« Digest This: Jews, Food, and Sustainability
From Bare Boobs to Green Living »

If you don’t enjoy your kashrut then shuck it; an older thread revisited

by Ben Murane · February 22nd, 2008
Judaism, Kosher, Opinion, Rant!, Spirituality

I never replied to the comments on an older thread from Bravo for liberated day school teacher: “Bacon’s delish” in January, but I intended to and it’s never too late to blog.

Isaac congratulated me but brought up that “Judaism is my religious field for reasons that transcend choice.” I disagree. Perhaps the odds are not in your favor that you’ll leave Jewish identity behind completely. It will surely leave an impression on your life permanently. But you can renegotiate its particulars anytime you want. Kashrut or no kashrut, the right is yours.

RivkaK was shocked that un-kosher friends pretend to be kosher for their parents, but perhaps this is food for thought for Isaac. Kashrut is often familial turf which, outside it’s religious value, endears or estranges some of us from home. I’ll get that in a moment.

It seems anarchist lawyer didn’t like what I said, challenging me by asking “Don’t you think we have an obligation to our forbears to respect the traditions of the past?”

Absolutely. But firstly, our forebearers didn’t practice Jewish tradition in the way that “traditional” Judaism is understood today. Much of that tradition is conflicting even between orthodox sects and also laid down in the past 300 years. There is a rumor that chicken wasn’t widely treated as meat in milchik-fleishek separations until 100 years ago. (Perhaps someone can corroborate with me on that factoid.) At the very least the modern siddur is an invention of the past 200 years.

Secondly, Jewish scholars have always finagled the answers they wanted from the texts which supported their existing opinions. The tradition continues proudly today. A nicer way of describing the same phenomenon is searching our past tradition for messages which speak to our problems today — like searching the Talmud for endorsements of healthy eating, for example.

For both reasons, to say “she has lost her freedom to be a Jew in the company of her ancestors” is pretending that the past looked like the accepted orthodox norms of today, which is false. Bacon-eating Jewish iconoclasts existed in every era. Only in those days, they were excommunicated. Maybe “Sarah” has gone closer to her ancestors — maybe she is more recognizable with the bacon to a Polish socialist than as a shtreimel-wearing orthodox?

Non-bacon eater and Rabbi Shmuel didn’t like my post even more:

I found the posting extraordinarily tragic. “That “Sarah” is no longer a Jew but now a human being. I shudder when I think about the last group who thought the Jew were subhuman. Have we given Hitler yimach sh’mo his posthumous victory after all – seeing ourselves as he saw us. Say it ain’t so!

Sarah didn’t imply she was now “subhuman” but normal instead of chosen. A weight off her shoulders.

On a side note, I think invoking Hitler’s intent everytime someone decides that Judaism is not for them is a bit extreme. Laying on her Holocaust guilt for seeking to live a spiritual life more rewardingly is emotional manipulation — she is not a little Hitler. Say you didn’t use it that way, Reb Shmuel.

Back to Reb Shmuel’s point, though, that there are plenty of great Jewish teachers who can teach her the beauty of Judaism. But they didn’t get to her. And so she’s free to leave. Rather, she should find something better for her, rather than suffer with dismal enthusiasm. Quality is way more important than quantity to me, and 10 Jews who love their kashrut is ten times better to me than 100 Jews who do it with dislike.

And let’s challenge this language of “leaving” for a second. If I eat a pound of bacon everyday and call it part of my halakha, then it’s Jewish. I have made it Jewish by my own association and by my willingness to call it so. There’s little the Jewish community can do about it, except inform others that my view is a minority case. But they can never say it’s un-Jewish. “Sarah” may have left orthodoxy behind, but there’s little in the article to say she’s left Judaism or Jewishness as an identity, particularly as an employed day school teacher.

But there’s more which I take to heart:

Yet such an outlook is the inevitable byproduct of the “do your own thing” mentality. We’ll do the Jewish thing at 9:00 a.m, the Buddha thing at 10:00 am.

…Ironically, it’s that very same “I can do whatever I want whenever I want” headspace that got this planet into the very crisis that groups like Hazon are trying to remedy. Is this the new paradigm that is emerging?

I think Reb. Shmuel misses my point, because I agree with what he says. People can’t do whatever they want, whenever they want. Greed is killing our ecosystems and our health. But to compare shopping choices to decisions of spiritual fulfillment is comparing apples to oranges. Talmud is not for everyone. After all, some people want to dance havdallah blindfolded (oy). Stringently structured Judaism didn’t work out for Sarah. So she’s free to go.

“Sarah” opted-out, but Leah Koenig opted-in after finding the many “yeses” of Jewish tradition. So did I. That’s my story too, being more disciplined about kashrut than my parents. But the approach that Judaism is the “right” way for people of Jewish birth, that “leaving” is a “tragedy” and that “she’ll come back when she’s wiser” is a patronizing assumption. Doing so, we contribute to a halakha that isn’t meaningful in it’s own right, but only by family obligation. And that’s a shame.

Kashrut is beautiful to me. I dig it. But if people don’t find kashrut meaningful, then they shouldn’t do it. With those who do enjoy it, I can share a unique and deep conversation about why, how, in what ways, and to what ends I feel the winds of divine influence on my life. It’s an element of my life wholly unintelligible and incommunicable to those who don’t get it. “Enjoying” kashrut is something I love to do. The accomplishment of struggling to do the right thing is beautiful.

You can’t appreciate the halakha of kashrut unless you enjoy it. You can’t enjoy it unless it’s voluntary. It can’t be voluntary if you’re patterned from birth to fear not doing it. And it can’t be voluntary if you’ve never considered leaving it behind. But I hope these couple posts have driven a few more people to realize that their power as fully-qualified negotiators in their own divine contracts, and will hammer out a deal with the Old Man Upstairs which suits His and their mutual needs.

(X-posted to Judaism Without Borders.)

Print This Post Print This Post

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

35 Responses to “If you don’t enjoy your kashrut then shuck it; an older thread revisited”

  1. Dov Says:
    February 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    I’ve been following the Bacon (post, that) for a while now, and the most recent post had me asking questions.

    I’d like to know where your figure of 300 years as the age of many traditions is from. I’ve found man modern-day practices and observances recorded in the codes of Rambam and the Turim, which date from 13th century judaism, if not earlier. Many of the practices we think of as tradition hearken back to Mishnah. And many come from the CCAR, CJLS of JTS, RRC and Kibbutzim in the past 75 years. Where does the 300 come from?

    Even if the decision to treat chicken as meat was only a hundred years old, would your say that makes it any less an authentic component of daily practice? The Bat Mitzvah is a reality in Judaism, and that is only 85 years or so old. Was the person who presented that rumor to you implying that the new lacks authenticity in halacha or tradition (which is not the case)? That approach is not only inaccurate, but is part of one of the easiest ways to avoid participating in Judaism: proclaim the ancient irrelevant and the modern lacking authority….

    I’m not sure what you mean by the “modern siddur.” If you mean something with English translation, well, then 200 years old is not so far from the mark. Again, the issue of the modernity of a practice (or text) seems to be among the gauges of the post for what has sanctity. That bodes poorly, for example, for women using a ritual created in the 1990’s for marking a stillbirth, or other new and needed rituals.

    But what most would recognize as a siddur is as at least as old as the printing press. I’ve held 350 year old Russian siddurim with prayers for the Tzar and Tzarina in the middle of the Torah service. The Siddur of Sadyah Gaon, which still influences modern siddurim, dates back a millennia or more, as evidenced by the fragments found in the Cairo geniza. This is older than 200 years.

    It is true that if you eat a pound of bacon every day, and we define as Jewish that which a Jew does, then it is true, we can not say it is un-Jewish. But then we can say that fraudulent business practices, cruelty to animals, and xenophobia is Jewish, and the Jewish community can do little about it (except call it a “minority opinion”).

    But can you call it Judaic? Authentic Judaisms are defined by community, tradition, texts and far more than the associations of the individual Jew. Judaism is with other people. So bacon is not just a question for the Judaism of our mothers, but also the Judaism of our teachers, those in our communities , and the Judaism of our history (including the legacy of the patriarch of the Hasmoneans, who got a bit upset with one bacon-eater, resulting in a whole new holiday). There are many authentic Judaisms, but which one of them would call an individual’s consumption of bacon Judaic?

    Lastly you quipped “Talmud is not for everyone.” Why should that be true in any sense? Perhaps 3 years in a yeshiva in Kiryas Yoel is not for everyone, but why should Talmud be for a limited audience? For centuries, Jewish Communities taught to the contrary (admittedly only for men), and that every Jew should be literate enough to learn Talmud. Women have struggled bitterly to have access to this definitive text and to gain that same literacy. Talmud was once part of Jewish literacy in every locale from Mainz to Morocco. It’s confusing to see this storehouse of Judaism’s wealth placed alongside Cilantro, which clearly is not for everyone.

    Of course, it is in the Talmud – and not only 100 years ago- that we find the first discussions of the notion of chicken as meat. The discussion has its roots in the time of the Mishnah. And when Talmud is for everyone, yourself included, you will find Rabbi Yossi HaGlili is waiting for you as he argues with his colleagues that it is permissible to cook chicken in milk. You won’t be shocked to discover that they argue with him.

  2. Rachel Says:
    February 25th, 2008 at 8:36 am

    Thanks for this post, Ben. I’ve just added it to my del.icio.us feed so I can find it again later; I suspect this is a post I’ll want to read again as I continue to think about this stuff.

    I’m particularly struck by

    If I eat a pound of bacon everyday and call it part of my halakha, then it’s Jewish. I have made it Jewish by my own association and by my willingness to call it so.

    You raise an interesting point there — that if someone who is a self-identified Jew takes on a practice, then there’s a sense in which it becomes Jewish, because a Jew is doing it. It might not be mainstream or normative, but it’s become a Jewish act in a certain way. I want to — you should pardon the pun — chew on that for a while.

    But the approach that Judaism is the “right” way for people of Jewish birth, that “leaving” is a “tragedy” and that “she’ll come back when she’s wiser” is a patronizing assumption. Doing so, we contribute to a halakha that isn’t meaningful in it’s own right, but only by family obligation. And that’s a shame.

    Kashrut is beautiful to me. I dig it. But if people don’t find kashrut meaningful, then they shouldn’t do it.

    Well-said.

  3. Rabbi Shmuel Says:
    February 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am

    A couple of points. Firstly, I don’t play the “Hitler” card. But when someone claims that their shucking has led to them feeling human, the clear implication is that that’s an improvement from a less-than-human condition. So in the words of Rabbi John Rambo, she drew first blood.

    “But to compare shopping choices to decisions of spiritual fulfillment is comparing apples to oranges.”

    Here I’ve got to respectfully disagree with you. Superficially they seem different but at the root they are motivated by the same drive and decision making mechanisms – what’s in it for ME?

    “Kashrut is beautiful to me. I dig it. But if people don’t find kashrut meaningful, then they shouldn’t do it.”

    There it is. The warm and fuzzy feeling as the motivator to do something (or refrain for that matter.) There is however a major difference between doing a mitzvah because you dig it or it resonates with you and doing it because you feel it is Hashem’s will and in doing it you will achieve happiness. In other words are you driven by the need for the buzz or is the buzz a delightful side effect of doing a mitzvah?

    Obviously I can’t get involved in the halacha of bacon (perhaps CLAL will start a new paradigm “Jews who incorporate ham into their halachic body practice”) Even I have to draw the line somewhere and I hope you can appreciate that.

    I think Dov touched very nicely on some of the factual shortcomings of your piece – the siddur goes back well over 1000 years and has actually had relatively little tweaking over the millennia (other than some of the more radical denominational revisions.)

    But at the end of the day it’s the “me” thing that does it. There’s a certain arrogance in believing that we in the 21st century invented fire. There’s a certain arrogance in modern medicine when researchers claim to have “discovered” cures that herbalists knew about for thousand of years. I personally found it tremendously ironic that Hazon has created a religion over Michael Pollan (Reb Michael?) who lauds the work of Joel Salatin (who we in the farming community knew about a long, long time ago – my copies of his books are typed – they’re not even typeset!) One of his claims to fame is the “chicken tractor” – a movable pen which allows the chickens to graze following the beef so as to break down the manure, eliminate fly larvae and “rototill” the soil with the scratching.

    Well guess where Salatin got that idea from? (I’ll give you a hint – it’s brought down in a Rashi in Eruvin in the Talmud – portable animal pens called “dirs” so as to manure the fields) So perhaps it’s worth making a bit of effort and trying to plumb the depths of the Talmud. Who knows what you might find? (you could have come to my Teva workshop entitled “A compost recipe from the Mishneh” – hey who knew

  4. Easy Bean Farm Says:
    February 25th, 2008 at 11:54 am

    Reading the thread above I had a few thoughts that might be helpful. As I read the two arguments it occurred to me that really what is being discussed here is the nature of God. On one side we find the view that God also exists outside of Judaism and Jewish practice and is a God of Rational thought who is motivated by wanting what is best for us, his/her “children”, and what is best for the maintenance of creation. This is a God who wants us to ask ourselves tough questions and who has mandated us to search high and low for answers to the moral dilemas we face from day to day. This God requires us to look to tradition but, equally as important, to look to the evidence that can be gathered through our senses and our hearts.
    The other God is not necessarily a God of logic. While the rules may, in fact, benefit us as humans, more importantly, these rules fulfill some sort of cosmological need and it is our duty to follow the rules whether or not they make logical sense to us. We, as simple humans, do not have the capacity to understand a great deal of what this God has set as our tasks on this earth.
    If you believe in one of these Gods, than it is quite difficult to imagine how a person who believes in the other can possibly act the way they do. The interesting thing to me is that both of these visions are genuine Jewish traditions and the Jewish community has wrestled with this dichotomy for centuries. Some people have chosen one or the other and many have found ways to reach an internal compromise, as I suspect both Rabbi Shmuel (whether he knows it or not) and Ben Murane (whether he knows it or not)have done.
    I must confess that it does seem to me that Rabbi Shmuel has taken offense where none need be taken and has found a meaning, both in Ben’s and the original poster’s words, that seems far from their intent. To say that one finally felt human in no way implies that, before that point, they considered their Jewish selves less-than-human. Rather, too often, being raised in a tight Jewish community, we are taught (perhaps accidentally), that our Judaism trumps our humanity. It is a great thing, spiritually, whenever we can see that the things that divide us are dwarfed by our commonality. Additionally, as fellow farmer, I think it is a bit sad that Rabbi Shmuel tears down Mr. Pollan just because he is not the first person to have the ideas which he writes about so eloquently. Would it make sense to dismiss the poet who describes the harvest form a hilltop because he did not plant the crop? It will take many Michael Pollans and many Joel Salatins and many Ben Muranes and many Rabbi Shmuels to see the changes that many of us would like to see.

  5. Rabbi Shmuel Says:
    February 25th, 2008 at 1:10 pm

    BTW – I hardly tear down Michael Pollan – I’m actually a huge fan and I’m thrilled to see that his message – which my family has lived by for years – reach a broader, mainstream audience.
    My criticism was drected more towards those who have deified him and enshrined his thinking without acknowledging that his very ideas stenm from the very things they have discarded – nothing more, nothing less.

    I read your statement of the so-called age old dichotomy with interest. There is nothing inherent in Torah Judaism that defies logic. Saadiah Gaon categorizes the mitzvos into 2 broad classes – mitzvos which logic dictates (not killing, etc akin to the social contract) and mitzvos which logic allows (tefillin – I might not think them up in a million years but there’s nothing inherently illogical about them.) So rationality is a de facto significant part of my diet as opposed to craftily embracing a construct which has me deciding what G-d feels is best for me.
    Is there really such a dichotomy or are you trying to give hedonism and narcissism a theological spin?
    I guess I don’t see my Judaism and my humanity as in conflict (but I suppose if I were the center of my own universe then I would clearly concede that my individual wants and desires might get in the way of being in any type of community where those things were not exalted above all.)
    To my way of thinking, “If it feels good, do it” is little more than a slogan painted on Goldie Hawn’s thighs on “Laugh In” reruns – “I do my thing – you do yours and if we meet – well it’s beautiful” – wasn’t that a popular Hallmark Card in the late 60’s – now it’s got theological bona fides?

  6. Easy Bean Farm Says:
    February 25th, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Rabbi,
    Of course I did not mean to imply that all Jewish laws inherently defy logic (although I do think that there are a few),or that those pursuing a more “devotional” path (not really the right word) do so in spite of logic. A love of the blessing of thought, discussion and disagreement is something that I think of as being very Jewish! While I am sure that you and I have arrived at slightly different views on the world, I am able to have a great deal of respect for the path that you have chosen. This may sound “touchy-feely” but it is true. I just do not believe that we are all called to act the same part in creation. Still, how do you deal with Jewish Agricultural Laws? Do you plant a garden? The prohibitions against mixing seed are NOT ecologically a good idea. Still, if you believe that we should just do as God has commanded, even if there are indications that there are problems with the laws… Similarly, how do you feel about the injunction against eating, even kosher food, with non-Kosher friends? I suspect that this is something that you would do without giving it a thought. We all, to a grater or lesser degree, do a little bit of picking and choosing.
    Who has deified Michael Pollan? Calling him Rebbe in jest certainly is not deifying him. Rebbes are not gods. He is a teacher and a particularly good one and no-one has said differently. Additionally, I also think that, while it may be rhetorically interesting to pretend that someone has been defending “hedonism and narcissism” solely on the ground that we differ somewhat in our outlook, it is truly an unfair and insulting remark and it seems to lack a sense of humility. The fact is, YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW ME!
    I am guessing that, from what I have read of you, you and I likely have more in common in our day to day lives than almost anyone on this site and yet, you seem to want to divide us rather than find common ground. I am an organic farmer. You are an organic farmer. I sugar. You sugar. I am a father of children that I love. You are a father of children you love. I am Jewish. You are Jewish. I heat with wood which I cut and split. I am guessing the same goes for you. I try and live simply. I am constantly reminded of how beautiful and stunning creation is as I watch the change of the seasons and I receive the gifts of our good land. Is it the same for you?
    This is not to plaster over our differences but merely to say that things are not nearly as black and white as you seam to paint them. Next time I am in Southern VT (I used to live in Guilford) I would love to meet you and your family and see your life and I invite you, if you ever find yourself in Western Minnesota, to please share a Sabbath with my family.
    Best Regards,
    Mike Jacobs
    http://www.easybeanfarm.com
    Sincerely,
    Michael Jacobs

  7. Rabbi Shmuel Says:
    February 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    “Of course I did not mean to imply that all Jewish laws inherently defy logic (although I do think that there are a few)”

    I’d be curious as to which ones you felt defied logic, to me a virgin birth is a logical stretch, a red heifer _ I might not have thought about it but it doesn’t challenge my sense of logic.

    “Still, how do you deal with Jewish Agricultural Laws? Do you plant a garden? The prohibitions against mixing seed are NOT ecologically a good idea. Still, if you believe that we should just do as God has commanded, even if there are indications that there are problems with the laws…”

    Indeed I do ( I even intercrop for pest control! ) the halacha applies to to intercoprring VINYARDS – so what do I know about you so far? That you’ll take an anti Torah position without even understanding superficially what the halacha says.

    “Similarly, how do you feel about the injunction against eating, even kosher food, with non-Kosher friends?” If your goal is to retain Jews by having them associate and marry other Jews then in fact the prohibition makes sense. (The irony of your inability to meet Leah to discuss your discomfort with such a prohibition b/c of a Dec 25 conflict was not wasted on me)

    “I suspect that this is something that you would do without giving it a thought.”

    Really – then we are even as you have no idea who I am.
    I navigate such situations with guidance from my own rabbanim

    and I was just there this past shabbos! (Cottage Grove, MN) we were going to try to see the biggest ball of twine in Minnesota but it didn’t work out

    “I heat with wood which I cut and split. I am guessing the same goes for you.”

    correctamundo (husky 365)

    The bottom line is that rewriting halacha to fit our personal situations is not merely revisionism – its Sabbateanism (the halachic bacon eater – I eat bacon – I am Jewish – therefore my bacon eating becomes a Jewish act) everyone is entitled to do what they please – there is no central Jewish authority so you’re not getting lashes, excommunicated or otherwise. Why the need to tear down the edifice of organized Torah Judaism – my main compalint is that people have a need to textually legitimaize their actions – why not just opt out and be happy – why the need for spin and cheers from the peers?
    that’s from whence my vituperations arise.

    I too define people by their similarities (this last year I spoke at St. Michael’s Divinity School, last year to the NWF tribal land climate change conference) so I’m no hermit – I simply choose to try to make my life meaningful to a fealty to halacha and not vice versa.

    good luck sugaring! we’ve had enough snow – it should by IY”H a decent season.

  8. Easy Bean Farm Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Rabbi,
    Last night, before I went to bed, I read your reply. My daughter ended up feeling sick last night and I ended up staying up all night with her. When not tending to her needs, I spent much of the night thinking about the things you have written; not to develop some snappy replies but, rather, to consider your positions. When the sun began to rise I decided to reread this thread from the beginning; I wanted to look at it as clearly as possible. It really seems to me that you have missed the point of most of what I, and several other people, have written.
    In your most recent reply you ask me to inform you of what bits of Torah defy logic. I have no desire to do this, although I certainly could, because I have no desire to change your mind about anything theologically. I know what I believe and that is enough for me. Certainly I see other people expressing beliefs that I find “wrong” and,in these moments, simply stating what I believe is enough for me. My original comment was NOT, as you seemed to believe, an attack on your faith. If you read it carefully you will see that all I tried to do was to describe two different ways of approaching God withing, what I consider to be, genuine Jewish traditions.
    O.K., so, you reject my theory that these are both Jewish and that we all do a bit of picking and choosing. That is fine. However, I have been reading your writings on this site for over a year now and I am always surprised by the difference in style between your posts and your comments. Your posts are beautiful and positive. More times than not, your replies are sharp and dismissive. Rabbi, you are among friends here! Your barbs are unnecessary! Let us check your “scorecard” I think that you will find some fairly broad strokes.
    1.The original bacon-eater is, in some way, akin to Hitler.
    2.David and the original poster are only concerned with themselves and their enjoyment.
    3. Hazon has practiced idolatry and worships Michael Pollan.
    4. I am a defender of hedonism and narcissism.
    5. I am ignorant of halacha (I think you better look at Leviticus 19 again good rebbe)
    6. I am anti-Torah.
    7. I’ve got a “shiksa” wife and a bunch of little mamsers for children.
    8. Impied: I, and the bacon-eater, consider ourselves to be at the center of our own universes.

    O.K… you win! You are a better Jew than me. Now what? Does God love you more than he loves me? Are your works better than mine? Is your lovely wife better than my lovely wife? Are your adorable children holier than my adorable children?
    Have your vituperative rants been a shining light of God which will draw we, the apostates, back to the fold? Should I resign from the tribe?
    Perhaps you are already of the belief that, since I have had intercourse with a non-Jewish woman, my Judaism has already left the building. There’s an “authentic” bit of Judaism. What do you think? Perhaps a little kindness is in order, no?
    Back to the Greenhouses,
    Mike Jacobs

  9. Leah Koenig Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 10:31 am

    Farmer Mike – I will just say for the record that:

    1. My dad is Christian, and his family (a disproportionate amount of which are ministers) are some of the most righteous people I know. In fact, long before I found the “yesses” in Judaism for myself, I learned what it means to be a steward of your community through watching them. As I’ve grown up, I have found a way in my own life (though of course it’s an on-going process) to hold my Jewish faith and practice dear, while also celebrating the part of me that is bound to my amazing Christian family. I think it’s great that you are able to do that as well.

    2. I’m very sorry that this year’s Hazon Food Conference falls at a time when you can’t join us. Next year, Chanukah and Christmas do not coincide – and I look forward to (hopefully) meeting you and your wife and kids then.

  10. Rabbi Shmuel Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    1.The original bacon-eater is, in some way, akin to Hitler.

    That is a fairly twisted characterization of my comment and you know that it is reductio ad absurdum– but yes I perceived a whiff of self hatred in comments where people’s shucking the Torah makes them suddenly feel human – but we’re not breaking any new ground here.

    2.David and the original poster are only concerned with themselves and their enjoyment.

    Here is a quote from another thread

    “While it may be a bit conceited, I believe that, if the ears of Abraham were holy enough to hear the voice of God, than so are mine and yours.” (sound familiar?)

    ‘nuf said.

    3. Hazon has practiced idolatry and worships Michael Pollan.

    There you go again – their post was obviously written tongue in cheek but there’s certainly a kernel of truth beneath the subtext (not that there’s actual idolatry involved but you get the idea) – you seem defensive to this notion. I’m curious as to why.

    4. I am a defender of hedonism and narcissism.

    See comment to your #2 – this moral relativism is way out of hand – the Rambam has his thing – we have ours – G-d spoke to Abraham so He could just as well speak to us – Forgive me, but there’s a story where the Tzemach Tzedek came home crying from school when he was 5 years old. He asked his grandfather, the Alter Rebbe “why can’t G-d appear to me too? the Alter Rebbe replied “when you care enough to become circumcised in your 90’s, G-d will appear to you too.” At the risk of sounding sarcastic, it seems you’ve got this one figured out as well.

    5. I am ignorant of halacha (I think you better look at Leviticus 19 again good rebbe)

    I never said you were ignorant of halacha – I simply pointed out that you are quick to discard the laws of kilayim because they don’t fit with your notion of organic farming without even knowing what they are- there are people who lurk here who use this blog as a source of information. Does anyone have any obligation to transmit the information accurately or that doesn’t count – kilayim is whatever we say it is and that’s just the way it is. (Ironically it cuts in favor of what you do!)

    6. I am anti-Torah.

    Only you can answer that – you are certain in favor of your version of it.

    7. I’ve got a “shiksa” wife and a bunch of little mamsers for children.

    Where does that come from? Certainly not from me! But I’ll certainly stand by my comment that the irony of your inability to amplify your challenge to the Talmudic injunction against mixed dining because it conflicts with Dec 25 is simply delicious. It reminds me of the episode of the Honeymooners where Ralph and Ed were getting evicted for non-payment of the rent increase. Norton was going to call his landlord tenant lawyer but he didn’t know where his office was because the lawyer had been evicted the previous week. No more No less. (BTW halachically your children are not mamzerim and even if they were I certainly would have never said that in a forum such as this)

    8. Impied: I, and the bacon-eater, consider ourselves to be at the center of our own universes.

    There’s an old saying “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”. Look I’m not G-d’s scorekeeper engaged in a contest as to who is a better Jew. People are free to do what they want. My only question is why they have to feel that they have to spin it into a theology.

    I’ll give you my theory s to why they do it. Many years ago before I returned to my Torah ways, I was actually in a situation not dissimilar to yours. I spoke to a dear old friend of mine Irwin Kula, head of CLAL. He told me either make peace with my situation or my head would explode. He wanted to help me develop a “new paradigm” as he called it and I could be the poster boy. I told him that what I was doing was wrong and I thanked him for his kind offer. Hashem had other plans and baruch Hashem, things straightened out for me in ways I never could have imagined. But bottom line ,what it comes down to is that when people have these cognitive dissonant situations either they self destruct or they have to destroy the system that causes the CD. That’s where a lot of these thoughts come from and why my responses seem harsher than my posts. You and your family are always welcome at my Shabbos table – you’re right – we would have tons to talk about. But if you want to rewrite and spin the rules that’s Rabbi Steve’s department – I try to play it much closer to the vest. That’s all.

    I hope your daughter feels better.

  11. Easy Bean Farm Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    Rabbi,
    Thank you for your kind words regarding my daughter. There is, quite clearly, no end to a discussion such as this. For me, cognitive dissonance is quite a stretch, but I will give it some consideration. I will tell you, and you may not believe it, but when I , at last, let go of trying to make each bit of Torah work literally, I felt a great sense of relief. That is my story and it is obviously different than yours and yours is different from every other person who has ever lived. Yet another cause to give thanks!
    It is funny to me that you think that I am, in any way, interested in tearing down your Judaic beliefs. Quite to the contrary, I would fight to the end to protect your ability to believe as you wish and I find great inspiration and beauty in your faith… even as it is not my own.
    I think that we can both agree that, for us as men, to know God completely is quite impossible. For you, who believes that virgin birth is an not impossibility (a nice article appeared about this in the NYT earlier this week), to so quickly ridicule the possibility that God, in one way or another, might speak to each of us, seems a bit odd. God is as much my God as he/she is your God.
    As to the Kilayim, Leviticus 19 v. 19 is fairly clear; you shall not sew your field with two kind of seed. Now, since then, much has been written to interpret this in various ways. But these interpretations have been made by men. Men. Men like you and Me.
    In any case, while I still think that a kinder tone would benefit your arguments, I do not want to leave this thread without thanking you for the chance to discuss such serious and interesting issues and I hope that, some day it the future, we might share one another’s company.
    Mike Jacobs
    http://www.easybeanfarm.com

  12. Rabbi Shmuel Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm

    “For you, who believes that virgin birth is an not impossibility”

    now wait just a cotton pickin’ moment here – read what I wrote!!!! I said it WAS a stretch unlike para aduma or tefilin which I might not dream up but they don’t offend my sense of logic.

    “But these interpretations have been made by men. Men. Men like you and Me.”

    viva la difference – they were not men like you – they were not men like me (there’s that moral relativism thing creeping up again) – we believe that at Sinai not only the Written Law was given but there was an unambiguous oral tradition (like downloading the owners manual)transmitted to Moses and then down through the ranks, Joshua, the elders, prophets, etc. – hardly men like you and me

    I hope you don’t try to take the Torah too literally – otherwise we’d all be eyeless and toothless! That is why there is an oral law.

    you’re essentially correct that we could go on like this all ay (but it’s murder on my suspenders) To appreciate the difference between our repsective positions however, I urge you to reread some of the posts (mine included) during the whole discussion of kashering someone’s home and something they called “asymmetry” and the resultant attempts at restoring “symmetry” as in “if you can’t eat in my house, I can’t eat in yours. I am sure you will then appreciate where I am coming from.

    send me your email so I can send you a photo of our new sugarhouse – it’s beyond cool (looks like an 18th century easterne european wooden synagogue! not a nail in the frame!
    stay warm!

  13. Easy Bean Farm Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Rabbi,
    Very good. Not much more needs to be said (at least by me) on the subject. I am very interested in your sugar house. For several years I spent my winters timber framing and while, I have mostly been building furniture of late, it is something that I have a great love for.
    As for the ball of twine in Darwin, I am guessing that your imagination can do a better job of inspiring you than the actual ball. In fact, it is no longer the largest ball of twine; now it only the largest ball of twine made by one man… Ah, nothing stays the same (a little extra relativism for the fun of it)!
    You can contact me at eaybean@fedtel.net or through our website http://www.easybeanfarm.com.
    Respectfully,
    Mike Jacobs

  14. KRG Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

    here is a rumor that chicken wasn’t widely treated as meat in milchik-fleishek separations until 100 years ago.
    Um, no, sorry. There’s a discussion of this matter in the gemara, making it at the very least 1500 years old. It may be more however, since the redaction is of that era, but what is redacted is generally older.

  15. KRG Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    Secondly (not related to above post) If a Jew incorporates something into their practice and calls it Jewish, nope, that doesn’t make it Jewish.
    If Jew starts worshiping Jesus, that doesn’t make Jesus Jewish, even if the Jew is very serious about it. Rather it make s the Jew a confused Christian. I don’t have any problem with Christians, but they should know that certain things make up one spiritual practice and other things don’t.

    It’s a very American attitude to say that if I want to do X,I have the right, and I can call it anything I want. It’s simply not true though. A Jew who eats bacon is still a Jew (that practice doesn’t put one outside the pale, it just makes one, let’s say for the sake of the argument) a sinner. Furthermore, no matter how much you like bacon, eating it isn’t a spiritual practice.
    FInally, it’s important to figure out the distinction between a spiritual discipline and something that makes you feel good. Spiritual practices may sometimes have the effect of making their practitioner feel good, or happy, or some other desirable state, but that isn’t their purpose. The purpose of spiritual practice is to bring the soul closer to God.

    It requires work, and discipline -just like if I decided I wanted to win the Olympic gold in figure skating, I’d better be prepared to spend a lot of time on the ice, be ready to fall down, work hard with people who know more than me about ice skating and have done it before. When I’ve spent years at doing it their way, I might, might, might, have enough knowledge to make a small innovation and try something new – but I’d better have proven myself really darn knowledgeable through not just practice, but through demonstration of ability and knowledge for a long time before I consider adding ice picks and electric heaters to the sport.

  16. Rabbi Shmuel Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 7:58 pm

    “If Jew starts worshiping Jesus, that doesn’t make Jesus Jewish, even if the Jew is very serious about it. Rather it make s the Jew a confused Christian”

    good point – actually it would make the guy a confused Jew:)

  17. Kerr Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 8:38 pm

    “If Jew starts worshiping Jesus, that doesn’t make Jesus Jewish,”

    You mean to tell me Jesus was a goy? Christ! Here I was thinking he went to yeshiva. ;)

  18. Ben Murane Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    Actually, I think Messianic Jews are called “Jews” in every phone book I’ve seen. The organized Jewish community gets very upset about their self-described Jewishness and Judaism. But they’re “out” as Jews, no matter the fact that they’re 60% (by recent studies) born-again Christians who were never Jews in the first place.

    Nobody controls membership in the Jewish community anymore. For example, at a recent Reform synagogue event, my secular Israeli friend was shocked to discover shrimp in the buffet! There are a lot of out, proud, bacon-eating Jews. Nobody in the Jewish community gets to say who is and is not a Jew.

    There is no “right” practice by Judaism because there are so many Judaisms throughout history and no clear boundaries as to the reasonable level of interpretation of halakha. This is why Hazon generally says “Jewish tradition” and not “Judaism” because who’s Judaism are we talking about?

    It may or may not be American-style. But it’s the reality of a contemporary world.

  19. KRG Says:
    March 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    This isn’t actually a particularly Jewish issue (except, of course, that this particular instantiation has to do with Jews) but is a part of a longer argument about who gets to define a community. It shows up most often not about Jews, but about for example, African Americans – who decides who is “black”. There’s a lot of discussion about this in literature, in particular as regards how “outsiders” who have power get to decide who is “inside” for example – the “one drop” rule (if you have even )a drop of “black” ancestry, that makes you “black” which despite its ridiculousness, seems still to be rather in force in American society. This was a rule made up originally by white people for particular social ends). of course, all kinds of notions about passing play in here too. But the important thing about the discussion is about how community “insiders” are the ones who should be empowered to make the decision about who is “in” and that in reality, the necessity is that insiders have to play with notions of inside and outside which often ends up creating “codes” wherein people who are “inside” can identify one another without regard to the way “outsiders” define them.
    All postmodernism aside, my point was not about who is Jewish, but about what is Jewish (this is an important difference) the who is a Jew question is a big messy and unresolved problem but there is a certain amount of family resemblant requirements about who gets counted in. A Christian Jew (I don’t use the term messianic Jew or messianic Christian, since technically, all traditional Jews are messianic, and certainly all Christians are, making that term too confusing and inaccurate) whose whose parents were not Jewish and who did not convert to Judaism under a reputable authority (meaning one who is Jewish) is not Jewish. The acts that occur in the worship houses of Christian Judaism are not Jewish acts of worship, they are Christian acts of worship, no matter what they are called by whom.
    The act of worshiping a certain person as the Christ makes one, by definition, a Christian.
    But of course, it’s odd that your Israeli friend was shocked by shrimp at a Reform shul (Pittsburgh, anyone? As the Professor said, “What do they teach them at school these days?)
    Nontheless, while eating shrimp may not put you outside the pale of Jewish practice *eating shrimp is not a Jewish practice* The difference being that a Jewish practice has a certain set of histories and intentionalities and meanings associated with it, and eating shrimp lacks them.
    Just one more iteration to be clear: Eating matzah on pesach is a Jewish practice (and, btw, a nearly universal one, interestingly) but eating shrimp is just a laziness of discipline if one wants to keep religious laws of eating, and a lack of interest, if one does not. The fact that Jo loves shrimp more than any other food, and serves it at her daughter’s bat mitzvah, doesn’t sanctify the eating of shrimp, it just shows either a. a lack of knowledge, b. a lack of care about the knowledge of Jewish practice, c. a disinterest in some Jewish practices as it inconveniences one.
    Say all the brachot you want over it, eating shrimp is not a Jewish practice. It is merely a practice of (some) Jews. Similarly, adultery, Jews have I guarantee you, committed adultery throughout history, and I’m sure that many of them would talk about the holiness and sanctity of their love for the person with whom they committed those acts. Nevertheless, adultery is not a Jewish practice (I give this as a clear example, not because I think adam l’chavero matters are equivalent to bein adam l’makom matters).

  20. Jonathan Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 am

    KRG,
    Although I find many of your comments compelling, I take issue with your characterization of eating bacon as not a “jewish practice” but a practice by (some jews). This somehow implies that Jewish practices are those defined by a traditional understanding of halachah, so does that mean that Conservative Jews whose halachah allows them to drive to shul and back on shabbat are not practicing a “Jewish” practice. I agree there is something not “Jewish” about eating bacon it seems that your characterization is too broad, I wonder where you put the line?

  21. Kung Fu Jew Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 am

    KRG,

    Although I can’t say for sure, I believe most Jews who eat bacon are not doing itdeliberately as a Jewish practice, yes I agree. But *if* I were *were* to start doing so, then I have made it true. The point was to say that I and my actions define the boundaries of the Jewish inclusion.

    Take the Messianic Christians: if halakha is a distinctly Jewish practice, and praying to Jesus is a distinctly Christian practice, then Messianic Jews are simultaneously Jewish and Christian, right? So they’re still being Jewish, albeit also something else. They’ve reset the boundaries.

    If, that is, we’re committed to pluralism. If not, then we can pick a particular Judaism and pretend that others aren’t Jews. But nobody around us is obliged to care. Likely we’ll just be fooling ourselves.

    Back to the food issues, however:

    My Israeli friend Arnon was stunned because while he didn’t believe in adherence to any halakha at all, the only exposure to Jewish religion was at the hands of the very orthodox. The very concept of liberal theology wasn’t real until he saw it before his eyes by way of shrimp at a synagogue buffet. Why did the Reform temple have shrimp? Laziness I think is inaccurate — I think a very, very serious commitment to a more interpretive model of Jewish tradtion makes the purchase of this shrimp a religious statement.

    Indeed, through this treyf, they I believe they felt they were sanctifying God’s name by following a theology which no less is a commitment to Jewish principles as the orthodox approach. I believe that shrimp kavanah was more kosher (spiritually pure) than many conservative meals, eaten mindlessly and without consideration of kashrut’s intent.

    Shrimp becomes a Jewish act, a holy act, in a very real way.

  22. Chorus of Apes Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 am

    This discussion has now spread to jewschool <here. I will not repeat what I said there (though do go read it if you are interested). I would only point out the irony of KRG’s line “If Jew starts worshiping Jesus, that doesn’t make Jesus Jewish.”

    Jesus was Jewish before Jews started worshiping him (that is, at birth). He only becomes “not Jewish” years after his death when substantial numbers of non-Jews begin worshiping him in light of Paul’s mission to the gentiles at first, and later Constantine’s (and therefore Rome’s) conversion. The boundaries were not so clear then, and they are not so clear now. See borderlines for a fascinating discussion of the processes of boundary creation.

    There is more to say about this, but do not assume that the categories of Jew and Christian are stable and mutually exclusive.

  23. Chorus of Apes Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 am

    Follow up about bacon and shrimp as a jewish practice:

    As secularism was just getting legs radical Jewish socialists used to hold Yom Kippor balls where they would eat unkosher foods and party dafka on yom kippur. These folks may have been trying to prove their independence from the tradition, but they got a group of Jews together to preform a ritualized act on a Jewish holiday. Thus, they created a Jewish practice out of bacon and shrimp.

  24. Jacob P Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 am

    As for, ‘who is a Jew?’ we are a people with a common history that goes back to Egypt and the desert. Not all Jews share blood and not all share religion, but we all share history.

    As for, “what is a Jewish action?” I offer this piece from IL Peretz (Yud Lamed Peretz):

    “As long as there is no universal system of education for mankind-in-general, then each individual is the product of his specific national entity. Though he be removed from his ethnic group as a suckling babe, his brain already contains in embryonic dormant form the hereditary talents that will afterwards awaken and be developed. He will bear the traces of his former origin unto the tenth generation.
    No Matter what language you speak, no matter what pearls stream from your lips, no matter what ideas you propound, you eloquence is Jewish eloquence, your wit is essentially Galut-wit, your intellectual acumen is reminiscent of Talmudic sagacity.
    Meyerbeer cannot escape the Kol Nidre melody. It meanders through his music. Heine and Borne are Jews in their every expression, in their every jest, and in their earnestness.” (from the essay ‘education’)

  25. Chorus of Apes Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    What is the common history? There are common myths of reference (egypt being one of them), but it is not a common history. These myths are also referenced by Black Hebrew Israelites (some of whom ID as Jews and some of whom don’t) and Rastafarians in addition to Messianic Jews (see above). It sounds nice to posit something as the ground of Jewish unity, but as I said before, there is no center there to point to.

  26. Dov Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Before I add another layer to this huge discussion (it’s been fun trolling around),I’m still hoping for answers to my questions before this post flows onto yet another blog. As they said in student council, old business first.

    Ben, I’m still wondering where your 300 years regarding traditions comes from, and if you were implying that modern rituals lack validity in your eyes. I would like to see what your definition of the modern siddur is. I note you said that there is no “right” practice in Judaism, but again, can you find me a Judaism based in text, shared community and observance that espouses eating bacon, or committing fraud, or not lighting candles for shabbat? And I still hope you can express why it should be true in any way that Talmud is not for everyone (at least everyone who wants to discuss anything Jewish).

  27. Kung Fu Jew Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Dov,

    That assertion of 300 years was made by more educated Torah scholar friends of mine, so I’m hunting down some certainties to back up that argument.

    Hang tight,

    Ben

  28. Jacob P Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    Our history, myth or no, starts with the exodus and takes us through many lands all the way to here. We take on, as our history, all the experiences Jews have had. My family was not run out of Spain, but I would still say in a conversation: “we were run out of Spain”.

  29. KRG Says:
    March 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm

    CoA:
    Jesus was Jewish before Jews started worshiping him (that is, at birth). He only becomes “not Jewish” years after his death when substantial numbers of non-Jews begin worshiping him in light of Paul’s mission to the gentiles at first, and later Constantine’s (and therefore Rome’s) conversion.

    To be fair, that’s clearly not what I was talking about, but rather that worshipping Jesus is not a jewish practice even if a Jew does it, using normal American elipsed English.
    Second, it’s not a Jewish practice to worship human beings, no matter who says it is. Not even if you call them something else.
    The problem actually comes out of a problem of philosophy, which is that once one divorces Judaism from the divine, there is no way of saying anything is Jewish – it’ snot that everything is Jewish if Jews do it, it’s that nothing is at all.
    A rational approach to Judaism in which we explain the meaning of the mitzvot (which is, by the way, prohibited by the rabbis in the gemara) is a path down which if we follow it, there can ultimately be no reason to practice any Judaism.
    It’s true that someone who comes from a point of view of suggesting that halakha is the boundary setter ultimately can’t have much to say to the one who says that it’s culturally determined, but I will point out,also, that the one who says that whatever Jews do is Judaism is making a category mistake. The logical endpoint is no Judaism at all.
    If you want to be spiritually uplifted by eating shrimp, Kol HaKavod, but it isn’t Judaism, and feeling uplifted isn’t the point of mitzvot. Key thought: mitzvot, like much of Judaism isn’t about you (in the generic sense) at all. It’s about national, not personal salvation. One’s feeling god about doing X or Y is completely irrelevant to the reason for doing mitzvot, and no specific mitzvah can have a reason – Only the body of them as a (family-resemblant) whole have meaning, and the meaning is that when the Jewish people – as a whole- do mitzvot, we -as a nation- are brought closer to God.

    If you feel god about eating shrimp, fine, but don’t call it Judaism just because you’re a Jew. Judaism isn’t about Jews, it’s about God.

  30. Jacob P Says:
    March 4th, 2008 at 2:10 am

    Well, whatever a Jew does is a Jewish action in so much as it is an action influenced by all of that has come before, from Egypt until now. I think that is what Peretz is getting at in the quote I left above.

    As for Judaism not being about Jews – well – perhaps not, but it certainly looks like it is. The rules look towards building ways that we can live together in justice and peace – ways to build community. Perhaps Judaism is about G-d, but only in that G-d would wish us to live in these ways that are beneficial and healthy. And then the point becomes only semantic. Are the laws for the people? Are the laws for G-d? It does not matter, because the effect is the same.

    I don’t understand what you mean when you say that rational examination of the mitzvot will lead us to have no reason to practice. Most mitzvot are helpful. Gemara aside, better to examine what we do and make sure that it is helpful and causes no harm. There is always a chance that we are wrong (Hillel said: do not trust yourself till the day you die) and best to err on the side of doing things that look to be helpful and at least not harmful. Man has some sense – most people know, even when they don’t practice it – what is good.

    And this, from Walt Whitman:
    “go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in open air every season or every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul, and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency”

  31. shmuel Says:
    March 4th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    The suggestion by some here seems to be that whatever a Jew does is Jewish. But where does one draw that line? Such a statement, if to be accepted as fact, makes all discussion about Judaism irrelevant. If every Jew (lets take it for granted that we all agree on who is a Jew, even though the reality is otherwise) decides to make up their own rules and call it Judaism, its not anything anymore. Its not even Shabbateanism at that point. Its nothing.

    Whats with this idea that if a person doesnt “get anything” out of their kashrus their should stop it? Since when is doing a mitzvah about getting anything out of it? I say, if you’re not getting any fuzzy feelings of self-righteousness from your kashrus, then your kashrus is way holier from that person that does, and I commend you for it.

  32. Jacob P Says:
    March 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

    Most people define a Jew not by what the person is, but by where the person has come from. Likewise, we could define a Jewish action not by its content, but by its source. Each definition has a similar structure and similar problems.

    Perhaps the disagreement we have is only over words. Certainly, everyone would recognize any action by a Jew is influenced by Jewish history and culture – even if that person is working to remove themselves from the community. Is this enough to call the action Jewish? Yes. No. If we agree on the idea, the disagreement on language becomes unimportant.

    Perhaps there are different centers to the Jewish world. Each center is defined by what Jews do and what we have done. The farther away from these centers an action is the less Jewish it is. And perhaps the farther removed an action is from Jewish community the less Jewish it is too. And perhaps the farther away from what have typically been Jewish ideas the less Jewish it is too.

  33. Jacob P Says:
    March 4th, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    As for Kashrut. It is good, perhaps, to follow Kashrut, even if you don’t see the benefit, because you can see the benefit of ideas and practices from the same source. You can say to yourself, ‘these other ideas are worthwhile, perhaps this one is also.’

    But if you could see no benefit from the practice, and you could make no logical argument for it – why practice? It is good to reason about things and try to do what appears that it would be the most beneficial and the least harmful to yourself and to others.

    You need not feel fuzzy or self-righteous. This is not what we mean by ‘beneficial’ or ‘helpful’.

  34. shmuel Says:
    March 5th, 2008 at 10:04 am

    Why did G-d give us mitzvos we can’t understand, which really have no discernable benefit outside of being a mitzvah? I aint no rabbi, or professor of theology but I think its precisely so that we could do the rational ones like giving ma’aser with the same kavanah. Because altruism is the apex of humanity.

  35. Jacob P Says:
    March 5th, 2008 at 10:59 am

    All I’m saying is we ought to reason through the mitzvot. If we decide to practice to build our own altruism, fine. If we trust a rule because we have seen other rules from the same system to be beneficial, fine. But it is good to look at things rationally – to not do this would be, well, unreasonable.

    If we give up our ability to judge things by reason, we give up our ability to change our positions. And since we can never be sure we are correct, it is important to not throw away the tools we have for re-examining how we live.

    And if following a rule starts putting us in positions that hurt ourselves or hurt others, it is good to re-examine our assumptions and the reasons that have got us here. Also, I say, good to play it safe and conservative and to quit that action. Perhaps we are wrong, and better to err on the side of not doing things that are harmful.

Leave a Reply



Advertise on The Jew & The Carrot