 Wednesday May 20, 2009
No Ayatollahs for Israel
Posted by Rabbi Andrew Sacks
Comments: 37
    
Many years ago, shortly after the first McDonald's restaurant opened in Jerusalem, I spoke with a group of Jewish youth visiting from the States. They lamented the fact that the restaurant was not Kosher. This led to a discussion where over half of the participants felt that Israeli law should require restaurants - at least in western Jerusalem - to be Kosher. No Big Macs with cheese. "This is a Jewish State and the laws should reflect Jewish values and traditions," one opined.
1 |
Ilan Jerusalem,
Wednesday May 20, 2009
Excellent! A court decision that allows for the continuation of Orthodox tradition while respecting the non-Orthodox.
Maybe Israel is growing.
2 |
avrom Israel,
Wednesday May 20, 2009
If the Reform and Masorti are pleading before the court then the opposing side is the government. So the taxpayers, who are mostly non-Orthodox (and the majority of UltraOrthodox men do not work and pay taxes) are funding the opposition to religious pluralism.
I get that the religious parties would oppose inclusiveness-but why do the Justice and Interior Ministries want to deny the non-Orthodox movements? Why does the government instruct the state lawyers to fight against the interest of the majority of world Jewry?
Only one answer-the failure to separate religion from politics.
3 |
Kishkeman,
Thursday May 21, 2009
I wish the Jerusalem Post had a blogger to discuss human rights in Israel and I wish the Jerusalem Post had a separate blogger to discuss Masorti Matters. Here we have a Masorti Rabbi who just wants to keep discussing problems he has with Orthodox controlled institutions. Only in limited passing he discusses anything inside the Masorti movement. It's a tired approach because in the end it helps the cause of secularism way more than it helps the Masorti movement.
4 |
Shmu Israel,
Thursday May 21, 2009
To Kishkeman:
You seem to take joy in attacking Rabbi Sacks. If it were here only-OK. But I have seen you do so on other blogs too.You have told himwhat he should write and what the content of his blog should be. You have showed your bitterness toward Conservative Judaism and egalitarianism.(e.g. on Jewschool).
It is clear from his ratings that you are in the minority.
Keep signing your tired song.
5 |
Kishkeman,
Thursday May 21, 2009
Shumu: If you want tired, just take a look at all the postings Rabbi Sacks has made on this blog. Everything is Rabbi Sacks against this, Rabbi Sacks against that. What is he for that makes the Masorti movement unique from all his buddies inside reform, new age, secularist or whoever else that feel they are being shortchanged? What is going on inside the Masorti movement in Israel right now? What programming is happening? What are the central issues on the minds of people who identify with the Masorti movement in Israel today? From this blog you never ever hear about these issues.
6 |
Kishkeman,
Thursday May 21, 2009
BTW, I am a member of a Conservative synagogue. I criticize from within our movement's empty pews. Whereas lots of others who comment on this blog and obviously most of the comments to this blog are mostly negative, would never ever set foot again in a Conservative synagogue. So when I criticize this blog for continuing to define identity the Masorti Movement in terms of, Masorti is against this and Masorti is against that without identifying what mitzvot the Masorti Movement is for I speak with a lifetime of experience. I've heard this approach before. It only helps to empty our shuls.
7 |
Conservative Rights in Israel,
Thursday May 21, 2009
PART ONE: Andrew Sacks is correct in stating that Israel, as a democratic state, has an obligation to protect the rights of minorities including reform/ conservative. However, the question at hand is not should reform/ conservative be protected or persecuted by the government but rather should they enjoy the same degree of rights that orthodoxy does. Israel is the 'Jewish' state and by definition should advance the cause of the people it represents much like (le'havdil) the French advocate French interests ahead of say, Italian interests.
8 |
Conservative Rights in Israel,
Thursday May 21, 2009
PART 2:
I do not know who has the copyright on Judaism, but I do know what Judaism has been for the last 3000 years. Judaism is the conviction that G-d revealed Himself to hundreds of thousands of our forefathers at Mt. Sinai. There, He commanded them and their descendents to keep His laws. This group of people transmitted the laws to their children generation after generation and we have complete records of the leaders of each generation (see Maimonides Introduction to the Mishna OR Introduction to Mishna Torah).
9 |
Conservative Rights in Israel,
Thursday May 21, 2009
PART 3:
These laws became known as Torah and specifically, Halacha. According to the Torah, one is defined as a Jew, even though one may not keep these laws. One is Jewish if ones mother is Jewish or if one converts to Judaism in accordance with Torah law. The reform and conservative movements which emerged a meager 200 years ago do not accept the authority of Torah law. As such, they do not accept the Torah definition of a Jew.
10 |
Conservative Rights in Israel,
Thursday May 21, 2009
PART 4:
Without any authority whatsoever, they invented new definitions of a Jew. For example, one is Jewish even if only ones father is Jewish. Furthermore, conversions are not done according to the law and are thus rendered illegitimate. The reform and conservative movements have not changed the definition of a Jew, but rather created a fundamentally new entity which they misleadingly call a Jew. This Jew may in fact not be a Jew at all.
11 |
Conservative Rights in Israel,
Thursday May 21, 2009
Part 5:
Although many people who identify as reform may be Jewish, this does not mean that reform itself is a trend of Judaism. A good analogy is a Jewish soccer club. Although many members of the soccer club may be Jewish, this does not mean that soccer is a trend of Judaism. As such, the Jewish state should advance the cause of the real Judaism. Real Judaism has been dubbed Orthodox Judaism in an attempt to legitimize the reform and conservative movements. (Orthodoxy includes the Modern Orthodox, Religious Zionist and Chareidi communities amongst others).
12 |
Conservative Rights in Israel,
Thursday May 21, 2009
PART 6:
From all of this it becomes clear that Orthodoxy should remain the only body which receives state funding for conversions. There is no reason that the conservative and reform movements should receive funding for their illegitimate conversions from the Jewish State of Israel.
13 |
Rob, New York,
Thursday May 21, 2009
The Orthodox assume alot of things. First, they assume an unbroken transmission from Sinai among a large population, but that is contradicted by the Bible itself multiple times (for example see Judges chapter 2). The Jews did not follow the rules and that's why they were exhiled. It is taken on some faith that Ezra reinstated the correct Judaism (See Nehemiah chapter 8, which states that the law was introduced and that the laws of Sukkot were not followed since Joshua). Even if that is assumed to be an accurate reinstatement, you have to then assume the Pharisees have the right interpretation.
14 |
Rob, New York,
Thursday May 21, 2009
( I meant Judges chapter 2, if I wrote Joshua chapter 2).
You cannot hide behind the commandment to follow the judges because the Bible then goes on to condemn the leadership of ancient Israel on many occasions. THAT is the "way Judaism was" off and on for the first 1000 years. If you followed them, you would be in the wrong. The way I see it, you need to be educated and judge things for yourself.
15 |
Cember, Jewish Reformation,
Thursday May 21, 2009
Part 1: From the general tenor of statements by the traditionalist element on this, and other blogs, I conclude that we are faced with a Jewish version of the Protestant Reformation. Not even the Pope denies that, Protestantism is Christianity, though that was, for centuries, the official Catholic position. Protestants (except in N. Ireland) no longer refer to Catholics as Papists. Similarly, though various heterodox interpretations of Judaism may not be the "Judaism" of 500 years ago, nobody can reasonably claim that they are not "Jewish".
16 |
Cember, Jewish Reformation,
Thursday May 21, 2009
Part 2: Similarly, even though one may believe (as I do) that the "Orthodox" sector has abandoned the most important parts of Jewishness in favor of formalistic Pulchan, greed, political hypocrisy and pettifogging Tzitzit -measurement, and even with the institutionalization of the Heikhal Shlomo and/or Rebbe worship, I believe that they are still Jews. We must procede with our reformation of the excesses of the Rabbinists with more sekhel than the Christian world showed when it overcame the excesses of the Catholic Church. We need not repeat the bloodbaths that wracked Reformation Europe.
17 |
sam nyc ny,
Thursday May 21, 2009
The name of his column "Masorti Matters" is exaclty whats wrong with his movment and his weekly writtings. Let me ask you Rabbi .."What matters to Masorti? Every column you write, you try to tear down the religious, yet YOUR group ignores what makes us all Jewish - the Torah and substitute it with Humanism! Where are the Masorti in keeping Jerusalem or living in Hebron? Why are 99% of the left wing Jews in Israel and America NOT religious (ie Masroti)? You have the title Rabbi yet you cant seem to figure out the difference between Torah Law vs customs& Rabbinic Law. The Masorti hardly Matter.
18 |
Cember, Jewish Reformation,
Thursday May 21, 2009
Part 3: The "Jewishness" of the State of Israel should be inclusive; not exclusive. Throughout the world, Jews (even the "Orthodox") have, for obvious reasons, traditionally been in the lead in the fight for separation of state and religion, and for religious tolerance. It's a hypocritical betrayal of that tradition for us to become establishmentarians in the one place where we have the numbers and the power to decide the issue. We can't, in good conscience, demand separation of church and state where we are a minority, and accept the establishment of a single religious orthodoxy in Israel.
19 |
Daniel,
Thursday May 21, 2009
As I understand history, the modern State of Israel was founded so that Jews (meaning, those who would have been gassed by Hitler had he been able to get his hands on them or those who survived in spite of his evil efforts) could have a national homeland that would provide safety and security against all who wanted to do harm to Jews. Somehow, it has devolved into Jew against Jew during the past 61 years. It makes me weep. If Jews cannot love one another, is there any hope for the future of Judaism?
20 |
Daniel Pinner, Kfar Tapuach,
Friday May 22, 2009
There is nothing "vicious" in pointing out "the fallacious, and deceitful, nature of these non-Orthodox movements", when these movements have declared openly that they are not part of Judaism, but nevertheless claim to be Jewish. Is it "vicious" to quote I.M.Wise, the Father of American Reform, who said "America is our Zion, and George Washington our Messiah"? Is it "vicious" to quote Dr Krauskopf, one of the most important American Reform ideologues of all time, who said: "Judaism is merely the ism of little Judea. We have outgrown it"?
21 |
Chai,
Friday May 22, 2009
respectfully to "conservative rights in Israel" everyone is entitled to their opinion, however a scholastic examination of jewish history will show that maternalistic determination of "national identity" emerged in the Roman empire during a time of defeat and misery. Roman law decreed males determine the nationality of the child, so these laws might be seen as a reaction in the Rabbinic period to the inability of jews to prevent the taking of their women. Earlier Biblical jewish periods, featured tribal patrilineal identity, which was the norm of the period, and still the case for Cohanim.
22 |
Moshe from NY,
Friday May 22, 2009
it's actually easy to draw the line: a restaurant is a public place and therefore appropriate to enforce some limited kashrut laws, whereas enforcing women's dress for example is a private matter and crosses the line
23 |
Bob Rosplock, United States,
Friday May 22, 2009
It is critical that you never compromise your values regarding your heritage. This can destroy anyone. You have scripture and history behind you.
24 |
Rob, New York,
Friday May 22, 2009
I've noticed that many Orthodox arguments focus on the way "Judaism has been", or on birth rates. It should focus on "what is true". Non-orthodox movements tend to believe in the Documentary Hypothesis because they think it's true, whether or not Maimonides believed in it. That is the true dividing line between Orthodoxy and non. You have traditionalists like Halivni, Heschel, and Jacobs who were basically orthodox except for an acceptance of biblical criticism. Then, you have more liberal groups who take the critical view as a justification for a lenient attitude.
25 |
Randy Calaway,
Sunday May 24, 2009
In reference to the opening statement, I must say; "All this discussion" about the choice of a cheeseburger.
The country surrounded my hostile forces and we are worried about cheese violations? This country Israel is stated as a democracy with theocratic influence.
Well, look at the theocratic aspect. Do you think the God of heavens and earth is overly concerned about cheeseburgers and how they violate the sensibility of a few?
Deep calls to deep but this so called "serious pursuit" seems contrary to what matters- Love, justice, mercy, forgiveness- You know, theocratic values.
26 |
Robert Jerusalem,
Sunday May 24, 2009
Drop the rainbow analogy. Seriously, rainbows have very negative implications in Judaism and if you want to avoid putting off modern Orthodox and non-observant but traditional Israelis who may agree with some of your points you need to be a little more respectful of Judaism and a little less "San Francisco".
27 |
Ilan Jerusalem,
Sunday May 24, 2009
To Robert: So HaShem was being disrespectful of Judaism, and showing SF values, when he selected the rainbow as a symbol of his promise that the world word never be destroyed by flood again?
to CONSERVTIVE RIGHTS: The Orthodox Movement is the newst of the Movements. It grew up in reaction to Reform, Conservative, and the Enlightenment.
The Sadducees, Pharasees, Essenes, Biblical Jews, Gaonic Jews, never hear of an Orthodox Movement.
28 |
Michael in Toronto,
Monday May 25, 2009
Mr. Sacks, According to the Masorti mission you wish to promote:
1.The study of Torah in the fullest sense and the transmission of its principles from generation to generation 2.The unity of the Jewish people and fostering ties between Jews wherever they live
3.The values of egalitarianism, pluralism, tolerance and democracy in the development of Jewish tradition (source [ Link to page ] )
Explain to me how labeling Hareidim as "backwards" and "anachronistic" is conducive to unity and fostering ties, and how the methodology of "wissenschaft" is compatible with transmitting our mesorah?
29 |
Ilan,
Tuesday May 26, 2009
Michael asks: Explain to me how labeling Hareidim as "backwards" and "anachronistic" is conducive to unity and fostering ties...
Rabbi Sacks does not label these people as backwards or anachronistic-only their actions and their attitudes - which they often are.
30 |
Aaron, US,
Tuesday May 26, 2009
Why is the rainbow so offensive? It's not necessarily a gay symbol, if that's what you interpreted it as. When I was in Israel, I saw rainbow flags all over the place- they're a symbol of peace. It's not just a "San Francisco thing".
31 |
Former Belgian, Greater Tel-Aviv,
Monday Jun 29, 2009
Re: #21: actually, in Roman law you were a citizen if your MOTHER was a citizen, with the argument "pater semper incertus est" (the father is always uncertain). A more prosaic reason was probably that the Roman establishment was uninterested in the accidental offspring of a Roman patrician father and his female slaves becoming Roman citizens.
It's quite interesting that in Judaism all sorts of things (Cohen/Levi/Israel status, Ashkenazi/Sfaradi,..) are patrilinear, except for Jewishness itself. There are both religious and commonsense grounds for the latter.
32 |
Akiva Avrohum, Manhattan, NY,
Sunday Jul 05, 2009
Responding to Comments #7-12:
The only Torah commandment that brings a man within the covenant of Hashem is circumcision. There is nothing in the Torah that says a man must have a Jewish mother to be Jewish. If the child is circumcised, with the intent of the Jewish father to bring his son within the covenant, the child is considered Jewish. Abraham was the first convert. Abraham was the founder of the Jewish religion. His mother & father were not Jewish. He was commanded by Hashem to circumcise himself, his two sons and household, to come within the covenant. This ritual remains to this day!
33 |
Faith, NYC, USA,
Sunday Jul 12, 2009
As per comment #32:
Yes my fellow readers, by law Ishmael and Abraham's male household are considered to be within the covenant with Hashem, a real shocker but true !
34 |
Robert, Manhattan, USA,
Sunday Jul 12, 2009
I am sick and tired of ritualistic religious arguments. They cause nothing but hate between people. Love your fellow human, shame no one, hurt no one, be righteous and do good in the world. Each person must be responsible for their own actions when dealing with others. We must all work as one to make a better world. These are indeed the actions that Hashem wants!
35 |
Michael Greenberg,
Thursday Sep 03, 2009
Well -first we must argue the merits of "tradition for tradition's sake " versus the possiblility that the tradition is IN ERROR because it was wrongly interepreted by the rabbis of the past who set a bad tradition (on some matters) on its way in the first place.
The issue" MILK+MEAT prohibition... GOD in Torah NEVER said you can't eat milk and meat together! The Torah states SPECIFICALLY you are not to seethe a Kid (baby goat) in the milk of its mother.Why did God simply state you can't cook and eat ANY animal in ANY MILK? The rabbis illegally expanded the prohibition.
36 |
Michael Greenberg,
Thursday Sep 03, 2009
Continuing my post on rabbinical bad interpretation of Torah using the milk+meat prohibition "law'
---even if you buy the"metaphoric" excuse rabbis explain why they "expanded" the prohibition to ANY
MILK eaten with ANY type of MEAT because you should not kill the offspring and hurt its mother's feelings if it was cooked in her milk --that metaphor cannot apply to say butter chicken!
Even with cow's milk+ beef--in today's agriculture we separate beef + dairy cow herds-so no chance a mommy cow can be hurt seeing her offspring cooked in her milk .so time we changed
this phoney "law'.
37 |
Michael Greenberg,
Thursday Sep 03, 2009
Not only do we not need Ayatoolah-like rabbinates,we don't need rabbis that cling to error-prone halachkic "traditions" ,rules,laws that prior rabbis mis-interpreted given the different conditions and limited knowledge of their day -or simply by their bad logic ...
The milk+meat fiasco is just one such rabbinic idiocy still in place.
The whole Moshich fiasco is another bad interpretation --God never promised in Tanach that a Messiah would save Jews at the End-time..there is not a single verse using "M'shiach"
linked to such a promise. Sar Hagadol Michael saves but he is not a M'shiach!
|
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Post your own comment
