How the Psyscho-Halachic Process is Like Halachah

[dauer]

Seth,

The book arrived and I'm now part-way into shiur four. I think that for me, when you speak of the change being more universal, there's still a response happening within Judaism to that change, to that shift, and the Jewish response is inevitably more particular. I think that may be on my part a leaning toward the understanding of revelation as a co-creative act. Content that at an unconscious level might be thought of as more of a structure around some idea (say maybe that it's not good to hurt animals), in order to become conscious and actualized, gets fleshed out in ways that are specific, particular, localized (this is the way we shecht the chicken.) To me it seems more accurate to say that the changes are in response to changes in the world, but I don't think that means the changes are demonstrably correct for Judaism or that they are not changes made and introduced by a particular group of Jews. Restorationists are also responding to change in the world. One difference, in my opinion, is that Renewal is a path of least resistance to changes in the world. However, I'm not sure, outside of personal and subjective preference that there's anything about that which makes Renewal not-a-change at a localized and particular level. How is eco-kashrut or integral halachah itself a cosmological change rather than a particular Jewish response to a universal shifting of a shared reality map? M'Lamed L-Ho'il is also a response to changes in the world, albeit one Reb Zalman does not appear to think goes far enough, something I agree with.

I think, if I understand you correctly, that you are saying that the inclusion of restorationists is via a process of dialogue and shared exposure, maybe something that leads to disagreement l'shaym shamayim? I'm not sure I see how your conversation with your friend actually included him in integral halachah. You have your opinion. He has his. At the end of the day you both choose to disagree.

I see the introduction of the rainbow talis cited frequently in reference to the impact of Renewal, but how much of a change is that compared to hasidism's move to davven shacharit later in the morning or the shift from biblical judaism to rabbinic? And is it really such a triumph when Reb Zalman has said that he did not mean for the rainbow tallis to become a uniform? That almost begins to touch on what happened to beshtian hasidism as over time it became more concrete, or to the understanding of Jesus' words that "I and the Father are one" meant "I and not you" instead of suggesting unio mystica. Of what value is an idea introduced by Renewal if the action used as an illustration of that concept becomes another minhag turned halachah?

I think maybe a better question for me to ask would be, if your restorationist friend read integral halachah what would you expect him to take from it, and not what would you hope him to take from it? I know Orthodox-identifying and otherwise very traditionally-minded Jews who would read Integral Halachah and, even if they disagree with much that is said, it would still give them a lot to think about. Those folks I don't think qualify as restorationists. But I also know restorationists who would likely, with each new chapter decry, "Narishkeit!" or perhaps "Sabbateans!" And maybe in their case, as well as in the case of some of the folks I mentioned earlier, some of what they might otherwise perceive as having value would be ignored because to them there's just too much that's heretical or, in more scientific terms hippy-bippy wishy-washy feel-good new-age nonsense.

If you are going to go there, as I think you did a little in suggesting a timeframe of another 2000 years, I do feel that the true impact of Renewal remains to be seen and that in another 50 or 100 years it may become so obvious that it's taken for granted. I think some of what Renewal accepts as due to its own influence today is sometimes more easily attributable to the chavurah movement and other independent responses in line with the very zeitgeist that Renewal is responding to, for example the way there's been an increased spiritual focus in liberal shuls. I do think Renewal is in a position where it's able to shape somewhat the form that these changes take because it is riding the wave of change so tightly, as may be the case where we see Judaized forms of yoga becoming more mainstream.

--Dauer

[rebzgabbai]

First off, let me say that it is such a pleasure to meet you. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you on these issues.

I want you to know that I don't associate myself with Jewish Renewal. I am most comfortable in Orthodox or Conservative davvening or communities. I feel that the original siddur, torah, kabbalah, etc., far surpasses any updates I have seen.

Having said that, I very much respect Reb Zalman and his way of looking at Judaism. I see him as an Orthodox Rabbi who has given up some of his being honored and respected within Orthodox circles because he recognized that a large number of American Jews were leaving Judaism and so we became his clientele and he had to lose some of his reputation to make that shift. As far has I am concerned he is a tzaddik.

I'm not sure but I don't think Zalman is so focused on the legacy of Renewal as a denomination or movement. I think his focus is on helping bring alignment with cosmology and I also don't think he cares if he personally gets any credit. The biggest issue today is what he called the gradual dying of our planet and this is something that requires an adjustment in Judaism and all the world's religions.

I don't think we should talk about an abstract restorationist. i don't think that is so useful. I am interested in hearing your ideas because you and I are having this dialogue l'shem shamayim so let's leave the others out of it unless they care to join here.

The rainbow tallis example was not made as an example of a big change. I was just trhying to illustrate how the practice of individuals sometimes leads to wider adoption.

In terms of Reb Zalman's impact on Orthodoxy, everyone has to decide where they want to focus their energies and who they want to influence. It may be that Reb Zalman decided to put his emphasis on American unaffiliated Jews. I still think from working on editing his writings that he is also writing everything for consumption by Orthodox Jews. He is a big proponent, in my opinion of clal yisroel and he is definitely always reminding people in Jewish Renewal communities to realize how much they owe to the Orthodox and to daily minyanim, and to ancestry and chasidim, etc., etc.

In the early sixties, he was definitely only focused on influencing orthodoxy but at some point he shifted his focus to a wider spectrum. I'm not sure he ever left influencing orthodoxy as a focus and the fact that his works can be read by orthodox without having crossed over a line of heresy means to me that the potential for his influence among orthodoxy is there. Maybe not in his lifetime, but I see no reason to say it won't happen.

Barya, his son who is orthodox and lives in Israel, told me that he privately gives his father credit for a new awareness in environmentalism among the communities where he lives. So this is bigger than a rainbow tallis. Nonetheless, he is a big thinker and a forward thinker and he has helped me personally in my judaism.

Regarding the example of the wooden tefillin: I wasn't trying to illustrate whether someone was inside or outside of the psycho-halachic process. I see the process as being inclusive of all Jews who are living Jewishly. When you say that these two disagreed, then perhaps the wearer of the wooden tefillin would become an outcast pioneer practicing something different than the community and may become ostracized for it but maybe in the future that position would be borne out. When the message is clear enough to enough people things change. Practice will lead to halachah after time changes and some experiments will not lead to adoption.

I see cosomological changes as being out there, not coming from practice, but really out there, external. I see the ones whose intutions, perceptions, senses detect cosmological changes first and who alert us to their existence as a kind of avant-garde for Judaism. For me the message of Renewal is we must be respectful of our avant-garde and listen to what they say.

I don't think you should assume that Jewish Renewal is organized in line with Reb Zalman's vision, especially with regard to practice, or halachah.

The appendix called eco-kashrut to shiur three really blew me away. To me, it shows where halachah comes from.

I don't think that changes in the world and changes in cosmology are the same thing. Perhaps the changes aren't yet in the world and are only in the mind of the avant-garde.

Who gets to decide what's demonstrably correct for Judaism. what I learned from Hebrew school is that prophesy is gone until meshiach comes and lo kam b’yisroel k-moshe od navi umabit es t’munaso. So I can bring something to my local rabbi and they can percolate up. Now obviously that becomes more complicated if my local rabbi is reform or conservative. So there’s a notion that you have to be on the level of navi to touch halachah. I found this very discouraging and it made me want to stop being observant. Psycho halachah was a point of view I was missing.

Seth

[rebzgabbai]

Originally Posted by rebzgabbai

I want you to know that I don't associate myself with Jewish Renewal. I am most comfortable in Orthodox or Conservative davvening or communities.

I want to clarify this. I am not currently a member of a renewal communities.

However, I had the good fortune to be a member of P'nai Or Philadelphia when Zalman lived in Philadelphia.

So there are some Renewal communities that I would very much desire to be a part of. For where I am at today, there aren't any options that work for me. And I never would have learned the treasure of the siddur if I hadn't spent time with Orthodox communities.

Seth

[dauer]

Seth,

I'm enjoying being able to have this conversation too. Most of the Jewish folks I come across aren't on a similar wavelength, so I don't get to have discussions like this in a complementary way very frequently nor to touch on more nuanced areas of disagreement. I'm in a very similar boat to you so far as the types of communities I'm comfortable. I'm fortunate to live not too far from Reb Moshe Walkdok's shul, which was originally a Conservative shul that under his guidance became post-denominational. The davennen there is pretty traditional egal. Lately though my practice has been fairly solitary, more recently a bit lacking in general.

I like some of the smaller innovations like silent meditation in addition to prayer, but having done three months of chanting brief excerpts from the liturgy while I was interning at EC, something that I feel is very unfortunately coming to be associated with "Renewal-style davennen", it's not for me. It is I suppose the experiential and ideological flavor of Renewal that I'm more drawn to and I don't hesitate to be a bit critical of some of what I think is going too far. For me the most personally significant teaching I've come across within Renewal has been from Reb Zalman. I remember when I first came across some his writing I had a strong feeling it was the Torah meant for me. At the time I'd had a lot of ideas and questions and the text was addressing much of it in turn. He seems more practically rooted in tradition but also open to exploration of new concepts, approaches and forms of practice.

I don't think Reb Zalman's focus is on the legacy of Renewal as a denom or movement either. I only meant to suggest that it may not make sense to trace much of the change happening today to Reb Zalman or to anything associated with Renewal. I do think Reb Zalman has accurately perceived a shift happening in the way humans relate to the world but I'm not certain that means his ideas will have a broader impact rather than forming a single wave in a rising tide of change.

At one time I started to question whether Reb Zalman might still be carrying out his duties as a chabad shaliach and I think that, taken more loosely, in part he may be. He wrote in Wrapped in a Holy Flame about how he sees Reb Shneur Zalman of Liadi as a translator of hasidus into the language of the yeshiva. I think in some ways Reb Zalman has served as a translator of hasidus into the language that's developing today. And I do think it's pretty clear that he's writing in part for Orthodoxy, but I also think that some of his writing is clearly not targeted at Orthodoxy like the book Renewal Is Judaism NOW. To me it seemed like the tone of some of that text may have been in part to address the more radical to the point of fundamentalist element among those who perceive a shift and choose in some way to embrace change by both agreeing with them and redirecting them. When I saw Reb Zalman on retreat at EC I think it was much the same where, when everyone started to do the OM-ish shema he interrupted everyone and said, paraphrasing, "Stop stop. Not the hippy-bippy way. Say it right!"

When you give the example of wooden tefillin, am I understanding that what you meant to suggest is the way that community consensus can influence halachah, that if when you go out on the street everybody's wearing wooden tefillin then de facto thought and practice becomes something encompassed by de jure standards? That's something I can agree with but I still don't see how your friend then becomes involved in that process outside of a gradual subversion taking root. How is that different from a person who eats pork and says that halachah needs to get with the times? They may have principles by which they've arrived at their conclusion that it's okay to eat pork and could argue in the same way that if enough people eat pork eventually it will be considered okay within Judaism. I would argue that in many communities it already is considered an okay thing to do. You could suggest that eating pork is more against the grain of halachah but how is it more than a matter of degree? You could also say that there's no active attempt to work with the existing halachah in eating pork but I think that in the case of someone who has certain principles and ideas about the nature of sacred text and authority that a case could be made it is working with halachah. The conclusion they make is that something needs to be thrown away. I don't agree with that conclusion but I do see this as a bit of a slippery slope. On a personal note, I bought an indigo-dye kit that I'm going to eventually use for my tzitzit instead of techelet, so it's not that I'm personally opposed to your approach but that I do see certain issues arising in claims to whether or not it is valid and in line with tradition. For me, if it works on a personal level that's the most I can hope for. If it works on a personal level for many people, great, and by that shared subjective interpretation there's consensus, but as a relativist I don't really think what's happening is in clear black and white terms of what is correct and incorrect. I see those standards as something relative to different collectives. What's right for one family won't be right for another. What's right for one community won't be right for another. That's one of the major criticisms I have of traditional halachah in trying to legislate what is right for all of the Jewish people even as I see the purpose that it has historically served and I see a possible rectification of that dilemma in integral halachah.

I agree with you about cosmological change being out there, but out there in the sense of a general contour or shape within the human psyche that by its nature requires itself to be colored in finite ways, an unconscious archetype just being recognized/birthed that seeks a subjective imago by which to reveal itself and manifest in the world. Seeing the avant garde as you do is a perspective I share, but I see it only as one perspective and I see perspective itself as an issue separate from "the way things really are", something I'm not sure we can know.

I don't really assume that Renewal is organized in line with Reb Zalman's vision, especially with regard to practice and halachah, but I do think that within Judaism Reb Zalman is frequently associated with Jewish Renewal and vice versa such that a non-Renewalist who has no interest in Aleph and the like might say, "Well that Zalman guy is one of those do-what-you-feel-like hippies and I don't get them because they're a) too loose in applying halachah or b) too new agey." That was actually something that occurred to me when reading over Integral Halachah, is that the syncretic stuff he does might turn off some of those people who might otherwise be interested in what he has to say. I'm not sure I see why he needs to use the word gaia to express an organismic worldview, and I'm not sure it's helpful to do so in regard to range of readership.

A lot of the ideas in the eco-kashrut section clicked for me as well, in terms of the development of halachah, but whether or not halachah developed as Reb Zalman describes, why should the focus be on the origin of a process rather than on its current form? When Reform is criticized for its roots I don't think that makes sense because today it takes a different direction. That Protestantism did away with a lot of the additional stuff I don't think makes it more correct than Catholicism any more than Karaism is more correct than rabbinic Judaism. It may be viable to approach religion in that way in order to make malleable what has become concrete as it has proved successful before (Protestantism) but I think such activity is just as likely to become something that isn't as widely embraced (Karaism.) I think in terms of legitimacy I just have a hard time with any claim that seems a bit too inclusive including the more traditional claims to rabbinic authority. For me it's more an issue of what proves itself over time. In the same breath I'm not one to hesitate in investing into what I see as promising. I'm not trying to say "x is demonstrably correct and y isn't", just that I don't think we can address authenticity, authority, what is right and what is wrong, in those terms. I think it's more an issue of what vote each of us chooses to make. I also feel psycho-halachah was a point of view I was missing both when I rejected praxis and when I became a mitzvah-glutton. I got the book published by aleph about whether or not to blow the shofar when rosh hashanah falls on shabbos a few years ago because at that time it was the closest I could get to reading at length about psycho-halachah. At one time I went through the conversation about it hosted on the Ohalah website's page for Reb Zalman and extracted every principle I saw suggested, making a list in a text file. At some point I'll likely try making a similar outline for myself with Integral Halachah as the simple list form is a bit easier for me to reference and learn from in a way that I can take it and apply it. To me, integral halachah is something that can do a lot of good for Judaism. I don't take issue with psycho-halachah itself but with claims to validity and authenticity in general, really to any suggestion of a perceivable absolute, especially in domains such as this one. I know what makes sense to me but don't presume to say it is surely what's best for Judaism. To me that's something which is going to have to be decided by klal yisrael and only time will tell what the consensus is.

--dauer

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by dauer

the syncretic stuff he does might turn off some of those people who might otherwise be interested in what he has to say. I'm not sure I see why he needs to use the word gaia to express an organismic worldview, and I'm not sure it's helpful to do so in regard to range of readership.

speaking as one of those people, i won't necessarily get put off by it myself, but i might well see it as inimical to the integrity of klal yisra'el.

insofar as i understand it, the idea of including insights from psychology, science etc into halakhah is imho essentially a sound one; after all it seems to me that hazal did very much the same sort of thing and so did the rishonim and aharonim. the thing is that it is often a tough balancing act to pull off as ibn ezra and even rambam found out after the publication of the "guide for the perplexed" - and, bear in mind, i don't think most people actually understood it was at least in part a bona fide attempt to understand prophecy, rather than some sort of rationalist philosophical tract. the trick is to take people with you and unfortunately even such great innovators as schneur zalman were not able to manage it - his opponents got him put in prison. suffice it to say that innovation can be a threat to the established power structure.

on the subject of wooden tefillin, this is a case in point. i 100% understand why people decide to be vegetarian or vegan - it's a holy impulse and one worthy of complete respect. the trouble is that holy impulses that come up against halakhic requirements cannot be assumed to be workable. i see this a bit like the problem of the hasidei ashkenaz or those mad hasidic ascetics that used to roll in the snow or fast between Shabbatot. it is all very well to try and do these things, but there is a danger that they become fetishistic and for me this point comes where the emotional principle comes up against something larger than oneself, ie halakhah le-moshe mi-sinai. perhaps i could suggest an alternative point of view - namely that we are supposed to be stewards of the earth's resources and one of the responsibilities inherent in that is to make holy use of them. judaism is in its bones an earthy, blood-and-guts kind of religion, rooted in the animal as well as reaching towards the angel and, i'm afraid, if we deny the former we are in danger of being overtaken by, as eric cartman might put it, a bunch of tree-hugging hippy crap.

in other words, wooden tefillin are hippy-dippy. part of being human is being alive and being mature about our impact on the world and our relationship with other creatures; certainly we can and should respect cows and use them in only the holiest of ways, *but* surely to refuse to use leather for tefillin is going too far in the other direction. it almost smacks of idolatrous veneration - and suppose someone then comes along and says, hey guys, we can't cut down trees! plants have feelings too, m'kay? plus there's a practical thing about wooden tefillin, which is that you'd have to be certain that there was no violation of the no-asherahs rule.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

bb,

for me veganism isn't about purity. It's about having some small impact on the world. Maybe if I had vegan tefillin it would inspire someone else to think more seriously about tzaar baalei chaim and they would end up making changes in their own life to reduce animal suffering. Maybe someday humanity will be able to bring about an Edenic paradise where we no longer need to kill animals for food. With the direction technology is taking maybe someday we'll be able to grow meat in vats. At that point we could stop killing animals for food and still eat meat.

--dauer

[rebzgabbai]

Originally Posted by dauer

The davennen there is pretty traditional egal. Lately though my practice has been fairly solitary, more recently a bit lacking in general.

So the beauty of orthodox davvenen where you stand as an individual before your maker and davven, is the discipline of being able to davven anywhere. If the shaliach tzibbur is adding anything to your ability to focus on what you need to do, that’s a mechayye. But if not, oy, the Siddur is so beautiful, so rich so deep. So if it is your practice to read everything, I don’t worry about whether I am with the congregation. I stand with them when they say the amidah, but I might be somewhere else. I get what I need and then once I’ve gotten what I needed, I join. Other times, I just lend my support to the shaliach tzibbur and stay with them. Put I put myself first. Two more points on this: 1) Memorizing the siddur is a big help. Zalman had us memorize ana b’koach and ashrei. It’s come in handy so many times. 2) Becoming the shaliach tzibbur solves a lot of problems in davvening because then you are setting the agenda so your heart is served.

Originally Posted by dauer

I like some of the smaller innovations like silent meditation in addition to prayer, but having done three months of chanting brief excerpts from the liturgy while I was interning at EC, something that I feel is very unfortunately coming to be associated with "Renewal-style davennen", it's not for me.

It's not for me either.

Originally Posted by dauer

It is I suppose the experiential and ideological flavor of Renewal that I'm more drawn to and I don't hesitate to be a bit critical of some of what I think is going too far.

Me either. I don't care for chanting services. I'm always reading the siddur privately during those.

Originally Posted by dauer

I only meant to suggest that it may not make sense to trace much of the change happening today to Reb Zalman

That's fine

Originally Posted by dauer

or to anything associated with Renewal.

I'm okay hee too.[/quote]

Originally Posted by dauer

I do think Reb Zalman has accurately perceived a shift happening in the way humans relate to the world but I'm not certain that means his ideas will have a broader impact rather than forming a single wave in a rising tide of change.

Okay. I won't speculate. I just know that the impact he had on this soul was immense, life-saving, soul-saving.

Originally Posted by dauer

At one time I started to question whether Reb Zalman might still be carrying out his duties as a chabad shaliach and I think that, taken more loosely, in part he may be. He wrote in Wrapped in a Holy Flame about how he sees Reb Shneur Zalman of Liadi as a translator of hasidus into the language of the yeshiva.

Yes. I like that.

Originally Posted by dauer

I think in some ways Reb Zalman has served as a translator of hasidus into the language that's developing today.

Yes. I agree.

Originally Posted by dauer

And I do think it's pretty clear that he's writing in part for Orthodoxy, but I also think that some of his writing is clearly not targeted at Orthodoxy like the book Renewal Is Judaism NOW.

This book was also aimed at Orthodoxy. Remember that it was originally published under the title of "Renewal is Note Heresy: How we differ from the Sabbateans." This is clearly aimed as an answer to an Orthodox criticism.

Originally Posted by dauer

To me it seemed like the tone of some of that text may have been in part to address the more radical to the point of fundamentalist element among those who perceive a shift and choose in some way to embrace change by both agreeing with them and redirecting them.

I guess it is aimed at both. It’s also possible that the second edition has somehow changed Zalman’s message from the original edition. For example, the change in title. Why was it changed? I never understood that except because the perception was that from a marketing perspective they were selling to Renewalists, not Restorationists.

Originally Posted by dauer

That's something I can agree with but I still don't see how your friend then becomes involved in that process outside of a gradual subversion taking root.

I am not sure either. Reb Zalman talks about the phenomenon in the book. There’s the consensus of the pious and the consensus of the committed. Being committed is worth a lot and that’s the main point of the book. So for me, it is more important to be in a community where people have a theology, a belief in God, and hunger to connect to the past, and are taking halachah seriously. As long as that basic criteria is met, the community has the possibility of implementing a practice, of discussing and reaching consensus on that practice, and therefore, they also become eligible to potentially influence the practice of all Jews. It requires communities to communicate and respect one another. So this is a vision for a working halachah. The one that’s not working for me is the one that says if you aren’t a Rabbi then you can’t question and that’s the one for many Jews. It’s not like we’re not part of the nation of priests too. The Rabbis have used their power inappropriately in this regard. You’ve got to honor my light too. It doesn’t seem to be happening.

Originally Posted by dauer

How is that different from a person who eats pork and says that halachah needs to get with the times?

This person doesn't meet the criteria I've made above. This person isn't dong psycho-halachah because they aren't connecting to the tradition first and trying to figure out what the update is. This would involve scrapping what came before.

Originally Posted by dauer

They may have principles by which they've arrived at their conclusion that it's okay to eat pork and could argue in the same way that if enough people eat pork eventually it will be considered okay within Judaism.

Sorry. I don't buy this.

Originally Posted by dauer

I would argue that in many communities it already is considered an okay thing to do.

This example is really pushing my buttone. It isn't in line with Reb Zalman's examples.

Originally Posted by dauer

You could suggest that eating pork is more against the grain of halachah but how is it more than a matter of degree?

Listen. Are you asking a serious question here, or just playing the devil’s advocate. We have Mishpatim, Edut and chukim and chazer is a chok. So you don’t use your logic with this one; you just do it.

Originally Posted by dauer

You could also say that there's no active attempt to work with the existing halachah in eating pork but I think that in the case of someone who has certain principles and ideas about the nature of sacred text and authority that a case could be made it is working with halachah.

You are throwing away the torah. Jewish Renewal takes great pains not to do that. (The Jewish Renewal of Reb Zalman, I mean.)

Originally Posted by dauer

I agree with you about cosmological change being out there, but out there in the sense of a general contour or shape within the human psyche

It is also without, like the whole question of a creator and transcendentalism. You are focusing on immanence. Mimale kol almin v'sovev kol almin. sovev is external.

Originally Posted by dauer

that by its nature requires itself to be colored in finite ways, an unconscious archetype just being recognized/birthed that seeks a subjective imago by which to reveal itself and manifest in the world. Seeing the avant garde as you do is a perspective I share, but I see it only as one perspective and I see perspective itself as an issue separate from "the way things really are", something I'm not sure we can know.

If you study Kabbalah, it talks about things we can't know all the time.

Originally Posted by dauer

I don't really assume that Renewal is organized in line with Reb Zalman's vision, especially with regard to practice and halachah, but I do think that within Judaism Reb Zalman is frequently associated with Jewish Renewal and vice versa such that a non-Renewalist who has no interest in Aleph and the like might say, "Well that Zalman guy is one of those do-what-you-feel-like hippies and I don't get them because they're a) too loose in applying halachah or b) too new agey."

I want to send you a nice transcript. Please let me know where to send it. It is called “Renewal isn’t Judaism lite.” I don’t think it’s published yet and Reb Zalman has edited this one, and I don’t have a copy of it but let me know where to send it. My e-mails on my website.

Originally Posted by dauer

I'm not sure I see why he needs to use the word gaia to express an organismic worldview, and I'm not sure it's helpful to do so in regard to range of readership.

I don't know. He usually has good reasons for things he does.

Originally Posted by dauer

A lot of the ideas in the eco-kashrut section clicked for me as well, in terms of the development of halachah, but whether or not halachah developed as Reb Zalman describes, why should the focus be on the origin of a process rather than on its current form?

I think that when talked about the melammed he was using that to summarize its current form and he was saying that it wasn't good enough.

Originally Posted by dauer

When Reform is criticized for its roots I don't think that makes sense because today it takes a different direction.

He does talk about the way Orthodoxy has shifted because they let him be shaliach tzibbur on shabbos when they know he’s driven to shul and you have to be a shomer to be a shaliach, so he’s saying that is a shift from today.

Originally Posted by dauer

That Protestantism did away with a lot of the additional stuff I don't think makes it more correct than Catholicism any more than Karaism is more correct than rabbinic Judaism. It may be viable to approach religion in that way in order to make malleable what has become concrete as it has proved successful before (Protestantism) but I think such activity is just as likely to become something that isn't as widely embraced (Karaism.) I think in terms of legitimacy I just have a hard time with any claim that seems a bit too inclusive including the more traditional claims to rabbinic authority. For me it's more an issue of what proves itself over time. In the same breath I'm not one to hesitate in investing into what I see as promising. I'm not trying to say "x is demonstrably correct and y isn't", just that I don't think we can address authenticity, authority, what is right and what is wrong, in those terms. I think it's more an issue of what vote each of us chooses to make. I also feel psycho-halachah was a point of view I was missing both when I rejected praxis and when I became a mitzvah-glutton. I got the book published by aleph about whether or not to blow the shofar when rosh hashanah falls on shabbos a few years ago because at that time it was the closest I could get to reading at length about psycho-halachah. At one time I went through the conversation about it hosted on the Ohalah website's page for Reb Zalman and extracted every principle I saw suggested, making a list in a text file. At some point I'll likely try making a similar outline for myself with Integral Halachah as the simple list form is a bit easier for me to reference and learn from in a way that I can take it and apply it. To me, integral halachah is something that can do a lot of good for Judaism. I don't take issue with psycho-halachah itself but with claims to validity and authenticity in general, really to any suggestion of a perceivable absolute, especially in domains such as this one. I know what makes sense to me but don't presume to say it is surely what's best for Judaism. To me that's something which is going to have to be decided by klal yisrael and only time will tell what the consensus is.

--dauer

Amen. Ken y'hi ratzon. Gut Gesagt. Brachot, Seth

[dauer]

Seth,

This person doesn't meet the criteria I've made above. This person isn't dong psycho-halachah because they aren't connecting to the tradition first and trying to figure out what the update is. This would involve scrapping what came before.

I didn't mean they're doing psycho-halachah, but that they have their own set of principles no more or less arbitrary than psycho-halachic ones. Saying that their "pork's okay" idea isn't valid because it doesn't meet psycho-halachic principles seems like the pot calling the kettle black. A restorationist could say the same in response to integral halachah. How do you know where to draw the line and how is the way that you know not an arbitrary demarcation? You said you don't buy it, but why not? It's a serious question, a hypothetical but still quite serious. How are psycho-halachic principles valid when theirs are not? How is psycho-halachah any less picking-and-choosing which principles to keep, which to let go of, which to add more emphasis, which to take away emphasis etc?

It is also without, like the whole question of a creator and transcendentalism. You are focusing on immanence. Mimale kol almin v'sovev kol almin. sovev is external.

I'm an agnostic. I understand immanence in terms of anything within me and that which transcends as the rest of the world outside of me. For me the closest I can come to talking about G!d is a psychological construct and everything that is, neither of which require much belief.

I want to send you a nice transcript. Please let me know where to send it. It is called “Renewal isn’t Judaism lite.” I don’t think it’s published yet and Reb Zalman has edited this one, and I don’t have a copy of it but let me know where to send it. My e-mails on my website.

That would be awesome, thanks. I want to make clear that I'm only raising what I see as valid issues which fall much in line with my skepticism that I apply to most everything I come across. I'm not trying to say, "psycho-halachah is wrong." At least for me it's right. As I said earlier I'm very analytical and skeptical. Part of my way of relating to an idea is to try and punch holes into it. Even if it's something I might rely on I want to find all of the structural weaknesses and push them as far as I can to see how much pressure the structure can stand and what defense mechanisms it has for coping with that stress. I tend to be skeptical even of the things I think are valuable, if not especially of those things. If I can't defend the ideas I value from my own criticism, how could I possibly answer a real critic? And if there really are no good answers to my criticisms, why hold a particular idea at all? I tend to debate things that others just accept which may be why I'm sometimes viewed as combative or difficult, but truly I have only good intentions.

The pork-eating faction has had a huge impact on Judaism and while its goals are different, it's still just another arbitrary adaptation to changes in the world.

I'm not really sure exactly what your response is meant to be to my question about why we should focus on the origin rather than the current form, unless your answer is, "Because Reb Zalman says the current form isn't good enough." If that is your answer I don't really see how it's more than a subjective value judgement and possibly a claim to authority. If you don't want to answer a question that I ask because it makes you uncomfortable that's okay too. I'm not going to request that you go somewhere you would rather not be.

-- dauer

[rebzgabbai]

The reality is that in order to implement Reb Zalman's vision of psycho-halachah as he lays it out in this book, you have to be on the level of a Rabbi, or a scholar, and you have to have spent time living according to the traditional way one follows halachah.

I think that is the starting point that psycho-halachah builds upon.

If you haven't lived in a way that is observant, and if you don't know the sources that a particular practice is based upon, haven't read the talmud, codes, shulchan aruch, then you would not be in a position to understand the intent hazal had for implementing that law and consequently you would not be able to implement the process.

Now that sounds like a process that most of us can't reach toward, but the fact is that our chachamim of this day and age, the ones who meet the specification I lay out above, need to be looking at cosmology and changes, need to be listening for God connections among klal yisroel, and one of the sources of practice is what observant communities (any flavor) are finding meaningful to them during this zeitgeist. So the practice of you and me and our communities may lead into our chachamim implementing psycho-halachah in a certain way because we are a reflection of the cosmology.

So it's not really a democratic process in the sense that we can restructure judaism. It's much more grounded in tradition than you would think.

Seth

[dauer]

Seth,

But whether or not it's grounded in halachah, it's still changing things based on a set of principles that are not encompassed by the traditional approach to halachah. As such I'm not sure what makes it any more valid than the pork's okay folks, which is not to say that I think it's invalid, but that I don't see what would make it a more valid approach. Of course, from my pov it would not be easy to demonstrate a difference as I see the philosophy of pork's okay as something that can also be determined by consensus, in that coming from a sociological and not a psycho-halachic perspective.

[rebzgabbai]

Originally Posted by dauer

Seth,

But whether or not it's grounded in halachah, it's still changing things based on a set of principles that are not encompassed by the traditional approach to halachah.

I think that is debatable. A part of what he is talking about is the traditional approach to halachah debunked. The example that comes to mind is his explanation that halachah limoshe misinai really means consensus of the pious. I believe he is right and the people who told me it was mamash hashem speaking to moshe rabeinu are wrong.

Originally Posted by dauer

As such I'm not sure what makes it any more valid than the pork's okay folks, which is not to say that I think it's invalid, but that I don't see what would make it a more valid approach.

This is assuming that the torah we have received is more valid than the pork's okay folks because they're making up something new, but this is built on something ancient.

Originally Posted by dauer

Of course, from my pov it would not be easy to demonstrate a difference as I see the philosophy of pork's okay as something that can also be determined by consensus, in that coming from a sociological and not a psycho-halachic perspective.

This is not about whether a practice is valid or not, or moral or not, or good for the world or not. It is about whether it is kosher, which means Jewish and which means in line with hazal as updated through the prism of paradigm shift. That's different than sociology.

[rebzgabbai]

There's another important point. If Jews get halachah right, i.e. if the practice shifts so that internationally, halachah is set in the way Zalman lays out in his book, then that will mean that the world over, Jews are totally in synch with paradigm shift. That's a vision of meshiach and God's ratzon will be totally aligned with humanity. It is a utopian vision.

Your view of God as identified with mimale kol almin doesn't reach to this point which is assuming that sovev kol almin is out there looking down for a partner. By bringing halachah into alignment the devekut between humanity and God becomes strong and that has all kinds of implications for our experience as living creatures as well as the planet and the cosmos. So it's not a question of developing some criteria for halachah which is better than the one of hazal and beyond. It is shining hazal through a prism of paradigm shift so that it comes out of the prism on the other side only slightly tweaked to keep continuity, yet aligned with paradigm shift. ken y'hi ratzon... Happy Hanukkah 8

[dauer]

Seth,

I think that is debatable. A part of what he is talking about is the traditional approach to halachah debunked. The example that comes to mind is his explanation that halachah limoshe misinai really means consensus of the pious. I believe he is right and the people who told me it was mamash hashem speaking to moshe rabeinu are wrong.

But you freely admit that this is only a part of it, and that it's still something which requires some faith that what he's doing is correct.

This is assuming that the torah we have received is more valid than the pork's okay folks because they're making up something new, but this is built on something ancient.

But I think if the assumption is that the Torah we have received is more valid then again it goes back to the difference between psycho-halachah and "pork's okay" as a matter of degree because both are a change to conventional halachah. I think you would argue that the change is in response to universal cosmological changes and okay, but I would argue that it's still change whether or not the human perspective of reality is changing, and I would argue that "pork's okay" also comes from a changed perspective.

This is not about whether a practice is valid or not, or moral or not, or good for the world or not. It is about whether it is kosher, which means Jewish and which means in line with hazal as updated through the prism of paradigm shift. That's different than sociology.

I don't see Judaism as defined in that way so much as defined by more universally applicable standards for what defines communities. For example, I don't think the mishna is particularly Jewish (by your definition) when understood in terms of biblical religion, but because eventually a consensus held that it was, it became Jewish. In the same way I think Judaism could potentially be redefined such that "pork's okay" is completely Jewish and in some places it is being redefined that way. Now whether some folks would get left behind in that shift, that's a possibility. Certainly have been sects that got left behind before like the Sadduccees.

Your view of God as identified with mimale kol almin doesn't reach to this point which is assuming that sovev kol almin is out there looking down for a partner.

I see G!d as looking for a partner, but I see that seeking G!d as a psychological construct, as with all faces of the Divine. In my case I don't really think we can grapple with the world around us without that subjective filter. In interacting with the world I think we're very deeply interacting with ourselves. So from that perspective it's possible for sovev kol almin to actually refer to G!d in those deep places of my psyche that my consciousness cannot usually reach, the ones Jung might suggest are offering teleological redirection. I think it's a bit like the metaphor Art Green suggests we use alongside the one of high places and mountains, that of the well in which we go deeper and deeper. He does not mean these are two different journeys, but one and the same understood from different perspectives.

Quote: