Re: because of mixed dancing

[wiener <wiener...>]

Robert,

I'm not quite sure that the fact that a passage is Biblical or even
that it remains part of the liturgy means that it is "a basic part --
of normative traditional Judaism."  Biblical passages about animal
sacrifice remain part of most siddurim, yet I don't believe that you
would characterize them as "a basic part -- of normative traditional
Judaism."  In other words, I don't think that you believe that if the
Temple were not destroyed that we would still be sacrificing animals
there.  Or do you?

In other words, I think that any review of what traditional/observant
Jews consider fundamental would reveal that much if not most of it is
not Biblical, but Rabbinic in nature.  In other words, one could
thoroughly read the words of the Hebrew Scriptures and not recognize a
contemporary Jew as related to the Hebrews spoken of there.

Those who do believe that the 2nd paragraph of the Shema is "a basic
part -- of normative traditional Judaism" may well discover that the
principle that good things happen to good people and bad things happen
to bad people will lead to unsatisfactory conclusions when applied to
such events as the Shoah.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Cohen <rlcm17 (at) hotmail(dot)com>
To: World music from a Jewish slant <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org>
Date: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: because of mixed dancing


>Though I, too, winced at the foolish and rather obnoxious statement
>regarding the supposed cause of the wedding hall disaster, I must
humbly
>respond to sister Lori's post here.  For the fact is that a cosmology
of
>"cause and effect"--or, as it is usually referred to, reward and
>punishment--is very much a part--a basic part--of normative
traditional
>Judaism.  (Read the second paragraph--after the "V'auhavtau"
>paragraph--following the Shema.)  Obviously each of us believes what
(s)he
>believes (or tries/struggles to), and this belief in particular is
very hard
>for many of us Baby Boomers to subscribe to.  But to simply dismiss
it as
>Lori does is, I think, highly inappropriate in a Jewish context.
>
>That being said, I certainly share Rabbi Lau's belief--he seems, btw,
to be
>a rather good-hearted man--that expressing this speculation (that the
>disaster resulted from mixed dancing at the wedding) was
inappropriate and
>wrong--and I would add, even thinking it, in a sense, is wrong.
Because:
>
>1) A secondary but important reason (for not saying it) is that his
words
>caused pain, and one's words should carefully be chosen to comfort
mourners,
>not increase their pain.  This may have been Rabbi Lau's rationale,
though
>obviously I don't know that.
>
>2) An even more profound reason, I believe, is that although Judaism
may,
>and indeed (however problematically for some of us) does believe in
reward
>and punishment, the way in which that plays out in this world (and/or
the
>next?) is by definition in G*d's hands, and utterly beyond our
>understanding.  To assert that one knows that B resulted from A
(aside from
>being an instance of logically fallacious reasoning by converse) is
the
>utmost arrogance--just as it is arrogant to assert, as others have in
other
>discussions here, that one knows what G*d wants or how G*d works.
The rabbi
>who made this statement was, I believe, essentially denying, in that
>statement, the existence of a G*d whose workings are beyond our
>comprehension--which is the only G*d Judaism knows.
>
>In response to such a catastrophe, I believe, it's foolish as well as
>arrogant to assert that one knows why it happens--and also foolish to
>dismiss any such possibility as ludicrous (though I understand why
one would
>wince from this particular explanation, as I did).  The Jewish-wisdom
>response to the question why (in a spiritual sense) this, or any such
>disaster, occurs (aside from the rigorous investigation that is
obviously
>needed, in a society that actually sets itself up for this sort of
buildings
>accident) is what one of my own rebbes frequently said about many
things we,
>and he, don't understand:
>
>Who knows?
>
>--Robert Cohen
>
>
>>From: MaxwellSt (at) aol(dot)com
>>Reply-To: jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org
>>To: World music from a Jewish slant <jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org>
>>Subject: Re: because of mixed dancing
>>Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:51:38 EDT
>>
>>Then it makes you wonder what the Satmar Rabbi did wrong to incur
the
>>punishment of losing his daughter and granddaughter to a fire,
caused by
>>lighting yontif candles....
>>
>>There are those people who see the world in terms of cause and
effect.
>>They
>>wear very tight, smug little glasses.  They are not deeply loved
except by
>>their own fanatical followers.
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
>
>----------------------
jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+
>