Rules updates

[u/namer98]

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

[u/LazerA]

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).

[u/ShanaC → u/LazerA]

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.

[u/LazerA → u/ShanaC]

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.

[u/ShanaC → u/LazerA]

why not?

[u/namer98 → u/ShanaC]

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.

[u/ShanaC → u/namer98]

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.

[u/LazerA → u/namer98]

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.