![[MLJ Logo]](http://www.mljewish.org/mlj.gif)
www.mljewish.org
|
www.mljewish.org |
Mail.Liberal-Judaism |
| Volume 6 Number 109 | Thu Dec 26 23:55:11 US/Pacific 1996 |
From: Bernard Rotmil <CUSSINJO@worldnet.att.net> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 22:37:54 -0400 Subject: About Hanukkah and the Ever Evolving Judaism Ethel Jean makes an interesting comment in V6N106 in response to my post of "Hanukkah and the evolving Judaism."in V6N104: "I suggest you read the Encyclopedia Judaica's article on Spinoza and then tell me that it was not a real excommunication. I just read it last week, out loud to some one else, and I was absolutely shocked, they were using the exact same words as Ferdy and Izzy used in the expulsion of the Jews from Spain!!!" I noticed that similar use of the term "excommunication" is made by most biographers of Baruch Spinoza; it is in fact a misnomer. Perhaps they are using the term as an alliteration because it is technically incorrect. Communion is the dispensing of the body (the eucharist) and the blood (the wine)of Jesus by the church to the faithful and is the central core of the Mass and of catholicism. When you deprive a faithful of this essential purification and achieving grace you are cutting him off from the blessed sacrament of the church and your soul is doomed. It is the most extreme form of church punishment. Judaism just doesn't claim that categorical a hold on individual believers; at least there is no such authority or dogma that makes it possible for any Judaic authority to do so. The best they can do is ostracize and perhaps those more familiar with the detail of this practice might wish to elaborate on that. The point however remains that the term excommunication does not apply in the Judaic context. [Moderator's Note: I believe the term for such ostricization is "Cherem" -- DPF] Bernmard Rotmil
From: Rabbi Benno M Wallach <RA.BENNO@inline.com> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 96 15:52:04 -0500 Subject: Authentic Judaism [Moderator's Note: The following is a bit strong, and may reopen the door for one of the hotter discussions we have had of late. However, Benno noted in a private message to me that it is important to periodically do a bit of reminder, and that the pressures of the recent weeks have resulted in a few things slipping throught that perhaps shouldn't have. So, please take this as a reminder that, on this list, we support multiple approaches to Jewish fulfillment, and that, from this lists's point of view, all of them are equally "authentic" -- DPF.] A man by the name of Moshe Schulman, who describes himself as an orthodox jew, recently posted "The influence of Reform theology in MJ theology is clear (even if it is perverted)". In another recent instance (I regret not having the document available) there is also a reference to Reform Jewish theology as "tainted" -- presumably (and charitably), the writer meant "influenced by". Of course, if not that, what *can* you expect in a chat room on Liberal Judaism? What is worse, people of this mindset constantly refer to "authentic Judaism", not realizing that there really is no such thing. Authenticity is validated by the practitioner, not the viewer. Jewish history clearly establishes this. Who is/was considered to be "authentic" in the historic and still on going process of Jewish development? ("Ongoing process" = constantly RE-forming?) Always, it was only later, that the "winner" emerged. Not only that, but in numerous instances the "winner" was never established, and in all likelihood never will be. The Talmud had it right when it was stated, "These and those are the words of the Living God". Here are a few examples: Beit Hillel versus Bet Shammai, Sadduccees and Pharisees, various medieval philosophers pitted against each other, individual poskim rendering different interpretations, Chassidim and Mitnagdim, Liberals versus Orthodox. By the very nature of its philosophy, orthodoxy insist that only it has the keys to truth, and it will not grant others of a different opinion the right to their believes **even for themselves**. Those who subscribe to it insist that their way is binding on others. Yet, they are splintered among themselves -- Chabad, Satmar, Agudat Yisrael, et al. Sephardim and Ashkenazim cannot even agree whether certain foods are kosher for Passover or not. The list of those who disagree among themselves, but insist that they are the only ones who have the answers, is long, and it is not necessary to review it. The proper term for this phenomenon is bigotry. These people have forgotten what Channukah is all about: the right of freedom to worship as the individual desires. When an opinion is promulgated by a scholar (widely recognized as such, and/or properly credentialled expert), it deserves attention, whether we dis/agree. It is troublesome, however, to watch misinformation forthcoming from people who project themselves as proper arbiters, but are poorly qualified, for there are those among us who are eager to learn, but are not in a position to ferret out what is incorrect. Half baked knowledge, also, can be misleading, and for that reason dangerous. Encyclopedia are wonderful places to begin the search in any given field, but they are not broad enough in scope to formulate final platforms; they are only stepping stones, and should be regarded as no more than that. I hope we are all broadminded enough to listen to many sources, but there is no room at my table for those who are so tunnel visioned as to preclude an honest exchange of ideas. Knowledge, open mindedness, and intellectual integrity are the sine qua non tripod of discussion. Without them, there is no dialogue, and the time spent is wasted. (Reform) Rabbi Benno M. Wallach
From: Andi Kaufman <tl2b@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:15:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Bias in the Media Herman Rubin wrote: >This is not to say that Muslims can never be trusted, but that most >identifiable groups of Muslims with power have given reason for distrust. I >believe that this includes the PLO. They need to show that they respect the >rights of Jews before Israel has any obligation to give them more. We may not have an obligation to give more. Both sides have to try. I do not see either side trying. Peace is a difficult task. However I feel it is worth it. The safety of Israel and of all the Jewish people in the world is of utmost importance. We can continue to work for peace with out giving up any aspect of our safety. Also trust is not necesasary for the peace process to continue. I do not want to see anymore people killed if there is anyway to stop it. andi (mom to isaac) Never Underestimate the Power of This Woman!
From: Jonathan Mark <JMARK@fcc.gov> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:33:18 -0500 Subject: Bias in the Media M. Kaminsky writes: "As a former broadcaster, let me remind and caution you all that, regardless of what ABC would have you believe, Peter Jennings' *only* job is to read off a teleprompter what others have written and repeat what is shouted to him through his earpiece." Mr. Kaminsky's comment reminds me of a story I once heard repeated on the Lowell Thomas radio show. During the 1950's Walter Cronkite was already referred to as "the dean of television newscasting." A public relations officer for an Air Force base in North Africa got to observe the preparations for a report by Mr. Cronkite. During the preparations, the CBS on-site producer would repeatedly refer to Walter Cronkite as "my mouth," as in "Then I will have my mouth say this," or "At that point my mouth says such-and-such." I do not doubt that Peter Jennings of ABC is personally hostile towards Israel or, more likely, personally friendly towards the Arab world. His interview in the Journal of Palestine Studies some years ago, in which he stated that Jews should not be assigned to cover Israeli events, suggests a bias. However the reasons for anti-Israel bias in the European media and, to a lesser extent, some parts of the American media are cultural and could not be produced by a single talking head. There is also an anti-Moslem bias which is also cultural, and often the two cancel out.
From: Alana Suskin <alanacat@wam.umd.edu> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:32:07 -0500 (EST) Subject: Feminism vs. Egalitarianism Jerry Blaz <ffdog@earthlink.net> writes: > Consequently masculine is an indeterminate gender in a sense, and the use of > HU as a personal pronoun for God does not mean that it must be assumed to be > male. Except, of course, that we do. I hesitate to get into this discussion, but I feel that I must because I've done a lot of research in this area: there are studies that firmly show that using male gender in language does not lead to indeterminate assignment, but rather causes whatever word is assigned to that gender to associated with that gender. Thus, when "God" is made "He" (or "hu") we humans make the general assumption that God is male. This seems to be a general heuristic of the human brain. In English, we can get around this by using the plural, which is actually gender-indeterminate, and seems not to offend people the way true neuter-singular (it) does, however, in Hebrew even the plural is not gender-neutral and thus that option does not exist. It is a kind of idolatry to allow people to be taught and to understand that God is male, thus, I strongly push the inclusion of feminine gender usage for God-language. I would also point out that there is nothing especially innovative about doing so. WOrds like "shechina" are part of the traditional usage and havebeen for hundreds of years, if not longer. Alana
From: Aaron Rittmaster <ajritz@cris.com> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 08:47:45 -0500 Subject: Re: Homosexuality A friend of mine in the first-year HUC program in Jerusalem offered a very interesting, and I think important, drash on the passage in Kedoshim in which the basis for looking at homosexuality as "abomination" (or even "abberation) occurs. He argues persuasively that, in Biblical times, the only form of homosexuality which was publicly known was as a pagan cultic sexual act. In that context, the prohibition against homosexuality is actually a prohibition against participation in pagan cultic activities and has nothing to do with the sexual act per se. Aaron
From: Robin Cohen Anderson <robin@crocker.com> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 03:00:43 -0800 Subject: Re: Homosexuality In "Homosexuality," Bernard Rotmil wrote: >I am only trying to defuse the onus of the term "abomination" still currently >used in Judaic tenet. By adopting as rational a position as can be >accommodated by it we can get away from that ill connotation derived from >"abomination". The dictionary definition of aberration is: 1. deviation from >the proper or expected course. 2. A departure from the normal or >typical. (American Heritage Dict.). Only with respect to their sexual conduct >is this term to be used. It seems to me that Mr. Rotmil is attempting to move the discussion of homosexuality in a Jewish context from the arena of morality to that of simply difference from the majority norm. I applaud this attempt. When the Torah was written, it was believed that homosexuality was a behavior by choice. Because no means of artificial insemination were available, it didn't lead to the perpetuation of family life, but appeared to be solely a choice of pleasure for the flesh. Thus, it was immoral conduct for those times and denounced as an abomination. Rather than discussing "abomination" in this moral sense of the word, Mr. Rotmil seems to be attempting to redefine that term by simply seeing gay sexuality as a minority practice and seeking to use more neutral terms that reflect it only as a "departure from...the typical". My problem with this redefinition isn't its direction, but the fact that it does not go far enough. As far as I can see, the only way to "defuse the onus" of the term "abomination" is to reject it. Redefining it to mean "aberration" or "abnormality" still stigmatizes and denigrates gay people. After all, being Jewish might be defined as a "victimless" aberration--that is, as "a deviation from...the expected course" or "a departure from...the typical." But if someone dared to use such words as "aberrant" or "abnormal" about us, we'd scream ourselves hoarse--and rightly so. Calling gay sexual practices "abnormal" or "aberrant" removes the onus of a moral judgment, perhaps, but only replaces it with a different sort of negative judgment--one that inherently marginalizes the people we are talking about. This marginalization is itself a moral issue, and one that we as Jews should be especially sensitive to. From the point of view of the majority, any minority practice could be termed "abnormal." Just as we Jews seek to define ourselves by the internal logic and beauty of Judaism--not by the standards of the larger culture--so gay people define themselves taking their own preferences and behavior as having built-in wholeness and integrity, not as constituting some weird or exotic departure from heterosexual behavior. To define gay people against the larger culture is as unfair as calling Chanukah an "aberration" because there is no Christmas tree. The point is to begin seeing minority practices from the inside as sustaining and beautiful in their own right. I lived in the Castro in San Francisco for five years. When I first got there, the sight of men holding hands and kissing in public was weird to me--because I wasn't used to it. It was "outside the norm" of my experience. When I moved out of the community five years later, the fact that I *didn't* see gay men holding hands on a regular basis was weird to me. I had gotten used to it, and come to realize that it is simply another way of living--not marginal, not weird, not aberrant, not abnormal. Just a different way of living than I live. And not so very different at all when you get right down to it. B'shalom, Robin
From: David A. Guberman <djguberman@gis.net> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:48:59 -5000 Subject: Re: Orthodox Knowledge of History On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 10:11:30 EST, abrahamson@juno.com (Eliezer C Abrahamson) presented a list of questions that he did not feel the average non-Orthodox layman could answer. He may be right that Orthodoxy teaches these things early. However, I am unsure whether Orthodoxy teaches only the traditional positions regarding the questions, or whether the larger world comes into play. For example, with respect to Purim, it is unclear whether the children are taught that whether and when the events described in Megillat Esther--Purim--took place are disputed issues among historians? It is unclear whether the children are taught that the Mishna and the Talmud are human works--arguably Divinely inspired--in which the Rabbis interpreted and reinterpreted Biblical texts and Judaic traditions? Are they taught that the Orthodox approach is a descendant/evolution of, but not identical to, Biblical Judaism? Orthodox children may be taught about great Torah scholars, but what about other Jewish minds and thinkers, such as Baruch Spinoza, Moses Mendelsohn, Abraham Geiger, Moses Hess, Solomon Schechter, Ber Borochov, A.D. Gordon, Nahum Syrkin, David Ben Gurion, Berl Katznelson, Ahad Ha'am, Chaim Weizmann, Moshe Sharrett, or Yitzhak Ben Zvi? Are most Orthodox children taught the importance of world historical events outside the confines of Jewish religious history, e.g., the Renaissance? Isaac Newton? the Enlightenment? The American and French Revolutions? The Industrial Revolution? Please do _not_ read the foregoing as an attempt to put down Orthodoxy. I merely want to contextualize and limit the scope of Eliezer's claim. Moreover, based on the admittedly unrepresentative sample of my four Israeli first- cousins, who attended non-dati state schools in Ashkelon, I imagine that they probably could answer at least Questions 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14, as well as many other questions concerning Jewish history beyond the strictly religious sphere. I would have even more confidence in graduates of Tali schools, that is, state schools participating in a program under the auspices/initiative of the Masorti (Conservative) movement in Israel. David A. Guberman djguberman@gis.net _tov shalom m'eretz yisrael ha'shlema_ Peace is Greater than Greater Israel
From: Sydney Nestel <snestel@tor.esri.ca> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 16:08:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Orthodox Knowledge of History I read with some interest the submission by Eliezer C Abrahamson regarding "Orthodox Knowledge of History", and David Guberman's well thought out response. Bravo Mr. Guberman ! I would like to add some other comments on Mr Abrahamsons peon to Orthodox virtues. Specifically his last paragraph: >... Obviously much [ in Judaism ] has changed but certain core issues cannot, >according to the Orthodox, ever change. All groups which attempted to tamper >with these issues were rejected by Judaism. The modern problems arise largely >from ignorance about how legitimate change and adaptation occurred and about >what is a "core" issue and what is not. Even the core issues which Orthodox claim can never change have changed. They don't think they have, but certainly my view, and the view of most non Orthodox is that they have. Lets just take the simple idea that the "Torah" in its entirety was given -every word and letter- to Moses at Sinai. It wasn't. Parts have been added and modified, and no doubt parts have been lost. As to, "all groups that tampered ... were rejected ....", the Orthodox (and all of today's Jews) are heirs to the Pharasees, the greatest tamperers of all time. What is the Mishna and the Talmud if not one great readaptation and expansion of earlier Jewish concepts? The unchanging pursist were the Karaites - who rejected the Mishna and the Talmud as dangerous innovations that abandoned core values and which where created and adopted by means of an unrecognized and illegitamate process. The Karaites were, until the late middle ages a sizable portion of the world Jewish population. I am not sure that an objective observer in the year 700 AD would have known which stream of Judaism would win out. However, it was these conservative and unchanging elements, that eventually were "rejected by Judaism." Today the Orthodox are NOT the majority of world Jewry, and only time will tell which streams of Judaism will have lasting influence - but I would guess that more Jewish girls today have a bat-mitzvah (an idea introduced by Modechai Kaplan of the Reconstructionist Movement in the 1920s and until recently opposed by most Orthodox rabbis) than go monthly to the mikve. I, personally, find this a good and positive development in Jewish life. [Moderator's Note: I should note that Kaplan introduced the practice of having the Bat Mitzvah read from Torah and interpret it during the service, not the actual becoming Bat Mitzvah nor some sort of observation of the change in status. See the FAQ for more info. -- DPF] The comments about "what are the _core_ issues" and "how legitimate change takes place", are of course at the root of todays cultural wars between Liberal and Orthodox views of Judaism. Each side rejects both the definition of core content and the process for change espoused by the other. Modern problems do not stem from "ignorence" of these issues, but from legitmate and deep differences of opinion. These cannot, and should not, be glossed over. How we should behave in such a Jewish world and what is to become of the concepts of Klal Yisrael; these are interesting questions, but will have to wait for another posting. B'vracaha Sydney Nestel ESRI Canada Ltd. phone (416) 4416035, fax (416) 4416838, email snestel@esri.ca
From: Marvin J Dickman <MarvD904@aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:50:30 -0500 Subject: Re: Reform Talmud Dan Icolari's message asks for a Reform Pirke Avot. At the recent UAHC meeting in Los Angeles, the UAHC Press displayed a number of its new publications and Pirke Avot was among them. There are two "authors" (i.e., commentators) of this volume and I am sorry that I can't remember the first, but the second is Professor Kerry Olitzky of HUC-JIR. Some other material I have indicates that the UAHC Press has an 800 number (if that's the right name for the 888 series) which is 1-888-489-8242. I presume the same number would be used if someone is interested in this book.
From: Julian Yudelson <YUDELSON.JE@a1.isc.rit.edu> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:25:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Reform Talmud Dan Iolaric (Dec 18) indicated a desire to have a "Reform" bencher and Prike Avot. Most Conservative congregations have an abridged bencher that is used for many public occasions. It is true to the traditional Hebrew text but includes English responses. I would assume that the various Reform camps have made some movement in the direction of a post meal grace that fits the general Reform position on rebuilding the Temple but I am not at all sure there is "a Reform" position on most of the other material in the grace after the meal. As far as Pirke Avot is concerned I pesonally can see no point in a Reform version of a 1800 year old document. There are a number of good translations available. Certainly the Art Scroll perspective is a bit doctrinaire, but I would recommend Bunim's three volume edition for its extensive twentieth century notes. Pirke Avot can be studied as a collection of thought from the past. The non Hebrew reader may miss many of the nuances that are in the orginal, but most of them stand on their own. IF Dan is looking for a collection of Jewish sayings, I just saw a new book with essentially that title at someone's home. I would urge Dan, and all members of the list to seriously study Pirke Avot. It is the source of many of the aphorisms that so many people use and have no idea of where they come from. Kol Israel chaverim, even if they no longer read the same books. Julian Yudelson
From: Bob Slater <ALTROK@aol.com> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:05:57 -0500 Subject: Welfare Charity and Religion As I worked my way through the Mishnah this year, I came upon the command to give 1/16 th of your income to charity. I was struck by the fact that the purpose of giving emphasized more the effect on the giver than the recipient. Namely we should give because it is the right thing to do, not because there is a need. Wow I thought, what if we applied this to the debate over welfare. The democrats stress giving to solve a need, the republicans stress avoiding wasted tax money but neither side addresses the religious issue of the need to give for the sake of our own souls. (Where is the religious right when thier needed ?) :) I wonder how the issue could be dealt with if 1/16th of our federal, state and local taxes went for the benefit of the poor ? Would that be more or less than we spend now ? The discussion however once a figure is decided upon would be how to best help those in need and away from how to avoid charity or taxes. It would also force those who believe in endless charity to focus in on what they can do with what they have. That old welfare system might have something to say to us today. Shalom, Bob Slater
From: erics@access.digex.net (Eric Simon) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 21:34:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Who's Afraid of Messianic Judaism and Why? Moshe Shulman wrote: >The question I have in this area (and I have seen it personnaly in many >discussions/debates with MJ's) is what theological basis can a Reform Jew >have for denying them their connection with Judaism. I know that many people >hate to deal with theology, but it is a serious problem. This is especially >true since the ranks of MJ's are filled with Jews who primarily were >Reform. The influence of Reform theology on MJ theology is clear. (Even if it >is perverted.) Daniel Faigin wrote, twice: >[Moderator's Note: In my Moderator's Note that introduced this thread, I asked >if Reform Jews were doing the same thing to Messianics that Orthodox Jews >often do to Reform....] OK. I'll take the bait. (And apologies if I'm repeating someone, as I am on vacation in Florida, and my access is limited and delayed). Daniel actually raises an issue, or a corrollary of an issue that has troubled me for some time, and which I raise from time to time here (and then get accused of being anti-Reform.) I raised it pretty recently when I asked what does Reform stand for, and before that when I asked Rabbi John Sherwood, who asserted an abosolute freedom for Reform rabbis if there were any limits. Reform answers, to this, seem to me not to be particularly strong -- all along the lines of "we can't tell you what the line is, but we can tell it's been crossed." And so, the Humanistic congregation in Cincinnatti was rejected for UAHC membership; and, more recently, directly on point to this particular question, Rabbi Warshovsky, who is the new chair of the Reform responsa committee, wrote, in the most recent Reform Judaism magazine, that "every community has the right to define itself" and that the MJ's were attempting to deny us that right. And, furthermore, he (Washovsky) was defining "MJ's" to be not Jewish (for a variety of solid reasons). Fine. So far. But let me take Daniel's question, and raise it even one more notch -- relating it to who is a Jew question is Israel. If every community, including us Reform, has the right to define itself, then doesn't the Orthodox community have the right to define _itself_. And, if so, don't they have the right to say something like: we only recognize those converts to Judaism who have accepted the full yoke of the commandments as we percieve them to be? (This, essentially, is Daniel's question). And when we complain about it, and demand changes, should be be so surprised to here the echo of "every community has the right to define itself, and Reform is attempting to deny us that right"? To put it more simply: it *is* the Reform position that we *can* draw lines (and we do). So, can't the Orthodox draw lines, too? Why are Reform's any more valid than their's? Becuase Reform's are wider? Heck, the MJ's lines are wider still, aren't they? And so, isn't our only argument with them is that we don't like where _they_ are drawing their lines? (And, furthermore, given our understanding of Orthodoxy, doesn't it make sense that they drew their lines where they did?) I don't like what's going on in Israel in this area -- but I do understand the motivations behind them, and they don't seem all that unreasonable. We just happen to disagree on this major, vital, point. Eric P.S. On another side-issue, I am confused about Moshe's last sentence, "The influence of Reform theology on MJ theology is clear. (Even if it is perverted.)" Could he explain?
From: Yaakov Menken <menken@torah.org> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:20:36 -0400 Subject: Re: Who's Afraid of Messianic Judaism and Why? In digest #107, our esteemed moderator wrote: >I asked if Reform Jews were doing the same thing to Messianics that Orthodox >Jews often do to Reform... I'm raising it to indicate that Reform Judaism has >its own boundaries, and that we tend to enforce those boundaries the same way >that an Orthodox Jew does. Our acknowledgement of this should help us >understand our Orthodox brethren better--why they do what they do and why >they can't accept Reform's pluralistic nature. This is a very fair analysis! Eric Simon pointed out that in the latest issue of Reform Judaism magazine, Rabbi Warshawsky said "every community has the right to define itself," and thus the community can say what beliefs place a person outside the community. RW said it with regard to "Messianic Judaism," but it could, of course, just as easily have been penned by an Orthodox Rabbi with regards to the liberal movements. At the same time, I'd like to point out an important difference. Please take this in the realm of constructive criticism, because I care deeply about the issue of "Messianic Judaism" - and I know that Conservative Talmud Torah left me unprepared for encounters with Christians in college. "Torah-observant" Judaism has a clear set of beliefs. There's diversity, but within well-defined parameters found in the Tanach, Talmud, the Rambam [Maimonides], and elsewhere. So if someone asks me why "Messianic Judaism" isn't Judaism, I can use any number of responses: 1) We have an idea, a description, of who the anointed Messiah will be. 2) The Messiah should bring the Messianic era (the first time). 3) When in doubt about Halachic questions (like "is X the Messiah"), the Torah commands us to consult the leading judges (Rabbis), meaning the Sanhedrin in Jesus' time. Nu? What did they say? 4) We know that G-d wasn't lying when He gave us _eternal_ commandments. 5) We know what repentance (Teshuvah) is, and what sacrifices are, and so on, and so on... I don't believe the Messianics can cry foul. Honestly, I don't think Reform can cry foul either. Orthodoxy does _not_ say "that is _not_ Judaism," but rather "this, and this alone, _is_ Judaism." One can accurately say that this view excludes many others, but it does so only as a side-effect of a positive statement. In order to explain why "Messianic Judaism" is invalid without falling prey to claims of unfair treatment, I feel Reform must also define _positive_ parameters. Robin Cohen Anderson wrote: "Any Reform Jews out there can correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel fairly certain that Reform Jews do not believe..." But a statement of what Reform does _not_ believe isn't enough - and Rabbi Warshawsky does no better. Neither, in my opinion, does "Emet V'Emunah" - the booklet published to define the beliefs of the Conservative movement. I believe it doesn't adequately explain why the movement accepts views of G-d ranging from "supreme controller of heaven and earth" to "something not entirely independent of our views," but explicitly rejects a trinity. Again, "anything except this" boils down to stating the negative. A potential Messianic Jew wants to believe _something_. He or she couldn't care less what we _don't_ believe. There is another issue critical to combating "Messianic Judaism," and that is education. If "Jewish education" were not such an oxymoron in this country, missionaries would have no more luck than Jesus himself, whose followers were "unlike the Pharisees [Perushim] and scholars of the law" for good reason. Their Book of Acts classifies the adherents as unlearned... how little has changed in 2000 years! Throughout Europe, Christian leaders rapidly concluded that the only way to convert (Orthodox) Jews was to commit horrible atrocities. (That, by the way, is probably why Robin and so many others (myself included) feel hostility towards Messianics. It has little to do with theology - we know that our fathers and mothers were brutally murdered by acts of "Christian love," yet died with the Shema on their lips. For their grandchildren to betray their memory is like dancing on their graves.) Robin is again hardly alone having met an "Orthodox j4j." The j4j's consistently claim that "many" of them are Orthodox. Ceil Rosen, wife of "Moshe Rosen," head of Jews for Jesus, claims in a pamphlet that she was Orthodox - and then she says, "of course, the _really_ Orthodox wouldn't handle money or drive on Shabbat, but we did." Orthodox, Orthodox, Orthodox, but we drove on Shabbat (and ate pork at Moshe's house!). By putting labels on American Jewry, we have permitted the j4j's to blur a critical distinction between those who attended Orthodox synagogues, vs. those who have actually observed Torah law. Jews for Judaism ( http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/ ) goes to missionary convocations and counsels "Messianic Jews" by the thousands, and they have literally never met a formerly *Torah-observant* Jew who became a j4j. This is just another of j4j's many frauds. Again, the reason is education: the average American Jew perceives Orthodox Jews as knowledgeable about Judaism, so the j4j's manipulate the truth. I think Lazer Abrahamson's list of "critical people, places and events in Jewish history" is relevant to this discussion. Ask your average Hebrew school graduate the following questions: 1. Who was Jesus' mother? Now, who was Moses' mother? 2. We all know Jesus was a bachelor. Who did Moses marry? Who was his father-in-law? 3. How many gospels are there? How many books in Tanach are there? 4. Name the gospels. Name any four books of the Talmud. Hebrew schools are _not_ preparing Jewish children for encounters with Messianic Judaism. The anti-missionaries I know are surprised by the number of Conservative Talmud Torah graduates who have become "Messianic Jews." Solidifying both a definition of core beliefs, and Jewish education, would surely be a step in the right direction. Yours, Yaakov Menken
From: Bonnie Greenberg <bonnieg@ix.netcom.com> Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 23:22:42 -0800 Subject: Web Resource: Non-Orthodox Jewish Congregations in Israel The only location on the web that contains names, addresses and phone numbers of NonOrthodox Congregations in Israel has moved to http://pw1.netcom.com/~bonnieg/isrcong.html. Recent additions include links to two Progressive congregations, email addresses and new phone numbers. It also contains links to other Religious Pluralism sites. Please keep sending me your updates. b'shalom Bonnie
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: v6n108 | Next Issue: v6n110 | |
MLJ Home Page
|
Return to Retrieval Form |