Questions about Judaism

[dauer]

If this post appears at the top of a page, please see the previous page.

I thought of another example of psychohalachic process:

A bar mitzvah boy came to Reb Zalman at a time when he was the rabbi of a shul. The bar mitzvah boy had some questions about masturbation. Reb Zalman's answer as he retells it is this:

"Wait until Shabbos. And don't leave God out of it."

So I'm sure you can already see that his suggestion has its roots in Lurianic Kabbalah, even though the circle of the Ari would most certainly be offended by such a suggestion (and see cosmological consequences for following it, yes?) The kavanah for this act is set. It is a sacred act of sexuality. As such, there is a time and a place for it. And God is a part of it. This prepares the child for a healthy view of sexuality (imho) and also prepares him for serious consideration of taharat hamishpachah, regardless of what his final decision will be on that matter. It is also one more thing that makes Shabbos special, and for an adolescent probably a big thing.

If psychohalachic process was just about doing what one feels like, Zalman would have said, "Masturbation is a healthy expression of sexuality. There is nothing wrong with it. If it feels right, do it."

But that is not the case. So in that brief meeting he established what could be the roots for a lifelong sacred sexual practice (which will hopefully mature beyond masturbation as the child ages.)

You can also see in this case an example of psychohalachah moving beyond something that was seen to have come from a limited POV while still rooting itself in Judaism.

David Cooper suggested for contemplatives who find silent retreats appealing to use Shabbos in the same manner, going back and forth between sitting and walking meditation for the length of Shabbos, as well as eating meditation, in silence. Besides davenen. Such a practice really doesn't have to interfere with the bare bones of traditional shabbos observance, but it's another example of using psychohalachic process to take something that feels less relevant to the individual and make it more relevant.

Psychohalachic process according to one contributor in that book I told you about, is not a system waiting for implementation. It's a process that was given a name.

Oh, I found this article on the variety of opinions on halachah within Jewish Renewal that I thought you might find helpful:

http://www.shalomctr.org/node/166

I also thought it might be helpful to present you with a few people's definitions of Jewish Renewal, so that you can see the conflict in finding a definition as well as get a better idea of what Jewish Renewal includes:

Arthur Waskow's definition: (who I'd like to take a moment to defend. He's not the most charismatic person, but he has a real heart, and he's very real. When the bombing happened in London, he was called upon to speak at EC where he was teaching that week, and he was brought to tears over what was going on. And on being real, he told some friends, with a smile on his face, that the closest he'd come to a mystical experience was reading a science fiction book. )

http://www.shalomctr.org/node/167

Velveteen Rabbi's (blogger, ritualcrafter, lay leader, student in the ALEPH rabbinic program) definition:

http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog...ng_renewa.html

Definition by a group headed by Marcia Prager (rabbi (this is a different link)):

http://velveteenrabbi.blogs.com/blog...ng_renewa.html

Michael Lerner's definition:

http://www.tikkun.org/rabbi_lerner/renewal/

The ALEPH FAQ:

http://www.aleph.org/faq.html

Dauer

[Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine]

Meow *the cute :kitty: quietly bumps the thread*

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine

[bananabrain]

Renewal is the result of a shift in paradigm. You seem to be stuck on the word "revelation."

umph. i'd say i'm stuck on what we mean by it. in a lot of ways, i could call what i believe in "continuous revelation" - i prefer to think of it as paradoxical, though - both fixed and changing at the same time.

There is no ultimate revelation being given at this time. Every moment is the ultimate revelation.

that's almost like a buber i-thou moment, which i don't think is really humanly attainable.

"Revelations in the coming paradigm will not be found in solitary desert wanderings or transcendental excursions, but in the more immediate surroundings of the Planetary Mind and the kinds of happenings it burps up now and then."

i don't disagree with this either.

The Revelation might remain the same, but the form which mortals give it changes. Tradition, therefore, is a marker we leave behind us in previous life cycles so that when we come back we have some notion of where we left off. We need to look at tradition, therefore, not as a relic of the past but as a catalyst for the future."

again, this is very close to where i would see myself. however, i see it as aspirational rather than immediate. almost augustinian ("oh, lord, give me a paradigm shift - but not yet!") but obviously more human.

But if a vegeterian is going to make their own mezuzah, and their own tefillin, why should they use animal parts?

because that's how they're made! i think rather than argue this again i'd say that it is better to think of it as a spectrum. the label "mezuzah" or "tefillin" could stretch further, quite possibly - but how far? obviously, you're not suggesting this, but you couldn't make tefillin out of, say, pigskin.

I find it offensive to suggest that it would be better to use animal parts for a vegetarian.

you see, that's where we differ - as to what constitutes the norm from which deviation must be justified. i am saying that the norm is, by default, a halakhic one. i think (and correct me if i'm wrong) that you're saying that since the haskalah, the norm is by default one of personal autonomy and therefore any form of halakhic observance is in effect "opting in". i guess that is the difference between a "traditional" (let's not call it orthodox) mindset and a "renewal" one - of course i might even concede that on the numbers and on the tests of workability and reasonableness, the renewal mindset is more convincing. however, i still feel that it was the haskalah that cast the first stone of deviation, if you like (even if it wasn't the *first*, really) - nonetheless it is for the deviation or mutation (in the potentially beneficial genetic sense, perhaps) to justify its action, i would say. so there we are.

There are some places where a community really can't innovate so much because klal yisrael is taken into consideration, but in other issue confer with your local chevra.

that's kind of why i feel able to daven in an egalitarian minyan, as long as my tallit is mostly over my head and my peripheral vision is not distracting me.

I have a Jewish Renewal sourcebook with all sorts of articles in it on different things, innovative things, and they're not all by rabbis. A good few are by lay people.

just so you know, i'm actually a management consultant specialising in innovation by profession and this too is a perfectly reasonable way to innovate in a sustainable fashion.... one might even call it mishnaic.

My challenge about the interpretive methods still stands. Where did they come from? How are they based in Torah?

you see, as far as i know the entire Oral Law that we have written down is reverse-engineered. they start with "this is what we do. now, how do we justify how we ended up doing it?" - therefore i'd say that interpretative methods are (in the absence of a document that says "r. so-and-so made it up" that overrules, say the baraita of r. ishmael) of the same ilk.

That's not what it says. The source never mentions Oral Torah or nistar. You have no proof that they are included, unless you are looking at later sources, which I don't accept as valid proof, nor would you if this was a secular subject in history.

but that's the point. it's not a secular subject and i am not a historian. i'm not continually presuming that i'm being lied to. by this logic, you cannot trust any oral tradition at all!

It has to do with allowing the possibility for someone to view Atzmus as being most greatly expressed within an individual, thus allowing for Elokism, which is more extreme than meshichism and somewhat proto-Christian.

er...ok. now i'm lost. i'll have to go and look this up separately.

Exactly. Yet it's Jewish.

with which i also agree. yet it's not always jewish enough. sometimes it is a bit tinok she-nishba or even, G!D forbid, ben sorer u-moreh, unless, since it's been round a good long time now, we're in zaken mamre territory. i suspect i might be able to live with the idea of principled dissent, though. after all, r. meir still learned Torah from r. elisha b. abuya and if he did that, then i can dam' well learn Torah from anyone jewish who can teach me. so there.

1. There was no procedure for how to get married. Nor does there really need to be. Current Noahide halachah suggests that they don't need procedure for marriage.

oh, come on. procedure is what distinguishes marriage from zenut.

2. Some laws were not recorded in the Torah, or not described fully.

which was precisely the reason for the Oral Law anyway!

3. The Torah was never actually meant to represent a complete system.

then what earthly good is it?

4. There was an oral component along with the Torah, which is not the Oral Torah.

by the same token, i can't prove that my father is my father. yet nobody who has studied both of us would be in any doubt!

5. The Oral Torah flawlessly represent the way things were dealt with all the way back to Moshe Rebeinu.

this is the bit i am probably least comfortable with. although it does seem to work more or less that well in most cases.

Whatever the answer is, it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

the thing is, i don't really see it as being cut and dry either, particularly given the events in the book of kings, ezra and other places in Na"Kh where it's made abundantly clear that the transmission of Torah has not really been all that straightforward - in which case all we can really do is trust that we've kept the right stuff. now, since what we've got has stayed the course, i'd kind of argue that it probably is.

because I just don't understand these laws and I can't accept the traditional concept of G!D as Mitzaveh anymore. What changes do I have to make to ritual dietary practice in order to make it more relevant and meaningful for me so that I can use it as a sacred way to connect to Hashem?"

*sigh* i get it. but why must we assume that it's the system that's at fault rather than our own understanding? and you must surely concede that if we do not have a G!D who can metzaveh, then we are in danger of making an idol of our own authority?

I don't accept the mitzvot as Truth, so I can see that it may be wrong to continue to kill animals

but then what is truth? to my mind, we are dethroning G!D from the traditional place and placing ourselves there instead. and that can only lead to nimrodism.

The only people I would say are working in the complete opposite direction are the ones trying to restore old world Judaism.

and those are the ones i think you and i both object to. i don't think you and i are on exactly the same team, but we are at least not entirely in competition.

There's a difference between rejecting Oral Torah's connection to Sinai and rejecting Oral Torah. You also have to remember that a lot of these same people also reject the connection between Torah and Sinai. But that doesn't stop them from studying and making use of either.

but it does always enable them to say whenever they come across something that is problematic, that "well, it's not Truth and i'm not tziva, so i'm going to ditch that bit".

Zalman was made a sheikh by a sufi order a long time ago.

interesting. and, of course, given the similarity between sufism and chasidut, not surprising.

I didn't realize the Rambam's son converted. There is a Jewish zikr I have done using the Shema.

all jewish prayers are zikr in their own way - once you see the repetitition spirals within the liturgy, you find yourself in the middle of liturgical, daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and sabbatical mantras.

How about this? If it's some type of universal truth, it can stay if it's so desired. But if it's some type of cultural baggage it gets rejected. Although it gets ignored sometimes, this is a standard that Reb Zalman suggested that I highly agree with.

works for me. but i don't accept history, archaeology, philology or indeed any academic discipline as universal truth.

So let's say all of a sudden a text appears with cosmology as unique as lurianic cosmology, in our day. What then?

gosh, i suppose we'd have to take it on its merits. the real problem of course is that people are so much more sceptical these days. or maybe that's a good thing, i dunno!

"Wait until Shabbos. And don't leave God out of it."

last time i had dinner with joel grishaver we discussed this, because i'd seen it in r. goldie's book "reclaiming judaism as a spiritual discipline". on one hand i think it's a great answer, but on the other it is usually thought that this sort of thing is by far the most susceptical to the idea of the spiritual short-circuit; and, of course, we must resist the idea that it's OK in itself as opposed to a "well, it'll do until the right thing is possible". but yes, i'd say it's certainly healthier than putting it "behind the bike sheds" - and i'd also point the kid at some appropriate tikkunim, such as r. nachman's "tikkun kelali", which is designed for this sort of thing. although, as you correctly say, the circle of the ar"i would not approve, the fact is that they had tikkunim for this (and for homosexuality) so it was hardly a problem they were unaware of.

It is also one more thing that makes Shabbos special, and for an adolescent probably a big thing.

although, blimey, i'd say it was an exceptional adolescent that could wait till shabbat to whack off. hehehe.

You can also see in this case an example of psychohalachah moving beyond something that was seen to have come from a limited POV while still rooting itself in Judaism.

very much so.

(who I'd like to take a moment to defend. He's not the most charismatic person, but he has a real heart, and he's very real.

oh, don't get me wrong, he seems like a sweet guy, but it is not usually the best idea to try and get 1500 british people to spontaneously get up and dance. it was kind of embarrassing, i was hiding behind my guitar. but i could see what he was trying to do. his heart's clearly in the right place.

Michael Lerner's definition:

ah, michael lerner. i was terribly cheeky to him when i met him. sensible enough but an awful windbag.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

umph. i'd say i'm stuck on what we mean by it. in a lot of ways, i could call what i believe in "continuous revelation" - i prefer to think of it as paradoxical, though - both fixed and changing at the same time.

Could you explain that?

again, this is very close to where i would see myself. however, i see it as aspirational rather than immediate. almost augustinian ("oh, lord, give me a paradigm shift - but not yet!") but obviously more human.

But according to that line of thinking, in future cycles we will be what was left behind.

because that's how they're made! i think rather than argue this again i'd say that it is better to think of it as a spectrum. the label "mezuzah" or "tefillin" could stretch further, quite possibly - but how far? obviously, you're not suggesting this, but you couldn't make tefillin out of, say, pigskin.

Techelet may have originally come from an unkosher animal. I can accept the idea of a spectrum, but not if one side of the spectrum is more correct than the other. If the practice of making a ritual item is guided by psychohalachic principles it will be done in a way that is both respectful and renewing to tradition.

i think (and correct me if i'm wrong) that you're saying that since the haskalah, the norm is by default one of personal autonomy and therefore any form of halakhic observance is in effect "opting in".

That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that the haskalah brough with it a new way of looking at and understanding the world around us, and this way of examining our surroundings compells us to view halachah differently. Although I'm sure there are others who say the above.

For what it's worth, I also see hasidism as being important here, because it was (initially) willing to pull away from halachah for the sake of intentionality.

just so you know, i'm actually a management consultant specialising in innovation by profession and this too is a perfectly reasonable way to innovate in a sustainable fashion.... one might even call it mishnaic.

I've read a couple pieces of Renewal lit and wondered if there was actually mishnaic intention in the creation, or gemaric intention. And there is most certainly plenty of midrash being created.

you see, as far as i know the entire Oral Law that we have written down is reverse-engineered. they start with "this is what we do. now, how do we justify how we ended up doing it?" - therefore i'd say that interpretative methods are (in the absence of a document that says "r. so-and-so made it up" that overrules, say the baraita of r. ishmael) of the same ilk.

I read something suggesting the methods used in mishna are very similar to those used by the Greeks for understanding their literature. I also have to ask, if what they were doing wasn't matching up with the document that they had, and they were forced to justify their actions, how can you connect Oral Torah with Sinai?

but that's the point. it's not a secular subject and i am not a historian. i'm not continually presuming that i'm being lied to.

It's not about being lied to. Lying sounds malicious. It's about understanding that there is a context in which oral traditions, myths, legends, etc. arise.

by this logic, you cannot trust any oral tradition at all!

Now you're catching on! Actually, I wouldn't say that we can't trust any oral tradition at all, just that we should hold them all equally suspect.

. sometimes it is a bit tinok she-nishba or even, G!D forbid, ben sorer u-moreh, unless, since it's been round a good long time now, we're in zaken mamre territory.

I disagree. That view can only be taken from an Orthodox viewpoint. What makes it Jewish enough is an issue for klal yisrael to decide, and as of right now the vote seems to be that it is definitely Jewish enough. And as someone with Reform Jewish family, I know that there are people who are happy as Reform Jews and wouldn't want anything different. If it's good enough for them, why should we question it?

oh, come on. procedure is what distinguishes marriage from zenut.

Maybe in the rabbinic system. If there's no limit on how many wives you can have, and you take a woman to bed with you and make her your wife, then she is your wife. That is all.

which was precisely the reason for the Oral Law anyway!

That statement assumes the existence of the Oral Law in the first place.

then what earthly good is it?

Because eventually it was made into a system. You don't need some man on a mountain for that. You just need a bunch of sages with a text that doesn't quite fit with their current way of life and a few tools of logic to get them by. Think about it. If there was no oral torah, the sages were truly great.

by the same token, i can't prove that my father is my father. yet nobody who has studied both of us would be in any doubt!

Unfortunately in this case there are people who have studied both and are pretty certain that the Oral Torah is not it. I'm not suggesting there's some different Oral Torah that got away, just that what went with the Torah was merely the oral element that goes along with all living bodies of literature.

this is the bit i am probably least comfortable with. although it does seem to work more or less that well in most cases.

You're least comfortable with that? Can you elaborate?

the thing is, i don't really see it as being cut and dry either, particularly given the events in the book of kings, ezra and other places in Na"Kh where it's made abundantly clear that the transmission of Torah has not really been all that straightforward - in which case all we can really do is trust that we've kept the right stuff. now, since what we've got has stayed the course, i'd kind of argue that it probably is.

Let me see if I can paraphrase: "Nach makes it pretty clear transmission wasn't perfect, but if what we've got now is functioning, then it's probably trustworthy as completely authentic and the most vital elements of this whole Jewish mishugas, with no filler."

but why must we assume that it's the system that's at fault rather than our own understanding?

Because we don't have reason to believe the system is perfect. If neither we, nor the system are perfect, then there is potential to improve both. But let's take your issue of our own understanding being at fault. I want to bring up one set of laws and one law and we'll take a look at this and see how our understanding might be at fault.

1. Kashrut. Why do we do it? What is the reason for it? What makes sense about this? Aren't there more productive dietery practices we could take on? Can you explain it or defend it without resorting to supernaturalism?

2. Amalek. Amalek is almost supernaturally evil. They are so sick that they must be destroyed completely, like my grandmother's dog, Kasha, which had schyzoprenia. Is our understanding at fault here or did we just have ancestors who could be just as merciless as everyone else's?

Now, I would affirm again and again that one of the things about Torah is we must study it again and again, and that much can come out of this practice (in part because we have to deal with the stuff that doesn't make sense) but that doesn't move me to say we should keep those practices that just aren't working for us, or that offend us, or that we should defame the Amalekites for the sake of honoring our own ancestors and here, also, we would be constructing an idol out of a god that just doesn't work in the modern context.

and you must surely concede that if we do not have a G!D who can metzaveh, then we are in danger of making an idol of our own authority?

We are always in danger of one idolatry or another. We're always trying to play a simple tune without breaking our necks, right? We want to strengthen the Shechinah, the Godfield, and we want to be in touch with that during the process. Like I said, it's not some sort of dry reconstructing that's being done. At least not ideally. If you're trying to understand what should be done, what do you do? You study about it. You meditate on it. You talk to God. You check your I Ching and your astrology chart. You practice automatic writing. You go on a guided visualization and meet with Eliyahu in Olam Haba to find out what's going to be best for your future. Whatever you have to do to get in touch with God.

but then what is truth? to my mind, we are dethroning G!D from the traditional place and placing ourselves there instead. and that can only lead to nimrodism.

Good question. I'll tell you. I don't know. For me, personally, I have a hard time thinking about anything objective, because everything I know of is tainted by my own subjective experience of the world, or by a communally overlapping subjective experience, even that communal experience of the whole of humanity. I'm not really concerned with what Truth is, if there is such a thing, because I don't think we can ever know that we've realized it.

but it does always enable them to say whenever they come across something that is problematic, that "well, it's not Truth and i'm not tziva, so i'm going to ditch that bit".

Doesn't work quite that way. But I think you realize by now that you're making a straw man.

interesting. and, of course, given the similarity between sufism and chasidut, not surprising.

Well, the rabbit hole goes a little further. Zalman also started a Sufi-Hasidic fellowship: the Chishti-Maimuniyya order of dervishes.

works for me. but i don't accept history, archaeology, philology or indeed any academic discipline as universal truth.

I was talking about syncretism.

gosh, i suppose we'd have to take it on its merits. the real problem of course is that people are so much more sceptical these days. or maybe that's a good thing, i dunno!

Exactly, so it probably wouldn't be accepted.

ah, michael lerner. i was terribly cheeky to him when i met him. sensible enough but an awful windbag.

I wouldn't say that he's always sensible. Tends to be a real rabble-rouser.

Dauer

[bananabrain]

could i explain "continuous revelation"? only in terms of paradox. it is the lack of movement in the core revelation that gives the movement in the outer interpretation the appearance of continuous revelation - like a point on the outer rim of a wheel, the point isn't moving on the wheel, but is in terms of the larger continuum. or, if you prefer, it's like free-will. if time and soul are as transparent to the Divine as the three spatial dimensions are to us, then past, future, good and evil are One. from that PoV, historical revelation is meaningless, because all times are one time and the revelation appears at every moment. yet, from a similar perspective, the revelation is fixed and unchanging. free-will, in this continuum, results in both good and evil at the same time because all choices are effectively made at once. therefore, G!D Knows at the same time the consequences of our actions before we have carried them out. this means from G!D's perspective, there's no such thing as free-will, at the same time as from our perspective, free-will is self-evident. does this make it any clearer?

But according to that line of thinking, in future cycles we will be what was left behind.

well, isn't that how the messianic age will look back at the pre-messianic age? i'd compare it far more to the idea of wishing *not* to be born at the time of the "birth pangs of the messiah".

Techelet may have originally come from an unkosher animal.

well, you might not be able to eat it, but you can certainly derive benefit from it, like a horse or a donkey. but i take your point.

I can accept the idea of a spectrum, but not if one side of the spectrum is more correct than the other.

again, i take your point, but let us not forget that where we put the middle of that spectrum (assuming that is the "sweet spot") determines what constitutes the "side". certainly i am not arguing for a PoV which says that things from right-of-centre are more likely to be correct. what that really means is that the centre isn't where we think it is. what we might disagree on is how far something can extend before it stops being jewish. chabad messianists and kahanists certainly stretch it on the right if you ask me.

If the practice of making a ritual item is guided by psychohalachic principles it will be done in a way that is both respectful and renewing to tradition.

ok, but this is not to be the unconditional surrender of the halakhah.

I'm saying that the haskalah brough with it a new way of looking at and understanding the world around us, and this way of examining our surroundings compels us to view halachah differently.

fair enough, but i don't think that this different view is merely "halakhah has to justify itself before the god of reason, intellect and progress" - the reverse should also be true given what the latter have been responsible for. it's an extension of judging a society by how it treats its minorities and nonconformists.

I also see hasidism as being important here, because it was (initially) willing to pull away from halachah for the sake of intentionality.

i dig the model, but we must also remember that it was particularly quick to turn into a cult of personality - i don't want to see posters up in the coming years saying "zalman melech hamoshiach" - not that you would countenance such a thing, i'm sure.

and wondered if there was actually mishnaic intention in the creation, or gemaric intention. And there is most certainly plenty of midrash being created.

i have no problem with there being mishnaic or gemaric intention - it's authority that causes the problems.

if what they were doing wasn't matching up with the document that they had, and they were forced to justify their actions, how can you connect Oral Torah with Sinai?

because what they were recording was the process itself. they knew it matched up and they knew how it matched up (at least in practice) so it was a matter of collecting the oral traditions ("amar rabbi ploni beshem rabbi ploni") which described that "how", collating and editing them and writing them down. i wasn't saying the two were already disconnected.

Actually, I wouldn't say that we can't trust any oral tradition at all, just that we should hold them all equally suspect.

yeah, this is where i really differ with academics. i cannot in conscience treat r. yehuda ha-nasi as as equally suspicious as the author of, say the "alphabet of ben sirah". for me, one is self-evidently more credible by virtue of the tradition having agreed it to be so. i give tradition a vote that academic scepticism denies to it - and, i believe, this approach is now far more credible nowadays thanks to the work of social anthropologists. in other words, rather than looking at a ritual and attempting to understand it according to some assumed ur-ritual of first principles, it is reasonable to start with the idea that the ritual is about what the people who believe in the ritual say it is about. otherwise, you're back to the "pork is unhygienic" argument.

That view can only be taken from an Orthodox viewpoint.

well, a halakhic (rather than orthodox) viewpoint requires the ability to relate to something through halakhic categories - it's a language issue, but no less important for all that.

And as someone with Reform Jewish family, I know that there are people who are happy as Reform Jews and wouldn't want anything different. If it's good enough for them, why should we question it?

my family are reform too and they don't want anything different. but they are more than happy to pass judgement on whether they think of something is jewish or not, except the judgement tends to be based explicitly on their personal perspective. however, this too is a view that, to quote you, "can only be taken from" a non-orthodox viewpoint. what is required is for both sides to relate to it in their own way.

If there's no limit on how many wives you can have, and you take a woman to bed with you and make her your wife, then she is your wife. That is all.

no it's not! it's extremely clear that such a thing is disapproved of.

If there was no oral torah, the sages were truly great.

even if there was, they were still great innovators and communicators for finding a new language to express eternal truths. and either way we can't really prove anything.

Unfortunately in this case there are people who have studied both and are pretty certain that the Oral Torah is not it.

well, there are also people who have studied both and are pretty certain it *is*. so that's not a winnable argument.

You're least comfortable with that? Can you elaborate?

i'm uncomfortable with the "flawlessly" bit, as well as the "the way"" bit and the "all the way back" bit. because we can't be certain of this stuff it seems to me a little bit silly to go on about how obvious all of it is. it's clearly not, which is why it requires belief.

"Nach makes it pretty clear transmission wasn't perfect, but if what we've got now is functioning, then it's probably trustworthy as completely authentic and the most vital elements of this whole Jewish mishugas, with no filler."

i think i could agree with this - although i don't know if i'd be happy saying there was absolutely no filler at all. i think we've learned plenty from other cultures, although i'd say that what we have learned is mostly ways of expressing things we find to be true. but as to what came first, i tend to think it's a bit chicken-and-egg.

Kashrut. Why do we do it? What is the reason for it? What makes sense about this? Aren't there more productive dietary practices we could take on? Can you explain it or defend it without resorting to supernaturalism?

but what's the problem with "resorting to supernaturalism"? i mean, i'm defending revelation here, which means i'm not obliged to consider supernatural explanations as inherently wrong or explain things in terms of categories from outside the system. but anyway, the best explanation i've ever heard is in mary douglas. it's about the idea of "kadosh" as separation. milk is "life" food and meat is "death" food - they are therefore to be separated. in terms of the precise animal systems, there are similar categories.

2. Amalek. Amalek is almost supernaturally evil. They are so sick that they must be destroyed completely, like my grandmother's dog, Kasha, which had schyzoprenia. Is our understanding at fault here or did we just have ancestors who could be just as merciless as everyone else's?

no, obviously our ancestors could be merciless, but they were also prone to short-circuit thinking - "kill the amalekite, rather than eliminate amalek", for example. amalek is useful as a paradigm for absolute evil in much the same way as nazism is for modern politicians. it's something that everyone can agree is 100% evil with no redeeming features, which is why it is significant that *applications* of amalek cannot be found.

we should defame the Amalekites for the sake of honoring our own ancestors

there's something quite ridiculously pc about this statement. after all, one reason we don't defame people is because we have to interact with them and they are part of our society. amalekites are by definition not part of civilised society, so this is perfectly ok. it is like saying that we shouldn't "defame" genocidal racism or paedophilia in case we meet any genocidal racists or paedophiles!

For me, personally, I have a hard time thinking about anything objective, because everything I know of is tainted by my own subjective experience of the world, or by a communally overlapping subjective experience, even that communal experience of the whole of humanity.

what *i* do is embrace my subjectivity and learn from it who i am and understand how i see the world as a result. but it is a mindful process - i am not trying to maintain the fiction of impartiality or objectivity; i'm trying to connect my subjectivity to the "G!D-field".

i would also say that syncretism is one thing you have to be particularly bloody careful of.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[dauer]

does this make it any clearer?

I still don't understand what makes it continuous revelation.

again, i take your point, but let us not forget that where we put the middle of that spectrum (assuming that is the "sweet spot") determines what constitutes the "side". certainly i am not arguing for a PoV which says that things from right-of-centre are more likely to be correct. what that really means is that the centre isn't where we think it is. what we might disagree on is how far something can extend before it stops being jewish. chabad messianists and kahanists certainly stretch it on the right if you ask me.

Maybe we're really talking about multiple points on multiple lines.

ok, but this is not to be the unconditional surrender of the halakhah.

As far as I'm concerned psychohalachic process is not the unconditional surrender of halachah. Do you see it as such?

fair enough, but i don't think that this different view is merely "halakhah has to justify itself before the god of reason, intellect and progress" - the reverse should also be true given what the latter have been responsible for. it's an extension of judging a society by how it treats its minorities and nonconformists.

So are you saying that the application of reason must be tempered by a pragmatic element which looks at the consequences of the decisions we make?

And I never called reason god. It's nothing but a tool waiting for an application.

i dig the model, but we must also remember that it was particularly quick to turn into a cult of personality - i don't want to see posters up in the coming years saying "zalman melech hamoshiach" - not that you would countenance such a thing, i'm sure.

It's not setup that way. Just as with everything else, when it comes to what it borrows from hasidism, Renewal keeps what is good and gets rid of the dross. That's why you don't have people in Jewish Renewal asserting that Jews are superior to gentiles. But more focused, when it comes to neo-rebbes and neo-rebbeing the only thing that is borrowed is the model (which in Jewish Renewal is limited to an encounter, be it in a group or one-on-one) of one individual being able to bring down wisdom and teachings from a higher Source.

It's like in a conversation, there is the talker and the listener. The way the listener listens effects the way the talker talks. Sometimes the talker becomes the listener and the listener becomes the talker. And when it's all over, the neo-rebbe goes back to being Fred Flintstonesteinmankahndergoldfleishmanstein.

Reb Zalman told a story about a time he went to visit Menachem Mendel Schneerson and was turned away. When he came back the next day Schneerson said to him, "The man you came to see was not available yesterday." And from this he learned the valuable lesson that being a rebbe or in the Renewal case a neo-rebbe is an act, like in a great drama, and when you're done playing your role you go back to who you normally are. Only in Jewish Renewal anyone who's into the whole neo-hasidic thing is going to be themselves much more openly than what might be done in hasidism.

Also, one time he took some college students to see Schneerson's father, and at one point one of the students asked, "So what's a rebbe good for anyway?" And so the answer came, "When you're looking for valuable gems, if you just pick a spot and start digging, you might find something. You might not. But if you go to a geologist they can help point out where to start digging. A rebbe is a geologist of the soul." So a neo-rebbe also is one to give suggestions for where might be good places to dig.

in other words, rather than looking at a ritual and attempting to understand it according to some assumed ur-ritual of first principles, it is reasonable to start with the idea that the ritual is about what the people who believe in the ritual say it is about.

But the problem is that the sages were not the first on the scene. If we're taking your route, shouldn't we be just as concerned with trying to figure out what the Sadducees believed the rituals were about? How does that saying go? The victors write the history books? Just because they say we can light candles before Shabbos doesn't mean that was originally the intention for Shabbos.

no it's not! it's extremely clear that such a thing is disapproved of.

Over time the system was modified to ween people off of having too many wives, but that doesn't mean that there was a particular set of rituals for marriage.

And let's just say that it does, that still doesn't mean that the rabbinic way is the correct way. And let's just say that it does mean that, it still wouldn't be saying anything about the rest of what the rabbis came up with.

well, there are also people who have studied both and are pretty certain it *is*. so that's not a winnable argument.

You are the one who made an analogy to people having studied both and always realizing that it is. I was simply refuting you.

because we can't be certain of this stuff it seems to me a little bit silly to go on about how obvious all of it is. it's clearly not, which is why it requires belief.

I'm glad you can admit that. There are some people who claim that faith is not necessary, because the divine origin of scripture is self-evident.

i think i could agree with this - although i don't know if i'd be happy saying there was absolutely no filler at all. i think we've learned plenty from other cultures, although i'd say that what we have learned is mostly ways of expressing things we find to be true. but as to what came first, i tend to think it's a bit chicken-and-egg.

I just have a hard time with that argument. Systems can work without being of divine origin.

but what's the problem with "resorting to supernaturalism"? i mean, i'm defending revelation here, which means i'm not obliged to consider supernatural explanations as inherently wrong or explain things in terms of categories from outside the system.

Because you're addressing me.

but anyway, the best explanation i've ever heard is in mary douglas. it's about the idea of "kadosh" as separation. milk is "life" food and meat is "death" food - they are therefore to be separated. in terms of the precise animal systems, there are similar categories.

Alright, so how does that enrich your practice of kashrut? And what about all of the other mitzvot of kashrut?

no, obviously our ancestors could be merciless, but they were also prone to short-circuit thinking - "kill the amalekite, rather than eliminate amalek", for example. amalek is useful as a paradigm for absolute evil in much the same way as nazism is for modern politicians. it's something that everyone can agree is 100% evil with no redeeming features, which is why it is significant that *applications* of amalek cannot be found.

But was Amalek actually evil or were our ancestors just trying to justify their actions? It's not like what they did was so extreme. What about what the Egyptians did?

amalekites are by definition not part of civilised society, so this is perfectly ok.

Only according to our one-sided accounts.

what *i* do is embrace my subjectivity and learn from it who i am and understand how i see the world as a result. but it is a mindful process - i am not trying to maintain the fiction of impartiality or objectivity; i'm trying to connect my subjectivity to the "G!D-field".

I do the same thing. I'm not afraid to dive in. I don't curl up my knees to my chest and huddle in the corner of my room, rocking back and forth hoping for some sense of Truth. I've no interest in Truth. Subjectivity is very real, and it's all that we have.

i would also say that syncretism is one thing you have to be particularly bloody careful of.

Well, I did just quote you that rule for application of syncretism.

Dauer

[bananabrain]

sorry i went quiet - have been very busy and this is a complicated topic.

I still don't understand what makes it continuous revelation.

it is not the texts that are continuously revealed, but the interpretation of the texts understood as an revelatory process, albeit with a lesser degree of authority and sacredness. i'm really trying to find a way of expressing this that we can both live with, which may also be a bit of a waste of time, although i'm not going to be stoning you any time soon.

So are you saying that the application of reason must be tempered by a pragmatic element which looks at the consequences of the decisions we make?

i think so.

But the problem is that the sages were not the first on the scene. If we're taking your route, shouldn't we be just as concerned with trying to figure out what the Sadducees believed the rituals were about? How does that saying go? The victors write the history books? Just because they say we can light candles before Shabbos doesn't mean that was originally the intention for Shabbos.

i guess that what i'm saying (and you probably know) is that rabbinic judaism is the de facto and de jure normative form of judaism, which is how we got started on this discussion. except that i am not restricting "rabbinic judaism" to orthodoxy alone. reform and conservative may be less halakhic, but that doesn't make them less rabbinic.

And let's just say that it does, that still doesn't mean that the rabbinic way is the correct way. And let's just say that it does mean that, it still wouldn't be saying anything about the rest of what the rabbis came up with.

i have to confess i am slightly confused - you appear to be saying "oh, sorry, sadducees, we've been mean to you, let's reconsider our victory because we've reopened the debate on what it means to be jewish." i mean, where do we draw the line? karaites? gnostics? hellenisers? jews for jesus? samaritans? goddess worshippers? i can't decide whether you're trying to turn the clock back or not. surely we can all agree that, say, the biblical israelites were idiots, sinners, crooks and idolaters? that's certainly what the prophets said.

There are some people who claim that faith is not necessary, because the divine origin of scripture is self-evident.

the fact that i myself have concluded through experiential empiricism that scripture is of Divine origin by no means indicates its self-evidence to other people. the fact that not everyone thinks it has a Divine origin is evidence of, ah, its lack of self-evidence. people who do that tend to be kind of insecure, so they need other people to agree with them to feel better about themselves.

as for "resorting to supernaturalism", of course you don't want to accept that sort of argument, but frankly, without it, i consider a lot of judaism to be rather pointless if it cannot be justified rationally. that's the point of a) something being a mitzvah and b) the "principles of faith" - which cover things which are not self-evident and therefore necessarily require the intervention of faith, like the resurrection. to take a more pertinent example, what on earth could justify circumcision, other than "supernaturalism"? assuming you are fairly likely to have to justify this decision at some point, how would you approach it?

Alright, so how does that enrich your practice of kashrut? And what about all of the other mitzvot of kashrut?

it helps me try and understand *why* the precise distinctions might exist - evidence of robust systematic thought for me is evidence of the integrity and robustness of the system. in other words, it may not be "logical" or "rational", but it has its own internal rationale and logic, according to Divine command.

But was Amalek actually evil or were our ancestors just trying to justify their actions?

you only have to ask that question if you accept that our ancestors wrote the book. if you consider the destruction of amalek to be a Divine command then it is for us to try and understand the necessity of such a command, not to assume that there was some sort of cover-up. this would appear not only excessively literal but also contextually inappropriate.

It's not like what they did was so extreme. What about what the Egyptians did?

on the contrary, there are plenty of sources which go into great detail about precisely what was so bad about them, attacking the women and children for a start. whatever one might say about the egyptians, they clearly weren't *all* bad from the Torah's PoV - whereas the amalekites are a paradigm of evil. that is their function.

Only according to our one-sided accounts.

this takes us back to that world of political correctness. i'm sorry, but i simply don't see the need to be so cringingly even-handed.

I've no interest in Truth. Subjectivity is very real, and it's all that we have.

or possibly relativism.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[pohaikawahine]

I've been following this dialogue with great interest and trying to learn as much as I can .... but now I am getting lost in the details .... without interrupting the wonderful flow of ideas between the two of you, can either of you just summarize for me what do you agree with and what is it really that you disagree on regarding Judiasm and belief .... I don't intend to jump into the discussion because you are both way over my head, but I just wanted to try and understand where you are at now???? oh.... and my thoughts and love with you both at Passover .... aloha nui, poh

[dauer]

BB,

sorry i went quiet - have been very busy and this is a complicated topic.

It's alright. I appreciate your not posting at a time when you were busy.

it is not the texts that are continuously revealed, but the interpretation of the texts understood as an revelatory process, albeit with a lesser degree of authority and sacredness. i'm really trying to find a way of expressing this that we can both live with, which may also be a bit of a waste of time, although i'm not going to be stoning you any time soon.

It may not be a waste of time. From the Aleph principles:

In the world of Briya, Knowing:

5. In the sacred texts of the Jewish people and the writings of Jewish spiritual teachers of previous generations we find enormous wisdom and insight that draw on Eternal truth and continue to have great potential to aid human beings in their quest for personal growth, empowerment, and healing -- as well as those elements that are historically limited and need to be transcended. We will study, teach, and make accessible these texts and writings with all those who wish to encounter them, wrestle with their content and meaning, and decide what to draw on and what to leave behind.

6. Among our guides to interpretation of Torah are the Prophetic, Kabbalistic, and Hassidic traditions as they are now being transformed in the light of contemporary feminist spirituality, process theology, and our own direct experience of the Divine.

7. We are committed to consult with other spiritual traditions, sharing with them what we have found in our concerned research and trying out what we have learned from them, to see whether it enhances the special truths of the Jewish path.

http://www.aleph.org/principles.html

I can't say that I disagree with anything there, although I might certainly disagree with some interpretations of what has been presented.. I'd say that on some level, there actually is a lesser degree of authority and sacredness, because none of the stuff Jewish Renewal is doing right now would, afaik, anyone begin to think of as canon. You also can sort of see a difference, in that the Renewal approach gives more acknowledgement of the partner or partners in a new revelation, even if it is connected to Torah, for example allowing direct experience of the Divine.

I was just reading an article by a Jewish shaman about journeying up through the top of an aron kodesh to meet with the matriarchs and receive wisdom about women's spirituality that had been lost. It's not something I would readily buy into, but it is something that I would fully support.

i guess that what i'm saying (and you probably know) is that rabbinic judaism is the de facto and de jure normative form of judaism, which is how we got started on this discussion. except that i am not restricting "rabbinic judaism" to orthodoxy alone. reform and conservative may be less halakhic, but that doesn't make them less rabbinic.

This seems to me to conflict with how you had been speaking earlier. Reform and Conservative Judaism have used approaches to halachah which are not valid according to halachah, Reform on a regular basis. Are you making a distinction between halachic Judaism and rabbinic Judaism? Why? I guess I don't see the point in calling, Reform for example, rabbinic, unless of course we include both Jewish Renewal and Recon. What makes Reform rabbinic that would disqualify something else? I feel like this may be splitting hairs but I just can't understand where you're going with this.