From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:54:17 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1ebgdgINNolm@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>Dima,

>Your position seems to me to be (correct me if I misstate) that
>(1) Orthodox Judaism is the only true Judaism.
>    We know this because it arises out of correct interpretation and strict
>    adherence to the Torah, which defines our religion.
>(2) C and R "Judaism" is the watering-down of true Judaism for convenience
>      of living in a (goyish) modern society.
>    We know this because these "Judaisms" do not correctly interpret and
>    strictly follow the Torah, and because their misinterpretations and
>    lapses consistently tend to make it easier to live in such a society.

>I have two problems with this:
>(1)  The Orthodox interpretation of Torah is not literal -- the milk-and-meat
>     prohibition, for example, is not written in so many words in the Torah.
>     Similarly, the definition of work on the Sabbath for obvious reasons does
>     not literally include automobile usage.  All the
>     provisions about sacrifices are of necessity abandoned.  Further, much
>     of Orthodox practice rests on interpretations from the Midrash and
>     Talmud -- wise men wrote these, to be sure, but they were not writing with
>     divine inspiration and there is no surety of their accuracy.

>What this demonstrates is that there is no guarantee that the Orthodox
>interpretation of the Torah (et al) is the right one.  All that is clear is
>that it is the one that demands the greatest restrictions on behavior.  It
>is _not_ the most literal interpretation possible -- witness the milk-and-meat
>prohibition.  Merely the generally most conservative and restrictive.

I will not even go along with this statement.  There are a few situations in
which the Orthodox will permit what I, a Reform Jew, will not permit.  In
particular, I read the Shabbath commandment in such a way that the "Shabbos
Goy" practice of the stetl is in direct contradiction to it.  Now SOMETHING
had to be done in that climate, but not that!  There are other interpretations
on this commandment which I will observe, but the Orthodox claim does not 
violate it.

>(2)  There is a lack of evidence that Judaism was intended to be a completely
>     binding code of conduct independent of external society.  We have, 
>     throughout the Torah, instances of Jews interacting with Gentiles without
>     the Gentiles remarking that the Jews dressed strangely or were always a
>     silent and sober people.  It is the religious observances that get
>     remarked upon.  Look at the Song of Songs, or the description
>     of the behavior of David and Solomon.  Such things may not be models
>     of behavior, but that they could occur at all casts doubts on such

>
>This suggests to me that it is the Orthodox interpretations that have been
>deliberately restrictive as compared to the ancient following of the law,
>as opposed to the C and R interpretations as being deliberately loose.  It
>may be good to be more restrictive, but without the support of this having
>been the original intent, it is not more true as Judaism.

The "fences around the Torah" have, in many cases, been made into stone walls
without gates.  Some of them also come from the goyim, and reflect their
structure and taboos.  The prohibitions on men and women associating, in
particular, contradict behavior in the Torah and the actions of people in
the Tanakh who are cosidered to be of good moral character.

>This means that, without further evidence (which you might like to supply?),
>I at least do not have a basis for believing the Orthodox reading of Torah
>to be the (only) accurate one.  You clearly believe this, but why?  If there is
>no reason to believe the Orthodox interpretation 'privileged' in this sense
>-- that it is a more genuine following of the law as it was intended to
>be followed -- then Orthodox Jews may be demonstrating a mitzvah of discipline,
>but are not qualitatively more genuine than Conservative or Reform Jews.

The Reform position is not that of laxity, but of study and interpretation.
It does differ in that the Oral Law is not considered to have been given to
Moshe, and I do not see why such a body of law would not have been written
down if it were from God, and my own reading of the Sefer Torah is that 
there are parts in which God must at least have been misquoted.  But Reform
does not say that the sages are not to be considered, just that they are
not to be followed as if their words came from God Himself.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish