6 ms·
That's a very reasonable point to make. That said, I think the fundamental question here is whether such rule-breaking is endorsed by centuries of priests, or
by reuven 12y ago
That's a very reasonable point to make.
That said, I think the fundamental question here is whether such rule-breaking is endorsed by centuries of priests, or if it's just something people do.
In Judaism, the rabbis have codified such rule-bending for at least 2,000 years. And we have also been debating whether it's acceptable for as long. :-)_
- golergka 12y ago> rule-breaking > rule-bending These are different.
- reuven 12y agoI think that the difference is in the eye of the beholder. Case in point: When the Conservative movement announced a few years ago that homosexuality is OK, and that it's even fine to have same-sex weddings, they needed to confront the fact that Leviticus explicitly outlaws homosexual relations. The Conservative movement gave all sorts of explanations, and basically said they were bending the rules. Their rabbinical schools currently accept gay and lesbian students. The Orthodox (stricter) world largely said that they had broken the law beyond all recognition, and that this demonstrated that the Conservative movement doesn't take Jewish law seriously. Many rule-bending aspects of Jewish law, even when approved by top rabbis, have been called rule-breaking by opponents.
- golergka 12y agoEverything is in the eyes of the beholder — at least, in law (any kind). That's why opponents are called opponents, because they don't see things as you do.