well, all of these things should be done by halakhah tout court. OK, maybe in practice in the mainstream they don't a lot of the time, but i still can't see how the distinction of "psychohalachah" is required.but psychohalachah says we have to consider the way the shechinah would like to relate to the next generation. It is also flexible. Just because one group of Jews applies psychohalachah in one way does not mean that anybody else has to do the same. Also, the intention of psychohalachah is specifically to enhance practice.
this makes it sound like a formalised version of what people do anyway. in other words, nobody's going to make me not turn lights on and off, so it's really up to me to find meaning in it. but, to my way of thinking, this is a necessarily integral element of judaism for those of us from non-frum backgrounds, but i would disagree that this is not taken account of by the halakhah. where i might agree with you is that it isn't given any input by certain parts of orthodoxy and, in particular, the kiruv end of things like aish ha-torah and ohr sameach. the fact is that that emperor has no clothes, but that doesn't stop them maintaining it. so it sounds like "psychohalachah" is that iterative process people go through when trying to become more observant and getting judaism working for them, as opposed to something that people who are, as it were, "frum from birth" do. i can see the validity in it, but the use of the word is almost setting it up in opposition to regular halakhah, "reaching the parts that halakhah doesn't reach", if you like."Shabbos is wonderful stuff. It's what everybody's looking for. Give it the benefit of the doubt. Do it and see what works. Now if it works, great. If it doesn't work, what adjustments do you have to make so it will work better? That's what I mean by the psycho-halachic process."
i don't think i'm explaining this as well as i should be. what i mean is not that external influence is bad - in any case, it's unavoidable either actively or passively to some degree - but that it needs to be encountered jewishly, using jewish categories of thought. it is those categories, philosophically speaking, that i would consider to be more or less fixed; only the "consensus of the pious" can extend them. in other words, only hillel can establish a prosbul and *make it a jewish thing*. it is not a licence for every tuvia, david and hertzberg to make up their own halakhic constructions. as in all systems, there has to be some quality control at the implementation phase. obviously, in R&D this needs to be far less prescriptive, but as r. zalman obviously realises, if you're going to implement something it needs to function as intended - hence his position on the get.I would imagine they are just as externally influenced as Rambam. Well, maybe not that externally influenced, but they don't live in a closed world. Certainly they are just as contaminated as the haskalah.
ok, i get what you mean, but i simply don't buy that we can know this intentionality to such a degree. i showed the discussion to a friend of mine who is both extremely open-minded and studying for orthodox semichah and he said it's not about technology - the fact is that we know that we fulfil this mitzvah by means of these things we call tefillin and you simply can't know the intentionality to a sufficient degree. in other words, post-hoc rationalisation does not constitute authority to innovate.Its intent is generally to try and find the original intentionality of an act and use that to revitalize it in the present, like having a person make their own vegetarian tefillin.
what you seem to be saying is that the psychological comfort to be gained from a practice is sometimes more important than doing it correctly! it's the same with this idea that you can print out a mezuzah - there's nothing kosher about that either. and i frankly don't buy the technology argument. the fact is that you can sample the sound of a musical instrument as much as you like, but it's still not the same as using a real instrument, even though it might arguably be better reproduced.Hands-on is very psycho-halachic even though there is nothing kosher about veggie tefillin. The "psycho" in psychohalachah is for psychological.
perhaps this is because it sees what happens if this idea of the psychological element is allowed to get such a veto! i mean, what is kabbalistic kavvanah if not a strong psychological framework underpinning the performance of mitzvot?The reason this name was given is because while traditional halachah is not open about the psychological element
i don't agree with this. if one understands the applicability of the p'sak, then one ought to understand its jurisdiction. it's like that famous story about r. moshe feinstein and the milk.tends to see a good p'sak as being free of subjectivity
what he seemed to be saying when i read it was that he was understanding the intentionality sufficiently well to include it in his reasoning. if it's not p-h, it seems pretty close to it to me.But it's not psychohalachah.
frankly, this is what makes it a problem for me - if you don't believe in Torah me-Sinai, then how on earth is this to be accepted by the "community of the pious"? and, moreover, when something so fundamental is in question, how am i supposed to accept the validity of this "new revelation"? it sounds like the arguments of the early church. surely, what proves judaism works is its ability to change while still sticking strictly to the halakhic system?for people who don't believe in Torah m'sinai (and even more so for those who believe we are constantly open to new revelation) sticking strictly to the halachic system instead of stretching beyond it doesn't make a lot of sense.
the best model i can suggest for understanding this is that of the futurists watts & wacker's "devox", as described in their book, "the deviant's advantage". as i understand it, something from the fringe then migrates towards towards the mainstream, but loses much of its edge in the process. you should take a look at this book.The avant garde has to influence the mainstream to the point that what once was avant garde is now regarded as mainstream. There have been some influences.
i can see the validity in it, but the use of the word is almost setting it up in opposition to regular halakhah, "reaching the parts that halakhah doesn't reach", if you like.
it is those categories, philosophically speaking, that i would consider to be more or less fixed; only the "consensus of the pious" can extend them.
ok, i get what you mean, but i simply don't buy that we can know this intentionality to such a degree.
what you seem to be saying is that the psychological comfort to be gained from a practice is sometimes more important than doing it correctly!
it's the same with this idea that you can print out a mezuzah - there's nothing kosher about that either.
the fact is that you can sample the sound of a musical instrument as much as you like, but it's still not the same as using a real instrument, even though it might arguably be better reproduced.
perhaps this is because it sees what happens if this idea of the psychological element is allowed to get such a veto! i mean, what is kabbalistic kavvanah if not a strong psychological framework underpinning the performance of mitzvot?
i'll look up "integral judaism", but frankly i think that aristotle, in his own way, had almost as much unwarranted influence as the haskalah. i mean, look at yehuda ha-levi saying "G!D forbid that there should be anything in the Torah that contradicts reason" - to my
mind, that's almost idolatry.
what he seemed to be saying when i read it was that he was understanding the intentionality sufficiently well to include it in his reasoning. if it's not p-h, it seems pretty close to it to me.
frankly, this is what makes it a problem for me - if you don't believe in Torah me-Sinai, then how on earth is this to be accepted by the "community of the pious"?
and, moreover, when something so fundamental is in question, how am i supposed to accept the validity of this "new revelation"?
it sounds like the arguments of the early church.
surely, what proves judaism works is its ability to change while still sticking strictly to the halakhic system?
you know, on the whole i think renewal is a pretty good thing. it's just a shame that it seems to require people to feel they have to go on outside the Torah me-Sinai enclosure.
but why does it have to *oppose* halakhah? that's what i don't get. why can't it harmonise?I would say that it is clearly in some sort of opposition to regular halakhah
ok, but christianity, *also* saw/sees itself as such. so did/does islam. so did shabbetai tzvi and the people who think the lubavitcher rebbe was the moshiach. that's not an argument. a catchy name is all very well, but surely you are supposed to be connvincing me that this is a good thing for judaism. all you're showing me from this is how it can go horribly wrong.as it comes from a movement that sees itself as the next turn of the Jewish wheel. That's why it's called Aleph. That's why it was called B'nai Or. That's why there is an Aquarian Minyan. That's why there is a book called Paradigm Shift. That's why there's a book called "Renewal Is Judaism NOW" (a play on the Chabad slogan.)
well, i'm sure hieros gamos generates a bunch of kavannah. doesn't make it a) a good idea or b) jewish. that's my question again - what locates this in jewish continuity if the halakhic process is not respected?It's not talking about making changes in practice so that the practice is easier. It's talking about making radical change so that practice generates more kavannah.
i'm sorry, it's also the same as the argument that something is right because "it feels right" or "it makes me feel good". judaism must also retain some element of "it's right because it's congruent with and supports the system". that doesn't get a casting vote, but it can't be ditched.It's one thing to buy a mezuzah from a sofer. It's another thing to make your own mezuzah, on some other type of material that chazal would not approve of, and post that up on your door. That is psychohalakhah.
i thought this was about klal yisrael. that must also mean, to some extent, the pious of *all* communities. judaism is supposed to be at least to some extent interoperable, so that wherever i go in the world i know there's some element of shaharit, minhah, ma'ariv, shabbat, chagim, kashrut, all of that. it's got to be both backwardly and forwardly compatible.From where I am coming from, when a community forms, the consensus of the pious falls within that community and not without. To a lesser degree it falls without, and only to the degree that it tries to integrate itself into the mainstream
i think it has to be backed up by a principle grounded in Torah.Further, I would ask, what is a Jewish category of thought?
that's just the practice. what i am saying is that it's not about ditching the DMWLB, but about connecting with them and making them part of your continuum. what you seem to be saying (and correct me if i'm wrong) is that they're old hat and not relevant any more, particularly compared to a shiny new interfaith couple in a rainbow tallit going "lai la lai" in a drumming circle. and, excuse me if i'm being all british about this, it all seems terribly relevant to western middle-class white baby boomers, but that too is parochial to me. the 60s are over. how is this going to help them in israel? in germany? in russia? in hong kong? i get terribly upset at how artscroll is taking over the world but frankly it seems to me that being a big hippy instead isn't the only answer there is. arthur waskow, he may go down terribly well in the states but over here he just gets called "arthur wacko" (that's from having played guitar while he tried to get 1500 british people to dance around to a nigun - and limmud is as receptive an audience as you get to that approach over here.)This just goes back to the Orthodox idea about dead men with long beards being the best people to listen to.
umph. give me an example of something from the ar"i or the rema"k that isn't grounded in normative thinking and halakhah - just so i know what you mean. i'm not saying there aren't such things. i'm just trying to navigate the boundaries of the system.The innovators of kabbalah (I'm not talking about the legendary authors) did not limit themselves to what was normative thinking within Judaism.
i agree, but some of this stuff...And it does take a few generations to tell which R&D has proven successful, as I stated earlier.
it's the chain of tradition as described in pirkei avot 1 - but we don't have that true semichah any more, just like we don't have the red heifer. the Divine may still speak to us, but the spiritual earplugs are a hell of a lot bigger.On what authority were these traditions originally established? If you say it is Divine, I say the Divine still speaks to us.
but this is just what paul thought he was doing when he split off christianity from judaism!! if even chabad messianism can get this so wrong, what is to stop it going wrong yet again??We can open up to it as a part of the process of binyan hamalchut, when we invest in the Godfield.
it's *halakhah*! how more jewishly authoritative can one get? that's like the bertrand russell "teapot orbiting jupiter" argument. why am i obliged to consider the competing claims to correctness of every psycho-halakhist? i mean, i can understand where people like r. zalman are coming from, but where does it end?What makes traditional halakhah any more correct than anything else?
the fact that someone is long dead doesn't make them wrong. and if you want to innovate like they did, you should use their rules to do it as they obviously work. the rabbinic system they created isn't dead. it's just kind of stuck. i'm for repairing the machine, not junking it and building a new one.It's not kosher according to the rabbinic system. So what? Hazal are long dead and they themselves were innovators. We should be innovating like they did.
i see what you mean and, obviously, if someone constructs their own kosher mezuzah, then fine, but they have to be able to ensure it's kosher. i'm not actually sure if the parchment is 100% necessary for kashrut but if it is, that's not negotiable. what i mean is, you wouldn't expect a plastic piano to sound exactly the same.How is this a parallel for constructing one's own mezuzah? Maybe a parallel for buying a printed version, but when a person constructs their own mezuzah, with that intent, there is so much personal kavanah that goes into it, as opposed to buying from a sofer for whom it is a business.
that's presumably because it is so personal - you might as well use the argument "well eating cheeseburgers from mcdonald's feels right for me and enhances my kavvanah." it might well be true, but it isn't jewish.According to the rabbinic system I can't use kavannah as an argument equal in weight to all others.
but this i can understand - but BOTH are justifying their decision as part of a halakhic process, aren't they?why, in my book on Rosh Hashanah and Shabbos, some shuls blew the shofar and some didn't. Some had two days and some had one.
that's more where i am in sympathy. i would say that much of the spectrum has been lost - but a spectrum is not infinitely extendible. the point is that labels can only stretch so far - otherwise you end up with a bacon bagel.Psychohalachah is a move away from black and white toward more of a spectrum.
well, i'd like to be sympathetic and even to consider myself part of that process, but it sounds like there's so much ideology that goes along with it that i wouldn't know what i was buying into.And for that matter, there are Jews sympathetic to Renewal who choose to try and work within the Orthodox world instead of outside of it.
but if you can't accept the validity of the old one on *some* level (i'm not talking about "moses had peyot and wore a black hat" here) then *how is it still jewish*??Because as much as you can't accept the validity of some "new revelation", liberal Jews of all stripes can't accept the validity of the old one, as it is traditionally understood.
i would be focusing on examining options for how judaism could work for them, rather than giving them more ammunition to deepen the splits.I would focus on what's showing that Judaism does not work, instead of what's showing that it does.
OK, fair enough, but it's got to be anchored somehow. and it'll never succeed unless what it is anchored in is jewish.The Early Church was looking to fulfill biblical prophecies in order to validate itself. Renewal will never point to a verse in Isaiah as evidence that what it is doing has been foreseen.
and that is all fine until these modern methods come into conflict with older ones. then we have to have some method of resolving the clash that keeps everyone on board.Rather, Renewal will look at all of the information it can gather from whatever source might be available, including modern methods. It's also not anti-halachic. It's neo-halachic.
show me a prophet. and if you can't, show me a text that speaks to me as the old texts do. the reason the zohar caught on and was canonicalised (if that's the phrase) is because it *worked* with the other stuff, even if it was a later text.It would take a massive shift in thinking for us to open up to the idea that we are just as near and open to that Source as our ancestors were.
er.... what?In order for a flag to wave in the wind, there must be wind and there must be a flag. They are part of the same process. If there was no flag, how could we define the wind? If there was no wind, what would keep the flag waving?
it doesn't feel like that - but that is precisely what i need to be happy about.I think you also have to understand that for a Jew who accepts this particular paradigm, what they are doing is not some sort of bland reconstructionism.
but why does it have to *oppose* halakhah? that's what i don't get. why can't it harmonise?
all you're showing me from this is how it can go horribly wrong.
what locates this in jewish continuity if the halakhic process is not respected?
judaism must also retain some element of "it's right because it's congruent with and supports the system". that doesn't get a casting vote, but it can't be ditched.
i thought this was about klal yisrael. that must also mean, to some extent, the pious of *all* communities. judaism is supposed to be at least to some extent interoperable, so that wherever i go in the world i know there's some element of shaharit, minhah, ma'ariv, shabbat, chagim, kashrut, all of that. it's got to be both backwardly and forwardly compatible.
i think it has to be backed up by a principle grounded in Torah.
what you seem to be saying (and correct me if i'm wrong) is that they're old hat and not relevant any more,
it's the chain of tradition as described in pirkei avot 1
but this is just what paul thought he was doing when he split off christianity from judaism!! if even chabad messianism can get this so wrong, what is to stop it going wrong yet again??
it's *halakhah*! how more jewishly authoritative can one get?
why am i obliged to consider the competing claims to correctness of every psycho-halakhist? i mean, i can understand where people like r. zalman are coming from, but where does it end?
and if you want to innovate like they did, you should use their rules to do it as they obviously work.
i'm for repairing the machine, not junking it and building a new one.
what i mean is, you wouldn't expect a plastic piano to sound exactly the same.
but this i can understand - but BOTH are justifying their decision as part of a halakhic process, aren't they?
the point is that labels can only stretch so far - otherwise you end up with a bacon bagel.
well, i'd like to be sympathetic and even to consider myself part of that process, but it sounds like there's so much ideology that goes along with it that i wouldn't know what i was buying into.
but if you can't accept the validity of the old one on *some* level (i'm not talking about "moses had peyot and wore a black hat" here) then *how is it still jewish*??
i would be focusing on examining options for how judaism could work for them, rather than giving them more ammunition to deepen the splits.
OK, fair enough, but it's got to be anchored somehow. and it'll never succeed unless what it is anchored in is jewish.
and that is all fine until these modern methods come into conflict with older ones. then we have to have some method of resolving the clash that keeps everyone on board.
show me a prophet. and if you can't, show me a text that speaks to me as the old texts do. the reason the zohar caught on and was canonicalised (if that's the phrase) is because it *worked* with the other stuff, even if it was a later text.
that's kind of where i am unsure about it - you seem to assume that this is precisely why i should approve of it.But unlike the movements you have mentioned, renewal represents a radical shift in paradigm.
so, for example, the next generation could have the revelation that no new revelation is required?One of the problems with the above movements when seen as schisms is their commitment to finite revelation. Unlike these movements, renewal remains flexible. The next generation can always reject what the generation before it has done.
i see what you mean, but i would say that halakhah has established its credibility over the last 2000 years. that's kind of what makes it synomymous with continuity - the fact that it is both stable and fluid. where i would probably agree with you is that it is far too stable at the moment and in danger of ossifying.What located halachah in Jewish continuity? It was neo- to what came before it.
fair enough, but that probably makes me a mitnaged. and i'd prefer that nobody started denouncing anyone else to the tsar or accused anyone else of being a sectarian.My guess is that psychohalachah has its roots in hasidism's early breaks with tradition, but that combined with liberal theology it's willing to go further.
if you have gone through the process of learning how to make your own kosher mezuzah, i would agree. but i didn't think that was what you were suggesting. when i say supporting the system, i didn't mean providing sofrim with an income, but in terms of working with the halakhic system.There is nothing that doesn't support the system about making your own mezuzah.
i don't think we can afford to say that. for me, that's why i do intra-faith dialogue as well as inter-faith and why i am involved with stuff like limmud.I disagree. Klal Yisrael is a separate consideration.
so actually it's about trusting people with the authority to innovate - one might almost term it management. i suppose the problem we have now is managerialism taken to the point of bureaucracy.And if you lived in the time that there were multiple slaughter-sites, and you suddenly find yourself after the rabbis had their way, suddenly it's not vogue anymore to make your qorban to God.
i mean like shalom bayit[i/], or dina de-malchuta dina, or ha-'olam noheg keminhago. Torah heuristics, as it were, not interpretative methods.You mean like kal v'khomer, gezerah shavah, klal u'frat etc?
oh good, because that's precisely what is wrong with the spoonfeeding you get with "artscroll judaism".Renewal teachers do mention the importance of being able to study the originals for yourself and come to your own conclusions, instead of just taking what they say for granted.
that's a rhetorical argument. i'd say the source is actually a record of the agreement.A source can't establish its own authority.
that's not the case. when it says "moshe kibel Torah", that includes the Oral Torah - and nistar, for that matter.Also, I will point out if you are insinuating, that nowhere is the Oral Torah mentioned in Avot 1.
er, i'll check it out. if you mean the soul-structure of non-jews argument, i find it objectionable.4. As an aside: Are you aware of what M.M. Schneerson said about Atzmus and how that has effected Elokism in Chabad?
i used to be reform. they never talked about halachah when i was there. and as for the eliyahu argument, obviously neither of us can resolve that one. but surely the parallel development of the Oral Torah can be established by the lack of procedure in the Written Torah about how to get married.Ask a Reform Jew. Or better yet, go back in time and ask Eliyahu what halachah is.
i'd like to understand it so i can fit it into my worldview and develop an informed opinion on it, either positive or negative, or mixed.There's really no point in your arguing that you shouldn't have to consider psycho-halachah. I've never suggested you should.
then we don't agree about how they innovated. not much we can do about that.That doesn't make any sense. If I use their rules, I'm not innovating like they did.
then that's what i need to understand. how are we to evaluate whether something enhances kavvanah or not?Enhancing kavanah isn't just about what feels right.
hehe, i'd rather make you teach me about it on the web. call it psycho-chevruta if you like!If you're really curious about what the heck I'm talking about you could just order the book. I'll tell you that even though I gave maybe one line for an argument, each person took between 1 and maybe 7 pages to cover everything.
i see what you mean. and, to a certain extent, i agree. i just need to understand what you're saying.And in some cases, yes you do. And maybe it's a choice between having the occasional bacon bagel or having a few more people who don't feel at home in Judaism and don't Jew it at all.
that's kind of where i'm coming from. i'm not focused on orthodoxy. i detest the word. it offends me nearly as much as "Torah judaism" - yeuch.because Renewal is generally not so focused on Orthodoxy and by affiliating myself with Renewal, I could potentially weaken my ability to work radically from the inside.
nononono! not at all. i'm an inclusivist and i recognise the affiliative nature of judaism. i just try not to be too hard and fast about my definitions (despite what this thread may seem to demonstrate)You know, I misread you. I guess by your definition the majority of what happens outside of Orthodoxy is not Jewish.
blimey. well that's a step too far for me. for me, rejecting one Oral Torah, which has served us very well, has merely created a gap which has been created with other, not very well put together for the most part, oral laws. like karaism, but more damaging and widespread.At this point in history I can safely say that rejecting the oral torah's connection to sinai can indeed be Jewish.
rambam's son converted to islam. that makes him an apostate. that is not a good thing. there are some who consider me a bit of a "jewfi" - but to my mind, without a sufi "rebbe", i'm not a sufi. i do dig sufis though - we are kindred spirits.How is it deepening the splits? Wasn't Rambam's son a sufi?
umph. well, it's not the worst idea in the world. but it's still risky. i need quality control.People come to renewal with some wisdom, and it's not turned away.
harrumph. i don't accept the idea of "enlightenment" as uncritically as all that.When was the Zohar written? 13th century. The people of that time weren't exactly enlightened.
hmmm. i dunno about that. i mean, the only text of sefer raziel is out of order. if another was found, who knows what we might learn?The reason the Zohar caught on is that the people were hungry for the mythical and the mystical. If it appeared in our day, it would not be accepted.
so, for example, the next generation could have the revelation that no new revelation is required?
i see what you mean, but i would say that halakhah has established its credibility over the last 2000 years. that's kind of what makes it synomymous with continuity - the fact that it is both stable and fluid. where i would probably agree with you is that it is far too stable at the moment and in danger of ossifying.
if you have gone through the process of learning how to make your own kosher mezuzah, i would agree. but i didn't think that was what you were suggesting.
i don't think we can afford to say that. for me, that's why i do intra-faith dialogue as well as inter-faith and why i am involved with stuff like limmud.
so actually it's about trusting people with the authority to innovate - one might almost term it management. i suppose the problem we have now is managerialism taken to the point of bureaucracy.
i mean like shalom bayit[i/], or dina de-malchuta dina, or ha-'olam noheg keminhago. Torah heuristics, as it were, not interpretative methods.
that's a rhetorical argument. i'd say the source is actually a record of the agreement.
that's not the case. when it says "moshe kibel Torah", that includes the Oral Torah - and nistar, for that matter.
er, i'll check it out. if you mean the soul-structure of non-jews argument, i find it objectionable.
i used to be reform. they never talked about halachah when i was there.
but surely the parallel development of the Oral Torah can be established by the lack of procedure in the Written Torah about how to get married.
then we don't agree about how they innovated. not much we can do about that.
then that's what i need to understand. how are we to evaluate whether something enhances kavvanah or not?
hehe, i'd rather make you teach me about it on the web. call it psycho-chevruta if you like!
that's kind of where i'm coming from. i'm not focused on orthodoxy. i detest the word. it offends me nearly as much as "Torah judaism" - yeuch.
blimey. well that's a step too far for me. for me, rejecting one Oral Torah, which has served us very well, has merely created a gap which has been created with other, not very well put together for the most part, oral laws. like karaism, but more damaging and widespread.
rambam's son converted to islam. that makes him an apostate. that is not a good thing. there are some who consider me a bit of a "jewfi" - but to my mind, without a sufi "rebbe", i'm not a sufi. i do dig sufis though - we are kindred spirits.
umph. well, it's not the worst idea in the world. but it's still risky. i need quality control.
hmmm. i dunno about that. i mean, the only text of sefer raziel is out of order. if another was found, who knows what we might learn?
umph. i'd say i'm stuck on what we mean by it. in a lot of ways, i could call what i believe in "continuous revelation" - i prefer to think of it as paradoxical, though - both fixed and changing at the same time.Renewal is the result of a shift in paradigm. You seem to be stuck on the word "revelation."
that's almost like a buber i-thou moment, which i don't think is really humanly attainable.There is no ultimate revelation being given at this time. Every moment is the ultimate revelation.
i don't disagree with this either."Revelations in the coming paradigm will not be found in solitary desert wanderings or transcendental excursions, but in the more immediate surroundings of the Planetary Mind and the kinds of happenings it burps up now and then."
again, this is very close to where i would see myself. however, i see it as aspirational rather than immediate. almost augustinian ("oh, lord, give me a paradigm shift - but not yet!") but obviously more human.The Revelation might remain the same, but the form which mortals give it changes. Tradition, therefore, is a marker we leave behind us in previous life cycles so that when we come back we have some notion of where we left off. We need to look at tradition, therefore, not as a relic of the past but as a catalyst for the future."
because that's how they're made! i think rather than argue this again i'd say that it is better to think of it as a spectrum. the label "mezuzah" or "tefillin" could stretch further, quite possibly - but how far? obviously, you're not suggesting this, but you couldn't make tefillin out of, say, pigskin.But if a vegeterian is going to make their own mezuzah, and their own tefillin, why should they use animal parts?
you see, that's where we differ - as to what constitutes the norm from which deviation must be justified. i am saying that the norm is, by default, a halakhic one. i think (and correct me if i'm wrong) that you're saying that since the haskalah, the norm is by default one of personal autonomy and therefore any form of halakhic observance is in effect "opting in". i guess that is the difference between a "traditional" (let's not call it orthodox) mindset and a "renewal" one - of course i might even concede that on the numbers and on the tests of workability and reasonableness, the renewal mindset is more convincing. however, i still feel that it was the haskalah that cast the first stone of deviation, if you like (even if it wasn't the *first*, really) - nonetheless it is for the deviation or mutation (in the potentially beneficial genetic sense, perhaps) to justify its action, i would say. so there we are.I find it offensive to suggest that it would be better to use animal parts for a vegetarian.
that's kind of why i feel able to daven in an egalitarian minyan, as long as my tallit is mostly over my head and my peripheral vision is not distracting me.There are some places where a community really can't innovate so much because klal yisrael is taken into consideration, but in other issue confer with your local chevra.
just so you know, i'm actually a management consultant specialising in innovation by profession and this too is a perfectly reasonable way to innovate in a sustainable fashion.... one might even call it mishnaic.I have a Jewish Renewal sourcebook with all sorts of articles in it on different things, innovative things, and they're not all by rabbis. A good few are by lay people.
you see, as far as i know the entire Oral Law that we have written down is reverse-engineered. they start with "this is what we do. now, how do we justify how we ended up doing it?" - therefore i'd say that interpretative methods are (in the absence of a document that says "r. so-and-so made it up" that overrules, say the baraita of r. ishmael) of the same ilk.My challenge about the interpretive methods still stands. Where did they come from? How are they based in Torah?
but that's the point. it's not a secular subject and i am not a historian. i'm not continually presuming that i'm being lied to. by this logic, you cannot trust any oral tradition at all!That's not what it says. The source never mentions Oral Torah or nistar. You have no proof that they are included, unless you are looking at later sources, which I don't accept as valid proof, nor would you if this was a secular subject in history.
er...ok. now i'm lost. i'll have to go and look this up separately.It has to do with allowing the possibility for someone to view Atzmus as being most greatly expressed within an individual, thus allowing for Elokism, which is more extreme than meshichism and somewhat proto-Christian.
with which i also agree. yet it's not always jewish enough. sometimes it is a bit tinok she-nishba or even, G!D forbid, ben sorer u-moreh, unless, since it's been round a good long time now, we're in zaken mamre territory. i suspect i might be able to live with the idea of principled dissent, though. after all, r. meir still learned Torah from r. elisha b. abuya and if he did that, then i can dam' well learn Torah from anyone jewish who can teach me. so there.Exactly. Yet it's Jewish.
oh, come on. procedure is what distinguishes marriage from zenut.1. There was no procedure for how to get married. Nor does there really need to be. Current Noahide halachah suggests that they don't need procedure for marriage.
which was precisely the reason for the Oral Law anyway!2. Some laws were not recorded in the Torah, or not described fully.
then what earthly good is it?3. The Torah was never actually meant to represent a complete system.
by the same token, i can't prove that my father is my father. yet nobody who has studied both of us would be in any doubt!4. There was an oral component along with the Torah, which is not the Oral Torah.
this is the bit i am probably least comfortable with. although it does seem to work more or less that well in most cases.5. The Oral Torah flawlessly represent the way things were dealt with all the way back to Moshe Rebeinu.
the thing is, i don't really see it as being cut and dry either, particularly given the events in the book of kings, ezra and other places in Na"Kh where it's made abundantly clear that the transmission of Torah has not really been all that straightforward - in which case all we can really do is trust that we've kept the right stuff. now, since what we've got has stayed the course, i'd kind of argue that it probably is.Whatever the answer is, it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
*sigh* i get it. but why must we assume that it's the system that's at fault rather than our own understanding? and you must surely concede that if we do not have a G!D who can metzaveh, then we are in danger of making an idol of our own authority?because I just don't understand these laws and I can't accept the traditional concept of G!D as Mitzaveh anymore. What changes do I have to make to ritual dietary practice in order to make it more relevant and meaningful for me so that I can use it as a sacred way to connect to Hashem?"
but then what is truth? to my mind, we are dethroning G!D from the traditional place and placing ourselves there instead. and that can only lead to nimrodism.I don't accept the mitzvot as Truth, so I can see that it may be wrong to continue to kill animals
and those are the ones i think you and i both object to. i don't think you and i are on exactly the same team, but we are at least not entirely in competition.The only people I would say are working in the complete opposite direction are the ones trying to restore old world Judaism.
but it does always enable them to say whenever they come across something that is problematic, that "well, it's not Truth and i'm not tziva, so i'm going to ditch that bit".There's a difference between rejecting Oral Torah's connection to Sinai and rejecting Oral Torah. You also have to remember that a lot of these same people also reject the connection between Torah and Sinai. But that doesn't stop them from studying and making use of either.
interesting. and, of course, given the similarity between sufism and chasidut, not surprising.Zalman was made a sheikh by a sufi order a long time ago.
all jewish prayers are zikr in their own way - once you see the repetitition spirals within the liturgy, you find yourself in the middle of liturgical, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and sabbatical mantras.I didn't realize the Rambam's son converted. There is a Jewish zikr I have done using the Shema.
works for me. but i don't accept history, archaeology, philology or indeed any academic discipline as universal truth.How about this? If it's some type of universal truth, it can stay if it's so desired. But if it's some type of cultural baggage it gets rejected. Although it gets ignored sometimes, this is a standard that Reb Zalman suggested that I highly agree with.
gosh, i suppose we'd have to take it on its merits. the real problem of course is that people are so much more sceptical these days. or maybe that's a good thing, i dunno!So let's say all of a sudden a text appears with cosmology as unique as lurianic cosmology, in our day. What then?
last time i had dinner with joel grishaver we discussed this, because i'd seen it in r. goldie's book "reclaiming judaism as a spiritual discipline". on one hand i think it's a great answer, but on the other it is usually thought that this sort of thing is by far the most susceptical to the idea of the spiritual short-circuit; and, of course, we must resist the idea that it's OK in itself as opposed to a "well, it'll do until the right thing is possible". but yes, i'd say it's certainly healthier than putting it "behind the bike sheds" - and i'd also point the kid at some appropriate tikkunim, such as r. nachman's "tikkun kelali", which is designed for this sort of thing. although, as you correctly say, the circle of the ar"i would not approve, the fact is that they had tikkunim for this (and for homosexuality) so it was hardly a problem they were unaware of."Wait until Shabbos. And don't leave God out of it."
although, blimey, i'd say it was an exceptional adolescent that could wait till shabbat to whack off. hehehe.It is also one more thing that makes Shabbos special, and for an adolescent probably a big thing.
very much so.You can also see in this case an example of psychohalachah moving beyond something that was seen to have come from a limited POV while still rooting itself in Judaism.
oh, don't get me wrong, he seems like a sweet guy, but it is not usually the best idea to try and get 1500 british people to spontaneously get up and dance. it was kind of embarrassing, i was hiding behind my guitar. but i could see what he was trying to do. his heart's clearly in the right place.(who I'd like to take a moment to defend. He's not the most charismatic person, but he has a real heart, and he's very real.
ah, michael lerner. i was terribly cheeky to him when i met him. sensible enough but an awful windbag.Michael Lerner's definition:
umph. i'd say i'm stuck on what we mean by it. in a lot of ways, i could call what i believe in "continuous revelation" - i prefer to think of it as paradoxical, though - both fixed and changing at the same time.
again, this is very close to where i would see myself. however, i see it as aspirational rather than immediate. almost augustinian ("oh, lord, give me a paradigm shift - but not yet!") but obviously more human.
because that's how they're made! i think rather than argue this again i'd say that it is better to think of it as a spectrum. the label "mezuzah" or "tefillin" could stretch further, quite possibly - but how far? obviously, you're not suggesting this, but you couldn't make tefillin out of, say, pigskin.
i think (and correct me if i'm wrong) that you're saying that since the haskalah, the norm is by default one of personal autonomy and therefore any form of halakhic observance is in effect "opting in".
just so you know, i'm actually a management consultant specialising in innovation by profession and this too is a perfectly reasonable way to innovate in a sustainable fashion.... one might even call it mishnaic.
you see, as far as i know the entire Oral Law that we have written down is reverse-engineered. they start with "this is what we do. now, how do we justify how we ended up doing it?" - therefore i'd say that interpretative methods are (in the absence of a document that says "r. so-and-so made it up" that overrules, say the baraita of r. ishmael) of the same ilk.
but that's the point. it's not a secular subject and i am not a historian. i'm not continually presuming that i'm being lied to.
by this logic, you cannot trust any oral tradition at all!
. sometimes it is a bit tinok she-nishba or even, G!D forbid, ben sorer u-moreh, unless, since it's been round a good long time now, we're in zaken mamre territory.
oh, come on. procedure is what distinguishes marriage from zenut.
which was precisely the reason for the Oral Law anyway!
then what earthly good is it?
by the same token, i can't prove that my father is my father. yet nobody who has studied both of us would be in any doubt!
this is the bit i am probably least comfortable with. although it does seem to work more or less that well in most cases.
the thing is, i don't really see it as being cut and dry either, particularly given the events in the book of kings, ezra and other places in Na"Kh where it's made abundantly clear that the transmission of Torah has not really been all that straightforward - in which case all we can really do is trust that we've kept the right stuff. now, since what we've got has stayed the course, i'd kind of argue that it probably is.
but why must we assume that it's the system that's at fault rather than our own understanding?
and you must surely concede that if we do not have a G!D who can metzaveh, then we are in danger of making an idol of our own authority?
but then what is truth? to my mind, we are dethroning G!D from the traditional place and placing ourselves there instead. and that can only lead to nimrodism.
but it does always enable them to say whenever they come across something that is problematic, that "well, it's not Truth and i'm not tziva, so i'm going to ditch that bit".
interesting. and, of course, given the similarity between sufism and chasidut, not surprising.
works for me. but i don't accept history, archaeology, philology or indeed any academic discipline as universal truth.
gosh, i suppose we'd have to take it on its merits. the real problem of course is that people are so much more sceptical these days. or maybe that's a good thing, i dunno!
ah, michael lerner. i was terribly cheeky to him when i met him. sensible enough but an awful windbag.
well, isn't that how the messianic age will look back at the pre-messianic age? i'd compare it far more to the idea of wishing *not* to be born at the time of the "birth pangs of the messiah".But according to that line of thinking, in future cycles we will be what was left behind.
well, you might not be able to eat it, but you can certainly derive benefit from it, like a horse or a donkey. but i take your point.Techelet may have originally come from an unkosher animal.
again, i take your point, but let us not forget that where we put the middle of that spectrum (assuming that is the "sweet spot") determines what constitutes the "side". certainly i am not arguing for a PoV which says that things from right-of-centre are more likely to be correct. what that really means is that the centre isn't where we think it is. what we might disagree on is how far something can extend before it stops being jewish. chabad messianists and kahanists certainly stretch it on the right if you ask me.I can accept the idea of a spectrum, but not if one side of the spectrum is more correct than the other.
ok, but this is not to be the unconditional surrender of the halakhah.If the practice of making a ritual item is guided by psychohalachic principles it will be done in a way that is both respectful and renewing to tradition.
fair enough, but i don't think that this different view is merely "halakhah has to justify itself before the god of reason, intellect and progress" - the reverse should also be true given what the latter have been responsible for. it's an extension of judging a society by how it treats its minorities and nonconformists.I'm saying that the haskalah brough with it a new way of looking at and understanding the world around us, and this way of examining our surroundings compels us to view halachah differently.
i dig the model, but we must also remember that it was particularly quick to turn into a cult of personality - i don't want to see posters up in the coming years saying "zalman melech hamoshiach" - not that you would countenance such a thing, i'm sure.I also see hasidism as being important here, because it was (initially) willing to pull away from halachah for the sake of intentionality.
i have no problem with there being mishnaic or gemaric intention - it's authority that causes the problems.and wondered if there was actually mishnaic intention in the creation, or gemaric intention. And there is most certainly plenty of midrash being created.
because what they were recording was the process itself. they knew it matched up and they knew how it matched up (at least in practice) so it was a matter of collecting the oral traditions ("amar rabbi ploni beshem rabbi ploni") which described that "how", collating and editing them and writing them down. i wasn't saying the two were already disconnected.if what they were doing wasn't matching up with the document that they had, and they were forced to justify their actions, how can you connect Oral Torah with Sinai?
yeah, this is where i really differ with academics. i cannot in conscience treat r. yehuda ha-nasi as as equally suspicious as the author of, say the "alphabet of ben sirah". for me, one is self-evidently more credible by virtue of the tradition having agreed it to be so. i give tradition a vote that academic scepticism denies to it - and, i believe, this approach is now far more credible nowadays thanks to the work of social anthropologists. in other words, rather than looking at a ritual and attempting to understand it according to some assumed ur-ritual of first principles, it is reasonable to start with the idea that the ritual is about what the people who believe in the ritual say it is about. otherwise, you're back to the "pork is unhygienic" argument.Actually, I wouldn't say that we can't trust any oral tradition at all, just that we should hold them all equally suspect.
well, a halakhic (rather than orthodox) viewpoint requires the ability to relate to something through halakhic categories - it's a language issue, but no less important for all that.That view can only be taken from an Orthodox viewpoint.
my family are reform too and they don't want anything different. but they are more than happy to pass judgement on whether they think of something is jewish or not, except the judgement tends to be based explicitly on their personal perspective. however, this too is a view that, to quote you, "can only be taken from" a non-orthodox viewpoint. what is required is for both sides to relate to it in their own way.And as someone with Reform Jewish family, I know that there are people who are happy as Reform Jews and wouldn't want anything different. If it's good enough for them, why should we question it?
no it's not! it's extremely clear that such a thing is disapproved of.If there's no limit on how many wives you can have, and you take a woman to bed with you and make her your wife, then she is your wife. That is all.
even if there was, they were still great innovators and communicators for finding a new language to express eternal truths. and either way we can't really prove anything.If there was no oral torah, the sages were truly great.
well, there are also people who have studied both and are pretty certain it *is*. so that's not a winnable argument.Unfortunately in this case there are people who have studied both and are pretty certain that the Oral Torah is not it.
i'm uncomfortable with the "flawlessly" bit, as well as the "the way"" bit and the "all the way back" bit. because we can't be certain of this stuff it seems to me a little bit silly to go on about how obvious all of it is. it's clearly not, which is why it requires belief.You're least comfortable with that? Can you elaborate?
i think i could agree with this - although i don't know if i'd be happy saying there was absolutely no filler at all. i think we've learned plenty from other cultures, although i'd say that what we have learned is mostly ways of expressing things we find to be true. but as to what came first, i tend to think it's a bit chicken-and-egg."Nach makes it pretty clear transmission wasn't perfect, but if what we've got now is functioning, then it's probably trustworthy as completely authentic and the most vital elements of this whole Jewish mishugas, with no filler."
but what's the problem with "resorting to supernaturalism"? i mean, i'm defending revelation here, which means i'm not obliged to consider supernatural explanations as inherently wrong or explain things in terms of categories from outside the system. but anyway, the best explanation i've ever heard is in mary douglas. it's about the idea of "kadosh" as separation. milk is "life" food and meat is "death" food - they are therefore to be separated. in terms of the precise animal systems, there are similar categories.Kashrut. Why do we do it? What is the reason for it? What makes sense about this? Aren't there more productive dietary practices we could take on? Can you explain it or defend it without resorting to supernaturalism?
no, obviously our ancestors could be merciless, but they were also prone to short-circuit thinking - "kill the amalekite, rather than eliminate amalek", for example. amalek is useful as a paradigm for absolute evil in much the same way as nazism is for modern politicians. it's something that everyone can agree is 100% evil with no redeeming features, which is why it is significant that *applications* of amalek cannot be found.2. Amalek. Amalek is almost supernaturally evil. They are so sick that they must be destroyed completely, like my grandmother's dog, Kasha, which had schyzoprenia. Is our understanding at fault here or did we just have ancestors who could be just as merciless as everyone else's?
there's something quite ridiculously pc about this statement. after all, one reason we don't defame people is because we have to interact with them and they are part of our society. amalekites are by definition not part of civilised society, so this is perfectly ok. it is like saying that we shouldn't "defame" genocidal racism or paedophilia in case we meet any genocidal racists or paedophiles!we should defame the Amalekites for the sake of honoring our own ancestors
what *i* do is embrace my subjectivity and learn from it who i am and understand how i see the world as a result. but it is a mindful process - i am not trying to maintain the fiction of impartiality or objectivity; i'm trying to connect my subjectivity to the "G!D-field".For me, personally, I have a hard time thinking about anything objective, because everything I know of is tainted by my own subjective experience of the world, or by a communally overlapping subjective experience, even that communal experience of the whole of humanity.
does this make it any clearer?
again, i take your point, but let us not forget that where we put the middle of that spectrum (assuming that is the "sweet spot") determines what constitutes the "side". certainly i am not arguing for a PoV which says that things from right-of-centre are more likely to be correct. what that really means is that the centre isn't where we think it is. what we might disagree on is how far something can extend before it stops being jewish. chabad messianists and kahanists certainly stretch it on the right if you ask me.
ok, but this is not to be the unconditional surrender of the halakhah.
fair enough, but i don't think that this different view is merely "halakhah has to justify itself before the god of reason, intellect and progress" - the reverse should also be true given what the latter have been responsible for. it's an extension of judging a society by how it treats its minorities and nonconformists.
i dig the model, but we must also remember that it was particularly quick to turn into a cult of personality - i don't want to see posters up in the coming years saying "zalman melech hamoshiach" - not that you would countenance such a thing, i'm sure.
in other words, rather than looking at a ritual and attempting to understand it according to some assumed ur-ritual of first principles, it is reasonable to start with the idea that the ritual is about what the people who believe in the ritual say it is about.
Over time the system was modified to ween people off of having too many wives, but that doesn't mean that there was a particular set of rituals for marriage.no it's not! it's extremely clear that such a thing is disapproved of.
well, there are also people who have studied both and are pretty certain it *is*. so that's not a winnable argument.
because we can't be certain of this stuff it seems to me a little bit silly to go on about how obvious all of it is. it's clearly not, which is why it requires belief.
i think i could agree with this - although i don't know if i'd be happy saying there was absolutely no filler at all. i think we've learned plenty from other cultures, although i'd say that what we have learned is mostly ways of expressing things we find to be true. but as to what came first, i tend to think it's a bit chicken-and-egg.
but what's the problem with "resorting to supernaturalism"? i mean, i'm defending revelation here, which means i'm not obliged to consider supernatural explanations as inherently wrong or explain things in terms of categories from outside the system.
but anyway, the best explanation i've ever heard is in mary douglas. it's about the idea of "kadosh" as separation. milk is "life" food and meat is "death" food - they are therefore to be separated. in terms of the precise animal systems, there are similar categories.
no, obviously our ancestors could be merciless, but they were also prone to short-circuit thinking - "kill the amalekite, rather than eliminate amalek", for example. amalek is useful as a paradigm for absolute evil in much the same way as nazism is for modern politicians. it's something that everyone can agree is 100% evil with no redeeming features, which is why it is significant that *applications* of amalek cannot be found.
amalekites are by definition not part of civilised society, so this is perfectly ok.
what *i* do is embrace my subjectivity and learn from it who i am and understand how i see the world as a result. but it is a mindful process - i am not trying to maintain the fiction of impartiality or objectivity; i'm trying to connect my subjectivity to the "G!D-field".
i would also say that syncretism is one thing you have to be particularly bloody careful of.
it is not the texts that are continuously revealed, but the interpretation of the texts understood as an revelatory process, albeit with a lesser degree of authority and sacredness. i'm really trying to find a way of expressing this that we can both live with, which may also be a bit of a waste of time, although i'm not going to be stoning you any time soon.I still don't understand what makes it continuous revelation.
i think so.So are you saying that the application of reason must be tempered by a pragmatic element which looks at the consequences of the decisions we make?
i guess that what i'm saying (and you probably know) is that rabbinic judaism is the de facto and de jure normative form of judaism, which is how we got started on this discussion. except that i am not restricting "rabbinic judaism" to orthodoxy alone. reform and conservative may be less halakhic, but that doesn't make them less rabbinic.But the problem is that the sages were not the first on the scene. If we're taking your route, shouldn't we be just as concerned with trying to figure out what the Sadducees believed the rituals were about? How does that saying go? The victors write the history books? Just because they say we can light candles before Shabbos doesn't mean that was originally the intention for Shabbos.
i have to confess i am slightly confused - you appear to be saying "oh, sorry, sadducees, we've been mean to you, let's reconsider our victory because we've reopened the debate on what it means to be jewish." i mean, where do we draw the line? karaites? gnostics? hellenisers? jews for jesus? samaritans? goddess worshippers? i can't decide whether you're trying to turn the clock back or not. surely we can all agree that, say, the biblical israelites were idiots, sinners, crooks and idolaters? that's certainly what the prophets said.And let's just say that it does, that still doesn't mean that the rabbinic way is the correct way. And let's just say that it does mean that, it still wouldn't be saying anything about the rest of what the rabbis came up with.
the fact that i myself have concluded through experiential empiricism that scripture is of Divine origin by no means indicates its self-evidence to other people. the fact that not everyone thinks it has a Divine origin is evidence of, ah, its lack of self-evidence. people who do that tend to be kind of insecure, so they need other people to agree with them to feel better about themselves.There are some people who claim that faith is not necessary, because the divine origin of scripture is self-evident.
it helps me try and understand *why* the precise distinctions might exist - evidence of robust systematic thought for me is evidence of the integrity and robustness of the system. in other words, it may not be "logical" or "rational", but it has its own internal rationale and logic, according to Divine command.Alright, so how does that enrich your practice of kashrut? And what about all of the other mitzvot of kashrut?
you only have to ask that question if you accept that our ancestors wrote the book. if you consider the destruction of amalek to be a Divine command then it is for us to try and understand the necessity of such a command, not to assume that there was some sort of cover-up. this would appear not only excessively literal but also contextually inappropriate.But was Amalek actually evil or were our ancestors just trying to justify their actions?
on the contrary, there are plenty of sources which go into great detail about precisely what was so bad about them, attacking the women and children for a start. whatever one might say about the egyptians, they clearly weren't *all* bad from the Torah's PoV - whereas the amalekites are a paradigm of evil. that is their function.It's not like what they did was so extreme. What about what the Egyptians did?
this takes us back to that world of political correctness. i'm sorry, but i simply don't see the need to be so cringingly even-handed.Only according to our one-sided accounts.
or possibly relativism.I've no interest in Truth. Subjectivity is very real, and it's all that we have.
sorry i went quiet - have been very busy and this is a complicated topic.
it is not the texts that are continuously revealed, but the interpretation of the texts understood as an revelatory process, albeit with a lesser degree of authority and sacredness. i'm really trying to find a way of expressing this that we can both live with, which may also be a bit of a waste of time, although i'm not going to be stoning you any time soon.
In the world of Briya, Knowing:
5. In the sacred texts of the Jewish people and the writings of Jewish spiritual teachers of previous generations we find enormous wisdom and insight that draw on Eternal truth and continue to have great potential to aid human beings in their quest for personal growth, empowerment, and healing -- as well as those elements that are historically limited and need to be transcended. We will study, teach, and make accessible these texts and writings with all those who wish to encounter them, wrestle with their content and meaning, and decide what to draw on and what to leave behind.
6. Among our guides to interpretation of Torah are the Prophetic, Kabbalistic, and Hassidic traditions as they are now being transformed in the light of contemporary feminist spirituality, process theology, and our own direct experience of the Divine.
7. We are committed to consult with other spiritual traditions, sharing with them what we have found in our concerned research and trying out what we have learned from them, to see whether it enhances the special truths of the Jewish path.
i guess that what i'm saying (and you probably know) is that rabbinic judaism is the de facto and de jure normative form of judaism, which is how we got started on this discussion. except that i am not restricting "rabbinic judaism" to orthodoxy alone. reform and conservative may be less halakhic, but that doesn't make them less rabbinic.
i have to confess i am slightly confused - you appear to be saying "oh, sorry, sadducees, we've been mean to you, let's reconsider our victory because we've reopened the debate on what it means to be jewish."
i mean, where do we draw the line? karaites? gnostics? hellenisers? jews for jesus? samaritans? goddess worshippers? i can't decide whether you're trying to turn the clock back or not.
surely we can all agree that, say, the biblical israelites were idiots, sinners, crooks and idolaters? that's certainly what the prophets said.
to take a more pertinent example, what on earth could justify circumcision, other than "supernaturalism"? assuming you are fairly likely to have to justify this decision at some point, how would you approach it?
it helps me try and understand *why* the precise distinctions might exist - evidence of robust systematic thought for me is evidence of the integrity and robustness of the system. in other words, it may not be "logical" or "rational", but it has its own internal rationale and logic, according to Divine command.
you only have to ask that question if you accept that our ancestors wrote the book. if you consider the destruction of amalek to be a Divine command then it is for us to try and understand the necessity of such a command, not to assume that there was some sort of cover-up. this would appear not only excessively literal but also contextually inappropriate.
or possibly relativism.I've no interest in Truth. Subjectivity is very real, and it's all that we have.
Well I hope that is not everythingI think that's everything that relates to this thread.