Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• nietgal@airmail.net (Ethel Jean Saltz)

• Tanya Scott <SCOTTT@sce.com>

• nietgal@airmail.net (Ethel Jean Saltz)

• David Lilienthal <ravdav@xs4all.nl>
• Alex Herrera <aherrera@utj.org>
• Maurie Fox-Warren <mfw@internetmci.com>
• Jan Theodore Galkowski/Helen Andrea Galkowski <jtgalkowski@alum.mit.edu>

• Mark & Nechama Moshiri <instream@earthlink.net>

• Laura Shumaker Casey <lsc@wizard.net>

From: nietgal@airmail.net (Ethel Jean Saltz)
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 18:59:35 GMT
Subject: Israel Historical Time Line And Judaism

I have one problem with Israeli politics in general. It's my perception that
the Foreign Ministry does not present Israeli history accurately in it's time
line.

I feel a time line should reflect hard data, not conceptual information. Thus
to present Israeli history as hard data without stating the dates that the
data became hardened is misleading. I've written to the Foreign Ministry and
they did not answer. I Asked The Rabbi at the Reform Web site and got a
justification rather than an answer. So I don't know if my perceptions are
really hard data.

The hard data is that until TaNaK, which can be dated, all Israeli history was
oral tradition. So I believe that the Foreign Ministry of Israel should
include the dates that TaNaK was canonized in the time line of Israeli
history.

This date is very important philosophically and, even, psychologically. From
my reading of the Encyclopedia Judaica, the reason TaNaK was created was
because the oral tradition was being hardened in languages other than
Hebrew. These very modern men decided that all posterity would lose out
because there is no way to faithfully transcribe an oral tradition into a
written document other than in the original language.

This, to me, is what Judaism and GOD is all about. The whole writing of TaNaK
is, to me, an Inspired Revelation to preserve Judaism.  If it were not for
TaNaK, there would be no modern Hebrew language. There might not even be
Hebrew prayers.

The fact that the Rabbis refuse to admit publicly the real History of TaNaK
reveals to me a recognized weakness in their political power.

When the Foreign Ministry Israel Historical Time line includes the dating of
TaNaK as the first of the great Oral Tradition documents, along with the
Mishneh and Talmud, then Judaism becomes even more powerful universally. So
many general religious questions to entertain if only these dates become
official from Israel.

be-ahavah ve-shalom,ETHELJEAN OF CREEKBEND
MAC-NIET-SPIN-GAL,0388AG,KHAI Y'ALL,C-O-H-N,ADTR
Nature=Per.Tab.Elements+D.C.Ckts.+E.M.S.
Trinity=TaNaK=Torah(ethics)+Nevee'eem(sociology)+Ketuveem(multimedia)

Return to Table of Contents

From: Tanya Scott <SCOTTT@sce.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:19:48 -0700
Subject: Performing Mitzvot

Dan Icolari writes:

> I considered my observance of a body of mitzvot as normative for a Jew.  But
> increasingly, that's just not enough.  Almost reluctantly after two years of
> reasonably disciplined practice, I have begun to feel that my observance of
> certain mitzvot is wooden, empty, even false.  [...] After a great deal of
> back-and-forth on the question, I conclude that the only basis upon which I
> can perform the mitzvot--the only truly honest way--is to perform those that
> stir me emotionally or, to a lesser extent, intellectually.

This is not an uncommon sentiment regarding the performance of mitzvot.  Some
of the rituals can be reduced to a barrage of monotone words or wooden action
if they are repeated without any emotional or intellectual input from the
person performing the mitzvah.  You seem to have found an approach that works
well for you.  But aren't you concerned that you'll stop doing some mitzvot
altogether?  I'm not sure if you keep kosher for some time and then switch to
performing kiddish or if you're saying that there are certain mitzvot that
stir you and you stick with those.  When I used to do the former, I ended up
feeling confused.  I've since found, for myself, that learning is key.
There's a wealth of information behind each mitzvah and each additional notch
of knowledge brings a certain freshness to one's performance.  Even learning
about a seemingly unrelated mitzvah sheds new light on another.  The fact that
we don't hunt, for instance, and that animals that are considered kosher tend
not to be those of prey is pretty interesting.  No matter which end you start
from, it soon becomes obvious that behind the mitvot something is working to
promote a spirit that strives towards generosity and compassion.  You learn
something new and then you say, I wonder if this is true for this mitzvah over
here??  I also find that learning adds some zip to prayer.  The same prayer
can have a different appeal/effect depending on for example, one's particular
emotion at the time; one's insight into an aspect of G-d; one's historical
perspective; one's contemplation of the current state of Jewish affairs.

Return to Table of Contents

From: nietgal@airmail.net (Ethel Jean Saltz)
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:50:32 GMT
Subject: Rabbis and Congregations

There is a strong notion, inside me, that a Rabbinical Education is a very
rigorous intellectual exercise. This type of education imbues the student with
a strong analytical capability. It may give the student skills in surveying
history.

IN GENERAL:

The ordained Rabbi meets the paying congregation, the general public.  This
public is more emotional and particular about their ideas of history. The more
competitive and controlling components insist on their particular viewpoints
in managing the congregation.

So I intuit that Rabbis are never really allowed to manage the attitude of the
congregation but rather the congregation manages the attitude of the Rabbi.
Thus it is difficult for a Rabbi to really be innovative.

A real example for me is the outcome of many a Reconstructionist Congregation
which eventually, one by one, reinstalls Conservative Services. In fact, it is
my understanding that the Reconstructionist Yesheeva has modified Rabbi
Mordecai Kaplan's original attitude towards the GOD concept.

In my lifetime, I've heard the undercurrent comment, the congregation won't
let the Rabbi do this and that. I hope others will discuss this inorder to
shed light on these rumors.

be-ahavah ve-shalom,ETHELJEAN OF CREEKBEND
MAC-NIET-SPIN-GAL,0388AG,KHAI Y'ALL,C-O-H-N,ADTR
Nature=Per.Tab.Elements+D.C.Ckts.+E.M.S.
Trinity=TaNaK=Torah(ethics)+Nevee'eem(sociology)+Ketuveem(multimedia)

Return to Table of Contents

From: David Lilienthal <ravdav@xs4all.nl>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 17:34:20 +0200
Subject: Re: Reform obligations

I liked Jan Theodore Galkowski's respons to Nechama Moshiri's comments about
Reform Judaism.

> What do we choose?  The most observant of a community?  That is hardly an
> indicator of the mainstream in the future or now-- Extreme statistics
> seldom are.  And we all know that there are Jews affiliated with Orthodox
> synagogues who (...) drive to Shabbat services and who (...)  eat out at
> non-kosher restaurants and eat treif.  But so what?  (...) What do we
> choose?  The most observant of a community?  That is hardly an indicator
> of the mainstream in the future or now-- Extreme statistics seldom are.

When reading this and other comments, I noticed that they both the
criticisms and the responses centre on details of personal observance.  Here
the real difference is one of attitude, how autonomous the individual Jew is
or considers him/herself to be.

In the final analysis I would contend that this has very little to do with
the study of mitzvoth or the level of knowledge, and everything with
character structure. Some people prefer to live and function in a clearly
defined and structured surrounding, with clear lines of authority. They also
prefer to submit to an external authority, to know that they are right. Put
in an extreme way, for the sake of clarity: the "book" tells you what is
right and wrong and how to act in each given situation. If there is a
difference between "the book" and the world you live in, "the book" is still
always right and the world is wrong. These people choose an Orthodox way of
life.  Sometimes they choose to be "non-observant Orthodox", as described
above: they have the distinct advantage, *in their terms*, of at least
knowing that they do something wrong when driving to shul on shabbat (or to
the golf-course). But whatever they do or do not do, for them, Orthodoxy is
the norm.

Other people prefer to decide for themselves and have problems accepting
absolute authority from outside. They sometimes like to study the mitsvoth
in order to choose; in most cases they inform themselves by informally
listening and discussing with others in their surroundings; in all cases
they want to decide for themselves - they choose a Reform community. And
those who want a more structured but still flexible surrounding, where they
can function well but not be unduly pressured, or feeling unduly guilty,
choose some kind of Conservative Judaism (small "c" intended). Sometimes
Orthodoxy is the norm for them too; it happens because Orthodoxy is -at
least nominally- easier to define and to recognize. But in reality, the norm
lies elsewhere (see below).

Nothing we do or say will change this, since people are different.  That is
why we need the different expressions of Judaism next to each other, so that
people can move from one type of surrounding to another, till they find the
one in which they feel that they can function Jewishly in the best way *for
them personally*. This we call pluralism. This is also why an Orthodoxy that
wants to enforce its own way on the "Reform-type character" will not be able
to do so but will only chase them away. And this is why Nechama Moshiri felt
uncomfortable and out of place in a Reform community. She clearly was, and I
am happy for her that she found her home where she did. As long as she will
not deny me my right to find my home where I did, in the
traditionally-minded Reform world.

If you have read this far, then please carry on just a little.  The area on
which the comments have *not* touched, is the one of the principal
difference between the movements. Everybody seems to assume that the
Orthodox way of life is the right one, and the more "reformic" you are, the
further away you are from the norm.  I would also contend that Orthodoxy has
no more claim on being an authentic continuation of the rabbinic tradition
than does Reform or Conservative Judaism.

Rabbinic Judaism was never as dogmatic and fundamentalist as is Orthodoxy
today. (Sometimes I think even Shammai would feel under pressure).  Reform
and Conservative continue the line of developing halachah and/or Jewish
tradition in parallel with but also as dinstinct from our non-Jewish
surroundings. This only sometimes touches on the observance of the
individual; it has to do a lot with the way the community as such functions,
and the way it relates to the problems our societies face, from medical
ethics to space research and social action and ecology. In very many of
these areas, it is Reform and Conservative and Reconstructionism, who
represent Judaism.

Therefore, it is not at all clear that Orthodoxy is the norm on which
everything and everybody should be measured; rather the contrary is true: it
is the pluriformity that is the norm! As already said, that includes
orthodoxy as one of the authentic expressions of Judaism, but not more or
less so than the various reform, conservative and reconstructionist
comunities. In my not always humble opinion I think it would be helpful for
the continuation of the discussion if this could be born in mind.

David Lilienthal
ravdav@xs4all.nl

Return to Table of Contents

From: Alex Herrera <aherrera@utj.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:30:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Reform obligations

Jan Theodore Galkowski writes:

> Because we as a religion don't have a semi-public "scoresheet concept"
> comparable to a Catholic's confessional of sins, [snip!]

Huh? The confessional of sins is not a scoresheet. It is a humbling of one's
self and coming before God's supposed vicar. It is similar to Yom Kippur
except that one goes to God's supposed vicar instead of going directly to God
as one should. I think the "scoresheet" idea is just a stereotype.

Jan continues by proposing that a more strict enforcement could be instituted
using "public embarrassment or communal shunning, or the pricking of a
conscience by barbed homilies."

Well ... many Liberal Jews already shun people and publicly embarrass them.
Many already make others the subject of barbs homilies. They just do it to a
different group of people than Catholics or Orthodox do.

For instance, Rabbi Waskow is making an example of this guy in Houston for
clearing dead wood from his property. Why do Liberal rabbis take this on as a
Jewish cause? Because it is part of the list of things Liberal Jews believe is
a part of their religious obligation -- social action.

Jan then contends that Catholics have more obligations that Conservative Jews
because of their desire for the concrete. Jan writes, "... I believe, the core
reflex for erecting idols to worship, seeing that as less than simply anathema
and more as an expression of a need in people for contact with the Divine."

Catholics have a relationship with God and do not substitute the concrete in
lieu of it. They also do not erect statues for that purpose. (I think there is
a pun lurking in there somewhere.) I think this is another stereotype of
Catholics that is mostly promoted by Protestants.

Jan then wonders if "a fire-and-brimstone speech will cause more Jews to come
to synagogue?"  Jan then implies that other religious movements including
Jewish movements are teaching fear and asks if Halakha doesn't just represent
a failure of Jewish education.

This is yet another stereotype presented here. I have attended many, many
Orthodox minyans and lectures. I have never, ever, even once heard a
"fire-and-brimstone" speech. Yet somehow a message that prayer and service to
God is passed to the people without using fear or promoting ignorance. In fact
it is just the opposite. I have only seen love, acceptance and study promoted.

The use of Halakhah is not a failure, it is the saving grace. As an Orthodox
rabbi in our area noted: Reform Judaism survives because it is using
Halakhah. Anyone who reads the Reform Responsa can see clearly that Reform
rabbis are attempting to square their ideas within a Halakhic context.
Although I disagree as to the conclusions they come to, Reform is consulting
Halakhah. That contributes to its survival. It does not detract from it.

The real problem is not Reform or Orthodox or even Catholics. The problem is
parents who don't care about Judaism and pass that non-caring to their
children. We all need to do something about that.  I know everyone is trying.
I just think we need to look at each other in the light of reality and not
through "fire-and-brimstone" glasses. In this way we can see what each group
is doing right and try to emulate that.

Shelly writes:

> The side comment is that this is one of the beauties of Judaism.  It can
> encompasses all of us and satisfy all of our particular needs with regard to
> religion.  Orthodox alon, Conservative alone or Reform alone will not do
> this. We need them all.

There are some people who absolutely need one movement or the other and would
leave Judaism if it were not available. However, I think that there are a
number of Jews who would be comfortable no matter where you put them. They are
more cultural rather than ideological.  Thus any one movement, regardless of
which one it might be, would be no problem for them.

Alex Herrera

Return to Table of Contents

From: Maurie Fox-Warren <mfw@internetmci.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 16:00:00 -0500
Subject: Reform obligations

I write as an outsider on this question since I am Conservative by upbringing
and practice, but I think most of the participants in the discussion have been
downplaying the uniqueness of the Reform formulation.  Traditionally,
obligation has been determined on the communal level by rabbis based on the
interplay of text, tradition and social context.  This is still the case in
Orthodox and Conservative judaism.  Reconstructionism and Jewish Renewal -
usually seen as further to the religious left than Reform - appear interested
in recreating communal norms, e.g. eco-kashrut.

Reform on the other hand proclaims that each jew is to be commanded by their
conscience and that each jew has the responsibility to be their own rabbi -
that is to determine what their obligations are.  This is a very heavy
obligation - literally it is to take on the "yoke of the torah" - but it is an
obligation few Jews of any denomination have the learning or time to carry
out.  And thus a paradox.  The very normlessness of Reform Judaism today makes
it all but impossible for most Reform Jews to be "good Reform Jews".  And
since congregations have the power to hire and fire, few rabbis find it
profitable to point out this unpleasant fact.

Maurie

Return to Table of Contents

From: Jan Theodore Galkowski/Helen Andrea Galkowski <jtgalkowski@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 17:46:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Reform obligations

I want to thank Nechama Moshiri for taking my comments on her post on
directly, and responding to my admittedly provocative statements.  This is a
far better discussion for seizing that initiative.  I also want to acknowledge
her deep consideration of the matter.

I warmly and sincerely appreciate her understanding that mitzvot need content
to have meaning.  My failure to see that in her seminal post was entirely
mine, reacting perhaps to the tendency on the part of some Orthodox
coreligionists to assume the opposite as normative.  And I agree that much of
what I have witnessed as synagogue Board member and parent seems to be overly
focussed upon getting our kids to "first base" rather than progressively
deepening their understanding of the content and meaning of our tradition.
But I dunno: Maybe the tradition, our rituals, and our prayers are so huge,
that's all they can do in the time our religious schools have.

If that be so, then maybe my reaction was also tempered by the belief that
beyond the basics, our religious schools need to impart a thirst for learning
more about our tradition as well as a means of struggling with, being in
emotional tension about the ethical sides of mitzvot as they are discovered in
the development of the child-to-adolescent, rather than simply sprinkling a
coverage of the mitzvot along the educational path.

But I agree that it seems the religious education we consider standard may be
too "easy" for our brightest and most earnest students.  I have heard some
complain about boredom on the repetition of certain basic themes, and -- while
not a professional educator myself -- I can see and critique some religious
schools as failing to challenge motivated and gifted students with adequate
material in the same way some secular schools fail to challenge their adept
students with adequate mathematical material.

I feel I agree with Nechama's conclusion that our religious education may be
wanting in serious respects, failing those who might be our most successful
students for fear of losing those who, because of personal disinterest or
parental apathy, are and in all probability will remain marginally engaged
with Judaism in any reasonable definition of the term.

What could we as a movement do about this?  Do we continue this "common
denominator" system?  Or do we introduce the multiple tracks the situation
seems to call for?

Jan Theodore Galkowski.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Mark & Nechama Moshiri <instream@earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 06:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Reform Site Recommendation in v7n18

In her response to my Reform obligations post in v7n18, Laura Schuemaker
Casey wrote:

>As usual, I must get in a plug: For an example of how one can seriously
>consider a mitzvot and adapt it in a way that is meaningful to you, I
>encourage you to read my articles on Reform Shabbat Observance, found at:
>http://www.wizard.net/~kc/lsc/holiday/shabbat.htm

After seing Laura's post, I visited this site and found it to be excellent!
Everyone, no matter what denomination, can get something out of this site.  It
certainly provides information liberal Jews can use to make informed decisions
regarding observance and it goes well beyond Shabbat observance.  Thanks Laura
for recommending and putting together such a helpful site.

Nechama Moshiri

Return to Table of Contents

From: Laura Shumaker Casey <lsc@wizard.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 10:17:30 -0400
Subject: Rosh Chodesh Women's Groups

I am interested in starting a Rosh Chodesh women's group in my synagogue.  If
anyone participates in such a group and could share with me suggestions for
getting started or programming ideas, please e-mail me.

Laura Shumaker Casey	
lsc@wizard.net
Find Reform Jewish spirituality at
http://www.wizard.net/~kc/lsc/spiritquest.htm

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: v7n19		Next Issue: v7n21
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form