Posted on 08/07/2003 4:51:57 PM PDT by Salman
I owe a deep debt of gratitude to my wife Rabbi Deborah R. Prinz for encouraging me to explore the subject of rabbinic officiation at same-sex commitment ceremonies in greater depth, and from perspectives that I might not have ordinarily.
What follows is a variation of a talk she asked me to prepare for a forum at her synagog Temple Adat Shalom of Poway, CA, on Friday evening after services May 24, 1997. We had presumed, given my past involvement with the Gay and Lesbian Community, that I would have to convince myself of the opposing position in order to present it in a competent manner.
[...]
I do not pretend to know the solution to these questions I have raised, but I want to stand rooted here within the ways of our people.
Rest here
Long but worth it.
(Excerpt) Read more at davka.org ...
I think that this speech can provide useful ammunition to our Christian FReepers, as well.
Excerpted due to copright issues.
IN this article Martin D. Stern exposes the insidious propaganda of the so called Progressive movements and how they try to suppress the voice of Torah Judaism. He also assembles various arguments by which some of it may be countered.
WHILE the readers of the Jewish Tribune would obviously answer the question posed with a resounding "NO", the average Anglo-Jew, for whom Bar Mitswa was the end of an inadequate Jewish education would not necessary be so definite. In his eyes it might seem merely a matter of courtesy to use the title claimed by such people, not appreciating the fraudulent nature of the claim
Spokesmen of the various non- Orthodox movements play on this credulity, especially in the letter columns of the Jewish Chronicle, in - order to discredit Torah Judaism and it is not always appreciated in charedi circles that a mere dogmatic assertion of our refusal to accede to their demands can be counter-productive and play into their hands.
I was attacked on this very point when, in an analysis of Louis Jacobs' theological views (1st July '88) I referred to the latter as "Dr. Jacobs" rather than "Rabbi Jacobs". The failure of the chairman of the "Liberal Rabbinic Conference" to find anything worse to criticise exposed the weakness of his case. My reply illustrates one approach to such attacks, making a judicious use of sarcasm:
"The writers clearly know more about debating skills than rabbinics, having internalised the old adage: 'If you cannot attack your opponent's argument, attack your opponent.
My non-use of the rabbinic title with regard to Dr Louis Jacobs would have been understood as a compliment by anyone familiar with the maxim gadol merabbanan shemo, loosely translated `the greatest rabbis need no label.'….
I look forward to hearing arguments.... rather than accusations of lack of derech eretz as a smokescreen for avoiding the issues." however this approach may not always be appropriate. In this article, I shall collect various arguments for our position which may be useful to readers who are challenged about this apparent lack of courtesy, perhaps in the course of their kiruv activities. Most were presented in the course Of a protracted correspondence in the "Organ of Anglo-Jewry,". A sinister development in the attack on so-called "Orthodox intransigence" emerged in a letter (5th August '88) from Walter Rothschild, minister of the Leeds Sinai (Reform) Synagogue. In it he attempted to have the editor suppress all those who did not use such self-assumed titles. 'Referring to a letter from Rabbi Ingram, Rov of Leicester, who had not called certain Reform clergy "Rabbi", an omission that was completely irrelevant to the letter's content, he wrote: "You tell your readers that no letter will be considered for publication unless full name and address are given. May I suggest that you would be doing the Jewish community - and your columns - a great service if you likewise refused to print letters that omitted the correct titles of those your correspondents wish to attack.
An MP, doctor or a non-Jewish clergyman would always be referred to in your paper by his correct title, even if his opinions were being violently disputed. Why should a rabbi he different?" The first response came from
H. Sinason (19th August '88): "I do not know whether Rabbi Chaim Ingram's omission of the rabbinic title preceding the names of Reform ministers was deliberate or not; I think it is right and proper that everyone be given the title due to him. I can understand, however, that doubt exists with regard to the suitability of a rabbinic title for members of the Reform clergy
IMPOSTOR
Unlike other disciplines, in which titles were awarded for intellectual attainment or practical expertise, a rabbi was always required not only to teach but also to 'live' rabbinic Judaism.
Someone who assumed the rabbinical title without a commitment to the practice of rabbinic Judaism would be considered an impostor. As the ministers of the Reform movement do not feel committed to the practice of rabbinic Judaism, or at the best consider such practice as optional, the rabbinic title would not seem to be appropriate.
No reasonable person would wish to withhold from the Reform clergy the title they deserve, whether for their achievements in the sciences or the arts or for research in rabbinic Judaism."
Mr Sinason's letter does not refer to the differences in training between Orthodox Rabbis and Reform clergy but these are considerable. as was pointed out by Dr Manfred R. Lehmann (23rd May '86);
"I have just completed a thorough research into the qualifications of American Orthodox, conservative (including Reconstructionist) and Reform rabbis in terms of courses and hours of study required by their respective institutions of learning before being admitted to rabbinic ordination. My study is based on the official catalogues and rules of admission, as well as on correspondence and conversations with their official registrars. I may also refer to highly pertinent and readable articles on "The making of American Rabbis" in the Encyclopedia Judaica Year Book for 1983/85, published in Jerusalem (pages 84-105), which I highly recommend to anyone interested in the subject.
Hebrew Union College (Reform)
Talmud: 90 hours
Codes: 45 hours
135 hours
Reconstructionist Rabbinic College (offshoot of Conservatives)
Mishna: 60 hours
Talmud: 120 hours
Codes: 60 hours
240 hours
Jewish Theological Seminary (Conservative)
Mishna: 120 hours
Talmud: 540 hours
Codes: 180 hours
840 hours
Yeshiva University (Main- stream Orthodox)
Talmud:
a. lectures: 840 hours
b. individual study: 1740 hours
Codes: 540 hours
3120 hours
In the latter case, the figures do not include voluntary study, in which most students cover another 1800 hours. Nor does it, of course, include the many years of talmudic studies before reaching the ordination programme.
Obviously, the situation in may vary in Britain as the rabbinate and the institutions of learning are structured differently. However, it is fair to say -that the relative difference in academic. training is similar to the above figures.
Consequently, it is difficult to see how Progressive and Liberal rabbis can claim the same degree of erudition and expertise as Orthodox Rabbis strictly based on the quantitative and qualitative education that precedes their ordination. And, after all, when it comes to such problems as conversion shechita, divorce, etc., training in Jewish law is of decisive importance."
In a similar vein Rabbi Dr. Alexander Carlebach wrote in a letter to the Jerusalem Post (30th January '89):
"I don't think that it is even claimed that Conservative ordinations constitute a traditional semicha. Nor is the minimal programme of Talmud and Codes at the Jewish Theological Seminary likely to produce qualified rabbis."
From the above we see that there are two objective reasons why Orthodox Jews refuse to address non-Orthodox clergy as Rabbis, based on the nature of their training and their lack of commitment to the binding nature of halachah. That many consider referring to them as Rabbis is positively dangerous was expressed in another reply to Walter Rothschild by Dr M. Finlay (9th September '88):
"From time to time, letters appear in your columns concerning the reluctance of some of your correspondents to accord the title of "rabbi" to non-Orthodox spiritual leaders .....
The minister of the Leeds Sinai (Reform) Synagogue commented that 'An MP, doctor or a non-Jewish clergyman would always be referred to... by his correct title', and asks 'Why should a rabbi be different?'
These are, on the face of it, quite reasonable comments. We all agree, other differences notwithstanding, that all human beings should be treated with courtesy. But does that imply.... that everyone has the right to be addressed by whatever title they choose to adopt?….
A Jewish religious leader who does net subscribe to traditional Judaism simply does not fulfil the conditions required of a Rabbi. By his rejection of principles and practices of halachic Judaism he automatically disqualifies himself from any claim to such a title…. There is no obligation to describe a minister of any other religion as a rabbi, nor is there an obligation to address anyone by an incorrect title.
Imagine a person who ports to treat sick people, who has not undergone generally accepted medical training. Imagine, further- more, that he rejects the very principles and methods of orthodox medicine, that he ~ not subscribe to the Hippocratic Oath, and that his treatments are considered positively harmful by standard medical practitioners. Would courtesy require that such a person be addressed as a doctor? Or would there, perhaps, be a moral obligation to refrain from using his assumed title?"
Rabbi Dr. Carlebach makes a similar point in his letter
"A doctor of law does not claim to be a doctor of medicine, a tailor does not pose as a shoemaker."
This last point was thrown into even clearer focus by a letter (10th March'89) from a certain Charles Snow, who described himself as the minister of the London Messianic Congregation (sic):
"In response to your report of February 17 in which I am mentioned, allow me to correct several statements…..
I am not a 'self-styled rabbi', but am in fact a properly ordained Messianic Rabbithrough the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues...
My qualifications are accepted both in the USA and by the Government of the United Kingdom, where I am officially recognised as a 'minister of religion' like any ,other rabbi."
Though Mr Snow's claim might seem absurd the most Jews, it is difficult to see where the line should be drawn in using the rabbinic title once the traditional Orthodox definition is abandoned.
Walter Rothschild returned to the fray in a second letter (9th September '88), in which he admits this point but repeats his call for the suppression of Orthodox opinions:
"The title 'rabbi' is not easily pinned down to mean one who practises 'Rabbinic Judaism' (itself a very wide term), and scholars may argue about it if they wish. Common usage nowadays is that one who has studied and whose skills and knowledge are considered acceptable by a panel of ordained superiors is granted the title….
VITRIOL
I have documentary proof that a panel of rabbis consider me….fit to be called rabbi: I am employed by a congregation as their rabbi: my contract refers to me a rabbi: I am invited, as a rabbi, to represent the Jewish community at civic functions.
Is it too much to ask those who disagree 'with my non- fundamentalist approach.... to at least use the correct form of address when seeking to attack me?....
Finally.... if you would use your editorial judgement so as to exclude those letters in which the level of vitriol has led to complete dissolution of good manners and derech eretz, perhaps this vexed issue would be solved."
ERROR
This letter produced two replies printed on the 23rd September '88, which took up the two points made. On the first, his justification for being addressed as a Rabbi, I wrote:
"In his letter, Walter Rothschild makes a serious error when he states that he is entitled to the title of 'Rabbi' because his skills and knowledge are considered acceptable by a panel of ordained superiors.
Since the rabbinic status of the gentlemen in question is as subject to dispute as his own, this is hardly an argument in his favour."
In view of Dr Lehmann's analyses of the training received by reform clergy, cited above, this is hardly an unfair comment.
On his suggestions that letters not addressing him as he whished should not be printed, I continued:
"However, I was shocked by his suggestion….that you should suppress the views of those of us who, in all honesty, feel that he and his colleagues do not merit the title of 'Rabbi' for, reasons so ably expressed by Dr Finlay.
OPINIONS
How can any one who values free speech even contemplate that those who disagree with him net be given a fair hearing?"
The other letter, by M.
Fleischer, expressed these points rather differently:
"How hum another tiresome letter from Walter Rothschild explaining why he wants everybody to call him a 'Rabbi'. He even tells us that he has a document to prove that he deserves that title and that his congregation address him in this way, as do non-Jews.
What are we dealing with, of .. course is the simple distinction between fact and opinion. If I ask, 'Is this a table?' I am asking for a statement of fact. The answer is a straightforward 'yes' or 'no'.
On the other hand, if I ask, 'Is the leader of a Reform congregation a rabbi?' What I am asking has shifted to the realm of opinion. A reform Jew would understandably say 'yes'; an orthodox Jew would, just as understandable, say 'no'. Both are legitimately expressing their opinions.
PETULANT
Mr Rothschild must surely recognise this, or does he believe that only Reform Jews have a right to voice their opinions? Apparently he does, for he wants the Jewish chronicle to exclude from its columns all those who have the audacity not to conform to his particular concept of derech eretz and refuse to call him 'Rabbi'....
There are many Jewish concerns that Mr Rothschild could occupy himself with. lt really is time he stopped behaving like petulant Child and devoted his no doubt considerable energies to something more important." With these letters the
correspondence on this topic closed. As the reader will see, it is quite possible to defeat these Reform propagandists by reasoned argument. Unfortunately most charedim are not ready when challenged by our Jewishly less educated brethren and it is hoped that this article will prove useful if the need ever arises, and be for the apikorsim a gemar v'chassima tova.
Yeah OK. The point is that even "liberal" religion can have a problem with the way things seem to be going.
Reform Judaism may not be real Judaism, but it's still a real religion of the Judaeo-Christian monotheistic type, and it goes back to the early 19th century. And most of it's adherents are still Jews according to Halacha, which is to say by Orthodox standards, even if their beliefs and behavior are not.
"Same-sex commitment ceremonies" among Jews started with this sect around fifteen years ago.
As such this essay is a very important data point, at the very least.
Very pertinent to us Christian Freepers, who, as you are aware, believe that God's purpose for a Chosen People was for them to be a Holy People and a Light unto the Nations.
.His standard of holiness hasn't changed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.