“You’re a woman walking around Williamsburg. Wearing tzitzit. You are the only person in Williamsburg. Wearing tzitzit.” -the rabbi, talking about how sure he was that I had a stable identity (we all know this is false)
Went to talk to the Reconstructionist rabbi today. It was sort of what I’d expected. I knew he was Reconstructionist so it wasn’t surprising when he tried to convince me that neither he nor most “non-Orthodox” people observe halacha. If I didn’t know any better, I might even suspect there was an undertone of “halacha is outdated,” which, just like in my textual criticism class, makes me feel like a dumb ultra-Orthodox luddite living under a rock and blocking any evidence that the earth isn’t 6000 years old.
What exactly happened to make halacha outdated (oh yeah, I forgot, we’re so much more moral and spiritually connected now)? It does seem to me more and more lately though that the only people who are as into this as I am to this are ultra-Orthodox people who are against secular universities and science (at least. I tried to explain to the rabbi that halacha makes Judaism a complete system rather than just another immigrant culture, but I guess it didn’t come out right, because he kept going “Well, I understand why some people would agree with you,” and when I mentioned that our Reform rabbi back home said she tries to ignore the whole of Leviticus, he even said that was sometimes a good idea.
Seriously.
He talked about how (despite this) he conducts his Torah studies as confronting the “challenge” of the text and finding out how it “speaks to us today.” First of all, what’s so challenging about ignoring Leviticus (it’s like: “Oh, widow has to marry the brother we don’t need that anymore, but now loving your neighbor that seems like a good one”). Second of all, this is a clear commitment of the heinous deed of “Finding wisdom in Jewish tradition and the sages only in that they had been saying what knew all along to be true.”
That means, in effect, there’s nothing new to be found. Nothing to be found in Judaism that couldn’t be found in Christianity or in self-help books. To reiterate: Everything worthy in Judaism is only what we also know to be true right now, i.e. don’t steal (as opposed to what we could potentially know through reason and time). This is a real problem to me. A problem of too much self-confidence. Seeing it this way says to me that people still see themselves as greater and wiser than the Torah.
If Judaism is only good in that it says what we already know, and if the role of the Jew is to participate in an immigrant culture that potentially could be replaced by any other and to do ethical precepts that ideally will all be assimilated into a vague ethical monotheism and have pretty much been covered by Christians who totally outnumber us anyway, then…
What is Jewish?
After our conversation, I couldn’t stop thinking about this question. The rabbi was very convinced that I would be accepted as Jewish in the Williamsburg community. He talked about the Reconstructionist concept of “identity” versus “status change”, and allegedly “identity” is the more important factor here (hence the opening quote). My identity would be Jewish as far as he’s concerned (just like that one lady said, “You have a Jewish neshama!”) His concern (and thus I presume what he figured was my concern) was whether I’d be accepted as Jewish. For someone who’s not halachic, I could see how that would be the issue, but frankly all I want is I want my mitzvot to count. This is why I can’t be Reform, where mitzvot literally can never become obligatory, according to the Reform rabbi. (Herein when I say “doing mitzvot” I mean “doing them with the mindset that they are obligatory.”)
I very seriously don’t know what’s so exciting about non-halachic Judaism. I know this is a problem for me because most Jews I will be around tend to think that Judaism is equivalent to cultural holidays and pop culture and rhyming “do” and “new” with “Jew” and they think that’s actually funny and not totally tired and maybe throw in some ethical common sense and giving money to Darfur in there for good measure. I don’t see the point of lighting Shabbat candles just because. Or stopping halfway like cutting out parts of the Shema. Or building a sukkah but not eating in it. I also think it’s totally dumb that their Torah scroll at this synagogue apparently isn’t kosher when the scribe could have easily made it with the right number of lines, so ridiculous. The rabbi said he reads from a tikkun while someone else follows along with the yod in the Torah scroll. There are only three aliyot on Shabbat. Things like that. I ask: Why do it at all? Why take out the scroll? Why use a yod? You fakers?
The thing that I don’t like is that trying to be observant is supposed to be a “problem” now. It makes you the “other” in this world of individual “choice” (i.e. not doing things…usually people do less mitzvot, not more, when it’s voluntary. Everyone knows that.) “What do you mean, you want your scroll to be kosher? Why does it matter?” It matters. To me, it means you actually give a crap. Think of it. You don’t ask “Why does it matter?” when deciding which charity to donate to or which brand of cat food to give your princess cat (for people who actually like their cats) or which engagement ring to buy or which sort of furniture to buy when you first get married. At that moment, it matters.
I don’t care very much these days about being ethnically Jewish, and having the rabbi so sure about how I’d be accepted made it pretty clear to me. I’m not interested in the pop culture stuff that Hillel can offer; the stuff that anyone can pick up if they hang out with Jews long enough. Being accepted as Jewish by people who see Judaism as not much more than pop culture and what their grandparents did doesn’t mean very much to me, really.
The Rhetoric of “Choice”
I like mitzvot. You know? I know most people think it’s just a dead weight, but to me it’s integral to Judaism. It’s non-negotiable. I don’t choose to like mitzvot like you choose your synagogue. OK. I think Judaism without mitzvot is like playing jazz by ear; sure it sounds OK but you’re not getting the internal structure (and everyone knows that’s the only interesting part of jazz). Basically, you’re missing a lot.
It’s really, really not politically correct these days to insinuate that Jews ought to be doing mitzvot as anything other than what makes them feel spiritually good for the moment (like MDMA for example) or what is done traditionally in their family. My mom, traditionally, made kielbasa, because ethnically, my mom is Lithuanian. Just like that. But what makes being Jewish so much better than being Lithuanian? My grandmother has Lithuanian flags in her house and she is from Lithuania and speaks Lithuanian. My mom knows some Lithuanian but I don’t know any and even though my family is proud of being Lithuanian, we’re not going to actually go there or do anything about it. If there were a Lithuanian Club on campus, I’d probably join but just for kicks.
Doesn’t this sound a lot like: “My mom makes gribenes. My grandmother has a menorah in her house and she is from Poland and speaks Yiddish. My mom knows some Hebrew but I don’t know any and even though my family is proud of being Jewish, we’re not going to actually do anything about it. If there were a Hillel on campus, I’d probably join but just for kicks.” What’s so special? Why is it so important for this to live on?
I mentioned to my friend today how awesome it would probably be to hang out with the people from Shemspeed, and she said something along the lines of “Yeah, they’d be cool to hang out with; they’d accept you as Jewish because they’re not jerks” or something to that effect. Which implies of course that not accepting me, Laura, as Jewish, because of halacha, would make someone a heartless and uncaring shadow of a person. This is exactly the implication that I want to work to counter. I hope people don’t think I’m heartless and uncaring because I don’t think it’s particularly great that I now know two rabbis who actively try to ignore Leviticus, and that I find halacha important and not just for me personally and that it would be a great thing in my life to encourage Jews to be more observant.
Perhaps that’s one reason people aren’t very wont to do mitzvot; they think that in doing so they’d be implicitly saying that others’ practice isn’t “good enough.” OK, I’m going to help you out here if you’re thinking this.
Behold—not doing mitzvot isn’t good enough. There, I said it. I don’t think I’m better than you if you don’t, of course, but I do think that it’s better to do mitzvot than to not. It’s not relative in that it’s good to me personally to do mitzvot, and it’s good for you not to do mitzvot. I cringe when other Jews (yes, other! I notice your existence! And judge it!) eat bacon cheeseburgers and drive their kids to soccer on Shabbat. I know it is offensive to think this, because “we all have individual choice,” but it’s still simply upsetting to me that such people don’t get it and aren’t trying to understand why mitzvot is supposed to be so important. (Trying to do more mitzvot is one thing, or trying to learn about it; but brazenly saying you’re driving your kids to a soccer game on Shabbat while wrapped in bacon is quite another.)
So? Now it’s out in the open. If it were up to me, I would do whatever I could to show people that mitzvot are a good and useful system, and not just in the usual sense like you’d expect. (FYI the rabbi also said that having children is the equivalent of any spiritual direction you get from being ritually observant. That is phony baloney and that’s how kabbalah keeps women pregnant in the kitchen while men wrap their tefillin.) I happen to think that learning Talmud and Torah (learning, not affirming what you already want to think) will change your whole way about things, and that mitzvot can’t be ripped apart into two neat categories: “ethical” and “ritual/outdated.”
I want to show people that halachic Judaism is not a scary “only for those mean no-good ultra-Orthodox” sort of thing. But I can’t because people don’t want to be told that their way is wrong. Not sure what to do here. After that talk with the rabbi, it seemed like trying to start a minyan was a really dumb idea since everyone’s apparently too “enlightened” to daven anymore or something. It’s really too bad to me to think that people don’t know that something great can emerge from doing mitzvot and all it entails. If you actually try, it will change you in ways you didn’t even consider. I don’t do mitzvot because I think lightning will strike me otherwise or being I’m still running on old momentum because I was raised this way. I do it because it gives me fulfillment as a Jew. Yes, from mitzvot. Those clunky outdated mitzvot.
It’s not up to you to decide which mitzvot are “still good.” How can you claim to know which are more important now (when a hundred years ago they thought they knew and a hundred years from now people will laugh at what we thought was right)? Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth? What you don’t know, you don’t know.
“What exactly happened to make halacha outdated (oh yeah, I forgot, we’re so much more moral and spiritually connected now)?”
Maybe you have been drinking the Haredi kool-aid if you’re into the whole yeridas hadoros thing. But I get your point.
“The thing that I don’t like is that trying to be observant is supposed to be a “problem” now. It makes you the “other” in this world of individual “choice””
Amen. I would note, though, that oftentimes I’ve felt like this is the case (and it basically is), but that even so, people who are non/less-observant (at least in the C-style, not necessarily R) will respect (not as in tolerate, but more like give kavod) most observances (at least those that aren’t subject to C modern doctrinal differences, like egalitarianism).
“I don’t choose to like mitzvot”
An interesting point that I heard made in a drasha last Shavuos was that arguably Reform and MO are more fundamentally similar than MO and Harediism, because of the element of choice. How “choice” relates to Reform probably is apparent. But MO basically requires and idealizes the modern civil society/secular state in which people practice religion, including practicing mitzvot, because G-d tells them to, NOT because the government coerces them to by threat of force. This, he argued, to my mind convincingly, was a huge departure from all of Jewish experience through the time of Spinoza at least. Harediism does not have the power of the government (in the US–there is some degree of legal sanction to batei din in Israel), but through the power of insularity and social solidarity, the Haredim enforce social norms with a similarly coercive power.
“Which implies of course that not accepting me, Laura, as Jewish, because of halacha, would make someone a heartless and uncaring shadow of a person.”
Come now, I didn’t imply all that. You are reading a lot into the word ‘jerk’; i’m using it to refer more to the sorts of people who would throw chairs at you or spit on you because they disagree with how you practice Judaism.
Now don’t get me wrong – if Person A doesn’t count Person B in their minyan or call them for an aliyah/etc because they don’t consider them to be ~halachically jewish~, that’s one thing. All Person A is trying to do in that case is follow their own religious beliefs and not violate a law themselves, etc. But if Person A were to tell Person B that they just don’t care how Person B identifies and lives their life, because Person B does not adhere to *their* group’s views on halacha and there will never be Jewish, yeah I think that is kind of jerky. To me that is textbook identity policing. It’s one thing to hold your beliefs and live by them, but it’s another to try make someone else feel bad for holding their beliefs.
But that’s just my opinion, and i’m coming at this from a totally different angle both philosophically/personally and halachically. My experience is not your experience, and you have to definitely be true to yourself first and foremost.
Geoff
“Maybe you have been drinking the Haredi kool-aid if you’re into the whole yeridas hadoros thing. But I get your point.”
Why is it either a yerida or an aliya?
I didn’t invent the idea, I’m just saying I don’t buy into it. I didn’t suggest a specific alternative.
I’m just saying that she could be right. “(oh yeah, I forgot, we’re so much more moral and spiritually connected now)” Sure, that’s kind of a parody of something people actually believe, but isn’t that more or less just as implausible as the yerida paradigm you mentioned? Maybe it’s some weird mixture of yerida and aliya. Assuming we can make grand sweeping assertions about entire generations altogether.
Honestly, you’re a whole lot more hardline on this than I am (so far, lol), but the thing is, I agree. I consider mitzvot binding, and though I don’t think Jews who don’t abide by them are ~bad people~, I think it’s incumbent upon me at least to do my best to perform them.
Anyway. Yeah, I don’t understand why making the choice to be observant is problematic; are people threatened by this? If it’s a personal choice (the same why choosing to eat, say, squid would be) then why does it freak people (read: my dad) out?
I can’t speak for your dad, of course, but I do think in general it’s because by choosing to be observant is an expression of a worldview that is, in a way, threatening. I certainly can see how this might be the case if you adopt a strict Orthodox philosophy wherein, while an unobservant Jew might not neccesarily be a rasha, s/he can at best be tinok-she-nishba. And if you don’t see things this way, then it’s not completely clear to everyone what *exactly* it means to you that mitzvos are “binding.” And this, of course, is why Chazal warned us not to study philosophy.
OK, well that might be a little different then. However…
But if Person A were to tell Person B that they just don’t care how Person B identifies and lives their life, because Person B does not adhere to *their* group’s views on halacha and there will never be Jewish, yeah I think that is kind of jerky.
I am also having a problem finding an appropriate reaction to how “others are living their life.”
1.) To use your example, I wouldn’t say I “don’t care” about this Person B identifies; in fact I care quite a lot. Sometimes, that is seen as judgmental. However, I also don’t agree with this newfangled concept called relativism where in “you’re right, I’m right, we’re all right” because if Person B is identifying as a cultural Jew or whatever, that certainly doesn’t adhere to *my* views on halacha (I know I’m going to have a hard life with that outlook).
2.) At the Reform temple back home, there is a mass-bnai mitzvah class going on, which is basically a conversion class, and as that class progressed while I was there, I grew more uncomfortable with it. Everyone in the class was making jokes about how much Hebrew they’d have to learn (basically, one bracha), and they’d be having a “group b’nai mitzvah” which meant that each person would have a different part to say; i.e. one would say barchu and one would say the first paragraph of the shema and one would say kedusha etc. I became quite uncomfortable with how carelessly going about things, but that wasn’t my problem so much as the fact that there was not much education happening before these conversions were taking place. No one, I knew, was planning on being observant after converting. That means that their conversions weren’t going to be kosher, which means that they wouldn’t be Jewish. Any of them.
Now, I wasn’t going to very well tell them this, and I still helped them with their Hebrew etc. but it really made me confront my own idea of who is Jewish. And don’t give me the whole “different denominations have different standards” thing, because the idea that you can be Jewish without doing mitzvot and still have a valid/internally coherent lifestyle is a pretty new concept. (I mean they did it before, but it wasn’t a PLATFORM before.)
“However, I also don’t agree with this newfangled concept called relativism where in “you’re right, I’m right, we’re all right””
No-one does, at least not in the strong form. There’s a difference between saying everyone is “correct” and living in peace with other people.
“No one, I knew, was planning on being observant after converting. That means that their conversions weren’t going to be kosher, which means that they wouldn’t be Jewish. Any of them.”
While this is a common understanding in Orthodox circles in this century, I would point out that this appears to be a question of practice that comes from a chumra. The Rambam’s position, as I understand it, was that all that was required was to intend to convert (i.e., implying that one then be bound by the mitzvos and subject to punishment for violating them–NOT necessarily to not violate them, because after all no-one avoids sin entirely).
It sounds like there may STILL be questions even of this basic requirement, but why do you care? If you aren’t going to marry one of these people or count them in your minyan, it shouldn’t really affect you. If it ever comes to that, you can always raise the issue then.
I think it’s incumbent upon me at least to do my best to perform them.
Of course there’s also the little-implemented commandment to chide those who don’t (but only, apparently, if the subject of this derision is actually going to listen to you, which excludes a lot of people naturally).
Anyway. Yeah, I don’t understand why making the choice to be observant is problematic; are people threatened by this?
“Choice” is a problematic word here.. I know what you mean, but it kind of implies to me that I myself am viewing the mitzvot as personal choice in doing them, which I don’t (in general that is).
No-one does, at least not in the strong form. There’s a difference between saying everyone is “correct” and living in peace with other people.
I noticed in college (less so here where people actually went through admissions committees and can think for themselves), people tend to be unusually receptive to the idea that ‘everyone is correct’. I suppose it is in the strong form. Mostly cultural relativism. It’s popular, for instance, to view religion as culturally relative (I encountered this in community college ethics class led by some kind of ordained minister). To see as Christianity and Judaism and the African religions and Shinto and etc. as “all leading to the same place.” This, I think, is different from saying there is “salvation outside the faith” or whatever words they use these days, it’s saying that it’s all just as good, truth-wise; not toleration/peace-wise. That’s not very neat thinking.
The Rambam’s position, as I understand it, was that all that was required was to intend to convert (i.e., implying that one then be bound by the mitzvos and subject to punishment for violating them
What I’m saying is that even this minimum isn’t broached. (I think it’s a pretty good approach too; much better than the ‘know everything including all the months in order and the origins of pesach sheni and how many letters in the torah before you can even hear the word beit din’ approach.)
why do you care?
I mostly only care because I like to find things to complain about (along with the fact that I disagree with these presumably mass ‘less-than-basic’ conversions in general…at least at our temple, not only were they not educated about the mitzvot, but they were told by the rabbi that the ritual ones are unimportant and even laughable).
It doesn’t harm me personally, of course, but sometimes really little (like, little) things come up like you’re saying havdala for someone else and you wonder whether to include that “pay attention, my masters” bit (I don’t know the Hebrew because I’ve only said that part twice), or whether to let them drive you around etc. I have a few friends who are or are thinking of converting Reform, and the longer I know them the harder it will be to actually have these conversations when and if they come up. I feel like this itself could be its own post.
Well, again, it’s the difference between identity and status. Someone might not have the status in one community, but that doesn’t invalidate their identity if they are active in another community as identity is not necessarily consistent. (if you think this is relativistic statement, I think you are giving too much credit to the precision of language and the ability of symbols to communicate any absolute concepts)
Personally it doesn’t bother me if someone wouldn’t consider me Jewish because of [whatever reason] if my own community, my family, my friends, etc, consider me Jewish. That’s just my own personal feeling on the subject, and I feel that the ‘target’ per say is always moving on this issue anyway. I have a pretty strong sense Jewish identity though, so ymmv. But even if I did no have a strong identity, I wouldn’t want my identity to be based on someone else’s opinion of me (which is always subject to change) when I can choose a classic source, or follow to says of Hillel the Elder, or some other esteemed Jewish sage. In some eras mitzvot are more important than in others and I don’t think strict adherence is the *only* way to be authentically Jewish – although I do agree with you that they are important. Again I would refer to Hillel, and how he can sum up Torah in a single sentence, and say the rest is commentary – but of course we are supposed to learn this commentary and apply it.
I’m not Reform either obviously, as I also find it to be a bit too assimilationist for my own taste. (although I do consider sincere Reform Jews to be Jewish) I think Jewish people should learn Hebrew or at least try their hardest to learn it and learn the blessings and prayers. Imo that is possibly *the* most important thing a Jew can do for themselves. (i’m really into phenomenology though, and language is a big deal here in terms of how we construct our mental realities)
I agree with the Kaplanian concept of Judaism as an evolving civilization, which there are books on if you are ever interested in reading and/or responding to that view in detail. XD (‘Judaism as a Civilization’, for example) It’s not Reform, it’s totally different. (Kaplan thought Reform was assimilationist..)
I’m going to play devil’s advocate here, just because I know you.
(and you know how I love to troll after all)
Do you think it’s still binding on Jews to stone disobedient children to death? Or adulterers? Do you play to do either of these things in the future, and if not, why not? Can we even really say there there is only one clear cut way to follow these miztvot (or any other mizvah) and all other interpretations are incorrect?
Also, you said, ‘don’t give me the whole “different denominations have different standards” thing,’ so I didn’t.
But the fact remains that they do. It’s ok to consider only one group’s interpretation to be the correct one (most of us feel this way, to some extent) but it’s not going to change the facts of the matter that different groups with different standards will still exist – much to chagrin of the more orthodox-leaning sources, I am aware, but even modern orthodoxy is a new position. I feel that there is historical justification behind both extremes. (of Orthodox, and of Reform – neither of which I agree with, which is why I am throwing them both out there)
(note, I am not arguing with what you are saying, I think we agree on at least some things; I am just using it as a jumping off point for this comment…)
“The Rambam’s position, as I understand it, was that all that was required was to intend to convert ”
I agree with this for the sheer fact that it is not linguistically possible for a rabbi (overseeing a conversion, for example) to really say to anyone, “You *will* observe the mizvot,” and have it be guaranteed-true at the time of conversion – unless said rabbi is able to predict the future. There is a difference between saying someone *will* observe mitzvot and then invalidating their conversion of they don’t, and saying they *shall* observe them. The later is based on intention at the time and doesn’t presume to predict the future. And doesn’t the scripture say that only G-d knows what is in the heart of an individual?
The difference between ‘will’ and ‘shall’ is so weird in English, that we tend to blur the two in informal speech. But the are not the same. For example, consider the difference between a sign which says, “You WILL NOT use elevator during a fire” and one that says “You SHALL NOT use this elevator during a fire.” – Which sounds more natural?
By “incumbent upon me [and not incumbent on others]” I mean really that I judge myself on my ability to perform mitzvot more readily than I’ll judge others’ ability to perform the same mitzvot. I mean, yes, I believe many things are binding, but I feel like there’s not much point in haranguing others to act a certain way, especially when I can’t always act that way myself. It’s more a question of hypocrisy, for me. I think I’m also viewing all this in a culturally relativistic light, though I know that in and of itself is also problematic in certain ways.
“Choice” is a problematic word, you’re right. But I guess what I mean is that when I choose to perform a mitzvah, I feel I’m make the right choice, and the converse is also true. And that I can grant that I have the privilege of being physically and emotionally in a position where I am not forced to observe in a certain way; I can make decisions about my observance in ways that others in other circumstances might not be able to. I don’t mean that my choice to abstain from pork is on the same level as my choice to take the bus rather than walk when it’s raining on Tuesday.
Lol, you do
No, I don’t. I don’t think I’ve ever said that I believe all mitzvot as delineated in the Torah (unexplicated by commentary, etc) are binding and immutable. (This is why I’m not orthodox
) I do not plan to do either of those things in the future because I believe it’s wrong from a secular ethical standpoint.
But even from a very traditional perspective, both these punishments would be almost impossible to actually carry out in the field, as it were, because the standard of proof required to initiate the death penalty is really, really high. And in any case, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment. Of course, if you’re a Karaite, you can disregard this and stone away ;P (This has lots more info if you’re interested.)
Maybe you have been drinking the Haredi kool-aid if you’re into the whole yeridas hadoros thing. But I get your point.
I really thought that was a regular Orthodox tenet, and that’s one thing that separated it from Conservatism. But anyway, I do tend to think that our reasoning now isn’t as objective as it could be. In Gemara, at the very very least, things were presented with more than one opinion (ArtScroll can’t say as much). I think that’s a good trait. We’re certainly not improving, at least in some religious areas, except in the cases where we’re actually seeing where we went wrong consequentially. I’m not sure it’s so inherent. I see it as cyclic, really—it’s the codification of late Medieval social norms that really killed us, if you ask me.
people who are non/less-observant (at least in the C-style, not necessarily R) will respect (not as in tolerate, but more like give kavod) most observances
I’ve found that too.. it’s encouraging that people are receptive and moreover that C people are trying to live up to the label despite what they say.
It’s also easier to be observant in C communities, of course, because the resources are there. My favorite example is the bowl for netilyat yadayim you’ll never see at a Reform temple, and if you make the ‘informed choice’ to do netilyat yadayim, you’re pretty much out of luck. Or you could rest slightly more assured that the tallitot that no one uses in the Conservative synagogue are probably more….er, acceptable. (I keep thinking of the field trip our class just took to the Reconstructionist/unaffiliated synagogue here…our professor called their Torah “an A-minus Torah” because it was totally unkosher…luckily I don’t know the rules about being surrounded by unkosher scrolls because I don’t need more reasons not to go to the only synagogue in town). Too often it seems that pluralism/unaffiliated is a code word for ‘least amount of observance possible’.. when it could easily be differently.
Reform and MO are more fundamentally similar than MO and Harediism, because of the element of choice.
Interesting! That does make sense. Of course their approaches are slightly different, and I’d like to see more of an MO approach in the Reform community; i.e. from a perspective that mitzvot and the modern world aren’t inherently and eternally (and fatally) opposed..
For some reason the link isn’t working, can you message me it on Facebook? D:
Yes, I agree for the most part. Everything in the Torah has to be constantly interpreted and reinterpreted, after all (and I think this holds for all texts, to some extent).
Do you identify with any movement or are you just completely non/postdenominational?
As someone who is kind of stuck in one of those weird categories – not raised Jewish but not exactly a ger either – the orthodox like to make it really hard on people like me! ;p (Because my life is an insane paradox I am somehow more-Jewish by their standards than by the standards of the movement I am joining aka reconstrucionism, hahaha. But for most others wandering in the wilderness it seems to work the other way around.)
Sure
I think maybe these comments don’t support html… or maybe I just did it wrong.
And yeah, I’m all about interpretation and reinterpretation.
I’m… I don’t really know, actually! I was raised reform (sort of at the observant end of the reform spectrum) but now am… more observant? Kind of? I don’t really know. That’s kind of what I’m blogging about lately, if you’re interested: minhaginprogress.wordpress.com
“I can make decisions about my observance in ways that others in other circumstances might not be able to. I don’t mean that my choice to abstain from pork is on the same level as my choice to take the bus rather than walk when it’s raining on Tuesday.”
THIS, sfm.
(English translation: I agree!)
Do you think it’s still binding on Jews to stone disobedient children to death?
I’m glad you mentioned that one. A couple of things.
First, you’d have to define “disobedient” and “children;” the son in this case I’m pretty certain refers to someone much older than a young child who doesn’t know any better.
Next, I think it’s important to remember that when the rabbis came to this they didn’t ignore it, but they did end up defining the terms in this ruling to a point where is was basically legislated out of existence.
I rarely advocate completely ignoring a law just because we don’t like it anymore.
Can we even really say there there is only one clear cut way to follow these miztvot
It’s all about coherence. For example, I know you could make a great case for the one-day yom tov, but if you’re going to use that to insist on one-day rosh hashana but still go for a two-day pesach seder, I find that a problem.
I wouldn’t say there’s “one clear cut way,” however I would say that there are some interpretations that are incorrect.
There are ways of participating in a second seder without acknowledging two-day yom tov. (But yes, if you’re doing that, you shouldn’t say kiddush, etc.)
I’m on two-day just out of momentum. But anyway, that’s a good thought. (You always have good logistical advice.) It might be hard when your second seder is a congregational one (that might be a Conservative thing), but it might get a little conspicuous not participating. Although I guess you could still do everything without the berachot just as well.