posted
So... over on the Theistic Cosmology thread, the subject of Judaism came up. It's come to my attention that a lot of people on these boards are Christians, and that some of them have opinions of Judaism that are based on sources other than Judaism itself.
I'd like to take this opportunity to give a brief (yeah, right <grin>) overview of things.
Among the misconceptions I want to address are these:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I think the question (or in her case pronouncement) starLisa brings up is if there is such a thing as the Jewish religion anymore, outside of historical relationships? I have heard it said, although where I am not sure, that modern Judaism is about questions and not answers. A not so nice way of putting that, and I have heard it in similar terms, is that Judaism is a spiritually dead religion as you can believe anything you want short of Allah and Jesus Christ.
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Judaism has always had a very rich tradition of questioning, and not settling on a specific answer to the question. The entirety of the Talmud is open ended debate, for example. There are no conclusions. No real, firm, established answers.
After Rambam's 13 principles, pretty much everything is up for debate.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I count "true Judaism" as Torah and Ritual. I am agreed that Talmud was a presidence for modern Jewish thought. But, for me the Talmud represents a loss of religious identity during the time of Roman conquest. Of course, I recognize that is partly my Christian beliefs showing. (edit: I'll go so far as to say that is partly my Mormon beliefs about Christian development during the Roman era showing.)
These were the main quotes that made me think this was necessary.
Caveat: This is coming from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism. The various non-Orthodox ("heterodox") movements, such as Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal and so on, are all variant groups that no longer accept Torah law as binding. These are the groups that Occasional probably was referring to when referring to "spiritually dead" religion.
So: Torah 101
Let's start with the word "Torah". When we use that word, it can mean different things, depending on the context. It can refer to the Five Books of Moses, or Pentateuch. It can also refer to the entire corpus of Law and Lore given to the Jews by God at Mount Sinai. Which was a lot more than just those five books.
I'm going to be using it in that second sense. When I want to refer to the Pentateuch, I'll refer to the Written Torah.
When God gave us the Torah, He gave it in two main parts. The Written Torah and the Oral Torah. Those of you who have heard the term "Oral Torah" may have heard it equated to the Talmud. This is not the case. The Talmud does contain discussions of Oral Torah, but it is not, itself, the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah cannot, by its very definition, be committed to writing in its entirety. This is because it is not a book. In modern terms, it is most akin to an operating system. It is made up of information, and the system by which that information is to be used. The Written Torah can almost be seen as a reference guide, or a set of mnemonics that may be used to help recall information from the Oral Torah.
The Oral Torah is the primary corpus of law and lore in Judaism.
It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "rabbinic commentaries" on the Written Torah. It is the source of all Torah law.
Let's take the most well known example of the lex talionis. "An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." I've seen written in any number of places that the rabbis modified this law to require only monetary damages. In fact, though, the law was always monetary damages. The various different terms in the verse "eye", "tooth", "burn", and so on, are used to help recall the various categories of monetary penalty that can come up in a case of damages. Time out of work, for example. Embarrassment. Pain. Loss of value as a worker. I don't recall them all, but I don't have to. It's not my job.
One of the reasons the Oral Torah cannot be written down is that it is a multiply redundant system that requires individuals to apply it according to principles, and according to current situations.
The fact that the Written Torah was written down allowed it to be co-opted by Christianity, for instance, and interpreted to mean something other than what Jews know to be the actual Authorial intent. I say this without intending to offend anyone. It should be fairly obvious that Judaism does not accept the various Christian and Christological interpretations of the Written Torah and the rest of the Tanakh (what is sometimes referred to as the Hebrew Bible).
The Oral Torah cannot be distorted in this way, because it is utterly dependent upon a continuous and multiply redundant chain of transmission, from teachers to students to their students, and so on.
During the course of our history, we've had some bad times. Times that interfered -- somewhat -- with the proper transmission of the Torah. Of course, God being omnicient and all, the Torah takes that possibility into account, and provides for what to do.
Among the things that were done were the compilation of the Mishnah, and later, the compilation of the Gemara. These two books together constitute the Talmud.
The Mishnah was compiled by Rabbi Judah the Prince around 230 CE (or thereabouts). It is an extremely terse composition, and is almost impossible to understand unless you learn it from someone who is part of the chain of Torah transmission.
Let me deal briefly with terseness in Torah literature. Consider a building. You're in this building, and you see a sign that says, "Exit building through rear door." What does it mean to you?
In the normal, very loose and easy way we talk nowadays, it seems simple. It means that when you're ready to leave, you should go out the back, rather than the front. At least, I think most people would read it that way.
Looking at that same sign through Torah methodology, here is a very limited list of questions that would immediately pop into mind:
Does the sign mean you must exit the building through the rear door now, or can you stay a while before leaving?
What if there are two doors on the rear side of the building? Is either one okay, or is there something that would indicate that only one of them is the "rear door" that was being referred to?
Can you leave out a rear window? That is, does a window you use to exit a building have the same function as a door, and is it considered a door for that purpose?
If windows never count as doors, what about a full size sliding glass door? Does it count as a door or a window?
Suppose the entrance is on a side, and there are doors on the back (from the street perspective), and on the wall opposite the entrance? Which is considered the back door?
Suppose the building you're in has a door in the back left corner, built diagonally? Is it considered a back door, a side door, both, or neither?
Was there some reason you might have thought that exiting through the rear door wasn't allowed, and that the sign is not there to exclude the front door, but only to permit using the back door as well?
I could go on and on. And some people will find such questions to be incredibly annoying and picayune; I'm aware. But I point it out to demonstrate a key principle in the way Torah works.
If you use language loosely, you need a lot more verbiage to make yourself understood. You have to cover every situation explicitly, or just accept that there will be holes. But if you use language rigorously, you can convey a vastly greater amount of information much more tersely.
That's how the Mishnah and related works work. I remember the first time I was learning the Mishnah regarding the shofar (ram's horn) that we blow on Rosh Hashanah. One of the things it said was that there are straight ones and curved ones, and that the curved ones are not valid to be used for Rosh Hashanah. I was baffled. I mean, I know for a fact that every shofar I've ever seen used on Rosh Hashanah is curved.
After about an hour of banging my head against the wall, I went to one of the rabbis where I was learning, and asked him. He led me through the various possibilities, and as Sherlock Holmes says, once you eliminate all impossibilities, what's left has to be it. The resolution to my confusion was simply that the terms "straight" and "curved" as used in that Mishnah are not congruent to the mathematical terms I'm familiar with. And the curved ones that we use are "straight" in Mishnaic terms. Curved ones are... I don't even remember. Twisted even more, I think.
The Mishnah was compiled at a time when there was a bit of a let-up in Roman persecutions. Rabbi Judah the Prince was on extremely good terms with the Roman Emperor at the time, and this respite provided a moment in history when it was possible to collect all the various traditions that had diverged somewhat during the troubles, and compile them into the Mishnah. Some few that weren't included wound up in other contemporary compilations that are equally important.
The way the Talmud works is, we start with a line from the Mishnah, and start asking questions about it. Bear in mind that the discussions in question took part over about half a millenium or so. The ones that were compiled into the Talmud were those that would clarify things that were getting harder to clarify over the years. The respite during the life of Rabbi Judah the Prince was only temporary, and the level of redundancy we'd once had was dropping still some more.
The redaction of the Talmud took place, once more, in a time of respite, when some of the rabbis were on excellent terms with the Persian rulers. This was very shortly before the birth of Islam.
The Talmud is terse, like the Mishnah, but less so. At this point, it was necessary to include more detail. Furthermore, by showing the way in which the Mishnah was learned, it functions as a snapshot and a model for our own learning.
I think I'm going to stop for now. Later, I'll explain how Torah law was originally determined authoritatively, and why that system is currently in disrepair. But I imagine that what I've written here so far is very different from the image that most Christians have of it.
Oops. I hope I'm not stepping on Rivka's toes with this. I don't mean to compete. I just thought the thread hijacking was getting out of hand, and wanted to transfer the current discussion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oops. I hope I'm not stepping on Rivka's toes with this. I don't mean to compete. I just thought the thread hijacking was getting out of hand, and wanted to transfer the current discussion.
I think that we have room for more than one Orthodox Jew on this forum. I hope we do.
And just because rivka has been generous in educating us all about Orthodox Jewish practice does not necessarily mean that she has a monopoly on that topic.
posted
Well, you started the thread in a way that pretty much garunteed it would be killed, before editing your top post.
Lisa claims, in the other thread, she was lied to about what orthodox jews believe.
I claimed, in my most recent post on that thread, that she is mis-representing what conservative jews believe. (In fact, she demonstrated a totally wrong understanding of what conservative jews believe concerning the nature of divine revelation).
In this thread, I re-affirm that statement, and indicate my current belief that no one should accept any statement by starlisa on what non-orthodox jews believe.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: In this thread, I re-affirm that statement, and indicate my current belief that no one should accept any statement by starlisa on what non-orthodox jews believe.
With no disrepect intended to starlisa, I have to agree with what Paul is saying here. I am currently a practicing observant member of an orthodox congregation, but I have also been involved with many non-orthodox Jews. I have found that many orthodox Jews really don't have a good understanding of practices and beliefs of Conservative Jews or those of other non-orthodox Jewish denominations.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: In this thread, I re-affirm that statement, and indicate my current belief that no one should accept any statement by starlisa on what non-orthodox jews believe.
With no disrepect intended to starlisa, I have to agree with what Paul is saying here. I am currently a practicing observant member of an orthodox congregation, but I have also been involved with many non-orthodox Jews. I have found that many orthodox Jews really don't have a good understanding of practices and beliefs of Conservative Jews or those of other non-orthodox Jewish denominations.
That's true, in general. But I was Conservative for a long time, and of the educated sort.
But since I want avoid confusion, let me try and clear this up in the words of the leaders of the Conservative Movement themselves.
Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, Chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary ...But the real point of this comparison is to argue that the rejection of Torah mi-Sinai, of the claim for an all-inclusive, single and internally consistent revelation at Sinai does not diminish the sanctity of our sacred texts. They are holy to me because they record the religious experience and dialogue of an unbroken interaction with God. They command me because millennia ago Israel generated them and accepted them and died for them, the distillation of an evolving religious sensibility and a national quest to be a universal inspiration. I revere them because they were a haven and homeland for my tormented people. And I study them because in their ancient, unique and compelling words the echo of God's voice continues to reverberate.
So why make the pilgrimage? And why celebrate Passover? I think to answer these profound questions we must learn to distinguish between historic facts and Truth.
...The story of Exodus, the story of Israelite slavery, their redemption and their journey to Mt. Sinai, are extremely important Truths. Whether they happened exactly the way the Bible says they did is beside the point. That a people might choose to imagine their origins as slaves is no small thing.
...The story of the Exodus, whether historically factual or not, is a story of the beginnings of peoplehood that should be embraced with both arms and hugged to one's soul.
--
Essay Questions for JTS Rabbinical School 5. In his seminal work, Conservative Judaism and Jewish Law, Professor Seymour Siegel explores the idea of divine revelation. He writes:
Scripture and its interpretation in the rabbinic writings are not literally revelation. They are the human recordings of the experience of revelation. Therefore, Scripture is both divine and human. The words contain the divine initiative and the human response to it.
The question of the divinity of the Bible represents a major theological challenge to any person of faith. Some may even feel that if God did not actually write the entire text, then the Bible lacks authority to command human action. Share your thoughts on this issue. In addition, based upon your own spiritual life experience and reading, what is your impetus for practicing Jewish law, ritual and tradition? (4 pages)
...For students who have never been taught anything but Torah Mi'Sinai, the documentary hypothesis will come as a huge shock.
...The deepest source of the religious angst felt is not the result of having a belief overturned; it is in trying to wrap one's mind around the idea that a humanly produced text with a history has some special status, has kedusha.
Can we please see this issue as settled?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Roth is relatively more traditional than most of his colleagues. But even so, he accepts their definition of the defining moment in all of Jewish history as fiction.
[Edit: By which I mean that even if he does not agree with that view, he still accepts it as a legitimate view within Judaism.]
Furthermore, he is not representative of the Conservative Movement, which has only moved in a single direction since its creation: Away from observance.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um... one of the many and very welcome people in this thread and on this forum who don't happen to be Orthodox Jews?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Genius-misfit? Meaning... I'm a genius not fitting into the category, not fitting into the genius mainstream, not fitting into the forum or one who's just not fit to be a genius?
I don't know what I am. I'm weird, that's for sure. But thank you, Tante/Lisa. Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I gather you're fairly young, and you're clearly incredibly bright, and that combination often results in a touch of misfit-ism. Consider Slipstick Libby, for example.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Too much thought, not much sleep. It's been going on for almost a month. Good night (I still won't have enough sleep this night, nor for another month or two). I might be refreshened again around April. If not, then in 2008.
*Shakes head.* *Yawns.* *Goes to bed.* *Kills brother for letting a piece of paper WITH MY OWN DAMN MOST-USED PASSWORD slip by.* *Calls self tactless idiot.* *Goes to bed.*
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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).
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).
What I wonder is how this is handled within an Orthodox tradition.
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).
I have heard that there is a literalist tradition within Orthodox Judaism, but that it is a minority viewpoint. 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."
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.
Thanks for anything you can share.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. 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?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC, starLisa is a libertarian lesbian who has found ways to reconcile these lifestyles with her interpretation of the Law.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TD: I've been hearing something slightly different -- that "her interpretation" arises from a bona fide tradition and that is not unique or idiosyncratic.
I've often felt that many of the Fundamentalist churches could benefit from studying the Old Testament from the perspectives offered by various Jewish scholars/teachers throughout the ages. I don't know that they do or don't do that, honestly, but I haven't seen evidence of that sort of learned approach in the modern Christian literalist tradition.
I figure there's bound to be some valuable insights from a people who have kept such Scriptures alive and relevant for so many thousands of years.
So, anyway, I'm hoping I'm not derailing this thread and that it doesn't turn into a debate on human sexuality. But I do hope starLisa will give us some insights into how the Orthodox tradition that she follows deals with Scriptural literalism.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case, there are other Orthodox Jews here besides her, and I'd be interested in their responses as well.
Yes, me too! I just didn't want to take away from starLisa's thread if this happens to be something that really is personal rather than tradition-based. If it's going to spark a debate, I probably won't be able to follow it, frankly.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, here is where I was getting the sense that sL hasn't simply decided to throw out the portions of scripture that disagree with her lifestyle (this come from the "Question for Card" thread on the other side):
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Treason: You are still those things. But I also thought you were not as conservative as you are since you're gay.
Weird, isn't it. But... I mean, what's the connection? Think it through. I'm gay, right? So really, really liberal views would be comfortable for me, since they would remove a lot of pressure for me.
So... should I be the kind of person who changes my values and convictions based, not on reason and justice, but rather on whatever makes life easier for me?
Consider what you know about my convictions, and ask yourself if I could live like that. If I could live with myself after sacrificing my mind to the feelings of others.
Add in all the usual caveats that I may be misinterpreting stuff.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand, and I admit that I am no expert, being gay or lesbian is not the sin, but certain actions are. So there are things that gay men can do together that are sinful, and some that are not. For lesbians, there are some forbidden actions, but it is less clear what they are.
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.
The rules of Kashrut (kosherness) are also strictly held by observant Jews. They will insist that any food that is at all processed (pretty much anything outside of the produce aisle) be supervised by a reputable authority to assure that its preparation is kosher.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
(Bear in mind I may be inappropriately conflating "The Law" with the Christian Old Testament, so if something about my understanding is wrong, I am completely open to having stuff clarified for me. And I apologize if my flippant tone is off-putting. What I am trying, perhaps with only limited success, to convey is that it is not my intention to be threatening, but I am genuinely curious to know to what extent perfect literalness is a goal of yours, and if so, to what extent you succeed in achieving it.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Law still calls for them. However, said Law only gives the power to administer such punishments to a properly appointed Sanhedrin, which is not something that can realistically occur in any country that currently exists. (The current farce going on in Jerusalem notwithstanding.)
Even when there was such a body, the necessary burden of proof (two witnesses, who have verbally warned the accused, and he violated the prohibition nonetheless -- no circumstantial evidence) was such that capital convictions were very rare.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
-o-
What about Creationism? Are Orthodox Jews creationists?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
