From: mannj@acf9.nyu.edu (Jordan Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: On Orthodox Monopoly
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:56:40 GMT
Organization: New York University

MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>mannj@acf9.nyu.edu (Jordan Mann) replies to an article of mine:
>>MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>>>gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler):

>I will  skip that part in  which Jordan attempts to  show that today's
>Reform and Conservative denominations are different from all the sects
>during and after  the second temple.  I agree with  that.  A couple of
>thousands years have passed and thus people may develop different ways
>of  approaching texts,  taking them  perhaps less  literally. 

If I understand the Reform and Conservative correctly, they interpret the
(Written) Torah as literally as the Orthodox do, if not more so.  Their
decision not to fulfill many of the commandments results not from 
reinterpretation but from rejection or from the belief that these 
commandment are "not relevant".

>If  the
>Rambam could  have said  that, say, the  sacrifices were  a compromise
>with the  mores of the  time the Torah  was written, then  more modern
>Jewish theologians  may deduce from  the change of times  that certain
>rituals written in the Torah are no longer binding.
 
Yes, but the fact remains that the Orthodox, the Pharisees, the Saducees,
and the Karaites never claimed that any parts of the Torah are no longer
binding.  The Reform and Conservative movements were the first versions
of Judaism to make this claim. (Well, the Sabbateans believed this too,
but I really don't have to take them into account.)

>I am not a spokesman for either the Conservative or the Reform groups,
>belonging to neither, but the  question was if deviations from Halakha
>practices  and  interpretations  as developed  into  today's  Orthodox
>practices, needed  justification.

No, as I recall, the question was whether Don Gertler is justified in
saying that Reform and Conservative Judaism are not really Judaism.  I
certainly haven't presented any argument that would prevent someone
from interpreting religion as he saw fit or practicing it in the way
that he found most meaningful, although I personally believe that Jews
should practice Orthodox Judaism.  My point is that Conservative and
Reform Judaism constitute such a profound break with anything that
preceded them that Don's claim is justified.

> It is  also irrelevant if  the Rambam
>advocated giving up  sacrifices after the Temple gets  rebuilt (as one
>could deduce from his More Nevukhim),  or that in spite of these views
>he would not  change these practices as is stated  in his earlier opus
>Mishne Torah.  Even  if one does not accept that  the More Nevukhim is
>the more final, perhaps more mature, view of Rambam, one can say, that
>there is  no need to follow  the Rambam in his  practical conclusions,
>but once it is realized that the rules of the Torah were influenced by
>the time they were written,  changes in circumstances should encourage
>people to change some of these rituals.

Again, the point is that nobody ever changed them before merely out of
a feeling that they were "outdated", and they certainly didn't discard
rituals outright.  Regarding the Rambam's statement in the Moreh
Nevukhim, even if this is the truer version of his opinion on the matter,
I doubt that if he were alive at the time of the rebuilding of the Temple
he would "pasken" (propound a halakhic decision meant to be followed in
practice) on the basis of this idea without a firmer grounding in the
traditional sources.  That is, he would teach that sacrifices not be 
brought not based on his own feeling that they were no longer relevant,
but based on an argument that Jewish Law itself holds that sacrifices are
not to be brought in the Messianic period.  His decision would thus be an
application of Jewish Law, not a rejection of it.

Besides, it's misleading to characterize the Jewish approach to ritual
based on a single statement by a single author that the author himself
contradicts elsewhere, even if that author is the Rambam.

>[...]

>While it is  essentially correct what Jordan stated,  that the earlier
>sects accepted the "Written Law" as it  is in the Torah, the fact that
>they rejected  the Rabbinic interpretations and  extensions, serves to
>show that these Rabbinic views were  not likely something known to all
>Jews of  that period  as ancient (Sinaic?)  tradition, but  just, what
>they  actually   are,  something   the  Rabbis  considered   a  proper
>interpretation, which they called Oral Law from Sinai to give it extra
>weight.

This has no bearing on my point, which is that the Conservative and
Reform are the first to reject the *Written* Law.

>But I  wish mainly to  reply to  Jordan's remarks about  the Ethiopian
>Jews and their form of Jewish religion.  I had written:

>>>I  mentioned before  a couple  of times  "see below",  so here  we are
>>>"below".  These days the religious  leaders of the Ethiopian Jews, the
>>>"Keisim"  (sp?) are  demonstrating against  the Orthodox  Rabbinate in
>>>Israel which refuses  to recognize them as Rabbis, i.e.  as people who
>>>are allowed to perform weddings, divorces etc. for the Ethiopian Jews.
>>>The Orthodox  leadership in  Israel (which, as  is well  known, denies
>>>such   rights  also   to  Conservative   and  Reform   Rabbis)  claims
>>>(correctly!) that  the Keisim  cannot be  recognized because  they are
>>>ignorant of the  Halakha.  While this claim is correct,  it only shows
>>>that a group of Jews which were cut off from the rest of the Jews, are
>>>quite naturally unaware  of all the additions and/or  changes (or some
>>>may call it  even distortions) of the Jewish religion  during the last
>>>2000  or  so years.   Does  Don  wish from  now  on  to be  called  an
>>>Orthojudaist,  returning  the  term  Judaism and  Jewish  Law  to  the
>>>Ethiopians?

>To that Jordan reacted:

reacted?  That sounds like I had an emotional, irrational response.
Perhaps you were thinking in Hebrew, and this was your translation of 
the word "heigiv"; but I think a fairer translation of "heigiv" in this
context would be "responded".

>>Surely Michael cannot be confident that Judaism as practiced in Ethiopia
>>is an accurate representation of Judaism as practiced 3000 years ago.

>Correct, I am  not confident at all on that.   Everything changes over
>the years,  and so has the  practice of the Jewish  religion, thus the
>same argument applies to present day Orthodox Jews.

>>          And even if they originally practiced Judaism as it was
>>practiced at the time, their isolation and persecution could have caused
>>them to forget and/or distort their practice considerably.

>We agree  on more and more.   One should also realize  that other Jews
>were not enjoying a persecution free  life in the last 2000 years.  As
>it happened, there were many groups  of Jews isolated for quite a long
>time  from  other groups.   When  two  Jewish  groups met,  one  often
>accepted the other's views and thus  we reached a form of unity.  This
>does not  show that the  prevailing opinion was more  "authentic", and
>less distorted.   The Talmud  reached the  European Jews  rather late,
>eventually they  accepted it, and  unity was achieved, this  in itself
>only proves that those who brought the Talmud were intellectually more
>powerful,  not that  they  were more  authentic, if  by  that we  mean
>carrier of the "true" and continuous tradition.

I should have anticipated this argument.  There is no doubt that the 
hardships of the past 2000 years have had a considerable effect on the 
Halakha.  But the changes made in the Halakha as a result of these 
hardships and exigencies were almost always made knowingly and 
systematically.  The
rabbis who made these changes knew quite well what standard Halakhic
practice and interpretation was in their time, and when they made changes,
they used mechanisms inherent in and recognized by the Halakha itself to 
make these changes, even if the changes sometimes had the effect of 
practically gutting a halakha, which admittedly occurred in the case of 
the heter iska, which almost eliminates the prohibition against paying
interest to a fellow Jew.  Although you reject the Oral Law, Michael, 
considering your familiarity with the Halakha you must see that it has its
own internal logic and that it is faithful to the religion in its own way.

The same can *not* be said of changes due to forgetfulness, syncretism,
or infiltration of the practices of other religions into Jewish ritual.
These are things which I suspect occurred among the Ethiopians.  Thus it is
fair to say that contemporary Orthodox Judaism is more faithful to the 
original religion than the Ethiopian version.  The fact that it took
a while for Jewish practice in Europe to be standardized according to
the decisions of the Talmud does not contradict this.

>>After all, there is a body of opinion that they are descended from people
>>who never actually converted to Judaism, but just adopted many of its
>>customs.

>There may be such  a body of opinion, I do not know  if it was so.  It
>seems that  the (Orthodox) Chief  Rabbis of  Israel do not  share that
>view,  otherwise they  would not  ask of  the Ethiopian  Jews just  to
>undergo a symbolic conversion (giyur lehumra), which is a far cry from
>what would have been asked of people who "never actually converted".

My point is that it is the ambiguity and haphazardness of their Judaism
that make ethnographers wonder whether they were ever Jewish in the first
place.

>>>>-Don Gertler
>>>  Michael Shimshoni
>>Jordan Mann 
> Michael Shimshoni
--

Jordan Mann at NYU      (mannj@cims.nyu.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish