This is what R' Marlyles thinks:
One of the things that has kept Judaism alive during this long Diaspora is our commitment to tradition. That means that we do not change things based on the prevailing winds of the moment.
SH: I'll get to that in a moment.
Yes, there is such a thing as Hora’as Shah which can bring innovative change.
SH: What? How can a Hora'as Shaah bring (presumably permanent) innovative change? It's supposed to be a temporary measure it's supposed to disappear as soon as the situation changes.
But change was sparingly implemented over time by religious leaders of immense knowledge and only in circumstances when it became apparent that the very existence of Judaism was at stake.It was never about submitting to a spirit of the time that did not have existential overtones.
SH: Seriously? Do you think Judaism isn't at stake nowadays? By Orthodox standards we're in the most irreligious period in our history.Time to make concessions to some of those "misguided Jews" out there.
So Judaism never has historically "changed things to go with the wind of the moment"? Judaism has never made innovations?
- Was it not innovation every time a Rabbi over the last two thousand years made a takkana ? (and no not every takkana was made by a universally recognized Beit Din) Or does that word "innovation" only mean "lenient innovation"?
- Was it not going with the spirit of the times when Aristotlean and Neoplatonic philosophy was adopted in certain places during the Middle Ages as Jewish Theology?
- Was Rabbenu Gershom's innovation to have only monogamous marriages not going with the spirit of the times?
- Was translating the Torah into other languages besides the "divinely inspired Targum of Onkelos" not innovation. Was doing away with translating every Torah verse in shul as in Mishnaic times not innovation?
- Was it not innovation when a new canonical work sprung into the Jewish world? - the Zohar. Was it not innovation when new Kabbalistic practices, prayers, and "kavvanot" were added to the liturgy and daily practice (kapparot, tashlich, tikkun chatzot, tikkun leil, Kabbalat Shabbat, etc.)
- I guess the Chassidim who comprised a huge amount of pre-war European Jewry were "not really Jewish" because they innovated a lot and even were (and still are) lenient about prayer times.
- Hell, let's go further back: were writing and canonizing the Mishna and Gemara not innovations? Was canonizing the 24 books of the Tanach including much disputed ones like Kohelet and Yechezkel not innovation? (I guess people with Ruach Hakodesh can make innovations but not us mere mortals)
- Was new ways of interpreting the Torah not innovation? Was the expansion from 7 exegetical rules to 13 to 32 not innovation? Was Rabbi Akiva who's lectures supposedly stumped even Moshe Rabbenu (through time travel of course) an innovator?
- Was the Babylonian Holiday of Simchat Torah which was subsequently accepted by all of Jewry not innovation?
- Was Ezra's changing of the Torah script from Ivrit to Ashurit (or restoration according Chareidim) not innovation?
I hardly think most of the above innovations were absolutely vital for the survival of the Jewish people.
Judaism like every other religion changes. There have always been innovators (and there have also always been reactionaries.) Orthodoxy likes to pretend otherwise. But the history speaks for itself. Which is why Jewish History is such a little known topic in most Orthodox minds.
Orthodoxy nowadays is in many ways similar to the people who railed against the Rambam, the people who mouthed off at the mekubalim, and the people who bashed the Besht.
Posts
8 comments:
We're definitely better off without Biblical style polygamy. What you want is open marriage a completely different thing.
What I want IS polygamy. Some people might not be comfortable calling it "polygamy" because of negative connations, but it is polygamy. A husband having two wives in his house is best described as "polygamy" not as "open marriage". If you are interested to read my defense of polygamy you can read it here: http://skepticbutjewish.blogspot.com/2010/08/defending-wicked-part-10-polygamist.html
Well we didn't quite get a say in the matter on those - the (evil, goyish, rashadick) Romans kind of made that decision for us.
The Romans were actually quite evil. And so were the Greeks, to a lesser degree. The Romans were an empire whose plan included world domination. They enlsaved people and they killed so many people for their dream of dominating the world. The Jews are correct about the fact that the Romans were evil. The Romans may have had important influences on the world but the Roman Empire was evil.
> The Romans were actually quite evil. …
Every polity in the ancient world (and the argument can be made that every polity ever) has tried to do the same things. The Romans were just one the most successful.
"Every polity in the ancient world (and the argument can be made that every polity ever) has tried to do the same things. The Romans were just one the most successful.":
This is true almost everywhere. I am sure there are a few exceptions but they are exceptions. For the most part ancient countries acted to terrorize others people under their rule. This is also true with modern countries too. The US is no exception, I think it is fair to call US an empire.
But the argument "the Romans were like everyone else" is not a defense of Rome. It is rather the condemnation of all polity. I am not sure if you were trying to defend Rome by pointing out they were just like everyone else or just generalizing what I said about Rome about everyone. It is not clear from context.
And the fact that the machzor is basically a short service with generations of things piled onto it...
"Yes, there is such a thing as Hora’as Shah which can bring innovative change".
SH: What? How can a Hora'as Shaah bring (presumably permanent) innovative change? It's supposed to be a temporary measure it's supposed to disappear as soon as the situation changes.
What ? Don't you know that "there is nothing so permanent as a temporary measure" ?
I was going to defend the idea of( at least, post-Talmudic) innovations actually being "temporary measures", until I came across Harry Maryles' definition of "Hora'as Shah":
"Hora'as Shah is when there is some over-riding current reason that would undermine the Jewish people either physically or spiritually if a change in tradition is not made".
So, his definition of Hora'at Sha'a differs somewhat from your's( or mine, for that matter).
Post a Comment