I'm finding it confusing how you decide which laws to keep. Only the ones that make sense to you? If you believe Torah min shmayim then it would be trite to expect the divine law to exactly match whatever you could have come up with yourself, and if you don't then there are probably much bigger beliefs shifts called for and your references to authority from eg rishonim are spurious
This kind of criticism claims that some part of a religion is not a real representation of it. For example, a claim that Orthodoxy distorts the ordinary proportions of Judaism as it was decades and centuries earlier.
2- External
Evaluating a given sect or group on the basis of some external ethic or rival moral vantage point. A deontologist for example can point out that Judaism lacks the absolute moral clarity provided by Kant, and a consequentialist can say that too much legalism can prevent a good result.
Regarding 1, this is a difficult path. “Authentic” Judaism may not be any one thing, certainly not historically as you well know. Which developments are seen as a natural continuation or offshoot tend to be very silly.
Regarding 2,
Judaism, if good for anything, must to a large extent reject presentist ethics. Evaluation from an external moral vantage point is subject to questions regarding the validity of that standpoint, and the standpoint of that question in infinite regress https://philarchive.org/archive/GOMIMM
A good example you mentioned to illustrate this is women wearing bikinis on the beach. This being the practice of contemporary culture, and eschewing it being sexual repression, begs the arguement of what degree of exposure is a good idea in general, and what degree is best in a society that may have gone a bit far with it.
Yeah then we’re in agreement. Regardless this is just an example to illustrate the need to define the type of criticism being leveled. Cross-cultural criticism from the perspective of contemporary societal norms is a well trodden path, with little intellectual fruit.
Interesting article. I agree with some points, although I strongly disagree with most others. For example, avoiding Yayin nesech is to avoid intermarriage. Or are you ok with intermarriage too?
Also, for a long time, your brand was "orthodox rabbi who accepts source criticism". I see you (and TheTorah.com) have moved beyond the label Orthodox. Do you think it is impossible for one who accepts source criticism to remain traditionally halachically orthodox? or is an evolution like yours inevitable?
2. TheTorah.com was never founded to be Orthodox, though the founders are all part of that community. But to be clear, I am not really giving up the label Orthodox, it is the one I round myself to, community wise, I am trying to call my community's attention to the direction I think it needs to go in order to flourish in way I, at least, consider to be socially and ethically constructive. As for my trajectory, I think my controversial halakhic takes predate TheTorah.com by quite a few years. I have continued on both tracks. As for what is inevitable, I really don't know. I guess as time goes on, we'll see.
1. Yayin nessech and intermarriage - so that is not exactly accurate. This is not the place for a long halakhic discussion, but the main reason is because of pouring out the wine to a god. In his books on the subject, Haym Soloveitchik argues that when it became clear that the prohibition was no longer relevant, since the surrounding society no longer does this, the Ri noted that there was another gemara that said it was because of marrying gentile women, and reestablished it on that footing. In any event, even that is not relevant in our society - I can take a gentile woman to a kosher restaurant and we can drink wine to our hearts content, but I can't take a Jewish woman to a regular wine bar lest I marry the vintner's daughter? The same with bishul akum - how many times do I meet the cook's daughter at a restaurant? But how many times do they ask me if my date is Jewish at a kosher one? Our social constructs are so different now.
I think you are fighting two distinct battles and thus are bound to lose both. I think it is easy to come up with a model of Torah Shel Baal Peh for most of the things you described to allow halachic evolution for them (although homosexuality is a distinct matter, as it involves ignoring a pasuk of arayos).
But when you already write yourself out of the halachic system by saying you don't see the Torah as divine (or at least some verses as not divine) I don't think you have the ability to advocate for change as you don't think the system that the others believe in is binding in the first place.
(It's akin to asking a bunch of chess players to allow the rook to move diagonally).
And once you allow for halachic variations to the extent you are proposing, it undermines the claim that one can be traditionally Orthodox and accept source criticism akin to one accepting evolution and Orthodoxy (which although you deny that now, that was a pretty big component of thetorah.com's marketing when first started iirc.)
The Torah.com does occasionally have orthodox authors. Their work is excellent.
I have expressed to Rabbi Farber that the overwhelming articles are source criticism based. Those have a limited appeal in the academic orthodox community.
Once we see source criticism, it’s much like an eye roll, and skip the articles.
Needless to say, I am myself making no such assertion. I was only asking whether we are sure that the author of the post (or someone he quotes) isn’t. Or wouldn’t.
I'm finding it confusing how you decide which laws to keep. Only the ones that make sense to you? If you believe Torah min shmayim then it would be trite to expect the divine law to exactly match whatever you could have come up with yourself, and if you don't then there are probably much bigger beliefs shifts called for and your references to authority from eg rishonim are spurious
I feel the need to make a division here.
1- Internal (Continuity/Authenticity)
This kind of criticism claims that some part of a religion is not a real representation of it. For example, a claim that Orthodoxy distorts the ordinary proportions of Judaism as it was decades and centuries earlier.
2- External
Evaluating a given sect or group on the basis of some external ethic or rival moral vantage point. A deontologist for example can point out that Judaism lacks the absolute moral clarity provided by Kant, and a consequentialist can say that too much legalism can prevent a good result.
Regarding 1, this is a difficult path. “Authentic” Judaism may not be any one thing, certainly not historically as you well know. Which developments are seen as a natural continuation or offshoot tend to be very silly.
Regarding 2,
Judaism, if good for anything, must to a large extent reject presentist ethics. Evaluation from an external moral vantage point is subject to questions regarding the validity of that standpoint, and the standpoint of that question in infinite regress https://philarchive.org/archive/GOMIMM
A good example you mentioned to illustrate this is women wearing bikinis on the beach. This being the practice of contemporary culture, and eschewing it being sexual repression, begs the arguement of what degree of exposure is a good idea in general, and what degree is best in a society that may have gone a bit far with it.
I don't think Farber would consider bikinis at the beach tzenua, based on other stuff I read of his. But he doesn't think we need a burkini either.
Yeah then we’re in agreement. Regardless this is just an example to illustrate the need to define the type of criticism being leveled. Cross-cultural criticism from the perspective of contemporary societal norms is a well trodden path, with little intellectual fruit.
Isn't this just called Conservative Judaism if you don't want to be Reform
It is.
Interesting article. I agree with some points, although I strongly disagree with most others. For example, avoiding Yayin nesech is to avoid intermarriage. Or are you ok with intermarriage too?
Also, for a long time, your brand was "orthodox rabbi who accepts source criticism". I see you (and TheTorah.com) have moved beyond the label Orthodox. Do you think it is impossible for one who accepts source criticism to remain traditionally halachically orthodox? or is an evolution like yours inevitable?
2. TheTorah.com was never founded to be Orthodox, though the founders are all part of that community. But to be clear, I am not really giving up the label Orthodox, it is the one I round myself to, community wise, I am trying to call my community's attention to the direction I think it needs to go in order to flourish in way I, at least, consider to be socially and ethically constructive. As for my trajectory, I think my controversial halakhic takes predate TheTorah.com by quite a few years. I have continued on both tracks. As for what is inevitable, I really don't know. I guess as time goes on, we'll see.
1. Yayin nessech and intermarriage - so that is not exactly accurate. This is not the place for a long halakhic discussion, but the main reason is because of pouring out the wine to a god. In his books on the subject, Haym Soloveitchik argues that when it became clear that the prohibition was no longer relevant, since the surrounding society no longer does this, the Ri noted that there was another gemara that said it was because of marrying gentile women, and reestablished it on that footing. In any event, even that is not relevant in our society - I can take a gentile woman to a kosher restaurant and we can drink wine to our hearts content, but I can't take a Jewish woman to a regular wine bar lest I marry the vintner's daughter? The same with bishul akum - how many times do I meet the cook's daughter at a restaurant? But how many times do they ask me if my date is Jewish at a kosher one? Our social constructs are so different now.
I think you are fighting two distinct battles and thus are bound to lose both. I think it is easy to come up with a model of Torah Shel Baal Peh for most of the things you described to allow halachic evolution for them (although homosexuality is a distinct matter, as it involves ignoring a pasuk of arayos).
But when you already write yourself out of the halachic system by saying you don't see the Torah as divine (or at least some verses as not divine) I don't think you have the ability to advocate for change as you don't think the system that the others believe in is binding in the first place.
(It's akin to asking a bunch of chess players to allow the rook to move diagonally).
And once you allow for halachic variations to the extent you are proposing, it undermines the claim that one can be traditionally Orthodox and accept source criticism akin to one accepting evolution and Orthodoxy (which although you deny that now, that was a pretty big component of thetorah.com's marketing when first started iirc.)
The Torah.com does occasionally have orthodox authors. Their work is excellent.
I have expressed to Rabbi Farber that the overwhelming articles are source criticism based. Those have a limited appeal in the academic orthodox community.
Once we see source criticism, it’s much like an eye roll, and skip the articles.
That's the whole point of the site. It's promote source criticism in the Orthodox community. (Or at least at one point it was )
I and others have written for them using other perspectives
….and I look forward to reading it again on a few weeks! Btw YK; impressive!
To be fair, Zev also publishes many articles from people who disagree with the multiple author schema. Those are the ones I mostly (99%) read.
Those are meant to be gateway articles
Then what would you do to replace these outdated decrees. What's a more modern, up to date way to distance ourselves from gentile society?
A. Marcus -
I've only skimmed the article, so I could be wide of the mark with what I am about to suggest.
But is it a given that he considers our distancing ourselves from the gentiles in these times even necessary at all?
Perhaps he is saying that that is itself no longer a requirement.
Such an assertion is ridiculous in the face of the rapid assimilation American Jewry is facing.
A. Marcus -
Needless to say, I am myself making no such assertion. I was only asking whether we are sure that the author of the post (or someone he quotes) isn’t. Or wouldn’t.
Right. I didn't think you were making that assertion.
You might like this piece.
https://kashrut.org/a-piece-i-wrote-many-years-ago/