Conference taveng::bagels

    I think that Reform and Conservative conversions are now accepted by the 
    state as meeting requirements for citizenship under 
    the law or return.  But the Orthodox rabinate refuses to accept such 
    conversions as a basis for performing marriages.  In other words, 
    one who has been converted to Judaism by a Reform or Conservative 
    rabbi cannot be married by a rabbi in Israel.  (Am I correct in
    thinking that only Orthodox rabbis can officiate at marriages 
    recognized as sanctioned by halacha in Israel?) I am not clear on 
    what this means relative to such marriages performed elsewhere.

Actually, the Supreme Court decision consisted of two rulings:

1. The clerk who fills in the "nationality" field in the identity
card for a new immigrant does not have the right to investigate 
the vailidity of the conversion.  Therefore he has to put "Jewish"
even if he has reason to believe the conversion was not orthodox.

2. Only the orthodox rabbinate has the right to perform marriages
in Israel, since the Chief (orthodox) Rabbinate of Israel is the only
one sanctioned by the Knesset.

Obviously most of the religious parties in Israel were unhappy with the
first ruling and happy with the second; and the non-orthodox factions
were vice versa.

I personally think the ruling was a fairly good compromise.  Since marriage
and divorce are of great halachic significance (and for a nation which is
a religion, perhaps esistential significance) it is important that the 
nation not be split by marriages whose validity are subject to dispute.
On the other hand the identity card (whose "nationality=Jew" field has
always bothered me anyway -- most enlightened countries don't include the
religion on the ID card, a few don't even *have* ID cards) has NO
halachic significance.  It may bother some people to see the term "Jew"
appropriated by people whom they do not consider Jews, but I don't think
that's worth getting into a national tizzy about. 

The current Minister of Interior (who is religious and who does not like
the ruling) has announced plans to issue stickers to be added to the identity
cards stating something to the effect that the appearance of a particular
religion or marital status in this card is not proof of it's truth.  Also,
he will not allow his signature to appear on the ID cards (any of them).
He's been widely criticized for this, but I think it makes a lot of sense.

And for those of you who advocate separation of "church" and state in Israel,
this is a step in the right direction.

Sid

    Re all:
    
    I'm probably the *last* person who should wade into this controversy
    (especially since my knowledge of Israel's system of government
    is not exactly extensive) but I'm a little confused.
    
    While I can understand the concern about maintaining strict standards
    on who is Jewish and who is not, isn't the business with the ID
    cards going a bit too far? First, why have ID cards in the first
    place (although I can sort of understand that too) and since the ID card
    already identifies the person's religous persuasion isn't the Interior
    Minister's sticker splitting hair just a few too many times?
    
    Mark

Mark,

You ask 2 questions here.

1) Why have ID cards?

    Most countries do.  In most states in the U.S. your drivers license is
    your ID.  If you do not have a drivers license then you must obtain
    some other form of official ID in order to cash checks or purchase
    alcohol.  In many countries, your ID is also your voting registration
    (none of the nonsense we have here in the US).  IDs have many useful
    purposes.

2) Why is the Interior Minister trying to disclaim responsibility.

    Since the Interior Minister might be deemed to agree with the decision,
    he has decided to do everything he can to detach himself from it.
    Therefore, a non-Orthodox converts card says Jew on it.  But it does
    not have his signature (which might be taken as verification) and it
    contains a disclaimer that the religion described on the card is
    unverified.  It gets him out of a conflict between the law and his
    personal beliefs.  This may very well be the first step in removing
    the religion entry from the ID card.

Gavriel

    "Orthodox" Jews do not look at ID cards to determine the
    "yechus"(lineage) of a person.  Before marriage (often before the
    courtship begins) they determine the appropriateness of the match.
    
    The problem develops when a reform or conservative convert (or child of
    a female reform or conservative convert) who has been told that they
    are "Jewish" by those movements is confronted with the traditional
    definition of "Jewishness" at some point in their lives.  They feel
    hurt, angry, etc.  This is often the case when they are not clearly
    told that their conversion may not be accepted by traditional jews.
    [N.B. Reform conversions are not accepted by the Conservative
    movement...neither is their idea of patrilineal descent. It is not just
    an "orthodox" issue...even though that is how it is usually framed!]
    
    For those who care about the traditional definitions of "Jewishness" and
    the metaphysical/spiritual determinants of "Jewishness", the use of the
    generic "Jew" label adds to the confusion. 
    
    The issue in Israel is the "Law of Return".  The way I understand the
    ruling, anyone who claims to be "Jewish" (regardless of means of
    conversion) will be able to have citizenship rights under the "Law of
    Return".
    
    ___Av

    I'd just like to add a possible rathole alert here.  This has been
    discussed (and rather hotly I might add) previously in BAGELS, matter
    of fact I think that there is more than one note dealing with "who's
    a Jew?"
    
    David

    Re .4:
    
    Hi Gavriel:
    
    Thanks for the information. It definitely put things into perspective
    for me.
    
    Much obliged.
    
    Mark

re .6:

    I don't think it's a rathole.  The ruling seems to have everything to
    do with "who is a Jew?".

    Perhaps we should have a meta-rathole discussion?

    I read in the paper that the religious parties were threatening
    to resign from the coalition government because of this decision.
    Has anything come of this?  Was it all of the religious parties,
    or only the most extreme ones (agudat yisrael, et al)?  If they
    did drop out of the coalition, what effect would this have (would
    it drop the coalition below the required 61 seats)?
    
    Steve
    

    When ANY country becomes a theocracy ( in general or in the
    legislature-and this seems to be what the religious parties want to do)
    freedom will soon go out the window and bigotry will florish, be
    it one religion vs another or factions within the SAME RELIGION
    (and as far as I'm concerned, a Jew is a Jew be it Orthodox,
    Conservative, or Reform)
    
    Eric!
    
    

	But, of course, WHY have religion marked on an ID card ?
	My Massachussetts driver's licence does not indicate my
	religion, nor does my US passport. (In fact, neither does
	my Israeli passport, I think. But I don't have it with me here
	at work to check...)

	The official answer: "security", i.e. giving any policeman, 
	Border Patrolman --- or for that matter bank clerk, post office clerk, 
	etc etc etc --- a simple means of discovering that he is
	dealing with an Arab, not a Jew! 

	Security, it seems to me, is already served by having different cards
	for non-citizens, viz. Arabs from "the territories". It is
	outrageous that Israeli Arab citizens who are law-abiding and
	peaceful should have to deal with the extra discrimination 
	and rudeness which results from having their non-Jewishness stamped
	in their ID's.

	-ZAITCH "yevrei" (hint hint)

re .9:

>    I read in the paper that the religious parties were threatening
>    to resign from the coalition government because of this decision.

    Did I miss something, or is there a "national unity" govt?
    Why would a coalition of Labour and Likud *need* any of the
    smaller parties?

    Some IDs, like the Soviet passport, list "nationality", and "Jew" is a
    legit nationality.  That argument can be made on Israeli cards, so
    "religion" needn't be the only thing... not that it would cool down the
    flames any.
    
    re:.-1
    Likud plus Labor together have a majority, so if the religious parties
    left there'd still be a majority.  Hmmm, then they could amend the
    election law...

    But the purpose of this on the Israeli cards is not for nationality,
    but for religion, and this is where the problem lies, because religion
    is something a political entity should have no power to define! The
    minority parties want to do just that, and be their definition only.
    If they drop out of the government and the two major partries remaining
    can hold onto a majority, I only hope that thay snip this dangerous
    movement in the bud.
    
    Eric

    re: .14
    
    "Jewish" on the identity card does not only denote religion but
    also religion.
    
   David

    re .15: 'scuse me?
    
    "...not only denote religion but also religion".
    
    Chris

    re .16
    
    I think he meant to say "religion and also ethnicity".
    
    re all
        
    Btw, the meaning of "nationality" on the Soviet _internal_
    passports is "ethnicity" (natsionalnost), not "citizenship"
    (grazdanstvo).
    
    Does Hebrew "Yehudi" have the flavor of English "Jew" or
    "Judaic-person"? I think it means both.
    
    Alex

    I don't think he meant "ethnicity", either - then the card would have
    to say "Ashkenazic Jew" or "Sephardic Jew" or "Ethiopian Jew" or
    "Yemenite Jew" etc. - I don't think they go *that* far.
    
    I think it is a real poor idea, anyhow.
    
    /Charlotte

    Seems to me, the legal marriages rule says not only "Who is a Jew?"
    but perhaps even more importantly, "Who is a Rabbi?"  I bet this
    has a lot of Reform and Conservative rabbis fuming outside Israel.
    
    I can understand the Israeli government's desire to prevent (or
    limit and manage) immigration and the providing of the substantial
    immigration benefits to non-Jews posing as Jews or to those who
    think themselves converted by charlatans who are not really rabbis
    in any sect.
    
    BUT I am most concerned for the loss of unity among our people.
    This has also showed up in the disputes over the validity of Falasha
    Jewish credentials.  
    
    Where are we going as a people?  I find these disputes frightening.
    Granted, an Orthodox Jew is entitled to check the credentials of
    a potential marriage partner.  But the broader implications of these
    disputes is alarming to me.  Remember the disputes between the Hassidim
    and the traditionalists in the last century?  It tears apart the
    nation of Israel internally and with today's media coverage I feel
    it reflects badly on us as a people.
    
    I know some BAGELS readers may find my statements very upsetting,
    but I feel my point of view will be shared by many others.  G-d
    knows where this world is going, but A unified Jewish people is
    in a much better position to contribute to the world's well-being
    as well as our own.

    Re: .19
    
    Under what should we unify?  What idea/practice/belief etc. should be
    the basis of that unifying force? What do we all have in common?
    
    ---Av

    re: .14/.15
    
    I made a typo, I meant to say both nationality and religion.
    
    David

 
>BUT I am most concerned for the loss of unity among our people.

It seems to me the ball lies in the non-Orthodox court in this regard.
When reformers limited their changes to synagogue structure, prayers,
or even circumcision ("Rabbi A. Geiger called it a "barbaric act" in
the 19th century), there was serious disunity brought about. But the 
leaders did not stop at these changes. As recently as the early 1980's,
the Reform movement recognized children of only a Jewish father (patri-
lineal decent) as Jewish, a total break from Jewish tradition.

When visionless (or corrupt) governments encounter economic difficulties,
they simply order more money printed. This move solves certain problems
of an immediate nature. But as everyone knows, the long (and often short)
term effects of such a move can be a dangerous spiral into financial
chaos, much like counterfeiting.



Reform leaders acted in a similar manner. They witnessed astronomical
rates of intermarriage and defection from their ranks. Instead of
addressing the real sources of the calamity, they copped out. They
cranked up the "printing presses", attatching a "Jewish" label to
individuals who are by every known standard non-Jews.

>It tears apart the nation of Israel

There is only one thing that has kept the Jewish people intact over the
millenia - authentic, unadulerated, undiluted Torah.

Jem

    RE: .5

    >[N.B. Reform conversions are not accepted by the Conservative
    >movement...neither is their idea of patrilineal descent. It is not just
    >an "orthodox" issue...even though that is how it is usually framed!]

    Although the Conservative movement does not accept the Reform ruling on
    patrilineal descent, it does accept conversions as valid if halachic
    procedures were followed (and to the best of my knowledge they are in
    most cases).  The Conservatives differ from the Orthodox in that they
    recognize the competence of others to perform halachically valid
    actions, of which conversion is one.  Actually, the issue is less a
    religious than a political issue.  In the U.S., the various movements
    have often been able to find ways of working together to achieve
    mutually satisfactory conversions, gets, etc.  In Israel many of these
    things get bound up with Israeli power struggles; they cause much
    division within the "Orthodox" camp as well as between the "Orthodox"
    and others.

    This is not a new thing; the books of Samuel and Kings show that we've
    been doing this for millenia. :^)

                                        Aaron

    Aaron, are you telling me that the Conservative movement will recognize
    a conversion if it is done "halachically" by any denomination's Rabbi? 
    Fine.  But will the Conservative movement recognize a Reform Conversion
    that may not require immersion in a mikvah or a brit milah?
    
    
    ---Av  

    RE: .24

    >Aaron, are you telling me that the Conservative movement will recognize
    >a conversion if it is done "halachically" by any denomination's Rabbi? 

    Yes.  (As in other matters, you may find differences among individual
    rabbis, but in general, the criterion is whether it was done
    halachically, not whether it was done by a Reform, Orthodox or
    Conservative bet din.)

    >Fine.  But will the Conservative movement recognize a Reform Conversion
    >that may not require immersion in a mikvah or a brit milah?
    
    No.
                                        Aaron

The Conservative Movement recognizes conversion performed by Reform rabbis if
they include immersion and (for men) brit milah.  If these are not included
then the conversion will not be recognized.

From acqaintences who participated in Reform conversion programs in the Boston
area, prospecitve converts are informed of the potential problems if they do
not go through the complete ritual and then are given the choice.  My impression
was that for the most part immersion is done, token circumcision is usually done
on men who are already circumcised and a complete circumcision is frequently
refused by those men who were not circumcised as infants.  This is of course
based only on anecdotal evidence.

Gavriel

    RE: 742.22

>the Reform movement recognized children of only a Jewish father (patri-
>lineal decent) as Jewish, a total break from Jewish tradition.

    Not a total break.  Until the Talmudic period (sometime after 
    ~200 C.E.) there does not seem to be any evidence that matrilineal
    descent was given official sanction.  (Ezra's admonitions can be
    interpreted that way, but they can also be taken as a requirement that
    both parents must be Jewish.)  By and large, the evidence of the Tanach
    is that patrilineal descent was the norm for at least a millennium of
    Jewish history.

>Reform leaders acted in a similar manner. They witnessed astronomical
>rates of intermarriage and defection from their ranks. Instead of
>addressing the real sources of the calamity, they copped out.

    In fact, the first thing that happened was that there was massive
    defection from the ranks of the traditional Jewish community.  Reform
    was an attempt to respond to this defection.  It partially succeeded,
    in that it significantly reduced conversion to Christianity, but has
    had difficulty transmitting Jewish knowledge to subsequent generations.
    One response to this has been the creation of Reform day schools.
    Whether this will be the answer we won't know for a while.

    The Orthodox and Hasidic movements have been somewhat more successful
    in developing an educational infrastructure in the U.S. and seem to
    have reversed the attrition.  Again, we won't know for a while whether
    this will hold as these communities grow larger.

    (Editorial comment:  I think it is in the interest of Judaism that
    liberal *and* traditional movements succeed; we have far more to fear
    from indifference than from disagreement.)

>There is only one thing that has kept the Jewish people intact over the
>millenia - authentic, unadulerated, undiluted Torah.

    I wish it were that simple.  We *have* had major divisions
    (Israel/Judah, Judeans/Samaritans, Sadducees/Pharisees/Essenes,
    Israel/Egypt-Babylonia, Rabbanim/Karaites, Ashkenazim/Sefaradim, 
    Hasidim/Mitnagdim, Zionists/anti-Zionists, etc.).  The big issue in
    many of these conflicts was and is Torah--what is it? who defines it?
    who interprets it?  Torah has been important, but we have 
    differed (and still do) on what is authentic, what is
    adulterated or unadulterated, and what constitutes dilution.

                                           Aaron

    Not to beat a dead horse again, but I don't want the assertion that
    "Reform acceps patrilineal descent" to go without clarification.
    
    Reform actually did something different:  They broke with the old
    acceptance of matrilineal descent as being "automatic".  Instead,
    children of a mixed marriage are accepted IF they go through the same
    type of Jewish education, leading to Bar Mitzvah, as any other Jewish
    child, provided that the parents declare their intention for the child
    to be Jewish, and provided that the child accepts this.  I believe it's
    close to the traditional view of adopted children, who can be converted
    in infancy with a lot less difficulty than adult conversions.
    
    But yes, it's non-sexist in its rejection of "mixed marriages with
    Christmas trees", even if the mother is Jewish.  Hence Reform would not
    consider the Pope to be a Jew, even if his great-great-great**10
    grandmother were.
    
    I don't know if I've posted the entire text of the Reform ruling on
    patrilineal descent, but I think I still have a copy on line somewhere.
         fred

Re: .27

>By and large, the evidence of the Tanach is that patrilineal descent was
>the norm for at least a millenium of Jewish history.

Please provide references of such evidence. Tribal descent was always,
as it is today, determined by the father's tribe. But determination
of Jewishness is referred to, to the best of my knowledge only in
Kidushin 68b. 

>Reform was an attempt to respond to this defection. It partially
>succeeded, in that it significantly reduced conversion to Christianity

Credit should be given where due. In the two generations following
Mendelsohn, fully half the Jewish population of Berlin were voluntarily
baptized. Many of the original Reform leaders had sincere motives for
making Judaism appear more Christian-like. But S.R. Hirsch showed that
Torah Judaism could not only survive, but thrive, even amongst the
"enlightened", and emancipated Jews of the era.
But we are now in a different century, a different world. Perhaps we
should re-examine the purpose of the movement today. Those who are
attracted to foreign religions today are so inclined mainly because
of the lack of SPIRITUALITY that they perceive in the sysnagogues and
temples. This is what WE must offer them, and we certainly have a rich,
profound, spiritual tradition. But we're not communicating it to the young.
Hebrew school students (less than 50% of Jewish children even get THIS),
might learn some Bible stories, and a modern Hebrew vocabulary of several
dozen words. But a little bit of knowledge... is a disaster. With their
childish view of Jewish tradition, they are expected to go to college
campuses and combat slick missionaries who make their heads spin with
quotes from scripture (always totally out of context, of course). 

>One response to this has been the creation of Reform day schools.

What's wrong with the existing Torah U'Mesorah network? It seems to me
there are close to 400 schools nation-wide, and there is plenty of room
for new students, of any ilk. Children of all denominations are welcome;
only a small minority are from strictly Orthodox homes.

>Judeans/Samaritans, Sadducees/Pharisees/Essenes, Rabbanites/Karaites,etc.

I'm glad you brought this up.Today's Jews all descend from the Judeans/
Pharisees/Rabbinites:
     How many Samaritans are there today? Does
anyone consider them Jewish, including Reform? Have you seen any Saducees
lately? How many fingers do you need to count the remaining Karaites?
The rest of your references were political or geographical. Hasidim and
Mitnagdim have both survived, because shivim ponim laTorah,
the Torah has many legitimate forms of expression. But those sects which
answer only an immediate need, without concern for the authenticity of
their interpretation of the Torah, have always receded into oblivion
after several generations. To our great sorrow, we seem to be seeing
history repeat itself in our own generation.
But authentic Torah will survive.

Jem

    RE: .29
    Quick commment now, more when I get back from vacation:
    
>>Re: .27
>>
>>>By and large, the evidence of the Tanach is that patrilineal descent was
>>>the norm for at least a millenium of Jewish history.
>>
>>Please provide references of such evidence.

    To the best of my recollection, every instance of intermarriage (e.g.
    Moshe, David) mentioned in the Tanach seems to assume that the identity
    of the children was determined by the identity of the father.

>>Tribal descent was always, as it is today, determined by the father's
>>tribe. But determination of Jewishness is referred to, to the best of
>>my knowledge only in Kidushin 68b.

    We agree.  My interpretation is that until the rabbinic period, tribal
    affiliation was equivalent to Jewish/Hebrew/Israelite affiliation.

>>What's wrong with the existing Torah U'Mesorah network?

    Nothing -- for Orthodox Jews.  Reform and Conservative Jews simply are
    not sending (and are not likely to send) their children to these
    schools, except in very small numbers.  This is not a zero-sum game;
    the issue is how to educate Jews to be Jews, and all Jews gain by the
    fostering of all forms of Jewish education.

>>the Torah has many legitimate forms of expression. But those sects which
>>answer only an immediate need, without concern for the authenticity of
>>their interpretation of the Torah, have always receded into oblivion
>>after several generations.

    I will only observe that the survivors are the ones to write the
    history, and they usually write it to make it seem as if they are
    straight-line descendents.  How many people remember that until WW2
    the majority of Jews were anti-Zionist?  Among religious movements,
    only Mizrachi, the Reconstructionists, and some scattered members of
    other movements supported the efforts to create a modern Jewish state.
    The overwhelming bulk of support for Zionism came from secularists.
    Today, only a few Jews oppose the existence of Israel.

    See you in mid-August :^)

                                                Aaron

Re: .30

>To the best of my recollection, every instance of intermarriage (e.g.
>Moshe, David) mentioned in the Tanach seems to assume that the identity
>of the children was determined by the identity of the father.

First of all, there is a difference between the Israelites before and after
the Revelation at Sinai. Before the revelation, the concept was not clearly
defined, because none of the Torah laws, by definition had been given.
The Talmud says that all of the children of Israel underwent geirus (conver-
sion) at Sinai. They were not officially "Jewish" until then. 
As for Solomon, the wives he took are assumed to have converted. So the
children were Jewish by their mothers.
But this whole argument is really an anachronism since we agree that for at least
2 thousand years only the mother has determined the Jewishness of her children.

>Reform and Conservative Jews simply are not sending their children to these
>schools

On the contrary, as I pointed out, the majority of the population in these
schools are not from strictly observant homes. They belong to the
community at large, and must be further strengthened.

As to the point about who are the descendents of the Rabbinites, and
Pharisees. Please show me how there is any connection between Reform
and either of these traditional movements. The Rabbinites and Pharisees
carried performed the commandments according to the letter of the law,
as interpreted by the Oral tradition. 

Jem

    re:-.1
>>Reform and Conservative Jews simply are not sending their children to these
>>schools
>
>On the contrary, as I pointed out, the majority of the population in these
>schools are not from strictly observant homes. They belong to the
>community at large, and must be further strengthened.
    
    A digression, but an important one:  "Reform" and "Conservative" does
    not equal "not strictly obserant"; that is simply an Orthodox conceit.
    One can be nominally Orthodox but not strictly observant; that
    essentially means that you accept the validity of the Orthodox
    rabbinate, and should feel guilty if you don't observe _their_
    interpretations.  One can also be Reform or Conservative and be either
    observant or non-observant to whatever degree you are; it means that
    to you, basically, that movement's rabbinate is the one to consult. 
    Likewise for Reconstructionists.
    
    The Reform view is that the Oral Law is not equal to the Written Law,
    and that the Orthodox methodology of interpretation is not the only
    valid one. 
    
>As to the point about who are the descendents of the Rabbinites, and
>Pharisees. Please show me how there is any connection between Reform
>and either of these traditional movements. The Rabbinites and Pharisees
>carried performed the commandments according to the letter of the law,
>as interpreted by the Oral tradition. 
    
    Easy.  Those movements took the Oral Law (which was oral in those days)
    and applied them to their own day.  Reform has to make up for 1900
    years of the Oral Law's being essentially dead (written) and apply them
    to the current day.  Expressed in absolute addressing, they're
    different.  Expressed in relative addressing, they're similar, while
    Orthodoxy is different.
          fred

    Re: .32
    
    The majority of students who attend Jewish day schools not strictly
    observant. If that is true, what difference does it make to which
    "branch" they nominally belong   ? The point is that parents from
    all denominations understand that the schools exist for THEIR children,
    and only through intensive, all-day Jewish education can Judaism hope
    to survive.
               
    >The Reform view is that the Oral Law is not equal to the Written Law
    
    In fact, one of the first Reform leaders, Abraham Geiger, sought to
    abolish the practice of circumcision as a "barbaric act" in the early
    part of the 19th century. Last time I checked, that was a Biblical
    Law. The feast at the first graduation from the (Reform) Hebrew
    Union College in Cincinnatti included such delicacies as shrimp, and
    pork products. Are these prohibitions also of Rabbinic origin?
    
    >Reform has to make up for 1900 years of the Oral Law's being
    >essentially dead (written) and apply them to the current day.
    
    There are literally tens of thousands of students who study this
    "dead" discipline day and night. The Oral Tradition by no means 
    stopped with the writing of the Talmud by Ravina and Rav Ashi. It is
    an ongoing, unbroken chain from Moses through the students and scholars
    of the Talmud to this day. Quite the contrary, IT is a tree of life
    for those who cling to it. Spiritual death is the result only of
    its being forsaken.
    Before arguing these points further, I suggest re-reading Jewish
    history, with a concentration on sectarianism. Two examples of groups
    which specifically rejected the Oral Tradition in the past were the
    Saducees and the Karaites. How many remain? What do they say about 
    those who fail to learn from history?
    
    Jem
    
    
    

    RE: .31

>The Talmud says that all of the children of Israel underwent geirus (conver-
>sion) at Sinai. They were not officially "Jewish" until then.

    The Talmud has a lot of midrashim.  As moral and ethical teachings they
    have a lot of value.  I don't consider them a good source of historical
    evidence about the biblical period.  (BTW, I do think that they tell us
    a lot about attitudes and ideas of the Talmudic era.)

>As for Solomon, the wives he took are assumed to have converted. So the
>children were Jewish by their mothers.

    There is no evidence to this effect in the Book(s) of Kings.  I would
    argue that the midrashim about this reflect ideas about Judaism that
    are almost a thousand years later than existed in Solomon's time.

>But this whole argument is really an anachronism since we agree that for at least
>2 thousand years only the mother has determined the Jewishness of her children.

    I would say that the first evidence for this is 1600-1800 years old.
    We don't know if it was widely held earlier, or generally accepted at
    the time it was written.  That is, general acceptance of matrilineal
    descent is probably somewhere between 1400-2000 years old.  That is an
    ancient tradition and not to be modified lightly, but in the context of
    Jewish history, that represents about half the time our culture has
    existed.

>On the contrary, as I pointed out, the majority of the population in these
>schools are not from strictly observant homes.

    I did not say that no non-observant children attend Orthodox day
    schools.  My point is that the vast bulk of Reform and Conservative
    Jews do not and will not send their children to Orthodox schools.
    I am not opposed to such schools, but they are not going to do the job
    for most of the U.S. Jewish population.

                                                Aaron

    Re .29:
    
    I hope no one minds an "outsider's" viewpoint on this issue......
    
    It seems to me, from my present limited knowledge of Judaism, that both
    the conservative and liberal wings of Judaism are striving for the same
    goal, only from different perspectives; namely, the survival of
    the Jewish people. I wonder if there is anyway to combine the emphasis
    on Torah with the practical approach of the Reform movement in such
    a way that the Law is not compromised and yet the survival of the
    Jewish people is maintained? I'm sure people are already working
    on that issue. But I thought I'd raise the question anyway.
    
    Incidentally, I had an experience several years ago in a church
    I used to belong to which sort of illustrates the intermarriage
    dilemma discussed in this note.
    
    A teenage girl, whose mother is Jewish and whose father is Christian,
    was a member of my former church's youth group. Since Judaism was
    not a strong influence in her home apparently, her Christian friends
    had persuaded her to attend the meetings. At that time, the youth
    group was being led by a *very* conservative Christian seminarian
    who basically told this teenager the conservative Christian party
    line about where she would end up for "eternity" if she didn't accept
    Christianity. After I noticed her trying to decide what to do, I
    took her aside and said that no matter, what she was Jewish because
    her mother was Jewish. And that her children would be Jewish for
    the same reason. No matter what, she would never be able to deny her 
    heritage. I said it was her individual decision and that she should not
    be swayed by the opinion of one person. I suggested she might want
    to try attending one of the local synagogues to get an alternative
    perspective. She stopped attending our church after awhile and I
    lost track of her so I can only presume she at least gave it some
    thought. Needless to say, I would have been run out of the church
    on a rail if they knew what I done but since I don't belong to that
    church anymore, so what?
    
    Thanks for letting me share some thoughts.....
    
    Mark

    Re. .35
    
    Would that all your brothers would think and act like you!!
    

    Re: .34
    
    You obviously reject anything and everything even remotely associated
    with the Talmud. But who are we trying to kid? The Reform movement,
    since the beginning of the 19th century, has consistently shown a
    rejection of all "cumbersome" BIBLICAL Laws! I gave several examples
    of this in a previous note. I could go on, but I'm not sure how much
    disk space is available.
    Shall we continue a debate about whether a law is 1400 or 2000 years
    old? If it were proven that the latter was the case, would Reform then
    do an about face?
    The Jewish people is facing unprecedented danger of spiritual
    eradication. We have more important things to argue, and hopefully,
    agree on.
    Jem
    

    <set flame on>
    re:.37, others like it; These notes certainly help convince me that I
    want little if anything to do with that portion of Orthodoxy that they
    represent!  Such strident, hostile and negative comments simply prove
    to me that someone one can be as "observant" as anyone else while still
    being, fundamentally, the type of human best avoided at all costs. 
    Certainly that's not the case with all Orthodox, from the humblest
    layman to the greatest talmid chocham, since many are quite pleasant
    and informative.  But then there are the others.
    
    I do not believe that the "normal" Jewish behavior was ever what modern
    strident Orthodox claim that it was.  Now that the "moderates" have
    pretty much left the Orthodox movement (a similar phenomenon has
    happened among Southern Baptists, among other sects, leaving the
    extreme right in charge), the loudmouths are a higher percentage than
    before.  Back in the olden days, there were Jews who had different
    personal levels of observance, and the rabbinate was there to teach the
    traditions and offer guidance to those who asked.  Now there are
    alternative methods of observance, and those who follow the 18th
    century "high-observance" norms are upset about it.
    
    No, not all Mosaic laws are honored in their literal sense by the
    Reform or Conservative movements, nor are they by the Orthodoxy.  Nor
    do the non-Orthodox have anything to apologize for.  The Torah was
    given to Moses with the clear context of its day and language. 
    We can't go back three thousand years.  Non-Orthodox Judaism strives to
    draw the underlying meaning from the Torah, even if it means leaving
    behind some of the details.  We are trying to maintain the forest, even
    if the individual trees are not immortal.  
    
    I don't want the Orthodox to all come around to my point of view.  We
    don't send shrimp vans to stand in their neighborhoods tempting them
    with treif!  But we strongly resent the one-true-religion positions
    that mock us, mock our beliefs, and denigrate our validitity as Jews. 
    Those who perpetuate this negative behavior are the ones who will be
    responsible for the schisms among our People, not those of use who are
    trying to maintain its vitality and who accept its diversity.

    Very elegantly put!  BTW, you forgot to put <set flame off>
    
    Mike

    Which "strident insults" are you referring to? To this point I have
    merely quoted historical fact. 
    Whenever facts become uncomfortable, personal attack follows. We
    need to limit our comments to the issues.
    Jem

    re .38
    
    
    		OMEN

    Re: .37
    
>    You obviously reject anything and everything even remotely associated
>    with the Talmud.

    No.  In fact, I accord the Talmud essentially the same status as the
    Tanach.  I consider both to be the human products of a continuous
    Jewish civilization that considered (and still considers) the search
    for the divine to be an important part of human life.  It is for this
    reason that a) we developed a tradition of attributing a divine origin
    to these documents and b) why we place so much stress on continuity;
    every group has laid claim to being the true heir of the tradition.

>    But who are we trying to kid? The Reform movement,
>    since the beginning of the 19th century, has consistently shown a
>    rejection of all "cumbersome" BIBLICAL Laws!

    Although I'm not part of the Reform Movement (and I have my own
    criticisms of Reform), I have to object to such a sweeping
    generalization.  All current branches of Judaism reject some parts of
    Biblical law; it is just that some do it more explicitly than others.

>    Shall we continue a debate about whether a law is 1400 or 2000 years
>    old? If it were proven that the latter was the case, would Reform then
>    do an about face?

    You miss my point (or perhaps I did not make it clearly enough).  The
    issue is not the precise age of the law, but the fact that throughout
    half of our history we used one criterion for determining identity and
    then we changed.  Those who argue for patrilineal descent say it is
    time for another change.  

    As it happens, I disagree with the way in which the Reform movement has
    gone about this, but I find a lot of merit in the idea and I think it
    should be discussed more widely.

    * A side issue:  Let's not get side-tracked by name-calling; Jem
    disagrees strenuously with my position and I with his, but I think
    we've been able to stick to the issues.  I do not interpret anything he
    has said as a personal attack and I hope he has not taken anything I
    have written as an attack on him.

                                        Aaron

    Re: .42
    
    Thank you Aaron, for bringing this discussion back to an intellectual
    plane.
    
    >All current branches of Judaism reject some parts of Biblical law;
    
    Please provide evidence. This is a serious allegation. 
    
    >The point is not the precise age of the law, but the fact that 
    >throughout half of our history we used one criterion for determining
    >identity and then we changed.
    
    Perhaps it was I who was unclear about my point. Abraham Geiger did not
    need a "precedent" in seeking to abolish the rite of circumcision in his
    day. So too regarding the kosher laws and many more. Let's assume Genesis
    1:1-2 would read as follows:
    
    1. In the beginning G-d created the heavens and the earth. 2. And the
       L-rd said, "Ye shall establish your Jewish descent matrilineally,
       each man according to the house of his mother."
    
    If such a verse could be found, would this make any difference to the
    reformers? Other specific injunctions and prohibitions which ARE 
    just as clear as the above imaginary one have been outright rejected.
    What would lead me to believe that this one would be treated differently?
    
    >we developed a tradition of attributing a divine origin to these 
    >documents
    
    This is the real issue. If one rejects the notion of a Revelation at
    Sinai, then not only is tradition irrelevant, the Bible itself has
    no authority whatsoever. So why are we discussing this at all? Of
    what value is the label "Jew" if it is not associated with a Divine
    mission?
    
    Aaron, I too apologize if my words are strong at times. They are not
    meant as an attack in any way. You may find this difficult to accept,
    but I am sincerely searching for the truth, without pre-conclusions.
    But these issues need to be aired in a friendly manner to really
    discover the answers. We are all constantly pre-judging one another,
    "knowing" what to expect based on the tags we have stuck on people.
    
    Usually, we arrive at philosophical conclusions in our formative years,
    late teens through early twenties. Very little changes from that point 
    for most people, as they fall into habits. They refuse to re-examine
    issues that they've already "figured out", albeit from a perspective
    that might have been colored by juvenile misconceptions or just plain
    ignorance. I believe honest people should expend the effort to study
    their actions and philosophies, and scary as it might be, leave the
    door open to change if indicated. Just as long as we can look in the
    mirror and know we're leaving no stone unturned in pursuit of truth.
    
    (L-rd! I was born a rambling man...)
    
    Jem
    
    
    

    Re:.43
    >>All current branches of Judaism reject some parts of Biblical law;
    
    >Please provide evidence. This is a serious allegation. 
    
    When the Orthodox do it, it is either a) labeled as "interpretation" and
    not rejection or b) explained away by an irrevocable Talmudic or
    Rabinnic ruling that contradicts it.  For example, people who open
    refrigerator doors (without disconneting the light) on Shabat are, in
    much of Orthodoxy, viewed as violating Shabat, which could be grounds
    for capital punishment.  Fortunately for all of us, capital punishment
    per the Torah has been interpreted away!
    
    >>we developed a tradition of attributing a divine origin to these 
    >>documents
    
    >This is the real issue. If one rejects the notion of a Revelation at
    >Sinai, then not only is tradition irrelevant, the Bible itself has
    >no authority whatsoever. So why are we discussing this at all? Of
    >what value is the label "Jew" if it is not associated with a Divine
    >mission?
    
    And that indeed cuts to the heart of the matter.  What, or Who, is God? 
    I think Reconstructionism has a nice tenet -- Man created God.  That
    does NOT mean that people can ignore him, simply that we as a race
    created something more powerful than our individual selves or even more
    powerful than anything else we could ever create!  To me, that makes
    Torah even MORE important, since it's there for a reason more powerful
    than Deux ex machina. 
    
    Reform doesn't make the same statement, but one needn't be a
    fundamentalist about Sinai to accept the Torah as being something
    totally above everything else written since, and fundamental in many
    ways.  Personally I rather accept that there was "divine guidance" if
    not "revelation" involved, but the actual redaction of Torah required
    massive human intervention, probably among the highest of the
    priesthood.  I find he notion that somehow, God entered the physical
    plane and materially wrote out something, or spoke in exact Hebrew text
    the way a person would, to trivialize Him.
    
    As you see, there is much diversity in Jewish thought.  Thus there is
    much room to interpret questions such as "Who is a Jew?"  Only by
    having Faith in something unprovable can one simply "accept" without
    questioning.  Judaism isn't about Faith. Non-Orthodox Judaism isn't
    as dependent upon it as Orthodoxy.  That, to most of us, makes it
    stronger!
          fred

    Re: .44
 >   Fortunately for all of us, capital punishment per the Torah has been 
 >   interpreted away!                                                                         
    
    Last week, we commemorated the destruction of the Holy Temple, on the
    ninth of Av. This calamity carried with it not only the suspension
    of the sacrificial rite, but also the existence of the Sanhedrin, 
    which could only convene in Jerusalem adjacent to the Temple. Only
    this judicial body of 70 scholars had the authority to carry out
    a death sentence. Incidentally, that court used this power so seldom
    that if one man was put to death in seventy years, it was called a
    "murderous Sanhedrin".
    
    >one needn't be a fundamentalist about Sinai to accept the Torah as 
    >being something totally above everything else written sin
    
    Most critics agree that the works of Shakespere surpass all other
    writings in the English language before or since. The question 
    about the Bible, however is not its literary, historic, or national
    value. The issue is: does it carry ultimate authority. 
    
    >Judaism isn't about Faith.
    
    The first of the ten commandments would seem to be at odds with
    this contention.
    
    Jem
    
    

>     Re: .44
> >   Fortunately for all of us, capital punishment per the Torah has been 
> >   interpreted away!                                                                         
>    
>    Last week, we commemorated the destruction of the Holy Temple, on the
>    ninth of Av. This calamity carried with it not only the suspension
>    of the sacrificial rite, but also the existence of the Sanhedrin, 
>    which could only convene in Jerusalem adjacent to the Temple. Only
>    this judicial body of 70 scholars had the authority to carry out
>    a death sentence. Incidentally, that court used this power so seldom
>    that if one man was put to death in seventy years, it was called a
>    "murderous Sanhedrin".
 
    You answer shows the process by which the above took place. 
    There are many laws in the Torah that demand a death sentence
    (such as adultery), so how it it possible to explain that the Senhedrin
    was murderous if it put one man to death in 70 years? I think the
    answer is that either they were not doing their job (not even once in
    70 years!!!), or they reinterperated the Torah in such a way that it 
    became impossible for the death penalty to be carried out. 
    
    The other possibility that you might choose to believe is that 
    no sins requiring a death penalty were committed in those days.
    
    Malcolm

    Re: .43

    >Please provide evidence. This is a serious allegation.

    The classic example is the prosbul.  Whatever the rationale, it still
    comes down to a rejection of a biblical statute.  The Mishnah makes no
    attempt to show conformance to the Humash (although the Bavli, written
    several hundred years later, tries to do so).

    >If such a verse could be found, would this make any difference to the
    >reformers?

    Well, you have hit on a point that bothers me about Reform, which is
    the claim that it is possible to identify which parts of the bible are
    of divine origin and which ones are of human origin.  Both Reform and
    Orthodox Judaism assert a supernatural/transcendent divinity, but
    differ in they way they believe the divine message(s) have been
    transmitted.

    >This is the real issue. If one rejects the notion of a Revelation at
    >Sinai, then not only is tradition irrelevant, the Bible itself has
    >no authority whatsoever.

    I think I understand where you are coming from, because that was my
    initial reaction when I decided that I could not accept the idea of
    literal divine revelation.  The more I studied Jewish history, however,
    the more I concluded that there is considerably more to Judaism than
    religion (see 509.17).  In this context, the Tanach and the Talmud are
    significant parts of our cultural heritage and have played an important
    part in the survival of the Jewish people.  To cite a very imperfect
    analogy, one could contend that the Declaration of Independence gives
    no legal status to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," but it
    would be a mistake to assert that as a result the Declaration has no
    authority in these matters.

    >Aaron, I too apologize if my words are strong at times.

    Jem,  we both use strong words because we care about the topic.  I make
    a distinction between vigorous debate--which I see as positive--and ad
    hominem attacks.  As I indicated, I take your comments as disagreements
    with my positions, not as criticism of me personally.

                                        Aaron

    RE: .47
    
    >The classic example is the prosbul. Whatever the rationale, it still
    >comes down to a rejection of a biblical statute.
    
    (Note: The above refers to one of the laws associated with the Sabbat-
    ical year. The Torah calls for an amnesty on all loans at the beginning
    of each 7 year cycle. Prusbul is a method whereby the lender is able
    to collect his outstanding funds even after the seventh year has
    passed.)
    
    The Sanhedrin, and only the Sanhedrin (assembly of 70 judges in the
    times of the Temple in Jerusalem) was given the right to suspend
    certain laws under specific conditions. The Torah states, "Do not
    turn from that which THEY tell you, left or right". This refers to
    the Sanhedrin. The Bible itself, therefore, gives this body ultimate
    authority over the Law. No other court or person has this right.
    The Sanhedrin exercised its power in this case in order to ensure
    that lenders would not desist from this practice in the sixth year.
    
    >the Tanach and the Talmud are significant parts of our cultural
    >heritage and have played an important part in the survival of the
    >Jewish people.
    
    A crucial point. If we view the Holy Scriptures as anything but 
    the literal word of G-d, we are left with mere culture, at best. The
    automobile has played a significant role in American culture. Does
    that make it a religion (some may say yes!)? 
    
    To put it another way, if G-d did NOT create the heavens and the earth,
    then the Bible is simply a pack of lies. A fraudulent Rembrant, no
    matter how good a copy it is, is still a fraud. 
    
    Re: .46
    
    Actually, the dearth of executions was due to the strict requirements
    regarding witnesses. Two eyewitnesses were required, who needed to 
    inform the alleged offender of the precise prohibition in question,
    among other rules. The principle is that the most precious commodity
    on earth, and it is very difficult to undo a mistaken conviction
    of this sort.
    
    Jem
    
    

    RE: .48-
    
    >A crucial point. If we view the Holy Scriptures as anything but 
    >the literal word of G-d, we are left with mere culture, at best. 
    
    Jem, you hit the major point right on the nose here. Some groups will
    view the Holy Scriptures as the "literal word of G-d" while others will
    view them as "devinely inspired, but written by man". Still others will
    view them as purely written by man.
    
    I believe that the Orthodox will take the first view, while Conserva-
    tive and Reform take the second. From this view, one can easy
    understand how different views can evolve with Judaism. If they
    are the "Literal word of G-d", then they are not open for modification,
    but if they were written by man, then much interpetation is possible,
    as is modification of the results if this interpetation is different
    from previous ones.
    
    Eric

    Re: .49
    
    >Some groups will view the Holy Scriptures as the "literal word of G-d"
    >while others view them as "devinely inspired, but written by man".
    
    I'm confused. If they are Divinely inspired, then only the Divine One
    has the authority to sanction alteration. Actually, this is precisely
    the Orthodox view. Moses did the actual writing, by the word of G-d.
    
    Jem
    

The difference between the Orthodox view and the conventional definition of
"Divinely Inspired" is that in the Orthodox view G-d dictated the entirety of
Torah to Moses WORD FOR WORD".  Divine inspiration implies that G-d gave
Moses (or later authors) the ideas and the word came about through the limiting
filter of the human mind.

The end result of this difference is that people today can say of divinely
inspired writings that a literal translation may have become meaningless today.
And that it is necessary to reexamine the original intent of the writing.

Gavriel

    RE: .48
    
    >                                        The Torah states, "Do not
    >turn from that which THEY tell you, left or right". This refers to
    >the Sanhedrin.

    I don't have the text in front of me, so I may not be recalling the 
    context quite accurately, but I think it referred to the magistrates
    appointed by Moses.  Later generations--later than the Sanhedrin
    itself--made the claim that the Sanhedrin had inherited the authority.
    The text of the Mishnah, however, indicates that the early Rabbinic
    assemblies claimed law-making power independent of either the Humash,
    not unlike the nineteenth century Reformers.

    >A crucial point. If we view the Holy Scriptures as anything but 
    >the literal word of G-d, we are left with mere culture, at best.

    Culture is not "mere."  Culture is what makes us who we are.  What is
    remarkable about Jewish culture is that it is one of the oldest
    continous cultures on Earth, and it is worth examining the reasons for
    its persistence.

    >To put it another way, if G-d did NOT create the heavens and the earth,
    >then the Bible is simply a pack of lies. 

    No.  The Bible is a record of the Jewish people's search for meaning
    in the universe.  A close examination of the text reveals a lot of
    conflict and evolution over the millenium or so that it took to record
    it.  Taken together with the Talmud, it tells us an enormous amount
    about how Jewish civilization developed.  (To understand Rabbinic Judaism
    it also helps to read the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Tosefta, and early
    Christian writings as well.)

    There is much wisdom in the Bible, whether or not one believes in the
    literalness of the creation story.  To me, the admonition--drawn from
    the the story of the creation of adom--that one who saves a single life
    is as one who saves the whole world, is no less valid if creation
    happened other than as described in Genesis.

                                        Aaron

    Re: .51
    
    >Divine inspiration implies that G-d gave Moses (or later authors) the
    >ideas and the word came about through the limiting filter of the human
    >mind.
    
    If G-d had intended to reveal His Word to the world, why would He have
    "filtered" It through the often faulty human mind, thereby rendering
    it unauthoritative? Let's give Him a little credit, after all!
    BTW, I thought it was just an oversight until now, but I see the word
    "divinely" used repeatedly in lower-case form. I believe that if the
    word is used in reference to G-d, it should be capitalized in the
    English language. By not doing so, are you implying that G-d had
    nothing to do with it?
    
    Re: .52
    
    >The text of the Mishna, however, indicates that the early Rabbinic
    >assemblies claimed law-making power independent of either the Humash,
    >not unlike the ninteenth century Reformers.
    
    The Mishna was committed to writing by Rabbi Judah Hanassi quite
    tersely, because he intended it to retain as much of its oral 
    character as possible. Quite often, verses are not quoted specifically;
    it is merely an outline. The Gemara, as an elucidation of the Mishna,
    always quotes sources when applicable. The two are an inseparable
    unit, known as the Talmud. Without the Gemara, the Mishna is in-
    explicable in many places, as is the Bible itself. Never would
    a Tanna, Amora (authors of the Talmud), or certainly later sages
    attempt to alter a specific Biblical injunction without specific
    sources.
    
    >Culture is what makes us who we are.
    
    Culturally, a Jew from New York has much more in common with a 
    Southern Baptist from Alabama than with, say, a Jew from Kurdistan.
    The only common thread among Jews the world over, spanning four
    millenia, is the belief in one G-d, and his Word as revealed in his
    one and only Testament. 
    
    Jem
    

    Jem,
    
    No, "divinely" should not be capitalized.  In English, names are
    capitalized, the first person singular ("I") is capitalized, pronouns
    referring to a-deity-I-(or-lots-of-people)-believe-in ("He") are
    capitalized, and that's about it.
    
    							Ann B.

    re:                    <<< Note 742.53 by SUBWAY::STEINBERG >>>
>   Re: .51
    
>    >Divine inspiration implies that G-d gave Moses (or later authors) the
>    >ideas and the word came about through the limiting filter of the human
>    >mind.
>    
>    If G-d had intended to reveal His Word to the world, why would He have
>    "filtered" It through the often faulty human mind, thereby rendering
>    it unauthoritative? Let's give Him a little credit, after all!
    
    Much to the contrary, to presume that God spoke the language of humans
    would be to reduce Him from anthropomorphizing a spiritual entity.  We
    credit Him with being more complex than any mortal can understand, thus
    He reveals himself in limited ways, through humans who write language
    that humans can understand.
    
    Actually, there's even an Orthodox tradition that God spoke in the
    language of the day.  That's why the vast majority of Orthodox Jews
    reject the Christian Fundamentalist reading of Genesis.  Historically
    the Jewish people knew the difference between history and allegory.  We
    are quibbling over where that line is being drawn. (Of course, the
    result of the quibble is rather important.)
    
    A novice programmer writing in interpretive Basic can't understand the
    complexity of VMS, but he can still be in awe of it.  Now multiply
    times infinity.

    Re: .53
    
    >The Mishna was committed to writing by Rabbi Judah Hanassi quite
    >tersely, because he intended it to retain as much of its oral 
    >character as possible.

    Agreed.  And when one reads it in the Hebrew, the mnemonic devices are
    quite apparent.

    >                         The Gemara, as an elucidation of the Mishna,
    >always quotes sources when applicable. The two are an inseparable
    >unit, known as the Talmud. Without the Gemara, the Mishna is in-
    >explicable in many places, as is the Bible itself.

    This is where we have some differences.  The two are separable.  The
    Yerushalmi Gemara differs in significant ways from the Bavli, which is
    newer.  The two commentaries are reflective of the way the Mishnah was
    understood at the time of the comments, not at the time of the writing
    of the Mishnah.  Furthermore, I would argue that one can analyze the
    texts of all the writings in their own terms; the later interpretations
    can be seen as adaptations for later generations.

    >                                                       Never would
    >a Tanna, Amora (authors of the Talmud), or certainly later sages
    >attempt to alter a specific Biblical injunction without specific
    >sources.

    And I claim that the Tannaim did exactly that.
    
    >Culturally, a Jew from New York has much more in common with a 
    >Southern Baptist from Alabama than with, say, a Jew from Kurdistan.

    An ignorant Jew, perhaps.  

    Well, that's a bit too facile, so let me add that we have always had a
    measure of biculturalism, but we have also shared certain things in
    common with other Jews.

    >The only common thread among Jews the world over, spanning four
    >millenia, is the belief in one G-d, and his Word as revealed in his
    >one and only Testament.

    Given the differences in the nature of that belief, the differences in
    the way in which Torah has been understood, and the significant ways in
    which Judaism has changed over the century, I can't agree.  This is not
    to say that commonality of beliefs has been insignificant, but to say
    that 1) it is not the only thing, and 2) even where beliefs differ,
    there are other factors that link us.

    We obviously disagree vigorously [not violently, I hope :^)] and yet we
    are both Jews; one thing we do have in common is that we both think
    that there is something very important about who we are, else we would
    not be debating this.
                                        Aaron    

Re .55:
    
>    Actually, there's even an Orthodox tradition that God spoke in the
>    language of the day.  That's why the vast majority of Orthodox Jews
>    reject the Christian Fundamentalist reading of Genesis.  Historically
>    the Jewish people knew the difference between history and allegory.  We
>    are quibbling over where that line is being drawn. (Of course, the
>    result of the quibble is rather important.)

I'm straying off the subject a bit but.....

I agree. Fundamentalist Christians have taken the Tanach and 
"Christianized" it, if you will, to the point where the Jewish people 
and the events which took place in their history are almost a 
Biblical sideshow, a footnote to the larger Christian "message", in 
their eyes. They usually have little or no appreciation for the 
difference between allegory and history because if they did it would 
undermine basic Christian doctrine, something they are not prepared 
to handle for the most part.

Mark

    
    Please forgive the slow responses; I'm on the road for the next few
    weeks, mainly without Easynet access.
    
    Re: .55
    
    >Much to the contrary, to presume that God spoke the language of humans
    >would be to reduce Him from anthropomorphizing a spiritual entity.
    
    Are you with this statement questioning G-d's omnipotence? Seems to me,
    if He is all-powerful, communicating in a human tongue is no great
    feat.
    
    Re: .56
    
    You refer to the Mishna as follows:
    >when one reads it in the Hebrew, the mnenonic devices are quite
    >apparent.
    
    Then you go on to claim that the authors of the Mishna rejected 
    Biblical laws without any source. I thought we just agreed that
    the Tannaim often left the sources undocumented, so as to retain
    its oral character! BTW, another reason for this frequent
    ommission is the fact that the students to whom the learning
    was transmitted were thoroughly versed in the Bible, knowing
    the references without it being specified. The very first
    Mishna in the Talmud is a fine example of this style. The Mishna
    begins with a question - "from which hour is the Shema recited in
    the evenings?" No verse is quoted to prove that such a requirement
    even exists! The source is clarified in the Gemara. According to
    your way of thinking, the author of the Mishna was creating a new
    law by not citing the verse!
    Even if your claim had merit, at least reasonable explanations are
    given, period. The only rationale Abraham Geiger and David Einhorn
    (German Reform rabbis of the last century), needed in calling for
    the abolition of circumcision, was its "barbarism". I believe
    Rabbi Geiger would be rather hard put to find a verse to support
    this call, much more so than Prusbul! Furthermore, not only did
    he not attempt such folly, but neither has any member of his movement
    tried to rationalize his radical ideas.
    The difference is quite fundamental. The raison d'etre, by defintion,
    of the Reform movement, is to change, to uproot. Eugene Borowitz,
    a contemporary Reform leader, points out proudly how the name of
    the movement differs from say, the Dutch ReformED Church. The very
    foundation of the movement, both then and now, according to 
    Borowitz, is constant change. To me, a rather good analogy is
    building a skyscraper on quicksand.
    In contrast, the name Tanna denotes learning, as does the product,
    the "Mishna". The Tannaim were primarily interested in learning,
    in understanding G-d's word, in order to live by it. Kosher laws,
    circumcision, and a host of other laws have never been easy. And
    yes, there have been Jewish movements to abolish these practices
    throughout the ages, including the generation of the Tannaim. Why did 
    the Talmudic rabbis not do away with these laws?
    
    >we have always had a measure of biculturalism, but we have also 
    >shared certain things in common with other Jews.
    
    Please tell me what "things" I have in common with the Jews of 
    Tripoli, Bahdad, Tiblisi, and Shanghai, in a cultural sense.
    Baseball?
    
    >one thing we do have in common is that we both think that there
    >is something very important about who we are.
    
    Agreed; let's keep searching. But that alone is not enough. Hitler
    was also interested in Jewish commonality. In order to obliterate
    every trace of Jewishness from the earth.
    
    Jem
    

    Re: .58
    
    Before anyone misinterprets the last few sentences in the previous note,
    I want to make clear that I did not intend any personal attack on
    Aaron. In fact, I used an emotionally-charged example, and I apologize.
    
    Jem
    

    RE: .58

    A response to one comment, other responses later:

    >Please tell me what "things" I have in common with the Jews of 
    >Tripoli, Bahdad, Tiblisi, and Shanghai, in a cultural sense.
    
    Let me tell you some things I have in common with them:  We read some
    of the same literature.  We use a similar calendar to mark the times of
    the year.  We study a language in common.  We have quite a few ritual
    practices in common. We identify the same geographical area as central
    to our history.  We share a concern about the fate of each other's
    community.  We recognize the legitimacy of marriage between members of
    our communities.

    Not to belabor this too much, let me suggest what I see as the
    essential difference between my position and Jem's:

    To me, Judaism is an evolving culture or civilization and one of the
    things that all civilizations do is develop symbols and rituals to
    define themselves and aid in the transmission of values and beliefs. 
    In the western world, this often takes the form of what we call
    religion.  (In much of the world there is not a sharp distinction
    between religious and non-religious behavior.  Judaism, for instance,
    makes a distinction between the holy and the non-holy, but not between
    religious and secular.)  Thus, I see what we call the `religious'
    aspects of Judaism as a manifestation of Jewish culture and I do not
    think that the Tanach, the Talmud and the rest of the vast store of
    what is thought of as Jewish religious writing would have been created
    in the absence of that culture.

    For Jem (correct me if I misstate this), to the extent that there is
    something that might be called Jewish civilization, it is a side effect
    of something more fundamental, the giving of the Torah (both the
    written and the oral aspects).  It is the belief in the divine origin
    (not merely divine inspiration) of Torah and the attempt to follow it
    that links Jews to one another and produces a `Jewish' environment.

                                                Aaron

    Re: .60
    
    >We use a similar calendar to mark the times of the year. We study a
    >language in common.
    
    Ethiopian Jews, for one example, had no calendar, nor did they know
    Hebrew.
    
    >We have quite a few ritual practices in common.
    
    This sounds suspiciously like religion to me.
    
    >We share a concern about the fate of each other's community.
    
    Kaifeng Jews had no knowledge of any outside Jewish community for
    many centuries.
    
    >We recognize the legitimacy of marriage between members of our
    >communities.
    
    Marriages are universally recognized if performed according to 
    Jewish law.
    
    Jem
    

    Re: .60
    
    One I neglected to address:
    >We identify the same geographical area as central to our history.
    
    Historically, one glaring exception to this was the Reform
    movement. One of the first innovations of the German reformers was
    the deletion of all references to Zion from the prayer book. At
    the Philadelphia conference of 1869, Reform leaders agreed that
    Jews no longer looked to Zion as their homeland, neither should
    they pray for any restoration of a Jewish national home in
    Palestine. Only with the advent of the Nazis did Reform leaders
    agree to support this aspiration.
    Aaron, I have to admit that I am once again confused. If you
    believe that culture constitutes Jewishness, why then would
    such a movement claim the right to change RELIGIOUS rules? There
    exist cultural organizations such as the JCC, but they limit 
    themselves to Israeli dancing, basketball, and Chanuka parties.
    Not Halachic responsa.
    
    Jem
    
    

    Re: .62
    
    >Historically, one glaring exception to this was the Reform
    >movement

    Which (we probably both agree on this one) was a bad idea.

    As I mentioned earlier, even groups that prayed for the restoration of
    Zion did not necessarily support the modern Zionist movement; prior to
    the Nazi period most Zionist activity was secular; my recollection is
    that only the Mizrachi and the Reconstructionists explicitly supported
    the formation of a state.

    >                                                     If you
    >believe that culture constitutes Jewishness, why then would
    >such a movement claim the right to change RELIGIOUS rules?

    First of all, the Reform movement would have agreed with you and not
    with me on the significance of religion.  Both Geiger and Hirsch saw a
    distinction between religion and culture and each tried to formulate a
    way to preserve the `Jewish religion.' (Their formulations were
    significantly different.)  I happen to disagree with both, in that I
    consider `religion' one of several ways in which culture manifests
    itself.  Halachic responsa are a significant reflection of our culture
    and studying the ways in which Halacha has changed over time tells us a
    great deal about how Jewish civilization has evolved.

    >exist cultural organizations such as the JCC

    The JCCs are (for the most part) social service, not cultural,
    organizations.  Jewish culture is not defined by what they do any more
    than American culture is defined by the local Boys Club.  I am using
    the term in the sense of "the arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and
    all other products of human work and thought created by a people or
    group at a particular time" (see p169 of the DEC standard issue
    American Heritage paperback dictionary, def 3).

                                        Aaron

    Re: .63
    
    >even groups that prayed for the restoration of Zion did not necessarily
    >support the modern Zionist movement; my recollection is that only the
    >Mizrachi and the Reconstructionists explicitly supported the formation
    >of a state.
    
    I believe we were addressing the LAND which is central to our history.
    All traditional Jews agree on this. Zionism is a topic for another 
    discussion.
    
    >the arts, beliefs, customs, institutions, and all other products of
    >human work
    
    I think it has been duly demonstrated how arts, customs, institutions,
    and "all other products" vary drastically from one Jewish clime to
    another. Beliefs, on the other hand have retained their integrity
    among traditional Jews irrespective of either geography or century.
    
    But what does all this bickering over semantics actually buy us?
    The fact is, American Judaism is doing something TERRIBLY wrong,
    judging from statistics and projections. How shall we address
    this central problem (we do agree it's a problem, I assume)?
    
    Jem
    
    
    

    RE: .64, but you seem to ignore the social differences with American
    society when compared to, lets say Israeli society. The U.S. is more
    heterogeneous in makeup than most other places, and as such, members of
    its society intermix much more widely. In a more closed society, more
    orthodox forms of religion (intentionally small "o" because I'm not
    limiting the term to Judaism) have a better chance to survive than in a
    more open society.
    
    You can not succeed to "enforce" Orthodox beliefs in a country like the
    U.S. because of this. Jews here will freely choose their religious
    directions, and there is little social pressure on them to do
    otherwise. Some may not like this, but it is a fact of life, in Judaism
    as in many other religions.
    
    Eric

    re: .65
    
    I don't think anybody is talking about "enforcing" any type of Judaism
    in the U.S.  I've been following this discussion and find that there
    are points for both sides that I can support.
    
    David

    I'm not saying that anyone is trying to "enforce" in the U.S., only
    discussing attitudes, but by the Orthodox attitude in Israel that "our 
    way is the only correct way", those who tried to modify the Law of Return
    and "who is a Jew" were trying to do just that. They want to establish
    a Jewish "caste" system, when them on the top!
    
    Eric

    Re: .67
    
    Eric,
    
    I'd like to know what YOU think of the state of American Jewry. From all
    studies I've seen it's a very sorry one indeed. Quite likely, there have
    been grievous errors committed by Jewish leaders in this country to 
    bring us to the verge of extinction in a very few generations. Is this
    worth considering? Personally, I find the silence on this issue to be
    at best, deafening.
    
    Jem

    RE: .68, I don't think that the problems with religion in the U.S. is
    limited to Jewry, figures show that attendance of most of the major
    faiths is poor at best.
    
    American Jewry is much more divergent that Jewry in most other countr-
    ies. The freedom in this country plus the divergence of society as a
    whole greatly contribute to this. The pressure to "conform" to a
    religious norm does not generally exist in the U.S., so religion,
    especially Jewish, takes a more liberal turn in its beliefs. I don't
    have the actual figures in front of me, but I would suspect that Jewish
    life is strong in the areas with high Jewish populations (i.e. NYC),
    while weaker in most of the rest of the country.
    
    The mobility of people in America tends to have populations spread out
    across the country, often into areas with small Jewish populations,
    with the resulting intermixing of different religions socially. This
    will result in an increase in intermarrages. In areas with large Jewish
    cultures, the problem is not so pronounced.
    
    Another factor is that American Jews (though there are exceptions), do
    not like their level of observence dictated to them, so there is much
    more interpetation involving Jewish practices here.
    
    Will it change, I can't say for sure, but since I'm a firm believer in
    each individual finding their own level of belief, then I doubt that
    there is anything you or I can do to change the trend, short of having
    American Jews live in communities with large Jewish populations
    exclusively.
    
    Eric
    
    

    Re .70:
    
    Eric is correct. Among Protestant denominations, so-called Mainline
    churches (liberal Protestants) are losing the numbers game to the more
    conservative, fundamentalist Protestant churches with some exceptions
    (large urban congregations in New England as an example).
    
    The liberal Protestants are viewed as "wishy washy" on Christianity by
    their fundamentalist counterparts, especially in light of the recent
    Jewish-Christian rapprochement (see note 745) which liberal Protestants
    endorse.
    
    I can't speak in detail about the Roman Catholic side of the house
    but I do know they have a similar fundamentalist movement as well.
    
    Mark

Re: .70

>I don't think that the problems with religion in the U.S. is
>limited to Jewry, figures show that attendance of most of the major 
>faiths is poor at best.

At the risk of sounding chauvinistic, I am primarily concerned with
JEWISH religious problems in this country. The fact is, the overwhelming 
majority of Israeli Jews do not practice their religion. Although this
is a matter of great import, there is a substantial difference. Whether
a Jew in Israel is observant or not, the great majority will at least marry
within the faith, thus affording future generations an opportunity to
choose to learn about their venerable heritage, or not to. But in this
country, the majority intermarry, thereby robbing their progeny of all
hope of a full understanding of their ancestral creed. Non-practicing
Christians in this country are analagous to secular Jews in Israel...
their children are likely to remain at least nominal Christians.

>Another factor is that American Jews (though there are exceptions), do
>not like their level of observance dictated to them, so there is much
>more interpretation involving Jewish practices here.

The only Jew who is actually forced into a "level of observance" is that
Jew who is deprived of a complete Jewish education. If a person studies
Jewish history and belief, he then has a basis for choosing whether to
observe or not. Those who are not given this foundation are, in essence,
deprived of their freedom of religion.

>I doubt that there is anything you or I can do to change the trend, short
>of having American Jews live in communities with large Jewish populations
>exclusively.

The question is not one of geography at all. We have seen areas with very
large Jewish populations with precious little Jewish SPIRITUALITY. All it
takes is one person with a firm commitment to his heritage to organize study
groups, lectures and other religious events to reintroduce vibrancy in
spiritually lethargic areas. A little light displaces much darkness.
I don't claim that this is an easy task, but it can be done, and has been
done again and again by people of vision and courage. Because in every Jew
there exists a divine spark awaiting ignition.

Jem

    Jem, unfortunately, though what you say sounds nice, it won't happen in
    this country because secular life and religion are two different
    things.  All the education in the world will not change someone who
    does not wish to believe as you do (and this is probably the majority
    of Jews in this country), and you won't be able to change that
    attitude. Even if education could change things, do you really believe
    that someone who is non-observant or plans to intermarry will choose to
    go to "classes" to learn? Children are a product of their homelife, and
    if the parents choose a non-observant life, the children will probably
    follow suit.
    
    Whether you like it or not, a large number of people in the U.S.
    (including many Jews) will choose a religious life that makes THEM
    feel the most comfortable, regardless of what they were born, and this
    you will not succeed in changing because the culture here is more open
    as far as religion goes. Its a battle I doubt you will ever win!
    
    Eric
    

    Jem, although I may sympathise, your goals and aspirations are as
    un-realistic and non-productive as a goal of repatriating all Jews to
    Israel, which by your own admission will accomplish some of the same
    goals (reduce inter-marriage and maintain a potential for the
    "reintroduction of vibrancy").
    
    Two Jews = Three Opinions. Despite or because of this the Jews
    have survived, baruch ha'shem. Let the people be and don't shed
    tears over the "spiritually lethargic areas". If you feel that
    you need to do something to affect the Jewish destiny -- do it.
    But don't talk about your "little light" as if it was this destiny.
    
    Alex

    re: last two
    
    I'd have to say that I have more sympathy for Jem's position in this
    more than the last two.  What good has "freedom of religion" done
    the Jews in the U.S., when 40% of us won't be around by the year
    2000 due to assimilation/intermarriage.  I find it hard coming to
    grips with this fact, yet why aren't more American Jews alarmed
    about it?
    
    --David 

Re: .73

>Whether you like it or not, a large number of people in the U.S. 
>(including many Jews) will choose a religious life that makes THEM
>feel the most comfortable, regardless of what they were born, and this
>you will not succeed in changing

The pronoun "you" is used repeatedly in your note. Am "I" the only one
concerned about Jewish survival? What suggestions do "you" have?

>Its a battle I doubt you will ever win.

Absolutely. It is a battle, however that everyone can wage in their
own lives, and sometimes it can touch others with whom they come into
contact. 

Re; .74

You appear to feel threatened in some way. Is Jewish education now
a controversial topic?

Jem

re:                         <<< Note 742.76 by GAON::jem >>>
> You appear to feel threatened in some way.
    
    Could you be more specific, perhaps? (a.k.a. "huh?")
    What is it that lead you to this profound conclusion? 
    
    Alex

    RE: .76, I'm using the pronoun "you" to discuss the "point of view"
    that you have, and not GAON::jem in particular, as opposed to my point
    of view which is different.
    
    My concerns are more with the needs of the INDIVIDUAL than those of any
    particular group. If that 40% that are lost have found something which
    fits them better or is closer to their personal beliefs, then I'm all
    for it. Religion is an individual belief, and as such, the individual
    has the right to believe as they wish. If that causes the numbers of a
    particular faith to decrease, then either it must change or accept that
    it does not fill the needs of those who have left, and concentrate on
    those that truly believe in its teachings. I don't personally feel that
    anyone has to be "locked" into the faith of their parents, the
    individual can make that choice for him/herself as they learn. If my
    son decides, as an adult, to accept a faith different from mine, I will
    have no objection as long as he truly believes in it.
    
    Eric

>If my son decides, as an adult, to accept a faith different from mine,
>I will have no objection as long as he truly believes in it.

A menial laborer can decide to become a professor of philosophy, but is 
highly unlikely to do so. Jewish education does not, of necessity, make
one Jewish. It merely gives him a clear choice. There is more to Judaism,
you should excuse the expression, than BAGELS, or even lox.

>If that 40% that are lost have found something which fits them better
>or is closer to their personal beliefs, them I'm all for it.

Is this, then, your solution? Write millions of Jews off? Apparently,
most Jewish "leaders" agree with you, since by ignoring the question
this is the inevitable end. 
If our ancestors in every generation willingly gave their lives for
the sake of Judaism, don't we at least owe them the courtesy of finding
out what it is that we're discarding?

Jem

    What then is your answer for the 40%, force them back to the fold?
    You can not force a religious belief on anyone and have then really
    believe in it. They may "outwardly" appear religious, but that is to
    just satisfy those who want them to follow the faith.
    
    I think that the major difference between our views is that I do not
    accept the notion that there is only one "true religion". I view true
    religion is that religion that each individual believes in for himself
    and his faith in G-d, whether that be Jewish, Christian, Buddist,
    Islam, or any of the others. That choice is up to the individual to
    make, not you or I. If 40% of the Jews in the U.S intermarry and leave
    Judaism, neither of us has the right to condemn them for it because it
    is not for us to say what is right for them.
    
    You talk about clear choice, but when a large number of persons have
    made that choice, you feel that Judaism as a whole must do something to
    bring them back. You will have to face the fact that the choice had
    been made, and no education, pressure, or guilt trips (ancestors....)
    can or will change that. And no one has the right to change someone
    else's decision.
    
    You may not like what I have said because it means "accepting" the loss
    of large numbers of Jews, but no one but the individual involved has
    the right to make that decision for himself.
    
    Eric

    re: .80
    
    You seem to be pretty sanquine about losing 40%.  What's more important
    to you, western civilization's idea of freedom of choice or the
    survival of the Jewish people?  From your remarks it seems as though
    the former is.
    
    --David

    Without freedom of choice, then the person as an individual will
    disappear. If the Jewish people can't survive on their own merit, then
    it may be time to rethink the approach that Judaism is taking. You 
    can no longer tell someone that a "HIGHER AUTHORITY" has said that this
    is the only right way to go and expect them to blindly follow. G-d gave
    each individual a brain capable of reasoning, and when an established
    religion no longer fulfills the needs of that individual, they will
    look elsewhere, perhaps to a different faith.
    
    So to answer your question, you are correct, the individual's choice in
    their belief is paramount to me over all else, because without the
    freedom to believe as you wish, then religion becomes a "forced
    theocracy". The Jewish people won't disappear, although their numbers
    in such places as the U.S. will probably decrease, but those remaining
    will be individuals who have freely accepted the beliefs and teachings
    of Judaism.
    
    Eric
    
     

    I'm not going to discuss this anymore until I'm "blue in the face".
    You define the Jewish people strictly in terms of a religion, I
    don't.  Judaism is the backbone, but there are other components
    that make up our people.
    
    --David 

    re: .82
    
    The problem is not free choice.  The issue is that most Jews have not
    been given the fundamental information from which to make a choice. 
    They enter college and are challenged by western secular (or eastern
    religious) philosophy and they are expected to counteract that with
    David and Goliath stories and gefilte fish.
    
    Av

re: .82 and others

Eric,

I don't think anyone is claiming that we should go out and try to force
jewish education down the throats of those adult Jews who don't care to
be educated.  Nor is freedom of choice necessarily a bad thing.  What is
a bad thing is throwing our children out into the world of many choices
without first educating them.  What must be done is to improve the quality
of jewish education for those who do care to be educated and for their
children so that we reduce the risk of choices that might be made in the
future.

It is one thing to say that people should be able to make their own choices.
It is another to expect that those choices will be well informed ones.  Many
of the Jews who choose other religions do so because they know more about
those other religions than about Judaism.

Gavriel

    re:              <<< Note 742.75 by TAZRAT::CHERSON "just enough" >>>
                         -< freedom to disintegrate? >-
   >re: last two
        
>    What good has "freedom of religion" done
>    the Jews in the U.S., when 40% of us won't be around by the year
>    2000 due to assimilation/intermarriage.  
    
    I know this may come as a shock but if it weren't for "freedom of
    religion", Jews wouldn't be allowed in most of the US!  Please recall
    that the Mass. Bay Colony, for one, was established by
    Congregationalists who tolerated (begrudgingly) Episcopalians but
    banned Jews and "Papists".
    
    And even where we're begrudgingly allowed, "Freedom of Religion" is
    sorely missed when absent.  Witness post-revolutionary Iran. 
    
    Merely fighting over numbers is meaningless.

    RE: .84 and .85, you're not going to successfully educate the children
    unless the parents are interested in Jewish education. If the parents
    have left (for whatever reason), they are not going to tell the
    children one thing and do another. If you want children to appreciate
    Jewish life and heritage, they have to grow up in that environment.
    You look to target the children which is fine, except that unless the
    parents desire that lifestyle, it will not be present in the home.
    Your best chances are to target the college students and young adults
    if you want to see a growth of Jewish life in the U.S.
    
    You still miss the point that outside of certain geographic areas,
    because of demographics, there are few Jews to interact with. Add this
    to the realization that the majority of Jews here are not interested in
    an Orthodox lifestyle (if an observant one at all) and you see the
    causes of many people intermarrying. 
    
    For a change, I'll ask a few questions to the last few reply authors:
    
    1)Do you feel that Judaism is the only "correct" religion in the
      country for those born Jewish, but who feel no affinity to it?
    
    2)When people live in areas with few Jews, can we expect them to date
      or have social interaction only with other Jews?
    
    3)Do you respect the right for any individual, Jews included, to
      personally choose their faith as they see fit, rather than being
      locked into the one of their birth?
    
    4)Do Jews have the right to choose their own level of observance
      without being told that they are wrong?
    
    5)Do you feel that YOU have the right to dictate religious beliefs to
      anyone else but yourself?
    
    My whole point is the individual should have the choice of how they
    wish to worship, without others coming down on him/her. Whether its
    good or bad, the world and society changes, and in modern times,
    religion has become less important to most people in their daily lives,
    Jews included. You probably won't "win" back those who have left, so
    you must concentrate on the next generation, not by education alone or
    teaching Torah or Talmud or the Law, but by showing Jews how their
    religion fits THEIR needs and desires, because in modern times, this is
    the ONLY way to make the numbers grow. Expecting "blind devotion" of
    today's young can not work, we're in a different time than before, and
    religion must change to fit the times or it will slowly fade.
    
    Eric

    re: .86
    
    I wasn't advocating abolishing freedom of religion, far from it.
    What I wanted to do, and could have done better, is to contrast
    that freedom with the dwindling number of Jews phenomenom.
    
    --David

    What freedom of religion does is allow the individual to make the
    choice for him/herself for what is right for that individual. If that
    conflicts to what some perceive as good for the Jewish people, then
    that is a problem for those with the perception, not the individual
    who made the choice! Religion must fill a need for the believing
    individual, and if one religion does not fill that need, then that in-
    dividual will look elsewhere.
    
    In the U.S., it appears that Judaism (or at least Judaism as its
    currently practiced) does not fulfill the needs of a large number of
    Jews here, hence the loss in numbers. Whether you like it or not,
    Judaism must change if it wants to keep its numbers strong in this
    country. The diversity of culture here necessitates this.
    
    This does not appear to be the case in most other countries with Jewish
    populations (I'm not discussing Israel here), probably due to the fact
    that Jewish life is more centralized and more integrated with regard
    to religious and social life. In the U.S., outside of the major Jewish
    population centers, this is not the case. Religious life and social
    life are often two distinct entities. In areas where you have both, one
    can strengthen the other, or at least compensate for it with a
    resulting more cohesive Jewish lifestyle. Where the two are separate,
    then Jewish life must survive on the religious aspects alone.
    
    I think that we are approaching this problem (and for the Jews in the
    U.S., loss of numbers is a serious problem) from different directions.
    The previous replies approach it from a religious direction, while I
    approach it from a social or cultural direction. To succeed in the
    U.S., the Jewish "establishment" must use the latter approach, because
    our culture here will generally not accept religious arguments when
    discussing social problems.
    
    Eric

    You all have points of merit.  Eric, if those who choose not to
    be observant then that is their free choice, but unfortuntly they
    do become observant but of Non-Jewish activities often Eastern
    Religions, etc.  So they are looking for something.  Judaism doesn't
    meet their needs or more likely they don't know enough about Judaism
    to see if it meets their needs so they fulfill these needs elsewhere.
    
    At the same time (JEM) we are nolonger a superstitious shtetle living
    group of people.  We are educated and will not accept blindly teachings
    because we are told that's they way it should be.  Nor should we
    throw they baby out with the bathwater.  We ALL need to find a way
    to reach more Jews that are uninvolved (note my choice of words).
    Judaism has much to offer beyond observance and for many the traditions
    of charity and striving for a better world will find that Judaism
    has a lot to offer.  Ever study what the Torah has to say about
    animal rights.

    There is one point that I need to add to Eric's line of thought: I
    refuse to sacrifice individualism for the "good of the people",
    whichever "people". If we do so, we are no better than you know who
    (.10 I believe also addresses this issue).

    I do not believe that Jews will become extinct as an identifiable
    group of people (even in this country). There may be a smaller
    Jewish community, but does quantity represent goodness? And it is
    not as if 40% of Jews here will die a horrible death! I also do not
    agree that the Jews who get "lost" do so because they are searching
    for something and are ignorant of Judaism.

    On the other hand, I eagerly agree with David that there is more to
    Jewishness than Judaism. Let's mention the "vibrancy" of Jews. I
    believe that vibrancy can be best expected of a group of people who are
    multi-faceted. There is an important place among Jews for the core
    groups like hassidim, for example. But I doubt that it is a good idea
    for all Jews to be hassidim. At the other extreme I believe that there
    is a place among Jews for non-observant and even atheist Jews and
    converts (OK, they are not Jews, but there is a place for them!). And
    if anyone here has ideas about the homogeneity of the Jews in Israel,
    guess again! Yet some of you are content that at least the Jews of
    Israel are "safe".
     
    Jews do not exist in isolation from Mankind. I do not want Jews to be a
    human black whole. Part of the reason why a Jew may feel proud to be a
    Jew is because Jews of all persuasions have contributed to Mankind much
    more than the benefit they derived from being a part of it. Do you want
    to be a part of a billion strong tribe that lives isolated in a jungle,
    content that it is genetically, philosophically and religiously pure?
    
    Alex
    
    PS. As to the subject of the base note - a move in the right direction!

    re .89
    
    >In the U.S., it appears that Judaism (or at least Judaism as its
    >currently practiced) does not fulfill the needs of a large number of
    >Jews here, hence the loss in numbers. Whether you like it or not,
    >Judaism must change if it wants to keep its numbers strong in this
    >country. The diversity of culture here necessitates this.
    
    From my experience Jewish life thrives when people become involved.
    It's very difficult to be enthuastic about a Jewish Youth Group, a
    Jewish Society at College, or a group that is aiming at young
    grads/singles if you can't get the members. The amazing thing happends
    when one or two people try and do something and they are successful in
    getting things moving.  When this happends just watch at how things
    take off and people want to become involved! 
    
    I would say that it's not Judaism that must change because the 40% 
    are not leaving because they disagree with it! Of the ones that become
    involved in other religions or cults the usual reason is circumstance
    and not a carefully weighed decision. Most of the 40% probably don't
    become involved with anything at all (as was pointed out earlier about 
    the numbers practising Religion in America). The major change that's
    needed is for all people who care to actively try and involve all Jews
    around them in everything that they do. Too often we have artificial
    barriers between ourselves. We don't talk to the more religous because
    they're "meshugah" and neither do we mix with people who are less
    religous as they are considered as somehow beyond the pale. Also, how
    many of us help out with the local Jewish groups and keep them alive? 
    
    So to sum up, I think the truth is not that Judaism doesn't meet the
    needs of the Jewish community, but that the community doesn't! 
    By community I also don't mean the Rabbi and the President of the local
    Shul, but every member, in how they organize their lives, who they 
    invite to their house, and how many groups they try to become involved
    in to the best of their ability (especially Youth/Student groups that
    are often over streached and run on the drive of very few).

    Malcolm

Emotions certainly run high on this issue, as well they should.
We are discussing nothing less than (in fact much more than) the
decimation of a nation.

Re: .87

>you're not going to successfully educate the children unless
>the parents are interested in Jewish education.

This is a valid concern. However, in the case of thousands of
courageous parents around the country, this has been much less
of a roadblock than one might think. These Jews realize that,
although they might have been deprived of Jewish knowledge
themselves by THEIR parents, this is no reason to punish their
children in the same way. Children can become somewhat confused,
but as they grow older, they learn to appreciate valor of their
parents in making sacrifices for them... and relationships are
often strengthened.

>Your best chances are to target the college students and young
>adults if you want to see a growth of Jewish life in the U.S.

Absolutely. No Jew should be divested of the occasion to learn
about his heritage.

>When people live in areas with few Jews, can we expect them to
>date or have social interaction only with other Jews?

This is a serious problem, and really requires study. However,
as with all issues that really matter, solutions can and must
be found. BTW, nobody is here advocating social interaction
"only with other Jews". 
I don't think anyone claims to have all the answers, but isn't
that one of the things these conferences are for?

>Do you respect the right
>Do Jews have the right
>Do you feel that YOU have the right

I believe the point has been made repeatedly that noone is
interested in repealing the Bill of Rights. But small children,
for example, cannot defend their rights, and I believe Jewish
education is a right every Jewish child should have.

Re: .89

>This does not appear to be the case in most other countries
>with Jewish population

Unfortunately, the plague of intermarriage is by no means
confined to these shores. It is a world-wide problem, in 
both wetern countries and behind the Iron Curtain. But who
knows? If we can solve the problems here, we can start
concentrating on the rest of the world next.

Re: .90

>Judaism has much more to offer beyond observance and for many 
>traditions of charity and striving for a better world will
>find that Judaism has a lot to offer.

Agreed. But it's also possible to join the Peace Corps and
work toward the same ends. Experience has shown that these
values ALONE do not Jews make. And we are here discussing
uniquely Jewish survival.

Re: .91

>I do not believe that Jews will become extinct as an 
>identifiable group of people

I quite agree. In fact, the survival of the Jewish people
over the millenia is, in my opinion, in itself one of the
greatest miracles in history. Our history is truly 
unparalleled in the world, and in my case, this was the
catalyst for my own interest in Jewish "roots". There
are a host of prophesies in our Bible which fortell this
perpetuation against all odds.
Yes. The Jewish nation will never completely die. However,
many souls have been and will continue to be taken away
from it, and we dare not stand idly by.

>Yet some of you are content that at least the Jews of
>Israel are "safe".

Not "content", but it seems to me we have enough of our
own problems to grapple with here.

Jem