Re: kol isha in action

[avi finegold <afinegold...>]

--- Dan Jacobs <dan (at) caliginous(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, avi finegold wrote:
> 
> > all it says int he torah is that you should not
> cook a
> > kid in its mothers milk.
> 
> Not true, it gives lists of Animals that are kosher
> and that are not, but
> I agree with your point, most of Kashrut is
> Rabbinic.
> 

i didnt say rabbinic, i meant that according to
orthodoxy anything that was devised rabbinically has
divine origin and is therefore quite equivalent. the
usual example is tefilin, where we see the torah gives
us a somewhat vague description of what to do and this
must be interpreted by the rabbis as to what was mwant
at sinai. this doesnt mean that if in 2003 its more
acceptable to have priwinkle tefilin we can do it
since the rabbis seem to have come up with the whole
black colour thing. this goes a long way in explaining
much of the orthodox position regarding much of what
youre saying below, i.e. that just because it a law
was brought down by rabbinic sources that it makes it
for a more acceptable product for change.


> >  Kol Isha was created by a human.
> >
> > according to orthodoxy nothing was created by a
> human
> 
> not exactly true, all laws can be traced back to the
> torah, this is
> different to saying all laws are from g-d. 
> Obviously human interpretation
> and weakness comes into play.
> 


yes but the talmud is quick to point out that the word
of the rabbinical consensus has equal validity (an
orthodox person will say of course that this consensus
must be comprised of scholars learned enough in the
precepts of talmudic discourse on an orthodox level)


> Also there are areas of law that can be
> 're-interpreted' depending on time and society,
> these include areas
> where modesty is involved and also sexual arousal. 
> I'm sure most rabbonim
> would agree that a womans voice does not have the
> same effect now on men as it may have had when the
> gemora was written.
> 
> 

i dont think youll find many rabbis who would agree
with you on that one, you cant say that since we hear
destinys child and christina and britney on the radio
all day here in america that makes it acceptable to
change the halacha of kol isha.


> > > Kashrut has made
> > > sense for many reasons in many times in history.
> >
> > WHOA! im a rabbinical student and im still
> grappling
> > with the notion of kosher being a logical thing to
> > follow. i even have a hard time understanding why
> i
> > should not eat fish and meat on the same plate
> (which
> > IS a rabbinically decreed custom). that doesnt
> mean i
> > dont do it. a central tenetof orthodox philosophy
> > stress the notion that regardless of there being a
> > reason for doing it or not, it should still be
> > followed. of course this isnt to say that we
> shouldnt
> > try and understand why a law exists or not.
> 
> I think this is a matter of hashkafah (approach), I
> think that we need to
> question, and if we find that what we have been
> doing is a problem
> for the Jewish people then we alter our practise
> (where possible and
> carefully).
>


we definitely need to question, but orthodox
philosophy would say that in the case of an
irreconcilable difference between halacha and
contemporary society it is to society that we must
look to adapt and not to a halacha. this isnt the best
example (as i realize that my kashrut one was perfect
either) but im using it for illustrative purposes
only......when people came to america and found that
they couldnt get jobs without working on shabbat
orthodox people found ways to work without having to
do that even if it entailed getting a new job every
week. they couldnt just say, hey thats what society
demands of me and so i guess i just gotta work
saturdays. 


 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan
> 
> ---------------------- jewish-music (at) shamash(dot)org
> ---------------------+
>