Simcha

[F. Davis Woods-Morse]

What I made of Jason's question was this: does observing more  return more Jewish utils (apologies to mill) ? Jason, did I get close?

I have the experience of feeling more Jewish when I chant sacharit before 11am, feeling more Jewish when I have a little eco-kosher triumph at the grocery store and feeling more Jewish when I can teach someone a story about Lag b' Omer. All of these are "orthodox" for lack of a better word triumphs. What I also imagine is the possibility that I could do something today that would lead to a little "chassidic" triumph but knowing what that is is more difficult because its part of another set of Jewish values which may or may not be accessible after a certain level observance.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:13 PM, F. Davis Woods-Morse <davis...@gmail.com> wrote:

I just missed my bus. <sigh> Whether it makes any sense to catch another and show up conspicuously late I don't know. What I'd like to ask/add to Jason's question is whether there's another default in addition to orthodoxy. Namely chassidism. Personally, I feel like the kinds of rigorous intellectual inquiry that characterize reconstructionism are in keeping with the orthodox effort to know the law. There's a wrestling that happens at Havurah about the meaning of words that so resembles the wrestling over how one should behave, what one should eat but where's the joy? Where's the place of getting lost in the mystery? Jason posits that observance might get one closer to covenant in orthodox terms. I don't know what might get me closer to transcendence in chassidic terms but the life I want to lead includes that search.

Hate that I missed my bus.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Jason Templeman <jason.t...@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's my attempt to write down a central quandry.  I don't mean to beat around the bush, but I found it was a little difficult to form this thought so please excuse my indirectness (and incompleteness!):

If we take as a given that to be Jewish is to obey the covenant, we need to know what it means to obey the covenant.  How do we decide what approach to adhere to, from among the different movements and philosophies within Judaism?  Can we decide for ourselves?  If we decide for ourselves, are we really obeying the covenant or are we just picking the portions that we feel like following?

I see problems with simply granting that the most literal or orthodox interpretation is automatically the most correct in its view.

Certainly orthodoxy goes along with observance, so it’s easy to see why orthodoxy would be seen by default as the most correct way to observe the covenant--in an orthodox approach the intent to be observant is given strong priority.

But in a way orthodoxy is simply a particular form of being observant.  If one really believes that a more interpreted, less literal view is a truer to the meaning and intent of the covenant, then wouldn’t orthodoxy actually be a departure from true obedience and true observance?

This might sound like a reach, but it’s actually what I wonder about.  I have difficulty with the formula, “if you want to be truly Jewish, then be orthodox.”  My difficulty comes from the assumption that an orthodox approach is more correct than other approaches.  This is a problem before I even come to contemplating what orthodoxy actually implies, because I distrust the assumption itself.  In general, I find it a red flag when any given philosophical approach is given the benefit of special assumptions that make it immune from speculation and competing views.

On the other hand, I’m not sure that non-orthodox approaches to Judaism fully wrestle with the question.  I understand that people can really believe in a different approach, but alternatives to orthodoxy seem to be half-formed at times, or perhaps just trying to find their way in the world (which may be exactly what is supposed to happen).  I speak for myself here: do I really try to be as serious about being Jewish, as I would be if I were traditionally observant?

- Jason

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Joey <joey...@havurahshalom.org> wrote:

Hi Everybody,

There was a rather small turnout last evening, although I think it was
a quite interesting discussion.  Increasingly, (as we moved through
the medieval and Renaissance time frame), we began to ask questions
pertaining to "how Jews may have imagined who they were, in terms of a
larger world conceptualizing things around them".  This coming week,
we will be dealing with the Enlightenment's impact on Jews in central
Europe, and its delayed effects on eastern European Jews (in Poland
and the Pale of Settlement).  What did it mean for us to construct
Jewish identity, to come up with political, spiritual and even
pedagogical strategies - in light of assumptions that people should
assimilate?  Naturally, the possibilities for assimilation varied from
country to country.  All of these issues influence the ways that we
ourselves have come to imagine our own choices today.

Intellectual history (the history of ideas) has blossomed like never
before, within a Jewish academic context, over the past 30 years, and
our assignment is key for next week.  I handed out ONE (only!)
article.  It ends midstream, but it contains some interesting thinking
on the subject of German Jews during the second half of the 19th
century and into the early 20th century.  I think it's really
important that you make an effort to pick it up from the office.  I'll
give it to Mario, so that you can get it.  Although it focuses on
western European Jewish ideas, it's really about Jews in the world
ever since.  Please read it, if you get the chance.

It's around now, as we get together for one more class in the history
unit (next week), and anticipate a break until April - that I'd like
you to join me in coming up with the kinds of questions we might ask
in the April "Quandaries" unit.  I know for a fact that we'll spend
one session on contemporary aspects of Jewish faith.  Rabbi Tzvi
Fisher from the Portland Kollel will join me on April 21st, in order
to represent a traditional viewpoint.  Another piece will focus on
what Israel means to the Jews today.  But beyond that - I'd like this
last history article to stimulate other questions.  See if you can
post some questions that come to mind for you in the meantime.

Thanks,
Rabbi Joey

[Joey Wolf]

I like where Davis is headed with this, Jason.  I’m pretty shot just before Purim here, but I promise to deliver a bit more on your question after the chag.  Stay tuned….

 

---

[Jason Templeman]

What Davis wrote regarding observances as little triumphs does get at what I was thinking about.  Some traditional observances give me a feeling of being more Jewish.  Some are related to transcendent yearning.  But I know where I come down on the question of orthodoxy: the letter of the law sometimes works against the spirit of the law.

I agree with Davis that there is a rigorous spirit behind the inquiry that goes on in reconstructionism; this inquiry is the sort that speaks to me.  I’m far more at home wrestling with meaning (I find joy in it) than I am with wrestling over how others should behave.  To continue an earlier thought, wrestling with meaning leads to always being in the process of finding our way in the world, and I do think that’s supposed to happen.

I haven’t boiled the thoughts from that long note down into one succinct question yet.  It has something to do with finding halakha more difficult than aggadah and transcendent aspects; and with forming a philosophy on observance.

[Joey Wolf]

You are getting there!  Wrestling with meaning is tantalizing.  What being Jewish asks of us is also to wrestle with PRACTICE.  Practice links us with others and grounds the search for meaning – in discrete deeds, enactments and re-enactments of embodied encounters with THE WORLD!  More coming by Sunday, I promise….

 

---