Conference taveng::bagels

    hi,
    
    What are these?
    
    Malcolm

    .1
    
    I believe they are ideologically to the left of the reformed congregations

    The Concord Area Jewish Group meets is led by an excellent
    Re-constructionist Rabbi, Michael Luckens.  We meet at the
    First Parish Unitarian Church in Concord.  A new synagogue 
    is under construction just off Route 2 near the Howard Johnson
    restaurant in Concord.  The group has evolved over the last 10 
    years from a small group of families seeking Jewish Education 
    for our children to a congregation of 125 families.  We are not
    formally affiliated with any movement, but under Michael's 
    spiritual leadership, we practice "reconstructionist" Judaism.
    
    The new synagogue should be ready for High Holidays in 1989.  We 
    have been planning and fund-raising to build our own home for 3 years.
    
    Re-constructionism is a new movement begun by Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan
    of Russia and Philadelphia.  He had four daughters, and felt they had
    the same right to a Bar Mitzvah; he held the first Bat Mitzvah in the
    early 1920s.  The philosophy has evolved form his teachings, and the
    yashiva he and his followers founded.  Michael is a mamber of one of
    the first graduating classes,  in the late 60s.  
    
    I will post more on reconstructionism when I have a bit more time.
    
    If you're interested, you can contact the CAJG thru me; I'll post
    names and numbers of other members soon.  The group answering ma
    machine is 508-369-1223.
    
    Alan Spillert  NACMIS::SPILLERT

	See note 135.39 for some additional comments on Reconstructionism.

	We have been active in Shir Hadash, the Greater Boston
Reconstructionist Havurah.  We meet in members' homes and in the social
hall of the Lutheran Church in Newton Centre.  Dialing (617) 965-6862
will get you a recorded message announcing forthcoming events (and allow
you to leave messages).  I will respond to email inquiries.   High Holiday
service this year will be in the auditorium of the Solomon Schechter School
in Newton.

	The services are predominantly Hebrew, conducted by the members,
including Torah reading (we are always looking for people who want to read
or learn how to read), dvar Torah, etc.  We have grown to the point where
we can support a part-time Rabbi (her name is Barbara Penzner).

	The two things I like best are the sense of community the Havurah
creates and the level of activity it generates.  The first time we went
to a service we arrived not knowing anyone and by the time it was over we
felt a part of the group.  There are study groups, social action groups,
charitable activities, etc.  In fact, there are more things going on in this
group than in the much larger congregation we used to belong to!  (If you
get the impression that I am enthusiastic about this Havurah you are correct.)

					Aaron

    thanks to .3 & .4 for info on their congregations and on relevant
    notes in this conference

Note 509.3:            
>    The Concord Area Jewish Group meets ...at the
>    First Parish Unitarian Church in Concord.

Note 509.4:
>  We meet in ...the social hall of the Lutheran Church in Newton Centre.  

Does anyone else find this a little amusing and ironic, or am I
just an orthodox reactionary racist sexist?

Old joke from which I hope no one takes offense:
Q. How does a Reconstructionist address his prayers?
A. "To whom it may concern:"

Actually, this joke at Mordecai Kaplan's expense is directed
more at his fairly well-defined philosophy than at the chavura movement.
Kaplan's philosophy may be well-defined, and appealing, but I'm not sure 
it's *Jewish*.  The idea of a culture/history-oriented religion may be 
attractive to the modern mind, but divorcing Judaism from *God* is quite
a break!
As for the chavura movement, I'm not sure if this is really the same as
Reconstructionism.  In fact, its very "unstructuredness" makes it kind
of difficult to define and therefore to accept or refute.  My brief
experiences with it always kind of reminded me of summercamp.  A little
too free-wheeling for my tastes.  Again, I don't mean to offend here, but
the idea of everyone sitting around "discussing the parsha" often amounts
to little more than a sharing of ignorance.  People can talk with their
friends about their ailments, but when they really want proper treatment
they go to a doctor.  In the same way, Torah should be taught by people
who have studied it at length and in depth.  The problem with the chavurot
is that they are usually run by amateurs.
    
I know, I know.  The "professionals" (at least the ones I would
recognize as such) don't want to have anything to do with the chavurot.

Obviously, there's a problem here.  I may be orthodox but I also have two
young daughters.  I think the problem of a woman's place in our religion
is the greatest one facing us.  How is it that a woman can be a total
*equal* all week long -- in her job, in her school, in her family -- and
then come to shul on shabbat and be a spectator?  I truly don't know what
my religion has to offer my daughters, whom I would like to see grow up 
religious but also free and intelligent.  The problem is that the people
with the moral and scholarly authority to do something about this, don't.
And the people who care enough to do something, alluded to above, don't
have the respect and authority to have an effect.
    Comments?

    I think this relates to the discussion of Judaism as Culture versus
    Judaism as Religion that has taken place elsewhere in this conference
    on several occasions.  I consider myself Jewish culturally, but am 
    not now and expect never to be a Jew in the religious sense.  I do not
    believe in the Torah as the word of God, though I believe it has much
    to teach us about the roots of our culture.

    Sadly, because I've drifted away from the religion, I've also lost 
    most of my connections with the culture.  I'm not familiar with 
    Mordecai Kaplan's work, but "To Whom it May Concern" doesn't sound 
    that ridiculous to me.  Think about it before you react:  I don't 
    know who/what/if God is.  If I pray, it is of necessity going to be
    addressed to "whatever is out there listening."  There's nothing that
    another person can add to that relationship; it's a personal one.

    On the other hand, other people who share my point of view as well as
    the common Jewish culture could add a lot to my life; I would hope I
    could add some to theirs.  Even if you are a religious Jew, do you not
    agree that it is better for those of us who have "wandered away" from
    that religion to at least work toward maintaining and enriching our
    appreciation of our culture?  It makes me very sad to think of losing
    that heritage.

    Beverly

    What is the "culture"  and what about it makes it worth keeping,
    nuturing, and passing down through generations?
    
    ---Av

    re:.6
    No, it is not ironic at all that churches are borrowed by Jewish
    congregations. 
    
    Over here, it is quite verboten to use a government-funded facility
    (i.e., school) for religious purposes.  It is also very expensive
    to build a synagogue.  Large "public" buildings therefore come down
    to little more than churches.  (The temple I attended as a child
    met in Odd Fellows Hall, a private social club, before building
    its own sanctuary.)  When churches are used, the religious
    ornamentation is discretely covered over...
    
    BTW, Sid, there are "egalitarian Traditional" congregations (mainly
    of the havura nature) that pretty much follow Orthodox liturgy and
    study halacha, but do not follow the Orthodox customs of purdah.
    They're more traditional than the Conservative (called Traditional
    in Israel, I hear) shuls.
         fred

RE: Note 509.6

    About church space: 

    A number of Jewish groups (including Orthodox) rent space in churches
    around here.  As far as I know, none of the groups meets in the
    sanctuaries. 


>Kaplan's philosophy may be well-defined, and appealing, but I'm not sure 
>it's *Jewish*...divorcing Judaism from *God* is quite a break!

    If you think Kaplan was divorcing Judaism from God, you have misread
    him.  Kaplan (and others) have pointed out that our concepts of God
    have changed in significant ways through the millennia.  We have
    been constantly redefining our ideas of the divine and current
    Chassidic/Orthodox/Conservative/Reform/Reconstructionist views are
    neither the first nor the last word on the subject.  Kaplan was
    concerned with developing a concept of God that would make sense
    to non-fundamentalist Jews.

>As for the chavura movement, I'm not sure if this is really the same as
>Reconstructionism.
    
    No, it is not.  There are lots of different types of havurot, although
    I think Reconstructionists tend to be attracted to the Havurah model.
    
>                                  Again, I don't mean to offend here, but
>the idea of everyone sitting around "discussing the parsha" often amounts
>to little more than a sharing of ignorance...Torah should be taught by people
>who have studied it at length and in depth.
    
    A valid criticism, but applicable to specific cases, not havurot
    in general.  Ours tends to be well structured and we have both a
    rabbi and quite a few knowledgeable lay persons.  [Low flame:  Torah
    should be taught by people who know something of Jewish history
    and the archaeology of the Middle East, who can tell the difference
    between midrash and history and understand the functions of both.
    Unless they can, they have not studied in depth.]

>Obviously, there's a problem here.  I may be orthodox but I also have two
>young daughters...
    
    As Blu Greenberg pointed out in her book (sorry, I forget the title)
    on Orthodox feminism, part of the problem is that women have not
    been allowed to be poskim, and that if they were, some of the problems
    would have been resolved...

    					Aaron

    Back when our shul was in an old house, we rented the function room
    to some fundamentalist Christians for their bible study group.  They
    were actually hoping to  buy the house when we moved out, but it wasn't
    possible (the building would have required immense amounts of work to
    meet the current fire code).  I don't know if we rent space in our new
    building to them.
    
    		                  Paul
    	

Re churches:

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.  I just thought it was
funny that all the reconstructionist minyanim offered as replies met
in churches.  It may be halachically problematic (so is visiting
Westminster Abbey), but I don't think that's a major concern of
the people who attend.

Re is it better than nothing? (note .7).  I personally think it is
better than nothing (though this may not be the "party line" of the
orthodix establishment, if anyone cares), if for no other reason
than the fact that as long as people have *some* connection to their
Jewishness, there is always the chance they or their children will return
to observance of mizvot as well.  Whereas, if we lose them completely,
we lose them and all their decendants forever.

Re note 9: "...there are "egalitarian Traditional" congregations (mainly
of the havura nature) that pretty much follow Orthodox liturgy and
study halacha" 
Well, you'll have to show me. Obviously some havurot are more traditional
than others.  But in my experience with these minyanim (which is admittedly
limited but not non-existent) there's always a little something wrong,
something technical -- an interruption in the wrong place in the liturgy,
something is skipped (maybe something minor, like musaf).  Of course it's only
"wrong" if you consider the halacha concerning the proper way to daven as
inviolate (as the orthodox do).  I certainly wouldn't argue with someone who
says that this rigidity is inappropriate in this century, or that it doesn't
appeal to him.  I'm just in favor of truth in advertising. 

Re note 10: "[ignorance] applicable to specific cases, not havurot in general."
I guess I generalized a bit too much there.  You can always find me a
talmid chacham (or even "stam" a yeshiva graduate) who has "left the fold"
and agreed to impart his learning to others in a havura setting.  But we
will probably disagree on whether your description or mine is more
reperesentative.  As for the remark about understanding archeology and
the role of midrash, I couldn't agree with you more.  Orthodoxy today, like
many other religions in many countries is suffering from a severe attack
of fundamentalism and literalism.  I don't think that has to be synonymous
with religious observance.  

Re women and Blu Greenberg (also note 10):  Her book is called "On Women
and Judaism - A View from Tradition".  I recommend it since it describes
the problem and ways of correcting it without throwing all of our tradition
out the window.  On the other hand, I'm very pessimistic about prospects
for change (especially here in Israel, but that's another story), and one
must keep in mind what kind of respect Blu Greenberg commands in the 
rabbinic establishment (it might be exaggerated to say that nobody ever
heard of her or her book, but not by much).

>>in churches.  It may be halachically problematic (so is visiting
>>Westminster Abbey), but I don't think that's a major concern of
>>the people who attend.

	I'm confused, WHAT WHO and WHY would make this a problem ?
    
       (Don't tell me there is some law that would forbid this.)

    Some very orthodox people will not set foot into a place of worship
    of any other religion, even as a tourist.  When we were in Israel
    with a small group from our schul, our tour guide was a very right-wing
    Israeli young woman.  She would not go onto the Temple Mount because
    of the Moslem sites there, or into any of the Christian churches.
    She would wait outside and describe what we would see inside - we
    were not always able to find some of the things she described, though,
    so it was sometimes a bit of a nuisance.  She would not go into
    the Bahai gardens, let alone the buildings in them (in Haifa), even
    though I don't *think* they are used as places of worship.
    
    I don't know how this would apply to ruins of other people's places
    of worship - would she refuse to go into Stonehenge?   Come to think
    of it, there were ruins of ancient churches at some of the
    infrequently-visited sites out in the desert, and she did go into
    those, so maybe the prohibition is only for currently-used places
    of worship of other religions.
    
    I suppose that the rationale is that by being inside such a place
    at all, someone might think you were honoring that religion, or
    maybe that in order to go inside the building you would have to
    obey some of the restrictions of the worshippers there (such as
    taking off your shoes, wearing a hat, or wearing sleeves longer
    than a certain length if you are female).
                                  
    Few people seem to be that strict on the subject.  Our guide also
    thought it was very odd that one of our party, an old man in his
    early 80s, wanted to see Golda Meir's tomb, even though he happens
    to be a cohen.  She was not used to guiding Jewish groups of any
    sort, let alone a liberal group like ours, since she spoke several
    Northern European languages (Dutch, Swedish, etc.) as well as English
    and Hebrew, and so usually guided protestant christian groups -
    there probably aren't too many israeli tourist guides who speak
    Dutch.

    RE .14

�    Some very orthodox people will not set foot into a place of worship
�    of any other religion, even as a tourist.

    "Very" and "ultra" in front of orthodox are codewords for extremism.
    I've never met a Jew who considered himself "very orthodox" or
    "ultra-orthodox".

    I don't go into churches, even as a tourist.  I did make an exception
    for the Sistine Chapel.  When the guard asked to remove my hat, I was
    glad I had a yarmulka on underneath.  While milling around looking up,
    I overheard one woman point out ("Oy, look at that") a Star of David
    design in the floor.

�    She would not go onto the Temple Mount because
�    of the Moslem sites there

    Not the real reason.  She wouldn't go onto the Temple Mount because
    nobody's certain where the Temple was.  Only the Kohen Gadol was
    allowed to go into the Holy of Holies (only once a year), and we
    might accidentally walk on that ground.  (It's a little more
    complicated than that, actually).  I'm not sure that mosques are
    forbidden, since Judaism recognizes Islam as strictly monotheistic.

    Re: .14, .15
    
    Right-wing is not a good way to describe Beerchea, our tour guide.
    Very orthodox she would have taken as a compliment.  She had not
    been very religious in her youth, but became "datee" (observant)
    later.
    
    She did not ascend the temple mount, because, being "Yisroel" (from
    the lost tribes) she did not feel she belonged there.
    

    I've been meaning to do a more extensive description of the 
    Reconstructionist Movement in response to some of the inquiries that
    have been posted in this and other notes, but I kept getting
    sidetracked by other issues and distractions such as my work...

    This reply summarizes the Reconstructionist view of Judaism as a
    civilization, and a second will discuss the problem that the
    Reconstructionist Movement is trying to address.

                             * * * * * * * *
    
    Reconstructionism is based on the idea that Judaism is a culture (or
    civilization, as some would put it).  It is more than a religion or an
    ethical system, and it is not simply an ethnic identity.  Consider some
    of the things about Judaism that qualify it to be called a civilization:
    
    Judaism grew up in and has always been linked to a specific geographic
    location, the Land of Israel.  For most of the last three millennia Jews
    have maintained a presence in the Land and for the majority of that time
    they constituted a self-governing, if not always politically
    independent, community.
    
    Judaism has a language, Hebrew, that has provided a common bond among
    all Jewish communities.  Communities that maintained some level of
    Hebrew literacy have usually managed to survive, except in cases of
    physical annihilation; as far as I know, no community that has given up
    Hebrew has survived for more than a few generations.
    
    Judaism has developed its own artistic tradition, particularly in
    literature (the premier example is the Bible), but also in other areas
    like music (especially liturgical music).  Some traditions (e.g. food,
    nigunim) may be local, but help to distinguish the Jewish community from
    its neighbors.
    
    Judaism has a set of central symbols (sometimes referred to in the
    literature of religious studies as _sancta_) that have been preserved
    over time and are universally recognized among Jews (although not
    necessarily having the same meaning for all Jews at all times).  These
    include physical symbols, such as the menorah, the seven-branched
    candelabrum, verbal symbols, such as the Sh'ma, and temporal symbols,
    such as Shabbat.
    
    Judaism has evolved a complex set of behavioral norms that serve as
    examples and guides.  Whether these are called halachot or minhagim or
    folkways, and whether they are considered binding or not, they are
    explicitly Jewish in their expression.  (This is not to say that they
    are necessarily unique to Judaism.  Many cultures share certain values,
    such as honesty, respect for age, etc., but each culture has a
    distinctive way of expressing its values.)  In one form or another these
    norms play an important role in transmitting cultural values from
    generation to generation.

    Symbols and behavioral norms are used to create religious rites that
    support the spiritual aspect of human existence.
    
    Judaism uses sanctions to control and limit deviation and disruption.
    Where the Jewish community has been self-governing, those sanctions
    could be quite severe.  Since the beginning of emancipation, in the late
    1700s, the European (and American) diaspora has depended increasingly on
    voluntary affiliation and the nature of the sanctions has changed.
    We no longer (for the most part) deal with commercial and property
    matters in Jewish courts, and sanctions tend to be limited to ritual
    contexts because the state has abrogated the right of the community to
    control other aspects of its members lives.  Today, it is only in Israel
    that Jews determine and enforce laws for the Jewish community in what
    might be called secular, as well as religious, areas.

    The Reconstructionist movement is based on the importance of
    recognizing the integral nature of Judaism.  It is meaningless, in this
    view to try to distinguish religious and secular matters, because
    Judaism encompasses  one's whole existence.  By the same token, the
    religious aspect of Judaism is an important aspect of life, but not
    only aspect. That is, not all of Judaism is explicitly religious and
    religiousness is not sufficient to define a Jewish existence.  The name
    (which I am not particularly fond of) derives from the the Movement's
    search for ways to "reconstruct" Judaism to meet the needs of today's
    Jews, much as the leaders of the Exile reconstructed First-Temple
    Judaism and the Tannaim reconstructed Second-Temple Judaism to meet the
    challenges of their own day.  

                                (to be continued)