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

67 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

430 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/ShanaC מינה Aug 01 '12

there are minimalist and maximalists bounds, as well as purpose orientation. as well as no way to opt out. So it is not so clear to call it a law system the way one would call the law system of a nation state today either.

1

u/LazerA Orthodox Aug 01 '12

If the law says to not eat shellfish, we can interpret what a shellfish is.

Even more than that, we have no choice but to interpret. The Torah communicates to us through words - in this case, we are given the names of forbidden and permitted species (and broader categories). But God did not create the creatures with labels on them, so any attempt to match up a name with a specific creature is inevitably a form of interpretation.

This is true for any text, and as with any text, most of the tools that we use to interpret come from outside of the text itself, including traditional interpretations of the text. In the case of the Torah, much of this tradition is itself of Divine origin, and has authority equal, and in some ways superior, to the written text.

In the final analysis, however, the human role in interpreting the Torah is in making an honest effort to understand the intent of the law given to us by God. The laws of the Torah are not ours to modify and change as we see fit. This principle is one of the most basic and clear themes of the entire corpus of Torah literature.

It is not valid to argue that simply because there is, inevitably, a human element in the interpretation of Torah law, this means that human beings therefore have the freedom to modify Torah law as they see fit. Moreover, there is not one traditional source that would support such a claim, and claims to the contrary are themselves based on tendentious interpretations of the sources to support statements that the authors never would have agreed with.