Sunday, 26 April 2009

Beliefnet

As I often do, I took a look today at the news sources mentioned to the left on the blog. One caught my eye -- an article, I thought, on the Torah view of torture. This subject actually came up recently in my conversation with someone and the conversation touched upon many topics dealing with the extent that one can force another to act in a proper fashion (obviously as the one applying the force defines it). The question touched upon the rights and power of the individual and those of a beit din and discussed many different cases from the extent that one can be forced to eat matzah on Pesach night to methods that can be applied to extract information that could be life saving, the present general case where torture is applied. So, knowing the extent of the issue, I was interested in what this article would say.

To my surprise, I found myself directed to a blog dealing with Jewish issues on a website entitled Beliefnet, which offers something touching upon nearly all religions including, it would seem, secularism. The actual piece to which I was directed presented a short section from a greater article on the topic by Rabbi Michael Broyde. As such, what was presented obviously reflected much thought -- as do all of Rabbi Broyde's articles -- yet the synopsis presented in the blog did not give the topic its true justice. All we read were Rabbi Broyde's broad conclusions without the full presentation of the thought that must have led to these conclusions. Neither did we have the chance to see the many sub-issues and permutations of the topic that Rabbi Broyde, no doubt, had considered.Well, its only a blog you might say. But what really got me was the way that the author of this blog described Rabbi Broyde. No mention of him being a Chaver of the Beit Din of America, remarkable talmid chacham and posek but rather he is just mentioned as a member of the faculty of Emory Law School. This secular position is also clearly an achievement but, in regard to question of Torah law and ethics, is that the description that you most care about? I would want to know his status in Torah.

I then decided to take a short trip around this website. I am not sure how I feel about a multi-faith website even thought the Jewish parts of it seem to be independent. Of course, Judaism is also bundle together into one platform and anyone who knows my views on the subject knows that I am adamant about the need to defined the different denominations of Judaism as independent entities with their own parameters. Otherwise one has confusion. One doesn't expect a Methodist and a Catholic to be similar so why is there this assumption that there must be some common link between the views of Reform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism? But isn't this the whole problem with this type of website in general. By grouping all religions together, there is this impression that all religions really share some common point, be it a common desire for spirituality or some common ethic. The differences between the religions is thus only in some method of presentation or in other minor issues. Viewing Judaism from the perspective of generic religion creates a parameter on its teachings and theories. To truly understand Torah it must exist within its own perspective. That is a problem I have with sites that try to group all religions together and then with sites that try to group all branches of Judaism together. Am I against all unity? Of course not. But everything has to be seen and understood within its own world -- and tying Torah to all religions limits it.

And a further example of this is describing Rabbi Broyde solely by his secular credentials. I really don't care what a professor at Emory Law School has to say about the Torah view of torture. I do, though, have an interest in hearing what Kvod Harav Michael Broyde shlita has to say.

Rabbi Ben Hecht

4 comments:

Garnel Ironheart said...

Years ago I recall visiting a shailoh/teshuvah site where submitted questions were randomnly answered by one of three rabbis - one Reform, one Conservative and one Torah observant.
I wonder if the observant Rabbi knew what he was being part of.

Mikewind Dale (Michael Makovi) said...

Garnel,

Perhaps the observant rav thought that if he joined, at least 1/3 of the questions would have Torah-observant answers? In other words, perhaps he hoped that at least 1/3 of the readers would benefit from him; better 1/3 of a victory than a total defeat.

Mikewind Dale (Michael Makovi) said...

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the defense I just gave; I'm just offering it as a plausible and reasonable and defensible one, not necessarily (but still perhaps) the correct one.

Rabbi Ben Hecht said...

Many years ago, someone asked me a shaila. After I gave my response, the person said that he actually asked 5 rabbis and that he was going to do what the majority said, which happened not to be the way I responded. The thing was, though, while I generally am aware of differing viewpoints, in thia case the answer was pretty straightforward and I could not figure out how the other 3 could have given another response. I basically asked this person who he asked. The answer was 3 Conservative rabbis who gave the response he was going to follow and 2 Orthodox rabbis which gave the response that I gave. From then on, I always made sure that if I was ever asked a question, I would never be lumped in with rabbis from a different branch. Even if one argues that if you have an Orthodox rabbi amongst 3 generic rabbis, you can thereby be assured of a right answer a third of the time, the cost is too great. It is, in my opinion, most important to make it clear that Judaism is not generic and that Orthodoxy is not just quantiatively different than the other branches but qualitatively different.

Rabbi Ben Hecht