![[MLJ Logo]](http://www.mljewish.org/mlj.gif)
www.mljewish.org
|
www.mljewish.org |
Mail.Liberal-Judaism |
| Volume 2 Number 73 | Tue Jan 5 15:47:53 1993 |
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 8:06:33 EST From: Avi Y. Feldblum <ayf@pruxp.pr.att.com> Subject: Re: Considering Oneself Reform In v2n72, Josh Segal <jls@mbunix.mitre.org> writes: > > Nevertheless there are Orthodox groups of women who meet for daily prayer, > > wear a tallit and tefillin. They are not the rule, but it is possible. > > My understanding of the Halachah is that the above statement is untrue. > Tallit and Tephilin are for men only and wearing them by women is akin to > tranvestitism. That is incorrect understanding of the halakha. This topic has been covered from the halakhic side in the kol-isha mailing list and in my mail-jewish mailing list, in particular by Aryeh Frimer, who has written some very good articles on these and related issues. The archives are available from the nysernet server (may it have a speedy and full recovery :-) ). In short, there is a very clear history of women who wore Tallit and Tephilin, the daughters of Rashi are the best known examples. HOWEVER, halakha looks at the choice of a women to take on these mitzvot that she is not required to observe in the context of the rest of her religious observance. Making a political or "look at me" statement through mitzvot is viewed very negatively by halakha, so taking upon oneself the mitzvot of Tallit and Tephilin, in the absence of a concurrent overall level of performing the rest of the mitzvot, is considered improper. Again, this is a very simplistic explanation of the issue, but just wanted to point out that it is definitly not viewed by halakha as akin to tranvestitism. Avi Feldblum mail.jewish Moderator ayf@pruxp.att.com or avi_feldblum@att.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:22 EST From: Chaim Schild <SCHILD%GAIA@leia.polaroid.com> Subject: Re: Considering Oneself Reform In v2n72, the comment was made: > 1. Tolerance for other branches is not a hallmark of Orthodoxy as it is > within Reform. There may be individual Orthodox Jews who are tolerant but it > is not considered normative Orthodoxy(i.e. Mitsvah/Halachah). Please prove this statement...how is tolerance a hallmark of Reform ?? and how does Halachah hold back Orthodox Jews from being tolerant ?? I personally find this statement extremely biased, intolerant, and based on ignorance and would like to know the logic behind it... Thanx Howard [This particular point is touched upon in the semi-mythical soc.culture.jewish FAQ :-). Basically, for Orthodoxy *as a movement* to tolerate the other Jewish movements, it must tolerate the idea that there are other ways of interpreting Halacha. Doing this runs counter to the notion of one way of Jewish practice and belief handed down from Sinai. Note that I said as a movement; individuals are free to do what they wish. The liberal movements have always tolerated a range of practice and belief: from the Orthopractic to the Humanistic. As such, the infamous "legitimacy" argument can never be answered, and it is pointless to argue it (which is why we don't do so here). Note that I thought about putting a comment similar to this in Josh's posting when I first read it; but I just couldn't get the wording right. -- Yr. Mod.]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 13:30:18 -0500 From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) Subject: Re: Considering Oneself Reform Josh Segal <jls@mbunix.mitre.org> writes: >1. Tolerance for other branches is not a hallmark of Orthodoxy as it is >within Reform. There may be individual Orthodox Jews who are tolerant but it >is not considered normative Orthodoxy(i.e. Mitsvah/Halachah). Perhaps tolerance isn't practiced as much as it should, but it is definitely an important (if ignored) aspect of Judaism to the Orthodox. They, like Conservative and Reform, believe in the commandment "V'Ahavta L'Re'echa Kamocha" - "And you should love your neighbor as yourself". Sadly, though, it isn't practiced as well as it should be by some people (on all sides).
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 9:53:40 EST From: Avi Y. Feldblum <ayf@pruxp.pr.att.com> Subject: Re: Elisha ben Abuya ask@cblph.att.com (Art Kamlet) writes: > I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but some authorities say > PARDES was Gan Eden - The Garden of Eden -- or Paradise (Pardes). I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but the likelyhood is that PARDES means PARDES, which means orchard. The abbreviation, like most such abbreviation (the famous taku comes to mind), is likely a much later interpretation. The term orchard was meant to be understood in a metaphorical manner as relating to metaphysics/philosophy of G-d and existance, etc. I think some similar terms are used in early greek writings, any experts out there? Similar terms are found in the Kabalistic liturature, but it can easily be argued that they borrow from the PARDES reference, not the other way around. Avi Feldblum ayf@pruxp.att.com or avi_feldblum@att.com
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 13:47:35 -0800 From: Rick Dinitz <tekbspa!dinitz@uunet.uu.net> Subject: Re: Nuclear and Extended Families mark@cs.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger) writes, in v2n72: >I will go farther than Alex. Not only do children deserve to be raised by >their parents. Parents also deserve the opportunity to raise their children. In general this would be a good thing. However, too many exceptions make it bad policy to exclude other kinds of family units from mainstream Judaism. You can't legislate death out of existent, and Jewish law permits divorce (though Jewish culture may discourage it). So we will always have single parents and remarried parents. Which parent "deserves" the opportunity to raise the children? Is it always clear cut? Does an abusive parent deserve that opportunity? Do two abusive parents deserve that opportunity? Do two parents who come to hate each other do their children a service by remaining together? What benefit is conferred upon the members (parents and children alike) of a (so called) "broken home" by excluding them or marginalizing them within the Jewish community when they most need community support? Perhaps olam haba [the world to come] will be without death, divorce and abuse. But this world has them all, and as Jewish communities we must make life better for the people affected by them -- adults and children alike. >You may make your own choices. But the advice I am giving my children is to >look for a spouse who came from a traditional nuclear family. The children >from broken homes are all too likely to have accepted the idea that families >are disposable and that selfishness is more important than the common good. I am a living counterexample, and I find your advice repugnant. If nothing else, I learned the value of family even better because of what mine lacked. But in retrospect it would probably have been worse -- not better -- if my parents had remained together. I also learned to rely on my Jewish community as an important surrogate for family. If my synagogue had had your attitude, I might be uninvolved in Judaism today. My advice to my children: choose your spouse carefully. Find a loving partner, whose values match yours, whose approach and commitment to Judaism matches yours, and spare no effort to make it work and make it last. -Rick [dinitz@tss.com] Copyright 1993, Rick Dinitz
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 14:19:10 -0800 From: Rick Dinitz <tekbspa!dinitz@uunet.uu.net> Subject: Pediatric Judaism (was: Nuclear and Extended Families) mmm@fed.frb.gov (Mary M. McLaughlin) writes, in v2n72: >raising children is an important job, but so is living our lives according to >our Jewish values. Do I strive to treat people fairly and respect the >environment because I want to set a good example for your children? or >because it is right on its own merit? I agree completely. R. Lawrence Hoffman talks about Pediatric Judaism -- the suburban mutation of Jewish religion of the 1950s-70s -- as the reason synagogue membership in America is so poor now. It doesn't work as a system for insuring its own continuation. Alex says that "the focus has always been on children," but Rabbi Hoffman would disagree. Judaism is not child-centered; only in recent decades have we forgotten that children are only a part (an important part, granted, but not the raison d'etre) of Judaism. Perhaps the Holocaust has something to do with this exaggeration. Good Jewish children are almost a side effect of living the Jewish values that should permeate our lives at all times. Jewish education certainly helps, but the best education is the example of a respected adult role model. A parent whose primary religious concern is raising Jewish children (without being a good Jewish adult to start with) is bound to fail. Only by demonstrating our love of Judaism for its own sake and for ours (as Jewish adults) can we have any hope of passing on our religion, our culture, our values. In the meantime, Judaism gives us plenty of mitzvot to do as adults, in addition to creating Jewish children -- and plenty of beautiful, rewarding moments in return. -Rick [dinitz@tss.com] Copyright 1993, Rick Dinitz
Date: 05 Jan 1993 13:12:58 -0500 From: Ellen G. Cohn <ECOHN@indyvax.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: Why Jews Should Not Celebrate Christmas Someone or other (sorry, I've lost some of my mail files, including some past issues of M.L-J) mentioned that people frequently wish him a "merry Christmas" and he doesn't quite know what to reply in that situation. Well, personally, I generally respond with something like, "Thank you, and Happy Hanukkah." Now, what do you do when a friend invites you to a Christmas party? Or for Christmas dinner? Ellen G. Cohn ecohn@indyvax.iupui.edu
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:24:44 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Snider <jm8o+@andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: Women and Judaism Now is not the time to go into a comprehensive essay on the above issue, but I will refer interested persons to a book by the above title. Bli Neder, I will look up the author. It presents the Traditional view of things. Just to clarify, Mr. Herrera is correct that there are Orthodox woment who put on Tallis and Tefillin daily. They do not do so to prove "equal rights" rather they have taken it upon themselves as an additional OBLIGATION and are considered by many authorities to be now obligated to continue. It is true that some authorities hold that women are forbidden to use these trinkets, but there are many who say that, as I believe the majority view is, the performance of an obligatory Mitzva is greater than that of an optional Mitzva (for many reasons, one of which is the natural reaction of rebellion in a person against being told what to do, which I am sure we can all relate to), and the reward is greater for the former than for the latter. Therefore, although women are not OBLIGATED to put on phylacteries or a prayer shawl, they are allowed to. Some say, however, that it is as if they were not permitted to unless they have already fulfilled all of their OBLIGATIONS first. (Finish the ice cream b4 you can eat the veggies) Hope this helped. Your local Yeshiva Student (Mike Snider, Jerusalem, ISRAEL)
Date: 5 Jan 1993 11:20 EST From: Art Kamlet <ask@cblph.att.com> Subject: Re: Women Rabbis Rachel Sara Kaplan <rachelk@scooa.sco.com> writes: > This past Shabbat at Friday night services my Rabbi mentioned that in May of > 1992 women rabbis were allowed to officiate at weddings. (This is under > Conservative Judaism.) Why was this ever a question after women were > allowed to become rabbis? A friend of the family suggested that it had to > do with Niddah (time when a woman is considered unclean due to menstrual > blood.) Why would that prevent officiating at weddings? Also, how do women > rabbis deal with the issue of niddah? Do you ignore it? Do you not get on > the bima during those times of the month? How does that work. There are at least two separate issues discussed here. First the issue of officiating at a Jewish Wedding. A Jewish wedding can be held in a shul, on the bimah, or in a catering hall, or in a private home, or outdoors in a park. A chupah can fit most anywhere. Some of these locations might be considered holy, but others would not. Officiating, per se, is important before hand. The rabbi should check the qualifications of the couple and of the witnesses, and should examine the ring. All that can be done in advance of the actual wedding ceremony. Further, the rabbi should examine and explain the ketuba, and assure it is witnessed properly. No further "officiating" is really required at the wedding. But. Since, in the U.S. at least, the Jewish ceremony and the civil marriage ceremony take place at the same time, the person conducting the ceremony will be part of the ceremony. That's usually a rabbi or cantor. Two valid witnesses are needed, and the rabbi does not have to be a witness. In particular, unless there is a very new teshuvah permitting women to serve as witnesses where two witnesses are required, women are not permitted to serve as witness. Is there a new teshuvah on the subject of witnesses? [Note: Reform does accept women as witnesses -- Yr. Mod.] The second issue is of nidah. In another newsgroup, there was a recent discussion of whether a woman who has twin children, one boy and one girl, may attend the boy's brit, even if held in shul. The Halacha is that a woman is "ritually impure" for one week when a boy is born but two weeks when a girl is born. If twins, one boy and one girl, the time is two weeks. The discussion was, sure, a brit is not davening, so at a brit the mother may attend even if she had a girl just a week ago. There was further discussion that a mother probably wouldn't wish to go on a bimah, if the brit were held on a bimah, and the mother would probably not wish to observe the brit anyway -- there are many orthodox posters in other newsgroups -- but the issue of ritual purity wouldn't prohibit a woman from being on the bimah in that case. In the general case of prayer services and nidah, I would like to see discussion of the RA positions(s). [Note: Most adherents to Reform do not observe the laws concerning Nidah (Ritual Purity), nor does it tend to be an issue in a Reform context. I cannot answer for Conservative. -- Yr. Mod.] Art Kamlet
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 15:00:06 -0800 From: Rick Dinitz <tekbspa!dinitz@uunet.uu.net> Subject: Re: Women Rabbis I'm not familiar with the Conservative teshuvah [responsum] that permits women rabbis to officiate at weddings. I can, however, say fairly confidently that niddah is _not_ the issue (no pun intended). With regard to any synagogue activity or official capacity of the rabbinate, niddah is (pun intended) a red herring. One possible reason for the teshuvah is the question of kasher l'edut [fit to be a witness]. Marriage, as a contractual agreement, requires two kosher witnesses. Traditionally, halacha does not regard women as kosher witnesses (I don't make the law, I just report it). To the best of my knowledge, the Conservative Rabbinic Assembly (RA) has not changed this halacha -- at least not yet. It could be that the teshuvah in question explains that a woman may act as m'sader kiddushin [to put the wedding in order; i.e., to officiate], as long as two kosher witnesses sign the ketubah [marriage contract]. (Again, I emphasize that this is an educated guess.) Why is it necessary to be so specific? Because in common practice, rabbis and cantors often act as witnesses at weddings. After all, they are right up close to the action -- they hear every word and see it all. Another possibility is that the teshuvah actually reinterprets the halacha to permit women as witnesses. If true, this would be a bold move by the RA, with broad consequences beyond permitting women to officate at weddings. -Rick [dinitz@tss.com] Copyright 1993, Rick Dinitz
Submissions should be mailed to either submit@mljewish.org or mlj@shamash.org. Please clearly mark your submission as a submission, and include either a relevant subject line or a reference to the issue to which you are replying.
If you would like to subscribe to MLJ, please complete the Subscription Request Form, or send a message to the moderator (listmgt@mljewish.org) requesting to be added to the list. Please include your first and last names in your request.
Backissues may be obtained by Email by completing a Backissue by Email Request Form. A specific backissue may be retrieved interactively by completing a Request Form.
Publishing any of the mail.liberal-judaism digests or portions thereof on any other medium including soc.culture.jewish without consulting the moderator and/or the originator of the article represents a breach of trust. Please remember why this list was created and that contributers may not want to discuss the "correctness" of their beliefs from your point of view. Also note that many of the people who write in wish their privacy preserved. Thank you for your cooperation with these restrictions.
"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: v2n72 | Next Issue: v2n74 | |
MLJ Home Page
|
Return to Retrieval Form |