NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/culture/jewish/20728

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
From: [e-mail] (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Belief does not define Religion
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 22 Nov 92 16:30:58 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 63
Nntp-Posting-Host: sagi.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: [e-mail] (Michael Shimshoni)

In article <[e-mail]>, MASH@WEIZMANN (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]>, faigin@aero (Daniel P. Faig
>>>Religion (and that's what Judaism is, at the heart of it) is a matter
>>>of belief.

>>Yet another typical Reform borrowing from Christianity.

>I wonder if Matthew could explain that claim of his.

Sure.

>Those Jews (unlike me) who are religious, be they C, O, R or whatever,
>surely  base their  practices on  belief.

That is not true, unless you use "belief" in the most general "I believe
I'll do <xxx>" sense.  There are numerous people--even O--who _practice_
Judaism for social, psychological, cultural or other reasons.  I in fact
call myself "deconstructionist" to avoid all confusion.

You are also prematurely restricting the question to Jews.  Daniel's
statement was a general statement about religion.  There are hundreds
of religions, and very few of them are "matters of belief".  Many do
have beliefs to go with them, but they generally don't care.

>                        I  remember "vaguely"  that
>Rambam  listed  13  principles  of  *belief* (does  that  make  him  a
>Christian? :-) ).

No.  He did not make them the Jewish creed, but rather as hallmarks.  I've
also been told by an O rabbi (fluent in Arabic) that most translations and
commentaries of Rambam border on heresy when it comes to philosophical
matters.

Another O rabbi/mathematician I know has total disdain to all post-Rambam
Jewish philosophy.  He will not read it, as bitul torah!  He does not
recommend Rambam philosophy either.  He insists that historically,
interest in philosophy, when it's hard enough learning Talmud and halakha,
is derived from a keeping-up-with-the-Christians attitude.

I did manage to discuss philosophy with this latter rabbi, though.  I
asked him, around Shavuos time, about converts, who are required to have
belief, at least at the time of conversion.  So he takes out the Shulchan
Aruch, and starts reading off the laws of conversion.  The first halakha
taught to the potential convert is to leave gleanings for the poor.  He
then went on regarding the characters of our three patriarchs, and how
we should teach these to a potential convert in that order.  Avraham was
chesed, so the first thing taught comes laws of kindness, charity, loshon
hora.  Yitzhak was gevurah, so the next things taught concern particular
Jewish strengths--the keeping of Shabbos, kashrus, prayer, and so on.  And
last is Yaakov or emes, ie, Jewish beliefs and philosophy.  And as far as
he was concerned, that was it.

>             If on the other hand Matthew  agrees with me, that
>to  be a  Jew  does not  necessarily  mean that  one  believes in  any
>religion,  than  I  still  do not  understand  how  Christianity  gets
>involved.

This should be the most obvious part.  To try and define who is a Jew
by a matter of belief is a concept that not even Reform has officially
adopted, although it seems to be heading that way with their high
acceptance of intermarriage.
--
-Matthew P Wiener ([e-mail])