Good discussion in the library today.
Couple of thoughts:
A. It's clear to me that one's basic position vis a vis
A. G-d
B. Torah
C. The Oral Tradition
filters through (if it doesn't downright determine) one's attitudes about Judaism's 'details'.
Until one has a reasoned stand on the 'Big Three' (even if it's a rejecting opinion), one's Judaic views will be disjointed and de-contextualized.
This certainly doesn't mean that someone who hasn't thought these concepts through isn't entitled to an opinion. But the lack of such exploration reflects on the opinion's intellectual sturdiness.
Another point:
Relevance and personal meaning are what it's all about. We can't dictate it, but we can certainly position ourselves for it through healthy analysis and emotional/intellectual openness.
Mendy

Steve Appelbaum wrote...
Is this a continuation of Marty's question?
Help me (and Gary, who was not there.)
Mendy Herson wrote...
Our conversation about Eiruv became a question of how we see the Oral Law and Rabbinic Law. One's perspective on that general question, will necessarily inform how one sees the 'details' of Jewish Law.
In one of our tangents, Wendy also brought up the idea of relevance as fundamental to the student's willingness and (therefore) capacity to connect with the lesson.
Hence my humble post.......
Rachel wrote...
Mendy wrote...
Maimonides writes that "The entire Torah was only given to bring peace to the world", presumably through bringing us to higher planes of thinking and acting.
I need to note that, when you delve into the theology, you find that each Mitzvah has intrinsic value of its own, beyond the consciousness-benefit.
But for our purposes at this point, it's very helpful to see the Torah as a user's manual for life; with each Mitzvah bringing its own message to guide me toward being the best I can be - consciously.