L'Chaim issue # 106 part 4 of 4
Lazer Danzinger
****************************************************************************
L'CHAIM ISSUE # 106 PART 4 OF 4
****************************************************************************
IT HAPPENED ONCE
****************************************************************************
One time Rabbi Azriel was in Rabbi Chaikel's study, when a woman came in
and asked Rabbi Chaikel to hold 500 rubles for her in safekeeping.
Later that day, Rabbi Chaikel tried to locate the money but could not
find it. He searched all the drawers and cabinets in his study and went
through the pockets of all his garments, but to no avail. The money was gone.
With a heavy heart, Rabbi Chaikel went to Rabbi Azriel's home. He asked
him whether he had perhaps noticed what he had done with the money which the
woman gave him. Rabbi Azriel said that he had not seen him do anything with
the money, and to the best of his recollection, it had remained on the desk.
Rabbi Chaikel sighed deeply, "The money is gone, Reb Azriel," he said. "I
have searched everywhere. You and I were the only two people present. I know
this sounds absurd, Reb Azriel, but this money was entrusted to me, and
although you are beyond suspicion, I am obligated by Jewish law to request
that you take an oath that you did not take it."
Rabbi Azriel was shaken. "Take an oath?" he asked. "I should swear? Can
you give me just a bit of time to give this some thought?"
"Of course," Rabbi Chaikel answered and left.
That evening Rabbi Azriel came to Rabbi Chaikel. "Here are 275 rubles,"
he said. "That is all I have."
Rabbi Chaikel was upset. He knew that Rabbi Azriel's earnings were very
meager, and that he did not own 275 rubles. What was the meaning of this?
Rabbi Azriel was under great pressure to provide a dowry for his daughter who
was soon to marry. Could it be that Rabbi Azriel had been unable to resist
the temptation, and that confronted with the possible cancellation of the
wedding if he failed to provide a dowry, Rabbi Azriel had weakened and taken
the money? That was absurd! But how else would he explain to Rabbi Azriel's
having a sum so large as 275 rubles?
"I cannot compromise," Rabbi Chaikel said. "If I do not have the 500
rubles to return to the woman, I must demand that you swear."
"Give me one more day," Rabbi Azriel pleaded.
The following day, Rabbi Azriel returned and gave Rabbi Chaikel an
additional 125 rubles. "This is all I have," he said.
Rabbi Chaikel was stern. He was now convinced that Rabbi Azriel had
succumbed to the stress of his daughter's wedding needs and had indeed taken
the money. Not G-d forbid, with an intent to steal, but just to borrow it for
a few weeks until after the wedding, when he would somehow repay it. For how
else would the impoverished Rabbi Azriel have gotten 400 rubles in two days?
"500 rubles, Reb Azriel," said Rabbi Chaikel. "Not one kopek less."
"Here is a promissory note to the woman for 100 rubles," said Rabbi
Azriel. "I will pay it within 30 days. More I cannot do."
"Good enough," said Rabbi Chaikel. "I shall prevail upon the woman to
accept your note."
Friday afternoon, Rabbi Chaikel was preparing his study for Shabbat. The
Mizrach plaque (a decorative plaque designating which direction was east, so
that anyone praying in that room would know which direction to face toward
Jerusalem) was hanging crooked, and as he lifted it to hang it straight, the
bundle of 500 rubles fell out! Rabbi Chaikel suddenly recalled that he had
hidden the money there. He emitted a loud shriek and fell to the ground in a
faint.
Rabbi Chaikel's family, hearing the loud cry, came running and revived
him. As he came to, he tore at his beard and wept uncontrollably. "What have
I done!" he cried. "I falsely accused a tzaddik of a terrible crime! How
could I ever have done such a thing! I have sinned against an innocent man
and against G-d!" Nothing his family could say would console him.
In the midst of his weeping and self-flagellation, Rabbi Chaikel said, "I
must go to the tzaddik, Reb Azriel. I must ask his forgiveness. He may spit
at me and throw me out of his house. How I have caused him to suffer
needlessly!"
Rabbi Chaikel hurried to the shul. A small crowd had already gathered for
Mincha. He ran to the pulpit and pounded on the pulpit for attention.
"Hear me, good people," he cried. "Hear me, Reb Azriel the tzaddik. For
20 years, I have been your Rabbi, but I do not deserve to be your Rabbi. I
have sinned against an innocent man. I have falsely accused a tzaddik of a
grave crime. I am not worthy for the earth to support me." The tears flowed
freely down his cheeks. He turned and ran to the aron hakodesh (the ark
containing the Torah), threw open its doors, and shouted, "Only You G-d, can
forgive me!"
Rabbi Azriel came up and put his arm around his friend. "Calm down, Reb
Chaikel," he pleaded. "Please, calm yourself. I would gladly forgive you
wholeheartedly if there was something which required forgiveness. But what is
there to forgive, Reb Chaikel? You have done nothing wrong."
"Nothing wrong?" asked Rabbi Chaikel. "Nothing wrong to accuse you of so
menial an act? You mock at me, Reb Azriel. Yes, you mock at me. But I deserve
it, and much more."
"Heaven forbid that I mock at you, Reb Chaikel," said Rabbi Azriel. "You
had no other course. There was no one else in the room but you and me, and
when you could not locate the money, you had no choice but to conclude that I
took it, and to demand that I swear my innocence.
"When I heard that I must swear," Rabbi Azriel continued, "I shuddered.
Never in my life have I taken an oath. I therefore took the 250 rubles that I
had borrowed for my daughter's wedding, and sold my wife's jewelry for
another 25 rubles.
"When you told me that this was not enough," Rabbi Azriel continued, "I
sold my library for 125 rubles. I am so grateful, Reb Chaikel, that you took
the promissory note for 100 rubles. I am so grateful, for otherwise I do not
know what I would have done. I would have been compelled to swear. To swear,
even when you know you are swearing the truth, is awesome. You spared me, Reb
Chaikel, by accepting my note. I shall never forget this kindness."
"Father had made his point," writes Rabbi Twerski, teller of this tale.
"One's mouth is not a grinder, to spew out indiscriminately. The tongue is a
powerful instrument. It can be a constructive tool of a destructive weapon.
Father taught us to respect our gift of speech."
From Generation to Generation by Abraham J. Twerski. Reprinted with
permission of C.I.S. Publishers.
****************************************************************************
THOUGHTS THAT COUNT
****************************************************************************
Of his own voluntary will. (Lev. 1:3)
The commentator Rashi explains that although the verse says "of his own
voluntary will," if one does not want to bring a sacrifice, we compel him to
do so. How, then, can we say that the sacrifice is brought willingly? We
compel him until he wants to do it. When the Torah tell a person to do
something and a person apparently does not want to do, his negative reaction
is not reality. For, as a Jew, in the innermost depths of his heart, he wants
to carry out the Will of G-d. Through forcing him to do what is correct, his
negative inclination is nullified and the willingness to carry out G-d's Will
is genuine. (Rambam on the laws of divorce ch. 2)
With all your sacrifices you shall offer salt. (2:13)
The sacrifice symbolizes the revealed part of the Torah, which is likened
to meat. The salt symbolizes the hidden aspects of Torah which are more
spiritual and abstract. This is why each sacrifice had to be brought with
salt. In the same way that salt preserves meat from spoiling, so do the
inner, esoteric explanations of Torah preserve the revealed part of Torah.
(Likutei Torah)
If a person sins...and is not sure, he shall bear guilt.(5:17)
The Torah is even stricter, in terms of bringing sacrifices, with one who
is not even sure if he has sinned. The sacrifice when one is uncertain if he
sinned cost more than the sacrifice which was brought as an atonement for a
known sin!
If a person knows clearly that he has done something wrong, he will
regret it and feel bad. However, if he is not sure, he may convince himself
that he really did not sin. Then, he will not repent. Thus, he has to bring a
costlier sacrifice which will cause him to be more introspective. (Rabbeinu
Yona)
****************************************************************************
TODAY IS...
A Thought for the Day
****************************************************************************
29 ADAR
Rabbi Sholom DovBer said: G-d created the universe and all physical
objects -- something from nothing. Jews must transform the "something" into
"nothing," transform the material into the spiritual. Turning the physical
into spiritual and making the physical into an instrument for the spiritual,
is a personal obligation. Every single person, individually, is required to
do this.
****************************************************************************
CANDLE LIGHTING
****************************************************************************
NY Metro Area 6:00 pm
4 Nisan, 5750
March 30, 1990
Torah Portion: Vayikra
Shabbat ends 7:00 pm
Influence friends and acquaintances, and bring them into the light.
***************************************************************************
Published by Lubavitch Youth Organization
770 Eastern Parkway Brooklyn NY 11213 (718) 953-1000, 778-6000
Rabbi Dovid Raskin - Chairman
Rabbi Shmuel Butman - Director
Rabbi Kasriel Kastel - Program Director
Rabbi Shlomo Friedman - Administrator
Yehudis Cohen - Editor
Rabbi Berel Bell - Contributing Editor
Editorial Committee
Rabbi Zalman I. Posner - Consultant
The name of this publication is an acronym for L'zecher CHaya Mushka
****************************************************************************
--- FD 2.00
* Origin: L'chaim BBS - KESHERnet New York - (718)756-7201 (1:107/610)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Rabbi) L. Danzinger | "Ben Zoma said, 'Who is wise? One who learns from
lazer@mnetor | every person...Who is courageous? One who conquers
| his [evil] inclination...Who is wealthy? One who is
| satisfied with his portion...Who is respected? One who
(416) 475-8980 | respects his fellow man...'" -- Avot 4:1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea K. Frankel
>****************************************************************************
> THOUGHTS THAT COUNT
>****************************************************************************
>
>Of his own voluntary will. (Lev. 1:3)
> The commentator Rashi explains that although the verse says "of his own
>voluntary will," if one does not want to bring a sacrifice, we compel him to
>do so. How, then, can we say that the sacrifice is brought willingly? We
>compel him until he wants to do it. When the Torah tell a person to do
>something and a person apparently does not want to do, his negative reaction
>is not reality. For, as a Jew, in the innermost depths of his heart, he wants
>to carry out the Will of G-d. Through forcing him to do what is correct, his
>negative inclination is nullified and the willingness to carry out G-d's Will
>is genuine. (Rambam on the laws of divorce ch. 2)
This sends shudders down my spine.
As a people, we are called upon to choose. Forcing someone else to do
something according to another's interpretation is something I consider
despicable, even when the goal is admirable. It flies in the face of
human dignity, respect for another's integrity and right to choose, and
is easily abused (as anyone familiar with modern cults can attest).
The ends do not justify the means. I think the Torah got it right, and
in this case Rashi is off base.
Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
"wake now! Discover that you are the song that the morning brings..."
______________________________________________________________________________
UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea
Internet : and...@sdd.hp.com (or andrea%hp-...@nosc.mil or @ucsd.edu)
CSNET : andrea%hp-...@hplabs.csnet
USnail : 16399 W. Bernardo Drive, San Diego CA 92127-1899 USA
siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu
> In article <53...@mnetor.UUCP> la...@mnetor.UUCP (Lazer Danzinger) writes:
>>****************************************************************************
>> THOUGHTS THAT COUNT
>>****************************************************************************
>>
>>Of his own voluntary will. (Lev. 1:3)
>> The commentator Rashi explains that although the verse says "of his own
>>voluntary will," if one does not want to bring a sacrifice, we compel him to
>>do so. How, then, can we say that the sacrifice is brought willingly? We
>>compel him until he wants to do it. When the Torah tell a person to do
>>something and a person apparently does not want to do, his negative reaction
>
> This sends shudders down my spine.
>
> As a people, we are called upon to choose. Forcing someone else to do
> something according to another's interpretation is something I consider
> despicable, even when the goal is admirable. It flies in the face of
> human dignity, respect for another's integrity and right to choose, and
> is easily abused (as anyone familiar with modern cults can attest).
>
> The ends do not justify the means. I think the Torah got it right, and
> in this case Rashi is off base.
I agree with Andrea. The case of divorce is somewhat different,
because we seek to do right by someone else, as well as doing what G-d wants of
us. To say, "Make him do it, he really wants to" makes no sense.
Also, I remember somone say, Rashi didn't write his own commentary on
the Chumash, that it was a compilation (presumably his Gemorrah commentary is
his own). Does anyone know if this is true?
Robert Siegfried
Computer Science Dept.
Saint Peter's College
Jersey City, NJ 07306
siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu
Jonathan Horen
>In article <53...@mnetor.UUCP> la...@mnetor.UUCP (Lazer Danzinger) writes:
>>****************************************************************************
>> THOUGHTS THAT COUNT
>>****************************************************************************
>>
>>Of his own voluntary will. (Lev. 1:3)
>> The commentator Rashi explains that although the verse says "of his own
>>voluntary will," if one does not want to bring a sacrifice, we compel him to
>>do so. How, then, can we say that the sacrifice is brought willingly? We
>>compel him until he wants to do it. When the Torah tell a person to do
>>something and a person apparently does not want to do, his negative reaction
>>is not reality. For, as a Jew, in the innermost depths of his heart, he wants
>>to carry out the Will of G-d. Through forcing him to do what is correct, his
>>negative inclination is nullified and the willingness to carry out G-d's Will
>>is genuine. (Rambam on the laws of divorce ch. 2)
>
>This sends shudders down my spine.
>
>As a people, we are called upon to choose. Forcing someone else to do
>something according to another's interpretation is something I consider
>despicable, even when the goal is admirable. It flies in the face of
>human dignity, respect for another's integrity and right to choose, and
>is easily abused (as anyone familiar with modern cults can attest).
>
>The ends do not justify the means. I think the Torah got it right, and
>in this case Rashi is off base.
I disagree with you, Andrea. I realize that we fought many battles during
the 1960's and 1970's over the rights to choose (whether it be mode of
dress, music, lifestyle, etc.), our dignity as young- and not-so-young
people, educational content and intent, etc. Again, after spending all of
the 1980's in Israel, I see that our struggles were perverted, our energy
diverted into "second-rate" channels -- mainly those of acquisition and
control over others.
If you and I can forego the matter of the "voluntary offering", perhaps we
can focus on an application of "compelling" another person that is in both
a traditional and wholly modern area (and the one that the author of the
article quoted -- RaMBaM, in the Laws of Divorce).
What is interesting about the Jewish concept of divorce is that of whom
the Bet Din can and cannot compel, when, and why.
We cannot compel a woman to accept a Get (the document of divorce); she
must willingly accept it. The Law specifically mentions absence of duress.
We can, however, compel a man to give his wife a Get.
When can we do so? When he has left her or broken the laws regarding family
lifestyles.
Why do we do so? In order to return to her her right to choose.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We are not willing to permit the husband to control his wife thusly, to
make her into a puppet whose strings he can "jerk" as he wishes.
Today, a Bet Din doesn't have the authority to fulfill its responsibilities.
A terrible result of this is decades of anguish within the Orthodox
community. There are women whose husbands refuse outright to give them
a Get; women whose husbands demand sums of money that range into the
"six-digit stratosphere"; women whose husbands simply vanish, who then
become what are called Agunot (from the word Ogen - anchor) and cannot
marry. There are children who yearn for a father...
I feel that the question of compulsion in regard to bringing sacrifices is
a moot point, because there is no structure for these mitzvot, no Beit
HaMikdash.
There are, however, other aspects, like the one I've written about here,
where *community* compulsion of individuals exhibiting untoward behavior
is warranted. If you can find an English translation of RaMBaM's
Laws of Teaching Torah (Hilchot Talmud Torah), you will find a number of
interesting laws. These are the laws of *nidui* and *cherem*, their
whys and wherefores.
It would be interesting to discuss Jewish Law and philosophy with regard
to individuals, communities, and the relationship of individuals-to-
communities and vice-versa. But that'll be another time.
Chag Kasher v'Sameach.
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| _ J_ o_ n_ a_ t_ h_ a_ n_ _ B_ ._ _ H_ o_ r_ e_ n_ _ _ _ _ | | . | |
| _ C_ a_ d_ e_ n_ c_ e_ _ D_ e_ s_ i_ g_ n_ _ S_ y_ s_ t_ e_ m_ s | |__ (/\ \ / |__ Lilmod Al Manat Lelamed |
| | _/ / _\ _\/ _/ Lilmod Al Manat La'asot |
| _ h_ o_ r_ e_ n_ @_ c_ a_ d_ e_ n_ c_ e_ ._ c_ o_ m | -: - |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
samuel.saal
->In article <53...@mnetor.UUCP> la...@mnetor.UUCP (Lazer Danzinger) writes:
->> The commentator Rashi explains that although the verse says "of his own
->>voluntary will," if one does not want to bring a sacrifice, we compel him to
->>do so. How, then, can we say that the sacrifice is brought willingly? We
->>compel him until he wants to do it. When the Torah tell a person to do
->>something and a person apparently does not want to do, his negative reaction
->>is not reality. For, as a Jew, in the innermost depths of his heart, he wants
->>to carry out the Will of G-d. Through forcing him to do what is correct, his
->>negative inclination is nullified and the willingness to carry out G-d's Will
->>is genuine. (Rambam on the laws of divorce ch. 2)
->This sends shudders down my spine.
->As a people, we are called upon to choose. Forcing someone else to do
->something according to another's interpretation is something I consider
->despicable, even when the goal is admirable. It flies in the face of
->human dignity, respect for another's integrity and right to choose, and
->is easily abused (as anyone familiar with modern cults can attest).
->The ends do not justify the means. I think the Torah got it right, and
->in this case Rashi is off base.
->Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
->UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea
I hope I got a good balance between quoting the original articles
and cutting them down to save space. I apologize if this is
still too long. Too much less and this will look like a flame.
Andrea
You quote the old aphorism about the `end not justifying the
means.' As with all aphorisms and sayings, "it ain't necessarily
so." We both can think of cases in which the ends certainly does
justify the means so I won't bother with an example. What I wil
give, however, is a case in which *forcing* an action - society
removing an individual's free will in a non-criminal case - is
appropriate. I hope it is a case that even you will accept as
reasonable.
As you may know, the Halachic method for a Jewish divorce is for
a man to give the soon-to-be-ex wife a document called a `Get.'
A woman cannot give this document to a man - it is simply
meaningless. But what happens if the woman wants the divorce but
the man doesn't? Surely you wouldn't say that the woman should
be stuck with the man? For example, in an abusive relationship,
it is likely that an abusive man won't give a divorce. You
cannot leave a woman trapped in this relationship and the courts
cannot (except in, I believe, extremely rare circumstances) give
a proxy Get. Thus, the man _must_ be _forced_, against his will,
to give the Get. The Rabbis went so far as to say that it is
_required_ to beat the man until he changes his mind and decides,
of his own free will, to give the divorce document.
I believe this is the right way to do things. We have a system
of laws that are divine (whether only inspired or verbatim I
leave for the next round of OCR flame wars :-). Thus, following
them is our responsibility as Jews. There may be times when we
need prodding to do something that is for the communal good. (By
"communal" I mean `effecting more than _just_ the individual.)
You may not see animal sacrifices as being a communal good, but I
hope you see the divorce example as such.
I think it comes down to trying to understand the intent of the
Rabbis explanations rather than basing your opinion on current
cliches.
Have a Happy, Kosher, Pesach.
--
Sam Saal ...!{att}!floyd!saal
Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
Andrea K. Frankel
>What I wil
>give, however, is a case in which *forcing* an action - society
>removing an individual's free will in a non-criminal case - is
>appropriate. I hope it is a case that even you will accept as
>reasonable.
No, as a matter of fact, I don't...
>As you may know, the Halachic method for a Jewish divorce is for
>a man to give the soon-to-be-ex wife a document called a `Get.'
>A woman cannot give this document to a man - it is simply
>meaningless. But what happens if the woman wants the divorce but
>the man doesn't? Surely you wouldn't say that the woman should
>be stuck with the man? For example, in an abusive relationship,
>it is likely that an abusive man won't give a divorce. You
>cannot leave a woman trapped in this relationship and the courts
>cannot (except in, I believe, extremely rare circumstances) give
>a proxy Get.
And here is the crux of the problem. It is far, far preferable in my
estimation to use a fallback procedure (such as a proxy Get) than to
use a situation made intolerable BY THE LACK OF ONE as an excuse for
using force to overcome an individual's objections.
>Thus, the man _must_ be _forced_, against his will,
>to give the Get. The Rabbis went so far as to say that it is
>_required_ to beat the man until he changes his mind and decides,
>of his own free will, to give the divorce document.
A perfect example of what happens when you believe the ends justify
the means! I do not except a judgement that it is OK to beat a human
being to change their minds. To think that you can follow that with a
conclusion that he has then acquiesced "of his own free will" is so
patently absurd that I find it truly hard to believe that anyone can
swallow it.
A supposedly divine law that places a woman in an intolerable situation
without giving any more humane and reasonable alternative than violence
is not something I can accept with a clear conscience. Either the law
is flawed (and therefore not divine), or the Rabbis have failed in their
role of interpreting the law in such a way as to avoid dehumanizing us.
This is so radically different from another example I saw recently,
where the Rabbis permitted the Jews in a concentration camp to eat their
pitiful ration of soup and leavened bread on Passover (while offering up
a sincere prayer asking God's understanding and promising to observe the
mitzvot when they were again free) since denying their food to them for
eight days in a situation where they could not obtain matzah and kosher
food would surely result in death. Likewise, I would expect that a
woman in a physically abusive marriage should be able to get a proxy Get
from the Rabbis, because denying it to her could place her life in
jeopardy.
Physically assaulting the husband in this day and age would probably
result in both assault-and-battery charges leading to imprisonment, and
possibly the death of the woman as her husband takes out his rage on
her. Is this life-enhancing, holy, bringing us nearer to God? I think
not. Those who use violence as a way of enforcing "communal good" become
dehumanized, losing the precious quality of reverence for the holiness
of life. I believe that an interpretation of Judaism that REQUIRES such
callousness is wrong. Period.
>I think it comes down to trying to understand the intent of the
>Rabbis explanations rather than basing your opinion on current
>cliches.
It might be a cliche to you, but it is a profound truth to me! Please
think before you cast aspersions on the quality of another's beliefs.
Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
"wake now! Discover that you are the song that the morning brings..."
______________________________________________________________________________
UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea
Andrea K. Frankel
>the means! I do not except a judgement that it is OK to beat a human
Lazer Danzinger
> To say, "Make him do it, he really wants to" makes no sense.
>
of wants and desires. And just as society acknowledges a state
of "insanity", it also recognizes a condition of "temporary
insanity."
When our society "believes" that a person truly desires something
contrary to his expressed desire, our society may also ignore
the person's protests. For example, a person says he would like
to commit suicide...we ignore his expressed will, and actually
forcibly prevent him from taking his own life. And when we
intervene, there is no question that we say to ourselves,
"He _really_ wants to live." Such a desperate individual is
temporarily out-of-touch with his own true desires.
> Also, I remember somone say, Rashi didn't write his own commentary on
>the Chumash, that it was a compilation (presumably his Gemorrah commentary is
>his own). Does anyone know if this is true?
Rashi on Chumash was written by Rashi.
david.s.green
In a civil court (or family court) one can be held in
"contempt" and thrown into the slammer - here in the USA.
Assume an "abusive relationship" in America in 1990.
Don't our courts issue "restraining orders" and other
stuff that is liable to anger one of the partners to
violence?
The get issue is complex, but vis-a-vis civil law,
the USA system versus the Talmudic/Rabbinic system
doesn't seem much different (the language is, though).
David S. Green
Yigal Arens
> > THOUGHTS THAT COUNT
> >****************************************************************************
> >
> >Of his own voluntary will. (Lev. 1:3)
> > The commentator Rashi explains that although the verse says "of his own
> >voluntary will," if one does not want to bring a sacrifice, we compel him to
> >do so. How, then, can we say that the sacrifice is brought willingly? We
> >compel him until he wants to do it. When the Torah tell a person to do
> >something and a person apparently does not want to do, his negative reaction
> >is not reality. For, as a Jew, in the innermost depths of his heart,
he wants
> >to carry out the Will of G-d. Through forcing him to do what is correct, his
> >negative inclination is nullified and the willingness to carry out
G-d's Will
> >is genuine. (Rambam on the laws of divorce ch. 2)
>
This is precisely the reasoning used by some religious groups in
Israel who would like to pass state laws to compel religious
observance.
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
ar...@isi.edu
Yigal Arens
> In article <71.26...@spcvxa.spc.edu> siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu writes:
> >
> of wants and desires. And just as society acknowledges a state
> of "insanity", it also recognizes a condition of "temporary
> insanity."
> When our society "believes" that a person truly desires something
> contrary to his expressed desire, our society may also ignore
> the person's protests. For example, a person says he would like
> to commit suicide...we ignore his expressed will, and actually
> forcibly prevent him from taking his own life. And when we
> intervene, there is no question that we say to ourselves,
> "He _really_ wants to live." Such a desperate individual is
> temporarily out-of-touch with his own true desires.
And if you didn't think these people were dangerous, now you have it
right in front of your eyes.
Those Orthodox Jews who without batting an eye can compare a person's
decision not to observe their version of religion to insanity or
suicide must never be allowed to gain even the tiniest power over
other people's lives.
Goes for lunatics of other religions too, of course.
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
ar...@isi.edu
samuel.saal
> >What I wil
> >give, however, is a case in which *forcing* an action - society
> >removing an individual's free will in a non-criminal case - is
> >appropriate. I hope it is a case that even you will accept as
> >reasonable.
> No, as a matter of fact, I don't...
...
> A supposedly divine law that places a woman in an intolerable situation
> without giving any more humane and reasonable alternative than violence
> is not something I can accept with a clear conscience. Either the law
> is flawed (and therefore not divine), or the Rabbis have failed in their
> role of interpreting the law in such a way as to avoid dehumanizing us.
I used the laws of divorce as an example because in Andre'sa post
she said "the Torah got it right" and rejected Rabbinic explanation.
Now she wants a Rabbinic interpretation to overturn a Torah-explicit
law. I notice Andrea declined to quote that part of the discussion - a
piece she herself wrote, meaning, presumably, that she accepts it.
I don't see how changing the ground rules in the middle of a discussion
will further attempts at acquiring knowledge.
> This is so radically different from another example I saw recently,
Description of a specific case example deleted. Interestingly,
this example is an excellent demonstration of the traditional,
halachic, Torah system. The rules do not change. Rather, when
an emergency, in her example, a clearly life threatening one,
arises, the Torah system responds _for_ life. The Torah system
responds for the communal good. Same for forcing a Get to be
given. This is done within the immutable rules of the Torah
system.
> Physically assaulting the husband in this day and age would probably
> result in both assault-and-battery charges leading to imprisonment, and
Does this mean that the victim of capital punishment will likely
sue someone (the government?) for assault????? Shirley, you jest.
(...and don't call me surely :-)
> possibly the death of the woman as her husband takes out his rage on
> her. Is this life-enhancing, holy, bringing us nearer to God? I think
> not. Those who use violence as a way of enforcing "communal good" become
> dehumanized, losing the precious quality of reverence for the holiness
> of life. I believe that an interpretation of Judaism that REQUIRES such
> callousness is wrong. Period.
I don't understand this. Are you saying that we should not force
the man to leave the wife he's been abusive because he'll become
enraged and come back at her and assault her even more????? NO.
I say he must be removed from the scene of his crime. He must be
_forced_ away, whether with jail or other means. She should not
have to suffer the assaults. At what point will his rage
subside? After giving the Get? After spending time in jail for
assault (remember, US laws will not give life imprisonment for
assault or wife abuse. The abuser will be out sooner or later
even if not early "for good behavior.")
...
> >I think it comes down to trying to understand the intent of the
> >Rabbis explanations rather than basing your opinion on current
> >cliches.
> It might be a cliche to you, but it is a profound truth to me! Please
> think before you cast aspersions on the quality of another's beliefs.
Now, in addition to being inconsistent, you are being silly, I'm
not sure I should be writing any more on this, but which cliches
do you subscribe to in your life philosophy? (choose one from
each of the following two sets:
a) "absence makes the heart groow fonder"
b) "Out of sight, out of mind"
a) "Birds of a feather flock together"
b) "Opposites attract"
> Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
> UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea
Steven Gutfreund
> And if you didn't think these people were dangerous, now you have it
> right in front of your eyes.
>
> Those Orthodox Jews who without batting an eye can compare a person's
> decision not to observe their version of religion to insanity or
> suicide must never be allowed to gain even the tiniest power over
> other people's lives.
>
> Goes for lunatics of other religions too, of course.
A fine one to talk about power over other peoples lives.
I understand from a non-Jewish co-worker of mine,
who a few years ago went back to school (USC) and
there discovered Yigal Arens. He had no previous
knowledge of the person, but one day he starts
describing to me a narrow minded, vindicatve, slandorous,
individual who has no patience for anyone's opinion
other than his own. It did not take me long to guess
who this was. And since this guy is non-Jewish,
and a-political, it was not politics but CS that they
were discussing. As I understand it, many at USC
would rather not Yigal as a co-worker, or acquantiance,
especially not to have POWER over them.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutf...@gte.com
GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
samuel.saal
> decision not to observe their version of religion to insanity or
> suicide must never be allowed to gain even the tiniest power over
> other people's lives.
Ummmm. Does this mean they shouldn't be allowed to, say, vote?
Voting implies a significant amount of power. You wouldn't by
any chance be suggesting that a group, based soleley on religious
beliefs, should be disenfranchised, would you? And remember, if
you can vote, and your peers can vote, you can get into office.
Once there you can push for a variety of measures that help your
constituency.
> Goes for lunatics of other religions too, of course.
A citizen, any citizen, has the same right to push for his/her
own agenda in a democracy. Even if they are religious. That you
consider their beliefs lunacy speaks more for your moral
weaknesses than their alleg mental ones.
> Yigal Arens
Yigal Arens
> A fine one to talk about power over other peoples lives.
> I understand from a non-Jewish co-worker of mine,
> who a few years ago went back to school (USC) and
> there discovered Yigal Arens. He had no previous
> knowledge of the person, but one day he starts
> describing to me a narrow minded, vindicatve, slandorous,
> individual who has no patience for anyone's opinion
> other than his own. It did not take me long to guess
> who this was. And since this guy is non-Jewish,
> and a-political, it was not politics but CS that they
> were discussing. As I understand it, many at USC
> would rather not Yigal as a co-worker, or acquantiance,
> especially not to have POWER over them.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. I figure I must, however, since
unlike previous attacks on me which involved imaginary "facts" from my
early childhood, this one claims to describe my current working
relationship with people at USC. While I don't really care what
people I don't know believe about my life as an infant, it is
certainly important to me that people in my field of work have a
correct impression of me as a professional.
There is too little detail in the above accusations to allow me to
respond to the specific circumstances of the individual involved. In
any case, Mr. Gutfreund at least, asserts that this depiction of me
represents my treatment of "many at USC".
The only written records that I'm aware of and that may have a bearing
on the claims made are my student evaluations. All I can say is that
throughout my teaching career at USC I have consistently ranked at or
near the top among CS faculty in student assessment of both teaching
ability and helpfulness on a personal level. This opinion is the same
as that expressed by students I had instructed as a teaching assistant
at UC Berkeley's Math and CS departments before coming to USC. I have
always prided myself on my commitment to teaching.
I do not believe that any student, staff, or faculty member can
demonstrate that I ever acted towards them in a vindictive or
slanderous manner. Such behavior would be subject to serious
sanctions by the University. No complaint of this, or any other kind,
has ever been lodged against me with the university.
Since probably everyone posting to usenet has been a college student
at some point in their life, I'm sure all who read this understand
that disagreements between faculty and students can arise for a
multitude of reasons. An individual student may feel slighted or
misunderstood by even the most gracious and well-meaning professor. I
only regret that this student and I were not able to work out these
problems before his/her leaving USC.
I'm sure even Mr. Gutfreund would have realized this had he not
disliked my politics so.
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
ar...@isi.edu
Amos Shapir
>In article <12...@venera.isi.edu>, ar...@hpai03.isi.edu (Yigal Arens) writes:
>> Those Orthodox Jews who without batting an eye can compare a person's
>> decision not to observe their version of religion to insanity or
>> suicide must never be allowed to gain even the tiniest power over
>> other people's lives.
>A fine one to talk about power over other peoples lives.
>As I understand it, many at USC
>would rather not Yigal as a co-worker, or acquantiance,
>especially not to have POWER over them.
We're lucky the network cannot transmit smell, or you'd claim he has
bad breath too! :-) The point is, even if all your claims about Yigal
are correct, that still doesn't make his opinions false.
--
Amos Shapir
National Semiconductor, 2900 semiconductor Dr.
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090 Mailstop E-280
am...@nsc.nsc.com or am...@taux01.nsc.com
Arthur S. Kamlet
>In article <87...@bunny.GTE.COM>, sg...@bunny.gte.com (Steven Gutfreund) writes:
>> A fine one to talk about power over other peoples lives.
>> I understand from a non-Jewish co-worker of mine,
>> who a few years ago went back to school (USC) and
>> there discovered Yigal Arens. He had no previous
>I'm not sure how to respond to this. I figure I must, however, since
>unlike previous attacks on me which involved imaginary "facts" from my
>early childhood, this one claims to describe my current working
>relationship with people at USC. While I don't really care what
>people I don't know believe about my life as an infant, it is
>certainly important to me that people in my field of work have a
>correct impression of me as a professional.
...
>on the claims made are my student evaluations. All I can say is that
>throughout my teaching career at USC I have consistently ranked at or
>near the top among CS faculty in student assessment of both teaching
I don't think I have ever sided with Yigal Arens on anything before,
but Steven Gutfreund's posting has no place on this net. It was
just an attack on Arens' professional relations, and whether or not
Gutfreund can substantiate such an attack (he did not) it simply
does not belong here.
I think, Mr. Gutfreund, you owe Mr. Arens a public apology. Your
attack on his professional life is so out of place in
soc.culture.jewish. I would hope some of the more Halachically
knowledgable people would point out Mr. Gutfreund's transgressions
to him.
#disclaimer: I have never met Mr. Gutfreund or Mr. Arens, and all I
know of them is from their postings on the net.
--
Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
samuel.saal
-> In article <12...@venera.isi.edu> ar...@venera.isi.edu (Yigal Arens) writes:
-> >In article <87...@bunny.GTE.COM>, sg...@bunny.gte.com (Steven Gutfreund) writes:
-> I don't think I have ever sided with Yigal Arens on anything before,
-> but Steven Gutfreund's posting has no place on this net. It was
-> just an attack on Arens' professional relations, and whether or not
-> Gutfreund can substantiate such an attack (he did not) it simply
-> does not belong here.
-> I think, Mr. Gutfreund, you owe Mr. Arens a public apology. Your
-> attack on his professional life is so out of place in
-> soc.culture.jewish.
I've cut out Steve's attack on Yigal and Yigal's measured
and appropriate response back so that we can concentrate on
what Art replied.
I agree wholeheartedly with Art's post and suggest Steve should
be ashamed of what he posted. As Art said, such drivel does not
belong here.
siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu
>> To say, "Make him do it, he really wants to" makes no sense.
>>
> Certainly you must concede that an individual has various level's
> of wants and desires. And just as society acknowledges a state
> of "insanity", it also recognizes a condition of "temporary
> insanity."
> When our society "believes" that a person truly desires something
> contrary to his expressed desire, our society may also ignore
> the person's protests. For example, a person says he would like
> to commit suicide...we ignore his expressed will, and actually
> forcibly prevent him from taking his own life. And when we
> intervene, there is no question that we say to ourselves,
> "He _really_ wants to live." Such a desperate individual is
> temporarily out-of-touch with his own true desires.
True, we do not regard someone as truly "desiring" to kill
himself. But the circumstances are condierably different than giving an
Burnt Offering (an "Oleh").
Firstly, pikuach nefesh (saving a life) is a top priority, with very
few mitzvos taking precedence over it. But you cannot say this of an oleh
on which a life dors not depend, but is not required in the sense of a sin
or guilt offering (under certain circumstances, according to Leviticus).
Your argument reminds me of the arguments used by deprogrammers. While
one might say that cult members are not really mentally competent, making a
decision for someone memtally incompetent is not "free will".
Robert Siegfried
Computer Science Dept.
Saint Peter's College
Jersey CIty, NJ 07306
siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu
Lazer Danzinger
>> of wants and desires. And just as society acknowledges a state
>> of "insanity", it also recognizes a condition of "temporary
>> insanity."
>> When our society "believes" that a person truly desires something
>> contrary to his expressed desire, our society may also ignore
>> the person's protests. For example, a person says he would like
>> to commit suicide...we ignore his expressed will, and actually
>> forcibly prevent him from taking his own life. And when we
>> intervene, there is no question that we say to ourselves,
>> "He _really_ wants to live." Such a desperate individual is
>> temporarily out-of-touch with his own true desires.
>
>And if you didn't think these people were dangerous, now you have it
>right in front of your eyes.
If one can truly regard the power of persuasion through logical
elucidation of a concept as being "dangerous," then I am truly
flattered. But one who is not interested in perserving myopic
prejudices would presumably opine that society faces far more danger
from those individuals, or groups of individuals, who would resort
to specious reasoning and 'ad hominem' attacks in place of
perspicacious rebuttal.
>Those Orthodox Jews who without batting an eye can compare a person's
>decision not to observe their version of religion to insanity or
>suicide must never be allowed to gain even the tiniest power over
>other people's lives.
Leaving the insipid stereotyping aside for the moment -- since this
I think is the least serious of the many fallacies contained within
Mr. Arens' short article -- I ask the reader with the non-jaundiced
eye to re-read my original submission, reproduced above. I make
absolutely no such comparison, as suggested by Mr. Arens. What I
did argue was that the concept of coersion -- whilst maintaining
that this is what the hapless fellow truly desires -- is not unique
to Judaism, but can be easily found within our very own society.
Certainly, I do not dispute for an instant that the cases in which
the said principle is actually applied varies greatly between Judaism
and Western society. But that was not the point. Earlier readers
expressed revulsion at the principle. I simply argued that the
concept 'per se' is tacitly accepted by those who may only actually
be taking exception to _how_ the concept is applied -- not to
the concept itself.
To be pellucidly clear, Judaism considers suicide one of the most
gravest of offences, and regards insanity as one of the most pitiful
of human sicknesses. In no way did I intend to compare the severity
of a Jew who refuses to bring an offering (in days gone by -- since
this particular ruling is no longer relevant) with a person who
would -- G-d forbid -- desire to take his own life. And if indeed
this is not self-evident from my previous posting, then I sincerely
apologize for the ensuing confusion.
The apparent misunderstanding above aside, the Lubavitcher
Rebbe, to the best of knowledge, does not subscribe nor
endorse any modern-day interpretations of a theology whose goal
would be to _force_ Jews to observe the Torah's commandments. To be
sure, he urges pleasant and peaceful persuasion, and certainly not
the application of force of any kind.
As such, the remark regarding "power over other people's lives,"
is not only gratuitous, but completely misleading.
>Goes for lunatics of other religions too, of course.
While sorely distressed that a fellow Jew so could display such
venomous hostility for his compatriots, I recall the story of an
early "misnagged" (opponent to Chassidut) who, upon finding a holy
text of the Chassidim, hurled it violently to the ground. He was
remonstrated by a fellow "misnagged," who reproved him for his
hysterical outburst. Later, when this incident was reported to the
Rebbe, the Rebbe commented that the first individual had a better
"chance," as it were, in becoming a Chassid than the second one!
The first fellow was at least profoundly affected -- though
adversely, while the other was apparently untouched and completely
unmoved by Chassidut altogether....
As the holiday of Passover rapidly approaches, may we all resolve
to discuss our differences with mutual respect, and in a spirit
of Ahavat Yisroel that befits our people, a people whose members are
all equally children of G-d.
Lorraine Meyer
>I don't think I have ever sided with Yigal Arens on anything before,
>but Steven Gutfreund's posting has no place on this net. It was
>just an attack on Arens' professional relations, and whether or not
>Gutfreund can substantiate such an attack (he did not) it simply
>does not belong here.
Ditto to all of the above. I, too, generally disagree strongly
with Mr. Arens. However, attacks on his professional life are
completely uncalled for.
>I think, Mr. Gutfreund, you owe Mr. Arens a public apology.
again, ditto.
>Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
I was intending to write something of this sort when I saw Art Kamlet's
posting. I hope that in the future we can manage to keep personal
attacks off the net, though we continue to violently disagree.
--Basya
Andrea K. Frankel
>
>This is precisely the reasoning used by some religious groups in
>Israel who would like to pass state laws to compel religious
>observance.
I can just see it now: Kasrut Vigilantes who patrol the aisles of
seafood restaurants, beating up anyone who looks Jewish and is eating
lobster or shellfish. ("But surely they intended to keep the Mosaic
law, and we are doing communal good by bringing them to their senses!")
Pfah!
David Makowsky
# In article <15...@cbnews.ATT.COM>, a...@cbnews.ATT.COM (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
# -> In article <12...@venera.isi.edu> ar...@venera.isi.edu (Yigal Arens) writes:
# -> >In article <87...@bunny.GTE.COM>, sg...@bunny.gte.com (Steven Gutfreund) writes:
# -> I don't think I have ever sided with Yigal Arens on anything before,
# -> but Steven Gutfreund's posting has no place on this net. It was
# -> just an attack on Arens' professional relations, and whether or not
# -> Gutfreund can substantiate such an attack (he did not) it simply
# -> does not belong here.
# -> I think, Mr. Gutfreund, you owe Mr. Arens a public apology. Your
# -> attack on his professional life is so out of place in
# -> soc.culture.jewish.
# I've cut out Steve's attack on Yigal and Yigal's measured
# and appropriate response back so that we can concentrate on
# what Art replied.
# I agree wholeheartedly with Art's post and suggest Steve should
# be ashamed of what he posted. As Art said, such drivel does not
# belong here.
While Mr. Gutfreund's remarks were certainly not approppriate,
I can certainly understand the anger that led him to do it. What I do
not understand is all the uproar over Mr. Gutfreund's article with
everyone crawling all over themselves to condemn him, while no one
(with the exception of Mr. Gutfreund) seems to want to take Mr. Arens
to task.
The only other article I have seen to this point in opposition
to the article posted by Mr. Arens was posted by Mr. Saal. I believe
that Mr. Saal missed the boat (a very rare occurrence) in what he chose
to oppose in his article, even though what he wrote made sense.
Am I missing something, or was Mr. Gutfreund, along with
myself, the only ones to take offense at Mr. Arens insult of Torah in
general, and Rabbi Danziger in specific?
David Makowsky
--
"For all I care, you can send your money to the Hitler memorial fund, too, if
that pleases you."
From ar...@vaxa.isi.edu (Yigal Arens) in article <93...@venera.isi.edu>
Andrea K. Frankel
>I used the laws of divorce as an example because in Andre'sa post
>she said "the Torah got it right" and rejected Rabbinic explanation.
>Now she wants a Rabbinic interpretation to overturn a Torah-explicit
>law. I notice Andrea declined to quote that part of the discussion - a
>piece she herself wrote, meaning, presumably, that she accepts it.
>I don't see how changing the ground rules in the middle of a discussion
>will further attempts at acquiring knowledge.
No, I didn't change the ground rules. You are simply failing to
acknowledge that the ground rules for Reform Jews are that we do not
blindly believe Torah OR Rabbinic interpretations: we believe we are
called upon to evaluate each case as it comes up, drawing on all of the
history of our people, but coming to an individual choice in each
matter. That is exactly what I have been doing (consistently, even!).
It only appears inconsistent to you because you follow different ground
rules in your own personal observance of Judaism.
>> Physically assaulting the husband in this day and age would probably
>> result in both assault-and-battery charges leading to imprisonment, and
>
>Does this mean that the victim of capital punishment will likely
>sue someone (the government?) for assault????? Shirley, you jest.
>(...and don't call me surely :-)
I don't understand your point. How did capital punishment enter a
discussion of whether it was permissable to beat up a man in order to
get him to give the Get?
>> possibly the death of the woman as her husband takes out his rage on
>> her. Is this life-enhancing, holy, bringing us nearer to God? I think
>> not. Those who use violence as a way of enforcing "communal good" become
>> dehumanized, losing the precious quality of reverence for the holiness
>> of life. I believe that an interpretation of Judaism that REQUIRES such
>> callousness is wrong. Period.
>
>I don't understand this. Are you saying that we should not force
>the man to leave the wife he's been abusive because he'll become
>enraged and come back at her and assault her even more????? NO.
>I say he must be removed from the scene of his crime. He must be
>_forced_ away, whether with jail or other means. She should not
>have to suffer the assaults. At what point will his rage
>subside? After giving the Get? After spending time in jail for
>assault (remember, US laws will not give life imprisonment for
>assault or wife abuse. The abuser will be out sooner or later
>even if not early "for good behavior.")
We were not discussing forcing the man to leave his wife. The approach
taken by the Women's Crisis Hotlines and battered women's services that
I have been associated is to get the woman out of the house to a safe
place, and then when she has recovered emotionally somewhat help her to
file for divorce and an equitable property settlement. Sometimes, the
court will order the man to leave the house so his wife may return
(often with the kids). But there is nothing in civil law
or criminal law that I see as parallel to physically beating up the
husband in order to make him grant the divorce! California is
somewhat enlightened, in that the state recognizes that either partner
may sue for divorce over the others' protests (although proceedings are
less messy when both agree). This was done in part to recognize
that abusive husbands should not have veto power over whether the
divorce occurs. It is from this perspective that I find the rabbinic
interpretation of the getting of the Get to be wrong. In a nutshell,
they have set up a Catch-22 where the woman cannot get a divorce without
the man's consent, and then use that as justification for beating up the
man when he doesn't. That does not seem wise to me, and nothing that's
been said so far has changed my mind on this issue.
>> >I think it comes down to trying to understand the intent of the
>> >Rabbis explanations rather than basing your opinion on current
>> >cliches.
>
>> It might be a cliche to you, but it is a profound truth to me! Please
>> think before you cast aspersions on the quality of another's beliefs.
>
>Now, in addition to being inconsistent, you are being silly, I'm
>not sure I should be writing any more on this, but which cliches
>do you subscribe to in your life philosophy?
Ad hominem attacks are not in order. Please restrain yourself, in the
interest of civilized discussion. You are committing a common error in
logic by your all-or-nothing reasoning, that because ONE PART of my
personal philosophy corresponds to what you see as a cliche, that all
cliches would find a place in my philosophy. That is such a silly statement
that it is truly not worth rebutting.
Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 592-4664
"wake now! Discover that you are the song that the morning brings..."
______________________________________________________________________________
UUCP : {hplabs|nosc|hpfcla|ucsd}!hp-sdd!andrea
Amos Shapir
>
>I can just see it now: Kasrut Vigilantes who patrol the aisles of
>seafood restaurants, beating up anyone who looks Jewish and is eating
>lobster or shellfish. ("But surely they intended to keep the Mosaic
>law, and we are doing communal good by bringing them to their senses!")
That wouldn't be possible - if such laws pass, you wouldn't be able
to *get* lobster or shellfish in any restaurant. According to laws
which are already on the books, it is illegal to sell pork in certain area,
as well as leaven in Pesach; and yes, there already are Kasrut Vigilantes
who go around beating up people who do not obey these laws, as well as
what the vigilantes think should be the law.
Yigal Arens
>
> In article <12...@venera.isi.edu>, ar...@hpai03.isi.edu (Yigal Arens) writes:
> > decision not to observe their version of religion to insanity or
> > suicide must never be allowed to gain even the tiniest power over
> > other people's lives.
>
> Voting implies a significant amount of power. You wouldn't by
> any chance be suggesting that a group, based soleley on religious
> beliefs, should be disenfranchised, would you?
Where exactly did I say that??? I'm not suggesting religious people
should not be allowed to vote. But individuals and parties should be
prevented from using the electoral process to enforce their religious
practices.
> And remember, if
> you can vote, and your peers can vote, you can get into office.
> Once there you can push for a variety of measures that help your
> constituency.
You can push whatever you want, as long as you're not trying to do so
for the purpose of religious coercion, or to benefit any religion.
This principle is well understood in the US, and I'm surprised you
seem to be oblivious to it. A moment of silence in school is fine if
those instituting it think it will help with discipline, say, but
definitely not if it's *meant* to be a time for prayer. The reason
for passing laws matters too.
> > Goes for lunatics of other religions too, of course.
>
> A citizen, any citizen, has the same right to push for his/her
> own agenda in a democracy. Even if they are religious. That you
> consider their beliefs lunacy speaks more for your moral
> weaknesses than their alleg mental ones.
I'm sorry, but at least as far as the US is concerned, you're wrong.
The constitution protects citizens from those who wish to "push
[their] own agenda" if that agenda involves coercing religious
observance. And that is the way it should be.
It is unfortunate for Israelis that this principle of separation of
church and state is not part of their law. Framing the problem simply
as one of "democracy" and "pushing for one's agenda" is deceptive.
I'm sure you wouldn't be talking like this if Congress passed laws
forcing everybody to be baptized, say.
What I termed lunacy was not the religious beliefs themselves, but the
desire to force others to obey them. Using the excuse that lack of
observance is akin to mental illness, no less. I think my posting,
from which you quoted above, was quite explicit and clear. There
should have been no reason to distort my views on this matter.
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
ar...@isi.edu
Dave Butler
sacrifice to to God:
>>Of his own voluntary will. (Lev. 1:3)
>> The commentator Rashi explains that although the verse says "of his own
>>voluntary will," if one does not want to bring a sacrifice, we compel him to
>>do so. How, then, can we say that the sacrifice is brought willingly? We
>>compel him until he wants to do it. When the Torah tell a person to do
>>something and a person apparently does not want to do, his negative reaction
>>is not reality. For, as a Jew, in the innermost depths of his heart, he wants
>>to carry out the Will of G-d. Through forcing him to do what is correct, his
>>negative inclination is nullified and the willingness to carry out G-d's Will
>>is genuine. (Rambam on the laws of divorce ch. 2)
Lazer this comes extremely close to the argument we had a few years ago where
you asserted that it was a mitzvah to beat an unobservant Jew until he becomes
observant. Is this a resurfacing of that argument, and are you again
insisting that it is the right and duty to of an observant Jew (like you) to
beat an unobservant Jew (like me) until their level of observance rises to an
approved level?
Later,
Dave Butler
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth
and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.
Albert Einstein
Ideas and Opinions of Albert Einstein
siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu
>> A fine one to talk about power over other peoples lives.
>> I understand from a non-Jewish co-worker of mine,
>> who a few years ago went back to school (USC) and
>> there discovered Yigal Arens. He had no previous
>> knowledge of the person, but one day he starts
>> describing to me a narrow minded, vindicatve, slandorous,
>
> I'm not sure how to respond to this. I figure I must, however, since
> unlike previous attacks on me which involved imaginary "facts" from my
> early childhood, this one claims to describe my current working
In my opinion, this is EXACTLY what Usenet is NOT for!! I don't
know either party, and I don't think I agree with Yigal too often, but
using the Net to attack someone's professional pedagogic standing is
rather petty. If you really want to flame what he is saying, save it for
E-mail or if worthy of OUR time to read it, post it. But don't spread
slander (lashon harah) over the Net. It's petty, it's vulgar, and it's
unnecessary.
Now, Steve, is it true what I heard about your affair with those
twins from Duluth? ;-)
Robert Siegfried
Computer Science Dept.
Saint Peter's College
Jersey City, NJ 07306
siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu
DISCLAIMER: Any opinions expressed here are not only not those of
my employer, but not even mine; I rented them
Bruce Krulwich
># -> I think, Mr. Gutfreund, you owe Mr. Arens a public apology. Your
># -> attack on his professional life is so out of place in
># -> soc.culture.jewish.
>
># be ashamed of what he posted. As Art said, such drivel does not
># belong here.
>
> While Mr. Gutfreund's remarks were certainly not approppriate,
>I can certainly understand the anger that led him to do it.
> Am I missing something, or was Mr. Gutfreund, along with
>myself, the only ones to take offense at Mr. Arens insult of Torah in
>general, and Rabbi Danziger in specific?
No, not at all, and I think that there's a good take-home lesson here. If
this were a section in "The Little Prince" the last sentence would be
something like
"For sometimes what you say is less important than how you say it."
Bruce
Bruce Krulwich
>> And if you didn't think these people were dangerous, now you have it
>> right in front of your eyes.
>>
>> Those Orthodox Jews who without batting an eye can compare a person's
>> decision not to observe their version of religion to insanity or
>> suicide must never be allowed to gain even the tiniest power over
>> other people's lives.
>
>I understand from a non-Jewish co-worker of mine,
>who a few years ago went back to school (USC) and
>there discovered Yigal Arens. He had no previous
>knowledge of the person, but one day he starts
>describing to me a narrow minded, vindicatve, slandorous,
Several thoughts come to mind upon reading this post.
First, putting on my "frummie" hat, this response to Yigal's post seems like
Loshon Horah [prohibited slanderous speech] to me. Even if the specifics were
true, they may still be Assur [prohibited] to say or otherwise communicate
according to Halacha [Jewish Law]. Anyone wanting more information on the
Jewish Laws of proper speech should get a copy of the book "Guard your Tongue"
by Zelig Pliskin, which is a translation of the Chofetz Chayim. It should be
available in any good Jewish bookstore.
Second, putting on my professional hat (although my "frummie hat" stays on at
the same time), I have very good reasons to doubt the things that the above
post says. Last week I was talking to someone who had been a student at USC
and was involved in Jewish activities there, who said that there was an
amazing difference between Yigal's tendencies in discussions of Judaism and
Israel and his professional activities. I've heard others who have met him
professionally say that he's perfectly professional and also a nice guy.
Third, I don't think that any of us want to set precedants of letting
conversations on the net effect our professional lives.
As many people reading this know, Yigal and I are diametrically opposed on
almost every issue discussed on the net. I am certainly not defending his
comments above or any other aspects of his discussions on the net. I think,
however, that intelligent people can keep a conversation at a reasonable level
and not have it escalate to the pathetic level as it has here.
Bruce
seth.r.rosenthal
> In article <12...@venera.isi.edu> ar...@venera.isi.edu (Yigal Arens) writes:
> [ ongoing thread about specific case deleted ]
> >
> >This is precisely the reasoning used by some religious groups in
> >Israel who would like to pass state laws to compel religious
> >observance.
>
> I can just see it now: Kasrut Vigilantes who patrol the aisles of
> seafood restaurants, beating up anyone who looks Jewish and is eating
> lobster or shellfish. ("But surely they intended to keep the Mosaic
> law, and we are doing communal good by bringing them to their senses!")
> Pfah!
>
a promising Israeli artist riding on a motorcycle killed.
Or perhaps observant Jews closing down movie theaters
on Sabbath, etc (these have all happened). Yigal (whom
I usually disagree with) is not far off on this one.
There has been a considerable effort to codify in civil
Israeli law, the religious laws of Judaism. These are
usually the "concessions" that Likud and Labor must make
to the so-called religious parties in order to make a
government up in the fractured state of Israeli politics.
Remember the political turmoil in Israel and the States
over Who is a Jew? Forgetting the religious side of the
argument for a minute, the vast majority of American Jewry
essentially said, pass this amendment and watch your
purse-strings and diplomatic support cut. Donations plummeted,
and even the Lubavitch, who had become associated with
efforts to pass the amendments, backed off when they discovered
how much money they were getting from the Reform and Conservative
practitioners in this country.
When the choice becomes an effective government that can
take critical action to sustain the survival of Israel
as a country (at the cost of enacting such laws) against
non-survival, which one do you think either party will
choose? Israel is a secular state not a religious one. The majority
of its inhabitants are ethnically Jews, not necessarily
religiously Jews. Some people forget this, and occasionally
need reminding.
Seth Rosenthal
michael
Sam, I would assume, has forgotten. The husband is never beaten as
a matter of course, only as a matter of absolute last resort.
In Israel where the Get has much more government support, the husband
will be thrown in jail, essentially for Contempt Of Court, until he
decides to sign the document. And there are cases where these fools
will sit in jail for years because they won't sign. Meanwhile the
wife gets free run of all his property. Even then he may not sign.
In article <35...@hp-sdd.hp.com> and...@hp-sdd.UUCP (Andrea K. Frankel) writes:
> We were not discussing forcing the man to leave his wife. The approach
> taken by the Women's Crisis Hotlines and battered women's services that
> I have been associated is to get the woman out of the house to a safe
> place, and then when she has recovered emotionally somewhat help her to
> file for divorce and an equitable property settlement. Sometimes, the
Don't forget the assault charges! And what will happen when the police
show up at this guy's home with a warrant for his arrest. Don't expect
him to bow is head meekly and hold out his hands to be cuffed. There
is a good chance he will "resist arrest" and end up beaten and stuffed
in the back of a squad car, provided of course that the police do not
use "undue force." (This leaves a lot of leeway.)
So an abusive sadistic megalomaniac gets beaten in either case!
Are we done now?
samuel.saal
> Israel is a secular state not a religious one. The majority
>of its inhabitants are ethnically Jews, not necessarily
>religiously Jews. Some people forget this, and occasionally
>need reminding.
> Seth Rosenthal
Yes, but Israel is also the Jewish State. Just as in a democracy
concessions must be made to any voting block, In Israel
concessions are made for the secular Jews' needs as well as the
religious. How many concessions are made and to whom are purely
a matter of political expedience.
If this discussion becomes anymore political, I request its
follow-ups go to talk.politics.mideast.
Bruce Krulwich
>Third, I don't think that any of us want to set precedants of letting
>conversations on the net effect our professional lives.
I was referring to the interpersonal politics that exist on the net.
Obviously I do think that there have been discussions on various aspects of
Halacha [Jewish Law] that can and should effect our professional lives.
Chag Kasher v'Samayach,
Bruce
seth.r.rosenthal
> In article <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> se...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (seth.r.rosenthal) writes:
>
> > Israel is a secular state not a religious one. The majority
> >of its inhabitants are ethnically Jews, not necessarily
> >religiously Jews. Some people forget this, and occasionally
> >need reminding.
>
> concessions must be made to any voting block, In Israel
> concessions are made for the secular Jews' needs as well as the
> religious. How many concessions are made and to whom are purely
> a matter of political expedience.
Noone wants to make religious living for individuals
in Israel impossible, or even
difficult. But lets be reasonable, Sam. If a Shomer Shabbas
Jew walks down the streets of Tel Aviv and sees an open movie
theater with less religious Jews attending a Saturday matinee,
it may bother him/her a little, but should Israeli law be demanding
that the theater be shut? It only interferes with
his/her own practice if he/she chooses to go in as well.
>
> If this discussion becomes anymore political, I request its
> follow-ups go to talk.politics.mideast.
Those of us who watched the rise of Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell,
et al here in the States should understand that religion and morality
are very political topics.
Messrs Robinson and Falwell tried moral suasion to get their
views enforced on abortion, notice where the debate is now.
I think the topic is appropriate
since it discusses important issues in Jewish 20th century life.
I propose the following topics:
1) Should the Laws of the State of Israel be secular or religious
in nature. How much Torah, how much secular law.
2) Should the Law in the current State of Israel
be used as an instrument to achieve religious (or anti-religious)
objectives.
We can certainly dispense with the charged tone that Yigal
introduced the topic with.
I think these are good topics for this newsgroup.
If nobody wants to discuss it, the topic will die a quick enough
death.
> --
> Sam Saal ...!{att}!floyd!saal
> Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
Seth Rosenthal
Dmitry Volovik
>Yes, but Israel is also the Jewish State. Just as in a democracy
>concessions must be made to any voting block, In Israel
>concessions are made for the secular Jews' needs as well as the
>religious. How many concessions are made and to whom are purely
>a matter of political expedience.
>
>If this discussion becomes anymore political, I request its
>follow-ups go to talk.politics.mideast.
>--
>Sam Saal ...!{att}!floyd!saal
>Vayiphtach HaShem et Peah HaAtone
I am not sure how can one separate "politics" from Judaism, especially
in Israel. For observant Jews, in Israel or exile,
how can one strive "to live by his faith" and separate
everyday's life full of observance of mitzvoth from everything else including
"politics". What am I missing?
Dmitry Volovik
Lazer Danzinger
!Lazer this comes extremely close to the argument we had a few years ago where
!you asserted that it was a mitzvah to beat an unobservant Jew until he becomes
!observant. Is this a resurfacing of that argument, and are you again
!insisting that it is the right and duty to of an observant Jew (like you) to
!beat an unobservant Jew (like me) until their level of observance rises to an
!approved level?
Patently false! Please check your facts before making such wild
allegations. G-d forbid to say that I ever said that non-observant
Jews should be beaten by me or anyonbye else, in order raise
their level of observance!
"Deracheha darchei noam, veh-chol nesivoseha Shalom."
> Later,
If not now, then when? :-)=
> Dave Butler
Nice to see your name back in this newsgroup, Dave.
Amos Shapir
>Yes, but Israel is also the Jewish State.
No, it isn't. It is the State of the Jews; most of the trouble is because
many people can't make the distinction.
>Just as in a democracy
>concessions must be made to any voting block, In Israel
>concessions are made for the secular Jews' needs as well as the
>religious.
Since Israel's warped political system gives excessive power to small
parties, that's an understatement. The rights of religious people have
been guaranteed a long time ago; now most of what the religious parties do with
their excessive power constitutes forcing religious laws on the secular
population.
>If this discussion becomes anymore political, I request its
>follow-ups go to talk.politics.mideast.
It is still more about Jewish culture than about the Mideast situation.
Dr. Eliot Shimoff
this issue. But I will share with you one anecdote. It goes back a few
years to a strange trip to Israel sponsored by the Sochnut (Jewish Agency)
for young academic types. The participants were a bizarre mixture, ranging
from committed and active Zionists to thoroughly uninvolved types ("I wanted
to see the country before it went under," in the words of one participant),
One of the members of the group was an ardent Reform Jew (that was his
own description), who never missed an opportunity to rail against any
possible example of religious coercion. I finally lost my temper with
him when, on Shabbat afternoon in Jerusalem, he started yet another tirade
because he was unable to cash a check, since the banks were all closed.
He saw this as just one more case in which the religious "minority"
imposed its wishes on the majority. I asked him whether, in the States,
he had ever objected to banks being closed on Sunday. He blustered and
fumed, and refused to see the inconsistency of his position.
Eliot
Herman Rubin
.........................
> I propose the following topics:
>
> 1) Should the Laws of the State of Israel be secular or religious
> in nature. How much Torah, how much secular law.
>
> 2) Should the Law in the current State of Israel
> be used as an instrument to achieve religious (or anti-religious)
> objectives.
>
> We can certainly dispense with the charged tone that Yigal
> introduced the topic with.
> I think these are good topics for this newsgroup.
> If nobody wants to discuss it, the topic will die a quick enough
> death.
I agree, and I will add some facts and some opinion. Israel does
recognize other religions, and the rights of their members. Those
of other religions are married by the appropriate "clergy" of their
religion, and, subject to some civil regulations, are divorced by
the procedures of that religion. Muslims and Christians are not
required to observe the Jewish Sabbath, and even most Orthodox Jews
would not suggest it.
The question is the extent to which religious authorities have power
over those who claim allegiance to the religion. There is also the
problem of who has the right to choose the authorities. The present
authorities of the Jewish religion in Israel reject all interpretations
but their own as being consistent with Judaism (this may be a slight
exaggeration, but not much), and that, for example, Reform and
Conservative Jews are, at best, confused and/or ignorant people
who have no right to say anything about the Jewish religion.
I have posted my views on many parts of this, and I will participate in
the discussion if it remains reasonable. I do not believe that I have
significantly misstated the Orthodox position, and there is no intent to
insult.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
Yigal Arens
> In article <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, se...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM
(seth.r.rosenthal) writes:
> .........................
> >
> > 1) Should the Laws of the State of Israel be secular or religious
> > in nature. How much Torah, how much secular law.
> >
> > 2) Should the Law in the current State of Israel
> > be used as an instrument to achieve religious (or anti-religious)
> > objectives.
>
> recognize other religions, and the rights of their members. Those
> of other religions are married by the appropriate "clergy" of their
> religion, and, subject to some civil regulations, are divorced by
> the procedures of that religion.
Part of the problem is that Israel does not permit its citizens the
option of being associated with *no* religion. If, for example, civil
marriages and divorces were allowed, all the secular pressure would be
taken off the Orthodox to "reform" their religion.
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
ar...@isi.edu
Dr. Eliot Shimoff
>The question is the extent to which religious authorities have power
>over those who claim allegiance to the religion. There is also the
>problem of who has the right to choose the authorities. The present
>authorities of the Jewish religion in Israel reject all interpretations
>but their own as being consistent with Judaism (this may be a slight
>exaggeration, but not much), and that, for example, Reform and
>Conservative Jews are, at best, confused and/or ignorant people
>who have no right to say anything about the Jewish religion.
>
>I have posted my views on many parts of this, and I will participate in
>the discussion if it remains reasonable. I do not believe that I have
>significantly misstated the Orthodox position, and there is no intent to
>insult.
I've got a sense that this discussion may start off calmly, but will end
in flames. Let's hope not.
There are several issues in question. First, to what extent should Israel
force (or actively encourage) observance of Jewish law by Jews? Is there
anything wrong with forbidding the sale of pork to Jews? In limiting
public transportation on Shabbat? In closing restaurants or theaters or
athletic stadia (stadiums) on Shabbat? In enforcing "individual status"
laws (e.g., kohen marrying divorcee, or mamzerut)? Or, should Israel
adopt complete separation of church and state -- perhaps even more
effectively than in the US? Should the Israeli government become
completely secular? Should government offices close on Shabbat? Ultimately,
this is the question of whether Israel should be a Jewish State, or just a
state that welcomes Jews.
A second issue -- orthogonal to the first -- is in the definition of what
is Judaism. Unless Israel becomes completely secular, the definition
of Judaism will remain central. That is the core of the question of the
status of non-Orthodox Jews in Israel. (In fact, there are relatively few
non-Orthodox Jews in Israel, although many are certainly non-observant.
But, as one person [I don't remember who] put it -- I don't go to shul
on Shabbat, but the shul I don't go to is Orthodox. Still, the _number_
of non-Orthodox Jews is irrelevant to the issue.)
Herman, I'm not sure if your characterization of Israel's religious
establishment is accurate. Israeli rabbis _do_ recognize alternative
interpretations of halakha; the differences between Ashkenazim and
Sephardim is an extreme example, but many other abound. For example,
during shmita, there is disagreement on whether to accept the lenient
positions adopted by the Chief Rabbinate; some people may not accept
the hechsher of the rabbanut, but view that as a disagreement "within
the family," as it were.
The status of Reform and Conservative Judaism in Israel goes beyond
halakhic interpretation, and that's what creates the problem. The
issue is most serious with respect to the Reform movement, and most notably
with the definition of Who Is A Jew. Patrilineal descent means that the
Reform community will recognize as Jewish some individuals who are viewed
as non-Jewish by the Orthodox community; this has the makings of a serious
schism. In terms of halakha, the Conservative position often (but not
always) may be characterized as a _very_ liberal Orthodox position;
RA halakhic decisions generally (perhaps always) start with citations
to classic halakhic sources. My guess would be that the problem with
the Conservative movement is not so much its halakhic stance as its
doctrinal differences, specifically, the Orthodox belief in Torah
m'Shamayim: Torah as Divine, not simply Divinely-inspired.
The point of all of this is to underscore the idea that the Israeli
rabbinic rejection of Reform and Conservative Judaism is not simply
based on interpretation, but on fundamental differences. This is not
the first time that Judaism has faced such conflicts. There was the
development of Christianity, for example. (Please, no flames. I'm not
suggesting the equivalence of Christianity and non-Orthodox Judaism.)
And there was the bitter dispute between Hassidut and the Mitnagdim.
(Again, no flames -- I'm not suggesting the equivalence of Hassidut and
non-Orthodox Judaism.)
Are the differences irreconcilable? And the more immediate question --
will this thread remain discussion or degererate into flames?
Eliot
Amos Shapir
>There are several issues in question. First, to what extent should Israel
>force (or actively encourage) observance of Jewish law by Jews?
The Israeli police should not be the force that compels Jews to abide
by the religious law. Besides, since secular laws have a different
scope than religious ones, there is no way to reconcile them, and any attempt
would just lead to something like the "Who is a Jew" quagmire.
>Is there
>anything wrong with forbidding the sale of pork to Jews? In limiting
>public transportation on Shabbat? In closing restaurants or theaters or
>athletic stadia (stadiums) on Shabbat? In enforcing "individual status"
>laws (e.g., kohen marrying divorcee, or mamzerut)?
Those who say "no" should first try to walk a few miles to the beach
in summer, or stay under forced house arrest one day each week,
or expect to lose their citizenship because someone had found out
their grandmother wasn't kosher.
>The point of all of this is to underscore the idea that the Israeli
>rabbinic rejection of Reform and Conservative Judaism is not simply
>based on interpretation, but on fundamental differences.
More likely, it is based on money. Over the years, the rabbinic establishment
has made some cozy arrangements for distribution of government funds
among its participants; new players are not welcome.
samuel.saal
>Since Israel's warped political system gives excessive power to small
>parties, that's an understatement. The rights of religious people have
>been guaranteed a long time ago; now most of what the religious parties do with
>their excessive power constitutes forcing religious laws on the secular
>population.
A few people have mentioned that Israel's parlimentary system is
flawed in that it gives too much power to the small parties.
Some look towards the US's system of direct representation as
preferable. To these people I point out the US Congress success
in dealing with major issues like the deficit. Our system can
pass many national recognition days, but is pretty ineffectual
when it comes to dealing with tough issues. Note, I am not in
favor of trashing either one.
> Amos Shapir
Ari Gross
There is a flip side to the arguments of this genre being made on s.c.j.
Yes, there are laws making it illegal to sell pork (basar l'vanah) in
parts of Israel (Eilat seems to be an exception). Yes there are rules
concerning buses in Jerusalem not running on Shabbat and yes, marriage and
divorce have to go through the rabbinate to have validity (e.g., "do you have
your petek that you went to the mikvah?", etc.) .
Then again, why should
American religious Jews be interested in making aliyah, with the
hardships it entails, if the State is to have NO religious component?
- A democratic state? We have that right here in America.
- Jewish culture (e.g., bagels, lox, purim parades, et al.)
Plenty of that to go 'round in New York City and one doesn't have to
serve in the army to partake.
Benny Netanyahu spoke recently at a shul in New York City and encouraged
the audience, which was about 90% religious, to move to Israel.
I think it is fair to say that for most of the people in the audience,
who are anyway from the New York area, one of the strongest incentives
is the religious factor. Neighborhoods CLOSE down for Shabbat so there's
quiet and solitude (unlike Ocean Parkway). Go into a supermarket and the
meat behind the counter IS kosher (assuming you rely on the hechsher).
The fact that EL AL airlines IS closed for Shabbat (and, by the way, has
not gone broke as a result, as many secular naysayers commented at the time).
If there is no religious component to the state, wherein lies the incentive
for many potential olim to put up with the inevitable red tape,
military service, low salaries, etc?
Or maybe you'd rather NOT have more RELIGIOUS people coming who,
in a democratic state, have the RIGHT to
vote for someone who represents their interests, which may
include giving the State a more religious character?
Obviously, the will of the majority needs to be tempered by a
'Bill of Rights' (until the Messiah cometh, may he come speedily......).
However, it seems to me that a total separation of church and state, while
the right recipe here in America, is not appropriate for the Land
of Israel.
Ari Gross
a...@sylvester.columbia.edu
Columbia University
Len Moskowitz
debate. If the State is to be secular and democratic there is nothing
that prevents the future Arab majority of Israeli citizens from
returning Israel to the fold of Arabic countries; any attempt to
prevent this would be clearly undemocratic (i.e., racist). If we say
that the State has a religious basis ("God gave it to us") then we
would be hypocrites to accept some of Torah and not all.
David Makowsky
# In article <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sa...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (samuel.saal,wh,) writes:
# >Yes, but Israel is also the Jewish State.
# No, it isn't. It is the State of the Jews; most of the trouble is because
# many people can't make the distinction.
Yes, it is the Jewish State. Its entire history, as well as common
sense and reality, make it so. I suggest you go over some early statements
and documents made and authored by some of Israel's early leaders. The fact
that Israel has failed miserably in its role as the Jewish State, has not as of
yet, taken that title away (although possibly it may later on).
If blame should go anywhere, it goes with those, who do not want it to
be a Jewish State. To label Israel a State of the Jews means nothing more then
calling it a "hebrew speaking Portugal." It also leaves open the possibility
that the State of the Jews could possibly have no Jews living in it, no
Jewish culture or heritage, or any number of other possibilities which I do
not need to go into. It also validates those who would call Israel an
aparthied State, since a Jewish State , which implies Jewish principles, would
therefore allow non - jews to live work and prosper. Who else would be
welcome in a "State of the Jews"?
# >Just as in a democracy
# >concessions must be made to any voting block, In Israel
# >concessions are made for the secular Jews' needs as well as the
# >religious.
# Since Israel's warped political system gives excessive power to small
# parties, that's an understatement. The rights of religious people have
# been guaranteed a long time ago; now most of what the religious parties do with
# their excessive power constitutes forcing religious laws on the secular
# population.
Israel's political system does not give warped power to anyone not in
the majority. If it seems that way, it is only because those who are oppossed
to the religious parties have not taken the correct action. Remember, for
anything to pass the Israeli parliment, it takes a *MAJORITY*, not just the
voices of the small religious parties.
What you should do is vote for a party that agrees exactly with Labor
or Likud (or any other party of your choosing), except that they refuse to
make deals with the religious parties. Then, if a deal is struck which gives
power to the religious parties, it will truely be the will of the majority.
What? Are you telling me that there is no "mainstream" party that refuses to
deal with the religious parties? Then *FORM ONE*, or don't complain!
# >If this discussion becomes anymore political, I request its
# >follow-ups go to talk.politics.mideast.
# It is still more about Jewish culture than about the Mideast situation.
I have kept this in scj, but if anyone wants to, they have my
permission to crosspost.
Dr. Eliot Shimoff
>Part of the problem is that Israel does not permit its citizens the
>option of being associated with *no* religion. If, for example, civil
>marriages and divorces were allowed, all the secular pressure would be
>taken off the Orthodox to "reform" their religion.
I agree with you than some problems might be avoided if Israel were
to permit civil marriage. Furthermore, I do not believe that such a
change would create hardships for the dati community, or even do
great violence to dati ideals of what Israel should be.
On the other hand, from my conversations with Israelis, personal
status is not that critical to most people. True, the mechanisms
are often unnecessarily burdensome (e.g., a petek from the Mikveh lady
who is often insensitive), but that is a minor inconvenience (the main
effect of which is to unnecessarily alienate people from Judaism). But
most Israelis are not kohanim seeking to marry grushot (divorcees),
or involved with questions of mamzerut or gittin, and for them a religious
marriage is no more burdensome than a civil one.
What seems to be a more serious problem is the question of public
transportation on Shabbat, and opening public facilities on Shabbat.
Again, I can imagine a resolution that allows public transportation
etc. on Shabbat.
The most intractable problems arise, I think, with respect to official
government action. Dati Israelis might well object (correctly, I believe)
if gov't offices were opened on Yom Kippur. The rights of a hiloni
Israeli soldier who wants "steak lavan" (pork) served at his/her Zahal
base are in direct conflict with those of the dati soldier who doesn't.
If Egged or Dan wants to run on Shabbat, that may be their business,
but El Al is a _gov't_ airline -- should El Al observe Shabbat? Kashrut?
And remember, it's not just dati versus hiloni; there are lots of Israelis
who are not personally observant, but want the State to have a singularly
_Jewish_ character.
Eliot
Dr. Eliot Shimoff
>>There are several issues in question. First, to what extent should Israel
>>force (or actively encourage) observance of Jewish law by Jews?
>
>The Israeli police should not be the force that compels Jews to abide
>by the religious law. Besides, since secular laws have a different
>scope than religious ones, there is no way to reconcile them, and any attempt
>would just lead to something like the "Who is a Jew" quagmire.
The police or gov't enforces civil law, not religious law. But many
civil laws have a religious basis, in the US as well as in Israel.
Zoning regulations (e.g., no bar next to a church, or no traffic on
Shabbat in some areas), kashrut regulations (enforced in the US as
a form of consumerism), etc. examples. Even in the US, there are
religious bases to many laws. And many would argue that Israeli
laws should reflect -- at least to some extent -- Jewish law.
>
>>Is there
>>anything wrong with forbidding the sale of pork to Jews? In limiting
>>public transportation on Shabbat? In closing restaurants or theaters or
>>athletic stadia (stadiums) on Shabbat? In enforcing "individual status"
>>laws (e.g., kohen marrying divorcee, or mamzerut)?
>
>Those who say "no" should first try to walk a few miles to the beach
>in summer, or stay under forced house arrest one day each week,
Walking to the beach is a problem. Characterizing official recognition
of Shabbat as "house arrest" is silly. Do you feel "economically arrested"
because of "blue laws" in many states that mandate closing of banks, stores,
ect. on Sunday?
>or expect to lose their citizenship because someone had found out
>their grandmother wasn't kosher.
If there is anything Jewish about a Jewish State, it is the religious
basis for the Law of Return. As an alternative, do you suggest that
the Law of Return be repealed? If none of my forebears were Jewish,
but I claimed to have a "Jewish heart", should I qualify for citizenship?
If I didn't know you better, I'd guess you were suggesting a "free,
secular, democratic State in Palestine!
>>The point of all of this is to underscore the idea that the Israeli
>>rabbinic rejection of Reform and Conservative Judaism is not simply
>>based on interpretation, but on fundamental differences.
>
>More likely, it is based on money. Over the years, the rabbinic establishment
>has made some cozy arrangements for distribution of government funds
>among its participants; new players are not welcome.
Unfair judgment! Religion and politics don't mix well; both suffer. I
agree that money has corrupted religious _politics_, but it does not
follow that everything done in the name of religion is corrupt or
based on pure power politics. Much done by religious authorities
has been l'shem shamayim -- an honest and sincere effort to make
Israel a better place. You may not agree with their methods or their
goals, but it is unfair to questions their motivation on all of these
issues because of your disagreement. For example, I disagree with you
on some of these matters, but I would certainly not accuse you of
being anti-dati. (You might be, but I couldn't judge just on the
basis of the arguments presented here. Some of my Israeli dati
friends agree with you!)
Eliot
Frank Silbermann
>The issue is most serious with respect to the Reform movement,
>and most notably with the definition of Who Is A Jew.
>Patrilineal descent means that the Reform community
>will recognize as Jewish some individuals who are viewed
>as non-Jewish by the Orthodox community;
>this has the makings of a serious schism.
Nu, suppose Reform Judaism did _not_ recognize
patrilineal descent. Would that would make any difference?
If the father was born Jewish, and the mother was not,
who in the Orthodox movement would care whether or not
the woman had a Reform conversion? Or even a Conservative
conversion, for that matter?
Frank Silbermann f...@rex.cs.tulane.edu
seth.r.rosenthal
The intro deleted for expediency.
> One of the members of the group was an ardent Reform Jew (that was his
> own description), who never missed an opportunity to rail against any
> possible example of religious coercion. I finally lost my temper with
> him when, on Shabbat afternoon in Jerusalem, he started yet another tirade
> because he was unable to cash a check, since the banks were all closed.
> He saw this as just one more case in which the religious "minority"
> imposed its wishes on the majority. I asked him whether, in the States,
> he had ever objected to banks being closed on Sunday. He blustered and
> fumed, and refused to see the inconsistency of his position.
>
> Eliot
Cute Eliot, I remember when one couldn't get a drink
on Sundays too. Also remember when one couldn't shop
in malls on Sundays. Care to let the religious
zealots here have those back? Don't
worry about banks, with ATM's we don't even
need to start a campaign to un-bluster your
somewhat befuddled Reformed companion.
I have an idea for you, be a shomer shabbas
Jew in the bible belt down South for a while and
live with their blue laws, and then come back
and tell us how religious groups should have
a say about the lifestyles of even a minority,
no less the majority. I bet you go crossing
county lines to do your shopping on Sunday...
I could go on with mail delivery, Sunday stock
transfers ... but its just too easy.
Seth
seth.r.rosenthal
>
> >The question is the extent to which religious authorities have power
> >over those who claim allegiance to the religion. There is also the
> >problem of who has the right to choose the authorities. The present
> >authorities of the Jewish religion in Israel reject all interpretations
> >but their own as being consistent with Judaism (this may be a slight
> >exaggeration, but not much), and that, for example, Reform and
> >Conservative Jews are, at best, confused and/or ignorant people
> >who have no right to say anything about the Jewish religion.
> >
I'm going to selectively edit out things that are not relevant to
my points. I hope this doesn't actually interfere with
your flow that I am responding to.
>
> There are several issues in question. First, to what extent should Israel
> force (or actively encourage) observance of Jewish law by Jews? Is there
> anything wrong with forbidding the sale of pork to Jews? In limiting
> public transportation on Shabbat? In closing restaurants or theaters or
> athletic stadia (stadiums) on Shabbat? In enforcing "individual status"
> laws (e.g., kohen marrying divorcee, or mamzerut)? Or, should Israel
> adopt complete separation of church and state -- perhaps even more
> effectively than in the US? Should the Israeli government become
> completely secular? Should government offices close on Shabbat? Ultimately,
> this is the question of whether Israel should be a Jewish State, or just a
> state that welcomes Jews.
>
Something about this phrasing bothers me. Let me put it another
way. Will the laws of Israel be written in such a way to enforce
religious observance on non-observant Jews. This is the crux of
the issue, the attempt at merging political power, which currently
protects the religious authority of the Israeli Orthodox rabbinate,
with those religious authorities. Should the government allow
rabbinical interpretation of Torah into the Laws of Israel. The second
problem, when seen in this light is not orthogonal to the first at all,
but a corollary of it.
> A second issue -- orthogonal to the first -- is in the definition of what
> is Judaism. Unless Israel becomes completely secular, the definition
> of Judaism will remain central. That is the core of the question of the
> status of non-Orthodox Jews in Israel. (In fact, there are relatively few
> non-Orthodox Jews in Israel, although many are certainly non-observant.
> But, as one person [I don't remember who] put it -- I don't go to shul
> on Shabbat, but the shul I don't go to is Orthodox. Still, the _number_
> of non-Orthodox Jews is irrelevant to the issue.)
>
You are not correct here. They are non-observant. Why is another
good question. Might I pose that in any other society these people
might very well have fallen through the cracks into other religions.
The major purpose behind Reform and Conservative Judaism (halachic
issues aside) is to prevent that from happening. It is less than
100% successful since some people have even found liberal forms
of Judaism unacceptable. So, do you let non-observant Israelis
fall through the cracks (there are christian missionaries there
too ) or do you offer an alternative (which if the American
experience is any indicator may seriously damage the power
of the Israeli Orthodox Rabbinate). These are the fundamental
problems. No other government (except maybe that of Vatican
City) legislates biblically, why should Israel. Why should
Israeli law leave the issue on who is a Rabbi to those who
economically and politically stand to gain the most (or lose
the most) from those decisions?
> Herman, I'm not sure if your characterization of Israel's religious
> establishment is accurate. Israeli rabbis _do_ recognize alternative
> interpretations of halakha; the differences between Ashkenazim and
> Sephardim is an extreme example, but many other abound. For example,
Hardly extreme, they are 98% similar.
> during shmita, there is disagreement on whether to accept the lenient
> positions adopted by the Chief Rabbinate; some people may not accept
> the hechsher of the rabbanut, but view that as a disagreement "within
> the family," as it were.
>
And of course Conservative/Reform are not within the family. Care
to put that to a vote of the family? Last I heard, 15% worldwide
orthodoxy is generous. Without fractured Israeli bloc politics
this argument would be relegated to a historical footnote anyway
since the actual constituency is so small.
> The status of Reform and Conservative Judaism in Israel goes beyond
> halakhic interpretation, and that's what creates the problem. The
> issue is most serious with respect to the Reform movement, and most notably
> with the definition of Who Is A Jew. Patrilineal descent means that the
> Reform community will recognize as Jewish some individuals who are viewed
> as non-Jewish by the Orthodox community; this has the makings of a serious
> schism. In terms of halakha, the Conservative position often (but not
> always) may be characterized as a _very_ liberal Orthodox position;
> RA halakhic decisions generally (perhaps always) start with citations
> to classic halakhic sources. My guess would be that the problem with
> the Conservative movement is not so much its halakhic stance as its
> doctrinal differences, specifically, the Orthodox belief in Torah
> m'Shamayim: Torah as Divine, not simply Divinely-inspired.
>
Aside from the contradiction of "going beyond halakhic" and then
arguing halakhically, there is no reason for the state of Israel
to be involved in this discussion. If the orthodox rabbis want
all Conservative/Reform Jews to be shades of goyim, thats fine
with them, but the government interfering in the religious choices
of 85% of Israels Jews is another thing. If the Orthodox rabbinate
is so sure that what they have is most correct and desirable,
let Reform and Conservative Rabbis open synagogues in Israel
(I suspect Reform won't do well since having services in the
native tongue of the land isn't new in Israel) and let
them do weddings, etc. Now I believe the government gives a
monopoly on Jewish practice to the Orthodox Rabbinate. Want
to know how many Israelis are in my Reform temple? Want
to know how many are in the Orthodox one a mile away? You
definitely don't want to know how many are in the Conservative
one around the corner from the Orthodox (in order 6, 1, 15).
You know Eliot, we all hope it won't come to pass, but some
day all 8.5 million (or whats left of us) may wind up in Israel.
What will that do to the demographics of the Orthodox vs.
non-observant (who now will include people with 2 or 3 generations
of a different variant of Judaism). I bet that politically the
piper will be paid then if not now.
> The point of all of this is to underscore the idea that the Israeli
> rabbinic rejection of Reform and Conservative Judaism is not simply
> based on interpretation, but on fundamental differences. This is not
> the first time that Judaism has faced such conflicts. There was the
> development of Christianity, for example. (Please, no flames. I'm not
> suggesting the equivalence of Christianity and non-Orthodox Judaism.)
> And there was the bitter dispute between Hassidut and the Mitnagdim.
> (Again, no flames -- I'm not suggesting the equivalence of Hassidut and
> non-Orthodox Judaism.)
>
The point of all of this should be that the Israeli Orthodox Rabbinate is
irrelevant to civil laws. If a majority of Israeli Jews follow
the Orthodox Rabbinate (even without attending temple), thats nice,
but not relevant either. Try to enforce Judaism and guess where
they all wind up? Once here guess where they wind up? So what
are you fighting for ultimately? People have a tough enough
time living there. By the way a state populated with Chasidim
and no secular Jews is a pretty scary thing to all of us. Its
alright, it wouldn't last long militarliy that way anyway.
> Are the differences irreconcilable? And the more immediate question --
> will this thread remain discussion or degererate into flames?
>
> Eliot
Nah, unless you continue to shift the topic back to which religious
view is more correct/holy/better/ (whatever adjective you decide you
like best).
Seth Rosenthal
Amos Shapir
character in quoted lines indicates which article they are quoted from)
In article <67...@columbia.edu> a...@sylvester.UUCP (Ari Gross) writes:
>Yes, there are laws making it illegal to sell pork (basar l'vanah) in
I consider it against my rights to be told by the government what I can eat.
>Yes there are rules
>concerning buses in Jerusalem not running on Shabbat
In article <30...@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> shi...@umbc3.umbc.edu.UMBC.EDU (Dr. Eliot Shimoff) writes:
#Walking to the beach is a problem. Characterizing official recognition
#of Shabbat as "house arrest" is silly.
No busses run on Saturdays all over the country (except Haifa), not just
areas of religious majority. For many people who cannot afford a car
for just one day a week, this *is* "house arrest".
>marriage and
>divorce have to go through the rabbinate to have validity.
The point is, some people cannot marry in Israel at all (though the government
does recognize marriage of the same people if done abroad).
>
>Then again, why should
>American religious Jews be interested in making aliyah, with the
>hardships it entails, if the State is to have NO religious component?
>
>- A democratic state? We have that right here in America.
But *I* (as well as a growing majority of native Israelis) don't
"have it here in America"! Do you advocate that we should all suffer
the hardships of non-democratic clerical rule just so that a small number
of American religious Jews should feel they have the option to make aliya
easier???
In article <6...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> mako...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
| Yes, it is the Jewish State. Its entire history, as well as common
|sense and reality, make it so. I suggest you go over some early statements
|and documents made and authored by some of Israel's early leaders. The fact
|that Israel has failed miserably in its role as the Jewish State, has not as of
|yet, taken that title away (although possibly it may later on).
The earliest statement I know of is Herzl's book "State of the Jews"
(at least that's how it comes out in the Hebrew translation: Medinat Hayehudim)
The Zionist idea is of a *secular* solution to the problem of prosecution
of the Jews - the religious solution has always been just waiting for the
Messiah. Some messianic ideas may have hitched a ride on its success later.
A state cannot be Jewish - it cannot wear a kippah or go to the mikveh.
A democratic state cannot be religious in any form, since religious
laws cannot be changed by a majority vote. Therefore Israel didn't
fail as a Jewish State - it wasn't meant to be one.
>If there is no religious component to the state, wherein lies the incentive
>for many potential olim to put up with the inevitable red tape,
>military service, low salaries, etc?
|
| If blame should go anywhere, it goes with those, who do not want it to
|be a Jewish State. To label Israel a State of the Jews means nothing more then
|calling it a "hebrew speaking Portugal." It also leaves open the possibility
|that the State of the Jews could possibly have no Jews living in it, no
|Jewish culture or heritage, or any number of other possibilities which I do
|not need to go into.
#If there is anything Jewish about a Jewish State, it is the religious
#basis for the Law of Return. As an alternative, do you suggest that
#the Law of Return be repealed?
Israel was established for all Jews, not just for the religious minority.
First and foremost, it belongs to its inhabitants. Its "nature" is
determined by the people who live in it, and should not be enforced by laws,
especially laws that impose a minority's way of life over the majority.
So far, most inhabitants still agree that it should serve as haven to
prosecuted Jews everywhere; but that can be achieved without any laws
(yes, I do advocate repealing the Law of Return, so far it has caused
more harm than good). If they all decide to become moslem tomorrow,
that is perfectly their right; keeping Israel Jewish should not be
done by laws - what laws keep France french or Italy italian?
(The following belongs more in talk.politics.israel, but since I'm at it...)
>
>Or maybe you'd rather NOT have more RELIGIOUS people coming who,
>in a democratic state, have the RIGHT to
>vote for someone who represents their interests, which may
>include giving the State a more religious character?
Representing their interest does not include imposing those interests
on others.
#Unfair judgment! Religion and politics don't mix well; both suffer. I
#agree that money has corrupted religious _politics_, but it does not
#follow that everything done in the name of religion is corrupt or
#based on pure power politics.
Not *everything*, but politics is what makes the laws, and corrupt politics
make corrupt laws.
| Israel's political system does not give warped power to anyone not in
|the majority.
It does, if that "anyone" holds the key to a small number of votes
that tip the scales one way or the other.
| What you should do is vote for a party that agrees exactly with Labor
|or Likud (or any other party of your choosing), except that they refuse to
|make deals with the religious parties. Then, if a deal is struck which gives
|power to the religious parties, it will truely be the will of the majority.
|What? Are you telling me that there is no "mainstream" party that refuses to
|deal with the religious parties? Then *FORM ONE*, or don't complain!
Yes there are such parties - the Citizen's Right movement on the side of
Labor, and The Liberal faction of the Likud; but what we need is a *central*
power, not two non-religious parties that balance each other. In any case,
the big blocks prefer to deal with the religious parties, since they make
few demands in matters of economics, security, and foreign policy.
Sam Saal,1A-110,6956,Cap Gemini
-> >Yes, there are laws making it illegal to sell pork (basar l'vanah) in
-> I consider it against my rights to be told by the government what I can eat.
-> Amos Shapir
-> am...@nsc.nsc.com or am...@taux01.nsc.com
In the US, one may not eat or otherwise consume a variety of
foods, drugs, and medications. Not all of these prohibitions are
for health reasons, international trade is an example of the
basis for some of the rules. Furthermore, these US rules don't
even have a single consistent basis like "God's Word."
Do I need one of these :-) to show that both my response and Amos'
statement are equally simplistic?
Ran Ever-Hadani
> If blame should go anywhere, it goes with those, who do not want it to
>be a Jewish State. To label Israel a State of the Jews means nothing more then
>calling it a "hebrew speaking Portugal." It also leaves open the possibility
>that the State of the Jews could possibly have no Jews living in it, no
>Jewish culture or heritage, or any number of other possibilities which I do
>not need to go into.
This is absurd. Portugal has a distinct Portuguese chararacter,
reflecting Portuguese culture and heritage. This is due to the
fact that Portugal is mostly inhabited by Portoguese people. I
have no problem with defining Israel in the same way Portugal is
defined.
>It also validates those who would call Israel an
>aparthied State, since a Jewish State , which implies Jewish principles, would
>therefore allow non - jews to live work and prosper. Who else would be
>welcome in a "State of the Jews"?
Au contraire. Portugal is the land of the Portguese, and nobody
blames it of Apartheid. If, on the other hand, imposing Jewish
religious values on people who don't want them - Jews and non-Jews,
by the state mechanism, is indeed oppressive.
-- Ran
-----------------------------------------------
Reply-To: cre...@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani)
Disclaimer: The above is to be attributed to me only, not to any organization.
Apology: Bad English. E-mailed spelling and style corrections are welcome.
Ran Ever-Hadani
>If there is anything Jewish about a Jewish State, it is the religious
>basis for the Law of Return. As an alternative, do you suggest that
>the Law of Return be repealed? If none of my forebears were Jewish,
>but I claimed to have a "Jewish heart", should I qualify for citizenship?
In most cases, there is no problem with deciding whether a person is
Jewish (or American, Palestinian etc. ) or not. The boundary is
indeed a problem, but the fact that we may turn to the religious
definition to solve it does not mean we must define the entire
state in religious terms.
>If I didn't know you better, I'd guess you were suggesting a "free,
>secular, democratic State in Palestine!
I am definitely suggesting a free, secular and democratic state. The fact
that this wording has been widely used as a cover for intentions of
annulling Jewish national rights should not cause us to abandon the
principles of freedom, democracy and separation of church and state.
seth.r.rosenthal
> >In article <30...@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> shi...@umbc3.umbc.edu.UMBC.EDU (Dr. Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>
> The police or gov't enforces civil law, not religious law. But many
> civil laws have a religious basis, in the US as well as in Israel.
> Zoning regulations (e.g., no bar next to a church, or no traffic on
> Shabbat in some areas), kashrut regulations (enforced in the US as
> a form of consumerism), etc. examples. Even in the US, there are
> religious bases to many laws. And many would argue that Israeli
> laws should reflect -- at least to some extent -- Jewish law.
>
laws such as blue laws. Zoning regulations are there to protect
local residents from the added nuisance of a religious
building which tends to create traffic and noise. Also for
safety, e.g. diverting traffic away from a church or synagogue
to protect walkers crossing the street. These are not a recognition
of the religious observance by the government, merely an aide to
protect those who worship, their rights, and the rights of those
impacted by such worship.
> >
> >>Is there
> >>anything wrong with forbidding the sale of pork to Jews? In limiting
> >>public transportation on Shabbat? In closing restaurants or theaters or
> >>athletic stadia (stadiums) on Shabbat? In enforcing "individual status"
> >>laws (e.g., kohen marrying divorcee, or mamzerut)?
> >
> >Those who say "no" should first try to walk a few miles to the beach
> >in summer, or stay under forced house arrest one day each week,
>
> Walking to the beach is a problem. Characterizing official recognition
> of Shabbat as "house arrest" is silly. Do you feel "economically arrested"
> because of "blue laws" in many states that mandate closing of banks, stores,
> ect. on Sunday?
>
away from the remnants of the 19th century. Sensitivity to
peoples religious beliefs is much different than making others
play by religious rules. See my posting earlier about blue laws.
By the way whats wrong with maintaining kosher and non-kosher
kitchens in the Israeli army? The Soviet Jews are used to eating
pork, youre going to see some push and shove there. Going to
a kosher resort, one goes specifically because of the comfort
in food, etc. Going to the army is not voluntary, and the army
should be catering to the soldiers, not the other way around.
By the way, historical sidebar, a Dutch Jewish friend once told
me that there were special arrangements in the Dutch army
(before the German occupation) so that observant Jews could
serve. Included rabbis as chaplains and kosher food as required.
Here rabbis are chaplains, but I don't know about getting Kosher
food. Anyone out there served in the US Armed Forces and got
kosher food in peacetime and/or combat?
>
> If there is anything Jewish about a Jewish State, it is the religious
> basis for the Law of Return. As an alternative, do you suggest that
> the Law of Return be repealed? If none of my forebears were Jewish,
> but I claimed to have a "Jewish heart", should I qualify for citizenship?
> If I didn't know you better, I'd guess you were suggesting a "free,
> secular, democratic State in Palestine!
>
The problem is how do you define the Jewish people (we've been
through this before, so lets not argue Who is a Jew again).
I emotionally agree with the Israeli supreme courts decision
on J for J's who claimed the right of return (and were denied
since they were "no longer Jews"), but I intellectually disagree,
since accepting another religion doesn't change their ethnicity
only their religion. This one didn't hit against American Jews so there
was no furor. It unfortunately did establish a foot-hold for
a resurgence of religious involvement in the Law of Return,
a dangerous precedent. Funny how the "religious legal agenda"
in Israel is so similar in tactics and general theme to the
religious right here in the USA. Also funny how the same Jews
are the recipients of both movements.
> >More likely, it is based on money. Over the years, the rabbinic establishment
> >has made some cozy arrangements for distribution of government funds
> >among its participants; new players are not welcome.
>
> Unfair judgment! Religion and politics don't mix well; both suffer. I
> agree that money has corrupted religious _politics_, but it does not
> follow that everything done in the name of religion is corrupt or
> based on pure power politics. Much done by religious authorities
> has been l'shem shamayim -- an honest and sincere effort to make
> Israel a better place. You may not agree with their methods or their
> goals, but it is unfair to questions their motivation on all of these
> issues because of your disagreement. For example, I disagree with you
> on some of these matters, but I would certainly not accuse you of
> being anti-dati. (You might be, but I couldn't judge just on the
> basis of the arguments presented here. Some of my Israeli dati
> friends agree with you!)
>
Well lets see, reportedly Likud has promised $3 million to the religious
parties in government money to establish more schools as part
of a deal to form a new coalition (I call this bribery). Labor
probably similarly. More money for teachers, rabbis, jobs within
this community. Not a matter of money? And the original
point about rabbis making money from weddings, divorces, etc. is
also quite true. How would you like to open a store to provide
a service, and then bully the government into giving you a monopoly
so that noone else can open a similar store. Especially when
we are talking of key events in every persons life. In this
country, Clayton Anti-Trust would be invoked, and both rabbis
and ministers of government would serve time and pay penalties.
Rather than stuffing the stockings (Israelis may not understand
this reference) of the rabbinate, use the $3 million to resettle
Soviet Jews, otherwise American Jews just have to send $3 million
more to pay for the resettlement. How many Jews stuck in Russia
adds up to $3 million?
> Eliot
Seth
siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu
> In article <20...@l.cc.purdue.edu>, c...@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> In article <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>, se...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM
> (seth.r.rosenthal) writes:
>> .........................
>> > I propose the following topics:
>> >
>> > 1) Should the Laws of the State of Israel be secular or religious
>> > in nature. How much Torah, how much secular law.
>>
>> recognize other religions, and the rights of their members. Those
>> of other religions are married by the appropriate "clergy" of their
>> religion, and, subject to some civil regulations, are divorced by
>> the procedures of that religion.
>
> Part of the problem is that Israel does not permit its citizens the
> option of being associated with *no* religion. If, for example, civil
> marriages and divorces were allowed, all the secular pressure would be
> taken off the Orthodox to "reform" their religion.
>
There are two problems with this that I see. One is that there is
little chance of it passing given the pivotal control that the Religious
parties hold. Also, some non-Datiyim are likely to feel betrayed by allowing a
secular authority (granted, this is unlikely).
ON the other hand, Israel is a _JEWISH_ state. A Jewish state
sponsoring secular marriages just doesn't feel right. Granted, perhaps this
is inconsistent with other views I have on governance, but I can't see it.
Maybe Yigal IS right.
Robert Siegfried
Computer Science Dept.
Saint Peter's College
Jersey City, NJ 07306
siegf...@spcvxa.spc.edu
Dr. Eliot Shimoff
>in malls on Sundays. Care to let the religious
>zealots here have those back? Don't
>worry about banks, with ATM's we don't even
>need to start a campaign to un-bluster your
>somewhat befuddled Reformed companion.
>I have an idea for you, be a shomer shabbas
>Jew in the bible belt down South for a while and
>live with their blue laws, and then come back
>and tell us how religious groups should have
>a say about the lifestyles of even a minority,
>no less the majority. I bet you go crossing
>county lines to do your shopping on Sunday...
>I could go on with mail delivery, Sunday stock
>transfers ... but its just too easy.
The big difference between living in the Bible Belt versus
living in Israel is, of course, in what the US is supposed
to be and what Israel is supposed to be. The US is NOT
supposed to be a Christian country; Israel should be a
Jewish one.
In the end, this all gets down to the question of how Jewish
should Israel be -- or if it should be Jewish at all (except
for providing refuge for any Jew seeking entrance).
Eliot
Dr. Eliot Shimoff
Subject: Re: power in Israel
Summary:
Expires:
References: <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <30...@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Sender:
Reply-To: shi...@umbc3.umbc.edu.UMBC.EDU (Dr. Eliot Shimoff)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Keywords:
I wrote:
>> There are several issues in question. First, to what extent should Israel
>> force (or actively encourage) observance of Jewish law by Jews? Is there
>> anything wrong with forbidding the sale of pork to Jews? In limiting
>> public transportation on Shabbat? In closing restaurants or theaters or
>> athletic stadia (stadiums) on Shabbat? In enforcing "individual status"
>> laws (e.g., kohen marrying divorcee, or mamzerut)? Or, should Israel
>> adopt complete separation of church and state -- perhaps even more
>> effectively than in the US? Should the Israeli government become
>> completely secular? Should government offices close on Shabbat? Ultimately,
>> this is the question of whether Israel should be a Jewish State, or just a
>> state that welcomes Jews.
>>
Seth responded:
>Something about this phrasing bothers me. Let me put it another
>way. Will the laws of Israel be written in such a way to enforce
>religious observance on non-observant Jews. This is the crux of
>the issue, the attempt at merging political power, which currently
>protects the religious authority of the Israeli Orthodox rabbinate,
>with those religious authorities. Should the government allow
>rabbinical interpretation of Torah into the Laws of Israel. The second
>problem, when seen in this light is not orthogonal to the first at all,
>but a corollary of it.
I would certainly not advocate Israel passing laws to enforce all
religious observances on all Jews. On the other hand, if Israeli
law is to be based on _some_ other system (as it necessarily is),
I would prefer to see it based on Torah law than on the British or
Ottoman model -- or even than on the US model.
I wrote:
A second issue -- orthogonal to the first -- is in the definition of what
is Judaism. Unless Israel becomes completely secular, the definition
of Judaism will remain central. That is the core of the question of the status of non-Orthodox Jews in Israel. (In fact, there are relatively few
non-Orthodox Jews in Israel, although many are certainly non-observant.
But, as one person [I don't remember who] put it -- I don't go to shul
on Shabbat, but the shul I don't go to is Orthodox. Still, the _number_
of non-Orthodox Jews is irrelevant to the issue.)
Seth responded:
>You are not correct here. They are non-observant. Why is another
>good question. Might I pose that in any other society these people
>might very well have fallen through the cracks into other religions.
>The major purpose behind Reform and Conservative Judaism (halachic
>issues aside) is to prevent that from happening. It is less than
>100% successful since some people have even found liberal forms
>of Judaism unacceptable. So, do you let non-observant Israelis
>fall through the cracks (there are christian missionaries there
>too ) or do you offer an alternative (which if the American
>experience is any indicator may seriously damage the power
>of the Israeli Orthodox Rabbinate). These are the fundamental
>problems.
I am not at all sure that the goals of the early Reformers was to
fight assimilation, and I am almost certain that this was not a
goal of the early Conservative movement. And I certainly do not
advocate letting non-observant Israelis fall through the cracks.
My main objection to "religious coercion" in Israel is that it
has been done so ineffectively; I feel that a softer and gentler
form of influence might be more effective. But I do not believe
that Christian missionaries are a serious threat in Israel --
irreligious Israelis remain Jewish -- just irreligious. (In
fact, even in the US, the biggest threat to Judaism is not
Christianity; it is secularism. Christianity is often just the
default value for secularism; if I don't care about Judiasm or any
other religion, I default to secularism, marry a Christian (since
most Americans are Christian), and I am lost to Jewish peoplehood.
Seth wrote:
> No other government (except maybe that of Vatican
>City) legislates biblically, why should Israel.
All those countries that have official state religions -- big
chunks of Europe, all (?) of the Middle East, all (?) of
South America -- incoporate religious law into civil codes.
Why _shouldn't_ Israel?
Seth writes:
> Why should
>Israeli law leave the issue on who is a Rabbi to those who
>economically and politically stand to gain the most (or lose
>the most) from those decisions?
Because that is the nature of democratic politics. We may not
like the system, but that is what Israel has developed. It is,
when all is said and done, a form of democracy. It's awfully
easy to blame aging rabbis for all the country's problems, but
remember -- the voters elect the knesset members. I don't
have the numbers in front of me, but I'm sure someone can help.
Assuming that those who truly object vehemently to religious
coercion vote for Shulamit Aloni and CRM, and those that support
religious coercion vote for religious parties, and those that vote
for Labor or Likud consider the problem of secondary interest,
might one conclude that the majority of Israelis who care at all
about religion would rather have it than eliminate it?
I wrote:
>> Herman, I'm not sure if your characterization of Israel's religious
>> establishment is accurate. Israeli rabbis _do_ recognize alternative
>> interpretations of halakha; the differences between Ashkenazim and
>> Sephardim is an extreme example, but many other abound. For example,
Seth interjected:
>Hardly extreme, they are 98% similar.
>
>> during shmita, there is disagreement on whether to accept the lenient
>> positions adopted by the Chief Rabbinate; some people may not accept
>> the hechsher of the rabbanut, but view that as a disagreement "within
>> the family," as it were.
>>
>
>And of course Conservative/Reform are not within the family. Care
>to put that to a vote of the family? Last I heard, 15% worldwide
>orthodoxy is generous. Without fractured Israeli bloc politics
>this argument would be relegated to a historical footnote anyway
>since the actual constituency is so small.
I disagree about the 15% -- it is certainly not 15% of Israelis --
and probably not even 15% of world Jewry. If one takes the
base population of those who are actively interested in Judaism,
the number is FAR FAR higher. Remember, most American Jews
who identify themselves as Conservative or Reform are more
accurately characterized as non-practicing or uninvolved. I know
that there are lots of exceptions. But most Conservative and
Reform Jews limit their Jewish activity to a few times a year.
For example, on a typical Shabbat morning, what percent of the
synagogue attendees are Orthodox? Betcha it's more than 15%!
How many person-hours are devoted to Jewish observance by
Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews? Betcha it's more than
15% Orthodox.
I wrote:
>> The status of Reform and Conservative Judaism in Israel goes beyond
>> halakhic interpretation, and that's what creates the problem. The
>> issue is most serious with respect to the Reform movement, and most notably
>> with the definition of Who Is A Jew. Patrilineal descent means that the
>> Reform community will recognize as Jewish some individuals who are viewed
>> as non-Jewish by the Orthodox community; this has the makings of a serious
>> schism. In terms of halakha, the Conservative position often (but not
>> always) may be characterized as a _very_ liberal Orthodox position;
>> RA halakhic decisions generally (perhaps always) start with citations
>> to classic halakhic sources. My guess would be that the problem with
>> the Conservative movement is not so much its halakhic stance as its
>> doctrinal differences, specifically, the Orthodox belief in Torah
>> m'Shamayim: Torah as Divine, not simply Divinely-inspired.
Seth replied:
>Aside from the contradiction of "going beyond halakhic" and then
>arguing halakhically, there is no reason for the state of Israel
>to be involved in this discussion. If the orthodox rabbis want
>all Conservative/Reform Jews to be shades of goyim, thats fine
>with them, but the government interfering in the religious choices
>of 85% of Israels Jews is another thing. If the Orthodox rabbinate
>is so sure that what they have is most correct and desirable,
>let Reform and Conservative Rabbis open synagogues in Israel
>(I suspect Reform won't do well since having services in the
>native tongue of the land isn't new in Israel) and let
>them do weddings, etc. Now I believe the government gives a
>monopoly on Jewish practice to the Orthodox Rabbinate. Want
>to know how many Israelis are in my Reform temple? Want
>to know how many are in the Orthodox one a mile away? You
>definitely don't want to know how many are in the Conservative
>one around the corner from the Orthodox (in order 6, 1, 15).
>You know Eliot, we all hope it won't come to pass, but some
>day all 8.5 million (or whats left of us) may wind up in Israel.
>What will that do to the demographics of the Orthodox vs.
>non-observant (who now will include people with 2 or 3 generations
>of a different variant of Judaism). I bet that politically the
>piper will be paid then if not now.
My own guess is that Conservative and Reform Judaism will never
do very well in Israel, because thair primary appeal is to those
who seek an "American" form of religious expression. I think it
was Golda Meir who used to say that if the Reform and Conservative
movements wanted a say in Israeli politics, all they had to do was
to make aliyah, and vote. As far as the prospect of 8.5 million
Jews making aliyah -- I would welcome that as yet another step
in the "at'chalta d'geulta" -- the Messianic era. I had a friend
who absolutely refused to accept the possibility of an afterlife.
As he always said: "When we die, one of us is in for a big surprise."
I said:
>> The point of all of this is to underscore the idea that the Israeli
>> rabbinic rejection of Reform and Conservative Judaism is not simply
>> based on interpretation, but on fundamental differences. This is not
>> the first time that Judaism has faced such conflicts. There was the
>> development of Christianity, for example. (Please, no flames. I'm not
>> suggesting the equivalence of Christianity and non-Orthodox Judaism.)
>> And there was the bitter dispute between Hassidut and the Mitnagdim.
>> (Again, no flames -- I'm not suggesting the equivalence of Hassidut and
>> non-Orthodox Judaism.)
Seth replied:
>The point of all of this should be that the Israeli Orthodox Rabbinate is
>irrelevant to civil laws. If a majority of Israeli Jews follow
>the Orthodox Rabbinate (even without attending temple), thats nice,
>but not relevant either. Try to enforce Judaism and guess where
>they all wind up? Once here guess where they wind up? So what
>are you fighting for ultimately? People have a tough enough
>time living there. By the way a state populated with Chasidim
>and no secular Jews is a pretty scary thing to all of us. Its
>alright, it wouldn't last long militarliy that way anyway.
I had written
>> Are the differences irreconcilable? And the more immediate question --
>> will this thread remain discussion or degererate into flames?
Seth replied:
>Nah, unless you continue to shift the topic back to which religious
>view is more correct/holy/better/ (whatever adjective you decide you
>like best).
Good grief! I haven't interjected any theology yet, have I? So far,
it's all politics. No need to get upset.
Eliot
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: power in Israel
Summary:
Expires:
References: <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> <30...@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <49...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Sender:
Reply-To: shi...@umbc3.umbc.edu.UMBC.EDU (Dr. Eliot Shimoff)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Keywords:
Dave Rabinowitz
>The big difference between living in the Bible Belt versus
>living in Israel is, of course, in what the US is supposed
>to be and what Israel is supposed to be. The US is NOT
>supposed to be a Christian country; Israel should be a
>Jewish one.
>In the end, this all gets down to the question of how Jewish
>should Israel be -- or if it should be Jewish at all (except
>for providing refuge for any Jew seeking entrance).
However, while Bible Belt fundamentalists believe that all people are subject
to their interpretation of religious law, Judaism teaches that only Jews are
required to follow the Torah commandments. Non-Jews are only required to
follow the commandments given to Noah which do not include observing Shabbat
keeping kosher. Unless non-Jews are not permitted in Israel it would be
against Jewish tradition to impose halachik requirements on all residents.
Remember, Hillel said "do not do to others what you would find hateful" (e.g.
impose alien rules). The Bible Belt version says "do unto others...".
David Makowsky
# In article <6...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> mako...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
# | Yes, it is the Jewish State. Its entire history, as well as common
# |sense and reality, make it so. I suggest you go over some early statements
# |and documents made and authored by some of Israel's early leaders. The fact
# |that Israel has failed miserably in its role as the Jewish State, has not as of
# |yet, taken that title away (although possibly it may later on).
# The earliest statement I know of is Herzl's book "State of the Jews"
# (at least that's how it comes out in the Hebrew translation: Medinat Hayehudim)
I did not say "earliest". I said early. At any rate, take a
look at documents and speeches made around (and at!) the time of the
forming of the state.
# The Zionist idea is of a *secular* solution to the problem of prosecution
# of the Jews
I suggest you take a look at the history of zionism. It pre -
dates *any* exile.
# - the religious solution has always been just waiting for the
# Messiah. Some messianic ideas may have hitched a ride on its success later.
This is not true. There are plenty of instances (many of which
are very well documented and well known) of religious Jews actually
returning to their land. You would have been correct if you used terms
like majority (or even vast majority). However, zionism in any form
except religious is relatively recent. Religious Zionism has some age
to it.
# A state cannot be Jewish - it cannot wear a kippah or go to the mikveh.
If this is indeed the case (it is not. your analogy is
flawed), then why even have this discussion?
# A democratic state cannot be religious in any form, since religious
# laws cannot be changed by a majority vote. Therefore Israel didn't
# fail as a Jewish State - it wasn't meant to be one.
The problem was in that they tried to create a democratic
Jewish state. I agree that often these will be mutually exclusive.
# | What you should do is vote for a party that agrees exactly with Labor
# |or Likud (or any other party of your choosing), except that they refuse to
# |make deals with the religious parties. Then, if a deal is struck which gives
# |power to the religious parties, it will truely be the will of the majority.
# |What? Are you telling me that there is no "mainstream" party that refuses to
# |deal with the religious parties? Then *FORM ONE*, or don't complain!
# Yes there are such parties - the Citizen's Right movement on the side of
# Labor, and The Liberal faction of the Likud;
Then how come they have formed coalitions with the religious parties?
# but what we need is a *central*
# power, not two non-religious parties that balance each other. In any case,
# the big blocks prefer to deal with the religious parties, since they make
# few demands in matters of economics, security, and foreign policy.
The form another party and vote for it, but DO NOT COMPLAIN!
David Makowsky
# In article <6...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> mako...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
# > If blame should go anywhere, it goes with those, who do not want it to
# >be a Jewish State. To label Israel a State of the Jews means nothing more then
# >calling it a "hebrew speaking Portugal." It also leaves open the possibility
# >that the State of the Jews could possibly have no Jews living in it, no
# >Jewish culture or heritage, or any number of other possibilities which I do
# >not need to go into.
# This is absurd. Portugal has a distinct Portuguese chararacter,
# reflecting Portuguese culture and heritage. This is due to the
# fact that Portugal is mostly inhabited by Portoguese people. I
# have no problem with defining Israel in the same way Portugal is
# defined.
If you have no problem with it, then how can it be absurd?
# >It also validates those who would call Israel an
# >aparthied State, since a Jewish State , which implies Jewish principles, would
# >therefore allow non - jews to live work and prosper. Who else would be
# >welcome in a "State of the Jews"?
# Au contraire. Portugal is the land of the Portguese, and nobody
# blames it of Apartheid. If, on the other hand, imposing Jewish
# religious values on people who don't want them - Jews and non-Jews,
# by the state mechanism, is indeed oppressive.
You really think so? Ok Ran, what happens to Portugal (as a
similar situation might happen in Israel) where a certain group of
non - Portugese people become a majority and threaten to turn Portugal
into a State for them? I will tell you what will happen. Portugal (as
Israel way have to do) will turn to a system of Apartheid to keep the
nation Portugese!
Sean P. Engelson
Frankel) writes:
> In article <48...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sa...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (samuel.saal) writes:
>
> And here is the crux of the problem. It is far, far preferable in my
> estimation to use a fallback procedure (such as a proxy Get) than to
> use a situation made intolerable BY THE LACK OF ONE as an excuse for
> using force to overcome an individual's objections.
I think we have a case of clashing assumptions here. The fact is that
in Halacha, the only valid method of divorce is through a Get, and the
only way in which one can be executed is through the husband giving it
to the wife. This is Torah law and not subject to Rabbinic change.
There can be no fallback procedure of a proxy Get, because the law
simply doesn't allow for it.
> >Thus, the man _must_ be _forced_, against his will,
> >to give the Get. The Rabbis went so far as to say that it is
> >_required_ to beat the man until he changes his mind and decides,
> >of his own free will, to give the divorce document.
>
> A perfect example of what happens when you believe the ends justify
> the means! I do not except a judgement that it is OK to beat a human
> being to change their minds. To think that you can follow that with a
> conclusion that he has then acquiesced "of his own free will" is so
> patently absurd that I find it truly hard to believe that anyone can
> swallow it.
The phrase "own free will" is a little misleading here. All that is
required is that he want to give the Get; it doesn't matter *why* he
wants to. He *hasn't* acquiesced of his own free will, but that makes
no difference: he *has* acquiesced.
> A supposedly divine law that places a woman in an intolerable situation
> without giving any more humane and reasonable alternative than violence
> is not something I can accept with a clear conscience. Either the law
> is flawed (and therefore not divine), or the Rabbis have failed in their
> role of interpreting the law in such a way as to avoid dehumanizing us.
Or your conscience is flawed. An interesting idea brought up at one of
the Sedarim I was at: There's nothing special in obeying the Torah laws
you agree with; the idea of Qabalat `ol malkhut shamayim (accepting the
yoke of heaven) is obeying *especially* those laws you find hard to accept.
> This is so radically different from another example I saw recently,
> where the Rabbis permitted the Jews in a concentration camp to eat their
> pitiful ration of soup and leavened bread on Passover (while offering up
> a sincere prayer asking God's understanding and promising to observe the
> mitzvot when they were again free) since denying their food to them for
> eight days in a situation where they could not obtain matzah and kosher
> food would surely result in death. Likewise, I would expect that a
> woman in a physically abusive marriage should be able to get a proxy Get
> from the Rabbis, because denying it to her could place her life in
> jeopardy.
How? At worst they could separate, and she would remain an Agunah
(admittedly a terrible fate, but certainly not death). The idea of the
abrogation of certain laws in the face of death does not licence
abrogating them because of pain, however great. And is separation
wouldn't help, then how would a Get?
--
I haven't had time lately to post; so some responses are less than
timely. Sorry!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Philip Engelson, Poet Errant Make your learning a fixture;
Yale Department of Computer Science Say little and do much;
Box 2158 Yale Station And receive everyone with
New Haven, CT 06520 a friendly attitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Esperanto: metodo por krei pacan mondon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Theoretical physicist---a physicist whose existence is postulated, to
make the numbers balance, but who is never actually observed in the
laboratory.
--Joseph Voros
Amos Shapir
| This is not true. There are plenty of instances (many of which
|are very well documented and well known) of religious Jews actually
|returning to their land. You would have been correct if you used terms
|like majority (or even vast majority). However, zionism in any form
|except religious is relatively recent. Religious Zionism has some age
|to it.
That's exactly my point: The Zionist movement didn't really proliferate
until it became secular. Religious pilgrimage had always existed,
but it never achieved (nor tried to achieve) political goals.
|
|# A state cannot be Jewish - it cannot wear a kippah or go to the mikveh.
|
| If this is indeed the case (it is not. your analogy is
|flawed), then why even have this discussion?
Because of all the people who think it can, and try to force infeasible
policies on the majority.
|
|# A democratic state cannot be religious in any form, since religious
|# laws cannot be changed by a majority vote. Therefore Israel didn't
|# fail as a Jewish State - it wasn't meant to be one.
|
| The problem was in that they tried to create a democratic
|Jewish state. I agree that often these will be mutually exclusive.
Again, let me remind you that Israel was established as a haven for all
Jews, not only religious ones. Creating a non-democratic regime to
achieve national, religious, or even economical goals, has caused the
downfall and destruction of many countries; I don't wish to see Israel
become yet another one.
samuel.saal
>Remember, Hillel said "do not do to others what you would find hateful" (e.g.
>impose alien rules). The Bible Belt version says "do unto others...".
I thought it was "VeAhavta LeRa'echa Kamocha" which
translates to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and
is not the negative.
David Makowsky
# In article <6...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> mako...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
# | This is not true. There are plenty of instances (many of which
# |are very well documented and well known) of religious Jews actually
# |returning to their land. You would have been correct if you used terms
# |like majority (or even vast majority). However, zionism in any form
# |except religious is relatively recent. Religious Zionism has some age
# |to it.
# That's exactly my point: The Zionist movement didn't really proliferate
# until it became secular. Religious pilgrimage had always existed,
# but it never achieved (nor tried to achieve) political goals.
I will agree that it was the mostly non religious zionism that
gave the final push towards the creation of the state of Israel.
However, I believe it to be obvious that without the centuries old
religious zionism, the non religious form would never have come about.
I also happen to believe (although I know you will disagree) that it is
the religious aspect that gives legitimacy to all forms of zionism.
In fact, I started to become religious after, and as a direct
result of, my being a zionist. There are many aspects (although
definitely not all) of zionism that I could not justify to myself
without the religious component.
By the way, I am in no way trying to criticize non religious
zionism. I fully admit that without it, we probably would not have a
State yet, and we would be subject to whatever pogroms the world would
throw on us. This is something I do not feel a lot of religious
zionists appreciate (and in fact some may not even be aware of).
I also happen to detest the behavior of the non (and even anti)
zionist religious Jews. In fact, I probably detest even more so the
behavior in Israel of bowing to their demands just for votes. This of
course does not mean that I do not favor the enactment of certain
religious legislation. It just means I abhor the reasons for why some
Knesset members vote for them. I also happen to believe that such
things as millitary exemptions for yeshiva study should be drastically
reduced (although not totally eliminated). I also happen to believe
that certain religious Jews who cause violence (i.e. those who were
burning bus stations some years ago) should be thrown in jail and / or
expelled from the country (along with those non religious Jews who
burned synagogues to retaliate).
# |# A state cannot be Jewish - it cannot wear a kippah or go to the mikveh.
# | If this is indeed the case (it is not. your analogy is
# |flawed), then why even have this discussion?
# Because of all the people who think it can, and try to force infeasible
# policies on the majority.
But if the State cannot be Jewish, then these people are
wasting their time. Actually, they are not wasting their time since a
State can be Jewish (your analogy is still flawed).
# |# A democratic state cannot be religious in any form, since religious
# |# laws cannot be changed by a majority vote. Therefore Israel didn't
# |# fail as a Jewish State - it wasn't meant to be one.
# | The problem was in that they tried to create a democratic
# |Jewish state. I agree that often these will be mutually exclusive.
# Again, let me remind you that Israel was established as a haven for all
# Jews, not only religious ones.
I agree 100 percent. And in the privacy of their own homes, I
belive that for the most part (I would exlude such things as
intermarriage) the State of Israel has no business dictating what
people do. Public areas, however, is another matter.
# Creating a non-democratic regime to
# achieve national, religious, or even economical goals, has caused the
# downfall and destruction of many countries; I don't wish to see Israel
# become yet another one.
I happen to believe (and I think history supports this) that
what happens to our people is different from what happens to all
others. In fact, just look at the rise in anti - semitism that has
followed the increase in democracy there.
Jonathan B. Horen -- (408) 954-7781
>Or your conscience is flawed. An interesting idea brought up at one of
>the Sedarim I was at: There's nothing special in obeying the Torah laws
>you agree with; the idea of Qabalat `ol malkhut shamayim (accepting the
>yoke of heaven) is obeying *especially* those laws you find hard to accep t.
True, how very true. But does the ox *really* learn to love the yoke,
the horse to love the bit? Or do they merely become resigned to it?
(metaphorically, of course). I know that we're different from animals,
but do you think we can *really* "eb'du et haShem b'simcha" in cases
where the laws "rub us the `wrong' way"?
(Bringing in another thread) I can see the man who refused to
grant his wife a Get and was beaten until he *wanted* to give her one:
he's not very sameach, but remembers Spike Lee and says to himself "F**k
it, do the right thing!" (*especially* when you find it hard to accept
another beating)
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| _^HJ_^Ho_^Hn_^Ha_^Ht_^Hh_^Ha_^Hn_^H _^HB_^H._^H _^HH_^Ho_^Hr_^He_^Hn_^H _^H _^H _^H _^H | | . | |
| _^HC_^Ha_^Hd_^He_^Hn_^Hc_^He_^H _^HD_^He_^Hs_^Hi_^Hg_^Hn_^H _^HS_^Hy_^H s_^Ht_^He_^Hm_^Hs | |__ (/\ \ / |__ Lilmod Al Manat Lelamed |
| | _/ / _\ _\/ _/ Lilmod Al Manat La'asot |
| _^Hh_^Ho_^Hr_^He_^Hn_^H@_^Hc_^Ha_^Hd_^He_^Hn_^Hc_^He_^H._^Hc_^Ho_^Hm | -: - |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Bruce Krulwich
>By the way whats wrong with maintaining kosher and non-kosher
>kitchens in the Israeli army? The Soviet Jews are used to eating
>pork, youre going to see some push and shove there. Going to
>a kosher resort, one goes specifically because of the comfort
>in food, etc. Going to the army is not voluntary, and the army
>should be catering to the soldiers, not the other way around.
What???????????????? "The army should be catering to the soldiers, not the
other way around" !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The army is supposed to cater to the defence needs and budget constraints of
the country. The purpose of an army kitchen is to make food that is
sufficient for the maximum number of soldiers and is the least expensive.
You really think that the army would benefit from having two kitchens on every
base? Do you think it would matter to the soldiers? What do you think, it
would enable them to get a good cream sauce with their roast duck, and a nice
non-Kosher Zinfendel to accompany it?
>Well lets see, reportedly Likud has promised $3 million to the religious
>parties in government money to establish more schools as part
>of a deal to form a new coalition (I call this bribery).
Oh, of course. How could a political party possible have a platform that
includes wanting better educational facilities? How could two political
parties reach an argeement that involved merging their political platforms?
They'd better not get away with this one.
In case the sarcasm is two subtle, this is politics, not bribery. Just like
Labor demanding peace talks from their coalition with Likud. Merging
political agendas is what politics is all about, and improved education is
certainly a valid part of a political agenda.
Bruce
david.fischer
> In article <17...@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> da...@guille.ECE.ORST.EDU.ECE.ORST.EDU (Dave Rabinowitz) writes:
>
> >Remember, Hillel said "do not do to others what you would find hateful"
The hebrew "veahavta leraacha kamocha" - love thy friend as yourself,
is from a bit earlier than Hillel, I think it's from the torah.
Isn't Hillel's quote the aramaic, something like
"ma d'tani lach l'chavrech lo ta'avid" - loosely - what you don't
like, don't do to others, which is, I believe what dave had in
mind.
Happy charoset.
--
Dave Fischer att!hou2h!davef or da...@hou2h.ATT.COM
or various combinations of the above
seth.r.rosenthal
I'm getting a bit tired of this, and probably shouldn't even answer this,
but what the hay, one last time...
...
I've deleted the first two rounds, this one stands on its own.
>
> I would certainly not advocate Israel passing laws to enforce all
> religious observances on all Jews. On the other hand, if Israeli
> law is to be based on _some_ other system (as it necessarily is),
> I would prefer to see it based on Torah law than on the British or
> Ottoman model -- or even than on the US model.
track record in the last two hundred years for running a modern
state (which indeed Israel is, more than most of the rest of the world).
>
> I am not at all sure that the goals of the early Reformers was to
> fight assimilation, and I am almost certain that this was not a
> goal of the early Conservative movement. And I certainly do not
America was about. It was mainly addressed to those Jews who had
moved from Germany to obscure towns and cities across the country
(they don't sound obscure today but in 1840-1870 they were)
like Cincinatti, Memphis, San Francisco etc... Indeed they were
cut off from the larger communities in N.Y., Philadelphia, Charleston
(I bet that one surprises a few of you out there). It was also
meant to let people worship Judaism in English (to help get the language
needed for success) and deal with the problems of too few Jews
for a minyan, temples too far away, etc. This is not a small
country, distances do have a telescopic effect.
> advocate letting non-observant Israelis fall through the cracks.
> My main objection to "religious coercion" in Israel is that it
> has been done so ineffectively; I feel that a softer and gentler
> form of influence might be more effective. But I do not believe
> that Christian missionaries are a serious threat in Israel --
> irreligious Israelis remain Jewish -- just irreligious. (In
> fact, even in the US, the biggest threat to Judaism is not
> Christianity; it is secularism. Christianity is often just the
>
(as you point out that Christian missionaries and I might add
all cults do) you need to gently or forcefully show someone what
is wrong with them. How would you like us to have the atheists
of the world do some of that to you. If your view of life and
the world is right, people will gravitate to it naturally,
otherwise it too will become a footnote in the graveyards of history.
> Seth wrote:
> > No other government (except maybe that of Vatican
> >City) legislates biblically, why should Israel.
>
> All those countries that have official state religions -- big
> chunks of Europe, all (?) of the Middle East, all (?) of
> South America -- incoporate religious law into civil codes.
> Why _shouldn't_ Israel?
>
finally unyoked themselves from the Vatican and convinced the
pope to concentrate on souls, not running Europe. Please point
out a country with an official state religion in Europe?
(No fair using Vatican CIty remember) They may all be populated
by Christians predominantly, but the only evidence of state
religion is that certain moral teachings common to the Judaio-
Christian culture have made it into the law, like thou shalt
not kill (unless its capital punishment -:)).
There are very few middle eastern countries that have made
it succesfully into the 20th century. Maybe because of
overly religious governments? (or more likely governments
overly anxious to exploit the religious beliefs of many of
their people)
> Seth writes:
> > Why should
> >Israeli law leave the issue on who is a Rabbi to those who
> >economically and politically stand to gain the most (or lose
> >the most) from those decisions?
>
> Because that is the nature of democratic politics. We may not
> like the system, but that is what Israel has developed. It is,
> when all is said and done, a form of democracy. It's awfully
> easy to blame aging rabbis for all the country's problems, but
> remember -- the voters elect the knesset members. I don't
> have the numbers in front of me, but I'm sure someone can help.
> Assuming that those who truly object vehemently to religious
> coercion vote for Shulamit Aloni and CRM, and those that support
> religious coercion vote for religious parties, and those that vote
> for Labor or Likud consider the problem of secondary interest,
> might one conclude that the majority of Israelis who care at all
> about religion would rather have it than eliminate it?
>
political process by 5 members of the Knesset is majority rules?
Calling to Brooklyn for spiritually motivated political guidance
is democracy? Maybe if like Stalin you claim "the Rebbe is the
people" (a paraphrase of Stalins' "I am the people").
By the way nobody says eliminate religion from the
cultural fabric of Israel, this would be foolish. It is an
important part of the fabric of all branches of Judaism
(who are all observant in their own ways). Your last sentence
is quite a leap beyond my argument. Just get it out of politics.
Stop using political blackmail to get more money for yeshivas.
Let the political process determine what is best for the Israeli
public. Let the Orthodox Rabbinate spend its time figuring
out how they can re-package Judaism to attract back the non-
observant majority. If anything, the Lubavich have done a
pretty good job in this. But luring back the 85% will be tough.
> >
> >And of course Conservative/Reform are not within the family. Care
> >to put that to a vote of the family? Last I heard, 15% worldwide
> >orthodoxy is generous. Without fractured Israeli bloc politics
> >this argument would be relegated to a historical footnote anyway
> >since the actual constituency is so small.
>
> I disagree about the 15% -- it is certainly not 15% of Israelis --
> and probably not even 15% of world Jewry. If one takes the
> base population of those who are actively interested in Judaism,
> the number is FAR FAR higher. Remember, most American Jews
> who identify themselves as Conservative or Reform are more
> accurately characterized as non-practicing or uninvolved. I know
> that there are lots of exceptions. But most Conservative and
> Reform Jews limit their Jewish activity to a few times a year.
> For example, on a typical Shabbat morning, what percent of the
> synagogue attendees are Orthodox? Betcha it's more than 15%!
> How many person-hours are devoted to Jewish observance by
> Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews? Betcha it's more than
> 15% Orthodox.
>
that is not far off. Of course if you want to say that anyone who
is not bar mitzvah, or brit milah or married to a non-Jew doesn't
count in our tally, then maybe 15% is too low. Maybe 25% is better.
But I vehemently disagree with the assumption that these others
don't count. They are all Jews. Even the Afro-American converts
in Harlem are Jews (although not of Israelite blood, or are they?
fallashas are black after all and so are Indian Jews).
So your final answer is that lets not count people lets count hours
in shul? Come on now, aren't you a little embarassed to even
say that? Reform and Conservative Jews are very interested in
Judaism by the way, their priorities include other things and
don't allow the devotion of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. This is
not atypical of Jewish communities throughout history. Although
we don't have hard numbers, there are loads of stories throughout
the Jewish literature of contact between unobservant Jews and
every great Rabbi. While we're talking history, did you know
that in pre-Inquisition France, the civil authorities gave the
rabbinate the right to regulate their own people (except for
taxation) and guess what? The penalty for breaking Shabbas was
death. Now theres a law for Israel!
I digressed, outside of Israel 15% is sometimes generous. The
biggest communities are USA (15% is maybe even high), the USSR
(definitely 15% is high), France (not sure), England (more
like USA). In Poland they are still Orthodox, but only 12,000
left. In Hungary maybe there are more than 15%, maybe as high
as 50%. In Czechoslovakia, I'm not sure that there are any.
We could go on forever, but 15% is a good estimate.
> >> The status of Reform and Conservative Judaism in Israel goes beyond
> >> halakhic interpretation, and that's what creates the problem. The
> >> issue is most serious with respect to the Reform movement, and most notably
> >> with the definition of Who Is A Jew. Patrilineal descent means that the
> >> Reform community will recognize as Jewish some individuals who are viewed
> >> as non-Jewish by the Orthodox community; this has the makings of a serious
> >> schism. In terms of halakha, the Conservative position often (but not
> >> always) may be characterized as a _very_ liberal Orthodox position;
> >> RA halakhic decisions generally (perhaps always) start with citations
> >> to classic halakhic sources. My guess would be that the problem with
> >> the Conservative movement is not so much its halakhic stance as its
> >> doctrinal differences, specifically, the Orthodox belief in Torah
> >> m'Shamayim: Torah as Divine, not simply Divinely-inspired.
>
On this one I have deleted my reply because I missed the obvious point.
You are arguing "Who is a Jew", who maintains Halacha, these
aren't political issues, they are religious ones. The ones
that regularly start flame wars, the ones that the Orthodox
Rabbinate is willing to wield its disproportionate power on
behalf of. Problem is, it has major consequences to non-Orthodox
Jews. And as the vast majority of Jews (I don't buy any of your
attempted refutations on this one) have shown, even the Lubavicher
Rebbe will back down when his pocket book is threatened.
> My own guess is that Conservative and Reform Judaism will never
> do very well in Israel, because thair primary appeal is to those
> who seek an "American" form of religious expression. I think it
> was Golda Meir who used to say that if the Reform and Conservative
> movements wanted a say in Israeli politics, all they had to do was
> to make aliyah, and vote. As far as the prospect of 8.5 million
> Jews making aliyah -- I would welcome that as yet another step
> in the "at'chalta d'geulta" -- the Messianic era. I had a friend
> who absolutely refused to accept the possibility of an afterlife.
> As he always said: "When we die, one of us is in for a big surprise."
>
(Leaving the realm of politics - entering Religion)
Nonsense, both are compromises between Judaism and the 20th century.
They have proven flexible enough to modify what they find works,
and abandon what they find doesn't work. They don't blame
people for the failure of the laws. It sounds to me much
more like the Israeli non-practicing (call them secular too)
Jews than Orthodoxy. The beaches are full of sun-tanned
young people on Saturday, and until the fanatics interfered
the movie houses were full of paying customers as well.
Reform was invented
in Germany, practiced in variations all over central and some
of Eastern Europe. Conservative was an attempt to move back
towards Orthodox Judaism, feeling that Reform had gone too
far. Nothing whatsoever to do with American forms of religious
expression. American religious expression (in case you haven't
noticed) is a mixture of everything. It is noteworthy for
the strength of liberal Judaism, Unitarianism, the mainstreaming
of small protestant sects and non-involved people of all
ethnic backgrounds. Otherwise it looks lots like Europe. Substantial
Catholic, English protestant (Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian ..)etc..
(Back to politics)
American Jews do have a say in Israeli politics since we fund
Israel, and no government has been willing to threaten its direct
funds (contributions) or indirect funds (political pressure to keep
American foreign aid to Israel intact). Any other course would be
suicide.
If you want American Jews to make aliyah do two things:
1) Settle the Arab dispute for good. The vast majority of
American Jews won't consider moving to Israel due to the
constant threat of war and ultimate genocide.
2) Make it a great place to live. This place isn't perfect
but its the best one in the world today. I'm afraid in a country
of 15% (generously) Orthodox and 85% either Liberal or non-
observant, a great place to live means keep religion out of
politics. Solve the problem now or later.
> I said:
> >> The point of all of this is to underscore the idea that the Israeli
> >> rabbinic rejection of Reform and Conservative Judaism is not simply
> >> based on interpretation, but on fundamental differences. This is not
> >> the first time that Judaism has faced such conflicts. There was the
> >> development of Christianity, for example. (Please, no flames. I'm not
> >> suggesting the equivalence of Christianity and non-Orthodox Judaism.)
> >> And there was the bitter dispute between Hassidut and the Mitnagdim.
> >> (Again, no flames -- I'm not suggesting the equivalence of Hassidut and
> >> non-Orthodox Judaism.)
>
So we have left politics for religion again.
>
> I had written
> >> Are the differences irreconcilable? And the more immediate question --
> >> will this thread remain discussion or degererate into flames?
>
> Seth replied:
> >Nah, unless you continue to shift the topic back to which religious
> >view is more correct/holy/better/ (whatever adjective you decide you
> >like best).
>
> Good grief! I haven't interjected any theology yet, have I? So far,
^^^^ ^^^^^^ -:)
^
|_______________________________________________________________
> it's all politics. No need to get upset. |
> |
I'm not upset. I bet you are a great guy. |
Even behave like a mensch. |
But when you pit observant vs. |
non-observant and liberally observant Jews, you do so |
on religious grounds. Then you belittle the relevance of liberal |
Jews (I don't like the term but until someone can suggest a better |
name for Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist Jews I'm stuck) |
and said essentially that the Orthodox rabbis know whats best for |
the people on the beach and should act for their protection. Doesn't |
sound political to me. But I'll play Lucy to your Charlie Brown <-------
another day... another topic... -:)
> Eliot
>
Bye Bye,
Seth
Lorraine Meyer
>You know Eliot, we all hope it won't come to pass, but some
>day all 8.5 million (or whats left of us) may wind up in Israel.
>
Now, that depends on how it comes to pass. If you consider the
possibility of all of us winding up in Israel because moshiach
has come, then there are many who _do_ hope it comes to pass!
(Do I need this, '(-:' or something to indicate that I was simply
amused with the statement, when taken out of context? I am not
trying to take the rest of the original article lightly, nor am I
implying that this is what Seth was talking about. What I believe
this really meant is actually quite serious.)
--Basya
Amos Shapir
>
> I agree 100 percent. And in the privacy of their own homes, I
>belive that for the most part (I would exlude such things as
>intermarriage) the State of Israel has no business dictating what
>people do. Public areas, however, is another matter.
Public places should be managed by the wishes of the majority of the public,
or at least the people who live near enough to notice. And why would you
exclude marriage? Isn't it the most private of all rights?
>
># Creating a non-democratic regime to
># achieve national, religious, or even economical goals, has caused the
># downfall and destruction of many countries; I don't wish to see Israel
># become yet another one.
>
> I happen to believe (and I think history supports this) that
>what happens to our people is different from what happens to all
>others.
Let's not push our luck; we're not *that* better than anybody else.
>In fact, just look at the rise in anti - semitism that has
>followed the increase in democracy there.
If by "there" you mean Russia, then it's not democratic yet, and most
rise in anti-semitism may be attributed to increase of free speech
when there are no channels to put speech into action. If "there"
means western Europe, exactly the opposite conclusion may be reached.
Besides, that still doesn't mean that democracy is in any way bad
for Israel, or that any regime which may replace it will be better.
I still maintain that receding from democracy has brought nothing
but disaster on any nation that tried such a move.
David Makowsky
# In article <6...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> mako...@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
# > I agree 100 percent. And in the privacy of their own homes, I
# >belive that for the most part (I would exlude such things as
# >intermarriage) the State of Israel has no business dictating what
# >people do. Public areas, however, is another matter.
# Public places should be managed by the wishes of the majority of the public,
# or at least the people who live near enough to notice.
So you should not complain when the people chosen by a majority
of the people decide on those regulations.
# And why would you
# exclude marriage? Isn't it the most private of all rights?
No Jew has a right to intermarry.
# ># Creating a non-democratic regime to
# ># achieve national, religious, or even economical goals, has caused the
# ># downfall and destruction of many countries; I don't wish to see Israel
# ># become yet another one.
# > I happen to believe (and I think history supports this) that
# >what happens to our people is different from what happens to all
# >others.
# Let's not push our luck; we're not *that* better than anybody else.
I did not say better, just different. Although, we have shown
ourselves to be better at times then others, and worse at times then
others.
# >In fact, just look at the rise in anti - semitism that has
# >followed the increase in democracy there.
# If by "there" you mean Russia,
Yes, I left out the word "Russia".
# then it's not democratic yet,
But it is moving that way, and there is a definite correlation
between the rise in anti - semotosm and the increased levels of
Democracy.
# and most
# rise in anti-semitism may be attributed to increase of free speech
# when there are no channels to put speech into action.
This is absurd. Did this happen in our country? As to no
channels, so what? With all the changes going on in the world, the
could create channels.
# If "there"
# means western Europe, exactly the opposite conclusion may be reached.
I do not want to reach a conclusion, I just wanted to show that
your point (about democracy always being better), is wrong.
# Besides, that still doesn't mean that democracy is in any way bad
# for Israel, or that any regime which may replace it will be better.
It also does not mean that democracy in any way is good for
Israel, or that any regime which may replace it will be worse.
# I still maintain that receding from democracy has brought nothing
# but disaster on any nation that tried such a move.
This is a different time, and we are different people.
Ran Ever-Hadani
>However, while Bible Belt fundamentalists believe that all people are subject
>to their interpretation of religious law, Judaism teaches that only Jews are
>required to follow the Torah commandments. Non-Jews are only required to ...
The fact that Jewish religious coersion is only applied to us Jews
and not to non Jews is little consolation. The state should not
meddle with religion at all - Jewish or otherwise.
John Kasdan
> ...
> Please point
>out a country with an official state religion in Europe?
How about the Church of England?
>Bye Bye,
> Seth
_________________
/KAS
John Kasdan,
+----------+ Columbia University, School of Law
| MY PART | 435 West 116th St., New York, NY 10027
| WORQS |
+----------+ internet: kas...@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu
\___||___/ bitnet: kas...@cunixC.cc.columbia.edu
/oooooooo\ uucp:
/ooooooooo \ {rutgers,seismo,topaz}!columbia!cunixd!kasdan
/ oooooooooo \
--------------
seth.r.rosenthal
that the Yeshivas are there to serve the needs of a small part of
the Israeli public, I might suggest that not even all of the
Orthodoxy are represented by these political parties, so
the issue is not MONEY FOR EDUCATION. Now if they would ask
for 3 million for Israeli schools, I could buy that
"improved education" has a rats hair to do with the deal.
This is pure pork-barrel politics (bribery even here) in
its rawest form. The interest of the nation is being held
captive for the narrow interests of a small minority. Here
they don't pass the bill unless a rider is attached that
mandates the building of a dam, that only benefits a small
group of farmers (or other such pork-barrel exercises).
They are the rotten under-pinning of our political system
as well. Believe me the individuals soliciting the bribes
ultimately profit commercially from the "grant".
Seth
seth.r.rosenthal
> >
> >In fact, just look at the rise in anti - semitism that has
> >followed the increase in democracy there.
>
> If by "there" you mean Russia, then it's not democratic yet, and most
> rise in anti-semitism may be attributed to increase of free speech
> when there are no channels to put speech into action. If "there"
> means western Europe, exactly the opposite conclusion may be reached.
>
anti-semitic under two different types of dictatorship too.
There are lots of intolerant Jews in Israel and the rest of the
world. I would hope that Israeli society can be trusted with
democracy and the rule of law in spite of these few people.
I doubt Pamyat is a majority anyway, just a potentially
dangerous minority. Whats missing in Russia (and has been
for quite a while) is the rule of law and equality under
the law. If a few rioters were executed for killing Jews
in pogroms, they would have stopped real fast.
> Besides, that still doesn't mean that democracy is in any way bad
> for Israel, or that any regime which may replace it will be better.
> I still maintain that receding from democracy has brought nothing
> but disaster on any nation that tried such a move.
>
Amen. (look at what happened to Germany when Hitler
swept democracy away)
Seth
seth.r.rosenthal
> In article <51...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> se...@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (seth.r.rosenthal) writes:
> > ...
> > Please point
> >out a country with an official state religion in Europe?
> > ...
>
> How about the Church of England?
England makes it seem more national. England of course is not
a nation, and although the English part of the United Kingdom
is primarily Anglican (still? I'm not sure), Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland are not. The Anglican Church as best I can
tell has only one national role, the ceremonies surrounding
the royal family. It hasn't dictated morality to government
in nearly 200 years. The nobility, other than the royal family
(hardly the center of power anymore) can be of any faith as can
Parliament (there are quite a few Jews in Commons and one or two
in Lords I think). The Holy Roman Empire had a definitive
state religion. But thats been gone for centuries.
Seth
P.S. Spain once had a national religion. Remember what happened?
Amos Shapir
|In article <13...@nsc.nsc.com> am...@nsc.nsc.com (Amos Shapir) writes:
|
|# Public places should be managed by the wishes of the majority of the public,
|# or at least the people who live near enough to notice.
|
| So you should not complain when the people chosen by a majority
|of the people decide on those regulations.
I do complain against the system that enables them to make decision which
are against the interests of the people who have voted for them.
|
|# And why would you
|# exclude marriage? Isn't it the most private of all rights?
|
| No Jew has a right to intermarry.
In a free society, it's none of the government's #@^$%^%^$! business
to set religious limits to marriage.
|# ># Creating a non-democratic regime to
|# ># achieve national, religious, or even economical goals, has caused the
|# ># downfall and destruction of many countries; I don't wish to see Israel
|# ># become yet another one.
|
|# > I happen to believe (and I think history supports this) that
|# >what happens to our people is different from what happens to all
|# >others.
|
|# Let's not push our luck; we're not *that* better than anybody else.
|
| I did not say better, just different. Although, we have shown
|ourselves to be better at times then others, and worse at times then
|others.
It's the "worse" part that worries me.
Ran Ever-Hadani
>What Yigal says si true to a certain extent. Israel does not permit
>its citizens the option of being associated with *no* religion but
>only as far as marriage and divorce is concerned. To those of you who
>are religious I think that the reason is obvious. For those of you
>who are not it is pretty simple. Marriage and divorce if not under
>rabbinate supervision would cause a rift among the jewish people that
>would make the differences between reform/conservative/orthodox look
>like minor details.
Only on very rare cases do civil mariages cause a problem.
I believe that the law should enable people to choose
whether they want a civil or a religious marriage; but
you sould only be able to get a divorce
by the same authority that got you married (i.e. if you were
married by a Rabbi you will need a Halachic Beit-Din to
get a divorce); As far as I know this will solve most of the
Halachic rift causing problems.
Chris Redmond
[He's talking about a "national church", as alleged to exist in some
European countries -- this discussion started with words about the role
of Judaism in Israel, vis-a-vis the role of Christianity in traditionally
Christian nations. Some discussion arose about the Church of England,
and somebody else offered the phrase "Anglican Church".]
>There is no such thing as
>the "Anglican Church". What there is, is the Anglican Communion,
>described by the Encyclopedia Brittanica as a loose conglomeration
>of churches distinguished by an adherence to the archbishop of
>Canterbury. Examples given include the C. of E., the Church of Canada
>and a type of high church Episcopaleanism in the US.
To be more accurate, in case anybody cares: that's "the Anglican
Church of Canada" -- not to be confused with "the United Church of
Canada". And in the United States, all Episcopalians, apart from
a couple of tiny splinters, are part of the Episcopal Church, which
is definitely Anglican.
>
> By the way, there exists a Church of Scotland which is a member
>of the Anglican Communion.
Well, no. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, not Anglican.
Brief chart follows, in case anybody is interested:
CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
Catholic
Roman (the biggest in the world, by far)
Ukrainian
etc.
Orthodox
Russian
Greek
etc.
Protestant
Anglican (although some experts class it as a Catholic church)
Church of England
Episcopalian in the U.S.
etc.
Presbyterian
Church of Scotland
Presbyterian Church in the USA
etc.
Methodist
United Methodist Church
etc.
Lutheran
Baptist
Pentecostal
etc.
As for national roles, here in Canada we have an interesting case.
There is no "established" (official) church, and the largest Christian
group in the country, by far, is Roman Catholics. However, in
English-speaking Canada, and most of all in the small towns, the
United Church of Canada virtually performs the role of an established
church, with a visible presence in community affairs and on special
occasions. When it was organized in 1925 (as a merger of several
groups, including Presbyterians and Methodists) one of its leaders
spoke of his vision: "a church which may fittingly be described as
national". Above all, that has traditionally meant that when religious
services (whether worship or pastoral care) are needed anywhere in
Canada, and no one else is providing them, the United Church has felt
an obligation to provide them.
Perhaps that is not so different from the role some participants in
this debate are visualizing for Judaism in a future Israel.
>Church of England provides an example of a state religion which
>provides some symbolic affirmation of a faith which is important to
>its nation, while not attempting to inflict its dogma on all citizens
>of the state. Would that Judaism played a similar restricted role in
>Israel.
CAR
credmond@watmath
Dr. Eliot Shimoff
>I'm getting a bit tired of this, and probably shouldn't even answer this,
>but what the hay, one last time...
Fair enough -- I'll try not to introduce any new issues.
I had written:
I would certainly not advocate Israel passing laws to enforce all
religious observances on all Jews. On the other hand, if Israeli
law is to be based on _some_ other system (as it necessarily is),
I would prefer to see it based on Torah law than on the British or
Ottoman model -- or even than on the US model.
Seth replied:
>How about basing it on a political system. Hopefully one with a decent
>track record in the last two hundred years for running a modern
>state (which indeed Israel is, more than most of the rest of the world).
Other than wondering about the success of any modern political system
(and the question of how one judges success) -- I remain unconvinced.
I wrote:
I am not at all sure that the goals of the early Reformers was to
fight assimilation, and I am almost certain that this was not a
goal of the early Conservative movement. And I certainly do not
Seth replied:
>I think you had better read what the original Reform movement in
>America was about. It was mainly addressed to those Jews who had
>moved from Germany to obscure towns and cities across the country
>(they don't sound obscure today but in 1840-1870 they were)
>like Cincinatti, Memphis, San Francisco etc... Indeed they were
>cut off from the larger communities in N.Y., Philadelphia, Charleston
>(I bet that one surprises a few of you out there). It was also
>meant to let people worship Judaism in English (to help get the language
>needed for success) and deal with the problems of too few Jews
>for a minyan, temples too far away, etc. This is not a small
>country, distances do have a telescopic effect.
Just to unbesmirch my (well-sullied) reputation -- I wan not
referring to early _American_ reformers, but to the original
German reformers. In any event, we might end up arguing about
intent, both explicit and implicit, and hidden agendas, etc.
I wrote:
My main objection to "religious coercion" in Israel is that it
has been done so ineffectively; I feel that a softer and gentler
form of influence might be more effective. But I do not believe
that Christian missionaries are a serious threat in Israel --
irreligious Israelis remain Jewish -- just irreligious. (In
fact, even in the US, the biggest threat to Judaism is not
Christianity; it is secularism. Christianity is often just the
Seth replied:
>You still argue from the point that Yigal brought up, that somehow
>(as you point out that Christian missionaries and I might add
>all cults do) you need to gently or forcefully show someone what
>is wrong with them. How would you like us to have the atheists
>of the world do some of that to you. If your view of life and
>the world is right, people will gravitate to it naturally,
>otherwise it too will become a footnote in the graveyards of history.
Groups that feel their view is correct but do nothing to propogate their
views are the ones that enter the graveyards of history. The best
examples are probably the gnostic sects of the Second Temple period.
Talking about Israeli politics, Seth wrote:
>Democracy is majority rules, allowing such blatant blackmail of the
>political process by 5 members of the Knesset is majority rules?
Again, you may not like it, but that's what happens with
swing votes in any political system, including the US.
>Calling to Brooklyn for spiritually motivated political guidance
>is democracy? Maybe if like Stalin you claim "the Rebbe is the
>people" (a paraphrase of Stalins' "I am the people").
Well, if the people vote for representatives who look to the
Rebbe for guidance, yup -- that's democracy. (I know you didn't
mean it, but the analogy between the Lubavitcher Rebbe and Stalin
is really offensive -- and I'm NOT a Lubavitcher.)
>By the way nobody says eliminate religion from the
>cultural fabric of Israel, this would be foolish. It is an
>important part of the fabric of all branches of Judaism
>(who are all observant in their own ways).
Well, there's Yossi Sarid and Shulamit Aloni, and the rest of
CRM, but ...
>Stop using political blackmail to get more money for yeshivas.
>Let the political process determine what is best for the Israeli
>public. Let the Orthodox Rabbinate spend its time figuring
>out how they can re-package Judaism to attract back the non-
>observant majority. If anything, the Lubavich have done a
>pretty good job in this. But luring back the 85% will be tough.
I agree.
Concerning the 15$% Orthodox, Setho wrote:
>I will leave the 15% of Israel to the Israelis, I have e-mail confirmation
>that is not far off.
Depends on how you define "Orthodox" or observant. Daily prayer?
Kashrut? Religious schools? Lighting candles Friday night? Wearing
a black hat?
>But I vehemently disagree with the assumption that these others
>don't count. They are all Jews. Even the Afro-American converts
>in Harlem are Jews (although not of Israelite blood, or are they?
>fallashas are black after all and so are Indian Jews).
I certainly never meant to imply that the didn't count, or that
they were not Jews. If anything, the Orthodox position would
most assiduously assert and re-assert their Jewishness.
>So your final answer is that lets not count people lets count hours
>in shul? Come on now, aren't you a little embarassed to even
>say that? Reform and Conservative Jews are very interested in
>Judaism by the way, their priorities include other things and
>don't allow the devotion of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
Come on -- I never suggested counting shul-hours. Let me re-iterate --
most nominally Reform and Conservative (and perhaps even Orthodox)
Jews are just non-observant. There is very little in their lives
that is uniquely identifiable as Jewish. Ther Conservative Jew who
attends synagogue three times a years, does not observe kashrut, etc.,
is best defined as non-observant. (Incidentally, I would not put you
or Andrea in that category -- clearly, much of your lives are molded
by your Jewishness.) What counts is not shul-hours, but Jew-hours -- hours
spend acting in a uniquely Jewish manner. I would include writing to
scj, working for local Jewish causes, etc.
As far as the rest of the stuff we wrote is concerned, well, we'll
just have to disagree. The Israelis will eventually work out their
own solutions, and neither of us will be satisfied. Given two
Jews, you get three opinions.
Eliot
Yitzy Fischer
>Only on very rare cases do civil mariages cause a problem.
True today because there are hardly any civil marriages.
>
>I believe that the law should enable people to choose
>whether they want a civil or a religious marriage; but
>you sould only be able to get a divorce
>by the same authority that got you married (i.e. if you were
>married by a Rabbi you will need a Halachic Beit-Din to
>get a divorce); As far as I know this will solve most of the
>Halachic rift causing problems.
Ran, this would not solve the problem at all. The problem becomes one
of who is a jew, who is a momzer etc. For according to halacha even
those "married" at a civil ceremony would need a halachik divorce
before remarrying.
Yitzy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| ^ |
| Internet: fis...@bimacs.biu.ac.il __/_\__ |
| Bitnet: fischer@bimacs (also s68606@barilvm) \/ \/ |
| Arpa: fischer%bimacs...@wiscvm.wisc.edu /\ /\ |
| Csnet: fischer%bimacs.bitnet%wiscvm.wisc.edu@csnet-relay --\-/-- |
| Uucp: {mcvax,seismo}!humus!bimacs!fischer V |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Micha Berger
In article <47...@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> a...@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (arnold.i.samet) writes:
>Yonatan, tell him about the "happiness game" exercise you learned
>in Aish Hatora and the central premise of "Gateway to Happiness" - that
>one can (and is required to) achieve simcha in the midst of, and despite, the
>greatest of hardships. Things which rub us the wrong way? Child's play
>for one who has mastered the art of simcha.
Dear Yitzchok,
I think you're victim of a VERY common misconseption. Simcha does not
translate to a happyness, at least it didn't pre-ben Yehudah.
The mishna in Avos tells us "Who is rich? One who is samei'ach in his
lot." Simchah is used here to mean content, satisfied. Also, while a navi
(prophet) cannot prophesy (verb?) unless samei'ach, it is hard to believe that
all those prophets were happy to relay news of the impending exile.
In fact we say (David's words) in our prayers, "The heavens shall be
samei'ach, and the earth shall gilah." Saei'ach is the term used for the
everlasting heavens. It is the constant happiness, the contentment, of doing
something worthwhile. The earth has gilah, joy, the temporary excitement
caused by a happy event.
R. Nachman of Breslev told his followers "It is a great mitzvah
to be constantly in simchah." He couldn't have meant that one should be joyous
all the time. He too observed the 9th of Av, the 9 days, the 3 weeks, shivah
for his relatives. There are times one is not supposed to feel joy. It
makes far more sense that he instructed his followers to constantly be
satisfied and content.
Maimonides says that one should NOT adopt the additude that "I don't
want to do xyz." But, you should say, "I want to do xyz, but the Torah
prohibits it." There is a yoke that cannot be ignored. The idea is to be
content with one's lot in life, and realize that, like my 2 year old who is
dying to cross streets on his own, the laws are there "for our own good." I
don't expect my kids to enjoy the laws I lay down - it's unrealistic. I do,
however, expect them, even while frustrated, to be content (happy in that
long term sense) with the solid family structure.
mi
--
Micha Berger
mberger1%ta...@graf.poly.edu
Imitatio Dei means never having to say "I'm sorry."
Ran Ever-Hadani
>In article <36...@taux01.UUCP> cre...@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) writes:
>>you sould only be able to get a divorce
>>by the same authority that got you married (i.e. if you were
>>married by a Rabbi you will need a Halachic Beit-Din to
>>get a divorce); As far as I know this will solve most of the
>>Halachic rift causing problems.
>Ran, this would not solve the problem at all. The problem becomes one
>of who is a jew, who is a momzer etc. For according to halacha even
>those "married" at a civil ceremony would need a halachik divorce
>before remarrying.
I also recieved e-mail saying this, claiming that a man and a woman who
have lived together "as husband and wife" require a devorce to
remarry. I find this hard to believe for a reason which has little to
do with Halacha.
Few secular couples (at least in my social circle) will get married
before they live together for a at least a few months. It is also
pretty common that a woman does not marry the first boyfriend she lived
with.
So the implication of what you are saying is that, to take a *very
very* rough assumption, one out every 5 children born to secular
families in the Tel Aviv area is a mamzer. And if this status holds
for ten generations, it shouldn't take long before practically every
Israeli Jew is a mamzer.
Either your claim is Halachically wrong, or you are already in such
deep trouble that civil matrimony is not going to make much of a
difference.
Avi Schwartz
>In article <16...@bimacs.BITNET> fis...@bimacs.biu.ac.il.UUCP (Yitzy Fischer) writes:
>
>>In article <36...@taux01.UUCP> cre...@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) writes:
>
>>Ran, this would not solve the problem at all. The problem becomes one
>>of who is a jew, who is a momzer etc. For according to halacha even
>>those "married" at a civil ceremony would need a halachik divorce
>>before remarrying.
>
>I also recieved e-mail saying this, claiming that a man and a woman who
>have lived together "as husband and wife" require a devorce to
>remarry. I find this hard to believe for a reason which has little to
>do with Halacha.
>
>Few secular couples (at least in my social circle) will get married
>before they live together for a at least a few months. It is also
>pretty common that a woman does not marry the first boyfriend she lived
>with.
>
>So the implication of what you are saying is that, to take a *very
>very* rough assumption, one out every 5 children born to secular
>families in the Tel Aviv area is a mamzer. And if this status holds
>for ten generations, it shouldn't take long before practically every
>Israeli Jew is a mamzer.
>
>Either your claim is Halachically wrong, or you are already in such
>deep trouble that civil matrimony is not going to make much of a
>difference.
>
From my understanding a mamzer is someone born to a couple which one or both
of them is/are married but not to each other. In all other cases the kid is
not a mamzer.
-- Avi a...@chinet.chi.il.us
Herman Rubin
< In article <16...@bimacs.BITNET> fis...@bimacs.biu.ac.il.UUCP (Yitzy Fischer) writes:
< >In article <36...@taux01.UUCP> cre...@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) writes:
...........................
> So the implication of what you are saying is that, to take a *very
> very* rough assumption, one out every 5 children born to secular
> families in the Tel Aviv area is a mamzer. And if this status holds
> for ten generations, it shouldn't take long before practically every
> Israeli Jew is a mamzer.
Mamzer does not mean born out of wedlock, but rather born of a union which
could not be a marriage because it would violate the laws of prohibited
marriage, essentially the laws against incest.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!cik(UUCP)
Ran Ever-Hadani
I suggest you read an article carefully before you reply to it.
The scenario I was describing is this: An unmarried couple live
together "as husband and wife". Then they seperate, and after a while
the woman marries another man and has children. If the claim
that "living together as husband and wife" requires divorce
is true Halachically, then the children are Mamzerim.
As it happens, the scenario I described is common; so if Yitzy is
correct, an enormous proportion of the Israeli children born to
secular families in this generation are mamzerim.
nac...@m.cs.uiuc.edu
"Living together" does NOT constitute marriage vis-a-vis questions
of mamzerut, according to prevalent halachic rulings.
Ran Ever-Hadani
>
>"Living together" does NOT constitute marriage vis-a-vis questions
>of mamzerut, according to prevalent halachic rulings.
If this is the case, what is the sort of the claim that civil
marriage in Israel will cause a rift in the nation? Wouldn't
the couples who were married in civil marriage be considered
unmarried according to Halacha, hence no Mamzerut problems?
Ari Gross
"Living together" does not necessarily constitute marriage from a halachic
perspective. "Living together" lshaim eeshout , i.e., common law marriage
does (in most opinions). To relate this to the original scenario mentioned,
namely, that a lot of secular Israeli couples try living together
before marriage. The concern was "does this not result in a multitude of
Israeli mamzerim?", to which one could answer "not really".
Since most of these couples are 'trying things out' it implies a lack
of "living together" lshaim ishut (for the purpose of marriage), thus,
halachically speaking, they are not considered married. Once they commit
themselves to a civil marriage they would then be living together
"lshaim ishut" and halachically would be considered married. If they later
split up, getting only a civil divorce, this would have no religious validity
and could result in a mamzer when one of them (e.g., the woman) remarries
since, technically, she is still considered married to her first spouse.
Ari Gross
Columbia University
a...@sylvester.columbia.edu
Thanbo
> In article <37...@taux01.UUCP> cre...@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) writes:
>
> "Living together" does not necessarily constitute marriage from a halachic
> perspective. "Living together" lshaim eeshout , i.e., common law marriage
> does (in most opinions). To relate this to the original scenario mentioned,
> themselves to a civil marriage they would then be living together
> "lshaim ishut" and halachically would be considered married. If they later
> split up, getting only a civil divorce, this would have no religious validity
This seems rather one-sided. Far be it from me to say that halacha is
wrong, but it does occasionally appear inconsistent. My understanding
was that Jewish marriage involves various elements, including creating
a legally binding and halachically binding contract, in the form of
the Ketubah, passing the ring and saying the phrase (I assume this is
the 'kinyan' for the contract), and having reliable witnesses attest
to the validity of the whole thing. The Halacha also does not recognize
the validity of a civil divorce -- without a get issued by a bet din,
any future offspring of the partners would be considered mamzerim. How
then, does the Halacha recognize the validity of a civil marriage?
Jewish married couples with only a civil divorce are considered halachically
to still be married. Why are Jewish unmarried couples with only a civil
marriage considered to be halachically married? This seems inconsistent.
Please enlighten me.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ----+''-+ -+ |
| | | | jjb...@acf5.nyu.edu |
| | Jonathan J. Baker |
| ----+- |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Stuart Cohnen
You ask why Halacha should recognize civil marriages. You are correct
Halacha does not recognize civil marriages or commmon-law marriages.
As such, you don't require a GET from one of this "marriages".
Proof to this can be found from Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L responsa
on Conservative marriages. For many of them, he finds that the marriage
ceremony was technically invalid and as such, if the marriage ends with
only a civil divorce, the children of the second marriage (of the women)
are not Mamzarim.
If Halacha would recognize civil marriages, you would have to say that
a Conservative marriage cannot be considered less worthy than a J of P.
Q.E.D
Stuart Cohnen
CCNY"if you know me, drop me a line"
eng...@ccnyvme.bitnet
st...@cunyvm.cuny.vm
Ari Gross
>Re: acf5.ny.edu
>You ask why Halacha should recognize civil marriages. You are correct
>Halacha does not recognize civil marriages or commmon-law marriages.
>As such, you don't require a GET from one of this "marriages".
Incorrect. Civil marriages are a problem halachically.
>Proof to this can be found from Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L responsa
>on Conservative marriages. For many of them, he finds that the marriage
>ceremony was technically invalid and as such, if the marriage ends with
>only a civil divorce, the children of the second marriage (of the women)
>are not Mamzarim.
First of all, Rav Moshe in most of the questions concerning the validity
of the marriazge is concerned with the post-facto issue of whether
the woman should remain an iguna, unable to remarry or whether
the kids are, post facto, mamzerim. This is much different
than if the question were "should her husband give her a get (divorce)."
To this latter question Rav Moshe would almost undoubtedly answer:
"yes, a get should be given".
In addition, there are opinions that disagree with Rav Moshe (such as
Rav Henkin) and which Rav Moshe will often cite and then try and
show that even according to this other opinion, the marriage is not
valid. In addition, Rav Moshe's annulment of a marriage often relies on
a rivash (that constrains the Talmudic axiom of "ain adam
oseh b'ilato b'ilat znut") that is only valid if the couple concerned
are "wicked .., and transgress the entire torah".
>If Halacha would recognize civil marriages, you would have to say that
>a Conservative marriage cannot be considered less worthy than a J of P.
>Q.E.D
>
>Stuart Cohnen
This proof (i.e., kal v'chomer, a fortiori) of yours is incorrect,
as can be directly inferred from Rav Moshe's writings.
Consider the following excerpt concerning the validity
of a reformed marriage
(Even Ha'ezer 4: siman 75)
[the exact case, according to Rav Moshe, is one where
a person is reformed, as have been his forefathers for generations,
and after a short marriage they separate in a civil divorce,
and the husband REFUSES to GIVE HER a HALACHIC DIVORCE
and EVEN FOR SUMS OF MONEY He REFUSES in order to PREVENT HER FROM
REMARRYING; is there a WAY that can be found to PERMIT her to REMARRY
on grounds that the initial marriage was done in a reformed synagogue
and not according to halacha:
[Rav Moshe writes]
"See what I wrote (ibid) concerning the fact that a reformed CEREMONY
certainly has no validity. Then the entire issue [to be resolved]
is whether living together as man and wife [constitutes marriage].
As I have explained previously (siman 74 & 75), that I elaborated with
many proofs from the rivash
"that those WICKED PEOPLE that are completely WILD (mufkar) and
TRANSGRESS the enitre Torah" the axiom that "ain bo`el b'ilat z'nut"
(intercourse is done for the sake of marriage) is not valid, therefore,
IN THIS CASE, [their living together as man and wife] is nothing."
and Rav Moshe continues:
"And I have set aside [i.e., not considered] in this decision
the opinion of Rav Henkin shlita who writes that for kiddushin
(halachically valid marriage) one does not need the intent of
`kiddushin according to the Torah' (precept of marriage) but rather
(according to Rav Henkin) it is sufficient that one take the woman
as his wife... But in point of fact, even Rav Henkin would agree
[in this case] that the marriazge is halachically invalid
since the [alleged] husband's family belongs to the reformed movement already
for several generations; thus, they (the husband and his family) believe
THAT THE REFORMED RABBI CAN PERFORM A MARRIAGE ACCORDING TO THE LAWS
OF ISRAEL in which case the axion of "ain boel b'ilat znut"
(i.e., intercourse is done for the sake of marriage) does not
apply since "al daas kiddushin rishonim hu bo'el" (subsequent "living together"
is based on the original [reformed] marriage ceremony),
which is like tha case of "kidsha b'pachos m'shaveh pruta",
according to the opinion "d'ain kiddushin b'pachos m'shaveh pruta"."
Similar logic is used by Rav Moshe to negate a reformed marriage in siman 76,
where Rav Moshe writes:
"And even according to Rav Henkin that by Risha'im (wicked ones)
there is still a chazaka (axiom) that he lives with her as a wife and
not as a prostitute, I have written that this would not apply by those going
to a reformed rabbi since they (those getting married) believe,
in their mistaken judgement, that the ceremony constitutes the marriage
"v'adaitah d'kidushin rishonim ba'al, i.e., subsequent living together
is done on the assumption that the marriage has already been consummated
(a false premise, in this case, A.G.)."
In fact, Rav Moshe's tshuvas (responsa) often rely on the fact that either
a conservative or reformed marriage took place as a reason to ANNUL the
marriage since the subsequent "living together" was not done to consummate
the marriage but rather the couple presumably already rely
on the marriage ceremony itself as the consummation of their marriage
(which itself, according to Rav Moshe, has no halachic validity).
For civil marriages, Rav Moshe
does not rely on such an argument and "living together" is a problem
for which Rav Moshe tends to rely on the rivash (which only applies
when the couple are "wicked and trangress the entire torah").
Thus, your "proof" of what Rav Moshe holds in the case of a civil marriage
(followed by living together as man and wife) from what Rav Moshe writes
concerning conservative marriages is clearly refuted by Rav Moshe himself.
Bruce Krulwich
writes:
>You ask why Halacha should recognize civil marriages. You are correct
>Halacha does not recognize civil marriages or commmon-law marriages.
>As such, you don't require a GET from one of this "marriages".
>Proof to this can be found from Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT"L responsa
>on Conservative marriages. For many of them, he finds that the marriage
>ceremony was technically invalid and as such, if the marriage ends with
>only a civil divorce, the children of the second marriage (of the women)
>are not Mamzarim.
I believe that you are overapplying Rav Moshe ZT"L's psak [ruling].
_Certainly_ it was only intended b'dieved [after the fact] in dealing with
Aguna [women who cannot get Get's] situations. Do you have any basis for
saying "you don't require a GET from one of these marriages??"
Bruce
arnold.i.samet
>
> In article <47...@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> a...@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (arnold.i.samet) writes:
> >Yonatan, tell him about the "happiness game" exercise you learned
> >in Aish Hatora and the central premise of "Gateway to Happiness" - that
> >one can (and is required to) achieve simcha in the midst of, and despite, the
> >greatest of hardships. Things which rub us the wrong way? Child's play
> >for one who has mastered the art of simcha.
>
> Dear Yitzchok,
> I think you're victim of a VERY common misconseption. Simcha does not
> translate to a happyness, at least it didn't pre-ben Yehudah.
I agree, but the creators of the game and the book used the word happiness,
since they are addressing the problem of UNhappiness, which is related to
lack of the attitudes which foster simcha.
Yitzchok