 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Interesting Discussions
Do you think the Syrian Edict is correct according to the Torah and Halacha?
|
| Yes |
|
17% |
[ 19 ] |
| No |
|
55% |
[ 59 ] |
| Don't know |
|
26% |
[ 28 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 106 |
|
amother
|
 Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:03 pm
|
Do you believe this edict is correct or not according to the Torah and Halacha and why?
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
|
MaBelleVie
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:08 pm
|
I think it was the correct thing to do in their circumstances. They don't see the edict as ideal.
| |
|
| Back to top |
15
|
causemommysaid
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:10 pm
|
perhaps at the time it was the right thing but in general it seems wrong. there is a specific mitvah in the torah to love a ger. this seems to contradict that.
| |
|
| Back to top |
8
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:13 pm
Hey, I'm not jewish according to the Syrians. Nor are my kids apparently.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10.....d=all
| Quote: | | “Never accept a convert or a child born of a convert,” Kassin told me by phone, summarizing the message. “Push them away with strong hands from our community. Why? Because we don’t want gentile characteristics.” |
I feel sick.
I understand not accepting converts for marriage purposes. But sincere single people who want to convert? And their children?
The "edict" seems to me an easy substitute for chinuch.
| |
|
| Back to top |
17
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:17 pm
OP here. Here is a link to the edict: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/......html
I do not agree with this edict, because I believe it is very clear the Torah allows conversion and we have a mitzvah to love the converts in our community.
| |
|
| Back to top |
11
|
MaBelleVie
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:17 pm
| amother wrote: | Hey, I'm not jewish according to the Syrians. Nor are my kids apparently.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10.....d=all
| Quote: | | “Never accept a convert or a child born of a convert,” Kassin told me by phone, summarizing the message. “Push them away with strong hands from our community. Why? Because we don’t want gentile characteristics.” |
I feel sick.
I understand not accepting converts for marriage purposes. But sincere single people who want to convert? And their children?
The "edict" seems to me an easy substitute for chinuch. |
1. They don't consider converts to be non Jewish. They don't accept them into the Syrian community, but as for the rest of the Jewish world, they have no problems with that.
2. Whether or not the edict is applied correctly today is a totally different story from when it was first established. I remember that NYT article when it came out, there was a lot of opposition to the way they presented themselves and their viewpoint.
| |
|
| Back to top |
6
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:21 pm
| MaBelleVie wrote: | 1. They don't consider converts to be non Jewish. They don't accept them into the Syrian community, but as for the rest of the Jewish world, they have no problems with that.
2. Whether or not the edict is applied correctly today is a totally different story from when it was first established. I remember that NYT article when it came out, there was a lot of opposition to the way they presented themselves and their viewpoint. | Are you sure? Many Syrians I know do not consider them as Jews, since they suspect any conversion as being with some type of interest, and not valid.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
Raisin
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:24 pm
| amother wrote: | | Are you sure? Many Syrians I know do not consider them as Jews, since they suspect any conversion as being with some type of interest, and not valid. |
I'd like to hear from any syrians on here if this is the case.
| |
|
| Back to top |
4
|
MaBelleVie
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:26 pm
Here is a response to the NYT article, by a prominent rabbi in the Syrian community:
Oct. 15, 2007
Letters to the Editor, Magazine
The New York Times
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY 10018
To the Editor,
Jakie Kassin is the son and grandson of rabbis and a dynamic do-gooder, but he is neither a rabbi nor a scholar of Judaic studies. The statements attributed to him in “The SY Empire” (Zev Chafets, Oct. 14, 2007) are a gross distortion of Judaism as well as of the 1935 Edict promulgated in the Syrian Jewish community of Brooklyn. That Edict was enacted to discourage community members from intermarrying with non-Jews. It acknowledged the reality of the time that conversions were being employed insincerely and superficially. Accordingly, conversion for marriage to a member of the community was automatically rejected.
However, it is important in this regard to clarify the policy of the community rabbinate and particularly that of the long-time former chief rabbi of the community, Jacob S. Kassin (the originator of the Edict), and his son, the present chief rabbi, Saul J. Kassin. I quote from an official formulation of the Sephardic Rabbinical Council of several years ago that reflects their position: “1. A conversion not associated with marriage that was performed by a recognized Orthodox court – such as for adoption of infants or in the case of an individual sincerely choosing to be Jewish – is accepted in our community. 2. If an individual not born to a member of our community had converted to Judaism under the aegis of an Orthodox court, and was observant of Jewish Law, married a Jew/Jewess who was not and had not been a member of our community, their children are permitted to marry into our community.” Based on these standards a goodly number of converts have been accepted into the community. Genetic characteristics play no role whatsoever.
No rabbi considers sincere and proper conversions “fictitious and valueless.” (The comma in the English translation cited in the article that gives that impression was the result of a mistranslation by a layman, a matter I made clear to Mr. Chafets when we spoke.)
In addition, the quote claiming that even other Jews are disqualified from marrying into the community “if someone in their line was married by a Reform or Conservative rabbi” is a totally false portrayal of community rabbinical policy. Many Ashkenazim whose parents were married by such rabbis have married into our community.
Sincerely,
Moshe Shamah
Rabbi, Sephardic Synagogue
511 Ave. R
Brooklyn, NY 11223
| |
|
| Back to top |
22
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 7:35 pm
| MaBelleVie wrote: | Here is a response to the NYT article, by a prominent rabbi in the Syrian community:
Oct. 15, 2007
Letters to the Editor, Magazine
The New York Times
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY 10018
To the Editor,
Jakie Kassin is the son and grandson of rabbis and a dynamic do-gooder, but he is neither a rabbi nor a scholar of Judaic studies. The statements attributed to him in “The SY Empire” (Zev Chafets, Oct. 14, 2007) are a gross distortion of Judaism as well as of the 1935 Edict promulgated in the Syrian Jewish community of Brooklyn. That Edict was enacted to discourage community members from intermarrying with non-Jews. It acknowledged the reality of the time that conversions were being employed insincerely and superficially. Accordingly, conversion for marriage to a member of the community was automatically rejected.
However, it is important in this regard to clarify the policy of the community rabbinate and particularly that of the long-time former chief rabbi of the community, Jacob S. Kassin (the originator of the Edict), and his son, the present chief rabbi, Saul J. Kassin. I quote from an official formulation of the Sephardic Rabbinical Council of several years ago that reflects their position: “1. A conversion not associated with marriage that was performed by a recognized Orthodox court – such as for adoption of infants or in the case of an individual sincerely choosing to be Jewish – is accepted in our community. 2. If an individual not born to a member of our community had converted to Judaism under the aegis of an Orthodox court, and was observant of Jewish Law, married a Jew/Jewess who was not and had not been a member of our community, their children are permitted to marry into our community.” Based on these standards a goodly number of converts have been accepted into the community. Genetic characteristics play no role whatsoever.
No rabbi considers sincere and proper conversions “fictitious and valueless.” (The comma in the English translation cited in the article that gives that impression was the result of a mistranslation by a layman, a matter I made clear to Mr. Chafets when we spoke.)
In addition, the quote claiming that even other Jews are disqualified from marrying into the community “if someone in their line was married by a Reform or Conservative rabbi” is a totally false portrayal of community rabbinical policy. Many Ashkenazim whose parents were married by such rabbis have married into our community.
Sincerely,
Moshe Shamah
Rabbi, Sephardic Synagogue
511 Ave. R
Brooklyn, NY 11223 | I know for a FACT that this synagogue does not have this edict anymore.
Also, what he is saying contradicts the original edict and the subsequent clarification of the edict.
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 9:17 pm
|
Isn't this old news? Or is it the Persians who also don't accept converts? And the Rabbi who clarified, does he speak only for his shul or for the entire Syrian community? Honestly, I don't care who doesn't accept my conversion. I doubt my children will ever try to be part of the Syrian community anyway and only Hashem can sort out who did right or wrong in their respective lifetime. Also I can see why the enacted the edict originally.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 10:01 pm
I converted - and I won't let my kids anywhere near a Syrian community - bc I never want them to know from the bigotry and hatred they would face. I won't go into a Syrian beit knesset even for shiurim. The last time I did (a very mainstream SY shul), I read a sign that was clearly posted that really offended me. It was so hurtful that I think I've actually repressed what it said specifically but it was clear that geirim are not welcome in their shul. Never again.
It's terrible what they have done. If they had a problem with their men marrying women who converted specifically for marriage and had no intention of being religious, they should have found a better solution. One that did not involve hurting so many sincere people. 
| |
|
| Back to top |
21
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 10:39 pm
I think it's very interesting how an entire community violates a Torah commandment and yet no one bothers to reproach them. Do they accept meguilat Ruth? What about Shemaiah and Avtalion?
It is really against the Torah and people not only do not do anything about it, but some people actually endorse it because it supposedly benefits the community.
I thought we were not allowed to change the laws of the Torah. If Hashem allows gerim, who are these people to forbid?? Do they think their intellect is better than G-D himself?
| |
|
| Back to top |
15
|
Lady Godiva
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 10:49 pm
I wonder if this topic should be banned like other sensitive topics are on Imamother. I don't like the banning of topics, but if other groups get to protect their Rabbis and beliefs from being bashed, it's only fair that the Syrian community and Rabbis get to have that protection here as well. (I'll be reporting my own post for that purpose.)
The edict was enacted to save a community from intermarriage--which it certainly did. That said, it's understandable that it's difficult for most people to be okay with it, and it's probably very hurtful to many whom we must love and protect from that type of hurt.
It's definitely something that's difficult to wholeheartedly agree with for all Jews (including many members of the Syrian community), but unfortunately Rabbis did what they felt they had to do to protect their people, and that's how it remains.
I just want to point out that there are exceptions to the rule, and it's not all black-and-white as news articles make it seem to be.
| |
|
| Back to top |
20
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 10:57 pm
| Lady Godiva wrote: | I wonder if this topic should be banned like other sensitive topics are on Imamother. I don't like the banning of topics, but if other groups get to protect their Rabbis and beliefs from being bashed, it's only fair that the Syrian community and Rabbis get to have that protection here as well. (I'll be reporting my own post for that purpose.)
The edict was enacted to save a community from intermarriage--which it certainly did. That said, it's understandable that it's difficult for most people to be okay with it, and it's probably very hurtful to many whom we must love and protect from that type of hurt.
It's definitely something that's difficult to wholeheartedly agree with for all Jews (including many members of the Syrian community), but unfortunately Rabbis did what they felt they had to do to protect their people, and that's how it remains.
I just want to point out that there are exceptions to the rule, and it's not all black-and-white as news articles make it seem to be. | I don't agree with you. I believe that we should discuss all matters that pertain to halacha, and I do not see why this is different than discussing any other topic. Burying our heads in the ground does not lead anywhere. I think in imamother we all have the opportunity and freedom to discuss all topics respectfully , and I think most here have the maturity to do so.
| |
|
| Back to top |
7
|
Lady Godiva
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 11:02 pm
| amother wrote: | | Are you sure? Many Syrians I know do not consider them as Jews, since they suspect any conversion as being with some type of interest, and not valid. |
This is false.
I'm not sure what type of "Many Syrians" you know told you that, but they're clearly uneducated.
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
MaBelleVie
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 11:02 pm
|
If people want to have a respectful discussion they should 1. Not be anonymous 2. Actually read people's responses 3. Refrain from making sweeping critical statements about entire communities (do you want people to renounce their Syrian heritage because they don't personally agree with the edict?)
| |
|
| Back to top |
9
|
amother
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 11:09 pm
Strange. I don't remember learning that the end justifies the means.
That being said, as a geirus with very strong feelings against the edict, I actually agree with Lady Godiva that this might be an appropriate topic to ban. I know no one could ever change my mind about this and probably Syrians feel the same way. Just a lot of hurt feelings all around.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
vintagebknyc
|
Thu, Apr 24 2014, 11:09 pm
| amother wrote: | | I don't agree with you. I believe that we should discuss all matters that pertain to halacha, and I do not see why this is different than discussing any other topic. Burying our heads in the ground does not lead anywhere. I think in imamother we all have the opportunity and freedom to discuss all topics respectfully , and I think most here have the maturity to do so. |
sorry, amother, think again. while I disagree with the rules, there are in fact topics we are not allowed to discuss regardless of maturity and respect
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
