"Rationalist" Judaism ("safe haven" style)

yogabird

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 11:32 am

Tzippora wrote:

yogabird wrote:

5*Mom wrote:

I have no idea who she's talking about either. We learn from Torah sources, not the movement-du-jour. This is so much bigger than one contemporary *young man.*

Isramom8 wrote:

There is a whole spiritual reality that exists beyond what we experience with our physical senses. There is so much more.

Indeed. Know anything about quantum physics?

You don't even have to know about quantum physics to realize that limiting all of existence to That Which Can Be Understood By The Human Mind is absurd. Even cat brains and fish brain can sense things the human mind can't, like certain light and sound wave frequencies.

Traditional Judaism isn't irrational. It's suprarational.

Mind worship is so ala Hellenism. And aside from being ridiculous, it's so uncreative. "G-d is our mightiest warrior, only stronger. G-d is the prettiest woman, only more beautiful. G-d is the wisest scholar, only smarter."

So if you were just a wee bit wiser, you'd be able to create the universe and all that is in it? I smell a rotten apple and the sin of the tree of knowledge.

we have evidence to indicate the existence of the things we cannot detect on our own, like ultraviolet light or quantum physics. The same is not true of whatever mystical framework you are proposing.

We NOW have evidence to detect those phenomena. Did they not exist before we were able to measure them?

freidasima

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 11:34 am

Belief by definition can't be rational. There is however only one mitzva of belief in Judaism, the belief in Hashem and his singularity. Let's not go into the 13 ikkarim here, suffice it to say that until the time of the Rambam many of them were openly not an across the board belief and in truth, one of the meanings of the arabic word that Rambam uses which in Hebrew is translated usually as "ani maamin" I believe, can also mean "I hope" (which to rationalists makes a lot more sense in his ikkarim). But that's a different story.

There is a tremendous difference between "belief in" anything other than Hashem as stated above, and the practice of Judaism. We practice because we buy into an entire system in which much of what we practice is second temple judaism, as we have absolutely no idea what existed at the time of the first temple, no sources from that time actually, no artifacts, no archeological remains of religious items.

When it comes to the actual nitty-gritty praxis, there is little difference between the "rationalist" or whatever you want to call it, kind of Jew and any other orthodox Jew. Lulav is lulav. Shabbos is shabbos. Nidda is Nidda. Davening is davening, kibbud av is kibbud av and brochos are brochos. Fertig.

One group which wants a very a-historical way of looking at things can say "this is our mesorah directly from Sinai, never changed and that's what we do as Jews" while a more rationalist group will say "we have absolutely no idea what was done at the time of Sinai and how things were kept, historically it looks even from neviim more like it took am yisroel a good couple of hundred years in EY to get their act together, and many of the texts that one group reads literally are later creations but so what? We keep second temple Judaism as we buy into the system that chazal did what they did with a kind of ruach hakodesh and that is the divine spirit behind their laws and that's why we keep them as they first codified the Judaism whose derivative we keep today"...

But in practice the two groups - orthdox groups - keep the same halochos even if they will disagree totally on how far back various things go. The arguments are about how far back things go. One group will say "Sinai" and another will say "second temple", one group will say texts are literal, there was a moshe there was a yetzias mitzrayim happening exactly, word for word, like in the torah, and another group will say that the story is a later reconstruction and glorification of something much smaller and different than happened.... BUT BOTH GROUPS WILL SIT DOWN AT THE PESACH SEDER AND KEEP THE SAME SEDER, one for literal reasons, the other for traditional reasons because "this is what Jews believe and do".

In practice - no difference.

Where do the differences come in? In little things which developed since that time, many of which have kabbalistic or irrational or metaphysical basis. Examples - Tashlich. Kiddush Levana, Kapporos. Here's one for you. My husband, who is very very very learned, a true talmid chochom, does neither tashlich or kapporos. He refuses to participate in a custom that passess over his sins to an unsuspecting chicken or fish.....He is VERY very rational-litvish and as he said, the only kabbalistic custom that he keeps is holding a certain type of kiddush cup from the bottom with the whole hand a certain way...and that is because of kibbud av, as his father taught him that way. And as his father may he live and be well is as Litvish as they come from both sides...some ancestor must have gone off the deep end and brought that minhog into the family. But not doing tashlich or Kiddush Levana or Kapporos doesn't make one into a bad Jew or a non-Orthodox Jew. Not doing shabbos or kashrus or nidda or davening on the other hand....

So...as no one is suggesting in reality that people give up yom tov sheni shel galuyos...it reminds me of the not so funny joke about making alterations in liturgy to bring them more up to modernity, and the committee argues and argues and argues and then decides unanimously that they will "sacrifice" one thing to bring them up to modernity - the second "yekum purkan"....for those of you who recognize the story you also know the rest.

In short op, your dh can be rational, and you can join him or be chassidic or be a combination because that isn't halocho, its hashkofo. There is no halocho to believe that there really was a moshe rabbeinu or a mordechai and esther. There is a halocho to read the megilla with brocho, there is a halocho to say al hanisim bayomim hahem bazeman hazeh. Meaning That something happened in "those days" and we still note it "bazeman hazeh". That's all.

Separate halocho from hashkofo. Learn halocho if it makes you feel better and you can see that your dh isn't a bad Jew. If you want to do tashlich and he doesn'tת geh gezint with your girlfriends as I do, and do tashlich. When the kids were younger dh always told me that if I want him to go with me to tashlich for the kids sake, he will do so. Sometimes he went to push baby carriages, as they got older he certainly didn't go and told them why. And today? Some go, others don't (we have five) but it has no bearing on anything else that they do in halochic yiddishkeit. Shabbos is shabbos, kashrus is kashrus, lulav is lulav and sholom al yisroel as they say.

Last edited by freidasima on Thu, Dec 05 2013, 8:19 am; edited 1 time in total

amother

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 11:45 am

Maybe this is not a rationalistic point of view but here is what works for me.

I live a typical frum lifestyle. kids in regular frum schools, shabbos, kashrus, yom tov, TH, cover hair, basic tznius etc....

When you start getting technical about things my beliefs are shaky though. I don't accept apologetics, I don't accept all the "feel good" divrai torah, I don't believe a lot of medrashim, and while I am not sure I will add basic tanach into that- I do have lots of skepticism with regard to the stories I learned in tanach as well. I know that lots of halacha that we do may not really be halacha or what G-d intended and I don't believe lots of the reasons we do mitzvos (as in the reasons don't really hold water in my mind).

I believe there is a G-d and I believe he is around running the world. Therefore there has got to be some religion out there who has it right and is serving him as close as possible to the truth. Perhaps its not Judaism but perhaps it is. I don't know and I probably never will. Either way it doesn't matter because I love my husband, kids, and community and I am not going to switch. Its all I know.

So here's the thing- my view on Torah and Judaism doesn't change my actual day to day life. My questions don't really matter because all religions have holes in them and since I know there is a G-d I have got to keep something so why not the religion I was born and raised into?

I am lucky I have a happy fulfilling life. I am sure that someone like me who would have a less happy life would probably not be able to stay frum.

black sheep

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 11:51 am

it is so sad that torah is taught on such a childish level throughout school, not just in kindergarten but all the way through high school and beyond. eventually, rational adults grow past the black and white interpretations and want a more nuanced understanding of our heritage.

as I understand rationalist judasim, it does not question anything in the Torah Sebechtav (the five books of Moses.) even the talking snake, as someone mentioned in an earlier post, we accept as real, understanding that the world was different before the sin of Adam. however, rationalist judaism does question the interpretations of rishonim and achronim based on science that they did not have knowledge of at their time. in school, and even beyond, we were always taught that the gemarah and the rabbi's interpretations are, as chani 8 put so well, Word; that they are 100% Truth, and that we cannot even imagine how brilliant and all knowing these rabbis were. however, this isn't true, at least according to rationalists. rationalists don't discard science based on the "science" of the gemarrah.

rabbi slifkin, THE Rationalist Jew, does not question Torah Sebechtav, but does say that Torah Shebal Peh is not as set in stone.

most people don't realize that the gemarah was written down to be a source to learn halacha. within discussing how they came to certain halachos, the Rabbis of the gemarrah mention certain medicinal cures of their times, and certain facts about animals based on their knowledge of the times. those things are not 100% truth, but rather truth as they understood it at the time. when we learn in school that everything in the gemarrah is the same as the Aseres Hadibros, set in stone by the Word of G-d, well then when you come across something rationally just really is not true, it can shake up your entire belief.

and that is the sad part. that the educational system, by brainwashing absolute belief in everything,gemarrah, medrashim, Torah Shebechtav equally, they actually don't teach real emunah.

freidasima

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 1:24 pm

Why do you think, Pink, that rationalist Judaism or whatever one wants to call it, precludes a relationship with the Ribono Shel Olam??!!

And just BTW real "rationalist Judaism" which is a kind of acadmic looking at Jewish sources, definitely questions a lot of things appearing in the Torah Shebichtav and doesn't take everything there literally. So? As I wrote previously, there is no mitzva to "believe" in Moshe Rabbeinu or yetzias mitzrayim. What we as Orthodox Jews do in practice, all of us - now hold your chairs tight as this is a difficult concept to get one's head wrapped around - is basically to demand that we believe that there are things that we do IN MEMORY of the concept of Yetzias mitzrahyim which is a central concept of Yiddishkeit. So many things we say "zecher liyitzias mitzrayim". Kiddush for example. We have to believe that JEWS BELIEVE in Yetizias mitzrayim, which is actually quite different than beleiving literally in that it happened exactly as the Torah wrote. We have to believe that the Torah was written with a divine spark and thus every word in it is Divine. We do not have to believe that it was all written down at one time. We have to believe that the CONCEPT was given by Hashem at once. We don't have to believe that the actually writing was implemented at once. Certainly there is a difference between the five books of Torah and the neviim and the kesuvim. We have to believe that there is a divine spark in their codification, but it doesn't mean that we have to ignore the seforim chitzoniiim.

Our relationship with Hashem has nothing to do with accepting Judaism literally, with accepting everything written in the torah literally. It has to do with the concept that the CONCEPT of the Torah is from Hashem and thus it is Divine. It has to do with the belief that Hashem is before, during and after everything. It has to do with the fact that we are commanded to believe in Hashem and we buy into that command and all the others. It is a spirit of things.

Lehavdil, as Americans, American citizens and residents have to keep American laws. We hope that as citizens they don't only do so because they are afraid of the police and the jails. We hope that they are doing so because the also believe that there is an American spirit of things, and that the laws, as promulgated by the elected representatives of the people, are created in that spirit. But just in case one has moments when one questions that "american spirit" and the concept, people still do things because there is a law. That's why laws are passed, because they aren't "natural" even to those buying into the concept of the American spirit.

Same with Judaism. Halocho is the basis of Judaism after the belief in G-d. And we buy into Halocho because it comes with the Divine spirit and it's a package deal. Same way the if someone doesn't believe any more in the American spirit and way of life he can pick up and leave, free country, in Judaism if someone doesn't want to buy into halocho and into the belief in G-d they can leave practicing Judaism. Free country, free religion. What happens afterwards? Who knows. No one ever came back to tell us. Those who believe, also believe that there is a kind of afterwards with some kind of reward and punishment..hopefully. Those who don't? Well they don't believe.

black sheep

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 2:45 pm

bamamama wrote:

black sheep wrote:

as I understand rationalist judasim, it does not question anything in the Torah Sebechtav (the five books of Moses.) even the talking snake, as someone mentioned in an earlier post, we accept as real, understanding that the world was different before the sin of Adam.

IME this isn't an accurate statement. If you were to ask, say, Rabbi Slifkin if there really was a Gan Eden and a snake, after reading many of his articles, I think he would tell you that it's not necessary to believe that. But I could be wrong.

I read rabbi slifkins blog and I read his book about reconciling evolution with the torah, and my understanding is that he doesnt question the validity of anything in the torah itself, only in the rabbis interpretations of it. For example, a "day" of creation might not refer to a 24 hour day but rather a much longer time span.

There are those who say the actual torah isn't to be taken at face value, but not rabbi slifkin or other rationalists. That is more of a bible criticism thing, which becomes kefira. But many people confuse the two and say that rabbi slifkin is a kofer for questioning rashi for example.

And if I remember from his book, I think he does say specifically that the world was different before the chet of adam, and that nature changed afterwards.

freidasima

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 2:53 pm

Yoga what does one thing have to do with another? Of course we are Jews. But that still doesn't mean for some people that in reality Yetzias Mitzrayim happened word for word as it is written in the Torah. However they believe in the concept of yetizas mitzrayim and its centrality for the development of Judaism as we hold it.

Told you it's hard to wrap one's mind around that difference in nuance between believing literally in the act as written and believing in the concept of the Jews believing in the concept. No that wasn't a typo. That's what I meant.

Here's an example. Let's say that part of a certain religion is a story of a particular chair that has magical properties and as a result all sorts of miracles happened to people who sat in the chair. In truth, to be part of that religion one doesn't have to actually believe that the miracles happened, one has to believe in the "story". By believing in the story that makes one part of a collective in whose collective memory that story of the miracle chair has a major role. So basically, while some people may believe in the miracles themselves, others who find it hard to believe in the miracles for one reason or another, for them it's enough to believe in the STORY of the miracles and that makes them part of the collective, if they want to remain part of said collective.

Now if someone uses his lack of belief in the miracles to say "it's all balderdash, and therefore everything based on it is nonsense as well", well then, he or she is taking themselves out of that collective, aren't they. It's kind of like the Rosho in the pesach seder, "mipnei shehotzi es atzmo min haklal"...he took himself out of the collective. for THAT reason, and not the quesioning, he is considered a rosho.

Same here. If someone uses their rationalist belief in Judaism to negate everything and say it's a folk religion and therefore there is also no rational proof of G-d etc....well then that makes them an apikores of sorts. But if someone says that they aren't taking themselves out of the klal but they don't believe literally however they do believe in the CONCEPT that to be a Jew one has to believe in the CONCEPT...that's actually enough, as long as they also believe in the existence of an omnipotent and singular Supreme Being. creator of the world etc.

freidasima

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 4:52 pm

Yoga explain, what does yayin nesech have to do with anything?

It is jewish custom not to drink stam yeinam. The reason has nothing to do with yayin nesech. Yayin nesech is wine used for sacramental purposes. Communion wine, for example, today. That is true yeyin nesech and there is an issur mideorayso to drink that.

Stam yeinam is miderabanan, and the reasoning is yeinam mishum pitam, pitam mishum bitam. you don't drink their wine as it will make you break bread with them which is fraternization. Fraternization will lead to intermarriage.

One may start claiming today, as I have heard some Jews say, that there is no reason anymore not to drink stam yeinam as once upon a time wine was the drink to be and such a drink was the only think one drank with bread, meals, no one drank water. However today as we drink, let's say cola or sprite, those should be outlawed as bringing to breaking bread, I.e. fraternization with non Jews that could bring about intermarriage.

Maybe so, however the concept of "wine" goes further than just pitam, breaking bread. Even today wine has different properties than cola and does different things to the person drinking it than cola does. Cola doesn't make one "mellow" or "susceptible", while alcohol in the form of wine definitely does. That is a biological argument which hasn't changed since the time of Avrohom Ovinu. heck, sinch Adam Harishon, or if we are being tanachic, since noah, the first to get drunk.

Hence, whether you are rational, irrational, kabbalistic, or whatever, jews should still not drink stam yeinam which has been since rabbinic time, an unchanging symbol of something one imbibes that also can break one's inhibitions. Unlike cola.

(and all this is being written from the most rational viewpoint because rational isn't only science etc. but a lot more. And to be truly rational one also has to take into account not only traditions, but the deeper meaning behind their symbols).