Understanding Judaism

[dauer]

In another thread somebody had mentioned that many Christians don't really know much about Jewish beliefs at all and that this was something that it would be good to improve so I thought it would be worthwhile to create a thread inviting whomever was interested in understanding Judaism better to ask questions. I don't want it to turn into a debate about what religion is the right one. That's getting away from my desires for this thread entirely.

I find, and it may be different here because it is a comparative religion board, that typically non-Jews lump Judaism and Christianity together or see Judaism as Christianity minus Jesus and unique views on things like sin, the afterlife, messiah, God, angels, charity, the sabbath, non-members of the religion, etc. get mixed up.

I know that this is basically what the board is for, these types of inquiry, however because of the great level of inactivity in the Judaism section I thought it might help spark dialogue if I welcomed some questions. It would also help create one thread for basic Judaism info that could later be referred to.

Dauer

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Thank you, dauer. I hope that many of those who posted on the other thread will come over here to your thread.

Another thing: there is an old joke about Judaism, "With ten men, you have one synagogue. With 11 men, you have two." I usually add, "If you have 12 men, you have 20 synagogues." I mean, what an American Reform says is true may cause bb to refute the statement.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[dauer]

Phyllis, yes, I agree with you. I had originally said in my post that the one type of debate I would welcome was that between different Jews, but decided it would be implied anyway. I'm not Reform. I'm closer to Conservative but I've been reading a lot of Renewal lit lately, although in practice I am still very much returning and not yet where I want to be, nor do I know quite where that is. I go to an independent synagogue and my perspective on my sacred texts is typically informed by modern scholarship, though my relation to the text is not exclusively defined by modern scholarship. I would welcome any disagreements with BB and I will do my best, if anyone submits an inquiry, to explain any disagreements between the different movements. When these issues arise, I would hate to consider any answer authoritative. Better to give a complete view of the issue.


Dauer

 

[iBrian]

Something I'm curious about, is how traditional Judaism perceives Gentiles, and also themselves.

For example, does being regarded as the "chosen people of God" instill a sense of arrogance, or is it effectively a form of responsibility with punishments, rather than benefits?

And where do such perceptions leave the Gentiles? Is a Gentile life worth as much as a Jewish life in the eyes of Judaism and God?

 

[dauer]

Something I'm curious about, is how traditional Judaism perceives Gentiles, and also themselves.

For example, does being regarded as the "chosen people of God" instill a sense of arrogance, or is it effectively a form of responsibility with punishments, rather than benefits?

And where do such perceptions leave the Gentiles? Is a Gentile life worth as much as a Jewish life in the eyes of Judaism and God?

I think in general for all of the movements in Judaism, being chosen is a matter of being chosen to recieve the Torah. By following the mitzvot and being a model citizen so-to-speak, the Jew becomes a light unto the nations. In reconstructionism, I don't think they believe in chosenness at all, because they consider it arrogant. I disagree, because it isn't understood that way among Jews. There are exceptions. For instance, certain Hasidic groups have a negative attitude towards gentiles. But this is not something you will find as a typical attitude among the liberal movements or any of mainstream orthodoxy.

In Judaism, every individual has a purpose, including gentiles. Among orthodoxy and, sometimes in conservative Judaism, there are the 7 noahide laws which apply to everyone. According to the orthodox these laws were given to Noah. I tend to think they were more the laws that applied to resident aliens in Israel, and nothing more than that. Effectively they cause all people to be accountable for the actions they have taken in their lives. And according to the traditional makeup of the afterlife, only the truly wicked have their souls extinguished, so by breaking a few of these laws, or even many, that really won't happen. It would take something truly horrible. And then the individual would still be given a chance to change in Gehenna.

In transmigration there is also an idea that sometimes a Jewish soul ends up in a non-Jewish body, because there is a view similar to that in Buddhism of the Dhali Llama(sp) in that a Jew comes back every life as a Jew. I don't know if that's mainstream thoughts on transmigration though.

A more liberal approach would be to say that just as there has been a covenant with the Jews, so too are there many among the nations, and so it could be possible for a Christian to get to heaven through faith in Jesus or someone else to get to their afterlife in their way.

So short answer: form of responsibility. Although some liberal Jews don't see it as binding at all and just as entirely elective. I myself see it as a spiritual path.

I think one thing that can be interpreted as arrogance is the level of needs a Jew has in a non-Jewish world, if they are observant. To ask for so much and to refuse certain invitations may be taken the wrong way. I also think that occasionally, Jews who are not observant try to hold onto their Judaism but instead of reaching for their rich heritage they cling to "peoplehood." This, to me, sometimes becomes arrogant.

Dauer

 

[dauer]

When I said, as far as liberal view, covenant, I probably should have said relevation. If there was a relevation to the Jews there may have been one to other people as well.

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by I, Brian
Something I'm curious about, is how traditional Judaism perceives Gentiles, and also themselves.

For example, does being regarded as the "chosen people of God" instill a sense of arrogance, or is it effectively a form of responsibility with punishments, rather than benefits?

And where do such perceptions leave the Gentiles? Is a Gentile life worth as much as a Jewish life in the eyes of Judaism and God?

I, Brian, here's an article that explains one viewpoint (it also includes a vague explanation of the seven Noahide Laws [which I'm posting below]):
http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm

The Seven Laws of Noah


According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.

The Noahic commandments are binding on all people, because all people are descended from Noah and his family. The 613 mitzvot of the Torah, on the other hand, are only binding on the descendants of those who accepted the commandments at Sinai and upon those who take on the yoke of the commandments voluntarily (by conversion). In addition, the Noahic commandments are applied more leniently to non-Jews than the corresponding commandments are to Jews, because non-Jews do not have the benefit of Oral Torah to guide them in interpreting the laws. For example, worshipping G-d in the form of a man would constitute idolatry for a Jew; however, according to some sources, the Christian worship of Jesus does not constitute idolatry for non-Jews. There is a growing movement of non-Jews who have consciously accepted these seven laws of Noah and chosen to live their lives in accordance with these laws. This movement is referred to as B'nei Noach (Children of Noah). For more information about the B'nei Noach movement and the Noahic commandments, see Chavurath B'nei Noach of Fort Worth, Texas.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[bananabrain]

I find, and it may be different here because it is a comparative religion board, that typically non-Jews lump Judaism and Christianity together or see Judaism as Christianity minus Jesus and unique views on things like sin, the afterlife, messiah, G!D, angels, charity, the sabbath, non-members of the religion, etc. get mixed up.

i agree entirely - albeit here at least people are interested in exploring the differences. the major question i find cropping up here is when christians particularly use jewish sources to justify "new testament 101" false dichotomies that portray "Law" as the baddie. it is not often that such opinions are based on much acquaintance with the Law in question.

I don't want it to turn into a debate about what religion is the right one.

neither do i - besides, it's the wrong question. judaism doesn't claim to be the "right" religion - but it is the right one for jews. this is not incompatible with "there are many roads up the mountain."

however because of the great level of inactivity in the Judaism section I thought it might help spark dialogue if I welcomed some questions. It would also help create one thread for basic Judaism info that could later be referred to.

if there is inactivity in it i hope it's not because i've been scaring people off! i certainly like responding to questions - sorry i haven't responded to your 'renewal' thread - and, by the way, welcome, dauer! incidentally, should we have FAQ links as a "sticky", do you think, brian?

I mean, what an American Reform says is true may cause bb to refute the statement.

ah, now phyllis! *blush* just 'cos i don't usually agree with american reform doesn't mean i'm going to give anyone a hard time...

I'm not Reform. I'm closer to Conservative but I've been reading a lot of Renewal lit lately, although in practice I am still very much returning and not yet where I want to be, nor do I know quite where that is. I go to an independent synagogue and my perspective on my sacred texts is typically informed by modern scholarship, though my relation to the text is not exclusively defined by modern scholarship.

actually, that's not a million miles away from where i am - although my position on "Torah me'Sinai" is circumscribed by halacha, i don't see why "modern scholarship" should be prevented from poking its oar in. i just don't accept that it should be judge, jury and executioner - and hold all the casting votes and not allow others to play. in other words, i'd say i was independent-minded, albeit theologically conservative and halachically left-wing. does that help?

When these issues arise, I would hate to consider any answer authoritative. Better to give a complete view of the issue.

ooo, me too. leastways, that's what i try to do. after all, i grew up in (UK) reform, currently belong to a masorti (UK conservative) shul for political reasons, although i shall be joining an orthodox one when i get married, insh'Allah. so i like to think i can give other perspectives than my own - albeit i sometimes struggle to repress my own opinion

does being regarded as the "chosen people of G!D" instill a sense of arrogance, or is it effectively a form of responsibility with punishments, rather than benefits?

i'd actually put those two in the opposite order - it's meant to be an awesome responsibility, but often gets short-circuited into simple chauvinism, because jews can be feckin' feathered eejits just as much as everyone else. it just seems to show up more!

Is a Gentile life worth as much as a Jewish life in the eyes of Judaism and G!D?

the unequivocal position of judaism is that "the righteous amongst the nations inherit a portion in the World to Come" - whatever that means. similarly, "whoever saves one life, saves an entire world" - although some people try and restrict that to jewish life. in other words, people tend to interpret it to suit their own prejudices. in particular, like dauer says, many of the hasidic sects consider that the soul-structure of jews is from a higher order of spirituality, although i personally think that's the 18th-century eastern european underdog talking - "you may be able to inflict pogroms on us now, but see who has the last laugh" sort of thing. much the same could be said of many of the mediaeval authorities who are rude about non-jews; i'm not excusing them, but it's hardly surprising.

in any case, the stuff about non-jews possessing different types of souls is either aggadic (in which case differing opinions may stand) or kabbalistic (in which case we're all total sinners anyway and we jews have a lot more sins we can commit).

and as for the reconstructionist views on chosenness, they are (imho) a mealy-mouthed, intellectually timid capitulation to the politically-correct. and, by the way, i think ethnic pride is a lousy reason to be jewish. i don't think there's any 'shame' in being chosen - although sometimes i think we are entitled to be pissed off at G!D for it... we're not chosen for the 'easy' or 'safe' set of criteria.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

neither do i - besides, it's the wrong question. judaism doesn't claim to be the "right" religion - but it is the right one for jews. this is not incompatible with "there are many roads up the mountain."

I agree. I wasn't expecting it to turn that way, but in discussion elsewhere, presenting a Jewish perspective, I have at times been attacked for being "wrong" if the Jewish view did not make sense to another individual, or if I had answered for the way a Jew might understand a particular text. I don't really know if I should be worried about that here.

actually, that's not a million miles away from where i am - although my position on "Torah me'Sinai" is circumscribed by halacha, i don't see why "modern scholarship" should be prevented from poking its oar in. i just don't accept that it should be judge, jury and executioner - and hold all the casting votes and not allow others to play. in other words, i'd say i was independent-minded, albeit theologically conservative and halachically left-wing. does that help?

It sounds like we just give a little more weight to different authorities when trying to understand the text. I don't look to modern scholarship for spiritual guidance or Meaning. I just look to it for a better idea of the original meaning, its formation, and its relationship to other texts. I also tend to shy away from looking at Tanakh as recording History as it happened, and rather see it all as aggadah on History, of course my beliefs seem to be changing quite frequently so I can't speak for how I'll feel a month from now, and definitely not a year from now.

ooo, me too. leastways, that's what i try to do. after all, i grew up in (UK) reform, currently belong to a masorti (UK conservative) shul for political reasons, although i shall be joining an orthodox one when i get married,

Masorti seems nice. I wish they were established here. I had a friend from Israel who used to start services at the right time, and not at the same time every Friday. Once I join the synagogue I've been attending, it has a number of smaller communities that meet within it. Hopefully one will allow me to pray at the proper time. Praying at 6 confuses my whole Shabbat structure.

Dauer

 

[iBrian]

should we have FAQ links as a "sticky", do you think, brian?

That's a good idea - you might like to write a few Q&A's yourself, as well as distilling some from threads such as these. Obviously, short and concise is good with room for expansion where necessary. Your call on it all.

i'd say i was independent-minded, albeit theologically conservative and halachically left-wing.

Lol!

 

[bananabrain]

I have at times been attacked for being "wrong" if the Jewish view did not make sense to another individual, or if I had answered for the way a Jew might understand a particular text. I don't really know if I should be worried about that here.

in my dialogue experience i have generally been most successful when explicit. in other words "this is what i think and it comes from here" and "this is what i would consider normative for such-and-such-a-group". obviously we have to allow for the fact that the audience doesn't necessarily know where the different jewish opinions come from. however, here, i think i can see that you're going to be a terribly helpful person to have round the place.

I just look to it for a better idea of the original meaning, its formation, and its relationship to other texts.

yeah, that's where you and i might disagree. i would have a problem with the attribution of meaning by scholars that dismisses the views of tradition. as for formation, i am as flexible as i can be without crossing the line. in other words, i'll happily discuss formation and development for NaKh but not [happily] for Torah, because it's not possible for me to conclude that it is redacted, let alone 'corrupt'. in short, tradition can cope with keri and ketiv, spelling variants, subsequent vowelisation, cantillation and tikkunei soferim, but not with J, E, etc., because the latter undermine the authority and binding nature of the halacha. however, i'm quite happy to take issue with, say, rash"i - in fact i was reading a comment on this week's parsha just this morning where he explicitly says "i don't know what this means". so, interpretative diversity (eilu ve-eilu) is fine in my book.

I also tend to shy away from looking at Tanakh as recording History as it happened, and rather see it all as aggadah on History

that's a nice way of putting it and one with which i concur to a certain extent; i'd call it "sacred history", which means that it's not history exactly, but it's not entirely aggadic. in other words, you can drive a cart and horses through some stuff with historical tools, but that generally involves ignoring everything but the pshat (simple meaning) and even the development of pshat over time (read david weiss-halivni's superb book on this) as well as ignoring the systemic position of the text.

Masorti seems nice. I wish they were established here.

they're thinkers, which i like - and the rabbis and scholars are extremely good. i don't agree with louis jacobs any more, though. aren't there right-wing conservative shuls which are practically masorti, though? have you come across yakar? ( http://www.yakar.org )

That's a good idea - you might like to write a few Q&A's yourself, as well as distilling some from threads such as these. Obviously, short and concise is good with room for expansion where necessary. Your call on it all.

i'll have a pop at it when i have some time. don't hold your breath though!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

yeah, that's where you and i might disagree. i would have a problem with the attribution of meaning by scholars that dismisses the views of tradition. as for formation, i am as flexible as i can be without crossing the line. in other words, i'll happily discuss formation and development for NaKh but not [happily] for Torah, because it's not possible for me to conclude that it is redacted, let alone 'corrupt'. in short, tradition can cope with keri and ketiv, spelling variants, subsequent vowelisation, cantillation and tikkunei soferim, but not with J, E, etc., because the latter undermine the authority and binding nature of the halacha. however, i'm quite happy to take issue with, say, rash"i - in fact i was reading a comment on this week's parsha just this morning where he explicitly says "i don't know what this means". so, interpretative diversity (eilu ve-eilu) is fine in my book.

When I look at things, I tend to see that whatever has happened, things were shaped for a reason and that this shaping has been a good thing, that it has remained progressive and relevant because of this willingness to make it so. To me, it is still a very sacred text. I value what I see as the meanings that have developed as well as the ones that are beginning to be better understood in our own time. When it comes to spelling variants or changing the vowels without any support for doing so, this I tend to be more skeptical about. When it comes to finding parallels between the structure of Deuteronomy and certain Babylonian contracts, this I welcome as evidence of how even early on there were attempts to stray true to the older codes in a contemporary way. This is a place I am sure we would disagree. I actually do like to take into account all levels of the text, at least those that I am ready for. I don't limit it to one meaning.

that's a nice way of putting it and one with which i concur to a certain extent; i'd call it "sacred history", which means that it's not history exactly, but it's not entirely aggadic. in other words, you can drive a cart and horses through some stuff with historical tools, but that generally involves ignoring everything but the pshat (simple meaning) and even the development of pshat over time (read david weiss-halivni's superb book on this) as well as ignoring the systemic position of the text.

Do you remember the name of the book? I'm not sure I understand your analogy but, when I say aggadah on History, I mean that there is History behind it and then the understanding of History was shaped so that it would be meaningful and of value. It would teach things and offer insights. Again, this seems like a place we would very much disagree because to me it is people shaping the text, albeit perhaps in reaction to the Divine.

they're thinkers, which i like - and the rabbis and scholars are extremely good. i don't agree with louis jacobs any more, though. aren't there right-wing conservative shuls which are practically masorti, though? have you come across yakar? ( http://www.yakar.org )

There are some right-wing shuls. I like the one I'm going to right now because they've got so much kavannah, so much ruach, and they're a little unconventional. The services are almost entirely hebrew, and they don't omit much, but they also usually have someone playing a deep-sounding hand drum. They tend to add niggunim to keep people who have difficulty with Hebrew involved. They also meditate for a few minutes before each service. At Simchat Torah the rabbi associated each of the dancings around with the torah with a sefirah for those in the congregation with mystical leanings. I'm fairly certain that if I join I will be able to get involved with one of the smaller groups and meet somewhere Fridays, but I have to look into that. I've never heard of Yakar but I bookmarked their site.

Dauer

 

[bananabrain]

When I look at things, I tend to see that whatever has happened, things were shaped for a reason and that this shaping has been a good thing, that it has remained progressive and relevant because of this willingness to make it so.

by that logic, though, all change is good - now, of course, not all change is bad (like the herem of rabbenu gershon, say) but i think this is kind of wishful thinking.

I value what I see as the meanings that have developed as well as the ones that are beginning to be better understood in our own time.

well, there's certainly support for that point of view - the 20th-century flowering of mystical thought is a case in point.

When it comes to finding parallels between the structure of Deuteronomy and certain Babylonian contracts, this I welcome as evidence of how even early on there were attempts to stay true to the older codes in a contemporary way.

i've got two reactions to this - on one hand, i think that if the "righteous amongst the nations" had a part in designing fair laws before or during the period that Torah was revealed, that's 'cos they were righteous and therefore it's right that Torah should confirm the various ethical standards that can be deduced without the help of Divine revelation. on the other hand, abraham (and judaism in general) started as a revolutionary stand against idol-worship; so the idea that it is praiseworthy to "stay true to older codes" is something i cannot approve of - it denies the unique nature of Torah and makes it into another set of human laws that built upon pre-existing contemporary laws. not only this, but it loses the element of Divine commandment, which is obviously problematic. i guess the way i reconcile things is by saying, look, obviously murder is bad, so it's not rocket science to say that you can figure that out independently, without a Divine commandment - consequently if something is older than Torah it does not necessarily follow that if they agree, the younger text must be plagiarising. after all, murder was deduced to be bad in countries where jews had never been. and similarity in word-forms, structure etc can likewise be explained by the principle "the Torah speaks in human language" - if a particular phrase was the best way that a concept could be explained to people, it makes sense that it is that phrase that should be used by G!D to get the point across. i know this isn't going to convince anyone, but it works for me.

I don't limit it to one meaning.

oh, neither do i. the more the better. however, there remain some interpretations that i feel to be just plain wrong.

Do you remember the name of the book?

"peshat and derash" by david weiss-halivni. basically he's saying that the talmudic sages meant something different from the mediaeval authorities like rashi when they were talking about peshat.

when I say aggadah on History, I mean that there is History behind it and then the understanding of History was shaped so that it would be meaningful and of value. It would teach things and offer insights. Again, this seems like a place we would very much disagree because to me it is people shaping the text, albeit perhaps in reaction to the Divine.

er, no, i don't think we really disagree about that; i think we disagree about where interpretation actually starts. the minute a text is human it is interpretation of a human thought - personally, i think it's easier to consider Torah as a translation of Divine Thought. in other words, we can't encounter the Divine Mind on its own level, it has to be filtered and watered down for us to get to it. you should listen to nathan lopes cardozo on this; his lectures on the primordial Torah and "black fire on white fire" are on http://www.613.org if you want to listen to them - i really recommend them.

as for shuls, i can't do instrumental music in'em, though i'm a musician meself. the reason i ended up with the sephardim apart from my family background is that that's the only place the liturgy makes sense and is encountered structurally. there's a hell of a lot of mystical symbolism in the shul service which got concealed in the rationalist backlash to the mystical upheavals of the 17th and 18th centuries. just for a start, ask yourself what is being represented dramatically when the sefer Torah is "emanated" out of the ark, descends to the bimah and then expanded by being unrolled.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

by that logic, though, all change is good - now, of course, not all change is bad (like the herem of rabbenu gershon, say) but i think this is kind of wishful thinking.

I don't consider all change good. To me it's a matter of balance, remaining true to the core of the mitzvot while understanding them in a modern context and -- because I don't see them as divine -- understanding that some of them may have been wrong.

abraham (and judaism in general) started as a revolutionary stand against idol-worship; so the idea that it is praiseworthy to "stay true to older codes" is something i cannot approve of - it denies the unique nature of Torah and makes it into another set of human laws that built upon pre-existing contemporary laws.

I was talking about the mitzvot. But I do view the way Jews live today as something human that unfolded over time, the spiritual path for the Jewish people. That's partly why I'm more open to change. I'm not unwilling to consider the idea that the Torah is divine, but for me it is unlikely.

not only this, but it loses the element of Divine commandment, which is obviously problematic.

Not for me.

- consequently if something is older than Torah it does not necessarily follow that if they agree, the younger text must be plagiarising. after all, murder was deduced to be bad in countries where jews had never been. and similarity in word-forms, structure etc can likewise be explained by the principle "the Torah speaks in human language" - if a particular phrase was the best way that a concept could be explained to people, it makes sense that it is that phrase that should be used by G!D to get the point across.

That is one way to look at it. When I see Deut mirroring a Babylonian structure and preaching the same things as the Josianic Reforms, I begin to think that just maybe that's the scroll his people "found" when he was trying to pull the people together after the Babylonian Exile.

er, no, i don't think we really disagree about that; i think we disagree about where interpretation actually starts. the minute a text is human it is interpretation of a human thought

Actually, I agree with you about that. I have considered two scenarios. Either the Torah is divine because God has set everything up so it would be written, or it is sacred because we say it is. For me, I'm comfortable with either option. Either way the text is still meaningful for me. The rituals offer me a way to invite holiness into my life and the morals help me extend myself beyond myself. The stories are still relevant to my life.

you should listen to nathan lopes cardozo on this; his lectures on the primordial Torah and "black fire on white fire" are on http://www.613.org if you want to listen to them - i really recommend them.

I'll check em out after Shabbos.

as for shuls, i can't do instrumental music in'em, though i'm a musician meself.

Actually, I usually can't do music either. I can't stand organ. I can't stand a chorus. I can't even stand too much fancy nusach from the chazzan. But the percussiveness of the drum is somehow tolerable. Go figure.

the reason i ended up with the sephardim apart from my family background is that that's the only place the liturgy makes sense and is encountered structurally. there's a hell of a lot of mystical symbolism in the shul service which got concealed in the rationalist backlash to the mystical upheavals of the 17th and 18th centuries. just for a start, ask yourself what is being represented dramatically when the sefer Torah is "emanated" out of the ark, descends to the bimah and then expanded by being unrolled.

Isn't that practice pretty old? That sounds like giving new meaning to an older ritual. I appreciate when that is done, though. It's like giving color to the black and white of my life. I have to go to a sefardic shul one day. I've heard good things. And I hear they actually pronounce all of the words instead of the leader going "Boruch renerfrenerleneredenrer." Actually, my shul's better about that stuff, even if it's still mostly ashkenazic Jews. Well, they're mostly aging hippies.

Dauer

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by bananabrain
"peshat and derash" by david weiss-halivni. basically he's saying that the talmudic sages meant something different from the mediaeval authorities like rashi when they were talking about peshat.

I found out that my school's library has the book, and I've placed it on my "hold" list.

Yeah, I know.

"Hello. My name is Phyllis and I'm a bookaholic."
"Hi, Phyllis!"

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[bananabrain]

To me it's a matter of balance, remaining true to the core of the mitzvot while understanding them in a modern context and -- because I don't see them as divine -- understanding that some of them may have been wrong.

yeah, that's where i would part from you - why should modernity be in opposition to the core of the mitzvot? and how do you isolate and define the core of the mitzvot? using the tools of academia? for me, that's like dissecting someone to find out why they love you, if that's not too drastic a metaphor. only desacralisation (cf dehumanisation) would enable this.

could you give me an example of one that you think is wrong and then we can go into it in more detail rather than generalising?

But I do view the way Jews live today as something human that unfolded over time, the spiritual path for the Jewish people.

oh, so do i - i'm not the sort of person that thinks abraham wore a shtreimel. however, i find it difficult to conceive of a spiritual path that denies the Divinity of some of the mitzvot.

When I see Deut mirroring a Babylonian structure and preaching the same things as the Josianic Reforms, I begin to think that just maybe that's the scroll his people "found" when he was trying to pull the people together after the Babylonian Exile.

but that remains an assumption - and i think it doesn't make sense to preclude the metanatural; this for me is the problem with academia - it dismisses certain things as impossible out of hand, when they cannot be disproved!

Either the Torah is divine because G!D has set everything up so it would be written, or it is sacred because we say it is.

why can't it be both at the same time? after all, that is the basis of the mitzvot, that we can elevate things and actions to the status of holiness. for me it's about how far the sacred extends outside the Text - is a translation holy? is a commentary? is a halachic compendium? for example, it's one thing to consider the shulkhan arukh authoritative, but it's another thing to consider it to be a sacred text - although it may be considered to faithfully transmit the essence of de'oraita.

Isn't that practice pretty old? That sounds like giving new meaning to an older ritual.

or understanding why ceremonial aspects were designed the way they were - it is extremely unlikely that i am the first person to notice this. for me, arguing about how old ideas are is supremely unproductive and doesn't actually affect whether they speak to me or not.

It's like giving color to the black and white of my life.

why do you think people find shul so fecking boring? because there's no fecking *drama* - no sense of occasion. everything got demystified after shabbetai tzvi.

And I hear they actually pronounce all of the words instead of the leader going "Boruch renerfrenerleneredenrer."

soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo true!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

yeah, that's where i would part from you - why should modernity be in opposition to the core of the mitzvot? and how do you isolate and define the core of the mitzvot? using the tools of academia? for me, that's like dissecting someone to find out why they love you, if that's not too drastic a metaphor. only desacralisation (cf dehumanisation) would enable this.

Well, when I look into the past I see people adapting the mitzvot to the standards of their own generation -- although I do believe some of this may have been reflective of the way society had changed -- in the form of the Talmud. I have no problem engaging in dialogue with the mitzvot and the way they are followed and I have no problem using non-rabbinical methods to do so because to me the ways the tools of the rabbis when manipulating the text were theirs and not ancient, but I don't think they set a precedent either because to me it looks like the text sometimes addresses issues it has with laws stated earlier in itself. I am not one to say, "Well, originally people didn't eat anything but animals who had split hooves and chewed their cud because those were the types of animals readily available in their ownership" because that is not what the mitzvah came to mean. I'd much rather find meaning in something than let it go. I'd supposed some of what I do would look like a desacralization but to me it's more a matter of reshaping what is sacred just as I see it has happened many times before.

could you give me an example of one that you think is wrong and then we can go into it in more detail rather than generalising?

Certainly. I have an issue with the laws against homosexuality. There is an arguement on both sides of the issue, but having known some gay people very well I cannot even begin to consider what they are doing to be a sin. And I could be mistaken, but doesn't it render one kareit according to the Torah?

oh, so do i - i'm not the sort of person that thinks abraham wore a shtreimel. however, i find it difficult to conceive of a spiritual path that denies the Divinity of some of the mitzvot.

Well that's the thing. These days I'm thinking that anything that has spiritual significance only has that significance because we feel it does. I could just as easily consider Dune by Frank Herbert holy, maybe with the original trilogy like Torah, the second trilogy like the Nach, and the ones by his son having the status of midrash. However, what I see is that by making something holy we can offer ourselves a greater ability to encounter the Divine. I don't even see morality as absolute. The past few weeks I've been thinking that whater morality we cleave to is the one that is absolute for us. When we sway from it, we feel that we are doing wrong. If I am correct, there is nothing wrong with looking at Torah through modern eyes.

but that remains an assumption - and i think it doesn't make sense to preclude the metanatural; this for me is the problem with academia - it dismisses certain things as impossible out of hand, when they cannot be disproved!

Maybe it is an assumption. I'm open to the possibility the sea parted, the torah was handed down at Sinai, and plagues rained down on the Egyptians. I find it unlkely though. The text seems to be pointing in a certain direction when going beyond the intentions of the narrator. I trust the objective scholars more than the subjective one when trying to understand History. When I want Meaning I go to the subjective ones.

why can't it be both at the same time? after all, that is the basis of the mitzvot, that we can elevate things and actions to the status of holiness. for me it's about how far the sacred extends outside the Text - is a translation holy? is a commentary? is a halachic compendium? for example, it's one thing to consider the shulkhan arukh authoritative, but it's another thing to consider it to be a sacred text - although it may be considered to faithfully transmit the essence of de'oraita.

I think you were responding to my own quote of you because God was spelled G!D and I don't see it as one or the other. Because of how I consider the Torah, I consider exegetical works to all be potentially holy.

or understanding why ceremonial aspects were designed the way they were - it is extremely unlikely that i am the first person to notice this. for me, arguing about how old ideas are is supremely unproductive and doesn't actually affect whether they speak to me or not.

I agree with you, and I have no problem with that symbolism. I just don't think it's original. I would urge people to find new meaning in old rituals. I would also urge people to at some level be aware that it may not have been the original meaning, not that it actually matters to the way they experience the ritual. The danger of this that I see is things like "Messianic Judaism" which choose to find their own meanings everywhere. That's why to me it's important to keep an eye on History.

why do you think people find shul so fecking boring? because there's no fecking *drama* - no sense of occasion. everything got demystified after shabbetai tzvi.

I totally agree. Luckily, the hasidim maintained it and now it's spilling everywhere. There is hope for the Jewish people, yet. We just have to get beyond that intellectualism long enough to embrace God. I'm not condemning intellectualism, just saying that there needs to be a balance.

Dauer

 

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Originally posted by dauer
Certainly. I have an issue with the laws against homosexuality.

I believe it is because of the "Go forth, be fruitful and multiply," directed toward Adam. Homosexual acts and masturbation (excuse my bluntness here, I, Brian, but I need to explain this) are considered a waste of a man's seed, as is having marital relations before a certain time in a woman's cycle. Please correct me here if I'm wrong, bb.

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

 

[bananabrain]

Well, when I look into the past I see people adapting the mitzvot to the standards of their own generation -- although I do believe some of this may have been reflective of the way society had changed -- in the form of the Talmud.

oh, yes, absolutely - this has always happened, but the point i am trying to make is that labels and systems can only stretch so far; beyond that the elasticity fails and you get a schism, as there was with christianity, karaism, sabbateanism and (more or less) reform. maimonides' genius was to identify the 13 principles which could not be discarded - although their interpretation remains elastic. remember judaism is actually about orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy for the most part; this is because whilst halacha constrains practice, many alternative and contradictory theological formulations are possible - thus you can have rationalist mystics like sa'adia ga'on, prophetic rationalists like maimonides, mystical grammarians like nahmanides, or even such opposed views as the chasidim, mitnagdim or the accommodations of s.r. hirsch's "torah im derech eretz". i guess what i am saying is that judaism allows a huge diversity as long as the 13 principles are recognisably intact.

I have no problem using non-rabbinical methods to do so because to me the ways the tools of the rabbis when manipulating the text were theirs and not ancient, but I don't think they set a precedent either because to me it looks like the text sometimes addresses issues it has with laws stated earlier in itself.

that's also true, like hillel's prosbul, but the difference between those guys and us is that they had the chain of authority and the Temple system still and we don't. in other words, in the absence of prophecy it's just too risky to challenge people that had access to it. i'm sorry if that seems craven, but i'm not confident we could dismantle this particular machine and even put it back together, much less improve it. however, this is not to say that we must therefore be as stringent and hardline as possible - i don't buy that conclusion at all.

Certainly. I have an issue with the laws against homosexuality. There is an argument on both sides of the issue, but having known some gay people very well I cannot even begin to consider what they are doing to be a sin. And I could be mistaken, but doesn't it render one kareit according to the Torah?

arg, trust you to pick a really hard one. this is particularly difficult for me to answer because it is an area so totally outside my experience and i think one must at least understand the nature of what is being prohibited; although i too have gay friends (many of whom are frum) i don't pretend to understand their drives. i haven't seen "trembling before G!D", but i understand it explores the issues much better than i can. i actually know steve greenberg and have done shiurim with him and have a lot of time for him as a rabbi. however, from my own PoV, first of all, i have to take a practical approach, which is to say that even if sodomy (as opposed to general gayness) is a capital sin, so is breaking Shabbat - their punishments are similar, which indicates that they are of comparable severity. now, if we do not publicly sanction people for hillul Shabbat, nor do we quiz them on their observance before allowing them participation in community observance (such as aliyot), we have no grounds whatsoever for singling out gay people - or people who don't keep kosher, or whatever. in other words, concentration on the issue of homosexuality is utterly, utterly discriminatory, because it singles it out as specially significant, which is not only not supported by the halacha but is illogical, as homosexuality is a "private" sin as opposed to a "public" one. in other words, you don't know what people do in their bedrooms unless they tell you, whereas breaking Shabbat is something which affects the whole community. and on a personal note, i have difficulty believing that G!D made people gay if it didn't serve some kind of deep purpose, although i don't pretend to understand how that can be reconciled with the prohibition.

These days I'm thinking that anything that has spiritual significance only has that significance because we feel it does.

that is certainly what people seem to think, but it doesn't make it valid. the line has to be drawn somewhere, but without an objective (ie non-human) standard, we will - and do - have difficulty.

The past few weeks I've been thinking that whater morality we cleave to is the one that is absolute for us. When we sway from it, we feel that we are doing wrong. If I am correct, there is nothing wrong with looking at Torah through modern eyes.

but that's precisely the issue for me - human reason is not enough and "feeling that we are doing wrong" is not reliable, otherwise atheists (like the chinese communist party, say) would not have been able to commit the atrocities they have committed.

I trust the objective scholars more than the subjective one when trying to understand History. When I want Meaning I go to the subjective ones.

i guess what i am saying is that your belief in the objectivity of scholarship is actually just that; a belief, albeit one that works on the balance of probabilities and the hypothesis-disproof empirical principle.

Because of how I consider the Torah, I consider exegetical works to all be potentially holy.

oh, me too, only i think that's still semantics.

agree with you, and I have no problem with that symbolism. I just don't think it's original.

but neither do i! if anything, i think we've actually *rediscovered* it. but either way, we can't actually verify that, even if you discovered an old document that specifically stated it was so.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

oh, yes, absolutely - this has always happened, but the point i am trying to make is that labels and systems can only stretch so far; beyond that the elasticity fails and you get a schism, as there was with christianity, karaism, sabbateanism and (more or less) reform. maimonides' genius was to identify the 13 principles which could not be discarded - although their interpretation remains elastic. remember judaism is actually about orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy for the most part; this is because whilst halacha constrains practice, many alternative and contradictory theological formulations are possible - thus you can have rationalist mystics like sa'adia ga'on, prophetic rationalists like maimonides, mystical grammarians like nahmanides, or even such opposed views as the chasidim, mitnagdim or the accommodations of s.r. hirsch's "torah im derech eretz". i guess what i am saying is that judaism allows a huge diversity as long as the 13 principles are recognisably intact.

And I have issues with some of those principles. I'm iffy on prophesy. I don't really believe in the divine origin of Torah, not that it hasn't been changed. I have no strong beliefs about if people will be divinely rewarded or punished and tend to have a fairly agnostic approach to life after death, if there is any. I find the coming of the messiah unlikely although I do think a utopian future is a good thing to work for. I don't have any strong beliefs about resurrection of the dead. I don't think the Rambam's 13 principles are a good judge of what is Jewish, but I do agree that it is possible to stretch things too far. I don't really disbelieve anything, but besides my strong belief in God I'm pretty agnostic.

that's also true, like hillel's prosbul, but the difference between those guys and us is that they had the chain of authority and the Temple system still and we don't. in other words, in the absence of prophecy it's just too risky to challenge people that had access to it. i'm sorry if that seems craven, but i'm not confident we could dismantle this particular machine and even put it back together, much less improve it. however, this is not to say that we must therefore be as stringent and hardline as possible - i don't buy that conclusion at all.

But here it's as if the two of us are speaking a different language, because all of the historically informed information coming to me tells me that smicha doesn't really connect those rabbis to Moses although I do see something extremely noble about trying to extend certain laws of purity beyond the priests. I understand your position and respect where you are coming from. If I shared your beliefs, I would feel the same way.

arg, trust you to pick a really hard one. this is particularly difficult for me to answer because it is an area so totally outside my experience and i think one must at least understand the nature of what is being prohibited; although i too have gay friends (many of whom are frum) i don't pretend to understand their drives. i haven't seen "trembling before G!D", but i understand it explores the issues much better than i can. i actually know steve greenberg and have done shiurim with him and have a lot of time for him as a rabbi. however, from my own PoV, first of all, i have to take a practical approach, which is to say that even if sodomy (as opposed to general gayness) is a capital sin, so is breaking Shabbat - their punishments are similar, which indicates that they are of comparable severity. now, if we do not publicly sanction people for hillul Shabbat, nor do we quiz them on their observance before allowing them participation in community observance (such as aliyot), we have no grounds whatsoever for singling out gay people - or people who don't keep kosher, or whatever. in other words, concentration on the issue of homosexuality is utterly, utterly discriminatory, because it singles it out as specially significant, which is not only not supported by the halacha but is illogical, as homosexuality is a "private" sin as opposed to a "public" one. in other words, you don't know what people do in their bedrooms unless they tell you, whereas breaking Shabbat is something which affects the whole community. and on a personal note, i have difficulty believing that G!D made people gay if it didn't serve some kind of deep purpose, although i don't pretend to understand how that can be reconciled with the prohibition.

I realize it's not something that should be singled out and I don't see that happening much in the Jewish community. That's not what I take issue with. It's that if a guy I know meets a guy I know and they know each other, according to the Torah God has a problem with that. It has nothing to do with them being ostracized by the community. This is about what is right according to the Torah. Phyllis, what you said was about right. I don't have issue with where the belief came from. I just don't view this as sacred law, anymore than I view the intense slander of Amalek -- akin to the New Testament's portrayal of the Pharisees if not worse -- as teaching an important lesson: Hate Amalek. That's another one perhaps you can explain to me better. I don't think I've heard any approach to that phrase that wasn't an apologetic.

that is certainly what people seem to think, but it doesn't make it valid. the line has to be drawn somewhere, but without an objective (ie non-human) standard, we will - and do - have difficulty.

Who decides which standard is the objective standard? To me it seems far more like society decides the standard and when societies clash it is because they have embraced different standards. When people have trouble in society it is because they are not meeting that standard. Some very basic morality seems intuitive to me but I'm not so sure.

but that's precisely the issue for me - human reason is not enough and "feeling that we are doing wrong" is not reliable, otherwise atheists (like the chinese communist party, say) would not have been able to commit the atrocities they have committed.

No, that is why there is also community, both ancestral and present, to weigh our actions against, along with the behavior of the rest of society. I have no problem coming to a new understanding of the motivations for a particular text and the support for continuing to follow it in light of changes in the way we understand each other and the world around us. But to me this can't be a free-for-all, because that is the abandonment of a basic approach to living shared by the members of a given group. There has to be an understanding of the middle so all of the people involved can find their place to the left or the right of it.

i guess what i am saying is that your belief in the objectivity of scholarship is actually just that; a belief, albeit one that works on the balance of probabilities and the hypothesis-disproof empirical principle.

I never mean that anything I say is more than a belief. Your beliefs and mine both come from subtle yet significant differences in the assumptions we make about the world. Based on these assumptions, we both build up complex systems of thought, but no matter what we do we're still just swimming in the human condition, whatever that is. Nobody ever has any more grasp than anyone else. I actually read an excellent challenge by Michael Lerner on the atheist mentality of superior understanding of the world the other day. To an atheist I'm sure it would seem a little weak, but he made an excellent show of it.

dauer