From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodoxy (was Re: O-C-R debate)
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:46:36 GMT

In article <9207311621.AA12719@ptms_dev.sbi.com> <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)> writes:
>rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis) writes:
>>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>>>warren@nysernet (Warren Burstein) writes:
>>>>				   one would be allowed to (unless they
>>>had explicitly forbidden such beliefs or practices - aside from the
>>>>old-style R temples that insisted on bare heads (or so I've heard - I
>>>>see lots of kipot on the heads of people going in and out of a nearby
>>>>R shul in Jerusalem)
>
>>>In America, you can still find such R temples.
>
>>Yes; they generally call themselves "classical Reform", meaning that
>>when the rest of the movement figured out that it was throwing the
>>baby out with the bathwater and gave up such idiocies, they stuck to
>>their guns. The rest of the Reform movement simply calls them nuts.
>
>Mighty tolerant.

Tolerance is in actions; we let them do what they want without harrassment.
What our opinion is, is a diifferent matter.

Besides, as Mr. Saal once told me, "tolerance is not a Jewish virtue."

>>>>		      I'm not aware of anything we O do (aside from
>>>>claiming that they are wrong) that they think is wrong.
>
>>I can think of several things the Orthodox do that Reform thinks is
>>wrong: not holding women to the same ritual obligations and privileges
>>as men is the most obvious one. Eating meat from animals that, while
>>they may have been slaughtered according to the requirements of kashruth,
>>were not treated in a humane fashion when they were alive, is another
>>example.
>
>Some questions about your second point first:  Is that the official
>Reform position?  Does Reform reject meat of animals that were not
>treated humanely?  Or is that your view projected on the movement as
>a whole?  

It's advocated by most Reform rabbis I've met (you can't get absolutely
all of them to agree on *anything*) and it's been covered in some Reform
Responsa.

>(If it is the official view, is it held by the "nuts" cited
>above? :-)  If this is, in fact, the official view, I have no qualms
>about it.  Indeed, I would suggest a joint Orthodox/Reform hekhsher
>that all Jews adhere to.  It would require both kosher shkhita and
>humane treatment for the living animals.  (The symbol already exist
>on many packages.  We could just adopt the Reform hekhsher, the O-R :-)

I could deal with this, no problem. Most of the Orthodox I've heard on
the subject say that if it were necessary to care about the treatment
of the animals, G-d would have written it in, ignoring the fact that
from our perspective, G-d *did* write it in, and they just aren't looking.

>On your first point, I have some difficulty.  It's a rather unusual
>approach, but I feel I must voice it.  It seems to me that the Reform
>and Conservative movements discriminate with regard to sex more than
>do the Orthodox.  The Orthodox have a rigid system that many complain
>restricts change with the times.  Okay.  Let's take that as a given.

I'll take it as given, but it doesn't excuse everything. I have no prob-
lem recognizing the fact that the Reform and Conservative movements have
not taken this one up as quickly or as thoroughly as they should, but to
call that discrimination "more than the Orthodox?" It seems to me that
what you're saying is that, since it's mandatory for the Orthodox and
optional for the Reform at best, the Reform should be criticized for it
more than the Orthodox. Which is a valid point in itself, as long as you
don't try to claim that the discrepancy of treatment *itself* is greater
in Reform than in Orthodoxy, which the facts just don't bear up.

>The Reform -- and somewhat less so, the Conservative -- are
>relatively unrestricted from change, however.  For them, it's a mere
>vote of a "governing" body.  Why, then, did it take the Reform until
>the mid to late 1970s -- and Conservative, until the 80s -- to allow
>women to participate equally with men in every aspect of Jewish
>life -- the Rabbinate, in particular.

There was no excuse for it, I agree. But it's over now, and to say that
a once-but-no-longer discriminatory policy is *more* discriminatory than
a current and thriving one makes no sense.

>The world was in line, why were the Reform and Conservative movements out
>of sync?  

Now wait a second. My mother tried to be a lawyer in the 1970s, and
let me tell you, the world was far from "in line." In fact, the world
is still far from in line on the subject of women's rights. You just
don't notice it because you don't have to live with it.

>In fact, why should they even have waited for the rest
>of the world to come around?  Unrestricted as they were by
>tradition and convention, they should have been on the front lines
>in this battle for decades.  What is the next late "innovation"
>Reform will finally come around to, then use to accuse Orthodoxy
>of being stodgy?

I don't accuse the Orthodox of being stodgy, I accuse them of being
currently wrong. What they, we, or anybody else used to do is not the
point, nor is the question of being up-to-date; the question is whether
something is right, not whether it's modern or old-fashioned.

>-Don Gertler

	-Nora
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish