Yitzi, I advise you to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
There you will find how the practises of Judaism have changed over 3000 years. The document details how the rabbinate dealt with the various moral dilemnas presented by a changing society, and how the interpretation of the tanach changes as society progresses. New laws added, old laws repealed or edited. How can you honestly say that Judaism has not changed over the years? That is certainly unfathomable. The words written on the pages of the Torah do not change. The interpretation and the practises do. If you lived by Judaism in the time of slavery, it was vastly different to after slavery... And so the religion changed. If you lived by Judaism before the destruction of the first or second temples, this was vastly different to living afterwards. New customs and practises, like chanukah entered the practise. So how can you HONESTLY say that Judaism has not changed? I would argue that it is precisely the heated debate of the rabbinate and the constant adaptation of judaism to the cultures around it that has allowed it to survive where all hope for survival was almost null.
You've also put words in my mouth. I never even purported to say "ban Islam", in fact, that's what you've been arguing. I'm saying ban an instrument of subjugation of women. Not a faith. You seem very unwilling to allow Islam the time to remove itself from its dark age. The other monotheistic religions went through this stage. The leadership of Judaism and Christianity have, at times, condoned and even committed unspeakable crimes in the name of their religion. The extremist leaders in Islam are no different, it's just that they're on a different time lapse. Everything must be done in order to expunge the exploitation of the religion to wreak evil on the world, but the religion itself is not evil. Unfortunately, its dark age hasn't ended. It is incumbent upon us to say that when Muslims come to a country that recognises equality of women, we will not stand for their subjugation of the women in their religion within the countries to which they have emigrated. Yes, they have rights to freedom of religion, but only up until those rights infringe on the rights of others, at which point they are forfeit.
Not to be rude, but I think I know what the Talmud is. I'm at Yeshivah, we learn Talmud for the first two hours of every day.
The Talmud is not about 'how the rabbinate dealt with the various moral dilemmas presented by a changing society, and how the interpretation of the tanach changes as society progresses'. The Talmud is simply the rabbis expounding on the Mishna, which is Jewish law, plain and simple. Currently in school we're learning Tractate Bava Kama, specifically the laws of how much a thief has to repay the owner of an ox if the ox appreciated or depreciated in value during the time the thief was in possession of it. Sure there's a lot more to the Talmud than that, but it is not about changing the interpretation of the Tanach as society progresses. The interpretation of Tanach can never change. Different rabbis may have different opinions how to interpret certain verses, but interpretations are in
no way dependent on changing external circumstances.Of course the practise of Judaism had to change after the destruction of the Temples. The real practise of Judaism is completely dependent on the Temple. An entire section of the Talmud, Kodshim (which was written
after the destruction btw) is all about the Temple service. What we have now in the period where there is no Temple is merely interim, waiting for the Temple to be rebuilt (bimheirah v'yomeinu.) After the destruction, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai instituted several 'takanos', or laws, specifically 'in remembrance of the Temple'. The idea was so that the laws and practises of the Temple would not be forgotten, so that when it is rebuilt, we will go back to it and act the same as we did (with animal sacrifices etc) as we did when it was destroyed 2000 years ago. The idea was
not to say that those past laws are now redundant and need to be changed.
Those kinds of new institutions I would not call changes, in any way. The book of Jewish Law, the Shulchan Aruch is exactly what Jews the world over today use as the basis for every kind of decision on Jewish law. No Orthodox rabbi in the world will go against the Shulchan Aruch. And yet, it was written 600 years ago, based on the Ramabam which was written by Maimonides 300 years before that, based on the Rif, based on the Rosh, based on the Talmud, which is based on the Mishna, which is based on the teachings of the Tana'im, who got their teachings from the Great Assembly, who learnt from the prophets, right the way back to Moses at Sinai. The laws every orthodox Jew follows today are
exactly the same as those followed 3500 years ago.
The few additions (such as Chanukah, like you mentioned) are institutions purely based on remembrance and commemoration, not as a response to changing society. If anything, as society has changed, Jewish law became even stricter, to protect people from straying off the path.
'I would argue that it is precisely the ... constant adaptation of judaism to the cultures around it that has allowed it to survive where all hope for survival was almost null.'
I would argue the
exact opposite. It is precisely the fact that orthodox Judaism hasn't changed which makes it so strong today. Moses Mendelsohn, the first Reform Jew, was a proponent of exactly what you are; that Judaism should react and be adaptable to other cultures. Not one of his grandchildren was Jewish. What G-d has said hasn't, doesn't, and never will, change, no matter what else does, and it is that belief which keeps Judaism going, nothing else.
Home
Help
Search
Login
