, and I have it in my library. She does need to be
>>>aware that it is written from an Orthodox POV. I don't want to start
>another
>>>OCR squabble here... only issue is that if her friends and acquaintences
>are
>>>C or R, what she reads in the book may be quite different than what she's
>>>seen or expected to find.
>>
>>Good way of phrasing it. :) . It's not just friends and acquaintances
>>either. It's the popular presentation of Judaism on tv and in movies,
>>which doesn't capture much of it. Certainly not things outside a
>>normal script, such as how converting limits my choices in finding a
>>spouse, how it affects where I should live, how the children of a
>>woman who has a non-Orthodox-conversion are regrarded.
>
>Of course a woman who has a non-Orthodox conversion and who joins a
>non-Orthodox community will not face problems with her conversion and her
>children won't face barriers because of that conversion.
She may not, but she's effectively screwed her children over big time.
>Which brings
>another question. If in Orthodox eyes a non-Orthodox conversion isn't
>valid, perhaps instead of discouraging the conversion, Orthodox Jews should
>simply suggest a C or R conversion the first few times :-).
Cute. And presumably, if a doctor doesn't feel right about
prescribing an antibiotic for patient, he should instead suggest that
the patient go find a quack cure instead, just to make them feel
better.
The thing is, Conservative and Reform "conversions" aren't null
valued. It's not just that they don't turn non-Jews into Jews. They
are actively harmful, in that the non-Jews who have undergone these
"conversions" can easily be taken as Jews by those who don't know
better.
I once asked my brother (happily married to a Jewish woman,
incidentally) if he'd ever marry a non-Jew. He was appalled and said,
"Of course not". But had he met a Reform "convert", I don't think he
would have had any qualms about marrying her.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
on the Jewish issue at the bottom, please. Thank you. ]
On 18 Dec 2000 05:04:29 GMT, <sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>In article <3a39e50b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>:>And since Ms. !Aaronson has a direct hotline to the Big Guy himself,
>:>she ought to know if anyone does that anyone who disagrees with her
>:>is less in the eyes of God than she is.
>
>: Only you, Mr. !Vegetarian.
>
>I have already admitted that I am less in the eyes of God than you are,
>and why. I hope you don't seriously expect us to believe that I am
>the only one. Incidentally, my name is given in every one of my posts,
>and it is does not contain the string "Vegetarian." You, on the other
>hand, explicitly stated that your surname is "not Aaronson," which is how
>I have referred to you since you said that (with typography stolen from
>Alfred Bester's inexplicably classic sf novel _The Demolished Man_).
And here I thought you knew some programming. Using ! as "not" is
taken from C, C++, JavaScript, etc.
And just as I explicitly stated that my name is not Aaronson, you
explicitly stated that you are not a vegetarian. Hence, if you think
that calling me Ms. !Aaronson is cute, you can hardly object to my
calling you Mr. !Vegetarian.
>: I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
>: obligations that you don't have to?
>
>What business is it of yours?
What business is anything on this newsgroup? To any of us? She came
here and started talking. That's about it. You have a very strange
view of Usenet, Mr. !Vegetarian.
>As I understand the halakhah, the *Beit Din*
>is required to dissuade a potential convert -- and you are forbidden by
>halakhah from serving on a Beit Din.
Who said I'm required to dissuade her? You don't have to be required
in order to question someone who looks like she wants to do something
unwise.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3a3b9e66...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On 15 Dec 2000 17:31:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
>
>> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
>> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
>> Jewish.
>
>??!!!! We are supposed to be happy and thankful for being part of the 'Am
>Ha Mivchar', the Chosen People of G-d.
Cite a source or retract it, Noach. Although I'm probably wasting my
time, since you have yet to do that in a single instance.
There are no mitzvot that command us with regards to our emotions.
Yir'at Hashem means obeying Him because He's so much greater than us
and has a right to command us. Ahavat Hashem means obeying him out of
understanding. There is nothing whatsoever in Judaism that requires
us to be giddy and breathless and say, "Oh, gosh! I'm just pleased as
punch to have all of these nifty rules in my life."
Noach, you have your way of looking at things, which is primarily
informed by the Christian Right. As you've gone out of your way to
show us. But have you perhaps heard of a Tanna by the name of Rabbi
Tarfon?
"One should not say, 'I abhor pork; therefore I will not eat it.'
Rather, one should say, 'I crave pork, but what can I do? My Father
in Heaven has forbidden in.'"
The day I take your view over that of a Tanna, you'll know my posts
are being forged.
Lisa
Michael Shimshoni
star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
%On 17 Dec 2000 04:54:43 GMT, "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate>
%wrote:
%
%>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
%>news:3a3b9e66...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
%>> On 15 Dec 2000 17:31:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
%>
%>> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
%>> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
%>> Jewish.
%>
%>??!!!! We are supposed to be happy and thankful for being part of the 'Am
%>Ha Mivchar', the Chosen People of G-d.
%
%Cite a source or retract it, Noach. Although I'm probably wasting my
%time, since you have yet to do that in a single instance.
%
%There are no mitzvot that command us with regards to our emotions.
%
%Yir'at Hashem means obeying Him because He's so much greater than us
%and has a right to command us. Ahavat Hashem means obeying him out of
%understanding. There is nothing whatsoever in Judaism that requires
%us to be giddy and breathless and say, "Oh, gosh! I'm just pleased as
%punch to have all of these nifty rules in my life."
This goes against the "philosophy" of a Jew who was grateful for
being a Jew. His reasoning was that from the moment he woke up in
the morning he knew exactly what to do, having all those "nifty rules"
of the Shul`han Arukh and he had thus a tranquil life. OTOH
the gentile wakes up in the morning, having none of those rules is
bewildered not knowing what to do, and his whole life is one big mess.
The reference to the above can be found in A.A. Drayanov's opus magnum.
%Noach, you have your way of looking at things, which is primarily
%informed by the Christian Right. As you've gone out of your way to
%show us. But have you perhaps heard of a Tanna by the name of Rabbi
%Tarfon?
%
%"One should not say, 'I abhor pork; therefore I will not eat it.'
%Rather, one should say, 'I crave pork, but what can I do? My Father
%in Heaven has forbidden in.'"
%
%The day I take your view over that of a Tanna, you'll know my posts
%are being forged.
Even those of the Tanna Rabbi Meir about women?
%Lisa
Michael Shimshoni
Michael Shimshoni
star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
%On 17 Dec 2000 18:19:59 GMT, "maurie fox-warren" <m...@shore.net>
%wrote:
%
%>
%>meirm...@erols.com wrote in message ...
%>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 15 Dec 2000 16:57:36 GMT "Eliyahu"
%>
%>snipped
%>>
%>>>> To answer the original question, I think that Donin's book "To Be a Jew"
%>>>> is one good place to start.
%>>>
%>>>It is an excellent book, and I have it in my library. She does need to be
%>>>aware that it is written from an Orthodox POV. I don't want to start
%>another
%>>>OCR squabble here... only issue is that if her friends and acquaintences
%>are
%>>>C or R, what she reads in the book may be quite different than what she's
%>>>seen or expected to find.
%>>
%>>Good way of phrasing it. :) . It's not just friends and acquaintances
%>>either. It's the popular presentation of Judaism on tv and in movies,
%>>which doesn't capture much of it. Certainly not things outside a
%>>normal script, such as how converting limits my choices in finding a
%>>spouse, how it affects where I should live, how the children of a
%>>woman who has a non-Orthodox-conversion are regrarded.
%>
%>Of course a woman who has a non-Orthodox conversion and who joins a
%>non-Orthodox community will not face problems with her conversion and her
%>children won't face barriers because of that conversion.
%
%She may not, but she's effectively screwed her children over big time.
Only according to the POV of the O minority of Jews. According to
to most Jews, who accept her and her children as Jews, this kind
of outreach action is welcomed.
%
%>Which brings
%>another question. If in Orthodox eyes a non-Orthodox conversion isn't
%>valid, perhaps instead of discouraging the conversion, Orthodox Jews should
%>simply suggest a C or R conversion the first few times :-).
%
%Cute. And presumably, if a doctor doesn't feel right about
%prescribing an antibiotic for patient, he should instead suggest that
%the patient go find a quack cure instead, just to make them feel
%better.
%
%The thing is, Conservative and Reform "conversions" aren't null
%valued. It's not just that they don't turn non-Jews into Jews. They
%are actively harmful, in that the non-Jews who have undergone these
%"conversions" can easily be taken as Jews by those who don't know
%better.
I had thought that in this *moderated* forum it is a no no to describe
any Jewish view as one whose adherents "don't know better".
%I once asked my brother (happily married to a Jewish woman,
%incidentally) if he'd ever marry a non-Jew. He was appalled and said,
%"Of course not". But had he met a Reform "convert", I don't think he
%would have had any qualms about marrying her.
If he had met a Reform convert (not "convert") he might have been
easily as happy as he is now, even if his sister does not approve.
%Lisa
Michael Shimshoni
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
snip
>>> I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
>>> obligations that you don't have to?
>>
>>Why are you a BT?
>
> Thanks, Shelly. I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings
> that non-Orthodox Jews (and even some Orthodox Jews) have.
I was going to answer Shelly with a one-liner. I'm so glad I let
Lisa do it. She's much mopre eloquent and informative than I would
have been.
> The mitzvot are not merely incumbent upon those who choose to
> accept them. They are obligatory to all Jews, whether those Jews
> accept the fact or not.
>
> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
> Jewish. But I knew my maternal-maternal great-grandmother, and I'm
> afraid that's never going to happen.
>
> I'm Jewish, Shelly. And I'm informed. I'm aware of my obligations.
> I wish they weren't my obligations, and I would never in a billion
> years take them on if they weren't.
>
> I'm BT because I inadvertantly (*trust me*, it was not intentional)
> hit critical mass in terms of knowledge of Judaism when I was in
> college. All I wanted was to be able to argue with this horribly
> anti-relligious professor without making an utter ass out of myself.
> Believe it or not, I used to be very shy about expressing opinions.
> It was this course that got me started arguing. You can send your
> letters of thanks to Prof. Joe Rosenblum, at Washington University in
> St. Louis.
Is he still there? Did _you_ ever send him a letter of thanks? I
wonder if he knows what a Pygmalian he [inadvertantly] produced.
> So to sum it up, Shelly, I was always obligated to be frum, just
> as you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
> complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
Polar said Rochelle would get support from everyone here. Polar's
mistake!
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
:>I have already admitted that I am less in the eyes of God than you are,
:>and why. I hope you don't seriously expect us to believe that I am
:>the only one. Incidentally, my name is given in every one of my posts,
:>and it is does not contain the string "Vegetarian." You, on the other
:>hand, explicitly stated that your surname is "not Aaronson," which is how
:>I have referred to you since you said that (with typography stolen from
:>Alfred Bester's inexplicably classic sf novel _The Demolished Man_).
: And here I thought you knew some programming. Using ! as "not" is
: taken from C, C++, JavaScript, etc.
I hope the moderators will understand that I feel that (for future
reference) this qualification is important to anyone who might want to
read my posts: what I say is (except when I'm being ironic) pretty much
exactly what I mean, most unusually for this newsgroup. Thus, when I
refer to the *typography* of Bester's novel, "typography" is exactly
what I mean. FWIW, the spectrometer in our laboratory is run by a C
program that I wrote.
: And just as I explicitly stated that my name is not Aaronson, you
: explicitly stated that you are not a vegetarian. Hence, if you think
: that calling me Ms. !Aaronson is cute, you can hardly object to my
: calling you Mr. !Vegetarian.
I am calling you by the name that you have explicitly stated belongs to you --
you did it again in the preceding paragraph. My name is not, and never
has been, "not Vegetarian." As I said, it is given in every post that I
submit. Thus, I most certainly can object to your refusal to refer to me
by my name, since I am doing you the courtesy of referring to you by yours.
:>: I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
:>: obligations that you don't have to?
:>What business is it of yours?
: What business is anything on this newsgroup? To any of us? She came
: here and started talking. That's about it. You have a very strange
: view of Usenet, Mr. !Vegetarian.
A person wrote a message asking a very specific question: she stated that
she was considering conversion and was looking for resources that might
help her learn more about Judaism. Several people responded to her question
(you might want to look up Rashi on Bereshith 24:24-25 for another POV on
answering the question you are asked). You did not -- you gave her an
unsolicited opinion that had nothing to do with the question she had,
and one that it is not your place to give. Speaking of sources, why don't
you bring us the halakhic source that says that dissuading potential
converts is the job of the community at large and not the Beit Din?
:>As I understand the halakhah, the *Beit Din*
:>is required to dissuade a potential convert -- and you are forbidden by
:>halakhah from serving on a Beit Din.
: Who said I'm required to dissuade her? You don't have to be required
: in order to question someone who looks like she wants to do something
: unwise.
The person did not ask for your opinion about whether what she was doing
was unwise. And from your reponses to people have told you that they
think that some of the things that *you* do are unwise, I would have thought
that you would be more sympathetic to the idea of not butting in when
the matter is none of your business.
(Speaking of good books about Judaism, James Kugel wrote an interesting
book, _On Being a Jew_, which is an interesting modern take on _The Kuzari_.)
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
We shall see shortly that the Archaic period also offers evidence of
another transgression altogether, one involving Tantalos, Pandareos, and
a dog, but that seems to be a separate story with its own resolution. . .
(Gantz, _Early Greek Myth_)
gynosaur
>This goes against the "philosophy" of a Jew who was grateful for
>being a Jew. His reasoning was that from the moment he woke up in
>the morning he knew exactly what to do, having all those "nifty rules"
>of the Shul`han Arukh and he had thus a tranquil life. OTOH
>the gentile wakes up in the morning, having none of those rules is
>bewildered not knowing what to do, and his whole life is one big mess.
not particularly. otherwise, all nonjews would have to convert.
>Even those of the Tanna Rabbi Meir about women?
what did the tanna r meir say about women that you find objectionable?
janet
Sheldon Glickler
No, Lisa, you are wrong. You **believe** NOW that you are obligated to be
frum. **I** am not obligated to be frum and I **choose** NOT to be. That
is a **choice** you have made, much as she has to make a choice.
So, once again, why did you **choose** to be a BT? There **was** a decision
on your part, no?
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2000Dec1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
> star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
> > "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> snip
>
> >>> I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
> >>> obligations that you don't have to?
> >>
> >>Why are you a BT?
> >
> > Thanks, Shelly. I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings
> > that non-Orthodox Jews (and even some Orthodox Jews) have.
>
> I was going to answer Shelly with a one-liner. I'm so glad I let
> Lisa do it. She's much mopre eloquent and informative than I would
> have been.
What would have been your answer as to why she is a BT?
>
> > The mitzvot are not merely incumbent upon those who choose to
> > accept them. They are obligatory to all Jews, whether those Jews
> > accept the fact or not.
> >
> > I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
> > family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
> > Jewish. But I knew my maternal-maternal great-grandmother, and I'm
> > afraid that's never going to happen.
> >
> > I'm Jewish, Shelly. And I'm informed. I'm aware of my obligations.
> > I wish they weren't my obligations, and I would never in a billion
> > years take them on if they weren't.
> >
> > I'm BT because I inadvertantly (*trust me*, it was not intentional)
> > hit critical mass in terms of knowledge of Judaism when I was in
> > college. All I wanted was to be able to argue with this horribly
> > anti-relligious professor without making an utter ass out of myself.
> > Believe it or not, I used to be very shy about expressing opinions.
> > It was this course that got me started arguing. You can send your
> > letters of thanks to Prof. Joe Rosenblum, at Washington University in
> > St. Louis.
>
> Is he still there? Did _you_ ever send him a letter of thanks? I
> wonder if he knows what a Pygmalian he [inadvertantly] produced.
SDNWOTN.
>
> > So to sum it up, Shelly, I was always obligated to be frum, just
> > as you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
> > complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
>
> Polar said Rochelle would get support from everyone here. Polar's
> mistake!
OTOH, I did not make that mistake and warned Rochelle about it from the
outset.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:k9fr3t83qpdf15m2i...@4ax.com...
I don't find being outside the Orthodox community in the least bit limiting.
Of course, I am a Jew-by-birth, but that wouldn't affect me one way or
another in the way I think. Also, I can't speak for C, but I seriously
doubt that you will find an R member who doesn't accept their conversions
(although, in this world, just about anything is possible).
As to what to do with the great-grandchild who wants to become a BT? That
is easy. He/she will convert O and think it the right and proper thing to
do. The rest of us just don't care that the O won't accept it -- their
problem.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
You are entitled to your opinion. Let us just say that that opinion is far
from being universally held.
>
> >Which brings
> >another question. If in Orthodox eyes a non-Orthodox conversion isn't
> >valid, perhaps instead of discouraging the conversion, Orthodox Jews
should
> >simply suggest a C or R conversion the first few times :-).
>
> Cute. And presumably, if a doctor doesn't feel right about
> prescribing an antibiotic for patient, he should instead suggest that
> the patient go find a quack cure instead, just to make them feel
> better.
>
> The thing is, Conservative and Reform "conversions" aren't null
> valued. It's not just that they don't turn non-Jews into Jews. They
> are actively harmful, in that the non-Jews who have undergone these
> "conversions" can easily be taken as Jews by those who don't know
> better.
...aaaawwwwwww.
>
> I once asked my brother (happily married to a Jewish woman,
> incidentally) if he'd ever marry a non-Jew. He was appalled and said,
> "Of course not". But had he met a Reform "convert", I don't think he
> would have had any qualms about marrying her.
Nor should he have.
Shelly
Susan Cohen
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> I was always obligated to be frum, just
> > as you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
> > complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
>
> Polar said Rochelle would get support from everyone here. Polar's
> mistake!
Well, who's to say "You don't have to be Jewish, it's
fine for you to be a Noachide" *isn't* support?
Saying what people want to hear isn't necessarily support.
Now if Rochelle does decide to go through with it, then
she'll get the support you & Polar were talking about.
Susan
Lisa Beth
>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
>> "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>snip
>
>>>> I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
>>>> obligations that you don't have to?
>>>
>>>Why are you a BT?
>>
>> Thanks, Shelly. I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings
>> that non-Orthodox Jews (and even some Orthodox Jews) have.
>
>I was going to answer Shelly with a one-liner. I'm so glad I let
>Lisa do it. She's much mopre eloquent and informative than I would
>have been.
I'm a virtual exhibitionist, I guess. No secrets here.
>> The mitzvot are not merely incumbent upon those who choose to
>> accept them. They are obligatory to all Jews, whether those Jews
>> accept the fact or not.
>>
>> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
>> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
>> Jewish. But I knew my maternal-maternal great-grandmother, and I'm
>> afraid that's never going to happen.
>>
>> I'm Jewish, Shelly. And I'm informed. I'm aware of my obligations.
>> I wish they weren't my obligations, and I would never in a billion
>> years take them on if they weren't.
>>
>> I'm BT because I inadvertantly (*trust me*, it was not intentional)
>> hit critical mass in terms of knowledge of Judaism when I was in
>> college. All I wanted was to be able to argue with this horribly
>> anti-relligious professor without making an utter ass out of myself.
>> Believe it or not, I used to be very shy about expressing opinions.
>> It was this course that got me started arguing. You can send your
>> letters of thanks to Prof. Joe Rosenblum, at Washington University in
>> St. Louis.
>
>Is he still there? Did _you_ ever send him a letter of thanks? I
>wonder if he knows what a Pygmalian he [inadvertantly] produced.
I don't know if he's still there. I hope not, only because he did an
awful lot of damage.
My first semester, I took his "Jewish History from Antiquity", and was
immediately blasted in the head with the Documentary Hypothesis (which
he taught as holy writ) and his Marxist theorizing. Did I mention
that he's a Reform rabbi? The day he told us that the rabbis must
have rejoiced over the destruction of the Second Temple, I almost
walked out of class. Even the other freshmen he was brainwashing were
aghast at his claim.
I wound up taking three courses from him, more than I took with anyone
else. All three were substantially the same despite the different
course names. And it was at least in part because I felt that it was
worth being there to dispute him and let other students know that his
warped views weren't true.
He watched me get frum. We even had a talk when I brought Rav Kahane
ztzk'l to speak. He disagreed, but we were able to discuss things
civilly. I like to think that he had some respect for my adherence to
principles and for my knowledge (as pitiful as it was at the time),
even if he disagreed with my conclusions.
>> So to sum it up, Shelly, I was always obligated to be frum, just
>> as you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
>> complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
>
>Polar said Rochelle would get support from everyone here. Polar's
>mistake!
I don't see what I said to Rochelle as unsupportive in the least.
Support is not blindly saying, "Uh... yeah... that's great...
whatever..." I certainly never want that kind of "support" from
anyone.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3a3b9e66...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> So to sum it up, Shelly, I was always obligated to be frum, just as
>> you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
>> complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
>
>No, Lisa, you are wrong. You **believe** NOW that you are obligated to be
>frum. **I** am not obligated to be frum and I **choose** NOT to be. That
>is a **choice** you have made, much as she has to make a choice.
I'm sorry, Shelly, but you are absolutely obligated to be frum. You
choose not to recognize that fact, but the fact exists independent of
your recognition.
>So, once again, why did you **choose** to be a BT? There **was** a decision
>on your part, no?
My only "choice" was the choice to do what's right or not to do what's
right. That's really the only choice any of us have. Freedom of
choice has nothing to do with choosing what *is* right and what isn't.
Only what to do about it.
I chose, once I became aware of what was right and wrong, to do that
which is right and maintain my self-respect thereby.
If you like, we can play "No, I'm not", "Yes, I am" for a few more
rounds, but it's really pointless. I'm quite aware that you will not
accept what I am saying. But it's the answer to your question. The
only one you're going to get. So you can either accept my answer,
reject it but keep it to yourself, or argue about it, in which case
we'll go another round of "No, I'm not", "Yes, you are". Sound fun?
Lisa
Sheldon Glickler
> On 18 Dec 2000 14:54:33 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
> <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:3a3b9e66...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >>
> >> So to sum it up, Shelly, I was always obligated to be frum, just as
> >> you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
> >> complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
> >
> >No, Lisa, you are wrong. You **believe** NOW that you are obligated to
be
> >frum. **I** am not obligated to be frum and I **choose** NOT to be.
That
> >is a **choice** you have made, much as she has to make a choice.
>
> I'm sorry, Shelly, but you are absolutely obligated to be frum. You
> choose not to recognize that fact, but the fact exists independent of
> your recognition.
Well, here is the "no, I'm not".
>
> >So, once again, why did you **choose** to be a BT? There **was** a
decision
> >on your part, no?
>
> My only "choice" was the choice to do what's right or not to do what's
> right. That's really the only choice any of us have. Freedom of
Getting down to this point:
1 - You say you chose to do what is "right". (Correct so far?)
2 - To do that you had to "convince yourself"/"become convinced" that what
you decided was right was, in fact, "right" (Correct so far?).
3 - Since there are others who disagree with your assessment, there is no
universal agreement among Jews that what you feel is "right" is "right"
(Correct so far?)
4 - The reason for that is that there is no hard and fast **evidence**
either way (Correct so far?).
5 - That leads to the inevitable conclusion that you **believe** one way is
right and the other body of Jews **believes** the other way (Correct so
far?).
6- That further leads, then, to the conclusion that you **chose** to follow
your **beliefs** as to what was "right" versus what was "wrong" and **NOT**
do what was [factually/provably] "right" and not do what was
[factually/provably] "wrong". QED
Now you can either try to show some error in this simple train of logic, or
continue to spout the Lisa-says-direct-from-God's-mouth-and-so-it-is-fact.
Your choice.
You **chose** to become a BT because you became convinced that those
**beliefs** were correct.
Shelly
Micha Berger
: 6- That further leads, then, to the conclusion that you **chose** to follow
: your **beliefs** as to what was "right" versus what was "wrong" and **NOT**
: do what was [factually/provably] "right" and not do what was
: [factually/provably] "wrong". QED
Actually, your slashes say two different things.
1- That she chose to follow her beliefs as to what was right vs what was wrong
and did not choose to do the impossible -- what is provably right over what
is provably wrong. One can't prove right vs wrong using the same system that
one proves empirical data. It's not an empirical subject.
2- That she chose to follow her beliefs about right vs wrong rather than
choosing what is factually right vs what is factually wrong. Actually, we
can't prove that one way or the other, since we can't prove whether her
beliefs happen to coincide with fact.
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Steven Goldfarb
>I'm sorry, Shelly, but you are absolutely obligated to be frum. You
>choose not to recognize that fact, but the fact exists independent of
>your recognition.
I can't help tossing in that this paragraph is a pretty good encapsulation
of the concept behind my favorite book, _Catch-22_. That is, "the rules
say you have to follow the rules."
--sg
--
---------------------------------------
Steve Goldfarb, s...@stevegoldfarb.com
Digital Productions: http://stevegoldfarb.com/
For fun: http://stevegoldfarb.com/sandbox/
Sheldon Glickler
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:91lq0o$kap$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> On 18 Dec 2000 19:44:19 GMT, Sheldon Glickler
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> : 6- That further leads, then, to the conclusion that you **chose** to
follow
> : your **beliefs** as to what was "right" versus what was "wrong" and
**NOT**
> : do what was [factually/provably] "right" and not do what was
> : [factually/provably] "wrong". QED
>
> Actually, your slashes say two different things.
>
> 1- That she chose to follow her beliefs as to what was right vs what was
wrong
> and did not choose to do the impossible -- what is provably right over
what
> is provably wrong. One can't prove right vs wrong using the same system
that
> one proves empirical data. It's not an empirical subject.
>
> 2- That she chose to follow her beliefs about right vs wrong rather than
> choosing what is factually right vs what is factually wrong. Actually, we
> can't prove that one way or the other, since we can't prove whether her
> beliefs happen to coincide with fact.
**Exactly** my point (and I don't see the differerence you are speaking to).
She somehow or other (the process is not important) became convinced that
her current set of beliefs is correct. She then **chose** to follow those
**beliefs**.
The problem I have is her continued use of the absolutism (as in emirically
provable certainty) that her beliefs are the one and only correct ones --
and not just for her but for **all** Jews.
Shelly
Eliyahu
> Noach, you have your way of looking at things, which is primarily
> informed by the Christian Right. As you've gone out of your way to
> show us. But have you perhaps heard of a Tanna by the name of Rabbi
> Tarfon?
>
> "One should not say, 'I abhor pork; therefore I will not eat it.'
> Rather, one should say, 'I crave pork, but what can I do? My Father
> in Heaven has forbidden in.'"
>
Rabbi Twerski has an interesting commentary on that in his book "Living Each
Day", page 209:
"If one abstains from forbidden foods because they are repulsive, then if
something would bring about a change in one's attitude and tastes, one may
likely eat them.
"Furthermore, if one abstains from things that are forbidden because they
are not appealing, one is essentially fulfilling one's own will. It is only
when we abstain _against_ [italics in original] our will and out of
deference to the Divine commandment, that we are fulfilling the Divine will.
"The fundamental requirement in Judaism is to do the will of G-d rather than
our own will."
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Sheldon Glickler
"Steven Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:91lm2n$3b1$1...@panix6.panix.com...
> In <3a3e4172...@News.CIS.DFN.DE> star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth)
writes:
>
> >I'm sorry, Shelly, but you are absolutely obligated to be frum. You
> >choose not to recognize that fact, but the fact exists independent of
> >your recognition.
>
> I can't help tossing in that this paragraph is a pretty good encapsulation
> of the concept behind my favorite book, _Catch-22_. That is, "the rules
> say you have to follow the rules."
Only if you agree that those are the rules and are bound by them --- or (as
in Catch-22) there is some higher authority that stomps on you if you flount
them. You say there is for these "rules", I say not for **these** "rules".
Since I have lived my life quite well without such evidence, I feel 'kinda
safe here.
Shelly
Micha Berger
: **Exactly** my point (and I don't see the differerence you are speaking to)...
: The problem I have is her continued use of the absolutism (as in emirically
: provable certainty) that her beliefs are the one and only correct ones --
: and not just for her but for **all** Jews.
That's because you miss the distinction I'm making between "factual" and
"provable".
Something can be true without us having a way to test its truth.
She can believe something is objectively true for all people. It is her
belief that XYZ is a fact. If she is right, then everyone ought to be
conforming to XYZ, not just those people who agree with her. Therefore,
she believes that XYZ holds for all Jews.
Believing in XYZ means that you believe that everyone who doubts XYZ is
wrong. They can doubt it because XYZ isn't provable. But that doesn't make
them right.
Steven Goldfarb
>Only if you agree that those are the rules and are bound by them --- or (as
>in Catch-22) there is some higher authority that stomps on you if you flount
>them. You say there is for these "rules", I say not for **these** "rules".
>Since I have lived my life quite well without such evidence, I feel 'kinda
>safe here.
Precisely. What Yossarian learned was that if you step outside of the
system of rules, then the rules can no longer compel you. People can still
make your life pretty miserable, though. But remember, Orr made it to
Sweden.
--sg
>Shelly
Eliyahu
"Michael Shimshoni" <MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il> wrote in message
news:161AA0B...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il...
> In article <3a3dac48...@News.CIS.DFN.DE%
> star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
> %>
> %>Of course a woman who has a non-Orthodox conversion and who joins a
> %>non-Orthodox community will not face problems with her conversion and
her
> %>children won't face barriers because of that conversion.
> %
> %She may not, but she's effectively screwed her children over big time.
>
> Only according to the POV of the O minority of Jews. According to
> to most Jews, who accept her and her children as Jews, this kind
> of outreach action is welcomed.
>
are in the US. Lisa is correct in that it does put the children in the
rather awkward position of being accepted as Jews by R and some C, but not
by O. The importance of this will depend on your own POV and affiliation,
but we still need to recognize that the problem exists.
Sheldon Glickler
> On 18 Dec 2000 20:13:54 GMT, Sheldon Glickler
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> : **Exactly** my point (and I don't see the differerence you are speaking
to)...
> : The problem I have is her continued use of the absolutism (as in
emirically
> : provable certainty) that her beliefs are the one and only correct
ones --
> : and not just for her but for **all** Jews.
>
> That's because you miss the distinction I'm making between "factual" and
> "provable".
>
> Something can be true without us having a way to test its truth.
No argument there. Now I will simply add editing to **your** remarks.
>
> She can ****believe***** something is objectively true for all people. It
is her
> ****belief**** that XYZ is a fact. If she is right, then everyone ought to
be
> conforming to XYZ, not just those people who agree with her. Therefore,
> she ****believes**** that XYZ holds for all Jews.
>
> ****Believing**** in XYZ means that you ****believe**** that everyone who
doubts XYZ is
> wrong. They can doubt it because XYZ isn't provable. But that doesn't make
> them right ****[according to the way she believes]****.
I could hardly have said it better myself.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
> In <91lrru$el3$1...@condor.nj.org> "Sheldon Glickler"
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> >Only if you agree that those are the rules and are bound by them --- or
(as
> >in Catch-22) there is some higher authority that stomps on you if you
flount
> >them. You say there is for these "rules", I say not for **these**
"rules".
> >Since I have lived my life quite well without such evidence, I feel
'kinda
> >safe here.
>
> Precisely. What Yossarian learned was that if you step outside of the
> system of rules, then the rules can no longer compel you. People can still
> make your life pretty miserable, though. But remember, Orr made it to
> Sweden.
>
Ah, but there was never an argument in Catch-22 that (a) the rules existed
(b) they applied to all and (c) there would be punishment for an
infringement if caught.
None of (a), (b) or (c) are agreed upon in this case (except, perhaps, that
I would agree that they do exist for the Orthodox).
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t3su78s...@corp.supernews.com...
There really is no problem. If the child/grandchild/descendent is not O,
then it doesn't matter to them as they are fully accepted where they are.
If they decide to become O, then they will of a mindset that says to
themselves that they will have to undergo an O conversion -- without anyone
from O even telling them. Owing to their upbringing and their new
direction, that conversion should be pretty easy -- if not pro forma.
If we have that person wanting to marry someone O, then the same applies and
either there will be a conversion or there will be a movement of the O
person to non-O. The only problem is if neither wants to budge. In that
case, it is better to have found out before the marriage than after.
So, in the words of the Bard, this is almost (not quite) equivalent to "Much
Ado About Nothing".
Shelly
Micha Berger
: Now I will simply add editing to **your** remarks.
:> She can ****believe***** something is objectively true for all people. It
:> is her ****belief**** that XYZ is a fact...
I have no idea why you need four levels of bolding to state something
that is assumed in every post.
Everyone, unless a disclaimer is clearly stated (*) post what they
believe is true. If I say "It's raining today in New York", I clearly mean
"I believe it is raining today in NY".
(Louis Carrol would point out that the second statement also implies,
"I believe that I believe it is raining today in NY", which in turn
only boils down to "I believe that I believe that I believe that is it
raining today in NY"... And so on ad inifinitum.)
(* Even a disclaimer can be understood this way: I believe that ABC
believes that XYZ is true.)
meirm...@erols.com
Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> posted:
>
><meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
>news:k9fr3t83qpdf15m2i...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I know a person who's not certified for the job she holds, and her
>> effort to get certification failed. But lots of other people have it.
>> Now things are fine. They gave her the job either because they were
>> just starting out, or because they'd known her pesonally for decades.
>> Her job is a good job, near her home, etc. But if she were to want a
>> higher paying job, or she were to have to move to another city, or
>> were to be fired, she can't get a job in her field anywhere else. So
>> someone with a non-orthodox-conversion can be part of the
>> non-orthodox-community**, but she can't leave. She's stuck there. If
>> she has a reform-conversion, she's stuck in a smaller group. Without
>> going into more details I think those are real barriers.
>>
>> As for children, how does this compare with telling chilren when they
>> are young that they are adopted? If one tells them the conversion
>> issues, they have a barrier and they know it. If one doesn't, it may
>> be traumatic when they find out, or heartbreaking, or anger and
>> resentment-causing.
>>
>>
>> **I suspect there are members of both C and R congregations who don't
>> accept their conversions. It's one thing where you go and what you
>> do, and another thing, lifetime status issues.
>
>I don't find being outside the Orthodox community in the least bit limiting.
>Of course, I am a Jew-by-birth, but that wouldn't affect me one way or
>another in the way I think.
That is a big difference. You know you're a Jew. I think I have
heard stories of anger when children learn that they are only Jewish
by R standards, for example. There is another small list I'm involved
in where someone who isn't even Jewish by R standards seems to be
angry at O Jews for having stricter standards! I don't think any of
this is good for unity, that is, no matter how much you and I fight,
IIUC each of us feels bound to the other as fellow-Jews. When the
child, or any age, that we're discussing finds out that O or C don't
consider hir Jewish, but s/he doesn't want to convert O, s/he's very
likely to be quite alienated from lots of other Jews.
>Also, I can't speak for C, but I seriously
>doubt that you will find an R member who doesn't accept their conversions
>(although, in this world, just about anything is possible).
>
>As to what to do with the great-grandchild who wants to become a BT? That
>is easy. He/she will convert O and think it the right and proper thing to
>do. The rest of us just don't care that the O won't accept it -- their
>problem.
>
(I'm sure you don't mean O won't accept the reform-conversion. Not
'converting O'!)
The problem for someone who wants to become O is at that point not so
great. Perhaps a boy or girl she or he has his eye on won't wait.
Perhaps he will wait but she gets delayed or even bogged down, changes
her mind, and he stops waiting. But I have no numbers for such
things.
It's a much bigger problem for people who don't want to live an O life
but who want to marry or at least socialize with Jews who will only
marry halachic Jews. I don't have numbers on this either, but I
think my brother was one, and I'm sure there are (very many?) others.
>Shelly
meirm...@erols.com
star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>
>I once asked my brother (happily married to a Jewish woman,
>incidentally) if he'd ever marry a non-Jew. He was appalled and said,
>"Of course not". But had he met a Reform "convert", I don't think he
>would have had any qualms about marrying her.
Either way it is bad. If he did refuse to marry her too, plainly she
would be facing the kind of barrier I described.
Harry Weiss
deletions
> No, Lisa, you are wrong. You **believe** NOW that you are obligated to be
> frum. **I** am not obligated to be frum and I **choose** NOT to be. That
> is a **choice** you have made, much as she has to make a choice.
The fact is that according to Judaism you are obligated to be frum. Due
to lack of knowledge or free choice you choose not to. That does not in
any way remove you obligation. You were born a Jew and will always be
a Jew.
> Shelly
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
maurie fox-warren
always has the option of undergoing a halachic conversion within that
community. Her children or grandchildren would have that option as well.
Maurie
Susan Cohen
gynosaur wrote:
> MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
> >This goes against the "philosophy" of a Jew who was grateful for
> >being a Jew. His reasoning was that from the moment he woke up in
> >the morning he knew exactly what to do, having all those "nifty rules"
> >of the Shul`han Arukh and he had thus a tranquil life. OTOH
> >the gentile wakes up in the morning, having none of those rules is
> >bewildered not knowing what to do, and his whole life is one big mess.
>
> not particularly. otherwise, all nonjews would have to convert.
Oh, not at all - he simply suffers (according to the reasoning)!
> >Even those of the Tanna Rabbi Meir about women?
>
> what did the tanna r meir say about women that you find objectionable?
>
> janet
Or that he thinks Lisa would find so - I know I'm interested in
hearing this, myself.
Susan
judai...@my-deja.com
> I am much more comfortable with what I have learned regarding Judaism.
> Could anyone offer suggestions of reading material or any other type
> of reference that would be considered a 'must'?
I can strongly reccomend the following books as an introduction to
Judaism:
"The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism" Dennis Prager and Joseph
Telushkin. Written for the educated, skeptical, searching Jew, as well
as for the non-Jew, who wants to understand the meaning of Judaism.
(218 Pages)
"Living Judaism: The Complete Guide to Jewish Belief, Tradition and
Practice" by Wayne Dosick. Written by an originally Reform rabbi who
then joined the Conservative movement, and who appreciates Orthodox
traditions, this is a unique introduction to Jewish belief and practice.
"The First Jewish Catalog" and "The Second Jewish Catalog" by Michael
and Sharon Strassfeld, and Richard Segal. Gives a good overview of
Judaism from a do-it-yourself chavurah perspective. Some sections are
dated (the writing style and concerns reflect the early 1970s), but
overall it holds up well.
"The Aryeh Kaplan Reader" Pub. by NCSY through Mesorah Publications. A
collection of short books on Jewish beliefs and practices from an
Orthodox and Kabbalistic (mystical) point of view.
"Judaism and Christianity: The Differences" Trude Weiss Rosmarin,
160pp. Jonathan David Publishers. "Dr. Rosmarin’s popularly written yet
authoritative volume forthrightly analyzes the basic differences
between Judaism and Christianity. She maintains that there is an
inherent conflict between the basic views of these mother/daughter
religions, a conflict that cannot be resolved but that must be
understood. Among the subjects addressed are miracles, sin and
atonement, faith versus law, Free Will versus Original Sin, asceticism,
and the place of Jesus in Jewish thinking."
http://communities.msn.com/JudaismFAQs
Shalom,
Robert
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Lisa Beth
<sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>: And just as I explicitly stated that my name is not Aaronson, you
>: explicitly stated that you are not a vegetarian. Hence, if you think
>: that calling me Ms. !Aaronson is cute, you can hardly object to my
>: calling you Mr. !Vegetarian.
>
>I am calling you by the name that you have explicitly stated belongs to you --
>you did it again in the preceding paragraph.
Would someone like to come by and teach Mr. !Vegetarian how to parse a
sentence?
>My name is not, and never
>has been, "not Vegetarian."
Well, you said you are "not a Vegetarian". So perhaps I was imprecise
and should call you !A. Vegetarian.
>As I said, it is given in every post that I
>submit. Thus, I most certainly can object to your refusal to refer to me
>by my name, since I am doing you the courtesy of referring to you by yours.
Actually, the question is whether you are being offensive on purpose,
or just being childish. Do you know what the halakha says about
calling someone by a kinui they find offensive?
>:>: I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
>:>: obligations that you don't have to?
>
>:>What business is it of yours?
>
>: What business is anything on this newsgroup? To any of us? She came
>: here and started talking. That's about it. You have a very strange
>: view of Usenet, Mr. !Vegetarian.
>
>A person wrote a message asking a very specific question: she stated that
>she was considering conversion and was looking for resources that might
>help her learn more about Judaism. Several people responded to her question
>(you might want to look up Rashi on Bereshith 24:24-25 for another POV on
>answering the question you are asked). You did not -- you gave her an
>unsolicited opinion that had nothing to do with the question she had,
>and one that it is not your place to give. Speaking of sources, why don't
>you bring us the halakhic source that says that dissuading potential
>converts is the job of the community at large and not the Beit Din?
Did I say it was my "job"? A convert who does not keep halakha is a
harm and a danger to me, as a Jew. I am entitled to act to avoid
harm. Pointing out what I did was done in that light, and if you
don't like it, there's a nifty little delete button you can use. In
fact, why not just killfile me?
>:>As I understand the halakhah, the *Beit Din*
>:>is required to dissuade a potential convert -- and you are forbidden by
>:>halakhah from serving on a Beit Din.
>
>: Who said I'm required to dissuade her? You don't have to be required
>: in order to question someone who looks like she wants to do something
>: unwise.
>
>The person did not ask for your opinion about whether what she was doing
>was unwise.
Nor did I ask you for your opinion on whether my response was
appropriate. So there, we've both volunteered information. She may
do as she wishes with mine, and I will ignore yours.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
><mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
>news:2000Dec1...@mm.huji.ac.il...
>> star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
>> > "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >>> I repeat the question. Why convert? Why take on all sorts of
>> >>> obligations that you don't have to?
>> >>
>> >>Why are you a BT?
>> >
>> > Thanks, Shelly. I think this is one of the biggest misunderstandings
>> > that non-Orthodox Jews (and even some Orthodox Jews) have.
>>
>> I was going to answer Shelly with a one-liner. I'm so glad I let
>> Lisa do it. She's much mopre eloquent and informative than I would
>> have been.
>
>What would have been your answer as to why she is a BT?
I'm kind of interested too, but I have a feeling that that's not what
he meant. I'm not the only BT here, you know.
>> > I'm BT because I inadvertantly (*trust me*, it was not intentional)
>> > hit critical mass in terms of knowledge of Judaism when I was in
>> > college. All I wanted was to be able to argue with this horribly
>> > anti-relligious professor without making an utter ass out of myself.
>> > Believe it or not, I used to be very shy about expressing opinions.
>> > It was this course that got me started arguing. You can send your
>> > letters of thanks to Prof. Joe Rosenblum, at Washington University in
>> > St. Louis.
>>
>> Is he still there? Did _you_ ever send him a letter of thanks? I
>> wonder if he knows what a Pygmalian he [inadvertantly] produced.
>
>SDNWOTN.
I didn't see any sarcasm there at all. I've thought about it. There
are a number of people I'd like to look up who had major effects on my
life (whether they knew it or not). I remember having a wonderful 3
hour talk with my old high school principle back about 5 years ago.
He was the new principle my senior year, and made my life a living
hell. I was the first person in the entire school to have a run in
with him. It's a miracle that I turned out frum. 'Course, in a way,
he and I have crossed paths. He's still frum, as far as I know, but
*way* to the left.
>> > So to sum it up, Shelly, I was always obligated to be frum, just
>> > as you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
>> > complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
>>
>> Polar said Rochelle would get support from everyone here. Polar's
>> mistake!
>
>OTOH, I did not make that mistake and warned Rochelle about it from the
>outset.
I still don't get what the two of you are aiming at. I was being
supportive. The people trying to deny her information are the ones
being unsupportive.
Lisa
Eliyahu
"Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:91lrru$el3$1...@condor.nj.org...
correct. From the Reform POV, you are absolutely correct. Unless you agree
on the rules, you'll never agree on this question because the answer depends
entirely on which rules you're following.
Steven Goldfarb
>Ah, but there was never an argument in Catch-22 that (a) the rules existed
>(b) they applied to all and (c) there would be punishment for an
>infringement if caught.
What? The book is full of arguments about the rules existing, being
applied, and punishment for infringement. It is, IMO, a very Jewish
book, actually, wrestling with similar problems expressed in this
newsgroup.
But in any case, Shelly, I'm not sure of what you're arguing about - I was
trying to agree with you, and citing Catch-22 as support for your position
against taking an absolutist opinion about one's duty to be bound by
halacha.
To refresh, the original point (Lisa's, I think) was, to paraphrase, that
halacha requires Shelly to follow halacha. The book Catch-22 is primarily
about a guy confronted by a similar set of rules, and his fight to
extricate himself and thereby avoid getting killed in the war.
--sg
>None of (a), (b) or (c) are agreed upon in this case (except, perhaps, that
>I would agree that they do exist for the Orthodox).
>Shelly
hsc
are in the US. Lisa is correct in that it does put the children in the
rather awkward position of being accepted as Jews by R and some C, but not
by O. The importance of this will depend on your own POV and affiliation,
but we still need to recognize that the problem exists.
If "everywhere" = "the world" then Orthodox are indeed a minority
everywhere. If it means "Israel," is the ratio of dati/hiloni really greater
than 1.0? Certainly there is an appreciable number of O Jews in the world,
and there are real problems in not being recognized by everybody, but let's
not exaggerate and weaken the point.
maurie fox-warren
meirm...@erols.com wrote in message ...
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 18 Dec 2000 09:05:37 GMT
>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>
>>
>>I once asked my brother (happily married to a Jewish woman,
>>incidentally) if he'd ever marry a non-Jew. He was appalled and said,
>>"Of course not". But had he met a Reform "convert", I don't think he
>>would have had any qualms about marrying her.
>
>Either way it is bad. If he did refuse to marry her too, plainly she
>would be facing the kind of barrier I described.
>
Judaism and wants to convert is that in order to avoid personal status
issues within the Jewish world they should be converted by an Orthodox
Beit-Din. Now the only problem is that if they attracted to either Reform
or Conservative theology it will be difficult to find an Orthodox Beit Din
willing to do the conversion. So we have individuals who want to join the
Jewish world but not the Orthodox Jewish world who are caught in the middle
or our mishegas.
I respect the position of those who think that those individuals simply
shouldn't convert for the good of their children, the Jewish world or any
other reason. As a Conservative Jew who davens regularly with individuals
who have Reform and Conservative conversions, I'm personally glad that
they've taken the chance.
Maurie
Noach
> On 17 Dec 2000 04:54:43 GMT, "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate>> >news:3a3b9e66...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >> On 15 Dec 2000 17:31:52 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
> >
> >> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
> >> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
> >> Jewish.
> >
> >??!!!! We are supposed to be happy and thankful for being part of the
'Am
> >Ha Mivchar', the Chosen People of G-d.
>
> Cite a source or retract it, Noach.
Yes, Your Majesty. <bow and curtsy>
(All liturgical translations and page numbers cited are from 'The Complete
Artscroll Siddur: A New Translation and Anthologized Commentary by Rabbi
Nosson Scherman', Nusach Sefard, First Edition. Copyright (C) 1985 by
Mesorah Publications, Ltd. 4401 Second Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11232, (718)
921-9000/ http://www.artscroll.com )
"You have chosen us from all the peoples..."
- Festival liturgy
"...who is like Your people Israel, one nation on earth"
- Sabbath afternoon liturgy
> There are no mitzvot that command us with regards to our emotions.
1. Regarding 'The Tochachaha ('Admonition')', the verses in the Torah
warning of severe curses for transgressing, there is a famous line , "tachas
asher lo avadatee b' simcha' , "because you did not serve Me w/ joy", I
don't recall where this appears but I am sure that someone will cite it.
2. "V'samachta B'Chagecha.." - The Torah commands us to be joyous for the
entire 7 days of Succos.
3. "...and we will _rejoice_ [emphasis mine] with the words of the study of
Your Torah and with Your commandments for all eternity"
- Blessings said before the reading of the Shema, evening service.
" 'V'nismach'- 'And we will rejoice'. Torah study must be seen not as a
chore, but as a source of joy. "
- Artscroll commentary, p. 286
4.. "Hodu L'Hashem...", "Give thanks to Hashem...": We find many verses
which start this way in the liturgy.
R' Avigdor Miller explains that the word 'Hodu' actually means to become
happy and excited over G-d, to the
point of being delirious. R' Miller says that we should only be excited over
Hashem and nothing else.
> Yir'at Hashem means obeying Him because He's so much greater than us
> and has a right to command us. Ahavat Hashem means obeying him out of
> understanding. There is nothing whatsoever in Judaism that requires
> us to be giddy and breathless and say, "Oh, gosh! I'm just pleased as
> punch to have all of these nifty rules in my life."
1. "Blessed are You Hashem, our G-d, King of the Universe, for not having
made me a gentile"
- Morning blessing
2. "Ashraynu, mah tov chelkaynu, umah nuheem goralaynu, umah yofoh
yurushasaynu",
"We are fortunate*- how good is our portion, how pleasant our lot, and how
beautiful our heritage!"
- Text from daily morning prayer service
*- "Ashraynu- We are fortunate. Although 'Tikkun Tefilah' notes that this
section of the service was compiled during a period of intense persecution,
we do not feel downtrodden. To the contrary, we are fortunate to be
G-d's Chosen People and proud to proclaim His Oneness."
- Commentary in Artscroll siddur (p. 30)
3. "...for He has not made us like the nations of the lands and has not
emplaced us like the families of the earth.."
- from 'Aleinu', said at the conclusion of each prayer service.
> Noach, you have your way of looking at things, which is primarily
> informed by the Christian Right.
I'll just laugh at that.
> As you've gone out of your way to
> show us. But have you perhaps heard of a Tanna by the name of Rabbi
> Tarfon?
>
> "One should not say, 'I abhor pork; therefore I will not eat it.'
> Rather, one should say, 'I crave pork, but what can I do? My Father
> in Heaven has forbidden in.'"
R' Avigdor Miller has said that many people misinterpret that and that what
it means is that a person should find that which the Torah prohibits to be
disgusting _because_ the Torah prohibits it. R' Miller cited a story of a
Talmudic sage who stayed at an inn where the innkeeper sent prostitutes to
his room. The sage vomitted all night and in the morning the innkeeper asked
him if the women weren't attractive enough for him. The sage replied that
they smelled like dead rats. R' Miller explained that the sage had worked on
himself and trained himself so that he really found the women repugnant
because they were forbidden to him. ( Again, I hope some of our more learned
participants will provide the exact citation and any missing details).
>
> The day I take your view over that of a Tanna, you'll know my posts
> are being forged.
>
> Lisa
--
Wishing you seemly serenity, true tranquility, decorous delights, righteous
requiescence, beneficent bougainvillea and magnificent magnolias.
Get rebates for shopping at many online stores
http://www.ebates.com/index.jsp?referrer=ocean...@mybizrate.com
Abe Kohen
"hsc" <harve...@home.com> wrote in message
news:Ciy%5.52599$w35.8...@news1.rdc1.nj.home.com...
I could not parse your statement about Israel and the dati/hiloni ratio.
Where exactly are O Jews not a minority within the indigenous Jewish
population?
Abe
Eliyahu
I was referring to being a minority among Jews, not among the populace as a
whole, where all of us are a minority.
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>A Reform or Conservative convert who wants to join an Orthodox community
>always has the option of undergoing a halachic conversion within that
>community. Her children or grandchildren would have that option as well.
I had a friend once whose brother was married to a non-Jew. Oh, this
woman didn't see herself as a non-Jew. Her father was Jewish. Never
mind that this was long before the Reform instituted Patrilineal
Descent officially. The law followed the practice in this case. As
it eventually will, most likely, in the Conservative movement.
They have three kids. And I remember the oldest boy. Very, very into
Jewish studies. The thing is, if he were to convert, it would be a
total slap in the face to his mother. Not the way it would be to,
say, a Christian mother, because while that would be an abandonment of
her religion, this would be tantamount to saying, "Mom, you're a
shikse."
It's not as simple as you seem to think, Maurie.
Lisa
Noach
news:pNy%5.1219$JG.1...@news.shore.net...
> So the problem for someone who is interested in Reform or Conservative
> Judaism and wants to convert is that in order to avoid personal status
> issues within the Jewish world they should be converted by an Orthodox
> Beit-Din. Now the only problem is that if they attracted to either Reform
> or Conservative theology it will be difficult to find an Orthodox Beit Din
> willing to do the conversion. So we have individuals who want to join the
> Jewish world but not the Orthodox Jewish world who are caught in the
middle
> or our mishegas.
Upholding principals is not 'mishegas'.
>
> I respect the position of those who think that those individuals simply
> shouldn't convert for the good of their children, the Jewish world or any
> other reason
Then why do you call their stand 'mishegas' ?
Lisa Beth
>In <91lrru$el3$1...@condor.nj.org> "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
>>Only if you agree that those are the rules and are bound by them --- or (as
>>in Catch-22) there is some higher authority that stomps on you if you flount
>>them. You say there is for these "rules", I say not for **these** "rules".
>>Since I have lived my life quite well without such evidence, I feel 'kinda
>>safe here.
>
>Precisely. What Yossarian learned was that if you step outside of the
>system of rules, then the rules can no longer compel you. People can still
>make your life pretty miserable, though. But remember, Orr made it to
>Sweden.
Forgive me if I don't choose to take Joseph Heller as the arbitar of
reality.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
>
>Problem here is one of POV. From the Orthodox POV, Lisa is absolutely
>correct. From the Reform POV, you are absolutely correct. Unless you agree
>on the rules, you'll never agree on this question because the answer depends
>entirely on which rules you're following.
There is an inherent difference between a POV that is based on
knowledge and one which is based on a refusal to hear such knowledge.
Shelly can't even read a Rashi. Do you think he's unusual for a
Reform Jew?
Lisa
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3a3e4172...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On 18 Dec 2000 14:54:33 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
>> <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3a3b9e66...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> >>
>> >> So to sum it up, Shelly, I was always obligated to be frum, just as
>> >> you are. Rochelle is not and need never be. Why should she
>> >> complicate her life? You can be close to God without it.
>> >
>> >No, Lisa, you are wrong. You **believe** NOW that you are obligated to
>be
>> >frum. **I** am not obligated to be frum and I **choose** NOT to be.
>That
>> >is a **choice** you have made, much as she has to make a choice.
>>
>> I'm sorry, Shelly, but you are absolutely obligated to be frum. You
>> choose not to recognize that fact, but the fact exists independent of
>> your recognition.
>
>Well, here is the "no, I'm not".
<yawn> Fine. Yes, you are. Are you happy?
>> >So, once again, why did you **choose** to be a BT? There **was** a
>> >decision on your part, no?
>>
>> My only "choice" was the choice to do what's right or not to do what's
>> right. That's really the only choice any of us have. Freedom of
>
>Getting down to this point:
>
>1 - You say you chose to do what is "right". (Correct so far?)
<nod>
>2 - To do that you had to "convince yourself"/"become convinced" that what
>you decided was right was, in fact, "right" (Correct so far?).
No. I don't choose to accept your implication. Strike "convince
yourself", and run it by me again. I don't play by your rules,
Shelly, and I won't permit you to put words in my mouth.
>3 - Since there are others who disagree with your assessment, there is no
>universal agreement among Jews that what you feel is "right" is "right"
>(Correct so far?)
No. There is also no universal agreement among human beings that the
earth orbits the sun. There *is*, however, universal agreement among
those who are educated enough to have a valid opinion. In both cases.
>4 - The reason for that is that there is no hard and fast **evidence**
>either way (Correct so far?).
I reject your very bizarre misapplication of mathematical proof to
real life situations. Something neither you nor anyone else does in
day to day life, and something you are only choosing to do here
because it's the *only* way you can ward off the facts.
>5 - That leads to the inevitable conclusion that you **believe** one way is
>right and the other body of Jews **believes** the other way (Correct so
>far?).
Nope. You're doing poorly. Shelly, for goodness sake, you can't even
read a Rashi. And I don't believe you're a substandard exemplar of
your co-religionists. The views of people who are incapable or
unwilling to even learn the relevant material and become informed are
not relevant. They are invalid.
>6- That further leads, then, to the conclusion that you **chose** to follow
>your **beliefs** as to what was "right" versus what was "wrong" and **NOT**
>do what was [factually/provably] "right" and not do what was
>[factually/provably] "wrong". QED
Nothing demonstrated here except for your unfortunate inability to
process a logical argument.
>Now you can either try to show some error in this simple train of logic, or
>continue to spout the Lisa-says-direct-from-God's-mouth-and-so-it-is-fact.
>Your choice.
Gee. Thanks. I guess I'll go with what's behind door number one.
>You **chose** to become a BT because you became convinced that those
>**beliefs** were correct.
I chose to become BT because I became aware that it was the right
thing to do, and I wanted to do the right thing. Don't put words in
my mouth again.
Lisa
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: Only according to the POV of the O minority of Jews. According to
: to most Jews, who accept her and her children as Jews, this kind
: of outreach action is welcomed.
Perhaps you can answer a question that I've had for some time -- most people
who talk about the Orthodox position in terms of Orthodox Jews being a
minority refuse to. It is pretty clear from even a cursory reading of
the Book of Kings and from the other prophetical books of the First Temple
period that at that time, the majority of Jews believed that it was
perfectly okay to worship other gods (viz. the inability or unwillingness
of the kings to stamp out the "high places"). If we accept the idea that the
minority opinion is necessarily wrong, then how do we explain that Elijah
is the hero, not the villain, in his confrontation with the priests of Baal?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
sch...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il
: In <91lrru$el3$1...@condor.nj.org> "Sheldon Glickler" <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> writes:
:>Only if you agree that those are the rules and are bound by them --- or (as
:>in Catch-22) there is some higher authority that stomps on you if you flount
:>them. You say there is for these "rules", I say not for **these** "rules".
:>Since I have lived my life quite well without such evidence, I feel 'kinda
:>safe here.
: Precisely. What Yossarian learned was that if you step outside of the
: system of rules, then the rules can no longer compel you. People can still
: make your life pretty miserable, though. But remember, Orr made it to
: Sweden.
But Yossarian didn't (at least not according to his own statement in
_Closing Time_).
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip
>> >Good way of phrasing it. :) . It's not just friends and acquaintances
>> >either. It's the popular presentation of Judaism on tv and in movies,
>> >which doesn't capture much of it. Certainly not things outside a
>> >normal script, such as how converting limits my choices in finding a
>> >spouse, how it affects where I should live, how the children of a
>> >woman who has a non-Orthodox-conversion are regrarded.
>>
>> Of course a woman who has a non-Orthodox conversion and who joins a
>> non-Orthodox community will not face problems with her conversion and her
>> children won't face barriers because of that conversion. Which brings
>> another question. If in Orthodox eyes a non-Orthodox conversion isn't
>> valid, perhaps instead of discouraging the conversion, Orthodox Jews should
>> simply suggest a C or R conversion the first few times :-).
>
> Joking apart, how does this work one or two generations down the
> line? Let's say a woman converts to Reform. Now, this isn't
> recognised by O because it hasn't been done in accordance with
> halacha. But a child of that person will consider him or herself
> Jewish . And a grandchild will also consider him or herself to be
> Jewish, if they have been raised that way. So now, if that
> grandchild decides to become frum, what happens? Do they investigate
> into the original background (which in my hypothetical case is a
> non-halachic conversion two generations ago)? Or what? I suspect
> not, but I don't know.
True story.
This non-O couple are on the road to Orthodoxy. At some point they
realize that the her mother was a convert. The wife goes to her home
town to investigate. Meanwhile the husband discovers that the mother
didn't have a valid divorce before marrying the wife's father.
A few days later the wife tearfully calls to say her mother's
conversion wasn't halachic, so she's not Jewish. "Wonderful" her
husband tells her, to her great surprise, "that means you're not a
mamzer either!"
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
P.S. Marc, could I ask you a favor? Please use shorter lines. TIA
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate> wrote:
>>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
>>> Jewish.
>>
>>??!!!! We are supposed to be happy and thankful for being part of
>>the 'Am Ha Mivchar', the Chosen People of G-d.
>
> my time, since you have yet to do that in a single instance.
Well, the morning blessings include "Who has not made me a goy". It
seems like a good source for Noach's question.
> There are no mitzvot that command us with regards to our emotions.
OTOH, we are told that the tochecha - calamaties - would befall us
for not serving G-d with joy. See Duet.28:47.
> Yir'at Hashem means obeying Him because He's so much greater than us
> and has a right to command us. Ahavat Hashem means obeying him out of
> understanding. There is nothing whatsoever in Judaism that requires
> us to be giddy and breathless and say, "Oh, gosh! I'm just pleased as
> punch to have all of these nifty rules in my life."
If I may differ? See the _book_ Gateway to Happiness by R. Zelig
Pliskin. I can reccomend it highly. The first chapter demonstrates
that being happy is a mitzvah. As does Reb Nachman.
> Noach, you have your way of looking at things, which is primarily
> informed by the Christian Right. As you've gone out of your way to
> show us. But have you perhaps heard of a Tanna by the name of Rabbi
> Tarfon?
>
> "One should not say, 'I abhor pork; therefore I will not eat it.'
> Rather, one should say, 'I crave pork, but what can I do? My Father
> in Heaven has forbidden in.'"
I think a better translation of the beggining would be "One should
not say 'I am unABLE to eat pork' but rather one should say "I am
quite ABLE to eat it, but..."
BTW I'm not sure what non-kosher example was given I just repeated
Lisa's use of "pork". I do know that the Talmud states that a person
is naturally revolted from eating "creepy-crawlies". So it's so
straightforward.
Sheldon Glickler
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:91m2km$ltt$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> On 18 Dec 2000 21:50:37 GMT, Sheldon Glickler
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> : Now I will simply add editing to **your** remarks.
>
> :> She can ****believe***** something is objectively true for all people.
It
> :> is her ****belief**** that XYZ is a fact...
>
> I have no idea why you need four levels of bolding to state something
> that is assumed in every post.
The reason for the four levels was to make the words stand out in your text
so that it was evident what I was editing. It is different from the used of
"*" or "**" in something that I write where it is used for emphasis.
As to "something that is assumed in every post" -- no. When Lisa posts
using the word "is", she does not write from the viewpoint "I believe it
is". She is writing from the the viewpoint that what she is saying in
undeniably, absolutely, incontrovertably a fact.
> Everyone, unless a disclaimer is clearly stated (*) post what they
Everyone? When did you slip into RK style? <g>
> believe is true. If I say "It's raining today in New York", I clearly mean
> "I believe it is raining today in NY".
But when Lisa says it, that means that it a provable certainty and
how-can-you-be-so-stupid-as-to-even-challenge-the-obvious-God-stated-fact?
> (Louis Carrol would point out that the second statement also implies,
> "I believe that I believe it is raining today in NY", which in turn
> only boils down to "I believe that I believe that I believe that is it
> raining today in NY"... And so on ad inifinitum.)
>
> (* Even a disclaimer can be understood this way: I believe that ABC
> believes that XYZ is true.)
Do you remember a certain song from the '60s. I think it apropo here for
you to sing the first line (with a slight change). For you, it would go
like this: "I'm not Lisa, my name is Micha".
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:0p7t3tsbafhebi91m...@4ax.com...
No difference. I would feel exactly the same.
> heard stories of anger when children learn that they are only Jewish
> by R standards, for example. There is another small list I'm involved
> in where someone who isn't even Jewish by R standards seems to be
> angry at O Jews for having stricter standards! I don't think any of
...and there are people who are Jews by O standards who are NOT Jews by R
standards.
> this is good for unity, that is, no matter how much you and I fight,
> IIUC each of us feels bound to the other as fellow-Jews. When the
> child, or any age, that we're discussing finds out that O or C don't
> consider hir Jewish, but s/he doesn't want to convert O, s/he's very
> likely to be quite alienated from lots of other Jews.
I would doubt the "very likely" aspect except, perhaps, to the O.
>
> >Also, I can't speak for C, but I seriously
> >doubt that you will find an R member who doesn't accept their conversions
> >(although, in this world, just about anything is possible).
> >
> >As to what to do with the great-grandchild who wants to become a BT?
That
> >is easy. He/she will convert O and think it the right and proper thing
to
> >do. The rest of us just don't care that the O won't accept it -- their
> >problem.
> >
> (I'm sure you don't mean O won't accept the reform-conversion. Not
> 'converting O'!)
I don't know what you are asking. I meant that at that time, since the O
don't accept the prior R conversion, he will undergo an O conversion.
>
> The problem for someone who wants to become O is at that point not so
> great. Perhaps a boy or girl she or he has his eye on won't wait.
> Perhaps he will wait but she gets delayed or even bogged down, changes
> her mind, and he stops waiting. But I have no numbers for such
> things.
>
> It's a much bigger problem for people who don't want to live an O life
> but who want to marry or at least socialize with Jews who will only
> marry halachic Jews. I don't have numbers on this either, but I
> think my brother was one, and I'm sure there are (very many?) others.
I doubt it (though I don't have numbers either). Also, what is the problem
with socializing? If someone will only socialize with "halachic" Jews, then
that is a person I (a born Jew) would not want to socialize with. Do you
mean "dating" rather than "socializing"?
Having lived in this enviroment for a long time, I would say that the
likelihood of seeking out an O to marry is vanishingly small. A C is
another matter. That is far more likely. In that event, a relatively
painless conversion can always be arranged -- or the R conversion will be
accepted by the C partner.
Now, *you* can address the question of someone who undergoes a C conversion
in that same situation with O. In that case, I can see **far** more
problems and **far** more likelihood of anger. After all, C maintains that
they follow halacha and would then be much more likely to view the O as just
exercising a power play.
Shelly
P&M
Sheldon Glickler
> On 19 Dec 2000 01:59:24 GMT, "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Problem here is one of POV. From the Orthodox POV, Lisa is absolutely
> >correct. From the Reform POV, you are absolutely correct. Unless you
agree
> >on the rules, you'll never agree on this question because the answer
depends
> >entirely on which rules you're following.
>
> There is an inherent difference between a POV that is based on
> knowledge and one which is based on a refusal to hear such knowledge.
That is you POV. You **think** you have knowledge. You don't. You have
closed your mind to knowledge. You refuse to look at reality in such an
area of science as evolution. You have convinced yourself that you have
access to a direct line to God and therefore everyone else simply refuses to
learn.
You precious Maimonades I hold in very low esteem. His thirteen principles
are one third nonsense, one third good and one third neutral. (OK,
approximately one third).
Rashi was a man. He had interpretations and opinions. Some good, some not.
> Shelly can't even read a Rashi. Do you think he's unusual for a
If it is in English, then I can read it.
> Reform Jew?
Learn the word "paradigm", Lisa. Then you will [hopefully] understand the
nonsense of your statement and the wisdom of Eliyahu's.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
"by one means or another become convinced". That is why I added the "/".
>
> >3 - Since there are others who disagree with your assessment, there is no
> >universal agreement among Jews that what you feel is "right" is "right"
> >(Correct so far?)
>
> No. There is also no universal agreement among human beings that the
> earth orbits the sun. There *is*, however, universal agreement among
> those who are educated enough to have a valid opinion. In both cases.
IOW, "correct".
>
> >4 - The reason for that is that there is no hard and fast **evidence**
> >either way (Correct so far?).
>
> I reject your very bizarre misapplication of mathematical proof to
> real life situations. Something neither you nor anyone else does in
> day to day life, and something you are only choosing to do here
> because it's the *only* way you can ward off the facts.
Facts? What facts? There **are no** facts here, there are only
**beliefs**. Unless you can produce hard and fast evidence, then I am
correct -- whether you reject the mathematical type proof or not.
> >5 - That leads to the inevitable conclusion that you **believe** one way
is
> >right and the other body of Jews **believes** the other way (Correct so
> >far?).
>
> Nope. You're doing poorly. Shelly, for goodness sake, you can't even
> read a Rashi. And I don't believe you're a substandard exemplar of
Big deal. I can read Rashi if translated into English -- and I have on
numerous occasions (now that I know that the commentary at the bottom is
Rashi's).
> your co-religionists. The views of people who are incapable or
> unwilling to even learn the relevant material and become informed are
> not relevant. They are invalid.
Evolution. Now look in the mirror.
In any event, do you contradict that you believe one way and a vast body of
other Jews believes differently? That is what I said. Do you disagree? If
you do, then you are so totally blind to reality that it is pointless to
continue.
>
> >6- That further leads, then, to the conclusion that you **chose** to
follow
> >your **beliefs** as to what was "right" versus what was "wrong" and
**NOT**
> >do what was [factually/provably] "right" and not do what was
> >[factually/provably] "wrong". QED
>
> Nothing demonstrated here except for your unfortunate inability to
> process a logical argument.
Whatever. You are so totally close-minded as to make any further effort on
my part a total waste of time.
>
> >Now you can either try to show some error in this simple train of logic,
or
> >continue to spout the
Lisa-says-direct-from-God's-mouth-and-so-it-is-fact.
> >Your choice.
>
> Gee. Thanks. I guess I'll go with what's behind door number one.
>
> >You **chose** to become a BT because you became convinced that those
> >**beliefs** were correct.
>
> I chose to become BT because I became aware that it was the right
> thing to do, and I wanted to do the right thing. Don't put words in
> my mouth again.
Sure.
Shelly
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>
>meirm...@erols.com wrote in message ...
>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 18 Dec 2000 09:05:37 GMT
>>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>>
>>>
>>>I once asked my brother (happily married to a Jewish woman,
>>>incidentally) if he'd ever marry a non-Jew. He was appalled and said,
>>>"Of course not". But had he met a Reform "convert", I don't think he
>>>would have had any qualms about marrying her.
>>
>>Either way it is bad. If he did refuse to marry her too, plainly she
>>would be facing the kind of barrier I described.
>>
>So the problem for someone who is interested in Reform or Conservative
>Judaism and wants to convert is that in order to avoid personal status
>issues within the Jewish world they should be converted by an Orthodox
>Beit-Din. Now the only problem is that if they attracted to either Reform
>or Conservative theology it will be difficult to find an Orthodox Beit Din
>willing to do the conversion.
And rightfully so. We believe that a Jew violating the commandments
harms him or herself, all other Jews, and the world itself. A non-Jew
who eats treif cheese does no harm to anyone. Convert that person and
the same act undermines all of existence.
Conversion is not about the snipping and dipping. Those are rituals
that are necessary, but the essense of conversion is the acceptance of
the binding nature of the commandments and an honest commitment to
take them on. And this means the commandments for real; not the
Conservative and Reform versions. Their "theology" is not a
justification for violations of commandments, particularly since their
theology follows their practice, and not the other way around.
>So we have individuals who want to join the
>Jewish world but not the Orthodox Jewish world who are caught in the middle
>or our mishegas.
That's life. We don't seek converts.
>I respect the position of those who think that those individuals simply
>shouldn't convert for the good of their children, the Jewish world or any
>other reason. As a Conservative Jew who davens regularly with individuals
>who have Reform and Conservative conversions, I'm personally glad that
>they've taken the chance.
I think it's a tragedy.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
>On 18 Dec 2000 20:13:54 GMT, Sheldon Glickler <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>: **Exactly** my point (and I don't see the differerence you are speaking to)...
>: The problem I have is her continued use of the absolutism (as in emirically
>: provable certainty) that her beliefs are the one and only correct ones --
>: and not just for her but for **all** Jews.
>
>That's because you miss the distinction I'm making between "factual" and
>"provable".
>
>Something can be true without us having a way to test its truth.
>
>She can believe something is objectively true for all people. It is her
>belief that XYZ is a fact. If she is right, then everyone ought to be
>conforming to XYZ, not just those people who agree with her. Therefore,
>she believes that XYZ holds for all Jews.
>
>Believing in XYZ means that you believe that everyone who doubts XYZ is
>wrong. They can doubt it because XYZ isn't provable. But that doesn't make
>them right.
I disagree and dissociate mysef from the term "belief". I am
convinced of these facts as I am convinced of any number of facts in
reality. Belief, I think, is irrational. It's a gut feeling. Like
Shelly's belief that it's not necessary to learn the requisite
material to draw conclusions about that material.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3a3eecfb...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On 19 Dec 2000 01:59:24 GMT, "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Problem here is one of POV. From the Orthodox POV, Lisa is absolutely
>> >correct. From the Reform POV, you are absolutely correct. Unless you
>agree
>> >on the rules, you'll never agree on this question because the answer
>depends
>> >entirely on which rules you're following.
>>
>> There is an inherent difference between a POV that is based on
>> knowledge and one which is based on a refusal to hear such knowledge.
>
>That is you POV. You **think** you have knowledge. You don't.
See the other thread, Shelly. This is tiresome. You have not learned
the requisite material which would grant your opinions any weight
whatsoever. I have. Your arguing with me, in this case, is like me
arguing with a plasma physicist about how fusion works. It's beyond
ludicrous.
Lisa
Sheldon Glickler
> On 18 Dec 2000 20:25:43 GMT, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> >On 18 Dec 2000 20:13:54 GMT, Sheldon Glickler
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >: **Exactly** my point (and I don't see the differerence you are speaking
to)...
> >: The problem I have is her continued use of the absolutism (as in
emirically
> >: provable certainty) that her beliefs are the one and only correct
ones --
> >: and not just for her but for **all** Jews.
> >
> >That's because you miss the distinction I'm making between "factual" and
> >"provable".
> >
> >Something can be true without us having a way to test its truth.
> >
> >She can believe something is objectively true for all people. It is her
> >belief that XYZ is a fact. If she is right, then everyone ought to be
> >conforming to XYZ, not just those people who agree with her. Therefore,
> >she believes that XYZ holds for all Jews.
> >
> >Believing in XYZ means that you believe that everyone who doubts XYZ is
> >wrong. They can doubt it because XYZ isn't provable. But that doesn't
make
> >them right.
>
> I disagree and dissociate mysef from the term "belief". I am
Micha, see? She just validated my response to your post.
> convinced of these facts as I am convinced of any number of facts in
> reality. Belief, I think, is irrational. It's a gut feeling. Like
> Shelly's belief that it's not necessary to learn the requisite
> material to draw conclusions about that material.
I won't waste any more time with your nonsense. Just look up the word
paradigm.
Shelly
Eliyahu
as not to shame her?
Eliyahu
isn't germane to the discussion here. Whether or not he can read a Rashi (I
can't, either...), his argument is correct from the Reform POV. This is why
the two of you will continue to be at loggerheads on this one, Lisa. Each of
you are arguing, with your arguments based on differing beliefs relative to
the matter under discussion. It's not so much a matter of "a refusal to hear
such knowledge" as it is not accepting the idea that what you consider
absolute truth is, indeed, truth. For you, the obligation to be frum is a
given. From his point of view and system of beliefs, there is no such
obligation. Unless he considers your cites to be controlling authority
(pardon me for slipping into my old paralegal mode for a minute...), you
aren't going to convince him any more than I could convince you to do
something by citing Washington law at you. I understand that you believe (as
do I...) that all 613 mitzvot and all halacha are binding on all Jews.
Unless he shares that belief, or you can pursuade him to share it, you can
cite Rashi, Rambam, Ramban, and all the other sages and it won't make any
difference because he will still feel that it doesn't apply to him and that
they are neither controlling nor pursuasive authorities.
I will add that I feel that we need to use care in how we disagree in SCJM
and other groups. (Not particularly aimed at you, Lisa, as there are a lot
of harsher things slipping into several other threads.) Turning the argument
from the subject being discussed to the person discussing it puts them on
the defensive and closes their mind to what we want to say. It also tends to
make them look for things to criticize in what we say rather than looking
for ideas with which they can agree, which, in turn, probably leads us into
the current thread here on bearing a grudge... something else we want to
avoid.
On a more general topic, I sense a lot of anger in posts from several of our
regular members here, and that troubles me. I'm not sure how or if we can
defuse it before it hurts our little cyber-community, but I'm inclined to
think that if each of us tries to include a little chessid in what we say it
will go a long way toward making the sort of peace that brings fruitful
discussion. As long as we have O, C and R, we will have areas of
irreconcilable differences and things on which we won't and can't agree.
What matters is how we deal with those differences. We can acknowledge that
they are there, and discuss them and the reasons for them, or we can use
them to bludgeon each other and create hard feelings. We will benefit much
more from the former than the latter.
Some of us have much greater Torah learning than others. Having such
knowledge is good, as it is the reason for which we were created. At the
same time, I recall that we read in Avot not to use it as a crown for
self-aggrandizement nor as a sword with which to cut. I won't try to
elaborate, as I'm sure that others here can do it much better than I, except
to remind all of us that while words can heal and sooth, they can also cut
deeply and cause pain.
Michael Shimshoni
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com% writes:
%"Michael Shimshoni" <MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il> wrote in message
%news:161AA0B...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il...
%> In article <3a3dac48...@News.CIS.DFN.DE%
%> star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
%> %>
%> %>Of course a woman who has a non-Orthodox conversion and who joins a
%> %>non-Orthodox community will not face problems with her conversion and
%her
%> %>children won't face barriers because of that conversion.
%> %
%> %She may not, but she's effectively screwed her children over big time.
%>
%> Only according to the POV of the O minority of Jews. According to
%> to most Jews, who accept her and her children as Jews, this kind
%> of outreach action is welcomed.
%>
%We need to keep in mind that Orthodox are not a minority everywhere as they
%are in the US. Lisa is correct in that it does put the children in the
%rather awkward position of being accepted as Jews by R and some C, but not
%by O. The importance of this will depend on your own POV and affiliation,
%but we still need to recognize that the problem exists.
There is a difference saying "that the problem exists", and
"she's effectively screwed her children over big time".
Michael Shimshoni
Michael Shimshoni
"hsc" <harve...@home.com% writes:
% Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
%news:t3su78s...@corp.supernews.com...
%We need to keep in mind that Orthodox are not a minority everywhere as they
%are in the US. Lisa is correct in that it does put the children in the
%rather awkward position of being accepted as Jews by R and some C, but not
%by O. The importance of this will depend on your own POV and affiliation,
%but we still need to recognize that the problem exists.
%
%If "everywhere" = "the world" then Orthodox are indeed a minority
%everywhere. If it means "Israel," is the ratio of dati/hiloni really greater
%than 1.0? Certainly there is an appreciable number of O Jews in the world,
%and there are real problems in not being recognized by everybody, but let's
%not exaggerate and weaken the point.
We know from Lisa that she has a daughter and shares an apartment with
a female person. Long arguments were published on SCJM in which
Lisa defends he mode of living and certain O Jews attack it as
being wrong. While I personally agree with Lisa that she is
entitled to her mode of living, she should realize that certain O
people would consider (in good time) it to be problematic to marry
her daughter. This (rightly) did not deter Lisa from having a
daughter, so why does she deny the right of the R and C to follow
their rules of converting gentiles just because the O do not accept it.
Michael Shimshoni
Lisa Beth
>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
>> "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate> wrote:
>>>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
>>>> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
>>>> Jewish.
>>>
>>>??!!!! We are supposed to be happy and thankful for being part of
>>>the 'Am Ha Mivchar', the Chosen People of G-d.
>>
>> Cite a source or retract it, Noach. Although I'm probably wasting
>> my time, since you have yet to do that in a single instance.
>
>Well, the morning blessings include "Who has not made me a goy". It
>seems like a good source for Noach's question.
I guess this tells us a little bit about how you see being happy. It
explains your sig in a way that I don't think anyone would have
imagined.
>> Noach, you have your way of looking at things, which is primarily
>> informed by the Christian Right. As you've gone out of your way to
>> show us. But have you perhaps heard of a Tanna by the name of Rabbi
>> Tarfon?
>>
>> "One should not say, 'I abhor pork; therefore I will not eat it.'
>> Rather, one should say, 'I crave pork, but what can I do? My Father
>> in Heaven has forbidden in.'"
>
>I think a better translation of the beggining would be "One should
>not say 'I am unABLE to eat pork' but rather one should say "I am
>quite ABLE to eat it, but..."
I don't think so. I believe the term is "my soul hates it". I
haven't seen it inside for a while, but I don't remember it saying
anything about "ability".
>BTW I'm not sure what non-kosher example was given I just repeated
>Lisa's use of "pork". I do know that the Talmud states that a person
>is naturally revolted from eating "creepy-crawlies". So it's so
>straightforward.
I'll look up the source tonight, b"n.
Lisa
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
>> "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate> wrote:
>>>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
>>>> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
>>>> Jewish.
>>>
>>>??!!!! We are supposed to be happy and thankful for being part of
>>>the 'Am Ha Mivchar', the Chosen People of G-d.
>>
>> Cite a source or retract it, Noach. Although I'm probably wasting
>> my time, since you have yet to do that in a single instance.
>
>Well, the morning blessings include "Who has not made me a goy". It
>seems like a good source for Noach's question.
Serious question: is one required to be happy about the things
mentioned in blessings of gratitude, or simply to praise G-d for them?
I mean, a child given a gift of long underwear may know it's good for
him and recognize that he is obligated by politeness to say thank you,
but he doesn't necessarily have to feel delighted.
>If I may differ? See the _book_ Gateway to Happiness by R. Zelig
>Pliskin. I can reccomend it highly. The first chapter demonstrates
>that being happy is a mitzvah. As does Reb Nachman.
Another serious question: according to non-Chasidim, how much credence
must be given to Chasidic masters as sources of law? Given their
alternate methodology, I would think it a real problem.
I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, by the way; the subject has
just brought up a scattering of semirelated questions I thought I
might as well ask.
>Moshe Schorr
>It is a tremendous Mitzvah to be happy always! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
-Naomi
Noach
> Forgive me if I don't choose to take Joseph Heller as the arbitar of
> reality.
Forgive me if I don't choose to take Ayn Rand as the arbiter of morality and
social policy.
:o)
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>As to "something that is assumed in every post" -- no. When Lisa posts
>using the word "is", she does not write from the viewpoint "I believe it
>is". She is writing from the the viewpoint that what she is saying in
>undeniably, absolutely, incontrovertably a fact.
Sure. If I want to say "in my opinion", I'm quite capable of doing
so. Since this isn't stuff I came up with, it'd be inane for me to
wrote "in my opinion" just to make someone who isn't educated in the
basic material feel more comfortable.
>> believe is true. If I say "It's raining today in New York", I clearly mean
>> "I believe it is raining today in NY".
>
>But when Lisa says it, that means that it a provable certainty and
>how-can-you-be-so-stupid-as-to-even-challenge-the-obvious-God-stated-fact?
If I were to go into a bio lab and start telling people how mitosis
does or does not work, and they, being biologists, knew better than
me, I wouldn't expect them to say, "Well, in my opinion, it doesn't
work that way." I'd expect them to say, "No, that's wrong. It works
this way."
I am educated in the material under discussion. You, by your own
statement, are not. You have made it abundantly clear that you do not
regard your lack of knowledge to be an impediment to voicing a loud
and strident opinion about those things you haven't learned; nor do
you regard the knowledge of others to be grounds for them to make
statements of fact (though you reserve to yourself the right to do
exactly that).
>Do you remember a certain song from the '60s. I think it apropo here for
>you to sing the first line (with a slight change). For you, it would go
>like this: "I'm not Lisa, my name is Micha".
It's from the mid-70's. 1974, if I'm not mistaken.
Lisa
Micha Berger
:> Everyone, unless a disclaimer is clearly stated (*) post what they
: Everyone? When did you slip into -- style? <g>
No, it's a statement of logic. If I say "X" it means "I believe X". Same
whether it's me saying X, you saying X, or the prime minister of Galoob
doing the talking.
: But when Lisa says it, that means that it a provable certainty and
: how-can-you-be-so-stupid-as-to-even-challenge-the-obvious-God-stated-fact?
No, it means the she believes you are being so stupid as to even...
Sheldon Glickler
Because, Lisa, the materiel you mention has nothing whatsoever to do with
the subject at hand -- physical reality and rules of what is "fact". Claim
away all you want that what you believe is "fact". I can't be bothered with
your nonsense any longer.
>
> >Do you remember a certain song from the '60s. I think it apropo here for
> >you to sing the first line (with a slight change). For you, it would go
> >like this: "I'm not Lisa, my name is Micha".
>
> It's from the mid-70's. 1974, if I'm not mistaken.
I don't think you are mistaken and I stand corrected on this.
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
> On 19 Dec 2000 13:34:22 GMT, Sheldon Glickler
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> :> Everyone, unless a disclaimer is clearly stated (*) post what they
>
> : Everyone? When did you slip into -- style? <g>
>
> No, it's a statement of logic. If I say "X" it means "I believe X". Same
> whether it's me saying X, you saying X, or the prime minister of Galoob
> doing the talking.
I was referring to the the "Everyone, ". It reminded me of "Folks, ".
>
> : But when Lisa says it, that means that it a provable certainty and
> :
how-can-you-be-so-stupid-as-to-even-challenge-the-obvious-God-stated-fact?
>
> No, it means the she believes you are being so stupid as to even...
....and the difference between what you say and I said is......??? She has
already rejected the "she believes" as not not being correct as that is only
a "gut feeling". She says it is a certainty.
Shelly
Micha Berger
: I disagree and dissociate mysef from the term "belief". I am
: convinced of these facts as I am convinced of any number of facts in
: reality. Belief, I think, is irrational.
No, belief is the gap between proof and the idea in your head. Every
idea in there is proven to some extent, but usually believed to a
greater one.
For example, even if I say that my pants are navy, I am to some extent
relying on the evidence of my senses, and to some extent I'm relying on
a belief that I sense color correctly. I only believe they are true,
there is some chance I'm wrong. In my father's case, he's likely to
be wrong -- he often confuses navy and black. I believe I'm better at
judging colors than that.
Micha Berger
: Another serious question: according to non-Chasidim, how much credence
: must be given to Chasidic masters as sources of law? Given their
: alternate methodology, I would think it a real problem.
What difference in methodology? Our differences are philosophical -- we
have the same concept of how halachah works.
-mi
Noach
> On 19 Dec 2000 01:59:24 GMT, "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Problem here is one of POV. From the Orthodox POV, Lisa is absolutely
> >correct. From the Reform POV, you are absolutely correct. Unless you
agree
> >on the rules, you'll never agree on this question because the answer
depends
> >entirely on which rules you're following.
>
> There is an inherent difference between a POV that is based on
> knowledge and one which is based on a refusal to hear such knowledge.
> Shelly can't even read a Rashi. Do you think he's unusual for a
> Reform Jew?
This is a most germane and cogent point.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
I had in mind the use of mystical experience as a reliable source for
information.
>-mi
-Naomi
Lisa Beth
It would be permitted for him to do it anywhere. She's not Jewish,
and so far as I'm aware, he doesn't have any obligation to avoid
letting that be known. That's not the issue. Most people don't like
slapping their mother in the face. Which is what he'd be doing, even
though she's responsible for the situation (well, she and her
husband).
Lisa
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
Your claim that it has nothing to do with fact is almost funny coming,
as it does, from someone who has publically stated that he will not
learn the material in question, and who has made a stink about people
unfairly using knowledge as a basis for claiming that they're right.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
>On 19 Dec 2000 14:57:30 GMT, Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>: I disagree and dissociate mysef from the term "belief". I am
>: convinced of these facts as I am convinced of any number of facts in
>: reality. Belief, I think, is irrational.
>
>No, belief is the gap between proof and the idea in your head. Every
>idea in there is proven to some extent, but usually believed to a
>greater one.
I disagree. There is a difference between a belief and a conviction.
I can be convinced of something, and it's not the same as having a
"belief". "Beliefs" are irrational or non-rational. Convictions
needn't be.
>For example, even if I say that my pants are navy, I am to some extent
>relying on the evidence of my senses, and to some extent I'm relying on
>a belief that I sense color correctly. I only believe they are true,
>there is some chance I'm wrong. In my father's case, he's likely to
>be wrong -- he often confuses navy and black. I believe I'm better at
>judging colors than that.
Loose use of terms, I think.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
<sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3a3ee9f1...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On 18 Dec 2000 19:44:19 GMT, "Sheldon Glickler"
>> <sheldonlg_f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >2 - To do that you had to "convince yourself"/"become convinced" that
>what
>> >you decided was right was, in fact, "right" (Correct so far?).
>>
>> No. I don't choose to accept your implication. Strike "convince
>> yourself", and run it by me again. I don't play by your rules,
>> Shelly, and I won't permit you to put words in my mouth.
>
>"by one means or another become convinced". That is why I added the "/".
Fine. Put it by itself, and I'll address it.
>> >3 - Since there are others who disagree with your assessment, there is no
>> >universal agreement among Jews that what you feel is "right" is "right"
>> >(Correct so far?)
>>
>> No. There is also no universal agreement among human beings that the
>> earth orbits the sun. There *is*, however, universal agreement among
>> those who are educated enough to have a valid opinion. In both cases.
>
>IOW, "correct".
In no other words. In the words I used, "no". Reading comprehension
problems are not an excuse for reversing what I said and pretending I
said something else.
>> >4 - The reason for that is that there is no hard and fast **evidence**
>> >either way (Correct so far?).
>>
>> I reject your very bizarre misapplication of mathematical proof to
>> real life situations. Something neither you nor anyone else does in
>> day to day life, and something you are only choosing to do here
>> because it's the *only* way you can ward off the facts.
>
>Facts? What facts? There **are no** facts here, there are only
>**beliefs**.
That's your belief. A belief based on... a desire for it to be that
way? Certainly not based on anything of substance, since you have not
learned the material and have stated that you *will not* learn it.
>Unless you can produce hard and fast evidence, then I am
>correct -- whether you reject the mathematical type proof or not.
No, you are still incorrect. And the very idea of someone who has no
information in an area of study presuming to tell someone who does
that the area of study itself is all just a matter of beliefs... it's
beyond bizarre. It's the most anti-intellectual thing I can imagine.
Touting ignorance as a good thing, and knowledge as non-existent.
>> >5 - That leads to the inevitable conclusion that you **believe** one way is
>> >right and the other body of Jews **believes** the other way (Correct so
>> >far?).
>>
>> Nope. You're doing poorly. Shelly, for goodness sake, you can't even
>> read a Rashi. And I don't believe you're a substandard exemplar of
>
>Big deal. I can read Rashi if translated into English -- and I have on
>numerous occasions (now that I know that the commentary at the bottom is
>Rashi's).
<snort> Oh, please, Shelly. I can skim Grey's Anatomy. That doesn't
entitle me to voice medical opinions.
>In any event, do you contradict that you believe one way and a vast body of
>other Jews believes differently?
Yes, I contradict that.
a) I do not "believe", anymore than a physicist "believes" in the laws
of physics. If you want to abuse language enough to make the word
"believe" relevant, I'm uninterested in talking with you.
b) I have no interest in the "beliefs" of people who are speaking from
lack of knowledge. Uninformed opinions are of interest only to those
who hold them. And maybe to others who are equally uninformed. Not
to me, and not to anyone who is informed.
>That is what I said. Do you disagree? If
>you do, then you are so totally blind to reality that it is pointless to
>continue.
Then stop continuing, Shelly.
>> >6- That further leads, then, to the conclusion that you **chose** to follow
>> >your **beliefs** as to what was "right" versus what was "wrong" and **NOT**
>> >do what was [factually/provably] "right" and not do what was
>> >[factually/provably] "wrong". QED
>>
>> Nothing demonstrated here except for your unfortunate inability to
>> process a logical argument.
>
>Whatever. You are so totally close-minded as to make any further effort on
>my part a total waste of time.
But you keep coming back, don't you. Like a regular little Eveready
Bunny of sectarianism and willful ignorance. I'll repeat once more
that I do not think ignorance, per se, is anything to be ashamed of.
Willful ignorance, on the other hand, is. And scorn towards those who
are knowledgeable? Utterly shameful. I honestly don't know how you
can say these things and look yourself in the eye, Shelly.
Lisa
Lisa Beth
Gayle Rivkis) wrote:
>On 19 Dec 2000 11:00:42 GMT, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>
>>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) writes:
>>> "Noach" <add...@reply-to.is.accurate> wrote:
>>>>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> I would *love* to wake up tomorrow morning and get a letter from my
>>>>> family telling me that it was all a mistake and that I'm not really
>>>>> Jewish.
>>>>
>>>>??!!!! We are supposed to be happy and thankful for being part of
>>>>the 'Am Ha Mivchar', the Chosen People of G-d.
>>>
>>> Cite a source or retract it, Noach. Although I'm probably wasting
>>> my time, since you have yet to do that in a single instance.
>>
>>Well, the morning blessings include "Who has not made me a goy". It
>>seems like a good source for Noach's question.
>
>Serious question: is one required to be happy about the things
>mentioned in blessings of gratitude, or simply to praise G-d for them?
Birkat hoda'ah are not blessings of gratitude. They are blessings of
recognition. When we say that bracha, we are recognizing God as the
one who did not make us non-Jews. There is no "happiness" or
"sadness" about it. Simple recognition.
Lisa