Hey Bob. You know, I use starLisa because my e-mail address is lisa at starways dot net, and because it's almost always impossible to get just Lisa as a handle on a forum. It's generally one of the first names to go. I don't imagine you'd have much luck getting just plain Bob. Anyway, I don't mind being called starLisa, but Lisa will do just as well.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I am interested in whether the Orthodox viewpoint/tradition that you adhere to is what one would call "literalist." In some Christian denominations, for example, the Pentateuch is, along with the rest of the Bible, held to be the literal word of God, and that what it says there is meant literally too. That would, of course, include the entirety of the Mosaic law.
(NOTE: I apologize if I'm stumbling over the right names for things in your tradition -- I assume you know what I mean, but if this needs clarification, I'll try harder).
Oh, please don't apologize. Every field of knowledge has its own jargon. We see the books of Tanakh (the Bible) as being divided into three categories. Tanakh is actually an acronym for those categories.
Torah is the first category, and we hold that it was dictated word for word, letter for letter, by God to Moses. The only debate is on the final eight verses of Deuteronomy, but the vast majority of authorities hold that these, too, were dictated by God to Moses. One discussion of this subject says that Moses wrote those eight verses with tears running down his face.
So if "literalist" means that those are literally the word(s) of God, yes, we're literalist. But if it means that we take those words at their face value, then we definitely don't fit that.
The second category is that of the Prophets. These are books that were written by people under the influence of a heightened sense of perception of God that we call prophecy. It's less than what Moses had with God, but it's more than the Holy Spirit with which the third category, the Writings, were written.
Incidentally, I strongly suspect that the Christian concept of what prophecy is differs from ours by about 95%.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Anyway, this has lead to some spirited debate in Christian circles (some here on Hatrack) over items within Mosaic law (proscriptions against homosexuality being the most frequent source of debate, naturally enough).
Well, if we were literalists, there wouldn't be any objection to lesbians, right? I mean, the verses that deal with the subject are pretty obviously referring solely to men.
But the whole issue of homosexuality and Jewish law is an enormous one, and I'd rather not let this thread get turned into a Jewish version of the "OSC and Gays" thread.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: What I wonder is how this is handled within an Orthodox tradition.
Not well. Unfortunately, the Orthodox community's social reaction to gays and lesbians is not consistent with Jewish law. In my opinion. Mileages vary, and I can tell you for sure that Rivka disagrees with me.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I've heard various things over the years, and I realize that my knowledge on the issue of "what Judaism teaches" may come from sources that are not credible to you. (like an online ask the rabbi website -- I have no idea whether conservative, orthodox, or reform -- but I think it was a conservative viewpoint).
There are various sites. I don't know which Ask the Rabbi one that would be. I know there are Orthodox ones, but I know there are non-Orthodox ones as well.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I have heard that there is a literalist tradition within Orthodox Judaism, but that it is a minority viewpoint.
I guess you'll have to be more specific with regards to what you mean by literalist. Can you give some examples?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: This seemed to fit with my understanding of the importance of both oral and written commentary -- that literalism isn't really an accurate portrayal.
I'm not necessarily looking for a comment on the literalism of specific passages (like the prohibition against homosexuality) as I don't want to derail your thread into a debate of "issues."
Muchly appreciated, sirrah.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But maybe you could illuminate it for me in terms of how you, as an Orthodox Jew, view the scriptures and whether they are to be taken literally or must be interpreted and what the valid sources of that interpretation are.
See, we don't really "interpret". Hmm... let me see how best to put this. Consider the difference between discovering something and inventing something. Columbus discovered America, but it was already there. Tesla invented radio, and something that hadn't existed before (except in potential) came into being.
We mostly discover. Basically, any idea that you can come up with that doesn't contradict other things in Judaism and which is arrived at in a correct way... is legitimate.
The correct way is something I can't really explain to you. It's something you have to learn on the inside. It's a specialized field of knowledge, or rather a set of specialized fields of knowledge, and like all such fields, higher level stuff is going to sound like gibberish to beginners.
I went to a SQL Server Performance Tuning workshop last week. Omigod. I was so completely out of my depth. I mean, I work with database stuff, but nothing on the level that workshop was about. Half the time, he could have been talking Chinese for all I understood. Or not, because a coworker of mine, who is Chinese, was sitting next to me, and he was just as sledgehammered as I was.
At this stage, can you just take my word for it that there's a system, and that by applying that system to the laws and the situation, we can arrive at appropriate action?
See, we believe that we are partners with God. Once He gave us the Torah, He no longer has a say in it.
That may sound extreme, but it's true. Remind me to tell you the story of Rabbi Eliezer and Akhnai's Oven. God Himself set it up so that He cannot make any changes. If a prophet establishes himself as a true prophet of God, and then turns around and tries to change the slightest little thing in God's name, we have to kill him.
Now, if you consider that God is not constrained by time, this isn't really a big deal. Tomorrow is no different to Him than the day He gave us the Torah. He can't possibly have any need to change things. Anything that would need to be change could be incorporated into the system from the outset.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Thanks for anything you can share.
It's late, and I don't even know if that last paragraph made any sense. And I'm correcting to many misspellings. So I'm going to go to bed. More tomorrow, if you like.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I was wondering the exact same thing. To take it a bit further, I was wondering to what extent, if any, Orthodox Judaism is open to the same sorts of "attacks" frequently lobbed at Fundamentalist Christians, over how literally they adhere to laws enumerated in the Old Testament.
A lot of those "attacks" are based on a lack of knowledge of what the laws actually are. But some of them, like the linen and wool thing, don't give us a problem, because we do keep that, just as we keep all of the laws to the best of our abilities.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I've heard a lot about homosexuality and a lot about keeping kosher. What about the materials from which clothes are made? What about punishments for transgressions?
Most of the punishments aren't applicable without the system of rabbinic courts operating. They aren't right now. I've been meaning to post an explanation of that.
And if I buy a blazer, there are places I can take it to have it checked to make sure that there's no wool/linen mix in it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: IIRC, starLisa is a libertarian lesbian who has found ways to reconcile these lifestyles with her interpretation of the Law.
Weeelll... I wouldn't call libertarianism a lifestyle, so much as a political view or a philosophy. And I'm more of a post-Objectivist, really.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Yes, but hasn't she said something along the lines of it is still sinful? (I'm certain I'm grossly oversimplifying here, but the point is that I don't think she would say that these parts of scripture are simply wrong or outdated.)
In any case, there are other Orthodox Jews here besides her, and I'd be interested in their responses as well.
Oh, I'm sure you'll get them, too.
What's forbidden is forbidden. There are certain sexual acts that are forbidden between members of the same sex. There are even more that are forbidden between members of the opposite sex.
I don't see any problem with being gay. There are things I can't do. I don't do them. End of story (or it should be, anyway).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yes. And conveniently, she happens to be a lesbian, rather than a gay man. Conveniently, as a lesbian, she doesn't have to make this choice. As I understand it, the authorities she chooses to consider authoritative believe that the sin proscribed is male-on-male sex, not female-on-female sex. So if she were a guy, she'd have a crisis of conscience; luckily, her choice of authority doesn't pose one.
Well, I don't believe that it's a "choice of authority". Rather, it's a recognition of authority.
And there's stuff that's forbidden for women as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: And yeah, wearing certain fiber combinations (wool and linen, specifically) are forbidden, and observant Jews will not only avoid these combinations, but also have their clothing checked by a lab before they wear them, to assure that there isn't a forbidden fabric that was not declared on the label.
Within limits. If I buy a simple dress or top that says what it's made out of, I don't need to take that to be checked for shaatnez. If I buy a blazer or a suit, I would. Too many nooks and crannies and the like where there could be padding of a different kind of fabric.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Okay. Thanks for the reply.
So would it be fair to say that all the crimes which call for capital punishment are still considered by Orthodox Jews to be capital offenses, even though the punishments are not currently being administered?
Yes. We make a point of defining the various commandments according to type. There are capital crimes, simple prohibitions, prohibitions that carry a punishment of excision (don't ask), and so on.
For example, lighting a fire on Shabbat is far more extreme an act than eating a pork chop or eating something without saying a bracha (blessing) over it first. But we wouldn't do either of those, either.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: What about Creationism? Are Orthodox Jews creationists?
You'll need to define that. Yes, God created everything. As to the issue of evolution, there are different views. Some people try to find a middle ground... but ultimately, the details don't matter to us so much. God created the world the way it says in the Torah. What exactly does that mean? I mean, what's a day before the sun got created? Beats me. When my time machine gets out of the shop, I'll go check it out.
It's like the afterlife. We have various sources that say various things about what's going to be after we die. But we don't put too much thought into it, because we're all going to find out sooner or later anyway, right?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:God created the world the way it says in the Torah. What exactly does that mean? I mean, what's a day before the sun got created? Beats me.
Well, do you believe that the order given in Genesis is correct? That the Earth (and the light, somehow) were made before the sun and the stars?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And to ask a related but perhaps broader question: Do Orthodox Jews perceive science to be at odds with their faith, or compatible with it? In order to achieve compatibility, do they have their own scientists who come to scientific conclusions different from those of scientists who are not Orthodox Jews?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:God created the world the way it says in the Torah. What exactly does that mean? I mean, what's a day before the sun got created? Beats me.
Well, do you believe that the order given in Genesis is correct? That the Earth (and the light, somehow) were made before the sun and the stars?
Yes. Doesn't mean that's the usual order of things, mind you, but yes.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: And to ask a related but perhaps broader question: Do Orthodox Jews perceive science to be at odds with their faith, or compatible with it?
<shrug> Reality is reality. To the extent that science accurately describes reality, it cannot be at odds with Judaism.
Certain conclusions can be, though. Science isn't monolithic, and does change paradigms from time to time. There was a time when the dominant... scientific (for lack of a better word) paradigm was that the sun revolved around the Earth. Since Judaism holds that the Earth orbits the sun, there was an incompatibility.
There was a time when lighting rods were considered to be a superstition. But there's a Mishnah that actually mentions lighting rods, and says that they are not to be considered superstition. And the Mishnah was compiled in about 230 CE.
Things change. We have sources that say the universe is about 15.4 billion years old. We have sources that claim that certain apes are devolved from human beings. I've seen claims that Darwin knew of that last before writing his Descent of Man.
What we don't hold with is the scientific orthodoxy that's so prevalent today, and the view that anything not approved through proper channels (peer review and such) isn't science.
Occam's Razor, for instance, isn't science. It's a guideline that can be useful, but can also rule out things that are true. If something isn't falsifiable, it is, by definition, not scientific to claim that it is true. But there's no logic in it. All lack of falsifiability does is say that you can't prove it one way or another. Not that it can't be true.
All too often, science is used as a kind of argument by intimidation. "Agree with our current consensus, or we'll label you a lunatic and try to ruin your career". Look at the hysteria surrounding Intelligent Design, just as the most recent example.
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: In order to achieve compatibility, do they have their own scientists who come to scientific conclusions different from those of scientists who are not Orthodox Jews?
posted
*pained* Please please don't present Schroeder (especially that particular book) as evidence. To quote my father, Schroeder's book is terrible physics -- and worse Torah. (My father is an Orthodox mathematical physicist who would be insulted (well, mostly he'd be amused, but he would pretend to be insulted) by Icarus' "In order to achieve compatibility, do they have their own scientists who come to scientific conclusions different from those of scientists who are not Orthodox Jews?" (I won't even pretend to be insulted. I think it's rip-roaringly funny, and hope Ic won't be insulted by that.) There is another, somewhat similar, book that is less known that he does grudgingly approve of, but I don't remember the title offhand.)
If you want to list Jewish scientists who have published enlightening books, Rabbi Kaplan is indeed a wonderful example. So are Rabbis Lawrence Kelemen and Nosson Slifkin.
quote: Since Judaism holds that the Earth orbits the sun, there was an incompatibility.
Last time you made that kind of statement you were citing the Ramban. Now you're ignoring him? *amused*
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since Judaism holds that the Earth orbits the sun, there was an incompatibility.
Last time you made that kind of statement you were citing the Ramban. Now you're ignoring him? *amused*
<grin> I asked a rabbi about that, once. He maintained that the Rambam wasn't paskening that way. Just relaying current knowledge in much the same way that R' Kaplan gives botanical and Egyptological information in his The Living Torah without those necessarily being his personal view.
That said, I've met uberfrummies who've claimed that differing with the identifications of the various Pharaohs in The Living Torah is contrary to emunat chachamim. Eich nafalnu.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is what I was worried about if we got dueling Orthodox Jews giving opinions here. The rest of us would have to go learn an entirely new vocabulary and, chances are, even then we wouldn't have a clue what was being said.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ic, I am amused on two levels. One is the notion of there somehow being some (secret?) Jewish organization bankrolling scientists who only toe the party line (whatever that is, exactly). The other was the mental image that popped into my head. I was seeing these supposed scientists, dressed in a mixture of "scientific" garb (lab coats and goggles, natch) and "Jewish" garb (Borsalino hats). It was quite a picture.
Or was I unclear on more than that? I know my nested parentheses can be difficult to decode.
quote:<grin> I asked a rabbi about that, once. He maintained that the Rambam wasn't paskening that way. Just relaying current knowledge in much the same way that R' Kaplan gives botanical and Egyptological information in his The Living Torah without those necessarily being his personal view.
I am familiar with that explanation, and even hold of it (as my citing R' Slifkin as a source might indicate). However, you may not be aware that Chabad (among others) firmly believe that is precisely what the Rambam was doing. In fact, the Rebbe attempted to explain how it could be true. *pained*
quote:I can make up words, too.
Ah, but will at least two other posters understand them without help? I can't speak for Lisa, but I know I try to translate when possible. But sometimes it really isn't possible (at least not without a page or two of background explanation).
And sometimes I'm just lazy. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: I just want to say that "Rambam" is a fun word to say.
That is all.
That's because you don't always forget which one (between RAM-bam and Ram-BAN) is supposed to be said which way. (To make it easier for the listener to distinguish which is being referred to.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was seeing these supposed scientists, dressed in a mixture of "scientific" garb (lab coats and goggles, natch) and "Jewish" garb (Borsalino hats). It was quite a picture.
Now, add in a song and dance routine, and I think you've got a hit on your hands!
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't suggesting a secret organization, but just zealous scientists seeing what they want to. I think the parallel I'm trying to make is fairly obvious, but if you're not Christian, it might possibly not be.
quote:I was seeing these supposed scientists, dressed in a mixture of "scientific" garb (lab coats and goggles, natch) and "Jewish" garb (Borsalino hats). It was quite a picture.
Now, add in a song and dance routine, and I think you've got a hit on your hands!
This just made me think "Pinky and the Brain" meets "Fiddler on the Roof". I think you might be onto something!
I have nothing useful to add.
<-- not at all Jewish
Posts: 952 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry about the jargon. Usually I try to be better about that. Um...:
pasken = rule on a point of Jewish law
emunat chachamim = "faith in the Sages"
eich nafalnu = how we have fallen (a paraphrase of the "how the mighty have fallen" from David's elegy to Jonathan and Saul)
And Tom, I laughed out loud when I saw your thing about making up words. Thanks for the reminder. <grin>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I wasn't suggesting a secret organization, but just zealous scientists seeing what they want to. I think the parallel I'm trying to make is fairly obvious, but if you're not Christian, it might possibly not be.
I was so busy laughing at Bob that I missed this before.
I didn't think you were actually suggesting a secret agency. And there certainly are some Jewish scientists whose beliefs noticeably bias their work. (In my experience, these are most often not people actually working in the sciences. They are people with a degree in some scientific field who make various pronouncements not supported by those actually working in the field -- and often in fields other than their degree is in. I particularly love it when engineers make claims about biology (re: evolution) or statistics (re: bible codes) that make it glaringly clear that they are out of their depth.)
But most who are both Orthodox Jews and scientists are pretty indistinguishable from their colleagues (at least in terms of their scientific views).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *pained* Please please don't present Schroeder (especially that particular book) as evidence. To quote my father, Schroeder's book is terrible physics
quote:Originally posted by rivka: They are people with a degree in some scientific field who make various pronouncements not supported by those actually working in the field -- and often in fields other than their degree is in. I particularly love it when engineers make claims about biology (re: evolution) or statistics (re: bible codes) that make it glaringly clear that they are out of their depth.)
Funny you put these together. A teacher of mine in high school (both a Rabbi and my Talmud teacher, and a PhD in Biology which he taught me as well) commented on Schroeder's book "The Hidden Face of G-d" that it was strong physics but very weak biology.
posted
I suspect (although I am speculating) that your teacher said this as someone who could easily see the holes in Schroeder's biology, but was perhaps not quite well-versed enough in physics to see the holes there.
But it may simply be that The Hidden Face of God (which I have neither read nor know much about) actually has good physics but poor biology. It's a different book from Genesis, and what is true of one may well not be true of the other.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I suspect (although I am speculating) that your teacher said this as someone who could easily see the holes in Schroeder's biology, but was perhaps not quite well-versed enough in physics to see the holes there.
But it may simply be that The Hidden Face of God (which I have neither read nor know much about) actually has good physics but poor biology. It's a different book from Genesis, and what is true of one may well not be true of the other.
I apologize for not being quite so clear. I quoted both passages of yours because I suspect that your first speculation is correct. You said that people in some area of science make wild claims about other areas of science. My teacher, I think, did the inverse. He accepted wild claims about physics with the confidence of a Biologist.
And I don't mean to insult my teacher by saying this. He is one of the best, and most profound, influences my life has had.
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
