From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 06:47:23 GMT

cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
> >cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:

> >> >Observant or not, a Jew is a Jew.  It is OUR religion, I agree.  That's
> >> >why it's so sad that 90% of us reject it.
> >> 
> >> I don't know who these 90% are.  Are observant jews that don't
> >> subscribe to orthodoxy rejecting Judaism?!  Fortunately, no.
> >
> >Jews who don't subscribe to Jewish Law (Halakhah) are rejecting the
> >laws of Judaism.  A bit tautological, eh?
> 
> Whose interpretation of halacha?  Yours, I guess.  So it is not
> tautological.

Mine?  Did I say mine?  I don't remember saying mine.  Where did
I say mine?

> Conservatives believe that halacha they follow
> is valid, and that the orthodox add fences to the fences to the
> fences, which is actually contrary to the Talmud, and the oral
> law.  So Conservatives do not reject Judaism or halacha, and
> believe that the orthodox interpretation is not binding.

Hmm.  I was talking about Jews who don't follow Halakha.  I never
said C don't follow Halakha.  True, I don't accept what the RA says
is Halakha, but I could give a long list of O Rabbis that I don't
hold by, on both sides.

Now who's claiming the other group's "halakha" is wrong?  You say
the C believe that the O go contrary to the Talmud and the oral law.
Thus, only the C interpretation is valid.

Let me just clarify my views, since you obviously are not reading
my posts without the excess baggage of your prejudice against me.
I believe that the Halakha is binding on all Jews.  I understand
that many Jews have different interpretations of details within
the Halakha.  My real concern is that Jews observe the Halakha.
If I hear two Jews arguing about whether we must drink chalav
Yisrael in this country, I feel great that both sides are concerned
enough to be arguing.  (If they came to blows, I'd be ecstatic!)
If I hold by chalav Yisrael, I won't drink milk in the house of
the one who uses chalav stam, but that doesn't mean I feel that
person is violating Halakha.

In other cases, I may feel the person is in violation, and I may
try to convince the person as such.  I think it would be made quite
clear to me, very quickly, if the person has no Halakhic concerns
whatsoever.  There's no discussion.  If we have anything at all
to discuss, there's something there.  Sure, I may feel a certain
issue is particularly important, but that will not make me feel
the person is not a Jew following some interpretation of Halakha.

On the other hand, if we have sufficient differences in our
views of kashrut, I may feel unable to eat in his/her house and
still maintain my standards.  He/she should respect that.  I
will not allow that person's food into my house.  If we have an
honest relationship, it should present no problems.  I won't
say his/her food is treif (unless it is), but I won't eat it
because it has only a K on the label.

What I don't abide is someone claiming to follow Halakha when
the foundation of that "Halakha" is that the Torah, Talmud,
Shulchan Arukh, etc, are not binding on Jews today.  I am also
upset when the decisions are made out of ignorance.  I will
not accept as a legitimate interpreter of Halakha someone
who says the prohibitions of eating pork are due to health
concerns and are no longer valid because we can prevent the
illnesses today.  This is simply uninformed.  The person is
clearly ignorant of Halakha's every aspect, citations from the
Torah, the most fundamental derivations of the Talmud, and
even the current approach among the most liberal Jews who
consider Halakha binding.

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish