Re: because of mixed dancing

[Robert Cohen <rlcm17...>]

Briefly:

1) Being part of the Shema is not just 'remaining part of the liturgy'; it's 
_central_ to the liturgy--and the religion.  (I didn't say it wasn't 
problematic--let alone that attempting to apply it, or make sense of the 
world through that lens, isn't problematic.  In fact, I very much suggested 
it *was* so.)

2) Sacrifices belong to Temple-era Judaism; we're in post-Temple, 
rabbinic-era Judaism (though some think we should more self-consciously 
enter and define a third era).  So Temple sacrifices are not part of 
normative Judaism today.  I have no idea whether or not we'd be sacrificing 
animals today if the Temple weren't destroyed!!!  And, brother Bob, I don't 
think such an impossible hypothetical is all that productive to pose ...

--Robert Cohen

>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? ....
>
>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 To: World music from a Jewish 
>slant 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

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org ---------------------+