[QUOTE=Voyager]
Being raised Conservative, I just want to say how cool it is that the Orthodox (and cmkeller in particular) seem to have defined all of Reform Judaism out of the religion. [\QUOTE]
Being raised Conservative as well, it’s been my experience that most Conservative Jews also hold that Reform Judaism isn’t Judaism.
[QUOTE]
Prufrock, would your mother be satisfied not with a debunking, but with enough evidence to make her admit that it is possible for a reasonable person to think that the Torah might not be totally true?
[\QUOTE]
Forgive me if I misunderstand you. But don’t you mean not totally literally true? I doubt she’d ever admit anything in the Torah was false or wrong. But, it may be possible to convince her that some parts are meant as parable rather than historical or scientific fact.
This is a separate debate, but I’m not going to let the potshot pass unanswered
I just want to say how cool it is that Reform Jews seem to have changed all the definitions of Judaism
For millenia keeping kosher has been an essential part of Judiasm. Reform comes along and says that it is no longer essential. And we’re accused of changing definitions.
For millenia keeping Shabbos has been an essential part of Judaism. Reform comes along and changes that (even at first having Sabbath services in Germany on Sunday!) and says that keeping the Sabbath is not essential. And we’re accused of changing the definitions.
For millenia the eventual return to Zion was a centerpiece of the Jewish religion. Reform came along and changed that (and then changed their minds again in the mid 1900s to support the Jewish state!) and yet we’re accused of changing definitions.
For millenia daily prayer was part of the Jewish experience. Putting on tallis and tefillin daily was the norm. Reform comes along and changes that and we’re accused of changing the definitions.
For millenia Jews have adhered to marriage and divorce law as codified by the Rabbis throughout the ages. Reform has totally done away with Jewish divorce law and seriously watered down Jewish marriage law. And yet we’re the ones accused of changing definitions.
Well, when you take many of the elements that defined Judaism and Jewish practice and throw them out the window or seriously modify them to the point where they are barely recognizable, don’t blame us when we say that it no longer conforms to Jewish practice. I’m sorry (and if I offend anyone here I’m very sorry - it’s not my intent) but if you showed me a Judaism without kashrus, without Shabbos, without taharas hamishpacha without belief in the eventual coming of the messiah and the rebuilding of the Temple, etc., I will turn around and tell you that it is simply not Judaism.
And before we go down this road - I’m not saying that Reform Jews aren’t Jewish – Just that what they are practicing is not Judaism as it’s been recognized for millenia
Believing in the factuality of evolution is not necessarily counter to Jewish belief.
I’m not one for “me too” posts, but since I was fingered specifically by Voyager’s message, I didn’t want to seem like I was passively accepting of his criticism.
Zev’s right on target. The Orthodox didn’t change any definitions. It was the Reform who decided to change what was then the only definition of Judaism. The Orthodox didn’t embrace their change. But don’t you dare accuse us Orthodox of “defining the Reform out.”
:::For millenia keeping Shabbos has been an essential part of Judaism. Reform comes along and changes that (even at first having Sabbath services in Germany on Sunday!) and says that keeping the Sabbath is not essential. And we’re accused of changing the definitions.:::
Well, we’re a bit off my original topic here, but I think the problem is not simply a matter of picking and choosing what laws should be followed and what laws shouldn’t; if you don’t keep kosher, it doesn’t change the fact that specific guidelines are laid out for Jews. However, Orthodox Jews seem unable to accept that many laws are open to interpretation. There’s no passage that says that you can’t drive a car on the Sabbath – there’s a rule that’s interpreted to mean you can’t use electricity. Well, sorry, but I interpret things differently. Maybe you’re right, and that’s not what G-d meant, but who are you (you = anyone, not picking on any particular person) to say that you understand G-d’s true words better than I do. I was told that these Rabbi have studied the Torah inside and out, so they must know more than I do about Judaism. And, that’s true, but it doesn’t mean I can’t interpret things in completely different and completely legitimate ways. Until G-d tells me differently, I don’t think I need permission from some Rabbi…
Really bad example. You see the problem with cars is not as much the electricity as is the combustion. Creating fire is explicitly mentioned as prohibited in Exodus.
**
And Supreme Court justices have studied the Constitution more than I have. And I can have my own interpretation of the Constitution, but it isn’t legitimate if it disagrees with SCOTUS’ position.
In essence, what you are advocating is self-defining Judaism. If I can convince myself that eating pork is a legitimate interpretation of Leviticus, fine, it’s Judaism. If I can talk fast enough to show that Channukah, (not being mentioned in the Bible, you know) is not Jewish, I can have a Channukah-less Judaism. If I can interpret Jesus to be the messiah and the “Son of God”, then I can have a Jesus-as-a-messiah-and-Son-of-God Judaism.
[/quote]
Until G-d tells me differently, I don’t think I need permission from some Rabbi…
[/QUOTE]
That’s like saying that until Thomas Jefferson tells you differently, I don’t need to hand in my income taxes since it wasn’t in the original Constitution.
Again, for millenia, there has been a process by which halacha is decided. It’s not like some rabbi makes it up as he goes along. If you want to come along willy-nilly and chuck the whole process and good deal of the corpus of Jewish law, then go ahead - I can’t stop you. Just don’t call the result Judaism, it isn’t.
But is the difference between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox only on matters that are arguably subject to interpretation? If only. The differences come down to whether the Biblical commandments - some of which are downright unambiguous - are still relevant and must be obeyed or regarded as obsolete relics of a primitive time. That’s not re-interpretation.
:::Really bad example. You see the problem with cars is not as much the electricity as is the combustion. Creating fire is explicitly mentioned as prohibited in Exodus:::
Actually, this is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Orthodox Jews claim that creating fire is prohibited, therefore driving is, as combustion creates a spark. I disagree. I do not feel that this is a correct interpretation. I feel that common sense tells you this prohibits lighting a fire, not turning on an engine which creates a spark. Orthodox Jews have the right to their interpretation, but they certainly don’t have a monopoly on the “truth” of the torah.
:::And Supreme Court justices have studied the Constitution more than I have. And I can have my own interpretation of the Constitution, but it isn’t legitimate if it disagrees with SCOTUS’ position.:::
Speaking of bad examples, these are laws created by man for man. And, might I add, the Constitution is regularly interpreted and reinterpreted. The original interpretation of the Bill of Right’s “All Men Are Created Equal” meant all white property owners. Things change.
:::Again, for millenia, there has been a process by which halacha is decided. It’s not like some rabbi makes it up as he goes along. If you want to come along willy-nilly and chuck the whole process and good deal of the corpus of Jewish law, then go ahead - I can’t stop you. Just don’t call the result Judaism, it isn’t.:::
It doesn’t matter how long Rabbis have been interpreting laws – and, let’s be serious here, Rabbis 300 years ago weren’t discussing whether or not flicking on a light switch was the same thing as creating fire – the fact remains that your final statement is exactly the problem I have with Orthodox Judaism. People all over the world consider themselves observant Jews, and yet they practice things here and there differently. No one’s arguing it’s ok to be Jewish and worship a bronze statue, but are you telling me there’s no room for interpretation about starting a fire?!? I think I’ll let G-d judge me as to whether I’ve been a good Jew or not, not mankind.
You don’t think a spark is a (albeit very small) fire?!
Does it? Does the Torah say “Don’t make a big fire but a really little one is OK?”
Well, considering that until the recent past, there was no “Reform” Judaism, it is not for us to defend our interpretation, but for you to defend yours.
Again, I ask you, where do you draw the line? Or is Judaism simply what any particular person claims that it is? You claim that driving a car on Shabbos is OK and that’s fine within Judaism. Why? Because you interpret it that way. But if that’s the case, what’s to stop someone from interpreting that eating shrimp is OK within Judaism? Or that accepting Jesus as the messiah is OK within Judaism, or that Satan worship or murder is OK within Judaism? After all, if they interpret it that way, shouldn’t that be OK? What, you object? You don’t hold a monopoly on the truth either, do you?
Surely, you can see that a “define your own” Judaism is really not Judaism (or anything else discernable). So where do you draw the line? Why is your Judaism acceptable and not theirs? And of course, you can ask me the same question. But at least I have an answer. I have a thousands years old tradition of halacha being correct. I can quote the Rabbinic responsa down through the centuries on any particular question of Jewish law. I can quote you the chain of how the law was formulated, starting with the Torah, down through the Talmud, through Maimonides, Rashi, Tosfos, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, the Rema, the Kitzur and later rabbinic writings, rulings and responsa. I can show you how the law evolved and can show you how the rulings on cars came to be. I didn’t make up the ruling that “well the Torah never mentions cars explicitly so they must be OK.” The ruling that cars cannot be driven is based on centuries of halachic literature and responsa.
No, they weren’t. But they were answering questions that would later on serve as the basis for later decisions that electricity is prohibited on the Sabbath.
Considering that Exodus explicitly says “do not make a fire” I don’t see much room for interpretation. Do you?
As for your other points, there may be some customs that are kept differently among Jews, but the Sabbath I keep is the same as kept by all other Orthodox Jews, the Shema I recite is the same one as recited by all other Orthodox Jews, the matzah I eat is the same unleavened bread as eaten by all other Orthodox Jews, the lulav I shake on Succos is the same as all other Orthodox Jews’, the mikvah that my family uses is the same as all others, the tefillin that I wear has the same four Torah portions as every other Orthodox Jews’ tefillin.
So yeah, there are some differences in customs. Ashekenazic Jews have a custom not to eat legumes on Passover. Sephardim do. But that’s a matter of custom, not of law. I would never accuse a Sephardi who eats legumes of not observing the laws of Passover. OTOH, that would not apply to any Jew who eats bread.
That’s not the issue at hand here. The issue at hand is whether or not these “reinterpretations” can be said to be Judaism. My position is that they cannot, for the reasons I stated above.
::::Considering that Exodus explicitly says “do not make a fire” I don’t see much room for interpretation. Do you?:::
Without going point for point through all your statements, I’ll simply address this one line which makes the brunt of my argument…my answer is YES, YES, 1,000 TIMES YES!!! There is PLENTY of room for interpretation for a rational human being (and, no, I’m not saying you’re not rational…I don’t mean to come across that way) Creating a fire is an implication of work. So much of Jewish law makes perfect common sense. I’m not talking about the eating of an animal with cloven hooves or murder…but, if you look at the laws involving something as simple as feeding an animal before feeding yourself. Why? Does G-d say you should cherish a horse more than your children. No, of course not. This law is to protect humans…your horse dies, you can’t work the field, suddenly you have an entire family starving. You work your mule to death, your family’s in a lot more trouble than if you can’t eat quite as much as you’d like for one evening.
Even laws that have been interpreted to mean you can’t mix meat and dairy come from a rule that makes sense. You are not to cook calf in its mother’s milk…there’s an inherent cruelty in the notion of cooking an animal in its own mother’s milk. I think you can get a great deal from this concept, laws about compassion that are far more noteworthy than the idea of eating a cheeseburger (by the way, I’m a vegetarian, so this law doesn’t even affect me personally…I’m just making a point). Claiming that your interpretation (and generation after generation of men’s interpretations) gives you some type of inherent right to Judaism…well, I think when G-d said we were the chosen people, He meant that He’s choosing us, not that I need to be “chosen” by men who hijack my religion and decide what is and what is not.
Sigh. I had a big reply and the hamsters ate it. Let’s try again.
Why are you so certain that your explanation is the correct one. The law is not that you have to feed your animals befoe your children; it’s that you have to feed them before yourself. And it’s not necessarily that because if you don’t you’ll have trouble. The reason is because it’s a simple matter of kindness, compassion and accepting responsibility for the care of others.
Excuse me. “hijack your religion?!” Just whom has done the hijacking here? We’ve had a fairly steady definition of Judaism and what the religion expects of us for thousands of years. Along comes Reform and decides that kashrus is no longer necessary and Shabbos is no longer necessary and waiting for the messiah is no longer necessary and yet we’re the ones accused of “hijacking your religion?” Just whom has done all the changing. We simply want to keep our observances and have our religion accurately represented. We’re not the ones who are deviating from well-established definitions and norms; it’s Reform. Reform is the group that is hijacking the definition of the religion, not us. We’re simply sticking to the definiton that we’ve had for a long, long time.
And you still haven’t answered the question I’ve been asking of you: Where do you draw the line? Because the way you seem to be presenting it is that if you can find a rationalization for it from the Torah, then it’s OK. You can interpret the Torah to say that you can drive a car on Shabbos? Fine, then that’s OK in Judaism. You can interpret kashrus as simply a trichinosis preventative? Fine, then it’s OK to eat non-kosher. But where do you draw the line? Kashrus? Shabbos? Passover? Accepting the Trinity? Tzitzis? Tefillin? Taharas Hamishpacha? Bowing to a statue of Odin? Torah study? Satanism? Channukah? Daily prayer? Genocide? Yom Kippur? Shavous? Satanism? I can interpret Genesis 22 and Judges 11 to mean that human sacrifice should be allowed. Do you want to put that into Judaism? I can interpret the end of Judges to mean that corpse mutilation is allowed. Do we accept that and call that Judaism too? At what point do you draw the line and say “No more! That’s not Judaism no matter how you try to rationalize it!” Because the way you are presenting it, you seem to think that Judaism is a “whatever-I-want-it-to-be” religion. So, please, go over the concepts I mentioned above and tell me where the line is drawn. At what point do you simply state that this is outside the definition of Judaism?
:::Why are you so certain that your explanation is the correct one:::
Certain? I’m NOT certain. My point is, I think my interpretation is entirely reasonable. I think this is the direction that G-d was pointing us in. But, someone along the road decided that certain phrases were open to interpretation (evolution is possible because when creation is mentioned, this can be interpreted as a parable…or that the word “day” is never defined – anything other than that the words should be taken literally), but when the prohibition of the creation of fire on the Sabbath is mentioned, this is a hard-and-fast rule that can’t mean anything other than what the Orthodox have decided it means.
So, where do you draw the line? Well, I’m not pretending to have all the answers. I think most reasonable people can read the Torah and say no, you can’t worship idols. There’s not much room for interpretation here. Yes, G-d lays out specific dietary laws. No, randomly killing people is not an acceptable practice, (but slavery is ok as long as you follow some essential rules.) And, no, you can’t worship Jesus and really make an argument that this is acceptable according to the Torah. But, just as a lot of people (including many Orthodox) have interpreted the story of Genesis to be a story as opposed to literal truth, why must everything else be either taken entirely literally, or interpreted in one specific way without room for disagreement? I’m not advocating that Orthodox Jews give up there beliefs to comply with my ideas. But, who put the Rabbis in charge of deciding what is and what is not Judaism for everyone else.
I’ve heard from several different Orthodox Jews that the reason for the Holocaust was because G-d was punishing the Jews for not being observant enough. Aside from finding the concept completely offensive, I think it goes to the heart of the matter – a group of Jews (no matter how large a group, or how learned that group believes they are) has put themselves in charge of interpreting the word of G-d. I think it takes a bit of arrogance to claim that your group and your group alone is able to understand the Creator, but the rest of us are practicing a different religion because we disagree.
Well, when it comes to the length of a day in Genesis, it’s a matter of belief, but the practical difference in my observence of the mitzvos is really nil whether I believe a “day” in that instance was 24 hours or billions of years. But when God says “don’t make fire on the Sabbath” that’s pretty straightforward. Do you light your stove on the Sabbath? If so, then how do you “interpret” the commandment? Do you eat pork, bacon, ham, etc.? If so, how do you interpret the commandment of kashrus? What part of “don’t eat pig” is subject to clever interpretation? How can the mtizvah of “don’t eat chametz on Passover” be interpreted to mean anything but the obvious.
And lastly, if you think that your interpretation of the Torah and the mitzvos is correct, let me ask you this question. Do you really believe that for 2500+ years we’ve been practicing Judaism wrongly and it took the reform rabbis of the late 1800s to discover the correct way to observe the mitzvos of Shabbos, kashrus, taharas hamishpacha, etc.? Do you think that all the rabbis of the Talmud were wrong about exactly what it means to keep the Sabbath. That Rashi and Maimonides had the wrong ideas about exactly what kosher food was? That R. Yosef Karo (the author of the Shulchan Aruch) was completely mistaken about the nature of the obligation of wearing tefillin daily? And if you tell me that, no, they knew what they were talking about, then I would ask you so then ask you who is observing Judaism – the person who puts on tefillin daily, or the person who doesn’t. Who is practicing the Jewish religion – the person who observes kashrus, or the one who goes out for a shrimp dinner. Who is doing what is proper in Judaism – the one who lights a fire on Shabbos or the one who doesn’t.
Why not? There is a whole group devoted to just that concept. What is it that excludes their interpretation? hy have you “hijacked the religion” away from them?
Yes you are. You are asking us to define someone who doesn’t keep Shabbos as practicing Judaism. You are asking us to define someone who doesn’t keep kosher as acting Jewishly “in a different manner.” You are asking us to say that it’s OK for someone in a different “branch” of Judaism to eat chametz on Passover. Well, it not OK and your asking us to say that it is is asking us to give up our beliefs that all Jews (even the Reform) are bound by the mitzvos.
God, obviously.
But even if you don’t want to posit that, it’s logical anyway. Whom do you put on a panel to decide what is the proper way for doctors to act both medically and ethically. Bricklayers? Taxi cab drivers? No, you put doctors on that panel – hopefully the best and the brightest; the ones who are the most learned and most respected in their profession. Why? Because they presumably know best how to act in medical situations by dint of their education and practice throughout the years. The same applies here. Who is better to determine the halacha than people who have studied it their entire lives. Who is better at determining what God meant when He said “don’t eat pig.” Rabbis who have argued, studied and debated the commandment and it’s ramifications for thousands of years; or you who wouldn’t know the proper halachic decision for what to do if a piece of non-kosher meat got mixed up among five pieces of kosher meat.
Another bad example. You can interpret the Holocaust as you want. They chose to put it in those terms. You’re free to disagree (I’m not crazy about that interpretation either); because we’re not arguing about a matter that is either a central issue to the religion or a matter of observance. The issue of why the Holocaust happened is not a central issue to the faith.
So then I put the question to you again. Why is it arrogant for us to state that not keeping kashrus is not Jewish, but it’s not arrogant for you to state that believing in Jesus as part of the Trinity is outside the bounds of Judaism. I can take every argument that groups such as Jews for Jesus presents and throw them at you. They interpret Genesis’s "let us make man?’ as a reference to the Trinity? Why isn’t their interpretation legitimate within Judaism? They see the three visitors to Abraham in Genesis 18 as a reference to the Trinity. Why isn’t their interpretation legitimate. I think it takes a bit of arrogance to claim that your group is able to understand the Creator but those who are interpreting Scripture to include the Trinity are practicing a different religion because they disagree.
As much as I hate to interrupt a good Orthodox vs. Reform Judaism argument, a few of the things both Zev and cmkeller have said here have really surprised me. I have the utmost respect for both of you for your commitment to halacha, but I have to wonder if either of you know anything about Reform Judaism.
The soc.culture.jewish FAQ, which took me about 5 seconds to find, has this section devoted to Reform Judaism and common fallacies. According to it and the Union of Reform Judaism, Reform Jews are no less obligated to the rules of kashrut and shabbos than any other Jew, it is only in the execution that it differs. True, many completely unobservant Jews identify themselves as Reform, but that doesn’t make all Reform Jews unobservant.
I realize that it doesn’t answer your question about “what gives the Reform Jews more leeway in interpreting the Torah than anyone else,” but I wanted to correct some of your mis-characterizations of Reform Judaism. FWIW, I don’t agree with JAPrufrock’s premise that he should be “debunking” Jewish beliefs just to lord it over his mother, either. :rolleyes:
I’m well aware of the SCJ FAQ (my uncle, Eliot Shimoff [who just passed away two weeks ago] helped write that FAQ) and I am aware that I was over-generalizing things to some extent.
Sounds to me like an outright rejection of kashrus (as well as a bunch of other laws.
Now it is true that they later revised their stance (although I can’t find it in any of the major Declerations of Principles) regarding the keeping of kashrus. They have been encouraging Reform Jews to keep kosher. However, they still do not view it as binding on anyone. In short, anyone is free to determine if s/he will keep kosher and eat only kosher food. You may want to tell me that their interpretation may be different; but I fail to see how “don’t eat pig” can be interpreted as “it’s OK to have a ham dinner.”
I’m not stating that there aren’t Reform Jews who do hold to some religious practices. I know that there are Reform Jews who eat only kosher; that there are Reform Jews who pray and put on talis and teffilin daily; that there are reform Jews who study Torah every day; and it’s good that they do these things - it’s better that they observe some mitzvos than none at all - but the fact remains that the vast majority of Reform Jews do not keep the Sabbath as it’s been kept for thousands of years; do not keep kosher as it’s been kept for thousands of years, etc. and that these people are welcome under the umbrella of Reform because Reform doesn’t hold the keeping of kashrus to be an indespensible part of the religion.
But, yes, I will admit that I was over-generalizing for the sake of brevity of argument (my post have been long enough - dontcha think? )
Interesting way to read that FAQ. Allow me to quote a few exerpts:
From question 18.3.3:
From question 18.4.1:
Interesting notion of “obligation.” It certainly sounds to me “less obligatory” than the Orthodox notion thereof.
From question 18.4.4:
Aside from the fact that this statement is a logical fallacy - “everyone does it” doesn’t determine the rightness or wrongness of an act - it’s also simply false. I defy the writers of this FAQ to find a single Orthodox Rabbi who is agnostic or atheist. Orthodox Rabbis are held to Biblical/Talmudic standards of belief or practice. The willingness of the Reform Movement to ordain people as their spiritual guides who do not speaks volumes about their sense of “obligation”. The quote they apparently use to justify this is rather ironic:
In essence, by using this quote, the Reform movement:
[list=a]
[li]tacitly requires an atheist to believe in a G-d who would posit such a statement[/li][li]tacitly requires an atheist or agnostic to acknowledge that there is a definite “right path” and that they are in fact not on it but would return to it if they were to keep G-d’s law[/li][li]require that these people be keeping G-d’s law, and let’s face it, in light of some of the above quotes, you know the Reform movement doesn’t.[/list][/li]
From question 18.4.8 (emphasis mine):
I’d love to see any historical (pre-Reform) justification for the notion that Judaism even acknowledges the validity of alternative movements, much less grades adherence on a curve defined by such.
From question 18.4.12:
So…Reform Rabbis see intensity of study of halacha as a matter of personal interest (and never mind the layman’s level of study!). Traditional Jews (and not only the Rabbis!) see intensity of study of halacha as an obligation…because we are obligated to follow said halacha
From question 18.4.18:
How is “Kashrut as a matter of personal position” anything remotely like an “obligation”? And it seems quite clear from this quote that Reform’s emphasis on “personal validity” re: Kashrut blows away any notion that the differences between them and Orthodoxy is merely a matter of scriptural interpretation.
This is enough for one post. Hopefully, enough for one thread to convince doubters that, in words written by Reform Jews themselves:
[list=a]
[li]Reform Judaism does not merely diverge from Orthodox Judaism in selected matters of scriptural interpretation but is fundamentally different in regard to concepts of religious obligation to a degree that what they practice is not the same as Judaism had been defined prior to the movement’s founding, and[/li][li]Reform Judaism does indeed feel its adherents to be less obligated in regard to the observance of commendments (not limited to Sabbath and Kashrut) than Orthodox Judaism does.[/list][/li]
Chaim Mattis Keller
I don’t in general care for religious debates, but I have a quick question for the Orthodox Jews. It seems you reject Reform Judiasm as being Judiasm. If this is incorrect, please let me know. Anyway, on to the question. If some other group, let’s call them the ultra-Orthodox Jews, were to denounce you for not keeping some of the observances they consider integral to Judiasm, perhaps they have 614 laws they consider mitzvos as opposed to 613, or some other disagreement they consider absolutely non-negotiable. You acknowlege that this was indeed a traditional belief, but should not be accorded commandment status. Thus a rift. Now they say that YOU are the one re-defining Judiasm and not keeping this one “commandment”. They decide that YOU are not practicing Judiasm.
Do you feel bound by their decision? Why or why not?
Highly doubtful. One of the commandments is against adding commandments. (Duet 13:1)
No, because they are the ones changing the status quo and completely redefining a Jewish practice. For example, suppose a new group of Jews started up tomorrow saying that Yom Kippur should be observed two days outside of Israel, just like all the other holidays (Yom Kippur is the only major holiday observed for one day outside of Israel – thank goodness!). It’s up to them to show why this change is necessary and how everyone up to this point has been mistaken in observing YK for only one day. It’s not up to us to prove that YK should only be one day – that’s the way the holiday has been observed for years and years and years.
That’s the issue with Reform. It’s not because they are less observant than us – it’s because they are so drastically attempting the change the way that Judaism is obsreved that it is no longer recognizable as classical Judaism. The same would apply to some group that mandates an observence that is so much stricter than what we know (such as my two day Yom Kippur example). Someone who observes Yom Kippur for two days is not really observing Yom Kippur.
It all depends who it is that’s breaking with historical precedent and practice. What is today known as Orthodox Judaism was, until the beginning of Reform Judaism, the ONLY thing considered Judaism at all since AT LEAST the destruction of the Second Temple, and arguably much further back as well. If these hypothetical “ultras” are right that there is an additional commandment, there should be some grounding for this in the historical Torah literature - the Talmud, Maimonides’ compilation, the Shulchan Aruch, etc. If said grounding exists, then those who deny it are the ones who are breaking with Judaism. If it doesn’t, then those insisting that it is have, out of whole cloth, wrongly given a mere tradition a status to which it is not entitled, and they are the ones breaking with Judaism.
We are bound by the statements of modern authorities only to the degree that they are built on the existing authoritative statements, which ultimately gets back to the Torah.
Zev & Chaim, I appreciate all the knowledge you bring to these threads.
At first, I was disappointed that the OP had posted yet another thread about wangling his girlfriend’s conversion. But as they usually result in some oustanding debate, I have read it with pleasure.
You guys make me feel a little guilty that I don’t have a more in-depth understanding of my own religion.
Oh wait, a quick question that Prufrock’s rabbi rant brought up-
As to who is interpreting the Torah for the rest of us, isn’t it a prime tenet of Judaism that it be that way? Similar to priests being central to the line of communication between God and (eventually) the flock?
If a Catholic said that he didn’t want priests getting in the way of his religious beliefs and practices, wouldn’t that make him Protestant?
[\QUOTE]
)