Conference taveng::bagels

    An observation:
    
    I have known Jews who attend Reform synagogues and keep kashrut.
    I have also known Jews who belong to Orthodox synagogues, and don't
    keep Shabbat.  We can discuss the "theological differences" among
    the labels, yet those differences are often negated in practice.
    Labels often make a convenient rock to hide behind:
    "I do foo because I'm a Bar."  They also separate us unnecessarily.
    
    Other thoughts:  the "Orthodox" do -not- always interpret literally,
    and a text may have -many- meanings (although one or two are usually
    accepted as the "major opinions").  I wonder if your sources expressed
    these views from a felt need to distinguish Orthodoxy from "others."
    This doesn't express my opinion of your sources; some Orthodox leaders
    do this partitioning as well.

    My understanding (coming from a Reform perspective):
    
    Orthodox interpret the Written Law (Torah) and Oral Law (Mishna)
    as having equal importance, as the exact revealed word of God. 
    Talmud has force of law.  Halacha, once accepted, can only be rescinded
    by near-unanimity of the Orthodox rabbinate.  This results in a
    very large body of existing halachot.
    
    Conservative start with the assumption that Written Law and Oral
    Law are both important, but permit more interpretation of Talmud.
    Halacha can be changed by majority of Conservative rabbinate.  Changes
    in worship practices, such as male and female seating rules, are
    part of this.
    
    Reform starts with the assumption that Oral Law should not have
    been written down in the first place, and Halacha is historical
    and a useful guide but not force of law.  Torah can be interpreted
    in historical context; while still the basis of law, some of its
    literal dictates can be interpreted by their historical context
    and not their literal meanings.
    
    One can be observant or non-observant within any of the above. 
    Reform permits one to question kashrut, for instance, or at least
    modify it -- many Reform will not eat pork or shrimp, but don't
    worry about meat & milk, which is not from Torah.  They are still
    "observant".  Some Orthodox do the same, but are not "observant"
    in their own context.

         fred

    Just a "two-liner", before (I see it now...) the storm.
    
    Re: .-1
    
    Meat and milk not in the Torah?
    
    Last time I looked, it was there in four distinct places.  I assume
    Torah didn't change since I looked last ... do you need the references?
    
    /don feinberg
    

    Re: 135.1
    
    I tend to agree that the labels of "Orthodox", "Reform" and
    "Conservative" do unnecessarily separate us.  After all, a Jew is
    a Jew is a Jew.
    
    Just because a Jew goes to shul every Shabbat and keeps kashrut,
    it does not necessarily mean that he is a better Jew than one who
    is not so strict.  My view is that one is as Jewish as one feels.
    
    What really upsets me are the rules surrounding where you can get
    married.  I don't know what it's like in the US or Eretz, but here
    in the UK, if the parents of one partner were married in an Orthodox
    shul while the parent of the other were married in a Conservative
    shul, then they themselves cannot marry in an Orthodox shul, hence
    restricting THEIR children!  This seems grossly unfair, as we're
    all Jews, after all!
    
    An illustration of my point is such :
    
    2 friends of mine got married a few years ago, but because her family
    couldn't find her grandparents' ketubah and her parents had married
    in a Reform shul, then they weren't allowed to marry in an Orthodox
    one.  However, her brother married a little while after her, and HE 
    was allowed to marry in an Orthodox shul.  My friends have finally
    convinced the Authorites that they SHOULD have been allowed to marry
    in an Orthodox shul, so they're getting married again in a few weeks
    time.
    
    It's a "happy ending", at least, but what a "guntza megilla"!!!

    Re .4:
    
    That's -weird-.  It sounds like the concern is more over whether
    both partners are actually Jewish than where the parents married.
    
    Related note:  the halacha requires the ketuba as evidence that
    a marriage is in effect.  This may be why many people hang the ketuba
    on the living room wall.  If the ketuba is lost, the couple may
    not live together until a new ketuba is signed.  No, you don't have
    to hire another caterer.
    
    			--- "I may not play the game,
    				but I know the rules."

    re:.3
    The idea is not to flame over just what Torah says.  Without keeping
    a copy in my office today, I recall it saying that you shouldn't
    seethe a lamb in its mothers' milk.  Which, I assure you, Reform
    Jews won't do.  We are more likely to eat chicken meat and cow's
    udderances at the same meal.  Anyway, that's just an example of
    where Halacha goes beyond what Reform considers reasonable.

< Note 135.4 by FORTY2::ELLIS >
                            -< Labels and Marriage >-
    
    "I tend to agree that the labels of "Orthodox", "Reform" and
    "Conservative" do unnecessarily separate us.  After all, a Jew is
    a Jew is a Jew."
    
    I strongly disagree with you Sue. To say that there is no
    difference between Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform is naive.
    Not only is there a difference, the gap is growing every day. Each
    one of us has a level of observance that we feel comfortable with.
    It is these differences in observance that make us different from
    one another. 
    
    Yes, "..a Jew is a Jew is a Jew" and one Jew is not better than
    another for being more observant. In the Torah it says that "all
    Jews are responsible, one for another". There is a medrash that
    says each Jew has a nashuma (soul), and within Adam arishna (the
    original man (pardon my transliterations)) the nashuma of every
    Jew was found. Each nashuma performed a different function but
    they were all part of the same body. And just as a human body, if
    one part was ailing the whole body suffered. Since we all are part
    of the same body we are all responsible for one another. 
    

    $ SET FLAME ON
    
    In spite of this I find that there is a great deal of animosity
    between the various camps. What pisses me off is when one Jew
    calls another Jew stupid because of their practices. A Jew is not
    stupid for keeping the shabbos. That means no travel, no carrying,
    no turning lights on or off, etc. A Jew is not stupid for wearing
    a kipa and tzitzis. A Jew is not stupid for putting on tifilin
    every morning. 
    
    And most of all a Jew is not stupid for keeping strictly kosher.
    How many times have I heard that it's ridiculous to have separate
    dishes, pots, and silverware for meat and dairy. Near the
    beginning if Viyikra the laws of kashruth are given. Immediately
    after, the reason for keeping kosher is given. "I am the L-rd your
    G-d who has brought you out of the land of Egypt, I am holy, make
    yourself holy." It is a mitzvah to keep kosher, we are commanded
    to keep the laws of kashruth. Also, HaShem references the great
    miracle. This is to show the importance of this mitzvah. 
    
    $ SET FLAME OFF
    
    Sue continues "What really upsets me are the rules surrounding
    where you can get married." Kidushin (marriage) is just as its
    name implies, a state of holiness. To give you an idea of its
    relative importance, there is a whole volume of the Talmud devoted
    to Kidushin. 
    
    About two years ago I remarried. Let me ask you something? As an
    Orthodox Jew could I have successfully married a woman who didn't
    keep a kosher house?... observe the shabbos? ...keep the laws of
    family purity? (These are the only mitzvahs a woman is required to
    keep.) I don't think so. The marriage probably wouldn't have
    lasted more than a year. 
    
    BTW Sue, I'm not upset with you. It's just that some of the topics
    you talked about pressed some of my hot buttons". 
    
    			Fred
    
    "Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to
    you" - Rabbi Hillel
    
    "It's not easy being green" - Kirmet the Frog
                                                     

    "keep a kosher house?... observe the shabbos? ...keep the laws of
    family purity? (These are the only mitzvahs a woman is required to
    keep.) I don't think so."
    
    I don't either, Fred.  These are the mitzvot which are ENTRUSTED
    to women.  Women are, in fact, required to keep ALL mitzvot, except
    for seven -positive- mitzvot which are performed only at fixed times:
    
    1. reciting the Shema
    2. tzitzit
    3. tefillin
    4. hearing the shofar
    5. sleeping & eating in the sukkah
    6. shaking the lulav
    7. [escapes me at the moment]
    
    Women are permitted to perform these anyway, though some authorities
    restrict women wearing tzitzit and tefillin.  Nevertheless, Rashi's
    daughters (granddaughters?) wore tefillin.  Other authorities hold
    that women, as a group, have accepted responsibility for shofar
    and lulav, and are thus obligated in these mitzvot.

    Fred,
    
    I am not saying that there is no difference between Orthodox, Reform
    and Conservative, I'm saying that these labels are creating a gap
    between Jews that I feel should not be there.  We have enough trouble
    with anti-semitism and people like Hitler, without stabbing each
    other in the back because of an "I'm Orthodox and you're not" attitude.
    No, a Jew is not "stupid", simply because (s)he obvserves every
    law, but (s)he is also not "stupid" if (s)he doesn't; everyone has
    their own standards.
    
    If two people love each other enough to want to marry, then they
    should respect each other enough to respect each other's ideals
    of Judaism and come to some compromise.  Marriage is what you make
    it, not what people (or religion, for that matter) say it should
    be.
    
    BTW, I didn't quite understand what point you were trying to make
    in quoting the good Rabbi Hillel????
    
    Susan.

    [A bit off the topic...but in response to the last question].
    
    the quote attributed to Hillel (in the negative form) was given
    (i am guessing) to contrast the quote (in the positive) by Jesus
    200 years later.   (didn't someone post Jesus's version here?)
    
    The wording is different and it appears (from a logic view) that the 
    the meaning is the same.   However, they are light years apart.

	I believe Jesus said,

		"Let he who is without sin,
		cast the first stone."

    
    
    SET FLAME OFF
    
    excuse me for dropping in. But,
    What do Hassidic and Reconstruction Reformist Jews believe?
    Also, this may seem like a dumb question, but Do you have to
    believe in G-d to be Jewish??
    
    
    Now I shall hide under table.
    
    Neil
    

    I only have a few moments to type now. I hope I can make some
    sense.
    
    Set flame / on
    
    There's an old aphorism, which unfortunately has too much truth
    in it.  [for those of you "uninitiated", many Hebrew prayers
    begin with "Blessed are you, L-rd our G-d, King of the Universe
    ....", which starts, in Hebrew, "boruch atah HaShem, ...", HaShem
    (lit. "the name", being one of the Names of G-d you can write down.
    It's pronounced "adonai".]
    
    		Orthodox:  "Boruch atah HaShem...."
    
    		Conservative: "Boruch atah Idunno ..."
    
    		Reform: "Boruch atah Idontcare ..."
    
    		Reconstructionist: "To whom it may concern ..."
    

    (When I get some time, I'd like to respond here somewhat seriously
    and at some length.)

    However, the point raised in .-1 (and above) is really at the heart
    of the issue.
    
    GRAMPS::LISS, a few replies ago, makes an argument about the neshoma.
    It's true; a Jewish neshoma is a Jewish neshoma is a Jewish neshoma.
    Great!  So we're all Jews, and are all entitled to the respect of
    fellow Jews. I agree wholeheartedly.  Also, as has been pointed
    out, there are so few of us that fighting among ourselves might
    be pretty counterproductive.  Granted.
    
    However, I have a sense that the biggest difference between the
    "movements" (I use that guardedly; I don't consider Orthodoxy any
    kind of "movement") is in their attitude towards HaShem.
    
    To oversimplify: The general Orthodox position is that the Torah
    is of HaShem -- written and "al pi", Oral.  So I don't personally
    mess with the halacha, i. e., kashrus, shomer Shabbas, taharas 
    hamishpocha, etc.  These are from HaShem.  Who am I to mess with
    them?
    
    The basic problem I see is that if you unilaterally decide that
    some halachos don't apply, there's then no end to the process.
    That is: you don't want to be Shomer Shabbos? ok.  You don't want
    to keep Kosher?  ok.  And so on.  So who decides where to stop in
    the "613"???? You?  Or HaShem?  Who gave you the right?
    
    There's no way to know, unless you've got a pipeline to HaShem that
    I don't know about.
    
    The issue at its "nut", I think, relates to the above:  Did the
    Torah come from HaShem?  Ask yourself.   

    One of the usual counterarguments to the above is
    that people are giving up unimportant mitzvot.  Nonsense!  Either
    it's HaShem's mitzvah, or it's not.  I personally do not understand
    HaShem's overall scheme of things for the universe; I cannot judge
    which are the "important" or "unimportant" mitzvot.  Again:  I 
    believe that the Torah came from HaShem.
    
    Let me point out that I grew up in a "Conservative" synagogue. 
    I tried giving it all up for some years.  And I "came back" to an
    Orthodox shul, not out of ignorance, but from reading the texts,
    and   seriously learning something. This is something we gave *great* lip
    service to in "Conservative-land", but never did anything about.
    My personal reason (though for many years I didn't understand this)
    that I stayed in Conservative 
    congregations for those many years was IGNORANCE, all the while believing
    that I knew a lot about Judaism.
    
    As a trial baloon, I would conceptually propose an alternative 
    definition  of Orthodox, Conservative,
    etc.:  Instead of classifying by the mechitsa, or the seating of women,
    let's decide on the basis of the number of hours a week that people
    spend learning Tanach, Gemara, etc.  Let's propose something like:
    "Orthodox:  10 hours or more" "Conservative: 1 to 10"  "Reform:
    0 to 1". Is this too harsh?
    
    I hope I can get some time to get back to this to elucidate further
    in the near future.
    
    /don feinberg        

    If I haven't said it before, I'll say it now:
    
    The halacha, Jewish law, knows -nothing- of Reform, Conserative,
    Orthodox, Gastronomic, or Heartfelt.  A person is judged by what
    he -does- galaxies more than what he feels or calls himself.
    Who is a better Jew?  The one who -acts- like a Jew should.
    And that applies "across the board."  
    
    I'll backtrack a moment:  It's an absolute joy to awaken in the
    morning and be glad I'm Jewish.  I awaken every weekday and go to
    work.  What about the mornings I get angry at my job, or feel like
    bicycling the morning away?  No diff: the essential is that I -do-
    go to the office and do my work.  Of course, a poor attitude will
    show up in the quality of my work.  But what counts is the physical
    result.  "Ein hadibur, eileh hama'aseh." 
    		(Not the word, but the act [that counts].)

    
    
    RE .13
    
    Don,
     The part about a Jew is a Jew is a Jew, is not really true. I have
    heard from many Jewish people that you can lose your state of
    Jewishness and no longer be consider a Jew. For example, I heard
    that in the Late 1970's the rabbinic councel ruled that if a Jew
    believes in Jesus, he is no longer a Jew. i have also heard there
    are other things as well that have the same affect.
    
    neil
    

    re .15
    
    Neil, I think you may have things in the wrong order. Someone who
    believes in Jesus may not become a Jew. A Jew who gives up his
    faith, for any reason, is an apostate Jew. An apostate Jew may
    "return" at any time to be accepted back into the community.
    According to Jewish law I couldn't (G-d forbid) give up my Judaism
    if I wanted to. 
    
    				Fred
     

    re:  .15
    
    Neil,

	Ditto:  *What* Rabbinic council?  And by what binding authority?
    
    
   /don feinberg

    Re .13
    
    Your statements are typical of Orthodoxy (religious or otherwise).
    i (We) are the keepers of the word and you must follow it exacvtly
    as I (we) tell you.  What you fail to understand is that which you
    practice are laws and traditions based upon interpertations of Torah.
    As holy and wise as they were they interpted the word based upon
    the times and lives that they lived in.  What Conservatisim states
    is that the interpetation of Torah continues and that wise and holy
    mem exist today and they can and do interpert Torah in light of
    the world today while "CONSERVING" the spirit and meaning of the
    Torah.  I see nowhere in the Torah that the proper Shabbat atire 
    for a Jew should be based upon the costume of a 17th century Polish 
    nobelman but there are those who believe that it should.  The question
    becomes do you freeze your interpertation of Torah or does it continue.
    If you believe the former then you follow Orthodoxy,  if the latter
    then Conservatism.

    < Note 135.18 by DARTH::SCHORR >
                               -< Reply to .13 >-

    
    "Your statements are typical of Orthodoxy (religious or
    otherwise). i (We) are the keepers of the word and you must follow
    it exacvtly as I (we) tell you."
    
    It's unfortunate that you bear a grudge against Orthodox Jews.
    When I look at your reply I see nothing but hate and distrust for
    any Jews that differ from you. Daily, usually in the evening, I
    remind myself of the mitzvah to love my fellow Jew. As I quoted
    from the Torah in my earlier note "All Jews are responsible, one
    for another". I may strongly disagree with your feelings toward
    Judaism but I will never turn my back on you. 
    
    " What you fail to understand is that..." Silence everyone!
    The Rabbi is about to tell us what we MUST do.
    
    "I see nowhere in the Torah that the proper Shabbat atire 
    for a Jew should be based upon the costume of a 17th century Polish 
    nobelman but there are those who believe that it should."
    
    I find this remark inexcusably bigoted. Are you saying IT'S STUPID
    to ware a long black coat? Maybe IT'S STUPID to ware a black
    hat on Shabbos. Are people who say "gut shabbos" instead of
    shabot shalom" ignorant? It all depends on your perspective.
    I actually know someone who thinks IT'S STUPID to wear a yarlmulka
    to shul.
    
    And lastly, please don't try to describe Orthodox Judaism in
    your feeble terms.
    
    			Have an ordinary day,
    					Fred
    
    BTW - You could have come up with a better stereotype of an
    Orthodox Jew. How about "Orthodox women are bald under their
    shetel". 8^)  
                       (I'll never tell)
    

>    Re .13
>    
>    Your statements are typical of Orthodoxy (religious or otherwise).
>    i (We) are the keepers of the word and you must follow it exacvtly
>    as I (we) tell you.  

This is a very difficult reply for me. I am commanded to, and I will
love my fellows.  Yet, I have a lot of difficulty with the Conservative
movement.  As I left that movement, I feel a sense of loss in the 
last few years, in that that I believe that I've 
discovered something exceedingly valuable and beautiful that because
of doctrinary differences I am unable to show many others. And
this beauty is under attack at a level to which it's very 
existence is threatened.

First, Orthodoxy is a branch of Judaism, not a disease! If you want to brand me,
well, brand me.  It seems to me that the above gives a prime accusatory
example. 

Well, yes, "the word" is kept....HaShem's word, the words of 
the sages, the words of Rashi, the Rambam, Tosefot, and many others. I 
am (or we are?)  NOT telling you WHAT it is.  Rather, I would 
strongly urge that one study and read those words for oneself.

Let me ask: WOULD Judaism even BE today if the words weren't kept and
learned??

>    What you fail to understand is that which you
>    practice are laws and traditions based upon interpertations of Torah.

Sorry.  I don't think that I fail to understand this at all.  I DO
behave upon interpretations of Torah...but see below.

>    As holy and wise as they were they interpted the word based upon
>    the times and lives that they lived in.  

<<As a point of halacha, we hold the Oral Torah to have been revealed
at the same time as the written Torah.  The written Torah can almost
be thought of as a set of "class notes" to the Oral Torah. If you reject
that, we should discuss it. But it should be the subject of another reply.>>

>    What Conservatisim states
>    is that the interpetation of Torah continues and that wise and holy
>    mem exist today and they can and do interpert Torah in light of
>    the world today while "CONSERVING" the spirit and meaning of the
>    Torah.  

You're right.  That's what Conservatism *states*.  

BUT: I have real reservations about the real *practice*, the movement's
history, and where Conservatism has come in its 73 years of existence. I spent
a total of about 35 years in several Conservative congrgations.  
I have some experience with the Conservative movement.

I fail to understand, in the end, what in fact is "conserved" today. What 
is it?  A *rememberence* that somehow that we're Jews, 
all the while acting like assimilated Jews??  This is, to me, a
key point:  are we "social" Jews or religious Jews?  

I ask, in all honesty: isn't Jewish life observance of Torah?  Isn't that what, 
at the heart of it, sets Yehudim apart from Hagoyim (no prejudice intended)?

I think that the "spirit" of the halacha, reduced to 25 words or less, is that
HaShem wants people to behave in certain ways. I hope we can agree
on that. Otherwise, we should have a different conversation...
We're talking about how to interpret those wants, and how we should
react to them as people.  *That's* what Rabbinic interpretation is
about. And there is, on the other hand, what people actually *do* with
those interpretations.

What Rabbi Shechter and Co. wanted to do in the early days of the Conservative
movement is understandable.  However, I personally think that he made a
big mistake, as I pointed out in my last reply:  where do you draw the
line?  Where's the "fence" around the Torah?  Who decides?  When does
one stop drawing lines?  And when one stops drawing lines, is there
anything left? For example, let me quote from the preamble of the 
United Synagogue movement's Constitution:

	"[objectives]...are to assert an establish loyalty to the Torah and
	its historical expositions; to further the observance of the Sabbath
	and dietary laws; to preserve in the Service the reference to
	Israel's past  ... to foster Jewish religious life in the home
	as expressed in traditional observances ..."  [1913]

In practice, I fail to see the *existence* of many individual "Conservative" 
Jews (as defined by the R. A. and U. S. A. -- never mind Dr. Shechter!). 

What do I mean by that?

Jews traditionally have a practice of study and learning.  The Conservative
movement endorses that.  In practice:  how often does a 
Gemara get opened in a Conservative
synagogue?  So, maybe the Conservative Rabbi has some "new 
ideas".  But how about individuals studying the 3000 years of thought that
went before the last 73 years of the Conservative movement?
Ask most Conservative Jews about the content of Torah.
My experience is that most can't tell you anything about the Sedrah
of the week at all, and don't care.

So: what information does the typical Conservative Jew have to make up
his mind whether to follow the Conservative Movement or not?

So: What did we conserve?  

Example: In my experience, many Conservative Jews have
Passover seders. They would (and I used to, also!) have them on treif 
dishes.  They would  (and I did) skip half
or more of the Hagaddah. Most of the people in attendance couldn't
even read (or mouth) the Hagaddah, let alone understand it.

Again: What did we "conserve"??  Is that kind of a seder worth it? Is this
what one wants for Judaism? Isn't it kind of dishonest?  I felt that
when I was a kid, doing it!

Example: "Everyone except tha Rabbi" drives to 
the synagogue on Shabbat (and in a lot of cases, the Rabbi does also).
Yeah, I know. I know --- RA policy permits "driving to and from the
Synagogue".  BUT: I personally do not know *one single* conservative
lay person who abides by that policy.  They go to the bank on the
way to the synagogue, and stop off at the bagel shop on the way
home.  Again, what was conserved????  One drives to the shul, 
prays (maybe?!?) about ..."mikadesh haShabbat" and then drives
away? What "spirit" has one conserved except to make one stop on one's
favorite shopping day? 

>    I see nowhere in the Torah that the proper Shabbat atire 
>    for a Jew should be based upon the costume of a 17th century Polish 
>    nobelman but there are those who believe that it should.  The question
>    becomes do you freeze your interpertation of Torah or does it continue.
>    If you believe the former then you follow Orthodoxy,  if the latter
>    then Conservatism.

Gimme a break! I didn't say that or imply that.  I don't dress that
way, and I believe that I'm properly attired for Shabbat.

Why does it matter to you if a Jew wears the costume of a 
17th century nobleman, or (more likely) the costume of a 17th century
Jewish peasant from the shtetl?  They're Jews also!  Observant ones,
by the way.  I don't agree with them. I do not wear a black coat.
(And the "black coats", for example, the Lubavitchers, I have found
to be the *most accepting* group of Jews!).

No!  I DON'T freeze my interpretation of Torah.  I read widely.  I learn.
I am developing and changing. I have loud arguments about halacha with 
many people.  My development continues.  But I still say "boruch 
atta HaShem...".

/don feinberg

    Re .19 & .20
    
    Before I have a formal chance to reply to .19 & .20 I think a couple
    of my statements were misunderstood so I would like to clear them
    up.  I will reply to the points of discussion as soon as I get a
    chance.
    
    I. I have nothing against Orthodox Jews or any Jews.  Whai I do
    object to is anyone telling another that they have the "truth",
    "light", etc. and that only those who believe as they do are true
    to the faith.  In this respect a Reform Jew can be as guilty as
    an Orthdox Jew.  What one accepts for oneself is fine it when one
    looks at another and thinks less of him for degrades what he does
    because he or she doesn't follow what that person believes to be
    the truth.
    
    II.  My statement regarding 17th century clothing refers to the
    Shabbat atire of certain Chasidic groups.  What I was reffering
    to is the fact that much of what we do is based upon tradition that
    has somehow become law often by ignorance of the law is but it is
    blindly followed.
    

    I don't know why I am entering this debate, after reading Don
    Feinberg's "thesis" .13 I said to myself that it not worth replying
    to, but after .20 I can't resist.
    
    First of all, if he had spent 35 years in the Conservative movement
    then he must have been in a fog all that time.  Personally, I don't
    care for any of the three movements, I find something objectionable
    in each one.  but one positive characteristic is it's flexibility(I
    can hear the "Orthos" now!), what I mean by that is that one can
    be as religious as one likes or you can take the opposite route.
    Yes, you can keep kosher, observe Shabbat and still remain
    Conservative, or you can join a "California Conservative" kehila
    and go out to the Dodger game after synogogue, if you so desire.
    
    I happen to believe that religion is a personal process, and that
    it is strictly up to the individual how he/she interprets it.  In
    other words as Billie Holiday succintly put it, ain't nobody's business
    but my own.
    
    Some things that I did glean off this discussion which I take exception
    to is:
    
    o	Because Mitzvah #--- commands me to love you as another Jew,
    	then I will, even though your dishes are Trayf;you desecrate
    	the Shabbat;your family is not interested in the Seder;you're
    	all ignorant of every word in the Torah, etc.,etc. Gee, thanks
    	guys!
    
    What makes you think that every soul in the Orthodox movement can
    quote scriptures right off the top of their heads?  I can't claim
    to having expert knowledge in Torah, but at least I'm aware of the
    weekly Parashah, and I'm not even religious(in the traditional sense
    that is).
    
    o	The remark made by DARTH::SCHORR re: being Orthodox and dressing
    	up in 17th century clothes.  I think that this remark was a
    	little off-base and unfair.  Most Orthodox are not Chassidim,
    	and even many Chassidim do not dress in this fashion. 
    
    
    I've stopped going to synogogue, and have decided to spend Saturday
    a.m. reading the weekly Torah portion, I find it much more satisfying,
    after all as the saying goes "Limuday Torah neged kulam".  Besides,
    I'm not convinced that prayer moves spiritual forces in the universe
    good deeds seem to go farther in affecting good/bad karma.
    
    The best course for myself is to remain an Aphikorus, I mean the
    primary translation of Aphikorus, i.e. one who questions.  The meaning
    of this word has been twisted to translate to heretic, but the real
    Hebrew translation for heretic is the word Kaffir(also the same
    word in Arabic).  In fact I intend to impart this advice onto my
    daughter, be an Aphikorusit, question everything, don't accept anything
    as the "gospel", search for yourself what is true or what you perceive
    as the truth.
    
    David
    

    
    re .16,17
    
    The counsel i was refering to was the Counsel of Conservative Rabbis
    that met in NY in the late 1970's to come up with this rulling.
    
    If it is all important, i can look up my sources and find out the
    exact date and location and all the details. The ruling was published
    information.
    
    nb
    

    re .21 
    
    Warren, perhaps I misunderstood your point. However, one thing
    remains. I think you are wrong! That's OK because you think
    I'm wrong. And the Reform think both of us are wrong.
    
    These differences of opinion make for interesting debates. After
    so many secular discussions, I'm glad to see some religious topics
    in this conference. I would enjoy discussing whether or not the
    word of Ha'Shem is open to interpretation. A discussion is good,
    just as long as we don't forget that we are debating another Jew. 
    
    I noticed in todays news that in Israel a shul was burnt down
    over a difference of opinion. It is inexcusable when one Jew
    raises a hand against another Jew.
    
    I'll e-mail the article to anyone who wants to see it. (I will
    resist the temptation of posting it here under the heading
    "Anti-clerical bullies".)      8-) 
    
    			Fred
    

    re:.24
    
    Concerning the burning of the synogogue, I agree that it was stupid
    and deplorable.  The very thought that the "cultural war" has been
    raised to this level makes me sick.  Not so ironically it was the
    synogogue of the Rabbi who had been leading the "terrorist raids"
    on the bus shelters.
    
    Fred, as deplorable an action such as burning a synogogue(an action
    only worthy of a Nazi), the rise of "Jewish Khomeiniism" equals
    it and must be stopped or democracy will cease to exist in Eretz.
    If it was up to the ultra-orthodox you wouldn't be able to glance
    at a Playboy.
    
    David 

    Re .25
    
    Your entitled to your opinion.
    
    			Fred     
    

    If it were up to the -feminists- you wouldn't be able to glance
    at a Playboy.  Case: the MIT Coop Lobby Shop, a small grocery, was
    "persuaded" to not carry certain "adult magazines" (I use the term
    loosely) a few years ago.  Certain groups on campus did not like
    the contents.
    
    My point?  It seems like the "ultra-Orthodox," whomsoever they be,
    are held responsible for all bondage, and the "secularists" are
    the libertarian heroes of the press.  In fact, many of the latter
    are -also- trying to coerce the rest of society to act in accordance
    with their views.  Witness the socialist kibbutzim which secularized
    European and Sefardic immigrants in the early days of the state.
    
    Let's PLEASE stop looking for convenient generalizations with which
    to tag people.  On that note, I make my exit.  Shavuot begins in
    a few hours (DEC Daylight Time).  Chag Sameach, and Farewell.
    
    				--- S.

    re:-1
    
    Too bad this all has to start before Shavuot.  As a former
    kibbutz(which kept kosher, and did not have public functions on
    the Shabbat)member, I can tell you with all confidence that you
    don't know what you are talking about.
    
    The kibbutz movement had nothing to do with "secularizing" anybody,
    the Europeans who settled on kibbutz were secular to begin with,
    and I think the same can be said for the Sephardim.  If the kibbutzim
    "secularized" society then how do you account for the religious
    kibbutzim, or were you ignorant of their existence?
    
    I've stated this before in a previous note, and I'll state it again
    - in Israel you are not dealing with a group of kindly old Chassidic
    sages, rather that there is a group of people who, for their own
    selfish purposes are out to undermine Israeli society and democracy.
    I am not condemning all of the Orthodox movement, but only those
    that have manipulated the system for their own political gain.
    
    I think that you are all too used to leaders such as the Bostoner
    Rebbe(a good person, I used to work for him once) or Rav Soleveitchik,
    Orthodoxy in Israel has a much different face.
    
    By the way, the total population of the combined kibbutzim amounts
    to (maximum)3% of the population of the country.  Secularism is
    a movement(if one can describe it as such)that cuts across all societal
    lines.  Don't go off making remarks like you did before knowing
    the facts.
    
    Hag Sameach,
    David
    

    re .28 
    
    Here is a short quote from the end of the article I referenced
    earlier. 
    
    "Yossi Sarid of the anti-clerical Civil Rights Movement was
    expelled from the Knesset hall after a shouting match in which he
    called ultra-Orthodox legislator Menachem Porush a ``thug'' and
    ``Cossack.'' Porush announced last week he planned to spray-paint
    a bus shelter across from his home." 
    
    Now I ask you, does this Yossi Sarid have both his oars in the
    water? And this Civil Rights Movement doesn't sound too friendly
    either.
    
    :-) We will see that you can worship as you please, even if we
    have to burn your shul to do it.  (-: 
    

    			Chag Sameach
    				Fred
    
                                	(A_Thug_and_a_Cossack)
    

    re: -1
    
    Fred, I think the problem is that you are still seeing the issue
    from an American perspective.  In this case Yossi Sarid happens
    to be 100% correct in describing Menachem Porash as a "thug and
    a Cossack"(maybe I would have used different terms).
    
    You can not shove your personal(not you personally, so take it easy)
    perception of morality down people's throats. That is certainly
    no way to gain converts, or at least make your position more amenable
    to others.
    
    The Civil Rights movement developed out of opposition to the
    manipulation of some in the Orthodox estabilishment in Israel. 
    Things that we take for granted such as women's rights here in the
    Galut, are prevented by these same people.  So the only alternative
    was to form another party.  Yossi Sarid was a former member of the
    Labor party, and from what I recall he is a fairly competent and
    respected politician.  In fact I was unaware that he had switched
    parties.
    
    By the way, angry shouting matches and name-calling are de rigeur
    for the Knesset, nothing unusual at all.  Your probably too used
    to the nice Robert's Rules of Order that is followed in the U.S.
    Congress.  
    
    Before I went to live in Israel I had this childhood image of Jewish
    clerics, you know comforting, always there with the right advice,
    etc.  Now recently when my mother-in-law asked me if I thought Rabbis
    were corrupt as a class, I replied "no, only 50% of them are".
    
    Still Hag Sameach,
    David  
    

    It had to happen. There was really no choice. How long could 80%
    or so of a population be subject to the blackmail of the religious
    parties. How much more money had to be poured into the religous
    coffers if not they would bring down a government? No El Al flights
    on sabbath, no movie theaters, no sports. Although burning a shul
    ain't kosher neither is burning a bus stop or imposing your whim
    on the vast majority of the population.
    Fred I suggest you go and live in Israel and apply the "US Bill
    of Rights" to a council of wise Elders and come back to talk with
    us about it.
    Perhaps this would be the right time for the electoral system to
    be finally remade. Thirty political parties in the last natioanl
    elections for 4.5 million people?

    Who knows what the United States would be like if we had a Parlimentary
    form of Government?  
    
    

     The following is excerpted from a book by Rabbi Joseph Telushkin
     (citation on request).  I think it's a particularly nice way to
     look at the differences between us -- a way to see them as just
     steps in the same direction. Comments? 

              /Joyce  ("Not_there_yet_but_working_on_it")


     When Franz Rosenzweig, one of the leading Jewish thinkers of the
     twentieth century, was once asked if he put on tefillin, he
     answered, "Not yet."  At that point in his life, Rosenzweig did
     not feel spiritually ready or comfortable with the idea of
     putting on tefillin -- but he did not believe his unreadiness
     should, or would, be permanent.  By answering "not yet" rather
     than "no," Rosenzweig made known his intention to continue to
     grow spiritually.  Though he was not yet ready, he foresaw the
     day when wearing tefillin would be a natural expression of his
     Jewish growth. 

     In order to elevate themselves to the task of perfecting the
     world, the Jewish people must begin to answer questions about
     their personal observance with Rosenzweig's "not yet."  "Do you
     follow the Jewish command to give ten percent of your earnings to
     tzedaka?"  "Not yet, but I am giving more of my income each
     year."  "Do you observe the Shabbat in your household in full
     compliance with Judaism's command to make the Shabbat day holy?" 
     "Not yet fully, but we have started to recite the Kiddush and the
     Birkat Hamazon at our Shabbat meals.  We have also been able to
     liberate our family from reliance upon the television, and we
     will soon be starting a Shabbat discussion group with our
     friends."  "Have you done all that you can for Soviet Jewry?" 
     "Not yet, but the whole family recently participated in a Soviet
     Jewry demonstration, and we are beginning to correspond with a
     Russian Jewish family awaiting a visa." "Do you observe the laws
     of Kashrut?"  "Not yet entirely, but we no longer eat pork or
     shellfish." 

     The profundity of the "not yet" answer is that it is applicable
     to the Jew who has tried to observe Judaism for many years as
     well as to the Jew who has just begun to incorporate Judaism into
     his or her life.  "Do you follow the laws of tzedaka?"  "Not yet
     fully.  Though I give ten percent of my income to tzedaka, I do
     not give enough time to good causes."  "Do you observe the
     Shabbat in your household according to Jewish law?"  "Not yet
     fully.  True, I and my family do not violate any of the Shabbat
     laws, but too often I sleep away most of the day.  So I am
     starting a chavruta (learning with a friend) every week after
     synagogue to make sure that I keep up with my Jewish studies." 
     "Have you done all that you should for Soviet Jewry?"  "I have
     not yet done enough. True, for years I and my family have gone to
     demonstrations and written letters, but now we have become active
     in the Student Struggle for Soviet Jews and the National
     Conference on Soviet Jewry."  "Do you observe the laws of
     Kashrut?"  "We do observe Kashrut, but not yet in all its moral
     ramifications.  So we are lending support to groups which protest
     and fight inhumane forms of hunting.  Also, since there is in our
     community a large university where very few of the Jewish
     students keep kosher, either because they do not know the reasons
     for keeping Kashrut or because it is too expensive, some friends
     and I have made it known to the Hillel rabbi and to local Jewish
     student groups that we have an open home where students are
     invited for a Shabbat or weekday meal." 

     If Jews, individually and communally, were to start answering
     "not yet," it would remind us that in the search for G-d and
     goodness all of us are "not yet" there and that we therefore need
     each other's help.  To paraphrase Jakob Petuchowski, Professor of
     Jewish theology at Hebrew Union College, this approach to Judaism
     will generate unity among all Jews whose pattern of religious
     observance derives from a desire to hear G-d's commandments.  The
     "not yet" approach has inspired one traditional rabbi to write: 
     "When someone who eats in a non-kosher restaurant orders beef
     instead of pork because he keeps kosher, I can no longer laugh at
     him.  His choice was occasioned by a sort of low-level, yet very
     genuine concern not to eat of non-kosher beasts. ...  When he
     refuses butter on it and milk with his coffee because of 'seethe
     not the kid in its mother's milk,' I respect him still further. 
     And if he orders a scalebearing fish instead of meat, I see him
     struggling honestly to do G-d's will." 

   re:  .-1
    
    thank you.  I think that quote comes from "Eight (or "Nine", depending
    on the edition!) Questions People Ask about Judaism".  It's a nice
    one.
    
    /don feinberg

Right you are, Don.  That's a book that never seems to wear thin.

Joyce

    I have an interesting story that deals with the issue of
    Orthodox/consrevative/reform/who is a Jew anyway, lest we become
    too judgemental...
    
    This story was told in the Yeshivahs of Eretz Yisrael by Reb Yakov
    Radintchkover.  It is a selection from the book "Unlocked Doors" by
    Danny Siegel, (c) 1983, Town House Press, Spring Valley, NY. I
    paraphrase the story for copyright reasons (except for it's conclusion,
    a direct quote). 
    
    A common, everyday Jew died and subsequently appeared before the
    Heavenly Court, sometime after the flames of Nazi Germany had been
    extinguished.
    
    He approached the bench, and all was silent but for the footsteps
    of Selig.
    
    G-d asked Selig: Did you study the Torah?
    
    Selig answered: Nayn, I did not study Your Torah.
    
    G-d asked:  Did you davvin [pray] every day?
    
    Selig answered: Nayn, I did not davvin.
    
    G-d roared:  Did you keep my Holy Shabbos?
    
    Selig answered, as expected: Nayn.
    
    The Judge yelled: Get out of here, go to Gehennom!!  Be gone, Selig.
    
    Selig turned to leave, but paused as he got to the door.  He turned
    and said: Before I leave, I have a question for you, Hashem.
                                              
    G-d, always curious, sat and listened.
    
    [and here's the quote]
    
    "'Tatenyu, bei Hitler bin ich a yid -- bei dir, nayn? -- Father,
    for Hitler I was a Jew, and for You I am not?'
    
    'Astounded and drained, G-d sat in silence, that divine silence
    of confusion and mystery, as Selig waited for his answer.  For as
    long as it takes for G-d to come to His senses, He sat in silence,
    then whispered, 'Halachah K'Hitler -- Hitler was right.'"

    It is entries like the previous that help me to never having to
    write protect a note from subsequent entries.

			    Mordechai

    re .36 and .37
    
    I didn't mean for people to take my story personally.  I hope no
    one did.
    
    What I hoped to accomplish is to put this note on a different track.
    Let's not:
    	-  argue about who's right (no one knows for sure)
    	-  judge the various movements based on the level of observance
    	   or education of their constituency
    
    Let's instead use this note as a way to educate each other about
    our differences.  Let's ask questions and have them answered.
    
    In that light, I'd like to respond to two previous questions. The first
    is a "who is a Jew" question back a few responses.  It concerned the
    "once a Jew, always a Jew" issue in the light of conversion out of the
    Jewish faith. 
    
    Shortly after the "Law of Return*" was enacted, Brother Daniel
    attempted to become a citizen of Israel under this law.  Brother
    Daniel was a Jew by birth who converted out of the faith in order
    to escape the Nazi persecution.  He lived as a monk (in a monastery
    and everything) until the end of WW-II.
    
    It was the decision of whatever legal entity ruled upon this (forgive
    my ignorance) that Brother Daniel was not a Jew under this law.
    As I understand it, there are a few things that Jews are not allowed
    to do, even under pain of death.  One of those is to renounce G-d
    publicly.  Brother Daniel's conversion was considered a public
    renunciation of G-d.
    
    (Anyone who could shed more light on this -- it would be appreciated.)
    
    * A law in Israel which basically states that any Jew can be granted
    immediate citizenship in Israel upon moving there, if s/he so desires.
    
    
    Another question was asked about Reconstructionist beliefs.  From
    the same work that I quoted in 135.0, I bring you this about
    Reconstructionism:
    	-   Human beings wrote the texts of Tradition
    	-   They are not divine, rather they reflect the thinking
    	    of the people who wrote them; they are no better or worse
    	    than any others.  We are not the chosen people.
    	-   Jewish Law should be observed because it is the custom (mihnag)
     	    of our People.  Laws are changed when they become offensive,
    	    or are no longer used. [I'm not sure what the author meant
    	    by this]
    	-   If we ever organize ourselves such that there is a real
    	    community (as in medieval Europe), then it would make
    	    sense to decide upon the various issues in Jewish law
    	    as a community.  Until then, individuals make these decisions
    	    (which is as it should be in the area of ritual).  It would
    	    be more desirable to decide moral principals as a community,
    	    and that is and end to which we should work.

	Reconstructionism was a movement that started at the Jewish Theological
Seminary (Conservative).  R. Mordecai Kaplan, a teacher at the Seminary,
suggested that a close examination of Jewish history would show that:

	1.  Judaism has always been more than a religion.  It is a culture
	in which religion has an important, but not always dominant place.
	(This is detailed in what is probably his best known work, Judaism
	as a Civilization.)  Thus, one cannot analyze Judaism only in terms of
	its belief structures, or just by its historical artifacts for these
	show only part of the story.

	2.  Judaism has undergone some very major changes in the course
	several thousand years.  As the people shifted from a nomadic to
	an agricultural life beliefs and practices shifted, but continuity
	was retained by transforming, rather than abandoning, tradition.
	The centralization of the cult at Jerusalem, the effects of the
	Babylonian exile, the conquest by Greece, all produced significant
	changes in Judaism, according to Kaplan.  The best documented of
	these "reconstructions" was the development of Rabbinic Judaism
	(because we know quite a bit about what preceded it).  Kaplan
	suggested that we are in the midst of another "reconstruction"
	(See his Greater Judaism in the Making).

	Kaplan taught for many years at the Seminary, initially attracting
a large following.  Later, the Seminary administration shifted support toward
more traditional forms of interpretation and a number of Kaplan supporters
decided to leave the Conservative Movement and found a new seminary dedicated
to the approach he had initiated.  It should be noted that Kaplan resisted
this for many years on the grounds that fragmentation hurts the Jewish people;
we should find ways of discussing our differences within a common framework.