Conference taveng::bagels

Re: .0

Traditional Jews accept as binding all Biblical and Rabbinic laws as codified
in the *Shulchan Aruch*, the code of Jewish law arranged by R. Yosef Karo
in the 16th century. For questions not treated directly in the S.A., a
competent *halachic* authority should be contacted.

Of course, different authorities might give you varying answers to your
questions, based on numerous factors (there is some leeway within halachic
parameters.) For this reason it is advisable
to establish a relationship with a rabbi with whom you feel comfortable,
in terms both of his competence and understanding of your situation. 

Jem

>For questions not treated directly in the S.A., a
>competent *halachic* authority should be contacted.
Let me just add that USUALLY any question of any complexity will
not have been "directly treated" in the S.A. -- which allows for
some room in applying often conflicting decisions in known 
cases (in the S.A.) to the new case at hand. This is why it is
important to do what .-1 said: establish a relationship with
a halachik authority with whom you are in harmony in some
sense. The worst thing is to always go by the most "stringent"
opinion (or the most "lenient" opinion). 
-ZAITCH

    There is also a traditional that once you have asked a rabbi to give
    you advice on a subject, once you have your answer, if you don't like
    the snawer you got, you are NOT allowed to keep asking other rabbis
    until you find one whose answer you like.  You must abide by the answer
    you first received.  This is a good reason for establishing a working
    relationship with your rabbi, if you plan on being seriously observant
    in this way.  (Note that I myself am a "liberal" Jew, and belong to a
    Reform schul.)
    
    /Charlotte

RE: 829.0

    Naturally, there is more than one opinion...
        
    In both Orthodox and Conservative traditions, the rabbi (i.e. your
    rabbi) is the authoritative interpreter of Halacha--the set of rules
    about how to be a Jew.  In principle, both movements are bound by
    Halacha and distinguish between rules that can be modified by rabbinic
    (not lay) authority and those that are direct divine commandments which
    may not be modified by human agency.  (There are some complexities in
    determining who can actually modify the modifiable rules, and in what
    context, but that is peripheral to this discussion.)

    Reform accepts the idea that some of Halacha is of (direct) divine
    origin, but also accepts the idea of individual autonomy.  Actually, it
    gets more complicated than that, because "classic" Reform was actually
    quite "orthodox" in practice (e.g. there were congregations in which
    one was forbidden to wear a kippah and tallit).  In recent years, one
    branch of the Reform movement (yes, you can subdivide most groups, down
    to the individual Jew :^) has been explicitly arguing for total
    individual autonomy, and there is some tension over that.

    The Reconstructionists view Halacha as entirely human in its expression
    (e.g. the Theophany on Mt. Sinai is understood as the way an earlier
    generation thought of God, not as a literal description of a historic
    event).  It is seen as inspired by that part of the divinity that is in
    each person, and more particularly, as the collective work of the
    Jewish people.  Thus, both the rabbi and the congregation share the
    authority to interpret and, if appropriate, modify the rules.  The
    individual may influence the interpretation, but is bound by the rules
    of the community.

    						Aaron

    And one other distinction between Orthodox and Conservative:  Orthodoxy
    holds that rabbinic decisions of an earlier epoch cannot be superseded
    by later rabbis (political analogy:  Once a legislature's term is up,
    their laws can never be rescinded) while Conservative allows its
    assembly of rabbis to override earlier ones, albeit that isn't taken
    lightly or done frivolously.

Re: .4

> 				In principle, both movements are bound by
>    Halacha and distinguish between rules that can be modified by rabbinic
>    (not lay) authority 

Orthodoxy is not in the business of "modifying rules." Generally, what 
distinguishes traditional Judaism from the offshoots, in my mind, is the
willingness to preserve and strengthen laws and traditions even though
they might not be "trendy." The main thrust, therefore, is how to best
promote observance and understanding of age-old precepts, translating
Torah practice into language apprehensible to 20th century ears. 

Jem

Gentlepeople,

I got a comment from an anonymous noter who pointed out a few areas of
misunderstanding in my previous note.  I'd like to change the wording a bit so
that I more accurately represent what I really meant.

I'll delete my previous note.

Dave

-------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: < Note 829.5 by DELNI::GOLDSTEIN "Do you, Mr. Jones?" >
                          -< notable O:C difference >-

>     And one other distinction between Orthodox and Conservative:  Orthodoxy
>     holds that rabbinic decisions of an earlier epoch cannot be superseded
>     by later rabbis (political analogy:  Once a legislature's term is up,
>     their laws can never be rescinded) while Conservative allows its
>     assembly of rabbis to override earlier ones, albeit that isn't taken
>     lightly or done frivolously.

The biggest distinction between Orthodox and all others is the role of
extra-Biblical historical analysis in making halachic decisions.  Consider the
case of Patrilineal descent (DON'T ARGUE THE ISSUE HERE!!!! I'm just bringing
it up to illustrate a point.  This does not necessarily represent my view, nor
the views of the management.)

If you study the Reform responsa on Patrilineal descent (i.e., you're also
considered Jewish if born of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother) you'll find
that their justification is based on historical analysis.  Reform authorities
argue that religion in the Bible in some cases was passed through the father.
Historians note that this custom was changed in the 5th century BCE by Ezra,
who decreed that religion would be henceforth passed through the mother.

The Orthodox rabbinate would respond by saying that one cannot offer pure,
extra-Biblical or extra-Talmudic historical proof for a halacha.  Historical
precedent is not binding in and of itself.  The only thing that is binding is
the LEGAL precedent, the Written and Oral Tradition (Torah and Talmud, with
commentaries).

I believe that this now more accurately represents what I meant.

Dave