Questions about Judaism

[dauer]

eh? surely the defining thing about the tanaim was that they were using halachic reasoning. by this logic, anyone who stays within halachic system is clearly, well, wrong, just as you're saying. to my ears this sounds almost as unfair as the position that anything from the non-orthodox world is "by definition" wrong.

What I'm saying is that the tanaim invented halachic reasoning, and we should have the same chutzpah, l'shem yichud kudsheh brich hu u'shechinteh.

i guess that's my point - it was overdone because the purpose wasn't properly understood - getting them out of the ghettos was by no means the end of it.

But I also don't think the reality of living in the ghettos and the effect that it had on them can be fully understood. I don't think it's fair for us, outside of the situation, to point fingers and say it was all done the wrong way, just as I don't think we can understand the mentality that drove some of the people within the concentration camps.

not that they *shouldn't* be sought - just that the reason people sought them outside was because they either didn't look inside properly or their teachers were at fault. i personally suspect it's a combination of both.

So are you saying that if a group of Jews integrates something into Judaism with the wrong motivations, that regardless how useful that information might be, we should disregard it in favor of what's homegrown?

Torah, to me, has boundaries the way the universe has boundaries, as it is said, the Torah is a blueprint for the 'olam - which includes not just the earth, or even the 'olam ha-zeh.

Here we disagree. But I do value that myth.

nobody can be considered completely blameless in this respect.

So is the non-commital agnostic the least idolatrous of all people?

non-orthodoxy is determined not to trust rabbinic tradition - and orthodoxy is determined not to trust anything *apart* from something that has already been said by someone with a beard - and the longer ago the better.

What is the tikkun?

no. but i do believe that the generation of the haskalah were so concerned to evolve the tradition that they failed to notice that they were screwing it up.

Granted, I agree with you the haskalah can't be taken as some sort of gold standard, do you think that means we have to do away with what has developed out of it? Can't we get something new out of something old?

in general? as treif, i'm afraid. the teachers are in general so concerned about ignorance that they are denying all autonomous thought and personal responsibility. fortunately there are still quite a few who are thinking.

I have actually had firsthand experience with those caught up in the struggle. At Elat Chayyim, the rabbi-in-residence almost quit before getting O semicha, but he stuck it through. Now he is not Orthodox. There was also a former Buddhist monk going to an O Yeshiva for semichah specifically for the education, although he was not O himself. And then there was a second year yeshivah student at a progressive yeshivah who almost dropped out and stayed the year at EC, then on to pursue Jewish Renewal semichah instead, but he decided to stick with it. So I heard a lot. Not to mention the soferet who passed through and other progressive Orthodox Jews. But a soferet... that's progress.

no - there have always been rulings for those who wish to be stringent. what is wrong is to expect everyone to keep the same standard. i refer you to r. moshe feinstein's position on "cholov yisroel", for a start.

I don't just mean rulings for people who are stringent. What about rulings for people who can't find a home in the general rulings?

for those that require that, yes. for others, they will not require it.

So then you're not just thinking in terms of Orthodoxy. You're thinking in terms of Catholic Israel (yes, I love that term.)

yes i would. syncretism is the "short-circuit" of this principle.

You would avoid syncretism or you would consider it a synonym?

i was certainly no wiser at the end about what psychohalachah actually was.

Yes, it's not linear. A while ago I took the time to trace the thread and see what I could actually learn about psychohalachah from that interview. This is what I came up with.

Psychohalachah must have roots in the past, and also a sense of what's going to be the way the Shechinah would like to relate with the next generation.

Psychohalachah is making changes, not adaptations, but adaptations are not wrong.

Psychohalachah only happens within the consensus of the pious, and this consensus depends on the community, shifts with the community.

The kavannah underneath is important to psychohalachah.






Identify stakeholders and foreseeable consequences in a psychohalachic decision.

Try to find and know what the roots were in Jewish practice and work from that.

Is it conducive to avodat hashem? Will it strengthen or weaken the Shekhinah?

How's the kavannah? What's the kavannah?

Is it within the consensus of the pious for the given community?

Is it something rooted in the past, that's going to help give the next generation room to grow as well?

But there are other things I've picked up as well, like that today each individual is ultimately their own posek. And what it seems like, is that kavannah should be a guide for making change. For instance, the change might be a way to recapture kavannah that has been lost due to the passing of time, like eco-kashrut. But psychohalachah also addresses the fact that not everyone is the same. So it looks to recognize that each person has different needs from the halachic system at different times in their lives and address it to each person individually, and be open about that process.

Change vs. adaption refers to working within the system or being willing to go outside of the system. Adaptation is like for example seeing electricity as water. A more psychohalachic decision would be something like saying, (and this is actually an issue on which there is a whole book of varying opinion from different renewal leaders) "there is a great connection and kavannah between Rosh Hashanah and the blowing of the shofar, so even though it falls on Shabbat we will blow the shofar." or, also psychohalachic, to say, "there is a great importance to the peace of the shabbos and the presence of the shofar would disrupt kavannah" or, "as a shul that only observes one day of Rosh Hashanah, even though it falls on Shabbos, we will blow the shofar, because there is such a connection between the two and we would feel lacking to leave it out", or "in lieu of blowing the shofar, the congregation as a whole will make the notes vocally, because it would disrupt kavannah to have the shofar blown, but it would also be sorely missed if we did not have something in its place."

Or, also psychohalachic, "we will play instruments during services in shul because it enhances our kavannah." or "we will encourage people to drive to shul so that they can join together with us and help to increase the strength of the Godfield where we gather." or "I cannot connect to the traditional prayers when I pray alone, but when I meditate I feel close to God, so I will meditate."

i really hope you're right. i'm not convinced elat hayyim is the new yavneh, but perhaps the new yavneh doesn't have to be in one place - certainly not yeshivat ha-kotel, mercaz ha-rav, 770 parkway or williamsburg.

Elat Chayyim is actually not affiliated with Jewish Renewal. It was founded by members of B'nai Or and features a good number of Renewal teachers, but is not affiliated with Renewal. It is actually merging now with the Isabella Freedman Retreat Center.

For the most part, Jewish Renewal doesn't have central locations. Like the seminary, it doesn't exist in a place. The classes are generally correspondence classes that take place over conference calls.

My general understanding of all of the Renewal stuff that is happening now is taken from something else that Zalman has said. He's stated that Renewal is doing the R&D, and with R&D there are of course going to be some successes and some failures, if it's good R&D. So I don't think that the current landscape of Jewish Renewal can tell what will be a few generations from now.

I also don't think Jewish Renewal is the only organization doing the right type of work. I went to an amazing post-denominational gathering over Sukkot. There was a triangle mechitzah and people from all corners of the Jewish world came (not spatially.) It was very Carlebachy I think, but I'm not sure because I've never been to a Carlebach service. But davening went on for hours, and then once we got to the table we sang late into the night. But there was also a lot of dancing in shul. People getting up and dancing in circles, or in pairs, or solo. And one song could go on forever. And there were different people who taught when we weren't davenen. I also know that on the west coast there's another, in some ways similar organization called Jewlicious. And I happen to feel that a lot of this getting beyond the denominational structure is generational. So I really don't feel there is one central location, or that there is going to be, for change. Especially because of things like the internet. It's impossible to keep something so bottled up.

Dauer

[ThePennyDrops]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

and that is precisely my point. although there may be conservative and reform sephardis (i myself grew up in UK reform) they are in my experience almost totally ignorant about anything that isn't basically ashkenazi, food, music, accents, customs, let alone theological and halakhic approaches. i'm not saying that the "progressive" movements are prejudiced (perish the thought) but frankly even the mainstream orthodox seem to see sephardim as a sort of weird bunch of aliens and as for the 'eidot mizrah - forget it. they haven't even heard the phrase - it's all "sephardis" to them. perhaps if the conservative and reform could actually get a cultural clue, as it were, it would be a valuable backchannel for interdenominational dialogue, as the sephardis are a hell of a lot less (at least in the UK) uptight about such things as uniformity, tzniut and kol isha. not to mention that the davening's less embarrassing, heh. ever seen british people try and do carlebach? *shiver*

Forgive me if I have interpreted you correctly, but from this it appears to me that you think that there is not much dialogue between Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews? If that is the case, I would have to assume you are speaking from personal experience, since I see Sephardi-Ashkenazi dialogue all the time and see both sides benefit from each others culture enormously.

[bananabrain]

the tanaim invented halachic reasoning, and we should have the same chutzpah, l'shem yichud kudsheh brich hu u'shechinteh.

ok, i understand what you're saying and i sympathise, but with the greatest of respect, that's exactly what the german reformers and orthodox secessionists thought they were doing - and look at the results!

I don't think it's fair for us, outside of the situation, to point fingers and say it was all done the wrong way, just as I don't think we can understand the mentality that drove some of the people within the concentration camps.

if we don't, how can we prevent the same mistakes being made yet again? we have to focus on the effects, but we have to focus on the causes too.

So are you saying that if a group of Jews integrates something into Judaism with the wrong motivations, that regardless how useful that information might be, we should disregard it in favor of what's homegrown?

not entirely - it depends on whether there are some favourable outcomes that we'd be better off preserving that wouldn't be preserved if we ditched it totally; my hunch would be that these "somethings" would be things that we could replace internally. the work of berkovits and hartman, to say nothing of jonathan sacks, are full of concepts and structures that could replace much of what people with less knowledge of the full panoply of the traditional sources have purloined from elsewhere. i guess what i am talking about is halakhic inclusivism in terms of "everything is in it".

So is the non-commital agnostic the least idolatrous of all people?

er... no. i don't think it works like that. the least idolatrous of all people is s/he who knows what s/he knows as well as knowing what s/he doesn't know, leading to humility, compassion and awe of the Infinite - reishit hokhmah yirat HaShem.

What is the tikkun?

the tikkun is to search for tikkun, the "great jihad", for want of a jewish phrase (you see, it happens to me too) unless the one i am looking for is "tzedeq, tzedeq tirdof".

do you think that means we have to do away with what has developed out of it? Can't we get something new out of something old?

i don't see why we can't as long as we acknowledge its shortcomings and its preconceptions, so we know what we're dealing with, rather than dealing with it uncritically.

I have actually had firsthand experience with those caught up in the struggle. At Elat Chayyim, the rabbi-in-residence almost quit before getting O semicha, but he stuck it through. Now he is not Orthodox.

i guess what i mean is that this is what makes it based on trust. i have to trust that my teachers are engaged in the struggle on my behalf as well as being engaged in it myself. if one of my major orthodox teachers had to abandon Torah me'Sinai, i would struggle with that, just as i suppose happened with a lot of people over the louis jacobs affair.

I don't just mean rulings for people who are stringent. What about rulings for people who can't find a home in the general rulings?

this is exactly what i mean - the only "over and above" rulings these days are on the stringent side, not those which allow leniency for one reason or another. there aren't enough communal takkanot these days. this is probably where i am at my most radical, incidentally - or at any rate the closest to conservative or masorti positions. just so you know, i could give you examples of personal rulings from extremely frum rabbis (mostly sephardis although if you look carefully there are plenty of ashkies doing it on the quiet) which can permit the generally forbidden for one reason or other, such as, for example, husband and wife holding hands during labour, which would normally be considered a breach of taharat hamishpachah. the problem is that we mostly don't know how and who to ask (in a seder-night styley) - let alone when to ask, as opposed to taking responsibility for "self-paskening", which is for me one of the important things orthodoxy can learn from non-orthodoxy - it's not something that is actually a modern thing; back in the day we had the confidence to make these decisions for ourselves. of course, the implications for the presently buoyant market in halakha-wallopers would be dire...

Psychohalachah is making changes, not adaptations, but adaptations are not wrong.

this is the only bit i would disagree with - i personally would stick to adaptations rather than changes in order not to sever the 'past-rootedness' - other than that, i don't see what's so "psycho" about it compared to a vision of what halakha can aspire to be. other than that, it seems quite an elegant and succinct concept. i'd just ditch the name.

"there is a great connection and kavannah between Rosh Hashanah and the blowing of the shofar, so even though it falls on Shabbat we will blow the shofar."

that's not a good enough reason for me (first time i've been in the "consensus of the pious"!) - it needs to be connected to a valid and accepted halakhic principle, the same way i saw a teshuvah of r. ovadia yosef of all people permitting bike-riding on Shabbat despite the risk of breaking the chain and then repairing it - what he says is "unlike the ashkenazim, we're going to trust you to know you're not allowed to repair it" - thus he's removing a humra, not changing a halakha.

"in lieu of blowing the shofar, the congregation as a whole will make the notes vocally"

this sounds a bit woo-woo to me, but i see what you're trying to do; i'd have to understand the thinking better.

He's stated that Renewal is doing the R&D, and with R&D there are of course going to be some successes and some failures, if it's good R&D. So I don't think that the current landscape of Jewish Renewal can tell what will be a few generations from now.

oo, i totally dig that as an idea. think of renewal as the xerox parc of judaism. in which case its success will be judged on its shlichut to *all* the denominations, rather like chabad, if you don't mind me saying so. there's a controversial model for you.

It was very Carlebachy I think, but I'm not sure because I've never been to a Carlebach service. But davening went on for hours, and then once we got to the table we sang late into the night. But there was also a lot of dancing in shul. People getting up and dancing in circles, or in pairs, or solo. And one song could go on forever.

oh yeah, that's carlebachy all right - but personally, that drives me nuts, particularly with awkward white-person dancing and what is so charmingly described by eric cartman as "a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap". consensus of the pious, my bum. what is needed is for this stuff to be cooler - not so 60s. personally, i think what has been really lost is the authentic folk culture - traditional songs, language and dancing. but then again i'm addressing that by bringing the songs to a modern audience so they can incorporate them into their jewish lives and practice again. i mean - how many pizmonim, kantigas, shbahoth and ballads do you know, eh?

Originally Posted by ThePennyDrops

it appears to me that you think that there is not much dialogue between Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews?

i mean it's a bit one-sided. in my experience minorities tend to know all about the majority culture. in the uk ashkenazis don't go to sephardi minyanim, or know any of the traditions, tunes or language. the half-sephardim by marriage tend to be taken over by the majority culture and even to 100% sephardim like myself, when brought up outside the community, it can feel completely like a different world. my wife's as ashky as you like (irish/russian/hungarian, coo-ur gosh) and she's had a real baptism of fire, if that's the phrase (or maybe it's baptism of harif). it kind of leads me to conclude that what we need is probably some serious education in "cultural literacy". i also think that the seriously flawed idea of a "zionist melting pot" has really damaged the cultural heritage of what was derided as "ghetto culture", with the result that, among other things, ladino is now an endangered language.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[ThePennyDrops]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i mean it's a bit one-sided. in my experience minorities tend to know all about the majority culture. in the uk ashkenazis don't go to sephardi minyanim, or know any of the traditions, tunes or language. the half-sephardim by marriage tend to be taken over by the majority culture and even to 100% sephardim like myself, when brought up outside the community, it can feel completely like a different world. my wife's as ashky as you like (irish/russian/hungarian, coo-ur gosh) and she's had a real baptism of fire, if that's the phrase (or maybe it's baptism of harif). it kind of leads me to conclude that what we need is probably some serious education in "cultural literacy". i also think that the seriously flawed idea of a "zionist melting pot" has really damaged the cultural heritage of what was derided as "ghetto culture", with the result that, among other things, ladino is now an endangered language.

b'shalom

bananabrain

But isn't that always the way, minority cultures will know about majority culture since it is what they are more likely to be exposed to. That idea is applicable to any situation. My boyfriend knew all about Christmas and Easter but I knew nothing about Passover and Chanukah until I met him. Smilarly, if we went to Israel, we would be in the minority with our customs.

[dauer]

ok, i understand what you're saying and i sympathise, but with the greatest of respect, that's exactly what the german reformers and orthodox secessionists thought they were doing - and look at the results!

Yes, but psychohalachah says we have to consider the way the shechinah would like to relate to the next generation. It is also flexible. Just because one group of Jews applies psychohalachah in one way does not mean that anybody else has to do the same. Also, the intention of psychohalachah is specifically to enhance practice. I just re-read that book on rosh hashanah and shabbos and came across this Zalman quote from his book Paradigm Shift: "Shabbos is wonderful stuff. It's what everybody's looking for. Give it the benefit of the doubt. Do it and see what works. Now if it works, great. If it doesn't work, what adjustments do you have to make so it will work better? That's what I mean by the psycho-halachic process."

. the work of berkovits and hartman, to say nothing of jonathan sacks, are full of concepts and structures that could replace much of what people with less knowledge of the full panoply of the traditional sources have purloined from elsewhere.

I'm not familiar with the above, but I would imagine they are just as externally influenced as Rambam. Well, maybe not that externally influenced, but they don't live in a closed world. Certainly they are just as contaminated as the haskalah.

this is the only bit i would disagree with - i personally would stick to adaptations rather than changes in order not to sever the 'past-rootedness' - other than that, i don't see what's so "psycho" about it compared to a vision of what halakha can aspire to be. other than that, it seems quite an elegant and succinct concept. i'd just ditch the name.

The changes tend to be rooted in the past somehow, for example in pre-rabbinic Judaism or the spirit of a ruling. Its intent is generally to try and find the original intentionality of an act and use that to revitalize it in the present, like having a person make their own vegeterian tefillin. Hands-on is very psycho-halachic even though there is nothing kosher about veggie tefillin. The "psycho" in psychohalachah is for psychological. The reason this name was given is because while traditional halachah is not open about the psychological element and tends to see a good p'sak as being free of subjectivity, psychohalachah not only acknowledges the subjective element, but raises it to an equal level of importance as all of the other issues.

This is also not a last resort. It's not, "Stick to halachah until it becomes difficult to deal with." Psychohalachah is a new, dare I say post-rabbinic, paradigm for dealing with the same issues. However, all good psychohalachah is concious of the halachah. In fact in the book I have on Rosh Hashanah and Shabbos not only are various passages from Tanach, mishnah, gemara, and the codes referenced, they are included in the back of the book for further study in both Hebrew/Aramaic and English. But in addition to being aware of the halachah, a psycho-halachist is also aware of the political factors that may have effected the halachah, the differences between the way Torah vs Tanach vs mishna vs gemara vs codes vs kabbalah and hasidism understand the issue which gives a much larger canvas to paint on. Zalman said something about how up until now everyone was playing chess on a regular chess board, but Renewal has added a new dimension, or something similar to that. But he may have also been talking about Integral Judaism.

Integral Judaism is Judaism combined with the work primarily of Ken Wilber. David Ingber, that rabbi-in-residence, was big on Wilber and had said to himself that he was the Aristotle of this generation, and when he saw Reb Zalman once he asked him about Wilber and Reb Zalman said the same thing. If you go to Bayit Chadash in Israel, Mordechai Gafni's place, everyone there learns Integral Judaism. And now EC is offering two or three courses over the summer in Integral Judaism. I'm not as keen on Integral Judaism.

that's not a good enough reason for me (first time i've been in the "consensus of the pious"!) - it needs to be connected to a valid and accepted halakhic principle, the same way i saw a teshuvah of r. ovadia yosef of all people permitting bike-riding on Shabbat despite the risk of breaking the chain and then repairing it - what he says is "unlike the ashkenazim, we're going to trust you to know you're not allowed to repair it" - thus he's removing a humra, not changing a halakha.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not psychohalachah. And particularly for people who don't believe in Torah m'sinai (and even more so for those who believe we are constantly open to new revelation) sticking strictly to the halachic system instead of stretching beyond it doesn't make a lot of sense.

this sounds a bit woo-woo to me, but i see what you're trying to do; i'd have to understand the thinking better.

It's the core of all psychohalachah. There's an absence in not blowing the shofar on Shabbat. There's also a discomfort in blowing the shofar on Shabbat. So what did this group do? In this case consensus of the pious meant they couldn't blow the shofar without upsetting people in the community. So they filled the absence with something permissible by halachah.

And while I'm on that, one of the other things about psychohalachah that Reb Zalman has mentioned is that there are certain things that shouldn't be changed, because it would cause problems for klal yisrael. So writing a get, patrilineal descent, things like this that could become an issue he suggests should not be changed, although some practices that fall under this category, it could make sense to add things to them without changing the underlying practice.

oo, i totally dig that as an idea. think of renewal as the xerox parc of judaism. in which case its success will be judged on its shlichut to *all* the denominations, rather like chabad, if you don't mind me saying so. there's a controversial model for you.

Something like that. The avant garde has to influence the mainstream to the point that what once was avant garde is now regarded as mainstream. There have been some influences. Renewal was accepting of gays from the start. It also is because of renewal that there are now many styles of talitot. There's also the spread of innovative ritual like those hosted at this site:

http://www.ritualwell.org/

Also, it is probably a Renewal influence that has more liberal Jews going to the mikvah. There's even a liberal mikvah in my area. Also, some of the interest in hasidut and kabbalah pre-kabbalah centre is probably due to Renewal influence. And also the spread of meditation. Actually, for a while Renewal had a huge influence on Reconstructionism because there were a good few Renewal Jews working at the Recon Seminary.


Dauer

[dauer]

oops. Matrilineal descent.

[bananabrain]

but psychohalachah says we have to consider the way the shechinah would like to relate to the next generation. It is also flexible. Just because one group of Jews applies psychohalachah in one way does not mean that anybody else has to do the same. Also, the intention of psychohalachah is specifically to enhance practice.

well, all of these things should be done by halakhah tout court. OK, maybe in practice in the mainstream they don't a lot of the time, but i still can't see how the distinction of "psychohalachah" is required.

"Shabbos is wonderful stuff. It's what everybody's looking for. Give it the benefit of the doubt. Do it and see what works. Now if it works, great. If it doesn't work, what adjustments do you have to make so it will work better? That's what I mean by the psycho-halachic process."

this makes it sound like a formalised version of what people do anyway. in other words, nobody's going to make me not turn lights on and off, so it's really up to me to find meaning in it. but, to my way of thinking, this is a necessarily integral element of judaism for those of us from non-frum backgrounds, but i would disagree that this is not taken account of by the halakhah. where i might agree with you is that it isn't given any input by certain parts of orthodoxy and, in particular, the kiruv end of things like aish ha-torah and ohr sameach. the fact is that that emperor has no clothes, but that doesn't stop them maintaining it. so it sounds like "psychohalachah" is that iterative process people go through when trying to become more observant and getting judaism working for them, as opposed to something that people who are, as it were, "frum from birth" do. i can see the validity in it, but the use of the word is almost setting it up in opposition to regular halakhah, "reaching the parts that halakhah doesn't reach", if you like.

I would imagine they are just as externally influenced as Rambam. Well, maybe not that externally influenced, but they don't live in a closed world. Certainly they are just as contaminated as the haskalah.

i don't think i'm explaining this as well as i should be. what i mean is not that external influence is bad - in any case, it's unavoidable either actively or passively to some degree - but that it needs to be encountered jewishly, using jewish categories of thought. it is those categories, philosophically speaking, that i would consider to be more or less fixed; only the "consensus of the pious" can extend them. in other words, only hillel can establish a prosbul and *make it a jewish thing*. it is not a licence for every tuvia, david and hertzberg to make up their own halakhic constructions. as in all systems, there has to be some quality control at the implementation phase. obviously, in R&D this needs to be far less prescriptive, but as r. zalman obviously realises, if you're going to implement something it needs to function as intended - hence his position on the get.

Its intent is generally to try and find the original intentionality of an act and use that to revitalize it in the present, like having a person make their own vegetarian tefillin.

ok, i get what you mean, but i simply don't buy that we can know this intentionality to such a degree. i showed the discussion to a friend of mine who is both extremely open-minded and studying for orthodox semichah and he said it's not about technology - the fact is that we know that we fulfil this mitzvah by means of these things we call tefillin and you simply can't know the intentionality to a sufficient degree. in other words, post-hoc rationalisation does not constitute authority to innovate.

Hands-on is very psycho-halachic even though there is nothing kosher about veggie tefillin. The "psycho" in psychohalachah is for psychological.

what you seem to be saying is that the psychological comfort to be gained from a practice is sometimes more important than doing it correctly! it's the same with this idea that you can print out a mezuzah - there's nothing kosher about that either. and i frankly don't buy the technology argument. the fact is that you can sample the sound of a musical instrument as much as you like, but it's still not the same as using a real instrument, even though it might arguably be better reproduced.

The reason this name was given is because while traditional halachah is not open about the psychological element

perhaps this is because it sees what happens if this idea of the psychological element is allowed to get such a veto! i mean, what is kabbalistic kavvanah if not a strong psychological framework underpinning the performance of mitzvot?

tends to see a good p'sak as being free of subjectivity

i don't agree with this. if one understands the applicability of the p'sak, then one ought to understand its jurisdiction. it's like that famous story about r. moshe feinstein and the milk.

i'll look up "integral judaism", but frankly i think that aristotle, in his own way, had almost as much unwarranted influence as the haskalah. i mean, look at yehuda ha-levi saying "G!D forbid that there should be anything in the Torah that contradicts reason" - to my
mind, that's almost idolatry.

mordechai gafni is not approved of in my circles and, having seen him teach, i can see why.

But it's not psychohalachah.

what he seemed to be saying when i read it was that he was understanding the intentionality sufficiently well to include it in his reasoning. if it's not p-h, it seems pretty close to it to me.

for people who don't believe in Torah m'sinai (and even more so for those who believe we are constantly open to new revelation) sticking strictly to the halachic system instead of stretching beyond it doesn't make a lot of sense.

frankly, this is what makes it a problem for me - if you don't believe in Torah me-Sinai, then how on earth is this to be accepted by the "community of the pious"? and, moreover, when something so fundamental is in question, how am i supposed to accept the validity of this "new revelation"? it sounds like the arguments of the early church. surely, what proves judaism works is its ability to change while still sticking strictly to the halakhic system?

The avant garde has to influence the mainstream to the point that what once was avant garde is now regarded as mainstream. There have been some influences.

the best model i can suggest for understanding this is that of the futurists watts & wacker's "devox", as described in their book, "the deviant's advantage". as i understand it, something from the fringe then migrates towards towards the mainstream, but loses much of its edge in the process. you should take a look at this book.

you know, on the whole i think renewal is a pretty good thing. it's just a shame that it seems to require people to feel they have to go on outside the Torah me-Sinai enclosure.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[pohaikawahine]

my goodness gentlemen .... this is the best 'kukakuka' (hawaiian for a dialogue) I've seen on judaism and I have learned much from reading it .... mahalo nui .... I always wanted to ask or at least try to determine which perspectives both of you came from and this has opened a few doors (not wide, but small cracks) which I love .... our world is a better place for the two of you that share so much on this forum .... my deepest appreciation and aloha .... poh

[dauer]

i can see the validity in it, but the use of the word is almost setting it up in opposition to regular halakhah, "reaching the parts that halakhah doesn't reach", if you like.

I would say that it is clearly in some sort of opposition to regular halachah, as it comes from a movement that sees itself as the next turn of the Jewish wheel. That's why it's called Aleph. That's why it was called B'nai Or. That's why there is an Aquarian Minyan. That's why there is a book called Paradigm Shift. That's why there's a book called "Renewal Is Judaism NOW" (a play on the Chabad slogan.)

But I don't think you're quite getting the idea of the type of adjustments that are made. It's not talking about making changes in practice so that the practice is easier. It's talking about making radical change so that practice generates more kavannah. It's one thing to buy a mezuzah from a sofer. It's another thing to make your own mezuzah, on some other type of material that chazal would not approve of, and post that up on your door. That is psychohalachah.

it is those categories, philosophically speaking, that i would consider to be more or less fixed; only the "consensus of the pious" can extend them.

From where I am coming from, when a community forms, the consensus of the pious falls within that community and not without. To a lesser degree it falls without, and only to the degree that it tries to integrate itself into the mainstream

Further, I would ask, what is a Jewish category of thought? This just goes back to the Orthodox idea about dead men with long beards being the best people to listen to. The innovators of kabbalah (I'm not talking about the legendary authors) did not limit themselves to what was normative thinking within Judaism. This is where the R&D comes in. And it does take a few generations to tell which R&D has proven successful, as I stated earlier.

ok, i get what you mean, but i simply don't buy that we can know this intentionality to such a degree.

And if we can't know 100%, so what? On what authority were these traditions originally established? If you say it is Divine, I say the Divine still speaks to us. We can open up to it as a part of the process of binyan hamalchut, when we invest in the Godfield. And if there is no Divinity backing these traditions, then there is nothing preventing us from altering them.

what you seem to be saying is that the psychological comfort to be gained from a practice is sometimes more important than doing it correctly!

You seem to be saying that "traditional halachah" is the "correct way." I disagree. What makes traditional halachah any more correct than anything else? This is why we are on near opposite ends of the Jewish spectrum in most ways.

it's the same with this idea that you can print out a mezuzah - there's nothing kosher about that either.

No, it's not the same. Printing out a mezuzah is a matter of convenience. Making your own mezuzah renews the Jewish practice. It's not kosher according to the rabbinic system. So what? Hazal is long dead and they themselves were innovators. We should be innovating like they did.

the fact is that you can sample the sound of a musical instrument as much as you like, but it's still not the same as using a real instrument, even though it might arguably be better reproduced.

How is this a parallel for constructing one's own mezuzah? Maybe a parallel for buying a printed version, but when a person constructs their own mezuzah, with that intent, there is so much personal kavanah that goes into it, as opposed to buying from a sofer for whom it is a business.

perhaps this is because it sees what happens if this idea of the psychological element is allowed to get such a veto! i mean, what is kabbalistic kavvanah if not a strong psychological framework underpinning the performance of mitzvot?

I don't mean that there is no psychological element. All spiritual practice has a psychological element. I mean that it doesn't have equal standing on the table. According to the rabbinic system I can't use kavannah as an argument equal in weight to all others.

i'll look up "integral judaism", but frankly i think that aristotle, in his own way, had almost as much unwarranted influence as the haskalah. i mean, look at yehuda ha-levi saying "G!D forbid that there should be anything in the Torah that contradicts reason" - to my
mind, that's almost idolatry.

I agree with you about what HaLevi said. The thing about Integral Judaism is that it's a new OS. And it's backwards compatible. But Ken Wilber is also a hierarchical thinker which some people dislike. If you're looking for info on integral judaism, you might actually have better luck just looking for the original system it's built from. Wikipedia is a decent source.

The Ken Wilber page and the links from there are fairly good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

Like I said, I'm not very fond of it, but we'll see what happens.

what he seemed to be saying when i read it was that he was understanding the intentionality sufficiently well to include it in his reasoning. if it's not p-h, it seems pretty close to it to me.

Psychohalach includes intentionality in its reasoning, if that's what you were saying.

frankly, this is what makes it a problem for me - if you don't believe in Torah me-Sinai, then how on earth is this to be accepted by the "community of the pious"?

That rule applies within each community. That's why, in my book on Rosh Hashanah and Shabbos, some shuls blew the shofar and some didn't. Some had two days and some had one. Psychohalachah is a move away from black and white toward more of a spectrum. For example one could not say, "this is eco-kosher and this is not." One could say, "How eco-kosher is it to take the bus vs driving a car?" "How eco-kosher is it to eat free-range meat?" Etc. What they're doing in Crown Heights has nothing to do with the consensus of the pious, although it would be taken into account when considering issues of klal yisrael.

and, moreover, when something so fundamental is in question, how am i supposed to accept the validity of this "new revelation"?

Nobody's asking you to accept it. And for that matter, there are Jews sympathetic to Renewal who choose to try and work within the Orthodox world instead of outside of it. But here's where that issue of tikkun I brought up earlier becomes clear again. Because as much as you can't accept the validity of some "new revelation", liberal Jews of all stripes can't accept the validity of the old one, as it is traditionally understood.

it sounds like the arguments of the early church.

Well Jewish Renewal is Dionysian. I'll give you that.

surely, what proves judaism works is its ability to change while still sticking strictly to the halakhic system?

I disagree. The haskalah has happened. We're not going around in a circle. We're on a spiral. And each time we come back, we see where we are and where we were. We cannot unlearn what we have learned. I would focus on what's showing that Judaism does not work, instead of what's showing that it does. Right now there are too many Jews who just aren't Jewing it. How do we bring them back into the fold?

The esoteric is too esoteric. It has to be made more accessible. Those who have desire enough often head East where the esoteric is more accessible.

Hyper-rationalist reductionism is not uncommon.

Liberal Jews tend to see the halachic system as (a, what Orthodox Jews do, and (b, mostly irrelevant to modern life.

Is Judaism working? For a great many, no. But if it is working for you in the manner that you have described, good. I am happy for you.

you know, on the whole i think renewal is a pretty good thing. it's just a shame that it seems to require people to feel they have to go on outside the Torah me-Sinai enclosure.

I don't think it makes people feel they have to go outside of Torah me-sinai. It just so happens that many Orthodox Jews who leave Orthodoxy while still maintaining a need for the spiritual find what they want in Renewal. That is, I really don't think it's the attraction of Renewal wooing people away from Orthodoxy. Reb David, the rabbi-in-residence at EC, was going through a crisis of faith before he got involved with Renewal. Plus, there are Orthodox Jews who are into Renewal that are completely into m'sinai. For instance:

http://sixthirteen.org/blog/

And I believe Yitz and Blu Greenberg are into Renewal. There are also Renewal Jews with somewhat traditional beliefs. I have a tape on which Zalman suggests the authorship of the Zohar was by Shimeon bar Yochai via automatic writing by Moses de Leon. And David Cooper suggested that the cheruvim above the ark were like, I don't remember how he described it, but it sounded like something out of a science fiction movie. Beliefs are personal. And psychohalachah is by no means a standard in Renewal. It's just one line of R&D that may or may not prove to be viable. I'm investing in it, but others have no interest in it at all.

Shabbat Shalom.

Dauer

[dauer]

This is an additional post re: your claim that some people in Renewal are attempting to bring forth some type of new revelation. If it appears at the top of a page, please see my post on the previous page.

Firstly, I don't think comparing Renewal to the Early Church is a fair analogy mainly because of the analogy I gave earlier about the chess board. The Early Church was looking to fulfill biblical prophecies in order to validate itself. Renewal will never point to a verse in Isaiah as evidence that what it is doing has been foreseen. It's not playing that game anymore. Rather, Renewal will look at all of the information it can gather from whatever source might be available, including modern methods. It's also not anti-halachic. It's neo-halachic.

Throughout Jewish history there have been people who claimed to be able to tap into the Divine, both in secular history and in our collective myths. Adam, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, the prophets, Hazal, the kabbalists. But each successive generation saw its level of revelation as somehow less than that of its predecessor, unless it was able to attribute its writing to an earlier figure. And then we come to us, in our day, post-haskalah. It would take a massive shift in thinking for us to open up to the idea that we are just as near and open to that Source as our ancestors were. It's one thing to say nes gadol hayah sham. It's another to point at ourselves and say ...v'poh v'akhshav. It's just not rational.

So how do those in Renewal who hold to this belief understand the introduction of this information? Do they see it as a new revelation in the grandiose sense of the word? There are two answers I can think of to that.

1. No. We have always been able to do this, but our long-held patriarchal worldview often placed limits on who we allowed ourselves to believe had access.

2. No. It's part of the ongoing process of Godwrestling. In order for a flag to wave in the wind, there must be wind and there must be a flag. They are part of the same process. If there was no flag, how could we define the wind? If there was no wind, what would keep the flag waving? As we have grown up our views of God have changed. For example, we can call God the Melech Malchay HaMlachim, the King of King of Kings, but we can no longer relate to this partzuf (I am using the word more freely than you would) as our ancestors who lived in the time of the King of Kings could. As partners with God in the process that is called Godwrestling, our changing relationship changes God in a subtle way. God has grown up from back when He was such a vengeful, jealous Dude. So that Jewish Renewal sometimes relates in a different way to God than Orthodoxy relates to God concerning halachah is not something so radical, especially if we look and see that in pre-monotheistic Judaism, and throughout the Tanach, the idea of what was m'sinai and what the mitzvot are and whom they are for is not always so clear, and certainly much of the system we have today is absent in the Tanach. Rabbinic Judaism was just as radical when it introduced the halachic system.

Either of these answers could work, or some variation or combination or permutation or calibration of the two. And for me, as someone at least somewhat agnostic, I tend to feel that this is in part just a redefinition of terms. But I also think that by redefining terms we are reshaping our worldview in brave new ways.

I also thought, since you and I are not the only people watching this thread (Hi Poh!), that I would include this link to a brief pbs video clip about Jewish Renewal.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande.../feature.html#

And I wanted to give this link as an example of how far some people in Jewish Renewal will go in following through with something that cannot be proven conclusively, if only to demonstrate how far some people in Jewish Renewal will go in following through with something that cannot be proven conclusively. I think you also have to understand that for a Jew who accepts this particular paradigm, what they are doing is not some sort of bland reconstructionism. This is right hemisphere activity, heavily intuitive work, tapping into the divine flow.

http://www.kohenet.org/

dauer

[bananabrain]

I would say that it is clearly in some sort of opposition to regular halakhah

but why does it have to *oppose* halakhah? that's what i don't get. why can't it harmonise?

as it comes from a movement that sees itself as the next turn of the Jewish wheel. That's why it's called Aleph. That's why it was called B'nai Or. That's why there is an Aquarian Minyan. That's why there is a book called Paradigm Shift. That's why there's a book called "Renewal Is Judaism NOW" (a play on the Chabad slogan.)

ok, but christianity, *also* saw/sees itself as such. so did/does islam. so did shabbetai tzvi and the people who think the lubavitcher rebbe was the moshiach. that's not an argument. a catchy name is all very well, but surely you are supposed to be connvincing me that this is a good thing for judaism. all you're showing me from this is how it can go horribly wrong.

It's not talking about making changes in practice so that the practice is easier. It's talking about making radical change so that practice generates more kavannah.

well, i'm sure hieros gamos generates a bunch of kavannah. doesn't make it a) a good idea or b) jewish. that's my question again - what locates this in jewish continuity if the halakhic process is not respected?

It's one thing to buy a mezuzah from a sofer. It's another thing to make your own mezuzah, on some other type of material that chazal would not approve of, and post that up on your door. That is psychohalakhah.

i'm sorry, it's also the same as the argument that something is right because "it feels right" or "it makes me feel good". judaism must also retain some element of "it's right because it's congruent with and supports the system". that doesn't get a casting vote, but it can't be ditched.

From where I am coming from, when a community forms, the consensus of the pious falls within that community and not without. To a lesser degree it falls without, and only to the degree that it tries to integrate itself into the mainstream

i thought this was about klal yisrael. that must also mean, to some extent, the pious of *all* communities. judaism is supposed to be at least to some extent interoperable, so that wherever i go in the world i know there's some element of shaharit, minhah, ma'ariv, shabbat, chagim, kashrut, all of that. it's got to be both backwardly and forwardly compatible.

Further, I would ask, what is a Jewish category of thought?

i think it has to be backed up by a principle grounded in Torah.

This just goes back to the Orthodox idea about dead men with long beards being the best people to listen to.

that's just the practice. what i am saying is that it's not about ditching the DMWLB, but about connecting with them and making them part of your continuum. what you seem to be saying (and correct me if i'm wrong) is that they're old hat and not relevant any more, particularly compared to a shiny new interfaith couple in a rainbow tallit going "lai la lai" in a drumming circle. and, excuse me if i'm being all british about this, it all seems terribly relevant to western middle-class white baby boomers, but that too is parochial to me. the 60s are over. how is this going to help them in israel? in germany? in russia? in hong kong? i get terribly upset at how artscroll is taking over the world but frankly it seems to me that being a big hippy instead isn't the only answer there is. arthur waskow, he may go down terribly well in the states but over here he just gets called "arthur wacko" (that's from having played guitar while he tried to get 1500 british people to dance around to a nigun - and limmud is as receptive an audience as you get to that approach over here.)

The innovators of kabbalah (I'm not talking about the legendary authors) did not limit themselves to what was normative thinking within Judaism.

umph. give me an example of something from the ar"i or the rema"k that isn't grounded in normative thinking and halakhah - just so i know what you mean. i'm not saying there aren't such things. i'm just trying to navigate the boundaries of the system.

And it does take a few generations to tell which R&D has proven successful, as I stated earlier.

i agree, but some of this stuff...

On what authority were these traditions originally established? If you say it is Divine, I say the Divine still speaks to us.

it's the chain of tradition as described in pirkei avot 1 - but we don't have that true semichah any more, just like we don't have the red heifer. the Divine may still speak to us, but the spiritual earplugs are a hell of a lot bigger.

We can open up to it as a part of the process of binyan hamalchut, when we invest in the Godfield.

but this is just what paul thought he was doing when he split off christianity from judaism!! if even chabad messianism can get this so wrong, what is to stop it going wrong yet again??

What makes traditional halakhah any more correct than anything else?

it's *halakhah*! how more jewishly authoritative can one get? that's like the bertrand russell "teapot orbiting jupiter" argument. why am i obliged to consider the competing claims to correctness of every psycho-halakhist? i mean, i can understand where people like r. zalman are coming from, but where does it end?

Quote: