Beit Binah Virtual Intentional Community, My New Project

[dauer]

Hey Raksha,

I don't know if you went ahead and looked it up, but this from the Kohenet website I thought might interest you:

Priestess Paths : Resources : Embodied Jewish spiritual leadership, creativity and community from an earth-honoring, feminist perspective : Kohenet

And thank you for feeling comfortable sharing a piece of your story. It sounds like you've walked trying road that has led you down a very sacred path.

-- dauer

[Raksha]

Very nice. I have much respect for Starhawk. Her book Dreaming the Dark is an indespensible part of my education. It was one of the first books to turn me onto the idea of how emodying a radical spirituality can be a constant political action, part of our state of being.

Pathless,

It's always great to meet anyone who knows who Starhawk is and who respects her accomplishments. I'm a little bit jealous of her to tell you the truth, but I don't let that stop me from appreciating her and learning from her. I have read both Dreaming the Dark and The Spiral Dance, which I refer to constantly.

You'll be happy to know that Reclaiming is just as committed to combining spirituality with political, social and ecological activism as they have always been. I received the e-mail newsletter of the Bay Area Pagan Jews this morning, and they were giving everyone a heads-up on the Winter Solstice ritual tonight, which this year will focus on the recent oil spill in the San Francisco Bay.

1) People will be ~invited~ to cut and contribute a lock of their
hair, which will be woven into mushroom-infused hairmats that can
absorb and bio-remediate oil spills -- (see
http://www.matteroftrust.org/ for info) --`as an act of mourning,
hope, action, transformation, etc. for our home waters and land.

This is an *OPTIONAL* part of the ritual. Please consider
beforehand whether you want to cut (and how much) or not cut at all.
You can also bring hair with you, lend scissors, or simply offer your
intentions/prayers.

Please check out this link for general information on the solstice ritual.

Reclaiming: Bay Area Public Rituals

Since I live in the distinctly un-hip city of San Bernardino in SoCal, I can only be there in spirit. I won't be able to contribute any of my hair for the oil spill mat. But my daughter lives in northern California (she recently moved from Santa Rosa to Oakland) and I know she'll be there. I'm going to call her in a few minutes and ask her to remember me during the ritual, since that's the closest I'll be able to get under the circumstances.

Shalom,
Linda

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by dauer

I think the flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as many other non-physical conceptions of deity and that lack of actual belief in said deity does not decrease likelihood.

surely not *just* as likely? on the other hand, lack of actual belief does not necessarily impact on the domain of Truth itself as opposed to truth.

I don't understand the second half. Do you mean that saying that something claimed to be real to begin with assumes it's real? I don't think it's debatable that everything that really is is real, because everything that is isn't being defined in that statement.

umph. what i (or granny) mean is that it's somewhat futile to feel the need to affirm the existence of something that, as far as reality can be established (ie not being a BIV as they call it in first year philosophy) nobody really disagrees about. i think the bit about encouraging gods is somewhat cheeky and i encourage you not to read too much into it!

the elastic nature of agnostic or of liberal believer? If liberal believer than I fully agree. It seems to be a term of opposition rather than identity. Agnostic I think has a more fixed definition as neither belief nor disbelief in a Deity.

i'm not sure this is right - certainly the elasticity of belief itself allows agnostics to sit on the fence.

Originally Posted by Raksha

let's just say I've had a very, very challenging and difficult life, especially where Judaism is concerned. This has made me a very difficult person--in a number of ways but again, especially where Judaism is concerned.

hah. i don't know any thinking jew who can't say the same. it's not the easiest belief system to follow and, imho, those who aren't challenged by it either aren't using their heads or aren't using their hearts - or even both.

If you disapprove of my syncretism or if some people might consider me a heretic, all I can say is that you or they are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect it to mean anything to me, because the word "heretic" has lost even the power to make me angry.

well, as a traditionalist, you can hardly expect me to approve of syncretism. with that said, my criteria are those of tradition, so what you call it don't especially signify; i'll be making my own mind up about what i think. all i can ask you to believe is that i'm a pretty fair-minded person and some of my opinions may surprise you; don't let the avatar prejudice you against me.

i read a fair bit of starhawk a few years back when i was trying to establish if there could be meaningful and productive interfaith dialogue between jews and neo-pagans. suffice it to say that the answer i found was "in most cases, yes", but the issue of people born into judaism professing neo-pagan beliefs or attempting to syncretise them with judaism raises far more problems than it solves. it's far more productive (if you ask me, at any rate) to try and find solutions within judaism - like, for example, appreciating that mainstream judaism also "honours the earth", at least when properly understood. i appreciate that within the context of the 60s this was not anything like as easy as it can be nowadays, but nonetheless we remain on the Way, not at any particular End.

you may find the following organisation (run by a friend of mine) interesting:

hazon :: new vision, inclusive community, outdoor and environmental education.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

BB,

surely not *just* as likely? on the other hand, lack of actual belief does not necessarily impact on the domain of Truth itself as opposed to truth.

Yep, just as likely.

umph. what i (or granny) mean is that it's somewhat futile to feel the need to affirm the existence of something that, as far as reality can be established (ie not being a BIV as they call it in first year philosophy) nobody really disagrees about. i think the bit about encouraging gods is somewhat cheeky and i encourage you not to read too much into it!

That's probably where my definition comes in. It's not really a matter much of belief. I think what I'm really doing is translating the mythical and mystical G!d into more reasonable naturalistic terms. Reconstructionism is appealing to me because of its naturalism but I think that it ended up all but abandoning the mystical and mythical G!d as a lived reality. There are Recon/Renewal folks who put the mystical and mythical G!d back in but it seems for them they get pretty far away from Kaplan's direction by asserting a very new agey/neo-whatever pantheism (or otherwise abandoning the mythical G!d and going for monism.) They don't go back and explain the myth in terms that are more in touch with what Kaplan was doing: reconstructing a definition of Deity that didn't really require belief so much as redefine the Divine based on those things that most everyone agrees about. That's of course my take on Kaplan and I'm sure there are folks who would disagree with me. I think Morty was more of a radical and wanted to destroy the mythical G!d and start from scratch, hence some of Recon's liturgical changes. I don't want to destroy the mythical G!d. I just want to relate to that part of my experience without asserting a lot of crazy cosmological ideas and at the same time understand that experience in terms that don't seem silly or backwards to me.

i'm not sure this is right - certainly the elasticity of belief itself allows agnostics to sit on the fence.

I don't know what you mean by the elastic nature of belief. I'm just talking about relative word meaning and usage. Do you mean that the way belief is used could sometimes include me in the believer camp? Even if that is correct, I don't think such a definition is very useful. If a schyzophrenic hears voices and doesn't believe they have some reality outside of their head, we don't say that the schyzophrenic believes the voices exist only that she hears voices. When Ebenezer Scrooge challenges the existence of the ghost of his former partner he's not asserting belief: he's questioning his own perception. His conclusion after some consideration is that it really is his former business partner but that's irrelevant. I don't think it's useful to have multiple definitions of belief: one for the Divine and another for all other phenomena.

imho, those who aren't challenged by it either aren't using their heads or aren't using their hearts - or even both.

Obligatory hasidic quote: ""Nevermind what you have in your head! Nevermind what you have in your heart! What about your pupick?"

-- Reb Menachem Mendl of Kotsk

--Dauer (Please do not confuse all of the above post for the ideas of the Kotsker Rebbe. If I said all of that to him he might very well have yelled at me for a good hour.)

[Raksha]

well, as a traditionalist, you can hardly expect me to approve of syncretism. with that said, my criteria are those of tradition, so what you call it don't especially signify; i'll be making my own mind up about what i think. all i can ask you to believe is that i'm a pretty fair-minded person and some of my opinions may surprise you; don't let the avatar prejudice you against me.

BB,

I didn't realize until I read your notes on the other board that you're as much of a traditionalist as you are. Which means I haven't quite decided whether I even WANT your approval or not. I might actually be more comfortable with your disapproval. That would indicate to me that I'm on the right path...by my standards, of course.

As to whether you're a "fair-minded" person or not--I'll make up my mind about that too. As I said, I'm a very, very hard person where Judaism is concerned and I judge very harshly. About the only thing consistent about me is that I can usually be found to the far left of everything and everyone.

--Linda

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Raksha

Which means I haven't quite decided whether I even WANT your approval or not.

i don't post here in order for people to feel approved of or not. i do so in order that people get access to information they might not normally have access to. i'm not at all interested in whether you are someone to be "approved" or not. you are welcome to dialogue or not. that's what we do here.

I might actually be more comfortable with your disapproval. That would indicate to me that I'm on the right path...by my standards, of course.

that's an idiotic thing to say and quite a strange attitude to bring to a dialogue board. personally, i'd prefer it if everyone could find a way to get along and have respect for each other. sometimes, unfortunately, it's not possible. but it doesn't mean we have to mistreat each other. of course, if you want me to be, on your desert island, the "shul you don't go into", then that is your choice. i'm not running an outreach programme here.

As I said, I'm a very, very hard person where Judaism is concerned and I judge very harshly. About the only thing consistent about me is that I can usually be found to the far left of everything and everyone.

well, bully for you. i personally find it fairer to judge people with compassion. i appreciate you have had some unpleasant experiences with institutional religion. so have i. i'm not here to apologise for idiots, but i am keen to point out that being a traditionalist doesn't necessarily make you one.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Raksha]

well, bully for you. i personally find it fairer to judge people with compassion. i appreciate you have had some unpleasant experiences with institutional religion.

BB,

True, but you don't have any real idea about the nature of those experiences, because I haven't really talked about them yet. I was going to get into it a little bit in response to Dauer's last post but changed my mind.

For whatever reason, I felt I had to make it clear that I am not, nor will I ever be, a "ba'alat teshuvah" (I think that's the correct feminine form for what I mean) in the way some people expect. It's an attitude I've run into on various Judaism boards over the years, and sometime in RL too, namely "wherever you've been, you're back." But I'm NOT "back," not in the sense they mean anyway, because I'm not the same person I was when I left.

My main interest in Judaism nowadays is in excavating the roots of pre-patriarchal Judaism, which I have every reason to believe really exist, or did exist at one time. I believe they still exist and are still viable.

It's not a matter of a superficial kind of syncretism like you were condemning on the other board either. I agree with Starhawk when she says that Judaism is essentially an earth-based religion. I believe it is, much more so than Christianity, and if the roots are in pre-Judaic paganism...well, why be surprised at that or try to deny it? Why would anyone expect it to be otherwise?

The link you posted about the Jewish food movement is a good example of an earth-based approach that feels like a natural outgrowth of what is already there, not forced or tacked on late in the day by outsiders. That's how animals were raised for meat in biblical times, after all. Your friend will find that some of his biggest supporters and eventual customers will be among those Jews who have gone--in your opinion, anyway--way too far towards the neopagan side.

It's true that most of these people are vegetarians and even vegans, but not all of them. My daughter buys mostly organic food, but she still eats chicken and turkey on holidays. I know she'd feel a lot better knowing these birds were both raised AND slaughtered humanely.

i don't post here in order for people to feel approved of or not. i do so in order that people get access to information they might not normally have access to.

Well, you did just that in the example I mentioned about the Jewish food movement. I was pleasantly surprised, athough I doubt that I'd consider watching the slaughter of a goat "a spiritual experience." I'd probably become a vegetarian right then and there!

That said, though...there are some practics I absolutely, categorically REFUSE to observe if I'm aware of why they are considered kosher--and I happen to disapprove. For example: the laws concerning kosher wine. From everything I've read, these have NO other apparent purpose except to prevent Jews from socializing with foreigners, and that just isn't a worthwhile objective, let alone a spiritual one. Also, according to the rules now prevalent in Israel and elsewhere, in order for wine to be labeled kosher certain processes have to performed by a "Sabbath observant" Jew. That means it wouldn't be kosher if I personally made it myself!!! And I'm supposed to take that seriously?

Or worse yet...the rules concerning the mikveh, as they apply to women and menstruation and childbirth. For years, I was so outraged by the whole idea that I told anyone who would listen that I wouldn't use a mikveh if I had one in my bathroom! And yet for several years I've been hearing about the book The Red Tent, although I still haven't read it. I've also heard that there are an increasing number of Jewish women who feel a need to use the mikveh after a trauma, such as the death of a child.

Now purification because of trauma or grief is a concept I can totally relate to. I would do that myself at the earliest opportunity, although I'd prefer it to be in a natural mikveh like a river and not an "official" or kosher one. Also, in order to reassure myself that I was giving absolutely no quarter to patriarchy and its sick notions about a woman's natural cycle of fertility, I'd actually prefer it to be a non-Jewish ritual of purification. Fortunately, such rituals aren't all that hard to come by.

That may seem like a ridiculous objection to you, but I don't care. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs...and there's a lot of Kali in me, as I'm sure I don't have to tell you at this point.

--Linda

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Raksha

True, but you don't have any real idea about the nature of those experiences, because I haven't really talked about them yet.

and you don't have any idea about my experiences or opinions, yet it seems you feel free to call me names and give me doctrinaire labels.

For whatever reason, I felt I had to make it clear that I am not, nor will I ever be, a "ba'alat teshuvah" (I think that's the correct feminine form for what I mean) in the way some people expect.

i don't expect anything of the sort. i take the position (based at least in part on rav kook) that there is such a thing as "religious biodiversity"; that is, in the same way that a healthy spiritual system embraces *everything*, for whatever reasons G!D may have, there is a purpose and a place for the various forms of judaism within one "portfolio", as it were, from the "cultural" jews to the haredim - we all have our purpose and attempts, like those of the ba'al teshuvah movement, to impose some kind of wahhabist/artscroll conformity and uniformity of practice and outlook are not only misguided but absolutely opposed to the Divine Plan. just as the reform movement and the enlightenment have had things to teach us, so have the orthodox modernists, the jewish feminists and the green activists. so be so good as to avoid pigeonholing my opinions.

It's an attitude I've run into on various Judaism boards over the years, and sometime in RL too, namely "wherever you've been, you're back." But I'm NOT "back," not in the sense they mean anyway, because I'm not the same person I was when I left.

perhaps not, but perhaps it's not entirely unreasonable for them to take that attitude - at least it's welcoming. it's not spoiling for a fight.

My main interest in Judaism nowadays is in excavating the roots of pre-patriarchal Judaism, which I have every reason to believe really exist, or did exist at one time. I believe they still exist and are still viable.

oh deary me. the conquistadors were "patriarchal" too, but i don't believe people excavate aztec roots in order to reconstruct that society. just because one civilisation was replaced by another, it doesn't necessarily follow that the first was therefore better or indeed viable. you seem to be working on the assumption that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" - and if your "enemy" is defined as so-called patriarchal judaism, it is hard to see exactly what you would achieve and what you would be left with after your purge! there are plenty of people working within the "system", particularly within the reform movement and even within the part of modern orthodoxy that is concerned with the integration of LBGT people; however, it is inconceivable that a reconstruction of essentially canaanite fertility religion would be welcome or could be described as jewish. i mean, if you want to build asherahs or whatever it is, i can hardly stop you but you're hardly going to be able to get along with anyone from any of the established denominations.

I agree with Starhawk when she says that Judaism is essentially an earth-based religion. I believe it is, much more so than Christianity, and if the roots are in pre-Judaic paganism...well, why be surprised at that or try to deny it? Why would anyone expect it to be otherwise?

well, if you read your Nakh you'll see that it was precisely this that exercised the prophets, but what they were interested in doing was preventing the idolatrous short-circuits that the local pagan religions would lead people into.

The link you posted about the Jewish food movement is a good example of an earth-based approach that feels like a natural outgrowth of what is already there, not forced or tacked on late in the day by outsiders.

good, but what's wrong with something being added on "late in the day" (as, say a rabbinic ordinance) if it is consistent with the logic of the Text?

I know she'd feel a lot better knowing these birds were both raised AND slaughtered humanely.

inhumane raising and slaughtering cannot be considered truly kosher. i am aware that the shechita industry has not always given these considerations the importance they must deserve and i am one of those who campaigns for precisely this as a correct understanding of the Divine Will.

That said, though...there are some practics I absolutely, categorically REFUSE to observe if I'm aware of why they are considered kosher--and I happen to disapprove.

interestingly enough, you will find that there are a number of halakhic options around principled dissent, which i will try and dig out for you. i do hope, however, that you are big enough to accept that there are few of us that make the mistake of confusing our opinions with those of absolute Truth.

For example: the laws concerning kosher wine. From everything I've read, these have NO other apparent purpose except to prevent Jews from socializing with foreigners, and that just isn't a worthwhile objective, let alone a spiritual one.

depends on the context. if (as i do) you consider intermarriage and/or sexual immorality to be a bad thing, then measures taken to prevent people, under the influence of alcohol, acting in a way of which you approve, then they're perfectly logical. if you know the sort of thing that went on at roman banquets, which is a prime driver of those laws, you'll understand why it was a particularly worthwhile objective. on the other hand, if you are part of a married couple drinking wine in your own home with non-jewish friends, it is hard to know exactly how this is going to lead to immorality, so one can be forgiven for concluding that this law doesn't apply to one's own situation. the other consideration is that wine (especially if it's french or eastern european) can contain non-kosher ingredients such as blood used as "fining agents", so it wouldn't even be vegetarian.

Also, according to the rules now prevalent in Israel and elsewhere, in order for wine to be labeled kosher certain processes have to performed by a "Sabbath observant" Jew. That means it wouldn't be kosher if I personally made it myself!!! And I'm supposed to take that seriously?

look, don't get me started on the mad stringencies that get imposed in israel by the demands of the haredi lobby. nonetheless, judaism takes wine as a substance very seriously because of its sacramental dimension and if you take these concepts seriously then the rules are there for a purpose. there is a concept of "idolatrous libation" which personally, i take an extremely stringent view of. i know what i would consider "idolatrous" and frankly if there is no chance of it than i see very little reason to cause a desecration of the Divine Name by appearing intolerant.

Or worse yet...the rules concerning the mikveh, as they apply to women and menstruation and childbirth. For years, I was so outraged by the whole idea that I told anyone who would listen that I wouldn't use a mikveh if I had one in my bathroom! And yet for several years I've been hearing about the book The Red Tent, although I still haven't read it. I've also heard that there are an increasing number of Jewish women who feel a need to use the mikveh after a trauma, such as the death of a child.

sheesh. all i can say is that the educated religious women of my acquaintance don't see it this way at all. mrs bb goes to the mikveh and finds it an excellent and extremely positive way to regulate her personal space and her relationship with her body, so all i can say is that you're entitled to your opinion, but frankly i don't think you understand the system. perhaps you might like to engage in dialogue with some of the more engaged thinkers on the subject:

http://www.mayimrabim.com

besides, men are supposed to immerse as well in various circumstances. i don't do this often myself (partly because the mens' mikveh is not nearly as nice as the womens'!) but it is a wonderful way of "rebooting" yourself - the problem comes when one imposes english words like "purity" or "uncleanness" on spiritual concepts which have virtually nothing to do with them, any more than "positive" or "negative" have any value-judgements attached to them in terms of electricity. all the mikveh does is reverse the polarity of your flows, as it were.

I would do that myself at the earliest opportunity, although I'd prefer it to be in a natural mikveh like a river and not an "official" or kosher one.

the reason people don't use natural mikvehs so much is because it's so much less practical! i live in north london - i can't exactly nip down to the south bank and jump in the thames with no kit on. nor can mrs bb!

Also, in order to reassure myself that I was giving absolutely no quarter to patriarchy and its sick notions about a woman's natural cycle of fertility, I'd actually prefer it to be a non-Jewish ritual of purification. Fortunately, such rituals aren't all that hard to come by.

well, i'm delighted you're approaching the issue with an open mind.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Raksha]

i take the position (based at least in part on rav kook) that there is such a thing as "religious biodiversity"; that is, in the same way that a healthy spiritual system embraces *everything*, for whatever reasons G!D may have, there is a purpose and a place for the various forms of judaism within one "portfolio", as it were, from the "cultural" jews to the haredim - we all have our purpose and attempts, like those of the ba'al teshuvah movement, to impose some kind of wahhabist/artscroll conformity and uniformity of practice and outlook are not only misguided but absolutely opposed to the Divine Plan. just as the reform movement and the enlightenment have had things to teach us, so have the orthodox modernists, the jewish feminists and the green activists. so be so good as to avoid pigeonholing my opinions.

BB,

"Religious biodiversity" is a good way of putting it. It's been my experience though that most "frum" types absolutely deplore it, when they don't flat-out despise it. There is nothing more revolting than listening to a self-righteous Orthodox type putting down on the Reform movement, for example. I first encountered the phrase "Jewish goyim" in one of Chaim Potok's novels--fortunately, nobody ever used that phrase about me in RL because they would have instantly regretted it. In one of his books he mentions that only haredi Jews OR gentiles were permitted to work in the Lubavicher Rebbe's office or anywhere on the premises. No Reform or Conservative Jews allowed!

If you encounter this "my way or the highway" attitude enough times (even a few times are enough) you naturally conclude, "okay, fine...I guess it's the highway for me." Pretty soon the guardians of tradition are shouting "my way or the highway" to an empty room...and wondering where everybody went! A few of the more perceptive types like Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi figured this out early on and began taking proactive measures--but I understand the Lubavicher movement has disowned him. I guess he went too far by their standards, but it's their loss and the Jewish Renewal movement's gain. In fact, without him there probably wouldn't even *BE* a Jewish Renewal movement!

So yeah...when you run into that hard-nosed intolerant attitude enough times, pretty soon you come to expect it and even anticipate it from people who are absolutely convinced there is only ONE way to be Jewish. They don't even want to know about "religious biodiversity," let alone understand it or give it credit for anything. That's really what I dislike about the haredi types more than anything--specifically, their ingratitude. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that if it weren't for the liberal denominations, almost nobody over the past 100 years would remember they were Jewish at all, or have any what it meant if they did remember.

I've read Rav Kook also and I admire him very much. I bet that surprises you! He was fairly liberal considering his time and place and background, especially compared with his contemporaries. But he understood when nobody else did that a Jewish state could not be built by a bunch of old-world yeshiva types, and therefore the evolution of the "secular" Israeli or sabra type was also God's will. I know what a hard time he had selling that one to the contemporary haredim, but history has clearly vindicated him. It turned out they were the ones trying to second-guess God, not Rav Kook.

I still have to "translate" a lot of his writing into my own frame of reference in order to make it relevant to me, but it's worth the effort.

--Linda

[Raksha]

And thank you for feeling comfortable sharing a piece of your story. It sounds like you've walked trying road that has led you down a very sacred path.

Dauer,

Well, I don't feel all that comfortable now and don't feel like sharing any more of it at the moment. My fault, I guess. I have a bad habit of getting too get too heavy into polemics too soon.

I just want to tell you I read the 13 priestess paths at the link you posted and I can identify with all of them, but especially the first three. I don't know why they are called the "three mothers of space" though. They correspond to the three phases of the moon or the three stages of a woman's life, in other traditions and in reality. And I definitely prefer "Matriarch" over "Crone" as the designation for that last one! Anyway, I see them as being the "three mothers of time" rather than space.

I think I've been down a very sacred path, and I appreciate your picking up on that. Most people probably wouldn't see it that way, but I'm the only one who really knows.

--Linda

[bananabrain]

It's been my experience though that most "frum" types absolutely deplore it, when they don't flat-out despise it.

i am not one of those people, as i thought i'd already made abundantly clear. i grew up reform and the majority of my family's reform. i neither deplore nor despise them, though i don't necessarily agree with them on a lot of religious matters. nonetheless the non-orthodox denominations have done incredibly important work which i think has served the entire community and society at large and i think they deserve credit for keeping the universalist flag of tolerance and understanding flying.

There is nothing more revolting than listening to a self-righteous Orthodox type putting down on the Reform movement, for example.

yes, the tone can only be compared to a self-righteous "progressive" putting down orthodoxy. make no mistake about this, linda - i've been on the receiving end of *both* and they are both extremely ugly and, worse, unnecessary. you've heard, perhaps that the second Temple was destroyed because of "causeless hatred", sinat hinam. all of us should take care not to be part of that particular problem - including both me and you.

If you encounter this "my way or the highway" attitude enough times (even a few times are enough) you naturally conclude, "okay, fine...I guess it's the highway for me."

that is usually what i do when i encounter someone who insists that i am a backward, obscurantist, sexist, fundamentalist beardy-weirdie. what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Pretty soon the guardians of tradition are shouting "my way or the highway" to an empty room...and wondering where everybody went!

hmm. i hate to rain on your parade, but the most successful outreach organisations currently in judaism are those of lubavitch and the other "kiruv" organisations such as aish ha-torah. i don't approve of their attitude, theology and solution but the fact remains that it is haredi-influenced orthodoxy that is growing at the expense of what you might call the liberal denominations. certainly this is the case in the UK and in the US, by all measurements of assimilation and intermarriage, the non-orthodox movements are shrinking. that, if you ask me, is a terrible shame, because it means eventually there'll be nothing left but black-hatted loonies and ignorant hippies. that's not something i want to see happening. like you say, reb zalman's a standard-bearer for a different way of doing things, but innovators are rarely recognised in their own lifetimes by the community they seek to serve. even maimonides had his books burned for heresy a couple of times, so i don't think we should ever underestimate the conservatism of the status quo - whether this is of the right *or* the left. goodness knows both can be just as smug and self-satisfied as each other. it does my head in, frankly.

That's really what I dislike about the haredi types more than anything--specifically, their ingratitude. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that if it weren't for the liberal denominations, almost nobody over the past 100 years would remember they were Jewish at all, or have any what it meant if they did remember.

i actually disagree with this totally. it is just as "ungrateful" to expect to have practical services such as kosher slaughtering, scribing or circumcision, or skillsets such as traditional talmudic methodology to exist without the efforts of the ultra-orthodox who have sacrificed so much to maintain it in an unfriendly world. without the lubavitch who you affect to despise so much, very few people in the soviet union, for example, would have been able to maintain any kind of jewish life and learning whatsoever. you can't have it both ways. biodiversity requires a contribution and a commitment from *everyone*, not just the haredim, but all the people who wander past synagogues, never going into them, but assuming they're always going to be there. i am not in the business of bitching out the non-orthodox denominations; i owe them a great deal. i think it is important that contacts and channels exist between the denominations and, without blowing my own trumpet, i do a fair bit in my own community to keep these things going by maintaining friendships across the *entire* community, so that even if mr frumsky-pumsky won't "share a platform" (the immortal phrase) with mr bagels-freud-and-academics, they can certainly both meet as friends of mine and go back to tell the people that won't join in about what they learnt from actually meeting these people rather than repeating what "everyone knows".

i don't pretend to understand the Divine Plan in allowing the plethora of jewish paths to exist, but it strikes me that portfolio management generally increases return whilst reducing risk - perhaps *that* is why judaism is still around, not because of any one factor.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Raksha]

i actually disagree with this totally. it is just as "ungrateful" to expect to have practical services such as kosher slaughtering, scribing or circumcision, or skillsets such as traditional talmudic methodology to exist without the efforts of the ultra-orthodox who have sacrificed so much to maintain it in an unfriendly world. without the lubavitch who you affect to despise so much, very few people in the soviet union, for example, would have been able to maintain any kind of jewish life and learning whatsoever.

BB,

Well, yeah...I do have to concede that it works both ways. I was thinking about this just the other day, probably right after I posted the note you're responding to now. Especially when it comes to very specialized practical skills, such as how to write a Torah scroll, how to prepare the ink and parchment for a Torah scroll or an amulet, or even how to tie the ritual fringes on a talit, the liberal denominations in general have been terribly lax and actually parasitical. Not only have their adherents not made the effort to learn these skills for themselves, they depend on the Orthodox to make even the most essential ritual items for them when required. It's kind of ridiculous that nobody in any Reform temple I've ever attended would be capable of creating a Torah scroll from scratch for their own temple! And they'd insist on a totally authentic and kosher one too--that's one area where even the most liberal denominations don't compromise.

So even though I bitch about the hidebound attitude of Chabad and other Orthodox groups (and will no doubt continue to do so), I've been just as guilty of ingratitude as anyone else. They deserve full credit for their tremendous work of preservation--as you say, often in the face of incredible odds.

--Linda

[bananabrain]

linda,

it's most gracious of you to concede that particular point. that's my point about religious biodiversity - certainly rav kook recognised it wasn't going to be the frummers that drained swamps and built the army.

b'shalom

bananabrain