Judaism and Modernity

[Harel13]

I came across this quote today while going through old threads on the Judaism DIR (emphasis mine):

"...Theologically there is nothing un-Orthodox about any of their interpretations of Torah, only that they seem to approach it in a way that allows them to meet modern ethical standards and sensibilities where they are..." ("Open" Orthodoxy?)
​

This tied in with a quote that I've been pondering for the last couple of days, from Rabbi Soloveitchik:

"As the Rav homiletically commented, “Kavata itim l’Torah?” implies, “Did you make the values of the times fit into the values of the Torah, or did you try to fit the Torah into the values of the times?”" (From Openness to Heresy - Cross-Currents)
​

I guess I'm simply wondering what happens when one attempts to stuff Torah into modern beliefs? That is, what remains of Judaism when the best standard of ethics is no longer our beloved Torah but what some non-Jewish people think about the world (and my point isn't to say non-Jews aren't ethical people, nor is it to deny that some of these thinkers were/are also Jewish)? What point is there in Judaism if modernity will always be better than it (it is an ancient religion, after all and modernity is the "new and improved")?

Presumably, one could take such a view in a wide variety of directions and not necessarily adhere to all of them. Some possibilities I see, right off the bat:

a. Picking and choosing whichever commandments one is most interested in. By extension, viewing various commandments as barbaric or misogynistic (y'all know the ones I'm referring to).
b. Judaism is merely a cultural invention, and an outdated one, at that. If so, there is no importance in continuing to preserve it. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's worth anything.

Thoughts on the subject?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I came across this quote today while going through old threads on the Judaism DIR (emphasis mine):

"...Theologically there is nothing un-Orthodox about any of their interpretations of Torah, only that they seem to approach it in a way that allows them to meet modern ethical standards and sensibilities where they are..." ("Open" Orthodoxy?)
​

This tied in with a quote that I've been pondering for the last couple of days, from Rabbi Soloveitchik:

"As the Rav homiletically commented, “Kavata itim l’Torah?” implies, “Did you make the values of the times fit into the values of the Torah, or did you try to fit the Torah into the values of the times?”" (From Openness to Heresy - Cross-Currents)
​

I guess I'm simply wondering what happens when one attempts to stuff Torah into modern beliefs? That is, what remains of Judaism when the best standard of ethics is no longer our beloved Torah but what some non-Jewish people think about the world (and my point isn't to say non-Jews aren't ethical people, nor is it to deny that some of these thinkers were/are also Jewish)? What point is there in Judaism if modernity will always be better than it (it is an ancient religion, after all and modernity is the "new and improved")?

Presumably, one could take such a view in a wide variety of directions and not necessarily adhere to all of them. Some possibilities I see, right off the bat:

a. Picking and choosing whichever commandments one is most interested in. By extension, viewing various commandments as barbaric or misogynistic (y'all know the ones I'm referring to).
b. Judaism is merely a cultural invention, and an outdated one, at that. If so, there is no importance in continuing to preserve it. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's worth anything.

Thoughts on the subject?

Every age has its respective insights and blinders. The idea is to be wise enough to sort out the difference. Ideally, the insights should increase our understanding of Torah. However, trying to blend the blinders is the height of foolishness.

For example, here in America, we have a culture of Individualism. The insight we have to offer is the dignity of the individual and human rights. The blinder is that we have lost touch with the idea of the value of community and we often forget that there are innate responsibilities to the community, and that in many ways, our sense of meaning and fulfillment can be tied up in fulfilling those responsibilities. The only thing we see is the goal of Self Actualization. Me Me Me. It is Individualization taken to an unhealthy extreme, Individualism absent the sense of Community. There is rot at the core.

 

[Jake1001]

I came across this quote today while going through old threads on the Judaism DIR (emphasis mine):

"...Theologically there is nothing un-Orthodox about any of their interpretations of Torah, only that they seem to approach it in a way that allows them to meet modern ethical standards and sensibilities where they are..." ("Open" Orthodoxy?)
​

This tied in with a quote that I've been pondering for the last couple of days, from Rabbi Soloveitchik:

"As the Rav homiletically commented, “Kavata itim l’Torah?” implies, “Did you make the values of the times fit into the values of the Torah, or did you try to fit the Torah into the values of the times?”" (From Openness to Heresy - Cross-Currents)
​

I guess I'm simply wondering what happens when one attempts to stuff Torah into modern beliefs? That is, what remains of Judaism when the best standard of ethics is no longer our beloved Torah but what some non-Jewish people think about the world (and my point isn't to say non-Jews aren't ethical people, nor is it to deny that some of these thinkers were/are also Jewish)? What point is there in Judaism if modernity will always be better than it (it is an ancient religion, after all and modernity is the "new and improved")?

Presumably, one could take such a view in a wide variety of directions and not necessarily adhere to all of them. Some possibilities I see, right off the bat:

a. Picking and choosing whichever commandments one is most interested in. By extension, viewing various commandments as barbaric or misogynistic (y'all know the ones I'm referring to).
b. Judaism is merely a cultural invention, and an outdated one, at that. If so, there is no importance in continuing to preserve it. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it's worth anything.

Thoughts on the subject?

No picking thru the leftovers, Harel!

Anyways, I do like Solovitchek. He’s a good writer. Plenty of style.

Judaism is mainly about good food and drinks ! I love a good pastrami sandwich with Gulden’s, cole slaw and a pickle.

How about you, @jay?

 

[Harel13]

No picking thru the leftovers, Harel!

Huh?

How about you, @jay?

@Jayhawker Soule....... (Jake, won't work otherwise...)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No picking thru the leftovers, Harel!

Anyways, I do like Solovitchek. He’s a good writer. Plenty of style.

Judaism is mainly about good food and drinks ! I love a good pastrami sandwich with Gulden’s, cole slaw and a pickle.

How about you, @jay?

I think you're polluting a DIR in a failed attempt to be humorous.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thoughts on the subject?

Do me a favor. Give me an English translation of Leviticus 19:33-35. Thanks.

 

[Jake1001]

Do me a favor. Give me an English translation of Leviticus 19:33-35. Thanks.

Embrace your enemies.

 

[Harel13]

Do me a favor. Give me an English translation of Leviticus 19:33-35. Thanks.

Embrace your enemies.

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on here.

 

[dybmh]

@Harel13,

I have composed a reply to this thread many times in my head. Each and every version is too wordy.

From my perspective, I'll say it as simply as I can:

Yes the path is getting bigger all the time. Everything is for the best.

Gut Shabbos from the PacNW.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do me a favor. Give me an English translation of Leviticus 19:33-35. Thanks.

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on here.

My assumption is that you read the Torah in Hebrew, a skill I greatly envy. I, on the other hand, rely heavily on a number of translations and commentaries at my disposal. I'm simply curious to know how you would translate these verses.

 

[Harel13]

My assumption is that you read the Torah in Hebrew, a skill I greatly envy. I, on the other hand, rely heavily on a number of translations and commentaries at my disposal. I'm simply curious to know how you would translate these verses.

Oh, I see.

Let me try:
"And if a ger (technically means stranger but generally refers to converts) shall live with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Like one of your citizens shall be the ger who shall live with you and you shall love him like yourself for gerim (strangers) were you in the land of Egypt, I am the LORD your God. You shall not commit an iniquity in judgment, in the measurement, the weight and the capacity." (note: used Mamre and Sefaria for help with choosing some of the words).

 

[Jake1001]

My assumption is that you read the Torah in Hebrew, a skill I greatly envy. I, on the other hand, rely heavily on a number of translations and commentaries at my disposal. I'm simply curious to know how you would translate these verses.

I get it. @ Jay, I embrace you in the spirit of Torah scholarship !

 

[Jake1001]

Oh, I see.

Let me try:
"And if a ger (technically means stranger but generally refers to converts) shall live with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Like one of your citizens shall be the ger who shall live with you and you shall love him like yourself for gerim (strangers) were you in the land of Egypt, I am the LORD your God. You shall not commit an iniquity in judgment, in the measurement, the weight and the capacity." (note: used Mamre and Sefaria for help with choosing some of the words).

This is not the spirit in which @ Jay means it. Read his post above.

 

[Harel13]

This is not the spirit in which @ Jay means it. Read his post above.

That's exactly why I wrote that I have no idea what's going on here. What do you mean?

 

[Jake1001]

That's exactly why I wrote that I have no idea what's going on here. What do you mean?

All I can say is

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Harel13, @Jake1001:

At this point I don't know what any of us are talking about,

 

[Harel13]

@Harel13, @Jake1001:

At this point I don't know what any of us are talking about,

Three-way conspiracy?

 

[Harel13]

@Jayhawker Soule how about this: you can state your thoughts on my OP, you can state your thoughts on my translation to the verses you requested, or you can freely, chivalrously, exit the thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Oh, I see.

Let me try:
"And if a ger (technically means stranger but generally refers to converts) shall live with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Like one of your citizens shall be the ger who shall live with you and you shall love him like yourself for gerim (strangers) were you in the land of Egypt, I am the LORD your God. You shall not commit an iniquity in judgment, in the measurement, the weight and the capacity." (note: used Mamre and Sefaria for help with choosing some of the words).

You previously wrote:

..., from Rabbi Soloveitchik:

"As the Rav homiletically commented, “Kavata itim l’Torah?” implies, “Did you make the values of the times fit into the values of the Torah, or did you try to fit the Torah into the values of the times?”" (From Openness to Heresy - Cross-Currents)
​

I guess I'm simply wondering what happens when one attempts to stuff Torah into modern beliefs? ...

I suggest that when you write "And if a ger (technically means stranger but generally refers to converts)' you, along with folks like Rashi and Ibn Ezra, are doing precisely that - viewing the text through a distorting, post-exilic lens.

It is instructive that the Robert Alter, Everett Fox, Richard Elliott Friedman, Jacob Milgrom, and Jewish Publication Society translate ger as something akin to stranger or resident alien. The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus notes:

33. When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him The Torah, and the Bible generally, emphasizes the duty to treat the resident foreigner as fairly as one is commanded to treat the citizen. Verse 1- includes the ger, "stranger" among those entitled to the leftovers of the harvest. The ger referred to in the Bible was most often a foreign merchant or craftsman or a mercenary soldier. This term never refers to prior inhabitants of the land; those are identified by ethnological groupings, such as Canaanites and Amorites, or by other specific terms of reference.

In the biblical ethos, the importance of being considerate to foreign residents drew added impetus from the memory of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt -- Israelites should be able to empathize with the alien. In fact, because of xenophobic attitudes, which could lead to extreme acts of violence against strangers, most ancient societies had laws protecting foreign merchants, officials, and others.​

Also, FWIW the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon defines the Leviticus 19 ger as:

1. sojourner; 2. dwellers in Israel with certain conceded, not inherited rights​

He is the same ger that we find in Gen 15:13 and Gen 23:4.

In Conversion and Midrash: On Proselytes and Sympathisers with Judaism in Leviticus Rabbah, Lorena Miralles Macia begins by noting ...

At the beginning of the Common Era, the substantive ger and the verb (gwr) had already been specialized to refer to the conversion to the Jewish religion and nation.​

... but to translate a text by selectively using a connotation that evolved centuries later strikes me as unseemly midrash.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

@Jayhawker Soule how about this: you can state your thoughts on my OP, you can state your thoughts on my translation to the verses you requested, or you can freely, chivalrously, exit the thread.

That was harsh ...

... but, I think, fair. ​