Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site csd2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!csd2!meth
From: meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: The Mitzvot and Humanistic Judaism - round two
Message-ID: <3780023@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 22:12:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.3780023
Posted: Mon Mar 18 22:12:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 04:27:52 EST
References: <218@npois.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 121


Or leyom shelishi leparshas Vayikra, 26 ADAR 5745

NOTE: > > adam reed
      >   eliyahu teitz in response
      =   j. abeles in respone to eliyahu teitz


> > I keep the Mitzvot, as I understand them, because I am a Jew.
> > (unreferenced by name)

> 	Who says you understand them correctly ?  (Teitz)

=The same question could be put to anyone:  Who says the Rambam understands
=them correctly?  Who says Feinstein undertands them correctly?  Who
=says Teitelbaum or Schneerson (sp?) or Brickner, or even Joseph Caro
=understands them correctly?  It's all open to discussion.  The point
=is therefore not "who is the correct one true interpreter of what
=constitutes Judaism?" but rather "what do I regard as the most correct
=interpretation of what constitutes Judaism?" since this latter question is
=logically antecedent to the first one and is not trivial by any means.
=Though it is logically antecedent, one should expose oneself to others'
=opinions in the attempt to form one's own opinion.  The amount of
=attention devoted to this question is obviously also an issue which
=gets decided based upon factors not related to Judaism. This
=is as it should be, as I regard it as inappropriate to think only
=of halachkic issues in life.
= --J. Abeles

My initial reaction was one word, as we say in ivrit : SHTUYOT !!!

We believe in the concept of "Masorah" - handing down / teaching of the Torah
from generation to generation, according to the way that it was given to Moshe
at Sinai with the interpretations of the "Chazal" (wise sages) in each
generation.

THAT is who says that the interpretations espoused by the great rabbis in each
generation, including Rambam, Feinstein, Teitelbaum, Schneerson, and Joseph
Caro (those names you mentioned) are legitemate. That ALSO says that the
opinions of Balfour Brickner, if they are anti-thetical to TORAH VIEWS, are not
"the correct one true interpreter of what constitutes Judaism" !!!
It is NOT a question of "what do I regard as the most correct interpretation of
what constitues Judaism". Who are you (or me, or anyone else) to come along
more than 3000 years after the Torah was given at Sinai, along with its true
interpretation, and decide that the great rabbis of the previous generations
were wrong, out of touch, unable to adapt to change, etc. ??
Why do you think that we are called "THE NATION OF THE BOOK" ?? Everyone knows
that we received the Torah at Sinai, and that it instructs us in our way of
life. Why did we receive the Torah, if not to follow it ???
  And if you wish to question this, I'll tell you a story my history teacher
  once told to prove that his class that there was an Abraham Lincoln, and that
  he proclaimed freedom for the slaves : How do I know all this ? well, my
  father told it to me, and his father told it to him, and his father to him,
  and his father was there and SAW it with his own two eyse, and heard it
  with his own two ears.
  So it is with the Torah. If I wasn't there (and according to some of the
  commentaries, I was), then my great-great-...-great-grandfather was there.
  And this has been passed on through ALL the generations, along with all that
  was taught there at Sinai.
Also, you MUST accept the oral law (Torah She-Ba-al Peh) along with the written
law (Torah She-bichsav). Without the oral law you cannot possibly begin to
understand the written law. One of the primary examples of this concerns the
obligation to ritually slaughter an animal before eating it. The torah says
in Parshas Re-eh, Devarim 12:21 - "vezavachta ... ka-asher tzivisicha" - and
you shall slaughter it as i have commanded you. Yet there is NO verse in the
Torah that tells us of all the complicated laws of "shechita" (ritual
slaughtering). So, Rashi (R. Shlomo ben Yitzchak - circa 1000'ish) tells us
that these laws were taught to Moshe at Sinai, even though they weren't
written down at the time ("halachah le-moshe mi-sinai").
The oral law, just like the written law, comes to us with a certain
interpretation; again, from the great rabbis; we cannot make up a NEW Torah.
This is a basic tenet of our religion, Judaism.

Furthermore, many (if not most) issues in life ARE governed by halachah -
always have been, and always will be. There are some issues that may not be
clearly defined by halachah, but even in those areas we have guidance from
"chazal" as to how we should function.
And NONE of the methods suggested by chazal was to CHANGE the Torah according
to our own very little minds. All the knowledge that we can ever hope to
personally accumulate over our lifetimes is but a paltry sum compared to that
attained by the great rabbis; and especially so in the field of Torah
knowledge. And you are ready, at the drop of a hat, to dismiss "chazal" and
their interpretations of the Torah, only to replace them with your own.

May I remind you that someone else tried to do that, about 2000 years ago,
rejecting the old and REPLACING it with his NEW version. It didn't work then
and it won't work now. Torah is "nitzchi" - it has eternal life.
(NOTE : I don't "chas veshalom" mean to insinuate that you are trying to do
what he did. Please accept my pre-apologies for any such inferences.)

And you have the gall to mention Balfour Brickner in the same utterance along
with our great rabbis ???

Just one more story : it is said that Rabbi Chaim Volozhener (of Volozhen, one
of the greatest students of the Vilna Gaon) had a student who went off the path
and became a follower of the Haskalah movement (story is circa early 1800's if
I'm not mistaken). One day the student came back to the Volozhener Yeshiva and
sarted speaking with Reb Chaim, asking him all kinds of questions about
"emunah" (belief), etc. These questions related to the "problems" that the
student found in his struggle to remain religious, and were the points that
convinced him to throw off the yoke of Torah and become non-observant.
Reb Chaim listened to each of his student's arguments and DID NOT RESPOND to
any of them !!!! After the former student left, Reb Chaim's students asked him
: Rebbi (our rabbi), why did you not answer him ?? You could have answered
EVERY one of his questions !! To which Reb Chaim answered : He didn't come to
ask questions, looking for answers and guidance on how to lead his life; he
came to try to justify to himself why he had turned astray. For someone like
that there are no answers; you cannot argue with such a person. His questions
are not questions; rather they are excuses.

================

By the way, some people's names appear on the net in a "crypted form".
Can you please let us know who you REALLY are :
j. (what does it stand for) abeles, professor wagstaff (?), karen alais larryg

===============

            asher meth
            allegra!cmcl2!csd2!meth
ARPA        meth@nyu-csd2.arpa