From: hayim@locus.com (Hayim Hendeles)
Subject: Re: Anti-Orthodoxy (was Re: O-C-R debate)
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:38:41 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.211027.7040@midway.uchicago.edu> rivk@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Basic argument I have with Orthodoxy is one I've already stated: who 
>decides what the Law means. I don't accept Talmud as being handed down
>directly from G-d, nor do I accept the decisions of rabbis, ancient or
>modern, as definitive. I accept the results of my own logic as definitive,
>with all the rest being advice -- maybe very good advice, but only advice,
>which I can weigh as my judgement dictates and take or leave according to
>my own reasoning. In a lot of cases, the conclusion I come to is the same
>as the halachic conclusion; but that's not because I'm "following" hala-
>cha. I don't *follow* anything.
>
>	-Nora


I have tried to understand your comments from YOUR perspective, but am
having much difficulty with it. First of all, while I have no doubt you
are quite intelligent and bright, I suspect that even you will admit
that you do not know it all, nor are you infallible. So isn't it quite
presumptuous for you to claim that you have no need to follow
anything, since your logic is definitive?

After all, the "religious Christians" were following the dictates
of their logic when they conducted the Inquistion. Why is your
logic any better then their logic? Or, are you G-d forbid implying,
that what they did was "correct"?

But let's go a step further. Take for example, Jews for J*. They
are convinced in their own minds that a reading of the Scriptures
will support their philosophy. If you ever want to take the time
to talk to them, G-d forbid, they will be happy to give you hours and
hours of "logic" proving that what they are doing is proper.
Erego, by your logic, this is "Judaism".

In fact, why stop at Jews for J*? Christian missionaries have been
applying their logic for years, proving that their philosophy
is the correct one. Therefore, they must be "Jewish" also, by your
logic.

You have previously identified yourself
strongly with the Reform movement. After everything is said and done,
even the official Reform movement does take a stand on some issues.
It is certainly conceivable (at least in theory) that their official
position may differ from offical "Nora Gayle Rivkis-ian" philosophy.
Therefore, you should have the same abhorrence to Reform as you do
to Orthodoxy. Yet, you did imply in a previous post you would
consider sending your children to a Reform school. Is this not
self-contradictory?

Furthermore, according to your philosophy, there can be no such thing
as Judaism. Assume there are 20 million Jews in the world (for the sake
of argument), if every Jew were to adopt "Nora Gayle Rivkis-ian"
philosophy, there would be 20 million opinions as to what is "correct"
--- I think even you will agree that not everyone thinks the way you
do.  With 20 million different variations of Judaism floating qround,
one for every Jew in the world, how can there be anything such as
Judaism?

In conclusion, it was human logic that brought upon us the Inquisition,
Nazisim, and hosts of other evils. In view of the deplorable record of
the application of human logic throughout history, I find it
inconceivable that G-d to have given us (in some shape or form,
depending on your O-C-R viewpoint) a set of Laws, and left it up to our
logic alone - without any guidelines - as to what to do with them.

It is precisely this set of guidelines that defines the Oral Law.
But that's another topic.

Hayim Hendeles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish