הסותר אפילו אבן אחת דרך השחתה מן המזבח או מן ההיכל או משאר העזרה לוקה שנאמר בעבודת כוכבים כי את מזבחותם תתוצון וכתוב לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם. וכן השורף עצי הקדש דרך השחתה לוקה שנאמר ואשריהם תשרפון באש וכתיב לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם:
If someone removed even one stone, in a destructive manner, from the Alter, the Temple or from the rest of the temple courtyard he or she is given lashes for it says with [regard to] Idol Worship (Shemos 34:13) "Their alters you shall break apart" and it writes (Devarim 12:4) [with regard to destroying Idol Worship objects] "You shall not do this to Hashem, your G-D." Also, someone who burns sanctified wood in a destructive manner receives lashes, for it says (ibid 3) "And their sacred trees shall you burn" and it says (Ibid 4) "You shall not do this to Hashem, your G-D."
In this halacha the Rambam moves on to talk about a Chilul Hashem (desecration of G-D's name) that is no longer focusing on G-D's written name. This halacha teaches us that someone must destroy sanctified objects in a malicious manner in order to be punished for transgressing this halacha. Furthermore, it seems like it must be in a malicious manner and directed towards G-D, if it is just to anger other Jews, perhaps it would not be a transgression of this halacha (This is my own thought based on the pasuk that is brought). However, if you take a stone from the Temple and use it to build a house, or if you burn a fire to keep warm using sanctified wood, you are not transgressing this commandment. Chilul Hashem requires a type of malignant behavior that displays a persons disdain for G-D. Someone needs to show the same hatred to G-D that G-D shows toward Idol Worship in order for this halacha to apply to them.
This idea can allow us to understand how rare it is to find a true apikores (someone who rebels against G-D). Most people in the Jewish religion nowadays either do not believe in G-D or they believe in G-D and try to follow his commandments or what they perceive as his commandments. It is very rare to find someone who says that they believe in G-D and they hate Him and specifically go against His will. From the people I have met there seems to be certain general categories of how people act in the Jewish religion. Firstly, there are those who do not believe in G-D. Secondly, there are those that believe in G-D, but they do not believe most of what Orthodox Judaism says is truly His will. Finally, there are those who believe that what Orthodox Judaism says is His will is actually His will. The first category can do anything against G-D's will and it is not a true Chilul Hashem or an act of an apikores because they do not believe G-D exists, so there is no ill will towards G-D. The second category has people who believe they are following G-D's will and this is true of the third category as well. A true apikores can only come from the second or third category and finding people who believe in G-D and hate Him is rare. Most people, nowadays, just stop believing in G-D if they don't want to follow His will.
Showing posts with label Orthodox Judaism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Orthodox Judaism. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
How Traditional Judaism Works
It has come to my attention that some people do not actually understand the definition of traditional Judaism. I was having a conversation with someone about what defines traditional Judaism. He was telling me about consensus, a historical consensus. However, when pressed to describe this historical consensus he would not or could not define it or describe anything about it. That means his definition of traditional Judaism being a historical consensus is a meaningless definition since it does not describe anything, at least not for him. This created a desire for me to define what traditional Judaism entails.
On a side note, this is why I think the whole Rabbi Slifkin ban was instituted and why people are so afraid to accept the possibility that Rashi was a corporealist, because there is a lack of understanding of what traditional Judaism entails. Obviously, Judaism in the time of Dovid Hamelech was practiced differently than it is now, but that is ok because times have changed along with halachic decisions. Anyone who says that traditional Judaism has always been the same clearly knows nothing about the subject.
However, there is a big difference in the halachic changes that have been made throughout the generations in traditional Judaism and the breakoffs from traditional Judaism. There are always some basic principles that are kept within traditional Judaism that separates it from other branches of Judaism. The main difference for earlier sectarian sects was the text of the written Torah. The Samaritans and others did not even accept the text of the written Torah. They changed it to follow their beliefs, in our (Judaism's) opinion.
The next breakoffs, the Tzadukim and Karaites, did not believe in an oral tradition. This is where the Pharisees differed from them. Traditional Judaism follows in the steps of the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that along with the written Torah there was an Oral tradition that explained the words of the Torah. This is where the Mishna, Gemorah and Midrash come from.
This is what traditional Judaism has today, an oral tradition (The Gemara). However, what is this oral tradition manifested as today? Well, we do not seem to paskin directly from the Gemara anymore. This is because there have been many great generations between us and the Gemara as well as many cultural and technological advances. Rabbis still use the Gemara in some ways, but almost every Posek uses Rishonim to back up their decisions. The way to derive halacha in this day and age seems to be by learning the Rishonim, the Rabbis of the middle ages, that comment on the Gemara as well as Achronim, Rabbis that comment on the Gemara and the Rishonim. This is what Rav Moshe Feinstein does in his Iggroes Moshe and this is what most great Rabbis have done for the past several years. Still, this is not the only defining factor, sometimes the idea of tradition (minhagim) comes into play. This is why Ashkenzic Jews do not eat kitniyos (things that look like wheat) on Pesach, even though there is no real halachic basis for this from the Gemara or most Rishonim. There is even a dispute when this Takana (Rabbbinical mandate) was instituted. However, no one is allowed to disagree with the Gemara, not even the Rishonim.
This leads us to the fact that traditional Judaism is a combination of the thoughts of the Rishonim and the traditions (Minhagim) that we have received from our forefathers. This is why Sefardim have their Minhagim that are very different than Ashkenazim. Also, this is why German Jews wait 3 hours between eating meat and milk, people from the Netherlands wait 1 hour and most other Jews wait 5-6 hours. These differences do not alienate these Jews from one another, but allow them all to fit nicely into traditional Judaism.
So, it seems to be that traditional Judaism is a combination of traditions passed on from father to son and Rabbi to student combined with strict halacha that is learned from the Gemara and Rishonim. Yes, the Gemara contained strict halacha, but it also combined that halacha with traditional teachings of its time. So really, the Gemara itself was similar to the Rishonim and current Rabbis in the sense that it created a tradition for its time. This is also why, in the time of Dovid Hamelech, they did not keep halacha in the same way we do now, there were different traditions (minhagim) that existed and a different interpretation of certain laws. There was no such thing as waiting between milk and meat, this tradition was not yet established. However, every generation has to take into account the traditions of the previous generation and maybe add or detract in some ways based on the needs of the community.However, why must we use the previous generations rulings to guide us? Why can't we just look at the Gemara and make our own decisions?
It is possible that a Midrash Tanchuma (Chapter 44:2) can answer this question. The Midrash tells us that when G-D was offering the Torah to the Jewish people He asked them who would be their guarantor that they would keep the Torah. They said Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. G-D said that was not good, because they needed a guarantor themselves. This caused the Jewish people to respond that their children would be their guarantors. Immediately, G-D accepted this idea. From then on, the children of the Jewish people were forever indebted to keep the Torah of their forefathers or suffer the consequences.
This Midrash points out a very important idea, fathers can make commitments that are binding on their sons. This is why traditional Judaism is not just about strict halacha that is learned out from the Torah or even just the Gemara. Every generation can make binding agreements on the subsequent generations. All of the traditions (minhagim) are based on this idea. However, this is why every community has its own traditions and everyone follows their own Rabbi, because these traditions are no longer uniformed throughout the Jewish people, as they were in the times of the Sanhedrin. True, there are some traditions that were accepted by every community, but there are many differences that occurred, because of the diverse situations of every different Jew. The Sefardim created their own traditions while in Spain and that is why many of their halachas are different than the halchas made in Germany and Poland by the Ashkenazim. Also, the Taymanim (Yemenites) completely follow Rambam, because that is who their tradition is from. It is untenable to claim that there is a uniformed tradition with one set of rules.
With this in mind I think we can explain a couple of things. One is the idea of corporealism and the second is why people who reject the diversity of Judaism and the traditions in Judaism are fools. Firstly, in the time of Rashi there were clearly several Rishonim that held of corporealism. What this actually entails, I will not go into, but the Raavad CLEARLY says (Mishna Torah Hilchos Teshuva 3:7),
The second point of the people who reject the fact that there were several opinions and that there are still several opinions within Judaism needs to be explained. There are people that believe there is only one way to follow traditional Judaism. This is a huge mistake because it denies the fact that there is no communal body that decides on what the tradition should be. The truth is that there are many ways to follow traditional Judaism. There are many different theological, philosophical and general ideas that are within the parameters of traditional Judaism. This does not mean that all or even most paths are correct, but there is definitely more than one. For one person to think their Rabbi is the only way, that is narrow minded and foolish. My last example using the great Rav Moshe Feinstein will be this. How could one person say that following Rav Moshe Feinstein is the only way to be part of traditional Judaism while Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's halachic capabilities are just as great? Or how could one invalidate Rav Ovadia Yosef?
Hopefully, one day, all Jews will be able to accept each other and not feel threatened by another group's way of life. We are all traditional Jews that want to serve G-D, now we have to work on our man-man friendship skills, as childish as that sounds. Once that works out and we can stop the ridiculousness and Chilul Hashems (desecrations of G-D's name) hopefully the Moshiach will come.
As a final point, I would like to add that there are several things that push a group outside of Orthodox (Traditional) Judaism. A group that ignores all previous halachas, Minhagim (Customs) and logical arguments can not be said to be part of Traditional Judaism, rather they would be reformers in line with a non-Orthodox or "Reform" type of Judaism. This is exactly what Reform Judaism is, something that decided previous transmission of the Oral Law is worthless and antiquated.
(Extra source for people who held of G-D's corporealism:
R' Moshe ben Hasdai Taku -- Ktav Tamim ed. Joseph Dan, pp. 7-27
R' Shlomo Simcha miTroyes -- Sefer Hamaskil
R' Joseph Ashkenazi -- "text published in Scholem, 'New Information'" (no I haven't read it)
Shadal -- Peninei Shadal, 316 )
On a side note, this is why I think the whole Rabbi Slifkin ban was instituted and why people are so afraid to accept the possibility that Rashi was a corporealist, because there is a lack of understanding of what traditional Judaism entails. Obviously, Judaism in the time of Dovid Hamelech was practiced differently than it is now, but that is ok because times have changed along with halachic decisions. Anyone who says that traditional Judaism has always been the same clearly knows nothing about the subject.
However, there is a big difference in the halachic changes that have been made throughout the generations in traditional Judaism and the breakoffs from traditional Judaism. There are always some basic principles that are kept within traditional Judaism that separates it from other branches of Judaism. The main difference for earlier sectarian sects was the text of the written Torah. The Samaritans and others did not even accept the text of the written Torah. They changed it to follow their beliefs, in our (Judaism's) opinion.
The next breakoffs, the Tzadukim and Karaites, did not believe in an oral tradition. This is where the Pharisees differed from them. Traditional Judaism follows in the steps of the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that along with the written Torah there was an Oral tradition that explained the words of the Torah. This is where the Mishna, Gemorah and Midrash come from.
This is what traditional Judaism has today, an oral tradition (The Gemara). However, what is this oral tradition manifested as today? Well, we do not seem to paskin directly from the Gemara anymore. This is because there have been many great generations between us and the Gemara as well as many cultural and technological advances. Rabbis still use the Gemara in some ways, but almost every Posek uses Rishonim to back up their decisions. The way to derive halacha in this day and age seems to be by learning the Rishonim, the Rabbis of the middle ages, that comment on the Gemara as well as Achronim, Rabbis that comment on the Gemara and the Rishonim. This is what Rav Moshe Feinstein does in his Iggroes Moshe and this is what most great Rabbis have done for the past several years. Still, this is not the only defining factor, sometimes the idea of tradition (minhagim) comes into play. This is why Ashkenzic Jews do not eat kitniyos (things that look like wheat) on Pesach, even though there is no real halachic basis for this from the Gemara or most Rishonim. There is even a dispute when this Takana (Rabbbinical mandate) was instituted. However, no one is allowed to disagree with the Gemara, not even the Rishonim.
This leads us to the fact that traditional Judaism is a combination of the thoughts of the Rishonim and the traditions (Minhagim) that we have received from our forefathers. This is why Sefardim have their Minhagim that are very different than Ashkenazim. Also, this is why German Jews wait 3 hours between eating meat and milk, people from the Netherlands wait 1 hour and most other Jews wait 5-6 hours. These differences do not alienate these Jews from one another, but allow them all to fit nicely into traditional Judaism.
So, it seems to be that traditional Judaism is a combination of traditions passed on from father to son and Rabbi to student combined with strict halacha that is learned from the Gemara and Rishonim. Yes, the Gemara contained strict halacha, but it also combined that halacha with traditional teachings of its time. So really, the Gemara itself was similar to the Rishonim and current Rabbis in the sense that it created a tradition for its time. This is also why, in the time of Dovid Hamelech, they did not keep halacha in the same way we do now, there were different traditions (minhagim) that existed and a different interpretation of certain laws. There was no such thing as waiting between milk and meat, this tradition was not yet established. However, every generation has to take into account the traditions of the previous generation and maybe add or detract in some ways based on the needs of the community.However, why must we use the previous generations rulings to guide us? Why can't we just look at the Gemara and make our own decisions?
It is possible that a Midrash Tanchuma (Chapter 44:2) can answer this question. The Midrash tells us that when G-D was offering the Torah to the Jewish people He asked them who would be their guarantor that they would keep the Torah. They said Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. G-D said that was not good, because they needed a guarantor themselves. This caused the Jewish people to respond that their children would be their guarantors. Immediately, G-D accepted this idea. From then on, the children of the Jewish people were forever indebted to keep the Torah of their forefathers or suffer the consequences.
This Midrash points out a very important idea, fathers can make commitments that are binding on their sons. This is why traditional Judaism is not just about strict halacha that is learned out from the Torah or even just the Gemara. Every generation can make binding agreements on the subsequent generations. All of the traditions (minhagim) are based on this idea. However, this is why every community has its own traditions and everyone follows their own Rabbi, because these traditions are no longer uniformed throughout the Jewish people, as they were in the times of the Sanhedrin. True, there are some traditions that were accepted by every community, but there are many differences that occurred, because of the diverse situations of every different Jew. The Sefardim created their own traditions while in Spain and that is why many of their halachas are different than the halchas made in Germany and Poland by the Ashkenazim. Also, the Taymanim (Yemenites) completely follow Rambam, because that is who their tradition is from. It is untenable to claim that there is a uniformed tradition with one set of rules.
With this in mind I think we can explain a couple of things. One is the idea of corporealism and the second is why people who reject the diversity of Judaism and the traditions in Judaism are fools. Firstly, in the time of Rashi there were clearly several Rishonim that held of corporealism. What this actually entails, I will not go into, but the Raavad CLEARLY says (Mishna Torah Hilchos Teshuva 3:7),
והאומר שיש שם רבון אחד אלא שהוא גוף ובעל תמונה. א"א ולמה קרא לזה מין וכמה גדולים וטובים ממנו הלכו בזו המחשבה לפי מה שראו במקראות ויותר ממה שראו בדברי האגדות המשבשות את הדעות:The Raavad seems to not believe in corporealism, but it is obvious that many of his knowledgeable contemporaries did and he considered them part of Orthodox (Traditional) Judaism. This leads us to believe that at this point in time, aka the Raavad's time, corporealism was an idea that was accepted in traditional Judaism. True, there were disagreements on this issue, but that is the same disagreement as Rav Moshe Feinstein saying a Jew can drink chalov stam (regular milk) and another great Rabbi disagreeing with him, according to the Raavad. According to the Rambam, however, these people were 'beyond the pale" of Orthodox Judaism. Nevertheless, just because there is a disagreement does not mean that one is representing the traditional view of Judaism and the other is not. The fact is that this was an idea that was not yet set in stone in traditional Judaism and either view was ACCEPTABLE. This leads me to believe that since Rashi is unclear on the subject, it is very possible that he believed in corporealism. It is also very possible that he did not. Either way, he would still be within the traditional Judaism of his time period.
(The Rambam states) that whoever says that there is One G-D, but he has a [physical] body and an image [is considered a heretic.] The Raavad says, why is this person called a heretic? There are many great and good people among us that go in this way of thinking because of what they saw in scripture and even more so from what they saw in the words of Aggadita (stories of the Rabbis) that confused the mind.
The second point of the people who reject the fact that there were several opinions and that there are still several opinions within Judaism needs to be explained. There are people that believe there is only one way to follow traditional Judaism. This is a huge mistake because it denies the fact that there is no communal body that decides on what the tradition should be. The truth is that there are many ways to follow traditional Judaism. There are many different theological, philosophical and general ideas that are within the parameters of traditional Judaism. This does not mean that all or even most paths are correct, but there is definitely more than one. For one person to think their Rabbi is the only way, that is narrow minded and foolish. My last example using the great Rav Moshe Feinstein will be this. How could one person say that following Rav Moshe Feinstein is the only way to be part of traditional Judaism while Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's halachic capabilities are just as great? Or how could one invalidate Rav Ovadia Yosef?
Hopefully, one day, all Jews will be able to accept each other and not feel threatened by another group's way of life. We are all traditional Jews that want to serve G-D, now we have to work on our man-man friendship skills, as childish as that sounds. Once that works out and we can stop the ridiculousness and Chilul Hashems (desecrations of G-D's name) hopefully the Moshiach will come.
As a final point, I would like to add that there are several things that push a group outside of Orthodox (Traditional) Judaism. A group that ignores all previous halachas, Minhagim (Customs) and logical arguments can not be said to be part of Traditional Judaism, rather they would be reformers in line with a non-Orthodox or "Reform" type of Judaism. This is exactly what Reform Judaism is, something that decided previous transmission of the Oral Law is worthless and antiquated.
(Extra source for people who held of G-D's corporealism:
R' Moshe ben Hasdai Taku -- Ktav Tamim ed. Joseph Dan, pp. 7-27
R' Shlomo Simcha miTroyes -- Sefer Hamaskil
R' Joseph Ashkenazi -- "text published in Scholem, 'New Information'" (no I haven't read it)
Shadal -- Peninei Shadal, 316 )
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Different Branches of Orthodox Judaism
In orthodox Judaism there are several different branches. There are the Litvaks, Chassidim, the moderns, the centrists, the left wingers, and countless others. The strangest part about all of this seems to be the extremes. Why is it that the extremes believe that the rest of the orthodox Jews are not valid? If you don't follow every single chumra, even the one made up by my rabbi last week, then you are a kofer. What? How does that make sense? Also, on the other side, Judaism was meant to make people respect one another so if you follow the stricter rulings than you are being ignorant. What?
How can it be that one sect of Judaism has so many conflicting ideas? How can it be that one sect that defines itself by a strict adherence to halacha can deviate so widely? Some people might want to say that left wing orthodoxy does not follow halacha. This is incorrect, as much as some would love you to think it. Sure, there are people in the group that do not follow halacha, but that doesn't mean the group as a whole should not be considered orthodox. I would counter and say that there are many Ultra orthodox people that do not follow halacha, however, they don't follow different halachas than those people found in left wing orthodoxy. In the end of the day, no group can be defined by its individual members, rather the group must be defined by its ideologies.
Left wing orthodoxy tries to adapt the Torah to be completely congruent with modern morals and acceptable behavior. Ultra orthodoxy does the exact opposite. They require a strict adherence to how life was 200 years ago. Notice how I say 200 years ago and not 2000. Then there are the centrist orthodox that believe there should be a balance of somewhere in between. Centrists believe that, although Judaism is meant to adapt with the times, there is not supposed to be a complete congruence with modern culture.
In general, what I have observed, there seems to be the following differences between left wing orthodoxy, right wing orthodoxy and centrist orthodoxy.
1) Left wing orthodoxy seems to say, there is such a thing as halacha, but we can push the boundaries as far as they can go. This has most recently been shown through the whole Maharat issue. Left wing orthodoxy seems to be saying that women can be Rabbis and you can not show me any place in the Shulchan Orech that says otherwise. The idea of minhagim seems to be unimportant to an extent and forget about classical ideals. It seems like they believe that modern morals, acceptance of everyone and equality should be the dominating ideas in Judaism. However, what seems to de-legitimize this approach in the eyes of those outside this branch of orthodox Judaism is that some of its followers are not strict adherers to halacha. For example, there are some that do not follow all of the rules of kashrus, taharas hamishpacha or shabbos. Some will value other things before halacha and the Torah. The biggest characteristic that I have seen in this branch is that very few people ask the Rav halachic questions. Apparently they all know the Shulchan Orech by heart.
2)Ultra Orthodoxy seems to be the exact opposite in certain ways, but very similar in others. Ultra Orthodoxy refuses to accept any modern morals. They do not think all things should be equal. They think that there should be a strict adherence to halacha, but that if their Rabbi says something and you don't follow him then you are digressing from the real mesorah. I have met many Ultra orthodox Jews that consider me to be eating non-kosher when I use chalav stam. There are many other examples, but why go into it? Unfortunately, Some of them do not follow halacha either. They all keep shabbos, taharas hamishpacha and kashrus, but when it comes to treating other people civil, there are some that do not follow halacha. For example, the protests that have been going on in Israel are just ridiculous. I am not even going to get into the Neturei Karta brand of "Judaism" Yemach Shemam. The most telling part of the Ultra Orthodox community is the clothes they feel obligated to wear and that they ask their Rav about everything, even when to get a job or move houses.
3)The Centrist Orthodox, where is their place in all of this? They hold onto traditional values, but also incorporate modern values into their lives. I mean, they believe in equality, but also hold onto tradition. This allows them to keep halacha without compromising. They learn Torah, study secular studies and get jobs. They have Rebbeim that are competent and are compassionate. They do not desire to change Judaism, but can adapt it in order for it to interact with the modern world. When people have questions, that is ok and a logical answer is searched for. They ask halachic questions, but they believe that everyone should be able to make some decisions by themselves.
I think these descriptions accurately describe the differences between the varying branches of orthodox Judaism. If you disagree or agree let me know why or why not. Any additions are welcome.
How can it be that one sect of Judaism has so many conflicting ideas? How can it be that one sect that defines itself by a strict adherence to halacha can deviate so widely? Some people might want to say that left wing orthodoxy does not follow halacha. This is incorrect, as much as some would love you to think it. Sure, there are people in the group that do not follow halacha, but that doesn't mean the group as a whole should not be considered orthodox. I would counter and say that there are many Ultra orthodox people that do not follow halacha, however, they don't follow different halachas than those people found in left wing orthodoxy. In the end of the day, no group can be defined by its individual members, rather the group must be defined by its ideologies.
Left wing orthodoxy tries to adapt the Torah to be completely congruent with modern morals and acceptable behavior. Ultra orthodoxy does the exact opposite. They require a strict adherence to how life was 200 years ago. Notice how I say 200 years ago and not 2000. Then there are the centrist orthodox that believe there should be a balance of somewhere in between. Centrists believe that, although Judaism is meant to adapt with the times, there is not supposed to be a complete congruence with modern culture.
In general, what I have observed, there seems to be the following differences between left wing orthodoxy, right wing orthodoxy and centrist orthodoxy.
1) Left wing orthodoxy seems to say, there is such a thing as halacha, but we can push the boundaries as far as they can go. This has most recently been shown through the whole Maharat issue. Left wing orthodoxy seems to be saying that women can be Rabbis and you can not show me any place in the Shulchan Orech that says otherwise. The idea of minhagim seems to be unimportant to an extent and forget about classical ideals. It seems like they believe that modern morals, acceptance of everyone and equality should be the dominating ideas in Judaism. However, what seems to de-legitimize this approach in the eyes of those outside this branch of orthodox Judaism is that some of its followers are not strict adherers to halacha. For example, there are some that do not follow all of the rules of kashrus, taharas hamishpacha or shabbos. Some will value other things before halacha and the Torah. The biggest characteristic that I have seen in this branch is that very few people ask the Rav halachic questions. Apparently they all know the Shulchan Orech by heart.
2)Ultra Orthodoxy seems to be the exact opposite in certain ways, but very similar in others. Ultra Orthodoxy refuses to accept any modern morals. They do not think all things should be equal. They think that there should be a strict adherence to halacha, but that if their Rabbi says something and you don't follow him then you are digressing from the real mesorah. I have met many Ultra orthodox Jews that consider me to be eating non-kosher when I use chalav stam. There are many other examples, but why go into it? Unfortunately, Some of them do not follow halacha either. They all keep shabbos, taharas hamishpacha and kashrus, but when it comes to treating other people civil, there are some that do not follow halacha. For example, the protests that have been going on in Israel are just ridiculous. I am not even going to get into the Neturei Karta brand of "Judaism" Yemach Shemam. The most telling part of the Ultra Orthodox community is the clothes they feel obligated to wear and that they ask their Rav about everything, even when to get a job or move houses.
3)The Centrist Orthodox, where is their place in all of this? They hold onto traditional values, but also incorporate modern values into their lives. I mean, they believe in equality, but also hold onto tradition. This allows them to keep halacha without compromising. They learn Torah, study secular studies and get jobs. They have Rebbeim that are competent and are compassionate. They do not desire to change Judaism, but can adapt it in order for it to interact with the modern world. When people have questions, that is ok and a logical answer is searched for. They ask halachic questions, but they believe that everyone should be able to make some decisions by themselves.
I think these descriptions accurately describe the differences between the varying branches of orthodox Judaism. If you disagree or agree let me know why or why not. Any additions are welcome.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Different Ways To Believe In Orthodox Judaism
There are many different ways for a Jew to believe in Judaism. However, remaining in the Orthodox version leaves us with two overall paths. I will refer to these two paths as the Rambam/Ralbag (World must be congruent with science always) and the Maharal path (World's science could change whenever since G-D is all powerful He can change anything). Both of these paths have their benefits and deficiencies. The Rambam/Ralbag path makes Judaism very comprehensible and allows the world to be attainable for a thinking person. However, it requires a less literal interpretation of the Bible. The Maharal's path is less comprehensible and removes all certainty from the nature of life. However, it allows for a literal meaning of the Bible.
These two paths are both widely used nowadays. However, scientists will laugh at the Maharal's approach. How can it be that we humans can not understand nature and predict its course? Well, the Maharal's path leads us to the following answer. You scientists are very haughty assuming that you know how the world works. You think that Gravity has always existed in its current state and that the properties of all chemicals have always been the same. How can you possibly know this? Do you have a time machine that tells you that for the past 4 billion years, according to you, the nature of the world was constant? Isn't that an assumption? The certainty that you give off is flawed because it is based on assumptions. I however believe that G-D controls nature in every way. He can change its course in an instant. In fact, there are points in the Bible that even say this. For example, after the flood in Noach's time the Bible says (Genesis 8:22), "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." This implies that G-D made nature cease, or at the very least change, during the time of the flood. There are more examples, but this is not an exhaustive list. Thus we see that the Maharal's path can explain why science today does not effect the modern Jew's faith that follows this path. Science does not truly contradict the Maharal's path since G-D controls all of nature, so any "proof" against the Bible that scientists can bring is inconsequential since it is all based on false assumptions.
In the Rambam/Ralbag path we assume that science is right with its assumptions. We buy into the idea that nature has always been constant. This allows for us to become convinced by the scientists and make us choose one of two options. The first option is to completely discard the Bible and our belief in G-D. This is why the Rambam/Ralbag path is so dangerous for orthodox Jews, because it leaves itself open for people to see a conflict and lose hope. The second option is what the Rambam and Ralbag actually do, reconcile the text with science. This is usually not very hard to do. However, it does require that there be a non-literal understanding of the text. This is exactly what the Rambam, in The Guide for the Perplexed, does and it is also what the Ralbag, in his commentary on the Bible, does. An example of some non-literal interpretation of the Bible comes from the idea of the Gemorah that the Torah (Bible) uses the language of man. For instance, the Ralbag explains that the Rain that the Bible refers to during the flood of Noach was not literally rain. The Ralbag explains that there was just so much water that it seemed like it was the opening of the gates of heaven. This is similar to when a man says it was raining cats and dogs. Man doesn't literally mean it was raining cats and dogs, rather it was just a heavy downpour. With these ideas in mind, it is clear to see that this approach of the Rambam/Ralbag can reconcile science with the Bible and Judaism.
****Update
Check out my post where the Maharal openly talks about these ideas here. I will be writing more posts on this subject after this post on the Maharal.
These two paths are both widely used nowadays. However, scientists will laugh at the Maharal's approach. How can it be that we humans can not understand nature and predict its course? Well, the Maharal's path leads us to the following answer. You scientists are very haughty assuming that you know how the world works. You think that Gravity has always existed in its current state and that the properties of all chemicals have always been the same. How can you possibly know this? Do you have a time machine that tells you that for the past 4 billion years, according to you, the nature of the world was constant? Isn't that an assumption? The certainty that you give off is flawed because it is based on assumptions. I however believe that G-D controls nature in every way. He can change its course in an instant. In fact, there are points in the Bible that even say this. For example, after the flood in Noach's time the Bible says (Genesis 8:22), "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." This implies that G-D made nature cease, or at the very least change, during the time of the flood. There are more examples, but this is not an exhaustive list. Thus we see that the Maharal's path can explain why science today does not effect the modern Jew's faith that follows this path. Science does not truly contradict the Maharal's path since G-D controls all of nature, so any "proof" against the Bible that scientists can bring is inconsequential since it is all based on false assumptions.
In the Rambam/Ralbag path we assume that science is right with its assumptions. We buy into the idea that nature has always been constant. This allows for us to become convinced by the scientists and make us choose one of two options. The first option is to completely discard the Bible and our belief in G-D. This is why the Rambam/Ralbag path is so dangerous for orthodox Jews, because it leaves itself open for people to see a conflict and lose hope. The second option is what the Rambam and Ralbag actually do, reconcile the text with science. This is usually not very hard to do. However, it does require that there be a non-literal understanding of the text. This is exactly what the Rambam, in The Guide for the Perplexed, does and it is also what the Ralbag, in his commentary on the Bible, does. An example of some non-literal interpretation of the Bible comes from the idea of the Gemorah that the Torah (Bible) uses the language of man. For instance, the Ralbag explains that the Rain that the Bible refers to during the flood of Noach was not literally rain. The Ralbag explains that there was just so much water that it seemed like it was the opening of the gates of heaven. This is similar to when a man says it was raining cats and dogs. Man doesn't literally mean it was raining cats and dogs, rather it was just a heavy downpour. With these ideas in mind, it is clear to see that this approach of the Rambam/Ralbag can reconcile science with the Bible and Judaism.
****Update
Check out my post where the Maharal openly talks about these ideas here. I will be writing more posts on this subject after this post on the Maharal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)