Conference taveng::bagels

    Where beliefs differ, there will always be some debate on who is right.
    I see a problem beginning when one viewpoint tries to make their view
    or level of observence the measurement point for ALL believers of a
    particular faith. There is a wide span of observence levels in Judaism, 
    from one extreme to the other,  but does any single group have the
    right to apply their standards to all other groups judgementally?
    
    On the issue of Levels of Knowledge, again whose standards are we using
    here. Some might say that one can not make a rational decision unless
    that person is a Talmudic scholar. Others may feel that since religion
    is a personal belief, that no one can establish the standard for that 
    decision except the person making the decision. I do not need to be an 
    automotive engineer to decide if I like a particular car or not, nor a
    gourmet cook to decide if I enjoy a particular food. Neither must I be
    a Talmudic scholar to decide if Judaism is the right faith for me to
    live by.
    
    You seem to share Jem's view that the directions of U.S. Judaism could
    be a threat to "Judaism as we know it". Do you view it a threat when
    individuals make decisions for themselves that effect their lives,
    though that decision may lower the number of practicing Jews in this
    country? If so, what is your PRACTICAL answer, because religion is more
    than just studying a particular religion's history and beauty. It is a
    deep belief by an individual, and that type of SUBJECTIVE feeling can't
    be defined in OBJECTIVE terms. There are those who will say that more
    education is the key, that intermarriage is bad and that observance
    levels must be kept high. But as one creates a more closed society and
    interaction with other groups decreases, then the goal will probably be
    achieved, not by creating free and educated thinkers, but by limiting
    exposure to different people and different ideas. Is this not the way
    of life in many Hassidic sects in NYC today?
    
    As you ask my personal beliefs on the Deity, I view this as a "God
    idea" rather than a personification. One of the points in UU'ism is
    that all religions are equally valid to THEIR believers, therefore any
    particular UU congregation can run a farily wide gamut of beliefs from
    one extreme to the other.
    
    As your beliefs of roles for women in Jewish life were presented, you
    said that some of these roles should still be prohibited to woman. May
    I ask you specifically which roles these would be and why?
    
    Lastly, I ask you who are we (all inclusive) to judge the validity of
    someone elses faith? Where to we get the right to pass judgment on
    anyone else except ourselves when it comes to issues of faith?
    
    Eric

    I have some more input. First of all, I am embarassed by my
    misunderstanding a vital point. I didn't realize that Eric had
    converted. The irony is, I still find my views very much aligned with
    his, mine from the point of view of accepting Judiasm and Jewishness,
    his from the point of view of not. I also fully realize why Jem would
    feel threatened by a convert to Unitarianism arguing the possibility
    for alternative belief systems. (Perhaps he feels just as threatened by
    me.) For my part, I would like an "open" Judiasm, accepting a variety
    of belief (and observance) systems, yet all falling under the umbrella
    of Judiasm.
    
    Dick Rosenberg

    re .1, "...does any single group have the right to apply their
    	    standards to all other groups judgementally?"
    
    Of course--what you're really asking is "can other people have
    opinions?".  But you have the right to disagree with their
    judgements.
    
    This reminds me of the old relativist-absolutist set-up: the
    relativists grant the absolutists only relative truth, which
    bugs the absolutists, and the absolutists deny the relativists
    any truth, which bugs the relativists.  There is a basic
    asymmetry, as well, in the relationship of the two groups: the
    ACLU defends people who would destroy the ACLU if they got into
    power, because the tolerant/relativistic like variety, and believe
    others have a right to their opinion, including those whose opinion
    is that others do NOT have a right to their own opinion.
    
    				-John Bishop

    Somewhere back in the replies for #862 it was mentioned that the
    discussion was all about the interpretation of holy laws, but it should
    be remembered that the Holy Laws in the Talmud are INTERPRETATIONS of
    how a jew should live his life according to the bible.  The laws were not 
    written by god, but by wise men, long after the bible had been written.  
    The emphasis was not *so much* on being a good jew, but on the SURVIVAL
    of future generations of jews.  The wise men were faced with the
    problem of ensuring that the jewish race stayed healthy and would be
    around for many generations to come.  What is the reason for no "work"
    on the Sabbath?  Has anyone bothered to ask?  It was so that for one
    day in the week the man could spend a day with his family and rest. 
    (thus keeping the family together as a happy unit).  What was the reason 
    for eating kosher?  It was to prevent jewish people from eating potentially
    dangerous food.  
    
    I am jewish (despite the name) and have studied the subject since I can
    remember.  Alright, you may accuse me of being too liberal, but I
    regard these laws as "guidelines for a healthy and better life" in the
    early days of judaism.  Trying to enforce these laws in the 1990's can
    only lead to more INTERPRETATION, since the situation that we live in 
    now is clearly not the same.
    
    Ruth. 

re .4:

   The examples you give (kashrut and shabbat) are explicit Biblical
   commandments, not Rabbinical laws at all.

   The "health and safety" argument falls apart when you consider other
   similar laws which have no rational basis (the prohibition against mixing
   linen and wool, the prohibition against eating fruit from a tree less
   than 3 years old, and many others).

Even if you have correctly identified one of the reasons for the laws of
Kashrut, are you SURE you understand ALL of G-d's multiple reasons for these
laws?

Dave

    RE: .2, my discussions on these issues comes from two fronts. The first
    is from being raised Jewish and remaining that way in one way or
    another for 37 years. The other is from a liberal religious openness of
    recent vintage from which I view things differently, however the issues
    remain the same. What I have argued for is the right of JEWS to be able
    to have their belief system and observence levels within the Jewish
    faith without having to be told that they are not "good Jews" by those
    who practice a more strict observance or interpetation. I can only
    believe that Jem felt definitely threatened by my beliefs, otherwise
    why would he bring up my personal house of worship at this point in the
    discussion (he has known about it for quite a while and I've discussed
    this issue in one way or another in two previous Bagels entries).
    
    Does the fact that I now attend a different house of worship make any
    of my views less valid than they were two days ago? Do my experiences
    of 37 years suddenly disappear because I no longer attend a synagogue?
    Or perhaps was this whole issue brought up in an attempt to discredit
    me. If this is the case, then do those who are practicing Jews have any
    rights to voice opinions on Islam or Catholicism? As you can see, the
    point can get rather absurd if carried out far enough.
    
    There is no reason for you to be red faced, Dick, because both you and
    I were discussing ISSUES, and not our respective faiths that we
    practice. The only reason to be embarrased is if you would let Jems
    attempt to invalidate my opinions color your vision. I have been
    contributing to Bagels for perhaps 2 years and I really don't see any
    change in my style when comparing my pre Unitarian days to the post
    ones. It is amazing though what someone will do when a few more
    opinions that differ from his flow in. If we can't logically argue the
    point, then try to discredit the messenger!
    
    But back to this topic and an interesting point that has been brought
    up. Is there any reason why someone who is not a practicing Jew can not
    have valid opinions on Jewish topics? There are many theologians of
    many different faiths that can still discuss religions other than their
    own and their opinions are just as valid. An open mind is the most
    important attribute to an academic thinker, and without an open mind,
    that thinker is as blind as one without eyes! 
    
    Eric

Eric,

There is no reason why a member of one religious group can't have a valid
opinion or make useful observations about the beliefs and practices of
another.  Even in a situation where the religion being commented on is one
recently abandoned by the person in question.  However, in such a circumstance
the commentor ought to take particular care in wording their commentary. 
Otherwise, constructive criticism might be (wrongly) interpreted as having an
ulterior (destructive) motive.

I too have a preference for openness in Judaism even though I prefer a
Traditional Conservative approach to practice.  In that openness, I believe that
the most traditional and most liberal have equal right to voice and to argue in
favor of their opinions.  Sometimes those arguments will include statements
equivalent to, "You are wrong!"  Those statements must be taken as opinions
which a person is free to hold.  It is the right of all to say that WITHIN
THEIR UNDERSTANDING some other approach is incorrect.  Sometimes the
capitalized part of that statement will be implied rather than explicit.  If I
don't see it I assume it is there.  You might try doing the same.

>    Does the fact that I now attend a different house of worship make any
>    of my views less valid than they were two days ago?

No but it may shed some light on the where your views may come from, where they
may lead and what your frame of reference may have been over your period of
participation in BAGELS.  That fact lends anecdotal support to some of Jems
arguments concerning the results of a liberal Jewish background  8^{). 
Fortunately, none of us are swayed by anecdotal evidence.

Gavriel
PS.  An earlier not commented on the origin of the Talmud.  While all liberal
branches of Judaism agree that the Talmud represents the recording of an
organic oral tradition, most Orthodox hold that the Oral law was given to Moses
at Sinai together with the written law.  That being the case, your conclusions
are not so obvious to everybody.

>   The "health and safety" argument falls apart when you consider other
>   similar laws which have no rational basis (the prohibition against mixing
>   linen and wool, the prohibition against eating fruit from a tree less
>   than 3 years old, and many others).
    
    I'm sorry to have to split hairs here, but the examples you have sited
    were precisely laws for health and safety reasons.  How do you ensure
    that your people will never die of cold?  You make sure that their
    coats are made of 100% wool, with no other materials mixed in.  As for
    the fruit, how better to ensure a life-long supply of food than to look
    after the environment and protect trees until they have 'come of age'.
    
    I think there was good reason for all the laws *at the time they were
    made*.
    
    Judaism is a wonderful, caring religion.  In my view it is unfortunate
    that the laws are being taken literally and are trying to be followed
    in an age for which clearly they were not made.  I take the point about
    orthodox jews beliefs in the origin of the Talmud, but I do
    feel that every jew has a perfect right to question these laws and
    interpret them for him/herself in this day and age, without being
    branded a 'bad-jew'.  If I wanted an 'unquestioning' religion, I could
    turn to many others (which I don't want to name for fear of insulting
    anyone or starting another argument) which rely on 'blind faith'.  I
    have always felt that Judaism is a 'thinking' religion and allows
    individuals to think for themselves.
    
    Ruth.

    re .9:

>                                                       How do you ensure
>   that your people will never die of cold?  You make sure that their
>   coats are made of 100% wool, with no other materials mixed in.

    How do explain that it's perfectly all right to mix wool and cotton,
    but not wool and linen?

>                                                                   As for
>   the fruit, how better to ensure a life-long supply of food than to look
>   after the environment and protect trees until they have 'come of age'.

    Eating fruit from a young tree will not endanger the tree -- after all,
    if people don't eat it, the birds and worms will.

    There's a prohibition against planting different species together.
    This is clearly *anti-environmental* since planting certain species
    together prevents soil depletion.

>   Judaism is a wonderful, caring religion.  In my view it is unfortunate
>   that the laws are being taken literally and are trying to be followed
>   in an age for which clearly they were not made.

    This is not a "caring" attitude.  Why is it unfortunate that *I* choose
    to follow halacha?  I believe that G-d authored the Torah and that the
    Oral Law was dictated by G-d.  Why would an omniscient G-d legislate
    laws that would become obsolete?


>                                                    I take the point about
>   orthodox jews beliefs in the origin of the Talmud, but I do
>   feel that every jew has a perfect right to question these laws and
>   interpret them for him/herself in this day and age, without being
>   branded a 'bad-jew'.

    Who's branding anyone a "bad Jew?"  You seem to branding those who
    follow halacha as unreasonable people who can't think for themselves.
    I would guess that most of the shomrei mitzvot (halacha-following Jews)
    who participate in this conference were not raised as such, and have
    become shomrei mitzvot precisely by thinking for themselves.

>                         If I wanted an 'unquestioning' religion, I could
>   turn to many others (which I don't want to name for fear of insulting
>   anyone or starting another argument) which rely on 'blind faith'.  I
>   have always felt that Judaism is a 'thinking' religion and allows
>   individuals to think for themselves.

    Free will is an essential element of Judaism.  I may try to convince
    you that I'm correct (just as you're trying to convince me that you're
    correct), but nobody's forcing anyone to do anything they don't want
    to do.

    I still maintain that there were good reasons for the Talmudic laws and
    can't understand why you seem to be saying that there was no reason for
    them... that they were simply God's will, and that's all there is to
    that.  Even if the laws were given by God, WHY would there be no reason
    for their existence?  It doesn't seem to make sense.
    
    Please correct me (as I'm sure you will :-)) if I am wrong, but what
    you seem to be saying is "There is no reason for the laws given by God,
    but we must follow them all the same, because God gave them to us".  If
    that is what you are saying then we must agree to differ, as I regard
    this as following a religion blindly.
    
    I am saying that there *was* a good reason for *every* law in the
    Talmud and that it was the product of many years discussion.
    
    The fact that it is alright to mix wool with cotton but not with linen
    (I'm taking your word for that as I was of the understanding that only
    100% wool could be worn) is neither here nor there.  I am simply saying 
    that whatever the law originated as, there were reasons for it.  I may not 
    know all the reasons, but I'm sure they existed.
    
    I am glad that you are also of the opinion that Judaism is a
    free-thinking religion.  My note was really aimed at those who do not
    agree with this and think that everyone should follow in their way
    otherwise they are not 'good jews'.                      

    Ruth, I think you're so far off base that it hurts both sides of the
    argument!  Simply on factual grounds...
    
    I do think that there's a "reason" behind every aspect of halacha, but
    do not personally consider traditional halachic observance to be
    mandatory.  Sometimes it's described as G-d's will, period, since it's
    hard to understand.  But non-Orthodox scholars do understand these
    things differently.
    
    There is NO health basis for kashrut.  Period.  Cooked pork is
    perfectly safe, while some "kosher" food can be harmful if not prepared
    or handled right.  I see kashrut in two lights.  One, it separates Jews
    from gentiles.  If we can't eat with them, we're less prone to
    intermarry.  Maintaining our national identity (keeping from being
    assimilated) is a key goal of Jewish law!  Two, it changes eating from
    a purely carnal act to a more holy one:  We eat what G-d permits us to,
    and everything we eat is viewed in a halachic light.  Talking about
    "health" is simply degrading.  (It does, however, sound like the kind
    of reason that -- no offense intended -- some Conservative parents
    might have used to explain to their kids why they don't eat bacon
    double cheeseburgers.  If it shuts the kids up, it's adequate.  My
    Reform parents, on the other hand, were more willing to discuss the
    other reasons, even while eating treif.  And the Orthodox don't need to
    rationalize or have reasons!) 
         fred

    RE: .12, Fred, you may have some very good points there in reference to
    some of the reasons behind halachic observence, in particular that of
    separating Jews from gentiles in lifestyles. I think that this could be
    a major Orthodox goal in trying to maintain a "Jewish identity", while
    lowering the Jewish/Gentile interactions socially. If rules like that
    could be enforced, then this interaction would decrease, as would the
    odds of intermarriage. If an individual is Glatt Kosher, then the
    number of restaurants available would be limited, so that it would be a
    problem for that individual to join gentiles for a meal out. From an
    Orthodox perspective, this approach would make a lot of sense. If one
    limits interactions with the "outside", then those outside ideas can't
    be absorbed into Jewish life, and therefore "Jewish Identity" (at least
    as some see it) would be maintained.
    
    Eric

It is interesting to note that the ideas about laws separating Jews from SOCIAL
interaction with Gentiles is explicit in some of the laws in the Talmud.  This
has clearly been an important goal since the period when "orthodox" practice
was the only form of Judaism.  This is not some new trend of clinging to out of
date practices but a central feature of traditional Judaism.

Gavriel

    RE: .14, that really depends on how one defines "traditional Judaism".
    Many would view it purely as an attempt to isolate Jews from the rest
    of society with the goal of preventing exposure to anything that they
    don't agree with. This can not be defines as an "open mind" by any
    stretch of the imagination.
    
    Eric

    The point that these laws may have been introduced to keep our jewish
    identity and to make the eating of food a more holy event is quite
    interesting, but I have to disagree that these are the main reasons for
    the laws.   I think that trying to understand them *now* is difficult and 
    that is why they are described as God's will.
    
    I realise from the responses that I am obviously an 'odd-man-out' with my 
    views in this conference and so I will not continue this argument for
    fear of upsetting anyone!  I have stated my beliefs, and nothing that
    has been said so far has convinced me otherwise.
    
    Ruth.
    

I think a primary reason for the Law is self discipline. If a person has the
willpower to refrain from eating trief and to refrain from work on Shabbat etc
etc etc, then that person has the willpower to do the right thing in other
situations.

I am not going to call anyone a bad person when s/he is not observant because
I, myself, am not observant. Furthermore, I don't think it is humanly possible
to be *perfectly* observant so, to some extent, we are all in the same boat.
What I believe is important is that a person study and improve in this regard.

I suggest rereading topic 596.0 which has a relevant article by Dennis Prager.

Dave

Re: .16

>    The point that these laws may have been introduced to keep our jewish
>    identity and to make the eating of food a more holy event is quite
>    interesting, but I have to disagree that these are the main reasons for
>    the laws. 

And in fact, you are not alone in your interpretation: Namely, Maimonides
himself offers your reason for the dietary laws in his great philosophical
work, "A Guide for the Perplexed." (He does, however, stand quite alone 
on this issue.) As Tevye said when confronted with the utter incompatibility
of two opposing opinions, both of which he agreed with, "and you're right,
too!" (See 799.40 for an intriguing Kashrut explanation by the late great 
Dayan I. Grunfeld.)

Throughout the ages, there have been many Jewish works written on the
rationale for the _Mitzvot_, precepts. In addition to Maimonides' work,
the Sefer Ha-Chinuch, of unknown medieval authorship, includes a para-
graph on the "essence of the Mitzva", along with a concise legal exposition.
In more recent times, Rabbi S.R. Hirsch wrote his treatise "Horeb: a
philosophy of Jewish Law". (BTW, all the works mentioned, and many more,
are available in English).

However, each of these great authors include a note of caution: any and
all explanations must be viewed as pure speculation, in that the Torah
rarely provides the reason itself. Certain of the Mitzvot are singularly
difficult to understand logically. This does not mean there is no reason,
it just means it is not apparent. 

But why? Why bother people with "rituals" that seem to have no meaning?
See 799.35 for one view.

Even worse, some of the Mitzvot seem to invite national destruction. For
example, the sabbatical year (Lev. chap. 25): "the seventh year is a sabbath
of sabbaths for the land... do not harvest crops...". In an agricultual
society, this meant nothing less than a decree of starvation. 

Likewise, the commandment for all males to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem
three times a year (Exodus 34:23); does this not constitute an open invitation
for invasion? If one argues that the precepts made sense for the period in
which they were given, but not today, this example seems to indicate just
the opposite!)

Here the Torah does not ignore the seeming dangers, and makes daring promises.
Regarding the sabbatical (Lev. 25:20): "...you might ask, 'what will we eat? 
We have not planted nor have we harvested crops.'" A logical question! 
(verse 21): "I will direct my blessing to you in the sixth year, and the 
land will produce enough crops for three years."

Regarding pilgrimage (Exodus 34:24): "...no one will be envious of your land
when yoy go to be seen in G-d's presence three times each year."

Who could make such outrageous claims! Who can GUARANTEE triple production
on every sixth year, or that no one need worry about foreign invaders during
the holidays! In short, no other religion in history has ever dared to make
such unnatural promises.

No matter what your view is concerning the origin of the Torah, every thinking
person realizes that it is a unique document, if for no other reason than the
mere fact that it constitutes the basis for the three major world religions.
It deserves to serious, profound study, in order to uncover its sometimes
hidden massages.

Re: .17

> Furthermore, I don't think it is humanly possible
>to be *perfectly* observant so, to some extent, we are all in the same boat.
>What I believe is important is that a person study and improve in this regard.

Beautifully put. Not for nothing do we find not a single "perfect" role model
in the Jewish Bible. We are human beings just as our forefathers were, and
we may err, just as they did. But we can also strive for greatness, just as
they did, faults notwithstanding. As Reb Zusia said, "The A-mighty will not
ask, why weren't you as great as Moses, our teacher. He will ask, why weren't
you as great as *Reb Zusia*!"

Jem

A few years ago, I came across the following explanation of our dietary and 
related laws.  It's similar to the one offered in 799.40.

In essence, all life, animal as well as human, is scared to Jews.  Killing
and eating animals may be necessary to sustain human life (although 
vegetarians would certainly dispute this); nonetheless, while we may take
the lives of animals, the action is still intrinscially cruel.  Thus, we 
face a dilemma of the need for sustenance and the cruelty that this need 
imposes.  

The bibical injunctions thus become a way of addressing this dilemma and
bounding in the cruelty.

Hence laws restrict the types of animals from which we may draw
sustenance.  In effect stipulating that humankind cannot wantonly plunder
the animal kingdom to fill its (humankind's) appetite.  Instead, humans 
will only be allowed to kill/eat a relatively small number of animals.  

Hence, too, laws that specify ways to kill animals that are quick and 
"relatively" painless.  

Hence, finally, laws that require us not to treat animals cruelly even after 
they are killed.  Thus, the requirement that we not cook a lamb in its 
mother's milk.  And also laws that require that all blood  be drained 
before an animal can be eaten.   In effect, then, the  real and symbolic
essence of life, blood, must be removed before humans can eat an animal.
                
    
   These ideas -- which I've recalled as best as I can -- make a lot
    more sense to me than explanations which tie our dietary laws to
    health reasons or to discipline for the sake of discipline.
    
    Gene