Integral Halachah

[spiritual learner]

didn't know where to reply....just want to say that i read the rules about posting sacred texts for discussion...my compliments go to you/your fellow moderators...this is a wonderful(for lack of a better word) web site. i am so inspired to see such an interfaith exchange and the emphasis on the importance of respect.

 

[bananabrain]

maybe i'm going to need to get hold of this gershon winkler book as well!

So for you the issue isn't the process of halachah so much as the focus on trivialities over matters that mean something tangible and impactful?

yes. it's what mrs bb refers to with her usual mordant wit as "range rover judaism", the "keeping up with the cohens" approach, the same approach that brings us the sheitel, the pessah-dik bog-roll and the £120/head wedding, curse them all. it is the halakhah of fear, small-mindedness and conformism.

Can you explain that for me? I don't know what you're referring to.

the chauvinistic and eurocentric C19th and early C20th behaviour of the "alliance israelite universelle" system: see here - Alliance Israélite Universelle

How do you see that playing out, the rejuvination of halachah?

truly, i don't know. it has to be grass-roots. in the UK, limmud is part of it. so is the cadre of new sephardi rabbis that are about to get semichah, i hope. it's going to be a really long process though, at least a generation or maybe several.

given that I reject the belief that G!d exists outside of the human psyche it's difficult to find any formula I agree with much at all.

well, philosophically it's pretty difficult to prove anything exists outside of the human psyche, we could all be BIVs as i've said previously. the thing i think is most interesting about the 13 principles is that they are not really so much hard-and-fast formulae as a brilliant identification of the only faith-based principles in judaism. in other words, these are the things which rest on "emunah shleimah" alone. all else is, as they say, commentary. it doesn't, however, make them 100% obligatory, which is what the maimonidean controversy was about.

if G!d is everything I disagree with that too. That would mean that G!d has many bodies.

er, that's certainly not what i would understand by it.

I was just stating to Avi that I reject belief in either a messiah or a messianic age.

next you'll be telling me you don't like "star trek".

I like that reading of it too. Do you connect that to the way you read it once before about emanation?

yes.

Can you say more about that?

not easily - the trouble is that i haven't reread it for ages and i think the principles are so internalised now i don't think i could extract them without a copy of the book in front of me. i should really just buy one. it wasn't *just* that book, however - it was a combination of the info in there and some other stuff from kabbalistic sources as well as the moreh nebuhim. this thread might help a little:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/what-is-the-story-on-2633.html

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

well, philosophically it's pretty difficult to prove anything exists outside of the human psyche

Yes and, at the same time we don't need too many assumptions (which I would argue are all in the realm of common sense) to have external corroboration for quite a bit. When it comes to G!d we're pretty limited to personal experiences and word-of-mouth. If a person validates G!d as real based on that, we might as well give the delusions of schyzophrenics the same validation.

er, that's certainly not what i would understand by it.

Maybe not, but it's a valid conclusion.

next you'll be telling me you don't like "star trek".

I don't see what rejecting belief in a messiah/messianic age has to do with liking star trek.

 

[Avi]

"Belief in the existence of the Creator, be He Blessed, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists."

I reject the belief in a Creator which I see as an anthropomorphism. Nor do I believe in asserting any rigid theology about G!d. I think it's better to be fluid with one's theology and apply it as is most useful in a given situation.

I do not necessarily see belief in a creator is anthropomorphic. Although it could be. Can’t one believe in a non-anthropomorphic G-d ? More is coming on this so shortly.

"The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity."

I don't believe that G!d must be a unity. I don't think we have any way of knowing the true nature of G!d or that G!d exists at all, unless we're willing to redefine G!d as a psychological construct in which case I would assert that, since people can have experiences that they relate back to G!d, G!d must at the very least exist on the personal, subjective level for some people. If G!d exists only on the personal, subjective level for some people then G!d is not an absolute and unparalleled unity because He is divided among the psyches of many individuals with no connection between each aside from shared cultural biased and tendencies in the human mind toward certain experiences and in the human being toward labeling those experiences as related to the Divine.

I generally agree here. Especially if G-d is non-corporeal, in that case unity does not have meaning. I think this principle was originally aimed at polytheism.

"The belief in G-d's noncorporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling."

If G!d is really everything that exists then G!d is the most effected entity, not the least. I cannot eliminate the possibility that G!d is everything that exists.

As I mentioned earlier, I am really a fan of this principle. In fact, I think this is the essence of Judaism. It does not rule out your interpretation.

"The belief in G-d's eternity."

Since I reject the idea that G!d must exist, I necessarily reject the idea of G!d's eternity. If G!d exists, G!d may or may not be eternal.

I agree, how could we know this, anyway ?

"The imperative to worship Him exclusively and no foreign false gods."

This I can agree with.

Me too !!

"The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy."

This I reject. However, if G!d is related the unconscious and prophecy is communication from the unconscious then prophecy exists.

This is an interesting one. I tend to agree with you and reject G-d’s prophecy. But on the other hand I can believe that non-divine prophecy might have an important role.

"The belief that the prophecy of Moses our teacher has priority."

I accept the centrality of Torah.

Interesting issue, again. Do you believe that Moses wrote the entire Torah ? Do you believe in the Documentary Hypothesis ?

"The belief in the divine origin of the Torah."

I reject this. I see sacred texts as sacred because of the perspectives of the communities that hold them so.

I reject it as well. It is impossible to know. And I am skeptical of miracles.

"The belief in the immutability of the Torah."

Reject.

Me too.

"The belief in divine omniscience and providence."

Reject, obviously.

Same here. I do not think this rules out the Shechina.

"The belief in divine reward and retribution."

Reject.

Again, it sounds too anthropomorphic.

"The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era."

Reject.

This one has caused us lots of problems.

"The belief in the resurrection of the dead."

Reject of course any formulation since I don't hold belief in an afterlife.

I agree.

Medieval Sourcebook: Maimonides: The 13 Principles and the Resurrection of the Dead

I still think it might be interesting to review some (or all) of the 613 Commandments

 

[Avi]

The book helped me to understand that one's practices matter and that they potentially can influence the halachah of tomorrow.

I used to not hold this belief. My take away from my barely adequate Jewish education was that experimentation seemed to be strictly forbidden, and that one had to wait until one was told by a halachic authority that it was okay to do something. Otherwise, we were taking matters into our own hands and thereby being transgressors.

Hi Rebzgabbai, it sounds like you were brought up Orthodox or Conservative, is that the case ?

I don’t like this idea which tends to get in the way of my joy. (I should add that I am not trying to be a sinner or a bad person or to make a space for me to rationalize things. I am really serious about this.)

I agree, this view requires paradigm shift.

I realized, after reading this book, that my impressions were more a matter of my ignorance; and that the process of Halachah is one which is less rigid and more reasonable than I had previously thought.

Very interesting observation.

'Edut Adonay neemana machkimat peti' / what are the witnesses of God? 'They are the things that make a fool smart.'

In what sense are these “witnesses” ?

Here's a brief illustration of how things might really work here: Reb Zalman gives an example in the book about Yaakov avinu olav hashalom marking the rock with oil at Beth El.

Was Yaakov avinu following halachah or was he creating a practice?

Things progress from people doing things empirically that work, that have an effect. The practicality is recognized by others until it becomes part of a local communiy's adoption. That in turn may lead to the establishment of a minhag and finally to the codification of a din. Just because they say that a practice is halachah l-moshe misinai does not mean that this intuitive and empirical approach isn’t what really happened.

It's not hard to imagine that Yaakov's action at Beth El was somehow connected to the later use of oil for anointing.

This makes sense to me.

And so, just as we now see the B'nai tallis in frum settings, so may we one day see vegetarians wearing tefillin made of wood or ceramics.

I agree, this is a good idea.

PS. I did not identify with the term chosid when I first met Reb Zalman in 1989, and I was skeptical about the idea of Rebbe as I understood it. I did not trust anyone with that and I was always skeptical to take on someone as my master.

Can you explain what it means “ to take on someone as my master” ? Of course it means you are (were) his student, does it have other meaning as well ?

 

[dauer]

Avi,

I do not necessarily see belief in a creator is anthropomorphic.

I see ascribing will to G!d as anthropomorphic. If G!d has no will, then create is not a good word to use to describe the process.

Can’t one believe in a non-anthropomorphic G-d ? More is coming on this so shortly. [/quote]

You can believe in whatever you'd like. I generally regard myself as an agnostic who experiences the Divine every day.

Interesting issue, again. Do you believe that Moses wrote the entire Torah ? Do you believe in the Documentary Hypothesis ?

I don't have any defined belief about the origins of Torah except that it came from human hands and certainly not all from Moses, if any, though if he existed his ideas may have influenced some of the text. A professor I had at Hebrew College suggested that DH is not quite correct, that it's more likely many people contributed but that each was closer to one of the groups DH attributes the writings to and their writings reflected the perspectives of that group. I haven't studied DH enough to form a strong opinion, but maybe at some point in my academic career I'll find myself spending more time on it.

Quote:
"The belief in divine omniscience and providence."

Reject, obviously.
Same here. I do not think this rules out the Shechina.

Well personally, as I've expressed, I have no issue making use of anthropomorphism or any myth for relating to G!d. That includes the idea of Creator, of omnipotence, omniscience, of a personal G!d and so on. I don't see much value in attributing any of the above to G!d. It's not necessary and it's imo unverifiable.

edit: I meant to add, if you would like to go through each of the 613 mitzvot I'd suggest creating a new thread. There's a list of them all somewhere at Jewfaq.

 

[bananabrain]

When it comes to G!d we're pretty limited to personal experiences and word-of-mouth. If a person validates G!d as real based on that, we might as well give the delusions of schyzophrenics the same validation.

hang on, but that's the atheist argument, which assumes that sane people are as deluded as the mentally ill when it comes to the Divine and, frankly, i don't think that's warranted as an assumption in this case without making the whole argument pointless.

Maybe not, but it's a valid conclusion.

it's not a conclusion i've ever come across, nor would it occur to me that it were possible. it is axiomatic that G!D Is One, by definition. if something were more than one, that would by definition not be G!D.

I don't see what rejecting belief in a messiah/messianic age has to do with liking star trek.

really? what would the messianic age be like on earth? you can't tell me it wouldn't be a little bit like the roddenberry vision of the 24th century; no money, world peace, humans living in harmony with the environment, etc.

Can’t one believe in a non-anthropomorphic G-d ?

that's the platonic conception, but for our purposes i really mean that we can only explain G!D in anthropomorphic terms for certain things. furthermore, the point of using anthropomorphic terminology is to help *us* understand something, not to tell us something about the ultimate nature of G!D.

if G-d is non-corporeal, in that case unity does not have meaning.

that doesn't follow. Unity of purpose, Unity of action, Unity of consciousness, Unity of will? these do not relate to corporeality.

I think this principle was originally aimed at polytheism

i think it's more about incarnation - remember, maimonides was not a fan of christianity.

As I mentioned earlier, I am really a fan of this principle. In fact, I think this is the essence of Judaism.

yes - it is the essence of saying G!D Cares, because G!D Is affected. and the way in which we affect the Divine is by our actions, which is why the mitzvot are so important.

I agree, how could we know this, anyway?

that's the point of axioms - they require "emunah shleimah", precisely *because* they cannot be "known" or proved, despite the busy mediaeval theological industry beavering away producing "proofs" which have universally failed to stand the test of time.

I tend to agree with you and reject G-d’s prophecy. But on the other hand I can believe that non-divine prophecy might have an important role.

then what do you think prophecy actually is?

Do you believe that Moses wrote the entire Torah ? Do you believe in the Documentary Hypothesis?

moses was the *scribe*. no, i don't believe in it. it's clever and it's plausible, but the more i find out about it the less persuasive it is. an excellent book to read on this, which i'm halfway thorough, is james kugel's "how to read the bible" - the author is both a harvard professor of bible criticism and an orthodox jew. a nice chap too, i was privileged to share a duvet with him in december.

This one has caused us lots of problems

yes, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. it just means we ain't doing it right.

Can you explain what it means “ to take on someone as my master”?

it's a formal undertaking (look in pirkei avot) to abide by someone's rulings, among other things.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

hang on, but that's the atheist argument, which assumes that sane people are as deluded as the mentally ill when it comes to the Divine and, frankly, i don't think that's warranted as an assumption in this case without making the whole argument pointless.

I think it is. You're claiming that my statements about G!d amount to a biv argument (I don't see any reason to claim G!d is more than a subjective experience, though I'm certainly agnostic on the matter.) I'm stating that I take for granted a lot of ideas, ideas that are externally verifiable. The evidence we have for G!d is the same as the evidence we have for schizophrenic delusions once we take into account cultural influences. We do not have external verifiability.

it's not a conclusion i've ever come across, nor would it occur to me that it were possible. it is axiomatic that G!D Is One, by definition. if something were more than one, that would by definition not be G!D.

I don't make the assumption that Jewish ideas about G!d must be correct. There are belief systems that don't require G!d is indivisibly One and I'm not beginning with the premise that G!d is indivisibly One.

My position is that the Divine may or may not exist outside of the human psyche. If the Divine exists outside of the human psyche, it may or may not fit one of the descriptions given by the world's religious traditions. At the very least, the Divine exists within the human psyche because humans have experiences that they associate with the Divine.

Further, if the psyches of different individuals are independent of one another and G!d only exists within the human psyche, then G!d is not indivisibly one.

But to restate my point:

If either G!d is everything or some of G!d is everything, and some of everything is bodies, then some of G!d is bodies. In other words, as I stated before, "if G!d is everything I disagree with that too. That would mean that G!d has many bodies." That covers both pantheist and panentheist positions.

I could make a similar case to argue that I have fingers:

If either I am my body or some of me is my body, and some of my body is fingers, then some of me is fingers.

In the second situation we could rephrase the conclusion as "I have some fingers." Likewise in the first situation we could rephrase the conclusion "G!d has some bodies."

I'm not making any assumptions about what G!d is. I really don't know. I'm only stating that, if we accept the premises I've given, the conclusion follows. I am unwilling to reject the possibility that those premises are accurate.

really? what would the messianic age be like on earth? you can't tell me it wouldn't be a little bit like the roddenberry vision of the 24th century; no money, world peace, humans living in harmony with the environment, etc.

You said 'like star trek' not believe it's our future. I like The Matrix. That doesn't mean I believe we have a future as batteries for machines to look forward to. I don't hold a belief in a utopian future for humanity.

furthermore, the point of using anthropomorphic terminology is to help *us* understand something, not to tell us something about the ultimate nature of G!D.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

an excellent book to read on this, which i'm halfway thorough, is james kugel's "how to read the bible" - the author is both a harvard professor of bible criticism and an orthodox jew.

Damn you both. I will have to add this book to my amazon wishlist too. It's just as well. I've always liked kugel.

-- Dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

Hi Rebzgabbai, it sounds like you were brought up Orthodox or Conservative, is that the case ?

I did not know those categories when I was raised. I was Jewish. My grandparents were Orthodox and my parents were American; and American seems to have meant cultural and non-observant. My family celebrated Jewish holidays but didn’t do Shabbat. My Hebrew school was orthodox after-school cheder, 5 days a week. After my bar mitzvah, I left. Later on, I tried to return through orthodox circles. I got a lot from this period but it didn’t stick. Then I met Reb Zalman’s community. That stuck. It satisfied my longings to be the kind of Jew I needed to be. No one else was able to do that for me, and during the interim until I met my community, I was looking for nurturing of the spirit in non-Jewish venues, art, music, philosophy, literature. I felt myself ungrounded during that time.

I agree, this view requires paradigm shift.

I do not understand your use of the term in this context. I think that perhaps Reb Zalman is saying that there was always experimentation and innovation but its just not something that has been publicized much because it didn’t serve objectives of those in power.

In what sense are these “witnesses” ?

The word Edut are a category of laws in the torah. The word etymologically comes from the same root as Ed which means witness. This could be translated as the “The laws of God are dependable. They make a fool smart.”

Can you explain what it means “ to take on someone as my master” ? Of course it means you are (were) his student, does it have other meaning as well ?

Well, thank God I have had access to him over the years because I have personally benefited from this exposure. It means I don’t push back or question. I just go along with whatever he presents and I assume that if I am in the dark, I will gain clarity later on. He has not let me down.

if i understand you correctly, i think the two might be equally chimeric.

I think that he is saying that in terms of the chiyyu of yiddishkeit, these are labels he created to describe the two parts of his career both aimed at chiyyu / survival of Judaism. In the first part, he was a restorationist. He wanted to create a noah’s ark to preserve pre-holocaust Judaism and help American Jewry to access it. At some point, he switched focus to Renewal. The idea was to create a healthy futurist process, i.e. look at where we are headed, visioning, and framing the shared vision.
In reality, everyone is both restorationist in tapping into yerusha, but renewalist if they want to participate in futurist focus.
Need to add here also disenfranchised, alienated jews. For this large group, renewalism gives an opportunity to heal broken pieces within individual through providing an impression that Judaism needs their input for its future. This is a large motivator for people who involve themselves in renewal. In reality though, when it comes time for them to actually tap into the Jewish yerusha, the baal teshuvah path is the same for renewalists and frummies alike. Except that renewalists might be tapped into ways of healing / growing the soul coming from other sources than only Judaism. That brings up the question of what we can import from other sources and still stay Jewish. Reb Zalman has done a lot of work on helping us to define avodah zarah in a modern context.

I actually think he sees the Holocaust as playing into it, too, hearkening to death of G!d theology in a way with the decline of a previous paradigm.

He definitely includes Holocaust as one part of our past that points to paradigm shift. Its impact on Jews of our time is immense. It is used as a justification for many things, including State of Israel, and individual loss of emunah in many.

While I support the idea of re-structuring the basic principles of halachah, I don't buy into a lot of the theology used to back up that practice

… I’m confused. What is halachah without the theology to back it up. Isn’t it just then a legal system. If a basis for kosher behavior is decoupled from God then it is decoupled from torah and then where are you. It seems to me this is more universalist than jewish. You’ve given yourself permission to leave the culture assumptions of Judaism. You may come up with a good “halachic” system, which would be a worthy endeavor. My impression is that Reb Zalman’s work though is aimed at Jewish utopias rather than generic ones.

 

[dauer]

… I’m confused. What is halachah without the theology to back it up. Isn’t it just then a legal system. If a basis for kosher behavior is decoupled from God then it is decoupled from torah and then where are you. It seems to me this is more universalist than jewish. You’ve given yourself permission to leave the culture assumptions of Judaism. You may come up with a good “halachic” system, which would be a worthy endeavor. My impression is that Reb Zalman’s work though is aimed at Jewish utopias rather than generic ones.

I was referring to the theological attempts to justify changes in halachah, most specifically, paradigm shift.

-- Dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

I was referring to the theological attempts to justify changes in halachah, most specifically, paradigm shift.

-- Dauer

Oh. I misunderstood. In other words, something like, "don't argue with me because I have God on my side."

 

[Avi]

Originally Posted by Avi1223
Can you explain what it means “ to take on someone as my master” ? Of course it means you are (were) his student, does it have other meaning as well ?

Quote - Rebzgabbai - Well, thank God I have had access to him over the years because I have personally benefited from this exposure. It means I don’t push back or question. I just go along with whatever he presents and I assume that if I am in the dark, I will gain clarity later on. He has not let me down.

Hi Rebzgabbai,

I am very much struck by your comment. Clearly you are very devoted to R. Zalman.

But isn't a Jewish tradition to always question our teachers and gain understanding through these interactions ? Wasn't that very much the Talmudic process ? I cannot imagine a teacher of mine who I would not question or "push back" on (I don't think it is in my genes ) . Can you please explain how you have such faith ?

 

[rebzgabbai]

Hi Rebzgabbai,

I am very much struck by your comment. Clearly you are very devoted to R. Zalman.

But isn't a Jewish tradition to always question our teachers and gain understanding through these interactions ? Wasn't that very much the Talmudic process ? I cannot imagine a teacher of mine who I would not question or "push back" on (I don't think it is in my genes ) . Can you please explain how you have such faith ?

I’m not sure "always question our teachers" is the tradition.

It seems to me, rather, that we question our teachers when a compelling alternative rises within us demanding an airing. I would have no hesitation to raise such an alternative with Reb Zalman, and he is quite gentle and respectful of differing perspectives from wherever they may come.

But in my studies with him, it seems that part of his wisdom stems from having carefully listened to alternatives and then incorporating them into his teachings. In general, he seems to have already taken into consideration anything I might have wanted to provide, so I am not often in a position where I feel compelled to offer something. Also, I am not his peer in any way shape or form because I have been working very hard to fill in insufficient training in yiddishkeit of which I have felt a need for most of my adult life. He, on the other hand, came from a chasidic family and was given the highest quality Jewish training in Vienna and beyond. Vienna seems to have been a special environment to have come from. I would imagine his IQ is super high as well.

In working on some projects, I have sometimes felt a voice within me telling me to do things in a certain way, and I have not always had access to Reb Zalman for a vetting. At first, I questioned whether I could just follow my voice, but I've always felt an urgency of getting his work out; it's something the world (Jewish world and world in general) needs desperately and so I've followed my own sense of what should be done.

I imagine that my own sense and sensitivities are somewhat already in line with his because I have grown in my access and scope of work regarding his teachings over the years. And I've never heard a concern. Speaking to others who have worked on publishing his thoughts, teachings, they mention a similar graciousness.

When I worked with Rabbi Daniel Siegel on the Integral Halachah book, I was invited to push back and I did. In this case too, Rabbi Daniel took into consideration my views. So although I am not a Rabbi, I feel that the people in this community are pretty open.

Reb Zalman though seems to have some very special gifts above and beyond Reb Daniel. I feel very lucky that I have had opportunities to learn from him. I don't know of anyone else in the Jewish world who has learned to integrate the zeitgeist with the yerusha to this degree.

 

[dauer]

Oh. I misunderstood. In other words, something like, "don't argue with me because I have God on my side."

No, more like "I don't see the evidence for paradigm shift as very valid, nonetheless I think the contribution of integral halachah is valuable." I would not argue that I have G!d on my side in such a manner as I don't maintain a belief in supernaturalism. I've been over that a number of times, including in this thread.

 

[Avi]

Reb Zalman though seems to have some very special gifts above and beyond Reb Daniel. I feel very lucky that I have had opportunities to learn from him. I don't know of anyone else in the Jewish world who has learned to integrate the zeitgeist with the yerusha to this degree.

Seth, it sounds like you have found a great master !

I have many questions for you about yourself and R. Zalman, and I don't know how much time you have,

But let me ask this one first. I have heard that Renewal complements the eastern religions. Can you tell me which of the eastern religions you and R. Zalman thinks is the most complementary to Judaism ? And perhaps explain why this is so ?

 

[rebzgabbai]

I have many questions for you about yourself and R. Zalman, and I don't know how much time you have,

I will do my best to answer any questions you might have.

I have heard that Renewal complements the eastern religions.

I'd like to hear more about this to make sure I am on the same wave length with you. Are you referring to retreats that include Renewal Rabbis and meditation leaders?

In any event, here's a brief summary of my understanding of the complementary processes:

Reb Zalman has a teaching called Deep Ecumenism. In it, he talks about how no religion can afford a triumphalist bent at this time because of our mother the planet which needs to be our collective focus.

He talks about the need, in certain cases, for Judaism to import files which have been lost to us Jews from other religions. We recognize they were lost and need to be regained. (For me, pranayama comes to mind. Although, the talmud speaks of the importance of breath, we don't have the degree of sophistication and range in our tradition as one would find in this one).

We can't import everything and keep it Jewish. But there is a permeable membrane here.

He wants us to tap into the updraft of worship as done by other God-worshippers because we can be elevated by that. E.g., the seventh-day Adventists share our concern with ingredients in food.

Can you tell me which of the eastern religions you and R. Zalman thinks is the most complementary to Judaism ? And perhaps explain why this is so ?

I don't know if there is an answer I can give here.

A complementary religion would be one that inspires Jews; but Jews are a very diverse group.

Reb Zalman talks about what he calls hyphenation. Among disenfranchised Jews, those of us who went through periods of time when we felt we could not find a spiritual home for ourselves within Jewish institutions, we were sometimes inspired elsewhere and for some, this continues even amidst our renewed Jewish practices.

Reb Zalman calls this hyphenation.

For me, my hyphenation shows in my love of James Joyce and German Romanticism, existentialism, and Iyengar Yoga. But I think that in general Renewal Jews are probably hyphenated everywhere (i.e. in all spiritual traditions, East and West).

Reb Zalman has suggested that we try to bring some hyphenation things into our services. For example, he has seen this as a possible way of re-energizing yom tov sheni shel galut through dedicating a part of these services, which sometimes feel stale because of the context of doubt, toward inviting individuals to bring inspiring practices from other places into the service for sharing with community.

 

[Avi]

I'd like to hear more about this to make sure I am on the same wave length with you. Are you referring to retreats that include Renewal Rabbis and meditation leaders?

I am not aware specifically of these interfaith activities. But that is a good example. However, I am aware from some preliminary reading that Renewal is influenced by Sufism and Buddhism.
From my limited knowledge of these religions, this seems like a very logical approach to me. I would like to very briefly explain why. We have tried for many years to work within the framework of the Abrahamic religions. We appear like a family, for example, brothers and sisters who have fought so long with each other that we know no other way. We are trying to improve this, interfaith activities are a good example. I expect relations between Christians, Muslims and Jews will improve, but it could take a long time and the improvement with be asymptotic.
On the other hand consideration of ideas from other faiths, for example Buddhism and Hindu make a great deal of sense to me. I think we might be able to move the discussion to another level using this approach.

He talks about the need, in certain cases, for Judaism to import files which have been lost to us Jews from other religions. We recognize they were lost and need to be regained. (For me, pranayama comes to mind. Although, the talmud speaks of the importance of breath, we don't have the degree of sophistication and range in our tradition as one would find in this one).

I would like to learn more about these “files” which have been lost.
Also, it is my understanding that Renewal includes other approaches, including meditation, chanting, and dance. Although these approaches may be very nice, they are not the main points that make we want to learn more about Renewal. For me religion has been more of an intellectual pursuit of understanding G-d. But on the other hand, some of these other approaches sound like they might bring in a spiritual component that could be quite important.

I will do my best to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

 

[rebzgabbai]

I am not aware specifically of these interfaith activities.

I did not mean to suggest these are interfaith activities.

But that is a good example. However, I am aware from some preliminary reading that Renewal is influenced by Sufism and Buddhism.

Can you explain what you mean here? What do you have in mind when you say Renewal? This term is understood in different ways.

From my limited knowledge of these religions, this seems like a very logical approach to me. I would like to very briefly explain why. We have tried for many years to work within the framework of the Abrahamic religions.

What do you mean, "We have tried to work within the framework of the Abrahamic religions." Who is the "we" in this statement? If you are saying we Jews, then my question is then, to what kind of work are you referring? Prayer? Practice? Why are you then saying that Jews have tried to work with the framework of Abrahamic religions? I don’t understand this. Are you saying Jews work within the framework of Islam and Christianity along with Judaism? Or is this statement saying that Renewal Jews have worked, etc.

We appear like a family, for example, brothers and sisters who have fought so long with each other that we know no other way.

Why can't brothers and sisters just be loving?

We are trying to improve this, interfaith activities are a good example.

Please illustrate with specific examples so I can see what you had in mind.

I expect relations between Christians, Muslims and Jews will improve, but it could take a long time and the improvement with be asymptotic.

Sorry don't know this word.

On the other hand consideration of ideas from other faiths, for example Buddhism and Hindu make a great deal of sense to me.

What specifically is inspiring to you?

I think we might be able to move the discussion to another level using this approach.

What do you have in mind? What would "the discussion moved to another level" look like?

I would like to learn more about these “files” which have been lost.

I don’t have specifics. Sometimes individuals find their souls longing for something they aren’t finding in their synagogue or church. Then they go to see Sylvia Boorstein, e.g., who teaches something of a mindfulness practice and they say, "That’s just what I needed. Why didn’t my minister or Rabbi give that to me? Is it a part of my religion?" In this case, it might just be a lost file that was once part of the religion. Or it might be something which can’t be imported because it would cause friction with the religion that was "importing the file."

Also, it is my understanding that Renewal includes other approaches, including meditation, chanting, and dance.

Meditation, chanting and dance, in the context of a Jewish service, help lower a sense of difficulty of reaching in God’s direction.

Although these approaches may be very nice, they are not the main points that make we want to learn more about Renewal. For me religion has been more of an intellectual pursuit of understanding G-d.

So then you are interested in hearing about how Renewal can assist in understanding God? What’s your understanding and where are you feeling a need for assistance from Renewal?

But on the other hand, some of these other approaches sound like they might bring in a spiritual component that could be quite important.

I agree with this last statement. If we are healthy physically, emotionally and intellectually, then we are better prepared for spiritual. Conversely, if we are not healthy in these areas, than any ways we have to grow these areas is where we should focus. For example, on Yom Kippur, we can only ask God for attonement vis-à-vis God. If we have wronged individuals, we must go to the individual and confess a sense of having done wrong and ask for forgiveness.

 

[Avi]

Seth, thanks very much for taking the time to answer my questions. After reading the link that Dauer gave me to the R. Zalman Legacy Project I now understand what an important group your's is. I appreciate your approach, in asking me about myself and how Renewal can relate to me.

I very much appreciate your efforts.

Sorry for the length of this post, I probably should break it into multiple posts. Of course, I don't expect that you can respond to all of my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
I am aware from some preliminary reading that Renewal is influenced by Sufism and Buddhism.

Seth - Can you explain what you mean here? What do you have in mind when you say Renewal? This term is understood in different ways.
Please explain to us what you mean by Renewal.

Avi - My own view is that it is the leading edge of Judaism and includes mysticism, eastern philosophy, chant, dance, meditation, interfaith activities and other progressive notions. It is remarkable that R. Zalman was working in these areas since the 1970’s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
From my limited knowledge of these religions, this seems like a very logical approach to me. I would like to very briefly explain why. We have tried for many years to work within the framework of the Abrahamic religions.

Seth - What do you mean, "We have tried to work within the framework of the Abrahamic religions." Who is the "we" in this statement? If you are saying we Jews, then my question is then, to what kind of work are you referring? Prayer? Practice? Why are you then saying that Jews have tried to work with the framework of Abrahamic religions? I don’t understand this. Are you saying Jews work within the framework of Islam and Christianity along with Judaism? Or is this statement saying that Renewal Jews have worked, etc.

Avi - Right, I do not think I explained my ideas here well. What I mean is that Jews, Muslims and Christians have been fighting for hundreds to thousands of years (depending on how you count). I think we can say that we (meaning all three of these groups) are making slow progress. I think the recent development of interfaith dialogue is the best hope of real progress. But the situation in Gaza has been a huge setback. What I am saying is that the paradigm shift that might make the most sense is to look to eastern traditions for new ideas.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
We appear like a family, for example, brothers and sisters who have fought so long with each other that we know no other way.

Seth - Why can't brothers and sisters just be loving?

Avi - I agree, that should be the goal.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
We are trying to improve this, interfaith activities are a good example.

Seth - Please illustrate with specific examples so I can see what you had in mind.

Avi - During the past 6 months I have participated in interfaith dialogue in my community. I believe getting our children involved in these discussions will give them a perspective I never had.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
I expect relations between Christians, Muslims and Jews will improve, but it could take a long time and the improvement with be asymptotic.

Seth - Sorry don't know this word.

Avi - Oh, I am sorry, I am slipping into my engineering / science vocabulary. Asymptotic means:
(of a function) approaching a given value as an expression containing a variable tends to infinity. (ref – dictionary.com)

What I mean here is that if we only focus on the Abrahamic religions we will make progress, but never quite get there.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
On the other hand consideration of ideas from other faiths, for example Buddhism and Hindu make a great deal of sense to me.

Seth - What specifically is inspiring to you?

Avi - I am in the early stages of understanding this. Perhaps you can give me some ideas.
But in my view some of the areas that western tradition has gone wrong is the emphasis on power, strength, use of military, materialism, and we can probably think of other undesirable values.

On the Legacy webpage it says that R. Zalman became a Sheikh in the Sufi Order. That is certainly inspiring and amazing as well.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
I think we might be able to move the discussion to another level using this approach.

Seth - What do you have in mind? What would "the discussion moved to another level" look like?

Avi - I am not sure. Interfaith dialogue is probably a good start. This dialogue must be without huge ego, that is the challenge.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
I would like to learn more about these “files” which have been lost.

Seth - I don’t have specifics. Sometimes individuals find their souls longing for something they aren’t finding in their synagogue or church. Then they go to see Sylvia Boorstein, e.g., who teaches something of a mindfulness practice and they say, "That’s just what I needed. Why didn’t my minister or Rabbi give that to me? Is it a part of my religion?" In this case, it might just be a lost file that was once part of the religion. Or it might be something which can’t be imported because it would cause friction with the religion that was "importing the file."

Avi - Using the terms “files” and “imported”, are you trying to link religious ideas to computer terminology ?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
Also, it is my understanding that Renewal includes other approaches, including meditation, chanting, and dance.

Seth - Meditation, chanting and dance, in the context of a Jewish service, help lower a sense of difficulty of reaching in God’s direction.

Avi - I agree this has great potential.

But I have a question about some of the issues related to mysticism. Don’t some of these approaches stand very much outside of Jewish tradition and in some cases aren’t they on the interface of “superstition” or even “idolatry”. Can you explain your thoughts on this ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avi1223
Although these approaches may be very nice, they are not the main points that make we want to learn more about Renewal. For me religion has been more of an intellectual pursuit of understanding G-d.

Seth - So then you are interested in hearing about how Renewal can assist in understanding God? What’s your understanding and where are you feeling a need for assistance from Renewal?

Avi - Thanks for asking me about myself. I have a family with young children. I am hoping to teach my children about Judaism from a progressive perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avi1223
But on the other hand, some of these other approaches sound like they might bring in a spiritual component that could be quite important.

Seth - I agree with this last statement. If we are healthy physically, emotionally and intellectually, then we are better prepared for spiritual. Conversely, if we are not healthy in these areas, than any ways we have to grow these areas is where we should focus. For example, on Yom Kippur, we can only ask God for attonement vis-à-vis God. If we have wronged individuals, we must go to the individual and confess a sense of having done wrong and ask for forgiveness.

Avi - I agree. There is a lot we can learn spiritually as well.

 

[bananabrain]

I'm stating that I take for granted a lot of ideas, ideas that are externally verifiable. The evidence we have for G!d is the same as the evidence we have for schizophrenic delusions once we take into account cultural influences. We do not have external verifiability.

hmm. well, could you give me an example of an externally verifiable *idea*? that is, one which is an idea alone? as for this argument about evidence, you could say the same thing about real love, good music, or fine art and those exist all right even if nobody agrees about what they are and all we can verify externally is their tangible artifacts. nonetheless, as the discworld philosopher didactylos puts it, the turtle moves.

I don't make the assumption that Jewish ideas about G!d must be correct. There are belief systems that don't require G!d is indivisibly One and I'm not beginning with the premise that G!d is indivisibly One.

then what is it that makes you jewish other than the same sort of stuff that reconstructionists would agree with?

Further, if the psyches of different individuals are independent of one another and G!d only exists within the human psyche, then G!d is not indivisibly one.

i would certainly suspect/suggest that the psyche is not an independent entity.

If either I am my body or some of me is my body, and some of my body is fingers, then some of me is fingers.

yes, but all your fingers are part of one hand, therefore unified. is this down to semantics now or have we agreed, say that G!D Has many Faces, but they are not indications of separation within G!D?

I'm only stating that, if we accept the premises I've given, the conclusion follows.

i'm not sure there's anything inevitable about that, though.

You said 'like star trek' not believe it's our future. I like The Matrix. That doesn't mean I believe we have a future as batteries for machines to look forward to. I don't hold a belief in a utopian future for humanity.

well, you should. or what are we here for? surely you, like me, work for such a thing to come about? that is exactly what tiqqun 'olam is concerned with - so we end up having our wars on the holodeck rather than hiding in the earth's core from arnold schwarzenegger or flying mechanical squids.

think that perhaps Reb Zalman is saying that there was always experimentation and innovation but its just not something that has been publicized much because it didn’t serve objectives of those in power.

oh, smeg, not the "objectives of power" argument... look, if you're innovating you rarely publicise what you're doing until you're sure it will scale and not fall flat on its face at launch. reb zalman did not, i think, start with a grand PR announcement.

Reb Zalman has done a lot of work on helping us to define avodah zarah in a modern context.

now that i am particularly interested in. the categories of avodah zarah are very poorly understood in modern traditional communities. people are still being taught at mainstream yeshivot that christianity is AZ, that you can't go into a church, that the trinity is idolatrous and so on. there is fundamental ignorance not just about that, but also about hinduism, modern neo-pagans and so on. i'm not saying those categories are inoperative, but i am arguing for a far more minimalist and restricted position, the same as i am around kol ishah.

What is halachah without the theology to back it up? Isn’t it just then a legal system?

depends on whether you mean systematic theology or not - we did without one just fine until sa'adiah.

If a basis for kosher behavior is decoupled from God then it is decoupled from torah and then where are you.

reconstructionism! hehe. i don't think that necessarily demands very much in terms of theology, however.

Also, I am not his peer in any way shape or form because I have been working very hard to fill in insufficient training in yiddishkeit of which I have felt a need for most of my adult life. He, on the other hand, came from a chasidic family and was given the highest quality Jewish training in Vienna and beyond. Vienna seems to have been a special environment to have come from. I would imagine his IQ is super high as well.

but this is simply renewal version of the "din Torah" argument from authority. you don't have to be someone's peer to question or challenge. you're denying your own right to be convinced. what is the difference between your deferral to reb zalman's upbringing and the insistence from some of the kiruv-mongers of my acquaintance that if i went off and studied at yeshiva for 20 years, i'd definitely end up agreeing with them. as such an assertion cannot be evidenced accurately, i'd tend to discount it in no uncertain terms. it's not a substitute for argument from merit. i'm not, incidentally, down on reb zalman here, i think you're putting him on a pedestal.

Reb Zalman has a teaching called Deep Ecumenism. In it, he talks about how no religion can afford a triumphalist bent at this time because of our mother the planet which needs to be our collective focus.

but even if the planet was not in danger and we were a sustainable civilisation, i'd still have a problem with any triumphalist religion, because triumphalism necessarily implies a conversionist agenda and i don't subscribe to that: i'll leave off converting you for the moment because right now we need to save the planet. that for me is completely disingenuous.

He talks about the need, in certain cases, for Judaism to import files which have been lost to us Jews from other religions. We recognize they were lost and need to be regained.

now this i agree with, albeit i'm not sure i would see the difference here between reb zalman and, say, aryeh kaplan.

Why can't brothers and sisters just be loving?

because they're brothers and sisters! the middle east is nothing more than a giant case of "daddy, he's on my side of the seat!"

I don’t have specifics. Sometimes individuals find their souls longing for something they aren’t finding in their synagogue or church. Then they go to see Sylvia Boorstein, e.g., who teaches something of a mindfulness practice and they say, "That’s just what I needed. Why didn’t my minister or Rabbi give that to me? Is it a part of my religion?" In this case, it might just be a lost file that was once part of the religion.

now this i can certainly agree with, it was precisely what happened to me, i just had to find the part of RAM that was still being used for those subroutines, fortunately i didn't actually have to do much importing.

Meditation, chanting and dance, in the context of a Jewish service, help lower a sense of difficulty of reaching in God’s direction.

except in the UK. clearly you've never seen british jews trying to do this sort of thing, it's terribly embarrassing. we're going to need some other stuff than this. perhaps we should import the file for the japanese tea ceremony.

My own view is that it is the leading edge of Judaism and includes mysticism, eastern philosophy, chant, dance, meditation, interfaith activities and other progressive notions.

hmm. a big assumption there that all these things are necessarily "progressive".

theological attempts to justify changes in halachah, most specifically, paradigm shift.

right, but i don't think you're on a winner using theology for that, because all you're really going to be getting there is confirmation bias and post-hoc rationalisation. i think you're far better gathering support for an evidence-based position. for example, my point about valid eye-witness 'eidut that r. moshe feinstein drank non-halav-yisrael milk, that roshei bet din used to feel perfectly comfortable attending the royal opera house; i personally have witnessed a sephardi dayan (and indeed the whole bet din) at a performance with a lady singer. this is where documentary evidence can be of use; i don't see why takkanot ha-kahal cannot be of service here. there is, to give another example, the ruling that ladies' trousers are not "men's apparel", because the world doesn't see it that way. this principle could, with great care, be of far more use where we have gotten out of step with *contemporary* society in the name of the social norms not of *judaism*, but of C19th europe; to put it more succinctly, there is no possible reason for sephardim to be wearing black hats.

b'shalom

bananabrain