Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site eisx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!whuxlm!spuxll!eisx!sms From: sms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Re: Ethiopian Jews, Racist Ultra-Orthodox, and "Who is a Rabbi?" Message-ID: <861@eisx.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Feb-85 11:17:09 EST Article-I.D.: eisx.861 Posted: Tue Feb 5 11:17:09 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Feb-85 05:26:49 EST Organization: AT&T Info. Sys. Labs, South Plainfield NJ Lines: 311 I usually would not think of posting such a long letter, but J. Abeles has said some things which I feel very strongly about. I doubt this will be the last word, but please hear me out. J. Abeles's comments are noted by a ">". > Israel was not founded by Orthodox Jews for Orthodox >Jews. Orthodox Jews are only one kind of Jew. Conservative, Reform, >Reconstructionist, unaffiliated, nonreligious, etc., are other kinds >of Jews. All are Jews and all have the same rights to speak up for >the Jewish point of view. All their voices are equally valid. The only >thing that gives a person or a group of people a more important voice >is the fundamentally democratic process of leadership by consent. That democratic process in 1948 set up the rule that conversion was to be according to Halachah. This does not mean that on a whim *later* groups can change this. To change it in Israel would be approximately equivalent to a Constitutional Convention in the US. When was the last time we had one of those? They are allowed, but there hasn't been one in 190+ years. >(Israel was founded by secular Zionists who were left to do the job You are forgetting about all of the earlier aliyot from the middle of the 18th century and through the early 20th. These people were running away from the pogroms and were generally Shtetl residents who were very religious. Furthermore, there have ALWAYS been Jews in Israel. They lived in Jerusalem and other places and were just about all religious. It was to acknowledge this and to lend legitimacy to the term "The Jewish State" that the religious laws were accepted. >because virtually all Orthodox groups opposed the creation of the >Israeli state. Simply false. You are thinking about the Netureh Karta (sp). There were some Jews who initially felt that way but except for the NT in Israel, (and maybe a few even smaller groups) all religious Jews were for the state. Many felt that the creation of the state was actually the first step in the coming of the Mashiach. There were probably more who felt this way than there were who felt Jews should wait for the Mashiach to initiate the redemption. > It was populated primarily by refugees from Hitler >who were not interested in a religious state as now being pressed >by the Orthodox. Later many Sephardim were brought to Israel, too.) Although a good portion of the Jews who escaped Hitler's Europe were cynical about Judaism, this is a glaring generality that will withstand no close scrutiny. >Not unless Israelis develop a wide consensus that the Orthodox conversion >process is the best should it be the only one permitted. Can it be >stated any more clearly than that? It seems to me that conversion should be done in such a way that the *results* will satisfy the most people. A Reform Jew will accept an Orthodox conversion but not the other way around. In order for everyone to accept each other, the strictest must be observed. Although I truly believe that religion is a purely personal matter (I detest proselytizing by anyone) The issue of the act of conversion is a *public* matter. If I as a Jew wish to marry only another *Jew* I must have no doubts about the fact that the prospective spouse is, in fact, Jewish. Imagine the following scenario that a democratically accepted, less stict, conversion could cause: The offspring (m/f) of a female convert (converted according to Reform standards) not realizing that the conversion is not 100% accepted, begins practicing a more religious form of Judaism than his/her parents. This puts the person in a group of peers who are also more religious. The person later meets and wants to marry a Jew who follows the more religious "system" This first person is not Jewish by the second's standards and the prospective spouse is now the source of great agitation in the family. Shalom Bayit is *gone*. If, however, the conversion would have been according to the strict procedure (ie according to Halachah) this whole issue would have been avoided. Convenience for one person may have an extreme effect on the people you would least want to hurt: your children. >I for one would oppose the ultra-Orthodox position in question vigorously >because it gives too much power to the Orthodox authorities. Religion >should not be enforced by the State. Now wait a minute. This is fine for the US but not for Israel. Israel is the *JEWISH* State. Therefore, it should have laws in accordance with the JEWISH rules. I doubt you would expect the Vatican to follow a purely secular set of laws. (I believe that the Vatican is subject to most, if not all, of Italy's laws and then some but don't flame me if I'm wrong about this) I believe it is a major concession to the "West" that a person in Israel can fight out a court battle in either a "religious" or a "secular" court. He must abide by whichever decision is arrived at in the place he chooses first. Go to a trial of a thief in Iran and see if he can get 30 days. He'll get his hand cut off (the punishment proscribed in the Koran - the religious law). > Those who claim self-righteously >that their way is the only way according to Halachah should quit enforcing >their beliefs on others. If Judaism is truth, then Jews will be attracted >to it by natural laws from HaShem. Education is one thing, but using >the power of the State to enforce one's beliefs is anathema to me. I doubt you will find many Reform Jews who will insist that a reform conversion was done according to Halachah (even if they do know the meaning of the word "Halachah" :-) :-) ....) As far as enforcing the law, Currently I believe that the Halachic conversion is the law of the land. If the government is not the one to enforce that, who is? By the way, I am not too thrilled by your debate technique of throwing out a term which is not commonly known and assuming everyone w/should know it. I am referring to the term "natural laws from HaShem". What is a "natural law"? Do you mean the laws which have existed for the longest amount of time? This would have to mean laws in the Torah (An impossible interpretation since the Reform conversion specifically goes against those laws) Could you be referring to the laws of Nature? (such as "the sun rises in the east"... Also doubtful since those types of laws have little bearing on this discussion). Maybe a natural law is one which *everyone* in the world adheres to. I can't think of any off hand, but maybe you know of some. >And remember, Judaism consists of beliefs. If it were factual it would >be, essentially, scientific, and we could uncover Halachah without need >to resort to the arcane texts, viz., Tanach and Talmud, etc. Judaism is far more than beliefs. It is a culture, a religion and a way of life. Those "arcane" texts you speak of are also a very important way of explaining how we should do the things outside of the belief part of Judaism. Furthermore, I know of very few texts as old as the Talmud which cogently (albeit somewhat allegorically) discuss things like transplant, abortion, technology, etc in *more* than a purely philosophical vein. >Orthodox Judaism falsely but aggressively asserts itself to be the >only legitimate heir to mainstream Judaiem which produced >the traditions (including Halacha) which are handed down in the various >"sources." It may not be the legitimate heir to mainstream Judaism, but it predates Conservative and, yes, even Reform Judaism by *many* years. The only type of Judaism existent today which is older is assimilated Judaism. That form leads to a dead end and should not form the basis for mainstream practice/belief. >I know a lot of Orthodox people who, unlike myself, are quite concerned >about having people who consider themselves to be Jewish but who were >not converted "al pi Halacha (according to Jewish Law)" getting married >to Orthodox Jews as a result, possibly, of not knowing that a conversion >was done incorrectly. Let me assist you in resolving this problem, >which many Orthodox Jews feel could pose a danger to the entire Jewish >people. >Let's examine the reality. When an Orthodox person marries, he or she >doesn't just take a mate by randomly selecting from among those who >claim to be Jewish. The person discriminates (this kind of discrimination >is perfectly alright) based on many characteristics by which people are >distinguished. In reality, aside from attractiveness, character, intelli- >gence, education, etc., religious background and family history (what >Ashkenazim called "yichus") are quite important. If the person is a >renegade, they may not pay attention to those important characteristics >but by the same token may not marry someone who is Jewish at all. So >realistically nobody is going around just marrying someone who says that >he or she is Jewish if they are serious about being Orthodox. I am a single Jewish male and I know that my primary checklist of requirements for a person to date is as short as I can allow. This list starts off with "must be female", has an age range and also says "must be Jewish". I expect to find out the rest with time. I realize that this opens me up to the possibility of getting "stuck" with some undesirable characteristics; if I "fall in love" with a person, I may not want to make sure they fit my secondary list of criteria. Furthermore, the above does not address the problem of the second generation. What happens in the scenario noted above is still a problem. I can hear you saying: "Oh, come on! that is such an uncommon problem!" Fortunately, it is uncommon. For now. As more people "convert" by the less stringent rules, you must expect incidences like this to occur more and more frequently. >In the present generation the majority of Orthodox are descended from >families who came out of Europe within the last three generations (counting >the present one), at least among Ashkenazim. Among Sephardim, the culture >is even more strict, typically, about who is and who is not suitable for >marriage (note the Syrian community or Martillo's use of the phrase >"Sephardim Tahor"--pure Sephardim). Among Ashkenazim, people assume >that everyone from Europe pretty much is actually really Jewish. How >do we know that this is true, and that they were either descended from >Jacob (a. k. a. Israel?) or converted according to Halacha? We just have >to accept it the way it is, because nobody really knows for sure who >his ancestors were. We are told such and such, and some people can >trace part of their ancestry to a documented rabbinical line, but there >is still the faith that the documentation was not contrived or falsified. >There is no way to reach into the dark past and hold a trial to verify that >anyone is really Jewish according to the requirements. An excellent argument and an important problem. One that was already addressed in the "arcane" text the book of Ezra and Nechemiah (sp). They were only dealing with the time between the first and second temples (about 70 or so years). I believe they decided that if you could trace by memory that your grandfather was Jewish you could be considered a Jew. (If you said I recall my grandfather did such and such in the temple, you would be considered a Cohen or Levi.) This was only 70 years and they had big enough problems that we can read about it even today. The amount that they knew about how Judaism was originally followed can reasonably be assumed to be significantly greater than which we know today. What right do we have to do any less? The "grandfather clause" would effectively preclude *any* convert so conversion becomes a way around the grandfather clause. That is enough of a concession. There is no need for any more. > The key point is >that we believe we as a people are really Jewish because we believe in >G-d and we believe in G-d for strictly personal reasons! I don't argue with beliefs. It is the practices which affect others that concern me. >One point of the last paragraph is that at the present time it is easy >to tell whether a person is really Jewish if you define anyone coming >from a shtetl in Poland, etc., as being really Jewish. I have never heard of this as a criteria for Jewishness. The Jews began to leave the Shtetl in the 1700's and that is long enough ago that it can't be used as a primary criteria today. > But this will not >continue forever. In the world today there is lots of assimilation >resulting in intermarriage, and regardless of whether or not an Orthodox >person believes that conversion according to Halacha is mandatory, there >will be people running around within four generations who will not be >Jewish according to that position but who will honestly believe themselves >to be Jewish and who will present themselves as being Jewish. The kind >of law Orthodox want cannot prevent this. No law can prevent this. >The only thing we can rely upon is the help of G-d to keep us together >as the Jewish people. G-d helps those who help themselves, One way to help ones self is to work hard to prevent the intermarriage (difficult) and problems with 4th generation (ie later) intermarried people not knowing their origins. To do this you must teach at the first generation. Once a person has intermarried, you must *usually* consider that to be a person who does not truly respect his roots. You cannot build the Jewish people on those who have intermarried. One reason is that there is invariably a problem that will arise when it comes to the religious education of the offspring. One of 4 things will happen: You teach the kids the religion of the (1) father, (2) the mother, (3) neither or (4) some of each. This is, at best, a 1 in 4 chance of getting Judaism. Once the intermarriage occurs, you are introuble. ("You" = the Jewish community) > but when there >is no way to help yourself then you must rely upon G-d. This is one of >those cases. G-d *must* help us in these matters if the Jewish people >are to survive. Isn't one of the best "articles of faith" that people >turn to when searching for a reason to believe in Judaism the fact that >the Jewish people have survived the exile for two thousand years? Could >we have done this without the help of G-d? Then we must rely upon HaShem >for something like this as well. You might talk about the education ethic which has enabled the Jews to survive for so long. Others have this ethic, but it when combined with some of the other attributes and values of the Jews our longevity is not so mysterious. Also, you are talking about a pretty active god here. One so active that I would first expect him to have saved a certain 6,000,000 people about 40 years ago. I use the lower case letters to write "him" and "god" because I doubt that you are referring to the Jewish God in the above. :-) >However, with regard to what the individual can do, aside from general >t'shuva, any serious Orthodox person must investigate the family of the >person they are considering marrying. This is essentially, as I remarked >above, no different from the way it is in reality anyway! >And furthermore, divisiveness such as is spawned by such a move on the >part of the Orthodox as the attempt to enact the amendment to the "Law >of Return" is exactly what caused, according to tradition, the exile >and destruction of the Second Temple. I believe that I have shown above >that amending the "Law of Return" is not necessary because it cannot >be effective at helping a problem which requires divine intervention >to prevent. That is, it won't help, it is divisive, and we must rely >on HaShem for this because there is no man-made remedy for what ails >us in this case. > >The divisiveness is really caused by arrogance on the part of the Orthodox >leaders. As a close friend has pointed out, the issue is not, "Who is >a Jew?" but, rather, "Who is a Rabbi?" The issue is not whether >converts are accepted as Jews by the Orthodox, but whether Conservative >and Reform rabbis are accepted as rabbis by the Orthodox rabbis. The >reason is simple: because the authority to convert is, according to >the way the Orthodox want it, taken away from any rabbis who are Conservative >or Reform. Thus, (as Rabbi Yitzchak Greenberg said, and I summarized >to the net many months ago) it is a power struggle between the Orthodox >and Conservative (as well as Reform) authorities. It is arrogance! >A Good Shabbos to all, > >--J. Abeles Not meaning to be divisive (:-)), but I believe it *not* the Orthodox who are divisive in this issue (at least). As I said earlier, for some- thing which effects more than just one's self, you must go by the route which will lead to the results which will satisfy the most people. Just as in many Reform synogogues there are Kosher kitchens (even though many/most members might not care one way or the other) so too with the issue of conversion. Clearly, every one accepts an Orthodox conversion, even the most reform. The converse is not true. Therefore, allowing the less strict method must be the one to split the Jewish community; this is divisiveness and is, as Abeles says, a shame. Sam Saal ..{ihnp4}!eisx!sms Every man, as a member of the common wealth, ought to be content with the possesion of his own opinion in private, without perplexing his neighbor or disturbing the public. J.Swift -- Sam Saal @ Video Heaven