Conference taveng::bagels

Re: .1 &.2

It seems that there are some who disagree with both forces as pivotal in
Judaism. Any other opinions from members of the progressive movements?

Jem

    Back to your original question and not the issue regarding the decision
    to include Homosexuals as Reform Rabbis.  Little of what we follow in
    Halacha is direct from the Torah but is based upon interpertation.  For
    example did we get carried away with the separation of milk and meat? 
    The Torah talks about what is probably a specific Cananite religious
    act and we are prohibited from performing the act, but we have built up
    interpertations and customs that have gone way beyond the Torah's simple
    statement.  What is imutable?  I don't know, at the same time I don't 
    believe that change for changes sake alone.
    
    Warren

Re: .4

> Little of what we follow in
>    Halacha is direct from the Torah but is based upon interpertation. 

Little of what is written in the Torah is directly translatable into 
practice without some form of interpretation. Look no further than the _Keriat_
Shema_ itself, which alludes to "binding them for a sign on your hand,"
and "frontlets between your eyes," as well as inscribing "them on the
door posts of your house" (Deut. 6:8,9). Then, in the third paragraph
(Num 15:38), we are enjoined to "make...fringes on the corners of their
garments."  Bind what? What are frontlets, or more precisely "totaphot?"
What shall we write on our doorposts? What kind of garment requires these
fringes? What are they made of? How should they appear? 

Even those who do not believe in the Divine origin of the Bible must
admit that the author is apparently demanding certain actions, while
glaringly omitting the details of those actions. Those who do believe
that this is G-d's will will of necessity seek further to find elucidation
of the Divine commandments. It would have made little sense to ask for
observance without providing an understanding of the means of carrying it out.

> For
>    example did we get carried away with the separation of milk and meat? 

The Bible reiterates its injunction against the cooking of a kid in its mother's
milk no less than three times (Ex. 23:19, 34:26, Deut. 14:21). Given the
usual terseness of the Pentateuch, presumably in the interest of conciseness,
is it not odd that a perfectly clear law is repeated so often? For this reason,
the talmudic tradition (Chullin 115b) of forbidding not only the actual cooking,
but also deriving benefit from the mixture, as well as eating such a mixture
even without having been cooked is eminently logical. On the contrary, to 
ignore the repetition is to show no respect for the intricate nuances of
Scripture. As to waiting between the consumption of meat and milk, as well 
as the additional prohibition against poultry and meat, these are clearly 
Rabbinic in origin in accordance with the dictum in Avot (1:1), "make a
fence for the Torah."

>    The Torah talks about what is probably a specific Cananite religious
>    act and we are prohibited from performing the act, but we have built up
>    interpertations and customs that have gone way beyond the Torah's simple
>    statement.
 
A definition of terms is required. There are three clear distinctions:

A)	Biblical law.
B)	Rabbinical "fences."
C)	Customs.

A) includes all those laws spelled out in the Torah, and, according to
traditional Judaism, those interpretations of ambiguous or esoteric laws
(examples of which were cited above) which are presented in the Talmud as
having been transmitted orally to Moses (_halacha_le'Moshe_mi-Sinai). 

Those injunctions which are of rabbinic origin (B), are clearly demarcated
from Mosaic Law itself in the Talmud, and there are certain differences
in practice (e.g. _safek_derabbanan_le'hakel_, if a doubt arises in 
connection with a rabbinic ordinance, leniency is built into the structure
under certain circumstances).

C) includes those practices which have developed over the centuries, not
mentioned in either the Bible or the Talmud. 

Each of these categories has its own set of rules, but the distinctions, and
the practical ramifications of those distinctions are clearly defined in
the Talmud. To blur those differences is to misunderstand Jewish law.

However, there are certain precepts which require no interpretation
whatsoever. Forbidden animals is one example; (male) homosexuality another --
both have now been formally rejected by the Reform movement. 

>  What is imutable?  I don't know,

Really? Would Monotheism qualify? Murder? Theft?

Jem

  There is nothing that is immutable as far as Judaism is concerned.  
  
  We do tend to keep a lot of our symbolism, but over the millenia we've
  significantly modified both practices and beliefs and attached the new
  ones to the old symbols.
  
  From time to time things get codified as people attempt to settle things
  "once and for all" but eventually we find ways around the limitations of
  the codes.  (One of the most effective ways of doing this was the
  invention of the oral Torah, which was a way of getting around some of
  the more difficult constraints in the Humash.  It also provided a method
  of handling the contradictions created by taking a text composed of
  multiple sources--I refer to the Humash--and treating it as a unitary
  document.)
  
  In the last few centuries we've been involved in a struggle to determine
  who has the authority to effect change and how to do it (keep halacha,
  change halacha, consider halacha but don't consider it binding, ignore
  halacha).  The result is far from clear.  Most Jews have opted for a
  non-Orthodox option, but it is not certain that they can turn this into a
  continuing cultural trend.  Recently, Orthodoxy has been proportionately
  more successful in transmitting its form of Judaism from generation to
  generation, but this was only after wholesale desertions from Orthodoxy
  over the last century.
  
  Many of these issues were discussed extensively in an earlier series of
  notes and the press of work is limiting my noting time, so I'll have to
  suggest people refer to those for more info.  [ Find almost any series of
  notes that has contributions by both gem and me :^) ]
  
  					Aaron

Re: .6

Several empty platitudes, but no specific examples. Please refute my points 
individually. Tefillin [phylacteries, as if that translation helps for any-
one who's never heard of them before :)], mikvaot [ritual baths], tallitot
[prayer shawls] were all found on Metzada. Perhaps you can inform me of
a member of the Sanhedrin [Great Court in ancient Jerusalem] who was 
arguably homosexual?

>  From time to time things get codified as people attempt to settle things
>  "once and for all" but eventually we find ways around the limitations of
>  the codes.

Please present evidence.

> Recently, Orthodoxy has been proportionately
>  more successful in transmitting its form of Judaism from generation to
>  generation, but this was only after wholesale desertions from Orthodoxy
>  over the last century.

Grasping for straws. It should surprise no one that there were deserters
especially among the first naive generations to encounter Emancipation and 
Enlightenment. Nobody ever said that Torah observance is easy. But if 
even a few of their descendants who have tasted the best of Western culture 
choose to retain, or return to the practices of their ancestors, despite the 
difficulty, this speaks volumes of the Torah's resiliancy in the face of the 
most diverse foes.

Not a few have chosen to retain/return, but many. If it's gay clergy one's
after, why not be a Unitarian? You need not even accept the divinity of Jesus!
Ethnicity? Cultural backgrounds? Come, come. Those who seek continuity look
to history. Those who sense the uniqueness of the Jewish creed and experience
seek the source of that uniqueness, and remain unimpressed by those to whom
compromise comprises the be-all and end-all of Jewish theology. 

>  There is nothing that is immutable as far as Judaism is concerned.  

Then why, in G-d's name, BE JEWISH?!

Jem

	I'm afraid that the only thing that is absolute in Judaism is that
everybody agrees to disagree about everything.  To paraphrase the old First
Amendment defense:  I may argue every point about your ideas of what Judaism and
Jewishness may be, but I will defend to the utmost your right to hold and defend
those ideas.

-----

	Now to the specific topic of accepting homosexual rabbis.  A few points:

1.  Do you, with a straight face, assert that there have never been homosexual
rabbis?  That's pretty hard to believe, given what is known about homosexuality.

2.  Since Lev. 18:22 is clearly aimed at male homosexuality, does that mean that
lesbians are OK?  In fact, taking a literal view, since the prohibition is not 
to lie with men as with women, can women read this verse as a prohibition of
heterosexuality?  :-) :-)  (I realize this gets into a separate rathole of 
whether the commandments are equally binding on both sexes, and how much is
intended by the male orientation of the Torah's grammar.)

3.  If lesbians are OK, then is it OK for female rabbis to be homosexuals?  I
know that such persons exist.  (This is another rathole--what is the basis for
excluding women from the rabbinate, anyway?)

-----

	Have fun with that one!  And Shabbat Shalom!

		David

Re: .7

>Please present evidence.

  I refer people to our previous exchanges.
  
>Grasping for straws. It should surprise no one that there were deserters
  
  The data I have seen indicate that it was more like wholesale
  abandonment.  By the 1930s most of *East* European Jewry was Socialist.
  
>                                                                   But if 
>even a few of their descendants who have tasted the best of Western culture 
>choose to retain, or return to the practices of their ancestors, despite the 
>difficulty, this speaks volumes of the Torah's resiliancy in the face of the 
>most diverse foes.
  
  You could say the same about Samaritans and Karaites.
  
>Then why, in G-d's name, BE JEWISH?!

  Why not?  I don't see it as a burden to be borne only because I believe
  in some absolute, but something that I enjoy, that I find a source of
  wisdom, a basis for community, and that gives me a feeling for who I am.
  If you say that one does not have to be Jewish to find these things, you
  are quite right, but as it happens, I am and I feel good about being
  Jewish and I have no interest in being anything else.
  
  					Aaron
  

Re: .9

>  The data I have seen indicate that it was more like wholesale
>  abandonment.  By the 1930s most of *East* European Jewry was Socialist.

Absolutely. But again, the fact that there is *today* a higher proportion
of Torah-observant Jews in New York than in Warsaw during the two World
Wars, indicates that the tide has not only been stemmed, but reversed.

>  You could say the same about Samaritans and Karaites.

You can do better than that, Aaron. The handful of Samaritans have been
isolated in communities surrounding Mt. Gerizim for thousands of years 
(and today a few in Holon). I've heard of no new theological works in
recent centuries, much less new converts. On the contrary, recent trends
have been for Samaritans to increasingly intermarry with the Jewish pop-
ulation. The same holds true for the Karaites (several hundred of them 
still exist in Israel and Egypt).

>>Then why, in G-d's name, BE JEWISH?!

>  If you say that one does not have to be Jewish to find these things, you
>  are quite right, but as it happens, I am and I feel good about being
>  Jewish and I have no interest in being anything else.

But this question is not one that only I ask. This is the question that
countless young Jews across the country ask themselves, and who over-
whelmingly and resoundingly have answered in a different manner than yourself,
based on intermarriage and synagogue attendance statistics. This is a question
that must be faced, if there is to survive a Jewish community outside of
Borough Park and Lakewood into the next century. If even those who "enjoy"
their Judaism can find no substantive differentiation between their brand
of Judaism and the predominant religion, the former is doomed.

Jem

RE:               <<< Note 957.9 by CASP::SEIDMAN "Aaron Seidman" >>>
    
>  The data I have seen indicate that it was more like wholesale
>  abandonment.  By the 1930s most of *East* European Jewry was Socialist.
    
    Well, you should say "most of the POLITICALLY ACTIVE East European Jews".
    Most of E-European Jews were apolitical and traditional (to the extent
    that they were allowed to be by the gov-ts ruling E-E countries at the
    time).
    
    Alex

Re. .0

>The Central Conference of American Rabbis voted last week to 
 accept homosexuals as Reform rabbis.<

Is procreation out now, is the plan now follow the leader if you feel like
it?

>I pose the following question in all sincerity: what, if anything, is "central"
 to Judaism, that cannot be changed?<

In addition to the earlier stated, Torah and tradition I would add
the family unit.

According to Mosaic law, homosexuality is an anathema and would
destroy the fabric of society.  Halachah says one must be tolerant
of aberrant behavior provided there is no injury to the community.
So from your degree of orthodoxy would your attitude be drawn.
I feel that the traditional family unit is at the core of Jewish 
life and the heart of its survival.  I dare say, any individual
is capable of piety of the greatest magnitude, however, a homosexual 
rabbi, a contradiction in values, could never be considered or revered 
as a pious Jew.  

just my 2 shekels worth
Bernice    

    RE: 957.10
    
>Absolutely. But again, the fact that there is *today* a higher proportion
>of Torah-observant Jews in New York than in Warsaw during the two World
>Wars, indicates that the tide has not only been stemmed, but reversed.
    
    I'm not sure what we are arguing about.  You asked for a liberal view
    and I gave it.  I pointed out that most Jews in the world today are not
    Orthodox, which is true (we discussed demographics extensively in
    earlier notes).  I did not say that Orthodoxy was doomed, I said that
    there was a question whether Orthodox or liberal Judaism would emerge
    as the dominant form in the future.  That you have confidence in the
    future of Orthodoxy I understand, but confidence is not proof.  I was
    not and am not trying to bash Orthodoxy, but to point out that this is
    an open question.

    The question that you raised was whether there is anything immutable in
    Judaism and I answered no.  You suggested that this means that I find
    no substantive differentiation between my "brand of Judaism and the
    predominant religion."
    
    One could posit the premise in reverse:
    
         Many religions of all sorts claim to know something that is True
         and Immutable.  Other than the fact that Orthodox Judaism differs
         in the specifics of it's claim, how is it different from other
         fundamentalist religions?  Each has "proof" that it is correct. 
         How, in fact, can I tell which religious claim (if any) is "True?"  
    
    I've said in other notes that I do not think of Judaism as a religion,
    but rather a civilization with a strong religious component, which sets
    it off in a significant way from Christianity and other religions. 
    To me this difference is more significant than the religious
    difference.
    
    					Aaron
    
    
    
    
    

    There is another issue: the distinction between a sexual orientation
    (i.e. desires) and sexual expression (i.e. acts).
    
    While Christian theology tends to see desire as sin ("he who has lusted
    in his heard has committed adultery"), I thought Judaism in general
    was more concerned with expression, and discounted internal emotional
    states: this leads me to believe that allowing a celibate person whose
    sexual orientation was homosexual to be a rabbi might not count as
    contravening the Law against homosexual acts.
    
    Could some more learned person comment on the difference (if any) in
    the Law between a desire-leading-to-no-act and an act?
    
    			-John Bishop

It is my understanding that the first mitzvah (commandment) in the Torah
is "be fruitful and multiply". A person who chooses to be celibate is
ignoring one of the commandments.

It is true that acts are more important than thoughts in Judaism. It is
felt that doing the right thing for the wrong reason is OK (on the bottom
rung of the ladder heaven, so to speak). It is also felt that if a person
continues to perform the correct acts, the correct thoughts will follow
eventually. I'm sorry, my knowlege is insufficient to go into any greater
depth than this.

Dave

       It seems to me that both the family and 'be fruitful and multiply'
       issues are red herrings: there is no reason that homosexual
       couples cannot be the core of a family, and it is not at all
       uncommon for lesbian couples to bear and raise children.  The
       primary obstacles are social: namely, the reluctance of some
       people in the community to accept alternative lifestyles as valid.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    re .16
    
    I think you may misunderstand the various objections:
    
    1.	The theological: "The Creator of the Universe told us not to.
    	The fact that we don't understand why is immaterial"
    
    2.	The structural: "Homosexuality is an exception to the common
    	rule--we don't like exceptions"
    
    3.	The functional: "Homosexual men don't have children, and thus
    	become a burden on the community when old--so let's prevent
    	that burden"
    
    4.  The aesthetic: "It's just so ugly"
    
    5.	The traditional: "We don't do things that way"
    
    6.	Theological II: "Be fruitful" (as pointed out, "individually"
    	has to be added here, and then you wind up with child-bearing
    	as a requirement for all, even the sterile).
    
    "Alternative lifestyles" begs the question for most believers--their
    beliefs imply that lifestyles which are not "right" must be "wrong",
    not just an "alternative".  
    
    While I sympathize with your position (what do I care what other people
    do on their free time as long as it doesn't hurt me?), your point only
    addresses one of the issues above.
    
    			-John Bishop

Re: .12 

You're absolutely right about the centrality of the nuclear family to Jewish 
existence, Bernice. Bear in mind, however, that homosexual acts can be 
performed even by married men with children, and is just as forbidden. IOW,
according to this logic "orthodox" (how's that for a twist?) homosexuals
might be barred from the rabbinate, while bisexuals would be acceptable.

Re: .13

Aaron, as an aside, even if a topic has been touched upon previously, this does
not necessarily mean that it's been completely exhausted, or that the views of
the (obviously open-minded :) participants have not changed. There are 
(hopefully) constantly new angles to be explored, and (even more hope-
fully), we are not afraid to venture into such exploration. _Ain_beit_
midrash_be'lo_chidush_ [any learning worthy of the name must include 
novel approaches].

>         Many religions of all sorts claim to know something that is True
>         and Immutable.  Other than the fact that Orthodox Judaism differs
>         in the specifics of it's claim, how is it different from other
>         fundamentalist religions? 

There is no such thing as a "generic" religion. Without the "specifics"
of a faith, there is no basis for understanding it. A "sense of community,"
on the other hand, is not peculiar to any given creed, nor indeed does one need
to be associated with ANY religion to feel a sense of belonging. One who
is convinced of the "Truth" of a given confession, and who is willing to 
sometimes sacrifice comforts and (G-d forbid) more for its sake, is likely to 
transmit that feeling to his progeny. On the other hand, the person who is
not convinced of such "Truth," but instead is satisfied with "good feelings"
and "enjoyment," is likely as not to find that his offspring satisfy those 
desires in a very different manner than himself.

>    I've said in other notes that I do not think of Judaism as a religion,
>    but rather a civilization with a strong religious component, which sets
>    it off in a significant way from Christianity and other religions. 
>    To me this difference is more significant than the religious
>    difference.

The operative phrase here is "to me." In my opinion (and I admit *that*
is the operative phrase here :) this is an ivory-tower approach with little
chance of ensuring Jewish continuity.

Re: .14

>    Could some more learned person comment on the difference (if any) in
>    the Law between a desire-leading-to-no-act and an act?

I don't know about a "learned person," but I'll give it a shot:

>    While Christian theology tends to see desire as sin ("he who has lusted
>    in his heard has committed adultery"), I thought Judaism in general
>    was more concerned with expression, and discounted internal emotional
>    states:

Thoughts are not "discounted" completely, but in terms of *punishment* by
a _beit_din_ [religious court], the Talmud states, _lav_she'ein_bo_ma'aseh_
ein_lokin_alav_ [a negative injunction which is transgressed without "action" 
does not carry a penalty of lashes]. This includes not only meditation, but
even speech (e.g. Deut. 24:5 prohibits muzzling an ox while it treads grain,
but one who yells at the ox to prevent it from eating [_chasima_be'kol_] is
not culpable. Likewise, the eight and ninth commandments of the Decalogue (Do
not desire...), are not transgressed until one acts upon those desires. 

(Adin Steinsaltz has an excellent article on the Jewish conception of
"sin," contrasting it with that of other religions. The gist is that 
there is no independent sinful entity in Judaism, just the absence of
_mitzva_.)

>this leads me to believe that allowing a celibate person whose
>    sexual orientation was homosexual to be a rabbi might not count as
>    contravening the Law against homosexual acts.

Right.

Re: .15

>It is my understanding that the first mitzvah (commandment) in the Torah
>is "be fruitful and multiply". A person who chooses to be celibate is
>ignoring one of the commandments.

Correct, but the question addressed the celibate homosexual vis-a-vis the 
prohibition against homosexuality. 

BTW, there is an important distinction in Rabbinic literature between 
the non-fulfillment of a positive precept, as opposed the transgression of
a negative one. The latter is considered more severe, in that an action
must be taken to accomplish the deed, whereas in the former non-performance is 
the default. Thus, the failure of the homosexual to produce offspring is 
secondary to his active commission of what is termed an "abomination."

> It is
>felt that doing the right thing for the wrong reason is OK (on the bottom
>rung of the ladder heaven, so to speak). It is also felt that if a person
>continues to perform the correct acts, the correct thoughts will follow
>eventually. 

"An individual should engage in _mitzva_ performance and Torah study even
with ulterior motives, since from base motivation one graduates to true
sincerity." Maimonides therefore recommends giving children nuts and sweets
when they study, in the hope that they will eventually internalize the lessons
and not require such "bribes." Fulfilling the commandments even for the sake
of an ultimate Divine reward, or conversely, for fear of retribution, is not
the "top rung," but this is for another note.

Re: .16

>       It seems to me that both the family and 'be fruitful and multiply'
>       issues are red herrings: 
 
Actually, I agree, and frankly, Rabbi Kahn (quoted in base note) is just 
being honest when he says that they've ignored Leviticus (not to mention
the other four Books) before, and why should they suddenly become "funda-
mentalist" on this issue. If one "picks and chooses" from the rest of the
Torah, there is really no reason to stop at this precept, or for that matter,
"Hear O Israel...the L-rd is One." 

On the other hand, for those who do consistently observe the commandments,
the verse is anything but irrelevant, it is pivotal. The other reasons
you (and John, in .17) list are all subjective. For those who believe 
that the Torah is the Word of G-d, however, the commandments are objective
demands which must be fulfilled.

Re: .17

Good analysis. 

Jem

    RE: 957.18
    
    Gem,
    
    I agree that topics that have been discussed before may be worth
    revisiting, but--given other demands on my time, such as work--only
    if we say something new.
    
    Maybe it is also that I am comfortable with a variety of approaches to
    Judaism; I feel quite comfortable with your continuing to practice it
    in the way that you feel is right for you.  If other Jews wish to
    follow your path, that's fine with me.  As a Reconstructionist I'm even
    more of a minority among Jews than you, although at the moment I think
    we are growing proportionally at the fastest rate of any movement.
    (That's easy to do when absolute numbers are small.)
    
>There is no such thing as a "generic" religion. Without the "specifics"
>of a faith, there is no basis for understanding it. A "sense of community,"
>on the other hand, is not peculiar to any given creed
    
    There is no more a "generic" community than there is a "generic"
    religion.  My contention is that it is the community that is the source
    of the religion; religion is one of the ways a community expresses its
    values and transmits them.  Beliefs and values are important to the
    continuity of any community, and they are propagated and transmitted by
    the community--they do not exist in a vacuum.  People do not have to
    believe in a deity in order to sacrifice for their community.  In
    particular, most people will sacrifice for family before they will
    sacrifice for abstract ideals, and one of the things that sets Jews
    apart from "religious" groups is that sense of all being part of the
    same family.
    
>The operative phrase here is "to me." In my opinion (and I admit *that*
>is the operative phrase here :) 
    
    We agree on something :^)
    
>                                this is an ivory-tower approach with little
>chance of ensuring Jewish continuity.
    
    It may be, but I don't think so.  I think that it is precisely what has
    preserved us through the millenia.  Obviously, this is something on
    which we do not agree.  Our great-great-grandchildren will know which
    of us was right.
    
    					Aaron

    G-d is most central of all to Judaism.  At the seder table we pour a 
    glass of wine for the prophet, Elijah to remind us of his lesson that we 
    must worship only G-d and not Baal.  
    
    Hebrew has to be mentioned as an essential ingredient in the preservation
    of Judaism.  Jewish law and history, not to mention the Torah, would be 
    lost if it weren't for our language (too much is lost in the
    translation).  Also, the kibbutzim and life in general in Israel needs
    a common language to communicate to an immigrant as well as sabra 
    population. 

    Bernice
    

Re: .19

>    There is no more a "generic" community than there is a "generic"
>    religion.

Please define "community." The term is commonly used in two senses
(both of which are found in the dictionary):

(a) People with common interests *living in a particular area*.

(b) A body of persons having a common history, or common social, economic 
    or political interests.

Regarding (a), the key is geography: i.e., people sharing a neighborhood
naturally have common practical interests, and those of an activist bent
tend to join forces for the common good. *This is a generic value*. That
is, it can be transplanted from nearly any town or hamlet to any other,
without changing in substance.

I assume then, you're referring to a (b) type definition. It certainly is 
true that Jews share a common history, and, like other ethnic groups, often
feel an acute sense of pride in that heritage. However, this history-based
Jewishness is predicated on solid Jewish education, wherein the student is
instilled with a sense of awe at the unique standing of the Jewish people
in world history. Today, a majority of Jewish children receive no Jewish
education whatsoever. As for Temple schools, which account for 90% of such
education in the U.S., we've discussed before how children emerge from such
institutions with a thoroughly confused, farcical, and by definition childish 
(since 97% "graduate" at age 13) view of Judaism. There is little
statistical difference between the Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist
denominations on this score (that I know of). That is, those
children of such background who do go to "Talmud Torah," will almost to a
person receive the kind of  paltry, superficial "education" just described.
From where, then, is their "sense of history" supposed to derive? Osmosis? 

If you have a different definition, please provide it.

>  Beliefs and values are important to the
>    continuity of any community, and they are propagated and transmitted by
>    the community--they do not exist in a vacuum.

Again, hypothetically possible, but existing only in theory. THE AVERAGE
AMERICAN JEWISH CHILD IS APATHETIC AT BEST. If you wish to refute this 
assertion, please do so (with references). Otherwise, please deal directly 
with the *reality* of the situation. 

> In
>    particular, most people will sacrifice for family before they will
>    sacrifice for abstract ideals, and one of the things that sets Jews
>    apart from "religious" groups is that sense of all being part of the
>    same family.

How do you propose that this "sense" be transmitted? I hate to keep 
harping on "reality," but the kid who goes to a public school and then 
continues on to college, has little opportunity to think about Jewish
"abstract ideals," and if he does, they are usually negative ones ("why
do I have to waste a whole afternoon with the Jewish garbage?"). 

Actually, you might have hit upon the heart of our disagreement here.
To many Jews, the Torah's ideals are not in the least bit "abstract."
They are principles by which one's daily life is guided and structured.
For these, those ideals are just as concrete and real as family
relationships, and as dear. From those who do not view the Torah as
a guide for everyday living, not to mention those who have scant
knowledge of its dictates through no fault of their own, one would hardly 
expect sacrifice for its sake. By the same token, they will likely transmit 
an even further diluted message to their children.  

>>                                this is an ivory-tower approach with little
>>chance of ensuring Jewish continuity.
>    
>    It may be, but I don't think so.  I think that it is precisely what has
>    preserved us through the millenia.

Assuming that we're still talking Jewish history, I certainly won't argue 
against its importance. But it's like the mother who lectures her child on
the importance of wearing a hat in the snow; the next day he goes out with
his ski-cap firmly in place... but no coat!  Jewish "civilization," "history,"
"community"... are all important, but they are merely pieces of a larger
puzzle. 

>  Obviously, this is something on
>    which we do not agree.

You may not personally believe in G-d, but certainly you don't imply
that such belief has been less than crucial to Jewish existence for 
thousands of years!

Jem

Copied without permission from The Boston Herald, Thursday, July 26, 1990

Judaism and gays:  A faith divided 
by Don Feder

Barney Frank, and his lifestyle, are the subject of considerable debate
in Jewish circles.  One commentator delineates the unbridgeable chasm
which separates the Jewish ethic from homoerotic culture.

While the National Association of Reform Rabbis has determined to ordain 
homosexuals, an Orthodox rabbinic court announced it had excommunicated
the gay Massachusetts congressman for "desecrating the name of G-d and
the Jewish people".

Orthodox Judaism bases its stand on the Biblical injunction against 
homosexuality.  Reform counters that the Jewish faith has always stressed
tolerance and compassion.

Into the fray steps Dennis Prager - author, lecturer and probably the most
perceptive Jewish thinker in America today.  Yeshiva educated, Prager is 
the co-author of two highly acclaimed books about Judaism, and gives more
than 200 lectures a year to largely Jewish audiences.  In the latest
installment of his Los Angeles-based newsletter, "Ultimate Issues," he
confronts the controversy head on.

Prager begins by noting that Judaism alone among religions of the ancient
world opposed homosexuality.  In Greece and Rome, among the Phoenicians
and Canaanites, a man's preference for other men, or boys, was of no more
consequence than another's choice of beef over mutton.

Judaism was the first religion to insist that sex be confined to marital 
relations.  The Torah excoriates homosexual acts, calling them an 
"abomination," a term reserved for the gravest offenses:  idolatry, human 
sacrifice, ritual prostitution.  The Torah warned Jews that if they
followed the customs of the Canaanites, sodomy among them, the holy land
they were about to inherit would "vomit them out."

Prager observes that Judaism started a moral revolution, later carried
forward by Christianity, in demanding that sex be sanctified, raised from 
an animal to a spiritual plane.  By sublimating man's "polymorphous sex
drive," Judeo-Christian ethics made civilization possible.

By insisting that romantic love could be found only in marriage, it began
the process of raising the status of women from breeding animal to fully
human.  It's no coincidence that in those societies where homosexuality 
was and is widespread (Ancient Greece, the Arab world today), "women were 
relegated to society's periphery."

While he believes that homosexuals deserve understanding, Prager firmly
opposes the central idea of the gay rights movement:  social sanction for
homosexuality.

"It is impossible for Judaism to make peace with homosexuality," Prager 
writes, "because homosexuality denies many of Judaism's most fundamental
values.  It denies life; it denies G-d's express desire that men and 
women cohabit; and it denies the root structure of Judaism's wish for 
all mankind, the family."

Remember the old joke:  G-d created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
No kidding, says Prager.  As His reason for forming Eve, the Bible 
explains:  "It is not good for man to be alone."  Adds Prager:  "Now, 
presumably, in order to solve the problem of man's aloneness, G-d could 
have created another man, or even a community of men ...Man's solitude 
was not a function of his not being with other people; it was a function 
of his being without a woman."

Judaism, says Prager, worries about the social consequences of men 
without women:  the unrestrained sexuality, the violence, the live-for-
the-moment ethos.  Unlike other religions, far from esteeming celibacy,
Judaism holds it a sin.  In ancient Israel, an unmarried man could not 
become the high priest.  A man without children couldn't serve on the
supreme religious tribunal - all a testament to Judaism's belief in
the humanizing qualities of marriage and families.

"The union of male and female is not merely some lovely ideal; it is the 
essence of the Jewish outlook on becoming human.  To deny it is 
tantamount to denying a primary purpose of life," Prager observes.

To the claim that homosexuals are simply following their nature, Prager
responds that the preponderance of evidence contradicts this.  Even if 
it is true that certain individuals are thus inclined, so what?  
Doubtless, some are inclined to adultery, seeking sex with children and 
other perversions.  As the chief rabbi of the United Kingdom explained
in his paper on AIDS, the bedrock of Jewish moral teaching is on man
transcending his nature.

In those societies where homosexuality was condoned, (such as Athens, 
which idealized masculine nudity and wrote homoerotic poetry) the
practice flourished.  Prager warns:  "A society's values, much more 
than individual tendencies, determine the extent of homosexuality in
that society."  Hence the peril of gay rights laws, legal sanction for
gay marriage and presenting homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle
in school curriculum.

Prager ends with a call for Judaism to return to its historic mission.
That America's elite believes all forms of sexual behavior are equally
valid should matter no more than the moral judgments of the ancient
Greeks and Romans.  "It is the task of Judaism to be a light unto the
nations, not to follow the nations' darkness," Prager declares.  Did I
say he was one of the most discerning Jewish thinkers?  He's also one
of the most courageous.

    Re: .22
    
    Great article, Bernice, thanks for tking the time to type it.
    
    BTW, does anyone know where to get Prager's publication?
    
    Jem

    .22> By sublimating man's "polymorphous sex drive," Judeo-Christian
    .22> ethics made civilization possible.
    
    Ancient Egypt, Old China, Japan, India and others were not
    civilizations?
    
    		-John Bishop

Re: .24

>    Ancient Egypt, Old China, Japan, India and others were not
>    civilizations?

This is a nit which really doesn't affeact the main thrust of Prager's
argument, and which actually strengthen the contention that homosexuality
is an abnormal behavior. Out of curiosity, what are your sources?

Jem

re .23:

Don Feinberg entered a Prager article here a while ago, and I believe he
gave an address.

    I do not know anything about ancient Japan, but where are civilizations
    of ancient Egypt, Old China and India now?

.27>    I do not know anything about ancient Japan, but where are civilizations
.27>    of ancient Egypt, Old China and India now?

	I do know a little about Japan's history.  The civilization there traces
back about 2600 years through a single (now only symbolic) monarchy.  The
civilization is traditional, rule-bound, and not very tolerant of differences or
outside influences.
  All members of society are expected to marry and have
children in what we would refer to as traditional families.

	What is interesting is that Japanese society has remained homogeneous
(some would say rigid) without strong religious influence.  Religion there is a
somewhat anarchic mix of Buddhism and Shinto, with doses of Christianity and the
Chinese religions thrown in.  It seems, though, that the overwhelming pressure
to conform is much more a secular one.  

	It's also interesting that government there plays a relatively minor 
direct role in this area, although one could argue that by  providing high 
quality and stable education, social welfare, and economic direction, the 
government provides a healthy environment for family life.

	Whatever your opinion of Japanese society, it has an outstanding record
of achievement in arts, literature, and philosophy, as well as in the obvious
areas of economics, finance, and (not so praiseworthy) the military.

	I suppose one could make similar arguments for the long-established
civilizations in India and China, both of which extend back over 3000 years.  (I
don't know as much about them.)  Both have been damaged in recent history by
military and economic dominance from the outside, a fate Japan managed to escape
by military strength and several centuries of self-imposed isolation.  Both
India and China do have well-established traditional family structures, too, 
with corresponding ancient religious traditions.

	Don't get me wrong--I'm extremely proud of the role and contribution of
Judaism as a major influence on morality and ethical behavior.  But there are
parallel, equally influential and long-standing systems that have just as much
history, strength, and relevance in their part of the world as ours does in
ours.

	As for Egypt, its ancient civilization apparently did not have the 
strengths to survive.  First Greece and Rome dominated with military, economic,
and philosophical power, then Christianity and Islam (drawing somewhat on 
Judaism) added religious fervor.  Those were all competing systems withing the
same "world", whereas India, China, and Japan remained in separate "worlds" 
until recently.

	What remains to be understood, of course, is the extent of homosexuality
in each of these ancient societies.  In societies where it is repressed (whether
officially or through societal pressure), it still exists, and the net result is
likely greater in psychological suffering.  How would you like to be gay in
Israel, in a society which places such emphasis on traditional families, having
kids, and (my opinion) lots of macho behavior?

	The following is my personal opinion only:  As usual with Dennis
Prager, I agree with him to a point.  While I think anybody should have the
freedom to sexual practices (as long as it doesn't cause harm to others), I have
yet to see any proof that any "alternative lifestyle" has much to offer outside
of its own sphere.  Compare this to the influence of what Prager calls "ethnic
monotheism".  (The point where I disagree with Prager is when he gets into 
"You'd better not criticize anything about Israel" and "Don't mess with anything
traditional" arguments.)

		David

    Perhaps I should have written a longer note initially--it seems
    people mis-understood my quick comment.
    
    Let J = "Judeo-Christian sexual morality"
    
    Prager is reported as saying "J made civilization possible", logically
    equivalent to "if no J, then no civilization".
    
    But there are examples of civilization without J.
    
    Therefore Prager's reported statement is wrong.
    
    This could either be a serious lack of historical and geographical 
    knowledge on Prager's part or a failure on the reporter's part to
    convey the context of the remark.
    
    I did not say that the example civilizations had no sexual morality,
    nor that they supported or encouraged homosexuality.  But they clearly
    are/were NOT Judeo-Christian.
    
    			-John Bishop

RE:                      <<< Note 957.29 by MINAR::BISHOP >>>
>    Let J = "Judeo-Christian sexual morality"
    
>    Prager is reported as saying "J made civilization possible", logically
>    equivalent to "if no J, then no civilization".
    
>    But there are examples of civilization without J.
    
    Not exactly. You have taken the statement out of context, John. (Tsk-tsk)
    The original paragraph is:
    
``Prager observes that Judaism started a moral revolution, later carried
  forward by Christianity, in demanding that sex be sanctified, raised from 
  an animal to a spiritual plane.  By sublimating man's "polymorphous sex
  drive," Judeo-Christian ethics made civilization possible.''

    As you can see, it is the sublimation of the "polymorphous sex drive"
    that started a moral revolution enabling civilization. Nowhere is
    it stated that J-C ethics have monopoly on civilization.
    
    Unless you can exibit a civilization whose sexual norms are on an
    "animal plane", your logic is faulty. (And this is without even
    pointing out the flaw of your "logical equivalence".)
    
    Alex

    Actually, eating with your hands instead of troughing it up with your
    mouth or feet made civilization possible.  As proof, please present any
    civilization where people regularly eat from a trough with their hands
    behind their back.  Pie-eating contests are a terrible perversion which
    must, of course, be banned lest civilization be destroyed!
    
    From what is known about sexual preference, different populations with
    very different characteristics tend to have similar distributions of
    hetero- and homo- preferences.  No society has every had a
    preponderance of homosexuality; none has been free of it.  Greece, of
    course, was unusual in its public preference for (a rather strange
    subset of) the practice, but that per se didn't seem to bring the
    society down.
    
    Prager's imputed causality is utterly undemonstrated in the instant
    case.

    re .30
    
    When I read that quote (which I quoted in my first note), the meaning
    I get from it is that civilization was not possible until man's sex
    drive was sublimated.  Further, it says that that sublimation was done
    by Judeo-Christian ethics.
    
    I still maintain that that is a claim that until Judeo-Christian ethics
    was created, civilization was not possible.  That claim is patently
    false.
    
    The context of the original statement is the ancient world of about 
    400 BC (Prager mentions Classical Greece, for example).  His statement
    is a claim that the Athens of 400 BC was not a civilization.  Most
    historians of art, literature or philosophy would disagree.
    
    Now, I've said before that I'm not claiming that other civilizations
    are polymorphous-perverse--I'm just picking a nit about the apparent
    ignorance or sophistry of Prager's quote or the lack of capability
    on the part of the reporter.
    
    I'm not sure what you mean by "the flaw of <my> logical equivalence".
    It's standard boolean algebra:
    
    A	B    A (and only A) causes B
    1	1	1
    1	0	0
    0	1	0
    0	0	1
    
    "A (and only A) causes B" is the same as "If not A then not B else B"
    
    Prager says "Only J causes civ", so that's the same as "if no J then no
    civ".
    
    			-John Bishop

    re .31

    Incidentally, I am not particularly impressed with the article in
    question. Actually I was going to use your "poor eating habits" example
    myself. My point is that one should not read into it what it does not say.

    re .32

    John, you need to re-read the quote in question. It does not state
    "Only J causes civ", and I ask you again not take words out of the
    context, else we're not going to get anywhere.  The observation in the
    offending paragraph is ``...that Judaism started  _a_ moral revolution,
    later carried forward by Christianity...'', clearly it is not _the_
    moral revolution that enabled civilization.

    Now to your "logical equivalence flaw". You first said:
    
>    Prager is reported as saying "J made civilization possible", logically
>    equivalent to "if no J, then no civilization"

    Assume for the sake of argument that the article states unequivocally
    "J made civilization possible". This statement cannot be reasonably
    modeled in the propositional calculus as "if no J, then no civilization".
    You will need to resort to for example temporal logic to do justice
    to causality. Notice the nonsense created by equating ``hunger made
    people die'' with ``if no hunger then people don't die''.

    I suspect you noticed this flaw yourself, for in .32 you change to
    
>    "A (and only A) causes B" is the same as "If not A then not B else B"

    with a supporting truth table. Congratulations, you invented the 
    biconditional! :-)
    
    Now in "standard boolean algebra" "if no J, then no civilization" is
    (~J -> ~C) which is not the same as the biconditional (J <-> C). 
    So which is it? Clearly your .29 has a logical flaw.

    Alex

    I read "made civilization possible" as "if and only if".
    That was the source of all this nit-picking.
    
    For the rest, I'd have to see a set of truth tables, as 
    "if X then Y" is missing the "else" part which distiguishes
    between the various implication cases:
    
    A	B  A->B B->A  A<->B ~A ~B (~A)->(~B) "if ~A then ~B"
    0	0   1	 1	1    1	1     1		     1
    0	1   1	 0	0    1	0     0		     0
    1	0   0	 1	0    0	1     1		     ?
    1	1   1	 1	1    0	0     0		     ?
    
    Since this is a nit, it may not be worth following up--I
    think we agree that all human cultures restrict sexual activity,
    but they differ on what they restrict; that all cultures must
    promote sufficient child-rearing to reproduce themselves (or they
    will die out); that some cultures encourage(d) male homosexuality
    and some don't (I don't know of any which encourage female homo-
    sexual behaviour, which is interesting in itself).
    
    The main argument of the article seemed to me to be that cultures
    which allow homosexual behaviour will fail to be real civilzations,
    a thesis I don't believe is supported by history.  Compare with the
    similiar claim that cultures which allow human sacrifice are doomed 
    to fail--it's more strongly backed (Aztecs, Pre-Roman Celts, Dahomey,
    Polynesia, pagan Norse, etc.--all cultures under a lot of stress).
    
    But this is also a side issue: the real issue is whether an active
    homosexual can be a rabbi.  If the objection is the prohibition on
    homosexual intercourse, then can a person of homosexual preference
    (but who refrains from homosexual intercourse) become a rabbi?
    If the objection is the lack of family life, what if such a person
    marrys (perhaps picking another homosexual of the opposite gender),
    and conceives children (either through the old-fashioned method or
    by artificial insemination or adoption)?
    
    		-John Bishop

    
    In response to the base note, The 1st commandment. 
    
    In response to the last few, give me a break!

>    BTW, does anyone know where to get Prager's publication?
    
	Ultimate Issues
	6020 Washington Blvd., Suite 2
	Culver City, CA  90232


don

Re: .31

>    Actually, eating with your hands instead of troughing it up with your
>    mouth or feet made civilization possible.  As proof, please present any
>    civilization where people regularly eat from a trough with their hands
>    behind their back. 

Interesting example, in that G-d did instruct Gidon to choose his soldiers
(in the war against Midyan) based on those who cupped their hands to drink
the water, rather than those who "lapped" it "as a dog laps" (Judges 7).
However, this is not one of the cardinal 613 Commandments of the Torah,
which is the sole criterion for considering homosexuality a sin. As I've
said before, all other arguments against (or in defense of) it are anci-
llary and subjective.

Re: .34

> If the objection is the prohibition on
>    homosexual intercourse, then can a person of homosexual preference
>    (but who refrains from homosexual intercourse) become a rabbi?
>    If the objection is the lack of family life, what if such a person
>    marrys (perhaps picking another homosexual of the opposite gender),
>    and conceives children (either through the old-fashioned method or
>    by artificial insemination or adoption)?

These questions have already been addressed in 957.18 . Artificial insemination
and adoption are subjects for a different discussion.

Re: .35

>    In response to the base note, The 1st commandment. 

Are you referring to "be fruitful and multiply," or the first of the
Ten Commandments?

Re: .36

Thanks, Don.

Jem

    I'm not so sure you are going to be able to convince all people that
    "be fruitful and multiply" is a commandment that needs to be followed
    today and therefore one that prohibits homosexuality - a lot of people,
    like me, think this particular commandment has been fulfilled to excess
    for some time now, to the point where our planet can barely sustain all
    of us "fruitful humans" -- it seems unlikely that the (unknowable)
    intent was to fill up the earth with humanity until we are standing on
    top of one another, after all.
    
    Of course, *I* like to think that the intent was that we should
    colonize other planets and make them "fruitful", too - but I don't see
    much hope for that anymore; it looked like a more possible idea when I
    was a kid, in the Sputnik days.
    
    
    /Charlotte

re .38:

>    I'm not so sure you are going to be able to convince all people that
>    "be fruitful and multiply" is a commandment that needs to be followed
>    today and therefore one that prohibits homosexuality

    Male homosexuality is explicitly forbidden in the Torah, in very strong
    terms.  There's no need to derive it from "be fruitful and multiply."

>                                                           a lot of people,
>    like me, think this particular commandment has been fulfilled to excess
>    for some time now, to the point where our planet can barely sustain all
>    of us "fruitful humans"

    The number of Jews is declining due to our extremely low birth rate.
    Do you believe that this is desirable?

    I was talking about ( when I refered to the first commandment )
    that which says you will love G-d more than anything and have no
    false gods before Him.
    The 'being fruitful and multiply' was never intended.
    Severe cultural coliision, methinks. 

    RE: 957.21

    Just got back from vacation, so back to the debate :^)

    Jem, as you correctly perceive, I am referring to "a body of persons
    having a common history, or common social, economic  or political
    interests."

    We agree that the sense of community depends very much on the education
    that people receive, but education is received in many different ways,
    not all of them formal.  In fact, it is the informal education that one
    receives from family and community that is probably more critical to
    one's long term affiliation.  I admire some of the Orthodox communities
    I know precisely because they do such an excellent job of informal
    education.

    Don't misunderstand me; I think it is very important to develop first
    class educational institutions at all levels and to encourage people to
    attend them.  Children in our Reconstructionist havurah attend a
    variety of programs, including Conservative and Reform day schools,
    conservative after-school programs, and a "home-grown" educational
    program that several parents run because they feel none of the others
    meet the needs of their children.  We run several "internal" programs
    for our adult members, ranging from Maimonides' philosophy to basic
    Hebrew literacy.  Some members are taking graduate courses in Judaic
    studies.  We feel that one of the best ways to transmit Jewish values
    to our children is to study and practice Judaism ourselves.

    What does this mean for the next generation?  I don't know at this
    time.  I do know that we have quite a few second-generation
    Reconstructionists, as well as people who are the product of Orthodox
    day schools, Conservative after-school programs, Reform Sunday schools,
    and no Jewish education at all.  (One of the things we are proud of is
    that people who had had no education are now able to lead services,
    read Torah, and give very good divrei Torah.)  

    My point is that one does not have to be Orthodox to take Judaism
    seriously and to make it an integral part of one's life.  I will also
    say that one does not have to be non-Orthodox to question basic
    assumptions in Judaism.

>You may not personally believe in G-d, but certainly you don't imply
>that such belief has been less than crucial to Jewish existence for 
>thousands of years!

    I didn't say I didn't believe in God; I have said that I don't believe
    in a supernatural being.  This is, perhaps, a subject for another note.

    						Aaron

Re: .41

> In fact, it is the informal education that one
>    receives from family and community that is probably more critical to
>    one's long term affiliation.  I admire some of the Orthodox communities
>    I know precisely because they do such an excellent job of informal
>    education.

I certainly won't argue about the central influence one's home environment
has on his world outlook. But to spend time wondering if education or
environment is "more critical" is like puzzling over the chicken and egg 
question.

Imagine, if you will, a situation where the parents cannot 
fully commit to involvement in Jewish activities, but
nevertheless feel deeply about Jewish tradition. They may well be deterred
from sending their children to a day school for fear of being thought of
(or thinking of *themselves*) as "hypocrites." Force of habit, I 
believe, is one of the most insidious in the world. For many adults, the
daily routine is almost an addiction, and about as easy to break. A
person can *recognize* that his child would advance more quickly if he spent
more time studying Math with him, but would rather watch Rocket Roger with
a six-pack at his side. But he'll make sure that the kid goes to the best
school, and even hire a tutor for him if necessary -- as long as he doesn't
have to get off his easy-chair. He's not a hypocrite - he's just lazy, like
98.737% of the human race. Would it be better for both his child and himself
if he would straighten out his own act, and overturn 40 years of habit? 
Only a fool would deny it. But his reaction is correct and constructive -
whatever my faults, I've got to give the best to my kids. 

Jews whose personal observance leaves something to be desired should likewise
not use this as an excuse for not giving their children the very best Jewish
education possible. (And granted, giving *them* the education by no means
exempts *us* from introspecting, by any means. But is the world is less
than utopian, and if we wait until every condition is perfect before we send
our kids to school, they ain't never gonna go!)

>    My point is that one does not have to be Orthodox to take Judaism
>    seriously and to make it an integral part of one's life. 

And I fully agree that if this were the case generally, it would be a
much more positive situation than exists currently. (As for the "brand"
of religion practiced, my guess is that once Jews get "serious" they 
also will begin to seriously question why the rabbi is gay if the Torah
says... ,etc., etc.) 

But it is generally *not* the case. Most people would not even *consider*
joining an Orthodox community because "it's too hard," whereas the
perception is that non-Orthodox synagogues will demand less discomfort
(although the membership dues may be just a little higher). One's
degree of seriousness, to me, is defined by the amount of personal
comfort one is willing to sacrifice for an ideal perceived as "truth"
(whether there is an absolute truth or not is not the issue).
How many members of suburban congregations would actually refrain from,
say, driving on Shabbat *even if they were convinced that they were wrong*?

The statistics are as dismal as they are because most Jews are alot more
"serious" about their comfort-seeking than their truth-seeking (it sounds
as if your havura may be an exception, and if so, chazak ve'ematz; but
unfortunately the exception only proves the rule).

(BTW, I'll be away for a couple of weeks.)

Jem

    re: .42
    
  >                                    Most people would not even *consider*
  >joining an Orthodox community because "it's too hard,"
    
    People don't join an Orthodox community because they don't believe in
    the premises upon which Orthodoxy is based.  If they did, "hardness"
    would not be an issue.
    
    It may be easier for someone largely indifferent to Judaism to maintain
    an affiliation with a non-Orthodox institution, although I have known a
    number of people who paid dues to Orthodox synagogues that they rarely
    entered.  Frankly, I don't see too many non-Orthodox Jews subscribing
    to Orthodox beliefs in the foreseeable future.  (Some will, to be sure,
    but probably not significantly more than Orthodox Jews who come to
    reject Orthodoxy--a process that still goes on.)  Those who do not feel
    a personal commitment are unlikely to make any great effort to see that
    their children are well-educated Jewishly.
    
    I have no problem with Orthodox outreach programs, but I just don't see
    them offering a message that is that meaningful to most non-Orthodox
    Jews.  If we take the attitude that it has to be Orthodoxy or nothing,
    I fear that most Jews will opt for the latter.  There is a wide range
    of Jewish belief and practice; what is meaningful one Jew is not
    necessarily right for another.
    
    The fact is, we all need each other, both in terms of numbers and in
    terms of ideas.  There are tendencies at the periphery of all movements
    that disparage the others and discourage contact and communication, but
    isolation (whether among fundamentalist or among liberal Jews) is
    ultimately self-destructive of the isolationist sect and generally
    destructive of the Jewish people.
    
    Have a nice vacation, jem.
    
    					Aaron

	Why is there this identity crisi to begin with?  Jews are a nation, tied
mostly by blood relations and culture. Sometimes a person makes a conscious and
determined effort to become a Jew - and undertakes giur. What's a big deal? If
you put an emphasis on culture, or religion, the person may become effectively
non-Jewish by rejecting these. If you are Jewish by blood, just as if you are
French or Chinese or Arab - you are a Jew forever, unless you make a conscious
and determined effort to stop being a Jew - and undertake "negative" giur... I
never have, and never will understand why Jews are a religious group in USA.
Why can't we define ourselves as an ethnic group with a strong religious
identity? Then we wouldn't have these Orthodox-vs.-Reform battles...

DG

    re DG
    
  I hate to disappoint you, but unfortunately, defining Jews as an ethnic
  group is meaningless, at least in the sense that you propose (i.e., "just
  as if you are French"). Your own note provides some immediate contradictions
  (e.g., one cannot become French (ethnically), but one can become a Jew,
  one cannot stop being French, but you allow one to stop being a Jew).
  
  Jews are not an ethnic group. It is relatively easy to define some
  sufficient conditions that define Jewishness, it is much harder to
  come up with the necessary conditions. If one wants to produce a
  definition, then the tough question to answer is of course: 
  "What does it mean to be a Jew?" (Or, as some put it "who is a Jew?")
  
  Alex

Re: .43

> Those who do not feel
>    a personal commitment are unlikely to make any great effort to see that
>    their children are well-educated Jewishly.

This is obvious. The problem is that this lack of "personal commitment"
usually goes hand-in-hand with an almost total ignorance of Jewish 
history and literature. This is a challenge to be met -- not an excuse
to put out the white flag. If the Jewish community has erred, those
errors need to be aired, need to be addressed, need to jolt those who
care into action. Anything less indicates either hypocrisy or apathy.

> There is a wide range
>    of Jewish belief and practice; what is meaningful one Jew is not
>    necessarily right for another.

What I hear again and again from "Talmud Torah" graduates is that
"Judaism" has not satisfied their spiritual needs. These graduates
are ripe for the picking of the hundreds of cults and missionaries
whom they inevitably encounter on campus or elsewhere. Those who 
simply coast, without taking the conversion route, will likely as not
intermarry, or just remain unaffiliated.

Part-time Judaism doesn't work. Bagels and lox Judaism doesn't work.
Convenient Judaism doesn't *exist*. But kids don't realize that there
is another Judaism, and that they're being force-fed half-truths and
distortions; they fancy themselves well-educated and "well-experienced"
Jews, since they've never encountered anything else.

> There are tendencies at the periphery of all movements
>    that disparage the others 

Disparaging others is bad. Self-examination and self-criticism is 
good and represents the lifeblood of truth-seekers.

>    Have a nice vacation, jem.

Thanks, but Ft. Monmouth is anything but a vacation 8-) .

Re: .44, .45

I repectfully suggest that perhaps Jewish literature might be 
consulted for the definition you seek.

Jem

 re: .46

>This is obvious. The problem is that this lack of "personal commitment"
>usually goes hand-in-hand with an almost total ignorance of Jewish 
>history and literature.
 
 Sometimes, not always.
 
>                        This is a challenge to be met -- not an excuse
>to put out the white flag.
 
 Agreed.  One of the reasons that I feel good about our havurah is
 precisely because so many of the people we have attracted (and who are now
 active) are people who were not otherwise affiliated.
 
>What I hear again and again from "Talmud Torah" graduates is that
>"Judaism" has not satisfied their spiritual needs.
 
 You hear it from the TT graduates, and I hear it from the Orthodox day
 school graduates.  I suspect that this is a function of where people are
 looking for what is missing in their lives.
 
>Part-time Judaism doesn't work. Bagels and lox Judaism doesn't work.
>Convenient Judaism doesn't *exist*.
 
 It depends on your definition of "works."  I know people who are not very
 active, who are children of people who were not very active, etc., who
 nevertheless identify as Jews and don't intermarry.  I tend to share your
 view about involvement, but evidence that I see tells me that one has to
 be careful of making sweeping generalizations--for some people these
 things seem to work.

>                                   But kids don't realize that there
>is another Judaism,

 There is more than one `other' Judaism.  There is a whole continuum.  That
 is (and has been) one of the strengths of Judaism.
 
>Thanks, but Ft. Monmouth is anything but a vacation 8-) .

 Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment.  When you *do* go on vacation,
 have a happy vacation. :^)
 
                                         Aaron

Re: .47

>>This is obvious. The problem is that this lack of "personal commitment"
>>usually goes hand-in-hand with an almost total ignorance of Jewish 
>>history and literature.
  
> Sometimes, not always.
...
>>What I hear again and again from "Talmud Torah" graduates is that
>>"Judaism" has not satisfied their spiritual needs.
  
> You hear it from the TT graduates, and I hear it from the Orthodox day
> school graduates.
...
> I know people who are not very
> active, who are children of people who were not very active, etc., who
> nevertheless identify as Jews and don't intermarry.

Arguments based solely on opinion or anecdotal information are less
than productive. I previously cited a study done by Steven M. Cohen
for the (non-denominational) American Jewish Committee. Cohen surveyed
Jewish affiliation on the East Coast of the U.S. based on a number of 
criteria. Here are some of the findings:

	* Outside of N.Y., graduates of supplementary Jewish schools
	  (afternoon/Sunday) are six times more likely to marry out
	  than those who attended full-time day schools.

	* Reform men outside N.Y. marry out 700% more than their
	  Orthodox counterparts. In the N.Y. area, those raised
	  in Conservative homes intermarry 35 times more frequently
	  than those of an Orthodox background. 

From the forward to the study:

	The report repeatedly underscores the success of Orthodox
	families and urges that attention be given to extending 
	these models to non-Orthodox households. Orthodox families...
	invest heavily in quality Jewish education, and enjoy very
	low rates of divorce... Orthodox successes testify to the 
	close interrelationship between family and community. Strong
	families build strong Jewish communities. Conversely, vital
	Jewish communities create a public climate conducive to 
	healthy family life. The latter aspect has been particularly 
	evident in the case of the modern Orthodox Jewish experience
	in America...

> There is more than one `other' Judaism.  There is a whole continuum.  That
> is (and has been) one of the strengths of Judaism.

Only if you consider a fast-disappearing Jewish community to be a "strength."

> Sorry, I misinterpreted your comment.  When you *do* go on vacation,
> have a happy vacation. :^)

Remind me before Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, Sukkot, Pesach and Shavuot. 8-)

Jem

P.S., Please don't interpret these figures as "gloating." I don't wish
to put any one on the defensive by any means. My purpose is wholly 
constructive -- if there are areas that need to be revisited, let them
be revisited without prejudice. I don't expect everyone reading this to
run out and enroll their kids in the local day school; by the same token
these are facts which caring people need to face.

.46:

>What I hear again and again from "Talmud Torah" graduates is that
>"Judaism" has not satisfied their spiritual needs. These graduates
>are ripe for the picking of the hundreds of cults and missionaries
>whom they inevitably encounter on campus or elsewhere. Those who 
>simply coast, without taking the conversion route, will likely as not
>intermarry, or just remain unaffiliated.

.47:

> You hear it from the TT graduates, and I hear it from the Orthodox day
> school graduates.  I suspect that this is a function of where people are
> looking for what is missing in their lives.

There always have been, and always will be, those who reject Yiddishkeit even
though they have an educated "adult" view of it.  Even in Talmudic times, there
was "Acher" (lit. The Other), a tanna who rejected Yiddeshkeit after a lifetime 
of study.  This is unfortunate, but is also beside the point.

Most Jews today are NOT informed in an ADULT way about Judaism.  Children who
attend Talmud Torah up until Bar or Bat Mitzvah learn by rote some of the 
externals - how to read Hebrew, how to chant their Haftorah.  Whatever they 
learn about the MEANING of what they are doing, they do so as a child.  Even 
Orthodox Day School graduates (like yours truly) may decide in 8th or 9th grade
that Judaism isn't 'cool' and never try to gain a mature understanding of 
what their teachers have been yelling about all those years.

When these people 'reject' Judaism, they do so more out of ignorance than 
anything else.  If they try to have as their moral foundation a pre-pubescent
view of Judaism, they are sure to find it lacking.  

RE: 49

>Most Jews today are NOT informed in an ADULT way about Judaism.
     ...
>When these people 'reject' Judaism, they do so more out of ignorance than 
>anything else.  If they try to have as their moral foundation a pre-pubescent
>view of Judaism, they are sure to find it lacking.  

  I agree.

  In fact, I think jem, Lou and I are in violent agreement on the importance
  of Jewish education, although we differ on the details of what that
  education should contain.
  
  I've also made the point--perhaps I was not clear--that other groups
  would do well to imitate the Orthodox community with respect to emphasis
  on education.  I've also stressed the importance of community and
  informal education, which I think plays at least as great a part in the
  success of Orthodox retention.  As the study cited in .47 points out,
  education and community cohesiveness are highly correlated. 
  
  Where I differ is that I do not think that this will work only if the
  content of the education is Orthodox.  Indeed, I contend that if that is
  the only form of intensive Jewish education offered, we will be, in
  effect, writing off the majority of the Jewish people.  We cannot afford
  to do that any more than we can afford (as some non-Orthodox groups would
  have us do) to pretend the Orthodox community is irrelevant.
  
  The fact is we need each other.  We need each other because we are few in
  number compared to the rest of the world, and we need each other as a
  source of ideas.  It is not in the best interest of any movement to see
  the others wither.
  
  					Aaron

Re: .50

>  Where I differ is that I do not think that this will work only if the
>  content of the education is Orthodox. 

First of all, as I've said before, the majority of students attending
day schools in the U.S. are from non-Orthodox homes. Second, do you
honestly envision a network materializing which could compete with 
the over 500 schools that exist today? Who's going to support such
a competitive network, if parents are obviously satisfied with either
Sunday/afternoon school, or no Jewish education whatsoever (48%, according
to the 1982 "Golberg Survey.")? Third, even if it could happen, would it
really advance the interests of Jewish understanding to establish new
schools which would inevitably compete with the already financially
strapped Torah U'Mesorah network? The upshot, as is apparent, is the
retention of the status quo, with defection continuing to grow unabated.

> It is not in the best interest of any movement to see
>  the others wither.

But as Cohen demonstrates, certain movements are "withering,"
regardless of our desire. 

My specific question to you is this, Aaron: Given a choice between
an average day school, and an after-hours school (which is obviously
the only defacto choice in most communities), which  would you recommend?

Jem

Re: .51

>First of all, as I've said before, the majority of students attending
>day schools in the U.S. are from non-Orthodox homes.
    
    But the majority of non-Orthodox Jewish students do not attend Orthodox
    schools, nor are they likely to do so.
    
>                                                     Second, do you
>honestly envision a network materializing which could compete with 
>the over 500 schools that exist today?
    
    They would complement, not compete with existing schools, except
    in marginal situations.
    
>                                      Who's going to support such
>a competitive network, if parents are obviously satisfied with either
>Sunday/afternoon school, or no Jewish education whatsoever (48%, according
>to the 1982 "Golberg Survey.")?
    
    Parents who are not satisfied with existing alternatives (including
    Orthodox day schools).  The largest day school in the Boston area is
    the Conservative one.
    
>                                Third, even if it could happen, would it
>really advance the interests of Jewish understanding to establish new
>schools which would inevitably compete with the already financially
>strapped Torah U'Mesorah network?
    
    It's not competition because the people who support these alternatives
    do not (and aren't like to support) the Torah U'Mesorah network.
    
    
>                                  The upshot, as is apparent, is the
>retention of the status quo, with defection continuing to grow unabated.

    No, because that assumes that Jewishly well-educated liberal Jews will
    behave in the same way as uneducated Jews.
    
>But as Cohen demonstrates, certain movements are "withering,"
>regardless of our desire. 
    
    They are hemorhaging, but not necessarily withering.  The figures that
    I have seen indicate that, in absolute numbers, Reform is the fastest
    growing group, and in percentage terms, Reconstructionism.

>My specific question to you is this, Aaron: Given a choice between
>an average day school, and an after-hours school (which is obviously
>the only defacto choice in most communities), which  would you recommend?
    
    I'm not sure I am the best person to answer that question; where I grew
    up there was no school, so my father followed the admonition in the
    Sh'ma to "shinantam l'vanecha" (impress [these words] on your
    children).  All of us were impressed sufficiently that that we have
    pursued further knowledge.
    
    Nevertheless, I'll give you an answer:  The day school will undoubtedly
    provide much more information, and if it is reasonably compatible with
    parental beliefs, it is preferable.  If however, it is distinctly at
    odds with the parents' outlook, a compatible afternoon school will do a
    better job of giving a postive attitude toward Judaism.  When children
    get contradictory messages from home and school, it has a worse effect
    than getting a weak but consistent message.  That is why I support the
    establishment of non-Orthodox day schools, so that children can get a
    good Jewish education that matches what they get at home.
    
    					Aaron

>         The figures that
>   I have seen indicate that, in absolute numbers, Reform is the fastest
>   growing group, and in percentage terms, Reconstructionism.

I have heard (I forget the source) the "unaffiliated" is the fastest growing
group.

Dave

    Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was referring to those
    affiliated with congregations; you are correct Dave.
    
    					Aaron

Re: .52

>>                                  The upshot, as is apparent, is the
>>retention of the status quo, with defection continuing to grow unabated.

>    No, because that assumes that Jewishly well-educated liberal Jews will
>    behave in the same way as uneducated Jews.

...

> That is why I support the
>    establishment of non-Orthodox day schools, so that children can get a
>    good Jewish education that matches what they get at home.

If "liberal Jews" had the passion you imagine for educating their children 
Jewishly, they would likely have established such schools already 
(there are only a handful nation-wide today). Dreams of a cadre of 
"well-educated liberal Jews" are likely to remain pie-in-the-sky.
They certainly don't address the *immediate* need for people in 97 out of 100 
communities, where the luxury of day schools for each denomination does not 
exist (even if we agree that such a choice would be optimal).

>>But as Cohen demonstrates, certain movements are "withering,"
>>regardless of our desire. 
    
>    They are hemorhaging, but not necessarily withering.

My mistake. Read instead, "as Cohen demonstrates, certain movements are 
hemorrhaging..."

>    Nevertheless, I'll give you an answer:  The day school will undoubtedly
>    provide much more information, and if it is reasonably compatible with
>    parental beliefs, it is preferable. 

Please define "reasonably compatible."

> When children
>    get contradictory messages from home and school, it has a worse effect
>    than getting a weak but consistent message.              

What studies do you have to back up this contention? I provided some data
which indicate that precisely the opposite is true. Students from other-
wise non-observant homes not only intermarry infinitely less than their
part-time counterparts, but they also tend to help strengthen Jewish observance 
in their homes, by bringing home material with which the parents are in all 
likelihood unfamiliar. Far from having a "worse effect," these children bring 
a new dimension into both their parents' homes and ultimately into their
own families.

Back to the base topic. Aaron, you proudly proclaim that nothing in the Jewish 
religion is immutable. Perhaps you can tell me how you would address a 
Jews-for-Jesus congregation which claims legitimacy as a Jewish house of 
worship?

Jem

    RE: .55

>If "liberal Jews" had the passion you imagine for educating their children 
>Jewishly, they would likely have established such schools already 
    
    I think it is important to distinguish between those Jews committed to
    a "liberal" view of Judaism and those Jews who merely want to identify
    themselves as Jews; the two are not the same.  It is precisely the ones
    who are committed to the liberal vision who have supported the schools
    (Conservative and Reform) that do exist.
    
    I don't have national figures, so I can't comment on the exact number
    of each type, but in Greater Boston I think there are more Jewish
    children enrolled in the Conservative Solomon Schechter day school than
    in all the Orthodox day schools combined.
    
    In percentage terms that does mean that a much higher proportion of
    Orthodox families send their children to day school than do
    Conservative families, but in absolute numbers it means quite a few
    children getting an intensive Jewish education.  I can't say what
    percentage of those would have attended an Orthodox day school if the
    Conservative one had not been available, but of the parents I know,
    none of them would have sent their children to one of the Orthodox
    schools.
    
>They certainly don't address the *immediate* need for people in 97 out of 100 
>communities, where the luxury of day schools for each denomination does not 
>exist (even if we agree that such a choice would be optimal).

    Neither do the existing Orthodox day schools.  If they did, most Jewish
    parents would send their children to them, and the parents would join
    Orthodox synagogues.
    
    I have a sense that we have a very different idea of how to deal with
    something we both see as a problem.   I see the most important priority
    as reaching out to adults, because unless the adults have some
    committment to Judaism, they will not give their children either a
    feeling for what it means to be Jewish, or the educational
    infrastructure to support it.  You seem to me to be arguing--correct me
    if I mistate your position--that our priority must be to persuade
    parents to send their children to Orthodox day schools in order to make
    committed Jews out of the next generation.  If that is what you are
    saying, I don't see it working, simply because I don't think that most
    non-Orthodox Jews will be persuaded.  If that is the case, should we
    write off those who will not participate in the Orthodox educational
    system?
    
>What studies do you have to back up this contention? I provided some data
>which indicate that precisely the opposite is true.
    
    No, I don't think that's what the studies show.  What they show is that
    parents who believe in a strong Jewish education and are amenable to an
    Orthodox interpretation of Judaism, instill a strong sense of Jewish
    identity in their children.  I happen to think that that is a good
    thing and I am certainly not against it.   I think you will find that
    children attending Conservative day schools also show similar behavior.
    
    I don't have statistics on day school `failures' and I'm not sure that
    any studies have been done on them, but I know that they exist because
    I've seen them--both children and adults.  The worst cases I know of
    are where the parents sent the children to get an education, but were
    not supportive of it at home.  The kids developed a very cynical
    attitude toward Judaism (and got themselves expelled from the day
    school).
    
>Back to the base topic. Aaron, you proudly proclaim that nothing in the Jewish 
>religion is immutable. Perhaps you can tell me how you would address a 
>Jews-for-Jesus congregation which claims legitimacy as a Jewish house of 
>worship?

    I'd tell them that they aren't a legitimate Jewish congregation;
    I and most Jews in the world today consider JsfJ as Christians.
    Two thousand years from now the consensus may be different, but right
    now it's pretty straightforward.  You know that, I know that, and the
    JsfJ know that, regardless of their propaganda.
    
    Contrast that with attitudes toward Orthodox, Hasidic, Conservative,
    Reconstructionist, and Reform varieties of Judaism, all of which are
    regarded by most Jews as legitimate forms of Jewish expression. (That
    is not the same as saying that there is consensus that each is a
    `correct' form, just that they are considered `Jewish' while JsfJ is
    not.)
    

    RE: .55 (addendum to my previous reply)
    
>>>But as Cohen demonstrates, certain movements are "withering,"
>>>regardless of our desire. 
    
>>    They are hemorhaging, but not necessarily withering.

>My mistake. Read instead, "as Cohen demonstrates, certain movements are 
>hemorrhaging..."
    
    The comment was meant to be descriptive, and not in any way an approval
    of the phenomenon.  My point is that the Orthodox cannot count on the
    Reform movement withering away any more than the Reform can assume that
    Orthodoxy will disappear (which used to be a fairly common attitude).
    
    More to the point, I would argue that the disappearance of such a large
    fraction of the Jewish population will endanger the existence of the
    remainder.
    
    					Aaron

Re: .56

>Do you write off the non-Orthodox?

If I did, why would I expend so much energy talking about Jewish education?
All Jews deserve to be educated -- G-d forbid that anyone should ever be
"written off."

>    I don't have national figures, so I can't comment on the exact number
>    of each type, but in Greater Boston I think there are more Jewish
>    children enrolled in the Conservative Solomon Schechter day school than
>    in all the Orthodox day schools combined.

There are 551 schools in the Torah U'Mesorah network in North America,
63 Conservative schools and 15 Reform. The former count 110,000 
students, Solomon Schechter 11,000, Reform 3,000. In the vast majority of 
towns with Jewish populations, the only choices are Torah U'Mesorah or TT. 

> I see the most important priority
>    as reaching out to adults, because unless the adults have some
>    committment to Judaism, they will not give their children either a
>    feeling for what it means to be Jewish, or the educational
>    infrastructure to support it. 

Again, a chicken and egg argument. The mitzva of studying Torah is derived
from the verse, "Teach them to your children" (Deut. 6:7). The
fact that one's own obligation, "you shall meditate on it day and night,"
is only explicitly spelled out in the book of Joshua (1:8), certainly
does not make it any less of an obligation, but reflects the fact that
children generally have the luxury of time, and therefore do not have
the ready-made excuses adults (ostensibly) have. Scripture aside, adults
are generally less receptive to new ideas, especially if they call for
some change of lifestyle, as I pointed out in an earlier reply. But
ideally, the two should certainly go hand-in-hand.

> You seem to me to be arguing--correct me
>    if I mistate your position--that our priority must be to persuade
>    parents to send their children to Orthodox day schools in order to make
>    committed Jews out of the next generation.

OK, I'll correct you. I am *not* recommending "Orthodox" day schools as opposed
to "non-Orthodox" day schools (actually the curricula are hardly different).
I am stressing the need for *full-time* education in contradistinction to
*after-school* Jewish instruction, which the statistics indicate to be wanting,
at best. 

> The worst cases I know of
>    are where the parents sent the children to get an education, but were
>    not supportive of it at home.  The kids developed a very cynical
>    attitude toward Judaism 

Apparently, you haven't gotten a copy of the study in question yet. Are
you really arguing that a TT graduate is more likely to have a good attitude
than that of a yeshiva? Is a graduate of a 12-week programming course as
likely to appreciate computer science fundamentals as a 4-year graduate?
I'm sure that I can find some who do, but that would prove nothing.

>    No, I don't think that's what the studies show.

According to Torah U'Mesorah estimates, at least 70% of the student body
outside N.Y. are from non-Orthodox homes, many with very little observance.
One study, breaking down divorce rates by Jewish education, finds an average
of 4-5 times fewer divorces among day school graduates, and tremendously
higher involvement in Jewish activities and organizations. This seems to
indicate that a more wholesome lifestyle, both Jewishly and generally, is
likely to ensue from a full-time Jewish education, whether or not the
parents are particularly knowledgeable.

>What they show is that
>    parents who believe in a strong Jewish education and are amenable to an
>    Orthodox interpretation of Judaism, instill a strong sense of Jewish
>    identity in their children.

Again, most parents are hardly ideologues. They send their kids to a full-time
school for a good *Jewish* education, period. Most of those who don't do so 
because they oppose the *ideology*, but either because they don't know the
school exists, cannot afford it, or have the misconception that either their
kids or they themselves aren't "religious enough" to fit in.


BTW, you still haven't answered my question, viz:

>>    Nevertheless, I'll give you an answer:  The day school will undoubtedly
>>    provide much more information, and if it is reasonably compatible with
>>    parental beliefs, it is preferable. 

Please define "reasonably compatible."



>> Perhaps you can tell me how you would address a 
>>Jews-for-Jesus congregation which claims legitimacy as a Jewish house of 
>>worship?

>    I'd tell them that they aren't a legitimate Jewish congregation;
>    I and most Jews in the world today consider JsfJ as Christians.

Ah, so there are certain indissoluble truths in Judaism. But how are those
decisions made?

>    Two thousand years from now the consensus may be different, but right
>    now it's pretty straightforward.

Religion by consensus? So if J4J succeeds in its mission of converting 
the majority of Jews by the year 2000, would this then make it a 
legitimate "branch" of Judaism?

>  You know that, I know that, and the
>    JsfJ know that, regardless of their propaganda.

I'm not convinced. Although there are a lot of charlatans, to be sure, 
some are quite sincere in their belief in their own authenticity. Prove
them wrong objectively.

>     More to the point, I would argue that the disappearance of such a large
>   fraction of the Jewish population will endanger the existence of the
>    remainder.

Your repeated implication that such a phenomenon is anticipated positively
is both unfounded and frankly, a little offensive. We are a tiny minority 
in this country. We are nearly hopelessly uneducated Jewishly. We suffer
little manifest discrimination. We are targeted for "salvation" by alien
groups, with woefully inadequate will or resources to combat them. *Every
Jewish soul is precious*. Does that sound like a write-off, or a call-to-
action?

Jem

Re: .58

>I am stressing the need for *full-time* education in contradistinction to
>*after-school* Jewish instruction, which the statistics indicate to be wanting,
>at best. 

    We are in agreement on this point.
    
>Apparently, you haven't gotten a copy of the study in question yet.

    No, I've only read summaries.

>you really arguing that a TT graduate is more likely to have a good attitude
>than that of a yeshiva?

    Not at all.  I am saying that I think you are confusing cause and
    effect.
>                                                           This seems to
>indicate that a more wholesome lifestyle, both Jewishly and generally, is
>likely to ensue from a full-time Jewish education, whether or not the
>parents are particularly knowledgeable.
    
    The issue is not whether the parents are knowledgeable, but how they
    feel about a) Jewish education in general and b) the particular Jewish
    education available to their children.

>Again, most parents are hardly ideologues. They send their kids to a full-time
>school for a good *Jewish* education, period.
    
    That implies a level of commitment on the part of the parents.  For a
    large part of the Jewish population, that commitment does not exist.
    Therefore, I am saying, the first problem is to elicit a commitment.
    
>Religion by consensus? So if J4J succeeds in its mission of converting 
>the majority of Jews by the year 2000, would this then make it a 
>legitimate "branch" of Judaism?
    
    Yup.  At one time there was no such thing as Rabbinic Judaism, but
    over time most Jews came to support it.  I don't happen to think that
    will happen with J4J.

>some are quite sincere in their belief in their own authenticity. 
    
    Whether they are sincere is beside the point; the issue is whether the
    bulk of the Jewish population considers them Jewish.
    
>Prove them wrong objectively.
    
    Huh?  I don't understand?

>Your repeated implication that such a phenomenon is anticipated positively
>is both unfounded and frankly, a little offensive.
    
    I'm not sure exactly what it is that you find offensive.  I am simply
    saying that we all need each other and that I am offended by statements
    that I come across from time to time (on both the right and the left)
    that suggest that the `other guys' are going to disappear in about a
    generation and then `we' won't have to worry about them.  My contention
    is that loss of Jews hurts all Jews, not just the movement that loses
    them.  Therefore,  we ought to be supportive of each other's efforts to
    educate and retain Jews.  To me, the growth, in recent years, of
    Conservative and Reform efforts to establish full-time schools is very
    positive, as is the continued proliferation of Orthodox schools.
        
    Aaron

re .56:

>    I don't have national figures, so I can't comment on the exact number
>    of each type, but in Greater Boston I think there are more Jewish
>    children enrolled in the Conservative Solomon Schechter day school than
>    in all the Orthodox day schools combined.

    I'm curious as to the actual figures.  I can easily obtain the numbers
    for Torah Academy, Maimonides, and Merrimack Valley Hebrew Academy.
    I know there's an Orthodox school in Sharon, and I can probably
    find out the enrollment, but perhaps another noter can find out more
    easily than I can.  Aaron, can you get the enrollment figures for
    Solomon Schechter?  Anyone volunteers for Rashi?  Have I missed
    any schools in Greater Boston?

Re: .59

>    The issue is not whether the parents are knowledgeable, but how they
>    feel about a) Jewish education in general and b) the particular Jewish
>    education available to their children.

I attended a day school where the vast majority of students came from homes
where kashrut and Shabbat were not observed, and many of whom attended 
services at best three times a year. I've kept in touch with many of
my contemporaries with that background, and a surprisingly large number have 
gone on to study in post-high-school yeshivot. Their attitude toward their 
parents is largely one of gratitude, appreciation and respect for having given 
them the opportunity to increase their own Jewish knowledge at the obvious 
risk of being asked difficult questions about their own observance. The respect 
derives from a recognition of the *strength* inherent in their recognizing 
their own weaknesses, and yet not depriving their children of their own
Jewish birthright. Neither do the financial sacrifices go unnoticed by
the grown-up children. 

This situation is by no means atypical. Ideal? Debatable. But unquestionably
the best course under the present circumstances.

>    That implies a level of commitment on the part of the parents.

There are a variety of reasons why parents choose full-time schools, not
always "commitment" per se. But this is immaterial - mitoch she'lo li'shema
ba li'shema.

> For a
>    large part of the Jewish population, that commitment does not exist.
>    Therefore, I am saying, the first problem is to elicit a commitment.

And that's exactly what I believe should be the absolute top priority
in the current situation. 

>>Religion by consensus? So if J4J succeeds in its mission of converting 
>>the majority of Jews by the year 2000, would this then make it a 
>>legitimate "branch" of Judaism?
    
>    Yup.

No further questions.

>  At one time there was no such thing as Rabbinic Judaism, but
>    over time most Jews came to support it. 

I don't believe in arguing moot points, although I disagree totally.
What's important is that Rabbinic Judaism is what has survived as 
a vibrant force, through thick and thin. All the sectarians have all
but died out, or become separate religions. And for good reason.

>    Whether they are sincere is beside the point; the issue is whether the
>    bulk of the Jewish population considers them Jewish.

Excuse me, but haven't we agreed that the "bulk of the Jewish population"
knows very little about the tenets of Judaism? Would you also recommend
a referendum in the U.S. to decide the relative merits of larceny?

>>Prove them wrong objectively.
    
>    Huh?  I don't understand?

And not only you are confused, but the masses of Jews in this country suffer
perplexity of gargantuan proportions, to wit, see note 43. (BTW, is that the
same Fred Goldstein? :-) 

Small wonder. The 1972 CCAR-commissioned Lenn Survey found that 42% of
Reform rabbinical students were atheists/agnostics. Now homosexuality
is officially OK. "Who is a Jew," in my opinion is not the question 
today -- "what is *Judaism*" is much more to the point. As Reform thinker
Rabbi Jacob Petuchowski put it, "we have reached the stage where we no longer
have standards." Rachmana Le'tzelan. 

>My contention
>    is that loss of Jews hurts all Jews, not just the movement that loses
>    them.  

We agree on this. But you've made it clear that a future brand of Judaism 
could conceivably include the New Testament in its canon. In that case,
we are on diametrically different sides. 

Jem

Re: .61

>                                               Their attitude toward their 
>parents is largely one of gratitude, appreciation and respect

    It should be, their parents deserve it.  :^)

>Excuse me, but haven't we agreed that the "bulk of the Jewish population"
>knows very little about the tenets of Judaism? Would you also recommend
>a referendum in the U.S. to decide the relative merits of larceny?

    I wouldn't, but that does not mean it could not happen.  We supposedly
    have a 55 mph speed limit on the Massachusetts Turnpike, but a trooper
    who tried to bring anyone in for less than 70 would probably find
    himself in trouble.

>>>Prove them wrong objectively.
    
>>    Huh?  I don't understand?

>And not only you are confused

    The confusion was over the admonition.  I wasn't sure what it was you
    were telling me to do.

>We agree on this. But you've made it clear that a future brand of Judaism 
>could conceivably include the New Testament in its canon.

    There is a difference between saying something is a possibility and
    either advocating that possibility or predicting that it will occur. 
    It is also conceivable that the United States could become an absolute
    monarchy, but I neither support such a move nor do I expect it will
    happen.

    					Aaron
    

Re: .62

>>Would you also recommend
>>a referendum in the U.S. to decide the relative merits of larceny?

>    I wouldn't, but that does not mean it could not happen.  We supposedly
>    have a 55 mph speed limit on the Massachusetts Turnpike, but a trooper
>    who tried to bring anyone in for less than 70 would probably find
>    himself in trouble.

I have been stopped when traveling at 58 MPH, albeit in N.J. But you've 
missed the analogy in any case -- theft is objectively wrong; speed limits 
are subject to change based on any number of factors.

>>And not only you are confused

>    The confusion was over the admonition.  I wasn't sure what it was you
>    were telling me to do.

I'll spell it out. If one can/will not prove the absolute incompatibility
of Judaism and Christianity (no, NOT Jews and Christians), he is in 
effect saying that they are reconcilable. A "majority vote" on this
issue does not treat the theological question.

>>We agree on this. But you've made it clear that a future brand of Judaism 
>>could conceivably include the New Testament in its canon.

>    There is a difference between saying something is a possibility and
>    either advocating that possibility or predicting that it will occur. 

My statement addressed neither advocacy nor prediction; I referred to
your theoretical acceptance of Jewish-Christianity as a legitimate
branch of Judaism given a majority Jewish vote in favor of such a
conferment.

>    It is also conceivable that the United States could become an absolute
>    monarchy, but I neither support such a move nor do I expect it will
>    happen.

Again, the question is not about support or expectation. Too, the relative
merits of democracy vs. monarchy may conceivably be debated. This is 
utterly incomparable to what your "yup" referred to in this exchange in .59:

>>Religion by consensus? So if J4J succeeds in its mission of converting 
>>the majority of Jews by the year 2000, would this then make it a 
>>legitimate "branch" of Judaism?
    
>    Yup.

Are there others who agree with Aaron? Somehow I had thought that this
was one area where all who profess Judaism agreed.

Jem 

BTW, I'd still be interested in an elucidation of the phrase "reasonably 
compatible," in your statement:

>>    Nevertheless, I'll give you an answer:  The day school will undoubtedly
>>    provide much more information, and if it is reasonably compatible with
>>    parental beliefs, it is preferable. 

    re: .60
    
    I don't have the exact number, but the figure for Schecter (Newton,
    Massachusetts) is very close to 400 (+/- 5%) in grades 1-8.  There is
    talk of expanding it to high school, but that is still in the talking
    stage.
    
    The Rashi school (also in Newton) is pretty small, about 60 students in
    grades K-4.  They started a few years ago and are adding one grade a
    year.
    
    					Aron

    re: .63
    
    Thanks for clarifying what you meant, jem; I had misunderstood your
    point.
    
    We do indeed have another point of agreement, namely that we disagree
    on a fundamental assumption about Judaism.  We've gone over this
    before, but to save people from going back through the notes, I'll
    summarize my position:
    
    I do not assume that Judaism derives from a supernatural creator, but
    is the expression of human beings who were searching for understanding
    of the world.  One group of these people founded a civilization that
    has endured and evolved over at least three millenia, and the values of
    that civilization have been transmitted in a variety of ways, among
    which are rituals, ethical teachings, and kinship constraints. In
    short, Judaism is the product of the Jewish people.  I claim that
    Judaism has always been what the Jewish people say it is; it is not
    defined by anything external to them.
    
    One of the consequences of this position is that I feel quite
    comfortable with the existence of multiple views and practices within
    the framework of Judaism (e.g. for me, both Orthodox and Reform
    practices are valid expressions of this civilization).
    
    					Aaron

Re: .65

>    One of the consequences of this position is that I feel quite
>    comfortable with the existence of multiple views and practices within
>    the framework of Judaism (e.g. for me, both Orthodox and Reform
>    practices are valid expressions of this civilization).

And, conceivably, Jews for Jesus. 

Again, I pose the question to other Jewish readers: is the position that 
Aaron espouses acceptable? If everything is relative, is there anything
worth fighting to preserve? Is it even possible to preserve concepts 
that are undefined? 

Do those who claimed previously that there are no immutablities in
Judaism still maintain that position in the face J4J violently claiming
to be practicing authentic Judaism? 

Jem

.65: by Aaron

>   I do not assume that Judaism derives from a supernatural creator, but
>   is the expression of human beings who were searching for understanding
>   of the world. 
>   ...
>   In short, Judaism is the product of the Jewish people.  I claim that
>   Judaism has always been what the Jewish people say it is; it is not
>   defined by anything external to them.

.66: by Jem

>   If everything is relative, is there anything
>   worth fighting to preserve? Is it even possible to preserve concepts 
>   that are undefined? 

Jem has answered his own question.

If everything is relative, then everything is relative.  Even if you disagree 
with him (as I do), you must admit that Aaron's argument is logical and 
consistent.  If Judaism is a man-made way of life, forever evolving, then no
form of it has any apriori superiority.  It would be up to its followers to 
decide what is right and wrong.  If one group disagrees with what another is
doing (for whatever reason), they are free to form their won group, and to make 
up their own rules.  Other groups might not like it, and may even call the new
group "an affront to our traditions," but they would be hypocritics - that is
how their group started, even if it was hundreds or thousands of years ago.

It would follow from this that if a group of Jews sincerely believed that JC
was (or is) the Jewish Messiah, it would be as a legitimate expression of 
Judaism as any other. (One side question:  if there is no "supernatural
creator" or lawgiver, what is the role of a Messiah?  To whom, or what, are we 
praying?  What are we praying for?)

Jem is not arguing any of these points.  He (and I) disagree with the basic 
assumption that Judaism is a man-made, evolving entity.

We believe that the basic tenets of Judaism were given by G-d to Moses at 
Sinai, and there has been an unbroken chain of tradition based on  those
tenants ever since.  The applications and derivations of those tenants  may
change over time; the tenants remain immutable.

(food for thought: Rabbi Judah Halevi's Kuzari says that Judaism, unlike other
religions, is NOT based on some abstract unprovable belief.  It is based on the
historical FACT that G-d appeared to the over 2,000,000 strong Children of 
Israel at Sinai.)

With this axiom, Aaron position falls apart.

IMHO, I see no way of reconciling these two views.  We can disagree with each 
other without throwing bricks.  We can join forces to further our mutual 
interests.  We can even have these stimulating computer conferences.  But, 
unless either you or we change our fundamental beliefs and assumptions, I'm
afraid we will always disagree.

			L'Shana Tova Ticatevu V'Techatemu
			Louuuuuuuuuuuu

Re: .67

> Other groups might not like it, and may even call the new
>group "an affront to our traditions," but they would be hypocritics - that is
>how their group started, even if it was hundreds or thousands of years ago.

You apparently are speaking from Aaron's perspective here. I disagree with the
premise that Judaism "started" this way, and therefore would not merit the
label "hypocrite" if I were to make such a statement (which I wouldn't 
anyway, BTW, because it's not at all to the point).

> The applications and derivations of those tenants  may
>change over time; the tenants remain immutable.

You've obviously met my tenants on E. 10th Street - I've resorted to the
courts to try to change their immutability.  

>IMHO, I see no way of reconciling these two views.  We can disagree with each 
>other without throwing bricks.

I don't think that anyone is throwing bricks. I appreciate Aaron's candor,
but at the same time feel strongly that the position he enunciates explains
why there are so very many confused Jews in this country, and so precious
few educated ones: if Hinduism could gain validity as a "branch" of Judaism,
given a majority vote, what value is there in working to maintain the title
"Jew?" By definition there is no uniqueness; it becomes a meaningless and
hollow label which means all things to all people.

>If everything is relative, then everything is relative.  Even if you disagree 
>with him (as I do), you must admit that Aaron's argument is logical and 
>consistent.

And that position will *consistently* annihilate the surviving vestige
of Judaism when followed to its *logical* conclusion.

> But, 
>unless either you or we change our fundamental beliefs and assumptions, I'm
>afraid we will always disagree.

I don't realistically expect Aaron to change views (some might choose
the word "repent" :) which he's maintained for lo, these many decades;
he's stated that he has no intention of forcing his near-apostasy on anyone
(a little joke there, Aaron). But I think there are many people who may not 
have considered these questions before, and may be inspired to do just that. 

I feel very strongly that the "pintele yid" still very much burns in the 
hearts of Jews no matter their nominal affiliation or lack thereof. There is
deep-seated revulsion at the notion that Judaism is some amorphous, ill-
defined brain-child of a group of camel-jockeying, sadistic jokers who were 
out to torture their progeny with impossible rules, a host of enemies, and 
fantasy-laden stories. If one does believe it so, I fully understand why he'd
be not only ready, but most willing to recognize the right of anyone who so
desired, to redefine the nature of Judaism -- one would have to be deranged
to expend any effort whatsoever to defend such an aberration. 

No, the Jewish soul does not accept this picture. Our ancestors of every
generation did not willingly sacrifice life and limb for "traditions" cooked
up in some ancient Middle-Eastern Arak pub. I believe that Jews of every 
ostensible ilk sense deep down that there *is* something unique and special
about this religion after all, which has never and can never change. Is there
anyone out there who can confirm/deny this?

Jem

    I have to admit that Aaron's argument sounds good to me.  The
    "historical fact" concept in .67 is transparent -- it is only
    historical fact if you have faith in it, as there is no independent
    verification outside of the Jewish tradition.
    
    But that does NOT mean that JFJ, for instance, or Hare Krishna, are
    Jewish, even by "majority vote".  There is a point at which apostasy
    begins.  We just differ over where it is.  :-)
    
    JFJ, to be blunt, is just a branch of Hellenic Christianity,
    missionarizing at Jews.  To a Jew, the idea of "salvation" is like
    asking, in English class, 
    
    	If the plural of a noun adds "-s", and the singlular of a verb adds
    	"-s", what's the plural form of a snorglfratz?
    
    Of course, snorglfratz isn't a part of speech in English.  Nor is
    "salvation" meaningful in the Jewish tradition.  But Reform,
    Conservative, and Reconstructionism all stem from the same wellspring
    as Orthodox.  It's just that the latter often don't like to admit it,
    for it makes their own claims seem less valid.
       fred

Re: .69

It seems Fred and I agree on something after all, mandatory Orthodox-bashing
notwithstanding. I guess the Lubavitchers must be right about the immanent 
arrival of Mashiach after all. :-)

> There is a point at which apostasy
>    begins.  We just differ over where it is.  :-)

But again, *how* is that line drawn? Exactly *what* are the objective criteria
for the definition of Judaism? From what source do they derive?

>the limits are hard to define but exist

At first blush, it seems Aaron is being more consistent.

Jem

    Had to meet a project deadline, so didn't have time to respond sooner,
    but...
    
    re: .67
    
    Lou, thanks for summing up the issue so well ("I wish I coulda said
    that").   We start with two different axioms and that determines how we
    interpret the data.   I have no problem agreeing to disagree.  Further,
    despite some fundamental disagreements, I think we also have some areas
    where we are in violent agreement.
    
    re: .68
    
>                   if Hinduism could gain validity as a "branch" of Judaism,
>given a majority vote, what value is there in working to maintain the title
>"Jew?" By definition there is no uniqueness; it becomes a meaningless and
>hollow label which means all things to all people.
    
    Civilizations don't change by ballot.  They evolve over time, and
    people `vote' through their behavior.  Every civilization is unique,
    and people respond to them and join them because of their special
    character.  Belief in divine election is one--but not the only--basis
    for finding uniqueness in Judaism.
    
>And that position will *consistently* annihilate the surviving vestige
>of Judaism when followed to its *logical* conclusion.
    
    No.  The more I learn of Jewish history, the more I am convinced that
    it is the ability to adapt and reinterpret the central symbols of our
    culture that have made it possible for us to survive and thrive.
    
>                                                                    There is
>deep-seated revulsion at the notion that Judaism is some amorphous, ill-
>defined brain-child of a group of camel-jockeying, sadistic jokers who were 
>out to torture their progeny with impossible rules, a host of enemies, and 
>fantasy-laden stories.
    
    Oh, come on jem, this kind of straw man isn't worthy of you.  If you
    want merely to engage in polemics, be my guest, but don't pretend it is
    part of a dialogue.
    
    						Aaron

Re: .71

>    Civilizations don't change by ballot.  They evolve over time, and
>    people `vote' through their behavior.

I don't really see the difference, but you appear to be trying to
mitigate your previously stated position:

>>Religion by consensus? So if J4J succeeds in its mission of converting
>>the majority of Jews by the year 2000, would this then make it a
>>legitimate "branch" of Judaism?

>    Yup.

As I pointed out in my previous note, I appreciate the honesty and
consistency of your reply, but it also clarifies, in my mind, the 
reason why such a vast number of young Jews perceive no uniqueness
in Judaism, and therefore choose (rather, *default*) to either leave
the fold altogether, intermarry, or simply remain unaffiliated altogether.
Even according to your current statement, if Judaism could conceivably
"evolve over time" into a form of animism or Buddhism, while still 
maintaining the label "Judaism," why should an astute college student wait
for the ultimate "evolution." "Heck," he'd say, "even the rabbis [sic]
themselves admit that Judaism is defined by what Jews do, so why don't
I just do what feels good, and wait for Judaism to catch up?"

Aaron, there are groups out there which have a very clear idea of the
"Truth." They have a very lucid message, very slick marketing skills,
send their missionaries for years of training to determine the best
tactics to use on impressionable youngsters (some have even infiltrated
the rabbinical seminaries in Israel), practically unlimited funding...
and how do we counter? With a "civilization" that can "evolve" into
anything the majority chooses, not unlike a leaf blowing in the wind?

>    No.  The more I learn of Jewish history, the more I am convinced that
>    it is the ability to adapt and reinterpret the central symbols of our
>    culture that have made it possible for us to survive and thrive.

Name one Jewish sect over the millenia which has "survived and thrived"
for more than a brief period without maintaining a commitment to under-
standing and fulfilling the commandments of the Bible and the Sages.

>    Oh, come on jem, this kind of straw man isn't worthy of you.  If you
>    want merely to engage in polemics, be my guest, but don't pretend it is
>    part of a dialogue.

I didn't intend to be glib. I maintain in all sincerity that if the Torah 
is not the literal expression of G-d's will, then it is not only silly, but 
masochistic for Jews to have suffered, and to continue to suffer oppression
and hardship unparalleled in world history for the sake of a creed that
may have been dreamed up by a group of sadistic practical jokers. 

Let's put it this way. If you were a college student with a typically paltry 
Jewish education, and with no inspiring Jewish experience, and you 
encountered a sincere, dynamic, articulate missionary (or roommate), who 
quoted extensively from YOUR OWN scripture, exuding a profound spirituality
and belief in its divine nature, all the while vaguely recalling talks
from your rabbi on an ambiguous Jewish "civilization" and "tradition" 
which we are required to maintain although he admitted that it was
simply the product of fallible humans, and which could quite conceivably
radically change in character at any time... if you were an individual
searching for meaning and ultimate truth - which who you choose? I know
which one I (G-d forbid) would have chosen, and which many thousands
in that situation have chosen and continue to choose, R"L.

I'd like to hear your view of how the Bible and Judaism developed, and
why youngsters should sacrifice to maintain that tradition.

Jem

Re: .72

>I don't really see the difference
    
    You don't, and I can't think of another way to explain it, so for the
    moment I think we'll have to consider this an area where we don't have
    a common area of discourse.
    
>Even according to your current statement, if Judaism could conceivably
>"evolve over time" into a form of animism or Buddhism, while still 
>maintaining the label "Judaism," why should an astute college student wait
>for the ultimate "evolution."
    
    As in any evolution, development can be predicted only if you know what
    the environment is going to be over the next n generations. :^)
    
>                              "Heck," he'd say, "even the rabbis [sic]
>themselves admit that Judaism is defined by what Jews do, so why don't
>I just do what feels good, and wait for Judaism to catch up?"
    
    A lot of people do take that route, but by and large they don't much
    care if they are part of Jewish civilization, and, in fact, they don't
    have that much influence on it.  Within Judaism there have always been
    tensions among various movements, and as circumstances changed, one or
    another set of ideas has gained dominance.  One of the remarkable
    things about Judaism is that, despite fierce internal disputes, it
    has usually found ways of avoiding schism.  Offhand, I can only think
    of three groups (Samaritans, Christians, and Karaites) that have split
    off and gone their own way since the Babylonian exile.

>Name one Jewish sect over the millenia which has "survived and thrived"
>for more than a brief period without maintaining a commitment to under-
>standing and fulfilling the commandments of the Bible and the Sages.
    
    It depends on what you mean by commitment.  I think Rabbinic Judaism is
    the example par excellance of a movement that drastically reinterpreted
    the texts it received and constantly adjusted to changing
    circumstances.  That is one reason that it outlasted the Karaites (who
    finally recognized--too late--that they were in a dead-end).

>Let's put it this way. If you were a college student with a typically paltry 
>Jewish education, and with no inspiring Jewish experience, and you 
>encountered a sincere, dynamic, articulate missionary (or roommate), who 
>quoted extensively from YOUR OWN scripture, exuding a profound spirituality
>and belief in its divine nature
    
    When I was a college student I *was* approached and my reaction was that
    the missionary's approach made less sense to me than the Orthodoxy I
    disagreed with.  (I also know other college students who reacted the
    same way.)  You see, once I found that I did not believe in the
    supernatural origin of the Bible, fundamentalism of any sort had little
    attraction.  Now I don't disagree that there are Jewish students that
    are searching for some kind of spiritual experience that they have
    missed elsewhere, and who are perfectly willing to accept the idea of
    supernaturalism--that is a natural constituency for you and I encourage
    you to reach out to them.
    
    For those Jews who reject supernaturalism--and there are very large
    numbers of them--the issue is not whether they will convert to some
    other "religion" but whether they will have any interest in Judaism at
    all. In fact, I find that there are a lot of adults who are looking for
    a serious alternative to Orthodoxy, and they are the ones who are
    attracted to the Reconstructionist movement.  This is not a zero-sum
    game, but rather a (potential) win-win.
    
>I'd like to hear your view of how the Bible and Judaism developed, and
>why youngsters should sacrifice to maintain that tradition.
    
    See, for example, Mordechai Kaplan's GREATER JUDAISM IN THE MAKING
    (and make sure you have a good dictionary :^), and Edward Friedman's WHO
    WROTE THE BIBLE for reasonbly good summaries on origins.  As for why, I
    have to ask why sacrifice for the United States, or Israel, or whatever
    country one happens to support?   The answer, I think, lies in a
    sense of peoplehood.  For Jews, the Jewish people is important.
    
    Gotta get back to work..
    
    						Aaron

Re: .73

>  Offhand, I can only think
>    of three groups (Samaritans, Christians, and Karaites) that have split
>    off and gone their own way since the Babylonian exile.

Christianity is obviously in another category, since it was recognized
rather quickly as a separate religion. The other two for a long time 
maintained that they were actually representing true Judaism, a position 
which in the long run has proven to be untenable. 

> I think Rabbinic Judaism is
>    the example par excellance of a movement that drastically reinterpreted
>    the texts it received 

The main contention between Rabbinism and both Samaritanism and Karaism
was with regard to the notion of an Oral Tradition. You yourself have 
recognized that it was the latter two, and not the former, which "split
off" from Judaism as it was known until then. I've given many examples
in the past of passages in the Bible which are written in almost short-
hand, of necessity requiring further explication in order to be trans-
lated into practice. The utter failure of the two sects mentioned proves
this, and you yourself admit that they were in a dead-end. If there had been
no Oral Tradition known to the Israelites until the split, why was there
a need to establish new sects at all? Further, how did Judaism survive
at all to that point without the elucidations of the often cryptic text
of the Bible - may I remind you that whole kingdoms were ruled by the
laws of Judaism! 

In the past you've conceded that the Mishna itself is composed in an
extremely terse fashion, leaving huge gaps to be filled in by the
flesh-and-blood teacher to the student. As we've both agreed, Judaism
requires real experiences and interaction to maintain its vibrancy.
If you can recognize this critical need as the reason behind R. Judah
Hanassi's conciseness, why is difficult to envision that this might have 
been the original intent behind the outline-form of the Chumash itself?

Again, you yourself recognize that neither the Samaritans nor the Karaites
practice true Judaism (neither do they claim to be Jews). Primarily, they
rejected the Talmud, but maintained a fierce commitment to fulfilling the
dictates of the Bible itself (to whatever extent this was possible). What
then, is there to say of present-day movements which reject not only the
Talmud, but even precepts explicitly spelled out in the Bible (such as the
subject of the base note)? On what basis can they now claim to represent
the "original" Judaism, and how can they expect to survive longer than 
previous sectarians?

>and constantly adjusted to changing
>    circumstances.  

Yes, Judaism has proven to be most adaptable. But always within the parameters
that the Bible itself set forth: "According to the law which *they* shall
teach you, and according to the judgment which they shall tell you, you shall 
do; do not turn from that which *they* tell you, right or left" (Deut. 17:11).
Again, the intention of the Torah was to give legislative powers to the
Sanhedrin [Great Court of Jerusalem] to authoritatively determine the proper
interpretation of the Torah as each new situation arose. Although the Talmud
may speak of mules and oxen, the principles apply equally to Chevys and
Buicks - the adaptability is manifest and explicitly sanctioned and encour-
aged by the Torah itself. 

>You see, once I found that I did not believe in the
>    supernatural origin of the Bible, fundamentalism of any sort had little
>    attraction. 

What about the existence of G-d in general? Is there an official Recon-
structionist line on this issue? If it is not an atheistic organization,
exactly how does it define G-d?

In any event, you obviously had spent time thinking about these questions, 
and therefore had preconceived notions when you were approached. Most young
people I meet have few prejudices because they've simply never considered
theological questions seriously (notwithstanding [rather in spite of] 
exposure to years of platitudinal rabbinical sermonizing).

I would very much like to know your opinion of the material presented
in the Discovery Seminar series discussed in previous notes. I'm not sure
why you'd be afraid of attending, assuming you have several hours free
on a Sunday. Whether you agree or disagree, the material is certainly
stimulating to anyone who has ever considered these issues, and consists
of a great deal of new research. I fail to see how refusal to consider
new approaches and research jibes with professed intellectual honesty.

> As for why, I
>    have to ask why sacrifice for the United States, or Israel, or whatever
>    country one happens to support?  

Most people sacrifice very little unless they have extremely strongly-
held views or are forced to. In the U.S., no one's forced to do anything,
and very few Jews feel very strongly about their "sense of Jewish people-
hood," judging by statistics previously cited.

There are various kinds of sacrifices. As the statistics clearly show, those
who profess belief in G-d and His commandments (as opposed to a "sense of 
peoplehood"), are much more likely to be willing to sacrifice time and money 
for their childrens' Jewish education. Jews who submitted to auto-da-fes 
during the Spanish Inquisition made the ultimate sacrifice because they 
believed that this was G-d's will - no more and no less. The situation in 
Israel is quite different, and a subject for a different note.

Jem

    Whether a "heresy" such as J4J becomes part of main stream Judaism
    or not is closely related to the question of whether it is really
    Jewish. If Judaisism becomes proscribed again as in Roman times
    will J4J keep the festivals, shabat and kashrut when its no longer
    easy? Those "Jewish" sects who followed Jesus as messiah disappeared
    by about 400 C.E. when they were forbidden by Greek bishops from
    celebrating Passover etc. It was easier to drop it than suffer civil
    penalties. Under these circumstances Jews who are merely racially
    Jews are likely to deny their identity also. Without a strong belief
    that G-d's requirements are binding, why suffer for being different?
    
     The J4J's I met didn't seem to have much less of a commitment to
    Judaism than to Evangelical christianity.
    
    	Actually, Seventhday Adventist would be more likely to 
    sympathize with Jews in a crisis than J4J. With them observance
    of the 7th day is nonnegotiable. They're approach to Kashrut is
    philosophically different, but strong.
    
    	As an aside to the previous discussion about religious education,
    its interesting to contrast 7th day Baptists and SDA's. One of the
    biggest differences is is their committment to education. SDA's
    have grown to over 6 million world wide, where 7th day Baptists
    are scarcely bigger than in the 19th century. Among SDA's those
    who attend their schools are much more likely to remain in the faith. 
    In some African countries many people sent their children to SDA
    schools because they were the best available. Even though the parents
    had no commitment to the religion, a high percentage of the children
    joined that church.
    
    john 

It appears that J4J's are not Jewish in the first place. They are organized
by people who are born Christians, who use Jewish-sounding false names, and
whose purpose is to convert Jews to Christianity. I am angered by the
sheer dishonesty of their approach. Although they encourage Jews into
apostacy, they cannot be a Jewish heresy because they aren't Jewish.

Dave

    
RE: .74

    jem,  I don't have time to respond to all your comments right now; I'll
    get back to you when I get a chance.

    One quick answer, however:

>I would very much like to know your opinion of the material presented
>in the Discovery Seminar series discussed in previous notes. I'm not sure
>why you'd be afraid of attending, assuming you have several hours free
>on a Sunday.

    a.  Sunday is not a good day for me; I'm usually working on my
    courses at Hebrew College.  (For people in the Boston area, HC has a
    part-time graduate program the leads to a Master of Judaic Studies. 
    There are courses that are taught in English and ones that are in
    Hebrew.  Depending on the texts, they may be in either.  I recommend
    the program and would be happy to answer any questions about it.)

    b.  I'm not "afraid" of attending; I've seen nothing that tells me that
    it is worth the time.  As far as I can tell, none of this has been
    published in any kind of scholarly (i.e. reviewed) journal.  If there
    were really some statistically significant findings I would expect them
    to show up in the journal literature.  Right now it sounds to me very
    much like the statistical support J. B. Rhine tried to demonstrate for
    ESP back in the 30s and 40s.  His impressive figures were shown to be
    an artifact of his methodology.
    
                                           Aaron

    Aaron,
    
    You may want to give a call to Dr. David Kazhdan.  It's local for you. 
    He lives in Brighton and teaches in the Math Dept.at Harvard.  While on
    Sabbatical in Israel a year ago David wrote a forward to a Hebrew
    edition of a scholarly review of the research.  BTW, he just won a
    MacArthur fellowship for his work in theoretical mathematics.
    
    __Av 

Re: .75

>     The J4J's I met didn't seem to have much less of a commitment to
>    Judaism than to Evangelical christianity.

With all due respect, I think that might be difficult for an outsider to
judge. The J4Js I've met practice some superficial "Jewish" rituals, which
may give the appearance of commitment to one unfamiliar with authentic
Judaism, but are hollow and transparent to the informed Jew. One example
that I've encountered is J4Js attaching fringes to their belt loops, designed
to appear like _tzitzit_, but this is simply a deception. As Dave mentions in 
.76, many J4Js are actually gentiles who change their names to be stereo-
typically Jewish-sounding to the same end. Rabbi Tuvia Singer compared them
to (Rashi's comment on) the pig, which displays its cloven hooves as if it's 
a kosher animal, all the while concealing its lack of rumination (the other 
kosher sign).

Re: .77

> I've seen nothing that tells me that
>it is worth the time.

"'I've searched and not found' - believe it not!" (Megilla 6b).

> As far as I can tell, none of this has been
>    published in any kind of scholarly (i.e. reviewed) journal. 

As far as *I* can tell, you've prejudged the whole topic without checking
into it at all.

Looking forward to your replies on the other subjects.

Jem

Re: .74

>                                              I've given many examples
>in the past of passages in the Bible which are written in almost short-
>hand, of necessity requiring further explication in order to be trans-
>lated into practice.

    The Humash and the Mishna are very different documents; one does not
    have to know a great deal of Hebrew to be aware of the differences.
    The sentence structure of the former is far more complete in most
    places, while the Mishna is obviously mnemonic.  If one knows the
    the vocabulary--which is sometimes a problem, given that it has
    words that do not appear in Rabbinic Hebrew--one can can usually follow
    the pshat, the plain meaning of the text.  This is not the case with
    the Mishna.

>                                      Further, how did Judaism survive
>at all to that point without the elucidations of the often cryptic text
>of the Bible - may I remind you that whole kingdoms were ruled by the
>laws of Judaism! 

    We have an interesting point of disagreement here, because what I would
    call the laws of Judaism on which the the Jewish states of Judah and
    Israel were based, was not necessarily the laws stated in the Humash.
    (Am I correct in assuming that it is the laws of the Humash that you mean?)
    Undoubtedly, some of what is in the Humash derives from the period of
    the monarchy, but we have very little evidence that the Humash as we
    have it today played a role in the administration of either kingdom.
    Outside of the "discovery" of a book of the law in the time of Josiah, 
    there are very few references in the Book(s) of Kings or the prophetic
    books to anything like the Humash.

>Again, you yourself recognize that neither the Samaritans nor the Karaites
>practice true Judaism (neither do they claim to be Jews).

    Actually, they claim (as did Christians for a long time) that they are
    the True Israel, and Jews are the heretics, who have distorted the true
    message.  Our version of history tells us that they split off from us,
    but their version tells them that we were the deviates.

    The Karaites and the Samaritans chose to opt out of the mainstream and
    chose to practice inflexible forms of Judaism.  The Christians, on the
    other hand, introduced more flexibility than the bulk of the Jewish
    population was willing to accept.  The former had some short term
    success, but in the long run have been severely restricted by their
    inability to adapt to changing circumstances.  Christianity has clearly
    been a success, but evolved in ways that were explicitly not Jewish.
    (Whether Karaism and Samaritanism could still be considered a form of
    Judaism, I'm not sure--obviously neither is Rabbinic Judaism.)

>                           On what basis can they now claim to represent
>the "original" Judaism, and how can they expect to survive longer than 
>previous sectarians?

    It seems likely that the Samaritans are closer to "original" Judaism
    than we are.

>Again, the intention of the Torah was to give legislative powers to the
>Sanhedrin [Great Court of Jerusalem] to authoritatively determine the proper
>interpretation of the Torah as each new situation arose.

    If one looks carefully at the text, it seems reasonbly obvious to me
    that each document (sorry, I still persist in seeing the Humash as a
    collection of documents) was constructed in such a way as to sanction
    the authority of the people writing or editing it.  The earlier
    stratum is much more supportive of kingly authority--particularly the J
    document, which is very pro-Davidic--whereas the last redaction (which
    seems to have been during the early Second Temple period) emphasizes
    priestly authority.

>What about the existence of G-d in general? Is there an official Recon-
>structionist line on this issue? If it is not an atheistic organization,
>exactly how does it define G-d?

    There is not a simple answer to that one.  I will point to the opening
    words of the Amidah which refers to the God of Abraham, God of Isaac,
    and the God of Jacob [or as we Reconstructionists also add, God of
    Sarah, God of Rebecca, God of Leah and God of Rachel].  Why, the Rabbis
    asked, do we not just say God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?  The answer
    is that each of the Patriarchs had a different idea of God and
    different relationships with God, and since no one can know the
    ultimate answer, we accept that these different conceptions are all
    valid.  I know how to summarize the Torah while standing on one foot
    (thanks to Hillel :^), but I haven't worked out a simple way of
    summarizing my ideas.  As for the Reconstructionist movement, there is
    no "official" definition, except that I don't know of any
    Reconstructionist that believes in the literalness of the Bible.
    (Considering that I know no Reform Jews and very few Conservatives who
    take the Bible literally, I guess that doesn't add much, but it's the
    best I can do right now.)

>In any event, you obviously had spent time thinking about these questions, 
>and therefore had preconceived notions when you were approached.  Most young
>people I meet have few prejudices because they've simply never considered
>theological questions seriously

    My point was that most young people I knew in college--and the bulk of
    adult Jews that I meet and talk to about these subjects--do not believe
    in the supernatural either.  More precisely, they do not believe that
    what is written in either Jewish or Christian Scripture is of
    supernatural origin, and they are extremely skeptical of anyone who
    claims to know the "Truth."  I know that there are others, but I don't
    seem to meet very many of them.

>There are various kinds of sacrifices. As the statistics clearly show, those 
>who profess belief in G-d and His commandments (as opposed to a "sense of
>peoplehood")...The situation in  Israel is quite different, and a subject
>for a different note.

    We have a difference of opinion here.  Most of the Jews who died in the
    persecutions of the middle ages and the Inquisition were convicted
    before they were ever tried; whatever they said or did not say would
    not have saved them.  The areligious and anti-religious Zionists who
    settled in Israel and gave their blood to create and preserve the State
    had more of a choice.  (This is not to imply that religious Israelis did
    not fight, but to make the point that religious commitment was not a
    requirement.)

    RE: .79
    
>As far as *I* can tell, you've prejudged the whole topic without checking
>into it at all.
    
    First of all, I've formed a judgement based on what you and others have
    said about.  Second, you're the one trying to persuade, so it's up to
    you to be convincing; I don't need a reason to not be interested.
    
                              Have an easy fast,

                              Aaron

Re: .80

Well, I guess Rosh Hashana hasn't brought about total repentance as yet.
But there's always Yom Kippur! :-)

>If one knows the
>    the vocabulary--which is sometimes a problem, given that it has
>    words that do not appear in Rabbinic Hebrew--one can can usually follow
>    the pshat, the plain meaning of the text. 

But you've ignored the many examples I've given of precepts which are all
but unintelligible without further explanation. Here are some examples
from the _Kuzari_ (3:35) :

1) What means is to be employed in the slaughter of animals for consumption? 
   No details whatsoever are provided in the Bible (Lev 17:3).

2) Certain fats are prohibited for consumption under pain of
   excision (otherwise reserved only for such transgressions as leaven
   on Passover and lack of circumcision). The fats prohibited are adjacent
   to the permitted ones - how does one distinguish the permitted fats
   from the prohibited _chelev_? The method of separating the two is also
   completely omitted (Lev 7:22).

3) "Let no man go out of his place on the Seventh Day" (Ex. 16:29). What
   are the precise parameters of this injunction - house, estate, county,
   continent?

4) If the day of circumcision falls on the Sabbath, which commandment
   takes precedence? The Torah provides no clue (Lev. 12:3).

5) In a few days, Jews all over the world will be building _sukkot_
   [booths]. Lev. 23:42 offers no details about its composition or
   construction. 

Previously cited were the precepts of _tefillin_, _tzitzit_, and _mezuzot_,
all of which are commanded for all time, yet which are set forth in utter
obscurity. 

The fact is, oral traditions are not peculiar to the Jewish faith. No society
can function without traditions passed from father to son. This was poignantly
illustrated by Hillel in one of his encounters with a gentile who desired
to convert to Judaism on condition that he only be required to accept the
Written Torah, and not the Oral. Hillel accepted him, and taught him the
first four letters of the alphabet: aleph, bet, gimel, dalet. The next day
the proselyte returned, whereupon Hillel tested him on the previous day's 
lesson. Proudly, he repeated what he had learned, pointing to the letters
as he read them. Hillel told him that he had reversed their names; the first
letter was called dalet, etc. The student protested that yesterday he had
been taught the opposite! Hillel answered, "you've demonstrated that for
even a task as simple as learning the alphabet, we are completely dependent
on an oral tradition. How then can we expect to understand the difficult and
obscure *concepts* of the Torah without such a tradition?" (Shab. 30a(?))

>but we have very little evidence that the Humash as we
>    have it today played a role in the administration of either kingdom.

There are many, many examples to refute this contention, but I'll confine
myself to just a few now. 1) Construction and administration of the Temple.
2) Establishment and conduct of the Sanhedrin. 3) Agricultural gifts to
the poor (_leket_, _shikcha_, _peah_ [Lev. 19], among others) are mentioned 
in the first chapter of Ruth. 

In terms of archaeological findings, Metzada has yielded many ritual items
described in the Torah. In a previous note, the alter discovered on Mt.
Eval was discussed, which is believed by Zertal and other archaeologists
to be a precise implementation of the command in Deut. 27, which was
constructed by Joshua (8:1). 

Obviously there were many Jewish kings who did not follow the laws at all,
and instead backslid into idolatry, but that has no bearing here.

>    Actually, they claim (as did Christians for a long time) that they are
>    the True Israel, and Jews are the heretics, who have distorted the true
>    message.

Many Karaites saved themselves in WWII by proving that they were in fact not 
Jews. I was not referring to "spiritual descent" claims. We were discussing 
the failure of the movements, and their utter divorce from mainstream Judaism. 

>Christianity has clearly
>    been a success, but evolved in ways that were explicitly not Jewish.

Perhaps you can expand upon this "explicitness." Previously you have said 
there are no specific guidelines for Jewishness, and that J4J could one 
day gain such recognition, and presumably any other cult.

>    It seems likely that the Samaritans are closer to "original" Judaism
>    than we are.

You've side-stepped my question completely, which concerned modern-day 
movements which have gone far beyond the Karaites. Here it is once again:

>>Primarily, they
>>rejected the Talmud, but maintained a fierce commitment to fulfilling the
>>dictates of the Bible itself (to whatever extent this was possible). What
>>then, is there to say of present-day movements which reject not only the
>>Talmud, but even precepts explicitly spelled out in the Bible (such as the
>>subject of the base note)? On what basis can they now claim to represent
>>the "original" Judaism, and how can they expect to survive longer than
>>previous sectarians?

>    If one looks carefully at the text, it seems reasonbly obvious to me
>    that each document (sorry, I still persist in seeing the Humash as a
>    collection of documents) was constructed in such a way as to sanction
>    the authority of the people writing or editing it. 

Originally, your accusation was that the Rabbinites "drastically reinterpreted
the texts it received." I proved that this was not the case, and that the
text was explicit in sanctioning the Sanhedrin to interpret the law in
the light of new situations. Now you are resorting to the argument that
the diabolical "editors" wrote everything to serve their own purposes. 

Again, I ask in all naivete, if you truly believe that "these documents"
were assembled and edited by a group of nefarious, self-serving power-seekers,
what possible reason would one have for, say, fasting tomorrow night [the
Yom Kippur fast is defined in Lev. 16:31 and 23:27]? If this is not 
Divine will, why on earth should we torture ourselves with this or any other
part of "the collection of documents?"

>Why, the Rabbis
>    asked, do we not just say God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?  The answer
>    is that each of the Patriarchs had a different idea of God and
>    different relationships with God, and since no one can know the
>    ultimate answer, we accept that these different conceptions are all
>    valid.

The question is accurate, but the answer is obviously your own. First of
all, you omitted the fact that this sentence is preceded by the words,
"our G-d and the G-d of our fathers." We worship one and the same G-d as they, 
THE One G-d, as in, "the L-rd our G-d, the L-rd is One." The commentator
"Etz Yosef" has a beautiful commentary on this passage, pointing out that 
Jews do not believe in G-d simply because their parents did, or out of
habit. We each have the obligation to explore and discover his existence
for *ourselves*, and develop a "personal relationship" with Him, as per
David's admonition to Solomon (I Chron. 28:9), "and now my son, *know*
the G-d of your father, and serve Him." 

>As for the Reconstructionist movement, there is
>    no "official" definition, except that I don't know of any
>    Reconstructionist that believes in the literalness of the Bible.

I was not asking about belief in the Bible here. I asked simply about
a belief in G-d in general, and a definition of that G-d, Whom you/Recon-
structionism respectively either accept or reject. None of these four
questions was answered, and I'm still curious. I'll settle for your own
opinion if you don't want to presume to speak for all Reconstructionists.

>    My point was that most young people I knew in college--and the bulk of
>    adult Jews that I meet and talk to about these subjects--do not believe
>    in the supernatural either.

Most surveys I've seen represent those who "believe in G-d" as the large 
majority of the US population. But whether or not a Jew professes such
belief, the average college freshman is highly unlikely to be adequately
lettered Jewishly. All in that category are targets for missionaries,
who use arguments the students simply have simply never considered before.
I am basing these statements not on my own anecdotal experience, but on
the experiences of those who battle these problems every day. Singer and
others have said again and again that almost 100% of the converts they've
met are products of either no Jewish education or Talmud Torahs, and none
has ever met one one who had attended a yeshiva high school. 

>    We have a difference of opinion here.  Most of the Jews who died in the
>    persecutions of the middle ages and the Inquisition were convicted
>    before they were ever tried; whatever they said or did not say would
>    not have saved them.

Jews in Spain, even under Torquemada, were offered a choice between the
cross and the stake. I refer you to "The Inquisition," by Lea, where the
articles of Romanus's decree are listed explicitly. See also Graetz in
volume 4, where he lists the decrees of Receswinth. An exception included
New-Christians who were caught secretly practicing Judaism, who were some-
times summarily executed, but not always (this is consistent with Christian
doctrine as expressed in the NT in Hebrews 6:4-6, "For it is impossible for 
those who were once enlightened...and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost...
if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance." In other words,
one who was once a Christian, but sinned by relapsing into another religion
[such as the Marranos], are not afforded the possibility of repentance ever
again.). Many thousands of pious Jews willingly martyred themselves rather
than accept the cross.

Do you really compare the Inquisition to the Holocaust?

>The areligious and anti-religious Zionists who
>    settled in Israel and gave their blood to create and preserve the State
>    had more of a choice.

As I mentioned:

>>The situation in  Israel is quite different, and a subject
>>for a different note.

The reason I said this is that there is real estate involved in Israel,
which breeds strong nationalistic feelings. However, in another note
the topic of non-religious _yerida_ [emigration from Israel] was discussed,
where the author offered evidence that secular Zionism is becoming more and 
more a thing of the past. As I said, it's for another note.

>    First of all, I've formed a judgement based on what you and others have
>    said about.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert on the subject, I am not a Discovery
presenter, nor have I presented anything here. I don't think anyone else in 
BAGELS claims any of those credentials, either, but I could be wrong. 

> Second, you're the one trying to persuade, so it's up to
>    you to be convincing;

Actually, it's not persuasion that I'm interested in - it's criticism. I'd
like to hear a skeptic's *considered* opinion. 

> I don't need a reason to not be interested.

On the contrary, I would think that anyone interested in Jewish studies would
go out of his way to learn about new research, if only to have a basis for
refuting it.

>              Have an easy fast,

A _gemar_chatima_tova_ and *meaningful* fast to you and all BAGELers.

Jem