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