Orthodox/traditional/classical (not sure the term) Jews, would you chime in on this article about age of earth?

[6packofun]

A friend shared this and I thought this was fascinating but I want a very honest opinion about the author's claims that this specifically is the traditional view of more Orthodox Jews on the subject.  I find that a lot of people like to throw out "This is what has always been believed..." by their theological camp and I figure I should try to go closer to the source and ask those IN the camp if that's how they understand it!

 

Thank you if you have time to read it, it's a little long! (And I have NO idea about the trustworthiness of the website itself, btw.)

 

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

[Daria]

Thank you for posting that, it was fascinating!

 

I am not your target audience, by a mile, so I can't add anything beyond that, but I'm eager to keep reading this thread.

[6packofun]

Daria, isn't it?  I've always thought that we (Christians) should be reading the OT from more of a Jewish framework than we do in order to get the original, intended meaning.  But I have no clue how to do that!  LOL

[Daria]

Daria, isn't it?  I've always thought that we (Christians) should be reading the OT from more of a Jewish framework than we do in order to get the original, intended meaning.  But I have no clue how to do that!  LOL

 

I'm not Christian, except sort of culturally, but I thought this was the most intelligent and well written thing I've read that tries to understand the science and the Bible in relationship to each other.  Not that I've read a lot.  

[trulycrabby]

Fascinating read! Thank you! :)

[SeaConquest]

Aish is a reputable site for information from an Orthodox perspective. The author of the post has written many excellent books on this topic. He is an MIT-trained, Orthodox Jewish physicist. There is no contradiction in traditional Judaism with modern scientific thought re cosmology and evolutionary biology, and faith in G-d.

[6packofun]

There is no contradiction in traditional Judaism with modern scientific thought re cosmology and evolutionary biology, and faith in G-d.

 

...because Jews have always read that the "clock" starts with Adam and not the first 6 days? Or is this a more recent interpretation.  (Or has the age of the earth not even been a concern until recent times because there wasn't as much science to go up against, kwim? I can see that being the case for any religion!)  That's what I'm really asking.  :)  I'm just curious and would be interested in other writings by Schroeder!

[YaelAldrich]

Oooh!  I wanna be a Classical Jew!   :laugh:  No offense meant, 6PackoFun.  Orthodox/Observant is the correct term to use. :)

 

As SeaConquest said, Aish.com is a reputable site to study (Orthodox) Judaism.  Gerald Schroeder, PhD (the author) is well known as a writer about this topic.  

 

Now, here's the fun (or frustrating) part.  Yes, this is ONE opinion of the Creation Story.  Some other Orthodox Jews do not find any need to reconcile religion and science and just work with the Theory of Evolution (Rational Jews).  Some OTHER Orthodox Jews are more on the end of a six day, young earth (Chabad and other Charedi Jews).  Some OTHER Jews try to figure out how to merge the Creation Story with what science tells us (Schroeder).  Many in each group think the others are bonkers.

 

Isn't Judaism fun!?! :leaving:

 

Traditional/Orthodox Judaism sees the world as starting with Adam HaRishon (the first person), so the stuff before that can be interpreted in several different ways.

 

Hope that helps and you can ask more questions if you'd like.

 

[happi duck]

Interesting article...thanks for posting!

[Spy Car]

 

Now, here's the fun (or frustrating) part.  Yes, this is ONE opinion of the Creation Story.  Some other Orthodox Jews do not find any need to reconcile religion and science and just work with the Theory of Evolution (Rational Jews).  Some OTHER Orthodox Jews are more on the end of a six day, young earth (Chabad and other Charedi Jews).  Some OTHER Jews try to figure out how to merge the Creation Story with what science tells us (Schroeder).  Many in each group think the others are bonkers.

 

Isn't Judaism fun!?! :leaving:

 

 

Oh the hours of fun that could be had parsing-out the inside-baseball of this modest paragraph :D

 

Bill

[Daria]

Isn't Judaism fun!?! :leaving:

 

 

Sounds a lot like Christianity with no one agreeing! I am curious, are there any Christian Scientists/Theologians who try to reconcile the science and the scripture in this way? I feel as though I have not seen this particular perspective, that both modern science The Creation story in Genesis are "true", articulated this well before. I either see people interpreting scripture as "myth" or questioning or denying modern science.

[SeaConquest]

...because Jews have always read that the "clock" starts with Adam and not the first 6 days? Or is this a more recent interpretation. (Or has the age of the earth not even been a concern until recent times because there wasn't as much science to go up against, kwim? I can see that being the case for any religion!) That's what I'm really asking. :) I'm just curious and would be interested in other writings by Schroeder!

I think that Yael probably answered this, but there isn't one unified "Orthodox Jewish" opinion on the science v. literal Genesis interpretation of the Torah. As was mentioned, there are certainly some Orthodox Jews (for example: some that follow Rabbis M. Schneerson or M. Feinstein) who do not "believe" in evolution or modern cosmological thought re the age of the universe, although I know plenty of Chabadniks who do.

 

The point that I was trying to make was that traditional Jewish belief and science are not *necessarily* at odds with one another, as there are many Orthodox Jews who hold such views (the Rabbinical Council of America, A. Kaplan, G. Schroeder, Y. Levi, J. Sacks, N. Slifkin, and many others). Even Maimonides, one of the greatest rabbis of all time, wrote that he did not believe that Genesis was intended to be interpreted literally in all parts.

 

Although you didn't ask about the Reform and Conservative streams of Judaism (which are the majority of Jews), it also bears noting that these branches of Judaism also accept modern scientific views re evolution and cosmology.

 

So, while there are certainly "Young Earth" Jews in Orthodoxy, they are far from the majority. If you are looking for further reading on this topic, from a variety of Jewish perspectives, this Wiki site can point you in the right direction:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution

Edited March 30, 2016 by SeaConquest

[Bluegoat]

Sounds a lot like Christianity with no one agreeing! I am curious, are there any Christian Scientists/Theologians who try to reconcile the science and the scripture in this way? I feel as though I have not seen this particular perspective, that both modern science The Creation story in Genesis are "true", articulated this well before. I either see people interpreting scripture as "myth" or questioning or denying modern science.

 

Yes, you can find very similar kinds of ideas in patristic thought, and today among classical/orthodox/traditional theologians.  (Though, you have to be careful with the word myth - it does not necessarily mean an untrue or made up story.)  The nature of the language in the Scriptural creation account, and its peculiarities, was something that was noted and commented on long before anyone had any reason to suspect that the universe might be millions of years old.

 

And also similarly, there was disagreement on how precisely to understand the text well before the modern period as well.

 

The idea that it is some kind of litmus test for CHristian orthodoxy is just bosh.

 

ETA: some of the Christian scholars were reading the Jewish ones, and vice versa, so really this should be expected.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Pam in CT]

I think that Yael probably answered this, but there isn't one unified "Orthodox Jewish" opinion on the science v. literal Genesis interpretation of the Torah. As was mentioned, there are certainly some Orthodox Jews (for example: some that follow Rabbis M. Schneerson or M. Feinstein) who do not "believe" in evolution or modern cosmological thought re the age of the universe, although I know plenty of Chabadniks who do.

 

The point that I was trying to make was that traditional Jewish belief and science are not *necessarily* at odds with one another, as there are many Orthodox Jews who hold such views (the Rabbinical Council of America, A. Kaplan, G. Schroeder, Y. Levi, J. Sacks, N. Slifkin, and many others). Even Maimonides, one of the greatest rabbis of all time, wrote that he did believe that Genesis was intended to be interpreted literally in all parts.

 

Although you didn't ask about the Reform and Conservative streams of Judaism (which are the majority of Jews), it also bears noting that these branches of Judaism also accept modern scientific views re evolution and cosmology.

 

So, while there are certainly "Young Earth" Jews in Orthodoxy, they are far from the majority. If you are looking for further reading on this topic, from a variety of Jewish perspectives, this Wiki site can point you in the right direction: 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_evolution

We're Reform, but I'd concur with this observation about the diversity of views within, as well as between, the different strands of Judaism -- a very long tradition of vigorous debate is actually codified in Talmud, among our sacred texts.  

 

As well, Judaism -- even Orthodox/observant Judaism -- tends generally to lean more towards deed, less on creed -- even Jews who believe deeply in God generally hold that God cares more about our *actions* than what goes on in our heads (thus, the emphasis on observance.)  

 

We argue a lot over a lot of things, but issues like age of the earth (or other religion v science hot buttons) just don't tend to get much airtime.

 

 

[YaelAldrich]

We're Reform, but I'd concur with this observation about the diversity of views within, as well as between, the different strands of Judaism -- a very long tradition of vigorous debate is actually codified in Talmud, among our sacred texts.  

 

As well, Judaism -- even Orthodox/observant Judaism -- tends generally to lean more towards deed, less on creed -- even Jews who believe deeply in God generally hold that God cares more about our *actions* than what goes on in our heads (thus, the emphasis on observance.)  

 

We argue a lot over a lot of things, but issues like age of the earth (or other religion v science hot buttons) just don't tend to get much airtime.

 And since we're Jews, I think I will beg to differ. :gnorsi:    While Orthodoxy is a practice based religion (deed v. creed) in comparison to Protestant Christianity, there certainly is a strong emphasis on correct thought, especially in the more "Ultra" Orthodox (Charedi) groups.  There was a schism about a decade ago between some big rabbinical figures and a rabbi who was in those circles until he started writing works about how a young earth theory was not possible according to science.  He got a smack down from his community and people rallied to both sides.  Voila!   Rationalist Judaism in its modern form was born, an offshoot of Orthodoxy which espouses a rational (duh!) view of our religion and its philosophies.

[kewb]

As a Conservative Jew, brought up in a conservadox synagogue and as an adult who probably leans reconstructionist or rationalist; let me add my opinion to the mix.  From my conservative upbringing there was never any question of science and religion going hand in hand.  I remember all those years ago being taught that time to G-d is not necessarily the same as time to a human.  The 6 days of creation could have been millions of years.  What is a day to G-d?  As we learn more about the world around us we learn more about G-d.  It is not about how old the earth is.  It is about our relationship with G-d.

Edited March 30, 2016 by kewb

[6packofun]

Oooh!  I wanna be a Classical Jew!   :laugh:  No offense meant, 6PackoFun.  Orthodox/Observant is the correct term to use. :)

 

 

 

LOL!  Thank you.  ;)

[Daria]

Yes, you can find very similar kinds of ideas in patristic thought, and today among classical/orthodox/traditional theologians. (Though, you have to be careful with the word myth - it does not necessarily mean an untrue or made up story.) The nature of the language in the Scriptural creation account, and its peculiarities, was something that was noted and commented on long before anyone had any reason to suspect that the universe might be millions of years old.

 

And also similarly, there was disagreement on how precisely to understand the text well before the modern period as well.

 

The idea that it is some kind of litmus test for CHristian orthodoxy is just bosh.

 

ETA: some of the Christian scholars were reading the Jewish ones, and vice versa, so really this should be expected.

Are there any specific authors/thinkers I should be reading?

[JumpyTheFrog]

Are there any specific authors/thinkers I should be reading?

 

Peter Enns (author of "Telling God's Story") is one who believes that the first few chapters of Genesis are about Adam and Eve as the beginning of the story of Israel, rather than the first people.

[MercyA]

I am curious, are there any Christian Scientists/Theologians who try to reconcile the science and the scripture in this way? I feel as though I have not seen this particular perspective, that both modern science The Creation story in Genesis are "true", articulated this well before. I either see people interpreting scripture as "myth" or questioning or denying modern science.

 

Absolutely yes. Here are some resources, if you're interested in looking into this perspective.

http://www.reasons.org

http://www.oldearth.org

[6packofun]

D'oh!!  Just made a discovery.  I loved a presentation I saw a while ago on this topic by a former atheist astrophysicist named Sarah Salviander.   (This is her site, but the slideshow is not available unless you belong to Scribd or whatever:  http://sixdayscience.com/2013/02/25/six-days-of-creation/)  

 

Turns out, she read the works of Gerald Schroeder (of my first link in this thread!) and it convinced her of the Bible's reliability so she became a Christian.  !  How interesting!  No wonder it resonated with me.  I will have to get his book The Science of God.

 

Thank you all for a fascinating conversation about this.  :)

[MotherGoose]

I'm Catholic, but thank you for this, it's fascinating.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Sounds a lot like Christianity with no one agreeing! I am curious, are there any Christian Scientists/Theologians who try to reconcile the science and the scripture in this way? I feel as though I have not seen this particular perspective, that both modern science The Creation story in Genesis are "true", articulated this well before. I either see people interpreting scripture as "myth" or questioning or denying modern science.

Many scientists are Christians. Probably the ones who've made some of the biggest discoveries and theories are in fact Christians.

 

Here's a good article for you to peruse.

 

http://www.conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/the-big-bang-and-christianity/

Edited March 31, 2016 by TianXiaXueXiao

[YaelAldrich]

Peter Enns (author of "Telling God's Story") is one who believes that the first few chapters of Genesis are about Adam and Eve as the beginning of the story of Israel, rather than the first people.

Gack!  The page keeps resetting itself!

 

Jews don't see Adam and Chava as the first Jews.  Avraham and Sara (not even Avram and Sarai) were.  We see 20 generations between the two sets of people. 

 

In the Artscroll Rosh HaShana Machzor (Artscroll is the US Orthodox Jewish world's largest publisher and dare I say an arbiter of Orthodox thought these days) says in its Overview that we pray "This day is the anniversary of the start of Your handiwork, a remembrance of the first day."  The first day, meaning the creation of Man was the true beginning of the world (not the 5 3/4 days previous to that)

[Bluegoat]

Are there any specific authors/thinkers I should be reading?

 

There are a few Catholic writers who talk about this - Fr Jaki is one.

 

As far as patristic writings go, the Alexandrian school, and St Augustine, both tend to make this kind of argument.

 

But - I think really the trick is to get into the mindset of an ancient person reading Scripture.  A lot of the reading conventions that seem perfectly natural to us, just didn't to them. 

[6packofun]

Actually, I have a follow-up question!  Do Orthodox Jews have a concept of original sin?  I ask because it seems that those who hold to the view of the earth as discussed here tend to not think that a historical original couple, Adam and Eve, is essential AND many times believe in common descent in human beings.  

 

Christians (some, not all, obviously) hold on to the idea of a first couple because of original sin and some New Testament writings that link different aspects of faith/morality TO that first couple and the fall.  (We can talk about that in another thread because some of it is related to gender roles and I don't want to get into that in this conversation if you don't mind.  lol)

[JumpyTheFrog]

Jews don't see Adam and Chava as the first Jews.  Avraham and Sara (not even Avram and Sarai) were.  We see 20 generations between the two sets of people. 

 

I understand. Maybe I should've been more clear that Peter Enns is a Christian. In any case, I think I really simplified his position. It's been a while since I read his stuff.

[Bluegoat]

Actually, I have a follow-up question!  Do Orthodox Jews have a concept of original sin?  I ask because it seems that those who hold to the view of the earth as discussed here tend to not think that a historical original couple, Adam and Eve, is essential AND many times believe in common descent in human beings.  

 

Christians (some, not all, obviously) hold on to the idea of a first couple because of original sin and some New Testament writings that link different aspects of faith/morality TO that first couple and the fall.  (We can talk about that in another thread because some of it is related to gender roles and I don't want to get into that in this conversation if you don't mind.  lol)

 

I don't think you'd find that the patristic position thinks a historical original couple is unimportant?  But they do tend to believe in original sin or ancestral sin, some concept of separation from God that is passed through generations, that is pretty universal in orthodox Christian belief.

 

Jews don't have a named similar concept from what I understand though I would think there must be some ideas around some of the same questions.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Bluegoat

[6packofun]

I don't think you'd find that the patristic position thinks a historical original couple is unimportant?  But they do tend to believe in original sin or ancestral sin, some concept of separation from God that is passed through generations, that is pretty universal in orthodox Christian belief.

 

Jews don't have a named similar concept from what I understand though I would think there must be some ideas around some of the same questions.

 

Well, I'm speaking mainly about the author of the first article I linked (I'm not sure what his stance on this is) and the woman astrophysicist I linked who was inspired by him.  (And other current thinkers who agree with Schroeder's position.)  She explicitly says in the FAQ section on her page that she believes in common descent and no first couple.  I may be wrong, but doesn't Peter Enns agree as well?

 

I was curious if the Jewish tradition has something that isn't "original sin" with the idea of sin being passed down through the generations after Adam, but more like "inevitable sin" which is a different (but still logical, IMO) take on it.

[kewb]

Actually, I have a follow-up question! Do Orthodox Jews have a concept of original sin? I ask because it seems that those who hold to the view of the earth as discussed here tend to not think that a historical original couple, Adam and Eve, is essential AND many times believe in common descent in human beings.

 

 

There is no branch of Judaism that believes in original sin. That is purely Christian.

[abcmommy]

Sounds a lot like Christianity with no one agreeing! I am curious, are there any Christian Scientists/Theologians who try to reconcile the science and the scripture in this way? I feel as though I have not seen this particular perspective, that both modern science The Creation story in Genesis are "true", articulated this well before. I either see people interpreting scripture as "myth" or questioning or denying modern science.

Catholics have traditionally embraced both.

[Daria]

Catholics have traditionally embraced both.

 

I work in a Catholic school, and our theology teachers are pretty clear that the Creation story, as told in Genesis is a story that is told by God, that it contains great truths, but that it is not a factual description of what happened, more like the parables in the New Testament than a history text.  They use words like "myth" and "fable".  

 

Is that different from what other Catholic entities teach?

[abcmommy]

I work in a Catholic school, and our theology teachers are pretty clear that the Creation story, as told in Genesis is a story that is told by God, that it contains great truths, but that it is not a factual description of what happened, more like the parables in the New Testament than a history text.  They use words like "myth" and "fable".  

 

Is that different from what other Catholic entities teach?

Yeah I think that is unusual, really, and probably too strong.  Myth and fable have connotations which I think are not consistent with the message the church would want to send, IMO.

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

 

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18). 

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by abcmommy

[Laurie4b]

Sounds a lot like Christianity with no one agreeing! I am curious, are there any Christian Scientists/Theologians who try to reconcile the science and the scripture in this way? I feel as though I have not seen this particular perspective, that both modern science The Creation story in Genesis are "true", articulated this well before. I either see people interpreting scripture as "myth" or questioning or denying modern science.

 

 

I thought when I first read this that you were referring to a particular religion called "Christian Scientist." If you didn't mean that, but want to read more about Christians who are also scientists and how they understand science and the Genesis accounts , then I would recommend the site Biologos. http://biologos.org/  It was started by Francis Collins who headed up the Human Genome project. Its current president is a PhD in astrophysics from MIT, Deborah Haarsma. 

[EMS83]

Actually, I have a follow-up question!  Do Orthodox Jews have a concept of original sin?  I ask because it seems that those who hold to the view of the earth as discussed here tend to not think that a historical original couple, Adam and Eve, is essential AND many times believe in common descent in human beings.  

 

Christians (some, not all, obviously) hold on to the idea of a first couple because of original sin and some New Testament writings that link different aspects of faith/morality TO that first couple and the fall.  (We can talk about that in another thread because some of it is related to gender roles and I don't want to get into that in this conversation if you don't mind.  lol)

 

I only have the memoir/apologetic book Surprised by Christ to go by.  It is written by Father James Bernstein, who grew up a Hasidic Jew, and in the book he comments that the "guilt of original sin" doctrine was never taught by Jews, past or present.  He passed through many variations of Christianity, but eventually became an Eastern Orthodox priest.  

 

You could dig around a bit, or perhaps someone will answer here, but my guess is that it's not that Orthodox Jews deny Adam's sin (as in, it happened and led to a cascade of consequences), but that they look at it fairly differently than a lot of Americans are used to looking at it.  That's just my guess, though, based on one chapter from a book, lol.  I'm open to correction.

[Bluegoat]

I work in a Catholic school, and our theology teachers are pretty clear that the Creation story, as told in Genesis is a story that is told by God, that it contains great truths, but that it is not a factual description of what happened, more like the parables in the New Testament than a history text.  They use words like "myth" and "fable".  

 

Is that different from what other Catholic entities teach?

 

The Catholic Church has said fairly explicitly that while not a factual description, it is in fact necessary, logically, to believe in a "first couple" though whether or not they lived at the same time, or what kind of people they were, is open to question.  This is connected to the idea that we don't, as CHristians, separate the spiritual and physical. 

 

I'm not sure why common descent would be a problem.

 

Myth does not necessarily mean an untrue story.  That is in sense a very modern way of looking at it - as if it is a lesser kind of truth.  In many cases the ancients tended to think the opposite - that poettry was more true than straight history.  (And history in the form we know it didn't exist at the time the earlier OT texts were written anyway.)

 

This seems to be a difficult thing for people to conceptualize.  My daughter, for example, asked me recently what I thought about the idea that the story was just a metaphor, which one of her friends had suggested.  What I said to her was when we say something is a metaphor, we need to ask what it is a metaphor of.  If we don't have a first person, in what sense is it meaningful to talk about a falling away from God?  It isn't.  We can't fall away as a species without also falling away as individuals, we don't have a collective existence separate from individuals.

[Bluegoat]

THinking about the idea of original sin and Judaism, I think to explore it properly you would have to go beyond the language.  You might get more similarities looking at the idea of ancestral sin, as it tends to be presented in the east.  But I think really what you would want to look at is theodicy - this is really what concepts like original sin are meant to help us conceptualize.  How is it that there is evil in people, that we become estranged from God?  How is it that this happens even where we don't will it?  Why do the inoccent suffer, and why are their natural evils that seem to be noone's fault?  How can we say God is good in the face of these things?

 

A lot of the online explanations of the difference, at a glance anyway, seem to take a very particular view of original sin - total depravity - for granted.  I would say that is probably going to be the least similar set of ideas.

 

Ultimatly these are the kinds of questions that will bring out similarities and differences in thinking, I think.  And for historical interest you would probably want to look at different periods - modern Judaism might be expected to be more different from modern Christianity than either  were from each other at the beginning of the Christian period.

[6packofun]

Bluegoat (or anyone), I was reading this article on Challies today:  http://www.challies.com/christian-living/what-the-law-keeper-cries-to-the-gospel-lover It's about the law and how it manifests itself in an Orthodox Jewish community near him.  In reading about ALL of the ways they try to keep the law--to the point of NOT pushing elevator buttons because it completes a circuit and thus is a "work" of building something (?!)--I wondered how they view sin at all.  Do they think they are sinless if they somehow keep all of these laws and therefore deserving of heaven? What happens if (when) they break the law...what is their spiritual status?  So interesting.  (And I have no answers, only questions!  LOL)

 

*I read Challies occasionally out of interest, not because I'm reformed, btw.  Just getting that out there for no reason in particular.  LOL :P

[Spy Car]

Bluegoat (or anyone), I was reading this article on Challies today:  http://www.challies.com/christian-living/what-the-law-keeper-cries-to-the-gospel-lover It's about the law and how it manifests itself in an Orthodox Jewish community near him.  In reading about ALL of the ways they try to keep the law--to the point of NOT pushing elevator buttons because it completes a circuit and thus is a "work" of building something (?!)--I wondered how they view sin at all.  Do they think they are sinless if they somehow keep all of these laws and therefore deserving of heaven? What happens if (when) they break the law...what is their spiritual status?  So interesting.  (And I have no answers, only questions!  LOL)

 

*I read Challies occasionally out of interest, not because I'm reformed, btw.  Just getting that out there for no reason in particular.  LOL :p

 

Jews of the observant variety make sincere efforts to keep the 613 commandments that guide daily behaviors, and if they can fulfill these mitzvahs with the best and highest nobility of thought, all the better. At the same time, the idea that "nobody's perfect" is not an unusual idea among Jews. Not an "excuse" to transgress, but a reality of being.

 

Transgressions against G-d are actually much easier to unburden oneself of (as at Yom Kippur) as one can atone if one is truly repentant. But for transgressions against people one needs to seek reconciliation with the person you've injured, and not just "be sorry."

 

Even for non-observant Jews being a mensch includes trying to make things right when one has acted in ways that don't reflect ones best self, and acting to repair the damage. It is a nice cultural quality.

 

Bill

[YaelAldrich]

Bluegoat (or anyone), I was reading this article on Challies today:  http://www.challies.com/christian-living/what-the-law-keeper-cries-to-the-gospel-lover It's about the law and how it manifests itself in an Orthodox Jewish community near him.  In reading about ALL of the ways they try to keep the law--to the point of NOT pushing elevator buttons because it completes a circuit and thus is a "work" of building something (?!)--I wondered how they view sin at all.  Do they think they are sinless if they somehow keep all of these laws and therefore deserving of heaven? What happens if (when) they break the law...what is their spiritual status?  So interesting.  (And I have no answers, only questions!  LOL)

 

*I read Challies occasionally out of interest, not because I'm reformed, btw.  Just getting that out there for no reason in particular.  LOL :p

SpyCar did a pretty good job of answering your question on one foot (a la Rabbi Hillel).

 

I can't answer you in full today as it is almost the Sabbath, which I as an Orthodox Jew, do keep every jot and tittle.  :thumbup1:

 

I will be busy much of Saturday night after the Sabbath ferrying my oldest and his friends back from a Sabbath with his classmates and teacher-rabbi and listening to the Carolina-Syracuse game (Go Heels!).

 I will try to get back to this fascinating article after that.

 

Shabbat Shalom to you, Spy Car, and the whole Hive.

[Spy Car]

Good Shabbos Yael :)

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I love this story of Rabbi Hillel and "the one foot.". As there are hours of daylight left in Los Angeles, and what's it matter to me anyway?, here is a Shabbos tale for the hive in my unorthodox paraphrase.

 

There were once two great Rabbis, Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel. Now Rabbi Shammai was a dour sort of fellow, serious to a fault, and of an impatient nature. In contrast, Rabbi Hillel, with whom he was often in dispute, was a jovial soul known for his kindness, humor and patience.

 

One day a local non-Jew, looking to get the Rabbis' goats, presented himself to Rabbi Shammai promising (insincerely) that he would convert if he could teach him the Torah while the potential convert stood on one foot.

 

Faced with this impertinence (for Shammai had dedicated a lifetime to Torah-study) Rabbi Shammai became enraged and he drove off the audacious fool.

 

Then the young man, having successfully raised the ire of Shammai, went to Rabbi Hillel hoping for a repeat performance. Teach me Rabbi the whole of the Torah while I stand on one foot. The rabbi's eyes glistened and he said,  "What is hateful to you, don't do to your neighbor.  That is the whole Torah. The the rest is the commentary.  Now go study."

 

The last line (not unlike the "go and sin no more" line from the near-stoning of the adulteress story in the Christian tradition) often gets snipped, with similar objection by those who don't want "go study" removed from the equation, in favor of "the rest is commentary" (which appeals to those less bent on Jewish education.

 

But the last is a diversion. The main idea is this Jewish version of the Golden Rule is the essence of Torah and Judaism according to Hillel.

 

Nice?

 

Good Sabbos y'all.

 

Bill (not Jewish, but a member of the WTM Judaism 101 Social Group, which is almost as good :D)

 

 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Spy Car

[YaelAldrich]

I love this story of Rabbi Hillel and "the one foot.". As there are hours of daylight left in Los Angeles, and what's it matter to me anyway?, here is a Shabbos tale for the hive in my unorthodox paraphrase.

 

There were once two great Rabbis, Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel. Now Rabbi Shammai was a dour sort of fellow, serious to a fault, and of an impatient nature. In contrast, Rabbi Hillel, with whom he was often in dispute, was a jovial soul known for his kindness, humor and patience.

 

One day a local non-Jew, looking to get the Rabbis' goats, presented himself to Rabbi Shammai promising (insincerely) that he would convert if he could teach him the Torah while the potential convert stood on one foot.

 

Faced with this impertinence (for Shammai had dedicated a lifetime to Torah-study) Rabbi Shammai became enraged and he drove off the audacious fool.

 

Then the young man, having successfully raised the ire of Shammai, went to Rabbi Hillel hoping for a repeat performance. Teach me Rabbi the whole of the Torah while I stand on one foot. The rabbi's eyes glistened and he said,  "What is hateful to you, don't do to your neighbor.  That is the whole Torah. The the rest is the commentary.  Now go study."

 

The last line (not unlike the "go and sin no more" line from the near-stoning of the adulteress story in the Christian tradition) often gets snipped, with similar objection by those who don't want "go study" removed from the equation, in favor of "the rest is commentary" (which appeals to those less bent on Jewish education.

 

But the last is a diversion. The main idea is this Jewish version of the Golden Rule is the essence of Torah and Judaism according to Hillel.

 

Nice?

 

Good Sabbos y'all.

 

Bill (not Jewish, but a member of the WTM Judaism 101 Social Group, which is almost as good :D)

Love ya' Bill - you are way better than most Jews! :)

[Spy Car]

Love ya' Bill - you are way better than most Jews! :)

 

  :blushing: 

 

Aw, you're so kind. I waited till dark to post...seem right.

 

Bill