From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 19 Nov 92 14:54:08
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: soldan.aero.org
In-reply-to: johnson@itzb.com's message of 19 Nov 92 16:56:13 GMT

On 19 Nov 92 16:56:13 GMT, johnson@itzb.com said:

> I too am sick and tired of being told that I am not observing Judaism
> properly.  I keep the Sabbath, attend synagogue, and eat only kosher food.
> Why should I put up with being told that I'm not properly Jewish?

> I follow a legitimate interpretation, based on the teaching of a scholar of
> the tannaim (sages of the mishna) named Yeshu.  His interpretation is as
> legitimate as any other interpretation, and noone has the right to tell me
> that because I am a Messianic Jew that I'm not following legitimate Judaism.


You do raise an interesting point, which serves to point out that Judaism is
more than just the ritual practices -- more than just keeping Shabbat,
attending synagogue, and eating kosher food. It is a belief system that has
*one* G-d (who is childless), that recognizes that the messiah has not yet
come, and that accepts as authoritative sources the Tanach as canonized by the
Talmudic sources (e.g., does not accept the apocrapha or the "new" testament).
All recognized Jewish movements (of which Messianic Judaism is *not* one) do
share a common notion of what G-d is, of G-d unity, and that the Messiah has
not yet come. These are standard Jewish beliefs that do not change. Messianic
Judaism does not hold these beliefs, and is not considered Judaism.

Here is the position of Reform on Messanic Judaism:

In 1983, the Responsa committee of the Central Conference of American Rabbi's
was asked the following question:

	There are a number of individuals in the community who consider
	themselves as "completed Jews" or "Messianic Jews"; they accept Jesus
	as their savior, but, nevertheless, still feel Jewish "in their
	hearts." How should the congregation view such individuals (Rabbi A.
	S. Task, Greensboro, NC)

Their response was:

  Individuals who feel a vague attachment to one or another religion pose no
  problem for those religious groups who leave identification solely in the
  hands of the individual. Judaism, however, does not do so. It is not the
  individual who defines whether she is Jewish but the group. For us in the
  Jewish community anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a
  Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief she has placed herself outside
  the Jewish community. Whether she cares to define herself as a Christian or
  as a "fulfilled Jew", "Messianic Jew," or any other designation is
  irrelevant; to us, she is clearly a Christian. It is true that this
  individual may be somewhat different from other Christians as she continues
  to follow certain Jewish practices and folkways, but we should remember that
  various Christian sects do likewise. For example, the Seventh Day
  Adventists observe shabbat as their day of rest. There are some Black
  Christian groups who also follow specifically Jewish observances, and there
  have been other groups like this in the past centuries.

  We should, therefore, consider a "completed Jew" as an apostate. What would
  her status be for us? Judaism has always considered those who left us as
  sinners, but still remaining as Jews. They could always return to Judaism
  through teshuvah, and the exact response of Judaism depended very much on
  the conditions of the time. Hai Gaon (as quoted by Aderet Responsa VII #292)
  felt that an apostate could not be considered as a Jew. Centuries later the
  rabbis of the Mediterranean Basin had to face the problems of the Marranos
  (anussim). Their attitude differed greatly and may be summarized under five
  headings:

  (1) Apostates were Jews who had sinned but, nevertheless, remained Jewish
  (Isaac ber Sheshet; Simon ben Zemah of Duran, but on some occasions he did
  not grant this status; Solomon ben Solomon; Zemah ben Solomon).
  (2) Those who considered the apostate as Jewish only in matters of matrimony
  (and so their offspring were Jewish), but not in any other area (Samuel de
  Medina).
  (3) Marranos (anussim) were non-Jews in every respect including matters of
  marriage; their children were not considered to be Jews (Judah Berab, Jacob
  Berab, Moses ben Elias Kapsali, etc.)
  (4) An apostate was worse than a Gentile (ben Veniste, Mercado ben Abraham)
  (5) Descendents of the Marranos who have been baptized were like Jewish
  children who have been taken captive by non-Jews, and their children are
  Jewish (Samuel ben Abraham Aboa). A full discussion of the problem may be
  found in H. J. Zimmel's Die Marranen in der Rabbinischen Literatur, pp. 21
  ff. One extreme position was held by Solomon ben Simon Duran (Rashbash
  Responsa #89) who felt that no only the apostate but also the children would
  continue to be considered Jewish forever in the future as long as the
  maternal line was Jewish. He also felt that nothing need to to be done by any
  generation of such Apostates when they returned to Judaism. No ritual bath
  or any other act was considered necessary or desirable. In fact, he
  emphasized that no attention be given to their previous state, For that
  might discourage their return. Rabbenu Gershom similarly urged the quiet
  acceptance of all who returned to Judaism (Mahzor Vitry, pp. 96, 97).

  The other extreme has been presented by Hai Gaon as cited in a slightly
  different fashion by Rashi (in his commentary to Kid. 68b and Lev. 24.10).
  He felt that any returning apostate, or the children of a Jewish mother who
  has apostasized, were potentially Jewish but must undergo a process akin to
  conversion if they wished to become part of the Jewish community. that point
  of view was rejected by most later scholars, as for examples, Nahmanides (in
  his commentary to Lev. 24.10; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.10 f; Ezekiel
  Laudau, Noda Biyehudah #150, etc.). We, therefore, have two opposing
  positions in rabbinic literature; both, of course, represented reactions to
  particular historic conditions. Solomon ben Simon of Duran wished to make
  it easy for a large number of Marranos to return to Judaism; unfortunately
  this did not occur. Even when it was possible for Jews to leave Spain, the
  majority chose to remain. Rashi's harsh attitude probably reflected the small
  number of Apostates who were a thorn in the side of the French community.
  The later tradition chose a middle path and encouraged the apostate's return
  along with some studies, but without a formal conversion process. Even if an
  apostate indicated no desire to return to Judaism, he would, nevertheless,
  be considered as part of the Jewish people (San 44a).

  A summary of the special laws which were applied to Apostates would include
  a number of matters mainly connected with family law. The marriage of an
  apostate who left Judaism under duress, if performed according to Jewish
  law, was valid (Yeb 30b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 44.9). The rules of
  divorce when Apostates were involved were modified; such individuals were not
  considered to be reliable witnesses excepted in the case of an agunah.
  Penalties could be imposed on their inheritance (Kid. 18a) although they did
  possess the right of inheritance (B. B. 108a, 11a). Normal mourning rites
  should not be observed for such persons (M. San 6.6; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh
  Deah 345.5). Clearly Apostates stood outside the community in all but
  relatively few matters until their repentance.

  Each of these cases cited above, of course, dealt with apostasy under
  greater or lesser duress. Outside pressures played a major role in the lives
  of the individuals involved. This is not the case with the "Completed Jew".
  We would, therefore, be stricter with her than with individuals who were
  forced into a position of becoming Christian. For us such modern willing
  apostate is a non-Jew. In this matter we would disagree with the Talmud and
  later tradition (Bech. 30b; see "An Apostate Proselyte," American Reform
  Responsa, #71 for further references).

  We can not, and should not, exclude such individuals from attendance at
  services, classes, or any other activity of the community, for we always hold
  the hope that they will return to Judaism and disassociate themselves from
  Christianity. But the should be seen as outsiders who have placed themselves
  outside the Jewish community. This should be made clear to them and to the
  Jewish and general community, especially as many such individuals are active
  proselytizers.

  Such individuals should not be accorded membership in the congregation or
  treated in any way which makes them appear as if they were affiliated with
  the Jewish community, for that poses a clear danger to the Jewish community
  and also to its relationships with the general community. We certainly do
  not want these individuals to speak for Judaism in any public forum.

  In conclusion, we should make the distinction between ourselves and these
  individuals very clear to them, to the Jewish community, and to the general
  community around us.




--
[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:faigin@aerospace.aero.org              [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
		    "And as they say, the rest is compost"