Judaism 101

[Muslimwoman]

Hi Dauer & BB

Please can one of you do me a favour and look at my thread Need a context please in comparative religion. The verse is from the OT so I could do with a Jewish view. Thanks.

Salaam

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by dauer

It depends on what you mean by saint. A holy person? A rightous person? An intermediary?

I was thinking of the Catholic Saints, someone particularly pious that has done exceptional good in the name of G-d.

Originally Posted by dauer

And right now there is no sanhedrin so these laws concerning types of punishment and Jewish jurispudence are not in effect. What this actually refers to is a very unique procedure, which I'm guessing is the reason it doesn't mention it there. You can read about it here:

It sure is a man's world. Men don't even have to answer for this and women have to drink mud just because their husband is jealous. Loved the idea that pregnancy is a sure sign of innocence from adultery .

So I wonder why Muslims always say stoning originally comes from the Torah. I must ask about that.

I really loved the prayer quoted at the end, it just shows what misconceptions people have of Judaism.

Salaam

[dauer]

I was thinking of the Catholic Saints, someone particularly pious that has done exceptional good in the name of G-d.

In that sense, yes, there are tzadikim. There is also an idea that there are at any time there are 36 hidden tzadikim on whom the world rests.

Loved the idea that pregnancy is a sure sign of innocence from adultery

My sense is that the people the idea was coming through are smarter than that, and they knew that if the person was suspected, it might be true. Rather than have this end a marriage, they created a system for it to be a strengthening of hte marriage, so that the husband would own the child as his own. And the alternative, what are the odds of that happening? Also I think it would cause a husband to reflect on whether he'd really want to do that to his wife.

So I wonder why Muslims always say stoning originally comes from the Torah. I must ask about that.

Stoning is a jewish form of capital punishment. There are things for which capital punishment is the penalty, but halachah developed in a direction to make it near impossible.

There's a website I know that might interest you, might not. The guy's a liberal Muslim I know from Second Life. This is his non-SL site: Tasneem Project [TPARC]

From your posts it seems like you have some similar ideas, although I think he's probably a bit more progressive in some of his approach.

Dauer

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by dauer

In that sense, yes, there are tzadikim. There is also an idea that there are at any time there are 36 hidden tzadikim on whom the world rests.

Shalom Dauer

I just spent an hour reading about the tzadikim, what a fascinating idea - I know I am a big girls blouse sometimes but it really made me want to cry. The idea that G-d, without our knowledge, protects us in such a practical way. I know when I say 'us' it is referring to the Jewish nation but I feel sure He protects all believers. You must take such comort from this, I certainly did and I am not even Jewish. Although being human and nosey I want to rush out and find who they are, which would of course defeat the purpose.

Originally Posted by dauer

Also I think it would cause a husband to reflect on whether he'd really want to do that to his wife.

I do hope you are right, perhaps only a count of how many times this happened would say whether you are. Personally there seems so much, in all the Abrahamic faiths, of this "we do these awful things to women to PROTECT them" and as a woman I can assure you we do not feel protected by being stoned, burnt, whipped or made to drink mud just because our hubby's are in a crappy mood.

Originally Posted by dauer

Stoning is a jewish form of capital punishment. There are things for which capital punishment is the penalty, but halachah developed in a direction to make it near impossible.

This is what we are told in Islam, there has to be so many witnesses etc, etc so it is nearly impossible, yet it still regularly happens in some areas of the world because people just twist the laws to suit their own desires.

Originally Posted by dauer

There's a website I know that might interest you, might not. The guy's a liberal Muslim I know from Second Life. This is his non-SL site: Tasneem Project [TPARC]

Thanks for that, I always like new sources of info. A quick look round would suggest he may be a little too liberal for me but I shall have a jolly good read before I make my mind up. One of my difficulties is that he is seeing the Middle East from a very western perspective and this just doesn't work, you really have to be here to 'be in the know', however that shouldn't stop people from caring about these abuses. He does have some great links for sources of info and seems to care deeply about some of the same issues that concern me, so really thank you for the link.

Salaam
MW

[dauer]

Personally there seems so much, in all the Abrahamic faiths, of this "we do these awful things to women to PROTECT them" and as a woman I can assure you we do not feel protected by being stoned, burnt, whipped or made to drink mud just because our hubby's are in a crappy mood.

I can't imagine it would. I have to imagine though, if reforms to protect women had been much stronger, and not in a patriarchal voice, if they would have been accepted at all. Today that's much less of an issue and feminism has hit religion and theology, but in those days, I don't know. There were certainly some destructive things that seem to be aimed more at the feminine in spirituality like all of the anti-asherah stuff, but it resurfaces in the form of the shechinah, in Shabbos as bride or queen, The Torah in its dress and garter, things like that.

Thanks for that, I always like new sources of info. A quick look round would suggest he may be a little too liberal for me but I shall have a jolly good read before I make my mind up.

I think he might be. I decided to leave it out, but I was going to suggest a little along the lines of the difference between mine and BB's views. You seem maybe a little to the left of BB, and and on different issues Drown is either to the right or left of me.

Dauer

[bananabrain]

So is it still an issue for Jewish people that Egypt has control over this area and of course turning it into a huge ongoing western orgy?

not that i know of. i dare say many are joining in. on the other hand, we do have a number of people that get very upset about people showing anything other than their hands and faces, especially if they're women. but to be honest unless it's happening somewhere they're likely to see it they're liable to let it go.

OMG you have 613 commandments, you would have to be a Saint not to break some.

hah, you're not wrong. i count it a good day when i can get out of bed and make it to the bathroom without being liable for excision by the Heavenly Court. this is why some people wash their strawberries with soap - each ingested insect gets you i think for four violations, each with 40 lashes. you're kind of on a hiding to nothing with some of 'em.

Do the Jewish people have Saints?

we have tzadiqim, but that's not quite the same thing. it's not a formal process, like it is with the catholics. and you don't call someone "st yankel the pickle merchant of east pupik" or anything. it's more a folk status, i'd say. of course if someone performs miracles we might say he had ruah ha-qodesh.

What constitutes blasphemy for a Jew?

depends how strictly you define it. i wouldn't take a religious book into a toilet, for example, even in english, even one that was nothing to do with judaism. we're very careful about using Divine Names for no good reason - i.e., not for a blessing, prayer or other sanctificatory procedure.

10. To imitate His good and upright ways. I assume this is talking about G!D's ways? If so are these set out in the Torah?

like dauer says, if G!D Is Merciful, we too should be merciful. that is what that whole "you shall be Holy, for I Am Holy" business is about.

Not to lay down a stone for worship (Lev. 26:1) (CCN161). Please can you explain this one.

there's a lot more context to this, incidentally, but it is all about the context, about a carved stone or statue being a traditional form of idol.

To lend to an alien at interest (Deut. 23:21) According to tradition, this is mandatory (affirmative). Am I reading this correctly, you must charge interest if lending money to gentiles?

that's the most basic understanding. i believe the sage understand this to mean that there's such a thing as a fair interest rate, which must be charged to someone jewish. if you left it at that, it would mean you could charge a non-jew unfair interest, BUT, of course that would then fly in the face of *another* law about not mistreating non-jews, or by not having "fair weights and measures" (and you could make a case that an interest rate is such a concept) or desecrating the Divine Name by being seen to be a bad example to others - anything which makes jews look bad is seen as letting the side down, because of the religious doctrine of collective responsibility. there are any number of safeguards to protect the Torah. so either way if the Law was properly implemented nobody would be disadvantaged, but if you read the particular verse without the context you'd come away thinking it was discriminatory.

That the woman suspected of adultery shall be dealt with as prescribed in the Torah (Num. 5:30) (affirmative). Is this stoning?

no, it's the ordeal known as "sotah" or the trial of the "bitter waters", which is basically a method of affirming based on swearing on the Divine Name dissolved in water and then drinking the water - if you were adulterous, you'd die in a rather unpleasant way - no execution required.

What of the man suspected of adultery? Are witnesses required?

witnesses are always required, certainly if there's a capital case or one with lashes. i don't think they're always required for fines. in this case i suspect the penalty would be financial by default (as it would be in effect for the other way round) with the wife entitled to divorce him and hit him for alimony plus multiple damages. i'm not an expert in the halakhah and there are entire tractates of the Talmud devoted to just these questions, their ramifications, exceptions and subcategories, so please understand that these are not categorical answers in any way shape or form - the answer would always be "it depends on the case".

Re forbidden sexual relationships. Do you ever wonder why there are so many "do not commit sodomy with...", when later it states "do not commit sodomy with any male"?

well, the sages are always interested in precisely why the Torah mentions two or more apparently similar or different cases, or why they're grouped together and so on. the Torah is very precise in its use of language and it is the job of the oral tradition to reconcile apparent lacunae and inconsistencies. thus if two cases are mentioned, the sages would want to know why they're both mentioned and would almost certainly suggest that they refer to different cases with different ramifications. then there would be a huge handbag fight over who said what and when and precisely what they meant by it and whether it was in accordance with that sage's other halakhic rulings.

Men don't even have to answer for this and women have to drink mud just because their husband is jealous.

ah yes, but if they accuse their wife falsely the penalties are a lot more serious than mud-drinking, that's for sure. it's all about the checks and balances.

Loved the idea that pregnancy is a sure sign of innocence from adultery

even more so - it allowed hannah (the mother of the prophet samuel) a way to force G!D to allow her to get pregnant, she said to G!D that if she didn't conceive she'd go and sit in a room by herself with another man and force her husband to make her take the sotah test, which she'd then pass because she hadn't done anything and then G!D, by the terms of the Law, would then be obliged to let her get knocked up. how's that for playing the System? this is one of the other lessons of the "oven of achnai" - G!D Loves it when we are clever enough to do this sort of stuff and even beat the Divine Will.

Personally there seems so much, in all the Abrahamic faiths, of this "we do these awful things to women to PROTECT them" and as a woman I can assure you we do not feel protected by being stoned, burnt, whipped or made to drink mud just because our hubby's are in a crappy mood.

the thing is, if you look at it from the point of view of what remedies and protection the halakhah offers a woman, it does go some way to evening things up. my wife is halakhically entitled to divorce me if i have bad breath, spots, a job she doesn't like, or don't perform adequately on the conjugal front. she's entitled to a hefty alimony payout and to large amounts of damages for other offences. halakhah recognised the issue of rape within marriage 2500 years ago - your husband doesn't have the right to mistreat you or demand sex. all of these things are definitely designed for the protection of women, just as the rulings which ensure that women can inherit property (look up the daughters of zelophechad) and be businesswomen in their own right (see the book of proverbs).

of course, what screws this up is when men run the court procedures and so on and so forth, but if the halakhah is correctly applied than this shouldn't happen. of course that's just as big an "if" in judaism as it is in islam, but without the safeguards there would be no case for arguing that the protection is real, not just a way of actually oppressing women. that, of course, relies on everyone being ethical and moral....

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

we do have a number of people that get very upset about people showing anything other than their hands and faces, especially if they're women.

Hi BB

I bet you are a fab dinner guest, you have a brilliant sense of humour.

I wasn't aware that Jewish women were also meant to 'cover' themselves, just shows the conclusions we jump to. Sorry, I am reading that right....are men also meant to cover other than hands and faces?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

hah, you're not wrong. i count it a good day when i can get out of bed and make it to the bathroom without being liable for excision by the Heavenly Court.

I often think it is a good thing G!d is all merciful, all forgiving or we would all be in the brown stuff up to our nostrils. Having discovered your 613 commandments I have begun a little project to find out how many do's and don't the Quran contains, will let you know if I ever work it out.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

ruah ha-qodesh.

That is hardly the blonde version is it, I am sure you do this so I have to use my little grey cells and look them up. Oh the Holy Spirit...so what do you believe the Holy Spirit is?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

depends how strictly you define it. i wouldn't take a religious book into a toilet, for example, even in english, even one that was nothing to do with judaism. we're very careful about using Divine Names for no good reason - i.e., not for a blessing, prayer or other sanctificatory procedure.

Ok I worry an awful lot about this one because I have an awful habit of saying Oh my G!d when something surprising or bad happens. I never mean it in terms of our actual G!d or as any form of insult to Him but my mouth moves before my brain fires up. What do you think, should I sit on the stove and practice?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

but if you read the particular verse without the context you'd come away thinking it was discriminatory.

I wonder if this misunderstanding is a reason that Jews got the reputation for being 'mean' with money, because without the explanation it does seem a bit anti gentiles.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

G!D Loves it when we are clever enough to do this sort of stuff and even beat the Divine Will.

I have the Quran out looking for loopholes but if I end up in Hell for challenging G!d then I'm nipping to your place in heaven to chuck bricks through your window.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

my wife is halakhically entitled to divorce me if i have bad breath, spots, a job she doesn't like, or don't perform adequately on the conjugal front. she's entitled to a hefty alimony payout and to large amounts of damages for other offences. halakhah recognised the issue of rape within marriage 2500 years ago - your husband doesn't have the right to mistreat you or demand sex.

Where do I sign up?

Originally Posted by bananabrain

of course, what screws this up is when men run the court procedures and so on and so forth, but if the halakhah is correctly applied than this shouldn't happen. of course that's just as big an "if" in judaism as it is in islam, but without the safeguards there would be no case for arguing that the protection is real, not just a way of actually oppressing women. that, of course, relies on everyone being ethical and moral....

Ah yes the small print - there's always small print. Everyone being ethical and moral - was it Buddy Holly who sang That'll Be The Day? Wouldn't our religions be perfect if mankind wasn't involved. Unfortunately in Islam the 'safeguards' are often talked about but rarely practiced.

Salaam
MW

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by dauer

Torah in its dress and garter, things like that.

Do you feel this is feminine? Would men not have worn what we would now view as a dress in those days? And did a garter have the same significance then?

Originally Posted by dauer

You seem maybe a little to the left of BB, and and on different issues Drown is either to the right or left of me.

Very perceptive Dauer. My most interesting conversation/lesson with a Sheikh was an Islamic scholar when I first converted. Of course I commented on the extreme views in Islam, on both sides of the fence, so who should I believe? He asked me who tells the truth, the man who says he was robbed of 50,000 or the man who says he only took 50. Of course the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. So he said that in every issue that I seek advise on, outside of the Quran, I should look at the extreme fundamental view and the extreme liberal view and then stick as near to the middle as possible. I have lived by this rule as it made such perfect sense to me.

Salaam
MW

[dauer]

Sorry, I am reading that right....are men also meant to cover other than hands and faces?

There are also laws of tznius for men but they differ a little. In more liberal circles tznius generally just refers to maintaining a sense of modesty in dress.

Oh the Holy Spirit...so what do you believe the Holy Spirit i
s?

Ruach hakodesh is more of a state-of-being than a separate entity.

I wonder if this misunderstanding is a reason that Jews got the reputation for being 'mean' with money, because without the explanation it does seem a bit anti gentiles.

I think it's indirectly related, but not the reason. In the middle ages Jews were forced into positions as moneylenders. Christians couldn't lend to each other on interest and there were very few ways for a Jew to become financially successful. With the state of things then, if a Christian accused a Jew of, say, charging high interest rates or dealing unfairly in business, the safest thing to do would be settle privately instead of taking it to court.

Do you feel this is feminine? Would men not have worn what we would now view as a dress in those days? And did a garter have the same significance then?

Whether or not it was originally intended is less important than the fact that the divine feminine could not be suppressed. We even have a vague passage in the Talmud about a group of sages who would go out into the fields before Shabbos, dressed in white, to greet the bride. The zohar suggests that asherah-worship was really worship of the shechinah, and the big issue was really in thinking of shechinah as a separate being. It also suggests that asherah is a future name of shechinah. I haven't read those zoharic references myself but came across them a few days ago here:

Learn Kabbalah | Malchut

The word Torah itself is feminine and it is sometimes referred to as "she." I have not read the research, but there is some suggestion that there was a statue of YHWH's consort in Solomon's Temple. If that was the case, torah as embodiment of the divine feminine would seem like a logical progression. Statues of YHWH were already forbidden at that time and the direction Judaism was moving continued to push for less and less concrete representation of the Divine. What was a statue in the image of man then becomes an infinitely deeper and more complex text as stand-in for the Feminine.

As a religion that formed out of a more herding, shepherd-based faith and a more earth-based faith of farmers there is quite a bit of sexual and fertility imagery that comes up. On sukkot, the symbols are the lulav which is a long bundle containing willow, palm and myrtle, and the other symbol is the etrog, the citron, which is round. The lulav is phallic while the etrog is more symbolic of the egg.

He asked me who tells the truth, the man who says he was robbed of 50,000 or the man who says he only took 50. Of course the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. So he said that in every issue that I seek advise on, outside of the Quran, I should look at the extreme fundamental view and the extreme liberal view and then stick as near to the middle as possible. I have lived by this rule as it made such perfect sense to me.

That makes a lot of sense to me. My own approach is similar but different, which is to try and take as many perspectives into account as possible: the evolving ways Judaism views itself, the anthropological and sociological take, my own personal take based on the way the text speaks to me, and other detached historical analysis. I try to get beyond the particularly extremist views both on the right and the left and then find a way to be most inclusive of all views. In different parts of my life one view generally trumps another. In a spiritual context the evolving jewish views are always going to be more significant. If I'm trying to understand history, the more detached view is going to get more of a voice. So while I end up settling somewhere on the left I'm pretty critical of what sometimes happens there.

In a sense BB and I are both doing the same thing. His preference is to work within the systems and institutions of Orthodoxy and sees that as the best way to move Judaism forward. My preference is to work within the systems and institutions of liberal Judaism to ensure that while it moves forward it's also rooting itself in a Jewish foundation. BB has places where he would push for more conservatism beyond the minimum one will find within Orthodoxy just as I have places where I push for more liberalism than some other liberal Jews, but even with that we're both feeling around for a healthy middle that's best for Knesset Yisrael.

Dauer

[dauer]

Re: Torah as female. I just came across this recent post on a Jewish blog that is quite a bite more traditional in its general perspective than myself and probably also BB. It talks about things like the woman's place being in the home while at the same time pointing out some of the particularly feminine elements in Jewish theology. He gets much more graphic and explicit about the Torah than I did: Schvach - פני דל

Dauer

[Dondi]

Thanks for that, I always like new sources of info. A quick look round would suggest he may be a little too liberal for me but I shall have a jolly good read before I make my mind up. One of my difficulties is that he is seeing the Middle East from a very western perspective and this just doesn't work, you really have to be here to 'be in the know', however that shouldn't stop people from caring about these abuses. He does have some great links for sources of info and seems to care deeply about some of the same issues that concern me, so really thank you for the link.

Have to ask you, Muslimwoman. If western culture is so "out of the know", how can it be expected of us to adapt to Islam (that is, those in the West who convert to Islam)? Sure, the religion is spreading, but it isn't the same as living in the culture, is it?

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by muslimwoman

are men also meant to cover other than hands and faces?

well, it depends on your hashkafa (lifestyle) - if you are a male chasid, you'll wear hasidic garb. in fact, the more strictly observant you are, the more regimented your dress code. it's not like you see hasidim in shorts. and, again, depending on your hashkafa, if you're a woman, you'll be more or less strict - someone who lives in the haredi (ultra-orthodox community) will probably wear something very similar to what iranian women wear, albeit not quite as drab, a snood or a wig (don't get me started on wigs) whereas someone who is "modern-orthodox" might wear a hat which allows a few strands of hair to escape, or shows the neck, or just wear a scarf or bandana. similarly, your hashkafa will determine how clinging the fabric/cut can be or where the neckline, cuffs and hemline come to, or even how thick your stockings are, or whether you can wear trousers, or even *gasp* show your ankles. sephardim, in my experience, tend to be a bit less uptight about it than ashkenazim and most of the women will just wear something a bit like an indian dupatta or even a pashmina, or not bother unless they're in synagogue. ditto for cleavages in my experience.

Having discovered your 613 commandments I have begun a little project to find out how many do's and don't the Quran contains, will let you know if I ever work it out.

i'd be fascinated. surely there must have been mediaeval codifiers though?

Oh the Holy Spirit...so what do you believe the Holy Spirit is?

what dauer said, closer to being a lower level of prophecy.

Ok I worry an awful lot about this one because I have an awful habit of saying Oh my G!d when something surprising or bad happens. I never mean it in terms of our actual G!d or as any form of insult to Him but my mouth moves before my brain fires up.

oh, i'm just as bad. of course you shouldn't swear or so on, but it helps that the Divine Names that one should avoid are in hebrew and i don't tend to swear in hebrew. most israelis seem to swear in arabic as it is such a good language for swearing in.

but if I end up in Hell for challenging G!d then I'm nipping to your place in heaven to chuck bricks through your window.

don't any of the prophets in the Qur'an ever argue with Allah?

Where do I sign up?

hehe - but if you did, then it would mean separate beds two weeks a month and a lot of other complicated stuff. look up the laws of taharat ha-mishpacha ("family purity")!

My most interesting conversation/lesson with a Sheikh was an Islamic scholar when I first converted. Of course I commented on the extreme views in Islam, on both sides of the fence, so who should I believe? He asked me who tells the truth, the man who says he was robbed of 50,000 or the man who says he only took 50?

i love this! i'm going to use it.

Originally Posted by dauer

the middle ages Jews were forced into positions as moneylenders. Christians couldn't lend to each other on interest and there were very few ways for a Jew to become financially successful.

and jews weren't allowed to do any other jobs.

the divine feminine could not be suppressed.

the point was not to suppress "her". the point was to avoid the heretical short-circuit of splitting G!D into two and representing the dynamic "relationships" within the Divine as, G!D Forbid, G!D and "mrs G!D", which would, of course, be dualistic - that is why the idea of an asherah would be so problematic - it removes part of G!D.

I have not read the research, but there is some suggestion that there was a statue of YHWH's consort in Solomon's Temple.

the question is whether this refers to the embrace of the keruvim on the ark cover, or whether this refers to an actual placing of an asherah or idolatrous image of "mrs G!D" in the holy of holies, G!D Forbid, by a sinful king, of which we had no shortage.

On sukkot, the symbols are the lulav which is a long bundle containing willow, palm and myrtle, and the other symbol is the etrog, the citron, which is round. The lulav is phallic while the etrog is more symbolic of the egg.

or indeed symbolic of a human, according to the configuration that was the custom of the ariza"l - the lulav being the torso/spine and then you put one myrtle and one willow on each side and then add a third myrtle to represent the genitals, whereas the ethrog would be the "female". the same thing can be done with the Tetragrammaton - the yod being the seed, the first heh being the male storage area, the vav being the connector organ and the final heh being the female receptacle.

In a sense BB and I are both doing the same thing. His preference is to work within the systems and institutions of Orthodoxy and sees that as the best way to move Judaism forward.

call it a rejection of the concept of "Torah judaism" - there is no judaism empty of Torah. i think of judaism as an ecosystem; it requires biodiversity to function healthily. if you allow artscroll/salafi/disney/microsoft judaism to take over then your ecosystem cannot breathe. it is derived from the approach of rav kook, who saw the secular, anti-religious pioneers in israel as being part of the Divine Plan. "for G!D Is the best of Plotters", as it says in the Qur'an.

My preference is to work within the systems and institutions of liberal Judaism to ensure that while it moves forward it's also rooting itself in a Jewish foundation.

so in your own way you're a conservative working in a liberal environment, whereas i am a liberal working in a conservative environment, except when we talk to each other i work as a conservative and you work as a liberal, at least if you look at it simplistically. i'm deen, you're rahamim. or you're rubber, i'm glue... tomato, tomahto, potato, potahto.

BB has places where he would push for more conservatism beyond the minimum one will find within Orthodoxy

but based on the fact that minhagh (custom) may have, through sloppy thinking, ignorance and lack of religious biodiversity, replaced engagement with the texts and a Torah solution.

just came across this recent post on a Jewish blog that is quite a bite more traditional in its general perspective than myself and probably also BB.

nope. i read this and it's spot-on as far as i think. think about the Torah procession and the peticha (ark-opening) - it's birth. the sefer is a child being born and carried tenderly to where it will grow up and expand into a full adult. and don't get me started on the symbolism of the chupah (wedding canopy). seven circuits? they ought to get the groom to walk up and down the aisle seven times! breaking a glass? *cough*symbolic-hymen*cough*.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dondi]

they ought to get the groom to walk up and down the aisle seven times! breaking a glass? *cough*symbolic-hymen*cough*.

I thought the breaking of the glass was a symbolism of the destruction of the temple, not the de-virgining of the bride.

[dauer]

the point was not to suppress "her". the point was to avoid the heretical short-circuit of splitting G!D into two and representing the dynamic "relationships" within the Divine as, G!D Forbid, G!D and "mrs G!D", which would, of course, be dualistic - that is why the idea of an asherah would be so problematic - it removes part of G!D.

I disagree. It was a suppression by the ancient gov't in Israel as part of their bid to gain more power by centralizing worship and outlawing all forms of religion that they could either not control or were different from the practices they had allowed.

the question is whether this refers to the embrace of the keruvim on the ark cover, or whether this refers to an actual placing of an asherah or idolatrous image of "mrs G!D" in the holy of holies, G!D Forbid, by a sinful king, of which we had no shortage.

I don't think there's anything sinful about having an asherah in the beit hamikdash. Insidious maybe, in that it was a way to subvert and gain more power much like the Christian adoptions of foreign religious practices, but as an embodiment of the faith of some of the people I don't think there's anything wrong with it at all. It fits with that era. Our conceptualization of G!d at that point was radically different.

. i think of judaism as an ecosystem; it requires biodiversity to function healthily. if you allow artscroll/salafi/disney/microsoft judaism to take over then your ecosystem cannot breathe.

I agree. I like to use an organismic model to say the same thing.

so in your own way you're a conservative working in a liberal environment, whereas i am a liberal working in a conservative environment, except when we talk to each other i work as a conservative and you work as a liberal, at least if you look at it simplistically.

I think I'm more a liberal with some conservative tendencies who's mostly happy with what's going on but sees some of it as getting too far into left field and would like to see more investment in some of the foundation-building issues. I like systems. The new paradigms for hermeneutic, exegesis, and application that are developing now like integral judaism and the psycho-halachic process imo need to be fleshed out more in order to create a solid basis for change. There's a lot of R&D going on but there isn't a lot of detailed literature about how to regulate experiments in the lab yet.

nope. i read this and it's spot-on as far as i think. think about the Torah procession and the peticha (ark-opening) - it's birth. the sefer is a child being born and carried tenderly to where it will grow up and expand into a full adult. and don't get me started on the symbolism of the chupah (wedding canopy). seven circuits? they ought to get the groom to walk up and down the aisle seven times! breaking a glass? *cough*symbolic-hymen*cough*.

I didn't mean the gendered analogies. I read what he was saying as a defense of the position that the best thing a woman could possibly be is a housewife. I may have misread him too.

Dauer

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by dauer

I disagree. It was a suppression by the ancient gov't in Israel as part of their bid to gain more power by centralizing worship and outlawing all forms of religion that they could either not control or were different from the practices they had allowed.

well, you would say that, wouldn't you