Kol Ish
A male singer has been banned from chareidi (fervently Orthodox) radio because his voice sounds like a woman's, and many Orthodox Jews believe that halachah (Jewish religious law) forbids a man from listening to a woman sing.
See this post by Brooklyn Wolf.
My favorite comment on this interesting role reversal is to this post by DovBear (see translations of Hebrew terms at end of post):
"As I have written previously, the entire basis of the kol isha prohibition is bogus.
In the talmudic passage that forms its basis, the assertion that the voice of a woman is "erva" (as well as additional assertions that a woman showing parts of her body are also erva) is based on a passage from Shir HaShirim. Presumably, just as the (female) lover's voice in song arouses her man ,so, too would a random female voice arouse a random man, thus driving him to commit improper sex acts.
The fallacy of this argument in general should be obvious, but there's even more.
Shir Hashirim was made part of the Tanach because it was interpreted as having nothing to do with profane stuff like lust, or even love. This is obvious if you've ever read the Artscroll version. It's supposed to be an allegory describing the love of Israel for God, where, of course, the woman is Israel and God is the man. So if one insists on using that passage, the conclusion is that the voice of Israel in prayer to God is "erva," and chazzanut and davening are thus assur.
Conservative apikoris Homepage 06.29.07 - 8:27 am #
I must confess to a certain glee at CA's approach to kol isha, which is certainly a lot more fun than my own umpteen thousand screeds on the subject. :) (Click on the Kol Isha label to read my previous posts about this issue.)
CA's approach reminds me of my continued puzzlement about the tradition that a married woman should cover at least part of her hair. As I said here, "Apparently, there is an opinion that, once a woman has begun covering her hair because of marriage, she is no longer permitted to uncover it, even in the event of widowhood or divorce. The principle seems to be that one is permitted to increase one's level of observance, but not to decrease it. Personally, I find this confusing. If the whole point of a Jewish woman covering her hair is that doing so is a signal to other knowledgeable Jews that she is already married, and therefore, unavailable, then why on earth should a no-longer-married woman not be permitted to make her status clearly visible? And if the purpose of covering one's hair is tzniut, modesty, why does the tradition of covering one's hair apply only to married women? From my own perspective, this makes no sense."
Those of you who've been reading my blog for more than two days :) know my humble opinion of the kol isha prohibition: I see no good reason why any adult should be held responsible for the sins of another adult. But even assuming that you disagree with that approach, you can't have it both ways, folks. If the prohibition against kol isha is based on a verse from Shir HaShirim (The Song of Songs), that means that Shir HaShirim is a poem about human love, rabbinic protests to the contrary notwithstanding. If Shir HaShirim is not about human love, then there's no reason for the prohibition against kol isha.
kol isha: literally "the voice of a woman"--the prohibition against a man hearing a woman sing. (This prohibition is variously interpreted--some say it applies only to live music; some say that "zevach laShem" [praise of G-d] is exempt from this prohibition).
(To clarify, "kol ish" would mean "the voice of a man"--see immediately above--and there's no prohibition against either a woman or another man listening to a man sing.)
erva: to the best of my knowledge, the literal translation is "nudity."
Shir HaShirim: The Song of Songs
Tanach: Bible
chazzanut: the singing of a chazzan/cantor (this particular term usually refers to the operatic style of cantorial singing)
davening: prayer, praying
assur: prohibited
See this post by Brooklyn Wolf.
My favorite comment on this interesting role reversal is to this post by DovBear (see translations of Hebrew terms at end of post):
"As I have written previously, the entire basis of the kol isha prohibition is bogus.
In the talmudic passage that forms its basis, the assertion that the voice of a woman is "erva" (as well as additional assertions that a woman showing parts of her body are also erva) is based on a passage from Shir HaShirim. Presumably, just as the (female) lover's voice in song arouses her man ,so, too would a random female voice arouse a random man, thus driving him to commit improper sex acts.
The fallacy of this argument in general should be obvious, but there's even more.
Shir Hashirim was made part of the Tanach because it was interpreted as having nothing to do with profane stuff like lust, or even love. This is obvious if you've ever read the Artscroll version. It's supposed to be an allegory describing the love of Israel for God, where, of course, the woman is Israel and God is the man. So if one insists on using that passage, the conclusion is that the voice of Israel in prayer to God is "erva," and chazzanut and davening are thus assur.
Conservative apikoris Homepage 06.29.07 - 8:27 am #
I must confess to a certain glee at CA's approach to kol isha, which is certainly a lot more fun than my own umpteen thousand screeds on the subject. :) (Click on the Kol Isha label to read my previous posts about this issue.)
CA's approach reminds me of my continued puzzlement about the tradition that a married woman should cover at least part of her hair. As I said here, "Apparently, there is an opinion that, once a woman has begun covering her hair because of marriage, she is no longer permitted to uncover it, even in the event of widowhood or divorce. The principle seems to be that one is permitted to increase one's level of observance, but not to decrease it. Personally, I find this confusing. If the whole point of a Jewish woman covering her hair is that doing so is a signal to other knowledgeable Jews that she is already married, and therefore, unavailable, then why on earth should a no-longer-married woman not be permitted to make her status clearly visible? And if the purpose of covering one's hair is tzniut, modesty, why does the tradition of covering one's hair apply only to married women? From my own perspective, this makes no sense."
Those of you who've been reading my blog for more than two days :) know my humble opinion of the kol isha prohibition: I see no good reason why any adult should be held responsible for the sins of another adult. But even assuming that you disagree with that approach, you can't have it both ways, folks. If the prohibition against kol isha is based on a verse from Shir HaShirim (The Song of Songs), that means that Shir HaShirim is a poem about human love, rabbinic protests to the contrary notwithstanding. If Shir HaShirim is not about human love, then there's no reason for the prohibition against kol isha.
kol isha: literally "the voice of a woman"--the prohibition against a man hearing a woman sing. (This prohibition is variously interpreted--some say it applies only to live music; some say that "zevach laShem" [praise of G-d] is exempt from this prohibition).
(To clarify, "kol ish" would mean "the voice of a man"--see immediately above--and there's no prohibition against either a woman or another man listening to a man sing.)
erva: to the best of my knowledge, the literal translation is "nudity."
Shir HaShirim: The Song of Songs
Tanach: Bible
chazzanut: the singing of a chazzan/cantor (this particular term usually refers to the operatic style of cantorial singing)
davening: prayer, praying
assur: prohibited
Labels: Kol Isha
posted by Shira Salamone at 12:18 PM
21 Comments:
I'll try to comment on this later in a substantive manner, but first...
You are tagged with the "Meme of Eight". Have fun with it!
I believe the the rules of tznuit, as all Torah laws, continue to be as relevant and important today as they were 3000 years ago. But/and, for that very reason, the definition of tzniut/modesty is meant to be societally driven. We - men and women alike - should appear modest by the standards of the community/society in which we live.
Thus, say in an Arab society where the norm is for a woman to be very covered, Jewish law would mandate the same. In the Western world, both Jewish men and women should dress - and more importantly act - in a manner that would be viewed as modest by those around them.
I personally don't believe either hair covering or singing needs to be included in this prohibition in 21st century America. But I respect those who disagree.
Um, truth to tell, Elie, I've never been a big fan of memes. But maybe I'll post a few odds and ends. Thanks for the invitation.
Well, I don't know that I could honestly say that I believe *all* Torah laws are relevant and important today, but as for the rest of your comment, I agree 100%.
Okay, you've combined a whole bunch of behavioral rules under Tzinut (not your fault, most religious people do as well), but it's not true.
Tzinut, modesty, is important, as modesty is upheld as a very important Jewish value at least since Talmudic times, and our traditional commentaries suggest biblical basis for it.
I agree with you that the Kol Isha prohibition is questionable, at a minimum, because as you said, either the song is a love song, or it isn't. However, to pretend that a woman's voice has no tendency towards arousal is a bit silly, simply look at contemporary female vocalists and their acts, and clearly it is intended to be sensual or sexual. So to suggest that there is no issue is being a bit dishonest, even if you disagree with the rabbinic custom.
Regarding hair covering... it's included with modesty because they all seem to go together, but it's also separate. In the Torah, during the Sotah trial, the woman's hair is uncovered. Since all Torah law is still binding, if a married woman was brought to a Sotah, her hair would have to be uncovered. This can't be done unless her hair is covered. Ergo, a married woman's hair needs to be covered... it's right in the Torah.
Now, the "erva game" of the Talmud, that concludes with a woman's pinky being erva is a bit silly, and to decide that this draws some random line with elbows, knees, and collarbones is a bit silly. However, we should make an effort to conduct ourselves modestly. What that means is up to debate, but even if you disagree with specific modesty claims by various Rabbis, the requirement to conduct oneself with modesty is in fact a binding mitzvah.
LOL - I wondered what would happen when you saw this article.
Thought, to follow the logic, if Shir Hashirim really is all metaphorical, then NO ISRAELITE should sing, lest we awaken G-d's lust and cause G-d to sin. Right? :)
Alex, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think it's important to distinguish between Madonna and Neshamah. There are singers who sing about, um, private matters and prance around the stage in immodest attire (or a general lack of attire, as the case may be.) There are others who dress in a modest manner and sing tehillim (psalms). According to some interpretations of the kol isha prohibition, a scantily-clad singer asking "What's love got to do with it?" and a choir of teenage yeshiva girls singing divrei kodesh (roughly, sacred texts) are equally forbidden to men, and I resent that. If a man gets sinful thoughts listening to a woman sing Ani Maamin, that's *his* problem, not hers. Who died and put women in charge of men's yetzer hara (evil inclination)?
Tzipporah, nice logic. :)
Alex, the problem with the Sotah ritual is that the entire reason for it is precisely there's *not* enough evidence to put the the woman--never the man, of course--on trial for adultery. I already discussed my opinion of the trial of the Sotah in this post of mine from last year: “Not being blessed with a good Jewish education, I ask this question of those more learnèd than I: Is there another single instance, in the entire corpus of Jewish law, in which a person could be tried and condemned with *no witnesses whatsoever* and only, for lack of a better description, circumstantial evidence?" So if you wish to convince me that a married woman is required to cover her hair, I suggest that you look somewhere other than the law of the Sotah.
I agree wholehearted with your last paragraph, though. I may have problems with the specifics of what some in the Orthodox community consider modest dress, but I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that a Jew--male or female--should dress modestly.
I think it's important to distinguish between Madonna and Neshamah. There are singers who sing about, um, private matters and prance around the stage in immodest attire (or a general lack of attire, as the case may be.) There are others who dress in a modest manner and sing tehillim (psalms).
Agreed. I haven't defended the blanket prohibition of Kol Isha, I think that the implications are a bit silly. That said, I don't think you can dismiss it outright. Clearly Madonna isn't tzinut... :) It's an issue... I agree that the rabbinic stringencies are silly, I'm just saying that the issue is real... and certain forms of singing absolutely have a sensual bent. The only time I play for Kol Isha card is to rib my mother-in-law, who sings in her synagogue choir. I'm just saying it's not something to be dismissed entirely.
the problem with the Sotah ritual is that the entire reason for it is precisely there's *not* enough evidence to put the the woman--never the man, of course--on trial for adultery. I already discussed my opinion of the trial of the Sotah
Like it or not, it's in the Torah. It's not rabbinic, it's not oral law, it's not tradition, it's there, in writing. Not liking it doesn't make it go away... :) So I think suggesting one needs another portion of Torah is unfair, it's there.
"Like it or not, it's in the Torah. It's not rabbinic, it's not oral law, it's not tradition, it's there, in writing. Not liking it doesn't make it go away... :)"
No, but it does make me question how I could possibly become Orthodox if I'm not willing to accept, on the grounds that they're in the Torah, laws that I consider unjust. The Sotah ritual may be fairly irrelevant at this point, as there's no way to perform it without a Bet Mikdash/Holy Temple in Jerusalem, and it is much to the rabbis' credit that they've mitigated much of the injustice by interpreting this trial as ineffective in instances in which the husband has also been unfaithful. But there are certainly other laws that are equally unjust and stem directly from the Torah. The law that authorizes males alone to give a get/Jewish religious divorce comes to mind. I'm not willing to say that Torah law is always just, just because it's Torah law. That's one of the reasons why I'm not Orthodox.
The issue of the Get is more complicated than just "it's Torah law." The problem with the Get is the combination of secular and Torah Law.
Torah Law is simple, a man can dismiss his wife. If the man married with a Ketubah, then he must do so under the terms of the Ketubah, which includes a return of Dowry. A more modern Ketubah text (which we would have if Torah Law was governing the entire time) would no doubt take into account human capital, ROI of brought dowry, etc... but when it was written, land=wealth, so return of land meant the return of wealth. Now it would take into account the rate of return of a fair bundle of equities in common markets... :)
Jewish Law also states if the woman wants out and the man won't grant her release, he's to be beaten until he agrees. The logic is that the release must be freely given, but no man would deny it, so we help them along... a bit contrived, but alright.
The PROBLEM that we have is a combination of Roman/Pagan customs (monogamy) combined with secular systems that manage property and grant divorce. The secular courts can simply sever a marriage, and call it a day. To accomplish that with the requirement of the man to give his wife a release, the Rabbinic courts could order the man beaten.
The PROBLEM we have is not Torah Law, or Secular Law, it's the combination.
A man divorces his wife under secular law, and proceeds to remarry under secular law. While Minhag/Rabbinic decree prohibit him from taking a second wife, if he does take a second wife, it is a legal marriage. If the wife takes a second husband, it's illegit, and we have mamzerim. If the secular courts would NOT grant a civil divorce without a Get, there would be no issue. If the rabbinic courts were permitted to order the man imprisoned and beaten, there would be no issue. If one uses one of the new pre-nup agreements that OU/RCA have out there, you have recourse.
Just or not, Torah Law is Torah Law. My issue with some of your comments is that you may not like them, but that doesn't make them not binding. My in-law's conservative synagogue asks married women to cover their hair.
It's rather difficult to set up a secular law that would prohibit a man from remarrying without giving his (ex-)wife a religious divorce while still avoiding violating the separation of "church" and state (religion and government). It seems to me that some attempts to establish such laws have been declared unconstitutional. It's also rather discouraging that we have to rely on the secular courts to take care of a problem created by religious law because no one is able (some say willing) to change the religious law.
"My issue with some of your comments is that you may not like them, but that doesn't make them not binding. My in-law's conservative synagogue asks married women to cover their hair." What can I say except "guilty as charged?" I'm not even a good Conservative Jew, much less a candidate for Orthodoxy. I have a real problem with the whole of a body of religious law that's binding. Sure, I obey the secular laws, but they're a lot easier to change when necessary.
I hate to be so fussy about details, but, for the record, Conservative synagogues often require married women to cover their *heads*, but not their *hair.* Many married Conservative women cover theirs heads with kippot, "doilies/chapel caps," hats, or scarves. However, while I've known Conservative women to wear wigs for health-related reasons (to cover chemotherapy-induced baldness or keep their cold-sensitive heads warm in winter), I don't believe I ever met a Conservative Jewish woman who wore a wig simply because she was married. My personal experience is that it's extremely rare in Conservative circles for a married woman to cover *all* of her hair. Covering the head is consider quite sufficient.
I think your biggest problem with Orthodoxy (and even Theoretical Conservative) is that you reject the notion that religious law is binding. You're right on the head/hair thing. In reality, there are numerous acceptable halachic standards on the covering.
It's extremely rare in conservative circles for anyone except the Rabbi to comply with Jewish law... seems like a bit of a lonely life for the Rabbi's family, but not so different from the Chabad emissaries...
I don't know, Canada's proposed law that would require that any divorce that is accepted by the courts require the the parties agree that there is no religious prohibition on re-marriage or something similar seems like it should pass constitutional muster. It essentially means that you can't play games... and it could effect more than Jews...
Catholics that refuse a Church annulment wouldn't be able to secularly divorce (something that isn't an issue post-Second Vatican that doesn't label the children bastards), fundamentalist Mormons might be prevented from doing the serial divorce approach (divorce each wife when taking another, so they all are Mrs. X), and Jews from filing for divorce and refusing a Get.
To me, the change in religious law is somewhat impossible... the woman can't remarry without a writ from the husband or else the kids are mamzerim, because the husband has not released his claims on her... the basis of Torah law remains some wandering tribes in the Arabian desert, not yuppies in greater New York... :) However, since secular courts are willing to terminate marriages from religious officials, it seems reasonable that they only do so if the parties have done their homework.
The alternative would be: civil marriages get civil divorces, and the state recognizes religious marriages but won't terminate them. i.e. if married by a member of the Clergy, the state will record it and treat you as married, but won't treat you as un-married until a member of the same clergy tells them to.
Now, if you married outside of Jewish law, there is an opinion, to my knowledge, I am NOT an expert, from R' Moshe Feinstein that those not intending to create a Jewish marriage don't and don't really need a get... basically, a couple living together arguably creates a marriage, but it might not be strictly necessary to construe it as such.
I think that there are plenty of things broken with Jewish law... there needs to be a way to adopt changes (and not just stringencies)... I don't mean to toss the Torah out, but I mean ways to revisit rabbinic decrees...
The prohibition on bathing on Shabbat (and other things from an era of bathhouses) should have a way of being re-looked at in and age of indoor plumbing... not just because I miss my Saturday morning shower, but because the bathhouse days are from another era...
Instead our plethora of Rabbis that we are creating with draft avoidance is creating the ultimate absurdity. We get stringency on stringency to protect against transgressions on Rabbinic stringency's, while the loophole lookers find ways to make it so we don't transgress ever either... which will slowly render Shabbat from avoiding transgressions to "beings Shabbesdiq, which will become increasing draconian," just like Pesach is no longer about avoiding chometz (hmm, matza-ball soup), but avoiding kitnyot... silly stuff...
Hence I'm rooting for these guys, because a new Sanhedrin would ACTUALLY be able to effect changes in Rabbinic laws, because it would have the legal stature to do so... and it might rope in the American rabbinate... given that the RCA completely capitulated to Israeli Rabbinate control re: conversion, a successful Sanhedrin will bring the Agudath in line as well.
"I think your biggest problem with Orthodoxy (and even Theoretical Conservative) is that you reject the notion that religious law is binding." Agreed. My personal approach is that, if I observe certain aspects of Jewish tradition, it's because I *choose* to observe, not because halachah requires me to do so. Obviously, this puts me at odds with the traditional perspective.
What might work in Canada won't work in the United States because the U.S. constitution mandates the separate of "church" (meaning religion) and state. That's one reason why there's such a broohaha about government funding of non-public schools (that is, schools not currently funded by the government, meaning private and religious schools)--there's a concern that funding will be provide that will support the teaching of religion at taxpayer expense, a clear violation of the church-state separation provision. Lawmakers are trying to avoid that problem by such methods as giving tax breaks to the parents, rather than funding the schools directly.
In any case, the fundamental problem is that the rabbinate is relying on secular authorities to solve problems of religious law that they should be solving on their own. I agree with you 100% that "I think that there are plenty of things broken with Jewish law... there needs to be a way to adopt changes (and not just stringencies)... I don't mean to toss the Torah out, but I mean ways to revisit rabbinic decrees..." Now if only a recognized and generally accepted rabbinic authority would recognize and accept that Sanhedrin . . . But given the current "chumra-(added stringency)-of-the-month club" mentality, I don't think I'll be around long enough to see substantive change to the laws of gittin (Jewish religious divorce), or any other law that's in dire need of rethinking, in my lifetime.
I don't know that it would be an establishment issue... The anti-establishment clause of the Constitution is relatively restricted in the text (no state Church), and the Rehnquist Court narrowed it down dramatically. I would expect the Roberts Court to continue this trend. The Warren Court's expulsion of religion from the public sphere appears to be sliding backwards.
I don't know that requiring both people being granted a divorce (assuming mutually doing so) being required to swear under oath (and under penalties of Perjury and Contempt) that they are not withholding any agreements required by either parties religions to prevent re-marriage would be problematic with the anti-establishment clause.
It certainly doesn't let religion into marriage law anymore than it does now (religions are allowed to marry people), and wouldn't prevent anyone acting in good faith from divorcing.
The biggest problem, that you can't address, is what do you do with secular Jews who won't think of the issue. The Reform movement loves its disinformation campaign, and the Conservative movement is fed up with trying to accommodate Orthodoxy (and for good reason). The Reform movement would LOVE to create a bunch of Mamzerim, because those children would be safely the property of the Reform movement, because Orthodoxy won't touch them.
The Conservative movement would no doubt be prepared to work with Orthodoxy, but if the past is any indication, first the Orthodoxy will demand complete capitulation, where Conservative Rabbanim have to refer their people to an Orthodox Rabbi and Beit Din, which Conservative will agree to in return for people allowed to enter the building and be addressed as Mr. or Ms. instead of Rabbi, then once the documented is drafted by the RCA and Conservative groups, the Agudath will raise a fuss and the Orthodox groups won't show up and will call the Conservative Rabbis heretics... that's more or less what happened when there was an attempt for a unified approach to conversion.
Now if only a recognized and generally accepted rabbinic authority would recognize and accept that Sanhedrin
There hasn't been a lot of objection that I've seen, but who knows. Everyone is in wait and see mode... nobody of stature seems determined to scuttle the thing, so it depends on what they do.
My theory, if they keep their heads down, and do things of use to the Orthodox community (uniform Kashrut standards, etc.), they'll slowly get recognized de facto. Things in Orthodoxy don't move in the open and on the up-and-up, they move in gossip circles, talking behind peoples back, and spreading rumors. No real Chareidi leadership supported Nahal Chareidi, but nobody shut it down, and it's slowly gaining acceptance.
In Florida, we now have a Hebrew Language charter school. The Principal is a Rabbi (and a PhD in education), the school teaches no religion, but the parents are free to organize after hours religion. No school sanctioned davening, but they are elementary school right now...
Things are changing and afoot. Lots of movement in every direction. We've only held Jerusalem for 40 years, and even then, not truly held it... sure no movement for a Temple has gotten traction, but those pushing the matter are getting more and more legitimacy and the Temple Mount is slowly being claimed by Jews...
Our Galut mentality Chareidi brothers have been slowest to move, but they are moving. If they hadn't been so quick to ban Jews from going on the Temple mount, we might have a third Temple by now. On the other hand, if the spies weren't dishonest, we might not have had 40 years in the desert.
It's all in the Torah, anything you want to know. From how you handle the otherwise spotless Jewish leader that marries a Shiksa to what foods to eat, it's all in there. Nothing new under the sun, we're the same people we were in the desert... quick to build false idols, slow to accept the Yoke of Heaven, but always there.
"It certainly doesn't let religion into marriage law anymore than it does now (religions are allowed to marry people), and wouldn't prevent anyone acting in good faith from divorcing." Hmm, you have a point.
"The Reform movement would LOVE to create a bunch of Mamzerim, because those children would be safely the property of the Reform movement, because Orthodoxy won't touch them." Ouch. Did you really think they're ignoring the laws of religious divorce for that reason? To say that a movement is deliberately encouraging the birth of illegitimate children--defined as children born of a later marriage of a woman not religiously divorced from a previous husband--is a pretty serious charge.
The hubster points out that the Orthodox can get around the lack of a get/Jewish religious divorce by saying that the previous marriage of a Reform Jew was not performed in accordance with halachah/Jewish religious law, and, therefore, did not exist.
Oops--I see you beat the Punster to the punch, Alex:
"Now, if you married outside of Jewish law, there is an opinion, to my knowledge, I am NOT an expert, from R' Moshe Feinstein that those not intending to create a Jewish marriage don't and don't really need a get... basically, a couple living together arguably creates a marriage, but it might not be strictly necessary to construe it as such."
I like to give credit where it's due. In this case, I'll also reiterate my previous remark: If the Orthodox rabbinate can declare a Reform marriage to be non-existent, the lack of a get/religious divorce would not apply, and the children of a woman's later marriage would not be illegitimate under halachah/Jewish religious law.
"The Reform movement would LOVE to create a bunch of Mamzerim, because those children would be safely the property of the Reform movement, because Orthodoxy won't touch them." Ouch. Did you really think they're ignoring the laws of religious divorce for that reason? To say that a movement is deliberately encouraging the birth of illegitimate children--defined as children born of a later marriage of a woman not religiously divorced from a previous husband--is a pretty serious charge.
I think that the Reform movement is really troublesome. The gulf between their "rabbinate" and laymen is MASSIVE and scary. I spend 18 years in the Reform system... Sunday school, Hebrew school, long-winded sermons, confirmation, etc. The level of disinformation that is used to trap people is stunning. The falsehoods and lies leveled at Orthodoxy is sickening. Every once in a while a situation comes up where I remember a comment I made without thinking, repeating something to someone religious, and I feel ill.
If you asked my father, or any of his friends that write 10k+ checks/year to their Temple what the Pittsburgh Platform is, you'll get blank stares. They have no idea what Reform is about, just that they never learned Hebrew, wanted their kids to have a Bar Mitzvah, and found themselves comfortable there.
Had a discussion with a childhood friend who was studying to join the Reform Rabbinate (later switched back to the cantorial track, and is a canter). The things she said, just repeating things she learned in her "school" were somewhat startling. Not because I disagree, but just blatantly false things about Orthodox Jewish law and traditions.
Would the Reform movement set a goal of creating Mamzerim? Absolutely, as it would fit their agenda of wiping out Orthodox Judaism. They don't believe in Mamzerim, so they don't care. The fact that those children don't have the option of religious observance, would that bother Reform Rabbis? Given that they would prefer their students marry gentiles than Orthodox Jews, I can't see why it would bother them.
I think that the Conservative movement is filled with well-meaning people that don't know what to do. They are attempting to keep people within some specter of Judaism, but have an uninterested clientele. I think that the Reform movement has ALWAYS been about their agenda, and that's all they push.
I have a relative (not Jewish) who was getting married to her Jewish fiance. Her father is Jewish (hence she's related to me that way), they have 3 children, the kids have 3 Jewish grandparents, but aren't Jewish. She wanted them to be raised Jewish, sort of, and figured since the Reform movement would treat them as Jewish, why convert. The husband felt that the kids weren't Jewish, so why pretend.
That is the danger of the Reform movement's games and silliness. The "who is a Jew" question is going to get uglier and uglier over the next two generations. While the Conservative and Reform movement mutually recognize each other to some extend, on the ground, most Conservative people will NOT recognize patrilineal descent, and you're going to have horrid situations where kids who identified as Jewish their entire life will get involved in some Conservative or Orthodox group and be told that they aren't Jewish. Reading the various Jewish blogs, you find LOTS of people who feel "they have to prove their Jewish credentials" and can list off youth groups, camps, etc., but the fact that their mother isn't Jewish trumps all that. Telling someone that had a Bat Mitzvah and was in here Synagogue Youth Group that she's not Jewish and needs to convert is an extremely painful thing to tell an adult.
I know a woman whose mother converted when she was an infant, but didn't bother to immerse her. Orthodox conversion on the up-and-up, joined a conservative synagogue, had her Bat Mitzvah, etc. Fell in love with an Orthodox guy, they are going to document her conversion, and find out that she's not Jewish. This couple cheated, she had a conservative conversion, got married under conservative auspices, and she spent two years studying to convert (and converted her kids at that time)... however, she's livid that she went through all the involvement of being Jewish, but wasn't.
These stories aren't that rare, you hear about them all over the MO/BT scene, and its only going to get worse. The Reform Rabbinate decides their views, and do not education their people on the other views, and when it comes to personal status issues, it's REALLY tragic.
What happens to the Jewish girl from her mother's second Reform marriage, who in college embraces traditional Judaism, meets someone, and when they are ready to get married, finds out that she's a Mamzer and can't marry him.
That's UGLY, and I think that its tragic what they are doing.
I agree that the lack of information being provided by some non-Orthodox rabbis, educators, etc. to non-Orthodox Jews can very easily result in painful situations concerning Jewish identity.
"The gulf between their "rabbinate" and laymen is MASSIVE . . ." As someone who grew up in the Conservative movement (synagogue and USY) and has spent most of her adult life as a member of dual-affiliated Reconstructionist/Conservative or traditional Conservative synagogues, I can say the same of the gulf between Conservative rabbis and laypeople. It's a bit sad (though, admittedly, nice for my ego) that I'm considered one of the most Jewishly knowledgeable members of my congregation despite the fact that I can't even *read* Rashi script, much less *translate* it. As for the observance level of the average Conservative Jew, I could probably have counted on my fingers and toes, even in the good old days when our shul membership was much higher, the number of congregants who wouldn't travel on Shabbat/Sabbath --and I can't say a word, since the hubster and I are not among them.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
www.kolish.net
Post a Comment
<< Home