Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site eisx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!mhuxv!mhuxh!mhuxi!mhuxm!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!spuxll!eisx!sms From: sms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Ethiopian Jews, Racist Ultra-Orthodox, and "Who is a Rabbi?" Message-ID: <867@eisx.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 13:42:08 EST Article-I.D.: eisx.867 Posted: Fri Feb 8 13:42:08 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Feb-85 03:11:52 EST Organization: AT&T Info. Sys. Labs, South Plainfield NJ Lines: 83 I was not going to add any more to my already overly long posting (300+ lines), but Susan Slusky's quoting got me angry enough to have to correct her. S> Yes, they were from the shtetls. No, they weren't very religious. They S> were rebels. They were nationalistic. But, in general, they weren't S> so religious. This is a matter of degree. I would challenge most people who claim to be religious to come up to their level. You are correct that they were nationalistic and were rebels, but this does not make them non-religious. S> > ... all religious Jews were for the S> > state. Many felt that the creation of the state was actually the first S> > step in the coming of the Mashiach. There were probably more who S> > felt this way than there were who felt Jews should wait for the Mashiach S> > to initiate the redemption. S> That's not the way I read the history books. Most religious groups opposed S> the declaration of the Jewish state. Only after the the state was proclaimed S> and the Arabs attacked did the majority of those groups feel compelled to S> support it. This is the section which got me angriest. Couldn't you have left in the word "almost" before the word "all". The word "almost" in place of the ellipses radically changes the meaning of my statement. It also makes your statement look true (I'm too incensed to add the ":-)") S> > It seems to me that conversion should be done in such a way that the S> > *results* will satisfy the most people. A Reform Jew will accept an S> > Orthodox conversion but not the other way around. S> There are two sides (or more) to this acceptance idea. Here's one you're not S> paying attention to. The potential convert who wants to convert to Reform S> Judaism will not accept an Orthodox conversion in the sense that an Orthodox S> rabbi will demand a commitment to observe mitzvot which the convert has S> no intent of observing. Judaism does not go looking for converts. If someone wants to join our ranks, we try to*dissuade* him from doing so. This is not out of elitism but because we do not feel that a non-Jew must add to the burdens of his life by taking on the additional responsibilities of the Jews (365 Mitzvot, pogroms, holocausts etc) If a convert has no intention of taking on judaism, why should he start the whole process. Judaism is not some sort of hobby which can be left on the shelf to collect dust when you are bored with it. Once you're in you're stuck with it. This is the whole basis of why we try to dissuade the person who wishes to convert. S> Again I disagree. Orthodox Judaism started as a response to the assimilation S> going on in Europe. It really begins with Samson Raphuel Hirsch and that bunch. S> Before that there were other movements but I think nothing clearly connected S> to what became Orthodoxy. Hirsch is the start of modern Orthodoxy, I agree. However look at what he was working with and what he formed. He took Shtetl Judaism and those who were headed towards assimilation and showed how you could remain in the society as a participant as well as maintain an *observant* Jewish lifestyle. I'm not speaking for all of the orthodox, but that seems pretty good to me. S> > Just S> > as in many Reform synogogues there are Kosher kitchens... S> I've never seen a Reform synagogue with a kosher kitchen. I've seen S> prohibitions against using pork, shellfish, and the like, i.e. adherence S> to Chumash kashrut which Reform Judaism theoretically supports. But S> I haven't seen Talmudic kashrut observed. What sometimes does happen S> is that a kosher affair is catered at a Reform shul. But the food S> is cooked in the caterer's utensils. Is that what you mean? S> Susan Slusky -- The difference is significant and you are right to correct me. However, this ignores the point that these people are willing to acknowledge the necessity of Kashruth at some level greater than their own. The same must be done with the matter of conversion. (That was the whole point of this discussion, remember?) Sam Saal -- Sam Saal ..!{ihnp4}!eisx!sms Vayiphtach HaShem et pee ha'Atone.