STRANGLEHOLD
בס"ד
Rosh Chodesh Kislev
R' Naftali Citron was on the Daily Show tonight. I remember his generous presence gliding through the women's section of the Carlebach shul one Shabbat last summer, smoothly halting for each of us to touch & kiss his Torah.
That piece was followed up with a performance by the White Stripes. I love Jon Stewart.
You can define art for yourself but you cannot define sofrut for yourself, as the boundaries of that world are both broader & narrower than the "you". You cannot fit it to your existing shape in the Bourroughs-esque style so popular now, but must morph your "you" into its Palace of Torah.
The Sanctuary of Sofrut has already been built for us, with great care & attention by our wise elders; the only part of its frame which requires renovation, from where I stand & stare, is that Judaism must be transformed into a meritocracy.
posted by Soferet | 12:24:00 a.m.
![[ Registered ]](http://www.diarist.net/registry/button.gif){kind=small}
6 Comments:
Aviel, I was wondering if you enjoy the writings of Tova Reich, oh my, you've got that stylistic similarity and lyrical 'sweetness' (adjectival descriptor not loaded, p.s.) that she seems to exude. Also, there's a delectable tongue-in-cheekness about her Kedushat Hashem that I so admire. Have you?
The terms I really dug from yer post: Palace of Torah -- Hazak u'Baruch! -- I love it, I love how you've redirection the usage of the noun, how you've been able to redefine so-called 'non-judaizing' words into acts of holiness and kedushah. Palace is not our word, but it is thereby sanctified...
I'll be looking into your blog more regularly...
I feel less alone now...thank you.
I think a Jewish meritocracy would run a terribly grave risk of defining "of greatest merit" as "most machmir" - rather like we have now, in fact. A definition of merit excluding any reference to observance at all wouldn't be plausible, and once you put observance in there, it'd turn into an I'm-frummer-than-you competition. To judge merit without observance, you'd have to assume a roughly similar level of observance, or at least commitment, for everyone, and that isn't the case. How do you see it?
As Wikipedia and Jen both point out, "the perennial problem in advocating meritocracy is defining exactly what one means by merit."
But obviously, the overarching problem for sofrut is in who gets to "write" that definition...until wise tzadikkot have a share in the power system to which you wish to submit, you are setting yourself up to be judged by people who speak from a position of inheirited (male) privelege, and proposing to let them assess your "merit." That doesn't sound entirely like you, Soferet.
T, then if what you say is true, then we must begin to analyze and dissect who is presently within the Tzadikot Community -- for if it's a truism, then the entire fulcrum on which rests the concept of the Fabled 36 is also false, seeing as this was rabbinically-ordained, and also by an unruly Yeshiva-ed crowd of argumentative men.
Yes?
Just writing in caps to make sure this is seen - i'm not yelling. :o)
IT WOULD BE REALLY INSANE TO HAVE JUDAISM RUN ON A MERITOCRACY. WHO (EXCEPT FOR THE GOOD LORD) CAN POSSIBLY JUDGE THE MERIT OF PEOPLE?
borscht, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying at all. People in priveleged positions, (like groups of unruly, yeshiva-ed men) have created lots of wise insights and rulings over the years - but that doesn't mean that they have the sole right to power or to judging others. In fact, as our anonymous capitalizer points out, only One has that ultimate authority (although a bet din is the traditional stand in).
When I referred to tzadikot (with the small tz), I meant those wise, gentle, and holy women who dwell in each of our communities, and whose merit is as far outside the discourse of the current orthodox power structure as is their recognition.
Can you clarify, what is the "it" to which you are referring?
"...for if it's a truism, then the entire fulcrum on which rests the concept..."
Post a Comment
<< Home