After reading the the brief autobiographical excerpt from Samuel Heilman, I want you to think about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to do so) of the following questions:
1. What does Heilman mean when he says "The Temple now was portable"(264)?
2.
Heilman describes living a "double life" and being
"compartmentalized." To what is he referring? Have you ever felt a
similar way?
3. Eventually Heilman will say "Here compartments collapse"(276). Explain.
4. Describe Heliman's experience of prayer on 273. Have you ever felt that way in prayer?
5.
"I have gone through the Talmud three times," the learned man
answered. "Yes" the rebbe replied, and then inquired, "but how much has
the Talmud gone through you" (277)? Explain.
REMEMBER:
No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last
initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.).
You do not have to create a completely new comment as your
participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your
contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No
personal or ad hominem attacks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. When Heilman says the "Temple was now portable," he is referring to the transition of Judaism to an emphasis on scripture. When the Temple was torn down the religion survived through the scripture. He says the "stones were words," meaning that the foundation for Judaism was the words of the Torah and the Talmud. What had previously been taught, preached, or prayed in the Temple could now take place anywhere that the scripture was present. Similar to how the Temple united Jews, so did the scripture. Jews built there own temple whenever they gathered together. This is significant because it shows that even during a time of destruction and separation, Judaism was kept alive by the portability of the faith, allowing it to be as strong anywhere as it had been in the temple.
ReplyDelete1. When Heilman says, “The Temple now was portable,” he is referring to the Scriptures, and how that was there new “temple.” Since the temple could only be in the Holy Land and the temple was never rebuilt a second time, they were forced to disperse and create smaller communities. Within these communities, they would rely on the Scriptures and the Talmud, as the central worship. They used it as a way to pray and practice Judaism. Like the text says, “the stones were words, the walls idea—.” The scriptures overall was the central way that smaller communities could still have a strong faith in God.
ReplyDeleteHeilman states, "The Temple now was portable." As Johanna and Katie said, Heilman is saying that instead of prayer being thought as being rooted to one spot, one is now able to pray and/or worship in their own homes. Although the physical temple had been destroyed, people had, and still have, their belief. While the Temple was extremely important to Judaism, it was still just a temple. People moved on from the Temple to scriptures, as well as rabbinical Judaism. The scripture, was, in a way, replacing the Temple. The Temple was destroyed, but their faith lived on, with the help of the scriptures.
ReplyDelete2. Samuel Heilman is an Orthodox Jewish university professor of sociology. However the two worlds of Judaism and his work seem to oppose since Judaism is rooted in ancient traditions and practices, while his work forces him to keep up with the modern world. Therefore, when Heilman describes living a "double life" and being "compartmentalized", he is referring to the difficulty in being part of his two worlds at the same time since they are so different. However he cannot abandon either because they are equally important and a large part of his identity. I believe many people, not necessarily Jews, face this dilemma because our modern lives and practices often get in the way of practicing a faith rooted so far in the past. However, Heilman concludes that the solution is to adjust the faith to be more accessible to modern society. For example, in the 39 prohibitions, "writing two letters" could be translated to typing or texting, which would be more relatable today.
ReplyDelete1. When Heilman said "the Temple was now portable" he was referring to the Scriptures. Before the Temple was destroyed, the Jewish people had always gathered at the Temple to learn as a community. However, once it was destroyed, there was no place to worship, let alone be together. This caused a big problem because community is extremely important to Judaism. However, when the Scripture was created, they could always gather together and worship. They also began to build new temples in different places because the Temple was only allowed to be in the Holy Land. This helped them continue to practice a religion so that they could come to together as a community again and worship because the had the Scriptures.
ReplyDelete5. The rebbe's response shows the learned man that just because he went through the Talmud, it did not necessarily have an impact on him. The rebbe is teaching the learned man that he needs to apply the Talmud to his life, or at least take something away from what he has read. To read the Talmud 3 times is a total waste if you are not learning from it and letting it change you and your lifestyle (in the case of Mr. Heilman). The rebbe understands the importance of the effect that learning the Jewish scriptures has on your life, and he wants the learned man to see the same thing.
ReplyDeleteWhen Heilman says "the Temple now was portable," he was referring to the shift in the focus of Judaism. When the temple was destroyed for the second time in 70 AD, the focus of Judaism changed from the Temple to the scripture. The scripture is portable and you can take it anywhere. "The stones became words," referring to the word of God. "The walls [became] ideas," referring to the ideas in the scripture. The scripture is something you can hold in your hands, something you can reflect on, and something that cannot be destroyed.
ReplyDelete1. When Heilman states, “the Temple now was portable”, he is making a reference to the shift from a single-temple based Judaism to an emphasis on Jewish scripture. After the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, Judaism now had to rely on scripture to keep the religion alive. Just like Johanna said, Heilman then states, “the stones were words, the walls ideas – and nothing could destroy them”. This statement shows how Judaism is now based on scripture; the Torah and Talmud now are the foundation of Judaism. Now, since the scriptures are portable and everyone knows the scripture, Judaism is indestructible. Without the Temple, the Jews now can use the scripture as a tool to link Jews from all over the world together.
ReplyDelete1. Heilman's statement "the Temple is now portable" describes the transition of the main focus of Judaism from the Temple to Scripture. After the Temple was destroyed, rebuilt, and destroyed again by the Romans in 70 AD, the Jews were forced to find another means of guidance for worship. They turned to the scriptures and the Talmud, whose words and ideas support their faith just as the stones and walls supported the Temple. However, "nothing could destroy them"- unlike the Temple, words are indestructible and can last forever. The enduring power of words symbolizes the enduring power of Judaism, which continues to spread and influence many cultures despite only being worshipped by less than 1% of the world's population. Because of its "portability," Judaism was able to continue as a prominent religion.
ReplyDelete1. When Samuel Heilman says that “The Temple now was portable” (264), he is referring to the post exilic change from an emphasis on a physical Temple and priests to an emphasis on the scripture. As we learned in this class, this was the Jews’ way to preserve their identity after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Further, Heilman explains that where groups of Jews gathered, a “chavruse” or circle was formed. Again, this was another form of a replaced temple, which Heilman tells the reader “reconstructed lost Jerusalem.”
ReplyDelete4. I think that he is saying the Talmud class helped him to deal with his two lives. It helped him deal with his present life as a professor and his religious life, which dealt with ancient traditions and scriptures. I feel that he is saying that the class took the barriers of time and broke them down, and that the class helps a person understand and relate to the text on a middle ground. It did this by not being so focused on the past or on the present, but by making them flow, so that instead of being seen completely separate things they were able to come together.
ReplyDelete1. Heilman is referring to the scripture when he says, “the Temple now was portable” (264). After the temple was destroyed for the second time in 70 A.D., a transition took place in Judaism. Rather than focusing on the Temple, the emphasis shifted to scripture. While the Temple was material and unmovable, the scripture was indestructible. As the passage says: “the stories were words, the walls ideas—and nothing could destroy them.” Thus prayer could take place wherever the scripture was present; however, this was not the only benefit of the transition. Not only was the focus shifted from something material to something metaphysical, but the Jews were also able to move to other places, expanding the extent of their civilization.
ReplyDeleteWhen Heilman referred to the Temple as "portable", he was referencing the shift from the focus on the Temple to the scriptures. When the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, Jews had to find ways to continue to practice their faith. By giving their scripture more importance, it acted as a sort of guide or outline to Jews. They were now able to practice their faith at home or when they travelled because it was so readily and easily accessible. Although their temple was gone, I think that most Jews appreciated the easier access.
ReplyDelete1. When Heilman says "The Temple now was portable" (264), he is referring to the rise in rabbinical Judaism and, as Johanna said before, the change towards an emphasis on scripture. After the Temple was torn down, it could not simply be rebuilt because it was THE Temple. Therefore, Jews had to find a new way to pray in the "Temple," which was to use the Torah and the Talmud to pray and learn. The Torah and the Talmud are portable because, as books, they can be taken anywhere. In essence, it is like having a mini-Temple in your backpack. In addition, because the Temple was destroyed, there was no need for priests; there were no celebrations surrounding the Torah that needed a priest's assistance. Instead of priests, rabbis took over to help Jews interpret the Torah.
ReplyDeleteMenachem asks Heilman "So, what have you been lernen?" and Heilman responds explains "the role of Talmud as the 'mantle' of Torah". After walking a little ways, Menachem then tells Heilman the short story about the man and the rebbe, who says "but how much has the Talmud gone through you?". I think that there is a parallel between Heilman's situation and this story, which is why Menachem shares it with him. This lesson applies to Heilman because he had gone through the actions of Judaism many times, as part of his sociologist method of "participant-observation". Yet Menachem wants to make sure that the Talmud has gone through him, meaning that he has truly learned from it, took it to heart, and incorporated it to his everyday lifestyle.
ReplyDelete1. When Samuel Heilman says that "the Temple now was portable; the stones were words, the walls ideas - and nothing could destroy them.", he means that even though the Temple was destroyed it was still spiritually in each Jew. Meaning that the idea of it and the sacred place was not only a memory and the teachings and scriptures were all that were left. Jews now carried all this around with them wherever they went. They carried the sacred scriptures and traditions and their Talmudic interpretations. They could came together and build a temple (lower case "t") anywhere. Heilman quotes Rabbi Shmuel bar Marta: "Greater is the study of Torah than the building of the Holy Temple...". One can study the Torah anywhere, while the Holy Temple can only be built in one spot. That, I believe, is what Heilman means by "the Temple now was portable...", it was symbolic for everything the Temple stood for was not able to be anywhere the people where, even though the Temple never moved / was never re-built.
ReplyDelete1. After the Babylonian Exile, the Judaism from that time began to change and evolve into Rabbinical Judaism; it is the modern Judaism that we have today. Before the change, Jews were expected to go to the Temple on Mt. Zion to worship and sacrifice in order to have a relationship with God. However, Rabbinical Judaism focuses more on the scriptures and the commentaries, such as the Torah and the Talmud. When Heilman says "The Temple is now portable" (264), he is referring to the Torah and the Talmud. In addition, instead of having the Temple, there were local synagogues which the Jews went to in place of the Temple. The synagogues had a similar feel as the Temple, but they were in a way "portable". The synagogues are local and therefore closer to the Jewish people, making it easier for them to worship and celebrate God. Since the Temple was destroyed, the were no more priests because there was no need for them. Consequently, rabbis took over the priest's roles and reinterpreted the religious texts and scriptures, making it easy to have a "portable Temple."
ReplyDeleteWhen Heilman says "the temple was now portable" (264), he is talking about the shift of focuses in Judaism. Before the exile, people studied only in the temple and was temple-based, it was now based on the scripture. After the second temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, the idea of rebuilding another temple was given up on. Now, rather than the study of the religion being solely based on one spot or place, one could learn anywhere by word of mouth. Scripture is portable, you can take it everywhere and anywhere, making it easier to spread. Rabbis replaced priests, and new temples were built in different places, allowing more places for worship.
ReplyDelete1.) Heilman phrases the rise of rabbinical Judaism quite uniquely when he says that the "Temple was now portable." Before the Babylonian Exile in 586/7 BC, the concentration of the Jewish faith was directed solely at the temple. It was the religious, cultural, and spiritual center of the religion. However, despite its efforts to reform the temple in 520s BC after they were allowed to enter Jerusalem by the Persians and then again in 70 AD by the Romans, the temple was nevertheless destroyed. Therefore, as Heilman notes, the temple could no longer be located in just one place. The idea of a "portable temple" is a fascinating one. It suggests that wherever one is and whatever one is doing, he or she can always open up the scripture and be in an emotional, mental relationship with God. The "portable temple" suggests that the greatest place of connection does not lie in a physical temple; instead, it lies deep in the temple of the hearts of its believers.
ReplyDelete1. When Heilman says the "Temple was now portable," he is talking about the shift of focus from the Temple to the Scripture. After the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 AD, the Jewish people had no place to gather and worship. They had to find new ways to pray and rely on the Scriptures to keep their religion alive. Just because the physical representation of their religion was destroyed didn't mean they had to stop being Jews. As we learned in class, family and community are vital parts of Judaism, and the Temple allowed the people to gather and worship. Because the Scripture could be taken anywhere, they could bring family together even more. No matter what religion you practice, your faith goes with you everywhere. This way, the Jews could practice their beliefs (just as they would in the Temple) whenever and wherever they wanted to. Like Johanna said, this whole transition from Temple to Scripture demonstrates the strength of Judaism. During one of the hardest time in their history, they are still able to carry their faith with them, even when the Temple is gone.
ReplyDelete1. When Samuel Heilman says "The Temple now was portable" (264), he is referring to the period of time after 70 A.D. when the focus of Judaism shifted from the Temple to understanding scripture. The Temple was stationary, while the scriptures and stories are able to be moved easily and shared from person to person with only a few words. While the Temples were destroyed, the new "temples" and stories could never be lost because they were a constant memory within those who studied the scriptures passed them on. With its new-found mobility in books and the minds of rabbis and followers, the study of Judaism could occur anywhere, allowing the religion to spread. Judaism developed from one large Temple into hundreds and thousands of smaller temples that are still being shared today.
ReplyDeleteWhen Samuel Heilman asks in response "but how much has the talmud gone through you" it really shows that it is not about how many times you have read something it is how much it touched you. It doesn't matter if you read something one hundred times and never have it connect with you in a deeper aspect. It matters more, even if you only have read it once or twice, to get a full understanding of it.
ReplyDelete1. The most obvious thing that Heilman means by “the Temple now was portable” is that it can be moved from place to place. It is no longer a building that everyone has to go to, but instead it's a book that we can have in our own home. This portable Temple will never be destroyed because every Jew carries it with them. The Jews get the same benefit from going to the ancient Temple as reading the Tanakh. They can gather in one spot just as they did in the Temple, but all they need now are the texts.
ReplyDelete1. When Heilman states "the Temple is now portable" he means that although the Temple was destroyed, it lives on through the scripture. Anyone can own a copy of the scripture, which makes worship easy and portable. Anyone can worship anytime they want. Heilman continues by stating,"the stones were words, the walls ideas--and nothing could destroy them. " By this he means that the temple was just a physical version of the scripture, and even through the temple was destroyed, its meaning lives on through the scripture.
ReplyDelete5. The learned man believes that by reading the Talmud a certain number of times he would have a better sense of knowledge and understanding. The Rabbe explains to him that it is not the number of times you read the words but how closely you pay attention to them, and how well you listen and follow the lessons it teaches. This translates to the idea of quality over quantity. The Talmud is full of thought provoking and interesting stories. All of the stories have hidden messages that have to be interpreted in order to provide information that would apply to the average persons life. Judaism is routed in its many stories; the telling and retelling of stories from generations, and having the older generations interpret the meanings to the younger members. The rabbi is explaining that unless you understand the meaning behind the words, and you are able to translate the lessons into your life, then reading the Talmud has not helped you.
ReplyDelete1. Heilman states that "the Temple now was portable" (264). He means that although the Jews lost the only physical temple that there was, they still had access to Yavneh and its scholars, which held all of the information necessary to continue practicing Judaism. The foundation behind the temple, the Torah, etc. was saved and, therefore, indestructible, because it could be passed on and forever embedded in the memories of the scholars and everyone to whom the knowledge was passed onto. Without the knowledge that fueled the Temple, the Temple would have lost some of its significance, and it would be increasingly difficult, as time went on, to teach and educate something that was not recorded. Furthermore, there would most likely be several sects, because there would be no "official" law, therefore, different Jews would have different opinions on what the law said.
ReplyDelete5. I think that this quote means that its not important how many times you read the scriptures, but rather how thoughtfully you do it. You can memorize thousands of stories and pages of text, but if you do not think about what you're reading and if you do not incorporate the messages into your life, the fact that you have read something ten times and not once will not really make a difference. I like this quote, because I think that often we think only about how well we know a story, or how many times we've gone through a passage, but do we really often stop to think about how the message is relevant to our life, what it means to us specifically?
ReplyDeleteThe rebbe’s response to the learned man “but how much has the Talmud gone through you” (277) is very powerful and eye-opening, in my opinion. I think that this quote emphasizes the idea that it is fruitless to just complete the action; one must also learn from the action. In this case, it was fruitless for the man to read the Talmud, even three times, because he never learned anything from it. He never let the messages from it sink in; he never applied the messages to himself. The Talmud has an abundance of information, but this information means nothing if it is not reflected upon. I think that the concept of this quote can be applied to life in general because if we don’t take anything away from our experiences, what is the point in having them?
ReplyDelete5. Here the rebbe makes the distinction between simply going through the action of learning, and actually learning. He uses an ingenious play on words to convey his meaning. Someone can read the Talmud as often as they please, they could even boast of having memorized it, but it wouldn't matter unless they had absorbed any part of what they had been reading. In addition, it is one thing to know the content in the Talmud, but it is a different matter to try to understand it, and to let it take root in your mind. That is what the image of the Talmud going "through you" presents - the Talmud actually entering into your mind and your body.
ReplyDelete1. In saying that “The temple was now portable” Heilman references the change from solely one temple to which all Jews that wanted to worship needed to travel to, to the idea of scripture being a portable temple. The printing of many religious texts allowed worshipers to carry their religion with them wherever life may take them. With the previous destruction of their temple, many believers sought comfort in the idea that nobody could ever take away their knowledge of the scripture. Not only was the Jewish faith able to spread the world into smaller extremely devoted communities, but in the shift to written scripture also allowed Judaism to become virtually indestructible. Along with the destruction of the ‘one and only’ temple many worshipers receive the empowering feeling that they have a close relationship with God; there generally becomes less and less of a need for priests to officiate that relationship, and instead a growing need for teachers who help guide believers.
ReplyDelete5. "I have gone through the Talmud three times," the learned man answered. "Yes" the rebbe replied, and then inquired, "but how much has the Talmud gone through you" (277)? Explain.
ReplyDeleteWhen the learned man tells the Rebbe that he has read the Talmud three times, he expects the Rabbe to be impressed with his mastery of the Talmud. However, this is not the case, for the Rebbe responds: "Yes...but how much has the Talmud gone through you?" (277). This means that it does not matter how many times one has read the Jewish texts, for it is useless unless one has truly absorbed their meaning and allowed their significance to change his or her life. When I read this, I immediately made a connection to the Christian sacraments, for if we simply go through the actions of a sacrament, it is meaningless. In order for a sacrament to be significant, one must truly understand and recognize its spiritual implications. In the same way, if one simply reads the Talmud without understanding its spiritual significance, it is meaningless.
When he says that “the Temple was now portable” (264), Heilman was referring to the new emphasis on the Jewish scripture. After the temple was destroyed for the final time in 70 AD by the Romans, he heart of Judaism rested in the scriptures and no longer in the temple. Because the temple was singular; only one temple instituted in the Holy Land, many faithful Jews had to make the pilgrimage to the Holy Land to worship there. The transition of the temple now being “portable”, and the focus on the scripture means that Jews can take the scripture with them anywhere—it could not be destroyed by the Babylonians or Romans or any other group as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat Heilman means by “the Temple now was portable” is that it can be moved from place to place. In 70 AD the temple was destroyed and it was never rebuilt a gain. This facilitates the shift from a temple based religion to a more rabbinical Judaism. The Torah is the new temple because it is the only thing that cannot be physically destroyed because the Jews carry it with them. The Jews can still worship God in the scripture even though the temple is destroyed. Heilman suggests that Judaism does not only lie in the physical temple, but also lies in the Scripture.
ReplyDeleteCarolina Herrera 10-2
2) Heilman's “double life” comes from the battle between old traditions and the modern world, making it confusing for him to understand his religion, as both are important aspects of his life. How can we understand outdated scriptures when their lives were so different? He concludes that much of the Scripture can be adjusted to our lives today. In Christianity, a similar debate regarding homosexuality occurs over the interpretation of passages condemning it and if the passages should be taken literally, especially as society’s acceptance of different sexualities increases. Personally, I can sometimes feel disconnected with certain aspects of the Bible simply because of some time differences. I agree with Heilman’s idea regarding the evolution of religions to adapt to modern life, while not completely changing the original context of their Scriptures and such.
ReplyDeleteThe rebbe's words remind me of the famous saying "quality over quantity". One could read the Talmud an infinite number of times. While it certainly is good to read and reread it, the simple act of reading does very little for you. The Talmud's true value comes from the internalization of its message. No matter how many times you have read it, if you personally take nothing away from the Talmud, it has done nothing for you. The important part is not the reading itself, but what's left behind when the reading is done.
ReplyDelete