Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• Your Moderator <moderator@mljewish.org>

• Robert Kaiser <judaismfaqs@yahoo.com>

• Jay Lapidus <jlapidus@snet.net>

• RebGoldieM@aol.com

• Iris <iris@hagalil.com>

• Herman Rubin <hrubin@stat.purdue.edu>

• Jerry Blaz <ffdog@earthlink.net>
• shemaya@justemail.net

• Rabbi Chaim Frazer <frazerch@carroll.com>

From: Your Moderator <moderator@mljewish.org>
Date: Sun Dec 25  7:34:18 2005
Subject: Administrivia: v15n14 Resend

This is a resending of v15n14. The previous send was cut off because of a line
consisting only of a period.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Robert Kaiser <judaismfaqs@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:32:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Criticism of Conservative Judaism analyzed

Michael writes:

> I'm never going to say the Orthodox world is perfect.  But there is no
> comparison to the massive violations that is the norm in the conservative
> movement (which is why its leading lights are now calling on it not to call
> itself non-halachic)

This criticism of Conservative Judaism is incorrect. The leaders of
Conservative Judaism have _not_ called on the movement to describe
its-self as a non-halakhic movement

Only one rabbi (Neil Gillman) made this suggestion, and this
was immediately and loudly rejected by the members of USCJ Annual
Convention. The leadership and laypeople of the Conservative movement
in attendance there responded by critising this idea, and instead noted
that Conservative Judaism has always taught that halakha should be
accepted as normative.

More to the point, Rabbi Neil Gillman did not quite criticise
Conservative Judaism as non-halakhic, at least not in the Orthodox use
of this terminology. Rather, his statement was part of a carefully
constructed argument which noted that Conservative Jews live by aggadah
_and_ halakha, and that changing a law (a "halakha") is, in Gillman's
terminology, non-halakhic.  In Gillman's terminology and worldview,
living by a pre-set list of laws is halakhic, but changing laws is
"aggadic".  He therefore concludes that Conservative Judaism is not
halakhic, but rather both halakhic and aggadic.

His views on this issue are considered mistaken by many Conservative
Jews, and they do not influence the Committee on Jewish Law and
Standards.  Rather, Conservative Jews hold that traditional Judaism has
_always_ had laws that changed over time, and the continuation of this
process is not a violation of the halakhic process, but an example of
it in action.

It seems to me that many Orthodox Jews have similar ideas: Orthodox
Jews reject the idea that Judaism is based on lists of laws (halakhot)
alone, but rather hold that Judaism is the sum total of halakha and
aggadah.  They differ from Neil Gillman, of course, in the fact that
their congregations usually attract people who already are halakhically
observant, and they use a terminology that differs greatly from
Gillman, a professor of philosophy.  I think that Michael is misled
when he tries to apply Orthodox understandings of these terms, when
they are being used in a way different than he (or most of us) is used
to hearing.

Gillman has caused controversy before, when he described Jewish beliefs
(such as God, the afterlife) as a "myth".  His use of this term in both
lectures, and in his book on theology, Sacred Elements, led to
controversy.  Gillman responded to the controversy with a clarification
of his teachings; he holds that his views were widely misinterpreted.

Gillman uses the word "myth" in the anthropological sense of this term,
and not in the colloquial fashion. In the academic and anthropological
sense, a myth is an organizing group of thoughts that ties together a
people's understanding of how the world works. In this sense, myth does
not mean "fable" or "fairy tale". In an essay published in the monthly
journal Shma, entitled "The Problematics of Myth", Gillman clarifies
his stance.  (He does believe in God and the afterlife!)

> When someone says the conservative movement isn't halachic, it
> is just acknowledging reality. 

Please don't confuse sociological trends with the teachings of a
movement.  Conservative Judaism teaches halakhic Judaism just as much
as Orthodoxy does.  And I submit that getting into a "My movement is
more observant movement" argument will be unproductive, as I can list
examples where much of the Orthodox community violates does not live up
to Jewish teachings.

> The divide between liberal of Orthodox Judaisms is the binding
> nature of halacha.  ...

That's simply untrue.  I know that you believe that Conservative Jewish
interpretations of halakha are incorrect, and I respect your right to
hold this way.  But I can tell you for a fact that the committed core
of the Conservative movement teaches no such thing, and has never
taught any such thing.

Conservative Jews view the laws and customs from the various law codes
as the basis for Jewish law. However it also holds that "however great
the literary value of a code may be, it does not invest it with
infallibility, nor does it exempt it from the student or the Rabbi who
makes use of it from the duty of examining each paragraph on its own
merits, and subjecting it to the same rules of interpretation that were
always applied to Tradition". (Solomon Schechter.)

Conservative Judaism holds that halakha (Jewish law) is normative, i.e.
that halakha is something that Jewish people must strive to actually
live by in their daily lives. This would include the laws of Shabbat
(the Jewish Sabbath); the laws of kashrut (keeping kosher); the
practice of thrice daily prayer; observance of the Jewish holidays and
life-cycle events.

At the same time, Conservative Jews find it repugnant to coerce anyone
into following religious practices. Thus, Conservative Judaism holds
that Jewish law is normative,yet not enforced. That is, Jewish law
encompasses actions that Jews actually ought to be following in their
daily lives, even though there is no enforcement of these rules.

Michael and I are in agreement about the lack of observance among
mmebers of USCJ synagogues.  A number of studies have shown that there
is a large gap between what the Conservative movement teaches and what
most of its laypeople have incorporated into their daily lives. In
practice, the majority of people who have come to join Conservative
synagogues only follow all these laws rarely. Most do follow most of
the laws some of the time, but only a minority follow most or all of
the laws all of time.

However, there is a substantial committed core, consisting of the lay
leadership, rabbis, cantors, educators, and those who have graduated
from the movement's religious day schools and summer camps, that do
take Jewish law very seriously. Recent studies have shown an increase
in the observance of members of the movement.

Conservative Jews believe that Orthodoxy has deviated from historical
Judaism through an excessive concern with recent codifications of
Jewish law.  We reject the Orthodox view of Jewish history, which
entails near total deference to seemingly infallible rabbis, and
instead we holds to a more fluid model, one that is both necessary, and
theologically and historically justifiable. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_responsa

Robert

Return to Table of Contents

From: Jay Lapidus <jlapidus@snet.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:42:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: A fuller account of Rabbi Gillman's	remarks

You may find them at:

http://uscj.org/Convention_Reporter_6900.html

Unfortunately, I don't have Rabbi Gillman's full text.  I'm beginning to
wonder, however, if some of the press accts unintentionally took Rabbi
Gillman's words out of context to focus on lines that excite readers and draw
them to the articles.

When I read the USCJ's synopsis, I did not see anything that Rabbi Gillman has
not said for years.

(Rabbi) Jay Lapidus
List owner of "OCR Jewish Talk."
jlapidus.tripod.com

Return to Table of Contents

From: RebGoldieM@aol.com 
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:16 -0500
Subject: Halachic Movements

There is no "halachic" reason why a woman can't be a rabbi in orthodox
contexts, only political reasons. Remember, in orthodox contents rabbis don't
typically lead prayer, so there's no kol isha issue for that (kol isha -
prohibition on hearing a woman sing cause it's considered to be seductive,
aka, lifnei iyvehr lo titeyn mikshol, don't set an obstacle before a blind
person).

And now, as a woman rabbi, I'm going to take on the weird position of
defending the integrity of halachah. As some of you know my academic
speciality is bioethics and halachah. So, as someone raised Conservative who
became a graduate of RRC, I can tell you that it took a long time to
understand the traditional halachic process enough to recognize its integrity.
It is hugely mysogenous, to be sure. Change in it is often as slow as a
glacier, yet it does happen - organ transplants, by way of example and the
takkanah (decree, but not by Rabeynu Gershom as mistakenly reported by the
way) that ended polygamy for the Ashkenazim.

It's amazing a great that Gordis did some truth-speaking. Few Jews are members
of halachic communities, most of us are unaffiliated or liberal - we use VBDM
(Values Based Decision Making)
http://wsupress.wayne.edu/judaica/thought/rrccjebh/rrccjec.html or SCDM
(Self-Centered Decision Making) or some hope to stay in a more collective
peoplehood realm via Psychohalachah. http://www.ohalah.org/psychohalakhah.htm.

For those who might be interested I'll be offering a teleconference course (6
ninety minute sessions, March 29, April 5, 26 May 17, 24, 31) on Bioethics,
Halachah and Paradigm Shift this spring:
http://www.rebgoldie.com/Retreats.htm.

Rabbi Dr. Goldie Milgram
Director, ReclaimingJudaism.org

Return to Table of Contents

From: Iris <iris@hagalil.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:39:32 +0100
Subject: Mikvah - Liberal Approach

In "juedische Zeitung" - a Jewish monthly which appears in Germany I read an
article about mikvah: traditional and new approach (rosh chodesh, life cycle
rituals ...)

They mentioned that in some mikvaot in the United States they allow Christians
to immerse.  I find this very strange and would be interested in additional
information.

Chanukka sameach

Iris

Return to Table of Contents

From: Herman Rubin <hrubin@stat.purdue.edu>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:41:43 -0500
Subject: Re: PBS's Kingdom of David

Laura Ferguson <allenderL@acm.org> writes

>Has anybody else watched PBS's Kingdom of David?  I just saw one episode, but
>I was really having problems with the narrators interjections about Jews in
>the Hellenistic era starting to believe in an afterlife. In particular the
>narrator intimated that the afterlife justified martyrdom.  This sounded like
>a generalization attributing early Christian (Seducees?) beliefs to all Jews.
>Can anyone clarify this history?  Also, can anyone review the rest of the
>documentary?  I'm interested in buying it, but not convinced that it will
>provide a Jewish enough perspective.

There is certainly a belief in the afterlife in the early parts of TaNaKh, in
Genesis and Samuel.  I believe that these were first written not later than
First Temple days.  However, there are those who believe it came in from
Zoroastrianism, which still makes it well before contact with Hellenism.  In
this, there is no heaven-hell distinction; Samuel is in sheol when contacted
by the Witch of Endor at the request of Saul.  Nothing is stated in TaNaKh
about the nature of the afterlife.

There are several possible sources for the heaven-hell division.  It was
present in Egyptian theology and in Zoroastrian theology.  The Greeks did have
a distinction between heroes and common people.

The early Christians were Essenes or Zealots, definitely not Sadducees.
Talmudic Judaism does make the distinction between those who will merit the
world to come and those who will not.  This may have started in Hellenistic
times, but the origin is not very clear.

This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558

Return to Table of Contents

From: Jerry Blaz <ffdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 01:02:02 -0800
Subject: Rabbi Gilman Conservative Judaism should abandon its claim to be halachic

I'm sorry but I probably should not have mentioned the item about the
difference between PiquaX Nefesh on Shabbat against PiquaX Haeretz on Shabbat.
I should have realized that for many Orthodox, the land has become more
sacrosanct than the State of Israel itself.  As a Zionist who trekked much of
the land that I could at the time, I understand that.  However, even though
there was a quote from the ShulXan Arux in one of the comments, the quote does
not constitute a "set table" in terms of the land.  It is still a matter that
is tiqo, still under discussion over the broad category of Jews who consider
their lives to be guided by halaxah.

I am not a Jew who adheres to halaxah unless I understand its relevance in the
life I live, but I try to understand the rabbinic mindset, how they argued
their viewpoints, and, more important, how they finally reached a decision.

However, the importance of the land is not something that all who consider
themselves, to use their term, "torah-true Jews" agree upon, and that is a
simple fact.  As Rabbi Artson, the head of the U.J. in Los Angeles, stated in
a talk a few weeks ago, there are 50,000 arguments in the Talmud, but only 50
decisions, and I don't know for sure if the numbers are all that neat.
Certainly when Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, who certainly was not a Zionist, said,
"One should not go up (to the land) as a wave," it was interpreted by his
followers, all "torah-true Jews," as an anti-Zionist statement, and they have
remained anti-Zionist.  Certainly, they would not agree that PiquaX Haeretz is
the equivalent of PiquaX Nefesh.

Jerry Blaz

Return to Table of Contents

From: shemaya@justemail.net 
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:46:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Rabbi Gilman Conservative Judaism should abandon its claim to be halachic

Michael writes: 

> The issue within this debate within Orthodoxy is the question is there a
> mitzvah of Yishuv Haaretz, ie a mitzva for the Jewish community to settle
> the land.  Religious Zionism typically holds there is a mitzva to settle the
> land and the related mitzva to conquer the land of Israel .  The non Zionist
> charedi world holds there is no communal mitzva to conquer or settle the
> land. Therefore if there is not mitzva to settle the land as aJewish
> community, then territory for peace is allowed.  This also is one of the
> reasons the Israeli Charedi community justifies not serving in the Israeli
> army, while the religious Zionist community dominates Israel's combats units
> and officer corps.

So far, so good.  But then Michael follows: 

> So the proper question is how can one say one can risk Jewish lives for the
> mitzvot of conquering and settling the land of Israel.  Then answer is the
> only way to fulfill this mitzva would be to risk Jewish lives.

This can't be "the proper question", since there is a dispute over whether
this is a mitzvah or not.  Even if it is a mitzvah, it doesn't follow that we
may take on risks to life and limb to fulfill it.

> Conquering Israel by force clearly involves a fair amount of danger. One
> might have claimed that since Pikuach Nefesh (preserving Jewish life) takes
> precedence over most mitzvot of the Torah, one need not participate in
> Kibush HaAretz because of the element of life-threatening danger. The
> Minchat Chinuch92, however, dispels any such thinking by pointing out that
> this mitzvah, by its nature, incorporates danger. Nevertheless, it was still
> commanded to the Jewish people. Any commandment which has danger woven
> intoits very fabric cannot be suspended for considerations of Pikuach Nefesh

First of all, this conclusion entirely depends on the sleight of hand of
asserting that settling the land of Israel is a mitzvah today, which Michael
already acknowledged is not a robust conclusion.

Second, the halakhic stance cited above clearly requires more investigation.
First of all, *any* action at all incorporates a certain amount of risk, and
therefore any mitzvah also "incorporates danger".  No one is suggesting
avoiding lighting candles (except, say, in a hospital) to avoid the risk of
fire spreading.  The risk involved with fighting wars, however, is entirely
different in nature, and obviously much more severe.  Applying the line of
reasoning above would suggest that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was halachically
incorrect in attempting to avoid war with the Romans -- a dubious suggestion
from both halakhic and historical perspectives.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Rabbi Chaim Frazer <frazerch@carroll.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:28:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Who Preaches Tikkun Olam And Who Practices It

Jerry Blaz <ffdog@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I agree completely with the statistics that Michael supplied indicating the
> higher support for projects of tiqqun olan (social justice) among Orthodox
> than among non-O Jews.  However, what the statistics do not show is the
> general level of giving, but the general level of giving to Jewish causes,
> which are are not particularly identified by the article in the Jerusalem
> Post.  However, the amount of non-Orthodox money that goes to Chabad
> coffers, for example, is out of proportion, because their outreach is to the
> non-Orthodox, and certainly their telethon is an icon of outreach for
> financial support by the Orthodox to the non-Orthodox and even the
> non-Jewish world.

I'm not sure that I understand what Jerry is trying to say.  Chabad provides a
range of services overwhelmingly used by and for the benefit of non-Orthodox
Jews.  Accordingly, those who use and benefit from those services support
them.  This is not a case of "tikkun olam", but the simple economic truth that
those who use and benefit, as they define benefit in their own terms, from a
service provider tend to support that provider.

Similarly, Orthodox Jews as a community tend not to benefit from Chabad,
although they may benefit as individuals.  Thus Orthodox Jews give some
support to Chabad, but not very much in terms of either their own
contributions or Chabad's budget.

> While I agree that Orthodox Jews are more likely to contribute to solely
> Jewish causes, I don't know what the meaning of that is, though I'm fairly
> certain that the Orthodox are less likely to contribute to HUC than a
> non-Orthodox contributing to the Chabad telethon.

Again, Orthodox Jews do not benefit from HUC or its programs.  Thus they have
no reason to support it institutionally.  This is in sharp contrast to the
situation regarding HUC's president, Dr. David Ellenson, who is a scholar of
Orthodox history, especially German Orthodox history.  His books are bought by
Orthodox scholars, read by them, and used in curricula and syllabuses prepared
for courses given by them.  Dr.  Ellenson benefits economically from author's
royalties and professionally by being considered part of the ongoing scholarly
community dealing with Orthodox history.

Rabbi Chaim Frazer

Return to Table of Contents

"It is not our task as liberal Jews to complain about the Orthodox attitude or to be bullied by it, but rather to choose our legitimate path according to the inner logic and development of liberal Judaism" (Rabbi Walter Jacob)

Previous Issue: v15n13		Next Issue: v15n15
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form