So he decided to stop eating products with gelatin, and thanked me for letting him know.

A small thing, perhaps, but a kind of inter-faith dialogue.

Clear, yes, but your claims are not well-supported. Ask any Posek.

The Torah speaks dozens of times of the need to be compassionate to the stranger, the ger, the widow, and the orphan. In fact, no less a giant than R.Shlom David Luzatto stated that the concept of compassion/chemla is a prime root of the Torah. (The Rambam said it was uprooting idolatry). So here we have an enormous aspect of the Torah which is unaffected by oral law. Yes, here and there you will find a talmudic discussion on the area, but in the main, the written word stands on its own.

The same is true of the corpus of civil law. As the oral law itself teaches, the Torah only wanted to establish a justice system; the details are but commentary, all based upon “minhag tagrim”. So here again, we have another major aspect of written Torah that is unaffected by oral law.

I hope I’ve made myself clear.

If he believes the above as a result of contact with non-Jews, that is an example of the problem. Orthodox Jews believe that the Oral Torah is an essential part of the core, not an add-on.

“But is it not true that both Judaisim and Christianity share much in common? Reading the Torah alone, isn’t there an awful lot in common? More similarities than differences?… Everything comes back to the 5 books, and on those core issues, as I say, there is more agreement than not.”

Would you believe that your analysis be equally valid regarding Jews for J, or the Sadducees who rejected the Oral Law? If not, why is it valid for mainstream christianity?

Kol Tuv

Once you get to oral torah issues, or the idea that faith alone is redemtive, we can agree to disagree. But on core issues like belief in God, honesty, charity, deceny - we are in agreement. I know some would say that “reducing” Judaism to these principles mischarachterizes the religion (what God wants of Man, if you prefer). But that stems from what I beleive is an over pre-occupation with oral Torah. Everything comes back to the 5 books, and on those core issues, as I say, there is more agreement than not.

I don’t have any difficulty with that. If I happen to hear a preacher on the subway, although I may be uncomfortable by the non-Jewish message, I certainly agree with the “you must repent!”, aspect. I was referring to the pitfalls of changing our theology in response to another, “synthesizing” it with another theology, or saying that Judaism doesn’t represent absolute truth, cv’s.

The doorman where I once worked was a Christian who was actively involved in lobbying on behalf of Israel. Once or twice he would tell me of the Biblical programs(i.e., Tanach) that he had heard on the radio, so I did have brief conversations on the subject(such encounters can also be an inspiration to some of us on the need to be conversant in Nach, b’zman hazeh !) . I agree that one needs to be careful in such conversations about feeling the need to concede that all religion is relative, a la the quote from Heschel on pluralism, and the same goes regarding conversations one might have with another Jew who follows a non-Orthodox philosophy.

Another type of interaction is to explain the source of one’s positive behavior in the context of Torah beliefs, as Mr. Feurstien did when he explained what motivated him to keep workers on the payroll following the fire at Malden Knitting Mills(Agudah’s spokespeople also do similar things, although each case is different). I think the latter type of interaction is also what Rabbi Adlerstien is referring to in “becoming less reticent about sharing [Torah values and practices with non-Jewish neighbors and coworkers]”. I would agree with anyone that the former, more theological, interaction, such as my conversation with the doorman, is not for everyone, and potentially runs into problems regarding reciprocity or blurring lines.

Of course, we still have our mission to spread goodness and good ideas by example. We have always found ways to do this without fraternizing with non-Jewish theologians.

OK, then! We can’t dance around our total rejection of any form of atheism or idolatry.

If a Gadol (let’s leave aside “who is a Gadol?”) says we need to make an ad-hoc alliance to advance a common legislative goal that may arise, that’s fine, but, when we do so, we should not flatter such allies or their belief systems.

I think that there can not be reciprocity regarding Jews learning from the theologies of other faiths, just as Torah Judaism can not learn from the philosophies of non-Orthodox streams of Judaism. That is why, while we hope that non-Jews will see something positive in Judaism and that this is the goal of kiddush shem Shomayim, we can’t actively facilitate exchange regarding theology, because we can not reciprocate and learn from the other theologies.

However, there can be some reciprocity regarding learning proper behavior, as opposed to philosophy and theology. The gemera uses a non-Jew as an illustration for the paradigm of honoring parents. IIRC, Rabbi Berel Wein is quoted in Vintage Wein(perhaps exaggerated a bit) that the middos and personality of a Jamaican cook in his yeshivah was so outstanding, that he would make him Rosh Yeshiva if he knew how to learn a blatt gemera!

To examine this issue more broadly, while there was some interface between secular wisdom and Torah according to the Rambam(for which he was criticized for bending the lines), matters of religious philosophy and theology are certainly a different matter, as per Rav Soleveitchiks’s Confrontation. I think that the basic difference even according to the Rambam would be Torah b’goyim al t’aamin, that Torah must go through the Divine process of Mesorah(I am wondering if Rabbi Adlerstien is aware of the commentary of R. Yoseph ibn Aknin in Shir Hashirim quoting R. Hai Gaon regarding learning information concerning possible technical interpretations, clearly a different matter; I assume that the difference between today’s approach for parshanus, is that we are not on the level as reshonim or geonim to properly draw lines in these matters).

I too would like to see the obverse side of this coin. Perhaps someone would be brave enough to consider and write about it in this forum.

It is up to the rest of us to encourage this kind of exchange, in which non-Jews not only see the refinement of the character shaped by Torah values (halevai!), but learn something about Torah’s universal truths[,]

should not Jews become familiar with the lived faith of others, such as Professor Johnson?

If “serious [non-Jewish] believers are astounded” by Judaism, to what extent is it appropriate for serious Jewish believers to be astounded by other faiths, without of course compromising our commitment to G-d and Torah?

That might also be a better approach to our secular Jewish neighbors than triumphant preaching (or stoning).

Comment by shmuel — March 16, 2007 @ 4:58 pm

Now that is funny.

Absolutely true. We must also remember, however, that when earlier sources dealt with the question of which is worse - idolatry or atheism, the ones I know about all clearly saw idolatry as the lesser of the two evils.

There IS a common agenda of religious communities, beyond specific legislative items like aid to parochial schools. All of us have an interest in resisting the cultural elements that mock all belief, all religion, and propel Richard Dawkins’ books to the best-seller list. As Bob cautions, we have to be extremely careful not to aid and abet avodah zarah at the same time, but the fact that this might be difficult does not necessarily mean it is impossible.

Secondly, when one digs deeper to determine the truth of the matter , it’s evident that CWN has steered the meaning of the Pope’s words in a direction that is a little different than the Pope’s voiced concern. The charge of “missionizing” further compounds the misapplication of the Pope’s address. As I read the text of the Pope’s presentation, I see that he advocates that Catholics hold onto their doctrinal standards (of belief and practice), much as Rabbi Adlerstein is advocating for Jews above. The interfaith dialogue pitfall for Catholics has been one of relativizing our faith to accommodate others. The trend with many Catholics in the last couple of decades has been toward behaving as if all religions are pretty much the same. At that point, what Catholicism has to teach about belief and mores, in so far as it diverges from the pan-religious mean, falls by the wayside, with gooey, limp spirituality taking its place.

I think it’s possible for a Catholic to not compromise his or her Catholic identity, belief and practice when engaged in dialogue with other faiths, and yet avoid proselytizing. However, the one that can judge if that’s true would be folks like Rabbi Adlerstein who come into contact with individuals of other faiths. Rabbi, any thought?

Thank you for posting this. It is invaluable in guiding me to resolution of something I’ve been struggling with since I first encountered Rabbi Yitz Greenberg’s argument on the issue.