From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: My interpretation and yours
Date: 23 Nov 92 09:34:30
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: soldan.aero.org
In-reply-to: johnson@itzb.com's message of 23 Nov 92 16:52:52 GMT
Followups-to: alt.messianic

[I tried to mail the following, but it bounced]

On 23 Nov 92 16:52:52 GMT, johnson@itzb.com said:

> You people are all such hypocrites.  You go on and on
> about how legitimate you all are, while saying that I
> am illegitimate just because you disagree with me.

Actually, I do gripe about people calling me illegitimate.

> All interpretations believe things that 200 years ago
> would be called heresy.  That's no more true of me as
> a M (Messianic) Jew than it is of an O or C or R Jew.
> All the interpretations, M, O, C, and R, are all in
> the same boat.

You are probably right, but the extent of "heresy" is different. Why, in the
almost 2000 years since it started, has Christianity not been considered
Judaism. What basic things resulting in this division?

As I've said before, it certainly isn't practice. Christians could follow all
the rules in the old testament just as well. There are more significant
problems:

o Belief in the concept of a "new" testament, which by definition supplants
the old. No Jew -- regardless of the movement -- would give any credance to
the new testament. For a similar parallel, constrast the Christians with the
Mormans (although the book of Morman does not supplant the "new" testament).

o Authority of the talmudic times. Christians, following the statements of
Jesus, rebel against the rabbinic decrees of talmudic times and give them
little or no authority. I've seen this on a.m with the snide remarks about
rabbinic judaism. All Jewish movements respect the scholars of the talmudic
times, even if they differ on the inspiration.

o No Jewish movement recognizes Jesus as the "Son of G-d", or as the Messiah.
You do.

> If you want to call my interpretation illegitimate,
> give me a reason, otherwise stop complaining about
> people calling you illegitimate while yourselves all
> calling me illegitimate.

I wouldn't call your interpretation illegitimate, just not Jewish. It is much
more in line with Christian theology than Jewish theology. You have every
right to believe it.

> And don't worry: I won't scare you by posting the
> reasons or tenets of my belief.  

I don't think it would scare me. It would infuriate the Orthodoxy, who have
restrictions against reading "heresy".

> All I want to know is
> why, from a Jewish perspective (about which I have
> studied as much as any of you) you have the right to
> call me illegitimate while you gripe about noone
> calling you illegitimate.

I'll repeat the statement of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the
REFORM rabbinic body:

In 1983, the Responsa committee of the Central Conference of American Rabbi's
was asked the following question:

	There are a number of individuals in the community who consider
	themselves as "completed Jews" or "Messianic Jews"; they accept Jesus
	as their savior, but, nevertheless, still feel Jewish "in their
	hearts." How should the congregation view such individuals (Rabbi A.
	S. Task, Greensboro, NC)

Their response was:

  Individuals who feel a vague attachment to one or another religion pose no
  problem for those religious groups who leave identification solely in the
  hands of the individual. Judaism, however, does not do so. It is not the
  individual who defines whether she is Jewish but the group. For us in the
  Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a
  Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief she has placed herself outside
  the Jewish community. Whether she cares to define herself as a Christian or
  as a "fulfilled Jew", "Messianic Jew," or any other designation is
  irrelevant; to us, she is clearly a Christian. It is true that this
  individual may be somewhat different form other Christians as she continues
  to follow certain Jewish practices and folkways, but we should remember that
  various Christian sects do likewise. For example, the Seventh Day
  Adventists observe shabbat as their day of rest. There are some Black
  Christian groups who also follow specifically Jewish observances, and there
  have been other groups like this in the past centuries.

  We should, therefore, consider a "completed Jew" as an apostate. What would
  her status be For us? Judaism has always considered those who left us as
  sinners, but still remaining as Jews. They could always return to Judaism
  through teshuvah, and the exact response of Judaism depended very much on
  the conditions of the time. Hai Gaon (as quoted by Aderet Responsa VII #292)
  felt that an apostate could not be considered as a Jew. Centuries later the
  rabbis of the Mediterranean Basin had to face the problems of the Marranos
  (anussim). Their attitude differed greatly and may be summarized under five
  headings:

  (1) Apostates were Jews who had sinned but, nevertheless, remained Jewish
  (Isaac ber Sheshet; Simon ben Zemah of Duran, but on some occasions he did
  not grant this status; Solomon ben Solomon; Zemah ben Solomon).
  (2) Those who considered the apostate as Jewish only in matters of matrimony
  (and so their offspring were Jewish), but not in any other area (Samuel de
  Medina).
  (3) Marranos (anussim) were non-Jews in every respect including matters of
  marriage; their children were not considered to be Jews (Judah Berab, Jacob
  Berab, Moses ben Elias Kapsali, etc.)
  (4) An apostate was worse than a Gentile (ben Veniste, Mercado ben Abraham)
  (5) Descendents of the Marranos who have been baptized were like Jewish
  children who have been taken captive by non-Jews, and their children are
  Jewish (Samuel ben Abraham Aboa). A full discussion of the problem may be
  found in H. J. Zimmel's Die Marranen in der Rabbinischen Literatur, pp. 21
  ff. One extreme position was held by Solomon ben Simon Duran (Rashbash
  Responsa #89) who felt that no only the apostate but also the children would
  continue to be considered Jewish forever in the future as long as the
  maternal line was Jewish. He also felt that nothing need to to be done by any
  generation of such Apostates when they returned to Judaism. No ritual bath
  or any other act was considered necessary or desirable. In fact, he
  emphasized that no attention be given to their previous state, For that
  might discourage their return. Rabbenu Gershom similarly urged the quiet
  acceptance of all who returned to Judaism (Mahzor Vitry, pp. 96, 97).

  The other extreme has been presented by Hai Gaon as cited in a slightly
  different fashion by Rashi (in his commentary to Kid. 68b and Lev. 24.10).
  He felt that any returning apostate, or the children of a Jewish mother who
  has apostasized, were potentially Jewish but must undergo a process akin to
  conversion if they wished to become part of the Jewish community. that point
  of view was rejected by most later scholars, as for examples, Nahmanides (in
  his commentary to Lev. 24.10; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.10 f; Ezekiel
  Laudau, Noda Biyehudah #150, etc.). We, therefore, have two opposing
  positions in rabbinic literature; both, of course, represented reactions to
  particular historic conditions. Solomon ben Simon of Duran wished to make
  it easy for a large number of Marranos to return to Judaism; unfortunately
  this did not occur. Even when it was possible for Jews to leave Spain, the
  majority chose to remain. Rashi's harsh attitude probably reflected the small
  number of Apostates who were a thorn in the side of the French community.
  The later tradition chose a middle path and encouraged the apostate's return
  along with some studies, but without a formal conversion process. Even if an
  apostate indicated no desire to return to Judaism, he would, nevertheless,
  be considered as part of the Jewish people (San 44a).

  A summary of the special laws which were applied to Apostates would include
  a number of matters mainly connected with family law. The marriage of an
  apostate who left Judaism under duress, if performed according to Jewish
  law, was valid (Yeb 30b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 44.9). The rules of
  divorce when Apostates were involved were modified; such individuals were not
  considered to be reliable witnesses excepted in the case of an agunah.
  Penalties could be imposed on their inheritance (Kid. 18a) although they did
  possess the right of inheritance (B. B. 108a, 11a). Normal mourning rites
  should not be observed for such persons (M. San 6.6; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh
  Deah 345.5). Clearly Apostates stood outside the community in all but
  relatively few matters until their repentance.

  Each of these cases cited above, of course, dealt with apostasy under
  greater or lesser duress. Outside pressures played a major role in the lives
  of the individuals involved. This is not the case with the "Completed Jew".
  We would, therefore, be stricter with her than with individuals who were
  forced into a position of becoming Christian. For us such modern willing
  apostate is a non-Jew. In this matter we would disagree with the Talmud and
  later tradition (Bech. 30b; see "An Apostate Proselyte," American Reform
  Responsa, #71 for further references).

  We can not, and should not, exclude such individuals from attendance at
  services, classes, or any other activity of the community, for we always hold
  the hope that they will return to Judaism and disassociate themselves from
  Christianity. But the should be seen as outsiders who have placed themselves
  outside the Jewish community. This should be made clear to them and to the
  Jewish and general community, especially as many such individuals are active
  proselytizers.

  Such individuals should not be accorded membership in the congregation or
  treated in any way which makes them appear as if they were affiliated with
  the Jewish community, for that poses a clear danger to the Jewish community
  and also to its relationships with the general community. We certainly do
  not want these individuals to speak for Judaism in any public forum.

  In conclusion, we should make the distinction between ourselves and these
  individuals very clear to them, to the Jewish community, and to the general
  community around us.


Daniel


--
[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:faigin@aerospace.aero.org              [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
		    "And as they say, the rest is compost"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish