From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Subject: What is Jewish law?  Whose interpretation
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:54:37 GMT

In article <9212111738.AA13171@cyclone.sbi.com> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
>cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
>> <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)> writes:
>> >cohen@quartz.ciw.edu (Ronald Cohen) writes:
>
>> >> >Observant or not, a Jew is a Jew.  It is OUR religion, I agree.  That's
>> >> >why it's so sad that 90% of us reject it.
>> >> 
>> >> I don't know who these 90% are.  Are observant jews that don't
>> >> subscribe to orthodoxy rejecting Judaism?!  Fortunately, no.

>> >Jews who don't subscribe to Jewish Law (Halakhah) are rejecting the
>> >laws of Judaism.  A bit tautological, eh?

>> Whose interpretation of halacha?  Yours, I guess.  So it is not
>> tautological.

>Mine?  Did I say mine?  I don't remember saying mine.  Where did
>I say mine?

			.......................

>On the other hand, if we have sufficient differences in our
>views of kashrut, I may feel unable to eat in his/her house and
>still maintain my standards.  He/she should respect that.  I
>will not allow that person's food into my house.  If we have an
>honest relationship, it should present no problems.  I won't
>say his/her food is treif (unless it is), but I won't eat it
>because it has only a K on the label.

The differences between the various serious Jews today are quite
comparable to those of the Second Temple, at least according to
Josephus, who should be fairly reliable here.  We do not have many
writings of the Sadducees, who were in fact the ruling class over
much of this period.  I am not convinced that their view would 
differ much less from current halakhah than that of the present
Reform Jews.

>What I don't abide is someone claiming to follow Halakha when
>the foundation of that "Halakha" is that the Torah, Talmud,
>Shulchan Arukh, etc, are not binding on Jews today.  I am also
>upset when the decisions are made out of ignorance.  I will
>not accept as a legitimate interpreter of Halakha someone
>who says the prohibitions of eating pork are due to health
>concerns and are no longer valid because we can prevent the
>illnesses today.  This is simply uninformed.  The person is
>clearly ignorant of Halakha's every aspect, citations from the
>Torah, the most fundamental derivations of the Talmud, and
>even the current approach among the most liberal Jews who
>consider Halakha binding.

I agree with that particular rejection of the prohibitions on eating pork.
But it is said in the Sefer Torah about SOME of the prohibitions that th
y were there so that the customs of the idolators would not be followed. 
How many others are of this type, or are tribal taboos?  I have explained
the precise wording of the prohibition of cooking a young animal in its
mother's milk as avoiding a heathen ritual.

One cannot fully understand the Sefer Torah without knowing the customs
and laws of that age, no matter how much one has learned from the most
devout sages.  There is much which was lost even between the Exodus and
the Exile, some of which has been rediscovered.  I have read parts of 
the Talmud, and other writings, and I am not willing to follow the dictates
of those who argued thusly out of necessary ignorance.  

There is another major point.  It appears that during the Temple period
there were large differences of interpretation, and that this did not
really hurt the religion.  That period, and even up to relatively recent
times, were not times which allowed major dissent.  The idea of individual
freedom is relatively modern.  It was this, not the desire to assimilate,
which IMHO was the major cause of the arising of the Reform movement.
-- 
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