From: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:02:32 GMT

In article <10Nov92.035339.18650@granite.ciw.edu> cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.032437.14904@umbc3.umbc.edu> shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:

 ... Stuff about whether Reform Judaism accepts halakha, on the grounds
     that (a) I would hope that _some_ Reform supporter will step in
     with informed comment, and (b) I can't truly defend Reform J. anyway ...
  
>
>My personal view is that reform Judaism is a failure, as is
>clearly exemplified by the intermarriage rates among reform jews.
>Now the reform are moving back towards some observance.  But they
>still regard the halacha and the halachic process as inapplicable
>to modern Jews.

I don't think that the Reform movement has been successful either.
BUT -- I could use similar criteria to assert the failure of the
Conservative movement too.  How many Conservative Jews truly observe
Conservative halakha, as opposed to simply being non-observant.  Baltimore
has a fairly large Conservative Jewish community, but _very_ _very_ few
Conservative Jews are observant -- and the percentage appears to be
dropping (my own perspective -- not data).

More significantly, I do not believe that "success" can be
measured by number of synagogue members, or even by the number
of "observant" members.  Success should be defined, IMHO, by the
degree to which the movement correctly teaches what G-D expects of
us. Body counts won't help.  (An interesting theological question is
whether it would be "possible" for G-D to tell Jews to do something
that would limit the Jewish survival potential.  But that's for 
another thread.)

>This is not meant as flame war, nor should it be insulting to
>anyone.  I do not "reject" Reform.  They are the ones that reject
>halacha, and thus can have nothing to do with it.  Conservatives
>DO NOT reject halacha.  Most of the arguments between O and C
>revolve around the few differences of opinion, which can be very
>important in individual lives, such as conversion, marriage, and
>divorce.  Agreement between O and C should be made on these
>issues.

Well, I'm not insulted.  Yet.  On _some_ halakhic issues, differences
between O and C appear minimal; often, the RA simply adopts a position
with minimal classic halakhic support that is overwhelmingly rejected
by the vasdt majority of halakhic sources.  But there are MAJOR
theological differences (e.g., Torah mi'shamayim, the absolute Divine
origin of the Torah, and the binding nature of the Oral Tradition) that
have MAJOR practical implications.  Thus (and here's where we start
insulting folks), IF a legitimate Bet Din requires rabbis who accept
these basic principles, and IF Conservative rabbis do not accept
those principles, THEN the Bet Din's decisions are problematic.

Let the wars begin.  (I've gotta run to earn a living now, but
I should note that those IF statements were provisional: I do not
know what most C rabbis believe.)




-- 
Eliot Shimoff                  |    n   n   n
   shimoff@umbc3.umbc.edu      |   X + Y = Z .  Easy to prove no solutions
Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu ...  |   for n greater than 2.  Darn.  Can't fit
Better luck next year!         |   it into this little .sig file.  Oh well.