From: gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: On Orthodox Monopoly (was can of worms...)
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:45:33 GMT

I may, in the interest of brevity, paraphrase some of
the remarks from previous postings.

MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
> gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler) disagreed with my article:
> >MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
> >>Here we have  another excellent example to show the  arrogance of this
> >>one sect of the  Jewish religion, or at least of  some of its members.
> >>Stan had asked how they, a small minority, could claim the monopoly to
> >>determine who  is Jewish ...

> >For fear of opening up the wrath of the anti-trust laws, I must mention
> >that Jewish law had, for a long time, resided with this one sect of the
> >Jewish religion.

> Almost true, but  see below.  At the  time the so called  Oral Law was
> introduced (invented?) by  a certain Jewish sect or  sects [...] others
> [...] understood the  Jewish religion differently

> this  sect of  Rabbinic "Oral  Law" people
> become  almost the  only expression  of  the Jewish  religion in  many
> parts,  although  both Samaritans  (very  weakly)  and Qara'ites  more
> numerous that the Samaritans, survived.

Realize, of course, that all three groups had a body of law.  Some,
the Rabbinic, accepted the Oral Law.  Others may have accepted the
text of the Torah as the only law book, with no further interpretation
permitted.  Non law-compliant sects would probably have been anathema
to ANY of the groups you cite.

> >                  Then came along a rebellion within the Jewish world,
> >and the new sect arrogated the name "Jewish," albeit with a modifier.
> >The new sect's Jewish character was strictly in its membership list.

> This is  not so new in  the history of religious  development.  It has
> happened to  others as well.   After some time [...] some  people wake
> up to the fact that the leaders [...] have moved away
> from what the religion was supposed to be, or to be more accurate that
> is what these people feel

This is very subjective.  How do "some people" know any better than the
leaders?  Haven't they just become leaders of a new religion?

And although I may be wrong about this, I believe Judaism has always
been a more legalistic religion than the various brands of Christianity.
Thus, any group purporting truly to represent Judaism would likewise
have to adhere to some legal system, the details of which can then be
debated.

> They  start a movement of removing all the
> "bad" things which have been added to the original "pure" religion and
> had "perverted" it.  This happened to Christianity in the 16th century
> when Luther declared  that the Church had left  the original teachings
> of Jesus and  he started his version of a  "purified" religion.

Are you claiming that Reform removed only the spurious additions of
the Oral Law, leaving "pure" Judaism intact?  Or are you, by extension,
implying that Reform is just as valid a form of Judaism as Christianity,
since both originated in the same historically legitimate way?

> Few people  these days will deny  the right of the  Lutherans or other
> Christian sects  to be called Christian,  and for clarity all  use the
> term (Roman) Catholic  Christians for the rites of  those who remained
> faithful to that 16th century interpretation, and other adjectives for
> the others.

But if you ask a Lutheran what his/her religion is, he/she'll tell you
he/she's a Lutheran.  A Catholic will say he/she is Catholic.  A Jew
will say Jew, regardless of "sect."

> >Everything else was new.  Perhaps the sect's membership list even
> >comprised the majority of Jews, but the change of the rules was not
> >performed within the framework long before defined.  The law became,
> >within this new sect, non-binding.  (How can it be called "law"?)  Then
> >it was completely overhauled, by a sect claiming not to be bound by it.
> >
> >Now the original, depleted sect is criticized for not deferring to the
> >new sect's rebuilt version of the non-binding law, insofar as determination
> >of Jewsihness is concerned.  (I guess we're bound by their law, even though
> >they're not.)  If the new sect's name were "Reformjudaism," I would have
> >no problem.  The roster of Reformjudaists would include many who are Jews.
> >In fact, most of the world's Jews may even be Reformjudaists.  But their
> >membership criteria are not in accord with Jewish law.

> Thus there  does not  seem to be  a need to  call the  new (original?)
> ideas of that sect "Reformjudaism" in one word, but the Reform sect or
> branch of the  Jewish religion, at the same time  the others belong to
> the Orthodox sect or branch of that  religion, and the same is true of
> others sects (denominations??) of the Jewish religion.

You have presented an analogy between Reform and Christianity.  Namely,
Reform is to Judaism what Lutheran is to Christianity.  Few people --
including Lutherans themselves -- call a Lutheran a "Lutheran Christian."
I've also never heard the term "Catholic Christian."  Yes, they are
all Christians.  You've supported my argument.  So let's call the Reform
"Reform" or "Reformjudaists" or some other neologism.  Are they Jews as
well?  Sure, provided they qualify under Jewish law. 

> I  mentioned before  a couple  of times  "see below",  so here  we are
> "below".  These days the religious  leaders of the Ethiopian Jews, the
> "Keisim"  (sp?) are  demonstrating against  the Orthodox  Rabbinate in
> Israel which refuses  to recognize them as Rabbis, i.e.  as people who
> are allowed to perform weddings, divorces etc. for the Ethiopian Jews.
> The Orthodox  leadership in  Israel (which, as  is well  known, denies
> such   rights  also   to  Conservative   and  Reform   Rabbis)  claims
> (correctly!) that  the Keisim  cannot be  recognized because  they are
> ignorant of the  Halakha.  While this claim is correct,  it only shows
> that a group of Jews which were cut off from the rest of the Jews, are
> quite naturally unaware  of all the additions and/or  changes (or some
> may call it  even distortions) of the Jewish religion  during the last
> 2000  or  so years.   Does  Don  wish from  now  on  to be  called  an
> Orthojudaist,  returning  the  term  Judaism and  Jewish  Law  to  the
> Ethiopians?

I am lacking in knowledge about all the complexities of the Ethiopian issue.
I dislike much of what I've heard about their treatment.  Nevertheless, the
Ethiopians have not exactly maintained Judaism precisely as it was when
the separation occurred.  Their Torah scrolls were not, for example,
written in Hebrew.  (Or did we break from the language of the Torah
and Prophets, choosing Hebrew instead?)  This is not to criticize the
Ethiopians, just to point out that they are as likely to have diverged
from our common origins as we are.  Can we then assume they fully
maintained the earlier understanding of the law with regard to conversion
or intermarriage?

A great part of Judaism is the communal participation in commemorating
our joys and our tragedies.  We rejoice in the brit milah of another,
though we played no part in the birth.  We rejoice on Purim, though we,
as individuals, were not in Shushan.  The Ethiopians were separated before
the Channukka victory transpired.  Should they light candles?  Perhaps
not.  But should they choose to, they are accepting these accretions.
Many, I believe have accepted Channuka.  Perhaps we should discuss
whether we should also begin celebrating some of their triumphs and
travails.  That may be an interesting topic.  (On the other hand,
it smacks of Political Correctness, a philosophy I am not known for
supporting. :-)

As for your question regarding conversion and the Law of Return, there
is a great stake in a uniform approach to membership in the Jewish
people.  This one disagreement can alone destroy the Jewish
people as a people.  Reuven says she is, but Shim`on says she's not.  Is
she?  Who cares, right?  Well, what about when she has a kid?  Who keeps
track through the generations.  Sure, the Orthodox can try.  But then
they might as well also try to maintain any possible external aids.
Israel's Law of Return, for instance.  Why not try to take advantage
of the interpretation and enforcement of the law?  The separation
of religion and state is a non-argument.  After all, the Law itself
belies that very separation.

I kind of like the idea of any Jew being accepted as a Jew anywhere.
A new set of by-laws rewriting the membership criteria destroys all
that, unless everyone signs on.  If Reform is merely writing what
amounts to its membership criteria, then fine.  These "converts" will
be called Reformjudaists, or whatever moniker we've agreed on above.
Orthodox (and in many cases Conservative and perhaps even other Reform)
may not accept them as Jews.  They are members of one group, accepted
as such by that organization.  But they are not Jews, since they are
not accepted as such by THAT organization.  Are there Orthodox converts
that are not accepted by Reform or Conservative?  Perhaps.  If so, we
may have no solution.  If not though, one solution, albeit perceived
as insulting to some groups, would allow for all converts to be accepted
by all groups.

No matter how you slice it though, the Ethiopians are not the Reform.
[I knew some Ethiopians.  And Michael, you're no Ethiopian!  :-)]
The Ethiopians have traditions that they've maintained throughout
the years.  The Reform start with a clean break from the law, then
proceed to develop a set of their own.  What should be remarkable
are the similarities, not the differences.

-Don Gertler