From: clmn@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Valid Interpretation Flamefest Resumes!
Reply-To: clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Live & Direct from Downtown Petah Tikva ISRAEL
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:04:22 GMT

Stan Krieger writes:
 
>Very simply, it is not "wrong" to recite Kaddish in a group of 10
>adults (male or female) to fulfil the mitzvah; therefore to "advise"
>someone that Kaddish recited under such circumstances in "wrong" is
>NOT "advising" another Jew about Judaism; rather, it is an attempt
>to force the teachings of just one sect onto affiliates of other
>equally legitimate sects.
 
And, in the same vein:
 
>No, you don't have to accept every "strain"; all you have to accept is
>that your INTERPRETATION of what God expects of us is just one of
>SEVERAL valid, legitimate, interpretations.  As I've often said,
>if you don't want to recite Kaddish in a Conservative synagogue,
>that's your right, but it's not your right to advise someone that the
>mitzvah wasn't met because they recited Kaddish in a minyan of 6 other
>men and 3 or more women, nor is it your right to refer to the daughter
>of a women whose conversion to Judaism was handled by a Bet Din of
>Conservative Rabbis, and who is trying to get your son to notice her,
>as "the shikse".
 
Here we go again.  This is so tiresome.
 
First of all, and I am very sure than Stan is aware of this, there is no
mitzvah to say kaddish in the absence of a minyan.  It is, therefore,
impossible to "fail to perform the mitzvah" by reciting the prayer in
a group which does not constitute a minyan.  I mention this not to nit-
pick but simply to illustrate the careless thinking involved.
 
Second, since Stan is so adament about the Orthodox not telling him, or
anybody, what to do, how does he figure that the Orthodox are supposed
to follow his orders?  We get post after post from Stan announcing that
all Jews are obligated to obey his "valid interpretation" theory, and if
their own heartfelt beliefs and principles contradict it, that is just
too bad.
 
Third, I believe that language and choice of words is critical in these
discussions.  Although Stan is simply wrong to insist Jews have no right
to offer advice of which he disapproves, I agree with him that no one
has any business calling a woman a "shiksa".  I don't believe that is
proper under any circumstances.  More on this below.
 
>That is your OPINION that mine is a flawed view; it is not
>all bound by his opinion on the subject of valid interpretations.  Two
months ago he even went so far as to claim (quite correctly, I believe)
that Jews are forbidden to marry non-Jews.  He was quite passionate, and
eloquent, on the subject, even though somewhere between 25 and 50 per
cent of Reform rabbis believe that it is a valid interpretation to
permit intermarriages.
 
Why is Stan the one and only participant in s.c.j with the authority to
bind other people to his opinion?
 
>I really don't give a damn who YOU say is included and who isn't; your
>sect does not define our COMMON religion for ALL of us.  If you want
>to work with the rest of YOUR community is a constructive manner to
>resolve our differences, you're more than welcome, but if your attitude
>is that you're the only one observing Judaism correctly, then you
>are part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
 
As one of the many people on the net who has been on the receiving end
of Stan's habitual, "I really don't give a damn what YOU say," comment,
I want to reiterate my conviction that intemperate language drives us
apart far more than differences in belief.
 
I was recently asked to repost an article I wrote which bore on that
last point.  It was originally posted on September 25th, which isn't so
long ago, but it is relevant to this thread so I hope people who have
seen it before will forgive me for sending it out again.  See next
article from me.
 

-- 
Bill Coleman
clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:20479 bit.listserv.catholic:2632