Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shim
Hello there 7L. 
Thanks very much for all the replies. There's much with an earnest effort to study. Thanks for clarifying Hillel. Actually last night I had looked into it to find more and came about Hillel as a liberal minded school that defined things in the most broadest terms.
And I came across ayin half a year or so ago, had having thought that I took notes on it from psalms, I was mistaken, thanks for the reminder A Glass named Esther! These two psalms came to mind after reading your post, much thanks, now back to being on track, off to study.
Psalm 39
And my lot is as nothing before You.
Mere breath is each man standing.
Notes: Strong's number 369 אַ֫יִן ayin, to be nothing or not exist; a non-entity.
"Nothing," is what human transience must ultimately come to, and it is precisely the word with which the poem ends.
Psalm 42
These do I recall and pour out my heart:
When I would step in the procession,
Notes: Nafshi, "my life breath" or "my very self." |
Actually last night I had looked into it to find more and came about Hillel as a liberal minded school that defined things in the most broadest terms.
LOL...I'm sure nearly freezing to death before a fire was lit on Shabbat for him...may have opened his mind and heart to the more compassionate line of interpretation. Secretly I think many wish we had gone with Shammai on most things. But I still favour Hillel. It's more a philosophical difference than of almost anything in terms of practice or observance. But there are one or two things.
I see the need to allow some reintrepretation of the law as critical. Because our
understanding of the Law is always evolving...we hope.
Now...God made me a woman (hmm...Baruch Hashem or Gam zu l'tova?
LOL...)
...and for the record, I am very happy being a woman.
But...since God made me a woman, learned men of law are not going to persuaded by my opinion....LOL....
Nonetheless...that doesn't mean it's wrong or irrelevant...
My big issues...are just the really basic ones...the things you can't change.
Is it humane or realistic to ask people not to love each other, to abstain or just live together because they can't marry even if they are both Jews?
I'm not gay, but in the same spirit, is it humane or practical to expect that gays can do without intimacy and love, even though that's not realistic or desirable for the rest of us, over the course of a lifetime? Many avoid congregations because they don't feel welcome even for communal prayers.
We ask people to live with integrity and take responsibility. Yet the ways in which we feel we would compromise our integrity has changed over time, I think. Partly as a result of having more social and economic options...and partly as a result of recent historic events...we are changed & influenced by them whether we realise it or not...and we are freer to recognise our need for individual spiritual integrity...to attend to our duties of the heart to ourselves.
In the past, ppl commonly didn't marry for love...now they commonly prefer to. Of course you still also need commitment, character, trust, honesty, and faith. But in the past, ppl may have deserted, neglected, abused or committed adultery against (one of the biggies) their spouse as a result of the emotional scars of not marrying for love. Divorce was always an option in untenable situations, and has become relatively common as a result of many reasons, but it often boils down to people being poorly matched..often someone just leaves or opts out..it's a shame, but is it my place to judge or is that between them and God?
Marriage is for spiritual nourishment and companionship as much as for creating family. And unfortunately much in life is out of our control...including what spouses do or don't do, and whether we can survive it or tolerate it is also another matter. Much of our spiritual growth in life is about learning through tolerance and acceptance, forgiveness, letting go, and moving forward. Sometimes it means moving forward alone.
So what this will mean for some is that they don't marry at all (live "in sin" or are uncommitted), or else they marry outside the faith, or else they get a divorce, etc., in order to avoid what they feel is a situation they can't live with...a marriage that lacks a deeper bond of soul communion.
For Judaism, with our small numbers...not allowing Jews to marry Jews in select circumstances is unfortunate...almost tragic in light of recent history...even worse if they turn away or feel distanced from God. Even for gay couples who don't officially marry, keeping them and their children in the community is, I feel, important to our future as Jews and for humankind. No one is expendable. Granted it's my opinion only. But as parents if one of our children said, I'm gay, wouldn't we still want them to remain close to us, their faith, and God?
I don't have the "final solution" to anything...but I think that in general, the spirit of Hillel is, as always, conducive to the future of Judaism...and when you've been faced with the fallout of final solutions...I think it's ok to have interim solutions
...just as I think learning how to accept ourselves is a process...even as we always strive to be and do better.
Peace & blessings,
7L