Questions about Judaism
- Thread starter bluroze
- Start date
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
mordechai gafni is not approved of in my circles and, having seen him teach, i can see why.
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?
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.
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.
b'shalom
bananabrain
pohaikawahine
Elder Member
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
my goodness gentlemen .... this is the best 'kukakuka' (hawaiian for a dialogue) I've seen on judaism and I have learned much from reading it .... mahalo nui .... I always wanted to ask or at least try to determine which perspectives both of you came from and this has opened a few doors (not wide, but small cracks) which I love .... our world is a better place for the two of you that share so much on this forum .... my deepest appreciation and aloha .... poh
I would say that it is clearly in some sort of opposition to regular halachah, 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.)
But I don't think you're quite getting the idea of the type of adjustments that are made. 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. 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 psychohalachah.
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
Further, I would ask, what is a Jewish category of thought? This just goes back to the Orthodox idea about dead men with long beards being the best people to listen to. The innovators of kabbalah (I'm not talking about the legendary authors) did not limit themselves to what was normative thinking within Judaism. This is where the R&D comes in. And it does take a few generations to tell which R&D has proven successful, as I stated earlier.
And if we can't know 100%, so what? On what authority were these traditions originally established? If you say it is Divine, I say the Divine still speaks to us. We can open up to it as a part of the process of binyan hamalchut, when we invest in the Godfield. And if there is no Divinity backing these traditions, then there is nothing preventing us from altering them.
You seem to be saying that "traditional halachah" is the "correct way." I disagree. What makes traditional halachah any more correct than anything else? This is why we are on near opposite ends of the Jewish spectrum in most ways.
No, it's not the same. Printing out a mezuzah is a matter of convenience. Making your own mezuzah renews the Jewish practice. It's not kosher according to the rabbinic system. So what? Hazal is long dead and they themselves were innovators. We should be innovating like they did.
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.
I don't mean that there is no psychological element. All spiritual practice has a psychological element. I mean that it doesn't have equal standing on the table. According to the rabbinic system I can't use kavannah as an argument equal in weight to all others.
I agree with you about what HaLevi said. The thing about Integral Judaism is that it's a new OS. And it's backwards compatible. But Ken Wilber is also a hierarchical thinker which some people dislike. If you're looking for info on integral judaism, you might actually have better luck just looking for the original system it's built from. Wikipedia is a decent source.
The Ken Wilber page and the links from there are fairly good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber
Like I said, I'm not very fond of it, but we'll see what happens.
Psychohalach includes intentionality in its reasoning, if that's what you were saying.
That rule applies within each community. That's 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. Psychohalachah is a move away from black and white toward more of a spectrum. For example one could not say, "this is eco-kosher and this is not." One could say, "How eco-kosher is it to take the bus vs driving a car?" "How eco-kosher is it to eat free-range meat?" Etc. What they're doing in Crown Heights has nothing to do with the consensus of the pious, although it would be taken into account when considering issues of klal yisrael.
Nobody's asking you to accept it. 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 here's where that issue of tikkun I brought up earlier becomes clear again. 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.
Well Jewish Renewal is Dionysian. I'll give you that.
I disagree. The haskalah has happened. We're not going around in a circle. We're on a spiral. And each time we come back, we see where we are and where we were. We cannot unlearn what we have learned. I would focus on what's showing that Judaism does not work, instead of what's showing that it does. Right now there are too many Jews who just aren't Jewing it. How do we bring them back into the fold?
The esoteric is too esoteric. It has to be made more accessible. Those who have desire enough often head East where the esoteric is more accessible.
Hyper-rationalist reductionism is not uncommon.
Liberal Jews tend to see the halachic system as (a, what Orthodox Jews do, and (b, mostly irrelevant to modern life.
Is Judaism working? For a great many, no. But if it is working for you in the manner that you have described, good. I am happy for you.
I don't think it makes people feel they have to go outside of Torah me-sinai. It just so happens that many Orthodox Jews who leave Orthodoxy while still maintaining a need for the spiritual find what they want in Renewal. That is, I really don't think it's the attraction of Renewal wooing people away from Orthodoxy. Reb David, the rabbi-in-residence at EC, was going through a crisis of faith before he got involved with Renewal. Plus, there are Orthodox Jews who are into Renewal that are completely into m'sinai. For instance:
http://sixthirteen.org/blog/
And I believe Yitz and Blu Greenberg are into Renewal. There are also Renewal Jews with somewhat traditional beliefs. I have a tape on which Zalman suggests the authorship of the Zohar was by Shimeon bar Yochai via automatic writing by Moses de Leon. And David Cooper suggested that the cheruvim above the ark were like, I don't remember how he described it, but it sounded like something out of a science fiction movie. Beliefs are personal. And psychohalachah is by no means a standard in Renewal. It's just one line of R&D that may or may not prove to be viable. I'm investing in it, but others have no interest in it at all.
Shabbat Shalom.
Dauer
This is an additional post re: your claim that some people in Renewal are attempting to bring forth some type of new revelation. If it appears at the top of a page, please see my post on the previous page.
Firstly, I don't think comparing Renewal to the Early Church is a fair analogy mainly because of the analogy I gave earlier about the chess board. 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. It's not playing that game anymore. 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.
Throughout Jewish history there have been people who claimed to be able to tap into the Divine, both in secular history and in our collective myths. Adam, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, the prophets, Hazal, the kabbalists. But each successive generation saw its level of revelation as somehow less than that of its predecessor, unless it was able to attribute its writing to an earlier figure. And then we come to us, in our day, post-haskalah. 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. It's one thing to say nes gadol hayah sham. It's another to point at ourselves and say ...v'poh v'akhshav. It's just not rational.
So how do those in Renewal who hold to this belief understand the introduction of this information? Do they see it as a new revelation in the grandiose sense of the word? There are two answers I can think of to that.
1. No. We have always been able to do this, but our long-held patriarchal worldview often placed limits on who we allowed ourselves to believe had access.
2. No. It's part of the ongoing process of Godwrestling. 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? As we have grown up our views of God have changed. For example, we can call God the Melech Malchay HaMlachim, the King of King of Kings, but we can no longer relate to this partzuf (I am using the word more freely than you would) as our ancestors who lived in the time of the King of Kings could. As partners with God in the process that is called Godwrestling, our changing relationship changes God in a subtle way. God has grown up from back when He was such a vengeful, jealous Dude. So that Jewish Renewal sometimes relates in a different way to God than Orthodoxy relates to God concerning halachah is not something so radical, especially if we look and see that in pre-monotheistic Judaism, and throughout the Tanach, the idea of what was m'sinai and what the mitzvot are and whom they are for is not always so clear, and certainly much of the system we have today is absent in the Tanach. Rabbinic Judaism was just as radical when it introduced the halachic system.
Either of these answers could work, or some variation or combination or permutation or calibration of the two. And for me, as someone at least somewhat agnostic, I tend to feel that this is in part just a redefinition of terms. But I also think that by redefining terms we are reshaping our worldview in brave new ways.
I also thought, since you and I are not the only people watching this thread (Hi Poh!), that I would include this link to a brief pbs video clip about Jewish Renewal.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week905/feature.html#
And I wanted to give this link as an example of how far some people in Jewish Renewal will go in following through with something that cannot be proven conclusively, if only to demonstrate how far some people in Jewish Renewal will go in following through with something that cannot be proven conclusively. 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. This is right hemisphere activity, heavily intuitive work, tapping into the divine flow.
http://www.kohenet.org/
dauer
Firstly, I don't think comparing Renewal to the Early Church is a fair analogy mainly because of the analogy I gave earlier about the chess board. 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. It's not playing that game anymore. 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.
Throughout Jewish history there have been people who claimed to be able to tap into the Divine, both in secular history and in our collective myths. Adam, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, the prophets, Hazal, the kabbalists. But each successive generation saw its level of revelation as somehow less than that of its predecessor, unless it was able to attribute its writing to an earlier figure. And then we come to us, in our day, post-haskalah. 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. It's one thing to say nes gadol hayah sham. It's another to point at ourselves and say ...v'poh v'akhshav. It's just not rational.
So how do those in Renewal who hold to this belief understand the introduction of this information? Do they see it as a new revelation in the grandiose sense of the word? There are two answers I can think of to that.
1. No. We have always been able to do this, but our long-held patriarchal worldview often placed limits on who we allowed ourselves to believe had access.
2. No. It's part of the ongoing process of Godwrestling. 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? As we have grown up our views of God have changed. For example, we can call God the Melech Malchay HaMlachim, the King of King of Kings, but we can no longer relate to this partzuf (I am using the word more freely than you would) as our ancestors who lived in the time of the King of Kings could. As partners with God in the process that is called Godwrestling, our changing relationship changes God in a subtle way. God has grown up from back when He was such a vengeful, jealous Dude. So that Jewish Renewal sometimes relates in a different way to God than Orthodoxy relates to God concerning halachah is not something so radical, especially if we look and see that in pre-monotheistic Judaism, and throughout the Tanach, the idea of what was m'sinai and what the mitzvot are and whom they are for is not always so clear, and certainly much of the system we have today is absent in the Tanach. Rabbinic Judaism was just as radical when it introduced the halachic system.
Either of these answers could work, or some variation or combination or permutation or calibration of the two. And for me, as someone at least somewhat agnostic, I tend to feel that this is in part just a redefinition of terms. But I also think that by redefining terms we are reshaping our worldview in brave new ways.
I also thought, since you and I are not the only people watching this thread (Hi Poh!), that I would include this link to a brief pbs video clip about Jewish Renewal.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week905/feature.html#
And I wanted to give this link as an example of how far some people in Jewish Renewal will go in following through with something that cannot be proven conclusively, if only to demonstrate how far some people in Jewish Renewal will go in following through with something that cannot be proven conclusively. 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. This is right hemisphere activity, heavily intuitive work, tapping into the divine flow.
http://www.kohenet.org/
dauer
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
but why does it have to *oppose* halakhah? that's what i don't get. why can't it harmonise?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
i agree, but some of this stuff...
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.
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? 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?
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.
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.
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.
but this i can understand - but BOTH are justifying their decision as part of a halakhic process, aren't they?
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.
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.
er.... what?
it doesn't feel like that - but that is precisely what i need to be happy about.
and as for "kohenet" - the moment i see the word "asherah" i'm calling for backup. i'm not refuting the Big Beard In The Sky hypothesis in order to reclaim the world for the Big Tits In The Earth.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Because Orthodoxy is unwilling to recognize a radical development in the nature of halachah as something within the spectrum, albeit far to the left. This creates opposition.
Well it could go horribly wrong. Every avant garde takes that risk. But unlike the movements you have mentioned, renewal represents a radical shift in paradigm. It's not replacing scripture or introducing new scripture. It's not even uniform (nor does it want to be.) Nor does it represent a radical antinomianism as the Sabbatians did, nor would it ever claim to be fulfilling prophecy. 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.
What located halachah in Jewish continuity? It was neo- to what came before it. Like halachah, psychohalachah builds on what came before it. 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.
It's possible to be congruent with, and supporting the system, while going beyond the bounds of traditional halachah. There is nothing that doesn't support the system about making your own mezuzah. Actually, what Zalman suggested is to make one mezuzah in your house, and buy the others. This way the sofrim are still supported.
I disagree. Klal Yisrael is a separate consideration. 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. The same with those who replace traditional liturgy with chanting of verse from traditional liturgy and meditation etc.
You mean like kal v'khomer, gezerah shavah, klal u'frat etc?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I've mentioned a few times the stated importance of breaking the sefer barrier. 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. And just as much as Renewal is open to looking at other traditions, it wants to dig deep into Judaism. This is the calendar for the shul I like to attend most:
http://www.tbzbrookline.org/events/index.php
It is affiliated with Aleph although it calls itself independent. As you can see, there are quite a few classes being offered on Judaism. At the same time, one of the practices at the nishmat hayyim meditation sessions sometimes is a Jewish Metta practice. Services are actually fairly traditional.
[/quote]umph. give me an example of something from the ar"i or the rema"k that isn't grounded in normative thinking and halakhah[/quote]
klippot? Olamot? Adam Kadmon? Tikkun Olam? yechidah?
A source can't establish its own authority. Also, I will point out if you are insinuating, that nowhere is the Oral Torah mentioned in Avot 1.
1. Renewal rejects finite revelation. 2. It's not uniform. 3. It insists that the next generation not accept the choices of the previous generation simply because they were made, but instead come to see what is best for that place and time. 4. As an aside: Are you aware of what M.M. Schneerson said about Atzmus and how that has effected Elokism in Chabad? According to his personal theology, infinity is limited because it cannot be finite. Atzmus thus is not limited in this way, and its greatest expression is when it is finite. For reading if you are interested:
http://www.xlubi.com/x5pmax.htm
Ask a Reform Jew. Or better yet, go back in time and ask Eliyahu what halachah is. Change happens.
Psycho-halachists don't compete for claims to correctness. Psycho-halachah allows for more than one right answer. And you don't have to consider that claim. We started a conversation on a website. Clearly, you have your views and I have mine, and when it's over, we're going to leave probably with very similar views to those we had when we began. There's really no point in your arguing that you shouldn't have to consider psycho-halachah. I've never suggested you should. I'm just explaining what it is, and defending the practice.
That doesn't make any sense. If I use their rules, I'm not innovating like they did.
Psycho-halachah isn't an entirely new system. Without a good understanding of halachah, you can't do good psycho-halachah. In the book I have (shabbos/rosh hashanah) most of the entries began with the classical sources, Tanach, Talmud, and Codes, and built from there. It's an alteration to the old system. I can simpathize with you not wanting to go outside of the box. I feel differently.
But let's say you're against the use of ivory. So you want to use wood for the keys instead. I don't think it's like your analogy to McDonalds. Enhancing kavanah isn't just about what feels right. There are going to be some people who eat at McDonald's, yes, but psychohalachah by default doesn't want to get rid of any parts of the system. It would rather see them replaced with something similar. So, if kashrut doesn't work, maybe vegeterianism would work better. Of course, it's not going to push anyone into full observance overnight either. Also, I can't think of any Jews I know who would feel more spiritual eating at McDonald's, and feel closer to God.
Well, the decision for one day or two was sometimes psychohalachic, and sometimes had to do with whether the shul was also C or R or Rec, or formerly R. But blowing the shofar was nearly always a psychohalachic process. 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.
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. But in general the psycho-halachic system is going to say, if kashrut doesn't work, it should be tweaked until it does worked. That doesn't mean dropping it. That means finding a way to make it something you can connect with as spiritual practice.
If I were Orthodox I don't think I would affiliate myself with Renewal even if I spent a lot of time doing Renewalish things, simply 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.
Hey! Moses did have peyos. But he never work a black hat. Only a streimel...
For Renewal, when it's Shavuos, we want to be standing at Sinai. When it's Pesach, we want to be leaving mitzrayim. There's nothing radical about this idea. It simply remains true for Renewal that the ideal experience of a holiday is to really experience it. Also, Sinai remains the ultimate paradigm for revelation. Plus, from person to person there are going to be many different answers as to what happened at sinai, within Jewish Renewal, from answers that sound like the right of C to answers that sound like Reconstructionism. It's a transdenominational movement.
You know, I misread you. I guess by your definition the majority of what happens outside of Orthodoxy is not Jewish. At this point in history I can safely say that rejecting the oral torah's connection to sinai can indeed be Jewish.
How is it deepening the splits? Wasn't Rambam's son a sufi?
It is anchored in Judaism. But the people who come to it bring their past in other traditions, or they bring their other interests, and Renewal instead of rejecting these things outright looks to see what of it might actually make Judaism richer. Renewal isn't looking for other paths to blend with itself. People come to renewal with some wisdom, and it's not turned away.
I don't think we do. Liberals aren't going to accept halachah in its current form and Orthodox Jews aren't going to abandon it. I don't think that's going to change. But that doesn't mean we can't accept each other.
When was the Zohar written? 13th century. The people of that time weren't exactly enlightened. Not only that, but maimonidean rationalism had a similar effect as the haskalah has had on liberal Judaism today. It created an anti-rationalist backlash. 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.
Dauer
Oh, and tzimtzum.
edit: another thought about Renewal. It doesn't make the claim to having access to a finite Truth. This also makes it unlike the groups you mentioned. There are paths that conflict within Renewal, because the JuBus are talking about not getting too attached and then you've got someone like Gershon Winkler who's doing shamanism saying that you have to live life fully and totally, enjoying everything you can to its fullest, be it a soak in the hot tub, a nice meal, or an evening with your significant other.. But for Renewal the fact that these paths conflict a bit is not a problem.
Dauer
edit: another thought about Renewal. It doesn't make the claim to having access to a finite Truth. This also makes it unlike the groups you mentioned. There are paths that conflict within Renewal, because the JuBus are talking about not getting too attached and then you've got someone like Gershon Winkler who's doing shamanism saying that you have to live life fully and totally, enjoying everything you can to its fullest, be it a soak in the hot tub, a nice meal, or an evening with your significant other.. But for Renewal the fact that these paths conflict a bit is not a problem.
Dauer
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
that's kind of where i am unsure about it - you seem to assume that this is precisely why i should approve of it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
oh good, because that's precisely what is wrong with the spoonfeeding you get with "artscroll judaism".
[/quote]klippot? Olamot? Adam Kadmon? Tikkun Olam? yechidah?[/quote]
but all of those concepts are derived from Torah via the nistar tradition, as far as i'm concerned. we didn't nick them from somewhere.
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. 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.
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.
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!
i see what you mean. and, to a certain extent, i agree. i just need to understand what you're saying.
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.
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)
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.
harrumph. i don't accept the idea of "enlightenment" as uncritically as all that.
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?
b'shalom
bananabrain
Renewal is the result of a shift in paradigm. You seem to be stuck on the word "revelation." Finite revelation claims that what is revealed in one particular moment is "Truth, ultimately and for all time." In Renewal the shift has moved focus away from the finite. It is a redefinition of terms. There is no ultimate revelation being given at this time. Every moment is the ultimate revelation. A couple quotes by Zalman on the subject:
"I believe in Revelation. But I believe that it filters through every one of us, through our actions, our thoughts, our music, our artwork."
"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."
"Trying to give finite form to the Revelation of the Infinite is dangerous. You can't drive forward while looking through the rear-view mirror. The Revelation of Torah, for example, has no one single finite form. 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."
Wait... I misread you again. Yes, the next generation could absolutely do that. Although to consider that particular revelation is Truth would not have anything to do with the shift in paradigm that Renewal represents. That is a possibility, and there are also those who wonder on the other hand if Judaism is going to be necessary in the future. But Jewish Renewal is focusing on the present so it remains commited to Judaism, and to radical theology.
And given time the same thing could happen to renewal. That's why I've stated repeatedly that we have to wait a few generations and see.
Part of the process of making one's own mezuzah would have to be researching the traditional way to make mezuzot. But if a vegeterian is going to make their own mezuzah, and their own tefillin, why should they use animal parts? I find it offensive to suggest that it would be better to use animal parts for a vegeterian. If someone can invest in dedicating the time to learning some sofrut I think that would be an enriching experience, but I don't think that their mezuzah must necessarily meet all of the halachic standards, so long as they're doing it for the sake of kavanah. If that is their reason, then they will be commited to doing it well, whether or not it's halachically acceptable.
I never said it's not a consideration. I said it's a separate consideration. One is the consensus of the pious, which refers to community standards. The other is klal yisrael, which refers to Israel-wide standards. 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.
Well, it was about trusting in the authority. Jewish Renewal is about empowerment though. Like if you look at TBZ, the way they operate, when somebody has a passion for something that can enrich the shul somehow, they help them organize it. 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.
My challenge about the interpretive methods still stands. Where did they come from? How are they based in Torah?
And so would every faith that claims special authority for itself.
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.
No no. Much different. 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.
Exactly. Yet it's Jewish.
So what are the possible explanations?
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.
2. Some laws were not recorded in the Torah, or not described fully.
3. The Torah was never actually meant to represent a complete system.
4. There was an oral component along with the Torah, which is not the Oral Torah.
5. The Oral Torah flawlessly represent the way things were dealt with all the way back to Moshe Rebeinu.
Now, since I don't accept that the Torah was accepted at Sinai but rather see it as a historical text that was put together over time, I eliminate number 5. Number 4 only seems plausible to the point that all legal systems have an oral element. It's the living element. And the living element changes over time. 3 makes sense to me. 2 makes sense. 1 also makes sense. Whatever the answer is, it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
I agree. But if we agree to disagree, I think we should also agree to stop going back and forth on issues which rest on this particular matter and those similar matters in Jewish history, because it's not getting us anywhere.
That goes back to the rules I posted before. Kavanah is subjective, no doubt about it. It's personal. But it's not just about what feels good. What is this particular mitzvah about? After looking at kashrut and different explanations, traditional and modern, I want to say to myself, "When my ancestors were first doing this, it meant something really important to them. But I can't identify with these laws. It feels like I could be doing something more relevant, more meaningful, because I just don't understand these laws and I can't accept the traditional concept of God as Mitzaveh anymore. What changes do I have to make to ritual dietery 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?"
So when you're at this point, you can't really say, "It makes sense to me that I will go to McDonald's regularly as spiritual practice, because it brings me closer to Hashem when I do so. I feel that connection every time I order a Big Mac. It has so much more meaning for me than the laws of kashrut."
But you might hear someone say, (such as Arthur Green (not that I'm actually quoting him)) "I don't really approve of the killing of animals. Judaism does stand against causing unnecessary harm to animals. It goes out of the way to make sure animals are taken care of. I don't accept the mitzvot as Truth, so I can see that it may be wrong to continue to kill animals, even if we do it in the ritualistic ways of our ancestors. I can find much more meaning in abstaining from meat than I can in following the laws of kashrut."
I don't know if I've explained this any better. Of course in this particular instance there really isn't much conflict. But that has nothing to do with the methods used.
I think cyber-chevruta would be better. But every chevruta I've been involved in, we both had a copy of the text, even if only one of us understood the Hebrew/aramaic. Still, it ain't no thang.
As far as I'm concerned, those within Orthodoxy who are doing the work of renewal within the system are on the same team as those working on the outside. They're just working for a different audience. The only people I would say are working in the complete opposite direction are the ones trying to restore old world Judaism.
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.
Zalman was made a sheikh by a sufi order a long time ago. There's a story here that's actually a very good example of deep ecumenism:
http://members.aol.com/TASafinah/tarchiv/rebzalman.html
I didn't realize the Rambam's son converted. There is a Jewish zikr I have done using the Shema.
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.
That's a different type of situation. You're talking about a text that does exist. I'm talking about a text that did not exist and then suddenly appeared, that was unique. So let's say all of a sudden a text appears with cosmology as unique as lurianic cosmology, in our day. What then?
Dauer
If this post appears at the top of a page, please see the previous page.
I thought of another example of psychohalachic process:
A bar mitzvah boy came to Reb Zalman at a time when he was the rabbi of a shul. The bar mitzvah boy had some questions about masturbation. Reb Zalman's answer as he retells it is this:
"Wait until Shabbos. And don't leave God out of it."
So I'm sure you can already see that his suggestion has its roots in Lurianic Kabbalah, even though the circle of the Ari would most certainly be offended by such a suggestion (and see cosmological consequences for following it, yes?) The kavanah for this act is set. It is a sacred act of sexuality. As such, there is a time and a place for it. And God is a part of it. This prepares the child for a healthy view of sexuality (imho) and also prepares him for serious consideration of taharat hamishpachah, regardless of what his final decision will be on that matter. It is also one more thing that makes Shabbos special, and for an adolescent probably a big thing.
If psychohalachic process was just about doing what one feels like, Zalman would have said, "Masturbation is a healthy expression of sexuality. There is nothing wrong with it. If it feels right, do it."
But that is not the case. So in that brief meeting he established what could be the roots for a lifelong sacred sexual practice (which will hopefully mature beyond masturbation as the child ages.)
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.
David Cooper suggested for contemplatives who find silent retreats appealing to use Shabbos in the same manner, going back and forth between sitting and walking meditation for the length of Shabbos, as well as eating meditation, in silence. Besides davenen. Such a practice really doesn't have to interfere with the bare bones of traditional shabbos observance, but it's another example of using psychohalachic process to take something that feels less relevant to the individual and make it more relevant.
Psychohalachic process according to one contributor in that book I told you about, is not a system waiting for implementation. It's a process that was given a name.
Oh, I found this article on the variety of opinions on halachah within Jewish Renewal that I thought you might find helpful:
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/166
I also thought it might be helpful to present you with a few people's definitions of Jewish Renewal, so that you can see the conflict in finding a definition as well as get a better idea of what Jewish Renewal includes:
Arthur Waskow's definition: (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. When the bombing happened in London, he was called upon to speak at EC where he was teaching that week, and he was brought to tears over what was going on. And on being real, he told some friends, with a smile on his face, that the closest he'd come to a mystical experience was reading a science fiction book. )
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/167
Velveteen Rabbi's (blogger, ritualcrafter, lay leader, student in the ALEPH rabbinic program) definition:
http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2005/09/defining_renewa.html
Definition by a group headed by Marcia Prager (rabbi (this is a different link)):
http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2005/12/defining_renewa.html
Michael Lerner's definition:
http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/renewal/
The ALEPH FAQ:
http://www.aleph.org/faq.html
Dauer
I thought of another example of psychohalachic process:
A bar mitzvah boy came to Reb Zalman at a time when he was the rabbi of a shul. The bar mitzvah boy had some questions about masturbation. Reb Zalman's answer as he retells it is this:
"Wait until Shabbos. And don't leave God out of it."
So I'm sure you can already see that his suggestion has its roots in Lurianic Kabbalah, even though the circle of the Ari would most certainly be offended by such a suggestion (and see cosmological consequences for following it, yes?) The kavanah for this act is set. It is a sacred act of sexuality. As such, there is a time and a place for it. And God is a part of it. This prepares the child for a healthy view of sexuality (imho) and also prepares him for serious consideration of taharat hamishpachah, regardless of what his final decision will be on that matter. It is also one more thing that makes Shabbos special, and for an adolescent probably a big thing.
If psychohalachic process was just about doing what one feels like, Zalman would have said, "Masturbation is a healthy expression of sexuality. There is nothing wrong with it. If it feels right, do it."
But that is not the case. So in that brief meeting he established what could be the roots for a lifelong sacred sexual practice (which will hopefully mature beyond masturbation as the child ages.)
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.
David Cooper suggested for contemplatives who find silent retreats appealing to use Shabbos in the same manner, going back and forth between sitting and walking meditation for the length of Shabbos, as well as eating meditation, in silence. Besides davenen. Such a practice really doesn't have to interfere with the bare bones of traditional shabbos observance, but it's another example of using psychohalachic process to take something that feels less relevant to the individual and make it more relevant.
Psychohalachic process according to one contributor in that book I told you about, is not a system waiting for implementation. It's a process that was given a name.
Oh, I found this article on the variety of opinions on halachah within Jewish Renewal that I thought you might find helpful:
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/166
I also thought it might be helpful to present you with a few people's definitions of Jewish Renewal, so that you can see the conflict in finding a definition as well as get a better idea of what Jewish Renewal includes:
Arthur Waskow's definition: (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. When the bombing happened in London, he was called upon to speak at EC where he was teaching that week, and he was brought to tears over what was going on. And on being real, he told some friends, with a smile on his face, that the closest he'd come to a mystical experience was reading a science fiction book. )
http://www.shalomctr.org/node/167
Velveteen Rabbi's (blogger, ritualcrafter, lay leader, student in the ALEPH rabbinic program) definition:
http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2005/09/defining_renewa.html
Definition by a group headed by Marcia Prager (rabbi (this is a different link)):
http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog/2005/12/defining_renewa.html
Michael Lerner's definition:
http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/renewal/
The ALEPH FAQ:
http://www.aleph.org/faq.html
Dauer
Meow *the cute 
quietly bumps the thread*
Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
quietly bumps the thread*Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
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.
that's almost like a buber i-thou moment, which i don't think is really humanly attainable.
i don't disagree with this either.
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.
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.
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.
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!
er...ok. now i'm lost. i'll have to go and look this up separately.
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.
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.
*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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
although, blimey, i'd say it was an exceptional adolescent that could wait till shabbat to whack off. hehehe.
very much so.
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.
ah, michael lerner. i was terribly cheeky to him when i met him. sensible enough but an awful windbag.
b'shalom
bananabrain
Could you explain that?
But according to that line of thinking, in future cycles we will be what was left behind.
Techelet may have originally come from an unkosher animal. I can accept the idea of a spectrum, but not if one side of the spectrum is more correct than the other. 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.
That's not exactly what I'm saying. 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 compells us to view halachah differently. Although I'm sure there are others who say the above.
For what it's worth, I also see hasidism as being important here, because it was (initially) willing to pull away from halachah for the sake of intentionality.
I've read a couple pieces of Renewal lit and wondered if there was actually mishnaic intention in the creation, or gemaric intention. And there is most certainly plenty of midrash being created.
I read something suggesting the methods used in mishna are very similar to those used by the Greeks for understanding their literature. I also have to ask, 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?
It's not about being lied to. Lying sounds malicious. It's about understanding that there is a context in which oral traditions, myths, legends, etc. arise.
Now you're catching on! Actually, I wouldn't say that we can't trust any oral tradition at all, just that we should hold them all equally suspect.
I disagree. That view can only be taken from an Orthodox viewpoint. What makes it Jewish enough is an issue for klal yisrael to decide, and as of right now the vote seems to be that it is definitely Jewish enough. 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?
Maybe in the rabbinic system. 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.
That statement assumes the existence of the Oral Law in the first place.
Because eventually it was made into a system. You don't need some man on a mountain for that. You just need a bunch of sages with a text that doesn't quite fit with their current way of life and a few tools of logic to get them by. Think about it. If there was no oral torah, the sages were truly great.
Unfortunately in this case there are people who have studied both and are pretty certain that the Oral Torah is not it. I'm not suggesting there's some different Oral Torah that got away, just that what went with the Torah was merely the oral element that goes along with all living bodies of literature.
You're least comfortable with that? Can you elaborate?
Let me see if I can paraphrase: "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."
Because we don't have reason to believe the system is perfect. If neither we, nor the system are perfect, then there is potential to improve both. But let's take your issue of our own understanding being at fault. I want to bring up one set of laws and one law and we'll take a look at this and see how our understanding might be at fault.
1. Kashrut. Why do we do it? What is the reason for it? What makes sense about this? Aren't there more productive dietery practices we could take on? Can you explain it or defend it without resorting to supernaturalism?
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?
Now, I would affirm again and again that one of the things about Torah is we must study it again and again, and that much can come out of this practice (in part because we have to deal with the stuff that doesn't make sense) but that doesn't move me to say we should keep those practices that just aren't working for us, or that offend us, or that we should defame the Amalekites for the sake of honoring our own ancestors and here, also, we would be constructing an idol out of a god that just doesn't work in the modern context.
We are always in danger of one idolatry or another. We're always trying to play a simple tune without breaking our necks, right? We want to strengthen the Shechinah, the Godfield, and we want to be in touch with that during the process. Like I said, it's not some sort of dry reconstructing that's being done. At least not ideally. If you're trying to understand what should be done, what do you do? You study about it. You meditate on it. You talk to God. You check your I Ching and your astrology chart. You practice automatic writing. You go on a guided visualization and meet with Eliyahu in Olam Haba to find out what's going to be best for your future. Whatever you have to do to get in touch with God.
Good question. I'll tell you. I don't know. 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. I'm not really concerned with what Truth is, if there is such a thing, because I don't think we can ever know that we've realized it.
Doesn't work quite that way. But I think you realize by now that you're making a straw man.
Well, the rabbit hole goes a little further. Zalman also started a Sufi-Hasidic fellowship: the Chishti-Maimuniyya order of dervishes.
I was talking about syncretism.
Exactly, so it probably wouldn't be accepted.
I wouldn't say that he's always sensible. Tends to be a real rabble-rouser.
Dauer
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
could i explain "continuous revelation"? only in terms of paradox. it is the lack of movement in the core revelation that gives the movement in the outer interpretation the appearance of continuous revelation - like a point on the outer rim of a wheel, the point isn't moving on the wheel, but is in terms of the larger continuum. or, if you prefer, it's like free-will. if time and soul are as transparent to the Divine as the three spatial dimensions are to us, then past, future, good and evil are One. from that PoV, historical revelation is meaningless, because all times are one time and the revelation appears at every moment. yet, from a similar perspective, the revelation is fixed and unchanging. free-will, in this continuum, results in both good and evil at the same time because all choices are effectively made at once. therefore, G!D Knows at the same time the consequences of our actions before we have carried them out. this means from G!D's perspective, there's no such thing as free-will, at the same time as from our perspective, free-will is self-evident. does this make it any clearer?
i would also say that syncretism is one thing you have to be particularly bloody careful of.
b'shalom
bananabrain
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".
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.
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.
i have no problem with there being mishnaic or gemaric intention - it's authority that causes the problems.
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.
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.
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.
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.
no it's not! it's extremely clear that such a thing is disapproved of.
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.
well, there are also people who have studied both and are pretty certain it *is*. so that's not a winnable argument.
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.
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.
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!
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.
b'shalom
bananabrain
I still don't understand what makes it continuous revelation.
Maybe we're really talking about multiple points on multiple lines.
As far as I'm concerned psychohalachic process is not the unconditional surrender of halachah. Do you see it as such?
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?
And I never called reason god. It's nothing but a tool waiting for an application.
It's not setup that way. Just as with everything else, when it comes to what it borrows from hasidism, Renewal keeps what is good and gets rid of the dross. That's why you don't have people in Jewish Renewal asserting that Jews are superior to gentiles. But more focused, when it comes to neo-rebbes and neo-rebbeing the only thing that is borrowed is the model (which in Jewish Renewal is limited to an encounter, be it in a group or one-on-one) of one individual being able to bring down wisdom and teachings from a higher Source.
It's like in a conversation, there is the talker and the listener. The way the listener listens effects the way the talker talks. Sometimes the talker becomes the listener and the listener becomes the talker. And when it's all over, the neo-rebbe goes back to being Fred Flintstonesteinmankahndergoldfleishmanstein.
Reb Zalman told a story about a time he went to visit Menachem Mendel Schneerson and was turned away. When he came back the next day Schneerson said to him, "The man you came to see was not available yesterday." And from this he learned the valuable lesson that being a rebbe or in the Renewal case a neo-rebbe is an act, like in a great drama, and when you're done playing your role you go back to who you normally are. Only in Jewish Renewal anyone who's into the whole neo-hasidic thing is going to be themselves much more openly than what might be done in hasidism.
Also, one time he took some college students to see Schneerson's father, and at one point one of the students asked, "So what's a rebbe good for anyway?" And so the answer came, "When you're looking for valuable gems, if you just pick a spot and start digging, you might find something. You might not. But if you go to a geologist they can help point out where to start digging. A rebbe is a geologist of the soul." So a neo-rebbe also is one to give suggestions for where might be good places to dig.
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.
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.
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.
You are the one who made an analogy to people having studied both and always realizing that it is. I was simply refuting you.
I'm glad you can admit that. There are some people who claim that faith is not necessary, because the divine origin of scripture is self-evident.
I just have a hard time with that argument. Systems can work without being of divine origin.
Because you're addressing me.
Alright, so how does that enrich your practice of kashrut? And what about all of the other mitzvot of kashrut?
But was Amalek actually evil or were our ancestors just trying to justify their actions? It's not like what they did was so extreme. What about what the Egyptians did?
Only according to our one-sided accounts.
I do the same thing. I'm not afraid to dive in. I don't curl up my knees to my chest and huddle in the corner of my room, rocking back and forth hoping for some sense of Truth. I've no interest in Truth. Subjectivity is very real, and it's all that we have.
Well, I did just quote you that rule for application of syncretism.
Dauer
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
sorry i went quiet - have been very busy and this is a complicated topic.
as for "resorting to supernaturalism", of course you don't want to accept that sort of argument, but frankly, without it, i consider a lot of judaism to be rather pointless if it cannot be justified rationally. that's the point of a) something being a mitzvah and b) the "principles of faith" - which cover things which are not self-evident and therefore necessarily require the intervention of faith, like the resurrection. 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?
b'shalom
bananabrain
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 think so.
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.
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.
as for "resorting to supernaturalism", of course you don't want to accept that sort of argument, but frankly, without it, i consider a lot of judaism to be rather pointless if it cannot be justified rationally. that's the point of a) something being a mitzvah and b) the "principles of faith" - which cover things which are not self-evident and therefore necessarily require the intervention of faith, like the resurrection. 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.
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.
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.
or possibly relativism.
b'shalom
bananabrain
pohaikawahine
Elder Member
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I've been following this dialogue with great interest and trying to learn as much as I can .... but now I am getting lost in the details .... without interrupting the wonderful flow of ideas between the two of you, can either of you just summarize for me what do you agree with and what is it really that you disagree on regarding Judiasm and belief .... I don't intend to jump into the discussion because you are both way over my head, but I just wanted to try and understand where you are at now???? oh.... and my thoughts and love with you both at Passover .... aloha nui, poh
BB,
It's alright. I appreciate your not posting at a time when you were busy.
It may not be a waste of time. From the Aleph principles:
http://www.aleph.org/principles.html
I can't say that I disagree with anything there, although I might certainly disagree with some interpretations of what has been presented.. I'd say that on some level, there actually is a lesser degree of authority and sacredness, because none of the stuff Jewish Renewal is doing right now would, afaik, anyone begin to think of as canon. You also can sort of see a difference, in that the Renewal approach gives more acknowledgement of the partner or partners in a new revelation, even if it is connected to Torah, for example allowing direct experience of the Divine.
I was just reading an article by a Jewish shaman about journeying up through the top of an aron kodesh to meet with the matriarchs and receive wisdom about women's spirituality that had been lost. It's not something I would readily buy into, but it is something that I would fully support.
This seems to me to conflict with how you had been speaking earlier. Reform and Conservative Judaism have used approaches to halachah which are not valid according to halachah, Reform on a regular basis. Are you making a distinction between halachic Judaism and rabbinic Judaism? Why? I guess I don't see the point in calling, Reform for example, rabbinic, unless of course we include both Jewish Renewal and Recon. What makes Reform rabbinic that would disqualify something else? I feel like this may be splitting hairs but I just can't understand where you're going with this.
This has nothing to do with any group in the past. IIRC, we started talking about marriage because you offered it as proof of oral torah (the fact that the written Torah doesn't explain a ceremony.) All I'm doing is using the tools at my disposal to show that it's not actually a proof.
What's so un-Jewish about karaites and goddess worshippers (assuming that the goddess worshippers don't view this goddess as one of a pair?) not to mention helenizers who really aren't so different from most Jews today.
Granted, I do think there are some people who are going to get off on pre-monotheistic Judaism, and I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. There are also going to be Jews who see Jesus as something like a rebbe and I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that either (although once any type of divinity comes into play I'd certainly call it crossing the line.)
So who is to say that the prophets were speaking about all of the people? If I was God and I was sending someone to address the people, I would send that individual to address the wrong-doers.
And while we're on this subject, what's the big deal with maintaining the practice of idolatry? As far as I can tell, the problem is not letting go of an old paradigm in order to embrace the new one.
Just because something can't be justified rationally doesn't mean it must be justified supernaturally. Some things may not be justifiable, or may need some adjustment in order to be justified. That's why I gave you the examples of Amalek and kashrut. In regard to circumcision, it's a powerful ceremony. Modern medicine has not come to the conclusion that it's a horrible thing to do. If that time does come I will have to do some soul searching. I also find the standard reconstructionist argument good here.
For me, once I get to the point you're at, I'm realizing that my ancestors actually bought into these ideas and connected to it deeply. It wasn't just "evidence of robust systematic thought." It was something much more. So I want to bring back that same sort of connection. Thus, renewal becomes an important factor in determining how I will approach Jewish life.
Are you saying that I'm being excessively literal and contextually inappropriate or that you are? Because I don't think that statement makes sense applied to either of us in this situation.
Are you saying that possibly relativism is all that we have?
Poh, I'll sum up some of it for you.
On the Divine Origin of Torah:
BB: Torah has a Divine origin.
Me: It is no more or less divine than anything else. But it is still sacred to me. It is more likely a document compiled from other documents into a semi-cohesive whole.
On the use of modern methods of literary analysis on scripture as well as the incorporation of archaeology and etc:
Me: This is valid and can be holy work.
BB: It is not.
On halachah:
BB: The system must continue to use the same tools it always has. But it can and should use those tools in search of progress.
Me: We can expand the tools we use. We should use intentionality as a guide to reshaping halachah into a system that is by no means one size fits all, but instead recognizes that each individual is unique and will go through shifts in what is best for them from the halachic system at different times in their lives.
On syncretism:
BB: Syncretism is too risky.
Me: We can use syncretism to enhance Judaism by considering the universal truths revealed in other religions, but we also need to be wary of taking in any of the specific, cultural stuff that surrounds the real fruit.
On revelation:
BB: Revelation happened at Sinai. Future revelations can come through new understandings of Torah.
Me: Revelation is not limited to Torah. We simply need to open ourselves up to the possibility of revelation. But in a Jewish context, there should be an attempt to tie new revelations to something Jewish, however that connection will be made.
On mitzvah:
BB: God is the Commander behind the mitzvah.
Me: I cannot relate to the idea of God being the Commander behind a finite revelation. Mitzvah for me is much more like a guide to spiritual practice.
I think that's everything that relates to this thread. BB, feel free to make corrections.
Dauer
It's alright. I appreciate your not posting at a time when you were busy.
It may not be a waste of time. From the Aleph principles:
http://www.aleph.org/principles.html
I can't say that I disagree with anything there, although I might certainly disagree with some interpretations of what has been presented.. I'd say that on some level, there actually is a lesser degree of authority and sacredness, because none of the stuff Jewish Renewal is doing right now would, afaik, anyone begin to think of as canon. You also can sort of see a difference, in that the Renewal approach gives more acknowledgement of the partner or partners in a new revelation, even if it is connected to Torah, for example allowing direct experience of the Divine.
I was just reading an article by a Jewish shaman about journeying up through the top of an aron kodesh to meet with the matriarchs and receive wisdom about women's spirituality that had been lost. It's not something I would readily buy into, but it is something that I would fully support.
This seems to me to conflict with how you had been speaking earlier. Reform and Conservative Judaism have used approaches to halachah which are not valid according to halachah, Reform on a regular basis. Are you making a distinction between halachic Judaism and rabbinic Judaism? Why? I guess I don't see the point in calling, Reform for example, rabbinic, unless of course we include both Jewish Renewal and Recon. What makes Reform rabbinic that would disqualify something else? I feel like this may be splitting hairs but I just can't understand where you're going with this.
This has nothing to do with any group in the past. IIRC, we started talking about marriage because you offered it as proof of oral torah (the fact that the written Torah doesn't explain a ceremony.) All I'm doing is using the tools at my disposal to show that it's not actually a proof.
What's so un-Jewish about karaites and goddess worshippers (assuming that the goddess worshippers don't view this goddess as one of a pair?) not to mention helenizers who really aren't so different from most Jews today.
Granted, I do think there are some people who are going to get off on pre-monotheistic Judaism, and I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that. There are also going to be Jews who see Jesus as something like a rebbe and I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that either (although once any type of divinity comes into play I'd certainly call it crossing the line.)
So who is to say that the prophets were speaking about all of the people? If I was God and I was sending someone to address the people, I would send that individual to address the wrong-doers.
And while we're on this subject, what's the big deal with maintaining the practice of idolatry? As far as I can tell, the problem is not letting go of an old paradigm in order to embrace the new one.
Just because something can't be justified rationally doesn't mean it must be justified supernaturally. Some things may not be justifiable, or may need some adjustment in order to be justified. That's why I gave you the examples of Amalek and kashrut. In regard to circumcision, it's a powerful ceremony. Modern medicine has not come to the conclusion that it's a horrible thing to do. If that time does come I will have to do some soul searching. I also find the standard reconstructionist argument good here.
For me, once I get to the point you're at, I'm realizing that my ancestors actually bought into these ideas and connected to it deeply. It wasn't just "evidence of robust systematic thought." It was something much more. So I want to bring back that same sort of connection. Thus, renewal becomes an important factor in determining how I will approach Jewish life.
Are you saying that I'm being excessively literal and contextually inappropriate or that you are? Because I don't think that statement makes sense applied to either of us in this situation.
Are you saying that possibly relativism is all that we have?
Poh, I'll sum up some of it for you.
On the Divine Origin of Torah:
BB: Torah has a Divine origin.
Me: It is no more or less divine than anything else. But it is still sacred to me. It is more likely a document compiled from other documents into a semi-cohesive whole.
On the use of modern methods of literary analysis on scripture as well as the incorporation of archaeology and etc:
Me: This is valid and can be holy work.
BB: It is not.
On halachah:
BB: The system must continue to use the same tools it always has. But it can and should use those tools in search of progress.
Me: We can expand the tools we use. We should use intentionality as a guide to reshaping halachah into a system that is by no means one size fits all, but instead recognizes that each individual is unique and will go through shifts in what is best for them from the halachic system at different times in their lives.
On syncretism:
BB: Syncretism is too risky.
Me: We can use syncretism to enhance Judaism by considering the universal truths revealed in other religions, but we also need to be wary of taking in any of the specific, cultural stuff that surrounds the real fruit.
On revelation:
BB: Revelation happened at Sinai. Future revelations can come through new understandings of Torah.
Me: Revelation is not limited to Torah. We simply need to open ourselves up to the possibility of revelation. But in a Jewish context, there should be an attempt to tie new revelations to something Jewish, however that connection will be made.
On mitzvah:
BB: God is the Commander behind the mitzvah.
Me: I cannot relate to the idea of God being the Commander behind a finite revelation. Mitzvah for me is much more like a guide to spiritual practice.
I think that's everything that relates to this thread. BB, feel free to make corrections.
Dauer
bob x
Well-Known Member
Well I hope that is not everything
There are some like me out here who don't know enough to contribute anything to this thread but read it with interest, and I hope Banana will post some more when he has time.