adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (03/20/85)
I wrote: >> If I could not understand a Mitzva, then I would not be be able to carry >> it out "with all my mind" anyway. So an "observance for observance's >> sake" would not be much good in any case. Eliyahu Teitz asks: > To which mitzva do you refer when you write 'all my mind'? To all of them: I used Biblical language because I don't like to repeat myself. As I wrote earlier, I view the impact on human beings as the essence of any mitzva, even one originally taught by means of a specific example. Re-enacting the original instructional example may not be enough to carry out the mitzva today, since the original human impact of that specific action may have been vitiated by social or technological change. Thus, if one does not understand the human impact the mitzva was intended to have, one cannot truly carry that mitzva out. Teitz also asks: > What do you do with the mitzva of 'Lo tigra', that you should not > diminish the number of mitzvot? I interpret that to mean that I should watch out for cases where the number of mitzvot would be diminished, were I to restrict my observance to a specific instructional example whose impact has been vitiated by social or technological change. Consider, as an example, the mitzva originally taught through the example of leaving the corners of the fields unharvested. The human impact was to assure that the majority of the population, which was then engaged in agriculture, would make food available to the poor (widows, orphans etc.) who would have otherwise starved. Today, the majority of the population is no longer engaged in agriculture. Thus, those Orthodox who claim that this mitzva is binding only on those who actually own or work in the fields, are in effect "diminishing the number of mitzvot" by discarding the mitzva that the majority should contribute to feeding those who would otherwise starve. And since the majority of the poor today live far from cultivated fields, even those Orthodox who observe the original instructional example literally are in effect discarding this mitzva, since they are not making the food available to those in actual danger of starving. Humanistic Jews, unlike the Orthodox, do not discard a mitzva when the original instructional example has been vitiated by social or technological chage, but instead find and carry out equivalent contemporary ways to carry out as many of the Mitzvot as possible. I personally observe the above mitzva by contributing to an institution which carries out research in food science and agricultural technology. The Orthodox would no doubt claim that I am the one in danger of discarding mitzvot, by abandoning the traditional way of carrying them out. My personal opinion is that my interpretation is the one closer to relevant Jewish traditions. Adam
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (03/25/85)
> ...And since the majority of the poor > today live far from cultivated fields, even those Orthodox who observe > the original instructional example literally are in effect discarding > this mitzva, since they are not making the food available to those in > actual danger of starving. > > Humanistic Jews, unlike the Orthodox, do not discard a mitzva when the > original instructional example has been vitiated by social or > technological chage, but instead find and carry out equivalent > contemporary ways to carry out as many of the Mitzvot as possible.... > > Adam Who ever said that we (orthodox) jews throw away a commandment because it is outdated? Do you think that it is in keeping with Orthodox Jewish principles to let people starve? Or to smoke oneself to death? Orthodox Jews don't (shouldn't) throw away the spirit of the mitzva in favor of the "letter of the law", but then neither is it in our beleif to throw away the literal commandment either. You are making an assumption, that you know the full spirit of the law. Perhaps G-d (Orthodox Jews work with the assumption that He exists) is commanding it for reasons beyond the obvious. -- ------------- Micha Berger {philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger A Fugue in One Voice
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/26/85)
> I wrote: > > >> If I could not understand a Mitzva, then I would not be be able to carry > >> it out "with all my mind" anyway. So an "observance for observance's > >> sake" would not be much good in any case. > > Eliyahu Teitz asks: > > > To which mitzva do you refer when you write 'all my mind'? > > To all of them: I used Biblical language because I don't like to repeat > myself. As I wrote earlier, I view the impact on human beings as the What I meant to ask was where is there an obligation to carry out mitzvot with all my mind? G-D, in the Prophets ( Samuel ) asks, 'Do I ( G-D ) want thousands of sacrifices. I prefer that my word be observed.' G-D didn't say that He wanted us to do what we thought. Our job is to do what G-D asked us to do. True, the mitzvot were given under different conditions than we now live in. And the Rabbis were empowered to explain the mitzvot. However, they cannot rewrite mitzvot. What Humanists are doing is rewriting mitzvot. As I have said in the past, not all mitzvot have logical reasons, and in fact some of those that I mentioned were not answered ( purity and impurity ). Do those that have no logical reason have a worse standing as far as observance is concerned? Are they mistakes that somehow crept into the Torah? No. All the mitzvot were commanded by G-D that we should observe them for no other reason than that they were commanded. Eliyahu Teitz. p.s. I'm still awaiting a response to the impurity and purity rules. > essence of any mitzva, even one originally taught by means of a specific > example. Re-enacting the original instructional example may not be enough > to carry out the mitzva today, since the original human impact of that > specific action may have been vitiated by social or technological change. > Thus, if one does not understand the human impact the mitzva was > intended to have, one cannot truly carry that mitzva out. > From where do you know this? Does the Torah say w must check the social impact of each mitzva before observing it? > Teitz also asks: > > > What do you do with the mitzva of 'Lo tigra', that you should not > > diminish the number of mitzvot? > > I interpret that to mean that I should watch out for cases where the > number of mitzvot would be diminished, were I to restrict my observance > to a specific instructional example whose impact has been vitiated by > social or technological change. > > Consider, as an example, the mitzva originally taught through the > example of leaving the corners of the fields unharvested. The human > impact was to assure that the majority of the population, which was then > engaged in agriculture, would make food available to the poor (widows, > orphans etc.) who would have otherwise starved. Today, the majority of > the population is no longer engaged in agriculture. Thus, those Orthodox > who claim that this mitzva is binding only on those who actually own or > work in the fields, are in effect "diminishing the number of mitzvot" by > discarding the mitzva that the majority should contribute to feeding > those who would otherwise starve. And since the majority of the poor > today live far from cultivated fields, even those Orthodox who observe > the original instructional example literally are in effect discarding > this mitzva, since they are not making the food available to those in > actual danger of starving. > > Humanistic Jews, unlike the Orthodox, do not discard a mitzva when the > original instructional example has been vitiated by social or > technological chage, but instead find and carry out equivalent > contemporary ways to carry out as many of the Mitzvot as possible. I > personally observe the above mitzva by contributing to an institution > which carries out research in food science and agricultural technology. > The Orthodox would no doubt claim that I am the one in danger of > discarding mitzvot, by abandoning the traditional way of carrying them > out. My personal opinion is that my interpretation is the one closer > to relevant Jewish traditions. > Concerning your example of leaving food out in the fields. What would you do if it rained on the produce you left out. Command that more be left out, since one got to the poor? Also, what if you cut all the grain. Would you leave some cut grain in the field? The Torah requires that it be left standing. Why? Also, why are there so many rules regarding sacrifices? Some must be males others females, some only sheep, others birds, yet others only flour. Why all the differentiation? After all a sacrifice is a sacrifice. What I see is an obsession with detail. Why all the detail? Because we must observe each detail as it is written because that is what is commanded. Certain things must be done in a certain way, otherwise they are invalid. Why? Because the impact is not the only part to a mitzva. Surely we must try and realize what we should gain from observance. But the spirit is not the only mitzva. The letter of the law is what is important. This is what has kept us throughout the years. Eliyahu Teitz.