Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• GIL@NIF.ORG (Gil Kulick)

• Robert A. Book <rbook@uchicago.edu>

• Yaakov Menken <menken@torah.org>

• Bob Comarow <bcomarow@bb.iu.net>

• Herman Rubin <hrubin@stat.purdue.edu>
• Mark Hurvitz <rmark@nisus-soft.com>

From: GIL@NIF.ORG (Gil Kulick)
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 19:29:28 
Subject: Re: Israeli Knesset Vote: New Israel Fund

Eric Simon's critique of the New Israel Fund's statement about the conversion
bill and religious coercion in Israel misses the mark in almost every respect.

He writes: "'The vote [on the conversion bill] does nothing but codify
existing practice."  Yes. It codifies an "existing practice" that the High
Court of Justice found to be illogical and inconsistent, since Israel
recognizes non-Orthodox conversions performed outside of Israel.  This bill
would write that illogic and inconsistency (not to mention injustice) into
law.

Mr. Simon claims "a majority of the Israeli electorate is not unhappy with the
status quo."  Yet in a 1993 survey conducted by Jerusalem's respected Guttman
Institute of Appled Social Research, 79 percent of Jewish Israelis polled said
they believed that the Conservative and Reform movements should be accorded
full equality with Orthodoxy.  And a majority of those who styled themselves
"somewhat observant" said that if there were a non- Orthodox synagogue near
their homes, they would attend it on holidays and special occasions.

Citing the Law of Return, Mr. Simon disputes the assertion that no government
has the right to decide who is a "religiously authentic Jew."  But defining
"Jew" for the purposes of the Law of Return does not require or even empower
the government (i.e., the Chief Rabbinate) to declare that some Jews'
interpretations of Judaism are kosher -- "authentic", while others' (i.e.,
non- Orthodox are treyf -- "inauthentic".

As for the puzzling notion that there is something sinister about a
philanthropy's raising money to advance the values it exists to support, one
can only ask what more benign way exists to support the causes one believes
in.

Gilbert D. Kulick
Director of Communications
New Israel Fund

Return to Table of Contents

From: Robert A. Book <rbook@uchicago.edu>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 12:18:36 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Nechama Leibowitz, ZT"L

[This is longer than the usual post, but I've received this information from a
number of sources, and feel it is worth posting. Yr. Mod.]

One of the most widely respected and read modern Torah commentators and
teachers, Nechama Leibowitz, died over the weekend in Jerusalem.  Below is (1)
a news item, (2) an interview with one of her students, and (3) a
retrospective by one of her students.

If you have time to read only one, skip to the retrospective.

Also, in light of the recent discussions, it is worth noting that she was
Orthodox and while teaching all who came to her, she operated entirely within
the Orthodox framework.

Robert Book    rbook@uchicago.edu
University of Chicago

				      **

  From: Arutz-7 Editor <editor7@virtual.co.il>

  Arutz Sheva News Service
  Sunday, April 13, 1997 / Nisan 6, 5757

4. NECHAMA LIEBOWITZ PASSES AWAY 
Nechama Liebowitz, revered Bible teacher of thousands of students over the
past several decades, and the author of several books on the Bible and its
traditional commentaries, passed away last night at the age of 92. Over 1000
people participated in her funeral procession this afternoon in Jerusalem.  In
accordance with her wishes, no eulogies were delivered.  An interview with
Dr. Gavriel Cohen, a long-time student of Prof. Liebowitz, appears at the end
of this report.

[...]

INTERVIEW WITH DR. GAVRIEL COHEN

Q. You were a student for many years of Professor Liebowitz.  
A. This is true.  My connection with her began when I used to read and answer
her question sheets on the weekly Torah portion.  I would sit over the books
and the commentaries, and at the conclusion of the Sabbath I would answer the
questions and send them to her, and every week I would receive - as did
hundreds of others - a personal reply from her, with her lengthy comments.
This is how so many people developed an approach to the sources and
commentaries.

Arutz-7: Can you explain how she was able to achieve such significant Torah
achievements in bringing the public at large to a love for Bible learning?
Dr. Cohen: I think it is simply that she was an exceptional person, unique in
her generation.  I don't think that there was anyone who brought about such a
love of Torah as Nechama Liebowitz did.  She simply had a tremendous
understanding of the commentaries, even the very difficult ones, as well as
unique pedagogical skills.  She knew how to activate the students.  She
insisted that the student know not only what Rashi or Ramban [the two premier
medieval Bible commentators] said, but she demanded that he struggle with WHY
they said what they said, and think about which one seemed more correct.  In
this way the student became part of the Torah study, "creating" the commentary
himself.  This was a totally new method, and she wrote once that this is part
of a system where the student "reproduces" the Torah from his own soul, and in
this way becomes one with it.

Arutz-7: So she taught everyone to be a Torah commentator.
Dr. Cohen: Yes, but of course in line with the classic commentators.  She
would say, this is what our rabbis taught us, and then she would say that we
should study them in depth and then identify with one of them.  She wrote a
little booklet on Psalms, in which she wrote that her goal was that the
student should not only hear King David singing, but should hear himself
within the songs of King David.  In this way the Torah would become a true
"Living Torah."

Arutz-7: Dr. Cohen, thank you very much.

  From media@actcom.co.il Sun Apr 13 15:26:44 1997
  Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 22:40:37 +0300 (EET DST)
  From: Media <media@actcom.co.il>
  Subject: a personal eulogy to my teacher, and everyone's teacher,
    Nechama Leibowitz

GOODBYE, NECHAMA

BY: David Bedein, MSW. Director, ISRAEL RESOURCE, a media firm at the Beit
Agron International Press Center, Jerusalem

Back in 1970, when I was a visiting student at the Hebrew University.  thanks
to the initiative of Hebrew University educator Mike Rosenak, Prof Nechama
Leibowitz was the first teacher whom I met in Israel.

She gave her model Bible lesson, and gave us the ground rules: bring a full
Bible to every class, do not chew gum, ask lots of questions, and ``call me
Nechama'', she would often say, with her perennial smile, beret, and good
humor.

``Nechama'', as she indeed preferred to be called, gave lessons in the Great
Book to anyone and everyone, always ready to receive invitations to speak, at
schools, youth clubs, or in your very home.

Nechama synthesized two worlds as a teacher.

Nechama relied on all the traditional sources - Abarbanel, Ramban, Rashi, and
more, yet she made the Bible story come alive with a potpourri of modern
analogies, always to make her point.

Who will ever forget Nechama's unique way of introducing the ``Joseph
Story''-``Now what was that `Jew-boy' doing in the palace of a king and how
did he get there?''

As she did with Joseph, Nechama made each significant figure of each character
in the Bible. Often, I would watch her sip tea in the Hebrew University and
seek out students to talk with and teach.  It didn't matter who the student
was or where the student was from. And outside the University, Nechama made
herself wecome in kibbutzim, in Mea Shearim, and in every walk of Israeli
life.

Something refreshing at a time of increasing internal Israeli religious strife

Two  experiences with Nechama tell something about her.  

Many years ago, when I went to work at a Jewish summer camp in the US, I asked
Nechama for advice about preparing the Bible curriculum at the camp. She asked
me to meet her right away. I thought that a busy lecturer and author like this
would not have the time for such things. Nechama spent the better part of four
hours helping me create a curriculum that transformed what might have been a
bunch of boring lectures into what we today would become an interactive Torah
theatre for children, and the kids loved it.

The other experience that I had was much more personal. I had long ago made a
quiet prayer that if I were ever to have a daughter, that they would be able
to understand and teach the Torah with the love and the vigor of Nechama.

So, when we had our first girl, eleven months after our first boy, I called
Nechama and asked her if she would come and give a shiur in honor of our baby
Rivka, on the subject that I had heard her speak during my first week in
Israel: Rivka and the attribute of ``hesed''.

At the same time, I asked Nechama if she had any objections to us adding a
name in her honor, so that she would be Rivka Nechama. I knew that Nechama did
not have any children. Nechama did not hesitate to give her agreement to the
gesture, and she also agreed to come to Tzfat for Shabbat.

After word spread in Tzfat that Nechama was coming, more than three hundred
people showed up on the lawn of the Wolfson community center, carrying
Bibles-at Nechama's request.

Nechama then began her ``shiur'' - describing Rivka's dedication to ``hesed'',
with people and with animals, as exemplified by Rivka's energetic water
delivery service to Eliezer's thirsty camels.

Towards the end of Nechama's shiur, the still energetic teacher of a sprite
eighty-one spotted our baby. ``Is this Nechamaleh'', she asked. And we nodded
in the affirmative. There is no doubt about it: thousands of students had been
``her'' students, and now there would be a child with her name.

When our Rivka Nechama became of age for her Bat Mitzvah, Nechama felt that
she was too sick and frail to greet her namesake before the occaision. That
was not how Nechama wanted our oldest daughter to remember her.

Nechama's comment to my daughter was very Nechama-like, when she said that
while she was sorry that she could not come in person, the blessing that she
would give her at her Bat Mitzvah was to review her guide to the weekly
portion of the Torah, a guide that became the lasting and continuing legacy of
Professor Nechama Leibowitz, for my daughter and for every Jew.

After all,  Nechama means ``comfort'' to the Jewish people.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Yaakov Menken <menken@torah.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 1997 22:11:54 -0400
Subject: Of Conversions

Initially, this wasn't intended as a post to liberal-Judaism - just a
commentary I shared with Dan and several other parties. I'm not ready to take
a few isolated cases and develop a stereotyped image of an entire community (I
can't resist noting that an organizational press release printed here last
week didn't do likewise. But that's another topic). But everyone who responded
thought I might be on to something, so here goes.

I had an interesting conversation recently with a woman who works in the
larger business which rents space to Project Genesis. She's Jewish, and a
member of a Conservative congregation here in Baltimore. And she is upset.

It seems that her congregation decided that it was time for their elderly
Cantor to retire, and they selected a new one. Given that they had
applications from across the country, they had any number of great
possibilities. And whom did they choose? A Catholic! Can you believe it?

I should clarify. I have heard of one case where a congregation hired a
non-Jewish cantor. This isn't that case. This particular individual had a
Conservative conversion 11 years ago, and both he and his wife are qualified
Cantors according to the movement. And nonetheless, the office worker in
question feels that he isn't a good religious leader, or model, for her.

This prompted me to recall a woman who wrote to the liberal-Judaism mailing
list several months ago, complaining about the treatment which she was
receiving at her local Reform synagogue. To describe her problem most simply,
she's black. And because of her skin color, it was assumed that she was a
convert rather than a "real Jew" (regardless of the status of converts, she is
Jewish by birth). And this was a palpable part of her surrounding environment,
regardless of what people said or didn't say.

Perhaps the woman at my office is unique. Perhaps the board did not look at
their prospective cantor's background, but only upon his skills and
sincerity. But if so, why did the congregation trumpet this detail of his life
in its newsletter?

Concerning the woman who wrote to liberal-Judaism, there are no questions at
all. She received no constructive help from the liberal community.  Rather,
after she mentioned that she had heard that she would be more welcome in
Orthodox communities, several Orthodox subscribers encouraged her to visit
one. She did so, and recorded at length her feeling of immediate welcome - for
her color and background were considered interesting details of the life of a
sister Jew. This was not her experience in the Reform and Reconstructionist
Temples which she had attended earlier.

These stories bother me. They bother me because I know any number of sincere
liberal converts. People who have offended their families by trying to join
the Jewish people. And while I understand why those who observe Halacha would
not accept a non-Halachic conversion, I do not understand why followers of the
liberal movements themselves look upon them with distaste.

Could it be that the reduced standard of conversion, and the lack of required
commitment, are understood viscerally by other congregants? Does this inspire
them to look at these converts as "fair-weather Jews," even when a particular
convert did indeed go through great trials before appearing before the rabbis?
And is this creating an unhealthy resentment on both sides?

My respondents weren't certain. Others presented an alternative theory - and
this was shared by both Orthodox and Reform writers: that there is now so much
confusion within the liberal community about _what_ defines a Jew, that there
is now considerable suspicion of anyone not born Jewish.

One thing is certain - the Orthodox attitude is quite different. Converts
undergo such a complete change in lifestyle that we see they are "for real."
And at that point, the Orthodox stop treating them like "special people" -
whether positive or negative - and just treat them like _Jews_.  Has lowering
the required leap backfired? Are converts only acceptable when they look
"normal" and don't take positions of prominence?

I cannot but think of this as I look at the conversion bill now under
discussion in Israel - and the firestorm of protest it has created in the
United States. American Conservative and Reform Jews are demanding - loudly -
that the Israeli public recognize their converts as Jews.

Before criticizing the Israelis, would it not be worthwhile to ensure that the
same isn't happening here at home? The current bill in Israel would not affect
the overwhelming majority of Reform converts, who convert in the United
States. Actually, even if the bill did address American conversions, it
wouldn't make much difference - how many converts are making aliyah?

But attitudes towards converts right here in American liberal congregations
certainly _do_ affect those converts, and jumping up loudly to protest their
treatment in Israel - while ignoring the problem right here - sounds somewhere
between patronization and hypocrisy. Dealing with the local problem will not
earn so much in terms of public relations. It will not present various liberal
leaders as the new great warriors for Jerusalem.  But it will do a great deal
more for the health of congregations, right here in America.

Maybe raising the standards again wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Yaakov Menken

Return to Table of Contents

From: Bob Comarow <bcomarow@bb.iu.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 04:12:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Orthodoxy is not "Traditional" Judiasm

I think the holier than thou attitude of Orthodoxy is rather funny.  Orthodoxy
is not at all similar to traditional Judiasm.

Real traditional Judiasm was based on the Temple, with a special class of
people, Priests, making animal sacrifices. A far cry from the Rabbinic Judiasm
that evolved after the destruction of the temple.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Herman Rubin <hrubin@stat.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 07:59:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Passover and Chamatz

Andi Kaufman <tl2b@andrew.cmu.edu> asks:

>I have a question regarding Pesach and Chamatz. I understand why flour isnt
>used, Cause there could be a leavening agent in it. What did the Hebrews use
>to make MAtzah. I htought it was flour that only was able to sit for 18
>minutes. So why dont we use flour and just not use products that take more
>then 18 minutes to rise?
>
>Also I have been told that I am not suppose to eat Potatoes or Pasta. Pasta
>is made with samolia not flour. I dont know what samolia is? Any ideas. ANd
>why can't we eat potatoes. I am loking for Biblical and Rabinic info. I would
>like to know where the info comes from.

Let me answer this as well as I can.  The Bible provides no information
whatever on what constitutes leaven.  The Talmud, in Tractate P'sakhim,
discusses it at length.  The Shulkhan Arukh adds a little more.  The
Ashkenazim added a prohibition on kitnioth, which is NOT leaven; matzoth can
only be made of leavenable flour cooked so as to exclude, as far as is
practical, "leaven".  I will include a few of my own comments on the accuracy
of their reasoning, based upon the increased knowledge we have.

The Talmudic sages made what is, in my opinion, an honest attempt to use their
material knowledge to clarify the issue.  They were quite aware that whatever
it was that made bread rise was the same agent which caused grape juice to
become wine, honey to become mead, and grain to ferment to beer.

The Talmudic version of the prohibition is that it is only leavenable grain
combined with water which can become leavened.  They list as leavenable wheat,
rye, spelt, oats, and barley.  Millet and rice are listed as unleavenable.  I
may have barley and millet interchanged.  What makes grains leavenable is the
presence of gluten, a protein which produces, when kneaded with water, the
"glue" holding the flour together and trapping the gas produced by the yeast.

They quite specifically state that legumes may spoil when exposed to leaven,
but are unleavenable.  There was dispute about how long kneading could occur;
the 18 minutes is later, and is found in the Shulkhan Arukh: I happen to agree
with this.  The present crisp thin matzoth seem to be later.

Grain cooked without being exposed to water is not leavened, and is
specifically mentioned as something to give to children so that they can last
through the Seder.  Whole grains can be cooked in water; they argue that if
the grains come in contact, leavening occurs; I dispute this on scientific
grounds.  They also claim that leavening does not occur if no water is used,
but other liquids; I also dispute this on scientific grounds.

The Ashkenazim at some point added the prohibition against kitnioth, which
includes unleavenable grains and legumes.  Some root vegetables are also
prohibited by them.  However, I have seen kosher lepesakh potato starch, and
potato syrup used for sweetening.

There are cakes mentioned in the Tractate, one of which is sponge cake.  These
cakes must have been made with flour; ground matzoth are not mentioned in the
Tractate, but were used in the time of Maimonides.  Baking powder is, I
believe, 19th century.  From the Passover products on the display shelves, it
seems that they are allowed unless they contain flour or cornstarch, or
prohibited materials are used in the processing, at least according to
Ashkenazi mesorah.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Mark Hurvitz <rmark@nisus-soft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 97 07:54:47 -0600
Subject: Passover and Chamatz

Andi asks some questions about Matzah and Chametz,

>I have a question regarding Pesach and Chamatz. I understand why flour isnt
>used, Cause there could be a leavening agent in it. What did the Hebrews use
>to make MAtzah. I htought it was flour that only was able to sit for 18
>minutes. So why dont we use flour and just not use products that take more
>then 18 minutes to rise?

I have a story explanation that appears in my Haggadah on line. More
explanation appears in the hard copy of the Haggadah.

The URL of the Matzah explanation:
 <http://www.computergeeks.com/msh/what/haggadah/matzah22.html>

Have a Liberating Pesach!

Visit A Growing Haggadah:
http://www.computergeeks.com/msh/what/haggadah/5757.html 
 \\'rite on!                     R. ,\\ark Hurvitz 

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: v6n180		Next Issue: v6n182
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form