posted
starLisa, I take exception with your comments about the Conservative movement. None of my experiences were remotely like yours and the shuls I attended in my childhood, as well as the ones I attended as an adult, were much closer to Orthodox shuls than the Conservative ones you've described. I am appalled at the Levite incident you described and it would never happen in any of my shuls. It seems to me that you feel comfortable speaking for the Conservative movement and I would like to say that, as a Conservative Jew, I do not feel comfortable being represented by you.
I'd also like to point out that there are many Conservative shuls that are unaffiliated with the USCJ.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only things I've mentioned about the Conservative movement in this thread are the story that happened up at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin (the flagship of the Ramah camps, which are run under the auspices of the Jewish Theological Seminary, as a big sign lets us know when we drive into the camp), and a quote from the Conservative Movement's official statement of principles. You can't blame me for the latter, and the former... well.
When I was going to that Conservative congregation in Chicago, Neil Gillman came to speak. As you may know, he's a well known professor at JTS. He asked us what percentage of our congregation kept kosher. At all. To any degree. He was told that it was upwards of 95%. And that at least 40% of us wouldn't buy any food unless it was marked as being under rabbinic supervision.
He was shocked. Because he speaks at Conservative synagogues all over the US, and the answer to his question is generally between 5% and 10%. Tops.
So you can tell me all you want about how the Conservative shuls you went to as a kid were more traditional, and I believe you. So was the one I went to. But it's exceptional. Very exceptional. And even so, microphones are used if there's a bar or bat mitzvah and the family wants to, and about a third of the congregants drive to shul on Shabbat, while about half of those who don't drive do drive on Shabbat, but they live close enough to walk.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Two Anecdotes that give me a background for wishing to understand this.
I was dating a Jewish girl, I am not sure what denomination the relationship did not last long, this had more to do with her personality and not because she was Jewish. But once when I was with her a mutual aquaintance found out we were together and became quite condecending (Lutheran private school, its to be expected I suppose, Mormon + Jew = Some new breed of damnation). Anyway he attempted to drive a wedge between me and this girl by making her answer the question about whether or not I had a soul. According to this guy Jews do not believe gentiles have souls, or that their souls no longer exist when they die, something like that. The guy was a jerk, but it did make me wonder just how Jews view the afterlife.
BTW I think the girl was conservative but I am not sure. She had to say certain prayers our of a book if she ate bread, or other types of food. Definately kept Kosher, and she apparently was allowed to date whoever she wanted, but her parents were arranging her marriage.
2nd Anecdote: My best friend (coincidentally also a mormon) was dating a girl (coincidentally also a Jew) again not sure which denomination I never asked. Somebody in our school died in an accident and she was friends with the boy. She took his death really hard and asked my friend what he believed in the afterlife as she herself had no idea what it was like or if there even was one. It reaffirmed in my mind at least that I do not know if Jews have a universal concept of the afterlife, how it works? Or if there are varying beliefs on the matter.
Anything you guys can offer is appreciated. Nice screen name Lisa. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different, the notion that non-Jews do not have souls is not generally accepted.
It does exist among some Jewish thinkers. So you will hear it on occasion, particularly among some segments of the Jewish population.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: According to this guy Jews do not believe gentiles have souls, or that their souls no longer exist when they die, something like that.
Ew. That's nasty.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The guy was a jerk, but it did make me wonder just how Jews view the afterlife.
We don't think about it a whole lot. Except to say that it exists, and that there's reward and punishment (though no eternal damnation or anything of that kind).
We say "The righteous of all nations have a place in the World to Come". That's the afterlife.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: BTW I think the girl was conservative but I am not sure. She had to say certain prayers our of a book if she ate bread, or other types of food. Definately kept Kosher, and she apparently was allowed to date whoever she wanted, but her parents were arranging her marriage.
Fascinating. Observant, but dating a non-Jew. That's kind of interesting.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It reaffirmed in my mind at least that I do not know if Jews have a universal concept of the afterlife, how it works? Or if there are varying beliefs on the matter.
I can't speak for the movements (though that won't stop me if I feel like speaking for them anyway), but in terms of Torah Judaism, what's called "Orthodox", and which was just called "Judaism" until a few centuries ago, belief in the afterlife is one of those 13 fundamentals of faith I mentioned earlier:
Belief in the existence of the Creator, be He Blessed, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity.
The belief in G-d's noncorporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.
The belief in G-d's eternity.
The imperative to worship Him exclusively and no foreign false gods.
The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy.
The belief that the prophecy of Moses our teacher has priority.
The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
The belief in divine omniscience and providence.
The belief in divine reward and retribution.
The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.
The belief in the resurrection of the dead.
Any Jew who rejects any of these is considered an apostate. Though most non-Orthodox Jews are exempted from the negative aspects of that category, because most of them don't know better, having been raised outside of Judaism.
If you want a really excellent description of a fairly standard view of the afterlife in Judaism, check out the essay, "The Real You", by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. There's a list of essays by R' Kaplan here.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Nice screen name Lisa.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different, the notion that non-Jews do not have souls is not generally accepted.
It does exist among some Jewish thinkers. So you will hear it on occasion, particularly among some segments of the Jewish population.
Back to our good friends at Chabad. <sigh>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Converts gain a Jewish soul. So how is it racist?
Additionally, as Stephan pointed out above, it is actually easier for non-Jews to fulfil their task in this world and achieve a place in the World to Come than it is for Jews.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different.
I find that concept to be very deeply disturbing and fundamentally racist.
Racist seems like the wrong word. Sectist? Race just seemed off.
Not only that, while its quite possible the differences could be Jewish souls > Gentile souls, I wouldn't assume it has negative aspects Rabbit.
Rivka did not in anyway specifically state the nature of the differences at all.
Though if any Jewish folks want to elaborate on how they think they might be different thats fine.
I was also wondering why it is that in the sense of form, the Jewish description of God very closely resembles many Christian models. Or if not could you clarify, I am getting the impression that
God is without form, he is everywhere but in not particular place at once.
That particular seemed to be the gist of things.
I'd appreciate a Jewish description of God. If anybody feels up to it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While the United States Supreme Court may have ruled that "separate but equal" is not valid for education, it has yet to become a law of nature.
The souls of men and women are also different. Judaism is about differences. Distinctions. It's a very basic concept with us. A Kohen is not the same as a Levi is not the same as a Yisrael. A Jew is not the same as a non-Jew. A man is not the same as a woman. A mamzer is not the same as a non-mamzer. A convert is not the same as a born Jew. An adult is not the same as a child.
All of these have areas of commonality. And all of them have areas where they differ.
If you find the concept to be disturbing and racist, it's because you're making assumptions about what we mean by it that are entirely unjustified.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd appreciate a Jewish description of God. If anybody feels up to it.
I don't have time for a long one right now, but you might want to read an essay I once wrote. It's here, on my website. You can ignore the first few paragraphs, since they deal with Objectivism, which is a whole other deal. But starting under the line, about 5 paragraphs down, is an answer.
You'll notice that a lot of what's in this essay is stuff I've mentioned in different contexts earlier in this thread.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd appreciate a Jewish description of God. If anybody feels up to it.
I don't have time for a long one right now, but you might want to read an essay I once wrote. It's here, on my website. You can ignore the first few paragraphs, since they deal with Objectivism, which is a whole other deal. But starting under the line, about 5 paragraphs down, is an answer.
You'll notice that a lot of what's in this essay is stuff I've mentioned in different contexts earlier in this thread.
I read it, existing in God's, "Memory" seems alittle hard for me to grasp. Almost as if we don't really exist physically, but we are more of a dream that is playing out in God's mind. I dunno, I hope you can give me more details later when you are not busy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: There is no Hell for instance.
This is absolutely true . . . for certain values of "Hell."
Yup. We do believe in purgatory, though that isn't an exact translation either.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I can't speak for the movements (though that won't stop me if I feel like speaking for them anyway), but in terms of Torah Judaism, what's called "Orthodox", and which was just called "Judaism" until a few centuries ago, belief in the afterlife is one of those 13 fundamentals of faith I mentioned earlier: [...] Any Jew who rejects any of these is considered an apostate.
Well, according to Maimonides, anyway. I think it is fair to say that any congregation/movement that doesn't accept all thirteen can no longer be considered Orthodox. The status of individuals who reject one or more of them is less cut-and-dried. (It depends in part on the definitions of "rejects" and "apostate.")
quote:Still Lisa, re: non-Jews not having souls Back to our good friends at Chabad. <sigh>
Gratuitous and inaccurate! Double points!
Actually, the Ba'al HaTanya's position (upheld by the most recent Rebbe) isn't that non-Jews don't have souls at all, just that they're fundamentally extremely different from those of Jews. On the one hand, he was -- and they are -- very far from alone on that viewpoint, both in the Chassidic and wider Orthodox worlds; on the other, it's an abstract position in their case, not a practical one. (For better or for worse, Chabad's the only Jewish group I know of that does active outreach to non-Jews to follow the Noachide Laws, not to mention pouring a lot of resources into community programs benefitting Jews and non-Jews alike.)
quote:In fairness, Lisa also wrote: The souls of men and women are also different. Judaism is about differences. Distinctions. It's a very basic concept with us. A Kohen is not the same as a Levi is not the same as a Yisrael. A Jew is not the same as a non-Jew. A man is not the same as a woman. A mamzer is not the same as a non-mamzer. A convert is not the same as a born Jew. An adult is not the same as a child.
Well put, and exactly right. You might also note that a soldier is not the same as a sailor, who is not the same as a member of the air force, who is not the same as a nuclear physicist. None of them are inherently better than the others; they just carry out different roles.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'd appreciate a Jewish description of God. If anybody feels up to it.
quote:Racist seems like the wrong word. Sectist? Race just seemed off.
From what has been said here, one is Jewish if ones mother is Jewish and one cannot choose not to be Jewish. In that context I think it is completely reasonable to say that Judaism is a race and it is racist to to say that the souls of Jews are different from the souls of non-Jews.
Similarly, I believe its sexist to say that the souls of men and women are different even though I also believe that is true. Inherent in that statement is the idea that men and women differ in eternal and unchangable ways which transcend the differences in the physical bodies. It is a sexist idea and even though I accept that premise, I find it disturbing.
I find it disturbing because people through history have used such ideas as a justification for mistreatment and oppression. It is far too easy to jump from the idea that men and women, black and white, Jew and non-Jew are different to the idea that one is superior to the other. Once that jump has been made, it becomes trivial to rationalize restricting the rights of the inferior group or even to deny them the most basic rights of life and liberty. In the stories of the many native American tribes, the tribes name for themselves meant "people" and other tribes were not fully considered people. This idea which rivka has claimed is accepted by all Jews smacks of that same type of tribalism which I believe to be highly dangerous.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:While Jews agree that the souls of Jews and non-Jews are in some (not easily defined) way different.
I find that concept to be very deeply disturbing and fundamentally racist.
This is different than believing that if I don't accept some guy that died almost 2000 years ago as my personal savior, I'm going to be tortured eternally after I die?
Seems like Jewish souls being different in some undefined way pales in comparison.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Shmuel: [QUOTE]In fairness, Lisa also wrote: The souls of men and women are also different. Judaism is about differences. Distinctions. It's a very basic concept with us. A Kohen is not the same as a Levi is not the same as a Yisrael. A Jew is not the same as a non-Jew. A man is not the same as a woman. A mamzer is not the same as a non-mamzer. A convert is not the same as a born Jew. An adult is not the same as a child.
Well put, and exactly right. You might also note that a soldier is not the same as a sailor, who is not the same as a member of the air force, who is not the same as a nuclear physicist. None of them are inherently better than the others; they just carry out different roles.
But for me at least there is a clear distinction between the classes "sailor", "air force", and "nuclear physicist" and the types of classes Lisa mentions. Lisa classes are all things which are unquestionably outside the control of the individual. A child is not a child because he/she has chosen not to be an adult. A mamzer did not choose an illigitimat birth. A woman did not chose not to be a man. And while not everyone has the ability to be a nuclear physicist, there are many who have the ability and yet choose another field of study. It does not distrurb me to say that nuclear physicist are different from sailors because we are differentiating based on their behavior over which I believe they have some choice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is different than believing that if I don't accept some guy that died almost 2000 years ago as my personal savior, I'm going to be tortured eternally after I die?
Seems like Jewish souls being different in some undefined way pales in comparison.
Why are the two being compared? That is not a belief I have ever espoused on this forum or anywhere else and I can see no logical reason why I must accept one or the other.
The simple fact that you can find more objectionable beliefs in other peoples religions is hardly a justification for the offensive beliefs you hold.
Please note that I would not ask anyone to alter their religious beliefs because I find them offensive. If it is true, you should believe it regardless of who is offended. I just find the response of "well I find the beliefs of some Christians to be even more offensive" to be poor justification.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I find it disturbing because people through history have used such ideas as a justification for mistreatment and oppression.
Is there any set of ideas held by a group in power that has not been used as a justification for mistreatment and oppression? Offhand, communism, capitalism, atheism, every sort of theism, mysticism, and rationalism all flunk that test with drooping colors.
Ideas don't repress people; people using ideas repress people. And they can and will use any tool at hand.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Racist seems like the wrong word. Sectist? Race just seemed off.
From what has been said here, one is Jewish if ones mother is Jewish and one cannot choose not to be Jewish. In that context I think it is completely reasonable to say that Judaism is a race and it is racist to to say that the souls of Jews are different from the souls of non-Jews.
That's just silly. If Judaism was a race, you wouldn't be able to convert in. The fact that you can't convert out can't overrule the fact that you can convert in.
Judaism is not a race, though it has aspects of a race. It is not a tribe, though it has aspects of a tribe. It is not a religion, though it has aspects of a religion. It is not a nation, though it has aspects of a nation. It is not a culture, though it has aspects of a culture. It is not an ideology, though it has aspects of an ideology.
It is, in part, all of those things, yet it is none of those things. It is sui generis, one of a kind, and as such, it doesn't really matter that there is no general category into which it falls.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Similarly, I believe its sexist to say that the souls of men and women are different even though I also believe that is true.
So you have a personal issue with differences. You've swallowed the idea that to be of equal value, you must be the same. That's a real shame.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Inherent in that statement is the idea that men and women differ in eternal and unchangable ways which transcend the differences in the physical bodies. It is a sexist idea and even though I accept that premise, I find it disturbing.
You're not really making a lot of sense, here. If you accept it, and you think it's sexist, then you're basically saying that you're sexist. Fine. Then deal with your own sexism. We don't have to use your labels for things.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I find it disturbing because people through history have used such ideas as a justification for mistreatment and oppression.
That's the essence of the ad hominem fallacy. Because X has been used for evil, X must be evil. That's utterly fallacious. It's like saying "Hitler was a vegetarian, so there's something wrong with vegetarianism." Or "John Wayne Gacy used to dress up as a clown for children's birthday parties, so clowns are serial killers."
We don't need to answer for all of the abusers of a concept throughout history. We've held this way for thousands of years, and we have yet to fall down the slippery slope you're so frightened of.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ideas don't repress people; people using ideas repress people. And they can and will use any tool at hand.
That's very poor rationalization. Tribalism (of which racism and sexism and semitims or anti-semitism are examples) is the idea that members of my tribe are fundamentally different in the eyes of God from people who are not of my tribe. That idea has nearly always lead to two sets of moral codes. One which governs how we treat the members of our tribe and another which allows us to treat members of the other tribe differently. The dualism has been used to justify war, slavery, rape and even genocide.
Certainly tribalism is not the only idea people have ever used to justify their mistreatment of other people but it has been one of the most popular for all of human history.
If you want to pursuade me that the Jewish belief that Jewish souls are different from non-Jewish souls is benign, you must persuade me that other Jewish beliefs restrain Jews from using this idea to justify a lower moral standard for dealing with non-Jews.
[ November 07, 2006, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I read it, existing in God's, "Memory" seems alittle hard for me to grasp. Almost as if we don't really exist physically, but we are more of a dream that is playing out in God's mind. I dunno, I hope you can give me more details later when you are not busy.
Okay... try this. We see creation as consisting of different realms, each further and further veiled (so to speak) from awareness of God. We're in the world we call Asiya. Above this is the world called Yetzira, and above that is the world of Briya. And so on. And when I say "above", I'm not talking physically above, but rather spiritually above. Less veiled from God's Presence.
Now picture our souls as extending through a cross-section of this creation. So that part of your soul exists in this world, while part of exists in the next, and the next and the next. Four worlds up, we actually share a kind of oversoul (Yay, Jung). Think of our separate souls that cut through all worlds as metasouls.
Now think of our bodies in this world as a kind of portal. It's the only open portal for our metasoul while we're alive and awake, except for when we use the techniques I've mentioned a few times to peek through on a higher level.
When we die in this world, all it means for our souls is that this window is closed. And perhaps another window opens in the world of Yetzira. And perhaps there's even a kind of body that we can't imagine in that world that serves the same purpose in that world that our current bodies do in this world. We know very little about what that world is like, and we're all going to find out eventually, so it isn't all that important.
For our purposes in this world, the higher worlds don't exist. We can't perceive them ordinarily. But they exist in parallel with this one, and our souls exist in those worlds in parallel with this one. So when we cease in this world, it's like casting off a shell.
I don't know. It's sometimes hard to put this kind of stuff into words.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you want to pursuade me that the Jewish belief that Jewish souls are different from non-Jewish souls, you must persuade me that other Jewish beliefs restrain Jews from using this idea to justify a lower moral standard for dealing with non-Jews.
"Must"? You crack me up. Your neuroses do not constitute something that I "must" do anything about.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, If you read carefully, which I presume you can, you will note that my statement was conditional. If you want to persuade me --- you must.
I never said you must do something about it.
Are you capable of engaging in an honest civil conversation without diliberate distortion of other peoples statements and throwing out epitets like "neuroses"?
I suppose that after your a year and a half at hatrack, I should know the answer to that question with out bothering to ask.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lisa, If you read carefully, which I presume you can, you will note that my statement was conditional.
In which case we'll also notice that the "if" clause is missing a verb and a referrant, or that the first "that" should be an "of," but never mind that...
quote:If you want to persuade me --- you must.
Who wants to persuade you? I certainly don't.
Edited to add, a bit more verbosely: you're laying down a moral challenge in a thread specifically predicated on the notion that nobody's trying to persuade anybody of anything, and that we're strictly fielding informational questions about Judaism. Within that context, insisting on persuasion is both out of place and a bit irksome. Nothing personal.
quote:In which case we'll also notice that the "if" clause is missing a verb and a referrant, or that the first "that" should be an "of," but never mind that..
yes, that clause should have ended with an "is benign" or something like that.
quote:Who wants to persuade you? I certainly don't..
Then why did you respond?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I read it, existing in God's, "Memory" seems alittle hard for me to grasp. Almost as if we don't really exist physically, but we are more of a dream that is playing out in God's mind. I dunno, I hope you can give me more details later when you are not busy.
Okay... try this. We see creation as consisting of different realms, each further and further veiled (so to speak) from awareness of God. We're in the world we call Asiya. Above this is the world called Yetzira, and above that is the world of Briya. And so on. And when I say "above", I'm not talking physically above, but rather spiritually above. Less veiled from God's Presence.
Now picture our souls as extending through a cross-section of this creation. So that part of your soul exists in this world, while part of exists in the next, and the next and the next. Four worlds up, we actually share a kind of oversoul (Yay, Jung). Think of our separate souls that cut through all worlds as metasouls.
Now think of our bodies in this world as a kind of portal. It's the only open portal for our metasoul while we're alive and awake, except for when we use the techniques I've mentioned a few times to peek through on a higher level.
When we die in this world, all it means for our souls is that this window is closed. And perhaps another window opens in the world of Yetzira. And perhaps there's even a kind of body that we can't imagine in that world that serves the same purpose in that world that our current bodies do in this world. We know very little about what that world is like, and we're all going to find out eventually, so it isn't all that important.
For our purposes in this world, the higher worlds don't exist. We can't perceive them ordinarily. But they exist in parallel with this one, and our souls exist in those worlds in parallel with this one. So when we cease in this world, it's like casting off a shell.
I don't know. It's sometimes hard to put this kind of stuff into words.
No that helps alot. I've never thought of it like that, but its interesting.
Why don't Jews observe the year of jubilee every 50 years anymore? Is it just not practical? Or maybe they do and I just didn't realize they do.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thanks Rivka, never caught the part about being settled in the land of Israel by tribes as being a requisite for that, thank you for pointing that out.
I vaguely remember somebody mentioning something about animal sacrifice earlier in the thread, would sacrifices be offered again if the temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes and no. When yovel (the Jubilee year) is not observed, shmitta (the Sabbatical year) is not observed either. There are a few more laws which are dependent upon yovel.
In the case of shmitta, we observe it as a remembrance of the real shmitta. It is, today, only a rabbinic enactment, since the shmitta commanded by the Torah is not currently operative.
Among other issues, this is why the prosbul works. When shmitta is observed d'Orayta (by the authority of the Torah, rather than the indirect authority of the rabbis), prosbul may not work at all.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought there was some debate as to whether shemittah was currently d'oraisa or d'rabanan? I confess that as someone who has never had to deal with the matter except as a visitor, I don't know as much about shemittah as I should.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Wikipedia is a bad source. Yes, they will be performed in the future. No commandments will ever be annulled. That's what "eternal statute for your generations" means.
People who cite sources to the contrary are taking those sources out of context.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are there Levites with proof of their heritage enough to fill that function were it restored?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wikipedia is a bad source.
Granted, but the point stands. I've heard several shiurim on the subject and while there are certainly those who concur with your perspective, what it boils down to is what Rivka said: "that is debated."
We'll find out when the time comes, I suppose.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are there Levites with proof of their heritage enough to fill that function were it restored?
The short answer is: could be. Plus tradition holds that Elijah the Prophet will return at the appropriate time and sort out everyone's actual lineage, though I'm not clear on where that would fall in the overall timetable.
With that said... this may be one of the least of the difficulties to overcome in order to re-establish the Temple. Almost nobody pretends to know exactly how it'll happen, even those working on preparing for various aspects of it. All we know for sure is that somehow all the pieces will fall into place when they need to.
(The Book of Esther would be an excellent example of pieces of the puzzle being arranged well in advance to achieve what must have looked like a very sudden and unforseeable reversal of fortune at the time.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Are there Levites with proof of their heritage enough to fill that function were it restored?
There are far more Kohanim with a solid pedigree than there are Levites.
That said, Judaism is, among other things, a system of laws. And like all systems of law, it has a mechanism for how to deal with, and when to grant, a legal presumption.
So absolute proof may not be needed in all cases. It's something that the rabbis will need to determine when the time comes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Wikipedia is a bad source.
Granted, but the point stands. I've heard several shiurim on the subject and while there are certainly those who concur with your perspective, what it boils down to is what Rivka said: "that is debated."
We'll find out when the time comes, I suppose.
Not really. No one has the authority to set aside commandments. Not even the Sanhedrin can do that. If a putative messiah tries to do it, we'll either kill him or ignore him. But this is one of those areas that God Himself cannot change, since He locked it in tight over 33 centuries ago. If He wants to change it, He has to change it back then. And obviously, He didn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genetic testing has actually proven many who claim to be Kahanim and Levites actually share a common patrilineal ancestor. Whether or not that will count when the times comes is probably up for debate.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No one has the authority to set aside commandments.
That begs the question of whether the commandments at issue will be applicable then. Unless you're claiming that we all ought to be put to death for claiming that sacrifices shouldn't be carried out right this minute...
Like I said, we're not at all certain just how the Messianic scenario will play out. Wait and see.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question going back to tribal affiliation, just out of sheer curiosity. What if everything in my family was reversed, meaning my father was Jewish and was part of a tribe and my mother was not Jewish. If I had married a Jewish woman, and converted in an Orthdox manner, would my children belong to the tribe of my father?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are far more Kohanim with a solid pedigree than there are Levites.
Really? Thats fascinating!
It stands to reason, really. A Kohen can't go into a cemetary or marry a divorcee or convert. A Levite can do any of those things. It's a lot more pertinent in the case of Kohanim.
In fact, DNA evidence shows that the vast majority of Kohanim really are legit. Link.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Question going back to tribal affiliation, just out of sheer curiosity. What if everything in my family was reversed, meaning my father was Jewish and was part of a tribe and my mother was not Jewish. If I had married a Jewish woman, and converted in an Orthdox manner, would my children belong to the tribe of my father?
Nope. First of all, a convert is not related to any of his blood relatives after converting. Two brothers who convert are no longer brothers in the eyes of Jewish law.
Second of all, a convert has no tribe regardless of blood. That's just the way it works.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, but the other online sources I found had lots of Hebrew, so I opted for one that BB could read.
I find it fascinating that you discount not only Rav Kook but the Rambam. (And yes, I am aware of alternate understandings. But that doesn't mean that no one takes them literally.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We do believe in purgatory, though that isn't an exact translation either. 
