Conference taveng::bagels

Re: .0

>is not correct in content and interpretation.  He said that it
>is "thank G-d I was born a man" ... to be interpreted ... as a 

 I am sorry to dusapoint you, but in the morning prayers we have
 2 blessings:

 "Baruch Atah ... Sheassani gever"
  Blessed be You, Lord, that made me a man (gever = male homo sapiens)

 "Baruch ... Shelo assani Ishah"
  Blessed ... That did not make me a woman.

 I believe that the only acceptable explanation is that the texts were
 composed hundreds of years ago, and keep the "conventions" of their
 time. Judaism, in my view, is the result of hundreds of generation,
 it is "sacred" to me, because it carries the quintescense of human
 life and evolution. But yes, it has some (a few? a lot?) blemishes
 in its time worn cover.

 Those blessings are kept; perhaps they should be removed. Who and when 
 have the insight and power... In the meanwhile, there are people living
 with it; people criticizing and people that don't care.

 In my view, these (and other condemnable blemishes) do not destroy the
 beauty of our traditions.

 Juan-Carlos

.1> I believe that the only acceptable explanation is that the texts were
.1> composed hundreds of years ago, and keep the "conventions" of their
.1> time.

The explanation that I heard is that these blessings refer to the fact that
Jewish law includes some commandments that apply to men, but not to women.  The
man gives thanks for being required to fulfill those commandments.  This seems
more or less consistent with .0.

One may agree or disagree with this second explanation, but I think that it's
no less acceptable than that in .1.

    Re: .3
>                          -< Gever! no such blessing >-

    It was brought to my attention, on & off line, that I am more of an
    "Am Ha-aretz" (ignorant) than an "Apicores" (let me translate this as 
    "non believer"). There is no such a blessing as "... sheassany 
    gever". I just made that up. 
    
    However, Haim & Chaim, don't you think that there are "sometimes" you 
    would like to make that blessing? 8)
    
    I should have checked the sources. Next time, bli neder, I will do it.
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    In any case, nobody challenges the quote "... shelo assany ishah".
    
    We can "letaretz" (explain, interpret, justify) this by saying that 
    that the meaning of the blessing is: "... that you didn't make me a woman, 
    which is free from certain Mitzvoth (obligations, religious commands)
    and therefore I may fulfill more of Your commands". 
    
    It looks a bit too complicated to me.
    
    Fact is that the words are there, and to me is more honest to stand 
    up and say, well, it is wrong, instead of whitewashing it.
    
    In their prayers, when they reach this part of the morning service, 
    women are supposed to change the blessing by "... that made me 
    according with His will". I believe that even the most observant from 
    the observant Jews would agree that this formulation is correct, 
    regardless of gender; but I do not believe they will have the courage 
    to change the formulation.
    
    I know of Conservative Synagogues that would make a compromise, and 
    instead of using the men's version nor the women's version, they 
    would use a formulation saying "... that made me according to His 
    resemblance".
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The origin of this topic was to discuss if there is Gender 
    Discrimination in Judaism, and we (I ?) managed to turn it into a 
    discussion of ritual and prayer formulas. 
    
    I think that we should be able to stand up and recognize that there 
    are a few/some/many ugly spots in our traditions, face reality and 
    act accordingly.
    
    But this brings us to the unsolved problem: Most of us, Jews, more 
    than a 60%-70% would say "I don't KNOW anything about that AND I 
    DON'T CARE", and they turn their back, not only to the ugly spots and 
    problems, but to all of Judaism. And they stray away and are lost. 
    Forever. 
    
    There are other groups among us, Jews, that include those that keep 
    reciting the sacrosanct formulations of old, without any questions.
    And those that change the things that have to be changed and those 
    that have not. And those that keep making compromises between the 
    ancestral traditions and the reality of our days. And those that keep 
    studying the subject, from outside without being part of the 
    discussion.
    
    And many times it looks to me that we are discussing the Gala Menu 
    for the crossing of the Equator, while the ship is sinking, sinking 
    irreparably...
    
    Regards,
    
    Juan-Carlos
    

No doubt, the rabbi whom the base noter consulted is Conservative or Reform.
Both of these movements have made a number of changes to the siddur because
they're uncomfortable with certain prayers.

As previous replies have pointed out, the morning blessings in the
traditional siddur bless G-d "for not having made me a woman" (for men)
and "for having made me according to his will" (for women).  The prior
two blessings are "for not having made me a gentile" and "for not having
made me a slave."

Here's one explanation (from the ArtScroll siddur, which seems to be
paraphrasing R' Munk's "The World of Prayer"):

The Torah assigns missions to respective groups of people.  Within Israel,
for example, the Davidic family, Kohanim, and Levites are set apart by
virtue of their particular callings, in addition to their shared mission
as Jews.  All such missions carry extra responsibilities and call for the
performance of the mitzvos associated with them.  We thank G-d, therefore,
for the challenge of improving His universe in accordance with His will.
Male, free Jews have responsibilities and duties not shared by others.
For this, they express gratitude that, unlike women, they were *not*
freed from the obligation to perform the time-related commandments.
This follows the Talmudic dictum that an obligatory performance of a
commandment is superior to a voluntary one because it is human nature
to resist obligations.  Women, on the other hand, both historically and
because of their nature, and the guardians of tradition, the molders
of character, children, and family.  Furthermore, women have often been
the protectors of Judaism when the impetuosity and aggressiveness of
the male nature led the men astray.  The classic precedent was in the
Wilderness when the men -- not the women -- worshipped the Golden Calf.
Thus, though women were not given the privilege of the challenge assigned
to men, they are created closer to G-d's ideal of satisfaction.  They
express their gratitude in the blessing ... "for having made me according
to his will (R' Munk).

If we're really going to pursue this "gender discrimination" thing, then let's
not beat around the bush.  The fact is that men and women were created
physically different, and we know Who is responsible for that.  Instead of
fussing over the minor detail of Judaism noticing this difference, we should
take this issue straight to its Source.  From what I hear of the American legal
system these days, I'm sure that there are courts that would hear a lawsuit in
this matter.

> If we're really going to pursue this "gender discrimination" thing, then let's
> not beat around the bush.  The fact is that men and women were created
> physically different, and we know Who is responsible for that.  
    
       During my wife's pregnancies and nursing months I blessed G-d
       "for not having made me a woman" several times a day and in the
       middle of the night as well.

       A more modern interpretation... 
       "for not having made me a woman"  who is constantly being
       discriminated against.
       
       \Itzhak       
       
    
    

Not much time these days, but this topic comes up a lot, and
I think that there's a lot of misunderstanding.

First, there is a good deal of discussion in the _posekim_
(halachic adjudicators) regarding these blessings (_shelo asani
goy...aved...isha_). The Vilna Gaon (O.C. 46:4) seems to
favor the positive blessing _sheasani Yisrael_ as a replacement
for all three blessings, although this is not the custom.

The commentators Magen Avraham and Taz discuss the reasons
for these three blessings having been formulated in the
negative, whereas almost every other blessing *ever* recited
(and certainly the other 13 morning blessings of which these
are a part [_Birchot hashachar_]) are positively phrased.

One of the reasons given is rather existential: it would have
been better for us never to have been born, since life includes
so many trials, and rare is the individual who emerges unscathed.
Once we are born, though, we thank G-d for having given us the
opportunity to fill our lives with meaning and purpose, by giving
us hundreds of precepts to perform, and thereby a positive direction
for our lives. 

This, BTW, is hardly Johnny-come-lately modern apologetics. Rashi
(in his characteristic concise way), says this in Menah. 43b. Rashi,
of course, lived almost 1000 years ago, and M.A. and the Taz wrote
their comments several centuries ago.

Re: .4 (Juan)

>    But this brings us to the unsolved problem: Most of us, Jews, more
>    than a 60%-70% would say "I don't KNOW anything about that AND I
>    DON'T CARE", and they turn their back, not only to the ugly spots and
>    problems, but to all of Judaism. And they stray away and are lost.
>    Forever.

Those who are victims of ignorance cannot be faulted for not taking the
time to examine the sources and meanings of traditions. Their sensibilities
and judgments shift with the winds of fashion, having nothing else to
base them on. But others are guilty of at best mental laziness when they
rush to change without bothering to first plumb the depths of the Talmudic
sea in search of the meaning of the observances.

>    In their prayers, when they reach this part of the morning service,
>    women are supposed to change the blessing by "... that made me
>    according with His will". I believe that even the most observant from
>    the observant Jews would agree that this formulation is correct,
>    regardless of gender; but I do not believe they will have the courage
>    to change the formulation.

On the contrary, it is those who have *withstood* the knee-jerk reaction
to gratuitously do away with time-honored traditions in the face of popular
pressure who are courageous. It doesn't take much courage for a rabbi whose
livelihood depends on his president and Ladies' Auxiliary to agree to some
"minor adjustments." The word for that is spinelessness.

The fact is, Judaism has seen lots of trends come and go, and it is
likely to survive the current onslaught as well. Does this mean that
current thinking is never considered? Of course not. Halachic scholars
are constantly being consulted on every new invention and twist as they
see the light of day. But every decision made is made with the utmost
care and respect, with the knowledge that there is a Wisdom far greater
and more timeless than mere humans can hope to fathom, and which is not 
tampered with lightly, whether Rosie or Gloria (All in the Family a few
years ago) like it or not.
    
Jem

    Hmmm. . . interesting topic.
    
    I have heard Judaism described by some Jewish women as a very
    patriarchal, repressive religion.  I have looked very hard at my
    experience and knowledge as a Jewish woman and I have not found this to
    be true for me.  Maybe it is for women from another background . . .?
    
    As for the quote from the tv show Trials of Rosie ONeil - those words
    were put there by a scriptwriter (gender and religion unknown).  As
    such, they reflect a common cultural perception of Judaism.  Given the
    much more heinous Jewish stereotypes which are common, I'm not worried
    about this one.
    
    I joined a rather liberal Conservative synagogue where women "lain"
    Torah and have power in the governing board.  The siddur we use is
    worded in a non-sexist way.  So I have found a niche where I am
    comfortable.
    
    Personally, I would feel comfortable in a more traditional setting,
    too, if I liked the people.  
    
    I have a lot of pride in being a Jewish woman.  As a working mother, I
    am proud of my responsibilities.  I am not much different in this way
    from my mother, aunts, and grandmothers.  I am proud that I both work
    and maintain a Jewish home, and am raising my child with a Jewish
    identity.  My life is difficult and demanding, but I was taught good
    coping skills.  The women in my family are role models for me.
    
    Perhaps what is sexist about Judaism is that our self-perceptions as
    women are often governed by the men's point of view.  The previous
    discussion in this note is a salient example.  If we consider synagogue
    rituals and prayers to be our most important activity as Jews, and if
    we belong to a synagogue where women are not permitted equality in this
    area, then as women we will indeed feel slighted.
    
    But if we view our role as Jewish women in totality, keeping in mind
    our goals, then we see that we are indeed very powerful.  As a Jewish
    woman, one is the backbone of the family.  It can be said that Jewish
    women - through their organizations and friendships - are the backbone 
    of the Jewish community.
    
    For most of the past year, I was unable to go to Temple because
    services are scheduled during my baby's sleep times.  I wanted to be
    home with her.  I have also been exhausted from work, commuting, and
    my tasks at home.  But there is never a moment in which I do not feel
    connected to Ha-Shem.  In my heart there is a silent dialogue with the
    One at all times.   My viewpoints and moral priorities are all derived
    from Judaism.  Being a Jew is something we choose in every moment of
    life.  If I do not go to Temple, even if I were not allowed a full role
    at a more orthodox Temple, I still have plenty of responsibilities. 
    People rely on me every day.  I CHOOSE to make my life meaningful and
    important, with the full support of Judaism.
    
    In Judaism women are treated with respect and dignity.  We have
    historically had greater rights than women in the communities around
    us.  In any age, I would have wanted to have been born a Jew.
    
    Laura

I need more convincing that this prayer is non-discriminatory. I am all too
aware that the great interpretors could prove that that which is forbidden
is actually permitted (and vice versa) simply as an exercise. So when
the commentators say that 'lo assani isha' means that men are glad they don't
have to carry the greater burden of womanhood, I still look askance at
the plain meaning of the text. It would have made more sense to have the
prayer in the positive form (as it appears in the Siddur used at my
Reform Temple): ... assani ish (and women could say assani isha).

Actually, I am glad to learn that there is considerable discussion on
these 3 blessings (although lo assani eved - has not made me a slave -
seems straight forward to me). If it bothered the great ones, then I feel
I am in very good company.

Dave

Havurat Shalom in Somerville MA has a Siddur Project that has recently
published new versions of some of the Shabbat morning prayers. The morning 
blessings, replace the objectiionable Orthodox formulations as follows (pardon
my transliterations):

"has not made me a non-Jew"  -> "has made me a Jew" (sheasani yisrael)
"has not made me a slave"    -> "has made me free" (sheasani bat/ben choreen)
"has not made me a women"    -> "has made me in Your image" (sheasani b'tzelem)

I especially like the last one: it emphasizes what we have in common with
all humans, but in a Jewish way. And, it is to be noted that the Israeli
Human Rights organization calls itself "B'Tzelem" to emphasize why human
rights of all people is a Jewish obligation.

Other improvements (I think they are improvements) are

    the start of each brucha (Blessed are You) alternates between "brucha aht"
   (feminine) and the traditional (and sexist when used exclusively) 
   "baruch atah" (feminine). If Jewish theology says that God is both
    male and female, then so should our liturgy.

    "King of the universe" (melech ha'olom)[which is not only male, but likens
     the divine to a human ruler] is replaced by "Source of life" 
    (m'kor hachayim)

    Re: .10
    
    >So when the commentators say that 'lo assani isha' means that men are
    >glad they don't have to carry the greater burden of womanhood
    
    This is not accurate. The Talmud in Menahot discusses the blessings:
    
    1. "Shelo Asani Oved Kochavim (some texts Goy)"
    2. "Shelo Asani Eved"
    3. "Shelo Asani Isha"
    
    Note, that all three are in the negative. The reasoning behind 3. is
    that a woman is not obligated to perform Positive Mitzvot which are by
    definition restricted to certain times, such as Tefilin and Tzizit
    which are restricted to the time period of the day and NOT night. Thus,
    men make this blessing in appreciation of NOT having this restriction.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Cb.
    

.11>                    -< A version that doesn't discriminate >-
.11>
.11>...
.11>
.11>"has not made me a non-Jew"  -> "has made me a Jew" (sheasani yisrael)

I fail to see how "discriminating" in favor of Jews is preferable to
"discriminating" against non-Jews.

I think that the people who have written notes concerning "discrimination" in
this topic should look up the word in a dictionary, and then think about how
they're using it.

re .12:

There are apparently at least three versions of "who has not made me a
gentile."  I've seen "goy," "nachri," and (for the first time in your note)
"oved kochavim."  Any others?  Akum, for example?

re the formulation in general:

I was told many years ago that these three blessings are a rebuttal to
some NT passage where Jesus says that there's no difference between
Jews and gentiles, slaves and free men, and men and women.  I haven't
verified this, but perhaps someone who's more familiar with the NT can
do so.

>.11>"has not made me a non-Jew"  -> "has made me a Jew" (sheasani yisrael)

>I fail to see how "discriminating" in favor of Jews is preferable to
>"discriminating" against non-Jews.

If you think in terms of simple categories, then "not a non-Jew" is
identical to "a Jew", but the two ways of saying it have quite
different overtones. I think there is a psychological
difference between being grateful you are who you are and being grateful
you are not one of those inferior beings in the other group.

Another change in liturgy that I favor is the Reconstructionist version
of the brucha before reading from the Torah: traditionally, one
refers to us as having been "chosen from all the other peoples", and
the Reconstructionist version changes "from" to "with", to signify
that all peoples are chosen in some way -- our way is Torah (whether
we think it is divinely authored, or a flawed human creation that
we are to perfect, it still dominates Jewish study and prayer).

Foist of all "Happy Chanukah" chaverim.

Re. .8 
In his absense I need to defend the rabbi who I'm quite sure
could substantiate his point of view.  I'm also sure his
"livelihood" had nothing to do with it.  I've been privileged
to be acquainted with this man of superior intellect and
integrity for over 10 years.  This is a very highly esteemed, 
truly selfless and dedicated rabbi.  He could never be 
described as "spineless." 

For my tuppence on the issue ... in line with an earlier
response, I think the prayer reflects the lot in life of the 
Jewish woman of the 14th, 15th century (from whence it was 
formulated, please correct me if I'm wrong) - a time frought with 
problems of survival, heinous crimes against women by the Crusaders, 
difficulties in childbirth, TB, arduous toil.  Is it any wonder that 
a prayer emerged recognizing this fate?  I recall a comment "it was 
twice as bad to be born a woman for what she had to endure."  A point 
can also be made of the mother's pain for the suffering of her child.

Does the prayer in today's context discriminate for the purpose of
degrading the woman?  It could, if one were so brutishly inclined.
However, as I see it you need to distinguish between the life 
and times of the human condition then and now to extract the intended 
meaning.

Regards,
Bernice
                                            

Thanks for the previous 2 responses. I find them helpful in understanding
these baruchas.

Dave

re .16:

I believe you're off by a millennium or so.

    Hi,
    
    I believe Jem made a comment a few back that there have been
    commentaries on these blessings as far back as 1000 years ago.  But I
    don't recall seeing in this text the timeframe in which these blessings
    were first "adopted" (for lack of a better term).  Out of curiosity,
    does anyone here know roughly when these blessings were first said? 
    Information as general as before or after the common era would be
    helpful.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Steve

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Re: .10 (Dave)

>I am all too
>aware that the great interpretors could prove that that which is forbidden
>is actually permitted (and vice versa) simply as an exercise. So when
>the commentators say that 'lo assani isha' means that men are glad they don't
>have to carry the greater burden of womanhood, I still look askance at
>the plain meaning of the text.

Don't forget, all of these blessings are of Rabbinic (Talmudic) origin,
and Rabbi Meir, the author, essentially gives the reason himself, Rashi simply 
elucidating his explanation. Were there to be a verse in the Torah, "Thou
shalt recite the following blessings each morning..." listing the blessings
in question without any explanation, there would be a reason for the mystery.
But the author of this Halacha is human, and he himself (in effect) explains
his own reason. See the passage for yourself (Menah. 43b).

Re: .11 (Louis)

"B'Tzelem" what? I think the omission is telling.

Re: .13 (ERICG)

>I think that the people who have written notes concerning "discrimination" in
>this topic should look up the word in a dictionary, and then think about how
>they're using it.

And that same linguistic imprecision applies a hundred-fold to the
Holy Tongue. Hebrew is a language bursting with nuances, and the
Sages who formulated the prayers did not do so without tremendous
forethought and trepidation. Not for naught does the Talmud say,
"Anyone who changes the 'coins minted' by the Sages regarding the
formulation of blessings has not fulfilled his obligation." Isn't
it just a tad presumptuous to think that we are so much more
progressive than they?

For instance, how long has it been since "marital rape" has been 
topical? 10, 20 years? Rami Bar Chama in
the name of Rav Assi (Eruv. 100b) formulated the principal 2000 
years ago, and so it appears in the Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 25:2).

Blu Greenberg, in her article _Women and Judaism_ makes some
particularly salient points (I paraphrase):

Neither could a woman be sold into slavery, as could a man, to
pay off her fathers debts. In regards to torts and damages, 
women are treated equally to men in Halacha - in American society, this
would often not be true, judgments often being based on an individual's
earning power...

Are the formulations of these progressive near-prophets to be
dismissed on a whim because they happen to rub us the wrong way?
I suggest that that approach is extremely dangerous, and can actually
be blamed for opening the door to the various "Messianic-Jewish"
missionary groups (funded largely by the Baptists and other
fundamentalists denominations). How? Well, if Jewish traditions,
observances, and even the definition of who is defined as a
Jew itself are not matters of Talmudic authority - that is, the Talmud
has been trashed - then the definition of Judaism itself is
simply a matter for anyone to decide. We we no doubt see Jewish-
Hinuism, Hebrew-Pagans and Israelite Wicca in the years to come --
and who will there be to question them? 

Re: .15 (Louis)

>Another change in liturgy that I favor is the Reconstructionist version
>of the brucha before reading from the Torah: traditionally, one
>refers to us as having been "chosen from all the other peoples", and
>the Reconstructionist version changes "from" to "with", to signify
>that all peoples are chosen in some way 

Jews have literally gone through fire and water - and worse - for
the sake of upholding the mission for which they have been
chosen. If everyone is "chosen in their own way" why should we
sacrifice anything for *our* way? Maybe the other guy's is just as 
good!

Re: .16 (Bernice)

>In his absense I need to defend the rabbi who I'm quite sure
>could substantiate his point of view.  I'm also sure his
>"livelihood" had nothing to do with it.

I wasn't referring to your rabbi in particular, since he is
not responsible for these changes. My point, in response to Juan,
was that it takes far more "courage" for a rabbi or a movement
not to accede to changes to liturgy and observances - although
the membership may be clamoring for it and threatening reprisals -
than to take a strong stance based on Halacha, and *education*.

Re: .18 (Gerald)

>re .16:
>
>I believe you're off by a millennium or so.

The blessing "sheasani kirtzono" (Who has created me
according to his will) which women recite is of Medieval
origin. "Shelo asani isha" is Talmudic, and as such is
at least 1500 years old, or so.

Re: .19 (Steve)

I'm not sure I can answer your question directly. As 
Gerald said, it's at least as old as the close of the
Talmud (around 500 CE), but the Talmud was in formulation
for about 500 years before publication. In addition, although
Rabbi Meir is quoted as requiring the blessing, this does
not necessarily mean that it was not recited before his time,
Rabbi Meir simply formally incorporating it into the liturgy.

Jem

 

    
    An obstuse reference to the main theme in the previous reply made me
    think. This reference was to the issue of marital rape and and that
    there were men who recognized it for what it was 2000 years ago. I am 
    inclined to defend the oldest and most strict tranlation for 
    because it makes us think. When a sensitive man says the
    blessing today he may be lead to consider some or all of the arguments
    that have been used above. The process of agnoizing over these various
    points brings knowledge and understanding. Re-writing the blessing to
    obscure the parts some people find objectionable quickly hides the
    problem and people are not encouraged to think, to learn, to grow and
    become more sensitive. If some blessings did not pinch from time to
    time the recitation would be without much intellectual spark.
    
    Just my *too* cents worth
    
    /doug

re .20:

>The blessing "sheasani kirtzono" (Who has created me
>according to his will) which women recite is of Medieval
>origin. "Shelo asani isha" is Talmudic, and as such is
>at least 1500 years old, or so.

So what did women say before medieval times?

    Re .22:
    
    >So what did women say before medieval times?
    
    Probably nothing. In fact it is very doubtful whether women were
    accustomed to saying any formalistic prayers before the midevil period. 
    
    There are contemporary Poskim (Ovidia Yosef for example) who recommend
    that women recite this blessing "bli Shem u'Malchus" (without
    mentioning the name of G-d).
    
    Cb.

    RE:  -1
    
    "Women praying is relatively modern"
    
    Not true.  MAYBE if you added the qualifier "using a siddur".
    
    (You did later qualify it by adding the word "formalistic" - but what
    does that mean?  Women attended Temple services, right?  How much more
    formal do you get?)
    
    Sheesh, I feel pretty alienated by this discussion.  You guys are
    talking about us as if we were a bunch of savages or something.  We do
    have voices and brains, ya know.  Since the midwives in Mizraim and the
    incident of the golden calf, we wouldn't be here if it weren't for the
    women.  And the women were motivated by more than dumb instinct! 
    
    Laura
    

    I thought the Amidah originated from a woman who prayed silently. 
    Wasn't that Ruth? 
    
    Malcolm

Re: .25 (Malcolm)

>    I thought the Amidah originated from a woman who prayed silently.
>    Wasn't that Ruth?

Chana (I Sam., 1). Chana was one of the seven prophetesses (the
others were: Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Avigail, Chalda and Esther).

Chana was also the first person to refer to G-d as "Tzeva-ot"
in prayer, subsequently used by many prophets and incorporated 
into our daily prayers. The Zohar also says that Chana's (and
Devora's) prayers were more beautiful than the prayers of any
man.

Re: .24

>  We do
>    have voices and brains, ya know.  Since the midwives in Mizraim and the
>    incident of the golden calf, we wouldn't be here if it weren't for the
>    women.  And the women were motivated by more than dumb instinct!

I think you're overreacting, Laura. The attitude of Halacha towards
women is based on one simple fact - women bear children, and should
be allowed to do so, and to raise them, unencumbered by a plethora
of other responsibilities. 

Does this mean that they *can't* do other things, or are the
female heroines in the Bible lesser role-models than their male 
counterparts? Of course not. 

But there is a very subtle point that I think everyone will agree
to. Not *everyone* is capable of being a "supermom" and "doing
it all." What Judaism does by lessening the requirements is to
make the statement loud and clear that being a mother is the
most honorable of careers, and working in the home *is* work.
Women today who choose to be full-time mothers are often put 
in a defensive position, being compared and comparing themselves
to their neighbors who work outside the home. 

The very first _mitzva_ in the Torah is that of procreation. There's
no secret that raising children properly is *the* priority of the
Torah. Even the transcendent _mitzva_ of Torah study is directed
through the children, "teach it to your children, and speak of it,
when you lie down, and when you get up..." If so, the very least
the Torah can do is facilitate the observance of this great mitzva
by lessening ancillary burdens. 

Don't forget what Chana was praying *for*!

Jem

    Re  .24
    
    >Not true.  MAYBE if you added the qualifier "using a siddur".
    
    >(You did later qualify it by adding the word "formalistic" - but what
    >does that mean?  Women attended Temple services, right?  How much more
    >formal do you get?)
    
    Yes, by formalistic, I was referring to predetermined formalistic
    texts.
    
    >Sheesh, I feel pretty alienated by this discussion.  You guys are
    >talking about us as if we were a bunch of savages or something.  We do
    >have voices and brains, ya know.  Since the midwives in Mizraim and the
    >incident of the golden calf, we wouldn't be here if it weren't for the
    >women.  And the women were motivated by more than dumb instinct! 
    
    Laura, I believe you are misunderstanding the entire concept. Noone has
    ever implied that the lack of obligation for certain commandments has
    anything to do with inteligence or brains or lack thereof. I personally
    know many brilliant women who are very content with their life style
    and the fact that they do not have certain obligations doesn't bother
    them at all. On the other hand I know many men who have IQ's equal to
    their shoe size (U.S.) who go through the motions of praying and
    learning daily.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Cb. 
    

    I haven't had time to do much here recently, due to some time-bound
    obligations to Digital Equipment Corporation, but I've got a few
    minutes this evening, so...
    
    Several people referred to the positive vs negative phrasing of the
    some brachot.  Just for the record, the Conservative and
    Reconstructionist prayerbooks have used the positive phrasing for a
    couple of generations now, and the Reform has had it since 1975.  The
    older version omitted the Birkat Ha-Shachar altogether.
    
    The usual form of the Reconstructionist Torah blessing is "asher
    kaervanu l'avodato" ("who has brought us to his service") although some
    people do use "im kol ha-amim" (with all peoples).
    
    re: .26, .27, and some others
    
    These statements hold if one accepts the assumptions on which they are
    based, but if one regards Halacha as the product of human (and
    predominantly male) minds, then one can understand it as a product of 
    certain times and cultures.  Jem's and Chaim's arguments make perfectly
    good sense if one accepts their assumptions, but if one uses different
    assumptions then these look like post hoc rationalizations from people
    who just don't get it.
    
    The problem is that we operate with (at least) two very different
    frames of reference, and we talk at (and past) each other, but much of
    what is said is passed off as irrelevant by those using another
    frame.  I have a number of female cousins, some of whom are Orthodox
    and find great satisfaction in their roles within the Orthodox
    community; they feel that other women in the family don't know what
    they are missing.  Other cousins are part of egalitarian congregations
    and feel that they have finally found spiritual fulfillment that was
    lacking in more traditional environments; they feel that other women
    in the family don't know what they are missing.
    
    I am not prepared to say that either group is wrong.  I am prepared to
    say that if anyone is certain that one or the other is wrong, that
    person is wrong.
    
    					Aaron

I'm just catching up on many bagel notes I missed when I was out!

re: .26

>> I think you're overreacting, Laura. The attitude of Halacha towards
>> women is based on one simple fact - women bear children, and should
>> be allowed to do so, and to raise them, unencumbered by a plethora
>> of other responsibilities. 

I've always been curious about one thing in this logic.  If a man is taking
on the entire responsibility of childrearing, either through choice (wife
works or independently wealthy!) or necessity (widowed, divorced), is he
now freed from the obligation of positive time bound commandments?


>> But there is a very subtle point that I think everyone will agree
>> to. Not *everyone* is capable of being a "supermom" and "doing
>> it all." What Judaism does by lessening the requirements is to
>> make the statement loud and clear that being a mother is the
>> most honorable of careers, and working in the home *is* work.
>> Women today who choose to be full-time mothers are often put 
>> in a defensive position, being compared and comparing themselves
>> to their neighbors who work outside the home. 

I totally agree that this has become an unfortunate result of the freedom
of choices we have now.  I think it's a shame that women who chose to work
solely in the home need to be defensive; the liberation movement should
be about having the options, not about having to chose only one way.  I
would give anything to be home full time with my little one.  


re: 28

>>    The problem is that we operate with (at least) two very different
>>    frames of reference, and we talk at (and past) each other, but much of
>>    what is said is passed off as irrelevant by those using another
>>    frame.  I have a number of female cousins, some of whom are Orthodox
    
>>    I am not prepared to say that either group is wrong.  I am prepared to
>>    say that if anyone is certain that one or the other is wrong, that
>>    person is wrong.
    
As ususal, Aaron, you have articulated my exact thoughts!  I find it very
frustrating that we repeatedly get hung up by this problem in our discussions
in Bagels.  

Waky

    
    Re: .28
    
    >These statements hold if one accepts the assumptions on which they are
    >based,
    
    Please be more specific. I'm not sure which statements you're referring to.
    
    > Jem's and Chaim's arguments make perfectly
    >good sense if one accepts their assumptions, but if one uses different
    >assumptions then these look like post hoc rationalizations from people
    >who just don't get it.
    
    It also helps to have an acquaintance with the Talmud, to see
    what the intention of the author himself was. Why don't you see
    for yourself?
    
    >I am not prepared to say that either group is wrong.  I am prepared to
    >    say that if anyone is certain that one or the other is wrong, that
    >    person is wrong.
    
    I think you're setting up a strawman, since no one said anything about 
    anyone's feelings being "wrong." The objection is based on discarding
    time-honored traditions, and in many cases clear biblical law, based
    on these "feelings." 
    
    >The problem is that we operate with (at least) two very different
    >frames of reference,
    
    Absolutely right. I believe in giving the Sages of the Talmud the
    benefit of the doubt, with the knowledge that their wisdom has
    been the bedrock of Jewish existence for many centuries, and once
    its authority is undermined, that existence, which has been able
    to withstand every imaginable adversary, quickly begins to unravel.
    
    Jem

    
    Re: .29
    
    >As ususal, Aaron, you have articulated my exact thoughts!
    
    Wait a second! You can't agree with both Aaron *and* me! :)
    
    Jem
    

Didn't get any response to my question:

>> 							If a man is taking
>> on the entire responsibility of childrearing, either through choice (wife
>> works or independently wealthy!) or necessity (widowed, divorced), is he
>> now freed from the obligation of positive time bound commandments?

Waky

    I've been busy with DECworld stuff the last few weeks, so I haven't had
    time to do much noting.
    
    In response to Jem's comment in 1133.30
    
>    It also helps to have an acquaintance with the Talmud, to see
>    what the intention of the author himself was. Why don't you see
>    for yourself?
    
    I does, indeed, help to have an acquaintance with the Talmud.  I don't
    consider myself to have mastered it by any means, but I do study
    Talmud.  My goal is to be an apikoris,  not an am haaretz :^)
    On a more serious note, I think we agree on the importance of knowing
    the traditional texts.
    
A    >The problem is that we operate with (at least) two very different
A    >frames of reference,
    
J    Absolutely right. I believe in giving the Sages of the Talmud the
J    benefit of the doubt, with the knowledge that their wisdom has
J    been the bedrock of Jewish existence for many centuries, and once
J    its authority is undermined, that existence, which has been able
J    to withstand every imaginable adversary, quickly begins to unravel.
    
    This is where we have a basic disagreement.  I do not accept the idea
    that Judaism is totally dependent on acceptance of the Orthodox version
    of Talmudic authority.  For me, the authority of the Talmud rests on
    the wisdom of the sages, not on the divine origin of the Mishnah.  It
    is likely that most Jews in the world today do not accept the
    assumption of Torah-mi-Sinai--the idea that God dictated the Torah word
    for word to Moshe, along with the Mishna.  To assert that we "ought" to
    believe something we don't believe strikes me as not very useful.
    
                                         Aaron

 
    Re: .33
        
    
    
    >I does, indeed, help to have an acquaintance with the Talmud.  I don't
    >consider myself to have mastered it by any means, but I do study
    >Talmud.  My goal is to be an apikoris,  not an am haaretz :^)
    >On a more serious note, I think we agree on the importance of knowing
    >the traditional texts.
    
    I was referring to the specific reference given earlier in
    this note, where the author of the blessings explains his
    reason for phrasing them in the negative (these three being
    the *only* negatively-phrased blessings to my knowledge).
    
A    >The problem is that we operate with (at le�a��ast) two very different
A    >frames of reference,
    

>    This is where we have a basic disagreement.  I do not accept the idea
>    that Judaism is totally dependent on acceptance of the Orthodox version
>    of Talmudic authority.  For me, the authority of the Talmud rests on
>    the wisdom of the sages, not on the divine origin of the Mishnah.  It
>    is likely that most Jews in the world today do not accept the
>    assumption of Torah-mi-Sinai--the idea that God dictated the Torah word
>    for word to Moshe, along with the Mishna.  To assert that we "ought" to
>    believe something we don't believe strikes me as not very useful.
 
    "Most Jews in the world today" are intermarrying and doing fast
    disappearing from the Jewish world. I never said anyone "ought"
    do anything. I said that without it, there is no reason to
    make the manifold sacrifices a Jew is called upoto make, and
    this is borne out by the fact that Jews in this country
    increasingly aren't - they're opting out.  
                                         
    You speak of the importance of study of traditional Jewish
    texts. How many Jews can discern an aleph from a bet, let
    alone a siddur or Chumash, much less a page of Talmud and
    its commentaries. The smattering of Hebrew and Bible stories
    one picks up in Hebrew school today is pathetic, and serves 
    only to alienate all who are unfortunate enough to enter
    its halls. The day schools are a different matter, but why
    would an average Jew who's been told by his rabbis that 
    the Torah is a compendium of tall tales spend thousands of 
    dollars a year to teach his children these fairy tales?
    
    Jem
    

    
    Re: .32 Waky
    
    No, men would not be freed from their obligations
    by taking upon themselves to rear the , excen as
    a carte blanche, although while attending to emergencies
    he certainly would be. Again, there's no question that
    the Torah does encourage women to bring up their own 
    children, and like it or not, experience shows that
    they do a far better job than that other inept sex.
    (I recently proved this to myself once again when
    my wife went to Israel for a week on business and
    returned home just in time to save it from being
    condemned by the Board of Health :).
    
    Sorry for the delay.
    
    Jem
    
    
    

  re: 1133.34

>                                        I never said anyone "ought"
>    do anything. I said that without it, there is no reason to
>    make the manifold sacrifices a Jew is called upon to make, and
>    this is borne out by the fact that Jews in this country
>    increasingly aren't - they're opting out.

    True, and this is a serious problem, but it didn't start yesterday, and
    it did not start only with the emergence alternative forms of Judaism.
    (In fact, prior to the development of Reform Judaism, there was
    considerable conversion directly to Christianity; Reform provided a
    Jewish alternative.)

    I have no problem with anyone who bases his or her adherence on faith
    in Torah mi Sinai, but given that

    a)  most Jews do not believe in that

    b)  very few Jews live in an environment in which they can be coerced
        by the state to adhere to particular Jewish practices

    we have to decide whether we are going to simply write off the majority
    of Jews in the world, or if we are going to try to do something about
    them.  What would you advocate?

>    You speak of the importance of study of traditional Jewish
>    texts. How many Jews can discern an aleph from a bet, let
>    alone a siddur or Chumash, much less a page of Talmud and
>    its commentaries.

    We agree that the state of Jewish education is abominable.

>               The day schools are a different matter, but why
>    would an average Jew who's been told by his rabbis that
>    the Torah is a compendium of tall tales spend thousands of
>    dollars a year to teach his children these fairy tales?

    I have no idea why a person who has been told that by his or her
    Rabbi would spend anything on Jewish education.  I also have never
    encountered a Rabbi who said that.  Have you?

                                        Aaron

    
    Re: .36
    
    >True, and this is a serious problem, but it didn't start yesterday, and
    >it did not start only with the emergence alternative forms of Judaism.
    >(In fact, prior to the development of Reform Judaism, there was
    >considerable conversion directly to Christianity; Reform provided a
    >Jewish alternative.)
    
    But let's bring it a bit more up to date. Today's defectors are
    overwhelmingly (and there are studies to support this, some of
    which have been posted in BAGELS) Jews who have received little
    (including supplementary Hebrew school) or no Jewish education,
    and those from liberal Jewish denominations. The wave of apostasy
    and secularism that swept Germany and other European countries
    was a result of the ghetto walls falling all at once without
    any notice, and of Jews discovering the wonderful new world of
    Westernism - who needed particularism any more? There was no
    longer a need for differentiating between Jew and German! This
    was now an age of liberal universalism, and never again would
    the Jew know of discrimination!
    
    Today we're a little more sophisticated. We've seen the wonders
    that Westernism has wrought, and we're a little less glassy-
    eyed. People today look for meaning, and often they will look
    to their heritage. The fact is that children of traditional 
    families are raising Jewish children and those of other denom-
    inations are increasingly opting out, or becoming more traditional.
    
    >    I have no problem with anyone who bases his or her adherence on faith
    >    in Torah mi Sinai, but given that
    >
    >    a)  most Jews do not believe in that
     
    Most jews don't know the aleph-bet, as we've both agreed, much less
    anything about Jewish theology.
    
    >    b)  very few Jews live in an environment in which they can be coerced
    >        by the state to adhere to particular Jewish practices
    
    Did anyone here advocate coercion? Why do you bring it up?
    
    >    we have to decide whether we are going to simply write off the majority
    >    of Jews in the world, or if we are going to try to do something about
    >    them.  What would you advocate?    
    
    Have I ever said anything that would lead you to believe that I
    want to "write off" anyone? But the only way anything's ever
    going to change is if we *all* recognize that the Jewish people
    is writing *itself* into oblivion by its own apathy to intensive
    Jewish education and practice.
    
    >>               The day schools are a different matter, but why
    >>    would an average Jew who's been told by his rabbis that
    >>    the Torah is a compendium of tall tales spend thousands of
    >>    dollars a year to teach his children these fairy tales?
    
    >    I have no idea why a person who has been told that by his or her
    >    Rabbi would spend anything on Jewish education.  I also have never
    >    encountered a Rabbi who said that.  Have you?
    
    Well, if they aren't, why then is there only a tiny percentage
    of non-Orthodox children in Jewish day schools of any type?
    
    Jem
    
    
    
    
    

>>>The day schools are a different matter, but why
>>>would an average Jew who's been told by his rabbis that
>>>the Torah is a compendium of tall tales spend thousands of
>>>dollars a year to teach his children these fairy tales?
>    
>>I have no idea why a person who has been told that by his or her
>>Rabbi would spend anything on Jewish education.  I also have never
>>encountered a Rabbi who said that.  Have you?
>    
>Well, if they aren't, why then is there only a tiny percentage
>of non-Orthodox children in Jewish day schools of any type?
    
	C'mon Jem, Aaron:  This is circular and self-fulfilling. You
	don't have to be told that "these things are tall tales"
	in open English (or whatever).  Your body language, plus
	conflicting messages will do it for you.

	Example: Nice boy from conservative home goes to afternoon
	Hebrew school to hear about kashrus.  

		- In the school, what's important?  *Spitballs*, and
		  there's no way to stop that, because the *parents*
		  don't care enough to do so.  What's the message?
		  What's important?

		- Same kid arrives home same day to a dinner with shrimps.
		  Do you think -- really now -- that he'd have the
		  courage to ask "why"?

			* Case I:  maybe 0.1% - asks, and is told that
			  "of course we don't keep that..."

			* Case II: 99.9% - doesn't ask, and "gets the
			  message"

		- All of this kid's friends and their parents eat out at 
		  McDonald's (or wherever). Kid is stigmatized if he 
		  wouldn't.  What's "right" in his context?  More to
		  the point, what's the message about what he's learning
		  in his afternoon Hebrew school?

	This isn't bullshit.  I know what I'm talking about here. The 
	kid I'm writing about is *me*. And the kids I went to
	"afternoon Hebrew school" with.  And that was in the '50s, in
	New York, when it was a lot easier to "be Jewish".  When I
	arrived to age 20, I KNEW FOR SURE that all this was indeed a bunch
	of tall stories.  And *no one had to tell me that explicitly.*
	In fact, in those days I used to seek opportunities to try to attack 
	people for believing those "tall stories."
    
	Would you tell me that this situation today is different, that
	it has improved, etc.? I dunno for sure, but up to about 1985
	I was heavily involved in education in the Conservative movement,
	and things were *worse*, if anything, than when I was a kid.
	(For example: in NY, in the '50s, about 30-50% of "Conservative"
	Jewish families kept kosher.  Today, the number is closer to
	~5% in NY - and *less than 1%* in all of US. What great role models!
	In the early 80's, I was once invited by a Conservative Chazzan to
	break the Yom Kippur fast with them.  After davenning all day
	on Y"K, he broke the fast at a lobster restaurant...  What's the
	message?  And that's to say nothing about Shabbat, etc.)

	While I was still in the Conservative movement, a Rabbi, who I
	knew well, admitted to me about how, when he was in "yeshiva",
	they used to drive to shul, but parked the car several blocks from
	the shul so no one would see.  He was so proud that no one ever 
	found out.  He was so proud that they went shopping Shabbat 
	afternoon and no one found out. He had all kinds of funny kashrut
	practices in his house, and "oh well"...  Here's your Rabbi example 
	you couldn't believe existed.

	Aaron, you can intellectualize on this all you want, but we're
	talking values here.  The reason that these values are disappearing
	(have disappeared?) in the children is because the parents have
	dumped the values.  That's why I have no sympathy for the nice
	Reform parents of the 19 year old deb who just decided to marry
	a non-Jew.  (Chas v'chalila, but) She should probably marry the
	non-Jew, because she hasn't been given any substantial reason
	not to.  A reason that "one shouldn't" is NOT substantial.
	The reason that "we've built a lot of solid Jewish values in
	you over 19 years" is substantial, and will enable the girl
	to make the choice.
	
	Enough. I gotta work.

    Don's argument is well made.  The kids don't stay in Judaism because
    their parents and other influential adults don't really see a value in
    Judaism.  So the apathy and lack of knowledge just gets passed on.
    
    Of course, there is a minority of adults who do see the value.  Now,
    what do we do about it?  Excoriating the kids, or their parents, is a
    waste of time.  If Dan or Debby don't see any value in Judaism, why
    should they give a darn about my indignation or blame?
    
    So what do we do?  I think it is important to reach out to the adults,
    not only the kids.  Adult education and the experience of values is the
    only way to persuade people that Judaism has substance and relevance.
    If a person's religious education ends at age 13, their knowledge
    remains stunted at age 13.  People need to be shown that Judaism is
    emotionally fulfilling, ritually satisfying, communally warm, and
    intellectually challenging at ages 23, 43, and 63.  And that this is
    true for both men and women.
    
    I think it is also important to accept people where they're at.  For
    example, we can't afford to write off the non-kosher (myself among
    them), the non-shomer-Shabbat, not even the intermarrieds.  Give me
    heat on it, go on.  But here's my point, and I'll say it once.  At the
    current rate of intermarriage, we virtually disappear from the US in
    another 50 years.  We need to reach out to these couples, accept them
    into the community, and create open channels for conversion.  I can't
    condone rabbis performing intermarriages, but there is a great deal we
    CAN do to retain these people.
    
    Now, you want me to really blow your mind?  My personal opinion is that
    our communities should accept gay and lesbian Jews.  I'm not arguing
    that rabbis should perform such marriages.  But, as with intermarrieds,
    there's a great deal we CAN do to retain these people, without
    demanding that they suppress or modify their sexuality.
    
    I don't think such openness is for everyone.  I don't presume to tell
    Orthodox or Hassidic communities to change their thinking.  But I put
    these controversial opinions out there as a challenge to the broad
    Jewish community to ponder.  You don't have to like 'em.  I only ask 
    you to think about it.  I'm not the rathole type, so I won't do much
    arguing here.  But there you have it.
    
    With all due respect, and in peace,
    Laura

    What, in particular, can be done to retain active homosexual men?
    I assume you can read the law to allow lesbianism or celibate people
    who have homosexual desires (I don't know it well enough to be sure)
    without problems.
    
    I also assume a major target of retaining gay Jews is to insure that
    their children will be raised as Jews, or at least be "Jewish-izable"
    when they are older?
    
    		-John Bishop

    To reply to the last question:
    
    I think we can retain active homosexual men, or women, (or those not
    active for that matter) by making them feel welcome, as we do with
    anyone else.
    
    We should remember that many gay men and women are parents, often with
    custodianship of their children.
    
    I believe that not only are the children important, but their parents
    are important as well.  The parents are not only a means to an end. 
    I believe that all adults can potentially enrich, enliven, and help
    perpetuate our presence in the US and elsewhere.

    Re: .37
    
>    But let's bring it a bit more up to date. Today's defectors are
>    overwhelmingly (and there are studies to support this, some of
>    which have been posted in BAGELS) Jews who have received little
>    (including supplementary Hebrew school) or no Jewish education,
>    and those from liberal Jewish denominations.

    As a matter of fact, I agree.  [Take note, I want this on the record :^) ]
    I do have to point out, however, that currently, the fastest growing
    movement, in absolute numbers, is Reform.

>                       The fact is that children of traditional 
>    families are raising Jewish children

    Again, I agree; this is one of the real plusses that the Orthodox
    movement can point to with pride--and I think it is something to be
    proud of.

>                                         and those of other denom-
>    inations are increasingly opting out, or becoming more traditional.

    Again, I agree, if by traditional you mean more traditional in terms of
    behavior; I don't see an increase in traditional belief (i.e. Torah mi-
    Sinai).  Also, tradition for a fourth generation Reform Jew is something
    different from tradition for an Orthodox Jew. 

>    >    b)  very few Jews live in an environment in which they can be coerced
>    >        by the state to adhere to particular Jewish practices
>    
>    Did anyone here advocate coercion? Why do you bring it up?

    I was unclear.  Sorry.  I was referring to the fact that prior to
    emancipation, Jewish communities were self-governing and a beth-din,
    for instance, could have it's rulings enforced by the state.  Thus,
    community standards of behavior could be enforced by the community. 
    These standards could include such things as mandatory elementary
    education, and Shabbat observance.  Rightly or wrongly, this played an
    important part in maintenance of the Jewish community.

    I did not mean to imply that Jem advocated coercion, and I apologize if
    I conveyed that impression.
    
>    >    we have to decide whether we are going to simply write off the majority
>    >    of Jews in the world, or if we are going to try to do something about
>    >    them.  What would you advocate?    
>    
>    Have I ever said anything that would lead you to believe that I
>    want to "write off" anyone?

    Yes.  There are clearly a large number of Jews who do not want to be
    Orthodox.  How do we persuade them that there is a point to being
    Jewish?  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that someday their
    descendents will "see the light" IF their descendents can be persuaded
    to retain some form of Jewish identity.  In that case, one still needs
    to give the current generation reasons to stay Jewish, and only a small
    number are attracted by the Orthodox message.  What are we to do in the
    meantime?  It seems to me that you disparage any effort that does not
    seek to recruit Jews to an Orthodox form of Judaism, and that is why I
    get the impression that you want to write off those who do not wish to
    go in that direction.

>    >    I have no idea why a person who has been told that by his or her
>    >    Rabbi would spend anything on Jewish education.  I also have never
>    >    encountered a Rabbi who said that.  Have you?
>    
>    Well, if they aren't, why then is there only a tiny percentage
>    of non-Orthodox children in Jewish day schools of any type?

    That's a non-sequitur.  It also ignores the fact that  BTW, there are an
    increasing number of Conservative and Reform day schools.  I agree that
    the C and R movements lag behind the O, but obviously there are a
    growing number of non-O parents who think it is worth spending a lot of
    money on Jewish education for their children.  To me, that is something
    positive.

                                                Aaron

    Re: .38
    
    I know very well that there are many Jews that are hypocrites when it
    comes to observance.  In my case, it was people who claimed to be
    Orthodox that I saw behaving that way.  My response, however, was to
    Jem's assertion that this is a Rabbinic message, and that I have not
    seen.
    
    I agree wholeheartedly that we are, indeed, talking about values.  One
    of my values is that I refuse to give lip service to something I don't
    believe, namely, that traditional Jewish law and practice derives
    directly from a singular event in the Sinai desert.  Since I don't
    believe it, I've searched for an alternative and I found it in the
    Reconstructionist movement.  My answer is not for everyone.  In
    particular it is not for  a) those who believe in Torah mi-Sinai and
    not for b) those who just want to belong to an institution that makes
    no demands on them.  (IMHO I think it is no coincidence that the two
    movements that are growing the fastest--proportionately, not in
    absolute numbers--are Orthodoxy and Reconstructionism.  I also think
    that they are non-competitive.  That is, those attracted to the one are
    highly unlikely to be attracted to the other.)
    
                                            Aaron

    	We're going down a deep rathole here, but I don't have the energy
    to start a new topic, and the discussion is on a good plane, so I'll
    join right in...

    	Who was it once said, during the "Who is a Jew?" debate, that
    "You're Jewish if your grandchildren are Jewish."  

    	The Orthodox movement can make a strong argument (as we've seen
    here) that the best chance of that is to climb aboard their movement,
    which is undeniably internally consistent and well-organized to educate
    children to follow.  The key is that this community lives as much of a
    Jewish life, every minute of the day, as possible.

    	Another way to achieve that end is to live in Israel.  As a cousin
    (not Othodox) in Tel Aviv once told me, that's the real reason he could
    never live anywhere else.  His children will grow up as Jews, and
    there's little chance they will consider any other possiblities.  In an
    entirely different way from Orthodox Jews, he and his family live as
    completely a Jewish life as do Orthodox Jews anywhere.

    	So far so good.  What about the rest of us?  I grew up in an
    Orthodox home, day school, and shul, but there is too much in the
    Orthodox movement that I simply can't accept anymore.  My wife and I
    agonized long and hard about sending our kids to public school rather
    than to Conservative (Schechter) day school.  We see our friends' kids,
    who go to Schechter, and they are certainly getting a significant
    Jewish education; the problem is that many of them get no reinforcement
    in their home lives (too many parents just use Schechter as a private
    school they can feel less guilty about sending their kids to).  Given
    our own home practice, we would certainly be able to reinforce a
    Schechter education, but we are strongly torn about thus abandoning the
    whole concept of public education in the U.S.  (Note the contrast--in
    Israel kids in public school may not get specific Jewish *religious*
    education, but it doesn't impair their development and identification
    as Jews.  Israeli noters, feel free to correct my assumptions!)

    	So here we are, sending our kids to public school, hoping that they
    won't hate after-school Hebrew School too much, hoping that they'll
    like Jewish summer camp (where my wife really got her Jewish identity
    from; heaven knows she didn't get it at home), and just plain hoping. 
    I really think the Conservative movement has missed the boat on
    education, by not providing an alternative to day school or
    old-fashioned supplementary "yucky school", as my 7-year-old already
    calls it.  I feel that it's a crapshoot, that whether my kids wind up
    with sufficient training, pride, and identification is not within my
    control.  But I simply can't retreat into the alternatives of Orthodoxy
    or aliyah.  I'll keep pushing the system, trying to figure out how to
    supplement it while waiting for it to improve.

    	What's a parent to do?? :-)

    		David

    David,
    
    The problem I see with your analysis is that you are denying your
    children the choices that you had. 
    
    Because you can't accept so much in the Orthodox movement does that 
    mean that your children won't as well? 
    
    It is like the Seder. One of the commandments is to tell the story 
    like it was you that went out of Egypt. Not a modified version that 
    edits out the bits you don't feel too happy with. 
    
    It's a very difficult thing, but if each generation only teaches what
    it believes, where does this take the Jewish people? 
    
    Regarding education in Israel, the only experience I can talk of is 
    that of my wife. She is from a non-orthodox family, and went to a 
    non-orthodox public local school. I can only say that her knowledge 
    of Judaism from the school puts to shame most people that I know
    (myself included - I went to a state school and Hebrew classes).
    
    On your debate over public/private schooling. Surely this is minor 
    compared to the education of your children. More important to do the 
    right thing, than live their lives by your politics.
    
    Malcolm 
    

    re .41 (re .40, and so on).
    
    Laura, what I was asking for was more than "make them feel welcome".
    Can you tell me how people would talk to them about the prohibition,
    what, if anything, they would be required to promise to do or not do,
    whether they would be asked to formally state anything: details!
    
    Here on the one hand you have a bunch of people who believe that
    homosexual intercourse is an abomination--as bad as worshiping idols.
    This shared belief is not just a co-incidence, it's one of the
    fundamental tenets of the organization.
    
    On the other hand, you have people who practice this act who want to
    be members of the organization.  What can the members of the first
    group say to members of the other group which is welcoming and still
    consistent with the beliefs the first group so strongly holds?
    
    Let's use an analogy: what if there were a sizeable fraction of the
    American public who felt driven to worship idols, and some of them
    also were from Jewish families and wanted to remain Jewish, have
    Seders and so on, but every now and then they wanted to sacrifice a
    chicken in front of an idol.  It was personally important to them,
    it was part of their personality, it might even be genetically
    programmed, they think it expresses love and closeness, and besides
    the practice doesn't hurt anyone (except the chicken...).
    
    Would you recommend making these people feel welcome?  If not, wherein
    lies the difference?
    
    		-John Bishop

    My statements are not intended for everyone.  I would not expect the
    Orthodox to go along with this at all.  
    
    Let's look at the non-Orthodox population.  Much of this population is
    non-kosher and non-shomer-Shabbat.  Do the communities and
    congregations reject such people?  No.  Similarly. . .
    
    I do not have the chutzpa to say that these Torah laws are wrong,
    misguided, or should be tossed by the wayside.  I merely say that this
    is in fact how many of us live.  We are not purists, by far.  And I
    view homosexuality in the same light.  I would personally not compare
    homosexuality (practiced with prudence, dignity and respect) with idol
    worship.  
    
    My position is not logically pure, by Torah standards.  It is not
    consistent.  It is real politik.  I believe it is also compassionate.
    
    L

    re .47
    
    I don't question your compassion nor that you have chosen the goal 
    of retaining the children.  I'm just confused about how it would
    work out.  Since I'm not Jewish and not a believer, I'm sure there's
    a huge gap in my understanding.
    
    I'm just puzzled by the cognitive dissonance implied for both the
    non-commandment-keeping Jew and the rest of the congregation.  Perhaps
    if the whole organization agrees that the Law has been superceded
    and all that wierd stuff can be dropped for the important message,
    then there's no dissonance.  (And what is that message?  How do
    you cut it out of the wierd stuff?),
    
    Historically the rejection of a holy text requires either a new text
    or a rejection of the text in favor of individual enlightenment.
    Examples of the former are Christianity, Islam and Baha'i, of the
    latter the Quakers and Native American vision-quests.
    
    (I suspect my questions would be partially answered by a history of
    the emergence of the non-Orthodox versions out of Orthodoxy--any one
    have any good references?)
    
    		-John Bishop

Our rabbi gave a nice analogy. He said Judaism is like a road paved with
gems. The gems are the mitzvot. As you walk along you may spot one you
like and pick it up (ah ha! _observe_Passover_, or ah ha! _keep_kosher_).
You may also spot one that's too heavy for you (ah ha! _shomer_shabbat_).
When you spot a heavy one you can always come back to it later when you
feel stronger. The idea is to fill you pockets with as many as you can carry.

Dave

.45>    The problem I see with your analysis is that you are denying your
.45>    children the choices that you had. 

.45>    Because you can't accept so much in the Orthodox movement does that 
.45>    mean that your children won't as well? 

	I don't think you understand what I'm driving at.  It has little to
    do with Orthodox or others.  It has to do with whether to send children
    to Hebrew day school.  I would be very happy with the Jewish education
    they would get there, but I would not be happy with the isolation from
    the general society that goes along with any private school.
        
.45>    Regarding education in Israel...

    	Exactly.  In Israel there is the chance for all Jews, regardless of
    whether they are "religious" or not, to get a *Jewish* education and to
    identify and exist as Jews.
        
.45>    On your debate over public/private schooling. Surely this is minor 
.45>    compared to the education of your children. More important to do the 
.45>    right thing, than live their lives by your politics.

    	No, it is not minor.  I do not want my children to grow up knowing
    only a narrow (read "rich" if you wish), lily-white, privileged class
    of people, which is what almost all private schools consist of.  If
    they are going to grow up and live in the U.S. (which seems likely!)
    they will be much better off getting a good public school education. 
    Unfortunately, the political reality is that we have to live in an
    upper-middle class community to get such good schools, but it's the
    choice we make.  I wish supplementary Hebrew schools were better, but
    we will try our best to supplement with home observance, summer camp,
    etc.  I hope your last sentence reflects your lack of understanding of
    the nature of the U.S. education system, which is becoming more and
    more stratified and class-conscious.

    		David

David, I don't understand your argument.  You want your children to

    (a) be exposed to multiple cultures and strata of society
    (b) get a good secular education
    (c) get enough of a Jewish education that they'll form and maintain their
	Jewish identity

You seem to want to make (a) your top priority, but you live in a nice suburb
so you can get (b).  Item (c) sort of gets lost by the wayside.

Your child's reaction to after-school Hebrew school is typical -- none of the
kids I went to Hebrew school with liked it either.  I don't have any statistics,
but I suspect that after-school Hebrew school enrollments are down considerably
more than day school enrollments are up, and that it's very rare for kids who
go to after-school programs to continue their Jewish education past Bar/Bat
Mitzvah.  I also suspect that a large number of my Hebrew school classmates
married out.

.51> David, I don't understand your argument.  You want your children to

.51>     (a) be exposed to multiple cultures and strata of society
.51>     (b) get a good secular education
.51>     (c) get enough of a Jewish education that they'll form and maintain their
.51> 	Jewish identity

.51> You seem to want to make (a) your top priority, but you live in a nice 
.51> suburb so you can get (b).  Item (c) sort of gets lost by the wayside.

    	Well, I'm greedy, and I want (a), (b), and (c) in equal measure. 
    :-)  Actually, we have found a measure of (a) even in our "nice
    suburb."  I'm probably a hopeless optimist, but I believe that there
    must be some way of getting (c) as well.  Read on:

.51> ...I also suspect that a large number of my Hebrew school classmates
.51> married out.

    	But you didn't, and I didn't, and my wife didn't, and we took very
    different paths.  Is it so impossible to come up with an educational
    system that can take whatever it is (outside of the current Hebrew
    School system) and make it part of our kids' education?  A rabbi I know
    says that one frequent thread for people who "survived" this way is
    that they went to Jewish summer camp and were immersed in totally
    Jewish living for a month or two.  Maybe what's needed is a new kind of
    Jewish education; something between day school and traditional Hebrew
    school, incorporating whatever it is that works in such settings as
    camp.

    	What I think is a major problem in the current system is that many
    parents, probably the majority, have no identification and practice of
    their own, and their attitude (or lack thereof) carries over to the
    school.  They also don't want to pay much for what they see as a minor
    part of their lives.  (How much does it cost to send a kid to Schechter
    or Maimonides these days, after all?)

    		David

    re .50 
    
    David,
    
>	I don't think you understand what I'm driving at.  It has little to
>    do with Orthodox or others.  It has to do with whether to send children
>    to Hebrew day school.  I would be very happy with the Jewish education
>    they would get there, but I would not be happy with the isolation from
>    the general society that goes along with any private school.
        
    I understand that you would like: 
    
    1) a Jewish education for your kids (like that provided by the Hebrew
       day school)
    
    2) for your kids not to be isolated from the general society
    
    My experience was to go the state day schools and Hebrew classes on 
    Sundays and twice during the week. 
    
    This is a very difficult situation to place a child in if you want that
    child to keep Shabbath/Kosher and have Jewish friends as my parents
    did. 
    
    I found that in the environment of the state school, even when there
    are many Jewish kids, the child of a 'religous' family is surrounded by
    conflicts which easily result in isolation from the general school
    society. Apart from being placed in an ambassadorial role for Judaism,
    (maybe good preparation for the life ahead - provided you have the
    right knowledge) you are also placed in a situation between choosing 
    to join classmates in activities which conflict with the Jewish 
    values which are being pushed at home (hebrew classes/shabbath/kashrut). 
    This way a choice has to be made between Judaism and school life. 
    
    As I never experienced a Jewish school I can't say what conflicts
    exist there, but surely it must be easier, and there will be children
    from all different types of families so the experience won't be so 
    isolating. 
    
    If you are so worried, you could always send your children to the local
    scouts/brownies/orchestra/ballet dancing/etc where many different
    children meet after school hours. Isn't this the next best thing to your
    other solution of living in Israel? 
    
    Malcolm 
    
    
    

.52> .51> David, I don't understand your argument.  You want your children to

.52> .51>     (a) be exposed to multiple cultures and strata of society
.52> .51>     (b) get a good secular education
.52> .51>     (c) get enough of a Jewish education that they'll form and maintain their
.52> .51> 	Jewish identity
.52> 
.52> .51> You seem to want to make (a) your top priority, but you live in a nice 
.52> .51> suburb so you can get (b).  Item (c) sort of gets lost by the wayside.

.52>     	Well, I'm greedy, and I want (a), (b), and (c) in equal measure. 
.52>     :-)  Actually, we have found a measure of (a) even in our "nice
.52>     suburb."  I'm probably a hopeless optimist, but I believe that there
.52>     must be some way of getting (c) as well.  Read on:

	The problem with this is that you've given a specific and long-proven-
	effective recipe for assimilation. It's not just greed; you just
	can't have harmony between truly conflicting values unless you water
	down at least one of them to accomodate (assimilate).  Is that simple 
	enough?

	That's why I call this "fire-pole" effect.  Once you're on it, you're 
	on it, and you have no choice but go downward...

	To me, this is one of the tragedies of "the galut", and one of the
	reasons we (personally) made aliyah:  Jewish values ARE different, 
	and Judaism requires us to "walk another path".  That's the point 
	when "American Jews" make the decision to be "Jewish Americans."

	And what's so un-acceptable about aliyah (aside from the fact that it's
	hard to do)?

don feinberg

.-1�And what's so un-acceptable about aliyah (aside from the fact that it's
.-1�hard to do)?

I value the religious freedom I have in the U.S., and Israel may be the
only democracy where, as a Reform Jew, I wouldn't have religious freedom.
There are organizations (which I support) working for the change that would
guarantee religious freedom for all Jews, but as of now, all matters of
marriage, divorce, and even burial are under the control of an Orthodox
religious establishment.

    
    Re: .55
    
    >There are organizations (which I support) working for the change that
    >would guarantee religious freedom for all Jews...
    
    Perhaps if there was more than a handful of Reform Jews willing
    to sacrifice their creature comforts to go on aliya, there would
    be a chance of affecting things from within. Israelis are for
    the most part either "dati" or "chiloni," and most Israelis 
    have never heard of any denominations besides Sadducees and Karaites.
    
    Jem
    

.54>	The problem with this is that you've given a specific and long-proven-
.54>    effective recipe for assimilation...

    That's a pretty broad statement.  How do you account for the many
    people we know who have managed to follow this path in the U.S. and not
    assimilate?  If I had assimilated, why would I be asking the questions
    I'm asking?  Somehow, something "clicks" for people; my quest is how to
    pass that "something" on to my children most effectively.

.54>	And what's so un-acceptable about aliyah (aside from the fact that it's
.54>	hard to do)?

    To rephrase what has already been said, the religious parties in Israel
    have set up a system which is outright hostile to non-Orthodox
    "religious" Jews.  (And no, I don't see that last phrase as a
    contradiction.)  And, to counter Jem's argument in .56, I will assert
    that non-Orthodox religious Jews (which I count myself among) do not
    generally accept that it is appropriate to use political means to
    achieve legal equality for religious groups.  Thus we have the paradox
    that while my non-religious side would exult to make aliyah, my
    religious life would become more difficult.

    		David

.57>                                        ... the religious parties in Israel
.57>    have set up a system which is outright hostile to non-Orthodox
.57>    "religious" Jews.

The "system" in Israel is a democracy.  It has major flaws, of course, but do
you know of a democracy that doesn't?

As in other democracies, the wishes of the electorate carry a certain amount of
weight in the government.  Since Orthodox religious Jews have made aliya in far
greater number than non-Orthodox religious Jews, their views carry more weight.
(This isn't the only reason for the religious parties' coercion, but it's a
major one.)  To put it bluntly, David, it's largely the fault of people like
you that the religious parties give us so much trouble.


.57>     ... non-Orthodox religious Jews (which I count myself among) do not
.57>    generally accept that it is appropriate to use political means to
.57>    achieve legal equality for religious groups.

Now, *there's* an interesting statement!  What means do you believe are
"appropriate"?  Armed revolution?  Prayer for divine intervention?

How about the use of political means for achieving legal equality for, say,
ethnic minorities?  Do you believe that Dr. Martin Luther King's activies were
"inappropriate"?  Were the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act
"inappropriate"?


There *are* "non-Orthodox religious Jews" in Israel today who are working hard
to improve the legal position of their groups.  It's an uphill battle, and
progress is slow, and I have a lot of respect for much of what they're doing.
I'm afraid that I can't say the same for those who whine about the situation
from 6000 miles away.

.58> ...Since Orthodox religious Jews have made aliya in far
.58> greater number than non-Orthodox religious Jews, their views carry more
.58> weight. (This isn't the only reason for the religious parties' coercion,
.58> but it's a major one.)  To put it bluntly, David, it's largely the fault of
.58> people like you that the religious parties give us so much trouble.

	But the O's are still by any measure a minority overall.  They
    simply shouldn't have the political power they seem to have.  Sorry,
    it's not my fault that the system is set up the way it is; proportional
    representation seems to be a major culprit.  A few years ago it seemed
    that the unity government might change the system, but they lacked the
    nerve to follow through on it.

    	As far as the "people like you" crack, read on:

.57>     ... non-Orthodox religious Jews (which I count myself among) do not
.57>    generally accept that it is appropriate to use political means to
.57>    achieve legal equality for religious groups.

.58> Now, *there's* an interesting statement!  What means do you believe are
.58> "appropriate"?  Armed revolution?  Prayer for divine intervention?

    	Oops, I said it wrong in .57.  What I meant was that I (and I don't
    think I'm alone) don't think it's appropriate for *any* religious group
    to use political means to make the government favor them.  I meant to
    say "inequality", not "equality"!

.58> There *are* "non-Orthodox religious Jews" in Israel today who are working
.58> hard to improve the legal position of their groups.  It's an uphill battle,
.58> and progress is slow, and I have a lot of respect for much of what they're
.58> doing. I'm afraid that I can't say the same for those who whine about the
.58> situation from 6000 miles away.

    	Look, you've got your life to live, and I've got mine.  Living as a
    Jew is hard whether in the U.S. or in Israel (or anywhere else, for
    that matter).  It so happens that I *am* supporting the groups you
    refer to.  But I do reserve the right to complain about the unfair hand
    they've been dealt.

    			David

    
    Re: .59
    
    >        But the O's are still by any measure a minority overall.  They
    >    simply shouldn't have the political power they seem to have.
    
    So is every other party in Israel currently, except Likud. I'm sure
    the latter would be happy to exclude everyone else from the political
    process, but the dozens of other parties may have another view.
    
    >  Sorry,
    >  it's not my fault that the system is set up the way it is; proportional
    >representation seems to be a major culprit.
    
    People who put their lives on the line and sacrifice so much to
    live in Israel have a right to vote for whomever they please, and
    to accord as much or as little power e by rights don't have much
    say.
    
    >        Oops, I said it wrong in .57.  What I meant was that I (and I don't
    >  think I'm alone) don't think it's appropriate for *any* religious group
    >  to use political means to make the government favor them.  I meant to
    >  say "inequality", not "equality"!
    
    Again, we can groan all we want, but we have as much say about the
    political process in IsraelSweden has about Tanzania and vice
    versa. Dissatisfied? Pick up and go.
    
    >But I do reserve the right to complain about the unfair hand
    >    they've been dealt.
    
    BTW, there is another side to the story as well. Before traditional
    Jews learned to use the political process, the secularists in Israel
    did all they could to ensure that there would *be* no Orthodoxy
    in Israel period. Participating in the political process is a fact
    of life for anyone who wishes to preserve his way of life.
    
    .58>>  Prayer for divine intervention?
    
    That's another prerequisite.
    
    Jem