[Avodah] Judaism is not a religion

[Prof. Levine via Avodah]

But the choice between "Judaism is not a religion" and "Judaism is very
different than other religions" is a pedagogic one. Since RSRH tells us
the exact distinction he means each time, it's not about the "category"
religion.

Please cite the places in his writings where "RSRH tells us the exact
distinction he means each time" and what these distinctions are. YL

The following is from RSRH's Tishrei VI in volume II of the Collected
writings and I think that again RSRH makes it clear the Judaism is
not a religion. (The entire essay may be read at
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/tishrei_VI.pdf)

It is on this clear historic basis, on realities confirmed by the
concrete experience of an entire nation, that Judaism stands, in both
theory and practice. In Judaism emotion must not be allowed to run
away with the mind. Rather, the emotions must be guided by realities
which were clearly apprehended by the senses, grasped by the lucid
intellect and considered by logical thought so that they serve as guides
for every aspect of our lives. Our reflections on these realities must
produce a firm, solemn resolve on our part to fashion our lives on
earth in accordance with the words of God which were addressed to
the thinking mind. Clear reasoning and vigorous willpower: these are
the forces on which Judaism counts; in Judaism, the heart and the
emotions only serve to mediate between intellect and action.

Not "belief' but "knowledge," not "sentiment" but "determination
and accomplishment;" these are the energies through which the
"Jewish religion" becomes manifest. And for that very reason Judaism
is not a "religion." It has no part with any of the facets that other
"religions" emphasize as the "essence of religion." He who would drag
Judaism down to the level of "belief' divorced from knowledge, who
would place also at the head of the "Jewish faith" all the nebulous
subjectivism which indulges in "devout impulses" and have these
notions constitute the basic requirements of the Jewish "religion,"
cannot be one of the "priests of the Lord." He is in reality one of the
priestlings of paganism who exploit vague sentiment and sensibilities
for the worship of their own delusions, whose harvest, therefore, has
mostly been grief and mourning, misery and distress.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141004/6f4854ed/attachment.htm>

[David Riceman via Avodah]

RZS:

<<1. We are not talking about agedeta here. Agadeta (obvious agadeta)
works by different rules. In our case we are talking about a statement
of fact given *as irrefutable proof* to win an argument.>>

It's very rare for Hazal to label something as "fact" or "aggadta". In
our case the proper label is precisely what's in dispute. In this
particular case Rabbeinu Bahya (Ki Seitzei 21:21 near the end) is unsure
which this is, so why are you so sure?

David Riceman

[Zev Sero via Avodah]

Post by David Riceman via Avodah
It's very rare for Hazal to label something as "fact" or "aggadta".
In our case the proper label is precisely what's in dispute. In this
particular case Rabbeinu Bahya (Ki Seitzei 21:21 near the end) is
unsure which this is, so why are you so sure?

I'm looking at the RB and I'm not seeing what you are. Where do you see
that he is unsure whether this is agadeta? On the contrary, he seems to
be treating it as straight testimony, which has to be explained, either by
saying RY disagrees with the Braisa (and his story proves him right), or by
saying that RY was mistaken, and what he saw was not really a BSuM. But
there's no suggestion that he knew he hadn't really seen a BSuM, but merely
had a strong belief that one must have existed somewhere.

[Arie Folger via Avodah]

Post by Prof. Levine via Avodah
The following is from RSRH's Tishrei VI in volume II of the Collected
writings and I think that again RSRH makes it clear the Judaism is
not a religion. (The entire essay may be read at
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/tishrei_VI.pdf

<http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/tishrei_VI.pdf>)
<SNIP>

Post by Prof. Levine via Avodah
Not "belief' but "knowledge," not "sentiment" but "determination
and accomplishment;" these are the energies through which the
"Jewish religion" becomes manifest. And for that very reason Judaism
is not a "religion." It has no part with any of the facets that other
"religions" emphasize as the "essence of religion." He who would drag
Judaism down to the level of "belief' divorced from knowledge, who
would place also at the head of the "Jewish faith" all the nebulous
subjectivism which indulges in "devout impulses" and have these
notions constitute the basic requirements of the Jewish "religion,"
cannot be one of the "priests of the Lord." He is in reality one of the
priestlings of paganism who exploit vague sentiment and sensibilities
for the worship of their own delusions, whose harvest, therefore, has
mostly been grief and mourning, misery and distress.

I think it is fairly obvious that he is railing Protestant bourgeois
attitudes, which, through Reform, were seeping quickly into the Jewish
communities. He may also have been railing against some Catholic attitudes.
What religion emphasizes belief though does not require knowledge?
Catholicism, where only priests and theologians need knowledge (with the
exception of some less well known orders or movements, like the
Neocatechumenal Way). What religion puts feeling ahead of action? That is a
very Christian attitude (even as there are many Christian organizations
centered on certain actions), reinforced by the Enlightenment that sought
to banish religion to ever more confined spaces.

So Rav Hirsch was railing against assimilating certain priorities from
surrounding societies, and distanced himself from the Christian attitudes
in 19th Century Germany.
--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Wie entstand und was bedeutet der bevorstehender Fastentag des 17. Tammus
* Do Not Forget, Do Not Shove it Under the Carpet
* ORD-Seminar in Regensburg
* Nach welchem Prinzip sind die f?nf B?cher Mose organisiert?
* R?ckblick auf Limmud.de
* In the Paris Jewish community, more women than men are recalcitrant
spouses.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141006/878a3ca0/attachment.htm>

[Prof. Levine via Avodah]

What religion puts feeling ahead of action? That is a very Christian
attitude (even as there are many Christian organizations centered on
certain actions), reinforced by the Enlightenment that sought to
banish religion to ever more confined spaces.

Chassidus also put feeling ahead of action in the beginning amongst
certain groups, for example, davening late. I also some vestiges
of this in some of things that some do today.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141006/6c910f96/attachment.htm>

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:18:13AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: Chassidus also put feeling ahead of action in the beginning amongst
: certain groups, for example, davening late. I also some vestiges
: of this in some of things that some do today.

Vestiges? The notion that chassidus is not studied but lived is
fundamental to what chassidus is.

But I don't think your example works: Tefillah is avodah shebaleiv.
It's an easy case to make that for this particular mitzvah, feeling --
ie kavanah, without which you aren't yotzei -- comes before action.

For that matter, Mussar is pretty much founded on the idea that what
one can change of oneself through knowledge is limited, that you need
add to that a passionate hispa'alus to actually accomplish our goal
in life.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

[David Riceman via Avodah]

RZS:

<<

or by
saying that RY was mistaken, and what he saw was not really a BSuM.
Nowhere does RB say that RY was mistaken: he says that RY was referring
to a person who "lo hayah BSuM gamur". RB's example is Avshalom.

Now we have no reason to think that Avshalom was a glutton or a drunkard
as a youth, no reason to think that he had stolen food or drink, and no
reason to think that his parents were alike in appearance and sound. In
fact his popularity would argue against the first two possibilities. He
was not qualified to be a BSuM. The point of comparison is that, as an
adult, he rebelled against his father.

So RY, in this alternative, is not saying that BSuM was ever
adjudicated, or even that he could ever be adjudicated. He was pointing
to the consequences of not adjudicating such cases. And he was using a
mashal - - e.g., k'gon Avshalom - - to do it.

So even though RY is indeed offering testimony, the testimony he is
offering is not addressed to the question at hand - - it is an allegory.

David Riceman

Incidentally - RMB - do we get extra credit for using two letter
acronyms instead of the traditional three?

DR

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 09:17:56PM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: Please cite the places in his writings where "RSRH tells us the
: exact distinction he means each time" and what these distinctions
: are. YL

Well, you provide a good example yourself:
: The following is from RSRH's Tishrei VI in volume II of the
: Collected writings and I think that again RSRH makes it clear the
: Judaism is not a religion. (The entire essay may be read at
: http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/tishrei_VI.pdf)
...
: Not "belief' but "knowledge," not "sentiment" but "determination
: and accomplishment;" these are the energies through which the
: "Jewish religion" becomes manifest. And for that very reason Judaism
: is not a "religion."

RSRH didn't talk here about it being G-d's Anthropology whereas religion is
Man's Theology....
That's a distinction RSRH makes elsewhere, in his first essay for
Sivan, sec 2, pg 185 (Ar Prof Levine's site,
<http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/sivan_1.pdf>.)}

See pg 185 (3rd page of your PDF), first new paragraph ("The Torah,
however...")

In none of your citations does RSRH make his point using numerous proofs
of different ways in which Judaism isn't a religion. In each case, his
essay's topic is the topc of the proof -- faith vs knowledge or being
from G-d and about man vs being by man and about G-d. As part of the
full essay, it reads more smoothly to assume as I did, that RSRH is
making a specific contrast, and not spilling ink on what boils down to
defining a German word (the one we have rendered "religion").

GCT!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every
micha at aishdas.org argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: [phone] Likutei Tefilos 94:964



Tir'u baTov!
-Micha