Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• David Karr <dkarr@bbn.com>

• Rene Pfertzel <rene.pfertzel@hol.fr>

• David de Graaf <bmgraaf@membran1.weizmann.ac.il>
• A Herrera <austinjc@utj.org>
• Michael M Milo <milo@parker.internet-zahav.net>

• Robert Rosin <rosin@shell.monmouth.com>

• Rabbi Arthur Waskow <Awaskow@aol.com>

From: David Karr <dkarr@bbn.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:26:50 -0400
Subject: Re: A Call for Reform Jewish Day Schools

Nechama Moshiri <instream@earthlink.net> wrote:

>[...] for starters, I think one day a week of Sunday school in the early
>grades is just not enough.  And, I think that trying to accomplish a
>well-rounded, non-day school Jewish education without educating the parents
>defeats the whole purpose of educating kids Jewishly.  If what they are
>taught is not reinforced at home, then we send kids a message that Hebrew
>school and living Jewishly are not all that important.

In fact, while my wife and I have opted for the public schools (I think we
would have to uproot and move to a different town to make day school a
practical solution), a large part of the reason that we joined the synagogue
in a neighboring town rather than the one in our own town was that the in-town
Hebrew school was only one day a week (after school) for the entire duration.
Even the out-of-town school is only one day a week through second grade, but
seemed a bit more ambitious.

As for homework, I do wish there were more that we could do that would
reinforce the learning (aside from holiday observances, which we already do).
We happened to meet my older daughter's teacher after services last week, and
I almost told her I hoped she would give lots of homework we could help with,
but I didn't know how to phrase the request.  (The school *does* send home a
very nice newsletter called shabbas.doc---from the Internet!---but it seems
aimed at somewhat older children, and from an Orthodox perspective.  *I* find
it fascinating but haven't gotten much mileage from it with the kids.)

Our synagogue does offer adult education, but I think what we really need is
*family* education, and really to be practical I concur with the suggestion
that it be take-home.  (We are already having trouble reconciling
group-scheduled activities.)  Does anything like this exist, and should I
broach this to the teachers or the school administrator, or just do it?

Julian Yudelson <YUDELSON.JE@a1.isc.rit.edu> wrote:
>Jewish education is the only aspect of education that I know of where parents
>are satisfied if their children learn less than the parents.  All too many
>parents are threatened if their children learn more about Judaism than the
>parents were taught.

I cannot disagree with this, since I've observed some of the attitudes in the
local synagogues.  On the other hand, many parents do not fit the above
description.  My response is that *I* need to know more about Judaism than I
do, so certainly my current knowledge is in no way the limit of what is
desirable for my children to know.  (In contrast, unless one of my children is
to become a mathematician, she hardly needs to know much more math than I do.)

David A. Karr

Return to Table of Contents

From: Rene Pfertzel <rene.pfertzel@hol.fr>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:54:55 -0700
Subject: Book Review: Un Judaisme Danss Le Siecle by Rabbi Daniel Fahri

Hi all !

I want to present you a book about reform judaism written by a french rabbi,
Rabbi Daniel Fahri from the Mouvement Juif Liberal de France : "un judaisme
dans le siecle. Entretiens avec un rabbin liberal".  It's edited by Berg
International, and you can order it through a french internet bookshop (in
which I have no stocks !) : http://www.furetdunord.fr.

It's written in french in order to make reform judaism more clear for french
jews (and non-jews). I loved it, and all I can do, it's to advice it for all
people french speaking.

B'shalom, Rene

Return to Table of Contents

From: David de Graaf <bmgraaf@membran1.weizmann.ac.il>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:07:13 +0400
Subject: Reform obligations

> He is right and we are wrong and there is nothing to discuss.  This is the
> classic orthodox standpoint, [...]

I would just like to add something to Rabbi David Lilienthal's excellent
posting. The belief of *having* the absolute and unadulterated truth leads to
a single foundation for religion. This - in my opinion - is the uniting
principle between Christian, Muslim and Jewish fundamentalism.

As liberal Jews we should be able to say that we can understand and validate
different interpretations of Judaism and at the same time find one of these
more appropriate or even more correct. In this sense one can be a chareidi
liberal Jew and I have met people who I would put into that category.

This type of fundamentalism is also what is changing the face of Israel's
religious status quo. There used to be a delicate ballance and give and take
between the different communities. Ever since the idea has arisen that one
community has the absolute truth (tm), it becomes impossible to deal with this
community from a perspective of give and take, simply because they have no
room to give anything. Therefore, the kashrut standard in 'mixed' company is
always the one of the most machmir person in the group.  This is not
neccessarily bad, except when this person starts to tell me what to eat and do
when she is not around, simply because she has the absolute truth. Talking
with fundamentalists is always a slippery slope with only one single way to
move.

In a nice drasha of this week's portion re'eh, rabbi Yehiel Grenimann quotes
Rav Kook regarding a line from this weeks haftarah:

Isaiah 54.13: "And all your children shall be disciples of the Lord. And great
shall be the happiness (literally - peace) of your children"

This is his summary of Rav Kook's point. I don't think I could have made a
better point for pluralism and against any claims of an absolute truth:

Rav Kook points out that the text says "Rav shalom Baniyich" (much will be the
peace of your descendants) and not "gadol hashalom..." (great will be the
peace).  He comments: "plurality is what makes for peace," and so "bonayich" -
the building is only possible if each side and each approach is seen as a
necessary part of the whole.  Only when all aspects are respected and valued
for their contribution to the whole can truth and justice be seen, only then
will there truly be peace.  (Rav Kook, Siddur Tefilla "Olat Raayah" p.330).

David de Graaf
Rehovot
Israel

Return to Table of Contents

From: A Herrera <austinjc@utj.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:43:34 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Reform obligations

David had contended that the Orthodox somehow "needed" an outside authority
and I countered that whether Orthodoxy "needed" an outside authority or not,
we have one in fact and we address Him logically using Torah. David continues:

> This closes the argument. He is right and we are wrong and there is nothing
> to discuss.

I think there is plenty to discuss and explain. Some Liberal Jews think of
Orthodoxy as silly when in fact it is a logical thinking based on certain
assumptions. This is true of Reform Judaism as well. It would never occur to
me that Reform was somehow silly in its approach to Torah. It simply has
different basic assumptions that it carries out to its logical conclusions.

[Moderator's Note: This is a key element that many people forget: Religion is
based on belief. The key difference between Orthodoxy and Reform is not in our
practice (for that could be identical) but in our underlying belief of the
source and authority of Torah. Everything else comes from that, and we can
only be critical if our actions are not consistant with our underlying
belief. Alex is correct in pointing out that Orthodoxy is logically consistant
with its underlying belief, and this is something Reform must understand if it
is ever to "grok" Orthodoxy (and vice-verse). DPF]

David has pointed out that I think I am correct in my path. Obviously I follow
my path because I think it is the correct path. I hope everyone is following
their right paths and I hope no one is just following along without
conviction. But just because I set out in one direction is not an automatic
criticism of other people's paths.

> ... and I am led to believe that Alex partakes in this list in order to show
> us how and where we are wrong.

I joined the list as a Reform Jew who was VP of religious practices at my
synagogue. Precisely it was Temple Beth Tikvah in Fullerton California.  Rabbi
Asa knows me well. He is retired now, but if you call the synagogue you can
talk to the Education Director, Miraim Van Raalte. She'll be glad to verify I
was there and well connected to the synagogue. I will not be offended if you
call.

[Moderator's Note: You can also look at Alex's postings in v2 of this digest]

Even at that time I thought Reform was headed in some wrong directions, but
that some Reform Jews had the right idea. I would promote the right Reform
ideas and show why some Reform ideas went wrong. Eventually I concluded that I
was a halakhic Jew and that I could not remain in Reform because they were not
treating Halakhah in the same manner I was.

David complains that I debate on the basis of Orthodox Judaism. That is true,
but I only do so as a way of explaining Orthodox thinking. Some Liberal Jews
seem to reject Orthodoxy out of hand without investigating it first. I think
that is the antithesis of Reform Judaism so I encourage you all to investigate
first. That is mainstream Reform Judaism.

David then contends that I make "flaming insinuations". He writes:

> I cannot read this in any other way than that if I happen to believe that
> the Torah is Gods words as transmitted by human beings, then I would have no
> problem with the soaring divorce rate or sexual promiscuity or
> unfaithfulness or the lack of serious study among the majority of Jews,

I am glad David has brought this out. My point was NOT that Reform Judaism
leads to licentiousness. That would be a silly thing for me to write. But
because David came to this conclusion I think it proves my point that some
Liberal Jews think that Orthodox thinking is silly thinking. It is not. It is
logical thinking just as Reform thinking is logical given the assumptions it
makes.

So logically speaking, what could I have meant? I meant that because I have an
absolute outside authority, I can make judgements concerning the real world. I
can make judgements for myself and my children and my community with certainty
because we all agree that God asks certain things of us and that we know what
many of those things are. I can make a judgement of others concerning God's
commandments because my belief system allows me to do so. That was my only
point.  David seemed to see Orthodoxy as a limitation. I see it as a freedom.
Your milage may vary.

I am deeply and sincerely serious about my postings in case anyone doubted
that. I am willing to correct misconceptions about Orthodoxy and I am willing
to take the criticism when I do so. No problem.

Alex Herrera

Return to Table of Contents

From: Michael M Milo <milo@parker.internet-zahav.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 13:23:03 +0300
Subject: Reform obligations

Allow me to take the hit David Lilienthal intended for Alex Herrera.  I reread
those postings (both David's and Alex's) and feel our Moderator is correct in
allowing even Alex to say what he believes, even to the extent of challenging
others to seriously consider their views.  I did not see any personal insults
or insinuations hurled by Alex, but admit that I am not overly sensitive on
the matter.  I expect that we Jews can tolerate each other, both our views as
well as how we live our lives.  At least we should try.

As a point of reference, I am what David would label "orthodox", but not
"haredi" (though, in fact, like more than a few people who connect with this
list, I do tremble from time to time), although I wonder whether
post-denominational is more accurate or whether "existential" (somewhat like I
imagine Ethel Jean Saltz to be) is probably specifically correct.

Judaism is liberal; by definition and in reality.  I am amazed that "Liberal
Judaism" is an appellation snatched by any specific stream of Jews, but then
again, we are just trying to set up terminology so I will not belabor the
point.

A few months ago, a contributor suggested two points of commonality that could
be used as a basis for conversation among various members of the Jewish
people.  One is that every stream determine for itself who is a Jew (i.e.,
free choice) and the other was that Torah is important (go and study).

I tried to posit a third point (i.e., the existence of echad (i.e., the
specifically Jewish knowledge of, let's say, "encounter with," the Creator
whom we know (as a result of real life experiences) through our individual,
communal and national histories)).  I figured that, in light of the clearly
spiritual writings that hit this list, most people actually believe in some
superior being.

Some of us know what that belief is (and on Pesach we explain the whole idea
to our children (and ourselves)) and some of us either honestly do not know
what that belief is or specifically refuse to cross the intellectual
threshhold (for whatever reason, including a sincere disbelief in echad).
David's frustration in engaging in dialog with someone who actually believes
in echad should be troublesome for all of us.  Someone who combines belief
with observance should not be beyond the pale of civil discourse.

Because belief in echad has not been universally accepted, I would like to
posit an alternative third point on which we can all agree: emet (truth;
please note how this word is spelled in Hebrew).  I assume that we all want
the truth, that we are engaged in a search for truth.  I assume that emet
(let's use our common language, suitable for spiritual concepts) is our goal,
regardless of where it leads us (As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg has been
recommended by several contributors already); even if that search leads us to
echad and to greater observance of the mitzvot.

Contrary to the straw man created by David, a lot of observant Jews
consciously and continuously choose to be observant.  I cringe at the
stupidity of constantly reinventing the wheel.  I searched the depths, found
emet and transmit emet to my children.  Sure, every day I try to get deeper in
my understanding (and endeavor to avoid rote observance), but there are basic
truths I need not question.

That others do not share my beliefs is irrelevant for me.  I need not share
their confusion.  Do not think that "not knowing" is necessarily proof of
intellectual or spiritual honesty.  Nor is "knowing" proof of intellectual or
spiritual capitulation.  Not at all.

Assuming that emet is a third common point on this list, let me get back to
the basic question raised at the outset regarding this topic: are there reform
obligations?  The answer is no.

A suggestion was proffered that the "Liberal Jew" had an "obligation" to,
basically, search for the truth.  He had to sift through the mitzvot and, if
sincerely finding a mitzvah that felt right and satisfied (pretty much,
anyway) his intellectual, emotional and (maybe) spiritual yearnings then, yes,
he could "accept" the mitzvah (and keep observing it so long as it felt
right).  Of course, one could not be expected to keep all the mitzvot until he
had a chance to think about them, experience them (well, maybe, anyway; so
long as the mitzvah were not so repugnant or barbaric (e.g., brit mila or
ritual slaughter)) and find some way to modify the observance to be meaningful
(and convenient) to his personal life.

I, personally, think that is great.  Most of us have taken our time in
adopting Jewish observance and I think honest personal investigation has its
place.  But do not pretend that searching for truth is an "obligation" that
goes with being a reform jew.  Searching for truth is an obligation that goes
with being human.  Ask Thomas Roper.  There is nothing uniquely Jewish about
this "obligation" and, therefore, this is not an obligation which can be used
to distinguish Reform Judaism.

Let's face it: Reform Judaism does not recognize obligations.  A Reform Jew
need not believe in echad.  A convert to Reform Judaism need not be
circumcised nor go to a mikveh.  I can be a Reform Jew with no obligations
whatsoever (nobody can tell me how to live my life).  That Reform Jews
endeavor to stay connected to some degree with traditional Judaism (i.e., some
form of kashrut and shabbat observance; as quite nicely presented by some
contributors) is merely a reflection of the beauty of our religion which
contains a truth (emet) independent of our respective beliefs.

A "mitzvah" is something you do because you must; even if it is something you
want to do.  na'aseh v'nishmah.  We do and then we understand.  Without
committing to do particularly Jewish actions (consider Franz Rozenzweig) and
committing to develop understanding and appreciation, it sure is hard to want
to "accept" a voluntary obligation.  In fact, something voluntary is not an
obligation at all.

Again, let me state that Reform (and Reconstructionist and Conservative and
Orthodox) Judaism have a lot to offer our people and the world.  An honest
search is neither easy nor quick.  Especially when you take the time to read
an essay asking you to logically extend your analysis.  David, I do not think
Alex tried to insult anyone, nor to make dialog futile.  That he "knows" the
truth (i.e., Torah me'sinai) does not invalidate his questions or challenges
(to himself included).

Any reading of this list shows the sincere efforts people are making to ask:
what do Jews do?  Sure, we Jews have always had a lot of responses to the
contemporary situation.  Until fairly recently, out of intelligence or
stupidity, most Jews accepted the yoke of the mitzvot -- regardless of their
level of personal observance.  If you think Reform is also the norm, fine.

But tell me, are there any reform obligations?  A mitzvah is a mitzvah only
because echad says so; not because I say so.

Return to Table of Contents

From: Robert Rosin <rosin@shell.monmouth.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:12:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Announcement: CCAR resolutions online!

The *full texts* of *all CCAR resolutions* adopted between 1973 and 1997 are
now available on line via a searchable index at

	http://ccarnet.org/reso/

This site offers access to the position of the Reform movement over time on
dozens of issues and can be a valuable resource to synagogue members, Jewish
professionals, and scholars.

The CCAR plans to provide similar breadth of access to the Reform Responsa,
for which a complete index can be found at

	http://ccarnet.org/resp/

At present, complete texts are available on line only for the most recently
adopted responsa.

Bob Rosin

Return to Table of Contents

From: Rabbi Arthur Waskow <Awaskow@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 08:28:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Action Announcement: "Administrative Detention" in Israel

[Moderator's Note: Although slightly off-charter, Reform Judaism does have a
strong social action component. I am including this short announcement from
Rabbi Waskow for those that are interested. -- DPF]

Several weeks ago, five of Israel's most prominent authors -- A. B.  Yehoshua,
Amos Oz, Haim Guri, S. Yizhar and Yehoshua Kenaz -- published an open letter
calling on the Defense Minister to end the practice of "administrative
detention" -- that is, detentions WITHOUT CHARGES OR TRIAL, often for months
or years at a time.

B'Tselem, a major Israeli human rights organization that has won great
international respect (including the Jimmy Carter Prize for Human Rights) is
now asking Americans to join in this open letter and in publishing it in the
New York Times.  I have followed B'tselem's work for the last five years, and
have been respeatedly impressed by their accurate factual reporting and their
careful analysis.

If you would like to see the open letter and consider signing it, you can
either write me (awaskow@aol.com) or B'Tzelem directly. Their email address
is: btselem@actcom.co.il

Thanks and shalom,

Arthur Waskow

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: v7n23		Next Issue: v7n25
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form