Conference taveng::bagels

.0>              ... somewhere between 10 and 20 percent affiliate with
.0>    Orthodox and Hasidic congregations, and the remainder are divided
.0>    about equally between Conservative and Reform. (Reconstructionists are
.0>    probably less than 2 percent of the Jewish population.)

What group do these percentages cover?  Certainly not all of the Jews in
the world.  Are they only for American Jews who are members of synagogues?
Do these numbers have any real meaning, given that there are members of
Orthodox congregations who drive on Shabbat and members of Reform congregations
who don't?

Although American congregations can be divided into above categories, it
does not make sense to do the same with their members.  There also are people
who prefer not to be identified exclusively with any one of the "branches"
mentioned.  There are good reasons for this.

First of all, this kind of identification creates pressure to conform with
someone else's concept of that particular branch.

	"Why do you describe yourself as Conservative, when you don't turn
	lights on and off on Shabbat?"

	"How can you call yourself Orthodox, when you're a married woman
	but you don't cover your head?"

	"What kind of Reform Jew doesn't eat cheeseburgers?"

Secondly, this sort of label tends to promote division and misunderstanding
among Jews.  Here in Israel, for example, much of the Orthodox Rabbinate
treats the local Conservative Jews as if they were worshipers of Baal,
despite the fact that many of these Conservative Jews are just as observant
as many Orthodox Jews.  The label makes all the difference.

Finally, the division in branches, no matter how it's done, simply doesn't
reflect the reality of people's observance.  The truth is that each individual
acts as he sees fit, and with however many million Jews there are in the
world today, dividing them into 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 categories doesn't accurately
describe what they do.

.0>    Within each movement, there are subdivisions representing different
.0>    shades of political, social, and religious attitudes, and there
.0>    is a certain amount of overlap that blurs the edges.

I would say that the edges are so blurry as to be nonexistent.

.0>    I think it would be useful to look at each of the major divisions
.0>    in terms of how it sees itself, and then how it sees other groups.

Do you think that you can get a consensus among the Jews of any of the above
groups, in terms of how they see their and the other groups?  Good luck,
Aaron.

    The numbers in .0 appear sane with respect to synagogue/temple
    affiliation in the US of A.
    
    Most, but not all, congregations are affiliated with one of the
    "movements", so its members are thus "affiliated".  (My father in law
    belongs to at least three congregations ranging, I think, from Hasidic
    to Reform, which probably throws off somebody's numbers -- that to
    illustrate statistical inaccuracy.)  These distinctions are primarily
    organizational but of course quite doctrinal too. Reform and
    Conservative movements have their own schools that ordain their rabbis.
    There are probably several schools that are "Orthodox", with a national
    organization too. 
    
    Some congregations are unaffiliated.  The Cambridge (MA) shul is like
    that; they welcome all, and don't have a rabbi in residence (members
    lead services).  That may be ideal for small communities who don't want
    to be split along doctrinal lines.  But then people in the Cambridge
    area who don't like it have lots of other congregations to choose from;
    certainly it's the exception, not the rule. 

    The question of "level of observance" is different from "affiliation",
    but what it is important to observe differs to some extent among
    groups...
         fred

Re: .1
You are nit-picking. Of course the boundaries are fuzzy but I am unclear
as what defines "down-the-center" for the various branches. Nobody cares
whether it's 20% or 21% of USA Jews that attend Orthodox shuls and nobody
wants to define the difference between a non-observant Orthodox and a
non-observant Reform individual.

Re: .0
I am sure that the level of observance does NOT define the difference between
the branches. The members of the Reform synagogue that I attend today build
more Sukkot than the members of the Conservative synagogue I grew up with
(to give just one off-the-wall example). I still don't know what DEFINES the
branches. Is it really just which rabbinic school your rabbi attended? If so,
what's taught differently at those schools?

The disparaging attitude of some Orthodox individuals towards the other
branches is not helpful. My sister-in-law (for example) reports that Teaneck
(NJ) now has a large population of (observant) Orthodox Jews who are relatively
young proffesional people. The non-accepting attitude of these individuals for
her and her family for being non-observant is worse than any anti-semitic
attitude she has encountered in her lifetime. Do these people expect her to
"upgrade" to (observant) Orthodox after such keen rejection?

Dave

>Secondly, this sort of label tends to promote division and misunderstanding
>among Jews.  Here in Israel, for example, much of the Orthodox Rabbinate
>treats the local Conservative Jews as if they were worshipers of Baal,
>despite the fact that many of these Conservative Jews are just as observant
>as many Orthodox Jews.  The label makes all the difference.

That's correct.  I know for a fact that the people up the road (kvish Arava)
from me in the reform kibbutz Yahel were/are very observant.  I thihk that 
the level of observance of the reform and conservative people in Israel 
would make most American reform and "California conservative" Jews 
uncomfortable.  Re: Orthodox Rabbinate, this is just an issue of political
power, and has nothing to do with observance.  But let's not revisit that
issue, if someone is curious than he/she can go back in the directory to the
relevant note(s) on that.

>Some congregations are unaffiliated.  The Cambridge (MA) shul is like
>that; they welcome all, and don't have a rabbi in residence (members
>lead services).  That may be ideal for small communities who don't want
>to be split along doctrinal lines.  But then people in the Cambridge
>area who don't like it have lots of other congregations to choose from;
>certainly it's the exception, not the rule. 

I belong to Beth Shalom, otherwise known as the Tremont Street shul.  This is
the only synagogue in the world that I could belong to due to it's 
non-affiliation, warm hospitality, and non-concern with who is coming from
which background, etc.  As for a rabbi, we don't need one, we have Mr. Hol�er
("Reb Moishe").  But I don't think people who belong to reform shuls would
be comfortable with our services, as they are very traditional.

David    

It appears I have placed my foot firmly in my mouth once more. In my reference
to my sister-in-law in Teaneck, I did not mean to imply that all (nor even
most) Orthodox individuals make my sister-in-law uncomfortable. There are only
a small number of individuals who do this. I don't understand why they act the
way they do because I KNOW that Orthodoxy teaches exactly the opposite
behavior.

Please, I don't intend Orthodox-bashing. I love Orthodoxy and I am trying to
cope with heavy guilt feelings that I am not Orthodox myself.

Dave

    Eric, I agree with most of your comments (.1) about labeling;
    obviously, the base note is not as clear as it should have been.
    Nevertheless, many people do identify themselves in terms of a specific
    movement, and for this reason I thought it worthwhile to discuss the
    formal affiliations and what each group thinks it stands for.  The
    issue of where a given individual rates on a "frumometer" is a
    different (although related) matter.

    Similarly, the way a person feels about affiliation is related to one's
    perception of what it is that Judaism should stand for and which branch
    most closely represents that stand.  Thus, Dave (Gross .5) apparently
    thinks that Orthodoxy represents what he thinks of as "core" Judaism
    (Dave, correct me if I've misinterpreted your words), whereas I find
    that core in the Reconstructionist movement.  Thus, affiliation serves
    a very important symbolic purpose.

    In fact, when David (Cherson) refers to the political relevance of
    affiliation (.4), it should be kept in mind that this has been true of
    Judaism for a long time.  Even a casual reading of the Tanach shows
    that an intimate connection between the sacramental and the political
    is an ancient tradition in Jewish history.  (This is why, in another
    note, I referred to Judaism as a culture, rather than a religion.)
    Thus, there is a value in understanding the various branches just
    to understand some of the politics of Jewish communities here and
    in Israel.

    Aaron

    Introduction:
                   
    OK, here is Seidman's short course on Jewish ideology.  (Later on,
    perhaps, there will be one on historical evolution of these movements.)
    This represents my understanding of how each of these groups would
    represent itself.  [ I am sure there will be corrections :^) ]


    Orthodoxy
    
    Orthodox Judaism is based on the principle that the Humash and the
    Mishnah were given to the people of Israel at Mt. Sinai.  Under the
    terms of the covenant God made with us there, we assumed certain
    obligations and God made certain promises to us.  One cannot understand
    the Humash and the other parts of Torah simply by reading, since
    there are many things in Torah that are not obvious.  Thus, one
    needs to study with an appropriately trained person who can guide
    and explain Torah, a person who is part of a continuous tradition of
    learning that goes back, unbroken, to Mt. Sinai.
    
    Hassidism

    Hassidus shares these basic premises (above) with Orthodoxy, but puts
    considerably more emphasis on the mystical aspects of the human-divine
    relationship.  It puts much more emphasis on charismatic leadership;
    the Hasidic rebbe is considered to have special insight and, in
    some cases, a special ability to influence God through his prayers.
    
    Conservatism
    
    The Conservative movement accepts divine origin of Torah in general,
    but does not agree that everything in the Humash is of divine
    authorship (and has considerable reservations about claims of divine
    origin of the Mishnah).  Further, historical studies show that Judaism
    has always been dynamic and evolving; halacha has never been static.
    By studying Jewish history we can understand the development and
    evolution of halacha, and learn how to make it responsive to modern
    needs. 
    
    Reconstructionism
    
    Judaism today is being reconstructed to fit an environment that
    is vastly different from that of the preceding millennium.  This
    is only the latest of several versions of Judaism that have existed,
    each of which has been significantly different from its predecessors.
    The secret of Jewish continuity has been its ability to preserve
    its symbols and sacraments while investing them with new meaning.
    For this reason, one must study not only traditional sources of
    Jewish tradition (Tanach, Talmud, halacha, etc.), but all things
    that are relevant to Jewish civilization, including history,
    archaeology, etc.  The religious component of Judaism has always
    been part of a larger cultural context and cannot be understood
    in isolation.
    
    Reform
    
    Judaism is based on a set of divinely inspired texts and traditions
    to which quite a bit has been added over the centuries.  These
    additions were designed to serve a certain purpose and, in some
    cases, they still do.  Many practices, however, simply obscure the
    central message, which is essentially an ethical one.  By reforming the
    practice of Judaism we focus attention on what is really important:
    to lead an ethical life, and to set an example to others that we may
    indeed be a light unto the nations.

    re: .6
    
    Aaron, although I am sure that politics has played a major role
    in Judaism through the centuries, I wasn't referring to a "grand
    old tradition" in my reply, but rather to the dirty game that is
    being played out in modern Israel.
    
    David

re .8
   >                                  I wasn't referring to a "grand
   >old tradition" in my reply, but rather to the dirty game that is
   >being played out in modern Israel.
    
    David,
    
    Politics is politics and since, throughout most of our history we have
    exercised a degree of self-government, politics has been as intimate a
    part of our culture as has religion, to the point where there is
    no sharp dividing line.  One can look at some of the disputes that
    went on in the Talmudic period, for instance, over certain aspects
    of the liturgy, that were really political contests.  In politics
    some people fight clean and some fight dirty.  If you had lived
    in almost any other time in Jewish history you would have found
    something comparable (and sometimes worse).
    
    Aaron 

>   Similarly, the way a person feels about affiliation is related to one's
>   perception of what it is that Judaism should stand for and which branch
>   most closely represents that stand.  Thus, Dave (Gross .5) apparently
>   thinks that Orthodoxy represents what he thinks of as "core" Judaism
>   (Dave, correct me if I've misinterpreted your words), whereas I find
>   that core in the Reconstructionist movement.  Thus, affiliation serves
>   a very important symbolic purpose.

You are correct. In fact, you have opened my eyes to something I have taken
for granted all my life. My father's parents were Orthodox (from Vilna). My
grandmother was very domineering. This caused my father to rebel and be
non-observant. Thus, I learned implicitly non-observance as a way of life and
Orthodoxy as the "core" to which I was being non-observant. (My mother's
parents died young -- I'm named after her father, and she was raised in a
non-observant household.)

Partly as a result of my readings in Bagels, I've decided to open up some of
the books that have been gathering dust on my bookshelf. I never did enjoy
the feeling that I was a non-educated Jew.

Dave

    Reply .7 is excellent -- a flameless introduction like that is tough
    to find!
    
    If there's a "core" theological distinction among the branches/sects
    (I won't argue which word is better), then it probably has to do
    with the different types of "law" and their meaning.  I learned
    the Reform perspective on it (which links this to the discussion
    under "Messianic Jews", around .175 or so): 
    
    Moses received the Written Law and the Oral Law.  The oral law was
    not supposed to ever be written down.  Some centuries later, as
    the Romans were overrunning Israel, it was written down.  Orthodoxy
    believes (this is what a Reform rabbi told me, so if someone wants
    to disagree feel free) that the Oral Law had survived unchanged
    the entire time, so writing it down was a good thing, as it saved
    it during a difficult period of time.  Reform does not have this
    faith in the exactitude of the Oral Law, and believes as a result
    that what was written down at that time is a snapshot of how it
    looked then, but that it had been slowly evolving and was meant
    to evolve.  By writing it down, its evolution was slowed and it
    therefore cannot be considered as currently having the importance
    of the Written Law (Tanach).

    Pretty much everything else follows.
    
    As I understand it, Conservative (a newer movement than Reform,
    btw) Judaism takes the stand that the written Oral Law is a good
    start; it differs from Orthodox in its willingness to change Rabbinic
    interpretations.  Reform doesn't exactly start with a clean slate,
    but it is much freer in its attempt to make up for 1900 years of
    lost time.
        fred