Challenging the haredi claim that “the world changed”
In response to the Talumidic claim that nail clippings can induce miscarriages, C-Girl noted that,
“Nail clippings were very powerful in the days of the Talmud. They have lost their potency since then…”
It has come to my attention that not all my readers recognized C-Girl’s acid sarcasm for what it was.
To clarify, one of the most asinine ways haredim attempt to defend the long-outdated science and nonsensical kaballah voodoo of the Talmud is to claim “the world has changed.�
This is, of course, quite risible, and when haredim make this claim, you should make fun of them publicly. Find out which masechta they are quoting and what page, rip that page out, and make the haredi eat it in front of his seventeen children. Then make his entire congregation wear an ill-fitting, awkward hat as a punishment, and march them all down the street in it. Within two weeks, they will declare this haredi-hat a minhag, and wear it all the time with pride. Don’t let that frustrate you. We will find a more atrocious hat to make them wear next time they say “the world has changed…� –- and surely they won’t embrace even that hat! Anyway, we’ll think of something. The point is, we have to employ collective punishment as a way to expose the haredi rejection of scientific method to the world.
Haredism: The more you know, the less you like Judaism generally.
75 comments
Low blow.
The issue excessive resources being poured into fingernail avoidance by pregnant women is surely the most profound problem facing the Jewish world today.
DK, you remain on the brave edge of principled dissent!
Ron,
I like it when you don’t offer a defense for Dark Light’s leader, but resort to your, “Is this really all that important?” voice. I like it because you are implicitly conceding that Dark Light’s leader’s position is indefensible. And that’s…a good start, Ron.
LOL. I can discuss the substance with you, if you want. I happen to think, however, that your obsession with minutiae undermines the premise that you have something important to say. Don’t you? It also re-emphasizes the point that you claim to be opposed to haredism, but you really are opposed to orthodox Judaism; as in the post you just commented on on my blog. Here, too, orthodox Jews all believe in the holiness of the Talmud and the sanctity of the words of the Sages of blessed memory.
Do some modern orthodox Jews not care about some of the more esoteric and obscure issues raised in the gemara, like fingernails, folk remedies, and all that great stuff you find in maseches Berachos, mainly? Some do, some don’t. Some very super haredi folks are obsessed with this stuff, and others of them, frankly, have other things to worry about, and consider throwing fingernails on the floor a disgusting habit whose avoidance is its own reward!!
I have no idea whether a change in the bria is implicated here. I have not heard of any authoritative source suggest that it is. When I hear recourse to this I too feel uncomfortable. But scientific method is quite irrelevant when investigating spiritual realities. There is no scientific proof of tuma or of ruach roh; yet these surely exist. If you believe they do not, then you do not believe in the Torah at all — which is quite explicit about these spiritual statuses — and that’s your right as an American.
But then haredism vel non is besides the point, as it is virtually every time you raise it!
I’d just like to register that the nail-clipping/pregnant women thing is gross. You shouldn’t clip your nails around pregnant women because you shouldn’t clip your nails around ANYONE.
Ew.
Ron, you wrote,
“It also re-emphasizes the point that you claim to be opposed to haredism, but you really are opposed to orthodox Judaism; as in the post you just commented on on my blog.”
Rabbi Angel is Orthdox, so the proof you brought only undermines your assertion.
“I happen to think, however, that your obsession with minutiae undermines the premise that you have something important to say.”
I don’t consider the rejection of scientific method a small point or minutiae at all. Do you? Because that is what is happening if we accept the Talmud’s point.
“Do some modern orthodox Jews not care about some of the more esoteric and obscure issues raised in the gemara, like fingernails, folk remedies, and all that great stuff you find in maseches Berachos, mainly? Some do, some don’t.”
Please. Most don’t — not the LWMO, anyway. Not the Rambam’s son, for that matter. You know that.
I have no problem disagreeing with the MO, by the way. But many times, it is the haredim who are the problem, not all Orthodox Jews.
Go figure.
Rabbi Angel is indeed orthodox, but does he say anything that actually contradicts my assertions about widespread orthodox practice? Also, DK, you are always engaging in the fallacy of cherry-picking. If I asked Rabbi Angel to prescribe a spiritual regimen for your life, would you accept it? Hardly. In any event we all know that he occupies quite a left-wing space on the frum spectrum, and speaks for virtually no one. See, Edah.
There is no “scientific” issue to discuss in relation to toenail clippings. The Talmud is not a science text.
As for “most don’t” — I do have a problem here, because when I debate you, here, I at least have a partner in debate who acknowledges that most MO people are less concerned with halacha than most haredim. But on BBT they official spokespeople of MO (you know who I mean!) fall on me like a ton of suede-kipa-wearing bricks!
If MO does in fact mean “we don’t take SA seriously” then I have every right to say that it isn’t really orthodox. When you find me a MO spokesperson who will admit to that, let me know.
“I debate you, here, I at least have a partner in debate who acknowledges that most MO people are less concerned with halacha than most haredim.”
No, they DEFINE halacha differently. And Rabbi Gil Student does acknowledge that. Of course, he doesn’t himself admit to being Modern Orthodox, so I haven’t really proved anything, I guess…
Honestly, I don’t know why RWMO people aren’t always open about who they are. I mean, I am pretty open that I am a bitter apikorus…why on earth would an MO person be embarrassed that they don’t hold by every last idea in the Talmud or in that Shluchan Aruch book which was “dictated” by an angel? ( I mean, Jesus Christ, you can’t find a heter to differ with a bullshit claim like that?) I don’t know, Ron. The RWMO are strange like that. But LWMO will be much more open that they don’t hold by every last garbage bag carried and added to through the millenium.
The reason, DK, is then they’d be admitted they’re M, and not O. Everyone lives his own little lie. Mostly.
But hey — you seem to be onto something! Who is the LWMO spokesman I can quote on BBT for the proposition that halacha is optional? When I get tired of kinder and gentler, that is.
Oops I guess it was me who missed the sarcasm. Sorry about that. On the other hand, there are some who would have made the comment seriously.
Annie, yes, you are quite right. Although it’s not quite as bad as biting or picking nails.
I would just love to see the day when someone is clipping his nails in a class while the prof is lecturing, and have the prof interrupt the lecture and ask the class
“Okay, how many people here think the person who is clipping his nails is NOT an a–hole?”
Nail clippings causing miscarriages is a spiritual cause and effect, not a physical one.
Do you believe in spirituality, DK?
But yes, orthodox tradition is that some things in the world have changed. If science doesn’t agree with that then fuck science.
As always Annie, you are RIGHT on the nose!
Ron said: “But scientific method is quite irrelevant when investigating spiritual realities.”
E=MC(squared) Maybe you’ve heard of it.
Matter and energy are scientifically proven to be just different forms of the same “stuff.” You don’t “have” a soul, you are a soul. The entire Torah is built on the premise that what happens in the body is a reflection of what happens to the soul, and vice versa. So how can it possibly be “irrelevant?”
Things that can be scienficically proven to have no physical effect have no spiritual effect, either. And vice versa. You can clip your nails and throw the clippings anywhere you want, and it will still have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone having a miscarriage. Attempting to defend such a belief on any ground is asinine. People who reject trying to pass of the words of ignorant men as HaShem’s word are not rejecting halacha, they are rejecting human ignorance and power-mongering. Hashem isn’t so stupid.
There is no scientific proof of tuma or of ruach roh; yet these surely exist. If you believe they do not, then you do not believe in the Torah at all — which is quite explicit about these spiritual statuses — and that’s your right as an American.
How can one argue against spiritual status? It’s like trying to argue that David doesn’t have an imaginary friend, something only he’d know for sure. Agreeing that ruach roh or tumah could exist does not equal belief that it does exist. But from what I’ve been able to gather, doubt does not preclude belief in Torah, which is also explicit about the powers of the waters of Sotah.
Your reasoning really makes no sense to me, Ron. I think Ahava’s got it right- her last sentence is just perfect.
“In every generation, a cadre of Jews arises that” puts the Jewish community into unnecessary conflict and controversy”
you said that less then a week ago and then u come with this…hypocrate
Fran,
At least learn how to spell the word if you wish to insult DK.
mohammed wrote,
“Do you believe in spirituality, DK?”
Not the way you do. Not if it conflicts with scientific method. It doesn’t always, by the way…but no, not if it does.
Fran,
Stop pretending you are haredi, and believe everything the Talmud says literally. You don’t. So what? It isn’t the end of the world, and you can still be frum even if you don’t. True, I am not, but you still can be.
Ahavah
“Things that can be *scienficically* proven to have no physical effect have no spiritual effect, either. And vice versa. You can clip your nails and throw the clippings anywhere you want, and it will still have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone having a miscarriage.”
Your first statement was idiotic, unless you believe physicality and spirituality are the same thing. In which case you don’t believe in spirituality at all.
Has anything been “scienficically” proven? Find me twenty pregnant volunteers, we’ll throw nail clippings at ten of them and keep the other ten for a control group, and we’ll see if there’s the same amount of miscarriages and then tell me about scienfific.
DK
What kind of spirituality do you believe in?
And I repeat, fuck science. Science is five blind men tapping at the elephant. Revelation is seeing things in daylight. As far as orthodoxy is concerned, anything said in the talmud is like ex cathedra from the pope is for catholics.
N. Yentah
didnt know you were the spelling police, and i didnt know spelling was a requirement for point out when someone else is wrong
DK
Im not and i dont, but your attacks on the haredi as a people is what my problem is. YOU are the one causing uncalled for conflict, and yet you just ripped into Jewcy for doing that.
Ok, Mohammed, if the Talmud is to Jewish doctrine what a Papal “ex cathedra” decision, why are there conflicting positions in the Talmud and why do Talmudic interpretations conflict with the Torah?
For those not familiar with the reference, in his position as the highest teacher of doctrine in the Catholic Church, the Pope is able to settle theological discussions by announcing a ‘guideline’ that is officially valid for all adherents of the Catholic faith. In that case, the Pope has to declare he is making that statement “ex cathedra” = from his teaching chair, and that is the only time when per definitionem the Pope is infallible - this has only happened twice in Christian history. Ex cathedra decisions may in no way clash with the first two branches, so to speak, of doctrinal validity, namely the scriptures (Bible) and the tradition (the narration in which biblical stories were handed on until they were codified; this would also be what is meant by ‘tradition’ in Judaism, not clothing customs). The Pope may not, however, declare ex cathedra decisions on matters that are not subject of Christian beliefs, e.g. science, clothing etc. In the 19th century CE, there was a Pope who wasn’t exactly known for his brightness, who put up a list of what actions could lead to having oneself subjected to the anathema. That list included matters that were just overcome customs or social issues and were not subject to Papal influence, hence it never really caught on.
And Fran, spelling properly - or at least trying to - is a way of showing one’s respect towards possible readers; along those lines, it’s also a matter of politeness.
^is to Catholic doctrine*
“Ok, Mohammed, if the Talmud is to Jewish doctrine what a Papal “ex cathedraâ€? decision, why are there conflicting positions in the Talmud and why do Talmudic interpretations conflict with the Torah?”
Different Popes are allowed to contradict each other. Last Pope still alive wins, unless you don’t want to acknowledge his infallibility along with the Popes you used to like.
OrthoDOXY is still defined by the inviolable truth of the Talmud over anything else, most Orthodox Rabbis that i’ve ever met hold, LW, RW or W-less. I dare say that a Rabbi that holds otherwise, is, by definition, not Orthodox, though he may still be frum as all get out.
Once that’s take for granted, there’s an infinite flexibility in relating to the text, saying that SOMETHING has changed, in the world and in our relationship to it’s language, or SOMETHING to be able to gently adjust the old perspective without being conquered by the invader’s perspective.
Is it not fair to say, DK, that Wester Science has cultural assumptions that it tends to impose on all traditional peoples in it’s path, and that th conclusions that benefit a given civilization might be imposed on another, sometimes? So people in a smaller, traditional community might feel compelled to treat their old taboos as still valid in the face of a science which they have no reason to think cares about them and their lives.
Sarah
The talmud interprets scriptures, it doesn’t clash with them.
Both opinions are equally valid, although there are guidelines which one to follow.
Orthodoxy believes that God deliberately left certain laws ambiguous so they would be open to interpretation and whether it’s permitted or prohibited would depend on the spiritual level of the generation. Which is not to say that the decision depends on judging the nations spiritual level, the Rabbis are expected to follow the guidelines and Gods spirit will guide them to make the decision that’s appropriate for the time and place.
I’m not sure you’re right that there was only 2.
I’ll post the wiki and the first catholic result I got from google.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....x_cathedra
So, does that mean, cum grano salis, Orthodoxy is a religion of the Talmud as opposed to a religion of the Torah? And, I love repeating this, Orthodoxy has only been around for less than 300 years. It reflects a Jewish Polish counter-position to the Jewish Enlightment, even the dresscode is determined by what Polish merchants used to wear back in the day. Thinking about it, that might be better though, considering how many Chasidim would look in a Bedouin kaftan.
And Yoseph, we’ve never had the pleasure to communicate before, but congratulations on the birth of your baby and all the best to you and your family!
http://www.catholic.com/librar.....bility.asp
(2 links in one post gets it stuck by the spam filter)
Urgh, Mohammed, stay clear of Wiki; it’s a reference toy, not a reference tool. If there’s anything you need to look up about Catholicism, use the LThK (Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche) or the RGG (Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart) for a Protestant perspective.
The two occasions were the elevation of Mary to Heaven (which can happen to any righteous person according to Christian faith, assuming that righteousness includes wanting to be Christian once you hear about Christianity; noteworthily, of all more than 1,200 Christian denominations, only the Roman Catholic Church has exempted Jews from missionary attempts BTW) and that what has become known as ‘virgin birth’ / ‘immaculate conception’, which only just means that Mary was born without ‘original sin’. The latter and all other instances happened to be before Papal infallibility was defined and dogmatized, so, by the Codex Iuris Canonici, they were not ex cathedra announcements involving Papal infallibility but Papal primacy in religious teachings. The ruling on immaculate conception was declared ex cathedra in retrospective, meaning it was initially declared and later reinforced as an ex cathedra decision.
Oh, catholic.com equals to apple770.com if you’re looking for quality religious content.
Fran, you wrote,
“Im not and i dont, but your attacks on the haredi as a people is what my problem is. YOU are the one causing uncalled for conflict, and yet you just ripped into Jewcy for doing that.”
My issue was conflict with the nations of the world, Fran. With being bossy to the oomas ha olum when it ISN”T OUR FIGHT. However, internally, I have no problem with being critical nor with dissent. This is not the same as pushing ourselves onto Kosovo. I think you need to try and think these through a little harder before name-calling. There is a difference between criticizing your own, and setting a global U.N. agenda.
Sarah/froylein wrote,
“And, I love repeating this, Orthodoxy has only been around for less than 300 years.”
Me too, so repeat loudly and often!
The minhag of giving the husband of a woman in her ninth month of pregnancy the honor of opening the ark and taking out the Torah - hardly subtle. Puts me off kiddush.
Too bad I’ve promised ck not to try to hit on you; we’d get along quite well.
“Too bad I’ve promised ck not to try to hit on you”
Now, why would you go and promise ck a foolish thing like that?
Ah, that was because there was a chance of me meeting you in person before me meeting him in person. That’s why.
I tried googling the latin for entirely without salt, and couldn’t find it.
funditus vacuus sal salis?
funditus absque sal salis?
omnino vacuus sal salis?
whatever the fuck.
Orthodoxy believes that a written law and an oral law were given together at Sinai. The oral law is embodied in the Talmud. Without the oral interpretation, all you have is a history cum story book, interpersed with extremely unclear and unlivable laws and a totally different religion. The Karraite religion, as a matter of fact.
Before getting into this discussion, define orthodoxy, tell me what you think judaism was three hundred and one years ago, and what’s the basis for your belief?
They would look something like this
http://www.chameleonseye.com/gallery/39/image/50/
cum grano salis = with a grain of salt, i.e. tongue-in-cheek
What was Judaism like 301 years ago? It was highly diverse with regional varieties; religiousness equalled to the nowaday levels of traditional to conservative. Religious studies pretty much constituted out of discussing matters of religion, not out of uncritically taking in doctrine. The basis for my belief or my knowledge? The basis for my knowledge are primary (sources that are not initially meant to document) and secondary sources (sources the purpose of which primarily is to document), e.g. written documents by Jews and non-Jews alike, objects of ritual, paintings etc.
Orthodoxy is not exclusive to Judaism; even Christianity’s got an Orthodox branch, which split with the later Western Church over matters of liturgy, so Orthodox Christian liturgy is still closer to what early Christians held services like, and Jewish Orthodoxy was only named in analogy to that even though it produced a Judaism that was different from status quo. Etymologically, the word is derived from Greek “ortho” = “right / correct” + “dokein” = “to teach”.
Oh, and aren’t those boys a tad young to be wearing a shtreimel?
I see you decided to leave the discussion and cheerlead from the sidelines, DK.
I’m trying to picture you in a miniskirt and pompoms and it won’t go. The only thing I’m sure of is that it would look worse on you than the gold lame.
Sarah
I’m not writing a thesis on comparative religion. reference “toys” and the first couple of google results are good enough for me. I would be happy to look at something with more substance if you can reference something online, instead of thick moldy books I don’t have.
I know what cum grano salis means (at least after I googled it) and my response was yes, and entirely without salt. Not even one grain.
The basis for my belief is tradition, which definitely has a certain anthropological validity, and an enormous amount of rabbinical literature which doesn’t bear out what you’re saying. You’re still being pretty vague about your sources.
And in Jerusalem they put on a shtreimel by the bar mitzva, not when they get married.
Mohammed, do you want a full list of books I’ve got on Jewish history?
How about the first ten with selected quotes?
Am I supposed to take your word for something because you claim it’s backed up by nameless history books?
Am I supposed to take your word for something just because you’re Satmar? Have you any idea how often I’ve heard a frum person claim something’s in the talmud - which it isn’t? E.g. the breaking of a glass at weddings was only interpreted into a talmudic line in retrospective as this - heathen/Christian - custom caught on in 13th century CE Ashkenaz and couldn’t be stopped.
BTW, I’ve named a few history books as well as Jewish historians before. For all I know, you’ll keep claiming their points invalid though I don’t have the slightest doubt that most of them are more educated on Judaism than 99% of Brooklyn Chasidim.
Oh, and BTW, I don’t know about yours, but my books aren’t moldy.
Don’t take my word for anything at all. I can back up just about anything I said with chapter and verse. Call me on whatever you want.
I don’t remember your naming historians or books. In any case, I’m sure they are invalid, I disagree with their conclusions. We could have a rational discussion about how they came to those conclusions , and if my version of history or yours is more believable, if I knew what they said. Claiming they’re more educated than brooklyn chasidim doesn’t contribute to the discussion at all. I’ve seen studies done about chasidim today by supposedly educated people, and they’re wildly off the mark.
My books aren’t at all.
Or maybe they are closer to the mark than what pleases your palate.
This baloney about orthodoxy only having existed for the last 300 years is just university religion department pap. No one who ever sat in a bais medrash and learned the funny print in the back of a gemara can take this claim seriously — so in your case, DK, I am accusing you here of rank intellectual dishonesty.
Rather than being enlightened revisionism, this “300 years claim” is in fact agenda-drive historicism, an attempt to dress modern heresy in the cloak of some kind of hoary tradition of intellectual dissent. You can write all you want about religious and cultural variation, but all these religiously diverse and intellectually fecud Jews kept Shabbos, kashrus, taharas hamishpacha and revered the Sages of the Talmud. Revered, by the way, means that if they did not understand their words as being literally true, they understood that those words were nonetheless handed down to us in the Oral Law for a good reason, and to teach us something, and to make us better people. They did not consider them purveyors of “nonsensical kaballah voodoo.” And they would not have tolerated anyone who did.
Those that did not do these things were clearly identified as non-practicing Jews, i.e. Jews whose religion was not Judaism, regardless of which corner of the Jewish world they inhabited.
I couldn’t care less about orthodoxy or daas Torah; I care about those things.
Frankly everything else is commentary, and happy rationalization.
I understand why you all have to lie about the past. It makes you feel better about the present. Believe me, however — your doing so makes it immensely easier for people like me to ignore both your substantive arguments and your claims of intellectual objectivity. That is a shame, because underneath the rationalization, the name-calling and what can really only be described as anti-semitism, you all have interesting things to say. But you will just keep saying it to yourselves because you cannot resist that feel-good self-deception.
The conversation you so bitterly claim the “haredi” (i.e., Jewishly observant) world refuses to have because of its lack of self-awareness and of capacity for self-criticism is at the very least paralleled perfectly by your own utter failure of sincerity.
Sarah, by the way, what exactly are these credentials you keep alluding to? You keep asking us to defer to your superior knowledge. What did you study, and when? And where? I’ve seen you claim to be an historian of science, and of religion… put up, please, or clam up.
For my part, I’ll fess up to my limitations, but I am not someone who grew up on Artscroll. Besides two years of I.L. Peretz shul and six years Conservative Hebrew School education and a mere (and I do not mean that sarcastically) two full time years of yeshiva (I am sure Mohammend could run rings around me) (Aish HaTorah, Kol Yaakov and Chaim Berlin) study and of course a subsequent lifetime of part time study (I have on one level or another, finished the tractates Berachos, Shabbos, Avoda Zarah, Sotah, Beitza, and also learned key sugyas in Kiddushin, Chulin, Sanhedrin, Bava Metzia) I studied Roman history, early and middle medieval European history and the history of antiquity with some of the world’s top scholars in these subjects at Princeton. In each of those courses there was ample attention paid to the contribution of and involvement of the Jews in the relevant periods and civilizations, and throughout it was always clear to these scholars, and from the primary (admittedly in translation) and secondary sources from which we learned, that the concept of Jewishness and Judaism described there would be far more consonant with orthodoxy than any other cultural, religious or other movement in contemporary Jewish life. The fact that there was no terminology of orthodoxy is an irrelevance; it was not until the Enlightenment and the subsequent success of Reform as a cultural legitimization of an alternative “Jewish” way of life that it was necessary to label, describe and organize what was otherwise a fairly consistent approach to Jewish life, belief and, yes, leadership.
I do not however have a history “degree” (my concentration was in economics). But since the issue of authoritativeness has been raised repeatedly, yeah, I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about, and this “300 years” nonsense is nonsense.
Ron, for one, the scientist I referred to was one of my brothers, who is in environmental / ecological research. History of religion was part of my studies of one of my main subjects, namely religious studies (which includes a wide range of sub-categoies), at a university over here. My second main subject was Anglistics, my basic subjects were education, psychology, and integrative didactics. My main subjects during college, what compares to college majors over there, were English, Latin and mathematics, my basic subjects (or minors were) German, biology, chemistry, history, social studies (which over here is politics + basic economics), geography, IT, religious studies, arts, and athletics. I don’t keep asking anyone to “defer to [my] superior knowledge”. If that is what you interpret into my words, then honi soit qui mal y pense.
BTW, I don’t think it’s up to you to decide whether I may keep commenting here or not.
Oh, and since, thanks to my professor of English literature, I’ve been made aware of what’s behind the outcomes of PISA (Program for International Student Assessment, carried out by the OECD), I’m not easily impressed by famous universities over there.
Sarah, that’s nice. Still waiting for your actual response, though.
On? My degree here doesn’t translate well into English as teaching degrees here compare to post-graduate degrees over there while over there teaching degrees are college degrees.
Sarah
let’s accept as a given that you’re a brilliant, well educated person, who can throw around cliches in five languages. Now can we get down to the meat and potatos? You haven’t said anything substantive in the last five posts at least.
Mohammed, to me, what you claim lacks academic substance, yet I’m aware it’s part of Orthodox belief and can therefore be labelled such applying academic relativization. See, it’s not about what I believe or whatnot, but what can be, hmm, laid out in a way that even a stout Hindu could agree on it.
Sorry, you lost me. Wtf do you mean by academic relativization? I know my theory doesn’t have academic substance. i.e. the orthodox version of its own history was something the academics were never interested in. So what?
You were the one who made the claim that orthodoxy is three hundred years old. I asked you to back it up and I’m willing to debate your proofs, if any. So far you haven’t brought any. That you’re well educated or that this is the accepted theory in the world of academia just doesn’t cut the mustard.
I believe that I can back up my theory with rabbinic responsa of the time, which give a very different impression than the one you’re trying to make. But I don’t have to. You made your claim, now lay out proofs that even a stout hindu could agree with.
How good’s your German? I’ve got the digitalized version of Graetz’ “History of the Jewish People” on CD-ROM and will copy & paste the entire article on Chasidism (or neo-Chasidism as it was labelled back then) if you want. He compares the influence of both, Mendelsohn and the Baal-Schem, on traditional, talmudic Judaism. He also explains their hostility towards Judaism as it had existed and evolved up their times. He also comments on the Baal-Shem’s biography, which explains the evolvement of mysticism. [Note, prior to him, the biggest and longest lasting movement of Jewish mysticism had been what later called themselves Christians. So no, Judaism pre Chasidism / Orthodoxy is theologically and eschatologically not comparable to Orthodoxy.9
My German is fairly decent. Sure, paste the whole article. I’ll read it. I remember hearing that graetz was biased and unreliable, but that’s a claim I have no sources for at the moment. If I have the time and patience maybe I’ll look for some.
Just a suggestion, if you don’t want to clutter up the discussion with a really long post, paste it somewhere else and post a link.
Graetz was opinionated, but he certainly was knowledgeable and listed the sources he backed his claims up with. Shall I email the whole thing to DK? I’ve copied it into Word.
“Nail clippings causing miscarriages is a spiritual cause and effect, not a physical one.
Do you believe in spirituality, DK?”
I can’t speak for DK, but what in the world are you talking about? What kind of “spiritual cause and effect” can there be that isn’t a physical cause?
“But yes, orthodox tradition is that some things in the world have changed. If science doesn’t agree with that then fuck science.”
Really? That’s like saying “what has science ever done for us?” If by science you mean rational investigation, then it seems to me that you’re being had. Rational investigation is the only way you can know anything.
You can email it to me at graetzscrap {at} gmail(.)com
Benim zich!
The Hebrew letters in the footnotes wouldn’t copy; I’ll do a scan or screenshot of those.
Ichabod
spirituality is by definition other than physical. for example, if you believed in karma, doing something bad to one person in the morning can cause something bad to hapen to you at night, although there’s no physical cause and effect.
rational investigation is great, within its limitations. it doesn’t claim to always get you the right answer, it’s just the best we can do when we have no other sources of information. revelation, when we have it, IS another source, and it knocks investigating all hollow. it’s the difference between theorizing what all those shiny lights and buttons are for, and haing an engineer come and explain it to you.
Sarah
let me know when you email it
“revelation, when we have it, IS another source, and it knocks investigating all hollow. it’s the difference between theorizing what all those shiny lights and buttons are for, and haing an engineer come and explain it to you.”
In that case let’s see. The Torah gives us the laws of leprosy. As far as I’m concerned if someone gets leprosy, I would rather have him go to a doctor who can treat him with what modern medicine, than do the corbon.
As for spirituality, what is there besides karma? I don’t know if there’s karma. I have no way of testing to see if there is such a thing. On the other hand, if you mean non-tangible things, then of course we have non-tangible things (for example, emotions), and they’re not what I consider spiritual. That’s why I didn’t understand your point.
As for spirituality, what is there besides karma?
Man, that’s pretty basic. I think I’m going to piss off sarah and give another wiki link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
Getting into a real discussion about spirituality is beyond the scope of this blog, but just to cover some basics, judaism believes in a soul, and a metaphysical universe parallel to the physical. Your good or bad deeds affect that world and by reflection, your soul and yourself.
To use your example, if you believe that God sent you leprosy because of your sins, treating the physical condition would be treating the symptoms, not the cause. Analogous to treating your runny nose when you have tuberculosis. When the talmud said that nail clippings can cause miscarriages, that means that rabbis who were on a higher spiritual level and were able to see things in that metaphysical world understood that nail clippings can cause the type of bad “karma” that can cause a miscarriage, not that it’s a physical cause and effect.
I don’t know of a way to test for spirituality, but it’s part of religious belief. You can always call up Aish and ask them for an explanation.
mohammed, I’ll email it after work as I still need to figure out the footnotes thing. K?
whenever it’s convenient. you could always email the footnotes seperately if it’s complicated.
Well now I’m even more confused. What do I need to postulate anything about God sending me leprosy for my sins. Isn’t He supposed to be rachum v chanun? It seems to me that all you need to do is to treat the disease.
As far as the soul goes, once again I have to wonder how do you test for it. Even if there is such a thing as a soul and a metaphysical universe, then we still need some way of knowing that Judaism has the right idea about it.
I also don’t understand in what sense the earlier rabbis were on a higher spiritual plane. They believed the Earth rests on pillars, that it was 4000 or so years old, and that Megillas Esther was literally true. To me that suggests we need to view what they said with a critical eye.
You don’t need to postulate. It’s a gemoro, and rashi in chumash brings it down.
You want to know why a merciful god set up this world with a justice system instead of anarchy?
or do you have a particular problem with leprosy.
In any case, big theological questions like that, or whether there is a soul and does judaism have the right idea about it, are not my forte.
I enjoy debating, but every topic I’ve picked is showing that if you accept a few basic premises everything else follows logically. In other words, that it makes sense in context.
The big questions generally make for long boring debates and I leave that to do gooders who care about your eternal soul. (call aish)
You don’t understand spirituality at all, why do you expect to understand who’s on a higher plane than who?
The earth is exactly 5768 years old, and megilas esther is literally true. I don’t recall seeing anything about pillars.
I’ll email it within the hour; just got home from work.
Sent it.
You don’t understand spirituality at all, why do you expect to understand who’s on a higher plane than who?
What a straw man argument. Even if I was to understand spirituality as perfectly as the earlier rabbis, there is no proof- no proof whatsoever- that this is actually the way the “souls” of living things work. Spirituality is a construct- a construct of human minds, minds that attempt to interpret that which is considered Divine, but when you come right down to it, it really is just a “Torah- educated” guess.
I could accept spirituality as a component of Judaism, but that certainly doesn’t mean that I buy into the “rabbis-on-a-higher-spiritual-plane, previous-generations-more-enlightened” defense of ideas and philosophical inventions that are improbable at best and laughable at worst. Or should I fake it?
Invent whatever story you want to back-fill the reason why nail clippings cause miscarriage. I can’t understand it because it deals with advanced spirituality? OK! You know I can’t prove you wrong and you’ve got texts dating back generations upon generations that say you’re right. Gee, that must true, then! Color me cynical, but the earth’s not 5,768 years old. Have a nice spiritual day
C-Girl
You obviously have reading comprehension problems.
All that sentence meant, was that someone who doesn’t understand the structure or purpose of a company will obviously have no idea why the president is not the janitor and vice versa.
With the postulates that spirituality exists, and that religion is the way to get there, it’s obvious that the more religious you are the more spiritual you’ll be. The Rabbis of the Talmud were more religious. When a chemist tells a layman something about chemistry, or a physicist about quantum mechanics, you generally accept that he knows what he’s talking about. If you accept the above premises, when a rabbi tells you something has certain spiritual properties, it’s reasonable to assume he knows what he’s talking about.
I’m not trying to prove the truth of the statement, or to convince you of the postultes.
The only way to prove it empirically would be to start getting together groups of pregnant women and nail clippings, and your beliefs are worth their weight in gold to me.
All I did was prove that it’s logical in context, if you accept the basic premise.
In other words, if you don’t accept this, your problem is not with nail clippings or the talmud, but with some basic beliefs of judaism.
when a rabbi tells you something has certain spiritual properties, it’s reasonable to assume he knows what he’s talking about.
…or at least that he believes he knows what he is talking about. My biggest problem is not with nail clippings, talmud or even basic beliefs in Judaism. When you get right down to it, the problem I have is with infallible rabbis, immutable halacha and preposterous constructs that attempt to make modern sense of what is, in current context, nonsense.
It doesn’t look like you understood my last post that well either. he certainly believes he knows what he’s talking about. but if you accept the postulate holy man to spirituality is like doctor to medicine or architect to building it’s reasonable to assume he actually does.
rabbis are not infallible. halacha is immutable. what’s your problem with that?
and what preposterous constructs are you talking about?
“When a chemist tells a layman something about chemistry, or a physicist about quantum mechanics, you generally accept that he knows what he’s talking about. If you accept the above premises, when a rabbi tells you something has certain spiritual properties, it’s reasonable to assume he knows what he’s talking about.”
Mohammed, bless your heart. You do mean well, but it’s not the same thing. The chemist can take you into the lab and show you the chemistry. The physicist can show you the equations. The rabbi can’t show you anything like that.
As far as the earth (or world) being 5768 years old, there’s a problem. It’s that we can see stars that are more than 5768 light years away. So the rabbis have to explain that.
As far as Megillas Esther being literally true, it doesn’t match up with historical records. Also what do you think would have happened to the Jews if they hadn’t followed the king’s decree? And did you ever wonder how it was that a king of all those provinces was able to spend a night with every unmarried woman in the provinces, and still run the country? I think it’s a tribute to the man that he even lived through it. You need to think about things like that.
As far as the pillars, I thought it was in with the astronomy stuff is Pesachim, page 94 I believe, but it’s been a while so I’m not exactly sure. But there’s plenty more, that they believed in, like the story of the Mabul being literally true, or two and a half million people being held as slaves in Egypt.
Did you ever wonder about how a state like Egypt could hold that many people in captivity for hundreds of years? And did you ever wonder what the breeding rate of the Israeites must have been for there to have been two and half million of them?
Maybe you did and if you’re satisfied with the answers, then that’s fine with me. But I still have my doubts.
Ichabod, you are utterly not getting Mohammed’s point, and you won’t.
Leave a Comment