Talking about Dialectics in Judaism on Wikipedia
All text of this post from Wikipedia is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

The following was proposed by Leifern as an article:

"Dialectics in Judaism

Throughout the recorded history of Judaism, there have been opposing schools of thought on fundamental religious issues. Since each of these disputes has played an important role in Judaism, they can be described as dialectics. Some of the disputes resulted in one side prevailing, having more sharply defined positions on critical issues; others resulted in a synthesis, taking into account both sides; and others yet resulted in durable schisms.

*Hillel and Shammai

Hillel the Elder and Shammai were leading rabbis in the era of the Second Temple. Both for affiliated with the Sanhedrin of their time, Hillel acting as the nasi (president) and Shammai the the Av Beit Din (head of court). They each led their own schools, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. 300 of their disagreements between these two schools are recorded in the Talmud.
The context for the disputes between Hillel and Shammai was noteworthy for political pressure. Shammai's approach emphasized an idealistic view of religious observance; Hillel's was more pragmatic, more forgiving of the individual. The Talmud allows for both approaches, but gives Hillel preference under circumstances of real-life conditions; Shammai's in the messianic era.

*Pharisees, Saduccees, and Essenes
*Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism
*Hassidim and Mitnagdim
*Zionism
*Modern dialectics"

And then the following was the discussion:

"Talk:Dialectics in Judaism

Message to Leifern: Avoid creating double articles

Here is what I wrote to Leifern at User talk:Leifern#Dialectics in Judaism.

Hi Leifern: I saw your note (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Article stub on dialectics in Judaism) about your intentions for Dialectics in Judaism. However, it seems you are overlooking some fine articles that already exist:

*Schisms among the Jews which covers many areas you outline;
*Relationships between Jewish religious movements which deals with modern issues as well as
*Jewish views of religious pluralism;
*Who is a Jew? contains more information about opposing views;
*Jewish denominations outlines the origins of many "Dialectics";
*Jewish ethnic divisions involves your subject;

These are some of the main articles, there may be more, I wanted to bring to your attention BEFORE you create double work for yourself or other editors. Best wishes. IZAK (Simshalom)06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree the present article will simply duplicate the articles IZAK has flagged up above. "Dialectics" also suggests progress or development as a result - this appears POV to me. JFW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfdwolff 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys - thanks for the heads-up. The article that is most duplicative of the one I've proposed is Schisms among the Jews. Perhaps we should think about combining these two. I am personally partial to the notion of dialectics, because I think: a) not all of the disputes/disagreements resulted in schisms. Hillel and Shammai were apparently quite friendly, and there was at no point any risk that Judaism would be split in two; b) the synthesis that results from a dialectic is not necessarily one of progress, but I think it is safe to say that the disputes contributed to greater definition of today's Judaism. I can't imagine that there's a rabbi out there - in any movement - who wouldn't agree that these disagreements were important. --Leifern 12:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

While Hillel & Shammai disagreed on issues and treated each other with the greatest respect, the Talmud indicates that it was still a negative thing. JFW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jfdwolff 16:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, pretty mild compared to excommunicating each other, which future disputes led to. --Leifern 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Leifern, you also making a basic error of logic because according to classical Judaism, there are ACCEPTABLE vs. UNACCEPTABLE Jewish theological disputes (which you desire to phrase in "dialectical" language). Kosher disputes are called machloket lesheim shamayim ("dispute[s] for the sake of Heaven") and non-kosher disputes are called [machloket] ..she'einah leshem shamayim ("dispute[s] not for the sake of Heaven"). Quoted from the universally accepted Mishnah's Pirkei Avoth ("Ethics of the Fathers") Chapter 5: mishnah 20: "Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will have a constructive outcome; but one that that is not for the sake of Heaven will not have a constructive outcome. What sort of dispute was for the sake of Heaven? - The dispute between Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for the sake of Heaven? - The dispute of Korach and his entire company" (English translation from the ArtScroll Siddur, pp. 576-7) (see Pirkei Avoth#External links for a variety of texts and commentaries on this). Thus from the foregoing we see that Hillel and Shammai "were in the same ball park", they did not dispute the basic premises of the Torah, UNLIKE the following who ALL created vast SCHISMS and fought against Judaism and would definitely be categorized as NOT being for the sake of Heaven, and are in fact far worse, belonging to the UN-dialecticals: "Korach and his entire company":
*The northern Kingdom of Israel split-off led by Jeroboam to worship idols;
*The Sadducees who denied the Oral Law;
*The Samaritans who built another religion at Mount Gerizim;
*The Christians who deified Jesus;
*The Karaites who dropped the Talmud;
*The Sabbatians and Frankists who apostacized to Islam and Christianity;
*Reform or secular atheist Jews who reject the Divinity of the Torah and the 613 mitzvot.
These are not candidates for "dialicts" or a synthesis of any sort! Sure, Shammai and Hillel, and all "disputes for the sake of Heaven" (meaning they do not seek to uproot normative Judaism), can be part of a "dialectic" perhaps, but to roll up your sleeves and start salivating at the prospect of "uniting" idol-worshippers with Monotheists, or deniers of the Torah with fervent believers of the Torah and its commandments, or followers of Jesus and Islam with those who rather gave their lives than submit to such views, would be crackpot original research not worthy of any encyclopedia. IZAK (Simshalom) 06:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Izak, we Wikipedia contributors do not get to decide what is, or what is not, a candidate for dialectical religious debate. It is a historical fact that such dialectics do exist. That is precisely why we have Reform Judaism, Karaism, Samaritans, etc. In fact you yourself have already written in detail on this very topic; you merely avoided using the word "dialectic", and used another synonym for the subject. And I like what you wrote! I think that the controversy is that you see Leifern's terminology as promoting the view that religious Jews are obligated to view all these different systems as the same, but I don't think that he is really making that claim. Like you, I reject religious relativism.

IZAK, I don't think we're in much of a disagreement in our points of view, and I think your points are helpful in articulating the issue. So, here goes:
I think we can agree that lumping Hillel and Shammai in with, say, Sabbatei Zevi, and calling them all "schisms" is misleading. While they both involved disputes, what was argued about, the manner in which the argument took place, and how it ended, are vastly different.
From the POV of Samaritans, Karaites, and Christians, which outcome was for the sake of heaven has a different interpretation. In other words, categorically labeling some disputes as "kosher" or not is inherently POV. (And I should point out that Chasidim were excommunicated at one point).
Whether or not the term "dialectic" is too tendentious is something we should discuss (schism is no better, imho), but my point is that these were disputes that led to important changes. In some cases, groups disassociated themselves from each other; in others, one side prevailed; in others yet, there was clarification.
I think it is possible to write an article that is both encyclopedic and draws the distinction you are trying to make, but it is going to be challenging, but also a great learning experience.--Leifern 14:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let us be careful not to confuse the discussion of dialectics with the idea of accepting halakha as normative. These ideas have nothing to do with each other. In fact, the concepts are orthogonal. Of course one can talk about dialectics between halakhic and non-halakhic Jewish worldviews. In fact, people can and do talk about dialectics between Judaism and other religons, such as Islam and Christianity. One can even discuss in a dialectical fashion the relationship between theism (including Judaism, Islam and Christianity) and atheism.
Izak, you yourself have written a lot about the dialectical debates in Judaism. You simply didn't use the word "dialectics". You seem to be under the impression that the use of that word means accepting that all parties are equally correct. I agree with yuo that our articles should not push such a view. RK

IZAK's responses to Leifern and RK:

Hi, since Leifern's and RK's comments are somewhat bundled together above, I will try to respond collectively to them here IZAK (Simshalom) 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC):

*"Karaism, Samaritans" these two are so small and marginal today they are basically only of academic interest. Let's not blow them out of proportion in the final analysis of this subject (as they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"...i.e. in the judgment of history, those movements failed and are DOA in many ways...like disecting a corpse really.)
*Note: It is important to differentiate between ongoing and never-ending "dialectical religious debate" and what is more settled in the world (or as settled as one can hope for, given a world of flux). Otherwise one runs the danger of presenting "mush", rather than explaining what the "original ingredients" are. If I may use the analagy from chemistry, the chemicals in the periodic table of the chemical elements remain STABLE and as a FIXITY, it would be fatal and dumb to confuse combinations and consequences (both positive and negative ones) of chemical mixtures, with the importance of understanding that the chemical elements made up of secure atoms must remain in one piece, at least in the mind of the objective scholar and writer... for we all know the consequnces of "splitting" atoms... "nuclear explosion" with "deathly radiation'... so let's keep perspective here...the "debate" is not the "substance" (i.e. "the true subject") itself. Or as they say: "Keep your eye on the ball" (of reality and facts). (Pardon my mixed metaphors... bad habit).
*Reform is still powerful (but waning as it struggles to hold onto members rapidly marrying out of the faith i.e its members are becoming de facto Christians as they marry into the vast Christain world)...controversial but nevertheless true. Reform is different to "Karaism and the Samaritans" because the latter two held tightly to the written law of the Tanakh at least (and still failed as religious movements...i.e. they basically do not exist in any meaningful way), but they rejected the rabbis and the Talmud -- whereas Reform rejects both the Tanakh's divinely-inspired origins and rejects the authority of the Talmud and its classical rabbis (because Reform is more the captive of the anti-religious secular Haskalah in general). So we are dealing with "chalk and cheese" and different categories of rebels and rejectionists against rabbinic Judaism. (How am I doing with facts?... That's all that counts in the end.)
*Yes, I do think that there is a danger that Leifern's approach may lead to the creation of false notions about how Judaism develops and influences as well as interacts with the world outside of itself, not just for "religious Jews" -- you can forget about them here, they are not going to get their primary information from Wikipedia and its subsidiaries snaking out over the Web, and besides, many rabbis have banned the use of the Internet other than for "business" -- but rather, it's the serious question of how will the world at large, the members of humanity at large, come to conceive of a Judaism "reaching out" and influencing the world and the counter-influences Judaism has always contended with? That is why this type of article must be handled with supreme caution.
*To state that the "Samaritans, Karaites, and Christians, which outcome was for the sake of heaven" is simply FALSE, historically and theologically. And they did NOT have ".. a different interpretation"... they in fact wanted to shut down the old system entirely by creating a compeletly new self-concocted one (each for their own reasons). Which source of Judaism says that "Samaritans, Karaites, and Christians, which outcome was for the sake of heaven has a different interpretation" besides Reform-like scholars who will grasp at any straws to "justify" their own very different type of break from Judaism???
*Yes, "Samaritans, Karaites, and Christians" represented religious movements, that may, from a long distance of time, seem like they are something akin to an "orthodox" type of religion (for lack of better wording) in keeping with their ages, but they were never ragarded as falling under the category of "for the sake of heaven" by any notable rabbis or Jewish scholars during their times, on the contrary, the rabbis in their time fought them tooth and nail, and that is why there was a total schism with them which was conducted via a very confrontational sort of approach with them, that we would feel very uncomfortable with today. So guard your words.
*Yes Chasidim were put into Cherem, but they never abandoned the Talmud or the ways of the ancient rabbis, on the contrary, the Chasidim proved that they aspired to the Talmud's values and its Laws even more, something that cannot be said about the Karaites, Samaritrans or Christians who point-blank dumped the Talmud, and with it, the entire corpus of established Jewish law that comes from it. These are historical facts, nothing "POV" about it at all. (IZAK Simshalom)

IZAK, I think you'll appreciate that - regardless of our individual opinions on these matters - we can not write an encyclopedic entry that labels any kind of religious conviction as "wrong." I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that you want to avoid any kind of confusion about what constitutes normative Judaism. In other words, you want to make it clear that what happens within Judaism is different from what happens between Judaism and other religious systems. I think we agree that this topic has to be handled with great delicacy. You're warning RK not to twist this into something that follows the CJ party line, and I'm sure he'd be inclined to send you a similar warning. Without a doubt, there will be disagreements, but hey, that's what this is all about :-) --Leifern 13:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When did I say we have to write that "any kind of religious conviction as 'wrong' "? I don't think you grasp the flow of my thoughts correctly. If you do not understand me, please ask, I will be glad to explain myself again. What I do object to is to write things that are false as in "is a statement true or false?" (because, as in logic, many arguments cannot be either all or both "true" and "false" etc. at the same time. Classical Judaism is not a religion that adheres to Relativism -- which is a phenomenon of modern times and is not in keeping with Judaism's notions of being an "eternal faith" -- a complex topic indeed, very different to what most people think religions are nowadays.) Since you admit that you may be "putting words in my mouth", I will confirm your view that, indeed, you are putting words into my mouth, saying things that I never said. In fact I do not follow your logic at one point, which doesn't seem to flow: You say that I "want to avoid any kind of confusion about what constitutes normative Judaism" and then you add that I also "...want to make it clear that what happens within Judaism is different from what happens between Judaism and other religious systems". And my reaction is, where do you see this from my responses above? Finally, I am not "warning" RK or anyone else, but in the past, RK has stated that he adheres to a Conservative (Judaism) outlook, and I was commenting upon that based on my long-term interactions with him (over three years!). Whenever he starts to yell that "Wikipedia is not an Orthodox encyclopedia" my standard retort to him is that "Wikipedia is not a Conservative encyclopedia" either. And as I mentioned below, I say it somewhat "tongue in cheek". Be well. IZAK (Simshalom) 11:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of this has to do with the qualifier one either explicitly or implicitly puts in front of a sentence. "According to classical Judaism" may be one that is important to you. I doubt that any religion would cop to being a relativistic religion. There is always the conviction that a core is permanent and immutable, precisely because there is some concept of revelation. Just what the propositional content of that core causes wars, schisms, etc. --Leifern 12:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So from this last comment is one to gather that you view the "core" of Judaism, as say, no different to any other religions or even anti-"religions" like Satanism or Voodoo? IZAK (Simshalom) 12:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal

I agree with Izak and JFW that we should merge this article with the already extant article on Schisms within Judaism. I also agree that we should avoid giving the impression that the article promotes religious relativism; it should simply describe the various debates in a neutral manner, as Izak has already expertly done, and as Leifern is currently doing. The resulting article may need to be renamed. In doing this merge we should prepare a careful analysis of the context for the dispute, what its core elements were, how it was resolved, and what the lasting implications were. (Sorry Leifern, I stole the ideas right out of your mouth! :) ) RK 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What RK is saying now does sound reasonable to me, on condition that the Conservative Judaism POV does not become the new "gold standard" of articles about Judaism. IZAK (Simshalom) 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

We have no disagreement. Are you concerned that such an article would push a Conservative Jewish view of halakha or theology? As far as I know, it wouldn't push any form of theology or halakha. As I see it, the article would do no more than what you have already done: discuss the dynamics of debates that have led to the schism in Judaism . RK 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

RK: I'm not worried, there is lot's of room on Wikipedia for everyone's sensible research and contributions, even if the "real world" ain't always so. I fully agree: It's totally fine to "discuss the dynamics of debates that have led to the schism in Judaism", no problem, my earlier comments were made "tongue in cheek". IZAK (Simshalom) 10:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


Speedy Deletion

I created this article originally and have now considered it's redundant to other articles. Although the emphasis is a bit different in this one, I would rather that we try to make Schisms in Judaism cover this topic. --Leifern 21:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dialectics_in_Judaism"
- posted by Izak @ 4:52 AM (0) comments

 
Chabad’s Global Warming: Outsiders praise ‘the most effective Jewish organization.’
Reaching Jews the world over...
By
Jonathan Mark - Associate Editor
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=11742

(12/02/2005)

If messianism hadn’t become such a malignant word with which cynics and rivals indiscriminately tar, feather and suspect every Chabad-Lubavitch chasid, it would be easier to say that last week’s annual convention of the Lubavitcher rebbe’s shluchim (emissaries) was nothing less than messianic.

No, not the messianism of a quadrant of Lubavitchers who still believe that the rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who died in 1994, is indeed the Messiah and somehow alive. In fact, every written word about the rebbe in the convention’s papers and programs was suffixed with the Hebrew acronym indicating that the rebbe’s emissaries, the elite of Chabad-Lubavitch, clearly recognize, as the coroner says in Munchkin Land, that he’s not only merely dead but really most sincerely dead. One has to be blunt, for that is what the cynics demand, even if it brings a tear to a chasid’s eye as much as if anyone had to swear under cross-examination that, yes, someone I loved is now cold in the ground.

Ethically and spiritually, though, the rebbe is alive and his movement is hot. Almost 100 couples went out into the world as the rebbe’s emissaries in the past year, bringing the total number to nearly 4,000. Chabad Houses opened for the first time in Poland and Laos, pushing the number of countries in which Chabad operates to over 70.

As Rabbi Berel Lazar, chief rabbi of Chabad’s Russian operations put it, the shluchim are still guided by the rebbe’s principal that “no Jew is too small, no effort too big, no result insignificant. He gave us the strength and the courage,” said Rabbi Lazar, “the blessing to understand the infinite value of one lone Jew.”

And when the actual Messiah does arrive to his fabled Banquet of the Leviathan, the joy at that apocalyptic feast might only hope to approach the energy, spirit, and foot-stomp dancing that had the silverware bouncing off the tables and the fine china rattling at last Sunday night’s shluchim banquet at the New York Hilton.

The stories told at the conference were like a messianic checklist, from reviving the dead (albeit metaphorically) to ingathering exiles and other unearthly deeds.

Revival of the dead? Less than 15 years ago, the conventional wisdom among Jewish professionals was that Jewish life in the Soviet Union was as dead as the rebbe is now. Nevertheless, Chabad today has returned soul to dry bones, with permanent rabbis in 105 cities in the former Soviet Union, and circuit shluchim servicing 321 towns beyond that. Since last year’s conference, Chabad shluchim welcomed 200,000 Jews to services, and energized American philanthropists into donating $35.9 million – earning a spot on the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s annual “Philanthropy 400” list, where the group ranked 391. And that’s just Chabad of Russia.

Among the prominent New York philanthropists, George Rohr helped with the publishing of more than 200,000 Russian siddurs and religious books. And Michael Steinhardt helped finance a Chabad youth movement that now has members in more than 100 cities of the former Soviet Union. Steinhardt, who has spent scores of millions on projects for Jewish identity in the United States, said in conversation outside the ballroom, “Chabad is perhaps the most effective organization in the Jewish world. I think that. I really do. I’m trying to learn from Chabad.”

According to the Yeshiva University student newspaper, “only seven or eight students [from the YU rabbinical school are] going into the pulpit rabbinate annually.” By contrast, last year Chabad sent 25 pulpit rabbis to the Ukraine alone.

Stories were brought back from the ends of the earth. The Chabad shaliach to Malmo, Sweden, American-born Shneur Kessleman, proudly announced that after one year on the job, “My Kol Nidre speech was in Swedish.”

There were 2,094 shluchim at the dinner, and they brought another 800 “civilians”—friends and supporters, many of whom were not chasidic, Orthodox or even Jewish, such as the ambassadors to the United Nations from Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Moldavia and Kazakhstan, each seated with their local Chabad shluchim.

Chabad's success in parts of Europe and Russia has sometimes been met with resentment on the part of others working the same turf, albeit in smaller numbers. Chabad's religious soft-sell has been contrasted with its raw political muscle and machinations, helped by Russian President Vladimir Putin's patronage. The matter was addressed by a conference workshop, 'Interacting with the existing Jewish, rabbinic and secular organizations.'

Alan Dershowitz, another non-Chasid, was there to deliver the convention’s layman’s address. He began his speech with a “Wow! What a gathering! The energy! The love! The Yiddishkeit in the room is beyond belief.”

He said that when New York Magazine found out he’d be speaking at the Chabad banquet, they called and asked, “Why? Why are you… speaking in front of Chabad? You don’t agree with all of their policies.” Their implication was, said Dershowitz, “If you don’t agree with everything, you agree with nothing. I explained that what I learned more than anything from Chabad is how to emphasize points of agreement rather than points of disagreement. Chabad doesn’t require agreement. They simply open themselves up to Jews.”

Dershowitz admitted to skepticism when he first heard Chabad was sending a shaliach to Harvard University, where he’s a law professor. Dershowitz said, “My idea was, [Chabad in] Siberia? That’s nothing. Central Africa? That’s a breeze. Chabad at Harvard? How can that ever happen? Kids come to Harvard to rebel against religion, to look for more liberal attitudes.”

But, said Dershowitz, a few weeks ago, 400 Harvard students showed up for Chabad’s Friday night dinner. Chabad’s presence on campuses “is absolutely crucial… to make young people proud of being Jewish” and proud to support Israel. “We cannot rest until there is a Chabad shaliach on every major college campus in the world,” he said.

Rabbi Lazar recalled that in a Kremlin conversation, Putin told him about how he grew up terribly poor, with neighbors who were chasidim. “They always made sure to invite him over. They served him supper. They helped him with his homework. Friday night they gave him gefilte fish and knaidlach,” said the rabbi.

“He remembered,” said Rabbi Lazar, “watching this Yid learning the Talmud and keeping Shabbos. He realized, not only were they kind to a child who wasn’t theirs, kind to a child who wasn’t Jewish, but they were kind to a child in a time and place when it was dangerous for Jews to do all that.”

Thirty years later, said Rabbi Lazar, first as Leningrad’s deputy mayor and now as Russian president, Putin has been “more than encouraging to Jewish rebirth in Russia.”

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, the author of numerous books on Jewish ethics, literacy and identity, was at the banquet as a friend of the shluchim from North Carolina. Halfway through the evening he passed a note from his table to mine: “Chabad models more powerfully than any group I know the Talmudic teaching that whoever saves one life it’s as if he saved an entire world. They really and consistently treat each individual as sacred. And they do so joyfully and uncomplainingly, and to not complain is not such a common thing in Jewish life.”

Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky read the roll call and the shluchim stood up, table by table, in response to his booming voice: “Asia – let’s welcome the shluchim from China! The shluchim from India …. Japan … Nepal … Singapore … Thailand … Laos. We welcome the shaliach from the Congo,” and the traveling shluchim who serve Nigeria, Niger, Gabon, Namibia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya and Angola.

The band punched out the Marseillaise for the delegation from France, and when the roll call was finished all 2,891 shluchim and friends started dancing, weaving around the ballroom, arm on shoulder, to the raucous melody known as the “Niggun of Rosh Chodesh Kislev.”

When the banquet was over, some 500 shluchim returned to the big shul in Chabad headquarters at 770 Eastern Parkway to fabreng — that unique chasidic get-together celebrating Torah, schnapps, stories, songs and camaraderie.

The fabrengen kept going until the sun lifted over Brooklyn. It was time for morning prayer, and then to catch a plane.
- posted by Izak @ 1:17 AM (2) comments

 
Russian "Jewishness" in Israel
Zionism brought them, but halakha rejected them
From http://www.haaretz.com/
Fri., December 02, 2005 Kislev 1, 5766

By Lily Galili

Yelena and Victor Albertman, new immigrants from the former Soviet Union, were married a year and a half ago in Bulgaria. They had no other choice - Victor is a Jew on his mother's side; Yelena is Jewish on her father's side. The joyless wedding in a foreign land legalized the bond between them, but failed to address a painful problem: the couple has two children, a 7-year-old girl and a 2-year-old boy, and they are not considered Jewish.

The Albertman family, who live in Lod, is one of tens of thousands of families who have found themselves on the inevitable collision course between the Zionist ethos and halakha. The Zionist ethos eagerly brings them here by the Law of Return; the halakha laws reject them upon arrival.
If their younger son marries a Jewish woman, his problems will be over. However, the Israeli-born girl who will be considered an Israeli but not a Jew - unless she converts - will have even greater difficulty than her mother understanding the labyrinth she was born into. As a woman and a mother, she is destined to perpetuate her problem for generations. This is mainly because some 90 percent of the immigrants from former Soviet states tend to marry among themselves. Therefore the chances of a child born to new immigrants - who is not Jewish according to halakha - marrying a spouse from the Russian-speaking community are high. Neither they nor perhaps their children will be able to marry in Israel for generations to come.

"We don't think about it much, because it hurts," says Albertman, who is formulating a civil code for the Democratic Choice party. "Maybe the children will choose to convert in the future. That's an option too, although it is not normal and not democratic. In America there are Jewish streams that recognize people as Jews if their father is Jewish. That does not seem realistic in Israel, but other solutions could be found. My wife and I love Israel and have chosen to live in it. It only needs to be changed. We need a revolution."

No revolution is in sight, but perpetuating the problems certainly is. Professor Arnon Sofer from University of Haifa says that statisticians estimate that 400,000 non-Jewish Russian speakers will be living in Israel by 2020, compared with 300,000 today. Perpetuating the problem will make the distress more acute. If a mixed couple arriving in Israel today finds it hard to cope with the discrimination, it would be even harder to explain to the children born here that they may be Israelis, but don't really belong to the Jewish community.

Already the plight of the halakhically non-Jewish youth is intense. Even new immigrants' organizations don't like talking about it, but the ratio of non-Jewish juvenile delinquents in the immigrant youth community is especially high. The easier conversion courses offered by the IDF provide only a partial answer.

"For years the Reform Movement in Israel has been pushing the option of recognizing people whose fathers are Jewish as Jews, as they do in the U.S. - but in vain," says Reform Rabbi Gregory Kotler. "The movement in Israel is more conservative. If we had enough courageous Orthodox rabbis, there is even support for it in the halakha. But ultimately they all fear what Rabbi Ovadia Yosef will say."

Kotler, 37, is familiar with the problem. He immigrated from Ukraine in 1991 and became the first Reform rabbi from that wave of immigration. For the last four years he served as the Reform Movement's envoy in Russia.

"You don't have to create a new social minority in Israel," he says sadly. "Immigrants devoid of any religious `categorization' have opened synagogues in homes in Ashdod and Ariel. A person with religious needs who is rejected by one religion turns to another," he says.

Jewish Agency Chairman Zeev Bielsky believes that the stories about conversion difficulties - such as Jewish soldiers' burial difficulties - that reach former Soviet states have a bad influence on immigration to Israel.

"It would be wrong to try to convert them there, before their immigration," he says. "It could be interpreted as missionary work, something no sovereign state would tolerate."

First ten readers' responses (out of more than 200) to the above article at the Haaretz's "Talkback":

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/652230.html

*Name: Roni (City: Tel-Aviv):
The non-Jewish population (immigrants and especially Arabs) is growing from generation to generation. Yet the lobby of the rabbis make it more and more difficult to become Jewish demanding the converts to follow an absurd ultra-Orthodox form of ghetto-Judaism from Diaspora as their life model in Eretz Israel. Open the gates of Am Israel so that we may survive!
*Name: Larissa of Moscow:
Why is the Law of Return rejecting 10 millions Palestinians who are driven by even a greater desire to settle in the Zionist Land? Why only Russian non-Jews? Isn`t this practice racist?
*Name: SJ (City: Tel Aviv):
Who cares, if they are mad enough to come and live in Israel and get involved with all this who is a jew nonsense then thats there choice.
They live here, they have Israeli passports.
So why do we have to be catogrised by a bunch of morraly bankrupt politicians and rabbies. Who cares what they think? if you were a stranger in a foreign land just wait to see how they treat you here!
*Name: nathan der weise:
will someone sack these over-zealous thought police?
what nonsense is this?they consider themselves to be jewish and you will not allow it? anyone who considers himself jewish is jewish. that is all you know and all you need to know.
*Name: Jake in Texas:
To Roni #1: I could not agree more(except maybe the ghetto part). The vast majority of Jewish people in the world are not ultraorthodox. As such,these rabbis do not speak for Judaism. I am tired of hearing Orthodox people acting as though they are the true Jews and the rest of us are somehow Jews-light. We have to become more tolerant of ourselves and more inclusive if we are to survive. We need to respect each other, Orthodox, Conservative, Perform, Reconstructionist, or Secular. We have enough problems within ever rising tide of world anti-Semitism. Don`t believe me? Watch what happens on this discussion group. Before long, the conversation will have turned to how Jews are a bunch of racists who discriminate against Palestinians. Expect words like fascist, apartheid, and even Nazi to appear.
*Name: Daniel Moldavsky (United Kingdom):
My catholic wife and I emigrated to Israel from Argentina in 1990. By any account, we were considered a success story. Both revalidated our medical degree, found work as doctors in recognised hospitals, and our two daughters were a success as well. However, this was attained at the cost of my wife concealing her identity, refusing to answer the question about "how was her Jewish affiliation in Argentina" and the like. It seems that Israelis are simply non prepared to deal with the problem.
On March 2004, I think, I was on a directors` meeting at my hospital. News came about the bombing in Madrid train station, and a well known colleague, professor at Tel-Aviv University, aid literally "who cares about all these goyim". I understood that it was time to leave. We live now in the UK. My wife can openly talk about her religion, and so can I. I am not making an idealization of the British way to deal with the subject. However, Israel will certainly loose people like us if the approach does not change. And it looks that it will not. Our two daughters are now serving at the IDF, and they need to carry on the "problem". Maybe they will join us, maybe not. In any case, the only solution is clearly the separation between Religion and State. Please, if there is a comment, will it be constructive. Many thanks.
*Name: octavio (Hamburg, Germany):
If the nazis would have listened to the rabbis there would have been less victims of the Holocaust, as many of those killed during the weren`t jews in the meaning of the halacha. Many came from assimilated families, were baptized. But the nazis did not care as for them it was not a religious but a racist problem. So the Law of Return was created for those who were or would have been prosecuted where ever in the world because of their jewish background. The Tlaw of Return is a Law of Protection for anyone who is prosecuted/endangered because of beeing jewish - religious or not. For once and ever keep religion out of politics.
*Name: Nicole (London /Tel Aviv):
The Jewish people consist of less than 0.001% of world population. I dont think this is the time to turn Jews away from the religion or our beloved homeland.
*Name: bm (t/a, israel):
the problem facing these people is a real dilema for both them and the state and the
options in reality are limited it is unlikely that the religious groups, would ever consider changing their rules and as such the civil society has to help these peoples who are trapped between the devil and the deep blue sea
*Name: Sarah Howard (Jerusalem, Israel):
No great thing being Jewish. Being Jewish is no big deal. It`s only a religious status. It does not make you a better person or a more patriotic Israeli. I fail to see any problem!
- posted by Izak @ 10:17 PM (0) comments