Forms of judaism?

[Tumah]

If you are going to equate Reform and/or any non-Orthodox movement with Christianity, then we really are not going to have much we can discuss because it becomes all too easy to dismiss - without examination, without thought - any idea, any perception, any insight from a non-Orthodox source or perspective as being illegitimate, irrelevant and unworthy of any consideration.

I will continue to offer you holiday greetings. I will continue to wish you and yours well. I will continue to rejoice in your simchas and sympathize with you in moments of tsouris, but meaningful dialogue where we learn from each other? I just don't see it.

L'shalom.

Sorry, I understood that was already given. I was only commenting on your response.

 

[Akivah]

No, not Jewish. Knowledge and practice is not what makes a person Jewish.

I know. Thus your response #59 was false.

 

[Akivah]

...it becomes all too easy to dismiss - without examination, without thought - any idea, any perception, any insight from a non-Orthodox source or perspective as being illegitimate, irrelevant and unworthy of any consideration.

This is quite common for the Orthodox mind. No matter what is said or what research provided, as soon as it becomes known that the presenter isn't their denomination, the gates of the mind slam shut.

 

[Tumah]

I know. Thus your response #59 was false.

No, its not the same. Its not that the practice is making him Jewish, the practice is establishing that his conversion was done with the correct intention (ie. to accept on himself to follow Halacha). But if someone were to say, practice every halacha, get himself circumcised and goes to the mikvah on his own, I don't think that's going to make him Jewish. It needs to be done under the auspices of an Orthodox court.
So conversely if you someone were to convert and for the first six months let's say, was practicing all the Laws. But then began to slide back, it would probably be too late to void the conversion, because he already established that his conversion was done with intent to follow halacha.
Its the conversion that's making him Jewish. His practice is only confirming his conversion.

 

[Tumah]

This is quite common for the Orthodox mind. No matter what is said or what research provided, as soon as it becomes known that the presenter isn't their denomination, the gates of the mind slam shut.

TO be fear, being Orthodox is not enough either. There are Orthodox people whose books were excommunicated too.

 

[metis]

It needs to be done under the auspices of an Orthodox court.

Why?

I ask this because it seems that you're working under an assumption that there is only one some-how authentic approach to Torah, and let me suggest that, not only is that not true today, but that it's never been true historically.

We often disagreed on so many matters dealing with Torah, the Oral Law, what's to be included to form the Talmud from two different sources, the place of Kabbalah, etc., and this doesn't even include the myriads of commentaries that often reflected disagreements between us? That's why I chuckled when RabbiO mentioned "consensus", whereas our history typically shows a lack of this. Is there anything we haven't argued over?

We are involved in what some of my fellow anthropologists call a "desert religion", and the reason why we get that designation relates to our historical culture of semi-nomadic peoples living in relatively small communities whereas there typically was a strong emphasis on the importance of the individual. That's why we have no creed. That's why instead of a creed we went along with a commentary system whereas you, I, and anyone else can contribute ideas and our own commentaries-- and then argue like hell. Conformity only tended to pop up when different schools argued over who's right, and of course they expected everyone else to conform to what they believed. Besides an emphasis on individualism, there also was emphasis on the school/branch, so most often our give-and-take disputes were manifestations of that as well.

What we have now is uncomfortable but at least it works, namely that we have different branches with different approaches, and it's pretty much the case whereas what your branch decides what is "kosher" for your branch and what my branch decides is fine for my branch, and etc. I have no interest in trying to suppress your branch and I would hope you'd feel the same about mine. After all, even within our own branches there's going to be plenty of disagreement between members at times. Between allowing dissention versus demanding conformity, I'll take the former; although a nice compromise between the two would be nice.

Se la vie.

 

[Tumah]

Why?

Because the level of Halachic observance that a Reform Rabbi would demand is not an acceptable level for conversion according to Orthodox standards.

I ask this because it seems that you're working under an assumption that there is only one some-how authentic approach to Torah, and let me suggest that, not only is that not true today, but that it's never been true historically.

We often disagreed on so many matters dealing with Torah, the Oral Law, what's to be included to form the Talmud from two different sources, the place of Kabbalah, etc., and this doesn't even include the myriads of commentaries that often reflected disagreements between us? That's why I chuckled when RabbiO mentioned "consensus", whereas our history typically shows a lack of this. Is there anything we haven't argued over?

The mistaken assumption that you are under, is that all arguments are equal. This is not so. There are arguments between the Pharisees themselves. Within the Pharisaical community, yes all arguments were equal. And there are arguments between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The Sadducees being Jewish, did not validate their form of Judaism, anymore than it validated the NT version of Jesus' argument. Sadducaical Judaism was not a valid form of Judaism. Period. Valid forms of Judaism have certain minimum standards and the Sadducees didn't qualify. The argument between the Pharisees and the Sadducees was not an argument between peers.
So, historically speaking, we have always had two different types of arguments. Within Orthodoxy there are many opinions and arguments, many of them quite famous. But there is conformation to the minimum standards. Outside those standards is not considered by Orthodoxy an acceptable and valid form of Judaism.

We are involved in what some of my fellow anthropologists call a "desert religion", and the reason why we get that designation relates to our historical culture of semi-nomadic peoples living in relatively small communities whereas there typically was a strong emphasis on the importance of the individual. That's why we have no creed. That's why instead of a creed we went along with a commentary system whereas you, I, and anyone else can contribute ideas and our own commentaries-- and then argue like hell. Conformity only tended to pop up when different schools argued over who's right, and of course they expected everyone else to conform to what they believed. Besides an emphasis on individualism, there also was emphasis on the school/branch, so most often our give-and-take disputes were manifestations of that as well.

This might be the academic approach to understanding what is going on. But its not the Orthodox one. You and I and everyone Jewish boy with a big nose can't contribute whatever we want and fight it out. All the Rabbis of the Mishnah and Talmud (and then Savoraim, Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim) are all basing their ideas on the tradition that they inherited from their Rabbis going back to Moses. That is why "these and these are the words of the living G-d." Because they were all given to Moses at Mt. Sinai from G-d.

What we have now is uncomfortable but at least it works, namely that we have different branches with different approaches, and it's pretty much the case whereas what your branch decides what is "kosher" for your branch and what my branch decides is fine for my branch, and etc. I have no interest in trying to suppress your branch and I would hope you'd feel the same about mine. After all, even within our own branches there's going to be plenty of disagreement between members at times. Between allowing dissention versus demanding conformity, I'll take the former; although a nice compromise between the two would be nice.

Se la vie.

No, that's not acceptable. Because that is not what Judaism is about. Judaism is the fulfillment of G-d's Will as expressed in the Halacha. For a reason: we were given Halacha by G-d in order to do it. We are here to perform G-d's will. That's our job. If someone is not following Halacha, they are not fulfilling G-d's Will and that means they are not being good Jews.

I'm happy for you that you are happy with your choice though.

 

[metis]

Because the level of Halachic observance that a Reform Rabbi would demand is not an acceptable level for conversion according to Orthodox standards.

First of all, I'm gonna be very brief for two reasons: one is that you know we're not going to agree, and two that I have to leave shortly.

To your point above, that's fine, imo, because I have no desire to become Orthodox.

The mistaken assumption that you are under, is that all arguments are equal...

I never stated nor implied that. What I can and will say is that no one branch or person has all the answers, so there's plenty of room for disagreement. Never did I imply that all paths or arguments are equal or correct.

This might be the academic approach to understanding what is going on. But its not the Orthodox one.

Whether it's the "Orthodox one" seems to me to be not really as important as having an "academic one". I'm a scientist, so what do you expect me to say?

Judaism is not a static religion nor ever was static. Even if one takes a literalistic approach to Torah, it's obvious that we were a work in progress, and I'll suggest that this evolution never stopped-- nor should it, imo.

No, that's not acceptable. Because that is not what Judaism is about. Judaism is the fulfillment of G-d's Will as expressed in the Halacha. For a reason: we were given Halacha by G-d in order to do it. We are here to perform G-d's will. That's our job. If someone is not following Halacha, the are not fulfilling G-d's Will and that means they are not being good Jews.

Halacha was also something that was and is a "work in progress". If not, then how does one explain the thousands of "idols" found in the highland area that we occupied during the 1st Temple period, for example? The "building a fence around Torah" wasn't always part of what we believed. A 1st Temple Jew would hardly recognize what they would have seen during the 2nd Temple period, and even less so with what they would see after the Great Diasporah.

But what's more important is how we look at Torah itself. If one assumes that Torah is entirely divinely inspired, then they'll draw certain conclusions based on that approach; but if one doesn't quite view it that way, then they'll likely come up with some different ideas. But here's the real catch: you cannot establish that Torah is divinely inspired in any way, and I cannot establish that it's not or maybe only somewhat divinely inspired. The reason is clear, namely that there's no objective evidence for either position.

Therefore, my position is to try to take the teachings, learn from them, and try to apply that which seems to make sense. And it's important to me to question, while at the same time realizing that coming up with solid answers is gonna be difficult. As one who has worked within the scientific realm for roughly 50 years, this is what I'm used to doing, which includes realizing that which I cannot understand for whatever reason-- it's a very humbling field to be in.

I'm happy for you that you are happy with your choice though.

Ditto, and I have literally no problem with you and I disagreeing-- assuming of course that you eventually agree with me and repent!

Still friends?

 

[Akivah]

No, its not the same. Its not that the practice is making him Jewish, the practice is establishing that his conversion was done with the correct intention (ie. to accept on himself to follow Halacha). But if someone were to say, practice every halacha, get himself circumcised and goes to the mikvah on his own, I don't think that's going to make him Jewish. It needs to be done under the auspices of an Orthodox court.

So conversely if you someone were to convert and for the first six months let's say, was practicing all the Laws. But then began to slide back, it would probably be too late to void the conversion, because he already established that his conversion was done with intent to follow halacha.

Its the conversion that's making him Jewish. His practice is only confirming his conversion.

This is exactly my point from the beginning. The practices and knowledge of the convert is irrelevant to you. All that matters to you is the denomination of the rabbi that did the conversion.

 

[Tumah]

First of all, I'm gonna be very brief for two reasons: one is that you know we're not going to agree, and two that I have to leave shortly.

To your point above, that's fine, imo, because I have no desire to become Orthodox.

I wasn't trying to convert you. You asked why so I answered.

I never stated nor implied that. What I can and will say is that no one branch or person has all the answers, so there's plenty of room for disagreement. Never did I imply that all paths or arguments are equal or correct.

There is plenty of room for disagreement within Orthodoxy. But none outside it.

FWhether it's the "Orthodox one" seems to me to be not really as important as having an "academic one". I'm a scientist, so what do you expect me to say?

And what did you expect me to answer?

FJudaism is not a static religion nor ever was static. Even if one takes a literalistic approach to Torah, it's obvious that we were a work in progress, and I'll suggest that this evolution never stopped-- nor should it, imo.

I don't know what you mean by literalist approach to Torah. Do you mean to Halacha?
You are calling it an evolution. But I don't perceive it that way. I perceive it as being funnelled through smaller and smaller funnels.

FHalacha was also something that was and is a "work in progress". If not, then how does one explain the thousands of "idols" found in the highland area that we occupied during the 1st Temple period, for example? The "building a fence around Torah" wasn't always part of what we believed. A 1st Temple Jew would hardly recognize what they would have seen during the 2nd Temple period, and even less so with what they would see after the Great Diasporah.

I don't understand your question. Idol-worship was widespread during the First Temple period. That's already recorded. That doesn't mean it was sanctioned. That means there were a lot of Jews not doing what G-d wanted. You can find out more in the Books of the Prophets.
Building a "fence around the Torah" always went as was necessary. In the time of David, people could be trusted to ride animals on the Sabbath. When the Rabbis began to fear that people would break off passing tree limbs to hit their animals, they forbade it.
The reason a 1st Temple Jew would not recognize a 2nd Temple Jew or them us, is not for this reason.

FBut what's more important is how we look at Torah itself. If one assumes that Torah is entirely divinely inspired, then they'll draw certain conclusions based on that approach; but if one doesn't quite view it that way, then they'll likely come up with some different ideas. But here's the real catch: you cannot establish that Torah is divinely inspired in any way, and I cannot establish that it's not or maybe only somewhat divinely inspired. The reason is clear, namely that there's no objective evidence for either position.

Therefore, my position is to try to take the teachings, learn from them, and try to apply that which seems to make sense. And it's important to me to question, while at the same time realizing that coming up with solid answers is gonna be difficult. As one who has worked within the scientific realm for roughly 50 years, this is what I'm used to doing, which includes realizing that which I cannot understand for whatever reason-- it's a very humbling field to be in.

This is neither here nor there. The question is not whether the Torah is divinely inspired or not. The question is, what is Judaism. And according to Orthodoxy, it is following the Halacha as codified by the many Orthodox codifiers. And nothing else. In fact, there isn't even such a thing as Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. There are only people who follow Halacha more and people who follow Halacha less.

Ditto, and I have literally no problem with you and I disagreeing-- assuming of course that you eventually agree with me and repent!

Still friends?

I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I am happy where I am, I don't need to begrudge anyone else's happiness.

 

[Tumah]

This is exactly my point from the beginning. The practices and knowledge of the convert is irrelevant to you. All that matters to you is the denomination of the rabbi that did the conversion.

No, the practice of the convert is important, because if he converted without intent to practice Jewish Law, then his conversion is invalid. If the Rabbi was Orthodox, but the convert had no intent to practice Jewish Law, then the conversion is invalid as well.
But if the Rabbi is not Orthodox, then the standard of Law that the convert will have chosen to accept on himself would not be an acceptable level with which to convert. Also, there may be an issue because the Rabbi himself might be considered an heretic by Orthodox standards. It would equally not be acceptable if the Rabbi was officially Orthodox yet converted the convert at a lower standard of acceptance of practice or if the Rabbi himself espoused heretical beliefs.

 

[metis]

I wasn't trying to convert you.

That wasn't the point.

There is plenty of room for disagreement within Orthodoxy. But none outside it.

Says who? You may think you're the only "game" in town, but you ain't. Whether you want to recognize it or not, there are other branches with other ways to look at certain things, and that's called "reality".

And what did you expect me to answer?

As you did-- no surprise, and I'm not being sarcastic.

You are calling it an evolution. But I don't perceive it that way. I perceive it as being funnelled through smaller and smaller funnels.

Which is still an evolution, and you just agreed with my point dealing with the issue of change, btw.

The reason a 1st Temple Jew would not recognize a 2nd Temple Jew or them us, is not for this reason.

Actually it is, plus more. A 1st Temple Jew would have no idea what a rabbi, synagogue, commentary, Mishnah, etc. would be, and this is just for starters.

The question is not whether the Torah is divinely inspired or not. The question is, what is Judaism. And according to Orthodoxy, it is following the Halacha as codified by the many Orthodox codifiers.

And you think that you and only your branch has somehow the right to define what is "Judaism"? Maybe just a tad presumptuous? If you want to believe that you're the only game in town, that's clearly your choice, but I think that's gonna be a pretty hard sell outside of your ranks. I have long found it "amazing" that so many in so many different religions believe they can tell exactly what God wants in so many different areas, and yet we can't even objectively establish that there is a God or that what we read in various scriptures is even close to being correct. I have to admit that you got a lot more faith than I do.

And nothing else. In fact, there isn't even such a thing as Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. There are only people who follow Halacha more and people who follow Halacha less.

Which is just another assumption based on what your beliefs are, thus ignoring the myriads of different beliefs others have. BTW, halacha isn't static either, as it also evolves.

I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I am happy where I am, I don't need to begrudge anyone else's happiness.

Ditto, and my disagreement with you isn't personal. We're coming at this from different backgrounds, and since when do we expect Jews to agree on much of anything.

I don't look down upon the orthodox, and as a matter of fact, I tend to admire them as most appear to be trying to live out what they believe-- like probably most other Jews.

Anyhow, I am going to bow out of this discussion at this point because I don't think there's much for either of us to gain by continuing on.

shalom

 

[dantech]

A 1st Temple Jew would hardly recognize what they would have seen during the 2nd Temple period, and even less so with what they would see after the Great Diasporah.

This reminds me of a joke.

A mother brings her difficult son to a rabbi for private classes.
The rabbi tried and tried, but the student just wasn't willing to learn anything. After a few weeks, the mother asks the rabbi how her son was doing.
The rabbi answers: Your son is truly unique. He knows Torah just as The Tanaim knew the Rashi commentary!

 

[Tumah]

That wasn't the point.

Then I didn't understand the question.

Says who? You may think you're the only "game" in town, but you ain't. Whether you want to recognize it or not, there are other branches with other ways to look at certain things, and that's called "reality".

I was giving the Orthodox viewpoint. You can't force us to recognize as legitimate something we believe to be invalid. That's also reality.

Which is still an evolution, and you just agreed with my point dealing with the issue of change, btw.

I wouldn't deny that Judaism has changed. I am arguing on the nature of that change. I believe that every change took place within the previous framework, not alongside.

Actually it is, plus more. A 1st Temple Jew would have no idea what a rabbi, synagogue, commentary, Mishnah, etc. would be, and this is just for starters.

Those are superficial differences. They had the same things just in a different form.

And you think that you and only your branch has somehow the right to define what is "Judaism"? Maybe just a tad presumptuous? If you want to believe that you're the only game in town, that's clearly your choice, but I think that's gonna be a pretty hard sell outside of your ranks. I have long found it "amazing" that so many in so many different religions believe they can tell exactly what God wants in so many different areas, and yet we can't even objectively establish that there is a God or that what we read in various scriptures is even close to being correct. I have to admit that you got a lot more faith than I do.

I'm not trying to sell anything to anyone though. Those that want to see what we have to offer, come and hear. And either they see what they like or not. But we aren't going to sell out our religious beliefs in order to get more people. That's called not being honest in what we believe. The problems that other religions may or may not have is not my problem. We believe in the 13 principles of Maimonides. All the Torah that we have today was given to Moses from G-d. Not metaphorically. What your academics can or can't establish as fact is also not my problem. Either they'll eventually come around or they won't. The academy is not what establishes my facts, the Torah does.

Which is just another assumption based on what your beliefs are, thus ignoring the myriads of different beliefs others have. BTW, halacha isn't static either, as it also evolves.

Yes, I understand that all the comments I'm making here are based on Orthodox beliefs. It's not by accident.
It was towards halacha that I was referring to when I said that Judaism is funneled. Every change in halacha takes place within the framework of halacha already in place.

Ditto, and my disagreement with you isn't personal. We're coming at this from different backgrounds, and since when do we expect Jews to agree on much of anything.

I don't look down upon the orthodox, and as a matter of fact, I tend to admire them as most appear to be trying to live out what they believe-- like probably most other Jews.

Anyhow, I am going to bow out of this discussion at this point because I don't think there's much for either of us to gain by continuing on.

shalom

Sorry I only got to this line as I commented to your responses. So I'll just post this without expecting a response.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is quite common for the Orthodox mind. No matter what is said or what research provided, as soon as it becomes known that the presenter isn't their denomination, the gates of the mind slam shut.

The (sic!) Orthodox mind?

Sadly, there are those for whom, upon hearing that someone is 'Orthodox', the gates of their mind slam shut.​

Permit me to add …

I am a pluralist: We need to learn from all Jews, and connect and relate to all Jews – Reform, Conservative, Renewal ; I believe it is critical for Judaism that we engage with the greater society as well... While there is a lot to critique in the Orthodox world – Modern, Centrist and Chareidi – all of us sometimes take a strident attitude that may not exhibit sufficient respect and love for our fellow Jews and their motivations. All of us can make an effort to try to make our first response be one of embracing all of Orthodoxy – all Jews of course, and all human beings – and being open to learning – sometimes with a critical, but respectful ear – from our fellow Orthodox Jews.

- Rabbi Asher Lopatin

 

[RabbiO]

Sadly, there are those for whom, upon hearing that someone is 'Orthodox', the gates of their mind slam shut.

Unfortunately you are correct.

On the other hand, I suspect that given Rabbi Lopatin's association with Rabbi Weiss, his conciliatory words will be dismissed by some, such as Tumah (with no disrespect intended), as the unwise words of a heretic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Unfortunately you are correct.

On the other hand, I suspect that given Rabbi Lopatin's association with Rabbi Weiss, his conciliatory words will be dismissed by some, such as Tumah (with no disrespect intended), as the unwise words of a heretic.

I'm sure that no true Scotsman would associate with Rabbi Lopatin, but I continue to value my brief interactions with him.

 

[metis]

This reminds me of a joke.

A mother brings her difficult son to a rabbi for private classes.
The rabbi tried and tried, but the student just wasn't willing to learn anything. After a few weeks, the mother asks the rabbi how her son was doing.
The rabbi answers: Your son is truly unique. He knows Torah just as The Tanaim knew the Rashi commentary!

I wish I could say that was funny, but I don't get it-- undoubtedly due to the fact that I don't know what "The Tanaim" is-- so I'll look it up.

OK, I looked it up and I still don't get it. I know if you have to explain a joke it ceases to be funny, but please educate me anyway.

 

[metis]

Unfortunately you are correct.

On the other hand, I suspect that given Rabbi Lopatin's association with Rabbi Weiss, his conciliatory words will be dismissed by some, such as Tumah (with no disrespect intended), as the unwise words of a heretic.

"Heretic"?! I'm guilty as charged.

Shabbat shalom anyway to all you True Believers.

 

[metis]

This reminds me of a joke.

OK, one deserves another, and this one is actually more a Christian joke, but a parallel can be drawn:

A bunch of Christians die in a plane crash, and they then find themselves in front of Saint Peter, who takes them on a tour of heaven. He points and says "Here's the Baptist part of heaven. Over there is the Methodist part of heaven. That over there is the Lutheran part of heaven. Now, as we walk, we must be very quiet because we're going to go by the Catholic part of heaven, and they think they're the only ones here."