Paul B Fenton Chapter 45, The Jewish Philosohical Tradition
Sufism, the Islamic Mysticism, which began in the 8th century but truly flowered in the 9th century predates Jewish Kabbalah. Rabbi Bachye ibn Paquda who wrote Chovos HaLevovos was inspired by Sufism. This book was a great inspiration to many generations of Jews, especially Chassidic Jewry. Notably, is a quote from Rav Yaakov Yosef the great talmid of the Holy Besht, which said “Ye have returned from the lesser war, now prepare for the greater war (with ones nature)” which is straight from Rav Bachye is actually a quote from none other than Muhammad himself. Rav Avraham ben HaRambam, son of the great rationalist, was a Sufi inspired Jewish community leader and his book HaMaspik LaAvodas Hashem is also based off Sufi teachings.
The crazy thing in the article is that Abulafia and the Arizal himself may have interacted with Sufi masters which may have led them to certain teachings that they applied to Jewish Kabbalah. AMAZING.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Kaplan's God
Mel Scult, “Mordecai Kaplan and Ralph Waldo Emerson: A Theology of the Individual,” Jewish Social Studies: History, Culture, Society n.s. 12, no. 2 (Winter 2006): 99–114
Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan famous for founding and defining the Reconstructionist movement within Conservative Judaism, is also famous for refining and reassessing his "formulation" of what God is. Here are some quotes from a wonderful article by Kaplan's biographer and editor of his journals. I chose these quotes as they sum up the point of Scult's thesis which is essentially that although in "Judaism as a Civilization," arguably Kaplan's masterpiece, he defines God as "the Power in the cosmos that gives human life the direction that enables the human being to reflect the image of God," he also certainly never rejected a transcendental God as well, like Ralph Waldo Emerson.
In way of introduction:
"Let us return for a moment to Kaplan’s seminal work 'The Meaning of God.' This work is built around the central theological formulation of “God as the power that makes for Salvation.” Kaplan has always been much more interested in salvation than in God. I am not sure that Milton Steinberg, Kaplan’s primary critic on the metaphysical issue, understood this. Kaplan is continually searching for a proper formulation. Salvation, he says, as if to quote Dewey (his other rebbe who serves as a corrective to Emerson), means growth. Salvation, Kaplan often states, means to become fully human. It means in a very pragmatic way to become fully effective. This is again to assert the ideal of individual perfection we noted above and to embrace democracy as Emerson and Dewey understood it." pg 106
"In a manuscript from the 1950s, Kaplan summed up his ideology of the self this way: “Salvation is redemption from those evils within and outside man which hinder man from becoming fully human, or which obstruct his urge to self metamorphosis [self-transcendence]. Salvation is unhampered freedom in living and helping others to live a courageous, intelligent, righteous and purposeful life.” pg 106 quoting Mordecai Kaplan, “Soterics,” 153
"The quotation is from Joseph Albo, a medieval philosopher, who was quoting Al Gazzali, whose thought, of course, goes back to Aristotle and Plato. The statement Kaplan quotes is “Da et nafshekha ve-teda et borekha”—“know your soul [self]
and you will come to know your creator.” The self, in other words, is the key to the divine." pg 106-7
Classic Kaplan on God:
“It is because God is to me the warm personal element in life’s inner urge to creativity and self expression that I can conscientiously employ the name Y H W H when praying.” Or again, “God is that aspect of reality which elicits from us the best that is in us and enables us to bear the worst that can befall us.” Or again, “God is the assumption that there is enough in the world to meet men’s needs but not their greeds for power and pleasure.” This last formulation, by the way, was the one that was on his mind when I met him in 1972" pg 107 (quoting Kaplan Journal, July 20, l927; Kaplan Journal, May 28, l933; interview with Kaplan, Aug. 1972.)
Kaplan's Transcendent God:
"First of all, there are many instances both early and late in his career when Kaplan denies that he is merely the naturalist. The most striking occurs early in the diary entry for March 30, 1913, where he states that “The moment God is merely identified with the world and conceived as a being immanent but not transcendent, His divinity is denied and He is dissolved into the world. This is the atheism and pantheism which religion so vigorously contends against.” pg 107. Communings of the Spirit, pg 62.
"Witness another confrontation in 1943. Four of Kaplan’s rabbinical students come to him. They were entering the pardes, one might say. Can they serve as rabbis without believing in God, they want to know. One can almost hear Kaplan pounding on the desk, “You just don’t get the point.” Here is the passage from his diary entry for March 19, 1943:
'The purpose of their visit was to air their inner conflicts. They find it difficult
to believe in God and yet they want to serve the Jewish people. Can they conscientiously do so as rabbis? They had of course long ago given up the traditional basis for the belief in the existence of God, namely, revelation. But hey have so far found no substitute. What I have been teaching as the alternative to the traditional basis for the belief in God does not convince them. I evidently have not succeeded in communicating to them my own experience of a transcendent correlative to man’s will to salvation. They admit the existence of a will to salvation, but they see no need for positing a transcendent correlative of that will. Of course, my contention is not that I intellectually posit it, but that I experience it with the same immediacy as I do my own self. Intellectually I cannot posit the existence of a self, for the little I know of psychology tells me that the self is an illusion. Yet if I were to deny the reality of the existence of self as a
center of initiative I would cut the ground from under the element of responsibility,
without which human life is inconceivable. The same holds true of otherhood with its element of loyalty and of godhood with its element of piety. . . .
The main question which they must answer for themselves is this: Am I able to take the idea of God as found in the Jewish tradition and transpose it into the key of modern religion? They have been told by Milton Steinberg in the series of lectures on Theology which he is now giving that there are two kinds of religion, theistic and non-theistic. What they would like to be told is that they could be rabbis on the basis of non-theistic religion. This I told them plainly they could not do, since as rabbis their main function was to maintain the identity and continuity of the Jewish tradition. That tradition minus the God belief is like the play of Hamlet without Hamlet.'
This amazing statement from Kaplan indicates a significant movement from the realm of predicate theology to the transnatural, from the immanent to the transcendent. “A non-theistic” religion was just not acceptable for a practicing rabbi, Kaplan believed." pg 110
Emerson's God from “The Oversoul": There he states: “When the universal soul breathes through a man’s intellect, it is genius; when it breathes through his will, it is virtue; when it flows through his affection, it is love.”
Anyone think that Kaplan really was holding onto a classic view of God trying to incorporate his own formulation with difficulty? Was he never happy with his initial ideas of God being the power in the universe and all that?
While were asking questions, why dont we speak bout God in Orthodoxy? What is God? We know hes not an old man in the sky with an actual body but how can we wrap our futile brains around God and if we cant then why was Kaplan's view so heretical? mekoros please if possible.
Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan famous for founding and defining the Reconstructionist movement within Conservative Judaism, is also famous for refining and reassessing his "formulation" of what God is. Here are some quotes from a wonderful article by Kaplan's biographer and editor of his journals. I chose these quotes as they sum up the point of Scult's thesis which is essentially that although in "Judaism as a Civilization," arguably Kaplan's masterpiece, he defines God as "the Power in the cosmos that gives human life the direction that enables the human being to reflect the image of God," he also certainly never rejected a transcendental God as well, like Ralph Waldo Emerson.
In way of introduction:
"Let us return for a moment to Kaplan’s seminal work 'The Meaning of God.' This work is built around the central theological formulation of “God as the power that makes for Salvation.” Kaplan has always been much more interested in salvation than in God. I am not sure that Milton Steinberg, Kaplan’s primary critic on the metaphysical issue, understood this. Kaplan is continually searching for a proper formulation. Salvation, he says, as if to quote Dewey (his other rebbe who serves as a corrective to Emerson), means growth. Salvation, Kaplan often states, means to become fully human. It means in a very pragmatic way to become fully effective. This is again to assert the ideal of individual perfection we noted above and to embrace democracy as Emerson and Dewey understood it." pg 106
"In a manuscript from the 1950s, Kaplan summed up his ideology of the self this way: “Salvation is redemption from those evils within and outside man which hinder man from becoming fully human, or which obstruct his urge to self metamorphosis [self-transcendence]. Salvation is unhampered freedom in living and helping others to live a courageous, intelligent, righteous and purposeful life.” pg 106 quoting Mordecai Kaplan, “Soterics,” 153
"The quotation is from Joseph Albo, a medieval philosopher, who was quoting Al Gazzali, whose thought, of course, goes back to Aristotle and Plato. The statement Kaplan quotes is “Da et nafshekha ve-teda et borekha”—“know your soul [self]
and you will come to know your creator.” The self, in other words, is the key to the divine." pg 106-7
Classic Kaplan on God:
“It is because God is to me the warm personal element in life’s inner urge to creativity and self expression that I can conscientiously employ the name Y H W H when praying.” Or again, “God is that aspect of reality which elicits from us the best that is in us and enables us to bear the worst that can befall us.” Or again, “God is the assumption that there is enough in the world to meet men’s needs but not their greeds for power and pleasure.” This last formulation, by the way, was the one that was on his mind when I met him in 1972" pg 107 (quoting Kaplan Journal, July 20, l927; Kaplan Journal, May 28, l933; interview with Kaplan, Aug. 1972.)
Kaplan's Transcendent God:
"First of all, there are many instances both early and late in his career when Kaplan denies that he is merely the naturalist. The most striking occurs early in the diary entry for March 30, 1913, where he states that “The moment God is merely identified with the world and conceived as a being immanent but not transcendent, His divinity is denied and He is dissolved into the world. This is the atheism and pantheism which religion so vigorously contends against.” pg 107. Communings of the Spirit, pg 62.
"Witness another confrontation in 1943. Four of Kaplan’s rabbinical students come to him. They were entering the pardes, one might say. Can they serve as rabbis without believing in God, they want to know. One can almost hear Kaplan pounding on the desk, “You just don’t get the point.” Here is the passage from his diary entry for March 19, 1943:
'The purpose of their visit was to air their inner conflicts. They find it difficult
to believe in God and yet they want to serve the Jewish people. Can they conscientiously do so as rabbis? They had of course long ago given up the traditional basis for the belief in the existence of God, namely, revelation. But hey have so far found no substitute. What I have been teaching as the alternative to the traditional basis for the belief in God does not convince them. I evidently have not succeeded in communicating to them my own experience of a transcendent correlative to man’s will to salvation. They admit the existence of a will to salvation, but they see no need for positing a transcendent correlative of that will. Of course, my contention is not that I intellectually posit it, but that I experience it with the same immediacy as I do my own self. Intellectually I cannot posit the existence of a self, for the little I know of psychology tells me that the self is an illusion. Yet if I were to deny the reality of the existence of self as a
center of initiative I would cut the ground from under the element of responsibility,
without which human life is inconceivable. The same holds true of otherhood with its element of loyalty and of godhood with its element of piety. . . .
The main question which they must answer for themselves is this: Am I able to take the idea of God as found in the Jewish tradition and transpose it into the key of modern religion? They have been told by Milton Steinberg in the series of lectures on Theology which he is now giving that there are two kinds of religion, theistic and non-theistic. What they would like to be told is that they could be rabbis on the basis of non-theistic religion. This I told them plainly they could not do, since as rabbis their main function was to maintain the identity and continuity of the Jewish tradition. That tradition minus the God belief is like the play of Hamlet without Hamlet.'
This amazing statement from Kaplan indicates a significant movement from the realm of predicate theology to the transnatural, from the immanent to the transcendent. “A non-theistic” religion was just not acceptable for a practicing rabbi, Kaplan believed." pg 110
Emerson's God from “The Oversoul": There he states: “When the universal soul breathes through a man’s intellect, it is genius; when it breathes through his will, it is virtue; when it flows through his affection, it is love.”
Anyone think that Kaplan really was holding onto a classic view of God trying to incorporate his own formulation with difficulty? Was he never happy with his initial ideas of God being the power in the universe and all that?
While were asking questions, why dont we speak bout God in Orthodoxy? What is God? We know hes not an old man in the sky with an actual body but how can we wrap our futile brains around God and if we cant then why was Kaplan's view so heretical? mekoros please if possible.
Monday, May 10, 2010
The tip of the DH iceberg
Benjamin Sommer Two Introductions to Scripture JQR 100.1
Here are two quotes that I pulled from this article by Benjamin Sommer in the most recent JQR which lambasted James Kugel who is famous for his recent How to Read the Bible book. According to some, he has become pop culture's biblical critic. He is an Orthodox Jew who has brought much of his brand of biblical criticism to the forefront of people's minds by publishing his very interesting book and subsequently being the subject of discussions at shabbos table's round the country.
Sommer's article was refreshing as he described how we can synthesize what we know about revalation and the divine authorship of the Torah. As a few of you may know, this blog is partially dedicated to synthesis NOT dividing our brains into two compartments, our religious observance and our academic pursuits, like James Kugel does (see this response to the one sided molestation of his book). This is something that Louis Jacobs described in the Intro to his classic "We Have Reason to Believe" where he makes this exact point. We can not and will not, divide our brains, forcing ourselves to think one thing in the classroom but another in shul. This is bad and maybe the exact definition of hypocrisy.
On that note, here are Sommer's thoughts.
"Oral Torah mixes divine elements revealed at Sinai with human elements that react to revelation, extrapolate from it, interpret it, and at times misinterpret or distort it. In light of the centrality of Oral Torah in rabbinic Judaism, the implication of the Bible’s varied authorship is not that the Bible can no longer be considered sacred; in Judaism, something holy can also be flawed and partially human. Rather, the implication is that the Bible, including even the Pentateuch itself, is really another form of Oral Torah. Consequently, for Jews who accept
biblical criticism’s conclusions there is really no such category as Written Torah. Now, that may be a radical implication; it may change fundamental issues in Jewish thought and practice. But it is very different thing to say, ‘‘Biblical criticism forces us to re-evaluate important aspects of Jewish teaching,’’ and ‘‘Biblical criticism is incompatible with Jewish teaching." pg 168
"It is the law, then, that comes first. The role of the Bible and biblical interpreters is to tell us what the law is and to encourage us to obey it. It follows, I think, that scholars can never damage the basic religious function of Scripture for Jews. A modern biblical critic can speculate about a biblical passage’s origins, note its affinities to ancient Mesopotamian texts, or identify its likely function and setting in ancient Israel; an ancient sage can link together verses from various books to weave an entirely new narrative that is not spelled out in any biblical text; a medieval or modern scholar can point out differences between a biblical verse and the rabbinic law based on it or can show how the latter grows organically from the former; but none of these can disturb the basic charge of the
entire Jewish tradition, which is to serve God." pg 180
To me, Sommers basically says that if we take DH and Biblical critique at face value, then the divinity of the Torah is destroyed. But does that actually destroy Judaism? Our religion is based on tradition anyways. The Rabbis have been given a certain amount of authority anyway. So, isnt it possible that there was a tradition of stories, laws and expectations that was only written down later by different people. Does that change the core of our religion? No! Our rabbis still have power because we gave it to them long ago. (See the post about Rav Kook.) Our religion is still about us and God, (see last post as quoted by S. Schechter.) and trying to dig down deep to see what He really wants of us.
Does this upset you? Let it mull over in your mind and see how it tastes. Is is heretical? Maybe, but Sommers never claimed to be Orthodox.(Not that Orthodoxy has a claim to setting standards for heresy)
If you've never thought about this stuff, maybe itll rock the boat a little but thats never a bad thing, unless you completely chuck it. So think about it, comment on the post and maybe together we can figure this out.
Here are two quotes that I pulled from this article by Benjamin Sommer in the most recent JQR which lambasted James Kugel who is famous for his recent How to Read the Bible book. According to some, he has become pop culture's biblical critic. He is an Orthodox Jew who has brought much of his brand of biblical criticism to the forefront of people's minds by publishing his very interesting book and subsequently being the subject of discussions at shabbos table's round the country.
Sommer's article was refreshing as he described how we can synthesize what we know about revalation and the divine authorship of the Torah. As a few of you may know, this blog is partially dedicated to synthesis NOT dividing our brains into two compartments, our religious observance and our academic pursuits, like James Kugel does (see this response to the one sided molestation of his book). This is something that Louis Jacobs described in the Intro to his classic "We Have Reason to Believe" where he makes this exact point. We can not and will not, divide our brains, forcing ourselves to think one thing in the classroom but another in shul. This is bad and maybe the exact definition of hypocrisy.
On that note, here are Sommer's thoughts.
"Oral Torah mixes divine elements revealed at Sinai with human elements that react to revelation, extrapolate from it, interpret it, and at times misinterpret or distort it. In light of the centrality of Oral Torah in rabbinic Judaism, the implication of the Bible’s varied authorship is not that the Bible can no longer be considered sacred; in Judaism, something holy can also be flawed and partially human. Rather, the implication is that the Bible, including even the Pentateuch itself, is really another form of Oral Torah. Consequently, for Jews who accept
biblical criticism’s conclusions there is really no such category as Written Torah. Now, that may be a radical implication; it may change fundamental issues in Jewish thought and practice. But it is very different thing to say, ‘‘Biblical criticism forces us to re-evaluate important aspects of Jewish teaching,’’ and ‘‘Biblical criticism is incompatible with Jewish teaching." pg 168
"It is the law, then, that comes first. The role of the Bible and biblical interpreters is to tell us what the law is and to encourage us to obey it. It follows, I think, that scholars can never damage the basic religious function of Scripture for Jews. A modern biblical critic can speculate about a biblical passage’s origins, note its affinities to ancient Mesopotamian texts, or identify its likely function and setting in ancient Israel; an ancient sage can link together verses from various books to weave an entirely new narrative that is not spelled out in any biblical text; a medieval or modern scholar can point out differences between a biblical verse and the rabbinic law based on it or can show how the latter grows organically from the former; but none of these can disturb the basic charge of the
entire Jewish tradition, which is to serve God." pg 180
To me, Sommers basically says that if we take DH and Biblical critique at face value, then the divinity of the Torah is destroyed. But does that actually destroy Judaism? Our religion is based on tradition anyways. The Rabbis have been given a certain amount of authority anyway. So, isnt it possible that there was a tradition of stories, laws and expectations that was only written down later by different people. Does that change the core of our religion? No! Our rabbis still have power because we gave it to them long ago. (See the post about Rav Kook.) Our religion is still about us and God, (see last post as quoted by S. Schechter.) and trying to dig down deep to see what He really wants of us.
Does this upset you? Let it mull over in your mind and see how it tastes. Is is heretical? Maybe, but Sommers never claimed to be Orthodox.(Not that Orthodoxy has a claim to setting standards for heresy)
If you've never thought about this stuff, maybe itll rock the boat a little but thats never a bad thing, unless you completely chuck it. So think about it, comment on the post and maybe together we can figure this out.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Solomon The Great
S Schechter JQR 6:3 April 1894 pg 415-16 Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology
“The theology of the Rabbis may not be perfect; but what theology is perfect? Is there any theology of long ago which does not stand in need of an apology when the tests of the nineteenth century are applied to it? Every theology has its mythology, its legends, its fables and its folk-lore. All these paraphernalia of religion, valuable as the service may be which they have rendered and are still perhaps rendering to some minds, cannot stand the searching tests of history and modern criticism. These tests have only too often been applied to Jewish theology. But has not this theology a centre of its own, which is God and nothing but God, elements of eternal truth and vital principles, which enabled it to withstand all hostile powers tempting it to remove or to destroy this centre which made it what it is?"
God who is removed from us is also close to us. We can reach him. We can approach him. He is accessable to every generation. “God is near in every kind of nearness and when a man comes to the synogogue to pray, God listens to him, for the petitioner is like a man who talks into the ear of his friend” (Yer. Berachos 13a)
“The freshness with which the Biblical stories are retold in the Agadic literature, the living way in which they are applied to the oppressed condition of Israel, the future hopes which are based on them, create the impression not only that in this one Revelation at Sinai the whole scriptural history was included, but that the Rabbis and their followers, through their intense faith, re-witnessed it in their own souls, so that it became to them as a personal experience. Indeed it it this witnessing, or rather re-witnessing, to revelation by which God is God; without it he could not be God. Peo0ple who would doubt his existence and say “there is no judgment and no judge” belong rather to the generation of the deluge, before God had entered so openly into relations with mankind (Gen Rabbah 26). To those who have experienced him through so many stages of history, such doubt, was simply beyond the region of possibility.” Pg 419
Let this all sink in and well discuss soon.
“The theology of the Rabbis may not be perfect; but what theology is perfect? Is there any theology of long ago which does not stand in need of an apology when the tests of the nineteenth century are applied to it? Every theology has its mythology, its legends, its fables and its folk-lore. All these paraphernalia of religion, valuable as the service may be which they have rendered and are still perhaps rendering to some minds, cannot stand the searching tests of history and modern criticism. These tests have only too often been applied to Jewish theology. But has not this theology a centre of its own, which is God and nothing but God, elements of eternal truth and vital principles, which enabled it to withstand all hostile powers tempting it to remove or to destroy this centre which made it what it is?"
God who is removed from us is also close to us. We can reach him. We can approach him. He is accessable to every generation. “God is near in every kind of nearness and when a man comes to the synogogue to pray, God listens to him, for the petitioner is like a man who talks into the ear of his friend” (Yer. Berachos 13a)
“The freshness with which the Biblical stories are retold in the Agadic literature, the living way in which they are applied to the oppressed condition of Israel, the future hopes which are based on them, create the impression not only that in this one Revelation at Sinai the whole scriptural history was included, but that the Rabbis and their followers, through their intense faith, re-witnessed it in their own souls, so that it became to them as a personal experience. Indeed it it this witnessing, or rather re-witnessing, to revelation by which God is God; without it he could not be God. Peo0ple who would doubt his existence and say “there is no judgment and no judge” belong rather to the generation of the deluge, before God had entered so openly into relations with mankind (Gen Rabbah 26). To those who have experienced him through so many stages of history, such doubt, was simply beyond the region of possibility.” Pg 419
Let this all sink in and well discuss soon.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Wissenshaft reactions
Assaf Yedidya
Orthodox Reactions to "Wissenschaft des Judentums"
Modern Judaism - Volume 30, Number 1, February 2010, pp. 69-94
This was a phenomenal article.
Wissenshaft des Judentums was essentially a movement in nineteenth century Judaism that used more scientific methodology to analyze Jewish history and tradition/teachings. Masters like Graetz, Reb Dovid Tzvi Hoffman, Solomon Schechter and Gershon Scholem are reported to have been "students" of this method.
In this article, Yedidya sums up a number of different approaches that historically were taken by the gedolim of the age in response to this new scientific approach to life.
The one approach that really hit home for me was that of Rav Kook's.
From his Igrot V2 pg 20we can not deny that there is much that is worthwhile even in books that have many flaws...The truth is loved above all else and it alone is worthy of glory."
Eder Hayakar pg 39 in 1906 ed.- "But the true eternal foundation of the Oral Torah is simply the fact of the acceptance of the Oral Torah by the Jewish nation, in its ways of life."
Although it seems that he felt that the Jewish nation was able to bear this ind of critique of the entire system of our tradition, according to Yedidya it was only to bring those Wissenshaft Jews to a more nationalistic spirit and bring them back to an observance of the commandments.
What I am not sure I understand is that this assumes that those proponents of these "ideas" are not observant. If they are following the mitzvos, then are these views ok or not?
Either way, without a full examination into the writings of Rav Kook, and to be honest, I haven't actually looked through all the sources he quotes, Rav Kook seems to imply that these ideas can be absorbed into the people of Israel. He does not turn around and say that these ideas are assur or heretical. He is trying to find a way for these ideas to fit in, and synthesize with what we already think we know.
Wissenshaft 1- Ghettoizing the brain 0
Oh P.S.- Ghettoization of the brain is totally a term I just made up. In Judaism, especially in the right, we have people who have been so utterly indoctrinated that they cant even believe that there are any other possibilities out there. We have trapped our brains, locked ourselves in a box, a ghetto, unable to remember or even dream of the outside, it just isnt even there!!!
Orthodox Reactions to "Wissenschaft des Judentums"
Modern Judaism - Volume 30, Number 1, February 2010, pp. 69-94
This was a phenomenal article.
Wissenshaft des Judentums was essentially a movement in nineteenth century Judaism that used more scientific methodology to analyze Jewish history and tradition/teachings. Masters like Graetz, Reb Dovid Tzvi Hoffman, Solomon Schechter and Gershon Scholem are reported to have been "students" of this method.
In this article, Yedidya sums up a number of different approaches that historically were taken by the gedolim of the age in response to this new scientific approach to life.
The one approach that really hit home for me was that of Rav Kook's.
From his Igrot V2 pg 20we can not deny that there is much that is worthwhile even in books that have many flaws...The truth is loved above all else and it alone is worthy of glory."
Eder Hayakar pg 39 in 1906 ed.- "But the true eternal foundation of the Oral Torah is simply the fact of the acceptance of the Oral Torah by the Jewish nation, in its ways of life."
Although it seems that he felt that the Jewish nation was able to bear this ind of critique of the entire system of our tradition, according to Yedidya it was only to bring those Wissenshaft Jews to a more nationalistic spirit and bring them back to an observance of the commandments.
What I am not sure I understand is that this assumes that those proponents of these "ideas" are not observant. If they are following the mitzvos, then are these views ok or not?
Either way, without a full examination into the writings of Rav Kook, and to be honest, I haven't actually looked through all the sources he quotes, Rav Kook seems to imply that these ideas can be absorbed into the people of Israel. He does not turn around and say that these ideas are assur or heretical. He is trying to find a way for these ideas to fit in, and synthesize with what we already think we know.
Wissenshaft 1- Ghettoizing the brain 0
Oh P.S.- Ghettoization of the brain is totally a term I just made up. In Judaism, especially in the right, we have people who have been so utterly indoctrinated that they cant even believe that there are any other possibilities out there. We have trapped our brains, locked ourselves in a box, a ghetto, unable to remember or even dream of the outside, it just isnt even there!!!
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Who am I?
I recently titled a document in my computer- Who am I?
I have been reading academic type articles for a few years now. I am by no means an expert, at all. But, I have begun to develop ideas for myself. About time, right? I wanted to begin to write down and document the articles and books that had a profound effect on me, and write about them. This blog is the same idea, just public. I am going to try regularly, hopefully each week, to submit a post that discusses an idea or thought about a certain topic on Judaism.
Lets be clear. I am not a heretic (see Rav Yosef Albo's Ikkarim) or Orthoprax, which from what I understand, would entail that I do the actions of religious life but do not believe in them. As I described this blog: I continue to search and attempt to find God, the REAL Judaism and our true purpose in Jewish Life.
I, like many other people, am not in Chinuch or learn Torah all day long, so I have other things that take up much of my time. But well see where we can go with this.
I will leave you with one thought. Is our Judaism different from the Judaism of Moses? If we believe Chazal literally when they say that everything that a rabbi will teach his students was revealed at Sinai then yes maybe Moshe did know even the words I wrote now and Avraham did actually do Eiruv Tavshilin (Yoma 28) Or do we hear the story of Moshe shown Rabbi Akiva teaching his students teachings that are quite foreign to Moses. (Menachot 29b). Has Judaism changed? If it has than why dont we recognize that it has?
I have been reading academic type articles for a few years now. I am by no means an expert, at all. But, I have begun to develop ideas for myself. About time, right? I wanted to begin to write down and document the articles and books that had a profound effect on me, and write about them. This blog is the same idea, just public. I am going to try regularly, hopefully each week, to submit a post that discusses an idea or thought about a certain topic on Judaism.
Lets be clear. I am not a heretic (see Rav Yosef Albo's Ikkarim) or Orthoprax, which from what I understand, would entail that I do the actions of religious life but do not believe in them. As I described this blog: I continue to search and attempt to find God, the REAL Judaism and our true purpose in Jewish Life.
I, like many other people, am not in Chinuch or learn Torah all day long, so I have other things that take up much of my time. But well see where we can go with this.
I will leave you with one thought. Is our Judaism different from the Judaism of Moses? If we believe Chazal literally when they say that everything that a rabbi will teach his students was revealed at Sinai then yes maybe Moshe did know even the words I wrote now and Avraham did actually do Eiruv Tavshilin (Yoma 28) Or do we hear the story of Moshe shown Rabbi Akiva teaching his students teachings that are quite foreign to Moses. (Menachot 29b). Has Judaism changed? If it has than why dont we recognize that it has?
The beginning
In the beginning there was the word.
Wow. Did I just write that?
You would never know that I am an Orthodox Jew.
I have tried this endeavor many a time but I deleted each and every blog that I started.
For a long time now, I have been reading blogs online admiring some and upset by others. I am pretty sure that no one will ever read this blog, but if you do, I hope that you enjoy it.
Like many Jews, I have questions. About my faith, my tradition and my life. And you know what? Thats ok. I am ok with that. This, perhaps, according to some is the very definition of faith, emunah. To question and to continue to proceed on the journey to God. To know that things remain unclear but to remain steadfast, engaging every fact, thought and uncertainty looking toward the light, toward God. See Rav Yeshayahu Leibowitz in Collections of letters to him and one of Rav Sherlow's Shut seforim.
I am going to hopefully engage in discussing semi critically a different academic article, new or old, to think about life and Judaism. I hope you can add something or at least benefit from something we discuss.
Wow. Did I just write that?
You would never know that I am an Orthodox Jew.
I have tried this endeavor many a time but I deleted each and every blog that I started.
For a long time now, I have been reading blogs online admiring some and upset by others. I am pretty sure that no one will ever read this blog, but if you do, I hope that you enjoy it.
Like many Jews, I have questions. About my faith, my tradition and my life. And you know what? Thats ok. I am ok with that. This, perhaps, according to some is the very definition of faith, emunah. To question and to continue to proceed on the journey to God. To know that things remain unclear but to remain steadfast, engaging every fact, thought and uncertainty looking toward the light, toward God. See Rav Yeshayahu Leibowitz in Collections of letters to him and one of Rav Sherlow's Shut seforim.
I am going to hopefully engage in discussing semi critically a different academic article, new or old, to think about life and Judaism. I hope you can add something or at least benefit from something we discuss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)