Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• joseph@spss.com (Joseph Kaszynski)

• Rabbi Jim Egolf <RavJim@aol.com>

• Ruth Heiges <heiges@post.tau.ac.il>
• Joshua L Segal <jls@mbunix.mitre.org>
• Ruth Heiges <heiges@post.tau.ac.il>
• Art Kamlet <kamlet@infinet.com>

• David Isaacs <disaacs@worldnet.att.net>

• Bruce Lewis <bruceml@tiac.net>

• Chaim Frazer <frazerch@carroll.com>
• sbrubin@mail.airmail.net (Sherwin Rubin)

From: joseph@spss.com (Joseph Kaszynski)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:25:12 -0700
Subject: Building a Succah?

Can anyone out there email some *easy* directions to me on how to make a
succah? Or perhaps point me to a web page with instructions? My wife and I
have just moved and our new building has a roof top deck, which is the perfect
place to build a succah, if I only knew how. (It is probably worth mentioning
that we live in Chicago, about a block from Lake Michigan, so it will probably
be *quite* windy.)

Right now I'm thinking of building it out of PVC piping, so it will be
reusable in subsequent years. Thanks in advance for the assistance!

[Moderators Note: Our info_files directory contains directions for building a
sukkah. You can retrieve the file by sending the command
	send infofiles sukka.plans.stevenw
to faigin@shamash.org.]

Joe Kaszynski
joseph@spss.com

Return to Table of Contents

From: Rabbi Jim Egolf <RavJim@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:40:10 -0400
Subject: Netting Aveinu Malcheinu

Sherwin Rubin writes:

"The Reform movement today is a safety net for the many Jews who fail to
accept the higher ritual standard of their more orthodox upbringing."

The problem with this statement is that not all Reform Jews are coming from a
"higher ritual standard."  Many second, third and fourth generation Reform
Jews are coming from times when less ritual was the course of practice.  The
"safety net" which Sherwin refers to, is, as he describes it, for those coming
from more traditional backgrounds who (very often) are intermarried.  I have
had more than ten families where one spouse was raised in a conservative or
orthodox background and they have intermarried and left Judaism altogether.
Reform Judaism is their opening back to the Jewish world.  However, while
there are efforts in the Reform movement to keep intermarried families in
Judaism, we have to step back from this argument, from the argument over
ritual practice and ask ourselves the question, "How can Reform practice vary
greatly and still be considered Reform?"

The problem in my question is that ritual practice is not the issue in Reform
Judaism.  Congregations and Rabbis make ritual practice such that the average
Jew can't really tell the difference.  Last year we had a new congregant who
took me aside before services one evening and said, "Rabbi, I can't tell if
this is a Reform or Conservative congregation."  Our congregation has high
holiday services that are much more traditional than larger Reform
congregations in Houston.  The answer is, in part, that ritual standards point
the focus in the wrong direction.  We are looking at the bottom line, and not
at the process in how a congregation got there.

Pardon me, but I see a connection between this question and the question that
Mike Pelletier made in v.44.  There he asked:

"The Aveinu Malcheinu this year brought to mind a question that's been
perplexing me since Rosh Hashannah -- what is a "sin against G-d" in the
context of Reform Judaism's outlook on ritual observances and halacha?"

I have taught two classes recently.  One was a High Holidays preparation class
and the other was a weekly Responsa class that I teach.  In both I was
suprised by the answers I got when I posed the question, "Why do we do a
certain holiday?"  I asked them, "Why do we do Yom Kippur?"  In the Responsa
class I asked, "Why do we do Sukkot?"  In both classes I got the same
response, blank faces.  I then realized that they did not know that we are
doing these and most other holidays because we believe that God told us to do
them, for they are written in Torah.

Thus to answer Mike's question, I would have to say that THE sin against God
is action or inaction due to ignorance.  "V'TALMUD TORAH K'NEGED KULAM" and
the study of Torah is equal to all the mitzvot, this is the "sin" against God
that many commit.  Not that this doesn't happen in other movements, but in a
movement that is built on the notion of informed choice leading to individual
decision, we must be making those decisions from a base of knowledge.
 Without that base of knowledge, many go looking for the "bottom" line of
ritual and then judge themselves in accordance with what they do or do not
do.  We must to innitiate ALL JEWS in a building of their knowledge, not just
of the bottom line, i.e. what we do, but also, "why we do?," "how do we
argue?" and "why we don't have to all do the same to be Jews."  Even if we
don't do the same we can recognize, appreciate, and even celebrate our
differences.  My opinion is that THE bottom line in Reform Judaism is making
individual choices from knowledge.  We must appreciate and respect how we get
to our decisions more than the appearance at the bottom line of ritual
practice.

It is my belief that when Reform Jews, and all Jews are informed by our rich
Jewish tradition concerning the choices that it offers and the possibilities
for observance it extends we will solve many problems.  We will not only know,
but be in a better position to respect one another.  We will be able to judge
on process and not only on practice.  Making ritual the litmus test will
always create division, and not just between movements, but within them as
well.

L'shannah Tovah,

Rabbi Jim Egolf

Return to Table of Contents

From: Ruth Heiges <heiges@post.tau.ac.il>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:00:32 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Sounding Shofar on Shabbat

Ruth Heiges <heiges@post.tau.ac.il> writes:

> My synagogue, Beit Daniel in Tel Aviv, did have it. It caused an uproar in
> the congregation which resulted in what was possibly the most meaningful
> Rosh Hashana services I'd ever attended.

Robert A. Book wrote:

> Please clarify this: The *uproar* resulted in the most meaningful service?
> Or the fact that the Shofar was blown on Shabbat that resulted in the most
> meaningful service?

Rabbi Bob Kraus wrote:
> Just a quick note about shofar blowing on Shabbat. Yes, our (Reform)
> congregation had a beautiful shofar service this past Rosh Hashanah. I think
> many (or most) people on this list know that the prohibition against blowing
> the shofar on Shabbat is not because the actual blowing is work, but rather
> because of the carrying of the shofar to the shul. Even if the' shofar is
> carried prior to Shabbat and left there, it is my understanding that it is
> still prohibited.

It was the uproar which resulted in the meaningfulness of the service. One of
the congregants yelled out during the shofar blowing that it was forbidden on
shabbat. This resulted in consequent explanations from the rabbi, reiterating
what some had studied a few weeks before, and comments from one of the shofar
blowers. My explanation can only be sketchy, since I do not myself know the
sources. I still hope someone on the list explain this further.

The sound of the shofar is not music. It is a signal, like a call to arms.  On
Rosh Hashana, it is a call to the community for soul-searching ("cheshbon
nefesh") and repentance. The prohibition of sounding it on shabbat is not work
("melacha"); the problem is in the carrying ("tiltul"). The *proponent* of
sounding the shofar on shabbat was no less than Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai, but
his advocacy in favor was ultimately lost, as others chose a stricter
view. (In some synagogues, where there was still concern over the "tiltul,"
they would *tie* the shofar to a pillar, then blow it!)

In Beit Daniel, a discussion was held by the executive board and the ritual
committee, and a vote was taken that we should have the shofar services on
shabbat. According to Rabbi Meir Azari, all of the Progressive/Reform
congregations and about half of the Masorti/Conservative ones in Israel made
this decision this year. He stated that the Orthodox factions which had
fomented the great tragedy of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination would have done
well to undertake this call for "cheshbon nefesh" by the community.

Before the last shofar service, one of the shofar blowers, a young man in his
20's, preceded the shofar blowing with an explanation that he had voted
against doing so but believed that he must accede to the will of the
majority. He also offered a wonderful Mishnaic story centered on an argument
among the sages.

AND, before the end of the service, the person who had protested against the
shofar blowing went up to the bima and, after speaking with the rabbi, turned
to the congregation and asked forgiveness from all for having caused the
disruption!

This is why I found the service so meaningful, and I told the rabbi afterwards
that it couldn't have been better if it has been staged (which it wasn't).

I do not know when one of the High Holy Days will next fall on shabbat, but I
am still interested in discussion of this question. Why should we not do it;
not only Liberal streams, but Orthodox, too? The problem of "tiltul" is easily
obviated.

Ruth Heiges

Return to Table of Contents

From: Joshua L Segal <jls@mbunix.mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:14:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Sounding Shofar on Shabbat

As with most traditions in Judaism, no single answer applies.  The following
is a brief summary of answers given for sounding or not sounding the shofar on
Rosh Hashannah, when it occurs on Shabbat.  It is not intended as an
exhaustive list:

NOT TO sound the shofar:

1.  Someone may accidentally carry the shofar on Shabbat (beyond the eruv if
    one exists), thereby breaking the rule against carrying.  (The same
    problem exists with lulav/etrog on Shabbat Sukkot.  The Mishnah has an
    extensive discussion on this subject, but not on the shofar.)
2.  For any musical instrument: The service might become dependant on it and
    if it broke, someone might be tempted to try to fix it, thereby violating
    the prohibition against work.  (A guitar-playing colleague keeps a spare
    guitar available on Shabbat, just in case the first one develops a broken
    string or something.)
3.  For any musical instrument: Music was played in THE "TEMPLE" on Shabbat
    and since its destruction, music is no longer proper.

TO sound the shofar:

1.  For Reform Congregations: With only one day of holiday, it is the only
    opportunity to provide the membership with this inspirational experience.
2.  For non-Orthodox Congregations: The value of the teaching experience
    exceeds the traditions of not doing it. [One could argue that explaining
    why the shofar is not heard, could be an argument NOT TO sound the shofar.
    While this may be true for adults, it is too abstract for most children to
    grasp].

Le-sha-nah to-vah, Joshua L. Segal

Return to Table of Contents

From: Ruth Heiges <heiges@post.tau.ac.il>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 21:07:03 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Sounding Shofar on Shabbat

Louis Gross wrote:
> (I also suspect that any shule (outside of Israel) that observes only one
> day of Rosh Hashannah also has no problem blowing the shofar on Shabbat.)

FYI, the Progressive/Reform Movement in Israel observes two days of Rosh
Hashana, for they are "yamim nora'im" -- plural. So, our shofar blowing had
nothing to do with "not having a second chance."

Ruth Heiges

Return to Table of Contents

From: Art Kamlet <kamlet@infinet.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 22:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Sounding Shofar on Shabbat

Several questions have been asked about whether the shofar is sounded on
Shabbat.

Rabbi Simcha Roth has been teaching an internet mishna study group in memory
of Yitzchak Rabin, and the following is Rabbi Roth's discussion of this
question.

Rabbi Roth is a conservative Israeli rabbi.

Art Kamlet   Columbus, Ohio    kamlet@infinet.com  

Begin Quote:

TRACTATE ROSH HASHANAH, CHAPTER FOUR, MISHNAH ONE

When the festival of Rosh HaShanah fell on Shabbat, they used to sound [the
shofar] in the Bet Mikdash.  After the Bet Mikdash was destroyed Rabban
Yochanan ben-Zakkai instituted that it should be sounded in any place where
there was a Bet Din.  Rabbi Elazar says that Rabban Yochanan ben-Zakkai
instituted that it should be sounded in Yavneh only; they told him that there
is no difference between Yavneh and any other place where there is a Bet Din.

EXPLANATIONS:

1.  There is no intrinsic reason for prohibiting the sounding of the shofar on
    Shabbat [music was played in the Bet Mikdash on Shabbat, and the sounding
    of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a mitzvah of the Torah].  The
    prohibition was introduced as a 'gezerah', which is a rabbinic 'decree'
    prohibiting a certain act, not because it is wrong in itself, but because
    it most probably would lead to doing wrong.  In the case of the shofar the
    'gezerah' was enforced lest the shofar be carried from a private home to
    the synagogue through the public thoroughfare - and act which is one of
    the 39 'melakhot' prohibited on Shabbat and whose prohibition is deemed to
    be of Torah origin.

2.  After the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE, Rabban Yochanan ben-Zakkai
    established a kind of Sanhedrin at Yavneh, a small township where the
    Judean foothills meet the coastal plain north of Ashdod.  The story (which
    probably has collected many semi-legendary accretions on its way down to
    us) is well known how the Zealots who were in control of the besieged city
    refused to allow anyone out, dead or alive, and the bodies rotting in the
    streets were as great a menace as the starvation caused by the Roman
    blockade.  The great sage, who was the uncrowned head of the 'peace
    party', assisted by his pupils Yehoshu'a and Eliezer, escaped from
    Jerusalem by feigning death; they threatened a riot if the Zealot guards
    did not permit them to take out the body of the master for decent burial.
    Upon making good his escape he confronted Vespasian and demanded: "Give me
    Yavneh and her sages" - to establish there a replacement for the doomed
    Jerusalem.  [Modern historians think that Yavneh was a kind of internment
    camp to which the Romans directed the 'left-wingers' who defected from
    Jerusalem.]

3.  Rabban Yochanan's aim was to establish in Yavneh a Bet Din that could
    serve in place of the Great Sanhedrin that had heretofore been the
    judicial body guaranteeing halakhic unity within the Jewish people.  Soon
    after the establishment of the "Vineyard in Yavneh" Rosh HaShanah fell on
    a Shabbat, and this was seen by proponents and hesitant alike as a test
    case.  Rabban Yochanan refused to permit before Rosh HaShanah any
    discussion as to whether or not the Shofar would be sounded on Shabbat in
    Yavneh.  On the day of the Festival (which was also Shabbat) he instructed
    that the Shofar was to be sounded just as it had been in the now defunct
    Bet Mikdash.  When, after the festival, the other side asked to discuss
    the matter, he said that he saw no point in such a discussion since "the
    shofar has already been sounded in Yavneh"!

4.  The term "Bet Din" used in the mishnah does not refer to 'any old' Bet
    Din, but to a Sanhedrin - a court presided over by a duly constituted
    'nasi' [president], and all of whose members are rabbis who were ordained
    in Eretz-Israel by the 'laying on of hands' by their teacher and/or the
    President.  No such Bet Din has existed in Jewry since the year 415 CE,
    when the Byzantine government in Eretz-Israel abolished the
    [semi-hereditary] office of 'nasi' when the last one died without issue.
    This is why nowadays the shofar is not sounded anywhere on Shabbat.  (An
    attempt was made in the 16th Century to reconstitute the Sanhedrin in
    Eretz-Israel, but the matter came to nothing because the rabbis could not
    agree as to who should the 'nasi', the "Jerusalem" candidate or the
    "Safed" candidate.  Sounds familiar?)

End Quote.

Art Kamlet   Columbus, Ohio    kamlet@infinet.com  

Return to Table of Contents

From: David Isaacs <disaacs@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:12:26 -0400
Subject: Re: The Redwood Rabbis & Tikkun Olam

In v6n44, Rabbi Arthur Waskow shares with us the attempt by several California
Rabbis to influence Charles Hurwitz, by placing an open letter to him in a
Jewish publication.  Arthur asked for our `thoughts and feelings' about using
this type of approach to influence the behavior of a fellow Jew.  After my
first reading of the letter, I was appalled.  Then I decided to calm down,
wait a bit and read it again.  I was still appalled.

First I must confess that I do not have much knowledge of whether what
Mr. Hurwitz is doing if a really terrible thing or not.  Over the years I have
seen environmental causes with which I have agreed.  I have seen others that I
felt where mere shields for anti-Americanism and anti-Capitalism.  But that is
not the point here.  There are many areas where traditional Jewish law
requires a much higher level of behavior then American civil law.  For
example, if one provides collateral on a loan and defaults on payment, both
American and Jewish law provide for the collateral to go to the lender.
However, should at a later point the borrower find the funds to pay off the
loan, Jewish law requires that to loaner return the collateral to the borrower
(if it is still in their possesion).

The Talmud in Baba Metzia refers to this as the principle of Asita Yasher
V'Hatov, `One would do the just and right thing'.  Of course American laws has
no such concept.  Yet as a community, we do not seek to change the behavior of
our brethren who violate our own personal sense of what Judaism requires
through public humiliation (SCJ excepted).  I have never seen a public ad
asking Jewish bankers to do Tshuvah (repentance) for not returning a family
home 2 months after it's been foreclosed on.

In 1656, a group of Rabbis tried to change to behavior of a fellow Jew by
means of public humiliation.  His name was Baruch Spinoza.  Of course I am not
trying to equate Hurwitz to Spinoza.  All I am saying is that I believe most
members of this list would disagree with the methods of some Rabbis in 1656.
They should disagree with a similar method being used by some Rabbi's in the
1990's.  Or, let me put it another way.  Many Conservative Rabbis certify
restaurants as Kosher even though they are open on Shabbat.  Many Orthodox
Rabbis feel that such certification is wrong.  How would we feel if those
Orthodox Rabbi's took an ad in a Jewish newspaper naming the Conservative
Rabbis and asked them to soften their hearts and do Tshuvah?

Property rights vs. the environment is not the issue here.  A group of Rabbis
have attempted to embarass a fellow Jew because they feel his actions are not
consistant with _their_ view of what Judaism demands.  I do not know of any
denominations of Judaism that supports public humiliation.  The `Prayer' for
God to soften Mr. Hurwitz's heart, is a not so subtle way to compare
Mr. Hurwtiz to Pharaoh, one of the greatest villains of Jewish history.  The
appeal for him to make a Teshuvah Shelaymah a complete repentance, publicly
brands Mr. Hurwitz a sinner.  Is that branding in itself what some might call
sinful?

David Isaacs
Somerset NJ

Return to Table of Contents

From: Bruce Lewis <bruceml@tiac.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 09:25:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Vandalism at our temple

>Though home to a Reform congregation that was, I believe, the 3rd oldest on
>the continent, the city's natives obviously did not like people from other
>places, especially if they were from New York (upstate-downstate didn't
>matter) and especially if they were Jewish. Soon after I arrived, Jewish
>students at a high school graduation were pelted with pennies as they went up
>to receive diplomas and lockers were defaced.
>
>The Jewish community's reaction was basically "That's Lancaster."

We had a similar incident in here last year where students from another 
town threw pennies and yelled anti-semitic and anti-black epithets at our 
high school basketball team. The result: we had a major conference 
between the two towns,the ADL was involved, and the these incidents were 
published in the newspapers.  This type of behavior cannot be tolerated 
on any level.

Bruce Lewis
Sharon,MA

Return to Table of Contents

From: Chaim Frazer <frazerch@carroll.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 22:35:47 -0400 (edt)
Subject: What DOES Reform Judaism "require"??

In Volume 6:Number 42, Rabbi Robert Kraus wrote :

>Just a word about Reform Judaism *permitting* but not *requiring...  My view
>of Reform Judaism is that it has picked up an ancient theme in Judaism "Eyloo
>v' eyloo b'shem Elohim Chayim" - "This (difference of opinion) and that
>(difference of opinion) are both the words of the Living God."...

> Those who would like to strip Reform Judaism of its commitment to diversity
> and respect for theindividual are, themselves (IMHO) undermining one of the
> basic survival mechanisims of our people.  Judaism needs the innovations of
> Reform Jews as it needs the stability and fervor of our more *traditional*
> brothers and sisters. As a family, we would be the poorer without either.

I fear that, perhaps inadvertantly, Rabbi Kraus misstated the intent of the
Talmudic dictum that he quoted.  The full quotation is as follows: "These [the
opinions of the School of Hillel] and these [the opinions of the School of
Shammai] are the words of the Living G-d, but the Law follows the School of
Hillel".

There are two sets of limiting factors.  First, although this is a clarion
statement of the internal intellectual freedom that has always been
characteristic of the Halakhic Jewish Community, certain then extant groups
were excluded from having their opinions given any validity: those who denied
G-d as Creator and Sustainer of the World (including many Hellenistic Jews,
who followed Aristotle in agreeing that there was a Prime Mover, but held that
matter preceded Him, and that after the initial creation, He was no longer
involved in sustaining the world), Sadducees (who denied the binding authority
and Divine ground of the Oral Law), and the Boethians (who denied the Oral
Law, Divine Reward and Punishment, and Resurrection of the Dead).  These same
criteria are applied by contemporary Orthodoxy.

Reform, on the other hand, has a very different approach to the Tradition.
Part of the question posed to Reform List Members is "Whom would you exclude
on ideological grounds from the compass of 'These and these'"?  Unequivocally,
I would imagine, Messianic Jews.  Perhaps one might wish to cite the UAHC's
refusal to admit synagogues unwilling to make a committment to believing in
G-d, as was true regarding Humanistic Jewish synagogues.  In any event, as an
Orthodox Jew, I can only speculate, and would be genuinely interested in
knowing how Rabbi Kraus, his colleagues, and other Reform List Members would
draw their boundaries.

The second limiting factor, of course, relates to the second half of the
sentence "but the Law follows the School of Hillel".  Law as binding authority
was and is the very basis of the Traditional Halakhic Community, and therefore
must be definitively settled, with those in opposition to the settled Law
yielding in practice even while retaining the right to different theoretical
perspectives.  Again, this is by and large characteristic of contemporary
Orthodoxy.

Here the question to Reform might be something like this: "Granted that you
have departed from Traditional Halakhic reliance on Law as binding authority,
on what basis and through what means do you establish for yourselves communal
standards that should obligate your Members"?

Again, I am genuinely interested in hearing how Rabbi Kraus, his colleagues,
and other Reform List Members would address this issue.

                                        Chaim Frazer

Return to Table of Contents

From: sbrubin@mail.airmail.net (Sherwin Rubin)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 20:35:59 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: What DOES Reform Judaism "require"??

I have other thoughts besides the "safety net" philosophy.  This idea was
intended only to get a foot in the door with our Orthodox co-religionists.  It
is a valid point, but hardly a major one.

The real value of all liberal Jewish movements is that they encourage
intelligent modern thought regarding the purpose of Jewish laws, engender a
higher spirituality, and bring us closer to G-d.

In fact, liberal Judaism is as likely to retain its members as the more
traditional branches because it provides a way for post modern Jews to enjoy
the rich flavors of their heritage in a manner that provides joy, piety and a
clear inspiration to act morally in accordance with the teachings of our
ancestors.

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: v6n44		Next Issue: v6n46
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form