Conference taveng::bagels

Re: .0

> Rabbi Starr
>    mentioned that an effort has been launched by Orthodox, Conservative,
>    and Reform Rabbis to give accreditation to rabbis from all three
>    groups so that the converts of any of those so accredited would
>    be accepted as Jewish by all three groups.

There has been talk of some form of compromise for some time now, but
I seriously doubt that any solution can be reached which will be 
acceptable to all parties. At the root of the problem, of course, is
the contradiction in terms between the performance of an _halachic_
conversion by the representative of a group which has long ago
renounced the binding nature of the _Halacha_ itself, or one which
espouses the "changing nature" of that body of law. 

>    The effort apparently is in response in part to some shaky
>    (halachically-speaking) conversions, like the Reform Rabbi in
>    Florida who offered one day conversions, which included use of "G_d's
>    Mikvah" - the Atlantic Ocean! :-) :-)

Actually, this is a bad example, in that a natural body of water is
indeed valid for the purpose of immersion. However, there are innumerable
cases of conversions being carried out in backyard swimming pools, and
even many instances when even this is omitted. (For some funny-if-they-
weren't-so-sad anecdotes in this vein, see "The Bamboo Cradle" [published
I think by Feldheimm], the story of an abandoned Chinese girl adopted by
Jewish parents.)

It's unfortunate that innocent and sincere _geirei_tzedek_  have to find
themselves embroiled in controversy at this most critical juncture of
their lives. Let's pray for the speedy arrival of Elijah to resolve these
conflicts.

Jem

    I should have mentioned in .0 that the inspiration for this compromise
    came from the efforts of an Orthodox Rabbi, a Conservative Rabbi,
    and a Reform Rabbi in Colorado if memory serves to seek a solution
    to the problem at a local level.
    
    The three rabbis team-taught converts according to a
    mutually-agreeable syllabus with each responsible for a particular
    portion of the ciriculum. The idea went over pretty well until the
    Orthodox movement got wind of the classes and expressed their
    displeasure to the Orthodox Rabbi.
    
    It is my understanding that the compromise I mentioned in .0 will
    be based to some extent on the program developed by the three rabbis
    mentioned above. It also stems from the fact that apparently the
    Government of Israel has informed the Rabbis that the Government
    does not want to get involved in determining, "Who is a Jew?" They want the
    Rabbis to sort out the problem and come up with a "work-around", if
    you will.
    
    Anyone is welcome BTW to correct me on any of the above as I'm doing
    this from memory.
    
    Thanks.
    
    Mark

    Mark,
    
    What you have wandered into is Jewish Politics.
    
    <Flame ON>
    
    The conversion issue has more to do with who is your Rabbi then any
    Halacha, despite what the Orthodox try to tell you.  ANY conversion by
    an Orthodox Rabbi is Kosher according to the Orthodox although no one
    bothers check-up on them and NO conversions even those held to the 
    strictest Halacha requirements is Kosher if a non-Orthodox Rabbi 
    performs it.  To enforce this, an Orthodox group in NJ closed their
    Mikvah to all but Orthodox Rabbi's for conversions.  
    
    Better yet why don't we have the raise the Who is a Jew issue in the
    Kinesset and let Arabs vote on the issue.  
    
    We have a movement to proclaim a one and true faith and an orthodox
    (note the small o) viewpoint.  I believe the story of Hanukah needs to
    be told here and the understanding of why we celebrate the miracle of
    the lights and DON'T celebrate the victory.
    
    <Flame OFF>
    
    Warren    

    I've seen an open letter signed by several leading poskim condemning
    any attempt to compromise Halachic conversion.  I don't think any
    posek would hold that a conversion by someone who happens to have
    been granted semicha by an Orthodox yeshiva is automatically legitimate.
    I know of such people who do not observe Halacha.

    Um, Warren, Chanukah is about the victory of those who held to Halacha
    over those who were willing to compromise with the encroachments of
    the larger society (the Hellenists).  It's not really about the victory
    of the Jews over the Greeks, it's about the victory of the Halacha-
    observing Jews over the Hellenic Jews.

RE:-1


>    I've seen an open letter signed by several leading poskim condemning
>    any attempt to compromise Halachic conversion.  

I agree 100%, but the issue should be Halacha and not who performs the
conversion.  How about a standard that the most authorities, including 
Orthodox Rabbinate could agree on and a way to insure that it is followed
by those who wish to offer a conversion based upon these standards would 
be accepted by all.  If a Reform Rabbi met these Halacha standards, then 
the Rabbi's conversion should be honored.
>                                                   I don't think any
>    posek would hold that a conversion by someone who happens to have
>    been granted semicha by an Orthodox yeshiva is automatically legitimate.
>    I know of such people who do not observe Halacha.

But unfortunately this is what's happening.

    Um, Warren, Chanukah is about the victory of those who held to Halacha
    over those who were willing to compromise with the encroachments of
    the larger society (the Hellenists).  It's not really about the victory
    of the Jews over the Greeks, it's about the victory of the Halacha-
    observing Jews over the Hellenic Jews.

Again I agree.  And it must be understood how Hellenised these Jews had 
become, including the abandonment of circumcision so that there sons 
would not be ostracized at sporting events which were held nude.

But we don't celebrate the victory.  And the answer is that vanquishment
by one group of Jews over another no matter how apostate is the vanquished 
were, is repugnant.  And therefore the Rabbi's have told us not to celebrate 
the victory and instead concentrate on the miracle. 

RE:-1;-2
>
>    Um, Warren, Chanukah is about the victory of those who held to Halacha
>    over those who were willing to compromise with the encroachments of
>    the larger society (the Hellenists).  It's not really about the victory
>    of the Jews over the Greeks, it's about the victory of the Halacha-
>    observing Jews over the Hellenic Jews.
>
>Again I agree.  And it must be understood how Hellenised these Jews had 
>become, including the abandonment of circumcision so that there sons 
>would not be ostracized at sporting events which were held nude.
>
>But we don't celebrate the victory.  And the answer is that vanquishment
>by one group of Jews over another no matter how apostate is the vanquished 
>were, is repugnant.  And therefore the Rabbi's have told us not to celebrate 
>the victory and instead concentrate on the miracle. 

My dear friends, the above notes give a new twist to History: I didn't
know, I really didn't know, that Antiochus IV Epiphanes (The Great) - or
Epimanes (the crazy one, as the jews called him)- was a Jew, nor that
Bacchides the General was a Jew. Could someone state when did they convert,
and if their conversion was "caHalacha"?

Antiochus IV was the ruler of the Greek Seleucide Empire that caused the
rebelion of Judea by imposing the Greek practices on the Jews. Bacchides
was the Greek General that confronted, and killed, Yehuda Hamacabbi.

It hardly seems to me that the armies fighting against the Jewish revolts
can be seen as fights between apostates and true believers - it was the 
represion of one culture by another - even if the Greeks had their Quislings
in Jerusalem, among them the Great Priest - Hacohen HaGadol.

It is very easy to add to a civil epos like the liberation from the foreign
Greek Seleucide Empire a very nice and inoffensive miracle of oil burning
and put the celebration to a low profile, just not to exacerbate the ruling
powers of Judea by the time Chanuka was consacrated (?) as a festival, i.e.:
the romans, again the foreign rulers of Judea.

At that time to stress too much upon liberation from the Greeks would have
been interpreted as subversive against the Governement, and would have been
very dangerous for those celebrating the hollyday.

But do not let the facts I stated here modify any of your interpretations. 

It may contradict some teachings of the Rabbies.

Juan-Carlos

Re, the last couple (though it's a little off the topic of the base note):

Seems to me you're both a bit right.  The "chanuka story" was a revolution
against Antiochus, but (at least according to tradition) it started when
Matityahu (a priest) killed a Jew attempting to sacrifice a pig at the Temple,
and I think that was a "major theme" of the revolution -- the fight against
Jews who chose to "collaborate" culturally.

On a totally unrelated topic, from Note 891.0:
>  Nearly one-third of all Palestinians killed last year in the West Bank
>  and Gaza were murdered by fellow Palestinians . 

I really don't understand why we're all discussing Chanukah, when we
should be thinking about Shavuot, nonetheless, it appears that there
is some confusion about precisely what we celebrate on the 25th of
Kislev. 

Re: .3

> I believe the story of Hanukah needs to
>   be told here and the understanding of why we celebrate the miracle of
>   the lights and DON'T celebrate the victory.

It is true that the treachorous acts of the Jewish Hellenists are not 
explicitly mentioned in the prayers and songs of Chanukah. _Al_Hanissim_,
recited in the _Amida_ thrice daily, and in the Grace after Meals, speaks
of the Greeks, although some phrases are ambiguous ("the impure in the
hands of the pure, the wicked in the hands of the righteous", and 
*particularly*, "the arrogant into the hands of the students of thy Torah").
Likewise, the "Megilla (scroll) of the Hasmoneans"(of disputed authorship),
assiduously avoids any mention of the misdeeds of the collaborators, although 
contemporary historians recorded such complicity (more on this later). The
Talmud itself (Shabbat 22(?)) concentrates on the Greeks themselves. 

However, this is hardly surprising for anyone who has ever perused the
Talmud. When referring to a case of the Jews deserving destruction, the Sages
used the phrase "son'eihem shel Yisrael" (the enemies of Israel), rather
than directly impune the Israelites (see Ta'anit 7b, Yoma 75b). These cases
refer to incidents where only Jews were involved. It is completely natural,
then, that where *at least* part of the problem was in fact attributable
to "the enemies of Israel", that the involvement of Jewish traitors be
omitted entirely. 

Does this mean the the Sages were attempting to white-wash historical facts?
A related technique, _lashon_sagi_nahor_, is employed throughout the _Gemara_. 
Although the term literally means "great light", it refers to a blind person.
The source for this technique is that G-d himself goes to great lengths to
avoid terms which might offend (the Torah refers to "all that is not clean",
rather than stating simply "unclean" (Tameh)). However, noone is fooled into
imagining that a blind person actually senses "great light". Similarly, the
sad facts of Jewish assimilationism and even direct military collaboration
with the forces of Antiochus are an unimpeachable matter of record, so we
utilize the encompassing term "Greek" to refer to both forces. And it does
not change the necessity of the summary justice carried out by Mattathias
in Modi'in against the Judean who offered sacrifices to Jupiter.

Re: .6

>Epimanes (the crazy one, as the jews called him)

According to Graetz, he actually preferred this name.

>Antiochus IV was the ruler of the Greek Seleucide Empire that caused the
>rebelion of Judea by imposing the Greek practices on the Jews.

Noone will dispute this. However, the "High Priest", Menelaus was the 
one who informed Antiochus of the "barbaric" practices of the Jews, 
saying that Judaism was full of hatred of Mankind, and forbade kindness
to gentiles. It was he who was directly responsible for Antiochus'
decrees against circumcision, the Sabbath, and the Festivals, and by
extension, the violence which ensued. The war of the Maccabees was
against the assimilationists from within and without.

Neither did the Hellenists confine themselves to spiritual matters.
An anonymous group of them led the Syrian general, Heron, to the
hideout of Judas' army in the Judean hills, hoping to have them 
destroyed. That battle, of course, turned into the first major victory
for the Maccabees.
 
>But do not let the facts I stated here modify any of your interpretations. 
>
>It may contradict some teachings of the Rabbies.

Juan, such language is unbecoming. The rabbis I know are interested
only in fact. Indeed, it is curious to me that some segments of the
Jewish population ignore the spiritual aspect of the Hasmonean revolt
altogether, pretending that it was simply a nationalistic issue, rather
than the profoundly religious one it was, whether against the Greeks
*or* the Hellenists. Yehuda Maccabi is often portrayed as a fierce and
ruthless warrior, but here is Graetz' description:

	"...when at rest he was like a dove in his gentleness and
	simplicity. He was resigned to the will of G-d in every way,
	and relied not on his sword, but G-d's help, praying to Him
	before each decision. He resorted to bloodshed only when
	absolutely necessary."
	(sorry if it's not precise, but it's in vol. I, I believe.)

Re: .3 again

>understanding of why we celebrate the miracle of
>    the lights and DON'T celebrate the victory.

The reason for this (lack of/) commemoration should be clear by now. The entire
purpose of the revolt was to right the spiritual wrongs, and rededicate
the Temple by lighting the Menorah, as Aaron did at the first dedication
of the Tabernacle (Num. 8). The finding of one flask of pure oil among the many
which had been defiled, and its outlasting its natural lifespan reflected
the few-in-number Hasmoneans who withstood the enticing culture of the
mighty Greeks, and were able to re-ignite the all-but-dead Jewish faith.

Jem

Re: .3

>    The conversion issue has more to do with who is your Rabbi then any
>    Halacha, despite what the Orthodox try to tell you.

Perhaps an analogy can help put this issue in perspective. Imagine, if
you will, an individual wishing to convert to Catholicism. If a 
Protestant clergyman agreed to perform the ceremony, would you expect
the Catholic church to accept the conversion? The reason this is 
absurd is not that the minister would necessarily be suspected of
lying if he claimed he carried out the rituals according to Catholic
law, rather that there are serious theological differences between
the two confessions, and the priest both believes differently, and
is *trained* differently than his Protestant colleague. The same would
apply between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, I imagine, or any other 
religions where serious rifts have taken place. 

I would like to keep this exchange civil. If you object to my analogy,
please be specific. I would like to *attempt* to discuss this object-
ively (I'd like to invite all you non-Jewish readers to comment also!).

Jem

    Re:-1
    
    Hi JEM,  Haven't been into NY recently to stop by.
    
    The your analogy doesn't fit.  Would a conversion of a person by a Rabbi 
    to any Christion religion be valid.  Of course not, but the Churches 
    claimed that they were part of Judaism at one time.  However, most 
    Protestant religions will recognize the conversion into their faith 
    by any of theothers Protestant Sects.  
    
    The question is are we one people and are we going to remain one 
    people or are we all working to split us apart.  If you refer to 
    Reform, Conservative and Orthodox as you do the difference between 
    Catholicism and Protestism then you feel the we are three different 
    Religions.
    
    IMHO, it would seem that the Orthodox movement would do what it could
    to further the adherance to Halacha among the branches of Judism.
    
    Warren

    RE: .4,.8 (citations from .8)

>Does this mean the the Sages were attempting to white-wash historical facts?
    ...
>The reason for this (lack of/) commemoration should be clear by now. The entire
>purpose of the revolt was to right the spiritual wrongs,...

    No, the Sages were not attempting to white-wash the facts, but they
    were not writing history either.  The people who wrote about Chanukah
    in the Gemara (hundreds of years after the events) were writing about
    the past in the context of their own times and beliefs.  It is not
    suprising that they portrayed the Hellenizers as morally deficient and
    the Hasidim as rightous--that was the normal way of interpreting
    history.  Thus, the introduction of the oil myth was perfectly
    consistent with they way history was written in those days; this story
    fit in with what people believed could have happened and so it was
    accepted.

    The Sages were not modern historians and should not be judged as if
    they were, but by the same token, one should not assume that just
    because something is written in the Gemara, it actually happened that
    way.

    RE: .9
    
>I would like to keep this exchange civil. 
    
    Lots o' luck! :^)
    
    Seriously, I agree with your desire and to do that, we have to
    recognize that we start with some very different assumptions about
    behavior.  I happen to agree with .5 that the disputes are primarily
    over authority, but that does not mean that I question the sincerity of
    your beliefs.  Most people are not hypocrites, and I do not attribute
    cynicsm to those who would uphold the Orthodox position. (There are
    individuals on both/all sides whose motives are selfish, but I don't
    think they are worthy of our attention.)
    
    					Aaron

Re: .9

I was unaware that anyone considered the differences between the various
branches of Judaism to be of the same magnitude as Catholic vs Protestant.  I
thought they were more on the order of the differences between Protestant sects.
I hope that this represents your personal opinion, jem, and not the general
Orthodox viewpoint.

However, it may be worse than I think -- Catholics at least regard marriages
performed under Protestant auspices as valid, and vice versa.  I hope that the
Orthodox community would have as much respect for other Jewish communities.

It would greatly sadden me to feel that one branch of Judaism regards the others
as different religions, or at least, different sects.  It appears, however, that
this is the case, and furthermore, that only ONE branch (Orthodox) feels this
way toward the others.

Ed

    Catholics have traditionally believed the sacraments , such as
    matrimony, are only valid in the eyes of G** if done by a Catholic
    Priest.  In this era of Ecumenicism, the tradition is undergoing
    some attack.  Take for example the Mass, and the eating of consecreated
    bread and wine. Catholics believe only a Preist may change the Bread
    and wine. The problem comes in when a Protestant believes by Faith
    that the articles are changed. They may be, depending on the
    individual's strength of belief.  But  strictly speaking , no
    sacraments are reconised as legitimate unless performed by the Church
    itself.
      I'm no scholar, so  For What It's Worth.
      Andrew

Re: .10

>The your analogy doesn't fit.

Ah, but it is actually quite fitting. It is no secret that the name
"Protestant" itself derives from the term "protest", obviously a
protest against the Christian religion as it was known until then.
The Reform movement, likewise, was a total break with Jewish trad-
ition. At first, there was an attempt by some to reconcile their
actions with _Halacha_, notably the Hungarian rabbi Aaron Chorin,
but this tact was soon dropped. Examples include the attempt to
eradicate the practice of circumcision by Geiger, changing the
Sabbath to Sunday, dropping the requirement of _Kashrut_ (Kosher
laws), and other laws set forth *explicitly* in the Pentateuch,
not to mention the Talmud. 

What did the reformers retain in common with the Judaism of old?
Monotheism? The vast majority of Protestant churches analogously
retain a belief in the Trinity. In what way is the analogy invalid?

> However, most 
>    Protestant religions will recognize the conversion into their faith 
>    by any of theothers Protestant Sects.  

First, this is the reason that I chose an example involving Catholics
and Protestants, and not various denominations of the latter. Second,
"Protestant" is a rather broad term, and I'm aware of many denominations 
which will not recognize the conversions of someothers. Likewise, there
are *many* Conservative rabbis who will not accept Reform conversions as 
valid.

>    The question is are we one people and are we going to remain one 
>    people 

From a "people" perspective, observance of the Jewish religion is ironically 
irrelevant in terms of the definition of a Jew (Yisrael af al gi she-chata
Yisrael). As is well known, even people *born* into other religions, not
to mention apostates themselves are still treated as Jews by Halacha in every
way, providing that they are descended matrilineally from Jewish stock. 
However, the *religion* practiced is either in accord with the Law of Moses,
or it isn't.
 
>    or are we all working to split us apart.

As has been demonstrated, this split was the express desire of those who 
created the schism in the last century.

Re: .11

> It is not
>    suprising that they portrayed the Hellenizers as morally deficient and
>    the Hasidim as rightous--that was the normal way of interpreting
>    history. 

My point was that the Talmud does just the opposite - it doesn't even
mention the Jewish collaborators. The explanation I offered is my opinion
as to why this aspect is downplayed in the main passage describing the
reason for the observance of Chanukah.

> Thus, the introduction of the oil myth 

Bite your tongue, Aaron! :-)
I see no benefit in debating the historical accuracy of the account of
the oil miracle - the fact remains that whether they believe it or not,
the vast majority of American Jews (according to the American Jewish
Committee study, "Alternative Families in the Jewish Community", 1989)
light the Chanukah Menorah (BTW, the only other two practices which
enjoy over 25% participation are circumcision and the Passover Seder).
  
>  but by the same token, one should not assume that just
>    because something is written in the Gemara, it actually happened that
>    way.

Again, with all due respect, I view this question as moot. At least we
can agree that the Sages were no dummies, they realized that historians
would record historical events, and if they de-emphasized a certain 
aspect of the Maccabee rebellion which was well-known, that fact alone 
is worthy of our attention, as Warren pointed out. In this case at least,
I don't believe they had any interest in controverting the facts (actually,
I don't believe they ever do, but that's for another time).

Re .12:

>It would greatly sadden me to feel that one branch of Judaism regards the others
>as different religions, or at least, different sects.

And it greatly saddens me that that rift was ever created in the first place.
Nor do I think (in my wild-eyed idealism) that a reconciliation is beyond
imagination. But for this to take place, those who moved away must once
again move closer. The alternative is for traditional Judaism to suddenly
drop tradition, which, as is apparent from this discussion of Chanukah,
is exactly what the Maccabees fought and died for.  

Re: .13

Thank you for your clarification.

I feel it necessary to once again stress that I intend no malice. I'm just
stating it the way I see it. Objections are welcome, but please try to
stick to the facts rather than emotional attacks, as these discussions
often resort to. I realize that my views are unpopular with the majority
of the American Jewish world, but I also feel that the reasons I presented
are largely ignored. I respectfully submit that when the facts are known,
the hostility will diminish.

Jem

    jem, your analogy *seems* compelling as it applies to the topic of
    conversion but I would hesitate to try to stretch it to question the
    religious authenticity of all the practices (or non-practices) of the
    Reform and Conservative movements.
    
    On the subject of conversion.  Would it be too much to ask for you to
    state the halachic requirements for those of us who don't know them.  
    Is it principally formulaic or is there a spiritual component that must 
    be satisfied?  If so, are non-Orthodox rabbis cabaple of supplying this 
    component?  If they are not, why not?
    
    Mark  

I noticed the following exchange on USENET apropos of this discussion:

From: [email protected] (Joseph S. Kaufman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Jewish by father
Keywords: change

        Howard Stern is half-Jewish by his father, his wife is Jewish, and
his two daughters go to Hebrew school.  Because of his Jewish features and
his voice, most people perceive him to be a Jew.  He even gets hate mail
from the nazis.  I also feel he is Jewish, but many people in the Jewish
community do not feel the same way.  They feel you are a Jew only if your
mother is a Jew.  I feel this is wrong, since, as few we are, this cuts
down the Jewish community even further.  I want a changed tradition.
Work with me on this one.
--
*****************************************************************************
From: [email protected] (Robert A. Levene)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: FLASH: JEWS ADOPT NEW STANDARDS (was: Jewish by father)
Summary: Oh no, not again! (take II)

                JEWS WORLDWIDE ADOPT NEW STANDARDS



  USENET(SCJ) Inspired by the posted wish for "a changed tradition" by
aspiring disc jockey Joseph Kaufman of the University of Maryland, the
worldwide Jewish community surprised everyone by deciding to define a Jew as
"basically anyone who feels like one."  In a joint communique from Brooklyn,
NY, the Lubavitcher and Satmarer rebbes joined with the Union of American
Hebrew Congregations and a the American Association of Gentiles who Speak
Yiddish, Eat Bagels, and have Dark Hair, Large Noses, and Names Ending in
"-berg" or "-stern" to ratify the new, inclusive, outreach policy on
determining "who is a Jew."

  "We were bored to tears poring through dusty volumes of Jewish scholarship,"
said leading theologian Christopher "Actually Chaim" Katzstein.  "We wanted
a more contemporary definition of a Jew -- the old one, 'born of a Jewish
mother or converted according to Jewish law' didn't take in the realities of
the modern world."  Katzstein babbled on, "My idol, Howard Stern, gets hate
mail from Nazis.  That makes him Jewish.  Besides, we ethnic Jews should
take pride in and reach out to embrace the writer and performer of such
radio classics as 'Gay Squirty Dirty Dancing.'"  The son of noted D.A.R.
activist Priscilla Cartwright Dinkleberry Cleaver-Katzstein, Chris claims he
got the idea from Nazi Hermann Goering (Y'Sh') who was said to have declared
"_I_ determine who is a Jew."

  "Throughout history," whined assistant spokesperson Rabbi Zipporah Jeanne
Flye, "the enemies of the Jews have always told us how to live our lives, so
why should things be any different today?"

  Reaction on Usenet's soc.culture.Jewish was swift and fierce.  Frequent
posters were quick to add their two shekels.  Rob "the lean, mean, posting
machine" Levene observes, "I've been spat upon and called a Jew-communist
kike, so by Flye's logic, I'm a communist, even though I am a capitalist who
believes in freedom and hates communism.  But I once shared a bowl of
popcorn with some friends, so that plus my persecution make me qualified to
speak for communists worldwide and determine their party policy, even though
I cheer at each Marxist's downfall."

  "I agree with Rob's logic" said Sam "Inventory Reduction" Saal.  "I
once placed a bandage on a paper cut, so I'm petitioning the A.M.A. for a
medical license.  In this modern, free-thinking world, why demand that
doctors study musty old medical texts?  They were written in order to make
it difficult for average people to become doctors.  I demand the right to
practice medicine, because I feel like a doctor, I can participate in the
doctors' culture, and friends tell me I look like Marcus Welby, Hawkeye
Pierce and Bones McCoy."

  In a related story, Chinese Premier Deng "My friends call me Dung" Xiaoping
announced that henceforth, all communist Chinese must speak English, eat hot
dogs at baseball games, and attend July 4th picnics.  "As the Americans say,
'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.  Well, beating my people didn't work, so
I'm joining America instead.  I figure we'll consider ourselves residents of
Du Purge or Cain county in Illinois, so we can elect representatives who
will make us feel at home."

  In a remarkable display of international tolerance and spinelessness,
county officials unanimously accepted Deng's unilateral declaration of
citizenship, noting how granting voting rights to these "cultural Americans"
will boost population figures and make the county appear stronger.

  "This is off the record," whispered an incumbent official, who
mentioned how Du Purge and Cain are rapidly losing population due to low
birth rate and lack of commitment to their community, "but we're really
doing this for the tax revenues to support our community centers.  In
short, 'we need the dues' and don't care about the long-term effects."


Note: -- The above is fiction, and similarity to actual places,
          people, and events is coincidental except for satirical
           purposes.  Lawsuits?  Feh!  (:-)=====  <- omer beard

--
Robert A. Levene/  The Johns Hopkins U.  \Internet: [email protected]
  #  ##  # #   /Applied Physics Laboratory\ BITNET: RXL1@APLVM
Disclaimer: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" - Hillel _Avot_1:14

    Re .16:
    
    :-) :-)
    
    I think we're getting off the subject slightly. We could use this note
    and its replies to engage in yet another
    Orthodox-Conservative-Reform-Reconstructionist bashing (which, from
    what I read so far, 99.99% of the repliers would like to avoid) *or* we 
    could opt for an alternate course of action.
    
    The reality is that, in the US anyway, there is a pretty high rate
    of intermarriage (I don't know what the percentage is of people
    like myself who desire to be Jews By Choice but I would guess it's
    not as high). It's not like 100 years ago where your spouse was chosen
    by your parents - ethnic and sectarian barriers have come down and
    people choose their spouse for their own reasons, not somebody else's.
    
    So, since that is a given, at least for the forseeable future, what
    to do about it? Well, you can ignore the problem (for awhile anyway)
    or you can deal with it. Judaism has adapted to some incredible
    upheavals - the Babylonian exile, the Diaspora after the destruction
    of the 2nd Temple, the Enlightenment, and others. The enemies of
    Judaism have rubbed their hands in glee at various times in history
    and thought, "We've got them now." Yet, each time the resiliency of 
    Judaism was such that those who desired its elimination were thwarted 
    again and again. The basic message of Judaism remains unchanged
    after 5000+ years: "Do not do that which is hateful to your neighbor
    - the rest is commentary. Now go study."
    
    So how to adapt to this latest challenge? Whatever course of action
    is agreed upon, I think we should keep one general principle in
    mind......somehow we have to strive to maintain diversity and harmony
    at the same time within the Jewish faith such that the enemies of
    Judaism cannot exploit the diversity to foment their own ends (i.e.,
    the destruction of Judaism). This of course applies to a wide range of 
    issues, including the subject of this note.
    
    Maybe some of you won't agree that this and other issues could be
    exploited to the detriment of Judaism.....maybe some of you will.
    But it's not my place to judge the "rightness" or "wrongness" of
    wherever the opinions fall. All I ask is that we look some commonality
    whatever it happens to be and go from there.
    
    FWIW,
    
    Mark
    

This issue, more than any other, inflames tempers for one simple reason.  For
centuries, the *worst* thing a Jew could do in the eyes of his/her fellow Jews 
would be to marry outside the faith.  Families would sit shiv'a (mourning) for 
those who did.  Until recently, people with almost no connection to tradition
(ie. who had no qualms about not observing shabbat, eating non-kosher food, etc)
would still not marry outside the fold.  

(No, I do not have any statistics to back this up, but I can, but wont here, 
cite personal family experience.)

For those who are commited to Halacha, the question of who is a Jew (or, more
accuratly, who is a Convert) is not only a philosophical or theological one; it
has a very proctical application: who can I marry?

The fear among the Orthodox community is:  With the Reform now accepting 
patrilineal (sp?) descent, combined with the (perceived) increase in 
non-Halachik conversions, the day might come when we can no longer believe
someone who says, with the purest of intentions, "I am Jewish."  We would 
have to demand a trace of a person's yichus (lineage) first.  THAT would be a
MUCH more divisive state than anything we have now.

to clear something else up:

Halacha never *requires* a "RABBI" present for any ceremonial function to be
valid.  By tradition, a rabbi is present at ceremonies (brit milah, weddings, 
funerals, etc) to insure that all requirements of the halacha are fulfilled (to
give a modern example, you get a lawyer to review the contract when you buy a
house, even though if you're foolish enough, you dont HAVE to have one).

Conversion must be performed before a Beit Din (religious court) of 3 qualified
individuals.  They serve both the normal "rabbi" funtion of insureing all is 
done legally, but also as representatives of the community at large accepting
out new brethren into the fold.

(of course we can have the same old argument - who is qualified...)

Re: .15

>I would hesitate to try to stretch it to question the
>    religious authenticity of all the practices (or non-practices) of the
>    Reform and Conservative movements.

Although Judaism is blessed with many rituals and observances, the 
three which affect not only the individuals involved, but all future
generations, and the Jewish community at large are these: a) marriage
b) divorce c) conversion. This is why these issues evoke much stronger
emotions than say, the serving of shrimp at the Hebrew Union College.

> Would it be too much to ask for you to
>    state the halachic requirements for those of us who don't know them.  

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I feel this is an inappropriate forum
in which to discuss the intricate details of _Halacha_, and in any
event such matters should be left to halachic experts (such as R. 
Moshe Feinstein ZT"L in Igrot Moshe, Y.D. 160). I'll be happy
to continue the discussion off-line.

Re: .17

>I think we're getting off the subject slightly.

I apologize. I just feel that a little injection of levity never hurts.

Re: .18

>Halacha never *requires* a "RABBI" present for any ceremonial function to be
>valid.

Technically true, but misleading. The participants in a _Beit_Din_ (religious
court), must have certain qualifications. For the purpose of conversion, some
authorities demand that all three participants be _talmidei_chachamim_ 
(scholars), while others require only one, who will then explain the
requirements to the other two, who must be _kasher_le'edut_ (fit for test-
imony) the criteria of which are numerous in themselves. The _talimid_chacham_
need not be a rabbi, although this point is moot. More importantly, not every
"rabbi" is a _talmid_chacham_, and even more seriously, nor is every rabbi
_kasher_le'edut_. More off-line.

Jem 

    Whenever I hear this kind of discussion(argument?) around who is qualified to
    convert, who is a jew, and what beliefs we Jews follow, I feel like a
    child listening to my parents argue about what is "right" for their
    children.  I'm inclined to say to both sides "you're right"..."just
    stop arguing."
    
    Yes, this does make it hard to relate to non-Jews who inquire about
    Jewish beliefs.  Makes for interesting experiences.  ....like
    1)
    when someone Gentile asks me how's my daughter in the Yeshiva and I explain
    the monastic measures of modesty (not singing in front of men etc.)
    The response was, "Is that what Jews believe?".  I had to say
    "imagine how many different beliefs and sects in Christianity...that's
    how may there are in Judaism".
    
    2)
    also attending a Reconstructionist Shabbos morning service in a
    Lutheran church which was exactly like the service in my older
    daughter's shul (down to the melodies) except for the reference in
    the prayers to the wives of the patriarchs and the reference to the
    dead arising again to life (optional).  Instead of a sermon there was
    a poetry reading by woman poets from "Sara's Daughters" (Ktav publishers -
    available at Koblos in Brookline).  Some of the poems ranged from
    our relationship to Blacks, Lilith meeting Eve in the supermarket and 
    complaining about his faults, love poetry, liturgical poems and prayers
    included in the Sudbury Beth El's non-sexist 
    prayerbook, poems to daughters and sisters, poems about weddings 
    and personal events.
    
    Can't we take some pride that our religion can include all these 
    different ways to praying and be Jewish rather than casting these
    divurgent ways out.  You can always find a place to be Jewish
    regardless of your disagreements.  This keeps us together and 
    doesn't make outcasts of those exploring new ways. 
    
    Surely many of the things that are now Halachically Okay were once
    considered on the fringe?  Isn't it so that the book of Esther,
    the Song of Songs,  even Ecclessiates were considered by some not
    worthy of inclusion?  And once in China, it was the fathers who
    passed along the Jewish lineage because the wives were Chinese..
    there just weren't enough Jewish women around.
    
    RR

Re: .20

>  I'm inclined to say to both sides "you're right"..."just
>    stop arguing."

And I'm inclined to say that the attitude which demands a repression 
of candid exchanges on this issue is exactly what leads to all the
misunderstanding.

> Instead of a sermon there was
>    a poetry reading by woman poets from "Sara's Daughters" (Ktav publishers -
>    available at Koblos in Brookline).  Some of the poems ranged from
>    our relationship to Blacks, Lilith meeting Eve in the supermarket and 
>    complaining about his faults, love poetry,
.
.
.
> Isn't it so that the book of Esther,
>    the Song of Songs,  even Ecclessiates were considered by some not
>    worthy of inclusion?

Are you suggesting that "Sara's Daughters" be considered for inclusion
in the _Tanach_? Perhaps a _Sanhedrin_ can be convened to this end (and
the end is exactly what it would be :).

> And once in China, it was the fathers who
>    passed along the Jewish lineage because the wives were Chinese..

And how many Jews were counted during the last census in Kaifeng? 

The Chinese-Jewish community is one of the best examples of what happens
to Jews who feel a need to modify their practices and beliefs in conformance
with the times. For several hundred years, the Kaifeng community
flourished. In 1489, the leaders decided to erect a column describing
the Jewish religion to the outside world (mostly Confucianist, as far as
they could tell). The plaque described the basic tenets of the faith,
and demonstrated how there was actually no conflict between Judaism
and Confucianism. These were progressive Jews indeed.

Gradually, the decline of the community progressed. At first, pork was
deemed fit for consumption, and foreign practices began to creep into
the synagogue service. The intermarriage you describe was at first
strongly protested, but eventually rationalized away by most of the community.
Over the next centuries, the assimilation continued unabated, until the
population simply faded into oblivion, being swallowed up in the
surrounding creeds.

>    there just weren't enough Jewish women around.

This reason alone simply doesn't suffice. There have been small groups of
Jews scattered about the globe since Jacob descended to Egypt - Jews in
Ethiopia, Bukhara, Afghanistan, Yemen. But these communities somehow
endure to this very day. The primary difference is that these latter never 
compromised their commitment to Jewish tradition, while those in Kaifeng
felt compelled to reconcile their practices with "modern" times. The 
depressing results speak for themselves.

Jem

    Rosie!
    
    I didn't connect you with this notesfile!  The poems were beautiful and
    made a wonderful counterpart to the Torah reading.
    
    Aaron

    "The Torah was given in public for all to see, in the open. For
    if it had been given in the Land of Israel, Israel would have said
    to the nations of the world, you have no share in it;
    
    "Therefore, the Torah was given in the wilderness, in public, for
    all to see, in the open, and everyone who wishes to receive it,
    let them come and receive it."
    
    						From The Midrash
    
    
    Mark

    RE: .21, civilizations and societies have come and gone over the
    centuries for a variety of reasons, be they economic, social or
    environmental changes. Your examples of some that have lasted have one
    BIG difference than that in Kaifeng, and that is that they were a far
    more closed society. When external influences can not enter, of course
    less change will occur, but such lack of change is not necessarily
    beneficial in the long run.
    
    Societies and practices do change over time, and short of shutting out
    influences from the "outer world", nothing can change this process.
    
    Eric

re .24:

    There's no question that the more closed a society is, the less it
    changes.  But why is lack of change "not necessarily beneficial in
    the long run?"  In what way are the (ex-)Jews of Kaifeng (or the
    Jews of Sudbury) better off than the Jews of Williamsburg or the
    Bokharian section of Jerusalem?

Re: .24

>Your examples of some that have lasted have one
>    BIG difference than that in Kaifeng, and that is that they were a far
>    more closed society. When external influences can not enter, of course
>    less change will occur,

But my point was that change *did* occur, to the point of the complete
assimilation of that group. If what you mean is that they were isolated
from the rest of the *Jewish* world, and therefore had no means of
reinvigoration, the Ethiopian Jews were just as isolated as those in
China, and for a far longer time, at that. If what you mean is that 
the Kaifeng Jews isolated *themselves* from their gentile neighbors,
this is simply not true. 

The situation in China was different in some ways from other communities,
but I submit that the act that triggered their eventual extinction was
their compromising attitude toward Judaism, embodied in the fifteenth-
century column.

>    Societies and practices do change over time, and short of shutting out
>    influences from the "outer world", nothing can change this process.

As Gerald mentioned in the previous reply, there are those who opt for
isolation (even that must be spoken of in relative terms, though), and
who are we to fault them? If they choose not to subject their children
to such ethically inspirational shows such as "Dallas", or for that matter,
"The CBS Evening News", are they deserving of reprimand? 

On the other hand, there are obviously many, many pious, "Orthodox" Jews
who participate fully in every facet of modern society. Who is right?
Perhaps the Talmud following dictum of our Sages can be applied (Yev. 13 ?):
"These and *those* are the words of the living G-d."

Jem

    For those who freely choose isolation, then more power to them because
    that is their choosen path. My concern is for those who may not desire
    that direction, but because of their family life, don't get the oppor-
    tunity to "see the rest of the world".
    
    My point is that in a heterogeneous, open society, change will enividably 
    occur, unless certain members of that society are isolated from outside
    influences. Obviously, a more closed society has things to offer its
    members, not the least is a feeling of security (or perhaps less threat- 
    ened by outside pressures would be more accurate), but in the long run,
    is this really beneficial?
    
    Religion can also operate as a society. There are a wide spectrum of
    believers (or non-believers), covering beliefs that range from blind
    faith, to fundamental interpetation, to questioning, to doubting. Some
    people like their faith delivered to them "pre-formed and organized"
    while others prefer to study its reasons and rationals first. The purpose 
    and point of my reply was to state that when the normal exchanges occur 
    within a society that is highly developed, the latter will enevidably
    occur, often with predictable results. It has worked that way through- 
    out the ages, so why would anyone be surprised that it occurred in
    Kaifeng.
    
    The strength of any religion is that its follows choose that path
    freely. The pressures and directions of societies do change, how can
    anyone expect religion not to follow suit?
    
    Eric
    
    

Re: .27

Eric, for some reason these exchanges seem to go in circles. Perhaps
we can put in a little more effort to "hear" each other.

>    For those who freely choose isolation, then more power to them because
>    that is their choosen path.

We agree.

> My concern is for those who may not desire
>    that direction, but because of their family life, don't get the oppor-
>    tunity to "see the rest of the world".

And I am concerned about those who might have "desired that direction",
had they been exposed to the profound richness and spirituality that
Judaism has to offer. In .26, I pointed out that there are no *truly*
isolated communities in this society. That is, societal influences, 
and mores are pervasive, inescapable. But can the same thing be said
of Judaism? If a child is brought up with a watered-down version,
or senses hypocrisy in his family's attitude toward religion, is the
full message of the Torah "inevitably" going to come through? IOW,
by *not* bringing up one's children in an intensely Jewish environment,
we have in all likelihood sealed their fate.

>     My point is that in a heterogeneous, open society, change will enividably 
>    occur, unless certain members of that society are isolated from outside
>    influences.

You seem to have chosen to ignore reply .26:

>>On the other hand, there are obviously many, many pious, "Orthodox" Jews
>>who participate fully in every facet of modern society.

You may not know it, but there are literally thousands of Jewish professionals,
in every imaginable field, who set aside at least an hour a day for intensive
Torah study. Some meet during lunch hour on Wall Street, others congregate
at 5:30 AM in the local synagogue before services. Still others sacrifice
precious time with their families, and study in the evening. The dedication
of these individuals (20,000 of whom met at Madison Square Garden a few weeks
ago to celebrate the completion of the 7 1/2-year Talmud-study cycle) is not 
lost on their children. They realize that work and secular pursuits have
their place, but the goal of life is the fulfillment of G-d's will. 

>  The purpose 
>    and point of my reply was to state that when the normal exchanges occur 
>    within a society that is highly developed, the latter will enevidably
>    occur, often with predictable results. It has worked that way through- 
>    out the ages, so why would anyone be surprised that it occurred in
>    Kaifeng.

You're right, it's no surprise at all. In fact, it is truly a miracle
that Judaism has managed to survive, nay, flourish in what would have
seemed the most infertile of territories, again and again. What you
have missed, and the most fundamental of Jewish lessons which you fail
to understand, is revealed by your repeated use of the term "inevitable".
In century after century, Jews have confronted "inevitable" and
"impossible" situations, only to emerge unscathed as a people. Those
who view the world from a shallow, practical perspective, will "inevitably"
assimilate, or G-d forbid convert to other religions. Jews of courage and
vision, on the other hand, know of G-d's covenant:

	And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your
	descendants after you throughout their generations, an eternal
	covenant; I will be a G-d to you and your offspring after you.
	(Gen. 17:7)

>The pressures and directions of societies do change, how can
>    anyone expect religion not to follow suit?

I can't hope to answer you any better than Malachi:

	For I am G-d, I do not change; you are the children of Jacob,
	you will not cease to be.
	(Mal. 3:6)

Three thousand years ago, these might have been viewed as empty promises,
uttered with possible ulterior motives. But the inexplicable fact of Jewry's
continued existence millenia later now renders such cynical accusations
absurd. Even Mark Twain can express it better than I :-)   :

	The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the
	planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and 
	passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast 
	noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held 
	their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in
	twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them
	all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no
	infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his
	energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things
	are mortal but the Jew, all other forces pass, but he remains.
	What is the secret of his immortality?

Perhaps the reason Jews have not succumbed to the "inevitable" ravages of
nature is that they understand that there are forces more potent than 
nature itself.

Jem

    Jem, but there are many people who do not accept the premise of "a
    force more potent than nature itself" directing things, myself
    included. Unless you accept that premise, then the use of Biblical
    passages (Gen., Mal., etc) as proof of the way things must be are not
    applicable. I can respect your beliefs as they pertain to "you"(and do
    because the life you have choosen is not an easy one), but I do not
    accept them for myself because I can not accept the premise that they
    are based on, and perhaps this point is where our points of view are
    the most divergent.
    
    In general, at least for their early years, a child will be like the
    family life he was raised in. If its very religious with a rich life-
    style (not speaking monitarily here), then that child will probably
    grow up with that set of beliefs, and correspondingly, a child from a
    non-religious home will grow up the opposite. I think that on this
    point, we would agree. We begin to disagree when the child (young
    adult) begins to question "why". I think that you would reply (and cor-
    rect me if I'm wrong) that the rules about our faith are G-d's will and
    desire and must be followed, while I would reply, that this is the path
    "I've choosen for myself, by my own free will". Your comment "G-d
    forbid convert to other religions" seems to back up this point. Do you
    only view Judaism as the only "true" faith, with others less valid?
    This point bothers me greatly because it seems to indicate that if one
    chooses a different path, then their beliefs are somehow less valid
    than yours. I can understand your viewpoint from a "loss of Jew" point
    of view, but would you degrade that person because their choosen belief
    system is not the same as yours?
    
    You know where I stand on that issue, as does anyone who follows this
    notesfile. I have choosen a different path from that of my parents, and
    when my son is old enough to make a choice for himself, I will respect
    that choice, regardless of the faith he chooses, because his belief is
    his alone, and no one elses. Each religion is as valid as any other to
    the believers of it, and none of us have any right to say otherwise.
    We can only speak for ourselves.
    
    Your examples of high levels of observence all seem to revolve around
    the NYC area, which has the largest concentration of Jews in the United
    States (or outside if Israel for that matter). Is it not possible that
    the picture is slightly slanted because of this? NYC is far from an
    accurate reflection of the country as a whole, and neither are its
    lifestyles. Though business may require a more heterogeneous mix, its
    entirely possible to have an entirely Jewish social life there,
    something which is not possible in most of the country. Would this
    factor not generate a more homogeneous existance, in and of itself?
    My point is that NYC and its lifestyles may not be a proper mirror of
    the big picture today. People often choose areas that they are most
    comfortable with and fit in well with, which usually means being among
    "their own". I am not criticizing doing this per say, only saying that
    by necessity, this does not create the heterogenousness I spoke of.
    
    So in closing, I ask you one question which I discussed above. If a
    Jewish person decided to accept a different faith than Judaism for
    whatever reasons, and he feels that those are his beliefs, are these
    beliefs just as valid as yours or mine?
    
    Eric
    
    
    

    A small note concerning the meaning of the word "Protestant", refered
    to in .14.  It would be more correct to say that both "protest" and
    "protestant" come from the same root, which is "protestari", and which
    can be interpreted to mean "witness" or "I speak".  The implication is
    therefore that the selection of the word "Protestant" to describe the
    Reformation is a positive choice, refering to the Reformation belief in
    the priesthood-of-all-believers idea, rather than a negative choice,
    refering to a protest against the Church.  
    
    John

.29

Eric,

Whether or not a particular religion is "valid" from the traditional Jewish
viewpoint depends, in part, on who you are.  For a Jew, believing (and
practicing) something other than Judaism is not "valid".  For a gentile,
any religion whose practices conform to the Noahide Laws is "valid".  What it
comes down to is that there is a belief in absolutes implied by belief in
traditional Judaism.  Differences are respected as long as they do not stray
beyond certain absolute bounds.

As to whether Judaism is the only true religion.  A better statement would be
that the G-d of the Jews is the only G-d.  It happens that other religions
share a belief in this same G-d.  But because they have beliefs and practices
which conflict with the Torah they are not "valid" for Jews.

Unfortunately for you, the path you have chosen falls outside the bounds
considered acceptable by traditional Judaism.  This tends to create
irreconcilable differences between you and some of the posters in this group.
I don't know if I have any recommendations on how to bridge that gap.  The
basic underlying assumptions are far too different.

>    his alone, and no one elses. Each religion is as valid as any other to
>    the believers of it, and none of us have any right to say otherwise.
>    We can only speak for ourselves.

Here is a place where I think you stray traditional religious belief.  If I
believe that there is only one G-d.  Then it stands to reason that I believe
that following other gods is wrong FOR EVERYONE.  Whether that gives me the
right to try to FORCE my beliefs on others is another story.  But, I don't
have to respect the validity of those beliefs.  Any belief which does not
include the idea that other beliefs are wrong can't be too tightly held.

>    So in closing, I ask you one question which I discussed above. If a
>    Jewish person decided to accept a different faith than Judaism for
>    whatever reasons, and he feels that those are his beliefs, are these
>    beliefs just as valid as yours or mine?

Well, just as valid as yours, anyway   8^{).

Gavriel

RE: .31:
 > Differences are respected as long as they do not stray beyond certain  
 >   absolute bounds.

    But who has the rights to set these "absolute bounds"? If G-d is all
    powerful, may he not show himself in different ways to different
    groups?
    
>As to whether Judaism is the only true religion.  A better statement would be
>that the G-d of the Jews is the only G-d.  It happens that other religions
>share a belief in this same G-d.  But because they have beliefs and practices
>which conflict with the Torah they are not "valid" for Jews.

    I have no problem agreeing with your last sentence as it is appplied.
    
>Unfortunately for you, the path you have chosen falls outside the bounds
>considered acceptable by traditional Judaism.  This tends to create
>irreconcilable differences between you and some of the posters in this group.
>I don't know if I have any recommendations on how to bridge that gap.  The
>basic underlying assumptions are far too different.

    Here we agree again.

>Here is a place where I think you stray traditional religious belief.  If I
>believe that there is only one G-d.  Then it stands to reason that I believe
>that following other gods is wrong FOR EVERYONE.  Whether that gives me the
>right to try to FORCE my beliefs on others is another story.  But, I don't
>have to respect the validity of those beliefs.  Any belief which does not
>include the idea that other beliefs are wrong can't be too tightly held.

    I think the key term here is "wrong FOR EVERYONE". Do you or I have the
    right to judge another's religion belief in god (using the generic term
    here) as valid or not, purely based on OUR frame of reference. True, we
    MAY (and that can be subject to debate) have that right to judge that
    within our own faith, but outside of our faith, I believe not.
    
    If one can judge a different faith's validity for followers of that
    faith, then are we not putting ourselves in the position of a divine
    judgement call on the very existance of G-d's form? Does ANY HUMAN have
    the right to do that?
    
    Eric 

quick reply to <<< Note 929.32 by NSSG::FEINSMITH "I'm the NRA" >>>

>    I think the key term here is "wrong FOR EVERYONE". Do you or I have the
>    right to judge another's religion belief in god (using the generic term
>    here) as valid or not, purely based on OUR frame of reference. True, we
>    MAY (and that can be subject to debate) have that right to judge that
>    within our own faith, but outside of our faith, I believe not.
>    
>    If one can judge a different faith's validity for followers of that
>    faith, then are we not putting ourselves in the position of a divine
>    judgement call on the very existance of G-d's form? Does ANY HUMAN have
>    the right to do that?
    
	I don't really want to start another rat-hole, but there are
	a couple of important points here:

	Judaism recognizes the "Jewish People" as mutually dependent.

	An example: the coming of Moshiach is (partly) dependent on 
	the Jewish (i. e., mitzvah) behavior of the Jewish people as a 
	whole.  Therefore, each Jew does, or should have, an interest and 
	interdependence in each and every other Jew's "Jewish" behavior.

	I realize that this is just the inverse of the statement:
	"do your own thing as long as you don't hurt me".  I find 
	much wrong in that statement (food for another note, maybe), 
	but Judaism does not accept it in any general way. Then, Judaism 
	is not a Western religion, and the statement is a 1960's-plus 
	Americanism. Jewishly: "Within the framework of the Torah, you 
	_can_ `do your own thing'.  However it is in _my_ Jewish interest 
	that you do the right Jewish thing."

	By the way, your statement a couple of replies back (that you're 
	"coming from a different place") is terrific in its honesty.  I 
	think that a lot of heat could be saved by that level of candor. I
	disagree stongly with you, and the religion disagrees strongly
	with you, but if we start off with that degree of honesty, we
	have something to talk about...

don feinberg

Re: .29

I believe most of your questions have been adequately addressed by the
subsequent repliers. There are just a couple of misstatements I'd like
to correct.

> Unless you accept that premise, then the use of Biblical
>    passages (Gen., Mal., etc) as proof of the way things must be are not
>    applicable. 

The verses I quoted seem to address the open-ended question which Mr. 
Twain (Shmuel Clemens?) posed:

>> All things
>>	are mortal but the Jew, all other forces pass, but he remains.
>>	What is the secret of his immortality?

If you can offer a more rationalist approach to this enigma, I am 
certainly willing to hear it.  

>there are many people who do not accept the premise of "a
>    force more potent than nature itself" directing things

As a matter of fact, Divine assurances aside, I was referring to
the stubborn, "stiff-necked" character of the Jewish people itself.
That is, although we have been faced with "inevitable" destruction
and/or assimilation in every generation, we have never *resigned
ourselves*, never ACCEPTED the inevitability of our own extinction,
although by every account, that is precisely the fate which would
have appeared to be our NATURAL destiny. The verses I quoted, as
well as many others (Lev 26:44, Is. 54:10,17, 59:21, Jer. 5:18, 31:34,
46:27) have at least been an *inspiration* to the Jewish nation that
our efforts to thwart our "natural" disappearance would not be in
vain. 

This in no way negates an individual's power to *choose* to serve
other gods. On the contrary, the Bible is replete with references
testifying to this phenomenon. Countless Jews have opted for the
route of oblivion, hoping thereby to avoid the unique mission and
awesome responsibilty which constitutes Judaism:

	That which you say: Let us be like the nations, like the
	families of the lands, serving wood and stone. 
	(Ez. 20:32)

Fully half of the Jewish population of Berlin was *voluntarily*
baptized in the generation following Mendelssohn. Some Jews were
sincerely entranced by the beauty of the church services. Others
had less noble motives. All, however, were certain that they were
through, once and for all, with the primitive and despised Mosaic
faith. Jews had "arrived" in Germany. G-d, however, had different 
designs (see following verses). 

>    Your examples of high levels of observence all seem to revolve around
>    the NYC area, which has the largest concentration of Jews in the United
>    States (or outside if Israel for that matter). Is it not possible that
>    the picture is slightly slanted because of this? NYC is far from an
>    accurate reflection of the country as a whole, and neither are its
>    lifestyles.

Such groups do exist outside of NY, and are constantly growing. The
celebration at MSG itself hosted particpants from all over the Western
Hemisphere.

Jem

    I've been hesitant to wade into the current turn the discussion
    has taken (mostly because I feel I just don't have enough background
    knowledge to comment yet) but I think it might be time to get back to
    the original topic. That is, an effort has been made to come up with
    what is hoped will be a workable solution to the conversion controversy.
    
    As I mentioned earlier, I don't know if it's the correct
    approach....maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But I think our goal
    here should be to discuss the pros and cons of the idea and maybe
    come away with each of us a little more enlightened from hearing
    everybody out.
    
    My 2 cents worth,
    
    Mark