recent reading
Dec. 8th, 2001 10:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioI'm currently reading The Struggle over Reform in Rabbinic Literature (by Alexander Guttmann), which I borrowed from my rabbi last month. This is, essentially, a discussion of the arguments around many of the changes introduced by liberal Judaism in the last 150 years. (The Reform movement grew out of the Enlightenment in Germany.)
The introduction rightly points out that reforms to Jewish practice are nothing new, but doesn't discuss this history in much detail. (I assume it's well-covered elsewhere, though I haven't been there yet and would like to learn more.) Changes have generally been made by suspending laws as not applicable (e.g. everything having to do with Temple sacrifices), by interpreting existing law to get the result you want, or by creating legal fictions; an example of the latter (not from the book) is the selling of chametz for Pesach. Yes, it's supposed to be a real sale, but that's not how people treat it and I'm not sure they ever did. An example of interpreting problems away (again, not from the book) is the Torah commandment that a rebellious child (well, son) is to be executed before he can do any real damage. In fact, all capital offenses seem to have been legislated into near-non-existence; Tractate Sanhedrin is a fascinating read. (Yes, I've studied the mishna to that tractate.)
Anyway, the book points out that gradual reform was happening slowly over many centuries, but what's really different about liberal Judaism is the number and magnitude of the changes that were made. We might have gotten to similar results over a period of a few centuries without anyone screaming, but trying to do it in a few years was problematic.
Personally, I believe there is a second factor, and I presume the book will get there eventually: Reform is *not* simply an inheritor of the rabbinical tradition of gradual change. Reform made a fundamental change in asserting that the Torah is not the precise word of God. Some people interpret that as "anything goes", but I argue that serious, committed, Reform Jews do not, and I hope to find some guidance in this book on interpretation within the traditional scope. In fact, one of the things I wrestle with most -- and maybe this will form the basis of my next discussion with Rabbi Gibson -- is how I can make informed, consistent decisions about practice within a Reform context.
Anyway, that's all by way of introduction. The bulk of the book discusses specific issues; I haven't finished and thus haven't gotten to the conclusions that are drawn from it. Anyway, I should try to draw my own first.
A couple things I've noticed thus far:
There seems to be a tradition in rabbinic Judaism of "that which is not permitted is forbidden", and I hadn't really noticed that before. For example, one of the Orthodox arguments against using musical instruments in the synagogue (ignoring Shabbat-related issues) is that the sages who ordained the use of prayer in the first place didn't say anything about music. But if that's an argument against music in services, then don't we have a problem because they also didn't say anything about melodies, and yet we have a tradition of chanting or singing certain prayers and the melodies vary from location to location? If it's ok to innovate on vocal music, why not on instrumental music? None of the reform arguments presented in the book brings this up.
One of the harshest critics of reform (at least among the Orthodox rabbis cited in this book) makes an argument that amounts to "we can't really hold them responsible because they are as infants". Someone who violates Shabbat isn't (necessarily) a heretic worthy of excommunication; he's a baby who doesn't know any better. (He particularly means American Jews here.) I find it odd that the same rabbis who argue the importance of free will endorse this sort of argument. It's very myopic: "we are obviously right, so if you don't agree with our interpretation you must be deluded or ignorant".
More later.
Re: Electricity! (E-lectricity...)
Date: 2001-12-13 09:00 pm (UTC):-)
Doesn't the filliment in an incandescent bulb "kindle fire" (so to speak) when you turn on the switch? It's not just a matter of looking like fire. Or so I'm told. But ok; the argument I really had in mind was the "final hammer blow" one (completing the circuit). I'm not sure how I feel about that one either. I use timers on lights and a crock pot, because the primary purposes of kindling fire are light and heat so I am stringent there. Otherwise, I try to avoid issues but don't stress over it. I'll ride in a car. Since moving to within walking distance of my shul, I have driven on Shabbat only twice; both times involved exceptional circumstances.
it's good to have a day which is less complicated by computers and stuff, as much as I do like using them the rest of the week.
Yes. Part of Shabbat is the separation from the rest of the week -- [mavdil] bein kodesh l'chol and all that.
What some of them have said is that they were not educated in traditional halacha, which would seem to me to make it hard for them to make informed decisions on how much weight to give halacha.
This is often a failing, yes. You only really get that education in day schools, not in after-school Hebrew school for a few hours a week, and Reform day schools are pretty rare. So either you dive in as a dedicated adult, or you go to an Orthodox day school (a solution some use), or you just sort of follow the herd. This is unfortunate.
Pardon me, sir, but would you please remove your headcovering before entering the temple? And would you like Shrimp or Lobster for your appetizer today? :-)
Yeah, that's the one. Things have gotten much better, fortunately. But that was such a glaring violation that, 116 years later, it still stands out as typifying Reform, even though it doesn't (any more).
I don't see any problem with what you're writing about Reform; don't worry about me taking offense. I also have some problems with some Reform rulings; I think that even if you can make a good case for patrilinial descent using traditional sources, for example, it is unnecessarily divisive. Even Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai intermarried, but now the Orthodox won't with Reform because of this.
BTW, if you're ever in Pittsburgh, I can take you to a fantastic NFTY-esque Shabbat-morning service. They're out there. But hey, I also sometimes lead kabbalat Shabbat services at a local Conservative shul; I'm somewhat flexible about Friday night in particular. (I'd kind of rather that Reform keep the Torah reading to Shabbat morning only, and not do it Friday night; I think the expediency-based arguments need not apply now. But I'm not upset by it; it's just a preference.)