Date: Sat, 3 Jun 1995 19:42:40 -0400 From: ShSchaffer@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: New Talmud for Humanistic Jews To hj@teleport.com: Walter Hellman, or whoever else is honchoing this list: I hope I have followed the correct procedure for submitting some ideas for discussion. Please advise if I have erred. Sheldon Schaffer ----------- In the Spring 1995 issue of Humanistic Judaism, I have an article on the desirability of developing a new Talmud, especially for non-traditional Jews. I am interested in receiving constructive reactions from those who may be subscribers and have access to the article. For those who don't, here is a quick synopsis: The major point is that the loss of commitment to Judaism among secularized, emancipated Jews is the failure of contemporary Judaism to provide an acceptable, comprehensive, and rationally based alternative ideological system that can compete with the ideological systems of the liberal democratic societies in which we now hold citizenships. The conclusion offered is that a user-friendly, authoritative--not authoritarian--new set of behavior guidelines, or new Talmud, that provides relevant, contemporary Jewish perspectives, even competing perspectives, on a wide range of specific, daily problems and experiences would help immeasurably in revitalizing and perpetuating Judaism as a way of life among those who question the relevance of Jewish traditionalism. The article also suggests that losses in Jewish identification and commitment have persisted despite the existence of a large number and variety of Jewish tribal identifiers and reinforcing agents, which usually offer a cloak or sense of community. These tribal identifiers and refinforcing agents include knowledge of Hebrew, observance of special holidays, enjoyment of traditional foods, support of Isreal and Federations, availability of a rich outpouring of artistic, literary, and scientific works, a unique and often bitter history, and general allegiance to the Ten Commandments, Sayings of the Fathers, and teachings of selected ancient Prophets. But unfortunately these identifying and reinforcing factors, which may be necessary for a sustained Judaism, have not been sufficient enough as a countervailing force. Although the Orthodox seem to have a tighter hold on identity and practice, the truth is that almost all of us who are otherwise Jewish or part Jewish and not now Orthodox come from families that a few generations ago were. In the open and permissive societies of much of the West, it is not likely that all present and future Orthodox descendants will maintain the intensity of commitment of their predecessors. The article also points out that the continuum of Torah, Talmud, Responsa, various codes, and other works did provide Jews in past generations with portable guidelines that offered a modicum of utopian pragmatism for everyday living, even when segments of the Jewish community engaged in leap-frog into new societies. Sometimes, of course, the old guidelines proved too antiquated or rigid and had to be set aside, in a search for more plausible behavior models that dealt with new realities. What has happened since Emancipation, the Enlightenment, and the availability €of full citizenships is that many Jews have absorbed and identified with often conflicting and competitive ideologies, value systems, legal codes, and behavior patterns of their host national societies and in essence left behind their own traditional living systems. The article also asks just what a true Jewish perspective is and how it may really differ from the perspectives of other religious systems? In addition, it offers a list of about a dozen sets of core principles that might serve as the contemporary basis of a new, self-imposed Jewish community covenant, particularly for non-Traditional Jews. Beyond all that, the article also raises difficult questions about logistics, assuming the basic arguments and conclusions are valid. How, for example, could we go about preparing such a new Talmud, or whatever else we might call it? Again, I would be interested in the reactions of those of you who subscribe to this Internet list, hoping that you will have had an opportunity to read the complete article. Sheldon Schaffer, 2633 Alta Glen Drive, Birmingham, Alabama 35243-4509; telephone and fax on call at 205 967 5348 and E-mail to shschaffer@aol.com. ...................................................................... From atauber@teleport.comMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 1995 17:18:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Al Tauber To: ShSchaffer@aol.com Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: New Talmud for Humanistic Jews I like the idea. Internet could be the vehicle. We do have to implement some additional functions such as archiving. Walter will have to speak to this. We could enter the guide into internet and discuss each entry and expand it. Then we could add additional entries. atauber@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81) ...................................................................... From nrosenbl@InterServ.ComMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Sun, 4 Jun 95 20:37:16 PDT From: Norman Rosenblatt To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re. Humanistic Talmud Shalom Haverim, I just read Sheldon Schaffer's post (and Al Tauber's response) regarding his article in the Spring, 95 journal proposing a Humanistic Talmud. I like the idea. I don't know if it would necessarily stimulate Jewish commitment, but among committed Humanistic Jews it could serve as an ongoing dialogue on Jewish matters. € I think that such a dialogue could serve to exchange views on subjects of contemporary Jewish and Humanist interest. Our quarterly journal is a good beginning, but we need to involve as much of the membership of the SHJ as we can. Too few of our members use the internet as yet. Perhaps we need to initiate a "responsa" among our branches, each document of which would address a specific issue. For example: a position on an issue could be described, the document circulated to all chapters for discussion and response, the responses periodically compiled and circulated, etc. Each document would center on a specific issue or topic, and the documents would gradually grow as responses accumulated. A number of such documents would (hopefully) come into existence over time. I see this as a kind of gemora discussion by mail (so to speak). Our rabbi(s) and madrikhim could help to guide the discussions, but the documents ought to be open for comment by any member. We could begin by selecting a topic, stating one or more positions, and mailing it to our branches, inviting discussion and comment. Norm Rosenblatt ...................................................................... From achalom@minerva.cis.yale.eduMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 15:08:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam To: Norman Rosenblatt Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Re. Humanistic Talmud I wanted to comment on this discussion, because in my training to become a Humanistic Rabbi I have had first-hand contact with both the Talmud itself and traditional additudes toward it. I personally don't feel the need for a codified rule of behavior in a traditional format to feel Jewish; my great-grandfather never kept a kosher home, so for me being Jewish is synonymous with rejecting ultimate rabbinic authority. Nevertheless, it is obvious that some feel that it would be a good idea, but I think that first we need someone to explain more about the purpose of the Talmud in traditional Judaism; only then can we see what we can glean from it or how we can reinterpret it. For those who already know this, I apologize for the repetition, but I think stating the facts is needed nonetheless. The Talmud, consisting of the Mishnah (compiled c. 200 CE by Judah Ha-Nasi) and the Gemara, or commentary on the Mishnah (compiled c. 600-700 CE by the Babylonian Geonim, or rabbinic academy heads), is viewed by the most orthodox Jews as a strict code of behavior. The Talmud and its subsequent commentaries represent the "Oral Torah," which is believed to have been given to Moses "Rabbenu" (our rabbi) at Sinai along with the Torah and the Ten Commandments and passed down orally until the Jews became so dispersed that it needed to be written down or €canonized to be correctly observed and transmitted. So between 600 and 700 CE the heads of the Babylonian rabbinic academies compiled the Talmud, which simply put is a collection of rabbinic arguments about halakhah, or religious law. So study of the Talmud is both knowledge of the conclusions but also an immersement in the methods and arguments of ancient rabbinic disagreements. The Talmud is full of ethical sayings, law pronouncements, Scriptural references and explanations, etc. For furhter information, I recommend skimming Jacob Neusner's "Invitation to the Talmud." Also, if anyone thinks I've gotten anything grievously wrong or forgotten something important, please let the group know. So what would a secular or liberal Talmud be? Would it be a Jewish ethical perspective? This would leave behind the dependence on revealed scripture and religious law, but it still might smack of absolute authority and in any case would be a pick-and-choose Talmud, something antithetical to the original sense of the document. Also, totally changing the nature of the Talmud will give us absolutely no legitemacy in the eyes of the more orthodox; indeed, it could be seen as more heretical or misguided than anything else. But my strongest objection comes from my understanding of SHJ. I don't want a canonical answer; I don't even want a canonical discussion of many answers. Part of Humanism is having the power to make personal decisions, and there is no one Jewish position on any issue. All the more so, then, should there be no orthodox Humanistic Jewish position in the form of a Talmud. If by Talmud was meant a discussion of issues like these, then that's fine, but calling that discussion a "Talmud" is a mistake in my opinion because it just confuses the issue. Thanks for your time reading this, and I eagerly await any responses. Adam Chalom ...................................................................... From DENNIS@epub.ziff.comMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 15:53:05 -0500 (EST) From: DENNIS GELLER To: achalom@minerva.cis.yale.edu Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Re. Humanistic Talmud > So what would a secular or liberal Talmud be? Would it be a >Jewish ethical perspective? This would leave behind the dependence on >revealed scripture and religious law, but it still might smack of >absolute authority and in any case would be a pick-and-choose Talmud, >something antithetical to the original sense of the document. ... > If by >Talmud was meant a discussion of issues like these, then that's fine, but >calling that discussion a "Talmud" is a mistake in my opinion because it >just confuses the issue. Adam, Thanks for the history lesson. You spoke, though, about what Talmus IS, not €what it was. That is, I was always lead to believe that it was the record of interpretation of Scripture, and that it contains a (partial) record of deliberations, shaped perhaps by some basic consensus or my the "winners" of the arguments" or by the last people to publish. If that's so, in some sense a list like this bears some slight resemblance. Where it differs (if what I was always lead to believe has any validity) is (1) It isn't based on a basic -- let alone divinely inspired -- source (2) It isn't directed toward questions that are seen as integral to solving the problems of living as a Jew (3) It lacks the voice of authority (my opinions are as welcome as yours [this may be good, but it is a difference]) (4) There's no drive toward convergence (5) Particular entries were wrangled over and refined in local discussion groups (i.e. Rabbis and their schools) before becoming part of the document. An HJ Talmud, it seems to me, would have value in being a living document and the codification of a debate. In other words, the value would be in the process, not in the result. I think I can see how such a document could be created in our diverse and scattered community. But I stumble on the question of what it should be about. I imagine it could focus on important ethical issues -- bog knows there are enough of those -- but without some mutually agreed on source(s) it would never, I think, attain the respect that I imagione the Talmudic discussions did. So, I have to ask, is there any body of thinking or writing that we can generally agree gives us guidance in any way approaching (ever so faintly) what the Scriptures provided to the writers of Talmud? (Who, I am willing to imagine, may have been close enough to the compilation of the Bible to disagree, at least privately, with one book or another, or to have preferred some piece of Apocrypha as being a better representation of the word of god.) Of course, such a list would have to answer for itself the question of what it had to do with humanistic *Judaism*. I'm afraid this leads right into the question "What IS a (humanistic) Jew." Which is a same, because I'd like to see the Talmudic process take shape. Maybe someone can dig me out of this? Shalom Dennis ...................................................................... From eugene@summit.novell.comMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 16:52 EDT From: eugene@summit.novell.comom Subject: Re: Re. Humanistic Talmud To: nrosenbl@InterServ.Com (Norman Rosenblatt) Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Re. Humanistic Talmud I wanted to comment on this discussion, because in my training to become a Humanistic Rabbi I have had first-hand contact with both the Talmud itself and traditional additudes toward it. I personally don't feel the need for a codified rule of behavior in a traditional format to feel Jewish; my great-grandfather never kept a kosher home, so for me being € Jewish is synonymous with rejecting ultimate rabbinic authority. Nevertheless, it is obvious that some feel that it would be a good idea, mud be? Would it be a but I think that first we need someone to explain more about the purpose of the Talmud in traditional Judaism; only then can we see what we can glean from it or how we can reinterpret it. For those who already know this, I apologize for the repetition, but I think stating the facts is needed nonetheless. The Talmud, consisting of the Mishnah (compiled c. 200 CE by Judah Ha-Nasi) and the Gemara, or commentary on the Mishnah (compiled c. 600-700 CE by the Babylonian Geonim, or rabbinic academy heads), is viewed by the most orthodox Jews as a strict code of behavior. The Talmud and its subsequent commentaries represent the "Oral Torah," which is believed to have been given to Moses "Rabbenu" (our rabbi) at Sinai along with the Torah and the Ten Commandments and passed down orally until the Jews became so dispersed that it needed to be written down or canonized to be correctly observed and transmitted. So between 600 and 700 CE the heads of the Babylonian rabbinic academies compiled the Talmud, which simply put is a collection of rabbinic arguments about halakhah, or religious law. So study of the Talmud is both knowledge of the conclusions but also an immersement in the methods and arguments of ancient rabbinic disagreements. The Talmud is full of ethical sayings, law pronouncements, Scriptural references and explanations, etc. For furhter information, I recommend skimming Jacob Neusner's "Invitation to the Talmud." Also, if anyone thinks I've gotten anything grievously wrong or forgotten something important, please let the group know. So what would a secular or liberal Talmud be? Would it be a Jewish ethical perspective? This would leave behind the dependence on revealed scripture and religious law, but it still might smack of absolute authority and in any case would be a pick-and-choose Talmud, something antithetical to the original sense of the document. Also, totally changing the nature of the Talmud will give us absolutely no legitemacy in the eyes of the more orthodox; indeed, it could be seen as more heretical or misguided than anything else. But my strongest objection comes from my understanding of SHJ. I don't want a canonical answer; I don't even want a canonical discussion of many answers. Part of Humanism is having the power to make personal decisions, and there is no one Jewish position on any issue. All the more so, then, should there be no orthodox Humanistic Jewish position in the form of a Talmud. If by Talmud was meant a discussion of issues like these, then that's fine, but calling that discussion a "Talmud" is a mistake in my opinion because it just confuses the issue. Thanks for your time reading this, and I eagerly await any responses. Adam Chalom ...................................................................... From nrosenbl@InterServ.ComMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 95 21:31:21 PDT From: Norman Rosenblatt To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re. Humanistic Talmud € Shalom Haverim, Adam Chalom writes in opposition to the idea of a Humanistic Talmud. I hope that Adam will not be angry with me if I take issue with some of his arguments: >So what would a secular or liberal Talmud be? 1. Secular is not quite the same as Humanistic. 2. I would envision a Humanistic Talmud as an effort by Humanistic Jews to share their opinions on Jewish issues of importance to them, and in this way educate one another. 3. Just as the Mishna is a conversation, I see a Humanistic Mishna as a conversation among Humanistic Jews. Certainly a Humanistic Mishna would not begin by asking the proper time to daven shaharis, but it might (for example) begin by asking what constitutes a proper curriculum for a Humanistic b'nai mitzvah candidate. Or it might ask whether, and in what manner, Humanistic Jews ought to celebrate Yom Kippur. Or whether Humanistic Jews should study Torah. >it still might smack of absolute authority Not surprisingly, many Humanistic Jews ask about guidelines for Humanistic Jews. Many want to be "authentically" Jewish yet human-centered rather than god-centered. There is a difference between authority and authoritarian. A guide need not be carved in stone. Possibly it would contain options that reflect our Jewish heritage but omit the god-talk. Just now, I am teaching a humanist bat mitzvah candidate to read from the Torah as part of her planned ceremony. The question of whether or not such a reading is an appropriate part of a Humanistic bat mitzvah ceremony might be an issue for discussion. >in any case would be a pick-and-choose Talmud Yes. What an interesting and wonderful idea! >changing the nature of the Talmud will give us absolutely no >legitemacy in the eyes of the more orthodox I, for one, couldn't care less. It is they who need to establish their legitimacy in my eyes. >there is no one Jewish position on any issue. How about murder? Child sacrifice? Incest? Rape? Theft? >calling that discussion a "Talmud" is a mistake in my opinion because it just confuses the issue. I beg to differ. The Talmud is very much a discussion. Norman Rosenblatt ...................................................................... From achalom@minerva.cis.yale.eduMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 1995 15:31:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Adam To: Humanistic Judaism Subject: Response to responses re: HJ Talmud € I'm glad my message provoked some heated discussion, and I'm glad people disagreed with me, because upon reading the responses and personal reflection I realized that my objection to a Humanistic Talmud had more to do with the word "Talmud" and less with what it could be. Norm was right; Talmud can just mean discussion. My concerns were more directed towards the forms it will take, because the use of the word Talmud made me think of an authoritarian document created by elites meant for their agenda and not always dealing with the most useful topics or in the most useful form. But the idea of creating a collection of friendly disputes on topics (like B'nai Mitzvah or Yom Kippur) is no problem; in fact, I'd love to see it! We might want to think if we want an end product or just the systematic discussion of some issues. There is already a small publication called "The Secular Jewish Alternative," published by the Leadership Conference of Secular and Humanistic Jews that is available for purchase through the Society for HJ. This collection contains opinions from the heads of the CSJO, the SHJ, Rabbi Sherwin Wine of Detroit, Rabbi Dan Friedman from Chicago, and other leaders of the movement, and it was published in 1985. They discuss issues like Jewish Identity, Zionism and Israel, Ethics, Jewish Secular Humanism, and Secular Humanistic Judaism. Also, the "Guide to Humanistic Judaism" was the result of cooperation between the Executive Board of the SHJ, Rabbi Wine, Rabbi Friedman, and others, so that represents some heavy recent thought on HJ issues, though the "Guide" isn't in discussion format like "The Secular Jewish Alternative." So what I have at this point are few objections but some questions: 1) Is the process or the product more important? Do we want the discussion for our own sake or do we want a public product to show others or to use ourselves later? 2) As for the process, how do we choose topics? Go through the "Guide" and discuss? And do we need a moderator for the discussion? If so, who? 3) As for the product, who will edit? Do we want consensus on certain issues or can we leave some of them open-ended? Do you need qualifications to submit? 4) If we're citing authorities, do they have to be Jewish or just Humanistic? Thanks for your time, and thanks for pointing out that I was throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or good discussion with the Talmud. Shalom, Adam ...................................................................... From nrosenbl@InterServ.ComMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 95 20:45:47 PDT From: Norman Rosenblatt To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: HJ Talmud €Shalom Haverim, Regarding a Humanistic Talmud, Adam Chalom writes: >1) Is the process or the product more important? Do we want the >discussion for our own sake or do we want a public product to show others >or to use ourselves later? I personally prefer a process. The trouble with the traditional Talmud is that it ceased being a process and became a product. >2) As for the process, how do we choose topics? Go through the "Guide" >and discuss? And do we need a moderator for the discussion? If so, who? >3) As for the product, who will edit? Do we want consensus on certain >issues or can we leave some of them open-ended? Do you need >qualifications to submit? I think that Adam has already raised a good question: "Who is qualified as an authority for Humanistic Jews?" My response is: "Anyone who is committed to a vibrant Judaism is qualified to participate in the formation of that Judaism." If Adam will moderate I'll edit, organize and distribute. If we get concensus it will probably mean that no Jews are participating :-) 4) If we're citing authorities, do they have to be Jewish or just Humanistic? This looks like another "Talmudic" question. My answer: "All sources cited should be clearly identified." Perhaps "Humanistic Dialog" is preferable to "Humanistic Talmud?" Norman Rosenblatt ...................................................................... From vacab@vicnet.net.auMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Thu, 8 Jun 1995 17:27:40 +1000 From: Victorian Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Humanistic Talmud One of the discussants noted (sorry - I trash my mail every two days), that this was one of one of the most exciting discussion groups. I couldn't agree more. I think that you/we are trying to almost reconcile the impossible: a traditional hermeneutics, based on traditional text with the rationality of contemporary humanism, with its emphasis upon individualism. What a barrel full!! I think that I wrote a few weeks ago in response to a discussion about humanism 'versus' Judaism - there's no easy path, and it's all a struggle, particularly if you take the tradition of hermeneutics seriously (all I think you all do), but *also* take individualist creation seriously. Adam had also thrown in the 'other' element, of culture ie the non-intellectual bits that make us feel good and connected. Well, some of us do feel €comfortable davenning, or singing shirim, some of us don't. Good luck in the process of trying to get somewhere! Certainly, the Society for Humanistic Judaism's guide has a lot of pointers. I'm sure that a Hebrew version would give it an even better grounding, 'located' in the language and concepts of tradition. ******************************************************************************* "tuppi anniam ana mahrika attardam - temam suknam" - An Old Babylonian expression meaning - Look forward to your reply! Larry Stillman vacab@vicnet.net.au 4th Floor 136 Exhibition Street Melbourne, 3000 Australia ...................................................................... From John@janko.demon.co.ukMon Sep 4 16:00:05 1995 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 1995 23:06:20 GMT From: John Klein To: owner-hj@teleport.com Cc: John@janko.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Humanistic Talmud Further to the current debate on a possible humanistic Talmud, I am forwarding this article by Roger Eden, chairman of our British Community for Humanistic Judaism. > TALMUD > > The Talmud was essentially a codification of Oral and written law and > tradition compiled from the 1st Century in separate documents from Babylon > and Palestine. It is not the Talmud which forms the core of modern Judaism, > but Halakhah, the interpretaion to this day. Naturally, it relies on the > Talmud as a major authoritative source, but there have been many authoritative > interpretations since. The medieval Shulchan Aruch is a "table" of rules, > to which most modern religious Jews subscribe. When in doubt about > something new - e.g. is using the Internet "work" or permitted study? - then > any source can be used to support the decision, and may go back to the Talmud. > > Halakhah means going forward, and the religious rules are supposed to be > dynamic rather than fixed;indeed about 95% of the "law" in Leviticus, > Talmud, etc is ignored. We haven't "repealed" law on sacrifice for > instance. Some of the Law they obey in a token fashion only, such as Shnat > Shmitta, the law that says land must be left fallow every 7 years. We > continue to work it, but the religious Jews go through a pretence contract > of selling the land to a non-Jew, and then continue to work it. I am not €> sure who is supposed to be fooled by this; the Jews know that the contract > has no meaning - the Arab knows that he hasn't really purchased anything - > maybe God is fooled? But enough sarcasm!... > > What we really need is not a new or Humanistic Talmud, but a sensible > rational interpretation. Humanists can follow the Halakhah just as devoutly > as the religious Jews - it's just that our interpretation will be different - > probably more authentic. They use Halakha as the drunk uses a street-light: > more for support than for illumination. > > No intelligent reading of our literature could lead anyone to some of the > racist philosophy we see amongst some religious groups, and many other such > travesties. > > What we need is our version of nailing principles to the Cathedral at Worms, > the act of Luther, which started Protestantism (the Protest). > We need to look at Halakha and say, not that we have a new (convenient) > version, but that we have the authentic interpretation, with the obvious > meaning and intent of the original thinkers. > We need a "Reformation" of Judaism, which the Reform and Liberal have failed > to provide. To see that the gloss of Deity that they hold so dear, is > really the highest (poetic) expression of humanistic ideals, not an external > reality. > > To be a Jew, is to be a member of the people that have searched for > Humanistic principles of behaviour since before most other nations were formed. > > We can appeal to a mass movement, because we will carry forward authentic > Judaism, not a modern breakaway dilution, nor a desperate hanging on to > rituals of behaviour, most of which were actually formed in the Middle Ages, > as a response to Christianity. > > It is the religious establishment that have willfully misinterpreted their > heritage. > Of course, ritual, and other group behaviour form an essential part of what > it means to most people to be human, and that is where many humanist groups > fail to get a mass movement, as that sort of ritual sits uneasily with us. > There are many questions to answer concerning how to replace the spirituality > that religion provides (rationality by itself,is not enough, unfortunately) - > but rewriting the Talmud is surely not the place to start. > > The return of Judaism to its Humanist roots, surely justifies a messianic > "struggle"; but by God it's hard work! > > Roger Eden > Leader, British Section, International Federation for Humanist & Secular > Judaism. ...................................................................... From DISSERLI@us.oracle.comMon Sep 4 16:00:06 1995 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 95 11:58:45 PDT From: Debra Isserlis To: hj@teleport.com Subject: "Authentic interpretation" [Was: Re: Humanistic Talmud] € I was inspired to respond to John Klein's posting of Roger Eden's text. I agree that what is needed is a Humanistic *interpretation* of the Talmud, not a new Humanistic Talmud. What I have a problem with is the tone of Eden's text, which concerns me not just in this specific case, but also in the writings of some others I've seen during my 1+ years as a member of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. I believe that in order for the Jewish People to survive as a culture, a whole spectrum of Jewish thought needs to be available: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanistic, and other types which may evolve in years to come. Different Jews find their spiritual fulfillment in different levels of traditional or non-traditional schools of thought. It's irrelevant to me to talk about one interpretation of Judaism being more "authentic" than another. Ironically, it reeks of the same immature one-ups-manship that ultra-religious people of many faiths use to snub the more modern sects (e.g. some Christian fundamentalists who look down their noses at Unitarian Universalists). Why do we have to be so concerned with creating an "authentic interpretation" of the Talmud? What we really need is a humanistic interpretation that is widely disseminated to people who otherwise would not be affiliated with religion at all. Let's get out of the business of competing with Orthodoxy on authenticity, and get into the business of providing a spiritual solution for the huge percentage of unaffilitated Jews with humanistic values. ********************************************************************* Debra Isserlis disserli@us.oracle.com ********************************************************************* ...................................................................... From eden@siftac.easynet.co.ukMon Sep 4 16:00:06 1995 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 21:54:53 GMT From: Roger Eden To: hj@teleport.com Subject: debra & authenticity, and the Talmud debate Debra has chastised myself and others, who write with an air of superiority over some other forms of Judaism. I accept the chastisement, Debra is right, but I cannot accept the sentiment, that wishes to encourage a "whole spectrum of views". I share with Debra a concern for the survival of the Jewish people, and feel that the biggest threat is that some of this "spectrum" includes unpalatable (and sometimes downright odious) views of Judaism that are presented as "the sole authentic and authoritative" form. We are led to beleive that the problem of the younger generation of Jews being lost is because of unfamiliarity with Jewish ritual and practice. Far from being the solution, this is often the cause. Sometimes it feels as though we wish to reverse a thousand years of refining humanism and revert to genocide as authentic. As though we beleive that Joshua at Jericho acted in a way that should be emulated today. This is a recent phenomenum (recent in our history). € As Debra points out, some people find spiritual satisfaction in all sorts of ways. Who amongst us does not find comfort in some absurdity of one sort or another. There is no need to denigrate something because it is absurd from a rational point of view. But there is a need to reject the odious and unpalatable. If some Jews have a political view that we should keep "Eretz Yisroel HaShlema", and not give an inch. I respect that view (although I don't agree with it). But if I am told that there is no choice in this view, that it is the commandment of God, and that our literature proves this, should I accept this view? The basis of most modern morality is the 10 commandments. 5 are obligations between the individual and God, and I will not presume to judge anyone on their fulfillment; that is between them and their God, their conscience, whatever! I don't see why anyone should presume to judge me. On obligations between people, we can, should and do judge each other. Is it unreasonable to expect that for a "whole spectrum of views" to be available to us, we share some minimum observance of basic principles of behaviour between peoples? Is the "tone of our writing" so bad, because we find that there is a scrupulous observance of the obligations to God, accompanied by a rather less scrupulous observance of the obligations to people. If we cannot share with all Jews, at least this obligation to behave in certain minimum ways to all people, what are we sharing? Indeed, in those circumstances, is there anything we want share? The view, that there is a certain minimum way in which people should behave towards each other, and that this forms the core of our Jewish heritage, surely is authentic, and it is surely inmportant to get across that this is not some new "wacky" interpretation for the few who find religion unsatisfactory, but the core that connects us all. Should our "spectrum of views" include those that reject this. Should we be happy that the "rejection" currently seems to be dominant. It sits uneasily with me that this is a fight (not against one form of Judaism or another), but a fight is what it is, for the very soul of Judaism (within any form), and the future of Jews. ...................................................................... From Mate1920@aol.comMon Sep 4 16:00:06 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 12:27:51 -0400 From: Mate1920@aol.com To: Hellman@teleport.com Subject: Fwd: Re: Klein, Eden posts To Miriam's post, I say -- "Me, too." Bert --------------------- ...................................................................... Forwarded message: From: Msjerris@aol.com Sender: owner-hj@teleport.com To: hellman@teleport.com, hj@teleport.com €Date: 95-07-07 08:47:28 EDT Bravo Walter. Very significant statement you have made. I applaud and thank you. Shalom, Miriam ...................................................................... From shermank@interaccess.comMon Sep 4 16:00:06 1995 Date: Sat, 08 Jul 1995 03:09:12 -0500 From: "Sherman M. Kaplan" To: John@janko.demon.co.uk Cc: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Humanists John Klein writes: > >The question remains, how to spread the message without the dogmatic >certainty of our co-religionists? If the core of Judaism is justice and >ethics (viz. the humanistic message), surely we can start a dynamic >movement that will attract the unaffiliated masses? ----------------------- Reply: I am not so sure the unaffiliated masses either want or need us. For one thing, they always have the option of a non Judaic secular humanism, or even Universal Unitarianism, which is only barely theistic. I think the great battle ahead for all humanist/atheists (Jewish secular or not) is the struggle against fundamentalism. As we approach the year 2000 we are seeing people being whipped up into extremes of fervor and excesses of Orthodoxy from whatever direction, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc... The school prayer issue is only a mild manifestation of this hysteria, while the threats of Orthodox settlers in the Israeli occupied territories to incite civil war is another. As for the Muslims and rabidly conservative Christians, hardly anything needs to be said. Unfortunately, people are not looking for rationality, nor are they looking to themselves and other people for strength. They would rather rely upon superstition. That way, when bad things happen, they do not have to accept any of the psychological consequences. They can always blame "God". ...................................................................... From Msjerris@aol.comMon Sep 4 16:00:06 1995 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:42:06 -0400 From: Msjerris@aol.com To: hellman@teleport.com, hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Klein, Eden posts Bravo Walter. Very significant statement you have made. I applaud and thank you. Shalom, Miriam ...................................................................... ...................................................................... From hellman@teleport.comMon Sep 4 16:00:06 1995 Date: Mon, 3 Jul 1995 22:25:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Walter Hellman To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Klein, Eden posts Hello All, I would not take the level of response to the postings of Roger Eden and John Klein as a measure of the reaction to the postings. I am sure wheels are turning at many miles per hour on the fundamental issues raised...I know they have been for me. While I do not feel I have good basic responses for the questions posed, I do feel that we need to keep whacking away at them. Here are some thoughts I do have and they represent a good part of the motivation for me to want to work with HJ and help it stay healthy: 1. I feel strengthened and feel life has more significance by having a cultural, ethical and perhaps spiritual, heritage. There is no doubt that Judaism represents this heritage for me. 2. Traditions also give life meaning. The fact that we continue a tradition of celebrating, say, Passover, connects us to a line of humans who have basically thought as we do and carried on struggles to bring about a humanistic society. 3. The fundamental questions of life;" Why are we here? Why this rather than nothing? Is there a larger purpose for our existence?" do not have objective answers which the general population will agree upon. For me, religion involves an unsubtantiable faith in certain responses to these questions. You cannot prove your position...you have faith in it. I believe that in HJ, this faith is contained more in the tenets of Humanism than of Judaism, although this point is certainly open to debate. Judaism is, however, certainly the heritage which has led us to this faith. 4. When I tell someone I am a Jew, I am proud of it. I have this feeling because of the long line of people, culture, intellectual and ethical history which led to me. I am proud of "my family." This heritage can be kept alive by making it a living heritage for our children so that they to have pride in Judaism and identify as such with it. This will prevent disappearance by total assimilation. 5. HJ serves a very necessary purpose for Humanists who are Jews. It provides a way to learn about our heritage, traditions which give life meaning and a way for like-minded Jews to associate. 6. While the respect accorded to documents such as the Talmud is enviable, and God is a very difficult concept to follow, I think we need a new paradigm for a successful religion...one in which we recognize that the "fire in the belly" is going to be directed more toward the social issues of peace and justice at the heart of € humanism, than toward our heritage. This new paradigm will maintain the rituals and traditions, but at a lower key, always in harmony and providing a foundation for our larger faith in Humanism. We can maintain our religion and heritage without having a blessing for every food, a correct sized piece of matzoh at Passover, or even rituals every week. In fact, unless we find a way of doing this, we may have no religion at all. 7. Life without family or close relations can be pretty empty. If we do not support HJ it is likely that we will not have very much of a larger family. When our local Board meeting came to a rough spot recently, I related a very unpleasant "dream" which has occurred to me. In it, HJ failed. It is years later. I am in a temple with all the old style God oriented stuff going on. I feel phoney being there but have a strong need to continue trying to relate to my Jewish heritage and so try to stay. Then, across the way, I see one of the members of our old HJ group. She is there for the same reasons I am. We look at each other with a sense the total sadness comparing what could have been with where we are now. This "nightmare" is likely to happen if we do not make HJ work. It is the alternative. 8. I would like to share the hope of Humanism with my fellow Jews in the special manner which stems from our common heritage and hope, in turn, that we can make HJ work to allow this to happen for a long time to come. Shalom, Walter Hellman hellman@teleport.com Internet Public Access User Hillsboro, Oregon USA ...................................................................... From Rzinns@aol.comMon Sep 4 16:00:06 1995 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 22:35:28 -0400 From: Rzinns@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Walter's post and others Hello All - Walter's comments struck a very responsive chord in me on many levels. 1. His description of his unpleasant dream and in particular his statement about feeling phoney being in a temple which was oriented to the old style God stuff, but feeling the need to continue trying to relate to his Jewish heritage was an apt description of the way I've felt most of my life until I found out about HJ. Recently, when going into a store selling books and objects on Judaica, I realized that had it not been for my recent association with HJ, I never would have even ventured in because of my high discomfort level with the religious aspects of Judaism. For the first time, I could €venture in and try to move a little closer to understanding the culture and history. 2. His statement: "HJ serves a very necessary purpose for Humanists who are Jews. It provides a way to learn about our heritage, traditions which give life meaning and a way for like-minded Jews to associate" says a great deal. I have always thought of myself as a Humanist (even more so than a Jew). To think of myself as a Humanist who is also a Jew, is a new concept to me, and it's very satisfying to see others express what I have been feeling for a very long time. 3. His other comments about being part of an expanded Jewish "family" is something I'm trying to work on. The other messages I have been reading lately have also given me much material to mull over. 1. John Klein's juggling of spirituality and humanism were also very meaningful to me. I consider myself to be a very spiritual person even though I don't believe in a supernatural power. I'm sure there is a word that is more appropriate than "spirituality" since "spirit" probably connotes supernatural, but I think more in terms of the quest we face in becoming better people, in treating one another with kindness, in evolving to a higher order of behavior and thought, in seeking the universality and commonality (rather than the differences) in all peoples - those things which IMO are the touchstones of Humanism. 2. The Bible and Bagels discussion group mentioned a few weeks ago - I think that's a great idea. I hope that our Northern California group will look into that. Thanks again for all the input and food for thought. Roz Zinns ...................................................................... From Msjerris@aol.comMon Sep 4 16:00:06 1995 Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 10:09:03 -0400 From: Msjerris@aol.com To: oschalom@spinach.mscc.huji.ac.il, hj@teleport.com Subject: Re: Jewish Exiperience? Adam, if this stuff is the most interesting part of the week, we need to talk. Your passion for HJ and the rabbinate aside, there are other more "exciting" things. I'll just reiterate that although the values or responses that we have may not be uniquely Jewish the way we achieve them through the conscious or unconscious Jewish experience is uniquely "Jewish." That's why I keep going back to that concept. I suppose Jung would have alot to say about archetypes and I suppose my concept approaches that idea. Miriam € ......................................................................