Conference taveng::bagels

>    1. When was the first seder held?
    
According to the Jewish Book of Why:

"The original Passover service (not yet called a Seder) is described in Exodus:
a lamb was to be slaughtered and was to be consumed by families [this is a 
reference to THE Exodus in Moses time].  For many centuries after the Exodus, 
until King Josiah of Israel instituted the reforms mentioned in II Kings 23, 
Passover was not celebrated as prescribed in the Torah.  After the establishment
of the Second Temple (sixth century B.C.E.), however, the celebration of 
Passover was revived.......It is not clear when the first 'modern' formal Seder 
was conducted, but it is believed that Rabbi Gamaliel II, at the end of the 
first century C. E., may have begun the tradition..."

Hope this helps - Chag Same'ach!

Waky

    On question 2:  Not being very learned (Jewish-wise) I can't quote
    sources, but I have been told that Moshe was given not only the
    ten commandments, but the entire Torah by Ha Shem when he was on
    Mt. Sinai, a sort of "Vulcan mind merge" you might say.  Some people
    believe that he not only was given the five books, but also the
    entire teachings yet to come.
    
    None of this was written, except the tablets.  It was passed down
    entirely in the oral tradition.  Some memories!  So that's why the
    very Orthodox believe that the Talmud and other teachings are holy
    - they are not only an interpretation of the Torah, but were actually
    given by Ha Shem himself.
    
    Given our current notions of linear time, this was impossible. 
    How could Moshe have the entire Torah, including not only the
    prediction of his own death, but also events far into the future?
    And yet. . . 
    
    Also, it is taught that all the Jews yet to come were all present
    at the foot of Mt. Sinai when the Torah was received.  This is why
    it is given to all of us, not only those who were there, literally,
    at the time.
    
    If your notion of time can be suspended, then you can still accept
    Biblical scholarship that traces different dates of origins for
    different parts of the Torah.  It just means that the divinely-given
    oral tradition was written down in portions at different times.

RE:  .-1

>    None of this was written, except the tablets.  It was passed down
>    entirely in the oral tradition.  Some memories!  So that's why the
>    very Orthodox believe that the Talmud and other teachings are holy
>    - they are not only an interpretation of the Torah, but were actually
>    given by Ha Shem himself.
>    
>    Given our current notions of linear time, this was impossible. 
>    How could Moshe have the entire Torah, including not only the
>    prediction of his own death, but also events far into the future?
>    And yet. . . 

	The simplest possible answer is this: Moshe was given the
	Torah ("5 Books"), and the Oral Law (essentially what's
	called the Mishnah).

	Moshe wrote down the Torah.  He indeed had foreknowledge of
	his own death -- that was no surprise to him. That HaShem
	allowed him foreknowledge of other events is not even
	slightly surprising, if you think about it for a minute.


	Now: You sound surprised at the feat of memory. Let me give you
	a couple of "surprising" facts:

	1)  It's NOT so unusual for one who is well-learned in the
	    Torah to have the whole thing committed to memory.  I
 	    know several such people.  One of those people is a
	    guest in my home every Friday night.  As you might
	    expect, he's a "reasonable" baal korei!  Now, I
	    also "laine" Torah.  If I'm practicing any given
	    parsha on a Friday night, he can correct ANY given
	    word or trop -- out of the "corner of his ear", when
	    he's not particularly listening.  He can quote literally
	    any pasuk on demand; you could ask him something
	    like "what's the third word from the end of the third pasuk in
	    shishi of Pinchas, and what's the trop?", and he
	    will answer immediately.  And correctly.

	    And --- and this is the point -- I know people who are
	    _better_ than he.

	    So, this is not so stunning, after all.  Many of OUR levels have 
	    come down to the point where many of us DO consider it
	    "impossible," but it's clearly and routinely possible.
	

	2)  The Mishnah:  for about 1200 years after the giving of the
	    Torah, the Mishna (Oral law) was repeated literally orally,
	    by tanna'im.  Do you think that that's impossible?

	    If so, you should go "lehrn" for a while at one of the
	    better yeshivot.  There you will find _numbers_ of people
	    who know the whole Gemara -- which is MUCH, MUCH larger
	    than the Mishna -- absolutely COLD.  It may stun you,
	    but they absolutely know it.  You want two examples
	    off the top of my head?  How about Rav Soloveitchik,
	    shlita, in Boston?  How about Rav Moshe Feinstein, l'shalom,
	    of New York?  How about Rav Ovadiah Yosef, shlita, the
	    current Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel (whose knowledge
	    of Gemara is stunning even by _these_ standards!)?

	    Are you now surprised by the tanna'im?  To "only" learn
	    the Mishnah "cold", as your life's work?  Not "so" (!)
	    difficult. (It was finally written down around the
	    years 150-250CE by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi.)

	    Again, many of our levels are quite low, and we don't
	    see this so frequently -- ESPECIALLY in the US, and particularly
	    in Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist congregations --
	    which are by far the majority -- in which this kind / level, etc. of
	    learning has all but disappeared today.

>    Also, it is taught that all the Jews yet to come were all present
>    at the foot of Mt. Sinai when the Torah was received.  This is why
>    it is given to all of us, not only those who were there, literally,
>    at the time.
    
		And we said:  "na'aseh, v'nishmah..."

don feinberg

    re: .3
    
    Don it's not necessary to add any remarks on
    Conservative/Reconstructionist/Reform, etc.  You act totally from
    assumption, you may be surprised to find a level of knowledge that
    you assumed wasn't there.
    
    David

>    Don it's not necessary to add any remarks on
>    Conservative/Reconstructionist/Reform, etc.  You act totally from
>    assumption, you may be surprised to find a level of knowledge that
>    you assumed wasn't there.
    
No, David, sorry.  It's not an assumption, even partly, or totally. Not in
the least. 

While I haven't been in a Conservative or Reform synagogue in 5 or 6 years,
I spent over 30 years "in" the Conservative movement, in a number of
different synagogues.  I've visited a fair number of Reform synagogues.
Maybe in all that time, and in all those places, I only just met the "wrong
crowd", but I have yet to meet even ONE person who I'd call even close to
"talmid chacham" in any of those places. Maybe a very FEW of the Rebbonim. 
Maybe. 

You may tell me that you know some that are different.  I'll agree that
that's probably true. Some probably ARE different. But this is one of the
fundamental issues that _drove_me_out_ of the Conservative movement.

C'mon: Ask yourself seriously:  what's the proportion of people you see in
Reform temples seriously and systematically "lehrning" Gemara (or any of the
other standard literature, for that matter)? Do you expect people to
seriously learn Mishnaiot, Mishnah Breurah, or the Rambam (just for
three...) in a place where Shmoneh Esrai isn't even printed in it's entirety
in the Siddur? How many could do it? One, in perhaps millions? In the
(numerically majority) movement?   In the JTS-A, before you study a couple
of years of Chumash (and you don't even _have_ to study a couple of years
of chumash!), you take courses on Criticism.  Tell me, _that_ is how you
make a chacham -- before one even knows the chumash and standard commentaries?

Sorry, David.  I know we agree on a number of things, but I think you're
wrong on this one. I feel quite strongly (obvious, huh??) that it's high
time we (Jews) start to discuss what's happening in terms of levels of
knowledge. 

[I read, in a letter to the _Advocate_ a couple or three weeks ago:  a girl
wrote to the paper in defense of afternoon Hebrew schools.  She said
something like "...and we _are_ learning Hebrew.  I've learned almost SIXTY
Hebrew words this year.  I can even say 'ani lomedet ivrit'". Now THAT is a
tragic letter, at the very least. And part of the tragedy is that the author
of the letter -- or her parents -- would probably not be able to understand
why it IS such a tragedy. (My seven-year-old couldn't write that letter,
but he's probably learned sixty Hebrew words in the last three weeks.)] 

don

    re: -1
    
    Levels of knowledge in my mind is all relative.  Just because someone
    has memorized the gemara doesn't impress me, it would impress me
    if he/she would know one line and be able to interpret it.
    
    The one reason that I prefer the Conservative movement over all
    the others is that it makes room for various levels of observance
    from Conservadox to those synagogues that I wouldn't associate with.
    Maybe it's just the shul that I belong to that forms my impressions.
    
    All afternoon hebrew schools are a joke, take it from someone who
    spent six years in one.  The fact is that they never concentrated
    on conversational Hebrew, but the real fact is that once a kid gets
    out for the day he/she has no where to use it.  Hebrew day schools
    increase the knowledge somewhat but you still aren't living in the
    environment and that's the crucial thing in learning ANY language.
    
    David  

    I have to both agree and disagree with Don.

    I agree with the assessment of the state of Jewish knowledge and the
    poor performance of the afternoon school.  Don's comment about the poor
    support the schools get from the home is, I think, at least as
    important as the number of hours kids spend (or fail to spend) there.
    From my perspective, the critical problem is that much of what we now
    look to the schools to teach used to be part of the milieu; I learned
    about kashrut--to take one example--at home, not at school (I also
    learned a lot about the anatomy of chickens, but that's another
    story...).

    From what I have seen, children growing up in a strongly Jewish
    environment (by which I mean neighborhood as well as home), can get a
    great deal out of an afternoon program.   At the same time, I've seen
    parents with little Jewish commitment send kids to day schools with
    quite minimal results.  One of the reasons day schools do better in
    general is that children who go to day schools come from families with
    greater commitment.

    Another area in which I find myself in sympathy with Don's view, is his
    assessment of the Conservative Movement.  Potentially, it could be the
    most dynamic, but in practice there is a growing gap between the clergy
    (as the JTS--nothwithstanding the admission of women--swings more and
    more to the right) and the laity.

    The problem I have with the Orthodox solution (which is where I
    started), is that I simply don't find it credible.  At a certain point
    I came to the conclusion that I simply didn't believe that God dictated
    the Torah to Moshe and I could not accept that what we have today
    (Torah and Talmud) were of divine origin.  Basically, the more I study
    the more evidence I find for human (as opposed to divine) origin, but
    also the more interest and respect I have for both the texts and the
    civilization that produced them.  I found, in the Reconstructionist
    movement, a serious alternative to Orthodoxy that I did not think
    Reform or Conservative Judaism represented.  

    Thus, when Don says that he doesn't find the same level of knowledge
    about Gemara in a Reconstructionist congregation as in a Orthodox one,
    I agree with him, but would observe that I do not find the level of
    knowledge of Jewish history in the Orthodox congregations with which I
    am familiar as I do in Reconstructionist ones.  We differ in our idea
    of the origins of Judaism and therefore we emphasize different texts
    and different types of learning.   We start with different assumptions
    about the texts and therefore often (not always) ask different
    questions of them.  There are many things on which we would strenuously
    disagree, but, unfortunately, I think we share the same pessimistic
    view of the current state of Jewish knowledge.

    Aaron

Re: last 4 replies.

Although we all have very strong feelings regarding Jewish denominationalism,
I'm not sure if this is the proper forum for such dialectics. Before we make
public condemnations of other groups, we should re-read our comments and ask
ourselves what is this going to accomplish? 
Let's recall Aaron, lover of peace, pursuer of peace ... u'mekarvan laTorah.
I don't believe it can be otherwise.
-Jeremy

    RE: 685.8

    Jeremy,

    Disagreement is not disparagement.  We are not making ad hominem
    attacks on each other.  I did not suggest that it is wrong for anyone
    else to be Orthodox and I did not interpret Don's comments as demeaning
    non-Orthodox Jews.

    There is a significant difference between arguing over something that
    we care about and trying to harm one another.  To disagree strenuously
    is not the same as disagreeing violently.  Speaking only for myself, I
    do not think anyone has behaved in an uncivil manner.

    Indeed, if you re-read the last few notes, I think you will see that
    there is agreement as well as disagreement.  As long as Jews know
    something about being Jewish, we will have things to argue about.
    The peace of Aharon ha-cohen means respecting each other as
    human beings; it is not the peace of indifference that grows out of
    ignorance.

    Aaron

RE: .9

I don't have anything against healthy disagreements, but I think in this 
context it might do more harm than good. Education - yes. I'm sure there
are many people reading this conference who don't know about the history
of the various Jewish denominations - and the more people know, the better.
But often emotionalism takes over in this type of discussion, and every-
thing goes downhill.
Jeremy

    re: .10
    
    Jeremy, we should let Mr. Moderator be the judge of how far downhill
    a discussion is going.
    
    David 

    Here we have a good example of a healthy disagreement!
    Jeremy

    It's also a disagreement that's very informing to me -- someone with
    a far less than complete education in my religion and the history
    of my people. 
    
    Gene
    

    If you think this is disagreement, you should read soc.culture.jewish
    on the Usenet!
    
    The events in the Occupied Territories are placid by contrast.

    re:.14
    
    Funny, I was going to suggest to Jeremy that he try an unmoderated
    USENET conference for some examples of "downhill" noting.
    
    David

    OK, OK forget I ever said anything - I apparently didn't express myself
    clearly.
    Re: .13 - One of the points I was trying to make is that this issue can
    be extremely informative - but it needs to be handled with caution in
    order to edify. 
    The history of our people is indeed fascinating and unique. The most 
    amazing thing of all is that we're still in existence, through thousands
    of years of exile and continual persecution and decimation, as well as
    internal strife, and sectarianism. 
    The latter is perhaps the most destructive of all. A nation that is beset
    with external foes at least has a clear understanding of who the enemy is,
    and in fact, it can actually serve as a uniting force in a way that can't
    be felt in peacetime. But enemies from within work in a much more subtle w
    way, gradually tearing away at the fiber of a people. 
    Many Jewish sects have come and gone throughout the ages. At one time,
    the Karaites were a major Jewish denomination. The Karaites believed 
    strictly in the written Bible, and interpreted it literally. Thus, since
    the Bible says, "No man shall leave his place on the Sabbath day", the
    Karaites stayed indoors the entire day. Rabbinic Judaism, in contrast,
    interpreted "place" in a broader sense, denoting a certain comfortable 
    walking distance from one's house, so that one could enjoy leasure on
    this day without undertaking tiring journeys. The rabbis, however, did
    not invent this interpretation. The Rabbinites believed that an oral
    tradition was given to Moses along with the written Law. How, in fact
    is one supposed to interpret "Fringes make thou on the four corners of
    thy garment", without some direction. This oral Law was passed down from
    generation to generation until finally, it commited to print in the form
    of the Talmud.
    The Karaites still exist today, but in small and ever diminishing numbers.
    A religion, in order to survive, must have a means of adapting to new
    situations that arise with each generation. The Karaites did not have
    this ability, so slowly but surely they disappeared. There are many other
    examples of this.
    Rabbinic Judaism, on the other hand, is still alive and well after many
    thousands of years. Although attacked as intransigent by its foes, the
    strength actually lies in the adaptability of the written-oral combination,
    as well as living scholar/leaders to interpret the Torah in the idiom of
    each generation. 
    This is truly the secret of our survival as a people through all the
    adversity we have suffered. We have a mission, and no external forces
    will deter us from our purpose as long as we study and keep the laws
    of the Torah steadfastly.
    Jeremy
    

    RE: .16
    
    BEAUTIFULLY SAID!!!
    
    AV