Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: notesfiles - hp 1.2 08/01/83; site hp-pcd.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!hp-pcd!daver From: daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: A query to "Dvar Torah" Message-ID: <11100014@hpcvrd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 15:12:00 EST Article-I.D.: hpcvrd.11100014 Posted: Tue Oct 29 15:12:00 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 21:59:44 EST References: <1201@sphinx.UUCP> Organization: Hewlett-Packard - Corvallis, OR Lines: 17 Nf-ID: #R:sphinx:-120100:hpcvrd:11100014:000:847 Nf-From: hpcvrd!daver Oct 29 12:12:00 1985 >................. For Jewish law to be valid (and I follow the opinion that it >is valid), then it must also have a strong foundation: the Torah (both written >and oral). It is this that separates Orthodoxy from the rest; ........ This is the basis of one of the principal objections to the Falashas being Jewish. They had been cut off from the "mainstream"(s) of Judaism for many centuries and thus were unaware of the various aspects of "oral" law which have developed since; they were actually practicing a form of pre-rabbinical Judaism. The problem is, if the oral law is truly valid, why wasn't it revealed to the Falashas (Falashim?). Is pre-rabbinical Judaism valid any more, and if not, was it ever valid, or would its validity refute the "oral" laws (i.e. the Talmud)? Interesting questions. Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver