On the topic of things not being what they used to be:
A lot of evolution has gone into the Jewish people over the centuries.
In simpler terms, we are not the people we were three hundred years ago. Definitely not the people we were a thousand years ago. And CERTAINLY not the people who lived b'zman beis hamikdash.
Most of us alive today tend to picture Avraham Avinu and Moshe Rabbeinu as Rebbes, if at all. Though Avraham was a Kurd and Moshe a quintessential Egyptian. We assume that a Jew is a Jew, and looks, talks, acts, and lives like a Jew, without any further question as to what, if anything, is a Jew.
(The previous sentence is, in fact, a sentence. Read it again.)
And that is perfectly fine. We wear our Jewish identity without any compulsions, engage in productive lives within that structure provided by that identity, and build communities to encapsulate that identity as well as promulgate it. Understanding is nice, but it is not the same as being there and being it.
But...
There are those who invest in understanding, in context, in a fuller appreciation of what it means to be a Jew. They talk of things like biblical agendas, corrupt priests, rabbinical judaism, mistaken pshatim, Christian influences, and other such things. Because while ignorance is bliss, it is still ignorance.
Of course, on the flip side, understanding things tends to place you outside of them. And these people are almost always outside the community.
So which one do you think is more important - the experience in the moment (albeit perhaps without any understanding of how things got there), or understanding where you stand (but not, technically, being there)?
Based on that, do you think that Halacha is meant to engineer an experiential life, or an understanding one?
And which one of those approaches is more "free" in the sense of the ben chorin that Torah is meant to make you?
There is a reason why most (if not all) analyzers of the evolution of Jewish practice are "outsiders".
ReplyDeleteIndeed, some of them used to be frum Jews, and the more they analyzed, the more their analysis pushed them to the "outside".
Analysis tries to answer the question of "How?".
How did we go from the aristocratic Abraham, to slaves in Egypt, to life in the first Temple, short exile, Purim, Second Temple, Chanukah, long exile, Sefardi, Ashkenazi, Yemenite, Ethiopian, etc.?
The shomer mitzvot asks "Why?"
Since G-d is in complete control of everything, does it really matter by what mechanism He introduced this concept, that mode of dress, this foreign understanding that He incorporated into Jewish thought? "How" is mechanical. "Why" is spiritual.
Focusing on the "how" almost presumes atheism (or at best, deism). Stuff just "is". History just "happened". There is no "Why" to answer, so the best we can do is look at the mechanical aspect, "how" we went from there to here.
The haggadah teaches us that we were once stuck in "How". How will we get our work done? How will we appease Pharaoh to give us better conditions? How will we survive?
All of that changed, because one Hebrew boy, raised as an Egyptian prince, dared to ask the question "Why?"
The sneh was always there. It was a "natural" phenomenon, and people walked by it all the time, and just accepted it as an oddity. Perhaps some Egyptians took a look at it, and try to figure out "how" it burned without being consumed. Maybe they even came up with some sort of hypothesis.
Moses approached it, wanting to know "Why". And the rest, is Jewish history.
Or, there can be those who ask "WHY did we end up here? What is the path we are on, and where is it pointing?" Of course there is a why to history. That itself is what Jews have taught the world. That is almost the theme of Nach, and certainly one of its lessons.
DeleteAnd considering Avraham is "haIvri", the outsider...maybe being on the outside isnt as bad as we thought?
Tzvi i enjoy your blog and would love to comment something brilliant. However, I dont really understand it. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteHow about a guest post? ;)
Delete