Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• David A. Guberman <guberman@mediaone.net>

• Chaim Frazer <frazerch@carroll.com>

• Ethel Jean Saltz <nietgal@airmail.net>

• Arnold S. Rosenberg <arnier@ix.netcom.com>

From: David A. Guberman <guberman@mediaone.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:06:41 -0400
Subject: On Tolerance

Scott Ryan's misreading of Professor Judith Hauptman's learned and wonderfully
helpful article only demonstrates that when one approaches another's words
looking for a reason to criticize, one usually can find it, even if the
other's words have to be distorted in the process.  Only in his and Yaakov
Menken's imaginations does Professor Hauptman advocate, in Yaakov's words,
"tossing out one's own sincerely held beliefs, simply because someone else
disagrees."  The rest of Scott's criticism of her article is of a piece.

More interesting, I almost wrote more troubling, is Scott's and Yaakov's
notion that, in Yaakov's words,

> true tolerance is expressed when you do not insist that others accept or
> validate your opinion, but when, on the contrary, you take it upon yourself
> to provide others with full disclosure in any situation where they might
> have a different opinion than yours - nothing more, nothing less.

Balderdash.  Full disclosure is simply being honest.  Tolerance involves a
capacity for recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
(Not agreeing that they are right or following the others' beliefs or
practices in place of one's own, merely recognizing and respecting them.)

Liberal Judaisms are tolerant forms of Judaism insofar as they recognize and
respect the beliefs and practices of followers of Orthodox Judaisms. Orthodox
Judaisms, at least in Israel and in the forms supported by the government and
manifested by the government-supported rabbinate and the also
politically-powerful haredi communities, are intolerant insofar as they do
_not_ show any capacity for recognizing and respecting the beliefs or
practices of Liberal Judaisms.  Unfortunately, in our day, intolerance seems
to dominate Orthodox Judaisms, at least in Israel and among Orthodox Jews in
America with respect to non-Orthodox Jews in Israel.

Personally, I have great respect for many of the beliefs and practices of
Orthodox Jews.  But I have no respect for the efforts of Orthodox Jews to deny
religious freedom to non-Orthodox Jews, nor for apologists for those efforts.
Sociologically and strategically, there may be value in trying to "understand"
what motivates Orthodox intolerance, just as there can be sociological and
strategic value in trying to understand what motivates any adversary.  But
understanding should never turn into apologetics or forgetting on which side
we stand.

Note, I use the word "adversary" advisedly.  Orthodox Jews are not adversaries
of Liberal Jews because we have different understandings of Judaism.  Those
Orthodox Jews are our adversaries when, for example, with regard to Israel,
they have no respect for our beliefs and seek to deny us the right to practice
our understandings of Judaism.

Accordingly, I would be more than pleased to welcome Yaakov Menken or Chaim
Frazer, for example, as non-adversaries, were either of them to affirm that,
notwithstanding his disagreement with the understandings of Reform and
Conservative Judaisms, he respects their beliefs _and_ supports their right to
practice Judaism, as they understand it, in Israel free from discrimination.

David A. Guberman         guberman@mediaone.net
_tov shalom m'eretz yisrael ha'shlema_
Peace is Greater than Greater Israel

Return to Table of Contents

From: Chaim Frazer <frazerch@carroll.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:43:55
Subject: Re: Through the Eyes of the Other

In Volume 7 Number 142, several writers significantly misunderstand Rav
Yaacov Menken's post.

In Prof. Hauptman's article, she quotes several Mishnayot regarding issues
of marrigeability and ritual purity on which Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai
disagree.  She then quotes a passage from Babylonian Talmud Yevamot 14a.

That passage quotes the differing opinions of Rav and Shmuel as to how the
two Schools conducted themselves in actual practice.  Rav says that,
following the normal rule that the Law generally follows Beit Hillel, Beit
Shammai accepted their colleagues' ruling.  Shmuel, however, says that on
these matters Beit Shammai put their own views into practice, and that
nonetheless Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai continued to marry mates from the
other School, and continued to share food and utensils with each other.

Those statements are on the top of the page.  The middle of the page is
concerned with whether this occurred before or after the Heavenly Voice
that declared that the Law followed Beit Hillel, and equally as important,
how they were able to continue these close relations given their mutually
exclusive views on these issues.

The answer, given at the bottom of the page, is that they informed each
other as to which prospective spouses and which food items and utensils
were "kosher" for School A, but not so for School B, and vice versa.  This
enabled members of each School to avoid entering into marriages or using
food or utensils that were not fit by _its_ standards.

For reasons that escape me, Prof. Hauptman contends just the opposite:
namely that in Shmuel's opinion each School actually married people
unsuitable by its own standards, and ate food and used utensils that were
unacceptable in terms of its own rulings.

She further adduces the Jerusalem Talmud, citing its statement that G-d
"rewarded" the Schools by seeing that in actual fact, no person ever
married anyone, ate anything, or used any food utensil that it would have
found unsatisfactory by its own rules.

In fact, however, the Jerusalem Talmud's statement makes no sense if we
adopt Shmuel's view (that they actually did follow their different
practices) as recounted in the Babylonian Talmud-namely that they gave full
disclosure to each other so that each could avoid acting against their
respective rules.  On this basis, the _parties themselves_ did what the
Jerusalem Talmud says G-d did, namely saw to it that no one ever was put
into a situation in which he or she would violate his or her own standards.
 Thus there was no need for Divine action.

It is only on Rav's opinion that Beit Shammai immediately followed Beit
Hillel in practice that we need the Jerusalem Talmud, and it tells us that
G-d "rewarded" them for their instant obedience by so arranging the actual
facts that although Beit Shammai always felt they ran a risk of acting
contrary to their own rulings, in fact this never happened.

Rav Menken's point remains clear and accurate:  in situations of
"irreconcilable differences", full and honest disclosure remains the basis
for peace in the midst of disagreement.

The Tosefta quoted by Prof. Hauptman makes this very clear, as it quotes a
verse from Zechariah which speaks of "Truth and Peace".  Commentators point
out that the sequence of the words is important.  Peace can only be built
on a foundation of truth.  When people passionately disagree as to what
that truth is, the appropriate approach is to allow each to maintain its
vision of truth, and to insist on the full self-disclosure necessary to
make this real.

To quote Scott Ryan from a different thread in Volume 7 Number 142, "mutual
respect does _not_ mean mutual recognition of 'validity'.  Very often it
means finding ways to get along even though such mutual recognition is
utterly impossible".  (Scott's emphasis.)

This insistence on respecting real differences and accommodating them
rather than repressing them is a key foundation stone in Jewish communal
and social morality.  Meredith Warshaw, initiator of this thread, sees and
practices this herself as described in her account of how she tries to
inform people of the kashrut standards that she observes, and makes
provision for those who have different standards.

It is lamentable that Prof. Hauptman apparently does not share this view,
but it is a travesty that she claims that the Talmud does not.

Chaim Frazer

Return to Table of Contents

From: Ethel Jean Saltz <nietgal@airmail.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 09:43:49 -0500
Subject: Wagner and Judenhass Music

Wagner was a Judenhasser, no doubt at all about this. I just read his French
essay on exactly this subject about Jewish music on the Web.

I've been told that his music is also Judenhass. Now I separate text from
sound in music. For instance, I love the sound of "Silent Night, Holy Night",
just naturally. With the help of Prodigy posters on the Hebrew Language BB, I
translated it directly into Hebrew with having to change only one word
.. virgin to almah (which it should have been all along). I've only dealt with
the first verse. It becomes a lovely Hebrew lullaby with only this one word
change.

What IS Jewish music? Reading about Salomone Rossi and listening to his
magnificent Songs Of Salomone for Shabbat and for the Holidays, well, that's
Jewish music to me. I have discovered in some text that Salomone was banned
from liturgy by the Rabbi's of his time because such magnificance isn't
possible until the Temple is restored. Some Jewish musicologists say that if
it's not in the minor scale then it's not Jewish.

I've learned a lot about Western Music History in the past two weeks.  One
surprise is what the terms "major" and "minor" scale is all about.  It's
ridiculous to say that Jewish music has to be this and that.  The major/minor
scales are relatively modern inventions. Until then music was modal. Why stunt
the growth of Jewish music?

So for me to understand what is Jewish music, I have to understand what is
Judenhass Music, which brings me to Wagner. I've already read the subject on
the Israeli Foreign Ministry site. A friend tells me she read a book that
explains the Judenhass in Wagner's music but she doesn't remember the name of
the book. I've contacted the Wagner Society through the D.C. Chapter and asked
this question. Lucky me, the contact is Jewish!! She says she never thought
about it and will look into it.

I was brought up by a Jewish mom who preferred instrumental music to vocal
music. She liked dancing. This makes sense now from what I've already learned
about the development of music. So, I must separate the musical notation from
the text. Isn't it possible to write a new Jewish/Hebrew libretto/plot for The
Ring series of Wagner and still use the same musical score and it wouldn't be
Judenhass?

In TaNaK, glorious music is part of celebration of GOD.

I've never had any music education in my life of 69years (next month) so I
can't wait until I die to figure all this out for myself from taking courses
in college, which I am going to do. I don't even know enough to know why
Wagner's music is considered to be so special.

be-Ahavah ve-Shalom, Ethel Jean of Creekbend,
mailto:nietgal@airmail.net

Return to Table of Contents

From: Arnold S. Rosenberg <arnier@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 01:22:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Who is a Jew

Chaim Frazer argues that Conservative converts are not entitled to be
considered "Jews" by the State of Israel for purposes of the Law of Return
because the Conservative rabbis who perform the conversions belong to a
movement which "endorses public Shabbat desecration as a matter of
institutional policy" -- i.e., approves of driving to synagogue on Shabbat.

The fallacy in this reasoning is that it assumes that the standard for who is
to be considered a Jew for purposes of Israel's Law of Return should conform
to halacha as Mr. Frazer's denomination interprets it and not as any other
denomination interprets it.  In other words, Mr. Frazer would read into the
Law of Return the halachic standards of the Orthodox movement to the exclusion
of any other possible understanding of halacha.

If we are to adopt the halachic standards of one particular movement within
Judaism, why stop with Mr. Frazer's standards?  Why not adopt halacha as
interpreted by those haredi sects that would consider even Modern Orthodoxy an
institution that advocates violation of mitzvot?  As soon as government begins
to legislate that there are "right" interpretations and "wrong"
interpretations of halacha, it abandons any claim of being apolitical.

Let us remember, moreover, that the issue is driving to synagogue on Shabbat.
The halacha regarding this issue is by no means clear.  The Talmud and the
Codes did not contemplate a world in which people habitually commuted to
places by automobile, both for work and non-work purposes.

Mr. Frazer's reasoning would be more sound if he were to distinguish between
those movements within Judaism that accept the _concept_ of halacha as binding
and those that do not.  Such a distinction would avoid the adoption of any
particular interpretation of halacha, and hence would not be political.  But
it would require Mr. Frazer to change his view regarding Conservative
conversions.

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: v7n143		Next Issue: v7n145
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form