Re: New mikveh wars in Israel

no-spam@xxxxxxxxx (Scoop) wrote in
news:44a2efad$0$12755$742ec2ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Quoth Asher_N:
: no-spam@xxxxxxxxx (Scoop) wrote in
: news:44a2bf07$0$12693$742ec2ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

: > Quoth Don Levey:
: >: no-spam@xxxxxxxxx (Scoop) writes:
: >
: >: > "Apikorus," right? But I'm not sure I follow what you're saying
: >: > here ... oh, wait. You mean that Galileo was challenging
: >: > divinity and validity? I'm not sure I agree, mostly because I
: >: > don't think the forces which constrained Galileo would have
: >: > operated in the same way in a contemporary Jewish context. But
: >: > perhaps that's what I get for unwisely arguing hypotheticals --
: >: > "there will be no end to the matter." ;-)
: >: >
: >: That's sorta what I'm saying. Galileo challenged the basic
: >: assumptions of the religious establishment, and look what happened
: >: to him. While we can talk about the ability to question within
: >: Judaism, we must at the same time look at the harsh words reserved
: >: for those who question the basic assumptions. Galileo was
: >: excommunicated. We've previously seen (from Josh) what fate
: >: Judaism places upon those who question the fundemental assumptions
: >: of the Divinity of the Torah and validity of the Oral Law.
: >
: > Well, sure ... but aren't those two different (though related)
: > issues? I think one can admit the validity of the Oral Law while
: > doubting (or rather keeping an open mind about) the Torah's
: > divinity. That's how I operate, anyway; I believe with perfect
: > faith (seriously!) that our ancestors believed God gave us the
: > Torah and exercised their considerable mental gifts in trying to
: > figure out what it meant, and that through following their
: > signposts I come closer to God. Those are the results I get,
: > anyway.
: >

: That's fair and I don't think many of us would argue with this. But
: when we realize that their knowledge was limited and their
: conclusions are flawed by OUR standards, we must re-analyze the
: source and draw new conclusions.

I'd agree with the first part of what you said -- about the Sages'
limited knowledge -- but I think we can't well judge their conclusions
outside of THEIR standards, if for no other reason that we'd be
speaking two different languages. But still ... we must also look
specifically and closely at what it is we're discussing. If the Sages
say (and I'm making this up off the top of my head, since I can't
think of an actual example right now) that spoiled meat causes
measles, and then proceed to purport a cure based on that assumption,
we'd do well to measure their results against those of current medical
science. However, that doesn't /necessarily/ mean that we should
dismiss outright the process which produced those results, if for no
other reason than that it helps train the mind to think critically in
an important, if unfamiliar, way -- usually by revealing that no
matter how you define something, there's always another way to look at
it.

It's kind of hard to talk about these matters in the abstract,
especially since I'm new at this myself and still trying to figure it
out; it makes alot more sense if we look at specifics (is the Mishnah
talking about ritual matters? Historical? Metaphor? In what context?
Are the examples descriptive or prescriptive? Do the examples matter
as much as the discussion? Why this digression, and in this way? Is
there a reason this is unresolved?) I guess what I'm trying to say is
that for many of us moderns, Oral Torah can be compared to a foreign
country. Isn't it better to learn the language and customs before
visiting than to abuse the natives for not knowing English?

.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. Neal Ross Attinson .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
: Doing my best to complete the Nameless Mission :
.:.:.:.:.:.: 38.29x -122.46x >1700PxT :.:.:.:.:.


I think we're essentially saying the same thing. You'll never hear me say
that the Sages were wrong in the sense that they knew better but still
interpreted a certain way. I'm absolutely convinced that they rules
according to the best o their knowledge. What I have problems with is
when we look at a ruling, and can see that according to our current
standard, it's the wrong interpretation, but still refuse to override the
original ruling.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Which Singularity Dont You Want?
    ... rather than merely having beliefs. ... > me to start out saying that the physicalist ones were bad, ... enough things to be able to reason... ... but if physicalism is true he has them for boring reasons. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: How to open jars
    ... hypnotism. ... ostensibly for some other reason. ... But then, if someone coughs, it might trigger some ancient instinct ... I have no problem with saying some don't know what ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: OT The Fucking Hospital has just about killed my Cousin
    ... Because you are obviously too stupid to understand what I'm saying, ... things, and yes, no matter what the reason, it's inexcusable. ... and I didn't catch that mistake. ... I use moron recognition software like most people, ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Scientific assumptions [was: Help needed with expletives
    ... What we are saying is that the words he has said are words that, ... isn't a very good reason. ... If I believed Jonathan did want people to think he was a dick then I ... When silencing women is an unintentional effect, it's important to speak ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: [ARE YOU SAVED?!] The Illustrated Xenu (for Heathens)
    ... , in an attempt to scoop the misc.writing Herald, stopped ... the presses by saying: ...
    (misc.writing)