I'm so tired of the watered down version of Hanukkah that gets ladled out every year. Hanukkah is not a celebration of religious freedom. The Maccabees were fanatics who objected strenuously to the Hellenization of Jewish culture. The revolt actually began with the murder of a Jew who was about to publically worship an idol.
It's also not a celebration of beating the Syrian Greeks. The war with the Greeks continued for years after Jerusalem was liberated, and four of the five Maccabee brothers died before the Greeks finally begged off (which they did in large part due to pressure from the rising power of Rome).
When we defeated the Hellenist forces in Jerusalem and took back the Holy Temple, the Hellenist Jews in Jerusalem were confined to a fortress called the Acra, where they hid for fear of their lives while we purified the Temple.
Megillat Taanit, one of the oldest works of rabbinic literature, says that since the Syrians had destroyed the golden menorah in the Temple, we were forced to strap spears together to make a makeshift menorah until a new one could be built. It was on this menorah that the miracle of the oil occurred.
For those who don't know, only enough pure oil could be found to light the menorah for a single day. But miraculously, that oil lasted for eight full days, by the end of which we had managed to come up with more oil.
The civil authority in Judea at that time was the High Priest. The High Priest Jason, who was a Hellenist himself, was ousted in the Maccabean revolt, and after we retook Jerusalem, Judah Maccabee became the new High Priest.
To many eyes, this may have looked as though the entire revolt had been a cynical political coup. Not only did the miracle of the oil reassure people that God was on the side of the Maccabees, but the fact that the miracle took place on a menorah that wasn't technically even kosher, and which was made out of spears that had only shortly before been used in an all-out civil war, made it clear that there was a divine stamp of approval on the war.
The fanatics won. The Jews who wanted to be Greek by culture and Jewish only by ethnicity got their naked heinies handed to them. And I wonder, as I do every year, at the irony that has so many secular and assimilated Jews lighting candles for eight days in order to commemorate the victory of people who would have stuck a sword through them in a heartbeat.
One of the things I dislike most about Hanukkah is the songs. The tunes are nice, but the words... spare me:
Hanukkah O Hanukkah Come light the menorah Let's have a party We'll all dance the Hora.
Hanukkah was about an all out war against Hellenists and Hellenism. And not a metaphorical war, either, but a serious bloodbath.
One for each night They shed a sweet light To remind us of days long ago...
The saccharine is bad enough, but it's just such a misrepresentation. So I've prepared a modest example of the kind of Hanukkah songs that would be more appropriate to the occasion. Feel free to share these with your friends.
(As a minor note, you need to pronounce Antiochus as an-tee-OH-chus, rather than an-TYE-a-kiss)
==================================
Hanukkah, O Hanukkah (to the tune of "Hanukkah, O Hanukkah")
Hanukkah, O Hanukkah A holiday of war First we kill a couple Greeks And then we kill some more
Invited in by Hellenists Who hated being Jews They brought their filthy idols And tightened the screws
chorus: They call us Fanatics For we fight for truth and the Lord
Stupid Antiochus Sent soldiers in to choke us Because he didn't think we'd raise a sword
Stupid Antiochus Sent soldiers in to choke us And now they've all been killed by the sword.
Hanukkah, O Hanukka The festival of light The flames of our fanaticism Still are burning bright
'Cause Judaism's never been Some airy fairy thing Made up of nothing more than The songs that we sing
chorus: It's truth and It's wisdom It's following God's holy plan
To sanctify the world Man and woman, boy and girl And to do just the best that we can
To sanctify the world Man and woman, boy and girl By obeying the laws He commands
Hanukkah, O Hanukkah A savage celebration Of blood and death and war That saved the soul of our nation
The Maccabees knew compromise With Hellenism's dreck Would kill us just as surely As a sword through the neck
chorus: Although they Were farmers They learned to be soldiers mighty fast
Despite what they became We still venerate their name 'Mongst the heroes of Israel's past
Despite what they became We still venerate their name For their valor has never been surpassed
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Wow. Just...wow.
I have to admit, for better or for worse, the first line of the revised song had me cracking up.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Is it bad that that scares me just a little bit? Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Lisa, that is quite a rant. In fact, I can imagine that in some circles, your rants get raves.
Of course you hate the Chanukah songs. That is just a normal expression of good taste. They are truly dreadful.
I have a little dreidel. I made it out of clay... Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would not touch this thread with a ten-foot spear.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I know, Bob. It fills me with dread--I'll stay out of it for sure.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
No sense adding oil to the flames!
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I do not think either a man or a woman would like this thread.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I notice Fugu has not posted here yet. I guess his Mac'll be sitting this one out as well.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I suppose none of you like "Eight Candles" by Malvina Reynolds, then, either.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Don'tcha wish people could all just get along?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
(I've always been partial to "Light One Candle," by PP&M.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I must say, I won't be able to resist reading starLisa's thread when Mel Gibson comes out with his Maccabee movie.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That Bob! He brews up the worst posts of all!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I guess Dagonee Judges this thread controversial . . .
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag,
Especially when the warriors yell to Helen "back!"
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Do you really think this thread Is real?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Judah thought so.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Yeah, but Mo says its b.s.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Gee, things have gotten all solemn 'n' sad.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
These are the sorts of threads I usually just pass over.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
My auntie Sem might agree with you.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:. . . when Mel Gibson comes out with his Maccabee movie.
I wasn't aware he was working on one . . . who will be the star of the vid?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
*no puns in this post, don't bother looking* It's an interesting view, starLisa. I've never heard anyone think of it that way. Thanks for sharing it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
No matter what else, you can't say she never said 'er peace.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wasn't aware he was working on one . . . who will be the star of the vid?
I don't think it's in production yet - it's just a concept. It might just be templary.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I suppose none of you like "Eight Candles" by Malvina Reynolds, then, either.
Eww... that's worse than anything I've heard yet.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I must say, I won't be able to resist reading starLisa's thread when Mel Gibson comes out with his Maccabee movie.
Grr...
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Here's the thing about Hanukkah or a lot of other Jewish holidays. Its not about celebrating the slaughter of enemy soldiers, its about a victory that may have been short lived, but important all the same to maintaining the Jewish identity. Remember, we celebrate Purim as well and that story ended with the execution of Haman and today we celebrate that fact by eating three cornered pastries. Also, the Hellenistic Jews weren't just acting Greek, but they traitors and idol worshippers as well. You might still not think of that as justification for killing them, but its not the same as killing every secular Jew.
[ December 20, 2005, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And now I have the blasted dreidel song stick in my head.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Me too! Now if only there were some gelt lying around.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I can rewrite the dreidel one, too, if you'd like. <grin>
And to newfoundlogic, Gibson had said shortly after Passion came out that he planned to do a movie about the Maccabean revolt. God willing, he'll never do it.
And "traitor" is really in the eye of the beholder. I think it's pretty obvious that the Hellenists didn't see themselves as traitors any more than modern Jews who marry out and eat pork and support the enemies of Israel see themselves as traitors today.
That's the point. When we celebrate Hanukkah, we are affirming the view that they were traitors, and we should draw the proper conclusions.
Instead, we have interfaith families celebrating Hanukkah. We have the disgusting Chrismukkah on the O.C. We have all those Jews today who are really no different than the Hellenists lighting candles and eating latkes and remaining utterly oblivious to the fact that they're celebrating their own defeat.
My partner teaches at a Reconstructionist* Sunday school. Money is tight and it's always possible that some of the kids will learn something that will bring them to Judaism when they grow up, despite their parents.
One of the mothers came up to her and said, "I hope it's okay that my son isn't circumcized."
Well, holy hell! As if my partner was ever going to know that if she hadn't been told. This isn't a swimming class or a nudist colony, it's Sunday school. But having told her, of course it matters. Not that my partner can do anything about it, since pretty much anything goes with the Reconstructionists.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that this woman is going to be doing the whole Hanukkah thing. It's grotesque and offensive.
---- *Reconstructionism is a strange movement that was started by a guy named Mordechai Kaplan back in the '20s. To give you an idea of their "religion", here is Mordechai Kaplan's definition of God (blasphemy warning):
quote:God is a functional, rather than substantive, noun, thus denoting that power in the cosmos, including Man, that makes for the salvation of men and nations.
Like I said: strange.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Just because a Jew is secular doesn't mean they would have fought along side the Hellenists. How many members of the IDF are both secular and willing to sacrifice their lives for the State of Israel?
I have friends and even a first cousin who are only "half" Jewish, but they all were Bar or Bat Mitzvahed and they all celebrate Hanukkah to the best of my knowledge. I fail to see what's so horrible about that. At the very least it certainly wasn't their choice to have a mixed parentage.
"Marrying out" is something that shouldn't even be considered wrong. If you fail in that situation to at least give your child a chance to grow up Jewish then I think you're committing a terrible mistake, but even then as long as you're not teaching him or her to hate Jews I can hardly see how that would make one a traitor. Eating pork may be a sin, but you should know committing a sin in Judaism is "missing the mark," not treason. Supporting the enemies of Israel would actually be something that might be considered traitorous to Judaism, but even then the words "support" and "enemies" have to weighed carefully. Sharon initiated the Gaza pullout, does that mean he supported Israel's enemies by giving Palestinians control of that land?
Posted by rajel_lebeina (Member # 8959) on :
by the way... Happy Hannukah!!! nice song... i'll share it with my congregation next week. a new point of view, isn't it? i'll have to read it again... and then i'll tell you what i think about it, today i'm rather in a hurry, and just read it fast.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I don't know what to say. I grew up in what my Rabbi at the time called a Progressive temple. I didn't know anything different. I grew up, went to college, fell in love with a Methodist girl, then found Birthright Israel. It was a real eye opener for me. I started researching my own faith and realized I could never truly be a part of it. Its too late to leave my fiance, I just could never do it. I decided to join a local Reform temple anyway just because it was the closest to the beliefs I hold.
I haven't agreed with Lisa on a lot of topics on the board, except for probably Judaism. I think she is right about everything she wrote. I know I'll never truly have Jewish children, unless by some fluke they decide to go through an Orthodox conversion. I do feel like I am betraying the Jewish people. However if I can have 2 kids that respect the faith and defend it, maybe that will mean something.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If your beliefs most closely mirror Reform then it should be adequate in your eyes if your children are either simply raised from birth as Jewish or are converted by the Reform temple regardless of your wife's religion and frankly it the only opinions you should hold in esteem regarding whether your children qualify as being Jewish are yours and your children's.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
That was really eloquent, Stephan. Just do your best to do the right thing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: Just because a Jew is secular doesn't mean they would have fought along side the Hellenists. How many members of the IDF are both secular and willing to sacrifice their lives for the State of Israel?
What makes you think that Hellenized Jews wouldn't have done the same for Judea? The head of state was Hellenized, for crying out loud.
I'm sure that many, if not most, of the Hellenized Jews at that time considered themselves to be proud Jews who simply wanted to cast off some embarrassing customs that stood between them and being like the "normal" people in the rest of the world.
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: I have friends and even a first cousin who are only "half" Jewish,
No such thing. If their mothers are Jewish, they're fully Jewish. If not, they're not Jewish at all.
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: "Marrying out" is something that shouldn't even be considered wrong.
<blink> You're kidding me. It's about the worst thing a Jew can do.
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: If you fail in that situation to at least give your child a chance to grow up Jewish then I think you're committing a terrible mistake, but even then as long as you're not teaching him or her to hate Jews I can hardly see how that would make one a traitor.
Intermarriage is definitely akin to treason.
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: Eating pork may be a sin, but you should know committing a sin in Judaism is "missing the mark," not treason.
Cheit means missing the mark. Not avone or pesha or any of the other terms for violating the Torah.
Eating pork is wrong, but it doesn't even compare to intermarriage.
quote:Originally posted by newfoundlogic: Supporting the enemies of Israel would actually be something that might be considered traitorous to Judaism, but even then the words "support" and "enemies" have to weighed carefully. Sharon initiated the Gaza pullout, does that mean he supported Israel's enemies by giving Palestinians control of that land?
Yes. Thanks for asking.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: by the way... Happy Hannukah!!! nice song... i'll share it with my congregation next week.
Thanks, I hope they enjoy it.
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: a new point of view, isn't it?
Hmm... an old one, actually.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: What makes you think that Hellenized Jews wouldn't have done the same for Judea? The head of state was Hellenized, for crying out loud.
I'm sure that many, if not most, of the Hellenized Jews at that time considered themselves to be proud Jews who simply wanted to cast off some embarrassing customs that stood between them and being like the "normal" people in the rest of the world.
The problem was that they were more Greek than Jewish so I doubt that. The fact that you seem willing to condemn a lot of the people who actually keep Israel safe today from its enemies through your previous statements makes me wonder if you're the one who supports Israel's enemies.
quote: No such thing. If their mothers are Jewish, they're fully Jewish. If not, they're not Jewish at all.
I know what the technical definition of being "Jewish" is, that's why I put half in quotations. Certainly you aren't going to claim that when only the father is Jewish the child is miraculously wiped clean of the Jewish blood that runs through him or her when they are born. While you would certainly disagree I do happen to consider my uncle's son who was raised from birth as being Jewish and Bar Mitzvahed as being simply Jewish. Sorry to tell you, but the failure of extremists like you to acknowledge his chosen religion doesn't make him any less Jewish in my or my family's eyes.
quote: <blink> You're kidding me. It's about the worst thing a Jew can do.
First, you seem to be taking on the Catholic view of sin as opposed to the Jewish one. Second, I fail to see how it could be anywhere near the same level as say murder, stealing, adultery, worshipping false idols, or breaking any of the other six of the ten commandments. In fact, if a Jewish woman married a non-Jewish man and the children were raised Jewish I don't even see how the traditional arguments of protecting the Jewish population would be valid. Seriously, you're going to have provide some reason or logic as to why marrying outside Judaism is some horrible sin because we're clearly not working on the same assumptions. I seriously wonder if you know what treason means to be throwing around the word so lightly.
quote: Yes. Thanks for asking.
Why don't you just get it out in the open? Wanting something good to happen for another group if it means the least sacrifice for the Jewish people even it benefits the Jews in the long run is the same as committing treason to you.
Posted by rajel_lebeina (Member # 8959) on :
ok, now that i read the whole thing, this are my words: i think, as you, that intermarriage is not a good thing, we don't practise that in my sinagogue, when they come asking for a ceremony like that, we just say "NO". and yes, it's true, those secularized and assimilated jews (as the woman who didn't want to circuncize(sp?) his child) light the hanukiah, and don't know that they're more like the hellenized, than like the macabbes. i must disagree in calling it
quote:a savage celebration of blood and death and war
. it is called the festival of light. and as my rabbi said, fire can be used to illuminate (light) or to eliminate (war). ok, there was a war, but that's not exactly what we're cellebrating, it's the victory of the few over the many, etc, etc, you know it, i'm sure. and i almost forget, you said something about reconstructionism... as your partner works with them, i must assume that you're not orthodox... i'd say you're masorti. if you are, i'd like to ask you something about that. the masorti movement's not at its best moment in my country. ok, nice to talk to you. and, really, have a happy hanukah.
quote:Certainly you aren't going to claim that when only the father is Jewish the child is miraculously wiped clean of the Jewish blood that runs through him or her when they are born. While you would certainly disagree I do happen to consider my uncle's son who was raised from birth as being Jewish and Bar Mitzvahed as being simply Jewish. Sorry to tell you, but the failure of extremists like you to acknowledge his chosen religion doesn't make him any less Jewish in my or my family's eyes.
ok, a person born to a non jewish mother and jewoish father can feel jewish, i know cases, they convert (is that the word) into jewish, and then they fulfil all the commandments and become jews. that's a good solutions to intermarriage. if you don't accept their children, then they'll never have the chance to become jews.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote: In fact, if a Jewish woman married a non-Jewish man and the children were raised Jewish I don't even see how the traditional arguments of protecting the Jewish population would be valid. Seriously, you're going to have provide some reason or logic as to why marrying outside Judaism is some horrible sin because we're clearly not working on the same assumptions. I seriously wonder if you know what treason means to be throwing around the word so lightly.
As the son of such a union I must regretfully agree with Lisa.
Having a true Jewish household is almost impossible if one spouse is not Jewish.
The children will also be less likely see the importance of marrying a Jew and further decrease the population.
Not to mention the marriage itself is not recognized. If the father was a Jew, then the Jewish people cannot take advantage of the offspring of such a relationship, and therefore the child is not a Jew. If the mother was a Jew, then she does not need a divorce, according to Jewish law, in order to seperate from he non-Jewish husband. (Civil law, of course, must be followed in non-Jewish countries). Therefore, according to Jewish law, she was as if one who was never married, and is therefore never referred to as a garushah. So the first relationship is sinful, and the second one, while not desirable, is not sinful, but is not a marraige since the woman can always leave the non-Jewish man without a divorce (omitting Civil obligations). The civil perception is not relevant.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I would love to see Lisa's reaction to reading this Washington Post article.
Other than Lisa's objection to Chanuka songs (I actually like a lot of them, although mostly the ones in Hebrew), I agree with most of her rant. I would put it somewhat differently -- perhaps more like this -- but the utter hypocrisy of someone who is themselves secularized celebrating the defeat of secularization . . . *eyes cross* . . . well, it's almost as bad a "Chanuka bushes." <vomit smilie>
And Stephan, I cannot speak for Lisa, but it makes me ill.
quote: The Liebreichs and other interfaith families appreciate what the two holidays share: Both are happy social occasions, they say, and both emphasize the beauty of lights.
Oy. Vey. Is. Mir!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
The problem I have with your link, rivka, is the equating of multiculturalism to polytheism. Although I suppose it depends on what you mean by multiculturalsim.
Example: as a hospital chaplain it was my job to be familiar with the religious requirements of various faiths that might need accomadation during a patient's hospital stay, and to help explain/negotiate with the medical staff and facilitate the patient's practice of their religion (for instance, calling appropriate outside clergy if we did not have a chaplain of that faith on staff). I consider that being aware of multiculturalism. A friend of mine quit a position as chaplian at a large nursing home chain because she was expected to perform wiccan rituals if the patient requested it. She was replaced by a man calling himself a "new age rabbi" who would perform wiccan rituals, celebrate Christian communion, give Jewish or Mormon, or any other form of blessing -- basically pretend to be whatever religion the patient practiced. That I consider polytheism. And I see a BIG difference.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I must agree with the Hanukkah point. And I just say I do honestly like that song, it has a certain catchiness to it.
While the majority of StarLisa's views do seem a tad harsh in my honest opinion, but I'm not Jewish so I can't comment.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: it is called the festival of light. and as my rabbi said, fire can be used to illuminate (light) or to eliminate (war).
I like that.
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: ok, there was a war, but that's not exactly what we're cellebrating, it's the victory of the few over the many, etc, etc, you know it, i'm sure.
I do. Al ha-nissim v'al ha-purkan v'al ha-teshuot, v'al ha-milchamot. The war is definitely an aspect of Hanukkah. Certainly it's not the only thing, but since so many people ignore that aspect of it, I felt it needed to be emphasized a bit.
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: and i almost forget, you said something about reconstructionism... as your partner works with them, i must assume that you're not orthodox... i'd say you're masorti.
Oh, really not. She's taught at a Chabad cheder, and we're certainly not Chabadnikim. She was once the principal of a Reform Hebrew school. I could never do it, but everyone is different. She plants seeds, and you never know what will grow. She pushes the envelope when it comes to giving real Judaism to the kids, and the way I figure it, if a single one of those kids comes back to Judaism someday, well, it'll be as if she saved a whole world.
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: if you are, i'd like to ask you something about that. the masorti movement's not at its best moment in my country.
I grew up in the Conservative movement. But, as the saying goes, "I got better".
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: ok, nice to talk to you. and, really, have a happy hanukah.
You, too.
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina:
quote:Certainly you aren't going to claim that when only the father is Jewish the child is miraculously wiped clean of the Jewish blood that runs through him or her when they are born. While you would certainly disagree I do happen to consider my uncle's son who was raised from birth as being Jewish and Bar Mitzvahed as being simply Jewish. Sorry to tell you, but the failure of extremists like you to acknowledge his chosen religion doesn't make him any less Jewish in my or my family's eyes.
ok, a person born to a non jewish mother and jewoish father can feel jewish, i know cases, they convert (is that the word) into jewish, and then they fulfil all the commandments and become jews. that's a good solutions to intermarriage. if you don't accept their children, then they'll never have the chance to become jews.
Why is that a bad thing? It's not as if being a Jew is "better" than being a non-Jew. When a Jew violates the Torah, it harms him, it harms all Jews, and it harms the very fabric of creation. A non-Jew has a much easier time and a much better chance of living up to his obligations than a Jew does, and if someone isn't Jewish, the only reason I can see for allowing them to convert is if they're really, really committed to keeping the Torah in its entirety.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: As the son of such a union I must regretfully agree with Lisa.
Having a true Jewish household is almost impossible if one spouse is not Jewish.
I agree. Even a union of a religious Jew and a non-religious Jew is something that rarely works out, and almost always results in the children being non-religious. Can a thief teach his children not to steal? Can a hitman inculcate respect for human life in his children? No more can a parent who violates the Torah do anything but teach his children, by example, that the Torah is a joke.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The children will also be less likely see the importance of marrying a Jew and further decrease the population.
I have a brother-in-law who is married to a non-Jewish woman. I like her a lot. I hate that my brother-in-law now has a metaphorical "No Outlet" sign on him, and that there'll be no continuation of Jewish heritage through him. But I'm glad they have no intention of raising their children as Jews. Because odds are they'll marry non-Jews themselves, and as non-Jews, that's perfectly okay.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Why is that a bad thing? It's not as if being a Jew is "better" than being a non-Jew. When a Jew violates the Torah, it harms him, it harms all Jews, and it harms the very fabric of creation. A non-Jew has a much easier time and a much better chance of living up to his obligations than a Jew does, and if someone isn't Jewish, the only reason I can see for allowing them to convert is if they're really, really committed to keeping the Torah in its entirety.
Do any aspects of Christianity violate (in the Jewish mind) the 7 laws of Noah?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: She was replaced by a man calling himself a "new age rabbi" who would perform wiccan rituals, celebrate Christian communion, give Jewish or Mormon, or any other form of blessing -- basically pretend to be whatever religion the patient practiced. That I consider polytheism.
I think you're being too charitable. I consider that blasphemy.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I would love to see Lisa's reaction to reading this Washington Post article.
That's incredibly depressing. The idea that these Jewish kids are being raised as idolators is just horrendous.
Before people freak out, btw, Jewish law has a double standard where idolatry is concerned. According to most opinions, non-Jews are allowed to practice shituf, which means associating another "deity" with the One God. Doing that is not considered idolatry for non-Jews. For this reason, most forms of Christianity are not considered idolatry. For non-Jews. For Jews, shituf is out-and-out idolatry, and a Jew who practices Christianity is an idolator.
Causing other Jews to commit idolatry is even worse than committing it oneself. This woman should be ashamed of herself.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Scott: Well, yeah. But polytheism too.
And I can't imagine any devoutly religious patients (of any faith) being okay with it.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: This woman should be ashamed of herself.
I'm sure that she would be ashamed if she actually felt that what she was doing was wrong.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Do any aspects of Christianity violate (in the Jewish mind) the 7 laws of Noah?
See my response to the article you posted. There is a dispute over whether shituf is permitted for non-Jews, and we generally rule that it is. But not for Jews.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: This woman should be ashamed of herself.
I'm sure that she would be ashamed if she actually felt that what she was doing was wrong.
Then let me rephrase. She ought to realize that what she's doing is wrong, and be ashamed of herself for doing it.
Better?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Do any aspects of Christianity violate (in the Jewish mind) the 7 laws of Noah?
See my response to the article you posted. There is a dispute over whether shituf is permitted for non-Jews, and we generally rule that it is. But not for Jews.
If only the Noachide movement were stronger. Raising my future children as Reform Jews I agree would feel wrong in too many ways. But to raise them as Christians (no disrespect intended) scares me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There is a dispute over whether shituf is permitted for non-Jews, and we generally rule that it is.
If it isn't, I hope that you Jews would be so kind as to proselyte to those of us not exposed to your religion.
I'd hate to earn God's wrath by acting ignorantly. If I'm going to make Him mad, I'd prefer to do it with full cognition.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There is a dispute over whether shituf is permitted for non-Jews, and we generally rule that it is.
If it isn't, I hope that you Jews would be so kind as to proselyte to those of us not exposed to your religion.
I'd hate to earn God's wrath by acting ignorantly. If I'm going to make Him mad, I'd prefer to do it with full cognition.
Lol. Actually the torah scholars will probably argue the truth is in front of Christians since their bible contains the Hebrew Scriptures so missionaries wouldn't be needed. Though I understand Christians just interpret it differently.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Actually the torah scholars will probably argue the truth is in front of Christians since their bible contains the Hebrew Scriptures so missionaries wouldn't be needed.
It's because of the difference of interpretation and the weight of Christian culture that missionaries WOULD be needed.
If you hand a child a roll of scripture without teaching him how to read it, and then condemn him later for stealing when it CLEARLY says 'Thou Shalt Not Steal!' in the scriptures. . . YOU are to blame for the theft because you never gave the child the tools to understand the scriptures in the right light.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Actually the torah scholars will probably argue the truth is in front of Christians since their bible contains the Hebrew Scriptures so missionaries wouldn't be needed.
It's because of the difference of interpretation and the weight of Christian culture that missionaries WOULD be needed.
Hmmm, its a tough call. Missionaries that spread the beliefs of Judaism, but tell you not to actually convert to it? Maybe someday someone will start a true Noachide church.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Then let me rephrase. She ought to realize that what she's doing is wrong, and be ashamed of herself for doing it.
Better?
Again, my point remains the same. If she felt that what she was doing was wrong, then she would have a need for shame. As it stands now, she merely disagrees with your views. By itself, that doesn't constitue a need for shame...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Missionaries that spread the beliefs of Judaism, but tell you not to actually convert to it? Maybe someday someone will start a true Noachide church.
Why hasn't God (or the rabbis) called for the creation of this church already?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Missionaries that spread the beliefs of Judaism, but tell you not to actually convert to it? Maybe someday someone will start a true Noachide church.
Why hasn't God (or the rabbis) called for the creation of this church already?
Perhaps Jews need to outreach to other Jews first. How can we be an example to the world when our own stray?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Perhaps Jews need to outreach to other Jews first. How can we be an example to the world when our own stray?
Not everyone is straying.
Does God have a provision for the "salvation" (or what have you) for. . .say, the Aboriginies who've never even seen a Jew?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Perhaps Jews need to outreach to other Jews first. How can we be an example to the world when our own stray?
Not everyone is straying.
Does God have a provision for the "salvation" (or what have you) for. . .say, the Aboriginies who've never even seen a Jew?
I guess it depends on their belief system. For instance the reason I think Christians are fine is because in their hearts they truly believe it is one God, and not 3 the way Jews perceive it. Nor do they see the cross as an idol the way the ancient Greeks had idols. Do the aboriginies worship idols?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I've also seen the law as being read "not to deny G-d". If the aboriginies know nothing about G-d, I don't see how they can deny Him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
For the sake of argument, let's say they do worship idols.
(I have no idea what the native inhabitants of Australia actually worship)
quote:If the aboriginies know nothing about G-d, I don't see how they can deny Him.
When you say 'Don't deny G_d,' do you mean Adonai, or any concept of a God?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Good question actually. I meant Adonai, but I guess that is part of the debate Lisa was talking about. It sounds like from her it is generally accepted that associating another deity for "G-d" is ok for non-Jews. Since Jews see Jesus as another deity, that logic would say Christians are fine for the same reason.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What about multiple divinities?
Say I was a Athenian who worshipped Diana and Dionysus Zagreus and had never heard of Moses or the Torah, or even monotheistic religions?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Maybe that is the job of Christian missionaries. I have heard some Jews argue that Christianity and Islam were created to get pagans used to the idea of one G-d. If that is true then Christian missionaries could still be doing G-d's work as long as they don't try to convert Jews.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: If that is true then Christian missionaries could still be doing G-d's work as long as they don't try to convert Jews.
Then God should tell Christians and Muslims that so that they don't accidentally sin.
Although, if He's going to go through the trouble, why not just lay out how things really are?
I notice that God didn't take the pansy path with Abram or Moses. . . in fact, when has God ever done anything half-way?
quote:Maybe that is the job of Christian missionaries.
I think you might be missing the point. What happens to all the peopel who die without knowing anything about God?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: If that is true then Christian missionaries could still be doing G-d's work as long as they don't try to convert Jews.
Then God should tell Christians and Muslims that so that they don't accidentally sin.
Although, if He's going to go through the trouble, why not just lay out how things really are?
I notice that God didn't take the pansy path with Abram or Moses. . . in fact, when has God ever done anything half-way?
Even Christians admit it has been a long time since G-d took the hands on approach. Thats a question I'd leave to a Rabbi or Priest.
As for Christians and Muslims converting Jews, I would more leave the fault with the Jew who leaving.
Again I'm just going off of what I have read, and arguments I have heard.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Even Christians admit it has been a long time since G-d took the hands on approach.
Oddly, when God was taking a hands-on approach to Christianity, he didn't mention that Jews were off limits. You'll take note that Jesus Christ, who founded Christianity, was a nice Jewish kid.
(And some folks still believe that God does take a hands on approach to revealing His will on the earth. I'm one of them, though some may debate my Christianity)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Even Christians admit it has been a long time since G-d took the hands on approach.
Oddly, when God was taking a hands-on approach to Christianity, he didn't mention that Jews were off limits. You'll take note that Jesus Christ, who founded Christianity, was a nice Jewish kid.
Again I would have to say it is up to the Jew to know better then to convert.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There is a dispute over whether shituf is permitted for non-Jews, and we generally rule that it is.
If it isn't, I hope that you Jews would be so kind as to proselyte to those of us not exposed to your religion.
There's a small Noachide movement out there, but the truth is, we need to get our own house in order before we start looking outwards. It's sort of our job.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Some of us believe that there are specific directives to us to offer pretty much anyone the chance to convert.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Actually the torah scholars will probably argue the truth is in front of Christians since their bible contains the Hebrew Scriptures so missionaries wouldn't be needed.
It's because of the difference of interpretation and the weight of Christian culture that missionaries WOULD be needed.
If you hand a child a roll of scripture without teaching him how to read it, and then condemn him later for stealing when it CLEARLY says 'Thou Shalt Not Steal!' in the scriptures. . . YOU are to blame for the theft because you never gave the child the tools to understand the scriptures in the right light.
Scott, you have a really valid point. And we do the best we can. Back during Roman times, we used to do it a lot. Talk about Romans who "converted" to Judaism was mostly about Romans who became Noachides, although some of them went all the way and converted.
Almost two millenia of it being worth our lives to try it has gotten us out of the habit, for the most part, but it's still on the agenda.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: Then let me rephrase. She ought to realize that what she's doing is wrong, and be ashamed of herself for doing it.
Better?
Again, my point remains the same. If she felt that what she was doing was wrong, then she would have a need for shame. As it stands now, she merely disagrees with your views. By itself, that doesn't constitue a need for shame...
'Tain't my views. And it's not a matter of my opinion vs. hers, either. It's very unlikely that she has the requisite education to have an informed opinion on the matter.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:we need to get our own house in order before we start looking outwards. It's sort of our job.
So. What does the rest of world do for divine approval while you debate?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Perhaps Jews need to outreach to other Jews first. How can we be an example to the world when our own stray?
Not everyone is straying.
Does God have a provision for the "salvation" (or what have you) for. . .say, the Aboriginies who've never even seen a Jew?
Well, bear in mind that most of the Noachide laws are pretty much no-brainers. A moral society will have them naturally.
Don't murder Don't steal Don't commit acts of sexual immorality Don't eat the limb of a living animal Have courts that enforce the laws
The other two are:
Don't worship idols Don't blaspheme
Those are the only ones that one wouldn't necessarily expect people to know without being told. So it's not like people are being left hanging.
Of course, to take the example you used before, if you give a child a Bible, and he threatens to kill you if you suggest that he needs to learn how to read in order to understand it, it's not really the fault of those who don't teach him to read.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:we need to get our own house in order before we start looking outwards. It's sort of our job.
So. What does the rest of world do for divine approval while you debate?
Go a couple straight centuries without a pogrom.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Good question actually. I meant Adonai, but I guess that is part of the debate Lisa was talking about. It sounds like from her it is generally accepted that associating another deity for "G-d" is ok for non-Jews.
No, Stephan. "Associating" means worshipping God, and also worshipping Baal. For example.
In the case of Christianity, I guess the decision was made that despite what Christians may say about 3 being 1, their "Father" counts as worshipping God, and their "Son and Holy Spirit" are additional deities tacked on. Which is permitted for non-Jews, even while being an error and not at all something to encourage, but forbidden in a big way for Jews. It's one of the three things that a Jew is supposed to let himself be killed rather than violate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I've always wondered how the first amendment squares with the combination of "Have courts that enforce the laws" and "Don't worship idols/Don't blaspheme."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: In the case of Christianity, I guess the decision was made that despite what Christians may say about 3 being 1, their "Father" counts as worshipping God, and their "Son and Holy Spirit" are additional deities tacked on.
Are you saying that, despite what we say we believe, someone has decided that we really believe something else?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Missionaries that spread the beliefs of Judaism, but tell you not to actually convert to it? Maybe someday someone will start a true Noachide church.
Why hasn't God (or the rabbis) called for the creation of this church already?
quote:to take the example you used before, if you give a child a Bible, and he threatens to kill you if you suggest that he needs to learn how to read in order to understand it, it's not really the fault of those who don't teach him to read.
It depends on whether or not the commandment to teach the scriptures to your children was given by God, with whom all things are possible, or whether it's just a good idea for people to follow when it's convenient and the children are nice.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: In the case of Christianity, I guess the decision was made that despite what Christians may say about 3 being 1, their "Father" counts as worshipping God, and their "Son and Holy Spirit" are additional deities tacked on.
Are you saying that, despite what we say we believe, someone has decided that we really believe something else?
Do Jews believe the Christian trinity is worshipping 3 different gods? Generally yes. But hey, if we agreed with you we'd convert wouldn't we?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Go a couple straight centuries without a pogrom.
EDITED: Because it was going too far.
quote:Don't commit acts of sexual immorality
Yeah-- at this point, some commentary would need to be written up and disseminated to all the potential Noachites. Pun. . .er. . .sort of intended.
Here's my question, again: What does God do with the souls, (or Jewish equivalent) of people who have never had the chance to accept the Noachide laws/convert to Judaism?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I've always wondered how the first amendment squares with the combination of "Have courts that enforce the laws" and "Don't worship idols/Don't blaspheme."
It doesn't. The Noachide laws require that the Noachide laws be enforced. The First Amendment requires that they not be enforced. They conflict.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: In the case of Christianity, I guess the decision was made that despite what Christians may say about 3 being 1, their "Father" counts as worshipping God, and their "Son and Holy Spirit" are additional deities tacked on.
Are you saying that, despite what we say we believe, someone has decided that we really believe something else?
Um... yeah. See, it's a matter of technical terms. If I have a mole and go to the doctor and he says it's not a mole, then it doesn't matter what I think about it. He's a doctor, and he knows better than me what the definition of "mole" is.
Now, I can call it a mole, and it's not as if anyone is going to arrest me for it. And if I'm talking with other people who have the same idea I do of what a mole is, we'll communicate fairly well. But in terms of the real definition of "mole", we're wrong.
It's the same thing here. Y'all can say that 3 = 1 is a paradox that just needs to be taken on faith. You can quote Tertullian and say "It's absurd; therefore I believe". But three is three and one is one. And we have the definitions that God gave.
If you'd like to do a word substitution, that's fine. But God told us that God is One, with no divisions or parts, and Christianity doesn't accept that.
But like I said, while it's an error, it's not considered idolatry for non-Jews.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:to take the example you used before, if you give a child a Bible, and he threatens to kill you if you suggest that he needs to learn how to read in order to understand it, it's not really the fault of those who don't teach him to read.
It depends on whether or not the commandment to teach the scriptures to your children was given by God, with whom all things are possible, or whether it's just a good idea for people to follow when it's convenient and the children are nice.
In Jewish law, we're forbidden to place ourselves in danger. The value of human life is almost inviolate. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to eat a ham sandwich, I'll eat the ham sandwich. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me to worship an idol, I'll try my damnedest to kill him first, but even if I fail and get killed, that's the right choice.
Educating people who have a track record of killing us just for existing, let alone telling them that their religion is in error, isn't worth our lives. And that's according to God.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: It's very unlikely that she has the requisite education to have an informed opinion on the matter.
You assume that she is uneducated because she has made a choice that is deplorable to you? That seems a bit condescending to me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Educating people who have a track record of killing us just for existing, let alone telling them that their religion is in error, isn't worth our lives. And that's according to God.
If you think that you can get off because of a martyr complex, I advise you to search the 'US President Is a Mormon' thread, and tell me why Jews can use it but Mormons can't.
Both our religions have histories of being persecuted. Both may currently suffer persecution. But that's no excuse for not obeying God. Indeed, didn't the Maccabees put themselves in danger in order to comply with God's will? What about Moses, Abram?
Can we do less than them?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Two questions for all our Jewish commentators:
1) Was Abraham "Jewish" by your definition of what it means to be a Jew today? And, whether you've answered yes or no, please explain your reason.
2) Does Jewish faith allow for new revelation from G_d? (i.e., is it possible for G_d to send a prophet who would reinterpret or even provide a replacement of what would then be prior laws?)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Go a couple straight centuries without a pogrom.
EDITED: Because it was going too far.
I'm sorry I missed it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Don't commit acts of sexual immorality
Yeah-- at this point, some commentary would need to be written up and disseminated to all the potential Noachites. Pun. . .er. . .sort of intended.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Here's my question, again: What does God do with the souls, (or Jewish equivalent) of people who have never had the chance to accept the Noachide laws/convert to Judaism?
I don't know. We don't really deal in souls. The whole picture of what happens next is fairly vague. The most common answer I've gotten is that we're each going to find out eventually, so why fret about it? There are enough things to worry about in this world.
But understand, we don't have Hell. That's not something we even really understand very well. In the World to Come, your closeness (maybe metaphorically speaking) to God is determined by your acts in this world. To the extent that you've done right, you get to be closer. To the extent that you haven't, you don't.
When a person dies, they become acutely, 100%, aware of everything they've done, and all the implications of everything they've done. No rationalizations are possible. This is overwhelming and disorienting, and "painful" in some sense or other. Our tradition tells us that even the most wicked person (of those who have a share in the World to Come at all) doesn't endure this period of adjustment for more than a year.
This is why we say Kaddish, which is a kind of affirmation for the departed, for 11 months following death. The idea being that to do it for a year would imply that they're in the category of the most wicked, but 11 months is just to be on the safe side.
There are categories of people who can lose their place in the World to Come altogether. But that applies to Jews. With non-Jews, we say that the righteous of all nations have a share in the World to Come. Is a non-Jew who didn't know better and who nevertheless acted morally in every way he could have known about in that category? Honest answer: I don't know. If I were making the rules, then definitely. And I think it's likely. But I don't know the answer to the question.
Personally, I think that the worst that could happen with someone who really had no way to possibly know they were violating the Noachide laws is that they might wind up in the bleachers, so to speak.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Educating people who have a track record of killing us just for existing, let alone telling them that their religion is in error, isn't worth our lives. And that's according to God.
If you think that you can get off because of a martyr complex, I advise you to search the 'US President Is a Mormon' thread, and tell me why Jews can use it but Mormons can't.
Both our religions have histories of being persecuted. Both may currently suffer persecution. But that's no excuse for not obeying God. Indeed, didn't the Maccabees put themselves in danger in order to comply with God's will? What about Moses, Abram?
Can we do less than them?
I assume its because Mormons believe spreading their religion is worth the risk?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: It's very unlikely that she has the requisite education to have an informed opinion on the matter.
You assume that she is uneducated because she has made a choice that is deplorable to you? That seems a bit condescending to me.
<shrug> I know educated Jews (educated about Judaism, that is) who have apostasized. They still generally speak differently than this woman does. I acknowledge the possibility that she's made a conscious and informed choice to do the wrong thing. I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she's merely ignorant.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Are you saying that Jews think some commandments aren't worth the risk of following?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
1) Was Abraham "Jewish" by your definition of what it means to be a Jew today? And, whether you've answered yes or no, please explain your reason.
From everything I learned, yes. The Scriptures seem pretty clear on that. Abraham's family was Jewish when circumsized. I believe this is the reason Issac had to marry a cousin.
2) Does Jewish faith allow for new revelation from G_d? (i.e., is it possible for G_d to send a prophet who would reinterpret or even provide a replacement of what would then be prior laws?)
Reinterpret or replace? I don't believe that would be possible.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are you saying that Jews think some commandments aren't worth the risk of following?
I think it would depend on the commandment in all honesty. Kill or be killed? Not worth dying for. Steal something or kill? I think then the sin of stealing would be on the one making the threat. Kill someone who forces me to worship an idol? Well there is that scripture verse commanding us to kill anyone that tries to take us away from our faith.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are you saying that Jews think some commandments aren't worth the risk of following?
Are you implying that all if them are [edit: at all times]?
That definitely smacks of a "when did you stop beating your wife?" type question. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Do all commandments carry inherent risks?
I do my own share of extreme slacking on some commandments, but it isn't because it is risky to follow them. It's because I'm a slacker.
I do think that if the Lord gives a commandment, then he makes a way for us to follow that commandment. There's no "unless it looks iffy" on the end of it.
Individual cases may apply (there's always a possiblity), but abondoning a commandment en masse raises questions. Is it okay with the one who gave the commandment in the first place?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are you saying that Jews think some commandments aren't worth the risk of following?
Are you implying that all if them are [edit: at all times]?
That definitely smacks of a "when did you stop beating your wife?" type question.
Thanks for pointing that out, KarlEd. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do all commandments carry inherent risks?
I do my own share of extreme slacking on some commandments, but it isn't because it is risky to follow them. It's because I'm a slacker.
I do think that if the Lord gives a commandment, then he makes a way for us to follow that commandment. There's no "unless it looks iffy" on the end of it.
Individual cases may apply (there's always a possiblity), but abondoning a commandment en masse raises questions. Is it okay with the one who gave the commandment in the first place?
I don't think any full blown abandonment of a commandment has been mentioned.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Educating people who have a track record of killing us just for existing, let alone telling them that their religion is in error, isn't worth our lives. And that's according to God.
If you think that you can get off because of a martyr complex, I advise you to search the 'US President Is a Mormon' thread, and tell me why Jews can use it but Mormons can't.
I haven't been reading that thread, because it seemed mostly about Mormonism, and I didn't really have much to say. Do I have to go and look, or would you mind telling me what you were referring to?
And it's not a martyr complex. How many times do you have to burn yourself on a hot stove before you stop touching it?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Both our religions have histories of being persecuted. Both may currently suffer persecution. But that's no excuse for not obeying God.
Here's the thing. We are obeying God. There are priorities, and we're abiding by them. Would I like to see more Noachide outreach? Hell, yes.
Someone asked me last week (I forget if it was on Hatrack or Usenet) what I would do if I did some genealogy research in my matrilineal line and found that I wasn't actually Jewish. Would I convert? My response was that we'd finally see some real movement on the Noachide front, because I wouldn't convert for anything. But I'd put an enormous amount of energy into the Noachide thing.
See, an individual can choose to do something that's possibly risky if -- for that person -- the risk is minimal. It can be a judgement call. But no one has a right to force someone else to risk himself.
Truly, that's the law.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Indeed, didn't the Maccabees put themselves in danger in order to comply with God's will?
Interesting question. The book of Maccabees actually addresses it. Prior to the Maccabean revolt, Judea was pretty much demilitarized. We'd gotten an exemption from the army from Alexander the Great himself, and since hunting is really problematic, kashrut-wise, very few of us were well versed in the use of weapons.
When the Syrians decreed that it was forbidden to keep the Sabbath, a bunch of pious Jews ran into the wilderness and hid out in some caves, so that they could refrain from violating Shabbat without risking death at the hands of the Greek mercenaries.
One Shabbat, a bunch of mercenaries showed up at one of these caves and demanded that the Jews inside come out and violate Shabbat. The Jews realized that they had no way of fighting against armed mercenaries, and resigned themselves to the slaughter.
When Mattithias (father of Judah Maccabee) heard about this, his reaction was to proclaim that Jews were required to learn weaponry in order to fight back in such a situation.
Scott, we have a term. Golus Jews. Golus is a Yiddish-y pronounciation of the Hebrew word galuth, which means "exile". A lot of Jews have an exile mentality. They're scared to speak up and be blunt about the truth. They're scared of other Jews doing it, too. They can get quite hysterical at times. Pity and contempt kind of war inside of me when it comes to people like this. But most of them don't even understand Judaism. How can they possibly reach out to non-Jews when they don't even know what God has commanded them?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What about Moses, Abram?
Can we do less than them?
Who's "we"? Give me a miraculous staff like Moses, and I'll be on the job. But I'm still going to go after my fellow Jews first.
We have a commandment to give "charity" (that's a bad translation for tzedaka, but it'll do for this discussion. The rules regarding priority are:
1) The poor Jews of your town/city 2) The poor non-Jews of your town/city 3) The poor Jews elsewhere 4) The poor non-Jews elsewhere
These are the legal priorities we have. If I only have enough to give in category 1, that doesn't mean that categories 2-4 are unimportant. It just means that there are priorities. The same thing applies here.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do all commandments carry inherent risks?
I do my own share of extreme slacking on some commandments, but it isn't because it is risky to follow them. It's because I'm a slacker.
I do think that if the Lord gives a commandment, then he makes a way for us to follow that commandment. There's no "unless it looks iffy" on the end of it.
Individual cases may apply (there's always a possiblity), but abondoning a commandment en masse raises questions. Is it okay with the one who gave the commandment in the first place?
I think it's somewhat startling for a Mormon to take issue with the kind of abandoning StarLisa, et. al. are talking about. After all, one could argue the Mormon church "abandoned" plural marriage when it became incovenient for the Church to continue it. Of course, you can argue that such an abandonment was sanctioned by God, but since StarLisa (et. al.) claim no such ability to receive contemporary updates, one might cut them some more slack. Just sayin'.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I knew the bit with plural marriage would come up. Since I think the commandment was both given and retracted by the Lord, it doesn't apply.
I'm not trying to be hard - I'm wondering if there are any other reasons for not doing it, and what it would take to change the situation. There could be good reasons. "It's risky" isn't one of them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Two questions for all our Jewish commentators:
1) Was Abraham "Jewish" by your definition of what it means to be a Jew today? And, whether you've answered yes or no, please explain your reason.
Pardon the stereotypically Jewish answer, but yes and no. Primarily no. Prior to the revelation at Sinai, only the Noachide laws were in force. For everyone, including Abraham. Belief in the One God wasn't tribal or hereditary, either. You chose it or you didn't. Isaac wasn't a proto-Jew because Abraham was. He chose it. Ishmael didn't. Jacob chose it. Esau didn't.
At Sinai, God turned us into a nation. He gave us His laws, and He made it so that if you were born of a Jewish mother, you were automatically a Jew.
So yeah, mostly no. But he was a kind of precursor, as well as being our ancestor.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: 2) Does Jewish faith allow for new revelation from G_d? (i.e., is it possible for G_d to send a prophet who would reinterpret or even provide a replacement of what would then be prior laws?)
No. In fact, God addressed that specifically in the Torah. Check out Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22. If a prophet tries to change the least little thing in the Torah, or add or subtract from the Torah in the smallest part, the punishment (when the court system is in operation) is death. Of course, the prophet has to be a real prophet first and have proved it. Someone who just says, "I'm a prophet and God wants you to smoke weed" is just a loon. No killing applies.
What's cool is that God set up the system in a way that protects it. He actually made it so that even He can't overrule the Torah he gave us. That's not any kind of conflict with His omniscience, because being unconstrained by time, if He wanted it to be otherwise, he could make it so from the get-go.
The purpose of prophets was to help us with proper emphasis and to rebuke those who were misbehaving. For example, it seems pretty much like a no-brainer that offering a sacrifice and continuing to be a sinner is pointless. But there's nothing in the text of the Torah that says that clearly. Keeping the commandments is required. Bringing sacrifices is required. So there were people who figured that bringing a sin-sacrifice was like a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Clearly, such people sucked. But the law didn't deal with the precise issues of emphasis. So you have a lot of the prophets slamming sacrifice that's done as a kind of bribe and that doesn't include genuine repentance.
You could ask why the law didn't specify such things. <shrug> Maybe specifying them before there was a need for it would have given a wrong impression. Things come in their proper time.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are you saying that Jews think some commandments aren't worth the risk of following?
Well, sure. There are some Jews who figure it's okay to eat a pork chop. If you're talking about Jews who are still faithful to God's Torah, then the answer is no.
But the law itself gives guidelines for what types of risk are legitimate and what types of risk aren't. And what obligations are obligations that override risk and what obligations aren't.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So there's something that says "This is one of the commandments you don't have to pay attention to"?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
StarLisa, Have you ever seen the movie The Believer? I'd love you know what you thought about it. The motivations of the main character are ambiguous in the movie (based on a true story, I believe), but I sort of understood his actions as a kind of misguided reaction to the "exile mentality" you wrote of above. It seems almost as if he were provoking God, or the Jewish community to some sort of critical mass.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Give me a miraculous staff like Moses, and I'll be on the job.
It wasn't Moses' staff that was miraculous. It was Moses. Nitpick.
Thanks for answering.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote: The Liebreichs and other interfaith families appreciate what the two holidays share: Both are happy social occasions, they say, and both emphasize the beauty of lights.
The "Ooohh! Shiny!" school of religion.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are you saying that Jews think some commandments aren't worth the risk of following?
I think it would depend on the commandment in all honesty. Kill or be killed? Not worth dying for.
Yes worth dying for. There are three (five, really) commandments that a Jew has to die rather than violate:
Murder
Idolatry
Gilui Arayot
That last is a category of sexual immorality that includes incest (specified), bestiality, male-male anal sex and adultery (limited to a married woman with a man not her husband)
The reason I say it's really five is that there are two other things that override the imperative of preserving life. One is Hillul Hashem, which means "desecration of God's name". To illustrate, if someone holds a gun to me and tells me to eat a ham sandwich, I'll eat it. If they put me on TV and say, "We're going to force this Jew to eat a ham sandwich, ha ha ha", then I won't eat it. Because we're not allowed to save ourselves at the cost of desecrating God's name in that way.
The other is a required war, such as a war of self-defense. Since we don't rely on miracles, and people die in wars, the very fact that there is such a thing as an obligatory war in Jewish law means that it must override the saving of lives. (cf. Minchat Chinuch)
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Steal something or kill? I think then the sin of stealing would be on the one making the threat.
You don't have to die rather than steal. But I believe you're still obligated to provide restitution when you're no longer under duress. It's not a freebie just because someone is threatening you.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
starLisa:
quote:No. In fact, God addressed that specifically in the Torah. Check out Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22. If a prophet tries to change the least little thing in the Torah, or add or subtract from the Torah in the smallest part, the punishment (when the court system is in operation) is death. Of course, the prophet has to be a real prophet first and have proved it. Someone who just says, "I'm a prophet and God wants you to smoke weed" is just a loon. No killing applies.
When you speak of the court system being in operation, what does that mean to you? Do you envision a day when it will be again? Will this court apply only to Jews? Or to all people within a Jewish state regardless of religion? What about those born Jewish, but who wish to leave the faith? Would they be held accountable equally because of birth or is there some mechanism for peaceable apostasy?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So there's something that says "This is one of the commandments you don't have to pay attention to"?
From what I'm getting from starLisa's posts, there is a law that says, "You may only risk your life for X reasons."
If law Y isn't covered by X reasons, then it would be violating that law to not "violate" law Y. But one would be following the Law when one did so.
It's not a question of not paying attention to one commandment, but rather following the commandments that relate to prioritization.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are you saying that Jews think some commandments aren't worth the risk of following?
I think it would depend on the commandment in all honesty. Kill or be killed? Not worth dying for.
Yes worth dying for. There are three (five, really) commandments that a Jew has to die rather than violate:
Murder
Idolatry
Gilui Arayot
That last is a category of sexual immorality that includes incest (specified), bestiality, male-male anal sex and adultery (limited to a married woman with a man not her husband)
The reason I say it's really five is that there are two other things that override the imperative of preserving life. One is Hillul Hashem, which means "desecration of God's name". To illustrate, if someone holds a gun to me and tells me to eat a ham sandwich, I'll eat it. If they put me on TV and say, "We're going to force this Jew to eat a ham sandwich, ha ha ha", then I won't eat it. Because we're not allowed to save ourselves at the cost of desecrating God's name in that way.
The other is a required war, such as a war of self-defense. Since we don't rely on miracles, and people die in wars, the very fact that there is such a thing as an obligatory war in Jewish law means that it must override the saving of lives. (cf. Minchat Chinuch)
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Steal something or kill? I think then the sin of stealing would be on the one making the threat.
You don't have to die rather than steal. But I believe you're still obligated to provide restitution when you're no longer under duress. It's not a freebie just because someone is threatening you.
The kill or be killed thing, I just wrote wrong. And I meant steal or be killed. Trying to answer phones, and keep up with the conversation.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
starLisa:
quote:That last is a category of sexual immorality that includes incest (specified), bestiality, male-male anal sex and adultery (limited to a married woman with a man not her husband)
I hope you aren't feeling pestered by my questions. So, what is the state of a Jewish homosexual? Is it OK as long as there is no anal sex? I'm presuming not, but the specifics of the examples above are curious to me.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: starLisa:
quote:No. In fact, God addressed that specifically in the Torah. Check out Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22. If a prophet tries to change the least little thing in the Torah, or add or subtract from the Torah in the smallest part, the punishment (when the court system is in operation) is death. Of course, the prophet has to be a real prophet first and have proved it. Someone who just says, "I'm a prophet and God wants you to smoke weed" is just a loon. No killing applies.
When you speak of the court system being in operation, what does that mean to you? Do you envision a day when it will be again? Will this court apply only to Jews? Or to all people within a Jewish state regardless of religion? What about those born Jewish, but who wish to leave the faith? Would they be held accountable equally because of birth or is there some mechanism for peaceable apostasy?
The way I understand it Jews are responsible for following the torah based on their birth. If they leave the faith they don't suddenly get to just follow the 7 laws of Noah.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:It's not a question of not paying attention to one commandment, but rather following the commandments that relate to prioritization.
That's what I understood, too. I actually thought it was pretty clear, which is why I took exception to Kat's phrasing of her question the way she did. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Good Golly, Lisa! Three and a half pages so far! I TOLD you that your rants get raves.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Do all commandments carry inherent risks?
They can. But none of them do inherently.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I do my own share of extreme slacking on some commandments, but it isn't because it is risky to follow them. It's because I'm a slacker.
I do think that if the Lord gives a commandment, then he makes a way for us to follow that commandment. There's no "unless it looks iffy" on the end of it.
Really? If God commands us to bring sacrifices, but only in a specific spot, and we're not able to access that spot, then we're clearly exempt from that commandment until such time as we're able to fulfill it.
There's a story about a kid in Russia. They used to take Jewish kids and draft them into the army for 25 years. They probably did it to other ethnic groups as well, but it's the Jews they did it to that concern me.
So this kid gets taken from his parents and inducted. And all they have to eat is pork. But they have to march and do all the soldiery things the army requires.
The kid eats leaves and grass for as long as he can, but he's getting weaker and weaker. And one night, his platoon (or whatever) is encamped near a Jewish village. During the night, he runs into the town and finds the town rabbi. He tells the rabbi the problem and asks him what he should do.
The rabbi tells him, "You can eat the pork. But don't suck the bones."
The idea here is that the only food he had to eat was pork, and kashrut doesn't supersede staying alive. Check out Leviticus 18:5. But sucking the bones was unnecessary. It's something you do when you're really enjoying it. What the rabbi was telling the Jewish kid was that he should do what was necessary, but not get used to it, and not try and make a virtue of a necessity.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Individual cases may apply (there's always a possiblity), but abondoning a commandment en masse raises questions. Is it okay with the one who gave the commandment in the first place?
What commandment have we abandoned, in your opinion? We don't actually have an obligation to teach non-Jews what they're supposed to do. Yes, it's proper to do so, but the law is made up of things we must do, things we can't do, and things that are praiseworthy in God's sight if we do. And each of these have terms and conditions attached to them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Are you saying that Jews think some commandments aren't worth the risk of following?
Are you implying that all if them are [edit: at all times]?
That definitely smacks of a "when did you stop beating your wife?" type question.
I'm not sure that was her intent. I didn't take it that way, anyhow.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I knew the bit with plural marriage would come up. Since I think the commandment was both given and retracted by the Lord, it doesn't apply.
I'm not trying to be hard - I'm wondering if there are any other reasons for not doing it, and what it would take to change the situation. There could be good reasons. "It's risky" isn't one of them.
It's better than God changing His mind, I think. But then, we think God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, which I've been told (by Geoff Card) isn't the case with Mormons.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The way I understand it Jews are responsible for following the torah based on their birth. If they leave the faith they don't suddenly get to just follow the 7 laws of Noah.
This is a perfectly reasonable philosophical view, provided that the child is adequately schooled in his faith. Where this gets sticky for me is in a theoretical state where Judaism is both the predominate religious power and the law of the secular state. Are there "sins" or crimes for which death is the punishment for a Jew (but not a gentile) that would be enforced in a Jewish court? If so, is there a way for a Jew to denounce his Jewish obligation and thereafter be treated as a gentile? Or would Jews be putting to death both Jew and gentile who did not obey Jewish capital law?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that's the case with all of Christianity. We believe that the Law of Moses was in force for a time, and then was replaced by something else. In both cases, God was still God. In the case of plural marriage, it was a commandment for time, and then, for whatever his reasons, wasn't anymore. It had been a commandment before, but isn't now.
Hmm...that does make me wonder. What do you think about Abraham, etc. having multiple wives? Not okay then, or still okay today?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It's better than God changing His mind, I think. But then, we think God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, which I've been told (by Geoff Card) isn't the case with Mormons.
I don't think God did change His mind in that case-- I think He retracted permission to live that commandment at the current time; it was never lived entirely the way it was intended, anyway. And I think the understanding of the last part can be different; I believe that God is all those things.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:The way I understand it Jews are responsible for following the torah based on their birth. If they leave the faith they don't suddenly get to just follow the 7 laws of Noah.
This is a perfectly reasonable philosophical view, provided that the child is adequately schooled in his faith. Where this gets sticky for me is in a theoretical state where Judaism is both the predominate religious power and the law of the secular state. Are there "sins" or crimes for which death is the punishment for a Jew (but not a gentile) that would be enforced in a Jewish court? If so, is there a way for a Jew to denounce his Jewish obligation and thereafter be treated as a gentile? Or would Jews be putting to death both Jew and gentile who did not obey Jewish capital law?
I think in the ancient past the only punishable by death crimes were idolatry, adultry, incest, murder, and violation of Shabbat. All except Shabbat, non-Jews would be held accountable for.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why would non-Jews be held accountable for idolatry?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think that's the case with all of Christianity. We believe that the Law of Moses was in force for a time, and then was replaced by something else. In both cases, God was still God. In the case of plural marriage, it was a commandment for time, and then, for whatever his reasons, wasn't anymore. It had been a commandment before, but isn't now.
Hmm...that does make me wonder. What do you think about Abraham, etc. having multiple wives? Not okay then, or still okay today?
I didn't think he did have multiple wives. Sara asked him to lay with Hagar. But this was before the law of Moses was given anyway. Now David on the other hand...
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why would non-Jews be held accountable for idolatry?
G-d says so in the 7 laws of Noah.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I think in the ancient past the only punishable by death crimes were idolatry, adultry, incest, murder, and violation of Shabbat. All except Shabbat, non-Jews would be held accountable for.
Which sidesteps my question. Assuming a Jewish court with civil dominion, must a Jew observe Shabbat or be put to death even if he intellectually and/or philosophically rejects the Jewish religion?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I think in the ancient past the only punishable by death crimes were idolatry, adultry, incest, murder, and violation of Shabbat. All except Shabbat, non-Jews would be held accountable for.
Which sidesteps my question. Assuming a Jewish court with civil dominion, must a Jew observe Shabbat or be put to death even if he intellectually and/or philosophically rejects the Jewish religion?
Today? No. 3,000 years ago? Most likely.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why would non-Jews be held accountable for idolatry?
G-d says so in the 7 laws of Noah.
So if the Jews ever get civil dominion over the rest of us we'd better follow the Jewish interpretation of what constitutes Idolatry or be put to death? This type of thinking terrifies me to the point of making Jewish persecution an understandable if regretable social by-product of a pluralistic society.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Again, 3,000 years ago this may have been the case. Israel does not kill someone within its borders for worshipping idols.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Today? No. 3,000 years ago? Most likely.
Are you sure? The reason I posted the question specifically for starLisa is that from her writings here and elsewhere I'm not the slightest bit convinced this is the case. I get the impression, from her, at least, that things would be a whole lot different in the enforcement department if Judaism was able to exercise dominion as both religious and civil law.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Again, 3,000 years ago this may have been the case. Israel does not kill someone within its borders for worshipping idols.
Well one could speculate that this is simply because Israel would not exist without the good will of an overwhelming majority of non-Jews. [Edit: or rather "overwhelming military force of non-Jewish countries."]
[edit to add: In other words, how things are run in Israel isn't an acceptable example to me because Israel hardly is a case of un-fettered enforcement of Orthodox Jewish law.]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: ]So if the Jews ever get civil dominion over the rest of us we'd better follow the Jewish interpretation of what constitutes Idolatry or be put to death? This type of thinking terrifies me to the point of making Jewish persecution an understandable if regretable social by-product of a pluralistic society.
From what I have read non-Jews are responsible for setting up their own courts of justice to enforce the other 6 laws of Noah.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So there's something that says "This is one of the commandments you don't have to pay attention to"?
Could I have a f'r instance? There's no such thing as a commandment you don't have to pay attention to. But there are terms and conditions.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Again, 3,000 years ago this may have been the case. Israel does not kill someone within its borders for worshipping idols.
Well one could speculate that this is simply because Israel would not exist without the good will of an overwhelming majority of non-Jews. [Edit: or rather "overwhelming military force of non-Jewish countries."]
[edit to add: In other words, how things are run in Israel isn't an acceptable example to me because Israel hardly is a case of un-fettered enforcement of Orthodox Jewish law.]
Jews today are also not looking to conquer. Its believed the world will come to us one day for guidance.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: StarLisa, Have you ever seen the movie The Believer? I'd love you know what you thought about it. The motivations of the main character are ambiguous in the movie (based on a true story, I believe), but I sort of understood his actions as a kind of misguided reaction to the "exile mentality" you wrote of above. It seems almost as if he were provoking God, or the Jewish community to some sort of critical mass.
I haven't seen it. I'm not sure I ever will. It gives me the heebie jeebies.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Give me a miraculous staff like Moses, and I'll be on the job.
It wasn't Moses' staff that was miraculous. It was Moses. Nitpick.
It wasn't Moses, either. It was God. So let me be more precise and say, "If God gives me a guaranteed ability to pull off signs and wonders like he did with Moses, I'll be on the job."
Better?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:"If God gives me a guaranteed ability to pull off signs and wonders like he did with Moses, I'll be on the job."
I've always believed that to be gifted as Moses was, one needs two things: 1) Necessity; 2) Obedience.
There's always the necessity. It's the obedience thing that catches me up.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There are three (five, really) commandments that a Jew has to die rather than violate:
Murder
Idolatry
Gilui Arayot
That last is a category of sexual immorality that includes incest (specified), bestiality, male-male anal sex and adultery (limited to a married woman with a man not her husband)
In traditional Christian belief (or Catholic belief, in any case) something is not a sin if you do not have volition in the matter. You have spoken several times of people hypothetically holding a gun to your head and ordering you to "sin," and when you could and when you must not, so I'm guessing that Orthodox Judaism does not make this distinction, or at least not all the time. Is this a correct assessment?
In some of these cases you have specified that it would be better to die than to violate the commandment in, a person doesn't always have a choice. It's not "do this or I will shoot you." Rather, something is forced on a person, and they don't have the option to choose to die instead. I would argue that it's not a sin, but I'm not getting that sense from your post.
So what of a person forced to sin in such a manner? If you're supposed to die rather than commit a certain sin, then where does that leave you if you do sin?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There are three (five, really) commandments that a Jew has to die rather than violate:
Murder
Idolatry
Gilui Arayot
That last is a category of sexual immorality that includes incest (specified), bestiality, male-male anal sex and adultery (limited to a married woman with a man not her husband)
In traditional Christian belief (or Catholic belief, in any case) something is not a sin if you do not have volition in the matter. You have spoken several times of people hypothetically holding a gun to your head and ordering you to "sin," and when you could and when you must not, so I'm guessing that Orthodox Judaism does not make this distinction, or at least not all the time. Is this a correct assessment?
In some of these cases you have specified that it would be better to die than to violate the commandment in, a person doesn't always have a choice. It's not "do this or I will shoot you." Rather, something is forced on a person, and they don't have the option to choose to die instead. I would argue that it's not a sin, but I'm not getting that sense from your post.
So what of a person forced to sin in such a manner? If you're supposed to die rather than commit a certain sin, then where does that leave you if you do sin?
Those sins she mentioned are considered sinful regardless if there is a gun to your head.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I got that . . . that wasn't what I asked . . . in fact, I specifically mentioned a situation where there was not a gun to the head, where one had a choice between sin and death, but rather a case in which there was simply no choice . . . my question was what did it mean, in practical terms, to say that it would be better to be killed rather than to be forced to committ one of these sins? Does that mean that you're damned in some way if you are forced to commit such a sin? Or is "preferable" in this case just an abstract concept?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: starLisa:
quote:No. In fact, God addressed that specifically in the Torah. Check out Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22. If a prophet tries to change the least little thing in the Torah, or add or subtract from the Torah in the smallest part, the punishment (when the court system is in operation) is death. Of course, the prophet has to be a real prophet first and have proved it. Someone who just says, "I'm a prophet and God wants you to smoke weed" is just a loon. No killing applies.
When you speak of the court system being in operation, what does that mean to you? Do you envision a day when it will be again? Will this court apply only to Jews? Or to all people within a Jewish state regardless of religion? What about those born Jewish, but who wish to leave the faith? Would they be held accountable equally because of birth or is there some mechanism for peaceable apostasy?
Wow. That's a biggie. Okay. The way this works is, there are three types of court, based on size. There are courts of 3, of 23 and of 71. There's only one court of 71, and it's called the Sanhedrin. It's supposed to sit on the Temple Mount, adjoining the Temple itself. In fact, half of the chamber where the Sanhedrin meets is supposed to be inside of the Temple boundaries, and half outside.
Every town in Israel needs to have a beit din (court) of 3. Every region needs to have a beit din of 23. There were two more batei din (plural of beit din) of 23 in Jerusalem, one at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and the other at the door of the Temple courtyard.
Various different issues can come before a beit din. One kind is the kind of question that we'd ask a rabbi about nowadays. "Is this chicken kosher?" "Can I use a manual alarm clock on Shabbat?" The other kind is torts and contracts and generally what we'd call civil law.
Obviously, the civil law aspect of a beit din is subordinate to the knowledge aspect, because cases need to be judged according to the law. Which means that you have to know what the law is for a specific case. And new cases might arise, such as the invention of the printing press, and the question of whether making unauthorized copies of a book and selling them is considered theft.
One type of civil law case (note that civil law includes religious infractions, like publically desecrating Shabbat) is capital cases. Capital cases could only be tried by courts of 23 or more. And they could only be tried so long as the Sanhedrin met in its proper place on the Temple Mount. About 40 years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin relocated itself elsewhere, because the degree of general lawlessness and chaos was so great that they feared they'd have to judge many capital crimes. By moving, they deactivated that ability, so to speak.
An interesting thing about capital crimes is that they required a majority plus one to pass. If there was a tie, or only one more person in favor of the death penalty than was opposed, two more judges would be added to the court. This would go on until a decision was reached. And, believe it or not, if the beit din ever voted unanimously for the death penalty, the defendent went free. Sort of the opposite of the system in the US.
But here's the thing. To get convicted of anything at all by a beit din, there had to be two kosher witnesses of the adult male Jewish persuasion. The witnesses had to have warned the perp twice that what he was doing was forbidden, citing proper sources for the prohibition, and the perp had to indicate awareness and comprehension of the warning and go ahead and do it anyway. And they had to actually see it happen. Two guys walk into a room with only one door, one walks out again and the other one is lying dead? That doesn't count as having been witnessed.
So basically, it was next to impossible to receive a Torah mandated punishment unless you really wanted to get punished. Capital punishment was essentially a kind of suicide, and it was exceedingly rare.
The strictures were a bit looser when it came to rabbinic laws, but there's no rabbinic death penalty.
As far as the knowledge aspect is concerned, if you went to your local beit din with a question, they could only give an answer if they knew the answer. That may sound obvious, but what I mean by it was that if you came to them with an electric oven and asked if that was permitted to use on Shabbat, the local beit din couldn't say, "Well, we know that cooking with fire on Shabbat is forbidden. This seems similar, so let's say you're not allowed." No analogies, no inferences, no creativity was allowed here. If they knew the law, they related it. If not...
Well, if the local beit din didn't know the answer, the person asking the question and all the members of the beit din would pick up and go to their regional beit din of 23. There, they'd ask the question again. If the regional beit din knew the answer (and I mean knew it), they'd give an answer, and they'd send out notices to every locality in the region announcing that the law is thus-and-such in this-or-that case.
If the regional beit din didn't know the answer, they would pick up and travel to Jerusalem with the local beit din and original questioner, and go to the first beit din of 23 in Jerusalem. Same deal. If they knew, fine, and they'd issue announcements to all of the regions and localities. If not, they all went to the beit din of 23 at the entrance to the Temple courtyard. Same deal. But this time, if they didn't know, they all brought the case before the Sanhedrin.
Once a case reached the Sanhedrin, it was a little different. Members of the Sanhedrin would say if they had been taught the specific answer to this question or if they had a logical answer to the question. They'd discuss and debate, and finally, they'd vote. Majority rule determined the law, and what the Sanhedrin decided was considered to be God's will. And notices were sent out to all Jews everywhere.
I don't know what the deal is for areas outside of Israel. I suspect that they get divided into regions and localities the same way.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's not a question of not paying attention to one commandment, but rather following the commandments that relate to prioritization.
Bingo. For example, I can't use the telephone on Shabbat. It's forbidden. So I don't. But if someone requires an ambulance, not only am I permitted to call one on Shabbat; I'm obligated to.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: starLisa:
quote:That last is a category of sexual immorality that includes incest (specified), bestiality, male-male anal sex and adultery (limited to a married woman with a man not her husband)
I hope you aren't feeling pestered by my questions. So, what is the state of a Jewish homosexual? Is it OK as long as there is no anal sex? I'm presuming not, but the specifics of the examples above are curious to me.
The state of a Jewish gay man kind of sucks. See, Jews have an addition tacked on to the laws of arayot. This addition is called kirva, and it means various forms of intimacy that fall short of actual penetrative sex. It's a matter of dispute whether kirva is Torah law or a rabbinic enactment, but in either case, it's forbidden.
Basically, Jewish gay men have to be celibate.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The way I understand it Jews are responsible for following the torah based on their birth. If they leave the faith they don't suddenly get to just follow the 7 laws of Noah.
<nod> It's like the Eagles said, "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave." It's a one way door.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Good Golly, Lisa! Three and a half pages so far! I TOLD you that your rants get raves.
<grin> Though the length of my posts may have something to do with that.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Did non-Jews living in the area fall under the same judicial processes?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I think that's the case with all of Christianity. We believe that the Law of Moses was in force for a time, and then was replaced by something else. In both cases, God was still God. In the case of plural marriage, it was a commandment for time, and then, for whatever his reasons, wasn't anymore. It had been a commandment before, but isn't now.
Hmm...that does make me wonder. What do you think about Abraham, etc. having multiple wives? Not okay then, or still okay today?
Polygyny is permitted by the Torah. Back around 976 CE, a great rabbi named Rabbenu Gershon issued a "temporary" ruling forbidding it. The ruling was said to be "until the end of 1000 years". There were some who felt that he meant until the end of the millenium, and the Jewish year 5000 started in 1239. But when 1239 came along, the other view won out, which was that he meant a full 1000 years from the time of the decree.
In 1976, the issue came up in Israel. Basically, it's technically permissible now, but we don't do it as a matter of custom. In very rare cases, such as if a woman refuses to accept a divorce, there are courts that will permit a man to marry another wife.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:It's better than God changing His mind, I think. But then, we think God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, which I've been told (by Geoff Card) isn't the case with Mormons.
I don't think God did change His mind in that case-- I think He retracted permission to live that commandment at the current time; it was never lived entirely the way it was intended, anyway. And I think the understanding of the last part can be different; I believe that God is all those things.
So you disagree with Geoff? I don't want to get in the middle of an internal Morman dispute, but he was pretty clear when he said that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why would non-Jews be held accountable for idolatry?
Why not? I mean, I don't mean to be flip, but it's one of the Noachide laws that God commanded all mankind. No one is permitted to be an idolator.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:The way I understand it Jews are responsible for following the torah based on their birth. If they leave the faith they don't suddenly get to just follow the 7 laws of Noah.
This is a perfectly reasonable philosophical view, provided that the child is adequately schooled in his faith. Where this gets sticky for me is in a theoretical state where Judaism is both the predominate religious power and the law of the secular state. Are there "sins" or crimes for which death is the punishment for a Jew (but not a gentile) that would be enforced in a Jewish court? If so, is there a way for a Jew to denounce his Jewish obligation and thereafter be treated as a gentile? Or would Jews be putting to death both Jew and gentile who did not obey Jewish capital law?
Well, there's also an obligation to educate our children in the law. That obligation falls on the parents, but devolves to the community if the parents are unable or unwilling to do so.
But no, you can never stop being a Jew. Cardinal Jean Marie Lustiger of Paris is Jewish. Had he become pope, there would have been a Jewish pope. As there have been in the past. Cardinal Lustiger is an idolator. But Jewish law also has a category called tinok she'nishba, or "a captive child". It's the religious equivalent of a feral child. A Jewish child raised in ignorance of the law can hardly be considered to be sinning intentionally. So even though he's an idolator, it's a tragedy, rather than an outrage.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I think in the ancient past the only punishable by death crimes were idolatry, adultry, incest, murder, and violation of Shabbat. All except Shabbat, non-Jews would be held accountable for.
Which sidesteps my question. Assuming a Jewish court with civil dominion, must a Jew observe Shabbat or be put to death even if he intellectually and/or philosophically rejects the Jewish religion?
Yes. But again, he'd have to really work at it to get the death penalty. Judaism hasn't been voluntary since the Revelation at Sinai.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Wait.... so was there ever an anwser to that question? Can you use an electric oven?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Why would non-Jews be held accountable for idolatry?
G-d says so in the 7 laws of Noah.
So if the Jews ever get civil dominion over the rest of us we'd better follow the Jewish interpretation of what constitutes Idolatry or be put to death? This type of thinking terrifies me to the point of making Jewish persecution an understandable if regretable social by-product of a pluralistic society.
I wouldn't worry so much. We're not interested in civil dominion over anyone but ourselves.
If it ever happened, there'd be a conflict, sure. But take me, for example. I'm a fanatic extremist etc etc, but I would never dream of trying to enforce Jewish law in the US. I mentioned this during one of the interminable same-sex marriage threads. I am inalterably opposed to same-sex marriage within Judaism. And at the same time, I absolutely demand that the US government either get out of the marriage biz or make it equally accessible to gays and lesbians. It's not a contradiction.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Again, 3,000 years ago this may have been the case. Israel does not kill someone within its borders for worshipping idols.
That's for sure. There's a deli in the middle of Jerusalem that sells pork. The State of Israel is hardly a representative of Jews.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Cardinal Jean Marie Lustiger of Paris is Jewish.
Luckily for Cardinal Lustiger he's Catholic, so he's not an idolator.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Cardinal Jean Marie Lustiger of Paris is Jewish.
Luckily for Cardinal Lustiger he's Catholic, so he's not an idolator.
Lets all agree to disagree on that one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's fine. I'm just not going to stand by while serious accusations are hurled at specific people. If you want to keep it abstract, go for it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Good Golly, Lisa! Three and a half pages so far! I TOLD you that your rants get raves.
<grin> Though the length of my posts may have something to do with that.
Nah. Each page has fifty posts, whether the thread is "Word Associations" or a Lisa-rant.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Me, I prefer not to argue. I'm happy enough knowing that I am totally right.
:inscrutable smile:
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There are three (five, really) commandments that a Jew has to die rather than violate:
Murder
Idolatry
Gilui Arayot
That last is a category of sexual immorality that includes incest (specified), bestiality, male-male anal sex and adultery (limited to a married woman with a man not her husband)
In traditional Christian belief (or Catholic belief, in any case) something is not a sin if you do not have volition in the matter.
In Judaism, the factor of intent falls into three basic categories. Zadon is full intent and awareness of what you're doing wrong, and doing it anyway. Shegaga is doing it inadvertantly, but through negligence or insufficient knowledge when knowledge was attainable. And Oness means forced. This last includes true accidents. If I slip on a banana peel and fall against a lightswitch on Shabbat, turning off the light, it's oness and I'm completely exempt. If I'm walking out of a room and I flip the light off by habit, it's shegaga, and I'm not exempt, but it's not a huge deal, though in Temple times, I'd need to bring a sin sacrifice. If I decide, "Screw this, I want this light on," then it's zadon, and I'm a bad guy.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You have spoken several times of people hypothetically holding a gun to your head and ordering you to "sin," and when you could and when you must not, so I'm guessing that Orthodox Judaism does not make this distinction, or at least not all the time. Is this a correct assessment?
Not in the same way, it seems.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: In some of these cases you have specified that it would be better to die than to violate the commandment in, a person doesn't always have a choice. It's not "do this or I will shoot you." Rather, something is forced on a person, and they don't have the option to choose to die instead. I would argue that it's not a sin, but I'm not getting that sense from your post.
I'm not sure I understand the case.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: So what of a person forced to sin in such a manner? If you're supposed to die rather than commit a certain sin, then where does that leave you if you do sin?
There's always a choice. Choice can be influenced heavily by events, but it's still choice. If I'm hanging off the top of the Sears Tower by my fingernails, continuing to hang on is still a matter of choice. I could say it's the only real choice I have, but ultimately, I have the ability to choose. I mean, in the banana peel example above, there's no choice, but short of something like that, we don't recognize "no good choice" as being the same as "no choice".
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I got that . . . that wasn't what I asked . . . in fact, I specifically mentioned a situation where there was not a gun to the head, where one had a choice between sin and death, but rather a case in which there was simply no choice . . . my question was what did it mean, in practical terms, to say that it would be better to be killed rather than to be forced to committ one of these sins? Does that mean that you're damned in some way if you are forced to commit such a sin? Or is "preferable" in this case just an abstract concept?
Could you give an example?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Did non-Jews living in the area fall under the same judicial processes?
I believe so, but, of course, there were far fewer things that a non-Jew is forbidden to do.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Wait.... so was there ever an anwser to that question? Can you use an electric oven?
<laugh> No. Not on Shabbat. It's still cooking.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Cardinal Jean Marie Lustiger of Paris is Jewish.
Luckily for Cardinal Lustiger he's Catholic, so he's not an idolator.
Unfortunately for Cardinal Lustiger, his being a Catholic has no effect whatsoever on his being a Jew, so he is an idolator [edit: according to Jewish law].
Luckily for Cardinal Lustiger, God will take his unfortunate upbringing into account.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Good Golly, Lisa! Three and a half pages so far! I TOLD you that your rants get raves.
<grin> Though the length of my posts may have something to do with that.
Nah. Each page has fifty posts, whether the thread is "Word Associations" or a Lisa-rant.
Really? I hadn't realized that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Unfortunately for Cardinal Lustiger, his being a Catholic has no effect whatsoever on his being a Jew, so he is an idolator.
Fortunately for Cardinal Lustiger, he has been baptized and, presumably, regularly received the sacrament of reconciliation. Moreover, he is a member of a line of apostolic succession that runs back to Christ himself.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Dag, none of that means anything in terms of Jewish law.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: I am inalterably opposed to same-sex marriage within Judaism.
But don't you have a female partner?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I do. But we certainly would never have a "wedding".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, none of that means anything in terms of Jewish law.
And none of what you've said about the Cardinal means anything with respect to Canon Law.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Right. But then, I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Canon Law, and a great deal of indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish law.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
So is female-female sexual contact OK in Jewish law? (I'm asking in general and not prying into your personal activities, which of course are none of my business.)
Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
And thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, especially the one about an active court that required such a lengthy (but very interesting and informative) response. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Right. But then, I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Canon Law, and a great deal of indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish law.
I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish Law. Both of us were speaking in terms of what we believe to be the truth. Those truths are incompatible in this respect.
Your statements about the Cardinal are actual accusations levied at an actual person who is not here to defend himself, and presented not in the context of an explanation of Jewish Law but as a statement about him. I provided a contrary opinion, and will continue to do so.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That comes back down to the "does a person who chooses not to be a Jew get out of Jewishhood in the eyes of other Jews and/or the law" questions, I guess.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I got that . . . that wasn't what I asked . . . in fact, I specifically mentioned a situation where there was not a gun to the head, where one had a choice between sin and death, but rather a case in which there was simply no choice . . . my question was what did it mean, in practical terms, to say that it would be better to be killed rather than to be forced to committ one of these sins? Does that mean that you're damned in some way if you are forced to commit such a sin? Or is "preferable" in this case just an abstract concept?
Could you give an example?
Okay. You list some categories of laws that one must die rather than violate. I interpret that to mean, specifically, die rather than be forced to violate, because if one were willingly violating a law, then dying doesn't really come into the question, right? (In other words, as in your "gun to the head" example.)
Among those categories is a category of sexual immorality which includes male-male anal sex. So, if I am interpreting this correctly, a man or boy who is forced to engage in male-male anal sex, and who "chooses" to do this rather than die, has committed a rather serious sin. Is that a correct interpretation?
Now, my specific point was that when you are forced to do something, it is not always with a gun being held to your head. One can be raped, for instance, and not have the choice of death as an out. So . . . then what?
In Catholicism, if you commit a serious sin, you have a manner of achieving reconciliation. Is there such an option in Judaism? If so, then what does it mean to say that it would be preferable to die before committing a certain sin?
(I realize that this touches on more than one point.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
From what folks have said about the "laws" it makes more sense to me to say that Abraham could not have been Jewish according to current laws, than to say that he was Jewish.
Given that he was not Jewish, or that the laws did not apply to him, however, it sort of raises the question in my mind about the immutability of the laws. If there was a time before the current laws applied, it seems to beg the question of why there could never be a future time when the laws would not apply, or might be altered. Communication directly with man by G_d hasn't been ruled out, and it just seems like there'd be precedent for G-d making a new set of rules from time to time.
As for the piece of Scripture in which G-d says no changes will ever be made to the Torah law...well, there'd be a number of ways to handle that: 1) G-d could reinterpret Torah law emphasizing some things and all but doing away with others. 2) G-d could simply be inconsistent and leave us with yet another puzzle (I don't think this would be unprecedented, but you may disagree) 3) G-d could simply assert that the new law is written because humans proved incapable of following the old law. 4) G-d could explain that the old law has expired, or that mankind is now mature enough to take advantage of a new understanding. 5) G-d could explain that the prohibition against changing scripture applied to man and especially to the prophets because G-d wanted to be sure that when it WAS time for the law to change, G-d wanted to be sure we knew the change was from G-d.
I'm not saying that all of these are equally likely. I do think at least some of them have happened already, though.
Some would obviously disagree.
The question for Judaism is whether or not there's room in the religion for people who hold any view other than the one that says "the law has never and will never change."
I suspect that there will always be people who claim the answer is obviously NO. But just like in Christianity where it some people argue over who gets to call themselves Christian, the rules for what makes a Jew a Jew are probably subject to personal interpretation as much as they are subject to tradition, Scripture and commentary.
It doesn't really matter much that some groups are more numerous and some groups are louder, or more strident.
All that matters is what G-d thinks. And it appears to me that we know less about what G-d thinks than we suspect.
Posted by rajel_lebeina (Member # 8959) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I do. But we certainly would never have a "wedding".
ok, you won't have a wedding, but you're living with another woman as if you were married... isn't it like the intermarriage couples that are married by civil law, but no by Jupah? does that go with the Torá? your relationships are not my bussiness, but i'd like to know your opinion about that, thanks...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
I think that when Messiah comes and the Holy Temple is rebuilt that stuff will apply again. Until then, we muddle through.
Posted by rajel_lebeina (Member # 8959) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
i think you weren't askng me, but i'd like to answer that. I do not see it. and more, i wouldn't like to see it, as you said, it fulfilled its purpose. sacrifices were needed in those times, and it wasn't G-d that needed them, but the People. no they're not necesary, we have other ways to comunicate with G-d, we have mitzvot(it wouldn't be correct to call it "laws", it's more commandments), we have tefilah (praying). I wouldn't like to see that Beit Hamikdash (Temple of Jerusalem) rebuilt, at least not for sacrifices. we have this tefilah, musaf. in it we ask for the Temple's rebuilding... but I give it another sense... actually i have a problem with that, because I pray saying that i want G-d to rebuild the Temple, but I really don't mean it! hope it cleared things...
and for bob_scopatz, about Abraham being jewish or not, there's a source that says that Abrahanm respected all the jewish laws, even those ones that didn't exist in his time. but there in the Tora, we have Abraham ofering milk and meat to the three "men" that visited him. and law can be changed, actually it's been changed before, in the times of the mishna. (S -II; SII) now i have to leabe, but i'll continue this, bye!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
oh? I didn't know that About StarLisa, now I'm suddenly more intersted in the conversation for some reason...
Seriously, is it ok in Jewish Law for a woman to sleep with another woman? I know male-male sex is "wrong" by jewish law but it doesn't seem to mention woman on woman sex, why is that? I can think of socialogical explanations, such as when men wnet off to war letting woman fool around with other woman was preferable to woman fooling around with other men at home, since with women you didn't get pregnant and thus didn't complicate matters and could be done rather privately without causing rumors.
To me, everything generally evolves from a socioligcal point of view, societies changing views of homosexuality for example I explain as in early tribalism tribes would when competing for scarce resources need to produce as much offspring as possible ot survive, homosexual behaviour reduced the amount of offspring thus reducing their chances for survival so stern measures would be need to prevent that behavior from occuring.
Now with todays widely populated world and rapidly depleting our natural resources reducing the number of births becomes needed, if not enoucraged by natural laws, through either gov't policy (ie: China's One Child Policy), or through society as a whole, through the acceptance of behavior while odd reduces births and thus now helps to increase the odds of society surviving.
My 2 cents on that issue, as for Jewish Law while some of it seems kinda harsh to me I'm not Jewish but given the circumstances it is rational. I'm learning alot of stuff here that is greatly inspring and helping to chip away at my fundamental ignorance of Jewish Culture and is highly enlightening.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks rajel!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: we have Abraham ofering milk and meat to the three "men" that visited him. and law can be changed, actually it's been changed before, in the times of the mishna.
But he served the milk first, and then the meat. So it did not violate the rules of Kashrus.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:To me, everything generally evolves from a socioligcal point of view, societies changing views of homosexuality for example I explain as in early tribalism tribes would when competing for scarce resources need to produce as much offspring as possible ot survive, homosexual behaviour reduced the amount of offspring thus reducing their chances for survival so stern measures would be need to prevent that behavior from occuring.
Now with todays widely populated world and rapidly depleting our natural resources reducing the number of births becomes needed, if not enoucraged by natural laws, through either gov't policy (ie: China's One Child Policy), or through society as a whole, through the acceptance of behavior while odd reduces births and thus now helps to increase the odds of society surviving.
This is a very simplistic view of the issue, and one not really born out by the facts. Homosexuality has had varying degrees of acceptance in different cultures that seems to have little to do with population and tribal survivability. Many native American tribes accepted homosexual men as "two-spirited" and even gave them places of honor and influence in the tribe, believing them to be closer to the spirit-world because of their embodiment of both male and female characteristics.
The problem with making un-supported suppositions about homosexuality in tribal times is two-fold. First, few hard records exist documenting such practices. Second, there has been an active and often fierce effort on the part of dominant western society to purge such practices from conquered peoples and to irradicate records of such practices to avoid any cross-cultural influence.
[/derail] (Though I am very interested in starLisa's thoughts on lesbianism in Jewish law/culture).
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Oh, how I wish that the Orthodykes website (www.orthodykes.com) wasn't out of commission! It has a wealth of well-researched information on everything you ever wanted to know (and more) about Orthodox Jewish law and lesbians.
Kudos, by the way, to the author of the site. If you could see it, I'm sure you'd be impressed.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well they get three snaps in a circle for the name alone. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I know. Pure poetry.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
*fits of the giggles*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I only just now popped into this thread, and I'm actually amazed and baffled to see people offended by the fact that other people aren't offended by something.
Lisa, seriously, your whole rant boiled down to "People, this whole holiday is about killing you! Why don't you get the point and die already?"
--------
quote: We're not interested in civil dominion over anyone but ourselves.
And since by "ourselves" you mean "anyone born to a woman born of a Jewish woman," you mean quite a lot of people -- including Catholic cardinals. The number of people who would choose to live under your interpretation of Jewish law is considerably smaller than the number of people you'd be putting to death for violating it.
This attitude, Lisa, is unrepentantly evil.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*sigh*
Now I remember why I haven't felt any great need to visit more often . . .
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not really, imho. Jewish Law seems from my understanding from paying atention to the thread is utilizing the death penalty for capitol cases and onyl capitol cases, there is several different versions of what constitutes a sin, as true accident, habitual accident, and intentional accident and the degree of punishment is metted out accordingly aong rather rational lines and the death penalty seems only to be metted out for cases that even in todays society are extremely rare and treated very if not equally seriously.
However, StarLisa also I don't think said all who are born to a Jewish Woman while automatically Jewish have to follow those laws if they are not Jewish except to when it was required for Gentiles to follow the other laws.
Alas there are plenty of Jewish Fundamentalists, Christian Fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists and just plain guys from Montana....
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Blayne, you need to parse that and re-write it. You've just said basically that the death penalty is only handed out in cases worthy of death and only applies to Jews who are Jewish.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I got that . . . that wasn't what I asked . . . in fact, I specifically mentioned a situation where there was not a gun to the head, where one had a choice between sin and death, but rather a case in which there was simply no choice . . . my question was what did it mean, in practical terms, to say that it would be better to be killed rather than to be forced to committ one of these sins? Does that mean that you're damned in some way if you are forced to commit such a sin? Or is "preferable" in this case just an abstract concept?
Could you give an example?
Okay. You list some categories of laws that one must die rather than violate. I interpret that to mean, specifically, die rather than be forced to violate, because if one were willingly violating a law, then dying doesn't really come into the question, right? (In other words, as in your "gun to the head" example.)
Among those categories is a category of sexual immorality which includes male-male anal sex. So, if I am interpreting this correctly, a man or boy who is forced to engage in male-male anal sex, and who "chooses" to do this rather than die, has committed a rather serious sin. Is that a correct interpretation?
Now, my specific point was that when you are forced to do something, it is not always with a gun being held to your head. One can be raped, for instance, and not have the choice of death as an out. So . . . then what?
In Catholicism, if you commit a serious sin, you have a manner of achieving reconciliation. Is there such an option in Judaism? If so, then what does it mean to say that it would be preferable to die before committing a certain sin?
(I realize that this touches on more than one point.)
Being raped is not a sin. No repetence is required nor necessary. Dying or being forced to have male-male anal sex, the later would probably be preferred. Being forced to have sex with the threat of death or even being beaten is rape.
Repetence and reconciliation is not as big a part of Judaism as it appears to be in most Christian religions. Yes there are several forms of it including fasting on Yom Kippur, and apologizing to those you wronged. As Lisa mentioned there is sort of a time out zone for up to a year after death.
This all stems from Jews not really going for the whole Heaven/Hell thing as well. I think its actually much simpler. If you do good, good will come to you. (See My Name is Earl.) We are more concerned about making sure this is a good life, then we are about whatever world may come after.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: From what folks have said about the "laws" it makes more sense to me to say that Abraham could not have been Jewish according to current laws, than to say that he was Jewish.
Given that he was not Jewish, or that the laws did not apply to him, however, it sort of raises the question in my mind about the immutability of the laws. If there was a time before the current laws applied, it seems to beg the question of why there could never be a future time when the laws would not apply, or might be altered. Communication directly with man by G_d hasn't been ruled out, and it just seems like there'd be precedent for G-d making a new set of rules from time to time.
As for the piece of Scripture in which G-d says no changes will ever be made to the Torah law...well, there'd be a number of ways to handle that: 1) G-d could reinterpret Torah law emphasizing some things and all but doing away with others. 2) G-d could simply be inconsistent and leave us with yet another puzzle (I don't think this would be unprecedented, but you may disagree) 3) G-d could simply assert that the new law is written because humans proved incapable of following the old law. 4) G-d could explain that the old law has expired, or that mankind is now mature enough to take advantage of a new understanding. 5) G-d could explain that the prohibition against changing scripture applied to man and especially to the prophets because G-d wanted to be sure that when it WAS time for the law to change, G-d wanted to be sure we knew the change was from G-d.
I'm not saying that all of these are equally likely. I do think at least some of them have happened already, though.
Some would obviously disagree.
The question for Judaism is whether or not there's room in the religion for people who hold any view other than the one that says "the law has never and will never change."
I suspect that there will always be people who claim the answer is obviously NO. But just like in Christianity where it some people argue over who gets to call themselves Christian, the rules for what makes a Jew a Jew are probably subject to personal interpretation as much as they are subject to tradition, Scripture and commentary.
It doesn't really matter much that some groups are more numerous and some groups are louder, or more strident.
All that matters is what G-d thinks. And it appears to me that we know less about what G-d thinks than we suspect.
G-d is all knowing. Why would he create laws that He knew would need changing? Also the laws as I read them are just as suitable today as they were then. While the punishments for breaking the laws have mellowed a bit.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I only just now popped into this thread, and I'm actually amazed and baffled to see people offended by the fact that other people aren't offended by something.
Lisa, seriously, your whole rant boiled down to "People, this whole holiday is about killing you! Why don't you get the point and die already?"
--------
quote: We're not interested in civil dominion over anyone but ourselves.
And since by "ourselves" you mean "anyone born to a woman born of a Jewish woman," you mean quite a lot of people -- including Catholic cardinals. The number of people who would choose to live under your interpretation of Jewish law is considerably smaller than the number of people you'd be putting to death for violating it.
This attitude, Lisa, is unrepentantly evil.
So if the Catholic Cardinal one day decided to denouce Catholicism and go back to his Jewish roots no one would say he was going to Hell?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Catholics would no longer kill him for it, and I doubt there are many Catholics on the planet who long for the days when they would have.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
The difference, Stephen, is that Catholicism allows for apostasy. The Cardinal would probably be condemned to Hell in the minds of Catholics and maybe even in reality when God does whatever judging he's assumed to have in store. From what starLisa has written, it appears to us non-Jews that it is possible that if Orthodox Jewish Law were able to have its way those born Jewish by their standards would have to live by Jewish law including in capital cases even if they themselves believed that the only thing Jewish about them was their parentage. In other words, people because of their birth would be forced to abide by a religious code that they didn't believe or indeed actively chose to dis-believe. This is what Tom is calling unrepentantly evil. IMHO.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Catholics would no longer kill him for it, and I doubt there are many Catholics on the planet who long for the days when they would have.
As Jews would no longer kill him, and I don't think Lisa ever mentioned wanted to go back to those days. Even if she did, she explained how difficult it was to put someone to the death.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't think Lisa ever mentioned wanted to go back to those days.
See, I picked up a very strong sense of regret that Israel isn't already back in those days. And the fact that it'd be difficult to execute someone for not observing the Sabbath is, in my opinion, kind of like saying "we'll shoot deserters, but not if we miss."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: The difference, Stephen, is that Catholicism allows for apostasy. The Cardinal would probably be condemned to Hell in the minds of Catholics and maybe even in reality when God does whatever judging he's assumed to have in store. From what starLisa has written, it appears to us non-Jews that it is possible that if Orthodox Jewish Law were able to have its way those born Jewish by their standards would have to live by Jewish law including in capital cases even if they themselves believed that the only thing Jewish about them was their parentage. In other words, people because of their birth would be forced to abide by a religious code that they didn't believe or indeed actively chose to dis-believe. This is what Tom is calling unrepentantly evil. IMHO.
Well I like to assume my religion has come a long way, and the most that would happened is that he would be shunned by the local community. (Assuming of course the entire world were run by Jews, which will never happen).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Even if she did, she explained how difficult it was to put someone to the death.
The problem is that the "difficulty" she is describing is that they'd only put to death the people who valued personal liberty so much that they'd be willing to die rather than to submit. So since most people will submit to a totalitarian regime rather than die, capital punishment would be relatively rare. It's no consolation to people who value personal liberty that they are given the choice to throw it away before the death sentence is handed down.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Even if she did, she explained how difficult it was to put someone to the death.
The problem is that the "difficulty" she is describing is that they'd only put to death the people who valued personal liberty so much that they'd be willing to die rather than to submit. So since most people will submit to a totalitarian regime rather than die, capital punishment would be relatively rare. It's no consolation to people who value personal liberty that they are given the choice to throw it away before the death sentence is handed down.
What you are discussing would probably be the case in any totalitarian regime solely based on any one religion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: So if the Catholic Cardinal one day decided to denouce Catholicism and go back to his Jewish roots no one would say he was going to Hell.
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS NOSTRA AETATE PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
(All of this is worth reading, but here is part of the section on Jews.)
quote: 4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: What you are discussing would probably be the case in any totalitarian regime solely based on any one religion.
Which is why I thank the forces of social evolution every day that Christianity and Judaism are so fractured that by the time their power infringes on my rights it's largely in its most watered down form. Long live the unorthodox. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: So if the Catholic Cardinal one day decided to denouce Catholicism and go back to his Jewish roots no one would say he was going to Hell.
DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS NOSTRA AETATE PROCLAIMED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
(All of this is worth reading, but here is part of the section on Jews.)
quote: 4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)
I knew about that, but I'm curious how they respond to Catholics converting to Judaism.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote: What you are discussing would probably be the case in any totalitarian regime solely based on any one religion.
Which is why I thank the forces of social evolution every day that Christianity and Judaism are so fractured that by the time their power infringes on my rights it's largely in its most watered down form. Long live the unorthodox.
Now that I agree with you on. But raises a good question. Can one have a successful religious state without being totalitarian as Israel has been attempting to do?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I knew about that, but I'm curious how they respond to Catholics converting to Judaism.
I assume it would be considered apostacy, which results in automatic excommunication. So yes, it is likely that were the Cardinal to renounce Catholicisim, many Catholics would say he is going (or likely to go) to hell (assuming there was no absolution at a later time, of course).
And if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew, I would expect a Jewish person to post that no, he's not, because he's following God's commands.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I knew about that, but I'm curious how they respond to Catholics converting to Judaism.
I assume it would be considered apostacy, which results in automatic excommunication. So yes, it is likely that were the Cardinal to renounce Catholicisim, many Catholics would say he is going (or likely to go) to hell (assuming there was no absolution at a later time, of course).
And if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew, I would expect a Jewish person to post that no, he's not, because he's following God's commands.
And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:G-d is all knowing. Why would he create laws that He knew would need changing?
Because people change. At least that's the excuse given the other times that the law changed, isn't it?
quote: Also the laws as I read them are just as suitable today as they were then.
Since you put "as I read them" it seems pretty obvious that you'd agree with my point about this all becoming a matter of personal choice and belief rather than universally applicable to any given subset of the human population (other than the subset that agrees to the laws, of course).
quote:While the punishments for breaking the laws have mellowed a bit.
I've always viewed the punishments as PART of the religious laws. They sort of help to define which things are minor and which are major. At least, it's one way of getting that information. So, if the punishments have changed, the LAW has indeed changed. At least, it's an example of my method #1 (that I borrowed from StarLisa) about G-d simply changing the law by reemphasizing parts of it and deemphasizing other parts of it.
Posted by adam613 (Member # 5522) on :
quote:(Assuming of course the entire world were run by Jews, which will never happen).
quote:And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
It's a fairly important tenet of all Christianity that I'm aware of that only God can condemn someone to Hell. Is that not a precept of the Jewish faith as well?
It seems that speculating on the likely fate of others is a favorite passtime of most humans of any religious affiliation. Christianity includes Scripture that bars us from that as well. Some people don't agree with that, or don't work very hard to avoid it. Some of us try REALLY hard not to judge others, even in a speculative fashion.
I can't say it's easy, but I personally view it as one of the most important points in my belief about God and salvation. That it's entirely in God's hands and I have NOTHING whatsoever to say about anyone's salvation (or lack thereof) other than my own.
If I have children, I have a responsibility to them to pass on as true a picture of God's message as I possibly can, and in that way I have an awesome responsiblity for enabling their salvation through instruction they may not obtain as well from other sources. But ultimately, their fate is a matter for themselves and God as well. I can't controlit for better or worse.
In the case of dependent child, I do think that a parent may have the responsibility to speculate about it (their likelihood of salvation), but only in so far as it motivates the parent to provide good instruction and good examples.
A non-religious equivalent would be that the parent has a responsibility to ensure that the child is given the tools and knowledge to grow into a "good person" and thus must, at times, speculate on the likelihood of that happening given the child's current knowledge and attitude...
Other than that, though I can see absolutely no valid reason to speculate about another person's relationship with God or their eventual fate.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: So is female-female sexual contact OK in Jewish law? (I'm asking in general and not prying into your personal activities, which of course are none of my business.)
So I assume. As far as female-female sexual contact is concerned, it's an area of unclarity. There's a statement in the Talmud that refers to "Women who mesollel with one another". Various commentators explain that word in different ways.
There's no question but that mesolleling is forbidden. Though since it's not included in the arayot, the extensions I mentioned earlier don't apply.
One well known rebbetzin has told people that it means having sex in the missionary position. I believe the term for that is tribadism. Others have suggested that it refers to using something for penetration. I don't think there are any sources which treat it as "sexual intimacy between women", but because translations have to be clear, the term is often (mis)translated as "lesbianism" in English-language books.
A very important rabbi who was interviewed for the documentary Trembling Before G-d said outright that there's no reason two women can't set up a household together. His comments didn't make it into the documentary (which was the primary reason I had my name taken out of the credits).
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
It'll certainly be back. I know it may seem strange to refer to a period of a couple of millenia as "temporary", but it really is.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: And thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, especially the one about an active court that required such a lengthy (but very interesting and informative) response.
I'm glad I could help. I'd actually been planning on explaining that all in the Judaism 101 thread I started some months ago, but I never got around to it.
I threw out my back yesterday morning, and it's giving me some extra time on the computer.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Right. But then, I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Canon Law, and a great deal of indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish law.
I don't think there was any indication that I was speaking in terms of Jewish Law. Both of us were speaking in terms of what we believe to be the truth. Those truths are incompatible in this respect.
Your statements about the Cardinal are actual accusations levied at an actual person who is not here to defend himself, and presented not in the context of an explanation of Jewish Law but as a statement about him. I provided a contrary opinion, and will continue to do so.
<shrug> Whatever. Knock yourself out. I adamantly refused to do something so lame as to preface every single remark I make with "according to Jewish law" on a thread entitled "Hanukkah rant" which has been almost exclusively devoted to talking about just that. I prefer to rely on the intelligence of the reader.
And what I wrote was not an accusation. Saying that Winona Ryder is actually a blonde is not an accusation; it's just a thing about her. That's no less true here. His apostasy isn't entirely his fault. He didn't choose to have a lunatic try and kill all the Jews, and he didn't choose to get raised by Catholics. If I point out that a feral child doesn't have good table manners, it's not an accusation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That comes back down to the "does a person who chooses not to be a Jew get out of Jewishhood in the eyes of other Jews and/or the law" questions, I guess.
And the answer remains "no". Do you think I'd refrain from eating some of my favorite foods and not use the computer on Shabbat (and so on) if I didn't have to?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
<-- would definitely be on the computer on Shabbos if it didn't violate Jewish law.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: You list some categories of laws that one must die rather than violate. I interpret that to mean, specifically, die rather than be forced to violate, because if one were willingly violating a law, then dying doesn't really come into the question, right? (In other words, as in your "gun to the head" example.)
Right.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Among those categories is a category of sexual immorality which includes male-male anal sex. So, if I am interpreting this correctly, a man or boy who is forced to engage in male-male anal sex, and who "chooses" to do this rather than die, has committed a rather serious sin. Is that a correct interpretation?
Yes. But that doesn't mean you have to kill yourself rather than submit to a rape, and it doesn't mean that if you don't, you've committed that sin.
I'd have a real problem judging someone who'd been put into that situation.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Now, my specific point was that when you are forced to do something, it is not always with a gun being held to your head. One can be raped, for instance, and not have the choice of death as an out. So . . . then what?
If you don't have a choice, you don't have a choice. That's no different than the banana peel example I used before.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: In Catholicism, if you commit a serious sin, you have a manner of achieving reconciliation.
Would a person in the case you mention be required to "achieve reconciliation" in Catholicism? In Judaism, such a person would be considered entirely blameless. A victim.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Is there such an option in Judaism? If so, then what does it mean to say that it would be preferable to die before committing a certain sin?
Well, the Torah treats a rape victim differently given the location. If it happens in a village, it's assumed that she could have cried out. If it's out in the middle of nowhere, it's assumed that she did cry out and just no one heard.
Nowadays, villages aren't like they used to be, and the option of crying out isn't necessarily there. Nor is it certain that you'll be heard.
But there's definitely a difference between "you can't prevent it, so just lay back and enjoy it", and fighting and losing. Someone who goes to jail and is so afraid that he agrees to be a "pet" in exchange for protection... I'm not sure that's justifiable. But again, God forbid I should ever find myself in a parallel situation, and I'm not about to judge someone who is.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
rofl
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
They could, but it wouldn't exactly be relevant, since that's not the situation being discussed. I'm sure that situation comes up often enough that it's relevant sometime.
quote:Whatever. Knock yourself out. I adamantly refused to do something so lame as to preface every single remark I make with "according to Jewish law" on a thread entitled "Hanukkah rant" which has been almost exclusively devoted to talking about just that. I prefer to rely on the intelligence of the reader.
I didn't say you needed to do that. I simply stated how I will respond when you make accusations against specific people.
quote:And what I wrote was not an accusation. Saying that Winona Ryder is actually a blonde is not an accusation; it's just a thing about her. That's no less true here. His apostasy isn't entirely his fault. He didn't choose to have a lunatic try and kill all the Jews, and he didn't choose to get raised by Catholics. If I point out that a feral child doesn't have good table manners, it's not an accusation.
I understand that's what you believe. I guess I'll just say that he's not the analog of the feral child, that being Catholic is a good thing, even for people whom Jewish law considers to be Jewish, and that your certainty doesn't make what you're saying true.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That comes back down to the "does a person who chooses not to be a Jew get out of Jewishhood in the eyes of other Jews and/or the law" questions, I guess.
And the answer remains "no". Do you think I'd refrain from eating some of my favorite foods and not use the computer on Shabbat (and so on) if I didn't have to?
See, that's the crux of my question which keeps getting side-stepped. You don't have to. You choose to follow the laws you feel apply to you as a Jewish person. If you choose not to, in this day and age that's between you and God. A Jewish court has no authority over you that you do not grant it.
My question is, would Jews by birth be held accountable and punished by a Jewish court even if they chose to not be Jewish in any other way than birth (which they can't change). Clearly, a Jew can say "I believe the Jews are mistaken, I wish to be a Catholic". If there were a Sanhedrin court would they punish him for Idolatry (for example) and hold him accountable in the same way they would a practicing, believing Jew?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: From what folks have said about the "laws" it makes more sense to me to say that Abraham could not have been Jewish according to current laws, than to say that he was Jewish.
Well, I did say that it's probably more correct to say that he wasn't. But only in the same way that a boy isn't a man.
And just out of curiosity, the quotes you have around the word laws... what's that about?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Given that he was not Jewish, or that the laws did not apply to him, however, it sort of raises the question in my mind about the immutability of the laws. If there was a time before the current laws applied, it seems to beg the question of why there could never be a future time when the laws would not apply, or might be altered.
In theory, it'd be possible. If God hadn't said Himself that it wasn't. "Eternal statute" means "eternal statute". It doesn't mean "until I say otherwise."
I mean, certainly there are laws that don't apply in certain situations. There's no Temple, so there are no Temple sacrifices. But the law is still there. The Temple goes up, and the sacrifices become just as obligatory as they ever were.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Communication directly with man by G_d hasn't been ruled out, and it just seems like there'd be precedent for G-d making a new set of rules from time to time.
Do you mean that it seems to you that there should be some such precedent? Because I don't get how you can say that it seems there would be. What's your basis for that?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: As for the piece of Scripture in which G-d says no changes will ever be made to the Torah law...well, there'd be a number of ways to handle that: 1) G-d could reinterpret Torah law emphasizing some things and all but doing away with others. 2) G-d could simply be inconsistent and leave us with yet another puzzle (I don't think this would be unprecedented, but you may disagree) 3) G-d could simply assert that the new law is written because humans proved incapable of following the old law. 4) G-d could explain that the old law has expired, or that mankind is now mature enough to take advantage of a new understanding. 5) G-d could explain that the prohibition against changing scripture applied to man and especially to the prophets because G-d wanted to be sure that when it WAS time for the law to change, G-d wanted to be sure we knew the change was from G-d.
Doesn't work. God doesn't have any place in such decisions any more. And He specifically said that if it appears He's trying to do so, it means that He's testing us. Check out the stuff in Deuternomy. He didn't leave any loopholes.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I'm not saying that all of these are equally likely. I do think at least some of them have happened already, though.
Some would obviously disagree.
<grin> Gee, you think? The problem is, you're throwing those things out there and then proceeding from the assumption that they're valid, and going on to say that at least some of them have happened. But your initial premise is flawed. None of those are valid. God very clearly said that the Torah is not in heaven, but in our hands.
Do you know the story of Rabbi Eliezer the Great and the oven of Akhnai? Rabbi Eliezer was one of the greatest Sages living in his day, and a member of the Sanhedrin. A case came before the Sanhedrin relating to this oven. See, a vessel can become "ritual impure" (that's a bad translation, but the word tamei doesn't really translate well, so I'm going to use it anyway).
Generally, ovens were made of pottery. The Torah says that you can't repurify things made out of pottery due to their porousness, but that you have to break them. When broken, the pieces lose their impure status.
This oven of Akhnai was made of pieces. Some say that it could be taken apart and put back together again, and others say that it was an impure oven that had been broken and then cemented back together again. And the question was, since it was made of broken pieces, could it get impure again?
Rabbi Eliezer held that it could not. That it was a bunch of broken pieces, and not a solid oven. The majority of the Sages on the Sanhedrin held that it was an oven, and could become impure.
Rabbi Eliezer was sure that he was right. And he refused to acquiesce to the other Sages. When all of his arguments remained unaccepted, he started calling for miraculous signs, one after another. Each one was rejected by the Sages. In the end, he even shouted out, "If I am right, let heaven prove it!" and a voice came out of the sky saying, "Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the law agrees with him!"
Rabbi Joshua, one of the leaders of the Sanhedrin, stood up and quoted Deuteronomy: "The Torah is not in heaven". Rabbi Jeremiah explained that this means that now that we've been given the Torah, the decision making process is in our hands, and not God's.
Another rabbi, Rabbi Nathan, related that he saw Elijah the prophet (who never died) in the marketplace and asked him what God's reaction was to this. Elijah told him, "God laughed and said: My children have defeated me; my children have defeated me."
It's a bit like a parent's pride in their children finally realizing that they can figure things out on their own.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The question for Judaism is whether or not there's room in the religion for people who hold any view other than the one that says "the law has never and will never change."
Well, a lot depends on what you mean by "change". The Torah never has and never will change. But clearly, the specific rules we're required to follow at any given time, do. The Temple sacrifices is a case in point. The world changes, and the practical law relates to that. But in a specific way.
To use a mathematical/programming metaphor, the practical law is a function of a constant (the Torah and its properties and methods) and a variable (the current situation), as operated on by the methods prescribed in the Torah itself. And yes, I realize that's somewhat recursive. It's intended to be.
So if by law, you mean the practical law, as in "what do I do right now?", then you're right. It changes. But if you mean the Torah and its properties and methods, then no, they don't change. Ever.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I suspect that there will always be people who claim the answer is obviously NO. But just like in Christianity where it some people argue over who gets to call themselves Christian, the rules for what makes a Jew a Jew are probably subject to personal interpretation as much as they are subject to tradition, Scripture and commentary.
True enough. But freedom of choice doesn't mean the freedom to determine what is right and what is wrong. It's only the freedom to do what is right and what is wrong.
There are Jews who choose to eat pork. That doesn't mean that their choice makes that okay. It just means that they made the wrong choice. As they're able, but not entitled, to do.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It doesn't really matter much that some groups are more numerous and some groups are louder, or more strident.
That's right. A minority of Jews in the US, for example, keep the laws of the Torah. There are those who think that our being a minority means something. And it does, but not what they think.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: All that matters is what G-d thinks. And it appears to me that we know less about what G-d thinks than we suspect.
All we know about what God thinks is what He told us He thinks. Which may just be a bit more than you suspect.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I do. But we certainly would never have a "wedding".
ok, you won't have a wedding, but you're living with another woman as if you were married... isn't it like the intermarriage couples that are married by civil law, but no by Jupah? does that go with the Torá? your relationships are not my bussiness, but i'd like to know your opinion about that, thanks...
A Jew and a non-Jew living together isn't forbidden, as such. I had a non-Jewish roommate in college, for example.
Here's the thing. If we weren't Orthodox, you might have a point. But there are rules for what kind of assumptions it's permitted to make about other Jews; particularly other Orthodox Jews.
Let's say that we have an Orthodox Jew living in a country where pre-marital sex is considered not only completely normal and acceptable, but where getting married without a "test drive" is considered irresponsible, and a bit nutty. Like the US, for example.
Is it fair to assume that just because an Orthodox Jew lives in the US, he or she engages in pre-marital sex? Or is even okay with the practice? The answer is "no". Simply by being an Orthodox Jew, one asserts that what Jewish law says comes before what one wants.
Unfortunately, most people in the Orthodox Jewish community don't understand that this applies just as much to Orthodox Jews who are gay. Neither of us would ever do something that was forbidden. But neither of us is attracted to men, and we are in love and completely committed to raising our daughter as a good Torah Jew.
Find me an intermarried couple who are vocally committed to keeping Torah laws, and you might have a point. Personally, I don't think such a thing does or can exist.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Do you ever see a time when full observance of laws, like sin sacrifices and an active Sanhedrin court at the temple will be reinstituted, or do you believe this was something from a past time that has fulfilled its purpose?
I think that when Messiah comes and the Holy Temple is rebuilt that stuff will apply again. Until then, we muddle through.
I agree. There's just one catch. The Rambam (Moses Maimonides) says that the way we'll know that a certain person is the Messiah is by his doing certain things. Among them, getting the Temple rebuilt. So it's not really possible, at least according to the Rambam, to wait until we know someone is the Messiah before building the Temple.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: oh? I didn't know that About StarLisa, now I'm suddenly more intersted in the conversation for some reason...
<sigh> Oh, lovely... Blayne, with all due respect, that's a really lousy reason to get interested in this conversation. It isn't about me. Even if I was completely wrong to be a lesbian and have a partner and a child, it wouldn't change a single thing about what I've said. It would just mean that I'm doing something wrong. Happily, that's not the case.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Seriously, is it ok in Jewish Law for a woman to sleep with another woman?
Is this a practical question? Are you actually a Jewish woman asking whether you're allowed to sleep with another woman?
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I know male-male sex is "wrong" by jewish law but it doesn't seem to mention woman on woman sex, why is that?
The first, and best, reason is that it doesn't... because it doesn't. We don't know the reason for all of God's laws. We don't know why bacon is forbidden and cow tongue is permitted. I know a lot of people who'd like it to have been the other way around.
But beyond that, the essential act of sex from a Torah perspective, is penetration. By a penis. No penetration, no sexual act.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I can think of socialogical explanations,
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: To me, everything generally evolves from a socioligcal point of view,
Hmm... I get it. But we don't speak the same language here, Blayne. You're assuming that the law was invented by people for reasons of their own. And you're entitled to that belief, but if I believed that, I wouldn't waste my time with it. I like baby back ribs. I like shrimp cocktail. I don't like being told what to do.
I remember my Dad calling me in Israel when I hadn't been Orthodox for all that long. He said, "I don't get it. You probably have the worst authority problem of anyone I've ever met in my life. Of all the things you could possibly be doing, being an Orthodox Jew is just the strangest." I really don't like being dictated to. And believe me, if I wasn't convinced that this was actually real, I wouldn't give it two seconds of my time.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina: we have Abraham ofering milk and meat to the three "men" that visited him. and law can be changed, actually it's been changed before, in the times of the mishna.
But he served the milk first, and then the meat. So it did not violate the rules of Kashrus.
Whatever. Now explain how Amram married his aunt. The fact is, midrashim are midrashim. We don't take them literally.
My partner was once working in an Orthodox day school, and another teacher mentioned the story about Abraham getting thrown into the furnace by Nimrod. My partner pointed out that that story isn't actually in the Torah. That it's a midrash. And this woman was shocked. She insisted that it was so in the Torah. That's because she was raised without the distinction being made. When she looked it up and found out it really wasn't there, she was totally blown away.
Og didn't necessarily survive the Flood by hanging onto the side of the Ark. The Midrash Says is not a history book.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Judaism is different than most other religions in that is is more a birthright than a faith. Whether you are Jewish has nothing to do with your beliefs and faith, and everything to do with your heredity (except in the unusual circumstance of conversion).
I don't "choose" to be Jewish, I am Jewish. And being Jewish means that I have a whole bunch of commandments that apply to me and my people. I don't choose whether or not they apply to me -- they do. I do, however, choose to try to follow as many of the commandments as I am able. I figure that if the Big Guy gives an order, I'd better do what he says.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Oh, how I wish that the Orthodykes website (www.orthodykes.com) wasn't out of commission! It has a wealth of well-researched information on everything you ever wanted to know (and more) about Orthodox Jewish law and lesbians.
Kudos, by the way, to the author of the site. If you could see it, I'm sure you'd be impressed.
Oh. Right. My bad. When that server crashed the websites went down as well. Hold on a sec...
There we go. Back up. But as completely out of date as it was before the crash.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Well they get three snaps in a circle for the name alone.
<laugh> I wish I could take credit for it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I only just now popped into this thread, and I'm actually amazed and baffled to see people offended by the fact that other people aren't offended by something.
Lisa, seriously, your whole rant boiled down to "People, this whole holiday is about killing you! Why don't you get the point and die already?"
Wow. That's an interesting take. Actually, it's more like, "People, this whole holdiay is about killing you! Don't you see anything wrong about that? Why don't you take a lesson from Hanukkah and change, so that you can still celebrate Hanukkah without being completely hypocritical and blissfully unaware of it?"
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: --------
quote: We're not interested in civil dominion over anyone but ourselves.
And since by "ourselves" you mean "anyone born to a woman born of a Jewish woman,"
Was that a typo? Just "born to a Jewish woman" is fine. And let's not forget people who have converted according to Jewish law.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: you mean quite a lot of people -- including Catholic cardinals. The number of people who would choose to live under your interpretation of Jewish law is considerably smaller than the number of people you'd be putting to death for violating it.
I wouldn't be putting anyone to death. I'm not qualified to sit on a beit din or to be a witness before one.
And like I said, the whole concept of a death penalty in Jewish law is something with almost insuperable barriers in its way. The main purpose, in practice, of something being a capital crime in Judaism, is as a gauge of how major a violation is. For instance, lighting a fire on Shabbat is a capital crime. Eating a pork chop is not. It's clear from this that lighting a fire on Shabbat is a much worse violation than eating a pork chop.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This attitude, Lisa, is unrepentantly evil.
Tomato, tomahto. There's a context here, Tom.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I knew about that, but I'm curious how they respond to Catholics converting to Judaism.
I assume it would be considered apostacy, which results in automatic excommunication. So yes, it is likely that were the Cardinal to renounce Catholicisim, many Catholics would say he is going (or likely to go) to hell (assuming there was no absolution at a later time, of course).
And if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew, I would expect a Jewish person to post that no, he's not, because he's following God's commands.
I wouldn't post anything like that. If the person was Jewish to begin with, I'd be happy that he'd abandoned his apostasy and returned to God. But since I think that Hell is a really eerie and distasteful fantasy, I wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another. I mean, if you tell me I'm going to Neverland or the Kingdom of Make-believe when I die, should I care?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew, I would expect a Jewish person to post that no, he's not, because he's following God's commands.
And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
Only if the person believed that there was a Hell to be condemned to.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:G-d is all knowing. Why would he create laws that He knew would need changing?
Because people change. At least that's the excuse given the other times that the law changed, isn't it?
Um... what "other time" would that be? The law has never changed. Sinai is the point at which it was given and Jews, as such, were created. We came into existence at the same time as the Torah. It's never changed.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I've always viewed the punishments as PART of the religious laws. They sort of help to define which things are minor and which are major. At least, it's one way of getting that information.
Exactly.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: So, if the punishments have changed, the LAW has indeed changed.
No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: At least, it's an example of my method #1 (that I borrowed from StarLisa)
You misunderstood. When the prophets railed against people who were blowing good behavior off in favor of sacrifices, they never, ever, suggested that the sacrifices were any less obligatory. They were merely pointing out that the ability to bring a sacrifice didn't exempt them from good behavior.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:And would probably throw in that it is pure evil to condemn someone to Hell just because they don't believe in Jesus.
It's a fairly important tenet of all Christianity that I'm aware of that only God can condemn someone to Hell. Is that not a precept of the Jewish faith as well?
Nope. Like I said, we don't have Hell. We don't believe there is such a thing. And we're more than a little frightened by the kinds of people who do.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It seems that speculating on the likely fate of others is a favorite passtime of most humans of any religious affiliation.
You shouldn't tar us with the flaws of Christianity. We're not actually that concerned about such things.
"Antigonus of Socho received the Torah from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: Be not like servants who minister unto their master for the sake of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve their master not upon the condition of receiving a reward; and let the fear of Heaven be upon you." (Pirkei Avot 1:3)
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Christianity includes Scripture that bars us from that as well. Some people don't agree with that, or don't work very hard to avoid it. Some of us try REALLY hard not to judge others, even in a speculative fashion.
We also don't have "Judge not, that ye not be judged". Personally, I prefer Ayn Rand's version: "Judge, and prepare to be judged."
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Other than that, though I can see absolutely no valid reason to speculate about another person's relationship with God or their eventual fate.
Same here. If I say that someone is an idolator, it's no different than my saying that John Dillinger was a bank robber. It's simply a characteristic based on actions. It doesn't necessarily say anything about the inner person.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: That comes back down to the "does a person who chooses not to be a Jew get out of Jewishhood in the eyes of other Jews and/or the law" questions, I guess.
And the answer remains "no". Do you think I'd refrain from eating some of my favorite foods and not use the computer on Shabbat (and so on) if I didn't have to?
See, that's the crux of my question which keeps getting side-stepped. You don't have to. You choose to follow the laws you feel apply to you as a Jewish person.
Of course I choose to. I choose to do what's right, and I happen to know what that is. If I were to choose otherwise, I'd be doing what's wrong, and that would make me feel bad about myself. I pride myself on living by my principles.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If you choose not to, in this day and age that's between you and God. A Jewish court has no authority over you that you do not grant it.
Sure it does. Look, Saddam Hussein got up in court and denied the authority of the court that was trying him. Good for him. I hope it made him feel good. Did it mean that they don't have authority over him? No, it just means that he chooses not to recognize it.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: My question is, would Jews by birth be held accountable and punished by a Jewish court even if they chose to not be Jewish in any other way than birth (which they can't change).
Yes.
Look, let me give you an example that has nothing to do with punishments. Maybe it'll help clear things up a bit.
We aren't allowed to cook things on Shabbat. So what's the deal with eating something that someone else cooked on Shabbat?
Well, there are three cases. In one, the person cooking it wasn't Jewish, and cooked it because he wanted to cook it. That, I can eat immediately after that Shabbat. In other words, I can't eat it on the Shabbat on which it was cooked, but after that Shabbat ends, I can eat it.
The second case is where the cook wasn't Jewish, but was cooking it at the behest of a Jew. In that case, I can eat it after Shabbat, but I have to wait after Shabbat the amount of time that it would have taken had it started being cooked after Shabbat. So I might as well have waited.
And the third case is where the cook was Jewish. Whether he considers himself Jewish or not. In that case, I can't eat it. Ever. It's like a pork chop for me. Nor, I'd add, would I be allowed to give it to someone who is Jewish, whether the recipient knows it or not, or accepts it or not.
If my brother, who isn't observant, comes into my bedroom on Shabbat and turns on a light for me to read by, I can't read in there. If I want to read, I have to go elsewhere.
I remember once, we were in a hotel room on Shabbat, and he was watching TV. He decided to go somewhere, and he turned to me and said, "Do you want me to turn the TV off?" And boy howdy, did I want that TV off. But I had no choice but to say, "No, leave it on."
A Jew is a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. There's no exit door.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Clearly, a Jew can say "I believe the Jews are mistaken, I wish to be a Catholic". If there were a Sanhedrin court would they punish him for Idolatry (for example) and hold him accountable in the same way they would a practicing, believing Jew?
Of course. The Torah isn't binding on those Jews who accept it as binding. It's binding on all Jews. Period.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
It is somewhat to someone who was raised with no knowledge of it, and then decided to do a lot of research. I guess by having learned it all, and fealing unable to abide by it, I have condemned myself. I can't leave my fiance, and what you said before is right, its nearly impossible to have a Jewish household in an interfaith relationship. Even my reform Rabbi said that he is marrying us civilly, but by Jewish standards it is just a living arrangement.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
No big deal to you, I supposed, because it doesn't inconvenience you at all if others are forced to follow beliefs they don't hold. It's probably a big deal to a theoretical athiest Jew who finds himself in an orthodox Jewish controlled jurisdiction. I guess he could just move (Lord knows I would).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wouldn't post anything like that. If the person was Jewish to begin with, I'd be happy that he'd abandoned his apostasy and returned to God. But since I think that Hell is a really eerie and distasteful fantasy, I wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another. I mean, if you tell me I'm going to Neverland or the Kingdom of Make-believe when I die, should I care?
*laugh* For someone who says she wouldn't comment on hell, you seem to be doing an awfully lot of it in this thread.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
It is somewhat to someone who was raised with no knowledge of it, and then decided to do a lot of research. I guess by having learned it all, and fealing unable to abide by it, I have condemned myself. I can't leave my fiance, and what you said before is right, its nearly impossible to have a Jewish household in an interfaith relationship. Even my reform Rabbi said that he is marrying us civilly, but by Jewish standards it is just a living arrangement.
Things can change, Stephan. Who knows, maybe something will get your wife interested in Judaism, and she'll decide she wants to convert. If not, do the best you can. No one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. I admire the fact that you aren't letting your situation force you to engage in rationalizations. That's very unusual.
And you're right. I was wrong (and obnoxious) to toss it off as "no big deal". It took me almost four years from the time that I first realized that I had to be observant until I'd really stopped all of the things I knew were inappropriate. And I'm not in your situation. I can say objectively that you should be observant, but I'm not about to judge you personally. Do what you can.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote: No. Because the punishments have not changed. Only the current ability to enact them has changed. And that's temporary.
I guess when that day comes us Reformers better find someplace to hide?
Um... no. You could just start keeping the law. It isn't that big of a deal.
No big deal to you, I supposed, because it doesn't inconvenience you at all if others are forced to follow beliefs they don't hold. It's probably a big deal to a theoretical athiest Jew who finds himself in an orthodox Jewish controlled jurisdiction. I guess he could just move (Lord knows I would).
<shrug> I think that the income tax is immoral. I pay it anyway. Part of growing up is realizing that you don't make all the rules.
And before anyone says it, I'm quite aware that it's a flawed analogy, because you can get involved in government and change things in a way that you can't in Torah law. But practically speaking, good luck trying to get rid of the income tax. In practice, it's pretty much the same.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I wouldn't post anything like that. If the person was Jewish to begin with, I'd be happy that he'd abandoned his apostasy and returned to God. But since I think that Hell is a really eerie and distasteful fantasy, I wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another. I mean, if you tell me I'm going to Neverland or the Kingdom of Make-believe when I die, should I care?
*laugh* For someone who says she wouldn't comment on hell, you seem to be doing an awfully lot of it in this thread.
Really? I hadn't noticed that. In fact, until you raised it, I don't recall having gone anywhere near that topic. Perhaps you think I did because you assume that Hell has to enter into a discussion like this one. It doesn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I hadn't noticed that. In fact, until you raised it, I don't recall having gone anywhere near that topic.
Perhaps you missed my point: you said you wouldn't respond if someone brought up hell. And yet you did.
The fact that you only did so in response to a post of mine only makes it more relevant to the contrary behavior you claim you would engage in.
quote: Perhaps you think I did because you assume that Hell has to enter into a discussion like this one.
No, as I said above, I never claimed you brought up hell prior to my doing so.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
He probably thinks you were talking about hell because he saw you:
say the idea of hell is eerie
say the idea of hell is distateful
say hell is a fantasy
liken hell to Neverland and the Kingdom of Make-Believe
You've got to admit that this is not saying nothing on the subject of Hell.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Question, If I'm not Jewish (as far as I can tell I'm not Jewish) and Jewish Law is both the Law of the land both civily and religiously what Laws would I have to follow? Would the regular Criminal and Napoleonic Code + Charter of Rights and Freedoms basically the gist of it or are their specific laws that I would have to follow?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I hadn't noticed that. In fact, until you raised it, I don't recall having gone anywhere near that topic.
Perhaps you missed my point: you said you wouldn't respond if someone brought up hell. And yet you did.
Interesting. Here's a quiz for you. What do these have in common:
wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another
wouldn't comment on hell
wouldn't respond if someone brought up hell
The way I see it, the first one is what I said. The next two are your progressively less and less accurate misrepresentation of what I said. And to make your misrepresentations worse, the "it" in my original statement didn't refer to Hell. It referred to "if someone were to post to a message board that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew".
So okay, Dag. I get that you're pissed at me for what I'm posting here. But can't you do better than setting up strawmen and knocking them down?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The fact that you only did so in response to a post of mine only makes it more relevant to the contrary behavior you claim you would engage in.
quote: Perhaps you think I did because you assume that Hell has to enter into a discussion like this one.
No, as I said above, I never claimed you brought up hell prior to my doing so.
Nor did I ever say I wouldn't make any comments about Hell. So now can we get back to reality?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Question, If I'm not Jewish (as far as I can tell I'm not Jewish) and Jewish Law is both the Law of the land both civily and religiously what Laws would I have to follow? Would the regular Criminal and Napoleonic Code + Charter of Rights and Freedoms basically the gist of it or are their specific laws that I would have to follow?
The Noachide laws.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another
You've had an awful lot to say about "it" however you define "it." We've been exchanging posts about "it" now for a couple pages.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Further, you're the one who stated "Really? I hadn't noticed that" in direct response to "For someone who says she wouldn't comment on hell, you seem to be doing an awfully lot of it in this thread."
My last post on the previous page was to your contention that you hadn't noticed that you had said a great deal about hell in this thread, and that somehow the fact that you only did so in response to me lessened somehow what you were saying about it.
My contention: you've said a lot about hell. Your response: I haven't noticed that. And anyway, I only talked about it because you did.
You have, as Porter listed, said quite a bit about hell in this thread. I'm not sure why you didn't notice it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:wouldn't have much to say about it one way or another
You've had an awful lot to say about "it" however you define "it." We've been exchanging posts about "it" now for a couple pages.
How can what "it" is possibly be irrelevant here? As I said the first time around, contrary to what you presumed, I honestly wouldn't have much to say about someone saying "that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew". I still don't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I said the first time around, contrary to what you presumed, I honestly wouldn't have much to say about someone saying "that Cardinal X is going to hell because he renounced his faith and became a practicing Jew". I still don't.
I didn't presume ANYTHING about you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Mom! Dewey's touching me!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Life is unfair...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Mom! Porter's poking me!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
(and Porter, could you slow down your posting a bit. I'm trying to catch up, but I got a late start)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by adam613:
quote:(Assuming of course the entire world were run by Jews, which will never happen).
There. Fixed that for you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Lisa, in what context would killing someone who lights a fire on the Sabbath because their mother -- or, indeed, their mother's mother, or their mother's mother's mother -- happened to be a Jew not be monstrously evil?
Frankly, you sound remarkably conflicted about your God. I don't get the impression you like Him much, but grudgingly obey the rules -- often ridiculously confining and arbitrary rules and petty legalisms, like whether sex without penetration is permitted between two women, or whether flipping a light switch counts as labor -- anyway because you think you have no other choice. And if someone unlucky enough to be born into that circle decides for whatever reason that the rules are unnecessary, or the popular interpretation of them is wrong, and consequently chooses to live without some or all of them, you refuse to acknowledge their right to do so; you would still sentence them to death for disobedience. The fable you cited about the rabbi and the oven was a telling one to me: here we see people essentially gloating -- albeit semi-ruefully -- about out-kibbitizing God. There's something in that which I find remarkably tragic; it almost smacks of self-loathing.
I just don't understand, Lisa, why anyone would want to be a Jew in your world. You make it sound absolutely miserable.
[ December 22, 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And you probably would be.
Good thing God, in His infinite wisdom, didn't "circle" you.
I have no idea of what Lisa's relationship with God is (I leave that between her and Him), but you have made similar comments to me in the past. And let me tell you, I love Hashem. I love the mitzvos He has given to me, even though sometimes (many times!) I find some of them difficult. The beauty I find in His world and His commandments every day is something I do not know how to share with those who do not see Him as I do (and surely I have tried).
No one is "out-kibbitzing God" in that story. Rather, they are doing exactly what He commanded. You see it as tragic and self-loathing (?!?); I see it as a beautiful illustration of what our task (part of it, anyway) in this world is.
And that is because there are some very, very basic assumptions and understandings about how the universe works that Lisa and I share, and you do not. And try as you might, we will never be forced into the shape you believe the universe takes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Not nessasarily, the sex part is kinda up to interpretation and I'm sure there is a good enough arguement to support it (since us poor lonely men would be driven insane without Lesbians to drool over *grin*) but ya, in pretty much all if not most religions people who leave the religion to worship soem other religion is considered breaking the rules and thus by breaking it according to the laws would hypothetically deserve death, since we're operating under the assumption that the Jewish demonination of God is the true and only God then that would make sense, bah I don't know what I'm talking about.
Lisa doesn't make it sound miserable or else why would she "fanatically" as some people put, support it? Lisa from my POV seems quite proud to be Jewish and is doing her best to be a good Jew. I see nothing wrong with this or her perspective on Orthodoxed Jewish Law.
But then again maybe I shouldn't be defending people, I'm a bad debater sometimes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
W00t! Rivka explaned it better!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: since us poor lonely men would be driven insane without Lesbians to drool over *grin*
Uh. That is kind of offensive. You may be owing some Hatrackers an apology.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok I'm sorry Lisa and any others, but I did the "grin" to denote the intention of it for humor.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
From here, it looked like a lear.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jet?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It wasn't meant to be a leer. I'm completely respectful to the Lesbians I meet in person and work with some at my newspaper.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Lisa, in what context would killing someone who lights a fire on the Sabbath because their mother -- or, indeed, their mother's mother, or their mother's mother's mother -- happened to be a Jew not be monstrously evil?
You mean someone who lives in a society run according to Jewish law? Someone who clearly knows that they aren't allowed to do so and does it anyway, knowing full well what the penalty is?
A guy walks into a doctor's office and says "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor says, "So dummy, don't do that."
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Frankly, you sound remarkably conflicted about your God. I don't get the impression you like Him much, but grudgingly obey the rules -- often ridiculously confining and arbitrary rules and petty legalisms, like whether sex without penetration is permitted between two women, or whether flipping a light switch counts as labor --
That's your uninformed judgement. And for the record, "labor" isn't forbidden on Shabbat. Melacha is. Don't get your translation confused with the real thing, please.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: anyway because you think you have no other choice. And if someone unlucky enough to be born into that circle decides for whatever reason that the rules are unnecessary, or the popular interpretation of them is wrong, and consequently chooses to live without some or all of them, you refuse to acknowledge their right to do so; you would still sentence them to death for disobedience.
No, Tom. I wouldn't. Like I said, I'm not qualified to sit on a beit din or be a witness. I'm just saying what the law is. Why are you getting so emotional about it?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The fable you cited about the rabbi and the oven was a telling one to me: here we see people essentially gloating -- albeit semi-ruefully -- about out-kibbitizing God.
Which basically shows that you completely misunderstood it. It illustrates the fact that we have a responsibility, and that God specifically and intentionally shut the door on further divine revelations which add to, subtract from, or in any way modify the Torah. A lesson that seems to be hard for you to get, which I suppose is why it was necessary for it to be spelled out in that way.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: There's something in that which I find remarkably tragic; it almost smacks of self-loathing.
What? The story or the fact that I'm not absolutely thrilled to be Jewish?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I just don't understand, Lisa, why anyone would want to be a Jew in your world. You make it sound absolutely miserable.
It's not, you know. It's extraordinarily difficult for some people in some contexts. Would you have wanted to be a Jew during the Inquisition? Well, I'm not ecstatic about being gay when there's so much homophobia in the Orthodox community today. My issues are my issues. They have nothing to do with what Judaism is.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
(I saw an interesting presentation on issues in creating massive distributed computing systems that unified isolated submodels of behaviors in reactors of this type, to deal with the issues involved in truly large scale fusion reactors like this one is a first step towards).
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Blayne, Esther misspelled "leer" as "lear", which led to the association of Lear Jet. Or Norman Lear. Though no one thought of King Lear, it seems.
From jet, we got all sorts of takes on that, including JET and Jet Li and an actual jet plane.
This could go on for quite some time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
aaaaah, but you don't think I was learing at you right?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Though no one thought of King Lear, it seems.
I did. I just found jet more amusing.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Not reading the whole thread. Forget it!
But, I can say that the best parts of Hanukkah are: (a) Hallel Shalem (meaning you get to sing the whole Hallel on Rosh Hodesh), (b) the tune of "Banu khoshech legaresh", perfect for a horror movie, if in the right high-pitched, andante, staccato tone.
King Lear? Hanukkah? Not really. Can't see the connection with the exception of insane people.
Why don't we have Kohelet read in this weather! Argh! I hate reading it on sunny days!
But Lisa, you've got to agree that you've blown Hanukkah out of proportion. I'm not saying the Hasmonai dynasty is all fina, but the Hellanists have some recordas on the history log which aren't too flattering. Thing is, it's a good 8 days for family reunions and all that. I like the fact that Shabbat Hanukkah is also Shabbat Rosh Khodesh this year. Now, if I can only find a way to do Mussaf (as it is in the Yom-Tov tune)... Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:King Lear? Hanukkah? Not really. Can't see the connection
Yeah, well that's what happens when you don't read the whole thread. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: God specifically and intentionally shut the door on further divine revelations which add to, subtract from, or in any way modify the Torah.
And yet, in the story, God Himself weighs in on an issue to clarify a legalistic point, but acquiesces to a rabbi who tells Him, "sorry, it's not your place to do that."
I can understand the appeal, but there's a really depressing element of -- not hubris, because it's not personal pride -- whatever you'd call pride in legalism. The idea that the written Word of God is more binding than the actual words of God is something that I find perfectly in keeping with a culture that doesn't actually provide any legitimate means of escape for people born into it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hey Jon, no fair posting a "Goodbye" thread and then not leaving! How can we possibly talk about you behind your back if you do that!
It's just untrustworthy.
But, nice to see you, and I hope all is well with you.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: God specifically and intentionally shut the door on further divine revelations which add to, subtract from, or in any way modify the Torah.
And yet, in the story, God Himself weighs in on an issue to clarify a legalistic point, but acquiesces to a rabbi who tells Him, "sorry, it's not your place to do that."
Sure. The same God who specifically told us that He might test us in that kind of way.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I can understand the appeal, but there's a really depressing element of -- not hubris, because it's not personal pride -- whatever you'd call pride in legalism. The idea that the written Word of God is more binding than the actual words of God is something that I find perfectly in keeping with a culture that doesn't actually provide any legitimate means of escape for people born into it.
It's not just the written word of God. In fact, the primary corpus of Jewish law and lore is the oral part of the Torah that we received at Sinai. Have a look at the Torah 101 thread, if you're interested. The Torah, complete with the instructions by which we're supposed to use it, was given to us by God. You keep missing the point that God isn't time bound the way we are. God doesn't change. If God wanted, today, for us to do X, then He could have put X into the Torah at the get-go. And if He set things up so that no further divine input could be involved, it's because He also set it up with everything it would need.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [qb]
quote: God specifically and intentionally shut the door on further divine revelations which add to, subtract from, or in any way modify the Torah.
And yet, in the story, God Himself weighs in on an issue to clarify a legalistic point, but acquiesces to a rabbi who tells Him, "sorry, it's not your place to do that."
Sure. The same God who specifically told us that He might test us in that kind of way.
I'm very, very sorry - no blasphemy intended - but with that statement, I was reminded of that scene in Fight Club where Narrator was trying to collapse the plans for Project Mayhem, and went to the police, only to find himself horrified that many of them were already involved. He orders them to disband, and they think that he's testing them, and it was said (by him!) that if ever someone were to say what he's saying, or doing what he's doing, then, "we've gotta get your balls." - Narrator then switches around, and says something to the means of "You're right. It's a test. Carry on, and let me go". The spacemonkeys grin, and say "You told us you'd definitely say that.", and proceed to try and castrate their leader.
No real commentary on the discussion, there isn't a real parallel at all, I don't think, it's just what came to mind.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Question, If I'm not Jewish (as far as I can tell I'm not Jewish) and Jewish Law is both the Law of the land both civily and religiously what Laws would I have to follow? Would the regular Criminal and Napoleonic Code + Charter of Rights and Freedoms basically the gist of it or are their specific laws that I would have to follow?
The Noachide laws.
Definitely more lenient then past Christian and Islamic controlled governments.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Basically the major laws in todays society anyways. I already haven't broken any of them that I know of except for that body under the rug..... shuuush none of you heard that! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Basically the major laws in todays society anyways.
Except for those First Amendment issues.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Which, you know, aren't any big deal since no one should care about them enough to die for them. (And if you do, then you die, so it's still no big deal to the unchallengeable power structure.)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
On a slightly different subject, but related...what is the Jewish tradition surrounding the Kingdom of Judah and rediscovery of a book of the law during Josiah's reign?
Immediately prior to this point, were there people still following the law faithfully somewhere in Judah, just not part of the royalty or the temple priesthood? The account in 2 Kings of the Bible makes it sound like a priest "discovered" this book of laws somewhere in the temple -- like it'd been completely forgotten. Then Josiah kind of got inspired by the whole thing and besides dedicating himself to the law, he re-instituted Passover for the first time in what sounds like hundreds of years.
Is that what Jewish tradition says about it? I mean, I assume that must be because it's not like the books labeled Kings 1 and 2 in the Bible came from some other source, right? But I have been surprised by apparent differences in Scripture before.
If that is how it happened, when and how was the rest of the law recovered? Where did the knowledge of the complete law come from to reeducate the people -- were there more rediscovered books? G-d speaking through the Prophets? Or some other way?
Maybe I'm just mistaken, but the account of Josiah's reign makes it sound as if prior to him, over the course of a few hundred years after David and Solomon, the law was not only abandoned, but lost completely and no longer part of the culture of the southern Jewish kingdom.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
starLisa, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Karaites? Those who follow the written Torah very literally but reject rabbinic authority? I remember learning when I was 6 or 7 that they rejected Channukah, and this thread reminds me of that moment of shock.
On another note, I feel very different about my Judiasm than it is a set of laws to be followed. For me, one of the strongest parts about the faith is that so much of it is open to interpretation. There is no central authority saying, "You must believe thusly." The Scripture and the commentaries are there for all to see. The greatest thinkers have disagreed on pretty much every issue. To pick a couple small examples, I fail to see how glasses used with a milk meal and a meat meal can be washed together in a sink, but not a dishwasher. How putting a string around some telephone poles suddenly makes an enclosed area. The list continues.
Although I have respect for those who believe otherwise (four grocery stores to find rice wine with an acceptable heksher last night).
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Didn't he find the book of Deuteronomy?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: starLisa, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Karaites? Those who follow the written Torah very literally but reject rabbinic authority? I remember learning when I was 6 or 7 that they rejected Channukah, and this thread reminds me of that moment of shock.
On another note, I feel very different about my Judiasm than it is a set of laws to be followed. For me, one of the strongest parts about the faith is that so much of it is open to interpretation. There is no central authority saying, "You must believe thusly." The Scripture and the commentaries are there for all to see. The greatest thinkers have disagreed on pretty much every issue. To pick a couple small examples, I fail to see how glasses used with a milk meal and a meat meal can be washed together in a sink, but not a dishwasher. How putting a string around some telephone poles suddenly makes an enclosed area. The list continues.
Although I have respect for those who believe otherwise (four grocery stores to find rice wine with an acceptable heksher last night).
Good question, I'm curious what she has to say. I would assume as long as the Kairites study the torah and follow all of its laws she would have no problem with them.
Posted by rajel_lebeina (Member # 8959) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: But he served the milk first, and then the meat. So it did not violate the rules of Kashrus.
well, that's what the sages concluded because in the tora the milk is written before the meat, but yes, i knew that midrash, it's like you said. but i still think that laws changed. loads of times.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Didn't he find the book of Deuteronomy?
I don't know. Is that the story as you've learned it?
rajel -- do you have examples? I was challenged to produce some, but I'm not well equipped to do so at the moment.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:Didn't he find the book of Deuteronomy?
I don't know. Is that the story as you've learned it?
I was under the impression that he found the book of deuteronomy, then proceeded to gather together the scrolls that make up the Hebrew Scriptures. Not replacing old laws, but rediscovering them.
Posted by rajel_lebeina (Member # 8959) on :
quote: If we weren't Orthodox, you might have a point.
when you say "we" you mean you and your partner, don't you? and how do other orthodox take this?
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Whatever. Now explain how Amram married his aunt. The fact is, midrashim are midrashim. We don't take them literally. Og didn't necessarily survive the Flood by hanging onto the side of the Ark. The Midrash Says is not a history book.
My Rabbi says almost the same. But he says "The Tora is not a history book"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: On a slightly different subject, but related...what is the Jewish tradition surrounding the Kingdom of Judah and rediscovery of a book of the law during Josiah's reign?
Cool! You're a Lostie, too.
Actually, Eko got it more or less right. Josiah was the son of a vile critter named Amon, who only reigned for 2 years before being assassinated. Amon's father was Manasseh, son of Hezekiah (who gets mentioned a lot by Isaiah, who was his father-in-law). Manasseh had the longest reign in our history -- 55 years. At the beginning, he was incredibly horrible. An idolator (watch Dag go after me for that), and an active enemy of the Torah. Later in his reign, he repented somewhat, but it clearly was too late to make much of an impression on his son Amon.
When Josiah became king, he was pretty young. If I recall correctly, he was only 8. So someone was a regent for him, and presumably things kept going in the same direction that they had under Amon.
Eventually, Josiah had a spiritual awakening of sorts, and gave orders that the Temple be put back in order. During the renovations, they discovered the actual copy of the Torah that had been written by Moses. Moses had written 13 copies, one for each tribe and one to be kept in the Holy Ark. My guess is that this was the latter, since the Ark was in the Temple.
When they opened the book to look at it, well, remember that they didn't have bound books like we do nowadays. They were scrolls, wound around two wooden sticks. So when you open it up, it's at a particular place in the book. When they opened up this scroll, it was at the section where God threatens all sorts of nastiness if we don't keep His commandments.
This freaked Josiah and everyone else out, and they started a major renaissance. Josiah wiped out the high places, where people were sacrificing outside of the Temple. He pulled down all the shrines to Baal and Astarte and the rest of the fake deities that had multiplied in Judah after Hezekiah's death.
The northern kingdom of Israel had by this time been completely destroyed by the Assyrians, and the people mostly deported. The Assyrians colonized the vacated areas with tribes they'd conquered further north from us, and these tribes were the precursors of the Samaritans.
Josiah even campaigned into Samaritan-held territory (which, remember, was still Israel, regardless of who was controlling it at the time) to destroy some of the idolatrous stuff up there.
He did good. But it was too late. After he'd reigned for about 29 years (the renaissance started in his 18th, I think), Assyria found itself being ripped to shreds by a coalition of Babylonians and Medes and the like. Egypt, under Neku II (Pharaoh Necho of the Bible) rode out to help the Assyrians. Josiah knew that idolators weren't allowed on our soil, and he thought that the good stuff he'd done was enough to get God to help out. So he rode out to stop the Egyptians from passing through. It was a mistake. Josiah took an arrow in battle and died.
He'd done enough damage, though, that the Egyptians couldn't continue the campaign that year, and didn't actually get up to fight the Battle of Carchemish until the following year. But in the intervening time, they deposed Josiah's son and set a different son on the throne as a puppet. And so on and so forth. That's already a lot more than you'd asked for.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Immediately prior to this point, were there people still following the law faithfully somewhere in Judah, just not part of the royalty or the temple priesthood?
There were. For example, Jeremiah (granted, he was of a priestly family, but a lot of people were), Hulda and Zephaniah were leaders in those days. But it was pretty bad. During the days of Manasseh and Amon, things had gotten dangerous for those Jews remaining loyal to the Torah, and a lot of them had to hide out.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The account in 2 Kings of the Bible makes it sound like a priest "discovered" this book of laws somewhere in the temple -- like it'd been completely forgotten.
Well, it had been about 70 years or so. Enough time for a couple of generations to be born without having been raised knowing about the Torah. Think of the Soviet Union.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Then Josiah kind of got inspired by the whole thing and besides dedicating himself to the law, he re-instituted Passover for the first time in what sounds like hundreds of years.
It wasn't that he re-instituted it. Though he may have. Remember, the Temple was in Jerusalem, and with the king against Jewish practice, there wouldn't have been any way to bring the pascal offering. But it wasn't hundreds of years.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Is that what Jewish tradition says about it? I mean, I assume that must be because it's not like the books labeled Kings 1 and 2 in the Bible came from some other source, right? But I have been surprised by apparent differences in Scripture before.
That's pretty much what happened. The Sanhedrin went underground, and while people in outlying areas were fairly safe to practice Judaism, urban areas weren't. The kind of control that existed anywhere in those days, Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia, what have you, was nothing like what exists today, of course. Think of Spanish conquerers coming in and insisting that local paganism was forbidden. In many cases, people would just hide it. Think of Jews during the Spanish Inquisition. Same kind of thing.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If that is how it happened, when and how was the rest of the law recovered? Where did the knowledge of the complete law come from to reeducate the people -- were there more rediscovered books? G-d speaking through the Prophets? Or some other way?
Oh, it was never stamped out. Just barred from official life in the kingdom and the like. We kept on teaching the Torah when the Romans made it a capital crime. We went on circumcizing our sons when that was forbidden on pain of death. One of the reasons we got this job was that we're really, really stubborn. Stiffnecked, you know. A bad king or two was never going to stop us. It just made for a difficult period.
And remember also that the Davidic dynasty is important. You know the thing in the Arthurian stories where "the king is the land"? Well, with us, the king is the people. Josiah's repentance was a major thing.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Maybe I'm just mistaken, but the account of Josiah's reign makes it sound as if prior to him, over the course of a few hundred years after David and Solomon, the law was not only abandoned, but lost completely and no longer part of the culture of the southern Jewish kingdom.
It was the culture of the people living in that kingdom. But it had been banned from the official life of the kingdom.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Cool. Thanks.
I'm curious, there's a list of things taken by Babylon from the temple at the end of 2 Kings. It doesn't list the ark of the covenant. Any tradition that says it was actually still in the temple at the time of the exile of Judah? If so, was it taken into Babylon? Hidden? Destroyed?
Posted by rajel_lebeina (Member # 8959) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: rajel -- do you have examples? I was challenged to produce some, but I'm not well equipped to do so at the moment.
well, the reading of tora. in ancient times, when you were called to the Tora, to read your "aliah" ( a section of the weekly section called parasha) you had to say the blessing, and then read. but what happened if you couldn't read? there was this Baal Kriah ("owner of the lecture", who read it for you. to avoid the embarrasment of the men who had to say that they needed a baal kriah, now there's allways a baal kriah, and he/she read the section for you.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: starLisa, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Karaites? Those who follow the written Torah very literally but reject rabbinic authority? I remember learning when I was 6 or 7 that they rejected Channukah, and this thread reminds me of that moment of shock.
Well, the Karaites got their start when a guy named Anan ben David was passed over for the post of Exilarch in Babylon. The Sages had backed the other guy, so in a snit, Anan started a "movement" that rejected the Torah, and used the Written Torah alone. So yeah, they rejected Hanukkah, because it's not in the Bible.
The funny thing was that they quickly found that the Written Torah doesn't work on its own, and started making up their own oral traditions. Pity, because they could have just used the ones that God gave us.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: On another note, I feel very different about my Judiasm than it is a set of laws to be followed. For me, one of the strongest parts about the faith is that so much of it is open to interpretation. There is no central authority saying, "You must believe thusly."
<sigh> I grew up hearing that. "We're not like the Catholics. We don't have a Pope. We can do whatever works for us." And it's true, we don't have a Pope. But we do have an absolute authority, even though it's not currently active. It's not a "roll your own" thing. And there are black lines that when crossed result in something that isn't Judaism at all.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: The Scripture and the commentaries are there for all to see.
Those commentaries aren't just commentaries. They are explanations. The word "peirush" really shouldn't be translated as commentary, because it has a connotation that the original Hebrew doesn't support.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: The greatest thinkers have disagreed on pretty much every issue. To pick a couple small examples, I fail to see how glasses used with a milk meal and a meat meal can be washed together in a sink, but not a dishwasher.
Have you ever asked why that is, instead of just saying, "I fail to see"? And actually, you wouldn't put them in the sink together to be washed anyway.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: How putting a string around some telephone poles suddenly makes an enclosed area. The list continues.
Again, do you know what the source is of the laws of eruvin? Or does it just make no sense to you? Do you think anything is going to make sense to you if you don't know what the reasons are?
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Although I have respect for those who believe otherwise (four grocery stores to find rice wine with an acceptable heksher last night).
Why'd you bother, if you feel the way you do?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Didn't he find the book of Deuteronomy?
Nope. The whole Torah. Pentateuch. Five books of Moses. The idea that he just found Deuteronomy was made up by the people who invented the Documentary Hypothesis, and no, I really, really don't feel like getting into that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: starLisa, out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Karaites?
Good question, I'm curious what she has to say. I would assume as long as the Kairites study the torah and follow all of its laws she would have no problem with them.
Nope. In fact, since the Karaites don't follow the proper rules regarding divorce, the whole kit and kaboodle of them probably have a legal presumption of being unmarriable. Unless there's some loophole that I don't know about.
They don't keep the law, Stephan. The law isn't just the surface stuff you'd get from reading the Pentateuch. "Don't cook a kid in its mother's milk" never meant just that. "An eye for an eye" never meant literal eye-for-eye retribution.
The written Torah is not the source of Torah law.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Cool. Thanks.
I'm curious, there's a list of things taken by Babylon from the temple at the end of 2 Kings. It doesn't list the ark of the covenant. Any tradition that says it was actually still in the temple at the time of the exile of Judah? If so, was it taken into Babylon? Hidden? Destroyed?
It's in Jerusalem. Josiah hid it in a chamber under the Temple Mount.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Can you give an example, and support it? Or is that just your gut feeling?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina:
quote: If we weren't Orthodox, you might have a point.
when you say "we" you mean you and your partner, don't you? and how do other orthodox take this?
Depends on who. We have a lot of frum friends (frum means religious/Orthodox, for those who don't know. It's easier to type, and it's what I would say if I was talking, so I'm going to use that), and there are even more frum Jews who snub us. What's your point?
quote:Originally posted by rajel_lebeina:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Whatever. Now explain how Amram married his aunt. The fact is, midrashim are midrashim. We don't take them literally. Og didn't necessarily survive the Flood by hanging onto the side of the Ark. The Midrash Says is not a history book.
My Rabbi says almost the same. But he says "The Tora is not a history book"
Right. Which doesn't mean that it's not accurate.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Have a good Shabbat, all you Jews, and have a good weekend and holiday, everyone else.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I don't know how to do the quote thing, but I went to the grocery stores because I am eating in the house of someone who does believe. Actually, I am eating in the house of someone who used to believe, doesn't anymore, but keeps her kitchen to a high standard because she has family members who do.
And yes, I have a very thorough Jewish education, I know where all of the laws come from (flashbacks to some really painful classes).
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Hey Jon, no fair posting a "Goodbye" thread and then not leaving!
Your fault! Your fault! You DAMN Hatrack!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I don't know how to do the quote thing, but I went to the grocery stores because I am eating in the house of someone who does believe.
Very cool.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Actually, I am eating in the house of someone who used to believe, doesn't anymore, but keeps her kitchen to a high standard because she has family members who do.
That's nice of her.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: And yes, I have a very thorough Jewish education, I know where all of the laws come from (flashbacks to some really painful classes).
<wince> I'm sorry you had a bad experience.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
star Lisa, I just wanted to let you know that I've read this thread with fascination and gained a great deal of respect for you. I appreciate everything you've shared with us. Thank you.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I too am reading this thread with fascination because what little I know of Orthodox Judism came from reading Potok books. It is a contrast to my own believes, but incredibly fascinating and I'd like to learn more....
You do not update your blog enough....
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard:
quote: Hey Jon, no fair posting a "Goodbye" thread and then not leaving!
Your fault! Your fault! You DAMN Hatrack!
Oops. Sorry.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Our bad.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I didn't mean to impy that I had a nad experience overall. ust one horrible ninth grade class on kashrus taught by a rabbi that really hated us all, I think. I remember a huge fight about why chicken couldn't be eaten with milk (which was permissable until the middle ages or so).
It's some of the "quirkier" kashrus laws that I find a little arbitrary and silly (especially when there are many accepted opinions)m not halakha overall. Just wanted to clarify.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I didn't mean to impy that I had a nad experience overall. ust one horrible ninth grade class on kashrus taught by a rabbi that really hated us all, I think. I remember a huge fight about why chicken couldn't be eaten with milk (which was permissable until the middle ages or so).
Mishnaic times, actually. I always think it's funny when I hear people saying, "But chickens don't have milk, so it doesn't make any sense." The fact is, venison was included at the same time as chicken, and deer are definitely mammals. So it's not an issue of milk or no milk.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: It's some of the "quirkier" kashrus laws that I find a little arbitrary and silly (especially when there are many accepted opinions)m not halakha overall. Just wanted to clarify.
Okay.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kayla: star Lisa, I just wanted to let you know that I've read this thread with fascination and gained a great deal of respect for you. I appreciate everything you've shared with us. Thank you.
You're welcome. I'm glad it didn't completely outrage everyone. <grin>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I too am reading this thread with fascination because what little I know of Orthodox Judism came from reading Potok books.
Yeah, you have to be careful there. Chaim Potok was a Conservative rabbi. As such, his picture of Orthodox Judaism is seen through a lens of rejection of Orthodox Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: It is a contrast to my own believes, but incredibly fascinating and I'd like to learn more....
Anything in particular? I'm not shy. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: You do not update your blog enough....
Tell me about it. I really should. I have three blogs, a personal website, and a website for a group that I run. All five are majorly out of date and need to be updated. Who knows when I'll find the time.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, maybe if you didn't spend so much time here posting on Hatrack.
Doh! What am I saying!
A stone through the side of my beautiful glass house I just threw!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I update my secret journal about 80 times a day, my public one, not as much.
What is the difference between Conservative Judism and Orthodox? I've read about 4 books by him and they were all very interesting.
My own beliefs are a bit hard to explain. There's a mixture of mysticism, a touch of paganism and some other stuff I'm not exactly sure of. And maybe some quantum physics though I don't know enough about quantum physics. I grew up Seventh Day Adventist so we were not allowed to eat pork or shrimp and sabbath started on Friday night and ended on Saturday night but now I have a strange resistance to organized religion.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: What is the difference between Conservative Judism and Orthodox?
In a nutshell, Conservative Judaism is more liberal in practice, and Orthodox is more conservative.
Does that clear anything up?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
How... Confusing.
Do they differ in practices?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Indeed. The Orthodox are more strict in their observance in general. In their synagogue services they have a strict separation not only in the responsiblities and roles of men and women, but a physical separation as well. Women sit on one side (or perhaps up in the balcony), while men sit on the other. They are separated by a barrier, so that one side can not see the other.
In Conservative synagogues, families sit together, and women have assumed a more egalitarian role. While the Conservative movement "party line" is that the commandments apply to all Jews, in practice Conservative Jews tend to be more lax in keeping the Sabbath, keeping the rules of Kashrus, and the rules of family purity, of modesty, three times daily prayer, wearing of the kippah and tsitsit, oh, just about all of it.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
But it's all a bit of a spectrum. While they are separate movements, they aren't separate in the same way that say Catholics and Protestants are. And people often move between them, generally in that young adult "discovering themselves" phase of life.
To give an example, most Orthodox Jews won't eat any non-kosher food. This basically rules out going to any restaurants, except for in areas where there is enough of a critical mass to have kosher restaraurants. Many Conservative Jews will keep their homes kosher, but will eat "kosher-style" out (no milk with meat, no pork or shellfish, etc). It is not uncommon to hear, "I keep a kosher home but eat dairy out."
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Not uncommon at all. I've lived in both branches. I grew up in a Conservative home that followed some of the traditions, but certainly wasn't all that strict or literal about it. As I became an adult though, I became more observant in my practice, eventually leaving our Conservative synagogue for an Orthodox one.
We have a name for Jews who have decided that they want to increase their observance and follow more of the commandments -- Baalei Teshuvah -- Masters of Returning. I'm not 100% certain, but I believe that it parallels somewhat the Born Again experience.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: What is the difference between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox?
In a nutshell, Conservative Judaism is more liberal in practice, and Orthodox is more conservative.
Does that clear anything up?
I would disagree with that. The same distinction could be made between "charedi" (what the media calls "ultra-orthodox") and "modern orthodox."
Most people I know make point to another (crucial) difference, from whence all the other differences spring. Orthodox Jews believe that the Torah was given by God to Moshe (Moses). Official Conservative doctrine is that the Torah is divinely inspired, but meant to be interpreted by people.
Very different attitudes, even in those cases that the actual practice may not differ much.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:To give an example, most Orthodox Jews won't eat any non-kosher food. This basically rules out going to any restaurants, except for in areas where there is enough of a critical mass to have kosher restaurants.
That's rather misleading. In point of fact, it actually means that Orthodox Jews tend to live in coherent communities, while Conservative do not. Which, arguably, is one of the points of keeping kosher.
quote:Baalei Teshuvah -- Masters of Returning.
A better translation might be "those who have returned."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Well, maybe if you didn't spend so much time here posting on Hatrack.
Doh! What am I saying!
A stone through the side of my beautiful glass house I just threw!
Heh. <grin> I was going to say...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Which, arguably, is one of the points of keeping kosher.
You know, I lived in NYC for 10 years, and Florida for 10 years, so I've seen quite a few coherent Jewish communities, and this never occurred to me. But it makes perfect sense.
Thanks!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Does being Orthodox require a dress code of sorts? (probably not the right way to put it)
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Wow, I have to say I've never been this focused on a single thread before. I didn't realize there were so many fellow Jews on these forums.
While I agree/disagree with more than a few statements made, this thread has shown to me, that debate and discourse can be civil, synergistic, and enlightening, instead of degrading into very hurtful and adverserial boxing matches.
I really admire everybody for stepping up and putting their stuff out on the table for everyone to see. That's not easy for me to do (see how I'm coming in at the "end" here?). With the variety of views from different Judaic...divisions(right word?), it has helped me to clarify where my lines are drawn.
G-d bless.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: What is the difference between Conservative Judism and Orthodox?
In a nutshell, Conservative Judaism is more liberal in practice, and Orthodox is more conservative.
With all due respect, Esther, I'm not sure that's so accurate. Or rather, it is one facet of the difference, but it's by far the more minor one.
Even the very few Conservative Jews who are above averagely observant for Conservative still have the major problem that their movement rejects rabbinic authority, and whatever Jewish law they do follow is arrived at incorrectly.
Sure, in practice, this often makes little difference. But it's the most fundamental difference of them all, because all of the other differences stem from it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: But it's all a bit of a spectrum. While they are separate movements, they aren't separate in the same way that say Catholics and Protestants are.
I think they're actually much more different than Catholics and Protestants.
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: To give an example, most Orthodox Jews won't eat any non-kosher food.
Most?
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: This basically rules out going to any restaurants, except for in areas where there is enough of a critical mass to have kosher restaraurants. Many Conservative Jews will keep their homes kosher, but will eat "kosher-style" out (no milk with meat, no pork or shellfish, etc). It is not uncommon to hear, "I keep a kosher home but eat dairy out."
Which is symptomatic of the entire decision-making process.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: To give an example, most Orthodox Jews won't eat any non-kosher food.
Most?
Yeah. Most. Maybe even practically all.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
A few points, which all avoid Lisa's dogmatic language that is not really viewed as true by most Jews.
1) Many conservative jews are more observant then many orthodox jews. There's a growing segment of orthodox judaism (still small, but growing) that, at least to me, is somewhat baffling, but they are the "non-observant orthodox" jews.
2) Its pretty hard to have a "very small" segment of a group that is "above average."
3) Lisa is badly mistaken in asserting that conservative jews do not accept rabbinic law. This is an out and out falsehood. I've called lisa on this before, and I expect other jews here have as well.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote: 2) Its pretty hard to have a "very small" segment of a group that is "above average."
Why?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I didn't say impossible. I said hard. You'd basically have to have 2 clumps of people... one at the "maximum" observance, and one at the minimum, in order to achieve a very small group of the population being above average. When talking about something that is a sliding scale like observancy, this is almost impossible to achieve, and you more often see a gaussian distribution, which is symetric
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Which, translated into English, means about half of the group will be above average.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Unless you're totally skewed, man!
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:To give an example, most Orthodox Jews won't eat any non-kosher food. This basically rules out going to any restaurants, except for in areas where there is enough of a critical mass to have kosher restaurants.
That's rather misleading. In point of fact, it actually means that Orthodox Jews tend to live in coherent communities, while Conservative do not. Which, arguably, is one of the points of keeping kosher.
In what way is this misleading?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, I understood about the average thing from Statistics class. But I was thinking of a subset of the subset as being the "very small segment".
Like the whole group is all Conservative and Orthodox Jews.
And the subset is Conservative Jews.
And the "very small segment" is subset of those Conservative Jews who are above average in observance for the whole group.
But that was just the way that I was reading it. Good chance I'm completely wrong!
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
she specified above average observancy for conservative jews.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You know what my biggest Hanukkah rant is? I can't ever figure out how to spell it. It seems like every possible way is used by SOMEONE.
Maybe y'all could start by reconciling the spelling in English, and then work from there?
<insert tongue in cheek...>
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: she specified above average observancy for conservative jews.
Well, there you have it! I was completely wrong. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: You know what my biggest Hanukkah rant is? I can't ever figure out how to spell it. It seems like every possible way is used by SOMEONE.
Maybe y'all could start by reconciling the spelling in English, and then work from there?
<insert tongue in cheek...>
Actually, the spelling is fairly simple:
חנוכה
I spell it the way I do because the \ch\ sound at the beginning isn't as hard as a German \ch\, the \k\ sound really is doubled in Hebrew, with a dagesh dot in it, and it ends with an unvoiced \h\ in Hebrew. Hence: Hanukkah. But pretty much anything'll do.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: A few points, which all avoid Lisa's dogmatic language that is not really viewed as true by most Jews.
Ah, Paul. Truth isn't determined by majority rule. Judaism is what it is. What it was before the Conservative movement broke away from the Reform movement, which itself was an attempt by assimilated Jews to mimic Protestantism, complete with long black robes and Sunday services.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: 1) Many conservative jews are more observant then many orthodox jews.
None, actually. The vast majority of Conservative Jews have never even heard of taharat ha-mishpacha (family purity laws), and of those few who have, the vast majority don't practice them in any way, and of those few who do, they do it wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: There's a growing segment of orthodox judaism (still small, but growing) that, at least to me, is somewhat baffling, but they are the "non-observant orthodox" jews.
Those are Jews who have abandoned observance, but at the very least retain enough self-respect to refrain from changing their principles to match their actions. I have a thousand times more respect for someone who has the moral fiber to acknowledge that they're falling short of their principles than I do for someone who has to adjust their principles to avoid feeling guilty.
They aren't Orthodox Jews. And they'd be the first to admit it. To the extent that they call themselves "non-observant Orthodox", what they mean is that while they are no longer frum, they still recognize that Torah Judaism is correct and that they simply aren't living up to it.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: 2) Its pretty hard to have a "very small" segment of a group that is "above average."
Not so. Mean and medium. Look it up.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: 3) Lisa is badly mistaken in asserting that conservative jews do not accept rabbinic law. This is an out and out falsehood. I've called lisa on this before, and I expect other jews here have as well.
It is not a falsehood. The Conservative movement from its outset abandoned the halakhic process, and substituted certain German schools of philosophy. By viewing the written texts of Judaism through this lens, they thoroughly distorted what the texts themselves said.
For example, Jewish law includes the concepts of l'chat'chila and b'di'eved. To illustrate these concepts, let's take prayer. A man is supposed to pray with a minyan, which means ten or more males over the age of bar mitzvah (13 years and a day). But what if there isn't a minyan to be found? There are laws about what changes need to be made in the prayers in such a case.
We'd say, "L'chat'chila, a man should pray with a minyan, but b'di'eved, if there is no minyan, he still has to pray, but slightly differently."
Well, the Conservative movement went through all of the legal texts available and found every single b'di'eved position, and every single da'at yachid, or singular (tiny minority) view they could, and said it was okay to do that l'chat'chila. After all, if it was ever okay to do it, then it was okay. Which may be legitimate reasoning in terms of German philosophy, but it's foreign to Judaism.
Eventually, of course, they went even beyond that. The Torah says a kohen cannot marry a divorcee. But big shot Conservative Jews named Cohen or Katz would have quit their synagogue memberships if they were told that they couldn't marry a divorcee, so the Conservative movement tossed that one out. God apparently didn't really mean it. Not where the building fund was concerned.
They also realized that while Orthodox Jews would make a major effort to live within walking distance of a synagogue, Conservative Jews were more interested in living where their social peers lived. And they simply had to have enormous edifaces to pray in, which couldn't be moved easily. So they decided to get rid of the thing about not lighting fire on Shabbat as well. They told their membership that if you weren't within walking distance of a Conservative synagogue, you could drive to one, and drive back.
Note that if you're within walking distance of an Orthodox synagogue, but not within walking distance of a Conservative one, this permission still applies. Which kind of shows that it wasn't about being able to pray, so much as it was about retaining their dues-paying membership.
Those are only two examples of the Conservative movement going beyond rejecting "mere rabbinic authority", and rejecting God's. But even beyond that, they don't even accept that God gave the Torah at Sinai. Not even the written part.
When Conservative Jews keep kosher, it's a kind of ethnic observance. It has nothing to do with it having been commanded by God, because they don't actually believe God commanded it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
As the page turns...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It has nothing to do with it having been commanded by God, because they don't actually believe God commanded it.
This might be a bit of a stretch, sL, and reflects your own disdain for this position.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(Mean and "median"?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tom, it is the official position of the Conservative movement.
And CT, maybe a T-shirt size. Or perhaps she's channeling someone?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think she is writing from her own experience. From what I have seen each Conservative and Reform congregation can vary widely on beliefs and practices. I've never witnessed the black robes and Sunday services she speaks of, though she may have been talking about when the movements first started. The Reform temple I grew up with had a 45 minute service, a lot of English, and transliterated Hebrew and not much else. The one I attend now has a much longer service, torah study on Saturday mornings, and a lot more Hebrew. I do agree with her about them being as far from Orthodox as Protestants are from Catholics.
Quesion. My Rabbi mentioned recently that for those of us that wanted to keep Chanukah and Christmas seperate we may want to adopt an Israeli custum. He said in Israel that gifts are exchanged on Rosh Hashanah. Is this true? I've always known Chanukah gift exchange was strictly western European and American, but I've never heard of this before.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:My Rabbi mentioned recently that for those of us that wanted to keep Chanukah and Christmas separate we may want to adopt an Israeli custom. He said in Israel that gifts are exchanged on Rosh Hashanah.
I have many relatives in Israel, who cover the range from the far right (charedi) to the far left (Reform) -- and every shade in between. To the best of my knowledge, not one of them gives gifts on Rosh Hashanah.
There is a Jewish tradition of giving gifts, but with the exception of Purim, I know of NO date that gift-giving is traditionally connected to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, it is the official position of the Conservative movement.
As I understand it, many Conservative Jews simply interpret the position "God commanded it" differently.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* The official position, as I read it (and I just checked a few sites to make sure I was remembering correctly) is that the Torah was not dictated but inspired. Moreover, that practice of the Law (as they have reinterpreted it) is "normative" but not required.
If you want to call that a different interpretation, go right ahead.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm not on my home computer, but rather on my father's laptop... which my hands don't really fit comfortably on. I do have a larger response to lisa, but for now just the short response
1) You're wrong. I've met jews (many) who consider themselves orthodox but are less observant then I am, and I'm well, almost totally unobservant. So a) they aren't the first to tell us that they aren't orthodox b) there are conservative jews more observant then some orthodox jews
2) I know what median and mean are. I also know that observancy is of a class more likely to fit a gaussian distribution then a "camel hump" distribution, especially one as skewed as you would have us believe exists
3) COnservative jews do accept rabbinic law. The method of interpretation of torah and chain of authority is different from orthodoxy. This does not mean that conservative jews reject rabbinic authority, which is your stated position. That position is false, and you can go look at any conservative movement web site to see that your statement is false.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It has nothing to do with it having been commanded by God, because they don't actually believe God commanded it.
This might be a bit of a stretch, sL, and reflects your own disdain for this position.
I'm listening. If you think it's a stretch, could you elaborate? The absolutely fundamental, core premise in Judaism is that God gave us the Torah at Sinai, and that the Torah we have is the Torah He gave us.
Every time we read Torah in synagogue, Monday, Thursday and Saturday mornings, and Saturday afternoons, plus assorted holidays, we do a thing called hagbah between the reading and putting the Torah back in the ark. It consists of the Torah being raised up, and the entire congregation singing out, "And this is the Torah which Moses placed before the Children of Israel, dictated by God, in Moses's hand." Conservative Jews say this as well. The difference is, when we say it, we actually mean it. When they say it, they chalk it up to metaphor. If they think about it at all.
To the Conservatives, Judaism is an element of their lives. To Torah Jews, our lives are an element of Judaism. You can't really get more different than that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: (Mean and "median"?)
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Tom, it is the official position of the Conservative movement.
Earlier this year (2005), we set out to find a school for Tova, since she started kindergarten this fall. There are two modern Orthodox K-8 day schools in our area. Both of them refused to accept her, because her mothers are icky. We were so upset by this that we actually went and did a tour of the local Solomon Schechter school, which is Conservative.
I hated the thought of it, because I knew I'd have to unteach her at the end of every day, and playing tug of war with teachers, using your child as a rope... it's not good for anyone.
But the Hebrew curriculum was really good, and academically, it's better than either of the two schools we'd looked at first.
And then the woman doing the tour said, "You do know that we teach according to Emet v'Emunah, right?"
See, a few years back (probably more than a few now, but time flies), the movement decided to write a thing setting down official Conservative positions on various issues. They called it Emet v'Emunah, which means "Truth and Faith" (savor the irony).
You can't find a copy of this online. You have to buy it. Which in and of itself is interesting. But I asked this woman what in particular she was referring to, and she said that they don't teach that God gave the Torah at Sinai.
Well, that was a deal breaker. We actually lucked out through all of this (not that it felt that way at the time), because the school she's going to now, even though it's a major trek for a 5 year old, has a teaching philosophy that I could only have dreamt of as a kid, and it's Orthodox, albeit a bit on the pluralistic side. But it's sort of like a twisted version of the Groucho Marx joke. Any club we'd want to be members of won't have us.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: The difference is, when we say it, we actually mean it. When they say it, they chalk it up to metaphor. If they think about it at all.
You're out of line.
Knock it off.
I don't mind discussions on doctrinal differences, but when you start assigning motives derogatively like this, I get disgusted. It's a pathetic way to try to get your point across.
Give us your opinion without the vitriol, or be quiet.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I think she is writing from her own experience. From what I have seen each Conservative and Reform congregation can vary widely on beliefs and practices.
It doesn't matter. I know Reform Jews who keep kosher (more or less). It's like wearing a necklace with a star of David on it. It's an ethnic thing. They do it because they choose to. Because it gives them a feeling of ethnic connectedness. Not because God commanded it.
See, the laws are called mitzvot for a reason. The word doesn't mean "good deed". It means "commandment". That means it's mandatory. That you don't get to decide whether it feels good to you or not. You just get to decide whether to be a law-abiding Jew or an outlaw.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I've never witnessed the black robes and Sunday services she speaks of, though she may have been talking about when the movements first started. The Reform temple I grew up with had a 45 minute service, a lot of English, and transliterated Hebrew and not much else. The one I attend now has a much longer service, torah study on Saturday mornings, and a lot more Hebrew.
I shudder to think what that "Torah study" consists of.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I do agree with her about them being as far from Orthodox as Protestants are from Catholics.
Quesion. My Rabbi mentioned recently that for those of us that wanted to keep Chanukah and Christmas seperate we may want to adopt an Israeli custum. He said in Israel that gifts are exchanged on Rosh Hashanah. Is this true?
I lived in Israel for a dozen years. I never heard of such a thing. And the idea that something like that is needed to keep the two separate simply makes me want to cry.
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I've always known Chanukah gift exchange was strictly western European and American, but I've never heard of this before.
Jews have been giving Hanukkah gelt for longer than Christians have been giving Christmas presents. The modern commercialism of Christmas is barely a century old, and it's true that the commercialism that some Jews indulge in on Hanukkah was an attempt to copy that, but giving Hanukkah gelt isn't mimicry.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I just wanted to point out something that may not be obvious to everyone. There laws extend to religious practices, but they also extend to more "every day things." Like what to do if the tree on your neighbor's property falls onto your property, breaking something. Or what to do if the lettering on a gravestone is no longer readable.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Lisa- You are dead wrong about why conservative and reform jews keep kosher. I can point to 5 in my own family who keep kosher because god commanded it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: The difference is, when we say it, we actually mean it. When they say it, they chalk it up to metaphor. If they think about it at all.
You're out of line.
Knock it off.
I don't mind discussions on doctrinal differences, but when you start assigning motives derogatively like this, I get disgusted. It's a pathetic way to try to get your point across.
Give us your opinion without the vitriol, or be quiet.
I apologize if it came across as vitriolic. It wasn't meant that way. Other than me and three of my first cousins, all of my family is Conservative (okay, a few are Reform). I grew up in the Conservative movement, and I wasn't the run-of-the-mill Conservative Jew, either. I'm not standing on the outside looking in on something I don't really know about and throwing stones.
Most serious Conservative Jews are quite aware of the problem their movement has. It has been utterly unable to provide a sound basis for generational continuity and survival, and this is a crisis that Conservative leaders are very much aware of. A very large percentage of highly educated Conservative Jews just reach the point where they realize it doesn't work, and they become Orthodox.
A couple of years ago, one of the teachers at the Jewish Theological Seminary, which is the Conservative rabbinical school in New York, came to speak here in Chicago. He found himself talking to a group of highly educated Conservative Jews, and was completely demoralized by the time he left. He didn't know what to do with them, because they were so different than what he'd expected, which was a bunch of suburban yuppies soaking up his wisdom and trying not to make too much noise opening candy wrappers. I grew up going to that kind of synagogue.
This rabbi, Neil Gillman, was such a lost soul that I pretty much stood back and refrained from saying much. It would have been like shooting ducks in a barrel, and anyway, everyone there knew I was Orthodox, and it wasn't really for me to do. They were eviscerating him themselves without any help from me.
At the end of his last talk, I raised my hand after he'd made some comments about the problems the movement has, and I asked him, as gently as I could, whether he didn't think that what he'd just said implied a fundamental flaw in the movement which would prevent it from ever really being what they wanted it to be. His only response was that if they had more people like me applying to their rabbinical school, they wouldn't be having this problem.
Of course, half a dozen people stood up and yelled at him that I wouldn't be accepted even if I did apply (being that I'm gay and all), which was kind of cute.
Anyway, here's an excerpt from an article in the Jewish Week earlier this month, reporting on comments made by Rabbi Neil Gillman at a Conservative conference:
quote:Responding to perceptions that Conservative Judaism is spiritually listless and on the decline, a major thinker in the movement called this week for it to acknowledge that it is not bound by halacha, or Jewish law.
In calling for a new vision at the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism's biennial in Boston, Rabbi Neil Gillman, professor of Jewish philosophy at the Jewish Theological Seminary, argued that calling itself a halachic movement is intellectually dishonest and has failed to inspire increased religious commitment of congregants.
"We have to be open and honest, and try to project a religious vision, a theological vision," Rabbi Gillman told The Jewish Week.
Conservative Jews should instead distinguish themselves from other liberal movements by their liturgy, their ritual practice and their loyalty to Conservative Jewish institutions, he said...
Rabbi Gillman said there is little difference between the religious practice of Conservative and Reform Jews outside the synagogue, and that "if we are a halachic community, it has to be because we want to be, not because we have to be. Then we have to explain why we want to be, and we have done neither."
Okay, was Gillman being "vitriolic"? Or was he simply stating the facts about his movement?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The absolutely fundamental, core premise in Judaism is that God gave us the Torah at Sinai, and that the Torah we have is the Torah He gave us.
Hm. This may be the source of your disagreement. Most Conservative Jews I know would not in fact say that this is the fundamental premise of Judaism.
quote:Okay, was Gillman being "vitriolic"? Or was he simply stating the facts about his movement?
In my experience, Conservative Jews do not believe that a single rabbi is entitled to speak for the "movement."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I shudder to think what that "Torah study" consists of.
You probably would. I do at times. But I love talking religion, and for me its a small step.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I never heard of such a thing. And the idea that something like that is needed to keep the two separate simply makes me want to cry.
I don't know. Giving gifts to family is just fun to me. If only there was some purely secular day that Americans could celebrate. Maybe move the gift giving to Thanksgiving? (I assume that although it started with the Puritans its not a bad day to celebrate?) That would make everyone happy I think, even the Christians who are tired of Christmas commercialism.
[ December 27, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Tom, it is the official position of the Conservative movement.
As I understand it, many Conservative Jews simply interpret the position "God commanded it" differently.
Rationalization, Tom, is a vice. All the more so when it comes after the fact. It's not as though some genius stood up one day and cried, "Eureka! Maybe 'God commanded it' doesn't really mean 'God commanded it!'" and everyone was off to the Conservative races. No. There were Jews who were already violating the law, and the rationalization of words not meaning what they actually mean came after the fact to justify the wrongdoing and to assuage guilt feelings.
It's a racket.
God said "Don't light a fire on Shabbat". He said, "Do it and you die." He even included a vignette in the Torah where a guy who didn't even get to the igniting part, but merely gathered sticks on Shabbat, was stoned to death for doing so.
Oh, but maybe He didn't really mean it. Gevalt.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *shrug* The official position, as I read it (and I just checked a few sites to make sure I was remembering correctly) is that the Torah was not dictated but inspired.
I've always enjoyed that last one. God inspired us to write that He gave us the Torah. So basically, God inspired us to lie.
Yeah... I'll stick with the God whose signet is Truth.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"God inspired us to write that He gave us the Torah. So basically, God inspired us to lie."
That doesn't follow at all. THere aren't really good analogies, but if I convince my brother to run for political office, give him the messages he should convey, and write many of his speeches for him, and my brother wins political office, it is not literally, but metaphorically true, that I gave him the office.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Perhaps you could point out exactly what portion would be a lie, were the books inspired rather than dictated/written directly by God?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I'm not on my home computer, but rather on my father's laptop... which my hands don't really fit comfortably on. I do have a larger response to lisa, but for now just the short response
1) You're wrong. I've met jews (many) who consider themselves orthodox but are less observant then I am, and I'm well, almost totally unobservant.
I doubt your account. Sorry. And if you're being straight about it, then those people you know are engaging in self-deception.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: So a) they aren't the first to tell us that they aren't orthodox b) there are conservative jews more observant then some orthodox jews
I disagree. But again, as I pointed out earlier, lack of observance isn't the problem with the Conservative movement. It's a symptom. It's an outgrowth of their abandonment of the entire halakhic system, and their replacement of that system with German philosophy.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: 2) I know what median and mean are. I also know that observancy is of a class more likely to fit a gaussian distribution then a "camel hump" distribution, especially one as skewed as you would have us believe exists
Okay, since you're going to pick at this irrelevant point over and over, let me rephrase it. The vast majority of Conservative Jews don't even know that taharat ha-mishpacha exists. Probably about 90% of them haven't even heard the term. If 30% of Conservative Jews keep kosher to any extent at all, that's a lot. And that includes people who don't bother buying kosher cheese, people who eat out at non-kosher restaurants but just don't eat meat there, and people who keep some form of kashrut in their homes, but will gorge on lobster and shrimp if they're eating out.
Now. I'd said:
quote:Even the very few Conservative Jews who are above averagely observant for Conservative still have the major problem that their movement rejects rabbinic authority, and whatever Jewish law they do follow is arrived at incorrectly.
Let me change "above averagely observant for Conservative" to "above averagely observant even for those Conservative Jews who claim to be 'observant'". Is that better?
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: 3) COnservative jews do accept rabbinic law.
Conservative Jews do nothing of the sort. If I decide to call this teaspoon sitting next to me a 2003 Chevrolet Achieva, and I offer to sell someone a 2003 Chevrolet Achieva for $200, I can't give him the teaspoon and just say, "That's the terminology I use." Words have meanings, Paul. And the Conservative movement can try and co-opt words that already have a meaning until they turn blue in the face. It's not going to make it true.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The method of interpretation of torah and chain of authority is different from orthodoxy.
That's an integral part of the Torah. Face it, Paul. The Reform movement broke away from Judaism because there were so many Jews already violating Jewish law that they needed someone to pat their hands and tell them it was okay. And the only reason the Conservative movement broke away from Reform (and yes, it broke away from Reform; not from Torah Judaism) was because the Reformers were moving away from Judaism just a tad faster than they could swallow.
Were you taught about the "treyfa banquet", Paul? Where the Conservative movement was born? Check out Dorff's book on the history of the movement. He's Conservative himself, so you can't accuse him of bias.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: This does not mean that conservative jews reject rabbinic authority, which is your stated position. That position is false, and you can go look at any conservative movement web site to see that your statement is false.
No, Paul. I can go to any Conservative website to see Conservative Jews using words that already have meanings, which they are attempting to graft to things they never meant. It's dishonest, Paul.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:To give an example, most Orthodox Jews won't eat any non-kosher food. This basically rules out going to any restaurants, except for in areas where there is enough of a critical mass to have kosher restaurants.
That's rather misleading. In point of fact, it actually means that Orthodox Jews tend to live in coherent communities, while Conservative do not. Which, arguably, is one of the points of keeping kosher.
Actually, I have always felt that having to be within reasonable walking distance of a synagogue was more of an influence on the formation of coherent orthodox Jewish communities. Orthodox Jews will not drive to the synagogue on the Sabbath and on the major Jewish holidays, whereas most conservative Jews do drive to synagogue.
Having kosher restaurants close by is just a by-product of having a critical mass of kashrut observant Jews (which can include both orthodox and non-orthodox Jews) in a given area. Since orthodox Jews only eat kosher, and many non-orthodox Jews are more lax in what they will eat, the kosher restaurants tend to open close to orthodox Jewish communities.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I do not understand the purpose of the last few pages of this thread.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: None, actually. The vast majority of Conservative Jews have never even heard of taharat ha-mishpacha (family purity laws), and of those few who have, the vast majority don't practice them in any way, and of those few who do, they do it wrong.
Do you have statistics for that statement? I have known many conservative Jews who practice taharat ha-mishpacha and do it correctly.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I do not understand the purpose of the last few pages of this thread.
The debate ties in very closely with the Hanukkah dilemma.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The absolutely fundamental, core premise in Judaism is that God gave us the Torah at Sinai, and that the Torah we have is the Torah He gave us.
Hm. This may be the source of your disagreement. Most Conservative Jews I know would not in fact say that this is the fundamental premise of Judaism.
I'm sure that's true. Most Conservative Jews would probably deny that there is a fundamental premise in Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Okay, was Gillman being "vitriolic"? Or was he simply stating the facts about his movement?
In my experience, Conservative Jews do not believe that a single rabbi is entitled to speak for the "movement."
No, they actually have a cute shell-game variant. When it comes to justifying their movement as being based at least somewhat on the Torah, they say that the vast majority of Conservative Jews who aren't observant aren't really Conservative. But when they want to boast about being the largest "denomination" (God save us) in America, all of a sudden, those poor relations get counted. It's quite convenient.
The Reform movement found that it was hemorraging members. They existed for a generation of people who needed a cushion on their way out of Judaism. Why they should have been surprised when their kids kept going through the exit door is beyond me. Their intermarriage rates were enormous. So were their plain old drop out rates.
So they changed the rules. If you're losing a game of chess, the easiest thing is to just say that all of your pieces can move like the queen, right? They did the equivalent. They proclaimed that the children of non-Jewish mothers were all of a sudden Jews, if they had Jewish fathers and had done anything whatsoever in a temple framework. Gah.
And they started proselytizing, which was kind of cool, because they'd also relaxed the rules for converting to the point that one well known Reform rabbi was advertising a day-long seminar in Florida. Pay him up front, and you'd walk out a "Jew".
As a result, their numbers boomed. Of course, if we were to decide one day that all Muslims count as Orthodox Jews, we'd be humongous. We'd be dishonest, but to some people, I guess humongous is more important.
The Conservative movement has started doing some proselytizing themselves now. And they even have wacky seminars now. There's a guy who'll convert you over the Internet. Yippee! And their intermarriage rate, despite their looser rules for conversion and the proselytizing, are scarily high.
Have a look here, for example. And bear in mind that the numbers for the Reform and Conservative are actually made significantly lower by their conversion practices and the Reform "patrilineal descent" decision, each of which causes marriages which are intermarriage by Jewish law to be labeled as non-intermarriages.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "God inspired us to write that He gave us the Torah. So basically, God inspired us to lie."
That doesn't follow at all. THere aren't really good analogies, but if I convince my brother to run for political office, give him the messages he should convey, and write many of his speeches for him, and my brother wins political office, it is not literally, but metaphorically true, that I gave him the office.
And if, in one of those speeches, your brother says that he wrote all the speeches himself, he'd be a liar. Yes?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I do not understand the purpose of the last few pages of this thread.
The debate ties in very closely with the Hanukkah dilemma.
And the whole "rant" thing. <grin>
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: I have known many conservative Jews who practice taharat ha-mishpacha and do it correctly.
Me too. And I know some Orthodox who do not.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm still waiting for you to point out which parts of the Torah would be a lie if they were inspired, not dictated.
I appreciate that you're willing to clearly state your own belief, but when you start calling other people liars something more than statement of your own belief would be appreciated.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: I have known many conservative Jews who practice taharat ha-mishpacha and do it correctly.
Me too. And I know some Orthodox who do not.
Then we are agreed on that point. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm going to be toning it down a bit. I've probably been getting a little too hot under the collar, and I apologize for that.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm going to be toning it down a bit. I've probably been getting a little too hot under the collar, and I apologize for that.
The whole not causing distress to a fellow Jew thing apply here?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Lisa, you just wouldn't be Lisa if you lacked passion. And an affinity for ferocious debate.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Your passion is rather interesting to read, I must admit.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I'm going to be toning it down a bit. I've probably been getting a little too hot under the collar, and I apologize for that.
The whole not causing distress to a fellow Jew thing apply here?
Nah. Just that it was pointed out to me that I was getting a little flamey even for me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Lisa, you just wouldn't be Lisa if you lacked passion. And an affinity for ferocious debate.
Uh... who would I be? That could be a cool thread. Who would I be without the rants, who would you be without the every-26-second posts, etc. <grin>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Your passion is rather interesting to read, I must admit.
But I can be passionate without beating quite as hard on people.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I'm also interested in an answer to dkw's question...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Your passion is rather interesting to read, I must admit.
But I can be passionate without beating quite as hard on people.
True... Still, I am learning quite a bit about Judism I never knew, though it is still a bit confusing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I doubt your account. Sorry. And if you're being straight about it, then those people you know are engaging in self-deception."
And I'm sorry, as well, but I seriously doubt that you have the sorts of experiences with conservative judaism that allow you to speak honestly of it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Paul, I grew up Conservative. I was a camper at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin for four years. The next year, I went on Ramah Israel Seminar. After that, I spent four years on staff at Ramah in Wisconsin. Two years on cabin staff, and two on support staff, one of which was as a synagogue skills teacher.
I gave serious thought to going to JTS for college, to the point where I had started filling out an application to the joint JTS/Columbia program.
I was by far and away not the average Conservative Jew. Ramah in Wisconsin is run under the auspices of the Jewish Theological Seminary. They make a big deal of that. And they have stronger de facto educational requirements than most of the other Ramah camps, mostly because they have the largest geographical area, so they can insist on campers and staff having the requisite education.
Most Conservative leaders come out of the Ramah camps. Then again, a not-inconsiderable number of Orthodox Jews do, as well.
But suit yourself.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Starlisa- I don't mean to say you are lying about having been conservative. I mean to say that your abandonment and subsequent rigorous adoption of orthodox judaism has left you incapable of speaking honestly of conservative judaism.
As for the claims of mine that you doubt, suit yourself. Its one more layer of cobwebs you have to shake out of your eyes before you see the world clearly, though.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I am baffled by the anger towards the Conservative movement. I think it's hard to argue that they are not "less halakhically correct," follow the law less strictly. Almost with exception, Conservative Jews follow fewer commandments and follow them less strictly than the Modern Orthodox. There are exceptions, and I actually know several. But in general, I think the Conservative are "less observant." And I would no problems with efforts to gently and lovingly instructing them in mitzvot, and hoping that many chose to join Modern Orthodox shuls.
However, I think it is simply incorrect to say that the serve no purpose. I think that a very large majority of Americans, if denied the option of a Conservative synagogue, would simply not go any. While there is probably a certain percentage that is simply ignorant of the reasons behind certain Jewish practices, there is also a fair number that know and chose to reject for whatever reason. Whether the rejection is justified is another topic, and really an issue, I believe, between a Jew and G-d. It is not for me to judge.
Anyway, I think one important role of the Conservative synagogues is illustrated on this thread. Families that would have left Judiasm completely stay, and their children maintain their Jewish identity, become drawn to investigate more observant practices and chose to adopt them. In addition, attendance in a Conservative synagogue gives a general familiarity with many Jewish practices, including a general ability to read Hebrew. Someone "investigating" a Modern Orthodox synagogue will not feel completely out of place, and will be that more comfortable and willing to go back again.
Conservative Jews do educate their children and themselves in Judiasm. If during a Torah study they read the scripture, they are learning something. As long as they are not trying to actively prove to Torah wrong and treating it with respect, they are learning about the law. I have a hard time believing that time spent trying to find meaning in the Torah is anything but positive.
This whole argument falls apart if you believe that if there were no Conservative shuls, everyone would become Orthodox. And there is really no way to tell, just a general feeling.
I appologize if part of this post is unclear, I tried as much as possible to make it generally accessible.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Perhaps the town where I live is atypical. We have several Orthodox shuls and one Conservative shul. The neighboring towns have a fair number of Conservative and Reform shuls, and a few Orthodox.
The Consevative shul in my town had for years a beloved rabbi who held Orthodox smicha (ordination) as well as Conservative. This shul was a bit old-fashioned in its practice -- perhaps 30 or 40 years behind the mainstream Conservative practice. Families sat together, and the congregation sang the litergy together, but women did not count in a minyan, were not permitted on the bima, and the prayers pretty closely followed the Orthodox tradition. The old beloved rabbi retired, and the congregation got a new young Conservative rabbi. He slowly began to make changes -- new Chumashim, different siddurim and maxorim, allowing the new president of the congregation (a woman) to sit up at the bima during services, and most recently, starting an egalitarian minyan, running parallel to the traditional minyan.
The congregation was largely shomer mitzvot -- Kashrut, Shabbos, Yomin Tovim were all observed by the vast majority of the congregation. The local mikveh was popular with both folk from the Conservative and the Orthodox shuls.
Since the changes, there has been an exodus from the shul -- to the Orthodox ones in town. In all, the new members of the Orthodox congregations feel right at home in their new shuls. The beleaguered Conservative shul is now trying to recruit new members not from within walking distance, but from the outlying areas.
I personally find distaste in the designations "Orthodox" "Conservative" "Reform" and all that. To me, it is black and white -- you are Jewish or you are not. Levels of observance may vary, of course, but there is not one Jew who can do NONE of the mitzvos and not one Jew who can do ALL of them. It is just impossible. So we all do some. But some Jews try harder to do more of them than other Jews do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As far as I understand it, Conservative Jews have rejected rabbinic authority in one area, or at least a few areas, whereas Orthodox Jews have maintained their obedience to rabbinic authority in all areas, including areas wehere Conservative Jews do not. Is that a correct statement?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I am baffled by the anger towards the Conservative movement. I think it's hard to argue that they are not "less halakhically correct," follow the law less strictly. Almost with exception, Conservative Jews follow fewer commandments and follow them less strictly than the Modern Orthodox. There are exceptions, and I actually know several. But in general, I think the Conservative are "less observant." And I would no problems with efforts to gently and lovingly instructing them in mitzvot, and hoping that many chose to join Modern Orthodox shuls.
However, I think it is simply incorrect to say that the serve no purpose. I think that a very large majority of Americans, if denied the option of a Conservative synagogue, would simply not go any. While there is probably a certain percentage that is simply ignorant of the reasons behind certain Jewish practices, there is also a fair number that know and chose to reject for whatever reason. Whether the rejection is justified is another topic, and really an issue, I believe, between a Jew and G-d. It is not for me to judge.
Anyway, I think one important role of the Conservative synagogues is illustrated on this thread. Families that would have left Judiasm completely stay, and their children maintain their Jewish identity, become drawn to investigate more observant practices and chose to adopt them. In addition, attendance in a Conservative synagogue gives a general familiarity with many Jewish practices, including a general ability to read Hebrew. Someone "investigating" a Modern Orthodox synagogue will not feel completely out of place, and will be that more comfortable and willing to go back again.
Conservative Jews do educate their children and themselves in Judiasm. If during a Torah study they read the scripture, they are learning something. As long as they are not trying to actively prove to Torah wrong and treating it with respect, they are learning about the law. I have a hard time believing that time spent trying to find meaning in the Torah is anything but positive.
This whole argument falls apart if you believe that if there were no Conservative shuls, everyone would become Orthodox. And there is really no way to tell, just a general feeling.
I appologize if part of this post is unclear, I tried as much as possible to make it generally accessible.
I guess that is the real debate. Is being a secular Jew better then being a Conservative or even Reform? I had an Orthodox Jew once tell me that the Reform and Conservative movements is worse then Jews for Jesus because they are accepted more.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Wow... 9 pages.
I disagree with that statement, btw. They have rejected what was called, up until the Conservative movement came into being, "rabbinic authority". In its entirety.
They substituted something different, but gave it the name of what they'd gotten rid of, because they wanted to believe that they hadn't really cast off something so critical.
I know I'll probably get reported on this post as well, but it's the truth.
There are many different views on different things within Judaism. But they're almost always minor. Lubavitch Hassidim won't eat matzaballs on Passover, because they have a custom to avoid getting matza wet. Sephardic Jews will eat certain types of legumes on Passover that Ashkenazic Jews won't eat. None of these things came into being for the express purpose of being able to fit in better in a new country.
David Gerrold has a series called The War Against the Chtorr. Four books in the series have been published. Gerrold has been yanking our chains on the remaining books for years and years now.
But it's his series. And I may be impatient, but if I were to say, "Forget this, and forget Gerrold; I want those stories," and write my own continuation/conclusion to the series, I'd simply be fooling myself. Because ultimately, he's the author. I don't get to blow him off and take off in my own direction simply because I don't like how slow he's being.
They don't like the decision making process in Jewish law. Okay. But honestly, if they were really "fixing things", as they claim, wouldn't you think there'd be maybe a single instance in more than 100 years where they decided to be more strict about something? But all of their changes are to eliminate this law or that.
In Orthodox Judaism, by contrast, that's not true at all. Orthodox Jews invented a type of switch that can be used on Shabbat, in cases of special need (such as hospitals) without violating the law. The Conservative method would have simply been to say, "There's a special need? Go ahead and use a regular switch."
It's a different focus. We know that we can use a regular switch if we have to. But we care about minimizing such violations, because we know that God commanded us for a reason. They see that there's an excuse to use a switch, and say, "Let's do it". It's a different focus and a different attitude.
How you get there is a major part of whether you've gotten to the right place in Judaism.
Lisa
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Is that switch a dimmer? Just curious.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I guess that is the real debate. Is being a secular Jew better then being a Conservative or even Reform? I had an Orthodox Jew once tell me that the Reform and Conservative movements is worse then Jews for Jesus because they are accepted more.
Well, on the one hand, the J4J apparently do believe, at least, that God gave us the written part of the Torah at Sinai. On the other hand, they're an intentionally deceitful group that exists to trick Jews into converting to Christianity. So I wouldn't say that.
But it's a judgement call. In Israel, other than a very few Conservative and Reform imports from America, the synagogue that secular Jews don't go to is an Orthodox one. When they feel the need for something, that's where they go. Would that happen in the US? I don't know. I do know that there's a fundamental value to truth, even if less than that might be useful in the short term.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: There are many different views on different things within Judaism. But they're almost always minor.
It's worth noting that "minor" in this context is a very amusing word, given that we bring up light switches shortly thereafter. It's not at all uncommon -- even within Judaism -- for people to disagree strongly on not only what things are "minor," but who gets to decide which things are "minor."
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
starLisa:"But we care about minimizing such violations, because we know that God commanded us for a reason."
What is that reason?
Most of my questions about Judaism are Why questions, and the above is only one of them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is that switch a dimmer? Just curious.
Nope. A dimmer would be just as problematic. It's called a gramma switch. Gramma means indirect causation.
Of course, this link is a classic example of the attitude I've seen from most Conservative Jews. I don't know whether the author of this blog is Conservative, Reform, or just plain secular, but what he sees as "lunacy", we see as actually making our best effort to do what God wants us to do.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: But it's a judgement call. In Israel, other than a very few Conservative and Reform imports from America, the synagogue that secular Jews don't go to is an Orthodox one. When they feel the need for something, that's where they go. Would that happen in the US? I don't know. I do know that there's a fundamental value to truth, even if less than that might be useful in the short term.
I would say most secular Jews in the US would never go anywhere near an Orthodox synagogue if they felt a spiratual need. Worse I think most would end up in a church. I think the two movements fulfill a spiritual need for those that would have absolutely nothing without them. I understand the Orthodox just see it as a way to get permission for not following the proper lifestyle, but most Reform and non religious/secular are born into it and don't even know what they should be doing. The language barrier alone can be a problem for those not knowledgeable in Hebrew.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: There are many different views on different things within Judaism. But they're almost always minor.
It's worth noting that "minor" in this context is a very amusing word, given that we bring up light switches shortly thereafter.
I'm not sure I get what part of that you think is amusing. No Orthodox Jew will flip a lightswitch on Shabbat. Not unless there's an extremely serious need. I once called 911 on a Friday night. If a doctor needs to use something electrical for a patient, that's also another situation. But these aren't areas of difference among Orthodox Jews.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's not at all uncommon -- even within Judaism -- for people to disagree strongly on not only what things are "minor," but who gets to decide which things are "minor."
Not really. Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism". In which case you could include Karl Marx, Alan Greenspan, Noam Chomsky and Scarlett Johanssen as determiners of what "Judaism" is.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"But we care about minimizing such violations, because we know that God commanded us for a reason."
What is that reason?
I don't know. I know some possible reasons for some of God's commandments. But I don't know for sure that they are the actual reasons, I don't know for sure that there aren't additional reasons I'm not aware of...
Everything has a reason. We think God has a plan for the world, and that He gave us the Torah in order that this plan should come to fruition. As to what the plan is, exactly? Well, I suppose I'll find out eventually, either in this life or the next.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: Most of my questions about Judaism are Why questions, and the above is only one of them.
And I know my answer couldn't have been very satisfying. I'm sorry about that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism"
I'm willing to consider anything that a self-identified "observant" Jew says to be his form of Judaism -- and by "observant" here I mean "believes himself to be upholding or aware of the tenets of his faith." I extend the same courtesy to Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.
These things may or may not be any specific sect's specific doctrine; in some cases they are, and in some cases they aren't. I think it's rather arrogant, however, for people to presume that they're entitled to insist otherwise.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: But it's a judgement call. In Israel, other than a very few Conservative and Reform imports from America, the synagogue that secular Jews don't go to is an Orthodox one. When they feel the need for something, that's where they go. Would that happen in the US? I don't know. I do know that there's a fundamental value to truth, even if less than that might be useful in the short term.
I would say most secular Jews in the US would never go anywhere near an Orthodox synagogue if they felt a spiratual need. Worse I think most would end up in a church. I think the two movements fulfill a spiritual need for those that would have absolutely nothing without them. I understand the Orthodox just see it as a way to get permission for not following the proper lifestyle, but most Reform and non religious/secular are born into it and don't even know what they should be doing. The language barrier alone can be a problem for those not knowledgeable in Hebrew.
I know. It's a serious problem.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism"
I'm willing to consider anything that a self-identified "observant" Jew says to be his form of Judaism. I extend the same courtesy to Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists.
See, we take it a little more seriously than that. We were told stuff by God. You may not believe that to be the case, but we know it was. And we have a responsibility to do what God told us to.
I'd have a lot less trouble if the movements were to declare themselves separate religions.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: These things may or may not be any specific sect's specific doctrine; in some cases they are, and in some cases they aren't. I think it's rather arrogant, however, for people to presume that they're entitled to insist otherwise.
If it is, then it's justified arrogance. I refer you back to my example of me trying to finish David Gerrold's Chtorr series. If I want to write a book about the Earth being invaded by a hostile organism, that's fine. But if I call it "the continuation/conclusion of David Gerrold's Chtorr series", it's not fine at all. And if Gerrold tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree, or just plain barking, it may be arrogant, but it's legitimate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
starLisa, perhaps now you can understand why some Christians were a little perturbed by your willingness to declare when Christianity stopped being just another "Jewish sect" (as you put it) and started being Christian.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: starLisa, perhaps now you can understand why some Christians were a little perturbed by your willingness to declare when Christianity stopped being just another "jewish sect" (as you put it) and started being Christian.
Did you have the impression that I wasn't aware of that?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
LOTS of sects claim that they were told stuff by God, and that their specific sect knows the REAL truth -- while all the other sects that claim to be part of the "same" religion are just deluded and/or endangering their souls.
Would you presume to claim that the Catholics are "real" Christians, and the Mormons are not? Would you argue that Baptists are just following Lutheran law improperly? They all claim to have been told stuff by God to roughly similar effect.
Historically, Judaism's had about as many offshoots and non-traditional interpretations as Christianity. The scholarship of many of its more devoted members is generally exceptional, but that has not protected it from very wide divergences of thought, many of which have in fact wound up producing different religions.
While individual sects may believe -- and may NEED to believe -- that they have a monopoly on the Truth, that doesn't actually mean they're any more right than the next guys.
---------
quote: And if Gerrold tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree, or just plain barking, it may be arrogant, but it's legitimate.
And if Gerrold called you up to tell you this, would you point to his books and say "nowhere in the text does it say (assuming you discount the copyright notice, which of course had a different author) that I can't do this, so you don't get to participate in this discussion?"
I recall a fable being bandied about recently that went just that way.
Seriously, I suspect MOST incorrect interpretations of MOST religious doctrine could be cleared up if God saw fit to correct them when they popped up and became popular. That He chooses not to do so suggests to me that He's fine with 'em.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Did you have the impression that I wasn't aware of that?
Oh, so you were intentionally being rude, not just untruthful?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
starLisa, you haven't replied to my email yet, your making me feel bad and sa.... *breaks down crying* Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism".
And why it gets tiresome for Christians to have to account for everything any Christian says or does.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hey, Lisa, I thought you were going to lower the flames.
I know that I'm supposed to obey the laws of the Sabbath, and I do to the best of my ability. However, I will also confess that I violate those same laws every Shabbos. Why? Not because I want to or because I think the rules don't apply to me. But because I have a good reason and excuse to do so.
My husband has severe disabilities, and must use a ventilator and other respiratory equipment in order to survive. Every Shabbos, I take him from his bed and place him in his power wheelchair and turn it on. I place him on the ventilator, and you'd better believe that I turn it on! I administer any respiratory treatments that he needs. All these things are violations. I know that they are. But they are justified because the are life sustaining.
My husband and I have known Jews who have a problem with this situation. We have a problem with THEM. We have consulted our rabbi and know that we are doing our best.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
So Tante, these people who have a problem with the situation--what would they have you do?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Hey, Lisa, I thought you were going to lower the flames.
I know that I'm supposed to obey the laws of the Sabbath, and I do to the best of my ability. However, I will also confess that I violate those same laws every Shabbos. Why? Not because I want to or because I think the rules don't apply to me. But because I have a good reason and excuse to do so.
My husband has severe disabilities, and must use a ventilator and other respiratory equipment in order to survive. Every Shabbos, I take him from his bed and place him in his power wheelchair and turn it on. I place him on the ventilator, and you'd better believe that I turn it on! I administer any respiratory treatments that he needs. All these things are violations. I know that they are. But they are justified because the are life sustaining.
My husband and I have known Jews who have a problem with this situation. We have a problem with THEM. We have consulted our rabbi and know that we are doing our best.
Anyone who has a problem with that type of violation has to seriously question their own morality.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: So Tante, these people who have a problem with the situation--what would they have you do?
They would have him stay in bed all Shabbos, every Shabbos (and holiday), remain on the same ventilator that he uses overnight (he has another one on the back of his wheelchair), and I would only touch the ventilator if there was an urgent life-threatening need.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
If you want to get examples of differences between Jews who believe they are properly following the commandments, I invite you any family meal with my Lubavitch relatives (the black hat folk) and my Modern Orthodox parents.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is that switch a dimmer? Just curious.
Nope. A dimmer would be just as problematic. It's called a gramma switch. Gramma means indirect causation.
Of course, this link is a classic example of the attitude I've seen from most Conservative Jews. I don't know whether the author of this blog is Conservative, Reform, or just plain secular, but what he sees as "lunacy", we see as actually making our best effort to do what God wants us to do.
My favorite item I saw in Israel was the Shabbos elevator in the hotel I was at.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
From starLisa's first link:
quote: Rabbis differ on how much of a delay is required; the Star-K rabbinical authority, Moshe Heinemann, authorizes a 5-second lag. To be on the safe side, Ottensoser increased the delay to 15 seconds and a random wait of as much as 10 seconds. Why? "An indirect action is one where you can't predict what's going to happen," he says.
Wow. This strikes me as being remarkably lame. A TRULY indirect action, by this definition, would be a situation in which you flipped the switch and the light came on a third of the time, and a third of the time it didn't, and another third of the time it popped out a cracker from a little slot beneath it. (With, of course, a suitably random adjustment of odds that would happen weekly.)
Contrast this with something non-kosher from the same link:
quote: Opening a fridge seems like a harmless action without consequence. But every time you open that door, you let warm air in and cold air out, changing the temperature inside. So the compressor switches on to compensate, and you've effectively turned on the appliance and engaged in work. Mechalel shabbos - you've desecrated the Sabbath.
So making someone wait a random interval is sufficiently indirect, but causing a compressor to turn on by the otherwise unrelated action of opening a fridge is NOT indirect enough? What's especially baffling is THIS, from the elevator link:
quote:Rabbi Zack used to say it's like having a Shabbat candle by a window and opening the window. A wind may come along and blow the candle out, but you didn't directly make it happen.
So the wind that transfers warm air into your fridge, thus activating the condensor, is DIRECTLY triggered by opening the fridge -- but the wind that blows out your candle is an indirect force that is NOT triggered by opening a window.
This is why the word "oy" was invented.
[ December 28, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Wow. This strikes me as being remarkably lame. A TRULY indirect action, by this definition, would be a situation in which you flipped the switch and the light came on a third of the time, and a third of the time it didn't, and another third of the time it popped out a cracker from a little slot beneath it. (With, of course, a suitably random adjustment of odds that would happen weekly.)
Tom, this reminds me of the celiac discussion concerning wheat wafers at Catholic Communion.
There's nothing in the Sabbath rules that makes flipping a switch immoral in and of itself. Immorality results because doing so on the Sabbath violates a commandment given by God. And if God has created a system for interpreting His commandments to answer the thousands of individual questions that arise, then following those interpretations is still following those commandments, and hence immoral.
This isn't a practical question. It's a legal and moral one.
rivka posted something a long time ago about how all the different mitzvos are gifts from God that giver an opportunity to do good. Even eating is given over to contemplate God's will. I believe it was rivka who commented, also long ago, that honest intellectual wrangling over seemingly little things, all with the intent of following God's will, is a good act. If I recall correctly, one of God's commands is to interpret his commands, so simply being over-careful and going beyond what is required would not be the best way to follow God's commands. Rather, one is supposed to honestly investigate the situation, consulting appropriate authority, and arrive at the correct answer.
(My apologies if I am misremembering. I'd love to have my recollection corrected if wrong and to see further expansion on this topic.)
New topic. From the article Tom referenced:
quote:39 activities are off-limits to those complying with the Torah's fourth commandment
Quick question on how mitzvos are counted: I remember seeing that there are 600 and something individual mitzvos. Are those 39 prohibited activities each counted as separate items in that 600+ item list, or are they all part of the single item relating to keeping the Sabbath holy?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
There are 613 mitzvos, and 39 types of activities forbidden on Shabbos. The commandment to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy includes all 39 activities -- they don't count as separate commandments. It is what was decided that "Don't do work" means in a practical application.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ok, so "the commandment to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy [which] includes all 39 activities" counts as 1 of 613?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: LOTS of sects claim that they were told stuff by God, and that their specific sect knows the REAL truth -- while all the other sects that claim to be part of the "same" religion are just deluded and/or endangering their souls.
Um... so? The existence of conflicting claims means that all claims are false? I'm trying to think which classical fallacy that would be. But I suspect that it's too modern.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Would you presume to claim that the Catholics are "real" Christians, and the Mormons are not?
"Presume"? Well, if I really cared about the subject, then sure, I'd "presume" to make a judgement. But I'd make sure to educate myself first.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Would you argue that Baptists are just following Lutheran law improperly? They all claim to have been told stuff by God to roughly similar effect.
But they're wrong. And there is a fundamental difference between what I have to say about a religion that didn't break away from Judaism and a religion that did. You realize that, don't you?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Historically, Judaism's had about as many offshoots and non-traditional interpretations as Christianity.
Ah, yes... the halcyon days of the Baal worshippers in Samaria, the Sadducees and Karaites and Sabbateans and Frankists...
They're pretty much gone by now. And we continue merrily along doing what we were supposed to in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The scholarship of many of its more devoted members is generally exceptional, but that has not protected it from very wide divergences of thought, many of which have in fact wound up producing different religions.
"A few of which", and it depends on whether you want to count the modern-day heterodox movements as different religions. If you don't, then it shouldn't even be "a few if which", but rather "one of which".
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: While individual sects may believe -- and may NEED to believe -- that they have a monopoly on the Truth, that doesn't actually mean they're any more right than the next guys.
And the existence of contrary claims doesn't speak to the truth or falsity of any of the claims.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And if Gerrold tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree, or just plain barking, it may be arrogant, but it's legitimate.
And if Gerrold called you up to tell you this, would you point to his books and say "nowhere in the text does it say (assuming you discount the copyright notice, which of course had a different author) that I can't do this, so you don't get to participate in this discussion?"
Nope. But then, I wouldn't do something that dishonest to begin with. It'd make me feel bad about myself.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Seriously, I suspect MOST incorrect interpretations of MOST religious doctrine could be cleared up if God saw fit to correct them when they popped up and became popular. That He chooses not to do so suggests to me that He's fine with 'em.
Or more likely that He's already told us what the truth is, and has also made it clear that He isn't going to pop up and nudge us every time we're doing something wrong.
Basically, you're saying that if you were God, you'd correct those who are wrong, and since God isn't doing that, He must be okay with them. Honestly, Tom, do I have to point out what the flaw is in that argument?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Did you have the impression that I wasn't aware of that?
Oh, so you were intentionally being rude, not just untruthful?
No, I simply disagree.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: starLisa, you haven't replied to my email yet, your making me feel bad and sa.... *breaks down crying*
Dude, I'm sorry. Your e-mail is in my Eudora at home. I'm at work using a webmail thingie, so I don't even have your mail here to reply to.
And I've been going home, taking Vicodin, and crashing. I threw out my back last Wednesday and again on Sunday night. If anyone has a spare spine lying around that they aren't using, I'm in the market. Measurements on request. <sigh>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism".
And why it gets tiresome for Christians to have to account for everything any Christian says or does.
Oh, I'm cool with Christians not having to account for what other Christians say, religious-wise. So long as they stop claiming to be an overwhelming majority. You can't really have it both ways, after all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, I simply disagree.
Then perhaps you could revisit the thread in question and maybe respond to the arguments presented. Or, you know, do what you actually say you would: "But I'd make sure to educate myself first."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Hey, Lisa, I thought you were going to lower the flames.
Um... I'm not? I answered a question. If things are such that answering a question or stating a disagreement is inherently flameful, then there's a serious problem.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I know that I'm supposed to obey the laws of the Sabbath, and I do to the best of my ability. However, I will also confess that I violate those same laws every Shabbos. Why? Not because I want to or because I think the rules don't apply to me. But because I have a good reason and excuse to do so.
My husband has severe disabilities, and must use a ventilator and other respiratory equipment in order to survive. Every Shabbos, I take him from his bed and place him in his power wheelchair and turn it on. I place him on the ventilator, and you'd better believe that I turn it on! I administer any respiratory treatments that he needs. All these things are violations. I know that they are. But they are justified because the are life sustaining.
Esther, those aren't violations. Certainly the ventilator one isn't. Not only is it permissible, but it's required. Why do you think they're violations?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Esther, those aren't violations. Certainly the ventilator one isn't. Not only is it permissible, but it's required. Why do you think they're violations?
Well, the electrical switch thingy.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: From starLisa's first link:
quote: Rabbis differ on how much of a delay is required; the Star-K rabbinical authority, Moshe Heinemann, authorizes a 5-second lag. To be on the safe side, Ottensoser increased the delay to 15 seconds and a random wait of as much as 10 seconds. Why? "An indirect action is one where you can't predict what's going to happen," he says.
Wow. This strikes me as being remarkably lame.
Nice. Do I get to complain now? There's a difference between something being lame and you lacking understanding.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: A TRULY indirect action, by this definition,
The only definitions that matter in this context are those defined in Jewish law. Not those that you presume to be operative. Tom, do you see the difference? Any discussion about this stuff in translation is necessarily going to be a little inaccurate, because the words we use have specific definitions.
The Torah says that a "leper" is "unclean". But the "leper" in question has nothing to do with what we call a leper today, and the term "unclean" implies that you can wash it and it'll be clean, and that's not accurate either.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Contrast this with something non-kosher from the same link:
quote: Opening a fridge seems like a harmless action without consequence. But every time you open that door, you let warm air in and cold air out, changing the temperature inside. So the compressor switches on to compensate, and you've effectively turned on the appliance and engaged in work. Mechalel shabbos - you've desecrated the Sabbath.
So making someone wait a random interval is sufficiently indirect, but causing a compressor to turn on by the otherwise unrelated action of opening a fridge is NOT indirect enough?
You didn't read carefully enough. Things like the gramma switch are not permissible for every day use. They're for "great need". Turning on a ventilator is a great need. Opening the fridge door is not a great need in most cases.
I wouldn't be allowed to press a key on the electric keyboard thing that kid has. I don't have any need to. It's just as out of bounds for me on Shabbat as a regular keyboard would be.
Context, Tom. Everything has context.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What's especially baffling is THIS, from the elevator link:
quote:Rabbi Zack used to say it's like having a Shabbat candle by a window and opening the window. A wind may come along and blow the candle out, but you didn't directly make it happen.
So the wind that transfers warm air into your fridge, thus activating the condensor, is DIRECTLY triggered by opening the fridge -- but the wind that blows out your candle is an indirect force that is NOT triggered by opening a window.
This is why the word "oy" was invented.
No, this is why the phrase "reading comprehension" was invented. You aren't allowed to have a Shabbat candle by a window and open the window. Except for cases when you are allowed to. Context.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Esther, those aren't violations. Certainly the ventilator one isn't. Not only is it permissible, but it's required. Why do you think they're violations?
Well, the electrical switch thingy.
You can see why it'd be appropriate to get a gramma switch, right? But once you've unhooked him, surely you don't see hooking him back up as a violation, do you?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A few of which", and it depends on whether you want to count the modern-day heterodox movements as different religions. If you don't, then it shouldn't even be "a few if which", but rather "one of which".
One reason why Conservative and Reform Jews will never declare themselves new faiths is that even Orthodox Jews agree that the majority of them are truly Jewish.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Ok, so "the commandment to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy [which] includes all 39 activities" counts as 1 of 613?
Well, there's a command to keep the Sabbath day, and there's a command to remember the Sabbath day. One is in the listing of the 10 Commandments in Exodus, and the other is in the list in Deuteronomy.
These two are separate commandments. But the 39 principal categories of melacha (the "work" you're not allowed to do on Shabbat) are just details, and not separate commandments.
And each of the 39 principle categories has subcategories. Here's a good basic overview.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: A few of which", and it depends on whether you want to count the modern-day heterodox movements as different religions. If you don't, then it shouldn't even be "a few if which", but rather "one of which".
One reason why Conservative and Reform Jews will never declare themselves new faiths is that even Orthodox Jews agree that the majority of them are truly Jewish.
You say "never", but you must realize that the conversion issue and the patrilineal descent issue are bringing the day when a majority of Reform Jews aren't actually Jewish a lot closer, and a lot faster, right? It can't keep going in this direction forever and still have the current legal presumption hold, right?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
A gramma switch would be inappropriate for life support equipment. I will work the switches with a shinui, of possible, otherwise, I just do what I have to do. Hooking him back up to a ventilator once he is off involves turning off one venitlator and turning on another. In addition, there are safetly alarms that sound that are extinguished by connecting him to the venitlator.
The power wheelchair is his only means of mobility -- he is like totally paralyzed -- and he works it with a sip-and-puff straw in his mouth. He is unable to tolerate a different kind of wheelchair.
For reasons of safety, a gramma switch would be inappropriate for the power wheelchair, as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks for the clarification on the numbering, Tante and Lisa.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Oh, I'm cool with Christians not having to account for what other Christians say, religious-wise. So long as they stop claiming to be an overwhelming majority. You can't really have it both ways, after all
When I make such claims, it is generally to counter the absurd idea that Christians are being "marginalized". I do think that, since people who described themselves as Christian are in a large majority in the US, that we have a larger responsibility to "watch our feet". Rather like Gulliver. I think including all of those who claim to be Christian (whether or not I agree with their theology) is appropriate in this context.
If I were saying that because Christians are a majority, we should get to have things our own way...
First, as a proudly card-carrying member of the ACLU, I'm not likely to say such a thing. And second, the folks who do say that are unlikely to want things the way I want them anyhow.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: You say "never", but you must realize that the conversion issue and the patrilineal descent issue are bringing the day when a majority of Reform Jews aren't actually Jewish a lot closer, and a lot faster, right? It can't keep going in this direction forever and still have the current legal presumption hold, right?
Could be true. I guess it depends on just how often this patrilineal descent things comes up, (not to mention if proselytyzing takes hold) and how likely those children end up calling themselves Reform Jews their entire lives. Reform Judaism's official stance may be to accept patrilineal descent, but I still sense a stigma when it comes up without an "official Reform" conversion.
If you are correct perhaps it will become a true Noachide religion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Things like the gramma switch are not permissible for every day use. They're for "great need". Turning on a ventilator is a great need. Opening the fridge door is not a great need in most cases.
Why, then, is there a cottage industry that produces gramma switches for ovens?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: My husband and I have known Jews who have a problem with this situation. We have a problem with THEM. We have consulted our rabbi and know that we are doing our best.
IMO, anyone who has a problem with what you were told by your rav needs the tip of their nose removed.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So making someone wait a random interval is sufficiently indirect, but causing a compressor to turn on by the otherwise unrelated action of opening a fridge is NOT indirect enough?
I never thought I would say this. Tom, many Orthodox authorities would agree with you . . . well, at least about the fridge. Moreover, I think it's pretty clear that the Star-K guy being interviewed would agree as well:
quote: I ask if he has a Sabbath mode oven at home. "Three of them," he says. How about a Sabbath fridge? He scoffs. Who wants a fridge so high tech that it requires a Sabbath mode? "They're too fancy. Why do I need to know what the temperature is inside my refrigerator? Why do I need a light in my crisper?"
Note that he uses a regular fridge, and thus must not have a problem with open and closing it on Shabbos. (I suspect that other quote was referring to those fancy built-in fridges (Superzero used to have a line, IIRC) that turn on the compressor every time the door is opened. Immediately. I know someone who used to install Shabbos switches to turn exactly that feature off.)
Lisa is also oversimplifying. Using grama as a shinui (best approximation: alteration) is allowed for "great need" situations ONLY for certain categories of things. (I am so not going to start explaining the difference between and implications of d'oraysa, d'rabanan, and minhag yisrael!) For other things, grama is just fine.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: rivka posted something a long time ago about how all the different mitzvos are gifts from God that giver an opportunity to do good. Even eating is given over to contemplate God's will. I believe it was rivka who commented, also long ago, that honest intellectual wrangling over seemingly little things, all with the intent of following God's will, is a good act. If I recall correctly, one of God's commands is to interpret his commands, so simply being over-careful and going beyond what is required would not be the best way to follow God's commands. Rather, one is supposed to honestly investigate the situation, consulting appropriate authority, and arrive at the correct answer.
(My apologies if I am misremembering. I'd love to have my recollection corrected if wrong and to see further expansion on this topic.)
I have no idea if I said all that. If I didn't, can we pretend I did? I certainly agree with it. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The first part I mentioned was in a linked article, and I'm almost positive that it was you who posted it. The second I'm less sure of the poster, but I know I read it on Hatrack sometime over a year ago.
Either way, it stuck with me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In her OP, Lisa mentioned her dislike of Chanuka songs (which I do not agree with, mostly). I therefore offer a recent release I was apprised of by a blogger. (Hanukkah Rocks, the 14th in the queue, top right.) I don't like all (or even most) of these (except How Do You Spell Channukkahh -- that one I like! ), but clearly many of the haters-of-traditional-Chanuka-music do.
Enjoy!
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Is that switch a dimmer? Just curious.
Nope. A dimmer would be just as problematic. It's called a gramma switch. Gramma means indirect causation.
I met some Modern Orthodox Jews this past weekend that would use a light dimmer as long as it was not dimmed all of the way off, but would not use gramma switches. I had never heard of such a thing, which is why I was asking.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's not at all uncommon -- even within Judaism -- for people to disagree strongly on not only what things are "minor," but who gets to decide which things are "minor." Not really. Not unless you count anything that any Jew says as "Judaism". In which case you could include Karl Marx, Alan Greenspan, Noam Chomsky and Scarlett Johanssen as determiners of what "Judaism" is."
How about we talk instead about The Ramba'm and the mulitple herems against him? Can we agree that Maimonedes is one of the most important determinents of Judaism of the last 2500 years?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If it is, then it's justified arrogance. I refer you back to my example of me trying to finish David Gerrold's Chtorr series. If I want to write a book about the Earth being invaded by a hostile organism, that's fine. But if I call it "the continuation/conclusion of David Gerrold's Chtorr series", it's not fine at all. And if Gerrold tells me that I'm barking up the wrong tree, or just plain barking, it may be arrogant, but it's legitimate."
Except that this relies upon you being able to establish a continuous single thread of judaism that leads back to Moses. And you also have to demonstrate that outgrowths from that thread of judaism have not also been considered judaism, over the last 3200 years.
Neither of these are possible.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Esther, those aren't violations.
I second that. Pikuach Nefesh doche Shabbat. And if it's PN every week, then so be it. In fact, not turning on the switch would be an Aveira - and that, Tante Esther, is the irony in the case.
But that's the way it works. It's a sin, if not more than one, to keep the "Shabbat" literally, "fundamentalistically", without taking into account the special circumstances you're under. The way I see the morality and mortality in this case, keeping your husband alive is just a tad more important than obeying an ambiguous 3,300 y.o. rule literally according to single, unelaborated interpretation.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm curious how the "3300 year old" calculation is made in this case.
Is the claim that G-d inspired the rabbi who worked out the electrical switch analogy to "lighting a fire" in the Mosaic laws?
Or did G-d actually tell the rabbi what to say?
Or, did the rabbi have the authority to extend the law to new situations without necessarily seeking a revelation from G-d, but using Scripture and commentary?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jonathan Howard: In fact, not turning on the switch would be an Aveira
Well, I know that! I mean, he's still breathing, right?
<goes to check>
Right.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I think the important thing to remember is that as far as the interpretation of the commandments go, there is a huge spectrum from things that pretty much everyone agrees on to things that there is a lot of controversy over. This increases as technology increases. Obviously, there is nothing in the scriptures or commentaries about respirators. So it becomes a matter of what your rabbi tells you. And Orthodox rabbis will not all give you the exact same interpretation, although it is usually very similar.
For example, my rabbi counsels not to eat any of the pre-packaged Passover food at all. He doesn't trust it. My cousin's rabbi advises that the OU heksher is not reliable for dairy, where my rabbi has no problem with it.
So it is definitely false to say that among observant Jews, there is one view. That kind of thing only comes from religions where there is a central decision making body (or person) that can create consensus.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva:
For example, my rabbi counsels not to eat any of the pre-packaged Passover food at all. He doesn't trust it. My cousin's rabbi advises that the OU heksher is not reliable for dairy, where my rabbi has no problem with it.
I've always been bothered by the pre packaged matzo meal used to bake cakes and bread the chicken. It just sort of seems like cheating to me.
By the way whats the deal on egg noodles for Passover? Ok or not?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I'm curious how the "3300 year old" calculation is made in this case.
Well, the Torah was given in 2448, which is actually 2450 according to the dating system we use today. This past Shavuot (the anniversary of the Torah having been given) was in the year 5765.
That works out to approximately 3315 years. Bringing it up to today, it'd be 3315 years, 6 months, and 21 or 22 days. Tick, tick, tick...
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Is the claim that G-d inspired the rabbi who worked out the electrical switch analogy to "lighting a fire" in the Mosaic laws?
Or did G-d actually tell the rabbi what to say?
Or, did the rabbi have the authority to extend the law to new situations without necessarily seeking a revelation from G-d, but using Scripture and commentary?
I don't think he extended the law. Could you please explain how you see an extension? I see an application.
Btw, 6.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I think the important thing to remember is that as far as the interpretation of the commandments go, there is a huge spectrum from things that pretty much everyone agrees on to things that there is a lot of controversy over. This increases as technology increases. Obviously, there is nothing in the scriptures or commentaries about respirators. So it becomes a matter of what your rabbi tells you. And Orthodox rabbis will not all give you the exact same interpretation, although it is usually very similar.
For example, my rabbi counsels not to eat any of the pre-packaged Passover food at all. He doesn't trust it. My cousin's rabbi advises that the OU heksher is not reliable for dairy, where my rabbi has no problem with it.
So it is definitely false to say that among observant Jews, there is one view. That kind of thing only comes from religions where there is a central decision making body (or person) that can create consensus.
True. But there are absolutely lines that once crossed are outside of Judaism. Driving on Shabbat for reasons other than saving lives, for example. And even when there are different rulings in differing communities, it's still done according to the same system. Replace the system, and what one has is out of bounds regardless of the conclusions one reaches.
Also, we're supposed to have a central halakhic (Jewish legal) authority. We don't currently, but that's a temporary problem. We're commanded to, and we will. But it's not as easy as just saying, "Let's do it", and there are obstacles. Which will be overcome eventually.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva:
For example, my rabbi counsels not to eat any of the pre-packaged Passover food at all. He doesn't trust it. My cousin's rabbi advises that the OU heksher is not reliable for dairy, where my rabbi has no problem with it.
I've always been bothered by the pre packaged matzo meal used to bake cakes and bread the chicken. It just sort of seems like cheating to me.
See, and I have no problem with it at all. Maimonides once noted that there are enough things that we're not allowed. Adding to that is inappropriate. I eat Bac-Os. I eat any kind of mock-treyf I like. There's a veggie sausage product that, while not nearly spicy enough, can be used as a servicable topping for pizza.
There's a statement that was made by Rabbi Tarfon, one of our Sages. He said, "A person should not say: I abhor pork, and therefore I will not eat it. Rather, he should say: I crave pork, but what can I do? My Father in heaven has forbidden it."
Given a choice between a slice of Kraft cheddar cheese and a burger with fried goose breast on top (yes, it does taste like a bacon burger), there shouldn't be any question. The first one is not kosher, and the second one is (well, if it is). There used to be a restaurant in Jerusalem called La Brasa that made that kind of burger. Yum!
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: By the way whats the deal on egg noodles for Passover? Ok or not?
Why not? They aren't great, but they're certainly acceptable, assuming that they have a hechsher.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Perhaps the town where I live is atypical. We have several Orthodox shuls and one Conservative shul. The neighboring towns have a fair number of Conservative and Reform shuls, and a few Orthodox.
The Consevative shul in my town had for years a beloved rabbi who held Orthodox smicha (ordination) as well as Conservative. This shul was a bit old-fashioned in its practice -- perhaps 30 or 40 years behind the mainstream Conservative practice. Families sat together, and the congregation sang the litergy together, but women did not count in a minyan, were not permitted on the bima, and the prayers pretty closely followed the Orthodox tradition. The old beloved rabbi retired, and the congregation got a new young Conservative rabbi. He slowly began to make changes -- new Chumashim, different siddurim and maxorim, allowing the new president of the congregation (a woman) to sit up at the bima during services, and most recently, starting an egalitarian minyan, running parallel to the traditional minyan.
The congregation was largely shomer mitzvot -- Kashrut, Shabbos, Yomin Tovim were all observed by the vast majority of the congregation. The local mikveh was popular with both folk from the Conservative and the Orthodox shuls.
Since the changes, there has been an exodus from the shul -- to the Orthodox ones in town. In all, the new members of the Orthodox congregations feel right at home in their new shuls. The beleaguered Conservative shul is now trying to recruit new members not from within walking distance, but from the outlying areas.
I think you may be talking about my former shul and my beloved rabbi. The description sure sounds like it.
When we moved out of town, we joined an orthodox synagogue, though, because many conservative synagogues don't match that level of observance, and we couldn't find one that would be within walking distance. Our observance of Judaism is basically what would be called "modern orthodox."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Goose is kosher? This I did not know. My mother said I am totally not allowed to eat duck, shrimp or any pork, but I am not SDA anymore (SDA follows the rules in Leviticus, some are vegetarians. I do not want to be a vegetarian)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva:
For example, my rabbi counsels not to eat any of the pre-packaged Passover food at all. He doesn't trust it. My cousin's rabbi advises that the OU heksher is not reliable for dairy, where my rabbi has no problem with it.
I've always been bothered by the pre packaged matzo meal used to bake cakes and bread the chicken. It just sort of seems like cheating to me.
See, and I have no problem with it at all. Maimonides once noted that there are enough things that we're not allowed. Adding to that is inappropriate. I eat Bac-Os. I eat any kind of mock-treyf I like. There's a veggie sausage product that, while not nearly spicy enough, can be used as a servicable topping for pizza.
There's a statement that was made by Rabbi Tarfon, one of our Sages. He said, "A person should not say: I abhor pork, and therefore I will not eat it. Rather, he should say: I crave pork, but what can I do? My Father in heaven has forbidden it."
Given a choice between a slice of Kraft cheddar cheese and a burger with fried goose breast on top (yes, it does taste like a bacon burger), there shouldn't be any question. The first one is not kosher, and the second one is (well, if it is). There used to be a restaurant in Jerusalem called La Brasa that made that kind of burger. Yum!
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: By the way whats the deal on egg noodles for Passover? Ok or not?
Why not? They aren't great, but they're certainly acceptable, assuming that they have a hechsher.
I guess its the whole sacrifice way of thinking most religions do that leaks into my mind. I guess I should think of Passover as remembering rather then mimicking those events.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I went to a restaurant in D.C. last weekend that served parve cheeseburgers, no milk or meat. I'm guessing it was all soy product, but I really didn't want to find out.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I went to a restaurant in D.C. last weekend that served parve cheeseburgers, no milk or meat. I'm guessing it was all soy product, but I really didn't want to find out.
Do you live in the DC area? Only 20 minutes from there myself. What restaurant?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
No, I was visiting a friend. It was Eli's. I don't really know where it was, but it was walking distance from Kesher Israel, if you know where that is.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Goose is kosher? This I did not know. My mother said I am totally not allowed to eat duck, shrimp or any pork, but I am not SDA anymore (SDA follows the rules in Leviticus, some are vegetarians. I do not want to be a vegetarian)
Goose and duck are fine. So is quail and squab. Beef and bison and goat and mutton and lamb and venison are okay as well, although I don't know anywhere to get kosher goat, and venison can't be hunted; it has to basically be raised in captivity.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I went to a restaurant in D.C. last weekend that served parve cheeseburgers, no milk or meat. I'm guessing it was all soy product, but I really didn't want to find out.
Eww...
I never liked cheeseburgers even when I was a kid, but parve cheese. <shudder> There are restaurants here in Chicago and Skokie that have kosher cheeseburgers, but the burgers, at least, are real.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
My friend served me parve bacon this past weekend. I bit into it thinking it was going to a fruit roll-up type thing.
I have mountains of things to say about how disgusting fake treyf can be.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I love Fakin Bacon, which is basically smoke flavored tempeh strips.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I like the Morningstar Farms!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: I think you may be talking about my former shul and my beloved rabbi. The description sure sounds like it.
Where was that?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Highland Park, NJ.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: My friend served me parve bacon this past weekend. I bit into it thinking it was going to a fruit roll-up type thing.
I have mountains of things to say about how disgusting fake treyf can be.
Okay, but that was parve bacon. Not-meat is never going to be the same as meat. If you want fake bacon, get beef fry. Until I had that goose breast in Jerusalem, I thought beef fry was the best I could do, and it's not bad at all.
There's breakfast sausage links made by 999 which are strictly kosher, but don't really taste it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I like the Morningstar Farms!
The Morningstar Farms bacon? Have you ever had real bacon? The Morningstar Farms stuff is like bacon crackers.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
I grew up in Highland Park.
Granted, a different Highland Park, but still... <grin>
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
starLisa,
Do Orthodox Jews obey the commandment to stone to death those who fail to observe Shabbat?
Do Orthodox Jews obey the many commandments to sacrifice animals at the appointed times?
If Orthodox Jews do not observe these and many other commandments stated in the Torah, then how can Orthodox Jews claim to observe "Torah Judaism"? Have not Orthodox Jews abandoned or modified many of the mitzvot expressly stated in the text of the Torah?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: starLisa,
Do Orthodox Jews obey the commandment to stone to death those who fail to observe Shabbat?
Do Orthodox Jews obey the many commandments to sacrifice animals at the appointed times?
If Orthodox Jews do not observe these and many other commandments stated in the Torah, then how can Orthodox Jews claim to observe "Torah Judaism"? Have not Orthodox Jews abandoned or modified many of the mitzvot expressly stated in the text of the Torah?
Typical arguments posed by missionaries. StarLisa, go get 'em. Next he will try to say Jesus satisfies the commandment of sacrifice.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: The Morningstar Farms stuff is like bacon crackers.
I like crackers!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: StarLisa, go get 'em.
Like she REALLY needs to be egged on! Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
David G, welcome to Hatrack. Might I suggest you read the entire thread before making posts like that? Those issues have already been addressed. Five or six pages ago.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so. Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: starLisa,
Do Orthodox Jews obey the commandment to stone to death those who fail to observe Shabbat?
Do Orthodox Jews obey the many commandments to sacrifice animals at the appointed times?
If Orthodox Jews do not observe these and many other commandments stated in the Torah, then how can Orthodox Jews claim to observe "Torah Judaism"? Have not Orthodox Jews abandoned or modified many of the mitzvot expressly stated in the text of the Torah?
In short they have been put on hold until the day comes that they can be done properly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I never liked cheeseburgers even when I was a kid, but parve cheese. <shudder> There are restaurants here in Chicago and Skokie that have kosher cheeseburgers, but the burgers, at least, are real.
A mild derailment, but cheese ain't the most important thing on a burger at all. A toasted bun and some ketchup, and proper seasoning for the beef, these are far more important things.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
interesting I never even thought of the whole cheeseburger thing. *makes mental notes for future characters*
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Highland Park -- the source!
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Oh, and don't forget Son of Shvester. He is a 'racker, too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
O_o The source of what?
The link, maybe.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The source of frummy 'rackdom.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But it was over 20 years from when I lived in Edison to when I joined Hatrack. And I don't think any of us (except perhaps SoS?) were born there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The Source? Well, Hatrack certainly has a Darkseid...
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
OK, so maybe it's not the source. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
But it is The Link. Sort of like a Ring, I suppose.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Oh, that kind of link. I thought you meant this kind of link.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I went to shul in Highland Park when I went to a conference at Rutgers. Does that count?
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: David G, welcome to Hatrack. Might I suggest you read the entire thread before making posts like that? Those issues have already been addressed. Five or six pages ago.
Thank you. But, respectfully, while the issue of the differences between Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism have been debated at length, including the concept of "Torah Judaism," I do not believe the precise issues/arguments/questions raised in my post were addressed, and I was seeking to add to the debate. If I missed during my reading of this thread, however, a specific discussion on my questions, then I do apologize.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I went to shul in Highland Park when I went to a conference at Rutgers. Does that count?
Sure!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Last name Goldberg, eh?
You wouldn't happen to be a Messianic, would you?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Last name Goldberg, eh?
You wouldn't happen to be a Messianic, would you?
I was wondering the same thing. They had their whole "Behold Your God Campaign" here in DC and Baltimore. Even Christians should be offended by them.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
At least they've stopped those dreadful Chanuka ads they were running in newspapers for a few years.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: At least they've stopped those dreadful Chanuka ads they were running in newspapers for a few years.
They've been replaced with billboards showing holocaust victims.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Thank you. But, respectfully, while the issue of the differences between Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism have been debated at length, including the concept of "Torah Judaism," I do not believe the precise issues/arguments/questions raised in my post were addressed, and I was seeking to add to the debate. If I missed during my reading of this thread, however, a specific discussion on my questions, then I do apologize.
It was perhaps not discussed quite so bluntly as you raised it, but there was a discussion between TomD and starLisa that covered it. Basically, and I'm paraphrasing for simplicity's sake, Lisa said that the death penalty could not be enacted without the proper authority from the proper courts, which do not exist at this time in history. Likewise, sacrifices are only to be made at the Temple in Jeruselem. Since there is no Temple, it is not proper to make sacrifices.
I am not Jewish, and have not studied these issues at all. I'm just repeating what I understand from having read this thread. Your questions seem to me to be intentionally inflammatory. I could be wrong, of course, and I apologize if I am. However, since this thread has only recently settled down from the last inflammatory section, I have no real desire to see it go there again. I'm enjoying reading it, when it manages to stay civil.
Added: I do not, of course, answer your last question. I am not qualified to. But since the examples you gave were already covered in the thread, I wanted to point that out. Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I love it when those kind of objections are raised like we have never heard them before.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:They've been replaced with billboards showing holocaust victims.
*flinch* Oh, yes. I recall those. Haven't seen any in quite some time, though.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G, pretending that he's talking to Dr. Laura: starLisa,
Do Orthodox Jews obey the commandment to stone to death those who fail to observe Shabbat?
Yes. Absolutely. And we do so in complete accordance with Torah law. So there are a few minor requirements for it to be done properly.
First we're going to need two valid witnesses seeing the person violating Shabbat d'Orayta (that means the prohibitions that are from Sinai, and not the prohibitions that were added on as fences by the rabbis). That shouldn't be too difficult.
Then we need the witnesses to warn the perp, right then and there, that what he's about to do is a d'Orayta prohibition. The witnesses also have to make it clear to him that the penalty is death, and what that involves, and they have to make sure that he understands 100%.
That last part is going to be a little difficult, given the legal presumption most non-religious Jews have, which is that they are as responsible for violating the law as a child kidnapped by non-Jews and raised in an entirely different religion.
But all is not lost! We're sure to find someone who grew up Orthodox and had a solid education and nevertheless apostasized. One who doesn't mind getting executed to make a point.
There's got to be someone out there who falls into that category, right? So we get the witnesses to warn the guy, not once, but twice, and the perp confirms that he gets it and goes ahead anyway and lights a fire, or writes two letters, or whatever.
Now we've got him.
Lastly, we need a Sanhedrin which meets on the Temple Mount. Hmm... that's going to be difficult. We don't have one of those. Darn it, I guess we can't kill the perp after all. Shucky darns.
But other than that technicality, sure. The law hasn't changed.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Do Orthodox Jews obey the many commandments to sacrifice animals at the appointed times?
Yup! Absolutely. In every particular. Just like that whole stoning thing. Tomorrow morning, one of the appointed priests is going to go over to the altar in the Temple and... excuse me? Could you say that a little louder? No Temple? Really? Well, that's going to put a crimp in things, now, isn't it?
But as soon as we get that little technical glitch ironed out, we'll be right back on track. The law, David, hasn't changed.
quote:Originally posted by David G: If Orthodox Jews do not observe these and many other commandments stated in the Torah,
Ah... this is what happens so often. One of the cool things about a syllogism is that if one of the premises is false, you can chuck the whole thing.
"Well, if Socrates is a philosopher and all philosophers are fish, it stands to reason that Socrates is a fish."
or
"Well, if Socrates is a teaspoon of vinegar and all teaspoons of vinegar are Greek, it follows that Socrates is Greek."
With that one, you even have a correct conclusion, but it's correct in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day.
Getting back to you, David, when you start with:
quote:Originally posted by David G: If Orthodox Jews do not observe these and many other commandments stated in the Torah,
... well, we can pretty much chuck the rest. Because all it takes is one false premise.
quote:Originally posted by David G: then how can Orthodox Jews claim to observe "Torah Judaism"? Have not Orthodox Jews abandoned or modified many of the mitzvot expressly stated in the text of the Torah?
Nope. But thanks for asking.
[Edited because I wouldn't have beaten David up as badly if I'd seen later posts making unfortunate accusations against him.]
[ December 29, 2005, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Typical arguments posed by missionaries. StarLisa, go get 'em. Next he will try to say Jesus satisfies the commandment of sacrifice.
I'm not sure you're right, Stephan. Oh, it's possible, but it sounded more like a partial rerun of the "Letter to Dr. Laura" thing that was flying around the Internet some time back. And that was hardly coming from a missionary point of view.
David, can you enlighten us?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: StarLisa, go get 'em.
Like she REALLY needs to be egged on!
Really. <grin>
And what happened? I turn my back for a couple of hours and we hit an 11th page?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*whistles innocently*
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Typical arguments posed by missionaries. StarLisa, go get 'em. Next he will try to say Jesus satisfies the commandment of sacrifice.
I'm not sure you're right, Stephan. Oh, it's possible, but it sounded more like a partial rerun of the "Letter to Dr. Laura" thing that was flying around the Internet some time back. And that was hardly coming from a missionary point of view.
David, can you enlighten us?
I hope I'm wrong. But even if he was going to follow up saying Jesus is the answer may he be truly a Christian and not a Jew for Jesus.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I never liked cheeseburgers even when I was a kid, but parve cheese. <shudder> There are restaurants here in Chicago and Skokie that have kosher cheeseburgers, but the burgers, at least, are real.
A mild derailment, but cheese ain't the most important thing on a burger at all. A toasted bun and some ketchup, and proper seasoning for the beef, these are far more important things.
I'm not even sure about the seasoning part. And a really good hamburger can be eaten with just a teeny bit of A-1.
There's a place in Skokie called "Ken's Diner". It's kind of a 50's diner, but kosher. They have a thing called a "Burger Buddy". It's a half pound burger, fries and a drink. When I was living in Israel, I used to commiserate with my fellow ex-Chicagoans (am I an ex-ex-Chicagoan now?) about Burger Buddys.
You know the episode of M*A*S*H where they order ribs from Adam's Ribs in Chicago? Well, if we were in that situation, it would have been Burger Buddys all around.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
And one from Highland Park, IL.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's clearly just a coincidence.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Last name Goldberg, eh?
You wouldn't happen to be a Messianic, would you?
With all due respect, rivka, I think that's unfair and inappropriate. And an example of why lashon hara is such a major prohibition. One person makes that kind of suggestion (for reasons I don't think are valid), and you're accusing a Jew of being a J4J?
I think you owe him an apology.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Last name Goldberg, eh?
You wouldn't happen to be a Messianic, would you?
With all due respect, rivka, I think that's unfair and inappropriate. And an example of why lashon hara is such a major prohibition. One person makes that kind of suggestion (for reasons I don't think are valid), and you're accusing a Jew of being a J4J?
I think you owe him an apology.
I'll start, I think I sort of made the initial allegation. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. He might very well have been told that by someone else and was unsure how to respond.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lisa, I think I have encountered this particular individual elsewhere online. I will apologize as soon as he says it is not true.
And Stephan, my reaction had little or nothing to do with what you said.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lisa, I think I have encountered this particular individual elsewhere online.
Wha? There's an elsewhere?
<ponders the posting possibilities>
Nah! I'll stick with Hatrack!
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
I'm not "messianic." I'm not "missionary." And I have never written to Dr. Laura.
I am an observant Conservative Jew. I observe Shabbat (I walk to services every Shabbat morning; no light switches; etc...). I believe that observance of halakha is central to Jewish living, and I see this belief as a tenet of Conservative Judaism generally (although this particular post is not intended to argue that point). In fact, the Rabbis in my Shul actively encourage congregants to walk to Shul. Every Shabbat morning, I walk right past the Chabbad, the parking lot of which is full. The major reason for my being Conservative as opposed to Orthodox is I like to daven with my wife and daughter.
starLisa - I believe the conditions you refer to for stoning to death one who fails to observe Shabbat are conditions found only in Rabbinic law. Are they also found in the text of the Torah and stated as conditions to the stoning? If not, then Orthodox Jews have chosen to rely not upon the Torah, but rather the modifications/expansions to the Torah handed down by the Rabbis many years later.
And thank you for the explanation concerning syllogisms ("I'm not a smart man, Jenny"). Clearly, if you establish that Orthodox Jews follow every letter of the law as expressly stated in the Torah, then Orthodox Jews observe "Torah Judaism." Based upon your answer, however, I presume that if I can show you any mitzvot in the Torah that are not observed by Orthodox Jews as stated therein, then you will agree that Orthodox Jews do not observe "Torah Judaism."
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lisa, I think I have encountered this particular individual elsewhere online. I will apologize as soon as he says it is not true.
And Stephan, my reaction had little or nothing to do with what you said.
Today was the very first time I posted on this or any other forum (and I'm starting to regret having done so). I have been reading this forum for a long time now and suddenly this thread provoked me to contribute.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Another question. How does who I am or the group I happen to belong to matter? I'm most certainly not J4J, but so what if I were? Isn't it the substance of the debate that matters? Or do we ignore what some people have to say just because of who they are?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
I have a VERY hard time believing that there is a single Chabadnik that drives on Shabbos, never mind enough to fill up a parking lot.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I have a VERY hard time believing that there is a single Chabadnik that drives on Shabbos, never mind enough to fill up a parking lot.
Actually, the parking lot is not completely full. Many of those attending the Chabbad park down the street and walk the rest of the way (wearing black hats and black suits with white shirts). But to be fair, those drive may not be, strictly speaking, Chabadniks, but rather Jews who enjoy attending services at the Chabbad. I suppose there is a difference.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Are you sure it's not the overflow from the Conservative parking lot?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: starLisa - I believe the conditions you refer to for stoning to death one who fails to observe Shabbat are conditions found only in Rabbinic law. Are they also found in the text of the Torah and stated as conditions to the stoning?
I'm sorry, maybe I didn't understand. You said you were Conservative; not a Karaite. Are you also a Karaite? Hmm... and that thing about the lightswitch that you mentioned, I must have missed that in the written Torah.
So David, as long as we have you here, could you help us out? Do you accept that God gave the Torah to Israel at Mount Sinai? Literally, I mean. I won't ask if you accept that the Oral Torah was given there as well, because you did say you were Conservative, and they tossed that one.
Here's a little link to the Torah 101 thread that happened some time ago. Your questions about that being in "Rabbinic law [sic]" are answered there.
quote:Originally posted by David G: If not, then Orthodox Jews have chosen to rely not upon the Torah, but rather the modifications/expansions to the Torah handed down by the Rabbis many years later.
Well, that's the rationalization used by the Conservative movement to make it easier to throw out parts of Jewish law that are inconvenient. And actually, I was taught that as well when I was growing up. In fact, we were even taught that Orthodox Jews also held the Oral Torah to have been "modifications/expansions to the Torah handed down by the Rabbis many years later", to use your excellent phrasing.
You probably can't imagine how angry I was when I started reading books written by Orthodox Jews (before I had any intention of becoming Orthodox myself) and found that I'd been... shall we say: misled.
quote:Originally posted by David G: And thank you for the explanation concerning syllogisms ("I'm not a smart man, Jenny").
Perhaps, but you clearly have some good taste in TV shows.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Clearly, if you establish that Orthodox Jews follow every letter of the law as expressly stated in the Torah, then Orthodox Jews observe "Torah Judaism." Based upon your answer, however, I presume that if I can show you any mitzvot in the Torah that are not observed by Orthodox Jews as stated therein, then you will agree that Orthodox Jews do not observe "Torah Judaism."
<sigh> Zil gmor, David. Bop on over to that Torah 101 thread and see if you still have questions on this count. This isn't going to be on the final; it's extra credit.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: I have a VERY hard time believing that there is a single Chabadnik that drives on Shabbos. You are almost certainly mistaken.
He is almost certainly not. He never said anything of the sort, either. Chabad does a lot of outreach to Jews who aren't observant. Many of them eventually become observant. Those who haven't, or who haven't yet, might very well drive.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Are you sure it's not the overflow from the Conservative parking lot?
Yes. The Conservative parking lot is 1/2 mile away. (Ironic - I walk a half mile out of my way, past the Chabbad, to attend services at a Conservative Shul. But I'm not the only one at my Shul who does so. I think it is because some Conservative Shuls have a lot to offer.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Another question. How does who I am or the group I happen to belong to matter? I'm most certainly not J4J, but so what if I were? Isn't it the substance of the debate that matters? Or do we ignore what some people have to say just because of who they are?
In principle, you're absolutely right, David. Ad hominem arguments are dodgy at best. But J4J isn't just another point of view. It's a deliberately dishonest one, formulated for the express purpose of tricking people. As a lawyer, wouldn't you agree that a track record of dishonesty can legitimately be used to impeach someone?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do not believe the precise issues/arguments/questions raised in my post were addressed.
I'm afraid they were, David. Basically, sL's position is that they'll do those things again once they have the proper authority to do so.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
David, if you go to edit one of your posts, you have the option of deleting it. You duplicated a post, which is why I mention it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Are you sure it's not the overflow from the Conservative parking lot?
How weird is it that I'm the only one willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
David, do you often get this reaction?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Ah, I had forgotten about all of Chabad's "missionary" efforts. Right, those people might drive. I apologize.
Those who drive, however, are not the Chabadniks. So if the implication is that the Conservative Jews are more observant than some Orthodox Jews, that would be incorrect.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
starLisa -
1. I'm not Karaite. Or rather, I don't think I am - I don't know what a "Karaite" is.
2. I believe that God gave the Torah to Israel at Mount Sanai. We were all there, but we all experience revelation in our own ways. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "literally." Did God's voice descend from the heavens, and was each word was written down on a scroll exactly as it was spoken?
3. My understanding is that Conservative Judaism sanctifies both the Oral Torah alongside the Written Torah. They did not throw it out.
4. I don't think light switches are mentioned in the Torah. But that's not why I observe that and other particular elements of halakha. The questions I posed are intended to end up at this theory: the difference between Orthodox and Conservative is a difference of degree and interpretation.
4. I guess I'm not going to get extra credit (and I'm clearly not going to impress anyone here). Are you saying that Orthodox Jews are "Torah Jews" because of their observance of the Written Torah as complemented by the Oral Torah?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
You aren't a Karaite.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: How weird is it that I'm the only one willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I find it hard to believe that someone would follow all of the commandments (which, let's face it, often creates much more work, expense, etc), and would chose a Conservative synagogue only because he "likes" not having a mechitza. I mean, why bother being observant if you believe that you can disregard a commandment if you don't like it?
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by David G: Another question. How does who I am or the group I happen to belong to matter? I'm most certainly not J4J, but so what if I were? Isn't it the substance of the debate that matters? Or do we ignore what some people have to say just because of who they are?
In principle, you're absolutely right, David. Ad hominem arguments are dodgy at best. But J4J isn't just another point of view. It's a deliberately dishonest one, formulated for the express purpose of tricking people. As a lawyer, wouldn't you agree that a track record of dishonesty can legitimately be used to impeach someone?
Credibility is an issue only when the facts reported by the witness are challenged. But when arguing a point of law, or philosophy, or logic, credibility is entirely irrelevant.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Are you sure it's not the overflow from the Conservative parking lot?
How weird is it that I'm the only one willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
David, do you often get this reaction?
Never before today. But if I continue posting on this forum, I will certainly be ready for it.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Ah, I had forgotten about all of Chabad's "missionary" efforts. Right, those people might drive. I apologize.
Those who drive, however, are not the Chabadniks. So if the implication is that the Conservative Jews are more observant than some Orthodox Jews, that would be incorrect.
I am not attempting to make that point, expressly or by implication. The comment just came out because I thought it was funny or ironic. I have friends at the Conservative Shul who often daven - and drive to get there.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: You aren't a Karaite.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: How weird is it that I'm the only one willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt.
I find it hard to believe that someone would follow all of the commandments (which, let's face it, often creates much more work, expense, etc), and would chose a Conservative synagogue only because he "likes" not having a mechitza. I mean, why bother being observant if you believe that you can disregard a commandment if you don't like it?
Good question - which gets to the heart of the matter. I observe because of how it helps me experience closeness with God. The more I observe, the more I experience God. But I don't judge others for not observing. I simply pity them for failing to experience what I experience.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
sL:
I'm sorry to get back to you so late in the day on an issue from more than a page ago. Yikes.
Anyway, my question about the law being interpreted ... you say the rabbi merely applied it. I understand the viewpoint, but I kind of wonder, if there's no single authority, "applying" the law seems too optimistic a term. If one disagrees with the application, or gets a different "application" from another source, then it's no longer THE law, but differing interpretations of it, seems to me.
Or are you saying that there really is ONE person in each generation who is the acknowledged source of true applications of the law in new situations?
Ultimately, the sense in which you use the word "law" is becoming less and less familiar to me if the law can be extended through application to new situations rather than having an explicit recognition that the new extension of the law really is beyond what G-d said. It may be what God intends, but knowing that to be true seems fraught with all sorts of problems. Surely this has been wrestled with since the day after the law was received (or the day after G-d stopped talking directly to Moses).
EVERYONE: I'm hoping this isn't coming off as offensive. The atmosphere is a little bit "charged" here at the moment. I'm mostly just curious, so if this question is a pain or seems like I'm needling, please just ignore it. Or tell me and I'll delete it.
Thanks!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
David G, I apologize for my reaction before. For whatever reasons, you reminded of my a poster from elsewhere with whom I have extremely bad associations. That was unfair to you, and I will try to do better.
BTW, welcome to Hatrack!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Bob, I'm not offended, by I think this has become an argument of semantics.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Today was the very first time I posted on this or any other forum (and I'm starting to regret having done so).
David, I'm sorry that your first experience here has made you regretful. You just picked a really heated topic to jump into (well, I guess that's what motivated you to jump in, though). Lisa loves to debate, and she is a woman of strong opinions. I love that about her, but I also know that some people find that she comes on a bit strong. I guess that a good caveat would be that if you tussle with Lisa, you should expect to get tussled back. I don't like fighting, so I tend to avoid it, but I don't mind spectating and watching other people debate.
I am glad to have your voice joined in to the chorus here. As I said earlier in this thread, I don't even see much sense in the labels and denominations that Jews have given themselves, but, eh, if it makes people happy, enjoy.
The point of this post is to welcome you to Hatrack ( ) and to let you know that I look forward to hearing more from you.
Welcome aboard! And a freiliche chanukkah to you!
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Bob, it's more like the "laws" are articles of the U.S. Constitution. Imagine that the U.S. is invaded and the people scatter, thus losing their judicial review process. But there are people who still try to live their lives by the Constitution.
One of their "commandments" is to allow freedom of press. A new technology comes out that is not exactly a press but functions as a press, distributing news, editorials, etc. In each of the communities of "Constitutionalists," the wise leaders interpret how their followers must use the new technology, based on the precedents of how "press-like technologies" have been used before, and how other technologies are treated. It's not identical in every community, because there is some doubt about the exact right way to do it and because maybe some of the wise leaders are not so wise. But the general idea holds in each community.
Rhetorically, would you say that these communities were following the "law"? Or that they were creating a new law?
There are, of course, problems with this metaphor, but I think the general idea holds. In particular, the Constitution was not G-d given, and the "laws" of the scriptures are much more exact than the articles of the Constitution.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You probably can't imagine how angry I was when I started reading books written by Orthodox Jews (before I had any intention of becoming Orthodox myself) and found that I'd been... shall we say: misled."
I hope you therefore understand why I might say you are, shall we say: misleading, when you say that conservative jews reject rabbinic authority. Its true from a given perspective but its nevertheless a false statement, because the people holding the position accept rabbinic authority... just not in the manner you want them to.
You don't have sole claim to the meaning of the term "rabbinic authority" because there's no real historical evidence that the position you stake out as the "true position" is what really happened.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Minerva, thanks, I like the analogy. I realize it's not a perfect one, but I think it does help me understand somewhat. I appreciate it.
And rivka, I agree that it appears to be a semantic difference.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And Bob, 3 to go. I'm so excited...
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: Bob, it's more like the "laws" are articles of the U.S. Constitution. Imagine that the U.S. is invaded and the people scatter, thus losing their judicial review process. But there are people who still try to live their lives by the Constitution.
One of their "commandments" is to allow freedom of press. A new technology comes out that is not exactly a press but functions as a press, distributing news, editorials, etc. In each of the communities of "Constitutionalists," the wise leaders interpret how their followers must use the new technology, based on the precedents of how "press-like technologies" have been used before, and how other technologies are treated. It's not identical in every community, because there is some doubt about the exact right way to do it and because maybe some of the wise leaders are not so wise. But the general idea holds in each community.
Rhetorically, would you say that these communities were following the "law"? Or that they were creating a new law?
There are, of course, problems with this metaphor, but I think the general idea holds. In particular, the Constitution was not G-d given, and the "laws" of the scriptures are much more exact than the articles of the Constitution.
Another problem I see with the comparison is that G-d being all knowing would have known about future technology well in advance. Whereas the founding fathers didn't have a clue. I guess I find it troubling that G-d's laws were so clear for our ancestors, and yet must be interpreted to fit some of today's world.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
starLisa, two questions:
Is it your position that at the time the Oral Torah was delivered to Israel at Mt. Sinai that the Oral Torah included, at that time, the conditions to stoning you previously referred to (witness, convening of Sanhedrin, etc...)?
Did the Oral Torah grow and evolve over time, or does it exist now exactly as it was when delivered to Israel at Mt. Sinai?
These questions are not rhetorical. I am genuinely interested in your answers. Thanks.
[ December 30, 2005, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Welcome aboard! And a freiliche chanukkah to you!
Thank you, and to you.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: BTW, welcome to Hatrack!
Thank you.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
I just wanted to say that, after five years of lurking here, I finally decided to sign-up just so that I could say "thanks" for having this thread. I don't know anything whatsoever about Judaism. And this thread has been fascinating, as well as the Torah 101 thread. I have learned quite a lot in a very short time. Thanks! (and I hope to start posting more often now that I finally made the plunge)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: I guess I'm not going to get extra credit (and I'm clearly not going to impress anyone here).
You impress me with the civility and calmness of your responses, David G. Welcome to Hatrack.
(For what it's worth, I expected you to be more inflammatory after your first post, as it read to me -- like others have mentioned -- as a red flag in how it was worded. I've been pleasantly surprised, though, and I'm glad you've stayed.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: starLisa, two questions:
Actually, you can just call me Lisa. The "starLisa" thing is because "Lisa" is almost always one of the first usernames to go, and my domain is starways dot net.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Is it your position that at the time the Oral Torah was delivered to Israel at Mt. Sinai that the Oral Torah included, at that time, the conditions to stoning you previously referred to (witness, convening of Sanhedrin, etc...)?
<sigh> You're really determined not to look at the Torah 101 thread, aren't you. You want to make me recapitulate that whole thing here?
Look, just read the first post in that thread. Honest.
But to answer this question, yes, that's exactly what I'm contending. I'm telling you that "an eye for an eye" was never literal lex talionis. That "don't cook a kid in its mother's milk" always meant that you can't cook kosher beheima meat and kosher beheima milk together, that you can't eat such a cooked together mixture, and that you can't derive benefit from it either. That it was always permissible -- required, rather -- to violate Shabbat in order to save lives.
Now, are there rabbinic additions? Sure. And we make a point of distinguishing between the two. Not in terms of compliance, but in terms of certain legalities. For example, there's a halakhic category of safek, or doubt. When there's doubt about a d'Orayta (Sinaitic) law, we choose the more stringent side. When there's a doubt about a d'Rabbanan (Rabbinic) law, we choose the more lenient side.
For example, if I'm eating something, and all of a sudden I think, "Wait... did I remember to say a blessing on this food?" I don't say it. Because that's a rabbinic requirement. But if a man thinks, "Wait... did I remember to put on tefillin today?" He has to go and put it on. Because the requirement is d'Orayta.
If I cook a hamburger with cheese, I've violated a law that was given at Sinai. If I make a sandwich of corned beef and cheese (without cooking them together), I've violated a rabbinic law. Follow?
quote:Originally posted by David G: Did the Oral Torah grow and evolve over time, or does it exist now exactly as it was when delivered to Israel at Mt. Sinai?
These questions are not rhetorical. I am genuinely interested in your answers. Thanks.
No problem. Do you mind if I give you an analogy? Let's say I have a microwave oven. When I bought it, I had a regular oven as well, and I only ever used the microwave to heat things up. Never to cook with.
One day, my oven breaks. And I go to the instruction book for the microwave (which was there all along) and look through it. I find that I can cook food from scratch in the microwave.
So now I'm using the microwave differently than I was before my oven broke, but has the microwave changed? I'd say it hasn't. Even the new use is something it was always able to do.
Now... that doesn't mean I can do anything I want with the microwave. If I try washing my clothes in it, I'm going to have some serious problems. If I try cooking something in it in a metal pan, there's going to be trouble.
The manufacturer built into it certain capabilities. Some I may never use. Some I may use a lot. How do I decide? Well, there's the instruction book, right?
Now, this analogy is far from perfect, but it's a partial illustration. Has the Oral Torah changed over time? Well, the outward manifestation of it has, certainly. We know that the Amidah prayer, for example, was written during the early Second Temple period. So obviously King David didn't say the Amidah.
But the system of law and lore that is the Torah has never changed. Nor will it ever. God isn't time bound, after all, and He's omnicient. If He wanted it to change, He could have given it to us differently.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sala: I just wanted to say that, after five years of lurking here, I finally decided to sign-up just so that I could say "thanks" for having this thread. I don't know anything whatsoever about Judaism. And this thread has been fascinating, as well as the Torah 101 thread. I have learned quite a lot in a very short time. Thanks! (and I hope to start posting more often now that I finally made the plunge)
Welcome, Sala! And I'm glad you're enjoying it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually now I have a question. Since your email doesn't seem to work and the first question I asked is kinda big I'll ask something similar; Assuming we're able to leave Earth and colonize other worlds and find alien species with their own cuisine and what not would their food (assuming were on friendly enough terms to eat their food) would their food be kosher?
I was watching an episode of Babylon 5 one day when Ivanova was having dinner with her Rabbi and the Rabbi wondered if the alien food was kosher or not. He decided that since the Torah didnt say anything about it its probly ok.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually now I have a question. Since your email doesn't seem to work and the first question I asked is kinda big I'll ask something similar; Assuming we're able to leave Earth and colonize other worlds and find alien species with their own cuisine and what not would their food (assuming were on friendly enough terms to eat their food) would their food be kosher?
I was watching an episode of Babylon 5 one day when Ivanova was having dinner with her Rabbi and the Rabbi wondered if the alien food was kosher or not. He decided that since the Torah didnt say anything about it its probly ok.
Harry Turtledove did a great short story about a company that created a genetically engineered pig that appeard to follow all the rules of being kosher. The story was about the company convincing a Orthodox Rabbi to try it.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Kashrus is not the only troublesome issue of extra-terrestrial life. Off the Earth, how would we figure out when to pray? When Shabbos fell? How do you keep track of Rosh Chodesh when you aren't around the moon any more? Or the rest of the holidays? If I live on a spaceship, do I hang my mezzuzah on it?
<goes off to ponder...>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Actually now I have a question. Since your email doesn't seem to work
Dude, I e-mailed you this morning. Check your inbox.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: and the first question I asked is kinda big I'll ask something similar; Assuming we're able to leave Earth and colonize other worlds and find alien species with their own cuisine and what not would their food (assuming were on friendly enough terms to eat their food) would their food be kosher?
The vegetables, sure. Animals? Doubtful.
And then what would the status of aliens be? R' Aryeh Kaplan wrote an essay on the subject which suggests that if there are ETs, they wouldn't have free will.
There's an absolutely horrendous book called Diasporah, which I read as a kid. There's an artificial intelligence in it that considers itself Jewish (by conversion, I think).
In Frank Herbert's Dune series, Jews are mentioned very, very briefly in the first book, as victims of Paul's reign of terror, and show up later in the series more in depth.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I was watching an episode of Babylon 5 one day when Ivanova was having dinner with her Rabbi and the Rabbi wondered if the alien food was kosher or not. He decided that since the Torah didnt say anything about it its probly ok.
Yeah, well... remember that JMS had Harlan Ellison as a consultant on the show. I'd be very surprised if he didn't ask Harlan about that point. Or actually, now that I've gone and looked, JMS made the following comments about it:
quote:
Larry wrote the shiva stuff all on his lonesome. As for being an abbreviated version...apparently shiva lasts 3 days for someone recently deceased. If it's been months since the death, the service is usually much shorter, and again, there was only Ivanova and Koslov who actually were part of or knew the deceased.
I'm told that shiva need not last 7 full days, if the death was not recent, and if the body has already been buried.
On the treel/kosher discussion...I can only shrug. Nobody's ever shown that jews go forward into the future, placed them at the heart of a science fiction show as a regular character, nobody's shown shiva before in (and possibly out of) an SF series...and some folks are complaining that not every aspect of a treel's kosher-ness was discussed at dinnertime.
So he was misinformed. Either by Harlan or by someone else. And if he got that wrong, it's not so strange that he would have gotten the kashrut stuff wrong as well.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Kashrus is not the only troublesome issue of extra-terrestrial life. Off the Earth, how would we figure out when to pray? When Shabbos fell? How do you keep track of Rosh Chodesh when you aren't around the moon any more? Or the rest of the holidays? If I live on a spaceship, do I hang my mezzuzah on it?
<goes off to ponder...>
There's a joke about a frum guy in orbit. Every 15 minutes the tefillin go on, the tefillin come off, the tefillin go on, the tefillin come off...
Apparently, the current ruling with space travel is that you go according to whatever the time is where you left from. But you have to figure that once there's a Sanhedrin, they'll do better than that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ok, I checked, just that it was almost a whole week...
SON OF A B*TCH! That is horrible, changing the rules when you don't like the outcome thats like playing tag and he gets you and you say "it has to be for 10 seconds and use both hands". Horrible absolutely horrible.
Reminds me of the Purges in Soviet Russia.
I'm a rabid fan of Harry Turtledove, and the subplots involving Jews always interests me, such as Mordecai Anielielwitz's heroism vs at first the German and then the Lizards in the World War series. I didn't know he was an engineering student before the war. You learn so many things.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Lisa, May it be that our current understanding of the Oral Torah, as it is has been transmitted through the generations, is inherently, or at least potentially, unreliable for three reasons (and this may be just one reason put three different ways):
Reason 1: God is timeless, limitless, omniscient, etc... beyond us. Humans, however, are limited and imperfect and can never fully grasp and comprehend God. We try as best we can to understand and grasp and experience God. We get closer, but we will never fully succeed. Does not the fact of our limited human comprehension and being also prevent us from fully and reliably grasping and understanding revelation and the voice of God?
Reason 2: Let's assume that the first generation to transmit Oral Torah (Generation One) faithfully received and then transmitted it to Generation Two to the best of their ability. Even so, the Oral Torah Generation One received was filtered through the following: their limited human minds, their sensibilities, their ancient culture and historical perspective, and many other things. Moreover, this Oral Torah, once filtered through Generation One, was then transmitted through human language, which is limiting and fraught with imperfections. So what is received by Generation Two? Generation Two had to tackle and try its best to understand Oral Torah the same way Generation One did, and the filtering process occurs again. This process is repeated over and over again.
Reason 3: Human beings do not reliably transmit large volumes of information - even when they faithfully intend to do so to the best of their ability.
This does not mean that we disregard Oral Torah. This means that each of us, for ourselves, has to try to understand it and tackle it and filter it and make sense of it the same way Generation One had to. We don't have to start from scratch - we have the Written Torah, we have Rabbinic Law, we have the balance of the Tannakh. But the process repeats itself.
Given the inherent or potential unreliability of our ability to understand and transmit Oral Torah over all of these years (and I understand that you may not, or probably do not, accept this premise - so please, no need for another syllogism lesson), how do you know exactly which laws existed in Oral Torah when delivered at Mt. Sinai?
Let’s assume that you do believe that Oral Torah has been reliably and accurately transmitted over the years. How do you know? I assume that it must be a matter of faith and belief. Don’t get me wrong, I by no means disapprove of faith. But perhaps it is this belief/faith that separates Orthodox Jews from other Jews. If I am correct, however, Orthodox Jews cannot invalidate the belief system of Conservative Jews as a matter of logic. Orthodox Jews do not possess a greater truth – they just possess a different belief/faith.
Finally, a hypothetical question: Assume the conditions and authority to stone to death a violator of Shabbat came to be. Assume that you sat on the Sanhedrin (are females allowed?). And assume that the evidence against the perpetrator was compelling. Would you vote to have the perpetrator stoned to death? Is that really what you would want to have happen?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Whoops part of my reply belonged in a different thread.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If its the Law of the Land and the perputrator knows about the law then I saw he deserves the punishment.
Then this brings to mind, was the law just? At what point does the Law become Just on unJust? What are the circumstances of breaking that Law? Were the circumstances mitigating? That I believe is the purpose of the Sanhedrin.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Then this brings to mind, was the law just? At what point does the Law become Just on unJust? What are the circumstances of breaking that Law? Were the circumstances mitigating? That I believe is the purpose of the Sanhedrin.
Two problems: One - How can God's law (Sinaitic Law) possibly be unjust? Two - The Sanhedrin is not authorized to change the Law. (is it, Lisa?)
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If its the Law of the Land and the perputrator knows about the law then I saw he deserves the punishment.
Then this brings to mind, was the law just? At what point does the Law become Just on unJust? What are the circumstances of breaking that Law? Were the circumstances mitigating? That I believe is the purpose of the Sanhedrin.
Well if it is a commandment of G-d, can one argue whether it is just or not?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Back on the Hanukkah rant. I just got an email from my temple:
quote: Friends:
We don't usually send out formal invitations for Shabbat services, but.....
Please join us this Shabbat, Friday evening, December 30th, the 6th candle of Chanukkah, at 8 PM, for a special Shabbat and Chanukkah service.
Bring your own chanukkiyot (menorahs) to light here together, and bring your voices to join in Chanukkah singing (words provided) and Shabbat prayer.
Wishing everyong a chag urim sameach -- a joyous season of light!
Temple Solel
As someone who is in agreement on the hypocrisy of the holiday in America today should I be troubled by anything in that email?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*wince* Well, everyone who lights a menorah at (or after) 8 pm will be violating Shabbos to do so.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *wince* Well, everyone who lights a menorah at (or after) 8 pm will be violating Shabbos to do so.
Heh, I didn't even think about. They are supposed to be lit before the Sabbath candles then I take it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yup. And since that's earlier than they are usually lit, they need to burn longer than usual -- the little candles that burn 30 minutes are not enough for Friday night. (Although they're just fine for the other nights.)
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
It's not the hypocrisy of the holiday in America you should be troubled about, but rather your synogogue sponsoring an event that flagrantly violates Shabbat.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: It's not the hypocrisy of the holiday in America you should be troubled about, but rather your synogogue sponsoring an event that flagrantly violates Shabbat.
David,
What is the Coservative stance on interfaith marriages? I did not start reading about how Judaism really works until I was already deeply involved and in love with my now fiance. She is the only reason I have stayed with the Reform movement. Her still believing in Jesus (though never going to church) sort of puts a crink in converting into Judaism of any shape or form.
Even if one day she did want to, and want to do so in a proper Orthodox manner, I was told once by an Orthodox Rabbi that we would have to spend 3 years a part. He said this would be to prove that she is doing this because of faith and not for my benefit.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Lisa, May it be that our current understanding of the Oral Torah, as it is has been transmitted through the generations, is inherently, or at least potentially, unreliable for three reasons (and this may be just one reason put three different ways):
Reason 1: God is timeless, limitless, omniscient, etc... beyond us. Humans, however, are limited and imperfect and can never fully grasp and comprehend God. We try as best we can to understand and grasp and experience God. We get closer, but we will never fully succeed. Does not the fact of our limited human comprehension and being also prevent us from fully and reliably grasping and understanding revelation and the voice of God?
That doesn't work. Because God knows our capabilities and limitations. The very fact that He labeled the Torah chukat olam ("eternal statute") tells us that the fix is in, basically.
Certainly we can never fully grasp God. But we can grasp His Torah. It's our raison d'etre.
God included provisions for all sorts of situations. Like if the Sanhedrin realizes that it made a mistake in a ruling. Since we're all obligated to follow the rulings of the Sanhedrin, this could be a major problem. But there's a special sacrifice and ceremony that's specifically for such an event.
God doesn't require of us what we can't do.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Reason 2: Let's assume that the first generation to transmit Oral Torah (Generation One) faithfully received and then transmitted it to Generation Two to the best of their ability.
Right. Have you read the Rambam's introduction to the Mishnah Torah? It's a good read, and covers this.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Even so, the Oral Torah Generation One received was filtered through the following: their limited human minds, their sensibilities, their ancient culture and historical perspective, and many other things.
That's why it's oral. See, if it was written, you'd have problems like the faulty "thou shalt not kill" translation. "Kill", when that translation was written, meant basically what "murder" means today. "Slay" meant what "kill" means today. But because it's a written document, there are a ton of Christians out there who think, in all honestly, that the Torah says "thou shalt not kill".
We don't have that specific problem, because we're using the original, but the basic issue still exists. When something is written down, it's frozen. When it's oral, it's not. And the correct concepts can be reformulated for each generation.
So someone might have described a particular plant as having leaves shaped like a gladius back in Roman times. But what's that going to mean to anyone today? Saying that it's shaped like a short blade (or whatever; I'm not an expert on Roman weapons) is a different way of saying something, but it communicates the same idea to someone in our time.
Moses wouldn't have talked about a gladius, and neither would the Vilna Gaon. But Rabbi Akiva might have, because that was a reasonable reference in his time.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Moreover, this Oral Torah, once filtered through Generation One, was then transmitted through human language, which is limiting and fraught with imperfections.
Okay, I see what you're trying to say. This is the "playing telephone" thing. The party game where you whisper a word in someone's ear, and they whisper it to the next person, and so on, in a circle, and at the end, you get to hear the hilarious result.
Here are three reasons why it's not like that at all. (1) See, in telephone, you get to hear the word one time. And you hear it whispered. Whereas with the Torah, you have hundreds of thousands of Jews (millions, at times) spending huge amounts of their time on it. There's massive redundancy and crosschecking.
As a programmer, I can tell you that triple redundancy is usually considered pretty good for data. This is myriads of Jews spending far more time on learning Torah than the average American spends watching TV. And how many Americans do you think could sing half the commercial jingles they ever heard? "My baloney has a first name, it's O-S-C-A-R..."
Look at the way pop culture seeps into people's minds and consciousness. And that's not even by their own volition. We're talking about something vast numbers of people are doing intentionally, with great dedication and concentration, and with huge redundancy and cross checking. It's a solid system.
(2) Next, there were the prophets. To the extent that nuances were being missed, such as relative priorities and intent, they corrected it. Reasonably enough, that was only necessary for a time.
And (3) we have what I was talking about. God's ability to make sure from the start that we'd manage.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Reason 3: Human beings do not reliably transmit large volumes of information - even when they faithfully intend to do so to the best of their ability.
This does not mean that we disregard Oral Torah. This means that each of us, for ourselves, has to try to understand it and tackle it and filter it and make sense of it the same way Generation One had to. We don't have to start from scratch - we have the Written Torah, we have Rabbinic Law, we have the balance of the Tannakh. But the process repeats itself.
No, David. Because now you really are getting into telephone territory, by individualizing it. Only it's worse than telephone, because you don't even have to pass on what you heard from the person who whispered to you. You can pass on whatever you think the word ought to be.
Do you remember law school, David? You should try learning in yeshiva. You'll wonder what all the fuss was about.
Now, when you say that human beings don't transmit large amounts of information accurately, you have to bear in mind that the information was given to us in such a way as to facilitate its accurate transmission. By God, who I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is capable of doing it effectively.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Given the inherent or potential unreliability of our ability to understand and transmit Oral Torah over all of these years (and I understand that you may not, or probably do not, accept this premise - so please, no need for another syllogism lesson),
Darn. I was going to do just that. You know me so well, and in such a short time. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by David G: how do you know exactly which laws existed in Oral Torah when delivered at Mt. Sinai?
So let me see if I understand the question. Starting with the premise that an omnipotent and omnicient and time independent Creator of everything did not give us a Torah that we'd be able to transmit accurately, how do we know exactly which laws existed in the Oral Torah when delivered at Mt. Sinai?
<shrug> Beats me. I guess you don't. In fact, I can't even imagine a reason for there to be Jews. I mean, one more division between "us" and "them"? For no good reason? It's not as though you have to be Jewish to be a good and moral person, after all. Granted, we have cholent, but they have bacon wrapped scallops fried in butter.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Let's assume that you do believe that Oral Torah has been reliably and accurately transmitted over the years.
Let's do. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by David G: How do you know? I assume that it must be a matter of faith and belief. Don’t get me wrong, I by no means disapprove of faith.
I do. Honestly. this is a post I wrote on a newsgroup many moons ago (3.5 years? Wow...). Bear in mind that I was a lot more flamish back then. Yes, Esther, I've mellowed. <grin> And to those of you who are Christians, please don't get too torqued by the comment about Tertullian.
Anyway, someday I'm going to tighten it up and put it on my website, but for now, it's probably a good representation of what I think about faith, and how I'd answer your question. I didn't want to recapitulate the whole thing here, because it's on the longish side.
quote:Originally posted by David G: But perhaps it is this belief/faith that separates Orthodox Jews from other Jews. If I am correct, however, Orthodox Jews cannot invalidate the belief system of Conservative Jews as a matter of logic.
Ah, but we can, you see. That's the whole thing. If the Conservative movement said it was a separate religion with separate beginnings, I wouldn't have much to say about it one way or the other. But I can quite well establish that Judaism is predicated on an unbroken chain of transmission from Sinai, and that even the Conservative movement has come up with a version of 2nd century CE history that it claims to be the point at which Judaism "went off track", and that they're going back to. Ask your rabbi if you don't believe me. And that, David, isn't an unbroken chain. It's an attempt to fix a chain that "broke" 1800 years ago.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Orthodox Jews do not possess a greater truth – they just possess a different belief/faith.
I see that you think that.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Finally, a hypothetical question: Assume the conditions and authority to stone to death a violator of Shabbat came to be. Assume that you sat on the Sanhedrin (are females allowed?).
Nope. But let's say.
quote:Originally posted by David G: And assume that the evidence against the perpetrator was compelling. Would you vote to have the perpetrator stoned to death? Is that really what you would want to have happen?
Hell, I don't think someone should be ticketed for rolling through a stop sign when it's the middle of the night and no one is around, but that's the law. I would hope that such a case never happened, and I'd do my level best to educate people so that it wouldn't, but if it did, then yes.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Then this brings to mind, was the law just? At what point does the Law become Just on unJust? What are the circumstances of breaking that Law? Were the circumstances mitigating? That I believe is the purpose of the Sanhedrin.
Two problems: One - How can God's law (Sinaitic Law) possibly be unjust?
Why is that a problem? And no, it can't. By definition.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Two - The Sanhedrin is not authorized to change the Law. (is it, Lisa?)
It can make rulings for special cases. And it can create laws, although those laws are called d'Rabbanan (rabbinic) laws, which I discussed earlier. But no, they can't decide that horse is kosher or that the death penalty doesn't need to be carried out when it does.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Back on the Hanukkah rant. I just got an email from my temple:
quote: Friends:
We don't usually send out formal invitations for Shabbat services, but.....
Please join us this Shabbat, Friday evening, December 30th, the 6th candle of Chanukkah, at 8 PM, for a special Shabbat and Chanukkah service.
Bring your own chanukkiyot (menorahs) to light here together, and bring your voices to join in Chanukkah singing (words provided) and Shabbat prayer.
Wishing everyong a chag urim sameach -- a joyous season of light!
Temple Solel
As someone who is in agreement on the hypocrisy of the holiday in America today should I be troubled by anything in that email?
Uh... yeah. God doesn't want you lighting any candles at all, let alone Hanukkah candles, after Shabbat has started. Gah.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by David G: It's not the hypocrisy of the holiday in America you should be troubled about, but rather your synogogue sponsoring an event that flagrantly violates Shabbat.
David,
What is the Coservative stance on interfaith marriages? I did not start reading about how Judaism really works until I was already deeply involved and in love with my now fiance. She is the only reason I have stayed with the Reform movement. Her still believing in Jesus (though never going to church) sort of puts a crink in converting into Judaism of any shape or form.
Even if one day she did want to, and want to do so in a proper Orthodox manner, I was told once by an Orthodox Rabbi that we would have to spend 3 years a part. He said this would be to prove that she is doing this because of faith and not for my benefit.
I suspect that he was exaggerating. We don't encourage converts. On the contrary, we discourage them. But I've known intermarried couples where they started becoming more and more observant, and eventually decided that the non-Jewish spouse would convert. They were completely observant by that time (other than the marriage itself), and quite knowledgable, and the conversion didn't take very long at all.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
starLisa:"In fact, I can't even imagine a reason for there to be Jews. I mean, one more division between "us" and "them"?"
This is, actually, one of my "why" questions about Judaism. What does the religion teach about the reason for the existence of this division/distinction. I used to think I understood it, until I heard a bunch of Jews swearing that they really don't think they are in a "better" position than anyone else because of their Jewishness.
So if, by following the Noachide laws, any person can end up in "as good" a position as an observant Jew, what is the purpose of Judaism?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Well, a cheap answer might be that without Judaism, no one would know what the Noachide laws are.
R' Aryeh Kaplan once wrote an essay entitled "If You Were God". Have a look at it. I have to run.
Shabbat Shalom and Hanukkah Sameah, all.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: This is, actually, one of my "why" questions about Judaism. What does the religion teach about the reason for the existence of this division/distinction. I used to think I understood it, until I heard a bunch of Jews swearing that they really don't think they are in a "better" position than anyone else because of their Jewishness.
In a way we are in a worse position.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Back on the Hanukkah rant. I just got an email from my temple:
quote: Friends:
We don't usually send out formal invitations for Shabbat services, but.....
Please join us this Shabbat, Friday evening, December 30th, the 6th candle of Chanukkah, at 8 PM, for a special Shabbat and Chanukkah service.
Bring your own chanukkiyot (menorahs) to light here together, and bring your voices to join in Chanukkah singing (words provided) and Shabbat prayer.
Wishing everyong a chag urim sameach -- a joyous season of light!
Temple Solel
As someone who is in agreement on the hypocrisy of the holiday in America today should I be troubled by anything in that email?
Oh my. It bothers me, too. I can not see any reason why they would have to set this up to violate Shabbos. It is like a slap in the face of, I don't know, something -- Torah, Hashem, oh, everything that I care about in Judaism. I don't like to judge, but, golly, they are making it hard! A shul, encouraging the congregants, by special invitation, no less, to do aveirot. Have they stopped believing in mitzvos? In aveiros? Why would people want to fill up on a poor imitation of Judaism when the real thing is right here, free for the taking?
I ought not to get so bothered. People make their own choices. I can't force people to do things the way I think is right.
NO! I am bothered. Really. They are wounding the congregants neshamas by hiding Torah from them.
I have a headache. I must unclench my jaw.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:By God, who I'm going to go out on a limb and assume is capable of doing it effectively.
That's an awfully shaky limb. You must have a different definition of "effective."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Oh my. It bothers me, too. I can not see any reason why they would have to set this up to violate Shabbos. It is like a slap in the face of, I don't know, something -- Torah, Hashem, oh, everything that I care about in Judaism. I don't like to judge, but, golly, they are making it hard! A shul, encouraging the congregants, by special invitation, no less, to do aveirot. Have they stopped believing in mitzvos? In aveiros? Why would people want to fill up on a poor imitation of Judaism when the real thing is right here, free for the taking?
I ought not to get so bothered. People make their own choices. I can't force people to do things the way I think is right.
NO! I am bothered. Really. They are wounding the congregants neshamas by hiding Torah from them.
I have a headache. I must unclench my jaw.
They don't know it is "all right there", that's the problem. Most Reform Jews do not practice that way to insult, for permission to live like the rest of society, or even to take the easy way. I was brought up all my life "knowing" this was Judaism. I had a great respect for Orthodox Jews for keeping the "old ways", but I never imagined there was anything wrong with the "new ways".
Of course I have never had an Orthodox Jew come to me and tell me I was doing wrong. At least until I found the internet. I keep hearing about outreach programs, but there can't be too many in the Baltimore/DC metro area.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
starLisa:"Well, a cheap answer might be that without Judaism, no one would know what the Noachide laws are."
Why wouldn't they? I think think of many, many ways of communicating and propagating such laws without all the complications of Judaism.
starLisa:"R' Aryeh Kaplan once wrote an essay"
No offense, but that essay was, in my view, totally inadequate to answer the question. Especially in light of what I keep hearing here.
Stephan:"In a way we are in a worse position."
That just makes the Why question that much more urgent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not even sure about the seasoning part. And a really good hamburger can be eaten with just a teeny bit of A-1.
That's culinary heresy right there. And I wouldn't wait for legal niceties to distribute justice, either. A-1?! On anything, much less a perfectly good and virtuous piece of ground beef between two slices of bread? That's...that's just beyond the pale, really.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: What is the Coservative stance on interfaith marriages? I did not start reading about how Judaism really works until I was already deeply involved and in love with my now fiance. She is the only reason I have stayed with the Reform movement. Her still believing in Jesus (though never going to church) sort of puts a crink in converting into Judaism of any shape or form.
The following is the best of my knowledge on the subject, but I'm not necessarily the right person to ask. I do not think Conservative Judaism sanctions or condones interfaith marriage, and no Conservative Rabbi will perform the marriage or attend the ceremony. Also, if and when you have children, they will not be Jewish unless they are born after a conversion takes place.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: That just makes the Why question that much more urgent.
Possibly because the promised messiah is destined to be Jewish? Perhaps G-d in His infinite wisdom put in place a series of events and a people that would lead to certain future events and people. Jews having to follow more laws and morals may be a part of it. But my guess is that no Jew could answer that 100%. G-d told the Jewish people what to do, for reason of His own.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Stephan, I'm not upset with you. But I am disturbed by the direction that the congregation has taken. There is a Torah in the shul, no? And a rabbi who leads the congregation who can read it? And who then deliberately lies to the congregation and tells them that the way to serve Hashem is by violating the torah. I grew up non-observant. I have in my past gone to a ballgame and eaten hot dogs there on Yom Kippur. But you know what? Even though I made a bad choice, I didn't have a religious leader encouraging me and telling me it was the right thing to do. And I knew full well that if I asked a rabbi, he would have told me that it was wrong.
When I didn't keep kosher, or shabbos, or any of that Orthodox claptrap, I still knew that it was a part of the religion, and that if I was serious about doing the right thing, I would be doing it. And eventually, I did decide to do the right thing, and do my best to follow the commandments that I could.
But if my religious leaders has misguided me about what Hashem expects, what the torah says, what constitutes right and wrong, I guess it wouldn't be all my fault or responsibility that I didn't serve Hashem in the way that he requires.
I am upset with a religious leadership that is deliberately doing this. I am bothered.
But not at you.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: The following is the best of my knowledge on the subject, but I'm not necessarily the right person to ask. I do not think Conservative Judaism sanctions or condones interfaith marriage, and no Conservative Rabbi will perform the marriage or attend the ceremony. Also, if and when you have children, they will not be Jewish unless they are born after a conversion takes place.
Most Reform won't perform the ceremony either apparantly. Mine even said it would be a legal civil ceremony, but not a Jewish one. Why I'm bothering to use him anyways? Good question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
OK, this question is silly and not remotely relevant, but all this talk of ETs and space travel has triggered my inner geek, and now I just wanna know.
Would an observant Jew be able to travel through space, assuming the means of travel required an engine to be going the entire time? I'm assuming not, since in that case the vehicle would be just a big car. What if they stopped the engines and coasted for the duration of the Sabbath? And what if they kept the engines going, but they traveled while frozen?
OK, sorry. Silly nerd questions expunged.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Silent E, perhaps an analogy will help. In my understanding of LDS doctrine, it is necessary for “the priesthood” to exist, but not necessary for everyone to hold it. It is a role that approximately half of the adult LDS population holds, and it includes a set of responsibilities for the benefit of the community as a whole. Those who are not called to this role and set of responsibilities still receive its benefits. Yes? My understanding of the role of Judaism in Jewish theology is similar. The Jewish people are called to a specific role within the human community and have a set of responsibilities peculiar to that role. It is not necessary for every person to fulfill those responsibilities, only those who have been chosen for it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Stephan, I'm not upset with you. But I am disturbed by the direction that the congregation has taken. There is a Torah in the shul, no? And a rabbi who leads the congregation who can read it? And who then deliberately lies to the congregation and tells them that the way to serve Hashem is by violating the torah. I grew up non-observant. I have in my past gone to a ballgame and eaten hot dogs there on Yom Kippur. But you know what? Even though I made a bad choice, I didn't have a religious leader encouraging me and telling me it was the right thing to do. And I knew full well that if I asked a rabbi, he would have told me that it was wrong.
When I didn't keep kosher, or shabbos, or any of that Orthodox claptrap, I still knew that it was a part of the religion, and that if I was serious about doing the right thing, I would be doing it. And eventually, I did decide to do the right thing, and do my best to follow the commandments that I could.
But if my religious leaders has misguided me about what Hashem expects, what the torah says, what constitutes right and wrong, I guess it wouldn't be all my fault or responsibility that I didn't serve Hashem in the way that he requires.
I am upset with a religious leadership that is deliberately doing this. I am bothered.
But not at you.
I assumed as much, but appreciate you saying that all the same.
I honestly believe the Rabbi is not intentionally lying to the congregation. He encourages keeping Kosher, though I'm sure Conservative and Orthodox Jews will disagree that it is Kosher. The Temple will occasionally do a pot-luck Shabbat dinner. The only rule is with meat use chicken and pork with out dairy. Doesn't say antying about it actually being tradition kosher meat.
I think he just believes as many Reform do that the old laws are just outdated. Until I read that the torah cannot be altered I frankly agreed.
I like what Lisa says about her preferring Reform and Conservative Jews to consider themselves another relgion.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: OK, this question is silly and not remotely relevant, but all this talk of ETs and space travel has triggered my inner geek, and now I just wanna know.
Would an observant Jew be able to travel through space, assuming the means of travel required an engine to be going the entire time? I'm assuming not, since in that case the vehicle would be just a big car. What if they stopped the engines and coasted for the duration of the Sabbath? And what if they kept the engines going, but they traveled while frozen?
OK, sorry. Silly nerd questions expunged.
Would those theoretical solar wind sails be considered igniting a flame? I guess to answer that we would need to know if a sail boat already under power it ok.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wasn't talking solar winds. I was talking having the engines run until 11:59:59, then cutting them off, and then firing them up again at 12:00:01 kind of thing. The equivalent of coasting in a car while it's turned off on the Sabbath, I suppose.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
dkw, I can understand that analogy, I really can. It's one I've thought of myself. And yet I find it dissatisfying. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I have wondered whether there is a specific Jewish teaching on the subject.
The reasons I find it dissatisfying are manifold. One reason is the disparity between the demands placed on Jews and the demands placed on everyone else. More than 600 commandments to only seven is quite a disparity. It makes wonder, what is it about those 600 commandments that benefits the rest of mankind? Another reason is differences in treatment between the Jews of the Bible and the Gentiles of the same period. A third has to do with the status of people prior to Sinai, including Abraham and other pre-Moses prophets. And there are others.
In my mind, there has to be an explanation for this in the Jewish faith, or at the very least a non-doctrinal explanation that Jews tell themselves as a possibility. I know I do this kind of self-explaining all the time within my own religious beliefs.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
A physician does more than 600 things that a civil engineer is never required to do, yet it would not benefit society for all the civil engineers to become physicians.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: dkw, I can understand that analogy, I really can. It's one I've thought of myself. And yet I find it dissatisfying. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I have wondered whether there is a specific Jewish teaching on the subject.
The reasons I find it dissatisfying are manifold. One reason is the disparity between the demands placed on Jews and the demands placed on everyone else. More than 600 commandments to only seven is quite a disparity. It makes wonder, what is it about those 600 commandments that benefits the rest of mankind? Another reason is differences in treatment between the Jews of the Bible and the Gentiles of the same period. A third has to do with the status of people prior to Sinai, including Abraham and other pre-Moses prophets. And there are others.
In my mind, there has to be an explanation for this in the Jewish faith, or at the very least a non-doctrinal explanation that Jews tell themselves as a possibility. I know I do this kind of self-explaining all the time within my own religious beliefs.
Remember, for Jews, there is no Hell. So the status of the pre-Sinai Jews as far as I'm concerned doesn't matter. They had no knowledge of the law, and so were not required to follow what they did not know.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
A more modern day version of Rakeesh's question would be what about cruise ships and the Sabbath?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, that's much better, Theaca, thanks.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"Well, a cheap answer might be that without Judaism, no one would know what the Noachide laws are."
Why wouldn't they? I think think of many, many ways of communicating and propagating such laws without all the complications of Judaism.
Well, I did say it was a cheap answer.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"R' Aryeh Kaplan once wrote an essay"
No offense, but that essay was, in my view, totally inadequate to answer the question. Especially in light of what I keep hearing here.
I apologize. I have to leave work early on Fridays, because I have to commute all the way from the Chicago Loop up to Evanston, and I honestly didn't have time. I was hoping that might help, but clearly it didn't. In fact, I didn't even reread it.
My point in posting it is that we don't have all the information. God has a plan. We're a part of that plan. What's God's endgame? I have no idea.
One thing is that we're supposed to serve as teachers. That makes sense, right? I mean, there are a lot of things that need doing in the world, and we can't have everyone delving into this stuff constantly, right? It's a simple division of labor.
And who knows? We talk about the World to Come, or the Next World (which is a better modern translation of ha-olam ha-ba, I think), but nothing says it's necessarily the Last World. For all we know, after we die, we'll all start another life elsewhere or elsewhen. Maybe we'll all be 7 legged squids that breathe methane. Maybe we won't have any physical bodies, but be able to move things with our minds. I'm a science fiction fan/writer, so I can think of a thousand possibilities. We'll see what happens next time around.
Will there be Jews and non-Jews? <shrug> I don't know. Maybe we'll be your janitors next time around. Service staff.
The weird thing is that Judaism is all about distinctions. The most fundamental idea in Judaism is this vs that. Holy and profane. Jews and non-Jews. Light and dark (not necessarily in that order, for people feeling squicky). But God Himself is absolutely without divisions. The exact opposite. In fact, our very existence is a paradox.
Anyway, the main thing is that asking why God made Jews to be different is like asking why God created the world. Or people. We don't have authoritative answers to that.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: Stephan:"In a way we are in a worse position."
That just makes the Why question that much more urgent.
How so?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm not even sure about the seasoning part. And a really good hamburger can be eaten with just a teeny bit of A-1.
That's culinary heresy right there. And I wouldn't wait for legal niceties to distribute justice, either. A-1?! On anything, much less a perfectly good and virtuous piece of ground beef between two slices of bread? That's...that's just beyond the pale, really.
Mea culpa. There's no accounting for taste.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: OK, this question is silly and not remotely relevant, but all this talk of ETs and space travel has triggered my inner geek, and now I just wanna know.
Would an observant Jew be able to travel through space, assuming the means of travel required an engine to be going the entire time? I'm assuming not, since in that case the vehicle would be just a big car. What if they stopped the engines and coasted for the duration of the Sabbath? And what if they kept the engines going, but they traveled while frozen?
OK, sorry. Silly nerd questions expunged.
Why? I think they're cool questions. Yes, a Jew could ride a spaceship, and no, the engines wouldn't have to be turned off on Shabbat, I don't believe. You couldn't have a Jew operating them on Shabbat, though.
It's no different than a regular ship. We didn't always have airplanes, after all. When we took ships from Israel to other places, it often took more than a week.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: The reasons I find it dissatisfying are manifold. One reason is the disparity between the demands placed on Jews and the demands placed on everyone else. More than 600 commandments to only seven is quite a disparity.
It's actually not quite so bad. The seven categories for Noachides actually comes out to about 67 specifics when looked at the way we look at our 613. So it's less than 10:1.
Maybe it's training. Boot camp of sorts.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: It makes wonder, what is it about those 600 commandments that benefits the rest of mankind? Another reason is differences in treatment between the Jews of the Bible and the Gentiles of the same period. A third has to do with the status of people prior to Sinai, including Abraham and other pre-Moses prophets. And there are others.
That's because God created all of us.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: In my mind, there has to be an explanation for this in the Jewish faith, or at the very least a non-doctrinal explanation that Jews tell themselves as a possibility. I know I do this kind of self-explaining all the time within my own religious beliefs.
I go for the teacher thing, myself. But we basically figure that God knows what He's doing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: What is the Coservative stance on interfaith marriages? I did not start reading about how Judaism really works until I was already deeply involved and in love with my now fiance. She is the only reason I have stayed with the Reform movement. Her still believing in Jesus (though never going to church) sort of puts a crink in converting into Judaism of any shape or form.
The following is the best of my knowledge on the subject, but I'm not necessarily the right person to ask. I do not think Conservative Judaism sanctions or condones interfaith marriage, and no Conservative Rabbi will perform the marriage or attend the ceremony. Also, if and when you have children, they will not be Jewish unless they are born after a conversion takes place.
That's all correct. Although... well, technically speaking, a marriage between a Jew and a Conservative convert would be considered intermarriage halakhically, but obviously not in the eyes of the Conservative movement.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
starLisa:"One thing is that we're supposed to serve as teachers. That makes sense, right?"
Of course, and in fact this is something that I believe about Judaism as well, at least in antiquity.
starLisa:"Anyway, the main thing is that asking why God made Jews to be different is like asking why God created the world. Or people. We don't have authoritative answers to that."
Drat. I was afraid that was the answer.
starLisa:"How so?"
Well, the Why question then becomes complicated with Why are the chosen people in a worse position.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
starLisa:"Maybe it's training. Boot camp of sorts."
So, although Gentiles are presently discouraged from converting to Judaism, it's possible that one day we may all be Jews, and we need to see how it's done?
starLisa:"That's because God created all of us."
I don't understand the relevance. But that's okay, I think I already got the only answer I'm likely to get to my broader question.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
There are a lot of words that are being used in this thread that, while I think I get the idea of them based on context, I don't really understand them. Does anyone know of a good website that explains the words you are using in a simple manner? Some of the words I'm thinking of include: freiliche chanukkah, Shabbat, halakha, Shul, Chabbad, mitzvot, daven.
Are all of these words from the same language? If so, what language is it? Is Hanakkah a misspelling?
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
All of the words are either Hebrew or Yiddish. There are several online dictionaries that should have them.
Chabad is a type of Orthodox Jew (the kind that dress in black hats, sorta look like seventeenth century Polish merchants). You can get more information at their website www.chabad.org.
You can spell Hannukah however you want, since it's not originally in the Roman alphabet.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sala: There are a lot of words that are being used in this thread that, while I think I get the idea of them based on context, I don't really understand them. Does anyone know of a good website that explains the words you are using in a simple manner? Some of the words I'm thinking of include: freiliche chanukkah, Shabbat, halakha, Shul, Chabbad, mitzvot, daven.
Are all of these words from the same language? If so, what language is it? Is Hanakkah a misspelling?
Freiliche Chanukkah -- Yiddish for "Happy Channukah"
Shabbat (or with the Yiddishy pronounciation, Shabbos) -- Hebrew for "Sabbath"
Halakha -- Hebrew for "Law"
Shul -- Yiddish for "Synagogue"
Mitzvot (or the Yiddish pronounciation, Mitzvos) -- Hebrew for "Commandments"
Daven -- Hebrew for "Pray"
Hebrew and Yiddish are different languages that use the same alphabets. And Yiddish borrows some words from Hebrew, but is closer to English or German than to Hebrew. The inconsistencies in spelling are due to approximating the words in one language into the alphabet of another. And, accents vary, so two people may render the same word differently.
Sorry for all the jargon. I get carried away, sometimes. Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
These are the words that we use with each other, even when speaking English.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"How so?"
Well, the Why question then becomes complicated with Why are the chosen people in a worse position.
We don't have to be. Mostly it's because we're a stiff-necked people. That's a double-edged sword, you know. On the one hand, we're stubborn enough to have kept on plugging away despite everything, but on the other hand, we tend to be ornery and unruly. Despite all the warnings, and actual punishments, we keep screwing up.
I don't say this to excuse any of the nations and people who have mistreated us, but if we, as a nation, were to shape up, that kind of stuff wouldn't be a problem any more.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"Maybe it's training. Boot camp of sorts."
So, although Gentiles are presently discouraged from converting to Judaism, it's possible that one day we may all be Jews, and we need to see how it's done?
<shrug> Maybe. But... at a really high level of Jewish knowledge, there's information that I'd pretty much describe as cosmology. Stuff about the structure of the universe. Methods of manipulating the material of creation. Stuff that's extremely dangerous in potential. The vast majority of Jews never go anywhere near this, but it's part and parcel of the Torah.
Maybe we need to get the world to a point where it's safe for that stuff to be used. And as dkw suggested, it's not necessary for everyone to have the same expertise. Judaism is not egalitarian in its nature. Students aren't less important than teachers. As anyone whose ever been a teacher knows. But teachers have a major responsibility.
quote:Originally posted by Silent E: starLisa:"That's because God created all of us."
I don't understand the relevance. But that's okay, I think I already got the only answer I'm likely to get to my broader question.
Well... remember that of the almost 2000 years up to Abraham, we have very little information about what went on. Only the stuff we actually needed to know. The Torah isn't a history book. I mean, it contains history, but it's extremely selective in what it relates.
I wrote a little thing about the early stuff in the Torah. Maybe it'll be helpful.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sala: There are a lot of words that are being used in this thread that, while I think I get the idea of them based on context, I don't really understand them. Does anyone know of a good website that explains the words you are using in a simple manner? Some of the words I'm thinking of include: freiliche chanukkah, Shabbat, halakha, Shul, Chabbad, mitzvot, daven.
Are all of these words from the same language? If so, what language is it? Is Hanakkah a misspelling?
I'm sorry. I've been trying to stay away from jargon as much as possible. Freiliche is Yiddish for joyful. Hanukkah has more spellings than I can think of. Hanakkah, I think I can say is wrong, because the second vowel really is an "oo" as in "spoon". But it's transliteration, so as long as it's understandable, it's all good.
Shabbat is the original of the word Sabbath. We sometimes pronounce it Shabbat, and sometimes Shabbos. You'll see both.
Halakha (halacha) is the system of Jewish law.
Chabad is another name for Lubavitch Hassidism, which is a group of Jews who follow a particular dynasty of rabbis and a particular philosophy.
A mitzvah (plural: mitzvot) is a commandment.
And shul is another word for synagogue.
Please don't hesitate to ask if anyone uses a term that you don't get. I'm trying only to use them if I'm going to explain them at the same time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Methods of manipulating the material of creation.
Are you referring here to particle physics? Or magick, with or without the "k?"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think it's probably closer to the latter. And it's one of those "kids, don't try this at home" things.
But there's different levels. There's theoretical, which is just understanding how things are built, as much as you can, anyway. The second level is meditative, which is a method of learning to perceive that stuff. And practical... well, I don't know if anyone is up to that these days. It's seriously dangerous stuff, and probably compares to magick as a nuke would compare to a firecracker.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Oh, keep on using the words you're used to using. It really is fascinating to me since I don't know much about it. Not to offend, but it is almost like reading a science fiction book about a culture you know nothing about and the words the author uses to explain things have to be figured out from the context (or the glossary that authors sometimes put at the back of their books). And considering this is a site for sf readers, OSC in particular, I'd love to learn more. I'll ask or go look it up if another word doesn't quite make sense to me. Don't change your vocabulary on my account, please.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Well, as long as it is kol b'seder!
("all in order" i.e. Okiedokie!)
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I bought a Jewish holiday cookbook for 2$. Now I can entertain.... my one Jewish friend, rofl.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Try the hamentashen -- they are delish!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Well, as long as it is kol b'seder!
("all in order" i.e. Okiedokie!)
Which may be the origin of the word "copacetic", according to Wiktionary.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Now I am excited for Purim. Last year, we made hamentashen with lemon pie filling. So, so good.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by David G: Finally, a hypothetical question: Assume the conditions and authority to stone to death a violator of Shabbat came to be. Assume that you sat on the Sanhedrin (are females allowed?).
Nope. But let's say.
quote:Originally posted by David G: And assume that the evidence against the perpetrator was compelling. Would you vote to have the perpetrator stoned to death? Is that really what you would want to have happen?
Hell, I don't think someone should be ticketed for rolling through a stop sign when it's the middle of the night and no one is around, but that's the law. I would hope that such a case never happened, and I'd do my level best to educate people so that it wouldn't, but if it did, then yes.
Your answer to the hypothetical may highlight a fundamental difference between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism.
There is no reasonable comparison between a law requiring drivers to stop at stop signs and the commandment to observe Shabbat. Violating the stop sign law (in the middle of the night when noone is around) is a mere traffic offense (not even considered a crime) and results in a modest fine; whereas, violating Shabbat results in death by stoning. But apart from this glaring difference, the stop sign law is made by humans, and the law requiring observance of Shabbat is made by God.
I know you know this and that I'm pointing out the obvious - but it leads to my point: We legitimately can regret the application of the stop sign law and the penalties for violating the law in certain situations. At least under certain circumstances, the law is minor and the penalty is minor, and we don't lose a lot of sleep over the law's violation when it happens in the middle of the night when nobody is around. It's just no big deal. Violating Shabbat, however, is a hugely big deal and capital punishment by stoning is a hugely big deal – not even in the same league as rolling through a stop sign.
And so… If you interpret and apply your reading of Torah literally, if the commandments come from God (whose laws cannot possibly be unjust), if the observance of Shabbat is supremely important and a central tenet of the faith, how can you feel nothing but pride and satisfaction from carrying out the commandments? Why would you “hope that such a case [as stoning to death the violator of Shabbat] never happened”? If you mean, “I hope that that there is never a violation of Shabbat under conditions in which stoning is mandated” – sure. Of course you don’t want there to be a violation. I assume that that is what you mean when you say that you would educate people – so that the penalty would hopefully never be carried out. But if violations nevertheless occurred under conditions in which capital punishment is to be the penalty, you would have to feel nothing but pride and satisfaction in having the opportunity, discipline and faith to carry out God’s commandment – even if that means throwing rocks at a person until that person dies. This is where you and I part ways. If read and applied literally today, this commandment, to me, would be unjust. I don’t think that a Jew, no matter how well educated, after knowing the law, and after having the opportunity change his ways, should be killed for refusing to obey Shabbat.
I have a different reading of the commandment at issue. I do not interpret the commandment literally. The commandment is there to highlight the awesome importance of observing Shabbat. Perhaps the stoning to death symbolizes a “death” other than actual killing - such as death of the Jewish spirit, of the capacity to experience creation, of the capacity to experience God. Perhaps it symbolizes a “death” that precedes an opportunity for re-birth and an opportunity to return to Torah.
You believe the law, as interpreted literally, is immutable (do I have that right? I don’t want to presume). But I believe that some of the laws, when interpreted literally, would be unjust. The two beliefs are irreconcilable. I also believe the law is immutable, but I also believe that the law need not and should not be interpreted literally. (I grant that you may see this as a distinction without much of a difference. But if you do then it is a matter of semantics and how we respectively define "immutable.")
I agree that God had the capacity to transmit the laws to be accessible and meaningful through all time. I also believe God did just that. We differ on how God accomplished this. God gave us brains and moral compasses and analytic ability and whole lot of other things. God meant for us to receive and struggle with the law independently and on our own through each of the generations. That is our obligation. Not to accept the law without thinking – but to struggle to understand it and to make sense of it and to apply it. “Accessible” does not necessarily mean “easy to understand.” It also can mean “understandable, but sometimes after working hard at understanding it.”
God clearly had the ability to create a universe in which evil did not exist, a universe where pain did not exist. God chose not to create such a universe, and for reasons of his own, created a universe in which pain and evil and struggle are ways of life. God created humans with free will and consciousness, etc. God did not create us and the universe to make it easy for humans to understand and to decide things. So why would God necessarily be expected to create the laws to be easy to understand and to implement?
There is a difference between saying the law is accessible to humans and saying the law is as simple to understand as paint by numbers or an instruction book for operating a microwave. We agree on the former, but perhaps not as to the latter.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: And so… If you interpret and apply your reading of Torah literally, if the commandments come from God (whose laws cannot possibly be unjust),
And let's keep that in mind for further on.
quote:Originally posted by David G: if the observance of Shabbat is supremely important and a central tenet of the faith, how can you feel nothing but pride and satisfaction from carrying out the commandments?
Because God doesn't command our emotions. We say "Baruch Dayan HaEmet" when someone dies, but we grieve anyway. You can be happy that you've carried out the commandment and sad that it had to happen, both at the same time. That's not a contradiction.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Why would you "hope that such a case [as stoning to death the violator of Shabbat] never happened"? If you mean, "I hope that that there is never a violation of Shabbat under conditions in which stoning is mandated" – sure. Of course you don’t want there to be a violation. I assume that that is what you mean when you say that you would educate people – so that the penalty would hopefully never be carried out.
And that was precisely what I said and meant.
quote:Originally posted by David G: But if violations nevertheless occurred under conditions in which capital punishment is to be the penalty, you would have to feel nothing but pride and satisfaction in having the opportunity, discipline and faith to carry out God’s commandment – even if that means throwing rocks at a person until that person dies.
That's a silly strawman argument, David. There's a midrash about the last few verses of Deuteronomy. After all, God dictated these to Moses, and they recount Moses's death. The midrash says, "God spoke the words, and Moses wrote them, in tears."
That's our model. You do what God says. You don't have to jump up and down about it, though.
Understand something, David. We don't claim to be perfect people. We're works in progress. The Sages say that "In a place where a baal teshuva stands, even a complete tzaddik cannot stand." We're always striving to improve ourselves. But we know that we don't know everything. We know that we can't judge God, because we don't have all the information. To place your personal ideas of what's just and what's not on God... well, that just may be one of the most fundamental differences between Orthodox and Conservative. Secularists are fond of saying that "Man created God in his own image." In the case of the Conservative movement, that's actually true. You refuse to accept a God who knows better than you what's right and what's wrong. You don't have to live up to God's expectations; He has to live up to yours.
quote:Originally posted by David G: This is where you and I part ways. If read and applied literally today, this commandment, to me, would be unjust.
As I said.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I don’t think that a Jew, no matter how well educated, after knowing the law, and after having the opportunity change his ways, should be killed for refusing to obey Shabbat.
Okay, so you disagree with God.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I have a different reading of the commandment at issue. I do not interpret the commandment literally. The commandment is there to highlight the awesome importance of observing Shabbat.
<nod> That, too. No question about that.
And btw, we don't "interpret" the commandment literally. We do what God told us to do. We know what the Authorial intent was/is.
But David, don't you see what you're doing? It isn't that you see the commandment as meaning something else. It's that you refuse to accept what it actually says, and therefore need to either reject it altogether or find a rationalization for why it says what it says without really meaning what it says. And that's because you insist that you are the arbiter of right and wrong. We don't have that level of hubris.
quote:Originally posted by David G: Perhaps the stoning to death symbolizes a "death" other than actual killing - such as death of the Jewish spirit, of the capacity to experience creation, of the capacity to experience God. Perhaps it symbolizes a "death" that precedes an opportunity for re-birth and an opportunity to return to Torah.
And perhaps it means just what it says. The thing is, David, that we aren't looking at a book with interpretable words and reading our own personal feelings into them. The law is very clear, and it's not a matter of the words you're reading in the Torah. The Conservative movement claims that "an eye for an eye" actually meant just that until the rabbis decided to interpret it non-literally. I get that. It's not true, but I get that that's where you're coming from.
quote:Originally posted by David G: You believe the law, as interpreted literally, is immutable (do I have that right? I don't want to presume).
As long as you understand that "literally" isn't being applied to the text of the Pentateuch. I have no idea if you ever bothered to read that Torah 101 post, so I don't know what your understanding is.
quote:Originally posted by David G: But I believe that some of the laws, when interpreted literally, would be unjust. The two beliefs are irreconcilable.
And you don't see anything wrong with that. With requiring God to conform to your moral standards.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I also believe the law is immutable, but I also believe that the law need not and should not be interpreted literally. (I grant that you may see this as a distinction without much of a difference. But if you do then it is a matter of semantics and how we respectively define "immutable.")
As I've said before, rationalization is a nasty vice. It's a form of self-deception.
quote:Originally posted by David G: God clearly had the ability to create a universe in which evil did not exist, a universe where pain did not exist. God chose not to create such a universe, and for reasons of his own, created a universe in which pain and evil and struggle are ways of life. God created humans with free will and consciousness, etc. God did not create us and the universe to make it easy for humans to understand and to decide things. So why would God necessarily be expected to create the laws to be easy to understand and to implement?
Who said anything about "easy"? You say that like someone who has never learned in an Orthodox environment. Maybe you should try it. Take a sabbatical. Go to Israel and learn in a yeshiva there. And then see if you don't have a better picture of what I'm talking about.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I keep hearing about outreach programs, but there can't be too many in the Baltimore/DC metro area.
*jawdrop* Was that a joke? Would you like a list?
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Lisa, I don't claim to know better than God what is right or wrong. But I also don't think God wants us to follow His laws/His Torah blindly. I don't think God wants us to accept the Torah without our also making our own judgments of right and wrong.
I can't get past the commandment to stone to death a violator of Shabbat. I can't accept that women are not allowed to be called to the Torah on Shabbat and read from the Torah and lead services. I have thought long and hard about these issues and I can't accept that the above laws/restrictions are just. And as strange as this sounds [to you], I think this is how God wants me to think.
But thank you for Torah 101 (which I did read! And I think I understand it) and all of your thoughtful and knowledgeable input in this debate. I am genuinely impressed by your knowledge on the subject. I am now, more than any time in my life, extremely motivated to study and learn. After I gain more knowledge, however, I intend to re-engage you in this debate - unless of course after further study I end up agreeing with you.
[ January 02, 2006, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: David G ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I keep hearing about outreach programs, but there can't be too many in the Baltimore/DC metro area.
*jawdrop* Was that a joke? Would you like a list?
Maybe its because I have never lived in a Jewish community, but no I have never heard of or seen one. The closest was Jews for Judaism at the Baltimore Jewish festival, and they are more counter-missionary.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jews for Judaism is a lot more than counter-missionary.
In any case, Baltimore has one of the largest US Orthodox communities outside of the NYC area. With plenty of outreach organizations. AJOP is based there!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Lisa, I don't claim to know better than God what is right or wrong. But I also don't think God wants us to follow His laws/His Torah blindly. I don't think God wants us to accept the Torah without our also making our own judgments of right and wrong.
I can understand, outside of Judaism, how someone could think that. What I can't understand is how you can possibly reconcile that with all of the sources that say the goal is to make your morals and ethics and principles and values conform to those of God, rather than the other way around.
Why does one have to be Jewish, if the whole thing is about your opinion? Do you just see it as some out-of-the-box framework in which to do your own thing? Kind of a warm cultural veneer, complete with lox and bagels and herring and Tevye the milkman? What earthly value is Judaism to you if you're the arbiter of right and wrong, and even God has to live up to your standards?
quote:Originally posted by David G: I can't get past the commandment to stone to death a violator of Shabbat. I can't accept that women are not allowed to be called to the Torah on Shabbat and read from the Torah and lead services.
You want to know something funny? The other day, I was reading a summary of teshuvot by Rav Henkin. He talks about the thing with women leyning. First off, there's no way women can be called to the Torah, because we don't have the same obligation that men do. And Jewish law says, extremely reasonably, that ones obligations can only be fulfilled by another if the other has at least the same level of obligation. And I don't have any problem with that.
As a side issue, I always find it a bit patronizing to hear non-Orthodox men telling Orthodox women how deprived we are. For most Jews who aren't Orthodox, the synagogue is virtually the be-all and end-all of Judaism. You walk in the door, and you do Judaism. You walk out the door, and it's back to "normal".
In Torah Judaism, however, the home is the center. Not the synagogue. And it's something that's supposed to be exactly as important when you're walking down the street as it is when you're in shul.
I can understand why, if the synagogue is all there is, someone could feel that everyone has to be able to do the same stuff there. The reason we don't have those issues is that our Judaism is something all-encompassing.
But back to Rav Henkin. He writes that the halakha is that women can't read from the Torah during services because of kavod ha-tzibbur, or "the honor of the congregation". I was taught, growing up Conservative, that this meant that Orthodox Jews think it's shameful for women to do anything publically. That's untrue. What it means is that originally, the person who got called up to the Torah also read the part he was called up for. And that having a woman read implied that there were no men in that town who were able to. That was the shameful thing.
Today, however, since the almost-universal custom is for the leyner to be someone other than the guy being called up, there's no issue of kavod ha-tzibbur anymore. And yet, he adds, women should not leyn for the congregation, because of assimilation. In other words, far from ignoring the world around us, it's actually the constant pushing of the Conservative and Reform movements to break one boundary after another that is keeping me from being allowed to leyn. And I love to leyn. I'm damned good at it. I used to teach it.
quote:Originally posted by David G: I have thought long and hard about these issues and I can't accept that the above laws/restrictions are just. And as strange as this sounds [to you], I think this is how God wants me to think.
David, that's a rationalization. Claiming to know better than God what God thinks... that's hubris in the worst way. Go and read about Nadav and Avihu (Aaron's sons) and see what God actually thinks about substituting your personal feelings about what the law should be for what God says the law actually is. We're supposed to learn from our mistakes.
quote:Originally posted by David G: But thank you for Torah 101 (which I did read! And I think I understand it) and all of your thoughtful and knowledgeable input in this debate. I am genuinely impressed by your knowledge on the subject. I am now, more than any time in my life, extremely motivated to study and learn. After I gain more knowledge, however, I intend to re-engage you in this debate - unless of course after further study I end up agreeing with you.
Why unless? <grin> There'll always be things to debate. But I look forward to hearing from you again. Happy UnHanukkah.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What earthly value is Judaism to you if you're the arbiter of right and wrong, and even God has to live up to your standards?
Out of interest, what value would any religion be if it permitted its people to act independently? Is any such religion inherently valueless?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
We're permitted to act independently. Within boundaries. I'm talking about defining all boundaries according to individual whim. I can understand that in something like Wicca, since the Wiccan Rede basically says, "An it harm none, do as ye will." In fact, I was raised with more or less that moral imperative. I remember my Dad saying, "You can do anything you want so long as you don't hurt anyone." Phrasing aside, that's the same exact thing.
It's a common sentiment, at least here in the US. And I'm not shocked that David seems to hold by it himself. I just don't get why you need a religion for that. What's the point? Just to have a Jewish ethnicity? To eat cholent?
There used to be a poster with a picture of a bagel and cream cheese, and printed in large letters, "Has 3,000 years of Jewish history come to this?" Or something of the sort. Well, has it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And I'm not shocked that David seems to hold by it himself.
I'm not sure he does. All we know is that he believes that some things are evil, even if God supposedly endorses them -- so he chooses to believe that God does not endorse them, because the alternative is to believe that God might endorse evil.
This doesn't mean he has an arbitrary moral code; it means that his moral code is not exclusively informed by the doctrines of his religion.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There used to be a poster with a picture of a bagel and cream cheese, and printed in large letters, "Has 3,000 years of Jewish history come to this?" Or something of the sort. Well, has it?
If you added a Satmar in the background or something, probably yes. They are the fastest growing group of American Jews.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:And I'm not shocked that David seems to hold by it himself.
I'm not sure he does. All we know is that he believes that some things are evil, even if God supposedly endorses them -- so he chooses to believe that God does not endorse them, because the alternative is to believe that God might endorse evil.
This doesn't mean he has an arbitrary moral code; it means that his moral code is not exclusively informed by the doctrines of his religion.
No. It means that he's created God in his own image. In Judaism, we worship God.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:What earthly value is Judaism to you if you're the arbiter of right and wrong, and even God has to live up to your standards?
Out of interest, what value would any religion be if it permitted its people to act independently? Is any such religion inherently valueless?
I don't know, the Unitarian Universalists seem to find a lot of value in their faith.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No. It means that he's created God in his own image.
Not necessarily. It just means that a given religion's values are not the exclusive source of his ethical sensibility. Only if you believe that God is the source of all ethics would this constitute "remaking" God.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
That's not quite correct. You are allowed to have non-divinely-inspired ethics, you just aren't allowed to have ones that directly conflict with those dictated by G-d.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: That's not quite correct. You are allowed to have non-divinely-inspired ethics, you just aren't allowed to have ones that directly conflict with those dictated by G-d.
What would be an example of a non-devinely-inspired ethic?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: That's not quite correct. You are allowed to have non-divinely-inspired ethics, you just aren't allowed to have ones that directly conflict with those dictated by G-d.
Thank you, Minerva. You said it better than I'd been trying to.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Stephen, moderate vegetarianism would be one example. Refusing to eat force-fed veal would be another. Some people think it's important to have government funded/run social programs. Some don't. There are millions more, at least.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And yet this is missing the point, as I understand it: Stephan is essentially saying that if God does advocate a given action, that does not mean that action is good.
That doesn't mean that Stephan is making God in his own image; it means that Stephan is not making "good" in God's image.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Stephen, moderate vegetarianism would be one example. Refusing to eat force-fed veal would be another. Some people think it's important to have government funded/run social programs. Some don't. There are millions more, at least.
Ah yes, vegetarianism. I think the most memorable debate I ever witnessed in person was a veggie arguing with an Orthodox Rabbi over whether or not animals have souls.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And yet this is missing the point, as I understand it: Stephan is essentially saying that if God does advocate a given action, that does not mean that action is good.
That doesn't mean that Stephan is making God in his own image; it means that Stephan is not making "good" in God's image.
I assume you meant David G?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. Although you're welcome to question the inherent goodness of God as well, if you're up to it. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This seems to me rather like Catholics who will directly disagree with the Pope when the Pope is speaking "in office". I'm not sure what the precise terminology is for that, but I mean disagreeing with the Pope when the Pope makes it clear that he is not saying simply what is his own opinion, but what he believes himself to have been inspired to say by God.
I think starLisa's point is entirely valid. If God says, "Do this in such and such circumstances," especially in such exacting and tiny details as discussed in the stoning for non-observance issue, how do you get past that blunt defiance?
When lawyers do that, we roll our eyes and are generally aggravated. When kids do it, we roll our eyes and tell them to cut it out, you know what I meant. It seems to me that this is not a rule like, "Love your neighbor like you love yourself." I mean, that's got at least two words in it that are massively open to interpretation: love and neighbor. I think it's entirely reasonable for someone to say, "God means this.
But this does not seem to me to be a rule like that one. This one seems to say, "If conditions A-F are met and Person 1 does this thing, kill Person 1." Pretty cut-and-dried. Now what would seem quite reasonable to me is that since God has made it so detailed when it's required to kill the guy, that God prefers it happen very very rarely, if ever. I mean, I have difficulty imagining someone so thoroughly suicidal who wouldn't just take an easier route of jumping off a bridge or some such.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Stephen, moderate vegetarianism would be one example. Refusing to eat force-fed veal would be another. Some people think it's important to have government funded/run social programs. Some don't. There are millions more, at least.
Ah yes, vegetarianism. I think the most memorable debate I ever witnessed in person was a veggie arguing with an Orthodox Rabbi over whether or not animals have souls.
<grin> Oh, I would have enjoyed that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I tend not to debate with vegetarians. That's time that could be spent grillin' some meat!
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And yet this is missing the point, as I understand it: Stephan is essentially saying that if God does advocate a given action, that does not mean that action is good.
That doesn't mean that Stephan is making God in his own image; it means that Stephan is not making "good" in God's image.
See, I totally don't understand this view, if we are talking about the Jewish/Christian/Muslim view of G-d as a source of commandments (not just a nebulous being that created the universe). I can understand saying that there is no G-d. You could, I suppose, believe that an evil god created the universe. But in that case, why follow any thing that he said?
But if you accept G-d, how can you say that you know more? "Yes, I accept that G-d, but I think he was really wrong on the pork thing."
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
Actually, it's more than three, if you include my two kids. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I came across this today on Usenet. It's a terrific little story (or a couple of stories) that illustrates the Jewish perspective on making our wishes subordinate to those of God.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
Actually, it's more than three, if you include my two kids.
And mine! (and let's keep quoting the quotes. I like the way it in- and out-dents.) Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
Actually, it's more than three, if you include my two kids.
And mine! (and let's keep quoting the quotes. I like the way it in- and out-dents.)
You is weird.
Who's your kid, Esther? (And actually, I am dying to know how long you have lived in HP and whether you know the same people we know, but maybe we should take it to email. )
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
Actually, it's more than three, if you include my two kids.
And mine! (and let's keep quoting the quotes. I like the way it in- and out-dents.)
How's
this
look,
Esther?
<grin>
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
After all, if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing. <grin>
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Ela:
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Highland Park, NJ.
Bingo!
I thought so.
Someone want to calculate the odds that three of the . . . . um, however many frum Yidden we have on Hatrack all live/lived in (or in my case, just adjacent to) Highland Park, NJ?
Slightly freaky, neh?
Actually, it's more than three, if you include my two kids.
And mine! (and let's keep quoting the quotes. I like the way it in- and out-dents.)
You is weird.
Who's your kid, Esther?
Son of Shvester, of course! I've lived in Highland Park for about 6 years, and before that, in Edison for maybe 12-13 years. And I grew up in New City, NY, and if any Hatracker is from there I'll plotz in disbelief.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: After all, if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing. <grin>
What does Pirkei Avos say about moderation, again?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Keep this up, and we won't need to start a new thread when Hanukkah comes around again in December.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Indeed. A Chanukkah thread that is longer than the actual Chanukkah.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: After all, if it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing. <grin>
What does Pirkei Avos say about moderation, again?
Everything in moderation, right? Including moderation. <grin>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I will provide the balance by using no quotes.
Ela, I didn't remember if your kids were born in (or before you moved to) NJ or after. I have enough trouble keeping track of my own timeline. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I will provide the balance by using no quotes.
Me too!
<oh drat. never mind.> Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
We lived in HP from about 1980 to 1991 and both our kids were born there.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I moved to Edison from Atlanta in 1987! And South Edison is practically Highland Park, anyway. We overlapped! My son was born in February 1991. Do you overlap with him, too?
I'll catch you up on the news:
Dan sold Dan's, to Dougie, who changed the name to Glatt 27, and then sold it to a family from Brooklyn, who commute from Brooklyn to Highland Park to run the store. But people still call it "Dan's". Dougie ran a contest to choose the new name. The winner got a Roast Chicken. The joke around town was that the runner-up got two Roast Chickens.
Berkeley Bakery gave up their supervision, but a new kosher bakery, Lachmeynu, had moved into town prior, so we never had to face a shortage of fresh baked challah and rye bread.
Pino's moved around the corner to the Bingo hall, and a bike shop moved into Pino's. So there is no more Bingo. No one misses it.
Drug Fair morphed into Rite Aid, but they still sell more wine and liquor than most liquor stores.
A new Orthodox shul (Agudath Israel) opened in town. Because, I guess, you can never have too many!
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I knew some of that news, since we have been back for frequent visits.
Are you sure the elderly ladies don't miss Bingo? Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
When they show up for Bingo, they land up with a bottle of liquor, and forget all about it.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
Hello again friends! You know I have a lot of schoolwork to do if I decided to procrastinate and come back to Hatrack. This thread did wonders for keeping me away from my responsibilities. Thanks!
A few very important comments:
quote:Originally posted by Ela: Who's your kid, Esther? (And actually, I am dying to know how long you have lived in HP and whether you know the same people we know, but maybe we should take it to email. )
Heh. I probably knew your kids. So, don't forget me when talking about frum yidden from exit 9. I belong to the grew-up-almost-adjacent-to-highland-park crowd. Though, I took a bus to a Jewish day school on the border of Edison and Highland Park from K-8 (asking you to guess where I grew up and went to school would be just too easy). And some of that overlapped with Ela and Esther's years there.
As for some of the topics under discussion:
1) I know many Jews who call themselves Conservative but are more frum than a number of Orthodox Jews I know. I define frum as being strict and observant in practice (both in commandments applying between G-d and man and those between people). Ideology is theoretically important, but when a Rabbi is attempting to determine whether or not a conversion is kosher that Rabbi will not look into the ideology of the Rabbi that performed the conversion but will instead check if the Rabbi was shomer Shabbat (and perhaps shomer taharat ha'mishpacha though determining this last is decidedly more difficult).
Even so, I have friends who call themselves Conservative but keep kosher, observe Shabbat, and are genuinely good ethical people. Some even believe that G-d gave both the oral and written Torah in full at Sinai. Why do they call themselves conservative, then? Because they pray in a Conservative synagogue. They believe that there should be no barrier between men and women during services. They believe that a man can fulfill his obligation by listening to a woman lead the Birkat (grace after meals).
The only thing that keeps them from identifying as Orthodox is the stance of the Orthodox community towards female involvement in the synagogue. And when you argue with them about it, some of them will give an explanation sourced in the Talmud and various Orthodox responsa. Others will admit that it is a contradiction in their beliefs and so they struggle all the time with the fact that they are placing some egalitarian notion of equality over G-d's ethics. Contradictions of this sort appear in every single Orthodox Jew as well, though most likely in less public contexts. As Tante, I think, wrote that nobody can keep ALL the commandments.
On the other hand, I have "friends" that call themselves Orthodox but are despicable people. They not only break the Sabbath and eat non-kosher, they act inhumanely. They steal, they cheat, they physically and verbally abuse people they don't like. Yet, when they decide to pray, they will only pray in a place that has a barrier between men and women. And so, they call themselves Orthodox. And when dividing up people in the Jewish community, many take synagogue affiliation to be the primary indicator of one's level of observance.
Take Jack Abramoff for example. Here is a guy that swindled people out of millions of dollars, used a Yeshiva to funnel money without having it taxed, and gloated about it in correspondence. He, like these other "Orthodox" Jews, know full well that what they are doing is wrong, and yet they continue to do so. That is worse than hypocrisy. That is blasphemy. That is most certainly not frum.
Those "Conservative" friends that may have ideologically arrived at their practices in a way different than I have deserve the title frum much more that these "Orthodox" people do. This is why the terms 'Orthodox' and 'Conservative' are problematic. Peopl do exist along a spectrum; a spectrum of ideologies and practices. To pigeonhole people under a title like that makes the title nearly meaningless.
(This next paragraph was written in response to an email conversation about a month ago and I may have missed points irrelevant to this conversation when I went to edit it). I hope that everyone recognizes that all members of any group are still individuals with their own individual opinions. So while we might reference Orthodox, Conservative, and Tibetan Jews as a group, we should not assume that every person who belongs to that group is exactly the same in thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes. Granted, it is perfectly reasonable to mention some organization that represents the group in order to make a claim about what "the group" believes. What this means, however, is that anyone who belongs to that group will need to spend a longer time justifying themselves if they disagree. We can continue to talk about what the Orthodox, for example, believe but we should not presume that each individual who considers him/herself Orthodox believes that. Merely, everyone who considers him/herself Orthodox will work within a similar framework to justify their agreement or disagreement with that belief.
Lastly,
quote: starLisa But back to Rav Henkin. He writes that the halakha is that women can't read from the Torah during services because of kavod ha-tzibbur, or "the honor of the congregation".
This is directly from Tractate Megillah. My chavrusa (study partner) and I learned it a few weeks ago. Upon reading it, we both got very excited because so much of what we were learning seemed entirely irrelevant to much of our daily lives. I'm going to get the story wrong, but it went something like this. We commented about how interesting and odd this reasoning seemed. A Conservative Rabbi, whom we are friendly with, was learning down the table from us looked up and laughed, "Odd? You should be outraged!"
No point, really. It was funny at the time.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Heh. I probably knew your kids. So, don't forget me when talking about frum yidden from exit 9. I belong to the grew-up-almost-adjacent-to-highland-park crowd. Though, I took a bus to a Jewish day school on the border of Edison and Highland Park from K-8 (asking you to guess where I grew up and went to school would be just too easy). And some of that overlapped with Ela and Esther's years there.
Hmmm, I bet you went to the Rabbi Pesach Raymon Yeshiva. And you probably grew up in East Brunswick. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Though, I took a bus to a Jewish day school on the border of Edison and Highland Park from K-8 (asking you to guess where I grew up and went to school would be just too easy).
It is. East Brunswick and RPRY! So, you must have been a Young Israelite.
Jewish Geography on Hatrack. Will wonders never cease?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Uh, yeah. What Ela said. I've got the flu, and my synapses are all soggy.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I have the flu, too.
And I love the rest of your post, Gansura. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:I have the flu, too.
So I guess I have no excuse. Do you have refreshing chills? Shaking and then sweating that feels like you have all the benefits of a tough workout without having to step foot in the gym? Phlegm of such interesting colors and consistencies, that you feel artistically inspired by your output? An inability to stay off of Hatrack, despite all this?
Yeah? Oh dear, you have it bad, too.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Jewish Geography on Hatrack. Will wonders never cease?
It gets even better. Rabbi Raymon's granddaughter is our Rebbitzen. And the principal of RPRY used to be the principal of the school my kids went to here.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Wha? Yikes. I faceplanted ont he keyboard. Back to bed for me!
Refuah Sh'leimah to all, and to all a good night.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester:
quote:I have the flu, too.
So I guess I have no excuse. Do you have refreshing chills? Shaking and then sweating that feels like you have all the benefits of a tough workout without having to step foot in the gym? Phlegm of such interesting colors and consistencies, that you feel artistically inspired by your output? An inability to stay off of Hatrack, despite all this?
Yeah? Oh dear, you have it bad, too.
I seem to have gotten past that stage - when I was in that stage, I was in bed 24-7, except for getting up to eat a little. I haven't been this sick in years.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Since I lived in Edison from 1974 to 1980/81 (we spent the 80/81 school year in L.A., then came back that summer just long enough to pack up the house and move everything to L.A.), it sounds like there has been frum Hatrack supervision of the Edison area for about 30 years.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
I hope its not contagious. /em runs away for another few months Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Lastly,
quote: starLisa But back to Rav Henkin. He writes that the halakha is that women can't read from the Torah during services because of kavod ha-tzibbur, or "the honor of the congregation".
This is directly from Tractate Megillah. My chavrusa (study partner) and I learned it a few weeks ago. Upon reading it, we both got very excited because so much of what we were learning seemed entirely irrelevant to much of our daily lives. I'm going to get the story wrong, but it went something like this. We commented about how interesting and odd this reasoning seemed. A Conservative Rabbi, whom we are friendly with, was learning down the table from us looked up and laughed, "Odd? You should be outraged!"
That's because he probably made the same mistake most Conservative Jews make and thought that "honor of the congregation" meant there's something shameful about women participating. After all, that's what the movement teaches about Orthodoxy.
And while I share your disgust at the faux-frummies out there, and am extremely ashamed of them, it doesn't take away from the basic fact that the Conservative movement denies Torah miSinai. There's something very off about identifying with a movement that denies the very basis of Judaism just because they have personal issues with gender distinctions.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: That's because he probably made the same mistake most Conservative Jews make and thought that "honor of the congregation" meant there's something shameful about women participating. After all, that's what the movement teaches about Orthodoxy.
Except that many Orthodox Jews believe that as well because that is what they are taught. I went through the entire Orthodox Jewish day school system and then went to Yeshiva in Israel. So many of the Orthodox teachers believe that there is something inherently shameful about women participating and so they teach that. They are wrong, certainly.
Rav Moshe Feinstein said that a woman can be the president of a shul (this was qualified in various ways). Rav Soloveichick said that a woman cannot be the president of a shul. This is a disagreement between two great Orthodox Torah minds of recent time. And yet, many Orthodox Jews I know, both men and women, were horrified that I would attribute such an outrageous position to Rav Moshe. They considered it libelous to claim that he supported any role for women in the synagogue.
Our schools do a very poor job of teaching people the reasons behind what they should and should not believe. In fact, there is so little teaching done about women's issues that it isn't surprising to me that people assume women leading something is shameful. I've had to reeducate some of my siblings because they were taught that certain things are the TRUTH and were never given any indication that competent Orthodox Rabbis have given opposite opinions. Of course, no teacher should believe contradictory things. But as a teacher their responsibility is to let students know that while we follow the Rav, Rav Moshe is a also a respectable Halachic authority. You can believe that Rav Moshe was wrong and still teach his opinion.
Too many Jewish day schools don't do that. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they don't because they don't know better or they genuinely believe that teaching this way is better for Orthodoxy. So, perhaps when we stop believing these things ourselves, the Conservative movement will stop teaching it about us.
Also, I'm Orthodox, but I think that evolution is probably true. Agudath Israel, a very prominent Orthodox organization, has explicitly denied its truth. I associate with the movement for other reasons. So, I would be happy to engage in a debate about how I can associate with a movement I don't 100 percent line up with ideologically. Because frankly, its easier to practice, what I believe I should practice, in an Orthodox community than any other. I suspect my Conservative friends feel the same way.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Also, I'm Orthodox, but I think that evolution is probably true. Agudath Israel, a very prominent Orthodox organization, has explicitly denied its truth. I associate with the movement for other reasons. So, I would be happy to engage in a debate about how I can associate with a movement I don't 100 percent line up with ideologically. Because frankly, its easier to practice, what I believe I should practice, in an Orthodox community than any other. I suspect my Conservative friends feel the same way.
I didn't even know that Orthodox Jews accepted everything pre-Abraham as literal history. I guess Lewis Black was mistaken when he said if you want proof of evolution, ask a Jew.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Also, I'm Orthodox, but I think that evolution is probably true. Agudath Israel, a very prominent Orthodox organization, has explicitly denied its truth. I associate with the movement for other reasons. So, I would be happy to engage in a debate about how I can associate with a movement I don't 100 percent line up with ideologically. Because frankly, its easier to practice, what I believe I should practice, in an Orthodox community than any other. I suspect my Conservative friends feel the same way.
I didn't even know that Orthodox Jews accepted everything pre-Abraham as literal history. I guess Lewis Black was mistaken when he said if you want proof of evolution, ask a Jew.
That's the point. Some do, some don't. Stating that everyone belonging to a particular movement believes everything that the movement professes is not only dishonest, but impossible. Other prominent Orthodox organizations have no comment officially on the matter of evolution, while many prominent Orthodox Rabbis believe that evolution is true, to varying extents.
The first of the 13 Principles of Faith that the Rambam (Maimonides) put together is that Jews must believe that the One G-d, and only G-d, creates and directs all creation. Many Orthodox Rabbis will claim any belief in evolution violates this. Many will claim that it does not.
The Reform movment, in the Pittsburgh Platform, stated that Judaism comes closest to Kantian Ideals. And so, the leaders of Reform Judaism molded their movement in such a way as to make it conform to Kantianism. You'd be hard-pressed to find any strict Kantianists in the Reform movement today. You'd also find that much of the Reform leadership has a very different opinion on what the basis of their movement is. Still, as far as I know the Pittsburgh Platform hasn't been explicitly rejected and denied.
The best way I can think of to change an organization that you wish to belong to, and agree with significantly enough, is to work change from within. It makes perfect sense to me that people who wish to see the Conservative movement's stance on Torah m'Sinai changed, identify as Conservative. If they put themselves outside of that community, how could they change it internally.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: I think that evolution is probably true. Agudath Israel, a very prominent Orthodox organization, has explicitly denied its truth.
Can you provide a link? My understanding was that the Agudah was in favor of Intelligent Design (don't even get me started on my opposition to that), not saying that evolution could not have occurred.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: That's because he probably made the same mistake most Conservative Jews make and thought that "honor of the congregation" meant there's something shameful about women participating. After all, that's what the movement teaches about Orthodoxy.
Except that many Orthodox Jews believe that as well because that is what they are taught. I went through the entire Orthodox Jewish day school system and then went to Yeshiva in Israel. So many of the Orthodox teachers believe that there is something inherently shameful about women participating and so they teach that. They are wrong, certainly.
Of course they are. People are people, and they have flaws. I have my own issues with the Orthodox community. But the core remains true to the Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Rav Moshe Feinstein said that a woman can be the president of a shul (this was qualified in various ways).
My aunt was president of her Orthodox shul for many years here in Chicago.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Rav Soloveichick said that a woman cannot be the president of a shul. This is a disagreement between two great Orthodox Torah minds of recent time. And yet, many Orthodox Jews I know, both men and women, were horrified that I would attribute such an outrageous position to Rav Moshe.
They're ignorant. You think I don't realize that there's a serious educational and cultural problem in the frum community? I once pointed out to a woman who'd gone to Stern (of all places) that just because Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan put notes in his translation of the Torah identifying certain Egyptian kings as this or that Pharaoh mentioned in the Torah doesn't mean that we have to accept those identifications. The man was a physicist and a rav; not an Egyptologist. She was horrified. Her husband took my side, but you could see that she just didn't get it.
It's tragic. And while I in no way excuse the community that taught her to think this way (or rather, not to think at all), I'll point out again that the frum community is in a defensive posture as a result of the heterodox movements. And that this too shall pass. Which is not the case with a movement that officially denies the central tenet of Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Too many Jewish day schools don't do that. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and believe that they don't because they don't know better or they genuinely believe that teaching this way is better for Orthodoxy. So, perhaps when we stop believing these things ourselves, the Conservative movement will stop teaching it about us.
I'm not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg. And it's not the Conservative misrepresentation of Orthodoxy that bothers me the most about that movement, as I think I've pointed out.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Also, I'm Orthodox, but I think that evolution is probably true. Agudath Israel, a very prominent Orthodox organization, has explicitly denied its truth. I associate with the movement for other reasons. So, I would be happy to engage in a debate about how I can associate with a movement I don't 100 percent line up with ideologically.
Um. Are you actually comparing that to the Conservative denial of Torah miSinai? Really? Surely you can see the lack of proportion there. Evolution is a scientific theory. Torah miSinai... without that, there is no Judaism.
Posted by Gansura (Member # 8420) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Can you provide a link? My understanding was that the Agudah was in favor of Intelligent Design (don't even get me started on my opposition to that), not saying that evolution could not have occurred.
I should have checked more carefully. I conflated the banning of Rav Slifkin's books with the Agudah's official position. A few of the Rabbi's may be the same, but I suppose that wasn't an official position.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Um. Are you actually comparing that to the Conservative denial of Torah miSinai? Really? Surely you can see the lack of proportion there. Evolution is a scientific theory. Torah miSinai... without that, there is no Judaism.
I respond to that in my comment to Stephan just above.
My criticism was not that it isn't a big deal that the Conservative movement officially denies the source of the authority of the Torah. That is really quite important. Rather, I do not think it is fair to make a generalization that all Conservative Jews must believe this or that because they identify with the movement.
You seemed to claim earlier that ideology did not exist along a spectrum, though practice might. (I could very well have misunderstood what you wrote and will look for the post). Ideology, though, does exist along a spectrum. Of course, there is a true ideology and a false ideology. Just as with practices, though, I doubt you could find any two Jews who agree on what that true belief is. (It should be clear, though, that just because we don't agree on what the true, complete, belief set is does not imply that there is no true, complete, belief set).
A Jew could believe everything true, except that the Torah was divinely inspired rather than written by G-d through Moshe's hand. This Jew might have the further belief that this does not diminish the authority of the Torah in any way. A Jew could believe that the oral Torah was entirely the Rabbis expanding upon the written, rather than told by G-d to Moshe. Yet, the person can have the further belief that this does not diminish the authority of the oral Torah because G-d commanded us to follow the Rabbis. I would agree with you that these beliefs are mistaken and untrue. They are possible, though, and they exist along a spectrum from Truth to Falsity.
A movement can be criticized for its official doctrine. Individuals, however, should not be until we've learned enough about that individual to determine what that person actually believes. I suppose, in some ways, it is a semantic distinction between saying, "Orthodox Jews believe thusly" and saying, "The Orthodox Movement believes thusly".
Personally, I'd prefer if we judged people on their actions, and not on their beliefs. I cannot know what any other person truly believe; that is between that person and G-d. If we assume that actions reflect beliefs, there would be no need to criticize a person's thoughts. We should, however, take beliefs into account for purposes of being kind and charitable. Dan l'kaf z'chut. Give people the benefit of the doubt. A person's thoughts, reasons, beliefs, and intentions should be considered in mercy and praise rather than judgement and criticism.
That is not to say we should not debate the merits of one ideology over another. If a person offers up their own beliefs, they offer those beliefs up for judgment. But that judgment should come in the form of a serious debate. Claiming that people who believe some particular idea are not Jewish because of it ends the debate, not start it. Better to open a dialogue on why or why not this particular belief is important to Jewish identity. If one side believes that there is no Jewish identity to defend in the other party, then I can't imagine any serious discussion will take place. That doesn't mean one must relativistically approve of all beliefs so long as they fit some system. It means that people wish to be accepted as themselves when they enter discussion, and we should extend everyone that courtesy. Even if we hope that they will be someone different when that discussion concludes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: I should have checked more carefully. I conflated the banning of Rav Slifkin's books with the Agudah's official position. A few of the Rabbi's may be the same, but I suppose that wasn't an official position.
The Agudah has been quite careful to take no position on l'affaire Slifkin, although a number of the members have opinions (some on each side).
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Hang on to your socks, Lisa. My family were members of the Conservative Shul in town. We left there to join the Agudah. Now we are shtark Agudah yids. We are, however, the same folk. And the change from one shul to another had very little to do with ideology, and everything to do with where my family felt accepted and comfortable daavening.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Tante Shvester, you and I definitely have to know people in common.
I'll call you the next time I'm in town. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gansura:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Um. Are you actually comparing that to the Conservative denial of Torah miSinai? Really? Surely you can see the lack of proportion there. Evolution is a scientific theory. Torah miSinai... without that, there is no Judaism.
I respond to that in my comment to Stephan just above.
I don't think you really do.
There's a concept in Judaism of there being "70 faces (or facets) to the Torah". That means that there can be more than one legitimate view on a subject. But that 71st facet is crossing a red line.
Even if denial of Torah miSinai wasn't a violation of one of the Rambam's 13 principles, which it is, and even if such denial did not, in principle, make the denier an apostate, which it does (though the whole tinok she'nishba thing spares us from having to relate to individuals who have been miseducated to deny it as halakha would otherwise dictate), and even if these were not the longest run-on sentence I think I've ever managed to concoct (at least I think it is; I've never actually gone through my old e-mails and posts to check), it would still be a complete rejection of the entire raison d'etre of the Jewish people.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: My criticism was not that it isn't a big deal that the Conservative movement officially denies the source of the authority of the Torah. That is really quite important. Rather, I do not think it is fair to make a generalization that all Conservative Jews must believe this or that because they identify with the movement.
That doesn't make any sense. Throughout our history, there have always been Jews who for whatever reason decided not to abide by Jewish law. That's not my issue. Someone in this thread who is certainly a frum Jew acknowledged a violation which takes place every single week. But that person recognizes that it's a violation, and doesn't try to join a group that will declare it perfectly fine.
People aren't perfect. When Jews were streaming into the US in the late 1800s and early 1900s, many of them just couldn't deal with keeping Shabbat, because the culture here was such that they would never have been able to make the kind of living they wanted to. So they stopped keeping Shabbat. Terrible, yes, but they didn't deny that they were violating Shabbat. They found it a terrible necessity.
My issue is with the creation of "movements", which provide a structure and a formal excuse for such things. So that no one has to struggle with it any more. They have "rabbis" who tell them they aren't actually doing anything wrong. It's the religious version of selling snake-oil.
And when someone uses their membership in such a movement as an excuse for the complete denial of Judaism, yes, I criticize that. It's a classic example of aveira goreret aveira.
I know a woman who was raised Orthodox, but married out. She did something wrong. She doesn't go around insisting that people say it's okay, and she does her level best to remain frum and raise her children frum, despite the rather major disconnect. She davens at a Conservative place, not because she approves of it, but because she knows she wouldn't be accepted at a frum shul. She does not consider herself Conservative, because she isn't. Because the Conservative movement is institutionalized kefirah.
If someone tells me that they're Conservative and believe in Torah miSinai, there are a couple of possibilities. One is that when they say they believe in Torah miSinai, it's like the Conservative movement saying it's a halakhic movement. No more than a hijacking of terms. The other is that they just don't get what the Conservative movement is.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: You seemed to claim earlier that ideology did not exist along a spectrum, though practice might. (I could very well have misunderstood what you wrote and will look for the post).
You did, because I didn't say anything of the sort. Conservative Jews are constantly accusing Orthodoxy of being monolithic and seeing no shades of grey. That's what they taught me at Ramah. That's what they taught me in Hebrew school. That's what you can hear Conservative Jews saying all the time. But it's not true. But there are lines which, when crossed, take you out of Judaism altogether. Rejection of Torah miSinai is one of those. It's up there with atheism as something that is utterly incompatible with Judaism.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Ideology, though, does exist along a spectrum. Of course, there is a true ideology and a false ideology. Just as with practices, though, I doubt you could find any two Jews who agree on what that true belief is.
That's a fallacy, Gansura. If one rabbi says that women's davening groups are okay and another says they aren't, that doesn't even begin to imply that either of them would accept pork as kosher.
And a Jew who denies God's existence, or Torah miSinai, or a number of other things that I think you're probably well aware of (since you did mention the 13 principles yourself in another post) has crossed that line.
No amount of sophistry such as "Well, I believe in God, but I don't believe he talks to human beings", or "Well, I believe that the Revelation at Sinai was a very real event -- in the minds and culture and history of the Jewish people" can turn kefirah into anything but what it is.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: (It should be clear, though, that just because we don't agree on what the true, complete, belief set is does not imply that there is no true, complete, belief set).
True. So why mention the fact that there are disputes? We know that. Saying that there may still be a true, complete, belief set ignores the fact that in most areas, that true, complete, belief set is known. It also leaves open the possibility that there isn't one, which is a nice debator's trick.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: A Jew could believe everything true, except that the Torah was divinely inspired rather than written by G-d through Moshe's hand.
And he'd be a kofer b'ikkar. As I'm sure you know.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: This Jew might have the further belief that this does not diminish the authority of the Torah in any way.
But that'd be irrelevant. It's a rationalization to help the person feel as if they haven't crossed the boundary they've actually crossed. It's sophistry. I can't say that I believe in elves and qualify it by saying that the water bottle on my desk is what I think of as an elf, and I'm looking at it right now, which is why I know that elves exist. That is no different than what you're describing.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: A Jew could believe that the oral Torah was entirely the Rabbis expanding upon the written, rather than told by G-d to Moshe.
Sure. There was a group called the Karaites who did just that. But it's utterly outside the bounds of Judaism. It's kefirah, and you must know that.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Yet, the person can have the further belief that this does not diminish the authority of the oral Torah because G-d commanded us to follow the Rabbis.
They could believe that, but it wouldn't add up. It might work on a kindergarten level, but no more. Let me give you an example.
The Torah forbids us to add or subtract from it. It's right there in the Written Torah, as well as in the Oral Torah. So we're meticulous about determining whether a law is d'Orayta or d'Rabbanan. Because if you treat a d'Rabbanan as a d'Orayta, you're violating that prohibition (bal tosif). With me so far?
In the beginning of the eighth chapter of Tractate Yoma, all of the non-sacrificial aspects of Yom Kippur begin to be discussed. And, as you may know, we aren't allowed to eat, drink, bathe, anoint ourselves, have sex or wear leather shoes on Yom Kippur. But (unless I'm misremembering), eating and drinking are forbidden d'Orayta. The others are d'Rabbanan. And as I'm sure you know, we go to the lenient side in the case of a doubt over a d'Rabbanan law, and to the stringent side in the case of a doubt over a d'Orayta law. So there are practical implications here.
But can you find me anywhere in the Written Torah where it says you can't eat or drink on Yom Kippur? You can't, because it's not there. Same with mixing meat and dairy. Kosher beheima meat and milk from a kosher beheima cannot be cooked together d'Orayta. You can't even derive benefit from them -- d'Orayta. Chicken parmesan or venison parmesan, though, are forbidden d'Rabbanan.
So your hypothetical person would have to say that the rabbis were violating bal tosif when they declared that a eating a cheeseburger or eating at all on Yom Kippur are d'Orayta violations.
Basically, it turns into a complete rejection of the whole thing. You can avoid that chain of reasoning by the simple act of not learning, but once you learn any Torah, the premise that the Oral Torah wasn't given at Sinai leads inexorably to a rejection of the Oral Torah.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: I would agree with you that these beliefs are mistaken and untrue. They are possible, though, and they exist along a spectrum from Truth to Falsity.
They exist on the other side of a very strongly defined line from Judaism. The spectrum of truth to falsity only matters within that line. Outside, kefirah is kefirah.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: A movement can be criticized for its official doctrine. Individuals, however, should not be until we've learned enough about that individual to determine what that person actually believes.
How far would you be willing to take that sentiment?
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: I suppose, in some ways, it is a semantic distinction between saying, "Orthodox Jews believe thusly" and saying, "The Orthodox Movement believes thusly".
Except that there is no "Orthodox Movement". The only reason a name is even necessary for Orthodoxy is to distinguish it from the movements that broke away.
But the distinction you're making is correct. Orthodox Judaism doesn't see lesbianism, for example, as an abomination, for example. Many, many Orthodox Jews do.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: Personally, I'd prefer if we judged people on their actions, and not on their beliefs.
It's not always that easy. There's no razor line dividing the two.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: I cannot know what any other person truly believe; that is between that person and G-d. If we assume that actions reflect beliefs, there would be no need to criticize a person's thoughts.
I'm not talking about thoughts. I'm talking about statements. I'm no telepath, but if someone denies Torah miSinai to my face (Steve Greenberg, for instance), then I can say he's a kofer, even if he keeps glatt kosher.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: That is not to say we should not debate the merits of one ideology over another. If a person offers up their own beliefs, they offer those beliefs up for judgment. But that judgment should come in the form of a serious debate. Claiming that people who believe some particular idea are not Jewish because of it ends the debate,
So does misrepresentations like the one you just made. No one has ever said that. It's one of the most pernicious libels of the various movements that when we say the movements aren't forms of Judaism, we're actually saying their members aren't Jewish. My parents and siblings are Conservative. They're Jewish. I grew up Conservative, and I certainly didn't go through any conversion ceremony. "A Jew who sins is still a Jew." As mentioned earlier in this thread, you can convert to Catholicism and become a cardinal, and it doesn't make you less Jewish.
quote:Originally posted by Gansura: not start it. Better to open a dialogue on why or why not this particular belief is important to Jewish identity. If one side believes that there is no Jewish identity to defend in the other party, then I can't imagine any serious discussion will take place.
That's like allowing Flat Earthers to participate in a geology conference. There's no way we're going to take the current absurd situation as a starting point. The burden of proof is still on the breakaway movements.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The burden of proof is still on the breakaway movements.
Why?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Tom, I love you, but can't you just let Lisa's flames die down without further fanning? Oh, never mind. I'm enjoying the flames.
*goes off to get some (kosher) marshmallows*
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
[bitterness]
This thread has made it abundently clear that it is perfectly within the bounds of ehtical behavior on hatrack to deny that a professed member of a religion is actually of that religion.
E.g., I expect to hear zero complaints about innapropriate behavior the next time someone says that mormons aren't christians.
[/bitterness]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The burden of proof is still on the breakaway movements.
Why?
Because the burden of proof is on anyone who wants to change something. Always. Sometimes that burden is pretty easy to carry. Sometimes it isn't.
If 100 people are marching down the street and one of them decides to turn onto a sidestreet, it's the one person who has to justify what he did. Not the 99.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: [bitterness]
This thread has made it abundently clear that it is perfectly within the bounds of ehtical behavior on hatrack to deny that a professed member of a religion is actually of that religion.
E.g., I expect to hear zero complaints about innapropriate behavior the next time someone says that mormons aren't christians.
[/bitterness]
I don't think Lisa has stated that anyone (myself as a Reform Jew included for that matter) is not Jewish.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And if he says "Because this street will still take me to the capital building, and it might even be faster," and shows you a map, then the burden of proof is on you to show that he's wrong.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't think Lisa has stated that anyone (myself as a Reform Jew included for that matter) is not Jewish."
I disagree. She's stated that reform and conservative jews have thrown out the entire basis for judaism, and do not accept the entire basis of judaism.
She's said it... she just hasn't used the exact words.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Paul, I object to your characterization. I have never, ever, ever said, implied or even hinted that a Jew who does things contrary to Jewish law is not a Jew. And I defy you to show me otherwise. If you do, I will most humbly apologize, but you won't be able to.
Or was it the fact that I said you can't convert out of Judaism? That you can convert to Wicca or Catholicism or Hinduism and it doesn't make you less of a Jew than you were before you did so.
Is that what's bothering you? Do you need me to be even more clear than that? Fine.
A Jew who is a member of the Conservative movement is every bit as much a Jew as any Orthodox Jew. A Jew who is a member of the Reform movement is every bit as much a Jew as any Orthodox Jew.
Is that clear enough? Though I'd add that a Jew who is a member of the Democratic Party or the Kiwanis or the Mickey Mouse Club or the Conference of Cardinals is also every bit as much a Jew as any Orthodox Jew.
Claiming that I've denied the Jewishness of other Jews because of their beliefs is offensive. I've gone out of my way to state otherwise.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: This thread has made it abundently clear that it is perfectly within the bounds of ehtical behavior on hatrack to deny that a professed member of a religion is actually of that religion.
Lisa is Lisa, and she speaks for herself. And we all know how outspoken she is. And you have to realize that this thread is NOT about Hatrack saying "Right on, Lisa! You GO, girl!" In fact, I can think of very few 'rackers more provocative and outspoken than Lisa.
So, you want to disagree with her? Jump on board, you've got lots of company! But please don't tar Hatrack with the same broad brush.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Esther, have you seen me say that Conservative Jews are not Jews? Surely you know the difference between saying that the movement isn't a form a Judaism and saying that its adherants have stopped being Jewish.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think the appropriate parallel would be someone saying that individual Mormons may be Christians, if they have the appropriate relationship with Christ, but that the Mormon religion is not Christian because it has rejected several beliefs which are central to Christianity.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Esther, have you seen me say that Conservative Jews are not Jews? Surely you know the difference between saying that the movement isn't a form a Judaism and saying that its adherants have stopped being Jewish.
I don't see a significant difference in that statement. In fact, I find it offensive.
Though I don't agree with all the official tenets of some brands of Judaism (for example, Reform), they are still forms of Judaism. For you to say otherwise is offensive.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Esther, have you seen me say that Conservative Jews are not Jews?
Nope.
But me, I hardly believe in Orthodox-Conservative-Reform-Reconstructionist-yadda-yadda-yadda Judaism. I believe in Klal Yisroel.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: But me, I hardly believe in Orthodox-Conservative-Reform-Reconstructionist-yadda-yadda-yadda Judaism. I believe in Klal Yisroel.
Amen, Esther.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So, you want to disagree with her? Jump on board, you've got lots of company! But please don't tar Hatrack with the same broad brush."
Of course I can characterize Hatrack with the same broad brush when its common and respected, and one could almost say required, hatrack behavior to tell people when they are out of bounds... and yet, for this exact same sort of behavior on the topic of OTHER religions, gets reigned in. WHen its lisa commenting on judaism, she's not. Why? Either there is something special about lisa, or something special about judaism.
" I have never, ever, ever said, implied or even hinted that a Jew who does things contrary to Jewish law is not a Jew."
I would say, Lisa, that this statement, and this one
"A Jew who is a member of the Conservative movement is every bit as much a Jew as any Orthodox Jew. A Jew who is a member of the Reform movement is every bit as much a Jew as any Orthodox Jew."
Are contradicted by statements like this one...
"Even if denial of Torah miSinai wasn't a violation of one of the Rambam's 13 principles, which it is,"
Which implies that those jews who reject the notion that the oral torah was given verbatim at sinai are in fact not of the jewish faith, since the 13 principles lay out what it is to be of the jewish faith.
Perhaps you will say "Ahh, but even if you aren't of the faith, you are still Jewish" (I'm not certain this is the track you will take, but its one I can see being taken, to pre-emptively strike against miscommunication) that distinguishes between religious jews, and jews of "race" (for lack of a better term) and my contention is in the area of faith.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Lisa wrote what I am objecting to after I started writing the previous post...
"Surely you know the difference between saying that the movement isn't a form a Judaism and saying that its adherants have stopped being Jewish."
This is my objection. It EXACTLY parallels the statement that "Mormonism is not christianity."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
To be fair, although (from what I understand)Lisa's ideas about Judaism are, by their nature, likely to offend, she has made heroic efforts in this thread to express them in a way that is constructive and as inoffensive as possible.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
That's why her rant has gone to 700+ posts and 15 pages.
It's controversial.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Forgive me if I don't think her efforts have been all that heroic.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How would you state what she believes in a way that is less offensive?
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I don't really think there is a way to say what she is saying that would not be offensive.
Just my two cents worth.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That's what I'm saying. Also that she seems to be trying really hard to be polite and non-confrontational about the way she expresses those beliefs.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I guess we can agree to disagree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay! But I'm not sure we entirely disagree.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"How would you state what she believes in a way that is less offensive?"
Well, for starters "I believe" would go a long ways towards helping. She's stating it as indisputable fact that reform/conservative jews are not of the jewish faith. Thats her interpretation of the matter.
Of course, like all claims telling people they do not belong to a group they claim to belong to, it shouldn't be made in the first place.
Its not polite.
And thats why I'm confused at the lack of LDS jumping on lisa's head, when if Lisa made the statement that members of teh church of later day saints are not of the christian faith, we'd see the whole board jump down her throat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't want to speak for her anymore than I already have. Some beliefs are such that to discuss them in a way that is not going to offend someone would be dishonest. Are choices are to do our best or to refrain from discussing them at all.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
*nod*
But when we're speaking of our beliefs, presenting them as facts is also dishonest.
And the consensus of the hatrack community, judging from the reactions in regards to other religions, seems to be that discussing why people who claim to be of a certain faith are actually not of that faith is off-limits.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
As a Jew, I would resent anyone on the outside dictating who does and who doesn't belong to my religion.
And as a non-Christian, non-LDS, non-everything except for Jewish religion, I wouldn't presume to dictate that sort of thing to anyone else.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't want to speak for her anymore than I already have. Some beliefs are such that to discuss them in a way that is not going to offend someone would be dishonest. Are choices are to do our best or to refrain from discussing them at all.
Agreed. Probably the same reason we don't see Christians and Jews debating Jesus.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: *nod*
But when we're speaking of our beliefs, presenting them as facts is also dishonest.
And the consensus of the hatrack community, judging from the reactions in regards to other religions, seems to be that discussing why people who claim to be of a certain faith are actually not of that faith is off-limits.
If one does not believe their beliefs are facts, then does one have much faith in their own beliefs?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I assume that, in a discussion about faith, the "I believes" are implied. And that for some, adding the "i believes" is a denial that what they believe is true.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
I'm convinced that the analogy is apt. Odd that it comes from the same person who pointed out to me the import of allowing one side of an argument's words to become the official ones. However, since some people are unable to resolve this among themselves, I'm going to have to require that we agree to disagree agreeably. If you are unable to do so here, there are scads of other websites where you can go to debate the issue.
--PJ
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry. Didn't mean to be contentious.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" Odd that it comes from the same person who pointed out to me the import of allowing one side of an argument's words to become the official ones"
Its not odd at all. If certain specific examples of an area are off limits, then the whole area should either be off limits, or you should be willing to have charges leveled at the site of hypocricy. Putting an area off-limits for discussion doesn't give one side or the other official weight in that argument... it does give official weight to the point of view that discussion topics that are inherently uncivil do not belong on a board that prides itself on civility. But I thought that was an official position already staked out.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "How would you state what she believes in a way that is less offensive?"
Well, for starters "I believe" would go a long ways towards helping.
That's not going to happen, Paul.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: She's stating it as indisputable fact that reform/conservative jews are not of the jewish faith. Thats her interpretation of the matter.
That's your interpretation of what I've said. And it is 180 degrees away from what I've actually said. You are basically calling me a liar. I say that a Jew is a Jew is a Jew, and nothing can ever change that, and you claim that I'm saying Conservative Jews aren't Jews.
That is offensive. The irony is that you're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. If I say that I do not consider a Jew any less of a Jew just because they practice something other than Judaism, then by damn, that's what I mean.
Some people write vaguely. Some people go out of their way not to be clear about what they say. I don't think there's a solitary person on these forums who will claim that about me. I post what I post with painstaking attention to clarity. With the sole exception of using jargon instead of translations (because translations are often misleading), and I've offered to explain any terms that haven't been understood, I think that what I've said has been crystal clear.
I want you to apologize for claiming that I am lying about what I said. It's dishonest of you, and offensive. I say what I mean, and if you have such a chip on your shoulder that you can't see past your interpretations of what I'm saying to the actual words, you need to address that with a friend or a therapist.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I assume that, in a discussion about faith, the "I believes" are implied. And that for some, adding the "i believes" is a denial that what they believe is true.
Exactly. Paul wants me to basically accept everything as a legitimate form of Judaism, and have the only question be which I like better. And that may be how he deals with Judaism himself, but I don't.
I might say that the Many Worlds interpretation of the Schroedinger's Cat thing doesn't seem likely to me. I wouldn't say, because I think that, "The Many Words interpretation is wrong." My level of conviction in this case isn't nearly strong enough for me to state it as fact.
I would, by contrast, say that dinosaurs could never have lived under the current effective gravitational field, because the cube-square law simply wouldn't allow it, and that something must have been different here when dinosaurs were around. I don't say "I believe" at the beginning of that, because I've seen the numbers, and it's just a matter of plain fact.
I will not, ever, say, "In my opinion" about something I do not consider to be a matter of opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but only informed opinions need be taken seriously.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As I understand it, Lisa isn't saying that Reform Jews are not Jews; as far as she's concerned, anyone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, even if they don't want to be. What she's saying is that Reform Jews are BAD Jews.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Tom- For someone who understands language so well, you're missing the point.
Lisa has said that "Surely you know the difference between saying that the movement isn't a form a Judaism and saying that its adherants have stopped being Jewish."
Lisa has characterized reform and conservative judaism as not abiding by Maimonedes' 13 principles, which lay out the minimum that a person needs to believe/do in order to be of the jewish faith.
On the other hand, lisa has also argued that its impossible to go from jew to non-jew.
These two arguments rely on two different usages of the word "Jew." One has to do with the religious observances of a person, the other has to do with, not even the religious affiliation or religious identification, but, I guess, the biological religion, though thats not a great way of putting it, either.
You're a jew if your mother is jewish, and you've been circumsized according to the law, even if you don't practice judaism in any way. But you aren't of the jewish faith if you don't practice judaism, because you don't follow Maimonedes' 13 principles, and that is required to be a jew of the faith.
Its not that we're bad jews. Its that we aren't jews of the faith. Which is why I object so strenuously to her characterization. She's using word games to avoid saying we're not jews, even though, in terms of religious practice, thats exactly what she's saying.
"Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "How would you state what she believes in a way that is less offensive?"
Well, for starters "I believe" would go a long ways towards helping. That's not going to happen, Paul."
I know its not. The alternative would be to not talk about it.
"That's your interpretation of what I've said. And it is 180 degrees away from what I've actually said. You are basically calling me a liar. I say that a Jew is a Jew is a Jew, and nothing can ever change that, and you claim that I'm saying Conservative Jews aren't Jews.'
No, I'm saying that you are writing two different things. One "A jew is a jew and nothing can change that," and "Many jews are not of the jewish faith." The latter is simply, as far as I am concerned, unacceptable behavior on a discussion forum that has made polite discourse its primary rule. Its an INHERENTLY impolite, offensive, and bigoted statement.
"f I say that I do not consider a Jew any less of a Jew just because they practice something other than Judaism, then by damn, that's what I mean.'
See? You ARE saying exactly what I'm saying. You are saying jews do not practice judaism, who themselves say they practice judaism. Its EXACTLY the same as saying that an LDS isn't christian because they don't practice christianity, in terms of politeness.
I am NOT putting words in your mouth, Lisa, or accusing you of lying. I guess what I'm accusing you of, now, is not being able to read your own words.
"I want you to apologize for claiming that I am lying about what I said. It's dishonest of you, and offensive. I say what I mean, and if you have such a chip on your shoulder that you can't see past your interpretations of what I'm saying to the actual words, you need to address that with a friend or a therapist"
I won't apologize, Lisa. In the same post you ask me to apologize, you do exactly what I claim you are doing, and then demand that I apologize for saying that it is, in fact, what you are doing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Exactly. Paul wants me to basically accept everything as a legitimate form of Judaism, and have the only question be which I like better."
Nope. I don't say you have to accept it. I say that you can't tell someone, during polite discourse, that they aren't of the faith they claim to be.
"I will not, ever, say, "In my opinion" about something I do not consider to be a matter of opinion."
Except it CLEARLY is a matter of opinion. For example, most jews in the world reject your interpretation in this matter.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I will not, ever, say, "In my opinion" about something I do not consider to be a matter of opinion."
Except it CLEARLY is a matter of opinion. For example, most jews in the world reject your interpretation in this matter.
"If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." --Anatole France
And as I said, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but an uninformed opinion isn't something to be taken seriously.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As I understand it, Lisa isn't saying that Reform Jews are not Jews; as far as she's concerned, anyone born to a Jewish mother is a Jew, even if they don't want to be. What she's saying is that Reform Jews are BAD Jews.
And that in the vast majority of cases, it's not their fault, and blame cannot attach.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
There's a difference, Lisa, between saying something is not a matter of opinion, and that a certain opinion is an uninformed one.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
There's a difference, but that doesn't mean that they can't both be true. They overlap almost entirely. If there is only one informed opinion on an issue, then it is not a matter of opinion. And even if there are multiple informed opinions, if the only contrary opinion being offered in a particular context is an uninformed one, then in that context, it is not a matter of opinion.
Do you want to chop logic? Good luck.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
My logic, apparently, is just fine relative to yours, since you claim that I am lying when I claim that you are writing things that are exactly what you are writing.
"And even if there are multiple informed opinions, if the only contrary opinion being offered in a particular context is an uninformed one, then in that context, it is not a matter of opinion."
True. But you can't demonstrate that your position is the only informed one, in this particular situation, without starting from the premise that yours is the only informed opinion.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Its feel weird defending an Orthodox Jew in this argument, but I don't understand why she is under attack for giving her honest answers to questions that were put forth toward her.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: You're a jew if your mother is jewish, and you've been circumsized according to the law, even if you don't practice judaism in any way. But you aren't of the jewish faith if you don't practice judaism, because you don't follow Maimonedes' 13 principles, and that is required to be a jew of the faith.
Folks, I give up. I'm going to try really hard not to respond to Paul any more, because he's simply unwilling to hear anything he hasn't already decided is being said.
We don't have any such concept of "Jew of the faith". Not Orthodox Jew and not Conservative Jews. There's no such thing.
Paul is taking advantage of the fact that so many Jatraqueros are Christians to use a Christian conception in a discussion about Judaism.
Papa, I understand now why you accepted his analogy. Please believe me, though, when I say that it is simply not applicable in Judaism.
Tante is absolutely correct when she says there are no Orthodox/Conservative/Reform/Reconstructionst/etc. Jews. There are just Jews. But I will go further and say as well that there is just Judaism. And that what the Reform movement started calling "Orthodoxy" when they broke away (and it was originally intended as a pejorative, though we've adopted it for ourselves now) is just plain Judaism.
These movements do not create a different identity for the Jews who may happen to belong to one or more of their institutions. They are small groups of people who have come up with ideologies that they wish were reflected in Judaism and labeled them as "Judaisms", copying the denominational model prevalent in Christianity.
I've heard advocates/adherants of these movements use the term "denominations" for these divisions, and it's simply an indication of where their heads are at.
A Jew is a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. There's a group called the Society for Humanistic Judaism, which is officially atheist. One of their temples is about 15 miles north of where I'm sitting right now, in Deerfield, Illinois. It's called Beth Or. I don't say that they are atheists as a pejorative or to put words into their mouths; it's their own claim.
But just because Sherwin T. Wine, a Reform rabbi, decided one day that using the word "God" wasn't honest, since he didn't really believe in God in any meaningful way, and started this movement, doesn't mean that a Jew who is a member of this movement, or who belongs to Beth Or, can stand up and say that this atheist movement is a form of Judaism.
I use the Humanists as an example that I know is extreme, because I'm hoping that it will make this more clear to some people.
Saying that a no-holds-barred denial of the existence of God is a form of Judaism, regardless of the fact that there are atheist Jews, is insulting and offensive. And I refuse under any circumstances to accept this organization as Judaism. Those atheists who belong to Beth Or, or to any of the other Humanist temples, are Jews, but they are not practicing Judaism. They are not, as Tante might put it, "Humanist Jews", but merely Jews. And they're Jews who are making a big mistake.
From a Jewish point of view, denying that God gave us the Torah at Sinai (for real, and not just figuratively) is on the same level as denying the existence of God. These are core fundamentals. Claiming that Judaism can encompass the denial of Torah miSinai is as absurd as claiming that Christianity can encompass the belief that JC never existed. Or that Islam can accept the idea that Mohammed was a fictional character. It's an oxymoron.
I apologize to those who have not understood this until now. But please understand that Paul's "Jew of faith" concept is an invention that he's using in order to claim that I've said something I've explicitly denied saying. It's dishonest of him, and I have no further interest in anything he has to say until such time as he apologizes and accepts that I mean what I say.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I, for one, think that Lisa has helped Hatrack become a lot less polite, less welcoming, and more contentious lately, and I'm saddened that most posters seem to be fine with this.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Lisa,
I understand your point. There are many Christians who believe that a Trinitarian view of God (if that's the proper term) is just as central to Christianity as you state Torah miSinai is to Judaism. Nonetheless, as far as discussion at this board goes, the definition, right or wrong depending on who says so, is the more encompassing one.
I see your difficulty with it. And I see Paul's difficulty with your comments. I'm not discussing who is right or who is wrong. I'm saying for the purposes of discussion here at Hatrack, please use the more encompassing definition.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Since I think the commandment was both given and retracted by the Lord, it doesn't apply.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
) and to let you know that I look forward to hearing more from you.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)