YudelLine

Just as a note and for your information. There are several posters on Jewlicious and we have differing viewpoints on a number of issues including the differences between movements and how they should be perceived.

I personally disagree with the viewpoint expressed in that post and think what Katzav did was unfortunate.

On the other hand, the Reform temple where I sometimes pray does have some challenges in that many of its members are intermarried with the spouse only mildly interested or involved in Judaism. When combined with the issue of patrilineal descent, I have to admit that I am sometimes very confused by what will identify who is a Jew in the next generation. I also find that services are so watered down and so focused on English, Debbie Friedman tunes and lightness of essence (since the listeners are not knowledgeable enough, usually, to receive a deeper Judaic message) that the services simply do not fulfill one spiritually. I often attend Conservative services just to get out of that unfortunate situation.

In that regard, I have to agree with the comments made by some about Reform and to a lesser degree, about Conservative - the movements with which I identify to some degree. These are not small problems and I fear that pulpit rabbis in these movements are in a serious bind because they don't want to lose members or cause offense to those whose practice of Judaism is minimal, at best, but who take active roles in their congregations.

Just as a note and for your information. There are several posters on Jewlicious and we have differing viewpoints on a number of issues including the differences between movements and how they should be perceived.

I personally disagree with the viewpoint expressed in that post and think what Katzav did was unfortunate.

On the other hand, the Reform temple where I sometimes pray does have some challenges in that many of its members are intermarried with the spouse only mildly interested or involved in Judaism. When combined with the issue of patrilineal descent, I have to admit that I am sometimes very confused by what will identify who is a Jew in the next generation. I also find that services are so watered down and so focused on English, Debbie Friedman tunes and lightness of essence (since the listeners are not knowledgeable enough, usually, to receive a deeper Judaic message) that the services simply do not fulfill one spiritually. I often attend Conservative services just to get out of that unfortunate situation.

In that regard, I have to agree with the comments made by some about Reform and to a lesser degree, about Conservative - the movements with which I identify to some degree. These are not small problems and I fear that pulpit rabbis in these movements are in a serious bind because they don't want to lose members or cause offense to those whose practice of Judaism is minimal, at best, but who take active roles in their congregations.

Understood. I'm often implicated in the pinko ravings of my esteemed colleague Reb Yudel, so I know how you feel.

I didn't write that Reform doesn't have its challenges. And as someone who grew up in the movement, I can say that there are many points of theology and pracice with which I disagree. I mentioned patrilineality in my piecec, for example.

So Perhaps MISTER Yoffie jumped the shark with the patrilineal thing. I think if we are consistent, however, then we should refrain from calling "Rabbi" anyone with smicha with whom we disagree. Don't like it that the Orthodox synagogue won't allow women to form a minyan? Then it's MISTER Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, thank you very much. As for you, MISTER Dr. Ismar Schorsch, what's wrong with gay rabbis? And MISTER Mordecai Kaplan has a lot to answer for with his whole "Judaism as a civilization" thing.

And don't forget -- 100 years ago Orthodoxy was the least successful of the denominations, losing adherents right and left (mostly left); losing the argument over Palestine, etc. If "rabbi" is a title deserved only by those whose movements seem to assure a future of like-minded adherents, a generation of Orthodox rabbis would have relinquished the title.

Here's why I believe Reform Jews are well inside the tent of the historic Rabbinical Judaism:

Several years ago I was part of the editorial team re-designing the CCAR siddur. The way I justified this to myself and others was, that if I told my rebbe about it, I would note that the new siddur, for the first time would include all three portions of the Sh'ma (they've since dropped the middle portion and fired me). I imagined telling my rebbe that participating in a project which exposed two million Jews to the full Sh'ma was worth it.

One editorial meeting, a female rabbi proposed that we add an optional blessing to the amidah prayer, asking God to look after our suffering homosexual brothers and sisters.

While I was busy figuring out how to represent that one to my rebbe, the team leader said to the female rabbi: "Bring me a pasuk."

I was elated. This I could bring back to my rebbe. He was thinking like a rabbinical Jew, therefore he was inside the tent. It meant that the connection to Sinai was there.

Katzav is a small man. Now, that he's given to rudeness, too, I've lost respect to him. And I agree with the sentiment, either call them goyim or accept them as yidden. Life's too short.

For Andrew, I surely disagree with all you have said.

Your biggest error is to see in Pres. Katsav's stand in greeting Yoffe as Mister instead of "Rabbi" (a term many in Israel understand as derogatory)or "Rav" (a term that cannot refer to such a person with no training)--as some kind of insult. He was as nice as he thought he could be.

I agree with those who wish to use the term "Reform Rabbi" as statement of civility. This is how Yoffe might be described in America.

Your second problem is your unwillingness to understand the difference between a Rav and Reform congregants. A Jew in a Reform temple is every bit as much of a Jew as any other Jew. By contrast, a "Reform Rabbi" or a "Mr. Yoffe" has no similar standing with a real Rabbi--that is a man, who has extensive training in halacha and Torah/Talmud learning.

I regret that there is confusion over this simple matter. Reform Jews are real Jews. Reform Rabbis are not real Rabbis. This is common sense. People who write a bit on blogs are not "journalists"--people who follow medical reports are not doctors and people who follow legal precepts in their spare time are not real lawyers. "Rabbi"--"lawyer"-- "doctor" are terms that cannot be thrown around willy-nilly. If they do not mean something specific, they do not mean anything.

Regarding Yori yanover's comment about amending the Amidah to include a special prayer for "our Homosexual brothers and sisters"--this is the kind of insult that will continue to separate the Jewish people. It would be preferable to suggest that Jews include pork and shrimp at our religious celebrations (but sadly, some Reform Jews have already done that!). I simply ask why make such a suggestion? It creates the kind of needless conflict that telegraphs animosity and division--I can only conclude that this is more "stick it to them" planned strategy aimed at enraging fellow Jews.

This kind of comment is so out of bounds and is shocking that it can be made in a public context. We have a real problem of division and animosity between the Jewish people and by contrast--we have the phony problem of the happiest and most secure group of homosexuals in any time in any nation since the Greeks 2000 years ago. Yori goes out of her way to inflame the problem of division among the Jewish people on the sacrificial altar of the non-problem of the "suffering" of homosexuals.

Yes, Yori, life is short. If we waste time on non-problems and allow real ones to fester, we waste our lives.

Andrew says with confidence:

And yet we have a witness on this very blog on this specific folder. Yori tells us that at one "editorial meeting" the "Rabbi" PROPOSED *not* kosher food, or how they can increase Torah commitment or how to spread the joys of Torah learning. Instead, the Rabbi proposes how to alter our most sacred prayer in favor of including homosexuals.

It is kind and nice to imagine that Reform Rabbis are just as fine and interested and involved in Judaism as even the most Orthodox Rabbi. This is shear fantasy.

The Reform movement is being led by some very poorly trained people who harbor very unkosher notions about Judaism.

I should know, I am a refugee from the Reform movement. "Rabbis" like Yoffe should be sued as kooks in a class action by Reform congregants who are being poorly served.

Please hear Yori's punchline. Yori feels a connection to Hashem's law at Har Sinai when her Rabbi declares that Judaism involves special inclusion for homosexuals!! Celebration of homosexuality is "proof" that her Rabbi and Reform Jewry is kosher. The Rabbi is thinking like a real rabbi, it is declared, when the Rabbi is out there looking for textual support for elevation offerings for homosexuals.

It is not sarcasm when it becomes apparent that the "Rabbi" also gets praise when he/she finds ways to link Pres. Bush to Hitler, abortions to higher moral purpose, Darwin to truth, and the Kyoto accords to tikun olam. In fact, THAT is what Reform Rabbis do when they gather.

Reform leaders specialize in teaching beliefs that are not simply incorrect, they are the antithesis of Judaism.

David, I think you're mixing several issues, and also confusing what my own views are. I think you're a sincere guy and I'd like to pursue a discussion with you, but I object to your taking an anecdote and cutting it up so its part suit your point of view. By doing this you may win the argument, but miss out on the subtleties of the point I was trying to make.

My opinion is that the direction of the discourse between the editorial team leader and the participating female rabbi was what counted. They could be discussing whether or not to serve herring in schmaltz or in vinegar for kiddush for all I care. The notion of looking for a pasuk to substantiate a liturgical change is all rabbinical. You opted to attack the fact that they were debating the altering of "18," and the inclusion of gay stuff, and you missed everything.

So now let's take the debate back to where I think it belongs. You're being dishonest when you declare that somehow Reform Jews are all Jewish while their rabbis are no rabbis at all. The fact is that decades of decisions made by Reform rabbis about the lives of Reform Jews have had to alter the Jewishness of the latter. Don't be magnanimous with the truth.

Likewise, the function of Reform Judaism was to alter Rabbinical Judaism, and if you think it hasn't, and in many different ways, then I have an English language Artscroll to show you which would have been an unknown phenomenon if not for the Reform movement.

The question I was trying to answer was whether or not the Reform movement is a force outside or inside the tent of Rabbinical Judaism. Seeking a connection to Sinai -- for whatever issue -- puts it squarely inside the tent.

Yori, I regret I must disagree with your apologetics.

As I indicated in my plea to Andrew, if only Reform Jewry was another legitimate means to enhance kosher learning (Hebrew, Torah/Talmud, halacha, Jewish history, etc.)--there would be no controversy. It is not and your example highlights the problem.

You cannot come forward and indicate that you and your Rabbi attempted to seek a connection to Moshe and Hashem's revelation to the people at Mt. Sinai by systematically contradicting a whole host of fundamental Jewish law, including the sanctity of marriage, the primacy of laws against sexual immorality as well as the tradition of the Amidah prayer. You demostrate where your movement goes time and again.

By looking for Judaic justification for things that cannot be justified such as auto emmission standards, abortion on demand, change to the definition of marriage and so many others--you are not "within the tent" because you seek a pretext for celebrating things that are not by themselves within the tent. Obviously, *what* you are discussing IS the important thing.

Otherwise, two or three of your other points have me confused. "Decades of decisions by RefRabbis about the lives of R Jews have altered their lives"-- yes, this is my point that Reform Rabbis have changed the lives of Reform Jews and it is my point that my family (for example) would have been different if not for the leadership of Reform Rabbis who decided to give a green light for things they should have denounced and refused to stand up for things they should have celebrated. I don't get your point, please explain. I have argued that the Jews directed by these Reform Rabbis have been mislead and harmed. I am one of those Jews.

"The function of RJ was to alter Rabbincal Judaism"-- you say. I say, to clarify, that Reform Judaism created a schism among the Jews in our response to modernity that was devastating and Jews in the Reform movement ceased to practice Judaism in normative terms and not simply in Rabbinic terms. It is you who are being dishonest to argue that Orthodox Judaism is Rabbinic Judaism and Reform Judaism is merely an alteration.

It is another one of those lies brought forward by several of the RefRabbis who argue publicly and forcefully that Orthodox Rabbis are not really kosher and Reform Rabbis have greater truth and more legitimacy than the "Orthodox."
You cannot spin this as a defensiveness. It is a straight-up belief of moral superiority and this is beyond astonishing. It is an insult.

It is offensive that the Reform movement seeks to lobby for the antithesis of Judaism and seek to hold for itself ownership of Jewish morality at the same time. You ignore that the entire process of change and innovation in Judaism is a process that cannot simply be finalized with simple intent to appear "inside the tent" when one's mind is radically outside the tent.

It is nice if you respond.

David,

To clarify my point that "confused" you: You wrote, "Reform Jews are real Jews. Reform Rabbis are not real Rabbis." My question is, with matrilineal lineage and everything else innovated by Reform rabbis, how can you maintain the first part of your statement? Since one cannot be half a goy (shiksa charufa, if you will), go ahead and complete your idea courageously: Reform Jews are NOT real Jews. Reform Rabbis are not real Rabbis.

I can guess why you'd be reluctant to do this, seeing as your people are Reform Jews. So you stick to a parve statement about the sheep vs. the shepherd, ignoring the rational argument that you can't expect the sheep to stay sheep if their shepherds have been messing with them for so many yeras.

As one who never was Reform, and who is a shomer shabbos Jew from a chassidic family, I have the advantage of the outsider over you. Just as you're not prepared to toss aside 2 million Jews, I'm not prepared to do the same to their rabbis. History has a way of judging which is and which isn't a vital Jewish strand. We need to deal with the fact that the Reform movement is refusing to disappear, and is obviously offering something of value to its members. I'm ready to embrace them. What you're doing is both dishonest and patronizing. You're telling them you like their genetics but not their religious choices.

When it comes to practicalities, if my daughter wants to marry a Reform boy, he's going to have to jump in the mikveh and get a proper circumcision, if I can have a say about it. I'd try to deliver the message lovingly, but he'd have to understand that by classical definition he may not be Jewish. What would you do in the same case? Ask to see the sefer yuchsin of his family?

In 2000 years of golus we've picked up so many mamzerim, so many children of rape, so many goyim who just stuck with the camp -- we can pick up a couple million folks from Melbourne, NJ.

I obviously meant "patrilineal lineage and everything else innovated by Reform rabbis"

(Oh. I thought you were taking a Karaaitic turn and meant "matrilineal descant and everything else innovated by Roman-influenced rabbis.")

Thank your for your response, Yori. Yes, if I now understand you, it is true that Jews born of non-Jews are non-Jews. I clearly meant to indicate that Jews who are Jews are still Jews even if in the Reform movement.

I am a bit surprized that you are a shomer shabbes Jew and not pleased that you are ready to embrace Reform Rabbis as equal to a real Rav.

I can only repeat myself and hope that the repetition might help. A doctor is a doctor because he has specific training. A massage therapist might be therapeutic but is the massage is not medical and the therapist is a not a doctor. A Rabbis is a specific thing and simply because people are willing to give someone the title or claim the title, this does not mean that the title rightly applies. Can there be such a thing as a Rabbi impersonator? Yes. Who would that person be? Someone with only some training who cannot stand the scrutiny of a body of real Rabbis. Some doctors are not liked by their peers but none would deny that they are doctors.

There is, in fact, a great deal of pluralism in Judaism. The problem with Reform Rabbis (and some Conservative ones) is that they hold and promote beliefs that are so contrary to Judaism (such as conversion standards, non-belief in Torah as divine, non-belief in God as creator, etc) that they cannot be brought "into the tent" in any analysis.

Is it possible for the Reform movement to reconstitute itself--yes. But this will happen only by the demands of the congregants who feel increasing embarassment at being separated by the rest of the community. Some want more tradition and I know of some Reform congregations that are now beginning to adapt some of the trappings of Jewish life including prayer shawls and kippot and more kosher food. But until their beliefs change sufficiently towards tradition, they will remain, in any sober analaysis, outside of the norm.

You place significance in the fact that the Reform movement still exists and offers "something" of value to its members. Why? Instead, why not assess whether or not Reform Jewry offers something *Jewish* to their members since after all, a filling (non-kosher)oneg shabbat lunch and directions to the latest pro-abortion rally may offer something to the congregation but not what a good shommer shabbes Jew like yourself should hope for.

Regarding your example of a practicality, I fear you are still stuck in definitional neverland. A Reform Jew (who is born a Jew with a Jewish mother) requires nothing to marry your daughter (if you wish to examine the quality of his circumcision, that is between you, your daughter and the Jewish husband to be). He is as much a Jew as the most frum Hassid from Brooklyn. But you have not pegged the correct hypothetical. Many married Reform Jewish couples are mixed marriages. The Refomr Rabbis refuse to insist that the non-Jew convert. If there is a conversion, it is almost never a kosher conversion. Therefore, Reform congregations swell in membership numbers but much of the growth is with offspring that may wish to think of themselves as Jews--but are not really Jewish. Therefore, what happens when your daughter asks the boy if he is Jewish, he says yes, they date and fall in love and you discover that his Mom is not a Jew, knows nothing about Judaism and his dad is a liberal Jew but had some trappings of Judaism in his household such as a Bar Mitzvah for his son. Then, what do you have? A trip to the mikveh will not help. He would have to undergo a kosher conversion.

In this case, tell me Yori, how could you avoid saying that you did not like the boy's genetics or his religious beliefs?

To answer your question, if my son married a Jewish woman who was a Reform Jew (born a Jew to two Jewish parents, etc), this would not be as good as marrying a woman with a stronger Jewish background. But I would need to take no action, they would have a Jewish wedding and they would have kosher Jewish children.

Regarding your last quip and your accusation that I am patronizing, you suggest that since Judaism has swallowed up a bunch of mamzers, rape victims and goys--we can accept a bunch of Reform Jews. Good grief. This is more than a tad patronizing. (Where are the liberals screaming complaints that they have just been compared to rape victims?) Those mamzers are only Jewish if they have maintained Jewish standards generationally. The Reform Jews (who are Jews by halacha) require nothing to be admitted to the camp.

What they need is the motivation and positive encouragement from Jews like us to have them break their chains from the Reform movement and the clutches of Reform Rabbis who tell them they can do all kinds of things they cannot and do not do many things they should in acting out their Jewish lives.

David,

You write: "A Rabbis is a specific thing and simply because people are willing to give someone the title or claim the title, this does not mean that the title rightly applies." You compare rabbis to doctors.

The Jewish smicha was interrupted permanently (until bi’at ha'goel) in the 5th Century. From that point on, there is no proper smicha and thus no “rightly applied” title of Rabbi. A Reform rabbi is as not-musmach as an Orthodox one. From that point onward, ordination is a vague certificate of approval, relying on the reputation of the one giving it. Your claim as if Orthodox rabbis own the rabbinate because they have an authentic connection to anything is historically and halachically false.

Regarding marrying off my daughter to a Reform boy, you should re-read my comment. I said the latter would have to jump in the mikveh and get circumcised, regardless of what he tells me about his lineage, because I assume his lineage is a problem, regardless of the evidence. I don't believe there is any Reform family today, after nearly two centuries since the movement's inception, which is guaranteed Jewish. If the boy is serious about marrying a frum girl, he should undergo conversion to be safe.

Finally, the assertion on the part of many Orthodox believers that somehow our tradition is authentic and everyone else's is synthetic, I direct your attention to the volumes of books by Artscroll, which has been devoting enormous efforts to synthesizing Jewish tradition beyond recognition, producing a parve, de-sexualized, proto-Catholic takes on our greatest treasures. Any Hebrew speaker who sees what they've done to the works of King Solomon would shriek in pain. And they disseminate their cultural refuse to millions.

If you ask me which is worse, giving directions to an abortion clinic or maligning Shir Hashirim to the point of kulturmord -- I'm with the clinic.

Yori, you are spinning like a top.

I seek to simply and directly define the Jewish tradition. You, on the other hand, are all over the place.

I direct you to a book on my shelf: "Who is a Jew?" (Schochet) that examines is a rather exhaustive manner, these issues.

If you do not like one version of the Song of Songs, don't read it. Do you not know there are many other translations and if you read the Hebrew so well, why might you care about one translation? What does the Song of Songs have to do with anything associated with this topic?

I have never heard of a case where a frum Jew married a non-Orthodox Jew (who was born a Jew and with a Jewish mother and father) where there was a forced conversion, just to make sure. Who is a Jew is a settled issue from the days of the Talmud (please read Sanhedrin 44a, for example).

Therefore, where we have clear evidence distinguishing between a Jew and someone who is not accepted as a Jew, you don't trust the traditional dividing line. And then, in the case where there is a distinction between a Rav and someone with insufficient learning--you claim there can be no dividing line and one Rabbi is as good as anyone else.

This is a bizarre line of attack. You mistrust anyone who is not a frum Jew for your daughter but you are willing to embrace anyone who calls himself a Rabbi as a Rabbi as good as any other.

You have me speechless.

Do you really believe that respected Orthodox Rabbis have no higher standing in your eyes than some guy from some seminary who knows nothing of halacha, little Talmud and believes in very little that is normative Judaism? You cannot make any distinction here?

The "Orthodox" do not own the rabbinate and I am open to Rabbis from the heterodox movements having their conversions (and their Rabbinic knowledge) scrutinized. I would hope you can understand that those who openly disregard and stand opposed to Judaism's most fundamental concepts will not be given any consideration.

In siding with a group of Jews who deny basic and defining Jewish concepts in anger over what you consider to be one poor translation of a text, you have clearly made a bad call.

"If you do not like one version of the Song of Songs, don't read it."

Absolutely, and, likewise, if you don't like somebody's teachings, rabbi or not, don't attend their shul. But that's not the issue. The issue is how synthetic is the Orthodox cultural gestalt vs. the Reform. I brought the Artscroll case as an example of a mass effort to synthesize Orthodox tradition. The result is frightening, and it's symptomatic of a culture which is thriving economically and impoverished in its creative ability. In fact, it is sinking ever-deeper into a self-centered cultural world, unaware of its surroundings. But, again, I'm not noting this as my gripe, I'm showing you the lack of cultural authenticity in the "frum" world, which is easily as severe as in the Reform.

Sanhedrin 44a only deals with the concept of a sinful Jew remaining a Jew. I wish you could point out where on the page it "settles" the idea of who is a Jew. And when there's a doubt as to the Jewish lineage, as in families where they just didn't care so much about the issue, the doubt is serious. I know of one case of a pre-marital conversion which took place just after Pesach this year, with a woman who had one "questionable" grandmother.

As to your assertion that I "claim there can be no dividing line and one Rabbi is as good as anyone else," please, read what I wrote. You said there was such a thing as a "proper" rabbinical authority. That creature in its classical Jewish definition has not existed some 1500 years. We do not have an "Expert Judge," as the gemorah calls a musmach, and there is no other kind of "proper" rabbi.

My personal choices are Orthodox, my halachic teachers are Orthodox, but that does not mean that I can disregard a movement of 2 million Jews, including their leaders. In fact, even if I wanted to, I couldn't. They're there to stay, I'm afraid, whether you and I approve or not.

As stated, "Who is a Jew" is a clearly articulated and understood definition. The matter of who is or is not a kosher Rabbi can be debated but from the beginning, our community has always been able to validate who, among the various communities, were the top teachers and scholars.

Please, let us stay close to the topic. Is Eric Yoffie one of the top Rabbinic scholars, one of the machers in Torah/Tulmud leadership in the Jewish world? Of course he is not. He is in a separate category completely. He is a Reform Rabbi and not a real Rabbi as we have always sought to define our teachers and leaders. Yoffie's claim to fame is not his level of Jewish learning, rather, it is his liberal political credentials. This is not the defining terms of "Rabbi"--even if the Reform movement wants its Rabbis to be secular, political leaders. Please acknowledge that who Eric Yoffie attempts to be in his community is very different than say, who the chief Rabbi of Israel attempts to be. This is why Pres. Katsav said what he said.

In fact, the Reform movement defines Judaism as a theology with no specific defining terms. To the extent you agree, you are siding with the Reform rabbis. You explicitly agree with the Reform rabbis when you say that (only) your "personal choice" is with the Orthodox. If the leadership of the Reform Rabbis is legitimate, it would follow that Judaism would not suffer if all Jews became Reform followers of Eric Yoffie tomorrow.

I would argue that if that happened, there would no longer be Judaism. I believe this is a fair calculation and if Reform leaders admit that the future of the Jewish people is not secure without Orthodox Judaism and the Orthodox see no value, correctly and by contrast, in the Reform--this is additional data that confirms the point that the Reform terms are not legitimate and "inside the tent." Reform Judaism has

You are suggesting that your daughter's husband would have to jump through YOUR hoops to be considered part of your Jewish family. But, as I implied, if it is only to please you and there are no defining terms, why should she not be forced through HIS hoops to satisfy his family. I believe strongly that there are defining terms of this debate, the Reform movement is causing many good Jews to disappear and others have been lost to the Jewish people since the Orthodox and much of the Conservative world rejects its norms.

If there is no "proper Rabbi" why require that your daughter's potential husband have different Rabbinic standards than what he already has?

Lastly, there is no logical proof that the Reform "are here to stay." Demographic and policy changes might lead to serious Conservative Jews to leave the C shuls in favor of Modern Orthodox ones leaving the Reform in even greater disparity with other Jews, without the buffer of Conservative in the middle. It is a realistic development that could happen at the end of our lifetimes.

>>from the beginning, our community has always been able to validate who, among the various communities, were the top teachers and scholars.

Maimonides was boycotted by half the world's Jewry in his day. Shabtai Tzvi was endorsed by hundreds of rabbis. Major hasidic rabbis were informed on and arrested -- where did you take that bit of silliness from?

>>He is a Reform Rabbi and not a real Rabbi.

Saying it another time does not bring back smicha, David. No one is a real rabbi, no one has the connection to Sinai endowed by the classical ordination. I don't know where you get that notion of "real" rabbi, but other than your personal prejudice I fail to see its source. "Rabbi" as master is an open-ended definition, and each student decides who his/her master is. You really must provide a concrete definition of who is a rabbi which Erik Joffie fails to reach that is outside the realm of "Those David thinks are real rabbis."

>>In fact, the Reform movement defines Judaism as a theology with no specific defining terms.

I don't know what this means, and I don't much care. Judaism has hundreds of definitions, from bloodline to revolutionary ideology and everything in-between. To the point, Jewish practice is strictly the keeping of mitzvot -- and I defy you to show that Reform rabbis advocate against keeping mitzvot. You may not like how they do it, but that's not nearly as crucial as you may think.

>> why should she not be forced through HIS hoops to satisfy his family.

1 - because typically the non-frum side doesn't have hoops. 2 - because my daughter is connected to me, and I to my father, and he to his father, and this lineage is specific and important to me as a link in the chain. It's not just ideology, it's a blood tie.

>>If there is no "proper Rabbi" why require that your daughter's potential husband have different Rabbinic standards than what he already has?

There is a demand on a Jew to "obey the yoke of the sages." Those are standards which I and my daughter have taken upon ourselves, adhering to sages who were, indeed, connected to Sinai via smicha. And we do use the tool of the Shulchan Aruch and poskim to keep this connection alive. A posek does not have to be a Dayan Mumche.

>>Lastly, there is no logical proof that the Reform "are here to stay."

Likewise the Orthodox. In the '60's Look Magazine ran a big story on the decline and disappearance of Orthodox Judaism. So far, Orthodox Judaism has outlasted Look. The Reform may be similarly resilient.

Yori, your stubborness to admit that there are defining terms for who is a Jew and what is a Rabbi is very evident. I wish you to be correct instead of merely stubborn.

Please tell me why Messianic Jews who lead congregations are not "real Rabbis?" They are normally born Jews, they read Torah, they have the trappings of Judaism. Why are they not kosher Rabbis?

Is there no limit to where a Jew can go and still be a Jew and is there no limit on what a Rabbi can state as worthy of belief and remain a "Rabbi."

Do you have any problem with a California Rabbi declaring from the pulpit that he believes it is foolish to suggest that the Exodus ever really happened and that Moses really existed?

Is any thing anyone says that is "outside the camp?" Can you draw a line anywhere?

And you completely failed to say why it is reasonable for you to have strict halachic standards and another Jew to have no standards, all the while seeing no conflict.

>>Is any thing anyone says that is "outside the camp?" Can you draw a line anywhere?

That's an excellent and fair question, and, coupled with your point regarding Jews for Jesus, it is the strongest one you've made so far.

To begin with, the entire issue of Kfirah and schisms is not very Jewish. You know that generations of perushim and Tzedokim co-existed, albeit tenuously, in Judea before the destruction, alongside many other sects, as well as Hellenized Jews and uneducated Jews. Each sect developed its way of dealing and competing with the others, without ever having to question whether or not the others believed in the right thing.

Only the entrance of Christianity created this anxiety over opinions. Before the 2nd Century, Judaism was entirely based on mitzvot, and all disputes were in that area.

I believe that any rabbi may declare over any mike that the Exodus and the myth of Creation never happened, and it wouldn't bother me. In fact, these are legitimate views, presented over the generations by many Jewish scholars.

But a rabbi who would declare that Shabbat should be kept on Sunday, or that it is recommended to eat on Yom Kippur, or that we should avoid circumcising our children -- him I would consider outside the fence.

In that context, the Jews for Jesus are crafty and disturbing, because they posit the one clear case where an opinion -- that God dated this lady and they had a baby boy who would redeem my sins -- disqualifies them. You are correct that this points to an inconsistency in my position, and the only answer I can provide is, like that famous Supreme Court justice deciding the pornography case - I can tell it when I see it.

But the distance between a Jew for Jesus clergyman and a Reform rabbi is huge. The latter advocates a personalized adherence to mitzvot, in the style of the "10 Suggestions." The former promotes the destruction of individual, innocent Jews. It simply isn't one and the same.

I am relieved to hear that you believe that a Jew can believe almost anything, instead of anything.

The trouble with your perception is that it is, as stated, merely your own and no offers no basis to discuss the issue or the problem. Your point of view is not defining and distinguishing. If you know it when you see it, everyone cannot be free to know it when they see it and have a common standard. The point that Judaism involves standards is the sticking point of our debate. If there are no standards, there can be no detrmination as to who is a Jew or who is a Rabbi and who is not.

As for your belief that Reform Rabbis offer a higher form of Judaism than Messianic Jews--I find both improper. It is a tough choice to suggest that it is better to consider Shabbat optional vs. celebrating it on Sunday--neither belief is kosher. Celebrating something kosher on the wrong day might be better than believing that something so precious to Jewish practice is not required--this just brings us down to the gutter.

It is better to stay positive and get back to the theoretical of your daughter's future potential husband. I believe that putting him in a mikveh and checking his circumcision is not the proper focus of who is a Jew and what makes a convert.

I insist that there are standards and defining terms. As posted in Schochet's "Who is a Jew?"
a conversion requires: 1)a basic knowledge of Judaism, what it is, what it stands for, what it demands, 2) a sincere perception on the part of the convert that Judaism reflects his version of reality and his perception of truth and 3) a compelling desire and decision to follow that truth in practice, and to become part of Judaism, regardless of anything else.

These are standards and defining terms. If you cannot agree that this is required of converts, we have a conflict.

Reform Judaism does not accept this standard and this is part of the reason why their conversions and their Rabbis are not real Rabbis.

>>These are standards and defining terms. If you cannot agree that this is required of converts, we have a conflict.

You don't have a conflict with me, but with Maimonides. I don't know Shochet, but according to the Yad, a conversion requires ZERO knowledge of Judaism. In fact, since it is prohibited to teach Torah to a goy, there's a serious problem with the courses teaching potential converts. What a conversion requires, above all else, says Maimonides, is an acceptance of the yoke of the sages. The mikveh and circumcision are way less important.

Your yearnings for common standards is admirable but not very realistic. Conflicts over standards between streams of Orthodoxy are so huge, regarding shchita, milah (metzitza was a big to do recently), gittin, the status of women -- that your call to somehow homogenize our faith is born either by a lack of awareness or willful ignorance. There are no standards and defining terms. There are only mitzvot, which every Jew must decide for him/herself how to keep.

I'm not sure why you're so afraid of this absence of a papal authority in Judaism, which determines who's doing it right. Don't you know that whenever we tried something like that (as in the Israeli chief rabbis) the result was the collapse of authority and not the empowerment of the nation.

It's possible that you just need to relax a little, stick to the shul you like, try to keep the mitzvot as best you can and remind yourself that, at least according to some hasidic traditions, a Jew is incapable of acting against the will of God, even when it appears that he is.

There's a lot Orthodox Jews have learned from the Reform and Conservative (the tune of the benching a million Orthodox Jews sing regularly was composed by the founder of the Conservative movement). Just as there's a lot we've learned from other factions in Judaism, like the kibbutz movement. "I've learned from all my teachers," said the wisest of men. I think it's a good plan.

We have plenty of common ground, Yori. The conflict comes to whether or not what Reform Rabbis teach is a real schism in Judaism. I insist that it is and you say that it is not.

The trouble with your willingness to see splits and conflicts in the tradition has very little to do with the real split that is evident in the teachings of the Reform Rabbis. It is simply not at all the same to indicate that our sages were thought to be a bit controversial by some in their day and that Reform Rabbis are similarly controversial. You are not making a fair parallel. Similarly, this is the style of argument by the Reform Rabbis who bring up the most superficial kinds of disputes in the Talmud to justify the kinds of disputes that are evident today. Today's split does not resemble those disputes in any shape at all. The fact that kosher sects of Jews argue and tangle (witness the split in the followers of the Hassidic Teitlebaum brothers) has no parallel with the distance between Orthodox Jewry and Reform Jewish teaching. No one wants a homogenized Judaism.

The Judaism that is described by Reform Rabbis has no relation to the Judaism that we try, in good faith, to follow. All that you say is true for Jews who are on the same page.

We might have differeing traditions and emphasize some different things. All this is part of the tradition and is not schismatic. When Reform Rabbis preach no conversion standards and many things antithetical to Judaism--like gay rights parades in Jerusalem and homosexual marriage, the optional belief in God as creator, etc.--this puts Jews at odds.

Evidence for this difference is all over the place and even though there is some movement of Reform Jewry towards tradition--without that movement, Reform Jewry would be over a cliff and gone. In the meantime, a heavy percentage of Jews lead by the Reform Rabbis will intermarry with Chrtistians and fail to have any meaningful content in their lives.

It is laudable to save as many of these Jews as possible before they are gone to the growing number of secular humanists that now have such a strong voice.

The ex-Jew who is now an athiest--is a strong force for diminshing God's presence in the world. This trend is encouraged by the Reform Rabbis, it is our work to seek to prevent it.

If you were correct, the bridge between the Reform and Orthodox would not be so huge. Please read the book co-authored by the Reform Rabbi and the Orthodox Jew and tell me they are on the same page. They are miles apart.

That "I should stick to the shul that I like" requires some comment. It is my belief that any Jew should feel comfortable in any shul in the world.

I do find myself angry at some shuls. There are left leaning Conservative shuls with some bad politics and I can feel no Jewish content in a Reform shul. This is not because I am not open-minded enough or they don't "move" me in an individual way. My individuality has nothing to do with it. I go to pray to God and witness a Rabbi who is a kosher representative of our tradition.

Judaism DEMANDS that this is how it needs to be. I disagree with you fundamentally--we have one basic tradition, one Torah and we are one people. This is how things worked for thousands of years.

Now, we have a modern culture that does not conform with a sense that we should be comfortable at any shul anywhere. Rather, it is our individual tastes and desires that need to override our sense of community and tradition. Big problem.

Most Reform Jews would not be happy in almost any frum shul because the prayers are unknown and the service strange. Almost all Orthodox Jews are not fulfilled in a Reform temple with their strange practices.

By constrast, the "strange practices" of a Sephardic shul for an Ashkenazi presents a very different kind of problem and one that that can easily be addressed.

The fact that a few Modern Orthodox are not happy with a mechitza and they prefer open, mixed seating is not definitional and meaningful.

For the variety of tradition minded Jews, what unites us overwhelms everything that pulls us apart. For the Reform Movement vs. normative Judaism, the differences overwhelm the points of consensus.

Is there something to learn from the Reform?--the answer is yes. Is there something about halacha or the mitzvot, Torah and Talmud that we can learn from a Reform Rabbi? sadly, I believe the answer is no.

Comment one last time and we will leave it at that.
B'shalom, David

Dear David,

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I'd venture that your experience with frum life is relatively short. I sense it because, after close to 30 years as a frum Jew I've experienced what you're feeling and then grew into a less black and white perception of our religion and culture. I believe that many of the points you've stressed about "normative Judaism" are incorrect, and I suspect that one mincha in a Yemenite shul would cure you forever of the notion that all frum services are basically the same.

My own experience with Reform Judaism comes almost strictly from my work for the CCAR on their new siddur. It's possible that I've encountered an a-typical class of Reform rabbis and scholars. I have to tell you that quite a few of them were both Shabbat observers and kosher. And I never encountered there the idea of God as an "option." But I defer to you on the facts.

I bless you that you will find a shul where you are really happy, and that your increased learning will guide you into a more three-dimensional understanding of traditional Judaism.

Thank you for a satisfying and mutually respectful disagreement.

YY

OK, Yori:

I tried to stay with the principle instead of the individual experience.

I tried to emphasize that there is a huge difference between variety within a type and widely different experiences that are not at all comparable.

There is almost no kosher and shomer shabbat experience in Reform congregations. To say that such practice is optional is quite an understatement since it is almost universally disregarded among the followers of Reform Rabbis.

My personal "happiness" is not the issue or the topic. Whether or not a Reform Rabbi is "kosher" is the issue. I am on solid and established ground in believing that they are not. Reform Rabbis are doing a lot of damage and even if some Jews remain vaguely Jewish in affiliation and grow up to return to tradition, this is no merit on the heads of Refomr Rabbis who do a disservice to the meaning and purpose of Jewish living by insisting that one be fulfilled perfectly well by observing no Jewish ritual, learning no Jewish law
and obeying no Jewish precept.

Micha said "Behold, a good doctrine has been given unto you, forsake it not."

I feel badly that you deny that there is a *doctrine* (what an astonishing thing to say after we have suffered so pointedly for thousands of years to fight for the truth of one message for humanity)and you feel no anguish that Jews are given license by Reform Rabbinic authorities to forsake it on the banner of liberal politics.

Thanks for the back and forth. Perhaps you could re-read some of our debate and focus on what I have said. If you think it is not black and white between Reform belief and practice and Jewish belief and practice, you are missing the essence of each doctrine.

Perhaps Wikepedia would help. Real Rabbis study and teach halacha, they have serious training in the ways and means of Judaism. Reform Rabbis study other things like sociology and know very little and teach almost nothing about halacha or about anything that would be called "Jewish" 100 years ago. They are disaffected Jews and they are Jews nonetheless. This does not mean they are serious, normative, traditional or sholarly Jewish.

They are precisely the kind of Rabbi who will testify in front of Congress that better fuel economy in motor vehicles in supported in Torah because this is what they WANT to be in Torah, not laws about Shabbat or laws against homosexuality.

Enough. Sorry I could not move you.