From: MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni)
Subject: On Orthodox Monopoly (was can of worms...)
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 92 11:22:06 +0200

On: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:36:40 GMT
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, not for  themselves but for all  other Jews.
>>The answer of Sheldon is very simple.  Essentially he says, we deserve
>>that monopoly  because we claim  it, because  *we* are right.   And in
>>order to show the inferiority of  all other views but his own, Sheldon
>>compares those to "drugs".  What a can of worms!
>
>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, there were
others (roughly during the last couple  of hundred years of the second
Temple), who  understood the  Jewish religion differently  (and others
still, see  below).  Roman destruction  of the Temple, and  some other
political conditions,  made 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.

>                  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  of a development  of a
religion in a certain direction, some  people wake up to the fact that
the leaders who  were responsible to that development  have moved away
from what the religion was supposed to be, or to be more accurate that
is what these people feel.  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. (I was
told off  recently, for misusing  the term Lehavdil, thus  please feel
free to add Lehavdils wherever you feel they should be put.)

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.

>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.

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 realize my tenor here is somewhat more confrontational than usual,
>but I'm trying to step up [sic] to the level of the discussion I've
>joined.

Don, there is no  need to worry about that.  You went  one step up, so
do not blame  me for taking one  more step up.  Should  one not always
strive to *raise* the level? :-)

>-Don Gertler

  Michael Shimshoni
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish