AW: [NGFP-BookClub] Starting Week Five

[luka.girardi at chello.at]

Dear all,

 

Professor Rothenstreich seems to give the Orthodoxy the right to interpret
"the official Jewish faith" because it claims to be the heir of the Jewish
tradition. I am not sure whether he gives the Orthodoxy the last word
because he wants to "conduct the search alone". He seemingly wants to use
the Orthodoxy merely as a starting point and as a kind of "living relict
from the past" so that the others, who conduct the search alone, can check
time and again how far they have distanced themselves from this source. 

 

Reducing Judaism to religion or peoplehood is in either case giving up a
part of it. It is very much dependent on the political and social
circumstances and it is done in order to "be like others", feel integrated.
In the Western countries Jews tend to give up their peoplehood because it is
preferable to differ only in religious affiliation. In (ex-) communist
countries religion was deemed something "overcome" and differences were
preferably attributed to peoplehood. Those are both chosen strategies
towards integration but also consequences of assimilation, which they also
push further because they choose certain aspects of the Jewish tradition as
socially acceptable, "salonfaehig", in a certain country and suppress
others. Reducing Judaism to religion led in many cases to a Judaism of
rituals which serve to identify the one partaking in them as a Jew, but
without much meaning. It has an advantage over the other option because it
is still possible to define Judaism by "what one should believe" even if one
doesn't follow the religious rules. In the other case in spite of the
self-definition as peoplehood the finally achieved integration naturally
reduced cultural differences between Jews and non-Jews which had existed
before (same happened in the West) while (unlike in the West) the religion
was not taught, so what has remained is basically a self-definition through
the common past and social ties in the present, but without distinct
ethnical or religious features. I do not think that peoplehood is outmoded.
We have a common past, present, and we should make sure we have a common
future. Even within the traditional Judaism the level of religious
motivation and observance varies and many aspects of the tradition are kept
not primarily because of the law, but because of the simple fact that
"that's how we live". These aspects can be quite binding when the religious
motivation is not or even when we understand that in spite cultural
differences between different parts of Diaspora there are common features in
our lives. I consider this normal and much more promising for the future of
the Jewish people than a purely religious motivation. Nevertheless, without
such motivation it is hardly possible to maintain a meaningful Jewish life
anywhere and particularly in a non-Jewish or secular surrounding. 

 

Q1  The problem orthodox rabbis (or orthodox Jews in general) have with
non-orthodox movements is that these movements claim to have created a new
law to be followed: the halacha is no more binding or it is radically
reinterpreted. An individual within tradition takes the responsibility for
his observance or non-observance, but does not challenge the legitimacy of
halacha, the non-orthodox movements give, from the orthodox point of view,
their placet to non-observance. This situation actually created the
Orthodoxy as a movement, as an opposition to giving legitimacy to the breach
of halacha. As far as the future of the Jewish people is concerned I guess
that all those Jews, who are traditional and for whom Judaism affects their
life routine, irrespective of the strictness in halachic observance or
communal affiliation will secure our survival as a distinct people and a
distinct culture. 

 

Luka

 

  _____  

Von: ngfp-bookclub-bounces at lists.ngfp.org
[mailto:ngfp-bookclub-bounces at lists.ngfp.org] Im Auftrag von michael Rosenak

Nathan Rotenstreich, his remarks seem to give the Orthodox "the last word."
Why? What does he hope will happen? Why could we expect the Orthodox Jews to
be more suspicious of Rotensteich and Ahad Haam than, say, Herzl? Do you
think that peoplehood is a good way to define the Jews or is it outmoded?
Why? How does all this link up with Question No. 1? Let's start with these. 

what can peoplehood offer an Israeli, an American or a French Jew? Will it
not only enrich and bring together the lives of diverse Jews but create a
sense of commitment outside of the (once?) unifying factor of "defence"?
What does a committed "civilizational" Jew do and can he be justly
criticized if s/he doesn't do it?

1.                  Why do rabbis like Shmuel Etlinger prefer to treat of
the individual who has strayed from Judaism rather than with movements like
Reform Judaism?

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ngfp.org/pipermail/ngfp-bookclub/attachments/20070314/4c954d1b/attachment.htm