<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Being a Heretic, or, How to Disagree With the Talmud</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jewneric.com/being-a-heretic-in-two-words-or-less/2008/03/03/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jewneric.com/being-a-heretic-in-two-words-or-less/2008/03/03/</link>
	<description>A New Platform for the Jewish Voice</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jewneric &#187; Being a Heretic, OR, Holy Unfathomables, Batman</title>
		<link>http://jewneric.com/being-a-heretic-in-two-words-or-less/2008/03/03/comment-page-1/#comment-381</link>
		<dc:creator>Jewneric &#187; Being a Heretic, OR, Holy Unfathomables, Batman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jewneric.com/being-a-heretic-in-two-words-or-less/2008/03/03/#comment-381</guid>
		<description>[...] your own interpretation of Torah? Esther vs. Kermit - Why does the Gemara say Esther was green? Disagreeing with the Talmud - How to find meaning in fuzzy, fluffy [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] your own interpretation of Torah? Esther vs. Kermit - Why does the Gemara say Esther was green? Disagreeing with the Talmud - How to find meaning in fuzzy, fluffy [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moshe Glasser</title>
		<link>http://jewneric.com/being-a-heretic-in-two-words-or-less/2008/03/03/comment-page-1/#comment-329</link>
		<dc:creator>Moshe Glasser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:33:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jewneric.com/being-a-heretic-in-two-words-or-less/2008/03/03/#comment-329</guid>
		<description>Your desperate attempts to be heretical seem to have failed.

It always seemed to me that there were a number of exegetical devices designed to explain things we already knew to be true through tradition. The discussion in Massechet Succot over what truly is an Etrog comes to mind. How could it be that more than a thousand years after Sinai, we didn't know what an Etrog was? Obviously, we knew, but were looking for a textual proof that would validate only the fruit we knew to be the right one - after all, how could there not be textual proof?

This occurs in the Gemara all over the place, and is more a matter of putting together mnemonics for record keeping than arguing over law. If you notice, the law is never under discussion; only the verse which proves the law we already know to be correct is questioned. In some cases, we know there was a text to justify the law, and we are trying to figure out what it was. In other cases, we have the law and want some text to justify it so we will have more to tell our children than "we remember when..." 

In either case, it is not heretical to question process. It is heretical to reject law because process makes you uncomfortable (something I have often seen - "How can we run a religion like this? It's stupid!"). If you are more comfortable saying you accept a law because of tradition, this verse thing doesn't do it for you - fine. That isn't heretical, it's a matter of preference. It's not heresy to have a hard time with the Gemara. Nowhere in anyone's lists of articles of faith (Maimonides has the most famous list, but many other rabbis do, too) is absolute faith in the Gemara a factor. Some of the stuff we do, we do because we have traditions. Look at the law you are talking about - celebrating Purim on the right day was not an option, so we move it. Immediately, we think of bringing Jerusalem into the discussion. We find a parallel and make it work. It's a little fuzzy - okay, no biggie. We use Jewish legal logic to come up with conclusions (which is not the same as Boolean or mathematical logic, of which we are so fond here in Western Civilization). The idea is what counts.

Please keep it up, David.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your desperate attempts to be heretical seem to have failed.</p>
<p>It always seemed to me that there were a number of exegetical devices designed to explain things we already knew to be true through tradition. The discussion in Massechet Succot over what truly is an Etrog comes to mind. How could it be that more than a thousand years after Sinai, we didn&#8217;t know what an Etrog was? Obviously, we knew, but were looking for a textual proof that would validate only the fruit we knew to be the right one - after all, how could there not be textual proof?</p>
<p>This occurs in the Gemara all over the place, and is more a matter of putting together mnemonics for record keeping than arguing over law. If you notice, the law is never under discussion; only the verse which proves the law we already know to be correct is questioned. In some cases, we know there was a text to justify the law, and we are trying to figure out what it was. In other cases, we have the law and want some text to justify it so we will have more to tell our children than &#8220;we remember when&#8230;&#8221; </p>
<p>In either case, it is not heretical to question process. It is heretical to reject law because process makes you uncomfortable (something I have often seen - &#8220;How can we run a religion like this? It&#8217;s stupid!&#8221;). If you are more comfortable saying you accept a law because of tradition, this verse thing doesn&#8217;t do it for you - fine. That isn&#8217;t heretical, it&#8217;s a matter of preference. It&#8217;s not heresy to have a hard time with the Gemara. Nowhere in anyone&#8217;s lists of articles of faith (Maimonides has the most famous list, but many other rabbis do, too) is absolute faith in the Gemara a factor. Some of the stuff we do, we do because we have traditions. Look at the law you are talking about - celebrating Purim on the right day was not an option, so we move it. Immediately, we think of bringing Jerusalem into the discussion. We find a parallel and make it work. It&#8217;s a little fuzzy - okay, no biggie. We use Jewish legal logic to come up with conclusions (which is not the same as Boolean or mathematical logic, of which we are so fond here in Western Civilization). The idea is what counts.</p>
<p>Please keep it up, David.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
