Integral Halachah

I think it depends on where one stands whether or not what Reb Zalman suggests is micro-scale or touching at the core of Judaism. While Integral Halachah does deal extensively with potential applications, what's more radical is the theory behind it in that it would take greater account of the individual. The actual application of halachah might look very different between one person and another. As a Reform Jew, correct me if I'm wrong about you specifically, you're probably more likely to reject the whole idea that halachah is necessary at all. For someone coming from an Orthodox background, Reb Zalman's suggestions might seem too radical.

-- Dauer

Hi Dauer, welcome back, look forward to hearing if you have some new ideas about these issues.

I need to re-calibrate my thinking here, it has been a few weeks since I read Integral Halacha, so I need to do a quick review.

You are right, on a certain level I do question the necessity for halacha. However I understand the traditional argument and even R. Zalman's argument about keep links to the traditional while developing new approaches.

I am becoming more interested in learning more about Reconstructionism, mainly because I perceive more focus on rationalism. My understanding is that Recon. is going through some transitional problems with some congregants switching to Renewal and others looking for new paths.
 
Avi,

I am becoming more interested in learning more about Reconstructionism, mainly because I perceive more focus on rationalism. My understanding is that Recon. is going through some transitional problems with some congregants switching to Renewal and others looking for new paths.

In its origin reconstructionism was very rationalist. It is going through a bit of an identity crisis because of the influence of renewal. If you look at the current reconstructionist siddurim the influence is very evident. The reconstructionists that I've known personally were of the new school, that is the mystically inclined one, not the old rationalist school. I've never read Kaplan but if you pick him up I'd love to hear your thoughts.

-- Dauer
 
As regards pantheism and panentheism, they can render difficulty with images unproblematic. Here's an article by Jay Michaelson on that matter:

Zeek | Polytheism and Nonduality | Jay Michaelson

My root way of relating to God is panentheistic. Once that door is opened why protest many faces for the Divine? Reb Zalman has said for himself both that there's no real difference between the two (Wrapped in a Holy Flame) and that "God can be no less than pantheism." (Renewal is Judaism Now)

Natural pantheism was described by Spinoza in the 17 century:

Naturalistic pantheism is attributed to the teachings of Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher of Portuguese Jewish origin. Revealing considerable scientific aptitude, the breadth and importance of Spinoza's work was not fully realized until years after his death. Today, he is considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century philosophy, laying the groundwork for the 18th century Enlightenment.

Spinoza laid the groundwork for this philosophical system in his Ethics, his posthumously published magnum opus. The Ethics, originally written in Latin, is presented geometrically, with axioms and definitions followed by propositions. Ethics attempts to use formal logic and deductive reasoning to demonstrate that the universe consists of a single, interconnected substance, with all of its components originating from "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature"). Spinoza posits this to be a being of infinitely many attributes, of which thought and extension are two, defining the physical and mental worlds as one and the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism

This is an area which I think deserves further study.
 
For me there isn't any reason to prefer an impersonal pantheism arrived at via deduction over a personal and impersonal pantheism/panentheism arrived at via religious experience. A primarily philosophical approach that renders God fully impersonal doesn't seem to do justice to "b'chol l'vav'cha, oo'v'chol nafsh'cha oo'v'chol m'odecha" and that is something that's important to me. If God is only impersonal (or even if God is only personal) then some part of me isn't being allowed to relate to God fully.

-- Dauer
 
For me there isn't any reason to prefer an impersonal pantheism arrived at via deduction over a personal and impersonal pantheism/panentheism arrived at via religious experience.
Dauer, I am not suggesting that spirituality is not important. Is that what you meant by "impersonal pantheism" ?

A primarily philosophical approach that renders God fully impersonal doesn't seem to do justice to "b'chol l'vav'cha, oo'v'chol nafsh'cha oo'v'chol m'odecha" and that is something that's important to me. If God is only impersonal (or even if God is only personal) then some part of me isn't being allowed to relate to God fully.

-- Dauer
I think this is a very nice thought. But what if issues like the creation of the universe and the origin of man are impersonal processes ?? We may never know for sure.

I mentioned earlier in this thread, that after reading Integral Halacha, I think I am more drawn to Reconstructionism.

I am currently reading a book called: "Why I am a Reform Jew" by Rabbi Daniel B. Syme. I will not divert the thread by discussing this book, but perhaps is might be interesting for a separate thread.

I would like to come back to Integral Halacha for a few moments. Here is an excerpt:

"Professor Mordechi Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionism, formulated his approach to Judaism in the nineteen-thirties. In his day, pragmatism was at the core of how he approached Jewish peoplehood. He said that having a building whose only use was as a shul wasn't practical and that what was needed was a beit k'nesset / multipurpose gathering place. Instead of building a "temple", build a Beit Am, a Jewish Center. In the building, there should be a place where liturgy is celebrated, but don't use that space only for prayer. Use it for concerts and lectures; have folding doors so part of the room can be a social hall and even include a gym. This was his way of deconstructing and then reconstructing. And, while this was useful and was implemented as Jews moved to suburbs, something was missing. This was the feeling we get walking into a church where there is an aroma of incense in a room which is softly lit, with stained glass windows and a light near the alter. It's a space where you walk on tiptoe and whisper. That sense sense of awe and mystery when entering a sanctuary was no longer there. In simple terms, this was because Reconstructionism was a low ceiling and doesn't deal comfortably with higher and spiritual things. When asked what G-d means, Professor Kaplan would say that G-d is the guarantor of values. Now this is a good and true thing as far it goes, but notice how social it is and how it doesn't talk about spirtuality. "G-d is the power that makes for salvation" was the highest level to which he could go, but what salvation meant to him was to live a good life here on earth, without any reference to what is beyond our individual lives".

Ref: pages 20-21, Integral Halacha

It seems to me that this is close to what you are talking about, Dauer.

However, viewing religion from a scientific standpoint, it is hard to minimize the rationalistic method.

People have told me recently that Reform Judaism is becoming more observant. This also seems consistent with the Renewal approach.

I would like to discuss this further in this thread. Perhaps we can explore some "deep ecumenicism" ? :)
 
Dauer, I am not suggesting that spirituality is not important. Is that what you meant by "impersonal pantheism" ?
The link to Spinoza discussed an impersonal pantheism. I may have misunderstood, but I got the sense that meant an emphasis on an impersonal rather than a personal God by working from a universe of discourse that excludes all of the empirical data that would lead one to a personal relationship with God. That's what I was getting at. Judaism if understood from one angle makes it very clear that the anthropomorphic language is for the sake of humans, not an actual description of God. And that's true even of the impersonal God language that we use. It seems inaccurate to say that it is only for the sake of human intellectual understanding because of the emotional qualities embedded in God language. I think you get caught up in trying to describe God as accurately as possible. To me it seems that any description is going to come up short. I'm more concerned about my relationship with God than His essential nature.

I think this is a very nice thought. But what if issues like the creation of the universe and the origin of man are impersonal processes ?? We may never know for sure.
I think science handles the cosmology of the material world better than religion. Religion's better at confronting issues like meaning, personal growth, knowing oneself, connecting more deeply with life and the world, embracing and spreading pragmatic worldviews, encouraging ethical behavior and the like. It doesn't matter to me, in terms of religion, if the origins of the universe -- speaking from this perspective it might be better to avoid the word creation -- and the origin of mankind are impersonal. I think they likely were. Religion isn't for me a search for or embrace of some objective truth. The only way it touches upon truth at all seems to be through the empirical data collected via religious experience where the experience of being in relationship with God or at another point dissolving into God gains some sort of ontological truth in that it is a real experience for the seeker.

I am currently reading a book called: "Why I am a Reform Jew" by Rabbi Daniel B. Syme. I will not divert the thread by discussing this book, but perhaps is might be interesting for a separate thread.
I think a new thread on that subject is a great idea.

However, viewing religion from a scientific standpoint, it is hard to minimize the rationalistic method.
I don't view religion from a scientific standpoint. I relate to God on a personal level. I am guessing that you have a separate category in your mind for the way that you relate to art or to a loved one and even understanding the biological processes behind these relationships doesn't minimize or compromise for you the very personal nature of the relationship. That's how I relate to God.

People have told me recently that Reform Judaism is becoming more observant. This also seems consistent with the Renewal approach.
Only if that increase in observance includes an increase in focused kavanah. Otherwise it's just external activities.

I would like to discuss this further in this thread. Perhaps we can explore some "deep ecumenicism" ? :)
I'd enjoy that.

-- Dauer
 
Last edited:
Hey Avi, where's my deep ecumenism discussion? :/

It seems to be all about dualities :) . On the one hand we need to examine what brings us together. What are the principles of Judaism which for the most part we can all buy into. Maimonides was on the right track with his "Principles of Faith". Since the European Enlightenment Judaism has been more characterized by fracture than unity. Every generation there is a new reform movement. So perhaps ecumenism forces us to look deeper. The trend that we started to discuss related to "Post-denominational" or "Trans-denominational" is along these lines. In addition, I believe that this generation of Jews with begin to look outside the traditional scope of Judaism for more fundamental truths. This might take us to other wisdom literature. As I learn more about Jewish history, I believe that early Jewish thought was influenced by Egyptian ideas and later by Greek and then Roman approaches. We must embrace the ideas which underscore our own belief system and can even make it stronger.

On the other hand, where I believe the duality comes in, relates to deeper exploration of our own individual beliefs in Judaism. For example, in my own case, I find myself drawn toward beliefs in the rational side of Judaism, which relates to issues of ethics, morality and understanding reality. I believe that we must question the traditional path and rituals and customs. If not we get caught in a quagmire of activities which have little meaning but consume much of our time and energy.

I have recently been reading a variety of Eastern ideas. These seem to emphasize understanding duality in our lives. Male / female. Soft / hard (water / rocks). Complexity / simplicity. Knowledge / ignorance. Recognizing these dualities and dealing with them makes one robust and stronger.

It seems like this relates to dualities that we see within early Rabbinic Judaism with the debates of Hillel and Shemmai around to compassion / severity. Later there were differences between Baal Shem Tov and Vilna Gaon. A clash between rationality / mysticism.

Just some preliminary thoughts. They still need some sorting out :) !!
 
Nice post. Small point of clarification: the Vilna Gaon was a mystic too.
 
Avi,

he was known as an opponent of hasidism but he wasn't opposed to it because it's mystical. Setting up the Vilna Gaon and the Besht as representatives of rationalism and mysticism is incorrect. Both were mystics.
 
Avi,

he was known as an opponent of hasidism but he wasn't opposed to it because it's mystical. Setting up the Vilna Gaon and the Besht as representatives of rationalism and mysticism is incorrect. Both were mystics.
Dauer,

That's interesting, and isn't the usual presentation of the Vilna Gaon at all. I didn't know he was a mystic until I read your post. But I guess "rationalist" doesn't mean the same thing in a religious context that it does in a secular context. I'm saying that based on my recent conflicts with BB, and what he told me about Adin Steinsaltz and his belief in "Torah from Sinai." I guess if you start with that as your basic premise (although I don't) you could proceed rationally from there.

--Linda
 
Raksha,

it's true that in a religious context the term rationalist means something different. Like you say, I think has more to do with the type of reasoning one uses following certain premises and the value one places on empirical evidence and the like. I also think there's been a certain tendency due to the haskalah or perhaps other factors to brand people as either rationalists or mystics when both may be the case, like R" Akiva who was the center of a circle of mystics and yet, when he's talked about in many circles, that aspect of his person often goes unacknowledged. I don't think the division between mystics and rationalists is always so clear or that the conflict was the same in all ages as it is in ours.
 
Raksha,

it's true that in a religious context the term rationalist means something different. Like you say, I think has more to do with the type of reasoning one uses following certain premises and the value one places on empirical evidence and the like.
.

Linda and Dauer, I do not understand the distinction that you are making here. In my view rationalism is a logical view of the world. It is based mainly on quantitative and measurable quantities. There are no grey areas.

Lets take an example. Rav Berg talks alot about light. Light is a physics based phenomenon. It has a characteristic wavelength and intensity and these can be measured. For some reason, Rav Berg likes to talk about light as though he is using some basis in physics to discuss it, but in fact he is not doing so and is misleading his followers. I read one of his Kabbalah books and there were several topics that were written for non-scientists which were completely wrong, but gave the impression that he was using a scientific approach to prove his Kabbalistic ideas. I find this disingenuous and did not like his approach for this reason. The person who gave me the book is a follower of Rav Berg and a non-scientist. She was very proud that he was usinging "scientific" means to prove his Kabbalistic ideas. I think he is trying to fool his followers.

Also, I do not believe that rationality and spirtuality are mutually exclusive. I believe that what drives are hearts and dreams is more spirtual than rational.
 
Avi said:
In my view rationalism is a logical view of the world. It is based mainly on quantitative and measurable quantities. There are no grey areas.

Was Maimonides a rationalist?
 
Was Maimonides a rationalist?

Given the time that he existed, we would have to say yes.

But by today's standards, he said some fairly goofy things, here is an example:


In "Guide for the Perplexed" Book III, Chapter 28,[25] Maimonides explicitly draws a distinction between "true beliefs," which were beliefs about God that produced intellectual perfection, and "necessary beliefs," which were conducive to improving social order. Maimonides places anthropomorphic personification statements about God in the latter class. He uses as an example the notion that God becomes "angry" with people who do wrong. In the view of Maimonides (taken from Avicenna) God does not actually become angry with people, as God has no human passions; but it is important for them to believe God does, so that they desist from sinning.

Maimonides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He is best identified as an Aristotilian, a rationalist.

Another problem is that the brilliance in his day, for example the "Principles of Faith" are interpreted by less brilliant in a dogmatic fashion. No fault of his.

His views on resurrection, acquired immortality and afterlife are a bit doubtful to me.

Anyone agree or disagree ?
 
Avi said:
But by today's standards, he said some fairly goofy things, here is an example:

I don't see that as particularly goofy. Different people require different things from Judaism. Different people conceptualize God in different ways, relate to God in different ways. Maimonides was allowing for the different ways that people related in his day which he saw as good for society.

He is best identified as an Aristotilian, a rationalist.

So all Aristotelians are rationalists? I just don't think that fits your earlier definition which is much more demanding. I could argue that you haven't accounted for the types of logical relationships that make up philosophical discourse. You've limited yourself to a fairly reductionist understanding of rationalism by which little more than the hard sciences can be the stuff of rationalism.

Another problem is that the brilliance in his day, for example the "Principles of Faith" are interpreted by less brilliant in a dogmatic fashion. No fault of his.

I'd say in some ways modern interpretations are less dogmatic. His actual formulations of the principles were much more precise. Today they're taken more generally and used as an umbrella to include people with very varying beliefs.
 
Back
Top