Another Landlord Worry: Is the Elevator Kosher?

[Kritikos]

OK thanks. And people believe this stuff? Really?

"So tell me young Moses, what happened to the rest of your Torah?"
"The God ate it..."

I wish it were that simple. As I understand it, it's more like this: "Where did you get that observance from?" -- "From the Torah." -- "Really? I don't find it written anywhere in the Pentateuch." -- "Of course not. It's in the Oral Torah." -- "So you only got it by word of mouth?" -- "No, no! It's written in the Talmud!" -- "So why do you call it the Oral Torah?" -- "Because it was given to Moses without being written down." -- "But you just said that it is written in the Talmud." -- "Yes, when the Talmud was composed, many hundreds of years later, the Oral Torah took written form." --

Your question -- do people really believe this stuff? -- is not easy for me to answer. That there are people who profess to believe it is certain (unless I have misrepresented some specifics). The doctrine actually has a Hebrew phrase associated with it, "Torah min shamayim," which means "(The) Torah (is) from heaven." I have even seen the doctrine referred to in discussions, albeit skeptical ones, by the initialism "TMS" (which sounds a bit like the initialism for pre-menstrual syndrome).

I have recently been reading a blog called "Modern Orthoprax and Heterodox," the author of which propounds a form of Judaism that follows all, or nearly all the same observances as Orthodoxy but regards Orthodox doctrine with skepticism. The summary statement on the blog reads as follows:

Modern Orthoprax assumes that Orthodox Fundamentalist beliefs have (mostly) been shown to be false. We also assume that religious people and religion are not inherently evil, God might exist, and there is (some) value in religious practice & ritual. If this viewpoint offends you, do not read this blog!

By "Orthodox Fundamentalist beliefs" the author means, above all, TMS. (It was actually in his blog that I first encountered the initialism.) Unfortunately, the blog makes very difficult reading for anyone who does not already know a good deal about Judaism (I myself don't understand all the Hebrew expressions that the author uses), so I can't recommend it to you; but I think that it is an instructive, because extreme, illustration of the extent to which belief and observance can come apart in Judaism.

 

[Brainache]

OK thanks. I'm still a bit mystified as to why people claim that any of this stuff comes from God. I get the fact that they believe that the holy books come from God, I just don't understand why they believe that.

It is probably because I wasn't raised in a particularly religious family that I don't understand why people see any of this stuff as important or even believable.

 

[Southwind17]

Why not? Tunics and togas can be quite comfortable.

Or kimonos, like the Japanese wore.

What rational (your word) reason do you have for preferring a necktie and trousers to a kimono or a toga?

Lets see now ... it would put me way outside my comfort zone, I don't know where I'd go to buy them, I'd become the subject of amusement at best, ridicule at worst ... oh, and I have no desire to wear them. That, my friend, is rational enough for me.

It only "looks smart" because it's socially acceptable and because all the other men in the room are dressed similarly.

Your point?

I understand the necktie-kippah metaphor ...

I think you mean "analogy".

... but you keep calling it an irration religious ritual, when there's virtually nothing religious about it. It's just a custom of dress from the 17th century.

No I don't. As I pointed out above you've taken my original viewpoint and applied it to the wearing of a kippah, which was simply introduced into the debate as a means of trying to show that the wearing of a necktie is irrational. I have explained that I believe the motives for wearing a necktie are very different from those for wearing a kippah (assuming the reason for wearing a kippah remains as to show respect for god by not exposing one's head, otherwise if the kippah has now become simply customary dress with no religious connotation then I'm prepared to change my view as regards the kippah (but not the necktie!)), but I'm not getting too hung up over the rationality or otherwise of somebody who chooses to wear a kippah, regardless of motive. My views regarding "irrational religious rituals" apply more to kosher lifts and such like, where the original intent of the ritual (such as not making fires on the Sabbath) has been taken to irrational lengths just to preserve it.

 

[Southwind17]

Why not? Tunics and togas can be quite comfortable.

Or kimonos, like the Japanese wore.

What rational (your word) reason do you have for preferring a necktie and trousers to a kimono or a toga?

Lets see now ... it would put me way outside my comfort zone, I don't know where I'd go to buy them, I'd become the subject of amusement at best, ridicule at worst ... oh, and I have no desire to wear them. That, my friend, is rational enough for me.

Don't you just love dictionaries! Perusing the entries for "rational" in my trusty Chambers 1998 edition I see the following (not the first entry, I hasten to add):

rational n (in pl) rational dress, ie knickerbockers instead of skirts for women (hist).

What a shame there's no entry for men!

 

[zooterkin]

By "Orthodox Fundamentalist beliefs" the author means, above all, TMS. (It was actually in his blog that I first encountered the initialism.)

TMS certainly has religious significance for the initiate, but I wouldn't describe it as Fundamentalist, especially since the demise of Fred Trueman.

 

[Kritikos]

TMS certainly has religious significance for the initiate, but I wouldn't describe it as Fundamentalist, especially since the demise of Fred Trueman.

Yes, I have heard of this religion. The celebrants dress all in white for their rituals, I believe, but the members of the congregation wear their everyday clothes.

I guess I ought to have written תמש. That would have avoided ambiguity, at least.

Actually, though, I did some searching and I found that the more commonly used phrase is "Torah min hashamayim" (the prefix "ha-" is the definite article). So I'm not sure if anyone besides that one blogger uses the initialism "TMS."

Don't you just love dictionaries! Perusing the entries for "rational" in my trusty Chambers 1998 edition I see the following (not the first entry, I hasten to add):

rational n (in pl) rational dress, ie knickerbockers instead of skirts for women (hist).

I'm curious about one thing: does your dictionary really use "ie," with no periods, in that entry, and not "e.g."? It looks to me as if they would have to mean "for example" and not "that is."

 

[Southwind17]

I'm curious about one thing: does your dictionary really use "ie," with no periods, in that entry, and not "e.g."? It looks to me as if they would have to mean "for example" and not "that is."

Interesting observation, which I can answer in the affirmative without consulting my dictionary. Why? Because when transcribing I naturally put in the periods, but then noticed that the dictionary doesn't use them for such purpose. Regardless, I agree that the use of "ie" as opposed to "eg" or "e.g." is somewhat curious. Perhaps somebody here more knowledgeable on the subject can enlighten us.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Sure - it went something like this:
...

You missed the part:

Personally, I think the observance of religious rituals is an indication of mental instability, even if only to a relatively small degree, and nobody behaving so gets my vote, let alone admiration.

So I never made that claim. So bit of a useless attempt at a timeline of quotes.

Well thank you for putting in an appearance now and then and keeping us all on the straight and narrow. What would we all do without you?

Who is 'we'? Don't tell me you're feel a victim of the Sabbath elevator.

Tell me, ever been on one?

 

[Southwind17]

Who is 'we'? Don't tell me you're feel a victim of the Sabbath elevator.

Tell me, ever been on one?

No - not enough of an adrenalin rush for me. I much prefer the "cyclotron", "flying carpet ride" and the good old fashioned big dipper, followed by chancing my hand at hook-a-duck (after the shaking's stopped, of course!).

 

[bigjelmapro]

Lol. Ok, I guess this is the end of it then. Not much use going on when there's nothing to debate with you in the first place =)

 

[Southwind17]

Lol. Ok, I guess this is the end of it then. Not much use going on when there's nothing to debate with you in the first place =)

Okey dokey