quote:Originally posted by rivka: Last name Goldberg, eh?
You wouldn't happen to be a Messianic, would you?
I was wondering the same thing. They had their whole "Behold Your God Campaign" here in DC and Baltimore. Even Christians should be offended by them.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least they've stopped those dreadful Chanuka ads they were running in newspapers for a few years.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: Thank you. But, respectfully, while the issue of the differences between Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism have been debated at length, including the concept of "Torah Judaism," I do not believe the precise issues/arguments/questions raised in my post were addressed, and I was seeking to add to the debate. If I missed during my reading of this thread, however, a specific discussion on my questions, then I do apologize.
It was perhaps not discussed quite so bluntly as you raised it, but there was a discussion between TomD and starLisa that covered it. Basically, and I'm paraphrasing for simplicity's sake, Lisa said that the death penalty could not be enacted without the proper authority from the proper courts, which do not exist at this time in history. Likewise, sacrifices are only to be made at the Temple in Jeruselem. Since there is no Temple, it is not proper to make sacrifices.
I am not Jewish, and have not studied these issues at all. I'm just repeating what I understand from having read this thread. Your questions seem to me to be intentionally inflammatory. I could be wrong, of course, and I apologize if I am. However, since this thread has only recently settled down from the last inflammatory section, I have no real desire to see it go there again. I'm enjoying reading it, when it manages to stay civil.
Added: I do not, of course, answer your last question. I am not qualified to. But since the examples you gave were already covered in the thread, I wanted to point that out. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G, pretending that he's talking to Dr. Laura: starLisa,
Do Orthodox Jews obey the commandment to stone to death those who fail to observe Shabbat?
Yes. Absolutely. And we do so in complete accordance with Torah law. So there are a few minor requirements for it to be done properly.
First we're going to need two valid witnesses seeing the person violating Shabbat d'Orayta (that means the prohibitions that are from Sinai, and not the prohibitions that were added on as fences by the rabbis). That shouldn't be too difficult.
Then we need the witnesses to warn the perp, right then and there, that what he's about to do is a d'Orayta prohibition. The witnesses also have to make it clear to him that the penalty is death, and what that involves, and they have to make sure that he understands 100%.
That last part is going to be a little difficult, given the legal presumption most non-religious Jews have, which is that they are as responsible for violating the law as a child kidnapped by non-Jews and raised in an entirely different religion.
But all is not lost! We're sure to find someone who grew up Orthodox and had a solid education and nevertheless apostasized. One who doesn't mind getting executed to make a point.
There's got to be someone out there who falls into that category, right? So we get the witnesses to warn the guy, not once, but twice, and the perp confirms that he gets it and goes ahead anyway and lights a fire, or writes two letters, or whatever.
Now we've got him.
Lastly, we need a Sanhedrin which meets on the Temple Mount. Hmm... that's going to be difficult. We don't have one of those. Darn it, I guess we can't kill the perp after all. Shucky darns.
But other than that technicality, sure. The law hasn't changed.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Do Orthodox Jews obey the many commandments to sacrifice animals at the appointed times?
Yup! Absolutely. In every particular. Just like that whole stoning thing. Tomorrow morning, one of the appointed priests is going to go over to the altar in the Temple and... excuse me? Could you say that a little louder? No Temple? Really? Well, that's going to put a crimp in things, now, isn't it?
But as soon as we get that little technical glitch ironed out, we'll be right back on track. The law, David, hasn't changed.
quote:Originally posted by David G: If Orthodox Jews do not observe these and many other commandments stated in the Torah,
Ah... this is what happens so often. One of the cool things about a syllogism is that if one of the premises is false, you can chuck the whole thing.
"Well, if Socrates is a philosopher and all philosophers are fish, it stands to reason that Socrates is a fish."
or
"Well, if Socrates is a teaspoon of vinegar and all teaspoons of vinegar are Greek, it follows that Socrates is Greek."
With that one, you even have a correct conclusion, but it's correct in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day.
Getting back to you, David, when you start with:
quote:Originally posted by David G: If Orthodox Jews do not observe these and many other commandments stated in the Torah,
... well, we can pretty much chuck the rest. Because all it takes is one false premise.
quote:Originally posted by David G: then how can Orthodox Jews claim to observe "Torah Judaism"? Have not Orthodox Jews abandoned or modified many of the mitzvot expressly stated in the text of the Torah?
Nope. But thanks for asking.
[Edited because I wouldn't have beaten David up as badly if I'd seen later posts making unfortunate accusations against him.]
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Typical arguments posed by missionaries. StarLisa, go get 'em. Next he will try to say Jesus satisfies the commandment of sacrifice.
I'm not sure you're right, Stephan. Oh, it's possible, but it sounded more like a partial rerun of the "Letter to Dr. Laura" thing that was flying around the Internet some time back. And that was hardly coming from a missionary point of view.
David, can you enlighten us?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Typical arguments posed by missionaries. StarLisa, go get 'em. Next he will try to say Jesus satisfies the commandment of sacrifice.
I'm not sure you're right, Stephan. Oh, it's possible, but it sounded more like a partial rerun of the "Letter to Dr. Laura" thing that was flying around the Internet some time back. And that was hardly coming from a missionary point of view.
David, can you enlighten us?
I hope I'm wrong. But even if he was going to follow up saying Jesus is the answer may he be truly a Christian and not a Jew for Jesus.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never liked cheeseburgers even when I was a kid, but parve cheese. <shudder> There are restaurants here in Chicago and Skokie that have kosher cheeseburgers, but the burgers, at least, are real.
A mild derailment, but cheese ain't the most important thing on a burger at all. A toasted bun and some ketchup, and proper seasoning for the beef, these are far more important things.
I'm not even sure about the seasoning part. And a really good hamburger can be eaten with just a teeny bit of A-1.
There's a place in Skokie called "Ken's Diner". It's kind of a 50's diner, but kosher. They have a thing called a "Burger Buddy". It's a half pound burger, fries and a drink. When I was living in Israel, I used to commiserate with my fellow ex-Chicagoans (am I an ex-ex-Chicagoan now?) about Burger Buddys.
You know the episode of M*A*S*H where they order ribs from Adam's Ribs in Chicago? Well, if we were in that situation, it would have been Burger Buddys all around.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
And one from Highland Park, IL.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Last name Goldberg, eh?
You wouldn't happen to be a Messianic, would you?
With all due respect, rivka, I think that's unfair and inappropriate. And an example of why lashon hara is such a major prohibition. One person makes that kind of suggestion (for reasons I don't think are valid), and you're accusing a Jew of being a J4J?
I think you owe him an apology.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Last name Goldberg, eh?
You wouldn't happen to be a Messianic, would you?
With all due respect, rivka, I think that's unfair and inappropriate. And an example of why lashon hara is such a major prohibition. One person makes that kind of suggestion (for reasons I don't think are valid), and you're accusing a Jew of being a J4J?
I think you owe him an apology.
I'll start, I think I sort of made the initial allegation. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. He might very well have been told that by someone else and was unsure how to respond.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not "messianic." I'm not "missionary." And I have never written to Dr. Laura.
I am an observant Conservative Jew. I observe Shabbat (I walk to services every Shabbat morning; no light switches; etc...). I believe that observance of halakha is central to Jewish living, and I see this belief as a tenet of Conservative Judaism generally (although this particular post is not intended to argue that point). In fact, the Rabbis in my Shul actively encourage congregants to walk to Shul. Every Shabbat morning, I walk right past the Chabbad, the parking lot of which is full. The major reason for my being Conservative as opposed to Orthodox is I like to daven with my wife and daughter.
starLisa - I believe the conditions you refer to for stoning to death one who fails to observe Shabbat are conditions found only in Rabbinic law. Are they also found in the text of the Torah and stated as conditions to the stoning? If not, then Orthodox Jews have chosen to rely not upon the Torah, but rather the modifications/expansions to the Torah handed down by the Rabbis many years later.
And thank you for the explanation concerning syllogisms ("I'm not a smart man, Jenny"). Clearly, if you establish that Orthodox Jews follow every letter of the law as expressly stated in the Torah, then Orthodox Jews observe "Torah Judaism." Based upon your answer, however, I presume that if I can show you any mitzvot in the Torah that are not observed by Orthodox Jews as stated therein, then you will agree that Orthodox Jews do not observe "Torah Judaism."
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lisa, I think I have encountered this particular individual elsewhere online. I will apologize as soon as he says it is not true.
And Stephan, my reaction had little or nothing to do with what you said.
Today was the very first time I posted on this or any other forum (and I'm starting to regret having done so). I have been reading this forum for a long time now and suddenly this thread provoked me to contribute.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another question. How does who I am or the group I happen to belong to matter? I'm most certainly not J4J, but so what if I were? Isn't it the substance of the debate that matters? Or do we ignore what some people have to say just because of who they are?
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a VERY hard time believing that there is a single Chabadnik that drives on Shabbos, never mind enough to fill up a parking lot.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I have a VERY hard time believing that there is a single Chabadnik that drives on Shabbos, never mind enough to fill up a parking lot.
Actually, the parking lot is not completely full. Many of those attending the Chabbad park down the street and walk the rest of the way (wearing black hats and black suits with white shirts). But to be fair, those drive may not be, strictly speaking, Chabadniks, but rather Jews who enjoy attending services at the Chabbad. I suppose there is a difference.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: starLisa - I believe the conditions you refer to for stoning to death one who fails to observe Shabbat are conditions found only in Rabbinic law. Are they also found in the text of the Torah and stated as conditions to the stoning?
I'm sorry, maybe I didn't understand. You said you were Conservative; not a Karaite. Are you also a Karaite? Hmm... and that thing about the lightswitch that you mentioned, I must have missed that in the written Torah.
So David, as long as we have you here, could you help us out? Do you accept that God gave the Torah to Israel at Mount Sinai? Literally, I mean. I won't ask if you accept that the Oral Torah was given there as well, because you did say you were Conservative, and they tossed that one.
Here's a little link to the Torah 101 thread that happened some time ago. Your questions about that being in "Rabbinic law [sic]" are answered there.
quote:Originally posted by David G: If not, then Orthodox Jews have chosen to rely not upon the Torah, but rather the modifications/expansions to the Torah handed down by the Rabbis many years later.
Well, that's the rationalization used by the Conservative movement to make it easier to throw out parts of Jewish law that are inconvenient. And actually, I was taught that as well when I was growing up. In fact, we were even taught that Orthodox Jews also held the Oral Torah to have been "modifications/expansions to the Torah handed down by the Rabbis many years later", to use your excellent phrasing.
You probably can't imagine how angry I was when I started reading books written by Orthodox Jews (before I had any intention of becoming Orthodox myself) and found that I'd been... shall we say: misled.
quote:Originally posted by David G: And thank you for the explanation concerning syllogisms ("I'm not a smart man, Jenny").
Perhaps, but you clearly have some good taste in TV shows.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Clearly, if you establish that Orthodox Jews follow every letter of the law as expressly stated in the Torah, then Orthodox Jews observe "Torah Judaism." Based upon your answer, however, I presume that if I can show you any mitzvot in the Torah that are not observed by Orthodox Jews as stated therein, then you will agree that Orthodox Jews do not observe "Torah Judaism."
<sigh> Zil gmor, David. Bop on over to that Torah 101 thread and see if you still have questions on this count. This isn't going to be on the final; it's extra credit.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I have a VERY hard time believing that there is a single Chabadnik that drives on Shabbos. You are almost certainly mistaken.
He is almost certainly not. He never said anything of the sort, either. Chabad does a lot of outreach to Jews who aren't observant. Many of them eventually become observant. Those who haven't, or who haven't yet, might very well drive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Are you sure it's not the overflow from the Conservative parking lot?
Yes. The Conservative parking lot is 1/2 mile away. (Ironic - I walk a half mile out of my way, past the Chabbad, to attend services at a Conservative Shul. But I'm not the only one at my Shul who does so. I think it is because some Conservative Shuls have a lot to offer.)
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: Another question. How does who I am or the group I happen to belong to matter? I'm most certainly not J4J, but so what if I were? Isn't it the substance of the debate that matters? Or do we ignore what some people have to say just because of who they are?
In principle, you're absolutely right, David. Ad hominem arguments are dodgy at best. But J4J isn't just another point of view. It's a deliberately dishonest one, formulated for the express purpose of tricking people. As a lawyer, wouldn't you agree that a track record of dishonesty can legitimately be used to impeach someone?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not believe the precise issues/arguments/questions raised in my post were addressed.
I'm afraid they were, David. Basically, sL's position is that they'll do those things again once they have the proper authority to do so.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
David, if you go to edit one of your posts, you have the option of deleting it. You duplicated a post, which is why I mention it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I had forgotten about all of Chabad's "missionary" efforts. Right, those people might drive. I apologize.
Those who drive, however, are not the Chabadniks. So if the implication is that the Conservative Jews are more observant than some Orthodox Jews, that would be incorrect.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. I'm not Karaite. Or rather, I don't think I am - I don't know what a "Karaite" is.
2. I believe that God gave the Torah to Israel at Mount Sanai. We were all there, but we all experience revelation in our own ways. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "literally." Did God's voice descend from the heavens, and was each word was written down on a scroll exactly as it was spoken?
3. My understanding is that Conservative Judaism sanctifies both the Oral Torah alongside the Written Torah. They did not throw it out.
4. I don't think light switches are mentioned in the Torah. But that's not why I observe that and other particular elements of halakha. The questions I posed are intended to end up at this theory: the difference between Orthodox and Conservative is a difference of degree and interpretation.
4. I guess I'm not going to get extra credit (and I'm clearly not going to impress anyone here). Are you saying that Orthodox Jews are "Torah Jews" because of their observance of the Written Torah as complemented by the Oral Torah?
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: How weird is it that I'm the only one willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I find it hard to believe that someone would follow all of the commandments (which, let's face it, often creates much more work, expense, etc), and would chose a Conservative synagogue only because he "likes" not having a mechitza. I mean, why bother being observant if you believe that you can disregard a commandment if you don't like it?
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: Another question. How does who I am or the group I happen to belong to matter? I'm most certainly not J4J, but so what if I were? Isn't it the substance of the debate that matters? Or do we ignore what some people have to say just because of who they are?
In principle, you're absolutely right, David. Ad hominem arguments are dodgy at best. But J4J isn't just another point of view. It's a deliberately dishonest one, formulated for the express purpose of tricking people. As a lawyer, wouldn't you agree that a track record of dishonesty can legitimately be used to impeach someone?
Credibility is an issue only when the facts reported by the witness are challenged. But when arguing a point of law, or philosophy, or logic, credibility is entirely irrelevant.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Ah, I had forgotten about all of Chabad's "missionary" efforts. Right, those people might drive. I apologize.
Those who drive, however, are not the Chabadniks. So if the implication is that the Conservative Jews are more observant than some Orthodox Jews, that would be incorrect.
I am not attempting to make that point, expressly or by implication. The comment just came out because I thought it was funny or ironic. I have friends at the Conservative Shul who often daven - and drive to get there.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: You aren't a Karaite.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: How weird is it that I'm the only one willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I find it hard to believe that someone would follow all of the commandments (which, let's face it, often creates much more work, expense, etc), and would chose a Conservative synagogue only because he "likes" not having a mechitza. I mean, why bother being observant if you believe that you can disregard a commandment if you don't like it?
Good question - which gets to the heart of the matter. I observe because of how it helps me experience closeness with God. The more I observe, the more I experience God. But I don't judge others for not observing. I simply pity them for failing to experience what I experience.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry to get back to you so late in the day on an issue from more than a page ago. Yikes.
Anyway, my question about the law being interpreted ... you say the rabbi merely applied it. I understand the viewpoint, but I kind of wonder, if there's no single authority, "applying" the law seems too optimistic a term. If one disagrees with the application, or gets a different "application" from another source, then it's no longer THE law, but differing interpretations of it, seems to me.
Or are you saying that there really is ONE person in each generation who is the acknowledged source of true applications of the law in new situations?
Ultimately, the sense in which you use the word "law" is becoming less and less familiar to me if the law can be extended through application to new situations rather than having an explicit recognition that the new extension of the law really is beyond what G-d said. It may be what God intends, but knowing that to be true seems fraught with all sorts of problems. Surely this has been wrestled with since the day after the law was received (or the day after G-d stopped talking directly to Moses).
EVERYONE: I'm hoping this isn't coming off as offensive. The atmosphere is a little bit "charged" here at the moment. I'm mostly just curious, so if this question is a pain or seems like I'm needling, please just ignore it. Or tell me and I'll delete it.
posted
David G, I apologize for my reaction before. For whatever reasons, you reminded of my a poster from elsewhere with whom I have extremely bad associations. That was unfair to you, and I will try to do better.
BTW, welcome to Hatrack!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by David G: Today was the very first time I posted on this or any other forum (and I'm starting to regret having done so).
David, I'm sorry that your first experience here has made you regretful. You just picked a really heated topic to jump into (well, I guess that's what motivated you to jump in, though). Lisa loves to debate, and she is a woman of strong opinions. I love that about her, but I also know that some people find that she comes on a bit strong. I guess that a good caveat would be that if you tussle with Lisa, you should expect to get tussled back. I don't like fighting, so I tend to avoid it, but I don't mind spectating and watching other people debate.
I am glad to have your voice joined in to the chorus here. As I said earlier in this thread, I don't even see much sense in the labels and denominations that Jews have given themselves, but, eh, if it makes people happy, enjoy.
The point of this post is to welcome you to Hatrack ( ) and to let you know that I look forward to hearing more from you.
Welcome aboard! And a freiliche chanukkah to you!
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, it's more like the "laws" are articles of the U.S. Constitution. Imagine that the U.S. is invaded and the people scatter, thus losing their judicial review process. But there are people who still try to live their lives by the Constitution.
One of their "commandments" is to allow freedom of press. A new technology comes out that is not exactly a press but functions as a press, distributing news, editorials, etc. In each of the communities of "Constitutionalists," the wise leaders interpret how their followers must use the new technology, based on the precedents of how "press-like technologies" have been used before, and how other technologies are treated. It's not identical in every community, because there is some doubt about the exact right way to do it and because maybe some of the wise leaders are not so wise. But the general idea holds in each community.
Rhetorically, would you say that these communities were following the "law"? Or that they were creating a new law?
There are, of course, problems with this metaphor, but I think the general idea holds. In particular, the Constitution was not G-d given, and the "laws" of the scriptures are much more exact than the articles of the Constitution.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You probably can't imagine how angry I was when I started reading books written by Orthodox Jews (before I had any intention of becoming Orthodox myself) and found that I'd been... shall we say: misled."
I hope you therefore understand why I might say you are, shall we say: misleading, when you say that conservative jews reject rabbinic authority. Its true from a given perspective but its nevertheless a false statement, because the people holding the position accept rabbinic authority... just not in the manner you want them to.
You don't have sole claim to the meaning of the term "rabbinic authority" because there's no real historical evidence that the position you stake out as the "true position" is what really happened.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Bob, it's more like the "laws" are articles of the U.S. Constitution. Imagine that the U.S. is invaded and the people scatter, thus losing their judicial review process. But there are people who still try to live their lives by the Constitution.
One of their "commandments" is to allow freedom of press. A new technology comes out that is not exactly a press but functions as a press, distributing news, editorials, etc. In each of the communities of "Constitutionalists," the wise leaders interpret how their followers must use the new technology, based on the precedents of how "press-like technologies" have been used before, and how other technologies are treated. It's not identical in every community, because there is some doubt about the exact right way to do it and because maybe some of the wise leaders are not so wise. But the general idea holds in each community.
Rhetorically, would you say that these communities were following the "law"? Or that they were creating a new law?
There are, of course, problems with this metaphor, but I think the general idea holds. In particular, the Constitution was not G-d given, and the "laws" of the scriptures are much more exact than the articles of the Constitution.
Another problem I see with the comparison is that G-d being all knowing would have known about future technology well in advance. Whereas the founding fathers didn't have a clue. I guess I find it troubling that G-d's laws were so clear for our ancestors, and yet must be interpreted to fit some of today's world.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is it your position that at the time the Oral Torah was delivered to Israel at Mt. Sinai that the Oral Torah included, at that time, the conditions to stoning you previously referred to (witness, convening of Sanhedrin, etc...)?
Did the Oral Torah grow and evolve over time, or does it exist now exactly as it was when delivered to Israel at Mt. Sinai?
These questions are not rhetorical. I am genuinely interested in your answers. Thanks.
[ December 30, 2005, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm enjoying reading it, when it manages to stay civil.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
) and to let you know that I look forward to hearing more from you.
