Mail.Liberal-Judaism

• David A. Guberman <djguberman@gis.net>
• mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)

• Alex Herrera <aherrera@utj.org>

• Julian Yudelson <YUDELSON.JE@a1.isc.rit.edu>

• Murray Kastner <murray@macpro.ca>

• Michael Horowitz <mhorowitz@32z.rjf.com>

• Michael Horowitz <mhorowitz@32z.rjf.com>

• Tycho Family <tycho@netmedia.net.il>

• Ruth Heiges <heiges@post.tau.ac.il>

From: David A. Guberman <djguberman@gis.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:46:04 -5000
Subject: Re: Beyond patri/matri-lineal descent

If I understand him correctly, Rabbi Kraus is troubled by the thought that,
under the proposal forwarded for consideration by R. Waskow, "all Jews who
were not considered Jews halachikly (under Orthodox or Conservative authority)
would essentially be converted to be such by virtue of mikvah)."  This, I
thought, was the proposal's essential point, namely, to devise a creative,
non-stigmatizing framework within which the halakhic status of religiously
serious Jews could be assured.

Rabbis Kraus fears that, while the proposal "would solve the problem of
different interpretations of who is an authentic Jew, . . . it would also
undermine the right of non-traditional Jewish movements to explore new
expressions (like patrilineal descent)."  ButI do not understand the proposal
as attempting to force the Reform movement to do, or refrain from doing
anything.  Nevertheless, just as the Reform movement ought to be free "to
explore new expressions," the Conservative and Orthodox movements must be
equally free to adhere to their (different) understandings of halakha.  IMHO,
it is as coercive and wrong to try to require Conservative and Orthodox Jews
to accept as Jews those considered such by the Reform movement according to
patrilineal descent or conversion that does not meet halakhic standards as it
is to try to require the Reform movement to change its own standards.  In all
events, I understand the proposal to be persuasive, not coercive.  (N.b., I am
addressing questions of religious status, _not_ the Law of Return.)

Rabbi Kraus concludes that "[t]here is no 'stigma' to being a patrilineal Jew
except in the eyes of those who are unwilling to accept the right of Reform
Jews to follow their authentically Jewish path."  IMHO, the problem is that
Rabbi Kraus and the Reform movement have the right to determine the standards
under which they will consider someone to be, or not to be, Jewish, and the
Conservative and Orthodox movements have the right, "follow[ing] _their_
authentically Jewish path[es]" (emphasis added), to hold that some people
considered Jews in the eyes of the Reform movement are not Jews in their eyes.
That is, anyone has the "right" to call himself or herself or another person a
"Jew."  And I have the corresponding right to say that I do, or do not, agree.
For example, I hope R. Kraus would not stigmatize me if I did not count in a
minyan someone who I knew not to be a Jew according to Conservative halakhic
standards.  (Please note I am _not_ calling for an inquisition.  I am speaking
of a situation in which the person makes it known that he or she is, e.g., a
Jew solely by patrilineal descent.)

Those who do not see this situation as problematic, or who insist on their own
movement's rights to the exclusion of other movements, may not see a need for
action.  Respectfully, I do.

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

Return to Table of Contents

From: mshulman@ix.netcom.com (Moshe Shulman)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:26:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Beyond patri/matri-lineal descent

From: av402@lafn.org (Bob Kraus)

>Not that I have anything against mikvah for those who want it (Reform,
>Conservative, Reconstructionist, Orthodox, Secular...), I just would not like
>to see it become a manadte or even an expectation. Yes, I do think it would
>solve the problem of different interpretations of who is an authentic Jew, but
>it would also undermine the right of non-traditional Jewish movements to
>explore new expressions (like patrilineal descent).

I didn't want to get involved here, but since Bob has opened a path towards
what I as an O Jew view this issue, I thought I would add a few words. Bob's
point is clear and it points towards the real problems of this. First O Jews
would never recognize this as a conversion or anything, so the important point
is what R/C Jews will say, and also the reaction of those effected. As Bob
points out those that accept patri-descent don't see any stigma. So what is
the need? In fact what I saw as the original problem would be for those Jews
who would be halachically Jewish. Would anyone want to belong to a Liberal
group which made his Jewish status contingent, when O Jews accept them without
this contingency? I just don't see where this would, or could help anyone.

mshulman@ix.netcom.com

Return to Table of Contents

From: Alex Herrera <aherrera@utj.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 20:58:20 +0000
Subject: Re: From Reform to Orthodox

I must admit that I am confused by Bernard's posting, but I will respond as
best I can.

Bernard Rotmil writes glowingly of Rabbi Lilienthal's response to me.  I
agree. The Rabbi is quite eloquent in defense of Reform, but the Rabbi came to
some conclusions about my post that were incorrect so I clarified. Bernard
contrasted the Rabbi's performance by labeling my remarks about Reform Jews
who rejected a Reform synagogue as "gratuitious".

If people thought my remarks were "gratuitious" I am glad to clarify. I
pointed out that some Reform Jews did not want a shul in their neighborhood
because it inconvenienced them yet they longed for a close knit
neighborhood. I concluded that those Reform Jews were not willing to pay the
price.

In previous postings Bernard has objected to even Orthodox walking to shul and
causing a driving hazard so no doubt he would have joined the Reform Jews in
Agoura Hills in rejecting a Refom synagogue in such a neighborhood.

Bernard goes on to tell us about how Orthodx and reform approach and accept
converts. I have not heard much on the subject from my Orthodox friends, but I
know *this* Orthodox Jew is in great admiration of the Reform effort to
welcome converts. Reform is quiet vigorous in this pursuit. I would only hope
in some future Orthodoxy could be as vigorous. Reform is at the forefront of
seeking converts.  There is no doubt.

Bernard then extols the virtues of the enlightenment period. Well there were
many pluses to the enlightenment period but there were also a price to pay. It
is no crime to point out that a price was paid. But I think some Jews don't
want to think that anything was wrong with the enlightenment. It is their
choice.

I hope I have responded appropriately and have clarified my postion. 

Alexander Herrera
aherrera@utj.org
http://www.utj.org/home

Return to Table of Contents

From: Julian Yudelson <YUDELSON.JE@a1.isc.rit.edu>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:27:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Intensive Reform Jewish education

Last weekend I had an experience that drove home the importance of intensive
Jewish education for truly committed Reform Jews.

When Karen Muldrow writes
>.families that send their children to secular schools but make an effort, *as
>a family* to observe Jewish holidays, keep some level of kosher, and make
>decisions (such as doing volunteer work, etc) based on discussions of Jewish
>values, etc., are likely to think of Judaism as part of their
>personal/family/community life and identity.

I agree that committed Reform families can produce committed Reform children.
I know and am related to several of them.  However, there are VERY few Reform
Jewish Parents who can produce knowledgeable committed children.

However, there is a great deal of wisdom in the saying in Pirke Avot, "An
ignorant person (am ha'aretz) cannot be pious."

To presume that parents with limited Jewish knowledge can teach all that it
means to be Jewish is like saying that the richness of the American political
system can be fully appreciated if we take our children to watch the fireworks
on the Fourth of July and they cut out pictures of turkeys for thanksgiving.

Last weekend I had an experience that drove home the importance of intensive
Jewish education for truly committed Reform Jews. At a family Bar Mitzvah I
spoke with my nephew who had what was probably an above average Reform
educational background.  (The congregation has an extensive adult ed program,
takes its students on the March of the Living, etc.)  His complaint was that
in all his years of Sunday School, he NEVER studied ANY biblical text.  This
summer, he read the entire Pentateuch on his own and is considering taking a
course on the book of Judges at college on his own.

Earlier in the weekend, I had spoken with this young man's cousin who did have
a day school, and yeshiva high school education.  He had just delivered a
d'var torah at his Orthodox congregation on the occasion of the 20th
anniversary of his Bar Mitzvah on parsha Pinchas.  In it, he drew on his
background in Talmud to refute the position of the Chief Rabbi in Israel who
likened Reform Jews to the whoring with the Midianite women and implicitly
called for modern zealots to rise up like Pinchas and slay them to preserve
the righteous Jews.  The Rabbis of the Talmud have a very different take on
the episode than that given by the Chief Rabbi.  The conclusion they reached
was that the actions of Zimri were essentially personal in nature and that
Pichas challenged G-d for killing 24,000 Jews because of the personal actions
of a few.  The conclusion of the Talmudic discussion ( which was reiterated in
the d'var torah) was that in the absence of men of the moral character of
Pinchas, it is the obligation of the leaders of the community to teach the
actual and prospective sinners how much they have to loose by forsaking
Judaism for the degrading behavior of the surrounding culture.

Julian Yudelson
kol Israel chaverim, - a truly devine goal. 

Return to Table of Contents

From: Murray Kastner <murray@macpro.ca>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 05:57:59 -0500
Subject: Jewish Teachings on Forgiveness

My life partner teaches adolescents at the Torah School (Ethics and Values) at
the Reform Temple Emmanu-El in Montreal, Canada. She is looking for material
on Jewish Teachings on Forgiveness. Any direct pointers to sources of such
stuff will be appreciated.

,\\urray

Murray Kastner
murray@macpro.ca

Return to Table of Contents

From: Michael Horowitz <mhorowitz@32z.rjf.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:15:01 -0400
Subject: Jewish Unity

We need to be honest with ourselves when we talk about issues such as
conversion.  It comes down to understanding the basic theological differences
between liberal and Orthodox Judaism.

Whether you agree with the Orthodox or not their position is straightforward:
Conversions must be done according to Jewish law which includes the complete
acceptance of the halachic framework as being G-ds word.  This concept is
called Kabbalat Mitzvot, and is the reason their will never there be a joint
conversion process acceptable to all movements.  The essence of liberal
Judaism is the rejection of the idea that Judaism consists of a system of
mitzvot that are the literal commandments by G-d.

The liberal Jewish world ranges from those who deny the existence of G-d,
i.e. Humanistic Judaism to those who accept some type of halachic system but
see it as man made, with some level of divine inspiration.  (Right Wing
Conservatism.)  On a practical level most liberal Jews seem to adopt the
system that halachic practices are "tradition" that they will pick and choose
which they want to follow.

The proponents of Orthodox Judaism are not trying to be divisive when they
reject these changes in historic Judaism.  They are being true to their belief
system.  After all if you believe G-d said to be a Jew one must do A,B, and C
you couldn't change it for unity.

If one really finds Jewish unity to be a value the only real answer would be
for all the movements to renounce conversion and patrilineal decent.
Obviously if no movement is doing conversions their is no argument or division
over who is a convert. Nor does it require any of the movements to renounce
the legitimacy of their movement

One issue the moderator has raised with me in the first draft of this note was
that the liberal movements argue that pluralism is the only answer for Jewish
unity.  The problem this ideology cannot be accepted by those i.e.  the
Orthodox who define Judaism as what they believe G-d has commanded through a
divinely given Oral and written Torah.  For the Orthodox to accept non
halachic pluralism is to ask them to deny the validity of their own belief
system which explicitly denies its legitimacy.

This problem also exists within the liberal movements.  The Conservative and
Traditional (UTJ) movements both believe that conversion should follow their
definition of halacha.  Therefore they do not accept reform and other
conversions, by the movements that reject halacha.  (Nor do they accept
patrilineal descent.)

Even those who believe in pluralism have their limits to what they accept.
For example the moderator of this forum excludes Jews for Jesus as legitimate.
I grew up in a Reform Synagogue where the Rabbi Jan Bresky Z"L was opposed to
granting legitimacy to the humanist Jews.

Given the poor level of Jewish education and commitment among born Jews it
seems to be that we have enough work to do among them w/o running out for more
converts.

Patrilineal descent represents a break with tradition done as a response to,
what I see as the Reform and Reconstructionist movements abandonment of the
struggle against intermarriage.  It was done knowing it would be divisive and
they

I'm sure these ideas would never be accepted but I throw them out for your
consideration.         

Return to Table of Contents

From: Michael Horowitz <mhorowitz@32z.rjf.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:36:25 -0400
Subject: Jewish Values

Recently Mr. Kipper asked "how to live in a world of mixed values and not to
return to the shtetl mentality of our more tradition minded brethren."  I'm
not sure what is meant by the concept of the "shtetl mentality" of traditional
Jews/Judaism that Mr. Kipper refers to.  If he is referring to the idea of
being able to participate in the secular world, I would note that traditional
Jews are found in all walks of life.  For example, Senator Joseph Lieberman of
Connecticut is an halachically observant Jew who seems be involved somewhat
with the secular world.

He worries that "our Orthodox bretheren, they have a bigger challenge in that
they are more frightened in losing what they have and with no chart of where
to go."  Actually they do--which is why, at least in my area, they seem to be
the fastest growing segment of Judaism.  Their chart is halacha, which is why
although Mr. Kipper may disagree with what they choose to follow, it is wrong
to state they have no idea what they are doing.  What they have done is, in a
world of "mixed values", chosen to follow one value of traditional halachic
Judaism.

He further asks "How to live in a world of mixed marriages and to accept that
value as well."  Mixed marriage has been around for quite a few years.  That's
why the Torah needed to condemn it.  (You don't condemn what doesn't exist.)
Why is it now that it needs to be accepted?  His answer seems to be that"all
values must be understood and dealt with..."  Indeed this seems to deal with
the essential question for liberal Jews: Are all values are equal?  For the
liberal Jew, what does it mean to have a connection to our heritage?  Is there
something called Jewish values?  How are they different from general ethical
values?

Return to Table of Contents

From: Tycho Family <tycho@netmedia.net.il>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 02:20:47 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Shavuout Violence in Jerusalem: A New Proposal (Common Denominator)

In mid-July, Jerry Blaz posted a comment on Common Denominator that I'm
responding to only now as I've just returned to Israel and my maxed-out email
box.

First, for those who missed us the first time around, Common Denominator is a
grass-roots movement to unite the Jews of Israel (and, ultimately, all Jews).
We are right-wing, left-wing, secular, Conservative, Reform, Orthodox,
Ashkenazi and Sefardi Jews all working together to teach people how to live
together peacefully. Our methodology is to focus on and teach others to focus
on those things that we have in common rather than those things that divide
us. We've had tremendous successes in our workshops in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv,
our Mea Sharim seminars, and other programs.

Jerry wrote, in summary, that Common Denominator has over-simplified or even
erred in defining the political-religious crisis facing the Jewish people
today and its solution. He began by acknowledging that there are different
perspectives on right + wrong. Maybe, he suggested, the real problem is one of
"who is a rabbi?" Then, he narrowed the issue even more:

>The problem comes down to the movements.... The most difficult aspect is, in
>my mind...those groups often described as Xaredi or "ultra-Orthodox" for whom
>tolerance is intolerable.  It is only with them that the "pluralism" issue is
>the most crucial, because they cannot even tolerate those Orthodox Jews who
>are not like them, who do not follows the p'sikot (halaxic rulings and
>pronouncements) of their specific rabbis.

Aha! Now the problem is clear -- it's them! They're the problem! Us, we're
reasonable, but them? They're extreme!

It's a rule of thumb: every Jew believes and will argue passionately that his
group is the reasonable one and that the others are the ones causing all the
problems.

Jerry's posting is a wonderful example of why Common Denominator was
founded. We believe, and most of the 10,000 participants in our programs would
agree, that the greatest problem facing the Jewish people today is one of
disunity -- i.e., needless discord and strife and attention to DIFFERENCES
when filial peace can be achieved if we can learn to focus on what we have in
COMMON.

Happily, Jerry ends with a statement that we can agree on:

> We who still recognize that Kol Yisrael Aravim ze ba-ze (All the people of
> Israel are responsible, one for the other) must be able to recognize our
> importance to each other.

With that in mind, I hope that Jerry WILL be able to make it to Israel for the
50th Independence Day and that he and all others who visit make a point of
attending one of Common Denominator's unity-building events. For further
information, please send us your name to nation@unity.org.il, or visit our
website at unity.org.il (currently being updated due to a bug in the
"response" section), or drop by our center at 36 Keren HaYesod St, Jerusalem
Tel: 566-0048.

Alexander Seinfeld

47% of Israelis believe we're headed for civil war (Yidioth Achronoth).
What should we do about it?

Return to Table of Contents

From: Ruth Heiges <heiges@post.tau.ac.il>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:37:55 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: UJA "Deal" with Reform and Conservative Movements

Adrian A. Durlester <durleste@plains.NoDak.edu> wrote:

> In return for UJA agreeing to raise up to $10 million for each of the
> movements programs in Israel, leaders of the two movements would issue
> statements urging Jewish unity and continued support of the UJA/Federation
> campaign.
> 
> The movements leaders have sold us out.[...] But, just imagine, in the 50s
> and 60s, the NAACP accepting a deal from some foundation to build "separate
> but equal" facilities" in exchange to agreeing not to stage civil rights
> boycotts! We are selling our souls.

"Separate but equal" happens to be precisely what we are striving for! I don't
see the moral or objective equivalence in this comparison at all.

Long before this "deal" was struck, those involved with Beit Daniel
(Progressive/Reform in Tel Aviv) were always careful not to jump on the
bandwagon of those heaping abuse on the UJA/Federations/Jewish Agency.  We've
always been grateful for and appreciative of the support from this source,
with a special nod to the great job which Avrum Burg is doing *for the sake of
unity* of the Jewish people! As far as we're concerned, there's nothing new in
this so-called deal.

> Yes, the infusion of cash may aid the Progressive and Masorti efforts in
> Israel. But as long as UJA continues to fund organizations in Israel that
> work against Jewish unity, what's the point?

What would be the point of fulminating against? What would this create except
greater division?

> Factions in Israel are pushing strongly for the Knesset to consider the
> conversion legislation when the new session begins after the holidays. Are
> we expected to remain silent on this because of the "deal" that has been
> struck?  Will we continue to have to tolerate abuse and interference with
> free access to the kotel?

May I suggest separating the issues into their respective categories. The
issues of conversion, access to the Kotel/Western Wall, and an undertaking not
to foment against UJA/Federation fund raising are totally separate from one
another.

Ruth Heiges

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: v7n27		Next Issue: v7n29
MLJ Home Page	Return to Retrieval Form