debka_notion (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
debka_notion) wrote2006-12-11 10:37 pm
debka_notion) wrote2006-12-11 10:37 pm
Upcoming Final
I'm rather nervous about my Talmud final now- I'm surprised I wasn't before. But I'm also feeling like obsessing over it now won't actually do me much good at this point. So- we'll see how it goes, but it's tomorrow at 9am, so after that I can nap, prep for my Hebrew reading test in the early afternoon, and then I'm into prepping for the take home exam, that exam itself, the paper and my application.
Outside of that, today was the last day of classes, and my Hebrew listening final was pretty reasonable, I think. A little weird, but reasonable.
And I went to part of (unfortunately I had to leave early) Rabbis Roth and Rabinowitz's talk on why they resigned from the CJLS- I really did respect what they were saying, and I was really relieved that neither plan on leaving JTS, or the Conservative movement. I was interested that their reasons were really quite different: Rabbi Roth disagreed with the halakhic reasoning of the Dorff/Nevins/Reisner paper, and Rabbi Rabinowitz took issue both with the halakhic reasoning and with the general make-up and format of the CJLS as an institution. What I thought was fascinating, in a sort of strange way, was that Rabbi Rabinowitz said that he'd go from a position that facilitated his resigning from the CJLS in protest to one that would be on the far left, "uprooting a principle from the torah", if it could be proved to him that doing so would benefit Jewish society as a whole and not just folks who are gay. I think that that's a really interesting position, although I somehow can't quite parse it into something that makes complete sense in my brain. It's kind of funky: at the same time I can see where he's coming from, from a traditionalist perspective, and I can also totally object, because how could he say that something that would improve so many lives Not be good for Jewish society at large? (At the same time, I suppose one could have made that same argument for the driving teshuvah, and that didn't help us any. But I don't think it's Really the same argument in this case. In the case of worries about this leading to the Conservative movement generally becoming a non-halakhic movement- now That worry I understand.) Rabbi Roth's issues were much more conventionally understandable from a halakhic perspective, although I'd Love to spend some time looking at what he was talking about in detail at some point. It showed me exactly how much I have to learn about the process and general hierarchy of halakhic authority and chain of transmission, which was both inspiring and intimidating.
Outside of that, today was the last day of classes, and my Hebrew listening final was pretty reasonable, I think. A little weird, but reasonable.
And I went to part of (unfortunately I had to leave early) Rabbis Roth and Rabinowitz's talk on why they resigned from the CJLS- I really did respect what they were saying, and I was really relieved that neither plan on leaving JTS, or the Conservative movement. I was interested that their reasons were really quite different: Rabbi Roth disagreed with the halakhic reasoning of the Dorff/Nevins/Reisner paper, and Rabbi Rabinowitz took issue both with the halakhic reasoning and with the general make-up and format of the CJLS as an institution. What I thought was fascinating, in a sort of strange way, was that Rabbi Rabinowitz said that he'd go from a position that facilitated his resigning from the CJLS in protest to one that would be on the far left, "uprooting a principle from the torah", if it could be proved to him that doing so would benefit Jewish society as a whole and not just folks who are gay. I think that that's a really interesting position, although I somehow can't quite parse it into something that makes complete sense in my brain. It's kind of funky: at the same time I can see where he's coming from, from a traditionalist perspective, and I can also totally object, because how could he say that something that would improve so many lives Not be good for Jewish society at large? (At the same time, I suppose one could have made that same argument for the driving teshuvah, and that didn't help us any. But I don't think it's Really the same argument in this case. In the case of worries about this leading to the Conservative movement generally becoming a non-halakhic movement- now That worry I understand.) Rabbi Roth's issues were much more conventionally understandable from a halakhic perspective, although I'd Love to spend some time looking at what he was talking about in detail at some point. It showed me exactly how much I have to learn about the process and general hierarchy of halakhic authority and chain of transmission, which was both inspiring and intimidating.
no subject
What do you mean by this? Could you elaborate a little?
I think both perspectives (yeridat ha'dorot and "standing-on-giants'-shoulders") involve the need to connect to the past- they just articulate the connection in ways that give the people at whichever end more or less power- if you're standing on a giant's shoulders, giving it a haircut, or even chopping off it's head is possibly doable, if messy (this makes sense in my head, even though it may not in transmission). By the other theory, one has no authority to do so.
I'm really finding your language metaphor interesting and potentially useful, but I'm still working on grokking it, as it were.
I do think that occasionally filtering out inapplicable cultural influences can be useful as a viewpoint and as a stretegy, used carefully. The question is possibly then how to do so without filling in too much of our own cultural influences that are not really connected to the source materials.
On the other hand, if one can help people to feel like they are doing their best to uphold a difficult and painful system that is still very important to them- then shouldn't we do so? If making the distinctions clear so that they can sin in smaller ways would help them, then can we really chose not to do so? It does seem to be an area where I can really see the advantage of having psak given to individuals rather than by committee to the general community: I am really starting to see the point made by R. Rabinowitz about the problems inherent in the CJLS and in halakha-by-committee, much as I think it's a fascinating process.