Women and Mitzvot

[Rhiamom]

What temple ritual sacrifice in the home?

Have you read the full conversation? I am speaking of the ritual practices commanded in the Torah for Temple sacrifices, but now practiced at home. The obvious examples are shechita, netilat yadayim, and the entire concept of kashering. Sometime after the destruction of the Second Temple these became Rabbinic commandments for personal, rather than priestly, observance. Of course, as they are derived from Torah commandments they will be called Torah commandments, and they are - for priests in the Temple. Not eating meat with milk, or the hindquarters of meat are explicitly given in Torah to everybody.

 

[rosends]

Have you read the full conversation? I am speaking of the ritual practices commanded in the Torah for Temple sacrifices, but now practiced at home. The obvious examples are shechita, netilat yadayim, and the entire concept of kashering. Sometime after the destruction of the Second Temple these became Rabbinic commandments for personal, rather than priestly, observance. Of course, as they are derived from Torah commandments they will be called Torah commandments, and they are - for priests in the Temple. Not eating meat with milk, or the hindquarters of meat are explicitly given in Torah to everybody.

Shechita and the kashering of meat was established even in temple times for non-sacrificial meats - it is not a specifically ritual practice. For example, we don't use melika for birds in the home. Netillat yadayim is practiced at a variety of times and for different reasons and the talmud uses a textual verse to teach the idea for everyone, not the priestly use of water.

 

[Rhiamom]

Shechita and the kashering of meat was established even in temple times for non-sacrificial meats - it is not a specifically ritual practice. For example, we don't use melika for birds in the home. Netillat yadayim is practiced at a variety of times and for different reasons and the talmud uses a textual verse to teach the idea for everyone, not the priestly use of water.

Can you find anyplace where it is commanded in the Torah, and not the Talmud, to be done at home? There are a couple hundred years between the two, and that couple of hundred years is when the Pharisees came into authority and power. And the writing of the Mishnah was done by Pharisees, who invented these traditions they elevated to Law. No Jewish group of the time other than the Pharisees accepted the Oral Law. The winners, the Pharisees, wrote the history books, as it were. Can you find any contemporary documentation that shechita, for example, was practiced for ordinary food in Temple times by most people?

I know this is what you have been taught, but actual historical research gives a very different story of many things. The Talmud is not as authoritative about was was going on in the Second Temple period as the Dead Sea scrolls.

 

[rosends]

Can you find anyplace where it is commanded in the Torah, and not the Talmud, to be done at home? There are a couple hundred years between the two, and that couple of hundred years is when the Pharisees came into authority and power. And the writing of the Mishnah was done by Pharisees, who invented these traditions they elevated to Law. No Jewish group of the time other than the Pharisees accepted the Oral Law. The winners, the Pharisees, wrote the history books, as it were. Can you find any contemporary documentation that shechita, for example, was practiced for ordinary food in Temple times by most people?

I know this is what you have been taught, but actual historical research gives a very different story of many things. The Talmud is not as authoritative about was was going on in the Second Temple period as the Dead Sea scrolls.

You are asking a complex question and, respecting that the Conservative DIR might not be the place for me to impose an Orthodox POV regarding the authority of the Mishna as misinai, or espouse the position that Dev 12:21 works as a source, I demure.

 

[Rhiamom]

None of this has to do with sacrificing.

Jews slaughter animals so that they can eat them. It's not for any type of sacrifice.

Clearly washing your hands has nothing to do with sacrifice.

These things are are explained in the Mishnah.

The Mishnah was given to Moses from G-D on Mount Sinai.

The Mishnah is necessary to implement the written law.

For example, it says to keep the sabbath in the written law.

However, it doesn't say:

When does the sabbath being

When does it end

What work can you and can't you do

Can you carry a sword/gun on the sabbath?

Can you violate the sabbath to protect a life

These questions and many more are answered in the Mishnah. The written and the oral law go hand in hand.

CMike, your insistence on Orthodox dogma as immutable fact here in the Conservative DIR is not within the rules. Worse, your recitation of this dogma has nothing whatsoever to do with my questions. You simply do not understand what I am talking about, so please desist from replying when you do not understand the questions.

 

[Rhiamom]

You are asking a complex question and, respecting that the Conservative DIR might not be the place for me to impose an Orthodox POV regarding the authority of the Mishna as misinai, or espouse the position that Dev 12:21 works as a source, I demure.

Well said, Rosends, but I thought I made it pretty clear I was looking for a non-Talmudic reference to these practices existing in the home during Second Temple times. I know of no such reference other than a mention of strictly Pharisaic "family customs" that went beyond the Torah commandments. I have an interest in the origins and development of Rabbinic Judaism and have read several books about this.

 

[Rhiamom]

You are asking a complex question and, respecting that the Conservative DIR might not be the place for me to impose an Orthodox POV regarding the authority of the Mishna as misinai, or espouse the position that Dev 12:21 works as a source, I demure.

Your reference to Devarim 12 is excellent, by the way. Add not eating blood to the list of commands explicitly given to all in the Torah, not just to the priests. But it does not address the method of slaughter.

 

[rosends]

Your reference to Devarim 12 is excellent, by the way. Add not eating blood to the list of commands explicitly given to all in the Torah, not just to the priests. But it does not address the method of slaughter.

That it references A method of slaughter but not THE method is exactly the proof used to support the contemporaneous origin of the oral law.

 

[Rhiamom]

That it references A method of slaughter but not THE method is exactly the proof used to support the contemporaneous origin of the oral law.

I know. The Traditional argument is that "as I have told you" refers to the Oral Law. A more obvious explanation is that it refers to the previous verse and spilling the blood on the ground.

I find it telling that every Jewish sect of the time, other than the Pharisees, rejected the Oral Law. The Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Karaites, and the Ethiopians. The Ethiopian Jews, when discovered in the 1800s, sat and cried upon learning of the destruction of the Temple, and had preserved writings lost to the rest of Judaism. I realize that all these groups are classified as heretical by the Orthodox, and so their beliefs are suspect. But rationally, it makes more sense that one group invented the Oral Law than that all the other groups were wrong. Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually correct. After all, when you gain political and religious control of a nation you can make your own rules, and you get to write the history books, too, in this case the history book being the Mishnah.

 

[rosends]

I know. The Traditional argument is that "as I have told you" refers to the Oral Law. A more obvious explanation is that it refers to the previous verse and spilling the blood on the ground.

I find it telling that every Jewish sect of the time, other than the Pharisees, rejected the Oral Law. The Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Karaites, and the Ethiopians. The Ethiopian Jews, when discovered in the 1800s, sat and cried upon learning of the destruction of the Temple, and had preserved writings lost to the rest of Judaism. I realize that all these groups are classified as heretical by the Orthodox, and so their beliefs are suspect. But rationally, it makes more sense that one group invented the Oral Law than that all the other groups were wrong. Occam's razor, the simplest explanation is usually correct. After all, when you gain political and religious control of a nation you can make your own rules, and you get to write the history books, too, in this case the history book being the Mishnah.

So clearly, your position is that what is considered the oral law is not divine, but human, a later invention of a power structure imposed upon a people. OK. I disagree. Nuff said.

 

[Rhiamom]

So clearly, your position is that what is considered the oral law is not divine, but human, a later invention of a power structure imposed upon a people. OK. I disagree. Nuff said.

Yes. This does not mean there is no respect for Talmud, just that it is not on the same level as the Torah - which in Conservative thought is divinely inspired but not dictated to Moses by HaShem. Bear in mind that we find the Oral Law binding anyway! We just have a bit more freedom to reinterpret it, and no qualms about digging up the roots and looking at them.

 

[EshetChayil]

My sole objection is that this ruling obligates all Conservative Jewish women to these mitzvot, eliminating the historical exemption. What happens when your nursing infant wakes up unexpectedly hungry in the middle of the morning prayers? Doing these things would make me feel resentful of the rabbis in the Rabbinical Assembly who voted for this policy, not closer to HaShem.

I totally agree with this. Or, I *would* totally agree with this if I felt that this ruling accurately represents modern Conservative Judaism, which it doesn't.

This is only an issue inasmuch as any Conservative Jew actively observes mitzvot. As one myself, I find that most other Conservative Jews don't feel obligated to observe anything really, with the exception, perhaps, of kashrut. So whether we women are obligated to or not, the entire community (as a general rule, not that there are not exceptions...) is still only doing as much as they feel like it.

 

[Levite]

There was already a teshuvah passed a number of years ago by Rabbi Joel Roth, wherein he opined that individual women can be considered chayavot (obligated) for mitzvot asei shel hazman grama (positive timebound mitzvot) if they choose to consider themselves bound.

I should probably read this newer teshuvah, since I would want to know how they are phrasing the establishment of a blanket shift to all women being chayavot, since I think it would be very hard to find adequate halachic precedent for such a thing if framed as a regular responsum. You could do it by takkanah (halachic legislative injuction), but the movement has so far been reluctant to embrace the usage of takkanot, perhaps out of shame or embarrassment at the attempts in the 1950s to pass off certain poorly written "teshuvot" as takkanot.

I don't necessarily have a problem with creating a blanket obligation for all women to mitzvot asei shel hazman grama, I would just want it done in a halachically sound and defensible manner. And I confess I am skeptical about this new teshuvah. Not all our rabbis are as careful and painstaking as I might wish in composing their responsa; although of course that is true in every movement, not just ours-- even in Orthodox circles, there is no shortage of poorly executed teshuvot.

FWIW, I think the whole "what if she needed to nurse a breastfeeding child" thing is a red herring. Personally, I think breastfeeding should be permitted in shul. If she's in a position where it really would be difficult or improper to do so, such as if she were the rabbi or cantor leading services, then she could pump or supplement with formula, and make sure to have child care while she leads the service, and that person could feed/soothe the baby. Though neither of our kids breastfed, my wife would always make sure to have child care when she led services at her shul and brought the kids with her, same as I do when I bring them to my shul with me. And more often than not, we leave them at home with a babysitter on Shabbat mornings.

There is no reason why we should refuse to consider making women chayavot. We would just have to decide whether or not all Conservative women truly wanted to be chayavot en masse, or whether they were satisfied choosing obligation on an individual basis. And then, if the novellum were called for, doing it carefully and thoughtfully as a takkanah.

 

[RabbiO]

I totally agree with this. Or, I *would* totally agree with this if I felt that this ruling accurately represents modern Conservative Judaism, which it doesn't.

This is only an issue inasmuch as any Conservative Jew actively observes mitzvot. As one myself, I find that most other Conservative Jews don't feel obligated to observe anything really, with the exception, perhaps, of kashrut. So whether we women are obligated to or not, the entire community (as a general rule, not that there are not exceptions...) is still only doing as much as they feel like it.

Questions from the Reform side of the table - What exactly do you perceive Conservative Judaism, and perhaps more explicitly, modern Conservative Judaism to be? What makes you a Conservative Jew as opposed to, say, a Reform Jew?