Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxv!segs
From: segs@mhuxv.UUCP (slusky)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Re: Ethiopian Jews, Racist Ultra-Orthodox, and "Who is a Rabbi?"
Message-ID: <223@mhuxv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 10:54:43 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxv.223
Posted: Thu Feb  7 10:54:43 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Feb-85 01:26:55 EST
References: <861@eisx.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 65

I disagreed with a number of the points Sam Saal made in his very
long article, which was in turn a response to Joe Abeles' article.
I'll start with the first few disagreements and continue till it
gets wearing. Commenting on 311 lines is tough.


> That democratic process in 1948 set up the rule that conversion
> was to be according to Halachah. 

No it didn't. The rule has always been very vague. It is only in this
past year that the suggestion was made in the Knesset to add in the
qualification according to Halacha.


> You are forgetting about all of the earlier aliyot from the middle
> of the 18th century and through the early 20th. These people were
> running away from the pogroms and were generally Shtetl residents
> who were very religious. 

Yes, they were from the shtetls. No, they weren't very religious. They
were rebels. They were nationalistic. But, in general, they weren't
so religious.

> ... all religious Jews were for the
> state. Many felt that the creation of the state was actually the first
> step in the coming of the Mashiach. There were probably more who
> felt this way than there were who felt Jews should wait for the Mashiach
> to initiate the redemption.

That's not the way I read the history books. Most religious groups opposed
the declaration of the Jewish state. Only after the the state was proclaimed
and the Arabs attacked did the majority of those groups feel compelled to
support it.

> It seems to me that conversion should be done in such a way that the
> *results* will satisfy the most people. A Reform Jew will accept an
> Orthodox conversion but not the other way around. 

There are two sides (or more) to this acceptance idea. Here's one you're not
paying attention to. The potential convert who wants to convert to Reform
Judaism will not accept an Orthodox conversion in the sense that an Orthodox
rabbi will demand a commitment to observe mitzvot which the convert has
no intent of observing.


> It may not be the legitimate heir to mainstream Judaism, but it predates
> Conservative and, yes, even Reform Judaism by *many* years. 

Again I disagree. Orthodox Judaism started as a response to the assimilation
going on in Europe. It really begins with Samson Raphuel Hirsch and that bunch.
Before that there were other movements but I think nothing clearly connected
to what became Orthodoxy.

>  Just
> as in many Reform synogogues there are Kosher kitchens...

I've never seen a Reform synagogue with a kosher kitchen. I've seen 
prohibitions against using pork, shellfish, and the like, i.e. adherance
to Chumash kashrut which Reform Judaism theoretically supports. But
I haven't seen Talmudic kashrut observed. What sometimes does happen
is that a kosher affair is catered at a Reform shul. But the food 
is cooked in the caterer's utensils. Is that what you mean?

Susan Slusky
--