Mobi-
Who is the eiver? You seem to be aware of everything bush is up to. What makes you think you have superior knowledge to the rest of us. And even if this wasnt the case, we dimwitted, ignorant folks always have the great privilege of learning this information from your wealth of knowledge If people refuse to take heed to your warnings, thats their fault. They were warned. So either way, no one is an eiver.

“the amount of frum prejudice behind such critiques is so extreme… ”
Maybe the frum are tired of seeing their religion abused by leftist sorcerer’s apprentices.

“the apprentices are sick of watching the sorcerers ravage the laboratory.”
The apprentices don’t have any idea what’s in the laboratory (sorcerers work in labs?!). They don’t even care. They’re like people who wear a band’s T-shirt but can barely name one song.
“what tikkun are you making on this olam if you are not bringing compassion, kindness and peace to the world?”
Kind of broad, isn’t that? I’ll let you figure out my response:
a) Compassion? Kindness? Peace? Gee, I never thought of that…
b) Who the hell needs compassion, kindness or peace?
c) My ideas on how to increase compassion, kindness and peace are different from yours. And better supported by Jewish texts.
“judaism is a folk tradition — an oral tradition ”
Where did you get that from? Even in the case of the oral part of our tradition, it was always 1) based upon Scriptures and 2) hasn’t been oral for 1500-1800 years. And “folk tradition”? Judaism has largely been molded by an elite (mostly meritocratic) at least since Rabbinic times.
“and its status of fixed legalities is a result of textual fundamentalism, which is a side-effect of its preservation, not the desired end in itself.”
Bold and unfounded. Which “fixed legalities” are the side effects and which are the desired ends? And if the answer to that is preference, you’ve reduced Judaism to an empty shell.

Town Crier-
How did he stretch it?

If the Reform movement passed a resolution that 2+2 is 4, Shafran would find a way to argue that it was 5.
If the Rambam permits extraordinary actions in order “to strike fear and shatter the strength of the world’s perpetrators of evil”, there is no evidence that Bush’s policies are accomplishing that. On the contrary, these policies seem more targeted to strike fear into the American voters.

i think progressives call themselves progressive because a fairly well-financed conservative media propaganda campaign smeared the word “liberal” until it wasn’t suitable for public discourse anymore.

Screw it – tak shafran’s own advice and google the term, you’ll find much better interpretation than his. Read this speech given by Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks of England http://www.ou.org/public/publib/tikkun.htm
http://www.ou.org/public/publib/tikkun.htm

A little late, but I want to respond to Mobius (comment #13).
“the talmud is a personal and interpersonal conversation structured in such a way to resurrect our (otherwise feared lost) communal dialogue and our personal dialogue with the divine, enabling us to pull it off the pages and back into our lives. ”
Source, please? Sorry. As is clear to anyone who studies it, the Talmud is largely a conversation between a small elite group of Rabbis (small considering that they are stretched over the 300 years between 200 CE and 500 CE), the experts of their day. Not between anyone in the community with an agenda. If this seems too elitist for you, you are free to complain about or ignore the Talmud. But don’t misrepresent it.
“a post-exilic jew is one who lives jewish law in fluid conversation with his fellow, not one who restricts himself to the discourse of his ancestors.”
Yes. That’s why I greatly appreciate, for example, the writings of Rabbi S.R. Hirsch and others who followed his lead. Your assumption that contemporary discussion must overturn or contradict the previous discourse (rather than add to or illuminate it) is unwarranted and wrong.
“as kaplan would say, halakha has a vote, not a veto. ”
Kaplan can (could) do as he wishes. It’s a free country. But if you read the Bible, or Talmud, or Rambam or Shulchan Aruch, it could not be more clear that the rules they discuss are meant to be binding. And this was the understanding of virtually all Jews until the modern era. If you don’t believe halacha is binding, that’s your choice; but don’t tell me that this view is Judaism.
Now for comment 18:
“however, should we take the very bare essentials by which jews connect to yiddishkeit, the thread by which they connect to their heritage, throw it back in their faces and call them ignorant fools?”
I think you have the sequence wrong. After 200 years of every ignoramus with an agenda claiming Judaism for himself and distorting it beyond recognition, it’s entirely proper and constructive to call these people on it and try to set the record straight.
“none in this generation is capable of giving proper tokhakha. there are better ways of saying, “you have much to learn young skyewalker.”
Absolutely stunning. Your lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. Just in the last few days alone, you devoted entire posts to severe criticisms of right wingers and Orthodox. Here, let me help you say what you really mean:
“none in this generation is capable of giving proper tokhakha – EXCEPT ME.”
And by the way, young Skywalker wasn’t getting in Kenobi’s and Yoda’s faces about how his own ideas about the Force were right, and theirs were outdated and wrong.

Source, please? Sorry. As is clear to anyone who studies it, the Talmud is largely a conversation between a small elite group of Rabbis (small considering that they are stretched over the 300 years between 200 CE and 500 CE), the experts of their day. Not between anyone in the community with an agenda. If this seems too elitist for you, you are free to complain about or ignore the Talmud. But don’t misrepresent it.
you’re completely missing my point. the oral tradition was very much a folk tradition until it was written down. i’m not disputing the fact that the talmud was written by the most esteemed and learned members of the community. what i’m saying that it was not intended to be written down as a final statement on the law of the jewish people. it was written to keep the elements of our oral tradition alive so that we can retain our connection to our heritage and one another as a people in exile. the shulchan aruch is also preceded with the warning that it should never be written down but that fear of our traditions’ loss in exile necessitated it. the point of learning jewish law is to keep the discourse, the conversation about the law alive. to keep the process of legal reasoning going. to keep not just the traditions themselves alive, but the tradition of examining the traditions alive. it is not intended to lock us into the past, but to keep us moving forward.
Your assumption that contemporary discussion must overturn or contradict the previous discourse (rather than add to or illuminate it) is unwarranted and wrong.
i never said that at all. what did i write? “nobody said there weren’t margins. no one said that there isn’t a framework. you bring an argument for reinvention to push the values of the tradition forward — to actualize them — not to throw them away.” a friend suggested i use the word “translation” as opposed to “reinvention.” we’re translating the concept so as to be relevant to the modern paradigm.
your dispute is, i don’t know enough about judaism to translate anything. i would say i never proclaimed myself to be an expert, but i’m certainly not ignorant and i’m certainly doing my research.
But if you read the Bible, or Talmud, or Rambam or Shulchan Aruch, it could not be more clear that the rules they discuss are meant to be binding. And this was the understanding of virtually all Jews until the modern era. If you don’t believe halacha is binding, that’s your choice; but don’t tell me that this view is Judaism.
and that’s where i think you’re wrong. there is no one halakha. there have always been pathways through halakha. there have always been different communities and individuals practicing things differently. there have always been sects and movements splitting off from one another on major halakhic issues. jewish practice has become, in some circles, more restrictive than it’s ever been, and in other circles, freer than it’s ever been, and i think that, all throughout jewish history, there has been that pulling in both directions. halakha is only as binding as the community feels bound to it. some eat kitniyot, some don’t.
I think you have the sequence wrong. After 200 years of every ignoramus with an agenda claiming Judaism for himself and distorting it beyond recognition, it’s entirely proper and constructive to call these people on it and try to set the record straight.
the orthodox have been doing the same thing for longer than 200 years.
“Lamenting the state of hasidic Judaism in Poland, The Yehudi once spoke to R’ Bunim, saying, ‘I thought to myself, after Moses there came the Judges; and after the Judges there came the Prophets; and afterwards the Men of the Great Assembly; and after them the Tanayim, the Amorayim, and the Poskim. And afterwards were those who reproved for the sake of heaven; and then that degenerated and there were many reprovers for the sake of heaven. And then that degenerated for there were many reprovers who were not genuine. And afterwards came the Rebbes. And therefore I’m groaning for I see that that too will degenerate — and what will the Jewish people do?’
Absolutely stunning. Your lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. Just in the last few days alone, you devoted entire posts to severe criticisms of right wingers and Orthodox. Here, let me help you say what you really mean:
go back and look at the posts. how often do i insert an opinion and how often do i just present the articles and let them speak for themselves? in the case of the jib post, i asked a question: which is a more effective form of israel advocacy, screaming for arab blood or accepting responsibility for our hand in this mess?
And by the way, young Skywalker wasn’t getting in Kenobi’s and Yoda’s faces about how his own ideas about the Force were right, and theirs were outdated and wrong.
i don’t get in people’s faces. maybe kelsey does. that’s his thing. i post articles. you don’t like the articles i think are important enough to post. then you back me into the corner of defending the articles or my reasons for posting the article which you generally presume because its rare that i interject my own opinion.
in this post i asked a simple question, knowing full well that shafran’s entire thing doesn’t matter at all because bush isn’t a jewish king seated over a sovereign israel. the question was, if a king has a record of misleading the public, can he be entrusted with carrying out extrajudicial executions? is that tikkun olam? i think that’s a fair question ask.
then i said, traditionally, haven’t we always taken things that originally meant something very different, and then reworked them to mean something new? and then i provided a case of that: lo b’shamayim hi. moshe says the law is not in heaven, the law is here in your hands, in this torah which i gave you. and before that he says, do not deviate to the left or the right from any of the commandmants i enjoin upon you this day. and then in the case of achnai’s oven, eliezer says, “the law” (which he takes from the torah) “is this!” and that bat kol says, “yes, he is right!” and the rabbeim say, “lo bashamayim hi! it’s in our hands!” and they invoke that to bypass what is clear from the torah. and this is a constant theme in the case of reb eliezer who is constantly berated for not being innovative and inventive with torah and “making it his own.” they looked down on him because he was great at teaching other people’s material but never came up with his own torah.
now, you’re saying, “you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. shut up. you don’t have a place from which to talk.”
you never once for a moment engaged the texts i brought up. you brushed them off. you ignored them. instead, you sidelined the torah i raised to tell me i don’t know torah.
now which of my original two points is a statement that what orthodox people believe is outdated or wrong? which of those points is not entirely predicated on legitimate torah? which of those points is being misrepresented?
i asked questions about halakha, and you took a big shit on me.

Baron Yakov brings up some interesting points, some I agree with, some I don’t. Clearly, there’s much more to say about these topics; we could fill books, and I’m not sure if the readership would find it interesting. But here goes…
First, bear in mind that regarding innovation in Judaism, there are dozens of opinions WITHIN Orthodoxy alone, and dozens without. I wrote in very general terms in order to refute Mobius’ statements. So general, in fact, that pretty much the entire Orthodox spectrum, and a great many Conservatives, could agree. Within this generality, I have my own opinions, and they aren’t always those of R. Shafran.
“On the latter, he argued that Judaism isn’t all that flexible after all, and that, at the very least, you have to learn a lot of stuff before you get a seat at the table.”
Actually, no, I went out of my way to minimize the amount of knowledge needed to participate in the debate. I listed very specific research items. It’s not my intention to lock out the entire Jewish people from the discussion outside of a handfull of experts; however, a bare minimum of knowledge is of course required.
“Lost in the theoretical debate, though, are Rabbi Shafran’s selective quoting and inaccurate representation of Tikkun Olam. True, Maimonides uses the term, but no one, in the academy, the religious world, or anywhere else, uses his iteration of the term — it would be like talking about the Sefer Yetzirah’s “sefirot” instead of the Zohar’s.”
Rabbi Shafran mentioned the Kabbalistic use of “Tikkun Olam” in his article. He didn’t deny what you’re saying here. He simply found it odd that one of the major uses of the term was employed by a major source as coming down on the opposite side of the ‘progressives’ who so love to talk about Tikkun Olam. I think you are fundamentally (oops!) misreading the Shafran article. He’s not building a serious case that Tikkun Olam definitely supports Bush’s policies and opposes those of the ‘Progressives’. More like a tweak of the Left’s presumption and ignorance.
“For hundreds of years, the creativity and flexibility which Mobius promotes, and “J” decries, have been used on the Right as well as the Left.”
It’s not nearly that simple. It’s not “creativity” and “flexibility” per se that I have a problem with. It’s creativity without basis (or even reference, beyond superficial semantics) in what came before, and/or creativity that contradicts what came before. It’s “flexibility” that doesn’t just bend, but breaks.
“On the Right, the Chatam Sofer’s “Ein Hidush BaTorah” is a good example — the claim that no hiddush is ever permissible, even though for hundreds of years hiddushim were not only permitted but encouraged. ”
That’s not an example. Name your examples of hiddushim on the right. (Also note that the Chatam Sofer means something very specific by “hiddushim”, and that not every Orthodox authority would agree.)
“Everybody is flexible when they want to be, and rigid that they want to be.”
That’s pretty far-reaching and cynical. And you haven’t made a case for it. Some examples, please.
“Mobius is correct, though, that the Talmudic rabbis themselves were innovators, and left behind a textual tradition that does invite interpretation, minority opinion, etc.”
The extent of the innovation has of course been heavily argued, and a person’s view on this subject will be heavily dependent on which denomination the person belongs to. However, innovation based on a political agenda with a small fig-leaf of traditional terms by people ignorant of the tradition is outside the scope of the innovations of the Talmudic rabbis.
“If one applies the question of “Tikkun Olam” to “J”’s tests — basis in scripture, respect for precedent, based on good scholarship, etc. — then the Left-wing interpretation certainly passes, and the Right-wing one, though more of a stretch, does too.”
What exactly is the “right-wing” one? And how would the Rambam’s view be a stretch?
“True, the notion is that halacha is binding. However, cases like the prozbul, the ben sorer u’moreh, the gzerot against polygamy, and countless others show that while halacha is binding, precedent is played with so much that to say it’s really binding is a bit misleading. “J” is right that precedent is played with, traditionally, only by experts — but s/he is wrong if s/he suggests that it wasn’t played with at all. ”
Again, the extent of the “playing” is part of the difference between the denominations. But regardless, the question of the extent to which precedent can be modified is separate and distinct from the question of whether halacha is binding (or does prozbul bother you so much that the entire system becomes disqualified?).
“So then the only question is what qualifies one as an expert. Traditionally, the requirements are being able to poskin on issues of milk and meat, menstrual blood, and/or one other topic which escapes me at the moment — these are the classical Orthodox criteria for becoming a rabbi. Most responsible rabbis also require more “humanistic” qualities as well, but those are the formal ones. ”
Those are the criteria for obtaining smicha, yes, but I don’t think any Jewish community would consider that minimal level adequate to decide on major issues. Probably the minimum to decide major issues would be knowledge of the entire Talmud with major commentaries and the Shulchan Aruch, along with expertise (or diligent research) in the topic at hand.
“I think what Mobius is really objecting to here is the authoritarian model in general, because it offends his deeply-held anti-authoritarian beliefs. That is, indeed, the interesting difference between Mobius and “J” as regards the Jewish tradition and where it stands on that issue.”
That’s an overblown distinction. Is it “authoritarian” to insist on a minimal level of knowledge? And if the traditional view of Judaism supported Mobius’ beliefs, would he be complaining about authoritarianism?
“As Mobius learns more about, e.g., the period of the Shoftim and how Chazal preferred that period (despite all the chaos) to that of monarchy, and things like that, then he’ll be able better to play the same game of finding within Jewish tradition the sources that support his view… maybe even as well as Rabbi Shafran, one day. ”
I don’t see how a preference for the Shoftim over the King (degree of POLITICAL authoritarianism) lines up with a preference for RELIGIOUS anarchy over knowledge and precedent-based expertise. And again, that’s a very cynical statement. Do you really believe that ANY view can be as equally supported in the tradition as any other view?