Podcasts about reformed judaism

Rabbi Max Wertheimer D.D.OCTOBER 4, 2012 BY RABBI MAX WERTHEIMER D.D.From Rabbis meet Jesus the Messiah – a collection of 24 biographies and testimonies of Rabbis encounters with Jesus the Messiah© Messianic Good News.Born of orthodox Jewish parents, my earliest childhood impression was of my parents rising in the morning very early in order to spend a long time reading the Hebrew prayers. Even in the cold winter, before fires were kindled for their physical comfort, they carried on faithfully these early devotions. In so far as their knowledge of God was concerned, they were a devout and God-fearing couple.From the age of five to fifteen my training was in a Jewish school, in orthodox Judaism. A scholarly Hebrew instructed me in the five books of Moses. I went to the Gymnasium for my classical training and later was apprenticed to a manufacturer, doing office work. My associates at that time led me into the sinful pleasures of the world, and although I attended synagogue and read my Hebrew prayers on the Sabbath, I drifted from the faith of my fathers.A parental decision to send me to America to pursue my classical education brought me to Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio. I graduated in seven years, having meanwhile taken my degrees in letters and Hebrew literature, and four years later my Master's degree. We studied the Old Testament, translated it from Hebrew into the vernacular, went through Jewish history from the beginning to the present day, and learned the oral laws.After finishing the rabbinical course we were publicly ordained and inducted into the rabbinical office. My first call was to Dayton, Ohio, where I officiated as Rabbi for ten years, during which I made many friends and received many tokens of love, which I treasure highly. In my Friday evening lectures I spoke on social, industrial and economic questions, monotheism, ethical culture, the moral systems of the Jews, etc. In the Saturday morning addresses I took weekly sections of the Pentateuch, followed by a corresponding section of the prophets. On Sunday I taught Sunday School from eight in the morning until five in the evening, with one hour intermission for dinner.In 1895 a series of meetings was held in the Christian Church of Dayton, with various denominational pastors giving addresses on their religion. I stood proudly before that audience of professing Christians and told them why I was a Jew and would not believe in their Christ as my Messiah and Saviour. I gloried in Reformed Judaism that acknowledged no need of an atoning sacrifice for sin, a religion of ethics which quieted qualms of conscience through a smug self-righteousness. In the audience sat a humble aged woman, a devout Christian, who was deeply stirred as she listened. “O God,” she prayed, “bring Dr. Wertheimer to realize his utter need of that Saviour he so boastingly rejects. Bring him if necessary, to the very depths in order that he may know his need of my Lord Jesus Christ.”What unforeseen forces were brought into action, as a result of that unknown woman's heart cry! How perfectly satisfied with life I was that day: I had a young, attractive, accomplished wife, was Rabbi of the B'nai Yeshorum Synagogue, had a beautiful home, a comfortable income, a place of prominence in the community, had become an honorary member of the Ministerial Association, was a member of the Present Day Club, served as chaplain in the Masonic lodge, and was a popular speaker before women's clubs, schools, civic organizations, etc. Had you visited my library at the time you would have found a wide range of reading. I had every book Bob Ingersoll wrote, read them, and corresponded with the author. I was an oft invited guest speaker in every denominational church in the city. I was satisfied with life! My wife and I enjoyed the musical treats, we had a large home, two servants, and a beautiful baby boy and daughter, Rose.Suddenly there came a change! My wife was taken seriously ill, and in spite of many physicians and specialists, she died, leaving me a distraught widower with two little children. After the funeral, I put Rose in the care of my mother in law, advertised for a housekeeper for myself and the boy, and found myself the most miserable of men. I could not sleep. I walked the streets, striving to forget the void, the vacancy in my heart and life. My dreams of a successful career and serene domestic life were all shattered. Where was comfort to be found? The heavens were brass when I called on the God of my fathers! How could I speak as a Rabbi words of comfort to others when my own sorrow had brought me to despair. I investigated Spiritism, but found it utter fallacy. I attended meetings and read the literature of Theosophy and Christian Science, only to find it futile and hopeless. My experience was comparable to Job's when he cried: “My days are swifter than a weaver's shuttle, and are spent without hope” (Job 7:6).The tenth year of my rabbinical office drew to its close. I decided not to accept re-election, and resigned. I wanted to think over things! I would study. Where is the spirit and soul of one who was such a gifted pianist, who gave charm to life; who made existence so sweet? What had become of all the faculties, the intents and purposes of that active, keen mind? I turned to my Bible!I studied about Judaism but it answered no questions, satisfied no craving of my heart. Then I began reading the New Testament and comparing it with the Old Testament. Many passages were read, pondered, meditated upon. One made a definite impression: the fifty third chapter of Isaiah, eleventh verse, last clause: “By His knowledge shall My righteous servant justify many, for He shall bear their iniquities.” Here was the only mention of that phrase, “my righteous servant,” I could find. It is found nowhere else in the Word of God in either Testament. We have “David, my servant,” “Isaiah, my servant,” “Daniel, my servant,” but here it is: “My righteous servant.” I said to myself: “Who is that righteous servant? To whom does the prophet refer?” I argued: “Whoever that ‘righteous servant' of Jehovah is, of one thing I am sure: he is not Israel, because the prophet declares Israel to be ‘a sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a leprous nation' (Isaiah 1:4). The righteous servant of Jehovah must be One who is holy. If it isn't Israel, who could it be?” I decided it must be Isaiah. But in Isaiah 6, I found it could never be the prophet for he confesses himself to be a guilty sinner and a man of unclean lips in God's sight. “My righteous servant.” Who could it be? Then I began to study the context of the fifty third chapter and in Isaiah 50:6, I found, “I gave My back to the smiters.” I pondered that: ‘Who gave his back to the smiters?' In the beginning of the chapter it says: “Thus saith Jehovah.” Jehovah is the only speaker in the chapter. Jehovah gave His back to the smiters? Had God a back? When and why was it smitten? Who smote it? Further I read: “Who gave His cheeks to them that plucked off the hair.” And still further: “I hid not My face from shame and spitting.” What did all this mean? Who had been so abused? When? Why? Did Jehovah have all these human characteristics? I studied more and more various prophetic utterances. In Psalm 110:1, it is written: “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Here was David himself, speaking of his own seed and calling Him “Lord.” How did He get up there? Why didn't God specify? Why didn't He speak so plainly to Israel that every Jew could understand?In confusion I decided to begin at the first chapter of Isaiah and read the book through. I was stopped at the ninth: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulders; His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God; The Everlasting Father. The Prince of Peace.” Here was a most incomprehensible thing!I was faced with the doctrine of the Trinity. We Jews have a popular monotheistic slogan: “Shema Yisroel, Adonai, Elohenu, Adonai, Echad.” The word “echad” means one. Upon that word the doctrine of unity of Jehovah is rooted and grounded, the entire philosophy of Judaism is based. Taught by the Rabbis for ages, that word “echad” means absolute unity. Now I could not believe it; my teaching was wrong! I began to study the word, and I discovered it meant, not absolute unity, but composite unity. Let me illustrate: Adam and Eve became one flesh (Genesis 2:24); the Hebrew for ‘one flesh' is bosor echad, a composite unity. Moses sent twelve spies into Canaan, and they returned bearing a gigantic bunch of grapes. That cluster of grapes is called in Hebrew eschol echad. With hundreds of grapes on the stem it could not have been an absolute unity; they are called in Hebrew “one cluster”. Composite unity. There was wickedness committed in Gibeah of Benjamin which disgraced Jehovah and His name and character. The other tribes were indignant and “all the people arose as one man.” That is what I want you to see: at that time the men of Israel, beside Benjamin, were 400,000 men of war, yet they were “knit together as one man.” (In Hebrew: ish echad.) Here again composite unity: thousands acted as one! These and other Scriptures showed conclusively that ‘echad' cannot be an absolute unity.God revealed Himself to Abraham as Almighty (El Shaddai). The first letter of this word is Schin; it has three strokes joined as one. This letter is on the top of the phylacteries and on the casing of the door posts. Jews have always taken this letter as symbolical of the Godhead because it had three strokes (one for each Person in the Trinity), joined together as one, to show unity. But another question troubled me: ‘if He who was on the cross was truly an incarnation of Jehovah, then who was in Heaven?' I turned to the eighteenth chapter of Genesis. Abraham had three visitors; two angels and the third he addressed fourteen times as Jehovah. Later two went away, but the third said to Abraham: “Shall I hide from Abraham that which I shall do? I am going down to Sodom and Gomorrah to see whether or not they have done altogether according to the report which has come to Me. If not I will know whether to destroy the cities.”Abraham interceded for them, the Lord went His way, and Abraham went home. Now here is the point: We find Jehovah inspecting the moral condition of Sodom and Gomorrah and refusing to spare them because not even ten righteous citizens could be found within their borders. But in this same chapter we have this statement: “Then Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of Heaven.” How and why could there be two Jehovahs, one walking the streets of Sodom and another in heavenly places? It must be one omnipresent Jehovah! Then if that were true, He could be simultaneously both in Heaven and with and in Jesus on the cross.Another problem succeeded it: “Why is the name, Jesus never mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures?”  I studied this question. Imagine my surprise when I found that 275 years before Christ, King Ptolemy Philadelphus summoned men from Palestine, and bade them translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek vernacular. They took the Pentateuch first and when they came to the name “Joshua” they translated it the book of “Yesous”, written with a circumflex over it to show there had been a suppression of Hebrew that could not be expressed in Greek. When Joshua went into Canaan with the other eleven spies, he was called “Yehoshua” (Jehovah is the Saviour). That is exactly what the word “Jesus” means.I could hold out in unbelief no longer; I was convinced of the truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus. I cried: “Lord, I believe that Thou as Jehovah Yesous hast made the atonement for me. I believe that Jehovah Yesous died for me! I believe Thou has the ability and power! From henceforth I will publicly confess Yeshua as my Saviour and Lord!” Thus after months of searching I was convinced that Jesus was the righteous servant of Jehovah (Jehovah tsidkenu), “The Lord our righteousness!”On March 30, 1904, I publicly confessed Christ in the Central Baptist Church and have been licensed to preach, doors readily opened to me. I was persuaded to enter Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, from which I graduated after a year of study. Mr. Icenbarger, at my request, called a council of Dayton Association of ministers, and 35 Baptist pastors assembled in Central Church questioned me relative to my personal faith and doctrine. My ordination took place that evening, and my first call came from Ada, Ohio, where I served as pastor for five years. From there The New Covenant Mission in Pittsburgh, of which Maurice Ruben was founder and superintendent for many years, called me to be their pastor evangelist. After two and a half years of this ministry, I was convinced that God was calling me to a wider sphere in preaching the Gospel to both Jew and Gentile, depending upon the Lord for the support of myself and family. In 1913, we returned to Ada, the little flock over which I had been under shepherd for five years, being very dear to our hearts.I started out in Bible teaching and God was ever faithful. Were I to write of all the manifestations of His goodness and grace, it would fill a book. Critical operations, publication of my books, supplying all our needs, He never failed to care and provide. In Christ I have found my only abiding comfort for every sorrow.As a Rabbi I had yearned to give the bereaved some hope on which to lean, but how could I give that which I did not possess? I gave sympathy, but in times of heart aching grief and tragedy, sympathy is of little comfort. But to the heartbroken how satisfying and glorious are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die.” And again: “Verily, verily I say unto you: He that heareth My Word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath (possesses now) everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.”There is but one eternal life. There is but one source of eternal life; that is God's Son. What a great and glorious message we, His redeemed ones, are commissioned to deliver today.Published with permission. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit awolinsky.substack.com

On Foundations today, we’re continuing to learn about the different religious groups within Judaism, and we’ll be learning about Reform Judaism this time. A more modern denomination.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Foundations today, we’re continuing to learn about the different religious groups within Judaism, and we’ll be learning about Reform Judaism this time. A more modern denomination.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Joseph Holmes interviews YouTube personality and animator Rachael Alenxanda (ILoveKimPossibleAlot) about her Reformed Jewish upbringing and how Adam Sandler's new film "You're So Not Invited To My Bat Mitzvah" holds up. 

Mae Brussell, the Magnin family, Edgar Magnin, Reformed Judaism, the influence of Judaism on Mae Brussell, Mae's background prior to the JFK assassination, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, JFK assassination, Warren Commission, Charles Manson, Northern California in the late 1960s/early 1970s, Zodiac killer, SLA, Jim Jones, People's Temple, Zebra murders, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Chicago Seven, The Big Lebowski, Tom Hayden, Paul Krassner, Addie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, Yippies, Robert Anton Wilson, Discordianism, Forteanism, Fortean Society, Charles Winans, Rolling Stone lawsuit, Texas psychedelic scene, Texas scene brought to California, The Realist, Dick Gregory, Larry Flynt, pornography, Mae Brussell as Jewish scholar, the death of Mae Brussell's daughter, false rumors online about the death of her daughter, what became of Mae's documents, the Mae Brussell Research Library, Colonel Michael Aquino, Mae and Mae's family relationship to Michael Aquino Additional information on donating and contributing to the Library can be found here:The Mae Brussell Research Libraryhttps://maebrussellresearchlibrary.com/ The Realist Archives:https://www.ep.tc/realist/Music by: Keith Allen Dennishttps://keithallendennis.bandcamp.com/ Get bonus content on Patreon Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In part five of our series on World Religions, Mike and Jordan examine Judaism. While ancient Judaism should be a familiar religion to most Christians, this episode dives into the modern sects of Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed Judaism, as well as the key differences between modern Judaism and Christianity. How can we as Christians best engage with and share the Gospel with those of different beliefs?

On Foundations today, we’re continuing to learn about the different religious groups within Judaism, and we’ll be learning about Reform Judaism this time. A more modern denomination. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recorded on January 4, 2022 Dave and Wes are back with their first recording of Weekend Debrief after Pastor Dave's sabbatical break. They discuss questions related to the recent Advent Series, “Christmas Dinner and Other Feasts of the Faith,” regarding sacrifices and the Hebrew Calendar. They also have a special Sabbatical edition of Pastors' Palate, reviewing the best food they ate this fall (and there was a lot)! Send comments or questions to (971) 301-2414. Resource Links: The Jewish Calendar by Reformed Judaism - https://reformjudaism.org/jewish-holidays/jewish-calendar God's Appointed Times by Barney Kasdan - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1880226359/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_DW8BQJSPW8JV94HC8VVA Pastors' Palate Recommendations: Dave's Recommendations: The Bakeshop - https://www.bakeshoppdx.com/weekendmenu PDX Sliders - https://pdxsliders.com Salt and Straw - https://saltandstraw.com Noi Thai - https://www.noithaicuisine.com Blue Raven Pies - https://blueraevenfarmstand.com/ Wild Eggs - https://www.wildeggs.com/main-menu/ The Irish Rover - http://www.theirishroverky.com Wes's Recommendations: Buffalo Wild Wings - https://www.buffalowildwings.com/ Masala Bites - https://www.facebook.com/Masala-Bites-Indian-Restaurant-101041215550583/ Hungry Bear Restaurant - https://disneyland.disney.go.com/dining/disneyland/hungry-bear-restaurant/menus/ Disneyland Churros - https://disneyland.disney.go.com/dining/churros/

We're learning about the different religious groups within Judaism, Noahidic Judaism, Masorti Judaism. Today we'll include a more modern denomination named Reformed Judaism. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We're learning about the different religious groups within Judaism, Noahidic Judaism, Masorti Judaism. Today we'll include a more modern denomination named Reformed Judaism. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Parshat Pinchas - A live recording of Geoffrey Stern and Rabbi Adam Mintz on Clubhouse as we use the intriguing case of the Daughters of Zelophechad to explore Patrilinear and Matrolinear decent in Judaism. Sefaria Source Sheet: www.sefaria.org/sheets/332756 Transcript:  Geoffrey Stern  Welcome, everybody. This week's portion has a story that is typically referred to as Zelophehad's daughters. And you'd figure because they always called daughters that they don't have names. They don't have identities. But the Bible in Numbers 27 says the daughters of Zelophehad, and it says their names: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. So they did have a name and what they came to Moses for was that they did not have a father. Their father had passed away in the wilderness. And they were worried about the allotment of land in the holy land that was divided up amongst the 12 tribes. And they were worried that since the portion that you received was passed on from father to son, that since their father did not have a son only had five daughters, that their allotment, their inheritance, their legacy would be lost. And they said: "let not our father's name be lost to his clan, just because he has no son." So I'm going to stop right there and ask you, Rabbi, what does this story mean to you? Is it a woman's lib story?  Is it a purely transactional story? What does it mean to you?   Peter Robins  So I mean, on a basic level, it's transactional, of course, just how they divide the land. It's women's lib, but it's also the ability of people standing up to Moses, and saying to Moses, this is not fair. To me, that's even more interesting. Now, the fact that it's women doing it makes it more dramatic in the 21st century. But actually, from our perspective, just the ability to stand up to Moses and to say, Moses, this isn't fair, we deserve to have our share in the land is really an amazing thing.   Geoffrey Stern  I love the fact that that's the point that you You touched upon, because I started to think to myself, how unique is this situation? And I came up with two other cases, I'd be curious to know whether I missed any but the first case is when Jethro, the father in law of Moses shows up in camp, so to speak, when the Jews get out of Egypt, and there he sees his son in law, Moses adjudicating from early in the morning, to late at night. And he says to him, in Exodus 18, "the thing you are doing is not right, you will surely wear yourself out. And these people as well for the task is too heavy, and you cannot do it alone." So here's a situation where maybe he doesn't confront Moses, maybe Moses doesn't go and say, Well, let me ask the boss. But ultimately, it is also an outsider, if you consider women kind of on the fringe, here this father in law, who's not Jewish, uses his powers of observation, and says this is not sustainable. And the other instance, and this is an instance that we went into in detail is right before the first Passover, when the unclean Israelites came to Moses, and said, How could it be that we will not be able to experience the holiday? And that's when Moses minimally gave them Peach Sheni, a makeup Passover, and maximally adjusted the whole calendar? So my first takeaway from your comment and from this list is, is this the complete list? And two since in each case, God or Moses was so accommodating? I say, isn't it a shame that they didn't come and ask Moses more questions and push him further?   Peter Robins  Yeah, that's kind of an interesting take on it, is why they stopped there?   Geoffrey Stern  I mean, it just shows you the power of being engaged. You've got to ask and maybe that's the first lesson that we should learn from the daughters of Zelophehad, that if something doesn't seem fair, something bothers you, go ahead. And if it has to do with Judaism, we have a very receptive religion. God loves to hear from us write Him a note ask him a "Sheaylah"  , send in a question.   Peter Robins  We joke about that, but that actually is what makes this story so sore story so special, the idea that you can actually ask God a question or that Moses has to ask God a question, you know, is something that's so surprising. That's just not the way the rabbinic system works. The rabbinic system is based on the fact that God doesn't really play a role. It's the rabbi's who play the role. But here we have God being an integral part of making this decision.   Geoffrey Stern  Absolutely. The other thing that occurred to me is that all of these three instances have something in common. Unlike Korach, who was splitting hairs and making an argument, these three instances seem to have in common that they are arguments from sustainability. The argument is, this is not going to last, this is not a practice that can continue over time. So whether it's the daughters of Zelophehad, who said, you know, we've just kind of revealed a crack in the system. If this will continue. It's it's not even about us. It's about keeping the integrity of the tribal allotment. In the case of the Passover. It was a question, in my mind, a big question about the Hebrew calendar, and how does one fix it and in the case of setting up a court system, clearly, that was something that was again, I think Jethro says it the clearest when he says, This can't go on. And so I'm wondering what what you anyone in the audience thinks about this question of sustainability. In other words, if we have a practice, I've brought this subject up before, for instance, the the, the issue of taking interest on a loan, it might work in some societies, but an agrarian society where you have to buy your crops and your seeds and stuff like that. It just wasn't sustainable. And and even though the Bible rants against it, the rabbi's went ahead, and they created a loophole. And so I'm wondering what can we learn from this about changing the law, modifying and modulating our practice, based on the argument that if we continue at this rate, we won't continue to exist, that we'll be throwing out maybe the baby with the bathwater.   Peter Robins  I mean, sustainability is an interesting idea generally, how the Torah deals with with sustainability? I mean, are you talking about sustainability in terms of fairness of law, or you're talking about it in terms of dividing the property?   Geoffrey Stern  Well, I mean, again, Jethro says it the best, you know, he says, that, if you continue doing this, you wear yourself out and the people as well, the task is too heavy for you, you cannot do it. So I'm not talking about sustainability and a fairness mode. And I'm certainly not talking about it in an ecological way. What I'm talking about is an institution, a custom, a practice a law, that if one continues doing it, life will cease as we know it. Other issues, the case of interest where either the farmers will not be able to run their businesses, or they'll be forced to break the law. In the case of Zelophehad's daughter, as you point out, the whole integrity of the tribal system, and the allocation will not last. So you have a choice, either you say, Well, this is the way it's written. And we'll have to give up on this sense of having the allocation for each tribe. The point is, you can't have it both....  it's a catch 22 it's, it's a social institution that cannot persevere, it cannot continue. going in the direction that it's going. It's not practical. Maybe it's an argument from practicality that I'm trying to say,   Peter Robins  yeah, maybe the word is practicality rather than sustainability.   Geoffrey Stern  So is there is there something there there? I brought the example of taking interest but are there other instances?  I've brought up this concept of "Tircha D'Tzibur" (incoveiencing the community) or "gezera she lo hakehilah yachol l'amod bo"  , there are there are rules that are given that if the determination is made. It's too difficult. It's too stark. We can't go on this way. Is that more widespread in the development of Jewish law in your mind?   Peter Robins  I think that that's a very important idea in Jewish law, the idea that people can't handle it, you can't Institute such a law is a very important principle in Judaism. That's what you call practicality and sustainability, if the system is not sustainable, because the people just can't rise to the occasion, you know, Geoffrey, take the simplest example, you know, in, in the diaspora,  for whatever reason, we have two days of every holiday, except for Yom Kippur. Why don't we have two days of Yom Kippur? It's because it's not sustainable. People can't fast for two days of Yom Kippur. Right? That's a perfect example. We should have two days of Yom Kippur, but it's not practical. The system couldn't,  can't survive that way.   Geoffrey Stern  Yeah, I think that's a wonderful example. It's kind of where the, the rubber hits the road, so to speak. And it makes you wonder, and again, you know, this is it. This is a question that people will have to use nuance for, when when does it become something that is too difficult? You know, clearly, if you have a rule that maybe was fine in the past, but people are finding too difficult. That's another question, can something become unsustainable? I see that Peter Robins is here. So Peter, you are on the stage. And I'd love to hear your opinion.   Peter Robins  I think you're going down a slippery slope. Where it is mutability, sustainability, and slippery slope are intermingled. And I give kudos to your definition of rigid laws being changed, because they're not sustainable. But I start out by asking the question, if you ask God a question, how do you know what the response is and where I end up is? That your conscience becomes the response? The question of sustainable and immutability, though, is a slippery slope. And I just wonder how diluted the tenants become when they become changed?   Geoffrey Stern  I think you're asking two questions. And they're two great questions. You know, the easier question is, how do you know that it's God speaking? Is this just a ruse? Is this just a face saving technique that can be used? And when can it be used? Does it disappear with the end of prophecy? Or is there a statute of limitations? I think that's a great question. And and of course, the slippery slope, part of it, is the question of used and abused, you know, who decides, and at what point do Jews come and say, you know, walking to Shul is not sustainable. We used to live in urban areas, or we used to live before the car and the highway, and now we're spread out. And, you know, can we ride to shul? And of course, I think there are movements within Judaism that have argued that that's precisely where one has to use a an argument like this, but clearly, it is a slippery slope, especially if you're an orthodox rabbi. So Adam, what what do what is your response?   Peter Robins  I mean, slippery slope is a tricky business. You know, I understand what Peter is saying, you know, you have to be able to draw lines, but you also need to have flexibility. If you don't have flexibility in the system, then the system is going to fall apart. So you talk about walking to shul. You know, the Conservative movement in 1960 decided that the movement was not going to survive, unless they allowed for driving to shul on Shabbat. 60 years later, they now write and they say that the Conservative movement made a mistake, that they lost community and orthodoxy maintained community because people had to live close by.  The Conservative lost community there. So they made a mistake in the sense of figuring out the slippery slope, or whether it was practical. And I think that's so interesting that that's the consideration. That's what we think about now. Did they go too far? Did they fall down that slippery slope? What do you think Geoffrey, did you think the Conservative movement fell down that slippery slope?   Geoffrey Stern  Well, I do think that, in addition to being a slippery slope, there is the issue of unintended consequences. And I think that there is no question that if one was to make a determination, that riding to synagogue is a necessary evil, one would have to do it with their eyes wide open. And when I say that, I mean, that clearly the optimal situation is that maybe we have smaller synagogues that people even in a suburban or rural area, can live closer to, and if you are too far away to walk, you start another synagogue. And I do think that that is a solution that is, is very positive. So there are alternative solutions to every problem. And definitely, one needs to think but I think my answer to you is, sometimes you need an experiment like that. In other words, you cannot always know what the unintended consequences are. And so you need to be flexible enough to try something and then have the self confidence to admit when a mistake was made.   Peter Robins  That's a big deal, Geoffrey, that's not so easy for people, you know, to admit mistakes, is hard.   Geoffrey Stern  Especially if you're in the God business, I guess.   Peter Robins  I guess that's right. Peter, what do you want to say?  Yeah, Geoffrey and rabbi, I think that slippery slope is I think, harsh. My takeaway from the conversation between and among the two of you, is that survival of the religion and its people, trumps any type of rigidity, that morphing into adaptability becomes the imperative.   Geoffrey Stern  I think maybe it's more of an art than a science. And I do think that the takeaway for me is that you have to ask, you have to speak up, no matter how, what position in the society you hold. You don't have to be a leader, you can be a woman, you can be on the periphery, you can be well meaning non Jew, you can be someone who's quote, unquote "unclean". That's the takeaway to me, and that you need to be flexible and try. And if there's a mistake that gets made, I think that you just have to have the self confidence to admit it. I do think, though, that if we're going to talk about something that is very meaningful, and relates very much to the ability of the Jewish people to survive, we have a another direction that we can go in our discussion today, in terms of the daughters of Zelophehad. And the direction that I want to take us in, is this is the first instance of women arguing for a matrilineal society, meaning to say the assumption of these daughters was that they lived in a patrilineal society, and their father died, and there was not going to be any inheritance to them. And his name would no longer go on, and that you certainly couldn't pass on his tribal affiliation through them. And I know the traditional answer will be, well, whether you are Cohen, Levi or Yisrael goes through your father, but whether you're Jewish, goes through your mother. And what I would love to spend the rest of our afternoon discussing is the fact that that's not altogether clear, number one, and number two, that you could make a case that this is the only instance that we see in biblical Judaism and Torah Judaism, that women were given some ability under certain circumstance to be able to exercise a matrilineal descent. And I'd like to quote a Mishnah. And, of course, the Mishnah is First / Second century, so many, many years after this instance (of the daughters of Zelophehad). And again, you'll hear in the in the Mishnah, that matrilineal descent is only for certain circumstances. So the Mishnah says as follows "Every place that there is a Kidushin (marriage) , and there is no sin, the child goes after the male. And it goes ahead, and it gives many examples..... the ones that I just gave where the father is a Cohen, where the father is a Levite, so forth and so on. And then it goes on to say, however, in a case where there is a sin, whether it's a question of a Cohen, who's not allowed to marry a divorced woman, or a widow, or someone who marries somebody who's a Gibonite. it makes a whole long list. And at the end of the list, it says, that "this one who engages with forbidden intercourse, according to the Torah and cannot join in marriage with that person. In that situation, the child goes after the mother." So if you if you hold in your mind, the situation of Zelophehad's daughters where they were in a situation where it could not continue through that the males. So it had to be tweaked to go through the females, (and of course, this is not the place to have a very deep textual understanding of the text). But what the text actually is saying that any case where the Kiddushin the marriage cannot be fulfilled, such as marriage with a non Jew, in that case, the child goes after the mother. And so this is absolutely radical for us, because we seem to believe that in every instance Judaism goes through the mother, where the Mishnah is saying that similar to the case of Zelophehad's daughter that was an exception with extenuating  circumstances. So too Matrolinear descent, is based on  extenuating circumstance. And now I'll paint it in much more social context. A girl gets raped. And she's not accepted by the the Canaanites or whatever. And rather than have her not affiliated with anybody, the Rabbis say your child is yours, and it's Jewish. And that, to me is the clear reading of this text. So rabbi, what is your sense of the history of this unquestionable belief that we seem to have that Judaism in all cases goes after the mother?   Adam Mintz  Yeah, so that is of course, fascinating. Now, you have to believe that the reason for matrilineal descent goes back Geoffrey is something you said at the beginning. And that is about being practical. And that is you always know who the mother is, you don't always know who the father is. Right? That's a very important consideration. So if you had to determine  what the lineage is, I know what the lineage to the mother is. I don't necessarily know what the lineage who the father is. So therefore, the default seems to be that you go through the mother matrilineal rather than patrilineal. descent.   Geoffrey Stern  So I think that that's an explanation that I've heard before, and clearly, correct me if I'm wrong, but when somebody is, God forbid, sick, and we make a prayer for them for the reason that you just raised we say it after the mother because we know who the mother is.   So there's no question that there was a strong basis for your argument. Alternatively, you cannot say that passing on one's tribal affiliation is meaningless. So, if in fact, we are willing to overlook this surety that we get from the mother when it comes to all sorts of things inheritance law, tribal affiliation, one could ask, why was there this disconnect for being Jewish? And of course, you could argue, well your religion is much more important. But I would argue that while it's a good argument that you're making, it's clear from this text, that When the rabbi's instituted this situation or instance of matrilineal descent, it was for this specific instance. And I just want to say that when I grew up and the Reform movement came out, and said that they were willing to accept patrilineal descent meaning to say that in Reformed Judaism, I think I'm correct in saying that whether your father is Jewish or your mother is Jewish, if one of the parents is Jewish, the kid is Jewish. We all went up in arms, we said that they were going to rip Judaism apart, and so forth and so on. It was a higher bar then when they said, you know, maybe you can light a fire on Shabbat or something. When I did some research, I found and it blew me away that the Reform movement actually wrote a traditional responsa. And in their responsa, they quoted the piece of Mishnah that I just said, and one other, and they said, "the report offers a sociological interpretation of the reason for matrilineal descent. In illicit unions, the woman with a child had no recourse but to return to her own people." So it's amazing to me, number one, I have to give credit to the Reform movement for actually going to the trouble of writing a traditional responsa. But I also believe that they were saying something that, just as the case of Zelophehad's daughters, a social situation prompted us prompted God prompted Moses his spokesman to make a change. In the case of matrilineal descent, it was a beautiful thing, and it stayed. But it somehow totally eclipsed, the more natural, the more widespread patrilineal descent and I was a member of Rabbi Riskin's, synagogue, Lincoln Square at that time, and I remember and I've googled articles that he wrote against these Reform rabbis. Fast forward 30 years, Rabbi Riskin is now living in Israel. And an Israeli soldier whose parents came from the Soviet Union, was tragically killed in battle. And his name was Lev Pascale. And he died in the Lebanon War. And he was about to be buried in the military cemetery, which is a Jewish cemetery. And all of a sudden, the military rabbi said no, his mother was not Jewish, he cannot be buried. And unlike a situation that might have occurred like this, in any other town or instance, in Israel, when it came out to the public, the public universally around Israel said here is a man, a young boy who gave his life for the State of Israel. And you are trying to deny him the the ability to be buried in the military cemetery. And at that point, rabbis, such as Rabbi Riskin, started to delve into the texts, and lo and behold, they started to come up with arguments that there is something to patrilineal descent, I'm going to stop before I actually start bringing some of the arguments. But rabbi, where were you in this in this argument? Is this something that is dynamic at this point, is this is there some movement here?   Adam Mintz  So I mean, that story that Rabbi Riskin story is a very powerful story. I mean, I think the answer is, is it dynamics? The answer is, yes, it's dynamic. But I wanted to go back, Geoffrey, to how you started. And you said that when you were a member of Lincoln Square Synagogue, and the Reform movement said that they accept either patrilineal or matrilineal descent that everybody was up in arms. The reason they were up in arms is because they were afraid that all of a sudden, we were defining Judaism differently for different groups of people means you could be Reformly Jewish, but not Conservative or Orthodox Jewish, and they became very much afraid of that. That at the very least the definition of what it means to be Jewish needs to be standard for everybody. So I think that even though of course, what Rabbi Riskin found out and the fact that there is room for patrilineal descent, but I think the idea that when you go out on a date, you have to wonder, are you Jewish, according to the Reform movement, Jewish according to the Conservative movement, or Jewish according to the Orthodox movement, I think makes it complicated. Doesn't mean it's impossible, and maybe long term. American diaspora Judaism is gonna have to address these issues, because these are the issues that have to be talked about by everybody. Because we can't have a situation where you're Jewish for one and not Jewish for another.   Peter Robins  Can I ask a question here?   Geoffrey Stern  Of course,   Peter Robins  what is the definition of a Jew under the Law of Return?   Geoffrey Stern  I believe it's one grandparent. And I'll go further than that, and say that the State of Israel took the same law as l'havdil eleph havadlot, Hitler took. Hitler would kill you if you had one Jewish grandparent. And I don't know if there's a connection or not, but the State of Israel would accept you if you have one Jewish grandparent.   Peter Robins  Why wouldn't the religion take the same point of view?   Geoffrey Stern  Well, because the religion Church and State in Israel are divided and close at the same time. And of course, the religion follows the halakhic, the legal thinking, and one has to formulate a legal argument. So we only have a few more minutes. Let me just tell you what Rabbi Riskin came up with, he found that the first Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, made the following ruling. He said, if your father is Jewish, and your mother is not, you can't look at that person the way you would look at someone who had no connection to Judaism at all. And when that person decides to come back, "Hozer haYeled l'ikar zaro"  that child is coming back .... he's coming home. And so unlike when someone converts, they have to go through all these classes. And they have to agree to accept all the laws and all of that. This rabbi said, it's different. And of course, Rabbi Riskin said, and that is the way it should be in Israel for a soldier, but it doesn't work in the diaspora. The point that I'm trying to make is, this is an area like any area in Judaism, that you can ask questions, and you can get surprising answers. And I think that, ultimately, is the lesson that we have to learn from the daughters of Zelophehad. And more to the point we don't ask just intellectual questions, but questions that affect people's lives. And I think in with regard to intermarriage, clearly, in terms of American Jews, the new Pew study came out. And if you take away the Orthodox community, 75% of the Jewish community is now inter-marrying. But more than a point, more than 50% of them are raising their children in some level of Judaism. So I think in terms of sustainability of our people, but also the human issue, the social issue we are entitled to ask these questions, to have these discussions, and to know that there is never a black and white answer, and that is my takeaway from the Zelophehad.   Adam Mintz  Thank you. That was really a very good takeaway. I thought this was a great conversation. Thank you, Geoffrey, something to think about for all of us. Shabbat Shalom, everybody. Happy July 4th. I look forward to seeing everybody next week.   Geoffrey Stern  You got it ... Shabbat Shalom. Thanks for joining.

One of my favorite weekends of the year, is when Rabbi Gary Mazo and I “swap pulpits” – with me preaching at the Friday evening Shabbat service and Gary preaching our services on Sunday morning.  Like us, Reformed Judaism has a “lectionary” – and a...

His parents were pastors of an Assemblies of God church, and when he was seven they went to Japan as missionaries.  While they studied the Japanese language, Kevin was in the daytime care of an elderly Japanese nanny who brought a distinctly Buddhist perspective, which Kevin absorbed into his developing personality.  He lived in Japan until graduating High School in Tokyo at the Christian Academy in Japan.  Returning alone to the US in 1969 was a culture shock that drove him to exploring various religious faith communities, including Reformed Judaism.  He joined the Air Force and lived in Turkey, where he was introduced to the Mevlânâ – Whirling Dervish community, and was able to attend the 700th Anniversary celebration of Rumi’s death.  Another assignment opened the door to attend Christmas mass celebrated in Saint Peter’s Basilica by Saint Pope John Paul II.  https://www.worldcommunityofsaintfrancis.org/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgX2Bg8x9sc

This episode is about Reformed Judaism as a cultural identity as opposed to a religion focused on worshipping God. The Reformed movement began in 19th century Germany, and today this is the dominant denomination of Jewish people in America.    My guest is Sarah Kate Levy, a writer here in Los Angeles. Her award-winning fiction and nonfiction essays have appeared in magazines and anthologies, and most recently she cowrote the screenplay No Way Jose with Adam Goldberg. She is also the voice behind ChecklistMommy.com, a blog about parenting, marriage, and her attempts at home organization, which draws from her own experiences as a mother of four young children, including twins. She is currently at work on a novel.    Sarah Kate's childhood led her to think her Judaism was just a small part of who she was, but attending college at Yale, surrounded by people who took their heritage seriously, Sarah Kate began to better understand her Jewish identity. In our conversation, she provides answers and insights into how a person can be part of a religion without professing a belief in God. Perhaps one key to understanding this can be found in a religious culture where debate and pushback against accepted beliefs are not only tolerated, but encouraged.   So much of what Sarah Kate said about her cultural and genetic Judaism mirrors other conversations I've had with Jewish friends over the years. Sarah Kate and I have lived in the same neighborhoods in Los Angles, but experience the world from different perspectives. I hope you enjoy listening in on our conversation!

This week's guest, Alice Goodman, talks about her conversion from Reformed Judaism to the Church of England, the debate concerning women priests and bishops and her work on the operas Nixon in China and The Death of Klinghoffer with composer John Adams. Finally, Rob chooses music with Alice's tastes in mind.