A Wasted Life
Sherwin Rubin
Sinat Chinam is getting me down.
Its been a bad day. Like one facing death, my life just passed before me. I
saw a life of 65 years spent living what I thought was a Jewish life, dreaming
of Israel, raising money for Israel and making sure that my US Congressmen
supported everything that involved Israel. I just told our local Federation
President that I will not be giving to the United Jewish Appeal this year for
the first time in 45 years.
I'm not Jewish. That's what the haredim say. I was born of a Jewish mother and
father. Attending daily minyons morning and evening didn't count. Putting on
tefillin didn't count. Serving as Gabi and reading the Torah three times a week
at schul didn't count. Teaching children at religious school didn't count.
Raising three Jewish children and now some grand children probably didn't count
either.
How many nights did I leave my home to work on committees to build the schul,
the Jewish Community Center and Hebrew Day School. How many times did I man the
phones and knock on doors to raise money for Israel and other Jewish causes.
Am echad was a joke. Just meant to get our money and political support Now
that there are good times in Israel, they don't need us anymore.
Well, so be it. We can get along quite well without Israel since they can now
get along without us here in America. We can teach our children the beauty of
our tradition and encourage them to lead lives of spiritual connection to God
and observance of our customs. We can do what is necessary for the continuation
of Jewish identity away from Jerusalem just as our ancestors have been doing for
the past 2000 years.
Funny thing. I remember a Reform Rabbi here that refused to allow an Israeli
Flag in his congregation. I hated him for that. He said that if American Jews
put all of their feelings and hopes into Israel and it didn't succeed, it would
hurt the Jewish people.
He was right.
Jay Lapidus
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:47:49 GMT, in article
<D260731EDFA7CB86.9DDC5FDA...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
sbr...@airmail.net (Sherwin Rubin) wrote:
>Sinat Chinam is getting me down.
Sherwin, there's a lot more good going on.
>
>Its been a bad day. Like one facing death, my life just passed before me. I
>saw a life of 65 years spent living what I thought was a Jewish life, dreaming
>of Israel, raising money for Israel and making sure that my US Congressmen
>supported everything that involved Israel. I just told our local Federation
>President that I will not be giving to the United Jewish Appeal this year for
>the first time in 45 years.
A good portion of UJA money goes to domestic and non-Israel needs.
You can earmark your donation. As for Israel itself, talk to your
director about designating your donations to those Israeli
organizations that support pluralism.
>I'm not Jewish. That's what the haredim say.
Why should you care what they say? They are a minority of a minority.
>I was born of a Jewish mother and father.
To my O friends: Don't bother telling Sherwin, "Well of course you
are Jewish! Anybody born of a Jewish mother is Jewish!"
Sherwin, I'm sure, knows that quite well. But he justifiably resents
being told, "But your religion is not Jewish, if you are non-O." If
that's what you are going to tell him now, don't waste bandwidth.
>Attending daily minyons morning and evening didn't count. Putting on
>tefillin didn't count. Serving as Gabi and reading the Torah three times a week
>at schul didn't count. Teaching children at religious school didn't count.
>Raising three Jewish children and now some grand children probably didn't count
>either.
Someone is still going to make a crack about the "likelihood" of your
grandchildren marrying non-Jews.
>How many nights did I leave my home to work on committees to build the schul,
>the Jewish Community Center and Hebrew Day School. How many times did I man the
>phones and knock on doors to raise money for Israel and other Jewish causes.
>
>Am echad was a joke. Just meant to get our money and political support Now
>that there are good times in Israel, they don't need us anymore.
Your attitude is far from unique. This is the degree of damage that
the current Israeli government has caused. (Barak would be no
better.) To his credit, Amb. Ben-Elissar warned his government of the
consequences of pushing through the Conversion Bill. Thankfully,
there is now a serious compromise in the works. Please give it a
chance, Sherwin.
>Well, so be it. We can get along quite well without Israel since they can now
>get along without us here in America. We can teach our children the beauty of
>our tradition and encourage them to lead lives of spiritual connection to God
>and observance of our customs. We can do what is necessary for the continuation
>of Jewish identity away from Jerusalem just as our ancestors have been doing for
>the past 2000 years.
>
>Funny thing. I remember a Reform Rabbi here that refused to allow an Israeli
>Flag in his congregation. I hated him for that. He said that if American Jews
>put all of their feelings and hopes into Israel and it didn't succeed, it would
>hurt the Jewish people.
>
>He was right.
The Reform movement would disagree. From today's Med News:
** 2. REFORM MOVEMENT TO ENCOURAGE ALIYA
For the first time in its history, the Reform movement in North
America will adopt the principle of encouraging Aliya and the
fulfillment of the commandment to settle in Israel.
This was included in the movement's updated platform, which was
recently drawn up to commemorate one hundred years of Zionism. The
platform will be submitted to the annual convention of reform rabbis,
to be held in Miami Beach.
This is the fourth platform to be drawn up by the movement since 1885.
The introductory section stipulates that this is "the first platform
dedicated exclusively to the relationship between Reform Judaism and
Zionism." One of the Rabbis who participated in the drafting of the
platform told Ha'aretz that the platform constituted "an historic
declaration of principles, and its content and demands are the most
Zionist of any the movement has previously proclaimed."
In the chapter entitled "Our Duty Toward Israel" one of the clauses
states: "In addition to emphasizing the authenticity and importance of
creative and strong Jewish communities in the Diaspora, we are
encouraging Reform Jews to make Aliya and to fulfill the commandment
of settling in Israel."
"Although Jews can fulfill the commandments of the Torah in the
Diaspora" emphasize the writers, "it is only in Israel that Jews have
the opportunity to take on full responsibility for maintaining a
Jewish state."
Another clause calls for "all Jews who belong to the Reform party,
both young and old, to go and study in Israel and to visit Israel
frequently" in order to "deepen the awareness about the presence of
Israel in the world and to strengthen Jewish identity." {HAARETZ 6/24}
END
Sherwin, don't let the meshuginers get you down! Most religious
people, whether OCRRcn, are decent.
Shalom, (posted and emailed)
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> ******************************
| | * "Nonsense is nonsense, but *
__ |__ |__ * the history of nonsense is *
| | | | | | | | \| | | * a very important science." *
|__| | __| \|/ __| |\ | * -- R' Saul Lieberman, z"l *
******************************
Micha S. Berger
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:47:49 GMT, in newsgroup soc.culture.jewish, article <D260731EDFA7CB86.9DDC5FDA...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, Sherwin Rubin <sbr...@airmail.net> wrote:
: I'm not Jewish. That's what the haredim say. I was born of a Jewish mother and
: father.
You know this is a canard. Chareidim, like all O and A, consider anyone
born of a Jewish mother to be Jewish. What the UOR announcement was was
a declaration that the religion you invested all that effort into is
not (in the O lexicon) "Judiasm". It said nothing about the state of
the /adherents/ of R.
It also said nothing about those mitzvos you did during your life.
The declaration was limited to a statement about the beliefs taught
by the two movements.
-mi
--
Micha Berger 201 916-0287 Help free Ron Arad, held by Syria 3836 days!
mi...@aishdas.org (16-Oct-86 - 25-Jun-97)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed
Mike Medved
I wonder if before posting this whine you have
managed to find even one haredi who would say
that you're not Jewish even if your mother was.
Michael A. Torczyner
I have to tell you, Sherwin, for someone writing with so much feeling now
about being disenfranchised by Charedim, you have a funny way of deeling
with them in general. You post statements which dismiss them as backward
and silly, and then get upset when they say that *your* understanding of
Judaism is backward and silly.
BTW, they never said you weren't Jewish. You, and others, have made this
claim before, and been shown incorrect. Why do you persist in what is
untrue?
Mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEBSHAS! http://www.virtual.co.il/torah/webshas & Leave the Keywords at Home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sherwin Rubin
mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
>Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: Sinat Chinam is getting me down.
>:
>: I'm not Jewish. That's what the haredim say. I was born of a Jewish mother and
>
>I have to tell you, Sherwin, for someone writing with so much feeling now
>about being disenfranchised by Charedim, you have a funny way of deeling
>with them in general. You post statements which dismiss them as backward
>and silly, and then get upset when they say that *your* understanding of
>Judaism is backward and silly.
Moti, Moti, you mozek:
I'm not complaining about the Charedim. Its their privilege to live any way
they want to live. They are free to call me "Jew hating" and link me to the Jews
for Jesus or the other non-Jewish sects. I am addressing the majority of
Israeli's who let them run the country that should belong to all Jews. I am
trying to call attention to the long term problems being caused by the political
actions of a religious minority.
I know that the secular Israeli's just want to go to the mall or the beach on
Shabbat. They want to go to a good restaurant Friday night. They don't see
that when the Charedim have changed the laws to finished off us liberal
apikorsim, they will be after them. Given the power, the Orthodox will close
all businesses on Shabbat. Somewhere down the line are modest dress codes and
restrictions on other secular activities.
It's secular Israeli's children who will go to the army and fight the battles
that religious people start. It's those children who must protect the stiff
necked Jews who make their homes in the middle of Arab neighborhoods. It's
secular Israeli's who will pay the taxes that fund religious organizations who
spit on the Israeli flag..
These are not _my_ problems. I'm sitting in America.
My loyalty and support have been freely given up till now, but not anymore.
What I want now is the recognition that Conservative and Reform movements are
legitimate forms of Judaism in Israel and in the Diaspora. "Am Echad" is the
price Israel must pay for my money and my political influence.
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on 25 Jun 1997 16:01:20 GMT Micha S. Berger
<ais...@IDT.NET> posted:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:47:49 GMT, in newsgroup soc.culture.jewish, article <D260731EDFA7CB86.9DDC5FDA...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, Sherwin Rubin <sbr...@airmail.net> wrote:
>: I'm not Jewish. That's what the haredim say. I was born of a Jewish mother and
>: father.
>You know this is a canard. Chareidim, like all O and A, consider anyone
This is the second time you have referred to A, what is A?
>born of a Jewish mother to be Jewish. What the UOR announcement was was
>a declaration that the religion you invested all that effort into is
>not (in the O lexicon) "Judiasm". It said nothing about the state of
>the /adherents/ of R.
>It also said nothing about those mitzvos you did during your life.
But we can, and it sounds like he has done many many mitzvahs for
which he deserves as much credit as anyone.
>The declaration was limited to a statement about the beliefs taught
>by the two movements.
>-mi
I miss many posts so please e-mail
if you want me to see your answer.
B'tsedek tishpot amitecho
Lev 19:15 via Mishna Avos
You shall judge your neighbor
favorably.
Herman Rubin
In article <33b12d10...@news.concentric.net>,
Jay Lapidus <jlap...@usa.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 01:47:49 GMT, in article
><D260731EDFA7CB86.9DDC5FDA...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>sbr...@airmail.net (Sherwin Rubin) wrote:
>>Sinat Chinam is getting me down.
>Sherwin, there's a lot more good going on.
>>Its been a bad day. Like one facing death, my life just passed before me. I
>>saw a life of 65 years spent living what I thought was a Jewish life, dreaming
>>of Israel, raising money for Israel and making sure that my US Congressmen
>>supported everything that involved Israel. I just told our local Federation
>>President that I will not be giving to the United Jewish Appeal this year for
>>the first time in 45 years.
>A good portion of UJA money goes to domestic and non-Israel needs.
>You can earmark your donation. As for Israel itself, talk to your
>director about designating your donations to those Israeli
>organizations that support pluralism.
This is a fraud perpetrated on those who support these other causes.
If there is a fundraising and a committee allocated the money raised,
it is only occasionally that earmarking will benefit the organizations
for which the money is earmarked, and VERY rare that any money will be
withheld from those which the donors wish not to receive it.
Suppose that $1,000,000 is being raised, and $100,000 is to go to A,
$400,000 to B, and $500,000 to C. Now the amount going to a particular
organization is not going to be raised unless more is earmarked for
that organization than is allotted, and unless some allotments are
exceeded, no organization will get less. So it would be possible if
$200,000 is earmarked for A, that B and C will lose some money. But if
those donating to B hate C, and earmark $300,000 for B, nothing will
happen to the C allotment because of this.
It will be necessary to have separate fundraisings at this time for
those of us who support these other causes to keep the money from
going to those we do not wish to support.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Mike Medved
Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
: My loyalty and support have been freely given up till now, but not anymore.
: What I want now is the recognition that Conservative and Reform movements are
: legitimate forms of Judaism in Israel and in the Diaspora. "Am Echad" is the
: price Israel must pay for my money and my political influence.
And to reach your goal you're willing to lie when claiming
that charedim do not consider you Jewish.
Sherwin Rubin
med...@netcom.com (Mike Medved) wrote:
Mike,
If you knew how I feel about liars, you would think twice about accusing me. If
you weren't hiding behind a computer monitor, you would probably be more careful
with your words. We Jews tend to be more violent in Texas if you know what I
mean. Our ancestors had to resort to violence to protect their families and to
hold up their heads as Jews in the Texas frontier of 1900.
Here, as in the schtetals our ancestors left, a person's word is his bond.
What I said was true. O posters freely say that R and C are not a legitimate
form of Judaism. Since I fall in those groups, I read that they say that I am
not Jewish except by accident of birth. My post was a feeble attempt to show
that C and R Jews are serious about their religion. It was probably a waste of
time.
The tragedy of the whole balagan is that most O posters have no idea of what R
and C are and how they relate to the Jewish tradition. All they know are
stories they heard about American Jews. Some of the Loshen Hora may be true,
but its is considered a sin in our congregations to repeat any of it. I teach a
comparative Judaism class for our congregation and we study all branches and
visit their services over a period of a year.. When my kids comment on any
branch of Judaism, they have some basis for their opinions. I hope they will
treat our differences in a respectful and intelligent manner. At least four
graduates of our system are wearing black suits in Israel today. We do provide
a fair comparison.
Many of us believe that we live proper Jewish lives without all of the rituals
that were invented to keep our ancestors busy and focused on a holy life. Our
form of Judaism has kept our family Jewish for six generations here in Texas and
I have no fear or doubts about future generations. Its not as hard to be a Jew
here as it used to be.
I can only ask that serious O people treat all people including C and R
believers with the respect due any creature created by God. That is what we are
taught in our Jewish religion. Let all work to stop Sinat Chinam.
Mike Medved
Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
: med...@netcom.com (Mike Medved) wrote:
: >Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
: >: My loyalty and support have been freely given up till now, but not anymore.
: >: What I want now is the recognition that Conservative and Reform movements are
: >: legitimate forms of Judaism in Israel and in the Diaspora. "Am Echad" is the
: >: price Israel must pay for my money and my political influence.
: >
: >
: >And to reach your goal you're willing to lie when claiming
: >that charedim do not consider you Jewish.
: Mike,
: If you knew how I feel about liars, you would think twice about accusing me. If
: you weren't hiding behind a computer monitor, you would probably be more careful
: with your words. We Jews tend to be more violent in Texas if you know what I
: mean. Our ancestors had to resort to violence to protect their families and to
: hold up their heads as Jews in the Texas frontier of 1900.
: Here, as in the schtetals our ancestors left, a person's word is his bond.
: What I said was true. O posters freely say that R and C are not a legitimate
: form of Judaism. Since I fall in those groups, I read that they say that I am
: not Jewish except by accident of birth. My post was a feeble attempt to show
: that C and R Jews are serious about their religion. It was probably a waste of
: time.
Some non-O posters (like me) agree that R and C are not a
legitimate form of Judaism. That does not make you not
Jewish if you belong to one of them. As long as you retract
that part of your diatribe, the rest of it I have no
beef with. Note that "not being Jewish EXCEPT by accident
of birth" still means you're Jewish. You claiming otherwise
is your problem, not the O's.
As for the rest of your post, I know what R and C are.
My parents belong to a R "temple" and I have visited
its services numerous times - unfortunately, it is no
more than a social club. Calling it "religion" is a travesty.
Admittedly, it is only one place.
Michael A. Torczyner
Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
: The tragedy of the whole balagan is that most O posters have no idea of what R
: and C are and how they relate to the Jewish tradition. All they know are
: stories they heard about American Jews. Some of the Loshen Hora may be true,
: but its is considered a sin in our congregations to repeat any of it. I teach a
: comparative Judaism class for our congregation and we study all branches and
: visit their services over a period of a year.. When my kids comment on any
: branch of Judaism, they have some basis for their opinions. I hope they will
: treat our differences in a respectful and intelligent manner. At least four
: graduates of our system are wearing black suits in Israel today. We do provide
: a fair comparison.
I'm sorry, but writing that Orthodoxy concentrates on the rules
which aren't important to Gd, and on perfect ritual instead of
benevolence, to cite your own statements, doesn't sound like fair
comparison at all, and in fact sounds a lot like Hotzaas Shem Ra.
Michael A. Torczyner
Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
: mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
: >I have to tell you, Sherwin, for someone writing with so much feeling now
: >about being disenfranchised by Charedim, you have a funny way of deeling
: >with them in general. You post statements which dismiss them as backward
: >and silly, and then get upset when they say that *your* understanding of
: >Judaism is backward and silly.
:
: Moti, Moti, you mozek:
Hebrew the closest I can come is "Mazik..."
: I'm not complaining about the Charedim. Its their privilege to live any way
: they want to live. They are free to call me "Jew hating" and link me to the Jews
: for Jesus or the other non-Jewish sects. I am addressing the majority of
: Israeli's who let them run the country that should belong to all Jews. I am
That was *not* what you wrote. You wrote of disenfranchisment by those who
say that you are not practicing Judaism. I think you used the term
Charedim, although it isn't in front of me at the moment. In either case,
neither is the point. The point is that you have done the same exact
thing, recently, (see "Linen & Wool" thread [no pun]) to the Orthodox. How
can you justify resenting them, when you do the same thing?
mei...@erols.com
In soc.culture.jewish on Fri, 27 Jun 1997 03:36:08 GMT
med...@netcom.com (Mike Medved) posted:
> Note that "not being Jewish EXCEPT by accident
>of birth" still means you're Jewish.
Except for converts, the sole or primary reason all of us are Jewish
is accident of birth.
Yaakov Menken
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:38:22 GMT, sbr...@airmail.net (Sherwin Rubin)
wrote:
>If you knew how I feel about liars, you would think twice about accusing me. If
>you weren't hiding behind a computer monitor, you would probably be more careful
>with your words. We Jews tend to be more violent in Texas if you know what I
>mean. Our ancestors had to resort to violence to protect their families and to
>hold up their heads as Jews in the Texas frontier of 1900.
This is the first time in the entire extended thread about Orthodoxy
in Israel, that anyone has attempted to justify violence. (Except,
possibly, for one rumored post by Yehuda Silver which thankfully
escaped my eyes. This sounds a lot more serious than anything Yehudah
ever rambled.) Sherwin, especially as a professor you should be
ashamed for using language like that. You basically found a nice
academic way to say "if you were here in person, I'd punch your lights
out." _That_ is, without question, belief in a non-Jewish concept.
>The tragedy of the whole balagan is that most O posters have no idea of what R
>and C are and how they relate to the Jewish tradition. All they know are
>stories they heard about American Jews. Some of the Loshen Hora may be true,
>but its is considered a sin in our congregations to repeat any of it.
I can testify from detailed first-hand experience that the stories
about American Jews which the Orthodox hear in Israel cannot compare
to the fabrications and distortions about the Israeli Orthodox
discussed here in America. Almost every Orthodox Jew today has a
non-religious second cousin. Only now is the pendulum reversing, where
many families have a newly-religious Ba'al Teshuvah second cousin. And
that's not yet enough to stem the tide of misinformation.
>I teach a
>comparative Judaism class for our congregation and we study all branches and
>visit their services over a period of a year.. When my kids comment on any
>branch of Judaism, they have some basis for their opinions. I hope they will
>treat our differences in a respectful and intelligent manner. At least four
>graduates of our system are wearing black suits in Israel today. We do provide
>a fair comparison.
So how can they - and their current community - have less knowledge of
your ways than vice-versa?
YM
Jacob Love
In article <medvedEC...@netcom.com>,
Mike Medved <med...@netcom.com> wrote:
>As for the rest of your post, I know what R and C are.
>My parents belong to a R "temple" and I have visited
>its services numerous times - unfortunately, it is no
>more than a social club. Calling it "religion" is a travesty.
>Admittedly, it is only one place.
It appears that what we really have here is a form of self-hatred.
While O posters are quick to cast the label on non-O, we learn from
Mike's post that it works the other way around. Fortunately the last
sentence mitigates the total effect, but it is still worth pointing out
that equating "Judaism" with the form of the religion that existed from
the eighteenth to nineteenth centuries is a ridiculous concept. But
even within O, does the mere fact that in my family's O shul the folks
blathered on about business and gossip during the entire service
pausing from time to time to mutter a sentence from memory somehow
differ from your parents "social club"?
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree
Herman Rubin
In article <33b3d11d...@news.idt.net>,
Yaakov Menken <men...@torah.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Jun 1997 21:38:22 GMT, sbr...@airmail.net (Sherwin Rubin)
>wrote:
........................
>>The tragedy of the whole balagan is that most O posters have no idea of what R
>>and C are and how they relate to the Jewish tradition. All they know are
>>stories they heard about American Jews. Some of the Loshen Hora may be true,
>>but its is considered a sin in our congregations to repeat any of it.
>I can testify from detailed first-hand experience that the stories
>about American Jews which the Orthodox hear in Israel cannot compare
>to the fabrications and distortions about the Israeli Orthodox
>discussed here in America. Almost every Orthodox Jew today has a
>non-religious second cousin. Only now is the pendulum reversing, where
>many families have a newly-religious Ba'al Teshuvah second cousin. And
>that's not yet enough to stem the tide of misinformation.
This is an indication of the problem. There are a rather large number
of RELIGIOUS Conservative and Reform Jews; having non-religious friends
and relatives has nothing to do with knowing anything about these quite
serious branches of Judaism, whether they are in the United States or
in Israel.
This IS the crux of the matter. The Charedim, and I do not know how
many other Orthodox Jews, including many posting here, deny that there
can be any such thing as non-Orthodox Jewish religion. From the postings
here, I gather that the secular Israelis are largely of the same opinion.
It is not clear if Orthodox or Orthopractic should be used.
Yaakov Menken
On Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:56:09 GMT, sbr...@airmail.net (Sherwin Rubin)
wrote:
>It's secular Israeli's children who will go to the army and fight the battles
>that religious people start. It's those children who must protect the stiff
>necked Jews who make their homes in the middle of Arab neighborhoods. It's
>secular Israeli's who will pay the taxes that fund religious organizations who
>spit on the Israeli flag..
Interesting how you pool together everything you have ever disliked
about an Orthodox Jew, and call the result "Charedi" Orthodoxy. The
Jews in Hebron are Charedim? The Jews in Hebron are, on the other
hand, definitely pro-army.
And the army is hardly fighting the battles that religious people
start. The IDF fights battles which Arabs start (with pre-emptive
strikes). You compare charedim to your worst and most deadly enemy,
and then you expect them to "appreciate" your hatred?
YM
Sherwin Rubin
mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
> I'm sorry, but writing that Orthodoxy concentrates on the rules
>which aren't important to Gd, and on perfect ritual instead of
>benevolence, to cite your own statements, doesn't sound like fair
>comparison at all, and in fact sounds a lot like Hotzaas Shem Ra.
> Mordechai
I believed most of my life tht the O way was the "Real" Judaism. I contributed
to many yeshivot and O organizations as a form of insurance. The problem was
that I was raised on a child's form of Judaism that told me O was the only
Judaism and the liberal Jews were just too lazy to do the mitzvot. Fortunately,
the liberal branches are finished with apologizing. We recognize what many
modern Jews have recognized. The ever changing religion of Judaism got stuck
in the middle ages and never got out. The liberal approach to the religion is
just a chance to put our tradition back on the original track of being a
meaningful way to pursue our lives in an ever changing world..
The liberal branches now understand that the beauty of Judaism is in it's
precepts, not it's ritual. We are ready to go ahead with women as equal
partners and provide a life that will be meaningful and enriched by Jewish
teaching and tradition..
What I post here and what I teach in Comparative Jewish Religion are not the
same. My students see the very good side of O and it's place in protecting the
history of Jews at a particular time in the development of our common religion,
My postings are in response to the comments of others on the newsgroup who
disparage anything but O. I have, in my old age, combined the lessons of life
to revise my opinions of what is important and what is not. You may say this is
denial of the Torah and God, but I say it is only a denial of men.
For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a person carrying
on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK since they have an eruv." I don't
believe that the thousands of petty loopholes used by O are fooling Hashem. "I
guess they got me on that one," Hashem says when you find a way to circumvent
his laws. Struyot. Nonsence.
I have a hard time believing that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were contemporaies
for 15 years and studied the Torah every day for 15 hours. Like Esther Bosse' ,
I have a problem with resurection of the dead. I don't understand how the
finite number of souls being re-cycled down to earth can inhabit the many
resurected bodies. I have more important things to think about.
But one thing is certain, I have stopped apologizing for not being Orthodox. I
am committed to arguing the idea that R and C and any other liberal branch of
Judaism have something to say to all Jews. I have listened to Orthodox ideas
all of my life but I will not again listen without a critical analysis of what
is said. I will be searching for a modern application for the traditions of my
ancestors.
Like America, Israel is a democracy and people can vote for the people they
choose to follow. I hope that somehow my arguments can convince my fellow Jews,
both in America and in Israel, to quit their support of the Orthodox political
minority who deny the validity of our modern Judaism.
Aaron Gross
hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> This IS the crux of the matter. The Charedim, and I do not know how
> many other Orthodox Jews, including many posting here, deny that there
> can be any such thing as non-Orthodox Jewish religion. From the postings
> here, I gather that the secular Israelis are largely of the same opinion.
I think awareness among secular Israelis has increased a lot in the
last year or so, due to all the publicity. For instance, on the very
popular TV show "Harztufim" (Israel's version of "Spitting Image"), we
got to see the "hartzuf" of Shas leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef attack a
Reform Jew -- who spoke with an American accent, of course -- and then
ask him for donations.
The portrayal of non-Orthodox Judaism seems to be relatively benign,
sort of another interesting American eccentricity. From the Israelis
I've talked to (not a representative sample), I think secular Israelis
see Reform Jews in America as *more* serious about religion than they
are in reality. I'd guess that's because Israelis can't imagine being
involved in a congregation for non-religious reasons like "being part
of the Jewish community" or whatever.
In any case, I don't think many secular Israelis take Reform and
Conservative Judaism seriously, except maybe as an expedient for
converting lots of Russians.
Sherwin Rubin
mat...@is.nyu.edu (Michael A. Torczyner) wrote:
>But you still haven't explained why it is OK for you to deinigrate the
>Orthodox approach to ritual and belief, even as you bristle at their
>attacks on your system! Claiming that you respect them for their "role in
>preserving Jewish history" is a far cry from respect for their view of
>Judaism.
> Mordecha
A simple answer for a simple Question. I never said that O was not a full
partner in the Jewish religion. You on the other hand, say that O and C are not
full partners. Thats the difference.
Sherwin
Michael A. Torczyner
Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
:
: A simple answer for a simple Question. I never said that O was not a full
: partner in the Jewish religion. You on the other hand, say that O and C are not
: full partners. Thats the difference.
Perhaps this is a question of perspectives, then. It is as insulting for
an Orthodox Jew to be told that his concentration is on ritual instead of
middos, as it is for a Conservative Jew to be told that his concentration
is on middos instead of mitzvos.
charles wagner
If you are born Jewish, and then remain Jewish in the face of all
obstacles the world places before you for being Jewish, you are a Jew by
choice.
Chuck. chsw...@qed.net
PS: Mr. Medved, many dittos.
Simcha Streltsov
Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
: For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a person carrying
: on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK since they have an eruv." I don't
: believe that the thousands of petty loopholes used by O are fooling Hashem. "I
: guess they got me on that one," Hashem says when you find a way to circumvent
: his laws. Struyot. Nonsence.
Does it mean that you refuse using the eruv? OK with me,
what are the other loopholes you refuse to follow?
Simcha
This is an environmentally clean post -
100% devoid of any substance, please recycle.
This sig is endorsed by
Mar Michael Shimshoni and Rabbi Jay Lapidus
ori k
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) wrote:
>Maybe I am behind my times - but the issue of "modernity"
>comes up so often - and I dont understand why - after all,
>every period of time was "modernity" some time ago.
Many people who use the word modernity -- many, not all -- are
referring to the concept of the open society where the full spectrum
of truths are allowed (or, put another way, everyone is allowed to be
wrong). The only line of demarcation for objective truth is what is
provable by predictable and repeatable experiment. Everything else is
considered subjective and therefore open to varying degrees of
toleration within society; therefore, the claims made by religion, to
paraphrase a famous physicist, are "not even wrong", in these sense
that they are unprovable by any meaningful experiement.
>You can argue that the rate of change is so dramatic, but
>it does not mean that other ages were not confronted by changes -
>imagine, say, being a small tribe occupied by a Roman or
>Greek army - you probably will go thru technology and
>cultural transition ...
The definition I'm discussing above has nothing to do with technology
per se; it is an all-encompassing world view that has more to do with
scientific proof than with technology.
>
>and furthermore, what is the impact on our religious and
>intelllectual values - true, intellectual debate is different
>on Internet then at the times when responsa was travelling by sea -
>I guess, the fundamental change happened with book-printing -
>but what are exactly "modern values" that were not the issue
>of discussion in Talmudic times?
Well, nowadays, as opposed to then, the majority of Jews are fully
literate and are citizens of secular states. Discussions about the
future of Judiasm may therefore have a vast majority of participants
who are not "religious leaders" with a fundamental investment in the
status quo. We have two centuries now of research into the age of the
earth and the universe, the origin of species, biblical texual
analysis, archeological data and historical observation with which the
individual may judge the veracity and value of the bibical text. Most
importantly, the majority of Jews do not live under Xian or Moslem
theocratic regimes which are willing to create ghetto mini-states for
Jewish leaders to run. As citizens of secular states, our destinies
are decided by largely secularized courts of law and legislative
assemblies, and therefore most people who dissent from normative
Judaism do not risk excommunication and exile. And then, of course,
there is the experience of the Shoah, in whose aftermath a significant
number of survivors, bystanders, and subsequent generations lost faith
in G-d in general and in rabbis as exilarchs in particular.
>
[snip]
>
>if you mean "modernity" by ability to utilize/understand
>technology - the simple fact that scj wamajority O-
>while it wa limited to hackers only, and that majority of
>Jewish education on Internet is O- is a sign that
>there is no problem with that. So, you can not conclude that
>O- ppl can not appreciate the value of modernity,
>and - if you feel tha they dont value it as you - it means
>at least that they made an informed conclusion, not just
>are or are not "stuck in middle ages"
If you see above, I'm making the point that technology and the use of
tools is not the same as modernity. A aerospace student in Rydah or
Kabul can use a cellular phone and log onto the internet, and then
spend his afternoons hitting women with sticks if he decides that they
are immodestly dressed. Modernity, by its very nature, demands
tolerance. Theocracy, by its very nature, demands intolerance. In
actual fact, the O community _is_ stuck in the middle ages, because by
and large its critical focus is stuck on the analysis made by the
Ram'bam, who was himself a medieval thinker. When I say "medieval" I
don't say it as an insult, but as a statement of descriptive fact: A
reliance on Aristotelian/Greek proofs, which are based on exercises on
logic and not on real observation or experiment; scholasticism (a
system of rationalized theology based on the writings of the Church
fathers and also innovated by the ancient Greeks); and the viewing of
the world in terms of systems of classes which have ideal forms as
opposed to general immutable laws of nature.
ori kowarsky
o...@unixg.ubc.ca
Simcha Streltsov
Simon L. Klein (slk...@tiac.net) wrote:
: Nor is it stuck in the middle ages. Orthodox Jews accept many of the
: practices and mental constructs of modern life. All Jews believe that
Maybe I am behind my times - but the issue of "modernity"
comes up so often - and I dont understand why - after all,
every period of time was "modernity" some time ago.
You can argue that the rate of change is so dramatic, but
it does not mean that other ages were not confronted by changes -
imagine, say, being a small tribe occupied by a Roman or
Greek army - you probably will go thru technology and
cultural transition ...
and furthermore, what is the impact on our religious and
intelllectual values - true, intellectual debate is different
on Internet then at the times when responsa was travelling by sea -
I guess, the fundamental change happened with book-printing -
but what are exactly "modern values" that were not the issue
of discussion in Talmudic times?
true, we may better feel what Hagada meant when saying
"in each generation someone raises up who wants to kill us" -
by observing contrast of modernity and Stalin/Hitler/Saddam
regimes who can coincide with mass education, TVs, etc -
but R. Shimon already suffereed as a dissident for saying
"Romans build the roads only for tax-collectors".
if you mean "modernity" by ability to utilize/understand
technology - the simple fact that scj wamajority O-
while it wa limited to hackers only, and that majority of
Jewish education on Internet is O- is a sign that
there is no problem with that. So, you can not conclude that
O- ppl can not appreciate the value of modernity,
and - if you feel tha they dont value it as you - it means
at least that they made an informed conclusion, not just
are or are not "stuck in middle ages"
Simcha
Joe Slater
fai...@aero.org (Daniel P Faigin) writes:
>There are some Reform Jews who (IMHO) have other baggage. This baggage
>prevents them from accepting Orthodoxy as just another form of expression.
>These are the folks who insist on viewing Orthodoxy in adjectives -- outmoded,
>ritualistic, for an earlier generation.
I've seen these expressions used by a number of non-Orthodox posters in
this newsgroup. I find them as offensive as any other stereotype about Jews.
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | 'Look up, speak nicely, and don't
Fax: +61-3-95259206 | twiddle your fingers all the time.'
Email not accepted from rogue sites including: AOL, Moneyworld, Interramp,
Airmail, Earthstar and Winternet.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
charles wagner <chsw...@qed.net> writes:
>>> Note that "not being Jewish EXCEPT by accident
>>>of birth" still means you're Jewish.
>>
>>Except for converts, the sole or primary reason all of us are
>>Jewish is accident of birth.
>
> If you are born Jewish, and then remain Jewish in the face of all
> obstacles the world places before you for being Jewish, you are a
> Jew by choice.
Interesting thought.
I heard something similar in the Name of Reb Shlomo Carlebach.
After WWII when Jews were killed just for "being" Jewish, any Jew who
publicly avows his Jewishness, is perfoming an action which _could_
lead to his being killed for his Jewishness. As such, every such Jew
is a potential martyr and has all the rights and privileges of such.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
(mailed & posted)
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) writes:
> Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
>
> : For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a
> : person carrying on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK since
> : they have an eruv."
I see this "example" used many times. It's a pity that it's not
understood properly.
For those situations, in which there is a _Biblical_ prohibition to
carry, an Eruv will _not_ help. There is no "loophole". An eruv is a
Rabbinic rule for a _Rabbinic_ situation. Acting umder the authority
of "Asu mishmeret li'mishmarti" - make a "fence" around my statutes,
the Rabbis decreed many acts as forbidden even though they are
permitted by Biblical law. It is in these and only these situations,
that the Rabbis, as part of their injuction, made rule to _allow_
carrying in certain circumstances.
I know that when explained thus, it's hard to poke fun at it. Sorry.
> Does it mean that you refuse using the eruv? OK with me,
> what are the other loopholes you refuse to follow?
Simcha, why do I think that questions violates SDNWOTN?
Jordi Sod
In article <1997Jul...@mm.huji.ac.il>, mos...@mm.huji.ac.il says...
>
>charles wagner <chsw...@qed.net> writes:
>> mei...@erols.com wrote:
>>>med...@netcom.com (Mike Medved) posted:
>
>>>> Note that "not being Jewish EXCEPT by accident
>>>>of birth" still means you're Jewish.
>>>
>>>Except for converts, the sole or primary reason all of us are
>>>Jewish is accident of birth.
>>
>> If you are born Jewish, and then remain Jewish in the face of all
>> obstacles the world places before you for being Jewish, you are a
>> Jew by choice.
>
>Interesting thought.
>
>I heard something similar in the Name of Reb Shlomo Carlebach.
>
>After WWII when Jews were killed just for "being" Jewish, any Jew who
>publicly avows his Jewishness, is perfoming an action which _could_
>lead to his being killed for his Jewishness. As such, every such Jew
>is a potential martyr and has all the rights and privileges of such.
Henri Bergson, even though he came to be a Christian of sorts, made
a remarkable gesture in his last months. Since he was a beloved public
figure, the authorities didn't press the issue of his Jewishness, but
Bergson, already sick, almost always bed-ridden, dragged himself to the
the Nazi government offices to register himself as a Jew.
Jordi
Simcha Streltsov
Michael Shimshoni (MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il) wrote:
: >Simcha, why do I think that questions violates SDNWOTN?
:
: Is SDNWOTN forbidden mide'oraita or merebanan?
all abbreviated laws probably come from the Kitzur -
that is highly mideoraita for some.
or it may be a kal v'homer - reasonable argument DNWOTN,
thereofre S does not too.
anyway, it does not matter much because I take a liberal view
on SDNWOTN, i.e. you both our old-fashioned net-orthodoxes
who want to to restrict my right to post anything I want or
even do not want.
Michael Shimshoni
In article <1997Jul...@mm.huji.ac.il>
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) writes:
>> Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
>>
>> : For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a
>> : person carrying on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK since
>> : they have an eruv."
>
>I see this "example" used many times. It's a pity that it's not
>understood properly.
>
>For those situations, in which there is a _Biblical_ prohibition to
>carry, an Eruv will _not_ help. There is no "loophole".
prohibition to carry"? What about the "Biblical_ prohibition" not to
charge interest, how come that Rabbis invented a dreh which allows it?
For example the bank of Po`ale Yisrael in Israel charges something
they call "profit" (reva`h) on every overdrawn account, even of those
wage owners who do not use the money to make any profit. This change
of "interest" to "profit" is called a permission be`ezrat hashem (by
the name, or rather by the change of the name). Furthermore "selling
`hametz to a gentile at Pesah is "of course" not a loophole, just a
dreh.
> An eruv is a
>of "Asu mishmeret li'mishmarti" - make a "fence" around my statutes,
>the Rabbis decreed many acts as forbidden even though they are
>permitted by Biblical law. It is in these and only these situations,
>that the Rabbis, as part of their injuction, made rule to _allow_
>carrying in certain circumstances.
>
>I know that when explained thus, it's hard to poke fun at it. Sorry.
noticing the funny (ridiculous) aspect of these loopholes.
>> Does it mean that you refuse using the eruv? OK with me,
>> what are the other loopholes you refuse to follow?
>
Is SDNWOTN forbidden mide'oraita or merebanan?
Michael Shimshoni
Sherwin Rubin
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) wrote:
>Simon L. Klein (slk...@tiac.net) wrote:
>
>: Nor is it stuck in the middle ages. Orthodox Jews accept many of the
>: practices and mental constructs of modern life. All Jews believe that
>
>Maybe I am behind my times - but the issue of "modernity"
>comes up so often - and I dont understand why - after all,
>every period of time was "modernity" some time ago.
>You can argue that the rate of change is so dramatic, but
>it does not mean that other ages were not confronted by changes -
>imagine, say, being a small tribe occupied by a Roman or
>Greek army - you probably will go thru technology and
>cultural transition ...
The question in not of acceptance of modern changes. Certainly most O Jews
accept the scientific changes in the world. Most people enjoy the comforts and
advantages of scientific thought and industrial development.
The failure to accept modernity is a philosophical/spiritual question. Our own
history shows that throughout the rabbinic period, Jews examined the law and
interpreted it in light of their lives and times. Change was constant and
progressive. The Jewish religion was kept vibrant and meaningful by our rabbis
and it produced the golden ages in Spain and in modern times the great scientist
and thinkers of more modern times.
Sometimes in more recent times, change became an unpopular word in Orthodox
thinking. The farther away from Sinai a person was chronologically, the less
chance there was for his ability to make valid halachic decisions. This is a
fence built around the Torah that makes it impossible to keep it fresh and
clean. It makes it impossible to do simple spiritual maintenance needed to
repair damage from aging.
The strength of the process of interpreting the law by contemporary rabbis is
gone from our modern orthodox religion. Day to day questions of what is kosher
are minor in light of the challenges facing Jews in the gallut. The classic
Reform approach was over reaction, but the Conservative approach was exactly
what was needed to carry the religion into the 21st century.
The ideal situation in our Jewish world would be a universal acceptance of the
"Jewish People" as ahm echod, one people. If we could each accept the
possibility that other parts of the Jewish people were well meaning and only
desired the continuation of the religion, we would have a strong base to go
forward together.
Art Kamlet
In article <17BA4D59...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il>,
Michael Shimshoni <MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il> wrote:
<>An eruv is a
<>of "Asu mishmeret li'mishmarti" - make a "fence" around my statutes,
<
>noticing the funny (ridiculous) aspect of these loopholes.
Is an eruv an fence? Or is a fence an eruv?
--
Art Kamlet Columbus, Ohio kam...@infinet.com
Michael Shimshoni
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) writes:
>>>> Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> : For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a
>>>> : person carrying on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK
>>>> : since they have an eruv."
>>>
>>>I see this "example" used many times. It's a pity that it's not
>>>understood properly.
>>>
>>>For those situations, in which there is a _Biblical_ prohibition to
>>>carry, an Eruv will _not_ help. There is no "loophole".
>>
>> Two questions. Which are the cases where "there is a _Biblical_
>> prohibition to carry"?
>
>in a post to S.C.J. That's why I didn't elaborate. Since you asked
>I'll try to explain it to some extent.
>
>The Biblical prohibition is carrying items from a "public" domain to
>a "private" domain and vice-versa. There is also a Biblical
>prohibition against carrying 4 "amot" (about 2 meter) _in_ a "public"
>domain. The designations "public" and "private" do not refer to
>ownership, but rather to physical characteristics. The size, shape,
>presence/absence of walls or roofs all are part of the classification.
>The number of people passing through each day could also be
>significant.
>
>If anyone remembers the threads about an Eruv in New York, it was
>precisely about this point. If New York City is considered a "public"
>domain, an Eruv cannot be used.
What an honour that one of my question is considered "excellent". All
this stuff about "Biblical prohibitions" including such elaborate
terms (of course never mentioned in the Torah directly) as "public"
and "private". So these days some people without other worries had to
decide if all of NYC is public or no. I wonder which parts of the
camps the Israelites lived in while in the desert Moshe declared
private or public. And what about the in between domain karmelit is
that also "Biblical", or perhaps this applies only to Haifa :-). And
after all this ritualistic pilpul those like Schorr do not see how
they look to anyone not of their ilk.
>[Michael's second qustion snipped. It was more invective than search
>for an answer. We're trying to tone down the discourse in S.C.J.]
So I got for my questions one A+ and one F, how sad. Anything like
the obvious drehs used in allowing charging interest in spite of
explicitly forbidding it is "invective". What you call toning down
means simply that you have no reply which makes any sense to anyone.
So be it, let other judge your claim that Biblical prohibitions do not
allow loopholes...
>>>I know that when explained thus, it's hard to poke fun at it. Sorry.
>>
>> of noticing the funny (ridiculous) aspect of these loopholes.
>
>"loopholes". I suspect I won't be any more successful now than I was
>last time. <sigh>
I agree with you on that. One cannot "explain" the clearly
nonsensical use of words.
Rest snipped.
>Moshe Schorr
Michael Shimshoni
Simcha Streltsov
Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
: The failure to accept modernity is a philosophical/spiritual question. Our own
: history shows that throughout the rabbinic period, Jews examined the law and
: interpreted it in light of their lives and times. Change was constant and
: progressive. The Jewish religion was kept vibrant and meaningful by our rabbis
: and it produced the golden ages in Spain and in modern times the great scientist
: and thinkers of more modern times.
I like this position - it is verifiable. If you claim - and I agree -
that Judaism was always successful in dealing with new challenges -
it makes sense to learn how exactly they did it - and the source
should be Talmud and later authorities, do we agree on that?
then, we should learn their principles and apply them.
: thinking. The farther away from Sinai a person was chronologically, the less
: chance there was for his ability to make valid halachic decisions. This is a
: fence built around the Torah that makes it impossible to keep it fresh and
: clean. It makes it impossible to do simple spiritual maintenance needed to
: repair damage from aging.
this is an interesting position - but the declining ability to change
previous decisions is not a _modern_ O idea - it was, as you say, used
successfully by vibrant communities of Bavel and Spain. THerefore,
your conclusion seems faulty or at least too stringent
: The strength of the process of interpreting the law by contemporary rabbis is
: gone from our modern orthodox religion. Day to day questions of what is kosher
: are minor in light of the challenges facing Jews in the gallut. The classic
: Reform approach was over reaction, but the Conservative approach was exactly
: what was needed to carry the religion into the 21st century.
and, again, Talmudic scholars were able to deal both with the questions
of philosophy and with the questions of kashrut - right after you
endorsed their successes.
: The ideal situation in our Jewish world would be a universal acceptance of the
: "Jewish People" as ahm echod, one people. If we could each accept the
: possibility that other parts of the Jewish people were well meaning and only
: desired the continuation of the religion, we would have a strong base to go
: forward together.
and, again, those old time Rabbis were able to call those who were wrong -
wrong.
At the end, it seems that you are criticizing traditional Jewish
positions, while at the same time saying that they created
a successful society. I still dont understand
Herman Rubin
In article <1997Jul...@mm.huji.ac.il>, <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) writes:
>>>> Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
>>>> : For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a
>>>> : person carrying on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK
>>>> : since they have an eruv."
>>>I see this "example" used many times. It's a pity that it's not
>>>understood properly.
>>>For those situations, in which there is a _Biblical_ prohibition to
>>>carry, an Eruv will _not_ help. There is no "loophole".
Where is this in the Bible?
>> Two questions. Which are the cases where "there is a _Biblical_
>> prohibition to carry"?
>Your qustion is an excellent one. It would be hard to do it justice
>in a post to S.C.J. That's why I didn't elaborate. Since you asked
>I'll try to explain it to some extent.
>The Biblical prohibition is carrying items from a "public" domain to
>a "private" domain and vice-versa. There is also a Biblical
>prohibition against carrying 4 "amot" (about 2 meter) _in_ a "public"
>domain.
Again, where is this in the Bible? Or even, where is there anything
similar to it?
Or was it made up by the Rabbis in their need to establish halakhah?
Richard Schultz
Herman Rubin (hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu) wrote:
: >The Biblical prohibition is carrying items from a "public" domain to
: >a "private" domain and vice-versa. There is also a Biblical
: >prohibition against carrying 4 "amot" (about 2 meter) _in_ a "public"
: >domain.
: Again, where is this in the Bible? Or even, where is there anything
: similar to it?
: Or was it made up by the Rabbis in their need to establish halakhah?
How do you interpret the story of what was done to the person gathering
sticks on Shabbat? And since your approach to Biblical interpretation
appears to be making it up as you go along (viz. your completely ludicrous
interpretation of "moshvoteichem"), I don't see why you find something
"made up by the Rabbis" as anything particularly objectionable.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
"Don't do it, Eleanor told the little girl; insist on your cup of stars;
once they have trapped you into being like everyone else you will never
see your cup of stars again. . ."
Herman Rubin
In article <5pv7tt$r...@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>,
>: >The Biblical prohibition is carrying items from a "public" domain to
>: >a "private" domain and vice-versa. There is also a Biblical
>: >prohibition against carrying 4 "amot" (about 2 meter) _in_ a "public"
>: >domain.
>: Again, where is this in the Bible? Or even, where is there anything
>: similar to it?
>: Or was it made up by the Rabbis in their need to establish halakhah?
>How do you interpret the story of what was done to the person gathering
>sticks on Shabbat? And since your approach to Biblical interpretation
>appears to be making it up as you go along (viz. your completely ludicrous
>interpretation of "moshvoteichem"), I don't see why you find something
>"made up by the Rabbis" as anything particularly objectionable.
I do not see the Commandment as distinguishing what is done inside
as against outside. I see that the rabbis distinguished between these.
The person gathering sticks was not taking anything from a public
domain to a private one according to the account; he was still in
the public domain. Also, it stated that he was gathering sticks;
this was the prohibited activity.
This activity takes "more than normal" effort, and would be considered
work by those who have not read the rabbinic method of deciding what
is prohibited and what is not. I have not seen anything in the Torah
which contradicts the approach that it is exertion or pursuing
pecuniary activities, which are what laymen consider to be work,
is not what is meant.
Todd D. Ellner
A question about historical carrying and work on Shabbos:
Back in the good old days when our ancestors were mostly sheep herders
their lives depended on the health of the flocks. For a pastoral people
losing a few animals can be the difference between comfort and malnutrition.
Sheep have to be fed and watered every day, and they have to be guarded
from predators.
If one is lucky and the flocks are are near a good source of open water
and grass that isn't a problem. But what do you do if your animals are
in an area where they have to be fed or have water provided? Do you put
out a certain amount on Friday afternoon and hope that they will have
enough for the next day? Supplement as needed on the grounds that it is
saving a life?
What about things that eat sheep? Did the ancient children of Israel let
the jackals get Shabbos dinner for free and keep the dogs in the house or
kennel for the whole day so that they wouldn't work?
How about straying sheep? Would it have been correct to just watch them
go and try to round up the survivors on Sunday morning? (lotsa luck!)
Regards,
Todd
--
Todd Ellner | The man who never alters his opinion is like the
tel...@cs.pdx.edu | stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the mind.
(503)557-1572 | --William Blake "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
kam...@user2.infinet.com (Art Kamlet) writes:
> Michael Shimshoni <MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il> wrote:
> <>An eruv is a
> <>of "Asu mishmeret li'mishmarti" - make a "fence" around my statutes,
>>Only someone lacking any sense of humor will miss the opportunity of
>>noticing the funny (ridiculous) aspect of these loopholes.
>
> Is an eruv an fence? Or is a fence an eruv?
Art, I'm surprised you fell for Michael's jibes. The previous line is
a misquotation of something _I_ said. The subject was supposed
"loopholes" in the Halacha with the example of "eruv" being used to
permit an otherwise forbidden activity. I explained (perhaps too
tersely) that for the Biblical situation, the "eruv" would _not_ make
it permissable. For Rabbinic situations the "eruv" _may_ be used. My
quotation of "Asu mishmeret li'mishmarti" - make a "fence" around my
statutes" was to explain both the authority and the reason that the
Rabbis enacted their prohibitions.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) writes:
> Michael Shimshoni (MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il) wrote:
>>Moshe Schorr wrote:
> : >Simcha, why do I think that question violates SDNWOTN?
> :
> : Is SDNWOTN forbidden mide'oraita or merebanan?
>
> that is highly mideoraita for some.
ROTFL. Beautiful!
> or it may be a kal v'homer - reasonable argument DNWOTN,
> thereofre S does not too.
>
> anyway, it does not matter much because I take a liberal view
> on SDNWOTN, i.e. you both our old-fashioned net-orthodoxes
> who want to to restrict my right to post anything I want or
> even do not want.
Don't listen to us! You keep posting _whatever_ you want and even
what you don't want. Just remember, you won't be understood if you
use sarcasm. In your case Simcha, that won't make any difference. :-)
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>>sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) writes:
>>>>> Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
>
>>>>> : For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a
>>>>> : person carrying on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK
>>>>> : since they have an eruv."
>
>>>>I see this "example" used many times. It's a pity that it's not
>>>>understood properly.
>
>>>>For those situations, in which there is a _Biblical_ prohibition to
>>>>carry, an Eruv will _not_ help. There is no "loophole".
>
I'll assume you're serious in your question. The (one) Biblical source
for the prohibition of carrying from one domain to another is Ex. 36:6
I realize it doesn't say _exactly_ the words your looking for.
> Again, where is this in the Bible? Or even, where is there anything
> similar to it?
[sideswipe at "the Rabbis", snipped, Maybe you're not so serious]
Herman Rubin
In article <1997Jul1...@mm.huji.ac.il>, <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>>MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>>>sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) writes:
>>>>>> Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
>>>>>> : For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a
>>>>>> : person carrying on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK
>>>>>> : since they have an eruv."
>>>>>I see this "example" used many times. It's a pity that it's not
>>>>>understood properly.
>>>>>For those situations, in which there is a _Biblical_ prohibition to
>>>>>carry, an Eruv will _not_ help. There is no "loophole".
>> Where is this in the Bible?
>I'll assume you're serious in your question. The (one) Biblical source
>for the prohibition of carrying from one domain to another is Ex. 36:6
>I realize it doesn't say _exactly_ the words your looking for.
I have looked at this passage and surrounding ones. A prohibition to
bring anything more for the purpose of the Mishkan at any time, because
there is already too much, seems totally irrelevant.
>> Again, where is this in the Bible? Or even, where is there anything
>> similar to it?
>[sideswipe at "the Rabbis", snipped, Maybe you're not so serious]
It MAY be necessary to made SOME rulings regarding what is permitted
on Shabbath. But it should be done as human decisions, and that these
should be easily changed. The rabbis, in particular the Rishonim,
were great at adding bans; this is not my opinion, but that of some
Orthodox rabbinical scholars, based on responsa.
It is explicitly stated that anyone can issue a ban; it should be
the other way around.
Michael Shimshoni
In article <1997Jul1...@mm.huji.ac.il>
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>> <mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>>>MA...@weizmann.weizmann.ac.il (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>>>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>>>sim...@bu.edu (Simcha Streltsov) writes:
>>>>>> Sherwin Rubin (sbr...@airmail.net) wrote:
>>
>>>>>> : For example, I don't believe that God looks down and notices a
>>>>>> : person carrying on Shabbat and says, "Well, I guess its OK
>>>>>> : since they have an eruv."
>>
>>>>>I see this "example" used many times. It's a pity that it's not
>>>>>understood properly.
>>
>>>>>For those situations, in which there is a _Biblical_ prohibition to
>>>>>carry, an Eruv will _not_ help. There is no "loophole".
>>
>> Where is this in the Bible?
>
>I'll assume you're serious in your question. The (one) Biblical source
>for the prohibition of carrying from one domain to another is Ex. 36:6
>I realize it doesn't say _exactly_ the words your looking for.
similar crimes like hating nonsense. As a scientist I was trained to
look up references to get a better understanding. I looked up "Ex.
36:6" and would suggest everyone interested in this topic to do the
same. I am sure that if they have a Schorr mentality they will then
*clearly* understand how from that verse the prohibition of carrying
etc. follows by using some subset of Schorr logic.
>> Again, where is this in the Bible? Or even, where is there anything
>> similar to it?
>
>[sideswipe at "the Rabbis", snipped, Maybe you're not so serious]
it was about.
>Moshe Schorr
Michael Shimshoni
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
[Discussion of carrying, "public" and "private" domains, snipped]
>>> Where is this in the Bible?
>>
>>I'll assume you're serious in your question. The (one) Biblical source
>>for the prohibition of carrying from one domain to another is Ex. 36:6
>>I realize it doesn't say _exactly_ the words your looking for.
>
> I am sure Mr Schorr will accuse me again of quoting out of context and
> similar crimes like hating nonsense.
When did I ever accuse you of the "crime" of hating nonsense? My
complaint to you is usually the selective way you _define_ nonsense.
> As a scientist I was trained to
> look up references to get a better understanding. I looked up "Ex.
> 36:6" and would suggest everyone interested in this topic to do the
> same. I am sure that if they have a Schorr mentality they will then
> *clearly* understand how from that verse the prohibition of carrying
> etc. follows by using some subset of Schorr logic.
Ah, but Michael, we've already established that Torah is _not_ a
"science". The rules of "drash" are not "logic" driven. We have a
3,000 year tradition of what the Torah refers to in its verses. You
can be snide or sarcastic in your posts (you usually are) but to
complain about the "rules" of Torah is, to take a famous example,
like complaining of the "rule" that a pawn must make at least 5 moves
before it can be promoted to a Queen. If you don't like the rules,
don't complain about them. Ignore them if you will, but don't
belittle those that accept them.
For the sake of those who are genuinely interested. The verse is in
regard the bringing of contributions to building the Mishkan - the
Sanctuary in the desert. Remember, _all_ the rules of Shabbos are
derived from the building of the Mishkan. The verse says (free
translation) "An announcement was made in the Encampment, 'all men
and women should not make anything more for a holy donation'. The
people ceased _bringing_". I emphasized the last word. The Rabbis
taught that part of the proclamation which was issued on Shabbos was
that no person should _bring_ any donation _today_ since that would
involve transfer from a "public" domain to a "private" one.
>>> Again, where is this in the Bible? Or even, where is there anything
>>> similar to it?
>>
>>[sideswipe at "the Rabbis", snipped, Maybe you're not so serious]
>
> As that sideswipe had been censored by Mr Schorr I have no idea what
> it was about.
You mean you don't see all posts? Must every post be repeated in its
entirety when being answered?
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
[lot's snipped]
> I have looked at this passage and surrounding ones. A prohibition to
> bring anything more for the purpose of the Mishkan at any time, because
> there is already too much, seems totally irrelevant.
Herman, For Michael Shimshoni's sake, I elaborated on the drash
involved. In case you missed it I'll post it here and send you a copy.
Th everse is Ex.36:6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the sake of those who are genuinely interested. The verse is in
regard the bringing of contributions to building the Mishkan - the
Sanctuary in the desert. Remember, _all_ the rules of Shabbos are
derived from the building of the Mishkan. The verse says (free
translation) "An announcement was made in the Encampment, 'all men
and women should not make anything more for a holy donation'. The
people ceased _bringing_". I emphasized the last word. The Rabbis
taught that part of the proclamation which was issued on Shabbos was
that no person should _bring_ any donation _today_ since that would
involve transfer from a "public" domain to a "private" one.
Moshe Schorr
Herman Rubin
>> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il writes:
>>>hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>[Discussion of carrying, "public" and "private" domains, snipped]
>>>> Where is this in the Bible?
>>>I'll assume you're serious in your question. The (one) Biblical source
>>>for the prohibition of carrying from one domain to another is Ex. 36:6
>>>I realize it doesn't say _exactly_ the words your looking for.
>> I am sure Mr Schorr will accuse me again of quoting out of context and
>> similar crimes like hating nonsense.
>When did I ever accuse you of the "crime" of hating nonsense? My
>complaint to you is usually the selective way you _define_ nonsense.
>> As a scientist I was trained to
>> look up references to get a better understanding. I looked up "Ex.
>> 36:6" and would suggest everyone interested in this topic to do the
>> same. I am sure that if they have a Schorr mentality they will then
>> *clearly* understand how from that verse the prohibition of carrying
>> etc. follows by using some subset of Schorr logic.
>Ah, but Michael, we've already established that Torah is _not_ a
>"science". The rules of "drash" are not "logic" driven. We have a
>3,000 year tradition of what the Torah refers to in its verses.
You can have additional rules, but state them clearly, so that one
can do other than take the word of the rabbis that they have been
properly applied.
You
>can be snide or sarcastic in your posts (you usually are) but to
>complain about the "rules" of Torah is, to take a famous example,
>like complaining of the "rule" that a pawn must make at least 5 moves
>before it can be promoted to a Queen.
This "rule" is not present in any chess book, but it is derivable
BY THE RULES OF LOGIC from the rules for movement of a pawn. There
is no ambiguity whatever as to whether a sequence of moves is valid
in chess. If the "rules" of interpretation of Torah cannot be so
stated, they do not deserve to be called rules.
If you don't like the rules,
>don't complain about them. Ignore them if you will, but don't
>belittle those that accept them.
Again, what are the rules? I have asked before for them.
I do not remember all of the rules of Rabbi Ishmael, but I have
seen them, and NONE of them is a rule. They are vague suggestions.
In a given situation, they can be applied to get contradictory
interpretations.
.....................
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> writes:
[lot's of acrimony, snipped good riddance]
> Moshe Schorr points out that the rule forbidding carrying
> objects from the private domain into the public domain is
> based on Exodus 36:6, and is therefore "d'oraita" (from
> the Torah). This is factually correct. However, those
> of us who do not automatically accept (all) halakhah as
> binding and/or who care to know more about the distinction
> between rules that are "d'oraita" and those that are
> "de-rabbanan" (rabbinic) should be aware of how rules
> in the former category are derived.
>
> The present instance is a beautiful example of how a
> particular halakhah is derived from a scriptural passage
> which - on the face of it - is completely unrelated to
> the issue at hand.
>
> Exodus 36:6-7 read (I am emphasising several crucial words):
> "And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be
> _proclaimed_ throughout _the camp_, saying: `Let neither man
> and woman make any more _work_ for the offering of the sanctuary.
> So the people were restrained from _bringing_. For the stuff
> they had _was sufficient_ for all the _work_ to make it, and
> too much".
>
> On the face of it, what we are told is the following:
> Having been asked to donate fabrics, jewels, and precious
> metals for construction and decoration of the sanctuary,
> the people were too generous; having provided a surplus
> of material, they were ordered to stop bringing any more.
>
> However, (Shabbat 96b) [I am changing the order of the
> argument for convenience, but have not falsified anything
> deliberately]:
>
> Since the _camp_ was in the public domain and the people
> had to _bring_ the gifts from their private lodgings,
> we are clearly being taught a halakhic lesson about
> taking objects out of the private domain and _bringing_
> it into the public domain.
>
> The biblical passage juxtaposes the words _work_ (melakhah),
> and _bring_ (hava'ah), whereas the material brought into
> the public domain was first _taken out_ (hotza'ah), from
> the private domain, from which we learn that _hotza'ah
> (taking out) is in the category of _work (melakhah).
>
> Since Moses ordered a cessation of the taking objects out of
> the private domain and bringing them into the public domain
> (we will not go into subtle distinctions between carrying,
> dragging, throwing, etc... ), this _work_ is forbidden on
> Shabbat.
>
> One minor difficulty remains. As Moshe notes above, these
> events are assumed to have taken place on - or just before -
> Shabbat, but there is no mention of Shabbat in the biblical
> story, so the Gemara asks: "How do we know that this refers
> to Shabbat?", and answers: "For it is written: `ve-ha-melakha
> haytah dayah' (and the work [translated by the JPS as 'the
> stuff they had'] was sufficient)". This may or may not be
> a hint that because, as a rule, work (e.g. the work of
> creation) is completed before Shabbat, Moses' instruction to
> cease _bringing in_ was given on Shabbat. Most commentators
> pass this suggestion by, as they consider it sufficient to
> have "proven" that _taking out_ and _bringing in_ are
> halakhically defined as _work_, which is forbidden generically
> elsewhere in the Torah. From this point of view, it is
> immaterial whether the events described in Exodus 36:6-7
> occurred on Shabbat or on a weekday.
>
> Still, it would be nice to "prove" that the events did take
> place on Shabbat, so the Talmud draws an analogy. "Our" verse
> reads, "they caused it to be _proclaimed_ (vaya`aviru` kol)
> throughout the camp", and Leviticus 25:9 reads, "Then thou
> shalt make _proclamation_ with the blast of the horn
> (ve-he`evarta shofar) on the tenth day of the seventh month".
> The_proclamation_ in the second verse is made on Yom Kippur,
> on which work is forbidden, so - obviously - Moses _proclaimed_
> the rule in the first verse on another day on which work is
> forbidden: Shabbat.
Bless you Amitai for a fair and clear exposition of the source.
> We can avoid a good deal of unnecessary dispute on scj if we
> can agree that there are many halakhot - like this one - that
> are _from_ the Torah, in the sense that they are deduced,
> one way or other, _from_ a scriptural passage, but are not
> _in_ the Torah, and that the term "Torah rule" does not mean
> the same thing to Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews.
It is _always good to have our terms, clear.
Amitai Halevi
On 21 Jul 1997 mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> writes:
>
> [lot's of acrimony, snipped good riddance]
>
For the record, I am not responsible for the acrimony.
Thank you, Moshe, for the blessing. By presenting the Talmudic
source as fairly as I could, I may have obscured my own opinion
that exegetic exercises of this kind, while useful for deducing
halakhot, are completely unrelated to the plain text. I tried
to get this point across by injecting a note of irony into my
analysis, but Moshe's unreserved praise suggests to my that it
was too feeble. Evidently, irony - like sarcasm - does not work
_well_ on the net. I am reluctant to concede that it does not
work at all. The perceptive reader who is not too lazy to
reread my post - which Moshe kindly reproduced in full above -
may detect in it a hint or two that my tongue was not altogether
out of my cheek.
> > We can avoid a good deal of unnecessary dispute on scj if we
> > can agree that there are many halakhot - like this one - that
> > are _from_ the Torah, in the sense that they are deduced,
> > one way or other, _from_ a scriptural passage, but are not
> > _in_ the Torah, and that the term "Torah rule" does not mean
> > the same thing to Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews.
>
> It is _always good to have our terms, clear.
>
With this I can agree without reservation.
- posted and mailed -
Amitai
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| E. Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> |
| Department of Chemistry, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology |
| http://www.technion.ac.il/technion/chemistry/staff/halevi |
| |
| "`Od yenuvun be-seva, deshenim ve-ra`ananim yihyu", Psalms 92,15 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
> Moshe Schorr
>
HowardZ
My recollection is that the halacha d'oraita for
carrying on the sabbath defines a rshut-harabim
as a road where 600,000 people travel every day.
In such a road it is forbidden to carry...
Later rabbis made forbidden carrying in other
places.....and the Aruv....makes permissible
the carrying that was forbidden by the rabbinical
laws. An aruv can never include such a highly
travelled road.
Also forbidden d'oraita is to go a certain distance
outside a city....perhaps it was a mile??
Harry Weiss
> <1997Jul1...@mm.huji.ac.il> <Pine.OSF.3.95.970720...@aluf.technion.ac.il> <1997Jul2...@mm.huji.ac.il> <Pine.OSF.3.95.97072...@aluf.technion.ac.il> <33d921f8...@news.erols.com>
Organization: Netcom On-Line Services
Distribution:
HowardZ (How...@localhost.com) wrote:
: My recollection is that the halacha d'oraita for
Actually according to most authorities doraita the distance is 12 mil.
(a mil is 2000 amot or about 3000 feet so 12 mil is 36,000 feet.)
Rabbinically the distance is mil.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@netcom.com