Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxm!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Re: Ethiopian Jews, Racist Ultra-Orthodox, and "Who is a Rabbi?"
Message-ID: <524@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Feb-85 10:18:51 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.524
Posted: Thu Feb  7 10:18:51 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 07:43:39 EST
References: <861@eisx.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 94

> = excerpt from Sam Saal's reply to J. Abeles

>That democratic process in 1948 set up the rule that conversion
>was to be according to Halachah. This does not mean that on a whim
>*later* groups can change this. To change it in Israel would be
>approximately equivalent to a Constitutional Convention in the US.
>When was the last time we had one of those? They are allowed, but
>there hasn't been one in 190+ years.

But to whom does Halacha belong?  The Orthodox claim that only they
understand and can properly interpret Halacha, which in itself does no
harm.  However, by attempting to pass legislation to officially
recognize their proclaimed monopoly, some Orthodox are attempting to
attain by political force what they have not been able to by moral
persuasion and argument.

>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. In order for everyone
>to accept each other, the strictest must be observed. Although I truly
>believe that religion is a purely personal matter (I detest proselytizing
>by anyone) The issue of the act of conversion is a *public* matter. If I
>as a Jew wish to marry only another *Jew* I must have no doubts about
>the fact that the prospective spouse is, in fact, Jewish. Imagine the
>following scenario that a democratically accepted, less stict, conversion
>could cause: The offspring (m/f) of a female convert (converted
>according to Reform standards) not realizing that the conversion is not 100%
>accepted, begins practicing a more religious form of Judaism than his/her
>parents. This puts the person in a group of peers who are also more
>religious. The person later meets and wants to marry a Jew who follows
>the more religious "system" This first person is not Jewish by the
>second's standards and the prospective spouse is now the source of
>great agitation in the family. Shalom Bayit is *gone*. If, however, the
>conversion would have been according to the strict procedure (ie according
>to Halachah) this whole issue would have been avoided.

What if a new movement were to arise in Judaism, one which was
exceedingly strict?  By your rationale, you would have to accept ITS
criteria.  What if it were so strict as to refuse BORN Jews
recognition as Jews unless they were practicing members of this sect?
Now you'd be in quite a mess...

As for your scenario, if the genealogy and/or religious pedigree is of
such great importance to the prosopective spouse, what's to stop
appropriate inquiries before marriage?

>Now wait a minute. This is fine for the US but not for Israel. Israel
>is the *JEWISH* State.  Therefore, it should have laws in accordance
>with the JEWISH rules. I doubt you would expect the Vatican to follow
>a purely secular set of laws. (I believe that the Vatican is subject
>to most, if not all, of Italy's laws and then some but don't flame me
>if I'm wrong about this) I believe it is a major concession to the
>"West" that a person in Israel can fight out a court battle in either
>a "religious" or a "secular" court. He must abide by whichever decision
>is arrived at in the place he chooses first. Go to a trial of a thief
>in Iran and see if he can get 30 days. He'll get his hand cut off (the
>punishment proscribed in the Koran - the  religious law).

Which Jewish rules?  Round and round we go...by assuming only
Orthodoxy is religously valid, we can come to the conclusion that the
Orthodox are correct in their means.  It is not the reasoning which is
questioned by the non-Orthodox, but the assumption.

By the way, are you advocating Iran as a model? Shall Israel stone its
adulterers?

>I am a single Jewish male and I know that my primary checklist of
>requirements for a person to date is as short as I can allow. This list
>starts off with "must be female", has an age range and also says "must
>be Jewish".  I expect to find out the rest with time. I realize that
>this opens me up to the possibility of getting "stuck" with some undesirable
>characteristics; if I "fall in love" with a person, I may not want to
>make sure they fit my secondary list of criteria. Furthermore, the above
>does not address the problem of the second generation. What happens in the
>scenario noted above is still a problem.

Is this reason enough to require government intervention and to deny
the legitamacy of Conservative and Reform Judaism?  For the
convenience of your dating habits?  If it really is important to you,
perhaps you ought to move the matter up to the your primary list
rather than asking for state intervention with a secondary list.
Besides, have you not contradicted yourself by having already declared
the woman Jewish ("must be Jewish" is on your primary list) but now
perhaps declaring her not by reason of lax conversion in the family
tree?  Do you have two different definitions of Jewishness which are
applied at different times during courtship?

Rather than trumpeting how the non-Orthodox should consider the effect
on others (especially the mating habits of the Orthodox), perhaps the
Orthodox ought to consider the effect on the non-Orthodox majority of
a state-supported attack on their legitimacy.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david