Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• Your Moderator <faigin@aero.org>

• Your Moderator <faigin@aero.org>

• Sharon E. Finberg <sharon@phys.psu.edu>

• Seymour Kaplan <SYKAPL@aol.com>

• R. Bob Gluck <Rjgluck@aol.com>

• David Philips <DNPhilips@aol.com>

• Reuven M. Lerner <reuven@the-tech.mit.edu>

• Libby Bottero <lbottero@efn.org>

• David Philips <DNPhilips@aol.com>

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 95 07:27:00 PST
From: Your Moderator <faigin@aero.org>
Subject: Administrivia: Minor Change in Mailing Procedure Failed

Well, the experiment last night with using Bcc: instead of To: seems not to
have worked as I hoped it would. I'm going back to the old way. Remember, when
you get your digest with a clump of 50 names, that is not the entire list
(we're at around 715 -- we've almost *doubled* since July!). Reply to me only;
not everyone on your To: line.

Thanks for putting up with the test.

Daniel

Return to Table of Contents

Date: Tue, 24 Jan 1995 10:07:35 -0800
From: Your Moderator <faigin@aero.org>
Subject: Administrivia: Should we change our minhag?

Recently, a new subscriber dropped me a note about our custom of introducing
Rabbis that join the list. This custom got started back in the days when it
was hard to get new rabbis on the list. I'm hesitant about having lots of
intros, as they might crowd out the actual discussion. In any case, this new
subscriber wrote:

  A question/concern about the newsletter...  As a Jewish professional who
  works in an institution where all professional staff are colleagues and as
  the Vice President of the National Association of Temple Educators, an
  organization that has continually fought for recognition of our status and
  role in the Jewish community, I am very concerned that your "Introductions"
  are given only to rabbis!  (how's that for a run on sentence!) In fact, I
  noticed that several of the rabbis on your introduction list serve in the
  exact same capacity as me.  I think that this is indicative of a problem
  that plagues the Jewish community.  Rabbis are given too much status and
  other Jewish professionals not enough.  I have a great deal of respect for
  many of my rabbinic colleagues but I think that things are way out of
  perspective.  I think it would benefit us all to keep things in their proper
  perspective and to recognize the critical contributions of all professional
  members of the Jewish community.  We all have services to offer.  We all can
  assist with members of the community.  Many times the things someone is
  looking for may be better handled by an educator, cantor, communal service
  worker....  Why not introduce any professional member of the Jewish
  community?  You could start a trend recognizing the equal contributions and
  collegial rather than hierarchical nature of Jewish professional relations!

So, I'm opening it up to you folks. Should I request introductions from any
Jewish professional? 

Daniel

Return to Table of Contents

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 11:28:02 -0800
From: Sharon E. Finberg <sharon@phys.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Beruriah

David Philips <DNPhilips@aol.com> writes: 
> *Can you imagine how a Torah-loving woman would feel upon hearing the story
> of Beruriah's end? I know I am very distressed by this story, which goes as
> follows: Beruriah, the only female among the sages of the Talmud, killed
> herself after she succumbed to the to repeated seduction attempts of one of
> her husband's disciples. Her husband, one of the most famous rabbis of the
> Talmud, had ordered the disciple to seduce her, to prove to her that "[most]
> women are light-headed." But then, I am also distressed by Purim.

I have been thinking about this for a while.  It comes to mind every time
someone mentions Beruriah as proof that Orthodoxy allows women to be as
educated and scholarly as men.

I've come to no conclusions, but I have a few thoughts.

1) In light of this story, why is Beruriah's husband still considered
   righteous?  Or, is he not?  It seems to me that if he truly believed that
   Beruriah would fail his test, he was "placing a stumbling block before the
   blind" and ignoring G-d's commandments against this (and adultery) to prove
   HIS OWN OPINION that women are light-headed.  Even if he didn't believe
   Beruriah would succumb, the Rabbi's ordering the disciple to seduce his
   wife is incredibly problematic for me.

2) Does this seem like an anti-feminist parable to anyone else?  Beruriah is
   known for her scholarship, tries to outdo her husband, and ends up being
   miserable and suiciding.

I'd appreciate comments from anyone more familiar with the story and any
commentary on it.

Sharon Finberg

Return to Table of Contents

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 21:10:27 -0800
From: Seymour Kaplan <SYKAPL@aol.com>
Subject: Dual Career Families

We in Kansas City, Mo. are futuristically evaluating the status of the Jewish
family in the 21st. century as part of a long range planning project to
prepare our Jewish service agencies to properly serve the future Jewish
family.

While many facets of jewish family life are being studied, I have been
assigned the subject of dual-career families.  While I'm doing a literature
search, I would appreciate receiving any advice or thoughts you have.  In the
last 15 to 20 years, the number of dual-career families in the U.S.A.  have
grown dramatically.  The extent to which Jewish families have followed this
trend is unknown; but is believed to be greater than for the general
population. I wish to receive information on the following:

1. Trends of Jewish families towards dual-careers compared to the general
   population.

2. The impact of dual-careers upon the relationship between spouses.  issues
   of particular concern are the divorce rate, the impact upon the harmonious
   relationship within the family, etc.

3. The impact of dual-career households upon the emotional well being of the
   children.  issues of concern about children: emotional and physical health,
   crime rate, violence, relationships between siblings, achievement levels,
   etc.

4. The impact of dual-career families upon the Jewish values and Jewish
   practices within the household.

Some maintain that the adjustment to dual-career households is extremely
challenging and that considerable professional counseling is required.

Any information or references on the subject will be sincerely appreciated.

Return to Table of Contents

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 13:22:44 -0800
From: R. Bob Gluck <Rjgluck@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Egalitarian Religious Services

I found Marian Neudel's "Egalitarian Religious Services" saga moving, partly
because of her personal story, but also because it raises important issues
about how synagogues undergo change.

I have long been from the school that highly values informed democratic
decision making on ritual matters, yet I am increasingly realizing that many
many issues may not be best decided in a formal way. Formal discussions at
times appear to guarantee no change. It looks to me as if many people are
deeply conservative when it comes to ritual issues (meaning that they/we wish
to have things remain the way they are used to them). I really struggle with
this fact, having always believed that the decision making process should
reflect the values that also embody the outcome I hope for.

Marian's story confirms my own recent experiences regarding organizational
change in the synagogue I serve as rabbi. I have been here for a year and a
half--this is a congregation that has undergone significant change during my
brief tenure. This was once a nominally Orthodox congregation which went out
of business, later to be reorganized as a lay-led ritually traditional yet
egalitarian conservative shul. I am a Reconstructionist rabbi with values that
point me toward open exploration of ritual, music, gender language, new
approaches to Jewish expression, etc., as opposed to a former focus here on
rote. I do not see myself as marei d'atra.

I arrived at a point when growth and development was necessary (part of the
reason why a rabbi was desired). Yet, the people who were potential new
members are Jewishly very different from most of the existing membership.
Most of them have little background in Judaism, and many would describe
themselves as "spiritual seekers" who felt burned, or at best, .bored by
childhood synagogue exposure.

Some issues, such as changes in kashrut policy went through a process of study
by the ritual committee, and an upcoming examination of in-shul Shabbat
observance guidelines. But the shaping of services, changes in liturgical
language, addition of new service models (for example, meditation), and many
other issues clearly would have reached a dead end if brought to a vote. The
better decision seemed to be to make strategic changes based on an overall
conception of long-term goals.

The results have been the setting of a new direction, albeit the disaffection
of a number of older timers. While this has been upsetting in some ways, it
seems to me to be inevitable, in the same way that those who couldn't tolerate
counting women in a minyan left Marian Neudel's shul.

Everyone who leaves has a reason to offer why change is impossible. Whether
its "we can't afford it" or "tradition dictates otherwise" or "I don't like so
and so" or "women shouldn't do that", or whatever. Noone ever said it was
going to be easy, but changing our synagogues is critical to the future of
Jewish life in North America.

Rabbi Bob Gluck

Return to Table of Contents

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:11:06 -0800
From: David Philips <DNPhilips@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Political Correctness (PC)

Rabbi Barbara Borts <bmb6@cornell.edu> says:
> I wanted to say something about the expression "political correctness".
> Just what does that mean? Who coined it? I believe, I was told, that
> this was the invention of someone like Rush Limbaugh.

Unfortunately, Rush did not invent this term, though he has helped make it
particularly perjoritive.

Alex Feldman <alex@diamond.idbsu.edu> says:

> [It was] in widespread use
> in the leftie community in Madison, Wisc., back in the early 80's, maybe
> as early as 1980,

I can remember leftists using the phrase "not politically correct," referring
to food, or clothes, or language, but most often to a ventured opinion, as
far back as 1969 in Berkeley.

The point is, regarding the Rush's use of the phrase now, that Rush is
attacking our (the Left's) current control of language, and thus, the social
atmosphere of what is politically/morally/ethically proper. Rush and his even
less civilized antecedents did not object to the same kind of 'coercion of
language' when _they_ had control of it, nor do they today in the many
places, including my work, where the Right's values hold sway over language.
(Today's quote from the boss: "She's your typical Dumb Blond, but
vindictive," referring to a School Board member.)

I had the curious experience of going back to University in 1987-90 and
working at the same time in a conservative environment. In the University
they were passing rules to punish hurtful speech, in the workplace they were
_actually_ punishing people who criticized verbal and structural denigration
of women (not to mention groping).

I  believe that while the _government_ should allow the maximum in free
speech, even when it is anti-Semetic or racist, Jews have an obligation to
personally condemn gossip, slander, and hurtful speech of all kinds, as well
as an obligation to avoid it ourselves. I also feel we should let each group
define their own self-labels, as well as what constitutes hurtful speech to
them. To me, as Jews we are required to do more than just give money to the
poor, we have an obligation to attack the attitudes that lead to group
poverty and powerlessness in society. Allowing self-labeling is one way to do
that.

b'Shalom

David Philips

Return to Table of Contents

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 06:09:50 -0800
From: Reuven M. Lerner <reuven@the-tech.mit.edu>
Subject: Rabbinic vs. biblical Judaism

[Note: The following posting may be a bit strong, but I see nothing it in that
says that the traditional approach, or the Orthodox approach, is an invalid
approach to Judaism. Rather, it is just contrasting approaches and exploring
the differences. -- Yr. Mod.]

Howard Schild recently responded (in m.l-j V4 N104) to my posting (in m.l-j V4
N103), and I'd like to answer some of his points.

  Howard> Several years ago, a Rabbi named the Rambam/ Maimonidies lived. A
  Howard> Rabbinic fellow. He formulated his list of basic beliefs that define
  Howard> a Jew. [...] one the belief in Moses in his biblical role in getting
  Howard> the torah and two..........  that one yearn for the Messiah to come
  Howard> each day.

First of all, Rambam's list of 13 "articles of faith" were never accepted into
the standard service.  Siddurim that do print the articles of faith place them
after Alenu, the last prayer in the formal service.  Claiming that they were
universally accepted, and that these beliefs are incumbent on every Jew,
ignores the debate that followed Rambam's enumeration -- a debate that Rambam
and his followers lost, as we can see from our siddurim.

However, let's assume for the moment that Rambam's articles of faith *are*
incumbent on every Jew.  What does this mean for Jews like me, who find great
meaning and inspiration in Jewish practice and study, who try to live within
the halachic system, and yet cannot ignore the overwhelming literary,
historical, and archaeological evidence denying the divinity of the Bible (and
rabbinic literature, for that matter)?

We basically have two choices: Reject traditional practice, or reject
traditional theology.

Given that the practice fills my life with stability, meaning, and
inspiration, gives me the opportunity to participate in a warm community, and
provides an intellectual and ethical framework to (one of these days) raise
children, it would be very difficult for me to abandon it.

My answer, then, is to reject Rambam's theological doctrine, replacing it with
a modern theology as consistent as possible with traditional Judaism as well
as the knowledge that Jews have gained in the last few centuries.

Part of this new approach requires us to realize that the Judaism with which
we are familiar is similar to, but distinct from, the Judaism found in the
Bible.  As I mentioned in my previous posting, nearly every distinguishing
characteristic of modern Judaism is derived from the rabbis, not the Bible --
everything from Shabbat to kashrut, from Pesach to Hanukkah, from the
importance of study (Talmud Torah) to treating others with respect.  Some of
these practices are touched on in the Bible (many are post-biblical), but it
was the rabbis who preserved, expanded, and codified them.

That doesn't make the Torah less important or central, but it does change the
*type* of importance and centrality that it commands.  The Torah continues to
be our earliest book of history and oldest code of law, and I am fascinated
and inspired when I study it.  But to say that modern Jewish theology,
philosophy, and practice derive directly from the Torah -- or to ignore the
evidence that the Torah was written by people over the course of several
centuries -- is to ignore the significance of the rabbinic revolution that
continues to this day.

One problem -- and don't get me wrong, there are problems with any system,
including the one I'm outlining -- is that this theology lacks a source of
ultimate authority.  Jews who believe in Torah mi-Sinai ("Torah from Sinai,"
the traditional term for fundamentalism) can feel confident that they fulfill
God's commandments by believing and practicing a certain way.  But what
authority is there for a system created by people, albeit very wise people?

Suffice it to say that I'm still working on that one, although any system that
is good for individuals, creates and builds communities, can be transmitted to
new generations, and pushes its adherents to improve the world can't be bad.
(The question, then, is why we should practice Judaism rather than any other
religion or philosophy, a question to which I don't yet have a good answer,
despite my personal commitment to halacha and Judaism, particularly
Conservative Judaism.)

By the way, I am hardly the first person to start wrestling with these issues,
and I continue to study traditional and modern sources as much as possible in
order to broaden my understanding.  (I'd like to think that my views will
change as I get older and learn more, but only time will tell.)  But I hope
that you realize that traditional practice does not necessarily go
hand-in-hand with traditional theology, and that while Rambam's articles of
faith might be appropriate for some Jews, they never have been -- and probably
never will be -- a universal Jewish doctrine.

Return to Table of Contents

Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 08:38:23 -0800
From: Libby Bottero <lbottero@efn.org>
Subject: Women, Tallitot, and Tefillin

In response to Tracy Billado's posting re women and tefillin, I'd like to
recommend a very nice manual by Eshet Hazon Hanna Tiferet Siegel. It is called
"Sacred Garment, Sacred Light: A Woman's Journey through the Rituals of
Tefillin and Tallit."  Tefillin is a beautiful and intimate mitzvah, one that
many women I know observe. Moshe Shulman brought up the problem of a bodily
issue, which can apply to both men and women. The rabbi who showed me how to
lay tefillin more than 20 years ago, advised the use of tampons during one's
menstrual flow so that blood is contained within the body, not issuing out
during the time that one has on tefillin.  In addition to Hanna Tiferet's
spirtitual manual, there are other women who have written on their personal
observance of tefillin and tallit.  Although tefillin and tallit have
traditionally been more widely used by men in the past (though not
exclusively), Jewish women are now learning and observing more in many areas
of Jewish life and practice, and there is no reason not to do so if one so
desires.

Libby

Return to Table of Contents

Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 19:15:30 -0800
From: David Philips <DNPhilips@aol.com>
Subject: Yeshiva Pizza Judaism

Mark Frydenberg <mfrydenberg@bentley.edu> says:
> "You call that pizza?"

Allow me to overtly make the Liberal objection to an assumption on the part of
some of our hevrah (friends & contributors) that the more Orthodox, the more
Real the Pizza.

I, like most Liberal Jews, consider the Liberal movements at their core as
being as Jewish as Orthodoxy. For example, it is hard to find the liberalism
and acculturation (in Moshe Waldock's terminology) of Maimonides among haredi
(so-ultra-orthodox-they're-shaking) Jews. Yet we are all spiritual descendants
of Rambam.

I see Judaism (especially Azkenazik Judaism) as having split into two equally
valid and equally incomplete 'movements' in reaction to European high
culture. One group (at the extreme) said 'after 4000+ years of change and
evolution, we're stopping right here, in 18th Century Vilna,' while the other
said 'If it ain't Western, toss it out, baby, bathtub, and bathroom.'

To non-orthodoxy's credit, it is trying to recover the bathroom, and maybe
even the baby. To Orthodoxy's credit, some among them, like Yitz Greenburg as
well as some of the best contributors to this list, also pursue communication,
reconciliation, and recognition of other civilizations beyond Talmud.

I hope for a day when Orthodoxy absorbs the best liberalism has to offer (e.g.
ranking tzedakah before ritual, and granting the feminine half of our people
equal access to spirit and power) and liberal Jews keep Kosher (because it
shows their love of God and commitment to their culture). Not that many of us
don't already keep Kosher ... see how close we're getting?

b'Shalom

David Philips
East Wenatchee, WA

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: v4n105		Next Issue: v4n107
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form