Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!aecom!teitz
From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Humanistic Judaism
Message-ID: <1282@aecom.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 16:43:09 EST
Article-I.D.: aecom.1282
Posted: Mon Mar 18 16:43:09 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 08:13:46 EST
References: <239@npois.UUCP>
Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY
Lines: 55

> Asher Meth asks:
> 
> >What is a Humanistic Jew? A simple definition will do.
> 
> A Humanistic Jew is a Jew who defines his way of life as a Jew without
> reference to supernatural authority, and who affirms the right of
> individuals to be masters of their own lives.
> 
> Because Humanistic Jews affirm the right of individuals to be masters of
> their own lives, they generally make sure that their children feel free
> to define their Jewishness without being constrained by the choices of
> their parents. For example, to make sure that my former wife's future
> children would feel free to become Orthodox, if they wish, without the
> stigma of mamzerut, I gave my ex-wife an Orthodox get, under the
> supervision of the head of an Orthodox beit din.
> 

	What do you do with the mitzva of 'Lo tigra' that you should not d
 diminish the number of mitzvot. Meaning, once something was commanded you may ay
 not uncommand it, no matter how little sense it makes. Another problem, what 
 are all the laws of tum'a and tahara, purity and impurity about? Why, if a bug
 touches a dry piece of wheat is it not impure, or even if it touches a wet
 stalk of wheat it is pure as long as the owner of the wheat didn't want the
 wheat to get wet. However, if the owner wanted the wheat wet, then the wheat,
 touches by an insect after it was dampened, even if it dried already, is 
 considered impure? 

	Another, more basic question. If you don't hold the will if G-D to be 
 important, why be Jewish in the first place. If you abide by some of the 
 mitzvot, then why not by all the mitzvot. After all, they all came from the
 same source. Or do you not agree to that either?



> Eliyahu Teitz writes:
> 
> >Eventually there will be a mitzva without an explaination and then the
> >humanist will be up a tree having to decide on observance for observance
> >sake or not following.
> 
> If I could not understand a Mitzva, then I would not be be able to carry
> it out "with all my mind" anyway. So an "observance for observance's
> sake" would not be much good in any case.


	To which mitzva do you refer when you write ' all my mind'? My job
 is to inquire as to the reasons for the mitzvot, true. I, too, do not like
 to observe for no reason. But when G-D says do something, and I do not 
 understand it, and there are many things I do not understand ( for instance 
 all the reasons behind purity and impurity ), I observe because I am a
 faithful servant, and my job is to do first, and question later. Some of 
 the observances of Judaism have no ration reason apparent. This does not
 diminish from their being an integral part of Judaism.

				Eliyahu Teitz