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 An earlier demand that a drop of blood be drawn from each Ethio- pian male to symbolize circumcision was withdrawn.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 ***