Episodios

  • But Which Religion is Correct?

    But Which Religion is Correct?

    · Heterodox Jewish Woman Podcast

    A Rebbetzin, a Priest and a Muslim scholar discuss the problem of Truth in interfaith education

    For easily readable notes on this episode, go to https://shirabatya.substack.com/p/but-which-religion-is-correct

    This episode is a real treat: a recording of a panel discussion held at the Limmud Festival in Birmingham UK on 23 December 2024.

    This is my first post in a while, due to a situation that emerged in Religious Education in Berkshire, which has absorbed almost all of my time in recent months.

    The new Religion and Worldviews framework has been accompanied by an increasing emphasis on truth-seeking in religious education, as students are encouraged to examine which religious beliefs are more reasonable and look at arguments between competing religious and non-religious “worldviews.”

    As I worked to tackle this dangerous change in pedagogy, numerous theological questions emerged. My conversations with Father Patrick Morrow developed into an interfaith session. We were honoured to be joined by Muslim scholar Dilwar Hussein, MBE. Bios for all participants are below.

    Session Description (as in the Limmud Handbook):

    Judaism does not proselytise, but this is unusual among faiths in Britain. And do we Jews really have no firm beliefs that we wish others would share? Can we teach about our own faiths passionately, without the conversation slipping into persuasion? Can we allow for multiple religious “truths”, and still be rational? What is religious “truth”?

    The panel includes:

    * Father Patrick Morrow, a Church of England Priest and Secretary to the Theology Committee of the International Council of Christians and Jews

    * Dilwar Hussain MBE of the Woolf Institute, University of Cambridge and Chair of New Horizons in British Islam

    * (me) Dr Shira Batya Lewin Solomons, Rebbetzin of the Jewish Community of Berkshire, and Director of JCoB Education (provider of RE Judaism support to schools across England and Wales)

    https://www.jcob.org/support_judaism_re.html>

    Background

    This conversation emerged as a product of the ongoing challenge that I have been facing due to the new Religion and Worldviews framework in Religious Education (RE), which is shifting the focus of learning towards truth-seeking and exploration of “big questions”, as opposed to more traditional RE, which prioritised understanding the beliefs and practices of others without making judgments or seeking answers.

    The new approach to teaching RE seeks to avoid claiming to be able to teach Religions as coherent well-defined traditions, due to a post-modern critique that emphasises the diversity within religious traditions. From this perspective, there are many “Judaisms”, “Islams”, “Christianities” etc. - each individual with their own “personal worldview” based on their own “lived experience” that cannot ever really be fully communicated or understood by others.

    Teaching has therefore shifted towards developing each child’s “personal worldview”, through the exploration of “big questions” and a shift towards philosophy and theology. This involves students exploring and even debating issues such as “Does God exist?” “Where did the universe come from?” “Is religion dangerous?” “What happens after we die?” In the first draft of the new Berkshire RE Syllabus, children were even asked to rank beliefs for their reasonableness.

    This sort of focus raises major concerns as it had been a rule in RE teaching that we were never meant to ask whose beliefs were right or wrong or make judgments as to whether religious beliefs were reasonable or well founded in arguments. Persuasion and proselytising should have no place in RE, which is about listening, learning, and understanding.

    When I pushed back at this change in pedagogy, I faced two primary counter-arguments:

    * There are some matters (ethics, public policy) that relate to religion, where we need to debate, make arguments and reach consensus.

    * By demanding no persuasion, proselytising, (it is argued that) I am imposing my Jewish or liberal view on others. (Andrew Wright) What if a religion believes in proselyting - what if that is part of their religious expression? Can we really share our faiths without making any truth claims?

    In my next Substack piece, I will carefully document what has been happening in RE based on our recent experience with the new Pan Berkshire Syllabus. I will look at where this framework came from and at the serious consequences. The discussion here will not address those issues but will focus on the philosophical challenges. I am arguing for RE that is scrupulously free of attempts to persuade, but how do we do that? It’s easy enough when teaching Judaism, as we Jews do not seek converts. But what about Christianity and Islam, which traditionally have sought converts? Are we asking Christians and Muslims to be inauthentic?

    Below is an outline of the contributions of the panellists, with some links to material in case you want to read more. Before reading further, I recommend that you listen to the audio, which is the real event. Note that the notes on Patrick and Dilwar’s presentations were written by me and are therefore less detailed.

    Shira Solomons (Judaism)

    https://shirabatya.substack.com/

    I focused on the teachings of two great rabbis: · Joseph Soloveitchik (the Rav) and Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

    Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik

    Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik = Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (1903-1993) “The Rav”Famous essay: On Interfaith Relationships (1964)

    Impossibility of interfaith dialogue on theology etc.

    * Different religions essentially speak different languages. Different categories and “incommensurate frames” for understanding our place in the world.

    * Because we speak different languages, we each have our own “unique relationship to God
 moulded by different historical events”

    * We cannot understand the “private” elements that express their “individual religious commitment”

    When we can and should engage.

    * Role of interfaith is to work together in matters for which our beliefs are the same.

    * Certain values in common between Jews and Christians such as human beings in the image of God, Imitatio Dei.

    * We use our common religious language to work together for things like civil rights, morality, fighting poverty, seeking peace. (Remember he is writing this in 1964.)

    * Secular people will find it difficult to understand our shared religious language. [Like tone-deaf people who cannot understand music.]

    My evaluation of Soloveitchik

    * Judaism has a concept na’aseh venish-mah - In order to understand you must do the action first. So yes, it is impossible to understand fully the religious experience of another faith when we do not and should not share in the practice.

    * Soloveitchik is not saying Judaism has a monopoly on truth.Argument relates to our ability to learn from others who are different.

    * I ask: How does Soloveitchik know about the beliefs we have in common (or not) with Christians? Surely we found this out by having conversations.

    * How do we deal with disagreements when they matter? We do need to agree on some things in order to live together? Not addressed by Soloveitchik at all.

    Jonathan Sacks

    Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (1948-2020)Controversial book: Dignity of Difference (2002) (Avoid later editions)

    All quotes are from the first edition (2002), not the adulterated second edition (2004).First editions are readily available very cheaply on Amazon. The 2nd edition radically altered the core chapter (Exorcising Plato’s Ghost pp. 45-66).Gil Student summarises all the changes Sacks made for the 2nd edition here: https://www.torahmusings.com/2007/10/differences-of-dignity/

    Tower of Babel / Exorcising Plato’s Ghost

    * Yes different religions speak different languages, but this is something to be celebrated. The will of God.

    * Babbling of the languages of the people building the Tower is something wondrous and good.

    * Oppressive and totalitarian for everyone to think and speak exactly like each other.

    Let there be Diversity:

    * “Religion is the translation of God into a particular language 
 God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims.” (p. 55)

    * [A core lesson of the Torah is that] “God is God of all humanity, but no single faith is or should be the faith of all humanity.” (p. 55)

    * Myth that “If I am right, you are wrong”
 “you must be converted, cured, and saved” (p. 50)

    Universalism is dangerous

    * Sacks is scathing of those who “attempt to impose a man-made unity on divinely created diversity”

    * Greatest crimes in history come from attempts to impose universalism on the diversity of human beings.

    * “Babel - the first global project - is the turning point in the biblical narrative. From then on, God will not attempt a universal order again until the end of days.”

    * [Related to the Talmudic concept of Teiku - pushing off disputes to be resolved at the end of days, acknowledging the limitations of human beings to attain the Truth on certain matters]

    Particularity / Covenants

    * Myth that universal morality is morally superior to particular moralities. Criticism of Jews for being parochial, only marrying each other, taking care of our own before others. This is prejudice, chauvinism.

    * “We are particular and universal, the same and different, human beings as such, but also members of this family, that community, this history, that heritage, our particularity is our window onto universality” (p. 56)

    * We understand the human experiences of others by having our own particular human experiences.

    * “
 we learn to love humanity by loving specific human beings. There is no short-cut.” (p. 58)

    Engagement

    * Not only are there multiple truths out there, but we can learn something by engaging with them. Unlike Soloveitchik, does not want to hide away, avoid understanding the other.

    * Importance of conversation, as opposed to debate (politics).

    * “entering into the inner world of someone whose views are opposed to my own” (p. 83)

    * In a conversation, you don’t win or lose. You grow. You learn something as you “know what reality looks like from a different perspective.” (p. 83)

    Religion and Politics

    * How do we deal with difficult questions where we need to agree to live together?

    * We first have those conversations, so that we understand each other.

    Then political conversations resolve what we actually do as a society together.

    * Consequence: Need to be very careful how and where such political debates occur, as they may eclipse the conversations that are really necessary, particularly in educational settings.

    Patrick Morrow (Christianity)

    Historical tendency of the Church to assumes it possesses all Truth. Vast majority of Christians wish to leave that behind.

    Christians tend to prefer Sacks over Soloveitchik. The idea of private truth is very foreign to Christianity due to opposition to Gnosticism (esoteric knowledge). Christianity has taught that its teachings are available to everyone.

    Three-fold typology of approaches to non-Christian faiths (proposed by pluralists):

    * exclusivism (we alone have the religious good)

    * inclusivism (we have the religious good fully, and others may share part of it with us)

    * pluralism (no way to distinguish who has more or less of the religious good; we are all equal)

    Another approach: Most takes on other faiths are variations on inclusivism. They can tip into exclusivism (one type of error) or into pluralism (another type of error).

    Mainstream Christian Inclusivism in the Catholic Tradition

    Karl Rahner was a Jesuit, before, during and after Vatican II. 1961 lecture: “Christianity and the Non-Christian Religions”. Published as pages 115-134 of Theological Investigations Vol 5 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd) Available here

    Rahner offered four theses. We will look at three:

    * Christianity is the absolute religion intended for all. This applies only when Christianity enters with existential power into the life of a person or a community. This happens only when a person has a Pentecostal experience. This cannot be seen, and it cannot be forced.

    * Therefore, it is likely that the other religion in which a person finds himself is legitimate (in God’s eyes).

    * Therefore, a missionary, meeting someone from another faith, should treat them as an anonymous Christian. (God will be working in that person’s life. Who is God? For Rahner it is the Trinity. Therefore, the Trinity is present for that person and that person is therefore a Christian.)

    Catholicism has moved on from here, but this position does mean treating a person from another faith as someone who has their own relationship with God from which one can learn. They may have precisely the teaching that I need right now.

    [For those who want to read further, Patrick Morrow has written about this issue at length here. Karl Rahner also entered a dialogue with Jewish theologian Pinchas Lapide that included such matters as the Jewish debate about whether Christianity is monotheistic.]

    Dilwar Hussain (Islam)

    Importance of humility. Quran teaches people be in awe and wonder of the vastness of Creation and therefore of the Creator.

    Three main points:

    1. God has an infinite amount to say to us, so cannot be contained in any finite text.

    If we believe that all of God’s wisdom is contained in the Quran or in any holy text, then we are making God finite. In the view of Islam (with the focus on monotheism), then lends towards idolatry.

    “If all the seas of the earth were turned into ink and all the trees of the earth were turned into pens, then the wisdom of God would not have been exhausted.”

    [I shared a laugh here with a fellow Jew in the audience as this is so, so similar to the text in the Jewish prayer Nishmat. “If our mouths were full of song as the sea is with water
 we would not be able to sufficiently praise you.”]

    2. Diversity is created by God

    If diversity is in the world, God intended it to be there. Just like we cannot understand evil, we cannot understand why it is there, but it is there for a reason.

    “We created you from one soul, and we created you into nations and tribes, that you may come to know each other.”

    Diversity is a source of wonder and learning. This is part of the Divine intention and part of the human journey.

    3. How to deal with difference?

    There are universals. But there will be differences. We will disagree. This happens both within and between religions and across humanity.

    Some disagreements can be resolved. Others cannot and we leave them to the Day. Right and Wrong in the universal sense is the language of God. We cannot know absolutely so must focus on living in peace rather than who has the right or wrong answers.

    4. Relevance today / challenges

    Why is this such a cause of anxiety for us today? Historically Islam was more inclusive as it saw teachings of Judaism and Christianity as part of its heritage. Today we have too much “brittle religion” because of political conflicts.

    Religion that is not soft and flexible, and can break. We end up with “brittle, broken religion” (Hamas, Isis etc.).

    It’s not most Muslims, but it is some Muslims and must be acknowledged. A lot of work to do within Islam to reclaim the flexible tradition that is possible.

    Thanks for reading Heterodox Jewish Woman! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Go to https://shirabatya.substack.com/

    https://www.jcob.org/support_judaism_re.html>



    This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit shirabatya.substack.com
  • Accepting a Rusty Penny: J K Rowling and the Power of Forgiveness

    Accepting a Rusty Penny: J K Rowling and the Power of Forgiveness

    · Heterodox Jewish Woman Podcast

    J K Rowling's reluctance to forgive Dan and Emma is understandable, but a story from Reb Shlomo Carlebach shows us why she should be more generous. Reb Shlomo tells of a miser who has never given a penny of charity in all his life. Because all he ever offers is a single rusty penny. We assume he offers this to show his disdain for all who ask him for help. But are we correct?

    Listen above to learn the full story. This is only a short podcast today. Hastily recorded in the midst of Passover preparations. But with an important lesson that we need to heed in these toxic unforgiving times.

    JK Rowling's tweet can be found here: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1778124467027267804

    The Times article can be found here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-i-wont-forgive-harry-potter-stars-over-pro-trans-views-fp79wpbvn

    It's very, very difficult to offer that first rusty penny. We have to help people find the strength to go back and then say, “Yes, I was wrong about this and I was also wrong about that.” And then people can actually find the strength to make amends properly.

    And if we act in a miserly way ourselves, and we reject out of hand the tiny little offerings of apologies that come our way; if we do that then we take away the opportunity to pull people out of the rabbit holes that they are buried in.

    Because very often we see what appears to be some self-righteous, nasty person. How dare they think that a single rusty penny will make it all better?

    But maybe it's a hand reaching up and they are saying: “Please grab my hand. Give me a little, little pull to help me come out.”

    Reb Shlomo Carlebach’s story “A Bit of Charity” can be found in the book Shlomo’s Stories: Selected Tales

    The most important parts of the story can also be found here: https://issuu.com/jewishhome/docs/currentissue_3816061d4e388f/64



    This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit shirabatya.substack.com

  • ¿Faltan episodios?

    Pulsa aquí para actualizar resultados

  • "Trans healthcare is healthcare" WPATH and the Queering of Consent

    · Heterodox Jewish Woman Podcast

    It is a mistake to focus excessively on the problem that children lack capacity to consent to trans medicalisation. The problem is much more serious than that.

    This audio essay explores how the concepts of medical care and consent have been queered by those campaigning for “gender affirmative” healthcare. By clarifying the mindset that leads people to find such treatments plausible, we can more effectively argue against them and disabuse those who have been hoodwinked by smoke and mirror tactics as words like “consent” and “healthcare” have multiple meanings so that the absurd is made to appear plausible.

    Now trans healthcare, being “healthcare”, must be paid for by your health insurance and you cannot discriminate against trans people by having their “healthcare” not get paid for.

    And secondly, it being necessary “healthcare”, you can then loosen up on the requirements for consent by being allowed to be paternalistic and deciding on behalf of a vulnerable patient like somebody who's mentally ill or a child that you know what's in their best interest. Because you understand that this patient is trans because you are the expert.

    You can see into their soul.

    So paternalistically you will then approve of the child having healthcare done to them for which they do not have the capacity to consent, to which they actually have not consented.

    You consent on behalf of them, and you do it in the name of personal autonomy.

    Sources on Informed Consent and Medical Necessity in Body-Altering Healthcare

    When patients lack capacity, others decide for them in their best interests

    * https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/learning-safety-incidents/issue-12-capacity-and-consent

    * https://code-medical-ethics.ama-assn.org/ethics-opinions/decisions-adult-patients-who-lack-capacity

    Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults by Stephen B. Levine, E. Abbruzzese &Julia W. Mason

    Summarises the issues to do with consent.

    It is common for gender-affirmative specialists to erroneously believe that gender-affirmative interventions are a standard of care

    Five scientific observations question and refute the assumption that an individual’s experience of incongruence of sex and gender identity is best addressed by supporting the newly assumed gender identity with psychosocial and medical interventions

    AMA to states: Stop interfering in health care of transgender children

    Empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression. For gender diverse individuals, standards of care and accepted medically necessary services that affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria may include mental health counseling, non-medical social transition, gender-affirming hormone therapy, and/or gender-affirming surgeries. Clinical guidelines established by professional medical organizations for the care of minors promote these supportive interventions based on the current evidence and that enable young people to explore and live the gender that they choose. Every major medical association in the United States recognizes the medical necessity of transition-related care for improving the physical and mental health of transgender people.

    Misinformation Obscures Standards Guiding Gender-Affirming Care for Trans Youth

    This article defends gender affirming care by pointing out that there is careful assessment to make sure that children have capacity. The Endocrine Society claims most adolescents have capacity by age 16.

    Different Aspects of Informed Consent in Aesthetic Surgeries by Nasrin Nejadsarvari and Ali Ebrahimi

    About informed consent for aesthetic surgeries. Consent is impossible if patients have psychiatric problems. Surgery may make psychiatric problems worse. Misinformed consent can lead to legal liability for malpractice.

    Note: Gender doctors treat the psychological distress of patients as analogous to the distress of an accident victim who is mis-figured and requires reparative surgery to restore their appearance and therefore help their mental health.

    Example: https://saberplasticsurgery.com/gender-affirming-breast-removal/

    Advertises surgery as helping with gender dysphoria and feeling “comfortable in your skin”. Top surgery is “medically necessary”.

    New advertising guidelines for cosmetic surgery in Australia: https://aestheticmedicalpractitioner.com.au/features/cosmetic-practice/new-cosmetic-surgery-advertising-guidelines/

    Gender affirmation surgery is not considered cosmetic surgery, and the cosmetic surgery advertising guidelines ‘do not apply to non- surgical cosmetic procedures’.

    Cosmetic surgery must not be advertised in a way that exploits the vulnerabilities or insecurities of individuals to increase demand for cosmetic surgery

    * testimonials are not allowed

    Gender Confirmation Surgery: Cosmetic or Reconstructive Procedure? Alexis Laungani, MDcorresponding author* and Pierre Brassard, MD, FRCS(C)

    For the sole purpose of dichotomy, the transgender patient could be considered as having a birth defect by not having a body envelope corresponding to their true gender. Gender confirmation (also called sex reassignment) with hormones, mental therapy, and surgical transition, has been shown to relieve symptoms of gender dysphoria and to provide patients with a regained socialization in their true gender, as opposed to their gender assigned at birth.

    Body modification – when consent is not a defence

    This is a longstanding legal principle. Where actual bodily harm or above is inflicted upon a person with no good reason, in public or private, the consent of the victim is irrelevant. Whether there is a “good reason” is a matter for the courts to decide.



    This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit shirabatya.substack.com
  • Can we Mend Diversity Training

    Can we Mend Diversity Training

    · Heterodox Jewish Woman Podcast

    Organisations such as MEND and Stonewall can no longer be allowed to dominate diversity training. The potential solution may surprise you.

    You can find a written version of this article with hyperlinks to sources here:

    https://shirabatya.substack.com/p/can-we-mend-diversity-training



    This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit shirabatya.substack.com
  • David Miller: You are no Jo Phoenix

    David Miller: You are no Jo Phoenix

    · Heterodox Jewish Woman Podcast

    Jews and Feminists have common cause against extremists who wish to shut down debate. Any conflict of interests is illusory.

    I speak carefully here and I recommend listening at 1.25X

    You can find a written version of this article with hyperlinks to sources here:

    https://shirabatya.substack.com/p/david-miller-jo-phoenix



    This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit shirabatya.substack.com
  • Non-halachic Judaisms

    Non-halachic Judaisms

    · Heterodox Jewish Woman Podcast

    This year at Limmud Conference, I was privileged to attend a number of lectures by Ysoscher Katz, who heads Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. These talks have helped clarify in my mind why it is time to stop being embarrassed about being modern Orthodox Jews, and to hold our heads up and realise that not only are we just as halachic as our 'ultra Orthodox' fellow Jews, but actually we can claim to be the torch-bearers of true Judaism.

    Rabbi Katz explained the following idea (among others) in his lectures. In nurturing forward-thinking halachic Judaism, perhaps the greatest challenge we face is the accusation that we are doing the halachic equivalent of data mining in Statistics. In other words, we know what end results we want (more equality for women, etc.) and so we seek a halachic opinion that justifies what we have already decided to do. The argument goes that if you really are committed to Halacha --- if you are a proper frum Jew --- then you will accept the law even if it jars with what you want it to say. Such is the sacrifice of serving God. Halacha is law and the law is the law. From this point of view, how can we justify the 'halachic innovations' being produced that permit such things as partnership minyanim, previously thought to be prohibited?

    What I learnt at Limmud is that this sort of argument misses the importance of facts on the ground. Of course, you do not go searching for an opinion to justify what you want to do, any more than a statistician searches for data to fit a theory. However, the 'right' halachic answer is not actually a fixed thing, and actually depends on practice. Any rabbi knows this, as often the halachic answer to a question can differ from one community to another. If a community has a minhag (established custom) to do things one way, unless a Rabbi can prove that this minhag is unhalachic, the minhag stands and in fact it is against halacha to change it.

    The importance of minhag essentially means that, contrary to what some people might think, Halacha is not black and white. Several practices might all be potentially correct, and which is correct in a particular situation is contextual. There is no one halachic way to be Jewish. It's a lovely idea, and it gives us hope. However, it also cuts both ways. The supremacy of minhag has often been used by reactionary Jews to justify stasis. Nothing can change because the minhag is that we do things as we have always done them. Any change is therefore forbidden. As the chatam sofer famously said 'chadash asur min haTorah' (New things are forbidden according to the Torah.)

    So what is our way out, and why do I say that modern Orthodoxy is true halachic Judaism? The point is that facts on the ground determine where the burden of proof lies in halachic decisions by rabbis. Although a rabbi might disapprove of some social innovation such as partnership minyanim, if the practice emerges from social events and becomes established, then one can argue that now the burden of proof is on rabbis to prove that the practice is forbidden rather than on the participants to prove that it is permitted. By the way, this also reflects another halachic principle: that if something is not forbidden then it is permitted. There have been numerous times in Jewish history when practice has changed in this way. In all such cases, the Halacha has not changed, but its application has changed and practice has changed.

    The process of halachic innovation is therefore laid out to us: If we want things to change, then the lay folk need to learn the Halacha and find ways to innovate that might break with minhag, but are not forbidden. Don't ask a rabbi for permission to innovate, because he will have to say no. But once you have done your innovation, you can ask a rabbi to say that it is OK to keep doing it. I argue that this is precisely what is happening in the Open Orthodox community. People who are committed to Halacha and to serving God have learnt the sources and found ways to give honour to women without transgressing Halacha. Now some brave rabbis are telling them that what they are doing is not forbidden and they can keep doing it.

    So why now do I say that modern orthodoxy is the most halachic form of Judaism? The reason is this. In terms of the interaction between minhag and Halacha, there seem to be four approaches in the Jewish community today.

    1. Post-halachic Judaism

    On the left, 'halachah has a vote but not a veto' (as Mordecai Kaplan put it so clearly). People decide what they want to change based on such motives as modern ideas of equality or social justice or practicality, and then they say that Judaism should change even if Halacha would say otherwise. This approach is not halachic, but it is honest.

    2. Pseudo-halachic Judaism

    A little to the right of post-halacha, is the position that a halachic justification should be sought for a desired change, by mining the range of opinions available, if necessary by even going back to the Talmud. If even that approach does not work, then the change will be justified by an appeal to the principle 'Eit Laasot Lashem'. (Time to do something for God – a general catchall that allows Halacha to be changed in times of social emergency.)

    3. Halachic Judaism

    Normative halachic Judaism looks at practices and asks whether they are permitted or not. If a change in practice occurs and it is not forbidden, then it is permitted. Those who seek to change practice to meet social needs seek changes that will pass the halachic test post facto. This is how Judaism has adapted to the need for change over the centuries, a dance between the laity and the rabbis in which each group respects the other.

    4. Reactionary / Authoritarian Judaism

    Practice cannot change unless those in Authority like the change. If a change in practice occurs and those in Authority do not like the change, then this change is declared wrong. Change is wrong whether or not it is forbidden according to Halacha. If a halachic reason to oppose change cannot be found, then appeal is made to the principle of Das Torah (which means that those in Authority are always right.) If those in Authority want a change, then Das Torah can also be used to justify the change even if the change is not according to Halacha (for example nullifying conversions for political reasons).

    As one reads the description of Reactionary Judaism, it becomes clear just how similar it really is to Pseudo-halachic Judaism. I fail to see how one is more halachic than the other. I now understand that as one moves to the right, one does not become 'more' orthodox at all. It is like coming round a circle. So it is time to scrap the term 'ultra orthodox' and call Reactionary Judaism by its real name.

    For myself, I will stick to the middle path of Halachic Judaism, and I make no excuses for being modern and orthodox.

    Thanks for reading Heterodox Jewish Woman! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.



    This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit shirabatya.substack.com