Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxm!abeles
From: abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Hypocrisy--or, who is a mamzer?
Message-ID: <334@mhuxm.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 08:20:42 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxm.334
Posted: Tue Mar  5 08:20:42 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Mar-85 03:07:33 EST
References: <22536@lanl.ARPA>, <3780016@csd2.UUCP> <100@mit-athena.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Murray Hill, NJ
Lines: 52

At the risk of copyright violation I am going to quote an article
pertinent to the topic being discussed appearing in the March 1, 1985
issue of The New York Jewish Week from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RABBIS OVERTURN CONVERSION RULE

TEL AVIV (JTA)--  The chief rabbinate has overturned a ruling by former
Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel Ovadia Yosef recognizing Ethiopian Jews
as such without their having to undergo symbolic conversion by immersion
in a mikveh.

Israel incumbent Sephardic chief rabbi, Mordechai Eliahu, was abroad when
the  chief rabbinate upheld its previous insistence that symbolic conversion 
was mandatory for the thousands of Ethiopian Jews who have immigrated to 
Israel.  An earlier demand that a drop of blood be drawn from each Ethio-
pian male to symbolize circumcision was withdrawn.

The devoutly observant Ethiopian emigres reacted angrily to both demands,
which they considered degrading, insulting, and  a sign of doubt as to
their authenticity as Jews.  The Sephardic rabbinate has been more lenient
to the Ethiopians than the Ashkenazic rabbis.  Yosef told a conference of
Ethiopians: "If the Ashenazim rejected them, the Sephardim would take
them into their midst."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Questions  of  tohorat  hamishpahah  notwithstanding, there is a serious
> double standard in  checking  into  the  background  of  Ethiopians  and
> Indians  when Reform has already existed among Ashkenazim for almost two
> hundred years which means many for many generations of Ashkenazim  there
> is  already  a  question  whether  divorces have been halakically proper
> especially when in comparison to Ethiopians and Indians Ashkenazi sexual
> morality  is  particulary  low.   Divorce  is  practically unknown among
> Ethiopians and Indians but has been quite common  among  Ashkenazim  for
> the past couple of centuries.  Already in the nineteenth century Sefardi
> hakamim were forbidding Sefardim from marrying Ashkenazim for  precisely
> these reasons.  While there is no question about halakic problems in the
> case of Ethiopians, Ashkenazim should not be adjudicating these problems
> unless  they  are  willing to apply the same standard to themselves.  My
> mother's family tends to consider Ashkenazim presumptive mamzerim.  This
> is  not  so  unreasonable.  Consider all those religious German Jews who
> grew up in Washington Heights.  Many  had  their  origin  in  Frankfurt.
> Before Hirsch came to Frankfurt there was no Jewish practice whatsoever.
> During that timeperiod I consider it very likely that there were several
> improper divorces followed by new marriages.
> 
> I also tend to consider the authority of Ashkenazi rabbis under a shadow
> because 99% of Ashkenazim would not know a Jewish idea if it ran up  and
> bit them.
> 
> Basically,  the  Sefardi  rabbinate  should  be  adjudicating the Jewish
> status of Ethoipians, Indians and Ashkenazim.

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***