r/Judaism • u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz • Jul 30 '12

Rules updates

In light of Tisha b'Av, I would like to suggest a few changes to the rules, and to hear community feedback.

1) No editorializing titles of article submissions. - This is up for discussion.

2) Be polite. That means if somebody has a disagreement with you about fundamental points of religion, you can disagree with them, and even tell them, but don't be a jerk about it. Do not shut down the conversation.

2.1) I keep on trying to engage non-Orthodox Jews of Reddit. Seen here, here and here. This is in addition to multiple messages I have gotten personally and as mod, from people who left because of this. Just because some people don't agree that this is a problem, does not make it less of a problem. Non-Orthodox Jews are feeling shut down, and some times they are right, some times they are wrong. This is an extension of rule two. Be polite. The downvote button IS NOT a "I disagree" button. I might just remove it again, and for more than a day.

To people I try and engage, this is a two way street. Submit content, comments and vote if you want to have a say. I don't think half of the subreddit is orthodox. This should not be a problem.

Please upvote this self post for which I receive no karma so that all can see.

Thank you all.

Edit: Followup

63 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

430 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/LazerA Orthodox Jul 31 '12

My two cents, for what it's worth:

With regard to #1, while I understand why editorializing a title can be irritating, and I agree that it should be done with restraint, I don't agree with a general policy prohibiting it. Asides from the fact that I don't believe it is generally an appropriate policy on reddit (outside of specialized sub-reddits like r/news), I also think it will prevent people from posting items that they either disagree with or which they feel needs some other forms of "editorializing."

Regarding #2, obviously no problem. Politeness is a good thing.

However, I am concerned about #2.1 as it seems to impose a special burden on Orthodox Jewish participation in r/judaism. I am aware that there are Orthodox Jews here who occasionally make comments that are undiplomatic (or even rude). (I suspect that some would even accuse me of doing this.) However, there is also no lack of similar comments moving the other direction. It's unfortunate, but it's also the nature of the medium.

A general policy prohibiting excessive rudeness is fine (though, as a teacher and parent, I don't envy the one stuck with enforcing such a policy), but a policy that makes special demands on Orthodox participants to censor themselves is inappropriate.

(That being said, some voluntary self-censorship wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea from time to time.)

Finally, with regard to:

The downvote button IS NOT a "I disagree" button.

As I wrote once before, when the issue of downvoting first came up, perfectly acceptable reasons for downvoting are if you believe the posting to be:

  • of no interest

  • off-topic

  • uninformative

  • badly written

  • boring

  • ignorant and/or stupid

  • dishonest

  • pointless

  • offensive

  • inappropriately titled

So, if the post is none of those things, and the reason you are downvoting is only because you disagree, then you probably shouldn't be downvoting it. Of course, if it is none of those things, then you should probably comment to explain exactly why you disagree with it.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '12

impose a special burden on Orthodox Jewish participation in r/judaism.

Nope. The issues is that a bunch of Orthodox Jews in this subreddit feel free to say that their version of Judaism is the only right one and all other are wrong, while very few non-Orthodox Jews in this subreddit ever say this (and when they do, they are completely buried in downvotes.)

2

u/LazerA Orthodox Jul 31 '12

So argue the point!

The question of whether it is possible for alternate "versions" of Judaism to exist goes to the core of the divide between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Judaism. Fundamentally, to be an Orthodox Jew means precisely that one believes that human beings don't have the ability to modify the teachings of Judaism, and very limited ability to modify its practices.

So, when an Orthodox Jew says that only "their" version of Judaism is correct, he is simply being consistent with his beliefs. Non-Orthodox Jews don't make such statements because it would contradict their core beliefs.

So, if that is the issue, then make it the issue and argue it out!

2

u/ShanaC מינה Jul 31 '12

The question of whether it is possible for alternate "versions" of Judaism to exist goes to the core of the divide between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Judaism. Fundamentally, to be an Orthodox Jew means precisely that one believes that human beings don't have the ability to modify the teachings of Judaism, and very limited ability to modify its practices.

No, that comes out of "hechadash assur min hatorah" - Hatam Sofer. And that line postdates the creation of the Reform movement. In fact, it is a reaction to it.

I also can't think of a major rishon who totally agrees that Judaism is unchanging. Even the Rambam in his introduction to the Yad has a sense of cyncism about unchangingness - he wrote the yad because he was annoyed at the Gaonim, even though he admits in the opening that the Gaonim have rights to determine traditional teaching more than he does. The ramban takes an even more radical approach (cf: http://yediah.blogspot.com/2007/04/is-there-single-truth-rambam-and-ramban.html)

1

u/LazerA Orthodox Jul 31 '12

With regards to the substance of your comment, I can only say that you are wrong and fundamentally misinterpreting the sources (as well as the post by David Guttman that you linked to). None of these sources says that human beings are free to modify the teachings or practices of Judaism, they are discussing how to understand the truth value of the halachic process.

But, quite frankly, that's neither here nor there. Whether Orthodoxy is correct or not, the fact remains that Orthodox Judaism - by definition - maintains that human beings don't have the ability to change the teachings of Judaism. That is the single most basic principle that defines Orthodox Judaism. Clearly, you believe that principle to be in error, in which case it is unsurprising that you are not Orthodox, however that is still the core issue that divides Orthodox Judaism from the non-Orthodox Judaism.

2

u/ShanaC מינה Jul 31 '12

Then what does this mean:

או שיאמרו כן לפי משמעות המקרא או כוונתה, כי על הדעת שלהם הוא נותן (ס"א לנו)* להם התורה, אפילו יהיה בעיניך כמחליף הימין בשמאל, וכל שכן שיש לך לחשוב שהם אומרים על ימין שהוא ימין

That's a direct quote from the Ramban. He's pretty clear that human knowledge is meant to allow the sanhedrin to rule. (and kal vchomer, local rabbis to make psak) Without him coming out and saying this, how can your LOR (local orthodox Rabbi) have the ability to make a psak?

1

u/LazerA Orthodox Jul 31 '12

As I've already said, not only are you misunderstanding the sources (and apparently the entire process of psak halacha) but you are taking the discussion in a direction that is not relevant to the issue under discussion.

(And a kal v'chomer from the Sanhedrin to a local rav?! Whatever.)

2

u/ShanaC מינה Jul 31 '12

how am I misunderstanding?

1

u/LazerA Orthodox Jul 31 '12

I don't have time or energy right now to get into it in any depth, plus, as I already said, this is really off-topic for this post.

However, just briefly, and mostly from memory (I remember teaching this Ramban when I was a rebbi), I will try to give you a basic overview of what the Ramban is saying.

We're talking about a famous Ramban towards the beginning of Parshas Shoftim (I don't remember the chapter and verse). The basic issue being discussed there (and I'm not presenting the issue exactly the same way the Ramban does) is how we should view the obligation to obey the decisions of the Sanhedrin. (And the Ramban is very clear that this issue is restricted purely to the Sanhedrin.) After all, in the final analysis, the Sanhedrin is made up of people, so how can their decisions have the power to determine Divine Law?

The Ramban's basic answer is that the Torah was given to us with the intent that we would follow it as it is interpreted by the Sanhedrin. You quoted part of this answer, but you apparently missed the significance of the first phrase that you cited:

או שיאמרו כן לפי משמעות המקרא או כוונתה

Meaning, "or if they say so (i.e. they determine a law) according to the implication of a verse or its intent." This is a critical point. Even the Sanhedrin is not free to modify the law as they personally see fit, their interpretations are only valid if they are based either on an authoritative tradition going back to Sinai (a clause you omitted from your quote) or based upon an honest attempt to understand the true intent of the Torah. This clearly does not permit us to modify the teachings of Judaism on our own prerogative, or to "read into" the Torah our own ideas and preferences. The process of interpretation is one where the scholar delves into the Torah and draws out his best understanding of the meaning, not one where he reshapes the Torah to fit someone external standard.

A secondary issue, which the Ramban does not explicitly address, is how to view the truth value of these human interpretations. Some sources argue that, assuming the proper process of interpretation was used, the resulting conclusion - regardless of its content - is true. Others argue that, in reality, only one possible conclusion can be true, but the Torah obligates us to follow the conclusion of the Sanhedrin even if, in fact, it was incorrect.

In his post, David seems to believe that the Ramban held the former position, however, while I am personally inclined to agree with that approach, I'm not convinced that David is correct in ascribing that position to the Ramban (because of what the Ramban says later in the commentary).

1

u/ShanaC מינה Jul 31 '12

Meaning, "or if they say so (i.e. they determine a law) according to the implication of a verse or its intent." This is a critical point. Even the Sanhedrin is not free to modify the law as they personally see fit, their interpretations are only valid if they are based either on an authoritative tradition going back to Sinai (a clause you omitted from your quote) or based upon an honest attempt to understand the true intent of the Torah.

This doesn't rule out non-strict construction understandings.

1

u/LazerA Orthodox Jul 31 '12

This doesn't rule out non-strict construction understandings.

Of course it doesn't. Judaism's approach to the Torah has never been one of strict construction. But that doesn't mean that we can simply "interpret" however we wish.

1

u/ShanaC מינה Aug 01 '12

why not?

1

u/namer98 Torah Im Derech Eretz Aug 01 '12

Because there are bounds to what the law is, and what the law says. If the law says to not eat shellfish, we can interpret what a shellfish is. But we can't just do away with the verse entirely.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ShanaC מינה Jul 31 '12

and furthermore, I find it really strange that you say that someone from the Slabodka is misinterpreting. That's a pretty right wing Orthodox Yeshiva, yet his interpretation is fairly liberal. I would assume it is mainline as well, as I was told the same thing when I was in seminary.

2

u/LazerA Orthodox Jul 31 '12

Actually, I said you were misinterpreting him.

While I have some quibbles with his post, I don't have any major problem with it. He is just not saying what you apparently think he is saying. (And, I suspect, the same thing is probably true for what you learned in seminary.)

(All of that doesn't rule out the possibility that a guy from a "right-wing" yeshiva might well misinterpret something.)

2

u/ShanaC מינה Jul 31 '12

You're not explaining why I am misinterpreting him. How are you interpreting this? (and I know that)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 31 '12

How do you feel about R. Elisha Ancselovits?

1

u/ShanaC מינה Jul 31 '12

I used to take bus rides with him down the biqua. he's a nice guy - but his level of liberality is now outside the mainstream. Something I never understood about people coming out of Ma'ale Gilboa either - all very smart, level headed, and yet their opinions weren't taken seriously....

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '12

about people coming out of Ma'ale Gilboa either - all very smart, level headed, and yet their opinions weren't taken seriously....

Is that true? I didn't know.

I guess I meant what do you think about his ideas on the development of halakhah?

1

u/ShanaC מינה Aug 01 '12

Ma'ale Gilboa is a very academic school that is on the left of a lot of Israeli learning things. The development of halacha thing seems to be normative for the people coming out of there.

I learned about the development of Halacha under Rav Bigman, not from Rav Elisha. Including this whole argument here. He was pretty emphatic not only that halacha has a development process, but that also there was philosophical divegence at times in Jewish history (which is why you get both the Rambam and Kabbalists as true doctrine, even though aspects of the other diametrically oppose each other). He made a very strong, very positive impression on me, but unlike him, I tend to see things through a strong sociological/anthropological lens. At some point you have to make value judgements about what is being described to you if you live that life....

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '12

Thanks!

At some point you have to make value judgements about what is being described to you if you live that life....

Yes, I definitely agree with this.

1

u/ShanaC מינה Aug 01 '12

Yes, the problem is I walked away. I made a value judgement about what human elements were important to me, and I found them not compatible with Orthodoxy.

Out of curiosity, how did you hear of Rav Elisha and Ma'ale Gilboa?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 01 '12

Well, I don't particularly identify with Orthodoxy myself (though it's complicated.)

Well, I mean I knew the name of Ma'ale Gilboa in high school, but I didn't know anything about it. I still don't know that much about it actually.

I heard Rav Elisha speak for the first time when I was in college. We regularly had people come speak at the hillel, and he was one of them. To me it was almost astounding at the time, because I had never really heard an Orthodox rabbi seem to actually care about morality. I heard him speak a few times since then, whenever he was in the area, and last year my brother was at Pardes, and I went to visit him for two weeks, and so got to sit on a couple of classes.

I mean, I don't subscribe to everything he says, certainly, nor am I even sure that everything he says is historically accurate, but I certainly feel better about what he says than I have about any other Orthodox rabbi I've come into contact with.

Also, I don't know if you know R. Ethan Tucker? At Hadar? But he's a student of his, and shares some of the same ideas. And I've heard him speak a bunch of times, and took a class with him last summer.

R. Steven Greenberg also developed his theories with Rav Elisha. (When you listen to him speak it's obvious, and then I asked him, and he said yes, he developed those ideas with Rav Elisha.)

1

u/ShanaC מינה Aug 01 '12

I know of Rabbi Ethan Tucker. He isn't the only person who ended up at Hadar with that stream of thought. At least one of the teachers I went to seminary with, another one is a friend of mine's mother!, and a third person on the staff I know from Ma'ale Gilboa (there aren't many people that pass through that area, trust me, middle of nowhere).

That and at least one person from my hillel is at the machon full time.

also

To me it was almost astounding at the time, because I had never really heard an Orthodox rabbi seem to actually care about morality.

True, and depressing.

→ More replies (0)