From: saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal)
Subject: Re: Conservative Halacha (was re: Orthodox Monopoly)
Organization: liver ---> spleen
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:11:09 GMT

In article <FAIGIN.92Sep10101805@soldan.aero.org> faigin@aero.org
(Daniel P. Faigin) writes:

>There is a very interesting discussion of the Patrilineal Descent issue in the
>latest issue of the _CCAR_Journal_.  This discussion is prompted by an article
>by Lawrence J. Epstein (Professor of English, Suffolk Community College, who
>teaches a course of Jewish Thought) titled "The Patrilineal Principle: A Time
>for Clarification". In this article, Dr. Epstein highlights the part of the
>resolution that says:

>   This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed
>   marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and
>   formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.

I found many of Prof. Epstein's concerns to be cogent, but I've deleted
them to focus on the CCAR response.

>The article is followed by a response by Rabbi Herman Schallman (chair of the
>committee that authored the decision). In his response, he indicates that he
>can't see why Epstein chose the present time to complain, given the decision
>was written eight years ago.

Seems to me that Epstein wanted to five it a chance.  How much time is
appropriate?  After all, Rabbi Schallman also makes the point that the
number of people using this mechanism was not what was expected.

>                             Rabbi Schallman then addresses two of the
>complaints raised by Epstein: the conflict with outreach, and the lack of
>specificity. On the first, he notes that the issue was debated, but it was
>felt that the "patrilineal descent" option wouldn't be used extensively; hence
>the risk was worth taking [I'm not sure that I buy that as a valid reason.].

The lofty outreach claims made for it make this a strange reason to me,
too.

>On the second, he notes that the vagueness was deliberate, in order to give
>the rabbi the authority to tailor the requirements to the individuals needs,
>and that the decision to apply the principle might occur a considerable time
>after birth (which would result in different mitzvot requirements).

Don't different mitzvah requirements for conversion imply different
classes of Jews?
>                                                                    Rabbi
>Schallman notes that Epstein is correct in noting that they anticipated a
>vigorous reaction to the resolution, but on the whole, there hasn't been much
>[I guess he doesn't read soc.culture.jewish :-)] He thinks that this is
>because other issues may have preempted patrilineal descent, and that other
>movements were waiting to see what impact it has had on Reform. Rabbi
>Schallman's impression is that the principle is little used and not very
>controversial, because (Shallman feels) the same standards are established for
>the child of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father (a procedure little used,
>if not ignored entirely). Rabbi Shallman does feel that we need to assess the
>impact of the principle, and review and assess the results of our practices in
>officiating or refusing to officiate at mixed marriages.

this last bit sounds like Rabbi Schallman is putting himself (and/or the
committee) above review.

My biggest concern with this (semi?/pseudo?) official response  is its
total lack of even lip service to _any_ Jewish soruces.  Its arguments are
purely sociological nad it reopens the question of whether Reform retains
concern for Judeo-logical/historical reasoning.
-- 
Sam Saal      kingfish!saal OR saal@kingfish.att.com
	Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton