adam@npois.UUCP (Adam V. Reed) (03/02/85)
Ari Gross asks: > How does a Humanist Jew keep the mitzvah of Parah Aaduma (the >sprinkling of the ashes of a red heifer on one defiled by a corpse)? Corpses bred pestilence, and those who touched them were likely to spread it. This was especially important in the case of a Kohen, who would come in contact with many people in the course of Temple duties. Thus, the purification procedure had to be onerous enough to make sure that every reasonable precaution would be taken to avoid defilement. The meaning of this mitzva is to avoid becoming a carrier of pestilence. I keep it by, e.g., getting immunized to any contagious disease before traveling in countries where it might be endemic. >And what is today's humanistic equivalent of "killing out Amalek" ? >Was that precept just to appeal to the bloodthirsty Israelites but has >no bearing on the 'enlightened'? As gratuitous killers of defenseless people, Amalek does have contemporary equivalents, such as Nazis and other terrorists. I keep this mitzva by helping the Simon Wiesenthal Center. >If the Torah is of divine origin then it is rather presumptuous of us >to assume that we can know all the reasons that motivated Him to give >us a particular mitzvah and are therefore capable of substituting it >for its moral (humanistic) equivalent. What if there are additional >reasons for the precept that supersede our limited knowledge and >understanding? The claim that the Torah is of divine origin pre-supposes that the divine is subject to human knowledge. I do not agree with this assumption. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". Humanistic Judaism is the position that the Jewish way of life ought to be defined without appealing to supernatural authority. > If, on the other hand, the Torah is not of divine origin then why >would a humanistic Jew feel compelled to keep any of its precepts' >moral equivalents? I keep the Mitzvot, as I understand them, because I am a Jew. Adam ben Tzvi Aharon (Adam V. Reed) npois!adam
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/11/85)
Just to comment on the humanist problem: How does a humanist keep shaatnez ( the prohibition of wearing wool and linen together, or of grafting trees, or crossbreeding vegetation or animals ) ? Also , what is the meaning behind Tzitzit and t'fillin ? There are hundreds of other mitzvot to list but these are a start. Eventually there will be a mitzva without an explaination and then the humanist will be up a tree having to decide on observance for observance sake or not following. > > I keep the Mitzvot, as I understand them, because I am a Jew. Who says you understand them correctly ? Also, why do you assume that we must understand the reasons for all the mitzvot before we do them. As our forefathers said when they received the Torah, Naaseh v'nishma, we will do and we will listen. Our prinmary concern should be to do, no matter what. Then once we are doing we can try and figure out why exactly we do it. And if we cannot find an answer, we do anyway. Eliyahu Teitz.
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (03/13/85)
> > I keep the Mitzvot, as I understand them, because I am a Jew. > > (unreferenced by name) > Who says you understand them correctly ? (Teitz) The same question could be put to anyone: Who says the Rambam understands them correctly? Who says Feinstein undertands them correctly? Who says Teitelbaum or Schneerson (sp?) or Brickner, or even Joseph Caro understands them correctly? It's all open to discussion. The point is therefore not "who is the correct one true interpreter of what constitutes Judaism?" but rather "what do I regard as the most correct interpretation of what constitutes Judaism?" since this latter question is logically antecedent to the first one and is not trivial by any means. Though it is logically antecedent, one should expose oneself to others' opinions in the attempt to form one's own opinion. The amount of attention devoted to this question is obviously also an issue which gets decided based upon factors not related to Judaism. This is as it should be, as I regard it as inappropriate to think only of halachkic issues in life. --J. Abeles
hsc@ahuta.UUCP (h.cohen) (03/13/85)
REFERENCES: <218@npois.UUCP>, <1226@aecom.UUCP> Judaism consists of Torah plus thousands of years of interpretation, commentary, and tradition. In one sense, violation of the interpretation/commentary/tradition is violation of Judaism. Certainly, it is not to be done lightly, but with the utmost caution. However, 1) interpretation and commentary are part of our tradition, and 2) Orthodoxy is certainly NOT comprised of literal obedience to Torah. Regarding the second point, a few examples: The practice of putting on t'fillin is 1% Torah and 99% interpretation and tradition. Likewise separating millig and fleishig. The application of Mosaic criminal law at times is in direct conflict with a literal reading of Torah. Orthodoxy is pleased to call this "interpretation" rather than "reform." So be it, but let us not argue against "Humanistic Judaism" from false premises.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/18/85)
> > > I keep the Mitzvot, as I understand them, because I am a Jew. > > > (unreferenced by name) > > Who says you understand them correctly ? (Teitz) > The same question could be put to anyone: Who says the Rambam understands > them correctly? Who says Feinstein undertands them correctly? Who > says Teitelbaum or Schneerson (sp?) or Brickner, or even Joseph Caro > understands them correctly? It's all open to discussion. The point > is therefore not "who is the correct one true interpreter of what > constitutes Judaism?" but rather "what do I regard as the most correct > interpretation of what constitutes Judaism?" since this latter question is > logically antecedent to the first one and is not trivial by any means. > Though it is logically antecedent, one should expose oneself to others' > opinions in the attempt to form one's own opinion. The amount of > attention devoted to this question is obviously also an issue which > gets decided based upon factors not related to Judaism. This > is as it should be, as I regard it as inappropriate to think only > of halachkic issues in life. My response was to the idea that mitzvot are kept because of a certain reason ( ta'amei hamitzvot ). The Rambam and others do not say that a mitzvas observance is dependent on the reason why the mitzva was originally given, for we are not sure why some mitzvot were given. The rabbis listed tell us how to observe. They don't tell us that they do or don't apply today for some reason or another.. Eliyahu Teitz.
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/18/85)
> REFERENCES: <218@npois.UUCP>, <1226@aecom.UUCP> > > However, 1) interpretation and commentary are part of our tradition, and > 2) Orthodoxy is certainly NOT comprised of literal obedience to Torah. > Regarding the second point, a few examples: The practice of putting on t'fillin > is 1% Torah and 99% interpretation and tradition. How so? Why is the obligation only 1% Torah. My Torah says to wear t'fillin. This is 100% of the obligation. Eliyahu Teitz.
meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (03/19/85)
Or leyom shelishi leparshas Vayikra, 26 ADAR 5745 NOTE: > > adam reed > eliyahu teitz in response = j. abeles in respone to eliyahu teitz > > I keep the Mitzvot, as I understand them, because I am a Jew. > > (unreferenced by name) > Who says you understand them correctly ? (Teitz) =The same question could be put to anyone: Who says the Rambam understands =them correctly? Who says Feinstein undertands them correctly? Who =says Teitelbaum or Schneerson (sp?) or Brickner, or even Joseph Caro =understands them correctly? It's all open to discussion. The point =is therefore not "who is the correct one true interpreter of what =constitutes Judaism?" but rather "what do I regard as the most correct =interpretation of what constitutes Judaism?" since this latter question is =logically antecedent to the first one and is not trivial by any means. =Though it is logically antecedent, one should expose oneself to others' =opinions in the attempt to form one's own opinion. The amount of =attention devoted to this question is obviously also an issue which =gets decided based upon factors not related to Judaism. This =is as it should be, as I regard it as inappropriate to think only =of halachkic issues in life. = --J. Abeles My initial reaction was one word, as we say in ivrit : SHTUYOT !!! We believe in the concept of "Masorah" - handing down / teaching of the Torah from generation to generation, according to the way that it was given to Moshe at Sinai with the interpretations of the "Chazal" (wise sages) in each generation. THAT is who says that the interpretations espoused by the great rabbis in each generation, including Rambam, Feinstein, Teitelbaum, Schneerson, and Joseph Caro (those names you mentioned) are legitemate. That ALSO says that the opinions of Balfour Brickner, if they are anti-thetical to TORAH VIEWS, are not "the correct one true interpreter of what constitutes Judaism" !!! It is NOT a question of "what do I regard as the most correct interpretation of what constitues Judaism". Who are you (or me, or anyone else) to come along more than 3000 years after the Torah was given at Sinai, along with its true interpretation, and decide that the great rabbis of the previous generations were wrong, out of touch, unable to adapt to change, etc. ?? Why do you think that we are called "THE NATION OF THE BOOK" ?? Everyone knows that we received the Torah at Sinai, and that it instructs us in our way of life. Why did we receive the Torah, if not to follow it ??? And if you wish to question this, I'll tell you a story my history teacher once told to prove that his class that there was an Abraham Lincoln, and that he proclaimed freedom for the slaves : How do I know all this ? well, my father told it to me, and his father told it to him, and his father to him, and his father was there and SAW it with his own two eyse, and heard it with his own two ears. So it is with the Torah. If I wasn't there (and according to some of the commentaries, I was), then my great-great-...-great-grandfather was there. And this has been passed on through ALL the generations, along with all that was taught there at Sinai. Also, you MUST accept the oral law (Torah She-Ba-al Peh) along with the written law (Torah She-bichsav). Without the oral law you cannot possibly begin to understand the written law. One of the primary examples of this concerns the obligation to ritually slaughter an animal before eating it. The torah says in Parshas Re-eh, Devarim 12:21 - "vezavachta ... ka-asher tzivisicha" - and you shall slaughter it as i have commanded you. Yet there is NO verse in the Torah that tells us of all the complicated laws of "shechita" (ritual slaughtering). So, Rashi (R. Shlomo ben Yitzchak - circa 1000'ish) tells us that these laws were taught to Moshe at Sinai, even though they weren't written down at the time ("halachah le-moshe mi-sinai"). The oral law, just like the written law, comes to us with a certain interpretation; again, from the great rabbis; we cannot make up a NEW Torah. This is a basic tenet of our religion, Judaism. Furthermore, many (if not most) issues in life ARE governed by halachah - always have been, and always will be. There are some issues that may not be clearly defined by halachah, but even in those areas we have guidance from "chazal" as to how we should function. And NONE of the methods suggested by chazal was to CHANGE the Torah according to our own very little minds. All the knowledge that we can ever hope to personally accumulate over our lifetimes is but a paltry sum compared to that attained by the great rabbis; and especially so in the field of Torah knowledge. And you are ready, at the drop of a hat, to dismiss "chazal" and their interpretations of the Torah, only to replace them with your own. May I remind you that someone else tried to do that, about 2000 years ago, rejecting the old and REPLACING it with his NEW version. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Torah is "nitzchi" - it has eternal life. (NOTE : I don't "chas veshalom" mean to insinuate that you are trying to do what he did. Please accept my pre-apologies for any such inferences.) And you have the gall to mention Balfour Brickner in the same utterance along with our great rabbis ??? Just one more story : it is said that Rabbi Chaim Volozhener (of Volozhen, one of the greatest students of the Vilna Gaon) had a student who went off the path and became a follower of the Haskalah movement (story is circa early 1800's if I'm not mistaken). One day the student came back to the Volozhener Yeshiva and sarted speaking with Reb Chaim, asking him all kinds of questions about "emunah" (belief), etc. These questions related to the "problems" that the student found in his struggle to remain religious, and were the points that convinced him to throw off the yoke of Torah and become non-observant. Reb Chaim listened to each of his student's arguments and DID NOT RESPOND to any of them !!!! After the former student left, Reb Chaim's students asked him : Rebbi (our rabbi), why did you not answer him ?? You could have answered EVERY one of his questions !! To which Reb Chaim answered : He didn't come to ask questions, looking for answers and guidance on how to lead his life; he came to try to justify to himself why he had turned astray. For someone like that there are no answers; you cannot argue with such a person. His questions are not questions; rather they are excuses. ================ By the way, some people's names appear on the net in a "crypted form". Can you please let us know who you REALLY are : j. (what does it stand for) abeles, professor wagstaff (?), karen alais larryg =============== asher meth allegra!cmcl2!csd2!meth ARPA meth@nyu-csd2.arpa
mls@wxlvax.UUCP (Michael Schneider) (03/20/85)
One comment leads us to Pesach. The passing on of the laws is reflected in the Hagadah, when we say to the Wicked Son =It was because of what G-d did for ME ....= M.L. Schneider