http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/daily-life-practice/debating-social-justice-pt-ii/ Mixed Multitudes Thu, 4 Dec 2008 05:38:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/daily-life-practice/debating-social-justice-pt-ii/#comment-141 Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:12:34 +0000 http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/daily-life-practice/debating-social-justice-pt-ii/#comment-141 [...] Mixed Multitudes: Debating Social Justice, Pt. II [...] […] Mixed Multitudes: Debating Social Justice, Pt. II […]

]]> http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/daily-life-practice/debating-social-justice-pt-ii/#comment-121 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:46:24 +0000 http://www.myjewishlearning.com/blog/daily-life-practice/debating-social-justice-pt-ii/#comment-121 Daniel - I don't think Talmudic rabbis would find it all that baffling, or at least not all of them, and not for the same reasons they'd find Sieradski's approaches baffling. Many provide statement after statement emphasizing the beauty and priority of learning and intellectual growth. It's a culture that almost deified R' Akiba, idealized Pardes, and continually endeavored toward additional knowledge. It's no extreme break from the tradition to then apply some Aristotelian vocabulary to it. Yes, there's R' Shimon idealizing action over learning, but that just indicates there are two schools of thought (and perhaps some in the middle) here. And it'd be wrong to say that Maimonides doesn't hold at least some appreciation for this school; he very much promotes praxis, even if it's also just part of the means to that intellectual end (which is debatable). Of course, it's also vital in understanding Maimonides to put these statements in the proper context of the rest of his work, which puts forward many other elements of reaching the ideal. But even putting that aside, Maimonides isn't abrogating any Talmudic text, presenting a severely new reading of it, or somesuch. He's filling in the gaps. As I said in my Canonist post, he was creating a philosophy anew, one that is rather tightly sourced not just to Aristotelian ideas, but to ones found in Jewish text when they're available; it's not for nothing that he's said to have wedded the two. It's impossible to apply some kind of test here to determine whether Maimonides was doing something that went against the Talmudic tradition or the Jewish textual tradition as a whole: find the parts of those previous texts that say you can't make his moves. Over the centuries, I think we've pretty well shown that's not the case. Sieradski's not creating something new in Judaism's silent spaces, nor is he tying into any previous hermeneutics. He's taking a specific set of moral values and saying they've been Judaism's all along, by claiming that certain attitudes in the Bible and other texts are more liberal than we've been led to believe in the past millenia. That's not Maimonidean, it's just reinterpretation of original intent, without anything more to go on than his personal feelings. Daniel - I don’t think Talmudic rabbis would find it all that baffling, or at least not all of them, and not for the same reasons they’d find Sieradski’s approaches baffling. Many provide statement after statement emphasizing the beauty and priority of learning and intellectual growth. It’s a culture that almost deified R’ Akiba, idealized Pardes, and continually endeavored toward additional knowledge.
It’s no extreme break from the tradition to then apply some Aristotelian vocabulary to it.
Yes, there’s R’ Shimon idealizing action over learning, but that just indicates there are two schools of thought (and perhaps some in the middle) here. And it’d be wrong to say that Maimonides doesn’t hold at least some appreciation for this school; he very much promotes praxis, even if it’s also just part of the means to that intellectual end (which is debatable).
Of course, it’s also vital in understanding Maimonides to put these statements in the proper context of the rest of his work, which puts forward many other elements of reaching the ideal. But even putting that aside, Maimonides isn’t abrogating any Talmudic text, presenting a severely new reading of it, or somesuch. He’s filling in the gaps.
As I said in my Canonist post, he was creating a philosophy anew, one that is rather tightly sourced not just to Aristotelian ideas, but to ones found in Jewish text when they’re available; it’s not for nothing that he’s said to have wedded the two.
It’s impossible to apply some kind of test here to determine whether Maimonides was doing something that went against the Talmudic tradition or the Jewish textual tradition as a whole: find the parts of those previous texts that say you can’t make his moves. Over the centuries, I think we’ve pretty well shown that’s not the case.
Sieradski’s not creating something new in Judaism’s silent spaces, nor is he tying into any previous hermeneutics. He’s taking a specific set of moral values and saying they’ve been Judaism’s all along, by claiming that certain attitudes in the Bible and other texts are more liberal than we’ve been led to believe in the past millenia. That’s not Maimonidean, it’s just reinterpretation of original intent, without anything more to go on than his personal feelings.

]]>