Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• Union of Councils <webmaster@ucsj.com>

• Daphne Schor <DSCHOR@aba.com>

• Jerry Blaz <ffdog@earthlink.net>

• Leonard Fein <lfein@worldnet.att.net>

• Alan Davidson <DAVIDSON@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>

• Rabbi Binyomin Adilman <nishmas@netvision.net.il>

• Ronald H. Stern <71461.2122@CompuServe.COM>

From: Union of Councils <webmaster@ucsj.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:45:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Action Alert: Jewish Cemetaries in Tblisi, Georgian Republic

Jewish leaders, including Chief Rabbi of Georgia Ariel Levine, have reported
that there have been several cases of destruction at Jewish cemeteries in
Tbilisi, Georgia in the past three years.  Although promises have been made
regarding the investigation, reconstruction and future safeguarding of the
cemeteries, there has been no action by the authorities.  Below you will find
a request for action and background information on the incidents.

ACTION REQUESTED

Rabbi Ariel Levine and Igor Klebanski, Assistant Director of the
Caucasus-American Bureau on Human Rights urgently request that letters asking
for a thorough investigation of the incidents as well as the placement of a
guard at the cemeteries be sent to the President of the Georgian Republic,
Edward Shevardnadze.  Please also send letters to your members of Congress
encouraging them to write letters of support.  In addition, they urge that
copies of letters be sent to the UCSJ to be forwarded to them in Tbilisi.
Without such confirmation, the President could deny having received any
protests.  A copy of UCSJ*s letter is attached as a sample.

Please send letters to:			Please send a copy to:
(postage 60 cents)			Union of Councils
The Honorable E. Shevardnadze		1819 H St., NW, Suite 230
President of Georgia			Washington, DC  20006
7 Ingorokva Street			(202) 775-9770; (202) 775-9776 fax 
Tbilisi, Georgia  380007		email: ucsj@ucsj.com
99532-989380 fax					
BACKGROUND

In November 1994, in one of the three Jewish cemeteries in Tbilisi, 30
tombstones were destroyed.  These instances of vandalism culminated in 99 acts
of cemetery desecration over the period from 1988 to 1994.  After numerous
requests for government response, President Shevardnadze published a response
in February 1996.  In his reply, the President promised that an investigation
would be conducted, the tombstones would be repositioned and care for
monuments to Jewish culture would be implemented.  At this time, not one point
of the decree has been fulfilled and the condition of the cemetery has not
changed.

These incidents occurred in a context of a general criminalized situation in
Georgia including other crimes against the Jewish community such as the 1995
theft of 9 Sefer Torahs in the city of Akhaltsikhe.  Local authorities tried
to arrest the criminals, but until now the situation has not been resolved.
Prior to this incident, Sefer Torahs were stolen from synagogues in Gori and
Kutaisi.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Daphne Schor <DSCHOR@aba.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 06:08:43 -0700
Subject: How did Jews in the past express their Judaism?

Sorry that I didn't respond earlier to Beth's post about "pre-Rabbinic
Judaism" or how practices evolved.

I,too, often wonder how and when practices came into being. For example, I've
been trying to sort out the evolution of kashrut. One article I read mentioned
that poultry was not originally included. (One can hardly stew a chick in its
mother's milk! ) Its inclusion was referred to as "recent."  What's recent to
Jews?  1200 years ago?

I haven't found any more on when such parts of the tradition were added, but
I'd like to read the discussion that took place at the time.

Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

Return to Table of Contents

From: Jerry Blaz <ffdog@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 16:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Israel: Is is a country or a state?

The Sontags raise the question of the use of the word "state" rather than,
say, country as an appellation for the Jewish nation of Israel.

One of the problems is linguistic.  In English, there is a second meaning with
the connotation of the rural areas being out in "the country," and being "out
in the countryside" in some places is equal to being "out in the bush."

There is a term for a Land of Israel with a long history, and it was with this
term that Jews have referred to their homeland through the millenia.  It was
of indeterminate size and borders, but whatever other peoples may have called
it, it was Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel to the Jews.  Hebrew does not
differentiate between land and country.  There is no specific word I can think
of meaning country and not land in Hebrew.

Now this meaning is close to that of country.  If someone asks you, "What
country or land do you come from we general answer, "United States" or
"Israel" or "Canada" or wherever.  However, the official name of Israel is
"Medinat Yisrael," or "State of Israel."

In the modern Zionist movement, it is a name that carries an implication of
the fulfillment of the Zionist goal of a "Judenstaat," or Jewish State, which
is the name of the book that Theodore Herzl, considered to be the father of
the modern Zionist movement, and of the idea of political Zionism, that is
implied in the phrase, "Medinat Yisrael," the envisioned "Medinat Yehudim",
Jewish State, of the movement he founded.  It has that clear political
implication that this is the referent of the Jewish nation.

Jerry Blaz

Return to Table of Contents

From: Leonard Fein <lfein@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 10:41:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel: Is it a country or a state?

On July 9, the Sontag family asks why Israel is referred to as a "state"
rather than as a "country."

The word "country" has no legal meaning.  The UN, for example, is not the
UC. Moreover, in Hebrew, the closest you can come to the Country of Israel is
"Eretz Yisrael," which we normally understand as the Land of Israel, and which
refers to Israel within its historic boundaries, boundaries that have no legal
status.

Why not"nation," the more conventional term? But to have called Israel the
"nation of Israel" would have raised the problem of confusion with the "People
of Israel."  In Hebrew, it is not at all clear how one would make the
distinction.  ("Am Yisrael" can be translated either way.)  On Israeli ID
cards, "nationality" (l'um) means ethnicity.  So: If you want a term that
implies legal status, which the founders very urgently wanted, and "nation"
has a problematic aspect, go for "state."  

Return to Table of Contents

From: Alan Davidson <DAVIDSON@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 11:32:57 EDT
Subject: Latest trends in Anti-Semitism

      It might also be worth noting that for the vast majority of products
which are supervised as Kosher, there is no additional price passed on to the
consumer for this supervision.  The exceptions are for specialized foods
(Cholov Isroel Milk, this or that Orthodox group supervised meat, etc) that
most non-Jews would have little interest in purchasing anyway.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Rabbi Binyomin Adilman <nishmas@netvision.net.il>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 15:48:22 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Rabbi Bakshi-Doron's Statement on Killing of Reform Jews

I would like to offer some perspective and clarification concerning the
remarks of Chief Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi- Doron.  I hope that they will be
received in a spirit of acceptance and good-will.  Please excuse the lenghth
of the posting.  I was just not able to abridge it.

Rabbi Bakshi-Doron is a person possessed of great humility and refinement of
character.  Even without seeing a transcript of his remarks (which I haven't),
it would be unthinkable to me that he would express such an opinion - even if
he did hold it.  I will soon show that he doesn't.  Being that Rabbi
Bakshi-Doron is a well rounded Torah scholar of mention with a thorough grasp
of all source material in Jewish law, it would be difficult to believe that he
would issue or even IMPLY a ruling that is not consonant with Jewish law.  It
is imperative therefore to review the source material around the story of
Pinchas and Zimri.

The inside story on Pinchas can be found in the Mishna, Tractate Sanhedrin ,
chapter 9:6, in the Talmud , Tractate Sanhedrin, page 82a, b and various other
places.  (I would be happy to provide detailed source material for anybody who
wishes it.)  Much of this information is also brought down in Rashi's
commmentary on the Torah at the end of Parshas Balak.

The story goes as follows.  Bilaam, unable to curse the the Jewish people on
his own ,gives the Moabite and Midian kings a piece of advice.  There is
really only one way to overcome Israel. As long as they remain faithful to
their God, he fights for them. But the minute that they turn aside from G-d
they become helpless.  The Jewish G-d specifically abhors immorality.  Tempt
them into sexual transgression.  They were used to the finest of cotton in
Eygpt, but they haven't seen it for 30 some years in the desert.  Set up tents
to sell beautiful cotton garments along their route and staff them with
seductive harlots who will entice them. The Moabite kings take the advice and
it succeeds. The Midianite kings set out not after the common folk, but after
the leaders of the tribes and even come up with plans to seduce Moses and
Aaron.  Tzur, a king of Midian sends out his daughter Kozbi the princess and
she succeeds in alluring Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Shimon.  They
didn't just lure them into sexual transgression, but also they succeed in
wooing thousands into the most debasing of all idol worship Ba'al Pe'or, by
making it part of the foreplay.  One worshipped the idol by eating and
drinking wine and then, after taking an herbal laxative remedy, defacated on
the idol.  (For a detailed description of all the above see Midrash Tanchuma
and Midrash Yalkut Shimoni).

When G-D sees how many have followed after the Ba'al Pe'or, he begins a
pestilence, but soon after MITIGATES the punishment against the people to a
mass hanging that would execute ONLY 176,000 offenders.  (This means that the
plague would have killed many more.)  But before the judges of the tribes can
begin the cases and executions, the tribesmen of Shimon go to their leader
Zimri and challenge him, "We are doomed to death and you remain silent!?"
Zimri responds by gathering together 24,000 of his fellow Simeonites as well
as Kozbi, and dragging her by the hair approaches Moses.  He presents her to
him and challenges Moses, "This woman, is she permitted to me or forbidden,
and if forbidden, who permitted your wife Zipporah the daughter of Jethro the
Midian priest to you!?  (Zipporah who we know accepted the G-d of Israel and
even circumsized her two sons with her own hands, certainly cannot be compared
weith Kozbi the prostitue princess.)  Moshe outraged, didn't know what to
answer, the law in such a case had slipped his mind!  Zimri however was not
even interested in the answer, he took Kozbi into the closest tent and began
to fornicate with her.

But Pinchas SAW what was happening, and he remembered the law as he had
learned it from Moses. The law as brought in the Mishna in Sanhedrin 9:6
states: A Jew who fornicates with a gentile woman, may be killed by a pious
zealot.  Moses responds that the one who reads the letter should be the one to
execute its instructions.  Pinchas went, and caught Zimri and Kozbi in the
act. He took his spear and speared them together through the groin while they
were still joined in intercourse so that there should be no doubt about what
they had been doing.  Pinchas's action instantly stopped the pestilence, ONLY
24,000 had died.

The Halachic (legal) authorities, considering the implications of the case
come to unanimous agreement on the legal ramifications.  Again, the law which
is brought in the Mishna, Sanhedrin, 9:6, and also found on page 81b in the
Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin states: A Jew who fornicates with a gentile woman,
may be killed by a pious zealot.  The authorities (Rosh, Rif, Rambam) expound
on the law, drawing down detail from the story of Pinchas.  (As for as I can
tell, probably the only time this law was ever applied.)  1) This impunitous
action may be carried out only by a righteous and upstanding person, known for
his impeccable character and devotion to G-d.  2) He may kill only at the time
when the fornication is taking place and not afterwards. Even the Beis Din
would have no authority to press charges after the fact.  Therefore, the Torah
states that Pinchas 'saw'.  He speared them in such a way so to demonstrate
that he had caught them in the act.  If Pinchas would have killed Zimri after
he had separated from Kozbi, Pinchas would be have been charged with murder.
3) The zealot must act from his own initiative and sense of outrage.  If he
would come to ask the court or an authority if he should act, he would be
instucted not to. Thus Moshe did not instruct Pinchas to kill Zimri but only
told him that he alone must decide.  4) If the fornicator would turn around
and kill the zealot, he would not be charged with murder.  It would be
considered self defense since the zealot is like a pursuer with intent to
kill, and is not acting according to an explicit commandment, he rather only
has permission to kill the fornicator if the conditions in #1-2 are fulfilled.
If another person would come to the defense of the fornicator and kill the
zealot, that PERSON would be charged with murder since he would have also been
allowed to kill the fornicator had he been a zealot.  So it is clear that
Rabbi Bakshi-Doron's analogy to a doctor cutting out an abcess is
accurate...in the case of Pinchas alone.  He did not commit murder, he
performed a necessary procedure, but only in accordance with the prescribed
preconditions.

Later on the Beis Din of the Hasmonaens (the Chanukkah heroes) enacted an
edict that would make one who had relations with a non-jewish woman culpable
on 3 charges: relations with a menstuant, relations with a slave girl, and
adultery. A Cohen would be additionally culpable for prostitution.  The
punishment was LASHES.

Rabbi Bakshi-Doron could not have possibly called for any type of killing of
Reform Jews based upon the story of Pinchas and Zimri.  The conditions simply
do not exist, he would have no halachic basis for doing so.  Furthermore, it
is absolutely unthinkable that a person of such refined and upstanding
character would make such a statement.  This is particularly true in light of
the events involving the madmen Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir.  We are all
but forbidden even to give rebuke to our friends today, because we don't know
have to do it lovingly and for his own sake. For the same reason we are not
even allowed to hate a Rasha (wicked person for lack of a better trans.) since
we don't know the way of rebuke; would that we knew how to rebuke, he would
certainly change his ways.  His wickedness is our fault!! Could there even be
a Pinchas today....unlikely.

So what were the intentions of the remarks of Rabbi Bakshi-Doron?  I believe
that he wanted to give an example of what is a Reform Jew.  Remember he was
speaking to Israelis who, unlike Americans, have very little exposure to
Reform.  The Rabbi, (the former Chief Rabbi of Haifa, where the influence of
the Reform movement is most keenly felt), wanted to point out the danger of
the Reform influence.  In Zimri he found a plausible example.  Zimri, a man
who disregarded Jewish law without regard for precedent or consequence,
because it suited his own desires and needs, and not bothering to take into
account the honor of the Almighty.  This attitude, the Rabbi cautioned, is the
danger of the involvement of Reform in the religious establishment in
Israel. His remarks were words of warning, but certainly not a call for
murder!!  We will not see killings of Reform Jews in Israel or anywhere else.
We will see a concerted effort to keep them out of the religous establishment.

Reform should realize that is it bodies and not money that bring influence in
Israel.  When Reform will bring masses of Jews on aliyah and raise families
here in Israel with 7-10 children each, it will have an opportunity to
influence the society.  Complaining and finger pointing from the comfort of
the America is not an answer.  Israel is not America.  Hopefully it never will
be. People should realize that the outcome of the Israeli election shows the
true makeup of Israeli society.  They were democrtatic elections.  Israel
wants Judaism and it want it to be Traditional.  Should the Chief Rabbi also
represent Reform etc, etc. is really not the subject of my posting, so I am
not touching it.

My personal feeling is that the Reform establishment's response is really a
paraniod reaction in the aftermath of the elections in Israel.  "How far will
the Orthodox establishment go", must be the thought running through the minds
of many.

Therefore the authors of the statement against Rabbi Bakshi-Doron found his
remarks teeming with terrible implications.  Implications which I maintain are
not there.  There is no Orthodox Rabbi today that would call for the murder of
Reform or any other Jews, (with the possible exception of a few extreme
fanatics, unfortunately, the biggest mouths get the best press coverage).  The
true beauty and true Ahavas Yisrael of the Orthodox world will never make good
press, it must be experienced.

I can understand the vehemence of the Reform response. I believe however, that
well heeled stereotypes about Orthodoxy and a lack of erudition on the part of
some Reform leaders helped to fuel the fires of outrage.  In short, nothing
has changed, we are still where we were 1 month ago.

In conclusion, I need to say that I realize that many subscribers probably
will not like my ideas or my understanding of the material relating to Pinchas
and Zimri. Please understand that I am not coming to represent my own views
(although I basically agree with Rabbi Bakshi-Doron) as much as I am trying to
put perspective on the event, to diffuse some of the tension, and to resume
the dialog.  My words, I maintain, accurately reflect the thoughts of the
Chief Rabbi, and that is the issue at hand.  My apologies in advance if I have
offended anyone.

V'ani tefillasi, that I have managed to spread a little light where there was
darkness, and added a little clarity where there was confusion.

Binyomin Adilman
Jerusalem

Return to Table of Contents

From: Ronald H. Stern <71461.2122@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 10 Jul 96 02:23:32 EDT
Subject: Course Announcement: Introduction to Judaism (Los Angeles)

INTRODUCTION TO JUDAISM TO BE OFFERED AT TEMPLE AHAVAT SHALOM IN NORTHRIDGE,
CA.

Beginning Monday, July 22, (7 p.m.-9 p.m.) the UAHC's course will be offered
at Ahavat Shalom.  It will be taught by the rabbis of the synagogue.  This
course is a wonderful introduction for non-Jews and those considering
conversion *and* it is excellent for any interested in advancing their
knowledge of Judaism beyond what they learned (or didn't) in religious school.
The course is taught for 18 weeks and covers topics such as the holidays,
life-cycle rituals, elements of Jewish history and some theology.  Please
contact the UAHC office at (213)653-9962 if you would like to register or
Ahavat Shalom at (818) 360-2258 for more information.  There is a fee for this
course but limited assistance is available.

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: v6n5		Next Issue: v6n7
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form