Chiam (and apparently to only a lesser degree, Zev),
The issue is respectful disagreement. I respect your POV of what Judaism means to you and how you define it. It bothers me not one bit that my daughter is not Jewish in your eyes. I’d just appreciate a little respect given to the beliefs of most American Jews (what is it? 45% identify as Reform, 35% as Conservative? Something like that I believe.)
We disagree on certain points. I do not believe in the literal truth of all Torah and that all of Torah, including the Oral Code was given at Sinai. I think that “older is more true” would equally justify continuing in a Sadduccean or Essenean fashion as in an Orthodox one. That disagreement does not require disrespect.
Then I’m sure that you were according similar respect to Communism until 1991 since until then at least 45-50% (if not more) of the world’s population was living under Communist rule.
I’m not certain where you are drawing the line at disagreement vs. disrepect. I obviously don’t agree with your view point; and that means that I don’t have to grant it validity. I certainly don’t accord the doctrine of the Trinity any validity. Does that mean that I’m disrepecting all Christians (Unitarians excepted, of course)? Of course not! It simply means that I disagree with it. The same applies to Reform Judaism. I disagree with the notion that one can eat pork or ham and still say that they are following Jewish law. I cannot grant that notion any validity. But that doesn’t mean that I’m disrepecting (or spitting on to use CK’s earlier term) Reform Jews.
I want to throw my 2 cents in here- I can’t join a debate on the Torah because my secularized Jewish family was not interested in teaching me anything about our religion. However, I would like to suggest to JAPrufrock that I don’t think that there is any point to opening your mother’s eyes to “the truth”. If your mom has faith, you can’t disprove her beliefs. That’s the whole point of faith. Look, GWB has faith that there are WMDs in Iraq, despite that they can’t be proven. Faith is belief in something regardless of tangible evidence that it is real. If it makes your mom’s life easier for her to have faith, let her be. You can live your life how you want and raise your kids how you please, but offending someone’s faith is not a small matter and the conflict you ignite is probably going to make you much more upset than you already are.
People who believe in creation are not going to be swayed by science. Believe me. I’m a scientist and I actually work with creationists. Yes, they have had plenty of rigorous graduate-level evolution courses and they are still creationists. They know enough to teach a college course on evolution, but they don’t believe it. I even know a professor who had a far-right Christian graduate student of evolution who was sponsored by some anti-evolution religious group to learn how to argue with evolutionists! Ok, I’m way off the topic. Back on- I just think that you should let mom be who she is. I hope I didn’t offend anyone.
Chiam’s characterizing Reform as “breaking with Judaism” and “a new religion” to me crossed the line, to be precise.
And the Communism analogy is a poor one, BTW. Certainly I respected those who believed in the constructs of Communism (both my grandparents and my wife’s were socialists afterall, Ben-Gurion even dressed in faux communist style in his youth!) I just think that they were naive.
Then I’m afraid we’ll just have to agree to disagree. While I would not have necessarily put it in those terms, the essence of what he is saying is still correct. When you take Judaism and throw out the (obligatory) observence of Shabbos, kashrus and all the other mitzvos that we’ve mentioned in this thread, it is not something that anyone in the Orthodox world can call “Judaism” anymore.
If you (or anyone else on these boards) take that as disrespect, I apologize. It’s not my intention to show disrespect to anyone. But I cannot recognize a Judaism that recognizes the observence of the mitzvos as optional in nature.
No-one can be an Orthodox Jew without observing the stuff that Orthodox Jews feel to be essentials of the faith. One can be a Reform Jew without doing so, so long as one observes the norms that Reform Jews observe.
One can be a “Jew for Jesus” or whatever, just as one pleases.
Just don’t call yourself an “Orthodox Jew” or a “Reform Jew” if you are really a “Jew for Jesus”; and don’t call yourself an “Orthodox Jew” if you are really a “Reform Jew”.
One of the great strenghths of Judaism as a religion, is that there is no person in charge of it, unlike (say) Catholicism and the Pope. Thus, Judaism can grow and change with the times, and is not locked into some medieval position on important issues - so, for example, some forms of Judaism can embrace women’s equality and have women Rabbis; or embrace gay rights, and recognize homosexual unions as equal.
On the other hand, for those who prefer the certainties of tradition, there is always Orthodox Judaism to fall back on.
Of course, I am not religiously a Jew at all, but only one by ethnicity (my own religious view is that there is no god external to creation, but that god is co-existant with creation), so I have no particular dog in this fight - but purely from the POV of the religion as an institution, the multiplicities of Judaism seem to me to be a source of strength, not weakness. Orthodox attempts to seek that everyone come into their fold are, ultimately, not a good idea, and one that won’t work - not everyone will be happy to behave exactly as their 17th century Eastern European ancestors did.
So sorry. Would you prefer I sugar-coat my words somehow? I guarantee you, any description of the schism between Orthodox and Reform Judaism means that in the end.
I can respect people as individuals regardless of whether or not they agree with me. But that’s a far cry from regarding re-definitions of the nature of an existing religion as being equally valid with the prior existing definition.
Amusingly, it is the “Orthodox” Jews who have in effect created a new religion - the term is quite modern, and the movement a self-conciously reactionary one (as in “reacting” to and against the advent of Enlightenment ideas among main stream Jews). Even the term itself was applied to them by their opponents:
"The term “Orthodoxy” is applied to Jewish traditionalist movements that have consciously resisted the influences of modernization that arose in response to the European Emancipation and Enlightenment movements. It is not usually employed to designate Jewish traditionalism prior to the modern era, nor does the phenomenon appear in communities that were unaffected by the Reform movement; e.g., in North Africa, or in Eastern Europe before the mid-nineteenth-century.
The adjective “Orthodox” (“correct belief”) is taken from the conceptual world of Christianity, where it denotes a conservative and ritualistic religious outlook, as viewed from the perspective of liberal Protestantism. It appears to have been first applied derisively to Jewish conservatives by a Reform polemicist in an article published in 1795." [emphasis added]
So the argument that “we were here first, it’s our label you are trying to take” won’t wash - “Orthodox” Judaism was not first. It is a new movement, and ought not have any higher rights to the “prior existing religion” than any other variant. As a matter of fact, an argument could be made that “Orthodox” Judaism is the outlier, an attempt to create a reactionary new religion in opposition to mainstream Judaism.
I’m afraid that you are completely wrong on this one Malthus. Even if the term “Orthodox” is new (and I’m not certain that it is, but I’ll accept the premise for the moment), that is simply because up until the early 1800s, there was no other movement within Judaism.
I can quote for you a millenia-long tradition regarding Jewish law. You quote me a detail of Jewish law, and I’ll be able to trace it for you from the Torah, through the Mishna, the Talmud, the Geonim, Maimonides, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch, the Rema and later rabbinic works. The Orthodox Jews of today (regardless of the age of the label) are following this very tradition. If you told any rabbi of the Talmud if keeping kosher was optional he’d vehemently argue with you. Find me one Jewish source older than the beginning of the Reform movement which states that kashrus is optional. Ask Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch (the basic compendium of Jewish Law used today) if one could write on Shabbos. He’d give you a clear, emphatic “No!” on the subject.
It’s not we who have “created a new religion.” If people who are opposed to the way we’ve been practicing the religion for thousands of years want to stick a label on us, so be it – we can’t stop them. But don’t then turn around and say that we’ve “started a new religion.”
If I may, I’d like to re-quote something I said earlier in this thread, since it bears repeating in response to what you’ve said:
I’m not arguing for the authenticity of the term “Orthodox.” I could not care less about that word. What remains true is that that label is applied to Judaism that has remained true to the ages-old belief that the Torah, including the body of traditional interpretation surrounding it, is the ultimate determining factor in all aspects of Jewish life. To mix in other influences is a deviation…and that, in a core religious principle.
In Israel, the word “Orthodox” is not used. Instead, the term “Dati”, which means “based on the Torah” is used. A subset of these are called “Haredim” - which means, in Hebrew, “those who tremble at G-d’s word.” We who are referred to in common English parlance as Orthodox would be proud to wear those labels instead, or in addition. It’s not the label that matters, it’s what the label means - loyalty to the Torah above all else.
I’m not arguing that one variant is better than another, or truer to the spirit of Judaism, or whatever - that is a seperate argument.
What I am arguing is simply this: the varuious movements grouped under the label “Orthodox Judaism” are not old, but relatively recent.
If you click on the link I provided, it even lists the various Rabbis credited with starting such movements. Example: Hassidism, the Rabbi Israel Ba’al Shem Tov (c. 1700-1760). His interpretation of the faith was not the same as mainstream Judaism, but something new altogether. The site provides many other examples which you can read, as well.
Moreover, I will go further - Judaism has always evolved to meet new realities (note that there is no worship in the Temple anymore, due entirely to Roman intervention); the Reform movement, which is exactly contemporaneous with “Orthodoxy”, is just such an evolution - away from the medieval restrictions of the past, in response to the new realities of the Enlightenment which many Jews saw as a positive thing, worth participating in as opposed to fighting; that “Orthodox” Jews preferred to cling to the traditional ways, out of step with those realities. In other words, a division of Judaism, not a breakaway of one part - and of the two, it is certainly arguable which is the more radical.
Reform is to Orthodoxy as Orthodoxy is to Jews wishing to worship at the Temple, sacraficing animals in strict accordance to Leviticus. Naturally, the Orthodox will say, there are no such Jews - and they would be right, because the religion evolved after the fall of the Temple, into medieval Judaism.
No doubt, back in the dark ages, there were some “Orthodox” groups who opposed this evolution. And rightly, on your logic - they could point to the clear and unambiguous words of the scriptures, particularly Leviticus, as their authority. “You guys” (meaning the present “Orthodox”) “are just a bunch of innovators, overthrowing millennia of tradition!” - well, they would be right: you are.
In the same way, the mainstream of the religion has evolved again - away from medieval Judaism into modern Judaism, discarding in the process much of the “traditional” observances which may well have been appropriate in medieval times, and which were in fact a creation of medieval times.
Ah, but which aspects of the Torah are you loyal to above all else?
Have you recently sacraficed a lamb or a pair of pigeons when you heard someone swearing, as is required by Leviticus 5:6-7?
No? Well, you innovator, you - re-interpreting scripture in accordance with the times!
Well, admittedly you do say “and the body of traditional interpretation”. As I have argued above, that body was created in Medieval times specifically because the Scripture was not, literally, relevant - and so a body of “interpretation” was created, to make the thing relevant to “modern” (meaning medieval) times.
Well, obviously the religion is not cast in stone. What can be modified once can be modified again …
No, I’m afraid that you’re wrong again, Malthus. The reason why we don’t sacrifice today is only because the Temple and Altar no longer exist. If they existed, then we would be sacrificing today. And (in addition) many parts of sacricial law are still in effect today. For example, if one consecrates an animal as a sacrifice, it acquires (even today) the degree of holiness that attaches to such an animal (and one becomes forbidden to use it for any other purpose).
Now, I know what your next line is going to be: “Yeah, well that rule was created when the Temple was destroyed.”
My response to that is that you are further wrong. These rules are derived from the Talmud and from an Oral tradition that existed even while the Temple was still standing. In this specific case, the prohibition against offering sacrifices anywhere outside the Temple is derived from a verse in Deuteronomy.
Wrong again. That tradition has been around since the Torah was given to us. How do we know that? Good question.
There are any number of laws that make no sense when looked at strictly based on the Biblical verses. The sparse details of the laws given in the (written) Torah itself are so vauge as to make the keeping of the law practically impossible. An oral tradition was given to us to explain the laws of the Torah. For example:
It states twice in Deuteronomy to “write these words on your doorposts of your house and gates.” OK, which words? All of Deuteronomy? Only those two chapters? Should I just take a pen and start scribbling on the lintels of my house? Do I have to put it on all the doorposts? Can I write the words on a scroll and attach them? Can I write them in any language?
It states that on the holiday of Succos we are to take the “fruit of a good tree.” OK, what tree? What are we to do with it once we have it?
It states four times in the Torah that we are to “bind these words to your arms” and to wear “totafos” between your eyes. What are totafos? How are we to “bind words to our arms?” Which words?
It states that on Yom Kippur that we are to “afflict ourselves.” How should I do this? Should I stand in a freezer all day? Should I whip myself? Should I fast? Should I get myself addicted to smoking and then go through nicotine withdrawl on Yom Kippur? Exactly how should I afflict myself?
Rosh HaShanna is described as a “day of blowing.” Blowing what? How long should be blow for? What should be blown? Should any particular tune be blown? How about jazz?
There are numerous other examples that I could provide. Yet, throughout the ages, there have been no groups who have denied that the basic mitzvah of mezzuzah involves writing the two chapters of Dueteronomy on a scroll and attaching it to your door. No one has ever said that the fruit we are to take on Succos should be anything other than an esrog (citron). No one has had a set of tefillin that didn’t have the same four chapters and the same basic form. No one has ever advocated suffering on Yom Kippur in any way other than mentioned in the Mishna. No one has ever argued with the basic definition of how the Shofar is blown on Rosh HaShannah.
Why the uniformity on these practices where the written guidelines are so sparse? Because we have an oral tradition that dates back thousands of years, giving us these details. It is this same tradition (remember, the earliest portions of the Talmud date back to when the Temple was still standing) that tells us that in the absence of a Temple and an Altar, we cannot sacrifice. It wasn’t some “Medieval rabbi” who came along later and stated that since the Temple doesn’t exist anymore that we are released from the sacrifical law.
Within boundaries. Customs can come and customs can go; but not the very commandments themselves.
The absence of ritual sacrifice in the absence of the Temple is explicitly written in the Torah, specifically, in Deuteronomy Chapter 12. To summarize, it says that once a site for a sacrificial altar is divinely selected, it will be forbidden to ever sacrifice anywhere else.
In addition, it says in several places that it is forbidden to enter the Temple area while in a state of ritual uncleanliness, a circumstance that applies to everyone today.
These conditions are EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE TORAH. So to answer your question:
The answer is: ALL OF THEM. When the Torah says “Do this except under these circumstances,” to not do them under the specified circumstances is not an “innovation” or a “re-interpretation.” It is part of the original.
That’s simply absurd. The traditional interpretations pre-date “Medieval” times, and even the destruction of the Temple. The Mishnah, the first codification of Oral law, was committed to writing less than a century after the destruction, and cites numerous Rabbis who lived before it and through it.In addition, the entire Talmud is built on a system of structural consistency and Scriptural cross-referencing that make it next to impossible for an interpretation to have been created and slipped in from thin air.
I had a long reply to Zev, unfortunately lost by the system. :mad:
To summarize: you must have missed in your reading of Deuteronomy 12, 12:21 - explicitly commanding that, if the chosen place is too far, the commandment to sacrifice remains!
So it is “innovative” to assert that you don’t have to perform the commandment at all, if the specified place no longer exists. Why must some Jew living in Alexandria sacrifice at home because he can’t travel to Jerusalem, but some Jew living today in Manhattan not have to sacrifice at all?
Thanks for playing, but wrong again. Deuteronomy 12:20-25 talk about eating non-consecrated “ordinary” kosher meat. Note that verse 26 states that consecrated foods must be brought to the Temple!
“5 But you are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go; 6 there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. 7 There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the LORD your God has blessed you.”
And here’s the exception:
“21 If the place where the LORD your God chooses to put his Name is too far away from you, you may slaughter animals from the herds and flocks the LORD has given you, as I have commanded you, and in your own towns you may eat as much of them as you want.”
Note please that both refer to eating the offerings. I cannot see any way to distinguish 21 as if it referred to something else - although, no doubt, there is an “oral tradition predating the fall of the Temple” that says as much.
And here is 26: “26 But take your consecrated things and whatever you have vowed to give, and go to the place the LORD will choose.”. Obviously, this is referring to those things which can be sent long-distance (note “things” and not “animals”) - and saying that you ought to do so.
To summarize, the scheme went like this: if you were near the Temple, sacrifice there and feast there, and give it your consecrated things; if you were too far away, sacrifice at home - but send the stuff that can be sent.
Moreover, it simply makes sense - what was a Jew in Alexandria supposed to do, practically speaking? Ignore the commandments because he was too far away to fulfil them?
You see, what you can’t see in your Bible is that in every Torah in the world, there is a break after verse 19, indicating that verse 20 is starting a new topic.
Verse 20 starts talking about eating plain, non-consecrated foods. How do I know this? Good question. I’ll even give an answer.
Firstly, by your reading, Jews could only eat consecrated meats (after all, verse 20 is talking about people eating meat because they want to, not because they are bringing a sacrifice). That is clearly wrong.
Secondly, verse 22 states that such meat could be eaten by those in a state of tumah (ritual impurity, for a lack of a better translation). If you are stating that these verses refer to sacrificial meat, then that completely contravenes other places where it states that one cannot eat sacrificial meat in a state of tumah.
Thirdly, verses 23-25 adjure us from eating blood. Are you stating that this only applies to sacrificial meats? But it can’t be that because the blood of sacrifices was never eaten anyway - it was thrown on the Altar, so a person couldn’t have eaten if even if they wanted to.
Lastly, verses 26-27 returns and tells that (unlike verses 20-25) sacrificial meats must be eaten at the Temple.
The word “things” does not appear in the Hebrew. You could just as easily translate it as “your concecrations.” You’re reading too much into the translation and not the original Hebrew. And note that verse 27 specifies that we are talking about animals.
Well, I admit this much - I don’t understand your explaination about blood; and you still have not answered how an ancient Jew from Alexandria was supposed to fulfill this commandment! And I have posed the question three times.
So you are 0 for 3 in answering.
As for the explaination, you assert that the first part refers to sacrifices; the second, to kosher easting; and the last, to sacrifices again! Partly on the basis of pauses in the Torah (but you don’t assert that there is a pause between the second and the third parts! Why make a big deal about the first break, if there is no second break - as would be required if the “subject was changed”?)
Anyway, it is very fun to argue about the minutae of ancient ritual observances.
