Thank you for the kind words, EJsGirl. They are greatly appreciated.
Zev Steinhardt
Well, there were the Kariatim…everybody always forget the Kariatim.
Captain Amazing:
No, I didn’t forget them.
What you’re forgetting is that they specifically made themselves out to be a new religion, not a form of Judaism.
Historical background: in the early days of Islam, the Caliph of Baghdad allowed the various non-Muslim communities in Iraq/Babylonia a degree of local autonomy, with the head of the community sponsored by the Caliph himself - challenges to his authority were punishable by the Caliph’s court. The Jewish community had the position of “Reish Galusa” (Aramaic for “head of the exiled Jews”), hereditary through a specific family that was ultimately descended from David. In the eighth century, a descendant of this family named David Bar Anan objected to the appointment of one of his cousins to the post and did certain acts of rebellion, pretending to be the real Reish Galusa. When the Caliph arrested him on charges of rebellion, he declared that he was not acting as head of the Jews, (and was thus not rebelling against the duly-appiinted authority over the Jews that the Caliph was behind) but rather held to a different religion - this was Karaism, and his followers became the Kariatim.
So by the very nature of its origin, Karaism cannot have considered itself to be an “alternate definition” of Judaism.
Chaim Mattis Keller
I’m sorry, I didn’t really trace the genesis of the hypothetical “ultra-orthodox” sect. I intended to and I guess it just got lost in the translation from brain to bits. I wasn’t intending for this sect to just start up. I was meaning that if some sect was discovered somewhere in the wilds still living the same as they had lived for milennia and when their practices and customs were matched up with the officially codified views of mainstream orthodox Judiasm, then there was a mismatch. They have been practicing Judiasm this way since the time of David(or before) and they say when mainstream Judiasm codified the Talmud and other official interpretations of the Torah, they missed something. That something is nonnegotiable and they declare mainstream Judiasm incompatible with “real” Judiasm.
I realize there may still be flaws in my hypothetical situation, if you would please overlook them or suggest corrections. The basic idea is that some other group has a definition of Judiasm which is as old, perhaps older, than the codification of mainstream Orthodox Judiasm. Perhaps they date back to when the original codification was being done and they disagreed with the original interpretations which became the Talmud and other “definitive” works on the subject.
It seems the Orthodox Jews are claiming that it is not simply a matter of opinion, it is a matter of objective fact that Reform Jews are not practicing Judiasm. Clearly they are not practicing the same definition of Judiasm, but what seems to give the Orthodox position the lead in the determination of which definition is authorititave is the history behind it. How would this position fare if challenged by a group with as long or a longer history? Would you accept thier unilateral decision that because your codification of Judiasm differs from theirs that you are in breech?
Enjoy,
Steven
It’s difficult to answer your question, simply because we believe that the transmission of halacha can be traced all the way back to Sinai. As such, it’s not possible for another group to have an “older” tradition.
In any event, Reform is not claiming that they have an older and more authoritative tradition. Indeed, by it’s very name the movement makes it clear that they are breaking with established tradition and practice.
In short, no matter how learned a scholar I am, I cannot, on my own, establish any new law or codify any halacha, unless I can also show how it is based on classical sources, starting with the Pentatuch and the Talmud and working through the more recent sources.
Zev Steinhardt
EJsGirl,
My take on it has always been that there is a profound difference betwen a preist and a Rabbi in that regard. A priest has by tradition had had his authority passed on hand by hand directly from Christ. Theirs is an authority from upon high. A Rabbi is a just a learned one of the rest of us, a student still himself as well as our teacher. No divine authority. It is up to us.
A Midrash (Baba Metzia 59b) illustrates this.
It goes on about a debate between Rabbis about how to interpret a particular passage, about whether a particular oven was pure. Rabbi Eliezer was the hold-out, sure he was right. He decalared “If the Law is as I say let the tree prove it.” And the tree uprooted itself and sailed away. It failed to convince the others. A stream changed direction. No dice. The walls of the schul themselves were bending in to prove his point when the other Rabbi (Judah) shouted at them “Stop! Who are you to interfer in a dispute among Torah scholars this way?” It stopped. Rabbi Eliezer asked that his point be proved from above. A voice boomed “The Law agrees with Rabbi Eliezer!” Rabbi Judah still responded “The Torah itself tells us that it is no longer in heaven, but was given to the people at Mt. Sinai. It is our guide. In our study and discussion of its Laws we reach our decisions. That is how we are to govern ourselves.” The majority let the ruling stand.
Years later one of the Rabbis met a peddler who was actually the prophet Elijah. Discussing that argument Elijah explained that God was pleased that the Rabbis were not awed, even though Eliezer was correct. “The Law is no longer made in heaven but on earth, so that people may learn and grow by it.”
With all due respect to my learned Orthodox brethern, Reform and Orthodox are both about humans interpreting the Law for themselves as living work. When Maimonides first wrote Mishneh Torah, traditional Jews felt it a threat, but it became a model for Shulkhan Arukh, still authoritative to Orthodox today, correct? This mid 1500’s codfication is just were the living adaptation of the Law stopped for the Orthodox. They rejected Mendelsohn and the Haskala, they rejected Buber, and they initially rejected Zionism as a nationalistic movement.
The tradition is for us humans to interpret the Law for ourselves. You just differ in what you consider a valid process of interpretation.
I had a long reply to Zev which got eaten by those hamsters, who clearly have not been told that threads aren’t Kosher. However, I was responding to this comment by cmkeller
If you wish to say that they are sinning Jews, in your opinion of what the Torah says, fine. This goes beyond that, saying that the Orthodox interpretation defines what is Jewish, and Reform Rabbis disagreeing do not have a valid opinion. This reminds me rather a lot of those fundamentalist Christians who define all those who disagree with them out of the religion.
Zev thinks sparks are fires. If you create a spark after walking on carpet and touching a doorknob on the Sabbath are you breaking the Sabbath, albeit inadvertently? Is the explosion of gas in a car really the same as the kind of fire referred to in the law? Is turning on a light on the Sabbath really the same as lighting a fire? I know it is permissible to leave a light on, but is wasting our resources really want G-d intends?
It is not so much that you should even agree to any of this, but that you should consider that those who do agree with this interpretation are not deliberately rebelling against the law.
Which is really my point about the OP. Why can’t the mother be convinced that there is a chance that the Torah could be incorrect, not that it is.
DSeid:
Not entirely wrong, but not entirely true either. The authority of a Rabbi still derives from the authority of his predecessors’ approbation…ultimately getting back to Moses at Sinai. Any one of us could become a Rabbi, but those of us who are not are not equal in regard to authoritative Biblical interpretation.
Reform has moved well beyond any reasonable boundaries of “interpretation.”
The only controversy was regarding any potential reduction in Talmud study, if the halachic information therein is re-presented in a more orderly manner. There was never any controversy regarding the pedigree of its contents.
It was not an “adaptation”, it was merely a re-presentation, a more orderly format. The application of halacha to newly-arising circumstances has never stopped, even today.
The people/architects of these movements had never received that necessary (for recognition by the Orthodox) approval from their predecessors in the first place.
Voyager:
Are we still talking about converts here? I believe the quote you cited related to the matter of whether or not a conversion is valid. I stand by what I said. All demonimations of Judaism believe that Judaism is defined as a covenantal relationship between the Jewish people and G-d. All would agree that if the non-Jew does not accept what he (the Jew evaluating this conversion process) believes to be the covenantal obligations, then that non-Jew has not joined the Jewish people.
Now, if the Reform believe that the covenant contains a smaller subset of obligations than the Orthodox do, then a non-Jew accepting only those covenantal obligations believed in by the Reform has not accepted the covenantal obligations as defined by the Orthodox. Thus, since the Orthodox do not see this person as ever having accepted the covenant, this person remains a non-Jew, not a sinning Jew.
I do not believe there is any validity to the Reform opinion. Most of their differences in practice cannot be traced to any interpretation at all but are rather based on a conviction that society has progressed since the Torah was written, and as such, the Torah need be observed only to the point where it can be reconciled with currently prevailing social mores.
But, even if I were to grant that all of Reform’s deviations from halacha can be read, somehow, as an interpretation of existing texts, the point I made above to DSeid remains true: I would not regard as authoritative a Rabbinic opinion offered by someone whose standing as a Rabbi is not backed by legitimate Rabbinic pedigree. Those who founded the non-Orthodox schools of Rabbinic ordination did so without any sort of externally-approved Rabbinic standing of their own. I do not regard such as valid.
No, because inadvertant results are not sinful - not because the nature of the spark as fire is any different, though.
You tell me - is the act of kindling essentially different if the fuel is wood or if the fuel is gasoline? You’re not making much sense here, I’m sorry.
As you no doubt already know, the Rabbinic consensus is that it is the same…although when electricity was first harnessed, there was much discussion of the matter in Rabbinic circles.
You’re welcome to stay in the dark, if you feel so stringly that G-d does not want electricity wasted. But what we Orthodox Jews are certain of is that, whether the light is on at the time or off at the time, G-d doesn’t want that switch flipped from sundown Friday till sundown Saturday.
But the point is not whether they are deliberately rebelling. You seem to think that this whole non-recognition business is a matter of Orthodox vindictiveness or ill-will. The fact is, whether deliberately rebellious or innocently mistaken, we consider their definition of the Judaic covenant to be incorrect. Thus, someone who converts by thinking that this is what Judaism means would be accepting upon himself (or herself) something other than the Judaic covenant. How can we consider that to be a Jew?
Chaim Mattis Keller
I misunderstood your meaning then, since I took it to refer to all Reform Jews, not just converts. While on one hand it seems silly to require a convert marrying someone who is Reform to become Orthodox, on the other I understand your position that someone wishing to convert should do so all the way. I know Christians who have made their merry way through a variety of churches. That one cannot try on Judaism like a new jacket , that those accepting converts are more interested in true devotion rather than numbers is something I think is wonderful.
So, I don’t necessarily agree, but I see your point better. However, I still don’t feel guilty about turning lights on during the Sabbath, so I guess I’m a lost cause.
Chiam,
As someone raised Reform, of course I disagree, but I understand your POV. How does this apply to adoptees? My youngest, adopted at 1 year, converted in a Conservative tradition. Is she less Jewish than my bio kids raised in the same way?
Yes. Because the biological mother of the Conservative children is Jewish. The biological mother of your adopted child is not Jewish, and unless it was an Orthodox conversion, the conversion of your one year old will not be universally accepted.
It is easier to be a Jew who sins than it is to become a Jew.
I’m afraid so.
I have a cousin who is adopted. She was converted by my aunt and uncle under the authority of the Reform rabbinate. While I love her very much (just as much as any of my other cousins), she is simply not Jewish according to the Orthodox rules covering conversion.
Zev Steinhardt
Hmm. But if she was converted in an Orthodox manner she’d be Jewish?*
And in that case the infant accepted “the covenantal obligations” moreso than the Conservatively converted child … ?
I respect your version of the faith. More power to you. It is not my faith, but I’m sure it is a fine faith. I entirely acknowledge your right to say that I do not practice nor believe what you consider proper Judaism according to Orthodox tradition. It is however arrogance to state that Conservative and Reform traditions have no validity. When you state that only your interpretations are the possibly correct ones, you cross the line into fundamentalism and dogmatism shared with the the worst members of all faiths. Beware the company you keep.
*I apologize a little for the asking a question to which I knew the answer. I knew that my daughter is not Jewish according to Orthodox tradition. It really doesn’t bother me. She is Jewish to me and to all those whose opinions matter to me on the subject. If she falls in love with some Orthodox man someday, then they’ll need to cross that bridge then … but I highly doubt that eventuality.
Well, an Orthodox rabbi would not have performed the conversion without a commitment from the parents to observe the mitzvos.
I understand your point. And I didn’t say that these traditions have no validity.
But, OTOH, you are asking us to say that a Judaism where one does not have to keep Shabbos, where one does not have to always eat kosher, where one does not have to observe the holidays, pray, don tallis and tefillin daily, etc. is a valid (albeit alternate) expression of Judaism. We simply cannot say that. We view Shabbos as an essential part of the religion. We view kashrus as an essential part of the religion. We view daily prayer, tallis, teffilin, the holidays, etc. as essential parts of the religion. Asking us to affirm a religion without these vital institutions is like asking an American to recognize an U.S. Government without a directly elected House of Representatives.
Stranger things have happened…
Zev Steinhardt
DSeid:
In the case of a minor, it is the parents accepting on behalf of the minor. But, if not done by Orthodox parents, the question is, just what did they accept on the minor’s behalf? If it’s not (as we define it) the Judaic covenant, then no matter how well-intentioned they may be, we can’t accept that the minor has been converted.
In any case, even with an Orthodox conversion, the conversion of a minor is only conditional on his/her continuing to accept Judaism upon reaching the age of majority (12 for girls, 13 for boys). Doing an act which is contrary to Jewish law would be seen as a rejection of the prior conversion and render it retroactively void. It is not unreasonable to assume that this child whose adoptive family is not Orthodox will in fact be violating any number of Jewish laws as the Orthodox define them, thus voiding the conversion in any case.
Is it? I don’t think it’s arrogant to say that a tradition that has its roots in the classical texts, dating back several millenia, has greater validity than a “tradition” which could at most have been invented two hundred years ago and more likely fewer. And when the latter negates the former, creating an either-or situation, I don’t think it’s arrogant to say that the latter has, in fact, none.
And when you state that your faith is open to any interpretation and any interpretation can be considered valid regardless of how badly it relates to existing tradition and practice, you cross the line from being the old religion to creating an entirely new one. Beware the lack of the company you might end up unjustifiably resenting.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Zev: << But, OTOH, you are asking us to say that a Judaism where one does not have to keep Shabbos, where one does not have to always eat kosher, where one does not have to observe the holidays, pray, don tallis and tefillin daily, etc. is a valid (albeit alternate) expression of Judaism. We simply cannot say that. We view Shabbos as an essential part of the religion. We view kashrus as an essential part of the religion. We view daily prayer, tallis, teffilin, the holidays, etc. as essential parts of the religion. >>
Addressed to Zev and CM:
In the first place, I think you are seriously misrepresenting Conservative Judaism. Conservative Judaism accepts and agrees with the mitzvot as obligations, but has different interpretations of some of the “traditions” for the modern age. For instance, mixed seating and the role of women, the question of whether parts of the service can be in English, whether certain chemicals are fleishik, etc. These are not “essential parts of the religion”, but these are questions that Conservative Judaism answers different than Orthodoxy.
(I do NOT want to get into the debate on the role of women and time-bound positive commandments, other than to say that Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are in agreement on the principles, but disagree on the specifics.)
There is religious law and there are traditions and interpretations of those laws and traditions. Don’t try to tell me that prohibition of television was part of the Oral Law given to Moses.
Do you also condemn the Sephardic Jews, because they eat corn on Pesach?
Traditions change over time. In ancient times, musical instruments were clearly played in the Temple on Shabbat and holidays. The prayer “Aleinu” used to have a very derogatory comment about non-Jews (idolators) which was removed. So, traditions do change. Conservative Judaism recognizes the importance of halakhic principles and continuity with the past.
You might want to re-assess your comments about Conservative Judaism.
Now, as to Reform Judaism, I think you are being overly harsh. Most of the quotes that you have come up with are from the 1800s, when the Reform movement began as a deliberate rejection of halakha, trying to create a religion based on ethical principles rather than ritual behaviors (I know, I know, this is the argument Paul used in founding Christianity.) But in quoting those sources, you’re hopelessly out of date. Modern Reform is moving towards more ritual, more Hebrew in services, and more tradition.
Modern Reform accept the notion of shabbat, but they do redefine the question of what constitutes “work.” There is slow but steady movement towards a more traditional approach. I think this should be ENCOURAGED by all Jews, and certainly by the Orthodox movement. It’s time to stop spitting on Jews because they are Reform.
Reform Jews are still Jews. The late rabbi Samuel Dresner (and others) described observation as a ladder, where one finds the level of one’s individual comfort, and where there is always room for climbing up a rung or two. To condemn someone for not being as high up on the ladder as you are seems to me to be arrogance.
Many Reform Jews were not raised with a traditional Jewish education, and see Reform as their only approach to Judaism. I offer the anecdote of my cousin, raised by Orthodox parents back in the 1940s, and not educated because she was a girl. She married a secular Jew, and she went to Reform synagogue. She attends every Friday night, with very very few failures. She celebrates the holidays, although not as kosher as you (or I) would prefer. But it’s something. Should I condemn her for not being as observant as I think she should be? Or should I praise and encourage her for doing what she does?
In olden days, you could condemn someone for not being observant and chase them away, and they had nowhere to go except to Christianity. Nowadays, there are lots of options, ranging from Reform Judaism to various secular forms to no religion at all. Hey, if you’re that negative about Reform, you should look into Humanitarian Judaism sometime.
In short, I find your attitudes towards Conservative and Reform Judaism to be the standard party-line – rude, arrogant, unthinking and ignorant. This party line hasn’t changed since the 1880s, which many Conservative Jews will say is the main problem with Orthodoxy altogether. I thought better of you.
CK, I think you are missing my point.
My point was not that individual Reform Jews are to be condemned. I agree with most of what you said in that for many of them Reform Judaism is the only exposure to Judaism that they have. In addition, I agree that it is better that they keep some of the mitzvos than none. Not too long ago, on usenet, someone posted an article on Feb 1, 2004 being the Conservative movements World-Wide Wrap Day, a day meant to encourage the mitzvah of putting on tefillin. There were some snide comments from some Orthodox Jews (“Well, at least they’ll be putting it on once a year.”). My comment was that this was an effort to be applauded. While it is certainly preferrable that they put on tefillin every day, I’ll take the one day a year over none. You can check the archives at groups.google.com for that post (I post under my name there too).
Fair enough. Firstly, as I stated earlier, I admit that I was overgeneralizing vis-a-vis the position of Reform Judaism. I’m well aware that Conservative Judaism does view the mitzvos as obligatory. However, one must wonder at some of the rulings that the rabbinate has promulgated. The most famous example of which is the ruling that one may drive one’s car to shul on Shabbos, but nowhere else (except back home after services). But on what grounds is driving a car forbidden on Shabbos according to the Conservative rabbinate? Because of combustion? Then why would one be permitted to drive to shul?
Of course not. But the legal decisions that resulted in television being prohibited are based on the principles that are included in the Oral Law.
Whether or not one eats corn on Pesach is not the issue at hand here. No one says that corn is chametz. Everyone agrees that an Ashkenazi who eats corn is only violating a custom, not the mitzvah of eating chametz on Pesach. However, the same cannot be said of those who drive on Shabbos. The same cannot be said of those who eat pork. There is no way (IMHO) to interpret “don’t eat pork” as “it’s OK to eat pork.” It’s really that simple.
Not a good example. Animals were slaughtered in the Temple too on Shabbos, a violation of Shabbos law when performed outside the Temple. Same thing with the fire that was used on the Altar. Obviously in those cases, the prohibition was suspended.
The line in “Aleinu” was not removed by choice and in many siddurim the line has been restored. (Just to clarify for everyone else, the Aleinu prayer is a prayer wherein we thank God for being Jews. The line in question is “For they (idolaters) bow to nothingness and pray to a god that does not answer.”)
Well, I’d rather people were Conservative than reform. As I said earlier, I’d rather that they keep some mitzvos rather than none. If people go from Reform and want to become Conservative, I’d be happy to help them along that path. (Hopefully, they’d want to become Orthodox, but hey, I’ll take half a loaf rather than none).
CK, I’m not spitting on Reform Jews. I’m not even spitting on the movement (heck, if I don’t spit on Christianity, I’m certainly not going to spit on Reform Judaism). But, OTOH, the fact remains that this is a movement that says “You don’t have to keep Shabbos. It would be nice if you did, but you don’t have to. You don’t have to keep kosher. It certainly would be good of you to do so, but it’s not obligatory. You don’t have to put on teffilin daily. It would be great if you did so, but if you don’t, nisht g’fairlach.” If that’s the case, I can’t call it Judaism. If you like, you can call it secularism with some Jewish practices thrown in.
I specifically went out of my way in this thread to reaffirm that Reform Jews are still Jews.
I agree with you here 100%. A rebbe of mine once expressed it similarly. He stated “it’s not where you are on the ladder, but how many rungs you’ve climbed.” As I’ve said earlier, I’m not condeming any individual Jews. If a Reform Jew puts on tefillin every day, kol hakavod. If he eats only kosher, all the more power to him. If he goes to shul on Rosh HaShannah and listens to the shofar being blown, I say “Great! Congratualtions!” If a Reform Jew who beforehand was eating chametz on Passover were to come over to me and say “You know, Zev, I still have to work on Passover this year, but when I go, I’m going to pack my own lunch and make sure that it’s Kosher for Passover,” I’d say “Great! How can I help?” The point that I’m trying to convey is not that I am condemning Reform Jews. But when, as a movement, the position is that you can eat shrimp to your heart’s content, I have to stand up and say “I’m sorry, but that’s not correct.”
See my comments above. I think it’s wonderful that she’s taken positive steps to being more observant. And I applaud her efforts.
On the contrary, I’m not into chasing anyone away. If anyone needs help in performing any of the mitzvos, I’m here to help. To me it doesn’t matter if they want to observe only one or all; whatever help they want, I’ll do what I can. Chasing people away only serves to sever them further from Judaism, something that (IMHO) is far worse than failing to eat kosher, etc.
Hopefully, I’ve shown you where you may have mis-interpreted my position.
In any event, I do want to at least thank you for one thing, CK. It’s always nice to know that one is thought well of. The fact that you thought better of me [even if I think you mis-interpreted my position] means a lot to me, as you are a poster whose opinion I have come to respect in the four years that I’ve been posting here.
Zev Steinhardt
Dex:
“For the modern age”? As in, the mores of a modern society should alter our perception of tradition? Unless I’m misinterpreting, I think that’s right at the heart of why Othodox Jews lump Conservative in the same category as Reform. Granted, the Conservative movement has a much more respectful attitude toward the Torah than Reform does, and in practice, is very similar to Orthodoxy. But if the choice comes down to Torah tradition vs. modern sensibilities, which wins? Of course, the most obvious example is the first one you cite:
You see this (and the other things you cited) as “non-essential” parts of the religion, which can be legitimately answered differently than the standard Orthodox response. But on the basis of what tradition is this different answer reached? The separation of the sexes during prayer has been a standard since at least the time of Solomon’s Temple, if not earlier. Suddenly, in the mid-twentieth century, women’s lib has discovered a new tradition?
You mean on Shabbat? Why shouldn’t I tell you that? The Rabbis at the turn of the twentieth century analyzed all the precedents in the Oral Law that was given to Moses, and determined that the ruling that would be consistent with it all would be to forbid the use of electricity as a form of fire. If the contrary ruling would be inconsistent with existing precedent, how can it be justified as being an interpretation of existing tradition?
No, because that is not a matter of some other value being considered more important than Torah tradition. It’s merely a cautionary decree which was never universally accepted to begin with.
Bad examples. Very bad ones. There’s plenty in the Talmud and later halachic literature regarding the Scriptural basis for why certain violations of Shabbat and holiday work-laws were allowable for Holy Temple service (and only for Holy Temple service). And prayer forms have always traditionally been flexible, especially when there’s potential for loss of life (in which case almost all commandments, even those directly from the Torah can be broken) such as was the case when the line was removed. And, with the reduction of said danger, that line has been re-introduced for the most part.
Yes, they do accord it some importance. I do not dispute it. Still, not according it primary importance in all matters is not a small distinction.
Not that I recall making any comments addressed specifically to Conservative Judaism, what comments about non-Orthodox denominations of Judaism might I wish to re-assess?
Absolutely we in the Orthodox camp encourage the move toward greater mitzvah observance amongst Jews, of whatever denomination. And if anyone is “spitting” on individual Reform Jews, shame on them. But considering that this movement toward tradition has come about with the Orthodox’s staunch refusal to consider Reform a legitimate form of Judaism, perhaps the best encouragement is continued steadfastness on the part of the Orthodox vis a vis Reform as a movement.
No argument there (except as regards those considered Jews by patrilineal descent or non-Jews who converted under their auspices).
Individual comfort??? That’s to be considered a valid criterion of satisfactory religious definition or observance?
If I’m arrogant to say this, then so be it. But Jewish religious observance is about mutual obligations between the Jewish people and G-d, not about individual comfort. The “ladder” is one of G-d’s making, not of our own.
Yes, it would be arrogance. And I would never, never condemn the common Reform layperson for it, considering that they are merely folowing in the ways they’ve been taught. But as regards the movement and its leaders - I will certainly condemn those who will take the ladder, saw it into tiny pieces, sell one of the small pieces as the “whole” ladder and tell the buyers that the others are optional add-ons depending on their individual comfort levels. If saying that makes me arrogant, so be it.
Obviously, those who were not educated - and that covers a huge majority of them - should be treated with sensitivity, including positive re-enforcement.
Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanist…different degrees, same issue.
Rude and arrogant, perhaps. Unthinking and ignorant? I think not.
And likewise, the converse.
I’m sorry if I disappointed you with my unwillingness to consider what I don’t believe in to be the equal of what I do believe in. What a shame that that’s become the barometer of “better.”
Chaim Mattis Keller
I think in that case, the answer would be that the tradition itself is a bad one…that it comes from a time when women were seen as inferior to men. The Jews of Solomon’s time didn’t believe this because of their Judaism, but instead in spite of it. It was a matter of custom that women and men be seperated, instead of halacha.
As time went on, this custom became a tradition, and it was continued, even as the culture changed, just because it was The Way Things Should Be Done. But nobody stopped to ask if the tradition should have been there in the first place.
Therein lies the problem. You assume that separation means that women are inferior.
I see the can-opener for the container labelled “separate but equal worms,” but I can pretty much assure you that the assumption of “women are different and therefor inferior” is not the case except in the perception of some.