Ask The Rabbi!!

[TomHagen]

Originally Posted by DougBushBC

Rabbi, I'm Roman Catholic and my Girlfriend is Reform Jewish. How does the Jewish Faith view such an interfaith marriage when we start heading that way?
Posted via Mobile Device

PM me.

[TomHagen]

Originally Posted by DougBushBC

Rabbi, I'm Roman Catholic and my Girlfriend is Reform Jewish. How does the Jewish Faith view such an interfaith marriage when we start heading that way?
Posted via Mobile Device

The Jewish faith forbids intermarriage in all its forms.

Being born to a Jewish mother, who was in turn, born to a Jewish mother etc. etc., is what qualifies a person as "Jewish".
Children born to a Jewish mother, no matter who the father is, are in fact - Jewish. There is nothing that can change this. Coversely, children born to a non-Jewish mother, no matter who the father is, are in fact, NON-Jews. The only thing they can do to become Jewish is convert according to Jewish Law.
Moniker's such as "reform", "conservative", "orthodox" etc. really have no bearing on a person's "Jewish-ness".

Here is a great website: http://www.doronkornbluth.com/

I hope this helps!

Originally Posted by TomHagen

The Jewish faith forbids intermarriage in all its forms.

Being born to a Jewish mother, who was in turn, born to a Jewish mother etc. etc., is what qualifies a person as "Jewish".
Children born to a Jewish mother, no matter who the father is, are in fact - Jewish. There is nothing that can change this. Coversely, children born to a non-Jewish mother, no matter who the father is, are in fact, NON-Jews. The only thing they can do to become Jewish is convert according to Jewish Law.
Moniker's such as "reform", "conservative", "orthodox" etc. really have no bearing on a person's "Jewish-ness".

Here is a great website: http://www.doronkornbluth.com/

I hope this helps!

Hey there Tom - I know that's the 'technical' requirement but I fear it leads to misrepresentation to non-Jews and possible promotion of xenophobia for fellow Jews. While it is a technicality, I think DougBushBC should know (and maybe does) that Judaism is a beautiful religion that doesn't impose restrictions. I feel (and I'm sure others do too) that you're Jewish if you want to be Jewish. I feel that it's an individual's choice to choose and shouldn't be restricted to thinking that it's not possible or you're somehow inferior because one's mother isn't Jewish. Obviously, you can convert but still, the above technicality may lead someone to think they're somehow inferior and I don't think that's healthy nor do I think it's the intent of Jewish law. I've met plenty of very religioius Jews whose mothers weren't Jewish. I don't feel that they must convert and I certainly don't feel they're any less Jewish and I guess that's really what I'm getting at. I just don't want folks to get the wrong idea, you know? And I don't want Jews with Jewish mothers to somehow think we're any better than those without truly Jewish mothers or promote to non-Jews that's how we feel. And I don't want Doug to think that his gal's family will shun him and her for possibly marrying and God forbid their marrying be some kind of terrible sin. I'm very grateful that my family welcomed mrsreindeer with open arms and I feel I'm a good person and a good Jew. But that's just me.

Just my two cents.

[TomHagen]

Originally Posted by mrreindeer

Hey there Tom - I know that's the 'technical' requirement but I fear it leads to misrepresentation to non-Jews and possible promotion of xenophobia for fellow Jews. While it is a technicality, I think DougBushBC should know (and maybe does) that Judaism is a beautiful religion that doesn't impose restrictions. I feel (and I'm sure others do too) that you're Jewish if you want to be Jewish. I feel that it's an individual's choice to choose and shouldn't be restricted to thinking that it's not possible or you're somehow inferior because one's mother isn't Jewish. Obviously, you can convert but still, the above technicality may lead someone to think they're somehow inferior and I don't think that's healthy nor do I think it's the intent of Jewish law. I've met plenty of very religioius Jews whose mothers weren't Jewish. I don't feel that they must convert and I certainly don't feel they're any less Jewish and I guess that's really what I'm getting at. I just don't want folks to get the wrong idea, you know? And I don't want Jews with Jewish mothers to somehow think we're any better than those without truly Jewish mothers or promote to non-Jews that's how we feel. And I don't want Doug to think that his gal's family will shun him and her for possibly marrying and God forbid their marrying be some kind of terrible sin. I'm very grateful that my family welcomed mrsreindeer with open arms and I feel I'm a good person and a good Jew. But that's just me.

Just my two cents.

With all due respect, I believe what we are trying to accomplish with this thread is create THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE of xenophobia, which is a unbiased, clear, friendly and truthful source of information about all things Jewish and how Judaism interfaces with the world.

Contary to what you stated, Judaism is a beautiful religion with MANY restrictions, in fact we have 248 positive commandments and 365 negative commandments, equaling 613 Commandments (Mitzvot). The Torah dictates what is and what is not permissible, who is a Jew and prohibits him/her from intermarriage.

That being said, no one should ever feel 'inferior' for not having a Jewish mother, that is a ridiculous assertation. Judaism is a role oreinted religion, everyone's role being important. Like a baseball team, where if a catcher decided to play his position from the pitcher's mound, and the pitcher stood in rightfield... etc. that team would not be functional. THIS is unhealthy, not the slight repositioning of a person's perspective through education and TRUE information about the way the Torah says a Jew should (or should not behave). So too with the world. A Jew has his/her role, a non-Jew theirs, each being wholly (and holy ) important to creating a better world. A person cannot just decide to be Jewish, their momma's got to be Jewish or convert. There is no such thing as being 'less Jewish' - a Jew is a Jew and a non-Jew is not Jewish, and wonderfully so - they ( & we) are who they are. That's great about the way G-d created the world. The more we clearly define, through friendly true education and communication, the better off we will all be, truly knowing where we stand and making each other better. This should not cause any harm or inferiority, but the opposite, giving him/her the TRUTH about what they are getting into and they can make an informed decision, not one couched in 'feelings'.

I thank you for your opening these lines of communication in a positive way.

ps the original questioner probably found this thread, and thereby my perspective to be open enough and according to Torah-true Judaism, to even pose this question and to find out about what Judaism says and beneficial PM's have been sent. Good Stuff.

[Mark]

What's your favorite recipe from the settlement cookbook, rabbi?

[TomHagen]

Originally Posted by BostonMark

What's your favorite recipe from the settlement cookbook, rabbi?

DUDE! Excellent question!!!

It's all about brisket in my house!! from my great-grandmother's recipe based on the Settlement Cookbook.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by TomHagen

DUDE! Excellent question!!!

It's all about brisket in my house!! from my great-grandmother's recipe based on the Settlement Cookbook.

Nothing better!

[TomHagen]

Here's a great link:
http://www.chabad.org/library/articl...ermarriage.htm

[TomHagen]

mrreindeer - looking forward to having a smoke with you next time I am in Cali. Thanks for the friendship brotha!

[TomHagen]

Bump... for the new year!

[ActionAndy]

Hello again my friend,

It seems to me that God changes his mind a lot. He used to flatten cities with meteors and now he doesn't seem to be paying attention. I know about the "mysterious ways," but do your texts offer any explanations for this sort of thing? I guess I'm asking why God seems to get "nicer" if you read about him... lol

[TomHagen]

Originally Posted by ActionAndy

Hello again my friend,

It seems to me that God changes his mind a lot. He used to flatten cities with meteors and now he doesn't seem to be paying attention. I know about the "mysterious ways," but do your texts offer any explanations for this sort of thing? I guess I'm asking why God seems to get "nicer" if you read about him... lol

Great question...

It is not that G-d, Heaven forbid, changes His mind, but the world rather has evolved on some level and people have changed it.

For instance, a pivitol point in the existance of the world was the advent of Avraham (Abraham) the first Jew. In Jewish mysticism, he is exemplified by the attribute of Supreme Kindness - welcoming guests, dealing with the tests G-d threw at him, saving his wicked brother in law... etc. Most of the destruction mentioned in the Torah occurred before he was around, and even when G-d wanted to destroy Sodom & Gemorrah, he acted on their behalf, to try and save them. After Avraham, people become more civilized with the advant of the "One-G-d" belief system started and encouraged by Avraham, encouraging blessing & thanking the True One G-d for food, etc... After this we rarely find any whole cities destroyed from Above.
Even after Noach (Noah), generations before Avraham, G-d makes a pact not to destroy the world again, and Noach becomes the progenitor for the human race. Humanity is given a great gift - the 7 Noahide Laws (7 Mitzvahs Bnei Noach) The people are less evil after this, less idol-worship etc.

So G-d's actions in this world, parrallel those of the people. As more and more people dropped idolatry, started keeping the 7 Mitzvahs, setting up court systems, believing in One G-d etc...

Until the giving of the Torah to Moshe, generations later, finally giving the ability to bring Heaven down to earth and rectifying creation.

I could go on, so if you need more, I got it. I hope this helps!!

[ActionAndy]

Thanks for the answer. I think it's a fascinating subject so if you've got more on it feel free

How about Cro Magnons/Neanderthals? Rough drafts? They fit fine with my own personal spiritual view of the universe but I'm curious how your faith views them.

[TomHagen]

Originally Posted by ActionAndy

How about Cro Magnons/Neanderthals? Rough drafts? They fit fine with my own personal spiritual view of the universe but I'm curious how your faith views them.

Here's a GREAT, yet long answer which sums up a lot of the Science (evolution) vs. l'havdil Torah... enjoy!

The following is a personal correspondence from the Lubavitcher Rebbe

on the subject of Creation and science, written in 1961 C.E.


By the Grace of G-d
18th of Teveth, 5722
Brooklyn, New York

Greeting and Blessing:

It was quite a surprise to me to learn that you are still troubled by the problem of the age of the world as suggested by various scientific theories which cannot be reconciled with the Torah view that the world is 5722 years old.

I underlined the word theories, for it is necessary to bear in mind, first of all, that science formulates and deals with theories and hypotheses, while the Torah deals with absolute truths. These are two different disciplines, where "reconciliation" is entirely out of place.

It was especially surprising to me that, according to the report, the said "problem" is bothering you to the extent that it has trespassed upon your daily [religious] life…. I sincerely hope that the impression conveyed to me is an erroneous one. For, as you know, … [it is mandatory] to fulfil G-d's commandments regardless of the degree of understanding, and obedience to the Divine Law can never be conditioned upon human approval. In other words, lack of understanding, and even the existence of "legitimate" doubts, can never justify disobedience to the Divine commandments; how much less, when the doubts are "illegitimate", in the sense that they have no real or logical basis, such as the "problem" in question.

Basically, the "problem" has its roots in a misconception of the scientific method or, simply, of what science is. We must distinguish between empirical or experimental science dealing with, and confined to, describing and classifying observable phenomena, and speculative "science", dealing with unknown phenomena, sometimes phenomena that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. "Scientific speculation" is actually a terminological incongruity; for "science", strictly speaking, means "knowledge", while no speculation can be called knowledge in the strict sense of the word. At best, science can only speak in terms of theories inferred from certain known facts and applied in the realm of the unknown. Here science has two general methods of inference;

(a) The method of interpolation (as distinguished from extrapolation), whereby, knowing the reaction under two extremes, we attempt to infer that the reaction might be at any point between the two.

(b) The method of extrapolation, whereby inferences are made beyond a known range, on the basis of certain variables within the known range. For example, suppose we know the variables of a certain element within a temperature range of 0° to 100°, and on the basis of this we estimate what the reaction might be at 101°, 200°, or 2000°.

Of the two methods, the second (extrapolation) is clearly the more uncertain. Moreover, the uncertainty increases with the distance away from the known range and with the decrease of this range. Thus, if the known range is between 0° and 100°, our inference at 101° has a greater probability than at 1001°.

Let us note at once, that all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world comes within the second and weaker method, that of extrapolation. The weakness becomes more apparent if we bear in mind that a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to consequent.

That an inference from consequent to antecedent is more speculative than an inference from antecedent to consequent can be demonstrated very simply:

Four divided by two equals two. Here the antecedent is represented by the dividend and divisor, and the consequent - by the quotient. Knowing the antecedent in this case, gives us one possible result - the quotient (the number 2).

However, if we know only the end result, namely, the number 2, and we, ask ourselves, how can we arrive at the number 2, the answer permits several possibilities, arrived at by means of different methods: (a) 1 plus 1 equals 2; (b) 4 - 2 equals 2; (c) 1 × 2 equals 2; (d) 4 ÷ 2 equals 2. Note that if other numbers are to come into play, the number of possibilities giving us the same result is infinite (since 5 - 3 also equals 2; 6 ÷ 3 equals 2, etc. ad infinitum). [1]

Add to this another difficulty, which is prevalent in all methods of induction. Conclusions based on certain known data, when they are ampliative [2] in nature, i.e. when they are extended to unknown areas, can have any validity at all on the assumption of "everything else being equal", that is to say on an identity of prevailing conditions, and their action and counter-action upon each other. If we cannot be sure that the variations or changes would bear at least a close relationship to the existing variables in degree; if we cannot be sure that the changes would bear any resemblance in kind; if, furthermore, we cannot be sure that there were not other factors involved - such conclusions or inferences are absolutely valueless!

For further illustration, I will refer to one of the points which I believe I mentioned during our conversation. In a chemical reaction, whether fissional or fusional, the introduction of a new catalyzer into the process, however minute the quantity of this new catalyzer may be, may change the whole tempo and form of the chemical process, or start an entirely new process.

We are not yet through with the difficulties inherent in all so-called "scientific" theories concerning the origin of the world. Let us remember that the whole structure of science is based on observances of reactions and processes in the behavior of atoms in their present state, as they now exist in nature. Scientists deal with conglomerations of billions of atoms as these are already bound together, and as these relate to other existing conglomerations of atoms. Scientists know very little of the atoms in their pristine state; of how one single atom may react on another single atom in a state of separateness; much less of how parts of a single atom may react on other parts of the same or other atoms. One thing science considers certain - to the extent that any science can be certain, namely that the reactions of single atoms upon each other is totally different from the reactions of one conglomeration of atoms to another.

We may now summarize the weaknesses, nay, hopelessness, of all so-called scientific theories regarding the origin and age of our universe:

(a) These theories have been advanced on the basis of observable data during a relatively short period of time, of only a number of decades, and at any rate not more than a couple of centuries.

(b) On the basis of such a relatively small range of known (though by no means perfectly) data, scientists venture to build theories by the weak method of extrapolation, and from the consequent to the antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, to millions and billions) of years!

(c) In advancing such theories, they blithely disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists, namely, that in the initial period of the "birth" of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other cataclystic factors, were totally different from those existing in the present state of the universe.

(d) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stage which now no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them elements the cataclystic potency of which is known even in minimal doses.

(e) The formation of the world, if we are to accept these theories began with a process of colligation (of binding together) of single atoms or the components of the atom and their conglomeration and consolidation, involving totally unknown processes and variables.

In short, of all the weak "scientific" theories, those which deal with the origin of the cosmos and with its dating are (admittedly by the scientists themselves) the weakest of the weak.

It is small wonder (and this, incidentally, is one of the obvious refutations of these theories) that the various "scientific" theories concerning the age of the universe not only contradict each other, but some of them are quite incompatible and mutually exclusive, since the maximum date of one theory is less than the minimum date of another.

If anyone accepts such a theory uncritically, it can only lead him into fallacious and inconsequential reasoning. Consider, for example, the so-called evolutionary theory of the origin of the world, which is based on the assumption that the universe evolved out of existing atomic and subatomic particles which, by an evolutionary process, combined to form the physical universe and our planet, on which organic life somehow developed also by an evolutionary process, until "homo-sapiens" emerged. It is hard to understand why one should readily accept the creation of atomic and subatomic particles in a state which is admittedly unknowable and inconceivable, yet should be reluctant to accept the creation of planets, or organisms, or a human being, as we know these to exist.

The argument from the discovery of fossils is by no means conclusive evidence of the great antiquity of the earth, for the following reasons:

(a) In view of the unknown conditions which existed in "prehistoric" times, conditions of atmospheric pressures, temperatures, radioactivity, unknown catalyzers, etc., etc. as already mentioned, conditions that is, which could have caused reactions and changes of an entirely different nature and tempo from those known under the present-day orderly processes of nature, one cannot exclude the possibility that dinosaurs existed 5722 years ago, and became fossilized under terrific natural cataclysms in the course of a few years rather than in millions of years, since we have no conceivable measurements or criteria of calculations under those unknown conditions.

(b) Even assuming that the period of time which the Torah allows for the age of the world is definitely too short for fossilization (although I do not see how one can be so categorical), we can still readily accept the possibility that G-d created ready fossils, bones or skeletons (for reasons best known to Him), just as He could create ready living organisms, a complete man, and such ready products as oil, coal or diamonds, without any evolutionary process.

As for the question, if it be true as above (b), why did G-d have to create fossils in the first place? The answer is simple: we cannot know the reason why G-d chose this manner of creation in preference to another, and whatever theory of creation is accepted, the question will always remain unanswered. The question, "Why create a fossil?" is no more valid than the question, "Why create an atom?" Certainly, such a question cannot serve as a sound argument, much less as a logical basis, for the evolutionary theory.

What scientific basis is there for limiting the creative process to an evolutionary process only, starting with atomic and subatomic particles - a theory full of unexplained gaps and complications, while excluding the possibility of creation as given by the Biblical account? For, if the latter possibility be admitted, everything falls neatly into pattern, and all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world becomes unnecessary and irrelevant.

It is surely no argument to question this possibility by saying, "Why should the Creator create a finished universe, when it would have been sufficient for Him to create an adequate number of atoms or subatomic particles with the power of colligation and evolution to develop into the present cosmic order?" The absurdity of this argument becomes even more obvious when it is made the basis of a flimsy theory, as if it were based on sound and irrefutable arguments overriding all other possibilities.

The question may be asked, "If the theories attempting to explain the origin and age of the world are so weak, how could they have been advanced in the first place?" The answer is simple. It is a matter of human nature to seek an explanation for everything in the environment, and any theory, however far-fetched, is better than none, at least until a more feasible explanation can be devised.

You may now ask, "In the absence of a sounder theory, why then isn't the Biblical account of creation accepted by these scientists?" The answer, again, is to be found in human nature. It is a natural human ambition to be inventive and original. To accept the Biblical account deprives one of the opportunity to show one's analytic and inductive ingenuity. Hence, disregarding the Biblical account, the scientist must devise reasons to "justify" his doing so, and he takes refuge in classifying it with ancient and primitive "mythology" and the like, since he cannot really argue against it on scientific grounds.

If you are still troubled by the theory of evolution, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that it has not a shred of evidence to support it. On the contrary, during the years of research and investigation since the theory was first advanced, it had been possible to observe certain species of animal and plant life of a short life-span over thousands of generations, yet it has never been possible to establish a transmutation from one species into another, much less to turn a plant into an animal. Hence such a theory can have no place in the arsenal of empirical science.

have u seen my wallet ? i lost it

[TomHagen]

Originally Posted by adampc22

have u seen my wallet ? i lost it

Sorry to hear that.

I love the dry British humor

It's in El Segundo.
click here for more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpPkGZ6zhzA

[TomHagen]

I know I am doing a large amount of cut/paste, but it truly is the best way to answer for those truly interested.... keep the questions coming!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The following is another correspondence from the Lubavitcher Rebbe on the

subjects of Creation and science, and the attitudes of scientists, from 1964 C.E.

Source: "L'chaim Weekly," number 845, Nov. 19, '04

... My said letter does not appeal to "belief"; its premises are scientific, based on my years of scientific study, first at the University of Berlin, and later at Paris. I upheld the possibility of the Creation account in Bereishis [Genesis] on scientific grounds. On the other hand, I pointed out, that the so-called scientific arguments which purport to deny the possibility of the Torah account of Creation are not scientific, since in truth science does not, and cannot, make such a claim. Moreover, modern science declares that it can never offer an unequivocal scientific solution to this and similar problems.

The reason for this is not that modern science is still incomplete, but rather because of the very nature of science which can never speak in absolute terms; it can only offer working theories and hypotheses.

Science can only examine and classify phenomena, and make probable, deductions and predictions. If these are eventually substantiated by experiment, the theories are confirmed as approximate verities. But never can science claim to speak in terms of absolute truths, for it would be a contradiction in itself.

(Continuation: "L'chaim Weekly," number 846, Nov. 26, '04)

The above is true in all areas of scientific inquiry. When it comes to the theory of evolution, dealing with an effort to reconstruct the distant past, science lacks even that decree of probability which it has in regard to future predictions, as explained at some length in my said letter. Here science can only speculate. If such speculations are represented in text-books as "facts," then it is a gross and unscientific misrepresentation.

To cite one illustration: For years the Ptolemaic system was accepted as true, according to which the sun revolves around the earth. Later Copernicus evolved the theory that the earth revolves around the son. This is the theory which is now given in all text-books as an indisputable fact.

But what are the facts? Aside from the fact that even the Copernican sun centered system is no more than a theory, subject to a variety of reservations, as all scientific theories must be apart, also, from the fact that the Copernican theory did not presume to settle all the situations relating to astrophysical observations, but only answered more questions, and more simply, than the Ptolemaic - modern science has reached some revolutionary conclusions in the wake of the General Relativity Theory. Specifically, modern science is now convinced that when two systems are in motion relative to one another, it could never be ascertained, from the scientific view point, as to which is in motion and which at rest, or whether both are in motion. Let it be remembered that that the General Relativity Theory has been accepted as fundamental to all exact sciences without dissent.

Yet - and it is surely no revelation to you - this new orientation in science is ignored in discussions relating to the Ptolemaic and Copernican theories on the high school level, but [also by] men in specialized studies of astronomy and physics in colleges and universities. In other words, science in many domains is still taught in terms of a scientific orientation which prevailed at the close of the 19th century, when two cardinal principles of science were yet unknown, namely the Relativity theory, and that all scientific conclusions necessarily belong in the realm of probability, not certainty.

I once asked a professor of science why he did not tell his students that from the viewpoint of the Relativity theory the Ptolemaic system could claim just as much validity as the Copernican. He answered candidly that if he did that, he would lose his standing in the academic world, since he would be at variance with the prevalent legacy from the 19th century. I countered, "What about the moral issue?" The answer was silence.*

In discussing this question with another scientist, he expressed surprise that there should be an individual in the 20th century who could still think that the earth stood still and the sun revolved around it. When I protested that from the viewpoint of modern science this could be as valid as the opposite theory, he could not refute it.*

Please excuse the length of the above remarks, which have been prompted by your statement relating to the acceptance or non-acceptance of the concepts expressed in my letter on evolution. I invite your further reactions.

*(Italics added for emphasis.)

I was totaly Baffeled.

About 4 years ago, I went to my nephew's wedding. It was held at a Reform Shuel in West Bloomfield, Michigan. Just after the Service and Before the Reception they had food that was being served in the waiting area of the Shuel. What they were serving, I was shocked.

They were serving Shrimp, Pork and other unclean items. I knew that most Reform Jews ate that type of food at least out of their homes and do not keep Kosher but why did they serve it in the Temple.

[smokin5]

There are 3 kinds of Jews.
Orthodox
Conservative &
Reform (Goyim)

I think that explains it.


And Rav, I love you, but your last response was WAYYYY too long.
I left for popcorn 1/2-way thru.

[Emjaysmash]

Originally Posted by smokin5

There are 3 kinds of Jews.
Orthodox
Conservative &
Reform (Goyim)

I think that explains it.


And Rav, I love you, but your last response was WAYYYY too long.
I left for popcorn 1/2-way thru.

Just to clarify, Reform Jews are not considered "Goyim" (that being those of "other nations"). While Reform Jews are the least observant of the commandments, they still are Jews by blood.