Integral Halachah

[dauer]

Created at BB's request.


I don't have the time to write anything at the moment so for now I'm just pasting in what I said in the other thread:

Deconstruct current practice, the halachic arguments behind it and theological associations to get to the underlying intention of the practice (I would argue we're not fully capable of identifying the original intention but that, if we connect what we're doing back to G!d, any inaccuracies in our sincere interpretation are l'shem shamayim) and reconstruct in line with those intentions informed by tradition and where you find yourself today, whilst consciously including G!d in the process. Take into account who is influenced by your method of practicing that particular mitzvah (it may only be you, may also effect family, the local Jewish community, the larger Jewish community or future generations.) Accept the arrived at form of practice as b'rit for you with the included proviso that, should it stop working well for you consistently, you can reevaluate using the same methods. That way there is a systematic foundation for one's actions that fits within the underlying framework of Jewish practice (even if it doesn't always conform to contemporary modes of practice) rather than willy-nilly do-what-I-feel-like meh-ness (not that you engage in such meh-nadik practices.)

You can ask questions for clarification if you'd like. If not I'll end up adding more later.

 

[dauer]

Okay so, first thing worth discussing imo is paradigm shift since it's Reb Zalman's primary justification for messing with Judaism's OS. He suggests that Judaism has gone through historic shifts, one of the greatest being during the second temple period with the shift away from the Temple Cult and the growth of rabbinic Judaism. Further, he compares the time we're in today to that time. I don't really accept all of his justifications for paradigm shift, but I'll present some of them.

We've seen the earth now in imagery from space and realize we're all in it together, all people on earth.

The old ways of doing halachah, we're outgrowing them. This is a specific example he gives and I don't understand the context well enough, so for this I'll give a direct quote. He's discussing the rulings of the Melamed L-Ho'il on p.42-43 of integral halachah and states he dealt with issues like: "...children born from common-law unions who had not been formalized under a chuppah... and with kiddushin... how to make a mikveh using city water... whether using electricity is like lighting a fire..."

And the part that I don't understand because I'm not familiar with these categories: "... can one truly answer the question of whether one can use a thermos bottle on shabbos using only the traditional categories of eirrui and bishul..."

My sense is that statements about paradigm shift are his avot melachah. He doesn't have great support from tradition for paradigm shift but feels strongly that it is an accurate description of what is happening, an appropriate reformatting given the needs he sees in the community. At one point he drashes about different eras based around the passage from v'ahavta, "b'chol l'vavcha, u'v'chol nafshcha, u'v'chol m'odecha." To me it almost feels like he's grasping to connect the idea. I don't really think he has a strong Jewish argument for paradigm shift. I think he's, like many before him, taking a truth he sees elsewhere and trying to show how that isn't in contradiction with his other source of truth, Torah. I know elsewhere I've read him discuss some texts that deal with concepts of eras and the like but I don't remember the sources or quite what they were about.

I also think some of this is connected to his understanding of the proverb, "Listen, my son to the reproof of your father, and do not put aside, forsake, the Torah of your mother" where he connects mussar avicha with a more rigid approach, with heteronomy and torat imecha with "Her ways are ways of pleasantness." It makes sense given statements about the importance of feminine, his attraction to Gaia Hypothesis as a way of thinking about the interdependence of all life on the planet along with the need for diversity. I think what he's saying is that we need to shift and see torat imecha gain the same importance as mussar avicha.

One of the important things about that, imo, is that he's not saying people shouldn't still do traditional halachah and believes traditional halachah is still included under the umbrella of IH. For many people there is pleasantness in a traditional halachic approach, but for many others there doesn't seem to be.

He also uses hora'at sha'ah as a justification for experimentation with halachah within different communities of people. I think that probably covers his justifications, though he goes into greater detail with each. A lot of that though is looking at contemporary ideas like the work of Rupert Sheldrake or the stages of development outlined by psychologists and others who've done similar work.

 

[Avi]

Dauer,

I think R. Zalman is on the right track with respect to his ideas about the environment, feminism, gay issues and social justice. His spiritual bent comes from his Chassidic past.

Which of his books have you read ?

 

[dauer]

Well his spiritual bent comes from a lot of sources. You have to remember he's recognized in the universal sufi order as a sheikh and helped to found a sufi-hasidic order connecting its lineage back through Chabad as well as through his sufi lineage and to Maimonides' son, Abraham, who led a Jewish sufi community in Egypt (The Desert Fellowship of the Message.) He's also been influenced by Buddhism and the archives of his life's work will be at Naropa University, an institution founded on Buddhist values where he taught. He most certainly spent some time in Chabad, received smicha there, and later outgrew them. As I understand it they didn't take too kindly to a paper he wrote on LSD as Sacrament and gave him the boot, though I've also heard he still davvens somewhat regularly at a chabad house.

I've read Jewish with Feeling, Integral Halachah, Wrapped in a Holy Flame, Renewal is Judaism Now, and attended a retreat he led at Elat Chayyim that carried over Shavuot and Shabbos during a summer when I took part in a 3-month summer internship there. That was back at the old campus before they merged with Isabella Freedman. I've also listened to a recording of a week-long shiur he gave. I forget the name of it. In addition to that I've read some of his shorter essays online and watched the videos that someone put up of him on youtube.

Generally I'm quite fond of his thinking, though I'm a little more skeptical I think than he is on some matters of theology and don't always care for the application of his ideas in the Jewish Renewal movement, but then he doesn't seem to either and has personally been critical of some manifestations of Jewish Renewal. When I was on retreat with him, he was leading a service and we got to the shema. There is a minhag in Renewal to hold each word of the shema, to make it more meditative. The room started doing that and he cut everyone off, "Not the hippy-bippy way! Do it right." And everyone chanted the shema in the standard way. I don't think it's that particular way of doing the shema that irked him so much as it's the bigger things, a lot of cultural baggage taken on in learning from other traditions that should have been discarded.

I also object to the way some members of Renewal relate to Reb Zalman. In my dialogue here with Gabbai Seth Fishman (he runs the blog at the Reb Zalman Legacy Project) that came up, where, although he didn't use the term, he seemed to see Reb Zalman as some sort of Tzadik Ha-Dor (in hasidism typically that's how hasidim see their rebbe, as the tzadik of the generation.) I didn't object to the idea that Reb Zalman has made valuable contributions, but I did suggest time will tell what, if any lasting impact he has on the Jewish Community.

Why do you ask?

 

[Avi]

The reason I asked about which of his books you have read is because if there was one which stands out above the rest I would buy it.

During the past year I have read a variety of books by Orthodox authors, including: Solaveitchik, Arheh Kaplan and Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

I also read part of Maimonides, Guide, but that was very tough reading. The mosting interesting part of it to me is his foundational basis of the Greek and Islamic philosophers. I am hoping to learn more about that on this forum.

I also read "Star of Redemption" by Rosenzweig, which is very different.

So I would consider a Renewal book if it was a good one.

 

[dauer]

Oh yeah I also read Spiritual Intimacy by Reb Zalman, which is a study of counseling in pre-war hasidism. Need to finish that one though.

What book is best really depends on what you want to read about. Jewish with Feeling is the most general and takes a very personal tone. It's an attempt to begin from experience and expand from there, within a Jewish framework. It's probably the book by him that's gotten the most mainstream attention and praise. I'd definitely recommend it, but it's not a good text if you're looking for something more rigorous. If that is the case then I would recommend Integral Halachah which is shorter, more dense and a bit more dry. While Jewish with Feeling doesn't make many assumptions about the reader's knowledge, Integral Halachah assumes familiarity with basic and some intermediate Jewish concepts and takes for granted that you know something about Reb Zalman's ideas to begin with (though I personally don't think familiarity with his ideas is entirely necessary, just helpful.)

The other books I mentioned all have specific focuses. If you want to understand Reb Zalman's approach to neo-hasidism better, how he translates hasidism into a modern, progressive context then I'd suggest Wrapped in a Holy Flame. He reviews stories and theology of different hasidic and neo-hasidic figures. The Chabad and Breslov lineages get the most attention but there's a healthy dose of attention to other hasidic figures too. Rather than just dealing with their theology and stories, he also adds his own thoughts and interpretations, and his own translations of different hasidic concepts in ways that make more sense to him today.

I also highly recommend Way of the Boundary Crosser: A Guide to Jewish Flexidoxy by Reb Gershon Winkler which is similar in its perspective to Zalman's integral Halachah but focuses more on providing translations of counter-texts that argue against the rigidities of halachah today. That one has large chunks available on google books. The other author I'd suggest is Rabbi Art Green who you may have heard of. He used to head the recon rabbinical school and now heads the rabbinical school at Hebrew College. He's both a traditional western scholar and a radical theologian. I'm pretty sure he has a new book on the way. His stuff is generally more focused on theology than the other two.

Re: Rambam, there's a book I saw reviewed in my RSS feed some time back that might interest you. I haven't read it: The Great Islamic Rabbi - washingtonpost.com Come to think of it, that may interest BB too.

What have you read by Aryeh Kaplan? I've been meaning to read Rosenzweig for some time but haven't yet picked him up. What did you think of him?

 

[Avi]

Dauer,

I read A. Kaplan's "Maimonides Principles". It is a short little book, but very nicely written, I recommend it. It made me realize that I think that my belief in #3, i.e. G-d's non-corporeality, is stronger than many OJs. I say that because I have heard many OJs use terms that sound anthropomorophic to me. The notion of the Shechina is very interesting to me as well. But it made me also realize that I have some serious doubts about some of the other principles. For example the resurrection. Perhaps more importantly, it made me think about the role of dogma in Judaism. I believe that the 13 Principles is one of the dogmatic parts of Judaism. I suspect we might discuss this with yourself and bb in the future. I have heard that Kaplan's "Living Torah" is a good first Kaplan to read.

Rosenzweig's "Star" is a hard read, and I suspect would be even harder for an OJ. Rosenzweig had a very interesting life. He nearly converted to Christianity but during a High Holiday service he had some sort of revelation and after that remained an observant Jew the rest of his life. The Star was written entirely on a battlefield in Germany. His description of various Jewish ideas is incredibly creative, it is almost like poetry. I did not work my way through the whole thing, but I occasionally pick it up and read parts. He died very young, less than 40 and he was a genius. He had ideas that no one would have ever even thought of. He assigned meaning to the six points on the Star of David.

I also recommend Yeshayahu Liebowitz"' - "Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State". Leibowitz was an OJ but politically liberal. He made the best arguments for orthodoxy that I have ever read. I would be interested if bb has read him ? He has an interesting section about observance lishmah, which is for its sake only. I doubt this was his original idea, but it is an interesting one.

Last year I also read two Buber's, Baal Shem Tov. It was a very powerful book about the originator of Chassidic Judaism. I recommend it as well.

The Rambam article was quite interesting, thanks, his connection to Islamic philosophy is intriguing.

I will probably pick a R. Zalman book and discuss with you later.

 

[dauer]

Avi,

one point of note 'bout myself. I'm neither Orthodox nor Orthopractic. I'm not certain if I gave you that impression or if your statement about Orthodox Jews was an aside. It appears to most likely be an aside. I grew up in a Reform family that attended a Conservative shul, around 12 became intensely interested in Judaism. Over time I became both more religious and more liberal than my parents. I do believe in the importance of a halachic process, but I also believe that the process the Orthodox maintain has become dead to many including myself and to apply it in its current form for us would be, imo, idolatrous. I also think Judaism has a lot to learn about itself and how it might continue to change and develop from other traditions. I reject the majority of maimonides' principles as I do not believe in an afterlife nor do I believe in the messiah nor that it is logical to assert that G!d most certainly exists outside of the subjective interpretations of the human mind in its grasping for meaning and pattern in its experiencing of its own existence (at the same time, I would not assert that G!d is definitely limited to the confines of the human mind, just that subjectivity casts doubt for me on the whole notion of a universal '>' unless that '>' is defined as the natural world and not ascribed any qualities not verifiable using established scientific methods of inquiry. And at the same time, the universality of some spiritual experience -- filtered through cultural cosmologies -- casts doubt for me on the mainstream boundaries of scientific inquiry.) I do think the teleology of an active and non-particularist messianism can serve as a pragmatic motivation for the betterment of the world but at the same time, that it is good and healthy to apply doubt and skepticism even to those beliefs that serve pragmatic purpose while applying them to one's worldview.

I do probably maintain a greater deal of anthropomorphism than you because of my approach to G!d. For me, it seems quite natural that humans would anthropomorphize the Infinite in order to relate to it. We're little bits of organic material hurtling through the cosmos on a fleck of space dust. So finite next to existence (and if we add to that the depths of the unconscious, the reaches of time, more finite still) it makes sense to me to project out onto reality images that I can relate to, modes of interaction and emotional engagement with the incomprehensible vastness of this world in which I find myself. But that all reflects my own strong biases toward skepticism and valuing religion as a vessel for the growth of the individual, active engagement with the unconscious and the fostering of meaningful communal and individual experiences.

Essentially, I'm very into hippy-bippiness while refusing to sacrifice my skeptical and analytical tendencies at its stinky mud-covered feet to the chagrin of some hippies, traditionalists and skeptics.



BB is very fond of Living Torah. I've never picked it up. I did enjoy Meditation and the Bible, Inner Space and Jewish Meditation: A Practical Guide. I think I will have to order the Rosenzweig text soon (The Star of Redemption // Books // University of Notre Dame Press.) It's been so long since I've thought about him but I remember when I first came across him, I was more fond of him than Buber. Of Buber I've read his translations of hasidic stories and I-and-Thou.

-- Dauer

 

[bananabrain]

this does sound interesting:

Deconstruct current practice, the halachic arguments behind it and theological associations to get to the underlying intention of the practice

there's a massive assumption here, namely that the intention is singular. but the same practice may have differing intentions behind it. these will undoubtedly be informed by halakhic arguments, because that's what a lot of halakhic arguments do, you only have to read rashi, rambam or raabad. then things are further complicated by the PRDS model: the underlying pshat intention may be difficult to reconcile with a remez intention, let alone a drash or sod intention, especially once halakhic midrashim start to enter the picture. to put it another way, intention has a lot of hats. i've got no problem with deconstruction, but the expectation that everything can be reconciled is, i feel somewhat unwarranted. this also to me appears to fly in the face of the idea that you may have many valid aggadic positions (70 faces) but in the end the halakhic position will have to be ke-someone. and if the practice would change as a result then in many cases the wheels would come off immediately.

we connect what we're doing back to G!d, any inaccuracies in our sincere interpretation are l'shem shamayim

but depending on what your intention is, that may nonetheless bear the spiritual penalty of shegagah (sin through ignorance) or het. in such cases, only a serious commitment to the practice of heshbon nefesh (self-criticism) which involves a lot of rectification activities (vidui and tahanun spring to mind) can really square that circle and in any cases they are not widespread outside orthodoxy, from what i remember of UK reform you don't really hear of vidui except on kippur.

Take into account who is influenced by your method of practicing that particular mitzvah (it may only be you, may also effect family, the local Jewish community, the larger Jewish community or future generations.

umph, but even if you do this, you'll run into people that won't understand the distinction. a good example of this is the custom of wearing a black hat. why the hell are sephardim wearing black hats? the ruling on this is in the mishnah brurah, which is C19 polish! i mean, we're not having a go at the chofetz chaim, but really, there's no basis for it. it's no longer required that you wear a black hat when seeing royalty. in the UK, it ought to mean that sephardim wear morning dress (ie grey top hat and tails) according to dina demalkhuta, but the real reason which emerges is *solidarity with the strictly/ultra-orthodox worldwide*. and i'm sure it runs the other way too.

Accept the arrived at form of practice as b'rit for you

but we already have an established process for this, hatarat nedarim (annulment of vows as per kol nidrei) which is how an ashki woman woman who marries a sephardi acquires the ability to eat kitniyot on pessah. but for this to work, you'd have to be committed to the idea that you acquire nedarim at birth, which would be problematic for the reform at best as it requires you to accept that the halakhah was binding in the first place. the question would be whether, halakhically, another process e.g. brit was taken to be a valid hatarat nedarim and i would be surprised if this was taken up by orthodoxy. perhaps we need to look at that issue more closely. you will be aware, for example, that detailed discussions took place over whether apparently halakhically valid marriages took place under non-orthodox auspices and concluded that they had to say not, because otherwise, you'd have to have an halakhically valid get in place, which would mean raising possible questions of mamzerut which would be too terrible to contemplate.

I don't really accept all of his justifications for paradigm shift, but I'll present some of them.

i don't think i do either, but let's take a look:

We've seen the earth now in imagery from space and realize we're all in it together, all people on earth.

this makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The old ways of doing halachah, we're outgrowing them. This is a specific example he gives and I don't understand the context well enough, so for this I'll give a direct quote. He's discussing the rulings of the Melamed L-Ho'il on p.42-43 of integral halachah and states he dealt with issues like: "...children born from common-law unions who had not been formalized under a chuppah... and with kiddushin... how to make a mikveh using city water... whether using electricity is like lighting a fire..."

until i understand the problem he's trying to address, i won't understand how precisely the existing halakhic solution is inadequate.

can one truly answer the question of whether one can use a thermos bottle on shabbos using only the traditional categories of eirrui and bishul...

i can't see why you wouldn't. it maintains at most the temperature which you put it in at, which should be "yad soledet bo", so unless you're using it soon enough for something to cook (e.g. a tea leaf) i can't see the issue. where i might see an issue is where an agreed halakhic authority hasn't signed off on, say, the use of non-electric power sources, or the quantity generated by piezo-electric power; but this has already been done in the case of, say, self-winding watches. again, not sure why this would be a problem.

I don't really think he has a strong Jewish argument for paradigm shift.

by the sound of things i think you're right. the question is really whether what he is doing is a radical innovation or not. if it's just a "hiddush", then i can't see why there would be an issue. if he was doing something *really* controversial, like the prosbul, or the 13 principles (to be frank) then perhaps. it requires specialist halakhic work in the area as is going on with regard to, for example, r. steve greenberg's work on halakhic categories as it relates to homosexuality, which i cannot find a problem with; it's a very good, solidly textual argument.

I know elsewhere I've read him discuss some texts that deal with concepts of eras and the like

the issue is likely to be when he comes up against the rock of yeridat ha-dorot, the "decline of the generations", which is usually what the major objection boils down to; who are we to overrule, say, the shulhan 'arukh? in this, i feel that the best course is to look at how that concept itself was understood by, say, rambam. i've found menachem kellner's work on this to be extraordinarily insightful.

I think what he's saying is that we need to shift and see torat imecha gain the same importance as mussar avicha.

now there i would agree and, more importantly, there is an authoritative precedent. a rabbinic friend of mine tells me that one of the major modern authorities, i think it was r. feinstein or maybe it was r. soloveitchik, deferred to his wife in the matter of the kashrut of her kitchen, although he was unquestionably more expert. i think the issue was over teatowels and basically his position was, look, this is her domain and the strict halakhah must give way in this case, which sounds like a good example of torat imecha to me. similarly, the increasing willingness to rely upon the expertise of female halakhic advisors in matters of bedikah referrals in niddah, or historical evidence showing that kol ishah was observed extremely minimally even in the frum sephardi world. another good example i can definitely give you in this area, provided by my rav, is the testified regular attendance of two roshei beit din (federation and united) at the royal opera house in covent garden during the 50s and 60s, so are you going to tell me those guys didn't know their halakhah? yet there they were, listening to lady opera singers. you won't catch r. sacks having the credibility to get away with something like that.

He also uses hora'at sha'ah as a justification for experimentation with halachah within different communities of people.

again, a much neglected area for leniency, but unfortunately you're talking about a community (in the UK) which is still operating under a WWII hora'at sha'ah austerity measure (rump steak, which requires porging, being a luxury) which hasn't yet been repealed for feck's sake. so i can't get a rump steak in this fecking country.

There is a minhag in Renewal to hold each word of the shema, to make it more meditative. The room started doing that and he cut everyone off, "Not the hippy-bippy way! Do it right." And everyone chanted the shema in the standard way. I don't think it's that particular way of doing the shema that irked him so much as it's the bigger things, a lot of cultural baggage taken on in learning from other traditions that should have been discarded.

well, that's something, i suppose. although, once you start in on that, you'll end up going, well, rambam, isn't that a little bit aristotle? hmm? not that that would be a bad thing if it got the hassidim to give up their opposition to evolution.

seemed to see Reb Zalman as some sort of Tzadik Ha-Dor (in hasidism typically that's how hasidim see their rebbe, as the tzadik of the generation.)

umph, that's the point at which i have trouble with charismatic movements. i have no problem with rebbes, shaykhs, pirs, or what-have-you, but i don't care for this ours-is-the-holiest discourse. it's human tribalism in one of its most useless forms.

I also read part of Maimonides, Guide, but that was very tough reading. The mosting interesting part of it to me is his foundational basis of the Greek and Islamic philosophers. I am hoping to learn more about that on this forum.

well, for a start, you have to get the right translation of the guide (i suggest shlomo pines') and then you have to read all the different opinions about what he was on about. some of those i have found useful are, in no particular order, menachem kellner, fred rosner, abraham abulafia, shalom hartman, benjamin bakan and minkin, i forget his first name. the other thing is that you can't take the guide on its own, you also have to consider the mishneh torah (in particular the intro to helek) and the epistles on martyrdom, resurrection and to yemen.

also read Spiritual Intimacy by Reb Zalman, which is a study of counseling in pre-war hasidism. Need to finish that one though.

oh, i read that one, it was absolutely wicked. gave me an insight into hasidism i simply hadn't had.

Re: Rambam, there's a book I saw reviewed in my RSS feed some time back that might interest you. I haven't read it: The Great Islamic Rabbi - washingtonpost.com Come to think of it, that may interest BB too.

ooOOooo. i'm going to put that on my wishlist at amazon.

I read A. Kaplan's "Maimonides Principles". It is a short little book, but very nicely written, I recommend it. It made me realize that I think that my belief in #3, i.e. G-d's non-corporeality, is stronger than many OJs. I say that because I have heard many OJs use terms that sound anthropomorophic to me.

well, that's a subject for its own thread i think, but the principles are imo extremely important albeit - and this is the clever bit - probably not for the reason that other people think and, moreover, not for the reasons maimonides probably thought.

But it made me also realize that I have some serious doubts about some of the other principles. For example the resurrection. Perhaps more importantly, it made me think about the role of dogma in Judaism. I believe that the 13 Principles is one of the dogmatic parts of Judaism.

well, there's the point - what does dogma mean in judaism, then? when did it start becoming important? i think you're likely to find it was later than you think.

I have heard that Kaplan's "Living Torah" is a good first Kaplan to read.

that's his translation of the Torah. it is absolutely superb, by far my favourite, although i would never just use one translation and would always look at the original. it reads beautifully, however. i'd recommend it to anyone.

Rosenzweig's "Star" is a hard read, and I suspect would be even harder for an OJ.

well, we'll see about that. it's on my list, i've been wanting to get hold of it for ages.

He had ideas that no one would have ever even thought of. He assigned meaning to the six points on the Star of David.

hmmmm. not sure what i think of that. the magen david is a very late symbol altogether.

I also recommend Yeshayahu Liebowitz"' - "Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State".

you're right, i need to read some liebowitz. that would be a good place to start.

Last year I also read two Buber's, Baal Shem Tov. It was a very powerful book about the originator of Chassidic Judaism. I recommend it as well.

hmmm. the thing about buber is that although he's very popular with christians, it is sometimes hard to see what is jewish about his positions. i do like his retellings of hasidic tales though.

a book you will find especially interesting, i suspect, is eugene borowitz's "choices in modern judaism", which does compare-and-contrast on practically every type of modern position. it's invaluable for explaining the nuances of non-orthodox judaisms to traditionalists - as well as vice-versa.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

BB

there's a massive assumption here, namely that the intention is singular.

That's something I agree with which is why I say for myself "I would argue we're not fully capable of identifying the original intention but that, if we connect what we're doing back to G!d, any inaccuracies in our sincere interpretation are l'shem shamayim." It's further complicated to me by asking, "At what point did the original intention occur?" So much meaning has been added over time. But then for me it's not problematic for an individual or community to go in one direction with their practice as I don't see it challenging the historical observance of the practice or setting a precedent for how it should be practiced, just manifesting in a different way in that place and time.

but depending on what your intention is, that may nonetheless bear the spiritual penalty of shegagah (sin through ignorance) or het.

I don't think you're entirely in disagreement with Reb Zalman who says in Integral Halachah over pages 66-68:

"...Do not arrive at conclusion only from within feelings of independence and freedom from the process as it has been until now, believing that you can make up your own mind on these questions without reference to and knowledge of what has come before. Functioning in this way is like being a grain of salt, drawing energy from its host but not nourishing it in return...

... So much depends on this; ...for the sake of the Name, people who don't have a clear connection between what they have heard and the halachic sources should not rule for others... those who haven't read halachah in the original, who haven't pursued it and followed it, should not rule for others...

...And for yourself, consult...

... And I want to protest against those students whose mind concerning halachic things is careless and irresponsible. I did not stand up and defy so much convention in order to give people s'michah just to give permission to people to do things carelessly.

So please, please, be careful."

emphasis mine. At the same time, to me, ignorance is not so much of an issue in the direction you've taken it (getting to the root is less important to me. But being rigorous in approach as Reb Zalman suggests above I do agree with.)

but even if you do this, you'll run into people that won't understand the distinction.

For me that's not a problem. And I think at the very least it leaves more room for dialogue. Were a group across the denominational spectrum to take Reb Zalman's suggetions seriously (I don't think ALEPH is a good example of that) I think we'd end up with a generation, from those people, that was fluent enough to argue its case in the language of those who disagreed, even as it still would likely lead to disagreement and might require interpreting outside of normative boundaries.

but we already have an established process for this, hatarat nedarim (annulment of vows as per kol nidrei) which is how an ashki woman woman who marries a sephardi acquires the ability to eat kitniyot on pessah.

That's different though. It's just shifting to adopt the minhagim of one's partner.

which would be problematic for the reform at best as it requires you to accept that the halakhah was binding in the first place... and i would be surprised if this was taken up by orthodoxy.

My sense of the assumption made by Reb Zalman is that a system like Integral Halachah would not fully conform with the current ideas of any particular movement and would require some adjustment on all parts. But I also think that accepting halachah as binding is something of less concern to Reform Jews and so for them maybe they have a different perspective, that someone coming from O might feel it important to legislate how something might be valid while the person from Ref might just go with it.

We've seen the earth now in imagery from space and realize we're all in it together, all people on earth.

This one I understand because he talks about it elsewhere, which is the shift he perceives toward a gaian paradigm of thought where we can perceive the earth organismically. He suggests we can talk about G!d on the galactic level, solar level, Gaian level and so on. For him the pictures of earth from space serve as a visual stand-in for that paradigm.

until i understand the problem he's trying to address, i won't understand how precisely the existing halakhic solution is inadequate.

A lot of the book is structured around dealing with different halachic issues. It's structured after the Shulchan Aruch such that he can address different areas in turn, but at that point I think he's only trying to djustify looking meta-halachically at the structures that currently exist for halachah and tweaking them. For example he discusses redefining the consensus of the pious to take into account the kavannah of individuals. on pages 49 and 50 (ibid) he says: "What I am trying to say is that the pious of our time are identified by the way in which they bring Jewish spiritual practice out into the world; how they make it come alive... [but that's not enough.] We also have to anchor our halachah in common practice." He then give an example of takkanat ha-kahal where a community had obligated themselves to only recognize the local shochet so that they could support him. He also makes it clear in the following passages that he doesn't think we know enough to establish that type of consensus yet because it's too early to tell.

i've found menachem kellner's work on this to be extraordinarily insightful.

Can you recommend anything specific by Kellner? Personally I find yeridat ha-dorot as it's sometimes used to justify not challenging standing rulings and ideas problematic and I haven't seen any serious attempts to reframe the issue. I know I've seen Reb Zalman address it somewhere, but I know it wasn't terribly thorough. I do think what Reb Zalman's attempting goes a lot further than chiddush and that's imo why he's tried (and again, imo, failed) to connect the degree of the shifts today with the transitions going on as we shifted from the Temple Cult to rabbinic Judaism. I don't get the impression Reb Zalman is by any means limiting himself to traditional thought as he engages in meta-halachah, only that he feels there's room for traditional halachah to co-exist within the larger umbrella he's trying to structure.

again, a much neglected area for leniency, but unfortunately you're talking about a community (in the UK) which is still operating under a WWII hora'at sha'ah austerity measure (rump steak, which requires porging, being a luxury) which hasn't yet been repealed for feck's sake. so i can't get a rump steak in this fecking country.

Okay but an issue I have is, and this also goes back to the example Zalman gives of the shochet, neither of those is dealing with leniency. They're creating greater limitations for one reason or another. And that seems to be the general direction of application (though the examples you provide above in support of Torat Imecha are certainly in contrast to that.) How much precedent is there for hora'at sha'ah as a justification for leniency?

well, that's something, i suppose. although, once you start in on that, you'll end up going, well, rambam, isn't that a little bit aristotle? hmm? not that that would be a bad thing if it got the hassidim to give up their opposition to evolution.

He was dealing with something more specific where Renewal has taken in a lot of people who got into eastern religions or sufism or new age movements and when they re-engage and do dialogue with the Jewish tradition, I think there are areas that say, Buddhism and Judaism can discuss with each other and learn of other ways to think about concepts like yesh and ayin. Or there may be practices that become borrowed and translated, as useful tools, like kirtan. But then you have other situations where people, say, sit around on zafus to do something Jewish despite the fact that their bodies aren't used to that type of floor sitting and they'd be far more comfortable and better equipped if they were sitting in chairs. I don't see much of spiritual value in sitting on a zafu. It leads to greater discomfort and is only being done to conform with another religion which to me makes no sense at all.

umph, that's the point at which i have trouble with charismatic movements. i have no problem with rebbes, shaykhs, pirs, or what-have-you, but i don't care for this ours-is-the-holiest discourse. it's human tribalism in one of its most useless forms.

Agreed.


In continuing from my first and second posts, I'm including a list of those traditional principles listed as very important to Integral Halachah on page v (ibid.) I'm mostly paraphrasing this.

Hora'at Sha'ah -- "teaching for the hour"

This is all unvowelized and this next one's aramaic and long so here I'm just including the paraphrase from the book and citation: "You don't legislate what the community can't practice" Bavli Horayot 3b

Miphnei Darchei Shalom -- "for the sake of the ways of peace"

Takanat Ha-Kahal -- communities can legislate for themselves, bindingly, based on their community standards.

D'racheha darchei noam -- "Her ways are pleasant" interpreted as a standard for measuring viability.

 

[bananabrain]

for the sake of the Name, people who don't have a clear connection between what they have heard and the halachic sources should not rule for others... those who haven't read halachah in the original, who haven't pursued it and followed it, should not rule for others......And for yourself, consult...

this i can certainly get behind. but the thing that bothers me still a little is people ruling for themselves and it then not being obvious (or bothering them) that their conduct itself is seen to be effectively a ruling for others.

I did not stand up and defy so much convention in order to give people s'michah just to give permission to people to do things carelessly.

well, maybe the way he defied it wasn't clear enough? this sounds to me like he's trying to have his cake and eat it.

That's different though. It's just shifting to adopt the minhagim of one's partner.

i think you're failing to appreciate the serious halakhic status of a minhag here. the spiritual penalty for eating hametz on pessah, or not leaving enough time between meat and milk is pretty serious. you can't just change your minhag like that when you're dealing with the parameters of de'oraita prohibitions. breaking a neder has a similar spiritual penalty, which is why a valid halakhic method for extracting yourself from one that was incurred is such a serious undertaking, requiring 'eidim and everything. and, of course, needless to say, we need to understand the difference between a halakhah derived from minhag ha-kahal or minhag ha-maqom that has the force of a neder and a halakhah which is de'oraita.

My sense of the assumption made by Reb Zalman is that a system like Integral Halachah would not fully conform with the current ideas of any particular movement and would require some adjustment on all parts.

well, it's an approach or a methodology if you prefer, not a programme. but,like you say, it's not a million miles away from how i do things in the first place.

the shift he perceives toward a gaian paradigm of thought where we can perceive the earth organismically. He suggests we can talk about G!d on the galactic level, solar level, Gaian level and so on. For him the pictures of earth from space serve as a visual stand-in for that paradigm.

i don't see what the point of that is. and, besides, we have all the vocabulary for that already within the mystical tradition.

For example he discusses redefining the consensus of the pious to take into account the kavannah of individuals. on pages 49 and 50 (ibid) he says: "What I am trying to say is that the pious of our time are identified by the way in which they bring Jewish spiritual practice out into the world; how they make it come alive... [but that's not enough.] We also have to anchor our halachah in common practice."

hmmm. that isn't a solution if the community has to also factor in the fact that there is an indigestibly large part of the community that doesn't think you can be one of the "pious of our time" without a big black hat and a beard, or at least, be a Torah scholar. in other words, where are the boundaries?

Can you recommend anything specific by Kellner? Personally I find yeridat ha-dorot as it's sometimes used to justify not challenging standing rulings and ideas problematic and I haven't seen any serious attempts to reframe the issue.

sure -

Amazon.com: Maimonides on the "Decline of the Generations" and the Nature of Rabbinic Authority (S U N Y Series in Jewish Philosophy): Menachem Marc Kellner: Books

and

Amazon.com: Must a Jew Believe Anything? Second Edition with a New Afterword: Menachem Kellner: Books

the first is about rambam's attitude to YHD and how he thinks it doesn't work how people think it does nowadays, based on a close reading of even more important texts. the second is about what rambam was trying to achieve with the 13 principles and if it was anything like what people use them for now, generally a critique of systematic theology as a later idea in any case.

I do think what Reb Zalman's attempting goes a lot further than chiddush and that's imo why he's tried (and again, imo, failed) to connect the degree of the shifts today with the transitions going on as we shifted from the Temple Cult to rabbinic Judaism.

i can see why that is. he's kind of trying to make out that the sixties and the "age of aquarius" were a bigger deal than the shoah and the establishment of the state of israel. and if those haven't "taken" as paradigm shift, then it's hard to see how a bunch of hippies would qualify. damn, i hate hippies. respect my authoritaah. anyway, i digress.

Okay but an issue I have is, and this also goes back to the example Zalman gives of the shochet, neither of those is dealing with leniency. They're creating greater limitations for one reason or another.

yes, that is my problem in a nutshell. help, my problem is in a nutshell! how on earth did it get into this nutshell?

the examples you provide above in support of Torat Imecha are certainly in contrast to that.) How much precedent is there for hora'at sha'ah as a justification for leniency?

well, there's loads, look at all the sephardic responsa on conversos post-1492 for a start, especially in amsterdam. there you have a bunch of people really bending over backwards to keep everyone onside. i'm not even sure if that was hora'at sha'ah. kellner points out that the traditional orthodox response of having recourse to "tinok shenishb'a" is both ignorant and patronising.

I think there are areas that say, Buddhism and Judaism can discuss with each other and learn of other ways to think about concepts like yesh and ayin.

yes, that's called interfaith dialogue, surely?

"You don't legislate what the community can't practice" Bavli Horayot 3b

well, precisely! the trouble is when you start saying "well, the community *can* practice, look at all the frummers doing it. the rest of you just aren't trying hard enough."

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

I found this when I was looking for one of the links I included. It's the first 30 or so pages of Integral Halachah:

Integral Halachah: Transcending and ... - Google Book Search

this i can certainly get behind. but the thing that bothers me still a little is people ruling for themselves and it then not being obvious (or bothering them) that their conduct itself is seen to be effectively a ruling for others.

You mean in the same way that a person might see someone they assume is fairly observant eating a bacon cheeseburger at mcdonald's on yom kippur and take it as justification for their own actions?

My sense of the current renewal community is that for the most part they're just following the example of renewal rabbis and the issue becomes when those rabbis get careless with their application, which in my experience has happened and is the reason for that last passage addressed to the rabbis. The rabbis that I have found most worth paying attention to who come from Renewal either spent some time in an Orthodox yeshiva, graduated from JTS or have a background in Western scholarship, all of which lead to greater scholastic rigor in my experience. The thinkers and teachers in Renewal who I most appreciate are R' Zalman, R' Gershon Winkler, R' Moshe Waldoks, R' Arthur Green, R' David Ingber and R' Goldie Milgram. There are other people I'm sure who I'd appreciate equally, but they probably come from a similar background. There are those who don't come from that background I still find worthwhile to learn from, but not about matters so integral to Judaism, more about how to relate progressive values back to Jewish texts through midrash.

i think you're failing to appreciate the serious halakhic status of a minhag here. the spiritual penalty for eating hametz on pessah, or not leaving enough time between meat and milk is pretty serious. you can't just change your minhag like that when you're dealing with the parameters of de'oraita prohibitions. breaking a neder has a similar spiritual penalty, which is why a valid halakhic method for extracting yourself from one that was incurred is such a serious undertaking, requiring 'eidim and everything. and, of course, needless to say, we need to understand the difference between a halakhah derived from minhag ha-kahal or minhag ha-maqom that has the force of a neder and a halakhah which is de'oraita.

I understand that shifting minhagim isn't a simple task according to traditional halachah and that minhag can carry significant weight, and I admit that at the same time my familiarity with traditional categories for dealing with minhag isn't very strong, but I don't know that it's the same type of changes you'd see in what Integral Halachah is advocating. Do you mean that the halachic structures in place for dealing with minhag, with some work, might be a good source from which to develop a way of dealing with the types of things Integral Halachah is looking at?

i don't see what the point of that is. and, besides, we have all the vocabulary for that already within the mystical tradition.

Yeah and he doesn't hesitate to connect the two. He uses the gaian terminology as a metaphor to express religions as different organs, how a body can be healthy, the way permeable membranes at the cellular level should function, and so on. I think he's going with the gaian language based in the ways previous generations have borrowed from the theory of their day e.g. what a male and female each contribute to the birth of a child and looking for theological dimensions behind that (or seeing them.)

hmmm. that isn't a solution if the community has to also factor in the fact that there is an indigestibly large part of the community that doesn't think you can be one of the "pious of our time" without a big black hat and a beard, or at least, be a Torah scholar. in other words, where are the boundaries?

I'm not so sure. He's stated that he doesn't think we can define the consensus of the pious yet. At other times, the only thing he's really setup Renewal as opposite to is restoration. And there it's a matter of two different approaches to maintaining Judaism, not the communities that apply those approaches. I don't think he's foolish enough to think that the ultra-orthodox would just disappear but I'm not sure how he'd deal with that. I mean to me some of this is an issue in the current US administration (as I read it) where you have someone coming in that wants to compromise and bring people together, and the people he wants to work with have a very different agenda which leads him to cave a lot into their demands. The situation with the ultra-orthodox is similar and I don't have any sense of how one addresses that if one intends to include and be in dialogue with them.

I do know that Reb Zalman wrote a few tracts in Hebrew for the yeshivish community, but I've only seen one in translation and it was only a partial translation. I did read somewhere that it was his intent to present Renewal ideas in the language of the yeshiva and have, since that time, been really curious to know what he said there. I was just trying to find the translation I had found before (couldn't) and came across a transation of a different passage from one of those texts that was recently translated:

Reb Zalman Legacy Project Blog Archive For Purim

but at least to me that particular passage isn't dealing much with Renewal thought. It does compare a Jewish idea to a Christian one, which is atypical and maybe an attempt to seed a little doubt but it's not really clear to me.

Thanks for the book suggestions. I will definitely be adding the first one to my wishlist.

i can see why that is. he's kind of trying to make out that the sixties and the "age of aquarius" were a bigger deal than the shoah and the establishment of the state of israel. and if those haven't "taken" as paradigm shift, then it's hard to see how a bunch of hippies would qualify. damn, i hate hippies. respect my authoritaah. anyway, i digress.

I actually think he sees the Holocaust as playing into it, too, hearkening to death of G!d theology in a way with the decline of a previous paradigm. He does sometimes quote a drash by Shlomo Carlebach, based somehow in the writings of the Ishbitzer Rebbe on the red heifer. Shlomo said that with the shoah all of the Jewish community (nation of priests) came into contact with death. In order to purify themselves some people went to priests outside of the camp and got involved in Eastern religion. While he most definitely makes use of the "age of aquarius" language I do get the sense he sincerely sees those types of shifts happening in the world and in Judaism, and sees the tragedies of recent generations as just as important as some of the other things he discusses. To me, reading in those types of things is much like the Christians who try to read in the apocalypse. While I support the idea of re-structuring the basic principles of halachah, I don't buy into a lot of the theology used to back up that practice. If some type of restructuring is successful to any degree, maybe it will be because of wide adoption with a later generation serving as gemara to that mishna, relating it all back. I don't know that that's very likely though given some of the ideological shifts in Judaism over the past thousand or so years.

I think some of the way Zalman reads into events may go back to his experiences with Chabad. I do see a "renewed" messianism, as it were, in a lot of his writing. He just frames it all very differently, sorta like how hasidism reframed messianism in its origins.

I recalled this statement from an address he made which explicitly mentions the holocaust. It was as part of a roundtable discussion with the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu and a couple of others:

“Then came Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the moon walk, the Internet, and now, we can no longer afford any reality map that doesn’t base itself on organismic life, a view that sees us part of this living Gaia, this living planet. "

Reb Zalman Legacy Project Blog Archive Sitting With Questions It's super-condensed and there was an essay where he went back and broke down why he thought those matters were important but I can't find it at this time. Nonetheless it does appear he explicitly takes the shoah into account.

yes, that is my problem in a nutshell. help, my problem is in a nutshell! how on earth did it get into this nutshell?

I know sephardic authorities have tended to rule more leniently than ashkenazic authorities have, but has there been much in the way of reassessing the stringencies of the past? It seems like that's some of the dillema. With sefardim there are rulings that were lenient to begin with while ashkenazim have backed themselves into a corner. And they started backing into the corner so long ago that it's difficult to challenge its foundations. Reassessment just seems like a slow and arduous process that never goes very deep.

I also think there's some degree of tension that authorities are supposed to both rule like hillel and construct fences to protect the Torah. And I think today there're a great deal of fences that separate a sizable portion of the Jewish community from Torah.

yes, that's called interfaith dialogue, surely?

If from that dialogue Jewish theology can grow in response to what has been discussed, then yes.

-- Dauer

 

[17th Angel]

i can see why that is. he's kind of trying to make out that the sixties and the "age of aquarius" were a bigger deal than the shoah and the establishment of the state of israel. and if those haven't "taken" as paradigm shift, then it's hard to see how a bunch of hippies would qualify. damn, i hate hippies. respect my authoritaah. anyway, i digress.

I think it's more jealously than hate :S

You mean in the same way that a person might see someone they assume is fairly observant eating a bacon cheeseburger at mcdonald's on yom kippur

Loved that bit lol....

--

Don't expect me to follow suit and write an essay like you's twos I just reading and wanted to make a very short comment OY! I hope Netti doesn't slap my wrist.

 

[Avi]

I grew up in a Reform family that attended a Conservative shul, around 12 became intensely interested in Judaism. Over time I became both more religious and more liberal than my parents.

Hi Dauer, This sounds very Reconstructionist, are you a Mordachi Kaplan fan ?

I do believe in the importance of a halachic process,

Can you explain what you mean here ? Do you mean that we need laws ?

I also believe that the process the Orthodox maintain has become dead to many including myself and to apply it in its current form for us would be, imo, idolatrous.

That is farther than even I would go. But I am also sensitive to idolatry.

I reject the majority of maimonides' principles

Not sure about that, we will have to count.

I do not believe in an afterlife

I do not either, although I guess we really do not know.

nor do I believe in the messiah

I do not either, but I think the messiah might mean different things to different people.

I do probably maintain a greater deal of anthropomorphism than you because of my approach to G!d.

What do you mean by that ? I guess you probably do because that is low on my list of beliefs. Are you familiar with the notion of “Shechina” ? To me this is a manifestation of G-d, bb can you explain this notion fully ?

For me, it seems quite natural that humans would anthropomorphize the Infinite in order to relate to it.

I agree, it is quite natural. That does not make it correct.

 

[dauer]

Avi,

Hi Dauer, This sounds very Reconstructionist, are you a Mordachi Kaplan fan ?

Somewhat. Recon isn't spiritual enough for me. His approach jettisons too much that I find meaningful.

Can you explain what you mean here ? Do you mean that we need laws ?

Not laws, just structures, formalized methodologies. I think those structures should be fleshed out on the individual level but I like that greater degree of cohesiveness and rigor. I do probably place more emphasis on community than you do, but I also think that in the case of individual practices, community is less important. In the same way, family observances happen at the family level and need not imo take into account the community so much as actual communal practice. But I do think methodology is useful in both cases.

That is farther than even I would go. But I am also sensitive to idolatry.

Well I also consider some of what happens at the kotel idolatry as well as blind support and defense of the Israeli gov't by diaspora Jews. *shrugs*

Not sure about that, we will have to count.

I've counted before, but I'll go through them again for you:

"Belief in the existence of the Creator, be He Blessed, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists."

I reject the belief in a Creator which I see as an anthropomorphism. Nor do I believe in asserting any rigid theology about G!d. I think it's better to be fluid with one's theology and apply it as is most useful in a given situation.

"The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity."

I don't believe that G!d must be a unity. I don't think we have any way of knowing the true nature of G!d or that G!d exists at all, unless we're willing to redefine G!d as a psychological construct in which case I would assert that, since people can have experiences that they relate back to G!d, G!d must at the very least exist on the personal, subjective level for some people. If G!d exists only on the personal, subjective level for some people then G!d is not an absolute and unparalleled unity because He is divided among the psyches of many individuals with no connection between each aside from shared cultural biased and tendencies in the human mind toward certain experiences and in the human being toward labeling those experiences as related to the Divine.

"The belief in G-d's noncorporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling."

If G!d is really everything that exists then G!d is the most effected entity, not the least. I cannot eliminate the possibility that G!d is everything that exists.

"The belief in G-d's eternity."

Since I reject the idea that G!d must exist, I necessarily reject the idea of G!d's eternity. If G!d exists, G!d may or may not be eternal.

"The imperative to worship Him exclusively and no foreign false gods."

This I can agree with.

"The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy."

This I reject. However, if G!d is related the unconscious and prophecy is communication from the unconscious then prophecy exists.

"The belief that the prophecy of Moses our teacher has priority."

I accept the centrality of Torah.

"The belief in the divine origin of the Torah."

I reject this. I see sacred texts as sacred because of the perspectives of the communities that hold them so.

"The belief in the immutability of the Torah."

Reject.

"The belief in divine omniscience and providence."

Reject, obviously.

"The belief in divine reward and retribution."

Reject.

"The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era."

Reject.

"The belief in the resurrection of the dead."

Reject of course any formulation since I don't hold belief in an afterlife.

Medieval Sourcebook: Maimonides: The 13 Principles and the Resurrection of the Dead

I do not either, although I guess we really do not know.

I don't either. I'm agnostic to most theological and metaphysical questions, even when I accept a certain view because I find value in it. If I am agnostic to a belief then I reject the belief. I'm certainly open to the possibility that I am wrong.

I do not either, but I think the messiah might mean different things to different people.

It does mean different things to different people. We can talk about an individual messiah or a messianic age. In both cases, there's variation in belief about the nature of each.

What do you mean by that ? I guess you probably do because that is low on my list of beliefs. Are you familiar with the notion of “Shechina” ? To me this is a manifestation of G-d, bb can you explain this notion fully ?

I mean that my focus is on the experiential and psychological, and as such I see no issue with constructing interfaces for interaction with G!d. I do however, think there is a very big difference between using anthropomorphisms and asserting that they are really the way things are. If Torah speaks in the language of man, why should we not do so when we whisper sweet nothings to our Beloved?

I'm well aware of the shechina though to say "the notion" is to suggest there's only one perspective on what the shechina is or how we can relate to it. Certainly, at the very least, the shechina encompasses the Divine presence. It's the rabbinic word that comes to replace kavod, related to "mishkan." But the shechina can also be an element of the Divine feminine. There are other elements of the Divine feminine but the shechina tends to get a lot of face-time. In this way we can talk about shechina embodies as the "Sabbath Queen or Bride" as well as by the Torah itself. Think of how we walk her around in procession before carefully and lovingly undressing her during the Torah service. When shechina is seen as malchut, we can look at the relationship between her and the other sefirot, especially through Tiferet, HKB"H. If you're interested in the concept of shechina, imo a good place to start is The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai. It covers the evolution of the concept among other things.

There is a hasidic hanhagah, an instructional teaching, that I'm fond of. I forget who gave it but the essence is that, when one davvens, as one is shuckling, a person should imagine that he is making love to the shechina. Start slowly and as you continue gradually increase speed. When you get to the amidah just stand in stillness in that Divine embrace and pour out your heart.

-- Dauer

 

[rebzgabbai]

Shalom uvrachah:
Dauer: I really appreciate your efforts to share concepts from Reb Zalman’s book, "Integral Halachah: Transcending and Including."

The book helped me to understand that one's practices matter and that they potentially can influence the halachah of tomorrow.

I used to not hold this belief. My take away from my barely adequate Jewish education was that experimentation seemed to be strictly forbidden, and that one had to wait until one was told by a halachic authority that it was okay to do something. Otherwise, we were taking matters into our own hands and thereby being transgressors.

I don’t like this idea which tends to get in the way of my joy. (I should add that I am not trying to be a sinner or a bad person or to make a space for me to rationalize things. I am really serious about this.)

I realized, after reading this book, that my impressions were more a matter of my ignorance; and that the process of Halachah is one which is less rigid and more reasonable than I had previously thought.

Here’s a quote of Reb Zalman’s from another place (A talk on Davenology from the yishmiru data dvd). I am including it here because I believe that the same approach he outlines for Davenology was in effect as he pioneered his work on psycho-halachah (aka integral halachah):

“There is an aspect to davenology which is empirical, that is to say, it becomes transformative. When we do it the way in which it needs to be done, it shows itself in our lives. The wonderful Psalm 19 has 'torat hashem t’mimah meshivat nofesh' / 'the torah of God is perfect.' Why? 'Because it restores the soul.'
I’ve come to read this backwards and say, that which restores the soul and gets it to grow, that is torah.
'Edut Adonay neemana machkimat peti' / what are the witnesses of God? 'They are the things that make a fool smart.'
So I see that whatever it is that we learn that make a fool smart, that’s divine witness.
So as you see it’s from there, from that empirical quality that, when added to what we learn from Kabbalah and from the siddur and from our tradition, gives us a whole and complete remarkable system that is on the level of sophistication I think, at least as great as Patanjali’s and all the others that are there.”
​

I think that he is coming from the same place with Psycho-Halachah. But he is not ruling for our generation. And without reading the book, it is easy to come away with the impression that this is a chutzpadike book where someone who has exalted himself is trying to replace something. I really don't think this is an accurate impression.

Here's a brief illustration of how things might really work here: Reb Zalman gives an example in the book about Yaakov avinu olav hashalom marking the rock with oil at Beth El.

Was Yaakov avinu following halachah or was he creating a practice?

Things progress from people doing things empirically that work, that have an effect. The practicality is recognized by others until it becomes part of a local communiy's adoption. That in turn may lead to the establishment of a minhag and finally to the codification of a din. Just because they say that a practice is halachah l-moshe misinai does not mean that this intuitive and empirical approach isn’t what really happened.

It's not hard to imagine that Yaakov's action at Beth El was somehow connected to the later use of oil for anointing.

And so, just as we now see the B'nai tallis in frum settings, so may we one day see vegetarians wearing tefillin made of wood or ceramics. It will start quietly and will one day become an accepted halachah. And this, despite the fact that we now consider leather for tefillin halachah l-moshe misinai / something Moses had transmitted to us as he heard it directly from the gevurah.

Yaasher koch’cha for attempts to make sense of and explain these materials and sei gesund.

PS. I did not identify with the term chosid when I first met Reb Zalman in 1989, and I was skeptical about the idea of Rebbe as I understood it. I did not trust anyone with that and I was always skeptical to take on someone as my master. But I must say that I often feel dwarfed in comparison to Reb Zalman and his knowledge.

Im yirtz hashem, history will find his rightful place and time will tell regarding his legacy.

 

[dauer]

Thanks for adding to the conversation, Seth. It helped to clarify a few things. And I certainly resonate with the following statements:

...one's practices matter and that they potentially can influence the halachah of tomorrow...

"...I’ve come to read this backwards and say, that which restores the soul and gets it to grow, that is torah..."

...Things progress from people doing things empirically that work... The practicality is recognized by others until it becomes part of a local communiy's adoption. That in turn may lead to the establishment of a minhag and finally to the codification of a din...

I would take it from your explanation that, at least as you read it, the guiding direction of Integral Halachah is toward what works on the level of the soul and the rest of the structure is that which makes room for the soul's growth and provides supports along that path. And that is the meaning intended by "Her ways are ways of pleasantness."

 

[rebzgabbai]

... the guiding direction of Integral Halachah is toward what works on the level of the soul and the rest of the structure is that which makes room for the soul's growth and provides supports along that path. And that is the meaning intended by "Her ways are ways of pleasantness."

I like it!

 

[bananabrain]

You mean in the same way that a person might see someone they assume is fairly observant eating a bacon cheeseburger at mcdonald's on yom kippur and take it as justification for their own actions?

exactly. "monkey see, monkey do" - or "ma'arat 'ayin". however, that's a mainly visual concept, i wonder how far it can truly be applied? there does seem to be a version of that in the hasidic "i've come to see how the rebbe tied his shoes" idea, or the more yeshivish "din Torah", but i think those are really quite modern ideas and therefore perhaps not so integral.

The thinkers and teachers in Renewal who I most appreciate are R' Zalman, R' Gershon Winkler, R' Moshe Waldoks, R' Arthur Green, R' David Ingber and R' Goldie Milgram.

i've only met moshe waldoks out of them, but i have art green's intro to the zohar, which i found most illuminating, also goldie milgrom's "renewing judaism as a spiritual practice" which i found rather too hippy-dippy-happy-clappy-wishy-washy for my liking, although there are a couple of interesting ideas in there.

my familiarity with traditional categories for dealing with minhag isn't very strong, but I don't know that it's the same type of changes you'd see in what Integral Halachah is advocating. Do you mean that the halachic structures in place for dealing with minhag, with some work, might be a good source from which to develop a way of dealing with the types of things Integral Halachah is looking at?

yes, that's what i mean.

the only thing he's really setup Renewal as opposite to is restoration

if i understand you correctly, i think the two might be equally chimeric.

The situation with the ultra-orthodox is similar and I don't have any sense of how one addresses that if one intends to include and be in dialogue with them.

i think from my experience you have to make it beyond dispute that you are absolutely coming from a place of respect and also knowledge. and, also, bear in mind that change can come from unexpected places:

Top Sephardi rabbi rules women may chant Scroll of Esther for men - Haaretz - Israel News

I actually think he sees the Holocaust as playing into it, too, hearkening to death of G!d theology in a way with the decline of a previous paradigm.

but that, if you ask me, was also a boomer phenomenon.

While I support the idea of re-structuring the basic principles of halachah, I don't buy into a lot of the theology used to back up that practice.

i don't know about that. i think i find the theology somehow more persuasive than the approach to halakhah. what i guess i am arguing for is a change to the *ideology* of halakhah, not so much a change in process, but a change in results. i believe halakhah is flexible enough to achieve this if only the rabbinic will can be found.

Then came Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the moon walk, the Internet, and now, we can no longer afford any reality map that doesn’t base itself on organismic life, a view that sees us part of this living Gaia, this living planet.

i agree, but this for me is not only part of what is driving groups like hazon but also something which existing halakhic categories can drive. my problem is with people's *priorities*, in which the size of your kazayit, tefach or revi'it is more important than your use of disposable cutlery, urns and silver foil (in terms of something de'oraita like ba'al taschit) or how you relate to non-jews (in terms of something equally de'oraita like kiddush haShem).

With sefardim there are rulings that were lenient to begin with while ashkenazim have backed themselves into a corner. And they started backing into the corner so long ago that it's difficult to challenge its foundations. Reassessment just seems like a slow and arduous process that never goes very deep.

well, this goes back to how the enlightenment hacked away the foundations of much of what both groups held dear; in one case it was the inroads made by classical reform and in the case of the sefardim, it was the impact of the "alliance" system on the traditional communities. that's what makes them feel so embattled.

I also think there's some degree of tension that authorities are supposed to both rule like hillel and construct fences to protect the Torah. And I think today there're a great deal of fences that separate a sizable portion of the Jewish community from Torah.

oh, i so agree with that.

I also believe that the process the Orthodox maintain has become dead to many including myself and to apply it in its current form for us would be, imo, idolatrous.

i believe that the way that the process is implemented is in many cases sterile if not dead. 'owevair, that can be remedied through the process itself imo.

Well I also consider some of what happens at the kotel idolatry as well as blind support and defense of the Israeli gov't by diaspora Jews.

hmm. i certainly think there is an "idolatry of the geography" that exists in the sense that it requires human sacrifice. i think the kotel issue is slightly different, but i do take your point.

as for your point-by-point deconstruction of the 13 principles, you're aware, presumably, that even in the hebrew, there are different formulations. the hebrew is memorably terse.

"The belief in G-d's noncorporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling."

in hebrew, "she'ein-lo guf, we'ein lo demuth ha-guf", that G!D Has no body, nor any appearance of one. i'm not surprised you object to this translation. the same can be said for most of these.

We can talk about an individual messiah or a messianic age. In both cases, there's variation in belief about the nature of each.

but on matters such as this, individual opinions are perfectly acceptable.

I do however, think there is a very big difference between using anthropomorphisms and asserting that they are really the way things are. If Torah speaks in the language of man, why should we not do so when we whisper sweet nothings to our Beloved?

ok, that does it, i'm going to have to refer to G!D as "B!G B!Y". hur hur hur.

There are other elements of the Divine feminine but the shechina tends to get a lot of face-time. In this way we can talk about shechina embodies as the "Sabbath Queen or Bride"

well, this is kind of why judaism only really started to speak to me in integral terms when i discovered how the mystical tradition relates to G!D. that's what the song of songs is for.

the Torah itself. Think of how we walk her around in procession before carefully and lovingly undressing her during the Torah service.

ah, but that for me is not a "beloved" thing in that sense. the Torah, there, for me, is a child, a baby even, because of the carrying. there's a birth thing going on there, which has implications for the ark that i tend not to go into in detail unless there's a frummer really annoying me.

If you're interested in the concept of shechina, imo a good place to start is The Hebrew Goddess by Raphael Patai. It covers the evolution of the concept among other things.

among other things indeed. i think patai would have been quite surprised at the effect this book had on *me*, particularly in conjunction with some stuff i don't expect he was aware of or considering.

There is a hasidic hanhagah, an instructional teaching, that I'm fond of. I forget who gave it but the essence is that, when one davvens, as one is shuckling, a person should imagine that he is making love to the shechina. Start slowly and as you continue gradually increase speed. When you get to the amidah just stand in stillness in that Divine embrace and pour out your heart.

although jewish approaches to tantra are done in other ways as well. i should point out that we don't follow this hanhagah when actually carrying the scroll, which is probably just as well all things considered.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

BB,

exactly. "monkey see, monkey do" - or "ma'arat 'ayin". however, that's a mainly visual concept, i wonder how far it can truly be applied? there does seem to be a version of that in the hasidic "i've come to see how the rebbe tied his shoes" idea, or the more yeshivish "din Torah", but i think those are really quite modern ideas and therefore perhaps not so integral.

I think Seth's post above provides some insight into that.

i believe halakhah is flexible enough to achieve this if only the rabbinic will can be found.

I think that's closer to the case made by Gershon Winkler in his book on the subject:

The Way of the Boundary Crosser: An ... - Google Book Search

my problem is with people's *priorities*, in which the size of your kazayit, tefach or revi'it is more important than your use of disposable cutlery, urns and silver foil (in terms of something de'oraita like ba'al taschit) or how you relate to non-jews (in terms of something equally de'oraita like kiddush haShem).

So for you the issue isn't the process of halachah so much as the focus on trivialities over matters that mean something tangible and impactful?

and in the case of the sefardim, it was the impact of the "alliance" system on the traditional communities.

Can you explain that for me? I don't know what you're referring to.

i believe that the way that the process is implemented is in many cases sterile if not dead. 'owevair, that can be remedied through the process itself imo.

How do you see that playing out, the rejuvination of halachah?

as for your point-by-point deconstruction of the 13 principles, you're aware, presumably, that even in the hebrew, there are different formulations. the hebrew is memorably terse.

Yes I realize that too. But given that I reject the belief that G!d exists outside of the human psyche it's difficult to find any formula I agree with much at all.

in hebrew, "she'ein-lo guf, we'ein lo demuth ha-guf", that G!D Has no body, nor any appearance of one. i'm not surprised you object to this translation. the same can be said for most of these.

Yes but if G!d is everything I disagree with that too. That would mean that G!d has many bodies. However, if we said that G!d is not, in totality, a body, that I wouldn't object to.

but on matters such as this, individual opinions are perfectly acceptable.

Yes, I wasn't debating that. I was just stating to Avi that I reject belief in either a messiah or a messianic age.

ah, but that for me is not a "beloved" thing in that sense. the Torah, there, for me, is a child, a baby even, because of the carrying. there's a birth thing going on there, which has implications for the ark that i tend not to go into in detail unless there's a frummer really annoying me.

I like that reading of it too. Do you connect that to the way you read it once before about emanation?

among other things indeed. i think patai would have been quite surprised at the effect this book had on *me*, particularly in conjunction with some stuff i don't expect he was aware of or considering.

Can you say more about that?

-- Dauer