From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: What is Jewish religion? (long...)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:57:18 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Jul20.133117.19807@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:
>In article <FAIGIN.92Jul16074229@soldan.aero.org> faigin@aero.org
>(Daniel P. Faigin) writes:

>>Sigh. No one has ever claimed that halacha has ever been replaced, or that the
>>approaches that Reform takes were based on convience. Again, quoting from the
>>file:

>>  When we analyze each period of history we discover different strands in the
>>  halakhah. These appear both in the decisions and underlying philosophy.
>>  Tradition, of course, has chosen a single path and rejected the others, but
>>  we recall their existence and the fact that they were suggested and followed
>>  by loyal Jews in the past. Diversity has always been the hallmark of our
                               ^^^^^^^^^                     ^^^^^^^^
>>  literature and our people. When we find ourselves facing new situations in
>>  our age, we are justified in turning to the mainstream of rabbinic thought
>>  as well as its divergent paths for halakhic guidance. In our view,
>>  therefore, the halakhah is a vast repository whose old debates are often
>>  relevant to new situations.

>"Hallmark"?   Depends on what you mean by "diversity."  There have been
>two types of diverging opinion in the history of Judaism:
>interpretation based on one set of axioms and interpretation based on
>assuming a second set of axioms.  Till Reform came around, the
>traditional divergence of opinion was based on a single, shared set of
>axioms.  Reform is an example of the later.  Rejecting divine
>authorship of at least the Oral Law (if not the Written as well), makes
>a _big_ difference.

Again, I suggest that one read about the diversity going on in the Middle
Ages.  Yoseph Karo is credited with putting in a unification in the 
Shulkhan Arukh.  But a great deal of this is the piling on of restriction
upon restriction.  Maybe this was necessary at a time of great persecution,
but not otherwise.

>>  Not every question can be resolved by reviewing the rabbinic literature and
>>  in some instances totally new legislation is appropriate. That may be
>>  buttressed by rabbinic precedent. We must with create care utilize the
>>  legislative process alongside responsa.

>Not every Jewish group seems so stymied.  There seem to be a fair number
>of Jews who don't need to add axioms to the system in order to render a
>Halacha based decision.

One can go by religious leaders.  This is why the Arabs declined rapidly
after their original taking to the ancient Greek ideas which they 
discovered.  This is why the Greek culture declined in the first
place; the Christians suppressed it and destroyed the secular schools.

There was little scientific progress from this Christian atrocity, and
I mean atrocity, until the Renaissance.  This includes almost the entire 
period of the Gemara, and the entire period of the Rishonim.  Greek 
science was really flourishing around 300 CE.

>>Convienence does not play a part in these interpretations. Learn of what you
>>speak.

>I agree.  I wouldn't use the word "convenience." I sure would use terms
>like "bowing to society's pressure" or "current society's mores."

I see some of that in the current Reform reintroduction of a lot of
ritual.  The sacrificial cult in the Torah seems to have been too little
for the people.  The prophets rail against observance for the sake of
observance.

>>>      "Reforming" is a cruel means to deprive Jewish born people of  
>>>      the royal heritage and beautiful religion which brings joy, 
>>>      meaning, and purpose to our lives here and hereafter. 

>>So, now you are claiming that Reform does bring its adherents the heritage of
>>Judaism, the beauty of Judaism, the joy, meaning, and purpose of Judaism. Ha!

>Sounds to me like he's saying that at most Reform offers a watered down
>heritage, joy, etc.

I will agree that it uses less of the traditional heritage.  But does this
mean that it deprives its adherents of the real beauty of the religion?
There is beauty in simplicity as well.  I have stated many times that
we should go back to the basics, which are the part, not totally clear,
due to God in the Written Torah.  This does  not mean that we automatically
discard all of the commentary, but that we examine everything else, and even
some of the Written Torah, critically, using our knowledge of logic and of
God's powerful and immutable laws, the laws of nature.

Even in history, we have had to discard tradition.  Tradition must never
become basic law.

>>But if one does something without understanding, is that what G-d wants?
>>Didn't G-d say that he didn't want meaningless ritual?

>Reform has rejected traditional interpretation of this quote then uses the
>quote for its own reasons.

Of course.  How can it do otherwise?  How can I do otherwise?  I consider
that the present Reform relies too much on ritual.

>>Here's where your lack of knowledge of Reform shows. Serious Reform Judaism
>>says that you must study the practice, try it out, understand the historical
>>nature and meaning behind the practice, before you can determine the
>>importance of the practice in your life.

>and this is where the difference between Reform leadership and laity
>becomes so glaring.

The Reform leadership does not require the Reform laity to follow blindly.
I do not always agree with them, but they do not consider my disagreement
to be a violation of the religion.

>>I have already shown you that Reform does not "blatently discard". As for what
>>the precepts are; I'm sure you know them as well as me. Justice. Mercy.
>>Ethics. Moral behavior. That's just a start.


>Ritual? Practice? Sukkah? Shavuout? 39 Melachot? Birkat Kohanim?
>Rosh Chodesh?

Which aspects?  For the last three, I will agree.  In fact, I have so
stated that I consider work to be far more basic than the 39 Melachot,
and that this combination of tradition with the scientific ignorance
of the time is something I could not accept.  I suspect that if a
title for my view of Judaism is to be contrived, it would be scientific
religious reconstructionist, which does not precisely fall into any of
the present groups.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)