Very interesting. If you read a Hertz chumash, the notes, for example, you get a view from that period of a traditionalist, but one who grounds the argument at each turn with a particular view of history: Jews have a connection to an ancient tradition that is AS great or in fact greater than the civilizational traditions of ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, etc. There's a lot in there about "firsts" in world history. So, to me, what you're describing isn't perfectly aptly named "cultural Judaism," since "culture" is a-temporal, actually. Like you, say, "I come from a people." Yes, it's "culturally important," but it's also, "historically significant." Not exactly the same thing. I have been mulling this over since I heard the shiur last night. Very interesting. I reckon you are addressing a much smaller group of people with this critique than the Rebbe would have been in 1941 -- all those Jews reading their Hertz chumash and getting their pride from the footnotes citing W.F. Albright and other secular, non-Jewish authorities on ancient Near Eastern history and archaeology....But it's important, at least for me, to hear -- and I intuitively relate to the message. Thanks for the chizuk.
Ein mukdam b'torah, doesn't seem to apply when we are talking about Matan Torah, which happened at a specific moment. Otherwise the halachic discussion doesn't make sense.
Very interesting. If you read a Hertz chumash, the notes, for example, you get a view from that period of a traditionalist, but one who grounds the argument at each turn with a particular view of history: Jews have a connection to an ancient tradition that is AS great or in fact greater than the civilizational traditions of ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, etc. There's a lot in there about "firsts" in world history. So, to me, what you're describing isn't perfectly aptly named "cultural Judaism," since "culture" is a-temporal, actually. Like you, say, "I come from a people." Yes, it's "culturally important," but it's also, "historically significant." Not exactly the same thing. I have been mulling this over since I heard the shiur last night. Very interesting. I reckon you are addressing a much smaller group of people with this critique than the Rebbe would have been in 1941 -- all those Jews reading their Hertz chumash and getting their pride from the footnotes citing W.F. Albright and other secular, non-Jewish authorities on ancient Near Eastern history and archaeology....But it's important, at least for me, to hear -- and I intuitively relate to the message. Thanks for the chizuk.
Ein mukdam b'torah, doesn't seem to apply when we are talking about Matan Torah, which happened at a specific moment. Otherwise the halachic discussion doesn't make sense.