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: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 04:29:15 GMT

In article <9207282134.AA28097@ptms_dev.sbi.com> <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)> writes:
>I know it's long.  I apologize.  I had too much free time.

That's okay. It's also polite and well-reasoned, which makes it a
double rarity around here.

>ds: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
>me: me

>The two systems are mutually contradictory.  The Os say that x, y and z
>MUST be observed.  Any Jew who doesn't do them is not following Judaism
>properly.  That is, he/she is wrong.  The Rs say that it's okay not to
>follow x, y and/or z.  You may if you like, but it is not necessary.
>Thus, O is wrong, at least in its belief that all these laws MUST be
>followed.

My Reform synagogue would disagree both with the premise that it's
okay not to follow all the laws and with the premise that the Orthodox
are observing all the laws. Which demonstrates your point quite well
that at least some of the Reform think the Orthodox are just as wrong
as the Orthodox think the Reform are, but then again, I wasn't the one
arguing with you. :-)

>You correctly
>point out that the difficulty with such a discussion lies in the respective
>axioms of each group.  We won't accept yours; you won't accept ours.

Is it at least possible for each side to accept the concept that it
is better for Jews overall to avoid tearing each other apart over it?
There are quite enough people who hate us already, we don't need to start
hating each other, even if we do think that each other is wrong.

>Instead, we discuss the legitimacy issue.  The Os feel we were all given
>a gift with a massive responsibility.  (Some gift, huh?)  They see others
>rejecting that responsibility and thus the gift itself.  It's sort of
>a collective gift.  We vote either to take it or to leave it, as a group.

Fine. But when this is combined with the attitude that anyone who does
not accept it must be badgered and bullied into accepting it by any means
necessary, you get the kind of "consensus" found in the China of the
Cultural Revolution period.

>not transmitted as directly.  They feel that one is not obligated to
>observe (all) the dictates of the system as it was handed down through
>the generations.

Yes and no, at least from what I was taught. (I've been told by people
like Mr. Faigin that my congregation's branch of Reform is not all that
typical, so I have to keep putting the caveats in.) We feel as strongly
as you do that Torah is directly G-d's laws and must be followed absolutely.
We not only think it's unnecessary, however, to follow "the dictates of
the system as it was handed down through the generations", we feel it is
actively *wrong*, as it involves omission of what we consider the correct
and necessary interpretations of existing, absolute laws. Call it a form
of fundamentalism if you will; it's probably a more accurate term than
true Reform. 


>Yes, it's very nice to say they're both right, but that's not an
>honest approach.  They can't both be right.  They may both be free
>to practice as they see fit, so long as they harm no-one.  

Most Reform I know would settle for that, gladly. The Orthodox won't,
which is the difference.


>What's the solution?  Well, there are probably several, probably all
>less than ideal.  We can stop discussion.  [But that would prevent
>arguing, which seems to be one of the 613 mitzvot, so this would violate
>the sensibilities of the Os.]  

Can we at least try to only argue when both sides want to argue, and
leave people who simply want to go about their own worship in peace alone?

>We could just say everyone is right,
>no matter how wrong they are, and leave it at that.  Or we could go right
>on discussing, trying to understand (without necessarily accepting)
>each other's approach.  Continue respecting each other as a feeling,
>thinking, concerned Jew.  And stop expecting to convince the other
>group.  Keep the dialog going.  At least if one group understands the
>other, we may be able to avoid the knock-down-drag-outs.

Except that in most conversations I've had on the subject (you're the
one exception on this net, and I thank you for it), the Reform are trying
to understand even if we can't accept the Orthodox position, and the
Orthodox either couldn't care less about understanding or actively think
that understanding would corrupt their minds or something, and hence
act as though it's their religious duty to shove their position down our
throats without pause while ignoring completely anything we may say.


>We'll never get to the point where the Os accept R conversions, for
>instance.  The Os should realize that this naturally irks the Rs.
>But the Rs must realize that this combined with patrilineal descent
>could cause the greatest schism ever between the two.  It will
>prevent descendents of, or converts to Orthodoxy from marrying their
>possible co-religionists among the Rs, since they can never know
>whether these people are real Jews (according to Jewish law).  Issues
>like this will continue to cause bitterness.  Solutions will be found,
>however, only with honest, open dialog.

Not all Reform Jews accept patrilineal descent, by the way -- my con-
gregation will gladly accept children of patrilineal descent as a part
of cultural or nationalist events, will accept them at religious fun-
ctions and welcome them in precisely the same way that a gentile friend
of a Jewish family would be welcomed (and not at those events where they
would not be) and does not recognize them as Jews for any purpose where
the technical classification matters, such as marriage. I agree with them.

>-Don Gertler

	-Nora