Comments on: Whose Torah?

By: Kol Ra'ash Gadol

Kol Ra'ash Gadol — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:38:36 +0000

Even some kind of gematriah or pilpul would be preferable to saying that a particular law is â€œnot in keeping with our modern sensibilities.â€ But hey, at least the struggle for equality and the desire to pursue justice is still there.

er, there were certainly things in the Dorff, Reisner Nevins tshuva that I thought were somewhat open to argument, shall we say, but they didn’t say (maybe I should go look again) that they were reinterpreting on the basis of “not in keeping with our modern sensibilities” except insofar as why they were engaging in the project. My understanding of the tshuvah is that they were reinterpreting based on the talmudic sources which cal into question exactly what acts are forbidden (the talmud says the toraitic verses are specifically referring to a particular act of hachnasat atarah) and to override the lesser prohibitions which are not prohibited by those verses (but only as acts of lewdness) as based on kavod habriyot. It’s a stretch certainly, but I think it’s probably the best effort yet that falls within halakhic parameters. (that would be the recourse to halakhic basis you mention) Sketchy, but not impossible.

By: Goyisher Yid

Goyisher Yid — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:47:43 +0000

Thanks for helping me take another book off my reading list, feygele. I’m glad I didn’t waste my time. What saddens me is that anyone with a semichah in liberal Judaism would take such a narrow, prescriptive position. If the reason for liberal interpretation is to maximize tolerance and give everyone room, then it defeats the purpose to load it down with dogma. But at least among the most narrow-minded of traditional Jews, there is a basis in fact, historicity, and Torah. Here, we seem to see little more than personal opinion and the “way things ought to be” (and little use for religion except as means to an end). In terms of sex and sexuality, I see much more encouraging things from the CJLS — even if I don’t quite get how a responsum can dismiss an accepted element of halachah without recourse to some sort of halachic basis. I’m thinking of last year’s rulings of homosexuality here. Even some kind of gematriah or pilpul would be preferable to saying that a particular law is “not in keeping with our modern sensibilities.” But hey, at least the struggle for equality and the desire to pursue justice is still there.

By: Desh

Desh — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:47:09 +0000

Every time I scroll past and see this post’s subject, I can’t help but think to myself, “Run’s Torah!”

By: feygele

feygele — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:54:38 +0000

KRG - Your comment makes sense, and helps me better understand the intro to the book. She made several generalising statements along the lines of, “as progressive Jews we all obviously agree that G-d is made up” and “as progressive Jews we all know the Torah was not from G-d/Sinai.” If she were trying to be open to the fact that Jews could be progressive, regardless of denominations or beliefs, this would be a horrible assumption to make (and one that I just couldn’t figure out). Putting it within the context you’ve provided, she seems to, unfortunately, have a very narrow view of what Judaism, and who Jews, ought to be. Alas.

By: Kol Ra'ash Gadol

Kol Ra'ash Gadol — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 02:23:45 +0000

My longest exposures to Rebecca Alpert have not left me with a fabulous impression of either her knowledge or her Judaism. She calls herself “rabbi” to write the book, but she publicly commented (at the Rabbis for Human Rights conference two years ago (there were like 200 people in the room; surely I’m not the only one who heard this!), I can’t recall exactly how she said it, though) that she basically didn’t think much of Judaism as a tradition, leaving me wondering why she kept the title “rabbi,” then. She went on to be dismissive of religious Jews (which includes, not only those in the Orthodox world, but also those who take their tradition seriously in the Conservative and liberal movements; as far as I can tell, she was including anyone who wasn’t willing to buy her version as that kind of Jew)
Since then, I have heard little to improve my opinion; I would hesitate to call her a progressive Jew then, except insofar as someone who has a Jewish background (which is totally fine, but if that’s what you are, please own up to it and don’t call yourself “rabbi”!)

By: Amit

Amit — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:16:34 +0000

All you have to do is change the title to “My Torah”.

By: MikedKike

MikedKike — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:37:45 +0000

These quotes, even out of context, are horrifyingly inaccurate, not to mention self-contradictory! Did anyone edit this book?

I’m all in favor of progressive Judaism challenging the system, but this is not the way to do it. It underscores an ignorance of primary sources and a willingness to skew textual reading beyond the boundaries of credibility.