Conference taveng::bagels

    Frightening?  Perhaps.  Certainly if they plan to uproot the mosques
    - that would cause some political explosion!
    
    But is it not frightening to our Diaspora assumptions, nu?  
    
    Question for those more knowledgeable - what is the word on when
    the Temple can or will be rebuilt?  I assume it would require a
    prophet's leadership.  Does it require the coming of Moshiach? 
    Or can it never be rebuilt?  Are there stated signs of when the
    rebuilding could occur?  Would it involve animal sacrifice?  Where
    would the building instructions come from?  Who would be certified
    as priests?

Re .1:

>Where would the building instructions come from?

Well, first it will probably depend on which temple you want 
rebuilt.....Solomon's or Zerubbabel's (I'm presuming there are 
differences between the two - but maybe not).

Secondly, no tools of iron could be used to build either of the 
Temples so somebody would have to decide if today's tools are 
acceptable. Otherwise, building it the way they did in the old days 
will make for a very labor-intensive project!

Thirdly, where will we find the equal of Hiram Abif, the Widow's 
Son?

Finally, somebody better check on: a. the availability of cedar from 
Lebanon and, b. whether, assuming the cedar is available, it can 
even be removed from Lebanon.

Just some questions.....

Mark

    Which ultra-Orthodox groups are involved?
    
    I can think of one which has been rumored to be viewing their Rebbe as
    Moshiach.  (No names, but they sell absolutions too.)  If it's them,
    we'd have more evidence of their, uh, delusions of grandeur.

Re: .0

>In this weeks issue of Time magazine there is an article about the
>Temple Mount in Jerusalem and some ultra-orthodox Jewish groups hopes
>and plans eventualy rebuild the Temple there.

Before I address the question, I want to register my protest of the
absurd term "ultra-orthodox". Please define the term, and then "ultra-
Reform", "ultra-Reconstructionist".

All traditional Jews pray for the arrival of the Messiah, along with a
return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, as well as a rebuilding
of the Temple, and the sacrificial rite. If this is shocking, please
refer to any traditional prayer book, where references to the subject
are in no short supply.

> I would imagine that they would want to start animal sacrifices
> again. I have a hard time thinking that any civilized person would 
> condone killing an animal to please G-D.
    	
Philosophers and apologists throughout the ages have attempted to 
offer reasons for the Temple service. It is obviously a complicated
topic, and time and space do not suffice here to do the topic justice.
However, I'm sure you can respect the fact that for some, the very
fact that most of the book of Leviticus is dedicated to this topic
indicates that G-d, whatever his reasons, attaches significant 
importance to it, and therefore, our modern "sensibilities", in and
of themselves do not provide reason enough to simply discard an entire
section of the Pentateuch. (Whew! I hope noone shows that sentence
to my 7th grade English teacher!). Some believe that there exists
a wisdom greater than our own, which deserves respect even if not
absolutely apparent. Many of the laws of the Torah are in this
category (chukim), which have nothing to do with sacrifices. The
dietary rules themselves are a fine example: what rationale is there
behind permitting only animals with cloven hooves and which chew their
cud? Of course, reasons are offered, but all are in the realm of
speculation. Some laws even Solomon himself was at a loss to explain
("I thought to acquire wisdom but it was far from me", referring to
the law of the red heifer, according to the Talmud.) However, this
has never caused the Jewish people to cease their stalwart observance
of those practices which are not dependent on the Temple, and the
fervent prayers for the restoration of those which are. 

The Torah reiterates the prohibition against unnecessary cruelty to
animals in many ways. Therefore, we might give the Author the benefit
of the doubt and assume He took His own principles into account, and
had good reason for seemingly "disregarding" them.

As to practical plans for dismantling the structures currently on the
Temple Mount and rebuilding the *Beit Hamikdash*, most traditional
Jews would not consider such actions for a number of reasons, both
practical and *halachic*. The halachic issues are quite involved, the
practical rather plain. More later on these.

Y'hi ratzon she'yibaneh beit ha'mikdash b'm'herah b'yameinu vesham
na'avodecha ... c'shanim kadmoniot.

Jem

RE: 799.3

>    Which ultra-Orthodox groups are involved?
 
   You would not define them as ultra-Orthodox.  In fact, some of 
   them are not Orthodox at all!  If you're looking for a label,
   try ultra-nationalist.

>    I can think of one which has been rumored to be viewing their Rebbe as
>    Moshiach.  (No names, but they sell absolutions too.)  If it's them,
>    we'd have more evidence of their, uh, delusions of grandeur.

   It's not them.

    RE: 799.4

>Before I address the question, I want to register my protest of the
>absurd term "ultra-orthodox".

    This is a case where Jem and I agree; let's be careful with labels.

>All traditional Jews pray for...rebuilding of the Temple, and the
>sacrificial rite.

    From the first to the nineteenth century of the common era, this was
    generally true.  The Reform movement did not include these prayers in
    its liturgy, and they are not found in the Conservative or
    Reconstructionist prayers either.

>                                                              please
>refer to any traditional prayer book, where references to the subject
>are in no short supply.

    At this time the majority of Jews who are at all familiar with a
    siddur are second-generation (or more) Reform, Conservative or
    Reconstructionist Jews, they will not find it in what they consider
    their "traditional" prayer book.  There are references to sacrifice in
    some (more in the Conservative versions), but they are phrased in terms
    of `this is what our ancestors used to do' and explicitly avoid asking
    for the restoration of animal sacrifice.

                                                Aaron

.6

Aaron,

>   From the first to the nineteenth century of the common era, this was
>   generally true.  The Reform movement did not include these prayers in
>   its liturgy, and they are not found in the Conservative or
>   Reconstructionist prayers either.

As far as the Conservative siddurim are concerned, it varies.  The old
blue cover (I forget the title) daily siddur left the prayer for reestablishment
of the sacrificial system off of the end of the Shemonei Esrei.  The black
covered Siddur L'Shabbat vRegalim (I think I got the title right) includes
it.  The new Siddur Sim Shalom (daily, Shabbat and festivals) leaves it out.
The Conservative machzor leaves it in.

Of course on a daily basis I use the ArtScroll and it includes it  8^{).

Gavriel

    RE: .7

>                                                                The black
>covered Siddur L'Shabbat vRegalim (I think I got the title right) includes
>it.

    If you're referring to what I call the Silverman Sabbath and
    Festivals prayer book, I looked at the Shabbat Musaf in my copy this
    morning.  In the prayer for restoration of the Jewish people to Eretz
    Yisrael, the Hebrew says "there we sacrificed." In Birnbaum
    (orthodox) the equivalent line reads "there we shall sacrifice."
    d
>The Conservative machzor leaves it in.

    Didn't check that explicitly, but I think it is consistent with the
    other.  I'll look.
                                Aaron

    p.s.  Artscroll is pretty, but Birnbaum is easier to daven from :^)

.8
Shalom Aaron,

Thanks for reminding me of something that had been pointed out in
_Tomeich_KaHalacha_.  The translations in most of the Conservative
siddurim tend to be inaccurate in the direction of supporting the
ideology of the movement.  Since I rarely look at the translation
while davening (at least with the stuff that I can get through in
a reasonable time in the Hebrew  8^{) I had forgotten about the
translation.

As to useability, I like the ArtScroll for 2 reasons, it fits in
my briefcase easily and it is very easy to go back and forth between
the Hebrew and the English when I get to stuff that I can't read
quickly.

Gut Shabbes,
Gavriel

    Gavriel,

    Over the weekend I checked my copies of Conservative mahzorim
    (Silverman, Harlow, Bokser) and confirmed what I thought I remembered:
    I could find no prayers calling explicitly for the restoration of
    animal sacrifice.  This is true in the Hebrew as well as the
    translation, and differs from the text used in Orthodox mahzorim.

    There is an ambiguity (both the strength and the bane of
    Conservativism) in that there are prayers for the restoration of
    Jeruasalem and the Sanctuary, and "avodah."  Both the translation and
    the absence of explicit prayers for restoration of animal sacrifice 
    make it clear that this means non-sacrificial worship.

    Incidentally, although the translations in some of the Conservative
    prayer books (particularly Silverman) are not very good representations
    of the Hebrew text, the ideological differences with Orthodoxy are
    reflected in the Hebrew also, not only in the translations.

                                        Aaron

    p.s. Re Artscroll/Birnbaum:  The Birnbaum is also published in a
    compact edition.  However, de gustibus non disputandum est :^).

Aaron,

I checked also.  You are right.  What I had remembered was that the
Conservative Weekday Prayer Book (Hadas, et. al.) completely dropped
Y'hi ratzon mil'phanecha...  What I hadn't noticed was that the
Sabbath and Festivals Prayer Book (Silverman) truncated it.

I also had not noticed the truncation in the Mussaf Amidah.
I guess that's what I get for reciting those sections from memory
instead of reading them.

Gavriel

Re: .6
>>                                                              please
>>refer to any traditional prayer book, where references to the subject
>>are in no short supply.

>    At this time the majority of Jews who are at all familiar with a
>    siddur are second-generation (or more) Reform, Conservative or
>    Reconstructionist Jews, they will not find it in what they consider
>    their "traditional" prayer book.

I use the term "traditional prayer book" to indicate the siddur which has
been in use, largely unchanged (additions yes, deletions no) since the
sages of the Great Assembly arranged it almost 2 millenia ago. As you
yourself point out:

>    From the first to the nineteenth century of the common era, this was
>    generally true.

My point in using the term "traditional" as opposed to "Orthodox", is that
I abhore the latter only slightly less than the epithet "ultra-Orhodox".
Both are name imposed on _traditional_ Jews by outsiders; "Orthodox" was
first applied to observant Jews in the 19th century by the leaders of the
fledgling Reform movement in order to divorce itself from the venerable
creed. The phrase "ultra-Orthodox" was coined, to the best of my knowledge,
by secular Israelis. Both are abhorrent and inaccurate. 

I don't intend for this discussion to degenerate into semantic nitpicking.
but at the same time I need to gripe about the unacceptable labels with
with Torah-observant Jews have been saddled.

Jem

re .0 --
> I have a hard time thinking that any civilized person would 
> condone killing an animal to please G-D.

I have a hard time thinking that any civilized person would
condone killing an animal to make a fur coat, to make perfume,
to make a handbag, or to perform needless "experiments" taking
the name of Science in vain,...

-ZAITCH

    RE: 799.12

>I use the term "traditional prayer book" to indicate the siddur which has
>been in use, largely unchanged (additions yes, deletions no) since the
>sages of the Great Assembly arranged it almost 2 millenia ago.

    I have no quarrel with the use of "traditional" in this sense.
    The evidence that I have seen is that the siddur as we know it
    probably did not exist much before the time of Saadia, although the
    basic structure of the service did.  That, however, is irrelevant to
    the discussion, because we agree that prayers for the restoration of
    the Temple sacrificial system date from immediately after its
    destruction.

    My point is that these prayers have been modified or eliminated in the
    Reform, Reconstructionist, and Conservative liturgies, and since these
    constitute the majority of affiliated Jews, there is a very practical
    problem that the majority of the Jewish population probably 

    a) is unaware that many Jews do offer such prayers

    and

    b) would probably be opposed to restoration of animal sacrifice.

    Given a) and b) and the halachic issues that would have to be resolved
    before anything could be done, it is not something that I expect to
    have to deal with in my lifetime.

                                        Aaron

    RE: 799.12

>the term ..."Orthodox"...[was]...imposed on _traditional_ Jews by outsiders;
>"Orthodox" was first applied to observant Jews in the 19th century by the 
>leaders of the fledgling Reform movement

    I thought the term was used by Samson Raphael Hirsch to distinguish his
    version of Judaism from Reform (and also from the traditional Judaism
    of Eastern Europe).  It has since been taken over by, e.g. The Union of
    Orthodox Congregations, which (based on usage) defines "Orthodox" in
    fairly broad terms.  Nevertheless, it is important not to use labels as
    substitutes for thought, and I agree with your dislike of the term
    "Ultra-orthodox."

    I try to use "Orthodox" to refer to a specific version of Judaism that
    started in Central Europe in the mid-19th century, and which became one
    of several significant movements among Ashkenazic Jewry, which include
    Reform, Conservative, Hasidic, Reconstructionist, Yiddishist and
    Zionist movements (and I've not been exhaustive).

    To the best of my knowledge, Sefardic Jews never experienced this
    phenomenon (the splitting of the traditional community into a variety
    of subgroups) and I find a distinct difference in attitude and behavior
    among Sefardim (that I know) compared to Ashkenazim of all stripes.

                                        Aaron

re .14:

>                 the majority of the Jewish population probably 
>
>    a) is unaware that many Jews do offer such prayers

    Unfortunately, the majority of the Jewish population probably can
    recite more of the Lord's Prayer than the Shema -- in any language.

Re: .15

>    I try to use "Orthodox" to refer to a specific version of Judaism that
>    started in Central Europe in the mid-19th century

In what sense did it "start" in the mid-19th century? Seems to me it was
more like the third _millenium_ B.C.E.!

If you're referring to R. Samson Raphael Hirsch's "Torah Im Derech Eretz",
this was hardly a new invention. Adaptation, yes, as Torah Judaism has
always adapted to every new clime within the parameters of _halacha_. But
the tenets which R. Hirsch professed differed not a whit from those set
down by Moses thousands of years before.

BTW, Aaron, you still owe me some replies. 742.64 is still kind of open
ended. I don't think we'll ever totally agree, but we certainly have some
common causes which simply can't be ignored any longer, lest we perish.
(Waxing poetic, Steinberg?)

Jem

    As .17 points out, Orthodox people think that they have the One True
    (Jewish) Religion.
    
    Of course, the Freemasons date back to Solomon too, if you believe
    them.  Nice claim, but the earlier note is a bit more historically
    accurate.
    
    Of course, to much of Orthodoxy, history takes a back seat to faith. 
    Hence a faction of Jewish creationists, within (but not all of)
    Orthodoxy.

    Re .18:
    
    The Masonic connection to Solomon's temple is based partly on
    tradition and partly on Biblical accounts (like 1 Kings 7:14 for
    example).
    
    Masonic tradition also says it predates Solomon.
    
    Fraternally,
    
    Mark

re .18:

>    Of course, to much of Orthodoxy, history takes a back seat to faith. 
>    Hence a faction of Jewish creationists, within (but not all of)
>    Orthodoxy.

    A nit -- evolution isn't history, since there's no human record of it.
    It's a scientific theory.

    Re: .18
    
    > As .17 points out, Orthodox people think that they have the One True
    > (Jewish) Religion.
    
    Please show me where in .17 you see this. In fact, Judaism has always
    recognized that there are many avenues to G-d, and there is a place
    in the World to Come for righteous people of all nations. Let me quote
    from Leo Nikolaievitch Tolstoy in "Jewish World", London, 1908:
    
    	"The Jew is the emblem of civil and religious toleration. 'Love the
    	stranger and the sojourner,' Moses commands, 'because you have been
    	stangers in the land of Egypt.' And this was said in those remote
    	and savage times when the principle ambition of the nations
    	consisted in crushing and enslaving one another. As concerns 
    	religious toleration, the Jewish faith is not only far from the
    	missionary spirit of converting people of other denominations,
    	but on the contrary the Talmud commands the rabbis to inform and
    	explain to everyone who willingly comes to accept the Jewish
    	religion, all the difficulties involved in its acceptance, and
    	to point out to the would-be proselyte that the righteous of all
    	nations share in immortality. Of such lofty and ideal religious
    	toleration not even the moralists of our present day can boast."
    
However, Tolstoy did quote from the Talmud, which, along with most of the
    Bible was rejected as binding by the Reform movement. 
    
    >Reform is much truer to Moses.
    
    Please demonstrate. My reading of Mosaic Law turns up such items as
    the dietary laws, and circumcision, both of which have been explicitly
    broken at various points of Reform history.
    
    I may as well finish the quote from Tolstoy:
    
    "The Jew is the emblem of eternity. He whom neither slaughter nor 
    torture of thousands of years could destroy, he whom neither fire
    nor sword nor inquisition was able to wipe off the face of the
    earth, he who was the first to produce the oracles of G-d, he who
    has been for so long the guardian of prophesy, and he who transmitted
    it to the rest of the world - such a nation cannot be destroyed. The
    Jew is as everlasting as eternity itself."
    
    Jem
    

    Wudda waste of time.

    RE: 799.17

>the tenets which R. Hirsch professed differed not a whit from those set
>down by Moses thousands of years before.

    This is something on which we probably will not be able to agree. My
    reading of the history of the time tells me that Judaism developed
    several adaptations, each of which claimed direct descent from what had
    gone before.  One of these adaptations became known as Orthodox
    Judaism.  Later, the term Orthodox took on a broader meaning and
    indicated a set of related movements.  What is known in some quarters
    as "Modern Orthodox" is probably the closest counterpart to Hirsch's.

                                                Aaron

Re: .22

>never argue with a fanatic

I quite agree, Fred... let me know when you moderate alittle.

Re: .23

>							Judaism developed
>    several adaptations, each of which claimed direct descent from what had
>    gone before. 

I am sincerely interested in understanding the non-Orthodox (begrudgingly
used) perspective as to this direct descent. In _my_ reading of history,
tracing back to Talmudic times, there were three factions among the Jews:
the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. The latter was a minor party which
have no direct relationship to any contemporary Jewish group (some list
the Christians as their spiritual heirs.) As for the Sadducees, most
historians consider the Karaites to be their spiritual descendants, in that
both groups rejected the Oral Law. Rabbinic Judaism (in contradistinction
to Karaite), on the other hand descend from the Pharisees (all the Amoraim,
authors of the Talmud, were Pharisees, although Sadducees and Kuthim, or
Samaritans are quoted often), which had been the major force in Judaism
until the 19th century. In my estimation, the Reform movement is much
closer to the Karaites and Sadducees than to Rabbinic and Pharisaic
Judaism. This is certainly true in terms of rejection of the Talmud. The
major difference is in the observance of biblical precepts, which were
meticulously kept by both the Karaites and the Sadducees, which cannot
be said for Reform. 

It is for this reason that I am quite confused when claims of "direct
descent" are made by such groups. Perhaps you can clarify - descended
from whom?

(BTW, I'll be in Artzeinu Hakedosha for the next week - not that I'm
  ignoring you.)

Jem

    RE: 799.24

    >Perhaps you can clarify - descended from whom?

    From Rabbinic Judaism.  Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative movements
    have each claimed to be the "true" continuation of traditional Judaism
    and each has claimed (with varying degrees of vehemence) that the
    others have missed some essential element(s) of the tradition that
    renders their claims invalid.  Reconstructionism takes a slightly
    different view in that it argues that history shows that Jews have
    often changed the meaning of religious symbols while retaining the
    original symbols; it focuses on finding new ways of giving meaning to
    existing traditions.

    In recent years, a group called CLAL has attempted to find a common
    ground among the differing movements, arguing that the deepening
    divisions among Jews is a threat to all.  We need to give the highest
    priority to building bridges to one another, not raising walls to
    increase the separation.

                                        Aaron

    While reading "Wanderings" by Chaim Potok and this note and its
    replies, I couldn't help but noticing the evolution if you will
    of the focus of Jewish worship from the days when the Ark went wherever
    the Tribes of Israel went to the Temple at Jerusalem and outlying
    temples to just the Temple at Jerusalem and the finally to the
    Diaspora (I realize I'm compressing thousands of years of history
    BTW).
    
    My question is, now that Israel has been re-established for over
    40 years, is the Diaspora over? Should the focus of worship return
    to Jerusalem or can the traditional focus of worship only at the
    Temple in Jerusalem be re-established and coexist side by side with
    the Diaspora?
    
    Mark

Re: Base Note

I can now confirm that the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aksa mosque on the Temple
Mount are still intact... everyone can rest easy :->

Re: .25

>>Perhaps you can clarify - descended from whom?

>    From Rabbinic Judaism.  Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative movements
>    have each claimed to be the "true" continuation of traditional Judaism
>    and each has claimed (with varying degrees of vehemence) that the
>    others have missed some essential element(s) of the tradition that
>    renders their claims invalid.  

Aaron, you seem to be given to generalities quite often. Claims mean very little
in and of themselves. Many Christians consider themselves as the "new" Israel,
Islam, Bahai and others have all made similar claims at one time or another.

I will not repeat my questions again in full, but I would like a response with
a little more precision. The very raison d'etre of Rabbinism was
to distinguish those who believed the rabbis of the Talmud carried a tradition
dating back to Sinai, from the Karaites. The Rabbinites meticulously observed,
as do their descendants today, the dictates of *halacha*, Jewish law, as set
forth in the Talmud. Do you claim that the promulgators of Jewish reform (chol)
adhere to these same principles? In what way *specifically* do the sectarians
of this generation consider themselves spiritual heirs of the Rabbinites
rather than the others mentioned? Again I ask this question in all sincerity;
I really want to know. I have posed this paradox to others and have always
heard general platitudes as responses. If there is a basis for your claim, I'd
like to know what it is.

>    In recent years, a group called CLAL has attempted to find a common
>    ground among the differing movements, arguing that the deepening
>    divisions among Jews is a threat to all.  We need to give the highest
>    priority to building bridges to one another, not raising walls to
>    increase the separation.

As you know, I do not believe in arguing just for the sake of arguing. There
should exist cordial relations between all Jews, and more understanding. But
understanding does not come about through white-washing serious theological
differences. 

Jem

    RE: 799.27

>Aaron, you seem to be given to generalities quite often. Claims mean very 
>little in and of themselves.

    That is precisely my point.  The key to the claim of Reform was that
    over time rabbinic practice had obscured the spiritual and ethical core
    of Judaism by shifting its emphasis toward ritual practice.  Reform
    claimed that study of Jewish history showed that much of what was being
    presented as normative in 17th and 18th century Judaism would have been
    unrecognizeable to the early rabbis.  In short, Reform argued that the
    claim of the traditionalists was flawed.

    While I happen to think that they (the reformers) often overstated
    their case, I do think that the historical evidence shows that
    Judaism--including Orthodox Judaism--is far different today than it was
    in the Roman era.  Indeed, I think there is evidence of considerable
    shift between the second and fourth centuries of the common era. 
    (E.g., compare the text of the Mishna with that of the Gemara.)  The
    fact that today's Orthodox Jews claim that they are doing the same
    things as Jews of Mishnaic times does not constitute proof.

    I think I have discussed some of this in other notes; if not, I'll try
    to present some more evidence here as time permits.  (Sorry to be
    brief, but I have some deadlines to meet.)

>>    In recent years, a group called CLAL has attempted to find a common
>>    ground among the differing movements...
>
>understanding does not come about through white-washing serious theological
>differences.

    That is something that you and I and CLAL agree upon.  The purpose of
    CLAL is not to cover up differences, but to use an understanding of
    those differences to find a basis for Jewish unity.  The underlying
    hypothesis of CLAL is that, like it or not, we are interdependent, and
    we need each other.  As soon as I get a chance, I'll give a fuller
    description.

                                                Aaron

    Aaron,
    
    Am I missing something?  
    	Did the "mishnianic" (or even "Mosaic") Jews keep kosher?  
    	Did they have bris milah?  
    	Did they have rules of "family purity/nidah"?
    	Did they light their Shabbos candles/oil BEFORE Shabbos began?
    	Did they wear tfillin?, Tzizit?, use mezuzot on ALL their
    			doorposts?
    	Did they have some service/avodah/davening 3 times a day?
    	Did they eat chometz on Passover?
    		...
    
    What I'm asking is.. didn't they behave in a way that would be
    recognizable as "Jewish"?  Maybe they wouldn't recognize a shtriemel or
    a hamantach. But they would recognize a mikvah...they have them at
    Masada!
    
    
    As a former behavioral psychologist, for me, Judaism is based on behaviors
    ...that then lead to beliefs.        -------
    
    It is these mitzvahs, these actions, that form the core, that lead to
    the spiritual and ethical understanding and message of Judaism. 
    
    There may be differences in the exact performance of these behaviors as
    influenced by the cultures and societial influences...but the basic
    form would be there.
    
    ---Av
    
    
    
    
    
    

	This conversation impels me to add my 2c worth. We seem to be 
	discusing the "legitimacy" of the different branches or "schools"
	of Judaism today.

	My opinion is that one of the best ways of describing Judaism,
	as well as most other creations of the Human beings, is its
	evolution. Before anybody begins to throw stones at me, please
	lets take a look at the following elements:

	Once upon a time...

	Once upon a time our ancestors lived in the Middle East. They 
	followed a very revolutionary belief in those days, that there
	are not multiple facets of transendent powers, but there is
	only one Divinity, and instead to worship stones, trees, animals
	etc., they worshipped an occult, ever present Lord. Their ways of 
	worship included sacrifices, as did most of the surrounding people.

	If we take the Bible as evidence, they did not so much follow 
	Kashrut (Abraham prepares meat and butter to receive the Angels),
	- or did not use Kashrut as we understand it -, they did not care
	too much for the conversion rituals - I cannot figure how did 
	Joseph find a nice Jewish girl in Egypt or even Moses find a
	wife in Midian. However, they were followers of the most highly
	Lord, "the one that is" ("Eheye asher eheye"), that presented
	himself as "I am the Lord ... that liberated you from Egypt,
	from slavery..."

	The Jews that left Egypt would sacrifice anywhere they felt they
	needed to, the Arc was portable and with it the service.

	As the monarchy was established, it was necessary to unify the 
	tribes under the King and the King's Capital, therefore the
	Temple was instituted. And it was forbidden to offer sacrifices
	in places other than the House the Lord had chosen. Here we can
	see the necessary evolution from the nomad shepperds to the 
	established city dwellers.

	The cult acquired relevance in itself, so we find prophets
	saying "Who asked from you to tread my courtyards, says the Lord 
	but to fight the fight of the stranger, of the orphan, of the 
	widow..."

	Later on we can see followers of the cult of the Temple in its
	most stringent ways, mostly among those that had the most direct
	interest in the Temple, the priests. I am referring to the 
	Saducees. In that time, we could find innovators as Hillel et al.
	Hillel, the Elder, was the base for the beautiful stories about
	the Greek that wanted to convert, but did not want to bother
	with laws, etc., and was told by Hillel that "and thou shalt
	love thy neighbour as thyself" is the basis and all the rest is
	commentary...

	The Perushim did not have any problem in looking forward to bring
	together the laws and cults with the life in their days. As a
	proof, it is easier to make Kosher a stone utensil than a ceramic
	one, because it would be an unseemly loss to have to brake a stone
	vessel because it was contaminated, while ceramics was inexpensive.
	Perushim is the Hebrew for Pharisees, out of which the Rabinnical
	tradition begins.

	Very strong discussions happened in those times, as can be seen
	in the Talmud - and everything was subject to interpretation.
	When Rabbi Meir wanted the rivers, the buildings or even the 
	Heavens to support him, he was told "Lo bashamayim hee" (The
	Torah is no longer in the Heavens and therefore only human
	interpretation can judge and interpret was is correct. The end
	of the story presents the Lord, happylly saying: "My children 
	defeated me"

	The Rabbinical trend was to find modifications and interpre-
	tations that might drift a very long way from the Bible. That
	was the reason of the first important revolution in the Jewish
	religion: The Karaites, that kept to the cult as they read it 
	textually from the Bible.

	As the corpus of laws become more and more complicated, more
	and more interpreted, it became the reduct of the chosen few
	that could reach sources and interpretations. In order to do
	that simpler, Rabbi Joseph Caro codifyed the laws, in the 
	Shulchan Aruch, and here begin our troubles.

	When you have a strictly codifyed law, it is very easy to
	find out heresies, that do not conform the law, to find 
	deviations, to keep the corpus of the law quiet and petrified.

	Not so long after the codification was settled, broke the 
	Hassidic movement, that rebelled against the elite of experts
	and the squareness of the cult and preached for a more human
	and personal approach to Religion. They also wanted to adapt
	the cult and the Law to their times and their needs, and there
	were lots of circles of Mitnagdim that considered that Hassidism
	was close to heressy.

	Today, the establishment is fighting for their interpretation
	of the Law. And according to the different groups, each one feels
	they've got the right to proclame they are the only Lawfull 
	inheritors of the truth. Karaites may claim they follow the most
	ancient written traditions, Cabbalists, their revelations; Rabbies
	their interpretations and reformers, the "old" spirit of adaptation
	and survival.

	If we are the followers of the "One that is", we should perhaps
	consider one of the most immanent rules of life and of being,
	which is change and adaptation.

	I believe I went a very long road from the initial question of 
	the re-establishment of sacrifices in the Temple...

Re: .27
>	I do think that the historical evidence shows that
>    Judaism--including Orthodox Judaism--is far different today than it was
>    in the Roman era.

You're right about this... in Roman times the second Temple was still in
existence, and animal sacrifice was still practiced. But in note .6 you
write:

>>All traditional Jews pray for...rebuilding of the Temple, and the
>>sacrificial rite.

>   From the first to the nineteenth century of the common era, this was
>   generally true.  The Reform movement did not include these prayers in
>   its liturgy, and they are not found in the Conservative or
>   Reconstructionist prayers either.

So this "change" did not seem to bother the 19th century innovators too
much. What then?

Re: .30

>	The Rabbinical trend was to find modifications and interpre-
>	tations that might drift a very long way from the Bible. That
>	was the reason of the first important revolution in the Jewish
>	religion: The Karaites, that kept to the cult as they read it 
>	textually from the Bible.

If this is the argument of the present-day reformers, this answers my
question: they are the spiritual heirs of the Karaites. But even this
is not satisfactory, in that Reform has openly rejected even specific
biblical laws, as Avi points out in .28 - so that leaves us where we
started.

As for Abraham, Joseph, and Moses, as you know they lived before _Matan
Torah_, the Revelation at Sinai, and had not yet been given the laws.

Jem

    Re recent entries:
    
    Since we seem to have drifted slightly away from the original topic,
    I was wondering if I could hop in here with a question or two.....
    
    1. As I understand it, Rabbinical Judaism was a response to the
    Diaspora and the destruction of the Second Temple. The Karaites
    challenged this Rabbinical authority to some extent but by and large
    the authority of the Rabbinate was accepted by the Jewish people.
    Then, the beginnings of challenges to this authority begin anew
    in the 18th century with the rise of the Hasidim in Eastern Europe
    (I'm thinking of Besht here) and I think also the Lubavitcher Movement.
    
    According to Chaim Potok, the tension arising from the give and
    take between the Rabbinate and the Hasidim for example is beneficial
    to Judaism because it evokes creativity, much like the tension arising
    from Constitutional processes in the US should theoretically help
    preserve individual liberties.
    
    Is that how you see it? Is it really just another chapter in an
    age-old story?
    
    2. How much authority should (or do) Rabbis have? How answerable
    are they to their local congregation versus a central organization?
    
    Thanks for your patience while I learn as much as I can....
    
    Mark

    RE: 799.29    -< There's a family resemblance >-

    Av,

    Indeed there is, and I guess I am guilty of exaggeration if I implied
    otherwise, but what I was trying to point out is that all modern
    movements would claim that family resemblence.

    As far as some of your specific points are concerned, the
    evidence is not always clear,  e.g.

    >    Did the "mishnianic" (or even "Mosaic") Jews keep kosher?

    There is no evidence that I know of that most Jews kept kosher. There
    is evidence that during Second Temple times certain Jews (Pharisees and
    Essenes) would only eat with their own groups because they did not
    consider most Jews to have properly sanctified food.  In some cases,
    this seems to have been an issue of tithing and in some cases a matter
    of preparation.  In still other cases the issue was not the food but
    the purity of the individual.  Even during the Talmudic age, the rules
    of kashrut were still under development.  As I recall, there is
    discussion in the Gemara about the classification of fowl, indicating
    that some authorities considered it parve.  I suspect that if you could
    take a time trip back to the first century C.E., you would find that
    those Jews who kept kosher did so in ways that would be considered
    unacceptable today.

    In other cases, I think we can infer the negative.  e.g.

    >	Did they wear tfillin?, Tzizit?, use mezuzot on ALL their
    >			doorposts?

    On the basis of my reading of Tractate Soferim, I would conclude that
    mezuzot were used only on outer doors.

    In still other cases, I think the evidence from anthropology,
    archaeology, and the available textual evidence indicates that things
    have changed very little. e.g.

    >	Did they have bris milah?

    This is probably one of the oldest rites in our history, and probably
    antedates Jewish monotheism.

    		...
    
   >As a former behavioral psychologist, for me, Judaism is based on behaviors
   >...that then lead to beliefs.        -------

    As a matter of fact, I partly agree, but I don't think that behavior
    necessarily leads to Orthodox beliefs, and I don't believe that ritual
    by itself necessarily leads to the `spiritual and ethical understanding
    and message of Judaism.'  (Just to be clear, I think that ritual can be
    a positive aid to understanding; I just don't think it happens
    automatically.)

    Most of the first generation of Reconstructionists came out of ritually
    observant homes and continued to be ritually observant, but came to an
    understanding of Judaism that differed in certain key ways from
    Orthodoxy.

    Many of the early Reform leaders were reacting to what they felt was an
    emphasis on ritual without meaning.  Unable to satisfy their spiritual
    needs with contemporary (to them) traditional Judaism, they searched
    Jewish history to find meaning.
    
    						Aaron

    RE: .30

    I like the summary.  To carry it a little bit further, let me suggest
    that there were certain key challanges in Jewish history that elicited 
    creative and effective responses that provided a mechanism for Jewish
    survival in the periods that followed:

    1.  The fall of Israel to the Assyrians and the near-conquest of Judah.

    Response: The Book of Deuteronomy (or at least its core) and the
    effective centralization of ritual at Jerusalem, religious organization
    reinforcing political organization.  This provided a corps of leaders
    with a relatively unified world-view that was able to respond to

    2.  The Babylonian exile.

    Response:  The Humash was created out of disparate documents and
    traditions, and the Jewish people was given a history and a purpose
    that saw them through

    3.  Hellenism.

    Response:  Collection and redaction of prophetic and other writings
    that provided a response to Greek philosophy.  Along with this, the
    adoption of Greek modes of thinking and academic organization and their
    skilled adaptation to the needs of Judaism, that provided a way of
    dealing with

    4.  The destruction of the Second Temple.

    Response:  The Mishnah told people how to achieve holiness in the
    absence of the Temple and thus how to maintain peoplehood in the face
    of conquest.  This provided a foundation upon which to deal with

    5.  "Permanent" galut (i.e. the recognition that exile from Jerusalem
    --not from the Land of Israel--was likely to last for a long time).

    Response:  The Talmud of the Land of Israel (often call the Yerushalmi
    even though it was put together in the Galillee).  By showing how one
    could modify and expand the Mishnah, this Talmud (Mishna + Gemara)
    provided a precedent for creative response that enabled the Jewish
    people to deal with

    6.  The establishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman
    Empire and--later--the rise of Islam.

    Response:  The Babylonian Talmud addressed the spiritual/salvational
    issues raised by the success of Christianity, and also created
    systematic links between the Mishnah and the Humash.  This provided a
    complete (in terms of the needs of that time) intellectual system for
    Jewish life, that enabled Rabbinic Judaism to deal with

    7.  The Karaite schism.

    Response:  A standardized liturgy, combined with rabbinic autonomy,
    gave Rabbinic Judaism the tools both for symbolizing community unity
    and for flexible responses to specific local situations.  Since the
    Talmud provided a unifying umbrella for all the rabbinic communities,
    individual leaders could deal with their own community as required,
    and, as long as they remained under that umbrella stay connected with
    the rest of Rabbinic Jewry.  This allowance for differences, along with
    the presence of unifying symbols was important in responding to

    8.  Persecution and messianism in 16th and 17th century Europe.

    Response:  The Hassidic movement should be looked at as the first
    modern reform movement.  It addressed some of the same issues as
    German reform, especially spirituality (and seemed, to the
    traditionalists in Lithuania, as radical as the later Reform).
    By providing a creative Jewish response to despair,  it helped the vast
    Jewish population of the Pale resist the anti-Jewish policies of the
    Russian Empire.  It also provided a liturgical model for 20th century
    liberal Judaism's response (which I'll explain later) to 

    9.  The Haskalah and emancipation.

    Response:  Reform and Orthodox (or "Modern Orthodox" if you prefer)
    Judaisms were attempts to provide reasons and mechanisms for
    maintaining a Jewish life in a new and different world, although,
    unlike the Hassidim, these Judaisms were confronting temptations rather
    than persecution.  Conservative Judaism emerged from and in reaction to
    Reform, and Reconstructionism grew out of the Conservative movement.
    In eastern Europe, Socialism, Yiddishism, and Zionism became the
    dominant movements, while the Hassidim and Mitnagdim found that the
    "cultural/secular" Judaism was more threatening than differences between
    the "religious" movements. (I use the quotes to indicate that these
    terms are shorthand for more complex descriptions.)  Zionism turned out
    to be of crucial importance following

    10. The Shoah.

    Response:  The State of Israel has been a critical factor in preserving
    Jewish identity.  Its existence provided a raison d'etre for large
    numbers of Jews who were ready to abandon Judaism in despair after WW2. 
    The 1967 Six-day War solidified this identification with Israel. Israel
    has also provided a center for Jewish scholarship and leadership for
    all the religious movements.  One of the interesting things that is
    happening in what I call "liberal Judaism" (shorthand for Reform,
    Conservative, Reconstructionist), is a renewed interest in certain
    aspects of "orthodox Judaism" (shorthand for Orthodox, Mitnagid,
    Hassidic, traditional Sefardi, traditional eastern).  In particular, a
    lot of people are attracted to Hassidic liturgy and what is seen as its
    emphasis on song and joy as a vehicle for finding spiritual
    fullfillment.  At the same time, some in the orthodox community are
    attracted to the historical scholarship they find in liberal circles,
    although I don't have a good idea of how extensive that is.

    My sense is that we are in a period somewhat similar to that which
    lasted from Alexander's conquest to the completion of the Babylonian
    Talmud, a period in which Judaism went through significant evolution.
    That period lasted about 700 years.  If we consider the current "modern
    period" to have begun about the time of the Chmelnicki pogroms, we have
    been going through this upheaval less than 400 years.  As a Jew I tend
    to take a long term view :^)

    Hoo boy! I intended this to be about 20 lines long, and now I have to
    go and explain what took me so long when I said I'd be home in an
    hour...

                                                Aaron

Aaron,

Quite a treat reading your doctoral dissertation! :-}

Re: .33

>There is no evidence that I know of that most Jews kept kosher.

If they didn't, they were ignoring biblical precepts. This
does not exempt us.

>    On the basis of my reading of Tractate Soferim, I would conclude that
>    mezuzot were used only on outer doors.

And this remains the *din d'oraita* (strict Torah law). Mezuzot on each
doorpost is clearly a rabbinic requirement. This is consistent with the
Mishnaic injunction, "asu siag LaTorah", create a fence around the Torah
(to ensure its proper observance).

>>	Did they have bris milah?

>    This is probably one of the oldest rites in our history, and probably
>    antedates Jewish monotheism.

Perhaps this is true, but the biblical commandment is *the* only reason I
observe it.

> (Just to be clear, I think that ritual can be
>    a positive aid to understanding; I just don't think it happens
>    automatically.)

Here we agree. Indeed, Nachmanides, in a well-known comment on *parashat
Kedoshim* in Leviticus, asks why a separate *mitzva* to *be holy* is
required; is this not the purpose of the entire Torah? The answer he
offers is startling, but all too true: It is possible to be a *menuval
b'reshut haTorah*, a revolting individual while technically observing
all the commandments. For example, one is allowed to eat meat, and the
Torah does not provide a limit. Therefore, one could sit all day long
and do nothing but eat meat without any transgression. However, this is
clearly repulsive behavior. 

The message is clear: the Torah provides general guidelines by which we
structure our lives; but we are not to be mindless robots. We are given
the power of reason and common sense to determine which behavior is
appropriate and meritorious, *within the parameters the Torah sets*.

In this way, the Torah is quite paradoxical: on the one hand there are
mitzvot such as the Red Heifer, which even Solomon could not determine
a reason for, and therefore must be performed *by definition* perfunctorily.
On the other hand, a mitzva such as this gives us the impression that we
must always use our common sense. How do the two concepts jibe?

This is one of the real beauties of our Torah - we constantly have to strive
to seek a balance between the two requirements. There is a time for
questioning and searching, and a time to accept, yes on faith, at least
temporarily. A good analogy is a battlefield. When an order comes from
the commander, it must be obeyed without question, else chaos reigns.
However, after the fact an outstanding general will meet with his troops
an explain his rationale, and accept questions. In the same way the Children
of Israel said, "na'aseh v'nishma", we will do and we will hear. Although
the "doing" was required even without absolute understanding, the "hearing"
was an integral part of the formula also. This refers to the study of the
precepts - to learn in order to understand and consequently better carry
out the Will Of G-d.

>    Many of the early Reform leaders were reacting to what they felt was an
>    emphasis on ritual without meaning.

And in their conclusion lies their terrible mistake. It is nothing new for
a human being to get caught up in ritual, to the point of losing all sight
of the ultimate goal. The prophets minced no words in their treatment of 
such indiviuals, nor was it at all unusual. But did that make the prophets
forsake the laws? Did they therefore advocate dropping the rituals which
"caused" such destructive conduct? On the contrary, they admonished the
people to introspect deeply, to continually search for truth in the *mitzvot*.

The conclusion of Reform is essentially identical to that of the early
Christians. In Christian literature the word "pharisee" is treated as a
noxious term, equivalent to "hypocrite". On the basis of their perception
of the "hypocrisy" in the Pharisaic Jewish religion, they began their own
cult.

The error is not necessarily in the perception; as we've noted, there have
always been abuses. The fatal blunder is in the inference. When our children
act wrongly, very few of us throw them out of the house or worse still. G-d
forbid! We do our best to teach them the correct way, *especially by our
own example*. 

The simplistic conclusion is that the *system* stinks. But the truth is, the
stench might disappear if we would merely cleanse *ourselves*.

Jem

    Re: 799.35

    Jem,

    That was an excellent and eloquent response.  It also demonstrates a
    basic difference in our assumptions.  Where you ascribe behavior to
    authoritative direction, I consider the attribution of authority as a
    consequence of behavior.  In other words, you are saying (and correct
    me if I am misrepresenting you),  that Jewish practice is derived from
    the commandments of HaShem, and I am saying that we first developed the
    practices and then ascribed them to a divine source.

    Thus, my explanation of the Red Heifer is that it was a rite of
    sufficient importance to some of the Cohanim/Leviim that the
    instructions for the ritual were recorded, but for some reason the
    rationale was not.  I state this not to argue about the particulars of
    this ceremony, but to clarify what I perceive to be our key
    differences.

    There are also some areas of agreement; we both seem to agree that
    ritual is important and that one must use ritual to foster moral
    behavior, not to avoid it.

                                        Aaron

Re: .36

>That was an excellent and eloquent response.
 
Thank you for the kind words.

>    In other words, you are saying (and correct
>    me if I am misrepresenting you),  that Jewish practice is derived from
>    the commandments of HaShem,

You are again addressing the Divine origin of the Torah, which we have dealt
with elsewhere. Although I don't believe that faith in G-d, or in the Torah
as His revealed Word can be arrived at by intellectual means, there are some
intriguing arguments profferred by the Talmud in this regard. For example:

The Gemara in Chulin (don't remember the folio, sorry), asks as follows:
Was Moses a zoologist? The Torah lists the signs for kosher animals, i.e.
chewing of the cud and split hooves. But then, four specific animals are
listed which possess one sign and not the other (Ach me'elu lo tochlu...),
including the hare, camel, and *oznia* (of questionable definition), each
of which chew their cud, but do not have split hooves. The fourth is, of
course, the pig, which has split hooves but which does not chew its cud.
The listing of these exceptions appears superfluous, since the Torah 
already specified that a kosher animal must have both signs. Worse still,
were another animal to be found other than the four mentioned, which in fact
possessed one and not another of these qualities, it would be obvious that
the authorship was not Divine - An open blunder on the part of the author!
And how could Moses take such a bold step, at all? After all, had he 
travelled so extensively that he knew all species of animals in existence?

In short, no animal has ever been found *the world over* with the qualities
listed *except the very four found in the verse*! Darwin documented his
zoological findings from around the globe, and found no other exceptions.

This is one example, and an organization called Arachim is doing a great
deal of research in related areas. Although I have not attended the seminar
(yet), I've seen the materials, which are *most* interesting. It seems very
difficult to believe that the Bible is simply a human fabrication after
reading through these sources.

>    There are also some areas of agreement; we both seem to agree that
>    ritual is important 

I hate to burst your bubble on this one, but I would have no interest in
subjecting myself to the difficulties of Jewish living were it not for the
belief that this is the Will of G-d. Apparently, many, many Jews in this
country have a similar outlook, judging from the figures on attrition from
Jewish ranks. 

This last point requires a great deal of soul-searching on the part of all
Jews who cherish their heritage. If our chlidren and grandchildren are to
remain Jewish, we must offer them them something more than some vague Jewish
"culture". The sad fact is, general Western (and often Eastern) culture is
often much more attractive to young people today. And why not? When a child
is brought up in a watered-down Jewish environment, fraught with inconsisten-
cies, but then told that he (or she) must marry a Jewish spouse, he naturally
sees only hypocrisy in this request.

And the most tragic part of the whole equation is that the Torah offers an
incredibly rich and spiritual life-style, constantly offering new challenges
and horizons, totally hidden from most Jewish children growing up today, even
in "good" Jewish homes. Pressure is unconsciously put on youths not to "rock
the boat", not to be "too Jewish", which actually has the effect of pushing
them far away from Judaism which they perceive, not surprisingly, as something 
less than "truth".

Are we the same as our ancestors in every way? Of course not! Shall we go back
to live in shtetls? Probably not. But the good news is that Judaism has shown
itself to be utterly adaptable to almost any situation. Nor is the modern era
wholly unlike other climates in which Jews have found themselves and thrived.
Maimonides (Rambam) was no "superstitious" shtetl dweller. As a philosopher of
the Aristotelian school, he struggled with all of the same dilemmas that we
face today - Science vs. Faith. The Vilna Gaon wrote treatises on Mathematics
and Geography. These are some of the giants of *faith* we can look to in our
day. 

Jem

    RE .37

        >>        -< Not ritual for ritual's sake >-

    Hmm.  Perhaps I was not clear.  My point was that ritual must have a
    larger purpose; ritual for it's own sake doesn't seem to have much
    value.  (There is a whole area of anthropology and sociology that deals
    with the role of ritual in human communities, but I'm referring
    specifically to Jewish ritual as a way of shaping Jewish feelings and
    attitudes.)  It seems to me that we are saying the same thing.

>                Although I don't believe that faith in G-d, or in the Torah
>as His revealed Word can be arrived at by intellectual means

    We seem to be in agreement here, as well.   Whatever position one
    starts from is likely to be reinforced by intellectual arguements, but
    not changed.

>And the most tragic part of the whole equation is that the Torah offers an
>incredibly rich and spiritual life-style, constantly offering new challenges
>and horizons, totally hidden from most Jewish children growing up today, even
>in "good" Jewish homes.

    I agree, although my concept of Torah differs from yours.  Further,
    what I am suggesting is that most Jews in the world today have a
    different view and that that alternative view has to be addressed.

    For those who do not believe in a literalist (that is meant to be a
    descriptive, not a judgemental term) interpretation of the Humash,
    there are other choices than renunciation of Judaism.  I assert that
    there is more than one valid way to be Jewish, and that pluralism has
    been, for much of Jewish history, the norm rather than the exception.
    There have also been periods where relative uniformity did serve us
    well, but the Jewish world is today diverse and will stay that way for
    the foreseeable future.  Orthodoxy, Hassidism, Reform, Conservatism,
    Reconstructionism, Zionism, "Philanthropism", etc., will continue as
    primary forms of Jewish identification for those who choose to identify
    themselves as Jewish.

    Got to go to a meeting now.  (Meetings are one of DEC's rituals...)

                                        Aaron


     Pressure is unconsciously put on youths not to "rock
the boat", not to be "too Jewish", which actually has the effect of pushing
them far away from Judaism which they perceive, not surprisingly, as something 
less than "truth".

Are we the same as our ancestors in every way? Of course not! Shall we go back
to live in shtetls? Probably not. But the good news is that Judaism has shown
itself to be utterly adaptable to almost any situation. Nor is the modern era
wholly unlike other climates in which Jews have found themselves and thrived.
Maimonides (Rambam) was no "superstitious" shtetl dweller. As a philosopher of
the Aristotelian school, he struggled with all of the same dilemmas that we
face today - Science vs. Faith. The Vilna Gaon wrote treatises on Mathematics
and Geography. These are some of the giants of *faith* we can look to in our
day. 

Jem

    Re: .37
    
    I thought the giraffe meets the requirements for a kosher animal, but
    it is not listed.
    
    				Paul

Re: .39

I believe you're right about the giraffe, it being a member of the deer
family, which possess both *simanim* (signs) mentioned in .37 (My stomach
is growling just imagining the size of the steak!) There are other animals
and birds which are technically *tahor* (kosher), but which present serious
logistical problems in properly slaughtering. One example is the pigeon, whose
*kaneh* and *veshet* (esophagus and trachea) are on opposite sides of its
neck, rendering it nearly impossible to *shecht* (slaughter) in one motion,
as required. 

>		 but
>    it is not listed.

Neither the kosher nor the non-kosher animals are enumerated directly in
the Chumash. Just the general rules are given, i.e. the signs for a kosher
animal, which we apply to specific animals. The only animals specified as
non-kosher *in toto* are those which possess only one sign and not the other,
ostensibly because we might have thought them to be kosher. In fact, the 
Talmud says that if we find any animal which possesses one siman, and we
are sure it's not one of the four (listed in .37), we can be certain it 
has the other siman and hence it is kosher.

Although the simanim mentioned are quite well known, the reason behind
this particular subset of the dietary laws (there are *sigh* many more),
seems to defy all attempts at logic. Health, although offered by Rambam
in his "Guide for the Perplexed" as a possible explanation, does not seem
to hold water. Non-Jews seem to be doing quite well, thank you, and I've
seen no study showing a significant health benefit due to consumption of
strictly kosher animals. The cow itself is not the cleanest of animals,
and certainly has been known to carry and spread diseases.

I saw a wonderful explanation in Dayan Grunfeld's book "The Jewish Dietary
Laws": Originally, Man was slated to be a vegetarian, as the verse in Genesis
says, "from all the fruits of the trees may you eat". Only after the flood
does the Torah permit Noah to partake of the meat of animals (the verse
eludes me right now). 

We are given a possible hint as to the underlying reason in limiting the
foods we eat from a verse which is reiterated a number of times, "Eat not
the blood, for the blood is the *soul*". This appears to be a mystical
concept (and it probably is), but the following helps to explain it by
analogy:

A number of years ago (I am working on finding the reference, but I heard
it from a reliable scientist), an experiment was conducted with lab rats.
A particularly challenging maze was constructed, which proved extremely
difficult for the rodents to negotiate. One persistent rat, however, learned
the trick, and had no difficulty thereafter.

The rat was then sacrificed, its brain being fed to another group of rats.
This new group proved to have a much smaller learning curve than any previous
group (it's a good thing I waited til after lunch, between the giraffes and
the rats!)

The conclusion is that we are, in fact, what we eat. Animals have certain
instincts, which can in some way be inherited by partaking of their flesh.

Although we were permitted to eat animal meat, the Torah would like us to
avoid those foods which are singularly injurious *spiritually*. Thus, one
of the seven commandments given to all mankind (not just Jews), is that
of *ever min ha-chai*, a limb torn from a living creature, because (according
to this line of reasoning), it retains much of the animal spirit. Jews are
meant to strive for a particularly high spiritual level. When examined
closely, the two signs yield a very singular sort of animal.  The
split hooves, as opposed to claws, indicate
that the creature is somewhat passive, having the ability only to stand,
and sometimes run (in self-defence). Chewing of the cud likewise
necessitates much energy to be spent on the digestion process itself, not
allowing time or energy for aggressive, or other "animalistic" behavior.
The same prinicipals apply in the realm of birds and fish (no stuffed
hawks or filleted sharks allowed!)

Thus, while seeming to be carnivorous, Jews actually actually partake only
of the *vegetables of the animal kingdom* (sorry if I've offended any bovines!)

Jem

    An entertaining letter to the Orlando Sentinel this week noted that
    Leviticus 11 specifies unkosher birds, including the bat.
    
    So much for zoology lessons.
    
    (BTW, the letter was in response to a Calvin and Hobbes comic strip in
    which Calvin (rotten kid in second grade) wrote a paper on bats in
    which he called them bugs.  Fundamentalist-bashing is important in
    Orlando since the Jim & Tammy ministry moved there, but is being
    evicted for non-payment of rent.)

    re .41:

    Who's to say that the Biblical Hebrew word translated as "bird"
    doesn't actually mean "flying thing with two legs?"

Re: .42

>    Who's to say that the Biblical Hebrew word translated as "bird"
>    doesn't actually mean "flying thing with two legs?"

We've all heard of "Jonah and the whale", but the phrase used in the 
book of Jonah is "dag gadol", a great fish. Who's at fault here? 

Jem

    Back to the main topic--what are the logistic and halachic problems
    in re-building the temple?  What is the sequence of events in the
    re-building (e.g. must the Messiah arrive first?).  Is the architecture
    and the ritual fully known, etc.?  What about the Ark?
    
    As a side question: what's all this about a Red Heifer?
    
    			-John Bishop

>                                                        Is the architecture
>   and the ritual fully known, etc.?  What about the Ark?

    No, and no.

>   As a side question: what's all this about a Red Heifer?

    Read Numbers 19.

re .44:

last things first:

the ritual of the Parah Adumah (Red Cow or Heifer) is described in Vayikra
(Leviticus) in the beginning of Parshat Chukas (2/3 (?) through the volume - 
i dont have a chumash here, sorry).  Those who came in contact with a dead body
(the MOST "unclean" (tamay) thing possible) had to be sprinkled with the 
ashes of the parah adumah in order to become "clean" (tahor).

The twist is - while cleansing the unclean, it rendered the preists  who 
performed the ritual unclean (Mitaher Tamayim U'Mitamay Tahorim).  This is 
the classic paradox in the Torah, the perfect example of a "chok" - a law whose
reasons we cannot fathom.

This leads us to one of the major logistic problems of rebuilding the Temple -
we are all "unclean"! If you have ever been to a cemetary, mourge, or any place
where there is a dead body, you are tamay, and therefore forbidden to enter
the Temple (or even the place where the temple used to stand - The Temple Mount
in Jerusalem).  So there is no one around today who could actually build the 
Temple.

Despite this, the are groups today who are preparing for the rebuilding of the
Temple. One group is concentrating on recreating the utensils used in the
Temple Worship - the Menorah, the Trumpets, the Laver etc. You can work on
these things while tamay (but you could not bring them into the Temple unless
you are clean).

more later...
			Louuuuuuuuuuuu

the parah adumah is talked about in Devarim (Numbers 19 as .45 says) - not
vayikrah

sorry for the miscue.

			Louuuuuuuuuuuu

    Didn't David go into the Temple and eat with his soldiers bread meant
    for just the Priests? Would not then the Messiah rebuild the temple 
    regardless of the paradox?

Lou -- you're getting close.  Chukas is in Bamidbar = Numbers.

re .48:

The Temple wasn't built until after David was dead.

    Oh gosh, just shows you I don't know anything till I read it here
    first!
     :-) 
    

    I read the "red heifer" section--it seems you need only one ritually
    clean person (who burns the heifer, becoming unclean until the next
    day, who then gathers the ashes, becoming unclean until the next day,
    who can then use the ashes...).  It sure does read like notes made
    by someone who knew the ritual, but didn't put all the details in.
    
    Gerald, could you expand on the Ark?  About all I know is that it
    did exist in Moses' time, and was gone after the Temple in Jerusalem
    was destroyed by the Romans.  The victory column the Romans put up
    shows soldiers carrying a Menora and other Temple furniture, but I
    don't think it shows the Ark.
    
    			-John Bishop

    John,
    
    No one knows what happened to the Ark.  No one knows when it...
    wasn't around any more.  It just stops being mentioned, and then
    it wasn't there.
    
    						Ann B.

there is a midrash (i dont remember where, and if i guess i'll probably get it 
wrong :-) :-) that the ark was placed in 'geniza' (hiding) before the 
destruction of the FIRST temple by the babylonians.  The second temple did not
have the ark.  Only Indiana Jones knows where it is now... :-)

back to the question: why not rebuild the temple now?

the second temple was destroyed because of 'sinat chinam' - baseless hatred 
between Jews.  Once that problem is solved we can start worrying about 
rebuilding the temple - not before. (i could start a whole mussardik megilla
here, but a word to the wise etc.)

				Louuuuuuuuuu

I've heard second-hand that there have been some new findings indicating 
that the Dome of the Rock (and the entire mosque plaza) might not be 
covering the site of the Temple after all. Has anyone read about this?

Jem

    In recent years a new gate was discovered buried in the rubble along
    the present wall. Many scholars believe that this gate was the one
    that was directly east of the temple. If this is correct, the original
    temple site is about a 100 yards north of the mosque. There was
    something in a magazine called Biblical Archaelogy Review several
    years ago. I don't remember which issue, though. 
    
    The babylonians removed the furnishing from the  first temple and
    placed them in the treasury in babylon. The babylonians had a habit
    of collecting the gods of the peoples that they conquered. There
    were well over a 100 temples in the city to various gods.(thie first
    ecumenical movement?). Anyway, a jewish temple couldn't be built
    because the ark was not among the furnishings captured. The persians
    restored what was in the treasury when the second temple was started.
    This wasn't as generous as it first seems as temple functioned a
    little like banks, being repositories of a nations wealth that was
    drawn on in times of crisis. Jeremiah
    and others so adamantly predicted the destruction, that it makes
    sense that they hid the ark. Ezekiel's vision describes the departure
    of the shekinah, so it may be that the ritual significance of the
    ark is passed.
    
    On the other hand, if Jeremiah hid the ark as is suggested in the
    book of the Machabbees, it seems reasonable that he made some provision
    for its recovery. The first possibility is that he entrusted the
    knowledge to younger men that didn't survive to return. The other
    more intriguing possiblity is that he encrypted a message telling
    where to find the ark in his writings. Lamentations Hebrew title,
    (which comes from the first word of the book) is Aicho which can
    sometimes be translated where instead of the usual how. So.... maybe
    the clues have been there all along.
    
    john
    
    
    

Re: .55

> Lamentations Hebrew title,
>    (which comes from the first word of the book) is Aicho which can
>    sometimes be translated where instead of the usual how. So.... maybe
>    the clues have been there all along.

I've never encountered such a translation of "aicha," but it sounds like
a great plot for a movie, anyway.

An excited co-worker just delivered the current copy of the renowned
scholarly publication, "The Reader's Digest." Actually, the article
in question is quite interesting, referring to Adam Zertal's recent
discovery of what appears to  match the biblical description (Deut. 27:4,5;
Josh. 8:30), of an altar on Mt. Eval, complete with 4000 sets of
bones from kosher animals. Does anyone get Biblical Archeology Review?
The original article appeared there.

Jem

    Anyone attend the annual Temple Conference in February?  
    
    The news I've been getting over the past few conferences are quite
    provocative!
    
    Mike

    Has anyone heard if the Dome of the Tables (or Spirits), which is north
    of the Dome of the Rock, is the original site of the Holy of Holies?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    For those that want to keep up to date on the building of the 3rd
    Temple, see the following Web site:
    
    http://www.actcom.co.il/jerusalem/
    http://www.actcom.co.il/jerusalem/temple.html
    
    Mike

    http://www.templemount.org/