![[MLJ Logo]](http://www.mljewish.org/mlj.gif)
www.mljewish.org
|
www.mljewish.org |
Mail.Liberal-Judaism |
| Volume 2 Number 82 | Wed Jan 20 14:44:38 1993 |
Date: 20 Jan 1993 11:16 EST From: ask@cblph.att.com Subject: Re: Embracing the Torah Rick Dinitz <tekbspa!dinitz@uunet.uu.net> writes: > Two people responded to my article about the apostate mayor who embraced > the Torah. I thank them both for their insights, which I have included with > their permission. Thanks again to Mike Snyder, who posted the story I wrote > about. ... In addition, she thought that martyrdom in the name of Judaism > is a sufficient substitute for teshuvah. Does Judaism guarantee a place in > Olam Haba [the world to come] for those who die for the sake of kiddush > hashem [the sanctification of God's name]? In our long history we have had many martyrs who died for the sanctification of G-d's name. Yet I find that in conflict with the basic human urge, and very Jewish command -- to stay alive. The idea that life is so very precious is central to Judaism. The principle of Pikuach Nefesh -- saving a life -- dominates our actions. Simply put, we can -- we must -- do everything possible to save a life -- even our own life -- that we can break any law, violate any commandment, with only three exceptions: We cannot murder, we cannot commit incest or adultery, and we cannot worship idols. Over the years, various authorities have differed on whether Christianity is worship of idols. Sages who lived among Muslims and not Christians have found Muslims to be non-idol worshippers while Christians were idol worshippers, and sages who lived among Christians found exactly the other way. With that much doubt, and given the mayor of this story was living among Christians, I can't help feel he blew it. He gave his life for kiddush hashem, no doubt about that. But he violated pikuach nefesh! He chose to sanctify G-d's name at the cost of his own life, and if we believe that, as many sages have, Christianity is not idol worship, he shouldn't "commit suicide." Should the mayor allowed himself to be humiliated, at least in the eyes of the Jewish community, should he have lied about his religion? Should he have "turned the other cheek" when his accusers asked him his religion and saved his life. pikuach nefesh? There's this term "turn the other cheek" which is mentioned in Christian scriptures, but there's the "turn the other cheek" in Judaism but not well known. I think the general rule tells us that when we are ourselves attacked or when we see others attacked, by one who persues us to do evil, (a rodef -- a persuer -- who persues for evil), we have a positive duty to stop that person/persons, even if they have to be killed when no other form of prevention will work. Even at risk to our own lives. But there's a difference between "risk" and certain death. What if, as in this situation, there is no hope if he said he was Jewish? If there is no hope of stopping the rodef? If attempting to stop the rodef will itself result in death? In short, if beaten on one cheek should we offer the other cheek? Doesn't sound Jewish? But that's the sad situation we read of each Tisha B`Av -- We read in Lamentations of the death and savagery and murder and destruction in a case where our ancestors knew if they resisted they would be killed and if they were struck once they could offer the other cheek, and just maybe live on to see another day. And so -- in this restricted situation, whether Babylonians or Nazis seek to terrorize and murder and there is hope of living by lying, by offering the other cheek for humiliation even, and there's certain death in resisting or telling the truth, then the Prophet Jerimiah instructs us (Lamentations 3) to offer the cheek, to do what we have to to remain alive. (and if no violation of pikuach nefesh.) I'm not sure of the meaning of cheek, as in: strike on the cheek. The cheek seems to be used as a metaphor throughout scripture for being attacked by one close enough to get to your cheek and do you harm. Perhaps one who is stuck on the cheek is in grave danger of being killed? Or similarly, one who strikes on the cheek has proven he could have killed if he wanted to? (Ps 3; I Kings 22; Micha 5; Job 16). Even G-d is said to strike the cheek. Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus ask@cblph.att.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 09:09 From: AHERRERA.TCCENG@klaven.tci.com (Alex Herrera) Subject: Re: Mannah In v2n76, Linda Albers <Linda.J.Albers@dartmouth.edu> writes that her Judaic Philosophy professor at Dartmouth saw two chances for the redemption. The first was with Eve and the Garden of Eden and the second when G-d provided manna for the Jews wandering in the desert. I'm not sure what chance at redemption Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden. On page 41 of The Torah: A Modern Commentary they mention the following: Where Are You? (Gen. 3:9) Did G-d not know where Adam was? He asked in order to open the way to repentance. MIDRASH [23] (Tanach. Tazri'a 1:9) Redemption is the act of buying back or being restored to one's original or prefered state. Repentance is to be sorry and to turn away from wrong doing. One may repent and yet not receive redemption. Had Adam responded to G-d, he might have been able to repent, but I think it was G-d's plan in the first place to have Adam and Eve cast out of Eden and therefore His granting redemption even in the face of repentance would have been unlikely. It may have also been Eve's plan to have them cast out as well. Here is a parable from educator Shlomo Bardin: "Imagine that a young woman marries a young man whose father is president of a large company. After the marriage, the father makes the son vice-president and gives him a large salary, but because he has no work experience, the father gives him no responsibilites. Every week, the young man draws a large check but he has nothing to do. His wife soon realizes that she is not married to a man but a boy and that as long as her husband stays in his father's firm, he will always be a boy. So she forces him to quit his job, give up his security, go to another city, and start out on his own. That is the reason Eve ate from the tree." Jewish Literacy, by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, p 27. The discussion on Manna is found on pp. 502-3 of The Torah: A Modern Commentary. There is a connection with the Garden of Eden. It says: "Man in Eden was given bread without having to toil for it. Driven forth from paradise he had to earn his sustenance forever after by the sweat of his brow -- forever, except for the forty years it took Israel, the new People of G-d, ready to enter its own post-Eden world. ... G-d interrupts the natural order to establish once more the ideal relationship between Himself and man, the original and pure relationship between master and servant, in which the former takes total care of the latter." In both cases while G-d was preparing his Creation (Adam & Eve/Jews) for their special task, He supported and fed them. Once they were ready, he sent them out to acheive His purposes and they once again toiled by the sweat of their brows. To learn more, I went to the Encyclopedia Judaica. They have a large article under Redemption. I scanned it quickly and only found one reference to Adam and Eve and redemption. It apparently it is a notion touted by kabbalistic sources. I didn't have time to get much detail, but it is my opinion that this idea of redemption presented by the above mentioned professor is not normative Judaism. Alex Herrera
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 09:52:18 EST From: Jeffrey A. Edelheit <edelheit@smiley.mitre.org> Subject: Re: The Cult of Personality, or How To Make A Good Congregation In V2 N81, Dan Faigin wrote: >I would claim that it is the congregation that makes a synagogue successful -- >not the Rabbi or building. The congregation acquires a life and a personality >of its own -- the Rabbi or building can change, but the congregation goes on. >How many of us forget that fact, and choose based on Rabbi or building. When >the Rabbi leaves, should we leave? There are several aspects, from my perspective, as to what makes a good congregation. Certainly, a warm, welcoming membership helps and an ice cold membership does not. However, if you have a warm membership but a not-so-good rabbi, you don't have as strong foundation. Furthermore, as congregations grow, it appears that the larger the schul, the more "cold" it is. This brings up an interesting question: What is the "ideal" size for a congregation? Jeff Edelheit email: edelheit@mitre.org The MITRE Corporation voice: (703) 883-7586 7525 Colshire Drive FAX: (703) 883-1397 McLean, VA 22102
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 07:46:54 PST From: Herb Shukiar <herb@monty.rand.org> Subject: Re: The Cult of Personality, or How To Make A Good Congregation [I've been corrected by one of our temple board members, whose also on the list, regarding my P.S. on the upcoming Peter Yarrow concert on 2/8 -- Daniel] In the most recent lib jd issue you listed Emet's phone number as (818) 343-0670 It should be: (818) 348-0670 Herb
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 17:15:48 -0500 From: Ward Walker <wwalker@bbn.com> Subject: Re: The Cult of Personality, or How To Make A Good Congregation Daniel Faigin asks: > What makes a successful congregation? Is it the Rabbi? Although there's no guarantee, a wise choice of Rabbi is a very large factor in a successful congregation. When a Rabbi is truely beloved (not just liked) by the congregation, it can be beautiful. Service attendance goes up, and congregants become more interested in Judaism. When a Rabbi turns off significant numbers of members, bad news. These members start avoiding temple events, and eventually drop out. Bad word of mouth about the synagogue and its Rabbi gets spread around, making recruitment a much more challenging activity. > I heard people say "if Rabbi Mumblefrotzwitz takes over, I will leave". The acceptance of a Rabbi as one's own spiritual leader is a very personal decision. The right ``chemistry'' has to be there. The Rabbi must be able to earn the individual's respect. You can't blame an individual for expressing the fact that the Rabbi doesn't meet their needs. They are telling the truth; they aren't ``wrong.'' If there are lots of people who dislike R' Mumble, your congregation could be headed for even rougher times ahead. The UAHC in their model synagogue constitution suggests that a 2/3 vote of the congregation be required to hire a given person as Rabbi. Does R' Mumble have the support of at least 2/3rds of your congregation? --Ward wwalker@bbn.com Cambridge MA
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: v2n81 | Next Issue: v2n83 | |
MLJ Home Page
|
Return to Retrieval Form |