"Rationalist" Judaism ("safe haven" style)

PinkFridge

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 2:14 pm

freidasima wrote:

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

I don't, I don't! Believe me! Thanks for not reporting me!
Whew.
I don't have time to give this the attention it deserves but that's ok, you're probably sleeping ;-) (I was too busy with the literature post and have to make pizza now.) I really do plan to. I was just commenting on what sounded like mere mechanical action. TBC. iy"H.

freidasima

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 2:16 pm

still up. Enjoy the pizza

amother

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 5:14 pm

Anon because some ppl might not understand and may know me.
Didn't read all posts, my husband is also very rationalist and examines the sources and in no way it makes him less religious. In fact, examining the sources and following the rabanim come hand in hand because rationalists believe that only a new sanhedrin could change what chachamim wrote. That means my rationalist husband follows chalav israel, yashan and bishul israel. Means also he will tend to agree more with the Talmud Yerushalmi then Bavli for historical reasons and it means he will not agree with modern poskim that disagree with the Ribbis in the Talmud. Of course, with children there are certain things we explain later, but certain things we have to explain so they don't think their aba is doing something wrong.
He reads Kugel's books, interested in Machon Shilo, and in fact I am happy to have a husband that has true emunah and follows what he is suppose to, doesn't follow what some ppl made up just to seem more frum.

PinkFridge

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 6:01 pm

freidasima wrote:

Separate halocho from hashkofo. Learn halocho if it makes you feel better and you can see that your dh isn't a bad Jew. [b]If you want to do tashlich and he doesn't 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.

I had to read the bolded twice to understand it properly. Maybe a comma after "doesn't" would have helped. As you can see, I don't think I'm up to a meaningful discussion. (BTW, I heard the pizza was great, I don't eat white flour if I can say no easily, which has b"H gotten easier.) I say discussion, not debate as a)this is safe-haven style and b)even with a good night's sleep I couldn't hold my own so I won't try.

I think I'm beginning to get what you're saying. I was focusing on the stress on praxis. I think we agree that praxis without meaning is sterile and not a good way to go. (Not that we don't have our rough patches where we persevere even if things are hard, I mean praxis without meaning as a steady state.) Anyway, good night from me at least on this thread.

amother

Wed, Dec 04 2013, 8:22 pm

amother wrote:

DH has gotten very into what he calls "rationalist" Judaism. Theoretically, it makes a lot of sense to me (heh. I just realized what I did there.) However, there are some aspects that I find disturbing and I would like to hear from others who are familiar with this viewpoint, and also talk to people who follow this approach themselves. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND if you are not familiar with this. I have nothing personally against chassidic thought but if you follow it I really don't think your responses will be helpful for my needs at this time, and I already do know about your point of view because that's kind of where I come from myself. Thanks and goodbye please, really.

I consider myself a relatively rationalist Jew, although I think it's used differently by different people.

Quote:

So first of all, what I mean by rationalist Judaism, because I'm not sure that's a universal term and if it is I don't know if it is used in the way we are using it, is a Rambam-like point of view in which you evaluate your Jewish practice, well, rationally, not just following whatever has always been done. Part of this includes that when science conflicts with chazal, you generally go with the science. Another aspect is that narratives (including in Tanach) that are unnatural are generally assumed to be figurative and did not actually, physically happen as described.

While I think it's true that people do what you describe, the way I understand it is different in two respects.
First, from the perspective of definition, it is possible to believe two contradictory things at the same time. People pretend that things are black and white; that if you believe dinosaur bones are real then you can't believe in sheishes yemei bereishis (apologetics notwithstanding). I don't believe that's true, but even if it was true it has no practical application. Imagine a person who believes that the world was created in six days about 6000 years ago. The person goes to a museum, where she views an exhibit explaining how dinosaur bones are collected, classified, studied, etc. Isn't it obvious that the person can engage the exhibit in a variety of ways beyond utter denial? Of course she can. We can view and describe the phenomenon of someone actively engaging with contradictory beliefs simultaneously.

The question is, perhaps, why and how is this possible? Our basic impulse is to think that two contradictory things cannot both be true.

The second part addresses that. It's clear that we can believe contradictory things simultaneously, so long as the two arenas in which the beliefs arise are separate enough. When we say "I don't believe that the midrash is literally true," we may actually be saying it's an allegory. Or we may be saying that it can still be true "midrashically" even if it's not true "scientifically".

Quote:

So, that already is cognitively acceptable to me but feels a little disturbing. It doesn't seem to be the majority view according to most of what I learned growing up and in school, even through seminary where they were relatively balanced in presenting different viewpoints. I find myself questioning, how can you claim to accept the Torah as pure truth if you're taking half of it to be only figuratively or allegorically true? At what point do you draw the line - if there weren't any angels in the story, how do you know there was an Abraham there? Etc.

I understand (as others have expressed) that it's challenging and even traumatic to fundamentally change your belief system to something that you've thought was beyond the pale. But I think that if you can accept what I've written above, it's relatively easy to conceive of the solutions. There were angels. The angels were not an allegory. But the reality of the angels is a Torah-reality. When you think about history or science, the angels don't play a role because the Torah is not a history book.

Quote:

On a related note, it's shaking me up that because it contradicts the basis of so many nice inspirational things I learned over the years and continue to read now. Drillions of nice divrei Torah are based on very un-rationalist approaches. You mean 90% of my inspiration in life has been based on things I don't really fully accept anymore? You can see how this gets problematic...

As a rationalist, I used to hear all kinds of divrei Torah and they all rolled off me like water off a duck's back. I thought of them all as "just a bunch of Torah" that has no value and could not stand up to any level of critical inquiry. The Ibn Ezra explaining a dikduk issue was as accurate to me as the Bible codes, which is to say, not accurate at all.
With time I realized that there are differences among divrei Torah. Some, like the Ibn Ezra, are based on a systematic analysis of the Chumash and reflect pshat in the pasuk and reflect the Ibn Ezra's intent to express pshat in the pasuk. Other divrei torah are clearly not pshat, and were likely not intended that way. For example, in this week's parsha, Yosef sent wagons back to Yaakov. Rashi quotes a midrash saying that Yosef sent wagons so that Yaakov would know it was true, because they were learning "egla arufa" when Yosef was kidnapped.
There are a thousand reasons that this midrash is not literally true. The most important reason is that of course it's ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that it's not meaningful. In fact, it's part of the experience of Torah - building on what came before based on what it means to you. The dvar torah is interesting because this is the meaning it had to our forebears, who gave us our Judaism. Finding this meaning depends on the ability to understand that it wasn't the factual truth, but that by the time the midrash was learning the story of Yosef, the chachamim saw learning together as the obvious connection that a father would have with his favorite child, and would see devoutness as the first concern of a parent who has been separated from his child for decades. What would we imagine Yakov's concern to be? What would our cherished memory be, if we were to be separated from a child? What would our concern be upon an imminent reunion? What do the answers to these questions say about us? It's a much deeper engagement with the parsha, and if we think that the midrash is literally true, we wouldn't have it.

Quote:

Then there's a whole other issue that is part of all this that is also disturbing. Part of choosing what to believe is examining the sources. DH, who has been the leader in this whole exploration (and btw he is an EXTREMELY learned and intelligent person, educated beyond the ordinary rabbinic levels in chareidi yeshivas, and part of that is what contributed to this whole scenario because he is cerebral enough to figure out when things don't make sense even though they are widely accepted) Anyway, he does a lot of historical reading and concluded that certain sources that are very widely accepted (and I don't want to name names purposely here but I do mean VERRRRY widely accepted) actually come from very, shall we say, sketchy origins. I started off just not knowing what to believe but then the evidence he was bringing me got so compelling I just caved and said, OK, I guess that particular reference source is fraudulent. Gosh. The bigger problem is that there is then a lot more that is based on it, I didn't even know how much until suddenly it pops up all over the place that this or that thing I always thought or practice I always practiced is suddenly of disreputable origin! It has shaken me up so much that very often when I get the sense that DH is about to say something to that effect, I just tell him not to say it. I also made a rule that we don't discuss this type of thing at the Shabbos table but DH keeps flirting with the boundaries of that. I hate it.

This goes back to what I was saying before. The zohar was not written by RSBY in history, but it was written by RSBY in Judaism. If we adopt minhagim from the Zohar, it's because Judaism adopts them, not because of history's facts about it. R' Yonason Eibeschutz may have been a Sabbatian in history but he was not in Judaism. These things are either not contradictions, or they are contradictions that are not particularly difficult to deal with because they have few practical consequences.

Quote:

I'm also worried about our kids. They're very little but even in preschool they're learning things like customs DH no longer condones. People who take this approach - what do you do? How can we send our kids to schools that teach things we believe to be untrue? There don't seem to be any schools that don't. I feel like we're setting our kids up for the same kind of existential crisis I'm having right now. DH says he has many friends who share his views on these matters, some of whom are older and more experienced than us, I don't get why they (we) don't just get together and make our own school and community. They're naturally afraid of the reaction they'd get from the more traditional community (I.e. EVERYONE in the known frum universe?!?!?!)... sigh... which is another thing that bothers me about all this, are all the other non-rationalist-judaism rabbis that IRrational? And how did a peace-loving girl like me end up somehow on the opposite side of this great chasm from what seems like everyone I've ever known?

OK I had better stop rambling. It is the middle of the night and I've been tired forever and have plenty to do, but this has been sitting on my mind for MONTHS and I just had finally get it out.

Schools are a constant problem. (I was about to write "big" but I realized that it's not a big problem at all.) In the end, I've made my peace with the fact that modern "yeshivish" doctrine developed through resonance to the broadest possible audience within the larger frum community and that I am not within that broad audience. I like to believe I'm above it, but at the very least I'm proudly contrarian.
My practical solution to the school problem is fairly innocuous. We do lots of yeshivish things because we are yeshivish, not because we think it will help us have whiter teeth. This includes lots of zemiros and discussion at the shabbos table, lots of pomp and circumstance on yamim tovim, upsherins, mezuza kissing, baking challah, etc. When our kids come home from school with a particularly objectionable message, we talk about it generally without directly contradicting the school. My daughter came home the other day having heard something about dinosaurs and kefirah, and we discussed the nature of evidence and what threshold of information we need to consider something factual (not in those words of course). And we take things as they come.

This has been a very long post, but I hope that at least some of it will find favor (so biblical) with some of us who are dealing with this sort of thing. It has been very useful to write, if nothing else.

imaima

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 1:53 am

amother wrote:

I didn't know where to put this but this seems to be the closest category that lets me post anonymously, and this might get shalom-bayis-ish so I don't want to be too public about it... I am also hoping I won't get moderated out of here if some of what I'm saying seems to contradict the 13 principles; I'm not trying to rebel, just to understand. I know there are some pretty smart people on here and hope they can help me come CLOSER to the Torah and the truth through this conversation.

***NOTE TO RESPONDENTS: PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE be sensitive to the shalom bayis aspects of this issue when responding. bear in mind that this involves my DH whom I love and respect. Let's keep this peaceful, even if you disagree with my DH's views please don't say things like "Your DH has gone off the deep end, run away fast!" Frankly, even if he were C"V crazy I would try to work through this and not run away, but I don't think he's being insane about this even though sometimes it feels that way...

DH has gotten very into what he calls "rationalist" Judaism. Theoretically, it makes a lot of sense to me (heh. I just realized what I did there.) However, there are some aspects that I find disturbing and I would like to hear from others who are familiar with this viewpoint, and also talk to people who follow this approach themselves. PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND if you are not familiar with this. I have nothing personally against chassidic thought but if you follow it I really don't think your responses will be helpful for my needs at this time, and I already do know about your point of view because that's kind of where I come from myself. Thanks and goodbye please, really.

So first of all, what I mean by rationalist Judaism, because I'm not sure that's a universal term and if it is I don't know if it is used in the way we are using it, is a Rambam-like point of view in which you evaluate your Jewish practice, well, rationally, not just following whatever has always been done. Part of this includes that when science conflicts with chazal, you generally go with the science. Another aspect is that narratives (including in Tanach) that are unnatural are generally assumed to be figurative and did not actually, physically happen as described.

So, that already is cognitively acceptable to me but feels a little disturbing. It doesn't seem to be the majority view according to most of what I learned growing up and in school, even through seminary where they were relatively balanced in presenting different viewpoints. I find myself questioning, how can you claim to accept the Torah as pure truth if you're taking half of it to be only figuratively or allegorically true? At what point do you draw the line - if there weren't any angels in the story, how do you know there was an Abraham there? Etc.

On a related note, it's shaking me up that because it contradicts the basis of so many nice inspirational things I learned over the years and continue to read now. Drillions of nice divrei Torah are based on very un-rationalist approaches. You mean 90% of my inspiration in life has been based on things I don't really fully accept anymore? You can see how this gets problematic...

Then there's a whole other issue that is part of all this that is also disturbing. Part of choosing what to believe is examining the sources. DH, who has been the leader in this whole exploration (and btw he is an EXTREMELY learned and intelligent person, educated beyond the ordinary rabbinic levels in chareidi yeshivas, and part of that is what contributed to this whole scenario because he is cerebral enough to figure out when things don't make sense even though they are widely accepted) Anyway, he does a lot of historical reading and concluded that certain sources that are very widely accepted (and I don't want to name names purposely here but I do mean VERRRRY widely accepted) actually come from very, shall we say, sketchy origins. I started off just not knowing what to believe but then the evidence he was bringing me got so compelling I just caved and said, OK, I guess that particular reference source is fraudulent. Gosh. The bigger problem is that there is then a lot more that is based on it, I didn't even know how much until suddenly it pops up all over the place that this or that thing I always thought or practice I always practiced is suddenly of disreputable origin! It has shaken me up so much that very often when I get the sense that DH is about to say something to that effect, I just tell him not to say it. I also made a rule that we don't discuss this type of thing at the Shabbos table but DH keeps flirting with the boundaries of that. I hate it.

I'm also worried about our kids. They're very little but even in preschool they're learning things like customs DH no longer condones. People who take this approach - what do you do? How can we send our kids to schools that teach things we believe to be untrue? There don't seem to be any schools that don't. I feel like we're setting our kids up for the same kind of existential crisis I'm having right now. DH says he has many friends who share his views on these matters, some of whom are older and more experienced than us, I don't get why they (we) don't just get together and make our own school and community. They're naturally afraid of the reaction they'd get from the more traditional community (I.e. EVERYONE in the known frum universe?!?!?!)... sigh... which is another thing that bothers me about all this, are all the other non-rationalist-judaism rabbis that IRrational? And how did a peace-loving girl like me end up somehow on the opposite side of this great chasm from what seems like everyone I've ever known?

OK I had better stop rambling. It is the middle of the night and I've been tired forever and have plenty to do, but this has been sitting on my mind for MONTHS and I just had finally get it out.

OP I don't have experience with this problem but I found that books of Ramchal do help to strengthen one's emunah. Especially Daat Tevunot. Although it is not the easiest book to read.

lucymaud

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 2:01 am

I understand how it's confronting for you. This is challenging something you were brought up with. It's going to take time for you to get used to it. I went on a journey similar to this, and it was extremely unsettling. This probably won't make sense, but just because something didn't happen, it doesn't mean it's not true. I believe everything written in the Torah is there to teach us something, whether it's to do with forming the Jewish spirit or shaping ethical behaviour. Good luck with your journey.

Tzippora

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 2:11 am

Previous amother, you seem to be arguing for cognitive dissonance as a strategy for being frum, and while I agree most people live with some amount of it , that level of inconsistency is likely to be disorienting and uncomfortable for most people.

I did like your analysis of midrashim but in my BY type school I got in trouble for saying stuff like that :-) what you're really doing though is a meta analysis of why the midrash days what it does, rather than analyzing it itself, but honestly I think that approach is more valuable.

Moreover, there isn't much need for it unless you want to be in line worth very specific schools of thought. I don't feel compelled to believe that RSBY wrote the zohar. It isn't true in Judaism or anywhere else. Dinosaurs existed in history and in Judaism both.

The challenge you face is that you feel the need to buy in to a certain yeshivish system that requires you believe specific things that are really extraneous to the religion. It may be then marketing to a broader (dumber) audience but honestly that really doesn't appeal to me. Why should you gave to experience serious cognitive dissonance over minor points, especially when the yeshivish vote is really just asking you to believe something that is demonstrably false about something very ancillary to the faith? It's back to believing six impossible things before breakfast and the isn't any reason for it other than ensuring that people don't challenge ideas too much or analyze things too closely.

Isramom8

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 5:14 am

I'm not sure I can explain my approach, but I'll try.

When studying N. Slifkin's book The Challenge of Creation cover to cover, I noticed that he says that he wrote it for people who have problems with emunah because of conflicts with science. Well, the thing is, I don't.

Science, to me, is very interesting. Math is impressive. Secular poetry can be meaningful. Lots of studies are interesting, but not the core of our existence.

I teach my children that we have to know who we are. Some ideas and rationales are of a specific time, and some are for all time.

If I had to choose ONE identity to cling to in my life, that choice would be for all that Judaism is and has come to be. And if that's what I'd choose facing death, that is what I should choose primarily every day.

I am a Jew, and a Jew can live with questions. A Jew must live with questions, and that's humbling.

I believe that Hashem commands me to specify the Shabbos day with Kiddush. I've read exactly what N. Slifkin believes about creation. Can I honestly say that I'd fulfill my obligation of Kiddush by answering amen to his? No. I cannot answer amen to his Kiddush.

Can you?

freidasima

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 5:22 am

Pink, you are right, I added the comma before "geh gezint", but at the same time I noted that someone reported that post.

WHY IN THE WORLD WAS THAT POST REPORTED??!! There was nothing in it offensive, nothing in it that went against halocho. If you don't like the hashkofo written there, no one is forcing anyone to keep anyone elses hashkofo. We all have to keep HALOCHO and there was NOTHING there that went against halocho.

So please explain to me why that post was reported?!!

Ruchel

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 5:22 am

I don't know if I'm missing something or if it's just an image, but I definitely know of frum people spending shabbes at non frum relatives, and certainly at Slifkin type relatives, and saying amen. Do people really re-do the kiddush?

Isramom8

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 5:34 am

I don't know that I'd redo Kiddush said by someone not frum, since his basic idea is that he is sanctifying the Shabbos with his Kiddush. Slifkin's Kiddush may reflect specific, deliberate different ideas about the days of creation.

I used this example to make a point, not to state an actual halchic opinion.

amother

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 5:47 am

Tzippora wrote:

Earlier amother here. A lot of what you wrote that disagrees with my post is fine, if it works for you. I agree that you can just say "I don't need to believe x to be frum, but I fully believe all the things you do need to believe". But for me, I also don't believe those things. I think that some of the earlier earnest frum posters reflect a real problem with that - so you believe that the yam suf split, but you don't believe that twelve stones turned to one under Yakov's head - why? How is that "rational"? OTOH, I am the first to concede, as the following indicates, that you have to work with what works for you.

1. Cognitive dissonance: I understand why what I've written sounds like cognitive dissonance, but I believe it goes beyond that. I see cognitive dissonance as being aware that something you're doing contradicts what you believe is right. In my case, I don't believe that what I'm doing on either side, "life" or religion, contradicts the other.
Rereading my post, I wasn't clear about the point where religious belief translates into real life practice. The answer is not cognitive dissonance though. The answer is something I forgot to mention.

2. So why be frum? : The answer to this is that there doesn't need to be an answer. I am frum because that is what I choose to be. IMO, rationalizations for being frum, even from the most blinkered Charedi, are nonsense. Almost everyone is frum for reasons other than belief, and I am just aware of it more.
Is that a problem or weakness in frumkeit? I suppose that to some people it is. But I reject the idea that frumkeit is predicated on belief, or that belief leads to frumkeit. As an analogy, people often mock things like fashion, saying that it's ridiculous that something was pretty last year and no longer is, or that someone's name on a sweater makes it "better" somehow. You might be forced to acknowledge that in fact, people have known about stripes for years, and that Isaac Mizrahi didn't discover them in late 2012. And the next few times you wear that outfit you were really thrilled about, you might be less excited. But then, at some point you realize that logic is just a distraction. Regardless of why, you just want to buy or wear x because it makes you feel a certain way or triggers a certain emotion. Are you "less fashionable" because you really know that stripes are not new? Of course not.
Frumkeit is the same thing. I spend a lot of time thinking I couldn't be frum because I didn't believe the facts on a scientific, factual basis. Eventually it dawned on me that frumkeit is there whether I believe in it or not - and more, that I am frum whether I believe in it or not. That I don't think the angels, (or, frankly, Avraham) existed outside the world of religion is just not relevant to my religious engagement. This is not because I choose to not think about it, it's because even if I think about it it doesn't matter.

Ruchel

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 5:48 am

Isramom8 wrote:

aaaah you mean a modified text? ok, same here then.

freidasima

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 5:55 am

What exactly does he say differently in his kiddush?

little_mage

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 5:57 am

OP, I have a question and I hope this doesn't offend you. Where does your DH fall on the concept of mitvos avotainu? My classic example for it is kityniot, which if you go far enough back in the sources, you'll find rabbis saying that this is a crazy practice and shouldn't be done. That being said, I still keep it because it has become halcha through tradition. Does thinking about at least some customs that way help?

PinkFridge

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 7:01 am

amother wrote:

With time I realized that there are differences among divrei Torah. Some, like the Ibn Ezra, are based on a systematic analysis of the Chumash and reflect pshat in the pasuk and reflect the Ibn Ezra's intent to express pshat in the pasuk. Other divrei torah are clearly not pshat, and were likely not intended that way. For example, in this week's parsha, Yosef sent wagons back to Yaakov. Rashi quotes a midrash saying that Yosef sent wagons so that Yaakov would know it was true, because they were learning "egla arufa" when Yosef was kidnapped.
There are a thousand reasons that this midrash is not literally true. The most important reason is that of course it's ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that it's not meaningful. In fact, it's part of the experience of Torah - building on what came before based on what it means to you. The dvar torah is interesting because this is the meaning it had to our forebears, who gave us our Judaism. Finding this meaning depends on the ability to understand that it wasn't the factual truth, but that by the time the midrash was learning the story of Yosef, the chachamim saw learning together as the obvious connection that a father would have with his favorite child, and would see devoutness as the first concern of a parent who has been separated from his child for decades. What would we imagine Yakov's concern to be? What would our cherished memory be, if we were to be separated from a child? What would our concern be upon an imminent reunion? What do the answers to these questions say about us? It's a much deeper engagement with the parsha, and if we think that the midrash is literally true, we wouldn't have it.

Two thoughts here:
1) Re dinosaur bones: I have to confess to not being a science type at all. When I first became aware of the whole evolution kerfuffle, and this may have predated R. Slifkin, it included names like Dr. Spetner, Dr. Schroeder, etc. I was quite comfortable with the I suppose simplistic way I learned things. That Hashem created fully made people and created a fully made world for them. You cut down a redwood you'll find centuries of rings, fossils in the ground to mimic an anciently formed world, etc. When I started hearing of the evolution debates to me it boiled down to "So what?" Would it make an impact on my accepting Torah miSinai and how I lived my life? No. So no problemo for non-intellecutal me.

2) BUT when it comes to learning Torah, meforshim, etc., and you glean what was meaningful to the chachamim, beautiful, but it's only meaningful to the learner if the learner feels that the chachamim were speaking something of truth and value. This is not interpreting Shakespeare, or maybe better, reading a Harold Bloom on Shakespeare. Again, as I've said, there needs to be some measure of humility from learning from great thinkers. Is there a cutoff tekufa, that it's believed that these people may have had some level of ruach hakodesh, extra siyata d'Shmaya to lead properly? I'm not sure if I'm being clear. OTOH, I think I'm probably being loud and clear Tongue Out

With my background you all can probably read my attitude to mesorah accurately.

Isramom8

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 7:04 am

Ruchel and Freidasima, I have no reason to think that he says anything different in Kiddush or modifies the text. It's about what he intends with the words he is saying.

Did anyone here but me read his book(s)?

His own grandmother says, "Maybe he came from a monkey, but I didn't."

Ruchel

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 7:08 am

There are NON MO rabbis who have a hashkafa reconciling evo and traditional way, often with midrashim (bones from previous worlds, or quotes about time being different pre mabul etc).
You have community school teaching "evolution is non jewish", period.

spring13

Thu, Dec 05 2013, 7:11 am

Here's a somewhat disjointed take on this kind of thing...

I look at a lot of Orthodox practice as "acharei ha'peulot nimsh'chim halevavot." We do things in a certain way, not necessarily because of their concrete results but because of the ideas or concepts that they represent. Symbolism is meaningful when we recognize what things are representing, or what emotion they're meant to bring out. Think of the way you've learned about chukim vs. mishpatim. Ramban says that a chok isn't a law whose purpose is unknown (which is how it's usually explained to kids), it's a law whose effect is not tangible or immediate. But doing so, on some level, trains you to be sensitive to relevant ideas. I stick with practices because of what they're meant to mean.

Kitniyot is a decent example: I think it's shtuyot, and someday Hashem is going to say "I appreciate that you tried, but dudes that was totally not necessary." He'll appreciate that we tried - because kitniyot is an extension of avoiding chametz, and there is (non-rational but still meaningful) meaning in the process of keeping Pesach. I do what we have a tradition to do, but I keep a cool head about it.

People - especially Americans - tend to underestimate the value of ethnic/cultural heritage as well, which contributes to why people may stick with frumkeit even when what you do doesn't mean quite the same thing to you as it does to others who do the same thing. Maintaining a connection to my roots, to people who struggled for centuries to do these things, is important to me. Having a sense of history and cultural identity helps build your sense of self, helps you place yourself in the world among a huge variety of people. America's "melting pot" history is good in a lot of ways, but it also means that being American is also being fairly shallow/superficial. I know I'm a history/anthropology nerd, but this stuff has an effect on you even when you don't think all that hard about it.