Thanksgiving dinner is at our house this year, so this morning I pulled out the disintegrating folder in which I keep recipes so I could write up a shopping list. A piece of standard printer paper fell out, with the following printed on it:
It is my contention that the "ritual laws"--kashrut, tefillin, Shabbat, holidays, etc.--exist to create and preserve a group identity in which the commitment to the "ethical" commandments--the tikkun olam part--can best be reinforced and promoted.

If one believes, as I do, that Jews have a unique spiritual calling in this world, that we are to be "a kingdom of priests," that we are to declare the unity of the Divine Name through our actions, then that group identity is essential.

The ritual mitzvot are a concrete expression of that identity. A person's nature is exhibited in what he or she does. By carrying out certain ritual actions--which necessarily include distinguishing oneself from other groups of people--one reinforces one's identity as a Jew. If you remove that concrete, ritual expression of identity you are left only with a commitment to a code of ethics which is laudable, but indistinguishable from other liberal programs of social action.

If we believe that "Jewishness" has any inherent value or meaning (and if we did not, why would we bother calling ourselves "Jews") then the ritual aspect must be preserved. But it is also my contention that the ethical mitzvot are the core of the Revelation, its heart and soul. The ritual mitzvot are the body. The ethical mitzvot are more important, but the ritual mitzvot--however mysterious they may appear to us post-moderns--are necessary for achieving them. Likewise, we cannot let the ritual mitzvot eclipse the ethical commandments as is too much the case on the other end of the spectrum.

I am fully convinced that the Torah, Written and Oral, is from God and originated at Sinai. Sinai was not the end but the beginning, and Torah is not a thing but a process.

I'm very sorry to say that I don't remember exactly when I printed that or from where, so I am unable to give proper credit to the author. I haven't the foggiest how it ended up with my recipes for cranberry sauce and scalloped corn, but perhaps it is an appropriate place after all: as we daily create our Judaism, we always have to be cognizant of including the right proportions of ethical and ritual, adjusting as needed for the season, and for the palate of the people who share daily dish of life.

I appreciate Mr. Berkson's efforts in trying to update and improve this recipe.

A non-Jew can be as righteous as any Jew.

Agreed. But the difference, as stated in Ruth's note, is not to be righteous, but to feel commanded to righteousness. If we are not commanded by the God of the Jews, why be Jewish?

The elimination of too many things that were distinctively Jewish is why even Classical Reform congregations have moved toward ritual and its appurtenances -- bnai mitzvah at Chicago Sinai, kipot and tallitot at Sholom of Chicago.

Without the distinctively Jewish, we can be righteous Unitarians. That is clearly not where your series is going.

William Berkson said:
Larry, on particularism vs universalism, I usually get into trouble by pointing out the differences between Jewish ethics and those of other religions and traditions, and arguing that Jewish ethics are superior. There is a distinctive Jewish ethical tradition

That's where I know your head is, which is why I jumped on the implication -- well, maybe it was just my inference -- that univeralism is enough.

As I have indicated before, I could probably be a Reconstructionist if I didn't feel Chosen.

MB, your idea that we are "ignoring" Madoff is very strange, as all these posts were before the news about Madoff. I personally objected, in print, when his Rabbi defended Enron crook Andy Fastow.

What is so shocking about the Madoff case--unlike Fastow--is that he seems to have been an upright person who went extremely bad.

But I certainly don't know the story. Presumably a lot more will come out soon, so we can understand it better.

I am old enough to know that a pretense of piety is no guarantee of ethical behavior. Shrewd con artists like a cloak of piety.

I would like to return to the "ethics" topic. The Mitzvot as presented from Torah via the Rabbis and Sages are rather specific. That is both their strength and weakness. It is a strength when they provide specific actions for specific situations. It is a weakness when the actions, as defined, are not easily related to modern life.

Univerals can be strong since they are transportable to many situations. Univerals are weak in that they tend to be so general that it requires effort, sometimes considerable, to apply to everyday situations. Universals are also easy to rationalize into justifying many rather unethical actions.

I believe that the Mitzvot represent the decisions of brilliant ancient Jewish thinkers on how to simultaneously apply multiple Jewish ethical principles to everyday situations. The paradoxical tensions in the multiple priciples were creatively woven into the final Mitzvot decision. If we are to follow the Jewish process of living it would seem to me that we need to include this paradoxical weaving process.

As a Reform Jew I appreciate the effort to "Reform" ritual though I think I would use caution in doing so. The Jewish people have to my knowledge been the longest lasting and most productive persistent minority in history. There is something in our culture from which springs this remarkable history. I worry that some of our richness as contributors to each other is invisibly incorporated in religious ritual. It is possible that something very paradoxically Jewish is inherent and therefore taught in Jewish ritual. I think it is worth considering what we are 'unintentionally" being taught by Jewish ritual that we can ill afford to lose and that the world would be poorer for us losing.