Judaism 101

[dauer]

. but even if that were true, i don't see why it would be a bad thing. after all, we're talking about idolatry here - getting rid of idol worship and idolatrous practices would be a good thing. however, the evidence of the Text is that this simply didn't succeed - the rulers were too evil to try or to persevere and the people too sinful and open to local canaanite influences.

Then maybe it wasn't a good thing and if it had been approached differently it would have passed on its own as the needs of the people changed. And I don't really see idolatry as sinful in nature, just prohibited by the monarchic authority in its independant forms.

I think the term avodah zarah is interesting. What makes the avodah zarah? Is it really zarah because it's what other nations do or is it simply what "bad citizens", the radicals who defy the iron fist of the monarchy do and has only been compared to the actions of other nations in order to make an appeal to a suggested Israelite ethical superiority? That is to say, "You're better than the rest of the people of the world. Act like it."

also, as far as i am aware, the archaeological evidence is that idolatry was widespread, which would back up the complaints of the prophets rather than the theory that the ministry of monotheism was running a police state and enforcing conformity.

Or it could also suggest that the monarchy couldn't police itself effectively, the prophets were exaggerating, or they were really addressing a minority of the population while holding the entire nation accountable because the brit is national and not personal.

you are kidding, aren't you? doesn't this miss something totally, totally basic? i mean, you're not an idiot, mate, but think about what you've just said - we are commanded to get rid of the fecking things, not stick them in the qodesh ha-qodeshim, G!D Forbid. i don't care how liberal you are - how can you possibly consider that to be a valid position when it flatly contradicts the explicit Torah commandment to destroy them? i find this argument incomprehensible.

Because I don't believe the Torah is the word of G!d. It has nothing to do with idiocy at all. I wouldn't support idolatry today, but the conceptualization of G!d they had then, as I said, was radically different, and if it's upaya for them to have their fetishes then so be it. Let them have 'em.

I once had a wonderful conversation with a devout hindu and it made me realize the value there can be found relating to a tzelem Elohim. It helped me to understand too why it helps Christians to put a face on G!d in Jesus. And I find our tradition acknowledges that too as long as it's never physically built.

There's heichalot literature, adam kadmon, the analogues of the sefirot in the human body. I came across a hanhagah in the writings of Reb Kalonymus that went into great detail describing the heavenly court from G!d on His throne to the angels and suggested visualizing it explicitly. Elsewhere in his writing he suggests that this is not the best way, but he acknowledges the helpfulness of this practice.

you keep on saying that, but the thing is that the Text - at all points - explicitly identifies that kind of conceptualisation as completely wrong and evil.

No, it may call some practices wrong and evil, but it repeatedly uses anthropomorphic G!d language to make its point. If you're really trying to remove that type of thinking, then it becomes necessary to remove that type of G!d language for a people who think in those terms and then manifest it. Otherwise it will only create confusion, especially among the amei haaretz. Of course there would be no confusion if what was really being addressed was the illegal idolatry, the stuff that wasn't state-sponsored. You might argue that the people at that time needed the human G!d language, maybe still do, that the Torah speaks in the language of man. But then you'd be coming more into agreement with me, that an Israelite religiousity needed to address the concerns, motivations, and attachments of the Israelite people.

i do not dispute for a moment that the *reality on the ground* was that many people *did* conceptualise in that way, but that was because they were sinning against G!D, just as it says. they were *wrong* to do so

I don't think it really makes it a sin just because the text says so. If the text says it's a sin it means it's unlawful according to the theocratic Israelite monarchy. It may still be a sin, but I don't the literal read of the text alone can be the sole arbiter of such a pronouncement. It also depends on how we define sin. Is it defined by local communities and by society? Is it defined by the government? Is it defined by the government when it's expressing the wishes of the people? Is it defined by sacred literature? And then there's the possibility that there's no sin at all which, at least on the personal and subjectivie level, which can be verified is not true based on our own understanding and approach to the world.

moreover, the fact that the Text criticises contemporary practices indicates that they were known to be wrong *at that time*, therefore we must have had a *correct* conceptualisation as well as an incorrect one.

Or that simply suggests the views of the authority. On the Second Life blog when Linden Lab make changes in policy or even introduce new features they know are unwelcome often they'll phrase it as them acting based on the wishes of the community even though there has been much opinion voiced against it and the protest continues in the comments section, as long as comments are enabled. In the case of the blog we call Torah, the voice of the amei haaretz was silenced.

i would say that they need to be interpreted in the light of the traditional processes and ways found to see them as contiguous and congruent, rather than superseding or replacing them. you'd have to demonstrate that abraham or moses or whoever could be shown to have operated in that paradigm. that way it could be shown to be internally consistent.

And as you are aware, I would disagree. I'm really not interested in changing Orthodoxy. It does things its own way and works for some people, as did Sadducean Judaism during the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism. But the methods of hazal, not found in the Torah, won out. Later Rambam presented a very radical view of the supernatural and he still won out based on his midrashic interpretation of how Torah speaks based on a single verse of gemara. When Judaism gets rigid, to unstick it I think we really need to appeal to our heritage as midrashists, become more flexible and fluid. And I think at the same time we need to incorporate new methodologies as hazal did, which is really just bringing in new technology. I really see midrash playing out even in halachah, that the thought process is similar. It's about exegesis, redefinition, and a flowering outward of meaning.

I don't think most of Judaism is in a place anymore where the only way to make something valid is to attribute it to the plain words of Torah. I think that actually it's much harder for most of us to attribute new ideas to myth anymore and still see it as an extension of that old myth. We've gotten to the point that we're self-aware of our evolution. Mankind, as a whole, is coming more into the stage of watching its own thoughts and recognizing the patterns, the textures, cyclical thinking that emerges. But I also think it's important, even though we're aware of that to still get in touch with the myth-making, myth-loving part of ourselves, to continue to tell our story in the language, the metaphor of our ancestors. There's a power in connecting down the generations like that, and as you hint at, it builds continuity.

Can you imagine what it must have been like for hazal, evolving a new approach that could bring Judaism away from a focus on the Temple cult toward a more adaptable meritocracy? And everywhere there are people who do things differently, sometimes in the extreme, like the essenes, therapeutae, the early Christians, the sadducees. I think in some ways it's a bit sad that a lot of those voices were silenced in the ascenscion of rabbinic judaism. I think that all of the Jewish voices and expression need to be heard and honored, majority and minority voices. There were a number of articles in the last issue of Zeek: Zeek: A Jewish Journal of Thought and Culture | a monthly magazine of Jewish writing and art, featuring poetry, essay, fiction, criticism, spirituality, reviews, and original art and music. An integral voice of the "New Jewish Culture." about the sabbateans and the donmeh, I think in response to the threat that Shabtai's home is going to be raised. I think it's important to give them a voice, even if it's one most of us would disagree with.

And I know your answer to the first question, that the oral Torah is from sinai. I can agree with that if we're talking about sinai as a spiritual place, an inner place, the place of revelation. But if we are talking about that type of sinai then to me we're still standing there with a mountain over our head, still afraid of the voice, urging our leaders to do the receiving for us. And we need to stop screaming for the leadership, the authority, to take revelation into their own hands and become the DIYers, getting involved in listening ourselves.

This goes back to what I said about the israelite monarchy too. The story of revelation is framed as if to say, "You common people can't handle the voice of G!d. Leave that to the authorities who make these rules." It's propoganda for the monarchy.

i took it as saying that the whole "public performance of religion" was necessary because men require more direction, supervision and regimentation.

And yet today many women desire to take part in the public performance of religion, including within Orthodoxy. I think it would be fair to say that men are generally more rules-based and women generally think more in terms of relationship, but that feminine relational thinking that can override the rigid legalism of the more masculine approach, I think it needs to be heard more now. Judaism needs to start integrating its anima.

of course this can be reductively subverted to make the woman a second-class citizen but that, i would argue, flies in the face of the intention of both the Torah and the halakhah.

Oh I completely agree on this. I think that for its day the Talmud was pretty progressive in the way it dealt with women, a step forward. And I think there's a pervasive intention to view a woman's role as good and healthy, as valid and valuable, but I don't really think it's progressive enough for our times. And it's hard to do justice to that type of work when women don't get a voice in the meetings.

Dauer

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Dondi

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?

Hi Dondi

Sorry to take so long to get back to you my new computer has been a nighmare, fingers crossed it's all systems go again.

That is a brilliant question and quite frankly if I ever find an answer the world will be a better place. My advise to anyone I have spoken to who is thinking of converting is always to study both extremes and then find the middle road, that's the road I am comfortable on. The reason I said the site was too liberal for me was because the views on such fundamental issues as homosexuality and dress are simply too far from the teaching of the Quran for me to accept as a correct interpretation - but hey that's just me and what does or does not sit well in my mind.

From the perspective of a westerner living in the Middle East I would have to say somewhere between the Mid East version of Islam and the Western version would be ideal. The Mid East certainly has the stricter more oppressive version but the very liberal Western version almost tries at times to throw the book away and start again, which doesn't work for me either. Wouldn't it be nice if a big finger would point out of the sky to the right path.

Salaam

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi Dondi

Sorry to take so long to get back to you my new computer has been a nighmare, fingers crossed it's all systems go again.

That is a brilliant question and quite frankly if I ever find an answer the world will be a better place. My advise to anyone I have spoken to who is thinking of converting is always to study both extremes and then find the middle road, that's the road I am comfortable on. The reason I said the site was too liberal for me was because the views on such fundamental issues as homosexuality and dress are simply too far from the teaching of the Quran for me to accept as a correct interpretation - but hey that's just me and what does or does not sit well in my mind.

From the perspective of a westerner living in the Middle East I would have to say somewhere between the Mid East version of Islam and the Western version would be ideal. The Mid East certainly has the stricter more oppressive version but the very liberal Western version almost tries at times to throw the book away and start again, which doesn't work for me either. Wouldn't it be nice if a big finger would point out of the sky to the right path.

Salaam

You rather remind me of Irshad Manji, Muslimwoman. At least what I've listened to in some interviews she's done. I think it's great that a woman like you are thinking outside the box, particularly since you hail from a Middle Eastern country like Egypt. I applaud you efforts in seeking out the middle road. I also enjoy you desire to understand faiths other than your own in such a cordial manner. You are very polite and easy talk to and open to new ideas. I really enjoy reading your posts.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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.

ankles and cleavages in the same paragraph, wait a mo while I recover from my fainting spell. I don't miss my cleavage but I do miss my ankles and I am so sick of men wrapping towels around my ankles and feet when I sit down (I still haven't managed that gnome sitting position of the women here).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

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

Now come on BB, this is Islam so of course there will be 2 or 3,000 differing opinions on the subject but I thought it would be interesting to look for myself, you never know what I might learn (or whether I will like it).

Originally Posted by bananabrain

most israelis seem to swear in arabic as it is such a good language for swearing in.

Can you teach me some? Nobody here will tell me any, I've only managed to pick up 3 and my hubby looks like thunder if I say them (although I have to admit I have picked them up from him so they are probably the worst swear words you could imagine). I love the idea though of cheating by swearing in another language, although I doubt if G-d will be fooled.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

look up the laws of taharat ha-mishpacha ("family purity")!

Okay, you've talked me out of it. Hee, hee, I just suggested this to my hubby and he said lots of the arabic words we were refering to before.

Originally Posted by bananabrain

"for G!D Is the best of Plotters", as it says in the Qur'an.

Ameen.


Dauer, sorry I don't know how to do that multi-quote thing. Am I following the conversation properly, you don't believe the Torah is the word of G-d and you don't have a problem with idol worship? Forgive me if I've misunderstood but I'm struggling to understand how a person can have faith in G-d yet accept these two ideas.

Salaam

[dauer]

Dauer, sorry I don't know how to do that multi-quote thing. Am I following the conversation properly, you don't believe the Torah is the word of G-d and you don't have a problem with idol worship? Forgive me if I've misunderstood but I'm struggling to understand how a person can have faith in G-d yet accept these two ideas.

Muslimwoman,

To quote from different people, copy and paste the passage you would like to quote. Before it put (quote) and after put (/quote) but instead of parentheses () use brackets []. If you want to get fancy you can put (quote=nameofpersonbeingquoted) first.

To answer your questions:

I don't believe the Torah is uniquely Divine. As I understand it the Torah's innate level of holiness is no different from that of any other text or anything in the world for that matter. What makes it more significant is the community that holds it as sacred. For them it is sacred and they will find more meaning in it. I do hold the Torah as sacred and on a mythical level it is the word of G!d. But I don't believe in any other sense that it is the word of G!d.

Re: Idolatry.

If it's bringing someone closer to G!d and not harming anyone I don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with the violent persecution and supression of idolatry in Ancient Israel, but I also understand that it's the way the world was then. It's not to say that I think idolatry can fit into Judaism today. It's evolved in another direction. But if someone did it and it brought them closer to G!d I think by nature it is then a holy act.

But we also have to define idolatry. Sometimes in Judaism the issue raised with idolatry is really ethical issues about the people who practiced it. If that is the case, why blame the actual worshipping of idols? Why not blame the practices that went with it? If it is not the practice of worshipping an idol that is the real problem then what is the issue?

In defining idolatry we also have to consider whether the statue itself is being worshipped or whether it represents something that transcends the statue but may just the same still have some type of anthropomorphic form. I'm really okay with either. The first possibility doesn't make much sense to me at all. The second makes a lot more sense. However, if in doing either practice one is brought closer to G!d I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it. It's holy.

The Tanach suggests that the actual statues were worshipped but that seems a bit like inflated polemic to me.

I'm struggling to understand how a person can have faith in G-d yet accept these two ideas.

Faith is an odd word. I'd say I have more emunah than I have faith, in that I trust in the Divine. But as a suggestion of belief I would have to say no, I don't believe in G!d as such. I explain what I mean in my response to Dondi in posts 3-6 here:

Beit Binah Virtual Intentional Community, My New Project

Dauer

[bananabrain]

if it had been approached differently it would have passed on its own as the needs of the people changed.

that is pretty much what rambam says about why our cult structures were constructed the way they were in the first place, because of the idolatrous environment.

And I don't really see idolatry as sinful in nature, just prohibited by the monarchic authority in its independant forms.

i don't see how this can possibly be a jewish PoV. the defining feature of judaism from abraham onwards is its MONOTHEISM and its rejection of idolatry. if you take those two out of the equation, i simply don't see how what you have left is anything that can be recognisably labelled as judaism. it's like saying, well, i'm a christian, but i don't believe jesus was anything but a clever preacher who was executed for reasons of political expediency and had his message taken out of context by his followers. i mean, that's not the position of a christian, but one of a disinterested, non-partisan observer. and i struggle to think what sort of muslim says that muhammad wasn't that interested in submission to G!D. i mean, it makes any kind of label meaningless other than as a sort of ethno-cultural grab bag. in jewish terms, i'd say it actually made you a reconstructionist.

and as for the stuff about monarchic authority, the Torah presents monarchy as a concession whilst highlighting its downsides and risks - we are hardly encouraged to approve of it as anything more than a concession to human nature. and, similarly, you are still avoiding the issue of the monarchs themselves and the monarchic authority being the *source* of idolatry, rather than the source of prohibition - surely this is clear from rehoboam to ahab?? the idolaters are the *kings themselves*, apart from the occasional goodie like hezekiah or josiah.

I think the term avodah zarah is interesting. What makes the avodah zarah?

it's not commanded by the Torah. 'avodah zarah is a category defined by the Torah, therefore it is surely for the Torah to say what is and isn't a.z.

Is it really zarah because it's what other nations do

it is defined precisely in those terms: "you shall not do like they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, nor shall you do like they do in the land of Canaan, where you're going; neither should you follow their laws." (vayikra 18:3) that seems pretty clear to me.

or is it simply what "bad citizens", the radicals who defy the iron fist of the monarchy do and has only been compared to the actions of other nations in order to make an appeal to a suggested Israelite ethical superiority? That is to say, "You're better than the rest of the people of the world. Act like it."

but this depends on the Torah predating the monarchy - and, to be frank, if you don't think it does, we can't really reach any kind of understanding on this subject. additionally, we are clear that we don't object to "egyptians" themselves per se, in fact we are told to treat them better than they treated us - in other words, it's about actions not essence: it is what people do, not who they work for that is important. being jewish is *about* acting better than the bad people in the world. therefore, our kings can be good or bad depending on if they kept Torah or not, whereas other nations were bad because of their systems of belief and governance, not because of an intrinsic badness - that is why even an amalekite can convert.

Or it could also suggest that the monarchy couldn't police itself effectively, the prophets were exaggerating, or they were really addressing a minority of the population while holding the entire nation accountable because the brit is national and not personal.

i just don't see how you can possibly back that up. the archaeological evidence certainly points to these practices being widespread - and the Text agrees. therefore the minority voice of righteousness was that of the prophets, as against the sinful monarchy (and often priesthood) and population. if the monarchy was the power behind monotheist repression, it would surely have spun the Tanakh to reflect that, rather than preserving a document which revealed its own wickedness!

And I find our tradition acknowledges that too as long as it's never physically built.

that's fine, but when it *is* built, things go horribly wrong. and that is the entire point about why idolatry is bad.

There's heichalot literature, adam kadmon, the analogues of the sefirot in the human body. I came across a hanhagah in the writings of Reb Kalonymus that went into great detail describing the heavenly court from G!d on His throne to the angels and suggested visualizing it explicitly. Elsewhere in his writing he suggests that this is not the best way, but he acknowledges the helpfulness of this practice.

this is *precisely* why mysticism and the kabbalah was and is a matter for the elite. when mysticism became a popular, mass movement, we got things like somersaulting hasidim, shabbetai tsvi and now those feckin' feathered eejits in the settlement movement.

No, it may call some practices wrong and evil, but it repeatedly uses anthropomorphic G!d language to make its point. If you're really trying to remove that type of thinking, then it becomes necessary to remove that type of G!d language for a people who think in those terms and then manifest it. Otherwise it will only create confusion, especially among the amei haaretz.

qed - this is why the prohibitions have to be so strong, so the amei haaretz don't start thinking in those terms. it is unavoidable to use anthropomorphic G!D-language because that is how humans are wired to think. but the counter-intuitive safeguards are only enforceable if the radical stuff is kept from becoming a mass movement.

I don't think it really makes it a sin just because the text says so.

then what, according to you, is a sin, if it's not defined by Torah?

I don't the literal read of the text alone can be the sole arbiter of such a pronouncement.

but that's the point - i don't see that either and neither, obviously, did haza"l. but surely you concede that the halakhic ingenuity and creativity that brought us the prosbul and the five-fold damage rule was not applied to avodah zarah in such a way as to permit apparently idolatrous practices - surely this ought to suggest that they had good reasons for why G!D is not presented as laughing that "My children have defeated Me" in this particular respect.

In the case of the blog we call Torah, the voice of the amei haaretz was silenced.

although, curiously enough, trolls and spammers such as aher, the minim, turnus rufus, antoninus, caesar, king yannai etc all still seem to be regular contributors.

But the methods of hazal, not found in the Torah, won out.

i don't agree that they're not found in the Torah, considering that's precisely where they're agreed to be derived from, but let's leave that for the moment. i just don't see what is to be gained from going back and trying to undo the victory of hazal - i cannot agree that such a risk is worth it.

When Judaism gets rigid, to unstick it I think we really need to appeal to our heritage as midrashists, become more flexible and fluid. And I think at the same time we need to incorporate new methodologies as hazal did, which is really just bringing in new technology.

i don't see midrash as the saviour, precisely because it is the logicalisation of midrash that is respnsible for quite a lot of the reasons we get stuck. i think what we need is to understand the process of creating halakhah (which is why i find your idea of a psycho-halakhic process quite interesting) better and use it to create the same sort of halakhic fluidity that they did - call it a jewish version of "opening the gates of ijtihad", or as i say, democratising halakhah and deprofessionalising the rabbinates. it's kind of what you're saying here:

But if we are talking about that type of sinai then to me we're still standing there with a mountain over our head, still afraid of the voice, urging our leaders to do the receiving for us. And we need to stop screaming for the leadership, the authority, to take revelation into their own hands and become the DIYers, getting involved in listening ourselves.

except, of course, that you seem to be suggesting actually throwing the revelation itself away.

I think that actually it's much harder for most of us to attribute new ideas to myth anymore and still see it as an extension of that old myth.

i don't agree - i think our problem is that we see myth, after the enlightenment, as being synonymous with untruth. sacred history is not history.

I think that all of the Jewish voices and expression need to be heard and honored, majority and minority voices.

so you don't think there comes a point where we are dealing with, as i put it, a bacon bagel and the labels stretch to a point where they snap? you don't draw the line anywhere? how about jacob frank? you don't see the mystical apostasy/crypto-judaism model as profoundly mistaken? in fact, how can you even distinguish judaism from christianity, or indeed islam?

And yet today many women desire to take part in the public performance of religion, including within Orthodoxy.

that's what does my head in - it perpetuates the false idea that public performance of religion is what counts. that in turn perpetuates the false idea that it's what you're seen to be doing, not what you really do, that counts. it is the externals, not the internals. this is simply valuing the wrong things. i don't want to be seen incorporating mystical kavvanot - that is for my own inner spiritual experience. otherwise it all descends into a squalid fight over who gets to be on the stage. G!D Isn't about publicness, not any more.

Judaism needs to start integrating its anima.

precisely - but this means that *men* have to start integrating it into their own approach, not that women should start depriving men of their only role. it is not as if men can suddenly start menstruating in return.

And it's hard to do justice to that type of work when women don't get a voice in the meetings.

there i agree - which is also why i think women should be able to get semikhah.

As I understand it the Torah's innate level of holiness is no different from that of any other text or anything in the world for that matter.

*sigh*. then what gives you any special attachment to it? this is an acknowledgement of defeat - if we have no special purpose, there is no point in preserving its uniqueness.

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I don't miss my cleavage but I do miss my ankles and I am so sick of men wrapping towels around my ankles and feet when I sit down (I still haven't managed that gnome sitting position of the women here).

why don't you tell them to get stuffed? surely they're not allowed to manhandle you? wouldn't your husband have something to say about that? this wouldn't be allowed in judaism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

why don't you tell them to get stuffed? surely they're not allowed to manhandle you? wouldn't your husband have something to say about that? this wouldn't be allowed in judaism.

Shalom BB

It is usually my father and brother in law that do this and when I complain to my husband he says they do this out of respect for me and intend nothing lewd by it. Go figure. To me it just feels belittling but I don't know the arabic for belittling or get stuffed, I have learned to accept it as one of those culture differences we just have to live with even though we don't understand. Obviously my hubby would tear walls down if a man outside the family did it but he just doesn't seem to get it that I find this insulting.

Salaam

[bananabrain]

well, we wouldn't allow a brother-in-law or father-in-law to do that. brother or father, perhaps, but not in-laws.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Shalom BB

It is usually my father and brother in law that do this and when I complain to my husband he says they do this out of respect for me and intend nothing lewd by it. Go figure. To me it just feels belittling but I don't know the arabic for belittling or get stuffed, I have learned to accept it as one of those culture differences we just have to live with even though we don't understand. Obviously my hubby would tear walls down if a man outside the family did it but he just doesn't seem to get it that I find this insulting.

Salaam

I hate clothes I hate shoes.. first thing i do when I get home from work is take my shoes off then my bra.. they are torture devices that I do not believe G-d intended. I cant wrap my brain around having my life be so constricted (literally). How on earth did you manage to adapt to this??

I watched a wonderful documentary. The National Geographic photographer that took that famous picture of the green-eyed afghan girl that disappeared then he went on a search for her 17 years later which is what the documentary was about. They checked out a few different women that it could have been and the stark differences in what these women were allowed to do was an eye-opener.. We westerners tend to believe that the middle-east muslims all shroud the women up so only the eyes show.. Yes they showed that type in this but then there were fairly liberal muslims where the women had their hair covered but were allowed to speak to men not their husbands or brothers. It was very enlightening and I could not imagine living like that... I imagine Pakistan is a good deal warmer than Texas USA and I hate sweating...all I could do was thank the Lord that I have been so blessed with liberality and the means to have an air conditioner.

It was humbling and my heart went out to these people.

They ended up finding this girl who grew up to be a beautiful woman married to an obviously very loving man. I wanted to give them my paycheck.

Sorry I do not mean to derail this thread Im just enjoying this conversation very much.

[Dondi]

They ended up finding this girl who grew up to be a beautiful woman married to an obviously very loving man. I wanted to give them my paycheck.

I know of the girl you speak of and have seen comparative pictures from the time she was what 17(?) to when they found her, about 35 (?). What I saw in the difference was a life of hardship and strain. She well lost her youthful appearance, but in my opinion, she aged far more than 17 years. The eyes especially looked tired, a stark contrast from the beautiful, but apprehensive look she has as a young woman. I wondered what all she went through between then and now...

[Faithfulservant]

I cant even imagine. I know she saw the death of her parents and her husband is forced to work away from home so she doesnt get to see him. Its so sad to me. You should watch the documentary to me they all looked like that there

[dauer]

i don't see how this can possibly be a jewish PoV. the defining feature of judaism from abraham onwards is its MONOTHEISM and its rejection of idolatry.

No, I think the idea that abraham rejected idolatry is really the projection of the ideals of a later generation. It's really not possible to verify Abraham as anything more than a legend anyway. Mythically there may be a rejection of idolatry but historically I don't think that's the case until later. I'm not suggesting that idolatry is a good idea for modern Judaism, but absolutely it is a holy act that hurts nobody and was appropriate for Jews in the past. As something that can be derived from critical biblical scholarship which is accepted by the majority of Jewry I think it is most certainly a Jewish pov. If I was accepting idolatry for myself or suggesting it for other modern day Jews I think then it might not be, but as a historical critique and a critique of the other people who practice it today it's absolutely a Jewish view, certainly not an Orthodox one.

i mean, that's not the position of a christian, but one of a disinterested, non-partisan observer.

In my understanding of history, that is what I aim to be. In my experience of myth it is not. The two are not mutually exclusive. They are simply different perspectives of the same thing. The most integral view is one that is able to incorporate all of those perspectives.

in jewish terms, i'd say it actually made you a reconstructionist.

In terms of the ideas I am most influenced by, it's those of renewal, reconstructionism, and the havurah movement. I think there's some excellent stuff going on in recon. My biggest critique of the movement, and the reason I reject it, is because it seems much more cultural than spiritual and I really have no interest in that. It may not make sense to you to hold two seemingly contradictory views. I don't see them as contradictory. A person might look at a cloud in one moment and see it for its makeup and at another moment see an elephant in a tutu. The fallacy imo is to claim one of those views is incorrect. If someone looks at a painting they can talk about the colors and paint used and things like scale. They can also talk about the fact that it resembles a person and if somebody asked they might very well answer without thinking that it is a person. Once they see the person they can then talk about the way that person is portrayed based on their body language and other things in the painting, they can talk about what it means to them, and what it means to the artist. If they don't know anything about the artist that will be more difficult. But if they know other paintings of the artist, the movement he was involved in, the events happening at that time in his part of the world, similar paintings by other artists, it's then going to be easier to determine. However if the person observing the picture is a real fanboy they may proclaim that there's an official answer, one the artist never gave but that was promoted by a posthumous publicist.

and as for the stuff about monarchic authority, the Torah presents monarchy as a concession whilst highlighting its downsides and risks - we are hardly encouraged to approve of it as anything more than a concession to human nature.

It does, yes, but in the end it portrays the people as demanding it anyway. I think that's really good propaganda. It's making room for the naysayers to say nay while still conceding to monarchic authority. And it was glorified enough that we see a return to the davidic monarchy in the messiah.

and, similarly, you are still avoiding the issue of the monarchs themselves and the monarchic authority being the *source* of idolatry, rather than the source of prohibition - surely this is clear from rehoboam to ahab?? the idolaters are the *kings themselves*, apart from the occasional goodie like hezekiah or josiah.

The Torah has both the propaganda and polemic. Some of the polemic is from latter kings against earlier ones. Like you can see the way many of the passages of Saul have been shaped to really make a big deal out of David. And as I also said, I think what the monarchy was primarily disapproving of wasn't idolatry but avodah zarah, practices not backed by the monarchy as part of the centralization of power and stomping out of threats to their control.

it's not commanded by the Torah. 'avodah zarah is a category defined by the Torah, therefore it is surely for the Torah to say what is and isn't a.z.

As I said, I don't think that's really the case. To me it sounds more like saying to the Jewish people, "You're better than everyone else and should be acting like it. So only do the things that the monar- *coughs* excuse me, that G!d wants."

"you shall not do like they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, nor shall you do like they do in the land of Canaan, where you're going; neither should you follow their laws." (vayikra 18:3) that seems pretty clear to me.

And yet the Torah maintains the traits of a shepherding religion with emphasis on animal sacrifice, ancestors who are shepherds, and traits of an agricultural religion with harvest festivals, matzah, which suggests to me that those people who entered Canaan had certain beliefs and the people who were already there had different ones, two different religions which ended up coming together. I think the people coming in did follow the laws of Canaan, as they evolved based on the influence of the foreigners, and that this is really a later text condemning ancestral forms of worship in favor of the new syncretism while skillfully weaving a mythos that creates a unified history for a mixed people.

but this depends on the Torah predating the monarchy - and, to be frank, if you don't think it does, we can't really reach any kind of understanding on this subject.

If you mean reaching a middle ground where we can both agree, I never believed that was possible. If you mean understanding the position each of us is coming from, even if it doesn't make sense to us, absolutely I think that's possible.

To be clear, I don't think Torah predates the monarchy but that Torah as we have it today does. A lot of the myths and legends and some of the law I think is probably very old, if perhaps not compiled together and not all written, but that the hands of the monarchy really shaped it in the form we have today, going so far as to reinterpret old myth to fit their goals, much like hazal did via midrash, which I also think incorporated at times earlier myth and legend.

There's a wonderful practice suggested by Rabbi Rami Shapiro on his blog: http://rabbirami.blogspot.com/

He suggests that as people hear something particularly patriarchal during the Torah service, or something that doesn't fit right with them, they should boo. What surprised me is that he got a number of comments from people that their shul already does that in some form.

i just don't see how you can possibly back that up. the archaeological evidence certainly points to these practices being widespread - and the Text agrees.

That was one of the possibilities I gave, among others, and if avodah zarah is really the practices the monarchy didn't approve of then some of the more widespread stuff may have really been the sanctioned use of fetishes.

if the monarchy was the power behind monotheist repression, it would surely have spun the Tanakh to reflect that, rather than preserving a document which revealed its own wickedness!

Not if the polemic of later kings is included.

that's fine, but when it *is* built, things go horribly wrong. and that is the entire point about why idolatry is bad.

I don't think that's true at all. Look at hinduism. Maybe the practices surrounding the Israelite religion's idolatry were bad. If they were then it's those unethical practices that are a problem and not the idolatry itself. Idolatry is harmless and can be holy, having the potential to bring people closer to G!d and to help to reveal His presence in the world.

[dauer]

this is *precisely* why mysticism and the kabbalah was and is a matter for the elite. when mysticism became a popular, mass movement, we got things like somersaulting hasidim, shabbetai tsvi and now those feckin' feathered eejits in the settlement movement.

What's wrong with somersaulting hasidim?

I don't think the problem you're pointing out is mysticism itself but instead absolutism and literalism which does not need mysticism to propagate itself.

qed - this is why the prohibitions have to be so strong, so the amei haaretz don't start thinking in those terms. it is unavoidable to use anthropomorphic G!D-language because that is how humans are wired to think.

You're missing a fundamental point that you yourself acknowledge. They already were. If someone calls their anthropomorphic deity Bob and describe Bob as having a back, a face, an arm, etc and then you talk about Bob the same way while saying, "Just don't take his picture. He doesn't like that." then you're reinforcing an anthropomorphic understanding of Bob. Avoiding anthropomorphic language is possible and Judaism does it sometimes with terms like HaMakom, Mayyim Chayyim, even shechinah doesn't necessarily apply anthropomorphism until you bring in the mystical stuff which at this point I don't think is divorcable. There are modern terms that do the same thing. We can talk about the Divine for example without implying anthropomorphism. Now, personally, I don't think it would be good to get rid of the anthropomorphism and I think we should develop new anthropomorphic G!d language like has been done with the anthropomorphic development of shechinah and the partzufim and even term a term like Gottenyu strikes me as anthropomorphic although less so. It's helpful for relating to G!d to have that much in the same way visual representations can be useful for some folks.

then what, according to you, is a sin, if it's not defined by Torah?

I don't really accept the notion of absolute sin. I think it varies at different times and in different places. There may be some fundamentals that are genetically coded into us but the way they're applied varies in different societies. For the Jewish people, I think it's important to use tradition as a guide, but also to challenge the idols it's made out of its own doctrines.

but that's the point - i don't see that either and neither, obviously, did haza"l.

No, I don't think they saw Torah that way, but they did create concrete methods for interpretation and concrete rulings based on Torah.

but surely you concede that the halakhic ingenuity and creativity that brought us the prosbul and the five-fold damage rule was not applied to avodah zarah in such a way as to permit apparently idolatrous practices - surely this ought to suggest that they had good reasons for why G!D is not presented as laughing that "My children have defeated Me" in this particular respect.

One of the difficulties I find in dealing with Judaism is trying not to confuse, for example, the opinions of rabbinic judaism with those of biblical judaism and I don't think that hazal had the same reasons for condemning idolatry as did the monarchy. More than likely I think the reason they don't allow it is becuase the Torah speaks against it so strongly and it had become so ingrained in Jewish consciousness that it's not the right thing to do. Nor do I think they really could have gained anything by being more tolerant of idolatry within Judaism. I don't think there is anything for Judaism to gain by incorporating idol worship or that it should happen. We already have learned how to appease our need for anthropomorphism although I must say that too often, particularly in the liberal flavors of Judaism, it goes the way of Rambam and G!d becomes a bit meaningless. That imo is the anti-idolatry position taken to the extreme and is a risk when such strong language is used against it.