***Israeli Citizenship***
David Greenberg
would like to be a representative, if you will, of my spiritual
homeland. But I am now having second thoughts.
When my parents lived in Israel, the law was that all Israeli
citizens must enter the Israeli armed forces at the age of 16.
I would first of all like ot know whether or not that law is
still in effect. I am also an American citizen and even though
the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, can I still apply
for Israeli citizenship?
Because I live in the U.S. and I am a High School student, can
I be drafted into the Israeli armed services?
Any help would be greatly appreciated, providing that it is
based on fact, not speculation or vague memories. Thank you!
Your Fellow Jew and Hopeful Israeli,
Nathan Greenberg
FreshAgain
1) The US, as far as I know, recognizes dual citizenship with Israel. It
is one of very few exceptions.
2) Military service in Israel in compulsory for three years for all men
ages 18-54. Only one year, I believe, is spent "in the field."
Andrew
Jonathan Kamens
|> I am thinking of becoming an Israeli citizen. I am a Jew and I
|> would like to be a representative, if you will, of my spiritual
|> homeland. But I am now having second thoughts.
A Jew can become an Israeli citizen under the Law of Return by making Aliya,
i.e., by coming to live in Israel.
Israel does not give Israeli citizenship to any Jew in the world who contacts
them and says, "I want to be an Israeli citizen." You are entitled to become
a citizen if you decide to come live in Israel. You're not entitled to
Israeli citizenship if you simply want to "be a representative of [your]
spiritual homeland" while continuing to live outside of Israel.
There are exceptions to this, e.g., Jonathan Pollard, but I hardly think
you're in the same league :-).
|> When my parents lived in Israel, the law was that all Israeli
|> citizens must enter the Israeli armed forces at the age of 16.
The induction age is no longer 16, but yes, most Israeli citizens are inducted
into the army, either when they finish high school or when they make Aliya.
There are exceptions, including: Israeli Arabs do not serve; religious Jewish
women do not serve because it really isn't possible for a religious Jewish
woman to adhere to Halacha in the army (e.g., "modesty" is virtually
nonexistent), but many religious Jewish women choose to do voluntary national
service instead of their army service; religious Jewish men who are studying
full-time in a yeshiva do not serve.
|> I am also an American citizen and even though
|> the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, can I still apply
|> for Israeli citizenship?
The US won't actually make you choose one citizenship over another unless they
go to war against the country with which you have dual citizenship. I know
numerous Israelis who made Aliya from America who maintain their American
citizenship.
David Greenberg
question-would I still have to serve evne though I live in the
U.S.?
FreshAgain
w/Israeli citizenship and not serve in the military.
Could be wrong, though. Double-check.
Andrew
Ilya Vinarsky
says...
>|> I am also an American citizen and even though
>|> the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, can I still apply
>|> for Israeli citizenship?
>
>The US won't actually make you choose one citizenship over another unless
they
>go to war against the country with which you have dual citizenship.
with it get the right to work in any country of the European Community. :)
>I know
>numerous Israelis who made Aliya from America who maintain their American
>citizenship.
IIRC, Golda Meyer remained an American citizen until her death.
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
Moshe Nathan
>
> I am thinking of becoming an Israeli citizen. I am a Jew and I
> would like to be a representative, if you will, of my spiritual
> homeland. But I am now having second thoughts.
>
> citizens must enter the Israeli armed forces at the age of 16.
> still in effect.
Never was, entering to the Israeli Army is at the age of 18 (boys and
girls).
I am also an American citizen and even though
> the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, can I still apply
> for Israeli citizenship?
> Yes you can.
> Because I live in the U.S. and I am a High School student, can
> I be drafted into the Israeli armed services?
> Only if you become an Israeli and you are 18 or older.
> Any help would be greatly appreciated, providing that it is
> based on fact, not speculation or vague memories. Thank you!
>
> Your Fellow Jew and Hopeful Israeli,
>
> Nathan Greenberg
Nathan,
You can also get more information at:
http://www.israel.org/gov/immabsor.html
or e-mail you enquieries to: a...@israel-info.gov.il
See you soon with us.
Moshe Nathan,
Avi Jacobson
Dear Andrew,
Based on answers to questions like the one to which you are
responding, people make life decisions affecting themselves and their
families on a long-term basis (I've been in Israel for 26 years as a
result of such a decision by my own parents). It is therefore imperative
that if someone does not know the facts, he not invent them. The fact
that you added "to the best of my knowledge" or "I believe" won't help
the poor guy who immigrates to Israel on the basis of your information
and finds himself confronted with unexpected life-changing realities.
Double citizenship between the U.S. and Israel is recognized
_under_strictly_stipulated_conditions_. If you do it wrong (like
arriving in Israel and signing a letter saying you want Israeli
citizenship), you _lose_ your U.S. citizenship. The U.S. State
Department, or the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, can provide details. So can
the Israeli Ministry of Absorption, but of course their word on what the
U.S. Government will do is not as reliable as that of the other sources I
have mentioned.
Immigrants to Israel can serve shorter terms, again depending on several
factors. The bit about "one year in the field" is divorced from reality:
many soldiers have non-combat positions and do not spend a single day in
the field. Others are combat soldiers from the day they are drafted.
Consult your local Israeli embassy or consulate or information service.
--
Avi Jacobson, Audio Lingual Consultant | When an idea is wanting,
Home Page: | a word can always be
http://www.netvision.net.il/php/avi_jaco | found to take its place.
email: avi_...@netvision.net.il | -- Goethe
Jonathan Kamens
First of all, as I said in my last message, IF YOU CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THE US,
YOU CAN'T OBTAIN ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP. A Jew obtains Israeli citizenship by
moving to Israel.
Second, once you are an Israeli citizen, you have to get permission from the
army every time you leave Israel, as long as you are still below the maximum
age for army service. If you move to Israel close to the your induction age,
and then you try to leave Israel to go back to the US to live for any length
of time, the army is unlikely to let you leave, because you will be a high
risk for skipping out on your army service.
Third, if you do manage to leave Israel before being inducted, then when you
return to Israel after the age at which you were supposed to start you
service, you will be either (a) inducted immediately or (b) arrested for
skipping out on your service.
Andrew Mathis
I qualified them with "AFAIK" and "I believe." If that's not good
enough for you, sobeit.
Andrew
Avi Jacobson <avi_...@netvision.net.il> wrote:
>Dear Andrew,
-------------------------------------
"If they give you ruled paper,
Write the other way."
--Juan Ramon Jimenez
James Garner
:religious Jewish men who are studying full-time in a yeshiva do not serve.
This is interesting. So now that Israel is starting to accept
Conservative and Reform and God alone knows what else as "Judaism", if
some "Reform" and "Conservative" "Rabbis" make aliya and set up a
"yeshiva" at which conservative and reform can be studied, these people
would be exempt also now?
Or does this exemption from military service still apply only to
Judaism? If so, on what legal basis does Israel distinguish?
:
: |> I am also an American citizen and even though
: |> the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, can I still apply
: |> for Israeli citizenship?
:
: The US won't actually make you choose one citizenship over another unless they
: go to war against the country with which you have dual citizenship. I know
Irene Stern Friedman
<sue...@earthlink.net> writes:
* |> I am thinking of becoming an Israeli citizen. I am a Jew and I
* |> would like to be a representative, if you will, of my spiritual
* |> homeland. But I am now having second thoughts.
* |> I am also an American citizen and even though
* |> the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, can I still apply
* |> for Israeli citizenship?
My daughter made aliyah about two years ago. She contacted the Israeli
embassy and schliach before she left America, and started paperwork. She
was then allowed to take three suitcases rather than two on her El Al
flight without an extra charge. When she arrived in Israel she showed some
paers at the airport and was escorted to a special area and did more
papers and began the process of becoming an Israeli citizen. She attended
ulpan first and then joined the army. A soldier needs to speak Hebrew.
There is no problem with dual citizenship in the US and Israel, although
there are forms that the Israeli government can help you with regarding
military service there. Proper completion of these allows you to serve in
the IDF without jepardizing your US citizenship.
But Israeli citizenship is no more a light hearted adventure than US
citizenship. You cannot just "represent your spiritual homeland"--
citizenship incurs responsibilities as well as privileges.
Good luck in whatever you decide to do.
Irene Stern Friedman
Jonathan Kamens
|> Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
|>
|> :religious Jewish men who are studying full-time in a yeshiva do not serve.
|>
|> This is interesting. So now that Israel is starting to accept
|> Conservative and Reform and God alone knows what else as "Judaism", if
|> some "Reform" and "Conservative" "Rabbis" make aliya and set up a
|> "yeshiva" at which conservative and reform can be studied, these people
|> would be exempt also now?
|>
|> Or does this exemption from military service still apply only to
|> Judaism? If so, on what legal basis does Israel distinguish?
First of all, your implied assumption that Conservative and Reform Judaism are
not "Judaism" is patently offensive.
Second, in fact, there are already both Conservative and Reform yeshivot in
Jerusalem.
Third, the Israeli government has already recognized that Hebrew Union
College, the Reform rabbinical college in Jerusalem, should be treated as a
yeshiva in terms of government subsidies, and similar recognition for the
Conservative Beit Midrash in Jerusalem will not be far behind. Therefore, I
can only assume that the government would treat HUC and the Beit Midrash
similarly in terms of army service -- anyone studying in one of those
institutions full-time is exempt.
James Garner
: |> Or does this exemption from military service still apply only to
: |> Judaism? If so, on what legal basis does Israel distinguish?
: First of all, your implied assumption that Conservative and Reform Judaism are
: not "Judaism" is patently offensive.
You may wish to feel similarly offended by other implications that
I may make from time to time. Such as that the earth revolves around the
sun. Won't change facts, though.
: Second, in fact, there are already both Conservative and Reform yeshivot in
: Jerusalem.
Great.
: Third, the Israeli government has already recognized that Hebrew Union
: College, the Reform rabbinical college in Jerusalem, should be treated as a
: yeshiva in terms of government subsidies, and similar recognition for the
: Conservative Beit Midrash in Jerusalem will not be far behind. Therefore, I
: can only assume that the government would treat HUC and the Beit Midrash
: similarly in terms of army service -- anyone studying in one of those
: institutions full-time is exempt.
Gee, that's really great.
Beth Orens
>(Followups directed to soc.culture.israel only.)
>In article <4k3pgq$9...@chile.it.earthlink.net>, David Greenberg
><sue...@earthlink.net> writes:
>|> Thanks for your info. This really helps. But I do have one
>|> question-would I still have to serve evne though I live in the
>|> U.S.?
>First of all, as I said in my last message, IF YOU CONTINUE TO LIVE IN THE US,
>YOU CAN'T OBTAIN ISRAELI CITIZENSHIP. A Jew obtains Israeli citizenship by
>moving to Israel.
>Second, once you are an Israeli citizen, you have to get permission from the
>army every time you leave Israel, as long as you are still below the maximum
>age for army service.
Untrue. Or anyway imprecise. Most units in the army will mark your passport
for you these days so that you never have to get permission to leave the
country. Believe it or not, the bureaucracy in Israel does progress. You
should see the improvements in the Jerusalem Ministry of the Interior!
Of course, this presupposes that you've already done basic. But Mr. Kamens'
information was a little vague on this point.
Beth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If he wins, we'll know God wanted him to." Will smiled. "Reality is the
most perfect vision of God's will. It's discovering God's will in advance
that causes all the trouble."
"The fate of mankind is in the hands of a fanatic," said Angel. "As usual."
- from _Wyrms_ by Orson Scott Card
Beth Orens
>In article <4k3c5s$c...@jik.israel.net>, j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com
>says...
>>|> I am also an American citizen and even though
>>|> the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, can I still apply
>>|> for Israeli citizenship?
>>
>>The US won't actually make you choose one citizenship over another unless
>they
>>go to war against the country with which you have dual citizenship.
>I read that some Irish-American businessmen acquire Irish citizenship, and
>with it get the right to work in any country of the European Community. :)
>>I know
>>numerous Israelis who made Aliya from America who maintain their American
>>citizenship.
>IIRC, Golda Meyer remained an American citizen until her death.
Yes, but they've since passed a law requiring candidates for the Knesset to
repudiate all citizenships but Israeli. I think this was aimed at one
particular political figure.
FreshAgain
live who will be flying to Israel to vote in a few months.
Andrew
FreshAgain
Andrew
Beth Orens
>It was aimed at Meir Kahane, but maybe you already knew that.
I know. But it had a wider "success". I recall that in the elections
following this there was a big fuss when some Meretz (or it might have been
just Ratz at the time) candidates tried to contest the law. I guess they
thought it had already served its purpose. It's a shame when a country uses
ad hoc legislation as a bludgeon.
MorlanRogers
>In article <4k3c5s$c...@jik.israel.net>, j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com
>says...
>>|> I am also an American citizen and even though
>>|> the U.S. does not recognize dual citizenship, can I still apply
>>|> for Israeli citizenship?
>>
>>The US won't actually make you choose one citizenship over another unless
>they
>>go to war against the country with which you have dual citizenship.
>I read that some Irish-American businessmen acquire Irish citizenship, and
>with it get the right to work in any country of the European Community. :)
It's not that Irish-Americans can "acquire" Irish citizenship. It's that
they are automatically Irish citizens if one grandparent was born in
Ireland. As a result, they apply for an Irish passport. Until they
apply for a passport, it is a kind of inchoate citizenship -- they have
Irish citizenship from the day they are born but haven't manifested it.
Alexandre Khalil
FreshAgain <fresh...@aol.com> wrote:
>Along the same lines, there are plenty of Jews in Brooklyn near where I
>live who will be flying to Israel to vote in a few months.
Couldn't they vote at a consulate?
alex
Martin Fox
Israel has no absentee ballot.
Re the Jews of Brooklyn flying to Israel to vote:
1. I'll bet that they are all Chasidim.
2. I'll bet that their rebbi told them to go and gave thaem instructions on
how to vote.
3. I'll bet that few of them would live in Israel and that none of them
would serve in the IDF.
4. I'll bet that they will fly Tower, not El-Al.
5. I'll bet that they will return very promptly after voting.
How do I know? They've done it before
Martin Fox
FreshAgain
They fly El-Al; it's terrorist-free.
Andrew
Martin Fox
The last election that I noted the phenomenon (one before last, I think), the
chartered from Tower. Possibly El-Al is now more charter friendly.
Martin Fox
Alexandre Khalil
Martin Fox <f...@stt.msu.edu> wrote:
>iska...@eesun1.tamu.edu (Alexandre Khalil) wrote:
>>In article <4kdfth$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>>FreshAgain <fresh...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Along the same lines, there are plenty of Jews in Brooklyn near where I
>>>live who will be flying to Israel to vote in a few months.
>> Couldn't they vote at a consulate?
>Israel has no absentee ballot.
If you go to the consulate [I suppose there is one in the NYC area], you
are hardly an absentee. Oh well...
alex
Shaqeeqa
>Yes on all but 4, Martin.
>
>They fly El-Al; it's terrorist-free.
Wasn't that the airline that Goldstein flew on?
(And the rest of the Jewish extremists?)
Shaqeeqa
--
"If Palestine should be lost while you still live, -.._..-.._..-.._..-.._..-..
I'll say: our people have abandoned the path." 'Abd al-Raheem Mahmoud
(Call of the Motherland Anthology of Modern Palestinian Literature)
-.._..-.._..-.._..-.._.. "I am a rebel and freedom is my cause." Y. Arafat ('74)
Yehuda SIlver
: In article <4k8guo$d...@news.tiac.net>, da...@tiac.net (James Garner) writes:
: |> Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
: |>
: |> :religious Jewish men who are studying full-time in a yeshiva do not serve.
: |>
: |> This is interesting. So now that Israel is starting to accept
: |> Conservative and Reform and God alone knows what else as "Judaism", if
: |> some "Reform" and "Conservative" "Rabbis" make aliya and set up a
: |> "yeshiva" at which conservative and reform can be studied, these people
: |> would be exempt also now?
: |> Judaism? If so, on what legal basis does Israel distinguish?
: First of all, your implied assumption that Conservative and Reform Judaism are
: not "Judaism" is patently offensive.
The conservative and reform religions attempts to fraudulent pretend
they are Judaism is offensive! they certainly are NOT Judasim.
: Second, in fact, there are already both Conservative and Reform yeshivot in
: Jerusalem.
The have not as yet called themselves "yesivot" but who cares.
Even secular Israelis alugh at their "rabbis" male and female!
: Third, the Israeli government has already recognized that Hebrew Union
: College, the Reform rabbinical college in Jerusalem, should be treated as a
: yeshiva in terms of government subsidies, and similar recognition for the
: Conservative Beit Midrash in Jerusalem will not be far behind.
While it's a joke that some athiest governemt minister should make
any decisions regarding religions, even shitreet has NOT recognized them
as "yeshivot"
Isreal subdises, unviersities, agriculture schools, art and music academy's
etc, and funding an "educational institution does NOT make it a "yeshiva"
even in the government's eyes!
The "ministry of religion(S), plural, funds, xtaim, and muslim mosques
and educational institutions, as well as jewish one's, and again
it's funding decisions, do not imply that it is a Jewish religion...
However who cares what the athiest think anyway, but even they
have NOT recognized reform or conservative.
Athiest Chaim Ramon, the minister of the interior, (and an opponent of
orthodoxy)
recently told off a group of reform ministers
that we have "only secular and orthodox" in Israel
and until the reform bring in 300,000 olim , no one will recognize them
in Israel!
Therefore, I
: can only assume that the government would treat HUC and the Beit Midrash
: similarly in terms of army service -- anyone studying in one of those
: institutions full-time is exempt.
Of course, they are almost all AMERICAN citizen;s not Isrealis!
and therefore not subject to the draft!
Jonathan Kamens
anyone who doesn't practice the same brand of Judaism as he does, but I think
it's necessary to correct a few of the factual errors in his posting.
In article <4kr0md$m...@panix2.panix.com>, ysi...@panix.com (Yehuda SIlver) writes:
|> Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
|> : Second, in fact, there are already both Conservative and Reform yeshivot in
|> : Jerusalem.
|>
|> The have not as yet called themselves "yesivot" but who cares.
|> Even secular Israelis alugh at their "rabbis" male and female!
In fact, both the Reform and Conservative movements in Israel have opened
yeshivot, under that name, in the last year.
The Reform yeshiva is the one which was recently granted yeshiva subsidies by
the Israeli government.
The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" has
been open since last summer. I've been studying there since Elul.
|> Athiest Chaim Ramon, the minister of the interior, (and an opponent of
|> orthodoxy)
|> recently told off a group of reform ministers
|> that we have "only secular and orthodox" in Israel
|> and until the reform bring in 300,000 olim , no one will recognize them
|> in Israel!
1) There is a difference between a secular Jew and an atheist. Do you know
for a fact that Mr. Ramon is the latter rather than the former? I doubt it.
2) Chaim Ramon does not make religious policy for the government.
3) In any case Ramon was stating that the government would resist giving
additional recognition to the Conservative and Reform movements because it
doesn't want to upset the Orthodox and make it impossible to form a coalition
with them. This is politics, not a statement about his opinion of the
validity of Conservative and Reform Judaism.
|> Therefore, I
|> : can only assume that the government would treat HUC and the Beit Midrash
|> : similarly in terms of army service -- anyone studying in one of those
|> : institutions full-time is exempt.
|>
|> Of course, they are almost all AMERICAN citizen;s not Isrealis!
|>
|> and therefore not subject to the draft!
There are, in fact, numerous Israeli citizens studying in the Conservative and
Reform yeshivot.
Yehuda SIlver
: I'm not going to bother responding to most of Yehuda's usual vitriol against
: anyone who doesn't practice the same brand of Judaism as he does, but I think
There are no "brands" of Judaism.
a) Their is Hashem's torah, written and oral!
b) there are man made deviatiations from it, such
as Korach's, Jesus's reform and conservative.
They are all man made deviations started by renegade's of
jewish ancestry!
: it's necessary to correct a few of the factual errors in his posting.
: In article <4kr0md$m...@panix2.panix.com>, ysi...@panix.com (Yehuda SIlver) writes:
: |> Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
: |> : Second, in fact, there are already both Conservative and Reform yeshivot in
: |> : Jerusalem.
: |>
: |> The have not as yet called themselves "yesivot" but who cares.
: |> Even secular Israelis alugh at their "rabbis" male and female!
: The Reform yeshiva is the one which was recently granted yeshiva subsidies by
: the Israeli government.
they were given the same "higher education" subsideis given to all
religions, i.e. muslims xtians, secular, and even agriculture schools!
: The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" has
: been open since last summer. I've been studying there since Elul.
You mean JTS Jerusalem renamed itself!
: |> Athiest Chaim Ramon, the minister of the interior, (and an opponent of
: |> orthodoxy)
: |> recently told off a group of reform ministers
: |> that we have "only secular and orthodox" in Israel
: |> and until the reform bring in 300,000 olim , no one will recognize them
: |> in Israel!
: 1) There is a difference between a secular Jew and an atheist. Do you know
: for a fact that Mr. Ramon is the latter rather than the former? I doubt it.
: 2) Chaim Ramon does not make religious policy for the government.
RAmon is Minister of the Interior, and as such is the official
who "classifies" status as Jews, for the Interior minister
"identity papers" as well as for the "law of return"
the ONLY issues to ever come to the secular supreme court!
The court has not ever even tried to get them reconized as "rabbis"
and threw out of court suits for "co-ed or woman's minyanim" at the Kotel
giving only the orthodox Chief Rabbinate autority in these areas.
RAmon is the ONLY minister responsible for those issues that have come
before the court!
: 3) In any case Ramon was stating that the government would resist giving
: additional recognition to the Conservative and Reform movements because it
: doesn't want to upset the Orthodox and make it impossible to form a coalition
: with them. This is politics, not a statement about his opinion of the
: validity of Conservative and Reform Judaism.
NO Israeli , has ever thought of reform and conservative in anything
but political terms. Ramon never took them seriously religiously,
he was just referring to the american reform politcal pressure on him.
Secualar Israelis like Ramon, correctly laugh at the reform female ministers,
consider reform and conservaitve just foreign attempts to be like non-jews,
which has no place in Israel,
and take them seriously only as "political" and "econimic" forces
to be reckoned with. He resoponded, that despite the polical and
economic pressures of these and the UJA groups,
his "poltical veiw" also dictates dealing with the orthodox first!
: |> Therefore, I
James Garner
: The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" has
: been open since last summer. I've been studying there since Elul.
I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of study which must go on
at the "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism."
Certainly, you will be bringing forth many Gedolim of the Torah out of
such an institution.
Perhaps, however, you can direct me to the Conservative rationale
for violating the Sabbath numerous times by driving.
Jonathan Kamens
|> Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
|>
|> : The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" has
|> : been open since last summer. I've been studying there since Elul.
|>
|> I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of study which must go on
|> at the "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism."
|> Certainly, you will be bringing forth many Gedolim of the Torah out of
|> such an institution.
The director of the yeshiva studied at Brovender's and the Hartman Institute
for many years. One of the Rashei Yeshiva studied in Rabbi Feinstein's
yeshiva.
This yeshiva was started precisely because large numbers of people in the
Conservative movement are returning to serious Torah study, and because there
was no Conservative institution devoted to real yeshiva-style learning.
God-willing, you're right despite your sarcasm that the yeshiva will bring
forth many Gedolim. Am Yisrael needs all the Gedolim we can get.
I dare you to come sit in on the advanced Talmud shiur for a day and see if
you can keep up.
|> Perhaps, however, you can direct me to the Conservative rationale
|> for violating the Sabbath numerous times by driving.
1) I would explain to you the rationale behind that responsa if I really
thought you were interested in discussing it, but you're not. I don't agree
with that decision either (Conservative Judaism isn't as homogenous as you
would like it to be when tarring it with your wide brush, any more than
Orthodoxy is homogenous), but at least I *understand* it, something which I
doubt you have tried to do.
2) The Masorati movement in Israel, which has a separate law committee from
the one in the US, rejected that responsa and does not permit its congregants
to drive to synagogue on Shabbat.
3) Even the rabbi who authored the responsa in the States permitting driving
to synagogue on Shabbat, subsequently realized that he was wrong and signed
the subsequent Israeli responsa rejecting the decision.
I know that you don't want to hear this, but the Conservative movement is
hardly alone in allowing "Halacha of convenience." The great lengths to which
the Israeli rabbinate goes to come up with loop-holes which allow the Israeli
agricultural sector to violate the spirit of the Torah laws of Shmita, while
(allegedly) not violating their letter, is just one proof of this.
Or, closer to this issue, consider how many Chabad houses make sure that there
is parking nearby and invite people to come to them for Shabbat meals with
knowledge that they will drive to get there. The kiruv that Chabad believes
justifies that is the same kiruv which motivated the Conservative decision
about driving to synagogue.
Beth Orens
>In article <4kv3ga$i...@news.tiac.net>, da...@tiac.net (James Garner) writes:
>|> Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
>|>
>|> : The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" has
>|> : been open since last summer. I've been studying there since Elul.
>|>
>|> I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of study which must go on
>|> at the "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism."
>|> Certainly, you will be bringing forth many Gedolim of the Torah out of
>|> such an institution.
>The director of the yeshiva studied at Brovender's and the Hartman Institute
>for many years. One of the Rashei Yeshiva studied in Rabbi Feinstein's
>yeshiva.
I'm not sure why this is considered a major approbation. The Hartman
Institute isn't considered Orthodox except by themselves, the admittedly
non-Orthodox and the press. And I know people who learned at Brovenders who
aren't observant at all (about 25% of the people I knew from there, in fact).
Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya was a Tanna. People change. (I am not comparing
anyone involved here with Acher - just the dynamic).
Beth
----------------------------------
"No matter you go - there you are"
- B. Bonzai
James Garner
: The director of the yeshiva studied at Brovender's and the Hartman Institute
: for many years. One of the Rashei Yeshiva studied in Rabbi Feinstein's
: yeshiva.
Will you next begin to tell me of how many former frum yeshiva
students now are part of Jews-for-Jesus? The association of these people
(how come you don't name them, I wonder?) with Conservative says all one
needs to know.
:This yeshiva was started precisely because large numbers of people in the
:Conservative movement are returning to serious Torah study, and because
:there was no Conservative institution devoted to real yeshiva-style
:learning.
If one is interested in the Torah, why not just go to a Jewish
yeshiva instead of a Conservative one? Is it possible that if one is
looking for "yeshiva-style learning" that one might find that at a Jewish
yeshiva?
: I dare you to come sit in on the advanced Talmud shiur for a day and see if
: you can keep up.
Once again, this is turned personal. I do not claim to be as
highly advanced in Talmud as someone who studied with Moshe Feinstein.
However, I still retain the capacity to understand that Jews belong in
Judaism, not Conservative.
: |> Perhaps, however, you can direct me to the Conservative rationale
: |> for violating the Sabbath numerous times by driving.
: 3) Even the rabbi who authored the responsa in the States permitting driving
: to synagogue on Shabbat, subsequently realized that he was wrong and signed
: the subsequent Israeli responsa rejecting the decision.
First time I heard of this. Funny how the Conservative religion
does not mention this fact, but instead encourages people to drive to
synagogue.
By the way, I would be interested in the why and how of the Rabbi
who "subsequently realized that he was wrong".
: I know that you don't want to hear this, but the Conservative movement is
: hardly alone in allowing "Halacha of convenience." The great lengths to which
: the Israeli rabbinate goes to come up with loop-holes which allow the Israeli
: agricultural sector to violate the spirit of the Torah laws of Shmita, while
: (allegedly) not violating their letter, is just one proof of this.
I am not aware of this. What are you referring to specifically?
: Or, closer to this issue, consider how many Chabad houses make sure that there
: is parking nearby and invite people to come to them for Shabbat meals with
: knowledge that they will drive to get there. The kiruv that Chabad believes
: justifies that is the same kiruv which motivated the Conservative decision
: about driving to synagogue.
And now Chabad needs to either shut down their Chabad centers, or
purchase significant parking space in order to keep in business?
There is a difference. With Chabad, they are hoping to bring
people back to Judaism. With Conservative, they are simply making it
easier for people to keep violating the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, to
keep people as dues-paying members of Conservative synagogues.
Harvey S. Cohen
>: The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" has
>: been open since last summer. I've been studying there since Elul.
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
> I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of study which must go on
>at the "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism."
>Certainly, you will be bringing forth many Gedolim of the Torah out of
>such an institution.
> Perhaps, however, you can direct me to the Conservative rationale
>for violating the Sabbath numerous times by driving.
Is there some attempt to start a discussion here, or is it just sinat chinom?
If Garner has a real point he wishes to make, perhaps he would spell it out.
--
Harvey....@att.com
j0...@netcom.com
>fresh...@aol.com (FreshAgain) wrote:
>>They fly El-Al; it's terrorist-free.
>>
>>Andrew
>The last election that I noted the phenomenon (one before last, I think), the
>chartered from Tower. Possibly El-Al is now more charter friendly.
>Martin Fox
There are no coincidences......
Why do you think El-Al started serving Glatt meals?
The good news is they do it w/ that same attitude...
*smile*
milqiq or fleichiq matters not if it is a Mad.C0w
James Garner
:I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of study which must go on at the
:"Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism." Certainly, you
:will be bringing forth many Gedolim of the Torah out of such an
:institution. Perhaps, however, you can direct me to the Conservative
:rationale for violating the Sabbath numerous times by driving.
: Is there some attempt to start a discussion here, or is it just sinat chinom?
: If Garner has a real point he wishes to make, perhaps he would spell it out.
Define "chinom". Explain how a religion that condones such
conduct, and "female rabbis", belongs to Judaism, and explain why one
should not always clearly articulate that it does not represent authentic
Judaism.
Harvey S. Cohen
Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
:[sd]
: Or, closer to this issue, consider how many Chabad houses make sure that
there
: is parking nearby and invite people to come to them for Shabbat meals with
: knowledge that they will drive to get there. The kiruv that Chabad believes
: justifies that is the same kiruv which motivated the Conservative decision
: about driving to synagogue.
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
>[Much stuff about how "the C religion" isn't Judaism and he really hates them
a lot]
> And now Chabad needs to either shut down their Chabad centers, or
>purchase significant parking space in order to keep in business?
> There is a difference. With Chabad, they are hoping to bring
>people back to Judaism. With Conservative, they are simply making it
>easier for people to keep violating the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, to
>keep people as dues-paying members of Conservative synagogues.
Any doubts that Garner was expressing sinat chinom (rather than principled
objections) have now been erased.
What a distinction! It's OK for Chabad to violate Shabbat but wrong wrong
wrong for Conservative Judaism, because they have the same reason but Chabad
is more sincere. Wow! Got a rabbi who'll put his name next to this one, James?
--
Harvey....@att.com
Yaakov Kayman
: I'm not going to bother responding to most of Yehuda's usual vitriol against
: anyone who doesn't practice the same brand of Judaism as he does, but I think
:
: |> Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
: |> : Jerusalem.
: |>
: |> The have not as yet called themselves "yesivot" but who cares.
:
: yeshivot, under that name, in the last year.
^^^^^^ ^
:
: the Israeli government.
:
: The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" ....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
***ROTFL***,
YK
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
James Garner
: : The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" ....
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: ***ROTFL***,
Yes, there definitely is something funny about that name, but I
can't quite recall the association I know is there somewhere.
James Garner
Distribution:
Harvey S. Cohen (h...@zippy.ho.att.com) wrote:
: Any doubts that Garner was expressing sinat chinom (rather than principled
: objections) have now been erased.
: What a distinction! It's OK for Chabad to violate Shabbat but wrong wrong
: wrong for Conservative Judaism, because they have the same reason but Chabad
: is more sincere. Wow! Got a rabbi who'll put his name next to this one, James?
Fool.
Chabad is not violating Shabbat. They are causing people to
perform at least some mitzvot and later on more. The Conservative
elucidate driving on the Sabbath as a permissible thing to do in general.
Irene Stern Friedman
Garner) wrote:
* Harvey S. Cohen (h...@zippy.ho.att.com) wrote:
*
* :I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of study which must go on at the
* :"Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism." Certainly, you
* :will be bringing forth many Gedolim of the Torah out of such an
* :institution. Perhaps, however, you can direct me to the Conservative
* :rationale for violating the Sabbath numerous times by driving.
*
* : Is there some attempt to start a discussion here, or is it just sinat
chinom?
* : If Garner has a real point he wishes to make, perhaps he would spell it out.
*
* Define "chinom". Explain how a religion that condones such
* conduct, and "female rabbis", belongs to Judaism, and explain why one
* should not always clearly articulate that it does not represent authentic
* Judaism.
Why doesn't James Garner explain instead how he justifies himself in
calling only his brand of religion Judaism. The FAQ for the newsgroup he
is using clearly defines his Orthodox brand as one of several, and
identifies Conservative Judaism also as equally authentic, and Reform
... and if he can't accept that he can found another more restrictive
NG. I find his Orthodox brand offensive since I am female and don't plan
to sit in the back of the shul behind the mechitza. I can daven and can
chant Torah or Haftorah as well as James and I resent his casting of
aspersions. Perhaps he feels that intelligence died in the third century.
I think the Conservative rabbinate today is as intelligent as the Rabbis
in Talmudic times and can interpret halacha. Living by the Torah requires
people to use their G-d given brains and think and not be fixated on rules
which may need new interpretation by the traditional rabbinic methods,
based on new circumstances.
Irene Stern Friedman
Yehuda SIlver
: >: The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" has
: >: been open since last summer. I've been studying there since Elul.
: da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
: > I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of study which must go on
: >at the "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism."
: >Certainly, you will be bringing forth many Gedolim of the Torah out of
: >such an institution.
: > Perhaps, however, you can direct me to the Conservative rationale
: >for violating the Sabbath numerous times by driving.
: Is there some attempt to start a discussion here, or is it just sinat chinom?
You tell us. What discusssion are YOU trying to start aside from
displaying YOUR Sinat Chinom?
Do YOU have any points to make.
Mr, Garner did make his point about the lack of
any traditional learning and standards at the so called "yeshiva"
and that it's allumni are the Jewish equivalence, in knowledge
of the City College's "ethinic studies" programs!
That is a valid point, certainly for yeshivos,
and even for secular educational institutions>
i.e.
a) what are their standards.
b) is their curriculum standard or watered down?
c) what is the educational level of their alumni?
d) have they produced any noted scholars?
.....
these are valid arguments!
YOUR post had NO arguments valid or invalid,
ONLY "Sinas Chinom"
Psychologists call it "projection"!
: If Garner has a real point he wishes to make, perhaps he would spell it out.
: --
: Harvey....@att.com
Jonathan Baker
>Or, closer to this issue, consider how many Chabad houses make sure that there
>is parking nearby and invite people to come to them for Shabbat meals with
>knowledge that they will drive to get there. The kiruv that Chabad believes
>justifies that is the same kiruv which motivated the Conservative decision
>about driving to synagogue.
There is a difference between a tacit admission that non-observant people
will drive on Shabbat, which is the message Chabad is sending, and an
official policy which says that driving on Shabbat is OK. Yes, I know
that the offical position is that it's only for driving to shul, but
a kiruv that says "we know you do this even though you shouldn't"
sounds less watered-down than a kiruv message that says "we think you
should drive even though anyone who knows what the Torah says about
fire on Shabbat could see that driving must be verboten". One says that
"we expect and hope you to grow", the other "we don't expect you to grow,
but stay where you are". Given the 20-20 hindsight, that seems to be the
message that was passed in this country, as the author of the original
responsum must have realized, since, as you say, he later rejected his
original position.
Jonathan Baker
ba...@sacco.nyu.edu
Jonathan Baker
> And I know people who learned at Brovenders who
>aren't observant at all (about 25% of the people I knew from there, in fact).
So? I know people who learned at Chaim Berlin, Aish Hatorah, Lubavitch, Bobov,
etc. who aren't observant.
>Rabbi Elisha ben Avuya was a Tanna. People change.
Exactly. Saying that graduates of such & such an institution are no longer
observant (or weren't when they went in, possibly hoping that the institution
would change that) is not necessarily a gnai of the institution.
>"No matter you go - there you are"
> - B. Bonzai
BTW, you have a typo in your .sig: it's "No matter where you go..."
Jonathan Baker
ba...@sacco.nyu.edu
Isaac Balbin
[etc]
>Or, closer to this issue, consider how many Chabad houses make sure that there
>is parking nearby and invite people to come to them for Shabbat meals with
>knowledge that they will drive to get there. The kiruv that Chabad believes
>justifies that is the same kiruv which motivated the Conservative decision
>about driving to synagogue.
Jonathan,
Do you know the Halacha on such matters? Do you know that you
should invite people to come and stay in your house for Shabbos?
Do you know how one must phrase the invitation (if one does at
all). What Orthodox *don't* do is sanctify the prohibited.
James Garner
:Why doesn't James Garner explain instead how he justifies himself in
:calling only his brand of religion Judaism. The FAQ for the newsgroup he
:is using clearly defines his Orthodox brand as one of several, and
:identifies Conservative Judaism also as equally authentic, and Reform
God gave the Torah at Mount Sinai, not the soc.culture.jewish FAQ
: Perhaps he feels that intelligence died in the third century.
Impossible. We see its death throes in this very newsgroup every day.
: I think the Conservative rabbinate today is as intelligent as the Rabbis
: in Talmudic times and can interpret halacha.
Howard Stern can also "interpret halacha." With about equal validity.
: Living by the Torah requires
: people to use their G-d given brains and think and not be fixated on rules
: which may need new interpretation by the traditional rabbinic methods,
: based on new circumstances.
Living by the Torah requires following the Torah, not women's lib
notions of "equality".
Jonathan Kamens
|> Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
|> : to synagogue on Shabbat, subsequently realized that he was wrong and signed
|> : the subsequent Israeli responsa rejecting the decision.
|>
|> First time I heard of this. Funny how the Conservative religion
|> does not mention this fact, but instead encourages people to drive to
|> synagogue.
The Conservative movement does not "encourage people to drive to synagogue" on
Shabbat any more than Chabad encourages people to drive to the Chabad house on
Shabbat.
The Conservative movement believes that given the choice between a Jew who is
told that he can't drive to synagogue on Shabbat, and therefore is lost to
Judaism completely, and a Jew who comes to synagogue by car on Shabbat and
therefore has some chance of eventually being drawn back into a fully Jewish
lifestyle, it's better to choose the latter.
Chabad believes the same thing. The only difference is that they didn't write
it down -- they implicitly encourage people to drive to Chabad on Shabbat, but
they never do it explicitly.
|> By the way, I would be interested in the why and how of the Rabbi
|> who "subsequently realized that he was wrong".
I can't speak for him, especially since I never heard this from him personally
(and he's dead now, so it would be difficult to discuss it with him), but I am
under the impression that it went something like this....
His intent with the original decision was to say what I said above, basically
"You shouldn't drive on Shabbat, but if you do, your tefilot once you get to
synagogue are no less valid, and perhaps you will come to lead a more
observant lifestyle through your regular attendance at synagogue." But the
decision didn't convey that subtlety, or at least it wasn't *understood* in
that way by people, since many people ended up interpreting it as blanket
decision to drive to synagogue on Shabbat. So he came to realize that
implicit approach, like what Chabad did, was "safer".
|> : I know that you don't want to hear this, but the Conservative movement is
|> : hardly alone in allowing "Halacha of convenience." The great lengths to which
|> : the Israeli rabbinate goes to come up with loop-holes which allow the Israeli
|> : agricultural sector to violate the spirit of the Torah laws of Shmita, while
|> : (allegedly) not violating their letter, is just one proof of this.
|>
|> I am not aware of this. What are you referring to specifically?
I am referring to the fact that, for example, there are several Israeli
wineries who sell the wine produced from grapes grown during shmita for full
price, and who do not donate any more of the proceeds of those sales to
charity than they do for the sales of any previous year, and they get away
with this violation of the spirit of shmita because of some legal loop-holes
the rabbinate came up with to justify what they are doing.
There are many religious people who will not drink the wines produced by those
wineries from shmita grapes, because they believe it's stealing from the poor.
There are some who won't drink wine from those wineries at all, because of
their chutzpa about shmita.
|> There is a difference. With Chabad, they are hoping to bring
|> people back to Judaism. With Conservative, they are simply making it
|> easier for people to keep violating the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, to
|> keep people as dues-paying members of Conservative synagogues.
I'd like to know exactly what background you have that allows you to judge
Conservative Judaism from such a position of omnipotence. You are so powerful
that you can see into the hearts and minds of Conservative Jews and see their
motives. Amazing!
If you have any interest at all in actually learning about the Conservative
movement from the inside, in actually seeing the struggle through which many
Conservative rabbis go to bring their congregants to greater observance, then
I recommend you read the book "And they shall be my people: an American rabbi
and his congregation" by Paul Wilkes.
Or, of course, you can continue to spout your uneducated, uninformed
stereotypes at every opportunity.
Jonathan Kamens
|> Chabad is not violating Shabbat. They are causing people to
|> perform at least some mitzvot and later on more.
Which is exactly what the Conservative movement is trying to do.
|> The Conservative
|> elucidate driving on the Sabbath as a permissible thing to do in general.
No, they don't. If you're going to bash the Conservative movement because of
their poor halachic decisions, then the least you can do is get them right.
The Conservative decision which permits driving on Shabbat states that driving
is permissible ONLY to and from synagogue, with NO "stop-overs" or "errands"
in either direction, and only for people who would not be able to attend
synagogue if they didn't drive.
Jonathan Kamens
|> I'm not sure why this is considered a major approbation. The Hartman
|> Institute isn't considered Orthodox except by themselves, the admittedly
|> non-Orthodox and the press.
This is not entirely true. There are plenty of dati le'umi in Israel and
Orthodox Jews outside of Israel who consider Hartman Orthodox. The Haredim
in Israel do not have a mandate from God to decide who is "Orthodox" and who
isn't.
|> And I know people who learned at Brovenders who
|> aren't observant at all (about 25% of the people I knew from there, in fact).
I assure you that the individual to whom I referred is fully observant. Heck,
he and his wife ran the mikveh in New Haven for several years when he was
living in the States; last time I checked, communities with mikvot didn't let
non-observant people run them.
("Oh, but they didn't know then that he was a CLOSET CONSERVATIVE," right, Mr.
Garner?)
Jonathan Kamens
|> : The "Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism in Israel" has
|> : been open since last summer. I've been studying there since Elul.
No, I don't. The Conservative yeshiva is independent of the JTS Beit Midrash
in Jerusalem.
|> NO Israeli , has ever thought of reform and conservative in anything
|> but political terms.
I'm sure that the many Conservative and Reform Jews currently living in Israel
would dispute this statement. Or do they not count as "Israelis" in your eyes?
William E Emba
>Chabad believes the same thing. The only difference is that they
>didn't write it down -- they implicitly encourage people to drive to
The above is false. In fact, it's outright slander.
Chabadniks explicitly encourage people to come and stay over the entire
Shabbos. Typical is someone who only comes for Friday night, and every
single time is asked to stay over until Saturday night. I know of one
Chabad rabbi who, after passing out more wine and other strong drink,
regularly reminds those present that it's important to not drink and
drive.
Not explicitly berating someone is not the same as implicitly encouraging.
--
Worm weemba@ic I don't know how often he told me,
and g.resnet. "You're stupid" and suchlike. That
Company upenn.edu helped me a lot. --Heisenberg (on Pauli)
James Garner
: In article <4l1971$i...@news-central.tiac.net>, da...@tiac.net (James Garner) writes:
: |> Chabad is not violating Shabbat. They are causing people to
: |> perform at least some mitzvot and later on more.
: Which is exactly what the Conservative movement is trying to do.
No. They are making it ok de jure for people to be seen driving
up to the synagogue. That is the net effect. There is no "later on more"
here. You are not even consistent yourself. According to the alleged logic
of allowing driving, these people could drive forever to the synagogue.
Jerry B. Altzman
Irene Stern Friedman <le...@epix.net> wrote:
>Why doesn't James Garner explain instead how he justifies himself in
>calling only his brand of religion Judaism. The FAQ for the newsgroup he
>is using clearly defines his Orthodox brand as one of several, and
>identifies Conservative Judaism also as equally authentic, and Reform
We don't learn halakhah from the FAQ.
Please respect the Followup-to: line.
>Irene Stern Friedman
//jbaltz
--
jerry b. altzman Entropy just isn't what it used to be +1 212 650 5617
jba...@cs.columbia.edu jba...@scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu KE3ML
Beth Orens
>>"No matter you go - there you are"
>> - B. Bonzai
>BTW, you have a typo in your .sig: it's "No matter where you go..."
Thanks,
Lisa
----------------------------------------
"No matter where you go - there you are"
- B. Bonzai
Jonathan Kamens
|> Do you know the Halacha on such matters? Do you know that you
|> should invite people to come and stay in your house for Shabbos?
|> Do you know how one must phrase the invitation (if one does at
|> all).
Yes. That's why I disagree with the decision passed by the American
Conservative movement, and that's why the author of that decision later
changed his mind.
The Conservative Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is not exactly composed
of great poskim. I realize that. They've made mistakes. I realize that.
But those facts do not in any way imply that (a) Conservative Judaism is not
Judaism, (b) the Conservative movement cannot contain any observant Jews, or
(c) a Conservative yeshiva which engages in real Torah study is an
impossibility.
As my teacher put it, "I reached a point where I had to choose between
associating with the people who act like I do, and associating with the people
who think like I do. I decided that I preferred the latter." As a result, he
chose to stop considering himself an "Orthodox Jew" and associating with the
Orthodox community, and to start associating with the Conservative community.
That doesn't mean that he thinks that everything the Conservative movement
does is right, but he believes that there's much that Orthodoxy is doing that
is wrong, and that there is more chance of arriving at what he considers the
"correct" Judaism working through Conservative Judaism than there is working
through Orthodoxy.
I might add that he does not consider himself a "Conservative Jew." He calls
himself an "unorthodox Jew."
Jonathan Kamens
|> NO Israeli , has ever thought of reform and conservative in anything
|> but political terms.
Coincidentally, I came across the following article from the April 8 edition
of the Jerusalem post, while looking through old Post editions for another
article:
Reform movement seeks political support for non-Orthodox streams
Haim Shapiro
THE local Reform Movement has appealed to the non-religious parties in Knesset
to include a plank favoring recognition of non-Orthodox streams in Judaism and
alternative forms of marriage in their platforms.
The appeal follows two separate surveys, both showing that well over half
the population favors recognition for Reform and Conservative Judaism and
giving freedodm of choice to those wishing to marry. The Reform Movement's
Israel Religious Action Center sent the appeal to all candidtates from the
Likud-Gesher-Tsomet, Labor, and Meretz.
The surveys were conducted by Dahaf on February 29 and March 3, and by the
Geocartographic Institute on March 12 and 13. Both surveys questioned a
representative sample of the adult Jewish population.
The Dahaf survey found that 59 percent favor recognition for the
non-Orthodox movements and 61% support recognizing alternative marriage
options. The Geocartographic survey showed that 54% favor recognizing both
non-Orthodox movements and alternative options in marriage.
Among those who have described themselves as secular or traditional, 66% of
both surveys favor recognizing the Conservative and Reform movements, while
66% percent [sic] of the Geocartographic survey and 70% of the Dahaf survey
support non-Orthodox marriage options.
Jonathan Kamens
|> : The Reform yeshiva is the one which was recently granted yeshiva subsidies by
|> they were given the same "higher education" subsideis given to all
|> religions, i.e. muslims xtians, secular, and even agriculture schools!
Wrong again, Yehuda.
Quoting from an article in the April 1 edition of the Jerusalem Post:
HUC gets ministry funds for rabbinical students
Haim Shapiro
IN what the Reform movement described as "an act of penitence," the Religious
Affairs Ministry transferred almost NIS 500,000 to Hebrew Union College (HUC)
yesterday.
The money is for subsidies for full-time rabbinical students, following a
ruling by the High Court of Justice that subsidies for yeshiva students should
also go to those studying at the Reform rabbinical seminary.
Harvey S. Cohen
>:I cannot even begin to imagine the depth of study which must go on at the
>:will be bringing forth many Gedolim of the Torah out of such an
>:institution. Perhaps, however, you can direct me to the Conservative
>:rationale for violating the Sabbath numerous times by driving.
>Harvey S. Cohen (h...@zippy.ho.att.com) wrote:
>: Is there some attempt to start a discussion here, or is it just sinat
chinom?
>: If Garner has a real point he wishes to make, perhaps he would spell it
out.
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
> Define "chinom". Explain how a religion that condones such
>conduct, and "female rabbis", belongs to Judaism, and explain why one
>should not always clearly articulate that it does not represent authentic
>Judaism.
Garner accused the Yeshiva of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism of
condoning driving on Shabbat. Since this is the point that he, Garner, chose
to focus on, let us do so. The Masorti movement in Israel does NOT permit
driving on Shabbat. It is strange that Garner's best argument against
Conservative Judaism in Israel relies on a position NOT taken by Conservative
Judaism in Israel.
In a related post, Garner conceded that Chabad also encourages people to drive
on Shabbat if the alternative is alienation from Judaism. However, he thinks
it's OK for Chabad because they're much more sincere than Conservative. By the
reasoning that Garner proposes, above, "a religion that condones such
conduct..." "...does not represent authentic Judaism." Now Garner must either
apply that logic to Chabad or admit that he simply has a deep visceral hatred
for Conservative Judaism and does not really wish to discuss details.
I have seen much, much better analyses of the differences between O and C
from, for example Chana Luntz, Eliot Shimoff, or Eli Clark. While such people
may agree intellectually with Garner, they are able to focus on real issues
instead of sneering remarks and debator's cheap shots.
The Conservative movement in the U.S. allows the local rabbi to permit driving
on Shabbat under certain limited circumstances, but seems to be moving back
toward a stricter position. Of course, this puts enormous pressure on C
congregations when a substantial number of members live outside walking
distance, and it puts great pressure on C Jews who live outside walking
distance from a shul. As a practical matter, how do we salvage the greatest
number of Jewish families without abandoning halacha? This question deserves
lots of discussion on s.c.j.
The issue of female rabbis was discussed on s.c.j. a few months ago. It was an
interesting thread. The consensus, as best I recall, was that it depended
critically on the job description. Many people, including some respectable
Orthodox, agreed that it would be possible to describe a job that they would
reasonably call "rabbi" and that would be halachikly permitted a woman.
Jeremy M. Posner
Garner) wrote:
That's interesting. Not true, but interesting. I belong to a
Conservative shul. (Egalitarian service, all Hebrew, full Torah reading,
and lots of Torah study.) Just last night I had to make a shiva call at a
home of a family that recently joined our shul. The wife came from a
family that belonged to an Orthodox shul, but was not particularly
observant. The husband came from a virtually nonexistant Jewish
background. They started attending our shul a couple of months ago. At
first, he would ride to shul, because he lived a fair distance away.
Eventually, he began to feel more and more comfortable with the services,
and started to attend every single one. (His wife doesn't always come.) As
he got to know people in the shul, he met people who lived in the same
neighborhood as him and walked every time. They arranged to meet on
Saturday morning and walk together in a group. Two weeks ago, their family
moved to a new apartment and decided to set up and keep a kosher kitchen
for the first time in their lives. They still walk to shul.
I would say that out of the hundred or so people that regularly
attend Shabbos morning services at my family's Conservative shul, probably
about 10 ride there, and most of them are elderly people who are unable to
walk as easily as they used to, but go to shul as their main raison
d'etre. Even these people walk home from shul, usually with other people,
getting invited up to people's homes to sit and rest along the way. When
these people don't get to shul, often there are groups that walk to their
homes after shul to make sure that they're okay. On the whole, we accept
their riding to shul because at this point in their lives shul has become
one of the highlights of their week and no one wants to deny them that...
-JMP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jeremy M. Posner | "Meow." |
| jpo...@panix.com | -Schrodinger's Cat |
| (212) 996-2183 | http://www.panix.com/~jposner/ |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Wolman
of Mordecai Kaplan in the desert, only to come back and find that s.c.j., like
other soap operas, has a plot that doesn't really change, and hasn't since 1984.
In article <4l2dc2$7...@jik.israel.net>, j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
|> The Conservative movement believes that given the choice between a Jew who is
|> told that he can't drive to synagogue on Shabbat, and therefore is lost to
|> Judaism completely, and a Jew who comes to synagogue by car on Shabbat and
|> therefore has some chance of eventually being drawn back into a fully Jewish
|> lifestyle, it's better to choose the latter.
|>
|> Chabad believes the same thing. The only difference is that they didn't write
|> it down -- they implicitly encourage people to drive to Chabad on Shabbat, but
|> they never do it explicitly.
From the town of Wayne, NJ, with its Conservative and Reform synagogues:
A few years ago a new rabbi moved into town. No congregation, he just showed up,
bought a house somehow (in Wayne, housing doesn't come cheap), called it a shul.
Lubavitch sent him. He began making phone calls to most of the Jewish families
in town. He got hold of membership lists of congregations. How? Speculation
(actually it's more than that) is he was fed the lists by one of our afternoon
school teachers, a frum guy from Monsey who wouldn't be the 10th man (in
our pre-egalitarian days) in a Mincha minyan, but who never found our money at
ALL contemptible. So the new kid on the block, Rabbi Michael Gurkov, lately of
Morristown, NJ, is told in no uncertain terms to back off. He is told this by
the rabbis of both congregations in town. Maybe they know enough Torah to
suggest to Rabbi Gurkov that he extend the idea of derech eretz to not
raiding congregations by telling people you're a new "Jewish organization in
town," and instead go after the unaffiliated if you want to go after anyone.
He conducts weekday and Shabbat services out of his house on Bristol Place.
Forget he's violating zoning laws which apply to everyone: there's no way to
get to Bristol Place on weekdays OR Saturdays except to drive.
He rents the Elks Club for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. You have to drive to
get there. And, miracle of miracles, it's right next door to the Conservative
synagogue. The kids from Rabbi Gurkov's shul can watch us roasting a hog for
the Yom Kippur break-fast before we put up the crepe-paper and guano succah.
|> |> There is a difference. With Chabad, they are hoping to bring
|> |> people back to Judaism. With Conservative, they are simply making it
|> |> easier for people to keep violating the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, to
|> |> keep people as dues-paying members of Conservative synagogues.
|>
|> I'd like to know exactly what background you have that allows you to judge
|> Conservative Judaism from such a position of omnipotence. You are so powerful
|> that you can see into the hearts and minds of Conservative Jews and see their
|> motives. Amazing!
This is more of the Schism continuing to widen. It's what allows people to steal
confidential records and pass them to someone else: "I got me a gospel to save the
heathens, so whatever I do is okay." It's sort of like what Sun Myung Moon
practiced, "Heavenly Deception," It's deception, but it ain't heavenly.
Ken
--
Kenneth Wolman Information Technology Morgan Stanley Inc.
750 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10019 212-762-1685
No external communications should be construed to represent Morgan Stanley,
any of its clients or associated companies, or anyone but myself.
Jonathan Baker
>In article <4l3qna$4...@news-central.tiac.net>, da...@tiac.net (James
>Garner) wrote:
>> No. They are making it ok de jure for people to be seen driving
>> up to the synagogue. That is the net effect. There is no "later on more"
>> here. You are not even consistent yourself. According to the alleged logic
>> of allowing driving, these people could drive forever to the synagogue.
> That's interesting. Not true, but interesting. I belong to a
>Conservative shul. (Egalitarian service, all Hebrew, full Torah reading,
>and lots of Torah study.)
[snip]
> On the whole, we accept
>their riding to shul because at this point in their lives shul has become
>one of the highlights of their week and no one wants to deny them that...
Jer:
Maybe untrue for Or Zarua, but not untrue elsewhere.
You belong to an atypical Conservative shul. For one thing,
it's in New York City, specifically the upper East Side, where the
population density is 100,000 per square mile (I've seen census maps).
Your shul can draw a big crowd from relatively short distances.
For another, you have an unusually large active population.
Outside of the city, many Conservative shuls have barely a minyan
if there isn't a bar-mitzvah. There are two C shuls in Easton, which
I have occasionally attended as part of an effort to get my in-laws
to get involved with some kind of social group. One has a large
regular group, one barely gets a minyan. When there's a bar mitzvah,
they fill up.
The little shul my parents attend in the summer is Conservative,
slowly creaking towards egalitarianism. Now that it's Conservative,
people live far away, and feel no desire to move into town (Fleischmanns).
It was founded as an Orthodox shul (our great-grandfather Louis Cohen
kicked off the big fund drive for the building in 1920 with $500),
with the assumption that people from the local hotels and homes would
fill it, and fill it they did, before the town declined. The hotels
are now full of Orthodox Jews, mostly Satmar and Breuer's, and the
Conservative shul fills up with people who drive, and a few who walk.
Nobody in Bnai Israel of Fleischmanns feels any pressure or
even encouragement to move closer to shul. I seriously doubt that
the people in the Easton shuls feel any great pressure to move closer
to shul.
What shul do you attend in Pittsburgh, when there? C, or O,
and if C, is it a campus minyan or a regular synagogue? Almost nobody
at Princeton went to the Jewish Center, they went to the campus
minyanim.
As for your second paragraph, that's who the responsum was
written for - those who would not bother to do anything about their
Judaism if they were not allowed to drive to shul. It's nice that
at least one C synagogue adheres to the original idea of the driving
responsum. It's unfortunate that it's so rare.
Jonathan Baker
ba...@sacco.nyu.edu
Jonathan Baker
>suggest to Rabbi Gurkov that he extend the idea of derech eretz to not
>raiding congregations by telling people you're a new "Jewish organization in
>town," and instead go after the unaffiliated if you want to go after anyone.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. This is exactly the
same tactic they used in Europe - one of the big complaints of the
misnagdim against the chasidim was that they were taking congregants
(and their money) away from the regular shuls. This is called
CAPITALISM. If you offer a service, and someone new comes along and
offers a better one, don't be surprised when your customers go off
and use the new service.
Jonathan Baker
ba...@sacco.nyu.edu
Simcha Streltsov
while dropping other (un)related arguments:
: In a related post, Garner conceded that Chabad also encourages people to drive
: on Shabbat if the alternative is alienation from Judaism. However, he thinks
: it's OK for Chabad because they're much more sincere than Conservative.
..
: The Conservative movement in the U.S. allows the local rabbi to permit driving
: on Shabbat under certain limited circumstances, but seems to be moving back
: toward a stricter position.
you probably may find a similar motivation among some in C and O groups
in the area of dealing with decline of observance, etc - you spelled it out..
still, there is, imho, a very clear difference in approaches:
no O rabbi will say X became permitted in our days (even temporarily)
because of ....
and by looking at stats of the Chabad house - yes, there are people who,
for example, drive_in regularly, but the percentage of those who stop
doing it is substantial - whether they do it volunteerly or are being
pushed gradually (-:.
IMHO, focus on driving or gender of the Rabbis and rebetzins is not
needed - the issue is general attitude towards laws, etc.
for example:
: Many people, including some respectable
: Orthodox, agreed that it would be possible to describe a job that they would
: reasonably call "rabbi" and that would be halachikly permitted a woman
may be an interesting issue by itself - but, in truth, if a non-observant
Jew is contemplating behaving/learning things Jewish - in most cases
he has more things to worry about than deposing the Rabbi and installing
rebetzin in his place (I leave the place for a radical PC person for whom
sexism is a "stumbling block", but for many others learning
alef-bet, or Shma Israel, or Pirkei Avot, or sitting at Shabbos table
is a more relevant and powerful experience).
It may be that those things were more important at the time where the
most important issue was to stop people from drifting away, as you write:
: distance from a shul. As a practical matter, how do we salvage the greatest
: number of Jewish families without abandoning halacha? This question deserves
: lots of discussion on s.c.j.
then, the attempted (and in many aspects, not all, failed)
non-O strategy was to make laws looser so that noone would feel "rejected"
by his own loose behavior.
at the end, 1:10 Judiasm/water becomes simply unnecessary burden - with
no advantages over "pure spring water" just more stinky.
IMHO the only way to attract people back is to simply to try to
reconstruct the real thing (and, of course, those who think that by
not driving on Shabbos, they already created a Jewish world, and others
should feel that, may be disappointed) -
but then this real thing needs access - and that what, for example, Chabad,
Project Genesis, etc are doing
It can probably be explained shorter by R. Dessler example:
when a person with disability (whata PC approach (-:!) tries to climb
the stairs, he - in his desperation, will use any available tool -
even sometimes inappropriate - just to climb one step UP.
in this terms, C- dealt with people who needed comfortable step DOWN
the stairs, and they were given the tool. True, without the tool some
would jump down immediately, but others could stay. But as a result,
everybody comfortably stay on the ground feeling very good about themselves.
But, the petty discussion about whether it was right/wrong sincere/not
is only of historical interest, the current question is how to help
people go back UP -
and fine-tuning the old tools (female Rabbis, etc) is simply
irrelevant spritually.
As to the new challenges, maybe you can look up R. Dessler's
"Strive for Truth" and summarize what you think is relevant for
our forum
Simcha Streltsov, _Former_ Adar Rabbi of S.C.Soviet
-------------------------
please, only Kosher lePesach homentashen
all others will be returned unopened.
p.s. This sig expired, but nobody have sent me real
homentashen anyway
Simcha Streltsov
: school teachers, a frum guy from Monsey who wouldn't be the 10th man (in
: our pre-egalitarian days) in a Mincha minyan, but who never found our money
This is not the first post that suggest that differences between observant
and other groups is in the way men/women sit or who is teaching whom.
That makes the differences so petty (and those who care about them)
One would not be allowed to pray in a C- synagogue for 100 other reasons.
: ALL contemptible. So the new kid on the block, Rabbi Michael Gurkov, lately of
: Morristown, NJ, is told in no uncertain terms to back off.
: He is told this by
: the rabbis of both congregations in town. Maybe they know enough Torah to
Here you probably touch on really important difference:
You mean, _competition_ ?! he was taking souls away ?!
you mean Jewish religion is about franchising synagogues?
you mean, the Rabbis are in business?!
IMHO, those Rabbis are hired by the people for whatever reasons:
teaching, shuffling papers, admonishing them on Iom Kippur, etc.
If, in the Rabbi's opinion, his congregants are drifting to something
that he thinks is dangerous, he should talk about it with his congregants
and admonish them - be it a Buddism, a cult of money and pride, or
even a dangerous Orthodox sect.
If, on the other hand, he feels that someone can benefit from the new
Rabbi - he should send his congregants there right away
Look, it is not even clear that it is OK to charge for teaching Torah
(but only for lost income) - let alone invoke business tricks to
prevent others from teaching it just to keep his congregants.
but then, it is probably a sign of power - they probably were loosing
enough if income - hey, that was a dangerous kid. [ btw, I would not be
surprised that the may or may not be following derech eretz, but we
are talking about othedr people reacting ..]
: Forget he's violating zoning laws which apply to everyone: there's no way to
: get to Bristol Place on weekdays OR Saturdays except to drive.
that reminds of classic: "OK, come to shul to look for your friend -
but if I'll see you davening...."
: synagogue. The kids from Rabbi Gurkov's shul can watch us roasting a hog for
: the Yom Kippur break-fast before we put up the crepe-paper and guano succah.
a disgusting picture, I agree with you. I hope these kids will be able
to understand that behind this disgusting picture, ther are simple people
who don't know better because the leader of their congregation said them
"it is OK". Well, they may see it looking at the work of their father,
so don't worry about them.
: This is more of the Schism continuing to widen. It's what allows people to steal
: confidential records
I still can not belive that the Jewish Federation, or whoever,
would not give officially the names of the Jews to a Rabbi who
wants to teach. Whose federation are they then?!
Simcha Streltsov to subscribe send
Moderator of Russian-Jews List sub russian-jews <fullname>
sim...@shamash.org to list...@shamash.org
home page: http://cad.bu.edu/go/home.html
archives via WWW: http://shamash.org/lists/russian-jews
Harvey S. Cohen
>objections) have now been erased.
>What a distinction! It's OK for Chabad to violate Shabbat but wrong wrong
>wrong for Conservative Judaism, because they have the same reason but Chabad
>is more sincere. Wow! Got a rabbi who'll put his name next to this one,
>James?
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
> Fool.
> Chabad is not violating Shabbat. They are causing people to
>perform at least some mitzvot and later on more. The Conservative
>elucidate driving on the Sabbath as a permissible thing to do in general.
I will not call Garner a liar. I will simply ask for for a citation, or the
name of a Conservative posek, to back up Garner's claim that "The Conservative
elucidate driving on the Sabbath as a permissible thing to do in general."
I think Garner needs to check his facts.
--
Harvey....@att.com
Art Kamlet
>still, there is, imho, a very clear difference in approaches:
>no O rabbi will say X became permitted in our days (even temporarily)
>because of ....
Cholov stam.
Next case!
--
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
Joe Slater
>In a related post, Garner conceded that Chabad also encourages people to drive
>on Shabbat if the alternative is alienation from Judaism.
I don't believe this is true. Can you provide some evidence for it? Say,
something comparable to the famous Conservative Teshuva? I have a strong
feeling your disgraceful slur boils down to "Rabbi X held a function on
Shabbat and didn't check that all participants lived in the area."
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | `You SHOULD have said "It's extremely
T: +61-3-95258728 F: +61-3-95620756 | kind of you to tell me all this" -
If all else fails try Dialix: | however, we'll suppose it said.'
j...@melb.dialix.oz.au | (The Red Queen)
mei...@erols.com
>In article <4l1a52$b...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, is...@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Isaac Balbin) writes:
>|> Do you know the Halacha on such matters? Do you know that you
>|> should invite people to come and stay in your house for Shabbos?
>|> Do you know how one must phrase the invitation (if one does at
>|> all).
>Yes. That's why I disagree with the decision passed by the American
>Conservative movement, and that's why the author of that decision later
>changed his mind.
>The Conservative Committee on Jewish Law and Standards is not exactly composed
>of great poskim. I realize that. They've made mistakes. I realize that.
>But those facts do not in any way imply that (a) Conservative Judaism is not
>Judaism, (b) the Conservative movement cannot contain any observant Jews, or
>(c) a Conservative yeshiva which engages in real Torah study is an
>impossibility.
>As my teacher put it, "I reached a point where I had to choose between
>associating with the people who act like I do, and associating with the people
~~~~~~~~~~~
>who think like I do. I decided that I preferred the latter." As a result, he
>chose to stop considering himself an "Orthodox Jew" and associating with the
>Orthodox community, and to start associating with the Conservative community.
>That doesn't mean that he thinks that everything the Conservative movement
>does is right, but he believes that there's much that Orthodoxy is doing that
>is wrong, and that there is more chance of arriving at what he considers the
>"correct" Judaism working through Conservative Judaism than there is working
>through Orthodoxy.
>I might add that he does not consider himself a "Conservative Jew." He calls
>himself an "unorthodox Jew."
Whatever your teacher calls himself, I gather he keeps the mitzvot.
Shalom
mei...@erols.com also not a posek
"Purify our hearts to serve You in truth.
Taher libanu l'ovdecho b'emes. "
William E Emba
>kwo...@is.morgan.com (Kenneth Wolman) writes:
>>suggest to Rabbi Gurkov that he extend the idea of derech eretz to
>>not raiding congregations by telling people you're a new "Jewish
>>organization in town," and instead go after the unaffiliated if you
>>want to go after anyone.
> Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. This is exactly the
>same tactic they used in Europe - one of the big complaints of the
>misnagdim against the chasidim was that they were taking congregants
>(and their money) away from the regular shuls. This is called
>CAPITALISM.
But the halakhic way is not always the capitalist way. Quite often,
it is highly anticapitalistic.
If you subscribe to the halakhic way, you will offer halakhic justification.
> If you offer a service, and someone new comes along and
>offers a better one, don't be surprised when your customers go off
>and use the new service.
Also don't be surprised if rabbaim rule against you.
William E Emba
>As my teacher put it, "I reached a point where I had to choose
>between associating with the people who act like I do, and
>associating with the people who think like I do. I decided that I
>preferred the latter." As a result, he chose to stop considering
>himself an "Orthodox Jew" and associating with the Orthodox
>community, and to start associating with the Conservative community.
And I know of a C rabbi who stopped associating with the C community
and mostly associated with O or academia.
It works both ways.
Jeremy M. Posner
> jpo...@panix.com (Jeremy M. Posner) writes:
>
> >In article <4l3qna$4...@news-central.tiac.net>, da...@tiac.net (James
> >Garner) wrote:
>
> >> No. They are making it ok de jure for people to be seen driving
> >> up to the synagogue. That is the net effect. There is no "later on more"
> >> here. You are not even consistent yourself. According to the alleged logic
> >> of allowing driving, these people could drive forever to the synagogue.
>
> > That's interesting. Not true, but interesting. I belong to a
> >Conservative shul. (Egalitarian service, all Hebrew, full Torah reading,
> >and lots of Torah study.)
> [snip]
> > On the whole, we accept
> >their riding to shul because at this point in their lives shul has become
> >one of the highlights of their week and no one wants to deny them that...
>
> Jer:
>
> Maybe untrue for Or Zarua, but not untrue elsewhere.
>
[snipped bit about Upper East Side population density]
> For another, you have an unusually large active population.
Jonathan-
We have attracted a large active population in part because we are
an active community. For example, at our services, everything is lead by
volenteers from within the congregation. This means that we have attracted
an unusually large number of people who simply enjoy leading services.
That leads some people to express interest in learning how to lead
services, since those who do tend to enjoy it.
> Outside of the city, many Conservative shuls have barely a minyan
> if there isn't a bar-mitzvah. There are two C shuls in Easton, which
> I have occasionally attended as part of an effort to get my in-laws
> to get involved with some kind of social group. One has a large
> regular group, one barely gets a minyan. When there's a bar mitzvah,
> they fill up.
But then you could look at a couple of the shuls that some of our
cousins have attended. For example, when looking for a home in NJ, Lew and
Max made a point of finding a home within walking distance of a
Conservative shul. They found one which was within practical walking
distance, yet would not have a problem with Steve riding to shul on
occasion for his various medical reasons. Of course, searching for a
community to move to works for people who are already affiliated in some
way, but it does not help those who discover their Judaism at a later
date. There are people in suburbs who look for concentrations around
Conservative shuls in much the same way as you would look for one around
an Orthodox shul. (I know of several, of course they're all related to
me.)
> The little shul my parents attend in the summer is Conservative,
> slowly creaking towards egalitarianism. Now that it's Conservative,
> people live far away, and feel no desire to move into town (Fleischmanns).
> It was founded as an Orthodox shul (our great-grandfather Louis Cohen
> kicked off the big fund drive for the building in 1920 with $500),
> with the assumption that people from the local hotels and homes would
> fill it, and fill it they did, before the town declined. The hotels
> are now full of Orthodox Jews, mostly Satmar and Breuer's, and the
> Conservative shul fills up with people who drive, and a few who walk.
I'm sure that our great-grandfather is rolling over in his grave.
I'm sure that neither what has happened there nor the shul moving towards
the Satmars and Breuers would be what he intended. Just looking at the
legacy he left on 86th street, I would imagine that the Satmars and the
Breuers wear the wrong shape of hat to shul for his taste.
> Nobody in Bnai Israel of Fleischmanns feels any pressure or
> even encouragement to move closer to shul. I seriously doubt that
> the people in the Easton shuls feel any great pressure to move closer
> to shul.
I'd have to say that it depends on the Conservative shul. There
are shul's out there that encourage people to walk. Just ask our
great-grandfather's namesake.
> What shul do you attend in Pittsburgh, when there? C, or O,
> and if C, is it a campus minyan or a regular synagogue? Almost nobody
> at Princeton went to the Jewish Center, they went to the campus
> minyanim.
On Friday nights, I would usually lead the C minyan. Occasionally
there weren't enough people to run C and O minyanim simultaniously, so I
would lead a combined effort, with all men in the front and mixed seating
in the back. Of course, this was acceptable in part because the sort of C
service I lead is virtually indistinguishable from an O service, and with
a simple change from Sim Shalom to ArtScroll, the O folks approved and
many of the C folks didn't notice.
Saturday mornings, I would try to make it to an O minyan that was
run on campus, not so much because it was the type of service I prefer,
but because I wanted to help insure that they got a minyan. Often they
would have a lot of trouble getting a minyan. When the weather was nice,
it was only a 10-15 minute walk from CMU's campus to Squirell Hill, which
contains almost all of Pittsburgh's Jewish community, including over a
dozen shuls of every variety known to man within walking distance. That
was where our cousin Bruce/Dov ended up when he was in Pittsburgh
(although I'm not sure exactly which shul). When I went to a local shul, I
would go to a C shul which had mixed seating, but didn't allow women on
the bimah. Of course, I didn't go often since most of my needs were met
elsewhere. The problem got to be when the weather got harsh in the winter.
Because the Pittsburgh winters can get pretty bad, that 10-15 minute walk
to shul could become dangerous to anyone attempting it. (Two years ago, it
was so cold that the state ordered the university shut down, in part
because people were getting frostbite simply crossing the street.) It was
during the winter that the campus minyan became most important...
Harvey S. Cohen
>>In a related post, Garner conceded that Chabad also encourages people to
drive
>>on Shabbat if the alternative is alienation from Judaism.
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>I don't believe this is true. Can you provide some evidence for it? Say,
>something comparable to the famous Conservative Teshuva? I have a strong
>feeling your disgraceful slur boils down to "Rabbi X held a function on
>Shabbat and didn't check that all participants lived in the area."
A third party made the accusation against Chabad, and Garner responded just as
I described. He was willing to condemn C for allowing driving on Shabbat (even
though he was criticizing a C yeshiva in Israel which does NOT allow driving
on Shabbat). At the same time, he agreed that Chabad encouraged driving where
the alternative was alienation, but considered Chabad justified.
--
Harvey....@att.com
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
Art, I'm sorry your example is just flippant and an insult to Reb
Moshe ZAL (not that I think you meant to insult).
If Reb Moshe had said something to the effect that "Nowadays, we can
assume that a farmer won't add pig milk to cow milk" you _might_ have
a point. He didn't say that. What he said, more or less, was "The
level of supervision of the Dept. of Health is sufficient to assume
that the farmer, for fear of the Dept. of Health, won't add pig milk
to cow milk". If you can't understand the difference, you should not
discuss halachik issues.
Also I suspect the original poster was refering to D'Orayseh laws
like marriage & divorce, Sabbos & Holidays, Kahrut, Kohanim etc. and
not to gezeiros which were instituted for a particular reason.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
William E Emba
>In article <4l78se$o...@news.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>still, there is, imho, a very clear difference in approaches:
>>no O rabbi will say X became permitted in our days (even temporarily)
>>because of ....
>Cholov stam.
What the hell are you gibbering about?
Cholov stam has not been permitted in our days, even temporarily.
You are thinking of cholov USDA, which so far as I know, was never
forbidden in the past.
>Next case!
Indeed.
James Garner
<joe.82...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au> <317ad66e...@nntpa.cb.att.com>:
Distribution:
Harvey S. Cohen (h...@zippy.ho.att.com) wrote:
: A third party made the accusation against Chabad, and Garner responded just as
: I described. He was willing to condemn C for allowing driving on Shabbat (even
: though he was criticizing a C yeshiva in Israel which does NOT allow driving
: on Shabbat). At the same time, he agreed that Chabad encouraged driving where
: the alternative was alienation, but considered Chabad justified.
I was going to respond at this point, but you have been so
cleverly distorting what I said, that I first want to see your final
product. Let me know when it is finished, and then I will respond.
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il
> h...@zippy.ho.att.com (Harvey S. Cohen) writes:
>>>In a related post, Garner conceded that Chabad also encourages people to
> drive
>>>on Shabbat if the alternative is alienation from Judaism.
>
> j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
>>I don't believe this is true. Can you provide some evidence for it? Say,
>>something comparable to the famous Conservative Teshuva? I have a strong
>>feeling your disgraceful slur boils down to "Rabbi X held a function on
>>Shabbat and didn't check that all participants lived in the area."
>
> just as I described. He was willing to condemn C for allowing driving
> on Shabbat (even though he was criticizing a C yeshiva in Israel which
> does NOT allow driving on Shabbat). At the same time, he agreed that
> Chabad encouraged driving where the alternative was alienation, but
> considered Chabad justified.
> Harvey....@att.com
Harvey,
Just because James Garner didn't challenge you on the villification
of Chabad a Joe Slater did, that doesn't mean the villification becomes
fact. Joe's description sounds totally genuine. Now you hide behind
"_I_ didn't say it, _he_ did!" and you don't even tell us who "he"
is, when he said it or why. Not fair!
I know you're very defensive of C but don't "cheat".
Kenneth Wolman
|> kwo...@is.morgan.com (Kenneth Wolman) writes:
|>
|> >suggest to Rabbi Gurkov that he extend the idea of derech eretz to not
|> >raiding congregations by telling people you're a new "Jewish organization in
|> >town," and instead go after the unaffiliated if you want to go after anyone.
|>
|> Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. This is exactly the
|> same tactic they used in Europe - one of the big complaints of the
|> misnagdim against the chasidim was that they were taking congregants
|> (and their money) away from the regular shuls. This is called
|> offers a better one, don't be surprised when your customers go off
|> and use the new service.
What a world we live in, when the Conservatives have become the Mitnagdim!
BTW, Rabbi Gurkov's success has been limited. No, I do not have numbers. I
don't have access to membership lists.
Harvey S. Cohen
: as I described. He was willing to condemn C for allowing driving on Shabbat
: (even though he was criticizing a C yeshiva in Israel which does NOT allow
: driving on Shabbat). At the same time, he agreed that Chabad encouraged
: driving where the alternative was alienation, but considered Chabad
: justified.
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
> I was going to respond at this point, but you have been so
>cleverly distorting what I said, that I first want to see your final
>product. Let me know when it is finished, and then I will respond.
I have no desire to distort what Garner said, cleverly or otherwise. I am
trying to have a discussion, not score points. By all means Garner should
restate his views if he feels that they have been distorted.
Regarding Garner's latest (above): I'm afraid I don't understand at all. If he
feels it is important, perhaps he will explain.
--
Harvey....@att.com
Harvey S. Cohen
In a related post, Garner conceded that Chabad also encourages people to
drive on Shabbat if the alternative is alienation from Judaism.
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Joe Slater) wrote:
I don't believe this is true. Can you provide some evidence for it? Say,
something comparable to the famous Conservative Teshuva? I have a strong
feeling your disgraceful slur boils down to "Rabbi X held a function on
Shabbat and didn't check that all participants lived in the area."
Harvey Cohen wrote:
A third party made the accusation against Chabad, and Garner responded
just as I described. He was willing to condemn C for allowing driving
on Shabbat (even though he was criticizing a C yeshiva in Israel which
does NOT allow driving on Shabbat). At the same time, he agreed that
Chabad encouraged driving where the alternative was alienation, but
considered Chabad justified.
mos...@vms.huji.ac.il wrote:
Harvey,
Just because James Garner didn't challenge you on the villification
of Chabad a Joe Slater did, that doesn't mean the villification becomes
fact. Joe's description sounds totally genuine. Now you hide behind
"_I_ didn't say it, _he_ did!" and you don't even tell us who "he"
is, when he said it or why. Not fair!
I know you're very defensive of C but don't "cheat".
Moshe,
Please forgive me for being unclear. I did not mean to accuse Chabad of
*anything*. I have no idea whether Chabad engages in such practices or not.
I was objecting Garner's reasoning, that such a practice would be OK for
Chabad but not for C.
Here is the original exchange. Please judge for yourself:
Jonathan Kamens (j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com) wrote:
:[sd]
: Or, closer to this issue, consider how many Chabad houses make sure that
there
: is parking nearby and invite people to come to them for Shabbat meals with
: knowledge that they will drive to get there. The kiruv that Chabad believes
: justifies that is the same kiruv which motivated the Conservative decision
: about driving to synagogue.
da...@tiac.net (James Garner) wrote:
[Much stuff about how "the C religion" isn't Judaism and he really hates them
a lot]
And now Chabad needs to either shut down their Chabad centers, or
purchase significant parking space in order to keep in business?
There is a difference. With Chabad, they are hoping to bring
people back to Judaism. With Conservative, they are simply making it
easier for people to keep violating the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, to
keep people as dues-paying members of Conservative synagogues.
Harvey Cohen wrote:
Any doubts that Garner was expressing sinat chinom (rather than principled
objections) have now been erased.
What a distinction! It's OK for Chabad to violate Shabbat but wrong wrong
wrong for Conservative Judaism, because they have the same reason but Chabad
is more sincere. Wow! Got a rabbi who'll put his name next to this one, James?
Art Kamlet
William E Emba <wee...@icg.resnet.upenn.edu> wrote:
>In article <4l8ne2$a...@user2.infinet.com>, kamlet@user2 (Art Kamlet) writes:
>>In article <4l78se$o...@news.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>>still, there is, imho, a very clear difference in approaches:
>>>no O rabbi will say X became permitted in our days (even temporarily)
>>>because of ....
>
>>Cholov stam.
>
>What the hell are you gibbering about?
>
>Cholov stam has not been permitted in our days, even temporarily.
>
>You are thinking of cholov USDA, which so far as I know, was never
>forbidden in the past.
I am thinking that you can have cholov Yisroel or not. If not
cholov Yisroel, it is cholov stam.
When you say Cholov USDA -- cholov machines -- referring the the
mechanical milking machines which produces milk that is inspected,
and since the monetary fines for violating the USDA regulations
are so high, we can assume cholov machines is from cows and is not
adulterated. That's my understanding about the cholov machines
teshuva. But it did not change "cholov USDA" into cholov Yisroel
so it remains stam, but acceptable.
To say cholov USDA was never forbidden ignores the fact that only
cholov Yisroel was permitted; if it had not been permitted it is
disingenuous to say it was never forbidden. Electricity was
never forbidden before there was electricity.
If I am mistaken please explain the chalacha instead of labeling
this gibberish.
Harry Weiss
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Distribution: world
Kenneth Wolman (kwo...@is.morgan.com) wrote:
: It's wondeful to go away from here for a few years of communing with the ghost
: of Mordecai Kaplan in the desert, only to come back and find that s.c.j., like
: other soap operas, has a plot that doesn't really change, and hasn't since 1984.
: In article <4l2dc2$7...@jik.israel.net>, j...@annex-1-slip-jik.cam.ov.com (Jonathan Kamens) writes:
: |> The Conservative movement believes that given the choice between a Jew who is
: |> told that he can't drive to synagogue on Shabbat, and therefore is lost to
: |> Judaism completely, and a Jew who comes to synagogue by car on Shabbat and
: |> therefore has some chance of eventually being drawn back into a fully Jewish
: |> lifestyle, it's better to choose the latter.
: |>
: |> Chabad believes the same thing. The only difference is that they didn't write
: |> it down -- they implicitly encourage people to drive to Chabad on Shabbat, but
: |> they never do it explicitly.
: From the town of Wayne, NJ, with its Conservative and Reform synagogues:
: A few years ago a new rabbi moved into town. No congregation, he just showed up,
: bought a house somehow (in Wayne, housing doesn't come cheap), called it a shul.
: Lubavitch sent him. He began making phone calls to most of the Jewish families
: in town. He got hold of membership lists of congregations. How? Speculation
: (actually it's more than that) is he was fed the lists by one of our afternoon
: school teachers, a frum guy from Monsey who wouldn't be the 10th man (in
: our pre-egalitarian days) in a Mincha minyan, but who never found our money at
: ALL contemptible. So the new kid on the block, Rabbi Michael Gurkov, lately of
: Morristown, NJ, is told in no uncertain terms to back off. He is told this by
: the rabbis of both congregations in town. Maybe they know enough Torah to
: suggest to Rabbi Gurkov that he extend the idea of derech eretz to not
: raiding congregations by telling people you're a new "Jewish organization in
: town," and instead go after the unaffiliated if you want to go after anyone.
: He conducts weekday and Shabbat services out of his house on Bristol Place.
: Forget he's violating zoning laws which apply to everyone: there's no way to
: get to Bristol Place on weekdays OR Saturdays except to drive.
: He rents the Elks Club for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. You have to drive to
: get there. And, miracle of miracles, it's right next door to the Conservative
: synagogue. The kids from Rabbi Gurkov's shul can watch us roasting a hog for
: the Yom Kippur break-fast before we put up the crepe-paper and guano succah.
: |> |> There is a difference. With Chabad, they are hoping to bring
: |> |> people back to Judaism. With Conservative, they are simply making it
: |> |> easier for people to keep violating the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, to
: |> |> keep people as dues-paying members of Conservative synagogues.
: |>
: |> I'd like to know exactly what background you have that allows you to judge
: |> Conservative Judaism from such a position of omnipotence. You are so powerful
: |> that you can see into the hearts and minds of Conservative Jews and see their
: |> motives. Amazing!
: This is more of the Schism continuing to widen. It's what allows people to steal
: confidential records and pass them to someone else: "I got me a gospel to save the
: heathens, so whatever I do is okay." It's sort of like what Sun Myung Moon
: practiced, "Heavenly Deception," It's deception, but it ain't heavenly.
: Ken
: --
: Kenneth Wolman Information Technology Morgan Stanley Inc.
: 750 7th Avenue, New York, NY 10019 212-762-1685
: No external communications should be construed to represent Morgan Stanley,
: any of its clients or associated companies, or anyone but myself.
]
so what is wrong in anything he did. Is the confidential list the one
that is given out to every member and anyone else who buys an ad and
given to the national organziation who sells it to anyone who pays their fee.
do you protest when someone leaves your congregation for the other of
visa versa. is it okay for you but not Chabad. If people were not
interested they would not go. In Sacramento the former Rabbi of the C
congregation was giving the same howgwash about the Chabad here. All in
all 1 family out of 600 went to Chabad, but of course that was enough
for them to make up all the bull similar to that above.
Harry
Remember to Count the Omer
Jacob Faturechi
> : is parking nearby and invite people to come to them for Shabbat meals with
> : knowledge that they will drive to get there. The kiruv that Chabad believes
> : justifies that is the same kiruv which motivated the Conservative decision
> : about driving to synagogue.
>
> people back to Judaism. With Conservative, they are simply making it
> easier for people to keep violating the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, to
> keep people as dues-paying members of Conservative synagogues.
Just one question here. I really don't understand why people think that
walking three miles, instead of driving three miles or riding in a car
for three miles, is rest! It is not. I would rather drive because it is
LESS WORK. Isn't that what Shabbat is about? I mean, I am no authority, I
did not study Talmud, I haven't even been Bar Mitzvahed properly, so
forgive my ignorance, but why should a person walk instead of drive if
walking is easier and less of a hassle? I seriously want to know, because
the way I see it, the ones who walk are more in violation of Sabbath than
those who drive because they are not resting.
__ _____________
/ / / ____ ___/ Jacob Faturechi <jac...@scf.usc.edu>
/ / / / /_ / / U N I V E R S I T Y
/ / / /\__ \/ / of
/ /_/ /___/ / /___ S O U T H E R N C A L I F O R N I A
\____/\____/\____/ http://www-scf.usc.edu/~jacobf/
Shema, Yisrael, | I will richly bless thee, and greatly multiply thy seed,
Adoshem Elokeinu | as the stars of heaven, and as the sand that is on the
Adoshem Echad. | sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his
Listen, Israel, | enemies;
the Lord our G-d | Genesis 22:17
is one Lord. | G-d is speaking to Abraham about how He will bless
Deuteronomy 6:4 | Abraham's posterity, which includes Jews and Arabs.
Jeremy M. Posner
Jacob Faturechi <jac...@lvl-sun687.usc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> Just one question here. I really don't understand why people think that
> walking three miles, instead of driving three miles or riding in a car
> for three miles, is rest! It is not. I would rather drive because it is
> LESS WORK. Isn't that what Shabbat is about? I mean, I am no authority, I
> did not study Talmud, I haven't even been Bar Mitzvahed properly, so
> forgive my ignorance, but why should a person walk instead of drive if
> walking is easier and less of a hassle? I seriously want to know, because
> the way I see it, the ones who walk are more in violation of Sabbath than
> those who drive because they are not resting.
As a Conservative Jew who always walks to shul (at least on
Shabbos and Yom Tov), I have to say that there is something relaxing about
a leisurely stroll to shul. Remember, by walking to shul, most people
aren't refering to the type of walking one does when you leave your office
for lunch and have 15 minutes to eat, go to the bank and post office, and
then be back at your desk. Walking to shul every week, I find myself
enjoying the half mile walk to shul, and often use it as a chance to let
my mind unwind after a busy week. I also find myself running into the same
groups of people each week walking to neighboring shuls. Of course, it's
even nicer when the weather is nice and a group of us detour through the
park on the way home from shul. I know that you people in Southern
California don't understand the concept of travelling by any mode other
than your own car, but every now and then a nice long walk can be fun...
Jacob Faturechi
> conduct, and "female rabbis", belongs to Judaism, and explain why one
> should not always clearly articulate that it does not represent authentic
> Judaism.
My Temple, Eretz Iranian Cultural Center in Los Angeles, is a Sephardic
congregation so we do not fit into your little conservative orthodox
whatever little thing. What we do have in common, though, is the Tenach.
I think you can understand that the Torah does not forbid a woman from
being a rabbi, or even institute rabbis. If you read the Book of Ruth,
you will see that Naomi was indeed much of a Rabbi to Ruth. I can
understand the argument against a woman leading male congregations, but I
certainly do not agree that a woman cannot be an effective teacher and
knowledgeable in all aspects of Judaism or act as a leader to other
women. Do not ridicule the idea of female rabbis, because they have
existed since biblical times.
Art Kamlet
>In article <4l8ne2$a...@user2.infinet.com>, kam...@user2.infinet.com (Art Kamlet) writes:
>> In article <4l78se$o...@news.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>>still, there is, imho, a very clear difference in approaches:
>>>no O rabbi will say X became permitted in our days (even temporarily)
>>>because of ....
>>
>> Cholov stam.
>Art, I'm sorry your example is just flippant and an insult to Reb
>Moshe ZAL (not that I think you meant to insult).
Flippant? No. Concise? Yes. And clearly not insulting.
>If Reb Moshe had said something to the effect that "Nowadays, we can
>assume that a farmer won't add pig milk to cow milk" you _might_ have
>a point. He didn't say that. What he said, more or less, was "The
>level of supervision of the Dept. of Health is sufficient to assume
>that the farmer, for fear of the Dept. of Health, won't add pig milk
>to cow milk". If you can't understand the difference, you should not
>discuss halachik issues.
Is the difference is that we can assume the farmer won't add pigv
milk to cow milk because there is a good reason? Ifc so, it
would seem to me that that's really saying, We can assume ...
and here's why, ....
So as you have explained it to us here, the difference is that in
the latter case a reason is given.o
I, as a conservative Jew, would phrase it slightly differently.
If a conservative teshuva had been written it would have said
pretty much the same thing, but not claimed the law had not
changed. It would have matter of factly acknowledge that laws do
get reinterpreted in changing times.
=========
Another example, which took a tragedy and dozens of angry widows
to change the law:
The law for declaring someone dead when he disappears while in the
water is that if you see him emter, and you don't see him leave,
and you can see the entire shoreline, such as a small pond or
lake, it can be assumed that he died.
But if you cannot see the entire shoreline, he might have
grabbed onto passing driftwood and may still be alive.
Now when an Israeli submarine sank, killing (said the navy) all
on board, the original halachic ruling was they cannot be
presumed dead, since they sank in the Sea.
Only after many many months of fierce criticism by newspapers and
angry widows, not to mention a few politicians, did the rabbis
discover that the halacha didn't mention submarines. So they
"discovered" a new rule, one to cover submarines. The men were
declared dead, and the widows declared widows. Changing times
brings changing halacha; or, as some prefer: the halacha of
submarines (and cholov machines) never existed before so it is not
a change.
One person's changing halacha? Or another person's "same halacha,
new circumstance?" Depends on whether you are orthodox or
conservative, I venture.
>Also I suspect the original poster was refering to D'Orayseh laws
>like marriage & divorce, Sabbos & Holidays, Kahrut, Kohanim etc. and
>not to gezeiros which were instituted for a particular reason.
You might be right.
Binyamin Dissen
wrote:
:>In article <baker.829879435@sacco>, baker@cs (Jonathan Baker) writes:
:>>kwo...@is.morgan.com (Kenneth Wolman) writes:
:>
:>>>suggest to Rabbi Gurkov that he extend the idea of derech eretz to
:>>>not raiding congregations by telling people you're a new "Jewish
:>>>organization in town," and instead go after the unaffiliated if you
:>>>want to go after anyone.
:>
:>> Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. This is exactly the
:>>same tactic they used in Europe - one of the big complaints of the
:>>misnagdim against the chasidim was that they were taking congregants
:>>(and their money) away from the regular shuls. This is called
:>>CAPITALISM.
:>
:>But the halakhic way is not always the capitalist way. Quite often,
:>it is highly anticapitalistic.
:>
:>If you subscribe to the halakhic way, you will offer halakhic justification.
:>
:>> If you offer a service, and someone new comes along and
:>>offers a better one, don't be surprised when your customers go off
:>>and use the new service.
:>
:>Also don't be surprised if rabbaim rule against you.
The halacha of Masig Gvul (literally encroaching on a border/trespassing)
by which a business can prevent a similar business from opening and
competing does not apply in education. Competition is desired in education
to raise the level of learning.
:>--
:>Worm weemba@ic I don't know how often he told me,
:>and g.resnet. "You're stupid" and suchlike. That
:>Company upenn.edu helped me a lot. --Heisenberg (on Pauli)
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Warning, I AM NOT A POSEK. This is not a PSAK.
Harry Weiss
news.tiac.net> <Pine.SOL.3.91.96042...@lvl-sun687.usc.edu>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Jacob Faturechi (jac...@lvl-sun687.usc.edu) wrote:
: > : Or, closer to this issue, consider how many Chabad houses make sure that there
: > : is parking nearby and invite people to come to them for Shabbat meals with
: > : knowledge that they will drive to get there. The kiruv that Chabad believes
: > : justifies that is the same kiruv which motivated the Conservative decision
: > : about driving to synagogue.
: >
: > There is a difference. With Chabad, they are hoping to bring
: > people back to Judaism. With Conservative, they are simply making it
: > easier for people to keep violating the Sabbath on an ongoing basis, to
: > keep people as dues-paying members of Conservative synagogues.
: Just one question here. I really don't understand why people think that
: walking three miles, instead of driving three miles or riding in a car
: for three miles, is rest! It is not. I would rather drive because it is
: LESS WORK. Isn't that what Shabbat is about? I mean, I am no authority, I
: did not study Talmud, I haven't even been Bar Mitzvahed properly, so
: forgive my ignorance, but why should a person walk instead of drive if
: walking is easier and less of a hassle? I seriously want to know, because
: the way I see it, the ones who walk are more in violation of Sabbath than
: those who drive because they are not resting.
Your question is a very legitimate one. What is considered rest is what
the Torah defined as an absence of melacha (which is defined not quite
precisely as work). I cannot explain the difference between walking
3000 feet in the open country which is prohibited, but walking five miles
in the city is okay. It is prohibited from carrying a piece of paper in
your pocket out of your front door and 20 feet to the street (assuming no
eruv) but it is permitted to carry a 75 pound table 20 feet from one end
of a building to another.
The Torah as explained in the oral law says what is a prohibited work and
what is permitted. I do know that it a spritual rather than physical
aspect. I also do know that I actually to feel on a higher plane on
Shabbat than I do on a weekday.
Harry
Don't forget to count the omer.
: __ _____________
Harry Weiss
: In article <4lg9s9$b...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
: William E Emba <wee...@icg.resnet.upenn.edu> wrote:
: >In article <4l8ne2$a...@user2.infinet.com>, kamlet@user2 (Art Kamlet) writes:
: >>In article <4l78se$o...@news.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
: >>>still, there is, imho, a very clear difference in approaches:
: >>>no O rabbi will say X became permitted in our days (even temporarily)
: >>>because of ....
: >
: >>Cholov stam.
: >What the hell are you gibbering about?
: >
: >Cholov stam has not been permitted in our days, even temporarily.
: >
: >You are thinking of cholov USDA, which so far as I know, was never
: >forbidden in the past.
: I am thinking that you can have cholov Yisroel or not. If not
: cholov Yisroel, it is cholov stam.
: When you say Cholov USDA -- cholov machines -- referring the the
: mechanical milking machines which produces milk that is inspected,
: and since the monetary fines for violating the USDA regulations
: are so high, we can assume cholov machines is from cows and is not
: adulterated. That's my understanding about the cholov machines
: teshuva. But it did not change "cholov USDA" into cholov Yisroel
: so it remains stam, but acceptable.
: To say cholov USDA was never forbidden ignores the fact that only
: cholov Yisroel was permitted; if it had not been permitted it is
: disingenuous to say it was never forbidden. Electricity was
: never forbidden before there was electricity.
: If I am mistaken please explain the chalacha instead of labeling
: this gibberish.
: --
: Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
For all intents and purposes those that rely on Chalav companies, hold
that it is Chalav Yisroel. Chalav Yisroel unlike Pas, Gevina or Bishul
Yisroel does not require a Jews to particpate in the process. It
requires the Jew to be sure that it is not contaminated with non Kosher
milk. Supevision can take various forms. On one extreme there is
Hashgacha Temidis (full time supervision). Other items only require
Yotze Vnichnas - random inspection and other items may have even less.
The decision is made on the particular situation and the liklihood for
adulteration. According to those who drink company milk, there is no
chance at for adulteration, therefore, no supervision (just the US
Government) is considered adequate.
William E Emba
>On 21 Apr 1996 15:06:57 GMT wee...@icg.resnet.upenn.edu (William E Emba)
>wrote:
>>In article <baker.829879435@sacco>, baker@cs (Jonathan Baker) writes:
>>> Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. This is exactly the
>>>same tactic they used in Europe - one of the big complaints of the
>>>misnagdim against the chasidim was that they were taking congregants
>>>(and their money) away from the regular shuls. This is called
>>>CAPITALISM.
>>But the halakhic way is not always the capitalist way. Quite often,
>>it is highly anticapitalistic. [...]
>The halacha of Masig Gvul (literally encroaching on a border/trespassing)
>by which a business can prevent a similar business from opening and
>competing does not apply in education. Competition is desired in education
>to raise the level of learning.
Just to clarify things, the case at hand that Jonathan was responding
to concerned a Chabadnik encroaching on non-O membership lists. I was
commenting on Jonathan's choice of the word "CAPITALISM", and not the
case in question.
Sorry for any confusion.
William E Emba
>In article <4lg9s9$b...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
>William E Emba <wee...@icg.resnet.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4l8ne2$a...@user2.infinet.com>, kamlet@user2 (Art Kamlet) writes:
>>>In article <4l78se$o...@news.bu.edu>, Simcha Streltsov <sim...@bu.edu> wrote:
>>>>still, there is, imho, a very clear difference in approaches: no O
>>>>rabbi will say X became permitted in our days (even temporarily)
>>>>because of ....
>>>Cholov stam.
>>What the hell are you gibbering about?
>>Cholov stam has not been permitted in our days, even temporarily.
>>You are thinking of cholov USDA, which so far as I know, was never
>>forbidden in the past.
>I am thinking that you can have cholov Yisroel or not. If not
>cholov Yisroel, it is cholov stam.
You can have cholov yisroel or cholov USDA. I know of no poskim who
have permitted arbitrary cholov stam.
>When you say Cholov USDA -- cholov machines -- referring the the
>mechanical milking machines which produces milk that is inspected,
The machines have nothing to do with the issue.
>and since the monetary fines for violating the USDA regulations
>are so high, we can assume cholov machines is from cows and is not
>adulterated. That's my understanding about the cholov machines
>teshuva. But it did not change "cholov USDA" into cholov Yisroel
>so it remains stam, but acceptable.
Cholov stam has not been permitted in our days, so far as I know.
>To say cholov USDA was never forbidden ignores the fact that only
>cholov Yisroel was permitted;
No, it does not ignore that fact.
> if it had not been permitted it is
>disingenuous to say it was never forbidden.
Far less disingenuous than your outright falsehoods about cholov stam.
> Electricity was
>never forbidden before there was electricity.
>If I am mistaken please explain the chalacha instead of labeling
>this gibberish.
Originally there was cholov yisroel (Jewish milk), permitted, and
cholov akum (idolator's milk), forbidden. Today, for some reason,
we call any non-yisroel milk "cholov stam", but this glosses over
the fact that distinctions are _still_ made. Most importantly, there
is no blanket permission for cholov stam, as you are claiming. There
is permission for a select subclass of cholov stam, and you should be
clear and refer to just that.
In particular, a gentile's word about his milk is still not considered
good enough. Some extra proof has always been needed, and it is still
needed. In the past, successfully churning it into butter was proof
enough that was no camel milk adulteration. Today, USDA inspection of
the original product is also considered proof enough.
Eli D. Clark
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96042...@lvl-sun687.usc.edu>,
>Jacob Faturechi <jac...@lvl-sun687.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>> walking three miles, instead of driving three miles or riding in a car
>> for three miles, is rest! It is not. I would rather drive because it is
>> LESS WORK. Isn't that what Shabbat is about? I mean, I am no authority, I
>> did not study Talmud, I haven't even been Bar Mitzvahed properly, so
>> forgive my ignorance, but why should a person walk instead of drive if
>> walking is easier and less of a hassle? I seriously want to know, because
>> the way I see it, the ones who walk are more in violation of Sabbath than
>> those who drive because they are not resting.
>
>Shabbos and Yom Tov), I have to say that there is something relaxing about
>a leisurely stroll to shul. Remember, by walking to shul, most people
>aren't refering to the type of walking one does when you leave your office
>for lunch and have 15 minutes to eat, go to the bank and post office, and
>then be back at your desk. Walking to shul every week, I find myself
>enjoying the half mile walk to shul, and often use it as a chance to let
>my mind unwind after a busy week. I also find myself running into the same
>groups of people each week walking to neighboring shuls. Of course, it's
>even nicer when the weather is nice and a group of us detour through the
>park on the way home from shul. I know that you people in Southern
>California don't understand the concept of travelling by any mode other
>than your own car, but every now and then a nice long walk can be fun...
> -JMP
I agree with Jreremy about the potential pleasure one may derive from
walking. But Jacob's original question about work vs. rest still merits
a response.
There is a difference between "work" and "physical exertion." The rest
associated with Shabbat is not about refraining from physical exertion,
but refraining from those activities that characterize the rest of the
week ("workdays"). As many of us know, many people "work" all day
primarily by sitting behind a desk, talking on a phone and/or typing on a
computer. None of these involves the physical exertion of a jog down the
street, but we call what we do "work," and so it is. The Bible speaks of
Shabbat as a day in whcih we refrain from the activities that typify the
work week. The rabbi speak of dressing differently and eating special
food on Shabbat. All of this is directed at making Shabbat totally
different from the rest of the week, giving it an atmosphere of
suspension and separation from the routine, workaday aspects of our life.
Driving in a car is very much a part of our daily lives that Shabbat
is supposed to take us away from. In that sense, Shabbat is the ultimate
vacation.
Regrads,
Eli
Jacob Faturechi
> Shabbos and Yom Tov), I have to say that there is something relaxing about
> a leisurely stroll to shul. Remember, by walking to shul, most people
> aren't refering to the type of walking one does when you leave your office
> for lunch and have 15 minutes to eat, go to the bank and post office, and
> then be back at your desk. Walking to shul every week, I find myself
> enjoying the half mile walk to shul, and often use it as a chance to let
> my mind unwind after a busy week. I also find myself running into the same
> groups of people each week walking to neighboring shuls. Of course, it's
> even nicer when the weather is nice and a group of us detour through the
> park on the way home from shul. I know that you people in Southern
> California don't understand the concept of travelling by any mode other
> than your own car, but every now and then a nice long walk can be fun...
smog or be running to catch this light or that light and where everything
is close. But let us say that it is Shabbat morning and it is really cold
and you have a corn on your little toe that makes things painful when you
walk. Would you drive? A stroll to shul is rather nice. My father, sister
and I would walk to shul when it was close because the neighborhood was
nice and it was spring and we enjoyed it. But if it is a hassle, wouldn't
you say that instead of following all of these things like do not carry
and do not spark fire and do not do this and do not do that, wouldn't it
just be easier to follow the commandment to keep a day of rest on the
Shabbat? If you find walking restful, then by all means....But I don't
like the people who wouldn't go on a hike because it would be walking too
far, or won't take a picnic to the park because they would be carrying,
or wouldn't drive to a park that is really beautiful and nice but too
far to take a "stroll" to or make all types of CHORES in respect for a
day of REST. What is wrong with taking a trip to Magic Mountain or
Disneyland on Shabbat? I think that it is perfectly in line with what I
know of Shabbat, but then again, I am no great scholar on the subject.
(And actually, that is why I ask, because I want to know if I am wrong.)
Jacob Faturechi
> there are certain forms of work that are explicitly forbidden on Shabbat.
I've heard them too, but I wonder if they are actually from Torah, (or
even the rest of the Tenach) or just from Rabbinic interpretation. I am
sorry, but if the Torah simply says "rest" (which is all I remember
reading right now, someone please cite references otherwise if there
are because I would love to look them up) and the Talmud says "do
not light fires" and I am having a sleepless night because it is cold and I
would like to sit by a nice little fire with my hot cocoa and talk to my
loved ones before I go to bed, then I am going to rest!
Which reminds me, isn't one of those things you are not supposed to do sex?
For some reason, I have a hard time believing that sex is thought of as work
in Tenach. It may be just wishful thinking, but I would say that sex is
rather relaxing and has little to nothing to do with the idea of "work"
unless you are clocking it with ovulation cycles in a desperate attempt to
have children. In fact, my Hebrew teacher was telling me that the Hebrew word
for wasting (time) "mebazbez (zman)" also means foreplay. Now, if that isn't
enough proof for a requirement TO have sex on Shabbat...:) Okay, maybe I am
taking this rest thing a little too far.
BTW For all you sickos, by sex I mean heterosexual, married sex. I don't
want anyone interpreting this as some kind of orgiastic, Bacchic ritual
because that is not what I mean at all.
Rick Cooper
>Just one question here. I really don't understand why people think that
>walking three miles, instead of driving three miles or riding in a car
>for three miles, is rest! It is not. I would rather drive because it is
>LESS WORK. Isn't that what Shabbat is about? I mean, I am no authority, I
>did not study Talmud, I haven't even been Bar Mitzvahed properly, so
>forgive my ignorance, but why should a person walk instead of drive if
>walking is easier and less of a hassle? I seriously want to know, because
>the way I see it, the ones who walk are more in violation of Sabbath than
>those who drive because they are not resting.
Someone can quote the specifics better than I, but the general idea is that
there are certain forms of work that are explicitly forbidden on Shabbat.
Two of which could be applied to the prohibition of driving. The Torah
demands that you extend the Shabbat restrictions to your animals and
all members of your household so that you cannot ride your horse
on Shabbat. Logically this can be extended to your car. There may also be
an explicit prohibition against riding anything, because I also believe that
riding bicycles is also prohibited.
The other much more to the point issue is that it is illegal to light
or extinguish a fire on Shabbat which happens numerous times a second
in an automobile engine.
Yeah, I'll concur that some of these restrictions seem more work than
the modern conviences now offer, but on the other side of the coin, Shabbat
in its pure form lends itself to a lot of sitting around and talking to friends
and family (or during the three mile walk to shul and back) which seems
to be missing a whole lot out of our rush rush automobile oriented
society.
--
ss8...@den.mmc.com - Rick Cooper, Lockheed Martin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"If you don't want to go around in circles, you have to
be somewhat eccentric." - Equations of Orbital Motion
Andrew Mathis
>> Someone can quote the specifics better than I, but the general idea is that
>> there are certain forms of work that are explicitly forbidden on Shabbat.
Some are from Torah, some from Rabbinical writings.
>I've heard them too, but I wonder if they are actually from Torah, (or
>even the rest of the Tenach) or just from Rabbinic interpretation. I am
>sorry, but if the Torah simply says "rest" (which is all I remember
>reading right now, someone please cite references otherwise if there
>are because I would love to look them up) and the Talmud says "do
>not light fires" and I am having a sleepless night because it is cold and I
>would like to sit by a nice little fire with my hot cocoa and talk to my
>loved ones before I go to bed, then I am going to rest!
The Torah says to rest from all work, and to have no one else work for
you either. It stresses this to the point of saying that the penalty
for doing so is death (the Sanhedrin probably let this one slide a bit
relatively quickly). Later rabbinical sources gleaned that since God
rested from the work of CREATING on the first shabbat, that any work
involving creating on shabbat should be prohibited, thus no writing,
painting, etc.
Also in the Torah is the prohibition against lighting fires, which is
the justification for all the prohibitions against cooking, turning on
lights, driving (gotta make a spark to start a combustion engine) etc.
>Which reminds me, isn't one of those things you are not supposed to do sex?
>For some reason, I have a hard time believing that sex is thought of as work
>in Tenach. It may be just wishful thinking, but I would say that sex is
>rather relaxing and has little to nothing to do with the idea of "work"
>unless you are clocking it with ovulation cycles in a desperate attempt to
>have children. In fact, my Hebrew teacher was telling me that the Hebrew word
>for wasting (time) "mebazbez (zman)" also means foreplay. Now, if that isn't
>enough proof for a requirement TO have sex on Shabbat...:) Okay, maybe I am
>taking this rest thing a little too far.
Actually, having sex is what's called a "shabbos mitzvah." It's not
among the 613 commandments, but it's VERY common for traditional
Jewish married couples to have sex on Friday evenings. BTW, it's also
a mitzvah to have sex in your sukkah during sukkot.
>BTW For all you sickos, by sex I mean heterosexual, married sex. I don't
>want anyone interpreting this as some kind of orgiastic, Bacchic ritual
>because that is not what I mean at all.
Oh, suuuure you don't . ;)
Andrew
-------------------------------------
"If they give you ruled paper,
Write the other way."
--Juan Ramon Jimenez
James Garner
<Pine.SOL.3.91.96042...@lvl-sun687.usc.edu>:
Distribution:
Jacob Faturechi (jac...@lvl-sun687.usc.edu) wrote:
: understand the argument against a woman leading male congregations, but I
: certainly do not agree that a woman cannot be an effective teacher and
: knowledgeable in all aspects of Judaism or act as a leader to other
: women. Do not ridicule the idea of female rabbis, because they have
: existed since biblical times.
If you can understand the argument against a woman leading male
congregations, then please do not put words into my mouth and say that I
have said that a woman cannot be an effective teacher and knowledge etc...
If I want strawmen, I will go into a field and build one.
James Garner
: Just one question here. I really don't understand why people think that
: walking three miles, instead of driving three miles or riding in a car
: for three miles, is rest! It is not. I would rather drive because it is
: LESS WORK. Isn't that what Shabbat is about? I mean, I am no authority, I
No.
Jonathan Kamens
|> It is prohibited from carrying a piece of paper in
|> your pocket out of your front door and 20 feet to the street (assuming no
|> eruv) but it is permitted to carry a 75 pound table 20 feet from one end
|> of a building to another.
Actually, I believe there is a rabbinic prohibition against the latter, unless
(a) you did not know before Shabbat that you would need to move the table and
(b) you need to move it for some purpose related to Shabbat.
Followups to soc.culture.jewish; this no longer belongs in soc.culture.israel
(and hasn't for quite a while; if you change the topic of a thread, folks,
please consider changing your Subject line and/or Newsgroups list.)
Jonathan Kamens
|> > Someone can quote the specifics better than I, but the general idea is that
|> > there are certain forms of work that are explicitly forbidden on Shabbat.
|> even the rest of the Tenach) or just from Rabbinic interpretation.
The acts which are prohibited on Shabbat are the acts which were performed by
the Jews in the process of constructing the mishkan ("tabernacle") in the
desert. The rabbis prove this derivation by pointing out that directly after
the Jews are commanded to build the mishkan, they are commanded not to violate
the Shabbat; in other words, "Build the mishkan, but don't think that my
commandment for you to build it gives you an excuse to violate the Shabbat
while doing so!" Most of the 39 prohibited malachot are not listed explicitly
in the Torah.
Now, of course, you could act the question, "So, why should I believe what the
rabbis say about what's prohibited?" but then you're asking a much more
complex question -- was the Oral Law handed down to us by the rabbis really
given by God, or was it developed by man. Beliefs among Jews on this issue
range from "Every law discussed in the Talmud was given to Moshe on Sinai," to
"Well, maybe God wrote the Torah, and maybe he didn't." And so it is
impossible to give you a single answer to your questino.
|> I am
|> sorry, but if the Torah simply says "rest" (which is all I remember
|> reading right now, someone please cite references otherwise if there
|> are because I would love to look them up) and the Talmud says "do
|> not light fires" and I am having a sleepless night because it is cold and I
|> would like to sit by a nice little fire with my hot cocoa and talk to my
|> loved ones before I go to bed, then I am going to rest!
First of all, not lighting fires on Shabbat is in fact one of the few negative
Shabbat commandments which *is* stated explicitly in the Torah. So you lose
on that score.
Second, just because a commandment is first listed explicitly in the Mishna or
Talmud does not mean that it was created by the Rabbis rather than divinely
inspired. To make such a claim is to reject the concept of divinely inspired
Oral Law out of hand. Since you have willingly admitted that your Jewish
education has some holes in it, I suggest that before you decide it is
appropriate to classify the entire Oral Law as man-made, you study a little
bit more about it. Surely there is a Hillel rabbi or congregational rabbi in
your area that you can seek out for guidance? At the very least, I'm sure
there are public libraries to which you have access which have numerous
introductory texts about Judaism.
|> Which reminds me, isn't one of those things you are not supposed to do sex?
No. In fact, sexual relations between man and wife are encouraged on Shabbat.
Which just goes to show that when you start trying to draw conclusions based
on faulty assumptions, you're going to end up with faulty conclusions.
(Followups to soc.culture.jewish. Folks, please remember to check your
Newsgroups line when posting a followup.)
Daniel Israel
> I've heard them too, but I wonder if they [forms of work prohibited on
> shabbos] are actually from Torah, (or even the rest of the Tenach) or just from
> Rabbinic interpretation. I am sorry, but if the Torah simply says "rest" (which
> is all I remember reading right now, someone please cite references otherwise
> if there are because I would love to look them up) and the Talmud says "do
> not light fires" and I am having a sleepless night because it is cold and I
> would like to sit by a nice little fire with my hot cocoa and talk to my
> loved ones before I go to bed, then I am going to rest!
They are not explicitly listed in the Written Torah. However they are listed
in the Oral law.
The Torah uses the word "melacha", which is usually translated as "work,"
to refer to the activities prohibited on shabbos. Some translate it
as "creative work" or "servile work." However, what it really means
is "work prohibited on shabbos." Which leaves open the question
of what types of activities actually constitute "melacha."
This is derived based on one of the principles of Torah interpretation,
namely that items which are near each other in the text are placed together
for a reason. The rabbis noted that the prohibition of melacha is
reiterated right next to the description of the building of the Mishkan
[Tabernacle*]. The rabbis concluded that this was to indicate that although
one might think the the building of the Mishkan was so holy that it should
be done even on shabbos, that this was incorrect; in fact shabbos overrides
the building of the Mishkan. From this, the rabbis derived that the
forms of work involved in building the Mishkan are the catagories that
constitute "melacha".
Now, upon hearing this, you may conclude that this derivation is a real
stretch. Before doing so, however, consider the purpose of this
derivation.
The Torah is composed of a written and and oral part. The written part
is the so called Five Books of Moses, or Chumash, from the Hebrew chamesh
[five]. The oral part is contained in the Mishna. Both are directly
recieved from HaShem, but the oral law was transmitted orally until it
was finally redacted into the Mishna.
One of the things about the oral law is that it contains explanations of
rules that are in the written law, but are not clear from the written
law alone. So one thing the rabbis did in the Mishna, and later in the
Talmud, is to show where in the written law particular parts of the oral
law come from. This was particularly helpful where there was disagreement
as to what the oral law said; the side that could be shown consanant with
the written law was clearly the correct one.
So the derivation based on the building of the Mishkan is not how we
know the forms of melacha. Rather it is a proof the rabbis brought
to show that the definition of melacha which had been taught to Moses, and
transmitted orally down to the rabbis, was in fact already inherent in
the text.
> Which reminds me, isn't one of those things you are not supposed to do sex?
> For some reason, I have a hard time believing that sex is thought of as work
> in Tenach. It may be just wishful thinking, but I would say that sex is
> rather relaxing and has little to nothing to do with the idea of "work"
> unless you are clocking it with ovulation cycles in a desperate attempt to
> have children. In fact, my Hebrew teacher was telling me that the Hebrew word
> for wasting (time) "mebazbez (zman)" also means foreplay. Now, if that isn't
> enough proof for a requirement TO have sex on Shabbat...:) Okay, maybe I am
> taking this rest thing a little too far.
Actually, you aren't. Is is considered a mitzvah to have sexual relations
on shabbos. (Although not for the reasons you stated.)
> BTW For all you sickos, by sex I mean heterosexual, married sex. I don't
> want anyone interpreting this as some kind of orgiastic, Bacchic ritual
> because that is not what I mean at all.
Same goes for me. I also don't include relations during the time of nidah
[menstrual impurity].
--
Daniel M. Israel
<dan...@vega.ame.arizona.edu>
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ