![[MLJ Logo]](http://www.mljewish.org/mlj.gif)
www.mljewish.org
|
www.mljewish.org |
Mail.Liberal-Judaism |
| Volume 7 Number 13 | Thu Aug 7 23:55:03 US/Pacific 1997 |
From: David de Graaf <bmgraaf@membran1.weizmann.ac.il> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 12:08:29 +0400 Subject: Arutz 7 > (or do you also believe Hevron should be Judenrhein; Jews can live in Miami, > but not in Shilo?). One comment about the above. I -- and I am sure many others -- find the term 'Judenrhein' to be incredibly offensive when used to refer to any policy perpetrated by the Israeli government or their allies in peace. As you may well know, this term was used by Nazi troops to refer to areas which had been cleaned out, in other words where Jews had been sent to the gas chambers. The 'in vogue' attitude of many settlers and their supporters is to compare themselves to persecuted Jews during the Second World War by appropriating such terms as 'Judenrhein', 'ghetto' and 'razia' for certain direct consequences of the Oslo accords. I would like to state categorically that there is no moral equivalency between these two situations on any possible level. I would also like to add that I consider the use of these terms a trivialization of what happened to European Jewry during the second world war. As a Jew I do not understand how another Jew can use these terms inappropriately without being incredibly ashamed of him/herself. [Moderator's Note: I'll keep an eye out for inappropriate use of this term in the future.] Dr. David de Graaf | Department of Membrane Research and Biophysics | tel *972 8 9343 686 Weizmann Institute of Science | fax *972 8 9344 112 Rehovot, Israel 76100 |
From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 16:46:33 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Egalitarian Minyan and Eicha Reading in Israel on Tisha B'av I found this quite interesting. I wonder if anyone noticed the hypocracy here: [Moderator: Emphasis added in ALL CAPS] >[...] But, we were told that men AND WOMEN PRAYING TOGETHER IS ILLEGAL, and >not in keeping with the custom of the place. [...] NO ARRESTS WERE MADE >AFTER SHAVUOT. [...] We will not yield this spot, an area which belong to >the entire Jewish people, TO LAW BREAKING THUGS. Now we all realize that those who strike others are breaking the law. However notice that he has been told that HE is breaking the law and was not arrested at any time, but he complains that OTHERS who were likewise lawbreakers were not arrested. Now we must be consistant: Either we agree that there is a principle of civil disobedience and one can break a law when the purpose is to further what you consider 'right', and your 'religious rights.' In which case the police correctly arrested NO ONE. Or you deny that principle and both sides, who were breaking the law, should have been charged. I don't see any middle ground. To say that one person's lawbreaking was more justified, or less offensive is absurd, and hypocritical. mshulman@ix.netcom.com
From: Alex Herrera <aherrera@utj.org> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 07:58:05 +0000 Subject: Re: From Reform to Orthodox Bernard responds to my contention that favoring cars over walking on the Sabbath is a violation of the right of Orthodoxy to practice their religion. But Bernard corrects my misunderstanding. He says that it is not a question of dangerous roads but a question of inconvenience. He continues: > It is when they seek to solve their problems by building Shuls in > residential areas that the question-- the dilemma-- becomes real. Wait a minute. Bernard first points out that O.Jews are walking on dangerous roads and posing a hazard and inconvenience to cars. So the O.Jews in order to solve the problem, open a Shul where they live so they don't "inconvenience" cars, but Bernard objects to that too. It would seem that the only thing Bernard would be satisfied with would be O.Jews driving to a shul far away or O.Jews not practising their religion on the Sabbath. When he eliminates each alternative, it is the only solution left. Bernard then points out that I am mentioning the Reform Agoura Hills synagogue ... > ... ostensibly to turn the argument around and against Non-O's who object to > turning peaceful, bedroom communities into disturbing, noisy gatherings by > well intentioned, G-d fearing, Orthodox followers. Religious people are a rowdy bunch. :-) You let a few Orthodox into the neighborhood and soon you'll have tailgate minyans. Drive by Torah readings and even (God forbid!) stealing hubcaps to collect tzedakah. :-) Although I agree with Bernard that the Orthodox can get pretty loud when singing songs, I think that if the neighbors can put up with the local garage rock band, they can put up with a few zimirot. > Alex is placing the monkey on the Reform's back and I thought this was > unfair in view of the far more ubiquitous case involving an orthodox > community here in Rockland County NY. I did not see myself putting anything on Reform's back. I was attempting to draw a parallel so that we could discuss the issue of creating a community feeling by living near a synagogue without getting bogged down in stereotypes and misconceptions of Orthodoxy. Bernard then mentions a court case where O.Jews opened a shul in their own neighborhood. While Bernard is at it, he may want to turn me in. We are turning my home into a shul for the High Holidays this year. I'll be sure to cover the furniture though and warn my neighbors to garage their cars during the those days. :-) Bernard then writes that my anecdote about the Reform synagogue has no effect on law. Well ... luckily we are not here on this list to make law. We are just kicking around the issues. > The issue must remain as I posed the question. Why bring up this small > anectode of Augura Hills except to gratiutously zing it to Reform. I am not gratuitously zinging Reform. Our esteemed moderator would never allow such a thing. As I wrote originally I had brought up this subject many years ago on this list. (Perhaps our esteemed moderator will recall.) At that time I was a Reform Jew. In fact I was VP of religious practices at our Reform synagogue. Yet I still brought it up because on one hand Reform Jews want a certain feeling of community in synagogue life but when an environment is suggested that will provide this community feeling but also inconvenience them, they object. Thus Reform longs for something it isn't willing to pay the price for. That was my criticism. I made that criticism as a Reform Jew many years ago and I haven't changed my mind as an Orthodox Jew. > And I speak as a Jew with no particular affiliation. And, most important of > all... my question still remains unanswered. I suspect that no answer would satisfy Bernard. Alex Herrera
From: Alex Herrera <aherrera@utj.org> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 08:27:38 +0000 Subject: Re: How to Learn and Practice Judaism? > 4. Basic Judaism, by Milton Steinberg. Although this book has "basic" in > its title, it uses considerable verbiage that is explained in the > earlier books on this list. That is why you need to read them first. > This book is a wonderful introduction to Jewish religious philosophy, > explaining both traditionalist and modernist positions, without choosing > either side. I read it long ago and I loved every word of it. It is a great introduction to Judaism in general. > 5. As a Driven Leaf, by Milton Steinberg. This brilliant, history based > novel tells the story of an apostate rabbi who lived during the first > pre-Christian century. Not only is the book beautifully touching, but > it will help you to develop an excellent understanding of the mentality > of the rabbis who created the Talmud. I read this book recently. I hated nearly every word of it, but not because of the author. I remembered how much I loved his writing in _Basic Judaism_. I disliked it because it was based on an apostate and the reasoning he uses for being an apostate I found to be thin and unconvincing. I also anticipated the ending the moment the character began to have doubts and turned to Euclidian geometry. I have a question about the book. In Rabbi Elisha's search for truth, he visits a Hebrew-Christian church. Although he does not find what he needs there, someone does mention [or the author places into the mouth of one of the characters] the fact that Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (sp?) was once a supporter of the Hebrew-Christian ideology but later rejected it. Is that true? Milton Steinberg was an historian and scholar of that time period. I don't think he would make up such a thing carelessly. I hope for a response. Alex Herrera
From: Simcha Raphael <raphael@alpha.lasalle.edu> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 13:28:47 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Kotel vs. Southern Wall With regard to the intention of the Masorti movement/Rabbinical Assembly to hold an Egalitarian Prayer Service & Reading of Eicha at the Kotel on TIsha B'Av, I sent the following email to Andy Sacks in Jerusalem. I wish to share these thoughts with this list.... From: Simcha Raphael <raphael@alpha.lasalle.edu> Subject: Kotel vs. Southern Wall Rabbi Andy- Good luck with intentions to daven @ Kotel on 9 Av. A few weeks ago I heard a talk by Reb Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, "Zayde" of Havurah movement, and Jewish renewal, in which he suggested that liberal Jews completely abandon the Kotel and claim the Southern Wall as their own space. In being offered the Hulda Gates at the Southern Wall by the police, you may be able to establish a precedent that would later be impossible to undo. Imagine have a publically acknowledged area at the _region_ of the Kotel, that would be _our_ own, i.e. all Jews who appreciated the diversity and plurality of Jewish life... Remember the Southern Wall was where EVERYONE once entered Har Ha-Bayit; it may not be a second prize substitute, but an important connection with the past and future. Perhaps something to think about. Either way, I appreciate all that you are doing.. B'Shalom SIMCHA RAPHAEL Philadelphia, Pa. PS My wife Rabbi Geela-Rayzel Raphael was one of the four original plaintiffs on the Supreme Court injunction taking against the Chief Rabbis by Women of the Wall, in 1989.
From: Linda Roberts <mathmom@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 08:54:48 PDT Subject: Re: On Being Jewish >There is no obligation to make kiddush, or observe kashrut or shabbat, or lay >tefilin, etc. As a ben noach. he can worship/celebrate in any way he deems >fit with everybody having the deepest respect for him. Except for his desire >for community, there is no real need for him to convert .... My understanding is that the Benei Noach are prohibited from observing some of the commandments binding on Jews, for example, they must perform some sort of work on shabbat! Besides, I think the desire for community is a very valid reason for conversion. Linda Roberts
From: Sheldon L. Glickler <glickler@bostech.com> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 12:53:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Provocation: From whose point of view? Alex Herrera states: "As anyone with calm and deliberate demeanor can see, Rabbi Boteach is quoting "Agitators on both sides..." " with respect to the paragraph by Rabbi Boteach: "Agitators on both sides would defend their respective communities as having been provoked. The orthodox wield too much political power in Israel, and the progressive Jews should have known better than daven in a mixed service at the exclusively orthodox Wall." Frankly, in a calm and deliberate demeanor, I cannot agree. The paragraph in question is, at best, ambiguous as to who the last statement is attributed to. When I first read that paragraph, I read it as "Agitators ..." and then he inserted "his own" summary with "The orthodox...". I decided that this subject had already been beaten to death so I simply passed on that statement, rather than responding much as Louise did. I grant that this latter part could also be read as "that of the agitators", however it is not clear. [simply because at least more than one person read it as did Louise]. Perhaps a clarification from Rabbi Boteach is order before this escalates far beyond where it should. Perhaps, also, Alex Herrera should reexamine his sensitivity to situations where others don't read statements as he does as automatically being an attack upon the Orthodox. Shelly sheldong@ziplink.net
From: Walter Hellman <hellman@teleport.com> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 15:06:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Secularism, Community and Religion Sheldon Hanft (v7n9) replied to my post about Humanistic Judaism (v7n8) with some thoughtful questions such as, (paraphrased) "without the belief in a divinity, on what basis can we require the observance of religious holidays...how could they be recognizably Jewish? " and, "what can be the basis for moral authority without belief in a higher power?" I have appreciated the responses to these questions which have come even from those who are not Humanistic Jews. Rabbi Sherwood (v7n11), made some points which I thought were especially cogent. Here are some additional responses: When I say HJ liturgy and activities are "recognizably Jewish" I mean that a Jewish person would certainly recognize our seder as a seder, our Hin-nay Ma-tov as a Jewish song, etc. Certainly theistic language and prayers would be missing, but the events are Jewish in character. As I suspect is the case with many Reform Jews, we do not observe Jewish holidays because we are "required to" but because we want to observe them, out of a desire to continue traditions which are important to us. When I say we are "observant" this is not in an halachic sense. Again, however, my impression that is that Reform Jews are pretty much in the same category--our observance is related holidays, educational and social activity, and landmark life events. The main point is this: There have always been people who have been Jews but who have been unable to make the leap of faith to theism and divine revelation. The genuinely new aspect of Humanistic Judaism is to provide a means for these Jews to be observant in the sense described above and also to be part of the Jewish community. Finally, regarding Sheldon Hanft's larger question of how there can be moral authority without a higher power: Let us remember that the whole system of government and justice in the U.S. is, by law, separated from higher supernatural authority or appeal. Further information concerning Humanistic Judaism may be found at: http://www.teleport.com/~hellman Walter Hellman hellman@teleport.com ***** Hillsboro, Oregon USA
From: Richard Schachet <lvrabbi@accessnv.com> Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 00:10:12 -0800 Subject: Why & When B'mitzvah? [Moderator's Note: OK, so this doesn't really have to do with the topic. But I found it cute. DPF] Rabbi Arthur Waskow <Awaskow@aol.com> writes: > When the Talmud discussed coming-of-age-for-mitzvot time, it said that in > reality this should come (at least for boys) when they had two pubic hairs > -- but rather than individually check, 13 years [snip] I am reminded of a problem we had in law school and the writing of the brief was difficult. It seems there was a man named Bill Pubic who raised rabbits. He died without leaving a will and everyone of his relatives fought over his estate- especially the rabbit farm. And so we had to write it up thate the Pubic heirs were fighting over the Pubic hares. (g) I always love Arthur's postings Rabbi Richard Schachet Valley Outreach Synagogue Nevada's only Reconstructionist Congregation http://www.infodoc.com/vos "The past has a vote, not a veto" Rabbi Mordecai M. Kaplan z't'l
From: hsw@columbia.sparta.com (Howard Weiss) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 09:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Why Jews leave rocks when visiting gravesites? While on a recent business trip, a non-Jewish traveling colleague of mine mentioned that he had seen Schindler's List when it was broadcast on national TV a few months ago. He asked me about the last scene of the film, when the survivors are visiting Schindler's grave and are placing rocks, stones, pebbles, etc on the gravesite. He wanted to know what this was all about. Another (Jewish) traveler and I explained the Jewish customs regarding death and mouring to him. However neither of us knew the origin of the custom of leaving stones on the gravesite. Since returning, I've asked several people and searched through my library of materials. Yet I cannot find anything on this. Anyone have this information? Thanks, Howard Weiss
From: faigin@polaris.pacificnet.net (Daniel P. Faigin) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 07:34:02 -0700 Subject: Why Jews leave rocks when visiting gravesites? The answer may be found in the S.C.J FAQ, specifically in http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/11-06-02.html or http://www.pacificnet.net/~faigin/SCJ/faq/11-06-02.html. For the ASCII version, it is in part 5, requestable through email by sending the command "send faq 05-Worship" to faigin@shamash.org Subject: I've heard about a custom of putting stones on the grave. Do you know where this custom originated? Originally, there were no engraved tombstones like we have today; instead, visitors to the gravesite would each put a stone on the grave. Over the years, a mound of stones would accumulate, memorializing the deceased through the hands of his/her loved ones. Although Jews now follow the common practice of putting up tombstones (generally unveiled eleven months following the actual funeral and burial), many people still hold to the earlier custom of a more personal monument. Note that the eleven months date may vary; in Israel, and in many communities abroad, the stone is erected around the shloshim - 30 days after death. In other places, it is around the first yahrzeit - one year after death (which could be 13 months in a leap year). Daniel
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: v7n12 | Next Issue: v7n14 | |
MLJ Home Page
|
Return to Retrieval Form |