Conference taveng::bagels

If you want to influence the policies of the Israeli government, make aliyah
and vote for the party of your choice.

    Of course, if they change the law of return I may not be ABLE to
    make aliyah and vote for the party of my choice.
    
    You can argue that the defense issues are for Israel to deal with
    and that Americans shouldn't say anything, but if Israel declares
    that I am not a Jew, I'm not being an ugly American by complaining
    about it.
    
    If Israel decides I'm not a Jew, what am I - a Christian?  No, I'm
    a Jew.  If they decide that I'm not one of them, and I'm a Jew,
    then obviously they are not Jews, and Israel isn't a Jewish state.
    
    If they are not a Jewish state, then they have no biblical claim
    to the land, and they aren't the people specified in the partition.
    
    I would certainly question the legitimacy of an Israeli government
    that declared that I'm not Jewish!
    
    				Paul
    

    re: .2
    
    I respect your feelings about someone not considering you a Jew,
    etc.  However I stated in another note on this issue (why didn't
    the writer of .0 just reply to that one?) that I have only myself
    to blame for not taking up residence again in Israel and being able
    to vote.  This is the way to deal with the issue, not by organized
    coercion and threats (and this will be the way it will be settled
    in the end I fear).
    
    The religious parties see this as a matter of principle and ideology.
    So you have to battle it out on the political field.  Ask yourselves
    the question what would have been the outcome of the election if
    500,000 american Jews had made aliyah?
    
    David 

RE .2:

>    Of course, if they change the law of return I may not be ABLE to
>    make aliyah and vote for the party of my choice.

    You'd better hurry up and make aliyah then.


>    If Israel decides I'm not a Jew, what am I - a Christian?  No, I'm
>    a Jew.  If they decide that I'm not one of them, and I'm a Jew,
>    then obviously they are not Jews, and Israel isn't a Jewish state.
>    
>    If they are not a Jewish state, then they have no biblical claim
>    to the land, and they aren't the people specified in the partition.

    I don't know -- what are you?  The religious parties want to make
    halacha the basis for determining who is a Jew.  Philosophically,
    how is this basis different from any other basis?  Are the Jews for
    Jesus who claim to be Jewish but aren't by either heritage or *any*
    kind of conversion Jewish?  What about that group of black Americans
    who claim to be one of the lost tribes?  Some people believe that
    the Japanese are one of the lost tribes -- should Japanese be
    considered Jews because some people believe they are?

    The Biblical claim to Eretz Yisrael is different from, say, Germany's
    claim to the Sudetenland because of the *religious* belief that
    G-d promised the land to Abraham.  It's interesting to speculate
    about the validity of the Bible as a historical document, but its
    significance is *religious*.  Why shouldn't the basis for determining
    who is a Jew be religious?  Isn't Judaism a religion?

>>        significance is *religious*.  Why shouldn't the basis for determining
>>        who is a Jew be religious?  Isn't Judaism a religion?
      
    I would argue that Judaism is both a religion and an ethnic group.
    If you define Judaism as the beliefs and practices of the
    ultra-orthodox, then probably 80% of the "jewish" residents of Israel
    don't pass.
    
    From my experience living in Israel, I think that the ultra-orthodox
    areww the greatest threat to Israel's existance.  Their philosophies
    are a lot closer to the Ayatollah's than they are to modern democracy.
    If they had their way, they would turn Israel into a jewish version
    of the Moslem fundamentalist countries, ruled by halachic law.
    
    How'd you like to stoned to death for committing adultery?
    
    The problems with the power of ultra-orthodox is one reason I returned
    to the US after making aliyah.         
    
    Steve
    

    The question of who is Jewish is obviously very important, but
    I find it hard to believe that the present orthordox interperation
    about who is Jewish is (and has always been) the only valid one on Halacha.
    
    I think that if you wish to argue your case, to gain acceptance
    you need to base it on Jewish law.
    
    Malcolm

    re: .6
    
    Malcolm, I thought Halacha was Jewish law.
    
    As far as I know Halachic conversion (and I ain't no expert!) is
    based on the conversion of Ruth.  However if I recall the story
    didn't she just walk over to Am Israel and declare herself one
    with us?
    
    David

    re: .3
    
    Of course it's impossible to say exactly what would have happened
    if 500,000 American Jews had made alyah...especially if some 
    significant percentage had been of the ordthodox political 
    persuasion.
    
    An educated guess, however, is that it would not have had a 
    significant effect on the fact that 15% of the Israeli electorate
    can now have an enormous effect on the lives of Jews worldwide.

re .5
      
>    I would argue that Judaism is both a religion and an ethnic group.

    How do you convert to an ethnic group?  Until the reform movement voted
    to accept patrilineal descent, wasn't the whole "who is a Jew" argument
    one of whose conversion was valid?

>    If you define Judaism as the beliefs and practices of the
>    ultra-orthodox, then probably 80% of the "jewish" residents of Israel
>    don't pass.
    
    Don't pass what?  Are you saying that Haredim don't accept the Jewishness
    of most secular Jews?  I used to work with a woman who was raised as
    a Protestant, but was converting to Catholicism.  Her maternal grandmother
    was a Jew.  Do you think the Haredim would not consider her a Jew?
    Haredim believe in the validity of Halacha.  Halacha says that you're
    a Jew if your mother was a Jew, or if you convert to Judaism according
    to Halacha.

    I think part of the problem here is the use of Judaism to mean Jewishness.
    Judaism is a set of beliefs.  Jewishness is a binary condition.  You
    can be Jewish and believe in none of the beliefs of Judaism.

re the political power of the Haredim:

    Judging from demographic trends in Israel, you'd better get used to
    the Haredim gaining power.  In both birth rates and immigration rates,
    they're increasing much faster than secular Jews.  They're somewhat
    held back by factional disputes -- didn't one of the religious parties
    refuse to be in a coalition with one of its (religious) rivals?

re non-Halachic conversions:

    Anybody who converts someone to Judaism not according to Halacha
    without explaining that this conversion will not be accepted by a
    large and growing part of the Jewish people is committing fraud.

	re: .7

>	the conversion of Ruth.  However if I recall the story
>       didn't she just walk over to Am Israel and declare herself one
>       with us?
 
	Actually, the halachot of what constitutes a legitimate conversion
	are clear about the need for a legitimate bet din (court of 3).
	While these 3 need not necessarily be "rabbis", 
	the 3 must be religious, halacha-observing Jews.
	Since many/most Reform and Conservative Rabbis would fail this
	standard test they COULD NOT consitute a Bet Din.

	Interestingly enough, the requirement that the conversion be
	motivated by no ulterior motive (to marry a Jew/ess, for gain,
	etc.) is the LEAST problematic to my (perhaps ignorant) mind. 
	There are the famous stories in the gmara of the converts who
	came to Shammai and then to Hillel... I can look up the exact
	reference at home but the stories are pretty well known:

	A non-Jew comes to Shammai and says
		(one story)convert me on the condition that I keep
			   only the written Law, not the Oral Law
		(2nd story)convert me on the condition that I get
			   to be the High Priest
		(3rd story)convert me on the condition that you teach
			   me Judaism while I stand on 1 foot (i.e.
			   I want to be "Jewish" in "spirit", not in
			   detailed observance of any sort)

	In each case Shammai chases the guy away but Hillel accepts him
	as a convert on the guy's own conditions (!) and AFTERWARDS
	teaches him to be a fully religious, fully observant Jew. (This
	is a crucial point that bothers the commentators ad loc-- the
	conversion is actually done on the guy's own terms!)
	Note that in story 1 and story 3 we have a conversion that 
	explicitly rejects halachic observance (!) while in story 2 we have
	a conversion for an ulterior motive. (The ulterior motive of 
	wanting to marry a Jewish man/woman is SURELY no worse than
	becoming Jewish in order to wear the robes of the High Priest.)
			   
-Zaitch

    re: .9
    
    On what authority do you have it, other your own assumptions, that
    "most" Conservative rabbis don't follow Halacha?  The conservative
    movement covers a wide range from strict observance to "California
    conservative" (for all intents and purposes, Reform).  And just
    because the congregation may be a bunch of kafirim that doesn't
    mean that their rabbi is one also.
    
    David

    re .11 and .9
    
    ditto for Reform rabbis

    RE: 586.9

    >Anybody who converts someone to Judaism not according to Halacha
    
    According to who's definition of Halacha?  Most Jews in the world
    today are not Orthodox.  The fight is not really over conversion
    standards, but over who has the authority to set those standards.
    (This fight has been going on since at least the time of the Monarchy,
    but that's a different note...)
    
    >without explaining that this conversion will not be accepted by a
    >large and growing part of the Jewish people is committing fraud.

    The problem comes only where there is Orthodox control of personal
    law (i.e. marriage, etc.), which means specifically Israel.  Since,
    outside of Israel, most people who convert under non-Orthodox auspices
    (i.e. Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist) never have to deal
    with the Orthodox community, it has very little impact.

    Aaron

re .11

>    On what authority do you have it, other your own assumptions, that
>    "most" Conservative rabbis don't follow Halacha?

and .12

>    re .11 and .9
>    
>    ditto for Reform rabbis

Did I say that?  I said,
>    Anybody who converts someone to Judaism not according to Halacha
>    without explaining that this conversion will not be accepted by a
>    large and growing part of the Jewish people is committing fraud.

I didn't mention Conservative or Reform rabbis.  You read that into
my remarks because you know that those who perform these conversions
happen to be Conservative or Reform rabbis.

re .13
>    According to who's definition of Halacha?  Most Jews in the world
>    today are not Orthodox.  The fight is not really over conversion
>    standards, but over who has the authority to set those standards.

If you don't accept Halacha, fine, but don't claim that Halacha is
what the CCAR (the reform rabbis' organization) votes on.

>    The problem comes only where there is Orthodox control of personal
>    law (i.e. marriage, etc.), which means specifically Israel.  Since,
>    outside of Israel, most people who convert under non-Orthodox auspices
>    (i.e. Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist) never have to deal
>    with the Orthodox community, it has very little impact.

The problem comes if those with non-Halachic conversions, or their
children, or their grandchildren want to become Halacha-observent Jews,
and find out that they're not Jews at all according to Halacha.  Ask
anybody involved in the Baalei Tshuva movement how often this occurs.

As to the statement that "most Jews in the world today are not Orthodox,"
I predict that this will not be the case in 50-100 years, simply because
of the demographics.  Orthodox Jews have a much higher birth rate,
there seems to be an overall inflow into Orthodoxy (Baalei Tshuva),
and there's an evaporation of Jewish identity among intermarried Jews.
The reform movement's acceptance of patrilineal descent seems like a
last gasp to me.

    The question of halachic conversion should have no relevance at
    all to a nation-state in today's world.
    
    The Law of the Return is simply one state's political decision on
    how to grant citizenship to immigrants.  Every country has its own
    rules.  The US requires several years of permanent residency, and
    grants that on a quota basis based upon several factors.  Ireland
    gives it more readily (shorter residency requirement) to persons
    of Irish descent.  Several other countries do likewise.  Australia
    and Canada also have lots of immigration, and politically set
    standards. 
    
    So what does religion have to do with it?  As a modern state, Israel
    has immigrants and grants some of them citizenship.  Using religion
    for this purpose is a pathetic anachronism.  When Israel was founded,
    Ben-Gurion was said to have used a simple definition of "who is
    a Jew":  Anyone crazy enough to want to be one!  And it worked:
    The Palestinians are far too proud to claim to be Jews, and nobody
    else particularly wants to live in Israel.  (A handful of Asians
    are there, to be sure.)
    
    Hence the moves by the Orthodoxy are actually a move to remove Israel
    from the modern world, by DEFINING the nationality according to a
    RELIGIOUS test.  The religious test happens to recognize matrilineal
    descent, but for the rest of potential immigrants, it grants the
    right to grant Israeli citizenship to followers of a particular
    set of religious beliefs, and that set isn't even followed by the
    majority of Jews!
    
    This to me is simply further proof that religion and politics don't
    mix.  Each hopelessly corrupts the other.
           fred    

    re: 14
    
    The observation that a problem arises with children and grandchildren
    discovering that they are not Jewish, smacks of blackmail.  You
    carry a terrible weapon and are not ashamed to use it.  Of course,
    you will say that you can easily be disarmed, but only by doing
    things your way.
    
    Also, your observation that in 50 or 100 years orthodox Jewry might
    be in the majority seems somewhat disingenouous. If such a situation
    arises, it may not be the result of demographics, but might
    result from the fact that you wil have succeeded in alienating from
    Judiasm those who do not observe your practices.  Are you willing
    to accept responsibility for a severely diminished, but perhaps, to your
    way of thinking, more acceptable Jewish population?
    
    A shrug of the shoulders and the statement that those who do not
    live their lives in strict accordance with halchic tenets are not Jews is 
    cruel and unacceptable.

>As to the statement that "most Jews in the world today are not Orthodox,"
>I predict that this will not be the case in 50-100 years, simply because
>of the demographics.  Orthodox Jews have a much higher birth rate,
>there seems to be an overall inflow into Orthodoxy (Baalei Tshuva),
>and there's an evaporation of Jewish identity among intermarried Jews.
>The reform movement's acceptance of patrilineal descent seems like a
>last gasp to me.

I find this statement a little prepostrous.  First of all, the Arab
population in Israel procreates at a much larger rate than Jews.  So what do
you propose dueling population growths?  Secondly, if a good percentage of this
"growing" Orthodox population are haredim, than I guess there a slight manpower
problem in Zahal (:-).  Thirdly, attraction to Tshuvah is a cyclical phenomena
much like attraction to revolutionary ideas that happens every thirty years in
this world.  What makes you think that numbers of baalei tshuvah will forever
increase, besides faith?

David

    hi,
    
    Even if this law is enacted it would not stop anyone from 
    going on alyiah as anyone who wishes can become Jewish. 
    
    Could not the absorbtion process include a simple affirmation 
    of Jewish identity as has been required of others in the past?
    Surely this would only require an extension the the present 
    absorbtion process with a time set aside for study.
    
    re: sending telegrams to the Israeli government
    Surely it would be more effective to show that the present
    orthodox view on conversion is not consistent with that held
    through most of Jewish History (by the orthodox community).
    I think the discussion about Hillel/Shammai was a good case in point.
    
    Malcolm

    
    

    How do I go about proving that I am Jewish?
    
    In my case, my mother says she is Jewish, and my grandmother said
    she was Jewish (she doesn't talk much these days).
    
    My grandmother came from the area around Lemberg (Lvov).  My family
    tree was significantly "pruned" since, and any records in the Ukraine
    are long gone, if there ever were any.
    
    For all I know my great**n'th grandparent might have not been Jewish
    or properly converted.
    
    So why would they count me?  Because I say I'm Jewish?  Because
    I have curley hair?
    
    Ben Gurion was right.
    
    			Paul (going on vacation, save your flames)
    

    Better still is the fact that the Arab members of the Kinesset
    get to vote on the law and thereby determine who is a Jew.
    
    Warren

    re: .19
    
    When I became a citizen the "stam pakid" must have thought I was
    French or else he missed his nth tea break because he asked me for
    a mismach (document) that proved that I was Jewish.  Well where
    does one get such a mismach?  You have to go back to your local
    rabbinut (Vaad harabnim) and apply for one.  In this case since
    I could not afford a trip back to Boston, my parents did the dirty
    work for me.  Lo and behold I was proven to be a honest to goodness
    Jew from way back through infinite generations.
    
    Funny thing was that a woman in front of me in line applying for
    citizenship wasn't asked to do the same.  Some friends of mine
    suggested that I walk into the Ministry of the Interior in Jerusalem
    and drop my pants.
    
    David

    RE: 586.14

>If you don't accept Halacha, fine, but don't claim that Halacha is
>what the CCAR (the reform rabbis' organization) votes on.
    
    I am saying that most Jews in the world today--whether or not they
    accept Halacha--do not accept Orthodox interpretations of Halacha as
    authoritative.  Various bodies are asserting their own claim to be
    legitimate authorities.  The CCAR claims that it has the authority to
    make decisions about Jews independent of Halacha. The Conservative
    Rabbinical Assembly (have I got the name right?) claims authority to
    interpret and modify Halacha, and the Reconstructionists argue that
    traditional Halacha is the (non-divine) codification of practices
    generally accepted by the Jewish community and is subject to
    modification by the community. 

>                                                                Ask
>anybody involved in the Baalei Tshuva movement how often this occurs.
    
    From the statistics I have seen, it is a relatively small number.
    It is, of course, important to those who decide to become Orthodox
    or Hassidic, but this appears to be a pretty small proportion of
    those who convert to Judaism.

>I predict that this will not be the case in 50-100 years, simply because
>of the demographics.  Orthodox Jews have a much higher birth rate,
>there seems to be an overall inflow into Orthodoxy (Baalei Tshuva),

    One of the problems is that each major movement acts as if it expects
    the others to disappear, but if Jewish history is any guide, we
    are likely to have more rather than fewer subdivisions in 50-100
    years.  As far as numbers are concerned, Orthodox Jews are increasing
    at a _proportionally_ faster rate, but in absolute terms, the fastest
    growing segment of the Jewish population is Reform. 
    
    The question is whether the Orthodox community will become another
    fossil form (like the Samaritans or Karaites) or will emerge as the
    normative form of Judaism in the long run.  Again, if history is
    a guide, much of the answer will be determined by what happens in
    and to Israel.

    					Aaron

The demographic question of Orthodox vs. other Jews is interesting.  
The Orthodox clearly have a much higher birthrate and work hard at 
attracting baalei teshuva ("born-again" Jews?).  Many Conservative and 
Reform Jews drop out through intermarriage and other factors.  But there 
is another process at work here that has not been acknowledged.  The 
Orthodox movement has its own dropout rate, and most of those who leave 
Orthodoxy end up replenishing the numbers of "secular" (non-Orthodox, 
"chiloni" in Hebrew) Jews.

I am also disturbed by the prospect of the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel
deciding that a person converted to Judaism by a Conservative rabbi is
not Jewish.  This would have the unfortunate effect of de-legitimizing 
rabbis who do not meet the fundamentalist principles of the Orthodox
establishment.

Last year, there was a revolution of sorts in the Jewish Agency, which
distributes overseas contributions to Israel.  A sufficient number of
influentual American members made it clear that contributions to Israel
from American Jews would suffer dramatically if the Law of Return were
amended to exclude conversions by non-Orthodox rabbis.  The Jewish Agency 
elected a new governing board, changing from an Orthodox majority to a
"secular" majority.  And at that time, Shamir withdrew his support from
amending the Law of Return.  Now, the threat of amendment has been renewed.
I hope similar action will be taken to preserve the legitimacy of Jews
outside Orthodoxy.

There is an organization called _Mercaz_ which represents the interests of
Conservative Judaism in Israel.  It is growing.  I am a member and encourage
Jews who belong to the Conservative movement to join this organization.

>There is an organization called _Mercaz_ which represents the interests of
>Conservative Judaism in Israel.  It is growing.  I am a member and encourage
>Jews who belong to the Conservative movement to join this organization.

There is a similar Reform organization called Azra.

Dave

    The reason that Israel can exist as a POLITICAL entity is that it
    is secular. Remove that and allow the Orthodox groups to control
    the nation on the basis of their own religious beliefs and two things
    will happen. One is that Israel will RAPIDLY loose any international
    support it has. The second is the government will become no better
    than some of its fundamentalist neighbors. Bigotry is bigotry, be
    it race or religious beliefs, and this move can only hurt Israel.
    
    Eric

       Previous notes have claimed that right wing Israelis are
       primarily concerned with Halacha in their proposed restrictions
       to the law of return. I believe the notes' authors are being
       naive. We're talking politics and power here, not religion. 
       
       For instance, the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York
       (Conservative) arranges for (or used to arrange) conversions. The
       potential converts are taught by knowledgeable rabbis and by the
       time they are accepted for conversion the converts know more
       about Judaism then many nominally Orthodox Jews.  The conversion
       ceremony involves a Beth Din and ritual immersion in a Mikvah.
       However, my understanding is that the proposed new immigration
       rules would disqualify these converts solely because the Rabbis
       involved do not call themselves Orthodox. 
       
       My point is that conversions such as these are unquestionably
       accepted by the vast majority of the world's Jews and they
       ordinarily would be accepted by Israeli Jews as well.  If
       eventually these conversions are not accepted in Israel, it will
       be because of non-religious, political, considerations.     
       
       What political considerations?  Since Israel is a democracy,
       control of the country is achieved through having a plurality.
       One factor in helping a faction gain this plurality is to exclude
       people who do not agree with that faction's point of view. 
       
       --Julian
       
        
        
       
       

>       For instance, the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York
>       (Conservative) arranges for (or used to arrange) conversions. The
>       potential converts are taught by knowledgeable rabbis and by the
>       time they are accepted for conversion the converts know more
>       about Judaism then many nominally Orthodox Jews.  The conversion
>       ceremony involves a Beth Din and ritual immersion in a Mikvah.
>       However, my understanding is that the proposed new immigration
>       rules would disqualify these converts solely because the Rabbis
>       involved do not call themselves Orthodox. 

No, it is not because they "do not call themselves Orthodox" but because
they ARE NOT Orthodox, by which I mean: Halachically observant. 
OF COURSE "many" COnservative Rabbis observe halacha... that's not the
point. As a group they are not accepted since there is a PRESUMPTION,
which from my experience in the US is quite justified, that "the
average" Conservative Rabbi does NOT observe all halachick requirements    
of shabbat, kashrut, taharat ha'mishpacha, etc. (I know this because --
SURPRISE SURPRISE "some of my best friends are ..." and we actually
TALK about what parts of halacha "make sense" to us, etc. Needless to
say my statements about taharat ha'mishapacha are INFERENCES, not
DIRECT OBSERVATION.)
Now this brings me back to my point in .something above: the main
barrier I think to Orthodox acceptance of non-Orthodox involvement
in the conversion process is (rather: SHOULD BE) recognizing
non-observant "rabbis" as a valid Bet Din. 
So the technical colution to these issues should be: let the Reform
and COnservative movements run conversion programs of their own and
just have the final "legal" conversion (including the mikveh dunk,
the circumcision/hatafat dam brit, and the "acceptance of Torah
declaration") be done before an Orthodox bet din. Admittedly this
leaves no one completely happy, but each side will get enough to 
satisfy its scruples and MOST IMPORTANT: the convert will be accepted
by everyone.

As for the Law of Return, I think that it should have NOTHING TO DO
with being Jewish, and I think that ANYONE who has strong objective ties to
the Jewish people should be welcomed to ISrael. Perhaps the best thing
would be to annul the law of return and make Israeli citizenship a 
privilege rather than a right, but be quite GENEROUS in giving out
ISraeli citizenship.

I also think that our identity cards should NOT specify religion  
-- in fact the whole reason they do has to do with security, 
not religion/legal rights/etc., and it's about time we join 
the rest of the Western world in dealing with security issues 
in a somewhat less Bolshevik fashion.

-Zaitch        
       
       

    re -.1
    
>>    So the technical colution to these issues should be: let the Reform
>>and COnservative movements run conversion programs of their own and
>>just have the final "legal" conversion (including the mikveh dunk,
>>the circumcision/hatafat dam brit, and the "acceptance of Torah
>>declaration") be done before an Orthodox bet din. Admittedly this
>>leaves no one completely happy, but each side will get enough to 
>>satisfy its scruples and MOST IMPORTANT: the convert will be accepted
>>by everyone.
  
    Nice try ... but it still sanctions Orthodox Jews as the real Jews, and
    the rest of us as something less.  The equivalent might be saying
    that someone couldn't be fully naturalized as an American until
    the D.A.R. approved.
    
    I'm afraid that the Orthodox may win in the short run and lose in
    the long run, by driving an increasing wedge between themselves
    and the rest of the Jewish community, particularly Jews of the
    Diaspora.
       

    Why is it that the Orthodox are the ones accussed of "driving wedges"
    beteween Jews.  Are they the ones who changed the rules??
    
    Also, people want to forget that the Conservative Rabbinate does
    not recognize Reform Conversion or the Reform notion of Patrilineal
    descent.
    
    I agree with Zaitch.  Let the law of returns allow citizenship to
    anyone who feels linked to Israel.  Just don't call them "Jews".
    Citizenship is political not religious.  
    
    Av
    

    When political decisions are made because of religious beliefs,
    then any resemblance of democracy goes out the window! It comes
    down to the basic point that the Orthodox in Israel want to impose
    their beliefs on everyone else, which is no different from any despot
    in history that has come before. There has always been interppetation
    of the Law (just look on the commentaries on the Talmud), so no
    single group has the right to dictate what is "right" and "wrong"!
    As has been said earlier, this move will, in the long run, hurt
    Israel far more that can be imagined currently.
    
    Eric

Quite a backlog of replies...

In re-reading all the replies, I discovered some erroneous "re's".
.11 and .12 accused me (in .9) of saying that most Conservative and Reform
rabbis don't follow Halacha, and I replied that I hadn't said that.
Actually, it was .10 that said,
>	the 3 must be religious, halacha-observing Jews.
>	Since many/most Reform and Conservative Rabbis would fail this
>	standard test they COULD NOT consitute a Bet Din.


re .15
>    Hence the moves by the Orthodoxy are actually a move to remove Israel
>    from the modern world, by DEFINING the nationality according to a
>    RELIGIOUS test.  The religious test happens to recognize matrilineal
>    descent, but for the rest of potential immigrants, it grants the
>    right to grant Israeli citizenship to followers of a particular
>    set of religious beliefs, and that set isn't even followed by the
>    majority of Jews!

I assume that by "the rest of potential immigrants," you're referring
to converts and to children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers.
What they believe is irrelevant to their Halachic status.


re .16
>    The observation that a problem arises with children and grandchildren
>    discovering that they are not Jewish, smacks of blackmail.  You
>    carry a terrible weapon and are not ashamed to use it.  Of course,
>    you will say that you can easily be disarmed, but only by doing
>    things your way.

How is that blackmail?  These are facts.  There is a growing problem with
people who consider themselves Jewish, but who aren't recognized as such
by Orthodox Jews.  They are going to have children, who will consider
themselves Jewish.  Some of those children are going to be attracted by
the Baal Tshuva movement, and find out that they are not considered Jewish
by Orthodox Jews.

>    Also, your observation that in 50 or 100 years orthodox Jewry might
>    be in the majority seems somewhat disingenouous. If such a situation
>    arises, it may not be the result of demographics, but might
>    result from the fact that you wil have succeeded in alienating from
>    Judiasm those who do not observe your practices.  Are you willing
>    to accept responsibility for a severely diminished, but perhaps, to your
>    way of thinking, more acceptable Jewish population?

Here's a test for you.  Think of all the Jews you know, ages 25 to 40,
who were raised Reform.  How many are intermarried?  How many raise their
children as Jews *exclusively* (no Chanuka bushes)?  Do you think that in
our overwhelmingly Christian society their grandchildren will consider
themselves Jewish?  As for alienation, it may be the circles I travel in,
but Reform and Conservative Judaism seem to alienate the children of their
followers more than Orthodox Judaism.


>    A shrug of the shoulders and the statement that those who do not
>    live their lives in strict accordance with halchic tenets are not Jews is 
>    cruel and unacceptable.

Again, you're confusing Judaism (the set of religious beliefs) with
Jewishness (the binary condition).  Nobody that I know of claims that
somebody whose maternal lineage is Jewish is himself not Jewish even if he
has no Jewish beliefs.  Nobody claims that all, most, or even many people
who consider themselves Jews are not Jews.  According to my understanding
of Halacha, we're not allowed to question somebody's claim to be Jewish
except in special circumstances (marriage is one).


re .17
>I find this statement a little prepostrous.  First of all, the Arab
>population in Israel procreates at a much larger rate than Jews.  So what do
>you propose dueling population growths?

I don't propose anything.  I'm just stating facts.  Anybody know how the
birth rate of Haredim compares with that of Arabs?

>Secondly, if a good percentage of this
>"growing" Orthodox population are haredim, than I guess there a slight manpower
>problem in Zahal (:-).

As you know, there are plenty of Orthodox Jews in Zahal.

>Thirdly, attraction to Tshuvah is a cyclical phenomena
>much like attraction to revolutionary ideas that happens every thirty years in
>this world.

What makes you think it's cyclical?  When was the last cycle?  

>What makes you think that numbers of baalei tshuvah will forever
>increase, besides faith?

What makes you think that numbers of baalei tshuva *won't* increase,
besides faith?


re .22
>    I am saying that most Jews in the world today--whether or not they
>    accept Halacha--do not accept Orthodox interpretations of Halacha as
>    authoritative.  Various bodies are asserting their own claim to be
>    legitimate authorities.  The CCAR claims that it has the authority to
>    make decisions about Jews independent of Halacha. The Conservative
>    Rabbinical Assembly (have I got the name right?) claims authority to
>    interpret and modify Halacha, and the Reconstructionists argue that
>    traditional Halacha is the (non-divine) codification of practices
>    generally accepted by the Jewish community and is subject to
>    modification by the community. 
	...
>    The question is whether the Orthodox community will become another
>    fossil form (like the Samaritans or Karaites) or will emerge as the
>    normative form of Judaism in the long run.  Again, if history is
>    a guide, much of the answer will be determined by what happens in
>    and to Israel.

Until the 1800's there were no non-Orthodox Jews.  Certainly, there were
Jews who didn't follow Halacha, but they considered this a personal choice.
There is a continuity of tradition flowing into Orthodox Judaism over
4000 years.  There have been offshoots in the past (Samaritans, Karaites,
followers of various false messiahs), but they have disappeared.  Why did
the Jews of China disappear?  Probably because of the tolerance of the
Chinese for other religions and because of the Chinese Jews' acceptance
of patrilineal descent.  I find this very disturbing in light of the
Reform movement's acceptance of patrilineal descent.

>    I am saying that most Jews in the world today--whether or not they
>    accept Halacha--do not accept Orthodox interpretations of Halacha as
>    authoritative.

Before there was such a thing as a non-Orthodox Jew, there were codifications
of Halacha.  Do those who "accept Halacha" but "do not accept Orthodox
interpretations of Halacha as authoritative" accept these codifications?

>    From the statistics I have seen, it is a relatively small number.

You've seen statistics?  Could you share them with us?  All I have is
anecdotal evidence.

>            As far as numbers are concerned, Orthodox Jews are increasing
>    at a _proportionally_ faster rate, but in absolute terms, the fastest
>    growing segment of the Jewish population is Reform. 

I'm no statistician, but doesn't this mean that if trends continue, the
number of Orthodox Jews will overtake the number of Reform Jews?

re .27

>So the technical colution to these issues should be: let the Reform
>and COnservative movements run conversion programs of their own and
>just have the final "legal" conversion (including the mikveh dunk,
>the circumcision/hatafat dam brit, and the "acceptance of Torah
>declaration") be done before an Orthodox bet din.

I thought one of the requirements for conversion was a promise to
observe Halacha.  I also thought there can be no "ulterior motives"
such as marriage.  Aren't most non-Orthodox conversions for the sake
of marriage?

>>Secondly, if a good percentage of this
>>"growing" Orthodox population are haredim, than I guess there will be a 
>>slight manpower problem in Zahal (:-).

>As you know, there are plenty of Orthodox Jews in Zahal.

Precisely what I stated in an earlier reply.  But Haredim are (supposedly) 
exempt from the draft.
 
>>Thirdly, attraction to Tshuvah is a cyclical phenomena
>>much like attraction to revolutionary ideas that happens every thirty years in
>>this world.

>What makes you think it's cyclical?  When was the last cycle?  

Let's go back a few generations to the '50's.  At that time young Jews on the
whole weren't attracted to Orthodox Judaism at all, rather the tendency was
to practice assimilation as resistence to the previous generation.  Comes the
'60's and you know what the script was - no mass return to the fold, we're all
too involved with "doing it in the streets".  Into the '70's and now some Jews
are starting to think that hey, maybe there is some spirtuality in Judaism,
some become Baalei Tshuvah, some mix their Judaism with their Tao, etc.  Now
in the "glorious" '80's it seems as though a status quo is holding for now,
hang on and wait until the revolutionary '90's.

>>What makes you think that numbers of baalei tshuvah will forever
>>increase, besides faith?

>What makes you think that numbers of baalei tshuva *won't* increase,
>besides faith?

Tit for tat.

    re .31, Chinese Jews using patrilineal descent.
    
    Not that I doubt you or anything, but I thought the entire evidence
    for the Chinese Jews was a letter sent from the head of their 
    community to a Polish rabbi via a Polish visitor.  By the time
    someone got back to China (about twenty years later), the community
    could not be found.  Did the letter mention patrilineal descent?
    
    			-John Bishop

    With all due respect, I pose the following:
    
    Should the definition of "who is a Jew?" be changed in Israel, will
    this be binding on the organizers of the next Holocaust?
    
    [I am pretty sure that] to the Orthodox, I do not meet the requirements
    for being a Jew, does this exempt me from the next progom? Were
    the assimilated Jews of Europe exempted by the Nazis? Did the Tzar's
    Cossaks ask my grandfather if he kept the Sabbath?
    
    I think that those who would re-define "who is a Jew" do a disservice
    to both themselves and those they would "deny". How willing will
    the millions of'denied' Jews be to support those that deny them
    when the call goes out? WHile I would be considered to be 'very
    assimilated', it does not mean that I don't know my heritage, or
    that I don't feel something inside when I attend a synagogue service.
    I KNOW THAT I AM A JEW. AND MY CHILDREN KNOW THAT THEY ARE JEWISH.
    This is somthing that no-one can take away from us without committing
    murder.
    
    
    Rich

    Cossacks and Nazis do not define "who is a Jew"...Halacha does.
    
    Av

    re: .35
    
    Sorry Av, during the Holocaust and other times of repression Halacha
    had nothing to do with defining who was a Jew.  I think .34 had
    a good point.
    
    David

Some comments on 586.31


>I assume that by "the rest of potential immigrants," you're referring
>to converts and to children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers.
>What they believe is irrelevant to their Halachic status.
       .
       .
       .
>How is that blackmail?  These are facts.  There is a growing problem with
>people who consider themselves Jewish, but who aren't recognized as such
>by Orthodox Jews.  They are going to have children, who will consider
>themselves Jewish.  Some of those children are going to be attracted by
>the Baal Tshuva movement, and find out that they are not considered Jewish
>by Orthodox Jews.
       
       
       
       Actually, it is almost impossible for an American to prove
       Jewishness by birth.  This situation arises through prevailing
       American laws about adoption. The birth certificates of adopted
       children list their legal parents rather than their biological
       ones.  In some cases, people do not even know they are adopted.
       As you well know, if these people had non-Jewish biological
       mothers, they are not Jewish and, if they are women, their
       children are not Jewish and so on ad infinitum. There is no way
       to prove this is not the case. 


>Here's a test for you.  Think of all the Jews you know, ages 25 to 40,
>who were raised Reform.  How many are intermarried?  How many raise their
>children as Jews *exclusively* (no Chanuka bushes)?  Do you think that in
>our overwhelmingly Christian society their grandchildren will consider
>themselves Jewish?  As for alienation, it may be the circles I travel in,
>but Reform and Conservative Judaism seem to alienate the children of their
>followers more than Orthodox Judaism.
 
       It must be the circles you travel in. The fact that many Jews are
       leaving their religion is a major problem, but not a new
       problem.  Apostasy has been a problem before reform Judaism
       existed. It has been a problem at least since the Jews came
       into contact with Greek civilization, probably even before that.
       Jews comprised 10% of the Roman Empire, what happened to them?
       Lots of them became Christians. In 1492, Jews were given the
       choice - convert or leave Spain. Many stayed.  Some became
       Morrenos - that did not last long. The point is that Jews
       have survived not through numbers, but through commitment.
       
       I would hazard a guess that most converts from Judaism are
       from non-affiliated families. That is, families that do not
       have a strong commitment to any branch of Judaism.        
                                                  
       

>Until the 1800's there were no non-Orthodox Jews.  
       
       What do you mean, non-Orthodox Jews? There have been many
       factional arguments within the Jewish community.  One side always
       believed they had the truth and the other side was absolutely
       wrong and not true Jews. These included differences over Halachic
       points. The battles between the Hasidim and the Mitnagim(??) come
       to mind. Ex-communications abounded. As I remember, an important
       difference between the two revolved around the smoothness of the
       blades used for ritual slaughter. Each side refused to recognize
       the others slaughtering. 
       
>I'm no statistician, but doesn't this mean that if trends continue, the
>number of Orthodox Jews will overtake the number of Reform Jews?

       Let's see some published studies. I have not seen any published
       numbers to lead me to believe there has been significant growth
       in Orthodox practice. 
       
       Are there more Kosher butchers?  Not anywhere I've been.  
       
       Have any Reformed or Conservative Synagogues been changed
       over to Orthodox.  Not any I've seen. In fact, I've seen the
       opposite.  Orthodox => Conservative.
                             
       
       

    So how many of you have sent a telegram??

    re:.36
    
    Cossacks and Nazis decided who they wanted to hate/kill/destroy.
    Haters are always over-inclusive.  There are still laws in place
    in some Southern states that call someone with a black great-gradparent
    "Black".
    
    What I was trying to say was that we should not use haters' definitions
    of who is a Jew.  
    
    BTW---On "All things considered" last night they interviewed a
    congressman who was reacting to what he considered the chutzpah
    of the "ultra" orthodox in wanting to "redefine who was a Jew".
    The spin-masters are doing their job in repositioning the traditional
    halachic view as a radical "change" and "redefinition".
    
    

    RE: 586.31  >Until the 1800's there were no non-Orthodox Jews.
    
    Until the mid-1800s there were no Orthodox Jews either.  Orthodoxy was
    founded in Germany to oppose the Reform movement, which started at the
    end of the 18th century.  It is important to distinguish between the
    modern movement (Orthodoxy) and the particular interpretation of
    tradition that Orthodoxy proclaims.
    
    The Reform movement started as a popular rebellion against the
    traditional interpretations of Jewish practice in 18th century Germany
    and as it evolved it did explicitly reject Halacha as binding (it
    contended that much of Halacha was accretions that obscured the central
    core of Judaism--we had built such a high fence around the Torah that
    we could no longer see it).  Traditionalists who were upset at this and
    opposed such an interpretation organized a countervailing movement and
    called themselves Orthodox.  (Was Sampson Raphael Hirsch the first to
    use that designation?) 

    There were also Jews who disagreed with both interpretations.  This
    third group did not become significant in Europe, but many of its
    ideas found their way into the Conservative Jewish Theological
    Seminary.  A key difference between Conservative and Orthodox
    interpretation of tradition is that the Conservatives argue that
    Jewish tradition, as expressed in Halacha, has changed over the
    centuries to a much greater degree than Orthodoxy will admit, and
    this flexibility has been important in the preservation of the Jewish
    people.  Thus, the Conservatives claim that they, and not the Orthodox,
    are correctly interpreting Halacha.

    (And we haven't even touched on some of the Zionist groups who contend
    that religion is essentially an activity for Jews in the Galut...)
    
    Unfortunately, all groups have been guilty of driving their own
    wedges between themselves and the rest of the Jewish people; the
    Orthodox should not be singled out on this score.  So far, however,
    no group has been able to gain control of the state apparatus to
    impose its authority on the other groups, and this is what the current
    argument is about.  I do not think that amending (or not amending)
    the Law of Return will settle the controversy over the legitimacy
    of non-Orthodox conversions or over patrilineal descent--our
    great-great-grandchildren may see these resolved--but it can have
    an tremendously divisive effect on world Jewry at a time when Israel
    needs more, not less, support.
    
    					Aaron

    RE: 586.31 > You've seen statistics?  Could you share them with us?

    I was citing from memory; I will try to track down the specific
    sources and post them.  A while back I spent some time looking
    at data gathered by various community censuses, etc. that showed
    (to my surprise, I might add) that despite a great deal of attention
    given to the B-T phenomenon, demographics, etc., the total numbers
    involved were quite small.  For instance, only about 5% of the Jews
    in Greater Boston are Orthodox, so even small increments are
    proportionally large.
    
    >doesn't this mean that if trends continue, the number of Orthodox 
    >Jews will overtake the number of Reform Jews?
    
    Only if the trend continues long enough without change on the part of
    either Reform or Orthodox Jews.  Given the numbers involved, we are
    talking several generations, and most demographic patterns fluctuate
    over that amount of time. assume Also, history indicates that as
    Orthodox communities have grown, so has attrition from Orthodoxy.
    Whether that will happen again, only time will tell. 

    					Aaron

re .37:       
>       Actually, it is almost impossible for an American to prove
>       Jewishness by birth.  This situation arises through prevailing
>       American laws about adoption. The birth certificates of adopted
>       children list their legal parents rather than their biological
>       ones.  In some cases, people do not even know they are adopted.
>       As you well know, if these people had non-Jewish biological
>       mothers, they are not Jewish and, if they are women, their
>       children are not Jewish and so on ad infinitum. There is no way
>       to prove this is not the case. 

Adoption is indeed a serious problem, but most people aren't adopted and
know they aren't adopted.  I don't know how adoption agencies have worked
in the past regarding placing Jewish children in Jewish homes.  I know
one Jewish couple who recently adopted a non-Jewish child.  Presumably
they'll raise him as a Jew, and then let him decide whether he wants to
convert.  I think there are some serious halachic issues here.

BTW, there was an article in the Boston Globe a month or so ago about
a Jewish couple whose children were placed in a fundamentalist Christian
foster home.  They sued the agency that placed them after the children
showed signs of indoctrination.  The problem seems to be a lack of
Jewish foster parents.

>                 Apostasy has been a problem before reform Judaism
>       existed. It has been a problem at least since the Jews came
>       into contact with Greek civilization, probably even before that.
>       Jews comprised 10% of the Roman Empire, what happened to them?
>       Lots of them became Christians. In 1492, Jews were given the
>       choice - convert or leave Spain. Many stayed.  Some became
>       Morrenos - that did not last long. The point is that Jews
>       have survived not through numbers, but through commitment.
>       
>       I would hazard a guess that most converts from Judaism are
>       from non-affiliated families. That is, families that do not
>       have a strong commitment to any branch of Judaism.        

Many of the Jews in the Roman Empire moved to Spain as the Church gained
power.  The problem today is not apostasy, it's assimilation into a
secular society.  What does an American whose grandparents were Scots,
Swedish, English, and German, respectively, consider himself?  American,
no more and no less.  Ethnic group identification tends to disappear
much more rapidly than religious identification.


>       What do you mean, non-Orthodox Jews? There have been many
>       factional arguments within the Jewish community.  One side always
>       believed they had the truth and the other side was absolutely
>       wrong and not true Jews. These included differences over Halachic
>       points. The battles between the Hasidim and the Mitnagim(??) come
>       to mind. Ex-communications abounded. As I remember, an important
>       difference between the two revolved around the smoothness of the
>       blades used for ritual slaughter. Each side refused to recognize
>       the others slaughtering. 

They may have disagreed on what the halacha was, but they didn't reject
whole areas of halacha.  As for refusing to recognize each other's
slaughtering, there's an interesting disagreement between Beis Hillel
and Beis Shammai in Mishnah Yevamos (1:4) regarding women who could or
could not be married.  Despite their differences, they intermarried because
they trusted each other to tell if there was a problem according to
the other interpretation.


>       Let's see some published studies. I have not seen any published
>       numbers to lead me to believe there has been significant growth
>       in Orthodox practice. 
>       
>       Are there more Kosher butchers?  Not anywhere I've been.  
>       
>       Have any Reformed or Conservative Synagogues been changed
>       over to Orthodox.  Not any I've seen. In fact, I've seen the
>       opposite.  Orthodox => Conservative.

I don't have any studies, but I have some anecdotal evidence (hey, Reagan
can do it, why can't I?).  There's been a tremendous growth in the Orthodox
communities in Boston and Detroit (two communities that I'm familiar with)
in the last 10 years.  They have very little in common economically.
The growth in Detroit seems to be mostly internal (Baalei Tshuva).

There's a lot more kosher food available now.  Almost every major food
company has a lot of products with the OU or OK.  They obviously think
it pays for them to court the kosher consumer.  As for butchers, nice
Jewish boys become accountants and doctors, not butchers, but I wouldn't
mind owning 10% of Glatt Mart or even The Butcherie.

As for "conversions" of synagogues, I *can* think of one conservative-to-
orthodox conversion, but it's easier to start your own Orthodox shul than
to try to change an entrenched Conservative one.  In some areas, there are
lots of new Orthodox shuls.  There are entire new Orthodox communities
in the New York area (Monsey, Teaneck).

Where I grew up, most baalei tshuva left for a larger community where the
Orthodox infrastructure was stronger.  It's hard to be Orthodox in a community
of only a dozen Orthodox families.

re .42:       
>Adoption is indeed a serious problem, but most people aren't adopted and
>know they aren't adopted.  I don't know how adoption agencies have worked
>in the past regarding placing Jewish children in Jewish homes.  I know
>one Jewish couple who recently adopted a non-Jewish child.  Presumably
>they'll raise him as a Jew, and then let him decide whether he wants to
>convert.  I think there are some serious halachic issues here.

In a society in which the majority is non-Jewish, an adopted child whose
biological parents are of unknown religious identity is assumed to be
non-Jewish. This is not a halachic problem since the child can be
"converted" by a Bet Din at his/her parents' request, and the child will
automatically be Jewish when he/she reaches maturity (13/12 yrs) IF
the child indicates, either verbally or in action, that he/she wishes to
be Jewish. (This 'indication' by action is of course open to many 
interpretations and on some accounts can be the mere observance of
mitzvot... a Bar/Bat Mitzva ceremony SURELY suffices.)
But the interesting thing is that because the child is assumed to be
non-Jewish by birth there can be no problems of mamzerut (illegitimacy),
a really difficult Halachic issue that is tough to solve.
There is one area in which the child's being a convert may present
a problem, marrying a male Cohen, but I think that as adoption becomes
more and more common in the US amongst religious Jews it should be
rather easy to overcome that problem.

-Zaitch

Re .31

>Until the 1800's there were no non-Orthodox Jews.  Certainly, there were
>Jews who didn't follow Halacha, but they considered this a personal choice.
>There is a continuity of tradition flowing into Orthodox Judaism over
>4000 years.  There have been offshoots in the past (Samaritans, Karaites,
>followers of various false messiahs), but they have disappeared.

I can't let this go by unchallenged. When Rabbinic Judaism was created it was
the "reform" branch of its day. This is precisely what all the fuss was about
when Jesus and the early Christians were complaining about the "Pharises" (sp?).
The word is an obsolete synonym for Rabbinic Jews. In fact, the Karaites _do_
consitute a pre-1800 branch of non-Orthodox Jews. How about the Falashas?

>Before there was such a thing as a non-Orthodox Jew, there were codifications
>of Halacha.  Do those who "accept Halacha" but "do not accept Orthodox
>interpretations of Halacha as authoritative" accept these codifications?

I'm currently reading the history of the Jews and I'm up to the 16th century.
At that time the Jewish community was highly fragmented. Jews who had been
exiled from a great many places were living in close proximity in Turkey and
Palestine. The Jews who originated from each point of origin had their own
synagogue, their own rabbi, and did not accept the interpretation of Halacha
from anyone else's rabbi. Joseph Caro (living in Palestine) wrote his Shulchan
Aruch in the 1st half of this century in the hope of unifying the
interpretations of Halacha, at least for the every-day practice of Judaism.
Immediately, rabbis in other locations wrote their own revisions. There NEVER
has been a single interpretation of Halacha that has been accepted by all
observant Jews. I think the writings of the Prophets speaks to this issue.

Dave

    There is a difference between differences in particulars of pratice
    and abandonment of basic laws.  EX.  Ashkenazim and Sefardim have
    different customs around the use of "kitnios--legumes" on Passover--but
    niether eat bread/homezt during Passover.
    
    Your "fragmentation" arguement is attempting to relate the differences
    between Orthodoxy and Reform as just of interpretation... the same
    as that of various communities in past generations.  This is
    disingenuous.  Basic laws such as Kashrut and Taharas
    Ha'Mishpocha(Mikvah) have been abandoned not "practiced in a different
    way"! 
    
    Av
    
    
    

re .44

> When Rabbinic Judaism was created it was the "reform" branch of its day.

It didn't reject the validity of (parts of) halacha.

> This is precisely what all the fuss was about when Jesus and the early
> Christians were complaining about the "Pharises" (sp?).

I would suggest reading Jewish sources on the Pharisee-Sadducee schism.
Christian sources obviously have their own axe to grind.  For those who
don't know, today's Jews are spiritual descendents of the Pharisees.
The Sadducees have disappeared.

> In fact, the Karaites _do_ consitute a pre-1800 branch of non-Orthodox Jews.

Who have also disappeared.

> How about the Falashas?

What do they have to do with this?

re interpretations of halacha:

The reform movement was the second group to reject the necessity of halachic
observance, not merely reinterpret halacha.  Early reformers observed a 
Sunday Sabbath, rejected Kashruth, rejected Taharath Hamishpacha, etc.
(They also rejected Zionism, but that's another point).  Can you name the
first group who said halacha was unnecessary?

    Note .31, a response to a response-to-a-response asks a couple of
    questions, the answers to which give rise to some other questions.
    
    "...Think of all the Jews you know, ages 25 to 40, who were raised
    Reform.  How many are intermarried?"
    
    None.
    
    "How many raise their children as Jews *exclusively* (no Chanuka
    bushes)"
    
    All.  I have heard of Chanuka bushes.  I have never seen one.  My
    children have also heard of but have never seen one.  I know that
    such things exist.  I think I saw an ad several years ago in the
    Jewish Week.  Is there anything in Halacha that forbids a Jews from
    engaging in the business of manufacturing or selling such items?
    
    ""Do you think that in our overwhelming Christian society their
    grandchildren will consider themselves Jewish?"
    
    I do not think that it is possible for anyone to calculate with
    any certainty just what grandchildren will consider themselves.
    Please let us not bring up the laws of probability:  we are dealing
    with people.
    
    The implication of the questions asked is that assimilation is a
    threat to the Jewish population,i.e., the number of Jews will 
    diminish as more and more Jews will consider themselves less and
    less Jewish.  But it appears that whether or not people *consider*
    themselves Jewish is irrelevant -- that is, if Halachic rules 
    are observed.
    
    I do not question the statement by the author of .31 that ..."it
    may be that the circles I travel in, but Reform and Conservative
    Judiasm seem to alienate the children of their followers more than
    Orthodox Judiasm."
    
    But I wonder if such is indeed the case.  Does anyone know? Is there
    a significant inflow of Reform/Conservative children to Orthodoxy?
    To what extent do the non-Jewish partners in intermarriage convert
    to Judiasm?  Are there any figures?

A member of my congregation (Howard Cooper of BethEl, Sudbury Ma.) took a
(honeymoon) trip arround the world with the express intent of visiting obscure
Jewish communities. He succeeded in visiting a Chinese Jew. The community he
was allowed to visit had assimilated long ago and all that remained was a
pride in the fact that they are Jewish, and therefor _different_. Howard
remarked that China is a huge place, that large parts of it are closed to
foreign visitation, and that there may yet be communities of practicing
Chinese Jews somewhere.

Howard showed us his travelling tallis made of parachute material.

Regarding the level of observance of Halacha in the Reform community: I'll have
to check this out with our rabbi, but I think that the Reform position is that
Halachic observance is a matter of personal choice. The Law has not been
abandoned, it is simply to be self-enforced. I know that my own congregation
(Reform) has often discussed whether or not we should build a mikva. The laws
regarding the mikva are not abandoned even though the observance of such laws is
extremely low in the Reform community. The presumption that a Reform (or
Conservative) Jew is, per se, non-observant is an INSULT. 

Here is a technical question: If a person is converted by an Orthodox Bet Din
and it later turns out that one of the 3 rabbis was secretly non-observant is
the conversion invalid? Despite what I said above I have to agree that, on
average, an Orthodox rabbi would be more observant than a Reform rabbi
(and Conservative rabbis probably fall somewhere in the middle). It is, however,
unfair to prejudge an entire class because of the actions of individuals.

Regarding patrilineal descent: I think the Reform movement has made a mistake
to go it alone on this issue. Perhaps a compromise could be reached. Even
though Jewishness is a binary condition, the real world is non-binary. It seems
to me that someone whose father was Jewish and who was raised as a Jew is more
nearly Jewish than the average gentile. Perhaps such persons could be presumed
to have met all the prerequisites for conversion and be required to undergo
only the conversion ceremony.

Dave

>       There is a difference between differences in particulars of pratice
>   and abandonment of basic laws.  EX.  Ashkenazim and Sefardim have
>   different customs around the use of "kitnios--legumes" on Passover--but
>   niether eat bread/homezt during Passover.

>    Your "fragmentation" arguement is attempting to relate the differences
>    between Orthodoxy and Reform as just of interpretation... the same
>    as that of various communities in past generations.  This is
>    disingenuous.  Basic laws such as Kashrut and Taharas
>    Ha'Mishpocha(Mikvah) have been abandoned not "practiced in a different
>    way"! 
 
    There appears to be a different interperation about how we got
    where we are today. Change has been acheived through the legalistic
    tool of halacha. Rabbis have used this to make change, and make
    Judaism fit the times.
    
    Today we are left with many of the changes, but not the will of
    any of the establishment to continue the process. We have traditions
    based on ignorance rather than Torah, and traditions (or laws of
    the Rabbis) we are told are more important than those given by G-d.
    
    To some extent I think we might be suffering due to the modern 
    communications. Questions about conversions, kashrut, Jewish identity
    Sabbath observance, could in days gone past be dealt with at the local 
    level. Todays Rabbis have far more knowledge available to them and seek
    to use it to exercise control rather than liberalisation. 
    
    Of course the Orthordox never abondaned laws, but there are many
    that seem very different now to how they were origionally stated.
    
    Malcolm

    
    I'm amazed (and pleased) that this topic that I feel strongly about
    has generated such pilpel. However I wonder if it caused people
    to TAKE GRASS ROOTS ACTION which was the initial objective of
    setting up this this Topic?
    
    I'd like to hear from those who sent telegrams to the Prime Minister
    of Israel.
    
    Mike Thompson

>I would suggest reading Jewish sources on the Pharisee-Sadducee schism.

Good point. I happened to skip the volume that covers this period in order
to read about the middle ages, of which I knew _nothing_.

>Christian sources obviously have their own axe to grind.  For those who
>don't know, today's Jews are spiritual descendents of the Pharisees.
>The Sadducees have disappeared.

I knew this. My point was that, at the time of its origin, not all Jews were
in favor of Rabbinic Judaism.

>> In fact, the Karaites _do_ consitute a pre-1800 branch of non-Orthodox Jews.
>Who have also disappeared.

Not quite. I believe there is one congregation left in Egypt; but your point
is well taken. I was surprised to learn that the Karaites existed in Europe
as late as the 15th century. They were so weak at that time that they had
forgotten the standard interpretations of the Hebrew Bible and had to relearn
them from the Rabbinic Jews.

>> How about the Falashas?
>What do they have to do with this?

I would contend that the Falashas constitute a valid Jewish sect. In Ethiopia
they observed Kashrut, Shabbos, and the Mikva even more strictly than Orthodox
standards. They predate (and therefor do not have) the Talmud/Halacha and they
observe patrilineal descent.

>The reform movement was the second group to reject the necessity of halachic
>observance, not merely reinterpret halacha.  Early reformers observed a 
>Sunday Sabbath, rejected Kashruth, rejected Taharath Hamishpacha, etc.
>(They also rejected Zionism, but that's another point).  Can you name the
>first group who said halacha was unnecessary?

Christians?

Hey, if anyone ever started a Conservative congregation in Sudbury, I'd join
it. I don't think my wife would accept separate seating in an Orthodox
congregation (even tho that's what she grew up with).

Dave

re: .48
    In no way was my comment about the abandonment of basic laws meant
    as an "insult".  It is just a fact.  Check the "conventions" of
    the founders of the Reform Movement.  They are replete with
    announcements of what laws they no longer considered relevant to
    the practice of Judaism.
    
    I in no way regard non or lesser observance of basic Jewish laws
    as meaning that Jews who are non-traditionally observant are less
    sincere, committed, or spiritual.
    
    Av
        

    Comments:
    
    As an outside observer, what strikes me first is the insane and
    unhealthy mixup of political and religious power, in this issue.
    
    How can a political body be granting to itself or to a designated other
    'body' the right to judge on any individual's religious/ethnic
    adherence? History tells us many examples of how dangerous such an
    approach is. Note that I'm not arguing political citizenship, here.
    
    If such a long term impact decision is made to ensure the 'live' of a
    probably short term political coalition, it may weaken Israel's
    position very quickly.
    
    Question: how did it finally work out?
    
    Confused,
    
    Chris 

>    How can a political body be granting to itself or to a designated other
>    'body' the right to judge on any individual's religious/ethnic
>    adherence? History tells us many examples of how dangerous such an
>    approach is. Note that I'm not arguing political citizenship, here.

I may be mistaken but the problem is that Halacha (Jewish holy law) covers both
religious law and civil law. Jews look on themselves as both a religious group
and a nation-in-exile. The Orthodox, who believe in the primacy of Halacha,
feel that Halacha is the proper civil law for Jews in a Jewish state. There
have been a lot of changes since the Romans dismantled the previous Jewish
state and opinion is divided on how Jews ought to behave today.

Dave

re: .53:
    As an outside observer, what strikes me first is the insane and
    unhealthy mixup of political and religious power, in this issue.
    
    How can a political body be granting to itself or to a designated other
    'body' the right to judge on any individual's religious/ethnic
    adherence? History tells us many examples of how dangerous such an
    approach is. Note that I'm not arguing political citizenship, here.

I'm not certain how this mixture is either insane or unhealty.  (This doesn't
mean that I like it, of course.)

The mixture is seen every day in America, especially between Thanksgiving
and Christmas.  It is seen very frequently in American political life
-- especially when political leaders talk about the "Christian principles"
that underly the American Constitution.  (The leaders usually say
"Judaic/Christian" but that doesn't fool anyone.)

Martin.

    RE: .55, there is a big difference between the policies proposed
    by the current Orthodox parties in Israel and those in the United
    States. In the U.S., the Constitution guarantees separation of "Church
    and State". Therefore, religious opinions are not translated into
    civil laws! In Israel, some of the Orthodox parties which form the
    current coilition want to do just that. They want to impose THEIR
    view of what is correct in Jewish Life on the rest of a civilian
    population. The definition of Jewish life is a dynamic definition,
    and has changed over time. It is not possible to turn the clock
    back by legislation without creating a theocracy, where the Orthodox
    force the rest of the State to conform to their ideas. This would
    make Israel's government no better than those of its enemies. Religious
    rules have no place in a democratic state, and those who try to
    impose their version of the rules are nothing but demogogues!! The
    Jewish prople have fought religious intolerance for centuries, and
    now some parts of the Government want to impose just such intolerance
    on the people whose views differ from theirs. If the current ruling
    party has any sense, they will disavow themselves from this before
    Israel looses the little international support it currently has.
    Unlike some other religions, there is no such thing as rules of
    infalibility in the Jewish faith, and no one (or group) has the
    right to claim that they are the final rule on the Law.
    
    Eric
    
    

    Several years ago I dated an Iranian Jew.  He was a refugee who
    came here to study and could not go back when Kohmehni came to power.
    When we began dating, alot of our mutual friends were quite pleased
    with the match (both Americans and Iranians).  My father, who is
    not Jewish (my mother was), did not say anything.  However, his
    parents said more than enough.
    
    By JEWISH tradition in Moslem countries, if someone marries a non-Jew,
    the Jewish community says Kaddish for the person.  His parents said
    I was not Jewish.  No rabbi could sway them.  Several months
    after I stopped seeing the Iranian, I learned the root of all this.
    Any Moslem who converts to another religion automatically lives
    under a death penalty.  I've heard stories of Moslems who convert
    to Judaism who live under the death penalty in Jerusalem.  
    
    By the way, to substantiate myself as a Jew for the Va'ad Harabanim,
    I had to get my great-grandmother's death certificate (which showed
    my great-great-grandparents' names) because her married name on
    my grandmother's birth certificate, Theresa Simmons, didn't look
    Jewish to anyone.  Thank goodness Fredrica Levy and Julius Dreyfus
    had solid Jewsih names!
    
    

    < Note 586.57 by COGMK::MALMBERG >

    >>By JEWISH tradition in Moslem countries, if someone marries a non-Jew,
    >>the Jewish community says Kaddish for the person.  
    
    The tradition is a more general one.  My parents, first generation
    American Jews, used to recount stories this kind of response
    to intermarriage.  For Jews of my grandparents' generation,
    intermarriage meant the death of Jew.  
    
    Ironically, in most of the intermarried couples that I know, a half 
    dozen or so, the non-Jew has converted to Judiasm and, in most cases, 
    is more observant than her partner.
    

    < re: Note 586.58 by SLSTRN::RADWIN >
    
    I have heard stories about Ashkenazi communities saying Kaddish
    for people who marry a non-Jew when the not Jewish partner does not 
    convert and the marriage is one completely outside Halahah.  
    
    In the Sephardic communities in Moslem countries, conversion
    of the non-Jew is NOT an option.  The enforcement of this continues
    because Islam tradition of a death penalty for anyone who converts
    away from Islam.  Iranian Jews recognize only tradition and not
    Halahah in this matter.  They also do not recognize ANY conversions.
    
    I think these traditions developed so that Jewish communities could
    survive in Moslem countries.                           

.59>    In the Sephardic communities in Moslem countries, conversion
.59>    of the non-Jew is NOT an option.  The enforcement of this continues
.59>    because Islam tradition of a death penalty for anyone who converts
.59>    away from Islam.  Iranian Jews recognize only tradition and not
.59>    Halahah in this matter.  They also do not recognize ANY conversions.

    So, does it follow from this that Sephardic Jews who come from Moslem
    countries would not recognize the conversion of anybody to Judaism? 
    Going to a logical extreme, that means that [Orthodox] Sephardim would
    refuse to recognize the Jewishness of [Orthodox] converts.  Then you'd
    have the lovely scenario of Orthodox groups refusing to recognize each
    other.

    Sorry, as soon as you begin to narrow the scope of the Law of Return,
    you are playing havoc with one of the basic foundations of the State of
    Israel--the right of Jews, as a *People*, to have a homeland.  And how
    sad for the denial of this right to be perpetrated by other Jews!

    My Temple (Reyim, in Newton) has circulated petitions among its members
    protesting any such action against the Law of Return.  For copies, you
    can call the office at (617)527-2410.  I'm sure many other
    organizations are doing likewise.

    		David

.59>    In the Sephardic communities in Moslem countries, conversion
.59>    of the non-Jew is NOT an option.  The enforcement of this continues
.59>    because Islam tradition of a death penalty for anyone who converts
.59>    away from Islam.  Iranian Jews recognize only tradition and not
.59>    Halahah in this matter.  They also do not recognize ANY conversions.

.60>    So, does it follow from this that Sephardic Jews who come from Moslem
.60>    countries would not recognize the conversion of anybody to Judaism? 
.60>    Going to a logical extreme, that means that [Orthodox] Sephardim would
.60>    refuse to recognize the Jewishness of [Orthodox] converts.  Then you'd
.60>    have the lovely scenario of Orthodox groups refusing to recognize each
.60>    other.

Shalom,

I suspect that a more accurate statement than .59 would be that they do not
PERFORM any conversions since this would bring the death penalty on the
convert.  I very much doubt the statement that they do not RECOGNIZE any
converions.

L'hit,
Gavriel

The following is the complete text of a petition circulated by my temple (as I
referred to in .60).  Feel free to print out a copy and send it in.  I don't
have a deadline but I believe they want them back by around Dec. 9.

                                  Return to
               COMBINED JEWISH PHILANTHROPIES OF GREATER BOSTON
                ONE LINCOLN PLAZA, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02111


TO:	PRIME MINISTER YITZHAK SHAMIR
		   AND
	ISRAELI KNESSET MEMBERS


                              RE: "WHO IS A JEW"
			      ------------------


We, the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, working in
conjunction with the Council of Jewish Federations and its 200 member
Federations, and in partnership with Northeast Regional Council of the Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, the New England Region of the United Synagogue
of America, and many Orthodox leaders from Greater Boston reaffirm our devotion
to the State and people of Israel, and proclaim that we are one people with a
single destiny.

We reject any effort to divide our people by Israeli state legislation which
seeks to amend, directly or indirectly, the Law of Return, which defines Who is
a Jew.

We associate ourselves with the overwhelming majorities of the Jews of Israel
and the Diaspora who oppose any such legislation.

While only a few people would be personally affected by this political action,
millions would suffer a deep symbolic wound from this challenge to our sense of
peoplehood.

Any such initiative threatens our community at a time when unity is essential
to support Israel, still besieged by external foes, facing new internal
uprisings and fresh worldwide propaganda assaults.

We call upon you and all Jews everywhere to reject all such initiatives.

================================================================================

Date        Name                      Address
----        ----		      -------


________________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________________


________________________________________________________________________________

I thought the Combined Jewish Philanthropies claims to represent *all* Jews
in the greater Boston area.  If so, why are they taking a political position
that is opposed by the mainstream of the Orthodox community?  The UOJCA 
voted that American Jews should "butt out" of this issue.  Isn't this
position by the CJP divisive in itself?

    re:.63
    By taking a position that is utterly incompatible with the wishes
    of the majority of the CJP's members and donors, the UOJCA is creating
    a schism.  Since CJP is not ruled by a proportional-representation
    voting system in which a small faction can hold the balance of power
    between major factions, the UOJCA or other supporters of the "Who
    is a Jew?" change cannot cause CJP to bend to them.
    
    Since the goal of CJP is to raise money, UOJCA supporters can always
    create their own chartiable body and feed it their own money; they
    can then give the money to Shas, Aguda, NRP, and others whom they
    wish.

    	The CJP had a full-page ad in today's Boston Globe, restating (and
    amplifying) the petition I have inserted previously.

    	I think their reasons should be transparent.  I would not be
    surprised to find that they are getting a lot of resistance from people
    (like myself) who usually give as a matter of course.  This year there
    have to be a lot of people like me who are saying, "I'll wait until
    Israel gets its act together, and I can know what kind of Israel I'm
    supporting."  In addition, alternatives like the New Israel Fund have
    become viable in recent years.  Therefore, the CJP needs to take a
    stand which will reassure the greatest number of its usual supporters.

    	In addition, this happens to be the time of the CJP's principal
    drive, and the bad publicity they have to battle couldn't be more
    poorly timed.

    	Personally, I think the CJP could state its case much better, but
    they are fundraisers, not political experts.

    		David

I think that most Orthodox Jews I know -- I consider myself one, too --
also oppose the latest insanities coming from the so-called "religious
parties" in Israel. (I am obviously ignoring fundamental differences as
to WHY various Jews oppose amending the Law of Return.)

Hence I do not believe that the CJP ads are offensive to most Orthodox
Jews in the area or in the US for that matter.

If I understand correctly, Rabbi Lamm of Yeshiva University also came out
against the attempt to force a change in the Law of Return. 

-Zaitch

    Re the CJP and who speaks for Orthodoxy:

    The major Orthodox organizations in the United States are the UOJCA,
    Agudas Harabonim, and the National Council of Young Israel.  Of these,
    the UOJCA and Young Israel generally agree politically, and the Aguda
    is to the right of them.  I don't know what positions YI and the Aguda
    have taken, but, as I said in a previous reply, the UOJCA has said that
    American Jews have no business telling Israel what to do about the
    Law of Return.  Note that they don't support the move to amend the
    Law of Return; they just say that it's a matter for Israelis to decide.

    I don't know of any Orthodox organization that supports the CJP's
    position.

    The CJP has put a full-page ad in the Boston Globe and has sent a
    delegation to Israel to lobby against amending the Law of Return.
    This is presumably with funds that were donated to them as charity.
    The CJP claims to represent all Jews in the Greater Boston area,
    including Orthodox Jews.  I think they should return to policies
    that can be supported by Orthodox Jews as well as Conservative and
    Reform Jews.

re: .67

Shalom,

If the CJP were to restrict itself to those areas which ALL contributors
support, they would not spend any money  8^{).  Not only would they not
send missions to Israel to lobby on the Law of Return.  They would not
support any of the Jewish day schools (somebody out there objects to
supporting the school of <take your pick>).

Instead, the CJP attempts to give support as a function of need and the
will of the MAJORITY of the community (or at least of the contributors  8^{).

L'hit,
Gavriel

    CJP is supported by the vast majority of jews in the U.S.

>< Note 586.69 by MEMORY::RIEGELHAUPT "NORB" >
>                                   -< exit >-
>
>    CJP is supported by the vast majority of jews in the U.S.

Doubtful.  It's a local Boston-based organization.

    Every major city in the U.S. has either  aCJP or an equivalent
    organization. The general feeling of outrage that some jewish
    Ayatollah in Israel is going to decide who is a Jew is country
    wide, not just limited to the Boston area.

    Re: .71
        
    You may not agree with the political action under taken by the Israeli
    religious parties, but the Orthodox world is united around the basic
    issue of discomfort with changes to the traditional definition of who
    is a Jew. You may not understand that there has also been a feeling of
    "outrage" among Orthodox (and Conservative) Jews when new definitions
    were unilaterally promulgated by the Reform movement (specifically
    patrilineal descent). The Orthodox parties are just using their
    political clout in the same way as the CJPs and Federation missions
    are using theirs.
    
    We are now in the midst of the festival of Chanukah which commemorates
    the struggle of the Hashmoneans against the forces of Hellenism.

    Would Judah Maccabee be considered a "jewish Ayatollah"?
    
    

    
    
    If you want to build walls to keep me out, don't ask for my help

    Side comment re: .72
    
     >>Would Judah Maccabee be considered a "jewish Ayatollah"?
    
    Look into what the Maccabees did AFTER Chanukah.  They were not
    of the proper tribe to rule, but declared one of themselves king.
    I've been told that this is why the Chanukah story is not part of
    the Torah.
    
    				Paul
    

There seems to be a lot of smoke and heat and not much light
being generated in this discussion, and I suspect that's true
about the topic in the U.S. in general.

Without going into my own opinion on the proposed law (I'm agin it)
it should be noted that, contrary to what has apparently been
published in ads in various newspapers, it DOES *NOT* DE-LIGITIMIZE
MILLIONS OF CONSERVATIVE AND REFORM JEWS !!!!

It de-ligitimizes the Jewishness of people whose conversion was
not done according to Jewish law (actually, even then only for the
purpose of emigrating to Israel, but that's another point).

Perhaps, since the issue concerns who determines what is a legitimate
conversion, the issue should be called, "Who-is-a-rabbi?" rather
than "who-is-a-Jew?"

I hope this clears things up a bit, but I doubt it.

    RE:-1
    
    If the issue was over whether the conversions were done by Jewish
    law there wouldn't be the outcry.  In reality it is exactly the
    opposite.  ALL conversions by Orthodox Rabbis will be considered
    to be Kosher unless proven otherwise and ALL conversions by
    Conservative and Reformed Rabbis will not be considered valid period.
    That's nothing but an attempt to invalidate the role of Rabbis other
    than Orthodox and thereby by extension to define Orthodox as the
    ONLY form of Jewdism.  If they were truly only interested in making
    sure that the conversions were Kosher then they would work with
    the non-Orthodox Rabbis to insure that Halacha as defined by the
    Orthodox was followed but you don't see that happeneing.
    
    As to the rights of Israelis to amend the Right of Return, they
    do have the right.  But would it pass if put up for a vote by the
    general population.  And do I have a right to criticise them and
    make my feelings known, you bet I do.  The same thing that gives
    me the right to criticise the USSR for its treatment of Jews and
    other religious groups gives me the same right to criticise the
    Israeli government.
    
    

    
    Re: -.1
    
    "That's nothing but an attempt to invalidate the role of rabbis other
    than Orthodox..."
    
    The role of non-Orthodox rabbis in Israel has never been validated, as
    far as I can tell.  Conservative and Reform rabbis there are not
    permitted to perform marriages, for example.  Neither are they allowed
    to serve in the Israeli army in a rabbinic role.

re .76:

>                        And do I have a right to criticise them and
>   make my feelings known, you bet I do.  The same thing that gives
>   me the right to criticise the USSR for its treatment of Jews and
>   other religious groups gives me the same right to criticise the
>   Israeli government.
    
There's no comparison between the situation in Israel and the situation
in the USSR.  The debate over the Law of Return is one of *immigration
policy*.  The USSR doesn't seem to need to restrict immigration.  You
certainly have a right -- even a duty -- to criticize human rights
violations.  Free emigration is a human right, but free immigration
is not.

How would you feel about the Japanese threatening to play havoc with
the dollar if the US didn't change its immigration policy?

    If I understand .76, then a Conservative Rabbi who does in fact
    FOLLOW Halacha in conversion, and convenes a Kosher Bet Din would
    have the conversion invalidated. Is the conversion invalid because
    it was performed incoreectly or was it because of the Rabbi's
    affiliation?

    Affiliation has nothing(or does it) to do with observance. I know many 
    Orthodox who at home at Frum, but outside convenience takes hold 
    and they'll eat from plates whose status they know nothing about. 
    On the other hand I know Reform who would not dream of eating from 
    plates that they did not KNOW were Kosher. So it seems to me that
    observance and actions are actually more inportant.
    
    Next how do I go about proving I'm Jewish. Well my relatives all
    say I am, and of course that they are. They all worry about inter-
    marriage. But how could I PROVE it to a Rabbi.
     1) My mother was ====> I am
     2) My grandmother was ====> my mother was
     3) My great-grandmother was ====> my grandmother was
     4) My great-great-grandmother was =====> my great-grandmother was
       .
       .
       .
     n+2) My (great)**n-grandmother was ====> my (great)**(n-1) grandmother was
     n+3) I don't know anything about my (great)**(n+1)-grandmother so
        I can't prove that my lineage descends from a Jew and hence
        I cant't prove that I'm a Jew.
    
    In fact I don't know ANYTHING about my great-grandparents on either
    side, much less on my maternal side. If 20 years from now I decide
    I want to live in Israel and the Chief Rabbi has decided you need
    to show 5(or any other number greater than 2) generations of Jewishness
    (Orthodox at that) then I guess I'm in some deep trouble. 

    This is what I fear. That although I'm extrapolating an extreme situation,
    I fear that it COULD come about. That is the problem with dangerous ideas,
    like modifying the Law of Return. In the wrong(from my point of
    view) hands they can be used in totally unexpected ways. 
    
    Remember there were many people in Germany who supported the Nuremburg laws
    and later were surprised at how they were applied (and before someone
    Flames on, I am not suggesting that anything of that nature is at
    work here).
    
    Dangerous laws yield unexpected results.

    
>There's no comparison between the situation in Israel and the situation
>in the USSR.  The debate over the Law of Return is one of *immigration
>policy*.  The USSR doesn't seem to need to restrict immigration.  You
>certainly have a right -- even a duty -- to criticize human rights
>violations.  Free emigration is a human right, but free immigration
>is not.

This last statement of yours is prepostrous.  Since when is immigration to 
Israel not a right?  That is what the Law of Return was supposed to guarantee.

David

re .80:
>>violations.  Free emigration is a human right, but free immigration
>>is not.

>This last statement of yours is prepostrous.  Since when is immigration to 
>Israel not a right?  That is what the Law of Return was supposed to guarantee.

You misunderstood me.  The Law of Return allows Jews to immigrate to Israel
and become citizens immediately if they so desire.  It does not allow
*everybody* to immigrate to Israel.  I maintain that every country has the
right to determine who it will allow to immigrate.  No country has the
right to prevent residents from emigrating.  Of course in some situations,
countries have a moral obligation to accept certain classes of immigrants --
such as those escaping from the Holocaust.

    One of the fundamental tenets of Judaism has been (for at least
    2600 years) that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people,
    not solely to those Jews who happen to live there at a given time.
    
    This is the basis for the Law of Return (as David pointed out in
    -.1) and the basis for worldwide Jewish support for Israel.
    
    The law is ambiguous and for the sake of Jewish unity it should be kept
    that way.  If, in the future, Jews of the galut come around to an
    Orthodox view, the Jewish community will sort out those of questionable
    identity before they go to Israel.  On the other hand, if Israeli Jews
    decide that non-Orthodox rabbis should be granted equal status with
    Orthodox and Sephardi rabbis, then this will not be an issue for most
    Israelis.  At this point, a change in the law is more threatening to
    Jewish unity than the threat from disagreement over the validity of
    conversions. 

    We have here a conflict over authority (see also .13,.75). Over the
    centuries such conflicts have been settled by one group or another
    persuading most other Jews to accept its leadership (e.g. Rabbinic
    vs Karaite Judaism) or by agreeing to mutual validation (Ashkenazi
    vs Sephardi).   For people with such a long history, we sometimes
    have very little perspective...

    re .78
    
    I am not aware of any debate between any substantial number of Israelis
    about Who Is A Jew. The debate is about giving the right to decide
    that question to a very small number of people who are represented
    by a small number of seats in the Knesseth. 
    
    I would like to hear from the author of .78 why he thinks this small
    group of people should have that right.

re .83:

>    I would like to hear from the author of .78 why he thinks this small
>    group of people should have that right.

I'm no expert on the history of the founding of Medinat Yisrael, but
I gather that the reasons behind Israel's rather peculiar political system
were:
	a. it protects minorities
	b. it's more "democratic" than the US or British system
	c. regional differences were not considered important
	d. nobody had a majority when it was decided on.

I'm not arguing that the religious parties *should* have this power --
just that now that they do, they have the right to try to use it without
interference from non-Israelis.  You can't change the rules in the middle
of the game.  Should Israelis tell Americans that the US Senate should
be abolished because it gives small states too much power?

If the Israeli voters want to change their political system, then they
can try to do that.  As I said way back in .1, American Jews who want to
change the Israeli political system can try to do that *if they make aliyah*.

   I think whether or not the people concerned with "who is a Jew" are
    a small or large number isn't the issue.  Try to understand where
    they are coming from.
    
    They actually believe that there is a G-d active in the world, who
    created the entire universe.
    
    They actually believe that G-d communicated with Avraham and tested
    him through the "akedah" (sacrifice) of Issac.
    
    They actually believe that G-d communicated to them at Mt. Sinai
    and that Moses wrote the Written Law (Torah) as "dictated" by G-d,
    and learned the Oral Law from this same G-d as a commentary to what
    was written.
    
    They actually beleive that Jews have a particular mission (Prager
    sees it as being the promulgation of "ethical monotheism") and have
    a "yiddisheh nishama" (Jewish soul).

    They actually believe that this nishama is passed through to a child
    through being born to a Jewish woman or can be gained through a
    conversion to Judaism which follows guidelines that have been used
    for over two thousand years.
    
    They actually believe that for the benefit of the world, it is
    important to continue to have Jews ---and to do that, we need Jewish
    families with Jewish children. 
    
    Their insistance on a clarification of "who is a Jew" comes out
    of a firm belief and a profound fear that the present confusion
    makes the successof our "mission" less likely.
     
    
    
    

    
    I don't question their beliefs or their right to those beliefs.
    
    I question the good sense of either of the major parties in Israel
    to give this small group the right to make the decision for the
    country
		    

    As has been stated in earlier replies...
    
    instead of complaining about the issue of who is a jew, the most
    logical and most obvious step is for american jews(including myself)
    to make aliyah, vote and have their voice heard.
                    
    with all the problems that israel is facing today, it seems
    self-serving and preposterous that american jews are so upset about
    this issue. if all these very same people are so concerned about
    the "religious right" they ought to take the next logical step,
    move and quit whining.                                         
    
    I wish someone would address, what seems to me, a contradiction
    in thinking.
    

Re .76 (sorry for the delay -- I can't keep up with this frantic pace...)

>    In reality it is exactly the
>    opposite.  ALL conversions by Orthodox Rabbis will be considered
>    to be Kosher unless proven otherwise and ALL conversions by
>    Conservative and Reformed Rabbis will not be considered valid period.

This is exactly the kind of clouding of the issue I argued with in .75.
What in the world do you base this statement on?  The proposed change in
the Law of Return is simply to change the definition of a Jew from:
"a person who has a Jewish mother or was converted to Judaism"
to
"a person who has a Jewish mother or was converted to Judaism according to
Jewish Law (halacha)".
Period.
I agree that you could argue that only Orthodox rabbis will be able to
make the decision and that Conservative and Reform rabbis have no legal
standing in Israel.  You (or I) may have a problem with that but it's
nothing new.  As someone else said a few notes back, that has always been
the case in Israel.  And at the risk of repeating the refrain about "if 
you really want to do something about it, move here", it stems from
the fact that the number of conservative and reform Jews here is very small.

    I heard the tail end of a report on "All Things Considered" (a program on
    National Public Radio) on the "Mi Yehudi" issue.  The most interesting
    bit was Egon Mayer's point that nobody has pointed out the cynicism
    of Labor and Likud, both as secular as can be, in dealing with the
    religious parties purely out of a desire for political power.  But I
    suppose that goes with politics in every country.

    Did anybody hear the whole report?  Were there any other novel points?

    I heard the whole 20 minutes and was disappointed in that it really
    didn't give the context of the entire issue of "who is a convert".
    There was a statement by one of the Orthodox representatives that
    the real problem and the basis of much of the anguish among people
    who have been converted by Reform and Conservative rabbis was that
    these converts were not informed that their conversions would not
    be universally recognized by all Jews.  The Reform and Conservative
    spokespeople were not asked how they prepared their converts for
    that fact.
    
    There were some interviews with two non-Orthodox converts who spoke
    about their pain at not being accepted and their anger at feeling
    that they would be excluded from Israeli authomatic citizenship.
    Again, there is much dis-information about the law of return.  It
    really states that spouses and children of Jews can entry under
    the law of return.  If fact, all you have to have is a Jewish
    grandparent.
    
    
     

    re:.85
   
    and it should end with,
    
 And they believe that they, and only they, are the Jews capable
 of understanding all of the above, and that only the Rabbis who
 they consider authoritative should be allowed to interpret the meaning
 of the above, and that non-Orthodox Rabbis cannot.
    
    Interestingly, the related discussion on the Usenet is carried under
    the topic, "Who is an authority?"
    
    If non-Orthodox rabbis are not legitimate, then what is the religious
    affiliation (not yichus) of their followers (most American Jews)
    -- Israelitic Episcopalian? 
    
    If that's the case, then I vote for Israel as the state for
    Israelitic Episcopalians.  The label isn't important, it's the
    implicit invalidation. 

    Hi,
    
    Does anyone know if the religous authorities would demand a Get
    in the case of divorce from someone who married via American
    Conservative or American Reform? 
    
    I wonder because if they don't recognise the organisations that
    perform the marriage, they might consider that there was not a halachic
    marriage, and therefore a get for remarriage within orthordox circles
    would not be required? 
    
    These thought come to me because I was talking to someone from the
    orthordox community (black hat etc) and his personal opinion was
    that it would solve many problems if marriage was not conducted
    under Halacha (no mamzerim etc). I thought this very open minded!
    
    Malcolm

    RE: 586.92

    >                 if they don't recognise the organisations that
    >perform the marriage, they might consider that there was not a halachic
    >marriage, and therefore a get for remarriage within orthordox circles
    >would not be required?

    As a matter of fact, there was an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times
    last week about exactly this sort of event.  A woman went to Israel
    to attend the wedding of her half-sister (by a second marriage)
    to an Orthodox Israeli.  When it turned out that her mother had
    not bothered to obtain a Get before remarrying, the local Bet Din
    asked the mother to certify that the first wedding had not been
    performed under Orthodox auspices.  With that in hand, it ruled
    that the first marriage had never been valid and therefore the younger
    daughter was not a mamzer.  The older sister (the product of this
    now "invalidated" union and the author of the article) was less
    than thrilled.

    					Aaron

Shalom,

It seems to me that someone is pushing it a little bit with invalidating
a marriage performed under non-Orthodox auspices.  It is not absolutely
necessary to have a rabbi for a Jewish marriage (though kosher witnesses
are).  It is possible to have a non-Orthodox rabbi officiate at a wedding
in which the witnesses are kosher.

If the Orthodox authority can demonstrate that the witnesses
at the first wedding were not kosher they might be able to invalidate it.
But, they would think that would require more than just the statement that
the wedding took place under non-Orthodox auspices.

L'hit,
Gavriel

re .94

>It seems to me that someone is pushing it a little bit with invalidating
>a marriage performed under non-Orthodox auspices.  It is not absolutely
>necessary to have a rabbi for a Jewish marriage (though kosher witnesses
>are).  It is possible to have a non-Orthodox rabbi officiate at a wedding
>in which the witnesses are kosher.

Indeed so, but the idea that non-Orthodox "auspices" might involve NO
set of kosher witnesses (for various reasons) has sometimes been suggested/used
to HELP get people out of difficult halachik straights (an aguna or "stranded"
woman whose husband has disappeared, mamzerim or illegitimate offspring
of a 2nd marriage where the 1st was never halachically severed by divorce,
etc.).

There was a rumor that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein said that this might be
used broadly as a way to solve many troubling cases, but as far as I
know he never said that the mere fact that the officiating rabbi was
non-Orthodox itself would warrant such a conclusion, only that one
could explore each such case and see if there were perhaps NO Sabbath-
observing non-relatives in the crowd (no witnesses) or the like.

Various other legal tricks were used to free for marriage a divorcee
and a Cohen, by suggesting that the Cohen is not a kosher Cohen, etc.
In these cases there is always something disturbing and offensive in
what is said, but the intention is to help someone in a fix. 

-Zaitch

    I was trying to summarize a news story, not give a complete account,
    and I wasn't clear.  As I recall, the mother had to certify that there
    were no Orthodox Jews present.  This provided the grounds for
    invalidation, but the account in the NYT did not elaborate further.
    One can infer a lack of valid witnesses, but I seem to recall that
    even in the absence of any witnesses a marriage can be considered
    valid, and a Get required for remarriage.
    
    					Aaron

    Well, after almost 100 replies, what have we solved?  Here is a
    "She'elat Tam" (idiot's question?) about a possible solution:
    How about instead of keeping the current phrasing of the Law of Return
    and adding only KAHALACHA to the definition of who is a convert, modify the
    entire sentence to say: 
          the right to automatic citizenship is given to one that MIGHT (sic.)
          be CONSIDERED Jewish, where might is defined: one born to a
          (proven) Jewish mother, or was converted by a RECOGNIZED 
          organization, or an individual who (note this one) declares loyalty
          to the Jewish nation. 
    Note this a change would not define who is a Jew, leaving that debate
    to the religious organizations.  It would merely define who is
    considered jewish by this particular law.  Also, the recognized
    organization does not mean they are recognized to do convertions
    KAHALACHA, or that they converts can be recognized valid by the
    Ortodox religious authorities -- it merely means that Misrad Hapnim
    recognizes their act out of reality.  Now, if some Orthodox authorities fear
    that such a law would allow non-Jews to pretend they are Jews, or
    to be considered by the SECULAR authorities of Israel as Jews (e.g.
    have their id cards say so) -- so what!  They can always examine,
    or question) the kosherness of someone's Jewishness.  One more
    advantage: it will relieve the religious authorities from making
    such a seculiar decision as who can be an Israeli citizen.  After
    all, some of the parties that push for the proposed amendment of the
    Law of Return care very little who IS Israeli citizen! 
    
    Does anyone have an opinion on the legal consequences of the change
    that I'm suggesting here? 
                             
    Good nite and have a pleasant tomorrow,
    
    Shaike
    

    I do realize that the discussion is in essence the legitimacy of
    the reform and conservative movements, but doesn't the problem lie
    in the fact as stated in .88 that we of the reform and conservative
    movements just aren't making aliyah.
    
    I may be guilty of changing the main thrust of this continuing
    dialogue, but i am interested in responses as to why the orthodox
    are for the most part making aliyah and we of the reform and
    conservative movements sit here in the galut. are the orthodox more
    committed towards israel. by the way i do realize that even the
    orthodox are not leaving in masses, but the few that have made aliyah
    happen to be ortodox.
    
    how can we in the galut dictate israeli policy. we do send money
    but out a total budget of 20 billion dollars the uja contributes
    I believe around 30 million dollars. I may be wrong on those figures,
    i seem to have remembered seeing these numbers in an article i read.
    but at any rate, my point is contributions may make us feel better
    but in the final analysis we are only spectators like everyone else
    in the world.                                                      
    
    In fact contributions by themselves do not imply commitment. we
    like to feel that there is a "two way street" with israel. but i
    think israelis see it different. 
    
    not only are we jews in the galut not making aliyah, but it seems
    that christains throughout europe are visiting israel, while we
    in the galut vacation in europe.
    
    this has not meant to be a put down of anyone, i'm sitting here
    myself in the states. I only bring the issue of aliyah up
    because it is a very uncomfortable issue for many jews in the galut.
    it is a topic that is very rarely mentioned or addreessed and would
    be interesting to hear the different perspectives 
    

re .98
    >we do send money
    >but out a total budget of 20 billion dollars the uja contributes
    >I believe around 30 million dollars. 

Bravo!  Thank you for saying it.  I'm tired of hearing the threats 
that you will cut off your contributions.  Do me a favor and keep your
money.  I'm sure I contribute a lot more to Israel by working here
and paying incredible taxes, than any of the contributors to this note
give to UJA.

    >I think whether or not the people concerned with "who is a Jew" are
    >a small or large number isn't the issue.  Try to understand where
    >they are coming from.
    
    >They actually believe that there is a G-d active in the world, who
    >created the entire universe.
    
    >They actually believe that G-d communicated with Avraham and tested
    >him through the "akedah" (sacrifice) of Issac.
    
    >They actually believe that G-d communicated to them at Mt. Sinai
    >and that Moses wrote the Written Law (Torah) as "dictated" by G-d,
    >and learned the Oral Law from this same G-d as a commentary to what
    >was written.
    
    >They actually beleive that Jews have a particular mission (Prager
    >sees it as being the promulgation of "ethical monotheism") and have
    >a "yiddisheh nishama" (Jewish soul).

    >They actually believe that this nishama is passed through to a child
    >through being born to a Jewish woman or can be gained through a
    >conversion to Judaism which follows guidelines that have been used
    >for over two thousand years.
    
    >They actually believe that for the benefit of the world, it is
    >important to continue to have Jews ---and to do that, we need Jewish
    >families with Jewish children. 
    
    >Their insistance on a clarification of "who is a Jew" comes out
    >of a firm belief and a profound fear that the present confusion
    >makes the successof our "mission" less likely.
     
Av,

I believe that you believe, however your reply is a demonstration of how the
Agudah and their allies are manipulating the opinion of orthodox Jews in the
galut.  

For the skatey-eighth time I will say that this issue has nothing at all to 
do with Halacha, religion, etc., but rather politics and political 
control.  The battle is for the influential ministries (in their view), 
i.e., interior, education, and the space of influence occupied by the bulk 
of galut Jewry.  Invalidate their rabbinut and alienate the people, le mi 
ichpat aleyhem?  

I don't know if you've ever come face to face with the agudah in Israel, 
but contrary to any preconceived notions they are from the kindly old 
Torah sages you might think that they are.

re: .98

We've already brought up Aliyah in this discussion and others, it's 
connection here is secondary.  Let's be serious, how many Jews reading 
this notesfile for example would be willing to make a decision to make 
Aliyah tomorrow?

re: .99

I'm afraid the average American taxpayer contributes more to Israel than 
the average Israeli taxpayer and the average UJA contributor combined.

Let's not bring "who's the greater Gibor?" into this discussion.  I've 
been on both sides of that fence.

David    
    
    

>I'm afraid the average American taxpayer contributes more to Israel than 
>the average Israeli taxpayer and the average UJA contributor combined.
>Let's not bring "who's the greater Gibor?" into this discussion.      

I was afraid when I wrote .99 that it would be misinterpreted.  It's
not a question of Gibor.  It's a question of perpetrating a myth 
that "American Jews pay the bills and Israeli Jews give their blood."
In fact Israelis give the blood and pay the bills.  I think your
comment about the American taxpayer is hyperbole.

I agree that it's not exactly relevant to the topic, but it's important
to point out nonetheless.

Last night's news (in Israel) reported rumors that Shas and Degel Hatorah
are threatening to vote *against* the proposed change to "Who is a Jew".
This would be in retaliation for attempts by Agudat Yisrael to block Shas's
efforts to set up (with government financing) an education system that would
compete with the Agudah's.

For those of you having trouble keeping this straight, this means that 2
of the 3 haredi (ultra-Orthodox) parties are threatening to vote against
the "Who is a Jew" amendment that is being pushed by the third.  Rabbi Shach,
the spiritual mentor of both of the 2 parties, was quoted as describing
the amendment as superfluous and divisive.

    re: .102
    
    Amen.

    re:100
    
    I personally do not beleive that "Who is a Jew" should be a political
    issue; however, I think that it is important that the RELIGIOUS issues
    and implications be raised.  For the past decade, the religious parties
    have been active in attempting to amend the law of return. The issue of
    the bifurcation of klall yisroel was hardly noticed by world Jewry. The
    fact that it was part of the coalition negotiations raised the
    consciousness of many Jews.  I'm happy that the issue received
    attention.  One result was an essay by Rabbi Richard Yellin
    (Conservative)  in last week's Boston JEWISH ADVOCATE which publically
    called for the rethinking of the issue of patrilineal descent and
    spreading the blame for the problems throughout Jewry.
    
    Av 
    
      
     

    Well, it looks like this issue is moot for now, since Likud and Labor
    have apparently agreed on a "broad-based coalition."  The reason cited
    for the sudden compromise is the US talks with the PLO, not the pressure
    exerted by US Jewish organizations.  I'm happy that the issue has been
    decided by Israelis rather than by American Jews telling them how to
    run their country, but I'm not too thrilled about what finally pulled
    Labor and Likud together.

    An interesting sample of the cynicism of politicians (from today's
    Boston Globe):

	"Sharon resorted to wearing a yarmulke, a religious skullcap,
	as he worked on Likud's behalf in recent weeks to enlist the
	support of the religious parties for a narrow-based coalition..."

    re: Sharon's sarcasm
    
    This demonstrates the Likud's "religious fervor".  
    
    P.S.: I'm surprised that he knew how to put a kipah on.
    
    David

    It's possible that the last two responders have succumbed to the
    Globe's editorial practices in which no attempt to take a shot
    at Israel is denied.
    
    I have never seen Sharon in person, but I can't remember ever having
    seen a picture of him not wearing a yarmulke.  Then again, maybe
    it's a "photo opportunity?"

.107>     I have never seen Sharon in person, but I can't remember ever having
.107>     seen a picture of him not wearing a yarmulke.

You can't have seen many pictures of Sharon.  For the record, most or all
male non-religious Israeli politicians wear kipot (yarmulkes) when they
meet with religious politicians or other important people, whether or not
coalition negotiations are in progress.

I rarely have anything positive to say about Sharon, but I'd say that wearing
a kipah in this situation is a sign of respect for those with whom he differs.
There's little enough of this in Israel, or in the rest of the world for
that matter, so let's try to hold back the sarcasm.

>>    I have never seen Sharon in person, but I can't remember ever having
>>    seen a picture of him not wearing a yarmulke.  Then again, maybe
>>    it's a "photo opportunity?"
  
    During the meeting that Sharon and Modai had with the Agudah and
    Shas spiritual leaders they wore yarmulkes and were photographed
    wearing them. They view it as a sign of respect.
    
    BTW - So you have a balanced view, also the Labour leaders were
          photographed with yarmulkes on during their meetings.
      
    	  Its no "big deal" photographing non-religious Israeli leaders
          with yarmulkes, it happens all the time.
    
    
    							...... Monty

    Sigh... I guess I was taken in by the Globe.
    Speaking of which, today's Globe has the headline:

	New Cabinet
	in Israel faces
	baptism of fire

Re: Sharon and others and kipot

Ok I admit it's been a few years since I've been back in Israel.  I plumb forgot about the 
practice of donning kipot when meeting with religious leaders/politicos.  Whether or not
you view it asa sign of respect or expedience is a matter of opinion.

David 

    Was no one else ever taught as a kid that when you went to meet
    the rabbi or someone whe was was very religous that you wore a 
    kippah out of respect?
    
    Malcolm

    re: .112
    
    This has nothing to do with America or any other galut for that
    matter.  It has more to do with a secular person's attitude towards
    the institution(s).
    
    I'm all for showing respect to a Rav, however in regard to the Agudah
    and some of their political allies I have to think twice.
    
    David

    Re: -1
    
>    I'm all for showing respect to a Rav, however in regard to the Agudah
>    and some of their political allies I have to think twice.
    
    Just because one differs with their views does not mean that they don't
    have to show proper respect. 

    Cb.    

   
    

    I'm sorry to disagree but I've seen the reality.  They aren't the
    kindly old Torah sages we read about.
    
    David

    Re: -1
    
    
>    I'm sorry to disagree but I've seen the reality.  They aren't the
>    kindly old Torah sages we read about.

    What reality are you talking about? 
    
    I would be a little more careful and respectful with regard to the
    members of all the Torah Sage Councils.
    
    Again, you don't have to agree with the views that they propone
    and represent, but you do have to regard them with respect.
    
    Cb.    

 

    re last couple:

    Many of those who've replied here (including myself) have been guilty
    of lack of respect for others' views.  Whatever your viewpoint on this
    issue, before you attack anybody, try to look at it from their point of
    view.  I think you'll find that almost everybody here has the good
    of Am Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael foremost in their minds.    

    re: .117
    
    You're probably right, but that shouldn't prevent us from expressing
    our views.  
    
    David

Here's another perspective (via Shimon Shwartz). I wonder what reaction
Rabbi Riskin has received to these ideas in Israel?  
    
    
     
SHABBAT SHALOM:   WHO IS A JEW?
 
                         by Shlomo Riskin
 
 
Efrat, Israel--The dramatic and miraculous return to our homeland
after  thousands  of  years  of  exile is riddled with two tragic
conflicts--Jew against Arab and Jew against Jew--and  it  is  the
second one, the split in the "Who is a Jew" issue, which may turn
out to be even more tragic than the first. And since no issue, no
matter  how  crucial to a group's identity, should be deemed more
important than a nation's unity, a solution must  be  found  that
protects  individual  conscience without sacrificing the nation's
heart.
 
    The problem is a knotty one. Israel was  established  with  a
Law  of  Return  which  grants  every  Jew  the  right to Israeli
citizenship. In the post-Holocaust era, when Jews  struggling  to
re-establish  their shattered lives could not find a safe refuge,
one of the blessings of the new  Jewish  state--indeed  the  most
important reason for its being--was precisely this Law of Return.
However, with Jews  nothing  is  simple.  Every  Jew  is  granted
automatic  citizenship...but  who  is  a  Jew? For at least 2,000
years a Jew has been defined as someone born to a  Jewish  mother
(Mishna  Kedushin  3:12 and Tractate Kedushin 68b) or someone who
undergoes conversion which  includes  circumcision  for  men  and
acceptance  of commandments and ritual immersion for both men and
women  in  the  presence  of  three  qualified  religious  judges
(Tractate Yevamot 46-47 and Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah 26b). As it
exists today, the "law of return" declares anyone a Jew born to a
Jewish  mother  or  having been converted, without specifying the
kind of conversion. The religious parties in Israel want this law
amended  to  specify  conversion  according to the halacha of the
Shulchan Aruch, for centuries the standard Code of  Law  reaching
all corners of the Jewish world.
 
    This week's  Torah  portion  discusses  the  Exodus  and  the
celebration  of  the  first  passover  sacrifice.  Right  at  the
beginning of our national existence, the Torah declares that  not
everyone  who left Egypt with us could share in the paschal lamb.
Noble intentions and identification with the  Jewish  ideal  were
not enough--circumcision was required.
 
    When reform Jewry initiated  patrilineal  descent  and  often
denied   the   need  for  ritual  immersion  and  sometimes  even
circumcision, they caused an irreparable split  in  the  nation's
unity.    After   all,   orthodox,   conservative,   reform   and
reconstructionist movements may disagree about  every  aspect  of
Judaism--whether  the  Torah  is  divine,  divinely  inspired  or
written by men, whether the Sabbath is to  be  observed  so  that
even  a  phone  call  disturbs  its  sanctity  or  allows  a more
permissive interpretation of the  use  of  electricity.  However,
these  differences  do  not  prevent our marrying one another and
therefore the unity of our people is not threatened.  Thus,  when
the  Lubavitcher  Rebbe  urges  a change in the Law of Return his
vision includes the desire for a universal standard of conversion
to avoid the possibility of individual tragedies.
 
    A young woman I knew attended  a  very  orthodox  school  and
became  engaged  to  a young Talmudic scholar. Shortly before the
wedding day, a visiting aunt blurted out that the  young  bride's
grandmother  had  been  converted  by a reform Rabbi. The bride's
mother had moved closer to orthodoxy, and as she was  growing  up
the  bride  herself  had  no  reason  to suspect that she was any
different from the friends  in  her  circle.  But  she  was,  and
tragedy  struck.  Orthodox  law  required  that  to be considered
Jewish she had to convert on  her  own--hence  the  problem.  Her
fiance, a Kohen whose priestly descent sharply defined (even more
than other Jews) whom he could or could not marry, was  forbidden
to  marry  her...a  convert.  Consequently,  feeling the past and
future plucked out in one stroke, she committed suicide.
 
    The hope of the Lubavitchers is that if Israel, world Jewry's
nucleus,  changes  the  law,  it sets a standard which the reform
movements cannot ignore and the  Jewish  people  will  begin  the
process of repairing the rupture.
 
    But the very opposite is  the  case.  We  all  witnessed  how
anxious  and anguished delegations representing as much as 80% of
Diaspora Jewry, have been alerting Israel's political leaders  to
the  dangers  inherent in any change in the "law of return" which
is prejudiced against those who not only do  not  adhere  to  the
Shulchan  Aruch, but who never even heard of it. Changing Israeli
law, it is believed, officially vetoes all conversions other than
those  in  the  orthodox  ritual  and  will  cause  Israel  to be
perceived as the country of the orthodox alone,  undermining  the
infrastructure of financial, political and moral support from the
West.
 
    Two centuries ago when the ghetto walls began  to  fall,  the
Torah  tragically  ceased  functioning  as the unifying center of
emerging secular, non-orthodox Jews. At time passed, the world of
Belz  and  Berlin  could no longer recognize each other, and this
widening gap was not reversed until the newly declared  State  of
Israel  became  the  new  nucleus that could once again unify the
Jewish people. If Israel changes this "law of return," making the
Diaspora  feel  like  a  second-class  culture, a separate Jewish
caste, then the wedge between these  two  Jewries  would  totally
split the nation in two.
 
    Indeed, if a growing number of Jews are fathers  of  children
who,  according  to  the Shulchan Aruch, are not even Jewish, how
can they not respond with pain, shame, and anger to the new  law.
A  choice  between one's own children and Israel is not a choice.
The gap will grow and who will reap  the  benefits?  No  one  but
those  nations  waiting  to  see  if we do to ourselves what they
failed to accomplish for 2,000 years.
 
    The hour has arrived to declare  a  ceasefire.  After  Hitler
sent   Jews   to  the  gas  chambers  irrespective  of  orthodox,
conservative, reform or secular labels, we must find a definition
for "who is a Jew" which will embrace the largest possible number
of Jews without compromising the halachic requirement.  The  time
has come to emphasize what unites us rather than what divides us.
Ironic as it may sound in the wake of  the  current  controversy,
the  most  likely  allies  of the orthodox are indeed the reform,
conservative and the reconstructionists. Does not "who is a  Jew"
reflect  the  even more basic question, "what is Judaism?" And do
not even the  reforming  branches  of  our  religion  agree  with
orthodoxy,  in  opposition  to  the  secularist-nationalists that
Judaism reaches beyond a  national-ethnic  entity  to  include  a
religious cultural framework?
 
    The Talmudic sources in Babylonian Tractate  Yevamot  (46-67)
seem  to  speak directly to our present-day dilemma. Although our
sages (at least, according to most authorities)  insist  upon  an
over-all  acceptance of the commandments, they are rather liberal
as to the number and their method of instruction: "...[he] is  to
be  informed  of  several  of the more stringent commandments and
several of the more  lenient  commandments  ...  the  rabbis  are
neither  to  tell  him  too  much or to be too precise." The 11th
century sage Rashi explains this was  to  avoid,  "...frightening
away  the convert, causing him to separate from us." In fact, the
only commandments enumerated  by  the  Talmud  are  the  Sabbath,
aspects of kashruth, and the giving of charity.
 
    I suggest the formation of a Unity Bet Din comprised of three
orthodox  rabbis,  as  well  as  an equal number of conservative,
reform and reconstructionist rabbis. Although it is  possible  to
find  representatives  of  these  movements observant of halachic
ritual in their personal lives, with three  orthodox  rabbis  the
qualifying  halachic  status  of  the  Bet  Din  is automatically
insured. This council on conversion would establish by  unanimous
vote  a handbook of basic Judaism listing the fundamental laws of
the Holy Days, kashrut, ethical behavior and many other areas  of
Jewish  practice  vital to serious Jewish living. They might also
insist on  knowledge  of  Jewish  history,  at  least  a  reading
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language, and a strong identification
with the  State  of  Israel.  The  understanding  of  this  basic
Judaism,  a general acceptance of commandments, ritual immersion,
and  circumcision  for  men  would  establish  proper  conversion
acceptable  to  all  branches  of  Judaism. I understand that for
orthodox Jews such an agenda means according recognition  to  the
reform  movements  and  minimizing  our  usual  standard of total
observance of the commandments as a prerequisite for  conversion.
But  if  a  Jew is commanded to desecrate the Sabbath to save one
life, what must one be willing to do to save the  entire  nation,
especially  since  the Halacha per se is not being compromised. I
also understand that this proposal asks the reform  movements  to
increase the degree of commitment required of their converts. But
is this too high a price to pay for achieving a  unity  that  has
eluded us for so long?
 
    When rabbis from the different branches  of  Judaism  find  a
compatible  language,  a fundamental minimum standard to create a
'Constitution on Conversion', we will  be  taking  a  major  step
toward easing the pain between Jew and Jew. And after we heal our
own nation, it is hoped that we will strike a real peace with our
neighbors as well.
 
    The truth is that we have no choice. The trend toward a split
in Jewry must be reversed, otherwise Jewish historians will speak
of two great 20th century tragedies. The  Holocaust  has  already
occurred.  Ultimately,  Israel  must  become a unifying force for
Jews throughout the world before it can become a light  unto  the
nations.
 
Shabbat Shalom.
 
 
Copyright Ohr Torah 1989.
This essay is distributed by Kesher --the Jewish Network. For information 
regarding its use, contact the Kesher BBS at 312-940-1686.
 
For more information, call (212)496-1618.
 
 

    I usually enjoy reading the rabbi's commentary (per .119) but in
    this one, he illustrates the growing moral rift between some members
    of the Orthodoxy and the rest of us.
    
    Imagine, if you will, that a person buys a rural house lot whose
    survey, performed a century earlier, was not perfect.  He builds his
    house, posts his lot against hunting and lives there.  One day a hunter
    comes along and, ignoring the posting, shoots something he sees
    moving in the woods.  The homeowner, of course, dies.  The hunter's
    lawyer discovers the discrepancy in the survey and determines that
    the posting was not within the proper boundaries of the house lot,
    so it's not technically valid.  He requests of the court the right
    to stuff the homeowner's head and hang it on his wall.
    
    Such is the cruelty and heartlessness of the position expressed
    by this rabbi!  Here we have someone whose yichus is called into
    question ONLY because some ancestor's conversion was done by, G-d
    forbid, a Reform Rabbi!  She is thus unable to marry the man she
    intended to, and KILLS HERSELF!  Now I realize the suicide is an
    averah too, but how can we morally equate the putative imperfection
    of her yichus with this?  Yet the Orthodox position seems to take
    her head and hang it on the wall as a trophy!  LOOK:  THIS IS WHAT
    HAPPENS WHEN CONVERSION IS PERFORMED BY NON-ORTHODOX RABBIS.  To
    which I reply, LOOK:  THIS IS THE MORAL DEPRAVITY OF ORTHODOX RABBIS!
    
    Which is a bigger tragedy:  Marriage with imperfect yichus, or death
    of someone who tried to follow the commandments?  I rest my case.
    You be the judge.

    re .119 and .120
    
    I thought that was a tragic story, too - maybe because we are not told
    all of the possibly-relevant information.  For example, the grandmother
    may have undergone a "halachic" conversion (according to the standards
    of the grand-daughter's rabbi - it seems like no one read my earlier
    reply about how the subject of an individual's conversion never FAILS
    to inspire controversy instead of not being mentionned anymore -
    although it wasn't in this case!) anyways, or it may no longer be
    possible to tell whether she did so or not (grandmother no longer
    alive, maybe). Assume the second case, and the grand-daughter must (in
    this orthodox community, remember) undergo a conversion herself, "just
    in case", which would disallow this marriage, since the fiance is a
    kohen.  Sad business!
    
    But the sad story wasn't the main point of the drash.  I thought that
    his conversion proposal was quite reasonable - surprisingly reasonable,
    to be honest, since his commentaries are usually pretty far to the
    right from where I sit as a liberal Jew.  In fact, I think it is a
    sufficiently resonable proposal that there is probably no chance of it
    being adopted.  Too bad.  Paul and I belong to a reform schul, but I am
    not a big supporter of the patrilineal descent decision (not sure how
    Paul feels; I don't think we have ever discussed it at home) since it
    is so devisive.  And I am not in favor of making requirements of
    Jews-by-choice that go beyond the standards of the Jewish community
    they are a part of (if the community drives to schul, why should the
    convert walk?  If they will eat fish in non-kosher restaurants, why
    should the convert have to bring a sandwich?  etc.).

    re: .119
    
    Hmm, I thought that there would have been a better reception to
    this than there was.  My first reaction was to nominate Rav Rivkin
    for sainthood, if we ever had saints in Judaism.  As far as his
    being to the "right", I don't find him on that side of the spectrum
    at all.  I think that the person who said this has a one-sided view
    of the world, in Israeli terms Rav Rivkin is hardly what you could
    call a "right-winger".
    
    David 

    I found it to be doubly tragic because there was probably a way
    to "fix" things so they could have married.  A convert can't marry
    a Kohen, but the daughter of a convert can.  So all you have to
    do is send the mother to the mikveh with a few Orthodox rabbis...
    
    Seriously, the "who is a Jew" question won't be answerable until
    someone invents a time machine (and, boy, what THAT would to to
    religions...)  Until then, the only solution that would actually
    work would be for EVERY jew to go to a mikveh and convert before they
    get married, or better, before their bar-mitzvah.
    
    				Paul
    

Halacha is a legal system, and like any other legal system it is controlled and
administered by "lawyers". The legal mind can find an answer to any emergency.
New laws can be made (consider the rules concerning the use of electricity
on Shabbat) and old laws can be set aside (consider the laws concerning
observance of Yom Kippur as applied before/after the destruction of the
Temple).

As in any other legal system, you and I and the lower courts must follow the
law. But it is a different story in the upper courts. Our leading Halacha
scholars could fix the problems if they really want to. I am sure some obscure
law or interpretation or precedent could be discovered so that a family that
thought of itself as Jewish for 3 generations and _Orthodox_ for at least 1.5
generations would not suddenly find itself non-Jewish. The fact that such
problems have not been solved says something about the will of our leadership.
The fact that a respected individual has proposed a partial solution gives me
hope that something will be done.

Dave

    By the way, I think that Rabbi Riskin is being quite reasonable.
    I also think his example of the girl who committed suicide was given
    to show why the orthodox policy should be changed.  I would consider
    converting according to his requirements (as long as I don't have to be
    circumsized again!).
    
    				Paul
    

    I agree that Riskin's proposals (for a common bet din) are not
    unreasonable.  But I don't think he presented the story of the woman
    with bad yichus as being a reason for the Orthodoxy to re-examine their
    view of _past_ conversions.  Had his proposal been in effect, say, a
    hundred years ago, then the grandmother's conversion could have been
    valid, but we don't do posthumous conversions!  So she's still a
    dead duck, right?
    
    I didn't see Riskin directly rejecting the growing Orthodox attitude,
    putting blind adherence to rabbinic rulings ahead of common sense and
    compassion.  I do see him following the great tradition of
    "work-arounds", which makes him more flexible than some.  His story
    certainly does provide a reason for the Orthodoxy to support changes,
    but only to reduce the number of such rabbinically-created tragedies
    in the future. 

RE:  Rabbi Riskin's article

	Yes, it is a chilling tragedy that the young woman committed suicide.

	But, I think we have another tragedy going on right here in the
	notesfile!

	There are two paragraphs that no one seemed to connect.  I'm
	not surprised, but I'm going to point it out:

>..... a visiting aunt blurted out that the  young  bride's
>grandmother  had  been  converted  by a reform Rabbi. The bride's
>mother had moved closer to orthodoxy, and as she was  growing  up
>the  bride  herself  had  no  reason  to suspect that she was any
>different from the friends  in  her  circle.  
>	...   Orthodox  law  required  that  to be considered
>Jewish she had to convert on  her  own--hence  the  problem.  Her
>fiance, a Kohen whose priestly descent sharply defined (even more
>than other Jews) whom he could or could not marry, was  forbidden
>to  marry  her...a  convert.  Consequently,  feeling the past and
>future plucked out in one stroke, she committed suicide.
> 

		A N D . . . .
 
>    Two centuries ago when the ghetto walls began  to  fall,  the
>Torah  tragically  ceased  functioning  as the unifying center of
>emerging secular, non-orthodox Jews. At time passed, the world of
>Belz  and  Berlin  could no longer recognize each other ... 

	Doesn't anyone here see the "other" possibility?

	If they had adhered to recognized halachic standards for 
	conversion of the young woman's grandmother, in the first 
	place, this incident would not even have come about.  The 
	young woman would not have had to convert, and could have 
	married the kohen in question.

	If the mother, as she "moved closer to orthodoxy", had adhered
	to recognized halachic standards, she would have converted,
	herself.  It's praiseworthy that she moved towards greater
	observance, but she was clearly giving her offspring a potential
	problem by not recognizing and solving her own clear, well-
	defined problem.

	Right. As "mother had moved closer to orthodoxy, and as she was  
	growing  up, the  bride  herself  had  no  reason  to suspect that 
	she was any different".  Why?  Her mother didn't act, and didn't
	tell her about the problem.

	It was playing sleight-of-hand with the halacha which created
	the situation in the first place.  

	I see the last replies trying to solve this problem by diluting
	the standards even further.  "See, if we only let the reform
	convert marry the kohen, then she would have had have no problem".

	Sure.  Drop ALL the standards, and you solve all the problems.
	[That's a true statement in some sense, by the way, and I don't mean 
	it lightly. If we "ortho-freaks" would only drop our insistence on 
	kashrut, for example, then jerks like Don Feinberg would eat at 
	anyone's house. Right? Now, doesn't that go a LONG way towards to 
	Jewish Unity?]

	So, the recipe we should adopt for Jewish Unity and survival is to
	just reduce things to the lowest common denominator, as they
	suit our convenience, right?
	
	And no one sees the "pun", huh?

/don feinberg

    Re: .127
    
    You can't change the past.  There are now more than one mainstream
    Jewish sect.  It is clear that the majority of Jews will not accept
    the current Orthodox interpretation of the laws regarding conversion.
    
    So, the orthodox can either interpret them more liberally, and attempt
    to get the other groups to agree, or they can wait another generation
    or two, until they can't figure out who's Jewish and who's not by
    their standards.
    
    What is really being diluted here?  Our "pure Jewish" strains?  JEWS
    ARE NOT A RACE!  Our standards of deciding who is a Jew?  How does
    it hurt if someone who wants to be Jewish is allowed to more easily?
    Or, if people who are in a questionable situation can make sure
    they are Jewish?
    
    By the way, if Rabbi Riskin can find two more orthodox rabbis who
    agree with him, he could convert people on that basis, no matter
    what the conservative and reform movements think.  And I'll bet
    he would find plenty of people who had converted under one of the
    other movements who would convert again just to remove the stigma
    of being not counted as Jewish by some people.  I hope he does it.
    
    				Paul
    

The point of Rabbi Riskin's story is that the problem can be solved only
if Jews with different practices and levels of observance will work together
to solve it, which is the reason for his proposal.  Many other rabbis,
unfortunately, approach the problem in the same way as some of the replies
in this topic: by looking for someone to blame.

I would like to mention two things with regard to the tragic story related by
Shlomo Riskin. My comments are on a purely Halachik level and are not meant to
reflect any thoughts on the moral/social/whatever aspects of this tragedy.

1. In a former reply, .123, Paul Young seems to imply that the entire situation
could have been averted by sending the mother of the intended bride to the
Mikveh for conversion. Now if he meant what Don Feinberg in reply .127 says,
that HAD the mother (before having had any children), re-converted, then he is
correct. However, once the mother had any children, her re-converting would
have NO bearing on children already having been born. Such a conversion would
affect only those children born after the re-conversion.

2. I don't know all of the exact details with regard to this particular case.
However, according to the plain and simple facts in which it was related, I
have very serious doubts as to whether or not the aunt should have been
believed, from a Halachik standpoint, in the first place. 

I recall reading a case which involved Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. According to this
case, Rabbi Feinstein was present at the wedding of one of his students.
Suddenly the mother of the bride requested permission to speak with Rabbi
Feinstein privately. In this private conversation, she related to him certain
facts concerning her own marriage etc., which if true would mean that her own
daughter would be considered a "mamzeres", and of course the wedding could not
take place. Why she chose this particular time and etc. is irrelavent. At that
point Rabbi Feinstein called in two other Rabbinic luminaries, one of which was
Rabbi Mordechai Gifter who heads the Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland, and declared
in front of them that the mother is a "liar" and nothing which she says
concerning her marriages or concerning her daughter is to be believed and have
any credibility whatsoever. 

Now, it could be that the circumstances in the case related by Riskin are
totally different. I merely wanted to show an example where a "near" tragedy
had a happy ending.

Cb.  

reply to < Note 586.128 by YOUNG::YOUNG >

	Paul, you have "hit the nail on the head" here!
    
>    What is really being diluted here?  Our "pure Jewish" strains?  JEWS
>    ARE NOT A RACE!  

	We are a people. What the Jewish People "are" -- and why we are
	a "people" and not just a religion  OR just a culture --
	is defined by two things:

		- we became a nation after yetziat mitsrayim.

		- we became the "Jewish people" after yetziat mitsrayim 
		  AND mattan Torah. 

	They are INDIVISIBLE. If you remove the Torah from the Jewish 
	People, you have people left, but they are not the Jewish 
	People.  That's what's being diluted.  The Torah is being diluted.
	The ability of the Jewish People to recognize themselves for
	who they are. The ability of the Jewish People to move forward,
	in time, as the Jewish People. Not "pure Jewish strains", or any 
	other emotionally loaded term you'd care to use.

>Our standards of deciding who is a Jew?  How does
>it hurt if someone who wants to be Jewish is allowed to more easily?

	Precisely (among many other things)!

	How does it hurt?  You just read an article about it!  You
	seem to want to put words in my mouth (about "blame the mother"),
	but you do not respond to my point:  if the grandmother's
	conversion HAD been halachic, the situation would not have
	arisen.  Can you not understand that?

	How does it hurt? Let me digress for a second:  There is a pasuk
	(in parashat ekev, I believe) which talks about the indivisibility
	of the Torah - that you cannot either add or delete any pasukim.
	Neither you nor I know what the future effect of "deleting" the
	necessity of any particular mitzvah, or any particular pasuk.

	Perhaps you would not want to delete the "Sh'ma"?  Why not? You
	have no better reason to delete it, or not delete it, as any
	other pasuk.  (read avot on schar mitzvah, for example).

	Deleting halachot is something like being on a firepole (in a
	firehouse).  Once you're on that firepole, there's no way off it.
	The only way is "down".

	Said another way: Jewishly, there are some things we can give up, 
	and some things we can't.  One thing we cannot "give up" is
	the Torah.

	Paul, I think you should say outright what I think you have been
	hinting at so very strongly:  you don't accept the
	Torah and it's mitzvot as binding.  You're not SERIOUS about
	the Torah. Are you serious about Shabbat?  Are you serious about
	Kashrut?  Are you serious about your own limudei kodesh?
	Are you serious about taharat hamishpacha?  These aren't intended as
	rhetorical questions, by the way.

	If I'm wrong, then please tell me so.  If I'm right, then we need to 
	have a much different discussion.  

	If I'm right, though, then we have a VERY interesting situation.  If
	I'm right, then you, who does not take the Torah seriously -- that
	same Torah which inextricably defines the Jewish People -- want to 
	tell the world the way we should define the Jewish People in the 
	present.

>Our standards of deciding who is a Jew?  How does
>it hurt if someone who wants to be Jewish is allowed to more easily?

	So, how does it hurt?  For many reasons that you and I cannot
	fathom today (again, read avot).  But very important to us as Jewish 
	people, it is the fact that that "more easily" -- if that "more easily"
	is not "l'shaym shamayim" --  clearly and immediately detracts from 
	Torah in the world today.

	Now, before you pull out Hillel and Shammai, I want to point something
	important out to you:  Hillel and Shammai's discussions were
	always "l'shaym shamayim".  They vehemently argued two points of view 
	about the best possible ways Torah mitzvot should be observed, not 
	whether they should be observed or not.

	To continue the discussion, I think you should put on the table
	your thoughts on how important it is to observe Torah miztvot.

	I'll make it easier -- I will start: I vote for the Torah.

>Or, if people who are in a questionable situation can make sure
>they are Jewish?

	I didn't say anything about this.  I think that people who are in
	a questionable situation certainly should be able to make sure
	they are Jewish.  If not, they should be accorded every opportunity
	to do something appropriate about it.

/don feinberg

   Re 127 & 131
    
    Don I understand where you are coming from but your point of view
    has clouded your perception of tthe issue.  The issue isn't Halacha, 
    no one questioned whether the grandmother who was converted by a
    Reform(ed) Rabbi was converted under Halacha, it was assumed that 
    she wasn't and if the Rabbi had been Orthodox then it would have been 
    considered then it would have done properly whether it was or wasn't.
    The whole issue has more to do with who is a Rabbi then who is a
    Jew.  
    
    The article of jointly setting an acceptable standard for conversion
    is comendable and I hope that it will come to pass but there will
    be a need for give and take by all parties and yes there is roon
    for give and take by all.
    
    The real question may be what is Halacha.  Not the definition but
    when and how does Halacha change.  Is it a almost immutable only
    changeable at major milestones as the Orthodox claim and that those
    changes that have occured are considered as holy as Torah?  Or is
    it a changable codification of Torah with interpertations developed
    by man inspired by G-D and that can be changed upon the consent
    of a recognized Rabinical authority? 
    
    WS   

    re .131
    Don, I think you didn't notice one of the points I was making in my
    response to R. Riskin's drash.  It appears that no one knows either
    whether the aunt is telling the truth or not, or, assuming that she is,
    whether the conversion was halachic (by the definitions in use by the
    daughter's Orthodox community, since that is who is relevant in this
    case).  Let us assume that the story happened a number of years ago
    when most people did not live as long as most people do these days, so
    that the grandmother in question and her contemporaries, including the
    rabbi who performed the conversion if indeed there was one, are all
    long since dead and cannot be questionned.  So, how do we determine,
    now, what would have made the conversion (if indeed one occurred)
    halachic?  Would it have been enough if there were a record of her
    having gone to the mikveh?  Would it be considered a sign of "good
    training in halacha" that the grandmother's daughter (mother of the
    suicide victim, I mean) was drawn to an observant lifestyle, and raised
    her own family that way?  (There isn't any real cause to blame the
    victim's mother either - if the alleged conversion was a secret, she
    may not have even known about it, especailly if her mother converted
    years before her birth, particularly since being a convert is still
    regrettably a real stigma in a lot of communities even though, by the
    same halacha the convert is made to learn, the subject is not supposed
    to be mentionned again.)  It seems clear that the victim, at least,
    immediately jumped to the conclusion that her aunt was telling the
    truth, that the conversion could not possibly have been halachic
    (because the aunt said it occurred under the auspices of a reform
    rabbi), and that her situation was hopeless - a conclusion that was
    probably not totally warranted anyhow.
    
    So far in all the discussion about "Who is a Jew" and conversions, no
    one has so far listed what they would consider the requirements for a
    "halachic conversion", exactly what the prospective Jew-by-choice would
    need to be taught, to practice, and to do to affect the conversion
    itself.  If we aren't sure now, there is definitely no way we can tell
    whether the grandmother in the story did any or all of the necessary
    things, even assuming we can agree on what those things are, if she is
    no longer alive (which was my premise above), other than by examining
    the results of her home life: her daughter and grand-daughter lead an
    observant lifestyle such that this became a life-and-death issue for
    them with the tragic result noted in the story.
    
    I agree with paul that many Jews-by-choice would choose to make their
    conversion acceptable to everyone, if there were any known way to do
    so, just to put their status beyond constant questionning.  As it
    stands now, there are very few Orthodox conversions, not because no
    non-Jews are interested but because almost no Orthodox rabbi will work
    with prospective converts.  In the few cases where it does happen, the
    poor Jew-by-choise is constantly pointed out by members of the
    community, and watched like a hawk for any "lapses", or contstantly
    praised decades after the fact -- the subject is never dropped.  Sigh.

    There are a number of "Jews-by-choice" in my Orthodox community.
    I know of their status only because they have told me, or I was
    around when they first entered the community wishing to convert.
    No one "throws it up to them".  No one "watches them like a hawk".
    They are well accepted members of our community.
    
    My wife and I were at a M'lava Malka at a neighbors home a few years
    ago.  There were 4 couples there. We were not close friends, but our
    childern were in the same school and we davened at the same shul.   At
    some point during the evening, the hostess, who we had known for 4
    years, mentioned a problem with her parents about an upcoming visit to
    their home and as an aside noted that her parents were not Jewish.
    After some more discussion, we found out that the other two couples
    also included one convert in each couple.  This came as a surprise to
    all of us.  These couples, by the way, are part of the foundation of
    the community.  I had never heard any "talk" about them or their
    previous status nor did I remember them being "watched" either before
    or after I had learned of their "status". 
    
    
    Regarding the tragic story...I think it was used to show some of the
    difficulties which present themselves--and will continue to present
    themselves-- unless thing change.  I wish it weren't included in the
    drash because concentrating on it and flaming about it was not the
    purpose of my original posting.  I wanted to start a discussion of the
    "unity-beth-din" proposal. 
    
    Halacha comes to us including a process for change--- it responds
    to new knowledge and understanding by using this process (I'm sure
    that Cb or Zaitch can explain this better that I). It doesn't change
    to make things easier.  
    
    Let's look for things that unify us.  Riskin's proposal is certainly
    headed in the right direction.
    
    ---Av 
    
     
    
    
         
    

    re:.127
    Don, you're repeating the "blame the victim" line again.  You claim
    that the tragedy occured because of the existence of non-Orthodox
    rabbis.  QED, tragedies caused by Orthodox rejections of them are
    not the fault of the Orthodox!
    
    I think that most Orthodox would have gone along with the answer
    in .128 (?), that the aunt's credibility as a witness should be
    called into doubt.  That's the classic "work-around" that makes
    Orthodoxy work, when it does.  The trouble seems to be that recently,
    there has been an upsurge in militancy among the Orthodoxy, who
    no longer wish to be as accomodating as they used to be.
    
    re:.131
    Don, you're falling right into the chasm that separates the Orthodox
    from the rest of us.  The rest of us DO separate the Written Torah
    from the rest of Halacha.  It's pretty well accepted that the Shulchan
    Aruch didn't come from Sinai!  And the Reform movement also holds
    that the Talmud, as we've received it in its redacted state, doesn't
    exactly come from Sinai either.  Rabbis have always made
    interpretations of the Torah, and the Halachic rulings of the past
    don't necessarily preclude their being overturned in the future.
    
    That isn't a rejection of the Torah.  Reform and Conservative and
    even Reconstructionsts don't change the Torah.  Every letter, every
    hidden code, is intact.  The interpretations change.  We view Halacha
    as being a set of interpretations.  We disagree with yours.  You
    have the right to disagree with ours!  But that doesn't mean that
    we reject the Torah, or aren't religiously Jewish.

    
    Re: 133
    
    >...almost no Orthodox rabbi will work with prospective converts...
    
    Charlotte, in my experience, this isn't true.  I daven at Harvard
    Hillel in Cambridge; I know of at least five people who have converted
    there recently.  I don't think these individuals were an object of
    public spectacle in the community:  I knew that they were converting
    because I was friendly with three of them, and the other two were
    "publicly" learning and asking questions, and in general not making a
    secret of their intention to convert.  I'm not sure how I would have
    known otherwise; there might be other converts in the community of whom
    I'm not aware.  Nor are they "watched" now.
    
    But there is a reason why an Orthodox rabbi might be less than thrilled
    to work with someone towards conversion.  From an Orthodox perspective,
    all Jews are bound to obey all the mitzvot.  Non-Jews, however, are
    exempt from the mitzvot (although they have their own set of Noachide
    laws to follow.)  From an Orthodox perspective, God doesn't judge
    non-Jews who are not keeping mitzvot unfavorably, because they are not
    obligated.  However, God does judge Jews unfavorably.  By making
    someone Jewish through conversion, a rabbi is setting them up for
    possible divine disfavor.  Viewed from this perspective, it's fairly
    clear why you might not want this on your head.

    I have no doubt that I follow fewer mitzvot than you.  I don't see
    what that has to do with the discussion, though.  I think the majority
    of Jews follow fewer mitzvot than you.
    
    My Jewish pedigree, as it were, is as good as anyone's.  My great
    great grandmother came from the Lvov area, as best as I can tell,
    and was Jewish.  But, of course, there are no records which would
    prove that.  I was brought up Orthodox, and attended Hebrew school
    five days a week.
    
      We could divide Jews into several groups:
    
      Those that haven't had a Jewish education, and don't know anything
      of the laws.
    
      Those that have had at least some Jewish education, but do not
      follow many of the laws.
    
      Those who are follow most of the laws.
    
    Although there are many Jews born of Jewish mothers in the first
    group, I don't belive there are any converts, whether they are
    converted by Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform rabbis which are.
    The conversion classes teach Hebrew, history, and law.  Even the
    Reform ones run for several months, and are followed with one on
    one sessions with a rabbi.
    
    An Orthodox conversion does not prove that a person will be a better
    Jew.  I know of a case where an Orthodox convert, when she became
    divorced, told the rabbi that converted her that she didn't have
    to be Jewish any more.  And another case where an Orthodox convert,
    on her death bed, asked for a priest instead of a rabbi.  (The rabbi
    who related these incidents to me stopped converting people.  He
    got too discouraged with it.)
    
    I've talked to Orthodox and Reform rabbis about conversion.  As
    far as I can tell, the only real difference is that the Orthodox
    conversion requires that the convert keep Shabbos and Kosher (or
    lie about it) for some number of months (the number varies with
    the rabbi and the Bet Din) before conversion.  After the Mikveh
    ceremony, of course, the convert is a Jew and can become a less
    observant Jew as easily as someone who was born Jewish, or who
    was converted by a Conservative or Reform rabbi.
    
    So, what is gained by rejecting Reform and Conservative converts?
    It doesn't cause them to cease to exist, and it doesn't solve the
    intermarriage problems.  If Rabbi Riskin says they can be accepted
    as Jews, I'll take his word for it.  There would be a few more
    knowledgable but non-practicing Jews.
    
    Given the sad state of Jewish education in the US (half of all Jews
    don't belong to a shul?) I think this would be an improvement.
    
    				Paul

    I'm about to include into this discussion a concept that has not
    yet been mentioned.  I hesitate because it is bound to cause flames
    from some quarters... but here goes.
    
    There is a concept of "neshama" (soul) in Judaism.  The tradition holds
    that all Jewish souls were present at Har Sinai (for the receiving of
    the Torah).  When someone converts, their soul becomes one with the
    Jewish People.  It is a concept that is quite mystical...I'm certain
    other Baglers can better explain it than I.  All Jews have a "yiddishe
    neshama" that thirst for unity with G-d.  This is arrived at through
    the performance of mitzvot, etc.  It is this "yiddishe neshama" that
    unites us as Jews. If one is not born with a "yiddishe neshama", one
    gains this "neshama" through the traditional conversion process ---the
    mikvah being an important part of the process. 
    
    Judaism (the way I understand it) is more than knowledge and
    practice---there are metaphysical aspects to it.
    
    Let's remember that Judaism originated as a covenant with G-d. 
    It's more than chicken soup and/or a State.
    
    ---Av

Re: .135:  I agree strongly with Fred's position that the Torah can be open to
interpretation (even from the non-Orthodox) without compromising its origin
or integrity.  Many times, I have been told that every law in the 
Shulchan Aruch [16th century rabbinical compilation of Judaic law] carries the
full authority of the Torah behind it and is not open to interpretation or
questioning.  But the Shulchan Aruch is based on Talmud.  A typical passage 
from Talmud might read something like "Rabbi X says that a certain activity is
permitted, but Rabbi Y says it's allowed only under particular circumstances".
I was taught that the Talmud is an edited account of the debates that went on 
for centuries at the academies of Jewish learning in Babylonia and Jerusalem. 
So it, too, is a collection of interpretations.  More than that, sharply
differing interpretations!

Jewish law seems to have undergone constant evolution throughout history,
that is until the Shulchan Aruch.  It seems to me that in the past few
centuries, a freeze has been placed on new interpretations to the point that
many Orthodox people are saying that anyone who questions their interpretations
is not a "Torah Jew".  

The point of the issue is that Rabbis of the Conservative and Reform Movements 
are being frozen out by the Orthodox authorities.  A Rabbi who affiliates
himself with the Conservative Movement, even if he has Orthodox s'micha 
[ordination] and is fully observant of the Mitzvot would not be accorded 
legitimacy as a Rabbi by the Orthodox, and conversions that he performs,
even if done halachically, are treated as null and void.

What I feel most strongly about is that Orthodox Jews should not have the 
right to declare that they are the only game in town when it comes to 
Judaism.  I am more observant than some and less observant than others, but
I resent being excluded from "Torah Judaism" because I interpret the Torah
in a manner that is not literal or fundamentalist.  The Torah is not the
exclusive property of some Jews; it is shared by all Jews together.

[end of editorial]

    Re: .139:  I completely agree
    
    Andrew Cohen
    

    RE: 586.131

    Some nits and some important differences:

	>We are a people...and not just a religion  OR just a culture --

    My definition of Jewish culture includes the idea of peoplehood; I see
    that as one of the key components.

	>is defined by two things:
        >
	>	- we became a nation after yetziat mitsrayim.
        >
	>	- we became the "Jewish people" after yetziat mitsrayim
	>	  AND mattan Torah.

    Although the notion of yetziat mitsrayim and mattan Torah have been
    important ideas, my reading of the historical evidence is that they are
    explanations after the fact.  First we became a people.  Then we looked
    for explanations of our origins.

    The problem is that for those of us who start with the belief in the
    literality of the Humash, it makes no sense to discuss alternatives that
    can't exist, while for those of us who do not start out with that
    belief, it is much easier to understand as a collection of historical
    (and not-so-historical) traditions assembled by human beings over the
    course of many centuries.

    What that means is that I simply do not accept many of Don's premises
    about Torah and Halacha and he does not accept mine.  For instance,
    consider the differences in the way we interpret a particular sentence
    in the Humash:

    >                                                   There is a pasuk
    >   (in parashat ekev, I believe) which talks about the indivisibility
    >   of the Torah - that you cannot either add or delete any pasukim.

    To me, the passage [ D'varim, 4:2 ] seems obviously to have been
    inserted by whoever compiled the passage.  One of the central themes of
    the Humash is the supremacy of the Aaronide cohanim and one of the main
    competitors for allegiance of the people at the time this was put
    together was the prophetic guilds.  In effect, this pasuk is a
    pre-emptive attack on those who claim prophetic authority to modify or
    repeal statutes based on cohanic authority (which are claimed to have
    divine sanction).   In fact, in my view, Rabbinic Judaism made major
    revisions in Torah by claiming an alternate source of authority (i.e.
    Torah b'al peh), an idea that was invented in response to a critical
    need.

    >   Deleting halachot is something like being on a firepole (in a
    >   firehouse).  Once you're on that firepole, there's no way off it.
    >   The only way is "down".

    No.  The reason that Halacha served us well was that there was, for
    centuries, enough consensus among the Jewish people that Rabbinic
    authority was accepted.  Starting in the late 18th century, that
    consensus began to crumble, and now only a minority of Jews accept the
    form of Halacha defined by Orthodoxy as binding.  This does not mean
    that we necessarily just throw it off.  Many of us make a point of
    following rituals such as keeping kosher, observing Shabbat, etc.  Many
    of us feel bound, for instance, to support (financially and otherwise)
    community institutions, because we do not feel that tsedakah is
    optional.

    What we do not feel is that Orthodox rabbis are in a position to tell us
    what is binding and what is not.  That is not the same as discarding
    Halacha.  One consequence is that we now have many different definitions
    of Halacha.  In many areas that will probably not severely impact most
    Jews, but the question of mi Yehudi poses a serious threat to us, and
    Riskin's proposal should be welcomed and treated seriously.

    Furthermore, the issue of patrilineal descent needs to be re-examined by
    both those who advocate it and those who oppose it.  On the one hand, to
    implement it without consensus is to threaten Jewish unity.  On the
    other hand, to refuse even to consider the possibility of changing a
    *rabbinic* definition in the light of a significantly changed world is
    also a threat to Jewish unity.

                                          Aaron

    RE: 586.138

    Although my interpretation is metaphorical and sociological, rather than
    literal [ some of us are Hasidim and some of us are Mitnagdim :^) ], I
    agree that there is a metaphysical aspect.  I would only suggest that
    one is not "born" with a "yiddishe neshama" but acquires it as one
    grows.  I know some people who have one and don't even know it.  When I
    was saying Kaddish I found myself in lots of different services (Reform,
    Orthodox, Conservative, indeterminate) in different cities, and always
    felt I "belonged," whether or not it was "my kind" of service.

    Aaron

    
    Do something. Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.
    
    You cant get anywhere unless you start.
    
    Kind actions begin with kind thoughts.
    
    Actions speak louder than words - and speak fewer lies.
    
    The thing to try when all else fails is again.
    
    
    
    
    
                                Ray